Jump To

Top Caption Unanimous Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

U. Maggitti, Relator v. Hon. M.G. Goch

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 267 M.D. 2023

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (5.8K)

• PDF

Unanimous Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Urve Maggitti, Relator, :
Petitioner :
: No. 267 M.D. 2023
v. :
: Submitted: August 8, 2025
Hon. Martin G. Goch, in his official :
capacity as Judge; Hon. Marc J. :
Lieberman, in his official capacity as :
Judge; Hon. William P. Mahon, in his :
official capacity as Judge; Hon. John :
Hall, in his official capacity as Judge; :
Daniel E. Roland, Assistant District :
Attorney, in his official capacity as DA; :
and Deb Ryan, District Attorney, in her :
official capacity as DA, :
Respondents :

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM FILED: March 17, 2026

Urve Maggitti, Relator (Maggitti), has filed a petition for review (PFR)
in our original jurisdiction against Hon. Martin G. Goch, in his official capacity as
Judge; Hon. Marc J. Lieberman, in his official capacity as Judge; Hon. William P.
Mahon, in his official capacity as Judge; and Hon. John Hall, in his official capacity
as Judge (collectively Judicial Respondents), as well as against Daniel E. Roland,
Assistant District Attorney, in his official capacity as DA; and Deb Ryan, District
Attorney, in her official capacity as DA (collectively DA Respondents). Through
this action, Maggitti seeks a declaratory judgment1 regarding a litany of legal
questions related to criminal charges filed against her in Chester County. DA
Respondents and Judicial Respondents have each filed preliminary objections,
through which they request dismissal of Maggitti’s PFR. Upon review, we sustain
the preliminary objections and dismiss Maggitti’s PFR with prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND2
On February 1, 2023, a criminal complaint was filed against Maggitti,
through which she was charged with one count of Unlawful Use of An Audio or
Video Device in Court.3 On February 6, 2023, Magisterial District Court (MDC)
Judge Mark J. Lieberman issued a preliminary hearing notice but then recused

1
A declaratory judgment declares the rights, status, and other legal
relations “whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” 42
Pa. C.S. § 7532.[] It has been observed that “[d]eclaratory judgments
are nothing more than judicial searchlights, switched on at the
behest of a litigant to illuminate an existing legal right, status or
other relation.” Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp[.], . . . 471 A.2d 1252,
1254 ([Pa. Super.] 1984). Stated otherwise, “[t]he purpose of
awarding declaratory relief is to finally settle and make certain the
rights or legal status of parties.” Geisinger Clinic v. Di Cuccio, . . .
606 A.2d 509, 519 ([Pa. Super.] 1992)[.]
A declaratory judgment, unlike an injunction, does not order a party
to act. This is so because “the distinctive characteristic of the
declaratory judgment is that the declaration stands by itself; that is
to say, no executory process follows as of course.” [Pet.] of Kariher,
. . . 131 A. 265, 268 ([Pa.] 1925).
Eagleview Corp. Ctr. Ass’n v. Citadel Fed. Credit Union, 150 A.3d 1024, 1029-30 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2016) (footnote omitted).
2
We draw the bulk of this section’s substance from Maggitti’s PFR. See generally PFR,
6/9/23. In addition, we have filled in some of this matter’s informational gaps by
taking judicial notice of the particulars of Maggitti’s state-level criminal case, as permitted by law.
See, e.g., Pa. R.E. 201(b)(2); Doxsey v. Com., 674 A.2d 1173, 1174 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). This case
can be found under docket number CP-15-CR-0001735-2023, as well as under docket numbers
MJ-15101-CR-0000022-2023 and MJ-15203-CR-0000047-2023.
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 5103.1(a).

2
himself on February 28, 2023. The matter was then transferred to MDC Judge
Martin G. Goch on March 1, 2023, who scheduled a preliminary hearing for March
29, 2023. On March 23, 2023, Maggitti filed an “Emergency Petition for Writ of
Certiorari or Interlocutory Order” in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
(Common Pleas), which was denied by Judge William P. Mahon on March 24, 2023.
Judge Goch held the preliminary hearing on May 24, 2023, after further delays
caused by Maggitti’s additional efforts to have her criminal case stayed.
On June 9, 2023, Maggitti filed her PFR in our Court. Therein, Maggitti
asserted that the criminal charge filed against her in Chester County was
constitutionally and statutorily unviable. See PFR, ¶¶29-58. In addition, Maggitti
requested that we issue a declaratory judgment against DA Respondents and Judicial
Respondents that would articulate, inter alia, the scope of her rights with regard to
the handling of her criminal case and the proper interpretation of numerous statutes
and constitutional provisions. Maggitti also contemporaneously filed an application
for emergency relief, through which she sought to have her criminal case stayed by
our Court, which we denied on June 14, 2023. DA Respondents and Judicial
Respondents subsequently filed the aforementioned preliminary objections.
On April 24, 2024, a Chester County jury found Maggitti guilty of one
count of Unlawful Use of An Audio or Video Device in Court, after which Common
Pleas sentenced Maggitti to one year of probation on July 18, 2024. Maggitti
appealed that judgment of sentence to the Superior Court, which dismissed the
appeal on the basis that Maggitti’s appellate brief was substantially deficient. See
Com. v. Maggitti (Pa. Super. No. 2859 EDA 2024, filed Sept. 16, 2025), slip op. at
1-2, 2025 WL 2652672, at *1. Maggitti then filed a petition for allowance of appeal

3
with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on October 16, 2025, which remains
pending. See Com. v. Maggitti (Pa. No. 576 MAL 2025).
II. DISCUSSION
We summarize Respondents’ preliminary objections as follows.4 DA
Respondents demur to the PFR on two bases: first, they assert that we lack
jurisdiction over this action, because it is nothing more than a collateral attack upon
Maggitti’s criminal proceeding; second, they maintain that the PFR amounts to little
more than a motion for reconsideration of our dismissal of Maggitti’s emergency
stay application that was filed contemporaneously with the PFR in this matter. See
DA Resp’ts’ Br. at 4-10. As for Judicial Respondents, they also demur on two bases:
first, like DA Respondents, they contend that we lack jurisdiction because the PFR
constitutes an impermissible collateral attack upon Maggitti’s criminal proceeding;
second, they claim that Maggitti has failed to plead a facially viable declaratory

4
In ruling on preliminary objections, we must accept as true all well-
pleaded material allegations in the petition for review, as well as all
inferences reasonably deduced therefrom. The Court need not
accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from
facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion. In order
to sustain preliminary objections, it must appear with certainty that
the law will not permit recovery, and any doubt should be resolved
by a refusal to sustain them.
Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (cleaned up). “In addition, courts
reviewing preliminary objections may not only consider the facts pled in the [petition for review],
but also documents or exhibits attached to it.” Lawrence v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 941 A.2d 70, 71
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer admits every
well-pleaded fact in the [petition for review] and all inferences
reasonably deducible therefrom. It tests the legal sufficiency of the
challenged pleadings and will be sustained only in cases where the
pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be
granted. When ruling on a demurrer, a court must confine its
analysis to the [petition for review].
Torres, 997 A.2d at 1245.

4
judgment claim, because she may seek adequate relief through her criminal case
regarding the issues raised in this matter, as well as because she has not offered
averments that reflect an antagonistic dispute between her and Judicial Respondents.
See Judicial Resp’ts’ Br. at 5-10.
We need only address Respondents’ jurisdictional preliminary
objections in order to dispose of this matter. It is well settled that “[a petitioner] may
not use a civil action for declaratory judgment in our original jurisdiction to
collaterally attack the legality of . . . criminal proceedings [that have been
commenced against them] in [the Court of] Common Pleas.” Guarrasi v. Scott, 25
A.3d 394, 402 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). Maggitti’s PFR is therefore clearly
impermissible, as the averments therein unmistakably challenge the legality of her
arrest, as well as the subsequent handling of her criminal case. See PFR, ¶¶1-58.
Accordingly, we sustain Respondents’ preliminary objections to our jurisdiction
over this matter.
III. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, we dismiss Maggitti’s PFR
with prejudice.

President Judge Cohn Jubelirer did not participate in this decision.

5
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Urve Maggitti, Relator, :
Petitioner :
: No. 267 M.D. 2023
v. :
:
Hon. Martin G. Goch, in his official :
capacity as Judge; Hon. Marc J. :
Lieberman, in his official capacity as :
Judge; Hon. William P. Mahon, in his :
official capacity as Judge; Hon. John :
Hall, in his official capacity as Judge; :
Daniel E. Roland, Assistant District :
Attorney, in his official capacity as DA; :
and Deb Ryan, District Attorney, in her :
official capacity as DA, :
Respondents :

PER CURIAM
ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2026, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The preliminary objection to our jurisdiction in this matter by Hon.
Martin G. Goch, in his official capacity as Judge; Hon. Marc J. Lieberman, in his
official capacity as Judge; Hon. William P. Mahon, in his official capacity as Judge;
and Hon. John Hall, in his official capacity as Judge is SUSTAINED;
2. The preliminary objection to our jurisdiction in this matter by Daniel
E. Roland, Assistant District Attorney, in his official capacity as DA; and Deb Ryan,
District Attorney, in her official capacity as DA is SUSTAINED;
3. Urve Maggitti, Relator’s Petition for Review is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.