J-A14026-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
VINCENT CAPCINO TRANSMISSIONS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : ALLAN WOHL AND LUKE WOHL : No. 2338 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered August 10, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No: 230502029
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and LANE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MARCH 31, 2025
Appellant, Vincent Capcino Transmissions, appeals from the August 10,
2023, order directing entry of a judgment of nonsuit for Appellant’s failure to
file a timely complaint. We affirm.
The certified docket reveals that, on May 18, Appellees, Allan Wohl and
Luke Wohl, appealed to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas from a
judgment of $3,213.00 entered in favor of Appellant in Philadelphia Municipal
Court. Appellees also filed a praecipe to file a complaint, directing the
prothonotary to file a rule on Appellant ordering him to file a complaint within
20 days. The attached rule to file a complaint was served on Appellant with
the signature line unsigned by hand but bearing the seal of the First Judicial
District of Pennsylvania Prothonotary and stamped “G. Imperato” and dated
May 18, 2023. Also, Appellees filed a standing case management order, J-A14026-24
paragraph five of which explained that the municipal court plaintiff was
required to file a complaint within 20 days of receipt of a rule directing him to
do so. The docket reflects proper service of these items, and Appellant
acknowledges receiving the notice of appeal, praecipe, and related documents
on May 23, 2023. Appellant was pro se at the time and took no action.
On July 11, 2023, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, 1 stating that the
aforementioned items were served on Appellant on May 23, 2023, and he had
failed to file a complaint. On July 19, 2023, the court entered a rule directing
Appellant to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for his failure
to file a complaint. Appellant then filed a counseled complaint on July 21,
2023. The complaint alleged that Appellant rebuilt the transmission on
Appellees’ vehicle and Appellees paid for the service by credit card. Appellees
later disputed the credit card payment on grounds that Appellant performed
faulty work. Also on July 21, 2023, Appellant filed a response to Appellee’s
motion to dismiss. Appellant alleged he was unaware that he had to take any
action because the signature line on the rule to file a complaint was blank
except for the stamp.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the rule to show cause on August
10, 2023. Appellant’s counsel explained at the hearing that Appellant never
received a hand signed and dated copy of the rule to file a complaint. N.T.
____________________________________________
1 The motion should have been titled a motion for entry of judgment of non pros. Phila. Civ. R. 1001(f)(1)(ii).
-2- J-A14026-24
Hearing, 8/10/23, at 3. Counsel for Appellees explained that, though the rule
to file a complaint was not signed or dated by hand, it was stamped as set
forth above. Id. at 4. Appellees’ counsel also explained that he represents
Appellees in their related action against Appellant, and that the lawyer
representing Appellant in the instant action entered an appearance on behalf
of Appellant in the related action on May 25, 2023. Id. at 4. Despite this,
Appellant took no action in the instant matter until July 21, 2023, and he failed
to serve his proposed complaint in accordance with the Rules of Civil
Procedure. Instead, he mailed a copy to Appellees’ counsel. 2 Id. at 4-5.
Appellant’s counsel responded that the stamp on the rule to file a
complaint did not indicate to Appellant, who was pro se at the time, that any
action was required Id. at 5-6. Counsel also argued that Appellees were not
prejudiced by the late-filed complaint. Id. at 6. The trial court granted
Appellees’ motion at the conclusion of the hearing and entered an order
granting nonsuit that same day.3
On August 18, 2023, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration,
repeating the aforementioned arguments and criticizing Appellees for failing
to include a cover letter with the appeal documents explaining to Appellant
2 The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit service of original process by mail. See Pa.R.C.P. 400.1 (governing original process in the First Judicial District) and 402 (governing the manner of service).
3 Because the trial court’s order disposed of all claims and parties, it was a final, appealable order. Pa.R.A.P. 341(b).
-3- J-A14026-24
that he needed to file a complaint within 20 days. The trial court denied
reconsideration by order of August 23, 2023. Appellant filed this timely appeal
on September 7, 2023.
Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by
dismissing this action with prejudice rather than granting Appellant leniency
under Rule 126 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs
application and construction of the Rules:
(a) Application. The rules shall be liberally applied to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable. The court at every stage of any such action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantive rights of the parties.
Pa.R.C.P. 126(a). Construing this Rule, this Court has held that it “allows an
equitable exception for parties who commit a misstep when attempting to do
what any particular rule requires.” Deek Inv. L.P. v. Murray, 157 A.3d 491,
494 (Pa. 2017). That is, Rule 126 does not excuse total noncompliance with
a procedural rule. Rather, “Rule 126 is available to a party who makes a
substantial attempt to conform.” Id. (citing Green Acres Rehab. and
Nursing Ctr. Sullivan, 113 A.3d 1261, 1272 (Pa. Super. 2015)). We also
explained in Deek that “pro se status does not entitled a party to any
particular advantage because of his or her lack of training.” Id. (quoting First
Union Mort. Corp. v. Frempong, 744 A.2d 327, 333 (Pa. Super. 1999)).
Where the trial court finds a lack of substantial compliance under Rule 126,
we review the court’s decision for abuse of discretion. Zokaites Contracting
-4- J-A14026-24
Inc. v. Trant Corp., 968 A.2d 1282, 1292 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal denied,
985 A.2d 972 (Pa. Super. 2009).
The Zokaites Court concluded that a plaintiff was not entitled to the
application of Rule 126 where it failed to file a certificate of merit in a
professional negligence case. Id. That wholesale failure constituted
noncompliance rather than substantial compliance. Id. In Deek, the
appellants, appealing from a writ of execution against their personal property,
filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement signed by only one of them. Deek, 157
A.3d at 493. The trial court found that the non-signing party had waived all
issues on appeal. Id. at 493-94.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A14026-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
VINCENT CAPCINO TRANSMISSIONS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : ALLAN WOHL AND LUKE WOHL : No. 2338 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered August 10, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No: 230502029
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and LANE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MARCH 31, 2025
Appellant, Vincent Capcino Transmissions, appeals from the August 10,
2023, order directing entry of a judgment of nonsuit for Appellant’s failure to
file a timely complaint. We affirm.
The certified docket reveals that, on May 18, Appellees, Allan Wohl and
Luke Wohl, appealed to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas from a
judgment of $3,213.00 entered in favor of Appellant in Philadelphia Municipal
Court. Appellees also filed a praecipe to file a complaint, directing the
prothonotary to file a rule on Appellant ordering him to file a complaint within
20 days. The attached rule to file a complaint was served on Appellant with
the signature line unsigned by hand but bearing the seal of the First Judicial
District of Pennsylvania Prothonotary and stamped “G. Imperato” and dated
May 18, 2023. Also, Appellees filed a standing case management order, J-A14026-24
paragraph five of which explained that the municipal court plaintiff was
required to file a complaint within 20 days of receipt of a rule directing him to
do so. The docket reflects proper service of these items, and Appellant
acknowledges receiving the notice of appeal, praecipe, and related documents
on May 23, 2023. Appellant was pro se at the time and took no action.
On July 11, 2023, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, 1 stating that the
aforementioned items were served on Appellant on May 23, 2023, and he had
failed to file a complaint. On July 19, 2023, the court entered a rule directing
Appellant to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for his failure
to file a complaint. Appellant then filed a counseled complaint on July 21,
2023. The complaint alleged that Appellant rebuilt the transmission on
Appellees’ vehicle and Appellees paid for the service by credit card. Appellees
later disputed the credit card payment on grounds that Appellant performed
faulty work. Also on July 21, 2023, Appellant filed a response to Appellee’s
motion to dismiss. Appellant alleged he was unaware that he had to take any
action because the signature line on the rule to file a complaint was blank
except for the stamp.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the rule to show cause on August
10, 2023. Appellant’s counsel explained at the hearing that Appellant never
received a hand signed and dated copy of the rule to file a complaint. N.T.
____________________________________________
1 The motion should have been titled a motion for entry of judgment of non pros. Phila. Civ. R. 1001(f)(1)(ii).
-2- J-A14026-24
Hearing, 8/10/23, at 3. Counsel for Appellees explained that, though the rule
to file a complaint was not signed or dated by hand, it was stamped as set
forth above. Id. at 4. Appellees’ counsel also explained that he represents
Appellees in their related action against Appellant, and that the lawyer
representing Appellant in the instant action entered an appearance on behalf
of Appellant in the related action on May 25, 2023. Id. at 4. Despite this,
Appellant took no action in the instant matter until July 21, 2023, and he failed
to serve his proposed complaint in accordance with the Rules of Civil
Procedure. Instead, he mailed a copy to Appellees’ counsel. 2 Id. at 4-5.
Appellant’s counsel responded that the stamp on the rule to file a
complaint did not indicate to Appellant, who was pro se at the time, that any
action was required Id. at 5-6. Counsel also argued that Appellees were not
prejudiced by the late-filed complaint. Id. at 6. The trial court granted
Appellees’ motion at the conclusion of the hearing and entered an order
granting nonsuit that same day.3
On August 18, 2023, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration,
repeating the aforementioned arguments and criticizing Appellees for failing
to include a cover letter with the appeal documents explaining to Appellant
2 The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit service of original process by mail. See Pa.R.C.P. 400.1 (governing original process in the First Judicial District) and 402 (governing the manner of service).
3 Because the trial court’s order disposed of all claims and parties, it was a final, appealable order. Pa.R.A.P. 341(b).
-3- J-A14026-24
that he needed to file a complaint within 20 days. The trial court denied
reconsideration by order of August 23, 2023. Appellant filed this timely appeal
on September 7, 2023.
Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by
dismissing this action with prejudice rather than granting Appellant leniency
under Rule 126 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs
application and construction of the Rules:
(a) Application. The rules shall be liberally applied to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable. The court at every stage of any such action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantive rights of the parties.
Pa.R.C.P. 126(a). Construing this Rule, this Court has held that it “allows an
equitable exception for parties who commit a misstep when attempting to do
what any particular rule requires.” Deek Inv. L.P. v. Murray, 157 A.3d 491,
494 (Pa. 2017). That is, Rule 126 does not excuse total noncompliance with
a procedural rule. Rather, “Rule 126 is available to a party who makes a
substantial attempt to conform.” Id. (citing Green Acres Rehab. and
Nursing Ctr. Sullivan, 113 A.3d 1261, 1272 (Pa. Super. 2015)). We also
explained in Deek that “pro se status does not entitled a party to any
particular advantage because of his or her lack of training.” Id. (quoting First
Union Mort. Corp. v. Frempong, 744 A.2d 327, 333 (Pa. Super. 1999)).
Where the trial court finds a lack of substantial compliance under Rule 126,
we review the court’s decision for abuse of discretion. Zokaites Contracting
-4- J-A14026-24
Inc. v. Trant Corp., 968 A.2d 1282, 1292 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal denied,
985 A.2d 972 (Pa. Super. 2009).
The Zokaites Court concluded that a plaintiff was not entitled to the
application of Rule 126 where it failed to file a certificate of merit in a
professional negligence case. Id. That wholesale failure constituted
noncompliance rather than substantial compliance. Id. In Deek, the
appellants, appealing from a writ of execution against their personal property,
filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement signed by only one of them. Deek, 157
A.3d at 493. The trial court found that the non-signing party had waived all
issues on appeal. Id. at 493-94. This Court disagreed, reasoning that the
parties’ notice of appeal and concise statement made clear that both were
appealing and both were setting forth the assertions of error listed in the
concise statement. Id. at 494. In other words, the parties’ filings
substantially conformed to the applicable procedural rules.
In the instant case, the trial court based its decision on Appellant’s
complete failure to act. Despite receiving a rule to file a compliant that bore
the stamp and seal of the Philadelphia office of judicial records, Appellant took
no action for 59 days (39 days past the deadline) after he received Appellees’
motion to dismiss. Trial Court Opinion, 1/18/24, at 5-6. And as of the date
of the order on appeal, Appellant had yet to effect proper service of his
proposed complaint on Appellees. Here, as in Zokaites, Appellant did not
attempt to comply with the applicable rules of procedure until after the
-5- J-A14026-24
opposing party sought dismissal. The facts here are distinguishable from
Deek, wherein the parties filed the necessary documents to preserve their
appellate issues but omitted the signature of one party on one document.
Further, as we have noted, Appellant’s pro se status does not excuse his total
noncompliance with applicable procedural requirements.
Based on the foregoing, we discern no error in the trial court’s decision
to dismiss Appellant’s complaint.
Order affirmed.
Date: 3/31/2025
-6-