Figeuroa, M. and M. v. Saad, K. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A03013-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MARISOL AND MIGUEL FIGUEROA, HUSBAND AND WIFE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. KHALED SAAD Appellee No. 623 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered March 8, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 10-23640 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. Appellants, Marisol and FILED MAY 23, 2014 Miguel Figueroa, husband and wife the Honorable Timothy J. Rowley, Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, which sustained The trial court summarized the undisputed facts of this case as follows: This case concerns an automobile accident that occurred on December 27, 2008. [Appellee] Khaled Saad allegedly rearended a vehicle in which [Appellant] Marisol Torres Figueroa was the driver and her husband [Appellant] Miguel Nieves was a passenger. The action sought compensation for personal injuries ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A03013-14 to [Appellant] Miguel Nieves; further details of the accident and injuries are not material to the issues on appeal. On December 15, 2010, shortly before the statutory limitations period expired, [Appellants] filed a writ of summons. On January 12, 2011, the Sheriff filed a return of service form indicating service had not been made. Thereafter, [Appellants] [Saad]. The insurer did not have current contact information for [Saad]. [Appellants] conducted an online search of unspecified [Appellants] have not presented a concise timeline for these initial efforts to locate [Saad], but they admit to tabling the search for a period of months and assuming the insurer would get in touch if it was concerned about the suit. A renewed computer search in March 2012 apparently revealed a new potential address for [Saad]. After a gap of more than fourteen months with no docket activity whatsoever, [Appellants] filed a praecipe to reissue the writ on March 26, 2012. Service was once again unsuccessful, and the Sheriff filed a form to that effect on April 17, 2012. insurer, but the insurer had no new information as to [his] location. [Appellants] also asked the insurer to accept service of Apparently in response to a letter and copy of the writ sent [Saad] refused to give his exact location, saying only that he was near Adamstown, Pennsylvania (which is on the border of Berks and Lancaster Counties), but he did give his phone assistance of a larger law firm in finding [Saad]; with the phone number the other firm was able to find another address. On May 1, 2012, [Appellants] filed a praecipe to reissue the writ again, service on May 17, 2012. After [Saad] filed a praecipe for rule to file a complaint on June 26[, 2012] and then sent a ten-day notice of default for failure to file a complaint on August 6[, 2012], [Appellants] filed a complaint on August 8, 2012. [Saad] thereafter filed -2- J-A03013-14 preliminary objections, on which the [c]ourt heard argument January 7, 2013. By order dated March 8, 2013, the [c]ourt dismissed the action with prejudice. [Appellants] filed [a timely] notice of appeal on April 8, 2013. Trial Court Opinion, 6/25/13 at 1-3. On appeal, Appellants raise the following issues for our review: A. preliminary objections and failing to determine that Appellee had either actual or constructive notice that a civil action had has knowledge of same. B. Whether the delay in service of process of the writ of summons actually prejudiced [Appellee] and, therefore, did ights had been [a]ffected. C. Whether the lower court erred in failing to determine what, if any, rights of the [Appellee] had been prejudiced by a delay in service of process. Our standard when reviewing preliminary objections is as follows: The scope of review in determining whether a trial court erred in sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing a complaint is plenary. In determining whether the trial court properly sustained preliminary objections, the appellate court must examine the averments in the complaint, together with the documents and exhibits attached thereto, in order to evaluate the sufficiency of the facts averred. When sustaining the trial court's ruling will result in the denial of claim or a dismissal of suit, preliminary objections will be sustained only where the case is free and clear of doubt, and this Court will reverse the trial court's decision -3- J-A03013-14 regarding preliminary objections only where there has been an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Sulkava v. Glaston Finland Oy, 54 A.3d 884, 889 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 75 A.3d 1282 (Pa. 2013). With our standard of review in mind, we have examined the certified law. concluded that they lack merit. Trial Court Opinion, 6/25/13 at 3-9. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as set forth in its opinion, and affirm on this basis. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/23/2014 -4-
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.
