McCord v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform
Decision Date | 18 March 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 87 M.D. 2014,87 M.D. 2014 |
Citation | 136 A.3d 1055 |
Parties | Robert 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. |
Court | Pennsylvania 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.
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:
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:
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.
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-
Markham v. Wolf
...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
...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
...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
...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......