HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-05326
"i,
,
"
," Id
", I
f "
I
1'1
,I
I
,
"
I
',I'':
/,1'
"
,
,
'd
I"
I;
I
I"':)
"
"
, ,
""II
Ii"
,1/
,I
'i
;'11
,
I'I
-
;",
I'i'
'I
,
,
I'
I:,
"
,
\ q ,I
'/I I
" ,
:Ij
I
," "IIJI
"
)'
,1.1'0
"
..t
It
~
'I
';1
"
I"
"I
'I
1,'1
t "1
,J, "'...,
ii"
II
" I'
,
,I!
"
I'
Ii
,
"
H,
"
,
,
I,
,
'll'
"
"
.1
'jl
!lllil'lf
I,
"'(I
, ,
! '
"Ii
,
)"
,
, ,
"
11
!,
j "''
"
I,
"
"
,
I "
J/I!,
Ii ,
,',
,il
"
ii,
','
I' 'I
;"
I
,,'
,1;1"
~
'i,
i q '"
,
I
,I
,
'I
I,
"
, ,
"
"i j
'i'l
,I
II!
"
"
),'{
q!
/I
"
I
,
,
iI'
'II
Ii
Ii
d- l
"
'il
! J
I,:,
,
'I'
"
,
",
"II
"
ii,
I"
JI I
, '
;)
"
,
"
I
,
" ,
"
,
,
"
"
"
i
Ii I
,
'I
j I
1'1
,
I"
,I
\'j'd ('
"
i'
",
, i
1"
,
,
'J, )
'I
"
ii,
1'1,1
,'J I I
'I
,II
,
I"
"
"
",
,
,
'I
"
1',1 ,,"
I,
I!
I'
"
'i ,)
I)
,tel 'I
'I
"
,
i;:J
'I
>Ii
,
'/1;'
Ii
I
,
"
"
'll
,
,
,
"
111"1
, I,
:(
',I,
I-I,
"
I"
"
"1
,
"
"
I
"
"
'I'
I,
II,
,
"
"
'"
"
I
"
I'
, '
"
"
. .
,
"
'J!
"
1,1
",
",I
:)
'.
"
"
"
, I
, ,
,
,.1,
,I "
"
"
\\
'I
I,
I I I
,
I,
"
I,
'"
"
I
1",)
,
,1"1
,
'I
, ,
"
'I'
I', lill,'
, ,
"
,'I,'
,
I
i')'
,
,
ii,
q
!""\,
I"
,
'II,
"
ill" ,i
1,)t'll
I,
'l'Id
"
'11il
,
"
I,
!
';-,1
"1,1,
v/
I"
'"
"
,
I
'I
,
'r'j,.fj'
i'iil"
I
,,'
"
I, 1/)'
"I
"
,
I :'1
:1
'I'
'I ,,I )
,I, !
,
, ,
,
"
i'
'Ijil'r
1"
,
"I
I',
)
"
I
'"
,
'I
"
, I
"
"
'1.1
'.1)
'I,ll
,
"
I
"
,I
"
I,'
"
"
'1'1,1
I,; "
I,
;"
"
"
,
'I
"
!/
"
1,,,
I
"
,/
1'1
"
,
"
11,"['
''I
"
"
,
i, ,I'
,f,/!',
I
''I
9. In April Hl!Io, IJolimdllnl Mllluy oll'orud Pllllntlll'tho pOllithm of Vleo
Prosidont .lnd Ulrlletor of AtlllIilllllllnllllf Uulillldllnt York 'l'oehnicnl Inlltltutll.
During tho COUrllO of thlll ollor, Dulillltlllnt Milloy I/ltpl/ctod IInd Intondl/ll thllt
Plaintiff conlltrulI thll offor 1111 Lho IIllilr of Ii pornlllnont position on tho llrolasllionlll
stuff of DofondnnL York 'ruchnlclll hllltiLutu.
10. In rolillneo upon tho rl!prl!lIontlltions of Dofondunt Milloy, Plaintiff
accopted Dofondllnt Milley's oller of the position of Vice Prellidont and Director of
Admlllslons In April 1995.
11. Upon the r.omllloncemenL of his omployment on Mny 1, 1995, Plaintiff
was advisod thllt he would be ellgnged in Il transition period during which he
would hold tho title of Co-Director of Admissions with Ms. Cathi Bost. 'Thu stated
purpose of tho transition period was Lo pormlt Plaintiff to loarn the pe&:uliarltlos of
Insldo admissions progrllll\ll utilized by Defendant York Tochnlcallnstltuto,
12. At the tlmo PlalntllT WIIS ndvlsed of the transition period, Plalntilr
was assured that sold transllion period WllS temporary only nnd that within a
mattor of months ho would be the sole Director of Admissions Rnd that Ms. Bost
would boallllumlng Il now position In Marketing which doalt with the
3
5. I'llIillllff'~ CUllIp11l11l1 cUllluill~ IIUllllclllIlllllI~ ~huwlllg Ihlll vellue I~ IIr1lfler
ill ClIlIlberllllllJ ClIullly.
(I, III fllel, WIIUI! IIgllhl~1 flelther Dl!fefldllflll~ flrllper ifl CUlllherllllld COllllly.
7. Veflue IIglllll~1 IMefldllfll Milley i~ gllverned hy Itule 100".
H. Vellue fur Defelldllfll YlIrk Tedlllkllllllslllule Is Iluvcl'lled hy Itull! 217'.1.
'.I. Cumherlllllll Cuullly Is lIulll cUUflly ill which Ihe cllu~e of lIellullllrose IIr
II cUllflly III which a IrllllSIlCllulI or OCCllrrellce louk plllce Ulllllr which Ihc ClIlIse Ill' IIcllullllrllSe
IIgllill~1 Defelldllllt Muley,
10. CUll1herllllld CUlllllY Is flol Ihe cUUllly where Defefldlllll YlIrk Techllicnl
In~lllull! hll~ its rC/lI~lcred lIf1lce ur prlllclplll fllllce ur hu~llIess.
II. Cumherlmld CUllllly i~ flul II cuunly whcre Defefldllnl Yurk Techlliclll
IflSllllltl! rC/luhlrly cUflducts huslncss.
12. CUll1herlllnd CUll Illy Is fllIllhe CUUllly whcrc lhe ClIUSC uf IIcliollllrllsc IIllr
is it lhe coulIly whcrc II lnlllsncllon or uccurrcnce louk plilce uUlof which the cuuse of Ilctiun
Ilruse agninsl Defelldant York Technlcill In\tilute.
13. Plnintiff nlleges cntlses of nCllon urlslng out of ullc/led ncgotlntions Ilnd
representallons concerning Plnintlffs cmpluyment with Dercndant York Tcchniclll Inslitutc,
14. While [)efendnnls deny nHlkin/l nny mlsreprcsenlillions, rrnudulc/ll
negllgenl, or ulherwise, III P",lntl"", nny nnd ull dlscussiuns. nC/lutlutions, offers, uccCfllRnccs,
and terminnlillns louk plnce In York CuunlY.
2
9. Donled. Tho ayormontll of Parograph 9 aro conclusions of law to
which no relponllve pleading III required. To the olttont a responlle II doemod
I'Clquil'Cld, It II IpDclllcally and clltegorlcally denlod that Cumborland County Is not
a county In which a cause of lIctioll Ilrose or In which a transaction or occurl'enco
took plllco out of which thu ClIUlle of action oralie. '1'0 the contrary, Defondant
Maley contacted Plaintiff at Pllllntill'll rosldoncoln Cumberlllnd County on soyeral
occasions by telephono to discuss and to negotillto the torms of Plalntlll's
omployment with Defendant York TechnlcallnKtltute,
10. Admitted.
11. Donled. Dofundant York Technlcllllnstltute regularly conducts
buslnoss In Cumberland County. For eltllmpla, agents and employees of
Dofendant York Technlcallnlltituto known os "remote odmisslons coordlnlltors"
regularly telemarket and interview prospective students In Cumberlllnd County,
Moreovor, Plaintiff trained two remote admissions coordlnaters In Cumberland
County, In addition, agents and employees of Defendant York Technical Institute
known as "high school coordinators" regularly conduct career and recruiting
seminars In high schools In Cumberlllnd County. Plaintiff boll eves and thereforo
avers that numerous Cumberland County high schools ore the subject of those
somlnars, Including but not limited to: Cumberland Volley High School,
3
Mechanlc8burg High School, Camp Hill High School, 1'rlnlty High School, E/l8t
Pennsbclro liigh School, Carllslo High School and Boiling Sprlng8 High School,
Moreovor, agents lind/or employol1s of Dofondant York 'l'echnicallnstltuto
regularly conduct direct mall advertlslng to high school juniors and sllnlors and
young adults In Cumberland County IlS pllrt of its markot\ng efforts In
Cumberland County. Finally, Pllllntlff lwllevlls and thllrefore avors that agents
and employeos of Defendant Yorlt Tcchnicallnstltuto conduct IIlttonslvo
telomarket\ng efforts In and around Cumberlllnd County to solicit prospect\va
applicants to Defendant York Tl!chnlcallnstltuto,
12. Denied. Tho avermonls of Paragraph 12 are conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, To the olttont Il responsll is doomed
required, the answers to paragraph 9 and 11 abeve are Incorporated by reference
as though fully sot forth horein. By way of further response, the allegations of the
Complaint are Incorporated by referllnco as though fully set forth horuln.
13. Donled. BeClluso the Complaint is a written document which spooks
for Itself, the avermonts of parBlfraph 13 which Ilttompt to charactorl:to,
llummarl:Ee or reiterate the allegations set forth In the Complaint are specifically
donied. By way of further answor, the Complaint Is incorporated by referonco 011
though fully set forth horeln.
4
14, Denied, Tho allormonte of Pal'agroph 14 oro cunclusluns of law to
which no rospclIlsllIO plosdlngls required, To the extont a response Is deomod
ruqulrod, the answel'll to paragrllphs 0 Ilnd 11 abollo Ilro Incerporatod by rQforonco
liS though fully sot forth hllruin,
a. Donlod. Roprollentotions worn nwle to Plaintiff at Plalntil1's
rosldllnce In Cumberland County. By WIlY of furthor rosponso, a copy of tho
written confirmation of Plalntil1's employmont with Defendant York
Technical Instituto Is attllchod heroto and made a part horoof as Exhibit
"A,.
b.' Admitted. It Is admlttod that Plolntiff occllptud omploymont
from Defondont York Technlcollnstituto in person in York County.
c, Denied. After rllllllonohle invostlgllt\on, PlointilT Is without
knowledge or Infonnotlon llufficient to form a bollef Oll to the truth of tho
averments of subparagraph c. bocause tho nature of tho ropresentations ore
not properly described. Said avormonts therofore aro denied and strict
proof thereof, If admlllslble, ill demanded.
d. Admitted.
15. Denlod. The avorment8 of Parograph 15 ore conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extant a l'l1sponso Is doomed
required, tho averments are specifically donlod for tho rellllons 80t forth In
rllHpOnllO to parogrophll 9, lland 14,
.
hllwovor, tho undorslgnod counsllllndicatod that any objoctlons to dlscllvory must
bo sorvod within lho thirty (30) limo Pllriod IlstobHllhod by tho Rulos of Civil
Procoduro.
3. On or about Mllrch 4, 1997, counsol for Defondants corrospondod wllh
tho undOl'silJllL'<1 counlllll indlcutlnK nn intention to serve nUmerous objections to
Plaintlll's discovery requests. A true and correct copy of said corrospondence is
Bttachod horoto and mndell pnrt hereof liS Exhibit "B,.
4. On or about March 6, 1997. the undersigned counsel responded to
defense counsel's sugglllltilln of nUnll!rOUH objections, noting thnt the serving of
objections after the thirty (30) dllY tin)(! period wns contrRry to the agreement
botweon counsel. Further, the undersigned counsel requested thnt defensll counsel
ruassess his position on the objections becnuse it c1enrly lacked merit. A true and
correct copy of anid correspondence ia attached hereto and made a part hereof as
Exhibit "C."
5. By letter dated March 10, 1997, defense counsel Indicated an Intont
to produco only documents which relate "to the fllcts and clreumstances
surrounding yeur c1ient'll hire, . .." A true nnd correct copy of this
correspondenco la attached hereto and made u purt hereof os Exhibit "D."
.. ~ ..
II.
Dtlllll'lbe Plaintiff'. dulle'lIId re.ponllblllll.. II Yprk Technlcallnllt\lUlI. Iflhero WU I
WI'luenJob delcrlpllon for Pl.lnllff'. pollllon, pI"" anach . copy oflh. aamo to your
Anlwen to lheslllnterroptorlet.
~NSWJ!:RI
.
"
"
I"
, ,
, ,
,
I
!,
I '
'I
"
, ,
21.
Idllllll)' speclflCIIly an documenta, recorda, or olher materials ulled In preparln. )'Olll'
AnsWlI110 or c:onlalnlna Informal Ion relal\nglO mlltCl1 raised In mponllllO tho
pre:ccdlnB InlemlplOriClscltlna forth luc:h InfonnDllon npllnllcl)' for ""II Inlemlptor)'
and Indlcallng the locallon IIIId cuslodlan.
~NSWj!:RI
, ;'
I!
, ,
,
, I
"
"
"
,I
/ '
"
"
"
/; Ii
, , I
, ,
,
I' I
jj I
"
"
1, All Btatemants, signed statomonts, transcripts of recon1ad statements
or Interviews of any penon or wltnells rolatlng to, relorring to or doscriblng any of
the factual allagatlons sat forth in the Complaint,
2. All export epinions, reports, summaries or other writings In your
custody or control or your attorney or insurei'll, which relate to the subject matter
of this litigation,
3. The complete personnel ftle for Ms. Cathl Bost,
4. The complete personnel ftle for Mr, Robert Leonard.
6. 'l'he complete personnol file for Mr. Harold Maley.
6. All documents which refQr to, rolllte to, or reflect tho doclslon to hire
Plaintiff.
7. All documents which rofer to, relate to, or reflect the decision to
terminate Plaintiffs employment.
8. All documents which rofer to, relate to, or roflect evaluations of
Plalntifl's job performance,
9. All documents which refer to, relate to, or reflect evaluations of Ms.
Cllthi Bost during calendars years 1993-1996.
10, All documents which refer to, relato to, or reflect the number of
student applications and the number of matriculations during calendar years
1993.1996.
~~H'~1l JV~lfJ&J
I" ...... ItIHO ""kU
UNt..ln", ,,/to "'0""'"
,,,,, n,.uo,
'.All I"" ..1....0
BAllJ.lW
SNYlllm
SJr,Nl"I' HI
COHHN,I.l.I'
IIM~JDNU"Q II'/i~'
UU Ho",u '''U.l) ""0.'
".0. '0" II"
H"'''''''U,.Q, JI,. "IQa -IllY
"'/I U...U~
,~~ "'" U...,,.
IIlIl It40T MMlur IIrll..T
I'l) 1I1111 Inlllll
YlIIIIl. "A IHOn'TUIU
""I''''''II/lllII. 'U. mlll~II'II~UU . ~'N41~ buclIl.non.w.lnli.n.1
'Olll~ L, slHn. IlQuIlll
1lI~ llW. N~ C1l'l) IU.....
MllI'Ch 4, 1997
Christopher C. Conner, Esquire
Mclt.c, Evans &. Woodside
340 I North Pronl Street
P. O. Box ~9~0
Harrisburg, PA 17110.()9S0
Re: Leonard v. Maley and York TechnicallnsUlut.c
Civil Action No. 96-~326
Ow-Kit:
I am writing as a follow-up to our re<<nt telephone conversaUon. Al that time, you
agreed to provide Defendants with" thirty (30) day extension to answer discovery, provided thai we
Inform you ahead of lime of the re4juesls which we found 10 be objectionable.
With regard to your docufllenl requests, we do not object to providing you with
documents responDlve to YOllr requesl nos. Docufllcnt I. 2,4. 13, 14, IS, and 16, to the cxlent
responsive documents exisl WId arc not subject III lhe work product or attorney/client privilege. We
do objeclto your requests nos. 3, 5, 9, II. and 12, un the grounds thallhey are not relevant to the
displltes which are the subject fIlnltl~r uf lhls 1I1lg~llon nor are they reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible cvidence.
With regard 10 your interrogatories, wc have no objection to answering your
Interrogatory nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6. H, 9 and 21, ~ubjectto the attomey/c1lenl and work producl
privilege. We object to interrogntory nos. 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17 on the grounds lhat they are
oUlslde the permisslblc scope of discovery.
.'
Given lhat lhls is a breach of conlract and misrepresentation case, I am reluctant to
provide discovery related to Plalnlirrs perfOrtllwlce or the reasons for YTl's employment decisions.
However, in the interest of complellng discovcry amir.ably, I would like to reserve such objections
until [ have had an opportullity 10 discuss cermln issues wilh my client. Thus, I will advlsc you
with our position regarding your documcnl request nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10, and interrogatory nos. 7,
LAH'^afl"_ llr,TJU
,.. ~^II KIHo II"~U
L"'HC~IT"",,.,. "'0"".')
!P11I 'UU..,OJ
,,.. t"'J ........0
BAIU,~Y
SNYDm,
S I! NIP'!' &
COllEN, LJ.1'
"^"",..\lM !1/m~
,.0 HOIIll W'"O II.UI
".0,10. II"
HAA"I'.U"Q,,.,, IPlQ'>Il'U
"'" n......
'AI '''71 n.,.".
'UIl ItA"r ~t,,"H.r Kn,..r
"[) lIuI IMIIW
YONH. I'A 17~l)~'7'''W
11171."",_" /^"I""D~IHI.wW' .'NAII. bllcfJI.nCn.WI,nlin.1
JUliN L. SnNI'T, l!aQUIRn
1I1"'l" PIAl. NUM.I'J 1717, I5I",UI6
Christopher C. Comter, Esquire
Melle, EVW1S & Woodside
340 I North Front Slreel
P. O. Box 5'.150
Ilnrrisburg, PA 17110-0950
Re: Leonnrd v. Maley and York Technlcllllnslltute
Civil ACllon No. 96-5326
M","ch 10, 1997
Denr Kit:
I nm writing In response to your leller dnted March 6, 19'.17. Obviously, we have slime
dlsagreemenl regardlnllthe proper scope of discovery in lhis mnller. Your client's Complnlnt nlleges
cnuses of nctlon ror brench or contract, frnud, negligent l1li~represenll\tlon, WId promls50I'Y CSlOPJ1CJ.
These clnims relate, solely nnd exclusively 10 events which nccessnrlly occurred prior to or
sllllullnneuusly with his COI1\lllenCcment ur empluymenl.
With this In mind, It Is our pllsltion thnt discovery is properly limited to lhe fncls WId
circumS!Wlces surrounding your cllcut'~ hire, Including WlY promises which may hnve been mode to
him, the terms and conditions or his empluymclll. nnd any contrncls which existed. We do nol
believe thutthe discovery 1.0 which wc hnvc objccted is proper, os It denls with fncls nnd
c1rculns!Wlces which wcre subsequent to or wholly unrelnted to your client's temlS nnd conditions uf
employment, the promises allegcdly mudc to him, or lhe undcrstandlngs hetween the parties.
In nny event, wc hove ugreed to provide you with n large amOU/ll of the discovery which
you hove requcsted, Including your cllcnl's pcrsonnel Ole. It is my expcctn.ion that once you hnve
reviewed .his file nnd the other dlscuvery wbich we provide to you, somc of your concems may be
nllevlated. Thus. I might suggestlhal you nllow us 10 produce unobJectionnble discover;, after which
we mny be nble to narrow the nreas where we hnve disngrecmenl.
I will be out of the office the wcck of Mnrch 10, 1997. I willlouk forwnrd to discussing
this ml\ller wi.h you further when 1 relum to the office lhe weck of Mnrch 17, 1997.
JLS:bae:44774.1
Very truly yours,
I
I .,.
_I ! /. r ( (l).l.
John L. Senll
cc: J-lnrold L. Mnley
lIellllllenl IIllsreflrl/~enllllllln: nlld (.1) pl'llmlssllry e~IIlPflel. The crllcllll IIllellllllllll Illth rCNpecl
III ench Ill'lhese lilliI' ~cflllrnle cllu~e~ Ill' IIclllllIl~ Ihlll Mr. Milley fll'llllllHe<ll'llIllllllf
IperlllnnclII" elllplll)'melll wilh \'TllIs UIl illdllcelllcnltllllccefll Ihe flllHllillll,
Oil Oclllher 2H. 19%. lJelclldllnl~ tlIed I'relimlllllr)' OhlccilllllH lln Ilw 1IIIIun<lN Ihlll
Willie Is 11111 prllper inl'ulIlherllllld Cllunl)'. hlllllwing llrlll UlWllIlcnl llnl'chl'llllry 5. 19'17,
Uelclldullt~' Prelhllillllr)' OhJecllllns rcmllln pell<llng helilre Ihe ClIllr!
Oil Jllllllnr)' 27. 1'1'17. PllIinllff Ncrved illlerrulllllllrle~ IIl1d llllCUmellll'elllleHI~ Upllll
Delcndnnt~' IIUllruC) J.I', Elli~llll. J~Hllulre. Mr. Ellisllll resiglled frllm the linn Ilpprllsimlllel)'
Ihree wcck~ IlIter lInu \Vns ullllhle III resflllnu III diNcllvcr)' pl'illl' III IlIc encclil c <llIte Ill' hlN
reslgnlllioll. Thc Ille wu~ IrulIslcrred III current counsel. Jllhn I.. Senn. hlllllrc. In mid-
Februllry. 1'197,
SllIce Mr. Selin did lIul hllvc nn Ilppllrllllllt)' III lIleel wilh his cIlclll cllllcel'l1lnlllhe
laClS nnd circurnslllllce~ llll'ill/l rlsc tu Plnllltlfl's Cllrnplnlnt. he ClllIIIIClcd 1'llIintllrH cllnll~el.
Christllpher C. Cllnllcr. Esquire. llll Fehruur)' 14. I <)97. III rel/ueslll .lO.<llIY c.\ICnHillnlll
respond 10 dl~covcry. Mr. Cllnller nllrced to nil eXlclIsilln wllh respect 11lUIISllcrs hUI 1I111 III
obJectillns: lhc CssclIllnlnulure of Mr. Cllllller'~ POSitlllll wus thul he dl<llllll IIllIlt hI IlrUlUII
JO,du)' eXlcnslon onl)' to rccclvc II hlunkclobJectiulIto the ul~cuvcr)' rellue~IS, Mr, Selin
Informcd Mr. Cllnncr lhlllupon prelirninnr)' review Ill' thc discovcr)'. nlllll)' lit' 111l! rCl/ueMN <lId
not IIppellr to be llbjecllonuble IInd thnt hc would prllvld,. Mr. ('lInller Willi lIhjCdilllls liS
quickl)' us possible.
Mr. senn \VIIS scheduled III be llut or llle lltlice durlllg the peri lid Ill' Milich 7,17. IlIld
due tll u vnrlely uf cllnflicts. hc WIIS unuble 10 rneel with Mr. Mulc)' 11l1l1ledllllel)' fllllll\Villg
-2-
t. IIl1mlll Mnl~y (I)uc, 1t~\~L.tI!1.lJ
1'11I11Il1Il' hils relJul:H1ellu clIlIlplell: Cupy uf MI', Muley'\ pl:l'sllIlIlel nk. thc cUlllelll~ ul
Mr. Muley's llIe cUlllnl1l cUllfltll:/llllllulltl pel'~ulllllIIlIiII'llHlllull. Mureulcl" 1\11'. Mule)"~ file
CUI1lUII cU1lcelvubly cunlulnllll)' Inl(lrmlltllln IIhlch lIilluidl'llIilltllf ill lhl: plllseculhlllul' hlK
c1l1II1lN. Ilel'elltlunts lire lItll clllllplcle lu~~ hi ull<lel'Nlllnd 1'IIIIIllllf s l'enMlllln~ Ihul MI'. 1\11111.'>' s
file \\111 pus~ihl)' huld llllilrllluliun I\hlch \\lIuld ,'II.'U I'clll1llely' I'Clllle hi hi~ IIl1e~Ulllllllhlll hI.'
Wll~ pl'lIl11lsed J1cnnnllenl elllpluYlllelll pl'lur III his lure.
2. Cllthv IhlSI !l)lIc. Re,,"~~ll'jillLl,. ~.;Jn!. Nu~, )II. I")
I'lulntlff hus relJue~letllnl(lI'Inlllilln cuncernlnH t'lIlhy '''ISl. IflcludillH u cUlllplele cupy
ul' her J1er~llllllcl tlle. nlltlulhl:r IIllltcrllllN relUled hi her e\'uluullulIs. dUlles IInd I'cspun~lhllltil'~,
thi~ Inlimmlllllll is wdluulslde the perllllsslhle scupe ul' dINelIl!!I')'.
the ~Illc nllcgutlllllS ill 1'llIinlilfs CUlIlp11l11l1 rcgllrdlllH Ms. lIuSllll'e Ihlll she 1I1IS hi
serve us II "Cu-l.>lrl:ctllr" Ill' AdIllIN~IIIIl~ durillH the tl'ullsillllll period lilllllwlll!l I'lullltltrs hll'e
ulltllhlll Wllhill n Illullcr Ill' 1lllllllhN ~he wllultlllsslIlIle 1I IlCII Pllsitiull. (( 'ulllplullll. PilI'. II_
12). hell if lhcsc nllegnlll)ils ure lruc, lhey lire whlllly unrelllled In the celllrul (ulld Illdeed
llllly) I~suc ill this cnsl:. 1&... whclher I'luillllfl' wus prlllllised pCrl11Ullell1 clllpluymelll prillI' III
the lillle Ill' his hlrc. Thlls. inl'llnnullllll rdutlllp' hi Ms. III1NI. Including hl:r pl:rsllllnd lill: IIlld
!!\'uluuIiIlIlS. hus lIb~ulu'ely 1111 bl~urlng Upllll Ihls cusc.
I. Olhl:r Dircctllrs 01' AdmissillWL1lJII. Nus. 16. 171
l'lnlnllff hilS nlslIlIskcd lin Infunllnllull cUllcernlng IIIJlviduuls huldillg lhe 1II,'ecllll' Ill'
Adllllsslum J111sltiull with YTI frllm 1 '1'1),<16. including IIhelhel' lhcse Illdividuuls II!!I'C ,'I'C/'
prlllllllled ur tlcll\lltl:d. Agnin. this IIll'urmuliun Is lIelloUlsldc lhc pennlsslhlc sellpl: ul'
-(I-
dl~cuvcry. I'lullIllfl'H c1l1hllH ~uh:ly rclule lu Ihc flmllll~e ur flel'IllUllCIll ~lIIl'loYlllelll I~hich
ullcg~dl)' \Vus mlld~ hi him UK IIn illdu~emelltll) nccefll II pu~ltloll with YTI. 1111'01'1111111011
rclUled lu YTI'~ flrevluUK IIr KuhK~IIUe'llllll'eClol'~ ur ^<Iml~~lulls \\'111.111 Illllhlnll whlllMlelel'
lu c:lluhllsh whelh~r n prllllll~~ uf perlllllllelll elllflluYlllell1 \IIIS Illude; IhIlS, the IlIlill'lllnlhlll i~
Ilulhing Illure 111011 II IlKhlll1l expedlllulI deslglled lu huru~~ 1 )elcll<lullls.
.1. gccruhllleUl ProccllurI:K rl)I)~,..fu.!w~!JJj.JLJ.21
I'lullllll1' hilS re1luesled dUCUlllelll~ r~IUlcd lu fll'uce,lures u~ed hy lIelcllllUllts rur
rccruilin~ ~ludellts III YTI. liS well us d'ICUlllelll~ relulllIg lu chulIl:le~ IlIudc lu Ihuse flrllcedul'e~
'illluWIIl~ I'luilllln's lerl11hlllllun. ^s discussed IIhuvc. l'lullllllfs c1I1II11S ure Ilhully hnsel!
uflun the IIl1egel! pl'ul11lsc of perlllullelll e1llp1uYIllC1l1 Illude lu hllll. Ihls discoI'CI'Y will he
CUl11plclcly uselc~s lu prlluf uf whelher lhl~ prol11ls\' II'US el er Illllde,
^flflllrelltly rec\lgllizllllllhis. 1'IIIInlllrs cuunseI hilS rCflrcsel1lcd Ihllllhls dlscllwI')' 11111
he rl:l~vnntlu his frllud c1n I 111. PIlIlntllT hilS IIl1cgcd Ilull l)elcn<lnnl~ lI~vel' hllllllll)' IlllCllliulI
uf elllpluylnl! I'lninlilT perll1l1nently, hUlll1l1de Ihls rCflre~enHIlI'11I in 1I i'ruudulellt efl'ul'1 lu
Induce hll11tu lenve elllploymenl with l>eVr)' lInd IIcCCpl1l flusitiun \lllh YTI. I'llIhllilT
furlher IIs~erts lhllllhis mlsrepresenlnliun \VIIS I11l1de with the flurpu~~s III' I!ulnillg PIlIlntifrs
knowledge 01' prucedures uscl! by l>eVry. nnd Ihnt 'lI\ce I>elclldnnl~ IlIId knuwlcdgc uf Ihesc
procedurc~ lhcy lerl11inlllcd I'llll nil 1'1'. (('ol11pluhll. pnr, 20. H).
I':vcn ussullllnl! Ihe trulh 01' the~e ullel!uliuns. lhc re'luesled dlsClI\lery Is heyulld Ihc
pemll~sihle scupc euntcmpluled by the I'cllllsylvllniu Rulcs. 1'l'esul1111hl)', 1'llIllItll'l' requests Ihh
InliJrllll1lionlo see II' Dcfcndunls udopled lIn)' fll'ucedures used by I>~Vry lilllllwing 11lnintllrs
lerll1illUlilHl. Iluwevcr, evcn I I' such chunges were Illude. It dues IIbslIllItely tll flmw ur
.7.
I\ODBI\T LBONARD
IN TJlH COUI\'1' or COMMON PLBAS Of'
CUMSBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVAtlIA
V.
HAROLD L. MALI!Y AND
YOI\K TBCHNICAL INSTITUTB
NO. 96-5326 CIVIL TBI\M
CIVIL AcnON - ~w
1M ~I DI'IHDAHTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO V.HUI
BIPORB SHIILY. ~~~HIS8. J.. OLIR. J.
QlINION AHD ORDIR OP COURT
The underlying oauee of aotion in the present oase oonoerns
the termination of plaintiff's employment oontraot with York
Teohnioal Institute. Defendants have objeoted to venue,
maintaining that this oase properly belongs in York county
pursuant to I\ule 1006(e). The Court heard argument on February
5, 1997.
FACTS ~D PROCEDUI\AL HISTORY
At all timss relevant to thie action, (1) defendant York
Teohnioal Institute (YTII, a Pennsylvsnia oorporation
incorporated under the lawo of Pennsylvania with a business
address of 3351 Whiteford Road, York, York County, was registered
to do business in York CountYI (21 defendant Harold Maley, who
resides at 4014 Robinhood, York, York County, Pennsylvania, was
the President of YTII and (31 plaint.iff, residing at 6334
Stephens Crossing, Mechaniosburg, cumberland County, was a
resident of Cumberland County.
This 04se began with the filing of a complaint on September
25, 1996, alleging breach of contraot, fraudulent
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and promiesory
NO. 96-5326 CIVIL TBRM
e.toppel aftet plaintiff'. tetmination of Qmploym.nt, Defendant
filed pteliminaty objeotione ba.ed on venue on Oatober 28, 1996,
whioh plaintiff aneweted on Novembet 14, 1996. The foll?wing
.ummary i. gleaned from the oomplaint, anewere to defendant.'
interrogatorie., an affidavit of plaintiff, and a letter from
defendant Haley to plaintiff,'
Plaintiff had been employ~d as a Regional Haneger for DeVry,
Inoorporated, from 1978 through Hey, 1995. Dur~g hie yeare of
employment, he developed expertiee in the development, management
and implementation of a system of outside reoruitment for etudent
admiSllions to teohnioal institutes. In 1995, plaintiff and
defendant Haley met at Y'l'I on two oooaeions to dieousB an
employment offerl plaintiff would be offered a permanent position
ae vice President and Direotor of Admissione at YTI fOllowing a
transition period in whioh he would hold the title of Co-Direotor
of Admi.sions with another individual. Between the times of the
two meetings, defendant Haley oalled plaintiff at hiB residenoe
We note that none of the discovery was properly filed
pursuant to Rule 4002.1, providing I
Discovery shall not be filed unless relev4nt to a
motion or other pretrial proceeding, ordered by the
court or required by statute.
Pa.R.C.P. No. 4002.1.
Nonetheloss, these documents will be considered for judioial
eoonomy. See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(0) (2) (stating that If an iseue
of faot i. raised, the oourt shall consider evidenoe by
depositions or otherwisel.
2
NO. 96"53:26 CIVIL 'rreJU.!
oonoQrnin~ his employment.' Plaintiff subsequQntly aaoapted
Maley's oral offer of Qmployment in person at Y~I and thereafter
established a program of outside reoruitment for the admissions
program at Y'rI.
With regard to YTI's oonnQotionll to cumberland County,
plailltiff Averil that during hill employment, admissions
ooordinators had direot oontaot with Cumberland County in the
following situations I (1) telemarketing of prosPQotive student~,
(21 interviewing of potQntial enrolleesl (3) promoting and
markQtillg YTI through oonduoting oareer and raoruiting sQminars
at variou~ high sohoolsl (41 reoruiting students 1 and (5)
targeting high sohool juniors, seniors, and young adults through
mAi 1.
Plaintiff was fired in York County by defendant Maley on May
2, 1996, without ever holding the position of Direotor of
Admissions. He avers that de~endants intended to lure him away
from hill prior employment Il.t DeVry, Inoorporated, solely for thrt
purpose of aoquiring his speoial knowledge and expertise in the
field of outside reoruitment and in-home solioitation of student
applicationll .
, In plaintiff'lI answer to defendanto' interrogatories,
plaintiff states that the purpolle of these calle was to negotiate
terms of hia employment. Defendants in their brief maintain that
the oalls wore made to discuoe when plaintiff would be coming to
YTI to diocuea the terms of hie employment. In ~ny event, as our
diBcusoion will make clear, the importance of these calls is that
they originated from YTI and that the contract was not formed at
thill point.
3
NO. 96-~326 CIVIL TB"H
PIBCUBBION
We now address the ilsue of venue with the foregoing faQt.
in mind. Venue in all action against a corporation il governed by
Pa.R.C.P. Number 2179, which provid"1 in relevant part,
[AI personal action againat a corpor.ation or similar entity
may be brought in and only in
(1) the county where its registered office or principal
place ot business is locatsd,
(2) a county where it regularly oonducts business,
(3) the county where the csuse of action arose, or
(4) the county where a transaction or occurrence took
place out of which the cause of Bction arcse.
Pa.R.C.P. No. 2179(a). The rule for Bsserting venue over
individuals reads similarly.
[Aln action against an individual may be brought in and
only in a oounty in which he may be served or in which
the cause of action arose or where a transaction or
occurrence took place out ot which the cause of aotiQn
arose or in any other county authorized by law.
In a mUlti-count complaint againet the same defendant, venue lies
in any county in whJ.ch anyone of the individual causes of action
might have been brought. Pa.R.C.P. No. l006(f).
Defendants eeek to transfer the instant matter to York
County, contending that none of tha conditions for maintaining
venue in Cumberland County are met. The Court agrees. It is
admitted that York is the county where YTI is registerod to do
business and has its principal place of business. It is further
admitted that the termination of plaintiff's employment
oocurred in York County. We addrees the remaining grounds of
4
NO, 96~5326 CIVI~ TERM
venue below.
A. Doe. YTI regularly oonduot bu.ine.. in cumberland County?
We hold that the oontaot. of YTI'. reoruiter. with
Cumberland County li.ted above do not euffioiently give ri.e to
venue in thi. oounty. Aooording to Deeter~RitcheY~Sippel
AssooiateN v. Westminster College, 23B pa.Super. 194, 357 A.2d
60B (1976), the reoruiting of .tudonte by a non~protit
corpor.ation doe. not in and of iteelf oon.titute the conducting
of bu.inee.. rd. at 19B~99, 357 A.2d at 611. In re.ponee to
plaintiff'. argument that YTI i. a for-profit corporation which
relie. on the reoruiting of .tudente for ite .urvival, we note
the roa.oning behind the Deeter deoisionl to allow venue to be
a..erted in the oontext of reoruiting .tudent. would unduly
burden oollege. and univer.itie. with the ta.k of defending law
.uits in every oounty and .tate where .tudents were .olioited.
To further bol.ter our ruling, the penn.ylvania Supreme
Court hae reiterated that .[mlere .alicitation of bu.ine.. in a
partioular oounty doe. not amount to oonducting bu.ine....
Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hospital, 525 Pa. 237, 244, 579 A.2d 12B2,
1285 (1990) (oitation omitted). Thu., we find that venue doe. not
lie ba.ed upon thi. ground.
B. Did A Tran.aotion or Ooourrence Take Place in Cumberland
County?
The two po..ible baee. for finding venue in thi. inetanoe
are a. follow.1 (1) defendant Maley made two telephone oall. to
plaintiff whioh allegedly .upport the mi.repre.entatlon cau.e. of
5
NO. 96-5326 CIVIL 'I!ERM
action, and (21 defendant Haley lent a letter to plaintiff
lummarizing the terma of the partin' employment diuculllion.
However, "'[t)ranaaotion or oocurrenoe' dOOR not inolude the
performanoe of any aot in the contract formation procelB but iB
the ultimate formation of the oontraot itBolf." Pennaylvanla
Higher Educatlon Asslutanco Agenoy v. Devore 267 Pa.Super. 74,
77, 406 A.2d 343, 344 (1979) (oiting Craig v. W.J. Thlele & Sons,
Inc., 395 Pa, 129, 133-34, 149 A.2d 35, 37 (19591). See also
standard ponnBylvanla Praotioe S 11111. There iB no diBpute that
plaintiff aooepted defendant Maley'B oral offor of employment in
'1ork county.
It iB further noted that in Hathue8 v. Tlm-Bar corporatlon,
438 Pa.Super. 231, 652 A.2d 349 (1994), the oourt stated the
following I
Appellant's complaint alleged breach of contract,
however the trial court found that none of the
negotiationB whioh lead to the offer of acoeptance of
employment were conducted in Montgomery County.
Rather, York county was the proper venue Bince, lnter
alla, the two negotiation letters and a Bubsequent
oommiBBion etructure letter originated {ram appellee'S
principal place o{ buuinoB8, which wae at the time in
York. County.
Id. at 235, 652 A.2d at 351.
The Barno analyeiB appliee in the inatant caee with regard to
the phone oalle ae well ae the letterl they originated from '1TI
in York County.
Aocordingly, the Court holda that venue Bhould be
traneferred to York County.
6
OFFICE OF PROTHONOTARY
COURTHOUSE
John J, SQIJ!tJ....El!.'lt-_...__..__.._____ __ .u.____u....
BARLEY, SNYDER, SENrt' & COHEN
100 Il:'Rt ~Jcal:-Sb;ul;._.--..._.-..-.--.--........---..-..
P.O. BoK 15012
'l'ork;-l'IH'f" 05-'7012--'-'-"-------- ---.....".-- --.....
Cerllsle. PA ~rll 9
,10.'lL
-. _.-fge for f.~_UtJQn_tr,L'J'r/Jnlltr.r. t9.. YQr.x. (ounty.._ __..__ ---~ - - .- r-----
-- --. .-----... -.._---.._._..-._---_.~-_. .. ...~ .._..-. "+_.n_.._ ---- --- --- - -- --
---- .- _._lJ'1_"E f._.!!9J...Jj;....~J;/!\.j; tY!J...:ro:xJn._... "'_'_ ... ____ -.-- --- - - ---- --
I1ober_L~PJm!__n___.._._______. - -- c--
- .... -- ___....Y!I..L._....__....__..__....__ -- -- -- .-
- _-1iarol:.~~al!!L!!!1g__..______ ,..---- ..- -- - --- -
Yor.k Technical Inst!~ute __
-,- .-------. -- --
- ---_.-- -~ -
--- - ------ -.- -.
---.. 1--- --POOt~~(jHQI'-l()l..pages.-@-$-.-5O-ea--- -$50- ~O- ..
-- - _.l'cn~"gA .. 1 nn
e-'-
.- .--..-- ~- - --~-- --- -'- --
IXJE S53 5n , l'~--
-. .
~- -,\.
- ---..---- ---------- - -- 1----
..
------_.._-~~- -- --- -- -- -- r.-;::""', ,\ ..i' I
------- --._- .. ______________...1.Jh....__. ___ c--- --' -_.- -- 0------ --
MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO PROTHONOTARY. COMMON PLEAS COURT
TO Th~ County of Cumberland
('IL#-
f<.JJ
S'I ~Cl'r
$'d?'73
.-.,