DISCOVER BANK, ISSUER OF DISCOVER CARD, BY IT'S AGENT DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Appellee
DIANNE M. JENKINS, Appellant
Appeal from the Judgment Entered January 29, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County Civil Division at No(s): 11324 of 2009, CA
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J.
Appellant, Dianne M. Jenkins (hereinafter "Jenkins"), appeals from the trial court's order granting a motion for summary judgment filed by Appellees, Discover Bank, et al. (hereinafter "the Bank"), and entering judgment in favor of the Bank in the amount of $16, 548.78. We affirm.
The trial court set forth the procedural history of this case as follows:
[The Bank] commenced this action by Complaint filed [on] August 20, 2009 seeking recovery on an outstanding balance owed on a Discover [Credit] Card. [Jenkins] filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint, which resulted in an Order of Court dated March 26, 2012 directing the filing of an Amended Complaint on May 29, 2012.
On June 19, 2012, [the Bank] forwarded Requests for Admissions to [Jenkins]. [Jenkins] failed to file a timely response to [the Bank's] request for admissions.
On October 29, 2012, [the Bank] filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. By Order of Court dated October 30, 2012, the Court scheduled oral argument on [the Bank's] Motion for Summary Judgment for January 28, 2013. The order directed the moving party, here the [Bank], to file and serve its brief no later than twenty days prior to the argument and directed [Jenkins] as the non-moving party to file her brief no later than ten days prior to the argument.
[The Bank] timely filed its brief and memorandum of law. [Jenkins] has never filed a brief relative to [the Bank's] Motion for Summary Judgment and no brief on behalf of [Jenkins] nor memorandum was filed as of the date of argument, January 28, 2013.
On November 16, 2012, [Jenkins] filed "Preliminary Objections to Motion for Summary Judgment." On November 29, 2012, [the Bank] filed a Motion to Strike [Jenkins'] Preliminary Objections to [the Bank's] Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the day of the scheduled argument, January 28, 2013, the Court, without any prior notice of any continuance request, received [Jenkins'] written Motion for Continuance and denied the same due to late filing, such motion being objected to by [the Bank]. Counsel for [Jenkins] failed to appear at the oral argument.
By Order of Court dated January , 2013, … after hearing the argument of the [Bank], after considering the [Bank's] Memorandum of Law and after a review of the entire record, the Court entered an order which granted the [Bank's] Motion for Summary Judgment and denied ...