HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-5276 NM Karla A. Nickerson
vs Case No. 2001 — 5276
Van C. Nickerson
Statement of Intention to Proceed
To the Court:
c..-
The Plaintiff intends to proceeI with the above caption Matter-7)
Print Name Marcus A. McKnight, III Sign Name ....— ':
" : -"
Date: October 21. 2013 Attorney for Plaintiff ==r =?
Explanatory Comment
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of
inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit
comment.
I.Rule of civil Procedure
New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the
scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously
governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is
tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting
local rules.
This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v.Eagle,551 Pa.360,710 A.2d
1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required
before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901."
Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The
general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision(a)of that rule continues to be applicable.
II Inactive Cases
The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the
court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity,the course of the procedure is with the parties.
If the parties do not wish to pursue the case,they will take no action and"the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of
course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter,he or she
will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue.
a. Where the action has been terminated
If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed
under Rule230(d)for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination
of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file
the notice of intention to proceed.
The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of
the entry of the order of termination on the docket,subdivision(d)(2)provides that the court must grant the petition and
reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision(d)(3)requires that the plaintiff
must make a showing to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or
legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of
termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision(d)(2).
B. Where the action has not been terminated
An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may
have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a
common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.