Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-6099 CivilFLORENCE R. WILLIER and DARLENE I. MASIELLO, Plaintiffs Ve ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Oler, J., April 3, 1997. In this civil case, the pro se plaintiffs are a mother and daughter who contend that their home has become "a biological waste site" and that they "have been personally ... contaminated by microorganisms internally in [their] bodies."~ Defendants, according to plaintiffs' complaint, provided homeowner's insurance for the dwelling.2 About two years after the action was commenced, following a series of largely incomprehensible and generally recriminatory motions, requests, objections and responses on the part of plaintiffs, the court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for failure to comply with a discovery order.3 No appeal was taken from this order. More than 30 days after entry of the order, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion was denied.4 From the N.T. 37, Hearing, June 27, 1996. Plaintiffs' complaint, paragraph 6. Order of Court, October 31, 1996. Order of Court, January 8, 1997. NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM order denying reconsideration, Plaintiffs have appealed to the Superior Court. This opinion in support of the court's order denying reconsideration of the dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a). PROCEDURAL HISTORY; STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs' complaint, containing counts for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress,s and bad faith, was filed on October 24, 1994. Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently petitioned to withdraw, citing "irreconcilable differences between counsel ... and [plaintiffs] as to the handling of this matter.''~ Counsel noted that plaintiffs had "informed [counsel] that they have elected to proceed pro se.''7 The petition to withdraw was granted.8 Over the course of the succeeding months, plaintiffs have filed at least sixteen motions or other requests for relief, s This count was dismissed on preliminary objections. of Court, February 2, 1995 (Bayley, J.). Order ~ Petition paragraph 6. To Withdraw As Counsel for the Plaintiff, Id., paragraph 8. Order of Court, March 3, 1995. NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM including a motion "for stay on all court orders etc.,''9 a "motion and request for an injunction" against a certain municipality not a party to the case "for ordinance violations, fines and arrest warrants ...,..~0 and a document called "abuse of subpoena by defendants."n Representative of filings by plaintiffs is the following: REOUEST~ BY PLAINTIFFS FOR ORAL MOTION BEFORE J. OLER TO RESPOND TO THE ORDER OF FEB. 13, 1996 SIGNED BY JUDGE OLER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY RELIEF, REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE DENIED, AND THE ORDER OF FEB. 13, 1996 PLAINTIFFS ASK FOR RECISION OF THIS, COURT ORDER FEB. 13, 1996 & STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD. In the interest of "JUSTICE", to Plaintiffs we ASK this, COURT, to GRANT A RESPONSE to this COURTS ORDER, FEB. 13, 1996, by, ORAL MOTION before this COURT, so Plaintiffs, can show cause why the relief REQUESTED, by defendants be DENIED. Since this is a ORAL MOTION, RULE RETURNABLE, within 20 days of service, be WAIVED due to the FACT Plaintiffs, do not know this COURTS SCHEDULE, and the Plaintiffs do not know what date Plaintiffs ORAL MOTION, would be heard by this, COURT if GRANTED. 9 Plaintiffs Motion for Stay on Ail Court Orders etc., filed March 1, 1996. ~0 Plaintiffs Motion and Request for an Injunction against Lower Allen Township for Ordinance Violations, Fines and Arrest Warrants, Directly Related to the Property in Plaintiffs Civil Action 1388 Lowther Road, Lower Allen Township Which Is Presently Before This Court, filed July 9, 1996. Abuse of subpoena by Defendants, filed December 12, 1995. NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM Plaintiffs hereby ask this Court to GRANT Plaintiffs a ORAL MOTION so Plaintiffs can RESPOND to the ORDER of this Court, of, February 13, 1996, to SHOW CAUSE WHY RELEIF, REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE DENIED, AND STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD, AND A RECISION OF THIS COURTS ORDER February 13, 1996. FLORENCE R. WILLIER Pro Se DARLENE I. MASIELLO Pro Se Plaintiffs' responses to motions filed by Defendants have been of a similar tenor. Plaintiffs' "objection" to a motion to compel discovery, for instance, begins: Plaintiffs ask this "COURT" to "GRANT" them a "PROTECTIVE" , "ORDER" and to "LIMIT" the "SCOPE" of Defendants "REQUEST" for , "DOCUMENTS" , AND "ANSWERS" to "INTERROGATIRIES" , as Defendants "REQUEST" "REQUEST" , is "TO .... BROAD","IRRELEVANT", "HARASSMENT" and not , "WITHIN" "JURISDICTION" of this "CASE." Defendants, "FAIL" to "CLARIFY" "PLAINTIFFS" as "INDIVI DUALS" making it "ALMOST" "IMPOSSIBLE" for "PLAINTIFFS" to "ANSWER" AND WISH THIS "COURT" TO "CLARIFY" WHICH QUESTIONS PERTAINS TO EACH "PLAINTIFF".. ~2 The direct sequence of events leading to the dismissal of 'plaintiffs' complaint, and to the denial of their motion for reconsideration which is the subject of appeal, may be summarized as follows. On September 11, 1995, Defendants filed a Motion To ~2 Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants Motion and This "Courts .... Order" To "Compel" Answers to "Interrogatories" and "Response" to "Requests" for "Production" of "Documents" etc. under "Rule" Pa. R.C.P.4006, filed September 28, 1995. NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Document Requests. The court issued a rule to show cause upon plaintiffs in response to the motion on September 14, 1995. Plaintiffs filed an "OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION and THIS "COURTS .... ORDER" TO "COMPEL" , ANSWERS TO "INTERROGATORIES" and "RESPONSE" to "REQUEsTs" FOR "PRODUCTION" of "DOCUMENTS" etc. UNDER "RULE" PA. R.C.P.4006," on September 28, 1995. The court scheduled a discovery conference for November 22, 1995.~3 A set of 33 interrogatories and a request for production of documents had been served by defendants on February 13, 1995, and a set of four additional interrogatories had been served on August 8, 1995.TM Following the conference, the court issued the following order granting defendants' motion: AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 1995, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion To Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Document Requests, and following a discovery conference in chambers in which the Plaintiffs, Florence R. Willier and Darlene I. Masiello, appeared pro se, and the Defendants were represented by Donald B. Kaufman, Esquire, it is ordered and directed that the Plaintiffs answer the interrogatories heretofore submitted by Defendants and supply the documents requested by Defendants within thirty days of today's date. To the extent that Plaintiffs' response with respect to a given document is that it is ~3 Order of Court, October 2, 1995. ~4 Defendants' Motion To Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Document Requests, paragraphs 3, 6, Exhibits A, B, E. NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM unavailable because it is lodged in the house in question in this case, Plaintiffs shall permit the Defendants access to the document but shall not be required to go into the home themselves. In response to this order, plaintiffs filed a document on December 22, 1995, entitled "Plaintiffs Answers, Set One and Two and Production of Documents to Defendants -- Objections to Defendants Interrogatories and Production of Documents." Under a section of the document labeled "General Objections," these paragraphs are set forth: 1. Defendants Interrogatories, exceeds forty in numbers, and thereby VIOLATES the LOCAL RULES OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. The answers and OBJECTIONS SET FORTH BELOW do not WAIVE, Plaintiffs, OBJECTION, TO THE EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS, INTERROGATORIES and DOCUMENTS REQUEST. 2. DEFENDANTS INTERROGATORIES , are directed to BOTH PLAINTIFFS, and are not ADDRESSED to any PARTICULAR PLAINTIFFS. TO the EXTENT, defendants INTERROGATORIES are directed to "YOU.", meaning both Plaintiffs, are misleading, etc.. EXAMPLE: Plaintifffs, were issued a check, etc., The question as is many others is misleading as only on Plaintiff, received a CHECK FOR EXTERIOR ONLY. THEREFORE DEFENDANTS INTERROGATORIES, are OBJECTED to TO AS "IRRELEVANT" and UNDULY BURDENSOME, and beyond the scope of DISCOVERY, permitted by the Pa. R. C. P.. Plaintiffs , wish to object to what we feel is deliberate, deception of Defendants statement Quote: Erie Insurance Group is not a an entity. As stated on Defendants answers and objections to Plaintiffs, interrogatories, paragraph two, dated December 18, 1995. Plaintiffs, will submitt to this COURT, Erie Insurance Group , is in fact Registered with the Dept. of State Bureau of CORPORATIONS 6 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNDER FICTITIOUS NAMES ENTITY NUMBER 2191660. FILED 08-10-83 amended SEPTEMBER 22, 1994. Erie Insurance Company , is also an important part of this Corporate Structure. All three Defendants are interwoven and all three Defendants pay the PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, under ONE NAME, ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY. Plaintiffs feel this was a DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE PLAINTIFFS & THIS COURT. THEREFORE DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE "ORDERED" BY THIS COURT TO ANSWER ALL INTERROGATRIES NOT THOSE LIMITED TO ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE. ONCE AGAIN "SANCTIONS" ARE IN ORDER. Within twenty days when Defendants enter these answers, and OBJECTIONS, to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, and are dated in the PROTHONOTARYS OFFICE ON RECORD, PLAINTIFFS WILL THEN ADDRESS THE DECEPTIVE ANSWERS. Under a section labeled "Answers and Objections," the following responses are included: 2. OBJECTION, This Interrogatory, is overly broad, unduly , BURDONSOME, IRRELEVANT, NOT CALCULATED, TO LEAD to the DISCOVERY, of ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, HARRASSING, and CRUEL, AND BEYOND THE SCOPE os DISCOVERY, PERMITTED by the Pa. R. C. P, * PERMANENT RESIDENT, REFER: to ANSWER NUMBER ONE.~5 ~5 The interrogatory to which this response was made read as follows: 2. Identify all persons who have resided at the Home since it came into your possession, their relationship to you, and the dates on which each person resided at the Home. Defendants' Motion To Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Document Requests, Exhibit A. Plaintiffs' response to Question 1 themselves. identified 7 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM 3. The OBJECTIONS PARAGRAPH @TWO, ABOVE, are, HEREIN BY REFERENCE.16 set forth in INCORPERATED 17. YES A,B,C,D,E,F, CANNOT REMEMBER, WILL HAVE TO GET THEIR FILES.17 follows: 17 follows: The interrogatory to which this response was made read as 3. If the Home was purchased by you, or on your behalf, identify the date on which it was purchased, the buyer, the seller, the purchase price, and any documents which relate to the transaction and describe in detail the structures and any real estate which were part of the transaction. If the purchases of the real estate or other structures were separate transactions, describe the details of same. The interrogatory to which this response was made read as 17. Have you ever contracted or communicated with any representative of the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, If so, (a) Identify each person you communicated with; (b) The date of each conversation or other communication; (c) The location at which each conversation was held; (d) Describe fully and in detail the substance of each conversation or communication; (e) As to each conversation or communication, identify any witnesses who were present or within hearing distance; and (f) As to each conversation or communication, identify all documents which relate or refer to it. NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM 22. REFER TO QUESTION IF PREMATURE.18 PARAGRAPH TWO. 24. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT SURE WHICH MEDICAL RECORDS OR PHYSICIAN WILL BE USED AT TRIAL. THEREFORE IT IS TOO PREMATURE TO ANSWER AT THIS TIME.~9 25. REFER TO TWENTY FOUR QUESTION2° follows: follows: 2O follows: The interrogatory to which this response was made read as 22. Identify any potential witnesses who could be called at the trial of this action whether or not you intend to call any of said persons as witnesses at trial, and for each potential witness provide a brief summary of his or her expected testimony. The interrogatory to which this response was made read as 24. State the names and addresses of all hospitals, clinics, nursing homes or other institutions in which you have been confined or received out-patient treatment due to the "growth of mildew and fungus" referred to Paragraph 45 of the Complaint or the "mental anguish" allegedly suffered by you, with dates of confinement and out-patient treatment, the charges for same and the amount that has been paid, and the name and address of each physician who treated you on these occasions. The interrogatory to which this response was made read as 25. If not previously furnished, state the names and addresses and date and time of your first consultation with respect to all of the physicians, osteopaths, chiropractors, therapists or practitioners of any medical or related are whom you saw for treatment or diagnosis. Specify those physicians, etc., from whom you are presently receiving treatment and how often you are receiving treatment. NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM 26. REFER TO PARAGHAPH TWENTY FOUR2~ 28. REFER TO PARAGRAPH TWO.2~ 30. WAS CASHED AT BANK, THEN IT WAS WITHDRAWN. NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, TO MAKE A FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE TO A INSURANCE COMPANY, IN A CASE OF THIS NATURE. UNDER Pa R. C.P. OBJECTION 32. YOUR ACTIONS OF BAD FAITH, ARE SO NUMEROUS WE ARE NOW FORMULATING OUR FOUNDATION FOR JURY TRIAL., AND PRESENTATION, OF FACTS. THEREFORE THIS QUESTION IS PREMATURE AT THIS TIME, OBJECTION.23 33. OBJECTION THIS QUESTION A E, IS IRRELEVANT , PRIVILEDGED INFORMATION , AND AGAIN A FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE OF WHICH YOU ARE 2~ The interrogatory to which this response was made read as follows: 26. With respect to those physicians, osteopaths, chiropractors, therapists or practitioners named in answer to preceding Interrogatories, state with respect to each the inclusive dates of treatment and total charge for services. 2~ The interrogatory to which this response was made read as follows: 28. Identify all exhibits which you intend to introduce at the trial of this action. ~3 The interrogatory to which this response was made read as follows: 32. Describe the specific acts and/or omissions which support your claim for bad faith, as alleged in the Complaint. Identify all documents which support your claim. 10 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM NOT ENTILTLED TO. IT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE. AND BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DISCOVERY PERMITTED BY THE Pa. R. C.P., objection.24 1. Interrogatory is UNINTELLIGIBLE, IMPERTIENT, OVERBROAD, UNDULY, BURDENSOME, and BEYOND the SCOPE of DISCOVERY PERMITTED by the Pa. R. C. P.. In its present STATE, it IMPOSSIBLE , to UNDERSTAND and ASK for CLARIFICATION.2s ~4 The interrogatory to which this response was made read as follows: 33. Identify any other insurance claims which have been made by you, on your behalf, or from which either of you have been the beneficiary or recipient. For each such claim, state: (a) The nature circumstances of the claim; and (b) The date on which the claim was made; (c) The name of the insurer and insured; (d) The amount of the claim; and (e) The resolution of the claim. Identify all documents which pertain to each claim. ~s The interrogatory, from Defendants' second set, to which this response was made read as follows: 1. Identify all contractors, engineers, investigators and other specialists whom you have contacted concerning your claim in this matter. For each, state the date(s) and nature of your communications. Defendants' Motion To Compel Answer to Interrogatories and Response to Discovery Requests, Exhibit E. 11 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM Plaintiffs' answer also included an affidavit from a builder~ This affidavit apparently constituted plaintiffs' entire response to defendants' request for production of documents. The request had sought a number of items, including insurance policies, medical records, and intended exhibits.26 The builder's expository style was oddly familiar: When I arrived GOODLING and I, went outside and "INSPECTED" the "EXTERIOR" HE SAID I WAS to "SUBMIT" A "ESTIMATE" FOR THE "EXTERIOR" .... On January 29, 1996, defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions Due to Plaintiffs' Failure To Provide Complete Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Document Requests. The sanction requested was dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint. The court issued a rule to show cause upon plaintiffs in response to the petition on February 13, 1996. On March 8, 1996, defendants filed a Petition To Make Rule Absolute. Plaintiffs responded to this petition with a document entitled Plaintiffs/Objection's to Defendants Petition To Make Rule Absolute. In part, plaintiffs response stated as follows: "OBJECTION? A MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS FOR "ORAL" MOTION BE GRANTED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS RELEIF SHOULD BE "DENIED". THIS COURT HAS NOT GRANTED OR DENIED PLAINTIFFS REQUEST AND HAVE BEEN WAITING ON A "ORDER" FROM THIS COURT, DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT, BE "GRANTED" WITHOUT A CHANCE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE, WITHOUT A COURT "ORDER" ON PLAINTIFFS "ORAL" MOTION THIS WOULD BE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF "LAW". 26 Defendants' Motion To Compel Answers to Interrogatories, Exhibit 3. 12 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM The court scheduled a discovery conference on defendants' petition, and on a number of motions filed by plaintiffs, for May 9, 1996.2? Plaintiffs failed to appear at the conference, claiming transportation difficulties. The court permitted them to participate in the conference by telephone.28 The record of this conference reveals that plaintiffs had no reasonable explanation for their failure to comply with the earlier court order. A typical exchange was as follows: THE COURT: Now, Mr. Kaufman, what is the first interrogatory that you feel was not properly answered or not at all? MR. KAUFMAN: Interrogatory No. 2, Your Honor. Identify all persons who have resided at the home since it came into your possession, their relationship to you, and the dates on which each person resided at the home. The Court has ordered the Plaintiffs to answer and already overruled their objections. The response is objection. This is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, harassing and cruel and beyond the scope of discovery permitted by the Pa. R.C.P.; and then permanent resident, refer to Answer No. 1, and that refers to the Plaintiffs. They do not answer Interrogatory No. 2 at all. I'll now go on -- do you want to take them one at a time? THE COURT: Yes. MS. MASIELLO: There is something we are missing here, because, according to my file, it should state Florence Willier and Darlene Masiello and the dates that I lived there and I didn't live there and then returned home with my mother and the date she moved there Order of Court, March 22, 1996. N.T. 2-3, Discovery Conference, May 9, 1996. 13 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM and had a contractual agreement with Erie. That should be listed there. THE COURT: Mr. Kaufman has read Question No. 2. MS. MASIELLO: No one is refusing to answer that question. I did answer that question. THE COURT: Well, he just read your answer, and your answer is that you object to it. Is there some other answer that you have given somewhere else? MS. MASIELLO: It would have to be. What date is he reading from? I mean, there has to be something wrong here, because we answered these questions, and I know I put my name on and my mother's name on as residents of that home. MR. KAUFMAN: If I may speak to this, Your Honor. The response Ms. Masiello is referring to, that she and her mother resided in the home, is the response to Interrogatory No. 1. Interrogatory No. 2 asks them to identify all persons who have resided at the home. What they -- the only response to this discovery that has been served is the one I am looking at, which is December 21, 1995, and their answer to Interrogatory No. 2 is a refusal to answer and an objection. THE COURT: Ms. Masiello, are you in agreement that this occurred after I had ordered you to answer those questions? MS. MASIELLO: No, sir, I am not. I am totally baffled as to how he is saying that we are not answering that question.29 At the conference, the court made rulings on five motions before it, but took under advisement defendants' request for 29 N.T. 2-4, Discovery Conference, May 9, 1996. 14 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM sanctions.3° A few days later, the court received the following document from plaintiffs: RE: DISCOVERY CONFERENCE, VIA TELEPHONE OF MAY 09, 1996 TIME 9;00 a.m..-PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND OBJECTIONS WRITTEN REPLY REQUESTED Dear Judge Oler: I, Florence R. Willier, being a Major Plaintiff and policy , holder with ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY ETC., wish to this Courts attention to bring the following FORMAL OBJECTION , and wish the following, to be preserved and made part of the OFFICIAL COURT RECORD, and a WRITTEN ORDER be ISSUED by this COURT on the below MENTIONED MATTER. The Plaintiffs feel in their OPINION" IMPROPER LEGAL PROCEDURES HAS TAKEN PLACE May 09, 1995, The first Issue Florence R, Willier, would like to address , is the FACT THAT A CONTINUANCE WAS NOT GRANTED WHICH RESULTED, IN THE MAJOR PLAINTIFF BEING "DENIED" THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCOVERY CONFERENCE AND NOT HEARING THE "ENTIRE" CONFERENCE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO HEAR THE DEFENDANTS ACCUSATIONS OR BE ABLE TO CONFRONT ACCURER WHICH IS A GUARANTEED LEGAL RIGHT TO ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENB. The order of court on this subject read as follows: AND NOW, this 9th day of May, 1996, upon consideration of the Defendants' Petition To Make Rule Absolute in connection with Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Due to Plaintiffs' Failure To Provide Complete Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Document Requests, and following a discovery conference in chambers in which Defendants were represented by Donald B. Kaufman, Esquire, and Plaintiffs participated by telephone, the matter is taken under advisement. 15 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM This COURT ISSUED RULINGS IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANTS, AND TOOK UNDER ADVISEMENT DEFENDANTS "MOTION" TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS CIVIL SUIT BEFORE THIS COURT, WITH PREJUDICE, AND PLAINTIFFS TO "PAY" (DEFENDANTS ATTORNEYS "FEES" AND "EXPENSES" ). I am a SEPERATE "PLAINTIFF, AND THERE ARE TWO PLAINTIFFS, NOT ONE ON THIS LAW SUIT, I DIDNOT AUTHORIZE DARLENE I. MASIELLO TOANSWER FOR ME. HOW CAN THIS COURT MAKE ANY DECISION WITHOUT BOTH PLAINTIFFS BEING ON THE TELEPHONE, WHICH IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE TELEPHONE, AND WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN "GRANTED" A "CONTINUANCE, REGARDLESS IF ATTORNEY"KAUFMAN" RANTED AND RAVED LIKE HE DID , THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE CONFERENCE, AS MY DAUGHTER DARLENE STATED TO ME. There were questions "QUESTIONS" ETC. I HAD FOR HIM NEANIBG , ATTORNEY KAUFMAN. I OBJECT TO THIS COURT CONDUCTING THIS MEETING , WITHOUT ME HAVING FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPLETE DISCOVERY CONFER+ENCE., WAS MY DAUGHYER CORRECT IN TELLING ME, THAT SHE STATED TO YOU THE DEFENDANTS RAVE COMMITTED PERJURY ON THEIR INTERROGATORIES PLAINTIFFS "SANCTIONS" WERE "IGNORED, AND SHE WAS TOLD SHE COULD IMPEACH TGEM IN COURT. THIS ISSUE WAS BROUGHT UP IN JANUARY 12, 1996, YET DEFENDANTS WANT US THTHROWN OUT OF COURT BECAUSE WHAT THEY ALLEDGE IS NOT WHAT DEFENDANTS WANT TO HEAR. IN CLOSING I AM ASKING THIS COURT TO PUT A STOP OF DEFENDANTS PROLONGING THIS CASE APPEARING ON THE COURT DOCKET FOR "TRIAL.IN MY OPINION THIS IS A CASE OF FRAUD BY ERIE INSURANCE, AS THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE TO INSPECT THE HOUSE AND THEY NEVER ASKED TO INSPECT IT THEY COULD OF TURNED THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT DOWN. I demand my day in Court. WILL GET YOUR DAY IN COURT." Sincerely yours, You told me "YOU Florence R. Willier Florence R. Willier 16 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM Darlene I. Masiello May 10, 1996 The court scheduled a hearing on this document for June 27, 1996.3~ At that hearing, Plaintiff Willier stated that, although she had been with her daughter at the time of the telephone conference, and had made no complaint about the procedure, she could not fully participate in the conference because "we only have one telephone .... ..32 The court decided to conduct a supplemental proceeding with regard to the matters reviewed at the previous conference, explaining to Ms. Willier: You are here [now], your daughter is here, Mr. Kaufman is here, and I want to give you the opportunity to say anything that you choose to about any of these motions that I ruled upon at that time, and if I feel that my ruling should be changed, I will certainly change it. There were a number of orders entered at that time, and I will go over them one at a time and ask what you want to say concerning each order.33 Plaintiffs again did not provide any reasonable explanation for their failure to comply with the earlier discovery order of court. With regard to this issue, Plaintiff Willier made the following statements, inter alia: THE COURT: Now, is there anything you would like to say regarding that motion? MS. WILLIER: Yeah. Order of Court, May 30, 1996. N.T. 3, Hearing, June 27, 1996. Id. 5. 17 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM THE COURT: Okay. MS. WILLIER: Correct me if I'm wrong, you're only to ask 40 questions. He asked 100 and some. I mean, either the law is the law. He can't answer 40 if the law book says -- I mean he can't add 100 and some questions when the law book says there is 40 questions. Now, I am willing, if he wants to pick out 40 questions, and we should answer the 40 questions, but he went into the infinite. And then when we asked you about making him answer, he comes up with, They are not an entity, which Darlene proves to you they were an entity. She called the state and got their number and all. So they are an entity.34 MS. WILLIER: But here's what it is, Mr. Kaufman pulls a lot of tricks, which he shouldn't do to people __35 MS. WILLIER: But to begin with, when we were going to answer them, you had said too, like, stuff in the house that we couldn't get to, you know, that -- well, then you put down that they are in the house, there's no way you can get them.36 MS. WILLIER: But why would he not answer questions then? What puts them above the ordinary person that an attorney can take it upon himself to say, Well, we are not answering. We are not an entity. And you've proven he lied, then he is committing perjury. Perjury is more dangerous than not answering questions.37 Id. 14-15. Id. 18. Id. Id. 19. 18 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM MS. WILLIER: Didn't Darlene prove to you that they were an entity and he signed his name that they were not an entity. Now, are you allowed in court -- maybe it changed since I have been in this world, but if -- I don't care if it's a lawyer, a judge or who, if someone says something untruthful, they should be punished for it. I mean, a little bit of squabbling over answers, when they are committing, really, lying, saying they are not an entity. We put in about that, but you never ruled on it.38 At the conclusion of this segment of the proceeding, the court stated that it intended to continue to take the matter under advisement.39 Following the proceeding on June 27, 1996, the court conducted an extensive review of the record in the case. On October 31, 1996, it entered the following order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint: AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 1996, upon consideration of Defendants' Petition To Make Rule Absolute, and after a careful review of the entire file in this matter, Defendants' petition is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED. No appeal was taken from this order. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order more than 30 days after its entry, on December 9, 1996.4° This motion was denied in the following order: Id. 20. Id. 21. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for clarification of the order on December 9, 1997. The one-sentence order seemed sufficiently clear to the court. 19 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 1997, upon consideration of "Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of This Courts Order of October 31, 1996 Dismissing Plaintiffs complaint and Granting Defendants Petition To Make Rule Absolute," filed December 9, 1996, and Motions of Plaintiffs for Clarification of Judge Wesley Oler, Jr. Order of Court Dated October 31, 1996, Dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint and Granting Defendants Petition To Make Rule Absolute," also filed December 9, 1996, Plaintiffs' motions are DENIED. From this denial, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on January 27, 1997. An order directing plaintiffs to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal has not been complied with DISCUSSION The court declined for two reasons to grant reconsideration of its order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint. First, at the time plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was filed the court no longer had jurisdiction to rescind its disposition of the case. Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, §2, 42 Pa. C.S. §5505; In re Deed of Trust of McCargo, 438 Pa. Super. 570, 585, 652 A.2d 1330, 1337 (1995) (citations omitted). Second, the dismissal was, in the court's view, proper on the merits. Initially, it may be noted that a pro se litigant "is not entitled to any particular advantage." O'Neill v. Checker Motors Corp., 389 Pa. Super. 430, 434, 567 A.2d 680, 682 (1989). Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4019(a)(1)(viii), the trial court "may, on motion, make an appropriate order if ... Order of Court, February 14, 1997; see Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b). 20 NO. 94-6099 CIVIL TERM a party ... fails to ... obey an order of court respecting discovery." Sanctions, in a proper case, may include "a judgment of non pros or by default against the disobedient party" or any other order "with regard to the failure to make discovery as is just." Pa. R.C.P. 4019(c)(3), (5); see Ciaravion v. Fracalossi Volkswagen, Inc., 68 Northumberland Leg. J. 55 (1996) (default judgment entered). In the present case, the court extended every consideration possible to plaintiffs over many months. However, plaintiffs' prosecution of the case has proven to be an exercise in misdirection, obfuscation and noncompliance. It has unfairly burdened defendants, and deprived other litigants of the court's judicial resources. There was, in the court's view, no prospect that plaintiffs would permit the action to proceed in an orderly fashion to a proper resolution. Florence R. Willier Darlene I. Masiello P.O. Box 91 Hunt Valley, MD 21030 Plaintiffs, pro se Donald B. Kaufman, Esq. 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Attorney for Defendants : rc 21