Bloome, M. v. Alan, M. and Hillside Gardens, LTD
154 A.3d 1271
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Margie Bloome, as administrator of Daron Trollinger's estate, filed pro se wrongful-death claims after Trollinger was shot and killed outside the Eagle Ridge Apartments in Edwardsville, alleging landlord negligence and security failures.
- Initial writ of summons (against Alan/Morris Alan and Hillside Gardens, LTD.) was filed but not properly served; later complaints named Silver Street Development Corp. and various Edwardsville/Hilltop entities as defendants.
- Appellant alleged failures to deter criminal activity, lack of cameras/lighting/fencing/locks, and failure to bar the shooter (George Lee Barnes); she also asserted post-death identity-fraud claims relating to a replacement bank card request.
- Defendants (including Silver Street Development, Hilltop-Edwardsville, LP, Edwardsville Apartments, LP) filed preliminary objections raising jurisdictional, pleading-specificity, indispensible-party, capacity, and duplicative-action grounds; trial court granted objections in part and dismissed the amended complaint on December 15, 2015.
- The certified record showed some parties (Edwardsville Apartments Management, LLC; Eagle Ridge Apartments, Inc.) were not served and did not file objections or get dismissed; other initially named parties lacked service or were not included in the amended complaint.
- The Superior Court sua sponte consolidated four appeals and held the trial court's December 15, 2015 order was not final because it did not dispose of all parties/claims; the appeals were quashed for lack of appellate jurisdiction and the trial court was directed to resolve the status of outstanding parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 15, 2015 order is a final, appealable order | Bloome contends the order dismissed all claims/parties and is final | Defendants argue some parties/claims remain pending and order is nonfinal | Court: Order is not final; appeals quashed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether service and joinder defects deprive trial court of jurisdiction over certain defendants | Bloome did not dispute service failures; seeks to proceed pro se against all captioned parties | Defendants note improper or absent service and that some parties were never included in amended complaint | Court: Lack of service means no personal jurisdiction over some originally named parties; trial court must determine status of ambiguously added parties |
| Sufficiency and specificity of the amended complaint (demurrer/preliminary objections) | Bloome alleges negligence and various security failures caused the death and seeks large damages | Defendants contended complaint lacked verification, specificity, failed to join indispensable parties, and stated no cause of action | Trial court sustained preliminary objections in part and dismissed the amended complaint on those bases (Superior Court did not reach merits because of finality/jurisdiction issue) |
| Whether pendency of prior actions barred the amended complaint | Bloome did not concede prior-action bar | Defendants moved to strike as duplicative | Trial court denied striking on pendency ground, but this did not render the December 15 order final |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appealability implicates appellate court jurisdiction and may be considered sua sponte)
- Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, Ltd., 915 A.2d 668 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate courts may inquire at any time whether an order is appealable)
- In re Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d 374 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explaining Rule 341 final-order principles and when partial adjudications are appealable)
- Cahill v. Schults, 643 A.2d 121 (Pa. Super. 1994) (effect of failed service on personal jurisdiction)
- Brooks v. B & R Touring Co., 939 A.2d 398 (Pa. Super. 2007) (claims not asserted in a complaint are not pending against a defendant)