The Lofts at 2601 v. Norman, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 5, 2025
• Docket: 1009 EDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A30032-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

THE LOFTS AT 2601 : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ALI NORMAN : : Appellant : No. 1009 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment Entered January 31, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 240700088

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 5, 2025

Ali Norman (“Norman”) appeals pro se from the judgment in favor of

The Lofts at 2601 (“The Lofts”), which was entered after Norman failed to

appear for a trial and the trial court denied Norman’s post-trial motion.

Because Norman’s brief is substantially defective, we dismiss this appeal and

strike the case from the argument list.

The present landlord-tenant action began in the Philadelphia Municipal

Court, and Norman timely appealed that court’s decision in favor of The Lofts

to the Court of Common Pleas. The Lofts filed a complaint for unpaid rent and

repossession of Norman’s room, and Norman filed an answer. The trial court

scheduled a nonjury trial for November 25, 2024, at City Hall. Norman failed

to appear. The trial court proceeded to trial and found in favor of Landlord.

See Pa.R.Civ.P. 218(b). Norman timely filed a “petition to open,” which the J-A30032-25

trial court properly considered as a post-trial motion seeking a new trial based

on a satisfactory excuse for failing to appear. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 218(c), Note.

Norman appeared at the hearing on his post-trial motion and testified

on the day of trial, he went to the Arbitration Center where court staff printed

out a docket sheet for his separate suit against The Lofts that had been closed

since November 2024. Norman asserted the staff member told him the

present case was also closed. Norman also claimed he did not receive notice

of the trial in the present case and discussed difficulties he had receiving mail.

The trial court found credible Norman’s evidence he went to the

Arbitration Center on the day of trial, but questioned Norman’s assertions he

was told the present case was also closed. The trial court also indicated that

Norman did not offer a credible excuse for going to the Arbitration Center

instead of City Hall for trial. The court denied Norman’s post-trial motion from

the bench, and The Lofts had judgment entered.

Norman timely appealed. Although the trial court issued an order for

Norman to file and serve Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statements, that order did not

strictly comply with the content requirements of Rule 1925. Norman did not

respond. The trial court issued an opinion suggesting Norman failed to

preserve any issues for appeal.1

____________________________________________

1 The trial court offered two reasons for dismissing this appeal, neither of which we adopt. First, it noted Norman failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. However, there were two orders for a Rule 1925(b) statement, one which the presiding judge issued, and another, which a different judge issued, but (Footnote Continued Next Page)

-2- J-A30032-25

Before addressing Norman’s issues, we reiterate that appellate briefs

must conform materially to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of

Appellate Procedure, and this Court may dismiss an appeal if the defects in

the brief are substantial. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (providing that “if the defects

. . . in the brief . . . are substantial, the appeal . . . may be . . . dismissed”);

see also Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 213 n.11 (Pa. Super.

2008) (asserting although the Court liberally construes a pro se litigant’s

filings, he must comply with the requisite procedural rules). This Court will

not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.

See Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2014).

Norman’s brief lacks, among other requirements, a statement of both

the scope of review and the standard of review (see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3)), a

statement of the questions involved (see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(4)), a statement of

the case (see Pa.R.A.P. 2117), and a summary of argument (see Pa.R.A.P.

2118). Critically, only a single page of Norman’s brief pertains to the issue in

this appeal—whether he presented a satisfactory excuse for failing to appear

at trial. See Norman’s Br. at 9 (unpaginated). However, he does not refer to

or discuss relevant portions of the post-trial motion hearing, or any applicable ____________________________________________

subsequently vacated. Because neither order complied with Rule 1925’s content requirements, see, e.g., Order, 2/28/25, at 1; see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2)-(3), we decline to find waiver due to the lack of a Rule 1925(b) statement. See In re I.M.R., 296 A.3d 615, 2023 WL 2547953, at *3 (Pa. Super. 2023) (unpublished non-precedential mem.); Pa.R.A.P. 126(b). Second, the trial court stated Norman failed to order a transcript. However, Norman attached a transcript order form to his notice of appeal, and the relevant transcript is in the certified record.

-3- J-A30032-25

legal standards, statutes, or case law on the issue of a satisfactory excuse.

See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing the argument shall be followed by the

discussion and citation of pertinent authorities). Under the circumstances of

this case, we conclude the defects in Norman’s brief are substantial and

preclude meaningful review. See Coulter, 94 A.3d at 1088. Accordingly, we

dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from argument list.

President Judge Emeritus Panella joins this decision.

President Judge Lazarus concurs in the result.

Date: 12/5/2025

-4-