J-A02007-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CJD GROUP, LLC

v.

ANTHONY AND NYIESHA HOPKINS 

Appellants

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1148 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered May 17, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 

2017-SU-001319

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 13, 2018

Anthony and Nyiesha Hopkins (the Hopkinses) appeal, pro se, from the 

trial court’s order granting Appellee CJD Group, LLC’s (CJD) motion for 

judgment on the pleadings

1

in this ejectment action. After review, we quash 

the appeal.

____________________________________________

1 Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1034, “after the pleadings are closed, but within such 

time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for judgment on 

the pleadings.” Pa.R.C.P. 1034(a).

Appellate review of an order granting a motion for judgment on 

the pleadings is plenary. The appellate court will apply the same 

standard employed by the trial court. A trial court must confine 

its consideration to the pleadings and relevant documents. The 

court must accept as true all well[-]pleaded statements of fact, 

admissions, and any documents properly attached to the 

pleadings presented by the party against whom the motion is filed, 

considering only those facts which were specifically admitted.
J-A02007-19

- 2 -

CJD is a limited liability company located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 

The Hopkinses were residents of a home located at 2 Eagleton Drive, in York, 

Pennsylvania. On February 13, 2017, CJD purchased the Eagleton Drive 

property at a sheriff’s sale after the Hopkinses defaulted on their mortgage. 

On March 29, 2017, the York County Sheriff signed the deed for the Eagleton 

Drive property over to CJD; the deed was properly recorded on the same date. 

When the Hopkinses failed to vacate the property, CJD instituted the 

underlying ejectment action. The Hopkinses filed their answer and 

counterclaims; the answer only generally denied the allegations in the 

complaint and failed to include any facts to support the counterclaims. CJD

filed its reply to the Hopkinses’ counterclaim on September 18, 2017. 

On February 26, 2018, CJD filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

In its motion, CJD averred that the Hopkinses had no legitimate defense to its 

ejectment action and that it was entitled to “immediate physical possession of 

the [p]roperty[,] costs of $2,500.00, plus unliquidated costs, rental 

arrearages of $24,000.00, plus $2,200.00 per month for each month after 

February 2018, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing th[e] 

action.” Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, 2/26/18, at 4. The 

____________________________________________

Rourke v. PA Nat'l Mutual, 116 A.3d 87, 91 (Pa. Super. 2015). 

Furthermore, “[w]e will affirm the grant of such a motion only when the 

moving party’s right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt 

that the trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise.” Century Sur Co. v. 

Essington, 140 A.3d 46, 51 (Pa. Super. 2016).
J-A02007-19

- 3 -

court granted the motion, concluding that there was no disputed issue of fact 

that “Plaintiff has established an immediate right to the possession of the 

property at 2 Eagleton Drive, York, Pennsylvania, 17407[,] and it is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Judgment on the Pleadings, 5/17/18, at 4. Specifically, the court found the 

following facts: (1) CJD was not in possession of the property; (2) the 

Hopkinses admitted they were still in possession of the property; (3) CJD

purchased the property as a result of a mortgage foreclosure; and (4) CJD

recorded the deed on the property. Thus, the court concluded that CJD is the 

legal owner of the property and has the immediate right to possess it. Id. at 

5. 

The Hopkinses filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. On appeal, 

the Hopkinses raise the following issue:

Is defendant entitled to a new trial because the court violated 

defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause by admitting 

evidence without testimony or victim, who did not complete a 

direct examination and thus was entirely unavailable for crossexamination, [and t]he court rejected defendant’s counter[]claim 

to CJD ejectment action without direct examination to a jury, 

R.266a, notwithstanding that defendant did not receive any 

opportunity to cross-examine. 

Appellants’ Brief, at 8.

The Hopkinses’ issue is, at best, confusing. Moreover, it in no way 

relates to the issues raised in their Rule 1925(b) concise statement. See 

Koller Concrete, Inc. v. Tube City IMS, LLC, 115 A.3d 312, 320-21 (Pa. 
J-A02007-19

- 4 -

Super. 2015) (Superior Court will not address issue presented in statement of 

questions involved where no corresponding analysis included in brief). 

However, most fatal to this appeal is the fact that the Hopkinses’ appellate 

brief2 contains no cogent discussion or analysis explaining how the court erred 

in granting CJD’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or any authority to 

support its appeal.

3

 It is well-established that this Court will not consider an

argument that is undeveloped. Lechowicz v. Moser, 164 A.3d 1271, 1276 

(Pa. Super. 2017) (Superior Court will not consider argument that is not 

properly developed); In re C.R., 113 a.2d 328 (Pa. Super. 2015) (our Court 

will not consider argument when appellant fails to cite legal authority or 

otherwise develop issue). 

____________________________________________

2 Rather, the argument section of the appellate brief rambles on about how 

the court granted the motion “without proof of what CJD Group[,] LLC], 

claim[s] to be fact[,] . . . that M.H. was not placed under oath[,] and CJD has 

yet to testifying [sic] in the presence of the judge, the attorney, for the 

plaintiff[.]” Appellants’ Brief, at 11.

3

In fact, the only legal authority cited in the Hopkinses’ brief is 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 5984.1, a statute that concerns the recorded testimony of child victims and 

witnesses.
J-A02007-19

- 5 -

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/13/2018