Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-1102 QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION Plaintiff v. BILL S. LEONARD Defendant NOTICE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO D7- 116'a 0i'l;I CIVIL ACTION YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgement 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 32 South Bedford St. Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION Plaintiff V. BILL S. LEONARD Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. 47- 116'2 et,?a T COMPLAINT AND NOW, this 2e day of February, 2007 comes the Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation (QBW) and files the within Complaint against the above named Defendant and avers in support hereof the following: Count I 1. Plaintiff is Quality Builders Warranty Corporation (QBW) a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the Ten Year New Home Warranty business with its principal place of business situate at 325 North Second Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17043. 2. Defendant, Bill S. Leonard (Leonard) is an adult individual residing at 202 Church Street, Carrollton, IL 62016. 3. On September 11, 2006 Leonard became an employee of QBW with the title of Midwest Regional Sales Director. 4. In connection with his employment Leonard was paid a "sign on bonus" in the sum of $5,000.00 with the stipulation that if Leonard's employment was terminated within three years he would repay the sum of $5,000.00. The agreement was reduced to writing, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit A. 5. On February 20, 2007 Leonard's employment with QBW was terminated. 6. QBW demanded the return of the $5,000.00 in accordance with the parties' agreement. 7. Leonard has failed to return the sum of $5,000.00 and therefore QBW requests that Leonard be ordered to pay the sum of $5,000.00 together with cost incurred, including attorney's fees, as stipulated in the agreement. 8. Jurisdiction is proper in Pennsylvania since the parties' agreement indicates "this agreement shall be interpreted under Pennsylvania Law and any suit shall be instituted in Pennsylvania in a court of competent jurisdiction. Leonard consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Courts." Wherefore, Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, demands judgement against defendant, Bill S. Leonard in the sum of $5,000.00 plus cost, including attorney's fees, said amount being less than $35,000.00. Count H 9. QBW incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs as set forth in full. 10. In connection with Leonard's employment Leonard was provided with various items of QBW property and equipment. 11. Leonard executed an agreement dated September 11, 2006, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit B which, among other things, indicates that Leonard will be responsible for loss and or damage to the equipment and materials. 12. Leonard damaged a wireless network card and 100' network cable, and has failed to return his Regional Sales Directors Manual, Spare Laptop Battery, Wireless Ethernet Bridge Quick Setup Guide, Wireless Ethernet Bridge Software/Manuals CD, Rally Power Inverter, 6' Network Cable for Packet8 VolP Phone, 6' Network Cable for Wireless Ethernet Bridge, Packet8 VOIP Phone Quick Reference Card, Packet 8 VoIP Phone PDF Manuals CD, Targus Laptop Bag, MFC3240C User Guide, MFC3240C Quick Setup Guide, MFC3240C Bundled CD Software for Windows 98, 98SE, Me, 2000 Pro & XP (Brother MFL Pro Software Suite, Scan Soft PaperPort and Omni Page OCR Software, Printer Drivers, Scanner Drivers, PC Fax Send Driver) 13. The estimated cost of the damaged and non-returned goods is $520.00. Wherefore, plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, demands judgment against defendant, Bill S. Leonard in the amount of $520.00, said amount being less than $35,000.00. Count III 14. QBW incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs as if set forth in full. 15. Part of Leonard's job duties involved hiring sales representatives in his territory. 16. Leonard recruited and presented to QBW a candidate by the name of Amber Scollick. 17. During the interviewing and recruiting process Leonard misrepresented the position to Scollick. 18. During the interviewing process Leonard misrepresented Scollick's necessary job limitations and needed accommodations to QBW. 19. As a result of Leonard's misrepresentations Scollick resigned her position once she determined the true nature of the job requirements. 20. Through Leonard's misrepresentations QBW suffered damages through training expenses and salary of Ms. Scollick in the sum of $8,846.10. 21. Had Leonard been truthful in his representations of the position to Scollick and had Leonard been truthful to QBW concerning Scollick's qualifications and limitations, Scollick would not have accepted the job nor would have QBW offered her a job. 22. As a result of Leonard's misrepresentations QBW suffered damages in the above specified sum. Wherefore, Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, demands judgment against defendant, Bill S. Leonard in the sum of $8,846.10, said amount being less than $35,000.00 Respectfully Submitted, Gill, Esq. 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 27043 (717) 737-2522 #41532 Attorney for Plaintiff Quality Builders Warranty Corporation AGREEMENT This Agreement is made on the L day of September 2006, between Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, (QBW) and Bill S. Leonard (Leonard). Leonard has agreed to commence employment with QBW on September 11, 2006 and in connection with employment, QBW will pay Leonard a $5,000.00, "sign on bonus", to be paid with Leonard's first pay. Leonard agrees that he will repay the sum of $5,000.00 to QBW in the event his employment is terminated by either party, for any reason, within three years of employment. In the event Leonard's employment is terminated within three years, and he fails to voluntarily repay the amount agreed upon, Leonard will be responsible for the cost incurred by QBW to compel compliance, including attorney fees. This agreement shall be interpreted under Pennsylvania Law and any suit shall be instituted in Pennsylvania in a Court of Competent Jurisdiction. Leonard consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Courts. J?"J ` I ?i?CN S. Leonard Quality Builders Warranty Corporation B Title Date v Da EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT This Agreement is made on the I Vh day of September, 2006 between QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION, "QBW", and BILL S LEONARD, "EMPLOYEE" WHEREAS, QBW desires to employ EMPLOYEE as an at-will employee and whereas, EMPLOYEE desires to be employed by QBW as an at-will employee. WHEREAS, as prerequisite for employment with QBW, EMPLOYEE must execute this agreement containing a restrictive covenant. Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein and intending to be legally bound hereby, it is agreed between QBW and EMPLOYEE as follows: EMPLOYEE agrees that at no time during the term of employment, and for a period of two (2) years immediately following the termination of employment, will he/she, for himself/herself or on behalf of any person other than QBW, be employed by or in any way become affiliated with any other warranty program or engage in the recruitment of builders for and in connection with any competitor of QBW in the states where QBW does business. EMPLOYEE also agrees that any and all records, computer or other, including but not limited to the names and addresses of builders registered in the Program and any other records relating in any manner whatsoever to the business and operation of QBW, applicant builders or prospective applicants, prospect cards, whether compiled or prepared by EMPLOYEE, or otherwise coming into his/her possession, including copies, or computer databases, shall be the exclusive property of QBW and will be returned to QBW immediately upon termination of employment. EMPLOYEE agrees not to make copies of any information provided to him/her or copy any information on or from computer software. EMPLOYEE shall not at any time directly or indirectly, use or disclose to any person, except to QBW and its duly authorized officers and employees entitled thereto, the list of prospective, registered or applicant builders, their credit classifications, records, statistics, or other information with respect to registered or applicant builders, or information learned concerning the QBW program including rates, revenues, insurance relationships, policy limits, etc., acquired by EMPLOYEE or anyone else in the. course of the performance of his/her duties in any capacity whatsoever, since this information is confidential and not available to the public. EMPLOYEE shall not in any manner, directly or indirectly, aid or be party to any acts, the effect of which would divert, diminish or prejudice the good will or business of QBW, or its relationships with its employees, past and present or future as well as its business and regulatory relationships. No compensation due will be paid until all materials, including computer hardware or software, are returned in good and working condition and in the same condition received, normal wear and tear excepted. Additionally no commissions will be paid after the last day of employment since commissions cease with employment. EMPLOYEE will be responsible for any tampering with information on the computer and cost associated with any damage to or return of the equipment and materials. This Agreement shall be interpreted under Pennsylvania law and any suit shall be instituted in Pennsylvania in a court of competent jurisdiction. EMPLOYEE consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania courts. In connection with employment EMPLOYEE will receive an employee handbook which provisions are incorporated herein. QUALITY BUILDERS WAP ANTY CORPORATION By Date: 0 1/03 EXHIBIT B VERIFICATION I, JOSEPH M. OLSHEFSKI, President of Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, hereby certify and state that the foregoing Complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Quality B ' ers Warranty ration Date: o;Z -2 5 -&? By: oseph M. Olshefski, President C) ^i -, W _J ors o W oe -ta ?- y -- :. G11 QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION Plaintiff V. BILL S. LEONARD Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : DOCKET NO. 07-1102 : CIVIL TERM AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL On March 2, 2007, I mailed a true and correct copy of the Complaint by certified mail, return receipt requested to, Bill S. Leonard, Article # 7004 1350 0003 0402 2788, at his address. Bill S. Leonard received the Complaint on March 7, 2007, as indicated by the receipt attached hereto as Exhibit "A". I make these statements pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities and understand that false statements may be subject me to criminal penalties under that statute. Ka Ye R. For an, Secretary I CERTIFIED MAIL- RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Providec ru ° ob P.MP $ I?.a5 Q M G Certified Fee a y fl ?„ eark C3 Retum Redept Fee rStm (Endorsement Required) ?5 tQ; Rest=D enver" Fee m (Endont Required) (f Totaf Postage & Fees Is IS-50 S O WO-No rid 5 . LeOnwr? 3kw iiPt-N---J or PO Box Ala ..pZC?e1- CI1wr ST City State ZIP+4 i_ -..°°..... C4Y r O MOA =L„ l0 ((O ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Itein 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, or on the front if space permits. I 1. Article Addreseed to: & II 5 . L.evna.ra Ca,reo l l +on t z L Cv ao 1 tP ? Agent O Addre by (PAnted Name) C. Da(ie of Pali D. Is del "addtees different from Item 19' U11(: If YES, mew delh my address below: ? No 3. Two 91 artW Md OfMat 13 Regoee Iff Rtum Reoelpt for Mer0andles 13 insured mom l7 C.O.D. 4. Reetrlcted DeIWW Pft Fee) ? Yes 2. ArdcleNumbw 7004 1350 0003 0402 2788 (flarutbr from ssmce /aben P3 Form 3811, Febru y 2004 Domsetic Rsqun Rsoelpt 102595-0244-154 EXHIBIT A Q a -rt O?* ?. Z -ry. ' :` tom, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CIVIL DIVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 07-1102 Civil v BILL S. LEONARD Defendant PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Defendant Bill S. Leonard ("Leonard"), by and through its counsel, preliminarily objects to the Complaint of Quality Builders Warranty Corporation ("Plaintiff') as follows: SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS AS PLEADED BY PLAINTIFF 1. Plaintiff alleges that Leonard became an employee of Plaintiff with the title of Mid- West Regional Sales Director on September 11, 2006. Complaint ¶3. 2. Plaintiff alleges that Leonard was paid a "sign on bonus" in the sum of $5,000 with the stipulation that if Leonard's employment was terminated within three years he would repay said sum. Complaint ¶4. See also Agreement attached to Complaint as Exhibit A. 3. Plaintiff alleges that Leonard's job duties included hiring sales representatives in his territory. Complaint ¶15. 4. Plaintiff contends that Leonard recruited and presented to Plaintiff a candidate by the name of Amber Scollick. Complaint 116. 5. Plaintiff alleges that during the interview and recruiting process Leonard misrepresented the position to Scollick and misrepresented Scollick's necessary job limitations and needed accommodations to Plaintiff. Complaint ¶¶17 and 18. 6. Plaintiff claims that Scollick resigned her position once she learned the true nature of her job requirements. Complaint ¶19. 7. Plaintiff claims that it would not have offered Scollick a job nor would Scollick have accepted had Leonard been truthful in his representations. Complaint ¶21. Plaintiff contends that it suffered damages through training expenses and salary of Ms. Scollick in the sum of $8,846.10. Complaint 120. 1. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF COUNT III OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) 9. Defendant incorporates by reference the averments in Paragraphs 1 through 8 of the instant Preliminary Objections. 10. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) permits preliminary objections to challenge the "legal sufficiency of a pleading (demurrer)". 11. Although Plaintiff provides no named legal theories for Count III of its Complaint, it purports to set forth a cause of action based on intentional misrepresentation. 12. The elements for a cause of action of intentional misrepresentation are: (1) a representation; (2) which is material to the transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4) with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (6) the resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance. Heritage Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. v. National Penn Bank, 801 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2002). 13. Intentional misrepresentation is akin to a claim for fraud which consists of "anything calculated to deceive whether by single act or combination, or by suppression of truth or suggestion of what is false, whether it be direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth or look or gesture". Moser v. DeSetta, 589 A.2d 679, 682 (Pa. 1991). 14. Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint fails to plead a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation and/or fraud with the factual specificity required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b). 15. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b) requires that, "averments of fraud or mistake shall be averred with particularity". 16. The alleged misrepresentation by Leonard at Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint are not identified, either generally or specifically. 17. Plaintiff has made general and vague allegations of misrepresentation which fail to allege specific facts that would permit Leonard to prepare a defense to the claims raised by the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant Leonard respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain his Preliminary Objections and dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). 18. Defendant incorporates by reference the averments in Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the instant Preliminary Objections. 19. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) permits preliminary objections for "insufficient specificity in a pleading". 20. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(f) requires that, "averments of time, place and items of special damage be specifically stated". 21. At Count III of its Complaint, Plaintiff only alleges that it "suffered damages through training expenses and salary of Ms. Scollick in the sum of $8,846.10". Complaint ¶20. 22. No further specificity or information is provided concerning damages. 23. Where damages are already liquidated or reasonably capable of ascertainment, the respective amounts of damage attributable to each item shall be set forth. Toth v. Glessner, 16 D & C.3d 338, 343 (1979). 24. Plaintiff has made only general and vague allegations of damages which fail to allege specific facts that would permit Defendant Leonard to prepare a defense to the claims raised by the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant Leonard respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain his Preliminary Objections and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. Alternatively, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3), because of the insufficiency of the pleading, the Plaintiff should be ordered to amend its Complaint, if possible, to include those allegations of damages with more specificity to allow the Defendant to prepare a defense to the claims raised. Respectfully submitted, KREVSKY,LLC By ti So omo Z. Krevsky, Esquire Att e or Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szk ,clark-krevskylaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this 23rd of March, 2007, I, Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: John A. Gill, Esquire Quality Builders Warranty 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Respectfully submitted, CLARK VSKY,LLC By: Solo o . Krevsky, Esquire Atto ev r Plaintiff Suprehir-Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkgclark-krevskylaw.com ca p C.P c? ` r s ..mow r c QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION Plaintiff V. BILL S. LEONARD Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : DOCKET NO. 07-1102 : CIVIL ACTION 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 First Amended 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 judgement may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the First Amended 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 32 South Bedford St. Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION Plaintiff V. BILL S. LEONARD Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. 07-1102 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, this 10t` day of April, 2007 comes the Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation (QBW) and files the within First Amended Complaint against the above named Defendant and avers in support hereof the following: Count I 1. Plaintiff is Quality Builders Warranty Corporation (QBW) a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the Ten Year New Home Warranty business with its principal place of business situate at 325 North Second Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17043. 2. Defendant, Bill S. Leonard (Leonard) is an adult individual residing at 202 Church Street, Carrollton, IL 62016. 3. On September 11, 2006 Leonard became an employee of QBW with the title of Midwest Regional Sales Director. 4. In connection with his employment Leonard was paid a "sign on bonus" in the sum of $5,000.00 with the stipulation that if Leonard's employment was terminated within three years he would repay the sum of $5,000.00. The agreement was reduced to writing, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit A. 5. On February 20, 2007 Leonard's employment with QBW was terminated. 6. QBW demanded the return of the $5,000.00 in accordance with the parties' agreement. 7. Leonard has failed to return the sum of $5,000.00 and therefore QBW requests that Leonard be ordered to pay the sum of $5,000.00 together with cost incurred, including attorney's fees, as stipulated in the agreement. 8. Jurisdiction is proper in Pennsylvania since the parties' agreement indicates "this agreement shall be interpreted under Pennsylvania Law and any suit shall be instituted in Pennsylvania in a court of competent jurisdiction. Leonard consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Courts." Wherefore, Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, demands judgement against defendant, Bill S. Leonard in the sum of $5,000.00 plus cost, including attorney's fees, said amount being less than $35,000.00. Count II 9. QBW incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs as set forth in full. 10. In connection with Leonard's employment Leonard was provided with various items of QBW property and equipment. 11. Leonard executed an agreement dated September 11, 2006, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit B which, among other things, indicates that Leonard will be responsible for loss and or damage to the equipment and materials. 12. Leonard damaged a wireless network card and 100' network cable, and has failed to return his Regional Sales Directors Manual, Spare Laptop Battery, Wireless Ethernet Bridge Quick Setup Guide, Wireless Ethernet Bridge Software/Manuals CD, Rally Power Inverter, 6' Network Cable for Packet8 VoIP Phone, 6' Network Cable for Wireless Ethernet Bridge, Packet8 VoIP Phone Quick Reference Card, Packet 8 VoIP Phone PDF Manuals CD, Targus Laptop Bag, MFC3240C User Guide, MFC3240C Quick Setup Guide, MFC3240C Bundled CD Software for Windows 98, 98SE, Me, 2000 Pro & XP (Brother MFL Pro Software Suite, Scan Soft PaperPort and Omni Page OCR Software, Printer Drivers, Scanner Drivers, PC Fax Send Driver) 13. The estimated cost of the damaged and non-returned goods is $520.00. Wherefore, plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, demands judgment against defendant, Bill S. Leonard in the amount of $520.00, said amount being less than $35,000.00. Count III 14. QBW incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs as if set forth in full. 15. Part of Leonard's job duties involved hiring sales representatives in his territory. 16. Leonard recruited and presented to QBW a candidate by the name of Amber Scollick. 17. During the interviewing and recruiting process Leonard misrepresented the position to Scollick. 18. Leonard told to Scollick that the working hours were flexible and she could mandate her own hours as long as she was working forty (40) hours. 19. Leonard told Scollick she would only have to make forty (40) to sixty (60) telephone calls per day. 20. In all actuality the position required many more calls per day and Sales Representatives are not permitted the flexibility required by Scollick based on the job requirements. 21. During the interviewing process Leonard misrepresented Scollick's necessary job limitations and needed accommodations to QBW. 22. During the interviewing process Scollick informed Leonard that she had instituted suit against prior employer, who was a large home builder in her territory and was questioning Leonard regarding the impact of a suit against her prior employer whom was a builder. Leonard never disclosed this information to QBW. 23. Leonard indicated to QBW that the fact that Scollick was the primary care giver to a young child would not impact her position since she had made arrangements for care giving during required job duties. 24. The misinformation provided by Leonard to Scollick and QBW, and the failure to disclose information, was material to the hiring of Scollick, was made falsely by Leonard with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether is was true or false with the intent of misleading Scollick and QBW into relying on it. Further, QBW justifiably relied on the misrepresentations. 25. As a result of Leonard's misrepresentations Scollick resigned her position once she determined the true nature of the job requirements. 26. Through Leonard's misrepresentations QBW suffered damages through training expenses and salary of Ms. Scollick in the sum of $8,821.94 as follows: Salary $1,944.45 Hotel 967.68 Meals 144.00 Rental Car 487.14 Gas for Rental 125.77 Tolls 18.50 Postage 96.64 Business Cards 37.76 QBW Employee Training Costs 5,000.00 Total $8,821.94 27. Had Leonard been truthful in his representations of the position to Scollick and had Leonard been truthful to QBW concerning Scollick's qualifications and limitations, Scollick would not have accepted the job nor would have QBW offered her a job. 28. As a result of Leonard's misrepresentations QBW suffered damages in the above specified sum. Wherefore, Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, demands judgment against defendant, Bill S. Leonard in the sum of $8,821.94, said amount being less than $35,000.00 Respectfully Submitted, hn . Gill, Esq. 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 27043 (717) 737-2522 #41532 Attorney for Plaintiff Quality Builders Warranty Corporation AGREEMENT This Agreement is made on the /I day of September 2006, between Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, (QBW) and Bill S. Leonard (Leonard). Leonard has agreed to commence employment with QBW on September 11, 2006 and in connection with employment, QBW will pay Leonard a $5,000.00, "sign on bonus", to be paid with Leonard's first pay. Leonard agrees that he will repay the sum of $5,000.00 to QBW in the event his employment is terminated by either party, for any reason, within three years of employment. In the event Leonard's employment is terminated within three years, and he fails to voluntarily repay the amount agreed upon, Leonard will be responsible for the cost incurred by QBW to compel compliance, including attorney fees. This agreement shall be interpreted under Pennsylvania Law and any suit shall be instituted in Pennsylvania in a Court of Competent Jurisdiction. Leonard consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Courts. S. Leonard Quality Builders Warranty Corporation 04V Title t Date 9 Da EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT This Agreement is made on the I Vh day of September. 2006 between QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION, "QBW", and BILL S LEONARD, "EMPLOYEE" WHEREAS, QBW desires to employ EMPLOYEE as an at-will employee and whereas, EMPLOYEE desires to be employed by QBW as an at-will employee. WHEREAS, as prerequisite for employment with QBW, EMPLOYEE must execute this agreement containing a restrictive covenant. Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein and intending to be legally bound hereby, it is agreed between QBW and EMPLOYEE as follows: EMPLOYEE agrees that at no time during the term of employment, and for a period of two (2) years immediately following the termination of employment, will he/she, for himself/herself or on behalf of any person other than QBW, be employed by or in any way become affiliated with any other warranty program or engage in the recruitment of builders for and in connection with any competitor of QBW in the states where QBW does business. EMPLOYEE also agrees that any and all records, computer or other, including but not limited to the names and addresses of builders registered in the Program and any other records relating in any manner whatsoever to the business and operation of QBW, applicant builders or prospective applicants, prospect cards, whether compiled or prepared by EMPLOYEE, or otherwise coming into his/her possession, including copies, or computer databases, shall be the exclusive property of QBW and will be returned to QBW immediately upon termination of employment. EMPLOYEE agrees not to make copies of any information provided to him/her or copy any information on or from computer software. EMPLOYEE shall not at any time directly or indirectly, use or disclose to any person, except to QBW and its duly authorized officers and employees entitled thereto, the list of prospective, registered or applicant builders, their credit classifications, records, statistics, or other information with respect to registered or applicant builders, or information learned concerning the QBW program including rates, revenues, insurance relationships, policy limits, etc., acquired by EMPLOYEE or anyone else in the. course of the performance of his/her duties in any capacity whatsoever. since this information is confidential and not available to the public. EMPLOYEE shall not in any manner, directly or indirectly, aid or be party to any acts, the effect of which would divert, diminish or prejudice the good will or business of QBW; or its relationships with its employees, past and present or future as well as its business and regulatory relationships. No compensation due will be paid until all materials, including computer hardware or software, are returned in good and working condition and in the same condition received, normal wear and tear excepted. Additionally no commissions will be paid after the last day of employment since commissions cease with employment. EMPLOYEE will be responsible for any tampering with information on the computer and cost associated with any damage to or return of the equipment and materials. This Agreement shall be interpreted under Pennsylvania law. and any suit shall be instituted in Pennsylvania in a court of competent jurisdiction. EMPLOYEE consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania courts. In connection with employment EMPLOYEE will receive an employee handbook which provisions are incorporated herein. QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION By: Date: ARD 1/03 EXHIBIT B VERIFICATION I, JOSEPH M. OLSHEFSKI, President of Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, hereby certify and state that the foregoing First Amended Complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Waganfyj Corporation Date: Z/- /0 - D '7 By: Joseph M. Olshefski, President CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a copy of the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was sent via U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, addressed as follows: Solomon Z. Krevsky Clark & Krevsky, LLC P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 - ?° N Date Peggy Morrison, Secretary C`s N ?_:w? c? r.?_ ?,, -n - ? --r, _"? i ...- -.?, - C:} r..- - L?ti ? - -' G f 3 _ - } i? ,. CJ ;' r ,? ? _? . _?J =? 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION, Plaintiff BILL S. LEONARD v Defendant CIVIL DIVISION No. 07-1102 Civil PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant Bill S. Leonard ("Leonard"), by and through its counsel, preliminarily objects to the First Amended Complaint of Quality Builders Warranty Corporation ("Plaintiff) as follows: SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS AS PLEADED BY PLAINTIFF 1. Plaintiff alleges that Leonard became an employee of Plaintiff with the title of Mid- West Regional Sales Director on September 11, 2006. Amended Complaint ¶3 2. Plaintiff alleges that Leonard was paid a "sign on bonus" in the sum of $5,000 with the stipulation that if Leonard's employment was terminated within three years he would repay said sum. Amended Complaint ¶4. See also Agreement attached to Amended Complaint as Exhibit A. 3. Plaintiff alleges that Leonard's job duties included hiring sales representatives in his territory. Amended Complaint 115. 4. Plaintiff contends that Leonard recruited and presented to Plaintiff a candidate by the name of Amber Scollick. Amended Complaint ¶16. 5. Plaintiff alleges that during the interview and recruiting process Leonard misrepresented the position to Scollick in that he told Scollick that the working hours were flexible and she could mandate her own hours as long as she was working forty (40) hours. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Leonard told Scollick she would only have to make forty (40) to sixty (60) telephone calls per day. Amended Complaint T¶17-19. 6. Plaintiff alleges that during the interview process Leonard misrepresented Scollick's necessary job limitations and needed accommodations to QBW including that Scollick informed Leonard that she had instituted suit against a prior employer but that Leonard never disclosed this information to QBW. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Leonard indicated to QBW that Scollick's status as a primary care giver to a young child would not impact her position since she had made arrangements for care giving during required job duties. Amended Complaint ¶121-23. 7. Plaintiff claims that Scollick resigned her position once she learned the true nature of her job requirements. Amended Complaint ¶25. 8. Plaintiff claims that it would not have offered Scollick a job nor would Scollick have accepted same had Leonard been truthful in his representations. Amended Complaint 127. 9. Plaintiff contends that it suffered damages through training expenses and salary in the sum of $8,821.94. Amended Complaint ¶26. 1. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF COUNT III OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) 10. Defendant incorporates by reference the averments in Paragraphs 1 through 9 of the instant Preliminary Objections. 11. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) permits preliminary objections to challenge the "legal sufficiency of a pleading (demurrer)". 12. Although Plaintiff provides no named legal theories for Count III of its Amended Complaint, it purports to set forth a cause of action based on intentional misrepresentation. 13. The elements for a cause of action of intentional misrepresentation are: (1) a representation; (2) which is material to the transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4) with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (6) the resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance. Heritage Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. v. National Penn Bank, 801 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2002). 14. Intentional misrepresentation is akin to a claim for fraud which consists of "anything calculated to deceive whether by single act or combination, or by suppression of truth or suggestion of what is false, whether it be direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth or look or gesture". Moser v. DeSetta, 589 A.2d 679, 682 (Pa. 1991). 15. Count III of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to plead a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation and/or fraud. 16. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b) requires that, "averments of fraud or mistake shall be averred with particularity". 17. Allegations of fraud must include facts offering insight into one party's intent to deceive the aggrieved party. Skurnowicz & Skurnowicz v. Lucci & Lucci, 798 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 202). 18. Plaintiff has made general and vague allegations of misrepresentation which fail to allege specific facts that would permit Leonard to prepare a defense to the claims raised by the Plaintiff. 19. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to plead with the requisite degree of particularity how Leonard's alleged communications were intended to deceive Plaintiff. 20. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to plead with the requisite degree of particularity the basis upon which Plaintiff could reasonably have relied on any alleged communication by Defendant. 21. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to plead with the requisite degree of particularity scienter. In the absence of scienter, the claim of intentional misrepresentation must fail. Brindle v. West Allegheny Hospital, 594 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 1991). WHEREFORE, Defendant Leonard respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain his Preliminary Objections and dismiss Count III of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint with prejudice. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). 22. Defendant incorporates by reference the averments in Paragraphs 1 through 21 of the instant Preliminary Objections. 23. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) permits preliminary objections for "insufficient specificity in a pleading". 24. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(f) requires that, "averments of time, place and items of special damage be specifically stated". 25. In Count III of its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it "suffered damages through training expenses and salary of Ms. Scollick in the sum of $8,821.94", but identifies "QBW employee training costs" in the amount of $5,000 without further specificity or information. Amended Complaint 120. 26. Where damages are already liquidated or reasonably capable of ascertainment, the respective amounts of damage attributable to each item shall be set forth. Toth v. Glessner, 16 D & C.3d 338, 343 (1979). 27. Plaintiff has made only general and vague allegations of damages which fail to allege specific facts that would permit Defendant Leonard to prepare a defense to the claims raised by the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant Leonard respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain his Preliminary Objections and dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC By: SoltonKrevsky, Esquire Attorney fo Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szk@clark-krevskylaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this day of , 2007, I, Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: John A. Gill, Esquire Quality Builders Warranty 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC By: Krevsky, Esquire Plaintiff Supreme Ct..I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkgclark-krevskylaw.com C7 ? d f f . ? r?z QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION Plaintiff V. BILL S. LEONARD Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 07-1102 CIVIL ACTION 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 Second Amended 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 judgement may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Second Amended 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 32 South Bedford St. Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CORPORATION : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. CIVIL ACTION BILL S. LEONARD DOCKET NO. 07-1102 Defendant ; SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT t, k AND NOW, this / 0 day of May, 2007 comes the Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation (QBW) and files the within Second Amended Complaint against the above named Defendant and avers in support hereof the following: Count I 1. Plaintiff is Quality Builders Warranty Corporation (QBW) a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the Ten Year New Home Warranty business with its principal place of business situate at 325 North Second Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17043. 2. Defendant, Bill S. Leonard (Leonard) is an adult individual residing at 202 Church Street, Carrollton, IL 62016. 3. On September 11, 2006 Leonard became an employee of QBW with the title of Midwest Regional Sales Director. 4. In connection with his employment Leonard was paid a "sign on bonus" in the sum of $5,000.00 with the stipulation that if Leonard's employment was terminated within three years he would repay the sum of $5,000.00. The agreement was reduced to writing, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit A. 5. On February 20, 2007 Leonard's employment with QBW was terminated. 6. QBW demanded the return of the $5,000.00 in accordance with the parties' agreement. 7. Leonard has failed to return the sum of $5,000.00 and therefore QBW requests that Leonard be ordered to pay the sum of $5,000.00 together with cost incurred, including attorney's fees, as stipulated in the agreement. 8. Jurisdiction is proper in Pennsylvania since the parties' agreement indicates "this agreement shall be interpreted under Pennsylvania Law and any suit shall be instituted in Pennsylvania in a court of competent jurisdiction. Leonard consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Courts." Wherefore, Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, demands judgement against defendant, Bill S. Leonard in the sum of $5,000.00 plus cost, including attorney's fees, said amount being less than $35,000.00. Count II 9. QBW incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs as set forth in full. 10. In connection with Leonard's employment Leonard was provided with various items of QBW property and equipment. 11. Leonard executed an agreement dated September 11, 2006, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit B which, among other things, indicates that Leonard will be responsible for loss and or damage to the equipment and materials. 12. Leonard damaged a wireless network card and 100' network cable, and has failed to return his Regional Sales Directors Manual, Spare Laptop Battery, Wireless Ethernet Bridge Quick Setup Guide, Wireless Ethernet Bridge Software/Manuals CD, Rally Power Inverter, 6' Network Cable for Packet8 VoIP Phone, 6' Network Cable for Wireless Ethernet Bridge, Packet8 VoIP Phone Quick Reference Card, Packet 8 VoIP Phone PDF Manuals CD, Targus Laptop Bag, MFC3240C User Guide, MFC3240C Quick Setup Guide, MFC3240C Bundled CD Software for Windows 98, 98SE, Me, 2000 Pro & XP (Brother MFL Pro Software Suite, Scan Soft PaperPort and Omni Page OCR Software, Printer Drivers, Scanner Drivers, PC Fax Send Driver) 13. The estimated cost of the damaged and non-returned goods is $520.00. Wherefore, plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, demands judgment against defendant, Bill S. Leonard in the amount of $520.00, said amount being less than $35,000.00. Count III 14. QBW incorporates herein the preceding paragraphs as if set forth in full. 15. Part of Leonard's job duties involved hiring sales representatives in his territory. 16. Leonard recruited and presented to QBW a candidate by the name of Amber Scollick. 17. During the interviewing and recruiting process Leonard misrepresented the position to Scollick. 18. Leonard told to Scollick that the working hours were flexible and she could mandate her own hours as long as she was working forty (40) hours. 19. Leonard told Scollick she would only have to make forty (40) to sixty (60) telephone calls per day. 20. In all actuality the position required many more calls per day and Sales Representatives are not permitted the flexibility required by Scollick based on the job requirements. 21. During the interviewing process Leonard misrepresented Scollick's necessary job limitations and needed accommodations to QBW. 22. During the interviewing process Scollick informed Leonard that she had instituted suit against prior employer, who was a large home builder in her territory and was questioning Leonard regarding the impact of a suit against her prior employer whom was a builder. Leonard never disclosed this information to QBW. 23. Leonard indicated to QBW that the fact that Scollick was the primary care giver to a young child would not impact her position since she had made arrangements for care giving during required job duties. 24. The misinformation provided by Leonard to Scollick and QBW, and the failure to disclose information, was material to the hiring of Scollick, was made falsely by Leonard with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether is was true or false with the intent of misleading Scollick and QBW into relying on it. Further, QBW justifiably relied on the misrepresentations. 25. As a result of Leonard's misrepresentations Scollick resigned her position once she determined the true nature of the job requirements. 26. Through Leonard's misrepresentations QBW suffered damages through training expenses and salary of Ms. Scollick in the sum of $8,821.94 as follows: Salary $1,944.45 Hotel 967.68 Meals 144.00 Rental Car 487.14 Gas for Rental 125.77 Tolls 18.50 Postage 96.64 Business Cards 37.76 QBW Employee Training Costs 5,000.00 Incurred for time of Underwriting, Sales, Controller and Executive Staff. Total $8,821.94 27. Had Leonard been truthful in his representations of the position to Scollick and had Leonard been truthful to QBW concerning Scollick's qualifications and limitations, Scollick would not have accepted the job nor would have QBW offered her a job. 28. As a result of Leonard's misrepresentations QBW suffered damages in the above specified sum. 29. Regional Sales Directors receive a commission on Builders on who their Sales Reps recruit. 30. Leonard's apparent motive to deceive QBW and Scollick was an attempt to quickly build a sales force to generate commissions for himself, irrespective of due diligence and qualifications in order for him to receive commissions. 31. The resulting loss incurred by QBW was proximately caused by QBW's reliance on Leonard's misrepresentations. 32. Additionally, Leonard's misrepresentations breached the terms of his Agreement, attached as Exhibit B, since Leonard's misrepresentations diverted, diminished and prejudiced QBW. Wherefore, Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, demands judgment against defendant, Bill S. Leonard in the sum of $8,821.94, said amount being less than $35,000.00 Respectfully Submitted, A. Gill, Esq. 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 27043 (717) 737-2522 #41532 Attorney for Plaintiff Quality Builders Warranty Corporation AGREEMENT This Agreement is made on the // day of September 2006, between Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, (QBW) and Bill S. Leonard (Leonard). Leonard has agreed to commence employment with QBW on September 11, 2006 and in connection with employment, QBW will pay Leonard a $5,000.00, "sign on bonus", to be paid with Leonard's first pay. Leonard agrees that he will repay the sum of $5,000.00 to QBW in the event his employment is terminated by either party, for any reason, within three years of employment. In the event Leonard's employment is terminated within three years, and he fails to voluntarily repay the amount agreed upon, Leonard will be responsible for the cost incurred by QBW to compel compliance, including attorney fees. This agreement shall be interpreted under Pennsylvania Law and any suit shall be instituted in Pennsylvania in a Court of Competent Jurisdiction. Leonard consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Courts. \ S. Leonard Date Quality Builders Warranty Corporation B Title Da EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT This Agreement is made on the 11"i day of September, 2006 between QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION," QBW", and BILLS LEONARD, "EMPLOYEE" WHEREAS, QBW desires to employ EMPLOYEE as an at-will employee and whereas, EMPLOYEE desires to be employed by QBW as an at-will employee. WHEREAS, as prerequisite for employment with QBW, EMPLOYEE must execute this agreement containing a restrictive covenant. Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein and intending to be legally bound hereby, it is agreed between QBW and EMPLOYEE as follows: EMPLOYEE agrees that at no time during the term of employment, and for a period of two (2) years immediately following the termination of employment, will he/she, for himself/herself or on behalf of any person other than QBW, be employed by or in any way become affiliated with any other warranty program or engage in the recruitment of builders for and in connection with any competitor of QBW in the states where QBW does business. EMPLOYEE also agrees that any and all records, computer or other, including but not limited to the names and addresses of builders registered in the Program and any other records relating in any manner whatsoever to the business and operation of QBW, applicant builders or prospective applicants, prospect cards, whether compiled or prepared by EMPLOYEE, or otherwise coming into his/her possession, including copies, or computer databases, shall be the exclusive property of QBW and will be returned to QBW immediately upon termination of employment. EMPLOYEE agrees not to make copies of any information provided to him/her or copy any information on or from computer software. EMPLOYEE shall not at any time directly or indirectly, use or disclose to any person, except to QBW and its duly authorized officers and employees entitled thereto, the list, of prospective, registered or applicant builders, their credit classifications, records, statistics, or other information with respect to registered or applicant builders, or information learned concerning the QBW program including rates, revenues, insurance relationships, policy limits, etc., acquired by EMPLOYEE or anyone else in the.course of the performance of his/her duties in any capacity whatsoever. since this information is confidential and not available to the public. EMPLOYEE shall not in any manner, directly or indirectly, aid or be party to any acts, the effect of which would divert, diminish or prejudice the good will or business of QBW; or its relationships with its employees, past and present or future as well as its business and regulatory relationships. No compensation due will be paid until aII materials, including computer hardware or software, are returned in good and working condition and in the same condition received, normal wear and tear- excepted. Additionally no commissions will be paid after the last day of employment since commissions cease with employment. EMPLOYEE will be responsible for any tampering with information on the computer and cost associated with any damage to or retum of the equipment and materials. This Agreement shall be interpreted under Pennsylvania lavand any suit shall be instituted in Pennsylvania in a court of competent jurisdiction. EMPLOYEE consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania courts. In connection with employment EMPLOYEE will receive an employee handbook which provisions are incorporated herein. QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION By_ dent Date: 1/03 EKHiBiT B VERIFICATION I, JOSEPH M. OLSHEFSKI, President of Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, hereby certify and state that the foregoing Second Amended Complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; and that I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: S-- /O - o ,) Quality B l a Warranty Corporation By: Joseph M. Olshefski, President CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a copy of the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was sent via U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, addressed as follows: Solomon Z. Krevsky Clark & Krevsky, LLC P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 Date Peggy Morrison, Secretary x` a r ___+ ? T _r, , S"' :' r] -_.. .? F ?_ ??a ?! . . L,) j ? . _ ?' w y ..1,;1 ?? •'¢. • r QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION, Plaintiff VS. BILL S. LEONARD Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET # 07-1102 CIVIL ACTION PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS AND NOW THIS 3 day of May, 2007, comes the Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, by and through its Attorney, John A. Gill, Esquire, and files the within Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff is Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, (QBW) a Pennsylvania Corporation with its principal place of business located at 325 North Second Street, Wormleysburg, PA Cumberland County Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is Bill S. Leonard, an adult individual who was employed by Plaintiff as the Midwest Regional Sales Director for the period September 11, 2006 to February 20, 2007. 3. On February 28, 2007, Plaintiff filed the within action seeking repayment of a $5,000.00 "sign-on bonus" and compensation for Defendant's misrepresentations to Plaintiff. 4. On April 2, 2007 Plaintiff forwarded its First Request For Production of Documents, pursuant to PA R.C.P. 4009.11, directed to Defendant, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. 5. Plaintiff requested that Defendant produce twelve categories of documents. f ?W 6. On May 1, 2007 Defendant interposed objections to Plaintiff's First Request For Production of Documents, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B. 7. Defendant has filed the same seven, boilerplate objections to each of Plaintiff's request. 8. Plaintiff maintains that the objections are boilerplate after reviewing each certification of Defendant's counsel wherein he certifies that he is "acting on behalf of Plaintiff'. The Counsel then signed as attorney for Defendant. 9. In any event, the objections interposed are not in accordance with PA R.C.P. 4009.12 and it is believed that Defendant filed the objections simply to delay production of documents to which Plaintiff is entitled. 10. Defendant's objections are not in accordance with PA R.C.P. 4009.12. For example, although Defendant interposed various objections based on privilege etc, Defendant has failed to identify any documents or things not produced or made available because of the objection which is required of PA R.C.P. 4009.12(b)2. 11. Plaintiffs Counsel contacted Defendant's Counsel on May 8, 2007 in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute however, no resolution was reached. 12. Plaintiff's request for production are reasonable, and within the scope of permissible discovery under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 13. Defendant's objections are interposed to simply delay this matter. Plaintiff requests that Defendant be sanctioned in the form of paying Plaintiffs costs in the sum of $500.00 in seeking to compel the Production of Documents. Plaintiff further requests that until Defendant files meaningful responses to the request for production and produces documents as required that Defendant be prohibited from engaging in any discovery. r X WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, requests that Defendant, Bill S. Leonard, be compelled to file an answer to Plaintiff's Request For Production Of Documents and produce the documents requested and further, that Defendant be prohibited from engaging in discovery until the documents are produced. Finally, Plaintiff requests that it be awarded fees in the sum of $500.00 as reimbursement for costs incurred in connection with filing of the within motion. S- ?-07 DATE B? JO AG ESQUIRE Attorney ID # 41532 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Attorney for Plaintiff Quality Builders Warranty Corp. r s Quality Builders Warranty Corporation Plaintiff V. BILL S. LEONARD Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 07-1102 CIVIL ACTION QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT To: Bill S. Leonard C/O Solomon Z. Krevsky. Clark & Krevsky, LLC P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Quality Builders Warranty Corporation ("QBW"), by and through its counsel, John A. Gill, Esquire, hereby requests Defendant to answer the following Requests for Production of Documents, under oath and in writing, within thirty (30) days of service. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFMTIONS 1. "Defendant", "you" and "your" refers to Bill S. Leonard. 2. The Term "identify" when used herein refers to the provision of the following information: (a) The date of the document; (b) The title of the document; (c) Any identifying number on the document; (d) Any identifying designation for the document; (e) A description of the document; 13 { x (f) The subject matter of the document; (g) The name, title, address and telephone number of each person who wrote, signed, prepared, dictated, participated in the preparation of, created, initialed or otherwise had any function with respect to the preparation of the document of review of the document; (h) The name, title, address and telephone number of each addressee on the document as well as the same for each person receiving a copy of the document; (i) The present location of the document and the name and address of the custodian of the document; (j) If a document is not an original, the location, name and address of the custodian of the original; and (k). Any other designation necessary to identify the document for purposes of obtaining a copy thereof. 3. The term "document" shall have the broadest possible meaning under the Pennsylvania Rules Of Civil Procedure and includes all written, typed, printed, recorded or graphic matter of every type and description, however and by whomever prepared, produced, reproduced, disseminated or made, in any form, now or formerly in the possession, custody, or control of the parry to whom this Request is addressed, including, but not limited to letters, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, records, contracts, subcontracts, agreements, intra and interoffice communications, electronic mail, results of investigations, reviews, recommendations, critiques, trip reports, charts, diaries, desk calendars, appointment books, messages, instructions, work assignments, notes, notebooks, tape recordings, partial or complete reports of telephone conversations, photographs, slides, opinions, and any other writings, drawings or recordings. If any document was but is no longer in the possession of the party to whom this Request is addressed or subject to such party's control, identify the document. 1 X 4. If you claim that any or all documents identified herein are no longer in your possession, custody, or control because of destruction, loss, or any other reason, then do the following with respect to each and every such document: (a) describe the nature of the documents (e.g., letter or memorandum); (b) state the date of the document; (c) identify the persons who sent and received the original and a copy of the document; and (d) state in as much detail as possible the contents of the document. 5. If you claim that the production of any document requested in the Document Request is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, provide the following information: (a) Identify each and every person involved in the act, communication, or information, and, if the claimed privilege relates to a. document,. identify each person who prepared or participated in the preparation of the document and who received it, and each person from whom the document was received; and (b) Provide sufficient information concerning the act, communication, information or document and the circumstances thereof to explain the claim of privilege and to permit the adjudication of the propriety of any such claim. 6. "QBW" refers to Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1: All documents constituting, containing, relating to or reflecting any contract, agreement or understanding of any kind between you and QBW. RESPONSE; ? r REQUEST NO. 2: All documents constituting, containing, relating to or reflecting any communication between you and QBW. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 3: All documents constituting, containing, relating to or reflecting any communication between you and any individuals who you recruited and/or interviewed on behalf of QBW. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 4: All documents comprising and/or constituting any file(s) maintained, created, or kept by you and which relate in any way to QBW. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 5: All documents that you intend to introduce or use during discovery, at any hearing or at the trial of this matter. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 6: All documents constituting, containing, relating to or reflecting any correspondence, communications, negotiations, discussions, meetings, notes or summaries relating to your interviewing for a position with QBW. RESPONSE: I REQUEST NO. 7: All documents that support of refute any of the allegations set forth in QBW's Complaint. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 8: All documents from prior positions held by you to indicate your involvement in the hiring process of employees. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 9: All documents indicating job performance at prior employers including job performance reviews and sales statistics. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 10: All documents showing income paid to or received by Defendant, from any source other than QBW, for the period September 11, 2006 to February 20, 2007. RESPONSE: RESQUEST NO. 11: All practice and game schedules for a period of September 11, 2006 to February 20, 2007. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 12: All documents relating to team activities and games for the period September 11, 2006 to February 20, 2007 for sports teams where Defendant was involved with coaching. RESPONSE: Respectfully Submitted, Jo iAU11,Esquire? 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 27043 (717) 737-2522 #41532 Attorney for Plaintiff Quality Builders Warranty Corporation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a copy of the Plaintiff's First Set of Requests For Production of Documents Directed to Defendant was sent via U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, addressed as follows: Solomon Z. Krevsky Clark & Krevsky, LLC P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 Date Peggy Morrison, Secretary u'j ( ! IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CIVIL DIVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 07-1102 Civil v BILL S. LEONARD Defendant DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendant Bill S. Leonard, by and through his attorneys Clark & Krevsky, LLC, hereby responds to Plaintiff s First Set of Request for Production of Documents. Defendant reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses before trial based upon his continuing investigation, if appropriate. 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiffs request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff s request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not KAI / /3 / T k relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo n Krevsky, Esquire Clark ,e sky, LLC Attorney for Defendant 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiffs request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiffs request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Clark & K vsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Clark evsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo on Krevsky, Esquire Clark & Kr vsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant 5. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: ice' Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Clar vsky, LLC AttorneyT6r Defendant 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Clar evsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant I - 7. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attomey/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the. discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By&mon Sorevsky,Esquire Cl_ sky, LLC Attorney for Defendant 8. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. 1 ` (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: `\ v t? Solomon . Krevsky, Esquire Clark '& Ki?vsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant s 9. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. I (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo n Krevsky, Esquire Clark sky, LLC Attorney for Defendant -1 t h r 10. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff s request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff s request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. s ? ? ? (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: 4,--" Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Clark Kr sky, LLC Attorney for-befendant t , r 11. Defendant objects to Plaintiff s request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff s request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiffs request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. 3k f A M (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. r By. Solo on Krevsky, Esquire Clark _Kr vsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant ? 4 M 12. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that'such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. .! 41 As f (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. .(7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo on Krevsky, Esquire Clark evsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant 0L.fi CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this 1 st day of May, 2007, 1, Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: John A. Gill, Esquire Quality Builders Warranty 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC By: v - ` - o Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Atto v f0 ;Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkgclark-krevskylaw.com +t ...,1t s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a copy of the Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Discovery and For Sanctions was sent via U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, addressed as follows: Solomon Z. Krevsky Clark & Krevsky, LLC P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 Date Peggy Morrison, Secretary r 71 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA QUALITY UILDERS WARRANTY CIVIL DIVISION CORPORATION, : Plaintiff No. 07-1102 Civil v BILL S. objects to Compel Di 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6. ARD Defendant )AN 1' ZS Mu 11UN FUR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IN OPPOSITION TO IFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS ?ndant Bill S. Leonard (hereinafter "Mr. Leonard"), by and through its counsel, uality Builders Warranty Corporation's (hereinafter "Plaintiff') Motion to covery and for Sanctions and moves for a protective order, as follows: On or about March 23, 2007, Mr. Leonard filed Preliminary Objections to J s Complaint. Plaintiff mailed its First Request for Production of Documents on April 2, 2007. On or about April 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. i On or about May 1, 2007, Defendant filed objections to Plaintiffs discovery requests. On or about May s, 2007, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions. Thereafter, Mr. Leonard filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. 7. Plaintiff forwarded to Mr. Leonard its Second Amended Complaint on or about 10, 2007. 8. Qn May 30, 2007 through this counsel, Defendant and its Counsel filed a ipe to Withdraw Defendant's previous counsel of record, and enter the of undersigned counsel. 9. Pn May 30, 2007, Defendant through his Counsel filed Preliminary Objections Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint. 10. Pecause no Answer has been filed, and no further pleadings, allegations, or claims have been made by Plaintiff to date in response to Defendant's or Preliminary Objections, Defendant maintains that Plaintiffs First for Production of Documents and Defendant's answer to such are . Potts v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 37 Pa. D.&C. 4', 196, 199 Allegheny County, 1998), Chait & Co., Inc. v. Republican State Committee, 30 D.&.C. 2nd 678 (Dauphin County, 1963). 11. ? ks such a Plaintiff may be entitled to discovery in order to prepare its Complaint possibly before an Answer and/or Preliminary Objections are filed if it has a reason; however, Plaintiff had already filed its original complaint it sent Defendant Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents, Plaintiff has not offered a compelling reason it needs to begin discovery at stage of litigation. 12. Defendant thus moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011 and 12, for a Protective Order seeking to preclude Plaintiff s service of written 2 f Y upon Mr. Leonard, and Mr. Leonard's responses thereto, until the rules on Mr. Leonard's Preliminary Objections. 13. Mr. Leonard respectfully submits (1) that because the Preliminary Objections result in the dismissal of Plaintiff s action against it, answering Plaintiff s itten discovery at this time constitutes an undue burden and annoyance and an expense to Mr. Leonard; and (2) that discovery should also be uded until the Court rules on the pending Preliminary Objections due to the judice that would befall Mr. Leonard in being forced to disclose material to the Plaintiff would not ordinarily be entitled. 14. With respect to the instant situation, Pennsylvania courts have stated that "[u]pon ion of these motions, I advise counsel that I ordinarily stay discovery the pleadings are closed unless the party seeking the discovery can show a ing reason." Potts v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 37 Pa. D.&C.4th 196, 199 ;Allegheny County, 1998); see also Chait & Company, Inc. v. Republican State ommittee, 30 Pa. D.&C.2nd 678 (Dauphin County, 1963); Dussell v. Kaufman onstruction Co., 10 Pa. D&C.2nd 505 (1957) (all holding in substance that a will not be compelled to answer interrogatories filed by the plaintiff preliminary objections to the complaint are disposed of). 15. Clearly, Plaintiff has no compelling reason to compel discovery prior to the isposition of Mr. Leonard's Preliminary Objections, to which Plaintiff has responded. 3 r 16. ?,s such, at this point in the instant litigation it is premature for Plaintiff to 17. 18. guest that documents be produced by Defendant, as well as for Defendant to compelled to produce documents. erefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to the sanctions it requests. cordingly, Mr. Leonard's Motion for Protective Order should be granted and covery in this matter should be precluded until such time as the Court rules on s Preliminary Objections. to Order. )RE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion Discovery and for Sanctions and grant Defendant's Motion for a Protective Respectfully submitted, Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #202467 115 Pine Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 872-6460 (717) 872-6499 fax e-mail: lmcohenlawgverizon.net 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE NOW, TO WIT, this 30th day of May, 2007, I, Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the Onited States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to counsel of record as follows: John A. Gill, Esquire Quality Builders Warranty 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Respectfully submitted, Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. 4202467 115 Pine Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 872-6460 (717) 872-6499 fax e-mail: lmcohenlaw@verizon.net 6 1 1 VV+ Iz IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CIVIL DIVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 07-1102 Civil BILL S. LEONARD v Defendant PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE Please withdraw the appearance of Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, of Clark & Krevsky, LLC, on behalf of Defendant, Bill S. Leonard, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, CLARK &YEREVSKY, LLC By. w Sol mon evsky, squire Atto ey for efendant Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: s&2clark-krevskylaw.com PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE Please enter the appearance of Lisa Matukitis, Esquire and Aaron Gray Cohen, Esquire on behalf of Defendant, Bill S. Leonard, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, AARON GRAY COHEN LAW OFFICE By: ,Uvl. 6VUAAAW Lx Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #202467 Aaron Gray Cohen, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. # 2 0 0 5 21 115 South Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 823-6460 (717) 823-6499 fax e-mail: lmcohenlaw@verizon.net 33 A 'LICE : -ts• .J V IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CIVIL DIVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 07-1102 Civil v BILL S. LEONARD Defendant PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant Bill S. Leonard (hereinafter "Mr. Leonard"), by and through his undersigned counsel, preliminarily objects to the Second Amended Complaint of Quality Builders Warranty Corporation ("Plaintiff') as follows: SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS AS PLEADED BY PLAINTIFF 1. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Leonard became an employee of Plaintiff with the title of Mid-West Regional Sales Director on September 11, 2006. Second Amended Complaint ¶3. 2. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Leonard was paid a "sign on bonus" in the sum of $5,000 with the stipulation that if Leonard's employment was terminated within three years he would repay said sum. Second Amended Complaint 14. See also Agreement attached to Amended Complaint as Exhibit A. 3. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Leonard's job duties included hiring sales representatives in his territory. Second Amended Complaint ¶15. 4. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Leonard recruited and presented to Plaintiff a candidate by the name of Amber Scollick. Second Amended Complaint ¶16. 5. Plaintiff alleges that during the interview and recruiting process Mr. Leonard misrepresented the position to Scollick in that he told Scollick that the working hours were flexible and she could mandate her own hours as long as she was working forty (40) hours. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Leonard told Scollick she would only have to make forty (40) to sixty (60) telephone calls per day. Second Amended Complaint T¶17-19. 6. Plaintiff alleges that during the interview process Mr. Leonard misrepresented Scollick's necessary job limitations and needed accommodations to Plaintiff including that Scollick informed Mr. Leonard that she had instituted suit against a prior employer but that Mr. Leonard never disclosed this information to Plaintiff. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Leonard indicated to Plaintiff that Scollick's status as a primary care giver to a young child would not impact her position since she had made arrangements for care giving during required job duties. Second Amended Complaint T¶21-23. 7. Plaintiff claims that Scollick resigned her position once she learned the true nature of her job requirements. Second Amended Complaint 125. 8. Plaintiff claims that it would not have offered Scollick a job nor would Scollick have accepted same had Mr. Leonard been truthful in his representations. Second Amended Complaint ¶27. 9. Plaintiff claims that Mr. Leonard's "apparent motive" was to build a sales force quickly to generate commissions for himself. Second Amended Complaints I M29-31. 9. Plaintiff contends that it suffered damages through training expenses and salary in the sum of $8,821.94. Second Amended Complaint ¶26. 2 y 1. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF COUNT III OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) 10. Defendant incorporates by reference the averments in Paragraphs 1 through 9 of the instant Preliminary Objections. 11. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) permits preliminary objections to challenge the "legal sufficiency of a pleading (demurrer)". 12. Although Plaintiff provides no named legal theories for Count III of its Second Amended Complaint, it purports to set forth a cause of action based on intentional misrepresentation. 13. The elements for a cause of action of intentional misrepresentation are: (1) a representation; (2) which is material to the transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4) with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (6) the resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance. Heritage Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. v. National Penn Bank, 801 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2002). 14. Intentional misrepresentation is akin to a claim for fraud which consists of "anything calculated to deceive whether by single act or combination, or by suppression of truth or suggestion of what is false, whether it be direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth or look or gesture". Moser v. DeSetta, 589 A.2d 679, 682 (Pa. 1991). 15. Count III of Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint fails to plead a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation and/or fraud. 16. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b) requires that, "averments of fraud or mistake shall be averred with particularity" 3 f 17. Allegations of fraud must include facts offering insight into one party's intent to deceive the aggrieved party. Skurnowicz & Skumowicz v. Lucci & Lucci, 798 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2002). 18. Plaintiff has made general and vague allegations of misrepresentation which fail to allege specific facts that would permit Mr. Leonard to prepare a defense to the claims raised by the Plaintiff. 19. Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint fails to plead with the requisite degree of particularity how Mr. Leonard's alleged communications were intended to deceive Plaintiff. 20. Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint fails to plead with the requisite degree of particularity the basis upon which Plaintiff could reasonably have relied on any alleged communication by Mr. Leonard. 21. For example, in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff fails to state with specificity just how Mr. Leonard's alleged "misrepresentation" was an "attempt to quickly build a sales force to generate commissions for himself..." This paragraph offers absolutely no facts to show how this allegation in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was even possible; It describes with no particularity or specificity just how or why "quickly building a sales force" would benefit his commission earnings. Furthermore said Paragraph describes Mr. Leonard's "motive" as "apparent." "Apparent" is not a definite or specific descriptor of Mr. Leonard's alleged "motive", and as such, Plaintiff has failed to state its claim that Mr. Leonard allegedly "misrepresented" Plaintiff with specificity or particularity, failing to meet its requirement to state a prima facie case of Intentional Misrepresentation. 4 w ti 22. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint fails to plead with the requisite degree of particularity scienter. In the absence of scienter, the claim of intentional misrepresentation must fail. Brindle v. West Allegheny Hospital, 594 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 1991). WHEREFORE, Defendant Mr. Leonard respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain his Preliminary Objections and dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). 23. Defendant incorporates by reference the averments in Paragraphs 1 through 22 of the instant Preliminary Objections. 24. Pa.RC.P. 1028(a)(3) permits preliminary objections for "insufficient specificity in a pleading". 25. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(f) requires that, "averments of time, place and items of special damage be specifically stated". 26. In Count III of its Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff' alleges that it "suffered damages through training expenses and salary of Ms. Scollick in the sum of $8,821.94", but identifies "QBW employee training costs" in the amount of $5,000 without further specificity or information. Second Amended Complaint ¶20. The Plaintiff has yet to offer a detailed accounting or even any relevant exhibits indicative of cost such as receipts, pay stubs, etc. 27. Where damages are already liquidated or reasonably capable of ascertainment, the respective amounts of damage attributable to each item shall be set forth. Toth v. Glessner, 16 D & C.3d 338,343 (1979). 5 28. Plaintiff has made only general and vague allegations of damages which fail to allege specific facts that would permit Mr. Leonard to prepare a defense to the claims raised by the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant Mr. Leonard respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain his Preliminary Objections and dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, ww" Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #202467 115 Pine Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 872-6460 (717) 872-6499 fax e-mail: lmcohenlaw(??a,verizon.net 6 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CIVIL DIVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 07-1102 Civil v BILL S. LEONARD Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of , 2007, upon consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, it is ORDERED that said Preliminary Objections are hereby sustained, and Count III of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. BY THE COURT, J. 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this 30th day of May, 2007, I, Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to counsel of record as follows: John A. Gill, Esquire Quality Builders Warranty 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Respectfully submitted, VLisa Matukaitis, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #202467 115 Pine Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 872-6460 (717) 872-6499 fax e-mail: lmcohenlawAverizon.net 8 P A fix y„ ? -rt -a m "C3 Cv N C QUALITY BUILDERS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WARRANTY CORPORATION, CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : DOCKET # 07-1102 VS. BILL S. LEONARD : CIVIL ACTION Defendant : PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS AND NOW THIS day of May, 2007, comes the Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, by and through its Attorney, John A. Gill, Esquire, and files the within Amended Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff is Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, (QBW) a Pennsylvania Corporation with its principal place of business located at 325 North Second Street, Wormleysburg, PA Cumberland County Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is Bill S. Leonard, an adult individual who was employed by Plaintiff as the Midwest Regional Sales Director for the period September 11, 2006 to February 20, 2007. 3. On February 28, 2007, Plaintiff filed the within action seeking repayment of a $5,000.00 "sign-on bonus" and compensation for Defendant's misrepresentations to Plaintiff. 4. On April 2, 2007 Plaintiff forwarded its First Request For Production of Documents, pursuant to PA R.C.P. 4009.11, directed to Defendant, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. 5. Plaintiff requested that Defendant produce twelve categories of documents. I (f) The subject matter of the document; (g) The name, title, address and telephone number of each person who wrote, signed, prepared, dictated, participated in the preparation of, created, initialed or otherwise had any function with respect to the preparation of the document of review of the document; (h) The name, title, address and telephone number of each addressee on the document as well as the same for each person receiving a copy of the document; (i) The present location of the document and the name and address of the custodian of the document; (j) If a document is not an original, the location, name and address of the custodian of the original; and (k) Any other designation necessary to identify the document for purposes of obtaining a copy thereof. 3. The term "document" shall have the broadest possible meaning under the Pennsylvania Rules Of Civil Procedure and includes all written, typed, printed, recorded or graphic matter of every type and description, however and by whomever prepared, produced,' reproduced, disseminated or made, in any form, now or formerly in the possession, custody, or control of the party to whom this Request is addressed, including, but not limited to letters, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, records, contracts, subcontracts, agreements, intra and interoffice communications, electronic mail, results of investigations, reviews, recommendations, critiques, trip reports, charts, diaries, desk calendars, appointment books, messages, instructions, work assignments, notes, notebooks, tape recordings, partial or complete reports of telephone conversations, photographs, slides, opinions, and any other writings, drawings or recordings. If any document was but is no longer in the possession of the party to whom this Request is addressed or subject to such party's control, identify the document. 4. If you claim that any or all documents identified herein are no longer in your possession, custody, or control because of destruction, loss, or any other reason, then do the following with respect to each and every such document: (a) describe the nature of the documents (e g., letter or memorandum); (b) state the date of the document; (c) identify the persons who sent and received the original and a copy of the document; and (d) state in as much detail as possible the contents of the document. 5. If you claim that the production of any document requested in the Document Request is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, provide the following information: (a) Identify each and every person involved in the act, communication, or information, and, if the claimed privilege relates to a document,, identify each person who prepared or participated in the preparation of the document and who received it, and each person from whom the document was received; and (b) Provide sufficient information concerning the act, communication, information or document and the circumstances thereof to explain the claim of privilege and to permit the adjudication of the propriety of any such claim. 6. "QBW" refers to Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1: All documents constituting, containing, relating to or reflecting any contract, agreement or understanding of any kind between you and QBW. RESPONSE; REQUEST NO. 2: All documents constituting, containing, relating to or reflecting any communication between you and QBW. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 3: All documents constituting, containing, relating to or reflecting any communication between you and any individuals who you recruited and/or interviewed on behalf of QBW. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO: 4: All documents comprising and/or constituting any file(s) maintained, created, or kept by you and which relate in any way to QBW. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 5: All documents that you intend to introduce or use during discovery, at any hearing or at the trial of this matter. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. b: All documents constituting, containing, relating to or reflecting any correspondence, communications, negotiations, discussions, meetings, notes or summaries relating to your interviewing for a position with QBW. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 7: All documents that support of refute any of the allegations set forth in QBW's Complaint. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 8: All documents from prior positions held by you to indicate your involvement in the hiring process of employees. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 9: All documents indicating job performance at prior employers including job performance reviews and sales statistics_ RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 10: All documents showing income paid to or received by Defendant, from any source other than QBW, for the period September 11, 2006 to February 20, 2007. RESPONSE: REQQUEST NO. 11: All practice and game schedules for a period of September 11, 2006 to February 20, 2007. RESPONSE: REQUEST NO. 12: All documents relating to team activities and games for the period September 11, 2006 to February 20, 2007 for sports teams where Defendant was involved with coaching. RESPONSE: Respectfully Submitted, Jo A. Gill, Esquire 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 27043 (717) 737-2522 #41532 Attorney for Plaintiff Quality Builders Warranty Corporation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a copy of the Plaintiff's First Set of Requests For Production of Documents Directed to Defendant was sent via U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, addressed as follows: Solomon Z. Krevsky Clark & Krevsky, LLC P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 c2-0 0 Ulid Date. Peggy Morrison, Secretary IN[ THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CIVIL DIVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 07-1102 Civil v BILL S. LEONARD Defendant DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendant Bill S. Leonard, by and through his attorneys Clark & Krevsky, LLC, hereby responds to Plaintiff's First Set of Request for Production of Documents. Defendant reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses before trial based upon his continuing investigation, if appropriate. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff s request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not ?x/Jii3rr iJ relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo on Krevsky, Esquire Clark & Kr - sky, LLC Attorney for Defendant 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiff s request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff s request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff s request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By, I Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Clark & Krevsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pemisylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Clark 8z evsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiffs instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pemzsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. Y Solo on Krevsky, Esquire Clark & Kr, vsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant Defendant objects to Plaintiffs request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attomey/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper- to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiffs request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the.Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo on Krevsky, Esquire Clar & Kr vsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (b) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Clark &-Xrevsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to tlus request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Sol mon . Krevsky, Esquire Clar & Itevsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant ?. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defend ant'obj ects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Clark& Ki?vsky, LLC \ Attorney for Defendant e 9. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. , , (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo n Krevsky, Esquire Clark sky, LLC Attorney for Defendant 10. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. t C i (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of.the Plaintiff. By. Solo on Krevsky, Esquire Clark Kr sky, LLC Attorney for Defendant d ( ) t 11. Defendant objects to Plaintiff s request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff s request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff s Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. I I I (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. r `? By. Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Clark K?evsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant 6 l 1 11 12. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for the following reasons: (1) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it would require the production of documents subject to the attorney/client, work product, and/or any other applicable privilege, on the grounds that'such disclosure is not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and would be contrary to public policy. (2) Defendant objects to this request as improper to the extent that it would require Defendant to create a document not in existence at the time of Plaintiff's request, or to produce documents which are no longer or never were in Defendant's possession, custody or control. (3) To the extent that Plaintiff's request does not state a time frame for which production of documents are sought or a specified time frame which is excessive in light of the nature of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant objects to each such request on the grounds that the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are not relevant to any issue properly before the Court nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (4) Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it purports to require the production of confidential records of individuals other than the Plaintiff on the ground that these documents are confidential in nature and production would invade the privacy of the individuals in question. (5) To the extent this request seeks facts known or opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as trial witnesses, it exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. ¦ r r l (6) Defendant objects to Plaintiff's instructions and definitions to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant an obligation to respond or to supplement responses which exceed that required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. .(7) Defendant objects to this request insofar as it is premature in light of Defendant's Preliminary Objections presently pending for disposition by the Court. Accordingly, the request requires the making of an unreasonable investigation under Pa. R.C.P. 4011(e). CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that objections were entered by me acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. By: Solo on Krevsky, Esquire Clark -KYevsky, LLC Attorney for Defendant k I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this 1 st day of May, 2007, I, Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: John A. Gill, Esquire Quality Builders Warranty 325 North Second Street Wonnleysburg, PA 17043 Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC By: v - \_ - o Solo on . Krevsky, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkQclark-krevs - law.com A ti i R CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a copy of the Plaintiffs Amended Motion To Compel Discovery and For Sanctions was sent via U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, addressed as follows: Solomon Z. Krevsky Clark & Krevsky, LLC P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 ? rt Date Peggy Morrison, Secretary N C7 c_ p -n n /r 1> QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION Plaintiff V. BILL S. LEONARD Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION No. 07-1102 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, (QBW) by and through its undersigned counsel, files the within reply to Defendant's Preliminary Objections to QBW's Second Amended Complaint and replies as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. Defendant mischaracterizes the allegation of 115 of QBW's Second Amended Complaint. QBW incorporates herein the full 115 of its Second Amended Complaint. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. Defendant mischaracterizes the allegation of 1129-31 of QBW's Second Amended Complaint. QBW incorporates herein the full IM29-31 of its Second Amended Complaint. 9. Denied. Defendant mischaracterizes the allegation of 126 of QBW's Second Amended Complaint. QBW incorporates herein the full 126 of its Second Amended Complaint. I. DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF COUNT III OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) 10. QBW incorporates herein its replies to ¶¶1-9 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. The allegations contained in 113 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law to which no reply is required. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in 114 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law to which no reply is required. 15. Denied. Count III of QBW's Second Amended Complaint is sufficient to obtain the recovery sought and states a cause of action against Defendant. 16. Admitted. 17. Denied. The allegations contained in 117 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law to which no reply is required. 18. Denied. QBW has made very specific allegations sufficient for pleading purposes, which would enable Defendant to prepare a defense. 19. Denied. QBW's Second Amended Complaint pleads sufficient facts to enable Defendant to prepare a defense and pleads with the requisite degree of particularity how Mr. Leonard's alleged communications were intended to deceive QBW. QBW incorporates herein its allegations in ¶M1-32 of its Second Amended Complaint. 20. Denied. QBW has pled with sufficient particularity the basis upon which it could have reasonably relied. 21. Denied. QBW's Second Amended Complaint specifically states a cause of action. The issues set forth in Defendant's Preliminary Objections are more easily resolved through the discovery process, and QBW is not required to provide a more specific complaint. QBW incorporates herein IM1-32 of its Second Amended Complaint. 22. Denied. QBW's Second Amended Complaint pleads with the necessary elements of the cause of action. QBW incorporates herein ¶¶1-32 of its Second Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, requests that Defendant's Preliminary Objections be dismissed. II. DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). 23. QBW incorporates herein its replies to ¶¶1-22 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections. 24. Admitted. 25. Admitted. 26. Denied. The characterization of 120 of QBW's Second Amended Complaint is inaccurate. By way of further answer the Second Amended Complaint pleads the requisite degree of specificity required an additional information can be obtained through the discovery process. 27. Denied. The allegations contained in 127 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law to which no reply is required. 28. Denied. QBW has made very specific allegations of damages to which each time Defendant preliminary objects. QBW has supplemented its allegations to attempt to meet Defendant's demands for specificity. Any additional information can be obtained through the discovery process. By way of further answer the fact that Defendant is able to prepare a "demur", then by definition the pleading is specific enough for the Defendant to understand the allegations contained in the complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Quality Builders Warranty Corporation, respectfully requests that Defendant's Preliminary Objections be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, ZoA. Gill, Esquire 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 27043 (717) 737-2522 #41532 Attorney for Plaintiff Quality Builders Warranty Corporation v CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a copy of the Plaintiff's Reply To Defendant's Preliminary Objections To Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was sent via U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, addressed as follows: Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire Aaron Gray Cohen Law Office 115 South Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 ao 7 Date UV Morrison, Secretary ?({4 13 A QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION Plaintiff V BILL S. LEONARD Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET #07-1102 CIVIL ACTION ORDER OF COURT emu- -- AND NOW THIS + day of MW, 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant, Bill S. Leonard, to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within ?.o days from the date of this order. BY THE COURT, J t j! 3-HI -JC -TY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CIVIL DIVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 07-1102 Civil v BILL S. LEONARD Defendant DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Defendant Bill S. Leonard (hereinafter "Mr. Leonard"), by and through its counsel, hereby shows cause, per Court Order (which was received by this Counsel on June 25, 2007) as to why Quality Builders Warranty Corporation's (hereinafter "Plaintiff') Amended Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions should be denied, as follows: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge to comment on the veracity of this statement. 3. Admitted upon information and belief. 4. Admitted upon information and belief. 5. Admitted upon information and belief. By way of further answer, Defendant filed an Amended Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions due to Plaintiff not including what is currently ¶ 13 in Plaintiff's Amended Motion, which is a necessary statement under the Rules. Therefore, the only difference between Plaintiff s Original Motion and Amended Motion was the addition of Paragraph which is non- substantive. 6. Admitted upon information and belief. 7. Admitted in Part and Denied in part. It is admitted the Plaintiff s attorney filed seven objections, but denies that they are "boilerplate." 8. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Counsel certified by signature that he was a citing on behalf of Plaintiff. Denied that Plaintiff maintains that the objections are "boilerplate," and quite frankly doesn't understand what Plaintiff is referring to by this claim. 9. Denied. Furthermore Plaintiff has no knowledge or belief of Plaintiffs belief as stated. 10-12. Denied in Part and Admitted in Part. Plaintiff admits only to the fact that "no documents have been submitted" and that "the discovery dispute has not been resolved." See, ¶ 11, Plaints Amended Motion to Compel Discovery and For Sanctions. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to answer Plaintiff s allegation that "On May 8, 2007 Plaintiff's counsel sought the concurrence of Defendant's counsel who indicated that he had documents in his possession but would `go through them." See, ¶ Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Compel Discovery and For Sanctions. The rest of the language of ¶¶10-12 is Denied. By way of further answer, to ¶¶ 10-12, discovery cannot be compelled and is not necessary because no Answer has been filed, and no further pleadings, allegations, or factual claims have been made by Plaintiff to date in response to Defendant's answer or Preliminary Objections. Defendant therefore maintains that Plaintiff s First Request for Production of 2 Documents and Defendant's answer to such are premature. Potts v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 37 Pa. D.&C. 4, 196,199 (Allegheny County, 1998), Chait & Co., Inc. v. Republican State Committee, 30 Pa. D.&.C. 2na 678 (Dauphin County, 1963). As such a Plaintiff may be entitled to discovery in order to prepare its Complaint or possibly before an Answer and/or Preliminary Objections are filed if it has a compelling reason; however, Plaintiff had already filed its original complaint before it sent Defendant Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff has not offered a compelling reason it needs to begin discovery at this stage of litigation per Preliminary Objection or otherwise, not even after he filed in June a Reply to Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has not even requested a discovery scheduling meeting or specifically ask for discovery in preparation of both sets of its Preliminary Objections, let along the 3 Complaints it filed. If the Plaintiff needed discovery so urgently, it could and may have requested it to aid in preparing its Complaints and/or Reponses to Defendants Sets of Preliminary Objections. Yet it didn't. With respect to the instant situation, Pennsylvania courts have stated that "[u]pon presentation of these motions, I advise counsel that I ordinarily stay discovery until the pleadings are closed unless the party seeking the discovery can show a compelling reason." Potts v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 37 Pa. D.&C.4th 196, 199 (Allegheny County, 1998); see also Chait & Company, Inc. v. Republican State Committee, 30 Pa. D.&C.2nd 678 (Dauphin County, 1963); Dussell v. Kaufman Construction Co., 10 Pa. D&C.2nd 505 (1957) (all holding in substance that a defendant will not be compelled to answer interrogatories filed by the plaintiff before preliminary objections to the complaint are disposed of). Clearly, as described above, Plaintiff has no compelling reason to compel discovery prior to the 3 disposition of Mr. Leonard's Preliminary Objections, to which Plaintiff finally responded to on June 18, 2007. As such, at this point in the instant litigation it is premature for Plaintiff to request that documents be produced by Defendant, as well as for Defendant to be compelled to produce documents or be forced to identify which documents it has. When discovery is appropriate, the Defendant will produce documents that are unprivileged and in our and our client's possession. Until then, such identification of documents under 4009.12(b)(2). Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to the sanctions it requests. Also by way of further answer, Defendant has filed a Protective Order in conjunction with its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and For Sanctions. As such, under Pa.R.C.P. 4019(a)(2), in its plain language, excuses the opposing parry's non-response if "...the party failing to act has filed an appropriate objection or has applied for a Protective Order." (Emphasis Added). Clearly, Plaintiff filed both on May 30, 2007. Therefore, sanctions cannot be ordered per Pa.R.C.P. 4019(a)(2). See, a True and Correct Copy of Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and For Sanctions, attached as Exhibit 1: "Defendant thus moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011 and 4012, for a Protective Order seeking to preclude Plaintiffs service of written discovery upon Mr. Leonard, and Mr. Leonard's responses thereto, until the Court rules on Mr. Leonard's Preliminary Objections. Mr. Leonard respectfully submits (1) that because the Preliminary Objections may result in the dismissal of Plaintiffs action against it, answering Plaintiffs written discovery at this time constitutes an undue burden and annoyance and an unreasonable expense to Mr. Leonard; and (2) that discovery should also be precluded until the Court rules on the pending Preliminary Objections due to the prejudice that would befall Mr. Leonard in being forced to disclose material to which the Plaintiff would not ordinarily be entitled." See, "Exhibit 1 ". 4 Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to the discovery or sanctions it requests. Accordingly, Mr. Leonard's Motion for Protective Order should be granted and discovery in this matter should be precluded until such time as the Court rules on Defendant's Preliminary Objections. 13. Denied as to the first sentence. The rest of the ¶ does not necessitate a response. 14. Admitted as of the date of Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Compel Discovery and For Sanctions. Denied currently because Judge Hess has filed an Order to Show Cause on June 18th to which this is a response. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions Respectfully submitted, wAit lI?C?I, d Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #202467 115 Pine Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 872-6460 (717) 872-6499 fax e-mail: lmcohenlawga,verizon.net DATE: July 9, 2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this 30t day of 0 r1i Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to counsel of record as follows: John A. Gill, Esquire Quality Builders Warranty 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Respectfully submitted, WVA(itl? Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #202467 115 Pine Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 872-6460 (717) 872-6499 fax e-mail: lmcohenlawgverizon.net 7 Exhibit 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CIVIL DIVISION CORPORATION, BILL S. LEONARD Plaintiff v Defendant No. 07-1102 Civil C N p 0 rTa f ?; ? ,. 2 :-+ 1J M -, w M C-> N 0 to ?J -c DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS Defendant Bill S. Leonard (hereinafter "Mr. Leonard"), by and through its counsel, objects to Quality Builders Warranty Corporation's (hereinafter "Plaintiff') Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions and moves for a protective order, as follows: 1. On or about March 23, 2007, Mr. Leonard filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint. 2. Plaintiff mailed its First Request for Production of Documents on April 2, 2007. 3. On or about April 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. 4. On or about May 1, 2007, Defendant filed objections to Plaintiffs discovery requests. 5. On or about May 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions. 6. Thereafter, Mr. Leonard filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. 7. Plaintiff forwarded to Mr. Leonard its Second Amended Complaint on or about May 10, 2007. 8. On May 30, 2007 through this counsel, Defendant and its Counsel filed a Praecipe to Withdraw Defendant's previous counsel of record, and enter the appearance of undersigned counsel. 9. On May 30, 2007, Defendant through his Counsel filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. 10. Because no Answer has been filed, and no further pleadings, allegations, or factual claims have been made by Plaintiff to date in response to Defendant's answer or Preliminary Objections, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff s First Request for Production of Documents and Defendant's answer to such are premature. Potts v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 37 Pa. D.&C. 4 h, 196, 199 (Allegheny County, 1998), Chait & Co., Inc. v. Republican State Committee, 30 Pa. D.&.C. 2°d 678 (Dauphin County, 1963). 11. As such a Plaintiff may be entitled to discovery in order to prepare its Complaint or possibly before an Answer and/or Preliminary Objections are filed if it has a compelling reason; however, Plaintiff had already filed its original complaint before it sent Defendant Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, and Plaintiff has not offered a compelling reason it needs to begin discovery at this stage of litigation. 12. Defendant thus moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011 and 4012, for a Protective Order seeking to preclude Plaintiffs service of written 2 discovery upon Mr. Leonard, and Mr. Leonard's responses thereto, until the Court rules on Mr. Leonard's Preliminary Objections. 13. Mr. Leonard respectfully submits (1) that because the Preliminary Objections may result in the dismissal of Plaintiffs action against it, answering Plaintiffs written discovery at this time constitutes an undue burden and annoyance and an unreasonable expense to Mr. Leonard; and (2) that discovery should also be precluded until the Court rules on the pending Preliminary Objections due to the prejudice that would befall Mr. Leonard in being forced to disclose material to which the Plaintiff would not ordinarily be entitled. 14. With respect to the instant situation, Pennsylvania courts have stated that "[u]pon presentation of these motions, I advise counsel that I ordinarily stay discovery until the pleadings are closed unless the party seeking the discovery can show a compelling reason." Potts v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 37 Pa. D.&C.4th 196, 199 (Allegheny County, 1998); see also Chait & Company, Inc. v. Republican State Committee, 30 Pa. D.&C.2nd 678 (Dauphin County, 1963); Dussell v. Kaufman Construction Co., 10 Pa. D&C.2nd 505 (1957) (all holding in substance that a defendant will not be compelled to answer interrogatories filed by the plaintiff before preliminary objections to the complaint are disposed of). 15. Clearly, Plaintiff has no compelling reason to compel discovery prior to the disposition of Mr. Leonard's Preliminary Objections, to which Plaintiff has never responded. 3 16. As such, at this point in the instant litigation it is premature for Plaintiff to request that documents be produced by Defendant, as well as for Defendant to be compelled to produce documents. 17. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to the sanctions it requests. 18. Accordingly, Mr. Leonard's Motion for Protective Order should be granted and discovery in this matter should be precluded until such time as the Court rules on Defendant's Preliminary Objections. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff s Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions and grant Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #202467 115 Pine Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 872-6460 (717) 872-6499 fax e-mail: lmcohenlaw@verizon.net 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this 30th day of May, 2007, I, Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to counsel of record as follows: John A. Gill, Esquire Quality Builders Warranty 325 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Respectfully submitted, Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #202467 115 Pine Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 872-6460 (717) 872-6499 fax e-mail: lmcohenlaw@verizon.net 6 (") N c ,> .r. COHEN MATUKAITIS LLC AARON GRAY COHEN, ESQ.* AGCQQ COHENMATUKAITIS.COM LISA MATUKAITIS, ESQ.** LM@Q COHENMATUKAITIS.COM 1 1 5 PINE STREET SUITE 1 00 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 1 71 01 P717-823-6460 F717-823-6499 WWW.COHENMATUKAITIS.COM *ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN PA, CT S MA **ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN PA & CT Lisa Matukaitis, Esq. lmcohenlaw@verizon.net July 9, 2007 Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Quality Builders Warranty Corp. v. Leonard Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, No. 07-1102 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find an original and three copies of Plaintiff's Response to the Court's Rule to Show Cause. Kindly date-stamp one of them and mail it to me in the S.A.S.E. Also enclosed are two postage-paid envelopes for the Judges Order to be sent to both the Plaintiff and Defendant. Please know that since we have recently taken over this case for Defendant, we only received the Judge's Rule to Show Cause on June 25, 2007. Thank you Kindly. Sincerely, n, &ki Lisa Matukaitis, Esq. Enclosures Cc: John Gill QUALITY BUILDERS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WARRANTY CORPORATION, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. NO. 07-1102 CIVIL BILL S. LEONARD, Defendant IN RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS ORDER AND NOW, this day of July, 2007, a brief argument on the motion to compel discovery and for sanctions is set for Thursday, August 30, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. John A. Gill, Esquire For the Plaintiff Lisa Matukaitis, Esquire For the Defendant Am d ?C 7-/J-d7 BY THE COURT, y(' 10Z Z I .014 44 QUALITY BUILDERS WARRANTY CORPORATION Plaintiff v BILL S. LEONARD Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 07-1102 CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE To the Prothonotary: Please mark the above captioned case as, "Discontinued Without Prejudice". Jo A. Gill, Esquire A-ff ormy for Plaintiff Quality Builders Warranty Corporation "1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a copy of the Plaintiffs Praecipe was sent via U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, addressed as follows: Aaron Gray Cohen, Esquire Cohen Matukaitis LLC 115 Pine Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17101 o2oo 7 /)tPt-A-A4 trYX Date Peggy Morrison, Secretary f'?J ,,.. ? c'. %,r'l ?? -.:a f - ?? ?? ?'... . `. ? -?? ".l -? -?C?t r,.- i' :"?r:}