Coulter v. Lindsay, 627 WDA 2016
Citation | 159 A.3d 947 |
Decision Date | 07 April 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 627 WDA 2016,627 WDA 2016 |
Parties | Jean COULTER, Appellant v. Alexander H. LINDSAY, Jr., Lindsay Law Firm, Joseph Victor Charlton and Patricia Lindsay, Appellees |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Jean Coulter, appellant, pro se.
David J. Rosenberg, Pittsburgh, for appellees.
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
OPINION PER CURIAM:
Serial Appellant, Jean Coulter, appeals pro se from the order entered on April 1, 2016. In this case, we hold that Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 233.1 is not void for vagueness under the federal and state constitutions and that our Supreme Court had the authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution to promulgate Rule 233.1. We also hold that Appellant's repeated, frivolous appeals to this Court warrant the awarding of attorney's fees and issuance of a filing injunction. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and the accompanying order.
The relevant factual background and procedural history of this case are as follows. On May 11, 2007, Appellant pled nolo contendere to aggravated assault1 for the brutal abuse of her minor daughter. See Commonwealth v. Coulter , CP–10–CR–0000727–2006 (C.C.P. Butler). As a result of the heinous abuse of her daughter, the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County terminated Appellant's parental rights as to her daughter. See In the Interest of A.C. , CP–10–DP–0000051–2006 (C.C.P. Butler). Alexander H. Lindsay, Jr., Lindsay Law Firm, Joseph Victor Charlton, and Patricia Lindsay (collectively "Appellees") represented Appellant during both the criminal and termination proceedings.
Over the ensuring decade, Appellant filed dozens of actions in both the state and federal courts of this Commonwealth. For example, on March 2, 2015, Appellant filed a complaint against Appellees in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In that complaint, Appellant "allege[d] that [Appellees] conspired with one another to deny her [ ] due process in those court proceedings." Coulter v. Lindsay , 2015 WL 11117718, *1 (W.D.Pa. Mar. 6, 2015) (hereinafter " Lindsay "). That complaint was dismissed with prejudice. See id.
On May 4, 2015, Appellant instituted the instant action in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County. In her complaint, Appellant conceded that she was raising the same exact claims that she raised in Lindsay . On December 22, 2015, Appellant filed a motion seeking the trial court's recusal. Appellant's recusal motion was denied that same day. On February 8, 2016, Appellant filed her fifth amended complaint. On March 11, 2016, Appellees filed preliminary objections. In their preliminary objections, Appellees argued that Appellant's claims were barred by res judicata . Moreover, Appellees argued that, to the extent Appellant's claims were not barred by res judicata , the trial court should dismiss the complaint under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 233.1 ( ). Finally, Appellees argued that Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On March 28, 2016, Appellant filed preliminary objections to Appellees' preliminary objections.
The trial court heard argument on Appellant's and Appellees' preliminary objections on April 1, 2016. That same day, the trial court overruled Appellant's preliminary objections, sustained Appellees' preliminary objections, and dismissed Appellant's complaint. This timely appeal followed.2 The appeal of this case was argued before this Court on January 10, 2017. On January 19, 2017, Appellant filed a motion seeking the recusal of all three members of this panel.
Appellant presents five issues for our review:
Preliminarily, we must consider Appellant's recusal motion. Appellant argues that all three members of this panel should recuse from this case because the panel was not randomly assigned. She also argues that all three members of this panel are biased against her. This argument is waived. "A party seeking recusal or disqualification is required to raise the objection at the earliest possible moment, or that party will suffer the consequence of being time barred." In re Lokuta , 608 Pa. 223, 11 A.3d 427, 437 (2011) (internal alterations and citation omitted). In this case, the earliest opportunity to raise the recusal issue was at oral argument. Appellant, however, did not move for recusal until nine days after this case was argued. Accordingly, Appellant waived any argument related to the recusal of the three members of this panel.
Moreover, even if Appellant preserved her recusal claim, it is frivolous. This case was assigned to this panel pursuant to 210 Pa.Code § 65.5(C)(1)(a). Specifically, a member of this Court originally assigned to hear this case became unavailable to participate in the disposition of this case and the President Judge appointed a replacement.4 Accordingly, all relevant internal operating procedures regarding panel composition were followed with respect to this case.
Commonwealth v. Brown , 141 A.3d 491, 498 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).
All three members of this panel individually determined that they are capable of assessing the case in an impartial manner, free of personal bias. Moreover, all three members of this panel individually determined that their involvement in this case does not create the appearance of impropriety and will not undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Although all three judges of this panel are familiar with Appellant, that fact does not necessitate recusal. Cf. Commonwealth v. Abu–Jamal , 553 Pa. 485, 720 A.2d 79, 90 (1998) ( ). Moreover, as discussed infra , there are few (if any) members of this Court who are unfamiliar with Appellant and her repeated, vexatious, and frivolous litigation. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's recusal motion directed at the members of this panel.
Turning to the merits of the issues raised by Appellant, she first argues that the trial court erred in denying her recusal motion. We review "the trial court's denial of the recusal motion for abuse of discretion." Becker v. M.S. Reilly, Inc. , 123 A.3d 776, 778 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). The trial court was required to apply the same standard that the members of this panel applied when ruling on Appellant's recusal motion. See Brown , 141 A.3d at 498 (citation omitted).
Appellant's claims of bias, and the appearance of bias, are frivolous. Appellant argues that the trial court took all necessary actions in order to get its desired result. The record belies this assertion. The trial court acted with great restraint in permitting Appellant to continually amend her frivolous complaint and held a hearing on the parties' respective preliminary objections. Instead of imposing harsh sanctions for her violations of the rules of civil procedure, the trial court instead simply overruled Appellant's preliminary objections and sustained Appellees' preliminary objections. We ascertain no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of Appellant's recusal motion.
In her second issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 233.1, which provides, in relevant part:
Pa.R.C.P. 233.1(a). Coulter v. Ramsden , 94 A.3d 1080, 1086 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied , 631 Pa. 719, 110 A.3d 998 ( 2014) (hereinafter " Ramsden III ").
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coulter v. Coulter
...just six years ago “[Jean's] conduct is the definition of vexatious” and highlighted Jean's “repeated abuse of our judicial system.” Coulter, 159 A.3d at 954. We caution Jean, explained more below, she cannot re-litigate state law estate claims not decided in her favor. And Jean cannot stat......
-
Gross v. Mintz
...and vexatious litigation will justify an order prohibiting further filings without permission of the court." Coulter v. Lindsay , 159 A.3d 947, 956 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Chipps v. U.S.D.C. for the M.D. of Pa. , 882 F.2d 72, 73 (3d Cir. 1989) ). Pennsylvania Appellate Courts have issued......
-
Brown v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs., Inc., 1907 MDA 2017
...of the trial court's discretion in granting a motion to dismiss, our standard of review is abuse of discretion." Coulter v. Lindsay , 159 A.3d 947, 952 (Pa.Super. 2017), appeal denied , 643 Pa. 125, 172 A.3d 1108 (2017), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2576, 201 L.Ed.2d 293 (2018), ......
-
Scheib v. Friedman
... ... ranging from 1997 to 2016 ... In July ... 2022, Respondent filed the ... Court.[6] See Coulter v. Lindsay, 159 A.3d ... 947, 954 (Pa. Super. 2017) (where pro se ... ...