M. Cook v. City of Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, 201 A.3d 922

Michael Cook failed a Philadelphia Police psychological evaluation (7.5; passing 8.0) and was removed from the eligibility list; he appealed administrative denials to the trial court claiming procedural defects under the City’s Personnel Manual.
Cook’s notice of appeal named the Civil Service Commission though the Office of Human Resources had issued the decision; no evidentiary hearing before the Commission occurred.
The trial court issued a scheduling order requiring Cook to file a brief by February 6, 2017; Cook did not file a brief and the City filed its brief on March 6, 2017.
On April 17, 2017 the trial court dismissed Cook’s local agency appeal sua sponte for failure to file a brief, citing Pa. R.A.P. 2188 for guidance despite the First Judicial District not adopting that rule for local agency appeals.
Cook raised that the trial court lacked authority to dismiss sua sponte and that the City suffered no prejudice; the Commonwealth Court found dismissal improper and reversed and remanded.
On remand relevance: the psychologist who evaluated Cook entered a consent decree with the State Board of Psychology admitting scoring errors and agreeing to discipline, supporting Cook’s contention that the evaluation was flawed.

Issue	Cook's Argument	City’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had authority to dismiss the local agency appeal sua sponte for failure to file a brief under Pa. R.A.P. 2188	Trial court lacked authority to dismiss sua sponte; Rule 2188 applies only when an appellee moves to dismiss and Philadelphia had not adopted R.A.P. 2188 for local agency appeals	A court may sanction for procedural noncompliance, including dismissal for failing to file a brief	Reversed: Rule 2188 does not authorize sua sponte dismissal and precedent shows dismissal under Rule 2188 occurs only upon an appellee’s motion; trial court abused its discretion by acting sua sponte
Whether the appeal is moot or dismissal was justified because City was not prejudiced by the missing brief	Cook seeks a reevaluation and placement on a current list; not restoration to an expired list; merits are not ripe for appellate decision now	The City contends the appeal is moot because the eligibility list expired	Court declined to decide mootness on appeal; remanded for further proceedings (City may raise mootness before trial court)

King v. City of Philadelphia, 102 A.3d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (trial court acting as appellate court may look to Pa. R.A.P. for guidance but rule application must comport with local adoption and procedure)
Kirsch v. Parking Authority of the City of New Castle, 558 A.2d 930 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (court may not impose sua sponte sanctions when procedural rule authorizes sanctions only "on motion")
Civil Service Commission of the City of Philadelphia v. Farrell, 513 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (discussing use of Rule 2188 to support motions to quash for failure to file briefs)
City of Pittsburgh v. Kisner, 746 A.2d 661 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (trial court discretion to reference appellate rules for procedural guidance in local agency appeals)
Department of Environmental Resources v. Marra, 594 A.2d 646 (Pa. 1991) (ripeness and non-justiciability principles)