Adefumi, O. v. Cooper, J.

J-S29004-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
OLANIYAN ADEFUMI : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
JONATHAN COOPER : No. 2910 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered September 9, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 190804621
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: Filed: July 16, 2020
Olaniyan Adefumi appeals, pro se, from the order dismissing his legal
malpractice claim against Attorney Johnathan Cooper. The Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County concluded that Adefumi’s complaint failed to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.
This legal malpractice claim arises from a previous lawsuit Adefumi
initiated against Dr. Sharon Lim. In his complaint, Adefumi alleged that Dr.
Lim sexually assaulted him during a medical examination. Attorney Cooper
represented Dr. Lim in the matter and moved for summary judgment. The
trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case
with prejudice.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29004-20
Thereafter, Adefumi filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court
denied. He appealed the trial court’s order. Upon review, a panel of this Court
quashed Adefumi’s appeal. He then filed a petition for allowance of appeal to
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
While his petition for review was pending, Adefumi filed an action
against Attorney Cooper for legal malpractice, alleging various improprieties.
He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The trial court dismissed
the action upon finding Adefumi’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. This appeal followed.
Adefumi is proceeding pro se on appeal.1 The brief he submitted is
woefully deficient.
The brief does not contain a statement of jurisdiction, a copy of the
order in question, a statement of our standard and scope of review, a
statement of questions involved, a statement of the case, a summary of his
argument, or an argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a), 2114-2119. In addition,
the brief is devoid of any citation to legal authority. The brief also fails to
present an intelligible argument.
____________________________________________
1 "Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro
se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the
contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must,
to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training
will be his undoing." Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284 (Pa. Super.
2006) (citation omitted).
-2-
J-S29004-20
Given these failings, we find the issues raised on appeal waived.
“[W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with
citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other
meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.” McEwing v.
Lititz Mut. Ins. Co., 77 A.3d 639, 647 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).
Additionally, even if Adefumi did not waive his issues on appeal, we
would conclude that he cannot establish a legal malpractice claim. In
Pennsylvania, a claim against an attorney for legal malpractice must be
asserted by the attorney’s actual client, absent a limited exception not present
here. See Krauss v. Claar, 879 A.2d 302, 308 (Pa. Super. 2005). Because
Adefumi was never represented by Attorney Cooper, his claim merits no relief.
As such, the trial court did not err in dismissing Adefumi’s legal malpractice
claim for failure to state a claim.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/16/20
-3-
J-S29004-20
-4-