The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has dismissed a case brought by POM of Pennsylvania LLC and Pace-O-Matic, Inc. against the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP). The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims made by POM, which included allegations of due process violations and unjust enrichment. This decision affects POM's ability to seek legal remedies related to its business operations involving electronic games of skill.

POM, which develops and licenses electronic skill games, filed its petition on September 24, 2025, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against PSP. The company alleged that PSP had been targeting its business through an undercover operation involving a former trooper who worked for POM while still being employed by PSP. The court's ruling means that POM's claims will not proceed in this court, limiting their options for legal recourse.

Background

POM of Pennsylvania LLC and Pace-O-Matic, Inc. are companies that produce and license electronic games of skill, which are distributed throughout Pennsylvania. The dispute arose from allegations that the Pennsylvania State Police had engaged in an undercover operation against POM to challenge the legality of its games. The operation involved Trooper Ryan Kelley, who allegedly worked for POM while still being an active member of the PSP, without POM's knowledge.

POM claimed that this undercover operation allowed PSP to access confidential business information, including legal strategies related to ongoing litigation between the two parties. POM's petition sought several declarations, including violations of due process rights, claims of unjust enrichment, and a request for the return of funds paid to Trooper Kelley during his employment.

The Ruling

The Commonwealth Court, presided over by Judge Anne E. Covey, ruled on November 13, 2026, sustaining PSP's preliminary objections and dismissing POM's petition. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over POM's claims, which were primarily based on allegations of past conduct by PSP. The ruling stated, "all of [POM’s] claims concern completed past conduct of [PSP], [it] may not form the basis of a declaratory judgment claim." This emphasizes that the court cannot grant relief for actions that have already occurred.

Furthermore, the court determined that POM's claims effectively sought monetary relief, which fell outside the court's jurisdiction. The ruling noted that POM's request for the return of funds it paid to Trooper Kelley was not simply a request for declaratory relief but rather a claim for monetary damages. The court stated, "this Court lacks jurisdiction over such claims," reinforcing the limitations on its authority regarding the matter.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for POM and similar businesses in Pennsylvania. By dismissing the case, the court has limited POM's ability to challenge the actions of the PSP through this legal avenue. The decision also highlights the importance of jurisdiction in legal claims, particularly those involving government entities. Businesses may need to consider alternative legal strategies when facing challenges from state agencies.

The dismissal does not set a binding precedent but serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in legal disputes with government entities. Companies in similar situations may need to navigate carefully to understand the jurisdictional boundaries of their claims.

What's Next

Following this ruling, POM may consider appealing the decision to a higher court, although the details of any potential appeal were not specified in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion, but POM's future legal strategies will likely be influenced by this ruling.