F. Cservak, Jr. v. PA Public Utility Commission

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Frank J. Cservak, Jr., :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 768 C.D. 2022
:
Pennsylvania Public Utility :
Commission, :
Respondent : Submitted: October 8, 2024
BEFORE: HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge
HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: November 6, 2024
Petitioner Frank J. Cservak, Jr. (Cservak)1 petitions for review of Respondent
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s (Commission) June 16, 2022 order,
through which the Commission dismissed a complaint Cservak had filed against
Duquesne Light Company (Duquesne Light or Company) in 2020. After thorough
consideration, we dismiss Cservak’s Petition for Review, due to his manifest failure
to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure’s dictates regarding
the contents of his appellate brief and of his reproduced record.
I. Background
As recounted by the Commission:
On March 2, 2020, Cservak submitted [a] Complaint [to]
the Commission[, in which he alleged that] incorrect
charges appeared on his Duquesne Light bills and that the
Company [had] improperly threatened to terminate his
electric service. Cservak also checked the “Other” box on
1
Cservak was initially represented by counsel in this matter, but is now proceeding pro se.
the formal complaint form, indicating that he [had]
removed one of the two meters servicing the Property and
alleg[ed] a meter twist.[2] On the same day, without
knowledge of Cservak’s filing and pursuant to a 10-day
termination notice that had been posted on his property,
Duquesne Light terminated [Cservak’s] electric service . .
. due to alleged meter tampering, irregular wiring, and a
potentially unsafe condition. The 10-day notice indicated
that the Company would not turn off service if Cservak
paid a $300 tampering fee and obtained a wiring
inspection.
....
Duquesne Light filed an Answer and New Matter,
complete with a Notice to Plead, on March 20, 2020. The
Answer and New Matter denied all material facts in the
Complaint and requested dismissal of the Complaint.
On April 24, 2020, Cservak filed his response to Duquesne
Light’s Answer and New Matter. On April 28, 2020 an
Interim Order was issued, which assigned the matter to the
Commission’s Mediation Unit. The Parties were unable to
come to a resolution of the Complaint during mediation,
and the matter was scheduled for telephonic hearing
before [an administrative law judge (ALJ)].
On June 12, 2020, Duquesne Light filed a Motion for
Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Motion for Partial
Judgment) on the basis that there was no issue of material
fact regarding the presence of meter tampering at the
Property and requested a determination that Duquesne
Light properly terminated Cservak’s service because of
the tampering. No Answer to the Motion for Partial
Judgment was filed [by Cservak].
At the hearing on July 9, 2020, the ALJ granted Duquesne
Light’s Partial Motion for Judgment regarding the meter
tampering and related account termination issue. The
hearing proceeded on all of the other issues raised in the
2
“Meter twist” refers to the accidental switching of electrical meters, resulting in electrical
usage for one account being incorrectly billed to another account. See Supplemental Reproduced
Record (S.R.R.) at 869a, 875a-79a.
2
Complaint. The ALJ also took official notice of the
pleadings in the case.
The Initial Decision was served on the Parties on March 2,
2021. Cservak filed Exceptions to the Initial Decision on
March 24, 2021 and Duquesne Light filed Replies to
Exceptions on April 5, 2021.
S.R.R.3 at 861a-62a (cleaned up).4
Cservak raised what amounted to four distinct arguments in those Exceptions.
First, Duquesne Light had wrongfully terminated his electrical service in response
to Cservak’s removal of an electric meter. Id. at 870a. Second, Duquesne Light had
inaccurately billed him for electricity usage, as shown by data from Cservak’s
personal metering device. Id. at 873a. Third, Duquesne Light had, at some point,
mistakenly switched the meter assignments for his Barn and Home accounts. Id. at
875a-76a. Finally, the ALJ had not considered various exhibits Cservak had attached
to his Complaint; documentation he had previously submitted to the Commission’s
Bureau of Consumer Services during the informal resolution process that had
preceded his formal Complaint; or the particulars of his settlement negotiations with
Duquesne Light. Id. at 879a.
On June 16, 2022, the Commission issued the aforementioned order, as well
as a detailed opinion. Therein, it denied all of Cservak’s Exceptions; adopted the
3
This Supplemental Reproduced Record was filed by the Commission. See Pa.R.A.P. 2156
(stating, in relevant part: “When, because of exceptional circumstances, the parties are not able to
cooperate on the preparation of the reproduced record as a single document, the appellee may, in
lieu of proceeding as otherwise provided in this chapter, prepare, serve, and file a supplemental
reproduced record setting forth the portions of the record designated by the appellee.”).
4
“By way of background and to aid understanding, Cservak’s property at 174 Barberry
Road, Sewickley Heights, PA[,] . . . contained two separate structures: a residential dwelling (the
Home) and a commercial rentable barn venue (the Barn). . . . [B]oth the Home and the Barn had
solar array panels and net electric service meters with separate account numbers at the time the
instant dispute arose.” S.R.R. at 860a (cleaned up).
3
ALJ’s Initial Decision in full; granted Duquesne Light’s Motion for Partial Judgment
regarding termination of Cservak’s electrical service; and dismissed Cservak’s
Complaint. Id. at 872a-73a, 875a, 878a-81a. This appeal followed shortly thereafter.
II. Discussion
Under normal circumstances, we would now consider the merits of Cservak’s
appellate arguments. Unfortunately, we are prevented from doing so by Cservak’s
abject failure to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure’s
requirements regarding the contents of his appellate brief and of his reproduced
record. “The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure delineate explicit
requirements for writing appellate briefs [and for submitting reproduced records], as
well as the penalty for failing to comply with these rules.” Grosskopf v. Workmen’s
Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kuhns Mkt.), 657 A.2d 124, 125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Per
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101:
Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all
material respects with the requirements of these rules as
nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will
admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the
defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the
appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter
may be quashed or dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
In this instance, Cservak has failed to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure’s dictates in multiple ways. First, his brief is not organized into
clearly defined and labelled sections, and does not have the Commission’s June 16,
2022 opinion and order appended thereto, in violation of Rule 2111. Second, the
brief does not include the text of the Commission’s order, in violation of Rule 2115.
Third, the brief is devoid of a statement of the case, in violation of Rule 2117. Fourth,
the brief’s argument section is simply two sub-paragraphs, which do not contain any
4
legal analysis or citations to the record, and consist entirely of conclusory statements,
in violation of Rule 2119. See Cservak’s Br., ¶5. Finally, Cservak’s reproduced
record contains no documents or docket entries whatsoever; instead, this so-called
“record” is a 58-paragraph-long narrative statement, through which Cservak offers
his recollection regarding the events that led to this appeal. See Reproduced Record,
¶¶1-58. Given this, we conclude that Cservak’s brief and reproduced record are
substantially defective.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, we dismiss Cservak’s Petition for Review.5
ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision of this case.
5
It also bears mentioning that, even if we were to ignore Cservak’s technical
noncompliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, it remains that he has also
waived all of his appellate issues by failing to offer sufficiently fleshed-out arguments in his brief.
See Ruiz v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 911 A.2d 600, 605 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (“When
issues are not properly raised and developed in a brief, or when the brief is inadequate or defective
because an issue is not adequately developed, this Court will not consider the merits of the issue.”);
Browne v. Com., 843 A.2d 429, 435 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (“At the appellate level, a party’s failure
to include analysis and relevant authority results in waiver.”).
5
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Frank J. Cservak, Jr., :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 768 C.D. 2022
:
Pennsylvania Public Utility :
Commission, :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of November, 2024, it is hereby ORDERED that
Petitioner Frank J. Cservak, Jr.’s Petition for Review is DISMISSED.
ELLEN CEISLER, Judge