Rule 230.2. Termination of Inactive Cases.

(a) General Rule. At least once a year, the court shall initiate proceedings to 

terminate cases in which there has been no activity of record for two years 

or more, and shall report such information to the Court Administrator of 

Pennsylvania on a form supplied by the Administrative Office of 

Pennsylvania Courts or in such format as requested from time to time by 

the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.

[Note: This rule provides an administrative method for the termination of inactive 

cases.]

(b) Notice of Proposed Termination. 

(1) For each case identified pursuant to subdivision (a), the court shall 

serve a notice of proposed termination on counsel of record, and on 

the parties if not represented, [thirty] 30 days prior to the date of the 

proposed termination. The notice shall contain the date of the 

proposed termination and the procedure to avoid termination.

(2) The notice shall be served electronically pursuant to Rule

205.4(g)(1), or pursuant to Rule 440 on counsel of record and on the 

parties, if not represented, at the last address of record.

[Note: If the notice mailed to an attorney is returned by the postal service, the 

prothonotary should check the website of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme 

Court of Pennsylvania, www.padisciplinaryboard.org, for a current address.

See subdivision (f) for the form of notice.]

(c) Termination. If no statement of intention to proceed has been filed on or 

before the date of the proposed termination, the prothonotary shall enter an 

order as of course terminating the matter for failure to prosecute.

[Note: The prothonotary may not enter an order terminating the action until more 

than thirty days after service of the notice of proposed termination.

A court officer may certify to the prothonotary those matters which have 

been inactive and in which no statement of intention to proceed has been filed.]
2

(d) Reinstatement.

(1) If an action has been terminated pursuant to this rule, an aggrieved 

party may petition the court to reinstate the action.

(2) If the petition is filed within [sixty] 60 days after the entry of the order 

of termination on the docket, the court shall grant the petition and 

reinstate the action.

[Note: The provision under subdivision (d)(2) for filing a petition within sixty days 

is not intended to set a standard for timeliness in proceedings outside this rule.]

(3) If the petition is filed more than [sixty] 60 days after the entry of the 

order of termination on the docket, the court shall grant the petition 

and reinstate the action upon a showing that:

(i) the petition was timely filed following the entry of the order for 

termination; and

(ii) there is a reasonable explanation or a legitimate excuse for 

the failure to file both:

(A) the statement of intention to proceed prior to the entry 

of the order of termination on the docket; and[,]

(B) the petition to reinstate the action within [sixty] 60 days 

after the entry of the order of termination on the docket.

[Note: The provision under subdivision (d)(2) for filing a petition within sixty days 

of the entry of the order of termination on the docket is not a standard of timeliness. 

Rather, the filing of the petition during that time period eliminates the need to make 

the showing otherwise required by subdivision (d)(3).]

(e) Termination with Prejudice. Any case which is reinstated pursuant to 

subdivision (d) shall be subject to termination with prejudice upon a 

subsequent termination pursuant to subdivision (a). No subsequent 

reinstatements shall be granted.

(f) Form Notice of Proposed Termination. The notice required by 

subdivision (b) shall be in the following form:

* * *
3

(g) Form Statement of Intention to Proceed. The statement of intention to 

proceed shall be in the following form:

* * *

(h) Required Status Conference. Upon receipt of a statement of intention to 

proceed, the court [may] shall schedule a status conference and establish 

appropriate timelines to ensure a timely and efficient disposition of the case.

Comment:

This rule provides an administrative method for the termination of inactive 

cases.

Subdivision (b). If the notice mailed to an attorney is returned by the postal 

service, the prothonotary should check the website of the Disciplinary Board of the 

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, www.padisciplinaryboard.org, for a current 

address.

Subdivision (c). The prothonotary may not enter an order terminating the 

action until more than 30 days after service of the notice of proposed termination. 

A court officer may certify to the prothonotary those matters which have been 

inactive and in which no statement of intention to proceed has been filed.

Subdivision (d). The provision under subdivision (d)(2) for filing a petition 

within 60 days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket is not a 

standard of timeliness. Rather, the filing of the petition during that time period 

eliminates the need to make the showing otherwise required by subdivision (d)(3). 

In addition, the standard in subdivision (d)(2) is not intended to set a standard for 

timeliness in proceedings outside this rule.

Historical Commentary

The following commentary is historical in nature and represents statements 

of the Committee at the time of rulemaking:

EXPLANATORY COMMENT—2003

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.
4

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 Shope 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 Rule 230(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 
5

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 

exists independently of termination under Rule 230.2.

EXPLANATORY COMMENT—2015

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania made efforts to reduce the inventory 

of civil cases on the dockets of the Courts of Common Pleas. To expedite that process, 

it suspended Rule 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases. Originally adopted 

in 2003, Rule 230.2 implemented the general policy provisions of Rule of Judicial 

Administration 1901(a) governing the prompt disposition of matters and the termination 

of inactive cases. While Pa.R.J.A. No. 1901(a) provided general guidelines for 

conducting an administrative purge, Rule 230.2 set forth a procedural mechanism for a 

court to perform an administrative purge of cases that had remained on the civil docket 

for two or more years with no evidence of any activity.

The Court has amended and reinstated Rule 230.2. The amendments have 

streamlined the procedure for the trial court to conduct an administrative purge of inactive 

cases, and are intended to ensure that the civil dockets reflect the current inventory of 

active cases, while encouraging attorneys to expeditiously litigate their cases.

Several concerns with the suspended Rule 230.2 were identified. The suspended 

rule did not specify how often a court should conduct an administrative purge; it only 

provided a procedure should a court decide to conduct an administrative purge. In order 

to ensure that the civil case inventory is accurate, the amendment of subdivision (a) 

requires a court to conduct an administrative purge at least once a year. The court is also 

required to report such information to the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania with a form 

supplied by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.

A second problem identified with suspended Rule 230.2 was the provision for 

service of the notice of proposed termination in subdivision (b). In subdivision (b)(1), the 

suspended rule required service of the notice of proposed termination on counsel of 

record or unrepresented parties at least sixty days prior to the date of termination. To 

expedite the process, the amendment of subdivision (b)(1) shortens that time frame and 

require the notice to be served to at least thirty days prior to the date of termination.
6

The suspended rule did not provide for modern, efficient methods for giving notice 

to counsel or unrepresented parties that cases were identified as having no activity on 

the docket for the previous two years. Subdivision (b)(2) of the suspended rule provided 

for the notice to be served by mail pursuant to Rule 440 at the last address of record. In 

the event that the notice was returned, publication was required in the legal publication 

designated by the court for such notices. In conjunction with the shortened time frame in 

subdivision (b)(1), the amendment of subdivision (b)(2) updates the method for giving 

notice by allowing the notice to be served electronically pursuant to Rule 205.4 governing 

electronic filing. The ability to serve notice by mail pursuant to Rule 440 has been 

retained, but publication in the legal journal when a notice has been returned has been 

eliminated.

A third problem identified with suspended Rule 230.2 was the filing of statements 

of intention to proceed in order to keep a case active, but then not requiring any further 

obligation on counsel or an unrepresented party to move the case forward to resolution. 

Subdivision (c) of the suspended rule required an attorney or unrepresented party to file 

a statement of intention to proceed before the termination date stated in the notice in 

order to prevent the purging of the case from the docket. If no statement of intention to 

proceed was filed, the prothonotary was directed to enter an order terminating the matter 

for failure to prosecute. In the newly amended rule, this provision has been retained. 

However, new subdivision (h) encourages the trial court to manage its cases by 

scheduling a status conference and establishing appropriate timelines to insure a timely 

and efficient disposition of the case.

Importantly, the amendment of Rule 230.2 retains the post-termination procedure 

set forth in subdivision (d) of the suspended rule, which allows a party to petition the court 

to reinstate the action. The suspended rule provided certain requirements for 

reinstatement depending whether the petition is filed within thirty days or beyond thirty 

days. While the requirements remain unchanged, subdivision (d) has been amended to 

provide for sixty days rather than thirty days. New subdivision (e), however, limits 

reinstatements of a case. If any case, previously reinstated, is terminated pursuant to 

this rule, then it is terminated with prejudice. No additional reinstatements will be granted. 

This provision is intended to encourage the efficient litigation of cases and to not let them 

languish on the docket.