Moton, G. v. Robinson, L., 1778 EDA 2020

Oct 2017: Gregory Moton received an Orbactiv infusion after a podiatry visit and suffered anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, and stroke; plaintiffs later initiated a malpractice action.
Oct 3, 2019: Motons commenced suit by writ of summons; counsel moved to withdraw and the court granted withdrawal on Nov 26, 2019, giving plaintiffs 45 days from docketing to file a complaint or risk judgment of non pros.
Plaintiffs did not file an original complaint by the court-ordered deadline; defendants filed notices and praecipes for entry of judgment of non pros in January 2020 and the prothonotary entered non pros judgments later that month.
Plaintiffs filed an original complaint on June 14, 2020 and moved to strike the judgments of non pros on July 7, 2020; the trial court denied the motion on Sept. 1, 2020 and plaintiffs appealed.
Central legal dispute: whether the prothonotary properly entered judgments of non pros under Pa.R.C.P. 1037/237.1 (vs. defendants being required to seek non pros by motion to the court per Chamberlain).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants praeciped for non pros prematurely in violation of the court's 45-day order	Moton: defendants filed praecipe before the 45-day period expired, so entry was improper	Defendants: Jan 10 filing was a written notice of intent under Rule 237.1 and procedurally proper; plaintiffs waived challenge below	Court: Challenge waived for failure to raise below; meritless in any event because defendants filed proper notice prior to praecipe
Whether the prothonotary lacked authority and defendants were required to move the trial court for non pros (Chamberlain)	Moton: the court’s order (struck language) superseded rules and required a court motion for non pros, not a prothonotary praecipe	Defendants: Chamberlain addressed untimely amended complaints after an action was commenced; here no complaint was filed and the order threatened dismissal, so Rule 1037 authorized prothonotary entry on praecipe	Court: Distinguished Chamberlain; prothonotary had authority under Rule 1037 given no complaint was ever filed and the order explicitly warned of judgment of non pros — motion to strike denied

Chamberlain v. Altoona Hosp., 567 A.2d 1067 (Pa. Super. 1989) (holding that when an amended complaint is late under court order the proper method to obtain non pros is by court motion; distinguished here)
Dombrowski v. Cherkassky, 691 A.2d 976 (Pa. Super. 1997) (definition and effect of judgment of non pros)
Varner v. Classic Communities Corp., 890 A.2d 1068 (Pa. Super. 2006) (motion to strike non pros challenges only facial defects; record must be self-sustaining)
Fountainville Historical Farm Ass'n v. Bucks County, 490 A.2d 845 (Pa. Super. 1985) (prothonotary lacks authority to enter judgment where fatal defect appears on the face of the record)
PennWest Farm Credit, ACA v. Hare, 600 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1991) (failure to comply with Pa.R.Civ.P. 237.1 is a facial defect that defeats default judgment)
Oswald v. WB Pub. Square Assocs., LLC, 80 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. 2013) (improper 237.1 notice language is a fatal defect on the face of the record)
James Bros. Lumber v. Union Banking & Trust, 247 A.2d 587 (Pa. 1968) (James-Jacob test for non pros based on inactivity, prejudice, and no compelling excuse)
Jacobs v. Halloran, 710 A.2d 1098 (Pa. 1998) (same jurisprudential framework for dismissal for inactivity)