Lawrence v. Meeker

6 Citing cases

  1. Acciavatti v. White Horse Vill., Inc.

    1255 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jul. 5, 2023)

    nia Rule of Civil Procedure 2253 governs joinder of additional defendants and provides that a writ of joinder shall be filed by the original defendant no later than sixty days after service upon that defendant of either the complaint or any amendment to the complaint. See Pa.R.C.P. 2253(a)(1) (stating "neither a praecipe for a writ to join an additional defendant nor a complaint if the joinder is commenced by complaint, shall be filed later than…sixty days after the service upon the original defendant of the initial pleading of the plaintiff or any amendment thereof"). If a writ to join an additional defendant is belatedly filed after the sixty-day period, a party must show "(1) that joinder is based on proper grounds, (2) that some reasonable excuse exists for the delay in commencing joinder proceedings, and (3) that the original plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the late joinder." Lawrence v. Meeker, 717 A.2d 1046, 1048 (Pa.Super. 1998). The court may then consider the potential prejudice to the proposed additional defendant.

  2. Trident Mortg. Co. v. Clardy

    1026 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 30, 2022)

    In the thirty years since this Court decided Hileman, we have only cited it on five occasions; none of those occasions has involved the rules regarding discontinuances or "legal prejudice." See Sehl v. Neff, 26 A.3d 1130, 1133-34 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citing Hileman in discussing joint and several liability); L.B. Foster Co. v. Caracciolo, 777 A.2d 1090, 1095 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citing Hileman briefly with respect to joint and several liability); Lawrence v. Meeker, 717 A.2d 1046, 1048 n.4 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citing Hileman in footnote reference to joint and several liability); Gordon v. Sokolow, 642 A.2d 1096, 1099 (Pa. Super. 1994) (citing Hileman for definition of "cause of action"); Bianculli v. Turner Const. Co., 640 A.2d 461, 465 (Pa. Super. 1994) (citing Hileman in string cite as part of discussion of joinder). As such, Appellant's contention that Hileman mandates a presumption of "legal prejudice" in cases involving a violation of a Rule of Civil Procedure fails.

  3. Kessock v. Conestoga Title Ins. Co.

    2018 Pa. Super. 226 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018)   Cited 10 times

    SeeZakian , 438 Pa. at 256, 264 A.2d at 641 [.] Lawrence v. Meeker , 717 A.2d 1046, 1048–1049 (Pa. Super. 1998) (some internal citations omitted). "The rule permitting the joinder of additional defendants is to be broadly construed to effectuate its purpose of avoiding multiple lawsuits by settling in one action all claims arising out of the transaction or occurrence which gave rise to the plaintiff's complaint."

  4. Miller v. Anthony Puccio & Josephine Puccio, His Wife, Angeline J. Puccio, NRT Pittsburgh, LLC

    No. 897 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 25, 2016)

    However, limitations on joinder are primarily intended to protect a plaintiff from being unduly delayed in prosecuting his action.Lawrence v. Meeker, 717 A.2d 1046, 1048 (Pa.Super. 1998) (internal citations omitted). A petition for leave to join an additional defendant beyond the sixty-day period must allege some "reasonable justification" for the delay.

  5. Techtmann v. Howie

    720 A.2d 143 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)   Cited 11 times
    In Techtmann v. Howie, 720 A.2d 143 (Pa. Super. 1998) (per curiam), the appellants appealed from an order denying their petition for leave to join an additional defendant.

    Liberty State Bandv. Northeastern Bank of Pennsylvania, 683 A.2d 889, 890 (Pa. Super. 1996). We note that very recently in Lawrence v. Meeker, No. 514 Harrisburg 1997, slip op. (Pa.Super. filed September 2, 1998) we reviewed the issue of joinder of additional defendant on the merits. In that case, the trial court amended its previous order to provide for immediate appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341. There is no such order in this present case.

  6. Robinson v. City of Phila.

    No. 1255 C.D. 2011 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jun. 14, 2012)

    See Zakian, 438 Pa. at 256, 264 A.2d at 641; 7 Goodrich Amram 2d, Procedural Rules Service with Forms § 2253:5 Extension of time limitation, generally, citing Dilbeck v. Bar-Van Enterprises, Inc., 55 [Pa.] D. & C. 2d 177, 179 (1971),[]; Kirila v. Allegheny Harvestores, Inc., 25 [Pa]. D. & C. 3d 318, 321 (1982).Lawrence v. Meeker, 717 A.2d 1046, 1048-49 (Pa. Super. 1998); see also Spicer v. Western Montgomery County Vocational and Technical School, 557 A.2d 1134, 1135 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) ("The burden to demonstrate sufficient 'cause' to allow an extension of time for joining an additional defendant rests with the defendant"). The "length of delay in joining an additional defendant is not, in and of itself, determinative of whether or not joinder should be permitted; instead, the length of delay must be viewed in the context of the particular case."