CHARLES MEADOWS ET AL. v. ENOCH GOODMAN

CHARLES MEADOWS ET AL. v. ENOCH GOODMAN
No. 1737 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 55 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/8/2010

Appeal from the Order entered May 11, 2009
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil No. May Term 2008, No. 00297

Before: BOWES, GANTMAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.

Charles Meadows and Terry Bell, Appellants, appeal from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas denying their motion to amend their complaint and dismissing the case. We hold that the trial court erred in denying a “motion to amend complaint” seeking to join a defendant, which had been filed by the plaintiff before the statute of limitations had run, and where neither the named defendant nor the proposed defendant would suffer prejudice. We further hold the court erred in sua sponte dismissing the case where, even if the motion to join a defendant were properly denied, there remained outstanding claims. We reverse and remand.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

CHARLES MEADOWS ET AL. v. ENOCH GOODMAN

CHARLES MEADOWS ET AL. v. ENOCH GOODMAN No. 1737 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 28 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/4/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered May 11, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil No. May Term 2008, No. 00297
Before: BOWES, GANTMAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Charles Meadows and Terry Bell, Appellants, appeal from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas denying their motion to amend their complaint and dismissing the case. We hold that the trial court erred in denying a motion, which clearly sought to join a defendant but was mis-titled a “motion to amend complaint,” and which was filed before the statute of limitations had run, where neither the named defendant nor proposed defendant would suffer prejudice. We further hold the court erred in sua sponte dismissing the case where, even if the motion to join a defendant were properly denied, there remained outstanding claims. We reverse and remand.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

FRED G. ANDREW v. CUNA BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC. and EMMOR E. BOSLET

FRED G. ANDREW v. CUNA BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC. and EMMOR E. BOSLET No. 1623 MDA 2007 2009 PA Super 98 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/27/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment entered September 3, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Civil, at No. 2007-CV-3772 MP.
Before: ALLEN, CLELAND and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
This case arises out of a statement of claim filed by Fred G. Andrew (“Appellant”) against CUNA Brokerage Services and Emmor E. Boslet (“Appellees”).

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RHANEL ROBERTS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RHANEL ROBERTS No. 693 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 56 Atlantic: 969 A.2d 594 Filed: 3/31/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered January 31, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal at No(s): CP-51-CR-00002619-2007, CP-51-CR-1003541-2005, CP-51-CR-1003551-2005, CP-51-CR-1003561-2005
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., ALLEN, and FREEDBERG, JJ
Opinion by: FREEDBERG, J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered on February 1, 2008, which granted the motion to suppress evidence filed by Appellee Rhanel Roberts. After review, we reverse and remand.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 4/28/08 - RANDY GLOVER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND BRUNO KRZACZEK

RANDY GLOVER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND BRUNO KRZACZEK
No. 1070 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 110 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/28/2008
Appeal from the Order entered April 10, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil, No. 000015 August Term, 2006
Before: LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, JJ. and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Randy Glover appeals from the order entered April 10, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granting summary judgment to defendants Bruno Krzaczek and State Farm Insurance. Glover filed suit against Krzaczek claiming Krzaczek was driving a car that struck Glover, who was a pedestrian at the time. Glover sued State Farm, Krzaczek’s insurer, for failure to fully pay first party benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment based upon the statute of limitations – specifically, Glover brought suit against Krzaczek, personally, after Krzaczek had died. The proper party should have been the Estate of Krzaczek. Because the estate and the person are separate entities and Glover never sued the estate, the trial court found the statute of limitations had run and dismissed all claims. After a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, the official record and relevant law, we affirm the summary judgment granted in favor of Krzaczek, but reverse the summary judgment granted in favor of State Farm because the statute of limitations for a claim involving first party benefits is four years. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1721(a). Thus, the statute of limitations has not run as to State Farm. A full discussion follows.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here