Burton, F. v. Innovative DTV Solutions Inc.
Burton, F. v. Innovative DTV Solutions Inc. No. 1462 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 24, 2017Background
- In Oct. 2012, appellant Frankie G. Burton (an inmate) bought a TV from Innovative DTV Solutions subject to a one‑year limited warranty that required return of the unit to obtain warranty remedies.
- In June 2013 the TV malfunctioned; Burton missed a prison "callout" to return the TV and later grievances were denied for failure to report.
- Burton sued in magisterial court and obtained a default judgment against Innovative; Innovative appealed to the Court of Common Pleas and Burton filed a complaint alleging breach of warranty.
- The trial court set a deadline of Dec. 1, 2015 for summary judgment motions; Innovative filed a summary judgment motion after that date relying on facts in Burton’s own submissions (showing he missed the callout).
- The court considered the late motion, granted Innovative’s summary judgment motion, and dismissed Burton’s complaint with prejudice; Burton appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Innovative’s late summary judgment motion | Burton argued the court abused discretion by allowing an untimely motion and that he was prejudiced | Innovative justified late filing based on facts revealed in Burton’s own submissions; court has discretion to accept late motions absent unreasonable delay or prejudice | Court affirmed: trial court properly considered the late motion and Burton was not prejudiced |
| Grant of summary judgment on warranty claim | Burton contended genuine issues of material fact existed and court misapplied law | Innovative argued Burton failed to comply with the warranty’s return requirement, defeating warranty remedies | Court held no genuine issue: Burton admitted he failed to return the TV within warranty period so Innovative had no obligation; summary judgment proper |
| Other consumer/statutory claims (Magnuson‑Moss, UCC, UTPCPL) | Burton argued violations of Magnuson‑Moss, UCC warranty, and UTPCPL | Innovative noted these claims were not pleaded in the complaint | Court held these claims waived for failure to plead them in the trial court |
| Default judgment from magisterial court | Burton argued the magisterial default should stand because Innovative didn’t adequately explain its failure to respond | Innovative successfully appealed the magisterial default to the trial court | Court found Burton’s argument waived for inadequate briefing and citation of authority |
| Claims against DOC/BCI / joinder of agencies | Burton argued DOC and BCI should have been joined and liable | Appellee and court noted lack of pleaded claims and jurisdictional limitations | Court held appellate court lacks jurisdiction over those agencies and Burton failed to properly develop the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Swords v. Harleysville Ins. Companies, 883 A.2d 562 (Pa. 2005) (summary judgment standards)
- Grossman v. Barke, 868 A.2d 561 (Pa. Super. 2005) (pleading must apprise defendant of claim; unpled causes waived)
- Samuel‑Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 34 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2011) (elements of breach of warranty claim)
- DiGregorio v. Keystone Health Plan East, 840 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. 2003) (impropriety of last‑minute summary judgment filings)
- Truax v. Roulhac, 126 A.3d 991 (Pa. Super. 2015) (review standard for summary judgment)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate briefing requirements)