Mousios, L. v. West End Fair Association, Mousios, L. v. West End Fair Association No. 3042 EDA 2016

Background

On Sept. 4, 2011, Mousios was detained by fair security (including constable Alan Gannon) after entering a vehicle without permission; police cited her for disorderly conduct.
Mousios filed a tort complaint (assault, battery, malicious prosecution) against West End Fair Association, Thomas Hartford, and Gannon on July 22, 2013; Cusumano was named but never served.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; West End’s motion was granted in May 2015; Gannon and Hartford’s motions were granted in June 2016, vacated on reconsideration, and then granted again in August 2016.
Mousios, proceeding pro se, filed a timely appeal and a Rule 1925(b) statement raising 60 alleged errors; the trial court found the statement excessive and in bad faith and treated issues as waived.
The Superior Court found numerous procedural and briefing defects (failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. rules, incoherent argument, lack of record citations) and reviewed the merits only to conclude summary judgment was proper: Mousios produced insufficient competent evidence of excessive force or causation and Gannon had probable cause for detention, defeating malicious prosecution.
The court also rejected Mousios’s recusal claim: no transcript supported alleged prejudicial remarks, and she failed to produce evidence raising substantial doubt about the judge’s impartiality.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment for Gannon was improper	Mousios contends Gannon used excessive force causing injuries and that medical records show causation	Gannon argues Mousios produced no competent evidence of intent, causation, or injuries; detention was based on probable cause	Summary judgment affirmed — Mousios failed to produce competent evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact and Gannon had probable cause
Whether malicious prosecution claim survives	Mousios asserts Gannon caused criminal proceedings to be initiated/continued without probable cause	Gannon contends he had probable cause to detain and report Mousios for accessing another’s vehicle and disorderly conduct	Dismissed — probable cause existed, which is a defense to malicious prosecution
Whether trial judge should have recused	Mousios argues judge made prejudicial remarks at pretrial and admonished her for being pro se	Judge and defendants assert no evidence (no transcript) of bias; judge’s use of pretrial conference comments to encourage settlement does not show bias	Recusal denied and affirmed on appeal — Mousios did not meet burden to show bias or raise substantial doubt about impartiality
Whether issues are preserved and briefed properly for appeal	Mousios filed a 60-item Rule 1925(b) statement and a brief with many procedural defects and incoherent argument	Defendants argue waiver based on excessive, incoherent 1925(b) statement and briefing noncompliance	Issues largely deemed waived for appellate review due to bad-faith/incoherent Rule 1925(b) statement and briefing failures; court nonetheless addressed merits and affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Mee v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 908 A.2d 344 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Chenot v. A.P. Green Servs., Inc., 895 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. 2006) (summary judgment standard and evidence sufficiency)
Goodheart v. Casey, 565 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1989) (right to seek recusal for impartiality concerns)
In re Bridgeport Fire Litig., 5 A.3d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2010) (burden to show bias and substantial doubt concerning judge's impartiality)
Commonwealth v. King, 839 A.2d 237 (Pa. 2003) (appellate review of recusal denials places burden on movant to show abuse of discretion)
Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 938 A.2d 417 (Pa. 2007) (limitations on using voluminous Rule 1925(b) statements in bad faith)