Opinion
612 EDA 2023 J-S12001-24
08-28-2024
VAMSIDHAR R. VURIMINDI Appellant v. MARY SCHAHEEN, PATRICK KEENAN, JACK HOURIET, ANN SHAINLINE, NUMODA CORPORATION A/K/A PREVAIL INFO WORKS, AND NUMODA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. A/K/A PREVAIL INFO WORKS
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered February 24, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 230201441
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM
DUBOW, J.:
Appellant Vamsidhar R. Vurimindi appeals from the February 24, 2023 order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his complaint as frivolous. After careful review, we affirm.
Appellant has engaged in extensive litigation related to a 2010 divorce action filed by his former wife, Appellee Ann Boris Shainline, including the current litigation involving 7,745,000 shares of Appellee Numoda Corporation and Numoda Technologies, Inc, d/b/a Prevail Info Works ("Numoda").
His other appeals relating to the divorce and the disputed shares include the following dockets: Boris v. Vurimindi, 77 EDA 2017, allocatur denied, 201 A.3d 732 (Pa. 2019); Boris v. Vurimindi, 859 EDA 2019; Boris v. Vurimindi, 1215 EDA 2020; Vurimindi v. Schaheen, 3197 EDA 2022; and most recently Vurimindi v. Schaheen, 1473 EDA 2024.
Numoda is a closely held corporation associated with Ms. Shainline and her siblings, including Appellee Mary Schaheen.
On February 14, 2023, Appellant filed pro se his complaint in the instant action seeking a declaratory judgment order to enforce a May 19, 2020 family court order which, inter alia, mandated that Ms. Shainline transfer the contested shares to him. He additionally relied upon a June 1, 2022 agreement signed by Ms. Shainline to transfer the shares to Appellant ("2022 Shares Transfer Agreement"). Appellant named as defendants Ms. Shainline, Numoda, and Numoda's corporate officers, specifically Ms. Schaheen, Patrick Keenan, and Jack Houriet ("Corporate Officers"). Appellant also filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
On February 15, 2023, the trial court dismissed the instant action, relying upon Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1), which permits courts to dismiss frivolous actions prior to acting on a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. In its subsequent opinion, the court explained that the instant action was frivolous under the doctrine of lis pendens because it sought the same relief from the same defendants as an action that Appellant filed on June 23, 2022 ("the June 2022 case"). The trial court opined that Appellant could litigate his claims raised in the instant action through the June 2022 case.
Relevantly, the trial court noted that the judge presiding over the June 2022 case stayed that litigation, pending a Delaware Chancery Court action ("Delaware case"), which Ms. Schaheen and Numoda filed on June 24, 2022, based upon Numoda's Delaware registration. In the Delaware case, Ms. Schaheen and Numoda claimed that the 2022 Shares Transfer Agreement signed by Ms. Shainline was void based upon a prior stock transfer agreement, which required a majority of Numoda shareholders to approve a stock transfer ("Numoda Stock Transfer Agreement").
On June 16, 2023, the judge overseeing the June 2022 case removed the stay allowing litigation to continue. On May 29, 2024, Appellant appealed the grant of summary judgment in that case, which is docketed at 1473 EDA 2024.
On February 26, 2023, Appellant filed pro se a notice of appeal in the instant action. The trial court filed its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion without requesting a statement of questions to be raised on appeal from Appellant. On March 6, 2023, the trial court granted Appellant's request to proceed in forma pauperis, limited to this appeal.
Appellant raises the following question on appeal:
Whether trial court lacked power to raise question of lis penden[s] sua sponte and dismiss meritorious complaint as frivolous and deny[] petition to proceed in forma pauperis?Appellant's Br. at 4. Numoda and the Corporate Officers filed a Notice of Non-participation in this appeal, and Ms. Shainline has not filed a brief in this Court.
*
The Rules of Civil Procedure provide that "[a] party who is without financial resources to pay the costs of litigation is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis." Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(b). However, "[c]ourts should not allow a litigant seeking in forma pauperis status to use the court's time and the taxpayer's money to support a frivolous claim." Conover v. Mikosky, 609 A.2d 558, 560 (Pa. Super. 1992). Accordingly, under Rule 240(j)(1), a court may dismiss an action before acting on an in forma pauperis petition if the action is frivolous. Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1).
A frivolous action is "one that lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Id. Note (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Bell v. Mayview State Hosp., 853 A.2d 1058, 1062 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirming dismissal of frivolous action under Rule 240(j) based upon the plaintiff's failure to "set forth a valid cause of action"). "Our review of a decision dismissing an action pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j) is limited to a determination of whether the plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated and whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law." Ocasio v. Prison Health Servs., 979 A.2d 352, 354 (Pa. Super. 2009).
As noted, the trial court dismissed this case as frivolous under the common law doctrine of lis pendens. Under lis pendens, when two suits are pending, a court may dismiss "the newer suit if both suits involve the same parties, the same relief requested, the same causes of action, and the same rights asserted." Barren v. Commonwealth, 74 A.3d 250, 253 (Pa. Super. 2013). This doctrine "protect[s] a party from being forced to litigate the same issues in several suits at the same time[;]" saves "judicial resources[;]" and prevents inconsistent results. Id. The doctrine of lis pendens presents a pure "question of law" subject to de novo review and "determinable from an inspection of the pleadings." PNC Bank, Nat. Ass'n v. Bluestream Tech., Inc., 14 A.3d 831, 835-36 (Pa. Super. 2010).
*
As a threshold issue, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in raising sua sponte the doctrine of lis pendens. Appellant's Br. at 23-24. His argument, however, consists of a brief paragraph, which fails to explain the relevance of the authority he cites. Id. We, thus, conclude that Appellant waived this issue by failing to develop his argument, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111 and 2119. See Kaur v. Singh, 259 A.3d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2021). Moreover, we observe that Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1) expressly provides courts with authority to dismiss a frivolous case while considering an in forma pauperis petition. In light of the authority provided by Rule 240(j)(1), we conclude that the court did not err in addressing sua sponte whether this case is frivolous under the doctrine of lis pendens.
Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Taylor, 622 A.2d 329 (Pa. Super. 1993) and Commonwealth v. Murphy, 451 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 1982), which discourage courts from raising issues sua sponte. Appellant's Br. at 21. Neither of these cases, however, address a court's authority under Rule 240(j)(1).
On the merits, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the case under the doctrine of lis pendens. Appellant's Br. at 21-23. He asserts that the claims raised in the two cases differed, given that the instant action additionally seeks declaratory judgments relating to the Numoda Stock Transfer Agreement that requires majority approval of any stock transfer. Id. Upon careful review of the record, and specifically the pleadings in the June 2022 case and the instant action, we conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing the instant action based on lis pendens, as the cases satisfy each of the doctrine's requirements.
First, it is undisputed that both actions involve the same parties. Second, we reject Appellant's argument that the two cases did not seek the same relief. Rather, the additional declarations sought in the instant case are merely responses to defenses Numoda and the Corporate Officers raised in the June 2022 case, invoking the Numoda Stock Transfer Agreement. Thus, as the trial court stated, both actions seek the same relief, specifically the enforcement of the May 19, 2020 family court order awarding the contested shares to Appellant and the prevention of any obstruction of that transfer by Numoda and the Corporate Officers. Trial Ct. Op. at 3.
Finally, we conclude that Appellant asserts the same causes of action and rights. As explained by the trial court, while Appellant "does not set forth specific causes of action in each complaint, both cases raise claims of breach of contract, contempt of court order, and breach of Numoda's corporate bylaws." Id. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding that the doctrine of lis pendens bars the instant action.
Moreover, because lis pendens bars this action, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the instant filing is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the instant action as frivolous pursuant to Rule 240(j)(1).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.