Osei, M. v. Sugarhouse Casino, 919 EDA 2016

Appellant Michael Osei pursued criminal harassment charges against Alexis Kroll; the Municipal Court dismissed the summary charges because Kroll was not subpoenaed to testify.
After the dismissal, Osei (pro se) sued SugarHouse Casino and individuals seeking, among other things, attorney’s fees and return of tips; Municipal Court entered judgment for defendants following a hearing.
Osei appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, filed an amended complaint, and the trial court sustained defendants’ preliminary objections and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice in early December 2015.
Osei filed an untimely Motion for Reconsideration and an untimely notice of appeal; he then filed a motion seeking leave to file his appeal nunc pro tunc, which the trial court denied on February 19, 2016.
The Superior Court reviewed the denial of nunc pro tunc relief, focusing on whether Osei showed non-negligent grounds (e.g., grandmother’s death, alleged mistaken clerk advice about counting weekends/holidays, and holiday courthouse closures) to excuse delay.
The Superior Court affirmed, finding Osei’s reasons unconvincing and concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying nunc pro tunc relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying nunc pro tunc appeal	Osei claimed non-negligent reasons for delay: grandmother’s death, misinformation from a court clerk about excluding weekends/holidays, and holiday court closures; he also argued the court failed to allow replies, hold an evidentiary hearing, or explain findings	Defendants argued Osei’s reasons were insufficient, unverifiable, and did not show prejudice or a court breakdown; procedural rules were followed	Denied: Court found reasons unconvincing, no abuse of discretion; dismissal affirmed

Fischer v. UPMC Nw., 34 A.3d 115 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standards for reviewing denial of nunc pro tunc relief and abuse of discretion)
Union Elec. Corp. v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment, Appeals & Review of Allegheny Cty., 746 A.2d 581 (Pa. 2000) (nunc pro tunc relief limited to extraordinary circumstances such as fraud or court breakdown)
Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (factors supporting nunc pro tunc: non-negligent cause, prompt filing after expiration, and no prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Anwyll, 482 A.2d 656 (Pa. Super. 1984) (court-recorded misinformation by the court may justify relief)
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as attorneys)