PAETEC Communications, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 132 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

PAETEC Communications, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 131 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Dantchik, Petitioner v. Com.; 130 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Brooks, Petitioner v. Com.; 129 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Greenberg, Petitioner v. Com.; 128 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Yass, Petitioner v. Com.; 127 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Stephenson Equipment, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 126 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 125 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 124 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 123 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 122 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 121 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Ballantine Restaurants LP, Petitioner v. Com.; 119 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Kinsley Construction, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 116 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Kinsley Construction, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 115 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

IMS Health Incorporated, Petitioner v. Com.; 114 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

IMS Health Incorporated, Petitioner v. Com.; 113 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Jenkintown Window Cleaning Co. Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 110 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Pa. Electric Company, Petitioner v. Com.; 109 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 108 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Metropolitan Edison Co., Petitioner v. Com.; 106 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Caterpillar, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 105 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Caterpillar, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 104 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Caterpillar, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 103 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Caterpillar, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 102 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Caterpillar, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 101 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Caterpillar, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 100 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Hobbs, Petitioner v. Com.; 99 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 98 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

SWV Five, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 97 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

SWV Five, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 96 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

SWV Five, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 95 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 94 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 93 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Altemose, Petitioner v. Com.; 92 F.R. 2012; The party’s best estimate of the amount at issue; Whether meetings/settlement discussions have taken place between counsel and whether, at this stage of the proceedings, counsel believes this action will settle or be litigated; Whether there are any related cases pending before this Court, the Board of Finance and Revenue, the Board of Appeals or any other administrative agency (identify by agency, caption and docket number(s)); and Whether there are any cases currently pending in this Court or any other state or federal court that may affect the outcome of this action (identify by caption and docket number(s)).

Paul Lynch Investments, Inc., Petitioner v. Com. Dept. of Environmental Protection; 497 M.D. 2011; It is hereby ordered that a status conference is scheduled for January 16, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. The conference shall be conducted by telephone conference call to the offices of counsel of record and shall originate from the Chambers of a designated judge of the Commonwealth Court. Cell phones may not be used. At the status conference, the parties shall be prepared to inform the Court of the status of settlement discussions.

Whitaker, Petitioner v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections; 1781 C.D. 2012; Petitioner’s Motion, which requests a de novo hearing, the motion is denied.

Miskovitch, Petitioner v. Pa. Board of Probation and Parole; 506 C.D. 2012; Petitioner’s Traverse to Respondent’s Motion to Suppress Petitioner’s Brief, this court’s order of December 20, 2012 is confirmed.

Clarkson, Petitioner v. Kerestes; 697 M.D. 2012; Petitioner having failed to comply with the defect correction notice dated December 18, 2012, this matter is dismissed.

Roussaw, Petitioner v. Pa. Board of Probation and Parole; 9 M.D. 2013; The Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and it appearing that petitioner is challenging the recalculation of his parole violation maximum date, such an action is properly brought in this court’s appellate jurisdiction, McMahon v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 470 A.2d 1337 (Pa. 1983); Bronson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 421 A.2d 1021 (Pa. 1980), and this court’s original jurisdiction cannot be used to revive lapsed appeal rights, Lizzi v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 353 A.2d 440 (Pa. 1976). Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed for lack of original jurisdiction.

Rouse, Petitioner v. Pa. County Prison, et al.; 8 M.D. 2013; Petitioners Petition for Review & Relief, and petitioner having failed to name the Commonwealth government or an officer thereof so as to vest this court with original jurisdiction, 42 Pa. C.S. ß761; Mickens v, Jeffes, 453 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); Opie v. Glascow, Inc., 375 A.2d 396, 398 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977), this matter is transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

Corman, Petitioner v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association; 1 M.D. 2013; Petitioner’s application for preliminary injunction is vacated. Upon review of the pleading that commenced this action, which was denominated as a petition for review pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court concludes that original jurisdiction lies under 42 Pa. CS. ß761(a)(2)(civil actions or proceedings by the Commonwealth government, including any official thereof) rather than 42 Pa. C.S. ß761(a)(1)(civil actions against the Commonwealth government).

Diehl-Armstrong, Petitioner v. Pa. Board of Probation and Parole; 680 M.D. 2012; Petitioner having failed to comply with this court’s order of December 18, 2012, this matter is dismissed.

Ortiz, Petitioner v. Wetzel et al.; 634 M.D. 2012; Petitioner having failed to comply with this court’s order of December 18, 2012, this matter is dismissed. Respondents’ preliminary objections are dismissed as moot.

Richards, Petitioner v. Com., et al.; 546 M.D. 2010; Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Relief and Philadelphia respondents’ response thereto, and it appearing that petitioner seeks summary relief based on respondents’ prior non-participation, and it further appearing that petitioner failed to pursue default judgment against said respondents at the time and that respondents are not currently in default, petitioner’s motion is denied without prejudice to petitioner to file a proper application for summary relief or other dispositive motion.

Murray-Dye, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 2086 C.D. 2012; The petition for review, it appears that the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s decision was mailed August 27, 2012, and that, therefore, the last day to petition for review was September 26, 2012. Petitioner’s pro se communication attempting to appeal was received September 21, 2012, and thus was timely. The Chief Clerk, by letter dated September 21, 2012 gave petitioner 30 days to file a petition for review.

Armstrong County Memorial Hospital et al., Petitioner v. The Dept. of Public Welfare of The Com., 438 M.D. 2012; Matter for oral argument before the Court on the April 2013 argument list.

Isenberg v. Phila. Parking Authority and Bureau of Administrative Adjudication; 1399 C.D. 2012; Appellees’ request for extension of time to file briefs, and it appearing that said request is not opposed, said request is granted and appellees’ brief (15 copies) shall be filed on or before February 13, 2013.

In Re: First Sealord Surety, Inc. in Liquidation; 1 FSS 2012; The Stipulation for Extension of Time for the Liquidator to File a Pleading in Response to the Application for Limited Intervention sought by St. Paul Mercury Company, the Liquidator is hereby granted an extension of time and directed to file a responsive pleading on or before January 22, 2013.

Temple University Health System, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1539 C.D. 2012; Respondent’s unopposed motion for extension of time to file briefs, the motion is granted. Respondent’s briefs shall be filed fifteen (15) days following the filing of intervenor’s briefs, or fifteen (15) days following the deadline for the filing of intervenor’s briefs, whichever occurs first.

The Office of Constable v. Com. Dept. of Transportation; 294 C.D. 2012; Appellant’s unopposed final motion for extension of time to file brief, the motion is granted. No further extensions will be granted. Designated appellant shall file a brief (15 copies) by January 18, 2013, or the above appeal shall be dismissed as of course.

Righters Ferry Associates, LP v. Board of Commissioners of the Township of Lower Merion et al.; 1541 & 1542 C.D. 2012; Motion for stay of pending appeals, the motion is granted and the appeals are stayed until March 18, 2013. In the event the appeals have not been withdrawn by that time, appellees’ brief (15 copies) shall be filed and served on or before April 8, 2013.

Dyal, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 2087 C.D. 2012; Matter, it appears that the Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviews (Board) order was entered on September 14, 2012, and that petitioner filed his pro se communication with this Court on October 25, 2012. Because petitioner’s pro se communication was not filed within thirty days of the Board’s September 14, 2012 order as required by Pa. R,A.P. 1512(a)(1), this case is dismissed as untimely filed.

Fife, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 2279 C.D. 2012; Petitioner’s petition for review nunc pro tunc, it appears that the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s decision was mailed November 5, 2012, that the last day to petition for review was December 5, 2012, and it further appearing that petitioner’s petition for review nunc pro tunc, filed December 17, 2012, does not allege a "case of fraud or breakdown in the processes of a court," see note to Pa. R.A.P. 105, the petition for review nunc pro tunc is dismissed.

Everett, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 2291 C.D. 2012; It appears that the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s decision was entered October 16, 2012, and that the Past day to petition for review thereof was November 15, 2012. Petitioners pro se communication attempting to appeal was received November 15, 2012, which would have been timely if petitioner had filed a petition for review within the 30-day extension granted by the Chief Clerk’s letter dated November 20, 2012. However, the petition for review was not received until December 24, 2012, which was after the 30-day extension expired.

Foster, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 2335 C.D. 2012; Appears that petitioner filed a pro se communication with the Court on November 28, 2012, attempting to appeal a Notice of Determination dated November 21, 2012 which denied a claim for benefits against ECD Services, Inc. Because the appeal was required to be filed within 15 days of the Notice of Determination in Unemployment Compensation Service Center indicated on the Notice of Determination, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed without prejudice to request an appeal nunc pro tunc with the Unemployment Compensation Service Center that issued the Notice of Determination.

Rodgers, Petitioner v. Dept. of Public Welfare; 2265 C.D. 2012; Matter is dismissed for petitioner’s failure to comply with this court’s defect correction notice dated December 19, 2012.

Homemakers SVC’s, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 2255 C.D. 2012; Matter is dismissed for petitioner’s failure to comply with this court’s defect correction notice dated December 19, 2012.

McCarry v. Springfield Township Zoning Hearing Board; 914 C.D. 2012; This Court’s order of January 7, 2013 is vacated as improvidently entered.

In Re: Condemnation by the Pa. Turnpike Commission of Property Located in the PTC of Hampton, Allegheny County, Com., for The Total Reconstruction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike between Mileposts 40 and 48 (Parcel ID No. 1213-N-37) Condemnees: George W. Dukovich and Judith A. Dukovich, Husband and Wife; 1630 C.D. 2012; Appellants’ brief (15 copies) and reproduced record (5 copies) shall be filed by February 15, 2013. Appellee’s brief shall be filed within thirty (30) days of service thereof.

Com. v. Kemmerer; 2144 C.D. 2012; Matters share portions of the trial court record in common, the above-captioned matters are hereby consolidated. The briefing schedule previously issued at No. 2144 C.D. 2012 is vacated. Appellants’ brief (15 copies) and reproduced record (5 copies) shall be filed and served by February 11, 2013.

Irey v. Com. Dept. of Transportation; 2194 C.D. 2011; Matter for oral argument before the Court sitting en bane on the next available list.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Petitioner v. Com.; 62 F.R. 2012; The parties’ first joint status report in this matter, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before April 5, 2013.

David’s Bridal, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 712 & 714 F.R. 2011; The parties’ second joint status report in these matters, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before April 5, 2013.

Colgate-Palmolive Co., Petitioner v. Com.; 296 & 297 F.R. 2011; All counsel attending this conference shall have the full and complete authorization of their respective clients to settle these matters. Counsel shall instruct their clients to be available, at the time of the conference, so that counsel may, by telephone, confirm with their respective clients counsel’s settlement authorization, should this become necessary. The parties shall complete all trial depositions or stipulations of fact not later than 120 days after the status/settlement conference. A motion for continuance of the status/settlement conference will not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

Com. v. Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp.; 11 M.D. 2013; Consideration of the stipulated final judgment decree filed in the above action, the stipulated final judgment decree shall be entered as an order of this Court.

Aria Health and Aria Health Physician Services, Petitioner v. Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund; 666 M.D. 2012; Respondent’s preliminary objections to the petition for review shall be heard April 2, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., by telephone conference call. The conference call shall originate from the chambers of a judge designated by the Commonwealth Court and shall be made to the offices of counsel of record. Respondent’s brief in support of preliminary objections (3 copies) shall be filed and served no later than February 11, 2013. Petitioner’s answer and brief in opposition to the preliminary objections (3 copies) shall be filed and served no later than March 13, 2013.

Atlas Van Lines, Inc. et al., Petitioner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board; 1861 C.D. 2012; The parties having advised the Court that they have reached an agreement on resolving this case and are submitting a Compromise and Release Agreement (C&R) to the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), disposition of the petition for review herein is hereby stayed and the briefing schedule is suspended, pending the WCJ’s ruling on the C&R pursuant to the standards set forth in Section 449 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 350.

School Claims Service, LLC, Petitioner v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office; 1974 C.D. 2012; Petitioner’s application for supersedeas, petitioner’s "request for supersedeas" pending before this Court is rendered moot. Accordingly, the "request for supersedeas" is dismissed, and argument on the request, scheduled for January 15, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., by telephone conference call, is canceled.

Migliore, Petitioner v. The School District of Pa., School Reform Commission; 1663 C.D. 2012; Respondent’s request for extension of time to file briefs, and it appearing that said request is not opposed, said request is granted and respondent’s brief (15 copies) shall be filed on or before February 21, 2013.

Badger v. Com. Dept. of Transportation; 1678 C.D. 2012; Appellant’s unopposed request for an extension of time to file briefs and reproduced record, the request is granted. Appellant’s brief (15 copies) and reproduced record (5 copies) shall be filed on or before March 15, 2013.

Dressler, Petitioner v. Com.; 607 F.R. 2009; The parties shall file a status report in the above-captioned matter by January 25, 2013.

Walsh, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1248 CD 2012; Petition for Review shall be submitted on briefs, without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered.

Heugel, Petitioner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board; 1830 CD 2012; Petition for Review shall be submitted on briefs, without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered.

Lepre, Petitioner v. Com. Dept. of Treasury; 1186 CD 2012; Petition for Review shall be submitted on briefs, without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered.

Dodge, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1421 CD 2012; Petition for Review shall be submitted on briefs, without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered.

Schwegel, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1636 CD 2012; Petition for Review shall be submitted on briefs, without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered.

Killian-MoCombie, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1654 CD 2012; Petition for Review shall be submitted on briefs, without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered.

City of Pittsburgh and IJPMC Benefit Management Services, Inc., Petitioner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board; 1544 CD 2012; Respondent has failed to comply with our prior Order of November 28, 2012, directing them to file a brief, Respondent is hereby precluded from filing a brief in this matter or participating in oral argument. The above appeal shall be submitted on the briefs of the Petitioner only, without oral argument unless otherwise ordered.

Ray, Petitioner v. Office of Attorney General; 1300 CD 2012; Respondent has failed to comply with our prior Order of November 28, 2012, directing them to file a brief, Respondent is hereby precluded from filing a brief in this matter or participating in oral argument. The above appeal shall be submitted on the briefs of the Petitioner and Intervenor only, without oral argument unless otherwise ordered.

Com. Dept. of Environmental Protection, Petitioner v. Shady Lane Estate, Ltd.,; 599 M.D. 2011; Respondents’ motion for continuance and following telephone oral argument, it is hereby Ordered as follows. Respondents’ motion for continuance is hereby Granted, and the hearing, previously scheduled to resume on January 14, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3001, in Courtroom 3001, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is rescheduled for February 25, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3001, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Walker, Petitioner v. City of Harrisburg; 569 M.D. 2011; Counsel for all interested parties, the attached Agreement is Approved and adopted as an order of the Court.

Com., Petitioner v. Acorn Institute, Inc.; 557 M.D. 2010; The Commonwealth’s Status Report in Response to the Court’s Order Dated April 2, 2012, which requests that this Court continue this matter and which this Court therefore treats as a motion for continuance, the motion is hereby Granted. The parties shall file a status report with this Court regarding Acorn Institute, Inc.’s compliance with the Commonwealth’s administrative subpoena on or before Friday, June 28, 2013, at 4:30 p.m. in the Office of the Chief Clerk, 2nd Floor, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Harrisburg, PA. The Court will reschedule the hearing on the Commonwealth’s Petition for Order to Compel Compliance with an Administrative Subpoena of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, filed June 30, 2010 in the above-captioned matter, if necessary, after receiving the status report or upon request.