Mens, LLC v. Glover, V. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • J-A17016-19
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    MENS, LLC                                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    VIRGINIA GLOVER,                           :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 3265 EDA 2018
    Appeal from the Order Entered November 5, 2018
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
    No(s): No. 180800230
    BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.:                              FILED JUNE 27, 2019
    Appellant, Virginia Glover, appeals pro se from the order entered on
    November 5, 2018 awarding Mens, LLC back-rent, attorney’s fees and
    possession in a landlord-tenant dispute. We dismiss the appeal.
    This case proceeded to trial before the Court of Common Pleas of
    Philadelphia County on November 5, 2018. The trial court ruled in Mens, LLC’s
    favor, awarding it six months of back-rent, attorney’s fees, and possession of
    the subject property. Appellant’s timely pro se appeal followed.
    On appeal, Appellant contends that she received inadequate legal
    representation in this matter. However, Appellant fails to raise a justiciable
    issue for our review,1 does not set forth any legal authority, case law, or
    ____________________________________________
    1 Even if Appellant’s counsel provided her with inadequate representation,
    Appellant failed to assert any claims that the trial court erred in entering
    judgment in favor of Mens LLC.
    J-A17016-19
    cogent argument in support of her position, and fails to adhere to the briefing
    requirements set forth in our Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
    generally Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119. Because the defects in Appellant’s pro se
    appellate brief preclude meaningful review, we quash the appeal.             See
    Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material
    respects with the requirements of [our] rules as nearly as the circumstances
    of the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if
    the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are
    substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.”); see
    also Commonwealth v. Postie, 
    110 A.3d 1034
    , 1041 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2015)
    (“Although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se
    litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant.
    Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth
    in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.”).
    Appeal dismissed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 6/27/19
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 3265 EDA 2018

Filed Date: 6/27/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/27/2019