HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-02739
,
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
NO. 00-2739 CIVIL TERM
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL :
SERVICES and SUSAN STOTT,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
JURY OF TWELVE DEMANDED
TO: Robert F, Spangler, Ir.
26 East Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055
NOTICE TO PLEAD
You are hereby notified that you have twenty (20) days in which to plead to the enclosed
Preliminary Objections of Stott and Stott Financial Services and Susan Stott or a Default Judgment
may be entered against you,
~:;A;T
David A. Baric, Esquire
I.D. #44853
17 West South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-6873
Date:~/ I '{,... / n;
,
!i
II
ROBERTF, SPANGLER, JR"
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
NO. 00-2739 CIVIL TERM
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL :
SERVICES and SUSAN STOTT,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
JURY OF TWELVE DEMANDED
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL SERVICES AND SUSAN STOTT
NOW, come Defendants, Stott and Stott Financial Services and Susan Stott, by and
through their attomeys, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER, and file the within Preliminary
Objections and, in support thereof, set forth the following:
1. Plaintiff has initiated this action against the Defendants alleging as a basis for his
claims that Susan Stott erred in providing expert testimony in a matter brought against the
Plaintiff.
2. Defendants were served with copies ofthe complaint via first class regular mail.
Susan Stott received the complaint through the regular mail at her residence, Stott and Stott
Financial Services received the complaint via regular mail at its place of business.
I. IMPROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS
3, Defendants incorporate paragraphs one and two as though set forth at length,
4. PaRC.P. 400 requires service of process to be made upon an individual by the
sheriff.
5. No exceptions to PaRC.P, 400 are applicable to the within matter.
II
6. PaRe.P. 400 requires service of process upon a partnership to be made by the
sheriff
7. Stott and Stott Financial Services is a partnership.
8, No exceptions to PaRC.P. 400 are applicable as to service on Stott and Stott
Financial Services.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the complaint be dismissed for failure to effect
proper service of process.
ll. DEMURRER
9. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight as though set
forth at length.
10. Plaintiffs complaint fails to state a cause of action against the defendants.
11. The law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not recognize a cause of
action as arising from the testimony of an expert witness in a civil trial matter.
12. An expert witness has a privilege to testifY in a civil trial matter and may not be
subjected to a claim by an opposing party based upon the expert's trial testimony.
13, Plaintiff appears to allege that the defendants are accountable to him for damages
arising from "malpractice".
14, Plaintiff has no standing to pursue a claim of malpractice against the expert witness
of an opposing party.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
costs, fees and expenses be awarded to Defendants,
I'
,
II
k'
i<,
I',
~:
ffi. FAILURE OF COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO LAW OR RULE OF COURT
I"~
~
i~,
"
I'.:
';:
15. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs one through fourteen as though
16, Plaintiff requests that he be awarded the sum of $30,000,000.00 for unliquidated
1
I'
f',
I:'
,
r
set forth at length.
damages,
17. Pa.RC.P. 1021(b) requires that any pleading demanding unliquidated damages
18. PaRC.P. 1021(c) requires plaintiff to state whether his claim is in excess of the
1
,
I.:
1
I
1
t,'
shall not claim any specific amount.
amounts requiring compulsory arbitration. Plaintiff has included no such allegation.
,
I
1
,
19. PaRC.P. 1019(a) requires the pleading of all material facts upon which a cause of
1:
ii
I
I
I;'
action is based,
20. Plaintiff has failed to plead all material facts necessary to support a claim of
malpractice as against the Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
costs, fees and expenses be awarded to Defendants.
IV. INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY
21. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs one through twenty as though set
forth at length.
22. Plaintiffs averments are so insufficiently specific that Defendants are unable to
fonnulate a response as to the claims asserted and the relief demanded,
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
costs, fees and expenses be awarded to Defendants.
!:
II
V. LACK OF CAPACITY TO SUE
23. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs one through twenty-two as
though set forth at length.
24. Plaintiff has averred no facts which would give him standing to bring this action as
a malpractice claim,
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
costs, fees and expenses be awarded to Defendants.
Respectfully submitted,
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER
~p/ (f,
David A Baric, Esquire
ill # 44853
17 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-6873
Attorney for Defendants.
II
VERIFICATION
I;i
Ii'::!
, '
,I
, ,
,
;1
"
"
iil
i>:1
'I
i"
[II
'I
::!
I verifY that the statements made in the foregoing Preliminary Objections Of
of my knowledge, information and belief This verification is signed by David A. Baric, Esquire,
t_;~1
l!
i
Defendants Stott and Stott Financial Services and Susan Stott are true and correct to the best
David A. Baric, Esquire
:'1
'.1
,~;
'-"1
,
.1
:1
1_01
f,~:!
1::,1
Id
n
ti
'I
rll
'I
n
i,1
"
1\:1
l:.:!
'I
l~1
~~I
11
rl
Ii
;1'
r.,
"J
~I
I,
Ii
:1
!il
;1
i'l
Ii
'1
I
Ii
Ii
"
i
!
Attorney for Defendants, Stott and Stott Financial Services and Susan Stott and is based upon the
statements as well as documents reviewed by the undersigned. This verification will be
substituted and ratified by a verification signed by Stott and Stott Financial Services and Susan
Stott who are presently unavailable to sign said verification, I understand that false statements
herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904, relating to unswom falsifications to
authorities.
b-,;/J ~ d
Dated:
s-; /1./ /rtJ
,
I
II
I'.......'.
~;
L'I
"
)':1
''':
:;;!
,
'11
'.
';l!
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
~,;
:}i
[[.j
~[j
';ii
I hereby certifY that on May 12, 2000, I, David A Baric, Esquire, of O'Brien, Baric &
I:~i
: ~i
".!
11
~;
'''I
1,\
;/,
Scherer, did serve a copy of the Preliminary Objections of Defendants Stott and Stott Financial
Services and Susan Stott, by first class US. mail, postage prepaid, to the party listed below, as
)j
;~: i
.'i'
follows:
Robert F. Spangler, Ir.
26 East Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055
im
'~',
~~!
,.,
[Ii
Y:i
,.,
~j/ktiJ
!';
Ii;
l:ii
David A Baric, Esquire
i:-:
,'!
;~i
j'l
:';:
i:;
[II
I'.'
,~
I'i
Iii
!I
:i
~i
Ii
Ii
~
~
II
I
[I
,I
i
I
I
I
I
\I
.-',
.
r
.
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, Jr.
Plaintiff
IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V,
NO. t'O - f)73?
CIVIL TERM
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL
SERVICES and SUSAN STOTT
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
II
NOTICE
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 appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the court,
your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that is 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 TIllS 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.
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone Number (717) 240-6200
''':-
[ ",.'~,
~~
~ .
~ '-, ,-
,
r .
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, Jr.
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
NO.tJO - ;L 739
CIVIL TERM
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL
SERVICES and SUSAN STOTT
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
- x~.I 'l
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff, Robert F. Spangler, Jr. is an adult individual residing at 26 East Simpson
Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055.
2. Defendant, Stott and Stott Financial Services is a business located at 157 South
Hanvoer Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. Defendant Susan Stott is an
adult individual and employee of Stott and Stott Financial Services, residing at 198 Clay Road,
Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013.
3, Defendant Susan Stott, representing the firm Stott and Stott Financial Services,
was called as an expert witness in Civil Case No, 97-6131 to testifY for the plaintiff, Stiles R.
Mader.
4. As an expert witness and as a Certified Public Accountant, the defendant Susan E.
Stott has an obligation to research all financial aspects of a business prior to making a public
expert opinion on such business.
5. In court proceedings, defendant Mrs. Stott, stated as her expert opinion several
items regarding the financial condition of Mader Drywal~ Inc. which she did not properly
investigate, She never contacted the plaintiff, Mr. Spangler, Jr. who was the President of
Operations of Mader Drywall, Inc., in order to obtain information regarding vehicles, yet stated as
~ j
,
,
an expert that Mr. Spangler received excess reimbursements for vehicle expenses paid out of
pocket.
6. Defendant, Mrs. Stott, also stated as an expert that the rent paid to Mr. Spangler
by Mader Drywall, Inc. to rent an office and garage from him was excessive, without ever seeing
the property, providing comparable rental information, or reviewing the lease to said office
building.
7, Defendant Mrs, Stott, offered her professional opinion that Mr. Spangler withdrew
excess amounts of money from Mader Drywall, Inc. in deference to the plaintiff in that complaint.
Yet Mrs. Stott never requested copies of deposit information which would show that Mader
Drywall, Inc. in fact owed Mr. Spangler a significant amount of money that he had loaned to the
corporation.
8. Defendant, Mrs. Stott, in her role as an expert witness and Certified Public
Accountant, did not do the necessary research to provide a truly expert opinion to the court.
Instead she merely stated, as her own expert opinion, what the plaintiff in that case, Stiles R.
Mader, a person described by the court as having "no aptitude whatsoever for bookkeeping. He
is naive and fiscally inexperienced", told her to say in court.
9. The testimony given in said case by Defendant, Mrs. Stott, was not properly
researched as would be necessary to be presented by an expert witness, nor to be in compliance
with the Code of Professional Ethics - Rule 201, among others of the Pennsylvania Institute of
Certified Public Accountants,
10. Had Mrs. Stott done the necessary due diligence necessary to testifY as an expert
witness, she would have seen that, in fact, Mader Drywall, Inc. only existed because Mr.
"y
.
..
Spangler lent to the corporation his own money and all the money he could borrow to keep the
business operating.
WHEREFORE, Robert F, Spangler, Jr. respectfully requests that the court:
a. order that Susan E. Stott be prohibited from using the designation Certified
Public Accountant, or the letters CPA in her business.
b. order that Defendants, Stott & Stott Financial Services and Susan E. Stott,
repay to Mr. Spangler, the One hundred ninety-three dollars and seventy five cents ($193.75) that
he was ordered by the court to pay for her services,
c, order that the Defendants, Stott & Stott Financial Services and Susan E.
Stott, jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff an amount often million dollars ($10,000,000,00)
for lost past and future income due to the malpractice of said defendant.
d. order that the Defendants, Stott & Stott Financial Services and Susan E.
Stott, jointly and severally, pay to the Plaintiff the amount often million dollars ($10,000,000.00)
for lost business credibility due to the malpractice of said defendant.
e. order that the Defendants, Stott & Stott Financial Services and Susan E,
Stott, jointly and severally, pay to the Plaintllf: the amount often million dollars ($10,000,000.00)
for loss of creditworthiness due to the malpractice of said defendant.
"
.
~I
"""'"~
,
'~,
>:
Respectfully submitted,
By_I 0:5(03/00
Robert F, Spangler, Ir.
26 East Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
-
~ _I
.
<, .
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, Jr,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO.
CIVIL TERM
STorr AND STOTT FINANCIAL
SERVICES and SUSAN STOTT
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN EQUITY
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT upon the
entities, and in the manner indicated below, which satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedures, by depositing a copy ofthe same with the United States Post Office at
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, through :first class mail, prepaid and addressed as follows:
Stott and Stott Financial Services
157 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
and
Susan E. Stott
198 Clay Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
Respectfully submitted
~:/(Z~~S(c)3rO
Robert F. Spangler, Ir.
Plaintiff
iil~~IllI~""~-'" ~h"" '~~-""-~iliJ--~"''''''~~'._)jjjlil>(n' """",--..~--"-~~' ,-,,--_. '~
~ -,
'"ii!!(i-J
~~.... . ~ -~
,i
~ .
, ,-~ . .
"" / ',.
II
lJ
rl
II
II
"
II
II
'I
II
Ii
,I
II
I
,
I
~ 0 ~-G
~
~ ' ,
~ , ~~
c.1 ~ ~
\)
q y IJ ~ \J
'CJ I:j
~
~ ~
11 ~
~ C) 0 9.
J ~ c:: <::)
~': - ,,-I
-~
~ ~~g ,'" .,,-
p -< fi1~
Z,- 1 ."m
! ~:;~ LJ ~6
<:..D ~C~J --0 ::.J.Ti
~ 5>(] :g: ,.1_::0
Z' 00
~.O ~ 7m
Pc ~
~ N ~
(X)
.,-
.~ -
O-.I:c.
". '"r_''' ,-" '.
F
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, JR.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
00-2739 CIVIL
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL
SERVICES and SUSAN STOTT,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: "PRAECIPE FOR DISMISSAL"
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30 . day of June, 2000, the court knowing of no authority to
dismiss a case for failure to respond to preliminary objections accompanied by a notice to plead,
the within "Praecipe for Dismissal" is DENIED. It appearing, however, from the face of the
record and the failure of the defendant to deny same, that service was improper in this case,
service of the complaint is herewith STRICKEN and further proceedings in this case STAYED.
See, i.e., Collins v. Park, 621 A.2d 996 (Pa.Super. 1993).
BY THE COURT,
Robert Spangler, Jr.
Pro Se
.AJi
:rlm
~
v \,j ,,>0 ~
David A. Baric, Esquire
For the Defendants
f.?,," "
. ~,~,',.:_~ ._"t"
,
-
- "
.
Or "f'
F:~LFC"-OtF\CE
". :.:\T:~f'~ 1f"j'A\R\'
".' ,."J"'" ,I
Ou JUN 30 Pr'l \: 1..5
cu'''-'''-'' "" ","U'rN
11J1cc:dLr-S"'iU \.)J l~\ ~
PENNSYLVANIA
,
~_","""",.,:J!lI!'11J!~:!1
. .~ -
~. !f1'.~JII."", ".='_''''' ,",R''''',l!q ,
lIII!IlI~
c_ '_,<",,_,,>~, "',,-,, .'._j'_", ;--'1'';. .'.\"
.
,
CIVll. ACTION-LAW
!
~
n
~;
1.1...
I!l
~
r,i
n
~,i
t!
\1
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, JR"
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 00-2739 CIVll. TERM
v.
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL
SERVICES and SUSAN STOTT,
Defendants.
ORDER OF COURT
H
jj
~i
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2000, upon consideration of
[1
G!
"
~!
"
~1
)}
f!
Ii
1\
~j
F
Ii
"
Ii
I'
I
\
I
1
I
,
.
,
~
J
the attached Praecipe For Dismissal, a Rule is issued upon Plaintiff to show cause, if any there be,
why the relief requested in the Praecipe For Dismissal should not be granted,
Rule retumable
days from service.
BY THE COURT,
J.
Ii
, f,:".,,"
~
,
,
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, JR"
Plaintiff,
t.'
I
I
I
I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 00-2739 CIVIL TERM
V.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL
SERVICES and SUSAN STOTT,
Defendants.
PRAECIPE FOR DISMISSAL
,
,I
;/
NOW, come defendants, Stott and Stott Financial Services and Susan Stott, by and
through their attomeys, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER, and file this Praecipe for Dismissal of
this matter and, in support thereof, set forth the following:
1. Plaintiff initiated this action by the filing of a complaint on May 3, 2000 with the
Prothonotary of Cumberland County. A true and correct copy of the complaint is appended
hereto as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated.
2. Defendants filed Preliminary Objections to the complaint on May 12, 2000 a true
and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and is incorporated,
3. The Preliminary Objections of Defendants were endorsed with a notice to plead
and was mailed to Plaintiff on May 12, 2000.
4, Plaintiff has filed no response to the Preliminary Objections or an Amended
Complaint.
,
.1
I
II
~
i
I
!;
.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this Court dismiss the complaint for failure to file
a responsive pleading to the Preliminary Objections of Defendants,
dab.dirnitigationlstottlspangler/dismissal.pra
I!
II
Respectfully submitted,
~7l
David A. Baric, Esquire
ID#44853
17 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-6873
Attomey for Defendants.
"
.-
.
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, Jr.
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
No.()6 -;1739
CIVIL TERM
STOrr A'MD STorr FINANCIAL
SERVICES ,md SU~AN STOrr
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.I1"l...l.L
NOTICE
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 appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the court,
your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that is 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.
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, PA 17013
CJ
o
'\1
(:)
Telephone Number (717) 240-6200
C)
~-;
,~"
--....;'---,
'-.",'
I;~ S~~
-:7j"'
\J) )>
=<""--
r-~::.r:_":
]::;C)
~~~
~
"--~
:--~<:
..,
:...-::
I
w
r;-?
, ~ ",;:;.
'___:hi
..~<:J
<-)I'L)
I;~
;-=S\""\1
~
-.~
~
-.J.
~)
GO
, EXHIBIT 1
-
"
"
~, -
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, Jr.
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V,
NO.
CIVIL TERM
STorr AND STOrr FINANCIAL
SERVICES and SUSAN STOrr
Defendants
CML ACTION - LAW
IN EQUITY
COMPI,AINT
I, Plaintiff; Robert F. Spangler, Jr. is an adult individual residing at 26 East Simpson
Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055.
2. Defendant, Stott and Stott Financial Services is a business located at 157 South
Hanvoer Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013, Defendant Susan Stott is an
adult individual and employee of Stott and Stott Financial Services, residing at 198 Clay Road,
Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013"
3, Defendant Susan Stott, representing the firm Stott and Stott Financial Services,
was called as an expert witness in Civil Case No. 97-6131 to testifY for the plaintiff, Stiles R
Mader.
4. As an expert witness and as a Certified Public Accountant, the defendant Susan E.
Stott has an obligation to research all financial aspects of a business prior to making a public
expert opinion on such business.
5. In court proceedings, defendant Mrs, Stott, stated as her expert opinion several
items regarding the financial condition of Mader Drywall, Inc, which she did ndt properly
,
investigate. She never contacted the plaintifli Mr. Spangler, Jr. who was the President of
Operations of Mader Drywall, Inc., in order to obtain information regarding vehicles, yet stated as
,~~_.....
,=
."
an expert that Mr. Spangler received excess reimbursements for vehicle expenses paid out of
pocket.
6. Defendant, Mrs. Stott, also stated as an expert that the rent paid to Mr. Spangler
by Mader Drywall, Inc, to rent an office and garage from him was excessive, without ever seeing
the property, providing comparable rental information, or reviewing the lease to said office
building,
7, Defendant Mrs. Stott, offered her professional opinion that Mr. Spangler withdrew
excess amounts of money from Mader Drywall, Inc. in deference to the plaintiff in that complaint.
Yet Mrs. Stott never requested copies of deposit information which would show that Mader
Drywall, Inc. in fact owed Mr. Spangler a significant amount of money that he had loaned to the
corporation.
8. Defendant, Mrs. Stott, in her role as an expert witness and Certified Public
Accountant, did not do the necessary research to provide a truly expert opinion to the court.
Instead she merely stated, as her own expert opinion, what the plaintiff in that case, Stiles R.
Mader, a person described by the court as having "no aptitude whatsoever for bookkeeping. He
is naive and fiscally inexperienced", told her to say in court.
9, The testimony given in said case by Defendant, Mrs. Stott, was not properly
researched as would be necessary to be presented by an expert witness, nor to be in compliance
with the Code of Professional Ethics - Rule 201, among others of the Pennsylvania Institute of
Certified Public Accountants.
10. Had Mrs. Stott done the neceSsary due diligence necessary to testifY as an expert
witness, she would have seen that, in fact, Mader Drywall, Inc. only existed because Mr.
- ,-~
,I
-"-
"', ~ ,--.' ~- .~,' "',
""
"
Spangler lent to the corporation his own money and all the money he could borrow to keep the
business operating.
WHEREFORE, Robert F. Spangler, Jr. respectfully requests that the court:
a. order that Susan E. Stott be prohibited from using the designation Certified
Public Accountant, or the letters CPA in her business.
b. order that Defendants, Stott & Stott Financial Services and Susan E. Stott,
repay to Mr. Spangler, the One hundred ninety-three dollars and seventy five cents ($193.75) that
he was ordered by the court to pay for her services.
c. order that the Defendants, Stott & Stott Financial Services and Susan E.
Stott, jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff an amount often million dollars ($10,000,000.00)
for lost past and future income due to the malpractice of said defendant.
d. order that the Defendants, Stott & Stott Financial Services and Susan E.
Stott, jointly and severally, pay to the Plaintift'the amount often million dollars ($10,000,000.00)
for lost business credibility due to the malpractice of said defendant.
e. order that the Defendants, Stott & Stott Financial Services and Susan E.
Stott, jointly and severally, pay to the Plaintiff, the amount often million dollars ($10,000,000.00)
for loss of creditworthiness due to the malpractice of said defendant.
i.
,
........-
I
r
Respectfully submitted,
By/fO:~(03(0C>
Robert F, Spangler, Ir.
26 East Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
~;
, "' .', '~J
....~ ~ .
~ . ,
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, Jr.
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
NO,
CIVIL 1ERM
STorr AND STorr FINANCIAL
SERVICES and SUSAN STOrr
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
IN EQUITY
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT upon the
entities, and in the manner indicated below, which satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedures, by depositing a copy ofthe same with the United States Post Office at
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, through first class mail, prepaid and addressed as follows:
Stott and Stott Financial Services
157 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
and
Susan E. Stott
198 Clay Road
Carlisle, P A 17013
Respectfully submitted
~ OS(03{OO
\.
Robert F. Spangler, Jr.
Plaintiff
i!
II
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANlA
v.
NO. 00-2739 CIVIL TERM
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL : CIVIL ACTION-LAW
SERVICES and SUSAN STOTT,
Defendants. JURY OF TWELVE DEMANDED
TO: Robert F. Spangler, Jr.
26 East Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055
NOTICE TO PLEAD
I,-C-,":
':2: ::;:~
(~.[~.:
~,
.---
-.-.-"-.'
>'.~~'~;
=2
(J
~,;
o
c,-:)
:r;
'"I
.
-<
o
-n
.-1
r,i;;:J
:3$
~;:~(~
--:~}J
'::.C)
;~ill
.....
'1>
"'.-,
:<
1'0
=.2
~~
="
-
You are hereby notified that you have twenty (20) days in which to plead to the enclosed
Preliminary Objections of Stott and Stott Financial Services and Susan Stott or a Default Judgment
may be entered against you.
Ii
Ii
i.
I:
Ii
,
Ii
I'
Ii
I ~
I!
~~:T
Date:
r:-/I t./ n;
,
David A. Baric, Esquire
LD. #44853
17 West South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-6873
i
I;
\
I!
I
EXHIBIT 2
):
"
"
"-, ~ ~, ~- , .-"- ,d
'1 I
I
I
I
ROBERT F. SPANGLER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
NO. 00-2739 CIVIL TERM
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL :
SERVICES and SUSAN STOTT,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
JURY OF TWELVE DEMANDED
!
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
,
i
,
i
,
I.
I
I
I
!
i
i
I
!
,
,
I
I
i
I
I
II
I
I
Ii
I
I
!
I!
I:
Ii
I'
II
,
\'
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL SERVICES AND SUSAN STOTT
NOW, come Defendants, Stott and Stott Financial Services and Susan Stott, by and
through their attorneys, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER, and file the within Preliminary
Objections and, in support thereof, set forth the following:
1. Plaintiff has initiated this action against the Defendants alleging as a basis for his
claims that Susan Stott erred in providing expert testimony in a matter brought against the
Plaintiff.
2. Defendants were served with copies of the complaint via first class regular mail.
Susan Stott received the complaint through the regular mail at her residence. Stott and Stott
Financial Services received the complaint via regular mail at its place of business.
\
I
i
\
I
I
I
I. IMPROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS
,i
"
!i
r
.1
1\
I
II
Ii
I
I
I
Ii
\i
"
"
3. Defendants incorporate paragraphs one and two as though set forth at length.
4. Pa.R.C.P. 400 requires service of process to be made upon an individual by the
sheriff.
\
5. No exceptions to Pa.R.C.P. 4~O are applicable to the within matter.
""-..-- il
I
,
,.-
, .-~o.<'-'1
,
6. Pa.R.C.P. 400 requires service of process upon a partnership to be made by the
sheriff.
7. Stott and Stott Financial Services is a partnership.
8. No exceptions to Pa.R.C.P. 400 are applicable as to service on Stott and Stott
Financial Services,
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the complaint be dismissed for failure to effect
proper service of process,
n. DEMURRER
9. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight as though set
1
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
forth at length.
10. Plaintiffs complaint fails to state a cause of action against the defendants.
11. The law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not recognize a cause of
ij
I.
Ii
'I
i
i
I
II
I'
II
i;
"
action as arising from the testimony of an expert witness in a civil trial matter.
12. An expert witness has a privilege to testify in a civil trial matter and may not be
subjected to a claim by an opposing party based upon the expert's trial testimony.
13. Plaintiff appears to allege that the defendants are accountable to him for damages
arising from "malpractice".
14. Plaintiff has no standing to pursue a claim of malpractice against the expert witness
ofan opposing party.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
\
costs, fees and expenses be awarded to Defenfants.
, ~-"
L_
-,'
1'<,
I
'-, ..~ -^
II
m. FAILURE OF COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO LAW OR RULE OF COURT
IS, Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs one through fourteen as though
set forth at length.
16. Plaintiff requests that he be awarded the sum of$30,000,000.00 for unliquidated
damages.
17. Pa.R.C,P. 1021 (b) requires that any pleading demanding unliquidated damages
shall not claim any specific amount.
18. Pa.R.C,P. 1021 (c) requires plaintiff to state whether his claim is in excess of the
amounts requiring compulsory arbitration. Plaintiff has included no such allegation.
19. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) requires the pleading of all material facts upon which a cause of
action is based.
II
I;
II
i
II
Ii
i
i
I
i
"
!i
Ii
20. Plaintiff has failed to plead all material facts necessary to support a claim of
malpractice as against the Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
costs, fees and expenses be awarded to Defendants.
IV. INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY
21. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs one through twenty as though set
forth at length.
22. Plaintiffs averments are so insufficiently specific that Defendants are unable to
formulate a response as to the claims asserted and the relief demanded.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request tl~t the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
costs, fees and expenses be awarded to Defendants.
I
i\
I
il
i
I
1
I
II
_.r ~
,.,:,;,<. " --. -<
'_ k _, _
V. LACK OF CAPACITY TO SUE
23. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs one through twenty-two as
though set forth at length,
24, Plaintiff has averred no facts which would give him standing to bring this action as
a malpractice claim.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
costs, fees and expenses be awarded to Defendants,
Respectfully submitted,
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER
~pk!tf,
II
'I
II
II
I'
'!
!
i
I
I
,I
I
,:
II
Ii
Ii
"
I
i
I
David A. Baric, Esquire
ID # 44853
17 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-6873
Attorney for Defendants.
1
~l-i
I
~_h'~~h ...
. .~
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Preliminary Objections Of
Defendants Stott and Stott Financial Services and Susan Stott are true and correct to the best
-,
of my knowledge, information and belief This verification is signed by David A. Baric, Esquire,
Attorney for Defendants, Stott and Stott Financial Services and Susan Stott and is based upon the
statements as well as documents reviewed by the undersigned, This verification will be
'1 substituted and ratified by a verification signed by Stott and Stott Financial Services and Susan
Stott who are presently unavailable to sign said verification. I understand that false statements
herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904, relating to unswom falsifications to
authorities.
~p / (1.
David A. Baric, Esquire
II Dated:
iI
\1
i:
Ii
II
I
~/)tltrv
I
I:
il
II
I
i
,
\.
).
i ~
"
"
__U""" " II
II
II
~"
,-,- -, .iih
I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that on May 12, 2000, I, David A. Baric, Esquire, of O'Brien, Baric &
Scherer, did se~e a copy ofthe Preliminary Objections of Defendants Stott and Stott Financial
Services and Susan Stott, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the party listed below, as
follows:
Robert F. Spangler, Jr.
26 East Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055
~;:J~tlJ
David A. Baric, Esquire
i
Ii
I,
Ii
I'
d
Ii
Ii
II
Ii
II
II
I'
,
II
Ii
Ii
Ii
i
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I,
Ii
\:
i:
;
\
'i
,"--;.--',~. -'
- , . '. --
----_-,"_'''0
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June z.c. , 2000, I, David A. Baric, Esquire of O'Brien, Baric &
Scherer, did serve a copy ofthe Praecipe For Dismissal, by first class U. S. mail, postage prepaid, to
the party listed below, as follows:
Robert F. Spangler, Jr.
26 East Simpson Street
_h.d",g,~c r:{.
David A. Baric, Esquire
H
" ~
"~~-
_ '" ...-.s
"" 'II
ROBERT F SPANGLER JR,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V,
NO. 00-2739 CIVIL TERM
STOTT AND STOTT FINANCIAL
SERVICES and SUSAN STOTT
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
JURY OF TWEL VB DEMANDED
STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED
I. Plaintiff does intend to proceed with tins case.
2, Plaintiff asks that the court NOT terminate this case,
.~
~-"" .~~._~
", .. -,
-
~- ~
... -.< ..-.
. .
..
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, being authorized to make this Verification on behalf of the plaintiff, hereby verifies that
the facts set forth in the foregoing Response are true and correct to the best of hislher knowledge,
infonnation and bellef.
I UNDERSTAND 1HAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO TIIE
PENALTIES OF 18 PAC.s SECTION 4904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO
AUTIIORfTIES.
Dated ~l:2J ~
~
Robert Spangler Jr
1l1flNl'JIl "';'~/''''"~' 1Jii-".
[l]bWltJllM
,fr:L--",;,,) _-,,0 '"1-"'Ftt'tif1.~",'v'~ _ _"-__~,~,,"_, ^".' .C~"""" ",
'-"_~lllihllIDr~~Ilil."
,"
+
"',
- -~,-
"'
"",.;....~~.. ~,~..-.~,~"
'"
~'tbl [I
"'~,---..
g <::> 0
<":l
C;) "T,
~ C"") :t :0,
....., 1"n;;'
~c- N -",~'J'l
SO -.I _~tJ-1-j
0 Q('!.
i8 -0 ?5"T
:x j :.ti
~ ~ iSh!
N ~
Q) "<:
III