J-A04005-24 

 2024 PA Super 155 

 

NICOLE EVA GROSS o/b/o 

I.M., J.M., J.M. 

 Appellant 

 v. 

JARED ZALMAN MINTZ 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 PENNSYLVANIA 

 No. 1735 EDA 2023 

Appeal from the Order Entered June 28, 2023 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Civil Division at No: 2023-10036 

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

OPINION BY STABILE, J: FILED JULY 24, 2024 

 Appellant, Nicole Eva Gross (“Mother”), appeals from the June 1, 2023 

order in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas that, inter alia, 

granted the motion in limine filed by Appellee, Jared Zalman Mintz (“Father”), 

and vacated the May 19, 2023 temporary protection from abuse (“PFA”) order 

entered against Father.1 We affirm.2 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

1

 Mother purports to also appeal from the June 28, 2023 order denying her 

motion for reconsideration filed on June 9, 2023, as amended on June 15, 

2023. Because an appeal does not lie from an order denying reconsideration, 

we do not consider it. See J.P. v. J.S., 214 A.3d 1284, 1289 (Pa. Super. 

2019) (reiterating that “an appeal will not lie from the denial of a motion for 

reconsideration”) (citing Valentine v. Wroten, 580 A.2d 757, 397 Pa. Super. 

526 (1990)).

2

 The Honorable Daniel J. Clifford presided over the subject proceeding. 
J-A04005-24 

- 2 - 

 On May 19, 2023, Mother filed a PFA petition against Father on behalf 

of her twin fifteen-year-old daughters, I.M. and J.M. (“Ju.M.”), and elevenyear-old son, J.M. (collectively, “the children”), whom she shares with 

Father.3, 4 Mother alleged that Father took sexually exploitative photos of the 

children on unspecified dates. Mother attached, inter alia, an emergency 

petition for special relief in custody that she filed on May 17, 2023, wherein 

she averred that Father maintained photographs and videos that he “has taken 

of all three children over the years . . . to obtain perverted sexual gratification 

and/or to market these images to pedophiles.” PFA Petition, 5/19/23, at 

Exhibit C, ¶ 6. Consequently, Mother requested sole physical and legal 

custody of the children and that Father’s contact with them “be suspended 

indefinitely.” Id. at ¶ 11. 

The Honorable Kelly C. Wall issued a temporary PFA order on the day 

Mother’s PFA petition was filed, which provided, in part, that Mother “shall 

present evidence that the photos in question were newly taken and/or 

____________________________________________ 

3

 The parties, formerly husband and wife, separated in 2016, and they 

divorced in March of 2019. See PFA Court Opinion, 8/15/23, at 1. 

4

 In its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the PFA court explained, “From 

2020 to May 2023, Mother has filed at least seven (7) PFA petitions in 

Montgomery County and at least three (3) others that the undersigned is 

aware of, some of which have since been expunged. . . .” Id. at 1-2. 
J-A04005-24 

- 3 - 

discovered and not part of photos presented in past PFA litigation.”5 

Temporary PFA Order, 5/19/23, at ¶ 9 (emphasis in original). The court 

scheduled a final PFA hearing for June 1, 2023. 

____________________________________________ 

5

 A prior panel of this Court declared that “the parties are well known to this 

Court.” Gross v. Mintz, 2024 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 278 (Pa. Super. 

February 8, 2024) (unpublished memorandum). Specifically, we listed 

Mother’s appeals, as follows. 

See Gross v. Mintz, 285 A.3d 934, 2022 WL 4242456 (Pa. Super. 

2022) (unpublished memorandum) (affirming the denial of 

Mother’s October 2021 PFA petition), appeal denied, 293 A.3d 562 

(Pa. 2023); see also Gross v. Mintz, 284 A.3d 479 (Pa. Super. 

2022) (affirming the grant of Father’s petition for contempt and 

the imposition of a requirement that Mother obtain court approval 

before filing PFA petitions that interfered with Father’s custodial 

rights), appeal denied, 293 A.3d 563 (Pa. 2023). 

Mother has taken other appeals related to the same facts in the 

instant appeal. See 2157 EDA 2023 (quashed appeal from an 

order striking an affidavit), petition for allowance of appeal filed, 

593 MAL 2023. Additionally, it appears that Mother filed another 

PFA petition in May 2023 and appealed from the dismissal of that 

petition. See 1735 EDA 2023 (pending appeal). She has also 

appealed numerous preliminary orders in a custody proceeding. 

See 743 EDA 2023 (quashed appeal from an order for a mental 

evaluation); 1082 EDA 2023 (quashed appeal from an order for a 

mental evaluation); 1506 EDA 2023 (quashed appeal from an 

order denying recusal); 1755 EDA 2023 (quashed appeal from an 

interlocutory order granting Father’s motion); 1995 EDA 2023 

(discontinued appeal); 2015 EDA 2023 (quashed appeal from a 

pre-hearing order on evidence and mode of presentation); 2016 

EDA 2023 (quashed appeal from pre-hearing order on evidence 

and mode of presentation; sanctions imposed); 2411 EDA 2023 

(quashed appeal from an order denying Mother’s proffer of 

photographs; sanctions imposed); 109 EDM 2023 (denial of a 

petition to stay). 

Id. at *1, n.1. 
J-A04005-24 

- 4 - 

On May 23, 2023, Father filed a motion in limine, wherein he similarly 

requested that the PFA court preclude at the final hearing the admission of 

photographs/videos “that were produced prior to the parties’ separation in 

2017. . . .” Id. at ¶ 9. Father alleged that Mother had previously filed petitions 

accusing him of abusing the children by taking “these same allegedly sexuallyexplicit photographs/videos.” Motion in limine, 5/23/23, at ¶ 3. Father 

averred that the Lower Merion Police Department, the Montgomery County 

Office of Children and Youth (“OCY”), and the children’s prior court-appointed 

child advocate, Robert Angst, Esquire, “examined the alleged 

photographs/videos taken prior to 2017, when the parties separated, and 

determined that [Mother’s accusations] were unfounded.” Id. at ¶ 3 

(emphasis in original). Further, Father averred that the parties participated 

in an evaluation by Dr. Arnold Shienvold in connection with the custody 

litigation, wherein he reviewed photographs provided by Mother “and found 

no sexual or improper actions” by Father. Id. at ¶ 4. 

By way of further background, the PFA court explained in its opinion 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), as follows. 

While the PFA petition subject to the instant appeal was filed on 

May 19, 2023, this round of PFA litigation truly began on January 

27, 2023, when Mother filed a PFA petition on behalf of herself 

and the three children. In this petition, Mother alleged that 

Father’s abuse and neglect caused the minor child, I.M., to 

attempt suicide. In pertinent part, the petition further stated that 

Father took and kept sexually exploitive photographs of the 

children. A temporary order was granted on that same day by the 

Honorable Todd D. Eisenberg on behalf of the children only. 
J-A04005-24 

- 5 - 

The final PFA hearing was then conducted by the Honorable Kelly 

C. Wall on February 2, 2023. Judge Wall is also the assigned judge 

to the parties’ ongoing custody litigation. During the February 2nd

PFA hearing before Judge Wall, the photographs that were 

allegedly sexually explicit were addressed. One of the three minor 

children testified, and there were no findings of abuse. [By order 

entered on February 3, 2023,] Judge Wall denied Mother’s request 

for the entry of a final order and vacated the temporary PFA order. 

 

Notably, Mother did not file an appeal of this final [PFA] order 

within thirty-days. Instead, on April 28, 2023, over two and onehalf months later, Mother filed a [nunc pro tunc] appeal; well 

beyond the thirty-day deadline pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).7 

Proceedings in that PFA case continue to date regarding the 

release of the sealed child testimony and expungement, with two 

more appeals filed by Mother [in the Superior Court]. . . .8 

On May 19, 2023, just three and one-half months after the denial 

order entered on the PFA petition she filed on January 27, 2023, 

Mother filed yet another PFA petition against Father on behalf of 

the children, which is the subject of the instant appeal. 

___________________________________________________ 

7 See Gross v. Mintz, 1121 EDA 2023 [(Pa. Super. June 2, 2023) 

(per curiam order quashing Mother’s appeal from the February 3, 

2023 order denying her PFA petition as untimely)]. 

8 See Gross v. Mintz, [2024 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 278 (Pa. 

Super. January 29, 2024) (unpublished memorandum) 

(dismissing as moot Mother’s appeal from order denying her 

request for a transcript of Ju.M.’s in camera interview at the 

February 2023 PFA hearing wherein she “asserted that Father had 

recently taken, posted, or emailed sexually exploitative 

photographs or videos of the children’s genitalia.” Id. at *2. 

Further, “Father objected and asserted that Mother was discussing 

pictures taken when the children were babies and that those 

allegations had been the subject of prior investigations and prior 

PFA petitions.” Id.)]; [see also] Gross v. Mintz, 1507 EDA 2023 

[(Pa. Super. July 14, 2023) (per curiam order quashing Mother’s 

appeal from May 9, 2023 interlocutory order denying her motion 

for recusal in the PFA matter)]. 

PFA Court Opinion, 8/15/23, 3-4 (some footnotes omitted; cleaned up). 
J-A04005-24 

- 6 - 

The subject PFA hearing occurred on June 1, 2023. The PFA court 

explained: 

When the proceeding began, Mother immediately made an oral 

motion for the undersigned to recuse himself. The court heard 

argument by counsel, and received Mother’s testimony on recusal, 

after which this request was denied with Mother having failed to 

demonstrate a legitimate basis for recusal. 

The undersigned then turned to Father’s motion in limine and 

received testimony from two witnesses: Mother and Denae 

Sweeny, supervisor of the investigative unit of [OCY]. The parties’ 

attorneys were provided with the opportunity for direct and crossexamination of the witnesses. Ultimately, it was demonstrated 

that allegedly inappropriate photographs were both previously 

investigated by numerous child protective and law enforcement 

entities (in addition to the evaluator in the custody case) and were 

not newly taken, nor newly discovered, pursuant to the directives 

set forth by Judge Wall in the temporary PFA order. 

The undersigned proceeded to enter an order [dated and entered 

on June 1, 2023,] denying Mother’s oral motion for recusal, 

granting Father’s motion in limine, denying Mother’s request for a 

final PFA order, and vacating the temporary PFA order entered on 

May 19, 2023. 

PFA Court Opinion, 8/15/23, at 6-7 (emphasis in original). 

 On July 3, 2023, Mother timely filed a notice of appeal and a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). The PFA court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on August 

15, 2023.6 

____________________________________________ 

6

 In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PFA court opined that Mother has waived 

her appellate issues by filing a nine-page Rule 1925(b) statement that 

asserted twenty-six errors. See PFA Court Opinion, 8/15/23, at 12-13; see 

also Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109, 1114 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“The 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-A04005-24 

- 7 - 

On appeal, Mother raises the following issues for review: 

1. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion 

in granting [Father]’s motion in limine and in dismissing the 

PFA petition, where [Father] did not prove that res judicata

precluded this petition? 

2. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion 

in relying on the inaction of the Office of Children & Youth 

and/or law enforcement regarding unspecified photographs as 

a basis to deny and dismiss the PFA petition? 

3. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion 

in relying on information outside of the record and evidence in 

this case as a basis to dismiss this PFA petition? 

4. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion 

in dismissing the PFA petition without allowing [Mother] to 

present evidence in support of the petition? 

Mother’s Brief at 6-7. 

 In her first issue, Mother argues that the PFA court erred in granting 

Father’s motion in limine and dismissing her PFA petition based on the doctrine 

of res judicata. Father counters that the PFA court based its decision on the 

doctrine of collateral estoppel, and that the court did not err. See Father’s 

Brief at 10. Upon review, we conclude that Mother is not entitled to relief. 

____________________________________________ 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement must be sufficiently ‘concise’ and ‘coherent’ such 

that the trial court may be able to identify the issues to be raised on 

appeal[.]”). We agree with the PFA court that Mother’s Rule 1925(b) 

statement is not sufficiently concise. Nonetheless, the PFA court was able to 

find coherent Mother’s asserted errors and provided its reasoning underlying 

the June 1, 2023 order in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. See PFA Court Opinion, 

8/15/23, at 14-26. Based upon the foregoing, we will not deem Mother’s 

issues waived. See, e.g., Ray, supra at 1114. 
J-A04005-24 

- 8 - 

“Application of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel is a 

question of law requiring de novo review and the scope of review is plenary.” 

Moyer v. Shaffer, 305 A.3d 1064, 1067 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing K.D. v. 

E.D., 267 A.3d 1215, 1223 (Pa. Super. 2021)). 

 This Court has explained: 

“The doctrine of res judicata applies to prevent litigants from 

bearing the burden of re-litigating the same issues with the same 

parties, and to promote judicial economy.” E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 

A.3d 509, 521 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). Res judicata, 

or claim preclusion, bars the re-litigation of a previously litigated 

claim or cause of action when the following elements are the same 

across both actions: the identity of (1) the thing sued upon; (2) 

the cause of action; (3) persons and parties to the action; and (4) 

the quality or capacity of the parties suing or being sued. K.D. v. 

E.D., 267 A.3d at 1224. Essentially, “[u]nder the doctrine of res 

judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a 

second suit on the same cause of action[.]” Wilmington Tr., 

Nat'l Ass'n v. Unknown Heirs, 219 A.3d 1173, 1179 (Pa. Super. 

2019) (emphasis added). “The dominant inquiry under those 

elements, then, is whether the controlling issues have been 

decided in a prior action, in which the parties had a full opportunity 

to assert their rights.” E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 A.3d at 521 (citation 

omitted). 

Moyer, supra (emphasis in original). 

Collateral estoppel is “also referred to as issue preclusion. . . .” Id. This 

Court has stated that collateral estoppel 

is a broader concept than res judicata and “operates to prevent a 

question of law or issue of fact which has once been litigated 

and fully determined in a court of competent 

jurisdiction.” Vignola v. Vignola, 39 A.3d 390, 393 (Pa. Super. 

2012) (emphasis added and citation omitted). Collateral estoppel 

applies if: 

(1) the issue decided in the prior case is identical to one 

presented in the later case; (2) there was a final 
J-A04005-24 

- 9 - 

judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the 

plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the 

prior case; (4) the party or person privy to the party 

against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair 

opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding 

and (5) the determination in the prior proceeding was 

essential to the judgment. 

E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 A.3d at 521 (emphasis added and citation 

omitted). 

Id. In sum, “both res judicata and collateral estoppel require that an initial 

action result in a final judgment on the merits before either doctrine can be 

applied to bar a second action raising similar claims or issues.” 

Id. at 1068 (emphasis in original). 

 Instantly, the PFA court concluded that Mother failed to demonstrate 

“newly taken” or “newly discovered” photographs from those she presented 

in the January 2023 PFA petition that was litigated on the merits, and resulted 

in the February 3, 2023 order denying her request for a final PFA order. The 

record supports the court’s conclusion. 

 Specifically, Mother testified that, during the parties’ divorce litigation 

“at the end of 2017,” she was permitted by court order to copy material stored 

on the family computer located in the marital home, and that she retained 

information technology (“IT”) experts to do so. See N.T., 6/1/23, at 113-115, 

149-150. The photographs in question were discovered on the family 

computer and/or backed up in “the cloud.” Id. at 114-115, 151. Mother 

testified on cross-examination: 
J-A04005-24 

- 10 - 

Q. During one of the breaks we’ve had, your counsel . . . showed 

me . . . a whole bunch of photographs that he intends to use if we 

even get that far in these proceedings; do you understand that? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Have you seen those photographs? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Did you supply them to [your counsel]? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Are any of those photographs that he has shown me taken after 

2017? 

A. I don’t believe so. 

Id. at 114. Mother further testified that Father has had no contact with their 

twin daughters since January 16, 2023, and with their son “until recently” due 

to an interim custody order. N.T., 6/1/23, at 133-134. 

Thus, the record supports the court’s conclusion that the photographs 

were not “newly taken” since Mother’s last PFA petition in January 2023. Id.

at 139; PFA Court Opinion, 8/15/23, at 18-19. The court’s conclusion was 

based upon finding, inter alia (1) “Mother had access to all of the famil[y]’s 

photographs that were taken prior to the parties’ separation in 2017 via a 

sweep of Father’s computer by IT professionals of her own choosing;” and that 

(2) Mother produced the same photographs in her January 2023 PFA filing 

which were “addressed by Judge Wall in a [final PFA] hearing.” PFA Court 

Opinion, 8/15/23, at 19. Moreover, that final hearing resulted in Judge Wall 

entering a judgment on the merits on February 3, 2023. Because the record 
J-A04005-24 

- 11 - 

supports the court’s findings, we hold that the court did not err in granting 

Father’s motion in limine and vacating the May 19, 2023 temporary PFA order 

under both res judicata and collateral estoppel. Based upon this disposition, 

we need not review Mother’s remaining issues on appeal. 

Regrettably, our affirmance of the trial court does not resolve all 

concerns relating to this ongoing and very contentious matter. A brief review 

of the trial court docket from when this matter was commenced in 2017 to the 

present, reveals a very disturbing pattern of conduct by Mother. Since 2017, 

it seems Mother has had no less than 12 counsel enter their appearance in 

this ongoing litigation. There have been more than a dozen contempt filings. 

There have been at least 10 PFA petitions – none of which have resulted in a 

final order, and Mother has filed more than 17 appeals to this Court. She 

continues to press matters dismissed by one court only to recast and refile 

the same matters over again. Without a doubt, this course of conduct 

demonstrates a clear abuse of our judicial system and an unnecessary and 

very wasteful exhaustion of judicial resources. Out of a clear sense of 

frustration, the trial court recounted this sad litany of litigation to us and 

essentially implores us to answer the following, 

. . . whether a parent can repeatedly use the PFA process 

to litigate and re-litigate the same claims that have already 

been both investigated by the appropriate authorities and

contained in prior custody and PFA proceedings. 

*** 

At what point does the system refuse to permit the 

consumption of precious judicial resources, over and over 
J-A04005-24 

- 12 - 

again, to address the serial filings of one party that have 

been previously investigated/ addressed/ dismissed? 

How many new PFA cases, filed by litigants in other cases, 

must stand-in-line and wait while Mother’s repeated PFA 

filings are litigated and relitigated? 

At what point is it appropriate for the [c]ourt to ‘call out’ an 

instance when there is obvious abuse of the abuse process; 

continually providing yet another ‘bite of the apple’ to 

litigants who only discover yet a new basis for filing a PFA 

just months after the last one is denied? 

Trial Court Opinion, 8/15/2023, at 27 (footnote omitted; emphasis in original). 

 Were this anything other than a family law matter, a court may have 

been justified some time ago in precluding Mother, acting pro se, from filing 

any claims without first seeking court permission. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 

233.1(c), (e). The court’s previous imposition of sanctions upon Mother does 

not seem to have had the desired effect. Mother has continued in her course 

of conduct unabated. It has not gone unnoticed that at the same time Mother 

has been pursuing PFA relief to keep Father away from the children, the 

parties are engaged in bitter custody battles with Mother attempting to secure 

sole legal and physical custody of children. We have cautioned against 

attempts to leverage PFA proceedings to gain an unfair advantage in custody 

and reaffirm that caution to Mother instantly. Should Mother’s conduct 

continue, the court may want to consider more severe sanctions. 

We observe however, that Mother has been represented by counsel in 

the past and in the present case. When appropriate, the court, in response to 

a motion filed or on its own initiative, may impose sanctions upon counsel for 
J-A04005-24 

- 13 - 

conduct violative of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1023.1(c). See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1023.1-1023.4. 

When appropriate, counsel fees also may be awarded under 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 2503. Given the number of counsel that have entered an appearance on 

behalf of Mother, it would behoove any additional counsel to thoroughly 

familiarize themselves with all prior litigation in this case. 

Father as well is not without remedies, as Pennsylvania, inter alia,

recognizes an action for wrongful use of civil proceedings. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 8351, et. seq. 

 While it is regretful to have to address the trial court’s concerns, we 

would add that while Mother’s litigious conduct has been disturbing, nothing 

said herein by way of caution is meant to deter Mother or counsel from using 

the court system when there are meritorious grounds for bringing a matter 

into court. We are sensitive to the ebb and flow of these domestic matters 

and how quickly environments may change. Ultimately, the parties should 

not lose sight that the best interests of the children must be considered. We 

urge the parties to be ever mindful of that and the effect continued litigation 

may have on the children as the parents continue to address their differences. 

Order affirmed. 

Judge Colins joins the opinion. 

Judge McLaughlin concurs in the result. 
J-A04005-24 

- 14 - 

Date: 7/24/2024