Court Opinion

ID: 9711472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:32:46.225621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:05.304684
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that our present test for determining an indispensable party defendant leaves much to be desired.1 I also agree that the difficulties created by that test should not be transmitted to an original jurisdictional conflict under Sections 401 and 402 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 19702 between the Commonwealth Court and the Court of Common Pleas. My disagreement is that the instant problem is not to be solved by refining the indispensable party test, but rather by a reevaluation of the reasoning of Keitt v. Ross, 17 Pa.Cmwlth. 183, 331 A.2d 582 *318(1975). I do not believe that Section 402 can properly be read as limiting the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court, where the suit is against the Commonwealth or its officers, to instances where the Commonwealth is either the original defendant or an indispensable party to the action.
In Keitt the court recognized that Section 401 provided for exclusive and original jurisdiction in the Commonwealth Court in all civil actions or proceedings against the Commonwealth.3 However, the Keitt court noted that Section 402, in delineating the appellate jurisdiction of that court from orders of courts of common pleas, used the term “party” which is sufficiently broad to include the Commonwealth in the capacity of a defendant.4 Noting this apparent discrepancy, the Keitt court concluded:
... a legislative awareness that there may be litigation properly , initiated in a court of common pleas in which, by third party proceedings, the Commonwealth, although not an indispensable party, may conceivably be joined, in which cases the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas should not be ousted simply because such third party procedure was invoked. In such cases, our jurisdiction is not found in Section 401, rather our role is that of appellate review under Section 402.
Id., 17 Pa.Cmwlth. at 189, 331 A.2d at 584.
*319I cannot accept that the legislative use of the term “party” in Section 402 intended to convey such a sophisticated distinction in such a cryptic fashion.
While I recognize that it may be desirable to allow a more flexible jurisdictional rule where the Commonwealth is made a party defendant through a third party procedure, it should not evolve from such a strained interpretation of the language of Sections 401 and 402. The soundest approach would be to address the problem directly by further legislative action (or possibly by court order under the power vested in this Court by virtue of Art. 5, § 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution).5 Such an approach would permit a comprehensive consideration of all of the factors pertinent to such a judgment and would not be controlled simply by the legitimacy of the joinder which the Keitt v. Ross indispensable party test does.
Until such future legislation is provided, I am constrained to accept appellant’s first argument that exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court attaches in all actions against the Commonwealth and its officers.

. Mr. Justice Flaherty, writing for the majority, presents a scholarly analysis of the weakness of the traditional formulation of the indispensable party doctrine. His suggested modification of that doctrine offers much to commend it.

. As amended by the Judiciary Act Repealer Act and now governed by the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 761, 762 (Supp.1980).

. Section 401 provides in pertinent part:
(a) The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of: (1) All civil actions or proceedings against the Commonwealth or any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity ...
(b) The jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court under this section shall be exclusive ... except with respect to actions or proceedings by the Commonwealth or any officer thereof .. . where jurisdiction of the Court shall be concurrent with the several Courts of Common Pleas.

. Section 402 of the Act provides in pertinent part:
The Commonwealth Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders of the Court of Common Pleas in any of the following cases ...;
(1) All civil actions or proceedings to which the Commonwealth or any officer thereof ... is a party ....

. Art. 5, § 10(c) provides in pertinent part:
The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, ... including the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as to the needs of justice shall require, ... if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court ....