In the non-precedential decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Tabb v. Thomas, No. 72 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. March 2, 2023 Panella, P.J., Stabile, J. and King, J.) (Mem. Op. by Panella, P.J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the ability of a Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint after the time allowable for the same has expired.
In this case, which arose out of a slip and fall matter, the Plaintiff started the lawsuit with a Writ of Summons and then filed a Complaint. The Defendant responded with Preliminary Objections. When the Plaintiff did not reply to the Preliminary Objections, the court sustained the same and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Thereafter, without leave of court, or agreement or consent of the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint raising essentially the same claims. The Defendant again filed Preliminary Objections raising the same issues as raised before and adding an argument that Amended Complaint was untimely filed and that the Plaintiff had failed to seek the leave of court or the Defendant’s agreement prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint.
In response, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, again without the permission of the trial court or the agreement of the Defendant. The Defendant responded with Preliminary Objections again.
Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, again without the permission of the trial court or the agreement of the Defendant. The Defendant raised the same arguments in his Preliminary Objections, again asserting that the Plaintiff had failed to seek leave of court or the Defendant’s agreement to file the additional Amended Complaint.
Thereafter, without leave of court, or agreement or consent of the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint raising essentially the same claims. The Defendant again filed Preliminary Objections raising the same issues as raised before and adding an argument that Amended Complaint was untimely filed and that the Plaintiff had failed to seek the leave of court or the Defendant’s agreement prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint.
In response, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, again without the permission of the trial court or the agreement of the Defendant. The Defendant responded with Preliminary Objections again.
Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, again without the permission of the trial court or the agreement of the Defendant. The Defendant raised the same arguments in his Preliminary Objections, again asserting that the Plaintiff had failed to seek leave of court or the Defendant’s agreement to file the additional Amended Complaint.
The trial court sustained the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in this regard, finding that the Plaintiff had failed to seek leave of court or the agreement of the Defendant to file the Amended Complaint. The court also held that the Amended Complaints were void and should be stricken. As such, the case was dismissed by the trial court with prejudice. The Plaintiff then filed this appeal.
On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the case by the trial court.
The Superior Court rejected arguments by the Plaintiff that what was before the court were mere technical errors that the Plaintiff should not be punished for due to his counsel’s failure to strictly adhere to the court rules.
On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the case by the trial court.
The Superior Court rejected arguments by the Plaintiff that what was before the court were mere technical errors that the Plaintiff should not be punished for due to his counsel’s failure to strictly adhere to the court rules.
The Superior Court also rejected an argument by the Plaintiff that amendments to allegations in a Complaint must be liberally allowed to secure a speedy determination of the action.
The Superior Court additionally rejected the Plaintiff’s arguments that the Amended Complaint should be allowed as the Defendant did not suffer any prejudice given that the Defendant was aware of the claims presented.
The trial court additionally rejected the Plaintiff’s separate argument that, even though the trial court struck the various Amended Complaints, the original Writ of Summons remained valid such that the Plaintiffs should be allowed to further litigate the Writ.
In so ruling, the Pennsylvania Superior Court confirmed that a Plaintiff has an automatic right to amend the Complaint within twenty (20) days of the filing of a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections as per Pa. R.C.P. 1028(c)(1).
The Superior Court also noted that, if the Amended Complaint is not filed within twenty (20) days, the Plaintiff must obtain either the Defendant’s consent or leave of court to file an Amended Complaint under the mandate of Pa. R.C.P. 1033(a).
In this matter, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that, given that the Plaintiff did not ever request leave of court to file an Amended Complaint nor the consent of the Defendant to do the same, the Plaintiffs later filed Amended Complaint was a legal nullity.
The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the trial court had and an obligation to sua sponte allow an amendment of the Complaint.
Given the Plaintiff’s failures, the Superior Court in Tabb agreed with the trial court's ruling and upheld the finding that that the Plaintiff had waived his claims under the circumstances presented.
Given that the Plaintiff is found to have waived his claims, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case with prejudice.
The trial court additionally rejected the Plaintiff’s separate argument that, even though the trial court struck the various Amended Complaints, the original Writ of Summons remained valid such that the Plaintiffs should be allowed to further litigate the Writ.
In so ruling, the Pennsylvania Superior Court confirmed that a Plaintiff has an automatic right to amend the Complaint within twenty (20) days of the filing of a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections as per Pa. R.C.P. 1028(c)(1).
The Superior Court also noted that, if the Amended Complaint is not filed within twenty (20) days, the Plaintiff must obtain either the Defendant’s consent or leave of court to file an Amended Complaint under the mandate of Pa. R.C.P. 1033(a).
In this matter, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that, given that the Plaintiff did not ever request leave of court to file an Amended Complaint nor the consent of the Defendant to do the same, the Plaintiffs later filed Amended Complaint was a legal nullity.
The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the trial court had and an obligation to sua sponte allow an amendment of the Complaint.
Given the Plaintiff’s failures, the Superior Court in Tabb agreed with the trial court's ruling and upheld the finding that that the Plaintiff had waived his claims under the circumstances presented.
Given that the Plaintiff is found to have waived his claims, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case with prejudice.
Although the Tabb decision was listed as non-precedential, the Superior Court cited to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and precedential appellate court decisions on point to support its decision in this matter.
Anyone wishing to review this non-precedential decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Tabb v. Thomas may click this LINK.
Source: “Pennsylvania Civil Law Case Alerts Issued by Fastcase.com.” (March 4, 2023).
Anyone wishing to review this non-precedential decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Tabb v. Thomas may click this LINK.
Source: “Pennsylvania Civil Law Case Alerts Issued by Fastcase.com.” (March 4, 2023).
Source of image: Photo by Jon fabrikasimf on www.freepik.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.