Superior Rejects Prothonotary's Rejection of a Writ of Summons That Had an Electric Signature

In the case of Scheibe v. Woodloch Resort, No. 1478 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. May 20, 2025 Stabile, J., McLaughlin, J., and Lane, J.) (Op. by Lane, J.), the appellate court vacated a Pike County trial court’s Order granting a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in favor of the Defendant.  In the lower court proceedings, the trial court had dismissed the action with prejudice based upon the filing of a Praecipe for the Writ of Summons beyond the statute of limitations.

In this case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that the Complaint was timely filed where the Prothonotary’s office acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on the last day of the limitations period.  The appellate court also noted that the Prothonotary lacked the authority to refuse to docket that Complaint based upon a non-compliance with local rules of court where the Complaint otherwise met the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

This case involved allegations that the Plaintiff was injured while attempting to use an inflatable water slide erected for guests use at the Woodloch Resort.

Six (6) days before the expiration of the applicable two year statute of limitations, the Plaintiff’s attorney mailed an electronically signed copy of a Praecipe For Writ of Summons through one day delivery by the Postal Service to the Prothonotary’s office. The USPS tracking information indicated the Praecipe was delivered the following day. However, the Prothonotary’s office did not docket the Praecipe for the rest of the week.

Rather, a clerk from the Prothonotary’s office contacted the Plaintiff’s counsel on the last date of the limitations period to advise that the Praecipe would not be docketed because it had an electronic signature in violation of the local rules that required original signatures.

Plaintiff’s counsel then prepared a hand-signed Praecipe that was delivered overnight and docketed the day after the statute of limitations had expired.

The Defendants’ moved for judgment on the pleadings under an allegations that the suit was not filed within the statute of limitations. 

The trial court granted the motion based upon a strict application of the statute of limitations. The trial court noted that it did not hold any oversight over the policies and procedures of the Prothonotary’s office.  The trial court found that the properly filed Praecipe was not docketed until after the statute of limitations had expired.

The Superior Court reversed.  The appellate court first confirmed that there was no requirement in the Rules of Civil Procedure for a Praecipe to be hand-signed by a party or their attorney, as the rules contemplated that a “signature” could include a computer-generated signature.

The Superior Court additionally held that, under the rules, documents mailed to the Prothonotary’s office were deemed to be filed when received by that office as a litigant would have no control over when that office would stamp and process the filing.

The Superior Court additionally confirmed that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure expressly prohibited the rejection of a filing that complied with those Rules of Civil Procedure where that filing did not meet the requirements of a local rule.

The Superior Court also found that the Prothonotary has no discretion to reject documents due to defects, as such authority lays with the trial court.

Accordingly, the Superior Court agreed that the Complaint was timely filed. The rationale of the Superior Court was that the Prothonotary had acknowledged that it had received the filing prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.  The Court reierated that the Prothonotary had no discretion to refuse to docket the Praecipe as it complied with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert” on www.Law.com (June 3, 2025).

How To Correct The Wrong Name of a Party As Listed in a Writ of Summons

 In the case of Surefire Dividend Capture, L.P. v. The PNC Fin. Serv. Group, Inc., No. 1222 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. March 10, 2025 Olson, J., Murray, J., and Bender, P.J.E.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Superior Court vacated a trial court’s Order permitting an amendment to a Writ of Summons to change the name of the Defendant. The court concluded that, Pa. R.C.P. 1033, by its expressed terms, applied only to pleadings and a Writ of Summons was not a pleading under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1017.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs began a lawsuit against certain Defendants. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1033 to amend their Writ of Summons to correct the name of one of the Defendants.

Rule 1033(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] party, either by filed consent of the adverse party or by leave of court, may at any time change the form of action, add a person as a party, correct the name of the party, or otherwise amend the pleading.”

In this case, the court emphasized that the Plaintiffs had not yet filed a Complaint.

The Defendants opposed the motion claiming that the rule did not allow a party to amend a Writ of Summons and thereby add an entirely new party as a Defendant.

The Superior Court ruled the pertinent Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that a Writ of Summons is not a pleading.

The court also noted that Rule 1033 was amended in 2014 such that it no longer allowed, and could no longer be construed to permit, the correction of the name of a party in a Writ of Summons.

The Superior Court noted that the Plaintiff’s objective could be accomplished under Pa. R.C.P. 229 by discontinuing the current action and beginning a new lawsuit. The court also noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1033, the Plaintiff could amend the caption of a later pleading by agreement of the party or by leave of court. It was also noted that the Plaintiff could, under Pa. R.C.P. 2232, seek leaving of court for an Order to join a Defendant.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (March 25, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Poppy Thomas Hill on www.pexels.com.

Issues Pertaining to Propriety of Praecipe for Issuance of Writ Of Summons Addressed In Lackawanna County

In his recent decision in the case of Gesford v. Gerrity's Market, No. 2016 - Civil - 2204 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 2, 2017 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon addressed the rare issue of the propriety of a Praecipe for the Issuance of a Writ of Summons.

In this case, the Praecipe for the Issuance of a Writ of Summons was filed on the final day before the statute of limitations was set to expire.  At issue was the fact that the Praecipe was signed and filed by a daughter of an incapacitated Plaintiff.  According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff had not yet obtained any Plaintiff's counsel.

The case then proceeded through pleadings and discovery before the defense advanced the issue of the propriety of the Praecipe by way of a summary judgment motion.  The defense asserted that the statute of limitations had not been tolled by the allegedly improper Praecipe.

Relying in part on Pa.R.C.P. 126, which allows for a liberal construction of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Nealon noted that although the Rules contemplate the Praecipe being signed by a plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel, the Plaintiff here made a good faith effort to commence her action and provided prompt service of the suit upon the Defendants.  The court also noted that there was no prejudice shown by the defense as a result of the "technical misstep" by the Plaintiff.

As such, the defense motion for summary judgment was denied.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.