STYLIANI MASHAS AND JOHN MASHAS AND STAVROS PAXINOS AND ANGELICA PAXINOS v. MARY ELIZABETH SUCICH (2011)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 4 th day of May, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED.   Petitioners' counsel explained her absence at trial was due to the trial court's failure to comply with Administrative Judicial Order 98–1, a Philadelphia local rule of civil procedure that mandates notice of trial be given no later than 3:00 p.m. the day prior to trial.   See Administrative Judicial Order 98–1 (“Cases will not be assigned later than 3:00 p.m. on the day prior to jury selection.”).   It is undisputed the trial court did not comply with this rule, as it notified Petitioners' counsel of the upcoming trial at 3:55 p.m. the day before trial.   As such, Petitioners demonstrated a reasonable explanation for their absence, and have therefore met the second prong of the test for opening a judgment of non pros.   See Pa.R.Civ.P. 3051 (to seek relief from a judgment of non pros, a petitioner must show (1) the petition was timely filed;  (2) there is a reasonable explanation for the inactivity or delay;  and (3) there is a meritorious cause of action).   As the Superior Court held otherwise, its conclusion was in error.   Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for consideration of the remaining factors for granting a motion to open a judgment of non pros.

Justice Saylor files a Dissenting Statement which is joined by Justice Eakin.

PER CURIAM