J-A03010-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NICOLA ARGENTINA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
JOANNE RENZI, CHRISTOPHER :
MAURO, JOSPEH RENZI, JR., :
FITNESS WORKS PHILADELPHIA :
: No. 703 EDA 2017
Appellees
Appeal from the Order Dated January 18, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): February Term, 2016 No. 160201916
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PLATT*, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 25, 2018
Appellant, Mr. Nicola Argentina, appeals pro se from the order entered
in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, marking this matter as
settled and removing it from the trial list. On October 5, 2015, Appellant
filed a pro se complaint in Municipal Court against Appellees Fitness Works
Philadelphia (“FWP”), Joanne Renzi (FWP’s owner), Christopher Mauro
(FWP’s manager), and Joseph Renzi, Jr. (Ms. Renzi’s son), alleging claims of
negligent infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract regarding
“bullying” and other mistreatment Appellant received at FWP in 2013.1 On
____________________________________________
1 Specifically, Appellant complained another gym member had prevented
Appellant from sitting in a chair by refusing to remove a water bottle from
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A03010-18
January 13, 2016, the Municipal Court dismissed the case. Appellant filed a
notice of appeal in the Court of Common Pleas on February 12, 2016. The
case proceeded to compulsory arbitration on July 20, 2016. The arbitrators
found in favor of Appellant and against FWP and awarded him $100.00 plus
costs, totaling $428.48. The arbitrators found in favor of the individual
defendants. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal to the Court of
Common Pleas on August 18, 2016.
On January 17, 2017, the parties settled the case. By order dated
January 18, 2017, and entered on the docket with Pa.R.C.P. 236 notice sent
on January 23, 2017, the court marked the case settled and removed it from
the trial list. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on February 22, 2017.2
On March 31, 2017, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement of errors complained of on appeal; Appellant did not comply.
Preliminarily, we recognize:
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
(Footnote Continued) _______________________
the chair. Apparently, FWP management provided another chair for
Appellant but Appellant was dissatisfied because the location of the second
chair interfered with Appellant’s access to the sauna.
2 In its opinion, the trial court states Appellant did not file a notice of appeal
within 30 days, where the order on appeal is dated January 18, 2017.
Nevertheless, the 30-day appeal period commenced from the date the order
was entered on the docket with Rule 236 notice sent to the parties, which
was January 23, 2017. See Pa.R.A.P. 108(b) (stating date of entry of order
in matter subject to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure shall be date on
which clerk makes notation in docket that notice of entry of order has been
given per Rule 236).
-2-
J-A03010-18
conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court may
quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform
to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Id. Although this Court is willing to
liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se
status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To
the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a
legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume
that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his
undoing.
In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied,
610 Pa. 600, 20 A.3d 489 (2011) (some internal citations omitted). See
also Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119 (addressing specific requirements of each
subsection of appellate brief). Here, Appellant’s “brief” on appeal is
completely inadequate, lacking the necessary statement of jurisdiction,
relevant scope and standard of review, statement of questions presented,
and any coherent argument section with citation to relevant authority. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (discussing required content of appellate briefs). See
also Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159 (Pa.Super. 1996) (stating
noncompliance with Rule 2116 is particularly grievous because statement of
questions involved defines specific issues for review). Appellant provides no
cogent legal arguments or relevant authority to support his claims.3 See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating argument shall be divided into as many sections
____________________________________________
3 Additionally, the certified record is full of irrelevant political newspaper
articles and extraneous documents which mention Appellant, some are 20
years old, and have absolutely nothing to do with this case.
-3-
J-A03010-18
as there are questions presented, followed by discussion with citation to
relevant legal authority). These substantial defects preclude meaningful
review, warranting suppression of Appellant’s brief and dismissal of the
appeal.4 See In re Ullman, supra; Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Accordingly, we
suppress Appellant’s brief and dismiss his appeal. Further, the certified
record confirms Appellant did not comply with the court’s Rule 1925(b)
order. See Greater Erie Indus. Development Corp. v. Presque Isle
Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224-25 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc) (holding
failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) order in civil cases constitutes automatic
waiver of issues raised on appeal).
Appeal dismissed. Case is stricken from the argument list.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/25/18
____________________________________________
4 Moreover, the court’s order marking this case as settled expressly states:
“The court having been advised that the within case has been settled, the
case shall be so marked on the docket and removed from the applicable list
and inventory of pending cases. … This case may be restored to the trial
list only upon written order of the team/program leader. This relief shall be
requested by formal motion.” (Order, filed 1/23/17, at 1). Significantly,
Appellant failed to file any formal restoration motion. Consequently,
Appellant waived his opportunity to challenge the settlement.
-4-