McKee, C. v. McKee, C. ( 2020 )

J-S49018-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
C.S. MCKEE, L.P., MARK R. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
GENSHEIMER, BRYAN R. JOHANSON, : PENNSYLVANIA
EUGENE M. NATALI, JR., MICHAEL P. :
DONNELY, BOYD M. HANSON, BRIAN :
S. ALLEN, JACK P. WHITE, ROBERT :
M. ROSSI, KENNETH GOTWALD, :
MICHAEL J. DONNELLY, NANCY :
BANKER, SHANE NICKOLICH, :
JEFFREY R. DAVIDEK, LEONARD J. : No. 24 WDA 2020
BOSS, KELLY L. LESKO, ZACHARY K. :
HUBERT, MARY JO MANNING, :
THERESA L. COSTANZO, LORI A. :
BOLLMAN, AND ANDREW M. :
FADEREWSKI, INDIVIDUAL AND :
PARTNERS OF, AND ON BEHALF OF, :
C.S. MCKEE, L.P. :
:
:
v. :
:
:
C.S. MCKEE, LLC AND GREGORY M. :
MELVIN :
:
:
v. :
:
:
EUGENE M. NATALI, SR. :
:
:
APPEAL OF: GREGORY M. MELVIN :
Appeal from the Order Entered January 2, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at
No(s): GD 16-017494
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S49018-20
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2020
Pro se Appellant, Gregory M. Melvin, purports to appeal from an Order
entered on January 2, 2020, which denied his Emergency Motion for an
Injunction. Following our review of Appellant’s Brief, we conclude that
Appellant has failed to conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules
of Appellate Procedure, which significantly impedes our review. Because we
are unable to conduct meaningful appellate review, we dismiss this Appeal.
The underlying action, which commenced on September 16, 2016, is a
dispute in the business operations of C.S. McKee.1 On July 9, 2018, the trial
court appointed a Custodian to oversee operations and to consider offers from
third parties interested in the purchase or acquisition C.S. McKee.
The Custodian secured a deal with Estancia Capital Management
(“Estancia”). On October 29, 2019, the trial court approved an Asset Purchase
Agreement (“APA”) with Estancia. C.S. McKee and Estancia executed the APA
on November 15, 2019.
In December 2019, on several occasions, Appellant demanded to inspect
the records of C.S. McKee. In response, the Custodian offered to provide
“required information,” as defined by the Pennsylvania Uniform Limited
Partnership Act, 15 Pa.C.S. § 8618, subject to certain conditions related to
the scope and timing.
____________________________________________
1 At the outset of the litigation, Appellant was the chief investment officer and
a limited partner of C.S. McKee. The limited partnership was managed and
controlled exclusively by its sole general partner, C.S. McKee, LLC. Appellant
is one of two equal members of the general partner.
-2-
J-S49018-20
Dissatisfied with this response, on January 2, 2020, Appellant filed an
Emergency Motion for an Injunction requesting that the trial court direct the
Custodian to permit Appellant “to inspect and copy C.S. McKee records in
preparation for filing Dissenter Rights to determine a fair market value of his
units, to prepare for current Arbitration proceedings, and [because] . . . [the]
Custodian and General Partner Eugene Natali and Limited Partners are
attempting to hinder [Appellant] from filing a Whistleblower Complaint with
the Securities and Exchange Commission].” Emergency Motion for an
Injunction, 1/2/20, at 1. On the same day, the trial court held a hearing and
denied Appellant’s Motion.
Appellant timely and pro se appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. In this Court, however, Appellant has not filed
a proper brief.
Appellate briefs must conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may dismiss an appeal if the
defects in a brief are substantial. Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (mandating compliance with
our appellate rules). See, e.g., Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski,
904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006) (dismissing pro se appeal because
briefing errors precluded meaningful appellate review)
The errors and omissions in Appellant’s Brief are substantial. Appellant
does not include a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of the scope and
standard of review, the order or other determination in question, a statement
-3-
J-S49018-20
of the questions involved, or a statement of the case.2 See Pa.R.A.P. 2111,
2114-2119. In particular, we note that Rule 2116 provides that “[no] question
will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or
is fairly suggested thereby.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). Appellant’s failure to include
any question for our consideration renders meaningful review nearly
impossible.
Perhaps most egregious, however, is that Appellant does not present
anything that approaches a cogent legal argument with pertinent discussion,
references to the record, or analysis of any controlling authority. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119. See, e.g., Egan v. USI Mid-Atlantic, Inc., 92 A.3d 1, 17
(Pa. Super. 2014) (finding waiver where Appellant failed to establish that the
trial court erred and “provide[d] no discussion as to why the attorney-client
privilege applied”); Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 30 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(finding waiver because “[a]ppellant’s brief fails to raise or even touch upon
any issue involving [several of] his counts” including his request for an
____________________________________________
2 Appellant includes a summary of his argument, which asserts a “violation of
every known precedent” without actually citing a precedent. Appellant’s Br.
at 4. Appellant also correctly states that Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure
1531 “sets forth the procedural steps [necessary] to obtain a preliminary
injunction” but fails to identify what those steps are. See id. Immediately
thereafter, Appellant includes a subsection entitled “Background.” Appellant’s
Br. at 5. However, Appellant does not include a coherent procedural history
or clear, chronological statement of facts relevant to his Emergency Motion for
an Injunction. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117. Thus, this section of Appellant’s Brief is
not helpful.
-4-
J-S49018-20
injunction). Thus, even if we could infer questions meaningful to the trial
court’s decision, we have no idea of Appellant’s legal position.
Appellant begins his Argument with a general statement that this appeal
is “a simple case of enforcing books and records rights of the majority owner.”
Appellant’s Br. at 9.3 He does not define what those rights are or provide a
legal basis for their recognition; he does not assert how the Custodian
deprived him of those rights, or why he believes that the trial court erred in
declining his Emergency Motion for an Injunction. Beyond his initial general
statement, Appellant presents nothing more than a bald assertion that the
trial court always rules against him and what appear to be a series of emails
exchanged between Appellant, opposing counsel, and the trial court.
Appellant’s Br. at 9-10. This does not constitute a proper legal argument.
“While this [C]ourt is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro
se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage
because he lacks legal training.” Rich v. Acrivos, 815 A.2d 1106, 1108 (Pa.
Super. 2003) (punctuation and citation omitted). Our Supreme Court has
explained that “any layperson choosing to represent 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.” Vann v. Commonwealth
Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 494 A.2d 1081, 1086 (Pa. 1985)
(citation omitted).
____________________________________________
3Appellant does not cite evidence in support of his assertion that he is a
majority owner of C.S. McKee.
-5-
J-S49018-20
We decline to become Appellant’s counsel. Appellant’s abject failure to
adhere to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and to develop issues with citation
to legal authorities prevents this Court from conducting meaningful appellate
review of the trial court’s decision to deny Appellant’s Emergency Motion for
an Injunction. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judge Olson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this
case.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/20/2020
-6-