HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-5114ALL AMERICAN ROOFING, INC.
Plaintiff
TIMOTHY E. SULLIVAN and
SULLIVAN ROOFING, INC.,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. ~ CIVIL TERM
In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
County Department, Law Division,
No. 00 CH 1468
EX PARTE PETITION FOR AN ORDER TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS
IN PENNSYLVANIA RELATING TO
AN ACTION PENDING IN ANOTHER STATE
Plaintiff, All American Roofing, Inc., by and through its attorneys, Hanft & Knight, P.C.,
and Sterling & Slater, in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1(f) and 42 Pa. C.S. 35326 hereby
petitions your Honorable Court to enter an Order compelling the attendance of Bob King for
deposition, and in support thereof asserts the following:
1. All American Roofing, Inc., an Illinois corporation, is Plaintiff in an action
pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law Division, No. 00
CH 1468. A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
2. During the discovery process, the Plaintiff has learned that Bob King possesses
information regarding the claims at issue in the Illinois action which is either relevant or will lead
to the discovery of relevant information. The information sought by Plaintiff is vital to the
complete disposition of the Plaintiff's interests in the Illinois action.
3. Pursuant to Pennsylvania statute, 42 Pa.C.S. 35326, and Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1
regarding the conduct and use of depositions, Plaintiff seeks to take the deposition of the person
named above.
4.
42 Pa. C.S.A. §5326(a) provides in pertinent part:
A court of record in this Commonwealth may order a person who
is domiciled or found within this Commonwealth to give his testimony
or statement or to produce documents or other things for use in a matter
pending in a tribunal outside this Commonwealth. The order may be made
upon the application of any interested person.., for taking the testimony or
statement or producing the documents or other things. To the extent the
order does not prescribe otherwise, the practice and procedure shall be in
accordance with the court of this Commonwealth issuing the order ....
5. Bob King is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is employed as
a credit manager at Carlisle SynTec, 1285 Ritner Highway, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
6. The Plaintiffs request the appearance of Bob King for deposition on Friday,
November 15, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. at the offices of Hanft & Knight, P.C., 19 Brookwood Avenue,
Suite 106, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, or such other date, time and place as the parties may agree.
The Notice of Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Mr. King has indicated his availability
for that date.
7. The Plaintiff requires the deposition of Mr. King and the production of the
documents requested in the Notice of Deposition to fully prepare for the trial of their cause in the
Illinois action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests your Honorable Court to enter an order
compelling the appearance for deposition of Bob King at the date, time and location as set forth
above.
Angie A. Chen, Esquire
SPERLING & SLATER
65 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 641-3200
Attorney for Plaintiff
HANFT & KNIGHT, P.C.
W~liam A. A~darns ~
Attorney I.D. No. 06265
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-5373
Attorney for Plaintiff
Exhibit 1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
ALL AMERICAN ROOFING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
TIMOTHY E. SULLIVAN and
SULLWAN ROOFING, INC.,
Defendants.
No. 00 CH 1468
(Transferred to Law Division)
Plaintiff Demands Trial By Jury
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, All American Roofing, Inc. ("All American"), complains as follows for its
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This case concerns defendant Sullivan's breaches of his fiduciary and contractual
duties to his employer, plaintiff (All American), as well as the tortious interference by both
defendants with plaintiff's customer and employee relationships. Defendant Sullivan, while still
an officer of and employed at All American, secretly began operating his own competing
company, defendant Sullivan Roofing. At the same time he was in a fiduciary (and contrac0
relationship with plaintiff, Sullivan cultivated plaintiff's prime customers and employees for his
own company. This unlawful conduct set the stage for Sullivan and Sullivan Roofing to take
those customers and employees for themselves immediately upon Sullivan's resignation of
employment.
2. Defendants' conduct constitutes a breach of Sullivan's fiduciary duties of fidelity
and loyalty to All American (Count I), a breach of Sullivan's contractual obligation not to
Inc. ("Sullivan Roofing"):
amended complaint against defendants, Timothy E. Sullivan ("Sullivan") and Sullivan Roofing,
undermine the reasonable expectations of his employer All American (Count ID, and tortious
interference by both defendants with All American's customer and employee relationships and
expectancies (Count Ili). By reason of defendants' unlawful conduct, plaintiff, All American,
seeks compensatory damages in excess of $200,000, including an amount equal to all salary and
other compensation (and expenses) Sullivan received fi:om plaintiff during the period of the
violations. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages sufficient in amount to punish and deter
defendants for and fi-om their malicious conduct.
PARTIES AND VENUE
3. Plaintiff, All American Roofing, Inc. ("All American"), is an Illinois corporation
in good standing, with its principal place of business in the Chicago metropolitan area. All
American is in the business of, among other things, installing commercial roofing.
4. Defendant Sullivan is an individual residing in the Chicago metropolitan area.
Until his resignation in December, 1998, defendant was a Vice-President of All American and
the managing head of its commercial roofing division. Months prior to his resignation, Sullivan
secretly began operating a roofing company to compete directly with plaintiff, his then-current
employer.
5. Defendant Sullivan Roofing was the company Sullivan secretly operated while he
was still employed at All American. Defendant Sullivan Roofing is an Illinois corporation and
has its registered office and principal place of business in Cook County, Illinois. Sullivan is the
President and Secretary of Sullivan Roofing.
6. Venue is proper because defendants reside in Cook County, Illinois, and/or the
causes of action asserted herein arose out of a transaction or some part thereof that occurred in
Cook County, Illinois.
BACKGROUND OF VIOLATIONS
Sullivan Secretly Begins Operating His Com~etine Roofing Company
7. Defendant Sullivan began his employment at plaintiff, All American, in or around
January, 1990.
8. Beginning in or around January, 1992, defendant Sullivan became a Vice-
President in charge of All American's entire commercial roofing business, reporting only to the
head of the company. In that capacity, Sullivan had supervisory control over plaintiff's entire
commercial roofing business, including its key customers and employees. Sullivan also
supervised, and had access to, the preparation of All American's confidential salary and bonus
schedules, financial statements, and customer lists.
9. In or around October, 1998, defendant Sullivan formed a company to compete
directly with All American, particularly in the commercial roofing business. Without plaintiff's
knowledge, Sullivan incorporated the business on or about October 23, 1998 (defendant Sullivan
Roofing, Inc.), while he was supposedly dutifully overseeing plaintiff's commercial roofing
business. Sullivan even made himself the President and Secretary of his new business, while he
was still a Vice-President at All American.
10. At the time defendant Sullivan formed his competing business, more than two
months prior to his resignation, he began cultivating for his own company plaintiff's key
customer and employees. This "ramping up" of his own business, on plaintiff's time and money,
allowed Sullivan to be up and running his own company immediately upon his resignation from
All American.
Defendants' Pre-Resignation Cultivation of Plaintiff's Customers
11. The customers targeted by Sullivan included one of All American's largest source
of revenues in its commercial roofing business -- Jacob Kifcrbaum & Co. ("Kifcrbanm").
Kifcrbanm is a developer of commercial properties that rcgnlarly subcontracts for commercial
roofing of the type specialized in by All American. In at least two ways, Sullivan exploited his
position as Vice President and manager ofplaintif£s commercial roofing division to obtain
Kiferbaum's business for his personal benefit, as opposed to thc benefit of plaintiff, to whom he
owed fiduciary and contractual duties.
12. First, Sullivan, without the knowledge or authority from anyone else at All
American, priced commercial roofing jobs for Kiferbaum at amounts that were below All
American's cost. Most significantly, the prices that Sullivan unilaterally set wcrc significantly
less than they would have been had Sullivan not been acting solely in his self-interest. This
occurred on at least four separate jobs Sullivan priced for Kiferbaum in the latter half of 1998, in
exchange for which Kiferbanm agreed to take his account to Sullivan's company immediately
upon Sullivan's resignation from All American at the end of that year.
13. The result was that Sullivan (and Sullivan Roofing) used revenues that Sullivan's
employer should have enjoyed, in order for defendants to appropriate for themselves plaintiffs
key customer.
14. Sullivan exploited his position at All American in a second way in order to
cultivate for himself, while on All American's payroll, the business of Kiferbaum. Without
authority from All American, Sullivan told Kiferbaum that he would issue false lien waivers for
the benefit of Kiferbaum. In particular, the amount Sullivan wanted to reflect on the
4
subcontractor lien waivers would be in excess of the amount Kiferbaum had actually agreed to
pay to All American. Kiferbaum could then use the inflated figure reflected on the waiver to (a)
pass through an inflated cost to its customer (the person to whom Kiferbaum was the general
contractor), and/or (b) induce construction lenders to loan Kiferbaum amounts in excess of the
amounts they would have loaned otherwise. When All American discovered what Sullivan
proposed to do, it prohibited Sullivan from issuing any such false lien waivers from All
American to Kiferbaum.
15. That did not stop Sullivan, however. On information and belief, Sullivan further
induced Kiferbaum to take his account to Sullivan immediately upon Sullivan's resignation, by
promising Kiferbaum that Sullivan's company would issue such false lien waivers for
Kiferbaum's benefit.
16. All American is further informed and believes, consistent with common sense,
that Sullivan would never have taken the risk of leaving gainful employment and the start-up risk
of a competing business without first successfully soliciting Kiferbaum -- while Sullivan was still
employed at All American -- to take its business to Sullivan's competing company. In fact,
Kiferbaum immediately became Sullivan Roofing's primary soume of revenue as soon as
Sullivan resigned his position at All American.
Defendants' Pre-Resignation Cnltivation Of Plaintiff's Employees
17. Still further, defendants were able to staff Sullivan's competing business almost
exclusively with administrative and other employees of All American, by using unfair means that
were contrary to Sullivan's then-current employer's best interests. In three ways, Sullivan used
his access to All American's confidential business information, as well as his managerial and
5
supervisory capacity over All American's employees, for his self-interest.
18. First, Sullivan used his proprietary knowledge of All American's salary and bonus
structure for his own self-interest and to the detriment, and without the knowledge, of All
American. With Sullivan's specific knowledge of the salary and bonuses of All American's
managers and other employees, defendants were able to unfairly use that knowledge to take such
employees (including foremen, supervisors, and their crews) from All American. The
confidential information placed defendant Sullivan Roofing, as a competing prospective
employer, in the advantageous position of conducting interviews with more knowledge than any
company could obtain through independent research, as well as providing it with information
plaintiff did not know it had, thereby prejudicing plaintiffs oTM efforts to retain their employees.
19. Second, Sullivan used his managerial position at All American to manipulate --
for his own self-interest -- the compensation levels of those employees he wanted to take for his
own company. For example, as to two managers and one foreman, Sullivan intentionally set
their compensation at a level that was unacceptable to them. Then, when Sullivan resigned, he
was easily able to take these employees for his own company by offering them appropriate levels
of compensation.
20. Third, Sullivan, in his supervisory capacity, solicited feedback from employees
(creating the assumption that he would report that feedback back to his superiors), but did not
report it back to his superiors. This created the misapprehension by employees that their
employer was not reacting appropriately to the feedback that had been solicited, which caused
employee dissatisfaction towards All American where none would exist otherwise. For example,
a project manager had been complaining to Sullivan for almost two years prior to Sullivan's
resignation about his compensation. Only after Sullivan resigned did All American first learn of
the project manager's lengthy disappointment, and that the employee had assumed all along --
erroneously as it turned out, to All American's damage -- that his feedback had been passed along
by Sullivan but not acted upon. In these cases, Sullivan knew that had he reported to his
superiors any "dissatisfaction," All American would have taken all appropriate steps to remedy it.
21. In these ways, defendants were able to create the misapprehension that plaintiff
was unresponsive to such employees' feedback, which caused plaintiff damage and enabled
defendants to more easily recruit such employees for their own self-interest.
Plaintiff's Damage
22. Defendant Sullivan resigned his employment at All American effective December
31, 1998. By this time, and unbeknownst to All American, Sullivan Roofing had been
incorporated for over two months and its business already had been "ramped up" at plaintiff's
expense. Defendants unlawfully cultivated plaintifiOs customers and employees so they would
join defendants immediately upon Sullivan's resignation.
23. By reason of defendants' unlawful conduct, plaintiff has suffered damages in
excess of $200,000, including the loss of customers and employees and the compensation it paid
Sullivan during the period of his misconduct. Indeed, while Sullivan was secretly breaching his
duties to plaintiff, plaintiff paid Sullivan not only his salary and vacation time, but prepaid
several thousands of dollars in expenses he incurred on his vacation.
24. Defendants' unlawful conduct was and is willful and malicious.
7
VIOLATIONS ALLEGED
Count I - Breach Of Duty Of Fidelity And Loyalty (Aeainst Sullivan)
1. Plaintiffrepeats and realleges as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1-24 above.
2. Defendant Sullivan, as a Vice-President and an employee of All American, owed
plaintiffat all times the fiduciary duties of fidelity and loyalty. These duties prohibited Sullivan
from exploiting his position at AIl American for his own personal benefit and hindering
plaintiffs ability to continue its business.
3. Sullivan's conduct was in breach of those duties.
4. Sullivan's resignation did not sever his liability for transactions completed after
the termination of his employment of transactions that began during the existence of his
employment or were fotmded on information acquired during his employment.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Sullivan as follows:
a. Compensatory damages in excess of $200,000, to be determined at thai;
b. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial sufficient to deter
Sullivan fi.om future malicious wrongdoing; and
c. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Count II - Breach of Contract (Against Sullivan)
1. Plaintiffrepeats and realleges as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1-24
preceding Count I above.
2. Defendant Sullivan was employed by All American pursuant to a contract that
imposed obligations on Sullivan prior to its termination. These included the implied obligation,
while employed at All American, not to engage in conduct that is contrary to, or undermines, All
American's reasonable expectations. These expectations included that Sullivan, during the time
he was plaintiffs officer and employee, and was receiving salary paychecks and other
compensation from plaintiff, would not act contrary to plaintiffs interest to the sole benefit of
himself and the company he had secretly formed.
3. tn addition, the employee handbook at All American expressly prohibited Sullivan
from having other business interests that would conflict with the interests of All American's
business. The handbook also prohibited Sullivan from using All American's confidential
business information, such as its salary and bonus structure, for his own self-interest.
4. By his pre-resignation conduct, defendant Sullivan breached his contractual
obligations, while plaintiff has performed all of its contractual obligations.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Sullivan as follows:
a. Compensatory damages in excess of $200,000, to be determined at trial; and
b. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Count III - Tortious Interference With Business Relationships And Expectancies
(Aeainst Sullivan and Sullivan Roofine}
1. Plaintiffrepeats and realleges as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1-4 of Count I
above and paragraphs 2-4 of Count 1I above.
2. Plaintiff had reasonable expectations of continuing its valid business relationships
9
and economic advantage with its key customers (including Kiferbaum) and employees.
3. Defendants had knowledge of these expectations, and intentionally and
maliciously interfered with plaintiff's expectancy by improper means and without just cause, to
plaintiff's damage.
4. The "competitor's privilege" does not apply because defendants employed
wrongful means. Defendants had no privilege to compete with plaintiff by Sullivan breaching
his fiduciary duties and contract.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and
against defendants as follows:
a. Compensatory damages against defendants, jointly and severally, in excess of
$200,000, to be determined at trial;
b. Punitive damages against defendants in an amount to be determined at trial
sufficient to deter defendants from future malicious wrongdoing; and
c. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
ALL AMERICAN ROOFING, INC.
Paul E. Slater
Mitchell H. Macknin
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. (#22288)
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, Illinois 60603
312-641-3200
By:
One of its attorneys
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mitchell H. Macknin, an attorney, hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing
AMENDED COMPLAINT to be served to the following persons by messenger on this 15th day
of February, 2001:
Dom J. Rizzi, Esq.
Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
Miller Faucher Cafferty & Wexler
30 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60602
~itchellHTM;c~knirn' '' _ ~ ~
11
Exhibit 2
1N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, 1LLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
ALL AMERICAN ROOFING, INC.
Plaintift~
TIMOTHY E. SULLIVAN and
SULLIVAN ROOFING, INC.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 00 CH 1468
(Transferred to Law Division)
Plaintiffs Demand Trial By Jury
AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
ro~
Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq.
Miller Faucher Cafferty & Wexler
30 N LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60602
David A. Howard, Esq.
SchiffHardin & Waite
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
YOU ARE NOTIFIED that, upon granting of Plaintiff's petition by the Cumberland
County Court of Common Pleas, State of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff will take the deposition of Bob
King at the offices of Hanft & Knight, P.C., 19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania 17013, before a Notary Public in and for the County of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, at
which time you may appear.
Deponent
Date and Time
Materials Required at Deposition
Bob King November 15, 2002
1:00 p.m.
See Attachment.
Mitchell H. Macknin
Angie A. Chen
SPERLING & SLATER
55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 641-3200
ALL AMERICAN ROOFING, INC.
One ~ i~t'~attomeys
ATTACHMENT TO THE SUBPOENA
FOR THE DEPOSITION OF BOB KING
Definitions and Instructions
1. "Document" is used in the broadest sense and includes, but is not limited to, the
following items: agreements; drafts; communications; correspondence; e-mails; telegrams;
cables; facsimiles; memoranda; records; books; financial statements; summaries of records or
notes of personal conversations or interviews; diaries; calendars; forecasts; statistical statements;
accountants work papers; graphs; charts; maps; diagrams; blue phnts; '~ables; indexes; pictures;
recordings; tapes; microfilm; charge clips; accounts; analytical records; minutes or records of
meetings or conferences; reports and/or summaries of investigations; opinions or reports of
consultants; appraisals; reports and/or summaries of negotiations; brochures; pamphlets;
circulars; trade letters; press releases; contracts; stenographic, handwritten or any other notes;
projections; working papers; federal and state income tax returns; checks, front and back; check
stubs or receipts; shipping documents; manifests; invoice vouchers; computer printouts and
computer disks and tapes; and tape data sheets or data processing cards or disks or any other
written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matters; however produced or
reproduced.
2. "Communication" includes every manner of transmitting or receiving, from one
person to another person, information, opinions, or thoughts, whether orally, by documents,
writing, or copy thereof, or otherwise, including, but not limited to, by telephone, e-mail, radio,
or any method of voice recording.
3. "Person" means any natural or artificial person, including business entities and
other legal entities, and their agents.
4. "Related to," "relating to" or "regarding" shall mean directly or ii, directly
supporting, evidencing, describing, mentioning, referring to, contradicting, comprising,
constituting or concerning.
5 "All American Roofing, Inc." shall mean the Plaintiff, All American Roofing,
Inc., its officers, directors, shareholders, agents, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and assigns.
6. "Carlisle SynTec" shall mean Carlisle SynTec, Inc., its officers, directors,
shareholders, agents, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and assigns.
7. "Sullivan Roofing, Inc." shall mean Sullivan Roofing, Inc., its officers, directors,
shareholders, agents, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and assigns.
Materials To Be Produced
All documents relating to, referring to, constituting:
1. The application for and extension of credit to Timothy E. Sullivan and/or Sullivan
Roofing, Inc., including but not limited to:
credit file;
application(s) for loans or credit;
materials supporting and/or accompanying application(s) for loans or credit,
including but not limited to: business plans of Timothy E. Sullivan and/or Sullivan
Roofing, Inc., r~sum~s, financial statements, projections of future income, and
letters of recommendation from third parties;
credit reports, analyses of creditworthiness, or memoranda that pertain to, mention,
discuss, or comment on Timothy E. Sullivan and/or Sullivan Roofing, Inc.
agreements for loans or credit.
2. All correspondence and communications with Timothy E. Sullivan, Sullivan
Roofing, Inc., and/or their agents during the time period from January 1, 1997 through December
31, 1999.
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney on oath, certifies that a tree and correct copy of the
foregoing Amended Notice of Deposition was served upon:
Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq.
Miller Faucher Cafferty & Wexler
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60602
David A. Howard, Esq.
SchiffHardin & Waite
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
by placing a copy in a properly addressed postage prepaid envelope and depositing the same in
the U.S. Mail at 55 W. Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois, this ~_ day of O¢~,, ,2002.
Angie A.~h~n
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~qls't- day of October, 2002, I, Mary M. Price, an employee of Hanft
& Knight, P.C., hereby certify that I have served a copy of the Petition for an Order to Take
Depositions by mailing the same by United States mail, postage prepaid, to:
Christopher B. Sanchez, Esquire
Miller, Faucher, Cafferty & Wexler
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60602
David A. Howard, Esquire
Schiff, Hardin & Waite
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
ALL AMERICAN ROOFING, INC.
Plaintiff
TIMOTHY E. SULLIVAN and
SULLIVAN ROOFING, INC.,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. ~- CIVIL TERM
:
: In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
: County Department, Law Division,
: No. 00 CH 1468
EX PARTE ORDER ALLOWING DEPOSITIONS
IN PENNSYLVANIA RELATING TO
AN ACTION PENDING IN ANOTHER STATE
AND NOW, this _~ day of October, 2002, Plaintiff having filed an Ex Parte
Petition regarding an action pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, requesting an
Order compelling the attendance of Bob King for deposition and/or production of documents,
and this Court having duly considered Plaintiff's Petition, and being fully advised in the
premises;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Pane Petition For An Order To Take Depositions
In Pennsylvania Relating To An Action Pending in Another State is hereby granted, and that Bob
King shall appear for deposition in accordance with the Illinois Court Rules, and shall produce
any documents requested, on Friday, November 15, 2002, at the offices of Hanfi & Knight, P.C.,
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106, Carlisle, pennsylvania 17013 at 1:00 p.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order, the Petition, the Deposition
Notice, and the statutory wimess fee shall be served upon the deponent, in accordance with
Pennsylvania Court Rules.
By the Court
Distribution:
Christopher B. Sanchez, Esquire
David A. Howard, Esquire
Angie A. Chen, Esquire
William A. Addams, Esquire
ALL AMERICAN ROOFING, INC.
Plaintiff
Vo
TIMOTHY E. SULLIVAN and
SULLIVAN ROOFING, INC.,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: O,,l - ,50t'/
: NO. ~ CIVIL TERM
:
: In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
: County Department, Law Division,
: No. 00 CH 1468
EX PARTE PETITION FOR AN ORDER TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS
IN PENNSYLVANIA RELATING TO
AN ACTION PENDING IN ANOTHER STATE
Plaintiff, All American Roofing, Inc., by and through its attorneys, Hanft & Knight, P.C.,
and Sterling & Slater, in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1(f) and 42 Pa. C.S. §5326 hereby
petitions your Honorable Court to enter an Order compelling the attendance of Bob King for
deposition, and in support thereof asserts the following:
1. All American Roofing, Inc., an Illinois corporation, is Plaintiff in an action
pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law Division, No. 00
CH 1468. A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
2. During the discovery process, the Plaintiff has learned that Bob King possesses
information regarding the claims at issue in the Illinois action which is either relevant or will lead
to the discovery of relevant information. The information sought by Plaintiff is vital to the
complete disposition of the Plaintiff s interests in the Illinois action.
3. Pursuant to Pennsylvania statute, 42 Pa.C.S. §5326, and Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1
regarding the conduct and use of depositions, Plaintiff seeks to take the deposition of the person
named above.
4.
42 Pa. C.S.A. §5326(a) provides in pertinent part:
A court of record in this Commonwealth may order a person who
is domiciled or found within this Commonwealth to give his testimony
or statement or to produce documents or other things for use in a matter
pending in a tribunal outside this Commonwealth. The order may be made
upon the application of any interested person. · · for taking the testimony or
statement or producing the documents or other things. To the extent the
order does not prescribe otherwise, the practice and procedure shall be in
accordance with the court of this Commonwealth issuing the order ....
5. Bob King is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is employed as
a credit manager at Carlisle SynTec, 1285 Ritner Highway, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
6. The Plaintiffs request the appearance of Bob King for deposition on Friday,
November 15, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. at the offices of Hanft & Knight, P.C., 19 Brookwood Avenue,
Suite 106, Carlisle, pennsylvania, or such other date, time and place as the parties may agree.
The Notice of Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Mr. King has indicated his availability
for that date.
7. The Plaintiff requires the deposition of Mr. King and the production of the
documents requested in the Notice of Deposition to fully prepare for the trial of their cause in the
Illinois action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests your Honorable Court to enter an order
compelling the appearance for deposition of Bob King at the date, time and location as set forth
above.
Angie A. Chen, Esquire
SPERLING & SLATER
65 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 641-3200
Attorney for Plaintiff
HANFT & KNIGHT, P.C.
W~li~an A. A~dams
Attorney I.D. No. 06265
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-5373
Attorney for Plaintiff