Bartow, M. v. Tri-Star Motors, Inc.
1084 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- Bartow sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution (against a police corporal) and malicious use of process (against Tri‑Star and Sergent); federal court dismissed the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.
- After dismissal in federal court, Bartow filed a state‑court complaint asserting malicious use of process; he attached uncertified copies of the federal complaint and dismissal.
- Appellees pleaded an answer with "new matter" asserting, among other defenses, the statute of limitations; they did not raise § 5103 transfer noncompliance by preliminary objection.
- Appellees later moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting Bartow’s state suit was time‑barred because he failed to effect the transfer required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103(b)(2) (i.e., file certified transcript of final judgment and pleadings).
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, finding Bartow failed to meet § 5103 technical requirements and thus could not preserve his federal filing date; the state filing occurred after the two‑year limitations period.
- Bartow appealed, arguing the failure to invoke § 5103 transfer noncompliance should have been raised by preliminary objection, not by an affirmative defense/motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to comply with § 5103 transfer rules must be raised by preliminary objection rather than as an affirmative defense/motion for judgment on the pleadings | Bartow: Appellees waived § 5103 challenge by not raising it as a preliminary objection; they cannot use a motion for judgment on the pleadings to assert transfer noncompliance | Appellees: The consequence of failing to comply with § 5103 is a time‑barred state filing; statute of limitations is an affirmative defense properly pleaded in new matter and litigable on a motion for judgment on the pleadings | Court: No error — defendants properly raised statute of limitations in new matter; timeliness (effect of § 5103 noncompliance) may be decided as an affirmative defense on judgment on the pleadings; judgment for appellees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Forest Res., LLC, 83 A.3d 177 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings)
- Swift v. Milner, 538 A.2d 28 (Pa. Super. 1988) (motion for judgment on the pleadings affirmed only when moving party’s right is certain)
- Williams v. F.L. Smithe Mach. Co., 577 A.2d 907 (Pa. Super. 1990) (statutory tolling under § 5103 requires prompt compliance with transfer formalities)
- Falcone v. Ins. Co. of State of Pa., 907 A.2d 631 (Pa. Super. 2006) (conformity with § 5103 statutory requirements is key to preservation)
- Ruhe v. Kroger Co., 229 A.2d 750 (Pa. 1967) (affirmative defenses pleaded in a responsive pleading may be the basis for judgment on the pleadings)
- Ferrari v. Antonacci, 689 A.2d 320 (Pa. Super. 1997) (distinguishes procedural § 5103 transfer challenges—properly raised by preliminary objection—from timeliness defenses under new matter)