Lasso, A. v. Greenbriar Village L.P.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 12, 2024
• Docket: 1357 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A01027-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

ALMA A. LASSO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : GREENBRIAR VILLAGE L.P. : No. 1357 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered April 18, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at No(s): C-48-CV-2022-08762

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.: FILED DECEMBER 12, 2024

Appellant, Alma A. Lasso, appeals pro se from the order entered in the

Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the motion for

summary judgment filed by Appellee, Greenbriar Village L.P. We dismiss the

appeal.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On

December 5, 2022, Appellant filed suit against Appellee, alleging that Appellee

(the property manager/landlord at the mobile community where Appellant

leases a residence) was negligent in connection with a dog bite that Appellant

sustained on December 9, 2020, when another tenant’s dog bit Appellant.

Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on December 12, 2023.

Appellant did not file a response to Appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

The court held oral argument on April 16, 2024. On April 18, 2024, the court

granted Appellee’s motion. This timely appeal followed. J-A01027-25

Preliminarily, we recognize:

[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent [herself] in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that [her] lack of expertise and legal training will be [her] undoing.

In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 610

Pa. 600, 20 A.3d 489 (2011) (some internal citations omitted). See also

Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119 (addressing specific requirements of each subsection of

appellate brief).

Instantly, Appellant’s brief is completely inadequate as it lacks, inter

alia, the necessary statement of jurisdiction, relevant scope and standard of

review, statement of questions presented, summary of the argument, and any

cogent argument section. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (discussing required content

of appellate briefs). See also Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159

(Pa.Super. 1996) (stating noncompliance with Rule 2116 is particularly

grievous because statement of questions involved defines specific issues for

review).1 Although Appellant opens her brief with some citations to legal

____________________________________________

1 Appellant’s brief includes a section titled “Statement of Appealability” which

purports to allege seven reasons for her appeal. Nevertheless, Appellant’s one-paragraph argument section does not address each of these claims.

-2- J-A01027-25

authority, she fails to apply any of the cases cited to the facts of this case in

a meaningful way. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating argument shall be divided

into as many parts as there are questions to be argued followed by such

discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent). As Appellee

correctly points out, these substantial defects preclude our review, warranting

suppression of Appellant’s brief and dismissal of the appeal. Thus, we

suppress Appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed. Case is stricken from argument list.

Date: 12/12/2024

-3-