This matter arose out of claims related to alleged personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff during her prior tenancy in a property allegedly under the control of one or more of the Defendants that were sued.
After the Plaintiff did not move the action forward, one of the Defendants secured an entry of judgment non pros by default.
According to the Opinion, the trial court held that its Order should be affirmed where the Plaintiff’s petition was untimely, lacked the required signature of the Plaintiff as the petitioning party, failed to state a meritorious claim, and resulted in unnecessary and prejudicial delay to the Defendants.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
According to the Opinion, the trial court held that its Order should be affirmed where the Plaintiff’s petition was untimely, lacked the required signature of the Plaintiff as the petitioning party, failed to state a meritorious claim, and resulted in unnecessary and prejudicial delay to the Defendants.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: "The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert," www.law.com (June 11, 2025).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.