J

- A07008

- 19

____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

K & T PROPERTIES LP AND FLOUNDER LLC

v.

FRANK SCHMIDT

Appellant : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2177 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 18 , 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 03741 September Term, 2017

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 07, 2019
Appellant, Frank Schmidt, appeals pro se from the judgment entered on
July 18 , 2018. We dismiss the appeal. K&T Properties LLC (“K&T”) owned property located on East Columbia

Aven ue in Philadelphia. A garage, with an address of 1422 Orange Street, is
located on that property. In September 2017, Appellant occupied that garage
without permission or a lease. On September 29, 2017, K&T filed an ejectment action. In May 2018 , Flou nder LLC (“Flounder”) acquired the property, including the garage, and

was substituted for K&T as plaintiff in this action

. On June 20, 2018, Appellant
failed to appear for trial and trial was held in his absence. See Pa.R.C.P.
218(b)(1) . The trial cour t found in favor of Flounder and awarded it
possession of the garage. The following day, Appellant filed a post

- trial motionJ

- A07008

- 19

- 2

-

that was denied on June 28, 2018. Appellant filed a premature notice of
appeal. On July 18, 2018, judgment was entered in favor of Flounder and against Appellant. Appellant’s premature notice of appeal is considered filed

as of that date. See Pa.R.A.P. 905 (a)(5)

. On September 18, 2018, Appellant was evicted from the garage.

We first address whether this appeal is moot. “If events occur to eliminate the claim or controversy at any stage in the proc ess, the [issue]

becomes moot.” In re S.H. , 71 A.3d 973, 976 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation
omitted) . As noted above, Appellant was evicted from the property during the
pendency of t his appeal. Because Appellant has lost possession of the garage,
this appeal is moot. 1 See Overland Enter., Inc. v. Gladstone Partners,

LP , 950 A.2d 1015, 1021 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). Hence, we
dismiss this appeal because it is moot. See Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick , 181 A.3d 368, 373 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied , 191 A.3d 740 (Pa.
2018)

. Moreover, even if this appeal were not moot, we would dismiss this
appeal under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101. That r ule
provides t hat
Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 This Court declined to stay the judgment because Appellant failed to post a supersedeas pursuant to Pennsylvania R ule of Appellate Procedure 1733.J

- A07008

- 19

- 3

-

repro duced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.

Pa.R.A.P. 2101. In his brief, Appellant “ fails to cite to any legal authority or otherwise develop the issue.” In re C.R. , 113 A.3d 328, 336 (P a. Super. 2015 ) (citation
omitted). Such a failure constitutes noncompliance with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 2119(a). 2 See id. We conclude that the defect in Appellant’s brief is substantial. Hence, even if we did not dismiss this appeal

as moot , we would dismiss it under Rule 2101.
Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 2/7/19

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______
2 That rule provides that “ The argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part

. . . the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent. ” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).