J - A27023 - 18

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 FELIX CAPONE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant
v. AMERICAN HERITAGE FE DERAL CREDIT UNION Appellee No. 25 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered November 20 , 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No. : No. 2014 - 04724 BEFORE: BOWES, STABILE, and McLAUGHLIN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MARCH 1 5 , 2019 Appellant Felix Capone appeals from the November 20 , 2017 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (“trial court”), which granted Appellee American Heritage Federal Credit Union’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Appellant’s amended complaint. Upon review, we affirm. The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. As recounted by the trial court:

In May of 2008, Appellant’s daughter, Jillian Moyer, opene d an account with Appellee and began the process of applying for a loan. On May 28, 2008, Appellant transmitted a letter to Appellee verifying that Moyer worked for him and her weekly salary. The letter stated that Appellant was vice president and part o wner of a company named “Casualty Restoration and Construction Management, Inc.” that Moyer was employed by this company since April 2004, and that she was paid a gross weekly salary of $1,250. Based on this letter, Appellee approved Moyer for aJ - A27023 - 18

- 2 -

$5,000 lo an that listed Appellant as a co - signer. Appellant later admitted in his disposition that the information contained in the letter Appellant sent to Appellee regarding Moyer’s employment was entirely false. Appellee subsequently increased the line of cr edit three times, through three separate agreements, to $11,000. The credit line increase agreements contain the signature of “Felix J. Capone”. Moyer eventually defaulted on the loan. Moyer accepted a “Request for Hardship Extension”, which also cont ained the signature of “Felix J. Capone”. As of January 2013, Moyer was still delinquent in repaying the amounts owed on the credit line. Appellant alleges that at this time, Appellee began misapplying payments Appellant had made on his car loan to Moyer ’s loan. Appellant contends that he had no knowledge of the credit line increases, that he did not sign the increase, and that Moyer forged his signature on the documents authorizing the increases. On July 11, 2014, Appellant commenced this action, claim ing a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”) [, 73 P.S. § 201 – 1, et seq. ] , fraud, and breach of contract. On July 21, 2014, Appellant filed an amended complaint. On February 25, 2015, Appellant file[d] a motion fo r leave to file a second amended complaint to include claims of a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, intentional infliction of mental and emotional distress, negligent infliction of mental and emotional distress, conversion, and intentional tort. On April 7, 2015, Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. On [September 1], 2015, th[e trial c]ourt denied Appellant’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Also[,] on [September 1], 2015, [the trial court] denied Appellee’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice, permitting Appellee to refile upon completion of discovery. The parties continued to engage in discovery until June 5, 2017 [,] when Appellee filed its second motion for summary judgment. Appellee argued that summar y judgment is appropriate as to all three of Appellant’s claims. First, Appellee contended that Appellant’s UTPCPL claim failed because he lacked standing under the UTPCPL and that even if he had standing, Appellant failed to prove the elements of justifi able reliance or offer evidence of fraudulent or deceptive conduct. Second,J - A27023 - 18

- 3 -

Appellee argued that Appellant’s fraud claim failed because Appellant did not provide any evidence of fraud. Finally, Appellee contended that summary judgment was appropriate as to Appellant’s breach of contract claim, because Appell[ant] lacked standing and failed to offer evidence to establish the required elements of the cause of action. [The trial court] held oral argument on Appellee’s motion for summary judgment on November 14, 2017. On November [20], 2017, [the trial court] granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. On December 18, 2017, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Following receipt of the notice of appeal, [the trial co urt] directed Appellant [to file] a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal on or before January 5, 2018. [Appellant complied. In response, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.] Trial Court Opinion, 1/24/18, at 1 - 3 (record cita tions and unnecessary capitalizations omitted). On appeal, Appellant raises four issues for our review. [I.] Has the [trial] court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by granting summary judgment in favor of a financial institution accuse d of forgery and fraud by declaring “forgery allegations ma[k]e proving the element of justifiable reliance [by the consumer plaintiff] . . . under the UTPCPL impossible”? [II.] Has the court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment in favor of m ovant financial institution thus dismissing non - movant’s common law fraud claims where the record unarguably shows movant’s loan officers participated in the fraud and forgery on non - movant by bearing false witness to the forged signature of Appellant on n umerous loan documents? [III.] Is the [trial] court’s finding that the non
- movant’s breach of contract claims “appears to be specific to [] subsequent agreements . . . rather than to the original loan contract” a deliberate disregard of record facts and th erefore an abuse of discretion? [IV.] As a final order, now that the [trial] court order granting summary judgment dismissed all claims in the action, was theJ - A27023 - 18

- 4 -

interlocutory order of September 1, 2015 denying [Appellant’s] motion for leave to file a second amended complaint for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, intentional and negligent infliction of mental and emotional distress an error of law and an abuse of discretion? Appellant’s Brief at 7
- 10 (unnecessary capitalizations omitted). 1 , 2 We review a challenge to the entry of summary judgment as follows: [We] may disturb the order of the trial court only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. As with all questions of law, our review is plena ry. In evaluating the trial court’ s decision to enter summary judgment, we focus on the legal standard articulated in the summary judgment rule. See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035.2. The rule [provides] that where there is no genuine issue of material fact

_________________ ____________________ _______ 1 Appellee argues Appellant failed to preserve his issues for our review because he did not raise them before the trial court. Although Appellee is correct that Appellant’s issues do not mirror the issues raised in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, we nonet heless decline to find them waived. Appellant’s issues appear to be subsumed by the issues raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement, as quoted in the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/24/18, at 3 - 4. 2 Appellee aptly points ou t that Appellant’s brief includes and relies upon documents, specifically the “Supplemental Record of Slaboda Deposition,” that are outside of the certified record. Appellee’s Brief at 18. We agree. In Parr v. Ford Motor Co. , 109 A.3d 682 (Pa. Super. 20 14) , we explained: [t]he law of Pennsylvania is well settled that matters which are not of record cannot be considered on appeal. Thus, an appellate court is limited to considering only the materials in the certified record when resolving an issue. In this regard, our law is the same in both the civil and criminal context because, under the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, any document which is not part of the officially certified record is deemed non existent — a deficiency which cannot be r emedied merely by including copies of the missing documents in a brief or in the reproduced record. Parr , 109 A.3d at 695 (internal citations omitted) . As such, we may not consider the Slaboda deposition Appellant relies upon on appeal.J - A27023 - 18

- 5 -

and the m oving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law, summary judgment may be entered. Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on an issue, he may not merely rely on his pleadings or answers in order to survive summary judgment. Failure of a non - moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which he bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of law . Lastly, we will review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. E.R. Linde Const. Corp. v. Goodwin , 68 A.3d 346, 349 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted; brackets in original) (emphasis added) . After careful review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court accurately and thoroughly addressed the merits of Appellant’s claims. See Trial Court Opinion, 1 /2 4/18 , at 5 - 1 1 . Appellant’s UTPC PL claim fails because he did not offer any evidence to establish justifiable reliance. See Kern v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc. , 108 A.3d 1282, 1289 - 90 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[J]ustifiable reliance is an element of private actions under Section 201 - 9.2 of the UTPCPL. As such, [the a]ppellant had to demonstrate that he . . . justifiably relied on [the a]ppellee’s alleged violations of the UTPCPL and, as a result of those alleged violations, suffered an ascertainable loss.”). Appellant admitted that he had no k nowledge of the credit line increases, that he did not sign the increases, and that his signatures on those increases were forgeries. Trial Court Opinion, 1/24/18, at 7. Similarly, Appellant ’s fraud claim lacks merit. Appellant failed to establish any e vidence that Appellee committed fraud sub judice . See i d. at 7 - 8 (On theJ - A27023 - 18

- 6 -

contrary, Appellant has “admitted that his daughter had herself forged his signature on the documents in question.”) . Moreover, Appellant cannot establish a breach of contract becau se he emphatically denied signing the documents relating to the credit line increases. 3 Id. at 9 (“As Appellant acknowledged that he did not sign these additional agreements, he could not assert a breach of contract claim based on these increases[.]”). Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint because the additional causes of action Appellant sought to raise were time - barred. 4 Id. at 9 - 11; see Shiflett v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc. , 174 A.3d 1066, 1083 ( Pa. Super. 2017) (“ [i]t is axiomatic that a part y may not plead a new cause of action in an amended complaint when the new cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations at the time the amended complaint is filed ”) , appeal granted in part , 191 A.3d 745 (Pa. 2018) . Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s November 20, 2017 order granting Appellee’s summary

_________________ ____________________ _______ 3 Although we d ecline to find waiver, we note with disapproval that Appellant failed to develop his third issue on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119; see also Umbelina v. Adams , 34 A.3d 151, 161 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussi on of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived[]”) (citation omitted), appeal denied , 47 A.3d 848 (Pa. 2012). 4 TCPF Ltd. P’

ship v. Skatell , 976 A.2d 5 71, 574 ( Pa. Super. 2009) (noting that we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review to cases challenging a trial court’s denial a motion to amend).J - A27023 - 18

- 7 -

judgment motion. We further direct that a copy of the trial court’s January 24 , 201 8 opinion be attached to any future filings in this case. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/15/19Circulated 02/27/2019 01:48 PM

IN TIIE C O UR T O F C O MM O N P L EAS O F B U C KS C O UNTY , P E NN S YL VANIA CI VI L D M S I O N 

### F E LIX C APO NE



### v . AMERI C AN HE RITA G E FE D E RAL CRE D IT UNI O N
OPINI O N N o. 20 1 4-04 724

. . �

_ _ _. .
F e l ix Ca po n e (here inafter " Appe μ ant j appeals fro m thi s C ourt ' s N o v e mber 1 7
. 2 0 1 7 Order granting Am e ri can H e ri ta g e F ed eral Credi t Uni o n ' s (here i nafter " Appe ll ee " ) M o ti o n fo r S ummary Judgment an d the September 1 , 2 0 1 5 Order deny in g Appe l l ant ' s M o ti o n fo r Leav e t o F il e a S eco n d Am end ed Co mp laint. Pursuant to P ennsy l vani a R ul e o f Ap pe ll ate Proced ure l 92 S ( a) , thi s Co urt fil es this Op ini o n 

### in sup po rt o fits ruling
. L F A CTU A L AND P R O CE D URAL HIST O RY In M ay o f

2 0 0 8
. Appc ll ant • s dau ghte r , J ill ian M o y er , opened an acco unt wi th Appe ll ce an d 

### be gan the p rocess o f app l ying fo r a 

### l oan . On M ay 

### 2 8 , 2 00 8 , Appe ll ant transmi tted a 

### l e tter to Appell ee v eri fyin g that M o y e r w o rked fo r hi m an d her weekl y sal ary . Se e E xhi b i t A t o De fen dant ' s M o ti o n fo r S umm ary Judgm ent. The l etter stated that Appe ll ant was vi ce presi d e nt
an d part o wner � f

a co mpany nam ed " Cas ual ty Re sto rati o n and C onstruc ti o n M anag em e nt, I n c " , 

### that M o y er was emp l o y ed b y thi s co mpany since April 2 004 , an d that sh e was pai d a gross weekl y sal ary o f $ 1 ,2 5 0
. Se e 

### kt
. Bas ed on 

### this l etter
. Ap pe ll ce appro ved M o y e r f or a $ 5 , 000 l oan 

### that l isted Appe l lant as a co- s i gn er . & a P l aintiff' s Amended Co mp l amt 

### ft 6 , 7
. Appell ant late r
a dmi tted in his deposi ti o n that the info nnati on co ntained f n the l etter Appe ll ant sent to Appe U ee re gardin g M o y e r' s emp l o yment was entire ly fal se . N
. T
. 1 2/ 1 8/ 1 S , p . 1 9 2 : 7
- 2 07 : 3
. 1 T H I S O R D E R/J U D G M E N T WA S DOC K ET E D A N D S E N T O N 0 1 /2 4 / 2 0 1 8 P U R S U A N T T O P A

. R. C

. P

. 2 36

.Ap pe ll ee s ub sequ e ntl y i n c r e ased th e li n e o f c redi t three tim es , thr o u gh three separate

agree m e nts , t o $ 1 1 , 000
. I d
. at 

### fl 1 1 • 1 3
. Th e c red i t li n e i nc re ase agr ee m e nts co ntain th e s i gnature
o f " F e li x J
. Ca

po n e "
. 

### Se e E xh i b i ts D
- 0 to De f en dant ' s M o ti o n fo r S ummary J u d gm e n t, M o y e r e v e ntual l y d e f

au l ted o n th e l o an. 

### Id. at 

### 1 1 6
. M o y e r acce p ted a " R equ est fo r H ard s hip E xt e ns i o n " , whi c h al so co ntai n ed th e si gnature o f " F e lix J
. Capo n e "
. 

### S

e e E xh ib i t H t o De f en dant ' s M o t i o n f

o r S umm ary Ju dgm e nt. As o f J anuary 2 0 1 3 , M o y e r was stil l d e li n quent 

### in
r e pay in g th e 

### am o unts o w ed o n th e c redi t l in e . Appe ll ant al l e g e s that at th i s ti m e , Ap pe ll ce 

### beg an m i s ap p ly i n g p aym e nts Ap p e ll ant had m ad e o n h i s 

### car l oan to M o y e r' s l o an . Jg , Ap pe ll ant co nt e nd s th at h e h ad n o kn o w l ed g e o f th e c red i t lin e in c re ases , th at b e d i d no t
s i gn the inc reases , an d that M o y er fo rg ed hi s si gn ature o n th e d o c um e nts auth o ri zi n g th e i n c r eases . 

### Se e N
. T
. 1 2/ 1 8/ 1 5 , p . 5 8 : 1 8
- 2 1 , 5 9 : 7
- 11 ; 8 9
- 9 1 ; 22 2 : 7
- 1 2
. 

### On Jul y 11 , 2 0 � 4 , Ap pe ll ant

. 

### . co mm en ced thi s a c ti o n , c l aim i n g a vi o l ati o n o f th e Un fair T rad e Prac t i ces an d C o ns u � er P ro t ec t io n La w (U TP C P L ) , F rau d , and B re a c h o fC o ntract
. On Jul y 2 1 , 2 0 J 4 , Ap pe ll ant fi l ed an am e n ded co mp l ai nt On F e b ru ary 2 5 , 2 0 1 5 , Appe ll ant fi l e a m o ti o n fo r l eav e t o fi l e 

### a S eco n d Am e n d ed Co mp l a int to in c lu d e c l a i m s o f a vi o l at i o n o f th e F ai r C red i t R epo rting A ct, Int enti o na l I n fl ic ti o n . o f M e ntal an d E m o ti o nal D i stress , N e g li g e nt Infli c ti o n o f M ental an d Em o ti o nal Di s tress , C o nv ers i o n , an d Inte nt i o nal T o rt
. 

### On Ap ri l 7 , 2 0 1 5 , Appe ll ee fi l ed a m o ti o n fo r s ummary j ud gm e nt. O n Au gus t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 , 

### thi s C o urt d eni ed Ap pe ll ant ' s M o ti o n fo r Leav e t o F il e a S eco n d Am en d ed C o mp l a i nt
. A lso o n Au gust 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 , the C o urt d e ni ed Ap pe l l e e ' s M o ti o n fo r S ummar y Ju d gm e nt wi tho ut pre

j udi ce , pe rm i ttin g Ap pe ll ee t o re fi l e upo n co mp l e ti o n o fdi s c o v e ry . The p arti es co ntinued t o e n g ag e i n di sco v ery until Jun e 5 , 2 0 1 7 wh en Ap pe ll ee fi l ed i ts s eco nd M o t i o n fo r S umm ary Ju d gm ent Ap pe ll ee ar gu ed that summary j u d gm e nt is a pp ro pri ate

2as to al l three o f Ap pe ll ant ' s c l ai m s . F irst, Ap pe ll ee co nten d ed that Ap pe ll ant ' s U TP C P L c l a i m

f a il ed be ca use h e l ac k ed stan d ing un d e r th e UfP C P L, and th at e v e n i f h e h ad stan ding , Ap pe ll ant f ai l e d to p ro v e th e e l em e nts o f j usti fi ab l e re li an ce o r o ff e r e vi d e n ce o f frau d

ul e nt o r d ece p ti v e co n d u c t Seco n d , Ap pe ll ee ar gu ed that Ap pe ll ant ' s frau d c l a i m f ai l e d because Ap pe ll ant di d n o t pro v i d e any e vi d e n c e o f frau d
. F inall y , App e ll ee co nt e n d ed that summary j ud gm e nt w as
a p p ro pri at e as t o Ap pe ll ant ' s b re a c h o f co ntrac t c l ai m, because Ap pe ll ee l ac k e d s tandin g an d f ai l ed t o o ff er e vi d e n c e t o estab li s h th e requ ired e l e m ents o f th e caus e o f

a cti o n . Th i s Co urt h e l d o ral ar gum e nt o n Ap pe l l ee ' s M o ti o n fo r S ummary Jud gm e nt o n N o v e mbe r 1 4 , 2 0 1 7
. O n N o v e mber 1 7 , 2 0 1 7 , th e C o urt grant ed Ap pe ll ee ' s M o ti o n fo r S umm ary Ju d gm e nt. O n Dece mber 1 8 , 2 0 1 7 , Ap pe ll ant fi l ed a n o ti ce o fa p peal t o th e S u

pe ri o r C o urt o f

P e nn sy l v ani a. F o ll o win g rec e ip t o f

th e N o ti ce o f

Ap pe al , thi s Co urt d irec ted Ap pe ll ant 

### fil ed a co n c i s e stat e m e nt
o fe rr o rs co mp l ain e d o fo n ap peal o n o r b e fo re J anuary 5, 2 0 J 8
. II
. S T A T E MEN T O F E RR O RS C O MP L AINE D O F O N A P P EAL O n J anuary 3 , 2 0 1 8 , i n acco rdan ce wi th P e nnsy l v ani a R ul e o f Ap pe ll ate P roced

ure 1 9 2 5 (b ) , Ap pe ll ant fi l e d hi s S tate m e nt o f Erro rs Co mp l ain ed o f o n Ap p eal , se t fo rth 

### v e rb a t im h e re i n : l
. I f th e C o urt grant e d Def e n d ant [ s i c ] S ummary Ju dgm e nt an d di s m i ssed P l ai ntiff s Am e nd ed C o mp l ai nt based o n a b i as ag ains t c o ns um er s end i n f av o r o f f m an c i al insti tuti o ns , th e n th e C o urt ab used i ts d i sc reti o n an d erred as a matter o f l aw , an d in v i o l at i o n o f

th e 

### Unfai r T rad e 

### Pr acti ces A c t an d C o n s um er Pro t e cti o n 

### Law , whi c h i s s up po sed to be " li be rall y co ns tru ed t o e ff ectu at e th e l e gi s lati v e g o al o f co ns um e r p ro t ecti o n . " Co mm o nw eal th 

## o fP e nnsyl v an i a, A c tin& 

## b y Atto rn e y G e n e ra l Th o m as W
. C o r

be tt
. 

### Jr . v . S ny d q . 9 7 7 A. 2d 2 8 , 3 3 (P a . C mw l th. 2 009 ) ( c i t i ng 

### Co mm o nwealth v . P e rc u dani
. 844 A
. 2 d 3 5 (P a. C mw l th. 2 004 ))
. 2
. If th e Co urt grant ed Def e n dant ' s M o ti o n bec au se th e C o urt d e c i d ed th at th e m any d iff e rent s i gnatur e s o n l o an d oc um ents p urpo rt in g t a be P l ai nti ff' s si gnatures are g e nu in e , an d N O T fo rg eri es as P lai nti ff c l ai m s, th en th e C o urt erred as a m att er o f J aw an d ab used i ts d is c reti o n b y dec i d i ng g enui n e i ssu e s o f m at e ri al f ac t ( fo r g ery an d frau d) co ntrary to the s ummary j u d gm ent s tan d ard
. 33
. I f th e C o urt granted De f

e n d ant ' s M o ti o n � cause th e C o urt d ec i ded th at P l ai nti ff s o m e h o w auth o ri zed fo rg ery 

### b y [ Am eri c an H e ri ta ge F ed e ra l C redi t Uni o n ] l oan o ffi ce rs an d/ o r 

### hi s daughte r , th e n th e Co urt 

# I erred 

### as a m att e r o f l aw and 

### ab used 

### i ts di screti o n b y d ec i d i n g g e nuin e i ss u es o f mate ri al f act co ntrary to the s ummary j u d gm ent stand ard
. 4
. If th e Co urt grante d De f e n dant ' s M o ti o n becaus e the Co urt d ec i d ed that [ Am e ri c an H e ri ta g e F ed e ral C re d i t Uni o n ] 6 ffi ce rs , d irec to rs , an d e mp l o y e es di d N O T kn o w , an d/ o r , s h ou l d N O T h av e kn o wn that P l ai nti ff' s nam e 

### was fo rg ed o n l o an doc um ents , then the C o urt de c i d ed g enu i ne i s su es o f mat e ri al f ac t co ntrary to th e 

### summary j ud gm e nt stan dard
. 

### S

. I f th e Co urt grant ed De f

e n dant [ s i c ] s ummary j ud gm e nt based o n the d e t erm i nati o n that [ Am eri can H eri tag e 

### F ed era! C re d it Un i o n ] 

### issu ed any l oans at al l t o J ill M o y er based o n an emp l o ym e nt .Jerili cati o n l ett er , th e n th e C o urt 

### erred as a m att er o fl aw an d co ntrary to th e summary j u d gm ent s tan dar d b y d e c i d i ng g e nu in e i s s u es o f

mat e ri al f ac t; nam e l y , w }\ e th er [ Am eri c an H eri ta g e F ed e ral Credi t Uni o n ] a c tual l y an d/ o r reaso nab ly re li ed o n th e l e tt er t o a p p ro v e any , a ll , o r s o m e o f th e l o an s to M o y e r . 6
. B ecause th e C o urt O rd er grantin g 

### s wnm ary j u d gm ent an d d i sm i s s in g P l ainti ff' s Amend ed C o mp l aint i s a fi na l o rd e r , th e S ep t e mbe r 

### 1 , 2 0 1 5 int e rl oc ut o ry o rd e r d e ny in g P l ai nti ff' s F e b ruary 2 5 , 2 0 1 5 "M o t i o n fo r Leav e to F il e a S eco n d Am e nd e d C o mp l aint" i s n o w s ub j ec t to re � i e w as . an ab use o fdi sc reti o n an d e rro r o f J aw b y th e C o urt e rro n eo us l y d e nyin g P l aintiff' s ri ght t o am e n d p l e adin g s that are suffi c i e nt t o sati s fy p l ead i n gs stan dard s 1 al l e gi ng V i o l ati o n o fth e F air Cre d i t R e po rti n g A c t 1 5 U
. S
. C
. 

## 1 1 6 8 ls

- 2 (b ) , Int Jnti o nal an d N e gl i g e nt In fli c ti o n o f M e ntal an d Em o ti o nal Di stress, Co nv ersi o n , an d I nt e nti o n a l T o rt whi l e in co rpo r atin g the e x i stin g p l e a d ings in P l ai nti ff' s Am e n d ed Co mp l ai nt. I 7
. Th e Co urt ' , s d en i al o f

P l ai nti ff' s M o ti o n fo r Leav e to F il e a S e co n d Am e n d ed Co mp l ai nt ( a ll e g in g V i o l ati o n o f the F ai r C red i t R epo rting A ct 1 5 U
. S
. C
. 

## 1 1 6 8 1 s - 2 (b) , I ntenti o nal an d N e g li g e nt I nfl i c ti o n o f M ental an d E m o ti o nal D i stress ) gi v en th e sub s tan ce and ti m i n g o f th e F e b ruary 2 5 , 2 0 1 5 M o ti o n pe rtainin g t o ap p li cab l e s tatutes o f lim itati o ns, 

### is an e rro r o f l aw an d an abuse o f di • I sc reti o n . : · Il l
. D I S C U S S I O N Ap pe ll ant o ff

ers se v eral d i ff

e re nt ar gum ents n: gard in g th e gr ant o f th e M o ti o n fo r S ummary Ju d gm e nt b ecau se Ap pe ll ant c o nte nds that the Co urt gav e n o in d i cati o n fo r th e re aso ns fo r th e Co urt ' s d ec isi o n . ' Th e Co urt wil l n o t ad dress these argum e nts because th e y ad dress i ss u es

I Wh ll o the C o urt d i d n o t o ffer i ts rea so nin g f o r &rantin g Ap pc U oo ' s M ot i on f o r S umm ary Ju d gm e nt i n wri ti n g. th e C ourt re peat ed l y e xp ressed i ts co n cern durin g o ra l largum ont th at Ap pe ll ant d i d n o t o ff er s u ffi c i ent ev i de n ce t o s u

ppo rt hi s c l ai m s e n d o verco m e th e M � o n f o r S ummary Ju d gm e nt. d es p i te hav i n g se v e ra l years • w o rth o f d is co v ery . I n res po n se . Ap pe ll ant argu ed th at s om o d i sco v ery i s m i ss i n g 4that w e re n o t tak en i nt o c o ns i d erati o n b y thi s Co urt in m aki n g i ts d e c i s i o n . Rath e r , th i s C o urt w ill

di sc u s s th e Co urt ' s reaso n i n g f o r grantin g Ap pc ll ee ' s M o t i o n fo r S ummary Ju dgm ent Th e Co urt wi ! l 

### the n ad dres s i ts reaso n in g fo r d enyi n g Ap p e ll ant ' s M o ti o n fo r Leav e t o F il e a S eco n d Am e nd ed Co mp l ai nt. 

### fil1.MMARY 

## JUD G MENT S ummary j u d gm e nt may o n l y be granted 

### wh ere th e re 

### i s n o g enui n e i ssu e 

### as t o any mat e ri al f ac t an d th e m o vi n g p arty is e nti tl e d to j u d gm e nt as a m atte r o fl aw . 

### S e e P a . R. C
. P
. 1 0 3 5
. 2
. Wh en
re vi e wi n g a m o t i o n fo r summ ary j u d gm e nt , th e reco rd must be read in th e li ght m ost f av o rab l e to th e n o n - m o vin g p arty , an d a ll d o ub ts 

### as to th e e xi s te n ce o f a g e nu i n e i s s u e o f m ateri al f ac t mus t be reso l v ed a g a i nst th e m o v in g 

### p arty . M ark s y , T as m an , 5 8 9 A
. 2 d 2 0 5 , 2 06 (P a . 1 99 1 )
. " In
o p pos i ng a m o t i o n fo r s umm ary j u d gm e nt , th e n o n - m o v i n g party must d e m o nstr at e that th e re i s a ge nu in e i s sue fo r trial
. " 

### D av i s y . Reso urces fo r Hum an De v e l o p m e nt. In c . � 7 7 0 A 2 d 3 5 3 , 3 5 7 ( P a. S u pe r . C t 1 9 9 1 )
. Th e n o n - m o v i n g p arty m ay n o t " m ere l y re l y o n 

### hi s p l ea din gs o r answ e rs to
surv i v e 

## summ ary j u d gm e nt " 

## Krau ss v . T r an e 

### U
. S
. 

## In c ,. 1 04 A. 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 3 (P a . S u per . 2 0 1 4 ) ( c i tati o n o mi tted)
. A re v i e wi n g co urt may d istur b th e tri al c o urt ' s grant o f s umm ary j u d gm ent if th e co urt has 

### co mm i tted an e rr o r o fl aw o r ab used i ts d is c reti o n . Se e 

## T o y v . M e tro po l itan L i f e 

## Ins . Qb 92 8 A. 2 d 1 8 6 (P a . 2 0 0 7 )
.

1 . 

## U T P C P L

I • In Co unt O ne o f

Ap pe ll ant ' s Am en d ed Co mp l aint, Ap pe ll ant al l e g es th at Ap pe ll ee vi o l ated th e UTP C P L
. Ap pe ll ee m o v ed fo r s ummary j u d gm ent o n this c l ai m , arguin g that Ap pe ll ant l a c k ed

an d a ll e g ed th at Ap pe l l ee re fu sed to co mp l y w i th d isco v ery requ ests an d/ o r was ly i n g abo ut the ex i s ten ce o f parti c u l ar mat e ri a l s . Th e C ourt questi o n ed why l f Ap pe ll ant be li ev es Ap pe ll ee h as f a il ed t o co mp l y w i th d i sco v e ry , h e d i d n o t fil e th e pro pe r d i sc o v e ry m o t i ons. Ap pe l lant d i d n o t p ro v i d e a reason fo r h i s f a ilure to do so . 5

### s tan d i n g un d e r th e UTP C P L, an d that, 

### e v e n i f Ap pe ll ant b ad s tan din g , Ap p e ll ant co ul d n o t s ati s fy th e j u sti fi ab l e re li an ce e l e m e nt o r the as ce rtai n ab l e l o ss e l e m ent o f a U TP CP L c l aim
. Th e UTP C P L p ro v i d es a p ri v at e ri ght o f ac ti o n fo r " ( a

jny p e rso n wh o p urc hases
. . . g o ods \ 

### o r servi c e s p rimari l y f

o r perso nal , f

ami l y o r h o useh o l d p urpo se s an d there b y s uff ers 

### any asc e rt ainab l e l o ss o f m o n e y o r p ro pe rty" res ul ting fro m th e se l l e r ' s unfai r o r d ece p ti v e prac ti ce s . 7 3 P
. S
. § 

### 2 0 1
- 9
. 2 ( a)
. S ec ti o n F o ur o f th e UTP C P L in c lud es a cat c h

- al l p ro vi si o n, p r o v i d in g th at

" any o th er fraud

ul e nt o r d ecep ti v e co nd

u c t wh i c h c reat es a li k e li h ood o f c o nfus i o n o r o f
m i sun d ers t an d i n g " i s an unfa i r o r d ecep ti v e p ra c ti ce . 7 3 P
. S
. § 

### 2 0 1
- 2 ( 4 X x x i )
. T o succee d un de r th e cat c h

- al l pro vi s i o n, th e p l ainti ff mu s t sati s fy th e e l e m ents o f
c o mm o n - l aw fraud 

### o r o th erwi s e a ll eg e d ecep ti v e co nd u c t. 

### Hunt v . 

### U S T o b a � o C o . , 5 3 8 F
. 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 1 9 ( 3 d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 )
. A c l aim fo r d ecep ti v e co n d uct re qu i res : {l ) 

### a p l ainti ff al l eg e fac ts d em o n stratin g a d e cep ti v e a c t ; ( 2 ) j ustifi ab l e re li an ce ; an d ( 3 ) th e j u s ti fi ab l e re li an ce caus e d
asc e rta i nab l e l o ss . � 

### M o nt an ez y , H S B C M o rt g . Co rp • • 8 7 6 F
. S u p p . 2 d 5 04 , 5 1 9 (E
. D
. P a . 2 0 1 2 )
. Thi s C o urt f

ound that because Ap pe l lant ' s 

### c l ai m s are n o t re l ated o nl y to the 

### c red i t li n e i n c reas e agree m ents , Appe ll ant li k e l y had 

### stan di n g un d e r th e lITPC P L , as he co- s i gn e d th e o ri ginal l o an . H o w e v er , thi s C o urt al so fo un d that summary 

### j u d gm e nt was n o n eth e l ess ap p ro p ri at e because Ap pe ll ant fai l ed t o s atis fy the e l em e nts o f a U TPC P L c l ai m, as Ap pe l lant ' s fo r g ery al l egati o ns m ad e p ro vin g th e e l e m ent o f j usti fi ab l e re l ian ce to sus tain a c lai m un d e r th e U T PC P L impo ss ib l e . E v en ass um i n g 

### ar gu e nd o that 

### th e al l e g ed fo r g e ri e s c o nsti tuted i n th e m s e l v es

. . 

### s u ffi c i e nt fr au d o r d ec ep ti o n to 

### m eet 

### the stan d ard o fa lITP C P L c l ai m, th e re bas 

### bee n n o e vi d en ce p res ente d t o thi s C o urt whi c h d e m o n strat es that 

### App e ll ant ac tual l y , mu c h l ess j usti fi ab ly . re li ed
u po n thes e al l e g ed fo rg e ri e s to 

### hi s d e tri m e nt. Th e f ac ts o f this case m ay be co mpared t o 

### F aber v . 

### W e ll s Farg o B ank. 2 0 1 5 WL 1 6 3 6 9 6 7 (E
. D
. P a . Ap r . 1 3 , 2 0 1 5 ) , 

### in whi c h a p l aintiff' s UTP C P L

6c l ai m ag ai ns t a bank was d i s missed wh e re th e c l ai m 

### was based u po n al l e g ed l y fo r g ed s i gnatures ; in that 

### case , the D i s tri c t C o urt fo un d that the al l e g ed fo r g e ry 

### was i n s u ffi c i e nt to fu lfill th e required
e l e m e nt o f

ju s t i fi ed re li an ce . S imi l arly , App e ll ant has fai l ed to s h o w any j usti fi ab l e de tri m e ntal
re li ance o n hi s part t o any co nd u ct b y Ap pe ll ee . I � b y hi s o wn admissi o n, Ap pe ll ant h ad no kno w l ed g e o fth e c red i t li n e in c rease s m ad e b y M o y e r , di d no t s i gn sa i d in c rease s , an d maintai ns that the s i gn atures m ad e t o auth o rize th e se in c reases 

### we re fo r g e ri es . 

### Se e N

. T

. 1 2/ 1 8 / 1 5 , p . 5 8 : 1 8 - 2 1 , 5 9 : 7
- 1 1 ; 8 9
- 9 1 ; 2 22 : 7
- 1 2
. Thi s Co urt cann o t un d e rst an d h o w an i n d i vi d u al wh o so stro n g l y d i sav o w s any co nn e c ti o n to th e auth o rizati o n o f th ese c redi t l in e in c reases co ul d al so hav e re li ed
o n th e m t o 

### hi s o wn d e trim e nt.



### 2
. C o mm o n L aw F); a g d Thi s C o urt furth er fo un d that swnm ary j u d gm ent 

### was a p p ro p ri ate becau s e Ap pe ll ant no t p ro vi d ed any e vi d e n c e p r o vi ng th at Ap pe l l ee had co mm i tt ed co mm o n l aw frau d
. T o es ta b li s h a fr aud c l aim , a p l a intiff mus t p l ead wi th spec i fi c i ty : ( 1 ) a re p resentati o n ; ( 2 ) wh i c h i s mat e ri al to th e tr ansac ti o n at han d ; ( 3 ) m ad e f al se ly , wi th kno w l ed g e o f i ts f al s i ty o r rec k l essn ess as t o wh e th er i t i s true o r fa l se ; ( 4 ) w i th th e i nte nt o f m i s l eadin g an o th er i nt o re l ying o n i t; ( 5 ) j u s ti fi ab l e re l i ance
o n th e r ep re se ntati o n ; an d ( 6 ) th e res u l ti ng 

### in j ury was p ro x imat e l y caused b y th e re li an c e . 

### Y o un dt Y , 

### F irst N at ' l B ank o f



### P o n All e gany . 8 6 8 A. 2 d 5 3 9 , 

### 5 4 5 (P a . S upe r . 2 00 5 )
. A m i sre p rese nt ati o n is m ate ri a l t o th e transacti o n � ban � o nl y i f th e representati o n i s su c h that, had i t n o t been mi srep resented , th e transa c ti o n w o ul d n o t hav e bee n co nsumm at ed
. S e v in v . 

### Kc ls haw , 6 1 1 A
. 2 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 7 (P a . S up e r . l m )
. In thi s 

### case , Ap pe ll ant has fail ed to o ffe r any e vi d en ce to s h o w that frau d 

### occ urred
. Al th o ugh Ap pe ll ant has as s e rte d th at th e all eg ed fo r g e ri es w e re co mp l eted b y emp l o y ees o f Ap pe ll ee , Appe ll ant h as no t p ro vi d ed e vi de nc e to the sam e , be y o n d v a gu e c atc h

- al l statem e nts that

7th ese e mp l o y ees " e i th er fo rg ed ( Ap p e ll ant ' s s i g nature ] , kne w ea c h o th e r f o r g ed, o r kn e w J ill M o y e r fo rg ed " th e s i gnature o n th e se d oc um e nts
. 

### Se e P l aint i ff F e li x Ca po n e ' s R es po nse to De f e n d ant Am eri can H e ri ta g e F ed e r al C red i t Uni o n ' s M e m o rand um 

### in S u p po rt o f De f

endant ' s M o ti o n f or S ummary Jud gm ent, s n/ 1 7 , 

### 1 1 1
. M o reo v er , Appe ll ant h as al so a dmi tted that h is daught e r had h erse l f fo rg ed hi s s i gnature o n the d oc um ents in que st i o n . Thus , if Appe ll ant ' s on l y evi d e n ce o f f

rau d i s h i s fo rg ed s i gnature , i t see ms that thi s i ssue has p re vi o us l y b e e n adm i tted b y Appe l lant to be hi s d au ghte r ' s d o i n g, an d th at n o e v i d e n ce h as be e n o ff e red b y Ap pe ll ant t o in d i c ate th at Appe l l ee ' s e mp l o y e e s p art i c i pate d in th e fo r g e ri e s o r misre p res e nte d any inf o rm ati o n t o h i m . M o reo v e r , a ga in , Ap pe ll ant ' s re l ian ce o n th es e su pposed m i sre pres e ntati o ns i s extre m e l y s us pec t, a s h e hi m se l fhas stat e d mul ti p l e ti m e s th at he 

### was un awar e o f th e a ll e g ed fo rg e ri e s an d d i d no t a p pro v e o f

th e m . A cco rdi n gl y , Appe ll ant 

### has fail ed to m ee t th e stan dard o fco mm o n l aw f rau d an d 

### summary j u d gm e nt was a p p ro p ri ate o n th is cl ai m . 3
. 

### B r ea c h 

### o f Co ntra c t F inal l y , th i s C o urt fo un d summ ary j u d gm e nt a p p ro pri at e co nce rnin g Ap pe l l ant ' s b re ac h o f
co ntra c t c l ai m . I t i s w e ll -estab li sh ed that thr e e e l e m ents are n eces sary t o p l ead a cause o fa c ti o n fo r b rea c h o fco ntrac t : ( J ) th e e xis t e n ce o f a co ntra c t, i nc lu ding i ts essenti al te rm s , ( 2 ) a b rea c h o f the co ntra c t ; and, ( 3 ) res u l tant d am ag es . 

## M e y e r , D arra g h
. 

### B u c kl e r. Be b en e k & & k
. 

## P
. L
. L. C
. y . La w F i rm o f 

### M al o ne M i d dl e m an , P , C ., 1 3 7 A
. 3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 8 ( P a. 2 0 1 6)
. A p l a i nti ff has n o s tan din g t o s u e fo r b re ac h o f c o ntra ct i f th e p l aintiff i s ne i th e r a s i gnato ry t o , n o r a thi rd party be n e fi c i ary o f

, th e c o ntra c t : 

### S

e e 

### O uy v . 

### L i ed e r

ba c h , 4 5 9 A. 2d 7 44 (P a. 1 9 8 3 ) t 

### B D O P
. In c . v . 

### Ind , 

### Mo rtg
. Co

. • 2 004 W L 96 0 0 1 3 , at 4 ( C C P P hi la d e lp h i a C o unty 2 0 04 )
. I n th.i s case , Ap pe ll ant has fa il ed to estab li sh th e requ ired e l e m e nts o f b rea c h o f co ntrac t. Ap pe ll ant ' s c l ai m fo r b re ac h o f co ntract a p pears t o be s pec ifi c to th e s ubsequent a greem ents fo r

8c red i t l in e i n c reases fo rg ed b y P l ainti ff' s dau ght e r , rath er than to th e o ri gin al l o an co ntrac t, an d in

fac t Ap p e ll ant v i g o ro u s l y d e ni es Ap pe l l ee ' s c h ara c t e rizati o n o f th e cas e as co n ce rn i n g al l c red i t l in e in creases . 

### S

e e P l ainti ff F e li x C apo n e ' s R espo nse t o De f e n dant Am eri c an H eri tag e F ed e ral C redi t Uni o n ' s M e m o ran d um i n S up po rt o fD e f

e n dant ' s M o ti o q fo r S wnm ary Jud gm e nt , 8 n /l 7 , 

## 1 1 1
. Appe ll ant 

### has al s o , and equal l y e mp hat i call y , d e n i ed that h e di d n o t s i gn th ese d oc um e nts
an d al l e g ed that 

### the s i gn atures o n th ese cred i t li n e in c reases we re fo rg eri e s . A s Ap pe ll ant
ac kn o w l e d g e d that h e d i d n o t si gn 

### these ad d i ti o nal agree m e nts , h e co ul d n o t 

### assert a b re ac h o f
co ntra ct c l a i m bas e d o n th ese in creases , si n ce b y h is o wn a dm i ss i o n h e e nte red i nt o o nl y o n e agreem e nt wi th Ap pe ll ee . Thu s , thi s Co urt fo un d n o b as i s t o d e ny summary j ud gm e nt t o Ap pe ll ee 

### based o n a b rea c h o fc o ntra c t c l ai m b y Ap pe ll ant. 

### AM END E D C O M P L AINT In hi s M o ti o n fo r Leav e t o F il e S eco n d Am e n d ed C o mp l ai nt, Ap pe ll ant requ es ted thi s C o urt ' s Leave t o a d d th e fo ll o w i n g causes o f a c ti o n t o his C o mp l aint : vi o l ati o n o f th e F ai r Cred i t R epo rt i n g A c t" , I ntenti o nal In fli c t i o n o f M e ntal an d Em o ti o nal D i stre s s , N e g li g e nt Infl i c ti o n o f M e ntal and E m o t i o nal D i s tress , C o nv e rs i o n , an d Int enti o nal T o rt
. As a basi s fo r � m o ti o n , Ap pe l lant c l aim ed th at fa cts cam e to li ght d uring di sco ve ry wh i c h w arrant ed ad d i n g th ese ad d i ti o nal cau ses o f ac ti o n to th e Co mp l a int.

" An ac ti o n to enf

o r ce any li ab ili ty c reat ed un d e r thi s su bc h a p ter may be b r o u ght in any ap p ro p ri ate Uni ted S tate s d i s tri ct co urt , wi tho ut re g ard t o th e am o unt i n co ntr o v ers y , o r i n any

. . o th er co urt o f co mpe te nt j urisd i c ti o n , no t l at e r than th e earli e r o f
. . . 2 y ears after the date o f d isco v e ry b y the p l a intiff o f th e vi o l ati o n th at i s th e bas i s fo r su c h li ab ili ty '. 1 S U
. S
. C
. A
. § 1 6 8 1 p .
" T he fo ll o wi n g a c t i o ns an d p r oce ed in gs mus t be co mm en ced wi thi n two y ears . . . An ac t i o n fo r

:i I S U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 8 1 e t teq . 9taki n g, d e t ai ning o r i n j wi n g pe rso nal p ro pe rty , in c lu din g a c ti o ns fo r spe c ifi c reco v e ry th ere o f
. . . [ an d ] [ a ] ny o th e r a c ti o n o r p roc eedi n g t o re c o v e r dam ag es fo r i n j ury to perso n o r p r o pe rty whi c h i s fo un d ed o n ne g li g ent, inte nti o nal , o r o th e rwis e to rt i o u s co n duct o r any o ther a c ti o n o r p roc eed i n g so un ding in tresp ass , i nc lud i n g d ece i t o r frau d , e x cep t an ac ti o n o r p roce ed i ng s ub j e c t t o an o th er li mi tati o n sp ec i fi ed i n this s u bc hap t er"
. 4 2 P a. S tat
. an d C o ns . S tat
. Ann
. § 5 5 2 4 ( 3 ) , ( 7 )
. In thi s cas e , th es e ad d i t i o nal cau ses o f a c ti o n arc un d o u b t edl y tim e 

### barred
. E ac h o f th e p ro po sed cau se s o f acti o n h av e a tw o - y ear statute o f li m i tati o ns , as d e m o nstrat e d abo v e . In the Am e nd ed C o mp l ai nt, Ap p e ll ant s tates that h e becam e aw are o f the co n d u c t un d erl yi ng thi s a c ti o n i n J anuary 2 0 1 3
. � Am e n d e d Co mp l ai nt 

### 1 1 4 . Thu s, th e statute o fli mi t ati o ns w o ul d run fo r all th ese p ro po sed ca use s o f

acti o n i n J anuary 2 0 1 5
. Ap pe U � t di d n o t e v e n see k l eav e to fi l e a S eco n d Am e nd ed C o mp l aint unti l F e b ruary 2 5 , 2 0 1 5 , pas t th e s tatuto ry bar
. A cco rd i n gl y , th e p ro po sed
causes o f ac ti o n w e re tim e 

### barred an d thi s Co urt co rre c tl y d en i ed Appe ll ant l e av e to fil e a S eco n d Am e nd ed C o mp l aint. T o the e xt e nt th at Ap pe ll ant re li es u po n th e di sco v e ry rul e t o exte n d the statut e o f l im i tati o ns , Ap p e ll ant ' s re li an ce i s m isp l a ced
. "Th e dis co v e ry rul e i s a j u di c i al l y c reated d e v i ce that to ll s th e runni n g o f th e a p p li cab l e statut e o f l imi tat i o ns unti l that po i nt wh en the p l a i nti ff kn o ws o r reaso n ab l y s h o ul d kn o w: ( l ) that he has 

### been in j ured ; an d ( 2 ) that hi s in

j ury ha s 

### been
cau sed b y an o th e r party' s co nd u c t. " 

## K.A
. R
. 

## v . T
. O
. L
. • 1 0 7 A
. 3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 9 (P a . S up et
. 2 0 1 4 ) ( c i tati o n o mi tted)
. " T h e co mm e n ce ment o f th e limi tati o ns 

### pe ri od i s gro un d ed o n ' in quiry n o ti ce ' th at i s 

### ti ed t o ' a ctu al o r c o nstru c ti v e kn o w l ed g e o f at l east so m e f o rm o f s i gni fi cant harm an d: o f a fac tual cause li nk ed t o an o th e r ' s co n d u ct , wi th o ut th e n e ce s s i ty o f n o ti c e o f th e fuU e xt ent o fth e inj ury , the fa ct o f

a c tual n e g li g en ce , o r p r ec i s e cau se . ? ' lg. at 77 9-8 0
. "F o r th e s tatute o f li m i tat i o ns to run , a p l ai nti ff n eed no t kn o w th e ' e x a c t nature ' o f his in j ury , as l o n g as i t o b

j ecti v e l y ap pears

1 0I th at th e p l ainti ff i s reas o n ab l y c harg ed wi th th e kn o w l edg e th at h e has an i n j ury cau sed b y an o th e r . " 

### Kl e i n v . C o mm e rce 

### E n e x &Y , 

### I nc ,. 2 5 6 F
. S up p . 3 d 5 6 3 , 5 9 0 (W
. D
. P a. 2 0 1 7)
. In thi s case , Ap pe ll ant 

### asserts that s in ce h e di sc o v ered a d di ti o nal al l e g e d wro n g d o i n g b y Ap pe ll ee d

urin g d is c o v ery i n 

### 1 an uary 2 0 1 

### S , the s t atut e o f l im i tati o ns o f thes e p r o po sed cau s es o f act i o n d i d n o t begin to run unti l that d ay . H o we v er , i t i s e vi d e nt b y Ap pe l lant ' s o wn fi li ngs th at Ap pe ll ant 

### was aw are o f th e in j uri es h e al l e g ed be fo re J anuary 2 0 1 5
. Ap pe ll ant ' s Am e n d ed C o mp la i nt, wh i c h d etai l s Ap pe ll ant' s al l e g ati o ns ag ainst Ap pe ll ee , w as fi l ed i n Ju l y 2 0 1 4 , h al f a y e ar be fo re Ap pe ll ant s u

p po s e d l y l earn ed n e w i nf o rmat i o n i n d i sc o v ery . B y Ju l y 2 0 1 4 , the n, Ap pe l lant al rea dy kne w o f th e i nj uri es he al l e g ed ; b y th e Ap pe ll ant ' s o wn adm i ssi o n , the i nf o rmat i o n h e p urpo rted to hav e l earn ed in J anuary 2 0 1 5 o nl y d eepe n e d an d c han g ed hi s kn o w l ed g e o f Ap pe ll e e ' s su p p o sed wro n g d o in g . 

### S

e e M o ti o n f

o r Leav e t o F il e S e c o n d Am e nd e d Co mp l aint 

### fl 4
- 5
. Thus , th e tw o - y ear statute o f l imi tati o ns fo r th ese p ro po se d c au s es o f a c t i o n s be g an t o nm as s oo n as Appe ll ant h a d the kno w l ed g e he p l ea d ed h e 

### had i n Ju ly 2 0 1 4 , an d any 

### further i nf

o rm ati o n h e l earn ed w o ul d no t hav e c h ang ed th e dat e 

### at wh i c h th e statute o f li mi tati o n s
ran . A cco rd in gl y , th i s Co urt fo un d th at there 

### was n o basi s to all o w Ap pe ll ant to fi l e a Seco n d Am e n ded P e ti ti o n . 

### I V
. C O N C L U S I O N F o r th e fo re g o i n g re aso ns, th i s C o urt percei v es th at the iss u es o f whi ch Ap pe ll ant has
co mp lain ed in thi s a

p peal ar e wi th o ut m e ri t 

### B Y THE C O URT : 

# .-?: rtis :rd � JEF FREY L
. F INL E Y , P
. J
. 11