Lautek Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review
| Decision Date | 06 September 1990 |
| Citation | 136 Pa.Cmwlth. 79,583 A.2d 7 |
| Parties | LAUTEK CORPORATION, Petitioner v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent. . Heard |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Jeffrey T. Tucker, with him, Mary Anne Clausen, Curtin and Heefner, Morrisville, for petitioner.
William A. Slaughter, with him, Walter M. Einhorn, Jr., Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, for respondent/claimant, George M. Willbanks.
In this appeal by Lautek Corporation ("Lautek") from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming the award of benefits to George M. Willbanks, a former employee, Willbanks has filed motions (1) to intervene and for substitution of counsel and (2) to dismiss or quash Lautek's petition for review. We grant the first motion and deny the second.
After the November 13, 1989 decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Lautek, by its former counsel, filed on December 13, 1989 a petition for review in the nature of an appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1511. Lautek served this petition on the board and on former counsel for Willbanks.
The petition for review did not include a notice to participate directed to Willbanks, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1514(c). 1 Because the petition for review did not include a notice to participate, our chief clerk did not docket the case, but instead returned the petition for review to Lautek's former counsel on December 15, 1989 with a form notice indicating the defect and stating:
A CORRECTED PETITION FOR REVIEW MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS COURT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF FILING SHOWN BELOW OR THIS MATTER WILL BE DEEMED WITHDRAWN. COPIES OF THE CORRECTED PETITION FOR REVIEW MUST BE SERVED ON ALL PARTIES PURSUANT TO PA. RAP 1514(c).
The "date of filing shown below" on the form was December 13, 1989. This filing date was stamped on the petition for review when it was received by our filing office.
Lautek's former counsel on December 21, 1989 received the petition returned by our chief clerk. That same day, Lautek's former counsel served a notice to participate on former counsel for Willbanks by hand delivery. However, because of an error by a secretary in the office of Lautek's former counsel, the corrected petition for review, together with an explanatory cover letter addressed to our chief clerk, was mailed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review instead of to this court. The board did not forward the papers to this court, apparently because of an erroneous but understandable conclusion that the papers were an informational or service copy of what Lautek should have filed with this court.
On February 20, 1990, Lautek filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court appointed Lautek's current counsel to serve as special counsel in this case on April 25, 1990.
In May 1990, Lautek's current counsel called our prothonotary's office to inquire concerning the status of this case, and was accurately informed that there was no record of this case in this court. There followed additional investigation both by Lautek's counsel and our prothonotary, and on June 4, 1990 our prothonotary confirmed that the papers which should have been sent to this court on December 21, 1989 instead had been sent by Lautek to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. At the request of our prothonotary, the board forwarded the petition for review to this court. On June 6, 1990, our chief clerk docketed the petition for review as filed and issued a notice of filing.
Willbanks contends that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the petition for review, because he claims Lautek filed the petition for review more than 30 days after the November 13, 1989 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. 3 Willbanks' argument is based upon the following logic:
1. Lautek's "filing" of a petition for review on December 13, 1989 did not toll the 30-day jurisdictional time limit for filing a petition for review, because the petition was insufficient without a notice to participate, and the chief clerk, therefore, returned the petition for review to Lautek without docketing it as filed;
2. Lautek's mailing of a corrected petition for review on December 21, 1989 did not result in the timely filing of a petition for review, because it was more than 30 days after the November 13, 1989 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and because the filing of a petition for review with the board rather than with this court is a nullity even if we had the power to extend Lautek's time for filing a petition for review for 30 days after the return of the petition for review to Lautek, as implied by the form notice issued by our chief clerk; and
3. The petition for review was not filed until docketed by this court on June 6, 1990, well beyond the 30-day time for filing a petition for review in the nature of an appeal from the November 13, 1989 order.
We reject Willbanks' argument, because we hold that Lautek filed a timely petition for review on December 13, 1989.
Although Lautek's original petition for review did not contain a notice to participate as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1514(c), this was not a jurisdictional defect. The required content of a petition for review appears in Pa.R.A.P. 1513. This rule governing content does not contain any provision requiring a notice to participate.
The requirement of a notice to participate under the circumstances applicable to this case appears in Pa.R.A.P. 1514(c), which governs service of the petition for review. The text of the notice 4 is directed to potential intervenors and informs the recipient of the requirement of filing a notice or application for intervention if the recipient intends to participate.
The question of whether the absence of a notice to participate is a fatal defect in a petition for review is of first impression. We find no reason why it should be considered a fatal defect.
A notice to participate under Pa.R.A.P. 1514(c) is analogous to a notice to defend under Pa.R.C.P. 1018.1. No court to our knowledge ever has held a notice to defend to be such an essential part of a complaint that the filing of a complaint without a notice to defend would fail to toll the statute of limitations. Instead, it follows from the Rules of Civil Procedure that the only effect of the failure to include a notice to defend in a complaint is to relieve the defendant of any obligation to plead to the complaint within 20 days after service. See Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a). 5 Certainly no prothonotary or filing clerk ever would be justified in refusing to accept for filing or subsequently returning a complaint because of the absence of a notice to defend.
Similarly, we hold that the only effect of the failure to include a notice to participate in a petition for review is to relieve potential intervenors of the obligation to file an application or notice of intervention within 30 days under Pa.R.A.P. 1531. The absence of the notice to participate does not affect the validity of the petition for review or preclude the tolling of the 30-day time for filing under Pa.R.A.P. 1512(a).
It follows, therefore, that our chief clerk should have docketed the petition for review as filed on December 13, 1989. As noted above, the record shows that the petition for review was stamped as filed on December 13, 1989, and the notice returning the petition for review shows December 13, 1989 as "the date of filing" from which the 30-day...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Synthes USA HQ, Inc. v. Commonwealth
...and include a Notice to Participate directed to the Department. Br. of Intervenor at 6 (citing Lautek Corp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review , 136 Pa.Cmwlth. 79, 583 A.2d 7, 9-10 (1990) ). Alternatively, the Department argues that even if it needs permission to intervene, this Court shou......
-
Bensalem Police Benev. Ass'n v. Bensalem
...(Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (holding that an incorrect caption under Pa. R.A.P. 904 is insufficient to dismiss action). In Lautek Corp. v. UCBR, 136 Pa.Cmwlth. 79, 583 A.2d 7, 8 (1990), an employer filed a petition for review from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, but did n......
-
North Penn Water Authority v. A Certain Parcel of Land Identified by Last Known Owner and Tax Parcel No. as Michael H. Malin and Dorothy Seimel Malin (Block No. 052, Unit 043, Tax Parcel No.: 35-00-06040-00-9
...waived if not pleaded by the defendant. Lautek Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 136 Pa.Commonwealth 79, 84 n. 5, 583 A.2d 7, 9 n. 5 (1990).11 However, where factual issues are not implicated and the local rule relied on is not in conflict with the Eminent Domain Code, the......
-
First Nat. Bank of Bath v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review
...before the court irrespective of a litigant's procedural errors" (Brief at 10, citing Lautek v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 136 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 79, 583 A.2d 7 (1990)). Contrary to employer's contention, Lautek is inapposite to the present case because the petition for rev......