Jerry Notarianni and Kim Yencho v. Patrick O'Malley, et al.

Summary

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the denial of preliminary mandatory injunctive relief sought by Jerry Notarianni and Kim Yencho. The appellants challenged county appointments as allegedly violating the Sunshine Act, the Lackawanna County Home Rule Charter, and limits on lame-duck governmental action, and sought designation of Notarianni as the Minority Commissioner. The court concluded that the appellants had not shown a clear right to relief or satisfied the requirements for a preliminary mandatory injunction.

Holdings

1. A party seeking preliminary mandatory injunctive relief must establish all six prerequisites, including a clear right to relief or, in the injunction context, a substantial legal question, irreparable harm, restoration of the status quo, lack of an adequate remedy at law, greater injury from denial than issuance, and consistency with the public interest. Failure to establish any one prerequisite warrants denial.
2. Appellants did not establish a clear right or sufficient likelihood of success on their claim that the appointments of at-will county officials were invalid because they were effected outside a public meeting. The Sunshine Act does not expressly classify hiring or appointment of these county employees as official action requiring a public meeting, and the written assents were not shown to be votes on a motion, proposal, resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, report, or order.
3. The lame-duck board's appointment of the county solicitor was not shown to be invalid as an attempt to bind the successor board because the position was at-will and subject to removal by the appointing authority; unlike a binding contract, the appointment did not impose a long-term obligation on the successor board.
4. Notarianni did not establish a clear legal right to be designated Minority Commissioner or to appoint a separate minority solicitor based on two challenged appointment decisions allegedly reflecting a voting bloc.
5. The court declined to dismiss the appeal in part because the open-government issues were important to the public, capable of repetition, and yet evading review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether appellants established the prerequisites for a preliminary mandatory injunction requiring removal of county officials allegedly appointed outside a public meeting in violation of the Sunshine Act and Home Rule Charter.
2. Whether written assent on hiring forms constituted a vote or other official action requiring the appointments to be made at a public meeting under the Sunshine Act.
3. Whether the lame-duck board's appointment of the county solicitor unlawfully bound the successor board under the rule against lame-duck commitments.
4. Whether Notarianni established a clear right to be designated Minority Commissioner based on an alleged voting alliance between the other two commissioners and thereby appoint a minority solicitor.
5. Whether the appeal should be dismissed in part because the trial court dismissed the removal claims, including whether the open-government issues were capable of repetition yet evading review.

Disposition

affirmed