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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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

Rahamani, (collectively, Appellants) appeal from an order entered April 2, 

2014, denying Appellants’ post-trial motions. We quash. 

In September 2011, Mr. Amadou was operating a motor vehicle. His 

children were seated in the rear of the vehicle. While stopped in traffic, the 

Amadou vehicle was struck by a pickup truck operated by Ronald Sarver. 

Mr. Amadou and his children were injured in the collision. 

In January 2013, Mr. Amadou and his children commenced 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 causally related injuries 

that were not compensable, thus awarding no damages. Finally, the jury 

determined that Shakib Rahamani suffered no causally related injuries. 

Appellants filed timely post-sentence motions, seeking in part a new 

trial on damages. The trial court denied Appellants’ 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 the jury’s 

verdict is inadequate[,] when the jury awarded economic 

damages for wages that were lost as the result of pain[,] yet 

failed to award non-economic damages for pain and suffering? 

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 days that judgment has been 

entered.” Order, 06/05/2014 (the June 5th Order). We further advised 

Appellants that “[f]ailure to comply with this [o]rder 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 was Appellee’s obligation to 

ensure judgment was entered properly. See Appellants’ Response, 

06/19/2014, at ¶¶ 4, 5, & 9. Appellants stated also that they had filed a 

praecipe for judgment on a verdict with the Allegheny County Court of 

Common Pleas on June 19, 2014. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 10, & Exhibit B. Accordingly, 

this Court permitted the appeal to proceed but cautioned Appellants that 

“the issue may be revisited by the panel assigned to the case.” Order, 

06/25/2015. 

Upon reviewing the certified record, it appears that 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, includes no entry 

suggesting that Appellants filed a praecipe for judgment. To be clear, 

approximately one month following Appellants’ representation to this Court 

that they had complied with our order, they still had failed to do so. 

Moreover, upon close inspection, we conclude that Exhibit B, attached 

to Appellants’ response and purported to demonstrate Appellants’ 

compliance, establishes nothing. A document included with the exhibit, 

entitled “Pleading/Exhibit Transmission Results,” provides the following 

caveat: 

Your filings are being processed. Be advised this case is not 

officially filed until it is approved by Allegheny County 
J-A07004-15 

- 4 - 

Civil/Family Division. If approved, you will be notified via an 

electronic receipt and the official date and time of filing will be 

the date and time listed above[.] At that time, your Credit Card 

will be debited. In the event that this filing is not approved, 

your account will not be debited. Thank you for using the 

Civil/Family Division Filing and Retrieval System. 

See Appellants’ Response, Exhibit B. Notably, Appellants have not provided 

an electronic receipt confirming that they filed a praecipe for judgment. 

On May 5, 2015, in an abundance of caution, the Prothonotary office of 

this Court consulted with the Allegheny County Civil 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 accept jurisdiction to 

hear this appeal because (1) doing so promotes judicial 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 lie 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, we have recognized that 

“there are some instances wherein a party has failed 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 is 
J-A07004-15 

- 5 - 

inadvertent, and those in which an appellant persists 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 obligation to Appellee (a proposition 

for which there is no authority) and, more troubling, misrepresented their 

efforts to comply with our June 5th Order. Accordingly, we quash. 

Appeal quashed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 6/2/2015