Godlewski, P. v. DuBorgel, B.

2025 Pa. Super. 283

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 18, 2025
• Docket: 38 MDM 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

J-M05001-25

2025 PA Super 283

PHILIP GODLEWSKI : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Petitioner : : : v. : : : BRIENNA DUBORGEL : No. 38 MDM 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered April 18, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at No(s): CV-2023-1354

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.*

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:

I very respectfully dissent and would continue to rely on the

interpretation given to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1311(b) by

our sister court in East Liberty Dev., Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 323 A.3d

32 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023). Additionally, I believe that this Court has addressed

the issue presented in this case in our prior decision in Bailey v. Ras Auto

Body, 85 A.3d 1064 (Pa. Super. 2014).

I find no real distinction between the words “acts on” and “disposes of”

in interpreting our appellate rules. I view the issue here more as a

jurisdictional matter rather than one of pure semantics. In fact, I would wager

that the trial court has not further acted on Petitioner’s request for certification

because that request was deemed denied. See Pa.R.A.P. 1311(b). Instantly,

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-M05001-25

I would find the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on the petition once that

petition was deemed denied.

I find support for this interpretation in looking to the language of

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1113(2), which defines time and

action for filing a petition for allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme

Court, as follows:

Unless the Superior Court or the Commonwealth Court acts on the application for reargument within 60 days after it is filed, the court shall no longer consider the application, it shall be deemed denied, and the prothonotary of the appellate court shall forthwith enter an order denying the application and shall immediately give notice of entry of the order denying the application to each party who has appeared in the appellate court.

Pa.R.A.P. 1113(2) (emphasis added). The rule further states that the time for

filing a petition for allowance of appeal is measured from the entry of the order

denying or otherwise disposing of such an application. See id.

In other words, the time in which the intermediate appellate court may

consider an application for reargument is sixty days. I know of no case law

or rule that allows the sixty-day period to be extended by this Court or the

Commonwealth Court. This Court effectively loses jurisdiction to act on, or

otherwise dispose of, the application for reargument after expiration of the

sixty-day period.

For the same reasons, I believe the trial court loses jurisdiction to act

on or dispose of a Rule 1311 petition after the thirty-day period to act expires.

I would conclude that Petitioner’s time to seek review in our Court begins

-2- J-M05001-25

when the order is denied or deemed denied by the passage of those thirty

days.

An appellate court for good cause shown may upon application enlarge the time prescribed by these rules or by its order for doing any act, or may permit an act to be done after the expiration of such time, but the court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal, a petition for allowance of an appeal, a petition for permission to appeal, a petition for review or a petition for specialized review.

Pa.R.A.P. 105(b) (emphases added).

Therefore, I would follow the authority provided by our sister court in

East Liberty, and from our Court in Bailey, and define the words “acts on”

to be the same as “disposes of.” Hence, I respectfully dissent.

-3-