Opinion ID: 2380960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: previous history

Text: Appellant, Richard Haefner, acting pro se, commenced a legal malpractice action by summons against appellee, attorneys, in August of 1983. He was thereafter served with a rule to file a complaint within twenty days. Haefner failed to file a complaint within that period of time, but did file an Answer to the rule, stating his desire to conduct discovery in aid of his preparation of a complaint, and seeking time to find an attorney to represent him. Appellees filed a praecipe to enter a judgment of non pros. Thereafter, appellant filed his complaint but, upon preliminary objections, the complaint was stricken. Haefner's petition to open the judgment of non pros was subsequently denied on May 24, 1984. On appeal to this court, a panel majority affirmed the order of the trial court. Haefner v. Sprague, No. 1873 Philadelphia, 1984 (Pa.Super.Ct. filed April 4, 1985). Meanwhile, Haefner had instituted the present action by summons in April of 1984, followed by a Complaint filed June 5, 1984 an Amended Complaint on July 6, 1984, and a Reinstated Amended Complaint on July 25, 1984. The present appeal is from the court's order on preliminary objections dated September 17, 1984 which struck the complaints.