Court Opinion

ID: 9554413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 20:09:23.22049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:11.949562
License: Public Domain

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.]
      (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:

                                            ***

                                             2
      (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.

                                            3
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

                                              4
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.

                                             5
        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.

                                              6