Burton, F. v. Innovative DTV Solutions Inc.

Citation: Not availableDocket: Burton, F. v. Innovative DTV Solutions Inc. No. 1462 WDA 2016

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; May 24, 2017; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Frankie G. Burton appeals the January 14, 2016 order from the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, which granted summary judgment in favor of Innovative DTV Solutions, Inc. and dismissed his complaint with prejudice. Burton, an inmate at SCI-Houtzdale, purchased a television from Appellee in October 2012, which included a one-year limited warranty stipulating repair or replacement of defective products within 90 days and the provision of new or rebuilt parts for one year. The warranty required the return of the unit for claims processing.

Burton reported malfunctions on June 14, 2013, but missed the scheduled callouts to return the television due to undisclosed reasons and a subsequent lockdown. His grievance regarding the missed callout was denied. Following this, he filed a complaint in district court, which led to a default judgment against Appellee in November 2013. Appellee appealed this judgment, prompting Burton to assert breach of warranty in a subsequent complaint.

In October 2015, the court set a deadline for summary judgment motions. Burton filed his motion in November, which was denied. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on December 21, 2015, claiming Burton’s noncompliance with the warranty voided any claims. The court granted Appellee’s motion and dismissed Burton's complaint.

On appeal, Burton raises two issues: whether the trial court erred in permitting Appellee's allegedly untimely summary judgment motion and whether that motion should be dismissed from consideration. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, adopting the trial court's factual findings.

The trial court interpreted the Appellant's pleadings as an attempt to assert a claim for breach of express warranty. Key issues raised include whether the trial court erred in granting the Appellee's untimely motion for summary judgment, which allegedly included new claims that prejudiced the Appellant, and whether genuine issues of material fact existed that would support the Appellant's case. The Appellant asserts that the Appellee violated expressed and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code, and state consumer protection laws concerning a defective RCA television. Additional questions involve whether a default judgment against the Appellee should be upheld and whether the Appellant established a cause of action against the Bureau of Correctional Industries and the Department of Corrections to justify their inclusion in the summary judgment.

The standards for granting summary judgment require no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding necessary elements of the case, with courts viewing records favorably towards the nonmoving party. An appellate court may reverse a summary judgment if there is a legal error or abuse of discretion. The Appellant contends that the court improperly allowed the Appellee to submit a late motion for summary judgment, violating a prior order mandating submission by December 1, 2015, which he claims deprived him of a fair chance to contest it. He also requests that the Appellee's motion be stricken from consideration. Although late motions for summary judgment can be filed, they must not unreasonably delay proceedings, and the trial court may overlook procedural errors that do not impinge on substantial rights. Generally, motions should not be accepted on the trial day or after jury selection.

Appellee admitted that its motion for summary judgment was filed after the December 1, 2015 deadline but justified the delay by referencing information from Appellant’s motion appendices, including an affidavit and grievance forms indicating Appellant was aware of missing the “callout.” The trial court correctly exercised its discretion to accept the late motion, as it did not cause unreasonable trial delays and Appellant had the opportunity to respond, resulting in no prejudice to him. 

Appellant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the summary judgment, claiming that Appellee introduced new claims and that genuine issues of material fact existed. However, the court highlighted that summary judgment is warranted when no genuine issues of material fact remain. Pleadings must clearly define the issues, and if a plaintiff fails to specify a cause of action, that claim can be waived as per Grossman v. Barke. 

Appellant generally alleged he purchased a defective television from Appellee and received no resolution despite his correspondence. However, he did not specify a cause of action in his complaint, leading to the conclusion that he only asserted a breach of express warranty claim. To succeed in this claim, Appellant needed to demonstrate that Appellee breached its warranty, which he could not do as he failed to return the television within the one-year warranty period. Consequently, Appellee was not obligated under the warranty, and no genuine issue of material fact remained, justifying summary judgment in Appellee’s favor.

Additionally, although Appellant mentioned breaches of express and implied warranties, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Act, and other statutory claims in his brief, these were not included as causes of action in his complaint. Thus, Appellant waived these claims due to improper pleading.

Appellant contends that the default judgment against Appellee in the magisterial district court should have been upheld due to Appellee's inadequate explanation for not responding to Appellant’s civil complaint. However, the cases cited by Appellant do not pertain to default judgments or appeals from such judgments at the magisterial district court level. Consequently, Appellant has waived this argument due to insufficient development and lack of pertinent legal citations, as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a, c). Furthermore, Appellant claims to have established a cause of action against the Department of Corrections (DOC) and Bureau of Community Integration (BCI), arguing that these entities should have been joined for summary judgment. However, the Court lacks jurisdiction over claims against these agencies under 42 Pa.C.S. § 762. The order is affirmed, and judgment is entered.