Hatchigian v. Gallagher

1

DAVID HATCHIGIAN AND JOAN RANDAZZO v. NANCY C. GALLAGHER AND DONEGAL INSURANCE GROUP

APPEAL OF: DAVID HATCHIGIAN:

No. 2359 EDA 2022

No. J-A19032-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

September 18, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered August 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s) 220600194

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

PELLEGRINI, J.

David Hatchigian (Hatchigian) and his wife Joan Randazzo (Randazzo), (together, Appellants) appeal pro se from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) denying their "Motion for Leave to Submit Pro Se Filing in Accordance with the Court's Order Dated October 22, 2021 Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 233.1"^[1] in this breach of contract action brought against Nancy C. Gallagher (Gallagher) and Donegal Insurance Group (Donegal) (together, Appellees). On appeal, Appellants challenge the trial court's application of Rule 233.1 in dismissing this case. We affirm.

I.

A.

A brief review of the previous litigation between the parties is necessary to our disposition. On May 26, 2021, Hatchigian filed a complaint against Gallagher and Donegal in the Philadelphia Municipal Court seeking damages for home improvement work performed in February of 2011 by Gallagher's husband Neil Gallagher, who died in May of 2012 (Decedent). Hatchigian alleged that he hired Decedent to complete roofing work at a property he and Randazzo owned in Philadelphia; Decedent warranted that the roofing work would be free of defects for 20 years and that he was insured accordingly; and the roofing material installed by Decedent collapsed eight years after installation, necessitating extensive repair work. Regarding Donegal, the Decedent's former insurer, Hatchigian alleged that the contractor liability insurance policy Decedent carried covered his losses.

The Municipal Court held a trial on the matter on July 9, 2021, at which Hatchigian appeared pro se. Gallagher testified that Decedent had owned a roofing business, but that she was not involved in its operations in any capacity. She did not manage it, did not interact with customers, and did not sign a roofing contract for any work performed by Decedent. Gallagher did not continue Decedent's business after he died and it was dissolved. (See N.T. Trial, 7/09/21, at 23, 27).

She was separately employed during that time period by Abington Memorial Hospital as a Community Health Manager. Gallagher also testified that she had never met or heard of Hatchigian until commencement of this litigation. (See id. at 24). She explained that Decedent did not have a will and that they jointly owned their home as tenants by the entireties during their marriage.

Hatchigian testified that he was "seeking damages for Breach of Contract based on Mrs. Gallagher being . . . the wife of Mr. Gallagher [and] has assumed his estate." (Id. at 14). With regard to Decedent's roofing company, Hatchigian stated, "under decent, [Mrs. Gallagher] would have been next in line." (Id. at 15). Hatchigian acknowledged that he never had an insurance policy or a contract with Donegal and that it never issued him any type of warranty for the work performed by Decedent. Hatchigian indicated that Decedent had represented to him that he was insured. (See id. at 20).

The exhibits submitted to the court showed that the Donegal insurance policy Decedent carried terminated in May of 2012, just after he passed away. (See id. at 31). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Municipal Court entered judgment in favor of Gallagher and Donegal. Hatchigian filed an appeal from the judgment on July 30, 2021, in the Court of Common Pleas, but that appeal was struck because of his failure to file a complaint.

B.

On September 14, 2021, Hatchigian and Randazzo filed a complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against Gallagher and Donegal raising the same allegations concerning Decedent's liability for damages for the roof work. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 233.1,^[2] which the trial court granted on October 22, 2021. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and ordered that "Plaintiff David Hatchigian shall not pursue additional pro se litigation against the same or related Defendants raising the same or related claims without leave of Court." (Order, 10/22/21).

On June 2, 2022, Hatchigian and Randazzo initiated the instant action by filing a writ of summons against Appellees without leave of court. On June 22, 2022, Appellees filed a praecipe and rule for Appellants to file a complaint within 20 days or risk entry of a judgment of non pros.

On July 19, 2022, Appellants filed the underlying pro se "Motion for Leave to Submit Pro Se Filing in Accordance with the Court's Order Dated October 22, 2021 Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 233.1" (Motion). They attached a proposed complaint advancing the same claims raised in the previous litigation concerning Decedent's 2011 roofing work to their property. On July 26, 2022, Appellees filed a praecipe for entry of judgment of non pros for failure to file a complaint, which the Office of Judicial Records entered on that same day. On August 11, 2022, after review of the proposed complaint, the trial court denied the Motion. This timely appeal followed. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court stated that it properly denied the Motion pursuant to Rule 233.1(d), which permits a trial court to sua sponte dismiss an action filed in violation of a court order. The trial court explained:

Plaintiff's June 2, 2022 Writ of Summons was filed in direct violation of this trial court's October 22, 2021 order entered under subdivision(c) of Rule 233.1 Pro se Plaintiffs filed their June 2, 2022 Writ of Summons without leave of court against 'the same or related defendants' raising, according to their proposed complaint attached to their Motion, 'the same or related claims.' As such, pursuant to Rule 233.1(d), the trial court properly denied Plaintiffs' Motion.

(Trial Court Opinion, 1/04/23, at 3).

II.

Appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion by applying Rule 233.1 where this lawsuit does not involve the "same or related claims" as the previous litigation.^[3] (See Appellants' Brief, at 15-17). They point to the fact that Randazzo was not a party to some of the previous proceedings and maintain that the allegations contained in the proposed complaint have not been fully adjudicated on the merits.

We begin by observing that the explanatory comment to Rule 233.1 provides that it seeks to limit frivolous litigation and abuse of the legal system by litigants who repeatedly file "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. [The Rule] provides relief to a defendant who has been subjected to this type of repetitive litigation." Pa.R.C.P. 233.1, Explanatory Comment.

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." Gray, supra at 716. "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." Id. "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 litigant's commencement of further actions against such defendants." Id. (citation omitted).

Additionally, "Rule 233.1 does not require the highly technical prerequisites of res judicata or collateral estoppel to allow the trial court to conclude that a pro se litigant's claims are adequately related to those addressed in prior litigation." Gray v. Buonopane, 53 A.3d 829, 838 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 64 A.3d 632 (Pa. 2013). "Nor does it require an identity of parties or the capacities in which they sued or were sued." Id. "Rather, it requires a rational relationship evident in the claims made and in the defendant's relationships with one another to inform the trial court's conclusion that the bar the Rule announces is justly applied." Id.

Instantly these rational relationships between the parties and the claims made are fully evident in this third in a string of repetitive lawsuits brought by Appellants. The record reflects that this...