HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-04717
I'
,I
" I
, ,
I,
"
rr: ,,It' .'
hI I',~", ~ I'
" ,
r" t"J 1.(t
I'} , . 't:
r" .......
,>, .... <'Ji
\.' . ~J.
II,
111\ ' r" ,;>')
(.\, ' " , ,
l' " dill
t.: ,,',t.
I ,. ~ ~~ 'I
II I>' cS
~..J 1;1'
1'""'\>4 ~~
-
/,
,:
17. D.hled.1 .t.ted, It i. denied that We.kem talled to
.hip all itema that it lJilled AKla tor, By way ot tUl:'thel:'
~e.pon.e, Weekem did learn atter tiling it, complaint that oertain
items .hipped to a middhnllJn whioh were to bll do livered to AK'a by
the middlemnn were not actually delivered,
By way of. turther reBponse, at the time Weskem tiled it.
complaint, it belillved t.hat all itemll lJilled to AR'a were, in taot,
delivered to AK'..
10. Denied II al:ated, Long after th" tiling ot ita
complaint, Weskem learned that the middleman to whom it .hipped
.everal items did 1I0t actually deliver all item. to AKla. At the
time j,t tiled it. complaint, Wllekem l:lIllievlld that ell item. had
been delivered to A1<'s,
By way of f.urther respon.~, do.pite ample time to do 10,
AR's never intol:'med Weskem that it had 110t in tact received all at
the item.. It ili admitted that Weak!!m hat taklll1 poeseasion at
those item. inaamuch as AK'a has failed and refu.ed to pay tor all
items it has actually received. It is fur.ther alleged that Weskelll
ha., at all times, acted in a commercially reasonable manner.
19. Denied. The averments of. paragraph 19 oonstitute
oonolu.ions of law to which no response is required.
nIUrORJl, Plaintiff WBBItBM '1'ICHNOLOOI8B, INC. reapeottully
requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and
2
I Illlbll^'AIIII"I"I",,\.~~~~,.I,blj,.j1'
I /l.II~ I/>. lh ~I' oJ I~ I' I't..!
fillll'" II If ~'llll'I'It..!
WI!SKEM TI~('IINOLO(lIES, INC,
LI/b/ll STEVENSON MAClIINE SIIOI',
I'I1Iillllll'
v
IN TIll! couln OF COMMON I'IJ!AS OF
C'UMIll!IU.ANl> COUNTY, I'ENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION .I,AW
NO '/1\..1717
AK'S UEST ENTEI\I'IUSES, INf.',
IiLl/b/u A.K. 'S FLY TYING TOOLS,
D~limdllnt
JUR Y TI\IAI. DEMANDEIJ
DEI1ENI)ANT'S AN SWEll WITII NEW MA'I"I't:,Il
TO WESKEM TECIINOLO(H1!S, INC, d/h/ll STEVENSON MACHINE SII()/I,
1'llIhllll1', IIIId ItN 1I1IOnlCY, TIIOMAS 0 WILLIAMS. ESQLJII\E
YOU ARE IIEIU!BY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESI'ONSE TO TIlE
r~NCLOSED NEW MATTER WITIIIN TWENTY CW) llA YS FROM SElWICE llEl\I!OF 01\ A
JUDClMENT MAY BE ENTl'lm) AGAINST YOU
ANSWEIl. (,OlJN1.l
AND NOW, ClIIllCS lJclimdlll1l AK'N BCNI ElllcrJlrIN~~, IIIC, I/d/b/1l AK'H FI)' Tylnll ToulN,
b)' lIml lhmullh Iu 1I110rncYH, MARTSON, DEAIUJOllFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO, nnd h~reby
reHpolld~ lol'llIlntlll'N COfllplllllltllN fiJlloWH
1.2 Adfllht~d
], Adlllht~d Ihlll Dclcndllnl subllllllcd II purchllHlI order NlIt 10l1h UN I!Khlblt A In
I'lnlnllll'H COlllplulnL It IH dCllled Ihlll Nuld pllrchllHc order cl1l1l1lln~d 1111 of the lennN of Ihe
Allreelll~IIL There W~I'C UllrC~lllenlH thllllhllllclllN wuuld be 111ll~1)' Nhlllped.
4. Oenl~d IIH Hluled, NUlllcrouN Il~lll~ rll'lucHICd have not bccn HhIIlP~d, 1'IIIIntll1'
prllvlLled IIn lIccuunllnll which dCllllHlNll'uled II dlNCrCpllncy between the Itelll~ llrd~r~d IInd IhoHC
Nhlpped, 1'11I1IItll1' rccllllcd I'UrlOIlN IlCIllN Ihlllllhlrd pllrllcH und nllW hUH pllHNcHHlon of ItelllH "ll'
which II hUll blllcd DcfclldunL
~, Adllllllcd Ihnl such III\lllIcCN 11lIW bllllll NcnL Dcnlcd lhlll II11ltclllH hllw bccnlllllcl)'
rcc~l\lcd by Delclldllnt I'lIfl1llfllph" of IhlH AnNwel' iH IncLlrpornled herlllll,
6, Delll~d thnl Dclcndllllt hnN IIccepllld nllllflhe Ilel11H l'urnllrnphH J.~ of thiN AnHwer
IIrc Incol'poralcd herein,
7. Denl~d II~ Hluled, l'lIrnl!rnllhN ).~ "fthls Answer IIrc IIICllrpllrBled herelll
II, Admltled Ihllll)~l~ndlllll hllH ru'IIH~d III P"Y 1'llIllIlln', 1'lIrll~rllllhH J.~ ol'lhl~ AII~wur
111'0 Incol'IlOrllled h~roln,
9.10, Oenled, ('oncluHlon~ of IlIw IIrc 1I11~lIed, 1'lII'IIlIrllphH ].5 of Ihl~ AII~Wlll' 111'11
Incorporated hcrclll,
WIIl!lU!FOlll!, Oelimdlllll denllllld~ Ihllllhe ('OI1lI)llIlnl be dlHmlNH~d
('OIlNT II
II, IJurullrllllhN 1.10 oflhlH Answer IIr~ IncorpoJ'llllld herein,
12, Admlttcd, l'urllllrllphH ].5 orthlH AnHwcr lire Incorporllll:d herein,
13. Oenled DH 51UI~d 1'1Irllllruphs J.5 of this Answ~r lire Incorporllled herein,
14, Ocnled UN Nluled, I'lIrullrllphH .1.~ of this Answer lIrc Incorporaled herein,
15, Oenled us Nlutcd, PurullrllphH ].5 oflhlN AnHwer lire Inclll'flOl'llled herein,
WliEl\EFORE. Oe'imdnlll demllndH t111111he COl1lplnl1ll bll dlHmlHHed,
NEW MA'."I'EIl
16, 1'11IlntlJl"hlld 1I1!rced 10 cerlnlnlhl1CH iiII' deli\lel'lu ofthc Items ordllred and I'lnlllllll"
has nol shipped lhr.ltemH In II Ilmel)' mllllncr 10 the hllrdshlp of I)clcndllnl,
17, I'lwlIllll'provldcd 1111 ACCOllllllllll11rlhe 1I11elled ltemH HhlppeLl which demonHlrlllcd lhlll
Iherc WBH a dlscrcllllncy And cerlulnllems hud nol be~1I shlppcd,
18, l'lulnllll" reclllled cerlAln ItcmH Ifllm lhlrd pllrtlcH lInd now hllH pOHseuloll of IheHe
ItcmN for which 1'I1IInllll" hllH billed I)clcndllnt
19, Bused on thll IIbo\le, 1'llIlnlllf hus brclIched lu IIl1re~menl with Ocfcndllnl und haH
cBused hardHhlp 10 Defendallt
WHEREFORE, Oelcndunl demandH lhalthe COl1lplalnl be dIHmIHH~d,
DUled: Junuury 22, 1997
Rcspectfully submllled,
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
B)'_OJCt,
Oanlcl K DlIllrdurll: Esquh
LO No 17837
Ten EIISI High Slreet
CurIl5Ic,I'A 1701l
(717) 24.1..1.141
Allorneys IiII' Defcl1dlll1t
ri~ '/.f ('
.,
t~ I.nt
/0."
~, ., ;h~ ,
p" ~: :l I
ml' '16 ,
~'l:1
I C I Jt:..
I' ,f
M " ~i "rl
,1'-1 II I.. ;,
j 'I II; ,
,
~} r" "
'I' I,.
I, ,
,
,
,
"
i
, '
I,
WEBKBN ~EC"NOLOGIBa, INC.
d/b/a STIlVl!NSON HACIlINI!: SHOP,
Plaintiff
IN TIlB COUR'r 011' COMMON L'LI!I\S OF
CUMBERLIIND COUNTY, IiIBNNSYLVIINIA
I
I
I
I
I
I
A. K. ' S BRB'r Btl'rRRPRISBB, ING. .
t/d/b/a A.K'S FLY 'rYING 'l'OOLO,.
Defendant .
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 96-4717 CIVIL TBRM
IN IlE. DEFENDANtl' I S PREr,IMINMY OBJBC'rION
BEFORB BHBELY. P.J.. And HOFFBR. J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
Sh.ely, P. J .
1I'0r dilpoBition in thiB oivil aotion on Illl aooount atated and
for breaoh of oontraot h Defendant I B preliminary objeotion raidnq
an issue of perIanal jurisdiotion. Implioatod in the objeotion i.
the permiuible range of PonnBylvania' B long-arm Btatut. with
re.peot to a Mnryland oorporate defendant.
For the rea.OnB oxpreBlled in thiB opinion, the preliminary
objeotion will be denied.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The reoord in thiB oase oonBiBts of a oomplaint, a preliminary
objeotion to the oomplaint and an anBwer to the preliminary
objection. For purpoBeB of thiB opinion, the factual averments of
the preliminary objeotion and anBwer will be accepted aB true.l
The present action waB oommenoed by the filing of a oomplaint
on August 23, 1996.
Acoording to the complaint, Plaintiff i.
I ct. Pa. R.C.P. 206.7. The preliminary objeotion did not
oontain a notioe to plead. See Pat R.C.P. 1028(0) (2), note. Baud
upon the briefs Bubmitted by the partieB, it does not appear that
a factual dillpute exists for purpose. of dilposition of the
preliminary objention.
WBBKBM 'l'BCHNOI,OQnS, INC.
d/b/a 8TBVBN80N MACIlINB 81101',
Plaintiff
IN THE COUIlT OF COMMON PLIIAS OF
CUMBBltL/INP COUNTY, PIINNSYLVIINIA
.
I
.
I
I
I
A. K. ' 8 BBs'r Btl'rBIlPIU8IES, INC. I
t/d/b/a A.K'8 FLY TYING TOOLa,.
Detendant I
v.
OIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 96-4717 CIVIL TBRM
IN RE. D~FBNDAtl'r I B PRSLIMINARY OBJBCTION
JjEFORB.JI.ljBELY. P. J . I and HQWR, J.
pPINIpN and OijDER OF COUR~
8heely, Ii'.J.
For disposition ill thh oivil action on an Ilooount stated and
for breaoh of oontraot h Defendant's prflliminary objeotion raising
an issue of perBonal jurisdiotion. Implioated in the objection i.
the permiuible range of Pennsylvania I s long-arm statute with
re.peot to a Maryland oorporate defendallt.
For the reasons exprelllled in thiB opLnion, the preliminary
objeotion will be denied.
STATBMENT OF FACTS
'r.he record in thh oue oonBiBts of a complaint, a preliminary
objection to the complaint and an answer to the preUmLnary
objeotion. For purpoBes of this opinion, the tactual averment. ot
the preliminary objQction and an.wer will be aooepted as true.l
The prelent action was oommenced by the filing of a oomplaint
on August 23, 1996.
AUoording to the oomplaint, Plaintiff h
I ct. Pa. R,C,P, 206.7. The preliminary objeotion did not
oontain a notioe to plead. Sse Pat R.C.p. 1020(0) (2), note. Billed
upon the briets submitted by the partie., it does not appear that
Il factual diBpute exists for purpose. of dispoaition of the
preliminary objeotion.
NO. 96-4717 CIVIL 'rl!lU(
Weakem Teohnologies, Inc., A PennsylvAnia oorporation having ita
prinoiplll plaoe of busineu in Mechaniosburg, Cumberland County,
Punnsylvania/' Ilnd DefendAnt is A.K'a allBt I!nterprislls, Inc., II
Maryland oorpout:ion hAving itB rllgilltered otfiCQ in Annapolh,
Maryland.'
'l'he oomplaint aUegQB that on February 0, 1996, nlthndant
lIubmitted a written order to plaintiff in Pennllylvania tor thlt
manufaoture by Plaintitt of ~42,020.00 worth of fishing fly-tyill9
tool Clomponents.1 'rhll 5000 ind lvidual itemB ordered wero to be
IIhipped f.o.b. point ot origin all they were produoed, lIooording to
the allrJged purohaBe order.'
A letter from Defendant to Plaintiff which allegrJdly
aooompanirJd the order adviBed that Defendant "look[ed) forwllrd to
a mutually beneficial and profitable rQlationBhip" with Plaintiff.'
Purlluant to the order, it ill alleged that (Ill the itema ordered
were produoed by Plaintiff in pellnaylvania,' (b) 250 items were
Ihipped by Plaintiff to DrJfendant on March 26, 1996, (cl 1000 itehla
I
Plaintiff'a Complaint, paragraph 1.
PlaintJ.ff'a Complaint I paragraph 2.
Plaintiff'B CClmplaint, pl1raguph 3.
Plaintiff I B Complaint, Exhibit A.
Id.
,
D
,
1 Plaintitf's AnSWer to Defendllnt's Preliminary Objection.,
Exhibit A (attidavit).
2
NO. 96-4717 CIVIL '1'BRH
were shipped on April 9, 1996, (d) 500 iteme were shipped on April
12, 1996, (e) 1085 items were shipped On April 30, U96, and (f)
500 iteme were shipped on May 24, 1996.'
Payment, aooording to alleged invoioes for the items ehipped
to Oefendant, was to be remittod to Vlaintiff's bank in Cumberland
County.' Some payment was in faot allogedly made in Penn.ylvania
for the goods by Defendant 110 however, it is alleged that a balanoe
of $21,344.56 remain. due .11 Defendant's obligations were the
sUbjeot of seve~a1 phone oAlls by a representative of Defendlnt to
Plaintiff in Pennsylvania, according to Plaintiff.ll
The preliminary objeotion of Defendant to Plaintiff'.
oomplaint, raising an issue of personal jurisdiction, reads in ite
entirety al tollowsl
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
county! Pennsylvllnia, does not have
jurisd10tion over the person of Defendant
whioh is a Maryland Corporation.
,
Plaintiffls Complaint, Exhibit B.
rd.
,
10 Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Preliminary Objections,
Exhibit A (affidavit).
II
Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraphs
B, 14.
Preliminary Objeotions,
II Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's
Exhibit A (affidavit).
3
NO. 915-4717 Clvn, T~ltH
WItRllIU'ORE I PlIfltndant demllnd. that tit.
Complaint .gain~t it be diarniQsed for laok of
jur isdiction over the peril on .11
Ill~.u.lllilli
With re.peot to the etandurd of ~eviQw and burden of proof
p.~taining to a preliminary objootLon raieing an issue ot personal
juri.diotion, Wit have provioultly Ittatud ae follow"l
ThiB court ahould only grnnt preliminary
objeotiona in ollaoa thnt nre olear and free
froJn doubt. 01111 v. I\allllllor, [420] l'a. Buper.
[l\ 12) I (514} I 617 J\. 2d 23 I 24 (1992). 'I'he
evidence muat b~ oonaidorod in tho light moat
favorable to tho non-moving party. r.d. [at
IUS, 61'/ A.2<l at 24}. J\ mere IIllogation of
lack of perllonlll jurilldiction dooll not place
the burdon on the plaintiff to nogate Buch
allegations. 1d. "When Il defendant
challengea tho court/It IIl1l1ertion of poraon4l
juriBdiotion, that dofendant bOllrll tho burden
of supporting auch objeotiona to juriadiation
by proaenting evJ,donoo." 1d, '1'he burdon of
proof only allifte to tho plaintiff aft~r the
defendant haa preaont.od IIffJ,dav.i.ta or other
evidonoe in IHlpport of Ltlt proliminary
objeotions ohallenging juriadiotion. Bee
Crompton v. Parkwnrd Motora, 1no. I 299 Pa.
Super. 40, 445 J\.2d [137} (1982).
Colt Plumhing co., rne. v. /3oiaaeBu, Jr" No. 1165 civil 1993, slip
Opt at 2,.3 (Cumberland Co. September 3, 1993), rev'd on other
uroundll, 43S Pa, Super. 380, 645 A.2d 1350 (1994).
With respect to the gltneral prinoipleB pertaining to suoh an
objeotj.on, th~ PennBylvania Superior Court has provided the
following prooedural analysisl
II
Preliminary objeotions of Defendant, filed september 23,
1996.
4
NO. 96~4717 CIVIL ~BRH
Whether a state may exercise in pe~.onam
juriediotion over a nonresident detendant mu.t
b. te.ted Ilgainlt tho Itato'g long arm .tatut.
and the due praoes. olause of the fourteenth
amendment of the Unitod states constitution.
If jurisdiotion may be oonferred by the
at~te's long arm etatutQI a tribunal mu.t next
determine whether the defendant haa
..tablish..d minimal oontactlt with thll forum
.tate. t'inally, it must be olltablillhed the
auertion of in perllonam jurLlldiction would
not violate the "traditional notionll of fair
play and lIubstantial justic..."
Filipoviah v. J.T. Impcrt", Ina" 431 l'a. Super. 552, 51S!l-!l6, 637
A.2d 314, 311.1 (1994) (citationB omittedl.
Under Pennlylvania's long-arm statute, it is provided III
tollowe I
(a) Oeneral rule - A tribunal of this
Commonwealth may exeroise peraonal
jurisdiotion over a person ... who acts
aireotly or by an agent, all to a cau.e of
action or other matter arising from such
per.on.
(1) Transaoting any business in this
Commonwealth. Without exoluding other acts
which may oonBtitute tranBacting busine.s in
thi. Commonwealth I any of the following shall
conltitute trenBlloting busineu tor the
pu~pose of thiB paragraphl
(il The doing by any person in
this Commonwealth of a series of
similar aots for the purpose of
thereby realizing peouniary benefit
or otherwiso acoomplishing an
objeot.
(iil The doing of a single aot
in this Commonwealth for the purpole
ot thereby realizing pecuniary
benefit or otherwise acoomplishing
!l
NO. 911-4717 CIVIL 'l'ERM
matt~r in whole o~ in part on any conditions
thllt mllY be just .16
It is apparent under the long-4rm statute thllt p.nonal
jurisdiotion over Defendant with rega~d to the Lnstant aotion may
be predioated upon one of soveral groundsl inoluding the oausation
of hum in t:h~ Commonwealth. Our inquiry must thus turn to the
oonstitutionality of Buch a reBult.
"The constitutional touchstone [in this are4) ~emains whether
the detelldant purposefully e1JtabLLshod 'minimum contacts I in the
forum state." Xllohur v. Yugo Amltr.ioll, Ino" 534 l'a. 316, 321, 632
A.2d 1297,1300 (1993), quoting Burger Xing Corp. v. Ruduwio., 471
U.S. 462, 474, 105 S. ct. 2174, 2183, B5 L. Ed. 2d 528, 542 (198!!).
The contact. mUet be much that the defend4nt "should realonably
anticipate being haled into court" in the forum stat&t. Xubik v.
Letted, 532 Pat 10,17,614 A.2d 1110, 1114 (1992), quotJ.ngBurger
16 Act of July 9, 1976, p.L, 586, 52, liS /lmended, 42 Pa, C.S.
55322(4)-(0), (el (Main Vol. & 1996 Supp.).
Alternative balee for in personam juriBdiotion over a
defendant oorporation 4re oontained in the more general provision
of flection 5301(al (2) of the Judicial Code, Act of July 9, 1976,
p.L. 586, 52, 11I1 amended, 42 Pa, C.S. 55301(al (2) (inoorpoution
under or qualification ae a foreign oorporation under the law. of
Pennsylvania, consent I carrying on of a oontinuous and eretematio
part of oorporation'e general bueineBe within PennBylvan al' With
the oxoeption of Defendant's BtatuB as a Maryland corporat on, no
facts Ilre oontained in the record in thie case which permit an
analYBis of the applicability of these alternative buoB for in
personam jurisdictlon, in view of our disposition of the oase,
however, n~ such analYBiB is required.
7
NO. 96..4717 CIVIL 'rItRM
lUng Corp. v. Ruduwio., 471 U.S. 4152, 474, 1011 S. Ct. 2174, US3,
015 L. Id. 2d 1528, 1142 (19811).
[Tlbe [UnLted Btates) Supreme Court (has)
enumerated eeveral factors to oonsider in
determining whether the exercin of
iurindiction is reasonable, inoluding the
lorum state's inte~est in resolving the
dieputol the plaintiff's intorest in obtaining
convenient and effeotive relief, the
interstate judioi41 systern' s interest in the
moet effioiont rosolutLon of the oontroversr'
and tho intorollt of tho seveJ:al statos n
furthering Qublltantive sooial polioies.
Halloll"Norton Co. v. Il.G.S. co., 1/10" 37 CumberlanrJ L.J. 277, 282
(1987) (Bayley, J.).
"[AI determination of whether or not the 'minimum contaot.' of
a foreign oorporation with a particular state are suffioient to
make the corporation oonstitutionally amenable to proce.. in that
.tate must inevitably be made on an ad hoo oase-by-oau basie and
not by the application of a meohanioal rule." Prootor & Sahwllrt.,
Ina. v. Cleveland Lumber Co., 220 Pa, Super. 12, 10, 323 A.2d 11,
15 (1974).
In the present oaBe, a number of faotors militate in favor of
a oonolusion that PennBylvania may oonBtitutionally exeroise
personal juriBdiotion OV0r Defendant with respeot to the oause of
aotion brought by Plaintiff. FLrst, Defendant purposefully availed
itself of the privilego of aoting within the Conunonwealth and
thereby invoked thfl benefit. and proteotions of itJI law., it
initiated a oontraot with Plaintiff for the manufaoture of good. in
o
NO. 96~4717 CIVIL 'rBRM
Pennsylvania. I' Seoond, Plaintiff I. cAUle of aotion ari... out of
Oefendant's aotivitiel within the Commonwealth-wits entry into and
alleged br.ach of tho oontroot.
Third, the oontraot wal a substantial one in terms ot the
performanoe required of Plaintiff/ over $40,000.00 in product. wal
allegedly involved. Fourth, the relationship b~tween the partie.
extended over a period of mOllths and involved numeroue shipments
from Pennsylvania of thousands of items to Defendant.
Fifth, Pefendant antioipated from the outset "a mutually
benefioial and profitable relationBhip" with the Pennsylvania
Plaintiff. And, Bixth, Pennsylv~nia has d subltantial intore.t in
proteoting its manufaoturers from the type of harm allegedly
inflioted upon Plaintiff by 0 oustomer.
Under theee oiroumBtanoes, the oourt does not believe that it
hae been plaoed in a position to diBmisB the pre Bent aotion on the
ground of a laok of in personam jurhdiction.17 See proat:or &
Sahwart" Inc. v. Cleveland Lumber Co., 228 Pat Super. 12, 323 A.2d
11 (upholding Pennsylvania oourt's personal juriBdiotion over
Georgia oorporation which allegedly ordered and failed to pay for
certain lumber-drying equipment from Pennsylvania company) .
u "The unil4teral activity of those who olaim some
relationehip with a nonresident defendant oannot eatisfy the
requirement of oontact with the forum Btate." Hanson v. Denakla,
357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S. ct. 1228, 1239~40, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283, 1298
(1958) .
11 It may be noted that the proximity of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, to Annapolie, Maryland, where Pefendant is looated,
tendB to minimize any inoonvenienoe to the particular defendant in
thiB case for purpoBee of Section 5322(e) of the Judicial Code.
See text acoompanying nolo 15 supra.
9
II r, DUQUlllllaNOr,AU'rIIORI'U
A, ")JIlt,.. IUTII 1I111PHClT TO. 'l'IUILDnElIClILOL-'IO.llT~
ACTION, TIIB DllrEliDl\tlT X.lIITIl\TEIUl..Q.Q.lI'r.IU\Cl,TUAL
I\nATXJ,)IiIJIUl' 111'1'1& 'rllfl..l'Llllli'1'Ur.DlUlllIiOnf~LA
llURaJU\llI. OJ\l)fm TO'1'IIE,.RLJllliTnr__lI/LiJ:.J\X.lI'1'lfF.!i
QUIiDIRLlUlD OOUIi'1'Y", l'Elilill Y INl\1i Ill. ...onXO.fl,._TIUI
l'Ll\UlTJ:rr MIiUrllCTURED,.. '1'111:1... IUIiILOnOI'.lRED_DY
Till . DIU'EIiDl\Ii'l' lIT IT/L, CUIi/Jt:RLl\tiD..J;IO.tl.liT.Y"
llIlliNll YLV "Ii 1l\0 FF X eILMlD._ TIIIL..oEfj;tiDlIli'l_BIl.llT
Pl\RT II\L l'l\YIit:IiT . TOnnTIIILl'L1\1NTnr_JlNJLJIJ\D.fl
IIIVIML . OM.ILll._. TO...J'IlL.l'L1I1liUF.J'_RJ:lOllnDI.ll.Q
l'AYlil1iT 11'1'. ..tT1L CUMllERWiILCo.t1liT.y,_.l'lllilill-YLY.AJilA
a",lall, . TIIIL DEFllliD1IN'l'.,Hl\1l_1'.UlU>Q,UF.ULLX-AYlII.LllO
%TIlIlLl.. OL.,'rIIIL_l'lU,YllE.oL-OF COliO.tl.c'rl.ll.Q
ACT l.VXT XEB_. .1Ill'JUIi_UliliUZ,YA.lIllL-A.lID U
T1UIBfllOl\ILllU lIJ.EC'.L'l'.o_TIUlJ.UBI B 0 I CT;tON Or.JJU.Il
ll.o.1l BT..
It hOIJ 1011'1 Duon hold that when preliminary objections I if
lJuotllLnod, would rOlJult in tho dLsmLssal of an action, Buch
objootions should bo austllinod only in cases which ara olaar and
froo from doubt. J3.lUWlLY.. Pitts~r\lh Corn~nq..cm:P"" 317 Fa. Super.
203, 302-03, 464 A.2d 323, 332 (1983), cart. donLed, 467 U,S. 1205,
104 S.ct. 2387, 81 L.Ed.2d 346 (1984). Moroover, Lt has been held,
when deoiding a mot Lon to dismiss for lack of persQnal
4
jUI:isdiction, which this lIonorolJla COUr\: must 110101 c10/ tlW......c.ourt,
llUlau.cmJillliwlUl_W.dtJllJJLin..t hlLUQb.t_JDoa.t_.t.llY.QJ:jl)J1DQ.....\;11A..JlQJ1.o::
m.o\'.iIW_PAJ:.t~ (amlJhB s L u IIddod). l{QllllJ.1,th_Jk,.OAka"._..t.td.,.,_...tllLOAkIi
ednt.in\J-.-Co.,--Y.I--- J?.l\UL.JJJll.Ql.Ih.aon I,__ln~ iV.J..dullJ..lY-_l1nd..._dlJJ/"--'l'lUl
.LojJ.Qtlbll.oIL.C.9lDPDllY,-LuuL'l'bQ-..J:.g.ll.llpha.oll..~.o,...j,."lnQ"., HIO ~)ll. oUIJor, 103,
I3tSB lI.;ld n5 (11l89).
In ;J'JJII.Qphlll.on, tho ~)OI'I1BYlvllnill aupodor Court Willi OBllod upon
to do\:ormLno whethor tho common Pleas Court had properly gronted
tho preliminary objoctions of a non-resident (Hew Jersey)
pofondal,t/ a11og111g 11lck of in pcrs9nJ:UD judsdLctLon. In do doin'il,
thLl court set forth the controllil'''J law on thLl Lssue of in..pulI.ollAlll
jurisdiction ovor non-rosLdent DefLlndants.
Tho J:.oup/1f;.o.n court LlXP 1 1.1 Lncd thot a court may e)(eroLso in
j,1Ql:lIPl1am jurisdiction over a non-rosLdent if (1) juriBdictLon iB
conferred by the statLl long-arm statute, and (2) the e)(oroisQ of
jurisdiotion under the statute meLlts constitutional standards of
due process I J:Q.rulp~, citLng ~.nt1nuous Forms v. Island
BUsiness FormJil, 355 Pa.Super. 352/ 513 A.2d 466 (19B6).
Undor the Pennsylvania long-arm statute, Pennsylvania courts
may o>lercLse jurisdiction over non-resLdent Defendants to the
tUlleBt extent allowed under the constitutLon of the United states
and jurisdLction may be based on the most minimum contact with this
commonwealth allowed under the constitution of the United states.
~osephsol1, supra, at lI.2d 217, citing 42 Pa.e.s. g5322(b) and
~kinner v. F:ymo, 351 Pa,Super. 234, 240, 505 lI.2d 616, 619 (1986).
I)
'I'he Uni tad 6tl\tafl alll,rlllnQ COllrt hall ItotQd that: t.ho II Puo
PrOOOflB ClBUIO oC tho FOllrtoanth Arnondmont to tho UnLtod stntos
conBtLtutLon permLtll porBonnl jurLlldictLon OVQr B PeCandl\nt Ln I\ny
stl\to with whLoh tho f)I3Cundl\nl: hl\s ourt:nln Il\inlmllln oontl\otll . . .
such thnt tho ml\Lntonl\nco oC tho BlILt dooll not ofCond trl\ditlonl\l
not:LonB oC Cnir 1,l1lY I\lld IHlbfltl\ntLl\l jllBtLoo," MiilJ.lulll......y.......MflY..llJ:,
311 U.S. 45", 463, Gl a.ct. 339, H~, 05 r"J::d, ~.,,) (1940).
In tho OOBa of lJ.urggr._1Un\l.....c.orp,,___v,l......lluslll.Q.wJ.JJ1./ tho Unitod
Stl\tOB suprome COllrt oxplBinad thnt in mLnLmum cont:nctll I\nnlysiB,
"tnlLBmanio jurifldictLol1lll formulllB" Ilra rejeotod Ilnd tho Cllotll oC
oach caBO I\ro waighod in dl3tormininq whother personal jurLsdiotion
will comport with fnir plAY IJnd flubstlJntLnl jUfltioo. 13.ur.QJlL..1til1\l
r;:grp...-Y.......l~ud:.!awlc.z., 4'/1 U,S, 4<S~, 485~81S, 105 s.ct. H74, U89, 85
r...Ed.~d 5~0, 549 (1905).
Additionnlly, tho Unitod Stlltes s~premo Court has held that a
non-resLdent'B connoction wLth the Corum stata should be such that
he should roasonably nnticipllte baing hlllod into court. in tho forum
Itato. World-Wido Vol~n cor~. v. WOQ4~1 444 U.S. ~81S, ~97,
100 S.ct. !l59, 567, 62 r"Ed.2d. 490, 501 (1900).
As tho Unitod states Supremo Court In uur,~King urgos us to
do, let us look to the fncts of this partLcular caso. In the case
at bal.", tho Dofendllnt, A.K. 's, is a Maryland corporation. With
respeot to the iBBue oC this Court's jurifldict.ion ovor A.l<.'s,
saveral aotions of A.K. 's support this court'B exercisa of perlonol
jurisdiction ovar A.K. 's.
6
t"int and pouiblY 1n0IJt tlLgnil.'Lcnnt 01.' thuG nct!Qnli WI1l
A 11<. 's unllolil.litod pUl."chulIO ardor llellt to WOBkOIn I1t WOlikem '0
CUlnbol:ll1nd county, PonlltlylvllnLn offico. III A.K,'IJ purchuo ordllr,
A. K I 'Ii req1lolitod Wellkoln to Inllllutllctllro tl y ty in'1 dov LOllS in
e)(changll fat: A, K.' Ii pt:omLuI! to pny, 'I'hl! pUL'chnuQ Ol."dOl' Willi
l!cool11lJaniod Py II 1ett:o.lt: I.'L'Clm '1'010 IJou'lhorl:y, Prooldollt: 01.' A.l<. 's, Ln
wh Lch Mr. IJollCjhort:y StlltOll I "1'10 look I.'ol."wlll."d to II mutun lly
ponel.'ichl I1nd pl."otitl1plo l."oll1tiol1llhLp," (11013 t:xhibit "A'l IItt:llched
to complaLnt). ThuB, A.K. 's IIhowod not only Ltu Lntont to
pUl:posel.'ully ostllblillh mLnimul11 contllctu with Ponnllylvnnill liS tho
forum atnte, but ndditLonl1lly Lndionl;ed Ltl1 intont to pUl."poaely
avail Ltaolf 01.' tho pl."ivLlogo of conducting buuinollll withLn
PennsylvllnLn into tho futuL'O,
Alao aignificnnt ill tho I.'nct thnt (nil ill set fOl."th in Mr.
Dougherty'a latter) A.K.'a sent Bnl11plo pnrtll to Weskem's cUlnberland
county I l'ennaylvania ol.'l.'ice through an intermedilll."Y for the purpose
of showing Wellkem how A.K.'S desired its fly tying dovicel to b.
manufncturod.
When Woakeln completed its manUfacture of the I.'ly tying devices
lit its Cumbel."land county, Pennsylvania fllOility, Lt shipped the
devicea to A.K. 's and sent invoicea fol." payment.
A.K. 'a, aa Lt did in ol."dl3t:ing the dovicos ft:om Woakem, again
reached out beyond Hllryland by making plll."tLBl pnymont to WOlkom
whLch Woakeln rece I ved at L ts cumberland county, Pennaylvania
office. A.K.'S further rClBched into Pennsylvania in mllkLng several
'/
telmphone QRll~ to Wo~kem Bt We~kem'~
Pann~ylvaniR offioo during whLoh A.K.'s m~de
PIlY WOlSkelO.
C\lmPltrl11nd county,
IIDvoral promi~'1 to
'I'he foregoln'l ISignLriollnl: PUl.'IlOUfUl aotlollll of A. K. 'II aU
more thBn ~uffiQlont to moot the >>mlnLmum oontBotl" iltllndard ~ob
forth by the United stBto~ Buprame court.
In the oO/lI:O)(t of intor~tBto contrBctual obligations
(oLrcum~tancos th~t nro prosent Ln tho instnnt case), tho United
stato~ supromo Court has olOphBai~od thnt >>portLoa who 'roach out
peyond ono IItatl) IInd c"'01\te contLI1uing roll\tionahLp~ Bnd
obliCJation~ wLth oitL~onfJ at anothor BtOtO' 11):0 subject to
rogulation~ and s~nctionB Ln tho othor atato for tho consoquonco~
of thoLr actLvitiolJ,>> llUrJJ,llLKinu, ll_UtlrA, 471 u.a. at 473.
In thn OOBI3 at bor, tho fact~ fl:om ^,I<. 'B firat unBolicitad
oot'respondonoo and purcllaao ordl3r, whLch I3v13ntul!Illy led to a
contractual rolatlonahlp potwenn thl3 partin~1 to A.K.'s continuing
contact with Wn~kem and ita intent to continuo tlll3 relationship
into the futu):e, as domonstrated by tho aforomontionod lotter of
A.K.'s Prllsident, tell 1I story of ^.K.'s purposeful busineIB
Ilctivitiea diroctod toward and into PennaylvonLa.
Remarkably similar contacta as aro horo prosented, relating to
Il contraotual relationship, worn found to be sufficient to Bupport
the personal jurLsdLction ovor a non-resident Defendant in
J:ou~.on I lUlJilrA I
B
l"-.
,
~. .
(I' '.
~'
(l'l
-.
'.
I 1I11~IJ^I"'III"lhl~" ,*.~~~II~II ,..
'11.I,..j.1 tlJ!;~IJn. .AM
~m...' II"Vflllh"''''~
WI!SKI!M 'Il!CIINOl.O(jJl!S, INC,
dll'/II STl!VHNSON MACIIINI! SIIOI',
I'lulnllfl'
IN nm COUllT (W COMMON I'U!AS OJl
CLJMlJl!llLAND COUNTY, l'IlNNSYI.VANIA
CIVIl. ACTION -l.AW
NO 1){).ol7l7
Y
A,J<.'S BEST I!NTl!Ill'llISl!S, INC,
I/dib/II A,J<,'S JlL Y TYINCI TOOLS,
Pelillldlllll
JLlltY TlllAL DEMANllIm
pllIFI: 01: llEI:ENDANT IN SLJIIII[)IlT [)F IIIlFLlt\jINAIl Y [)UJECTIOII/S
I. I:ACTS
I'llIhuill', Wcskcm TechlluluHles ("Weskelll") Is II l'cnnsylyunlll mlulIJlilclUrlnll business III
Cumberlund Coumy On Feblluu)' K, 11)1)(1, DelimtlulII, uMuryluntl huslness, senluleller IU WeskC:1I1
In l'enllsylYllnlll rc:quc:sllnll Wcskem IU mllnulilclure und sell certuln Ilems. The lIems Wl!I'C:
munulilclured In l'ennsylYllnlu IInd shipped lu Delillldunl In Mnrylund hlYolces were IIlsu sent h,
Pelendlllllln MIII)'lllnd Pelendllnlmlldl! IIpurtlnlpuymem 10 Weskemlnl'ennsylyunlll,
Wcskllm llIed II Cumflllllnl In l'ennsylYllnl1l requeSlhl1l Ihe hnlllnce of lhl! puyml!nt,
Delendumllll!d I'rellmlnury ObJectluns chullen!!ln!! Jurlsdlcllon.
II qUESTION INVOL VEll
Whelher one Isoluled conlncl by u Murylllnd huslness 10 order Ilems Ihull II l'ennsylYllnlu
business Is sull1c1l!m cunluclll' glw Ilennsylyunlu JUrlSdlcllon uwr lhls dlspUll!"
III DISCUSSION
Ilennsylyunlu's Lon!! Arm ~ilulule Is sel Ii.mh In ol2 1111. C8 ~ 5322 Certnln tYPl!S of
business lrunsucllons I!IYl! l'l!nnsylyunlu Jurlsdlcllon hUI lherllmusl bc: n "series of slmllur ncts lor
the purpose oflhereby reullT-lnl! pecunlul)' henelll" or "duln!! n sln!!l/) IICt . wllh thl! Intention
llf Inllllllln!! II series of such IIctS." ,12 1111 C S ~ 5.122(11)( I )(1, II). Merely emerlng Imo II Clllllrllct
Wllh II Ilem16ylyunlll business Is UOl In IIself sutl1c1enl l\1 eSlllbllsh minimum conlllcls 10 !!Iye
IlennsylYlulln Jurisdlcllon. Crown Glubc, Ille Y (jrelluble 1\11I15 Ille, ol()6 PII. Superior ('I I Jol, 593
A.2d 90611991 )
The Courts hllw ul!reed thnt the mere enltllnce OfUnOUI.of.slute delendum huo u conttllCI
with u 11ennsylyullln curflorlltloll (hIes Ilot hrlll!! Ihe defelldulll within lhe jurlsdlctlllllof l'ellnsylYRlliu
('OUI1S. There I11U5I he SOIllI! nddlllolllll sl!!lllllcUIll contuct hy Delimdufll with I'ennsylyunlll.
I j lillO/AI ^' II li~jHil~ ~ 'w,,,'"'' l'IlA ....
I h..,4lHl,.'VtIJ)I"jtl'I,I
~t''lk4 II.j,,'1/iI U~.~ 1_"'.1
v.
IN 'l'Ull ('OUI\T ()II COMMON PLllMi OF
CUMIU!I\LANO COUNTY, l'llNNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
NO ')(,.4717
Wl!!iKEM Tl!CIINOLO(}ll!!i, INC.,
d/b/II STI!Vl!NSON MACIIINl! SUOII,
1'1 IIhll IIr
AK.'S IlJ!ST IWI'EI\PRI!iI!S, INC,
I/d/b/a A.K.'S FL.Y TYINCI TOOLS,
Oelimdllnl
JUllY TI\IAL OllMANOI!P
IIIlAI1(,lll~
TO THE Pl\OTHONOTAI\Y OF ClJMBl!I\LAND COlJNTY.
Rnler the appCBrance or MAI\TSON, Pl!AI\DOI\FF. WILLIAMS & OTTO In behalf of
Defendanlln Iheabovo lI1aller,
MAllTSON. PEARDOI\FF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
BY.3h-Jf,(.~/
Daniel K. Pellrdol'fl: Esquire ~
1.0. No. 17837
Ten EuslliIgh Street
Ca1'1I61e.IIA 17013
(717) 243.3341
Allorneys 1'01' Defendanl
Dated: Septembor \6, 1996
, '" )
I. I,.' ,I
~11 :1 .f
r'.11 ., I 'I
, I .- :!j
r Ijl "
t', ,
, .. , : II
"~I
, " 11'11
~.II j;-.
" ,
I ':'1 I
., .-
,
, '
, I ,
, "
,
1'1 , "
Ill' ",
"
I I'
r~' 1,1 :1
"
r , ,
:1 I
,
, l '['I
" .,.
,
J'"
, '
"
.,
"
"
Ij'}
. 1
!!
/:i
CI 10"" C~INI'IIIIII~I.r.AlJINr.IJ~rn.,'H~
...1aM 'ICIXOLOall', XMO.
d/b/a I'I'IV1IM'OM MAOIIMI .110.
.. '..aoo had
KeobaDioebu~q, 'A 17011
PlaintUf
v.
A..." II.T IWTI.'RX..I, XMC.,
t/d/b/a l..." 'LY TYXWG TOOLI
I'. 'ine.ale D~ive
UflfA>>OLX', lID :non
Defendant
I 1M 'HI OOU.' 0' OONKO" .LIU
I Oll)lJl.lIMD ClOI1JITV, '.WII.YLVUU
,
I
I
I
: MO. 9(, 11'11/ elll ('h-'~)I'I
I
I
I CXVXL aCTIOI . LA"
I
I auav TalAL DlKAKDID
I
I
pOMlILIUII'1'
UD MOW com.. Pla1ntirf, WI.UM TICIIIIOLOall', 110., d/b/a
.TIVlIlIOM NACBIHI 1110', by ite attorneYl, Reaqer , Adler, I'.e., and
etat.e a. follow.1
1. Plaintiff i. Weakem Teohnoloqiee, Ino., d/b/a steven.on
Machine shop (hereinafter IIsteveneonll), a oorporation inoorporated
and dOl,nq budn... under the lawe of the cO\ll1llonwealth ot
Penneylvania, with ite prinoipal place of bueineae located at 49
Texaco Road I Meohanicsburq, CUmberland county, Penneylvania 17055.
2. Oetendant il A.l." lilT IIIT.URnI8, IMC., to/d/b/a
A..." 'LY TYIMa TOOL8 Chereinllfter IIAK"II), a corporation
inoorporated and doinq bUlin.ae under the laWe of Maryland, with
ite reqi.tered offioe located at 564 pinedale Drive, Annapolb,
Maryland 21041.
man r '.p.nR 01' COIl'l'..n,)"
:I. Under a cover l.tt.... dated F.b...uary 8, 1II1IlI/ AIt',
,ub.itted . puroh.... order (h.....inafter "th. puroh... ord....") to
st.v.n.on at stev.n.on'. CUlllb.rland county ottio. to... vat:1ou,
it..., whioh purah... ordor total.d $43,030.00. T...u. .nd oo......eot
oopi.. of the puroha,e orda... .nd oover l.tt.r ..... att.ohed h.reto
.. ElChibit A.
4. ot.v.n.on .hipp.d to ~I. it.ms r.qu..t.d by AIt', in the
pu...oha.. ord.r in ..vlral .Iparat. .hipment. and provid.d AK'. with
oorr..pondinq il'Woicl. dated March 36, 1996, April 9, 1996,
Ap...il 12, 1996, Ap...il :10, 1996, and May 34, 1996.
5. st.vlneon slnt invoioe. to AR'. indioatinq the numb.... and
d..oript:1on ot the item. .hipped and the amount due from AK'. tor
tho.. it.m.. True and oorr.ot oopi.. at stev.n.on'. invoic.. are
attaoh.d h.reto ae Exhibit B.
6. AR'. haa aocepted all or the item. ,hipp.d by stlv.n.on.
7. After fully aooountinq tor all payments and credit. due
AR'., AR'. cUrrently ow.e the .um ot $21,344.56 to steven.on tor
the it.m. it reoeivld, .aid amoUnt include. .hippinq and financ.
oharq...
2
I. De.pite de.and fo~ pa~ent in fUll, which i. currently
overdue, AK'. h.. hUed and refu..d to pay ateven'l)n or the
Penn.ylvani. Btate Bank the $21,344.56 it OWe.. A true .nd correct
oopy ot the de.and latter eant to AK'a by Btavenaon'. ooun.el i.
attaohed hereto ae Ikhibit C.
~. AK'e tailure to pay steveneon in tull tor the it... it
ordered and raoeived tro. steveneon conltitute. a breach at
oontract.
10. steveneon hlle pertormed all oondition. preoedent tor the
brinqinq ot thie aotion.
...urou, Plaintift, Weeke. Technoloqiee, Ino., d/b/a
steveneon Maohine shop, reapeottully reque.te thie Honorable Court
to enter judgmant in ita tavor and aqainat Oetendant, A.K.'S Baat
Enterpriee., Inc., d/t/b/a A.K.'. Fly Tyinq Toole, in the amount at
$21,344.56, plu. ooet. and lawtul intereat. Thia amount dce. not
ekoeed the arbitration limitl in cumberland county.
COUll'!' n - AaaOUll'l' ''l'A'l'.D
11. steven.on incorporatel by reterence herein paraqrapha on.
(1) through ten (10) above as it tully let torth.
12. stevenlon lubmitted to AK'I it. .tatamente tor .ervice.
rendered, whioh atatemente ara eet torth herein at Bxhibit B.
J
IXHIIIT A
,
"
II
! J
;!
I'
i 1
I,)
i.
:
II
,
j,
,
j',
"'~"II'OI""
"
,I I
ElChlbllB
Nil alOI
"
I
I
I'
,>
I,
,I
., ,
, ,
, '
II .11
"
"
~ !t,
..',
"
"
""" "J~~~INC.
" . ,..' dN.&.I'IIlIOl/~/lhap.
..r.........,M'; , . I,,~A 1 root
. ,_11I"_,_ ,..11I"_,.,
INVOICE
INVtl/CINO"
INVI)I(' I'lAIl.
"11.\11
l:Iil/~1l/U6
'" '.
, ASOIl!
A.K. 's ~LY TVINQ tOOLS
P,O, 00)( llrl80
ANNAPOLIS. MO 21401
'Wt
A,K." "1.1' I \ nil) rV)l.tl
rllU "nljAm, "Jllln
ANNAllul.It,, 1141' ,1,11:11
50LO
" 10,
_'~_____'''''~_'''.''_I>-P''''M_-'.''''' _.......-... _._...... ..._.._..... ,... ... .,........~. .....~...... , ...
P.o. HUM, A-00038
BALI8PEABOH I WIS
'rIlAM8r ot ,0011 10 NIT 30
ORDHnlPI OUOII/UO fJA'/MldH PUBI 1),1/1" II.
BHI""IO I 03011 1'111 Yl~ t P I'~' 'ii'
NOTBel
( ) INVOICE )
. ,..~
... WlWmMTECHNOLOOIES,INC.
W ,L1JJ4 SlIfV.IIOI\M&o:hh $qI
IV ".~.I,,* ""'''"_ P~I
"".,1I7111111l1n11'.. "~nllU!= INVO/n NO"
17I1I~
INVlll( t llM II
04/ , :t/8ij
l. "'It
',' . : ~ '~1iI' A.Il.. '8 FLY TYlNI1 TOOLI
I' I ~ I HI r r ltM rUOLll 01
",'1, fill' h;1;1j 2102 ASNARO COURT
11"'''11I'' 'I ".,. Mil ~ lotI,}' ANNAPOI.I e I MD :zt401
_n___. '_0.." ._____0._.. . ....... _~.. ..___ __
I ,", ""~I: /1,,0/,)0:'(1
", ".11",1 'Imo'iN I WIH\
1'I',f~M~, : (J, ,00_ ,.) NET 30
ORDERED I 02/0B/06 PAYMENT DUEl Oe/12/0G
SHIPPEDI 04/12/06 YlAI
NOTEBt
III ~l I WIIIII '1111' III 11411'110. I lid. I 11111. . t
, I. PM v ~I
I I 'A~ \ .'
1"111'
IlIlllf
"~o IY15E PEDESTAL
~ ~I(J y l $1: CLAMP
17,8M
,;!, 1(11.1
4.4112.150
3,026.00
PLEASE REMlT TOt
PA STATE BliNK
P.O, BOX 673
CAMP HILL, PA 17001
, l/lllo 8IIMCI CIWICII NIl MC>>II'\I AI'TIIlIO ~I'I
NOH MnIIHT AI'TIIlIO 110\1'1. AU. WOIIIl 011 000...
'.".I>>_l/III__...Ilp'_",...",..".......__..II\.lIllrlI."....
,f lilt '.lAbor """~J' AmwldM. And cI ~... CidIn QI Hi UnIIN... ~"
,..a-..lI'IlIIIt..-". .
""jJ/TYtu_OII.III!III~
.<<t~IIfIJ:tMII..'tM.. ...
,r' If IO'apIaoI"~ UP'OW' OfW.... a.- ,..,....
./u'.1 ... uMd frof N plIIpON 'Of..-..cn _ wru ~ end MfIln WI"" , __ ,
,UI ,hi'" ~ '*,...... Md ~ ..., ~ 10 hi....,.,.., ......,.. I(PI
,t, lOf 11001 or.~ 0lXIIiI0Iled b't IhI UN ~ ~ve prc:rcbQ, _be =s;a'"
, Qt It\f dIftaIYt mil.... Of pI1)Ct.Id "* wan..". II eJl'll1lMtr '" ... 01 .
II.j~. 1hI~.,~no~ifII~~OQl. T '*'_ ..
SUB TOT AL
BHIPPING
TOTAL
7,487.50
33.78
7.521.28
,',
"
"
"1-",' 11- H -.... .," "I" /, (t)
I:
"
exhibit c
.,
"
.'
,i!
i 1
'/
i'
,I
t
1:1:1 I~t.. lJi ~ ~
- i~
'0 ~ I,. J ~ ~
, :)~ ~
~1 I ~~(~ .t.o ~
r r,*
, I... ~
I'> :f? , i
(, ~
" C'>l ),~
~\! t/; , 1m d ri.
I.. o..l " \))-
l'~, 'r., d
." ~.~
'1'1
,
,
"'MI", ~.,,"""'""'" "I.'
DIII~DlU""""'''.i.",
,
.
"
,
! I I
.,
il
,
I
I, I
k!! ,
f; !I
ilfti~
"
, ,
I
!,
"
)
.
111I11)1I"'1"'1111:~jlt.I~~ ..~.h~III"""
,j 1,.It4 ijtt II,VllII) III I ft'hI
~ '1'...... 1111,1' lit II~ II l)~ I'lll
WESKllM l'l!CIINOl.OCIl\!S, INC.
dlb/ll S'I'I!VI!NSON MACHIi'll! Sllol'.
1'lnh\lll1'
INl'lU! (,OUI~T 011 COMMON I'LliAS l)J1
CLJMllHlU.ANlJ COLJNTV,I'l\NNIiVl.VANIA
CIVil. M"rtON . LAW
NO 11(\.,1717
y,
A.K.'S llliST \!NTm~PlllSI!S, IN('..
I/dlb/n AK'S IlL V TYINCI TOOLS,
l1~li:nLlulIl
JlJlW T1~I^l.IlI!MANl1l!P
/'Ill'.LlMINAR \' OUJJ.:.OlOllii..OF DEFENDANT
I. The ClIUlt ot' (\1II111l011 PI~II~ ot' cUl1lherlulld ('U\lllly. Pellll~yIYUlllu. docs 1I0111lIVC
Jurlldlctlllllllvel' Ihe pmllllllt' lleli:lldulIl which I~ U MUl'ylullIt ('<1I'P1I1'II111I1I.
Wlml~IWORE, llet'elldulIl th.!lmllld~ IhUllhe t'llll1pluIIllU~uIIIKI II be dlllllllll!d 1\11' IlIck or
JurlldlctlOIl over Ihl! pmllll
l~e~pecll\Jlly ~ulllllllled.
MAlrl'SON. DEAIl.DOI~FF, WIl.LlAMS & OTTO
aySL.j~c,(')~~0~
PUlllel K DClIl'd~i~-uUJ
1,0, No 17m
Tell EUsl High SHeel
Curllsle. PA 17013
(71'1) 243.3341
Dulcd: Scplcmber 23, 1996
A\lorney~ IiII' Deli:lldulIl , , ,
.,
"
'1 I 'I
IL;
, ,
I ,
I', ]
.., I
, ,
, ';1
r, "t lid
,. " ,
',I
,./