Spoiler Alert: Judge Who Bashed Commonwealth Court Has Ruling Overturned
The Commonwealth Court has called the bluff of an Allegheny County trial judge who accused it of blindly favoring the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and challenged it to overturn his ruling in a driver's license suspension case.
February 15, 2018 at 10:38 AM
4 minute read
The Commonwealth Court has called the bluff of an Allegheny County trial judge who accused it of blindly favoring the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and challenged it to overturn his ruling in a driver's license suspension case.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Lester Nauhaus, who has a history of making colorful remarks in court, expressed his opinion of the Commonwealth Court while sustaining a plaintiff's nunc pro tunc appeal of a one-year license suspension for failure to submit to chemical testing.
According to Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini's opinion, plaintiff Justin Harris sought permission to file a nunc pro tunc appeal, claiming his attorney had failed to timely file an appeal after misplacing Harris' suspension letter. At a hearing on the motion, Nauhaus said a driver contesting a suspended license shouldn't be penalized because of his lawyer's mistake.
But, according to Pellegrini's opinion, William Kuhar, a lawyer representing PennDot, attempted to explain to Nauhaus during the hearing that Commonwealth Court case law holds that a lawyer's negligence is not grounds for allowing a nunc pro tunc appeal.
Nauhaus, however, replied, “Commonwealth Court is the enabler of the Department of Transportation, to be perfectly honest with you, Mr. Kuhar. I mean, it is my experience in reading their opinions that the Department of Transportation could look outside at noon and say it was dark and the Commonwealth Court would agree with them.”
He also asked Kuhar, according to Pellegrini's opinion, “How can I penalize somebody because their lawyer screwed up?”
Kuhar began to reply, “Because the appellate courts have held that—”
“Let the appellate courts overturn me,” Nauhaus interrupted.
Pellegrini, joined by President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt and Judge Michael H. Wojcik, did not address Nauhaus' remarks other than to list them verbatim in the Commonwealth Court's opinion. Instead, the court stuck to the case law controlling Harris' case, noting that the court “gave a succinct but complete analysis of the law regarding nunc pro tunc appeals where an attorney was negligent in failing to file a timely appeal” last October in Noweck v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing.
“A licensee has 30 days from the mailing date of the department's notice of suspension to file an appeal with the trial court,” Pellegrini said. “Where an appeal is filed beyond the 30-day period, it is untimely and 'deprive[s] the [trial court] of subject matter jurisdiction over such appeals.'”
He also pointed to the court's 2003 decision in Hudson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, which said:
“Statutory appeal periods are mandatory and may not be extended as a matter of grace or mere indulgence. By allowing a licensee to file a late appeal, the trial court extends the time in which an appeal may be filed, thereby extending itself jurisdiction it would not otherwise have. Such an extension is appropriate only when the licensee proves that either fraud or an administrative breakdown caused the delay in filing the appeal.”
Pellegrini said the Commonwealth Court's previous rulings were on point in Harris' case.
“In this case, it is undisputed that Harris's license suspension appeal was filed well after the required 30-day period,” Pellegrini said. ”Harris does not contend that fraud or a breakdown within the administrative or judicial process occurred. His only reason that he offers in support of his nunc pro tunc appeal is that his attorney 'misplaced' the paperwork. Because Harris failed to make the threshold showing that exceptional, non-negligent circumstances caused the appeal to be untimely filed, he has failed to establish a basis for nunc pro tunc relief.”
Kuhar could not be reached for comment. Patrick J. Thomassey represents Harris and did not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. High Court's Revision of Rule 7.1 Tightens Previous Guidance on Firm Names
6 minute readCampaign Finance Records Show Lawyers Have a Clear Favorite in Pa. Attorney General Race
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250