The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About96-03574 \, \I ~ .'" l.l ~ . ~ ~ " ~ ~ 't E ~ ~ 11 " " J" ,."oj" ~, ",f'- " " .... \! {\I it 'I , - . . :) . - <:J >- C"'o "" ~ I FENSTERMACHER AND ASSOCIATES, PlaintLffs, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. IlUYEN [,UONO nSHER, NO. '/~ h /4 (Il I' .. ( !.Infendant, CIVIL A~rION-LAW NOTIC&; YOU HAVE AEEN SUED IN couwr. If YOIl wish to rlefencl against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must. tako act.ion within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice arn served by Qntering a written appearancn pnrnonally or by actorney and filing in writing with the Court you clefensos or cbjectionR co the claims set forth against you. You are warnud that if you fall to do so the caRll may precencl without you and D judgment may bn entered against you by the Court \~ithout further notice for any monoy claimed in the Complaint or for any othor claim or relief requested by the Plainti ff. You may lOBe money or property or other rights important ~o YOIl. YOU SHOULD TAI<E THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAIIYER A'r ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE I GO 'ro OR 'rELEPHONE THE OFFICI': SET FORTH BELOH TO FIND OUT ~iIlf.RE YOU CAN GET LEGAL Ilf.LP, COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND CO COURTHOUSE 4th FLOOR 1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE PA 17013 3387 (717) 240 6200 1rlu1w~ From Ih. d..k of KEVIN A. HESS Judge To _,_.___,_....,_______.. 0.1. ______'..'_' -..--" Subl",1 1/-) 1 It..- 7:>~ f/ll'ePr./J" _~.J ...." ~ ~....... r:::u:-.- ".{ cA. c..Ju..n-, ,t Agreement of the parties In writing is attached hereto find Incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A". 11BEA~!LQE__~Qtl1'J!/1~ 5, Paragraphr; 1 through 4 ano' J.ncorporated fully herei n by reference. 6. Fenstermacher provided and Defendant accepted services in the nature af legal representation. 7. Fenstermacher provided r;"ch servicer; in a reasonab 1e, professional and competent manner. 8. Such services, J.ncluding negotIations and court appearance, were invoiced pursuant to the signed agreement of the parties. 9. lifter deducting the retfiiner af Fivo Hundred ($500.00) Dollars, Plaintiff provided an invoice to Defendant after the matter was resolved in accordance with Defendant's wishes. 10. lit, no dme dut'ing reprp.sentfttion on behalf of Defendant, di.d Defendant indicate that the services providGd by Fenstermacher were unacceptable. 11. Despite the invoic8 and request for payment, Defendant sent the bill back marked up with numbers and notes which indicated an after-the-fact disagreement with bi lUng and t i.me expended on the case, both of which matters were not an expressed concern during the period of repreoentation batween March 311 1994 and a bench trial firmly fixed for April 7, 1994. 12. Despite numerous demands for payment and continuing invoices, Defendant has failed ~nd refused to provide Fayment of the outstanding monies owedl to wit the Hum of Nine Hundrud Twenty- throe and 76/100 ($923.76) Dollars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Fenstermachur and Associates, respectfully requests this llonoI:"abl.. Court entar judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of Nine Ilundrud Twenty-three and ,/6/100 ($923.'/6) Dollars pllW interest, costs and feos. Said amount requires compulsory arbitration. 1!.tl,llJJl.LJillB~1iT 13. Paragraphs 1 through 12 ar<3 Incorporated tully herein by reference. 14. Fenstermacher provided and Defendant accepted and utilized services in the nature of legal representation. 15. Fenstermacher provideoi all such services in a reasonable, professional and good faith manner. 16. A reasonable and customary charge for like services is Nine Hundred Twenty-three and 76/100 ($923.76) Dollars. 1'/. All of the servIces provided by Fenstermacher were accepted by Defendant and const i tute a Bubstanti a 1 benp.f it to Defendant personally. 18. Fenstermacher has made numerous demands upon Defendant, who has failed and refused to pay Fenstermacher. for the aforesaid benefit. 3 ',I " ( /t"'"''1 l'~I'i,-":~.T.;U.".,\( 1I1:1l ,\,"1) ,\MMn('.,\"~.H'" 1..1 1l)1' ~Il )', ','0(1' .. 'I"'''' t lll~', ,",I 1......1.' ',.' I.' I'll '1I1"HI .I)~II IlA~~IlIU~C .'IIIe! 100 LINCOLt< nom IfA~~ISlU.C, '^ Iltt~ lItn 040.0010 MI(II,~'/I<'dIlJIU II, ,,"',11\''''';11'. Illl'.I'. '!,,'Il.'" ',\Ill/ OClhll CITY omc. U lAY AV/NUI OCIAN CITY. NJ OUQO 10001 301.0..1 'I rLlAU MIPOIlD TO, C I IlA....IUUM omcl' /., ;, ' )A MICIlANICIIU~C om<:l I I OCIAN CITY omcl 11111 ~WI' It ... 1" 1,'1t ',~ A' JOHN ... IIINIlAU~ DI~IC:T DIAL 17l1t 001.0430 mWII~ PlWtltl'Lv....,,^ AND HI" Jl"11'r IU. l~ill.c:iI II, 1,9901 /lI ~. /lldl ~ II I.. l{rJ f 'J ~Jt(i -D IOrll~M,:ulrl ('r NZU,;:5 /; iJrj fill II'M'j '. 1\1:: ! ''1','1", ,/ / /..'1""1'1 tfv... Td{ ~.,.. I' rl~) " Dear /1t1 '5, /..- I"''''J : . ~: ';/,t' ~ We ure plulI!)()d \.ilill '/011 1111'/11 illlked the Offices df Fenstermacher and ^lI!)()':latflll, tll,I,orllfli'1I ill\e! COllnuelors at Law to repreDent you in yelll/,' I'roj.!C\, It io Olll.' firm'n 1'1'.1<:1,\1:0 \.0 cOI$irm in writing the 4Jdentity of any r:li.'!llt .....lIom ',/" I'IlprlJII()11t, the nature of our undertaking on bcllilU o( 1.1101\ cl trll\\. ,)I\r! ollr billing and payment arrangements with nll'lWCI. 1.(1)',11' 1I")"l '''lr'/lcflll, L/]., /-111\JI'>Wfl U!'ldq1'll\~I\<\ Lit.. I. '", , d." 1"",,'1 "11<JiI<Jelr! to act as counsol i/!:Ifor ~{,/l' ,>,,,,,"'---.,"<\ 1,,,- fI,l ol.h,'l' fI"tity or entities and th~t '~..o _aro to ,rep;: _"'''II. Y"" I II I 1\" '~\0I1.1.'1l- t~? th?-pu,rc.ha8~"lot_ 10-20-11141)::;097.t.. l <<, ,'/, i / ')'" f "/" o'f </' /'-J.. ( 7,0f( I ),,~ (0', ',I '/ \ /'L"I '1 ) ,,!) ,- You will 1"';",'1" ""1,"1"""",\.1'< I' \')IJ;11 nerviCOD rendered every month. In J.1l 'J" 1',11 \, I Ill', "I." \ ,."" ,1\ I. 10' ill be basad on tho time exponded on Y"" I' pI''' J'" I, ",': 1 11<1, fI'). $\1 t not limitod to telephonc conferf!t\c"" , I""'I""'", I'l/\ "I' 'lllC\ltI""lto1tion and general legal advice. I '....ill II" Iii" "lllJrll'''1 I"illldrily renponoiblc for your project. Ny 1!lllln,) 1',,\., ,', ':,IIO./JO IH'" hlJ\lr. At timcs, it will be more axpfl<lI"fI\' I." '/'''"' ,,,,,., "fI" "'"1''' c""I.-efficient to you to draw on the nCI'VL<:','1> "I ('\,/1"1 ..lI.I,\l'I\I:Y" ,\lHI pilt-llprofessionals in our office, 'rhcir :;lll-V IC'''I ',illl I", <:h'H'I"<\ I.Q you at the following rateDI ,,':' i.I' ~'1\ , Senior [>,)I:t1101'l1 Junior ^nnocllltlln parale<Jilln Law C1CL-k'l $1'10,00 par: hour $ 110 .00 per. hour $ 50,00 per: hour $ 5~j,OO plll' hour I ,;,~: I " ,I I I, I I , I ~ I I, \ I I II I , ' ',II ",,:i,~"> ':':..,.,t,. i, >:': {(':. '1",1,., ~ ',' : .,.' ,j ,1'1'" ',' ,~~~.'..... ., 'I'I'I~W~I,":;:" ~t, II~' ,.r" ~" ~'~7t.'i"\1};'I:'J,' 1.r""rJ...(~\1I:;'I\." . l~':'~"~~.."'l: ,:.~ '~'t'~':\Y:': ,'" ".l",.I:'<'~ ".:: ~.",' ",,, ',' '''~'~'' r... : .tIt!".......,. ',.',.'il;"':: t~:r,~"l~" ;';' , " \r~l/.IJ.'~,,'." , ":'I.,:,~,"J;'" , .'.;',,'!I{', \;''''',:\'': "<(:!;';~:: ",;~~;; \'. ";,": I " , , Maroh 31, 1994 Page Two ' Thollo 1:i1L"" wdl rn:lI'Jilll ,j(It.ll .JUI\O 1, 1994, afterwhioh the rateD will lJq 1\1I1>)o,,;L Lo in':I"'"lIq, Qur: utntomonts for legnl oerv icos may III no i tiC 1\1<11.' ,11\ ,Id<l II 1"1\01\ r ';() bnllod on tho rooult accompliohod, titn" \ illllt,IU'lt\!\. III<' Itnlllll't.II\C;e of inGuoa involvod or tho nkill l'nqllll'l!d I,U pprrllllll llll' III~rvicl~. YOUI: llt"to'llIlll\t \01111,111," Itll:llld,; II chargo for any couto which wo may i,f1':III' 1)11 'f'lIlr 1"'11,,\1 I" porlor:minC) logal Ilorvices, includlng but IIlIt \ Itlli ";<1 t<l 11\ 1t1'1 (';'111 <ltI<I c1\11r(J(!U (or [lolltage, photocopien, t')\"",.IIII'" <:11,11'11"';, I')/\<J <lIIILII1Ce telephono calla, travel, bUlli1101111 111",,111 "",I COIII',,'''''''''II /ltld computerlresearch. Wo r:UIi"rv" \11., rllJIII ", ""'111\""\,, our attorney-client relationship <1t ilny "'1111<' (01: "'>lII'''','III';/\t of our feos. Interest at the rate of one iI/\d OI1"..lId II (I, '11,) l'''I'CQ/\t pur month will be ada~d to balanceD ",ore! Uli'l1 III ',.'."1 (\~,) <I.I'f1l (hInt duo, Wo alllo reserve the right to cllia'IJ'! '/'\11 ,II\Y "II I \. 'f: \ 10/\ (eo in connection with 1ll110untD which IIl11Y \)I;C<)lII" .jlll ul'I"",,1 Wo will II''''>: II) k,~,;1' ,"1\1 11I10nlll'<I ill\ to the progrosu of 01-lr ongagoment. I,,, oIPl'llIl'l'l.,\o'. \01,' '.II)\lld "X[)I)ct to nond you copies of Ilignificant I'il[,,;rll 1'''''1',\1','01 .It r.'co;lv,'oI by UII, If you have any question" about our liOlI''JI':'''' III ,,111)\11, 11\11 lIl.iltun of our ongagomont, plealle feol (roo to cont,lct 1I\1! <II .IIIY Um", . 'lL , , '..' " March 31, 1994 Page Threo If tho (orllllot,H) ill noL in Ilccordnnoe with your undorstllndinq 01 llllr '''HJIlIJPlIlllnl. ill 0111'1 rlltlrllct, rlollno contact me no thnt wo mllY ill 1<1 1'''''11 YIlltt' 0:01\"'''"'' prlllllpl,ly. J( the foregoing is our undorntllndin'J. hindly o'X""lIl,' 11\" ortlJUlill of thin letter nnd return tho 111111\1\ to \.11111 oj((i<:1l III 11\" IInclcHlod uolf-nddrossod nnd stllJllpod enVelOpl). I look (lln,'olrd to workin<] with you. ~ilncllr<Jly youru, l'IWS'I'I':HH1\CIlr.H /l.ND ASSOCIATES I 1.4- lIy 1_~~~Lt(1 Lt~ (,t&- .Jot1n!Jt, 110 inhnur .. smc Enclosures ^CCllrtod by' I L .... r-/ / ('..i-'/C.l (,( ./-JrJ --.J ~ ,~ I' I ;>< .fr ~ ': , I;:,~ '!'. . '1"'_'.:' . .:; \~, ' ~, ,.,l. ',' I ',..i. " ".. ~~', . .....,:'..":.;. " '~. ; .. ' I ' ". . 0.,' , , '. " i": I .. ,'.... \.' " " ..... ,'/<.1 FENS'1'ERMACIIER & ASSOCS. PLAINTI FF VS. IIUYEN LUONG FISHER, DEFENDANT IN 'I'IIR COUH'I' OF COMMON PI,EAS OF CUMBRIU,AND COUN'I'Y, PENNSYINANIA I I I I I I I CASE NO. 96-3574 CIVIl, AC'I'ION ,'-, ,,1 Cl , -I I I , -, , I , 01' .. I ii " I " I I' ,. j', .. ! i ~, I \(.1 - NO'rICE OF APPEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT, IIUYEN LUONG FISHER, DEFENDANT IN THE ABOVE CAPTION, HEREBY APPEALS '1'0 'rilE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA FROM THE ORDER ENTERED IN TillS MATTER ON 'rHE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1997. THIS ORDER liAS BEEN ENTERED IN 'rilE DOCKET AS EVIDENCED BY TilE ATTACHED COpy OF TilE DOCKET EN'l'RY. (S) \1,(, ,'*" ,1Ilf"'L j)Y;~rr1t"t (7/7) 'l'1CJ '9('2~- I (t~f'-'-)O f11 /11-'f', _ It (h, I 11ft I 70 rs DOCKET NO. -. PROOF OF SJ;mVICI!1 AND NOW, ON THIS SI)('1'1/ DAY OF OC'l'OBER 1997, T., I/UYEN LUONG FISIIER, DO CERTIFY THAT I AM SENDT.NG 01'118 FOREGOING NO'l'ICE OF APPEAL '1'0 PLAINTIFF BY REGULAR MAl L, 1"1 RS'I' CI,ASS, ADDR1~SSED AS "'OLLOWS I FENSTERMACIIER & ASSOCS. 5232 E. TRINDLE ROAD MECIIANICSBURG, PA 17055 II ') ~ lfL V :i), ~ Ji/J ~;}l, BYI IIUYEN LUONG DEFENDANOI' (') "'; <I) Cl ._1 "I"I r') " ) 'II :.., , I , I , In , ,-, I, ''I " :" !I"') ,,, .. , ~ ~ j t}J -'. .")'1 1\;; DOCKET NO. .-,' "j '", Page 2 8. Services were grossly overbilled and were nolllemlzed as requesled, Defendant had wrltton a 101l0r, Irnmedlalely upon recelpl of Ihe original Invoice, to objecllo Ihe overbilling. A copy of Iho lellor Is allached hereto, Plaintiff rosponded bul did nol show any Itemlzalion nor evldenllol prool of Ihe amount In question. Defendant attempted to roach Ploinllll by telephono on several occasions but Plainliff was not available to take tho calls This was not a surpnse 10 Dclundant since Plalnllff seldom returned Defendanl'slelephone calls during Ihe course 01 the case, 9, Plaintiff Is flamboyant In slaling Ihat 'Plalnlilf prOVided an Invoice to Defendonl aller Ihe mailer was resolved In accordance with Defendant's wishes". This IS an aS5umptlvo stalemenl since Defendanl never wished lor anything such ! At the Iront entrance of Dauphin Counly COUlthouse when saying goodbye 10 Ihe Defendant and her falher after Ihe case adjourned, MI' BeinllOur menlioned that he was In a hurry and will bill Defendant whun Defondant had asked about the balance owed to plalnllff Defendant broughl her checkbook and was ready 10 pay bul Plainlilf said "Well, I sllllllave your $500 on retainer and I'll have to figure oulhow much you owe me I'll send you a bill for the balance owed. II won't be mucll I' Since my lallw Is a very polile person, he had 1l1Onked Mr BelllllUur on my bellall , Mr, Belnhaur had ovennflaled hiS ego by saYIng 10 my lather thai 'It was my pleasure! I'll lake good care of your daughtN again if she ever needs anyllttng else.." 10, Defendantllad Inentioned on one occasion thai Plalnlill "wasted 100 much time on calling Defendant on every trivial mailer tilatllad occurred" and also that Plaintlll "did nolneed 10 oblige 10 Town and Country's legal counsel In his request for more paperwork (faxlIlg back and forth the same document over and over again but only making a few impertinenl edllions) However, Plalnlilf did not mspoct Defendanl's request and performed Ihe way Ihat he deemed necessary Plaintiff said that he wan led 10 'wln' the case but there was nOlhlng to win nor lose, Since Town and Counlry hod already expressed tho desire to reconcile differences with Defendant and had made a verbal agrer.mentlo 'drop tlie lawsuit' In exchange for the rent money In escrow (their attomey said tllat 'Ihey lust wanted thetr money inlllelr bank account and not having to fight to get the money from tlie Prothonotary's office) pnor 10 Mr, Belllhaul's taking on my case, Defendant told Mr. Buinhaur during the initial consultation not 10 dwell too much on past 'transgresslons' Ihat occurred between the Defendanl and Town & Country. Instead, Defendant told Mr Belnhaur to concentrate more on Iwvlng Ihe case seltled officially and to put all verbal agreements In writing so Ihat there will not ~e a misunderstanding later on belween Defendant and Town & Country. In a nutshell, Defendant wanted a reconcilialory oulcome whereas bolll Town /I, Country and Defendant will walk away wllhoul either party being "injured" (figuralively speaking) u a 'win-wln" situation instead of a 'win-Iosa' or 'Iose,win" situation. 11. Mr Belnhaur did not follow the objective as set forth during Ihe course of his representation and lost his focus while pursuing themaIlOrll1hlsownway.Heslmplymadea"mounlalnoutofamolehlll.by focusing on every tidbit Informalion Ihat he came across and then, as a rosult, overbilled Defendant not in accordance to the fee agreement. Of course, It was Mr, Beinhaur's idea 10 attempt having the original trial date moved to a later dole nol In accordance wilh Defendant's Wish. Defendant was relieved when Judge Sebastian Natale agreed to Iledr the caHe wllhout delay, Defendant had wished to move out of Town & Country Apartments at the end of the month (April of 1994) so il would defeat the purpose in prolonging the case, On numerous occasions, Defendant had said 10 Mr, Beinhaur to focus on the main objective (mainly to put the seltlementterms In writing) since the olher party had agreed to drop the lawsuit, Harce, there was no extended work Involved as claimp.d by Mr Belnhaur, Page 3 12, Objection.. Defendant questlonad the length of time that had transpired between April 70 1994 unlil Merch 220 1996, Defendant responded that 'there Is no statute or IImllallons on Ihls maUer" and therefore 'Ih.lonoer th. CII. dr.g. oullh. more you will h.velo p.y In Inlerllle .nd court ,......1 c.n w.'1 2 y..ra or 10 y..ra If I w.nllo I" In anothor word, PlalntlH presumod that Defendant will lose and hoped 10 enlich un)'Jstly, UNJUST ENRICHMENT 13. Please refer 10 above objections, 14, Plaintiff did not adhere to covenants as sat forth; therefore, Defendant did not accept services to the extent that Plaintiff had claimed necesse~ In his legal representation, Services ullllled were only IImlled In nature, 15, Objection! ObJection! Objection (on all 3 counts) .. Plaintiff demonstrated unprofesslonallsm (Le, no respect for confidentiality) and unwillingness to resolve differences, Also, Rules of Professionel Conduct was not observed when Mr, Belnhaur had harrassed Defendant on May 9, 1996 affer the healin9 at District Justice Glenn Fame(s office, Mr, Belnhaur had followed Defendant In his Geo Tracker for about 7 minutes In an attempt to Intimidate Defendant. If Plaintiff had pelformed in good faith, he would not have acted In his best Interests (Le, winning was Mr, Belnhau(s objective) to satisfy his egotistical needs, He should have put the needs of his client first and foremost. 16, Defendant does not owe Plaintiff the amount claimed In this suit due to breach of contract and asked the Court to find In favor of the Defendant due to reasons cited above, Furthermore, the amount of $923.76 was Inflated to overcompensate for costs Incurred by Plaintiff during the remodeling process of his office, 17, Defendant did not reallle any sustantial benefit personally, On the contrary. Defendant had suffered financially (court costs, filing fees etc) and endured stress from Plalnllffs frivolous laWSUits, Also, Defendant lost wori< lime for previous court appearance on May 9, 1996 and anticipates more court appearances, Thorefore, Defendant asked the Court for a demurrer on grounds that Plaintiff did not substantiate his claims and that Plaintiff had misused the Judicial process to achieve an Improper goal as cited In paragraph 16, 18 Since May 9, 1996, Plaintiff had excessively harrassed Defendant In his collection attempts (Le, following Defendant In his car, filing court motions twice on the same claims. verbal threats etc,), Therefore, Defendant also asked the Court for an Injunction for relief from harrassment by Plaintiff, If the Court deems appropriate, once the case Is sellled, Plaintiff shall be barred from all attempts to communicate wllh Defendant, whether verbally or In written form, and from approaching Defondant In person, Defendant also asks the Court to apply a fine and to give Defendant the rig hI to sue for pain & suffering If Plaintiff shall violate this InJunction, 19, Fenstermacher & Associates did not substantiate evidence for the amount claimed, ". \~I rl~ 0, I " " ~ , (, t~J , I ~.' r\') , , , , ~I t. , , I L , ,~ j ,. l{' 0 L , '. ........} i--t- 111 ".. I " , I , i. ,. ll, I . "I l , to I ';/t;; , . , I I, "i q.. r. i ;.~.. I (,..' p. r- :::'j I ) .:;"' U .. 6. Due to Defendants inadequate response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories} and complete lock of response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents, Plaintiffs filed and served a Petition to Make Rule Absolute on May 3D, 1997. 7. Pursuant to such Petition, Judge Hess set argument upon the petition for July 10} 1997. e. After the presentation of oral argument by both parties, Judge Hess issued an Order requiring Defend3nt to provide complete responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days. (See Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated fully herein) . 9. As of this date no response to the outstanding discovery has been provided. 10. Under Pa. R.C.P. 4019(a) (1) and (c) (3), the Court may enter a judgment by default against Defendant for her failure to provide a response to Interrogatories or Request for Documents. 11. Plaintiffs ossert that judgment by default is appropriate in this case as Defendant has been granted ample opportunity to provide her response, yet has consistently failed and refused to do so. 12. Plaintiffs assert that judgment by default is appropriate in this case as the information which Defendant has failed and refused to produce is essential for Plaintiffs to address and refute her alleged defenses to Plaintiffs' claims. In particular, Defendant has asserted that she is in possession ~. l~) u' "'- .,' I". t-,' .. :-j ~,,( ..7 " )" , " n , ~/ tJ. -, , ", I" t=-=~ " 1.:-,. ." 1.1:":' ( " , ~" "'. llj ... .' .1.1~ l' , . (.> ro- j C' (.J ~ , ~ I ~ 19: ,,~ ~'1 ~ "- c-. ~, "i ~ ~ ~# d~ :j '~ \ q ~ FENSTERMACHER AND ASSOCIATES, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON c PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintl.f f c PENNSYLVANIA C V, t t HUYEN LUONG FISHER, t NO, 96-3574 t Defendant t JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, this J'.'! ORDER /11'. ) day of March, 1997, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Intnrrogatories and Request for Production of Documents addressed to Defendant Huyen Luong Fisher, a Rule is issued upon said Defendant to show cause as to why the requested relief should not be granted, Rule returnable twenty (20) days from service, BY THE COURT Di'3tribution: Mark K. Emery, Esquire Ms, Huyen Luong Fisher =:yc , - Cbfu..... (~'-I...<t -1/:J./Q'7. _.J~( /1/[ J. 11. Identify in specific detail the alleged haraBBment referred to in paragraph 15 of your "Response"_ ANSWER " ': , 'i !\ 16. Identify the complete factual basis for your claim that Town and Country had ~expressed the desire to reconcil~ the differenoe with Defendant and had made a verbal agreement to 'drop the lawsuit' in exchange for the rent money in escroW", as stated in paragraph 10 of your "Response", and in addition identify: a. The date of such "verbal agreement"! and b. The terms of the "verbal agreement". ANSWER Respectfully submitted, FENSTERMACHER AND ASSOCIATES I( By: ~; John ,Fenstermacher Supreme Court I,D, #29940 Mark K, Emery Supreme Court I,D, #72787 5232 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 691-5400 Attorney for plaintiff DATED: February , ~, 1997 DEFINlIlONS AND DIRECTIVl-;H The following raquest to produce is governed by the following definitions and directives! 1, "You" and "your" shall mean Defendant Huyen Luong Fisher, her agents, servants or employees, 2, "Document" shall mean all forms of recorded data or information, including writings of any kind, including the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the originals by reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise (including, without limitation, correspondence memoranda, notes, work sheets, diaries, statistics, letters, telegrams, telex, telefax, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books); notations of any sort of conversations, telephone calls, meetings or other communications; bulletins or printed matter of any type, and all forms of drafts, notations, workings, alterations, modifications, changes or amendments of any of the foregoing; graphical or oral records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, photographs, films, charts, graphs, videotapes, recordings, and motion pictures); and electrical records or representations of any kind (inclUding, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, disks and recordings) . 3. "Pertain to" shall be interpreted to include relating to, referring to, reflecting, regarding, constituting, concerning or having as its subject matter, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, expressly or implied, the subject matter of the specific request. 4. "Communication" i~cludes, but is not limited to, all written or oral discussions, statements, conversations, memoranda, notations, letters, notices or any document, 5. If any request for documents is deemed to call for production of privileged or work product materials and such privilege or work product is asserted, identify in writing each document so withheld, If only a portion of a document is privileged or work product, then redact and identify such portion thereof that is withheld, With regard to all documents or all portions of documents withheld, provide the following information: (a) The reason for withholding the documents; (b) The statement for the basis of the claim of privilege, work product or other ground of non-disclosure; (c; A brief description of tho document, including (i) the date of the document; (ii) number of pages, attachments and appendices; (iii) the names of its author, authors or preparers and an identification by employment and title of each such person; (iv) the name of each person who was sent, or shown blind copies or carbon copies or has had access to 3 . .- , /l,'" .' " llj'H;~N'~'.I" ,\,';,'-1'1'1'1.1,,';1'1'1'" 1.',I"I.lN.1': .,\:'; .11' ',I ,. " 1l"'I\j.I\IJl.'I.tJ ,)1'1 I~,I: If.'I' !.p...:.jllJ HII~11 HtdUI t~IIl!II.l" I'^ I/Wi UI/) '",.lb.I't!ltl ;':! ' I", ',I"i" PII,I (KI~.~N .:1/ Y "::1'1 i',!. ;1'3 p,,,,,)' ^\'I:J<ll!~ ..)~I!.\H ":Il'\'. NJ 1)1:;J~" uJ(H~l :)UI.<j.ltll "i/ L! \i., il I 111,1", I' II ,1"111; I', II'HHIII,M^(lI[l~ 'ell-I. r L'1,>d. IlIll']!)I"\.I;'I) /.II HI"I I. (lltnl~'t'lV^III^ ,,,01. hi ',\ ,11.1>1' ~,'1' fll-l^~JlIU.'}I'OND 1'< 1, I ) H^tlll.l,~IIIJlI..(. "II i(: ) MI!..:HANtC:-lll'll... UI, '. i. l l CC~^N .:11 '1' ..'In IU~ t'ld/'j'n \','1" ~ I'hi. lIuYGn Luong Fi,:1l1 I 1 oakvlood AV<H\lle t'IHGhHlllenbul~<J, PA II"" HE: 1:\:!Jl:it. ;n\l.:\I~hl!1 'I. HlI'/'.!1l LlIcl dnd Associates , Fisher D"ar [,Ie, Fio;lion @ Intel'rogllt:Of', ' Documents '1IerH sHt.'v,'d 'q Your respcnsu to sUI'1i " wi thin ten (lO) da',"!. <llld I{c'lll""t: 1 'J/ r I Y() II ()Il (j t" . II ;(, i.~ t ':f'rdll~:. IlL!.:.l;;"" In:': '/,Hl. l'rood, l; I.} 1-~ r \ !'.-.:;P'.'JI 'ci.on of ilY 6, 1997. i, in full, :; L II! ~ l; f.; " , .' " llf:: I 1,'(o:l'I:,'J'i-:WI!,ClIF,1I (dID ",;;~OCI~'l'ES .~ I"" '~ . (1,,'il:o :'.11\1;:;'/ 1-:. nmc , .', Vi " I;' i' '" , II , , .,. , , .' ,,; W! DO HIArBV CI"Hln "'....' ~ll~~,Wlhl~~ly".Q~ T~W: ~nftu~t?l\ nll:11 IN Hill' "'~lION .. ~Hol\N"'" /~ ,~ r,'",". .. .,I,j. f ",.,', " , j "'1\11 ~ ., l'l'lf 11\ 'I' " , II) Uj ,( I I 0; ", ,,' 1\, 101 ii, , I '" ,., I) n: tl: " ,,} .. Ii . , jr. ,,' IL '" ~l I . " U~ " '" '" '"' .. " ,I: 'fJ , , PI ~*. '" I" , I 1<' ,., 'II .' .. '" ;' ':'M't', ir."\.'l', :~,',..t~ t" ~ ~-, t ;~r k:;i:' ~~,~~: ~; ;;:,;'1/ > ,:';1; ,i , ',; :i';;-,,:;',:r :- ('I r,", ('1:- I' " '17 liil I I I. " 'I " (;1..'1,: " /'(,. FENSTERMACHER AND ASSOCIATeS, c IN THE COllRT OF COMMON t ~LEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff t PENNSYI.VANIA : V. c c HUYEN LUONG FISHER, t NO, 96-3574 : Defendant c JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 1997, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Petition to Make Rule Absolute, it is hereby ORDERED that Huyen Luong Fisher shall provide Answero to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days of service or suffer the appropriate sanctions, BY THE COURT J. Distribution: Mark K. Emery, Esquire MS. Huyen Luong Fisher FENSTERMACHER AND ~SSOCIATES, Plaintiff IN 'rHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN If. V. HUY~N LUONG FISHER, NO. 96-3574 Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED P.ETITION ~ MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW comes the Plaintiffs and files this Petition to Make Rule Absolute, as follows: 1. Plaintiffs institutod this action by Complaint on June 27, 1996. 2. Defendants filed a "Response and Objections to Plaintiffls Complaint" ("Response") on or about July 26, 1996. A copy of such "Response" is attached and incorporated fully herein as Plaintiff's Exhibit "A", 3. On February 6, 1997 Plaintiffs served upon D~fendant a First Set of Written Interrogatories and First Request for production of Documents (See Plaintiffs' Exhibits "B" and "CO, respectively, attached and incorporated fully herein). 4. On March 26, 1997, Plaintiffs filed and served its Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Written Interrogatories and Request for production of Documents. 5. Pursuant to such Motion to Compel, the Honorab le Kevin A, Hess issued a Rule upon Defendant to Dhow cause as to why the requested relief should not be granted, 6. Said order was distributed to Defendant pursuant to Local Rule 206-6. 7. On April 25, 1997 Plaintiff was served with Defendant's Response to plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers. A copy of such is attached ~nd incorporated herein as Plaintiff's Exhibit "0". 8, Defendants Response to plaintiff's Motion to compel in no way provided full and sufficient answers to the Interrogatories, Rather, Defendant simply sets forth either unresponsive averments, or state that the requested information is not relevant, 9, Interrogatories 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 requests information specifically relevant to or regarding averments set forth in Defendants "Response", As such Defendant cannot now claim they are not relevant. 10. Defendant has provided no response to Plaintiff's Request for Production cf Documents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant Plaintiff's petition to Make Rule Absolute, and Order Defendant to provide a full and complpte response to Plaintiff's First Set of Written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Respectfully submitted, FENSTERMACHER AND ASSOCIATES i /' By: . "/IJ J /' ) John R. Fen$termacher Supreme Court I,D, #29940 Mark K, Emery Supreme Court I.D. #72787 5232 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 691-5400 .... .""'"'''''. _.___......, l r\n.., <00 ..... ..... _ ._ _ _.. ~ _.. '''' 1 _ ! _ ... ! .c.c FENSTERMACHER & ASSOCIATES, Plalnllff v, COUlt of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No, 96,3574 Civil Term HUYEN LUONG FISHER, Defendant CIvil Action .. Law . ~NT'S RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO PLAlml~ 1, No objerllon (this 15 a fact concerning plaintiffs business address) 2, No objecllon 3, Plalnllff made a typographical error, It should be no led that the case number was '4762.5.1993' not '4783.S. 1993' as menlloned in the complaint, 4, (Plalnllff did not wlite anythln9 In this paragraph.. jumped from paragraph 3 to paragraph 5) 5, Objecllon .. Plalnllffs Associate, Mr, John Belnhaur, did nol comply at various times with Rules of Professional Conduct. He had vlolatp.d altorney,cllent privileges by divulging confidentlallnfnmlatlon regarding his representallon on my behalf and the nature of my case (Town and Country vs, Huyen Luong n Civil Acllon 4762.S.1993) on several occasions, I had warned him on his Inappropriate behaviors and his reply was 'Well, that Is a separate malter ",' (I am quoting him verbatim), Furthermore, 'Exhibit A' submllted by Mr, John Belnhaur 15 nnt an original fee agreement letter between myself and plaintiff, It was ratiler a photocopy which was altered In plaintiffs favor, I tlave In my possession the original lelter which will show tilat Mr, John Belnhaur had agreed to limit his billing time to five (5) hours at the rate of $110,00 per hour and no more, Of coursa, charges for parking, photocopies and faxes would be extra and were paid in full by defendant (we did not have any disagreement of the lalter charges), 5, No objection BREACH OF CONTRACT 6, No objection 7, Objection.. Plaintiff did not provide services In a "reasonable, professional and competent manner' as claimed, I am referring to the overbilling of his legal work and his professional misconduct as mentioned above, Furthermore, the fee agreement lelter whlcll Plaintiff claimed as Ihe signed fee agreement has been badly altered, First of all, any competent and professional attorney would not use one client's fee agreement lelter for another client n namely Mr, Thomas Diffenderfer's fee agreement lelter for the purchase of lot # 10.20, 1846.097 .. without edlling the draft via a computer system to change pertinent information such as client's name and nature of representation elc, to make it look professional and concise, Instead, Mr, Belnhaur had used Mr, Diffenderfer's fee agreement letter and aile red it to substitute for a fee agreement between myself and plaintiff, I had questioned on thiS "practice" because I feel that it does not look 'legitimate" and 'professional" (he assured me that 'it is OK since he does it frequently and nobody had objected to this practice before" and told me that I was too "finicky'), I also did not like the fact that he did not respect client's confidentiality (Mr, Diffenderfer's private malter) and I wondered to myself if he would respect the confidentiality of my case, . Page 2 6, Services were grossly overbilled end were not Itemized os roquested, Defendant hod wlilten 0 leiter, Immediately upon receipt of the oliglnol Invoice, to obloct to the overbilling, A copy of the lelter Is oltached hereto, Plaintiff responded but did not show any itemization nor evidential proof of the amount In question, Defendant altempted to reach Plaintiff by telephone on several occasions but Plaintiff was not available to taka the calls This was not 0 surprise to Defendant slnco Plaintiff seldom retum~d Defendenl's lelephone collsdunng the course of Ihe coso. 9, Plaintiff 15 flamboyant in slalll1g that "Plaintiff provided on Invoice to Defendant after the molter was resolved In accordance with Defendant's wishes' This 15 on assumptive statement since Defendant never wished for anything such I At Ihe front enlrance 01 Dauphin Ceunly COUllhouse when saying goodbye 10 the Defendant and her father after the case 1Idjourned, Mr 8elnhaur mentioned that he wes In a hurry and will bill Defendant when Defendant hod asked about the balance owed to plaintiff. Defendanl brought 'lOr checkbook 1Ind was ready 10 pay but Plalnlilf sold 'Well, I stili hove your $500 on retainer amI I'll have 10 figure out how much you owe me I'll send you a bill for the balance owed, It won't be much!' Since my father Is a very potile person, he had thanked Mr. Belnh~ur on my behalf, Mr, 8elnhaur hod ovelinflaled his ego by saying 10 my father thai 'It was my pleasure' I'll take good core of your daughter again if she ever needs anything else..' 10, Defendant had menlloned on one occasion that Plaintiff "wasted too much lline on calling Defendant on every tlivlalmalter that/,ad occurred' and also that Plalnllff 'did not need 10 oblige to Town and Country's legal counsel in his request for more papelWork (faxing back and forth Ihe some document over and over again but only making a few Impertinent editions). However, Plaintiff did not respect Defendant's request and perlormed tile way that he deemed necessary Plalnllff sold that tle wan led 10 'VI,n" the case but Ihere was nothing to win nor lose. Since Town and Country had already expressed the desire to reconcile differences Wittl Defendant and had made a verbal agreement 10 "drop the lawsuit' In exchange for the rent money In escrow (their attorney saidlhat 'thoy just wanled Ihelr money in their bank account and not having 10 fight to get the money from the Prothonotary's office) prior to Mr. Bell1hau~s taking on my case, Defendant laid Mr Bell1haur dunng the inllial consullation nol 10 dwell 100 much on past 'transgressions' thai occurred between Ihe Defendant and Town & Counlry. Instead, Defendant told Mr. 8einhaur to concentrale more on haVing the case sellled offiCially and 10 put all verbal agreements In wliting 50 thatlhere Will not be a misunderslandlng laler on between Defendant and Town & Country, In a nut$hell, Defendant wanted a reconciliatory oulcome whereas both Town & Country and Defendant will walk away without eilller party being "injured" (figuratively speaking) .. a 'win,wln" sltuallon Instead of a 'win.lose' or "Iose.win' situallon, 11, Mr 8elnhaur did nol follow tjlO objective as set forth duling the course of his representation and lost his focus while pursuing the matter In hiS own way. He simply made a 'mountain out of a molehill" by focusing on every tidbit information that he came across and then, as a resull, overbilled Defendant not In accordance 10 Ihe fee agreement. Of course, it was Mr, 8clnhaur's idea to attempt haVing the oliginal tnal date moved to a later date not In accordance with Defendant's wish, Defendant was relieved when Judge Sebastian Natale agreed 10 hear Ihe case without delay. Defendant had wished to move out of Town & Counlry Apartmenls at the end of the month (Apnl of 1994) so it would defeat the purpose in prolonging Ihe case. On numerous occasions, Defendant had said 10 Mr. 8elnhaur to focus on the main objective (mainly to put the seltlement terms in wliting) since the other party had agreed to drop the lawsuit, Hence, there was no exlended work involved as claimed by Mr, 8elnhaur, FENs'rERMACflER AND ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff IN THE COU~T OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V, HUYEN LUONG FISHER, NO, 96-3574 Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORII& DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT HUYEN LUONG FISHER TO: Ms, Huyen Luong Fisher 1 Oakwood Avenue Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 These Interrogatories are propounded pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure and are to be answered by the Defendant in accordance therewith, Defendant is required to answer these Interrogatories in writing under oath, based upon all information available to her and to her attorneys, employees, and other agents, or representatives, Defendants are also required to serve answers to these Interrogatories within thirty (30) days, to the offices of Fenstermacher and Associates, 5232 East Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 and supplement their answers in accordance with the pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure. These Interrogatories are to be answered by the Defendant, Huyen Luong Fisher, lNSTRUCTIONS A, The words "you" or "your" when used herein refer to Defendant Huyen Luong Fisher, her agents, servants and/or employees, B, "IdE:ntity" when used herein with respect to an indi vidua I means to state: ( 1) the person's full name and present or last known address; and, (2) the person's position, employer and employer's address at the time of the events referred to in the Interrogatory, C. entity other partnership, "Identify" when used herein with respect to an than an individual (e,g., a corporation, unincorporated association, governmental agency, I "1 _.A ' , 9, Identify each fact which supports your contention that Town and Country had "agreed to c\rop the lawsuit" as referred to in paragraph 11 of your "Response", ANSWER ,I . " DEFINITIONS AND DIRECTIVES The following request to produce is governed by the following definitions and directivest 1, "You" and "your" shall mean Defendant Huyen Luong Fisher, her agents, servants or employees, 2, "Document" shall mean all forms of recorded data or information, including w~itings of any kind, inclUding the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the o~iginals by reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise (including, without limitation, co~respondence memoranda, notes, work sheets, diaries, statistics, letters, telegrams, telex, telefax, minutes, cont~acts, repo~ts, studies, checks, statem~nts, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books); notations of any Bort of conve~sations, telephone calls, meetings or other communications; bulletins or printed matter of any type, and all forms of drafts, notations, workings, alterations, modifications, changes or amendments of any of the foregoing; graphical or oral records or representations of any kind (inCluding, without limitation, photographs, films, charts, graphs, videotapes, recordings, and motion pictures); and electrical records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, disks and recordings), 3, "Pertain to" shall be interpreted to include relating to, referring to, ~eflecting, ~egar.ding, constituting, concerning or having as its subject matte~, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, expressly or implied, the subject matter of the specific request, . 4, "Communication" includes, but is not limited to, all written or or~l discussions, statements, conversations, memoranda, notations, letters, notices or any document, 5, If any request for documents is deemed to call for production of privileged or work product materials and such privilege or work product is usserted, identify in writing each document so withheld, If only a portion of a document is privileged or work product, then redact and identify such portion thereof that is withheld, with regard to all documents or all portions of documents withheld, provide the following information: (6) The reason for withholding the documents; (b) The statement for the basis of the claim of privilege, work product or other ground of non-disclosure; (c) A brief description of the document, including (i) the date of the document; (ii) number of pages, attachments and appendices; (iii) the names of its author, authors or preparers and an identification by employment and title of each such person; (iv) the name of each person who was sent, or shown blind copies or carbon copies or has had access to 3 FENSTERMACHER & ASSOCIATES, Plalnlllf Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania v, No, 96.3574 Civil Teml HUYEN LUONG FISHER, Defendant Civil Acllon .. Law DEFENDANtwSPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS 1, Plalnllff wanted to obtain Infonnallon regarding Defendant's occupation, name & address of employer. date of birth, social security number, schools attended, degree awarded Please state the relevancy as to why Plalnllff naedsthese Inlonnallon since they are not related to the lawsuit. Plalnllffs Response: 2. 3, 4, fhlslnfonnatlon can be obtained from Defendanfs previous response, Same as al!ove, 5, This Infonnatlon 15 not reievant to the Issue at hand, The IsslJe 15 Plaintiff would like to collect the difference between what the Defendant had paid the Plaintiff In April of 1994 ($ ~OOl and the amount which Mr, John Balnhaur had claimed that the Defendant should have paid, 'if u~' q, tJ if ([Jii> Please refer to Defendant's previous response, 6, Please refer to Defendant's previous response, Please refer to your copy of the Fee Agreement (which shall be referred to as 'the agreement'), ,~r. .,fY!' '1 ~u In. ( Iv' / Please refer to Defendant's previous response of July 199~, The amount agreed on wa~ hours of billing time althe rate of $110,00 per hour plus parking, photocopies, faxes which totaled $ 6~O; Defendant paid Mr Belnhaur $ 500,00 for the retainer fee on March 31, 1994 and the balance of $1~ was pal My 8, 1994. r.lr/tJQ'1fJ ,ij6J~ 7, 8, 9, This fact Is Irrelevant to the issue at hand, Whether Town & Country agreed to drop the lawsuit or not, Defendant and Mr, Belnhaur had signed an agreement f~r 5 hours of billing lime, There was no othp.r verbal fee agreement nor any additional fee agreement in writing agreed upon between the two parties dunng the period from March 31, 1994 through April 7, 1994 (during which time Mr, Beinhaur represented the Defendant in a landlord. tenant matter), 10, Thlslnfonnatlon was explained to the Defendant by Mr, Belnhaur to jlJstify for additional expenses, 11, Please refer to Defendant's previous response. 0/ I- !" ().~ L f', ,'" r: .' by 1'(''/:),1// '/./ il,t' ," I. r f(' ,"/k'"lve ('1)rr"'lli\1f",~ ~v<:,re Il'lnt!"i;. i'l '2j.1'Jrll "h, (c,/ erroft; . Tfi''lt--/' . 11 ,15, ,.1.~JJt,'L/ 'lCe FENSTERMACHER & ASSOCIATES, Plalnliff Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania v, No, 96.3574 Civil Term HUYEN LUONG FISHER, Defendant Civil Action .. Law 1, Plnlntlff wanted to obtain Infonnation regarding Defendant's occupation, name & address of employer, date of birth, social 5ecurity number, schools allended, degree awarded Please ~tate the relevancy as to why Plaintiff needsthe5e Infonnatlon since they are not related to the lawsuit. Plaintiffs Response: 2, Thlslnfonnatlon can be obtained from Defendant's previous response, 3, Same as above, 4, This Infonnation 15 not relevant to the Issue at hand, The Issue 15 Plaintiff would like to collect the difference between whatlhe Defendant had paid the Plaintiff In Apri~f 1994 ($ 6,69,00tand the amount which Mr, John Belnhaur had claimed that the Defendant should have paid,. ..:::: lfl.J'" I - " I 5, Please refer to Dafendant's previous response r" 'f; \, :" " 6, Please refer to Defendant's previous response, ([I1;f-' 7, Pleasa refer to your copy of lhe Fee Agreement (which shall be refarred to as 'the agreement'), 8, Please refer to Defendant's previous response of July 1996, Tha amount agreed on was ~p'f /lilling lime lit Ul~ rol& of $110,00 )Jar hour plus parking, photocopies, la~~s which totaled $ 669,00: aant palo Mr, Belnhaur $ 500,00 for the retainer fee on March 31, 1994 and the balance 0' $16~OO"" paid on May 8, 1994, (jiU', 9, This fact 15 Irrelavant to the issue at hand, Whether Town & Country agreed 10 drop the lawsuit or not, Defendant and Mr, Beinhaur had signed an agreement for 5 hours of billing lime, There was no other verbal fee agreement nor any addllional fee agreemenlln writing agreed upon between the two parties during the period from March 31, 19941hrough April 7, 1994 (during which lime Mr, Balnhaurrepresented Ihe Defendant In a landlord. tenant matter) 10 This infonnatlon was explained to the Defendant by Mr Belnhaur to lustify for additional expenses, 11, Please refer tn Defendant's previous response --1 ( t) r' IV ti f 1,1 I I t. "._ , "'7 f f II I '! I ~J - " f I" I r- ('I"" 'Yf/l)LI 'rl: 'J/i', (rl(~,'11 'jl: (( 'j '7 ( ( l'/!o) ,I?,' rH,j, " "I ," II M *... 7,1, '7(",(( .,("",'/ I,,). /""'/' flU, (/ f~o'! !i/l'~ (I tt'("5 " .' I)': ( f '/ :'1''1 r'll., ,'" , i r , "1 , i l 1'1 ." ,... .. '" I' " , " I' , ( 'I , , l ; I !I) ,," , \1.1.. .. I ) , , " " ) FENSTERMACHER & ASSOCS., PLAINTIFF VS. IN 'I'HE COURT 01' COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CASE ~O. 96-3574 HUYEN LUONG FISHER, DEFENDANT CIVIL LAW RESPONSE '1'0 JUDGE KE\'I.N HESS AS '1'0 REASONS FOR ~IY APPEAl, '1'0 SUPERIOR COURT Below are my reaaons for the apFeal as ~cque3ted by the Honorable Kevin Hess of Cumberland Courthouse in order for hia written opinion and my file be submitted to the Superior Court on the above referenced: I entered into a legal fee agreement with Mr. John Beinhaur who was an associate with Fenstermacher & Associates (Plaintiff). Mr. Beinhaur is no longer working for the Plaintiff and as of March of this year (1997), I have been corresponding with another counsel, Mr. Mark Emery, who is taking over the above lawsuit and has been pursuing various means including collection methods as well as proceedings with the Court. In 1994, I retained Mr. Beinhaur as my counsel for legal representation in a lawsuit. The fee agreement stated that legal fees should not exceed 5 hours of work at a rate of $110.00 per hour plus I will be billed for costs including faxing, postage, photocopying etc... I have paid a retainer of $500.00 on March 31, 1994 and the balance of $169.96 on May 6,1994 for a total of $669.96. Two year later in March of 1996, Mr. Beinhaur sent me a notice demanding an additional amount of \egal fees and stated that this amount was a result of "complex" work that he had done for myself in 1994. When I telephoned Mr. Beinhaur in asking for an explanation of the difference, Mr. Beinhaur mentioned that due to renovations of the office his law firm had to increase the fees to "absorb" the renovating costs. I refused to pay and mentioned that the fee agreement stated that the maximum hours of legal work agreed upon was for 5 hours of the attorney's fees. Approximately a week later after our telephone conversation, I was served a notice (lawsuit) to appear at the District Court in Hampden Township. District Justice Glenn Farner ruled for the Plaintiff. I appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. This appeal was filed in May of 1996 (May 9, 1996). The Plaintiff did not file a compla~nt to this case (96-3091) despite the fact that I had served the Plaintiff a reminder notice on July 15, 1996. I received a JUDGMENT OF NON-PROS FROM THE COURT on July 29, 1996. The Pl~intiffdinitiated another lawsuit against myself on the same Cla1m an now the caSEl 1S ...- r:U I" I'- ,- .. I, p,l ..:1 1 ," \,-.' , .. ., , " ,J '- C' ~ - .. I l,.;..~ I 1- 1,1.. <. ' .~\. , ~I ~) [;; d .. PROOF OF SERVICE AND NOW, ON THIS SIX'l'H DAY OF OC'I'OJJER 1997, I, llUYEN LUONG FISHFlR, DO CJ:)RTIFY THAT I AM SENDING 'rilE FOREGOING NO'l'ICE OF APPEAL TO PLAINTIFF BY REGULAR MAIL, FIRST CI,ASS I ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS e FENs'rERMACIlER & ASSOCS. 5232 E. TRINDLE ROAD MECllANICSBURG, PA 17055 BYe \ l / (~)~ ~.JiA [1;,ll HUYEN LUONG DEFENDAN'r ('l ...') () ["" .-1 "11 .'"1 , I .,., ...'" 'r ,d' , I .' .. <- If)) 'I,', ''',' '-1 , , '-" ~ I' ; i ,"' I,ll .. .'" r j ',J1, ~. I)) .... DOCKET NO. ,., .1 in !' ... " ',\ ,,' i" r .~/:._~. t f ',I, "l.\ :'" ': ,i"-ld 'I . ~ ' \.v\'\' Uc'.L "(I( \..'...", ,f) \'\(,W''4c", f..{,t\ .. " 'lJ ' , lJJ P 0 t p I, 0 , UI"l 8J ;:.,.... ,",0 hI'- " p.... 0..: J ~U Po '" 'tl . '"' h <lJ 0"'.... h.... I/j l(f 0'" .c olJ ,'" '"'~.... o '" '" , B PoU >.~ ~ g~E~ Zrll~~ Offilii>. ~~~~ I/.;;;lCl'l re (.: ~ ffi ~, l..~ ::: c. t..;.J I'"; .. O""r,:, I/.UOo.: o Z::> tl'~: ... CQ ':.. CI) ~..~- tLffi ~ ~"'. .: ::> ::I: Vl " , ,