Mina, A. v. Lumber Liquidators ( 2021 )

J-S06017-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ANTHONY STOCKER MINA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS : No. 39 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered June 21, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at
No(s): No: 2014-34075
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MAY 4, 2021
Appellant Anthony Stocker Mina appeals pro se from the order of the
trial court order which granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings and
the motion for summary judgment of Appellee Lumber Liquidators and
dismissed Appellant’s complaint. Appellant accuses Appellee of extortion with
help from both the trial court and this Court and accuses the courts of criminal
conspiracy. Because Appellant’s failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate
Procedure prevents us from providing meaningful appellate review, we are
constrained to dismiss this appeal.
The trial court sets forth the factual and procedural history in this
matter, in its opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/1/20, at 1-5. Briefly, Appellant
previously filed a complaint in magisterial district court against Appellee for a
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S06017-21
breach of warranty. Appellant obtained a default judgment, and Appellee
failed to properly file a timely appeal. Nevertheless, Appellant attempted to
file a complaint as if the notice of appeal had been accepted. When the
prothonotary did not permit Appellant to file the complaint, Appellant filed a
petition for leave to file an appeal nunc pro tunc, which the trial court
ultimately dismissed.
Appellant then commenced the underlying action asserting that
Appellee’s failed attempt to file the notice of appeal constituted a malicious
abuse of process. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings on June 21, 2019. On November 19, 2019, the court granted
Appellee’s motion for summary judgment on Appellee’s counterclaims to
enjoin Appellant from filing additional pleadings in this action. This timely
appeal followed.
Preliminarily, we must ascertain whether Appellant adhered to the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Whether an appellant followed
appellate procedure is a pure question of law for which “our scope of review
is plenary, and the standard of review is de novo.” Commonwealth v.
Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 974 (Pa. 2018).
“[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially conform to
the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. 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.” In
re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted); see
-2-
J-S06017-21
Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (stating that the court may quash or dismiss an appeal where
briefs fail to conform with requirements of Rules of Appellate Procedure).
An appellant’s pro se status does not relieve them of their duty to
comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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.
Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211–12 (citations omitted). “This Court will not act as
counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” U.S.
Bank, N.A. v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386, 394 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation
omitted).
The Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth specific requirements for the
required content of an appellate brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Specifically,
with respect to the argument portion of the brief, they provide as follows:
Rule 2119. Argument
(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as many
parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the
head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively
displayed--the particular point treated therein, followed by such
discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.
(b) Citations of authorities. Citations of authorities in briefs
shall be in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 126 governing citations of
authorities.
(c) Reference to record. If reference is made to the pleadings,
evidence, charge, opinion or order, or any other matter appearing
in the record, the argument must set forth, in immediate
-3-
J-S06017-21
connection therewith, or in a footnote thereto, a reference to the
place in the record where the matter referred to appears (see
Pa.R.A.P. 2132).
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)-(c). “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally
that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and
analysis of pertinent authority.” Giant Food Stores, LLC v. THF Silver
Spring Dev., L.P., 959 A.2d 438, 444 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).
The briefing requirements scrupulously delineated in our appellate
rules are not mere trifling matters of stylistic preference; rather,
they represent a studied determination by our Court and its rules
committee of the most efficacious manner by which appellate
review may be conducted so that a litigant’s right to judicial review
as guaranteed by Article V, Section 9 of our Commonwealth’s
Constitution may be properly exercised.
Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291, 343 (Pa. 2011).
Here, our review of Appellant’s brief reveals numerous violations of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure. For example, Appellant’s brief does not contain
a statement of jurisdiction, an order or other determination in question, a
statement of the scope and standard of review, or a statement of the case.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (1), (2), (3), (5). Additionally, Appellant’s argument
is not divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued and is
devoid of citation to pertinent authority or any references to the record. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)-(c).
Furthermore, in the argument portion of his brief, Appellant never
addresses the actual matter on appeal—the trial court’s dismissal of his
complaint for abuse of process. Appellant’s one-and-a-half-page argument
-4-
J-S06017-21
consists of allegations that Appellee actually filed a notice of appeal from the
default judgment and accusations against the trial court of fraudulent and
illegal acts. See Appellant’s Brief at 12-13. Appellant then reproduces the
statutes defining perjury, theft by extortion, harassment, and criminal
conspiracy. See id. at 13-32. Appellant has not developed any argument in
support of his claims, and we will not do so on his behalf. See Giant Food
Stores, 959 A.2d at 444.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Appellant has failed to comply
with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because of the considerable defects in
his appellate brief, we are unable to conduct meaningful appellate review
without acting as Appellant’s counsel. See Giant Food Stores, 959 A.2d at
444; Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386, 394; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Therefore, we
dismiss Appellant’s appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Applications to strike dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/04/2021
-5-