Court Opinion

ID: 9908396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 17:08:57.908042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:10.065848
License: Public Domain

J-A16023-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

 JAMES RIFFIN                           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellant            :
                                        :
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 JAMES RIFFIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS       :   No. 1451 MDA 2022
 SUCCESSOR TO LARRY M.                  :
 LAMOTTE’S LEGAL INTERESTS;             :
 JAMES RIFFIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS       :
 SUCCESSOR TO HIRAM E. TINDER,          :
 JR’S LEGAL INTERESTS; JAMES            :
 RIFFIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS             :
 SUCCESSOR TO GOLDFATHER YORK,          :
 LLC’S LEGAL INTERESTS; FRANKLIN        :
 LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC; AND BUY         :
 SELL NOW PA, LP                        :

            Appeal from the Order Entered September 28, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
                            2018-SU-002479

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                 FILED DECEMBER 08, 2023

     Appellant, James Riffin, appeals pro se from the trial court’s September

28, 2022 order, which denied his motion for reconsideration and motion for
J-A16023-23

leave to file an amended petition to open the trial court’s September 12, 2022

order.1, 2 We affirm.

       Given the issues before us, we need not delve into the underlying facts

of this matter.     Instead, we focus on this case’s rather messy procedural

history. Mr. Riffin brought an action for ejectment against Appellees. 3 On

May 27, 2022, after conducting a pretrial conference on May 26, 2022, which

Mr. Riffin attended, the trial court entered an order scheduling a non-jury trial

for Monday, September 12, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. With respect to that order,

the docket contains the following notation, dated May 27, 2022: “NOTICE

GIVEN RE: PA R. C. P. 236[.]” See Docket at 52. According to the trial court,

on September 12, 2022, the day of the scheduled trial, the following occurred:
       Mr. Riffin failed to appear for trial that was scheduled at the
       pretrial conference on May 26, 2022, by agreement of the parties
       after review of their calendars, for September 12, 2022. The
       [c]ourt waited over a half hour prior to commencing the trial
       proceeding and then telephoned Mr. Riffin twice at the phone
       number provided to inquire about his failure to appear for trial.
       Mr. Riffin did not answer either call[,] nor did he follow-up with
       chambers to provide an explanation, leaving the [c]ourt without
       any knowledge as to why Mr. Riffin failed to appear. After waiting
____________________________________________

1 As discussed infra, we construe Mr. Riffin’s motion for reconsideration as a

post-trial motion.

2 The caption previously stated that Mr. Riffin appealed from the trial court’s

October 7, 2022 order denying Mr. Riffin’s motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the trial court’s September 28, 2022 order. We have
amended the caption accordingly. See J.P. v. J.S., 214 A.3d 1284, 1287 (Pa.
Super. 2019) (“[A] denial from a motion for reconsideration is not final or
otherwise appealable.”) (citation omitted).

3 Buy Sell Now PA, LP (“Buy Sell Now”) is the only Appellee to submit an
appellate brief.

                                           -2-
J-A16023-23

       forty-five minutes, the [c]ourt called the case for trial and then
       entered [a] nonsuit [pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
       Procedure 218,] against Mr. Riffin for failure to appear upon
       motion of defense counsel. [The trial court entered a written order
       granting the non[]suit against Mr. Riffin and dismissing the case
       with prejudice on September 13, 2022. Regarding this order, on
       that date, the docket contains the following notation: “NOTICE
       GIVEN RE: PA R. C. P. 236 MAILED[.]” See Docket at 2C.]

       Thereafter, Mr. Riffin never contacted chambers to provide any
       explanation.      Instead, one-week later[,] Mr. Riffin filed two
       documents, styled Riffin’s Trial Testimony and Riffin’s Trial Legal
       Argument, neither of which make any mention regarding Mr.
       Riffin’[s] failure to appear and prosecute his case a week earlier
       and which late submissions the [c]ourt ordered be stricken as
       having been improvidently filed without leave of [c]ourt after the
       trial proceedings were concluded.[4]

Trial Court Opinion (“TCO”), 11/7/22, at 9-10 (internal citation omitted).

       After the trial court struck the filings entitled ‘Riffin’s Trial Testimony’

and ‘Riffin’s Trial Legal Argument,’ Mr. Riffin filed a motion for reconsideration

along with a brief in support on September 21, 2022.5 In his brief in support,

Mr. Riffin explained, inter alia, that he had submitted his motion for

reconsideration and accompanying brief in support on September 19, 2022,

but that the court’s e-filing system rejected both documents on September

20, 2022.     See Mr. Riffin’s Brief in Support of Motion for Reconsideration,

9/21/22, at ¶ 2.      He also mentioned — without any further elaboration or

____________________________________________

4 Mr. Riffin filed ‘Riffin’s Trial Testimony’ and ‘Riffin’s Trial Legal Argument’ on

September 19, 2022. In addition, on September 14, 2022, Mr. Riffin also filed
a response to Buy Sell Now’s opposition to his previously-filed summary
judgment motion.

5 Specifically, Mr. Riffin entitled this filing as “PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 1[3], 2022 ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NON[]SUIT[.]”

                                           -3-
J-A16023-23

supporting documentation — that he did not receive a copy of the September

13, 2022 nonsuit order until September 20, 2022, and that the envelope

containing the order was not postmarked until September 16, 2022. Id. at ¶

7. Further, he argued that he had good cause for not appearing at trial on

September 12, 2022, as his wife had fallen down the stairs the night before,

sustaining significant injuries, and he spent the day of trial dealing with those

injuries. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.6 As a result of his missing trial, he offered to pay

Buy Sell Now’s legal fees for the time its counsel spent appearing at the

September 12, 2022 proceeding. Id. at ¶ 12(A)(b).

       Thereafter, on September 26, 2022, Mr. Riffin filed the following

documents: (1) a motion for leave to file an amended petition to open the

September 13, 2022 order; (2) a brief in support of his motion for leave to

file an amended petition to open the September 13, 2022 order; (3) an

____________________________________________

6 Mr. Riffin filed his motion for reconsideration and brief in support at 5:17
p.m. on September 21, 2022. Forty-five minutes before that, at 4:33 p.m.,
Buy Sell Now filed a response and brief in opposition to Mr. Riffin’s motion for
reconsideration. Therein, Buy Sell Now stated that Mr. Riffin’s “sole reason
for failing to appear is that he claimed he wrote down the date wrong because
he has trouble hearing.” Buy Sell Now’s Response and Brief in Opposition,
9/21/22, at 6. Buy Sell Now pointed out that, “despite the fact that [Mr. Riffin]
is aware he had trouble hearing the date of the trial, he either completely
neglected to read the Order, which contained the date and time in conspicuous
bold print on the first page of the Order, or he failed to read it properly.” Id.
In addition, Buy Sell Now observed that Mr. Riffin also “failed to check the
docket any time between the pre-trial conference and the trial date.” Id. It
opined that Mr. Riffin’s “neglecting to do what any reasonable person would
do resulted in hi[s] failing to appear at the time and place set as the date
certain for trial.” Id. Notably, Mr. Riffin’s September 21, 2022 filings did not
mention that he wrote down the wrong trial date.

                                           -4-
J-A16023-23

amended petition to open the September 13, 2022 order; and (4) a brief in

support of the amended petition to open the September 13, 2022 order. In

his motion for leave to file an amended petition to open the September 13,

2022 order and brief in support — i.e., the first two filings — Mr. Riffin asserted

that he sought to correct the deficiencies in his September 21, 2022 motion

for reconsideration. See Mr. Riffin’s Brief in Support of his Motion for Leave

to File an Amended Petition to Open, 9/26/22, at ¶ 4. He claimed that, after

researching relevant cases, he realized his September 21, 2022 motion for

reconsideration did not comply with applicable law, as it was: (a) mislabeled;

(b) did not have any legal citations, nor legal argument; (c) it did not address

the criteria for a motion to open; (d) it did not contain an affidavit for matter

not in the record; and (e) it was not verified. Id. at ¶ 3.

      With respect to the amended petition to open and brief in support —

i.e., the third and fourth filings — Mr. Riffin alleged therein that he did not

receive any phone calls from the trial court on September 12, 2022. See Mr.

Riffin’s Brief in Support of his Amended Petition to Open, 9/26/22, at ¶ 11.

He also claimed that the envelope, in which the Prothonotary sent him the

trial court’s September 13, 2022 order granting the nonsuit, was postmarked

September 16, 2022, and placed in his P.O. Box on September 20, 2022. Id.

at ¶ 12. Consequently, he said he did not receive notice of the order until

September 20, 2022, and therefore the deadline for filing his petition to open

is September 30, 2022. Id. He appended this envelope to his brief in support.

Id. at E-3. Moreover, he argued that he satisfies the requirements for opening

                                       -5-
J-A16023-23

a judgment under Pa.R.Civ.P. 3051. Id. at ¶¶ 17-35; see Pa.R.Civ.P. 3051

(pertaining to relief from judgment of non pros).

      On September 28, 2022, the trial court entered an order denying Mr.

Riffin’s September 21, 2022 motion for reconsideration and his September 26,

2022 motion for leave to file an amended petition to open the September 13,

2022 order. In its order, the trial court explained that Mr. Riffin had to file a

post-trial motion on or before Friday, September 23, 2022, and failed to do

so. See Order, 9/28/22, at ¶ 4. Further, the trial court said that — even if it

were to construe Mr. Riffin’s motion for reconsideration as a post-trial motion

— he failed to set forth any grounds for granting post-trial relief. Id. at ¶ 10.

With respect to Mr. Riffin’s motion for leave to file an amended petition to

open the September 13, 2022 order, the trial court noted that there was no

original petition to open filed by Mr. Riffin, and emphasized that it entered a

nonsuit, not a judgment of non pros or by default. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12. It also

noted that Mr. Riffin’s motion for leave to amend failed to set forth any

grounds for granting leave to amend. Id. at ¶ 14. On September 28, 2022,

regarding this order, the docket contains the following notation: “NOTICE

GIVEN RE: Pa. R. C. P. 236[.]” See Docket at 2A.

      On October 6, 2022, Mr. Riffin filed the following: (1) a motion for leave

to file a motion to reconsider the trial court’s September 28, 2022 order; (2)

a brief in support of his motion for leave; (3) a motion to reconsider the trial

court’s September 28, 2022 order; and (4) a brief in support of the motion to

reconsider the September 28, 2022 order.

                                      -6-
J-A16023-23

      On October 7, 2022, the trial court entered an order denying Mr. Riffin’s

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s

September 28, 2022 order. On October 7, 2022, with respect to this order,

the docket includes the following notation: “NOTICE GIVEN RE: PA. R. C. P.

236[.]” Docket at 2.

      On October 11, 2022, Mr. Riffin filed an addendum to his brief in support

of his motion to reconsider the trial court’s September 28, 2022 order. Two

days later, on October 13, 2022, he filed a notice of appeal. The trial court

issued an order on October 14, 2022, directing Mr. Riffin to file a Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) concise statement of errors. On October 17, 2022, Mr. Riffin filed a

motion to reconsider the trial court’s October 7, 2022 order, along with a brief

in support. On October 19, 2022, the trial court denied this motion. The trial

court docket indicates that notice of that order was given. See Docket at 6

(“NOTICE GIVEN RE: PA R. C. P. 236[.]”). On October 25, 2022, Mr. Riffin

                                     -7-
J-A16023-23

filed his Rule 1925(b) concise statement, along with an amended notice of

appeal.7, 8

       Mr. Riffin raises the following questions for our review, which we produce

verbatim:
              RULE 1925 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR APPEAL

       10. Primary Question: Should the Superior Court remand this
       proceeding back to the Trial Court, with instructions to: (A)
       Schedule a trial date? (B) Adopt a mailing system for Rule 236
       Notices whereby such Notices are postmarked the same day that
       the Notices are certified as having been mailed? Suggested
       Answers to both: Yes and Yes.

       Issue raised: 9-26-22 Petition to Open, ¶59, R-89a; 10-11-22
       Addendum to Motion to Reconsider, R-207a. 10-17-22 Motion to
       Reconsider 10-7-22 Order, R-224a.

                        DETAILED SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

____________________________________________

7 After Mr. Riffin and Buy Sell Now filed their appellate briefs and reproduced

records with this Court, Mr. Riffin filed an application to strike certain
documents in Buy Sell Now’s reproduced record, which Mr. Riffin claims are
not included in the certified record, along with argument pertaining to these
documents in Buy Sell Now’s brief. Specifically, these documents include: (1)
Mr. Riffin’s September 19, 2022 motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s
September 12, 2022 order, which was never filed, as it had allegedly been
rejected by the court’s e-filing system; (2) a September 19, 2022 email sent
by Mr. Riffin to Buy Sell Now’s counsel; and (3) a September 23, 2022 email
sent by Mr. Riffin to Buy Sell Now’s counsel. Our review of the certified record
confirms Mr. Riffin’s assertion that these documents are not included therein.
Accordingly, we grant his application to strike these documents and
arguments relating to them. See Roth Cash Register Co., Inc. v. Micro
Systems, Inc., 868 A.2d 1222, 1223 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“[T]his Court will
only consider documents which are part of the certified record. Accordingly,
we will not consider any document contained in the reproduced record which
is not in the certified record.”) (citation omitted).

8 This Court denied Mr. Riffin’s application to amend the notice of appeal by

per curiam order on December 5, 2022.

                                           -8-
J-A16023-23

     11. Do the Rule 236 Notices associated with the Trial Court’s May
     26, September 12, 19, 27, and October 7, 18, 2022, Orders,
     comply with Rule 236, since the postmarks on the envelopes
     containing those Notices, were dated multiple days after the
     “Mailed on Date” stamped on the Rule 236 Notices?

     Trial Court Answer (“TCA”): Postmarks are de hors the record and
     may not be considered. Rule 1925 Opinion, (“Opinion”). p. 3,
     2d ¶ of ¶A, R-229a. Suggested Answer (“SA”): No. Issue
     raised: 9-26-22 Petition to Open, ¶ 12, R-76a; 10-6-22 Brief ISO
     Motion Reconsider, ¶¶68-77, R-191a.

     B. Are the Trial Court’s May 26, September 12, 19, 27, and
     October 7, 18, 2022, Orders, Effective, since the postmarks on
     the envelopes containing those Orders, were dated multiple days
     after the “Mailed on Date” stamped on the Rule 236 Notices?

        TCA: Postmarks are de hors the record and may not be
        considered. Opinion, p. 3, 2d ¶ of ¶ A, R-229a. SA: No.

        Issue raised: 10-6-22 Brief ISO Motion Reconsider, ¶¶68-
        77, R-191a.

     C. If the Rule 236 Notices noted above, are defective, and thus,
     the associated Orders are ineffective, should the Superior Court
     address the questions that are presented below?

        TCA: Orders not defective. Opinion, p.5, ¶ C, R-231a.
        SA: Yes. Court should consider in interest of judicial
        economy. See Vertical Resources v.Bramlett, 837 A. 2d
        1193, 1199, (Pa. Super. 2003), ¶80 below.

     D. Was Riffin’s September 21, 2022 filed [miscaptioned] Motion
     for Reconsideration of the Trial Court’s September 12, 2022 Order
     granting Defendant Buy Sell Now Pa LLC’s [“Defendant”], motion
     for non suit: (A) In substance, a “motion for post-trial relief? TCA:
     No. Opinion ¶ D (A), R-231a. SA: Yes. And if yes, (B) Was
     it timely filed? TCA: Timely filed. 9-27-2022 Order, ¶ (4),
     and 1st ¶ of Order, R-24,22a. SA: Yes. If yes, (C) Was it fatally
     defective?; TCA: Yes. 9-27-2022 Order, ¶¶ (6), (7), (10), R-
     24,25a. SA: No. And if not, (D) Was it error to deny Riffin’s
     September 26, 2022 filed Motion for Leave to Amend Riffin’s 9-
     21-2022 filed Motion for Reconsideration? TCA: No. Opinion, ¶
     D (D), R-231a. SA: Yes.

                                     -9-
J-A16023-23

     Issues raised: 9-26-22 Mot Leave file Petition to Open, ¶¶1-6, R-
     66a; 10-6-22 Brief ISO Motion Leave file Motion Reconsider, ¶¶4-
     27, R-160a. 10-6-22 Brief ISO Motion Reconsider, ¶¶4-123, R-
     177a.

     E. Was Riffin’s September 26, 2022 filed Amended Petition to
     Open: (A) A permissible pleading to open a judgment of nonsuit?
     TCA: No. Opinion, ¶E, (A), R-232a. SA: Yes. If yes, (B) Was
     it timely filed? TCA: Irrelevant. Opinion, ¶ E (B), R-232a. SA:
     Yes. If yes, (C) Was it fatally defective? TCA: Yes. Opinion, ¶
     E (C), R-232a.. SA: No. And if not, (D) Was it error to deny
     Riffin’s October 6, 2022 filed Motion for Leave to File Riffin’s
     October 6, 2022 filed Motion for Reconsideration of the Trial
     Court’s September 26, 2022 Order? TCA: No. Opinion, ¶ E (D),
     R-233a. SA: Yes. And if yes, (E) Was Riffin’s 10-6-22 Motion for
     Reconsideration (a) Timely filed? TCA: Yes. Opinion, ¶ E (E)
     (a), R-233a. SA: Yes. And if yes, (b) Was it fatally defective?
     TCA: Yes. Opinion, ¶ E (E) (b), R-233a. SA: No. And, if not,
     (c) Was it error for the Trial Court NOT to consider Riffin’s 10-6-
     2022 filed Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 9-27-2022
     Order? TCA: No. Opinion, ¶ E (E) (c), R-233a. SA: Yes.

     Issues raised: 9-26-22 Mot Leave file Petition to Open, ¶¶1-6, R-
     66a; 10-6-22 Brief ISO Motion Leave file Motion Reconsider, ¶¶4-
     27, R-160a; 10-6-22 Brief ISO Motion Reconsider, ¶¶4-123, R-
     177a.

     F. Questions included in the above-noted questions:

        a. May a Rule 3051 Petition to Open be filed to open a non
        suit? TCA: No. Opinion, ¶ F a. SA: Yes.

        Issue raised: 9-26-22 Petition to Open, ¶16, 17, R-77a;

        b. Does the ‘clock’ for filing a Motion for Post-trial relief
        begin running when the Rule 236 Notice is received? (As
        opposed to when it is docketed / certified as being mailed /
        actually mailed.) TCA: When docketed. Opinion, ¶ F b, R-
        234a. SA: When received.

        Issue raised: 9-26-22 Petition to open, ¶22; R-78a; ¶80,
        R-194a.

        c. Was Riffin’s Rule 3051 Petition to Open ‘promptly filed?’
        TCA: Not relevant. Opinion, ¶ F c, R-234a. SA: Yes.

                                   - 10 -
J-A16023-23

         Issue raised: 9-26-22 Petition to open, ¶22, R-78a; ¶83,
         R-195a.

      G. Questions on the Merits:

         a. Did Riffin’s Amended Petition to open satisfy all 3 ‘prongs’
         of a Rule 3051 Petition to Open? TCA: Irrelevant. Opinion,
         ¶ G a, R-234a. SA: Yes. Issue raised: 9-26-22 Petition to
         Open, ¶¶23-42, R-79a; 10-6-22 Motion Leave File Motion
         Reconsider; ¶¶ 12-17, R-161a.

         b. Was it error for the Trial Court Not to consider all 3
         ‘prongs’ of a Rule 3051 Petition to Open? TCA: Irrelevant.
         Opinion, ¶ G b, R-234a. SA: Yes.

         Issue raised: 9-26-22 Petition to Open, ¶¶43-59, R-86a.

         c. Was it error for the Trial Court (i) NOT to consider
         sanctions less than non suit, for Riffin’s Rule 216 violation?
         TCA: No. Opinion, ¶ G c, R-235a. SA: Yes. (ii) NOT to
         balance the prejudice to Riffin for non suit against: (1) The
         Defendant’s prejudice? (2) The inconvenience caused the
         Court by the Rule 216 violation? TCA: No. Opinion, ¶ G c,
         R-235a. SA: Yes.

         Issue raised: 9-26-22 Petition to Open, ¶¶43-59, R-86a.

Mr. Riffin’s Brief at 11-15.

      Before delving into the merits of Mr. Riffin’s appeal, we address whether

Mr. Riffin has followed proper procedure in challenging the entry of the

nonsuit. Here, the trial court entered a nonsuit against Mr. Riffin pursuant to

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 218, which states, in relevant part, the

following:
      (a) Where a case is called for trial, if without satisfactory excuse
      a plaintiff is not ready, the court may enter a nonsuit on motion
      of the defendant or a non pros on the court’s own motion.

                                      ***

      (c) A party who fails to appear for trial shall be deemed to be not
      ready without satisfactory excuse.

                                     - 11 -
J-A16023-23

          Note: The mere failure to appear for trial is a ground for the
          entry of a nonsuit or a judgment of non pros or the
          reinstatement of a compulsory arbitration award.

          A nonsuit is subject to the filing of a motion under Rule
          227.1(a)(3) for post-trial relief to remove the nonsuit and a
          judgment of non pros is subject to the filing of a petition
          under Rule 3051 for relief from a judgment of non pros.

          A decision of the court following a trial at which the
          defendant failed to appear is subject to the filing of a motion
          for post-trial relief which may include a request for a new
          trial on the ground of a satisfactory excuse for the
          defendant’s failure to appear.

Pa.R.Civ.P. 218(a), (c). See also Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1(a)(3) (“After trial and

upon the written Motion for Post-Trial Relief filed by any party, the court may

… remove a nonsuit[.]”).

       Rules 218 and 227.1(a)(3) both suggest that a post-trial motion must

be filed to remove the nonsuit.9 Here, Mr. Riffin did not label his September
____________________________________________

9  Accord Jenkins v. Robertson, 277 A.3d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2022)
(determining that the appellant had ten days to file a post-trial motion after
he was provided notice of the nonsuit entered pursuant to Rule 218); B.T.
Management, LLC v. 7065-A William Penn Highway, LLC, 2022 WL
34847, at *1 (Pa. Super. filed Jan. 4, 2022) (“Under Rule 227.1(a)(3), B.T.
had ten days … in which to seek such post-trial relief. In fact, B.T. had to
seek post-trial relief to preserve its issues for appellate review and to develop
a record to prove whether Dr. Thaler’s[ (B.T.’s lead principal)] absence on the
day of trial was justified.”) (citations omitted); Third Federal Savings and
Loan Association of Cleveland v. Carrington, 2019 WL 4200950, at *1
(Pa. Super. filed Sept. 5, 2019) (“Because Rules 218 and 230.1(a) both
specifically direct the reader to file a post-trial motion to obtain relief from the
entry of a nonsuit, we must reject Third Federal’s position that no post-trial
motion was required herein.”); but see Murphy v. International Druidic
Society, 152 A.3d 286, 290 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“Pennsylvania law also makes
clear that the entry of a compulsory nonsuit before trial has even begun is
the functional equivalent of a pretrial dispositive order such as one granting
summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings. Where a trial court
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 12 -
J-A16023-23

21, 2022 motion as a post-trial motion, but instead captioned it as a motion

for reconsideration.      Under the limited circumstances of this case, we will

overlook this titling error and construe the September 21, 2022 filing as a

timely-filed post-trial motion.10

       In addressing Mr. Riffin’s appeal, we limit our review to the issues he

raised in the September 21, 2022 motion and brief in support. We do not

consider his subsequent filings in our analysis. Specifically, with respect to

his September 26, 2022 motion asking for leave to file an amended petition

to open the trial court’s September 13, 2022 order, Mr. Riffin proffered no

legal authority or developed argument to support allowing him to file an

amended petition to open. See Order, 9/28/22, at ¶ 14 (trial court’s stating

that Mr. Riffin’s “motion for leave to amend is woefully inadequate in that it

____________________________________________

mistakenly enters a nonsuit as a pre-trial dispositive order, that order should
be considered an order granting summary judgment or a judgment on the
pleadings, and the party challenging entry of that order does not have to file
a post-trial motion to remove the nonsuit before filing an appeal.”) (citations
omitted; emphasis in original); Bostick v. Schall’s Brakes and Repairs,
Inc., 725 A.2d 1232, 1236 (Pa. Super. 1999) (“[W]e do not deem it either
necessary or proper to require [the a]ppellants to file a post-trial motion to
remove the nonsuit for failure to appear for trial when, in fact, no trial had
ever commenced.”) (citation and footnote omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P.
126(b) (unpublished non-precedential memorandum decisions of the Superior
Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value).

10 We note that Mr. Riffin timely filed his notice of appeal, as he filed it within

30 days of the trial court’s September 28, 2022 order refusing to grant him
relief on the nonsuit. See Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of
Cleveland, 2019 WL 4200950, at *1 (“Historically, Pennsylvania law has held
that the entry of compulsory nonsuit is not the ruling that is immediately
appealable, rather, the appeal lies from the trial court’s denial of the motion
to remove the compulsory nonsuit.”) (quoting Murphy, 152 A.3d at 289-90).

                                          - 13 -
J-A16023-23

fails to set forth any grounds for granting leave to amend….”); Mr. Riffin’s

Brief in Support of his Motion for Leave to File an Amended Petition to Open,

9/26/22, at ¶ 3 (asking for leave to amend because, after researching relevant

cases, he realized his September 21, 2022 motion did not comply with

applicable law).11 Thus, the trial court did not err in denying him leave to

amend, and we disregard his September 26, 2022 filings.12 With respect to

his various requests for reconsideration, filed after the trial court’s September

28, 2022 order denying him relief, it is well-established that “issues raised in

motions for reconsideration are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and thus

may not be considered by this Court on appeal.” Rabatin v. Allied Glove

Corp., 24 A.3d 388, 391 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations omitted).

       With that limitation in mind, we proceed to Mr. Riffin’s issues. Generally,

Mr. Riffin argues that the Rule 236 notice should have to reflect the date of

the postmark on the envelope in which the order was mailed, and says that

the trial court should have scheduled a new trial. We address both of these

claims in turn.

       We first examine Mr. Riffin’s Rule 236 argument.        He contends that

various envelopes containing the orders sent to him were postmarked days
____________________________________________

11Further, to the extent he argues that the envelope containing the trial
court’s September 13, 2022 order was not postmarked to him until September
16, 2022, in contravention of the Rule 236 notice on the docket, we note that
Mr. Riffin did not request more time to file his post-trial motion in his
September 21, 2022 filings, as a result of this delay.

12 Even if we were to consider Mr. Riffin’s September 26, 2022 filings, no relief

would be due for the rationale set forth infra. See footnote 19, infra.

                                          - 14 -
J-A16023-23

after the Prothonotary certified that they were mailed under Rule 236. See

Mr. Riffin’s Brief at 16-20, 33-47.13 For instance, he complains about the trial

court’s May 27, 2022 order scheduling the trial. For that order, the trial court

indicated on the docket that Rule 236 notice was given on May 27, 2022, yet

the envelope Mr. Riffin received containing the order was not postmarked until

June 1, 2022. See Mr. Riffin’s Brief at 16.14 Another example Mr. Riffin points

to is the September 13, 2022 order entering the nonsuit. The docket reflects

that Rule 236 notice was given that same day. However, according to Mr.

Riffin, the envelope containing that order was not postmarked until September

16, 2022, and not received by Mr. Riffin until September 20, 2022. Id. at

17.15    As a result, Mr. Riffin claims that all of the orders he points to are

“defective[,]” and that “this proceeding’s ‘clock’ must be reset back to 5-2[7]-

2022[.]”      Id. at 27.        See also id. (“If the 5-2[7]-2022 Order is

____________________________________________

13 We note that Mr. Riffin says he received two copies of each order — one for

himself, and one in his capacity of representing the legal interests of Larry M.
Lamotte, Hiram E. Tinder, Jr., and Goldfather York, LLC. See Mr. Riffin’s Brief
at 16. For ease, we refer to the copies sent in the singular.

14 We emphasize that Mr. Riffin does not claim that he did not receive that

order.

15 Mr. Riffin also argues that the record does not show that the September 13,

2022 order entering the nonsuit was sent to Buy Sell Now. See Mr. Riffin’s
Brief at 46. However, Buy Sell Now’s counsel was present at the September
12, 2022 trial when the trial court entered the nonsuit order on the record.
See N.T., 9/12/22, at 5-6 (the trial court’s ordering the entry of nonsuit).
Thus, we see no prejudice.

                                          - 15 -
J-A16023-23

defective/ineffective, then a trial date was never legally set. And thus [Mr.]

Riffin had no legal obligation to appear on 9-12-2022.”).

      While this mail delay is troubling, no relief is due on this issue. Based

on our review of the record, Mr. Riffin did not mention this issue at all in his

September 21, 2022 motion, proffered no legal argument about it in his

accompanying brief in support, and failed to attach to either filing any

envelopes showing the postmark dates. See Mr. Riffin’s Brief in Support of

Motion for Reconsideration, 9/21/22, at ¶ 7 (Mr. Riffin’s stating only that

“[t]he Prothonotary mailed a copy of the non[]suit order to [Mr. Riffin] on

Friday, September 16, 2022. (The envelope in which the Non[]suit order was

contained[] is postmarked September 16, 2022.)              The Prothonotary’s

envelope was placed into [Mr. Riffin’s] post office box on Tuesday, September

20, 2022.”); see also Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1(b)(2) (stating that post-trial relief

may not be granted unless the grounds therefor are specified in the motion).

In addition, we emphasize that, in his September 21, 2022 filings, Mr. Riffin

did not request more time to file his post-trial motion as a result of any mail

                                     - 16 -
J-A16023-23

delay. See footnote 11, supra. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying

Mr. Riffin relief on this basis.16, 17

       Next, regarding Mr. Riffin’s argument that a new trial should be

scheduled, we likewise conclude that no relief is due. In his September 21,

2022 filings, Mr. Riffin set forth no legal authority to support removing the

nonsuit. Instead, he only asserted that he had good cause for missing trial,

as his wife had fallen down the stairs the night before trial, significantly

injuring herself, and that he spent September 12, 2022, dealing with the

consequences of those injuries. See Mr. Riffin’s Brief in Support of Motion for

Reconsideration, 9/21/22, at ¶¶ 9-10.

       In reviewing Mr. Riffin’s claim, “our inquiry must focus on whether the

trial court’s decision to grant a nonsuit was a proper exercise of discretion

based on all facts of the case.” Jamison v. Johnson, 762 A.2d 1094, 1097

(Pa. Super. 2000) (citation omitted). Again, Rule 218(a) states that, “[w]here

a case is called for trial, if without satisfactory excuse a plaintiff is not ready,

the court may enter a nonsuit on motion of the defendant or a non pros on
____________________________________________

16 Further, even if we considered Mr. Riffin’s September 26, 2022 filings     —
which were filed within 10 days of when the trial court’s September 13, 2022
order was purportedly mailed to him — no relief would still be due for the
reasons set forth infra. See footnote 19, infra. We also note that he only
complained about the mail delay for the trial court’s September 13, 2022 order
(and not the mail delay for any other orders) in his September 26, 2022 filings.
See Mr. Riffin’s Brief in Support of Amended Petition to Open, 9/26/22; see
also Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1(b)(2), supra.

17 To the extent Mr. Riffin complains about the Rule 236 notices for the orders

entered on September 28, October 7, and October 19 of 2022, he fails to
explain how any of the alleged deficiencies prejudiced him.

                                          - 17 -
J-A16023-23

the court’s own motion.” Pa.R.Civ.P. 218(a). Further, “[a] party who fails to

appear for trial shall be deemed to be not ready without satisfactory excuse.”

Pa.R.Civ.P. 218(c). This Court has explained that “[a] ‘satisfactory excuse’

must be an excuse that would constitute a valid ground for a continuance.”

Breza v. Don Farr Moving & Storage Co., 828 A.2d 1131, 1134 (Pa. Super.

2003) (citations omitted).       “Examples of such valid grounds include

‘agreement of counsel; illness of counsel, a party, or a material witness;

inability to maintain the testimony of an absent witness by means of

discovery; or such other grounds as may be allowed by the court.’” Id. at

1135 (citation omitted).    “Should the court have information that deems

counsel’s excuse satisfactory, then court will not consider the presumption of

Rule 218(c) applicable.” Jamison, 762 A.2d at 1097 n.3.

      We discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court. See TCO at 9-10.

While it is extremely unfortunate that Mr. Riffin’s wife fell down the stairs,

injuring herself, Mr. Riffin failed to contact the trial court or opposing counsel

on September 12, 2022, to explain why he could not attend the scheduled

trial. In his September 21, 2022 filings, he provided no reasoning as to why

he did not contact the trial court or opposing counsel that day to inform them

of his situation. In the days after he missed the trial, Mr. Riffin continued

filing documents without acknowledging, let alone proffering any explanation

                                     - 18 -
J-A16023-23

for why, he missed trial.18 Given Mr. Riffin’s actions on the day of trial and in

the days following trial, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court in

denying his post-trial motion to remove the nonsuit.19

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/08/2023

____________________________________________

18 Again, Mr. Riffin filed a response to Buy Sell Now’s opposition to his
summary judgment motion on September 14, 2022. On September 19, 2022,
Mr. Riffin filed ‘Riffin’s Trial Legal Argument’ and ‘Riffin’s Trial Testimony.’ He
never acknowledged or explained his absence in those filings.

19 Even if we considered Mr. Riffin’s September 26, 2022 filings in our analysis,

no relief would be due. There, he still did not explain why he did not try to
contact the trial court or opposing counsel at anytime on September 12,
2022, or in the days following. See Brief in Support of Amended Petition to
Open, 9/26/22, at ¶¶ 29-32 (arguing only that he could not have contacted
the trial court before the nonsuit was entered at 9:48 a.m. on September 12,
2022, due to his lack of Internet service and his not knowing the Prothonotary
or court’s phone numbers); see also id. at ¶ 34 (arguing he received no
missed calls from the trial court). He also did not explain why he continued
to file documents in the days following the trial, without acknowledging or
explaining his absence from the trial.

                                          - 19 -