The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-00947 AARON SMITHGALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No.: D2QZl - /)//7 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED M TEAM RAIIAL, INC. d/b/a BOBBY RAHAL HONDA, Defendant NOTTCE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. PENNSYLVANIA LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE PENNSYLVANIA BAR ASSOCIATION 100 South Street, P.O. Box 186 Harrisburg, P A 171 08 (800) 692-7375 ~ ",,"I: -- .- 0 ,~~- ,. ""~_n"rr,. --'--"-- _ ~-e ,,>J~ ""'.-__~ e.". ';'~'_ <~ .~- ,'- ,~,' _H' ,," _. :""_~,,,____ '. AARON SMITHGALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No.: v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW TEAM RAHAL, INC. d/b/a BOBBY RAHAL HONDA, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED A VTSO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notific~cion de esta Demanda y A viso radicando personalmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se Ie advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda 0 cualquier otra reclamacion 0 remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 VA Y A A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARA A VERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. PENNSYLVANIA LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE PENNSYLVANIA BAR ASSOCIATION 100 South Street, P.O. Box 186 Harrisburg, P A 17108 (800) 692-7375 ,,'Y ",. T5_"~"I?--_r_' ,'~'. .,-- ,,",'. ,..",:",__"~",,,,_;r~__~_,,,_"._~_...,_"_ ~_-,_. .~c _u_ ~ ,^___.,_~ .'^. . . ---~'-=.--,' "-~ ,. "-'''- ,~- AARON SMITHGALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA No.: ;LtnlV - 9'-17 ~T........... v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW TEAM RAHAL, INC. d/b/a BOBBY RAHAL HONDA, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED c;OMPT,AINT 1. The Plaintiff is Aaron Smithgall, an adult individual residing at 19 South Carlisle Street, New Bloomfield, P A 17068. 2. The Defendant is Team Rahal, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation doing business as Bobby Rahal Honda at 6696 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055. 3. On Saturday, February 5, 2000 the Plaintiff entered in to an agreement with Defendant to purchase a used 1991 Honda Civic CRX model HF. 4. Plaintiff purchased said vehicle for his personal use. 5. The total purchase price of the vehicle inclusive of taxes and other costs was $1,552.00. 6. On February 5, 2000, the Plaintiff deposited a down payment of $500.00 on the purchase of said vehicle. 7. It was agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, that the Defendant would attach Plaintiffs wages at the rate of $50.00/week to pay toward the balance owed on the vehicle. 8. At the time of the transaction, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a mechanic. 9. Plaintiff took lawful possession of said vehicle and began to use the same for his personal purposes. 10. The Defendant retained a security interest in said vehicle. ,~.,., -'"1'_ ,-~-,~- ---':":;.""- ,__,_,"''jC~;'_'~'H~''-' <c -'''C- :<-3' ~T' - - , " _ .~__ _'" "C"~ ,~-- ", '-""~>"',,'" ,--.,-- 11. Sometime during the early morning hours of February 9, 2000, the Defendant, acting through its agent, servants and/or employees, unlawfully took the 1991 Honda Civic CRX from Plaintiffs residence in New Bloomfield, PA. 12. At all times relevant hereto the agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant were acting within the course and scope of their employment for Defendant. 13. The Defendant through its agents, servants or employees has acknowledged that it had no right to remove the Plaintiffs vehicle. 14. The Plaintiff has demanded the return of the 1991 Honda Civic CRX, but, although acknowledging it had no right to take Plaintiffs vehicle, the Defendant has refused to return it. 15. At the time, the Plaintiff's vehicle was unlawfully taken by the Defendant, there were items of Plaintiffs personal property within the vehicle. 16. The Defendant ultimately returned some of those personal items from the car, but continues to refuse to return other items of Plaintiffs personal property. "'IT 'I .- , ., O'_-~,,~,.-._,_,~,_H~:~,^ ~-~,- ." - ~."' -', - -,. '-,,' COUNT I - CONVERSION 17. The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 above as if set forth at length. 18. The Defendant has deprived the Plaintiff of his right of use/or possession of the 1991 Honda Civic CRX and Plaintiff s personal property contained therein. 19. The Defendant has acted without the Plaintiffs consent in removing the Plaintiffs vehicle. 20. There is no legal justification for the Defendant's action in unlawfully taking the 1991 Honda Civic CRX and Plaintiffs personal property contained therein. 21. Defendant's actions constitute a conversion of Plaintiff s property. 22. The Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for the value of the property converted and the consequential damages from that conversion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant for compensatory damages. ,~_.,,,/!-'~ry-l' , . --+';:-? -. . .'_'.' ,'<,.,,' - -- "_ _ ~--'. , " v'-"^'- - ,-". . "',' -" - , " ~~ "n_., COUNT II - PUNITIVE DAM AGES 23. The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs I through 22 above as if set forth at length. 24. The actions of the Defendant by and through its agents, servants and/or employees were willful, intentional, deliberate and outrageous. 25. The actions of the Defendant in this instance justify the imposition of an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor and requests an award of punitive damages against Defendant. ., 'I ,"'-, .-P'::_':~''''OO _' '!",o_" -"t,;'",-" ~.h, . i" .",. -," , _ - , ~'1"'___,__ -" - ,~,. "., .,~ -" " J". ,_ , . ,. . , " COUNT ID- PRIVATE ACTION - TJNFATR TRADE PRACTICES ACT 26. The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 above as if set forth at length. 27. The parties entered into an installment sale contract for the sale of the 1991 Honda Civic CRX. 28. Defendant was obliged pursuant to the Motor Vehic1e Sales Finance Act, Act of June 28, 1947, P.L. 1110 (69 P.S. ~ 601.etseq.) to create a written contract between the parties. 29. Although required to enter into written contract containing all of the agreements between the buyer and the seller relating to the installment sale of the motor vehicle, signed by both the buyer and the seller, the Defendant failed to create such a writing. 30. The failure of the Defendant to create such a writing in turn created a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding in connection with the sale of this vehicle. 31. The conduct of the Defendant constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice prohibited by the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Act of December 17, 1968, P.L. 1224 No. 387. Reenacted, November 24, 1976, P.L. 1166 No. 260 (73 P.S. ~ 201-1 .etseq.) 32. When Plaintiff entered into the agreement with Defendant, Defendant assured Plaintiff that the sale was not contingent upon Plaintiffs continued employment with Defendant. 33. The Plaintiff relied upon the representation of Defendant in entering into this agreement. 34. The Plaintiffs employment with Defendant was terminated by Defendant, three days after Plaintiff entered into the agreement with Defendant to purchase this vehicle. 35. The Defendant unlawfully took Plaintiffs vehicle. 36. The Plaintiff has demanded the return of the vehicle but Defendant refuses to return the vehicle, although acknowledging it was unlawfully taken. 37. The actions of the Defendant are an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the scope ., - . ,r_'" . r:- " . ~<,' ~c.~."'.~", ~" }t'- ,~ 0>' ._-~-,' ...-.... . . --, -"-~ ,-e"-< -~" . ~" . -;,. of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 38. The Plaintiff is entitled to bring a private action for damages under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 39. The Defendant claims treble damages and attorneys fees pursuant to Section 201-9.2 of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands compensatory damages, treble damages and attorneys fees. Respectfully submitted, Hartman & Miller, P.C. By: !I~~-0~ Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct.I.D. # 34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorney for Plaintiff, Aaron Smithgall -r,." , -"r C'-",> '"" .,< ,.?Y' >e. ., ,,,- "--->'~' \-'---~ '[n-'_7_ , -~ , . ,'''' , -_~'r - - AARON SMITHGALL, Plaintiff IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. TEAM RAHAL, INC. dib/a BOBBY RAHAL HONDA, Defendant VRRTFTCA nON I, Aaron Smithgall, hereby verifY and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn verification to authorities. Dated: 2- -I '1- ;J- (/00 ,--4 ~~ Aaron Smithgall, Plai tiff -., ',-")":- ,n. '~'_" ~,_.____ _.,_"'~ '_~_,".,_ _,_ ",~__':'__" ,,~_'_ -_",'"8'. ,.. ,~__",_ "-- ,~ !"",,-, . '" ,1.'- ' ,'y-o",.,.... , ~ ~ ~ ~ \- ~ C) 0 ~ C Co") {') ~ ;;"~ ~ ~ -n'Y': ""'1 \, rn?~' f':-t "- ~ Z~_.- ::.','.:J ~ ~~~ (I) -.J ,,' " -< r; 'J :::> :::''-J ~~~ '7;) Z r.:- --1 -< ,~ ,~)!l!II_~_,~_~,;.. 0) "1111 J ,~ d ii J ~ " ~~ AARON SMITHGALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 2000-947 TEAM RAHAL, INC. d/b/a BOBBY RAHAL HONDA, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter our appearance on behalf of Team Rahal, Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Honda, in the above matter. Respectfully submitted, McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK BY~ Lawrence R. Wieder 1.0. No. 16707 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 717237-5229 'i Attorneys for Team Rahal, Inc, d/b/a Bobby Rahal Honda Dated: February 25, 2000 ''-'o,'~: ;r" ,,-,,- - - '~<' - ,',.,,',. <- -, , '~'~-"'>-- "", ,__,'r"'_,' ._ -"," ( . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -I-.!I AND NOW, on this '25 day of February, 2000, I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the within document, via first class United States mail, poslage prepaid as follows: il ~ ;1 Ii ~, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire HARTMAN & MillER, P.C. 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 :;~ ;;1 "j :1 ::1 ~.i .[ u " McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK ;'i ':1 ~'i BY~ Lawrence R. Wieder, Esquire 1.0. No. 16707 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 (717) 237-5229 '.-.1 '] ,'1 I :i ;.1 i'l 'j Attorneys for Team Rahal, Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Honda ',l , '~ "r, r""" ",- i ,~,?,,"-" ,- '" ,- ,- - ~- ,- <,-- ,C" _'J'~ ","i.,_"" u '.-, '.;) (", , c ;,.::j MCNEES, WALLACE 8: NURICK 100 PINE STREET P. O. BOX 1166 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 ". Ii .~ "~"~~ ~.. """ '""", .> - SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2000-00947 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SMITHGALL AARON VS TEAM RAHAL INC ET AL KATHY CLARKE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pensylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon TEAM RAHAL INC D/B/A BOBBY RAHAL HONDA the DEFENDANT , at 0014:05 HOURS, on the 23rd day of February, 2000 at 6696 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to TAMMY SMITH (OFFICE MANAGER) a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 5.58 .00 10.00 .00 33.58 r'~ ~-t:~? R. Thomas Kline Sworn and Subscribed to before 02/25/2000 PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER By, ~y ~ me this J..3 M day of ~....,-<Jt-. ~ A.D. ~ a. 'r1L pp~ ~ Prothonota:ty , >' ~,,~ " F '- '.,,~- -"", '" - . . ~.".~- ---'"""''''.iJ.$'''.; , i" "'\_<'-'__~I_;'~ ~- ; . -, < . AARON SMITHGALL, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : No. 2000-947 TEAM RAHAL, INC. dlbla BOBBY RAHAL HONDA Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: AARON SMITHGALL, and KEVIN E. OSBORNE, ESQUIRE, his attorney YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OF A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK BY~ Lawrence R. Wieder I.D. No. 16707 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 (717) 232-8000 Date: March;J), 2000 Attorneys for Team Rahal, Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Honda . '". - __ '~.' -t_ _", ~ ;;<'!n+.~ ,.~ .'"C,.,." . -, '. .~,. ... .",,,,-,,,,.,.., ,:,,: ::.:;;;;,,' ~ :,;;. -~ ,"'1;::',_1 :~ - ,,'-; ,'~"- , . . AARON SMITHGALL, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : No. 2000-947 TEAM RAHAL, INC. d/b/a BOBBY RAHAL HONDA Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER. NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM NOW COME, the Defendant, Team Rahal, Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Honda ("Rahal"), by their counsel, McNees, Wallace & Nurick and answer the Complaint of the Plaintiff, Aaron Smithgall ("Smithgall") as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted with qualification. Plaintiff purchased the vehicle for the stated purpose of driving to and from work at Defendant's dealership. 5. Admitted. A true and correct copy of the buyer's order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 6. Admitted with qualification. Plaintiff did not "deposit a down payment", but rather delivered two money orders totaling $500 to the Defendant, as a down payment towards the purchase of the Honda. '-'-"- :..,.., l' __ .' __~>. '_, -- " 'c' ,,- ;'. -" -', ,,",_~- ~ _" --. -'of' e _ r" 0 .c,_" --':(Go> ----, ~,<.;' ~. ~ '" :I:c;~-;,-:.'-,:.~L~'--,'; .-',-'-- . , 7. Admitted. A true and correct copy of the payroll deduction authorization agreed to by Plaintiff's is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". By way of further answer it is stated that inherent in the agreement was that Plaintiff intended to and would in fact work continue working at the Defendant's dealership. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted with qualification. Plaintiff purchased the vehicle for the stated purpose of driving to and from work at Defendant's dealership. 10. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading required. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant caused the vehicle to be retaken. It is denied that the conduct was illegal. As a condition of purchase, Plaintiff agreed to make payments by weekly deductions from his payroll. immediately upon purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff failed to appear for work, thereby terminating his employment with the Plaintiff. Under those circumstances, Plaintiff created a situation in which he could not honor the contract, because his payments could not be deducted from his payroll. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. The Defendant through its agents, servants or employees have not acknowledged that the Defendant's conduct was illegal or improper and if they have, their statements are incorrect. -2- , '.-\-- ; _.~. :._0", - , '. "- -'" ,_ _, - _,__ .'". -~-,-" [.--.c",;'/;i";- ';,;:~.,_.i'-'I-L'",;,,; ';,. '-_'~' " . 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant has refused to return the vehicle. It is denied that the Defendant's conduct in retaking the vehicle was illegal or improper. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that when the Plaintiff's vehicle was retaken, there was personalty in it; however, those items of personalty were immediately returned to the Plaintiff by United Parcel Service. It is denied that the Defendant's conduct in retaking the vehicle was illegal. 16. Denied. The Defendant does not continue to refuse to allow Plaintiff to reclaim other items of his personalty; they have been returned. By way of further answer it is stated that if Defendant had refused to return items of personalty, such conduct would have been lawful as Plaintiff owed the Defendant the sum of $220. COUNT I CONVERSION 17. Denied. The paragraph does not contain an allegation of fact, to which a responsive pleading is required. 18. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant has deprived Plaintiff of the use of the vehicle; however, under the circumstances, Plaintiff has no right to use the vehicle. It is denied that Defendant has retained Plaintiff's personal property, which was in the vehicle. By way of further answer it is stated that as a condition of purchase, Plaintiff agreed to make payments by weekly deductions -3- . ~ - -. --'~ -,- _c, -~ . ",<~-.-" _.,,-_ .__~_, {--I--_._. ,- _' ,~_ '""'_j from his payroll. Immediately upon purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff failed to appear for work thereby terminating his employment with the Plaintiff. Under those circumstances, Plaintiff created a situation in which he could not honor the contract, because his payments could not be deducted from his payroll. Additionally, it is stated that Plaintiffs procurement of the contract to purchase the vehicle was fraudulent in that Plaintiff did not intend to continue working for the Defendant. 19. Admitted. By way of further answer it is stated that Defendant's actions were permissible under Pennsylvania law, and Plaintiffs consent was unnecessary. 20. Denied. The averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs breach of the parties' agreement justified Defendant's action. 21. Denied. The averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs actions constitute conversion. 22. Denied. The averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer it is stated that Defendant was legally permitted to retake the vehicle, for failure of the Plaintiff to comply with the terms of the purchase. Additionally, Plaintiff suffered no loss from the retaking of the vehicle as his down payment of $500 was immediately returned to him. Plaintiff was free to purchase another vehicle and restore himself to his earlier position. -4- " n _~="",_"_',",'O>",~.",, . ,_''-, '''''-'''',-, ,. ~- 00' ~_. c.1~._,"_ V ,-, '-Iih WHEREFORE, Defendant prays your Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, with prejudice and award the Defendant counsel fees for the filing of a frivolous, obdurate and vexatious action as proscribed by 42 Pa.C.S. 9 2503. COUNT II PUNITIVE DAMAGES 23. The paragraph does not contain an allegation of fact, to which a responsive pleading is required. 24. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the actions of the Defendant in causing the vehicle to be retaken was willful, intentional and deliberate. It is denied that the actions of the Defendant were outrageous. 25. Denied. It is denied that the actions of the Defendant in this instance justify the imposition of an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays your Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, with prejudice and award the Defendant counsel fees for the filing of a frivolous, obdurate and vexatious action as proscribed by 42 Pa.C.S. 9 2503. COUNT III PRIVATE ACTION-UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT 26. The paragraph does not contain an allegation of fact to which a responsive pleading is required. 27. Admitted with qualification. To the extent that the term "installment sales -5- . -,."~. ".. ~". ,".. -', .~- contract" is used to mean an agreement under which two or more payments are required, it is admitted that the parties entered into such an agreement. If the term is used to have a different meaning, then it is denied that the parties entered into an installment sales contract. 28. Denied. It is denied that the MVSFA required the Defendant to create a written instrument between the parties, because the sale and purchase were not the type of agreement contemplated by the Act. Additionally, the parties did enter into a written agreement, which provided that the total debt remaining was $1,052 and that interest free payments of $50 per week were to be deducted from the Plaintiffs payroll. By way of further answer it is stated that the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with a written contract because the transaction occurred on a Saturday, when the forms were not available to the Defendant. Defendant would have presented the Plaintiff with a written contract to sign, when he appeared for work on Monday; however, the Plaintiff failed to appear for work, ever again. 29. Denied. Defendant incorporates by reference, its response to 1128. 30. Denied. It is denied that the failure to create such a writing on the day of the sale created a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding in connection with the sale of the vehicle. By way of further answer it is stated that the parties did create a writing, that being the authorization to withhold payroll. 31. Denied. The averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive -6- ~<,- -- - .'- ~. - ~" . - -..,. --~ .- ",~,<~-~- ---"'''--''~'---'~'--><"'--' ,---""" pleading is required. 32. Denied. When the Plaintiff entered into the agreement with Defendant, he was advised that the sale was contingent upon Plaintiffs continued employment with Defendant. Inherent in the agreement to pay the debt through a payroll deduction is the fact that one must be employed by the Defendant, to have the payments deducted. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge, sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment, accordingly the averment is denied. 34. Admitted. By way of further answer it is stated that prior to entering into the agreement to purchase the vehicle, Defendant had advised Plaintiff that any further absences from work would result in the termination of his employment. On the Monday following the purchase of the vehicle, Defendant failed to appear for work. Similarly, Plaintiff failed to appear for work on Tuesday. As a result, Plaintiffs employment was terminated. 35. Denied. The averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 36. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant has refused to return the vehicle. It is denied that the Defendant acknowledged that the vehicle was unlawfully taken or that in fact, the vehicle was unlawfully taken. 37. The averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is -7- -'- ~ ; <- " " '<'. - -, . ~).;.. required. 38. Denied. The Plaintiff is not entitled to bring a private action for damages under the UTPCPL because the transaction was not the type of transaction envisioned by the Act; Plaintiff could not reasonably be confused as to the terms of the agreement which provided for payments by withholding; and because Plaintiff was not damaged by the conduct of the Defendant. 39. The averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer it is stated that the Plaintiff has not been damaged the conduct of the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays your Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, with prejudice and award the Defendant counsel fees for the filing of a frivolous, obdurate and vexatious action as proscribed by 42 Pa.C.S. S 2503. NEW MATTER 40. Paragraphs 1-40 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth at length. 41. Plaintiff purchased the Honda as he was in need of transportation to and from his employment at the Defendant's dealership. 42. Plaintiff applied for but could not obtain financing from a lender. 43. Plaintiff requested that the Defendant finance the vehicle. 44. Defendant agreed to sell the vehicle without finance charges, provided -8- _ "_ ~_ c ,~,~~ ._~ - -,~ ;-, that the payments, in the amount of $50, came from Plaintiff pay check. 45. Plaintiff was informed by the Defendant's agents that the sale of the vehicle was contingent upon Plaintiffs continued employment at the dealership. 46. Plaintiff was informed by the Defendant's agents that payment for the Honda would be taken out of Plaintiffs pay check. 47. Plaintiff agreed that payment for the Honda would be taken out of his pay check. 48. Prior to the date that Plaintiff purchased the vehicle, he had been advised by the Defendant that his employment would be terminated if he failed to appear for work on one more occasion. 49. On the date that Plaintiff purchased the vehicle, Plaintiff had already determined that he would no longer work for the Defendant. 50. Plaintiffs agreement to purchase the Honda, knowing that he did not intend to return to work for the Defendant was fraudulent. 51. Defendant would not have sold the vehicle to the Plaintiff, had Plaintiff honestly represented the fact that he was leaving the Defendant's employment. 52. Plaintiff is estopped from asserting that he did not sign an installment sales contract, as by failing to appear for work after the sale and quitting work at Defendant's dealership, Plaintiff placed himself in a position where Defendant could not reasonably be expected to obtain his signature. -9- . ,. c_~ _ ~ - * - ~~".~-~ ,I J 53. Plaintiff is estopped from asserting that he was confused as to the terms of the agreement as he admits in his pleading that payments were to be made by payroll deduction, the terms of which are written. 54. Plaintiff is estopped from asserting his cause of action as having agreed to make payments by payroll withholding, the failure of the Plaintiff to appear for work at the dealership, made it impossible for the payroll withholding to occur and hence, the contract to be performed. 55. Plaintiff is estopped from asserting his cause of action as having agreed to make payments by payroll withholding, the failure of the Plaintiff to appear for work at the dealership caused an anticipatory breach of the contract. 56. Plaintiff's conduct in commencing this action is frivolous, obdurate and vexatious action as proscribed by 42 Pa.C.S. S 2503. COUNTER CLAIM 57. Paragraphs 1-56 of Defendant's Answer and New Matter are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth at length. 58. As a condition of his employment, Plaintiff agreed to attend and complete a Commonwealth certified program for inspection mechanics. 59. Defendant paid a fee of $95 to Cumberland-Perry A.v.T.S. so that Plaintiff could take the course. 60. Plaintiff did not take the course, causing Defendant to lose its payment of -10- ~~~ .. '.--, "','" .~.o." '" ."'."P',''-'--''"''"''-'''-. ."" -''',," '''' ",.; ,'."~ "'"-<",;'I__,,,~S;.;~' _.,;-- - , $95. A true and correct copy of that check is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 61. As a condition of his employment, Plaintiff was provided with a uniform and a garage door opener. 62. Plaintiff agreed that if he left Defendant's employee within one year of the commencement, he would repay the Defendant $125 for the uniform and the garage door opener. A true and correct copy of that agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "0". 63. Plaintiff left the Defendant's employment within 3 months of commencement. 64. Plaintiff did not repay the Defendant the monies due. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays your Honorable Court enter judgement on behalf of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the amount of $220 plus counsel fees and costs. McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK By ~ Lawrence R. Wieder I.D. No. 16707 100 Pine Street P. O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 (717) 237-5229 Attorneys for Team Rahal, Inc. dlbla Bobby Rahal Honda Dated: March;J)" 2000 -11- , A__ -~- "_'_ ~"~~~~~ ~ "'_-C,'" --_,'"~-I~"",,--- r~- VERIFICATION I, John Rickards, General Manager of Bobby Rahal Honda, a corporation, Defendant in the within action, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: March 2.1, 2000 ~ ~ .......,~"_I- . FEB-24-00 THU 04:59 PM -$ -~~y BOBBY RAHAL HONDA !:lOr RAliAl. IInNnA 66% CAlltlSLE PIKri MEClIANICSUURO. PA 170SS {717} 7till"4JO) BOBBY RAIlAI. TOYOTA 6305 C.ARI.lSLr; PIKE MECliANICSUUI1G. PA 17055 (,j7)f'aC)I.tlW DOIlllY RAHAL UlXUS 6:\1)$ CARU$;LR PIRI; MI1C11ANlr.SUURG. P^ 17055 (717) 6'il-5600 TYPE o AUTO t~<iJ sic I~r~ ACCTN liEN HOLDER AOQIiESS PHONe ~" .. ~ - ""J!{J FAX NO. 7176978953 C P. 03 DEA7A9(.,<. DATE ,- __-...z.-'1 ~ae. '" PURCHASER . "' /JA rm t>-J ADDRESS ' '. J q..$..O..;t CrlY STAn ZIP ,.~e\,.J6l.<la'/Y>r-1 RES, PHONE _ 5'6;;-917&:. SOC"ll}':-' 5b-l'-IG, '2-::_ PRICE OF VEHICLE CUST NO, OCc;UPATION~ ( e:.ClA . SALESPEnSON . ~ol_" tY.?,_ $M,+kG.:.Ll.L\- c,f:lIl.~ISle, Sf. CDUNH 1..0 fA ..l AX, 'i' f~CCj_._ GUS, PHONE 7_C9.b -~"S= 50C, ::i~c;. NU. 1,/00 ----I ~-'S ' -- l TST PAINT SEALANT sua TOTAL I L/06 - t- I L/co ~ .\.".. I , , FXTENDED WARRANTY TYPE MON1'H$ MILES 1. TOTAL SALE PRICE OF VeHICI.E 2. ALLOWANCE ON TRADE IN / 'loa IJ FACTGnV WARRANTY .1M f:letnry w;a""nly con,muhlS alia' 100 WlIIf~I'IUns wilrl ~t 10 Ihe tnlt of':'llt 3. TAXABLE BALANCE (LtN'e 1- LINE 2) i~jjla...",. 'l"~ Mlillr nol'(lby o..~r~&..~ <Ii.oI"I.....,,~ ...........n~'", ~1'Mr O"l'rolao::ad CIl' ll'l~ouoI.,..k..t..,u ol"y ~I~'IW ,. VIM"''''!, r,l tlW'ttllitll,luilclyor hll'lGll~ I<< II P.11tk:l,llilr p~.POllo'l,;I"d lI'lIll'ctDrn/lllhlll'lI~llIIl(\!$ nqr IltAl\Oliallt&nv dlh,,' PtIISDn III ~:allTlll kir I: fln~ nnll~t)lln llD~\0<.1111n willi ~'a Mrn At (hI, Ilan~llla. 4. 5T ATE SALES TAX (1.INt! 3 X .00) CJ "En CAn WAAflANf'l'. 'rilE lNFORM^nON' YOll S[I: ON 'HIS WINDOW FOR", FOf1 THIS VEHICLI: IS _ ___... . OF' ma CONTTlACT. INFORMATION ON THE WINDOW FOnM OliC,UIIU", ANY C"Nm~Y AEI;l1STl1ATIO"l TnLG: 1'RI\N<tl'ER PFl "IONS IN TIlE CON'1'HAtT OF SALE. 5. IS . 'ihi~ mi}lm 1I(II,l~hl I~ ~Il:ld "1\S lrt wlUlolIl tlny wlItI'i\nly (.jlh(l' ollfltll/l!i(ld at lm"hcll. 'tm ['IurCn;l;1lf \II II' U'O 0,1\,,,, ""1M"." ~I "'pll"ln~ Dr c~rlllo,\l,',O ~nt <1M......, ".... p"'J:>or,,11y ....1..1:1 ". 110111 1ft ''I ~ Il'llllv .... Custnmol'f .J'( ~.. J :I. "lilY, Xi".~....... .J;{.."k:.~~ R Pille. OF THC MOTOR VEHIOLE (:ANNO I 0;; INCREASED AFTER THIS S l'l'l1E.1'>l ^CCEPTEO B..... lHG. r>r:ALt.n on Till: AUTllOntZl:Q Or.Al.&:A TATIVE UNLESS THI;, INCREASE IS DUE TO THE PASSAGE OF A LAW LATlON 01' THE UNITED STATES OF THE COMMONWEAlTH WHICH: ,l\1101TIOIII OF NEW J;QU1PMr;N'r "1"0 CERT^IN VEHICLEt; ('J.fANOCtlo !N TATION an EXISTING TM RATES: OR, IN TI," CASE OF FOREIGN ICLr.S, IS DUE TO A RE.EVALUATION Or- 'J1IE UNITED STATES DOl-LNl r: raJRRF\lr,V nr- TJ.u"! C(.'IJNTRV OF MANUFAOTunF.. EI'IIS NOT BINDING UI'ON EI;HEn T]-II: DEALER OR ;HE PURCHASEn NED BY AN AUrHORl2EO DI:ALGR REPRESENTATIVE, YOU, 1"HE BUYEn .n. 1l11t:l. C'mnr-R Arm nr-r:I~I\W ^ fULL I.:I~.=.F=VNO A\JV TIMI: m.t'Qnr I' A COrY Or- Till" OllllLR SIGNm BY AN AII'J1",llIll Il nr.^, FI1 TA1IVI, I'Y DIVING WRITTEN NOllCI. ()I' CANCELLA'J10N TO Till' 1 IIAT I AM LEGAL ACE cn aLOCR 1 ACKNOWLEDGE REOEIPT OF A HIS ORDER AND I ACer-p', 111C TERMS AND CO~DrTlONS INCLUlllNG SE SIO~ Or- TillS ORDER. ? -S, r~_ ,.,~ ~~'S1'" fl ~_~. E ~"-'" .... >>:z.-:;//. DATE C.;'.<A:> nATF 2b.J:",~ .j", ny, 00 rNCU/,lD~ANCC it$__~. l2.-1 ~;)S6 6. DOCUMENTARY FEES C,'~ 7. MESSENGER FEE t$, ,,lA \IHi.:. tAX ..1..-.. O. OLnC rr:r: 10. DOL,RF FEE 11. BALANCE OWED ON TRADE.IN 12. LIFE & A&H PARTIAL PAYMENT /. ""_ ~ To "':...~IJt.1" CASH DUE ON OELIV"RY 10'5:J- II"ID"II"I r^~L1 =1" /ul,..,'l:;' - . . ~ ~" -"_.,'.. .'" ,-~-;y IHU U~:Ui rrI tiUtitil h:HMHL MV"UH . Mr. l'Iv. 14 rVQIU\);,),) I. J,V >Ii / (iGtlG Carli:;Jc. l'i1tt Mcclmllin;bllr~. l~ill.:t)'lv:tnia 17055 (717) 70'">-1000 EMl'LOYEg CllI\RGE!PAYROLL DEDUCTION I\U'l'HORlZI\TION DATE 1-'S~Zooo -Ir /; OS7.. ~ q/ ;-hNM /12x /-IF f//..- ~~ \.n;EKLY DEDUCTION AMOUNT ::JO 11,.1 1/-: .Tl-lmGb 'g.:f~ 1/11"5 013t/ijLj' AMOUNT DO CmlE N'l' MANAGER APPROVAL . ~ .~/_., .' EMPLOYEE SIG~ATURE If your ~mployment with the d0a10rship ends, the balance of your cllargc "ccuuuL will be deducted from your final paycheck. If the amount oW0d is great0r than the entire amount of your finill ~)<.lyc;!i"t:k, m::rangemcnts must be mtldc tor immediate puymcnt of the remaining balance. If arrangements arc not mudc, the ouL;,ldllUi"'g balance will be filed tor collection. Enployec must initial ,-,. 'l- , 1 I I I I J , I I , I , i I j I .1.',. ., ~. W> f, r.' .~ ,~ i~. -~' , '---, . -JiL- .II1U U~,UI rn t)vt)c I fI'.rtnHL nVrUJM I-nil llV. IJIVvIUv.J.J I. .1.1 .'. '. '"!'T'':~::~f-' "'," . ..,< . .11::r.:4:~,' " ';". .,~~~~~; , ".:. I,"ri: . :.} l::f:':':~ '.'~' .' " "::;"1 I ! . i COMPl\N~' SPONSORED EDUCA'l'ION J\GREE~1EN'l' '>':. '. . , , . , The managcment at BORBY RAHAL l-lONDA PSli0VC~ ir. inve5'cill~ in our . .:'~ employr;:es e<1uca;cion,:;o they may better understand their job I . ";',1'; loJhich i.ncreases productivity and in'turn add::; poise and assu:tance ,,)~\\ '1.:0 the,: employee. " ,~:,,, I ~l" ..... " i1:,' We a.t BOBBY RAHAL HONDA believe: an employec" education i" one of", .Lhe bes't j,llves'tment.:; a company can make. .' , , " Due to 'tl1Cl cO:;,\:,ly expcnS05 of company ~porl!lored sehoolinr:: we feel a nead .to have each e.mployee ~Iho ree~ivc::; furthm-. ...r1ucO\t;i;on to. ~ign t11is <\erc:ell",;:n'~. '. >" 1'- ~.:~ 13013I3Y lU\i:lJl.L HONDA agrees to pay the necessary expense::; to send, ;"d' ou'): employees to school when their job re(1\li'r"''' it, : ::',::;:~, o.,I::/'/':;'i'T:j Should anyone terminate their employrnl')n't ,lith EOEBY R.~-Il\.L HONDi\::;:;?j;'I: within one year after attending school, he/she agrees to pay, the;:~;":{;i; full amount for i'.he cla~s and the 1\otcl !!\ocomoda'l;.:i.o\'ls J.;"u.:k . .to"'('~,,;. , ," ,,~. ,,'''.:.~~ BOBDY RnHAL HONDA, . ,!",.;\';" .--~'i ... '.'~ ""... , "~"~', <.:. ,. " . -: ~1 >':l S:1.~ c:.;tU':c\:;-'o,," ~rnp u ....;:. ~~~~ C::;--~7.fP~ -: Role" E. Ferris, V.P, EOBBY RAHAL EONDA ". . .: .:~ i , " .. ,~< . . "., ....'.!;;. , .. ~.1o .,;'~:::~ ',~;I :'::,:';j;f? ....~\'!. ,"\Or , , "J' , .~ ", .,', L , .', I " ".. ::" '. It :,! ~ 1-1 ,: ~l' . '. ~ ~ ,~ , :~, '. 1..,...... 'I ~.~ ' I HU 05:08 PM BOBBY RAHAL HUNDA '. t'HAJ'{U. (l(O~'O;:;'OJ r. iO ': :. "\"', ' . ,:,' 'I,';:., . ;j'. ,iT -, , ' .. .' .' . " " l't . lJJ\';'PJ..OYBI:N/J",:m: ~.11l n~.J ~ rn , " :',", , .' ADDRESS: s;:.. :;l1t7~!.L__,___ --2tllYi.t!.JL!4- (,.,j I II ~ Lt- L(3 ...5~~(l~J~~_ !', I Jc:><7" PHONE: ..2:lL:'7:.7'1D Em.IT DATE: JL/.L.2J77 ~: ;~.; . " ; :," ';;', ' , .- TE1UY.U.'NII.TION DATE:___. :-r' \!. , , ' .,.', rT.tt"hl;~ "'j":\r'1i'1''\)''Ti'''fl ~~ ... ....~.-'..~ ..."". I...... .,.... . ',"" UNIFORM LISTlNGS .' , " . ~~' ,; r'f"I~"If~ ""'r;-'I'P'M"';'D ~'.'.,j.i.,.......1..""....f."....J.rt.l...1.~ '.'" ;'" COST II M1SSING ., , ~ P:\r1t~ P"nls X $10.00 :. -~----- 58hil'lS _a~___~__ Slur~s r:' X u~.a() ------.....- 1 Snv.lc1\ Smock ,o' X .no.oo -- Gntar.c Do()l' Opener _G~r"gc Door Oilcncr " ji50.00 ^ .. '. J.'"~fJ' IllHi~.l__ '0.1 .... ",' I l'IJJ1gf JlI1I1;1l____~_ ';~ -. .:,i Tol~! Nut D\lC Emp, Inil;al_. Emp, I.nitinl , 1 T' . . lvJ,ngi' Hutlill "1" ..' IfYClI1 I~~\\I" p,'ior te IlM YCM \,1' employcmcnt front your hire d~\e you :\10 rC~jlol.1sibic to rct\lll1 ail o.r-'h. hI,",'" i''''l'" .~'l "0'1 '''''J b" eklJ'''c(' n'15 00 for Iho o:rt o.r-hfo"J_h ...,) "1" r-~""[!c (100" J. J '-' (lIJV v 1""~A,.) 01-'1'0 J l "0 \or .. (;) ~. ""'. ,. .) ,.1 A J 11.) ~UH. 11 v 01."'.0 I J opel1cr, Iffor ;iny rC~~lln J"-uU deji;ti:: ~\.:lci' One year .u;i;m1 Dobby 1{~\J1:t~ Inc. yot{ ;11'~ rcsp(msiblc fm' the I "., \, t. (\DOVC items 1'0 be rcl1ll'1Cd !o Ihe c.omp:my, IfI!1c ilcm.~ arc 1lOl rclUfllcd you 'Ni!l be e!ull'gc !he . ' I;" . , . ~ rC!l]~eemcm cost Jjsted ~bovc for co ell ilem 110t rC1UrJ1Cd, . " ," '-~,! " "1.... ,'1:' -.:,.:::;; ;-~~~y . ~'i}:? '. ..d~ " ",1' ":,~.}l: " . I ~ I . '> ' '"',' ',-,,"c ~,~ . " - L' ~, ,_",'~'-.,:_>,,",., ,"- -'''.,' ",,,.;,., '-":'''','''-" ';" <''-,.',,,>,,,' '.~ "'eJ'" '"i c ',,-,-,,~,,:_ :...;;, 1.--., .l , '-~" -- <<"; '-, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~ AND NOW, on thistZ day of March, 2000, I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the within document, via first class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire HARTMAN & MillER, P.C. 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK By: Lawrence R. Wieder, Esquire I.D. No. 16707 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1166 (717) 237-5229 Attorneys for Team Rahal, Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Honda .." .",.,- " '.",-, " ,-;"',-,' "",' ~'O _ "'_.~ .', -~ '=i """,<,."" ' - ~,- ' -0:0':; ,,', ;;',;:"--' -- ,:.,-,,,-;-~,:-~,,;;, ",,~;.; ,,~."', ,,' ";.,'. ";":f"""~;' ---'j '--'.0,1 AARON SMITHGALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. No.: 2000-00947 CIVIL ACTION - LAW TEAM RAHAL, INC. d/b/a BOBBY RAHAL HONDA, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLMNTIFF'S.mJ'SP()N&E TODEFEND~T'SN'EW'MA1fTER " .AN'p<:ollN,tOOJ!R"'~ilb.AlM 40. The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference his averments of paragraphs I through 39 of the Complaint as if set forth at length. 41. Admitted in part. Plaintiff was in need of transportation generally, which included transportation to and from his employment. Any implication that the car was purchased exclusively for transportation to and from work is denied. 42. It is admitted only that Plaintiff applied for but did not obtain financing from a lender for the purchase of a vehicle different from and more expensive than the one involved in this law suit. Any implication that Plaintiff applied for lender financing of the vehicle involved in this law suit is denied. 43. Denied. On the contrary, the Defendant approached Plaintiff offering to sell the subject vehicle and arranged for payments of$50.00 per week. Plaintiff did authorize a payroll deduction in that amount, but that was not understood to be the sole and exclusive means of paying for this vehicle. 44. Denied as stated. It is admitted that the Defendant sold the vehicle to Plaintiff without [mance charges and that payments would be in the amount of $50.00 per week. Those , <,c-,,- ,.. c "", , .. . ""-'-.,, .'-', ,,:~,-~,":.,- 'c..."',,;.. ~;-" ,,~S,-,~ "->"'-';;';-"--""""" " 2l-. ::' , , - -'-.A.~~': payments could be made through payroll deduction or personal payments. It is acknowledged that the Plaintiff authorized a payroll deduction in the amount of $50.00 per week. 45. Denied. To the contrary, an agent of Defendant specifically stated that Plaintiffs continued employment was not required. All that was required was that the Plaintiff continue to make the $50.00 per week payment. 46. Admitted, however, any implication that this was the sole means by which Plaintiff intended to pay for the Honda is denied. On the contrary, alternate means of payment were anticipated by both Plaintiff and Defendant. 47. Denied as stated. The Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answer to paragraph 44 above as if set forth at length. 48. Denied as stated. To the contrary, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that any further unexcused absences from work would result in Plaintiff s termination. 49. Denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff intended to continue to work for Defendant and was disappointed to be terminated. 50. Denied. The averments of paragraph 50 state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. On the contrary, the Plaintiff had every intention of continuing to work for Defendant when Plaintiff entered into the agreement to purchase the subject Honda. 51. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the Defendants averments in paragraph 51, and proof 2 , " .~ " ',,, ',- -~ , ,,--, ,,~ ~ ~ '~<"---" ~~ ",'. , ~. -""--' , ",",;-.; "",'j , ',.-.'. ~.j ;I",,, --"-3.>\'~',""- ,",',' '/:1 ..- -~-,~, , '-',-."'- ,.;., thereof is demanded at trial. The Plaintiff specifically denies the implication that his purchase of this vehicle was contingent upon continued employment with Defendant. 52. The averments of paragraph 52 state conclusions oflaw to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, the averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff failed to appear for work after the sale or that the Plaintiff "quit work". On the contrary, the Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant. 53. The averments of paragraph 53 state conclusions oflaw to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. Furthermore, the Plaintiff insists that the terms of this transaction obviously are confusing since Plaintiff contends he could make car payments other than by payroll deduction, and his continued employment with Defendant was not required by the agreement. 54. The averments of paragraph 54 state conclusions oflaw to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. Any implication that Plaintiff agreed to payment solely by way of payroll deduction is denied. 55. The averments of paragraph 55 state conclusions oflaw to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. Any implication that Plaintiff agreed to payment solely by way of payroll deduction is denied, 3 , y~ .->- ,- ~- ,- - , 'J>. ,'- ,,~-"", -'--~"-;-",,--.-/- __ r',_', ",-i '" ''- _-"" -,",~-' .&2>,,,,,, 0 -, ,_,-~ .>"--&-,,;;,- -:c.'-~'"i .;"" '''-'!__. I~,:c';';>);,-_,rd. :{,' ,'-.",&1 56. The avennents of paragraph 56 state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. Plaintiff denies that suing the entity for taking his vehicle without authorization is frivolous, obdurate or vexatious. COUNTRR-CI,AIM 57. The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference his averments to the Complaint and his answers to the New Matter of Defendant as if set forth at length. 58. Denied. No such condition of employment existed. 59. While no such condition of employment existed, it is admitted that the Defendant paid a fee to Cumberland-Perry A.V.T.S. 60. It is admitted through no fault of the Plaintiff, he did not take the inspection mechanic course. 61. Denied. Plaintiff was never provided with a garage door opener. 62. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff made said agreement. It is denied that Plaintiff ever received a garage door opener. 63. It is denied that the Plaintiff willfully left Defendants employment. On the contrary, the Plaintiff was terminated from Defendants employment against his wishes. 64. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff has not paid any money. It is denied that the Plaintiff owes the Defendant any repayment. 4 ~' ^ '.' ""_".';" . ^.";_~ . "' c. ~ _ " .~ - , '.-C_>""~ ,"'''''- _' ,,-&'-- ';"-";'~--~'''_ '!f...-~,'.""" ;,<to', ,,,,.;..i;,,,-""n,;,,(,,_-_,~ '_-'.;--i",_.,;" ~I,' _~ '00 ,_ , - ., WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment in his favor and against Defendant on the Counter-Claim of Defendant. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & SHOOP, P.C. By: I~(a~. Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #34991 126 - 128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Dated: }6/' /2-0<= Attorneys for Plaintiff, Aaron Smithgall l 1: it' . r, 5 ,,"".0 kC .'_,_ _,.' -,.,_-:.,,-,,,- -;" ''''-, ,_ _~,__ ',,- ",,-.~,,'__" _',_,~,;;,~_,__,,- - ,,' "-,~' --..,,-,,;~- ,- ."~'~ -" 'J'''-,",- '"C,,'_, ;,--;'-'::'b",::;"~--c,,:;.;--:~--:il:O.';\_,;l__ _c.; ".'-." -- y"~';.;;.~~;;i VERIFTCA nON I, Aaron Smithgall, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn verification to authorities. Dated: ?pt.1 PO k~-ub Aaron Smithgal , . 'ff ,", '"-' ""~-'''''<',,v. ->-~.~,_, ~,--.., ,. ,,",,"-',',c.;'-:'.__...><;_o"' ''''~,~ ",,'~'"". .<".., ---'-,--'-~- ,oW - "ro"' ;~h--Vd."; i ".. ,--, "'-.'::'-;-<--'":'.,,, -~,- -;.- ~,,:.,^';';I~,";-3i~'C"'-:_'-"::___,_, '"' -' - -- ';-lJ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, fust-class postage prepaid, as follows; Lawrence R. Wieder McNees, Wallace & Nurick 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 (Counsel for Defendant) HARTMAN & MILLER, P.C. Dated: 10 It /(JCJ . By: J6J ,~-. {'~~ "Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Aaron Smithgall 0 (~ ,", ._, ~ c 0 'J " ~~ n 'J l/} '.-'J rn fi"j '"--I -'-1 Z :JJ " , / r'. "[-j CZ, :2:~ ,"" (~;~' -' ~-- r' ,--, ( -, ~.; '.J , /' ( ) -, --" Z (:) 'C i:':) ).> :"0 ," rn c: '-~. z: ~ =< ,,- :::0 .;;- -< Iic , AARON SMITHGALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 2000-947 TEAM RAHAL, INC. d/b/a BOBBY RAHAL HONDA, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW AND TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE Please withdraw our appearance on behalf of Defendant Team Rahal, Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Honda, in the above matter. McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK Dated: November 2, 2000 BY~~ Lawrence R. Wieder 1.0. No. 16707 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 717237-5229 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, pro 5e. TEAM RAHAL, INC. d/b/a BOBBY RAHAL HONDA, IN Dated: It h (c.. By n ickards General Manager 6696 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4300 ----- J_ _,-___'0_."__' <- ,<~\-:, "_ -J --;" ~ ,..,;..";.,.~-",,..- _ -. -:--~;---'-~' cr:: ",;c - , _ ,____~ ,- 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, on this 'l~ day of November, 2000, I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the within document, via first class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire HARTMAN & MillER, P.C. 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK BY:~ Lawrence R. Wieder, Esquire I.D, No. 16707 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 (717) 237-5229 Attorneys for Team Rahal, Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Honda >- 0' ?:: a: <::( 0 1_4_ Z LU () =J ~? o=" U_ _~1~ C)~ '.1.. t'rt..::..'~ ~, S~~~; -, ~5t <CU) Ll.,' -~JZ ~-,' L1"-..:>" cr: ::1'" i._',ldJ C" ,~ .~ ~1}Cj,_ :12::': fL -' C) c.'J =) c:) () MCNEES, WALLACE & NURICK 100 PINE STREET P. O. BOX 1166 HARRISBURG, FA 17106 ".. "'->~ 1"""~_. ",'---