Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-4173 Civil (2) ROBERT E. MEADE Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. PATRICIA A. MILLER, ESQ., WALTER S. B. CHILDS, ESQ., and THE ESTATE OF HELEN V. MEADE Defendants 05-4173 CIVIL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 EBERT, J., April 4, 2006 In this civil case, Plaintiff has filed a pro se appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court following an order granting Defendants' Motion Raising Preliminary Objections and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. This opinion in support of the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a). I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff's complaint is the latest of eleven total lawsuits filed in separate jurisdictions spanning three states against the Estate of Helen Meade (the "Estate") and against Defendant Patricia A. Miller and/or her counsel since Helen Meade's death in 1999.1 Previous to this case, the most recent suit was brought in Stafford County, Virginia, and was dismissed with prejudice for lack of both subject matter and personal jurisdiction? 1 Defendant's Motion Raising Preliminary Objections with Supporting Affidavit, filed December 6, 2005, (hereinafter "Affidavit"), Exhibit "C." 2 Affidavit, Exhibit "8." Plaintiff's complaint in the present case was filed on August 15, 2005, and an affidavit of service was filed on December 5, 2005. Also on December 5, 2005, Defendants responded with a motion raising preliminary objections and asked that the complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, to which Plaintiff filed an answer on the same date. In response to Defendants' praecipe to list the case for argument, Plaintiff moved to strike the listing of the case for argumene and submitted his opposition to argument by briefs.4 After opposing submission of the matter on briefs, plaintiff failed to appear for argument on February 15, 2006. On February 17, 2006, an order was entered granting Defendants' preliminary objections and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice,s which Plaintiff now appeals. Defendant, Patricia A. Miller, is an attorney with a law practice in Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and resides in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and not Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, or anywhere in Pennsylvania. Ms. Miller was (but is no longer) the court-appointed personal representative for the Estate. Defendant, Walter B.S. Childs, is an attorney with a law practice in Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and resides in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and not Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, or anywhere in Pennsylvania. Mr. Walters is the current personal representative of the Estate. The matters set forth in the complaint refer to disputes regarding the administration of the Estate. The Estate is under administration in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and not in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, or anywhere in 3 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Defendants' Praecipe for Listing the Case for Argument, filed January 5, 2006, and Plaintiff's Amended Motion, filed January 26, 2006. 4 Plaintiff's Opposition to Argument by Briefs 5 Order of Court, dated February 17, 2006, Bayley, J. and Ebert, J. Pennsylvania. The complaint fails to aver where the Plaintiff resides, where the alleged wrongs occurred, or to assert any basis for jurisdiction over any Defendant in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, or anywhere in Pennsylvania.6 Previously, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, entered a Final Injunction dated May 25,2004, enjoining Mr. Meade from filing in any court of Maryland a complaint or any similar form of civil action against Ms. Miller, her counsel, Mr. Childs, or any other person, entity or authority relating in any way to the Estate of Helen V. Meade without first obtaining leave of that court and complying with strict provisions, including attaching a copy of the Injunction to any motion seeking leave to file.? II. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION Where a preliminary objection raises a question of subject matter jurisdiction, the test is the competency of the court to determine controversies of the general class to which a case presented for its consideration belongs. Strank v. Mercy Hospital of Johnstown, 376 Pa. 305, 102 A.2d 170 (1954). The matters set forth in the complaint at bar refer to allegations regarding the administration of an estate that is being administered in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The complaint does not allege that any events took place in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, or anywhere in Pennsylvania. This court lacks the competency to adjudicate events arising under the law of another state. This court also lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Personal jurisdiction may be asserted over a nonresident defendant if the defendant is present or 6 Plaintiff's Complaint and Affidavit of Service. 7 Defendant's Motion Raising Preliminary Objection, Exhibit A: Order Granting Final Injunction. domiciled in the Commonwealth when served, or with consent of the individual. 42 Pa.C.S.A. S5301 (2004). Defendants Childs and Miller reside in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and the complaint fails to aver that they were ever present or domiciled in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, or anywhere in Pennsylvania. The Defendant Estate is under administration in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and the complaint does not allege that any event regarding its administration took place in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, or anywhere in Pennsylvania. Also absent from the complaint is any averment of where the Plaintiff resides. Not only are the nonresident Defendants' activities unrelated to this forum, they are nonexistent in Pennsylvania, including Cumberland County. There is simply no connection between the Plaintiff or the Defendants and Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. There is no provision in Pennsylvania law which establishes jurisdiction over the Defendants in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Furthermore, there is no nexus between the Defendants, the Estate, and/or the events complained of and Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, sufficient to make this court an appropriate venue in which to file this complaint. Plaintiff's penchant for filing frivolous lawsuits has already resulted in an injunction granted by a Circuit Court in Maryland which has jurisdiction of this matter, and this has likely prompted his current attempts at forum-shopping. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(e) states that "if there is a county of proper venue within the State the action shall not be dismissed but shall be transferred to the appropriate court of that county." Pa.R.C.P.1006(e). Not only does no county of proper venue exist within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but the jurisdiction in Maryland, where venue is proper, has enjoined the Plaintiff from filing this type of action against these Defendants. When a trial court cannot transfer the case, the only alternative available is dismissal because in order for a court to adjudicate an action, both jurisdiction and venue must exist simultaneously. Searles v. Estrada, 856 A.2d 85, 91 (Pa. Super. 2004). Because this court lacks both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over each and every Defendant, the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice was properly ordered. Maryland has enjoined the Plaintiff from filing the type of complaint he is attempting to foist upon this Court, and we need not countenance this frivolous litigation aimed at prolonging a matter which clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland. It is the recommendation of this court, that the Appellant be assessed costs damages pursuant to Pa. R.A. P. 2744. BY THE COURT, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Robert E. Meade P.O. Box 58215 Washington, DC 20037 Plaintiff Pro Se Gareth S. Smith, Esq. Linowes and Blocher, LLP 7200 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 800 Bethesda, MD 20814 Attorney for Defendants