J-S36004-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
CHESTER VENDETTI : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : VENDETTI BROTHERS ASSOCIATES, : No. 472 WDA 2025 LP :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 19, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Civil Division at No(s): 12660-2024
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: December 30, 2025
Chester Vendetti appeals from the order of the Erie County Court of
Common Pleas sustaining Vendetti Brothers Associates, LP’s preliminary
objections and dismissing Chester’s complaint with prejudice.1 Chester argues
that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint with prejudice since he
pleaded a legally sufficient cause of action. After careful consideration, we
reverse and remand.
Chester, Richard, and Donald Vendetti formed a general partnership to
engage in real estate business on January 13, 1972. On January 4, 1999, they
entered into a partnership agreement converting their prior general
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 For the sake of clarity, we refer to the appellant, Chester Vendetti, by his
first name. J-S36004-25
partnership into a limited partnership, Vendetti Brothers Associates, LP
(“Vendetti Brothers”).2 The partnership agreement set forth the terms of
compensation for the general partners and that the general partners could
elect to defer their compensation.
On October 29, 2024, Chester filed suit against Vendetti Brothers
seeking to collect his deferred compensation. Attached to the complaint was
the 1999 partnership agreement, a description of Chester’s services, and an
invoice. The invoice stated that Chester performed $1,627,400.00 worth of
services for which his compensation was deferred.
On December 13, 2024, Vendetti Brothers filed preliminary objections.
Vendetti Brothers claimed, under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3), that the complaint
lacked specificity regarding Chester’s compliance with the partnership
agreement’s requirement that the general partners submit monthly records of
services rendered. Regarding Chester’s request for relief, Vendetti Brothers
filed preliminary objections under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) and Pa.R.C.P.
1028(a)(3) for failing to specify the relief sought (in violation of Pa.R.C.P.
1021(a)) and failing to provide specificity regarding the amount of
compensation that Chester demanded.
On January 13, 2025, Vendetti Brothers filed a brief in support of its
preliminary objections. On January 21, 2025, the trial court issued a case
2 In 2016, Donald was removed as a general partner.
-2- J-S36004-25
management order scheduling a conference for April 21, 2025. Thereafter, on
February 5, 2025, the trial court filed an order continuing the case
management conference until May 19, 2025.
On March 19, 2025, based on Vendetti Brothers’ preliminary objections
and supporting brief and Chester’s failure the file a responsive brief within
thirty days, as required by Erie County Local Rule of Civil Procedure
1028(c)(2), the trial court issued an order sustaining the preliminary
objections and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Further, the trial court
cited to Erie County Local Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(c)(4)(B), which states
that if a party does not file a brief within the relevant time period, then the
court may “[g]rant the requested relief where . . . the requested relief is
supported by law[.]” Erie L.R. 1028(c)(4)(B).
On April 10, 2025, Chester filed a motion for reconsideration. He
explained that, because he believed the preliminary objections would be
granted with leave to file an amended complaint, instead of filing a response
to the preliminary objections he had been preparing an amended complaint.
See Mot., 4/10/25, at ¶ 4. Further, Chester asserted that the trial court erred
in dismissing his complaint with prejudice because he stated a legally sufficient
cause of action and the trial court never considered the sufficiency of the
complaint. See id. at ¶¶ 7-9. On April 17, 2025, the trial court denied
Chester’s motion for reconsideration.
-3- J-S36004-25
Chester timely appealed and filed a court ordered concise statement of
matters complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court filed
a one-page memorandum in support of its order. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Chester raises the following issues on appeal.
1. When preliminary objections for a more specific complaint in an action to recover unpaid compensation are granted, because the Plaintiff failed to file a timely response to the preliminary objections, does the law support the dismissal of the action without prejudice.
2. When preliminary objection in the nature of a motion for a more specific complaint in an action to recover unpaid compensation are granted, should the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
Appellant’s Brief, at 4.
Chester’s issues are interrelated and will be addressed together.
When reviewing an order sustaining preliminary objections, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. On an appeal from an order sustaining preliminary objections, we accept as true all well-pleaded material facts set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from those facts. Preliminary objections which seek the dismissal of a cause of action should be sustained only in cases in which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish the right to relief.
Dixon v. Northwestern Mut., 146 A.3d 780, 783 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(citations, internal quotations marks, and brackets omitted).
Chester argues that dismissal with prejudice for failure to file a timely
brief was error because the local rule only allows relief “supported by law” for
failing to file a timely brief, and under Pennsylvania law, a court cannot dismiss
a complaint with prejudice without considering whether the complaint
-4- J-S36004-25
sufficiently pled a cause of action. See Appellant’s Brief, at 8. According to
Vendetti Brothers, the trial court did not dismiss Chester’s complaint with
prejudice solely because he failed to file a responding brief but rather did so
because the trial court concluded that the complaint lacked the required
specificity to maintain a cause of action. See Appellee’s Brief, at 10-14.
At issue in this case is the trial court’s application of Erie County Local
Rule 1028(c). “Every court shall promulgate a local rule, numbered Local Rule
1028(c), which describes the court’s procedures for the disposition of
preliminary objections[.]” Pa.R.C.P. 239.5(a). These local rules describe the
court’s procedures for preliminary objections and may impose requirements
upon a party including the filing of briefs. See Pa.R.C.P. 239.5(a)(1)-(2). Of
course, “[l]ocal rules shall not be inconsistent with any general rule of the
Supreme Court or any Act of Assembly.” Pa.R.J.A. 103(c)(2); see also
Anthony Biddle Contractors, Inc. v. Preet Allied Am. St., LP, 28 A.3d
916, 922 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[Local] rules have equal weight to those rules
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S36004-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
CHESTER VENDETTI : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : VENDETTI BROTHERS ASSOCIATES, : No. 472 WDA 2025 LP :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 19, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Civil Division at No(s): 12660-2024
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: December 30, 2025
Chester Vendetti appeals from the order of the Erie County Court of
Common Pleas sustaining Vendetti Brothers Associates, LP’s preliminary
objections and dismissing Chester’s complaint with prejudice.1 Chester argues
that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint with prejudice since he
pleaded a legally sufficient cause of action. After careful consideration, we
reverse and remand.
Chester, Richard, and Donald Vendetti formed a general partnership to
engage in real estate business on January 13, 1972. On January 4, 1999, they
entered into a partnership agreement converting their prior general
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 For the sake of clarity, we refer to the appellant, Chester Vendetti, by his
first name. J-S36004-25
partnership into a limited partnership, Vendetti Brothers Associates, LP
(“Vendetti Brothers”).2 The partnership agreement set forth the terms of
compensation for the general partners and that the general partners could
elect to defer their compensation.
On October 29, 2024, Chester filed suit against Vendetti Brothers
seeking to collect his deferred compensation. Attached to the complaint was
the 1999 partnership agreement, a description of Chester’s services, and an
invoice. The invoice stated that Chester performed $1,627,400.00 worth of
services for which his compensation was deferred.
On December 13, 2024, Vendetti Brothers filed preliminary objections.
Vendetti Brothers claimed, under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3), that the complaint
lacked specificity regarding Chester’s compliance with the partnership
agreement’s requirement that the general partners submit monthly records of
services rendered. Regarding Chester’s request for relief, Vendetti Brothers
filed preliminary objections under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) and Pa.R.C.P.
1028(a)(3) for failing to specify the relief sought (in violation of Pa.R.C.P.
1021(a)) and failing to provide specificity regarding the amount of
compensation that Chester demanded.
On January 13, 2025, Vendetti Brothers filed a brief in support of its
preliminary objections. On January 21, 2025, the trial court issued a case
2 In 2016, Donald was removed as a general partner.
-2- J-S36004-25
management order scheduling a conference for April 21, 2025. Thereafter, on
February 5, 2025, the trial court filed an order continuing the case
management conference until May 19, 2025.
On March 19, 2025, based on Vendetti Brothers’ preliminary objections
and supporting brief and Chester’s failure the file a responsive brief within
thirty days, as required by Erie County Local Rule of Civil Procedure
1028(c)(2), the trial court issued an order sustaining the preliminary
objections and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Further, the trial court
cited to Erie County Local Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(c)(4)(B), which states
that if a party does not file a brief within the relevant time period, then the
court may “[g]rant the requested relief where . . . the requested relief is
supported by law[.]” Erie L.R. 1028(c)(4)(B).
On April 10, 2025, Chester filed a motion for reconsideration. He
explained that, because he believed the preliminary objections would be
granted with leave to file an amended complaint, instead of filing a response
to the preliminary objections he had been preparing an amended complaint.
See Mot., 4/10/25, at ¶ 4. Further, Chester asserted that the trial court erred
in dismissing his complaint with prejudice because he stated a legally sufficient
cause of action and the trial court never considered the sufficiency of the
complaint. See id. at ¶¶ 7-9. On April 17, 2025, the trial court denied
Chester’s motion for reconsideration.
-3- J-S36004-25
Chester timely appealed and filed a court ordered concise statement of
matters complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court filed
a one-page memorandum in support of its order. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Chester raises the following issues on appeal.
1. When preliminary objections for a more specific complaint in an action to recover unpaid compensation are granted, because the Plaintiff failed to file a timely response to the preliminary objections, does the law support the dismissal of the action without prejudice.
2. When preliminary objection in the nature of a motion for a more specific complaint in an action to recover unpaid compensation are granted, should the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
Appellant’s Brief, at 4.
Chester’s issues are interrelated and will be addressed together.
When reviewing an order sustaining preliminary objections, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. On an appeal from an order sustaining preliminary objections, we accept as true all well-pleaded material facts set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from those facts. Preliminary objections which seek the dismissal of a cause of action should be sustained only in cases in which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish the right to relief.
Dixon v. Northwestern Mut., 146 A.3d 780, 783 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(citations, internal quotations marks, and brackets omitted).
Chester argues that dismissal with prejudice for failure to file a timely
brief was error because the local rule only allows relief “supported by law” for
failing to file a timely brief, and under Pennsylvania law, a court cannot dismiss
a complaint with prejudice without considering whether the complaint
-4- J-S36004-25
sufficiently pled a cause of action. See Appellant’s Brief, at 8. According to
Vendetti Brothers, the trial court did not dismiss Chester’s complaint with
prejudice solely because he failed to file a responding brief but rather did so
because the trial court concluded that the complaint lacked the required
specificity to maintain a cause of action. See Appellee’s Brief, at 10-14.
At issue in this case is the trial court’s application of Erie County Local
Rule 1028(c). “Every court shall promulgate a local rule, numbered Local Rule
1028(c), which describes the court’s procedures for the disposition of
preliminary objections[.]” Pa.R.C.P. 239.5(a). These local rules describe the
court’s procedures for preliminary objections and may impose requirements
upon a party including the filing of briefs. See Pa.R.C.P. 239.5(a)(1)-(2). Of
course, “[l]ocal rules shall not be inconsistent with any general rule of the
Supreme Court or any Act of Assembly.” Pa.R.J.A. 103(c)(2); see also
Anthony Biddle Contractors, Inc. v. Preet Allied Am. St., LP, 28 A.3d
916, 922 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[Local] rules have equal weight to those rules
established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided that the local rules
do not abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of a party.”) (citation
and quotation marks omitted).
Erie County Local Rule 1028(c) states that, for preliminary objections,
“[t]he non-moving party shall file with the Prothonotary’s office a responding
brief within thirty (30) days of receipt of the objecting party’s brief.” Erie L.R.
1028(c)(2). If a brief is not filed within the time period then the court may
-5- J-S36004-25
“[g]rant the requested relief where the non-moving party has failed to comply
and where the requested relief is supported by law[.]” Erie L.R.
1028(c)(4)(B) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that Chester failed to timely
file a brief as required by Erie L.R. 1028(c)(2). We must determine whether
under that scenario the trial court’s dismissal of Chester’s complaint with
prejudice was “supported by law[.]”
“Generally, an abuse of discretion occurs if a complaint is dismissed
without leave to amend.” Blackwood, Inc. v. Reading Blue Mountain &
Northern Railroad Co., 147 A.3d 594, 598 (Pa. Super. 2016) (en banc)
(citation omitted). Accordingly, “the right to amend should not be withheld
where there is some reasonable probability that amendment can be
accomplished successfully.” Id. (citation omitted). Notably, “failure of the trial
court to consider the sufficiency of the complaint before sustaining preliminary
objections and dismissing the case without leave to amend is an abuse of
discretion.” Clark v. Peugh, 257 A.3d 1260, 1265 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation
and brackets omitted). Thus, “an order sustaining preliminary objections
based solely on the failure of a party to file timely a responsive brief or
memorandum of law, without considering whether the complaint sufficiently
pled a cause of action, amounts to an abuse of discretion.” Id. (citation
omitted).
Here, Erie County Local Rule 1028(c) requires the non-moving party to
file a responding brief within 30 days of receipt of the objecting party’s brief
-6- J-S36004-25
and grants the trial court discretion in granting relief for failure to file a
responsive brief so long as “the requested relief is supported by law[.]” Erie
L.R. 1028(c)(2), (4)(B). Chester failed to file a brief as required by the local
rule and, based on its March 19, 2025 order and its one-page 1925(a) opinion,
the trial court clearly dismissed Chester’s complaint with prejudice for that
reason. See Order, 3/19/25; Trial Court Opinion, 5/29/25.3 As previously
explained, dismissing a complaint with prejudice without considering the legal
sufficiency of the complaint is an abuse of discretion. See Peugh, 257 A.3d
at 1265. Further, “[n]o case shall be dismissed nor request for relief granted
or denied because of failure to initially comply with a local rule.” Pa.R.J.A.
103(c)(8). Thus, dismissing the complaint with prejudice is not “supported by
3 In addition to the local rule, the trial court cited to a single case in support
of its decision to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/29/25, at n.2 (citing Feingold v. Punturi, 2009 WL 3794892 (C.P. Phila. 2009). Setting aside the lack of precedential value, Feingold is clearly distinguishable and does not support dismissal in this case. In Feingold, the defendants filed preliminary objections, endorsed with a notice to plead, for pendency of a prior action and lack of capacity to sue. These specific preliminary objections require a response and by failing to respond the plaintiffs admitted to the averments in the preliminary objections. See Pa.R.C.P. 1028(c), note; Pa.R.C.P. 1029(b); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a) (“no pleading need be filed unless the preceding pleading contains a notice to defend or is endorsed with a notice to plead.”). However, in this case, Vendetti Brothers raised preliminary objections, without a notice to plead, for failure to conform to law and insufficient specificity. These preliminary objections (and also demurrers) do not require a response because they may be determined from facts of record. See Pa.R.C.P. 1028(c), note. Thus, any averments in the preliminary objections are deemed denied. See Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a).
-7- J-S36004-25
law” as contemplated by Erie County Local Rule 1028(c)(4)(B), and the trial
court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the trial court’s order and
remand for the court’s determination of whether Chester’s complaint
sufficiently pleads a cause of action.
Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
DATE: 12/30/2025
-8-