Coulter, J. v. Allegheny County Bar Assoc. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-A08010-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JEAN COULTER, Appellant v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, JAMES E. MAHOOD, WILDER & MAHOOD, MELANIE S. ROTHEY, CHARLES J. AVALLI, LOUIS C. LONG, PENNSYLVANIA BAR ASSOCIATION, AND THOMAS J. DOERR, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 585 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Orders Entered February 8, 2013, In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, at No. G.D. 12-012905. BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON and WECHT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JUNE 20, 2014 pro se from the orders sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing this action filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County against the Allegheny County Bar Association, James E. Mahood, Wilder & Mahood, Melanie S. Rothey, Charles J. Avalli, Louis C. Long, the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and the J-A08010-14 We summarize the protracted history of this case as follows.1 This the crime of aggravated assault against her minor daughter in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. Butler County Children and Youth Services became involved, and court proceedings related to the minor child were January 12, 2011. When Coulter was not represented by counsel in the Butler County matters, she proceeded pro se. Judge Doerr presided over parental rights to her daughter. In October 2007, Coulter and Wilder & Mahood executed an agreement for Wilder & Mahood to represent Coulter in the Butler County proceedings. James Mahood represented Coulter through May of 2009. As part of the agreement with Wilder & Mahood, the parties contracted to resolve any disputes by binding arbitration before a panel of the Allegheny County Bar Association Special Fee Dispute C Coulter, believing that she and Wilder & Mahood had a separate verbal contract capping her fees, notified Wilder & Mahood that she would cease payments. On May 15, 2009, Coulter invoked the arbitration clause in the 1 We note that there are six other related appeals before this panel. Nos. 582 WDA 2013, 583 WDA 2013, 584 WDA 2013, 586 WDA 2013, 678 WDA 2013, and 679 WDA 2013. These appeals have been decided in separate decisions filed concurrently with this Memorandum. -2- J-A08010-14 agreement. Wilder & Mahood withdrew its representation of Coulter and sought a hearing date for the arbitration from the Committee. Melanie Rothey, Esquire, Charles Avalli, Esquire, and Louis Long, Esquire, were dispute with Wilder & Mahood. After the hearing date was set and she was provided with the names of the members of the arbitration panel, Coulter indicated to the Committee that she would not be prepared for the arbitration and that she objected to the composition of the panel. Coulter was provided a ninety-day continuance; however, her objection to the composition of the panel was rejected by the Committee. An arbitration hearing was held on May 14, 2010, at which both parties appeared. After hearing the evidence, the arbitration panel awarded Wilder & Mahood approximately $97,000.00 plus interest at the rate of one entry of the award, Coulter sent a letter to the Committee, requesting that the panel consider certain documentary evidence; however, Coulter did not seek to vacate or modify the arbitration award. On June 17, 2010, Wilder & Mahood filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award and Coulter filed a response to the motion. On July 27, 2010, the trial court entered an order petition to vacate or modify the arbitration award. Coulter filed an appeal -3- J-A08010-14 from the order on August 21, 2010. The Superior Court affirmed the arbitration award on February 22, 2012. Prior and subsequent to filing the instant matter, Coulter filed multiple complaints in Allegheny County against persons and entities involved in the Butler County proceedings. Coulter has also filed numerous and duplicative appeals with this Court over the past several years. (See, e.g., In the Interest of A.C., No. 555 WDA 2011, slip op. (Pa. Super. filed Mar. 12, 2012); Wilder & Mahood, P.C. v. Coulter, No. 1373 WDA 2010, slip op. (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 22, 2012); In re Adoption of A.S.C., 2011 Pa. Super. Lexis 5472 (Pa. Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum); In re Adoption of A.C., 23 A.3d 584 (Pa. Super. 2010) (unpublished memorandum); In re A.C., 23 A.3d 576 (Pa. Super. 2010) (unpublished memorandum)). Coulter claims that the termination proceedings in Butler County were unjust, that various persons conspired to deprive her of her rights, and that she is entitled to monetary relief in excess of $10,000,000.00. Coulter has also claimed civil rights violations. In addition, Coulter initiated multiple actions in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania prior to filing this matter in state court. These actions arose out of the same Butler County proceedings. The federal court defendants were sued due to their -4- J-A08010-14 federal complaints were dismissed with prejudice by the United States District Court. The United States District Court found Coulter to be a vexatious litigant and prohibited her from filing additional civil actions relating to or arising from the state court proceedings involving her criminal conviction and the subsequent termination of her parental rights. See, e.g., Coulter v. Ramsden, et al., 2012 WL 6592597 (W.D.Pa. 2012). Preliminary objections were filed in this case, as well as motions to dismiss. The trial court heard oral argument on February 8, 2013, sustained Pa.R.C.P. 233.1. Argument was not recorded. Coulter filed a petition for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed. Coulter presents the following issues for our review, which we have renumbered for ease of disposition: [1]. HAS APPEAL BEEN TIMELY FILED? [2]. COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 233.1 BE OVER-TURNED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT [42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(b)] APPLIES, BUT DISMISSED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PREVIOUS DECISION DID NOT RESOLVE [3]. -TURNED BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES SUFFICIENT FACTS AND REASONABLE INFERENCES TO DEFINE ACTIONS RESULTING IN LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES? -5- J-A08010-14 [4]. -TURNED BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES SUFFICIENT FACTS AND REASONABLE INFERENCES RELATED TO ACTIONS WHICH RESULT IN IMMUNITY BEING ABROGATED, AND RESULTING LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES? [5]. QUESTIONS OF FACT...IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO ANTED OR IN THE ALTERNATE AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT BE PERMITTED BECAUSE VERBAL MOTION FOR AMENDMENT WAS NOT APPROPRIATELY [CONSIDERED] BY A [VULNERABLE] TRIAL COURT WHICH ACTED WITH PROFOUND BIAS AND/OR MENTAL DISABILITY? [6]. MUST REMAND TO AN UNBIASED COURT BE ORDERED TO DEVELOP A RECORD, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IN ORDER TO VIOLATION OF LOCAL RULES AND BIAS/DISABILITY OF THE TRIAL COURT, HAVE RESULTED IN A RECORD OF IRRELEVANT AND/OR FORBIDDEN FACTS AND DEVOID OF FACTS RELATED - IN ORDER TO CORRECT A FUNDAMENTAL INJUSTICE AND ASSURE DUE PROCESS? [7]. MUST THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT BE OVERTURNED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, DUE TO ASSIGNMENT OF A SENIOR JUDGE IN VIOLATION OF STATUTE, RULES AND THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION? [8]. DOES RULE 233.1 VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION, AS IT HOLDS PRO SE PLAINTIFFS TO A MORE STRINGENT STANDARD THAN PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED BY LICENSED COUNSEL? Brief at 6-7 (renumbered for purposes of discussion). Coulter argues that her appeal in this matter has been timely filed. -37. We believe that this issue is presented as an -6- J-A08010-14 ntimely. Trial Court Order, 4/4/13, at 1. Because the timeliness of an appeal implicates our jurisdiction, we cannot address the merits of the other issues raised by Coulter before determining whether the appeal was timely filed. 928 A.2d 284, 285 (Pa. Super. 2007). appeal must be filed within thirty , It is undisputed that a notice of days of the challenged order. Pa.R.A.P. appeal . . . shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from Our review of the certified record reflects that on March 7, 2013, Coulter filed the instant appeal from the order dated February 8, 2013, which granted the motion to dismiss. Record Entry 65. Accordingly, Coulter satisfied the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) necessitating the notice of appeal to be filed within thirty days of the February 8, 2013 order. Therefore, because this appeal was timely filed, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 must be overturned because, while the trial court properly determined that 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(b) applied, the trial court erro decision in federal court did not resolve, or even consider, state claims. -7- J-A08010-14 -24. Coulter insinuates that her case should have been transferred from federal court pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(b) because the federal court merely determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the state claims presented. Upon review, we conclude that this issue does not merit relief. In 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103, the Pennsylvania Legislature addressed the transfer of matters which have been filed in improper courts. The pertinent language of the statute provides as follows: § 5103. Transfer of erroneously filed matters. (a) General rule. -- If an appeal or other matter is taken to or brought in a court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth which does not have jurisdiction of the appeal or other matter, the court or magisterial district judge shall not quash such appeal or dismiss the matter, but shall transfer the record thereof to the proper tribunal of this Commonwealth, where the appeal or other matter shall be treated as if originally filed in the transferee tribunal on the date when the appeal or other matter was first filed in a court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth. A matter which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or magisterial district judge of this Commonwealth but which is commenced in any other tribunal of this Commonwealth shall be transferred by the other tribunal to the proper court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth where it shall be treated as if originally filed in the transferee court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth on the date when first filed in the other tribunal. (b) Federal cases. -- (1) Subsection (a) shall also apply to any matter transferred or remanded by any United States court for a district embracing any part of this Commonwealth. In order to preserve a claim under Chapter 55 (relating to limitation of time), a litigant -8- J-A08010-14 who timely commences an action or proceeding in any United States court for a district embracing any part of this Commonwealth is not required to commence a protective action in a court or before a magisterial district judge of this Commonwealth. Where a matter is filed in any United States court for a district embracing any part of this Commonwealth and the matter is dismissed by the United States court for lack of jurisdiction, any litigant in the matter filed may transfer the matter to a court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth by complying with the transfer provisions set forth in paragraph (2). (2) Except as otherwise prescribed by general rules, or by order of the United States court, such transfer may be effected by filing a certified transcript of the final judgment of the United States court and the related pleadings in a court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth. The pleadings shall have the same effect as under the practice in the United States court, but the transferee court or magisterial district judge may require that they be amended to conform to the practice in this Commonwealth. Section 5535(a)(2)(i) (relating to termination of prior matter) shall not be applicable to a matter transferred under this subsection. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(a), (b) (emphasis added). As a prefatory matter, we note that our review of the certified record before us reflects that Coulter initiated the instant matter in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County at Docket Number GD-12-12905 with the filing of a fifteen-page complaint on July 26, 2012. Previously, on May 14, 2012, Coulter filed a twelve- -9- Record Entry 1. J-A08010-14 Pennsylvania, which was docketed at D.C. Civ. No. 12-cv-00641. Record Entry 11 at Exhibit C. Our thorough review of the two documents indicates that there are similar complaints filed with the different courts. to a lack of jurisdiction lacks merit. We take notice of the decision rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which addressed No. 12-cv-00641, and is reflective of the fact that the federal court did not dismiss the matter on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction. Coulter v. Allegheny County Bar Association, et al., 496 Fed. Appx. 167 (3rd Cir. 2012). The following statements contained within the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals are of note: We conclude that there is no set of facts from which we can infer any understanding between the state court judges and the other defendants to deprive Coulter of her constitutional however, she pleads only vague inferences and allegations. Bare assertions of joint action or a conspiracy are not sufficient to survive dismissal at the pleading stage. In sum, as nothing in the complaint demonstrates the existence of any concerted effort between the state court judges and the other defendants, we failed to demonstrate that the non-judicial defendants acted under color of state law. Of course, the two judges, if sued directly for their own actions, are absolutely immune from civil suits for money damages arising from their judicial acts. It was complaint. Id. at 169 (citations omitted). -10- J-A08010-14 Thus, to the extent that Coulter claims that the instant matter should be considered to be a transfer from federal court, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(b)(1), such argument fails because it is evident that the federal court complaint solely due to a lack of jurisdiction, we observe that Coulter failed to transfer her case from federal court properly as contemplated by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(b)(2). Our review of the record reflects that Coulter allegation that the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County erred in not accepting the matter as being transferred from federal court lacks merit. P. 233.1, we conclude that her argument fails. We review this claim under the following standard: To the extent that the question presented involves interpretation of rules of civil procedure, our standard of review is de novo. To the extent that this question involves an exercise of the trial standard of review is abuse of discretion. Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration. Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason. Similarly, the -11- J-A08010-14 trial court abuses its discretion if it does not follow legal procedure. Sigall v. Serrano, 17 A.3d 946, 949 (Pa. Super. 2011) (internal citations omitted). Rule 233.1 provides, in relevant part, as follows: Rule 233.1. Frivolous Litigation. Pro Se Plaintiff. Motion to Dismiss (a) Upon the commencement of any action filed by a pro se plaintiff in the court of common pleas, a defendant may file a motion to dismiss the action on the basis that (1) the pro se plaintiff is alleging the same or related claims which the pro se plaintiff raised in a prior action against the same or related defendants, and (2) these claims have already been resolved pursuant to a written settlement agreement or a court proceeding. * * * (c) Upon granting the motion and dismissing the action, the court may bar the pro se plaintiff from pursuing additional pro se litigation against the same or related defendants raising the same or related claims without leave of court. Pa.R.C.P. 233.1(a), (c). The explanatory comment to Rule 233.1 provides as follows: It has come to the attention of the Supreme Court that certain litigants are abusing the legal system by repeatedly filing new litigation raising the same claims against the same defendant even though the claims have been previously adjudicated either through settlement or through court proceedings. New Rule 233.1 provides relief to a defendant who has been subjected to this type of repetitive litigation. While attorneys are subject to the rules of disciplinary procedure, no analogous rule exists to curb this type of abuse when done by a pro se party. -12- J-A08010-14 Upon the filing of an action by a pro se plaintiff, a defendant may file a motion to dismiss a pending action provided that (1) the pro se plaintiff is alleging the same or related claims against the same or related defendants, and (2) the claims have already been resolved pursuant to a settlement agreement or a court proceeding. The new rule also gives the trial court discretion to bar the pro se litigant from filing further litigation against the same or related defendants raising the same or related claims without leave of court. Pa.R.C.P. 233.1, Cmt. In Gray v. Buonopane, 53 A.3d 829 (Pa. Super. 2012), a panel of this Court addressed the obvious intent behind, and applicability of, Rule 233.1 as follows: Rule 233.1 was promulgated by our Supreme Court in 2010 to stem a noted increase in serial lawsuits of dubious merit filed by pro se litigants disaffected by prior failures to secure relief for injuries they perceived but could not substantiate. Accordingly, the drafting committee constructed the Rule with attention to potential manipulation of the legal process by those not learned in its proper use, seeking to establish accountability for pro se litigants commensurate with that imposed upon members of the Bar. Thus, the Rule operates to spare potential defendants the need to defend spurious claims, first, by allowing the expeditious dismissal of duplicative pro se actions and, second, by empowering the trial court to ban the pro se commencement of further actions against such defendants. summary proceedings for dismissal substantially less exacting than those required by the Rules of Court for counseled actions, as well as the absence from the language of any of the elements encompassed under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral omission of any reference to existing procedures under the Rules for obtaining judgment prior to trial, see, e.g., Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) (Preliminary Objections (Demurrer)), 1034 (Judgment on the Pleadings), 1035.2 (Summary -13- J-A08010-14 Judgment). Indeed, the very fact that Rule 233.1 was promulgated in the presence of this series of rules and procedures, that by design tests every aspect of the legal and the Court saw no reason to expose already beleaguered defendants to the demands of extended litigation and the rigor of technical procedural rules for summary disposition when the claims at issue have already been addressed in a substantive manner and resolved. * * * Contrary to Rule nor the explanatory comment mandate the technical identity of parties or claims imposed by res judicata or collateral estoppel; rather, it merely requires that the parties and the claims raised in the cur to those in the resolved These two terms are noteworthy in their omission of the technical precision otherwise associated with claim and issue preclusion; whereas parties and/o under the purview of those doctrines, Rule 233.1 requires only that they be sufficiently related to inform the trial court, in the s that the pro se litigant is availed of a chance to address his claim subject to the contractual guarantee of a settlement agreement or to the procedural safeguards that attend a court proceeding. It does not require, however, that the matter has progres quality or capacity in the persons for or against whom the claim is made. In view of the circumstances under which the rule was and the object to be attained, we find these multiple omissions indicative of the manner in which the Supreme Court intends Rule 233.1 to Gray, 53 A.3d at 835-836 (citations and certain quotation marks omitted). -14- J-A08010-14 As previously stated, in the federal court action docketed at D.C. Civ. No. 12-cv-00641, as well as the instant action, Coulter acted pro se. In both actions, Coulter raised similar causes of action against the same or related defendants. The main difference between the claims Coulter raises now in comparison to the claims she raised in the federal court action is that, in the instant action, she has altered language in a minor fashion and essentially alleges additional instances where the defendants failed to properly handle her case. We further observe that the claims in the federal court action were resolved pursuant to a court proceeding, i.e., the federal court entered an order dismissing the action. Thus, the parties and claims in the federal court action and in the current claim has been considered and resolved. Coulter has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing her complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 or by barring her from pursuing additional pro se litigation against Appellees pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 233.1(c). Accordingly, we conclude that her contrary claim lacks merit. ur issues, which we have numbered as issues three, four, five, and six, because the argument unsupported by any discussion or analysis of relevant legal authority. -15- J-A08010-14 24-32. Upon review of the arguments presented by Coulter, we conclude that they are waived. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119 addresses the argument section of appellate briefs and provides, in part, as follows: Rule 2119. Argument (a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have . . . such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). y that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155, 161 (Pa. Super. 2002); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b). to these rules may be considered waived, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived. Arguments not appropriately developed include those where the party has failed to cite any authority in Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 29-30 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted). This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. Irwin Union National Bank and Trust Company v. Famous and Famous and ATL Ventures, 4 A.3d 1099, 1103 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007)). -16- Moreover, we observe that the J-A08010-14 Commonwealth Court, our sister appellate court, has aptly noted that assertion pre Boniella v. Commonwealth, 958 A.2d 1069, 1073 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254, 1259 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)). es not contain Brief at 24-32. The portions of the argument pertaining to issues numbered three, four, and five contain no citation to any legal authority. 2 2 Th which is reflective of the fact that Coulter has provided no citation to any legal authority: [5] QUESTIONS OF FACT ... IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO AMENDEMENT [sic] OF THE COMPLAINT BE PERMITTED BECAUSE VERG]BAL [sic] MOTION FOR AMNEDMENT [sic] WAS NOT APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED BY A VULNERABLE TRIAL COURT WHICH ACTED WITH PROFOUND BIAS AND / OR MENTAL DIABILITY [sic]. At the time of the hearing on February 8, 2013, Coulter asked permission to file an amended complaint if the court was considering granting Preliminary Objections. This is a matter within the discretion of the Trial Court. But, the Trial Court was completely without jurisdiction, and thus no valid exercise of discretion was possible. (See also argument at VI) Therefore, this Honorable Court must Remand the matter to a Trial Court, which possesses jurisdiction to rule on this matter, in order to permit the Trial Court to make this determination. -17- J-A08010-14 Brief at 24-30. While the portion of the argument pertaining to issue number six does contain a reference to case law regarding the contents of the certified record, it is completely lacking any discussion or developed analysis relevant to the issues. Appella analysis precludes meaningful appellate review. -32. This lack of Accordingly, because set forth any meaningful discussion of relevant legal authority, we conclude that these issues are waived. Coulter next baldly asserts that the decision of the trial court should be -36. n the court of common pleas was in violation of statute, rules, and the Pennsylvania Constitution. We conclude that this issue is waived. First, we observe that Coulter is not challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Indeed, Coulter initiated her action in that court. As such, an allegation by Coulter that the court of common pleas lacked jurisdiction would be meritless. Rather, we consider Preliminary Objections ... in the Nature of a Motion to Strike, is an abuse of discretion, and therefore beyond the scope of this -18- J-A08010-14 case, i.e. appointed to his position as a senior judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Pennsylvania Rule not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first Hence, only claims properly presented in the lower court are preserved for appeal. Indeed, even issues of constitutional dimension cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Estate of Fridenberg, 982 A.2d 68, 76 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citing Commonwealth v. Strunk, 953 A.2d 577, 579 (Pa. Super. 2008)). It is well established that trial judges must be given an party may not remain silent and afterwards complain of matters Strunk, 953 A.2d at 579 (citations omitted). It is the duty of the party who seeks disqualification of a judge to file the petition in a timely fashion. Rizzo v. Haines, 555 A.2d 58, 70 (Pa. 1989). A recusal motion that is not timely filed will be denied. Id well-settled that a party seeking recusal or disqualification must raise the objection at the earliest possible moment, or that party will suffer the Commonwealth v. Stafford, 749 A.2d -19- J-A08010-14 489, 501 (Pa. Super. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis a which appellate issues were preserved for review. Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c), 2119(e). Our review of the certified record reflects that Coulter failed to by seeking disqualification prior to his disposition of her case. Likewise, Coulter has failed to demonstrate where she has preserved this issue for appellate review. Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that this issue is waived. In her final issue, Coulter contends that she is arguing that Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 violates the equal protection clause of the United States -39. We conclude that any such argument is waived. aived and cannot be raised even if the issue raised for the first time on appeal is a constitutional question. ABG Promotions v. Parkway Publishing, Inc., 834 A.2d 613, 619 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citing Brown v. Philadelphia Tribune Co., 668 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 1995)). Our review of the record reflects that Coulter did not present any objection to the constitutionality or validity of Rule 233.1 to the trial court. -20- J-A08010-14 Similarly, she has failed to demonstrate where she has preserved this issue for review by this Court. Accordingly, this issue is waived, and we decline to address it. Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/20/2014 -21-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.