Golab, D. v. Knuth, S.
176 A.3d 335
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Golab appeals after Knuth’s Motion for Reconsideration reinstated a prior termination for inactivity.
- Case terminated under Pa.R.J.A. 1901 due to inactivity; termination order published without Erie Local Rule in effect.
- Termination hearing had no party appearances; termination order entered December 3, 2015.
- Golab moved to reinstate on November 9, 2016, asserting health issues, lack of notice, and rule changes affecting termination.
- Trial court reinstated the termination order on March 10, 2017; Knuth objected and a reconsideration followed.
- Golab appeals asserting lack of local rule, inadequate notice by publication, and failure to require factual findings; court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under Rule 1901 was proper without a local Erie rule | Golab: no Erie local rule; Rule 1901 requires local rule implementation | Knuth: Rule 1901 applies; publication notice sufficient | Yes; termination proper despite lack of local rule. |
| Whether publication notice satisfied due process for termination | Golab: publication alone insufficient without local rule notice | Knuth: publication met minimum notice requirements under Rule 1901(c)(2) | Yes; publication notice adequate under Rule 1901(c)(2). |
| Whether trial court was required to conduct fact-finding on good cause and prejudice | Golab: court should assess good cause and Knuth prejudice | Knuth: no evidentiary hearing required given policy of prompt conclusion | No; no mandatory factual hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pilon v. Bally Eng’g Structures, 645 A.2d 282 (Pa. Super. 1994) (plaintiff bears risk of delay; duty to move case forward)
- State of the Art Med. Prods., Inc. v. Aries Med., Inc., 689 A.2d 957 (Pa. Super. 1997) (duty to prosecute and monitor docketed activity)
- Tucker v. Ellwood Quality Steels Co., 802 A.2d 663 (Pa. Super. 2002) (discretion to terminate for inactivity; standard of review)
- Indep. Tech. Servs. v. Campo’s Express, 812 A.2d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2002) (discretion to terminate for inactivity; standard of review)
- Dorich v. DiBacco, 656 A.2d 522 (Pa. Super. 1995) (relevance to local rule framework and dismissal)