J-S31016-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

JESSE WHITE, 

Appellant

v.

CBS PITTSBURGH/KDKA AM, MARTY 

GRIFFIN AND DONALD ROESSLER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 956 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order June 6, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County 

Civil Division at No(s): 2015-2186

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2017

Appellant, Jesse White, appeals from the Order entered on June 6, 

2016, in the Washington County Court of Common Pleas, sustaining the 

Preliminary Objections filed by CBS Pittsburgh/KDKA AM, Marty Griffin, and 

Donald Roessler (“Appellees”). After careful review, we affirm.

The trial court detailed the facts of this case based on its review of the 

pleadings, briefs, and argument, as follows:

This matter comes as one of a multitude of defamation actions 

filed by [Appellant] based on statements made about him during 

his election campaigns in the 46th Legislative District. In this 

case, [Appellant] asserts that [Appellee, Marty] Griffin is the 

host of a talk show titled “The Inside Story With Marty Griffin” on 

KDKA, and that leading up to the 2014 election, Griffin began 

making negative comments about [Appellant] on the show which 

he called the “ABJ Hour” (“ABJ” meaning “Anybody But Jesse”), 

during which Griffin would dedicate the time to making negative 

comments about [Appellant] and discouraging voters from reelecting [Appellant].
J-S31016-17

- 2 -

[Appellant] asserts that during this time, Griffin referred to 

[Appellant] as “borderline psychotic,” and described some of 

[Appellant’s] activities as “illegal.” [Appellant] also asserts that 

Griffin made statements in Facebook posts claiming that 

[Appellant] had threatened his constituents, demanded Super 

Bowl tickets and flights on private jets from an oil and gas 

drilling company—Range Resources—and that [Appellant] was 

“under investigation” by a District Attorney’s Office and the 

House Ethics Committee.

[Appellant] asserts that these statements are all false, and 

argues that because he had discussed the allegations with 

another KDKA reporter, and that because the reporter had 

informed [Appellant] that he had decided not to publish a story 

on some of those same subjects, that Griffin knew or should 

have known of the falsity of his statements. [Appellant] admits, 

however, that he had been “examined” by the Washington 

County District Attorney’s Office prior to Griffin making the 

statements, and that he had “personally” been told that the 

investigation had ended. [Appellant] also asserts that [Appellee] 

Roessler posted “relevant portions” of Griffin’s show on his

YouTube page.

Trial Ct. Op. 6/7/16, at 2-3 (footnotes omitted).

On April 22, 2015, Appellant filed a Complaint raising claims of 

Defamation and Commercial Disparagement, and accusing Appellees of 

knowingly publishing false and defamatory statements. Appellee Roessler 

filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint on August 11, 2015, and 

Appellees Griffin, KDKA, and CBS filed Preliminary Objections on September 

2, 2015. Appellees challenged the legal sufficiency of Appellant’s Complaint, 

and sought dismissal of all claims.

On November 18, 2015, Appellant filed an Amended Complaint 

alleging the same causes of action. Appellees again filed Preliminary 
J-S31016-17

- 3 -

Objections on December 2, 2015, and December 23, 2015. Appellant filed 

an Answer to the Preliminary Objections on January 27, 2016. 

On June 6, 2016, following the submission of Briefs and oral argument, 

the trial court sustained Appellees’ Preliminary Objections and dismissed 

Appellant’s Complaint as legally insufficient. This appeal followed. 

On August 3, 2016, the trial court entered an Order directing Appellant 

to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of the Matters Complained of on 

Appeal. The court’s Order indicated that “[a]ny issue not properly in the 

Appellant’s Statement[,]or [the] failure to file Appellant’s Statement of 

Record and to service a copy on the undersigned[,] shall be deemed a 

waiver of those issues.” Trial Ct. Order, 8/3/16. 

On January 12, 2017, the trial court filed an Opinion in which it noted 

that, as of that date, Appellant had not filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement. 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) makes clear that “[i]ssues not included in the 

Statement, and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this 

paragraph (b)(4) are waived.” Moreover, it is well-settled that “...in order to 

preserve their claims for appellate review, Appellants must comply whenever 

the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on 

Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) 

[S]tatement will be deemed waived.” Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 

306, 309 (Pa. 1998).
J-S31016-17

- 4 -

In the instant matter, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, but Appellant failed to do so. Accordingly, 

Appellant’s issues on appeal are waived.

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/6/2017