Quiero, Jr., A. v. Rivera, N. ( 2017 )

I S91004/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
AVON C. QUIERO JR., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v. No. 1174 MDA 2016
NICOLAS RIVERA
Appeal from the Order Entered June 24, 2016,
inthe Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
Civil Division at No. 2014-00808
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., RANSOM, J. AND STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 06, 2017
Avon C. Quiero, Jr. appeals the June 24, 2016 order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Lebanon County that denied appellant's petition for order
of compliance of law.
The factual and procedural history of this matter, as recounted by the
trial court ,is as follows:
In this case, [appellant] has initiated a lawsuit
seeking to obtain the return of an $800.00 security
deposit he allegedly paid when he rented an
apartment. Unfortunately, [appellant] is now an
inmate in a state correctional facility. Despite efforts
made by the Lebanon County Court Administrator,
the State Bureau of Corrections refuses to allocate
time in its video and telephone conference centers
for use by inmates involved in civil litigation.
Because of this, we entered an order on June 7,
2016 staying the above -referenced litigation until
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
I S91004/16
such time as [appellant] is released from prison.
[Appellant] has appealed. . . .
The procedural history of this case is
complicated. The file contains numerous
handwritten letters and motions, most of which were
filed by [appellant]. We have sifted through all of
the documents in the file and have attempted to
create a list of pertinent events. That list is as
follows:
2/22/13 -- [Appellant] filed Complaint
a
before the Lebanon County Court of
Common Pleas seeking return of an
$800.00 security deposit that he alleged
was unlawfully withheld by Nicolas Rivera
(hereafter [appellee]). No Notice to Plead
was included with the Complaint.
5/24/13 -- [Appellant's] Complaint was
reinstated. Once again, no Notice to Plead
was included.
9/17/13 -- [Appellant] filed a Motion for
Default Judgment and a Rule to Show Cause
was entered.
9/30/13 -- [Appellee] filed an Answer.
2/19/14 -- The Court issued an Order
remanding [appellant's] cause of action to a
Magisterial District Judge. The Court
reasoned that [appellant's] requested relief
was within the jurisdictional limit applicable
to Magisterial District Judges. In addition,
the Court noted that [appellant's] claim
involved a landlord -tenant dispute, which is
also the type of claim that is traditionally
heard by Magisterial District Judges.
Between 2/19/14 and 5/12/14 -- At some
point within this time period, the Magisterial
- 2
I S91004/16
District Judge conducted a hearing and
entered a decision in favor of [appellant] in
the amount of $1,600.00. Also at some
point during this time frame, [appellee] filed
an Appeal of the M.D.J.'s decision.
Although we do not have copies of the
actual papers issued by the M.D.J., both
parties reference the above and we accept
that the preceding events occurred.
5/12/14 -- [Appellant] filed Complaint
a
before this Court asking this Court to affirm
the decision of the M.D.J.
6/5/14 -- [Appellant] simultaneously files a
Motion for Summary Judgment and a
request for a Writ of Execution.
6/24/14 -- [Appellant] files a Motion for
Default Judgment.
7/2/14 -- [Appellant] files a second Motion
for Summary Judgment.
7/7/14 -- [Appellant] notified by the
is
Lebanon County Prothonotary's Office that
he must submit an affirmative request that
his motions be submitted to the Court for
disposition.
7/24/14 -- [Appellant] was notified by the
Prothonotary's Office that his request for a
Writ of Execution was being denied as
premature because no judgment had yet
been issued.
7/31/14 -- This Court enters an Order. The
Order noted that [appellant] did not append
a Notice to Plead to his Complaint or
provide proof that the Complaint had been
served upon [appellee]. Because due
process was not afforded to [appellee], the
Court denied [appellant's] Motion for
I S91004/16
Summary Judgment and Motion for Default
Judgment.
8/8/14 -- [Appellant] files a Notice to Plead
that is unaccompanied by any pleading.
10/17/14 -- [Appellant's] request for
in forma pa uperis status is denied
because he failed to provide pertinent
financial information.
10/28/14 -- [Appellant's] request for I.F.P.
status is granted based upon the financial
information that he did present following
our 10/17/14 Court Order.
11/17/14 -- [Appellant] refiles his
Complaint with an accompanying Notice to
Plead.
12/11/14 -- [Appellant's] Complaint was
served upon [appellee].
12/15/14 -- [Appellee] files an Answer with
New Matter and Counterclaim.
12/26/14 -- [Appellant] filed a Reply to
[appellee's] New Matter and Counterclaim.
1/2/15 -- The Court schedules a status
conference.
2/26/15 -- The Court presides over a status
conference. Both parties participated in the
status conference via telephone. As a result
of the status conference, we certified the
above -referenced matter as ready for a trial
"no earlier than 6/10/15." We also
established a process by which [appellant]
could participate at trial via teleconference.
Early 2016 -- The Lebanon County Court
Administrator attempts to make
arrangements with the State Correctional
Institution at Dallas for a trial to occur.
- 4
I S91004/16
After numerous efforts, the Superintendent
of S.C.I. Dallas decided that his institution
would not permit its video conference
center and telephone conference center to
be used for more than 15 minutes for a civil
proceeding.
6/7/16 -- This Court entered an Order
staying the above -referenced case until
after [appellant] is released from prison.
We entered the Order based upon our
inability to arrange a video or telephonic
conference with S.C.I. Dallas. We stated:
"The Court directs that the above -
referenced matter be stayed until the
[appellant] is released from incarceration.
Once the [appellant] is released from
incarceration, leave is granted for him to file
a motion to establish a bench trial."
6/24/16 -- [Appellant] files a "Petition for
Order of Compliance of Law Concerning
Escrow Funds." Because we could not
conduct a factual hearing due to
[appellant's] incarceration, we denied
[appellant's] Petition.
7/11/16 - [Appellant] files an Appeal from
our Order dated June 24, 2016.
In his Statement of Errors Complained of on
Appeal, [appellant] alleges that our decision to stay
the above -referenced case was error. He also
challenges a decision we made to refuse his request
to require [appellee] to pay into escrow the sum of
$1,600.00.
Trial court opinion, 8/16/16 at 2-5.
On appeal to this court, appellant raises the following issues for this
court's review:
- 5
I S91004/16
Does the stay order violate [appellant's]
constitutionally protected right to access to courts?
Is the lower Court's refusal to enforce [68] P.S.
[§] 250-511(b)(c) an abuse of discretion and
violation of plaintiff's due process rights?
Appellant's brief at 2-3.
Before addressing the merits of appellant's argument, this court must
determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Despite the fact that neither side questions the
jurisdiction of this Court to dispose of the present
controversy, we are not precluded from reaching the
appealability of the lower court's order sua sponte,
Turner v. May Corp., 427 A.2d 203 (Pa.Super.
1981), for it is axiomatic that neither silence nor
agreement of the parties can confer jurisdiction
where it otherwise would not be. T.C.R. Realty,
Inc. v. Cox, 372 A.2d 721 (Pa. 1977).
The appellate court's jurisdiction is defined by
statute, i.e., 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742, which grants this
Court "exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all appeals
from final orders of the courts of common pleas
If
In deciding if the order appealed is final or not, we
are guided by the decision of Phi/co Corp. v.
Sunstein, 429 Pa. 606, 241 A.2d 108 (1968),
wherein the court held:
"Whether or not a stay order should be
considered final for appeal purposes
depends to a large extent upon the
practical effect and impact the stay order
might have on the relief requested by
the litigants. If the effect of the stay
order is tantamount to a dismissal of the
cause of action or amounts to a
permanent denial of relief requested, the
party aggrieved should undoubtedly be
-6
I S91004/16
afforded the opportunity to appeal on the
basis that such stay order is a final
disposition of some, if not all, of the
rights involved.
Therefore, a consideration of the
practical effects of the stay order on
appellant's cause of action is an essential
prerequisite in determining whether the
order appealed from is interlocutory."
(Footnote omitted). Id. at 608-610, 241
A.2d at 109-110.
Opperman v. Opperman, 443 A.2d 313, 315 (Pa.Super. 1982).
Here, the trial court stayed the proceedings because the state
correctional institution where appellant was housed did not permit him to
appear in court, even by electronic means. While the stay postpones
resolution of the action between appellant and appellee for an indeterminate
time as it is not known whether appellant will be paroled before the
expiration of his sentence, the stay does not amount to a dismissal of
appellant's cause of action or, essentially, a permanent denial of the relief
requested. The stay order here is interlocutory and not a final appealable
order.
Accordingly, the appeal is quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn,
Prothonotary
Date: 4/6/2017
-7