PART I. GENERAL [ 231 PA. CODE CH. 3000] Order Amending Rule 3051 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; No. 574 Civil Procedural Rules Doc. [43 Pa.B. 2136]
[Saturday, April 20, 2013]Order Per Curiam
And Now, this 5th day of April, 2013, upon the recommendation of the Civil Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published at 41 Pa.B. 5062 (September 24, 2011):
It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rule 3051 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is amended in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective May 5, 2013.
Annex A TITLE 231. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PART I. GENERAL CHAPTER 3000. JUDGMENTS Subchapter C. FORMS Rule 3051. Relief from Judgment of Non Pros.
(a) Relief from a judgment of non pros shall be sought by petition. All grounds for relief, whether to strike off the judgment or to open it, must be asserted in a single petition.
(b) [If] Except as provided in subdivision (c), if the relief sought includes the opening of the judgment, the petition shall allege facts showing that
(1) the petition is timely filed,
(2) there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse for the [inactivity or delay] conduct that gave rise to the entry of judgment of non pros, and
(3) there is a meritorious cause of action.
Official Note: See Rule 237.3 for special provisions relating to relief from a judgment of non pros entered pursuant to Rule 1037(a).
(c) If the relief sought includes the opening of the judgment of non pros for inactivity, the petition shall allege facts showing that
Official Note: The ''inactivity'' covered by this subdivision is governed by and subject to Jacobs v. Halloran, 551 Pa. 350, 710 A.2d 1098 (1998).
(1) the petition is timely filed,
(2) there is a meritorious cause of action, and
(3) the record of the proceedings granting the judgment of non pros does not support a finding that the following requirements for entry of a judgment of non pros for inactivity have been satisfied:
(i) there has been a lack of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff for failure to proceed with reasonable promptitude,
(ii) the plaintiff has failed to show a compelling reason for the delay, and
(iii) the delay has caused actual prejudice to the defendant.
Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has amended Rule 3051 governing relief from a judgment of non pros to clarify the requirements for opening a judgment of non pros entered for inactivity. In Madrid v. Alpine Mountain Corp., 24 A.3d 380 (Pa. Super. 2011), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that under the current language of Rule 3051(b) it was compelled to conclude that a plaintiff is not entitled to relief from a judgment of non pros for inactivity without a showing that there was a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse for the inactivity. Under this interpretation of Rule 3051(b), a judgment of non pros for inactivity cannot be opened even if the record did not establish actual prejudice unless the plaintiff could also show a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse for the delay. Thus, while the defendant was required to show that the delay caused actual prejudice in order to obtain a judgment of non pros for inactivity, the plaintiff who cannot show a reasonable excuse for the delay may not challenge the entry of the judgment of non pros on the ground that the record failed to establish actual prejudice.
New subdivision (c) is intended to alter the ruling in Madrid by providing for the opening of a judgment of non pros dismissing a case for inactivity upon a showing that the defendant did not meet each of the three requirements for the entry of a judgment of non pros.
By the Civil Procedural Rules Committee
DIANE W. PERER,
Chair[Pa.B. Doc. No. 13-699. Filed for public inspection April 19, 2013, 9:00 a.m.]
