J-A22019-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

JAISA CORREA

v.

CHRISTOPHER LAMBERTON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 272 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered January 22, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at 

No(s): 2020 FC 40582

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 15, 2021

Appellant, Christopher Lamberton, appeals from the order entered on 

January 22, 2021, which denied his petition to vacate a final order entered 

against him pursuant to the Protection From Abuse (“PFA”) Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 6101-6122. We dismiss this appeal.

Briefly, we summarize the relevant facts and procedural history as 

follows. Appellant and Jaisa Correa are unmarried but share a minor child. 

Trial Court Opinion, 5/17/21, at 1. On June 15, 2020, Ms. Correa filed for and 

was granted a temporary PFA order against Appellant. Id. Thereafter, on 

September 2, 2020, a three-year final PFA order was entered by agreement 

of the parties. Id. at 2.; see also Final PFA Order, 9/2/20. 

On January 6, 2021, Appellant filed a petition to vacate the final PFA 

order. Trial Court Opinion, 5/17/21, at 2. The trial court held a hearing on 
J-A22019-21

- 2 -

Appellant’s petition on January 22, 2021. Id. At the conclusion of this 

hearing, the trial court denied Appellant’s petition. This timely appeal 

followed.1

After receiving an extension, Appellant’s counsel, Andrew Joseph 

Katsock, III, Esquire (Attorney Katsock), filed a timely brief on July 30, 2021. 

Appellant, acting pro se, requested oral argument before this Court. See

Reply Letter, 8/22/21. Accordingly, this Court scheduled oral argument for 

October 13, 2021 and notified the parties. See Superior Court Letter, 9/8/21. 

On October 6, 2021, Attorney Katsock petitioned this Court for leave to 

withdraw as counsel for Appellant pursuant to Rule 1.16(a)(3) of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct which obligates withdrawal when 

a client discharges an attorney from representation. See Attorney Katsock’s

Petition, 10/6/21. We granted Attorney Katsock’s petition to withdraw on 

October 8, 2021 in a per curiam order and directed the Prothonotary to send 

a copy of that order to both Attorney Katsock and Appellant. See Per Curiam

Order, 10/8/21. On the same date, we sent a letter directly to Appellant, 

identical to the one sent on September 8, 2021, reminding Appellant that his 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 22, 2021. Pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), on March 3, 2021, the trial court ordered Appellant to file 

a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, which Appellant timely 

filed on March 24, 2021. The trial court issued its 1925(a) opinion on May 17,

2021.
J-A22019-21

- 3 -

appeal was listed for oral argument on October 13, 2021. See Superior Court 

Letter, 10/8/21. 

Despite requesting oral argument before this Court, Appellant 

discharged his counsel and subsequently failed to appear at the scheduled 

proceeding. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2314, “[i]f appellant or the moving party 

is not ready to proceed when the case is called for oral argument, the matter 

may be dismissed as of course.” Consequently, we dismiss this appeal.2

Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/15/2021

____________________________________________

2 Even if we were to consider the case on the merits, we would affirm. All of 

Appellant’s arguments on appeal involve challenges to the propriety of the 

final PFA order entered on September 2, 2020. See Appellant’s Brief at 4-5. 

Appellant, however, concedes that “there is no dispute as to whether the 

Appellant understood that he agreed to a PFA involving [Ms. Correa.]” Id. at 

11. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments lack merit and we would affirm the 

trial court’s determination if we were to address the substance of this dispute.