Court Opinion

ID: 9747907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:41:55.070111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:28.476244
License: Public Domain

Justice EAKIN,
dissenting.
I would adopt the learned Judge Simpson’s dissenting opinion from the Commonwealth Court’s disposition of this matter. See Piehl v. City of Philadelphia, 930 A.2d 607 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (Simpson, J., dissenting). The plaintiff has the burden of placing the proper party on notice it is being sued. See Pa.R.C.P. 1018 (“[t]he caption of a complaint shall set forth the form of the action and the names of all the parties....”). Naming only the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the caption failed to put the Department of Transportation on notice it was the party actually being sued. The fact that the Department of Transportation was served does nothing to cure the plaintiffs’ basic failing, as an entity should not be “required to dissect original process to determine if it may be a party.” Piehl, at 618 (Simpson, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.