White, J. v. Citizens for Ortitay, J.

J-S31007-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JESSE WHITE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
CITIZENS FOR JASON ORTITAY, JASON
ORTITAY, REPUBLICAN PARTY OF
PENNSYLVANIA, AND PA HOUSE OF
REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
No. 710 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order April 18, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Civil Division at No(s): 2015-4387
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED JUNE 15, 2017
Appellant, Jesse White, appeals from the order entered in the
Washington County Court of Common Pleas, granting the preliminary
objections of Appellees, Citizens for Jason Ortitay, Jason Ortitay, Republican
Party of Pennsylvania, and PA House of Republican Campaign Committee,
and dismissing Appellant’s complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
On July 21, 2015, Appellant filed a complaint alleging that Appellees
engaged in defamation and commercial disparagement over the course of
the 2014 campaign for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. In his
complaint, Appellant, who was the democratic incumbent for the 46th
legislative district prior to the election, alleged that Appellees published
campaign materials that falsely claimed that Appellant favored a “40% tax
J-S31007-17
increase for the middle class.” Amended Complaint, 9/4/15, at ¶¶ 14, 18.
Appellant claimed that he lost the election to Appellee, Jason Ortitay,
because of Appellees’ dissemination of these materials, and sought damages
from all Appellees.
Appellees filed preliminary objections to Appellant’s complaint.
Appellant amended his complaint, and Appellees again filed preliminary
objections alleging that Appellant’s amended complaint was legally
insufficient. Following oral argument and the submission of briefs by the
parties, the trial court issued an order sustaining Appellees’ preliminary
objections and dismissing Appellant’s complaint with prejudice.
Appellant filed a timely appeal. On June 15, 2016, the trial court
issued an order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) directing Appellant to file a
Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal “no later than
twenty-one (21) days after the entry of this [o]rder.” Order, 6/15/16.1
Appellant filed his statement of the matters complained of on appeal on July
18, 2016—33 days after the trial court’s order.
On January 11, 2017, the trial court filed an opinion through which it
asserted that Appellant’s failure to timely file his Rule 1925(b) statement
resulted in the waiver of all Appellant’s issues. See Trial Court Opinion,
1/11/17, at 4. We agree.
____________________________________________
1
The docket entries indicate that the Prothonotary sent notice to Appellant
on the same day the trial court entered the order. See Pa.R.C.P. 236.
-2-
J-S31007-17
Rule 1925(b) authorizes a trial court to order a defendant to file a
“concise statement of matters complained of on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Once ordered, a defendant must file his concise statement within 21 days
from the date of the order’s entry, unless they request, and receive
additional time for the filing of the Rule 1925(b) statement from the trial
court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2). “Whenever the trial court orders an
appellant to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal
pursuant to Rule 1925(b), the appellant must comply in a timely manner.”
Hess v. Fox Rothschild, LLP, 925 A.2d 798, 803 (Pa. Super. 2007)
(emphasis in original) (citing Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775,
780 (Pa. 2005)). The failure to comply with a Rule 1925(b) order will result
in the waiver of all issues for the purposes of appellate review. See
Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148-149 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Here, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) concise
statement within 21 days. Appellant did not file his concise statement until
33 days after the trial court’s order—12 days after the 21-day deadline had
passed. There is no evidence of record that Appellant ever requested, or
received, an extension of time from the trial court to file his concise
statement. Accordingly, Appellant’s failure to comply with this order has
resulted in a waiver of all of his issues on appeal review. See id.Order affirmed.
-3-
J-S31007-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/15/2017
-4-