explaining that there is “[no] authority to support the proposition that if a [petition for review] correctly identifies a [respondent] in [its] body . . . but fails to do so in the caption, that the caption’s designation is controlling. Where the correct party is sued but under a wrong designation, . . . a correction to the party name should be allowed”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that there is “[no] authority to support the proposition that if a [petition for review] correctly identifies a [respondent] in [its] body . . . but fails to do so in the caption, that the caption’s designation is controlling. Where the correct party is sued but under a wrong designation, . . . a correction to the party name should be allowed”
- where “the [defendant’s] answer did not deny the factual averment” but “merely claimed that no response was required because the averment stated a conclusion of law,” the answer was “treated as an admission”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge SIMPSON.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the designation of the “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” as a party on the notice to defend and in the caption on the first page of a complaint can be modified by averments deeper in the pleading. For the following reasons, I would affirm.
*618 In essence, I do not believe an entity is required to dissect original process to determine if it may be a party. Rather, all parties, including Commonwealth parties, are entitled to rely on the face of original process to determine if further action is warranted. This is consistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure Nos. 1018 (the caption of a complaint shall set forth the names of all the parties) and 1018.1. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 1018.1, Explanatory Comment-1975 (“Rule 1018.1 is universal, applying without distinction to all types of cause of action and to all parties defendant.”) Thus, I believe this case is controlled by the Court’s recent decision in Glover v. SEPTA, 794 A.2d 410 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (caption naming “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office” does not designate PennDOT as party defendant, despite reference in body of complaint).
Further, I disagree with the majority’s rationale to the extent it relies on a defendant’s post-statute responses to determine whether a plaintiff properly identified a party in original process. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the named Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, clearly and repeatedly stated that its answers were on its own behalf only. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 9a-13a. Further, in paragraph 29 of New Matter, it averred: “The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived the sovereign immunity and therefore is not a proper party in the present action. 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310.” R.R. at 14a (emphasis added.) The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Penn-DOT) is not referenced at all in this responsive pleading. These Commonwealth responses cannot fairly be deemed admissions that PennDOT is a proper party misnamed as the Commonwealth, nor can they bind PennDOT.
For these reasons I would affirm the trial judge’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Judge McGINLEY and Judge SMITH-RIB NER join in this dissent.