Koller v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; August 29, 1996; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Steven Roller (Licensee) is appealing a decision from the York County Court of Common Pleas that denied his "Motion to Dismiss" and upheld the suspension of his driver's license by the Department of Transportation for refusing chemical testing. The Department notified Licensee on January 5, 1993, of a one-year suspension due to his refusal to take a chemical test under 75 Pa.C.S. 1547. Licensee contended that he did not refuse testing as it was never offered.
A hearing originally set for June 15, 1993, was postponed at the Department's request due to the arresting officer's military service, with the court indicating it would be rescheduled for the next license suspension appeal. However, the hearing did not occur until October 23, 1995, two years later. Licensee filed a "Motion to Dismiss," arguing that under Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration No. 1901 and York County Court Rule No. 6035, the lack of docket activity for two years warranted dismissal in his favor.
The trial court denied this motion, reasoning that Local Rule No. 6035 applies only to civil trials and that Licensee, as the appellant, had the responsibility to advance the case. The court noted that granting the motion would inadvertently reinstate the Department's suspension. The trial court proceeded to deny Licensee’s appeal on the merits.
In his appeal, Licensee does not contest the merits of the case but asserts that the trial court erred in not dismissing the case due to inactivity. He cites Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration No. 1901, which allows for termination of inactive matters. The trial court determined that neither this rule nor the precedent set in Penn Piping required granting the motion, emphasizing that the responsibility to move the appeal forward rested with Licensee, as the initiating party.
Licensee's appeal is dismissed, and his driver's license suspension is upheld because he is the moving party and did not advance the appeal. The trial court's denial of Licensee's Motion to Dismiss is affirmed, as the Department, being the non-moving party, is not responsible for progressing the case. Judicial review of license suspensions is governed by 75 Pa.C.S. 1550, which allows for an appeal to act as a supersedeas against suspension until resolved. The court's review is limited to assessing whether its findings are supported by substantial evidence or if there was an error of law or an abuse of discretion. The application of Pa. R.J.A. No. 1901 to statutory appeals is uncertain, as highlighted in Shaw v. Department of Transportation, where statutory appeals differ from civil actions. While the moving party in a statutory appeal does not need to take further action after perfecting the appeal, the trial court is responsible for scheduling hearings. According to 75 Pa.C.S. 1550(c), the court must provide 30 days written notice before setting a hearing regarding the license's recall or suspension. In Penn Piping, it was established that a court may dismiss cases lacking docket activity for two years, presuming prejudice to the non-moving party.
