IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lindsay E. Green, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 457 C .D. 2022

: Submitted: March 17, 2023 City of Johnstown Police : Department, Robert Johnson, : an individual, and Chad A. Miller, : an individual :

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE DUMAS FILED: July 10, 2023

Lind s ay E. Green (Green) appeals from the order entered by the Court

of Common Pleas of Cambria County (trial court) sustaining the preliminary

objections filed by the City of Johnstown Police Department (Department) , Robert

Johnson, and Chad A. Miller ( collectively, Defendants), and dismissing with

prejudice Green’s third amended complaint. Because Green filed an untimely

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, she waived all issues for appellate review, and we

affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Because of our disposition, w e need not restate the facts at length.

Green was married to the decedent, a Department police officer

. Third Am. Compl.,

7/21/21, ¶¶ 3, 5 , 14

. Green recounted two violent and dangerous incidents in which

the decedent was involved as a police officer. See generally id. Green and the

decedent were also involved in a domestic dispute that resulted in criminal charges2

against the decedent and the decedent’s hospitalization for depression. Id. ¶¶ 62, 72.

The de cedent committed suicide. Id. ¶ 86.

Green sued Defendants for negligence. Id. ¶¶ 88

- 94. Defendants filed

preliminary objections to Green’s third amended complaint , which the trial court

sustained . Order, 1 1 / 1 /21. Green timely appealed. 1 On December 28, 2021, the trial

court ordered Green to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within 21 days, i.e.

, January

18, 2 022

. Green filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on January 26, 2022. Rule 1925(b)

Statement, 1/26/22.

II. ISSUES

Green raises three issues. First, Green contends the trial court erred in

rejecting her contention that there was a “special relationship between Defendants

and [Green] and [ the decedent].” Id. ¶ 1. Next, Green asserts that the court erred by

holding there was no proximate cause between Defendants’ negligence and the

decedent’s suicide. Id. ¶ 2. Finally, Green argues that the court erred by holding that

the police could have charged the decedent following the domestic dispute without

her statement. Id. ¶ 3.

III. DISCUSSION 2

We need not summarize Green’s arguments in support of her issues. In

1 Green appealed to the Superior Court, which transferred the appeal to this Court. Green v. City of Johnstown Police Dep’t (Pa. Super., No. 1487 WDA 2021, filed March 31, 2022) (order)

.

2 “Our standard of review in this appeal arising from an order sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer is de novo , and our scope of review is plenary. We recognize a demurrer is a preliminary objection to the legal sufficiency of a pl eading and raises questions of law; we must therefore accept as true all well

- pleaded, material, and relevant facts alleged in the complaint and every inference that is fairly deducible from those facts. A preliminary objection in

the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only in cases that clearly and without a doubt fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” Raynor v. D’Annunzio , 243 A.3d 41, 52 (Pa. 2020) (cleaned up). We add that we may cite to Superior Court cases to the extent we fi nd their reasoning persuasive. Pa. State Police v. Madden , 284 A.3d 272, 278 n.13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022).3

Commonwealth v. Castillo , 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005), our Supreme Court emphasized

“the bright

- line rule” that “in order to preserve their claims for appellate review,

appellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a Statement of

[Errors] Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Any issues not raised

in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived .” Castillo , 888 A.2d at 780

(cleaned up). The Castillo Court disapproved of any decisions by the intermediate

courts that “addressed issues that sh ould have been deemed waived.” Id. Our

Supreme Court therefore reversed the Superior Court’s decision, which resolved an

issue raised in an appellant’s untimely Rule 1925(b) statement. Id. at 778, 780.

Instantly , like the defendant in Castillo , Green untimely filed her Rule

1925(b) statement. See id. at 778. Much like the Superior Court in Castillo , this

Court cannot address issues raised in Green’s untimely filed Rule 1925(b) statement.

See id. at 780. Accordingly, we affirm.

Regardless

, we would hold that Green waived her issues for appellate

review on a different basis. “It is the appellant who has the burden of establishing

.

. . entitlement to relief by showing that the ruling of the tria l court is erroneous under

the evidence or the law. Where the appellant has failed to cite any authority in

support of a contention, the claim is waived.” Bunt v. Pension Mort g . Assocs., Inc.

, 666 A.2d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Super. 1995) (cleaned up) ; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)

.

Green’s one

- sentence “summary of the argument” references an

“agreement of sale” and “mutual mistake ,” which has no bearing on the instant case.

Green’s Br. at 20 (unpaginated) . The subsequent page s of Green’s brief are blank

except for “Page 2.” Id. at 21

- 22

. On t he following page, under the heading

“ Argument ,” is a single sentence : “Whether the Court erred in rejecting the existence

of a ‘special relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs and the Decedent?” Id.4

a t 2 3 . Following that single

- sentence “argument,” is Green’s conclusion, which

requests this Court to order the trial court to draft a decision resolving issues raised

in summary judgment motions. Id. 3 Because we cannot advocate on behalf of Green

or her counsel, we would also hold Green waived her issues for lack of development

.
See Commonwealth v. B.D.G. , 959 A.2d 362, 371 (Pa. Super. 2008); Bunt , 666 A.2d

at 1095.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order sustaining Defendants’

preliminary objections and dismissing with prejudice Green’s third amended

complaint.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

3 We add that Green’s appellate brief has a “statement of the case” discussing facts of a wholly unrelated matter, including argument on a trusts issue. Green’s Br. at 5

- 11 (unpaginated) (discussing 20 Pa.C.S. § 7771 and conversion of trust assets).IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lindsay E. Green, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 457 C .D. 2022

: City of Johnstown Police : Department, Robert Johnson, : an individual, and Chad A. Miller, : an individual :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 10 th day of July , 202 3, we affirm the order entered by

the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County on November 1, 2021 , which

sustained the preliminary objections filed by City of Johnstown Police Department,

Robert Johnson, and Chad A. Miller, and dismissed with prejudice the third amended

complaint filed by Lindsay E. Green.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge