IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Steve A. Frempong, :

:

Appellant :

:

 v. : No. 510 C.D. 2019

: Submitted: January 24, 2020

Board of License and :

Inspection Review :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge1

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: March 24, 2021

Steve A. Frempong (Frempong), pro se, appeals an order of the Court 

of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) dismissing his appeal of an 

adjudication of the Board of License and Inspection Review (Board) for failure to 

comply with the trial court’s Case Management Order. Frempong contends that he 

did comply with the Case Management Order. For the following reasons, we affirm.

On October 30, 2018, the Board issued a notice of decision affirming 

the City of Philadelphia (City) in Frempong’s housing appeal case. Original Record 

(O.R.) Item No. 2 at 2.2 The notice of decision provided:

1 This case was assigned to the opinion writer before January 4, 2021, when Judge Leavitt 

completed her term as President Judge. 

2 The record provides no indication of the underlying facts of the case. The City has 

attached exhibits to its brief suggesting that the appeal involved safety code violations found by 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
2

In order to pursue your appeal [before the trial court], you 

must order the Notes of Testimony from your hearing 

before the . . . Board. To order the Notes of Testimony[,]

you should contact Strehlow & Associates, the court 

reporting agency, at 215-504-4622. Your appeal cannot 

proceed without the Notes of Testimony.

Id. (emphasis in original).

On November 29, 2018, Frempong filed a statutory Notice of Appeal 

of the Board’s decision with the trial court. O.R. Item No. 2 at 1. Also, on November 

29, 2018, the trial court issued a Case Management Order. Reproduced Record 

(R.R.) at 4a-5a. The Case Management Order states, in relevant part:

3. Scheduling: If this appeal is not disposed of within 

sixty (60) days of the date on this order, the [trial] court 

will enter a scheduling order that sets a date for the appeal 

or events leading to its completion.

4. Notes of Testimony: You are required to obtain a 

copy of the hearing transcript or certified record if 

applicable from the agency once a scheduling order is 

issued. Appellant must order a transcript of the 

proceedings by serving the stenographer with a copy of 

the Notice of Appeal and paying the stenographer for the 

cost of producing the notes. The stenographer must then 

transcribe the notes of testimony, file the original notes 

with the appropriate agency[,] and deliver a copy of the 

notes to appellant within thirty (30) days. Failure to order 

the transcript will result in the dismissal of the appeal 

absent good cause shown.

Note: The appellant shall incur any cost associated with 

obtaining hearing transcripts. 

the Department of Licenses and Inspections at 5800 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 

19141. The City further suggests that the case was properly dismissed because Frempong never 

owned the property at issue and that the violations at the property have been satisfactorily remedied 

by the actual owner. None of these factual claims are part of the record, nor have they been raised 

before us in this appeal. As such, they will not be considered. 
3

Id. at 5a (emphasis in original). On January 18, 2019, the trial court issued a 

Scheduling Order setting, inter alia, a briefing schedule and a date for oral argument,

and requiring that the Board electronically file its record by March 4, 2019, or risk 

sanctions. O.R. Item No. 6 at 1. 

On March 19, 2019, the Board filed a Praecipe to Notice Failure to 

Comply (Praecipe) by Frempong. O.R. Item No. 7 at 1. The Board advised that 

Frempong had not requested the Notes of Testimony pursuant to the Case 

Management Order, and, as such, the Board was unable to prepare its findings of 

fact and conclusions of law, and submit its record to the trial court by March 4, 2019. 

By Order dated March 22, 2019, the trial court dismissed Frempong’s appeal for 

failure to request or pay for the Notes of Testimony pursuant to the Case 

Management Order. O.R. Item No. 9 at 1.

On March 25, 2019, Frempong filed a response to the Praecipe. R.R. 

at 8a. He advised that on December 7, 2018, he sent the Board a request for the 

Notes of Testimony. Id. In support, he provided a copy of a certified mail receipt 

showing that the Board received the mailing on December 10, 2018. Id. at 9a. He 

also provided a copy of the letter he enclosed to the Board Chairman requesting a 

copy of the Notes of Testimony. Id. at 11a. In the letter, he mentioned the issue of 

payment for the Notes of Testimony and that he attached as “Exhibit B [a] copy of 

the Order of December 6, 2018[,] issued by the [trial court] with regard to the fee 

for the transcript fee.” Id.3 

3 We note that the trial court did not enter an order on December 6, 2018, and that there is 

no such order attached to Frempong’s letter as Exhibit B in the original record. See O.R. Item No. 

8 at 4. Possibly, Frempong is referencing the trial court’s December 7, 2018 order, granting him 

permission to proceed in forma pauperis, which he attached to his letter as Exhibit A. See id. at 

4-5. 
4

On April 12, 2019, Frempong filed a motion for reconsideration of the 

trial court’s March 22, 2019 Order. R.R. at 14a. He claimed that he did not receive 

the Praecipe until March 25, 2019, and that he immediately filed a response that 

same day. Id. at 17a. He stated that the docket indicated that the trial court had not

yet ruled on the Praecipe. Id. at 18a. He further claimed it was not until April 10, 

2019, that he received the trial court’s March 22, 2019 Order, informing him that the 

case had been dismissed. Id. 

Frempong also argued that the trial court dismissed the case based on 

a “false and erroneous Praecipe,” and that he did request the Notes of Testimony 

pursuant to the Case Management Order. R.R. at 18a. In support, Frempong again 

submitted a copy of the letter he sent to the Board Chairman and the certified mailing 

receipt showing that the Board received the letter on December 10, 2018. 

Additionally, he submitted a copy of the trial court’s docket report, which showed a 

“RUN DATE” of March 25, 2019. Id. at 36a. On that date, however, the trial court’s

March 22, 2019 Order had not yet been entered. Id. at 38a. As such, he claimed that 

his March 25, 2019 submission to the trial court was timely and should have been 

considered. 

On April 12, 2019, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration 

without discussion. O.R. Item No. 11 at 1. Following Frempong’s appeal to this 

Court, the trial court ordered him to file a concise statement of errors complained of 

on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b), Pa. R.A.P. 

1925(b). O.R. Item No. 13. Frempong submitted the following response, in full:

1. The [Board’s] filing of the [Praecipe] filed on 

March 11, 2019 [sic,] with the [trial court] alleging that 

[Frempong] had failed to order and/or make payment for 

the [N]otes of [T]estimony from the Board hearing within 
5

the time prescribed in the [trial court’s] . . . Case 

Management Order was a palpabl[e] falsehood and 

amount[ed] to a fraud as demonstrated in [Frempong’s] 

filings in response and resultant Motion For 

Reconsideration.

2. The [trial court’s] dismissal of the [a]ppeal based on 

the Board’s Praecipe is clearly erroneous and [a] gross 

abuse of discretion.

3. The [trial court’s] summary denial of [the] Motion 

For Reconsideration despite [Frempong’s] compliance 

[with] the Case Management Order and the Board’s 

[f]raudulently obtained Order of March 23, 2019[sic,] 

dismissing [the] appeal constitute[s] clear error of law and 

gross abuse of discretion.

4. The [trial court’s] adjudication of the [a]ppeal in 

this case is a denial of [Frempong’s] first amendment right 

of access to the [c]ourt and violative of due process and 

constitute[s] clear error of law and abuse of discretion.

O.R. Item No. 14 at 1. 

The trial court then filed an opinion pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 1925(a), Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a), stating that it dismissed 

Frempong’s appeal on March 25, 2019,

4 because Frempong failed to request the 

Notes of Testimony of the Board’s hearing pursuant to the Case Management Order 

and the Scheduling Order. O.R. Item No. 15 at 1. The trial court then addressed the

issues raised by Frempong in his Rule 1925(b) statement. Id. at 2-7. 

Frempong first claimed that the dismissal of his case was based on a 

falsehood that he did not comply with the Case Management Order. In rejecting this 

claim, the trial court observed that Frempong failed to explain why it was a falsehood 

and provided no citation to authority or any evidence that he ordered the Notes of 

4 The trial court’s Order is dated and stamped as filed on March 22, 2019, but was entered 

on the docket on March 25, 2019. O.R. Item No. 9 at 1. 
6

Testimony as mandated. O.R. Item No. 15 at 3-4. The trial court then explained 

that, while Frempong submitted evidence that he sought the Notes of Testimony via 

a letter to the Board Chairman, there was no evidence in the record or in Frempong’s 

Rule 1925(b) statement demonstrating that he properly requested the transcript from 

the stenographer or that he properly served the stenographer with a copy of his 

Notice of Appeal as required by the trial court’s Order. Id. at 5. To the contrary, the 

trial court pointed out that the Case Management Order directed Frempong to obtain 

a copy of the Board’s hearing transcript from the stenographer, serve the 

stenographer with a copy of the Notice of Appeal, and pay the stenographer for the 

cost of producing the transcript, none of which he did. Id. at 4-5. The Order also 

warned that “[f]ailure to order the transcript will result in the dismissal of the appeal 

absent good cause shown.” R.R. at 5a. Because Frempong failed to comply with 

the Case Management Order, the trial court determined that it did not err in 

dismissing the appeal based on Frempong’s noncompliance with the court’s Order. 

The trial court next addressed whether Frempong demonstrated good 

cause for his failure to request the transcript. In doing so, the court explained that, 

while Frempong was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, such status did not 

relieve him of his duty to make a proper request to the stenographer and, therefore, 

did not constitute good cause justifying his failure to serve the stenographer or timely 

request the transcript. O.R. Item No. 15 at 6. The trial court also determined that 

Frempong’s Rule 1925(b) statement was insufficient to allow meaningful review of 

the matter due to its lack of specificity and vagueness. The trial court noted that 

Frempong generally asserted that the Praecipe constituted a falsehood, and claimed 

that the dismissal of the case violated his right of access to the court and his right to 

due process. However, the trial court noted that he provided no facts or evidence in 
7

support of his vague claims of error. As such, the trial court concluded that the 

claims should be dismissed. O.R. Item No. 15 at 6-7. Finally, the trial court noted 

that its refusal to grant reconsideration is not a question that is an appropriate subject 

matter for appeal. See Cheathem v. Temple University Hospital, 743 A.2d 518, 521 

(Pa. Super. 1999) (explaining that reconsideration orders are not considered final 

orders and, thus, are not subject to appeal). 

In his appeal to this Court,5 Frempong raises three issues. First, he 

challenges the trial court’s conclusions that he did not provide sufficient evidence of 

any error by the trial court and that his Rule 1925(b) statement failed to adequately 

identify in a concise manner the issues he complained of on appeal. Second, he 

claims that his appeal was improperly dismissed. Third, he claims that the trial court 

should have granted reconsideration because he established his compliance with the 

Case Management Order. We address each issue in turn. 

Frempong first claims that the trial court erred in concluding that he did 

not provide sufficient evidence of error and that his Rule 1925(b) statement failed to 

adequately identify in a concise manner the issues he complained of on appeal. 

Specifically, Frempong points out that the trial court found his claims of fraud and 

insinuations of constitutional violations were not based in law or fact, and then

claims that the trial court actually conceded in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that he 

complied with the mandate to obtain the Notes of Testimony.6 Frempong’s Brief at 

10. Thus, Frempong asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that his Rule 

5 Our review of a trial court’s decision is limited to whether constitutional rights were 

violated, whether the trial court abused its discretion, or whether an error of law was committed. 

Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74, 76 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). 

6 The trial court makes no such concession in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. 
8

1925(b) statement was not sufficiently specific and that he did not provide evidence 

in support of his claims that he complied with the Case Management Order. 

The City responds that the trial court acted well within its discretion in 

dismissing Frempong’s appeal based on his noncompliance with the Case 

Management Order, which action is supported by this Court’s case law. The City 

also contends that neither Frempong’s letter to the Board Chairman requesting a 

copy of the transcript, nor his in forma pauperis status before the trial court, relieved 

him of his duty to request the transcript directly from the stenographer and pay for 

it pursuant to the Case Management Order. The City further asserts that Frempong’s 

passing references to “due process” and “access to the courts” without any 

application to the facts of his case are insufficient to preserve those issues; they are 

therefore waived. Moreover, even if those issues were not waived, the City 

maintains that Frempong’s rights to due process and access to the courts were amply 

protected by the trial court. 

Where, as here, the trial court orders an appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) 

statement, the appellant must “concisely identify each ruling or error that the 

appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues 

for the judge.” Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii).7 Any “[i]ssues not included in the 

Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph 

(b)(4) are waived.” Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); see also Burgoyne v. Pinecrest 

Community Association, 924 A.2d 675, 678 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating that a Rule 

1925(b) statement “must be detailed enough so that the judge can write a Rule 

7 On June 24, 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court amended Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 1925, effective October 1, 2019, which was before Frempong filed his Rule 

1925(b) statement in this case. See 49 Pa. B. 3867 (2019). We therefore cite the old language of 

Rule 1925(b)(4)(ii), as that is the version of the rule that governed Frempong’s Rule 1925(b) 

statement. 
9

1925(a) opinion”); Commonwealth v. McCree, 857 A.2d 188, 192 (Pa. Super. 2004), 

aff’d, 924 A.2d 621 (Pa. 2007) (stating that a Rule 1925(b) statement which is too 

vague to allow the court to identify the issue raised on appeal is “the functional 

equivalent of no [c]oncise [s]tatement at all”). 

We agree with the trial court that Frempong’s Rule 1925(b) statement 

raises no facts showing that the Board acted fraudulently. Further, his references to 

various constitutional rights are made without legal or factual assertions. Moreover, 

all of these issues are based on his claim that he did indeed comply with the Case 

Management Order. As such, we will turn to that claim, which is addressed in his 

second issue.

In his second issue, Frempong claims that the trial court improperly 

dismissed his appeal because he has established that he complied with the Case 

Management Order. Frempong asserts that he complied with the Case Management 

Order by sending a letter to the Board Chairman requesting the Notes of Testimony 

and attaching the trial court’s order granting him in forma pauperis status.

The City responds that the Case Management Order required Frempong 

to order the Notes of Testimony by serving the stenographer with a copy of his 

Notice of Appeal and requesting the transcript directly from the stenographer. 

Instead of doing that, Frempong sent a letter to the Board Chairman. As such, the 

City asserts that he did not comply with the Case Management Order.

When the Board denied Frempong’s appeal, he was advised that “[i]n 

order to pursue [his] appeal [before the trial court, he] must order the Notes of 

Testimony from [his] hearing before the . . . Board. To order the Notes of 

Testimony, [he] should contact Strehlow & Associates, the court reporting agency, 

at 215-504-4622.” O.R. Item No. 2 at 2. Following his appeal to the trial court, a 
10

Case Management Order was issued, advising Frempong that he was “required to 

obtain a copy of the hearing transcript or certified record if applicable from the 

agency once a scheduling order is issued. [He] must order a transcript of the 

proceedings by serving the stenographer with a copy of the Notice of Appeal and 

paying the stenographer for the cost of producing the notes.” R.R. at 5a (emphasis 

omitted). Importantly, the Order warned that “[f]ailure to order the transcript will 

result in the dismissal of the appeal absent good cause shown.” Id. On January 18, 

2019, the Scheduling Order was issued, requiring that the Board electronically file 

its record by March 4, 2019, or risk sanctions. O.R. Item No. 6 at 1. 

As explained by the trial court in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, Frempong 

did not serve the stenographer with the Notice of Appeal as required. Instead, he 

sent a letter to the Board Chairman. As such, he did not comply with the Case 

Management Order and his appeal was dismissed. 

Frempong ignores the trial court’s explanation in its Rule 1925(a) 

opinion regarding why it concluded that he failed to comply with the Case 

Management Order. He also does not address his failure to serve the stenographer 

or the express language of the Case Management Order requiring him to do so. 

Instead, he claims that “it is baffling” that the Board filed the Praecipe stating that 

he did not comply with the Case Management Order when he clearly did comply. 

Frempong’s Brief at 15-16. 

We reject Frempong’s claim that he complied with the Case 

Management Order by mailing a letter to the Board Chairman. The Case 

Management Order explicitly required service of the Notice of Appeal on the 

stenographer, and provided Frempong with the telephone number to call to begin 

this process; however, Frempong apparently chose not to follow the instructions 
11

provided. We also emphasize that the Case Management Order warned that failure 

to order the transcript would result in dismissal, absent good cause shown. 

Frempong has not claimed good cause for his failure to order the transcript, and in 

fact, he continues to assert that he properly ordered the transcript despite his own 

evidence showing otherwise.8 As our Supreme Court has explained, “it is axiomatic 

that a court has inherent power to enforce its own orders of court and that this court 

will not interfere with enforcement absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth 

v. Shaffer, 712 A.2d 749, 751 (Pa. 1988). Frempong has made no showing that the 

trial court abused its discretion or otherwise erred. As such, we reject his second 

claim of error. 

Frempong’s final claim is that the trial court should have granted 

reconsideration because the Board was incorrect that he did not comply with the 

Case Management Order’s directive that he order the Notes of Testimony. The City

asserts, and the trial court ruled, that this claim is meritless, and we agree. “The 

refusal of a court to reconsider, rehear or permit reargument of a final decree is not 

reviewable on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Rachau, 670 A.2d 731, 734 n.8 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1996). Therefore, to the extent that Frempong challenges the denial of his 

motion for reconsideration, such claim is dismissed as unreviewable. 

For all of the above reasons, the order of the trial court is affirmed. 

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

8 This is not the first time Frempong has had a case dismissed for failure to comply with a 

Case Management Order. In School District of Philadelphia v. Frempong (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 356 

C.D. 2014, filed January 7, 2015), he appealed an adjudication of the City’s Board of Revision of

Taxes to the trial court, and a case management order was issued. The City filed a motion to quash 

because Frempong did not obtain the hearing transcript or file a pretrial memorandum as required 

by the case management order. The trial court quashed the appeal, and this Court affirmed. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Steve A. Frempong, :

:

Appellant :

:

 v. : No. 510 C.D. 2019

: 

Board of License and :

Inspection Review :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2021, the Order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated March 22, 2019, is AFFIRMED. 

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge