Court Opinion

ID: 9925397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 17:09:09.936406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:20.695629
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ahmad S. Mrad,                       :
                           Appellant :
                                     :
         v.                          : No. 346 C.D. 2023
                                     : Submitted: December 4, 2023
Altoona City Code Department         :

BEFORE:     HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
            HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
            HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WALLACE                                    FILED: January 19, 2024

      Ahmad S. Mrad (Mrad) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas
of Blair County (trial court) dated January 17, 2023, and entered on January 24,
2023, granting the Altoona City Code Department’s (Code Department) preliminary
objections (Preliminary Objections) and dismissing Mrad’s complaint (Complaint)
without prejudice. On appeal, Mrad argues the trial court should have granted him
a default judgment because the Code Department did not timely file its Preliminary
Objections. Upon review, we affirm.
                                 I.    Background
      On November 23, 2022, Mrad filed the Complaint in the trial court against the
Code Department seeking compensation for the Code Department’s demolition of a
residential property he owned at 1616 3rd Street, Altoona, Pennsylvania 16601
(Property). See Original Record (O.R.), Item No. 1. A Deputy with the Blair County
Sheriff’s Office served Mrad’s Complaint on the Code Department on December 9,
2022. O.R., Item No. 6. On December 30, 2022, the Code Department filed the
Preliminary Objections, asserting the trial court should dismiss Mrad’s Complaint
because it did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted and lacked
sufficient specificity. O.R., Item No. 8. The Preliminary Objections also asserted
governmental immunity insulated the Code Department from any potential claims
relating to its demolition on the Property. Id.
       After reviewing Mrad’s Complaint, the Preliminary Objections, and the Code
Department’s supporting memorandum of law, the trial court determined Mrad’s
“Complaint fails to state a sufficient legal and factual basis for his requested relief.”
See O.R., Item No. 9. As a result, the trial court dismissed Mrad’s Complaint without
prejudice. Id. Mrad appealed the trial court’s order to this Court.1 On appeal, Mrad
raised only one question for our review: whether the Code Department filed its
Preliminary Objections in a timely manner.
                                       II.    Analysis
       In reviewing an order sustaining preliminary objections to the legal
sufficiency of a pleading, our “standard of review . . . is de novo, and our scope of
review is plenary.”       Raynor v. D’Annunzio, 243 A.3d 41, 52 (Pa. 2020).
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1026(a) (Rule 1026(a)) provides that “every
pleading subsequent to the complaint shall be filed within twenty days after service
of the preceding pleading.”        Pa.R.Civ.P. 1026(a).      Preliminary objections are
pleadings. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1017(a)(4).

1
  Mrad originally appealed to the Superior Court. However, by order filed March 3, 2023, the
Superior Court transferred the matter to this Court.

                                             2
      When a defendant does not file a responsive pleading within Rule 1026(a)’s
20-day time period, the defendant is in default. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 237.1, 1037. When
a defendant is in default and the plaintiff wishes to obtain a default judgment, the
plaintiff must provide written notice of his intention to do so at least 10 days before
filing a praecipe for a default judgment. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 237.1(2)(ii). If the
defendant does not file a responsive pleading within 10 days of the plaintiff’s notice,
the plaintiff may obtain a default judgment against the defendant by filing a praecipe
for a default judgment. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1037. A defendant may, however, cure his
default by filing a responsive pleading at any time before the plaintiff files a praecipe
to enter a default judgment. See Mazur v. Cuthbert, 186 A.3d 490, 497 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2018).
      In Mazur, the defendant did not file a responsive pleading to the plaintiff’s
complaint within Rule 1026(a)’s 20-day time period. Id. at 496. The plaintiff in
Mazur served the defendant with a 10-day notice of her intention to seek entry of a
default judgment. Id. The defendant responded by quickly filing preliminary
objections to the original complaint. Id. A total of 25 days passed between service
of the complaint and the defendant’s filing of preliminary objections. Id. The trial
court ultimately sustained the defendant’s preliminary objections. Id. On appeal,
the plaintiff argued the trial court erred in sustaining the defendant’s preliminary
objections because the defendant filed them beyond Rule 1026(a)’s 20-day time
period. Id.
      In Mazur, we rejected the plaintiff’s argument, noting that “[o]nce [the
defendant’s] preliminary objections were filed, which occurred before the filing of
a praecipe to enter a default judgment, [the defendant] was no longer in default.”
Mazur, 186 A.3d at 497 (citations omitted). In Mazur, this Court also explained it

                                           3
“has previously noted that the 20-day pleading requirement has not been strictly
enforced, that said rule is not mandatory but permissive, and that common pleas
courts are afforded discretion in accepting late pleadings in the absence of prejudice
and where justice so requires.” Id. (citation omitted).
      Here, the Code Department admits it filed the Preliminary Objections 21 days
after being served with Mrad’s Complaint. In the single day the Code Department
was in default, Mrad took no steps to serve the Code Department with notice of his
intention to pursue a default judgment. Nor did Mrad file any response to the Code
Department’s Preliminary Objections. Like the defendant in Mazur, the Code
Department’s filing of the Preliminary Objections before Mrad filed a praecipe for
a default judgment cured the Code Department’s default. See id. Therefore, like in
Mazur, we reject Mrad’s argument the trial court erred in granting the Preliminary
Objections simply because the Code Department filed them beyond Rule 1026(a)’s
20-day time period. See id. at 496-97.
                                   III.   Conclusion
      For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the trial court’s order granting the
Code Department’s Preliminary Objections and dismissing Mrad’s Complaint
without prejudice.

                                              ______________________________
                                              STACY WALLACE, Judge

                                          4
        IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ahmad S. Mrad,                       :
                           Appellant :
                                     :
         v.                          : No. 346 C.D. 2023
                                     :
Altoona City Code Department         :

                                ORDER

     AND NOW, this 19th day of January 2024, the order entered on January 24,
2023, by the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                     ______________________________
                                     STACY WALLACE, Judge