J-A08024-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

DAVID HATCHIGIAN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

RAYMOND QUAGLIA, REGINA QUAGLIA, 

ARNOLD DRANOFF, DRANOFF & 

PATRIZIO, P.C., STEVE LEVENTHAL, 

REGER, RIZZO & DARNALL LLP, 

TRAVELERS, FARMINGTON INS. CO.

Appellees No. 2390 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered July 19, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Civil Division at No(s): 1890, March Term, 2016

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 20, 2017

David Hatchigian (“Hatchigian”) appeals from the order, entered in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, granting the preliminary 

objections filed by Raymond Quaglia, Regina Quaglia, Farmington Casualty 

Company, Steven G. Leventhal, Esquire, and Reger Rizzo & Darnell, LLP, and 

dismissing the action based on the doctrine of lis pendens. We affirm. 

This case arises out of an attorney/client relationship between 

Hatchigian and Defendant Raymond Quaglia, Esquire (“Quaglia”). Quaglia 

had represented Hatchigian in several matters, and, thereafter, Quaglia filed 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08024-17

- 2 -

a breach of contract suit against Hatchigian for unpaid fees. He also filed a 

defamation suit against Hatchigian as a result of Hatchigian’s filing an 

affidavit of forgery against Quaglia. That matter ultimately settled; 

however, after the parties agreed to the terms of the settlement, and the 

praecipe for discontinuance was filed, Hatchigian filed a petition to strike his 

own praecipe to discontinue. The trial court denied that petition. A panel of 

this Court affirmed. Quaglia v. Hatchigian, 2638 EDA 2013 (unpublished 

memorandum, filed August 4, 2014). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court 

denied Hatchigian’s petition for allowance of appeal. Quaglia v. 

Hatchigian, 628 Pa. 633 (Pa. November 25, 2014). 

In September 2015, Hatchigian filed suit against Quaglia, Arnold 

Dranoff, the law firm of Dranoff & Patrizio PC, Steven Leventhal, Reger Rizzo 

& Darnell, and Farmington Casualty Company (incorrectly named as 

Travelers Insurance Company), claiming he never received the $7,000 in 

settlement funds due,1and raising claims of fraud, negligent mishandling of 

settlement proceedings, breach of contract, failure to deliver settlement 

proceeds, breach of settlement contract, and bad faith (“the 2015 case”). 

Hatchigian filed a motion to amend his complaint to add a claim of bad faith 

against Farmington and a claim of legal malpractice against Leventhal and 

____________________________________________

1 On December 17, 2014, Hatchigian’s attorney mailed a check for 

$7,000.00, dated December 19, 2011, issued from the Dranoff & Patrizio 

client escrow account, which had represented Quaglia in the original matter.
J-A08024-17

- 3 -

Reger Rizzo & Darnell. The trial court denied Hatchigian’s motion to amend. 

The 2015 case is pending in the court of common pleas.

On March 21, 2016, Hatchigian filed the instant lawsuit (“the 2016 

case”) against Quaglia, Regina Quaglia (Quaglia’s wife), Arnold Dranoff, the 

law firms of Dranoff & Patrizio PC, Steen Leventhal, Reger Rizzo & Darnell, 

and Farmington Casualty Company (incorrectly named as Travelers 

Insurance Company). Defendants filed preliminary objections, and the trial 

court, by order dated July 20, 2016, granted preliminary objections based on 

the doctrine of lis pendens and dismissed the case. The trial court 

determined that the 2016 case raised the same claims as the 2015 case, and 

that “comparison of the Proposed Amended Complaint [Hatchigian] wished 

to file in the 2015 case and the Complaint filed in [the] 2016 case reveals 

they are almost identical.” Trial Court Opinion, 8/16/16, at 3. The court 

determined that the only differences were the addition of Regina Quaglia as 

a defendant, even though there are no allegations against her,2and “de 

minimis changes in [the] wording of several paragraphs.” Id.

Hatchigian filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court ordered 

Hatchigian to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Hatchigian filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement, 

____________________________________________

2 Hatchigian added Regina Quaglia as a defendant solely to allow any 

judgment obtained against Quaglia to be collected from the Quaglias’ 

marital assets. See Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Regina Quaglia’s 

Preliminary Objections, 7/5/16, at 2. 
J-A08024-17

- 4 -

however, his statement of errors did not include anything with respect to lis 

pendens, which was the basis of the court’s ruling. Notably, in his statement 

of issues in his appellate brief, Hatchigian changes the wording of error 

number 3 from his Rule 1925(b) statement by adding the phrase “by 

sustaining lis pendens objection[.]” This misrepresents the issues raised in 

the Rule 1925(b) statement before the trial court,3and fails to preserve the 

only issue that might properly be raised before this Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(4)(vii)(“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in 

accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”).4 We, 

therefore, agree with the trial court that Hatchigian has preserved nothing 

for review. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/20/2017

____________________________________________

3 We note that Hatchigian is representing himself in this matter. 

4 Hatchigian raised six issues in his Rule 1925(b) statement, none of which 

raised lis pendens. The trial court did not address any of the issues as 

nothing Hatchigian raised pertained to the underlying ruling.