IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jodi Isenberg, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1399 C.D. 2012 : Submitted: March 1, 2013 Philadelphia Parking Authority : and Bureau of Administrative : Adjudication : BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: June 12, 2013 Jodi Isenberg, pro se, appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court), sustaining her appeal of three parking citation adjudications issued by the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Despite the fact that the trial court found in her favor, Isenberg appeals the trial court s order because it did not decide the due process claims raised in her appeal or her request to consolidate her appeal with four other parking ticket appeals. We affirm the trial court. The underlying facts are not in dispute. Isenberg, a Pennsylvania resident, purchased a vehicle in New Jersey in December of 2010. The vehicle had a New Jersey New Car Dealer State Inspection Sticker that expired in March of
2012. 1 Isenberg registered the vehicle in Pennsylvania but did not have the vehicle inspected in Pennsylvania, believing that the New Jersey inspection sticker was valid through its expiration date. On December 30, 2010, the Philadelphia Parking Authority (Parking Authority) issued a citation to Isenberg for having an expired or missing inspection sticker. Certified Record, Item 2, Citation No: 556574200 (C.R. ). Isenberg requested a hearing on the matter, which she received on May 10, 2011. By that date, the Parking Authority had issued two more citations to Isenberg for the same conduct, i.e., for an expired or missing inspection sticker. C.R. Item 2; Citation Nos. 560219727 and 561756487. The three citations were consolidated for the May 10, 2011, hearing. A hearing before a Parking Hearing Examiner of the Parking Authority s Bureau of Administration Adjudication was held. Isenberg argued that her New Jersey inspection sticker complied with Pennsylvania law. The hearing examiner rejected this argument, concluding that Isenberg was required to have an out-of-state vehicle inspected within ten days of registering it in Pennsylvania. Isenberg then appealed to the Parking Authority s Appeals Panel. By the time of this appeal, Isenberg had received two additional parking citations for the same offense and two citations for parking at an expired meter. Isenberg asked the Appeals Panel to consolidate her challenge to all seven citations or, alternatively, the five citations involving the inspection sticker issue. The Appeals Panel explained that it could not grant the request because Isenberg had yet to have a hearing on the latter four citations. Isenberg did not object to this 1 Isenberg notes that New Jersey only requires state inspection every two years. 2
ruling. Reproduced Record at 30 (R.R. ). The Appeals Panel affirmed the hearing examiner s determination. Isenberg appealed to the trial court. Her appeal purported to appeal seven parking citations and challenged the Parking Authority s manner of issuing meter violations. She amended her notice of appeal to name the Parking Authority as a party. The trial court heard oral argument on Isenberg s appeal. Isenberg argued that the Parking Authority should be a party because it issued the citations; that the Parking Authority s hearing examiners were not properly qualified or trained to do their jobs; and that it was unconstitutional for the Appeals Panel not to consolidate all her parking citations. The Parking Authority responded that Isenberg s consolidation request could not be granted and that Isenberg s issues had not been preserved. On the merits, Isenberg argued that regulations of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation established that a new vehicle which displays a valid certificate of inspection at the time of sale or resale may be driven until the inspection certificate expires. 67 Pa. Code 175.8(b). The Parking Authority countered that a valid certificate of inspection refers to a Pennsylvania certificate of inspection, not one from out-of-state. Section 4703(a) of the Vehicle Code requires a vehicle with Pennsylvania registration plates to display a valid certificate of inspection issued under this chapter. 75 Pa. C.S. 4703(a). A New Jersey inspection sticker is not issued under this chapter. The Parking Authority further noted that [n]ewly-purchased vehicles may be driven without a current inspection certificate for ten days after sale or resale or entry into this Commonwealth, whichever occurs later. 75 Pa. C.S. 4703(d). Thus, Isenberg 3
was not entitled to wait until her New Jersey inspection sticker expired to have her vehicle inspected in Pennsylvania. The trial court sustained Isenberg s appeal but in doing so held that she had not preserved her constitutional claims. 2 Court. 3 Isenberg then appealed to this She raises three issues. First, she contends that the trial court erred in finding her constitutional claims waived and that allowing hearing examiners without the education, experience or training to produce a factual record sufficient to allow appellate review violates due process. Second, she contends that it was improper for the Appeals Panel to refuse to consolidate all five of the citations for expired inspection. Third, she contends that the trial court erred in not making the Parking Authority a party so that she could challenge the manner in which it issues citations for unpaid parking tickets and in other ways fails to comply with laws on parking meters and kiosks. The Philadelphia Code is a codification of all the general ordinances of the City [of Philadelphia], including those relating to the Parking Authority. PHILA. CODE 1-101(1), 10TH EDITION (2011). Section 12-2807(1) of The Philadelphia Code explains that adjudications of parking violations are first conducted by a Parking Hearing Examiner. PHILA. CODE 12-2807(1). An appeal from a determination of a Parking Hearing Examiner is submitted to a Parking Appeals Panel which shall have power to review the facts and the law, and shall have power to affirm 2 The trial court offered no explanation for finding in Isenberg s favor. The Parking Authority has not appealed the ruling. 3 Where the trial court does not take additional evidence, our review of a decision of a local agency is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law committed, or whether necessary finding of fact are supported by the evidence. Kovler v. Bureau of Administration Adjudication, 6 A.3d 1060, 1062 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). 4
the determination or to reverse or modify any determination appealed from for error of fact [or] law, or to remand for additional proceedings, or, in appropriate cases, to hear the matter de novo. PHILA. CODE 12-2808(2). [T]he decision of the Parking Appeals Panel [may then be appealed to the trial court] and then to this Court. O Neil v. City of Philadelphia, 711 A.2d 544, 548 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). In her first issue, Isenberg contends that her constitutional claims were not waived. In response, the Parking Authority argues that Isenberg s appeal should be dismissed as moot because her claims arise from the adjudication of three parking citations, which were dismissed by the trial court. Thus, she is not aggrieved. We agree. Only an aggrieved party can appeal from an order entered by a lower court. Maple Street A.M.E. Zion Church v. City of Williamsport, 7 A.3d 319, 322 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). A prevailing party that disagrees with the legal reasoning of an order or a court or agency or may have had a particular issue decided against it lacks standing to appeal because it is not adversely affected by the order. Id. A prevailing party lacks standing to appeal. Id. at 323; see also PA. R.A.P. 501 ( any party who is aggrieved by an appealable order may appeal to an appellate court). The trial court sustained Isenberg s appeal of her three parking tickets. Thus, she is not aggrieved. In her second issue, Isenberg argues that the trial court erred in not consolidating all of her parking citations. We will address this claim because it has not been decided in her favor. Isenberg requested that four other parking citations be consolidated, but before this Court, she addresses only the two citations involving her state inspection sticker. Isenberg argues that the Appeals Panel should have heard all of 5
her parking citations together because to do otherwise wastes time, resources and sanity. Significantly, Isenberg did not raise any of these arguments to the Appeals Panel. When Isenberg was informed that additional tickets could not be addressed on appeal, because a first hearing had yet to be held, she responded OK. R.R. 30. Issues not raised before a local agency are waived. Kovler, 6 A.3d at 1065 n.10. In any case, the trial court properly determined that Isenberg was obligated to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking relief. The courts of this Commonwealth have long held that a party challenging administrative decision-making must first exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review; where such remedies exist, courts lack jurisdiction. Pennsylvania Pharmacists Association v. Department of Public Welfare, 733 A.2d 666, 672 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). Isenberg had an administrative remedy by which to challenge the four additional parking citations, i.e., an appeal to a parking hearing examiner. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to address the additional tickets. In her third issue, Isenberg sought to challenge the conduct of the Parking Authority in policing its meters. Isenberg s claims about the Parking Authority s monitoring and regulation of parking meters has nothing to do with her inspection sticker appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court. MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge 6
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jodi Isenberg, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1399 C.D. 2012 : Philadelphia Parking Authority : and Bureau of Administrative : Adjudication : O R D E R AND NOW, this 12 th day of June, 2013, Jodi Isenberg s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of standing as to her constitutional claims and adjudicated parking citations; as to the remaining claims, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dated June 14, 2012, is AFFIRMED in accordance with the attached opinion. MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge