Consedine v. Legion Insurance Company; 183 M.D. 2002; The Petition for Approval of Commutation, Settlement and Release Agreement by and between Legion Insurance Company (In Liquidation) and Hartford Fire Insurance Company, of Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut, filed by Michael F. Consedine, Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania, in his official capacity as Statutory Liquidator of Legion Insurance Company (In Liquidation), it is hereby Ordered that the Petition is Granted and the Commutation, Settlement and Release Agreement is Approved.

McCord;, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1688 C.D. 2011; Petitioner filed his pro se communication with this Court on September 2, 2011. Because petitioner’s pro se communication was not filed within thirty days of the Board’s July 25, 2011 order as required by Pa. R.A.P. 1512(a)(1), this case is dismissed as untimely filed.

Liciardello, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1689 C.D. 2011; Petitioner filed his pro se communication with this Court on August 8, 2011. Because petitioner’s pro se communication was not filed within thirty days of the Board’s July 5, 2011 order as required by Pa. R.A.P. 1512(a)(1), this case is dismissed as untimely filed.

Consol Energy, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 661 F.R. 2010; The parties’ second joint status report in this matter, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 19, 2012.

E. Allen Reeves Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 675 F.R. 2010; The parties’ second joint status report in this matter, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 19, 2012.

Citizens Financial Group, Petitioner v. Com.; 690 F.R. 2010; The parties’ second joint status report in this matter, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 19, 2012.

Bowen, Petitioner v. Clerk of Courts; 532 M.D. 2011; The court’s order of November 17, 2011 is amended to reflect the correct caption above. In all other aspects, the order stays the same. The Clerk of Courts of Venango County is directed to file an answer or otherwise plead on or before January 9, 2011.

Peffer, Petitioner v. Com.; 749 FR 2011; Petitioner has failed to file and serve a docketing statement as required by Section 501 of the Commonwealth Court Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code ß 67.71, the Petitioner is hereby ordered to file and serve a complete docketing statement in accordance with the instructions on the docketing statement form within 14 days of entry of this order or the above captioned matter will be dismissed as of course.

R.S. Reidenbaugh Corp., Petitioner v. Com.; 262 F.R. 2011; The parties’ joint status report and request for continued stay pending the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s disposition of Northeastern Pennsylvania Imaging Center v. Commonwealth, No. 93 MAP 2009, and that matter having been decided on December 21, 2011, the request for continued stay is denied. The parties shall file a further joint status report on or before April 20, 2012.

James Craft & Son, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 254 F.R. 2011; The parties’ joint status report and request for continued stay pending the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s disposition of Northeastern Pennsylvania Imaging Center v. Commonwealth, No. 93 MAP 2009, and that matter having been decided on December 21, 2011, the request for continued stay is denied. The parties shall file a further joint status report on or before April 20, 2012.

James Craft & Son, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 253 F.R. 2011; The parties’ joint status report and request for continued stay pending the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s disposition of Northeastern Pennsylvania Imaging Center v. Commonwealth, No. 93 MAP 2009, and that matter having been decided on December 21, 2011, the request for continued stay is denied. The parties shall file a further joint status report on or before April 20, 2012.

R.S. Reidenbaugh Corp., Petitioner v. Com.; 255 F.R. 2011; The parties’ joint status report and request for continued stay pending the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s disposition of Northeastern Pennsylvania Imaging Center v. Commonwealth, No. 93 MAP 2009, and that matter having been decided on December 21, 2011, the request for continued stay is denied. The parties shall file a further joint status report on or before April 20, 2012.

CMC, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 256 F.R. 2011; The parties’ joint status report and request for continued stay pending the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s disposition of Northeastern Pennsylvania Imaging Center v. Commonwealth, No. 93 MAP 2009, and that matter having been decided on December 21, 2011, the request for continued stay is denied. The parties shall file a further joint status report on or before April 20, 2012.

Behanna, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1726 C.D. 2011; Petitioner filed his pro se communication with this Court on August 10, 2011. Because petitioner’s pro se communication was not filed within thirty days of the Board’s June 18, 2010 order as required by Pa. R.A.P. 1512(a)(1), this case is dismissed as untimely filed.

Hartford Life Insurance Company, Petitioner v. Com.; 536 F.R. 2010; Petitioner’s unopposed application for return of security, the motion is granted. The Chief Clerk is directed to return the security filed in this matter to petitioner.

Teshome, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1978 C.D. 2010; Respondent’s unopposed application for remission of the record, the application is granted and this matter is remanded for further proceedings and the issuance of a new adjudication from which any aggrieved party may appeal. Petitioner’s motion to correct the record is dismissed as moot.

Sturnes, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1850 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s petition for review nunc pro tunc, it appears that petitioner has alleged a breakdown in the processes of the Court prevented her from filing a timely petition for review. Accordingly, to the extent petitioner seeks permission to appeal nunc pro tunc, permission is granted.

Ortega, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1725 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s petition for review nunc pro tunc, it appears that petitioner has alleged non-negligent circumstances prevented him from filing a timely petition for review. Accordingly, to the extent petitioner seeks permission to appeal nunc pro tunc, permission is granted.

Com. v. Zaket; 2150 C.D. 2011; Appeal from a conviction under Section 3111 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. ß3111, and it further appearing that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal under 42 Pa. C.S. ß762, this matter is sua sponte transferred to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Chief Clerk shall certify a copy of the docket entries of the above matter and the record to the Prothonotary of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In addition to mailing copies of this Order to counsel of record, the Chief Clerk is directed to mail a copy of same to Honorable Frank Palumbo of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

Adams v. City of Pa. and Curran Contracting, Inc.; 1774 C.D. 2011; Appellant’s "opposition to dismissal" that this Court shall treat as a request for reconsideration, the request for reconsideration is denied and this Court’s order of December 12, 2011 is confirmed.

Redevelopment Authority of the City of York v. Bratic; 1677 C.D. 2011; Appellant’s application for extension of time to file briefs, the application is granted. Appellant shall file a brief by February 3, 2012. In light of this court’s order of December 13, 2011, expediting this matter, no further extensions will be granted. Appellee’s (15 copies) shall be filed and served on or before March 5, 2012.

Murphy, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation

Board of Review; 2188 C.D. 2011; Petition for review thereof was September 12, 2011, and that the Court received petitioner’s pro se communication attempting to appeal on September 30, 2011, which was more than 30 days after the determination sought to be reviewed was entered, the petition for review is quashed as untimely.

Vianello, Petitioner v. Monroe County Tax Claim Bureau et al.; 2119 C.D. 2011; Petition for review, and petitioner’s answer thereto, and the petition for permission to appeal, the motion to strike is granted. Petitioner having failed to seek certification of the interlocutory order in the lower court, a petition for permission to appeal is procedurally improper. Pa. R.A.P. 1311. Similarly, a petition for review pursuant to the official note to Pa. R.A.P. 1311 is also improper for the same reason. Petitioner’s documents requesting permission to appeal are stricken and the Chief Clerk is directed to mark this matter closed.