Court Opinion

ID: 9629796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:49:38.800172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:24.247812
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
I respectfully dissent because the Petitioners have not made out that the Commonwealth, the Attorney General and the State Treasurer (collectively, “Commonwealth Parties”) are indispensable parties.1
Article 5, Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states that this Court only has “such jurisdiction as shall be provided by law.” With certain exceptions not applicable here, Section 761(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a), sets forth that “[t]he Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings: (1) Against the Commonwealth government including any officer *934thereof, acting in his official capacity....” Petitioners, among others, have sued the Commonwealth Parties because under Section 1401(p) of the County Code, 16 P.S. § 1401(p), the Commonwealth reimburses counties 65% of the amount paid to full-time district attorneys.2
The mere naming of the Commonwealth or its officers in an action does not conclusively establish the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction, and the joinder of such parties when they are only tangentially involved is improper. Perkasie Borough Authority v. Hilltown Township Water and Sewer Authority, 819 A.2d 597 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). What is required for this court to have jurisdiction is that the Commonwealth or its officers must be indispensable to the action. To be indispensable to the action, the Commonwealth party must have “rights [that] are so connected with the claims of the litigants that no relief can be granted without infringing upon those rights.” Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Inc. v. Association of School Administrators, Teamsters Local 502, 696 A.2d 859, 867 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997).
Because I do not believe that the after-the-fact reimbursement, which assumes that the determination sought here has already been made, makes the Commonwealth Parties indispensable, I would dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.

. The Commonwealth Parties have not contended that they are not proper parties, but their failure to object cannot create jurisdiction where there is none.

. The only tíme 16 P.S. § 1401 mentions the State Treasurer is when it states that any district attorney indicates that he intends to be full-time, he must notify the State Treasurer (and Secretary of Revenue) of that intention. Notwithstanding Petitioners’ allegation in their petition that the Attorney General is responsible for directing the State Treasurer to make payments to defray costs of the full-time district attorneys, 16 P.S. § 1401 does not mention the Attorney General at all. Moreover, the mere requirement that an officer disburse funds does not make that officer an indispensable party. Nason v. Commonwealth, 90 Pa.Cmwlth. 130, 494 A.2d 499 (1985).