Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-0206COMA4,~NW'L~ALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT JUDICIAL DISTRICT L OMMON PLEAS No. NOTICE OF APPE /- 14 ~ O~ Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case mentioned below. Th,s black will be skjned ONLY when this ' ' · ~ , rece,vea o.y t.ne .U. istrict Justice, will operate as a 1001 (6) in action before D/strict Justice, he MUST SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possess,on In thiS case. FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after Si~honotary or ~outy filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be sen/ed upon appellee). PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Name of aploellee(s) ' a complaint in this appeal (Common Pleas Nc~ (~)3 ~i~)(D O_.l'v'l J ) within tweflty (20) days after service of ru~ RULE: To_ '~TL'AOI~L~j ~'. ~ Name of a~c~e#eefs) , appe#ee(s). (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby e~temd upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JU~NT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of mailing. AO~'C 312-90 COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA F SS COUNTY 0 - o. , upon the Distr ct Justice designated therein on AFFIDAVIT: t hereby swear or affirm that l served n a copy of the Notice ol Appeal, Common Pleas N ~ i)~'~i~o~,ai ~i~ice [] by (certified) (registered) mail, senders .... (date of service) ieceipt attached hereto and upon the appellee. ~namel [] by personal seiv ~ [] by (certified) (registered) mail, sender s receipt attached hereto, ' Iint accom an ,ing the above Notice of App~a upon the appellee(s) to whom [] and further that 1 serve.d the Rule to File a Comp a P '~ [] by personal service ~ by tcertffied) (registered) the Rule was addressed on mail, sender's receipt attached hereto SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF $~,~nature My commission e×? ~es ~} ' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUM]]ERLAND 09 Dd Nsme Hon C~ES A. CLX, ~. ~ ..... ~ 00 BRIDGE STREET OLDE TO~ COLONS -SUITE 3 ~ C~E~, PA ~'~o~e:{717) 774-5989 17070 CAREY ASSOCIATES / BRIAN CAREY 542 BRIDGE ST NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 TH~'iS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: Judgment was entered for: (Name) ~ Judgment was entered against: (Name) ~ in the amount of $ _ I, 74~. 74~ on: (Date of Judgment) 1 ~/1 "//f) ?.. ~-~ Defendants are jointly and severally liable. [~ Damages will be assessed on: This case dismissed without prejudice. Amount of Judgment Subject to LF-~ Attachment~Act 5 of 1996 $_ Levy is stayed for__ .days or ~ generally stayed. ' / NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT ~LA~NT~FF: CIVIL CASE NAME and ADDRESS ~D[TKES, STEPHEN S 202 L~ISBE~y ~ ~ C~ER~, PA 17070 DEFENDANT: VS. NAME and ADDRESS ~EY ASSOCIATES / BRI~ ~EY 542 BRIDGE ST ~ c~E~,~ PA' ~ 7 o% 0  cke~ No.~ ~-0000423-02 ~e R;ed: 8/14/02 $ 1 683.24 (Date & Time) [Amount of Judgment Judgment Costs $ 60 o 50 Interest on Judgment $ · 00 Attorney Fees $ · 01 Total $ 1,743.7z. Post Judgment Credits $_ Post Judgment Costs $_ --J Objection to levy has been filed and hearing will be held: Certified Judgment Total $_ ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY,FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL W,TH THE P"OTHONOT^RY,CLERK OF T.E COURT OF COMMON P'EAS. MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANS "~ ~ ?E& ~'~S'~"~ '".m .~, ~ . CR TFORMWITHYO R OT ...... -- r ,, ~stnct Justice My commission exnire, fi.., ~--~ ..... ~ .......... ~.u~y o~ uanuary, 2008 AOPC 315-99 SEAL 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 APE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITII~G WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FONTH AGAINST YOU. <fOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY HONEY CLAIMED IN THE COHPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTI{ER CLAIN OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU ~AY LOS~ 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 THE TELEPHONE OR THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CLiV~ERLAND(3DLHgTYBAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE PA 17013 717 249 3166 COMPLAINT JANUARY 31, 2003 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1 COURT HOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 RE; COMPLAINT DOCKET 30000423-02 STEPHEN S. DUKES 202 LEWISBERRY ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA 17070 THE PLAINTIFF, STEPHEN S. DUKES, IS AN INDIVIDUAL RESIDING AT 202 LEWISBERRY ROAD, NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA 17070. THE DEFENDANT, BRIAN CAREY/CAREY ASSOCIATES, IS AN INDIVIDUAL/COMPANY, WITH A PLACE OF BUS1NESS AT 542 BRIDGE STREET, NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA 17070. ON AUGUST 1, 2002, PLAINTIFF FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT, ALLEGING THAT DEFENDANT FAILED TO PAY SALARY AND COMMISSION TO PLAINTIFF FOR TAX RETURN SALES MADE BY PLAINTIFF DURING THE 2001 TAX YEAR. ON AUGUST 14, 2002, PLAINTIFF RECEIVED NOTICE FO A CIVIL ACTION HEARING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2002. ON AUGUST 22, 2002, DEFENDANT FORWARDED A GENERAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO PLAINTIFF, WHO REFUSED TO ASSENT TO THE AGREEMENT. ON AUGUST 26, 2002, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED CORRESPONDENCE TO DEFENDANT, REQUESTING PAYMENT OF $1,679.34 BY SEPTEMBER 1, 2002. DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAKE PAYMENT. ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2002, A NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE WAS ISSUED BY DISTRICT JUSTICE, CHARLES A. CLEMENT, JR., CONTINUING THE CIVIL ACTION HEARING UNTIL OCTOBER 1, 2002. itl~ ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2002, PLAINTIFF RECEIVED DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFEND. ON OCTOBER 10, 2002, A NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE WAS ISSUED, CONTINUING THE CIVIL ACTION HEARING UNTIL DECEMBER 17, 2002. ON DECEMBER 17, 2002, DISTRICT JUSTICE CLEMENT ENTERED A JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,743.74. ON JANUARY 14, 2003, DEFENDANT FILED THE INSTANT OF APPEAL, APPEALING THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE DISTRICT JUSTICE. BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE'S DECEMBER 17, 2002, JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF CLAIMS OF THE DEFENDANT THE SUM OF $1,743.74 PLUS INTEREST AND COSTS. 01-31- DATE STE151[IEN S. D~IKES, PLAINTIFF PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ~..___,~?..~,,¢_~ ....................... ;SS AFFIDAVIT: t hereby swear or affirm that l served · v of the Notice of Anneal Common Pleas No ¢2.¢' -,9.0 ~ , upon the District Justice designated therein on ~ a c?.. . , ;/~' = ..... ~~'~'~'~ice ~ by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's (dateo~servc)~.~---:--~,- ............ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~,~ ,on receiQt attached hereto, add upon the appellee, ~J'z~ 0% .......... ~ by personal service ~ ~ fu~'~"~'br~ ~ Rule to File a Complaint accompanying me a~ove NO[~ce o~ ~ppea~ the Rule was addressed on mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. SWORN (AFFI~M,~) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS ~ ..................... DAY O~ '--~-~.~ ..... .......... [] ~,,1..~~rtified)(registered) My commission exp res~or, ............................................................................ / ._~~ STEPHEN S. DUKES, Plaintiff vi. BRIAN CAREY dba, CAREY ASSOCIATES, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-206 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION LAW NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint of 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 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 STEPHEN S. DUKES, Plaintiff Vo BRIAN CAREY dba, CAREY ASSOCIATES, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-206 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION LAW COMPLAINT 1. The Plaintiff, Stephen $. Dukes, is an adult individual currently residing at 202 Lewisberry Road, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 2. The Defendant, Brian Carey, is an adult individual doing business as Carey Associates with a place of business located at 542 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 3. The Plaintiff entered into a verbal agreement with the Defendant during 2001 wherein the Defendant agreed to pay a salary and commission to the Plaintiff. 4. Pursuant to this agreement, Plaintiff prepared taxes for the Defendant, which required the payment of a salary plus 13% commission on all tax return sales for tax year 2001. 5. The Plaintiff earned a total of $8,260 pursuant to this agreement and the Defendant only paid the Plaintiff $6,580, leaving the sum of $1,680 due and owing. 6. Despite repeated demands the Defendant, though legally obligated, failed to pay the above sum to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor in the amount of $1,680, plus interest of the date of default, plus all costs of this action. Respectfully Submitted, Date Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 VERIFICATION I, Ron Turo, Esquire, am the attorney for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. I prepared the Complaint based on information provided to me from my client and from information gathered to me, all of which I believe is true and accurate to the best of information knowledge and belief. Date CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Complaint Brian Carey, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the day of ,~,-~/~'~,;,-~', 2003, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Brian Carey 542 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Ron Turo, Esquire 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff STEPHEN S. DUKES, Plaintiff VS. BRIAN CAREY d/b/a CAREY ASSOCIATES, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-206 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAi~ TO: Stephen S. Dukes c/o Ron Turo, Esquire You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter & Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against yOU. Respectfully submitted, Date ROBERT PETER KLINE, ESQUIRE - 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 Attorney for Defendant STEPHEN S. DUKES, Plaintiff VS. BRIAN CAREY d/b/a CAREY ASSOCIATES, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-206 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACT/ON - LAW ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, comes Defendant, Brian Carey, and ans~vers the Complaint filed in the above-captioned matter as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Brian Carey is the principal shareholder of Carey Corp., Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation which does business as Carey Associates, with a place of business as set forth in the Complaint. 3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff and Carey Associates entered into an agreement wherein Carey Associates agreed to pay a salary and commission to the Plaintiff for performing certain services, which included preparation of tax returns, managing the tax department, and other responsibilities. That agreement was based upon the expectation that Plaintiff would perform those services in a professional and satisfactory manner. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. The calculation of the salary and commission is admitted. However, said salary and commission was based upon the satisfactory performance of the services to be provided pursuant to the agreement between Plaintiff and Carey Associates. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Carey Associates has paid Plaintiff the sum of $6,580.00. Inasmuch as any monies to be paid to Plaintiff were to be based upon satisfactory performance of the services to be provided pursuant to the agreement between Plaintiff and Carey Associates, Defendant specifically denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 6. The allegation of this paragraph is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. .NEW MATTER 7. The responses to the allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint contained in Paragraphs 1 through 6 of this Answer are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 8. Plaintiff failed to perform the services required pursuant to the agreement between Plaintiff and Carey Associates in the following manner: A. Plaintiff failed to adequately prepare returns for clients of Carey Associates in that many returns prepared by Plaintiff were returned, requiring Carey Associates, at its expense, to file amended returns on behalf of those clients and incur penalties and other fees. B. Carey Associates has received numerous complaints from clients that those clients had been treated rudely by Plaintiff, both in person and over the telephone, during the period of Plaintiffs employment. C. Carey Associates has discovered numerous billing and receipts discrepancies which occurred during the 2002 tax season. D. As a result of Plaintift's part-time occupation as a courier, there were many occasions in which Plaintiff was ineffective and otherwise unprepared to perform satisfactory work during the day and, in fact, often left the office of Carey Associates during the busiest part of the day in order to sleep. E. Plaintiff registered tax soft, yarc purchased by and on behalf of Carey Associates under his own name, using his home address. F. Plaintiff invoiced clients of Carey Associates for service performed on behalf of Carey Associates under his own name and his home address. 9. After termination of his employment with Carey Associates, Plaintiff incurred cellular telephone costs in the amount of $194.83, thereby entitling Carey Associates to an offset in said amount as against any monies awarded to Plaintiff in this matter. 10. After Plaintiffs termination with Carey Associates, Carey Associates incurred expenses for penalties paid by Carey Associates on behalf of clients as a result of errors on the part of Plaintiff on returns submitted on behalf of clients of Carey Associates in the amount of $174.00 thereby entitling Carey Associates to an offset in said amount as against any monies awarded to Plaintiff in this matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, together with attorneys fees and costs of suit. COUNTERCLAIM Brian Carey, Majority Shareholder of Carey Corp., Inc., d/b/a Carey Associates V. Stephen S. Dukes Count I 11. The responses to the allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint contained in Paragraphs 1 through 6 of Defendant's Answer, as well as the allegations contained in Paragraphs 7 through 10 of the New Matter, are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 12. Without the knowledge, consent or approval of Carey Associates, and contrary to the express understanding between Carey Associates and Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, during Plaintiffs employment, Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, made electronic or other copies of computer files of Carey Associates, including but not limited to customer lists, business records and other proprietary data of Carey Associates and removed them from Carey Associates' computers and from Carey Associates' place of business. 13. Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, established the registration for certain tax preparation software acquired by Carey Associates for the benefit of Carey Associates in his individual name, without the express prior consent of Carey Associates. 14. Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, during the course of his employment by Carey Associates, and without the express consent of Carey Associates, forwarded invoices for services performed by or on behalf of Carey Associates to customers and clients of Carey Associates, with said invoices bearing the individual name and home address of Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes. 15. Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, used such information obtained and took such actions in an attempt to unlawfully and unfairly interfere with the business of Carey Associates. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the unfair competition, and of the theft, conversion and unlawful taking of the computer and business records of Carey Associates and other proprietary data, together with the unlawful and unauthorized registration of software belong to Carey Associates in the individual name of Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, and the unlawful and unauthorized invoicing of clients and customers of Carey Associates by Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, on his individual behalf, Carey Associates ihas been injured by the loss of profit commencing on or about the time of Plaintiffs termination of employment with Carey Associates and to the date of the filing of/his complaint in an amount of which Carey Associates has yet to have the opportunity to fully determine. 17. Although Carey Associates has been diligently attempting to reconstruct its relationships with its customers based upon Plaintiffs actions as described herein, Carey Associates believes and, therefore, avers that it may continue to suffer similar lost or diminished profits for some unknown time in the future as a direct and proximate result of the wrongfifl and willful acts of the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Brian Carey, sole shareholder of Carey Corp., Inc., d/b/a Carey Associates, hereby demands judgment in favor of Carey Associates and against the Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, in a monetary amount in which Carey Associates has yet to fully determine, plus such other amounts as may be proven at trial, representing lost profits and damages caused by the Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, together with costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees under applicable Pennsylvania law. Count II 18. The responses to the allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint contained in Paragraphs 1 through 6 of Defendant's Answer, as well as the allegations contained in Paragraphs 7 through 10 of the New Matter and the allegations contained in the Counterclaim in Paragraphs 11 through 17, are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 19. The acts of the Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, were willful, malicious and with the express intent of harming Brian Carey, Carey Corp., Inc., and Carey Associates, the business of Carey Associates and the relationship of Carey Associates to its customers. 20. As a result of the willful, intentional and malicious acts of the Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, Brian Carey, Carey Corp., Inc. and Carey Associates have, in fact, suffered financial loss. 21. The acts of the Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, are so outrageous as to shock the conscious and amount to a theft of the property of Brian Carey, Carey Corp., Inc. and Carey Associates. WHEREFORE, Brian Carey, sole shareholder of Carey Corp. Inc., d/b/a Carey Associates, judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff, Stephen S. Dukes, in such mount as may be deemed to be an appropriate punitive or exemplary damage award, together with costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees if available under applicable Pennsylvania law. Respectfully submitted, DATE ROBERT P. KLINE, ESQUIRE 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 Attomey for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Robert Peter Kline, Esquire, attorney for the Defendant herein, have sufficient knowledge of the facts contained in this Answer, New Matter & Counterclaim and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, based upon information received from the Defendant. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. A verification executed by the Defendant Will be filed of record as soon as it becomes available. Date ROBERT PETER KLINE, ESQUIRE .l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a tree and correct copy of the Answer, New Matter & Counterclaim upon Ron Turo, Esquire, attorney for Defendant, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the 31 st day of March, 2003, l~om New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Ron Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ROBERT P. KLINE, ESQUIRE 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 Attorney for ~ STEPHEN S. DUKES, Plaintiff BRIAN CAREY dba, CAREY ASSOCIATES, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-206 CIVIL TERM · CIVIL ACTION LAW PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER 7. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-6 of Plaintiff's Complaint are ~ncorporated herein as if set forth in full. 8. ADMITTED in part and DENIED in part: a. It is specifically DENIED that Plaintiff failed to adequately prepare returns for clients of Carey Associates. By way of further response, Plaintiff, at all times while preparing income tax returns for Defendant's clients, performed his duties professionally, responsibly, and in a highly competent manner. Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form an adequate response as to the balance of this allegation. Therefore, the balance of this allegation is DENIED, and proof thereof is demanded at trial. b. Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form an adequate response to this allegation. Therefore, this allegation is DENIED and Proof thereof is demanded at trial. c. Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form an adequate response to this allegation. Therefore, this allegation is DENIED and Proof thereof is demanded at trial. d. ADMITTED in part and DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that Plaintiff worked as a courier, part time, concurrently with preparing income tax returns for Defendant's clients. It is specifically DENIED that Plaintiff was ever ineffective or unprepared in performing his duties for Defendant's clients. By way of further answer, Plaintiff worked only one day per week to wit, Sunday, at his part-time courier job, during his working relationship to Defendant. To the extent any part of this allegation remains unanswered, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form an adequate response to the balance of this allegation. Therefore, the balance of this allegation is DENIED and Proof thereof is demanded at trial. e. DENIED. It is specifically DENIED that Plaintiff registered the tax software in Plaintiffs name or address. By way of further response, to the best of Plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief, the tax software was registered under the name and address of Defendant, to wit, Carey and Associates or Brian Carey. By way of further response, Defendant was unable to obtain an ERO number, which is essential for filing income tax returns electronically, using the aforementioned tax software. Therefore, Defendant requested that Plaintiff use Plaintiffs ERO number to file the returns using Defendant's tax software, when Defendant's clients wished a return to be filed electronically. f. ADMITTED. By way of further response, the software referred to in paragraph 8(e) automatically created an invoice using the name and address associated with the preparer's ERO. Due to Defendant's inability to obtain an ERO, and his request that Plaintiff use Plaintiffs ERO when filing income tax returns electronically, the invoices thus created contained Plaintiffs name and address, as they were associated with Plaintiffs ERO. 9. Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form an adequate response to this allegation. Therefore, this allegation is DENIED and Proof thereof is demanded at trial. 10. Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form an adequate response to this allegation. Therefore, this allegation is DENIED and Proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in its favor and against Defendant. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM Brian Carey, Majority Shareholder of Carey Corp., Inc., d/b/a Carey Associates (Defendant/Counter Plaintiff) Stephen S. Dukes (Plaintiff/Counter Defendant) COUNTI 11. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-6 of PlaintifFs Complaint, as well as the responses to the allegations contained in Defendant's New Matter, are ~ncorporated herein as if set forth in full. 12. Plaintiff/Counter Defendant (hereinafter referred to as "PlaintifF') is without sufficient knowledge or information to form an adequate response to this allegation. Therefore, this allegation is DENIED and Proof thereof is demanded at trial. 13. ADMITTED in part and DENIED in part. It is DENIED that Plaintiff registered the tax software referred to in his name and address. It is DENIED that Plaintiff registered said software without the knowledge or consent of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant"). 14. ADMITTED in part and DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that the invoices submitted by Plaintiff contained his name and address. By way of further response, the tax software created automatic invoices in the name and address of the associate with the ERO of the preparer, i.e., Plaintiff. it is DENIED that Plaintiff invoiced Defendant's clients using PlaintifFs name and address without the knowledge or consent of Defendant. 15. This is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that this is not a legal conclusion, and contains allegations to which a response by Plaintiff is required, said allegations are specifically DENIED. 16. This is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that this is not a legal conclusion, and contains allegations to which a response by Plaintiff is required, said allegations are specifically DENIED. 17. This is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that this is not a legal conclusion, and contains allegations to which a response by Plaintiff is required, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form an adequate response to this allegation and proof thereof is demanded at trial. COUNT II 18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-6 of PlaintifFs Complaint, the responses to the allegations contained in Defendant's New Matter, and the responses to the allegations contained in COUNT I of Defendant's COUNTERCLAIM, are ~ncorporated herein as if set forth in full. 19. This is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that this is not a legal conclusion, and contains allegations to which a response by Plaintiff is required, said allegations are specifically DENIED. 20. This is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that this is not a legal conclusion, and contains allegations to which a response by Plaintiff is required, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form an adequate response to this allegation and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 21. This is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that this is not a legal conclusion, and contains allegations to which a response by Plaintiff is required, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form an adequate response to this allegation and proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant. Date Respectfully Submitted, / ~o~~'l~u m, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 VERIFICATION I, Ron Turo, Esquire, am the attorney for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. I prepared the Complaint based on information provided to me from my client and from information gathered to me, all of which I believe is true and accurate to the best of information, Date (nowledge and belief. Ron Turo, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Complaint ~ert P. Kline, Esq., Attorney for Appellants, by depositing same in tl~e United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the / ~ day of ./~,~/7~-/ ,2003, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Robert P. Kline, Esquire 714 Bridge Street P.O. Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 TU R~_.~.. Ron Turn, Esquire 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff STEPHEN S. DUKES, Plaintiff BRIAN CAREY dba, CAREY ASSOCIATES, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAI~ NO. 03~206 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SAID COURT: Please withdraw and dismiss the Complaint filed in the above captioned matter on behalf of the Plaintiff. Respectfully Submitted "~<on Turo, Esquire Attomey for Plaintiff, Stephen Dukes Please withdraw and dismiss the New Matter and Counterclaim filed by the Defendant in the above captioned matter. Date Respectfully Submitted ¢ Robert P. Kline, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Bdan Carey