Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2024

Lepre, G. and Lepre, J. v. BMW of North America

Lepre, G. and Lepre, J. v. BMW of North America
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Decided February 7, 2024 · Bowes, J.

Lepre, G. and Lepre, J. v. BMW of North America

Opinion

J-A03007-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 GERALD S. LEPRE AND JESSICA L. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LEPRE, HIS WIFE : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellants : : : v. : : : No. 1453 WDA 2022 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC AND : SEWICKLEY CAR STORE, INC. D/B/A : SEWICKLEY BMW : Appeal from the Order Entered November 8, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): AR-21-004361

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED: February 7, 2024 Gerald S. and Jessica L. Lepre have appealed pro se from an order that clarified and amended prior orders that transferred some claims to arbitration, dismissed Gerald Lepre as a plaintiff as to some counts, and stayed other claims pending the disposition of the arbitration.1 In this Court, the Lepres filed a bevy of applications for relief and obtained a continuance of the oral argument initially scheduled for November 14, 2023. The matter was rescheduled for argument to take place on January 30, 2024. When the case was called, counsel for Sewickley Car Store d/b/a Sewickley BMW appeared. ____________________________________________

1 This Court issued, then discharged, a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed as interlocutory, and deferred ruling on whether the appeal was properly from a collateral order.

J-A03007-24

The Lepres did not, nor did they advise the Court of any emergency prohibiting their participation.

Pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, “[i]f appellant or the moving party is not ready to proceed when a case is called for oral argument, the matter may be dismissed as of course.” Pa.R.A.P. 2314. We elect to do so with this appeal.2 Appeal dismissed.

2/7/2024

____________________________________________

2 Even if we did not dismiss the appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2314, we would, for the reasons explained in the trial court’s opinion, quash it as being taken from a non-appealable interlocutory order. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/3/23, at 6-9.

-2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.