Ebbert, S. v. Mest, B. ( 2016 )

J. A21017/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
SUZANNE M. EBBERT, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
BARBARA K. MEST, DAVID O. KNECHT, :
JANET R. HUBER AND COLDWELL :
BANKER HEARTHSIDE REALTORS : No. 3384 EDA 2015
AND LINDA EMERSON :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered October 5, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Civil Division at No(s): 2012 CV 4999
BEFORE: Bender, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 19, 2016
Appellant, Suzanne Ebbert, appeals pro se from the entry of judgment
in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas on October 5, 2015, following
confirmation of the arbitration award in favor of Appellees Coldwell Banker
Hearthside Realtors and Linda Emerson. Because of substantial defects in
Appellant’s Brief, we dismiss this appeal.
The facts are not relevant to our determination. Instantly, we
recognize:
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant
fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
J. A21017/16
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005)
(internal citations omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119 (discussing
required content of appellate briefs and addressing specific requirements of
each subsection of brief on appeal).
We also note that, “[a]lthough 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.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-
252 (Pa. Super. 2003). Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the
procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. Id.Our review of Appellant’s Brief exposes substantial violations of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure: it does not contain a statement of jurisdiction,
a statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of questions
involved, a statement of the case, or a summary of Appellant’s argument.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1); (3); (4); (6); 2114; 2116; 2117; and 2118.
Although Appellant’s Brief contains a section labeled “Argument,” it is not
divided “into as many parts as there are questions to be argued,” and
contains only one heading, which Appellant labeled “Timelines.” See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). The argument section of Appellant’s Brief is completely
devoid of, among other things, any citation to supporting authority or
reference to the record. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b); (c). “The Rules of
Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant
raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.
-2-
J. A21017/16
Failure to do so constitutes waiver of the claim.” Giant Food Stores, LLC
v. THF Silver Spring Dev., L.P., 959 A.2d 438, 444 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(citations omitted); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) and (b).
In the instant matter, Appellant has failed to comply in substantial
respects with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because of the considerable
defects, we are unable to perform effective appellate review. See Adams,
supra; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed. Case is stricken from the argument list.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/19/2016
-3-
J. A21017/16
-4-