The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About96-03040 ~ ..,... oJ \n S -::t I )(. ~ l~ d \ Z \ ;i r" . ,/ :1 I ..5J cr .1 0, z' . t,) w"j' I;J~;';. I oJ ~ d . ~ I ~ j , " , i ~ ~ ';,," 1\~1' " '" 1 1 " , , , " . \ I ii , ' I /. 'i " , , ',i, I ,"j' I -I , 1 I \ ! ," " !, , I " ,. , 'I,"J f.i1~ ~~~ , " ./- " " , , i! 'I ":,!il i[ ,1:( [." II. " j .j' It ~ ,\ '1,,' ','I " , I iq , ''\1 'I I' " ., ," " " ;., " '1' " " , , ,.,01 SAlDIS GUIDO. SHUFF " MASLAND 26w, HI'" 5lml CIIlIlIe. PA v. WITNBSS.S l. Edwin Neubauer 2. William Hemsley 3. George Awwad 4, Robert Lee Theal !3. Douglas C. Tilley, as on cross 6, Paul Taylor, as on cross 7, Frank Joseph DeHaut, ,Jr. a, Any witnesses listed in Defendant's Pre-Trial Memorandum VI. ' LIST OF EXHIBITS 1, Contract documents relating to all pr~jects 2. Invoices submitted to Plaintiffs 3. Proposals for services from Plaintiff to Defendant 4. Correspondence between the parties. 5. Documents produced through discovery, if not included in the categories above. VII. CURRBNT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEOGITATIONS Prior to listing the case for trial, counsel for Defendant advised the undersigned that he would be making a comprehensive settlement offer, As a result of an arbitration on another. matter, which, it is submitted, have no bearing on the claims at issue in this suit, Defendant's counsel advised 5 that they were nQt in a position to make a comprehensive settlement offer. Accordingly, none has been received. Early in the case, Defendant did make a settlement offer of approximately $3,000.00, which was rejected, Plaintiff remains very interested in discussing possible settlement in the hope of resolving this case short of trial, Respectfully submitted, IS, SHUFF & MASLAND Date/O'/S: -~'f v1 /, J seph L. Hitchings, Esq ire ttorney I,D, No,: 65551 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243..6222 Attorney for Plaintiff SAlDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF Ie MASLAND 26 w, Hlah SIm. eullllo. '" (j . , '1' ,I 11,1 -." I , , , "I' CIIRTIFICATB OP SIIRVICIIl On this /BYJJ day of (>:tM h tJ.A ) - , 1999, I, ~'I hereby 'certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Pre-Trial Memorandum upon all parties of record via I, United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Anthony Nestico, Esquire NE~TICO & KORPOSH, LLP 475 W, Governor Road Hershey, PA 17033 " '.. ,. I', 'J\' BAICIS, SHUFF & MASLANC B}'-' 1/ifl ~ ~ ]) }f;'> /Jo2J tr I.',' ;-\ -:" ;, . ~ " ,. has been, or will be, withdrawn on the record pursuant to an agreement of counsel, With respect to settlement negotiations, the parties are attempting to resolve the case but have been unsuccessful to this date because of an unrelated arbitration matter between the parties, By the Court, Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire For the Plaintiff Anthony J. Nestico, Esquire For, the Defendant Court Administrator wcy . , !q l, " ., :', ,,', , I' ')I :/ il/' '" \!, " ,. I. " \/ " '11, " ",' II. , , 1/, ",",J 1,"; , ' I ~ i" " , J " .' >', " (~ I .f ~. '. , ., '..' \ . ~J , \ ;', t " ., ,"1 q i'J ~\ .1 ('i , ' .Il, , _i.' '1; Nestico, Korposh & Druby, LLP ,j"o/"~$ AI Law 475 W, Governor Road Hershey, PA 17033 717-533-5406 IlC T 1 5 199tP " - ~_.... - lntr..,n..' .__lIt! ' ~, . TUf ',I' I, ., \ , .~... . l . "1,,1 , . , -J it ," ,.1" .. ,:4"'" , ' , , " 1 .I j ., ~ !. ~ I, .1 .1 . 4 I' .. . .. .. 't..>, ~"{' :,..,1\" 'to '~, .~ " . '~ ,\\ , I, ;" > ;I',j'/ I.; ,.' I' .,. I ~ , .ljp ..: ,'11 .~ ;. . jlt,..,'~ ~ ~ ," I .~ i ' 'i d -0#' . ..'. . "- , ,I I. II , ! i. ~l: \, t . , I,' , . >wi I I. ( I '\ A I /, i' )l .\ ,~ '. , , ... :. I 1\ ; ~ I " , Iii r , .-..._...-00_.._..._._...... 'I Coudersport Elementary project and $8,OS4. SO and recovery of lost profits 011 Ihe COllesville Kings Hishway Elementary and Cain Elemenlsry School projects, Defendant denies thaI the PlaintitT is entitled 10 any darn ages in Ihe Costesville Elementary project IS the PlahltilT fsiled to properly perform the study required under the conlrld, In fact, Defendant seeks $1.335.00 and an unliquidsled sum for loss of good will as a result ofPlaintitrs breach of the Coatesville Elementary project. With resard to the Kings Hishway Elementary and Cain Elementary projects, Defendant denies that PhlintilTis entilled 10 any recovery as PlaintitTwas in breach of the contrsct, In fact, Defendanl seeks $\9,136,00 from Ihe PlaintilT as a reilUlt of this breach, III. Statement as 10 the orinr'palll.uf. 01 U_bUIt\' and ".m.,n. A, Lisbility \, Breach, if any, by Defendant of the Iron Forse Education Center contract. COalesville Elementary conlrld, Coudersport Elementary conlract and Coatesville Area School District contract 2, Breach of conlrld by PlaintilT of the above contracts, ), Whelher Plaintitrs claims are bared under the doctrine of estoppel , 4, Whether Plaintiff's claims are bared under the doctrine of failure of consideration, S, Whelher Plainliff's claims are bared under Ihe doctrine of justification. 6, Whether Plaintiff's claims are bared by accordance Sltisfaction, 7, Defendanl reserves the right to supplemenl this list. IS necessary, with sufficient notice to the court and opposing counsel. 2 8, DaRlllles, \, Nature and e)ltent of PlaintilT' s allelled damases Iliven their breach of the various contracts; 2, Contractusl damases ow>ed to Defendsnt Crabtree; ), Incidental and consequential damases owed 10 Defendanl Crabtree includins bUI nOI limited to fees paid to retain a new enllineering firm due 10 Plaintiffs failure 10 perform as agreed and Defendants loss of good will as a result of Plain tilT's breach, 4, Defendant reserves the righl 10 supplemenl this Iisl, as necessary, with sufficienl notice to the court Ii.nd opposinll counsel, IV, SummarY of ~111.u" reurdlng adlD,..lbllltv 0' latllDoay. el."l~'u or any ...her matter. None at the present time, Defendant reserves Ihe right to supplement. this response, jf necessary, with sufficienl notice to Ihe court and OPpoSinll counsel, IV. Ideatltv olwitDftlfl. 1. Robert Lee Theal; 2, Georlle Awwad (as on cross e)lam); 3. Frank Joseph DeHaut, Jr,; 4, Edwin F, Neubsuer (as on cross examination); S, Paul Taylor; 6, Dou8las Charles Tilley, J 7, Carl Davis 8, Defendant reserves the right 10 suPlllement Ihis list with sufficient notice to the court and opposinS counsel, Defendsnl also reserves the rillht to call any witness listed on Plaintiffs Pre- Trial Memorandum, VI, Lilt or J:1hlblts, 1. Contracts, ifsny, between parties 2, Plans, drawings and specifications prepared by Plaintiff and Randy Paul &, Associstes, Inc, 3. Correspondence between Defendant and Plaintiff resarding PlaintitT's performsnce, 4, Defendsnt reserves the right to use any e"hibits produced by the Plaintiff. and the rillht to supplement this Iisl. VII, Curren, It.tUI 01 .etllem~nt RHotlatloQI. Settlement negotiations have been hampered by the e"istence of all arbitration pending outside of this counly which involves claims raised against the Defendant's II a' result of PlaintitT' s work, Respectfully submiued, NESTleO, KORPOSH &, DRUBY, LLP By /'..$ ~p ~IICO, Esquire Attorney 1.0, No, 58868 475 West Governor Road Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033 (717) 533-5406 (717) 533.4483 Attorney for Defendant 4 . ~ t \ ~ ~ '-D ~ ~ ...... ~ .... ....... [c. If.) - '" ~ " ~ ,- r a @,t. ' , ~ ~ ~ ~ . ..., c' , ~ (0 ~ . I_I '.'." , ~ ll.1. " , ':).. L:' , 1 $r ~ , ". ". , , , t. l = z ~ '" ~ !~n! o i~9~.6 ~ 50=~~ ~~~~~~ . :Ii.... ~ ~ u = < rIJ .' , . " ", I .. ". NASSAUX-HEMSLEY, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. 96- CIVIL TERM CRABTREE, ROHRBAUGH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Defendant COMPLAI.T AND NOW, comes Plaintiff Nassaux-Hemsley, Inc. by and through its attorneys, Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland and files this Complaint and represents as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Nassaux-Hemsley, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporetion with a principle place of business located at 56 North Second Street, Chambersburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Crabtree, Rohrbaugh and Associates, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principle place of business located at 20 North Market Square, Suite 800, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff io a company conducting business in the Central Pennsylvania region, including Cumberland County, in civil, sanitary, structural, mechanical and electrical SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF " MASLAND 26 w, Hlib 5_' Cull..., PA engineering. 4. Defendant is a company conducting business in the Central Pennsylvania region, including Cumber land County, in architec~ural servic~9. S. Plaintiff and Defendant have entered into various contractR over the past s~veral years in which Plaintiff has agreed to provide engineering consultations and work for Defendant. 6, Defendant has breached a number of contracts with Plaintiff, the details of which are more specifically set forth below. I~on rO~9. 14ucat1onal C.nt.~ 7. On or before August 14, 1994, Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant to perform engineering consulting services on thp. HVAC and electrical modifications to the Iron Forge Educational Center located in Boiling Springs 1 South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. The compensation was based on 3.8% of the estimated construction costs of $158,000.00. 9. The total fee was $6,004. 10. Defendant has paid $5,403.60 of that fee. 11. Plaintiff has completed all contract work. 12. Defendant owes Plaintiff $600.40 for the remaining portion of that fee. 13. Plaintiff issued an invoice on August 30, 1995 for $600.40. SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF II MASLAND 26 W, Hip SU'" Carll,I.,P" 14. Defendant has failed and refused to pay the $600.40. 15. Defendant has failed to pay the invoice and refuses to do so. 16. Plaintiff is entitled to a finance charge of 1.5% per month from September 29, 1995 to present. 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendent in the amount of $600.40 together with costs, interest and such other and further relief as the court deems just and appropriate. ~.te.ville Elementary 17. On February 10, 1995, Plaintiff sent Defendant a proposal for work on a condenser pumps study for Coatesville School District, Chester County, Pennsylvania. 18. On February 16, 1995, Defendant accepted the proposal and agreed to pay Plaintiff $1,500 for the work set forth in the February 10, 1995 letter. A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 19. plaintiff completed all contract work. 20. Plaintiff sent an invoice to Defendant on July 20, 1995 requesting payment for $1,500. A copy of invoice is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 21. Defendant has refused to pay, after repeated demands by Plalntiff. 22. Plaintiff is entitled to receive a finance charge of SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Honorable MASLAND 16W,H1ahSlm:' Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against CorIbll, PA Defendant in the amount of $1,500 together with interest and 1.5% per month from August 19, 1995 to present. 3 SAlOIS, GUIDO. SHUFF " MASLAND 26 W, Hl.h 5..... CarlI.le, PA costs and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. CoudereDort Ile.entary 23. On or about September 12, 1994, Plaintiff proposed to conduct a study of the upper level HVAC problem at Coudersport Elementary School, Potter County, Pennsylvania. 24. Plaintiff proposed to provide these engineering services for $2,500. 25. On October 18, 1994, Defendant accepted the proposal end directed that Plaintiff complete the work. 26. Plaintiff completed the contract work. 27. On December 31, 1994, Plaintiff submitted an invoice for $2,500 to Defendant. 28. Defendant has refused to pay the invoice. 29. Plaintiff is entitled to a finance charge of 1.5% per month from January 30, 1995 to the present. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Honorable Court to enter judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $2,500 together with interest and costs and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Coatoevilla Araa School Dietriot Kinae Hiqhwav Ila.entary and Calp Ele.entarv Sohool 30. On or about April 18, 1995, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract whereby Plaintiff agreed to provide design services, specifications and develop background plans on 4 SAlDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF " MASLAND 26 w, HI'" SIJOel Clrlblo,PA the Kingo Highway Elementary School and Cain Elementary School and Defendant agreed to pay 4% of the construction costs for each school plus reimbursement for document reproductions, xeroxing Bnd required permit and review fees. 31. plaintiff began work on the Caln Elementary School project Bnd incurred casto and expenses of $5,319. 32. Plaintiff also began work on the Kings Highway Elementary School project and incurred costs and expenses of $2,735.50. 33. On or about June 9, 1995, Defendant breachod the contract by ordering Plaintiff to cease work on the projects without valid cause. 34. Defendant's cancellation of the contract constituted a material and substantial breach of the contract. 35. Plaintiff lost profits in an amount in excess of $22,000. 36. Plaintiff has made demand for payment of services rendered to Defendant. 37. Defendant has refused to pay for said services. 38. Plaintiff is entitled to finance charge on the services rendered in the amount of 1.5% per month from July 29, 1995 to present. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Honorable Court to enter judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant in an amount in excess of $30,000 together with interest and costs and 5 such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Date I .s ~ ro-~" Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS,GUIDO, SHUFF & MAS LAND By. ,<7';::;J>'2.-. . ~Richard P. Mislit~ky, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. . 28123 Scott D. Moore, Esquire Supreme Ct. 1.0. . 55694 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorneys for Plaintiff I .. , " ,11'j " , I SAlDIS. GUIDO. SHUrr Ie MASLAND 26 w, Hip SbOII ClltI.Ie, PA I I 6 VlRIrICATIO. I, William T. Hemsley, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my , knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 16 Pa. C.S. S ~904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: $"-'''''4 ~L- "~~ William T. Hemsley,'NaGsaux-Heme ey, Inc. I :{ SAlOIS, GUIDO, SIIUIT a MASLAND 2lIW, HJlbS_ CIIII.Io,'/\ . ., 7 TO 7\ ':"'::3..a:J,.. \ f '~'I"""""'" n-16 11113 II'!IlIl3 ~,lDZ./02 1'. ..1 TnIJIMON(, (717) 234_1 'Altl (71r) 2.....1.4 :J ~ H NASSAUX. HEMSlEY. INCORPORATED 'COVSUlTANTs U, lCl./NI Y1~lAQt SUITt 1.1lA"",SlUIIO. ,^ 17104 ~.... ""WI! f, "CIlIa". ',c. --WoINIIT."c. ........CCI.....'" '-., 10, 199' Mr, ~II C, no.y, AlA Cnbtrw, R.o.brWuIll.t AJIOCiat. ~ $uk. 100, 20 NOI1/r MIrbt SquIre, ~h. 17101 SufJjecr; COIbYlQ, SdIooI D1JCrict, r..c..und.l.., _ Schoof CIlIIIlIn. P\IIIIpI"', 0. Do.,., TJ:iI. illo mbc OIl/' prop.,../ 10 yw &r tile abov'RIIdy, n. ....Iai Is a roup p/ta of IClion ilia )OlI1IW)/ WIllI 10 impltmeQ.t 1Il1OMn, tbt problma .. rile aIJov'IIIfIIliOMrd ~hool, 11011I with our Fee Ibr lIae tD&ineerin8 scMc.1hIt w, wall provide. I, ~ ailciD, 4rawinp lOr COftdenMr pII/IIpI 'P""~, 2. VriJ '\lWjQ IIeId COld,","" :), I'decidr, I.IIe "'*- 4. Write a rqIOlt Our... CO JH'OYfdt III... Hnic:.. will h 0. IlIouaa.Jd S", hundnd do.lluw ( , I,JOO,OO), T-~[l1 dill, Ilne.dtd, will b. collected by !be sc!IooI dislric:t, lad is outside IlIt IC:Ope oIt/U wort. II'~ rwlsiOll iI..,.....", 10 you, pl_ ~III and fu back to ... Ircpo..t ~CCtpe.d v~ Truly Youn NASSAUX'HBMSLE"t'. tNCOIlPORAnD S:~IIp'ft~ S, ~ ^WWId ,... ID~ Illbs~.,. c- ~'f-.G~CL.r Z/l/'l-rs- D.u CC: FIle OMl.. lIAN'TA"V, srllUCTU""l.. MECHANICAl.. ELECTIlICAL INQIN""IHQ "LANNINQ. 13101.0CIV. llUPlVIV'NO. CONSTI'IUc::TION O"'''''ATlO,., ""'-,- EXHIBIT "A" 2.1{ 5'v 000 HttIIUILDINO . 51 NORTH SECOND STREET 5031 STATEMENT NO, 738 1 DAnIuly 20/ 1995 LE 95100201 FI NO, Cra~tree, Rohrbauqh , A..ociate. 20 North Market Square Suite 800 Harri.burq, PA 17101 INVOICE NO, PROJECT ATTENTION: Hr. Paul Taylor Coate.ville Blementary DESCRIPTION OF SERViCeS & CHARGES Bnqineerinq .ervicee provided between February 1, 1995 and June 24, 1995, relative to the cooling tower pump etudy and report prepared on the Coateevil1e Elementary School in , Coate.ville, penn.ylvania. Invoice prepared in Accordance with Agreement. Senior Engineer Senior Designer 101.0 Houre @ $88.00/Hour . $8,888.00 3.0 Hour. @ $47.00/Hour . S 141.00 $9,029.00* * Notel Aqreed Maximum. $1,500.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUB THIS INVOICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,500.00 . . . . . EXHIBIT "B" TEAMS: UNLESS OTHERWI~E AGREED, PAYMENT IN FUll IS EXPECTED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM DATE OF 'NVOICE ",~. PER MONTH FINANCE CHARGE WilL BE ADDED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. THIS IS AN ANNUAL pF.RCENrAGE RA TE OF 18~'. CIVil, SANITARY. STRucrURAl, HIGHWAY AND MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS . URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS . SURVEYORS \ 'iJ'" , I' ), " ;' :'i I Iii 'I ./ I ':'Ji,:, )' II \/:.!'-! " I 'II, '11i ,I;, ii:i " '" i I j ,! ~: I" tl;. I," " /\ P [.: I [.- )\\Ilf Ii!) J~ !,l! _\H' :.' !II:' 'j H II' I,... 1'1 , 'ljl .;; I'; / , I I!" " , I II , , I"~"~ " (I,I 'II , 11"1 'I"j" ", I , I , , ',1 ~ 1 I , , , I nq I '1 " W' , , II If,;' , I I j I,ll I ! 1 , ., : It ,\)'" , I " , " I I , , I i,l ,~ I 1 I, 1 ,i 0' ''"'1,1 I 'I'\}i P! I,),,'" ;. i ii';'T id,:\. 11 "I ) ;1-\' 11/'. !; '.' I " , '.I " ii' I 'r,' 1 , I , , I , , i, I' " I , I " ;I,t,'1 t' " " I I" H I , i', ) I I" .1:-'1 " /\ t., '.' I. III , I, I,: f.',j-I ',/,',t.'i'. II, 1.11',dl ,..\ i,'/\ill'IiT!-j 'i/ili' !!,.,r;l.'r:!."/ I 'J' III 1.:.1" :i' i))'" II:, I 1:1" , ! 1\, " I, , : I , I ... iJ, 'l\ j, , " , /'11 I /\:}I' IJ : " , ,I , , I . , , , !, ',' !i! [, .:..1, .", ",( I', ~ j'11.] "/ "jll ! 'I . '" '\,.q'll.' 1, \ I \ "; . ; f j ~ i' ';'1 ,', '! 1.1(" ;'/1 ,"':jl: '-i. '," ;;-;(.. ,I";'l',' ,', 1.11 IiI, I',. i hi., ~I , , /IE:: q(, q~;('l.~/~ ... , , , " ~ ..:r' . "'"' I,:; t M i.,. -jl':" t. ::c: J:'i' .\ "- ':'=:j '" "fa ...:. 0'1 Ii - .5~ IJ.I - I. J i!.' ce; IN' .., J ~. l:l I.r.) o. ., ' .. . I, , , " , , ',i I " " I' 1'1 ii,' ',' , , , .. IRON FORGE EDUCATIONAL CeNTER 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted, 11. Admitted, 12. Denied. II is denied thatlhe Defendant owes Plaintiff any funds, as more fully set forth in the Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim, which is incorporated herein by reference. 13. Admitted. 14, Admitted. By way of further response, it is denied that the Defendant owes Plaintiff any funds, as more fully set forth in the Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim, which is incorporated herein by reference. 15. Admitted, By way of further response, it is denied that the Defendant owes Plaintiff any funds, as more fully set forth in the Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim, which is incorporated herein by reference. 16. Denied. II is specifically denied that the Plaintiff is entitled 10 a finance charge of I.S" per month from September 29, 1995, to present. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requesls that this Honorable Court dismiss this. count with prejudice. -2- COATFSVILLE ELEMENTARY 17. Denied as stated. It is admitted that on February 10, 1995, the Plaintiff sent Defendant a proposal for work on a condenser puml's study for Coatesville School District, Intermediate High School. 18. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant accepted the referenced proposal. However, Defendant accepted this proposal with the understanding that the Plaintiff would produce a study for Defendant that met Industry standards. It Is denied that the Plaintiff properly performed the study. 19. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff completed all of the work contemplated by the parties in the February 10, 1995 proposal. By way of further response, It is denied that the Plaintiff fumished the Defendant with a complete report, as required. 20. Admitted. 21. Admitted. By way of further response, it is denied that the Plaintiff Is entitled to payment as requested in its invoice. Defendant incorporates herein by reference its New Matter and Counterclaim. 22. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to a finance charge of 1.5 9L per month from September 29, 1995, to present. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss this count with prejudice. -3. " COIIDElJSPORT ELEMENTARY 23. Admitted. 24. Denied as stated. It Is admitted that the Plaintiff proposed to provide these services for $2,500. By way of further response, Plaintiff also agreed to accept payment at the time the Defendant received payment. 25. Admitted. 26. Admitted. 27. Admitted. 28. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant has refused to pay the invoice as submitted. Instead, the Plaintiff agreed to accept payment at the time the Defendant received payment. 29. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff Is entitled to a finance charge of 1.59L per month from September 29, 1995, to present. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Coun dismiss this count with prejudice. COATFSVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT KINGS HIGHWAY ELEMENTARY AND CALN ELEMENTARY 30. Admitted In part. It is admitted that the parties entered into an aareement for services to be performed by Plaintiff. By way of further response, Plaintiff aareed to perform the engineering tasks so that construction could begin during June, 1995. .4- 3 I. Denied in part. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff began any significant amount of work on the Cain Elementary School project. It Is further specifically denied that the Plaintiff incurred costs and expenses of $5,319. 32. Denied In part. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff began any significant amount of work on the Kings Highway Elementary School project. It is further specifically denied that the Plaintiff incurred costs and expen!les of $5,319. , I 33. Denied. The averments set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent these averments are deemed to be averments of fact, it is specifically denied that the Defendant breached the contract. It is admitted that the Defendant ordered Plaintiff to cease work on the projects. It Is denied that Defendant lacked valid cause fur so acting. Defendant incorporates by reference herein its New Matter. 34. Denied. The averments set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent these averments are deemed to be averments of fact, it is specifically denied that the Defendant breached the .1 I I I I i i I , I I , , I contract. Defendant incorporates by reference herein its New Matter. 35. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff lost any profits as a result of its involvement in Cain Elementary and Kings Highway Elementary projects. 36. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff has made a demand for payment. It is denied that the Plaintiff rendered services totalling the amounts claimed In the Plaintifrs Invoices or Complaint. -5. 37. Admitted. 38. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to a finance charge of 1.59L per month from September 29, 1995, to present. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss this' count with prejudice. NEW MA TIER 39. The Plaintiff's claims are barred under the doctrine of estoppel. 40. The Plaintiff's claims are barred under the doctrine of failure of consideration . 41. The Plaintiff's claims are barred under the doctrine of justification. 42. The Plaintiff's claims regarding Coatesville Elementary School actually refer to the Coatesville Intermediate School (hereinafter "Coatesville".) 43. The Plaintiff agreed to identify the problems Coatesville was experiencing and write a report regarding those problems. 44. As part of such a report, the Plaintiff should have included a catalog of potential solutions to the problems and an estimate of the costs thereof. 45. The Plaintiff failed to include a catalog of potential solutions. I , I , I , I I I I '1 46. The Plaintiff failed to include an estimate of the costs of correcting the problems. 47. As a result of the Plaintiff's failure to fully perform, Defendant was forced to complete the report at Its own cost. .6- 48. The Plaintiff failed to competently perform. 49. The Defendant provided the Plaintiff with Coatesville's original specification drawings so that the Plaintiff could perform its engineering services. 50. The Plaintiff lost those drawings. 51. The Defendant was required to reproduce those drawings at its own cost. 52. With regard to the Kings Highway and Cain Elementary projects, the Plaintiff was to have completed its work in time for construction to begin in June, 1995. 53. The Plaintiff failed to properly perform on the Kings Highway and Caln Elementary projects. COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031, Defendant Crabtree files the following counterclaims and avers in support thereof the following: COATESVILLE ELEMENTARY 54. The foregoing numbered paragraphs are incorporclted herein by reference. 55. As a result of the Plaintiffs failure to properly perform the Coatesville study, Defendant incurred costs of completing that study. 56. Crabtree incurred costs of $500 in completing the study. 57. Crabtree Incurred costs of approximately $235 reproducing the drawings that Nassault lost. -7- 58. Crabtree incurred costs of approximately $600 In counseling its client and soothing the client's concerns because Nassaux lost the drawings. 59. As a result of Nassaux's failure to perform, Crabtree suffered a substantial loss of goodwill, In an amount to be proved at trial. WHEREFORE, Crabtree respectfully requests judgment in its favor in an amount to be determined at trial. KINGS HIGHWAY AND CALN ELEMENTARY 60. The foregoing numbered paragraphs are Incorporated herein by reference. 61. Crabtree hired Nassaux to perform certain studies and other duties on the Kings llighway and Caln elementary schools. 62. Nassaux was to have performed its duties so that construction activities on the schools could begin In June, 1995. 63. On May 22, 1995, Nassaux informed Crabtree that it would not have Its work performed in a timely manner and offered to complete the work no later than September I, 1995. 64. Nassaux's failure to properly perform resulted in Crabtree being forced to retain a new engineering firm to timely complete the work. 65. As a result of Nassaux's failure to perform, the Kin~s Highway and Caln Elementary School projects were delayed by one year. -8- 66. As a result of Nassaux's failure to perform, Crabtree Incurred additional costs In retaining a new engineerinc firm and integrating the new firm into the project. 67. These costs totalled $12,600. 68. Crabtree also was required to pay the new engineerinc firm a higher fee than hid been necotiated with Nassaux. 69. This higher fee totalled $6,536. 70. As a result of NasSllux's failure to perform as agreed, Crabtree Incurred total costs of $19,136. WHEREFOR!!, Crabtree respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgm ent In Its favor in the amount of $19,136, together with costs and any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate. RespllCtfully submitted, ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN " MELLOTr DATE: )-17-1' , Normal! P. H . ,Esquire Anthony J. Nestlco, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. No. S8868 One South Market Square BuildinC 213 Market Street P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108 .9. NASSAUX.HBMSLEY, INC., Plaintiff IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-3040 CIVIL v. CRABTREE, ROHRBAUOH AND ASSOCIATES, INC., DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Anthl\ny J. Nestico, hereby certify that on the 17-e-day of July, 1996, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim was sent by first class mall, posta&e prepaid, to the following: Scott D. Moore, Esquire Saidl., Ouido, Shuff &. Masland 26 West H1Ch Street Carlisle, PA 17013 , , ~ ANTHONY 1 ;, 0 111m II , \ I " f'l I, " ," " ,,' " ~ '- -, 1;",: " .. ~ "I'" , '''l ~L ' , ..~ ,,- \..I;-~ r .... ". .',:1 r-. lj [.il, t ~;~ ~' ..1 I,U I =:.~ "1.1- " , "'" " 'fl '!.oj U ('Il ,(..) '1', " " .' ~ l"t ~ - '>' ~, .. 'oj ('\I .~~.~ :t:, '~ II u_ ~. " "t) ',,: j ... ('J ,11' ~;~ ~;" :~j~ '. ;1 a. \' l~. v:> U \.~n " ,,' ~ .~ ~ ! ~! i! o ~~\i!~C .~ ~~~~~ ~~1Io~~~ . III 1Io ~. U ~ ," " I', , , , NASSAUX-HEMSLEY, INC., Plaintiff v. I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : I 96-3040 CIVIL TERM I : : CRABTREE, ROHRBAUGH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Defendant IIQ,tICI TO PLIAD TO: Norman P. Hetrick, Esquire Anthony J. Nestico, Esquire ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT One South Market Square Building 213 Market Street P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 You al:'e hereby notified to file a written response to Plaintiff' B New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against YOll. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 8"'Z"-', SHUFF & MASLAND cot D. Moore, Esquire 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for the Plaintiff SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF" MASLAND 26 W, Hllh Strecl CIlII.I..PA SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF" MASLAND 26 W, Hllh Sir", Cllrli,le,PA NASSAUX-HEMSLEY, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. 96-3040 CIVIL TERM CRABTREE, ROHRBAUGH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Defendant RmPLY TO NEW MATTER AND ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM AND PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Nflssaux-Hemsley, Inc. by and through its attorneys, Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland, and files this Reply to New Matter and Answer to Counterclaim and represents as follows: 39. Denied. The averments of paragraph 39 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 40. Denied. The averments of paragraph 40 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 41. Denied. The averments of paragraph 40 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 42. Admitted in part and denied in part. Paragraph 17 and 18 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. 43. Admitted. 44. Denied. It is specifically denied that as part of such a report, Plaintiff should have includEd a catalogue with potential solutions to the problems and estimated the cost thereof. To the contrary, Defendant never requested a list of potential solutions. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit "A" attached to the Complaint. SAlDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF " MASLAND 2~ W, Hilh 5'1ft' e.,u,I.. PA 45. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff did not catalogue potential solutions. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff had any obligation to catalogue potential solutions as part of the contract. 46. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is snmitted that Plaintiff did not provide an estimate of costs for correcting the problem. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff had any obligation to include an estimate of costs as part of the contract. 47. Denied. The averments of paragraph 47 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Plaintiff specifically denies that it had any obligation to provide a catalogue of potential solutiolls and costs of correcting the problems. By way of further answer, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to Defend/l.nt' s claims that it incurred any costs. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 48. Denied. The averments of paragraph 48 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 1.0 the extent a response is deemed required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff failed to competently perform. To the contrary, Plaintiff performed competently. 49. It is specifically denied that Defendant provided Plaintiff with Coatesville's original specification drawings so that the Plaintiff could perform its engineering services. To 2 the contrary, Defendant provided Plaintiff with copies of the specification drawings. By way of further answer, Plaintiff returned the copies to Defendant. 50. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff lost any original drawings. To the contrary, Plaintiff returned all drawings, which were copies, to Defendant. 51. Denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 51. Said averments ara therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 52. Denied. It is specifically denied that with regard to Kings Highway and Caln Elementary project, Plaintiff was to have the work completed in time for construction to begin in June, 1995. To the contrary, the construction was not scheduled to begin until June of 1996. 53. Denied. The averments of paragraph 53 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the SAlOIS, GUIDO. SHUFF II MASLAND 26 W. HISh SlICe. Culi.I.. PA extent a response is deemed required, Plaintiff properly performed on the Kings Highway and Caln Elementary projects. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respflctfully requests the court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and order such other and further relief as the court deems just and appropriate. 3 .--.-.- ....-. .--,_.... , , SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF II< MASLAND 26 W, HI&h 5...., Corn,I.,PA ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM CQat.lv!ll. Il...nta[X 54. The Reply to New Matter above and the averments in Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 55. Denied. The averments of paragraph 55 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is specifically denied that as a result of the Plaintiff's failure to properly perform the Coatesville study, Defendant incurred costs of completing that study. To the contr.ary, Plaintiff properly performed the Coatesville study. 56. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 56. Said averments are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 57. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 57. Said averments are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of tr ia1. 56. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufflcient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 56. Said averments 4 SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF '" MASLAND 26 W, Hllh St...t Carli.I" PA are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 59. Denied. The averments of paragraph 55 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is spocifically denied that Plaintiff failed to perform and it is specifically denied that Defendant suffered a substantial loss of good will. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant and order such other and further relief as the court deems just and appropriate. ~ina. H~w.y and Caln Elementary 60. The Reply to New Matter above and the averments in Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 61. Admitted. 62. Denied. It is specificF,\lly denied that Plaintiff was to have performed its duties so that construction activities could begin in June of 1995. To the contrary, construction activities were not scheduled to begin until June of 1996. 63. Denied. It is specif ically denied that on May 22, 1995, Plaintiff informed Defendant that it would not have its work performed in a timely manner and offered to complete the work no later than September 1995. To the contrary, Plaintiff contacted Defendant by letter dated May 22, 1995, a copy of which 5 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 64. Denied. The averments of paragraph 64 are conclusions of law to whlch no respons ive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff failed to properly perform. It is alBo specifically denied that Crabtree was forced to obtain a new engineering firm. 65. Denied. The averments of paragraph 65 are conclusions of law to which no respons5.ve pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff failed to perform and delayed the projects by one year. 66. Denied. The averments of paragraph 66 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff failed to perform and caused Defendant to incur additional costs. 61. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 67. Said averments tlAlDlS, GUIDO, SHUFF '" MASLAND 26 W. HI,h 5"",,' Carll.le, PA are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 68. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 68. Said averments 6 are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 69. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 69. Said aver.ments are therefore denied and atrict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 70. Denied. The averments of paragraph 66 are conclusions of law to which r.o responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff failed to perform as agreed. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, P laintif f is wi thou t knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 70. Said averments are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. " WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant and order such other and further relief as the court deems just and appropriate. PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF '" MASLAND 26 W, Hllh Soot C.,Ii,le.PA 71. Plaintiff asserts the allegations contained in the Complaint, the Reply to New Matter and Answer to Counterclaim as affirmative defenses to the Defendant.s Counterclaim. 72. Defendant has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 7 , , , WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and order such other and further relief as the court deems just and appropriate. Date: ~~...~-"t, Respectf.ully submitted, SHUFF & MAS LAND " By: ~t? ~ Richard P. Mislitsky, Esquire Supreme Ct. 1.0. * 28123 Scott D. Moore, Esquire Supreme Ct. 1.0. * 55694 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorneys for Plaintiff SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF II MASLAND 26 w, Hlah 511ft. Culillc, PA " , 8 CERTIrICATE or SIRVICI I, Scott D. Moore, Esquire certify that on the ~,~ day of ~, 1996, ! served a true and correct copy of the within R~ply to New Matter and Answer to Counterclaim upon counsel for all parties in this matter by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid addressed as follows: Norman P. Hetrick, Esquire Anthon! J. Nestico, Esquire ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT One South Market Square Building 213 Markot Street P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 .1'; SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF Ie MASLAND 26 W. Hllh Stm:1 . Cull, I.. PA i.;; (I;) '>- f.. u; '.,. , <I. ,,- I.' i:, )... u{l ,{w.t (. (j .,. . )~~ n..; 0-: ),.:.', 1.( 2, '.~.. , , <f) .,,'(/1 Qr 1 1,'-; U.l. u! I ~ I p- i Ita u, ~: J u.. f. (/' ~~5 ". '0 ',i U c;J' (.J " , , 'I , ' . -- - 1m r- (: N PI '~~ ('~~ c' :r.: '-- .~ ,( Cl. ,:')~j r (', IX) ':vu .. ~~ 1~,_ ,'- l!:\; . (..) lIE (, L..J ,9 &::':,) b ..0 a g, , " - . , - . . I .... oL iud I !lIif" .' . , , NASSAUX-HEMSLEY.INC. : IN HIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA. Plalntitl. v. : NO. 96-3040 , , CRABTREE, ROHRBAUGH AND ASSOCIATES, : CIVIL TERM Defendant t:l'ITRY O~ ~PPE"'R~NCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behal I' of Crabtree. Rohrbaugh and Associates. Pierce & Nestico c:i1!: f?;J~. J Antho~~i'co Attorney I.D. No. 58868 73 Cedar A venue P.O, Box 775 Hershey. PA 17033 (717) 533.8652 Date: December 17, 1996 NASSUAX, HEMSLEY, INC. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 96-3040 CRABTREE, ROHRBAUGH, AND ASSOCIATES, Defendant ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO LISTING FOR TRIAL AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Nassuax, Hemsley, Inc. by and through his undersigned attorneys, Saidis Shuff & Masland, and answers Defendants Objection to Listing for Trial as follows: 1 . Admit ted. SAID IS. 2. Ad!l\itteri. SHUFF & MASLAND A~ANAW 3. AdrnHted. Z6 w. Hllbllnll CoJ1l11.. PA 4. Adrni t ted. 5. Plaintiff is without sufficient informatiGn or knowledge to form a balief ~s to the averments. The same is denied. By way {Jf further answer, counsel for the Defendant has advised the undersigned of the ArbitratIon proceedin~, howe~Hr' Plaintiff has not been joined In that mattur. 6. Denied, see answer to paragraph 5 above. 7. Denied, see answer to parill)raph ':, dbove. e. Plaintiff is without. Information or kWlwled"I! to an3w~r this averment. rt is unclear wheth~r Defendant is stating th.lt set t lament dlbC\llllil~nl'J b€gan with the Parties in the arbitratlon CilfflO, 0r in the present case. 9. Admitted in part and denled In pat.!;, It lH admItted that Qn l"lHn'h 1, 1'1'1'1, I.II.lt;Hlrti.lnt:.l counsld SAIDlS, SHUFF & MASLAND A~ATtU.1I/ 11 W. HI'" IIrHl CArllIIt,P^ advised Plaintiffs counsel that they would be in a position to make a comprehens I,ve settlement propo$al within l.n dd'/:;. It ld d<'tlll'd that the compreherllSlvl! lwttl'.!m.mt (It<Jpo:1iI1 Will> ever forth coming. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 117fl <<..1 j day uf __.~~. I served a true and 1999, I, hereby certify that correct eopy of the foregoing Answer to Defendants Objet:tion to Listing for Trail upon all parties of record via United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Anthony Nestieo, Esquire NESTICO & KORPOSH, LLP 475 W. Governor Road Hershey, PA 17033 SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLANO By: ~1~ SAIDlS, SHUFF 8& MASLAND "'''''''''''N.AW a.w,HlIll...... c.rI... 'A i, .I'. ~i>I " !,\\ , . " ~ "" E:.: c: r:::' N ~ ~f ()~ - 0:.. .~ "'- r~~ ~~~ - ;'fn L"...... N .,~~ e:11; , ~ ,,)~ ".1 f-. ~ Itl '" a 11' .' I ",I !' 'Ii ..' j "pJ,,!, , I ;,:!: 1ft' :IJ' ;,_',J I \: , ,:I " " ;., " ',\, 1':.1 ',j'\ I' . . L' ., Certlflelte of Servlee I hereby certify thot I served the foregoing Objection by depositing a copy of the same In the United States Mall, postage prepaid addressed as follows: Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire Saldia Shuff & Masland 26 West High Street Carlisle PA 17013 1:~,fi 1"1, " " " " " , , ,I"~ " , " , ),,' '3 NASSUAX, HEMSLEY, INC., Plaintiff #11 OLER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CRABTREE, ROHRBAUGH, AND ASSOCIATES, Defendant No. 96-3040 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 1999, pursuant to an agreement of counsel reached at a pretrial conference held on this date, the nonjury trial in this matter is scheduled for Thursday, January 6, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No.1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire For the Plaintiff J. Anthony J. Nestico, Esquire For the Defendant Court Administrator ", wcy ~:I \..~ r~ , /.1 " NASSAUX-UEMSLEY. INC.. Plaintitl' : IN'IlIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY. : PENNSYLVANIA v. CRABTREE. ROIIRBAlJOII & ASSOCIATES.INC.. Dclendunt : CIVil. ACTION - LAW : NO. l)6.]040 : CIVIL TERM PRAECII'E TO WITHI)RA W 08.JF.C1'ION 1'0 l.ISTING TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly wilhdruw Defendunts objection 10 listing this mutter tor trial previously tiled with the court. Respectfully submitted, NESTlCD. KORPOSII & DRUBY, L.L.P. ; " Date: /), I t ~f7 I' NASSUAX, HEMSLEY, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CRABTREE, ROHRBAUGH and ASSOCIATES, Defendant NO. 96.3040 CIVIL TERM AND NOW,this ORDER OF COURt [, tLday of January, 2000. upon consideration of the attached letter from Anthony J. Nestico, Esq., attorney lor Defendant, the nonjury trial previously scheduled in this matter lor January 6, 2000, is cancelled. BY THE COURT, Joseph L. Hitchings, Esq. 26 West High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney lor Plaintiff , I I , " /1 /. ~ (= - Jj esley Oler. .Jy .bJ~/J~ /-t -00 KKS Anthony J. Nestico, Esq. 475 W. Governor Road Hershey, PA 17033 Attorney lor Defendant :rc PHi:N: NO. : 7175"3344133 Tan. 05 2e00 e3131PM P2 Nestico, Korposh & Drub)', LLP Attornt>ys At Law Anthony J, Nestico Michul J, 1<orpo$h Rkhard It, DNby Merrlll H, J.c.obson AM p, DtPauIL~. Of Counsel G, Bryan Salzmann. Of COUNel David Co CUpper, Of Counsel 475 W, Governor Road Hershey, PA 17033 Phone: 717.533-5406 Fax: 717-533-4483 ajn2@aol,com Harrisl", rs OffiCI! 317 Nurth FronlStlYel Harrisburg, I'A 17101 Phone: 717.260-0150 Fax: 717-260-0203 mkorposh@paonline,coll' January 5. 2000 VIA "'EL~FAX ONI.Y ('11'1.140-6461) Honorable J. Wesley Oler. Jr, Cumberland County Court ol'Common Plea., 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle. PelUlsylvllnia 17013-3387 Re: Na.,saux Hemsley, Inc, v. Crabtree, Rohrbaugh lit Associates Dudcct No 96-3040 Dear Judge 01cr: 1 am writing to notify you that the above rererenced case was settled today / January 5.2000. The Plaintiff has agn:cd to accept payment from the Defendant in the amount uf $6,000,00 and both parties will release each other from ony and all claims they hllve or may have against each other, As a result, therc will be 1\0 need tor trial lomorrow. January 6. as currently scheduled, Once: the general release agreement has been signed, bolh parties wiil file a Joint Praecipe to mark this action as settled. satislied and disconlinUl:d, Thank you for ynUlllssistance with reijard 10 this mailer. Please contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted. NESTlCO, KORPOSH &. DRlIBV. L.L.P. By: AJN/mp cc: Joe Hitchings. &squire (via (,IX 243-6486)