Legal News

Superior Court Says It?s OK to Rely on Defective Online Dockets

By Brian Harris

The advent of electronic filing and online dockets over the past decade or so is no doubt a positive development for litigators and their clients.  The ability to file documents with a court from the comfort of one?s own office (and, in many cases, as late as literally at the last minute) is good for the environment, less costly for lawyers and litigants and a godsend to procrastinating lawyers everywhere.  Likewise, online dockets allow lawyers and their clients to avoid the cost of time-consuming trips to clerks? offices to review dockets or retrieve pleadings.  Yet, as is often the case in the electronic world, dangers lurk in the shadows when we rely too heavily on virtual documents in lieu of real, paper ones.

A case in point is the Pennsylvania Superior Court?s recent decision in Calabrese v. Zeager.  The court ultimately reversed the judgment in favor of the defendant in this contract dispute, but not before analyzing whether it had jurisdiction at all to entertain the plaintiffs? appeal.  The problem: the plaintiffs had filed their notice of appeal 40 days after entry of judgment, 10 days too late under Rule 903(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In response to a request from the court, plaintiffs? counsel submitted a brief arguing that the appeal should not be dismissed because, when the judgment was entered on March 23, 2007, only defendant?s counsel was notified of entry of the judgment.  Counsel supported this contention with reference to the docket, which read, in relevant part, ?Notice of entry of judgment mailed to the defendant.?  As the court noted, under Rule 108 of the appellate rules, the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal does not begin to run until the clerk notes on the docket that notice of the entry of judgment has been mailed to the parties.  Since plaintiffs claimed that the judgment was not mailed to them until April 3, 2007, and they filed their notice of appeal within 30 days of this date, their appeal appeared to be timely.

But things weren?t that simple.  As the court pointed out, the docket entry relied upon by plaintiffs? counsel ?is that which appears on Lancaster County?s internet website.?  The online docket, however, had numerous errors, such as indicating that judgment had been entered for plaintiffs, which obviously was not the case.  More pertinent to the present problem, while the online docket indicated that notice of entry of the judgment had been mailed only to defendant, the paper docket, which appeared in the certified record transmitted from the trial court to the Superior Court, clearly stated that notice of entry of judgment had been mailed to counsel for all parties.

The Superior Court resolved this dilemma in favor of plaintiffs, finding that, because the county ?published the flawed online docket and thereby imbued the information with the aura of legitimacy, litigants should not be penalized for relying upon errors contained therein.?  It appears, therefore, that in the future, counsel can continue to rely on the accuracy of online dockets (even, presumably, in Lancaster County, where the online docket entries contain obvious and significant errors) when determining the due date for important filings such as notices of appeal.

Unmentioned by the Superior Court was the apparent disconnect between the official docket?s statement that notice had been mailed to plaintiffs? counsel on March 23 and counsel?s contention that the notice he received was mailed (and postmarked) on April 3.  One possibility, of course, is that the official, paper docket similarly contained errors.  For, it is not the inherent nature of the Internet that leads to errors in online dockets, but us less-than-perfect humans who place the content there.

This posting is intended only to inform, not to provide legal advice; and readers should seek professional advice for specific applications of the information.

Bruce P. Merenstein
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
www.schnader.com

Full post as published by The Legal Intelligencer Blog on July 16, 2009 (boomark / email).