Robinson v. Schellenberg
| Decision Date | 07 April 1999 |
| Citation | 729 A.2d 122 |
| Parties | Harvey ROBINSON, George Lopez, and Richard Young, Appellants, v. Susan T. SCHELLENBERG, Andrea Naugle, Martin E. Falk, Percy Dougherty, Jane Ervin, George Laughlin, John F. McHugh, Grayson McNair, Sterling Raber, Linda Rosenfeld, Emrich Stellar, and Ronald Ross. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Harvey Robinson, George Lopez and Richard Young, appellants, pro se.
Gavin P. Holihan, Allentown, for appellees.
Before FRIEDMAN, J., KELLEY, J., and JIULIANTE, Senior Judge.
Harvey Robinson, George Lopez and Richard Young (Appellants) appeal pro se from a final order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (trial court) which denied their motion to amend their complaint, sustained the preliminary objections filed by Susan T. Schellenberg, Andrea E. Naugle, Martha E. Falk, Percy Dougherty, Jane Ervin, George Laughlin, John McHugh, Grayson McNair, Sterling H. Raber, Linda Rosenfeld, Emrich M. Stellar, and Ronald Rossi (collectively Appellees),1 and ultimately dismissed their complaint. We must quash Appellants' appeal due to substantial defects in their brief.
On May 24, 1997, Appellants filed a pro se complaint in this Court at Docket No. 491 M.D.1997 seeking By per curiam order dated May 30, 1997, this court transferred the case to the trial court pursuant to section 5103 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103.
On September 21, 1997, Appellees filed preliminary objections primarily on the grounds that Appellants lacked standing to bring suit and failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In response, Appellants filed a motion to amend their complaint. Oral argument on the preliminary objections and the motion to amend was held on December 15, 1997.
By order and opinion dated January 14, 1998, the trial court denied Appellants' motion to amend upon determining that the motion was "vacuous and entirely devoid of any averments which would constitute an amendment to the complaint." Upon determining that Appellants lacked standing and that their complaint was fatally flawed for failure to state a cause of action, the trial court sustained the preliminary objections raised by Appellees. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed Appellants' complaint. This appeal then followed.2 Unfortunately, Appellants have failed to file a brief in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, Appellants have failed to include in their brief a statement of questions presented as required by Pa.R.A.P. 21113 and Pa.R.A.P. 2116.4 As a result, there are no legal issues properly before us to review. Grosskopf v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Kuhns Market), 657 A.2d 124 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995). While this omission may be overlooked where the brief is otherwise adequate, such is not the case here as Appellants' brief also fails to comply with Pa. R.A.P. 2119.
Rule 2119 provides that the "argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part—in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed—the particular point treated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Espenshade v. Van Ormer, No. 2565 C.D. 2002 (Pa. Commw. 11/24/2003)
...to some leniency, that leniency does not permit this Court to review wholly undeveloped arguments. See Spontarelli; Robinson v. Schellenberg, 729 A.2d 122 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999); Hahalyak v. A. Frost, Inc., 664 A.2d 545 (Pa. Super. Plaintiffs do not brief this issue in any recognizable fashion.......
-
Roethlein v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
...merits of this appeal. See Smithley v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 8 A.3d 1027, 1029 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (citing Robinson v. Schellenberg, 729 A.2d 122, 124 Cmwlth. 1999)). [9] The regulations define "tribunal" as "[t]he Board or one of its referees." 34 Pa. Code § 101.2. [10] Regard......
-
Boulin v. Brandywine Senior Care, Inc.
...pro se filings liberally, we are compelled to find waiver as we cannot make sense of Claimant's arguments on appeal. C.M.; Calderazzo; Robinson. Claimant's Issues are Without Merit Absent waiver, Claimant's appeal fails on the merits. In her first two issues, Claimant purports to challenge ......
-
Galiyas v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
...authority are deemed waived on appeal). However, our Court is generally inclined to construe pro se filings liberally. Robinson v. Schellenberg, 729 A.2d 122, 124 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). Because Claimant's non-compliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure does not completely impair our abili......