Randall, C. v. Adelberg Rudow Dorf & Hendler

J-A28008-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CATHERINE RANDALL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
ADELBERG RUDOW DORF & HENDLER,
LLC., DAVID APPLEFELD, ESQUIRE,
GEOFFREY WASHINGTON, ESQUIRE,
MARC NOREN, ESQUIRE, ANDREW
RADDING, ESQUIRE, CAROL COOPER,
ESQUIRE, WINSTON GRESOV, MARION
BESS PARMERTER, AND FREDERICK
GRESOV
Appellees No. 836 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order January 7, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Civil Division at No(s): October Term 2013, No. 13-10112
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and SHOGAN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED DECEMBER 10, 2015
Appellant, Catherine Randall, appeals from the order entered in the
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which granted judgment on the
pleadings in favor of Appellees Winston Gresov and Marion Bess Parmerter.
On October 11, 2013, Appellant filed a complaint in Pennsylvania for
wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process against Adelberg
Rudow Dorf & Hendler, LLC and the above-captioned attorneys (collectively,
“Law Firm Appellees”), Winston Gresov (Appellant’s ex-husband), Marion
Bess Parmerter (Winston Gresov’s domestic partner), and Frederick Gresov
J-A28008-15
(Appellant’s son). Appellant claimed, inter alia, Frederick Gresov had sued
her in Maryland in 2011, at the insistence of his father (Winston Gresov) and
Ms. Parmerter, for alleged mismanagement of his college tuition account, in
order to coerce Appellant into settling other outstanding child support
matters. Appellant prevailed in the Maryland action. In the Pennsylvania
action, Appellant sued Law Firm Appellees because they represented her son
in the Maryland action, as well as Winston Gresov and Ms. Parmerter, who
had compensated the firm for those services. Appellant served all named
defendants except her son.1 Law Firm Appellees filed preliminary objections
on March 26, 2014, for lack of personal jurisdiction. Following discovery, the
court sustained Law Firm Appellees’ preliminary objections on December 8,
2014, and dismissed them from the case. Winston Gresov and Ms.
Parmerter filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 11,
2014. The court granted the motion on January 7, 2015, which ended
Appellant’s case against those defendants. On February 2, 2015, Appellant
unilaterally filed a praecipe to discontinue her case against Frederick Gresov.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 4, 2015. On March 17, 2015, the
court ordered a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, which Appellant timely filed on
April 6, 2015. On April 7, 2015, Law Firm Appellees filed a motion to quash
____________________________________________
1
Appellant subsequently filed a motion to make alternative service on
Frederick Gresov, per Pa.R.C.P. 430. The court granted Appellant’s motion,
but she did not attempt alternative service.
-2-
J-A28008-15
the appeal as untimely (late), which they renewed before the merits panel.
Generally, a notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of
the final order from which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). A final
order is one that disposes of all claims and parties, is expressly defined as
final by statute, or is entered as final per the trial court’s determination.
Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). Additionally, not every name in the caption of a complaint
is necessarily a “party” to the action; parties to the action are those named
in the record and who are served with process or enter an
appearance. Hill v. Ofalt, 85 A.3d 540, 546 n.5 (Pa.Super. 2014) (holding
third defendant named in complaint did not become “party to the action,”
where appellant failed to serve original process on that defendant and no
attorney entered appearance on that defendant’s behalf; order sustaining
preliminary objections and dismissing complaint against two remaining
defendants constituted final appealable order because it disposed of all
claims against only “parties to the action”). Instantly, Appellant admits she
failed to serve Frederick Gresov with the initial complaint or any subsequent
filings. As well, no attorney has entered an appearance on Frederick
Gresov’s behalf. Thus, Appellant’s son was not a “party to the action.” See
id.
The January 7, 2015 order granting judgment on the pleadings in
favor of Appellees Winston Gresov and Ms. Parmerter constituted the final
order in this case, as it disposed of all claims against the only remaining
-3-
J-A28008-15
“parties to the action.” Id. Appellant did not appeal until March 4, 2015,
beyond 30 days of entry of the final order. Accordingly, we dismiss this
appeal as untimely.2 See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/10/2015
____________________________________________
2
Law Firm Appellees’ motion to quash is based on the lateness and,
therefore, untimeliness of Appellant’s notice of appeal. Due to our
disposition, we deny the motion as moot.
-4-