Superior Court Vacates Termination of Premises Liability Case: Lack of Proper Notice Under Rules 230.2 and 236

The plaintiff filed a premises liability action against a hospital which was commenced by a writ of summons. After a period of inaction, the trial court terminated and dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to local rule 230.2. Months later, the plaintiff filed a petition to reinstate her case under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2, which the trial court denied. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that, as she never received notice, the termination was improper. The plaintiff also argued that the 60-day period for seeking reinstatement did not begin until the notice requirements were satisfied; thus, reinstatement of the case was mandatory under Rule 230.2(d)(2).

In deciding the appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the notice of the proposed termination was served by mail on the plaintiff in accordance with Rule 230.2(b). The court reasoned that the trial court’s docket entry relative to notice did not include any reference to method of service, whether service was carried out in accordance with the governing procedural rules related to service, or any certificates of service. While the trial court’s docket entry vaguely alluded to some kind of notice, Rule 230.2 was not satisfied. As such, the court held that termination of the case was improper.

The Superior Court also held that the record did not establish that the County’s prothonotary sent a Rule 236 notice that the order of termination had been entered. The Superior Court held that “‘[a] prothonotary’s failure to comply with Rule 236, governing notice, means that the filing period for a responsive motion was never triggered, and, therefore, a subsequent motion and order denying that motion are legal nullities.” The court ruled that the prothonotary filed to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 236 and, thus, the 60-day window for filing a petition for reinstatement never began to run. The court held that the case had to be reinstated upon the plaintiff’s filing of her petition. The Court ruled that the trial court’s order denying reinstatement was a legal nullity, and “to remedy that error,” the order must be vacated.