McCord v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform

Decision Date18 March 2016
Docket NumberNo. 87 M.D. 2014,87 M.D. 2014
Citation136 A.3d 1055
PartiesRobert M. McCORD, in his official capacity as the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff v. PENNSYLVANIANS FOR UNION REFORM, and Simon Campbell, President, Defendants.
CourtPennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Christopher Craig, Chief Counsel, Jennifer Langan, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Kathryn Cerulli, Assistant Counsel, Harrisburg, for plaintiff.

Joshua D. Bonn, Harrisburg, for defendants.

BEFORE: BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge1 , P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge, and ANNE E. COVEY, Judge.

OPINION BY Judge ANNE E. COVEY

.

Robert M. McCord, in his official capacity as the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (State Treasurer)2 moves this Court for partial judgment on the pleadings (Motion), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Pennsylvanians for Union Reform (PFUR). The issues before this Court are: (1) whether there are genuine issues of fact, and (2) whether the State Treasurer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Background

On January 15, 2014, the State Treasurer received a letter from PFUR's counsel requesting production of the executive branch employee list compiled and purportedly submitted to Pennsylvania's Treasury Department (Department) in accordance with Section 614 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (Administrative Code)3 (List). Section 614 of the Administrative Code provides:

(a) All administrative departments, boards, and commissions and the Attorney General shall on July 15 of each year, transmit to the Auditor General, the State Treasurer and Secretary of the Budget a complete list, and to the Legislative Data Processing Center a computer tape of such list, as of July 1 preceding, of the names of all persons, except day-laborers, entitled to receive compensation from the Commonwealth for services rendered in or to the department, board, or commission, as the case may be. Such list shall show for each such person the position occupied, the date of birth, county of residence, voting residence, the salary at which or other basis upon which such person is entitled to be paid, the date of entry into the service of the Commonwealth, whether such person has been continuously employed by the Commonwealth since that date, and all periods of service and positions held as an employe of the Commonwealth, or such part of such information related to previous service and positions as the Governor may prescribe.
(a.1) The Auditor General and the State Treasurer shall on July 15 of each year transmit to the Secretary of the Budget a complete list, and to the Legislative Data Processing Center a computer tape of such list, as of July 1 preceding, of the names of all persons, except day-laborers, entitled to receive compensation from the Commonwealth for services rendered in or to the Auditor General or the State Treasurer, as the case may be. Such list shall show the position occupied by each such person, the date of birth and voting residence of such person, the salary at which or other basis upon which such person is entitled to be paid, the date when such person entered the service of the Commonwealth, whether such person has been continuously employed by the Commonwealth since that date, and all periods of service and positions held as an employe of the Commonwealth.
(b) No later than the 15th of each month thereafter, the Attorney General, the heads of the several administrative departments, and the several independent administrative boards and commissions, shall certify to the Auditor General, the State Treasurer and the Secretary of the Budget any changes in the annual list of employes last transmitted to them which shall have occurred during the preceding month and shall provide to the Legislative Data Processing Center a computer tape of such changes.
(b.1) No later than the 15th of each month thereafter, the Auditor General and the State Treasurer shall certify to the Secretary of the Budget any changes in the annual list of employes last transmitted to them which shall have occurred during the preceding month and shall provide to the Legislative Data Processing Center a computer tape of such changes.
(c) The information received by the Auditor General, the State Treasurer and the Secretary of the Budget, under this section, shall be public information, except that the information identifying the voting residence of the persons employed by the Commonwealth shall not be public information and may not be treated as such.

71 P.S. § 234

(emphasis added). PFUR's request specified that it was not made under the Right–to–Know Law (RTKL).4

By January 22, 2014 letter, the State Treasurer replied that it would consider PFUR's request under the RTKL and respond within 30 days. On January 27, 2014, PFUR informed the State Treasurer that since the List was not sought under the RTKL, if the State Treasurer did not comply, PFUR intended to proceed with a mandamus action to enforce the Administrative Code.

On February 24, 2014, the State Treasurer filed a petition for review in the nature of a complaint against PFUR and its president Simon Campbell (Campbell) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the State Treasurer's application of the RTKL and the personal safety and identification exemptions contained therein to PFUR's List request. On March 11, 2014, with leave of Court, the State Treasurer filed an Amended Complaint, wherein, he requested a declaration from this Court that:

• All requests for the production of records[ ] identified as ‘public’ pursuant to the Administrative Code[ ] are governed by the [RTKL]; and
• The [RTKL]'s exceptions for public records are applicable to all requests for public records; including records identified as ‘public’ pursuant to the Administrative Code; and
• Pursuant to the [Pennsylvania Web Accountability and Transparency Act (PennWATCH Act)5 ], the [RTKL]'s exceptions for publicizing records are applicable to requests for public records identified under the Administrative Code.

Amended Complaint at 2; see also Amended Complaint at 22.

On March 28, 2014, PFUR filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the Amended Complaint. On May 14, 2014, this Court granted an application to intervene filed by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 13, AFL–CIO; the Federation of State, Cultural and Educational Professionals, Local 2382 American Federation of Teachers of Pennsylvania, AFL–CIO; and the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1776, AFL–CIO (collectively, the Unions).

On June 23, 2014, the State Treasurer opposed PFUR's preliminary objections, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Administration (OA) filed an amicus curiae brief in opposition to PFUR's preliminary objections. On June 26, 2014, the Unions also filed a brief in opposition to PFUR's preliminary objections in which they adopted the State Treasurer's arguments. After hearing argument on PFUR's preliminary objections, this Court, by September 24, 2014 order, overruled PFUR's first preliminary objection because the Amended Complaint stated a cause of action against PFUR, and directed PFUR to answer the Amended Complaint. McCord v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, 100 A.3d 755 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014)

(McCord I ).6

On October 14, 2014, PFUR timely filed an answer, new matter and counterclaim to the Amended Complaint.7 On that same date, PFUR filed a third-party complaint joining OA as an additional defendant.8 The State Treasurer answered PFUR's new matter on November 3, 2014. The Unions incorporated the State Treasurer's reply in their answer to PFUR's new matter. On November 14, 2014, OA filed an answer and new matter to PFUR's third-party complaint.9 The pleadings are now closed.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

“Any move for a judgment on the pleadings after relevant pleadings are closed but within such time as not to unreasonably delay the trial.” Mun. Auth. of the Borough of Midland v. Ohioville Borough Mun. Auth., 108 A.3d 132, 136 (Pa.Cmwlth.2015)

; see also Pa.R.C.P. No. 1034(a). If a court deems it proper, partial judgment can be entered on the pleadings. Jeffrey Structures, Inc. v. Grimaldi, 186 Pa.Super. 437, 142 A.2d 378 (1958). “The court must treat [a] motion [for judgment on the pleadings] as if it were a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer.” Piehl v. City of Phila., 604 Pa. 658, 987 A.2d 146, 154 (2009). Accordingly,

[w]hen ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, we view all of the opposing party's allegations as true, and only those facts that the opposing party has specifically admitted are considered against the opposing party. We consider only the pleadings themselves and any documents properly attached to them. We grant judgment on the pleadings only when there is no genuine issue of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Stilp v. Gen. Assembly, 929 A.2d 660, 661–62 n. 3 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007)

(citations omitted; emphasis added), aff'd, 601 Pa. 429, 974 A.2d 491 (2009). “Such a motion may be granted only where the law is clear that a trial would be a fruitless exercise.” Stoppie v. Johns, 720 A.2d 808, 809 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998).

Our Supreme Court has declared that courts considering a plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings are limited to reviewing the complaint and the answer and new matter. Herman v. Stern, 419 Pa. 272, 213 A.2d 594 (1965)

. However, where, as here, the State Treasurer also seeks review of PFUR's counterclaim, this Court is authorized to consider the counterclaim and the State Treasurer's reply thereto. Bata v. Central–Penn Nat'l Bank of Phila., 423 Pa. 373, 224 A.2d 174 (1966).

Here, the State Treasurer seeks judgment on the pleadings in his and the Unions'10 favor. PFUR opposed the Motion on December 31, 2014. The State Treasurer responded to PFUR's opposition on January 12, 2015.

Initially, the State Treasurer represents in the Motion that [t]here are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Markham v. Wolf
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • 22 Septiembre 2016
    ...as to the rights, status or legal relationships is appropriate only where there exists an actual controversy. McCord v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, 136 A.3d 1055 (Pa.Cmwlth.2016). "An actual controversy exists when litigation is both imminent and inevitable and the declaration sought w......
  • Eleven Eleven Pa., LLC v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • 14 Agosto 2017
    ...judgment as to the rights, status or legal relationships is appropriate only where an actual controversy exists. McCord v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, 136 A.3d 1055 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). "An actual controversy exists when litigation is both imminent and inevitable and the declaration sou......
  • Reese v. Pas. for Union Reform
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 22 Noviembre 2017
    ...Court denied partial judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the Treasurer's request for injunctive relief. McCord v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform , 136 A.3d 1055 (Pa. Commw. 2016) (" McCord II "). The Commonwealth Court determined that, as a matter of law, the List required by section 6......
  • Pennsylvanians for Union Reform v. Pa. Dep't of State, 1852 C.D. 2015
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • 23 Mayo 2016
    ...and “[i]n analyzing this matter, we are guided by the Statutory Construction Act of 1972.” McCord v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, 136 A.3d 1055, 1060–61, 1063, 2016 WL 1078340 (Pa.Cmwlth.2016) (quoting Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board v. Office of Open Records, 628 Pa. 163, 103 A.3d 12......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT