Fox v. Pacono Springs Civic Ass'n, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Ortiz v. Pa. Dep't of Corrs.

    615 M.D. 2018 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Sep. 14, 2021)

    Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1029(b) provides: "Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required[-i.e., averments of fact-]are admitted when not denied specifically or by necessary implication." See also Fox v. Pocono Springs Civic Ass'n, Inc., 695 A.2d 484, 485 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) ("Failure of a party to answer [n]ew [m]atter permits [a] trial court to treat averments contained therein as admitted and authorizes judgment on the pleadings."). Here, Ortiz did not respond to paragraphs 21 through 45 of the DOC Respondents' new matter.

  2. Sigman v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

    No. 607 M.D. 2018 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. May. 4, 2020)

    We have previously held that a party's failure to reply to new matter permits the "trial court to treat averments contained therein as admitted and authorizes judgment on the pleadings." Fox v. Pocono Springs Civic Ass'n, Inc., 695 A.2d 484, 485 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997); see also Edmond v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 651 A.2d 645, 647 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (holding that where a party fails to reply to a new matter, endorsed with a notice to plead, the averments in the new matter are deemed admitted).

  3. Urch v. Commonwealth

    No. 138 M.D. 2017 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Aug. 13, 2019)

    1. Motion for Judgment on the PleadingsA motion for judgment on the pleadings filed in this Court's original jurisdiction is governed by Pa. R.C.P. No. 1034. Fox v. Pocono Springs Civic Ass'n, Inc., 695 A.2d 484 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). Rule 1034 provides that upon the close of the pleadings, any party may move for judgment in its favor. Id. When deciding the motion, we may consider only the pleadings themselves and any documents properly attached thereto.

  4. Tabansi v. Beard

    No. 577 M.D. 2010 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Feb. 23, 2012)

    Pa. R.A.P. 1516(b). Respondents served their answer and new matter, which contained a notice to plead, by mail on August 6, 2010, but Petitioner did not file his reply until four months later. Due to the late filing of Petitioner's reply, Respondents contend that we must treat the averments in their new matter as admitted, citing Fox v. Pocono Springs Civic Association, Inc., 695 A.2d 484, 485 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), and Edmond v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 651 A.2d 645, 647 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). However, we need not reach the question of whether Petitioner's late reply resulted in deemed admissions because, even if we were to consider the merits of Petitioner's reply, we would still conclude that Respondents are entitled to relief.

  5. Lowery v. Port Auth

    914 A.2d 953 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    In conducting its review, the Court should limit itself to the pleadings themselves and to any documents or exhibits properly attached thereto. Fox v. Pocono Springs Civic Ass'n, Inc., 695 A.2d 484 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1997). II

  6. Mertz by Mertz v. City of Philadelphia

    719 A.2d 1131 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    "In conducting its inquiry, the court should confine itself to the pleadings themselves and any documents or exhibits properly attached thereto." Fox v. Pocono Springs Civic Association, Inc., 695 A.2d 484, 485 (Pa.Commw. 1997). A motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.