Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-04791 ~ , r,': l,J,q C '" l'~ '_;1 I (-. C,).. " (JII (W',. I l'L r-- b . " " , , oJ -. c:; " -'l , -. ~.. u.. ~ . y" - ] ..'~ r.o._ L-; IJ:-r' (," U .0_-' . ,- 'll,') ,,'1'.; !I!ill V,tl. t',., .;l U " '0 I 1-- r...; o t"- O' " 'I , III , , " , , 'J " I, q " " " e t ... ~~ ~l" ~~ ~~ ;1!~ I ~ ~i ~ ~~;;~ ~~;~ lU~~m ""0 w!io; ~o ci ~I!: ; ~ - ~ ~ :t i" " " , ' i1 I, " ,I' " .. PEPI)~;R, UAMII.TON & sclm~:T;I,....p \ITOIIN".'S ,\ll..\\\i ;1ll0 ON' KIi Yh lON~ I'1.AlA NfJlHH fllllNT ANn MAIl....,T ~;Tllrlils 1''' BOll 111'1 ..Mll1ISI!IJllli,I'f.NNi,'(IVANI'\ ... condition of pluhlliff'N pUYll1ent for IlIl!ht Nufety Irulnlng. By wuy of further unNwer, defendunl further denleN 11M he ugreed ul uny lime 10 remuln In plulntlff'N employ for uny Net period of lime. 7. AdmltN upon Inf,,JrInullon und helieI'. R. DenleN UN concluNlons of luw, To (he extern purugruph II conlulns ullegutlons of fuel, defendunt udmlts only Ihut on Murch 17. 1997, 1,luinllff ordered defenduntto eollect hiN personnel effecls und leuve pluinllff's premises, Defendul1l dcnles the remulnlng ullegutlons of purugruph R. By wuy of further response, defendunl denies thut he ugreed to I'Cmuinln plulntlft"s employ for uny sel period of time, denies (hut he ugreed 10 remuin In plulntlff's employ for one yeur following flight sulcly trulnlng in exchungc for plulmlff's payment for such trulnlnl!, and denies thutlhe purtles el1lered un orul contruct of employment conditioned upon defendunt's remaining In plaintiff's employ for one year following euch t1Ightlrnlnlng program. COUNT I 9. Defendant incorporutes by reference purugruphs I through 8 ubove as If fully set forth herein. 10. Denies us conclusions of luw. To the extent purugruph 10 contuins allegations of fuct. defendant incorporutes by reference his response to parugruph 8 herein. By way of further response, defendunt denies that plaintiff ever discussed with him any obligation to repay the cost of flight safety training in the event defendunt decided to leuve plaintiff's employment within the one-year period following completion of such truining and denies that defendant ever agreed to make uny such repayment. -2- 16, Dellie~. By wny of further re~p()lI~e, defelldnlll sWles Ihut ullhe Illlle he len for IlIghl snfely lrullllng he wus nul ellguged III neguliuliuns Wllh ullyulle concemllllllhe po~sibllily of lellvlng pluintlll's el1lploy, 17, nenic~ us conc1u~iun~ of hlW. To the exlelll purugruph 17 cOlllulllS ullegulion~ of fUCl, denies. By wuy of further re~pon~e. defendullllllcorporule~ by referellce his respollse 10 purugruphs 10-11 und 16 hcreln. Ill, Dcfendunl illCI)rpurutes by referellce his respollses 10 pnrugrnph~ 10 und II herein. WHEREFORE defendunl dClllunds judgment In his fnvor ulld ugulnst plulntlff, the nllomeys' fees und costs Incurred In conncctloll wllh II1Is uCllon, und nny olher such relicI' lhe court deems just und proper, NEW MATIER I. Pluinllff's cOl11plnlnl fulls 10 stule u clulm upon which relief muy be grunted. 2. Plulntiff's clull1l for brcuch of conlrncl is burred by the Stutute of Fruuds. 3. Plulntlff's c1ull11s ure burrcd by lhe doctrine of uncleun hunds. 4. Pluintiff's cluims urc barred by lack uf considerntion und/or fuilure of consideration. 5. Pluintiff's claims arc barrcd by Its own fraudulent conduct. 6. Plaintiff's claims nrc burred by the doctrine uf accord and sutisfuction. 7. Plaintiff hus suffcred no compensable dum,lgcs us u re~ult of the purported wrongful conduct. -4- 8. Evcn If plulntllT IN found to huvc NulTcrcd dlllllugCN (which dcfcndunt denies), those dUlllugCN wcrc thc direct rcsult of pllllntlff'N own IllINrCprcNenlullonN, oll1lNNlonN, und wrongful conduct. 9. Even If plulntllT IN found to huvc NulTcrcd dlllllugCN (which defendunt denies), un)' such dUIl1UgCN mUM bc rcduccd by lhc ul1111Unls plllintlff OWCN dcfendunt, (OUNTERCLAIM As und for hlN countcrclulll1 uglllnst pltllntifr. dcfcnuunt ullcgcs UN follows: THE PARTIES I. Plulntlff HClllpl Bros. Inc, is u Pcnnsylvllnla corporation with Its principal pluce of business at 20S Crcck Roud, Camp lIill. Pcnnsylvllnia. 2, Defendunt is an individulllrcslding III 1240 Willoughby Roud, Hurrlsburg, Penns)'lvunlll. PLAINTIFF OFFERS DEFENDANT EMPLOYMENT AS A PILOT 3, In or about March 1989, pluintiff offcrcd to cmploy defcndunt us a pilot. At the time plaintiff offcrcd dcfendant cmployment, and at all limes thereafter, defendunt remlllned IIn ut-wlll employee, 4, At ulltlmcs relevant, plaintiff advised dcfendant that it WIIS very plellSed with defendant's performuncc, S, During several years he WIlS employed by plaintiff, defendant received bonuses for his performance, 6. At plaintiff's request, defendunt ullended an unnual night safety training course. .S- 7, AI no Ilmc did pllllnllfflldvlNc dcfcndllntthllt llllcndllncc 11ll1lghl Nllfcl)' trulnlns WlIli u condition of hlN conllnucd cmplo)'mcnl. To Ihc clllllrnr)', pluinllff rcqucNlcd Ihul defenduntullend such Irulning cuch )'Ctlr wid)' for pllllnllff's own hcnclltund u.~ uncccsNur)' condhionto Ihe procurcmcnloflnsuruncc for ItN plunc, 8, PluinlitT did not III llny lime hcforc thc commcnccll1cnloflhis uCllon udvlse defcndunlthlll his ullcnduncc ullliglll sufcly lruinlng rcqulrcd dcfcndunlto rcmuln in pluinllff's cmploy for onc ycur uncI' rccelvlng Nuch Irulnlng, 9, At no llmc did plultlliffund dcfcndllnl cnlcr un ugrccmcnl or underslunding, orul or othcrwisc, lhul dcfcndunl wus rcqulrcd to rcmuin in plulnllff's employ for onc ycur uncI' complcllng llIghl sufely trulnlng, Indccd, lhc mullcr wus nevcr discusscd by pluinliff und dcfcndunl. 10, Al no tlmc bcforc lhc commcncemcnloflhls uClion did pluinliffudvise defenduntlhut If he len pluinliff's cmploy wilhinonc ycur uncI' completing llight sufet)' Iruining defendunl would bc required to relmbursc pluintiff for Ihc cost of such lruining, II, Al no timc did dcfcndunl ugrcc to reimbursc plaintiff for the cost of flight sufety training If he left plulntiff'S employment wilhin onc ycar uftcr complcting such lrulning. DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO LEAVE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES 12. In Murch 1997, defenduJltudvised pluintifflhut he Intended to resign his employment with pluinliff und ucccpt employment elsewhere, Defendunt refused to uccept pluintiff's resignution, -6- defendnnllen plulnlll""~ umploy wlthlnonc YCUI' Ihel'cuncl', on Muy 31. 1997, plulnlllT I~~ucd UII Invoice to dcfendunl ~eeklng ~uch I'clmbul'~el1lcnl. 20, At no Ilmc did dcfcndunlugrcc tll puy thc churl!c~ ~el forlh onthc Invoice or InleruM Ihcreon, 21. llcfcnountrclOl'I1eo Ihe Invoice 10 plninllff on Junc 9, 1997 uno demnnded Ihlll plnhlllff ~top ~endtng ~uch Involce~ nno ~ll1p hUl'nsslng defcndnnl. 22, De~plte this oen1llnd, on August 31, 1997 plnlnlllT Issued u ~econd Invoice 10 ocfcndnnt purporting to demuno thm oefendunt relmbursc pluhlllff for Ihc cost of t1Ighl sufety trnlnlng nnd for Inlcresl. 23. Atno tlmc did defcndunl ugrec 10 pny the chnrge~ scl forth in the invoice or illlerestlhel'eon, 24, By conllnulng 10 scnd Invoices 10 defcnonnl for sums ocfendnnt docs not owe, plnlnllff hns engngco in u pUllcrn of hUl'ussmClll uno allcmplco intimioutlonof pluinllff us well us in deccptlve buslncss pl'llctlccs uno ~ommcrclal frauo. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO pA Y DEFENDANT WAGES DUE AND OWING 25. Atlhc timc plaintiff tl~l'I11inateo ocfcnoant's cmploymcnt. defcndunt wu.~ paid wuges bi-weekly inurrcars, 26, Pluintiff fuileo to puy wagcs oue uno owing 10 oefenount for the period Mnrch 12 Ihrough March 17, 1997. COUNT 1- VIOLATION OF WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION LAW 27, Defcndanl incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 26 of his Counterclnim as If fully set forth herein, -8- , 211. Pluhllll'f ugreellto puy uefelluullt wUllcN hl,wcckly III UI'l'CUrN III conslucrutloll for uefenuulIl'N NcrvkeN UN U pilol. 29, Defcndunt provideu plllll NervkcN to plulntll'f Ihroullh UIIU incluulng Murch 17,1997 ut which time he WUN ulNlIIlNNed hy pluintllT. 30, !'Iuintiff hus fulled 10 PHY defcndullt wUIlCN for NcrvlccN rendered during the perlou Murch 13 Ihroullh Murch 17,1<)<)7, which wugcs urc pust duc und owing, 31. The sums duc ulld owing tll defcndunl urc WUgCN UN lhuttcrm iN ucflned In 43 Pu. C,S.A. ~260,2. 32. PurNuuntlo 431'u. C.S,A, ~260,5. thc wugcs ut issue ure pust due und owing. 33. Pursuuntto 43 I'u, C,S.A. *260,9, defcndunt is explicitly uuthorlzed to recover the ullomeys' fees und the coMs he incurs in collecting Ihe wuges past due und owing to him. WHEREFORE, defendant uemand judgment in his fuvor and ugainst pluintiff for wages pust due und owing, ullorneys' fees anu costs incurred in connection with this uCllon, and any other relief the court deems just und proper. COUNT 11- DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES 34, Defendant inCOrpllnltes hy reference parugruphs I through 33 of this Counterclaim us if fully set forth herein, 35. On May 31. 1997. plaintiff issued to defendant an invoice in respect of an allegedly l)utStanding sum which defendant had not agreed to pay and which defendant docs not owe. .9. 36, The May 31,1997 invoice purported further to hllpo~e upon defendallt interest on the sum ullegedly due. 37, Defendant did not owe Ihe ~um repre~enled onthC! May 31, 1997lnvoh:e lUld therefore Ihe invoice wa~ fruudulcntly und deccplively IR~ued, 3K, On Augu~t 31. 1997, plulnllff IR~ued 10 defendunt u Recond hlVoice In re~pect of un ullegedly out~tunding Rum which defendunt hud nol ugrced to pny und which defendunt doeR not owe, 39, The AUgURt 31, 1997 Invoice purported further to impo~e upon defendnnt interest on the sum ullegedly due. 40. Defendunt did not owe the sum represented on the Augusl 31. 1997 Invoice nnd Iherefore the invoice wus fruudulently and decepllvely Issued, 41. Plulnliff knew utthe time il issued Ihe Muy 31, 1997 und the August 31, 1997 Invoices lhut defendunt had never agreed to pay the sums for which he wus invoiced und further knew thut defendunt docs not owe lhe sum Ul issue 10 plainliff. 42, By knowingly issuing invoices to defenduntln respect of sums he does not owe, plaintiff engaged in a fraudulent and deceptive busines$ praclice. -10- << ~ "I~ ~ ,~ ".- I" .. I" I.": (., .~ ,,' 1 ' .. r ,'11 . l'l '-.::t- l., , ' \( ,v) "f\ , ' ...:::::rN') ," .::. i,l" ~.~ , , ~ \'- " I, 'J! , ..,. " I.... I .... V) 1.1 ~r ' I '''<:: ~< ~~ . p.~ .... , U .... zffi .... ... a: ... .m 5 ~~ ~ ~ 11l ij ... ~~ p. .... I/J g . .!l ~ , I ~ ! ~ g ~8 .... I> . . Z III ~ c 8~ , 0 x ~ ~ i III ~ ~ " ~ n~ ~ I . ~J i ~~io~ ~ ~ < Z Q. : ..; - ~ g .., ~ ~ . - IX ~ ~ c 1: I, , . , COUNT X 9, The allegations of Paragraphs 1 to and including 8 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein, 10, By termination of his employment on March 22, 1997, Defendant breached his oral contract of employment to remain in the services of the Plaintiff for another year or repay the cost of the refresher couree and associated expenses set forth in Paragraph 7 hereof. 11. Plaintiff has demanded from Defendant payment in the amount of six Thousand Four Hundred Eight-five and 53/100 Dollars ($6,485.53), with delinquency charges in the amount of, one and one-fourth (1-1/4%) per month after thirty (30) days, but Defendant has refused and still refuses to pay the same or any part thereof, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hempt Bros., Inc., demands judgment against Defendant, James Zelesko, in the amount of Six Thousand Four Hundred Eight-five and 53/100 ($6,485.53), together with delinquency charges in the amount of one and one-fourth percent (1-1/4%) percent per month, together with costs of suit. 3 COUNT XX la. The allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including Paragraph 11 are inoorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth, 13, Plaintiff has demanded repayment from Defendant in the amount of six Thousand Four Hundred Eight-five and 53/100 Dollars ($6,465,53), with delinquency charges in the amount of one and one-fourth percent (1-1/4%) per month after thirty (30) days, but Defendant has refused and still refuses to pay the same or any part thereof. 14, As a result of the aforesaid. Defendant has been unjustly enriched at Plaintiff's expense in the amount of six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-five and 53/100 Dollars ($6,465.53) . WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hempt Bros" Inc., demands judgement against Defendant, James Zelesko, in the amount of Six Thousand Four Hundred Eight-five and 53/100 Dollars ($6,465,53), 4 coWt xn 16, The allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including Paragraph 14 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 16. While accepting the benefit of the payment by Plaintiff of six Thousand Four Hundred Eight - five and 63/100 Dollars ($6,466,53) and attending the refresher course, Plaintiff believes and therefore alleges that Defendant was secretly negotiating to leave the employment of Plaintiff at the end of the refresher training. 17. The condl.lct of the Defendant was fraudulent and deceitful and Defendant should restore to Plaintiff the sum of Six Thousand Four Hundred Eight-five and 53/100 Dollars ($6,465.53) . 16. Plaintiff has demanded repayment from Defendant in the amount of Six Thousand Four Hundred Eight-five and 53/100 Dollars ($6,465.53), with delinquency charges in the amount of one and one-fourth percent (1-1/4%) per month after thirty (30) days, but Defendant has refused and still refuses to pay the same or any part thereof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hempt Bros., Inc., demands judgement against Defendant, James Zelesko, in the amount of Six Thousand 5 3, The alleget ions of Paragraph 3 are conolusions of law to which no reply is required nnd are therefore denied, To thQ extent a reply is required, Plaintiff's claims are not barred by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands. 4. The allegations of Paragraph 4 are conclusions of law to which no reply is required and are therefore denied, To the extent a reply is required, Plaintiff's claims are not barred by lack of consideration and/or failure of consideration. 5. The allegations of Paragraph 5 are conclusions of lBW to which no ro!!ply is required and are therefore denied. To the extent a reply is required, Plaintiff's claims are not barred since Plaintiff did not engage in any fraudulent conduct. 6. The allegations of Paragraph 6 are conclusions of law to which no reply is required and are therefore denied. To the extent a reply is required, Plaintiff's claims are not barred by the Doctrine of Accord and Satisfaction. 7. The allegations of Paragraph 7 are conclusions of law to which no reply is required and are therefore denied. To the extent a reply is required, the allegations of Paragraphs 1 to and including 18 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. 2 8, The allegations of paragraph 8 are conclusions of law to which no reply is t'equired and are therefore denied, To the extent a reply is required, plaintiff did not, commit or engage in any misrepresentations, omissions, or wrongful conduct. 9. The allegations of Paragraph 9 are conclusions of law to which no reply is required and are the.efore denied. To the extent a reply is required, it is denied that the Plaintiff owes Defendant any amcunts and the damages which plaintiff suffered should not be reduced by any amount, ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 1, The allegations of Paragraph 1 of the ,counterclaim are admitted, 2, The allegations of Paragraph 2 of the counterclaim are admitted. 3. The allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Counterclaim are partially admitted and partially denied. It is admitted that in or about March, 1989, Plaintiff offered to employ Defendant as a pilot. The remaining of allegations of Paragraph 3 are conclusions of law to which no answer is required and are therefore denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including 18 of the Complaint 3 are inoorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length, 4, Thl! allegations of Pal;'agraph 4 are partially admitted and partially denied. Prior to March 22, 1997, Plaintiff was very pleased with the Defendant's performance, However, on or about March 22, 19~7, Plaintiff was not pleased with Defendant's performance since Defendant voluntarily terminated his employment with the Plaintiff, and breached his oral contract of employment to remain in the employment of the Plaintiff for another year in exchange for the refresher training course. If the Defendant had not taken the course, there would be no aircraft of the Plaintiff which could be flown by the Defendant, 5. The allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Counterclaim are admitted. 6, The allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Counterclaim are admitted. 7. The allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Counterclaim are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraphs 1 to and including 18 of the Co~plaint are incorporated herein by reference and made pal~t hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. It is further averred that attendance at such training benefited the Defendant by 4 making available oontinued employment by ~laintiff as a pilot and increasing his ability to obtain other employment, 8, The allegations of Paragraph 8 of the counterolaim are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including 18 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. 9. The allegations of Parugraph 9 of the counterclaim are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including 16 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. 10. The allegat ions of Paragraph 10 of the Counterclaim are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including 16 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. 11. The allegat ions of Paragraph 11 of the Counterclaim are speciE ically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including 16 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein aet forth at length. ~ 12, The allegations of Paragraph 12 of the counterclaim are admitted, It is further averred that Defendant never gave the Plaintiff the courtesy of submitting a written resignation, His intent to reaign was verbally deliver<!d to the Plaintiff while an employee of Plaintiff was boarding the aircraft in Florida. 13, The allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Counterclaim of the Counterclaim are admitted. 14. The allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Counterclaim are partially admitted and partially denied. On or about March 1.4, 1997, Defendant told George Hempt that he did not wish to continue in Plaintiff's employment. It is denied that George Hempt offered Defendant a salary increase. 15. The allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Counterclaim are partially admitted and partially denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that Defendant "offered to assist Mr. Hempt in finding another pilot and in managing Plaintiff's plane until a replacement could be found" and such allegations are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. It is admitted that George Hempt ordered Defendant immediately to collect his personal effects and to leave Plaintiff's premises. It is denied that Plaintiff 6 discharged Defendant. Defendant resigned his Plaintiff accepted said rights to claim repayment, 16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Counterclaim are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including 18 of the Counterclaim of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. 17. The allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Counterclaim are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including 18 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. 18. The allegations of Paragraph 18 of. the Counterclaim are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including 18 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though To the contrary, it employment with the resignation, without is averred Plaintiff, waiver of that and any the same were herein set forth at length. Further, it is averred that the Defendant deceived the Plaintiff by taking the flight training refresher course to enhance his skills for the benefit of his new employer, which conduct unjustly enriched Defendant at the expense of Plaintiff. 7 19, The allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Counterclaim are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including 16 of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were here in set forth at length, Further the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Answer to Counterclaim are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. 20. The allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Counterclaim are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including 16 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. Further, it is averred that the Defendant deceived the Plaintiff by taking the flight training refresher course to enhance his skills for the benefit of his new employer, which conduct unjustly enriched Defendant at the expense of Plaintiff. 21. The allegations are Paragraph 21 of the, Counterclaim are partially admitted and partially denied. It is admitted that Defendant returned the invoice to Plaintiff on or about June 9, 1997 and demanded that Plaintiff stop sending such invoices. The allegations that Plaintiff was harassing Defendant are conclusions of law to which no reply is required. 8 To the extent a reply is requIred, after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation of "harassing" and such allegation is therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. Recovery of monies paid for unj ust enrichment of Defendant is not harassing. 22. The allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Counterclaim are admitted. 23. The allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Counterclaim are specifically denied. '1'0 the contrary, the allegations of Paragraph 1 to and including 18 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. 24. The allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Counterclaim are conclusions of law to which no answer is required and are therefore denied, To the extent an answer is required, it; is averred that Defendant owes to Plaintiff the sum set forth in said invoice and that Plaintiff has not engaged in a pattern of harassment and attempted int.i.midation of Plaintiff and has not engaged in any deceptive business practices and commercial fraud. If any party to this litigation has engaged in deceptive business practices and commercial fraud, that party is the Defendant who took ,the flight safety training course to enhance l) his ski lls while lIeeking other employment, Recovary of monies paid where Defendant breachad his own contract of employment to remain in the employment of the Plaintiff for another year in exchange for the taking of the refresher training coUrse and recovery of monies paid for. unjust enrichment of Defendant is not harassment, intimidation, deceptive business practices and commercial fraud. 25, The allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Counterclaim are partially admitted and partially denied. It is admitted that Defendant was paid wages bi-weekly. It is specifically denied that said wages were in arrears. Under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, S9.1, 43 Pa.S. S260,9(a) (c) where there is good faith dispute or contest as to the amount of wages due and there is a good faith assertion of a right to set-off or counterclaim, there is a satisfactory explanation of non-payment. 26. The allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Counterclaim are partially admitted and partially denied. It is admitted that Plaintiff failed to pay wages to Defendant for the period March 12 through March 17, 1997. It is denied that there are any wages due and owing to the Defendant. Under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, S9.1, 43 P.S. S260.9(a) (c) where ther.e is a good faith dispute ot' contest. 10 aa to the amount of wage a due and there ia a good aasertion ot a right of aet-off or counterolaim there satisfaotory explanation of non-payment, faith ill a COtl'N'l' I 27. As pleaded, no answer is required, To the extent an answer is required, the averments set forth in Paragrapha 1 to and including 26 of the Complaint and Answer to Counterclaim are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. 28. The allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Counterclaim are partially admitted and partially denied. It is admitted that Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendant wages bi-weekly. It is specifically denied that said wages were in arrears. Under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and collection Law, ~9.1, 43 Pa.S. ~260.9(a) (c) where there is good faith dispute or contest as to the amount of wages due and there is a good faith assertion of a right to set-off or counterclaim, there is a satisfactory explanation of non-payment. 29. The allegations of Paragraph 29 of the counterclaim are partially admitted and partially denied. It is admitted that Defendant provided pilot services to Plaintiff through and including March 17, 1997. It is denied that Defendant was II dismissed, To the oontury, it is averred that Plaintiff aooepted the resignation of Defendant without waiver of any rights to claim repayment, 30, The allegat ions of Paragraph 30 of the Counterclaim are partially admitted and partially denied, It is admitted that Plaintif.f did not pay Defendant wages for services rendered during the period March 13 to and inclUding March 17, 1997, It is denied that said wages are past due and owing. To the contrary, under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, !l9,l, 43 P,8, !l260,9(a) (c) where there is a good faith dispute or contest as to the amount of wages due and there is a good faith assertion of a right of set-off or counterclaim there is a satisfactory explanation of non-payment. 31, The allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Counterclaim are conclusions of law to which no reply is required and are therefore denied, 32, The allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Counterclaim are conclusions of law to which no answer is required and are therefore denied, Further, it denied that there are any wages due or owing to the Defendant, Under the provisions of Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, !l9.1, 43 P.8, !l260,9(a) (c) where there is a good faith or dispute or contest as to the amount of wages due and there is a good faith 12 by reference and made part hereof a~ though thl3 ~aml3 were herein ~et forth at length, 35, The allegations of Paragraph 35 are partially admitted and partially denied, It is admitted that on May 31, 1997, Plaintiff issued to Defendant an invoice in respect of an amount which it claimlil to be owed to it by the Defendant. It i~ further admitted that the Defendant has not agreed to pay the amount claimed to be owed by Plaintiff. It is specifically denied that the Defendant does not owe the amount claimed to due by the PlaJ.ntiff. 'ro the contrary, the allegations of Paragraphs 1 to and including 18 of the Complaint Paragraphs 1 to and including 37 of the Answer to Counterclaim are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though the ~ame were herein set forth at length, 36. The allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Counterclaim are admitted. 37. The allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Counterclaim are partially admitted and partially denied. The allegations that the invoice was fraudulent and deceptively issued are conclusions of law to which no reply is required alld are therefore denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations of Paragraphs 1 to and including 18 of the Complaint Paragraphs 1 to and including 37 of the Answer to Counterclaim 1.1 are incorporated by ref~renoe and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length, It is further speoifically denied that the Defendant did not owe the sum represented on the May 31, 1997 invoice. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraphs 1 to and including 16 of the Complaint and Paragraphs 1 to and inoluding 37 of the Answer to Counterclaim at'e incorporated by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. 36. The allegations of Paragr.aph 36 of the Counterclaim are partially admitted and part.ially denied. It is admitted that on August 31, 1997, Plaintiff issued to Defendant a second invoice in respect of the amount claimed to be due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. It is further admitted that Defendant has not agreed to pay the amount claimed to be due by the Plaintiff. It is specifically denied that the Defendant does not owe the amount claimed to be due by the Plaintiff. To the contrary, the allegations of Paragraphs 1 to and including 16 of the Complaint and Paragraphs 1 to and including 37 of the Answer to Counterclaim are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as though the same were herein set forth at length. 39. The allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Counterclaim are admitted. 15 40, 'rhe ollegat ionl9 of Paragraph 40 of the countel;'claim are I9pecifically denied, 'rhe nJ.legation that the invoioe waB fraudulent Bnd deceptively ial9ued are ooncluaion of law to which no anl9wer il9 required. The allegationa that Defendant did not owe the sum repreaented on the Auguat 31, 1997 invoice are denied, To the contrary, the averments in Paragt'apha 1 to and including 18 of the Complaint and Paragrapha 1 to and including 37 of the Answer to Counterclaim are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as though the aame were herein aet forth at length. 41. The allegationa of Paragraph 41 of the counterclaim are partially admitted and partially denied. It ia admitted that Plaintiff knew at the time it issued the May 31, 1997 and the Auguat 31, 1997 invoices that Defendant had never agr~ed to pay the aums for which he was invoiced, The allegation that Plaintiff knew that Defendant does owe the aum at iesue to Plaintiff is specifically denied, To the contrary, the averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 to and including 18 of the Complaint and Paragraphs 1 to and including 37 of the Answer to Counterclaim are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as though same were herein set forth at length. 42. The allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Counterclaim are conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the II> 45, Defendant, James Zelesko, breached his oral contract of employment to remain in the employmllnt of the plaintiff for another year in exchange for the refresher training course, 46. If the Defendant, James Zelesko, had not taken the refresher training course, there would be no aircraft of the Plaintiff which could be flown by the Defendant. 47, Attendance at the refresher training course benefited the Defendant by making available continued employment by Plaintiff as a pilot and increasing his ability to obtain other employment. 48. Defendant deceived the Plaintiff by taking the flight training refresher course to enhance his skills for the benefit of any new employer, which conduct unjustly enriched the Defendant at the expense of Plaintiff. 49. Defendant engaged in deceptive business practices and commercial fraud by taking the flight saf~ty training course to enhance his skills while seeking other employment. 50. Recovery of monies paid for unjust enrichment of Defendant is not harassment, intimidation, deceptive business practices and commercial fraud. 51. Under the provisions of the Pennsylvania vJage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. !i260.9(a)(c), since there is a good faith dispute or contest as to the amount of wages due and there 18 . , ~ 1-0 I r " Ittl " ' ' II. . OJ ,I , 1 : I I ,. ; .. r-- , .~ . (J I: 1 " , 1 " I, 4~. DCIlIc~ 1I~ U cOlldu~lonof Iuw. TOlhe eXlenl purugruph 45 ClInlllin~ IIl1cgutloll~ of fuel, ~cfclldullllllld coulllcrclulm plullltlff, Jumc~ I'..c:lc~kolllel)rporulc~ hy rcfcrcncc hl~ IIIl~wcr, IICW mullcr, ulld coullIcrclulm ulld, wilholltllmillllg lhc l!cllcrllllty of Ihls Incorporulhm, rcfcr~ Ihc plullollff IInd cOllnlcrclulm lIcfcndullt pllrllclllurly 10 purugruphs 3-2601' his coulllcrclulm, 46, DClllcs liS II cOllcluslollOf luw. To Ihc CXICllt purugruph 46 conluins ullcgutloll~ of fuct, dcfclldullllllld coulltcrclulIll plulrlllff, Jumcs 7..c:lcskolncorporulcs hy refcrcncc his UIl~Wcr, IlCW mullcr, unll counlcrclulm ulld, wlthoullllllltlng thc gCllcrullty of this Incorporul\oll, rcfcrs thc plulntlff unll countcrcllllm lIcfcnllunt pUl'llculurly 10 purugruphs 3-2601' his countcrclulrn, 47. Dcnies us u conclusllJnof luw, Tothc cxtCIll purugruph 47 contuins allcgatlons of fUCl, dcfcndantand coullIcrclalm plainllff, Jamcs Zclcsko Incorporatcs by rcfcrence his unswer, new muller, and coullIcrclaim and, withoullimiting the gcncrulity of lhis Incorporation, refers Ihc plaintiff and countcrclaim dcfcndant particularly 10 paragraphs 3-26 of his counterclaim, 48. Denies as a conclusion of law. To the extCnl parugruph 48 conlains ullegations of fuct, defendant and countcrclaim plainliff, Jamcs Zclcsko incorporales by rcfcrence his answer, new maller, and counterclaillland, withoutlillliting the generulity of this incorporation, refers the pluinliff and Clllllllcrcluilll dcfcndant particularly 10 parugruphs 3-26 of his countercluim. 49. Denies as a conclusion of law. 50. Dcnies as a conclusion of law. -2- , , '~ "', tV .:I {.', ~~~ 1,}\'1 (..~ " ~ ,'. -., -..l~/ 'I l.- .- 1-;'-: CI" . :.' ~ ~ : (rJI'"" G' o.n ,', (:j ~:'\ I A~~ ~j'l ~ of! :t: .. t5 $ a ,', 'I " I;' " , ,