Bush v. Public Service Commission

WRIGHT, J. This appeal concerns the Circuit Court for Baltimore City’s dismissal of a petition for judicial review (“Petition”) filed by Chris Bush, appellant, challenging an October 31, 2011 order issued by the Public Service Commission of Maryland (“Commission”), appellee. At a hearing before the circuit court, Bush argued in part that his Petition was timely because the mailbox rule in Md. Rule l-203(c) afforded him three days beyond the thirty-day period imposed by Md. Rule 7-203(a) to ¹³⁰ file his Petition. The court granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss finding that Md. Rule 1—203(c) was not applicable and, therefore, concluded that the Petition was filed beyond the permissible period. This timely appeal followed.

Question Presented Bush raises a single question on appeal which we quote verbatim: Was the trial court’s decision against the Appellant in error as regards application of the mailbox rule? Finding no error in the circuit court’s conclusion that Md. Rule l-203(c) does not apply, we affirm the dismissal of Bush’s Petition as untimely. Facts and Procedural History The facts of this case are undisputed. On August 27, 2011, Hurricane Irene made landfall in the mid-Atlantic region causing widespread disruption of electric service in Maryland and neighboring states.

In the storm’s wake, concerns regarding disaster preparedness and response prompted the Commission to launch a consolidated inquiry 2 into Maryland Investor-Owned Utility Companies, Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, and Choptank Electric Cooperative (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Utility Companies”). Bush is a landlord in Catonsville, Maryland, whose tenants are customers of Baltimore Gas & Electric (“BGE”), a public utility subject to the Commission’s inquiry. In Bush’s view, “issues of BGE reliability will impact the ability of his renters to pay rent.” During the public hearing phase of the consolidated inquiry, Bush appeared before the Commission to request that BGE be assessed a $50 million fine for “failure to provide reliable electric service” and for the utility’s “dysfunctional restoration efforts” in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene. ¹³¹ On October 31, 2011, the Commission issued Order No. 84445 (“Order”) which directed the Utility Companies to take specific actions designed to improve storm preparedness and response. Fines were not levied against the Utility Companies.

Bush conceded that he received and downloaded the Commission’s Order on October 31, 2011, the date it was posted online. As a dissatisfied, interested party, Bush was permitted to file a Petition within thirty days of the Commission’s Order pursuant to Md. Rule 7-203(a). Proceeding pro se, Bush submitted his Petition by certified mail to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on November 30, 2011. The Clerk’s Office stamped as received and docketed the Petition on December 2, 2011, thirty-two days after the Commission issued the Order.

On December 11, 2011, the Commission filed a motion to dismiss Bush’s Petition as untimely. In response, Bush filed a “motion to dismiss the Commission’s motion to dismiss” on December 19, 2011. On February 1, 2012, at the motions hearing, Bush offered several reasons as to why his Petition was timely. Bush first averred that the mailbox rule under Md. Rule l-203(c) provides three additional days beyond the thirty-day period during which a Petition may be properly filed.

Next, he contended that the posting of the Commission’s Order online constituted “service” within the meaning of Md. Rule l-203(c) and, therefore, his Petition was timely filed, as the Clerk received the Petition within three days of the expiration of the thirty-day filing period. Lastly, Bush proposed that the Commission’s failure to furnish him with notice of the Order violated his right to due process of law. In granting the Commission’s motion to dismiss, the circuit court found that the clock runs from the date of the administrative decision. Further, the court ruled that the Petition must be filed with the court, rather than mailed, prior to the expiration of the filing period, in order to be considered timely.

Finally, the court concluded that there was no due ¹³² process violation, given that Bush was aware of the Order, and therefore, was not “deprived of knowledge of the [Commission’s Order].” Discussion This case turns on the construction of the word “filing” in Md. Rule 7-203. To reiterate, Bush argues that “filing” is equivalent to “mailing” under Md. Rule 7-203. He also reasserts the same contentions that he presented to the circuit court. In response, the Commission avers that “filing” and “mailing” are legally distinguishable actions.

Further, the Commission asserts that the mailbox rule provided in Md. Rule 1-203(c) is inapplicable to the instant case thereby precluding the addition of days in excess of the filing period. We agree with the Commission. I. Standard of Review ‘We begin this analysis by noting the general tenets of statutory construction, which apply to the drafting of the Maryland rules as well.” Cooper v. Sacco, 357 Md. 622, 629 , 745 A.2d 1074 (2000). Accord Nina & Nareg, Inc. v. Movahed, 369 Md. 187, 193 , 798 A.2d 557 (2002); State v. Bell, 351 Md. 709, 717 , 720 A.2d 311 (1998); State v. Harrell, 348 Md. 69, 79 , 702 A.2d 723 (1997); In re Victor B„ 336 Md. 85, 94 , 646 A.2d 1012 (1994); Beyer v. Morgan State Univ., 139 Md.App. 609, 630 , 779 A.2d 388 (2001).

See also Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cnty. v. Marks-Sloan, 428 Md. 1, 18-19 , 50 A.3d 1137 (2012) (noting that rule interpretation presents a pure question of law to which we apply the often invoked principles of statutory construction). “The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the real and actual intent of the Legislature.” Emps.’ Ret. Sys. of the City of Balt. v. Dorsey, 430 Md. 100, 112-13 , 59 A.3d 990 (2013) (quoting Gardner v. State, 420 Md. 1, 8 , 20 A.3d 801 (2011) ). Accord State v. Weems, 429 Md. 329, 337 , 55 A.3d 921 (2012); Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of St. Mary’s Cnty. v. Marcas, L.L.C., 415 Md. 676, 685 , 4 A.3d 946 (2010).

Where “the ¹³³ [statutory] language is clear and unambiguous ‘and is consistent with the purposes of the legislation in general and the particular provision being interpreted,’ our inquiry ordinarily ends at that point.” Brown v. State, 359 Md. 180, 188 , 753 A.2d 84 (2000) (quoting McNeil v. State, 356 Md. 396, 404 , 739 A.2d 80 (1999)). Applying these principles to the present case, it is clear that “filing” and “mailing” are not equivalent and, therefore, the circuit court did not err in dismissing Bush’s Petition as untimely.

II

Maryland Rule l-203(c) In affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the Petition, we first address Bush’s argument regarding Md. Rule l-203(c). Bush invites us to apply Md. Rule l-203(c) as extending the Md. Rule 7-203 filing period, discussed infra, by three days and, therefore, urges us to conclude that his Petition was timely. We decline to do so. Md. Rule l-203(e) provides: Additional time after service by mail.

Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceeding within a prescribed period after service upon the party of a notice or other paper and service is made by mail, three days shall be added to the prescribed period. We agree with the circuit court that Md. Rule 1-203(c) does not apply to the instant case. In order to trigger Md. Rule l-203(c), two conditions must be present. First, a party must have received service of process by mail.

Second, the party served must have a right or obligation to perform an action after being served by mail within a specified period of time. Only when both conditions are satisfied, is a party exercising such right, or performing an obligation, afforded three days beyond the applicable period to avail such right or perform the obligation. In Kamara v. Edison Bros. Apparel Stores, Inc., 136 Md.App. 333, 338 , 765 A.2d 1005 (2001), this Court stated that “Rule l-203(c) only applies when service triggers the clock.” ¹³⁴ Further, in Chance v. Wash.

Metro. Area Transit Auth., 173 Md.App. 645, 656 , 920 A.2d 536 (2007), we determined that “when the prescribed time period under a rule or statute is commenced by an event other than service by mail, such as entry of an order or the filing of a pleading, ‘an extra three-day period [under Rule l-203(c) ] is not allowed.’ ” (Quoting Niemeyer & Schuett, Maryland Rules Commentary 22 (3d ed.2003)) (emphasis in original). In this case, Bush never received notice of the Commission’s decision by mail. Thus, the absence of the first condition precedent necessary to trigger Md. Rule l-203(c) precludes the rule’s application to Bush’s Petition.

Alternatively, Bush avers that the Commission’s online posting of its Order constituted “notice” or “deemed notice” under Md. Rule l-203(c) and, therefore, three days must be added to the thirty-day filing period. Again, this argument fails because the first condition precedent required by Md. Rule 1-203(c) is not satisfied. As previously explained, the rule requires that “notice” be provided by mail in order for a party to be eligible to receive additional time to exercise a right or perform an obligation. It is well-settled that “[w]e construe a statute as a whole so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless, or nugatory.” Mayor & Town Council of Oakland v. Mayor & Town Council of Mountain Lake Park, 392 Md. 301, 316 , 896 A.2d 1036 (2006) (citation omitted).

It is not in the province of this Court to “add [or] delete language in a statute so as to subvert [the issuing] body’s plain and unambiguous intent.” Foley v. K. Hovnanian at Kent Island, LLC, 410 Md. 128, 152 , 978 A.2d 222 (2009) (citing Md. Overpak Corp. v. Mayor & City Council, 395 Md. 16, 47 , 909 A.2d 235 (2006)). Accordingly, we refuse to read the rule as excluding the words “by mail;” we reject Bush’s construction as it would add a provision to Md. Rule l-203(c) that does not exist. Further, we are unable to discern from the language of the rule, or the broader rule scheme, that the Court of Appeals intended the clause, “service is made by mail,” to encompass online postings. Words are to be “construed according to ¹³⁵ their ordinary and natural import.” Lanzaron v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 402 Md. 140, 149 , 935 A.2d 689 (2007) (quoting Rose v. Fox Pool Corp., 335 Md. 351, 359 , 643 A.2d 906 (1994)).

Thus, only pleadings processed through the postal system are of the type envisioned by Md. Rule l-203(c). 3 By contrast, Bush fails to cite any authority to support his argument that online postings are to be treated as “mailings” for purposes of Md. Rule l-203(c).

III

Maryland Rule 7-203 Md. Rule 7-203 states, in relevant part: (a) Generally. Except as otherwise provided in this Rule or by statute, a petition for judicial review shall be filed within 30 days after the latest of: (1) the date of the order or action of which review is sought; (2) the date the administrative agency sent notice of the order or action to the petitioner, if notice was required by law to be sent to the petitioner; or (3) the date the petitioner received notice of the agency’s order or action, if notice was required by law to be received by the petitioner. (Emphasis added). In Renehan v. Pub.

Serv. Comm’n., 231 Md. 59, 62 , 188 A.2d 566 (1963), the Court of Appeals addressed Rule 1101, the predecessor to Md. Rule 7-203(a). 4 Rule 1101(d) provided: An order for appeal shall be filed within thirty days from the date of the action appealed from, except that where the agency is by law required to send notice of its action to any person, such order for appeal shall be filed within thirty days from the date such notice is sent, or where by law ¹³⁶ notice of the action of such agency is required to be received by any person, such order for appeal shall be filed within thirty days from the date of the receipt of such notice. Id. (emphasis added).

Renehan involved a dispute over the imposition of a new tariff affecting telephone utility companies. The Commission issued an order on October 11, 1961. Appellants mailed their Petition opposing the new tariff on November 10, 1961, to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Carroll County, who received the Petition on November 14, 1961. Appellee, a competing utility company, moved to dismiss the Petition as untimely.

On appeal, appellants asserted that the Petition