THE COURTS

[246 PA. CODE CH. 300]

Order Amending Rule 305 of the Rules Of Conduct, Office Standards and Civil Procedure for District Justices; No. 136; Magisterial Doc. No. 1; Book No. 2

[32 Pa.B. 2206]

   The Minor Court Rules Committee has prepared a Final Report explaining the amendments Rule 305 of the Rules of Conduct, Office Standards and Civil Procedure for District Justices, effective July 1, 2002. These rule changes remove from the rule the implication that parties can obtain legal advice from district justices or court staff. The changes also provide for several technical or ''housekeeping'' amendments to these rules. The Final Report follows the Court's Order.

Order

Per Curiam:

   Now, this 5th day of April, 2002, upon the recommendation of the Minor Court Rules Committee; the proposal having been published before adoption at 31 Pa.B. 5794 (October 20, 2001), and a Final Report to be published with this Order:

   It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rule 305 of the Rules of Conduct, Office Standards and Civil Procedure for District Justices is amended in the following form.

   This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective July 1, 2002.

Annex A

TITLE 246.  MINOR COURT CIVIL RULES

PART I.  GENERAL

CHAPTER 300.  CIVIL ACTION

Rule 305.  Setting the Date For Hearing; Delivery for Service.

   The district justice, at the time the complaint is filed, shall:

   (1) Set a hearing date which shall be not less than [twelve (12)] 12 or more than [sixty (60)] 60 days from the date the complaint is filed.

   (2) Insert the hearing time and date and the address of [his magisterial office] the district justice court in the complaint form.

   (3)  Deliver a copy of the complaint form with hearing time and date thereon to the plaintiff [or his agent].

   (4)  Deliver a copy of the complaint form with hearing time and date thereon for service on the defendant as hereinafter set forth, which copy shall contain the following notice:

*      *      *      *      *

   (b)  If you have a claim against the plaintiff which is within district justice jurisdiction and which you intend to assert at the hearing, you must file it on a complaint form at this office at least five [(5)] days before the date set for the hearing. [If you have a claim against the plaintiff which is not within district justice jurisdiction, you may request information from this office as to the procedures you may follow.]

   (c)  [You must appear at the hearing and present your defense.] YOU MUST APPEAR AT THE HEARING AND PRESENT YOUR DEFENSE. UNLESS YOU DO, JUDGMENT [WILL] MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY DEFAULT.

   Official Note:  The [sixty] 60 day limitation in subdivision (1) of this rule was considered to provide sufficient time in which to effect service under the requirement of Rule 307 that service be made at least ten days before the hearing. See Rule 314E as to reinstatement of complaints dismissed because of lack of service. [It is contemplated that the] The copies required in subdivisions (3) and (4) [will be] are provided by the District Justice Automated System [or ''snap out'' forms]. Giving the notice mentioned in subdivision (4)(a) is necessary if the defendant is to obtain judgment under Rule 319A because of the plaintiff's failure to appear. Subdivision (4)(b) gives notice of the right to file a cross-claim within district justice jurisdiction. The procedure for filing such a claim is set forth in Rule 315, and the [note] Note to that rule indicates possible procedures as to counterclaims not within district justice jurisdiction. Subdivision (4)(c) provides for a warning concerning a default judgment, which may be rendered under Rule 319B.

   Amended Oct. 17, 1975, effective in 90 days; June 30 1982, effective 30 days after July 17, 1982; March 27, 1992, effective June 25, 1992 [The March 27, 1992, Order provided in part:  ''in promulgating this Order, the Court recognizes that the District Justice Automation Project will be affected by said Rule changes and that, therefore, those Rules which affect the Project will become effective as the District Justice offices are brought on-line'']; amended April 5, 2002, effective July 1, 2002.

FINAL REPORT¹

Amendment to Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 305

AMENDMENT TO RULE 305 TO REMOVE FROM THE RULE THE IMPLICATION THAT PARTIES CAN OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE FROM DISTRICT JUSTICES OR COURT STAFF

   On April 5, 2002, effective July 1, 2002, upon recommendation of the Minor Court Rules Committee² , the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amended Rule 305 of the Rules of Conduct, Office Standards and Civil Procedure for District Justices³ .

I.  Background

   The Committee undertook a review of Rule 305 in response to a request from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC). The AOPC reported that it had received an inquiry from a district justice regarding the language on the Civil Action Hearing Notice, AOPCform 308-B-94. The last sentence in the third paragraph of the Notice to Defendant section of the form provides that if the defendant has ''a claim against the plaintiff which is not within district justice jurisdiction, you [the defendant] may request information from this [district justice court] office as to the procedures you may follow.'' The district justice was concerned that this language, the inclusion of which is required by Rule 305(4)(b), implies that a party can obtain legal advice from district justices or court staff. Upon review of the Rule, the Committee agreed that such an implication does exist. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that Rule 305 be amended to remove from the rule the language that creates the implication that parties can obtain legal advice from district justices or court staff.

   In conjunction with the amendment to the rule described above, the Committee also recognized the need for several technical or ''housekeeping'' amendments to this rule.

II.  Discussion of Rule Changes

   First, as noted above, the Committee recommended that the last sentence in Rule 305(4)(b) be deleted entirely as it creates the implication that parties can obtain legal advice from district justices or court staff. The Committee determined that the sentence may create more confusion and problems than it solves, and therefore should be deleted from the rule and the Civil Action Hearing Notice form.

   Also, the Committee recommended that both sentences in the section of the Notice to Defendant as required by Rule 305(4)(c) be capitalized to make this important section of the notice stand out more prominently.

   Finally, in conjunction with the proposed amendments to Rule 305 described above, the Committee also recognized the need for minor changes to the rule and its Note to make other minor clarifications, to address gender neutrality issues, and to conform with modern drafting style.

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 02-785. Filed for public inspection May 3, 2002, 9:00 a.m.]

_______

¹The Committee's Final Report should not be confused with the official Committee Notes to the Rules. Also, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania does not adopt the Committee's Notes or the contents of the Committee's explanatory Final Reports.

²Recommendation No. 5 Minor Court Rules 2001.

³Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Order No. 136, Magisterial Docket No. 1, Book No. 2 (April 5, 2002).

---

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

---