Schuylkill Navy v. Langbord
| Decision Date | 09 April 1999 |
| Citation | 728 A.2d 964 |
| Parties | SCHUYLKILL NAVY, a Pennsylvania Corp. and Edward Lucas and F.C. Graham and Michael Bowers and Joseph Sweeney and Thomas Dowd, Appellants, v. Joan Switt LANGBORD and George Antoniak, Individually and Trading as I. Switt, Appellees. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Robert W. Suter, Doylestown, for appellants.
Jerome M. Brown, Philadelphia, for appellees. (submitted)
Before CAVANAUGH, KELLY, and LALLY-GREEN, JJ.
¶ 1 Appellants, Schuylkill Navy, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Edward Lucas, F.C. Graham, Michael Bowers, Joseph Sweeney, and Thomas Dowd ("Appellants") have asked us to determine whether the trial court erred in sustaining Appellees' preliminary objections to Appellants' amended complaint and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. We hold that preliminary objections should not be sustained solely on the ground that the preliminary objections are uncontested or unopposed. We also hold that where a cause of action is subject to a judgment of non pros, a subsequent complaint on the same cause of action may not be filed without permission of the court pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 3051. Thus, even if their amended complaint adequately states a cause of action in replevin, Appellants are nevertheless precluded from pursuing their claim for the reasons set forth in this opinion. Accordingly, we affirm.
¶ 2 The relevant facts and procedural history taken from the certified record in this case are as follows. Appellants, members of the Philadelphia Challenge Cup Committee, filed a complaint in replevin on June 19, 1997, to recover an item allegedly in Appellees' possession. The item is known within the Philadelphia rowing community as the Philadelphia Challenge Cup ("Cup"). Apparently, the Committee commissioned the Cup's design through Bailey, Banks & Biddle in 1920 and thereafter awarded it each year to the world champion rower. Although the Cup was awarded to amateur single sculling champions, the Cup itself remained in the actual possession of the Committee or one of its members; or it was stored from time to time with Bailey, Banks & Biddle. Although the Cup allegedly disappeared sometime in 1951, competition for the Cup continued until 1962. After the Cup's disappearance, the award was purely ceremonial in that the winner was given only a "handsomely framed picture of the Cup." (See Appellants' Amended Complaint, Exhibit "C" at 4.)
¶ 3 In June of 1996, according to Appellants, the missing Cup was discovered in Appellees' antique store, with a quoted price of twenty to thirty thousand ($20,000.00-$30,000.00) dollars. Appellants made a demand, through counsel, for the return of the Cup. Appellees refused to comply with the request, also asserting title to the Cup. Appellants filed a complaint in replevin on June 19, 1997 at No. 2346 June Term 1997 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
¶ 4 Appellees filed preliminary objections to this complaint on July 15, 1997. In their preliminary objections, Appellees first asserted that Appellants had previously filed an identical complaint in August of 1996, which was subject to a judgment of non pros in favor of Appellees in November, 1996. Appellees further averred that Appellants had filed the same complaint again in December of 1996, and, again, a judgment of non pros was entered in favor of Appellees on February 26, 1997. Thus, Appellees asserted Appellants should be precluded from bringing this third action for the same recovery. (See Preliminary Objections, filed and attested July 15, 1997, Paragraph No. 1.) Appellees also asserted preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and a motion for a more specific pleading. In their answer to these preliminary objections, Appellants admitted the facts averred in Paragraph No. 1 of Appellees' preliminary objections regarding the two prior complaints, as these facts were not denied specifically or by necessary implication.1
¶ 5 On August 12, 1997, Appellees filed their attested preliminary objections and supporting memorandum of law with Motions Court pursuant to the Philadelphia County rules governing the filing of preliminary objections.2 The record shows that Appellants filed an answer to Appellees' preliminary objections with the prothonotary's office on August 22, 1997. However, Appellants failed to file their answer with supporting memorandum of law in a responsive motion package with Motions Court by the response due date of September 12, 1997 set forth on the Motions Court cover sheet and required by Rule *206.1. On September 18, 1997 the trial court issued an order, docketed on September 24, 1997, sustaining Appellees' preliminary objections but granting Appellants leave to file an amended complaint within twenty days.3
¶ 6 On October 8, 1997, Appellants filed their amended complaint in replevin. Appellees filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint on October 27, 1997 in the form of a demurrer, a motion for a more specific pleading, and a motion to strike for lack of conformity to Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). On November 13, 1997, Appellants filed an answer to the preliminary objections and a memorandum in support thereof with the prothonotary's office. On November 26, 1997, Appellees filed their attested preliminary objections and supporting memorandum of law with Motions Court pursuant to the local rules. Again, Appellants failed to file their answer with supporting memorandum of law in a responsive motion package with Motions Court by the response due date of December 26, 1997 set forth on the Motions Court cover sheet and required by Rule *206.1. As a result of Appellants' failure to follow the local filing rules, the trial court did not have the benefit of Appellants' answer and responsive memorandum when it ruled on Appellees' preliminary objections. Thus, on January 14, 1998, the trial court issued an order, docketed January 29, 1998, sustaining Appellees' preliminary objections, with prejudice, as "uncontested." Appellants timely filed their notice of appeal on February 11, 1998.
¶ 7 Appellants have raised the following issues for our review:
1. WAS THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE [APPELLANTS'] ANSWER TO
[APPELLEES'] PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ENTRY OF AN ORDER MARKED "UNCONTESTED" SUSTAINING SAID OBJECTIONS AND DISMISSING [APPELLANTS'] CLAIM WITH PREJUDICE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION?
2. WAS THE TRIAL COURT IN ERROR AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT ENTERED AN ORDER WHICH DISMISSED [APPELLANTS'] AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE DESPITE THE AMENDED COMPLAINT'S LEGAL SUFFICIENCY TO OVERCOME A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE FORM OF A DEMURRER?
¶ 8 Appellants first argue that the trial court erred when it failed to consider Appellants' answer with supporting memorandum of law to Appellees' preliminary objections to their amended complaint because Appellees' preliminary objections were properly contested. We disagree.
¶ 9 Following a careful review of the certified record, we note that Appellants' failure to follow the local rules regarding preliminary objections has caused significant confusion in this case. Rule *1028 of the Philadelphia County Civil Division Rules provides in pertinent part:
* * *
(C)(2) An answer to preliminary objections shall be filed with the Prothonotary in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a) and thereafter with Motion Court together with the other documents required by Philadelphia Civil Rule *206.1(D).
Philadelphia Civil Rule *1028 (emphasis added). Rule *206.1 of the county rules governs motion court procedure in pertinent part as follows:
* * *
(2) A proposed order;
(3) The answer to the motion or petition (if necessary);
(4) A memorandum of law; and
(5) A copy of the moving party's transmittal letter....
Philadelphia Civil Rule *206.1 (emphasis added). These Rules are read together and require all preliminary objections and any responses thereto to be filed with the Prothonotary's office and Motions Court. Id. If counsel chooses to accept a case and practice in a particular forum, then counsel must keep informed and master the local rules and procedures of that forum. See Ttmar, Inc. v. Sulka, 402 Pa.Super. 319, 586 A.2d 1372 (1991) appeal denied, 530 Pa. 656, 608 A.2d 31 (1991) (). See also Toczylowski v. General Bindery Co., 359 Pa.Super. 572, 519 A.2d 500 (1986) ().
¶ 10 In the instant case, Appellants' answers to both sets of preliminary objections were filed with the Prothonotary's office and appear on the docket as so filed. However, nothing on the docket or in the certified record indicates that Appellants ever followed the mandates of Rules *206.1 and *1028 by filing their response with Motions Court. Until Appellants filed their response to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Estate of Luongo
...the facts averred, the law will not permit recovery; surmise and conjecture can play no part in the decision. Schuylkill Navy v. Langbord, 728 A.2d 964, 968 (Pa.Super.1999). Any doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling a demurrer. McNeil, supra. When reviewing a grant of demurrer, we......
-
Lowther v. Roxborough Memorial Hosp.
...will be sustained only if they are clear and free of doubt. Milliner v. Enck, 709 A.2d 417 (Pa.Super.1998). Schuylkill Navy v. Langbord, 728 A.2d 964, 968 (Pa.Super. 1999). ¶ 34 The grant or denial of a declaratory judgment is a matter lying within the sound discretion of the court of origi......
-
Rhi v. Marlton Technologies, Inc.
...volumes, continuing education, court memoranda and lectures, and are available in the ... Court filing office." Schuylkill Navy v. Langbord, 728 A.2d 964, 968 (Pa.Super.1999). Moreover, "[c]ounsel is under a high duty of care to learn and familiarize himself with the local rules of all foru......
-
Reed v. Brown
...of a ruling on preliminary objections, the appellate court must apply the same standard as the trial court." Schuylkill Navy v. Langbord, 728 A.2d 964, 968 (Pa. Super. 1999). "Under that standard, the court accepts as true all well-pled material facts set forth in the complaint along with a......