Court Opinion

ID: 9939547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-10 17:09:35.677574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:24.464482
License: Public Domain

J-A05016-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    KIMBERLY GUERIN                 :           IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                    :                PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellant        :
                                    :
               v.                   :
                                    :
    ROSEN, SHAFER, & DIMEO LLP, AND :
    ROCHELLE FEDULLO,               :
    ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF :
    WILLIAM P. FEDULLO              :
                                    :                No. 2072 EDA 2023
                   Appellees

                   Appeal from the Order Entered July 6, 2023
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
                  Civil Division at No(s): C-48-CV-2019-01701

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.:                         FILED FEBRUARY 9, 2024

       Appellant, Kimberly Guerin, appeals pro se from the order entered in

the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the motions

of Appellee, Rochelle Fedullo, administratrix of the estate of William P. Fedullo

(“Attorney Fedullo”),1 to enforce a settlement agreement and to seal the

record. We dismiss the appeal.

       The trial court set forth the following relevant facts of this case:

          In 2019, [Appellant] filed this suit against [Attorney Fedullo
          and Law Firm] which generally alleges that Defendants were
          professionally negligent in handling a matter related to a
          commercial real estate sale negotiated by [Appellant].
____________________________________________

1 Attorney Fedullo died during the pendency of litigation and the court
substituted his estate as a party. Rosen, Shafer & DiMeo, LLP (“Law Firm”) is
the law firm where Attorney Fedullo practiced law before he died.
J-A05016-24

       The initial Complaint contained a number of averments
       asserting a sexual relationship between [Appellant] and
       Attorney Fedullo which were stricken by the [court] in an
       Order filed on July 20, 2020.

       Following Attorney Fedullo’s passing, [Appellant] began
       contacting Attorney Fedullo’s family and Defendant Rochelle
       Fedullo’s counsel to leave harassing voicemails.

       As a result, a consent Order was entered on March 18, 2022,
       forbidding [Appellant] from contacting Attorney Fedullo’s
       family and the counsel representing his estate.

       The underlying litigation was resolved with a Mutual
       Releases and Resolution Agreement (“Agreement”) signed
       by the parties which is effective as of October 19, 2022.

       The Agreement contains a “No Harassment” provision.

       The Agreement is conditioned upon the removal or sealing
       of the “Verified Statement by [Appellant]” filed on
       September 2, 2022, in which [Appellant] claims that
       Attorney Fedullo raped her.

       At the time the Agreement was entered into, [Appellant]
       was represented by Clifford B. Cohn, Esquire.

       On October 23, 2022, Attorney Cohn forwarded the
       executed Agreement, bearing the notarized signature of
       [Appellant], to Defendants’ counsel.

       The following day, Attorney Cohn sent Defendants’ counsel
       a signed praecipe to discontinue this action.

       On November 1, 2022, roughly one week after the
       Agreement was signed, Defendants’ counsel sent Attorney
       Cohn a proposed consent order to correct the case caption
       and to seal the “Verified Statement by [Appellant].”

       In response, Defendants were made aware that [Appellant]
       then represented herself.

       Thereafter, [Appellant] continued to file documents alleging

                                  -2-
J-A05016-24

          that Attorney Fedullo raped her, namely a “Response” filed
          November 10, 2022, a “Response” filed November 29, 2022,
          an “Amended Response” filed December 29, 2022, and a
          “Verification” filed February 17, 2023.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 7/6/23, at 2-4) (reformatting provided). Following

Attorney Fedullo’s death, Rochelle Fedullo filed a motion to enforce the

Agreement on November 9, 2022, and a motion to seal the record on April 5,

2023.     The court held a hearing on the motions, as well as Appellant’s

responses, on May 10, 2023. On July 6, 2023, the court granted the motions

to enforce the Agreement and to seal documents. This timely appeal followed.

        As a preliminary matter, both Rochelle Fedullo and the Law Firm argue

that Appellant has waived all issues on appeal based on her failure to request

the transcript of the May 10, 2023 hearing. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate

Procedure 1911 states: “The appellant shall request any transcript required

under this chapter in the manner and make any necessary payment or deposit

therefor in the amount and within the time prescribed by Rule 4001 et seq. of

the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration.” Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a). “If the

appellant fails to take the action required by these rules and the Pennsylvania

Rules of Judicial Administration for the preparation of the transcript the

appellate court may take such action as it deems appropriate, which may

include    dismissal   of   the   appeal.”    Pa.R.A.P.   1911(d).   See   also

Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super. 2006) (en banc), appeal

denied, 591 Pa. 663, 916 A.2d 632 (2007) (explaining that when appellant

fails to comply with Rule 1911, any claims that cannot be resolved in absence

                                        -3-
J-A05016-24

of necessary transcript must be deemed waived for appellate review).

       Instantly, on the “Request for Transcript” form attached to her notice of

appeal, Appellant checked the boxes stating: “No hearing or trial was held

prior to Orders being issued by the court” and “There is no verbatim record of

the proceedings.”       (Request for Transcripts, filed 7/27/23, at 1).       Thus,

Appellant did not request the transcript of the May 10, 2023 hearing.

Appellant’s failure to ensure that the certified record contained the relevant

transcript constitutes waiver and precludes this Court from conducting

meaningful review of her issues.               See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a), (d); Preston,

supra.    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and strike this case from the

argument list.2

       Appeal dismissed. Case is stricken from argument list.

Date: 2/9/2024

____________________________________________

2 Rochelle Fedullo has filed an application for relief, requesting this Court to

limit access and attendance at oral argument to the parties and their counsel.
Based on our disposition, we deny the application as moot.

                                           -4-