Yan, W. v. Colon, A. ( 2022 )

J-A07009-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
WEI YAN AND HAIDI ZHANG : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ALEXANDER COLON AND JULIA :
COLON :
: No. 30 EDA 2020
:
APPEAL OF: WEI YAN :
Appeal from the Order Entered November 13, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at
No(s): No. 2013-03465
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Appellant, Wei Yan, appeals pro se from the November 13, 2019 Order
entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion
to reinstate the complaint in this negligence action. Because defects in
Appellant’s pro se brief impede our ability to provide meaningful review, we
dismiss this appeal.
The facts and procedural history are largely immaterial to our
disposition. Briefly, on April 26, 2013, Appellant and his wife, Ms. Zhang, who
is not a party to this appeal, filed a complaint against Appellees, Alexander
and Julia Colon, following a motor vehicle accident. Although initially
represented by counsel, Appellant and Ms. Zhang later elected to proceed pro
se. Litigation was then delayed due to Appellant’s hospitalization in Beijing,
China.
J-A07009-22
While Appellant was hospitalized in China, the matter proceeded in the
trial court only as to Ms. Zhang; the court ruled that she was not able to
represent Appellant as she is not an attorney.1 On January 28, 2019, the
court entered an order dismissing Appellant’s claims without prejudice and
permitting him to petition the court to reinstate his claims.
On February 15, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion to Reinstate the
Complaint.2 On November 13, 2019, the court denied Appellant’s motion.
This appeal followed.
“The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each
question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of
pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa.
Super. 2020) (citation and bracketed language omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111
(listing briefing requirements for appellate briefs) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing
argument requirements for appellate briefs). “When issues are not properly
raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to
present specific issues for review, a Court will not consider the merits thereof.”
Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super.
2006) (citation omitted).
____________________________________________
1 Ms. Zhang proceeded to trial pro se, following which the court entered a
verdict in favor of Appellees.
2 This motion was filed in person with the Montgomery County prothonotary.
Because Appellant was still in China at the time this motion was filed, the trial
court presumed Ms. Zhang filed it on Appellant’s behalf “in her continued
attempt to represent her husband.” Trial Ct. Op., 7/15/21, at 2.
-2-
J-A07009-22
Although this Court liberally construes materials filed by pro se litigants,
this does not entitle a pro se litigant to any advantage based on his lack of
legal training. Satiro v. Maninno, 237 A.3d 1145, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2020).
An appellant’s pro se status does not relieve him of the obligation to follow
the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206,
213 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2008). Ultimately, any person who represents himself
“in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that
his lack of expertise and legal training will prove his undoing.” Satiro, 237
A.3d at 1151 (citations omitted). “This Court will not act as counsel and will
not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Kane,
10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted). It is not the role of
this Court to develop an appellant’s argument where the brief provides mere
cursory legal discussion. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 925
(Pa. 2009).
Appellant purports to raise five separate issues on appeal. See
Appellant’s Brief at 4-5. However, the argument section of his brief is divided
into ten enumerated subsections and is devoid of any citation to relevant legal
authority applied and analyzed under the facts of this case, in violation of
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). See Appellant’s Brief at 40-66. Moreover, Appellant’s
brief does not include an accurate statement of the scope and standard of
review as required by Rules 2111. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3).
Appellant’s failure to provide any legal framework or authority to
develop and support the issues he raises on appeal not only violates our
-3-
J-A07009-22
briefing requirements, but more importantly, precludes this Court from
effectuating meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Case is stricken from argument list.3
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/14/2022
____________________________________________
3 In light of our disposition, we deny as moot Appellant’s request for an
interpreter at oral argument.
-4-