Mastrian, J. v. Peoples, M. ( 2019 )

J-S40016-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JOHN F. MASTRIAN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
MARC A. PEOPLES : No. 1725 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered November 5, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County Civil Division at
No(s): 10011 of 2018, C.A.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2019
John Mastrian appeals from the order denying his Motion to Amend
Caption and Correct Middle Initial and granting judgment on the pleadings
against Mastrian. Mastrian contends he made a technical mistake when
naming the defendant, and the court erred in denying his motion to amend
the caption to correct the defendant’s name from “Marc A. Peoples” (“Marc A.
Peoples” or “Peoples”) to “Marc W. Peoples.” We affirm.
On January 4, 2018, Mastrian initiated this civil action against “Marc A.
Peoples” by filing a praecipe for writ of summons. On January 5, 2018, the
Lawrence County Sheriff’s Department served Marc A. Peoples by handing a
copy of the praecipe for writ to Peoples’ wife, Susanna Peoples. In March 2018,
Mastrian filed a Complaint seeking damages that allegedly resulted from a
January 2016 motor vehicle accident. The Complaint alleged that “Marc A.
Peoples[] was the owner and operator of a 2004 Ford F150 Pickup Truck
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S40016-19
registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” Complaint at ¶ 4. The
Complaint alleged that “[s]uddenly and without warning . . . Marc A. Peoples,
was operating his 2004 Ford Pickup Truck in a northerly direction on Mercer
Road and failed to stop and collided directly into the rear of [Mastrian’s]
automobile.” Id. at ¶ 5. In the Complaint, Mastrian asserted a cause of action
based on Peoples’ alleged negligence in operating the vehicle.
Marc A. Peoples filed an Answer and New Matter, which contained a
Notice to Plead. Peoples admitted to owning the vehicle, but denied operating
the vehicle at the time of the accident. Answer and New Matter at ¶¶ 4, 22.
The Answer stated that the driver of the vehicle was “Marc W. Peoples.” Id.
at ¶ 22. Peoples also raised affirmative defenses, including the defense that
the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Mastrian did not file a
reply to the Answer and New Matter.
In June 2018, Peoples filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
asserting that, because Mastrian failed to respond to the Answer and New
Matter, he admitted the allegations contained therein. Peoples argued he was
entitled to judgment on the pleadings because Mastrian admitted Peoples was
not operating the vehicle at the time of the accident.
Mastrian did not file a response to the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. Rather, in September 2018, Mastrian filed a Motion to Amend the
-2-
J-S40016-19
Caption and Correct Middle Initial of Defendant.1 He attached to the Motion
the Police Crash Report, which included that “Marc Peoples” or “Marc W.
Peoples,” born in 1996, was the operator of the vehicle, and that the vehicle’s
insurance policy was in the name of “Marc Allan Peoples.”
The trial court denied Mastrian’s Motion to Amend the Caption and
granted People’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. It concluded that by
failing to file a response to Peoples’ Answer and New Matter, Mastrian admitted
the factual averments contained in the Answer, including that Peoples was not
operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. Trial Court Opinion, filed
Nov. 5, 2018, at 6.2
The court also found that in his Motion to Amend the Caption and Correct
the Middle Initial, Mastrian was attempting to amend his complaint to “add or
substitute a distinct party,” which he could not do, as the statute of limitations
had expired. Id. at 12. The court reasoned:
As evidenced by the sheriffs Return in this case, the writ of
summons was served upon [Peoples’] wife and she was
identified as such in that document placing [Mastrian] on
notice that it was the father, Marc A. Peoples, who was the
named defendant and not the son, Marc W. Peoples. There
____________________________________________
1 At a hearing on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, counsel for
Mastrian stated that he filed the motion to correct the caption on the morning
of the hearing, that is, September 24, 2018. N.T., 9/24/18, at 6. The motion
in the certified record is stamped as filed on November 5, 2018. In its analysis,
the court uses the September 24 date. As it does not impact our decision, we
will do so as well.
2 It also found that, because it was a legal conclusion, not a factual averment,
the failure to file a responsive pleading did not result in the admission that the
cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. Tr. Ct. Op. at 6.
-3-
J-S40016-19
was no indication the complaint was served upon or
provided to Marc W. Peoples. Plaintiff should have been
aware that service was made to Defendant as the adult
accepting service of the Writ of Summons was identified as
his wife, not his mother. Additionally, the complaint was
filed against Marc A. Peoples and the Answer and New
Matter were filed on behalf of Marc A. Peoples, despite Marc
W. Peoples being clearly identified as the driver on the police
report. Marc W. Peoples is not currently before the court as
he has never appeared before the Court in this matter nor
has he filed any documents in the above-captioned matter.
Tr. Ct. Op. at 12-13.
Mastrian filed a timely Notice of Appeal. He raises the following issues:
I. Whether Trial Judge Dominick Motto erred when he
dismissed . . . John F. Mastrian[’s] Complaint including all
Claims contained therein having granted [Peoples’] Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings.
II. Whether Trial Judge Dominick Motto erred when he
denied Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Caption and Correct
Middle Initial of Defendant.
Mastrian’s Br. at 4.
We first will address Mastrian’s second issue, which claims the trial court
erred in denying his Motion to Amend Caption and Correct Middle Initial of
Defendant. Mastrian contends that “[a]n erroneous technical defect of middle
initial or middle name in the designation of [a] party . . . may be corrected by
amendment even after the statute of limitations expired.” Id. at 17. He claims
that requests to amend the pleadings should be “liberally granted,” and there
“was no resulting prejudice, since [Marc W. Peoples] . . . lived at the same
residence as his mother and father and service was provided to the adult
individual (mother) at his residence.” Id. at 19.
-4-
J-S40016-19
We review the denial of a motion to amend the caption for an abuse of
discretion. Phillips v. Lock, 86 A.3d 906, 915 (Pa.Super. 2014).
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033 provides:
(a) A party, either by filed consent of the adverse party or
by leave of court, may at any time change the form of
action, add a person as a party, correct the name of a party,
or otherwise amend the pleading. The amended pleading
may aver transactions or occurrences which have happened
before or after the filing of the original pleading, even
though they give rise to a new cause of action or defense.
An amendment may be made to conform the pleading to the
evidence offered or admitted.
(b) An amendment correcting the name of a party against
whom a claim has been asserted in the original pleading
relates back to the date of the commencement of the action
if, within 90 days after the period provided by law for
commencing the action, the party received notice of the
institution of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in
maintaining a defense on the merits and the party knew or
should have known that the action would have been brought
against the party but for a mistake concerning the identity
of the proper party.
Pa.R.Civ.P. 1033(a)-(b). Further, where a party attempts to amend a pleading
after the statute of limitations expired, courts apply the following rule:
Where the statute of limitations has run, amendments will
not be allowed which introduce a new cause of action or
bring in a new party or change the capacity in which he is
sued. If the effect of the amendment is to correct the name
under which the right party is sued, it will be allowed; if it is
to bring in a new party, it will be refused.
Blaine v. York Fin. Corp., 847 A.2d 727, 729 (Pa.Super. 2004) (quoting
Girardi v. Laquin Lumber Company, 81 A. 63, 64 (Pa. 1911)).
-5-
J-S40016-19
Here, Mastrian alleged the accident at issue occurred on January 5,
2016. The statute of limitations on any negligence claim resulting from that
accident expired two years later, or on January 5, 2018. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
5524(7). Mastrian filed the praecipe for writ of summons, naming “Marc A.
Peoples” as the defendant, on January 4, 2018, the day before the expiration
of the statute of limitations.
In Saracina v. Cotoia, 208 A.2d 764, 766 (Pa. 1965), the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying a plaintiff’s motion to
amend the caption of the complaint after the expiration of the statute of
limitations. There, the plaintiff named as the defendant, “Anthony Cotoia, a
minor.” Id. at 765. The defendant filed an answer, responding that he was
not a minor and that, although he owned the vehicle, his son Robert Cotoia
was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. Id. After the expiration
of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to
change the name of the defendant from Anthony Cotoia to Robert Cotoia. Id.
The court found the plaintiff could not amend the complaint, reasoning that
service had been made on Anthony Cotoia and the return of service “in no
way indicates that Robert C[o]toia was properly served and is now before the
[c]ourt.” Id. at 766.
Similarly, in Ferrero v. McCarthy-Pascuzzo, this Court concluded a
plaintiff could not amend the caption after the statute of limitations had
expired where the plaintiff named the insurance-policy holder as the
defendant in the original complaint, rather than the operator of the vehicle.
-6-
J-S40016-19
777 A.2d 1128, 1136 (Pa.Super. 2001). The policy holder was the wife of the
operator of the vehicle. Id. at 1130. We noted that the police report identified
the correct operator of the vehicle, and that the named defendant did not
attempt to conceal the operator’s identity or mislead the plaintiff as to the
identity. Id. at 1135-36.
Here, the trial court relied on the above cases, among others, and found
that Mastrian was attempting to bring in a new party—Marc W. Peoples. It
noted that the proper party was clear from the police report, and from the
return of service, which stated that Susanna Peoples was the wife, not the
mother, of Marc A. Peoples. It found that Mastrian could not amend the caption
after the statute of limitations expired, and denied the motion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Mastrian was aware from the
police report that the driver of the vehicle was Marc W. Peoples, who was born
in 1996. He, however, named as a defendant Marc A. Peoples. Following
service of the praecipe, Mastrian learned that the wife of Marc A. Peoples
accepted service. Here, Marc A. Peoples and Marc W. Peoples are two separate
individuals. Mastrian concedes as much when he notes that Susanna Peoples
is the wife of Marc A. Peoples and the mother of Marc W. Peoples. Mastrian’s
Br. at 7. Mastrian was aware of the identity of the operator of the vehicle, but
failed to name that person as a defendant in the Complaint. Under the facts
of this case, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying the motion.
-7-
J-S40016-19
We next address Mastrian’s claim that the court erred in granting
Peoples’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Entry of judgment on the pleadings is proper where “there are no
disputed issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Altoona Regional Health Sys. v. Schutt, 100 A.3d 260, 265
(Pa.Super. 2014) (quoting Consol. Coal Co. v. White, 875 A.2d 318, 325–
26 (Pa.Super. 2005)). To determine “if there is a dispute as to facts, the court
must confine its consideration to the pleadings and relevant documents.” Id.(quoting Consol. Coal Co., 875 A.2d at 325-26). If a plaintiff fails to file a
response to an answer and new matter that contains a notice to plead, the
failure “is treated as an admission of the allegations made in the” answer and
new matter. McCormick v. Allegheny Gen. Hosp., 527 A.2d 1028, 1032
(Pa.Super. 1987).
When reviewing an order granting judgment on the pleadings, we must
determine “whether the trial court’s ruling was based on a clear error of law
or whether there were facts disclosed by the pleadings which should properly
be tried before a jury or by a judge sitting without a jury.” Altoona Regional
Health Sys., 100 A.3d at 265 (quoting Consol. Coal Co., 875 A.2d at 325-
26).
Because Mastrian did not file a reply to the Answer and New Matter, he
has admitted the averments contained in the Answer and New Matter,
including that Peoples was not operating the vehicle at the time of the
accident. See McCormick, 527 A.2d at 1032. Because Peoples was not
-8-
J-S40016-19
operating the vehicle, Mastrian cannot state a negligence cause of action
against Peoples based on operation of the vehicle, and the court did not err in
granting the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/11/2019
-9-