Opinion
J-A08036-16 No. 1574 EDA 2015
05-09-2016
ALLEN FEINGOLD, Appellant v. SOCRATES VASILIADIS, PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, DAVID FRIEDMAN, AND FORRY ULLMAN, Appellees
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered May 5, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): 03630 October Term, 2013 BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY: STRASSBURGER, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Allen Feingold (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order entered on May 5, 2015, which denied his motion for sanctions against Appellee Progressive Northern Insurance Company (Progressive) and discontinued as a party Appellee Socrates Vasiliadis (Vasiliadis). Appellant challenges the March 18, 2014 orders sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing with prejudice the claims filed against Appellees Progressive, David Friedman (Friedman), and Forry Ullman (Ullman), and the May 5, 2014 order denying his motion to recuse. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant factual and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate it. Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/2015, at 1-6.
Appellant raises the following claims for our review.
1. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to recuse herself from deliberation over this case?Appellant's Brief at 3 (trial court answers omitted).
2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to sustain [Appellant's] preliminary objections to the preliminary objections of [Appellees], and in granting the [Appellees'] objections, where [Appellees'] objections contained improper verifications, scandalous and impertinent matter, and improperly relied upon affirmative defenses?
With respect to Appellant's first claim, he contends that the court should have granted his motion to recuse. However, because Appellant did not raise this issue in his statement of errors complained of on appeal, it is waived. See Korman Commercial Properties , Inc. v. The Furniture.com , LLC , 81 A.3d 97, 102-03 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding that, if an appellant is directed to file a concise statement of matters to be raised on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), any issues not raised in that statement are waived).
We now turn to Appellant's second claim on appeal. The standard of review we apply when considering a trial court's denial of preliminary objections is well settled.
[O]ur standard of review of an order of the trial court overruling or granting preliminary objections is to determine whether the trial court committed an error of law. When considering the appropriateness of a ruling on preliminary objections, the appellate court must apply the same standard as the trial court.
Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. When considering preliminary
objections, all material facts set forth in the challenged pleadings are admitted as true, as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. Preliminary objections which seek the dismissal of a cause of action should be sustained only in cases in which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish the right to relief. If any doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, it should be resolved in favor of overruling the preliminary objections.Richmond v. McHale , 35 A.3d 779, 783 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
Following our review of the certified record, the parties' briefs, and the relevant law, we conclude that the opinion of the Honorable Ellen Ceisler thoroughly and correctly addresses and disposes of Appellant's issues and supporting arguments and evidences no abuse of discretion or errors of law. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court's opinion, filed on July 8, 2015, as our own and hold, based upon the reasons stated therein, that the trial court committed neither an error of law nor an abuse of discretion in overruling Appellant's preliminary objections and sustaining those of Appellees. The parties shall attach a copy of the trial court's July 8, 2015 opinion to this memorandum in the event of future proceedings.
Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/9/2016
Image materials not available for display.