J-A28019-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

ABDUS SHAHID 

Appellant

v.

T.D. BANK N.A.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1645 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered June 8, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County 

Civil Division at No: CV-2021-008020

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED APRIL 30, 2024

Appellant, Abdus Shahid, appeals from an order sustaining the 

preliminary objections of Appellee, T.D. Bank N.A., to Appellant’s complaint 

and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Appellant alleged in his 

complaint that Appellee violated his civil rights by, inter alia, confessing 

judgment against him in 2021. We conclude that the court properly sustained 

Appellee’s preliminary objections, and we affirm.

A brief review of Appellee’s underlying action for confession of judgment 

is necessary to place the present case in appropriate context.1 Appellant is 

the owner of a warehouse in Darby, Pennsylvania, and Appellee is the 

mortgage holder for the warehouse. On March 16, 2021, Appellee filed a 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 This Court may take judicial notice of other proceedings involving the same 

parties. Hvizdak v. Linn, 190 A.3d 1213, 1218 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2018).
J-A28019-23

- 2 -

complaint at CV-2021-2739 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County 

(“trial court”) demanding confession of judgment against Appellant and his 

wife for failure to make timely mortgage payments. The complaint requested 

judgment in the amount of $230,094.28 plus interest from January 1, 2021 

at the per diem rate of $38.80 plus costs. On March 19, 2021, the trial court 

entered judgment in favor of Appellee and against Appellant and his wife for 

the full amount demanded. Appellant and his wife never filed a petition to 

open or strike a confessed judgment. Instead, on March 31, 2021, Appellant 

and his wife filed an answer to the complaint averring that they made all 

payments on their mortgage up to and including their payment for March 

2021. Appellant and his wife also asserted a counterclaim against TD Bank 

for $40,000,000.00 for allegedly filing a false mortgage case against them. 

The counterclaim alleged that Appellee should have given Appellant and his 

wife a forbearance during the pandemic instead of filing a complaint against 

them. Appellant and his wife filed three motions for summary judgment, all 

of which the trial court denied. The order denying the third motion for 

summary judgment, entered on May 26, 2023, stated that the motion was 

denied because judgment already had been entered in favor of Appellee on 

March 19, 2021. Appellant appealed to this Court, which dismissed the appeal 

on December 12, 2023, on the ground that Appellant could not request 

summary judgment in an action where judgment already had been entered 

by confession of judgment. See T.D. Bank v. Shahid, 1643 EDA 2023 (Pa. 
J-A28019-23

- 3 -

Super., Dec. 12, 2023). Following our dismissal of that appeal, there have 

been no further proceedings in the confession of judgment action.

With respect to the instant proceedings, on September 23, 2021, 

Appellant commenced this action2 by filing a pro se complaint against Appellee

in the trial court. The complaint is not worded artfully, but it appears to claim 

that Appellee violated or conspired to violate Appellant’s civil rights by 

confessing judgment against Appellant at CV-2021-2739, shutting off 

electricity to the warehouse and removing tenants from the warehouse. On 

January 6, 2022, Appellee removed Appellant’s action to the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 15, 2022, 

the district court ordered the case remanded back to the trial court.

No further docket activity took place until December 27, 2022, when 

Appellant filed a pro se motion to set a trial date in 2023. On February 10, 

2023, Appellee filed preliminary objections to the complaint asserting (1) the 

doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred Appellant’s action due 

to the judgment entered in Appellee’s favor in the confession of judgment 

action, (2) Appellant failed to state a cause of action for violation of his civil 

rights or conspiracy to violate his civil rights, and (3) to the extent the 

complaint alleged abuse of process or wrongful use of civil proceedings, the 

complaint failed to state a cause of action for these claims. 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant’s wife did not join in this action as a party.
J-A28019-23

- 4 -

Appellant filed a timely response in opposition to the preliminary 

objections. On June 8, 2023, the trial court entered an order sustaining 

Appellee’s preliminary objection and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. 

Appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court. Without directing Appellant to 

file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925 statement of matters complained of on appeal, the trial 

court filed an opinion in support of its order of dismissal. 

Appellant’s pro se brief in this Court includes a series of allegations that 

Appellee conspired with local governmental officials to shut off the electricity 

in Appellant’s warehouse and to enter judgment against him, even though he 

was fully current on his mortgage payments. 

We have fully reviewed the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs 

and the trial court opinion. We conclude that the trial court properly dismissed 

the complaint on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Opinion, 

8/9/23, at 7-8 (res judicata and collateral estoppel bar complaint because 

Appellant failed to file petition to strike or open judgment by confession and 

instead filed complaint in attempt to mount collateral attack on the 

judgment).3 We also conclude the trial court correctly dismissed Appellant’s 

action on two other bases as well.

____________________________________________

3 Because res judicata and collateral estoppel are affirmative defenses, 

Appellee erred by raising these defenses in its preliminary objections to the 

complaint. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030. Appellant, however, waived Appellant’s error 

by failing to file preliminary objections to Appellee’s preliminary objections to 

Appellee’s use of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Richmond v. McHale, 

35 A.3d 779, 782-83 (Pa. Super. 2012). 
J-A28019-23

- 5 -

The trial court held that Appellant’s allegations that Appellee improperly 

entered judgment fails to state a cause of action for any civil rights violation, 

since the mere entry of judgment by confession does not transform a private 

actor such as Appellee into a state actor. Opinion at 8-9; see also Jordan v. 

Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1266 (3d Cir. 1994).

We agree. Nor does the complaint allege any plausible civil rights violation on 

the basis of race or religion. 

The trial court also correctly held that Appellant’s claims that Appellee 

conspired to shut off Appellant’s electricity and remove tenants from 

Appellant’s warehouse failed to state a cause of action, because (1) Appellant 

previously raised these claims or similar claims in multiple state and federal 

actions, (2) both the trial court and the federal courts rejected these or similar 

claims and have entered orders limiting Appellant’s right to make such 

allegations, and (3) in any event, these claims failed for lack of specificity. 

Opinion at 9-12. 

Although not addressed by the trial court, Appellee also argues that 

Appellant fails to state a cause of action for abuse of process or wrongful use 

of civil proceedings. Our review of the complaint does not indicate any 

attempt by Appellant to raise these claims.

For these reasons, we affirm the order of dismissal and direct that a 

copy of the trial court’s August 9, 2023 opinion be filed along with this 

memorandum.

Order affirmed.
J-A28019-23

- 6 -

Date: 4/30/2024
Circulated 03/27/2024 12:58 PM