J. A16036/18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DENISE RODRIGUEZ : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
GILBERT POWELL & :
RONEATHA POWELL TRUSTEES, : No. 132 EDA 2018
:
Appellants :
Appeal from the Order Entered November 29, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No. December Term 2015 No. 2218
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2018
Gilbert Powell and Roneatha Powell (collectively, “appellants”) appeal
pro se from the November 29, 20171 order entered by the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County denying appellants’ motion to vacate or grant a
new trial and appellants’ motion to vacate judgment against them entered
June 14, 2017. For the following reasons, we are constrained to dismiss
appellants’ appeal.
Appellee, Denise Rodriguez, filed a complaint sounding in negligence
against appellants with the trial court on September 6, 2016. Appellants filed
an answer to appellee’s complaint on September 13, 2016. On September 20,
1 Appellants mistakenly identified the date of the order appealed from as
February 9, 2018. The trial court denied appellants’ post-trial motions in an
order dated November 29, 2017. We have amended the caption accordingly.
J. A16036/18
2016, a board of arbitrators found in favor of appellee, awarding her $25,000.
Appellants appealed the arbitrators’ award to the trial court on October 17,
2016.
The trial court held a bench trial on June 14, 2017, after which it found
in favor of appellee in the amount of $25,000. Appellants filed a motion for
reconsideration on June 22, 2017, which was denied by the trial court on
July 12, 2017. Appellants filed a notice of appeal to this court on July 27,
2017. This court dismissed appellants’ appeal sua sponte on September 18,
2017, because appellants did not file post-trial motions, thereby failing to
preserve any issues for appellate review. Our dismissal was without prejudice
in order to allow appellants to file a motion with the trial court for permission
to file post-trial motions nunc pro tunc.
On September 28, 2017, appellants filed a motion with the trial court
requesting permission to file post-trial motions nunc pro tunc. The trial court
granted appellants’ motion on October 10, 2017. Appellants filed post-trial
motions nunc pro tunc on October 31, 2017. The trial court denied
appellants’ motions on November 29, 2017.
Appellants filed a notice of appeal to this court on December 18, 2017.
On January 8, 2018, the trial court ordered appellants to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellants timely complied, filing their Rule 1925(b) statement on January 19,
-2-
J. A16036/18
2018. The trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on
February 6, 2018.
We must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider
appellants’ appeal. Based upon our review of the certified record, appellants
filed a praecipe to enter judgment with the trial court on February 7, 2018,
however, an entry of judgment does not appear in the certified record. These
procedural facts are on point with a similar situation confronted by this court
in Randt v. Abex Corp., 671 A.2d 228 (Pa.Super. 1996).
An appeal of an order denying a motion for new trial
after a trial by jury “may be remanded or subject to
other appropriate action of the appellate court when
the order is such that it may be reduced to judgment
or final decree and entered in the docket but such
action has not been taken.” See Note, Pa.R.A.P.,
Rule 301, 42 Pa.C.S.A. According to the certified
record submitted to this court in the instant case,
judgment has not been entered on the record.
However, in the interests of judicial economy, we will
“regard as done that which ought to have been done.”
See McCormick v. Northeastern Bank of
Pennsylvania, 522 Pa. 251, 254, n.1, 561 A.2d 328,
330 n.1 (1989) (although order dismissing appellants'
motion for post-trial relief was not reduced to
judgment, court would regard as done “that which
ought to have been done,” in the interests of judicial
economy) (citation omitted). Cf. Johnston the
Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Construction Company,
441 Pa.Super. 281, 657 A.2d 511 (1995) (en banc)
(appellate court may not review merits of appeal
where appellant has refused “outright” the appellate
court's request to enter judgment). The instant case
is distinguishable in that, unlike Johnston the
Florist, no request was made to appellants here to
enter judgment.
-3-
J. A16036/18
Randt, 671 A.2d at 230 n.2. In the case before us, similar to Randt,
appellants did not outright refuse to have judgment entered. To the contrary,
a praecipe to enter judgment was filed with the trial court.2 Accordingly, in
the interests of judicial economy, we will “regard as done that which ought to
have been done,” and will consider appellants’ appeal.
We, however, are constrained to dismiss this appeal because appellants’
brief entirely fails to adhere to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
It is well settled that parties to an appeal are required to submit briefs in
conformity, in all material respects, with the requirements of the Rules of
Appellate Procedure, as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will
admit. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “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[s].” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-1212 (Pa.Super.
2010), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011) (citations omitted). We
cannot advocate or act as counsel for appellants who have not substantially
complied with our rules. Bombar v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 932 A.2d 78, 93
(Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted). “This Court may quash or dismiss an
appeal if the appellant[s] fail[] to conform to the requirements set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211
(citation omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
2 We do note that the praecipe to file judgment was entered the day after the
trial court filed its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
-4-
J. A16036/18
Instantly, appellants’ pro se brief falls well below the standards
delineated in our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a)
requires that the statement of questions involved include each issue to be
resolved “expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case but without
unnecessary detail.” Id. Here, appellants’ statement of questions involved
consisted of no less than 26 issues over 20 pages with brief legal argument
throughout.
Additionally, the argument section of appellants’ brief is not divided into
as many parts as there are questions to be argued in violation of
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Moreover, the argument section consists of
seven numbered sentences, which contain no citations to the record, citations
to legal authority, or any other development of appellants’ issues on appeal.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b)-(c). Ironically, appellants presented very cogent
argument to this court regarding the railing issue. Unfortunately, because of
the defects in the brief, we cannot reach a decision on the merits.
Based on the foregoing, we must find all of appellants’ issues waived.
Accordingly, we dismiss appellants’ appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
-5-
J. A16036/18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/10/18
-6-