Court Opinion

ID: 9369748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 16:10:53.587243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.877279
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Senate                  :
Intergovernmental Operations         :
Committee,                           :
                        Petitioner   :
                                     :
                   v.                :             No. 95 M.D. 2022
                                     :
Pennsylvania Department of State     :
and Leigh Chapman, in her Capacity :
as Acting Secretary of the           :
Commonwealth,                        :
                          Respondents:

PER CURIAM

                             MEMORANDUM & ORDER

              Before this Court is an application filed by then Acting Secretary of the
Commonwealth, Leah Chapman, and the Pennsylvania Department of State
(collectively, Department of State), seeking the dismissal of the above-captioned
petition for review as moot. The Department of State contends that the petition for
review in the nature of a mandamus action filed by the Pennsylvania Senate
Intergovernmental Operations Committee (Senate Committee) is moot because the
2021-2022 session of the General Assembly concluded on November 30, 2022, with
its adjournment sine die.1 The Senate Committee responds that its request for a writ
of mandamus should proceed under the exception to the mootness doctrine.

1
  A legislature’s adjournment sine die, or adjournment without day, is “[t]he ending of a
deliberative assembly’s . . . session without setting a time to reconvene.” See Adjournment Sine
Die, Black’s Law Dictionary 44 (8th ed. 1999).
             Generally, a case will be dismissed as moot if there exists no actual case
or controversy. Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Philadelphia, 789 A.2d 858
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). The existence of a case or controversy requires
             (1) a legal controversy that is real and not hypothetical, (2) a legal
             controversy that affects an individual in a concrete manner so as
             to provide the factual predicate for a reasoned adjudication, and
             (3) a legal controversy with sufficiently adverse parties so as to
             sharpen the issues for judicial resolution.

Mistich v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 863 A.2d 116, 119 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1994) (quoting Dow Chemical Company v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 605 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir.1979)). A controversy must continue
through all stages of judicial proceedings, trial and appellate, and the parties must
continue to have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit. Mistich, 863 A.2d
at 119 (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation, 494 U.S. 472, 477–78
(1990)).
             An exception to dismissal on grounds of mootness will be found where
(1) the conduct complained of is capable of repetition yet likely to evade judicial
review; (2) the case involves issues of great public importance; or (3) one party will
suffer a detriment in the absence of a court determination. Horsehead Resource
Development Company, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 780 A.2d
856, 858 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). It is within the court’s discretion to decide “substantial
questions, otherwise moot, which are capable of repetition unless settled.” Colonial
Gardens Nursing Homes, Inc. v. Bachman, 373 A.2d 748, 750 (Pa. 1977). The
Senate Committee contends that two exceptions to mootness are applicable here.
             First, the Senate Committee argues that this case presents an issue of
great public importance, a recognized exception to the mootness doctrine. Harris v.
Rendell, 982 A.2d 1030, 1037. A controlling factor in the great public importance

                                           2
exception is whether “the legislature obviously recognized the significance of [such]
questions” and enacted a “new comprehensive statutory scheme” that “deals
squarely with the issues appellant raises.” In re Gross, 382 A.2d 116, 123 (Pa. 1978).
Because the Senate Committee requests a writ of mandamus to enforce obedience to
a legislative subpoena and a request authorized by The Administrative Code of 1929,
Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended, 71 P.S. §§51-732, it believes its petition
for review raises a matter of great public importance.2
              Second, the Senate Committee argues that this case involves an issue
that is capable of repetition, yet evading review. The General Assembly is a
continuing body for two years, but after adjournment sine die, pending legislative
matters expire. See PA. CONST. art. II, §4; Brown v. Brancato, 184 A. 89, 93 (Pa.
1936) (legislative action of the General Assembly ended with its adjournment).
Despite the expedited briefs and summary applications filed in this matter, this
dispute remained unresolved more than 16 months after the subpoena was issued.
              We decline to reach the merits of the Department of State’s application
for relief or the exceptions to mootness doctrine raised by the Senate Committee.
By separate order issued this day, we have dismissed the above-captioned petition
for review on other grounds, rendering the Department of State’s application moot.
The Court enters the following Order:

2
  Although the 2021-2022 legislative session has adjourned, and the 2023-2024 session has
convened, adopted rules, and chosen a chair of the Senate Committee, the name of the new chair
and new senate president pro tempore can be substituted in the litigation.
                                              3
                                     ORDER
            AND NOW, this 9th day of February, 2023, the Application for Relief
Dismissing the Petition for Review as Moot filed by the Pennsylvania Department
of State and Leigh Chapman, in her capacity as Acting Secretary of the
Commonwealth, is DISMISSED AS MOOT.