Justices Eye Circumvention of Agency's Enforcement Authority
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to review whether a plaintiff can circumvent a state agency's right to enforce a statute by seeking to do so through common-law damages claims.
January 04, 2018 at 02:02 PM
4 minute read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to review whether a plaintiff can circumvent a state agency's right to enforce a statute by seeking to do so through common-law damages claims.
The justices granted allocatur Dec. 26, 2017, in Butler County v. CenturyLink Communications, a case stemming from the county's allegations that a group of telecommunications providers failed to adequately charge customers for fees related to 911 emergency communications and remit the money to the county.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court ruled June 8, 2017, that the 911 Act, which tasked Pennsylvania's counties with implementing, operating and maintaining a 911 system and provided funding to address associated costs, did not provide exclusive enforcement authority to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency.
“In addition to PEMA's ability to enforce the 911 Act, the county may also seek direction from a court as to its role and that of PEMA and the service providers,” Judge P. Kevin Brobson wrote for the court, reversing and remanding a trial court decision that had sustained the service providers' preliminary objections to the county's complaint. “At the very least, the county is entitled to a court ruling on its legal dispute.”
The order granting the service providers' petition for allocatur said the high court will hear argument on a plaintiff's ability to pursue common-law damages “when the General Assembly plainly and unambiguously grants the right to enforce a statute to a particular commonwealth agency.”
In February 2016, Butler County filed a complaint alleging that the service providers breached their fiduciary obligations; committed fraud by failing to charge, collect, report and remit the 911 fees as required by the act; and provided false representations to the county through inaccurate forms. The county sought an accounting of underpaid fees and monetary damages.
The services providers' joint preliminary objections included an assertion that the 911 Act provides PEMA exclusive enforcement authority, which the trial court sustained.
The county filed a motion for reconsideration and attached an affidavit of PEMA's deputy director, who interpreted the act as authorizing the state's counties to police telephone companies' collection practices. The motion was denied.
On appeal, the county argued that Section 5307(e)(1) of the former 911 Act, which was amended in 2015, authorized it to pursue its case, or, in the alternative, that it was at least ambiguous and the court should afford deference to PEMA's interpretation as explained by the deputy director's affidavit.
The service providers argued that Section 5307(e)(1) pertains only to the collection of 911 fees, not the allegedly noncompliant billing of 911 fees, and that the affidavit cannot trump the plain language of the statute. Because the act provides a sufficient statutory remedy (notifying PEMA), the Statutory Construction Act precludes the county from pursuing common-law claims, the service providers asserted.
The court agreed with the service providers that the old version of the act “clearly and unambiguously does not provide the county with authority to bring this suit,” Brobson said, because it was silent as to billing practices such as those at issue. Nonetheless, he said, “we are not persuaded that PEMA's authority precludes the county from bringing its suit.”
The applicable provision is from the amended 911 Act, Brobson said, which was in place when the county brought its action. That version of the act similarly makes clear that PEMA has enforcement authority, but PEMA, the counties and the various services providers “differ in their understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities under the statutory scheme,” he said.
“We conclude, therefore, that the 911 Act does not preclude the county from bringing its dispute to a court for resolution,” Brobson said.
Justin Proper of White and Williams in Philadelphia, who represents CenturyLink in the case, referred comment to Gregory Skidmore of Robinson Bradshaw in North Carolina, representing service provider Verizon Pennsylvania, who declined to comment. Joshua Wolson of Dilworth Paxson in Philadelphia, who represents Butler County, did not return a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppeals Court Rules Pittsburgh School District Immune to Suit Over Sex Abuse of Disabled Student
4 minute readCivil RICO's Expanding Reach: From Foreign Schemes to Lost Employment
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Obtaining Reimbursement from Medicaid
- 2NY Requiring Lawyers to Report Out-of-State Admissions, Public Discipline
- 3Man Hits Cow in Case That Tests 'Unrealistic Delivery Times'
- 4DC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright,' Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
- 5Environmental Law in Trump’s Second Term
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250