Haynes, T. v. Assets Protection Inc.

J-A22023-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
TWILA HAYNES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
ASSETS PROTECTION INC. AND
RIVERSIDE PRESBYTERIAN APTS.
Appellees No. 3060 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered August 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): July 2015 No. 02506
BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2017
Twila Haynes appeals pro se from the order, entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, granting summary judgment in favor
of Appellees, Assets Protection Inc. and Riverside Presbyterian Apts., in this
wrongful termination/employment action.1 Because of the deficiencies in
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
We note that this appeal could be quashed on alternative grounds. Here,
the trial court entered a final order dismissing Haynes’ amended complaint
on October 30, 2015. On November 6, 2015, Haynes filed a timely motion
for reconsideration of that order. On February 3, 2016, the trial court
entered an order granting Haynes’ motion for reconsideration. Because the
court did not expressly grant Hanyes’ motion within 30 days of the date of
the final order, the appeal period had run before the motion was acted upon.
Accordingly, Haynes’ subsequent notice of appeal filed on September 14,
2016, was untimely. See Oak Tree Condo. Ass’n v. Greene, 133 A.3d
113 (Pa. Commw. 2016); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); 1701(b)(3).
J-A22023-17
Hayne’s brief, we are unable to discern what issues she wishes to raise or
the arguments she wishes to present to this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal.
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101:
Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material
respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the
circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they
may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or
reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the
appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101. We also bring Rule 2111 to Haynes’ attention. That rule
provides:
Rule 2111. Brief of the Appellant
General rule. The brief of the appellant, except as otherwise
prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the following matter,
separately and distinctly entitled and in the following order:
(1) Statement of jurisdiction.
(2) Order or other determination in question.
(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the
standard of review.
(4) Statement of the questions involved.
(5) Statement of the case.
(6) Summary of argument.
(7) Argument for appellant.
(8) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(9) The opinions and pleadings specified in Subdivisions
(b) and (c) of this rule.
(10) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of the
matters complained of on appeal filed with the trial
court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an averment that
no order requiring a Rule 1925(b) statement was
entered.
(a) Opinions below. There shall be appended to the brief a
copy of any opinions delivered by any court or other
government unit below relating to the order or other
-2-
J-A22023-17
determination under review, if pertinent to the questions
involved[.]
Pa.R.A.P. 2111.
A review of Haynes’ brief evidences almost a complete failure to abide
by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Haynes’ brief fails to
include a scope of review, see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3), summary of the
argument, see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(6),2 or include the proper procedural or
factual history of the case. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(5). Most egregious,
however, is the fact that Haynes’ argument section fails to address the issue
appealed, does not set forth any legal argument, omits any citation to case
law or other legal authority, and fails to reference the record. See Pa.R.A.P.
2117(a)(4), 2119(b)-(d).
We recognize that Haynes is pro se, however, as noted in
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996):
While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a
pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any
particular advantage because she lacks legal training. As our
supreme court has explained, any layperson choosing to
represent [herself] in a legal proceeding must, to some
reasonable extent, assume the risk that [her] lack of expertise
and legal training will prove [her] undoing.
Id. at 1013. The Rivera court concluded that “we decline to become the
appellant’s counsel. When issues are not properly raised and developed in
____________________________________________
2
While Haynes has a section titled “Summary Argument” in her brief, it
contains boilerplate standard of review language for summary judgment and
no actual summary of an argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2118.
-3-
J-A22023-17
briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for
review[,] a Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Id. (quoting
Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa. Super. 1982)).
Because we are unable to conduct a meaningful review, we quash this
appeal.
Appeal quashed.3
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/14/2017
____________________________________________
3
We note that even if we had not quashed this appeal, Haynes is not
entitled to relief in her wrongful termination case where she failed to
exhaust her administrative remedies before filing the instant complaint in
court. See 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-5(c) (any plaintiff alleging violation of Title
I must exhaust administrative remedies under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of
1964, before filing court action).
-4-
J-A22023-17
-5-