Reed, R. v. Aspen Home Improvements, Inc.
Reed, R. v. Aspen Home Improvements, Inc. No. 1446 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 24, 2017Background
- Reed sued his former employer, Aspen Home, seeking over $5,300 for services performed in 2011; Aspen filed preliminary objections, Reed amended, and Aspen answered with new matter and a counterclaim for retaliatory conduct.
- The case went to compulsory arbitration; the panel awarded $0.00 to each side, resolving both the complaint and counterclaim in the arbitrators’ view, and Reed timely appealed the award.
- Aspen served Reed with requests for admissions on April 9, 2016; Reed did not respond within 30 days, and Aspen moved for summary judgment on May 25, 2016, asserting the matters were deemed admitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4014.
- At an August 4, 2016 hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Aspen as to Reed’s complaint but denied summary judgment as to Aspen’s counterclaim.
- Reed, proceeding pro se, appealed the partial summary-judgment order and also failed to timely file the court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement, which the trial court noted in its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper because Reed failed to respond to requests for admissions | Reed argued he had an excuse for the late response | Aspen argued the requests were deemed admitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4014, entitling it to judgment | Court granted summary judgment as to Reed’s complaint (admissions dispositive) |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance so Reed could obtain counsel | Reed argued the court should have continued the hearing for counsel | Aspen implicitly argued no continuance necessary | Court rejected Reed’s contention on appeal but did not reach merits due to appealability issue (interlocutory) |
| Whether the order was appealable | Reed proceeded with appeal asserting errors | Aspen did not contest appealability | Court held the order was interlocutory because Aspen’s counterclaim remained outstanding and quashed the appeal |
| Whether Reed’s failure to timely file Rule 1925(b) statement affected appellate review | Reed filed late and argued merits | Aspen noted procedural default | Court observed that even if order were appealable, Reed’s issues would be waived for untimely Rule 1925(b) filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa. Super. 2014) (timely compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is required; failure waives issues).
- Druot v. Coulter, 946 A.2d 708 (Pa. Super. 2008) (partial grants of summary judgment disposing of only plaintiffs’ claims are interlocutory when counterclaims remain).
- O'Neill v. Checker Motors Corp., 567 A.2d 680 (Pa. Super. 1989) (pro se litigants receive liberal construction but no special advantage for lack of legal training).
- Branch Banking & Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2006) (same principle regarding pro se litigants).
- Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 1996) (same principle regarding pro se litigants).