Court Opinion

ID: 9766660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:56:20.740207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:24.510821
License: Public Domain

*339CONCURRING OPINION BY
KLEIN, J.:
¶ 1 Although I agree with the outcome of this, I do not fully agree with the majority’s reasoning. Therefore, I concur in the result.
¶2 The majority finds that the plain language of Rule 1018.1 mandates that an amended complaint contain a notice to defend to be effective. I believe that the rationale used by the Commonwealth Court in Township of Chester v. Stapleton, 72 Pa.Cmwlth. 141, 456 A.2d 673 (1983), is compelling and would adopt it.
¶ 3 The explanatory note to Rule 1018.1 makes it clear that the reasoning behind the requirement of a Notice to Defend (as opposed to a Notice to Plead) is that the Attorney General suggested that the legalistic and uninformative nature of the “Notice to Plead” was inadequate in the case of “uneducated, uninformed and unsophisticated defendants” and raised due process problems, particularly in the case of Spanish-speaking minority groups who had little, if any, knowledge of the English language.” Thus, the purpose of the “Notice to Defend” is to make certain the defendant is aware that the legal process has begun and to take action. If the defendant is unaware of what action needs to be taken or does not understand what the process entails, the defendant is advised to seek the counsel of an attorney. The defendant may take the advice to obtain counsel or not as he or she sees fit.
¶4 Once the obligatory notice of commencement of a lawsuit has been issued, and once the defendant has been advised to seek legal counsel — especially if the defendant is unaware of what to do next— there seems little point in requiring a plaintiff to advise the defendant of the same information in an amended complaint. It should be remembered that a plaintiff will not typically file an amended complaint without some reason, such as in response to preliminary objections.4 If preliminary objections have been filed, then common sense would seem to indicate that counsel has been hired or the defendant is savvy enough to have read the rules of procedure and has a basic understanding of the process.
¶ 5 Stapleton, supra, states in relevant part:
Where, as here, the Plaintiff files a properly endorsed complaint, then files an amendment which does not supplant but rather supplements the original complaint, the amendment merges with the original and does not require an additional notice to defend under Pa. R.C.P. 1018.1. In such cases, the amendment must, of course, be endorsed with a notice to plead, in order to demand a responsive pleading under Pa. R.C.P. 1026.
Township v. Stapleton, 456 A.2d at 675. Stapleton does not do away with the requirement that the defendant be notified that a response is required, it simply recognizes the fact that the defendant has already been notified that the legal process has begun and that it is advisable to obtain counsel.
¶ 6 Allowing a “Notice to Plead” on an amended complaint appears to be consistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well. Rule 1028(c)(1) speaks of filing an amended pleading in response to preliminary objections, not specifically of an amended complaint.5 The language of *340Rule 1028(c)(1) indicates that the amended pleading (complaint) is to be treated as simply another pleading, not as an original complaint. Thus, the Rule 1026 Notice to Plead would appear to be allowable. Rule 1026 states:
Except as provided by subsection (b), every pleading subsequent to the complaint shall be filed within twenty days after the service of the preceding pleading, but no pleading need be filed unless the preceding pleading contains a notice to defend or is endorsed with a notice to plead.
Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a). An amended complaint certainly qualifies as a “pleading subsequent to the complaint” when viewed in light of the language of Rule 1028. Thus, I believe the majority has unduly restricted the nature of the notice required when filing an amended complaint.
¶ 7 Nonetheless, I agree with the outcome in this matter because plaintiff included neither a Notice to Defend nor a Notice to Plead. Because neither such notice was included, defendant had no duty under Rule 1026 to respond to the amended complaint, thereby making the default unsupportable as a matter of law.
¶ 8 I also note that Mother’s argues that counsel for Krystkiewiez was remiss in not filing an entry of appearance. Neither the Rules of Civil Procedure nor case law requires counsel to file a separate, formal notice of appearance.
A party may enter a written appearance which shall state an address within the Commonwealth at which papers may be served. Such a paper shall not constitute a waiver of the right to raise any defense including questions of jurisdiction or venue. Written notice of entry of appearance shall be given forthwith to all parties.
Note: Entry of a written appearance is not mandatory.
Pa.R.C.P. 1012(a). As long as a defendant files a responsive pleading that contains sufficient information to determine where legal papers may be served, no other separate appearance is required under the Rule. This interpretation is supported by Fleck v. McHugh, 241 Pa.Super. 307, 361 A.2d 410, 414 (1976), which stated an attorney’s filing of preliminary objections containing all the information that “could possibly be contained in an entry of appearance,” even though those preliminary objections were ultimately dismissed, still served as the functional equivalent of a formal entry of appearance.
¶ 9 While it is preferable for counsel to file the actual entry of appearance (thereby preventing the problems that occurred in this matter), it is not a requirement.

. If the plaintiff amends a complaint in order to name a new party, then this actually operates as original process and a Notice to Defend is required as specified in Rule 1018.1.

. The only amended pleading possible, in response to preliminary objections is an amended complaint. While other responses to preliminary objections are possible — e.g. one *340may file preliminary objections to the preliminary objections — these would not be "amended” pleadings, but simply responsive pleadings.