Feingold, A. v. Vasiliadis, S. ( 2016 )

J-A08036-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
ALLEN FEINGOLD, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
SOCRATES VASILIADIS, PROGRESSIVE :
NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, :
DAVID FRIEDMAN, AND FORRY ULLMAN, :
:
Appellees : No. 1574 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered May 5, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): 03630 October Term, 2013
BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY: STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED MAY 09, 2016
Allen Feingold (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order entered on
May 5, 2015, which denied his motion for sanctions against Appellee
Progressive Northern Insurance Company (Progressive) and discontinued as
a party Appellee Socrates Vasiliadis (Vasiliadis). Appellant challenges the
March 18, 2014 orders sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing with
prejudice the claims filed against Appellees Progressive, David Friedman
(Friedman), and Forry Ullman (Ullman), and the May 5, 2014 order denying
his motion to recuse. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
factual and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate it. Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/2015, at 1-6.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08036-16
Appellant raises the following claims for our review.
1. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to recuse herself
from deliberation over this case?
2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to sustain [Appellant’s]
preliminary objections to the preliminary objections of
[Appellees], and in granting the [Appellees’] objections, where
[Appellees’] objections contained improper verifications,
scandalous and impertinent matter, and improperly relied upon
affirmative defenses?
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (trial court answers omitted).
With respect to Appellant’s first claim, he contends that the court
should have granted his motion to recuse. However, because Appellant did
not raise this issue in his statement of errors complained of on appeal, it is
waived. See Korman Commercial Properties, Inc. v. The
Furniture.com, LLC, 81 A.3d 97, 102-03 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding that, if
an appellant is directed to file a concise statement of matters to be raised on
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), any issues not raised in that
statement are waived).
We now turn to Appellant’s second claim on appeal. The standard of
review we apply when considering a trial court’s denial of preliminary
objections is well settled.
[O]ur standard of review of an order of the trial court overruling
or granting preliminary objections is to determine whether the
trial court committed an error of law. When considering the
appropriateness of a ruling on preliminary objections, the
appellate court must apply the same standard as the trial court.
Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal
sufficiency of the complaint. When considering preliminary
-2-
J-A08036-16
objections, all material facts set forth in the challenged pleadings
are admitted as true, as well as all inferences reasonably
deducible therefrom. Preliminary objections which seek the
dismissal of a cause of action should be sustained only in cases
in which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be
unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish the right to
relief. If any doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be
sustained, it should be resolved in favor of overruling the
preliminary objections.
Richmond v. McHale, 35 A.3d 779, 783 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation
omitted).
Following our review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and the
relevant law, we conclude that the opinion of the Honorable Ellen Ceisler
thoroughly and correctly addresses and disposes of Appellant’s issues and
supporting arguments and evidences no abuse of discretion or errors of law.
Accordingly, we adopt the trial court’s opinion, filed on July 8, 2015, as our
own and hold, based upon the reasons stated therein, that the trial court
committed neither an error of law nor an abuse of discretion in overruling
Appellant’s preliminary objections and sustaining those of Appellees. The
parties shall attach a copy of the trial court’s July 8, 2015 opinion to this
memorandum in the event of future proceedings.
Orders affirmed.
-3-
J-A08036-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/9/2016
-4-
Circulated 04/28/2016 10:54 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
ALLEN FEINGOLD SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff-Appellant 1277 EDA 2014
COMMON PLEAS
v. 131003630
~·.
SOCRATES VASJLIADIS, ,.·.
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE . c,
COMPANY, DAVID FRIEDMAN, and
FORRY ULLMAN, P.C.
Defendants-Appellees .:
t
OPINION ,- .
..,i
- -.1·
~: .
ELLEN CEISLER, J. DATE: July 8, 2015
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY & FACTS
The instant appeal stems from two orders issued by this Court on March 18, 20 I 4,
sustaining preliminary objections filed by Defendants-Appellees David Friedman and Forry
Ullman, P.C. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Friedman") and Defendant-Appellee
Progressive Northern Insurance Company (hereinafter "Progressive"), thereby dismissing
Plaintiff-Appellant Allen Feingold's (hereinafter "Appellant") claim against these parties with
prejudice. As will be discussed infra, Appellant has failed to properly preserve any issues for
appellate review, due to his submission of an overly-broad and vague Statement of Errors, and,
moreover, failed to state a claim in his complaint upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly,
this Court respectfully requests that this appeal be quashed or denied.
Feingold Vs Friedman-OPFLD
111111113100363000113
I l Ill I I II I llll llll
1.
I
I:
ii,
fl
'I
Appellant is a former lawyer who is well-known in this Commonwealth for his unethical
professional behavior and serial abuse of the judicial process. As the Superior Court has noted:
In 2006, Appellant was suspended from the practice of law for five years for several acts
of misconduct which included: allowing a client to give false testimony, filing frivolous
claims of fraud and civil conspiracy against opposing counsel, and assaulting a judge who
ruled against Appellant's client in an arbitration hearing. After Appellant failed to notify
his clients of this disciplinary action and continued practicing law while suspended,
Appellant was disbarred by our Supreme Court on August 22, 2008.
Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937, 940 n. 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (citing Office of Disciplinary
Counsel v. Feingold. 93 DB 2003; 92 DB 2005; Nos. 1093 and 1161 Disciplinary Docket No. 3).
Despite the revocation of his law license, "Appellant has continued his pattern of vexatious
litigation ... [ misusing} the court system to harass defendants and opposing counsel with lawsuits
that contain nothing more than unfounded allegations." Id. at 943; see also id. at 943 n.3 (listing
numerous examples of such suits); Feingold v. McNulty, 20 IO WL 752353 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pleas,
Philadelphia Cnty., Jan. 26, 2010) (same); Feingold v. Liberty Mut. Grp., CIV.A. 13-743, 2013
WL 1733056 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2013) (noting that Appellant is "a disbarred lawyer with a
history of filing frivolous actions.").
The sequence of events that gave rise to the instant action, as described by Appellant, is
as follows: An individual by the name of George Antonas (hereinafter "Antonas") was injured in
an automobile accident on October 14, 2000 in Upper Darby, PA, when his car was struck by a
motor vehicle operated by Defendant-Appellee Socrates Vasiliadis (hereinafter "Vasiliadis"),
Complaint at 6. Antonas filed suit against Vasiliadis, with the matter proceeding to trial in the
Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, ultimately resulting in judgment in favor of Antonas
on May 9, 2007, and the awarding of damages in the amount of $300,000.1 Id. at 7.
At some point thereafter, Antonas transferred this judgment to Montgomery County and
initiated a garnishment action against Progressive, Vasiliadis' insurer at the time of the accident.
Id. at 6, 8-9. Appellant, who claimed that Antonas had assigned him an unspecific percentage of
the judgment "[i]n consideration of money for fees owed [to Appellant] for multiple legal matters
I
Though Appellant does not admit this, it seems that he represented Antonas in this action. See Friedman's
Preliminary Objections at 9-10.
II
I
pursued over the years," id. at 9,2 then sought to involve himself in the proceedings so that he could
pursue his allegedly valid pecuniary interest; however, his attempts were met with substantial
opposition. On January 18, 2012, the Honorable Wendy Demchick-Alloy issued an order, staling
"that only the parties, the garnishee, their lawyers and a stenographer may be present during the
depositions in the [garnishment] matter[,] and disbarred attorney ... Feingold is specifically
prohibited from being present at any such deposition." Progressive's Preliminary Objections, Ex.
2. Subsequently, Appellant filed a "Motion to Allow Participation," which was denied by Judge
Demchick-Alloy on December 20, 2012. Id. at Ex. 3; Friedman's Preliminary Objections, Ex. B.
Additionally, Judge Demchick-Alloy ordered that "[t]he 'Entry of Appearance' filed by Disbarred
Lawyer. .. Feingold is hereby STRICKEN [and] Disbarred Lawyer ... Feingold is not to have any
involvement or participation with the litigation of this garnishment action." Id.
On November I, 2013, Appellant filed the instant suit in Philadelphia County, naming
Vasiliadis, Progressive, and Friedman as defendants, and claiming therein that these parties,
through their conduct in the aforementioned Montgomery County action, had committed fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and defamation. Complaint at 5-18. In essence,
Appellant maintained that Vasiliadis, Progressive, and Friedman, on an individual and collective
basis, had engaged in improper, fraudulent conduct in order to deprive him of his ability to collect
his portion of Antonas' judgment. Id.
Both Friedman and Progressive responded to Appellant's Complaint by docketing
preliminary objections, respectively, on November 20, 2013 and November 21, 2013. Each party
raised similar standing and demurrer-based objections, highlighted Appellant's longstanding
pattern of filing similar, vexatious and baseless lawsuits, as well as his status as a disbarred former
lawyer, and requested that they be awarded costs and attorney's fees. See Friedman's Preliminary
Objections at 12-24; Progressive's Preliminary Objections at 10-24. On December 10, 2013,
Appellant filed his own set of preliminary objections, in which he argued that Friedman's and
Progressive's Preliminary Objections should be stricken, due to the assertion therein of what
Appellant deemed to be affirmative defenses, references to allegedly scandalous and impertinent
matters, and the absence of valid verifications. Appellant's Preliminary Objections at 6-8.
~ Appellant provides no substantive proof whatsoever that such an assignment ever occurred.
Friedman and Progressive then submitted replies in opposition to Appellant's Preliminary
Objections on, respectively, December 27, 2013 and December 30, 2013. On January 23, 2014,
Appellant filed a supplemental memorandum in support of his Preliminary Objections, in which
he essentially reiterated the arguments he had made in his December 10, 2013 filing. Appellant's
Supplemental Memorandum at 1-2.
On February 7, 2014, this Court issued an order overruling Appellant's Preliminary
Objections and gave him 20 days from the date of the order's docketing to file substantive
responses. Ceisler Order, 2/7/14 at 1; however, in spite of this clear instruction, Appellant instead
chose to submit a Motion for Reconsideration on February 12, 2014, one which was denied by this
Court via an order docketed on February 21, 2014. Appellant subsequently failed to comply with
the terms of this Court's February 7, 2014 order, a decision that rendered uncontested both
Friedman's and Progressive's Preliminary Objections. Accordingly, this Court then issued two
orders on March 18, 2014, sustaining these Preliminary Objections and dismissing, with prejudice,
all of Appellant's claims against Friedman and Progressive. Ceisler Order #1, 3/18/14 at 1; Ceisler
Order #2, 3/18/14 at 1.
On March 21, 2014, Appellant filed a Motion for Recusal, asserting the baseless claim that
this Court's decision to grant Friedman's and Progressive's respective Preliminary Objections was
a "miscarriage of justice which would require any judge who made such a ruling to recuse
themselves from this and any case in which [Feingold] [was] involved." Appellant's Motion for
Recusal at 8. Both Friedman and Progressive responded to Appellant's Motion for Recusal,
requesting not only the denial of the Motion, but also that this Court award appropriate costs and
attorneys' fees. This Court subsequently denied the Motion for Recusal on May 5, 2014.
In response to this Court's orders sustaining preliminary objections of both Friedman and
Progressive, Appellant filed an improper appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on April
16, 2014. This Court then issued an order, one docketed on April 17, 2014, directing Appellant to
provide a Statement of Errors pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. l 925(b); Appellant's response was received
by this Court on May 8, 2014 and is reproduced, verbatim, herein:
11 1:
r.I
r,
,:
i;
I•
I
I'
r
I. The trial court erred in failing to grant appellant's preliminary objections to the J;
~I
preliminary objections filed by appellees to the complaint.
2. The trial court erred in granting appellees' preliminary objections to the plaintiffs
complaint.
3. The trial court displayed a fixed bias and hostility to the appellant such that he was
deprived of an impartial deliberation on the merits of his preliminary objections and the
preliminary objections filed by the defendants.
Statement of Errors, 5/8/14 at 1-2.
On June 20, 2014, this Court issued an opinion, maintaining therein that Appellant's April
16, 2014 appeal should be quashed because (I) it pertained to interlocutory orders, which were not
collateral in nature; (2) regardless of the irnpermissibility of the appeal, Appellant had waived any
appellate issues through his vague and overly-broad Statement of Errors; and (3) Feingold's
allegations that this Court acted in a biased manner were both without merit and baseless. Ceisler's
Opinion. 6/20/14 at 5. Thereafter, the Superior Court quashed Appellant's April 16, 2014 appeal
on January 30, 2015.
On April l 0, 2015, Appellant then filed a Motion to Discontinue his claim against
Vasiliadis and requested that sanctions be imposed upon Friedman and Progressive, claiming that
their refusal "to agree to the dismissal of he claims against Vasiliadis is obfuscatory, vexatious and
deserving of sanctions." Appellant's Motion to Discontinue at 4. Friedman replied on April 29,
20 J 5, calling the request for sanctions baseless, as the parties were no longer defendants in the
case and could "not be forced to consent to another party's dismissal." Friedman's Answer to
Appellant's Motion for Discontinuance at 3. Progressive filed a similar response to the Motion to
Discontinue on April 30, 2015, asserting a lack of legal compulsion to consent to the dismissal of
another party. Progressive's Response to Appellant's Motion to Discontinue at 5. The Honorable
Mark Bernstein subsequently entered an order on May 5, 2015, granting only the discontinuance
of Vasiliadis as a party and denying the request for sanctions.
On May 26, 2015, Appellant once again appealed this Court's March 18, 2014 orders
sustaining Friedman and Progressive's respective preliminary objections, as well as Judge
Bernstein's May 5, 2015 order.' On May 28, 2015, this Court subsequently ordered Appellant to
submit a concise Statement of Errors, pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. l 925(b}, no later than twenty-one
(21) days after entry of the order. 4
On June 15, 2015, Appellant filed a Statement of Errors, repeating the three statements
from his May 14, 2014 submission with two additional statements and is, verbatim, as follows:
1. The trial court erred in failing to grant appellant's preliminary objections to the
preliminary objections filed by appellees to the complaint.
2. The trial court erred in granting appellee's preliminary objections to the plaintiffs
complaint.
3. The trial court displayed a fixed bias and hostility to the appellant such that he was
deprived of an impartial deliberation on the merits of his preliminary objections and
the preliminary objection filed by the defendants.
4. His Honor, Judge Bernstein enters sanctions against anyone who fails to do that which
he directs or believes is appropriate, especially if the person in the wrong is a plaintiff's
counsel and very rarely, if ever, admits that he is wrong, as here, when the defendants'
counsel served, especially after they were dismissed from the case in the first place and
had no standing to take that action.
5. Her Honor, Judge [C]eisler enters Orders, requiring the plaintiff to set forth the basis
for the appeal, even though the same was filed long ago at the time of the first appeal
and she had done nothing new since then, but enter that same Order again, but this time
failed to provide a copy of same to the plaintiff, so that he could comply with the Order
prior to being injured by its consequences. Just luckily, plaintiff tries to keep up with
court action, even when they do not follow the rules that they want everyone else to
follow.
Appellant's Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal at 1-2.
3
Appellant purports to challenge this Court's denial of his Motion to Recuse in his appeal to Superior Court;
however, Appellant does not raise this in his Statement of Errors. Therefore, the issue is waived. See Pa. R.A.P.
I 925(b)(4)(vii).
4
Judge Bernstein also entered a similar order on June 3, 2015 and, after receiving Appellant's Statement of Errors,
docketed an opinion on June 17, 2015. Ii
/I- 6 I
If
,•
r.
i'
I
II. DISCUSSION
This Court respectfully requests that the instant appeal be denied for the following reasons:
1. Appellant, by virtue of his vague and overly-broad Statement of Errors, has waived his
right to contest this Court's rulings upon appeal before the Superior Court;
2. Appellant's baseless allegations that this Court acted in a biased manner are without
merit;
3. This Court properly granted both Friedman's and Progressive's Preliminary
Objections, as Appellant failed to state a claim in his Complaint upon which relief could
be granted.
A. Appellant Has Waived His Right to Contest This Court's Rulings, Due to His Vague
and Insufficiently-Specific Statement of Errors
It is well-settled that statements of errors are an important element of the judicial process,
as they require each appellant to clearly and concisely articulate their challenges to a trial court's
decision, thus creating efficiency and ensuring appellate review of appropriate issues. See Tucker
v. R.M. Tours, 977 A.2d 1170, 1173 (Pa. 2009). To that effect, an appellant must, through their
statement of errors, explicitly identify "each ruling or error that [they] intend[] to challenge with
sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues," while simultaneously forgoing lengthy, redundant,
or frivolous explanations. Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)(ii), (iv). Failure to abide by these rules results in the
waiver of those issues not properly raised, as the appellant must do more than file a vague, overly-
broad, or simply incoherent statement of errors. Id. at (b)(vii); see Lineberger v. Wveth, 894 A.2d
141, 148-149 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) ( deemed issues waived where an "[ a]ppellant decided to pursue
a broad, omnibus grievance in which she baldly asserted that the trial court had erred."); Jiricko v.
Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (deemed issues waived and noted that,
"the crux of the problem is that the statement is an incoherent, confusing, redundant, defamatory
rant... [t]here is simply no legitimate appellate issue presented in Appellant's statement."). "In
other words, a [statement of errors] which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues
raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no [ statement of errors J at all." Com. v. Dowling,
778 A.2d 683, 686-87 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001).
In light of this, it is clear that Appellant's Statement of Errors is woefully insufficient and
that he has, thus, waived any ability to contest the substance of this Court's March 18, 2014 orders.
First, Appellant merely states, in a vague and overly-broad manner, that this Court erred in failing
to sustain his Preliminary Objections, and also by choosing to sustain Friedman's and
Progressive's respective sets of Preliminary Objections. Statement of Errors at 1; unfortunately,
these claims provide this Court with no assistance whatsoever, as they fail to offer anything more
than generalized indications regarding what specific legal errors the Appellant believes were
committed by this Court.
Second, Appellant accuses this Court, in a conclusory manner, of"display[ing] a fixed bias
and hostility," which prevented him from being treated fairly and impartially. Id. at 1-2. Despite
this baseless, entirely non-specific charge, it remains that this Court addresses the parties and
issues that come before it, with the understanding that the law applies equally to all. The very
nature of the adversarial process creates legions of displeased litigants, many of whom
undoubtedly emit unprintable utterances upon learning of a court's ruling; to be disappointed and
angry is one thing, but to impugn this Court's integrity is another matter altogether. Appellant's
allegations are meritless, without a basis in fact, and should be dismissed out-of-hand.
B. This Court Properly Sustained Both Friedman and Progressive's Respective
Preliminary Objections
Moreover, even when assessed on the merits, Appellant's entire suit was ripe for dismissal
at the preliminary objection stage. In ruling on preliminary objections, courts must accept all "well
pied material facts set forth in the complaint" as true. Schuylkill Navy v. Langbord, 728 A.2d 964,
968 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (citing Turner v. Med. Ctr., Beaver. PA. Inc., 686 A.2d 830 (Pa. Super.
Ct. 1996)). At this stage, the court, is in essence, determining the "legal sufficiency of the
complaint" and in sustaining preliminary objections, "[t[he court must be able to say with certainty
that upon the facts averred, the Jaw will not permit recovery." Id. (citing Guistra Dev. Co .• Inc. v.
Lee, 63 l A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
II
I
Here, Appellant asserted four claims in his Complaint: (I) fraud; (2) negligent
misrepresentation; (3) civil conspiracy; and (4) defamation; however, as discussed below,
Appellant failed to plead any of these counts in a manner sufficient to survive either Friedman's
or Progressive's preliminary objections. In establishing a claim for fraud, a plaintiff "must show
that the representations were untrue, were known by the defendant to be untrue, were calculated
to induce the plaintiff to act, and did induce him to act accordingly." Cox v. Highley, 100 Pa. 249,
249 (Pa. 1882). Further, claims of fraud remain sufficient only if the defendant did not "honestly
believe that his representation was true," id., indicating that a "moral wrong" occurred. Erie City
Iron Works v. Barber & Co., I 06 Pa. 125, 125 (Pa. 1884). In order to prove fraud, a plaintiff must
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a representation; (2) which is material to the
transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it
is true or false; (4) with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance
on the misrepresentation; and (6) the resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance.
Unsupported assertions and conclusory accusations cannot create genuine issues of material fact
as to the existence of fraud. Hart v. Arnold. 884 A.2d 316, 339 (Pa. Super Ct. 2005) (quoting
Blumenstock v. Gibson, 811 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002)).
Even accepting the allegations set forth in the complaint as true, Appellant failed to assert
that he himself was deceived by the alleged fraudulent communications. and failed to assert that
he relied, in any way, upon alleged misrepresentations made by either Friedman or Progressive.
The allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations concern actions supposedly taken by Friedman and
Progressive, the putative intent of which was to facilitate the exclusion of Appellant from
participating in the Montgomery County garnishment action. Complaint at 9-1 I. Instead of
specifically identifying which alleged communications relate to the fraud claim, Appellant
generally avers that, during the course of the garnishment action, both Friedman and Progressive
submitted false verifications attached to pleadings, knowingly and intentionally withheld or
destroyed unfavorable documentation related to the case. and accuses both parties of intentionally
"counselling] Progressive employees to give false and untrue testimony," id. at 10, in order to
"fraudulently deprivf e] plaintiff and Antonas of the payment of the judgment lawfully obtained."
Id. at 10· 11. It is clear from the face of the Complaint that any purported fraudulent
misrepresentations involve communications aJlegedly intended to deceive those other than
!j
Appellant, thus rendering it impossible to reasonably infer he relied upon such putative,
unspecified misrepresentations in any way.
Appellant's second claim, negligent misrepresentation, requires "(1) a misrepresentation
of a material fact; (2) made under circumstances in which the misrepresenter ought to have known
its falsity; (3) with an intent to induce another to act on it; and (4) which results in injury to a party
acting in justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation." Bortz v. Noon, 729 A.2d 555, 561 (Pa.
1999). As with his fraud claim, Appellant bases his negligent misrepresentation claim upon
nothing more than generalized, non-specific accusations regarding alleged misrepresentations that
were made to third parties. In addition, Appellant fails to establish that he relied on said
misrepresentations in any way whatsoever, therefore preventing any reasonable inference that
Appellant could recover on this claim.
In essence, both the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims act as restatements of
Appellant's defamation claim. Defamation is defined as "the tort of detracting from a person's
reputation, or injuring a person's character, fame or reputation, by false and malicious
statement." Joseph v. Scranton Times L.P., 959 A.2d 322, 334 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008). To make a
prima facie case, the plaintiff must prove: "(1) the defamatory character of the communication;
(2) [i]ts publication by the defendant; (3) [ijts application to the plaintiff; (4) (t]he understanding
by the recipient of its defamatory meaning; (5) [t]he understanding by the recipient of it as
intended to be applied to the plaintiff; (6) [slpecial harm resulting to the plaintiff from its
publication; [and] (7) [a]buse of a conditionally privileged occasion." lQ,_ Here, Appellant
generally asserts that Friedman and Progressive filed "dishonest and untrue motions regarding
the nature of [Appellant's) activities and interest in the case." Complaint at 10. He then asserts
that Friedman and Progressive "falsely accus] ed] [Appellant] of misrepresenting himself as a
licensed attorney to various court personnel" and "falsely accusled] [Appellant] of disrupting the
deposition of Lori Pellicore." ld. It is clear that these accusations cannot satisfy the first element,
as there is no mention of what exactly the statements were, precisely when they were made, and
to whom specifically they were made. Moreover, these allegedly defamatory statements, as
described in Appellant's Complaint, occurred within the context of judicial proceedings. Given
that. "[i]t has long been established that statements contained in pleadings, as well as statements
made in the actual trial or argument of a case, are privileged," Post v. Mendel, 507 A.2d 35 L 353
(Pa. 1986), Appellant's defamation claim cannot succeed.
Finally, Appellant failed to state a civil conspiracy claim upon which relief can be granted.
Civil conspiracy requires, at minimum, "( 1) a combination of two or more persons acting with a
common purpose to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means or for an unlawful
purpose, (2) an overt act done in pursuance of the common purpose, and (3) actual legal damage."
Phillips v. Seiig, 959 A.2d 420, 436 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008). Beyond satisfying these elements, courts
consistently require "that proof of conspiracy must be made by full, clear and satisfactory
evidence." Fife v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 52 A.2d 24, 37 (Pa. 1947). Here, Appellant
merely asserts, in a general fashion, that Friedman and Progressive entered into some sort of
agreement to "cooperate in deceiving courts, judges, juries and others." Complaint at 14. This
vague, non-specific claim is wholly insufficient as a matter of law. Moreover, given that civil
conspiracy requires an underlying unlawful act, and since none of Appellant's other claims (fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, and defamation) pass muster, there is nothing that could serve as the
basis of a conspiracy. 5
Ultimately, this matter is but one in a decades-long line of frivolous, vexatious, and utterly
meritless suits and appeals filed by Appellant. More specifically, Appellant has repeatedly filed
nearly identical complaints, asserting similar claims of defamation, each of which were dismissed
with prejudice at the preliminary objections stage. For example, in Feingold v. Hill, the trial court
upheld defendants' preliminary objections and dismissed Appellant's Complaint, in which he
alleged that various judges and law clerks committed "fraud, deceit, conspiracy, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, interference with a business relationship, and defamation." 44 Pa.
D. & C.3d 610 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pleas 1986). Appellant subsequently appealed, and the SupJrior
Court affirmed the trial court's decision, declaring that "[b ]!ind suspicions and unsuppJrted
5
With regard to the two other errors alleged by Appellant, Judge Bernstein's opinion responds accordingly to the
accusations in Appellant's Statement of Errors regarding his rulings, meaning that only the final alleged error rernains
at-issue. It is baffling that Appellant would complain about having to submit another Statement of Errors for al new
appeal. Appellant's first appeal Appellant was interlocutory, which is why it was subsequently quashed by Superior
~ourt. De~pite what Appellant seems to imply,. the Statement of Errors he filed in reference to his proceduj1lly-
improper, interlocutory appeal, does not automatically define the contours of this appeal.
I
A- 11
accusations simply do not state a cause of action pursuant to any theory of tort recovery.'' Feingold
v. Hill, 521 A.2d 33, 38 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987). In Feingold v. Hendrzak, Appellant filed a lawsuit,
one strikingly similar to the one filed in the instant matter, against parties with whom he had
tangled in a prior action, again alleging civil conspiracy, fraud, defamation, and other related
claims. The trial court sustained defendants' preliminary objections, and dismissed Appellant's
claims, a decision that was affirmed on appeal by the Superior Court, which noted Appellant's
"repeated abuse of the court system to harass defendants and opposing counsel with lawsuits that
contain nothing more than unfounded allegations." 15 A.3d 93 7, 943 (Pa. Super. Ct.2011 ). Despite
these (and other) similar, failed actions, the clear instruction from numerous courts, at both the
state and federal level, to refrain from burdening them with such baseless suits, and the loss of his
law license, Appellant persists with a cavalier disregard for the law itself, as well as for the finite
resources of the judicial system.6 Accordingly, this Court requests that the Superior Court remand
the instant matter so that both Friedman and Progressive can be awarded reasonable "counsel fees],
so as] to deter Appellant from filing [such] frivolous actions in the future." Hendrzak, ISA.3d at
943.
III. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, this Court respectfully requests that the instant appeal be
quashed or denied.
J.
O
See, e.g., Feingold v. Graff. 516 F. App'x 223. 229 (3d Cir. 2013) ("Despite his awareness that several state and
federal courts had, on multiple occasions, found these claims without merit, and despite the Pennsylvania Superior
Court's prior determination that these claims are so frivolous as to justify sua sponte sanctions. Feingold filed the
instant complaint, and then this appeal. Feingold's conduct shows an utter lack of respect for the judiciary and the
legal process, and maliciously exposes numerous individuals to frivolous litigation and ils attendant aggravations
and expenses.").