J -S16012-19 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

HARRISBURG INVESTORS GENERAL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PARTNER, LLC T/A HARRISBURG PENNSYLVANIA 

MALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 

v. 

PIZZA ZONE, LLC, D/B/A PIZZA 

ZONE, MOHAMED ELBAYOUMY AND 

RASH ELNAGGAR 

: No. 1612 MDA 2018 

Appellants 

Appeal from the Order Entered August 31, 2018 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County 

Civil Division at No(s): 2018 -CV -2996 -NT 

BEFORE: OTT, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JULY 30, 2019 

Pizza Zone, LLC D/B/A Pizza Zone, Mohamed Elbayoumy and Rash 

Elnaggar ("Pizza Zone") appeal from the order entered August 31, 2018, in 

the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, denying its petition to strike or 

open the confessed judgment entered against it by Harrisburg Investors 

Limited Partner, LLC T/A Harrisburg Mall Limited Partnership ("Harrisburg"). 

Harrisburg confessed judgment for $63,488.84, against Pizza Zone based on 

a commercial lease between the parties. On appeal, Pizza Zone argues the 

trial court erred in refusing to grant its petition to strike or open the confessed 

judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 

The trial court summarized the facts underlying this appeal as follows: 
J -S16012-19 

On September 4, 2013, [Pizza Zone] entered into lease agreement 

with [Harrisburg] for a term ending on January 31, 2019, by which 

[Pizza Zone] agreed to pay monthly rent for space on the second 

floor of the Harrisburg Mall. [Pizza Zone] defaulted on rental 

payments beginning in November of 2017. On March 9, 2018, a 

District Court entered judgment for [Harrisburg] for possession of 

the leased premises. On May 4, 2018, pursuant to the [I]ease 

[a]greement, judgment by confession was entered against [Pizza 

Zone] in the amount of $63,488.84. On May 14, 2018, [Pizza 

Zone] filed a [p]etition to [o]pen or [s]trike off the [j]udgment. 

Oral argument was entertained on August 29, 2018. On August 

31, 2018, [the trial court] issued a [m]emorandum [o]pinion and 

[o]rder denying [Pizza Zone's] Petition to Open or Strike Off the 

Judgment for Money Entered Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 2950 et 

seq.[] On September 10, 2018, [Pizza Zone] filed a [m]otion for 

[r]econsideration of the August 31st Order and [Harrisburg] filed 

a [r]eply. On September 20, 2018, [the trial court] denied [Pizza 

Zone's] [m]otion for [r]econsideration. On September 27, 2018, 

[Pizza Zone] filed a [n]otice of [a]ppeal to the Superior Court. On 

October 12, 2018, [Pizza Zone] filed a [concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal. On December 3, 2018, the trial 

court filed an opinion.] 

Trial Court Opinion, 12/03/2018, at 1-2 (some italics omitted). 

On appeal, Pizza Zone contends the trial court erred in denying its 

petition to strike or open the confessed judgment. Specifically, it argues the 

court should have struck the judgment because Harrisburg filed separate 

actions for possession of the property and for rent in violation of Pennsylvania 

Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(d). Pizza Zone's Brief, at 4. It further contends 

that the trial court erred in not opening the judgment because: (1) Harrisburg 

did not give credit for Pizza Zone's security deposit; and (2) Harrisburg did 

not give Pizza Zone credit for the value of its equipment, which Harrisburg 

retained. Id. 

-2 
J -S16012-19 

A petition to strike off or open a confessed judgment "appeals to the 

equitable and discretionary powers of the trial court, and absent an abuse of 

discretion or manifest error, we will not disturb its decision." Courtney v. 

Ryan Homes, Inc., 497 A.2d 938, 941 (Pa. Super. 1985) (citations omitted). 

A confessed judgment will be stricken "only if a fatal defect or 

irregularity appears on the face of the record." A judgment by 

confession will be opened if the petitioner acts promptly, alleges 

a meritorious defense, and presents sufficient evidence in support 

of the defense to require the submission of the issues to a jury. 

In adjudicating the petition to strike and/or open the confessed 

judgment, the trial court is charged with determining whether the 

petitioner presented sufficient evidence of a meritorious defense 

to require submission of that issue to a jury. A meritorious 

defense is one upon which relief could be afforded if proven at 

trial. 

Ferrick v. Bianchini, 69 A.3d 642, 647 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted). 

In other words, the petition to strike a confessed judgment must 

focus on any defects or irregularities appearing on the face of the 

record, as filed by the party in whose favor the warrant was given, 

which affect the validity of the judgment and entitle the petitioner 

to relief as a matter of law. "[T]he record must be sufficient to 

sustain the judgment." The original record that is subject to 

review in a motion to strike a confessed judgment consists of the 

complaint in confession of judgment and the attached exhibits. 

In contrast, "if the truth of the factual averments contained in [the 

complaint in confession of judgment and attached exhibits] are 

disputed, then the remedy is by proceeding to open the 

judgment," not to strike it. A petition to strike a confessed 

judgment and a petition to open a confessed judgment are distinct 

remedies; they are not interchangeable. 

Midwest Fin. Acceptance Corp. v. Lopez, 78 A.3d 614, 623 (Pa. Super. 

2013) (citations omitted). With these standards in mind, we now turn to the 

merits of Pizza Zone's claims. 

-3 
J -S16012-19 

In its first issue, Pizza Zone contends that the trial court erred in denying 

its motion to strike because Harrisburg's filing of a cause of action for 

possession in the district court while confessing judgment for rent in a 

separate action in the Court of Common Pleas violated Pennsylvania Rule of 

Civil Procedure 1020(d). Pizza Zone's Brief, at 7-8. We disagree. 

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(d) provides: 

If a transaction or occurrence gives rise to more than one cause 

of action heretofore asserted in assumpsit and trespass, against 

the same person, including causes of action in the alternative, 

they shall be joined in separate counts in the action against any 

such person. Failure to join a cause of action as required by this 

subdivision shall be deemed a waiver of that cause of action as 

against all parties to the action. 

In its decision, the trial court stated: 

In this case, Pa.R.C.P[.] 1020(d) does not apply because the 

[I]ease [a]greement provides that [Harrisburg] or its agent could 

confess judgment for rent (and/or possession) as often as rent 

may fall due, in successive judgments and there is no requirement 

that claims for possession and rent be brought at the same time 

or in the same action. (See Lease, Article XVII, Section 17.6, 

attached as Exhibit "A" to Rule 236 Notice to Defendant By 

Prothonotary of Entry of Judgment By Confession). Furthermore, 

the rent due from [Pizza Zone] under the [I]ease exceeded the 

jurisdictional limit of the Magisterial District Court. 

Trial Ct. Op., at 3-4. 

Pizza Zone has not shown that the trial court either abused its discretion 

or made a manifest error in reaching this decision. Pizza Zone points to 

nothing in the lease that supports its claim that the parties did not intend 

Section 17.6 to apply to "the situation we are dealing with in this case." Pizza 

-4 
J -S16012-19 

Zone's Brief, at 8. Moreover, it provides no legal support for its contention 

that Rule 1020(d) applies to this situation. 

We have reviewed the three cases cited in a string citation by Pizza 

Zone, Spinelli v. Maxwell, 243 A.2d 426 (Pa. 1968); Stahl v. Hilderhoff, 

247 A.2d 582 (Pa. 1968), and State Farm v. Wares Van Storage, 953 A.2d 

568 (Pa. Super. 2008). None of these cases arose out of confessed judgments 

and none concern landlord/tenant or contract matters. Moreover, Stahl 

addresses a claim of res judicata. See Stahl, supra at 583-584. In Spinelli, 

our Supreme Court held: 

When personal injuries to a person and damages to his property 

arise from the same cause and the same tortious act, the person 

who has sustained such personal injuries and property damage 

Must seek recovery for both in a single action and, if separate 

actions are instituted for each category of damage and a judgment 

is rendered in one of such actions, the entry of such judgment has 

the effect of Res judicata and bars recovery in the other action. 

Such is the view of a substantial majority of jurisdictions in the 

United States, and to this view Pennsylvania has long adhered. 

Spinelli, supra at 427 (capitalization in original, citations and footnote 

omitted). Pizza Zone has not explained why this holding applies to the instant 

action or even argued why we should extend it to cover cases arising in 

contract.' Lastly, State Farm is an insurance subrogation case where this 

' We remind Pizza Zone that this Court will not act as counsel and will not 

develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. Commonwealth v. Hardy, 

918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) ("[I]t is an appellant's duty to present 

arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must 

support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and 

-5 
J -S16012-19 

Court declined to apply Rule 1020(d) to block separate actions by the 

insurance company and its client against the at fault driver in a motor vehicle 

case. State Farm, supra at 569. Pizza Zone has therefore not shown that 

these cases have any relation to the present action. Because Pizza Zone has 

failed to demonstrate that the trial court either abused its discretion or 

committed manifest error, its first claim fails. 

In its second claim, Pizza Zone maintains that the trial court erred in not 

opening the judgment because Harrisburg did not apply a credit against the 

judgment amount for its security deposit. Pizza Zone's Brief, at 8-9. In its 

third claim, Pizza Zone states that the trial court erred in failing to open the 

judgment because Harrisburg did not give it credit for the value of its 

equipment, which Harrisburg retained. Id. at 9. We disagree. 

In its opinion, the trial court aptly discusses these claims. It correctly 

finds that the lease allows the landlord to retain the security deposit to cover 

any "loss, damage or expense sustained due to such default." Lease, at Article 

IV, Section 4.8; Trial Ct. Op., at 6. It also points out that, at oral argument, 

Harrisburg stated that it had used some of the security deposit to cover 

damages to the premises but that it had not used the entire amount and it 

with citations to legal authorities.") (citations omitted), appeal denied, 940 

A.2d 362 (Pa. 2008); Bombar v. West American Insurance Company, 

932 A.2d 78, 94 (Pa. Super. 2007). 

-6 
J -S16012-19 

agreed that, if it executed on the judgment, Pizza Zone would be entitled to 

either a credit or a refund. Id. at 6; N.T. Oral Argument, at 10-11. 

With respect to the equipment, the trial court again correctly observes 

that the lease addresses this issue.2 Trial Ct. Op., at 7. The lease provides 

that Harrisburg will have "a security interest in and an express contractual lien 

upon all of Tenant's equipment, furniture, furnishings, appliances, goods, 

trade fixtures, inventory, chattels and personal property which will be brought 

upon the Premises by Tenant, and all after -acquired property, replacements, 

and proceeds." Lease, Article XIX, Section 19.2. Further, the trial court is 

correct in stating that Pizza Zone cites to nothing in the lease that entitled 

them to credit for retained equipment. Trial Ct. Op., at 7. Moreover, Pizza 

Zone has not refuted the claim made by Harrisburg at oral argument that it 

did not put a lien on the equipment and that Pizza Zone, despite having access 

to the premises, has failed to take any action to remove the equipment. N.T. 

Oral Argument, at 10-11. 

Here Pizza Zone does not cite to any legal authority to support its claims, 

or contradict Harrisburg's claims, and fails to address or refute the trial court's 

2 In its argument on the third issue, Pizza Zone contends, without citation or 

specificity, that the "hearing" demonstrated the existence of a factual dispute 

between the parties as to the ownership and value of the equipment. Pizza 

Zone's Brief, at 9. We have thoroughly reviewed the record at oral argument 

and have found nothing to substantiate this claim. N.T. Oral Argument, 

8/28/2018, at 2-11. 

-7 
J -S16012-19 

explanation of its decisions. See Pizza Zone's Brief, at 8-9. Thus, Pizza Zone's 

claims fail. See Hardy, supra at 771; Bombar, supra at 94. 

Therefore, because we find no abuse of discretion or error in the trial 

court's ruling denying Pizza Zone's petition to strike or open the confessed 

judgment, we affirm the order on appeal. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

J seph D. Seletyn, 

Prothonotary 

Date: 7/30/2019 

-8