J. Notarianni and K. Yencho v. P. O'Malley, J. Notarianni and K. Yencho v. P. O'Malley

Background

Lackawanna County has a three-member Board of Commissioners under a Home Rule Charter; commissioners may appoint county solicitors/assistant solicitors and other officials.
In late 2015 (a lame-duck period), two commissioners signed written hiring forms appointing John Brazil as County Solicitor (effective before the new Board took office) and naming Don Frederickson an assistant; other appointments (Chief Clerk Wallace, Minority Solicitor Cerra) were also made by written assent rather than at a public reorganization meeting.
Appellants (Commissioner Notarianni and taxpayer Yencho) sued seeking (1) removal of those appointees as invalid because appointments were made outside public meetings in violation of the Sunshine Act and the Charter and/or by a lame-duck board, and (2) a declaration that Notarianni is the "Minority Commissioner" entitled to appoint a Minority Solicitor.
The trial court denied the requested mandatory preliminary injunctions, finding Appellants failed to show irreparable harm or a clear right to relief, relied in part on prior county precedent treating personnel actions as non‑"official action," and recognized the County’s longstanding practice of written-assent hires.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Appellants did not meet all preliminary injunction prerequisites and that the Sunshine Act/Charter did not clearly require these at-will appointments to be made in public vote at an open meeting.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether hiring/appointment of county officials outside a public meeting violated the Sunshine Act and rendered appointments void	Appellants: written assents constituted votes/official action under the Sunshine Act and Charter, so appointments are void without an open meeting	County: Sunshine Act and Charter do not expressly require hiring decisions be made at public meetings; personnel actions are administrative, not "official action" requiring open vote	Court: No clear right; substantial legal question exists but Appellants failed to show likelihood of success; longstanding practice and precedent provide reasonable grounds to deny injunction
Whether a lame-duck board may bind its successor by appointing at-will officials (Solicitor)	Appellants: last-minute solicitor appointment by lame-duck board improperly attempted to bind successor	County: Appointees serve at-will and are not binding contracts; Lobolito does not apply to at-will appointments	Court: Lobolito inapplicable to at-will positions here; no automatic invalidation of at-will appointees made during lame-duck period
Whether Notarianni is entitled to be designated "Minority Commissioner" based on alleged voting bloc and thus appoint a Minority Solicitor	Notarianni: two commissioners have aligned to form a majority, making him effectively the minority who is entitled under the Charter to designate a Minority Solicitor	County: "Minority Commissioner" has historically meant the commissioner of the minority party; evidence of a voting bloc is insufficient	Court: No clear showing of a stable voting bloc; historical construction favors minority-party identification; Notarianni failed to establish clear right
Whether injunctive relief (mandatory preliminary injunction) was appropriate given alleged Sunshine Act violations and claimed irreparable harm	Appellants: statutory violation of open government rights causes irreparable harm and warrants removal and appointment relief	County: Harms of removing current appointees outweigh speculative public‑trust injury; status quo should be preserved; remedies like quo warranto/control exist	Court: Even assuming a statutory violation, Appellants failed to satisfy all six injunction factors (including irreparable harm, balance of harms, and status quo); injunction denied

Key Cases Cited

Summit Towne Ctr., Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995 (Pa. 2003) (sets six‑factor standard for preliminary injunctions)
SEIU Healthcare Pa. v. Commonwealth, 104 A.3d 495 (Pa. 2014) (scope of showing needed for injunction where substantial legal questions remain)
Lobolito, Inc. v. North Pocono Sch. Dist., 755 A.2d 1287 (Pa. 2000) (lame‑duck board may not bind successor via long‑term contracts)
Preston v. Saucon Valley Sch. Dist., 666 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (hiring superintendents by contract can constitute "official action" under Sunshine Act)
Ross Twp. v. Menhorn, 588 A.2d 1347 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (lame‑duck appointments to non‑vacant positions are invalid)
Wyland v. W. Shore Sch. Dist., 52 A.3d 572 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (mandatory injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a strong showing)
Commonwealth ex rel. Teller v. Jennings, 186 A.2d 916 (Pa. 1963) (once elected, commissioners represent all constituents; party designation not dispositive of duties)