Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-1115 Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire 108-112 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 Phone: (717) 238-4798 Fax: (717) 238-4793 Email: Ijnearyesq@verizon.net ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC. and DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01 CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following papers, 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. Cumberland County Bar Association Two Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3387 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 Date: 7 Respectfully Submitted, L nce J. Peary, A orney fo Plaintiff 108-112 Walnut Stro Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 (717)238-4798 (717)238-4793 - Fax Pa.l. D. No. 25827 2 t Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire 108-112 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 Phone: (717) 238-4798 Fax: (717) 238-4793 Email: Ijnearyesq@verizon.net ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff . V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC. and DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 67 -- 1115 CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Rogele, Inc., by its attorney, Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire, who respectfully represents as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Rogele, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation with its offices located at 1025 South 21St Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17105. 2. Defendant, Dawood Engineering, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation with its offices located at 2040 Good Hope Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 3. Defendant, Diehl Partnership, is a Pennsylvania partnership with its offices located at 4 East High Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 4. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Diehl Partnership was the owner and developer of the real estate development known as the "Netherby Development" located in South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Dawood Engineering, Inc. was retained by the Diehl Partnership to provide engineering services in relation to the Netherby Development including design and stakeout of the work to be performed by the Plaintiff. 6. Plaintiff, at all times hereto, was engaged in the business of providing contract construction services including utility installation, excavation and grading. 7. On or about July 29, 2003, Plaintiff submitted a proposal to Defendant, Dawood Engineering, Inc. for services to be performed at the Netherby Development, owned by Defendant, Diehl Partnership. A copy of said proposal is attached hereto and marked Exhibit A. 8. Said proposal was accepted by the Defendants, Dawood Engineering, Inc. and Diehl Partnership at a cost of $602,150.60 plus extras and Plaintiff began performing construction services thereafter as set forth in the proposal in accord with the specifications provided. 9. By October 26, 2005, the project had been completed and Plaintiff submitted to Defendants a final billing, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit B, which reflected a balance due of $28,766.20. 2 10. Thereafter, Plaintiff has made repeated demands for payment to which the Defendants have refused or otherwise failed to pay or to state, what, if any, portion of the invoice or services performed was not in accord with the contractual specifications or were considered to be a "deficiency item" as defined in the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. 11. As a result of the Defendants failure to comply with the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, Plaintiff is entitled to a penalty equal to 1 % per month of the amount not paid from November 26, 2005 through trial and until time of payment and Plaintiff, if a recovery is awarded, is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and expenses related to the prosecution of this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, Dawood Engineering, Inc. and Diehl Partnership in the amount of $28,766.20 plus a penalty of 1 % per month on said amount until paid, plus reasonable attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit. Date: J aa) 07 Respectfully Submitted, L wr nce J/ eary, FAduire rney fo laintiff '- 108-112 Walnut Stree Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 (717)238-4798 (717)238-4793 - Fax Pa. I. D. No. 25827 3 VERIFICATION I, Christopher T. McClure, being authorized to make such verification on behalf of Rogele, Inc., do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing pleading are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ROGELE, INC. Date: 7' 1Z1107 By: 01 ? Christopher T. McClure, Vice President ROGELE, INC. CONTRACTORS - HEAVY and GENERAL 1025 S. 21st STREET • P.O. BOX 1757 HARRISBURG, PA 17105-1757 July 29, 2003 PHONE (717) 564-0478 • FAX (717) 564-5179 Dawood Engineering, Inc. 1 Valley Street, Suite 104 Carlisle, PA 17103-3193 Attn: Pam Fisher RE: Ashton-Lindsey Road South Middleton Township Cumberland County Gentlemen: Enclosed are the revised proposals for the complete project and Phase I of the above referenced project. The proposals reflect the following changes: 1. A revised erosion and sedimentation control plan. 2. A revised roadway section, indicating a different type of subbase. 3. Per a letter from South Middleton Township Municipal Authority dated May 12, 2003. 4. The addition of a sanitary sewer manhole run and services to existing properties along Lindsey Road. 5. The addition of gas line trenching. 6. A small increase in labor and material prices. Please call our office with any questions. Very truly yours, ROGELE, INC. Dennis D. McClure Vice-President EXHIBIT EA C. ROGELE, INC. CONTRACTORS - HEAVY cnd GENERAL July 29, 2003 Dawood Engineering, Inc. 1Valley Street, Suite 104 Carlisle, PA 17013-3193 Attn: Pam Fisher RE: Phase I Ashton-Lindsey Road South Middleton Township Cumberland County Gentlemen: 1025 S. 21st STREET • P.O. BOX 1757 HARRISBURG, PA 17105-1757 PHONE (717) 564-0478 a FAX (717) 564-5179 We propose to complete the following items for Phase I the above referenced project: 1. Mobilization 1 phase @ 4,400.00 4,400.00 2. Construction Entrance 2 each 300.00 600.00 3. 18" Filter Fabric Fence 1,100 I.f. 1.20 1,320.00 4. 30" Filter Fabric Fence 0 I.f. 2.00 0 5. Diversion Channel w/Jute Lining 1,500 I.f. 8.80 13,200.00 6. Sediment Trap, Temporary w/Spillway 1 each 3,500.00 3,500.00 7. Sediment Basin No. 1 1 LS 25,400.00 25,400.00 8. Rock Filter 2 each 1,000.00 2,000.00 9. Inlet Protection 10 each 60.00 600.00 10. Temporary Seeding 4,500 s.y. .45 2,025.00 11. Strip and Stockpile Topsoil on Site 10,700 c.y. 1.80 19,260.00 12. Grading of Site 9,860 c.y. 2.40 23,664.00 13. Replacing Topsoil on Site 3,333 c.y. 1.90 6,332.70 14. Permanent Seeding and Mulching 26,890 s.y. .85 22,856.50 15.8" dia PVC SDR-35 Sanitary Sewer Main 4,800 I.f. 28.00 134,400.00 16.4' dia. Pre-Cast Sanitary Sewer Manholes 21 each 1,425.00 29,925.00 17.8" X 6" PVC Service Wyes 39 each 40.00 1,560.00 18.6" dia. PVC SDR-35 Sanitary Sewer Lateral 1,340 I.f. 24.00 32,160.00 19. Sanitary Sewer Lateral Cleanout @ R/W Line 41 each 120.00 4,920.00 20.18" dia. High Density Poly. Storm Sewer 420 I.f. 24.50 10,290.00 21.24" dia. Gal. Spiral Rib Storm Sewer 532 I.f. 27.85 14,816.20 22.27" dia. Gal. Spiral Rib Storm Sewer 282 I.f. 33.85 9,545.70 23.30" dia. Gal. Spiral Rib Storm Sewer 304 I.f. 30.90 9,393.60 24.23" X 19" Gal. Spiral Rib Storm Sewer 208 I.f. 25.80 5,366.40 25.27" X 21" Gal. Spiral Rib Storm Sewer 0 I.f. 30.65 0 26.40" X 31" Gal. Spiral Rib Storm Sewer 0 I.f. 43.00 0 27.46" X 36" Gal. Spiral Rib Storm Sewer 0 I.f. 52.25 0 28.2' X 4' Pre-Cast Type C Inlet w/Box 12 each 1,060.00 12,720.00 29.2' X 4' Pre-Cast Type M Inlet w/Box 0 each 1,000.00 0 30. Pre-Cast Storm Sewer Manholes 4 each 1,250.00 5,000.00 31. Pre-Cast End Walls 1 each 1,650.00 1,650.00 32. RipRap Outlet Protection 1 C.Y. 55.00 55.00 33.8" dia. Ductile Iron CI-50 Water Main 1,650 l.f. 20.70 34,155.00 34.8" dia. Gate Valves and Boxes 7 each 655.00 4,585.00 35.8" dia. Wet Taps of Existing Line 1 each 3,700.00 3,700.00 36. Fire Hydrants and Valve 2 each 2,690.00 5,380.00 37.2" dia. Air Release Valve and Manhole 0 each 2,500.00 0 38.2" dia. Blow Off 3 each 670.00 2,010.00 39.3/" dia. Corporation, Curb Stop & Box 22 each 170.00 3,740.00 40.3/4" dia. Type-K Copper Service Line 620 I.f. 13.35 8,277.00 41. Utility Trenching for Electric, Phone & TV 1,300 I.f. 6.80 8,840.00 42. Gas Line Trenching & Backfill 2,000 I.f. 8.80 17,600.00 43.18" High Machine Placed Concrete Curb 2,225 I.f. 9.90 22,027.50 44.8" Subbase (Ballast - Dusted In) 4,300 s.y. 9.40 40,420.00 45.3" BCBC 4,300 s.y. 7.15 30,745.00 46.1 '/2' ID-2 Wearing 4,300 s.y. 4.80 20,640.00 47.Township Roadway Restoration 185 s.y. 16.60 3,071.00 Items 1 thru 47, complete for the sum of Six Hundred Two Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars and Sixty Cents, ($602,150.60). The above items include the necessary labor, equipment and material to complete the appropriate item per the South Middleton Township and Authority specifications. All work to be measured in the field and billed at the appropriate unit price. If rock is encountered it will be measured in the field and billed at one of the following unit prices: Trench Rock by Blasting 50.00/c.y. Bulk Rock by Blasting 50.00/c.y. Rock by Mechanical Means 100.00/c.y. All material to remain on site. The costs for layout and cut sheets are not included. We will require line and grade for: 1. Site grading 2: Sanitary and Storm Sewers (one for blasting and one for installation) 3. Curbing The costs for any permits, inspection or tape fees are not included. The above unit prices are good for the year 2003, after that please add 5% for each additional year. All trenched to be backfilled with suitable earth. Compaction testing, if required, is not included. Unsuitable bearing material will be removed and replaced with 2A at $40.00/c.y. The costs, the relocation or the support of any existing utilities is not included. Thank you for the opportunity to quote on the project and if you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, ROGELE, INC. Dennis D. McClure Vice-President ROGELE, INC. CONTRACTORS - HEAVY and GENERAL 1025 S. 21st STREET • P.O. BOX 1757 HARRISBURG, PA 17105-1757 PH ONE (71 7) 564-0478 • FAX (717) 564-5179 Diehl Partnership October 26, 2005 c/o Dawood Engineering, Inc. 1 Valley Street, Suite 104 Carlisle, PA 17013-3193 Estimate No. 9 Final 936 TERMS: NET JOB NO. RE: Netherby -Phase I 1. Mobilization 1.00 phase @ 4,400.00 4,400.00 2. Construction Entrance 1.00 each 300.00 300.00 3. 18" Filter Fabric 500.00 I.f. 1.20 600.00 4. 30" Filter Fabric I.f. 2.00 - 5. Diversion Channel w/Jute Lining 400.00 I.f. 8.80 3,520.00 6. Sediment Trap, Temporary w/Spillway 1.00 each 3,500.00 3,500.00 7. Sediment Basin No. 1 95% L.S. 25,400.00 24,130.00 s Rock Filter 2.00 each 1,000.00 2,000.00 9. Inlet Protection each 60.00 - 1o. Temporary Seeding 4,266.00 s.y. 0.45 1,919.70 11. Strip and Stockpile Topsoil on Site 10,700.00 c.y. 1.80 19,260.00 12. Grading of Site 9,860.00 c.y. 2.40 23,664.00 13. Replacing Topsoil on Site 3,000.00 c.y. 1.90 5,700.00 14. Permanent Seeding and Mulching 24,200.00 s.y. 0.85 20,570.00 15. 8" PVC SDR-35 Sanitary Sewer Main 4,818.00 I.f. 28.00 134,904.00 16. 4' dia. Precast Santiary Sewer Manhole 20.00 each 1,425.00 28,500.00 17. 8" X 6" PVC Service Wyes 46.00 each 40.00 1,840.00 18. 6" PVC SDR-35 Sanitary Sewer Lateral 1,454.75 I.f. 24.00 34,914.00 19. Sanitary Sewer Lateral Cleanout @ R-O-W 47.00 each 120.00 5,640.00 20. 18" High Density Poly, Storm Sewer 356.00 I.f. 24.50 8,722.00 21. 24" Gal. Spiral Rib Storm Sewer 516.50 I.f. 27.85 14,384.53 22. 27" Gal. Spiral Rib Storm Sewer 277.00 I.f. 33.85 9,376.45 23. 30" Gal. Sprial Rib Storm Sewer 272.50 I.f. 30.90 8,420.25 24. 23'X 19' Galv. Spiral Rib Storm Sewer 200.00 I.f. 25.80 5,160.00 25. 27" X 21" Galv. Sprial Rib Storm Sewer I.f. 30.65 - 26. 40" X 31" Galv. Sprial Rib Storm Sewer I.f. 43.00 - 27. 46" X 36" Galy. Sprial Rib Storm Sewer I.f. 52.25 - 28. 2'X 4' Precast Type C Inlet w/Box 15.00 each 1,060.00 15,900.00 29. 2' X 4' Precast Type M Inlet w/Box each 1,000.00 - 30. Precast Storm Sewer Manholes 4.00 each 1,250.00 5,000.00 31. Precast End Walls each 1,650.00 - 32. RipRap Outlet Protection C.Y. 55.00 - 33. 8" Ductile Iron CL50 Water Main 1,763.30 I.f. 20.70 36,500.31 EXHIBIT B w 34. 8" Gate Valves w/Boxes 8.00 each 655.00 35. 8" Wet Tap of Existing Line 1.00 each 3,700.00 36. Fire Hydrants and Valve 2.00 each 2,690.00 37. 2' Air Release Valve and Manhole each 2,500.00 38. 2" Blow Off 3.00 each 670.00 39. 3/4" Corporation, Curb Stop & Box 22.00 each 170.00 40. 3/4" Type K Copper Service Line 681.00 I.f. 13.35 41. Utility Trenching for Electric, Phone and TV 1889 I.f. 6.80 42. Gas Line Trenching & Backfill 1395 I.f. 8.80 43. 18" High Machine Placed Concrete Curb 2,220.00 I.f. 9.90 44. 8" Subbase (Ballast - Dusted In) 4327 s.y. 9.40 45. 3" BCBC S.Y. 7.15 46. 1 1/2" ID-2 Wearing S.Y. 4.80 47. Township Roadway Restoration 139.45 s.y. 16.60 Rock Removal by Blasting 348.98 c.y. 50.00 Rock Removal by Mechanical Means 139.33 c.y. 100.00 Sinkhole Repair (Breakdown Attached) 100% LS 5,867.62 Less Previous Estimate 5,240.00 3,700.00 5,380.00 2,010.00 3,740.00 9,091.35 12,845.20 12,276.00, 21,978.00 40,673.80 2,314.87 17,449.00 13,933.00 5,867.62 575, 324.08 546, 557.88 $ 28,766.20 ,? ? ? r?? `tarn r; a Vol ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff : V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC, And DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendant No. 07-1115 CIVIL TERM Civil Action - Law NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Dawood Engineering, Inc. 2040 Good Hope Road Enola, PA 17025 You are hereby notified to file a pleading in response to the enclosed new matter and counterclaim within twenty days after service thereof, or a judgment may be entered against you. Saidis, Flower & Lindsay Date: l? By 1?1?L_P ?`7Lt Suz C. Hixenbaugh Supreme Court ID # 91641 Dean E. Reynosa Supreme Court ID # 80440 26 W. High Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 Telephone: (717) 243-6222 Fax: (717) 243-6486 ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff : v. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC, And DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendant No. 07-1115 CIVIL TERM Civil Action - Law NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Rogele, Inc. c/o Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire 108-112 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 You are hereby notified to file a pleading in response to the enclosed new matter and counterclaim within twenty days after service thereof, or a judgment may be entered against you. Saidis, Flower & Lindsay Date: c e C. Hixenbaugh Supreme Court ID # 91641 Dean E. Reynosa Supreme Court ID # 80440 26 W. High Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 Telephone: (717) 243-6222 Fax: (717) 243-6486 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff : No. 07-1115 CIVIL TERM V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC. And DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendant Civil Action - Law ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS-CLAIM AND NOW, comes the defendant, DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, (hereinafter "Diehl") by and through it attorneys, the law firm of Saidis, Flower and Lindsay, and hereby aver as follows: 1. Admitted 2. Admitted 3. Admitted 4. Admitted 5. Admitted 6. Admitted 7. Admitted 8. It is admitted that defendant Diehl accepted the proposal. After investigation, Diehl is unable to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that plaintiff performed construction services in accordance with the specifications and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. It is denied that the process was completed on October 26, 2005. After reasonable investigation, defendant Diehl believes and therefore avers that the work was not completed in accordance with the specifications and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. Defendant believes and therefore avers that the Bureau of Water Quality Protection with the Department of Environmental Protection, South Middleton Township and defendant Diehl communicated with plaintiff that plaintiff's work was deficient and did not meet the requirements of the subdivision plan and storm water management plan, as approved by South Middleton Township. Defendant Diehl admits that there have been repeated demands for payment, which have not been made. 11. Allegations as to failure to comply with the Contract and Subcontract Payment Act, which is applicable to counties of the third through eighth classes, are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. WHEREFORE, Defendant Diehl requests judgment in its favor. COUNTERCLAIM COUNTER DEFENDANT DIEHL V. PLAINTIFF ROGELE 12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length below. 13. Defendant Diehl (hereinafter "Diehl) contracted with plaintiff Rogele (hereinafter "Rogele") to provide construction services for Diehl for the Netherby Development. 14. As part of the contract, Rogele was to construct a sediment basin pond to be utilized during the construction of the Netherby Development (hereinafter the "Construction Period Basin"). 15. As part of the contract, Diehl relied upon Rogele to perform its duties in a workmanlike manner that would comply with the subdivision plan and storm water management plan approved by South Middleton Township. 16. Instead, Diehl believes and therefore avers, Rogele constructed a smaller storm water detention pond which would have been utilized after final construction of the Netherby Development (hereinafter "Post-Construction Basin") 17. Rogele was informed of the deficient construction of the Construction Period Basin by the Bureau of Water Quality Protection with the Department of 2 Environmental Protection by reports issued January 9, 2004 and March 5, 2004, as shown on Exhibits A and B, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated hereby, Diehl and South Middleton Township. 18. As a result of Rogele's construction of the Post-Construction Basin, and not the Construction Period Basin, South Middleton Township placed a moratorium on all development for Netherby on April 28, 2005. 19. As a result of Rogele's failure to properly construct a Construction Period Basin, South Middleton Township did not lift the moratorium on the Netherby Development until August 10, 2006. 20. Rogele breached its duties of the contract by failing to properly construct the Construction Period Basin in accordance with the subdivision plan and storm water management plan approved by South Middleton Township. 21. As a result of Rogele's breach of contract, Diehl was required to contract with John W. Gleim, Jr., Incorporated, Excavating (hereinafter "Gleim Excavating") in order to construct the proper Construction Sediment Basin that should have been constructed by Rogele. 22. Diehl was required to pay Gleim Excavating $34,472 for its work associated with the construction of the Construction Period Basin. A copy of Gleim's Excavating Proposal dated July 19, 2005, and Invoice dated November 17, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibits C and D respectively. 23. Diehl was further required to present its plans for the Netherby Development at several township meetings with the assistance of counsel. 24. As a result of Rogele's breach of contract, Diehl was required to retain an expert witness, Akens Engineering Associates, Inc., to perform calculations related to storm water drainage and present material to South Middleton Township to confirm the Construction Period Basin, as constructed by Gleim, complied with the approved subdivision plan and storm water management plan. 25. Diehl lost profits since its first plan was rejected by South Middleton Township Supervisors on April 28, 2005 as a result of Rogele's failure to properly construct a Construction Period Basin. 3 26. As a result of Rogele's failure to construct the Construction Period Basin, storm water from the Netherby Development flowed onto adjoining land owned by Grace Steigleman. 27. Diehl was required to pay Grace Steigleman $20,000 pursuant to an Agreement dated April 28, 2006, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 28. As a result of Rogele's breach of contract, storm water from the Netherby Development allegedly flowed onto adjoining land owned by Thomas R. and Ann E. Benj ey. 29. Diehl has been required to defend a lawsuit by Thomas R. and Ann E. Benjey, Cumberland County Civil Action No. 05-5863. WHEREFORE, Diehl requests judgment against Rogele in excess of $35,000, together with costs and expenses. CROSS-CLAIM DEFENDANT DIEHL V. DEFENDANT DAWOOD 30. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length below. 31. Diehl contracted with Dawood Associates, Inc. (hereinafter "Dawood") for the purpose of providing engineering services, including the design and supervison of the Construction Period Basin into the planning and construction of the Netherby Development. 32. Dawood's duties included preparation of proper specifications and supervision of Rogele for the Construction Period Basin. 33. Dawood was further responsible to ensure that Rogele properly constructed the appropriate Construction Period Basin for the Netherby Development proj ect. 34. Rogele failed to construct the appropriate Construction Period Basin. Rogele instead constructed the Post-Construction Basin pond that did not meet the requirements of the subdivision plan and storm water management plan approved by South Middleton Township. 4 35. As a result of Dawood's failure to ensure that Rogele properly constructed Construction Period Basin, Diehl was required to contract with Gleim Excavating to construct the proper Construction Period Basin that should have been constructed by Rogele. 36. Diehl was required to pay Gleim Excavating $34,472 for its work associated with the construction of the Construction Period Basin. See Exhibits C and D respectively. 37. Diehl was further required to present its plans for the Netherby Development at several township meetings with the assistance of counsel. 38. As a result of Dawood's breach of contract, Diehl was required to retain an expert witness, Akens Engineering Associates, Inc., to perform calculations related to storm water drainage and present material to South Middleton Township to confirm the Construction Period Basin, as constructed by Gleim, complied with the approved subdivision plan and storm water management plan. 39. Diehl lost profits since its first plan was rejected by South Middleton Township Supervisors on April 28, 2005 as a result of Rogele's failure to properly construct a Construction Period Basin. 40. As a result of Dawood's failure to ensure that Rogele properly constructed Construction Period Basin, storm water from the Netherby Development flowed onto adjoining land owned by Grace Steigleman. 41. Diehl was required to pay Grace Steigleman $20,000 pursuant to an Easement, Right-of-Way and Right of Entry Agreement dated April 28, 2006. See Exhibit E. 42. As a result of Rogele's breach of contract, storm water from the Netherby Development allegedly flowed onto adjoining land owned by Thomas R. and Ann E. Benjey. 43. Diehl has been required to defend a lawsuit by Thomas R. and Ann E. Benjey, Cumberland County Civil Action No. 05-5863. WHEREFORE, Diehl requests judgment against Dawood in excess of $35,000 together with costs and expenses. . 5 Respectfully Submitted, SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY By: ` Date 4?? SUZffiCxenbaugh Supreme Court ID # 91641 Dean E. Reynosa Supreme Court ID # 80440 26 W. High Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 Telephone: (717) 243-6222 Fax: (717) 243-6486 6 ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff No. 07-1115 CIVIL TERM V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC, And DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendant Civil Action - Law VERIFICATION Subject to 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, I, Donald E. Diehl, state as follows: 1. I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of Diehl Partnership. 2. I have reviewed the foregoing Answer Counterclaims and Cross-Claims, and the allegations contained therein are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief 3. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 4. On the date set forth below I signed this original Verification and faxed it to my attorneys and authorize my attorneys to attach the facsimile copy to the original document to be filed with the Court pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 205.3(a). Dated: Donald E. Diehl 7 3630-FM-WOU090 Rev. 412000 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 130%1k .vsfl YI?M t I BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION Report No. (fJ EARTHrDIS [1RBI?k1?tCE 1NSPECTi 1 REPOI fi??ir l wit o. ei ti st elrtT a 4 2' t i'.:3 339is`.huleib d-he9 iijo 2t?t F •tn? c ^ e 1 %? CTIR$ r,e te• i" 1 ';mdLv '?i?!aifl ioijsVngenoo y1nuo Isool 9r1! °.4 99Y Iq^Cou qd MT. y i? '',..? Project name ?_ trF. ?{o c, w, jzr n:igm :JoitahPsojectaftail3s 93asduA6b Location w28 f:u .t alu'.4ano . ?-vi? 1og9i eirit no bewn deed evert 14 Municipality°='t?s '` J J=c'if ? 2 x molt anoit iv 9aotis io nodermitm. ne*w on ed INw;s;Wff n "3.7t'.FiL15L: J-'i v Jtt Gi t i i J fv=f i i.i ito t n9irnalttvn3 Receiving water(s) : r: 9 a_ yla -ot to Cbapterr:Ude*igrraltotg. ..: Uc of m; ?,.;ii q stvi;) an yab isq. ",us ? ? gu `=t]l 29bi1F0i? Responsible party' f t'?'? _ (name & address) , 1 5 vl 91 ij. `:. .`i:? ':.I ri ;°, ,. [. c,;y ;.: 7, _•._:? .01$9{.1 tjb MU-10 .36 ;L, it " v (?` f• .tea" c7?r+ f' +± `?? f i ? ?; a; f? ^'= 1 i Z.;f'?f ?t l C1rt1f 14? fn£i_Itot tMfM9b Phone Weather conditions Time of Inspection O ?V Site Representative (name & titler Inspector f-, Type of Inspection (check only one) Photographs taken Yes El No ? Routine complete ? Routine partial ? Follow-up ? Complaintp Final ? Site Description & Observations ,--IT ?! ?r ,.jr 1 /? C•.:1/?? 1?- • iy? ?rl' f? f:?Uit(" ? 'f ;?'/? ?-` ? ? ?? /-1 o 7 C 7, D al J continued Permit and Plan Requirements Type of Activity (check as many as appropriate) Y N Written Erosion & Sediment Control Plan required ? Pub. Road ConstrJMaint. (PRC) ? Pvt. Road/Residence (PRRS), ? Erosion & Sediment Control Plan requested Res. Subdivision (RSBD) ? CommAndust. Dev. (CMIN). v' ? E & S Control Permit required ? Govmt. Facilities (GOV) ? Recreation Facilities (RECF) . ? NPDES Permit required ? Utilities Facilities (UTL) ? Agricul. Activities (AGA) Phased Constr. Non-Phased Constr. ? Sewer/Water Systems (SWS) ? OWGas Development (OGD) 03 - 1 a I - r? FA ? i i R ? SILV Sil i lt " Permit # - O? 3 emediat on/Restorat on (RRES) . ) ure ( v cu Page 1 of RESPONSIBLE PARTY 3630-FM-W00090a Rev: 412000 . D Report No v COMMONWEALTH OF-PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION p P-h EARTH DISTURBANCE INSPECTION REPORT Inspection Findings (check as many as appropriate) Reference a. No violations observed at this time: ? (N/A) b. Failure to develop a written Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: ? (102.4) C. Failure to have an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan available on site: ? (102.4) d. Failure to submit Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as requested: ? (102.4) e. Failure to implement effective Best Management Practices: (102.4) f. Failure to maintain effective Best Management Practices: (102.4) g. Failure to use Special Protection Best Management Practices`for discharges to High ? (102.4) Quality or Exceptional Value Waters: h. Failure to obtain an NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With a ? (102.5) Construction Activity: i. Failure to obtain an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit: ? (102.5) j. Failure to demonstrate that alternative Best Management Practices achieve regulatory ? (102.11) standards: k. Failure to permanently stabilize the earth disturbance site: ? (102.22) 1. Failure of earth disturbance activities to comply with permit conditions: (402 CSL) m. Failure to prevent sediment or other pollutant discharge into waters of the ? (401 CSL) Commonwealth: n. Site conditions present a potential for pollution to waters of the Commonwealth: ? (402 CSL) o. Other (describe): P Inspection of this project has revealed site conditions which constitute violations of 25 Pa. Code Chapters 92 and/or 102 and the Clean Streams Law, the act of June 22, 1937, P.L. 1987, 36 P.S. §691.1 et seq. Additional information regarding these violations can be found on the back of this report. ` '=? . ?) :J iv ? ~- • t / v ??-+? j r" ! i? ?f ???r t. G^? f G?c...!' .^ T v "`-1 t vc Ll Follow-up Inspection will occur on or about (date) continued (Signature of Site Representative) (Date) (Inspector's Signe i (Date) . The Site Representatives' signature acknowledges that they have read the report and recei a cap? and that they were given an opportunity. . to discuss it with the inspector. The signature does not necessarily mean the signee agrees with the report. Page 2 0 x IN RESPONSIBLE PARTY Compliance Assistance Measures 3630-rM-WO0090. SM t Enw ?m?Protfedion EARTH DISTURBANCE INSPECTION REPORT oats Project: bs 47 7vl " T Permit No. -p3 3-- /- 6 tem ent of Site Conditions 13 2 - ?1s -fir fD 4 v3- ov 4 CIL) L)t L<, 71 1 5 qty... t 4.!.' EARTHMOVER Page „a- of 3- 3630-FM Y900000 Rev. 412000 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION )CGrt4.vest BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION Report No. Ill - "- it 2a:y ;, ?scEARTR- DISTURBANCE INSP???ON-REPOR i:c zi noLC? ff . ;-.:h i*,.? :?Y X3'1 Spe. oni 0 CA f;T) S ?L } c . • tT• .ws? 2fS?S?i12 l . County ?3iar` _. _ ., ., .; ..v a :,.,> ..... ,. ; Project name lt,-' k Qf a ;.s.: ? ?? Total-E?raje areair,,s sonsd -tu tzib n need 9ver Vu 1? vC? Y910 L catibn - {. t n s1 u `'T J" Municipality a iTLwsfiili oQ ) ;`uhw {)i1 ?a ti4'iv ctT ?) "TJ`^: ?(?9 - tal t(.?; 1.::1 j'.i z'l i .. i . Receiaingt!IV?ltec{g) Chapter 93desig"Noot> tlc et_ 9mnozivn3 i'f' 8 .2 S °C .71 ^ ^lJ2 ni X r. O t r ,-w .es,!Isneq iivio ni ysb 19q OC-0,0r4 of qU vl esbiv" I?espons1b_fJeJ? prrty' . (name&address) ...,> IlJii rv .. .._.. .. ar I.r 11. r...V ..v. J c , i /-'iii;:" y1 1c "??5 S'3 qki J :z s't•+ iiia ?55J i u+i ufl d u i oq1 y L t Phone ( ) yr L i n 1 F . i.: V .ra= T ?1 Tt!TJ!r? T'Tf Weather conditions Upj A Time of Inspection 0 '. Qt) rA /"\ Site Representative (name & title) U Inspector 60;1% ? at 't Type of Inspection (check only one) Photographs taken Yes ? No 0 Routine complete El Routine partial ? Follow-up ( Complaint ? Final ? Site Description & Observations O l z ?<V --- l! <) 1 ti'? "- e.LP % ?, n-7', t/ • . I l? ii i_ ?? 1.--v?.?T !J C. "? {•.,? v J'? 'T C+- GL (i !Iy7-OF'_ ?11 '11k 2,11 -V "' '} l"' '"?l n ?`i' ' ' G . Col'. 7- -• i,?. .-;-,,i Jii-?1 ?, ? ? ? rY??t.i '..^ 1/1 %/ j %i7!( ?iz"?. l ns r1 ?r ,S_ %il f'/?.1 j ?1 ri-?` Y1?r '? '? ?_ ? ; ;''. '1 (?/` ; ,?.r? ,n f c-l,C 0 i!S .<?(G?'` : p a rS _7 41e +r' L r? r G^5 T r? i r; 1 vl?d+ -it !Jt'/ f (!t ! , A). AP 1?0 / v,-,;' ? r'i 'TG 17?, ^-5 ¢;??' c ?. / l _;> 1 c 5 % yam, d7l1 S tit' 1 41- 'r /v G r S ?• < JL 1^? .r-' fti ? ` +f o a-, ?Jl? cuntin ed ? Permit and Plan Requirements Type of Activity (check as many as appropriate) Y N ,Q ? Written Erosion & Sediment Control Plan required ? Pub. Road Constr./Maint. (PRC) ? Pvt. Road/Residence (PRRS) ? . Erosion & Sediment Control Plan requested Res. Subdivision (RSBD) ? Comm./Indust. Dev. (CMIN) ? E & S Control Permit required ? Govmt. Facilities (GOV) ? Recreation Facilities (RECF) ? NPDES Permit required ? Utilities Facilities (UTL) ? Agricul. Activities (AGA) Phased Constr. Non-Phased Constr. ? Sewer/Water Systems (SWS) ? OlVGas Development (OGO) Permit # FA i ? - o3 a r- o3-- o of ? Remediation/Restoration (RRES) ? Silviculture (SILV) Page 1 of 0 RESPONSIBLE PARTY X30- W-WQ0090a Rev. 412000 Report No. mean E `s t COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA d Mort4v DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION EARTH DISTURBANCE INSPECTION REPORT Inspection Findings (check as many as appropriate) Reference a. No violations observed at this time: ? (N/A)' b. Failure to develop a written Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: ? (102.4) C. Failure to have an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan available on site: ? (102.4) d. Failure to submit Erosion and, Sediment Control Plan as requested: ? (102.4) _ e. Failure to implement effective Best Management Practices: M(102.4) f. Failure to maintain effective Best Management Practices: (102.4) g. Failure to use Special Protection Best Management Practices for discharges to Higk,r, ,,_. ' ( (102.4) l/t/aters. Quality-or-I_xceptionat Value h. Failure to obtain an NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With a ? (102.5) Construction Activity: i. Failure to obtain an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit: ? (102.5) I• k. 1. M. n. o. Failure to demonstrate that alternative Best Management Practices achieve regulatory standards: Failure to permanently stabilize the earth disturbance site: Failure of earth disturbance activities to comply with permit conditions: Failure to prevent sediment or other pollutant discharge into waters of the Commonwealth: Site conditions present a potential for pollution to waters of the Commonwealth: Other (describe): ? (102.11) ? (102.22) 0 (402 CSL} ? (401 CSL) ?11 (402 CSL) Inspection of this project has revealed site conditions which constitute violations of 25 Pa. Code Chapters 92 and/or 102 and the Clean Streams Law, the act of June 22, 1937, P.L. 1987, 35 P.S. §691.1 et seq. Additional information regarding these violations can be found on the back of this report. Compliance Assistance Me4sures r-,\ i Follow-up Inspection will occur on or about (date) Mu re, ?ooq continued ? .3s o (Signature of Site Representative) (Date) Q spector's Sigh ure) (Date) . The Site Representatives' signature acknowledges that they have read the report and recei and that they were given an opportunity to discuss it with the inspector. The signature does not necessarily mean the signee agrees with the report. Page 2 of RESPONSIBLE PARTY FROM :JOHN W GLFIM JR INC FAX NO. :717 243 7342 Mar. 15 2007 04:22PM P3 PROPOSAL John W. G1eim Jr., Inc. 625 Hamilton Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 258-8179 Fax: (717) 243-7342 „ . July 19'", 2005 LAok. Dawood Engineering, Inc. ?ti RF: A Sub2ision - Storm sewer, and Soil erosion concerns We are pleased to suggest the following erosion, and sediment controls in order to alleviate the concerns witnessed on. site, and as identified by your firm Our scope of work is as follows: ADMINISTKATION. and LO IS110 Suporvision during our phase of construction Layout of our work (Note: bcnchmorks, property/building comers, hubs, and layout disk by others) M.obil,ue, and demobilize site EW_Ko aud?s D T CaNTRpL 1. Grade, and stabilize temporary Swale. • Erosion matting in swale - 24,080 s.f. • Temporary seeding in Swale - 42,160 s.f. (seed to be applied with fertilizer to promote growth in. existing Soil. 2. Grade, and stabilize existing spoils stockpiles - Misc. quantities leveld in p)ace, and Bonded 3. Provide area for future spoils generated by builders • Provide berme, and/or stilling basin to prevent sediment run-off • Provide silt fence to trap sediment run-off from fixtures spoils - 2401.f. 4. Regrade existing basin to proposed elevations • Stabilize disturbed areas as roquired, seeding - 48,000 s.f. 5. Raise emergency spillway as required, to be field determined 6. Install diversionary bean upstream from existing storm basin - 290 I.f. T_ Install rock chock dams as required in minor washout areas entering into the above temporary controls. The following items are not included under our base bid: • Permits, inspection, connection. and testing fees. • Sinkhole ropair. • Subsurface infiltration measures. Additional oxeavation due to poor and/or frozen soil conditions. Delays or damage due to unsuitable weather conditions. Fines and/or penalties due to disruption of utilities not shown on drawings or prnporly located on site. FROM :JOHN W GLE IM JR I NC FAX NO. :717 243 7342 Mar. 15 2007 04:23PM P4 nopoSAL 3ahn VP . Grleim t., nc- 625 Hamilton Stce Carlisle, PA 17013 pb.one: (717) 255-8179 Fax- (717) 243-7342 • Any assemblies and/or scope items not specifically mentioned above. We pro 'sh material and labor - complete in accordance with the above specifications for the SUM of $34,472.00 TWRTY FOUR THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO DOLLARS 001100 This proposal may be withdrawn if not accepted witbin 15 days. l? Authorized signature: Date: ?- Z(D-a5' Chris Me= - Estimator FROr N GAFIM JR INC FAX NO. :717 243 734 JOHN W. CLEIM, JR., INC. EXCAVATING 4 625 HAMILTON STREET ""- CARE::ISLE PENNSYLVANIA 17013???? - (717) 243-7160 (717) 766-6470 FAX (717) 243-3617 RAYMOND DIEHL 401 MYERS ROAD HOILTNG SPRINGS, PA 17007 040902 1.000 565500 QUOTE STORM SEWER AND SOIL EROSION PER PROPOSAL DATED 07-19-05 NET 30 JOHN", fix E?LIM, JRa EXCAVATIN" INC MONE 243-7160 ?, . CARLISLE ' "ol? i i l 11 OU, 16 10 af 15 2007 04:22PM P2 INVOICF ORDER: 040127 INVOICE: 038621 DATF OF INVOICE ` _-L7 -DD - SHIP TO NEITHERBY SUBDIVISION PG: 1 34472.001 34472.00 $34,472,C AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT entered into this ate day of A fM- , 2006, by and between Grace Steigleman, widow, of 556 E. Springville Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, (hereinafter "Steigleman") A N D Raymond E. Diehl and Genevieve A. Diehl, husband and wife; and Donald E. Diehl and Suzanne Diehl, husband and wife, of 4 East High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, collectively (hereinafter "Diehl"). RECITALS R.1. The parties hereto have this day entered into a temporary easement for the discharge of storm water onto the Property of Steigleman (the "Easement"); and R.2. Diehl and Steigleman have agreed to certain conditions and considerations in exchange for the Easement. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound agree as follows: 1. The recitals above set forth are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Diehl shall pay Steigleman, upon the signing this Agreement, the following sums for matters alleged by Steigleman: 2.1. $10,000.00 Past Inconvenience 2.2. $ 1,000.00 Attorney's Fees 2.3. $ 3,000.00 First Quarterly Easement Fee 2.4. $14,000.00 Total 3. Thereafter, Diehl shall pay Steigleman one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars, per month, for the Easement. Payment shall be made by Diehl to Steigleman quarterly, in advance. For instance, the payment for the Easement from July 1 to September 3,0, shall be made on or before July 1. 4. The Easement shall be for a term of no less than nine (9) months. Renewable at Diehl's option quarterly for up to an additional nine (9) months. Renewal shall be automatic,- unless terminated by Diehl with thirty (30) days' written notice, prior to expiration. 5. Nothing herein or the securing of the Easement itself, shall be construed as an admission of carelessness, negligence, wrongdoing, or a failure of the Plan of Netherby, its improvements or storm water management or detention facilities to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances or regulations. This Agreement is a compromise settlement of a disputed and contested claim. 6. Nothing herein shall require Diehl to repair any sinkholes or replace any trees on Steigleman's property. 7. This Agreement shall bind the parties, their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 8. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first,written above. By: /Ui Grace Steigleman By: C a Ra?mond E. Diehl 1 --,4 C By J.-U-44 ?k e *A=. ?) Lu- Genevieve A. iehl By: Donald E. Diehl COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND On this ?,K- day of 121 ?- , 2006, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared GRACE STEIGLEMAN, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledge that she executed the same for the purpose therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notarial Seal Nathan C. Wolf. Notary Public Carlisle Born, Cumberland County My Commission Expires Apr. 19, 2008 Member, Pennsyivania Association Of Notaries COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND On this 16th day of May , 2006, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared RAYMOND E. DIEHL, GENEVIEVE A. DIEHL, DONALD E. DIEHL and SUZANNE DIEHL, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledge that they executed the same for the purpose therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal. NOTARIAL SEAL KANDI L. LENKER, NOTARY PUBLIC CARLISLE BORO, CUMBERLAND COUNTY Notary P lic MY COMMISSfON EXPIRES MARCH 10, 2009 ROGELE, INC., No. 07-1115 CIVIL TERM V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC, And DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendant Plaintiff Civil Action - Law CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ld On this ?j day of May, 2007, I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer, Counterclaim and Cross-Claim upon all parties of record via United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Rogele, Inc. c/o Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire 108-112 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 Dawood Engineering, Inc. 2040 Good Hope Road Enola, PA 17025 SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY U By. 8 r? 1? co Wayne M. Pecht PECHT & ASSOCIATES, PC 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Phone: 717-391-9810 Fax: 717-766-3361 Email: wpecht(a-pechtiaw.com ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 07-1115 Civil Term DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL ACTION - LAW and DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Rogele, Inc. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, PECHT & ASSOCIATES, PC Dated: June 15, 2007 W&C, ?-Q- 1 Wayne M. P cht, Esquire Identification No. 38904 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-4917 (717) 691-9808 Phone (717) 766-3361 Fax Attorneys for Defendant Dawood Engineering, Inc. Wayne M. Pecht PECHT & ASSOCIATES, PC 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Phone: 717-391-9810 Fax: 717-766-3361 Email: wpecht(a)pechtlaw.com ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC. and DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendants To: Diehl Partnership IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 07-1115 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to file a written response to the within Cross- Claim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, PECHT & ASSOCIATES, PC Dated: June 15, 2007 W a:?:, '? I' L` L?A- Wayne M. Pec t, Esquire Identification No. 38904 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-4917 (717) 691-9808 Phone (717) 766-3361 Fax Attorneys for Defendant Dawood Engineering, Inc. 2 Wayne M. Pecht PECHT & ASSOCIATES, PC 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Phone: 717-391-9810 Fax: 717-766-3361 Email: wpecht )-pechtlaw.com ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC. and DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 07-1115 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER, COUNTERCLAIM, AND CROSS-CLAIM AND NOW comes Defendant Dawood Engineering, Inc. (hereinafter Defendant Dawood), by its attorneys, Pecht & Associates, PC, and makes the following Answer with New Matter, Counterclaim, and Cross-Claim: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. Paragraph 10 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of clarification, Defendant Dawood denies that it has any liability for 3 amounts due to Plaintiff. The beneficiary of the contract and the payor were at all times Defendant Diehl Partnerhhip. 11. Denied. Paragraph 11 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. WHEREFORE, Defendant Dawood respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 12. (Continuing numbering of Plaintiff's Complaint) Defendant Dawood's responses to paragraphs one through eleven above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 13. At no time did Defendant Dawood ever agree to pay any monies to Plaintiff for the work referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint. 14. Defendant Dawood has no liability under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. 15. Based on the allegations of Defendant Diehl Partnership in this matter, Plaintiff did not complete its work under its agreement to provide excavation services at the Netherby Development. 16. As Plaintiff did not complete its work, it is not entitled to payment of the alleged outstanding amount of $28,766.20. 17. Plaintiff breached its agreement to provided excavation services at Netherby Development. 18. Plaintiff failed to verify that the Construction Period Basin excavated by it was in accordance with the plans provided to it for review. 4 WHEREFORE, Defendant Dawood respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT DAWOOD v. PLAINTIFF ROGELE 19. Paragraphs one through eighteen above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 20. Defendant Dawood contracted with Defendant Diehl for the purpose of providing engineering services for the Netherby Development. 21. Based on a specific request made by Defendant Diehl, Defendant Dawood requested and received a bid for excavation services from Rogele. 22. After analyzing Rogele's bid, Defendant Diehl awarded the work for the Netherby Development to Rogele. 23. The Construction Period Basin was never properly constructed by Rogele for the Netherby Development project. 24. Defendant Dawood did not directly or indirectly contribute to the failure of Rogele to construct the Construction Period Basin properly. 25. Any liability that Defendant Dawood may have to Defendant Diehl Partnership is the responsibility of Rogele, by way of contribution or indemnity. 26. Defendant Dawood never agreed to pay Rogele any money. 27. Defendant Dawood has no duty or responsibility to pay Rogele for its alleged work. WHEREFORE, Defendant Dawood respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff. 5 CROSS-CLAIM DEFENDANT DAWOOD v. DEFENDANT DIEHL 28. Paragraphs one through twenty-seven above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 29. Defendant Diehl contracted with Defendant Dawood for engineering services for the planning of the Netherby Development, and agreed to pay any and all costs associated therewith under the agreed upon proposals. 30. Based upon Defendant Diehl's own conclusion and decision, it retained the services of Rogele. 31. Defendant Diehl is solely responsible for paying the claim of Rogele, as the developer of the property. WHEREFORE, Defendant Dawood respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant Diehl. Respectfully submitted, PECHT & ASSOCIATES, PC Dated: June 15, 2007 t?J Wayne M. Pectit, Esquire Identification No. 38904 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-4917 (717) 691-9808 Phone (717) 766-3361 Fax Attorneys for Defendant Dawood Engineering, Inc. 6 VERIFICATION I, Bony R. Dawood, of Dawood Engineering, Inc., hereby acknowledge that: 1. I am the President of Dawood Engineering, Inc. and am authorized to sign this Verification on behalf of the Company; and 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. I am aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Dine, I Si 2XO 7 Dawood Engineeri g, Inc. By: Bo Ay R. Dawood, President CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire, the attorney for Defendant Dawood Engineering, Inc., hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Answer with New Matter, Counterclaim, and Cross-Claim upon all parties this date by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, first- class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire 108-112 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 717-238-4798 (Telephone) 717-238-4793 (Fax) Suzanne C. Hixenbaugh, Esquire SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-6222 (Telephone) 717-243-6486 (Fax) Dated: June 15, 2007 ?J??' , `' Wayne M. Pec t, Esquire 7 C7 ? a C:. t? ___, -n ?; _? ^? ? i ". ". ? - Y -r3 " -_ ? t ..... rl ? ?_ _ _ GYJ i,_ ? -. ?. 1 ,.. 'r-_ C,J C '{ -t: a Wayne M. Pecht PECHT & ASSOCIATES, PC 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Phone: 717-391-9810 Fax: 717-766-3361 Email: wpecht pechtlaw.com ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC. and DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 07-1115 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT DAWOOD ENGINEERING INC.'S REPLY TO CROSS-CLAIM AND NOW comes Defendant Dawood Engineering, Inc., (hereinafter Defendant Dawood), by its attorneys, Pecht & Associates, PC, and makes the following response to Cross-Claim of Defendant Diehl Partnership: 30. (Corresponding to numbering of Defendant Diehl's Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-Claim) Paragraphs one through twenty-nine of Defendant Dawood's Answer with New Matter, Counterclaim, and Cross-Claim are incorporated herein as though fully set forth at length. 31. Admitted. 32. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant Dawood admits that its duties at the Netherby Development included the preparation of proper specifications for the Construction Period Basin. However, Defendant Dawood denies that it had a duty to supervise the work of Rogele, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. Defendant Dawood was not hired to conduct construction inspections. 33. Denied. Paragraph 33 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Defendant Dawood notified Defendant Diehl several times that the work performed by Plaintiff was inadequate. 34. Admitted. 35. Paragraph 35 of Defendant Diehl's Cross-Claim states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of further answer, Defendant Dawood denies that Diehl was required to contract with Gleim Excavating. On the contrary, Rogele was not given an opportunity to construct the Construction Period Basin properly. Defendant Dawood advised Plaintiff on numerous occasions that its work was inadequate; Defendant Diehl was aware of these communications. 36. Denied. Paragraph 36 of Defendant Diehl's Cross-Claim states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of further answer, Defendant Dawood denies that Diehl was required to contract with Gleim Excavating. On the contrary, Rogele was never informed that the Construction Period Basin was improperly constructed and was not given an opportunity to construct the same properly. 37. Denied. Defendant Dawood is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 37 and the same are hereby denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant. 38. Denied. Paragraph 38 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. At no time was Defendant Dawood ever asked to perform calculations related to the storm water drainage as constructed by Gleim or to present such information to South Middleton Township. Defendant Dawood specifically denies that it breached any agreement with Defendant Diehl. 2 39. Denied. Paragraph 39 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required and the same is hereby denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant. 40. Denied. Paragraph 40 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required and the same is hereby denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant. 41. Denied. Paragraph 41 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required and the same is hereby denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant. 42. Denied. Paragraph 42 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required and the same is hereby denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant. 43. Denied. Paragraph 43 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required and the same is hereby denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant. WHEREFORE, Defendant Dawood respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendant Diehl's Cross-Claim and to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant Diehl. Respectfully submitted, PECHT & ASSOCIATES, PC Dated: June 15, 2007 0" 1 " Wayne M. echt, Esquire Identification No. 38904 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-4917 (717) 691-9808 Phone (717) 766-3361 Fax Attorneys for Defendant Dawood Engineering, Inc. 3 VERIFICATION I, Bony R. Dawood, of Dawood Engineering, Inc., hereby acknowledge that: 1. I am the President of Dawood Engineering, Inc. and am authorized to sign this Verification on behalf of the Company; and 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. I am aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ?Jun e I Si 2-0()" Dawood Engineering nc. By: B ny R. awood, President IL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire, the attorney for Defendant Dawood Engineering, Inc., hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Reply to Cross- Claim upon all parties this date by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire 108-112 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 717-238-4798 (Telephone) 717-238-4793 (Fax) Suzanne C. Hixenbaugh, Esquire SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-6222 (Telephone) 717-243-6486 (Fax) Dated: June 15, 2007 Wayne M. ech , Es uire ,- cu -'l I1 94 Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire 108-112 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 Phone: (717) 238-4798 Fax: (717) 238-4793 Email: ljnearyesq@verizon.net ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC. and DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendants . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-1115 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM Diehl Partnership v. Rogele, Inc. 12. No responsive pleading required. 13. Admitted. By way of further answer, the construction services that were to be performed were supervised and directed by Defendant Dawood Engineering, Inc. 14. Denied. The working plans as approved by the Cumberland County Conservation District on April 29, 2003 (PA 1-0321-03-001) and as provided to Rogele by Dawood, provided for the construction of a sediment trap to be constructed on lots 1 and 2 and a sediment basin to be constructed on the north east end of the undeveloped property. At all times relevant hereto, there was no designation on said plan of a sediment basin pond, referred to as the "Construction Period Basin", that was to be utilized during construction. 1s 9L 15. Denied. The plans for construction purposes provided to Rogele were as identified in paragraph 14 above, and an approved copy of said plans had to be available at the construction site at all times. 16. Denied. Rogele initially constructed the sediment trap and thereafter constructed the sediment basin as identified on the above referenced plan and as surveyed and staked out by Dawood. 17. Denied. The referenced reports of January 9, 2004 and March 5, 2004 represent progress reports during the construction stage and they do not reflect all the progress reports related to the construction or the final report. 18. Denied. The moratorium on construction of the Netherby Development was the result of complaints of neighboring property owners due to the stormwater run off effecting their property related to the design and not the construction of the sediment basin. 19. Denied. The moratorium was lifted, as reflected in the minutes of the Board of Supervisors of South Middleton Township on July 13, 2006. It further denied that the moratorium was issued due to the failure to properly construct the sediment basin as provided on plans. 20. Denied. It is specifically denied that Rogele breached the contract for construction services in any way or that the services that were performed were not in accord with the approved plans as identified in paragraph 14 above. 2 J f 21. Denied. It is denied that Rogele breached its contract in any way and proof is demanded at trial regarding the services performed by Gleim Excavating in constructing the "proper Construction Sediment Basin". 22. Rogele is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 23. Rogele is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 24. Rogele is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 25. Rogele is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 26. Denied. The sediment basin as referenced on the approved plan referenced in paragraph 14 above, was designed by Dawood to discharge storm water onto the adjoining land owned by Grace Steigleman. 27. Rogele is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 28. Rogele is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 29. Rogele is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 3 r w' WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that Defendant Diehl Partnership's Counterclaim be dismissed. Respectfully Submitted, Date: o ce J. tWary, Esq v for , intiff 108-112 Walnut Street V Harrisburg, PA, 17101-1609 (717)238-4798 (717)238-4793 - Fax Pa.I.D. No. 25827 4 2 • a VERIFICATION I, Christopher T. McClure, being authorized to make such verification on behalf of Rogele, Inc., do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Pleading are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ROGELE, INC. Date: D By: Christopher T. McClure, Vice President CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have on the date shown below served a copy of the foregoing Answer to Counterclaim to the person and in the manner indicated below: UNITED STATES FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID Suzanne C. Hixenbaugh, Esquire Saidis, Flower & Lindsay 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire Pecht & Associates, PC 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-4894 Date: - 4 t tilt Cr :? "Cy ? C SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR ,.CASE NO: 2007-01115 P V COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROGELE INC VS DAWOOD ENGINEERING INC ET AL MARK CONKLIN , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon DAWOOD ENGINEERING INC the DEFENDANT , at 1620:00 HOURS, on the 6th day of March , 2007 at 2040 GOOD HOPE ROAD ENOLA, PA 17025 by handing to BONY DAWOOD, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 13.44 Postage .63 Surcharge 10.00 .00 ?? ?,t.?n7 ? 42.07 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 03/14/2007 LAWRENCE NEARY By: Deputy Sheriff A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR IV .LrASE NO: 2007-01115 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROGELE INC VS DAWOOD ENGINEERING INC ET AL KENNETH GOSSERT , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon DIEHL PARTNERSHIP the DEFENDANT , at 1213:00 HOURS, on the 13th day of March 2007 at 4 EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 CHANTE SHIEDT, ADMIN ASST, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE by handing to together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 4.80 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 3)2i?jb'7 20.80 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 03/14/2007 LAWRENCE NEARY By. A. D. Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire 108-112 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 Phone: (717) 238-4798 Fax: (717) 238-4793 Email: ljnearyesq@verizon.net ROGELE, INC., Plaintiff V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC. and DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-1115 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROGELE'S INC. REPLY TO DEFENDANT DAWOOD ENGINEERING'S, INC. NEW MATTER AND ANSWER TO DEFENDANT DAWOOD ENGINEERING'S, INC. COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Rogele, Inc., by its attorney, Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire, who respectfully represents as follows: 12. No responsive pleading required. 13. Denied. Proposals for the construction services were solicited by Defendant Dawood and proposals with the total price were submitted to Defendant Dawood. 14. Paragraph 14 states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 2 15. Denied. The allegations of Defendant Diehl Partnership that Plaintiff Rogele did not complete the work is denied as set forth in previously filed pleadings. 16. Denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff Rogele performed all services required of it under the submitted and approved proposal and there was no uncompleted work that was called to the attention of Plaintiff Rogele that should have delayed payment of the final balance for the project. 17. Paragraph 17 states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 18. Denied. The Plaintiff constructed the sediment trap and sediment basin as identified on the working plans approved by the Cumberland County Conservation District provided to Rogele by Defendant Dawood and as staked out on the ground for excavation by Defendant Dawood. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rogele demands judgment against Defendant Dawood as set forth in the Complaint. ROGELE'S, INC. ANSWER TO DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC.'S COUNTERCLAIM Defendant Dawood v. Plaintiff Rogele 19. No responsive pleading required. 20. Plaintiff Rogele is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 2 1 0 21. Plaintiff Rogele is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 22. Plaintiff Rogele is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 23. Denied. Plaintiff Rogele constructed the sediment trap and sediment basin as identified on the approved plans submitted by Defendant Dawood to Rogele and at no time, in any material manner, was Rogele advised by Dawood that the excavation services performed by Rogele were not in accord with the specifications as staked on the ground by Defendant Dawood. 24. Denied. Plaintiff Rogele constructed the sediment trap and sediment basin as provided in the specifications and approved plans as provided to Rogele by the Defendant Dawood. By way of further answer, the approved drawings as provided by Defendant Dawood to Rogele do not identify a "construction period basin" or a "post construction period basin" but rather a sediment trap and sediment basin. 25. Paragraph 25 states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 26. Denied. The proposal with the agreed upon price was submitted to Defendant Dawood prior to the start of construction services. 27. Paragraph 27 states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 3 10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rogele requests that Defendant Dawood's counterclaim be dismissed. Respectfully Submitted, Date: 7//1/67 (717)238-4798 (717)238-4793 - Fax Pa.I.D. No. 25827 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 w VERIFICATION I, Christopher T. McClure, being authorized to make such verification on behalf of Rogele, Inc., do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Pleading are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ROGELE, INC. Christopher T. McClure, Vice President Date: ?(?P1-7 By: t . $6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have on the date shown below served a copy of the foregoing Answer to New Matter and Answer to Counterclaim to the persons and in the manner indicated below: UNITED STATES FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID Suzanne C. Hixenbaugh, Esquire Saidis, Flower & Lindsay 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire Pecht & Associates, PC 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-4894 Date: 4 J. NeAty, Esq ,Atgtney for PI&fntiff 8-112 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 (717)238-4798 (717)238-4793 - Fax Pa.I.D. No. 25827 N %' to .. cIO ROGELE, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA No. 07-1115 CIVIL TERM V. DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC, and DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, Defendants : Civil Action -Law DEFENDANT DIEHL PARTNERSHIP'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT DAWOOD ENGINEERING'S CROSS-CLAIM AND NOW, comes the Defendant, DIEHL PARTNERSHIP, (hereinafter "Diehl") by and through its attorneys, the law firm of Saidis, Flower and Lindsay, and makes the following reply to the Cross-Claim of Defendant DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC. (hereinafter "Dawood"): 28. (Corresponding to numbering of Defendant Dawood's Answer with New Matter, Counterclaim, and Cross-Claim) Paragraphs 1 through 43 of Defendant Diehl's Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-Claim are incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length below. 29. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Diehl contracted with Defendant Dawood for engineering services for the planning of the Netherby Development. Defendant Diehl did not agree to pay for costs associated with errors and oversights committed by Defendant Dawood. To the contrary, Defendant Dawood is liable for its conduct in this matter as is more fully set forth in Defendant Diehl's Cross-Claim against Defendant Dawood. 30. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Diehl contracted with Rogele for services related to the development of the Netherby Development. The balance of the averments in this paragraph state legal conclusions to which no response is required and are therefore denied. Strict proof therefore is demanded at trial. 31. Denied. The averments of this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is required and the same are hereby denied. Strict proof therefore is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Diehl respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendant Dawood's Cross-Claim and to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant Dawood. Respectfully Submitted, SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY f- /S`o-d By: Date SVanne-'C-Hixeugh, Esq. 111A Supreme Court I.D. No. 91641 Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID No. 80440 Attorney for Defendants 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 VERIFICATION I, Donald Diehl, on behalf of Defendant, Diehl Partnership, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to Cross-Claim 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. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: August 2?y?"2007 1-- `?--? 7 Donald E. Diehl On behalf of Diehl Partnership CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this _L 5t,day of August 2007, I, Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant DIEHL PARTNERSHIP'S Reply to Defendant Dawood Engineering's Cross-Claim upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Mr. Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire Mr. Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire 108-112 Walnut Street 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1609 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-4917 Attorney for Plaintiff Rogele, Inc. Attorney for Defendant Dawood ;an E. Re squire ('1 ha 1 v f "'`1 A . ; °4a 4 1 ) l F:\FILES\Clien[sV 2303 Diehl\12303.13 Benjey\12303.13.pra4 ROGELE, INC, Plaintiff v. DONALD E. DIEHL, SUZANNE DIEHL, RAYMOND E. DIEHL and GENEVIEVE A. DIEHL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2007-1115 CIVIL TERM o ~ ~~ a c ~ ~ . CIVIL ACTION -LAW ~~ s: ~ 4 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW AND ENTER APPEARANCE To the Prothonotary: Please withdraw the appearance of SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY as attorneys for the Defendants Donald E. Diehl, Suzanne Diehl, Raymond E. Diehl and Genevieve A. Diehl. Date: ;~I~/~p SAIDIS, FLO LINDSAY f f~ By: ;:, Ro rt C. aidis, squire LD~o. 21458 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Please enter the appearance of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, as attorneys for the Defendants Donald E. Diehl, Suzanne Diehl., Raymond E. Diehl and Genevieve A. Diehl. MARTSON LAW OFFICES Date: ~_ ~/ - / 0 By: ~~. s- ,~- Christopher E. Rice, Esquire I.D. No. 90916 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 pF CU M David-D. Buell e p Renee X Simpson Prothonotary " 1. 1st Deputy Prothonotary Sofionage, ESQ \\t °` '' Irene E. Morrow �irkS. Solicitor „50 2nd Deputy Prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County, Pennsylvania — ///s CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013,AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE—THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R.C.P.230.2. BY THE COURT, DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Suite 100 • Carlisle, PA 17013 • (717)240-6195 • Fax(717)240-6573