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### -S16012-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE 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

### judgmentfor $63,488.84, against Pizza Zone based on

a 

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

### the 

### trial courterred in refusing to

### grant its 

### petition to 

### strike or open

### the confessed 

### judgment. For

### the reasons set 

### forth below, we 

### affirm. The 

### trial courtsummarized the facts underlying this appeal as 

### follows:J

### -S16012-19
On 

### September4, 

### 2013, [Pizza Zone] entered into lease

### agreement with [Harrisburg] for a 

### term ending on

### January31, 

### 2019, bywhich [Pizza 

### Zone] agreed to pay 

### monthly rentfor 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 Courtentered

### judgmentfor [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, 

### [thetrial 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, 

### [thetrial court] denied [Pizza 

### Zone's] 

### [m]otion for [r]econsideration. On 

### September 27, 2018, [Pizza Zone] filed a 

### [n]otice of 

### [a]ppealto 

### the SuperiorCourt. 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 arguesthe court should have 

### struck the 

### judgment because 

### Harrisburg filed 

### separate actions

### for possession 

### ofthe 

### property and 

### for rent in

### violation of Pennsylvania Rule 

### of Civil Procedure 

### 1020(d). Pizza Zone's Brief, at 4. 

### Itfurther contends 

### thatthe

### 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.


## -2J

### -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., 497A.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 

### sufficientevidence 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 whetherthe 

### 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. 

### Ferrickv. 

### Bianchini, 69A.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 

### theface of the record, asfiled by

### the 

### party in whose

### favorthe

### warrantwas 

### given, which affectthe

### validity ofthe

### judgmentand 

### entitlethe 

### 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 

### ofthe 

### complaint in confession of

### judgment and 

### the attached exhibits. In 

### contrast,

### "ifthe

### truthofthe

### 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 

### judgmentand a 

### petition to open a confessed

### judgmentare

### 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. 

## -3J

### -S16012-19
In its

### first issue, Pizza Zonecontends

### thatthe

### trial courterred 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 mayfalldue, in successive

### judgmentsand 

### 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 ofJudgment By Confession). 

### Furthermore, the 

### rent due 

### from [Pizza Zone] under the 

### [I]ease exceeded 

### the 

### jurisdictional limit ofthe Magisterial 

### District Court. Trial Ct. Op., at 3-4. Pizza Zone has notshown

### thatthe

### trialcourteitherabused 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 17.6to 

### applyto 

### "the situation we are dealing 

### with in 

### this case." Pizza


## -4J

### -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); 

### Stahlv. 

### Hilderhoff, 247A.2d 582 (Pa. 

### 1968), and

### State Farm v. 

### Wares Van 

### Storage, 953 A.2d 568 (Pa. Super. 

### 2008). Noneofthese cases arose 

### outofconfessed

### 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 actionsare 

### institutedforeach 

### categoryofdamageand a

### judgment is rendered in one 

### ofsuch 

### actions, the

### entryof 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 

### whythis 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 supportthe claims

### with 

### pertinentdiscussion,

### with referencesto

### the record and 

## -5J

### -S16012-19
Court 

### declined to 

### apply Rule 

### 1020(d) to block separate actions by 

### the insurance company and its 

### clientagainstthe at

### faultdriver in a 

### motorvehicle
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

### thatthe

### trialcourterred 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 

### thatthe lease allows 

### the landlord to 

### retain the 

### security depositto 

### cover any

### "loss, damageorexpensesustained dueto 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, 932A.2d 78, 94 (Pa. Super. 

### 2007).


## -6J

### -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 Harrisburgwill have "a 

### security interest inand an express 

### contractual lien upon all 

### of Tenant's equipment, 

### furniture, furnishings, appliances, goods, 

### trade 

### fixtures, inventory,chattels and personal 

### propertywhichwill 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 citetoany legal

### authorityto

### support its claims,
or

### contradict Harrisburg'sclaims, andfails to addressor 

### refute the

### trial court's

2 In its 

### argument on 

### the 

### third issue, Pizza Zone 

### contends, 

### without citation or 

### specificity, 

### thatthe 

### "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. 

## -7J

### -S16012-19 explanation of its decisions. 

### See Pizza Zone's Brief, at

### 8-9. Thus, Pizza Zone's claimsfail. 

### 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