J-A07004-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 KERIM AMADOU, AN INDIVIDUAL, SHAMAEL RAHAMANI, A MINOR INDIVIDUAL AND SHAKIB RAHAMANI, A MINOR INDIVIDUAL, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellants

v. RONALD SARVER, Appellee No. 703 WDA 2014 Appeal from the Order April 2, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD-12-11773
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 02, 2015 Kerim Amadou and his children, Shamael Rahamani, an d Shakib Rahamani, (collectively, Appellants) appeal from an order entered April 2, 2014, denying Appellants’ post-trial motions. We q uash. In September 2011, Mr. Amadou was operating a motor vehicle. His children were seated in the rear of the vehicle. W hile stopped in traffic, the Amadou vehicle was struck by a pickup truck operate d by Ronald Sarver. Mr. Amadou and his children were injured in the col lision. In January 2013, Mr. Amadou and his children commen ced this personal injury action. In January 2014, the case proceeded to a jury trial. Mr. Sarver conceded liability. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr.J-A07004-15

- 2 -

Amadou for one thousand four hundred forty dollars ($1,440.00). The jury also determined that Shamael Rahamani sustained cau sally related injuries that were not compensable, thus awarding no damages . Finally, the jury determined that Shakib Rahamani suffered no causall y related injuries. Appellants filed timely post-sentence motions, seek ing in part a new trial on damages. The trial court denied Appellant s’ motions. Appellants filed a notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A .P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court issued a responsive opinion. Appellants seek review of the following question: Should a new trial be ordered on the ground that th e jury’s verdict is inadequate[,] when the jury awarded econ omic damages for wages that were lost as the result of p ain[,] yet failed to award non-economic damages for pain and s uffering? Appellants’ Brief at 7. On June 5, 2014, this Court alerted Appellants that judgment had not been entered in this case. See Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Constr. Corp. , 657 A.2d 511, 514 (Pa. Super. 1995) (noting this Court’s general policy of quashing an appeal from an order upon which judgment has not been entered); Pa.R.A.P. 301. Accordingly, we directed Appellants “to provide proof to this Court within fourteen day s that judgment has been entered.” Order, 06/05/2014 (the June 5 th Order). We further advised Appellants that “[f]ailure to comply with this [o]r der may result in dismissal of the appeal[.]” Id.J-A07004-15

- 3 -

On June 19, 2014, Appellants responded to our order . Appellants suggested, without citation to authority, that it w as Appellee’s obligation to ensure judgment was entered properly. See Appellants’ Response, 06/19/2014, at ¶¶ 4, 5, & 9. Appellants stated als o that they had filed a praecipe for judgment on a verdict with the Allegheny Count y Court of Common Pleas on June 19, 2014. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 10, & Exhibit B. Accordingly, this Court permitted the appeal to proceed but caut ioned Appellants that “the issue may be revisited by the panel assigned t o the case.” Order, 06/25/2015. Upon reviewing the certified record, it appears tha t judgment has yet to be entered. The docket forwarded to this Court by the Allegheny County Department of Court Records, Civil/Family Division (Allegheny County Civil Division), which was generated on July 18, 2014, in cludes no entry suggesting that Appellants filed a praecipe for judgment. To be clear, approximately one month following Appellants’ repre sentation to this Court that they had complied with our order, they still h ad failed to do so. Moreover, upon close inspection, we conclude that E xhibit B, attached to Appellants’ response and purported to demonstrat e Appellants’ compliance, establishes nothing. A document includ ed with the exhibit, entitled “Pleading/Exhibit Transmission Results,” p rovides the following
caveat: Your filings are being processed. Be advised this case is not officially filed until it is approved by Allegheny CountyJ-A07004-15

- 4 -

Civil/Family Division. If approved, you will be no tified via an electronic receipt and the official date and time o f filing will be the date and time listed above[.] At that time, you r Credit Card will be debited. In the event that this filing is not approved, your account will not be debited. Thank you for us ing the Civil/Family Division Filing and Retrieval System. See Appellants’ Response, Exhibit B. Notably, Appella nts have not provided an electronic receipt confirming that they filed a praecipe for judgment. On May 5, 2015, in an abundance of caution, the Pro thonotary office of this Court consulted with the Allegheny County Civi l Division. The Civil Division confirmed that no praecipe was filed and that no judgment has been entered. In its brief, Appellants contend that we should acc ept jurisdiction to hear this appeal because (1) doing so promotes judi cial efficiency, (2) counsel for Appellee never filed a praecipe , and (3) there is nothing further for the trial court to consider, citing in support for these arguments Mackall v. Fleegle , 801 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 2002). We decline to do so. This Court has recognized that an appeal can only l ie from “judgments entered subsequent to the trial court's disposition of post-verdict motions, not from the order denying post-trial motions.” Mackall , 801 A.2d at 580. However, citing our interest in judicial economy, w e have recognized that “there are some instances wherein a party has faile d to enter judgment and our appellate courts may regard as done that which ought to have been done.” Id. at 581. Thus, in Mackall , we drew a contrast between those instances wherein a party’s failure to praecipe for the entry of judgment isJ-A07004-15

- 5 -

inadvertent, and those in which an appellant persis ts in refusing to do that which it ought. Id. Here, Appellants failed to reduce the trial court’s order denying their post-trial motions to judgment, despite our direct order to do so. To the contrary, Appellants sought to shift this obligatio n to Appellee (a proposition for which there is no authority) and, more troublin g, misrepresented their efforts to comply with our June 5 th Order. Accordingly, we quash. Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/2/2015