Warnick, J. v. All Saints Episcopal Church ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • J-S65032-14
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    JEREMY WARNICK,                                  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant
    v.
    ALL SAINTS EPISCOPAL CHURCH, REV.
    CHARLES BENNISON, DIANE CAIRNS,
    RICHARD CRAIG AND LINDA COLWELL,
    Appellees                 No. 714 EDA 2014
    Appeal from the Judgment Entered January 13, 2014
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Civil Division at No.: 111201539
    BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
    MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:                         FILED DECEMBER 11, 2014
    Appellant, Jeremy Warnick, appeals from the judgment entered in
    favor of Appellees, All Saints Episcopal Church, Rev. Charles Bennison, Diane
    Cairns, Richard Craig, and Linda Colwell, and against Appellant on the basis
    of the court’s grant of Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
    In its April 15, 2014 opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets
    forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. (See Trial Court
    Opinion, 4/15/14, at 1-11). Therefore, we have no reason to restate them
    here.
    ____________________________________________
    *
    Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S65032-14
    Appellant raises one issue for our review:       Whether the trial court
    erred in granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissing
    the case? (See Appellant’s Brief, at 5).1
    Our standard and scope of review of a trial court’s grant of summary
    judgment are well-settled:
    Our standard of review on an appeal from the grant of a
    motion for summary judgment is well-settled. A reviewing court
    may disturb the order of the trial court only where it is
    established that the court committed an error of law or abused
    its discretion. As with all questions of law, our review is plenary.
    In evaluating the trial court’s decision to enter
    summary judgment, we focus on the legal standard
    articulated in the summary judgment rule. Pa.R.C.P.
    1035.2. The rule states that where there is no
    genuine issue of material fact and the moving party
    is entitled to relief as a matter of law, summary
    judgment may be entered. Where the nonmoving
    party bears the burden of proof on an issue, he may
    not merely rely on his pleadings or answers in order
    to survive summary judgment. Failure of a non-
    moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an
    issue essential to his case and on which he bears the
    burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the
    moving party to judgment as a matter of law.
    Lastly, we will review the record in the light most
    favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as
    to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact
    must be resolved against the moving party.
    ____________________________________________
    1
    Appellant’s statement of questions involved contains five identical
    challenges to the court’s grant of summary judgment as to count one of the
    amended complaint, only. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 5-6). This appears to
    have been a typographical error, and Appellant intended each of the five
    questions to address a different count of the amended complaint. (See 
    id. at 15-25
    (arguing court erred in entering summary judgment as to each of
    the amended complaint’s five counts)).
    -2-
    J-S65032-14
    Krauss v. Trane U.S. Inc., 
    2014 WL 5359007
    , at *2 (Pa. Super. filed Oct.
    22, 2014) (case citation omitted).
    After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
    applicable law, and the exhaustive and well-reasoned opinion of the trial
    court, we conclude that there is no merit to Appellant’s issue. The trial court
    properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Ct. Op., at 11-35
    (finding: (1) the First Amendment’s deference rule and ministerial exception
    doctrine apply to bar Appellant’s causes of action; (2) even if the First
    Amendment did not bar all claims, Appellant’s claims fail as a matter of law;
    and (3) summary judgment was proper where Appellant failed to provide
    evidence in support of his claims)). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of
    the trial court’s opinion.
    Judgment affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 12/11/2014
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 714 EDA 2014

Filed Date: 12/11/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024