local rule in Pennsylvania

2025Harper, Inc., 493 A.2d 732, 734 (Pa. Super. 1985) (“application, construction and interpretation of a local rule are matters primarily to be determined by the court promulgating the local rule”).

1987Harper, Inc., 342 Pa.Super. 560, 563 , 493 A.2d 732, 734 (1985) (citations omitted). [11 It is clear that the local rule, which mandates that the court reporter request and receive full payment of transcription costs, is in conflict and inconsistent with the *324 Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration which permits the court reporter to request and receive up to one-half the estimated cost of transcription as a condition precedent to starting same.

2014Therefore, the President Judge of York County had statutory authorization to issue the 2001 administrative order and impose enting an area attended by minors - 12 - J-S30043-14 the York County Court of Common Pleas, was a valid exercise of the trial See Commonwealth v. Elliot, 50 A.3d 1284 , 1292 (Pa.2012).17 The 2001 administrative order is a local rule that the the orderly administration of justice and the smooth and efficient operation Toth, 476 A.2d at 1369 .

1994Additionally, “the application, construction and interpretation of a local rule of court are matters primarily to be determined by the court promulgating the local rule and we will interfere only where the court commits an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 355 , 476 A.2d 1366 .

1987It is equally well settled that ‘[t]he application, *214 construction and interpretation of a local rule of court are matters primarily to be determined by the court promulgating the local rule[,] and we will interfere only where the court commits an abuse of discretion.’ Gutman v. Rissinger, 334 Pa.Super. 259, 264-265 , 482 A.2d 1324, 1327 (1984), quoting Equipment Finance, Inc. v. Toth, 328 Pa.Super. 351, 355 , 476 A.2d 1366, 1369 (1984).

1987It is equally well settled that ‘[t]he application, *214 construction and interpretation of a local rule of court are matters primarily to be determined by the court promulgating the local rule[,] and we will interfere only where the court commits an abuse of discretion.’ Gutman v. Rissinger, 334 Pa.Super. 259, 264-265 , 482 A.2d 1324, 1327 (1984), quoting Equipment Finance, Inc. v. Toth, 328 Pa.Super. 351, 355 , 476 A.2d 1366, 1369 (1984).

1996Our Supreme Court has previously held that a local rule, which limited the use at trial of witnesses who had not been called at a prior arbitration hearing, violated the de novo provision of the Judicial Code and the Rules of Civil Procedure, opining that the right to trial de novo included the right “to proceed to trial with no evidentiary limitations upon the parties other than those which would be applicable to an original trial.” *605 Weber v. Lynch, 473 Pa. 599, 610 , 375 A.2d 1278, 1283 (1977).

1996Our Supreme Court has previously held that a local rule, which limited the use at trial of witnesses who had not been called at a prior arbitration hearing, violated the de novo provision of the Judicial Code and the Rules of Civil Procedure, opining that the right to trial de novo included the right “to proceed to trial with no evidentiary limitations upon the parties other than those which would be applicable to an original trial.” *605 Weber v. Lynch, 473 Pa. 599, 610 , 375 A.2d 1278, 1283 (1977).

2025Instead, she discourses on statutory interpretation, the historical origins of praecipes in Michigan and Pennsylvania, and meaning of the text of C.C.R.C.P. 206.6 and 208.3(b). 5 See id. at 54- ____________________________________________ 5 At oral argument, Maultz argued that C.C.R.C.P. 208.3(b) conflicts with Pa.R.Civ.P. 208.1(b)(1)(iv), and, therefore, the local rule is invalid.

2025“It is axiomatic that if a local rule conflicts with a statewide rule of procedure, the local rule is invalid.” Mariano v. Rhodes, 270 A.3d 521, 527 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

1990Additionally, it is well-settled that “(t)he application, construction and interpretation of a local rule of court are matters primarily to be determined by the court promulgating the local rule and we will interfere only where the court commits an abuse of discretion.” DeFazio, supra at 125, 507 A.2d at 413 (citations omitted).

1986We are mindful of the fact that a rule of court, like rule 252, should be liberally construed. 5 However, we also recognize that “[t]he application, construction and interpretation of a local rule of court are matters primarily’ to be determined by the court promulgating the local rule and [a reviewing court] will interfere only where the court commits an abuse of discretion.” Gutman , 339 Pa. Super, at 264-265 482 A.2d at 1327 quoting Equipment Finance Inc. v. Toth, 328 Pa. Super. 351 , 355 476 A.2d 1366, 1369 (1984); see also, Defazio v. Labe, 352 Pa. Super. 120 , 507 A.2d 410, 413 (1986).

1990I believe that the Appellants waived this issue by failing to (1) file an answer and brief below, and (2) failing to appear for oral argument before the trial court Unlike cases where the motion for summary judgment is granted solely because the opposing party failed to abide by a local rule requiring a response within a given period of time, Brogan v. Holmes Electric Protection Co., 501 Pa. 234 , 460 A.2d 1093 (1983); Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia v. Willits Woods Associates, 112 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 24, 534 A.2d 862 (1987); Civil Service Commission of the City of Phil

1990I believe that the Appellants waived this issue by failing to (1) file an answer and brief below, and (2) failing to appear for oral argument before the trial court Unlike cases where the motion for summary judgment is granted solely because the opposing party failed to abide by a local rule requiring a response within a given period of time, Brogan v. Holmes Electric Protection Co., 501 Pa. 234 , 460 A.2d 1093 (1983); Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia v. Willits Woods Associates, 112 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 24, 534 A.2d 862 (1987); Civil Service Commission of the City of Phil

2016Commonwealth v. Prisznyak, 452 A.2d 253, 254 (Pa. Super. 1982).

1988Commonwealth v. Prisznyak, 306 Pa. Superior Ct. 137 , 452 A.2d 253 (1982).

2008No. 1035.3(a) allowing thirty days to respond); Murphy v. Armstrong, 424 Pa.Super. 424 , 622 A.2d 992 (1993) (the local rule permitting dismissal of an action for failure to file a brief in response to a demurrer violated Pa. R.C.P.

2008No. 1035.3(a) allowing thirty days to respond); Murphy v. Armstrong, 424 Pa.Super. 424 , 622 A.2d 992 (1993) (the local rule permitting dismissal of an action for failure to file a brief in response to a demurrer violated Pa. R.C.P.

2022“It is axiomatic that if a local rule conflicts with a statewide rule of procedure, the local rule is invalid.” Everhardt v. Akerley, 665 A.2d 1283, 1286 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citations omitted).

2022“It is axiomatic that if a local rule conflicts with a statewide rule of procedure, the local rule is invalid.” Everhardt v. Akerley, 665 A.2d 1283 , 1286 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citations omitted).

2020In any case of noncompliance with a local rule, the court shall alert the party to the specific provision at issue and provide a reasonable time for the party to comply with the local rule.”); Schulz v. Celotex Corp., 669 A.2d 404, 405 (Pa. Super. 1996).

2002Rule 239(f) specifically prohibits the dismissal of any civil action or proceeding for failure to comply with a local rule other than one promulgated under Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. 5 Id. at 404 ; Pa. R.Civ.P. 239(f). ¶ 6 The key distinction is that in Schulz , the motions were dismissed for failure to comply with a local rule, while in the case sub judice, the motions were dismissed for failure to file a supporting brief.

1981See Corcoran v. Fiorentino, 277 Pa.Super. 256 , 419 A.2d 759 (1980) (Opinion per Hoffman, J.) and see Coffey v. Faix, 426 Pa. 421 , 233 A.2d 229 (1967).

1975Thus, in Coffey v. Faix, 426 Pa. 421 (1967), a local rule of court which required disclosure of experts’ reports was sustained, but only on the theory that it could not reach medical experts’ opinions as to the adequacy of the treatment administered by the defendant physician.

1985We said that that rule did “not contemplate a local rule which requires mandatory and inflexible determinations of exceptions according to the dates of filing briefs and without regard for the merits or other considerations of equity and fairness.” Id. 318 Pa.Super. at 448 , 465 A.2d at 39 . *566 In the case sub judice, the trial court interpreted the rule to require dismissal of appellants’ post-trial motion.

1985We said that that rule did “not contemplate a local rule which requires mandatory and inflexible determinations of exceptions according to the dates of filing briefs and without regard for the merits or other considerations of equity and fairness.” Id. 318 Pa.Super. at 448 , 465 A.2d at 39 . *566 In the case sub judice, the trial court interpreted the rule to require dismissal of appellants’ post-trial motion.

2016Applying this holding, in Tanglewood Lakes Community Association v. Pike County Board of Assessment, we held that a trial court could order 7 discovery, stating that “[s]imilarly, in the absence of a state-wide rule, or a local rule of court, we hold that the trial court has the inherent power in its sound discretion to permit or to refuse discovery in tax assessment appeals.” 642 A.2d 581, 583 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).

1996The Court recognized that the civil procedure rules were not applicable to tax assessment appeals and stated that, “in the absence of a statewide rule, or a local rule of court, ... the trial court has the inherent power in its sound discretion to permit or refuse discovery.” Id. 642 A.2d at 583 .

2003It stated the dismissal of the first petition is similar to a judgment of non pros entered in a civil case: “[I]t is well settled that in both of these situations the plaintiff is permitted to commence an identical second action provided the statute of limitations has not expired and the costs of the previous action have been paid.” Id. at 54 , 419 A.2d at 1352. (citations omitted) Corcoran v. Florentino, 277 Pa. Super. 256 , 419 A.2d 759 (1980), involved an appeal of a dismissal for inactivity pursuant to a local rule implementing Judicial Administration Rule 1901.

2003It stated the dismissal of the first petition is similar to a judgment of non pros entered in a civil case: “[I]t is well settled that in both of these situations the plaintiff is permitted to commence an identical second action provided the statute of limitations has not expired and the costs of the previous action have been paid.” Id. at 54 , 419 A.2d at 1352. (citations omitted) Corcoran v. Florentino, 277 Pa. Super. 256 , 419 A.2d 759 (1980), involved an appeal of a dismissal for inactivity pursuant to a local rule implementing Judicial Administration Rule 1901.

2023In Brown v. D. & P. Willow Inc., 686 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 1996),7 the Superior Court permitted the appellant to appeal an order requiring arbitration because the appellant was literally “out of court” after being required to have her “fee dispute” heard by a local bar association committee, rather than a court of record.

2021There was no arbitration agreement between the parties; rather the trial court, sua sponte, ordered the parties to participate in the local bar association’s voluntary fee dispute program and further stated the decision of the program “was to be final and binding on the parties.” Id. at 16 .

2021Likewise, in Weinhold, 635 A.2d at 247 , this Court stated that the lower court abused its discretion in dismissing the landowner’s appeal of a zoning board decision for failure to file a timely brief without first giving the landowner “notice of the proposed dismissal” and “an opportunity to respond and explain the reasons for failing to timely file his brief, the merits of which [the lower court] could either accept or reject in a well-reasoned opinion.” In City of Philadelphia, 497 A.2d 689 , this Court reversed the lower court’s decision dismissing the City’s appeal for failure to comply w

2006Zoning Hearing Bd., 160 Pa.Cmwlth. 462 , 635 A.2d 244, 245-46 (1993).

2018The third case of the Jacobs trio, Marino v. Hackman, 551 Pa. 369 , 710 A.2d 1108 (1998), involved a dismissal by the trial court pursuant to a local rule implementing Pa.R.J.A. 1901, and held that in examining the second prong of the non pros test for inactivity, i.e., whether there were compelling reasons for the delay, a court may consider evidence of non-docket activities.

2018The third case of the Jacobs trio, Marino v. Hackman, 551 Pa. 369 , 710 A.2d 1108 (1998), involved a dismissal by the trial court pursuant to a local rule implementing Pa.R.J.A. 1901, and held that in examining the second prong of the non pros test for inactivity, i.e., whether there were compelling reasons for the delay, a court may consider evidence of non-docket activities.

2018See Appellant’s Brief at 25-26 (citing Pa.R.C.P. 206.4(a)(1), 206.6(a); Phila.Civ.R. 206.4(c), 206.1(a)(1)(iii); U.S. Spaces, Inc. v. Berkshire Hathaway Home Servs., Fox & Roach, 165 A.3d 931, 934 (Pa.Super. 2017)).

2018“The alternative, codified in Pa.R.C.P. 206.6, must be chosen by the adoption of a local rule and provides for the issuance of a rule to show cause ‘as of course.’” U.S. Spaces, 165 A.3d at 933 .

2015Because there was not an automatic dismissal pursuant to a local rule, the court then For a similar case see Ferrante v. Ferrante, 791 A.2d 399 (Pa.super. 2002). 7 Circulated 11/13/2015 11:47 AM focused on whether or not the trial court abused its discretion.

2005As we stated in Ferrante v. Ferrante, 791 A.2d 399 (Pa.Super.2002), the local rule “facilitates the efficient administration of justice by enabling the trial court to ‘insure that matters before the court are disposed of expeditiously.’ ” Ferrante, 791 A.2d at 402-03 (Pa.Super.2002) (citing DeFazio v. Labe, 518 Pa. 390 , 543 A.2d 540 (1988)). ¶ 6 For these reasons, we find that Berks County Rule of Civil Procedure 1920.55 does not violate Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 239(f). ¶ 7 Order affirmed. .

2011It is well-settled that “the application, construction and interpretation of a local rule of court are matters primarily to be determined by the court promulgating the local rule[.]” Patitucci v. Laverty, 576 A.2d 992, 998 (Pa. Super. 1990).

2010Patitucci v. Laverty, 394 Pa.Super. 565 , 576 A.2d 992 (1990).

2010Davies v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 865 A.2d 290 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005).

2008See also Davies v. SEPTA, 865 A.2d 290 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (the local rule allowing only seven days to respond to a motion for summary judgment was declared invalid as inconsistent with Pa. R.C.P.