Summary
In Herman Sheppard Detective System, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, (No. 1827 C.D. 1980, filed March 25, 1981) this Court, sua sponte, quashed an appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Summary of this case from Pa. Cable Tv. Assoc. v. Pa. P.U.COpinion
March 23, 1981.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission — Denial of motion to dismiss — Interlocutory orders.
1. Unless special permission is sought and granted, an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is interlocutory and unappealable and is not within the class of interlocutory orders specifically made appealable by law or rule. [132-3]
Hearing held January 12, 1981, before Judge CRAIG.
Appeal, No. 1827 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, in case of Brink's Incorporated v. Herman Sheppard Detective System, Inc. No. C-79071263 of 1979.
Complaint filed with Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Motion to dismiss complaint for lack of jurisdiction filed by defendant. Motion denied. Defendant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Appeal quashed.
Marc B. Kaplin, with him, Howard Gersham, Lesser Kaplin, P.C., for petitioner.
Kenneth E. Nicely, Assistant Counsel, with him, John G. Alford, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Joseph J. Malatesta, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Herbert R. Nurick, McNees, Wallace Nurick, for Brink's Incorporated, intervenor.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:
Petitioner, Herman Sheppard Detective System, Inc. (Sheppard) has filed a petition for review from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) entered July 31, 1980 which denied Sheppard's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction a complaint filed against it by Brink's, Inc. (Brink's). We sua sponte quash Sheppard's petition for review because it is taken from an order that is interlocutory and not otherwise appealable.
Under prior practice, a Commission order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was considered to be interlocutory and unappealable, Reed v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 174 Pa. Super., 132, 100 A.2d 399 (1953), notwithstanding the appealability of such orders entered at law or in equity under the Act of March 5, 1925, P.L. 23, formerly, 12 Pa.C.S.A. § 672, (Act of 1925) repealed by the Judiciary Act Repealer Act, Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 20002(a) [1069].
Current practice provides that an interlocutory order is unappealable unless specifically made appealable by law or rule, 42 Pa. C. S. § 5105(c); Pa. R.A.P. 311, or by permission, 42 Pa. C. S. § 702(b); Pa. R.A.P. 1301-1323. The order from which petitioner appeals is not appealable by virtue of law or rule, and Brink's has not sought permission to appeal.
We therefore enter the following.
ORDER
NOW, March 23, 1981, we sua sponte quash the above petition for review.