Gray v. Buonopane
53 A.3d 829
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Patricia Gray, pro se, appeals trial court dismissals of amended complaints under Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 and a bar on filing new actions against the same/related defendants.
- Foreclosure action involved Ocwen Loan Servicing, Bridgeford Defendants, and others; property at 2414 North 54th Street, Philadelphia, was sold at sheriff's sale in August 2008.
- Gray alleged after the sale that locks were changed and personal property removed; she sought relief through an Emergency Petition to Discontinue Lockout.
- Judge DiVito held a hearing; denied the emergency motion but gave 20 days to remove personalty; Gray did not comply with that order.
- Gray filed multiple complaints alleging various tort and related claims arising from the lockout and disposal of property; trial court dismissed several defendants and claims.
- Rule 233.1 permits dismissal of a pro se action if related claims from a prior action have been resolved, and may bar further pro se actions without leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 233.1 dismissal was proper for pro se claims raised in current actions | Gray contends 233.1(a)(1) cannot apply since she was not plaintiff in prior action and claims were not identical. | Court-ordered relationships show current claims are related and resolved, warranting dismissal. | Yes; 233.1 dismissal affirmed as related and resolved. |
| Whether 233.1(a)(2) applied where prior resolution was not on merits | Gray argues prior action did not resolve current causes of action. | Rule 233.1 only requires relatedness and resolution, not final merits. | Yes; current claims related and resolved, supporting dismissal. |
| Whether the court properly barred further pro se litigation under 233.1 | Gray asserts bar was improper given amended complaints and lack of final judgment. | Rule permits barring pro se litigants from further suits against same/related defendants. | Yes; bar upheld. |
| Whether Rule 233.1's use here precludes res judicata or collateral estoppel analysis | Gray relies on traditional preclusion doctrines to limit 233.1 effects. | Rule 233.1 operates independently of res judicata/collateral estoppel. | Yes; 233.1 operates independently from those doctrines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., 37 A.3d 1175 (Pa. 2012) (defines elements of res judicata)
- Columbia Medical Group, Inc. v. Herring & Roll, P.C., 829 A.2d 1184 (Pa. Super. 2003) (collateral estoppel elements set forth)
- In the Matter of lulo, 766 A.2d 335 (Pa. 2001) (identifies preclusion concepts)
- Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hosp. of the Sisters of Christian Charity, 32 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2011) (interpretation of rule-of-civil-procedure standards)
- Boatin v. Miller, 955 A.2d 424 (Pa. Super. 2008) (interpretation of procedural rules and liberal construction)