Janeway Truck v. Solid Waste Services ( 2016 )

J-A11042-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JANEWAY TRUCK AND TRAILER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
RECOVERY, INC. : PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
SOLID WASTE SERVICES, INC. D/B/A :
J.P. MASCARO & SONS :
: No. 609 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order February 5, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division
at No(s): 2014-25015
BEFORE: SHOGAN, MUNDY, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED APRIL 22, 2016
Appellant, Janeway Truck and Trailer Recovery, Inc., appeals from the
order of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas that sustained the
preliminary objection of Appellee, Solid Waste Services, Inc. d/b/a J.P.
Mascaro & Sons, and dismissed Appellant’s complaint with prejudice.
Appellant claims the trial court erred by failing “to allow discovery, in which
it would have been determined if [Appellee] regularly uses the [c]ourt[s] for
refunds.” Appellant’s Brief at 4. We conclude Appellant’s failure to comply
with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure requires the dismissal of
this appeal.
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11042-16
According to Appellant, Appellee paid a bill for towing services
Appellant rendered in 2011, “then sued [Appellant] for a refund in small
claims court which [Appellant] appealed to the Court of Common Pleas in
Montgomery County.” Id. A panel of arbitrators entered a judgment in
favor of Appellant on July 25, 2013,1 and Appellee did not appeal the panel’s
ruling.
Appellant commenced the instant action for “abuse of process and
wrongful action,” id., by filing a complaint on September 3, 2014. Appellee
filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer on September 29,
2014. On October 19, 2014, Appellee filed an answer to the preliminary
objection characterizing Appellee’s previous action against it as “an abuse of
the system or as one court called it: extortion.” Appellant’s Answer to
Appellee’s Prelim. Objection, 10/19/14, at 1. On February 5, 2015, the trial
court sustained Appellee’s preliminary objection in the form of demurrer and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Appellant took this timely appeal and in response to the trial court’s
order for a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, timely filed a two-page “Appeal
Statement.” Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement contained one paragraph
reviewing the standards of review applicable to an order sustaining
preliminary objection in the nature of demurrer and two paragraphs
1
Appellant did not indicate when it prevailed in Appellee’s action against it.
However, it did not dispute Appellee’s recitation of the date of the
arbitrators’ findings.
-2-
J-A11042-16
summarizing the law that Pennsylvania is a “fact-pleading” jurisdiction.
Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 3/25/15, at 1-2. The final two
paragraphs asserted error in the court’s ruling. Id. at 2. The trial court filed
a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Appellant presents the following question for review:
Did the [trial court] commit an error of law by granting
[Appellee’s] Preliminary Objections when it did not allow
discovery? Is such conduct also an abuse of discretion?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Preliminarily, we note Appellant’s statement of facts consists of three
paragraphs spanning less than a page. See Appellant’s Brief at 4. His
argument section consists of less than two pages and is a verbatim
recitation of his Rule 1925(b) statement. See id. at 5-7; see also
Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement at 1-2. Appellant has cited
authorities related to the standard of review and Pennsylvania’s pleading
requirements. See Appellant’s Brief at 5. However, his entire legal
argument consists of two paragraphs, which we have reproduced for the
purposes of the present appeal:
It was an error of law to sustain [Appellee’s]
preliminary objection. It is a misuse of the legal system to
reduce bills. Had [Appellant] been allowed to conduct
discovery it would have been show[n] that [Appellee]
misuse[d] the legal system in other cases.
The [trial] court was to[o] quick to sustain [Appellee’s]
preliminary objections.
Id. at 6.
-3-
J-A11042-16
This Court has observed:
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) provides, in relevant part, that the
argument [section of an appellant’s brief] shall be ‘followed
by such discussion and citation of authorities as are
deemed pertinent.’ Rule 2119 contains mandatory
provisions regarding the contents of briefs. We have held
consistently, ‘[a]rguments that are not appropriately
developed are waived.’
It is the appellant who has the burden of establishing [its]
entitlement to relief by showing that the ruling of the trial
court is erroneous under the evidence or the law. . . .
Connor v. Crozer Keystone Health Sys., 832 A.2d 1112, 1118 (Pa.
Super. 2003) (citation and emphases omitted).
This Court is neither obliged, nor even particularly
equipped, to develop an argument for a party. To do
so places the Court in the conflicting roles of
advocate and neutral arbiter. When an appellant
fails to develop his issue in an argument and fails to
cite any legal authority, the issue is waived.
Moreover, “mere issue spotting without analysis or legal
citation to support an assertion precludes our appellate
review of a matter.”
In re S.T.S., Jr., 76 A.3d 24, 42 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).
In light of the foregoing precepts, we are constrained to conclude that
Appellant’s brief is substantively defective. See Connor, 832 A.2d at 1118.
Further consideration of this matter would require this Court to develop
Appellant’s attempts at “mere issue spotting” into a meaningful legal
argument responsive to the trial court’s opinion. This we cannot do. See In
re S.T.S., Jr., 76 A.3d at 42. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
-4-
J-A11042-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/22/2016
-5-