COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JAMES R. PAVLOCK : COMMONWEALTH COURT Appellee 1474 CD 2012 v BUREAU OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION Appellant IIL 1080104800049 OPINION LEON W. TUCKER, J. DATE: October 2, 2012 L Procedural History granti This matter comes before the Commonwealth Court on appeal from an order of this Court equitable relief in favor of James R, Paviock and against the Philadelphia Bureau of Administrative Adjudication pursuant to Pennsylvania Administrative and Procedure statutes and The Philadelphia Code. The Bureau of Administrative Adjudication (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”) sustained liability against James R. Pavlock (hereinafter referred to as “Appellee”) for two parking violations issued in Philadelphia County. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Local Agency Law and the Philadelphia Code, Appellee appealed Appellant's decision to sustain his parking violations. 2 Pa.C.S. § 752; The Philadelphia Code § 12-2807. A hearing was held in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on April 5, 2012 wherein Appellant’sdecision to sustain Appellee’s parking violations was overruled by the Court on the merits, Order Entered- Final Disp., docketed (04/10/2012). In addition to secking relief on appeal of the merits of his parking violations, Appellee also sought equitable relief against Appellant. The Court orally denied Appellee’s claims for equitable relief at the conclusion of the April 5, 2012 hearing on the merits of the parking violation, N-T. at 20-21 (04/05/2012). Appellee filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's denial of equitable relief; the Court granted Appellee’s Motion for Reconsideration, stayed all proceedings, and scheduled a hearing on the merits of the equitable relief claim for May 15, 2012. Mot. for Reconsideration (04/16/2012); Order Entered by J. Tucker (04/18/2012); Mot, Hearing Scheduled (04/18/2012). The Court heard arguments on Appellee’s request for equitable relief, and subsequently issued an Order in favor of Appellee and against Appellant on July 9, 2012. Order Entered by J. Tucker, docketed (07/11/2012). On July 20, 2012, Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s July 9, 2012 Order; the Court denied the same on July 23, 2012. Mot. for Reconsideration (07/20/2012); Order Entered by J. Tucker, docketed (07/26/2012). The City of Philadelphia, through its Law Department, heretofore not a party to the matter, entered its appearance and filed ‘an appeal to both the July 9, 2012 Order granting relief and the July 23, 2012 Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Entry of Appearance Filed (08/01/2012); Appeal to Commonwealth Court (08/01/2012). The Court’s denial of a Motion for Reconsideration is not reviewable, Provident Nat'l Bank v, Rooklin, 378 A.2d 893, 897 (Pa. Super. 1977). On August 2, 2012, the Court ordered Appellant BAA to file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.AP. 1925(b) (“1925(b) Statement”). On August 22, 2012, the City of Philadelphia and the Parking Authority, appearing ex rel for thefirst time on appeal without permission, filed a 1925(b) Statement on their own behalf. Appellant BAA did not file a 1925(b) Statement. The Court will not reproduce the 1925(b) Statement here as is its usual custom, 1925(b) Statement. After careful review, the Court finds these claims without merit, and recommends that the appeal be quashed. ‘The Court notes that the City of Philadelphia and the Parking Authority are procedural strangers to this appeal. The City of Philadelphia is a City of the First Class in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The City of Philadelphia has the authority to self gover, legislate and perform administrative duties in relation to its municipal functions. Philadelphia Home Rule Charter § 1-100. The Parking Authority is a separate body politic and corporate incorporated by the City of Philadelphia. 53 Pa.C.S. § 5503; City of Philadelphia v. Schweiker, 858 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2004); City of Philadelphia v. Phila. Parking Authority, 837 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Cmwith, 2003). Specifically, the Philadelphia City Council made the following legislative finding regards to the Parking Authority: The Council of the City of Philadelphia hereby finds: (1) That the City of Philadelphia, in the exercise of its police powers to regulate parking, stopping and standing of vehicles within the City of Philadelphia, has enacted the comprehensive ‘Traffic Code which was intended to provide a rational system for the enforcement of parking regulations, promote public safety and convenience, provide for the unencumbered flow of traffic and transit operations, and enhance economic activity by ensuring an adequate supply of short-term curbside parking; (2) That since 1981, several blue ribbon panels have concluded that the current system of parking violation enforcement within the criminal justice system has resulted in the improper and inefficient allocation of parking violation enforcement responsibility between the judiciary and the executive branch of Philadelphia City government; the absence of centralized and uniform parking policymaking in the City; an unmanageable volume of cases in the Traffic Court; unfaimess to citizens caused by the threat and stigma of a criminal sanction, unreasonable delays between the issuance of a citation and its adjudication in court, and an unpredictable process for contesting citations; and an inefficient system for the collection of parking fines;(3) That the City of Philadelphia, pursuant to its police powers and pertinent provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, is authorized to provide for parking violation enforcement outside of the criminal justice system, and an administrative process for the adjudication of parking violations is an efficient, fair and reasonable alternative thereto; (4) That the City of Philadelphia, pursuant to the authority granted it by Section 345 of the Parking Authority Law (53 P.S. §§ 341 et seq.) has, by Ordinance No. 1633 approved April 8, 1983, delegated to the Philadelphia Parking Authority certain powers relating to the administration, supervision and enforcement of on-street parking regulations and the collection, on behalf of the City of fines and penalties imposed in connection with the violation of parking, regulations; and (5) That a system of administrative adjudication of parking violations should provide for the proper separation of the administrative and executive functions from the adjudicatory function in the enforcement process; establish a unified and comprehensive parking management system; provide for coordinated parking policymaking; promote a fair, uniform and expeditious system for the disposition of parking violations; and increase the collection of parking program revenues The Philadelphia Code § 12-2801 The BAA is a local agency operating under the office of the City of Philadelphia Director of Finance. The Philadelphia Code § 12-2802; O'Neill v. City of Philadelphia, 32 F.3d 785, 787 (3d Cir. 1994); O'Neill v, City of Philadelphia, 711 A.2d 544, 545 (Pa.Cmwith. 1998), Appellant BAA is a party to the underlying agency appeal; Appellant BAA appears in the instant appeal in its capacity as an administrative agency. Philadelphia Board of Pensions & Retirement ¥. Pearlman, 586 A.2d 466, 467-468 (Pa. Cmwith. 1991). Neither the City of Philadelphia nor the Philadelphia Parking Authority took the proper procedural steps to proceed on appeal. ‘The Court expresses great concer as to the relationship between the City of Philadelphia and the BAA and as to whether or not the City of Philadelphia may act on the BAA’s behalf on. appeal. Up until the time of appeal, the BAA has proceeded with its own attorneys. Certified Record (12/02/2012); Brief Filed (02/06/2012); Mot. for Reconsideration (07/20/2012). Indeed, the City of Philadelphia entered its appearance on behalf of the City of Philadelphia and the Parking Authority, and not the BAA. Entry of Appearance (08/01/2012); Appeal toCommonwealth Court (08/01/2012). The City of Philadelphia then filed an appeal on behalf of itself and the Parking Authority and not the BAA; again both entities are strangers to the instant appeal. With the appearance of the City of Philadelphia on appeal, the BAA looks more like a revenue generating arm of the City of Philadelphia and not a separate local adjudicative agency. H Faets This Court adopts pertinent and salient facts of Appellee, which are as follows. On December 20, 2010, Appellee James R. Pavlock received a “Parking Violation” citation on his vehicle, located at 522 North 22nd Street, Philadelphia, Officer “L. Garland” of the Philadelphia Parking Authority issued the parking violation, but the officer did not sign or affirm the truth of the facts in the parking violation. The ticket alleged a parking violation of Philadelphia Code § 12-913(1)(B)(iii) somewhere along the “599 blk N 22nd St. ES” (“ES” indicating the east side of the 599 block of North 22nd Street), which proscribes parking “within twenty (20) feet of a crosswalk at an intersection.” On December 22, 2010, Appellee requested by letter a hearing at the Appellant, the BAA, on the alleged parking violation, specifically requesting the presence of Officer L. Gatland at the hearing to assist him in proof against the parking violations. On January 4, 2011, Appellee received another “Parking Violation” for “Stopping Prohibited,” in violation of Philadelphia Code § 903(1)(C). The ticket writer, Officer “T. Linn,” indicated that his vehicle was parked somewhere along the “500 Blk N. 19th Street WS” (“WS” indicating the west side of 19th Street). As with his prior ticket, this ticket also failed to bear either T. Linn’s electronic or actual signature or oath or affirmation of the truth of the facts therein, Thereafter, Appellee requested a hearing on this second ticket and requested in writing the presence of the patking violation writer at the hearing to assist him against the parking violations.On April 27, 2011, Appellee had his first hearing with Appellant for both the December 20, 2010 and January 4, 2011 alleged parking violations. The Court notes that pursuant to the Philadelphia Code, the first hearing is to be before a Parking Heating Examiner, while the second hearing is before the Parking Appeals Panel. The Philadelphia Code § 12-2802; § 12- 2807; § 12-2808. The instant appeal did not proceed in this manner. The second appeal hearing was solely before another Hearing Examiner. Certified Record (12/02/2012); Brief Filed (12/22/2011). At the first hearing, Appellee presented a copy of the letter wherein he had requested the presence of Officer L. Garland and renewed his request for both ticket writers” presence, The hearing examiner stated on the record that Appellant never produces ticket writers as witnesses. Brief Filed (12/22/2011). As to his December 20, 2010 parking violation, Appellee argued that the parking violation was insufficient because it (1) lacked the signature or oath and affirmation of the ticket writer as required by Philadelphia Code §12-2804, (2) did not inform him of the location of the violation, and (3) did not establish a violation of § 12- 913(1)(B)(ii) of the Philadelphia Code. Id. Appellee also produced a series of photographs as to where his vehicle was parked on the 599 block of North 22nd Strect on the day of the alleged Violation. Jd. However, despite the photographs indicating that Appellee’s car was parked in front of an alley rather than a crosswalk at an intersection, Appellant rejected Appellee’s contention and found that a violation had occurred because the vehicle was parked on a comer. Jd. Appellee was held liable for the parking violation in the amount of $51. With regard to his January 4, 2011 parking violation, Appellee argued that the parking violation insufficiently identified the location of the alleged violation and presented a series of photographs identifying ample legal parking spaces at the locations described in the parking violation. Jd. Appellant rejected Appellee’s contention and held Appellee liable for $76Pursuant to Philadelphia Code § 12-2808, Appellee appealed Appellant's decisions ‘Appellee again requested in writing the presence of both parking violation writers at the hearing to assist him in the proof against the allegations. The second appeal hearing with Appellant occurred on July 19, 2011. At the outset of the hearing, Appellee renewed his request for the presence of Officer L. Garland, but Appellant stated that the parking violation writer need not be present, During the hearing, Appellee reiterated the same arguments he made during his first hearing with Appellant. At the conclusion of this appeal hearing, Appellee was adjudicated liable in the amount of $51 and $76 on each of the respective parking violations, Legal Analysis 1. The Court did not err in deciding the merits of Appellee’s two parking violations. ‘The Court will address the issue of whether the Court erred in ruling on the merits of the parking violations. The City of Philadelphia delegates to the Philadelphia Parking Authority the authority to administer, supervise, and enforce on-street parking regulations and collections of fines and penalties associated with the violation of parking regulations. The Philadelphia Code §12-2801(4). An aggrieved party, in answer to a parking violation or notice of violation, has the right to request a hearing with respect to a parking violation. Jd. at §12-2806. After hearing evidence and arguments, the Parking Hearing Examiner makes a decision regarding the parking violation. id, at § 12-2807(6). Ifa party remains dissatisfied with the decision of the Parking Hearing Examiner, the aggrieved party has 30 (thirty) days to appeal from the determination of the Parking Hearing Examiner by submitting the appeal to the Parking Appeals Panel. Id. at § 12-2808(2). Appellant BAA conducts appeal hearings from the Parking Hearing Examiner decision, O'Neill, 32 F.3d 785 at 787. The decision of the Parking Appeals Panel is final andcan be appealed to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, and through the state judicial system. 2 Pa. C.S. § 752; The Philadelphia Code § 12-2808 To the extent that Appellant BAA argues that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the underlying merits of the parking violations, the Court finds such claims to be without merit, and disingenuous. Here, Appellant attempted to “dismiss” the underlying parking violations a week before the briefs were due to the Court of Common Pleas. N.T. at 4, 14 (04/05/2012). First, to the extent that Appellant argues that issues surrounding the parking violations are somehow moot on appeal, there is no basis in law for this proposition. Once an appeal is taken, the lower court or other governmental unit or agency is barred from taking any further action without leave from the appellate court. Pa.R.A-P. 1701. At most, the lower adjudicative body may take steps to preserve the status quo, not attempt to moot out the issues on appeal. Id. (emphasis added). Appellant cannot unilaterally decide to cancel or dismiss the underlying parking violations in an effort to moot out the issue of the appeal. The Court finds Appellant’s attempts to do such a thing as not only disingenuous, but wholly bereft of any legal basis under the laws of the Philadelphia Code, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or the laws of the United States of America, Second, even if the parking violations were rendered moot by Appellant's unilateral cancellation of them, the facts of this matter support the application of all three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: 1) when the case involves questions of great public importance, such as here; or 2) when the conduct complained of is capable of repetition yet avoiding review, such as here; or 3) when a party to the controversy will suffer some detriment without the Court’s decision, such as here. County Council of the County of Erie v. County Executive of the County of Erie, 600 A.2d 257, 259 (Pa.Cmwlth, 1991); Harris v. Rendell, 982 A.2d 1030, 1037 (Pa. Cmwith. 2009).The instant matter satisfies the first mootness doctrine exception because the circumstances here are exceptional and involve questions of great public importance. Here, Appellant adjudicates numerous parking violations from multiple entities and agencies in the City of Philadelphia, N.T. at 27-28 (06/28/2012). In addition, the governing statutes for Appellant do not deal with or contemplate the current situation where Appellant BAA intentionally and completely ignores the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Code by: (1) refusing Appellee the opportunity to examine and cross-examine issuing officers under any circumstances; (2) sustaining parking violations that do not provide sufficient information identifying the specific location of the violation; (3) sustaining parking violations that are not signed under oath or otherwise affirmed; and (4) by not issuing findings and reasons for an adverse decision. Certified Record (12/02/2011); 2 Pa.C.S. § $54-555; The Philadelphia Code §12-2804(3); The Philadelphia Code §12-2804(5). The instant matter satisfies the second mootness doctrine exception because it is capable of repetition yet evading review. A matter is capable of repetition yet evading review where: 1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same action again, as he received the parking violations within a short period of time. Ass'n of Pa. State College & Univ. Faculties v. Pa. Labor Rels. Bd., 8 A.3d 300, 305 (Pa. 2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Buehl, 462 A.2d 1316, 1319 (Pa. Super. 1983)). Here, if Appellee’s cancellation of the parking violations rendered the issues on appeal moot, then by definition the challenged actions Appellee are too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expitation, There is a reasonable expectation that Appellee will be subjected to Appellee’s same actions again, having received two parking violations in a short period of time. Finally, Appelleewould suffer a detriment without the Court ruling on the merits of the parking violations. Here, Appellant sustained Appellee’s parking violations without any substantial evidence to support its determination, 2 Pa. C.S. § 754, Without the Court’s ruling, Appellee would have remained liable for $127 worth of parking violations not supported by fact or law. The Court did not err in deciding the merit of Appellee’s parking violations. When it is said that the laws are for the lawless, it brings to mind thugs, hoodlums, sneak- thieves and the like. A review of the Certified Record in this matter manifests an intentional disregard of the mandates put in place to ensure faimess to the citizenry, and projects quite a different image of that saying. Nonetheless, the City of Philadelphia and its agencies expect and desire the citizenry to adhere to the laws of the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth, when it will not 2. The Court properly granted Appellee equitable relief pursuant to Local Agency Law. Under Local Agency Law: (a) General rule, --A party who proceeded before a local agency under the terms of a particular statute, home rule charter, or local ordinance or resolution shall not be precluded from questioning the validity of the statute, home rule charter or local ordinance or resolution in the appeal, but ifa full and complete record of the proceedings before the agency was made such party may not raise upon appeal any other question not raised before the agency (notwithstanding the fact that the agency may not be competent to resolve such question) unless allowed by the court upon due cause shown, (b) Equitable relief. The remedy at law provided by subsection (a) shall not in any manner impair the right to equitable relief heretofore existing, and such right to equitable relief is hereby continued, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) 2 PaCS. § 753 (emphasis retained). Appellants in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have the right to seek equitable relief at the same time they pursue their agency appeals.This right has its origins in the Pennsylvania statutes governing appeals from both local agencies and Commonwealth or state agencies. 2 Pa.C.S. $703 applies to state agencies, while 2 Pa.C.S. $753 applies to Local agencies; both sections provide the identical right to seek equitable relief on appeal of an agency adjudication. 2 Pa.C.S. §703; 2 Pa.C.S. §753. As long as an appellant seeks equitable relief during or at the same time as he or she seeks relief on the merits of the appeal, the appellant has standing to bring a claim for equitable relief, and the reviewing Court has jurisdiction to resolve the equitable issue. Lundy v. City of Williamsport, 548 A.2d 1339, 1341 (Pa. Cmwith. 1988). Here, Appellee was issued two parking violations on December 20, 2010 and January 4, 2011. Certified Record ( 12/02/2011). Appellee completed two hearings on each parking violation, one before the one Hearing Examiner and the other before a different Hearing Examiner at Appellant, the BAA, not the Parking Appeals Panel. Id. Appellant sustained the parking violations against Appellee. Appellee then filed an appeal to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Notice of Statutory Appeal (08/04/2011). Appellee requested judicial review of the agency adjudication and equitable review under 2 Pa.C.S. $753 within the same proceeding. Br. Filed (12/22/2011); Br. Filed (12/23/2011). Appellee properly preserved his request for equitable relief under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. To the extent that Appellant suggests that it is not a local agency governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Court finds such argument without merit. Appellant is a local agency under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purposes of adjudicating parking violations. O'Neill, 32 F.3d at 787 (explaining the historical relationship between the Philadelphia County Traffic Court and the BAA iand citing to the Pennsylvania Local Agency Law); The Philadelphia Code § 12-2800 et seq. The Court properly heard and decided Appellee’s request for equitable relief because this case was an appeal under Local Agency Law 3. The Court did not err in ordering Appellee to follow the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Code. Courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may exercise their power to grant equitable relief where that power is conferred by statute or other legislation. 42 PaCS. § 912. In addition, the Court has the power to craft relief that conforms to the equities of the case. Signal v, Manufacturers Light & Heat Co., 299 A.2d 646, 647 (Pa. 1973). Under the practice and procedures governing local agency adjudications, “[IJocal agencies shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence at agency hearings, and all relevant evidence of reasonably probative value may be received. Reasonable examination and cross- examination shall be permitted.” 2 Pa. C.S. § 554. Under the Philadelphia Code: (3) Aparking ticket may be served upon the owner of the vehicle by affixing the ticket to the vehicle in a conspicuous place. A parking ticket may be served personally upon the operator of a vehicle who is present at the time of service. The plate number and type as shown by the registration plates of the vehicle and the make or model of the vehicle shall be recorded on the ticket. Ifthe license plate is not visible or legible or has been improperly affixed to the vehicle, other appropriate identification may be used, such as the vehicle identification number. The parking ticket shall also contain other sufficient information to identify the vehicle and to inform the person of the nature, date, time and location of the violation alleged. A parking ticket served by affixation as provided in this subsection shall be subject to the same fines, costs and additional fees and shall have the same force and effect as if the parking ticket were personally served on the owner and operator of the vehicle, 232.1 (3) _ The original parking ticket shall be signed by the issuing officer who shall affirm the truth of the facts set forth therein. The original ticket or any true copy thereof (or any facsimile of the original ticket transferred onto microfilm, computer tape, or other form of data storage) shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the City and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. 12The Philadelphia Code § 12-2804(3); 12-2804(5)(emphasis added). In addition, the practice and procedure governing local agency adjudications provides “all adjudications of a local agency shall be in writing, shall contain findings and the reasons for the adjudication, and shall be served upon all parties or their counsel personally, or by mail.” 2 Pa. C.S. § 555. Here, the Certified Record confirms that Appellant conducted its agency adjudication of Appellee’s parking violations in direct contravention of these statutes, Appellant outright refuused Appellee the right to examine and cross examination at his appeal hearing, contrary to 2 PaCS. § 534. 2 PaCS, § 554; Certified Record (10/02/2011). The Court notes the following exchange between Appellee and Appellant at the July 19, 2011 BAA hearing: Hearing Officer: Good Morning, My name is Harry Allen, I am a Hearing Officer here for the City of Philadelphia. Lot the record state we are now beginning the hearing. It is being recorded. Appellee Pavlock: Good Morning Hearing Officer: PA-GMD3569. For the record would you please state your name? Appellee Pavlock: James Pavlock. Hearing Officer: today? Do you hereby swear or affirm you will be telling the truth at the hearing Appelice Pavlock: Yes. Hearing Officer: OK sir, your appeal hearing, and I sce stopping prohibited and the comer clearance ticket. Appellee Pavlock: Yes sir, we can start with that one, jearing Officer: he comer clearance one; you stopped at the comer Appellee Pavlock: I like to object just for the record for the appeal. I don’t know where this would go. The fact the ticket writer who I requested to be here in writing is not here and I realize 1 was told they never come, is that correct? Hearing Officer: Right, they don’t have to be here 1BCertified Record (12/02/2011)(N.T. at 1 (07/19/2011) punctuation added). Appellee was denied his statutorily given right to examine and cross-examine the issuing officer not once, but four (4) times; Appellee had two hearings on two different tickets. Br. Filed (12/22/2011); Certified Record (12/02/2011); Br. Filed by Appellant (02/06/2012) Appellee’s parking violations did not contain sufficient information to inform the Appellee of the nature, date, time and location of the parking violations. The Court notes the following exchange between Appellee and Appellant at the July 19, 2011 BAA hearing: Hearing Officer: Again, you can take all of that if you want to go further with this, you can take it up to the Court of Common Pleas. If that is where you want to go. Appellee Pavlock: I understand. Secondly it doesn’t give me sufficient information. It said the 500 block of north, excuse me, 599 block of north 22" street. That is the entire block. It is legal parking along that block. I am saying I object. The ticket it is insufficient because it doesn’t say it would have been easy for the ticket writer to say 529 or 532 or whatever. It was the car was parked. Hearing Officer: That is not how they are trained to write the ticket sir. They are trained by the number of the actual block. The 500 block or the 600 block. That type of thing. They are not given specific addresses. Certified Record (12/02/2011)(N.T. at 1 (07/19/2011) punctuation added). The Parking Authority’s own Standard Operating Procedure Manual confirms that Issuing Officers are not trained to provide sufficient information of the location of the alleged parking violations. N.T. 32-35, 38-41 (06/28/2012). The Standard Operating Procedure Manual was obtained by Appellee pursuant to a Right to Know request; the manual was properly marked and accepted into court as evidence. Id. at 5, 29-32. Appellee’s parking violations were not signed or endorsed by the issuing officer, thereby affirming the truth of the facts set forth therein. Certified Record (12/02/2011). Lastly, Appellant did not submit, in writing, the findings and reasons for the adjudication. A notice ofappeal rights does not suffice as findings and reasons for parking violation adjudications. Certified Record (12/02/2011). ‘The Court here simply ordered Appellant to do what it is mandated to do by the Philadelphia Code and Pennsylvania statutes to promote the opportunity for fairness to the appellee: First, 2 Pa. C. 54 provides that ‘Local agencies shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence at agency hearings, and all relevant evidence of reasonably probative value may be received. Reasonable examination and cross-examination shall be permitted.” 2 Pa. C.S. §554 (emphasis added). By Order dated July 9, 2012, the Court ordered Appellant BAA to: Initiate procedures affording respondents, in BAA parking violation hearings, the ‘opportunity to reasonably examine and cross-examine issuing officers of parking violation notices, in conformity with 2 Pa. C.S. §544, upon reasonable advance request by respondents, and to provide notice of such rights to respondents prior to hearings. Order Entered by J. Tucker, docketed (07/10/2012) Second, Philadelphia Code § 12-2804(3) provides that: A parking ticket may be served upon the owner of the vehicle by affixing the ticket to the vehicle in a conspicuous place. A parking ticket may be served personally upon the operator of a vehicle who is present at the time of service. The plate number and type as shown by the registration plates of the vehicle and the make or mode! of the vehicle shall be recorded on the ticket. If the license plate is not visible or legible or has been improperly affixed to the vehicle, other appropriate identification may be used, such as the vehicle identification number. ‘The parking ticket shall also contain other sufficient information to identify the vehicle and to inform the person of the nature, date, time and location of the violation alleged. A parking ticket served by affixation as provided in this subsection shall be subject to the same fines, costs and additional fees and shall have the same force and effect as if the parking ticket were personally served on the owner and operator of the vehicle The Philadelphia Code § 12-2804(3)(emphasis added), By Order dated July 9, 2012, the Court ordered that: In order to sustain a finding of liability on a parking violation, require that, as best as reasonably can be described, the parking violation contain sufficient 15information identifying the location of the vehicle where the alleged parking violation occurred, in conformity with The Philadelphia Code § 12-2804(3), as there are numerous blocks with simultaneous legal and illegal parking in the County of Philadelphia. Order Entered by J. Tucker, docketed (07/10/2012). Third, Philadelphia Code § 12-2804(5) provides ‘The original parking ticket shall be signed by the issuing officer who shall affirm the iruth of the facts set forth therein. The original ticket or any true copy thereof (or any facsimile of the original ticket transferred onto microfilm, computer tape, or other form of data storage) shall be considered a record Kept in the ordinary course of business of the City and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein, The Philadelphia Code § 12-2804(5)(emphasis added). By Order dated July 9, 2012, the Court ordered that: In order to sustain a finding of liability, require that the parking violation be signed or endorsed by the issuing officer, affirming the truth of the facts contained therein, in conformity with The Philadelphia Code § 12-2804(5). Order Entered by J. Tucker, docketed (07/10/2012). Fourth, and last, 2 Pa. C.S. $555, “all adjudications of a local agency shall be in writing, shall contain findings and the reasons for the adjudication, and shall be served upon all parties or their counsel personally, or by mail.” 2 Pa, C.S. §555(emphasis added). By Order dated July 9, 2012, the Court ordered Appellant BAA to: Prepare findings of fact and the reasons for an adverse determination be made in writing at the conclusion of the BAA violation hearing, in conformity with 2 Pa. CS. § 555. Order Entered by J. Tucker, docketed (07/10/2012). IV. Conelusion The appeal should be quashed. The City of Philadelphia did not properly intervene or otherwise adhere to the Rules of Civil Procedure or Appellate Procedure in attempting to enter its appearance on behalf of Appellant in this action. To that end, Appellant BAA has failed to 16file a 1925(b) Statement or otherwise prosecute the instant appeal; therefore all issues on appeal are waived. In addition, the Court did not err in reaching the merits of the underlying parking violations. Appellant’s attempt to unilaterally moot out the issue of the underlying parking violations was not successful, as violative of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Furthermore, even if the parking violations were rendered moot by Appellant’s cancellation of them, the circumstances of this case fall under all three exceptions to the mootness doctrine. The Court properly granted equitable relief under the Pennsylvania Local Agency law, ‘The Court properly ordered Appellant to follow the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Code, as Appellant should have but refused. The Court’s Order a) stand, BY/THE, gours: W. TUCKER, JUDGE \COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION PROOF OF SERVICE Thereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing Court Order upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of PA. R. C. P. 236: Counsel for Appellant Robert L. Murken, Esq. City of Philadelphia Law Department 1515 Arch Street, 17" Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Type of Service. () Personal (X) First Class Mail () Other Dennis G. Weldon, Esq Alanna Buchanan, Esq Philadelphia Parking Authority 3101 Market St, 2" Floor, West Wing Philadelphia, PA 19104 Type of Service: ( ) Personal (X) First Class Mail () Other Pro Se Appellee James R. Pavlock, Esq. 2212 Brandywine Street Philadelphia, PA 19130 Type of Service: ( ) Personal (X) First Class Mail ( ) Other