Konieczny, M. v. Zappala, S. ( 2020 )

J-A09008-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MARY KONIECZNY, ANTHONY J. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
GOLEMBIEWSKI, CHRISTOPHER W. : PENNSYLVANIA
HUMPHREY, AND THERESE :
THOMPSON MILES :
:
Appellants :
:
:
v. : No. 1726 WDA 2019
:
:
STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA, JR., DISTRICT :
ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY :
Appeal from the Order Dated October 16, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at
No(s): GD 19-11631
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2020
Appellants, Mary Konieczny, Anthony J. Golembiewski, Christopher W.
Humphrey, and Therese Thompson Miles, appeal from the order granting the
preliminary objections filed by Appellee, Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., District
Attorney of Allegheny County, to Appellants’ complaint in mandamus and
dismissing the action with prejudice. Because jurisdiction properly lies with
the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, we transfer this appeal to the
Commonwealth Court.
On April 9, 2019, members of Pittsburgh City Council passed, and Mayor
William Peduto signed, firearm and firearm accessory ordinances outlawing
certain firearms and firearm accessories within the city limits of Pittsburgh.
J-A09008-20
Mandamus Complaint at ¶ 6. On April 12, 2019, Appellants presented to
Appellee’s office private criminal complaint forms against Mayor Peduto and
various members of Pittsburgh City Council. Id. at ¶ 20. Appellants contend
that the act of passing new firearm legislation constitutes official oppression
pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5301. Id. at ¶ 14. It is alleged that Appellee refused
to accept the private criminal complaints or to take further action. Id. at ¶
21. However, Appellants have conceded that at the time they presented the
private criminal complaints to Appellee, they “were handed copies of a press
release regarding [Appellee’s] position that he would not review anything
connected with any alleged violations of the illegal [o]rdinances that the Mayor
and the City [Council] had passed.” Brief in Opposition to Preliminary
Objections, at 11-12.
On August 15, 2019, Appellants filed the instant “complaint in
mandamus seeking review of [the] denial of [the] private criminal complaint
under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506 and request for writ of mandamus under Pa.R.C.P.
1093.” Mandamus Complaint. Specifically, Appellants asserted that Appellee
“was required to accept their private criminal complaints against Mayor Peduto
and Pittsburgh Council as stated in Pa.R.Crim.P. 506.” Id. at ¶ 27. Appellants
sought mandamus relief pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1093, noting that the rule
“provides the right of a Pennsylvania citizen to file a [w]rit of [m]andamus
against a [g]overnment [o]fficial who has refused to act in accordance with
the legal responsibilities of his position or office.” Id. at ¶ 25.
-2-
J-A09008-20
On September 9, 2019, Appellee filed preliminary objections to the
complaint in mandamus and a supporting brief. On October 16, 2019,
Appellants filed a brief in opposition to Appellee’s preliminary objections. Also
on October 16, 2019, the trial court entered an order that granted Appellee’s
preliminary objections and dismissed the action in mandamus with prejudice.
This timely appeal followed. Both Appellants and the trial court complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Prior to addressing the issues raised by Appellants, we must address
whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction over this matter. See Blount v.
Philadelphia Parking Authority, 965 A.2d 226, 229 (Pa. 2009) (stating that
a reviewing court may raise the issue of whether the court has subject matter
jurisdiction over an action sua sponte). Because Appellants’ mandamus action
seeks to compel action by Appellee, acting in his official capacity as the
Allegheny County District Attorney, this matter is within the original
jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1)
(providing that “[t]he Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of
all civil actions or proceedings … [a]gainst the Commonwealth government,
including any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity[.]”); see also
Maute v. Frank, 657 A.2d 985, 987 (Pa. Super. 1995) (stating that original
jurisdiction over actions involving mandamus claims lies in the Commonwealth
Court of Pennsylvania, and transferring the appellant’s mandamus action from
the Superior Court to the Commonwealth Court).
-3-
J-A09008-20
As we have long stated, “we should be most cautious in assuming
jurisdiction over matters that properly belong before the Commonwealth
Court.” Lara, Inc., v. Dorney Park Coaster Co., Inc., 534 A.2d 1062, 1066
(Pa. Super. 1987). Hence, because jurisdiction properly lies with our sister
court, we transfer this appeal to the Commonwealth Court.1
Appeal transferred to the Commonwealth Court.
____________________________________________
1 Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 751 addresses the transfer of
erroneously filed cases and states as follows:
(a) General rule. If an appeal or other matter is taken to
or brought in a court or magisterial district which does not
have jurisdiction of the appeal or other matter, the court or
magisterial district judge shall not quash such appeal or
dismiss the matter, but shall transfer the record thereof to
the proper court of this Commonwealth, where the appeal or
other matter shall be treated as if originally filed in transferee
court on the date first filed in a court or magisterial district.
Pa.R.A.P. 751(a) (emphases added).
-4-
J-A09008-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/19/2020
-5-