Appeal of Agency Decision Noncompliance with Scheduling Order Dismissal
Cook v. City of Philadelphia, PICS Case No. 17-1085 (C.P. Philadelphia, Jun. 14, 2017) Anders, J. (4 pages).
Plaintiff's appeal of an agency decision was properly dismissed due to his failure to file a brief in support of his appeal, as required by the court's scheduling order.
Plaintiff sought to be reinstated to the police officer recruit eligibility list for the City of Philadelphia. On September 8, 2016, the director of human resources for the city refused to reinstate him. Plaintiff then filed a timely notice of appeal with the court. On November 17, 2016, the trial court issued a scheduling order which required plaintiff to file a brief in support of his appeal by February 6, 2017. On January 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for extraordinary relief, requested a 120-day discovery period. The court denied the motion for extraordinary relief because plaintiff was not entitled to discovery on appeal.
Plaintiff never filed a brief in support of his appeal. On April 17, 2017, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's appeal due to his failure to comply with the scheduling order, which required the filing of a brief within a specified time.
Philadelphia County did not formally adopt the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate procedure, therefore, the Philadelphia County Rules of Civil Procedure governed local agency appeals. The local rules required a case management order for each agency whose determinations were appealed. Plaintiff, as the moving party, had an affirmative duty to prosecute the appeal, including meeting all court imposed scheduling deadlines. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's appeal for his failure to file a brief within the time provided in the scheduling order.
Dismissal of the appeal without a hearing on the merits did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, because Pennsylvania case law consistently held that dismissing a case for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute without good cause did not violate due process.