J-S31016-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JESSE WHITE, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
CBS PITTSBURGH/KDKA AM, MARTY : No. 956 WDA 2016
GRIFFIN AND DONALD ROESSLER :
Appeal from the Order June 6, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Civil Division at No(s): 2015-2186
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2017
Appellant, Jesse White, appeals from the Order entered on June 6,
2016, in the Washington County Court of Common Pleas, sustaining the
Preliminary Objections filed by CBS Pittsburgh/KDKA AM, Marty Griffin, and
Donald Roessler (“Appellees”). After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court detailed the facts of this case based on its review of the
pleadings, briefs, and argument, as follows:
This matter comes as one of a multitude of defamation actions
filed by [Appellant] based on statements made about him during
his election campaigns in the 46th Legislative District. In this
case, [Appellant] asserts that [Appellee, Marty] Griffin is the
host of a talk show titled “The Inside Story With Marty Griffin” on
KDKA, and that leading up to the 2014 election, Griffin began
making negative comments about [Appellant] on the show which
he called the “ABJ Hour” (“ABJ” meaning “Anybody But Jesse”),
during which Griffin would dedicate the time to making negative
comments about [Appellant] and discouraging voters from re-
electing [Appellant].
J-S31016-17
[Appellant] asserts that during this time, Griffin referred to
[Appellant] as “borderline psychotic,” and described some of
[Appellant’s] activities as “illegal.” [Appellant] also asserts that
Griffin made statements in Facebook posts claiming that
[Appellant] had threatened his constituents, demanded Super
Bowl tickets and flights on private jets from an oil and gas
drilling company—Range Resources—and that [Appellant] was
“under investigation” by a District Attorney’s Office and the
House Ethics Committee.
[Appellant] asserts that these statements are all false, and
argues that because he had discussed the allegations with
another KDKA reporter, and that because the reporter had
informed [Appellant] that he had decided not to publish a story
on some of those same subjects, that Griffin knew or should
have known of the falsity of his statements. [Appellant] admits,
however, that he had been “examined” by the Washington
County District Attorney’s Office prior to Griffin making the
statements, and that he had “personally” been told that the
investigation had ended. [Appellant] also asserts that [Appellee]
Roessler posted “relevant portions” of Griffin’s show on his
YouTube page.
Trial Ct. Op. 6/7/16, at 2-3 (footnotes omitted).
On April 22, 2015, Appellant filed a Complaint raising claims of
Defamation and Commercial Disparagement, and accusing Appellees of
knowingly publishing false and defamatory statements. Appellee Roessler
filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint on August 11, 2015, and
Appellees Griffin, KDKA, and CBS filed Preliminary Objections on September
2, 2015. Appellees challenged the legal sufficiency of Appellant’s Complaint,
and sought dismissal of all claims.
On November 18, 2015, Appellant filed an Amended Complaint
alleging the same causes of action. Appellees again filed Preliminary
-2-
J-S31016-17
Objections on December 2, 2015, and December 23, 2015. Appellant filed
an Answer to the Preliminary Objections on January 27, 2016.
On June 6, 2016, following the submission of Briefs and oral argument,
the trial court sustained Appellees’ Preliminary Objections and dismissed
Appellant’s Complaint as legally insufficient. This appeal followed.
On August 3, 2016, the trial court entered an Order directing Appellant
to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of the Matters Complained of on
Appeal. The court’s Order indicated that “[a]ny issue not properly in the
Appellant’s Statement[,]or [the] failure to file Appellant’s Statement of
Record and to service a copy on the undersigned[,] shall be deemed a
waiver of those issues.” Trial Ct. Order, 8/3/16.
On January 12, 2017, the trial court filed an Opinion in which it noted
that, as of that date, Appellant had not filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) makes clear that “[i]ssues not included in the
Statement, and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this
paragraph (b)(4) are waived.” Moreover, it is well-settled that “…in order to
preserve their claims for appellate review, Appellants must comply whenever
the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b)
[S]tatement will be deemed waived.” Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d
306, 309 (Pa. 1998).
-3-
J-S31016-17
In the instant matter, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, but Appellant failed to do so. Accordingly,
Appellant’s issues on appeal are waived.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/6/2017
-4-