J-A24013-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JOHN NEELD AND ALISON NEELD : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants :
:
:
v. :
:
:
PASQUALE MASCARO AND JOSH : No. 1220 EDA 2019
SCHOFIELD :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 12, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at
No(s): 2014-01570
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 31, 2020
Appellants, John and Alison Neeld, appeal from the trial court’s April 12,
2019 orders entering summary judgments in favor of Appellees, Pasquale
Mascaro and Josh Shofield. After careful review, we are compelled to quash.
The trial court detailed the pertinent facts and procedural history of this
case in its May 16, 2019 opinion. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 5/16/19, at
1-4. Briefly, Appellants filed a complaint against Appellees on January 27,
2014, alleging claims of wrongful prosecution and conspiracy. Those claims
were premised on Appellees’ reporting to police that John Neeld had assaulted
Pasquale Mascaro during an ice hockey game, which resulted in charges being
filed against Neeld.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A24013-19
Neeld was ultimately acquitted of those criminal charges following a
non-jury trial, and he and his wife then filed the civil complaint against
Appellees. At the close of the pleadings, Appellee Mascaro filed a motion for
summary judgment. Appellee Schofield subsequently joined that motion. On
April 12, 2019, the court entered two separate orders granting each
Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and entering an individual
judgment in each Appellee’s favor. The orders were separately docketed, thus
constituting two distinct judgments.
Appellants thereafter filed a single notice of appeal, stating that they
were appealing from the “final orders entered April 12, 2019, … granting
summary judgment in favor of defendants Pasquale Mascaro and Josh
Schofield. The Orders have been reduced to judgment and entered in the
docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry.” Notice of
Appeal, 4/12/19, at 1 (single page). Appellants complied with the trial court’s
order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal. The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on May 16, 2019. Herein,
Appellants state three issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its
discretion determining that the evidence as set forth on the record
failed to establish a jury question of whether the accusatory
information provided by [Appellees] to law enforcement official
Detective Patrick Haines of the Upper Providence Township Police
Department was the product of a knowing and deliberate
falsehood.
2. Whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its
discretion determining that the evidence as set forth on the record
failed to establish a jury question that Detective Patrick Haines of
-2-
J-A24013-19
the Upper Providence Township Police Department acted upon
false information provided to him by [Appellees] and as a result
commenced a prosecution against John Neeld.
3. Whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its
discretion determining that the evidence as set forth on the record
failed to establish a jury question that [Appellees] instituted
criminal proceedings against [John Neeld] — meaning that
[Appellees] knowingly provided false statements to a law
enforcement official or [Appellees’] desire to have proceedings
initiated was the determining factor in the law enforcement
official’s decision to commence prosecution.
Appellants’ Brief at 5.
Preliminarily, we must address Appellants’ filing of a single notice of
appeal from two separate judgments. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 341 governs appeals from final orders. The Official Note to that
rule states, in pertinent part:
A party needs to file only a single notice of appeal to secure review
of prior non-final orders that are made final by the entry of a final
order, see K.H. v. J.R., 826 A.2d 863, 870-71 (Pa. 2003)
(following trial); Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 44 A.3d 27, 54 (Pa.
2012) (summary judgment). Where, however, one or more
orders resolves issues arising on more than one docket or
relating to more than one judgment, separate notices of
appeal must be filed. Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932 A.2d
111, 113 & n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quashing appeal taken by
single notice of appeal from order on remand for consideration
under Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 of two persons’ judgments of sentence).
Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note (emphasis added).
In Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our Supreme
Court strictly construed the first part of the above-emphasized sentence,
holding that “where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one
docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed. The failure to do so will
-3-
J-A24013-19
result in quashal of the appeal.” Id. at 977. Given Walker, we must also
strictly construe the second part of the above-emphasized portion of Rule
341’s Official Note, which mandates separate notices of appeal where “one or
more orders resolves issues … relating to more than one judgment….”
Because here, there were two separate judgments entered pertaining to each
individual Appellee, Appellants’ filing one notice of appeal pertaining to both
of those judgments was improper. Accordingly, we quash.1
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/31/20
____________________________________________
1Nevertheless, even if we were not constrained to quash this appeal, we would
affirm the court’s orders entering summary judgment in Appellees’ favors for
the reasons set forth by the trial court in its well-reasoned decision. See TCO
at 4-8.
-4-
J-A24013-19
-5-