J

- A04026

- 20

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JESSICA VAZQUEZ ,

Appellant

v. GJO PROPERTIES LLC ,

Appellee

-------------------------------------------- JESSICA VAZQUEZ ,

Appellant

v. LEHIGH VALLEY REGIONAL REALTY LLC, D/B/A KELLER WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE, CENTURY 21 KEIM RE A L TORS ,

Appellees

-------------------------------------------- JESSICA VAZQUEZ ,

Appellant

v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY REGIONAL REALTY, LLC , D/B/A KELLER WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1776 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Ente red May 23 , 2019 i n the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Civil Division at No(s): 2018

- C

- 0821, 2017

- C

- 3595, 2017

- C

- 0644J

- A04026

- 20

- 2

-

BE FORE: PANELLA , P. J., STRASSBURGER, J. * and COLINS , J. * ME MORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED DECEMBER 16, 2020 Jessica Vazquez appeals from the trial court’s May 23, 2019 order, which granted summary judgment in favor of GJO P roperties LLC (GJO Properties) and Northampton County Regional Realty, LLC, d/b/a Keller Williams Real Estate (Northampton County Regional Realty). The trial court already had granted summary judgment in favor of Lehigh Valley Regional Realty LLC, d/b/a Keller Williams Real Estate ( Lehigh Valley Regional Realty), and Century 21 Keim Realtors (Keim Realtors) (coll ectively, Appellees) on May 10, 2019

. Upon review, we quash this appeal. In light of our disposition, a detailed recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary. Pertinent to this appeal, Vazquez filed three separate

ac t ions against Appellees to recov er damages for injuries she s uffered from a fall that occurred on a property owned by GJO Properties and marketed as a rental by the remaining Appellees. These actions were docketed at three different docket numbers, number 2018

- C

- 0821 (0821 ) as to Northa mpton County Regional Realty , 2017

- C

- 3595 (3595) as to Keim Realtors and Lehigh Valley Regional Realty , and 2017

- C

- 0644 (0644) as to GJO Properties. T he trial cour t consolidated the three actions via orders entered on January 12, 2018, and May 10, 2018. After the close of pleadings, in February 2019, Appellee s each moved for summary judgment

. On March 6, 2019, Vazquez

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- A04026

- 20

- 3

-

timely filed a response to Keim Realtor s’ motion for summary judgment.
H owever, Vazquez failed to file timely responses to the motions fo r summary judgment filed by the remaining Appellee s. O n Ap ril 23, 2019, the trial court heard argument on the merits of Keim Realtors’ motion , and argumen t by counsel from the remaining Appellees that their summary judgment motions should be granted becau se Vazquez failed to respond. Subsequent to the argument, Vazquez untimely fil ed response s to the remaining Appellees’ motions for summary judgment. On May 1, 2019, the trial court entered an order striking the responses , but granting Vazquez five days t o file a motion seeking leave o f court to file nunc pro tunc responses opposing Appellees’ motions for summary judgment

. Vazquez failed to file such a motion. On May 10, 2019, the trial court entered two orders, one which granted the motion for summary ju dgment filed by GJO Properties, and one which granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Northampton County Regional Realty. On May 23, 2019, the trial court entered one order granting the motion s for summary judgment filed by Le high Valley Regional Realty and Keim Realtors. The trial court granted Keim Realtors’ motion on the merits, and granted the motions of all other Appellees based upon Vasquez’s failure to file timely responses

. On June 4, 2019, Vazquez filed a motion to vacate the trial cour t’s May 1, 2019 order and permit Vazquez to file nunc pro tunc responses toJ

- A04026

- 20

- 4

-

Appellees’ motions for summary judgment

. On June 7, 2019, the trial court denied Vazquez’s motion

. Vazquez timely filed a notice of appeal

. 1 On appeal, Vazquez contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to vacate the trial court’s May 1, 2019 or der. Vazquez’s Brief at xi. Vazquez posit s that Appellees failed to serve her properly with their motions for summary judgment pursuant to Lehigh County Local Rule 208.3(b ) and Pa.R.C.P. 440

. Id. at 1. Prior to reaching the merits of this appeal, we are compelled to consider whether it must be quashed in light of our Supreme Court’s holding
in Commonwealth v. W alker , 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) ( requiring separate notices of appeal be filed when a single order resolves issues arising on more than o ne lower court docket )

. On July 12, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause order on Vasquez as king why this appeal should not be quashed pursuant to Walker . On July 22, 2019, she filed a response, arguing that because the notice of appeal was “docketed on the docket report of each of the three related cases, the potential for any prejudice arising from a single appeal is avoided. Furthermore, the three matters were consolidat ed by the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas on May 16,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 Both Vazquez and the trial cour t complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.J

- A04026

- 20

- 5

-

2019.” 2 Vazqu ez’s Response, 7/22/2019, at 1 (unnumbered). The rule was discharged and the issue was deferred to this panel.
In Walker , our Supreme Court held that for appeals filed after June 1,
20 18, the date Walker was filed, “when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed.” Id. at 977. The Court emphasized that the “failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Id. Our review of the certified record reveals the following. O n June 14,
2019 , Vazquez filed a single notice of appeal , seeking to appeal from three orders granting the motions for summary judgment in favor of Appellees at three dockets: 0821, 3595, a nd 0644

. The notice of appeal contained a reference to all three dockets in the caption , but it was filed and docketed only at 0821. While the dockets at 3595 and 0644 each contain an entry on June 14, 2019, the entries merely cross - reference the filing of the notice of appeal at docket number 0821. Moreover, the notice of appeal contains a handwritten notation indicating that Vazquez paid one filing fee. Therefore, it appears Vazquez filed one notice of appeal from multiple orders resolving
issues at m ultiple docket number s in contravention of Pa.R.A.P. 341 and Walker

. Although the cases were consolidated below, they still maintained separate dockets, requiring separate notices of appeal. See C.T.E. v.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 It is unclear why Vazquez cited this date; as noted supra , th e trial court consolidated the actions on January 12, 2018 and May 10, 2018.J

- A04026

- 20

- 6

-

D.S.E. , 216 A.3d 296, 299 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quas hing notice of appeal where appellant filed a single notice of appeal from two docket numbers, despite their consolidation in the lower court). 3 Because Vazquez filed her notice of appeal after our Supreme Court’s decision in Walker , and failed to comply with Rule 341, we are constrained to quash this appeal. Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/16/2020

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 We note that a similar issue is pending before our Supreme Court. See Always Busy Consulting, LLC v. Babford & Company, Inc. , 235 A.3d 271 (Pa. 2020) (considering whether this Court erred in quashing appeal pursuant to Walker where “[p] etitioner failed to file a notice of appeal at a separate docket number in a consolidated case, when [p] etitioner filed separate notices of appeal at the consolidated docket number, as directed an d required by the trial court”)

. Until our legislature passes a different law or our Supreme Court decides otherwise, we are compelled to follow C.T.E. and quash this appeal.
But see Commonwealth v. Shreffler , 201 A.3d 757, 761 (Pa. Super. 2018) (determi ning that quashal was inappropriate due to prior consolidation by the trial court). Nevertheless, although the Shreffler decision post

- dates Walker , the notice of appeal at issue in that case was filed prior to the effective date of Walker ’s prospective h olding, rendering any holdings regarding Walker to be dicta. See Walker , 185 A.3d at 977 (specifying that its holding applies prospectively).