The opinion
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Andrew Flitter, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 637 M.D. 2022
: Submitted: November 6, 2025
Office of Judicial Records Criminal :
Division, First Judicial District of :
PA, :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: January 13, 2026
Before this Court are the preliminary objections filed by the Office of
Judicial Records Criminal Division, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania (Office
of Judicial Records) to Andrew Flitter’s complaint. After review, this Court sustains
the Office of Judicial Records’ preliminary objection that sovereign immunity bars
Flitter’s action and dismisses the complaint.
On July 21, 2022, Flitter filed a complaint in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County (Common Pleas Court), against the Office of Judicial
Records claiming the defendant owed him $4,500, plus bank fees of $80 and court
costs. In support, the complaint averred that Flitter was the owner of Kensington
Enterprises LLC, a Pennsylvania licensed check cashing company. An individual
named Alexander Spencer presented two checks in the amount of $2,000 and $2,500
that were issued by the Office of Judicial Records. The checks were cashed by
Kensington Enterprises. However, the bank refused to remit funds to Kensington
Enterprises for the stated reason that the Office of Judicial Records had “stopped
payment” on these two checks. Complaint at ¶5. Flitter “thereafter obtained all
rights to the two checks” from Kensington Enterprises “for sufficient consideration”
and, therefore, is a “holder in due course” under Section 3302(a) of the Pennsylvania
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), 13 Pa. C.S. §3302(a). Id. at ¶6. The complaint
asserted that Flitter has a right to seek reimbursement against the Office of Judicial
Records for payments on those two checks under Section 3305 of the UCC, 13 Pa.
C.S. §3305, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Triffin v. Dillabaugh, 716 A.2d
605 (Pa. 1998).1
In response, the Office of Judicial Records filed preliminary objections
and a supporting memorandum of law, asserting that the Common Pleas Court
lacked jurisdiction because the Office of Judicial Records is a “Commonwealth
entity.” Preliminary Objections at ¶1. First, it contended that under Section
761(a)(1) of the Judicial Code, the Commonwealth Court has original jurisdiction
over all civil actions or proceedings against the Commonwealth government. 42 Pa.
C.S. §761(a)(1). Second, it contended that accepting all the allegations set forth in
the complaint as true, Flitter’s action was barred by sovereign immunity. The
complaint did not plead any facts that would establish any of the exceptions to
sovereign immunity set forth in Section 8522 of what is commonly referred to as the
Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act (Sovereign Immunity Act), 42 Pa. C.S.
§8522, that would permit the matter to proceed. Finally, it contended that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action because it was insufficiently specific.
1
Flitter referred to this case as “Triffin v. American Express Travel Related Services, Inc.”
2
On September 12, 2022, the Common Pleas Court sustained the
preliminary objection for lack of jurisdiction and transferred the complaint to this
Court. Having failed to comply with this Court’s briefing schedule, Flitter is
precluded from filing a brief in opposition to the preliminary objections. Order,
2/14/2024. The case is now ready for disposition.
In ruling on preliminary objections, a court must accept as true all well-
pleaded material allegations in a party’s complaint and any reasonable inferences
that could be drawn therefrom. Thomas v. Corbett, 90 A.3d 789, 794 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2014). However, a court is not required to accept a party’s “legal conclusions,
unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of
opinion.” Id. (citation omitted). “In order to sustain preliminary objections, it must
appear with certainty that the law will not permit recovery, and any doubt should be
resolved by a refusal to sustain them.” Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2010) (citation omitted).
“A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer admits every well-
pleaded fact in the complaint and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom.”
Torres, 997 A.2d at 1245 (citation omitted). A demurrer “tests the legal sufficiency
of the challenged pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleader has clearly
failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” Id. (citation omitted). “When
ruling on a demurrer, a court must confine its analysis to the complaint.” Id.
(citation omitted).
Here, the Office of Judicial Records contends that the claim for
damages set forth in the complaint is barred by sovereign immunity 2 because the
2
Immunity from suit, characterized as an affirmative defense, is properly raised in a responsive
pleading under “New Matter” rather than by preliminary objection. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030.
3
Office of Judicial Records is an arm of Commonwealth government, and the
complaint does not allege facts that would establish that any of the exceptions to
sovereign immunity set forth in Section 8522 of the Sovereign Immunity Act are
applicable to this case.
Section 102 of the Judicial Code defines “Commonwealth government”
as “including the courts and other officers or agencies of the [U]nified [J]udicial
[S]ystem.” 42 Pa. C.S. §102. Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, “[s]uits may be
brought against the Commonwealth in such manner, in such courts and in such cases
as the Legislature may by law direct.” PA. CONST. art. I, §11. Pursuant thereto, the
General Assembly has declared that “the Commonwealth, and its officials and
employees acting within the scope of their duties, shall continue to enjoy sovereign
immunity and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General
Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.” 1 Pa. C.S. §2310.
In Section 8522 of the Sovereign Immunity Act, the General Assembly
has waived sovereign immunity for Commonwealth parties in limited cases. It
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) Liability imposed.--The General Assembly, pursuant to
section 11 of Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, does
hereby waive, in the instances set forth in subsection (b) only and
only to the extent set forth in this subchapter and within the limits
set forth in section 8528 (relating to limitations on damages),
sovereign immunity as a bar to an action against Commonwealth
parties, for damages arising out of a negligent act where the
damages would be recoverable under the common law or a
However, a preliminary objection may raise sovereign and absolute immunity when that defense
is apparent on the face of the pleadings. State Workmen’s Insurance Fund, Department of Labor
and Industry v. Caparo Real Estate Inc., 635 A.2d 705, 706 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (citation
omitted).
4
statute creating a cause of action if the injury were caused by a
person not having available the defense of sovereign immunity.
(b) Acts which may impose liability.--The following acts by a
Commonwealth party may result in the imposition of liability on
the Commonwealth and the defense of sovereign immunity shall
not be raised to claims for damages caused by: (1) Vehicle
liability.--The operation of any motor vehicle in the possession
or control of a Commonwealth party . . . .[;] (2) Medical-
professional liability . . . .[;] (3) Care, custody or control of
personal property.--The care, custody or control of personal
property in the possession or control of Commonwealth parties,
including Commonwealth-owned personal property and property
of persons held by a Commonwealth agency . . . .[;] (4)
Commonwealth real estate, highways and sidewalks . . . .[;] (5)
Potholes and other dangerous conditions . . . .[;] (6) Care, custody
or control of animals . . . . [;] (7) Liquor store sales . . . .[;] (8)
National Guard activities . . . [;] (9) Toxoids and vaccines . . . .[;]
[and] (10) Sexual abuse. . . .
42 Pa. C.S. §8522.
In this case, Flitter’s claim “is neither one for damages arising out of a
negligent act[,] nor within the purview of the exceptions to sovereign immunity
which may impose liability.” Valley Gypsum Company, Inc. v. Pennsylvania State
Police, 581 A.2d 707, 710 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). The complaint does not specify any
other valid basis under which the General Assembly waived the Office of Judicial
Records’ sovereign immunity.3 Because the General Assembly has not expressly
waived sovereign immunity for the claim Flitter presents in the complaint, we
3
To the extent the complaint raises a claim in contract, we acknowledge that, in Section 1702(b)
of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, the General Assembly has waived sovereign immunity
for certain contract claims against the Commonwealth and its agencies, but that waiver applies
only to claims “brought in accordance with sections 1711.1 (relating to protests of solicitations or
awards) and 1712.1 (relating to contract controversies) and Subchapter C (relating to Board of
Claims) but only to the extent set forth in this chapter.” 62 Pa. C.S. §1702(b). Flitter’s claim does
not fall within any of these criteria under Section 1702(b).
5
conclude that the Office of Judicial Records is immune from Flitter’s civil action for
damages.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Office of Judicial Records’
preliminary objection raising sovereign immunity and dismiss Flitter’s complaint.4
____________________________________________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita
4
Given that the complaint is barred by sovereign immunity, this Court need not address the
remaining preliminary objections of the Office of Judicial Records.
6
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Andrew Flitter, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 637 M.D. 2022
:
Office of Judicial Records Criminal :
Division, First Judicial District of :
PA, :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2026, the Office of Judicial
Records Criminal Division, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania’s preliminary
objection to Andrew Flitter’s complaint is SUSTAINED, and the complaint is
DISMISSED.
____________________________________________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita