Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of Lawrence J. Fedigan v. City of Pittsburgh, et al., No. GD 84-14626, dated November 1, 1984.
Lindsley Wyatt Love, with her, Robert O. Lampl and Janice L. Morison, for appellant.
Robert B. Smith, Assistant City Solicitor, with him, D.R. Pellegrini, City Solicitor, for appellee, City of Pittsburgh.
Judge Craig and Senior Judges Blatt and Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 445]
Lawrence J. Fedigan (appellant) appeals the November 1, 1984 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) which dismissed, with prejudice, the City of Pittsburgh (City) as a defendant from the appellant's declaratory judgment action.
From September 9, 1973 through July 16, 1984, the appellant had been an employee of the Pittsburgh City Controller's Office. On the latter date, he was discharged for allegedly living outside of the City, in violation of Section 181.02 of the Pittsburgh Code (Code).*fn1
[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 446]
The appellant's complaint named as defendants: the Pittsburgh City Controller, Thomas Flaherty (Controller); Jeanne Terrence and Rober W. Kubit, Controller employees and members of the Controller's Personnel Committee; Scott E. Becker, Solicitor for the Controller (collectively, the individual defendants); and the City.
The City filed an answer which essentially denied that an employment relationship had existed between the appellant and itself and which contended that the appellant's complaint should be dismissed as against the City for an alleged failure to state a cause of action against it.
The individual defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint and a hearing thereon was scheduled for October 17, 1984. On the appellant's motion, with the agreement of all of the parties, the trial court continued this hearing until November 1, 1984, with notice thereof to all of the parties.*fn2
At the November 1, 1984 hearing, counsel for the City appeared and orally moved to dismiss the appellant's suit as against the City. This motion was granted and the trial court ordered the City dismissed as a defendant with prejudice. The trial court also sustained the individual defendants' ...