Cogley v. Duncan
32 A.3d 1288
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant James A. Cogley appeals a dismissal order in libel, slander, and invasion of privacy claims.
- The Butler Eagle published May 24, 2008 and four more articles on May 29, 2008, Feb 11, 14, 2009.
- Appellant, pro se, attempted to file May 26, 2009; prothonotary refused for lack of copies, citing no rule.
- Docket shows June 3, 2009 filing date after the one-year statute of limitations for the May 24, 2008 article.
- Appellees moved to dismiss on pleadings; court granted; issues center on filing date and admissibility of admissions.
- Court reverses on the May 24, 2008 libel claim, affirming dismissal of other articles and claims; remands for further proceedings limited to May 24, 2008 libel claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 24, 2008 libel claim is timely. | Cogley asserts filing occurred May 26, 2009. | Appellees contend admissions bind him to June 3, 2009 filing. | Timely under proper filing date; remand for libel claim. |
| Whether Appellees’ prothonotary error invalidates filing. | Filing should have occurred May 26, 2009 under rules; no local rule required copies. | Filing date should reflect local requirements; may bar timely filing. | Prothonotary error was legal error; filing should be accepted. |
| Whether Appellant's admissions bind him to a June 3, 2009 filing date. | Admissions show filing date. | Admissions are binding facts. | Admissions were not binding facts; filing date determined by legal standards. |
| Whether the continuous-tort doctrine affected the May 24, 2008 claim. | Doctrine should toll the statute for continuing publications. | Doctrine not applicable to this set of facts. | Doctrine not applicable; timely filing analyzed via proper filing date. |
| Whether the other articles' claims were time-barred. | Amended claims relate to later articles. | Statute barred for those dates. | Those claims properly dismissed as time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Cent. Sprinkler Corp., 823 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. 2003) (file is effective when received by prothonotary; time-stamp delay does not bar filing)
- John B. Conomos, Inc. v. Sun Co., 831 A.2d 696 (Pa. Super. 2003) (judicial admissions must be clear admissions of fact, not conclusions of law)
- Kappe Assocs., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 341 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 1975) (distinguishes fact admissions from legal conclusions)
- Piehl v. City of Philadelphia, 604 Pa. 658 (2009) (judgment on the pleadings reviewed de novo; error in dismissal where facts disputed)
- Griffin, 823 A.2d 191, (Pa.Super. 2003) (Pa.Super. 2003) (reiterates filing when documents arrive at prothonotary)