Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Hatchigian v. Cruzado

_ Supreme com _

(-) FILED

991901 MaY26 00

UF THE cy ERK

No.

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

DAVID HATCHIGIAN,

Petitioner,

MARITZA H. CRUZADO,

Respondent.

On Petition For Writ of Certiorari

To The Court Of Appeals Of

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI

David Hatchigian, Pro Se

2414 Township Line Road

Havertown, Pennsylvania

19083 Ps

Tel. (610) 446-7257

Fax. (610) 527- 7516

IOC

II.

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

If a Plaintiff requests a Jury Trial and pays for a

Jury Trial, is the plaintiff guaranteed to Jury Trial

as per Pennsylvania Law and the United States

Constitution?

After Plaintiff takes appeal to Superior Court,

does the Lower Court (Court of Common Pleas)

have the jurisdiction to impose any Orders on the

Plaintiff?

ii

PARTIES

All parties appear in the caption. Petitioner

will referred to by his name, “Hatchigian”;

Respondent will be referred to as “Cruzado”.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .... i

PARTIES. ......cccccccscccccecccccescccsecscccsecssesenses ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........ceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........-:0sseeeeereess iv

CITATION TO OPINION ........:seeeeeeererserereees 1

JURISDICTION .......ccccesceseeceneeeeeeeeeneeneeeees 1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ........--++++ 1

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL .. 2

REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT .........+--- 7

1. Hatchigian has been denied his

Constitutional Right for a Trial by

JULGYs ..ccccccrrccccrsssecensccensenscssereeesseeonsoees 7

ll. After Hatchigian takes an Appeal to

Superior Court, the Lower Court (Court of

Common Pleas) does not have the

jurisdiction to impose any Orders on

Hatchigiam. ............:::::cccceseseeseeeeeeeeeees 4

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure, 1701

15a nbs scqaidoinin tun diad hase teh tases ete 4,5

Rosenberg v. Holy Redeemer Hospital, 352 Pa.

Super 399, 506 A 2d 1012 (1986) ...... 5

Fiore v. Oakwood Plaza Shopping Center, 401 Pa.

Super 446, 5854 A2d. 1012 (1991) .... 5

In Interest of Smith, 396 Pa. Super 624, 599 A2d.

Rr CSE 6iisieescsesacinisruaidesiiccacnns 5

Seventh AMENGMEN .......06ccccccccccccsees passim

Fourteenth Amendment ..................5. passim

Other Authorities:

en ARs. | RM ‘sesnisiclaceudiniaipaciissins 1

1

CITATION TO OPINION

A reproduction of Pennsylvania Superior

Court opinion denying Hatchigian Trial by Jury.

The opinion is reproduced in the Appendix.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also denied

Hatchigian Trial by Jury by affirming the

Pennsylvania Superior Court Order. The opinion

is reproduced in the Appendix.

JURISDICTION

The United States Supreme Court has

jurisdiction of the case pursuant fo 28 U.S.C.

1257.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Order,

September 21, 1999.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ordered,

February 29, 2000.

This Petition of certiorari is timely filed on or

before May 30, 2000.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

The Seventh Amendment of the Constitution

of the United States: ‘“...where the value in

controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of

trial by jury shall be preserved, ... “.

The Fourteenth Amendment of __ the

Constitution of the United States: “... nor shall

any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law; esate

2

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:

This Petition for Allowance of Appeal is filed by

Hatchigian, pro se, from an Order of the Pennsyl-

vania Supreme Court, February 29, 2000 (App.

11, 12), which Quashed the Appellant’s Appeal to

Set Aside an Order of the Court of Common Pleas

of Philadelphia-County.

1. Hatchigian the Appellant is proceeding Pro

Se and his address is 2414 Township Line Road,

Havertown, Pennsylvania 19083.

2. Cruzado’s current address is unknown.

3. Hatchigian owned a duplex apartment

building in Philadelphia and leased an apartment

in the building to Cruzado.

4. Cruzado during the term of her lease

stopped the payment of rent. Hatchigian filed for

an eviction.

S. Cruzado was thereafter represented by

David Denenberg, Esquire, who claimed Hatch-

igian was acting in “retaliation” against “Cruzado”.

He cited a section of the law which prohibited any

“retaliation” action being filed against a tenant

solely due to his or her membership in a “tenants’

association”.

3

6. Hatchigian was representing himself pro se

and he asked for a Trial by Jury. Hatchigian paid

one hundred and fifty ($150.00) dollars for the

Trial by Jury. He appeared before the Honorable

Alan K. Silberstein in case Number CCP 96-03-

682 on May 30, 1996. Judge Silberstein refused

to permit Hatchigian to have the case heard before

a Jury even though Hatchigian had paid the fee

for a Jury Trial. Judge Silberstein directed

Hatchigain to “settle” the case by paying three

hundred ($300.00) dollars in attorney’s fees to

David H. Denenberg, Esquire, even though Hatch-

igian had won the case against Cruzado and

regained possession from Cruzado.

7. On May 30, 1996, Judge Silberstein met

with David H. Denenberg by privately in

Chambers and then had Hatchigian come into

Chambers and directed Hatchigian to “settle” the

case. Judge Silberstein then directed Hatchigian

to stand in front of him in Court and ordered

Hatchigian to settle the case by paying three

hundred ($300.00) dollars to David H. Denenberg,

Esquire. He asked Hatchigian if he “understood”

and Hatchigian responded he _ understood.

Hatchigian never said he voluntarily would settle

the case as ordered.

8. Judge Silberstin told Hatchigian that if he

persisted in his demand for a Jury Trial, Rule 212

required Hatchigian pay twenty five hundred

($2500.00) dollars per day if the Jury awarded

more than ten ($10.00) dollars in addition to

David H. Denenberg’s demand.

4

9. On June 24, 1996, Hatchigian wrote to

Judge Silberstein (App. 13) telling him he never

agreed to “settle” the case and once again

requested Jury Trial. Judge Silberstein denied

that request.

10. On June 25, 1996, Hatchigian filed an

Appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania

from Judge Silberstein’s Order in the case dated

May 30, 1996. Hatchigian also filed a Motion

requesting Judge Silberstein recuse himself from

the Case based on prejudice and to appoint

another Judge to hear the Case. Judge Silber-

stein refused to recuse himself from the Case.

11. On November 7, 1996, Hatchigian

appeared before Judge Silberstein, in his

Courtroom, number 1103. Judge Silberstein

ordered the Sheriff, who was armed and had

handcuffs in hand, to stand behind Hatchigian,

while he Ordered/coerced Hatchigian to pay an

additional one hundred ($100.00) dollars to David

H. Denenberg, Esquire. Hatchigian attempted to

explain that Judge Silberstein could not enter an

Order because the case had been appealed to

Pennsylvania Superior Court. Judge Silberstein

ignored the request. Within the motion to set

aside an Order of the Court, Hatchigian referred

to Rule 1701, Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate

Procedure as found in subparagraph (a) which

states:

5

“General Rule. Except as otherwise

prescribed by these rules, after an appeal is

taken or review of a quasi judicial Order is

sought, the trial court or other governmen-

tal unit may no longer proceed further in

the matter”.

After an Appeal is taken, the Lower court

retains jurisdiction only over previous Orders to

maintain a Status Quo. Otherwise the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia has lost juris-

diction once an Appeal has been filed and the

Order of November 7, 1996 is therefore- invalid,

having been entered by the Court of Common

Pleas of Philadelphia after an Appeal has been

filed. Rosenberg v. Holy Redeemer Hospital, 352

Pa. Super 399, 506 A 2d 1012 (1986) Fiore v.

Oakwood Plaza Shopping Center, 401 Pa. Super

446, 5854 A2d. 1012 (1991), In Interest of Smith,

396 Pa. Super 624, 599 A2d. 889 (1990).

Judge Silberstein never prepared nor filed

an Opinion giving reason for his unusual actions.

12. Hatchigian filed a Civil Docketing State-

ment with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, but

was not told to file a Brief nor given an

opportunity to argue the Case. On February 4,

1997, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania entered

an Order (App. 9, 10) denying the “appellant’s

motion to set aside the trial court order of

November 7, 1996, Per Curiam.”

6

13. Opposing counsel did not file a brief in

opposition to Hatchigian’s brief and he was not

permitted to argue before the Superior Court of

Pennsylvania. Nonetheless, the Superior Court of

Pennsylvania has dismissed the Appeal on a

procedural grounds which is without basis.

Hatchigian never agreed to “settle” the case but

only acknowledged he understood the Court was

insisting he do so. It was clear that the Judge

was intimidating Hatchigian simply because he

did not want to give the time to provide Hatchigian

his “day in Court”. All this is in violation of the

Rules of Civil Procedure and Hatchigian has been

denied his Constitutional Right to Due Process of

Law.

14. Hatchigian respectfully petitions the United

States Supreme Court to permit an Allowance of

Appeal since he has never been given an

opportunity to argue this case before the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia. The Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia has_ ignored

Hatchigian’s request for a Trial by Jury and

entered an order requiring he pay the total sum of

four hundred ($400.00) dollars to David H.

Denenberg, Esquire, for sanctions.

15. Once the February 4, 1997 Order (App. 9,

10) from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania was

received by David H. Denenberg, Esquire, and the

Honorable Alan K. Silberstein, Judge Silberstein

entered an order (App. 7, 8) directing Hatchigian

to appear before him on March 20, 1997 at 2:00

PM in Courtroom 1103, in the Criminal Justice

Center, 1301 Filbert

)

7

Street, Philadelphia, PA. The letter of

communication informing Hatchigian of the

Hearing is signed by Marisa S. Shuter, Esquire,

Law Clerk to Judge Alan K. Silberstein and

concludes by saying: “It is strongly suggested that

Mr. Hatchigian bring the four hundred ($400.00)

~ dollars with him to the hearing”.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION

I. Hatchigian has been denied his

Constitutional Right for a Trial by Jury.

Il. After Hatchigian takes an Appeal to the

Superior Court, the Lower court (Court of

Common Pleas) does not have the

jurisdiction to impose any Orders on

Hatchigian.

WHEREFORE, Hatchigian petitions the United

States Supreme Court to enter an order directing

the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia

County to Schedule a Trial by Jury.

Respectfully submitted,

David Hatchigian,

2414 Township Line Road

Havertown, Pennsylvania

19083

Tel. (610) 446-7257

Fax. (610) 527-7516

App. 1

J.A30007 /99

DAVID HATCHIGIAN — : IN THE SUPERIOR

COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

MARITA CRUZADO

Appellee : No. 2365

Philadelphia 1996

Appeal from the Order Dated May 30, 1996

in the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No.

682, March Term, 1996.

Before: ORIE MELVIN, SCHILLER, and LALLY-

GREEN, JJ.

JUDGMENT

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOPF: it is now

ordered and adjudged by this Court that the

appeal from the ORDER DATED of the Court of

Common Pleas of PHILADELPHIA County be,

and is hereby QUASHED.

BY THE COURT:

(Signature)

PROTHONOTARY

Dated: SEPTEMBER 21, 1999

App. 2

J.A30007 /99

DAVID HATCHIGIAN ~ : IN THE SUPERIOR

: COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

MARITA CRUZADO

Appellee : No. 2365

Philadelphia 1996

Appeal from the Order Dated May 30, 1996

in the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No.

682, March Term, 1996.

Before: ORIE MELVIN, SCHILLER, and LALLY-

GREEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM: (Stamp) FILED SEP 2 1 1999

Apellant David Hatchigian appeals from an

order dated May 30, 1996, and docketed June 5,

1996, which settled this landlord-tenant action.

We quash the appeal as moot.

Appellant commenced this action for

eviction due to late payment and/or nonpayment

of rent. The municipal court awarded Appellant

possession but entered judgment against him on

Appellee’s counterclaim. Appellant appealed to

common pleas court. Docket entry, 3/7/96. After

an off-the-record conference on May 30, 1996,a

App. 3

settlement was arranged and placed on the record

which obligated Appellant to pay Appellee $300.

N.T., 5/30/96, at unnumbered page 10.

Appellant nevertheless filed a notice of appeal on

June 25, 1996. Docket Entry, 6/25/96. On June

23, 1997, after

J.A30007 /99

execution proceedings,! the judgment against

Appellant was marked satisfied. Docket Entry,

6/23/97.

The satisfaction of a judgment “forever

discharge(s] the judgment.” 42 Pa.C.S.A.

8104(a); Kalman v. Muzika, 450 A.2s 1025 (Pa.

Super. 1982). Once judgment has been satisfied,

there no longer exists any obligation and all

questions of liability and damages are

extinguished. Wilk v. Kochara, 647 A.2d 595,

596 (Pa. Super. 1994); Linde Enterprises v.

Hazelton City Authority, 602 A.2d 897, 901 (Pa.

Super. 1992). Since the present case has been

settled and the judgment has been satisfied, there

are no issues properly before the Court.

Accordingly, we quash the appeal.

Appeal quashed.

1 Appellant did not file the appropriate security

required for his appeal to act as a stay or

supersedeas of execution proceedings. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1731(a).

App. 4

COMMON PLEAS COURTS OF THE

PHILADELPHIA

CIVIL LISTING SECTION

TRIAL WORK SHEET

NO. CCP 96-03-682

CAPTION - David Hatchigian v. Maritza H.

Cruzadi

PROGRAM - NON JURY CASE TYPE -

MUNICIPAL COURT

APPEAL (LT)

DATE OF ASSIGNMENT - 5/20/96

DATE OF DISPOSITION - 5/30/96

DISPOSITION AS TO ALL PARTIES -

SETTLED, DISCONTINUED AND ENDED.

DATE OF DISPOSITION AND TRIAL (DAYS)

fig TRIED TO VERDICT

/XX/ SETTLED DURING TRIAL

pug SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO TRAIL

gig SETTLED AT SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE

ae | NON-TRIAL OTHER THAN

SETTLEMENT

DISPOSITION

ae OTHER

App. 5

(Signature)

ALAN K. SILBERSTEIN,

JUDGE

PLAINTIFF

David Hatchigian

2414 Township Line Road

Havertown, PA 19083

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY

David H. Denenberg, Esquire

1200 Walnut Street/Sixth Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19107-5499 546-1345

App. 6

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

PHILADEPLPHIA

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TRIAL DIVISION - CIVIL SECTION

DAVID HATCHIGIAN : March, 1996

vs.

MARITZA H. CRUZADO : NO: 682

ORDER

AND NOW to wit this 7“ day of November,

1996, upon consideration of the Affidavit of David

H. Denenberg, Esquire, counsel for the Defendant,

Maritza H. Cruzadi, and the exhibits attached

thereto, and upon finding that payment was not

made after a hearing on the same, it is HEREBY

ORDERED and DECREED:

That in addition to the settlement funds of

$300.00, the above-named Plaintiff, David

Hatchigian, is ordered to pay forthwith an

additional sum of $100.00 representing

attorneys fee for a total of $400.00. Said

$400.00 to be paid to counsel for the

Plaintiff, David H. Denenberg, within twenty

days from the date hereof, or the plaintiff

will suffer appropriate sanctions.

(Signature)

ALAN K. SILBERSTEIN, J.

\appeals \hat

App. 7

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILADELPHIA MUNICIPAL COURT

JUDICIAL CHAMBERS ~

1303 CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER

1301 FILBERT STREET

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107

(215) 683-7200/01

(Seal)

ALAN K. SILBERSTEIN

PRESIDENT JUDGE

February 13, 1997

David Denenberg, Esquire David Hatchigian

Sixth Floor/1200 Walnut Street 2414 Township

Philadelphia, PA 19017 Line Road

Havertown, PA

19083

RE: Hatchigian v. Cruzado

CCP: 9603-682

Dear Mr. Denenberg anf Mr. Hatchigian:

As you are both aware, on November 7, 1996,

Judge Silberstein entered an order instructing Mr.

Hatchigian to pay a total of $400.00 within twenty

(2) days or suffer appropriate sanctions.

According to Mr. Denenberg, the $400.00 has not

been paid. Therefore, Judge Silberstein has

scheduled a hearing in this matter for

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1997, AT 2:00 PM IN

COURTROOM 1103, CRIMINAL JUSTICE

CENTER, 1301 FILBERT STREET. It is strongly

App. 8

suggested that Mr. Hatchigian bring the $400.00

with him to the hearing.

Very truly yours,

(Signature)

MARISA S. SHUTER,

ESQUIRE

LAW CLERK TO:

JUDGE ALAN K.

SILBERSTEIN

mss/meg

App. 9

(Seal)

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Office of the Prothonotary

530 WALNUT STREET

THIRD FLOOR, SUITE 316

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106

DAVID A. SZEWCZAK, ESQUIRE (215) 560-5800

PROTHONOTARY

BIATRICE CURTISS

DEPUTY PROTHONOTARY

February 4, 1997

David Hatchigian, Pro Se

2414 Township Line Road

Havertown, pa 19083

RE: David Hatchigian, Appellant v.

Marita Cruzado

No. 02365 Philadelphia, 1996

Dear Mr. Hatchigian:

This is to advise that the Attached order has

been entered in the above-captioned matter.

Very truly yours,

(Signature)

David A. Szewczak

Prothonotary

DAS:mlk

Enclosure

cc: David H. Denenberg, Esquire

App. 10

David Hachigian : IN THE SUPERIOR

COURT OF

Apellant : PENNSYLVANIA

Vv.

(C.P. Phila. Cnty.

No. 682 March

Term, 1996)

No. 2365

Philadelphia, 1996

: Filed: February 4,

Marita Cruzado : 1997

ORDER

The appellant’s motion to set aside the trial court

order of November 7, 1996 is DENIED.

Per Curiam

App. 11

(Seal)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Eastern District

JOHN W. PERSON, ESQ. 448 CITY HALL

DEPUTY PROTHONOTARY PHILADELPHIA,

PA 19107

PATRICIA JOHNSON http: //www.courts.

CHIEF CLERK state.pa.us

February 29, 2000

TO: David Hatchigian, Esquire

RE: DAVID HATCHIGIAN PETITIONER

v.

RE: MARITZA H. CRUZADI RESPONDENT

No. 0797 E.D. Allocatur Docket 1999

Dear Counsel:

This is to advise you that the attached order

has been entered on the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal filed in the above-captioned matter.

Very truly yours,

Office of the Prothonotary

Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania

App. 12

/rdh

c: Honorable Alan Silberstein

Philadelphia; 0682 March Term 1996; Civil

David H. Denenberg, Esquire.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DAVID HATCHIGIAN, - : No. 797 E.D. Alloc.

: Dkt. 1999

Petitioner : Petition for

Allowance of

Appeal from

Superior Court

v.

MARITZA H. CRUZADI, :

Respondent

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29% day of February, 2000,

the petition for allowance of appeal is denied.

(Stamp)

TRUE COPY FROM RECORD

Attest: FEB 29, 2000

(Signature)

Patricia Johnson, Chief Clerk

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Eastern Division

App. 13

FAX (215) 527-7516 (215) 527-7513

ANS. MACHINE

DAVID HATCHIGIAN

2414 Township Line Road

Havertown, PA 19083

June 24, 1996

The Honorable Alan K. Silberstein

1303 Criminal Justice Center

1301 Filbert Street

Philadelphia, PA. 19107

CASE CAPTION: David Hatchigian v. Maritza

Cruzado

TERM + NO.: CCP 96-03-682

Dear Judge Silberstein:

I have enclosed a letter dated June 10, 1996 from

David Denenberg. I do not agree to the settlement

of the case as stated in this letter.

I stood before you on May 30, 1996, concerning

this case and have the following comments:

1. I requested a jury trial which I believe I am

entitled to under the U.S. Constitution.

2. I recall that you ordered me to settle this

case for $300.00. You asked if I understood

the order.

3. I understood your decision, but I did not

agree with it.

App. 14

4. You indicated that if 1 wanted a jury trial,

there would be, as per your interpretation of

Rule 212, a $2500 per day cost to me fora

jury trial if the jury awarded more than your

judgment plus ten dollars or more.

I respectfully request a jury trial to be scheduled

and if I am not granted a jury trial, I will have no

other alternative than to appeal to Superior Court.

Respectfully yours,

(Signature)

David Hatchigian

DH/nd

cc.: ABRAMSON & DENEBERG