Dominguez, J. v. Smith, G. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A08025-21 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JULIO DOMINGUEZ, OLGA CIFUENTES AND MARINA DOMINGUEZ CIFUENTES Appellants v. G. GUY SMITH, ESQUIRE : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 635 EDA 2020 Appeal from the Order Entered November 12, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): CV-2018-003236 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: MAY 10, 2021 In this legal malpractice action, Julio Dominguez, Olga Cifuentes and Marina Dominguez Cifuentes, (Appellants), appeal from the denial of their petition to amend complaint, and the grant of the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Appellee G. Guy Smith, Esquire (Smith).1 According to Appellants, they brought the underlying action “to recover damages for the fraud, lack of competent representation and breach of contract . . . based on Smith’s representation of them in 2015.” Appellants’ Brief at 3. Also according to Appellants: ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. Appellants filed their complaint in Philadelphia County on December 22, 2017; Smith objected to venue, and by order entered March 13, 2018, the case was transferred to Delaware County. 1 J-A08025-21 The people involved in this action are Marina Dominguez Cifuentes (hereinafter Mother), Thomas Karl, a multi-millionaire, and the Defendant Guy Smith, Esquire. To start I am going to say that [the] following story is unbelievable but true. It is unimaginable that the justice system would allow this to happen, but every fact stated herein can and will be demonstrated at trial. Further, it is important to note that the Karl [sic], is an admitted perjurer, bigamist, and an attorney. Appellants’ Brief at 4 (footnotes omitted).2 In response, Smith explains: Thomas K[arl] and Marina Dominguez Cifuentes are the parents of two children, MAK and TMK. Julio Dominguez and Olga Cifuentes are Marina Dominguez Cifuentes’ parents, and the grandparents of MAK and TMK. The contentious relationship of the parties is fully explained and laid out in three prior opinions of this Court. No complete or cogent understanding of the parties and the issues can be made without a review of the prior opinions of this Court, and that of the custody court, as adopted by this Court. What is relevant to this appeal is the protection from abuse order, (“PFA”) obtained by Thomas K[arl] as to [Appellants] in this action, Marina Dominguez Cifuentes, (“Mother”), and Julio Dominguez and Olga Cifuentes, (“Grandparents”). [A]ppellee, G. Guy Smith, Esquire represented Grandparents in relation to the PFA order, which required Mother and Grandparents to stay away from the children when in the custody of Thomas K[arl]. Smith’s Brief at 4. Smith further summarized: The three opinions were lodged in 3283 EDA 2017, decided May 23, 2019; 3321 EDA 2017, also decided May 23, 2019, and 3499 EDA 2017, decided May 24, 2019. There have been myriad additional appeals regarding related cases and claims, including ____________________________________________ To the extent Appellants editorialize and allege facts not of record, we emphasize it “is black letter law in this jurisdiction that an appellate court cannot consider anything which is not part of the record.” Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305, 316 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). 2 -2- J-A08025-21 3654 EDA 2017; 3077 EDA 2018, 390 EDA 2018, 855 EDA 2019 and 1291 EDA 2019. None of these related cases resulted in opinions by this Court, as these appeals were discontinued or quashed. There have also been other proceedings in this Court and the Supreme Court, none of which implicate the decisions in the cases upon which the trial court relied to grant judgment on the pleadings in this action. Smith’s Brief at 4 n.3 (citations to Supplemental Reproduced Record omitted). In this Court’s prior decision affirming the trial court’s modification of “the stipulation negotiated by counsel to resolve a Protection From Abuse petition,” we observed that Appellants have been involved in multiple cases “with a long, complex, contentious, and convoluted history.” T.K. v. J.D. & O.C., No. 3283 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. May 23, 2019) (unpublished memorandum at 1-2). In this appeal, Appellants claim the trial court erred in denying their petition to amend their complaint, and granting Smith’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. “When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a petition to amend a complaint, we grant the trial court broad discretion in evaluating the petition.” Diaz v. Schultz, 841 A.2d 546, 549 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citing Hamilton v. Bechtel, 657 A.2d 980, 981 (Pa. Super. 1995)). “We will not disturb the sound discretion of the trial court absent an abuse of discretion.” Id. When the trial court enters judgment on the pleadings: The standard to be applied upon review of a motion for judgment on the pleadings accepts all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true. The question presented by the demurrer is whether, on the facts averred, the law says with certainty that -3- J-A08025-21 no recovery is possible. Where a doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, this doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling it. Entry of judgment on the pleadings is permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1034 which provides for such judgment after the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay trial. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a demurrer. It may be entered when there are no disputed issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining if there is a dispute as to facts, the court must confine its consideration to the pleadings and relevant documents. The scope of review on an appeal from the grant of judgment on the pleadings is plenary. We must determine if the action of the court below was based on clear error of law or whether there were facts disclosed by the pleadings which should properly go to the jury. Forbes v. King Shooters Supply, 230 A.3d 1181, 1186–87 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 240 A.3d 115 (Pa. 2020). In the underlying legal malpractice action, Appellants claim Smith was negligent in providing legal advice in their PFA litigation.3 Opinion, 6/17/20, at 1-6. See Trial Court Although Appellants recited nine issues — with subparts — in their court-ordered concise statement of errors complained on appeal, they have reduced their number of issues to five, stated as follows: 1. Whether the Trial Court erred when it determined that a secret payment of $10,000 from the opposing party to Appellants’ Counsel is synonymous with a Court Ordered Payment for Attorney’s fees. ____________________________________________ “T.K.” filed three PFA petitions against Appellants in 2015: Nos. 80484, 80483 and 80438 (the first against “M.D.C.” and the latter two against “J.D. and O.C.”). Custody and divorce proceedings “remain ongoing,” and “there have been related proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and the Federal Court System.” Trial Court Opinion, 6/17/20, at 2. 3 -4- J-A08025-21 2. Whether the Trial Court erred when it denied Appellants’ First Request to Amend the Complaint and Refused to Rule on the Appellants’ Second Request to Amend the Complaint - after Granting [Smith]’s Request to Amend his answer. 3. Whether the Trial Court erred when it ruled that there were no issues of material fact. 4. Whether the Trial Court erred when it determined that “understanding” a settlement agreement dictates that it was a professionally written agreement. 5. Whether the Trial Court erred when it determined that it is not a question of fact as to whether an Attorney who incorrectly advises his client that an action is permitted when in fact the action was prohibited. Appellants’ Brief at 2-3. We have reviewed the record mindful of our aforementioned standards of review. The crux of Appellants’ overall argument is that they have pled sufficient facts for their legal malpractice action against Smith to proceed. Each of Appellants’ issues relates to their assertion that Smith failed to “perform in a professional manner” and exercise “ordinary skill and knowledge,” such that Appellants “suffered damages . . . financially and mentally,” because Smith’s professional negligence resulted in a PFA order that deprived Appellants from seeing their grandchildren. See generally Complaint, 12/22/17. In response, the Honorable Kathrynann W. Durham, sitting as the trial court, has authored a comprehensive opinion which accurately and specifically explains why Appellants’ issues and arguments lack merit. Judge Durham states: -5- For example, J-A08025-21 [Appellants’] argument that [Smith]’s alleged bad advice to agree to the stipulated PFA Order denied them the right to visit with the children is flawed because the Stipulated PFA Order did not control the who, what, when, where and how of the visitations, but rather, the custody proceedings would answer these questions. Trial Court Opinion, 6/17/20, at 24. Judge Durham also observes that much of Appellants’ argument is based on their “effort to re-litigate what has already been litigated,” and is therefore precluded by res judicata and collateral estoppel. See id. at 19-23, 26. Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion or trial court error. Further, we find the trial court’s opinion properly addresses and resolves Appellants’ issues, such that further commentary by this Court would be redundant. We therefore adopt the trial court’s June 17, 2020 opinion as our own in disposing of this appeal, and direct the parties to attach a copy of the opinion to any relevant future filings. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/10/21 -6- Circulated 04/15/2021 03:59 PM
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.
