Feingold v. Hendrzak
15 A.3d 937
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant Allen Feingold, a former Pennsylvania attorney, appealed a May 13, 2010 order sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing his complaint with prejudice.
- Feingold previously represented Leigh Davis, Jerry Davis, and Davis, Inc. in a Davis action for injuries from a three-vehicle collision; he was suspended from practice at the time trial was set, and did not notify his clients, causing their non-suit and later malpractice action against him.
- Davises hired Richard Abraham, Esq. to sue Feingold for malpractice, while Feingold filed a pro se complaint on December 10, 2009 against all parties in the Davis action and related counsel, insurers, experts, and entities.
- Appellees filed preliminary objections arguing lack of standing and failure to state a claim; the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on May 13, 2010.
- Feingold filed a June 10, 2010 notice of appeal; the court later ordered a Rule 1925(b) concise statement within 21 days, but Feingold filed it 24 days later, rendering the issues waived.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court, held the complaint legally insufficient and frivolous, and sua sponte awarded attorney’s fees to all Appellees, remanding for fee calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Feingold has standing to sue for attorney’s fees. | Feingold asserts entitlement to fees arising from his prior representation of the Davises. | Appellees contend Feingold lacks a direct, substantial, and immediate interest in the outcome to support standing. | Feingold lacks standing; not directly aggrieved and any fees are speculative. |
| Whether the complaint was legally insufficient under Rule 1028(a)(3) and failed to plead facts. | Feingold contends the complaint states claims for civil conspiracy, defamation, fraud, abuse of process, and IIED. | Appellees argue the complaint contains only conclusory allegations without material facts to support any claim. | The complaint is legally insufficient for lack of specific factual allegations to sustain any claim. |
| Whether the untimely Rule 1925(b) concise statement waived all issues on appeal. | Feingold claims the waiver rule should not apply or was not properly invoked. | The trial court’s order required timely filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement and Feingold filed late. | Waiver applies; untimely filing waives all issues. |
| Whether the appeal was frivolous and merits sanctions. | Feingold contends the action was not frivolous and sought legitimate relief. | The court found repeated, baseless filings and vexatious conduct; sanctions appropriate. | The appeal is frivolous; the court sua sponte awards all Appellees reasonable counsel fees and remands for fee calculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haun v. Community Health Systems, Inc., 14 A.3d 120 (Pa.Super.2011) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections; deference to trial court when sufficiency questioned)
- Johnson v. American Standard, 8 A.3d 318 (Pa.2010) (standing requires substantial, direct, immediate interest)
- Castillo, 585 Pa.395, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa.2005) (untimely Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver of issues)
- Hess v. Fox Rothschild, LLP, 925 A.2d 798 (Pa.Super.2007) (timely Rule 1925(b) compliance required for preservation)
- Feingold v. Hill, 360 Pa.Super. 539, 521 A.2d 33 (Pa.Super.1987) (illustrative of frivolous, conclusory pleadings and pattern of vexatious litigation)
- Foster v. UPMC South Side Hosp., 2 A.3d 655 (Pa.Super.2010) (fact-pleading requirement; need for specific facts to support prima facie elements)
- Rambo v. Greene, 906 A.2d 1232 (Pa.Super.2006) (Rule 1028(a)(3) sufficiency standard for pleading)
- McKeeman v. Corestates Bank, N.A., 751 A.2d 655 (Pa.Super.2000) (pleading sufficiency standards; notice to grounds)