Womer, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1845 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s brief was due December 28. 2011, and that to date the same has not been filed, petitioner’s brief (15 copies) shall be filed and served within 14 days of the exit date of this Order or the above petition for review shall be dismissed as of course.

Concilio DeIglesias Ministetio Marantha Pentecostal, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Scranton; 823 C.D. 2011; Appellee The South Side Residents Association did not comply with this Court’s November 23, 2011 order, appellee The South Side Residents Association is precluded from filing a brief in this matter. The above appeal shall be submitted on the briefs of appellants and appellee Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Scranton only, without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered.

Pa. Public Utility Commission, Petitioner v. Gilbert; 1381 C.D. 2011; Respondents did not comply with this Court’s November 29, 2011 order, respondents are precluded from filing a brief in this matter. The above petition for review shall be submitted on the brief of petitioner only, without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered.

Vurimindi v. LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. et al.; 2082 C.D. 2011; Appellant’s motion to file a short form of reproduced record, the motion is dismissed without prejudice for failure to aver that appellant has complied with Pa. R.A.P. 2154-2155.

Vavrecan, Petitioner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board; 1879 C.D. 2011; The petition for supersedeas of J.H. Bennett Moving & Storage and Vanliner Insurance Company, and the answer thereto, is scheduled for January 24, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. The argument shall be conducted by telephone call to the offices of counsel of record, and shall originate from the chambers of a designated Judge of the Commonwealth Court sitting in Harrisburg.

Channellock, Inc., Petitioner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board; 2027 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s petition for supersedeas and respondent’s reply, argument is set for January 25, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. The argument shall be conducted by telephone call to the offices of counsel of record, and shall originate from the chambers of a designated judge of the Commonwealth Court sitting in Harrisburg.

Baltimore, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1818 C.D. 2011; Petitioner to file a petition for review within 30 days of that date or by September 22, 2011. Because petitioner’s petition for review was not filed with this Court until September 26, 2011, it must be quashed as untimely filed.

Frustaci v. Greene Township Board of Supervisors; 280 C.D. 2011; Appellant’s petition for reconsideration and appellees’ answer, the petition is denied.

McGriff, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole; 1352 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s petition for leave to file an amended petition for review nunc pro tunc and Respondent’s response thereto, and after argument of counsel by telephone conference held this date, said petition is hereby denied.

In Re: Zoning Variance Application of E.O.J., Inc. Appeal of E.O.J., Inc.; 481 C.D. 2011; The motion of Appellant, E.O.J., Inc., for remand to the Schuylkill County Zoning Hearing Board (Board) and the responses thereto filed by the Board and the Borough of Palo Alto, and after argument of counsel by telephone conference held this date, the above-captioned matter is hereby stayed until thirty days after the date of the Board’s action on Appellant’s new zoning application for tax parcel 57-001-0006.000. The parties may file an application for further stay at that time, if appropriate, for the Court’s consideration.

Verity, Petitioner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board; 356 C.D. 2011; Motion to report the opinion in the above-captioned matter, the motion is granted.

Seidel, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1545 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s brief was due December 28. 2011. and that to date the same has not been filed, petitioner’s brief (15 copies) shall be filed and served within 14 days of the exit date of this Order or the above petition for review shall be dismissed as of course.

Deng, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1589 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s brief was due December 28, 2011. and that to date the same has not been filed, petitioner’s brief (15 copies) shall be filed and served within 14 days of the exit date of this Order or the above petition for review shall be dismissed as of course.

UPS Worldwide Forwarding, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 464, 483-488 and 599 F.R. 2010; The parties’ third joint status report, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 29, 2012. In the event these matters have not been resolved by that time, the Court will schedule a status/settlement conference before a judge of this Court.

Better Baked Foods of Erie LLC, Petitioner v. Com.; 7 F.R. 2011; Matters are consolidated for the limited purposes of filing status reports and scheduling status/settlement conferences. Upon consideration of the parties’ first joint status reports in these matters, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 29, 2012.

The Peoples Natural Gas Company, Petitioner v. Com.; 9 F.R. 2011; the parties’ first joint status report in this matter, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 29, 2012.

Procario, Petitioner v. Com.; 877 F.R. 2008; The parties’ joint status report, and this Court having decided the related matters by opinion dated January 3, 2012, the parties shall file a further status report on or before February 17, 2012 advising the Court as to the parties’ intended resolution of this matter.

Burke v. Multisorb Technologies, Inc. et al.; 2152 C.D. 2011; Appearing that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal, see 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. 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 Farley Toothman of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County.

Payo, Petitioner v. Com. et al.; 620 M.D. 2011; Petition for review addressed to this Court’s original jurisdiction. Upon consideration of petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which motion also seeks waiver of this Court’s filing fee, the motion is granted. This Court’s filing fee is waived, and petitioner shall proceed in conformity with Pa. R.A.P. 2187(c).

Carter, Petitioner v. Com. of Pa. Board of Probation & Parole & Dept. of Corrections; 727 M.D. 2010; Respondents are directed to file an answer or otherwise plead within 30 days of entry of this order.

Malsonet, Petitioner v. Com. et al.; 525 M.D. 2011; Petitioner’s Petition for an Order to Compel, and it appearing that service of the petition

for review has not been made on respondents as required by Pa. R.A.P. 1514(c), the petition is denied. Petitioner shall serve his petition for review on respondents and the Attorney General in person or by certified mail as required by Pa. R.A.P. 1514(c) and file with this court a certificate of service of same within 14 days of the entry of this order or this matter will be dismissed as a matter of course.

Spells, Petitioner v. Pa. Board of Probation and Parole; 2177 C.D. 2011; Respondent’s Motion to Limit the Issue and petitioner’s response thereto, the motion is granted. The issues on appeal are limited to whether respondent properly dismissed petitioner’s administrative appeal as untimely filed and whether petitioner alleged sufficient grounds for acceptance of his appeal nunc pro tunc.

Schrock, Petitioner v. Amen; 545 M.D. 2011; Petitioner having failed to comply with this court’s order of December 5, 2011, respondent’s preliminary objection alleging improper service is sustained, and the petition for review is dismissed. Petitioner’s Omnibus Motion to Enforce, Compel, and Demand is dismissed as moot.

Davis, Petitioner v. Pa. Board of Probation and Parole; 633 M.D. 2010; Respondent’s preliminary objection alleging lack of original jurisdiction, the objection is sustained, and the petition for review is dismissed for lack of original jurisdiction. To the extent 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). Petitioner’s application for summary relief is dismissed as moot.

Jennings, Petitioner v. Health Care Administrator Tretinick et al.; 73 M.D. 2011; Petitioner’s Praecipe for Reinstatement of Complaint, Petition for Order Granting Appellant Permission to File Amended Complaint, and Motion for Default Judgment and Dismissal of Defendants Preliminary Objections are dismissed as moot in light of this court’s opinion and order of January 4, 2012, disposing of respondents’ preliminary objections and granting petitioner leave to file an amended complaint.

Cordell, Petitioner v. Pa. Board of Probation and Parole; 1644 C.D. 2011; Respondent’s application for enlargement of time within which to file respondent’s brief, the application is granted. Respondent’s brief is due on or before February 2, 2012.

Parran v. Rozum; 2025 C.D. 2011; Appellant is directed to file four additional copies of his Appellant Brief in Opposition of Appellees’ Brief, which we treat as a reply brief, within 14 days of entry of this order or the reply brief will be stricken.