The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97-06543 (. S I C 6 ~ . 18 > ~ o - '3 -0 ~ j \ , "-, ~\ r " d- IU r ...J - ::> - cl !i -. , WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. ,j7, (, ~-'d C<vLf T.4-, v. CIVIL ACTION-LAW BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS To: The Prothonotary of Cumberland County: Please issue a Writ of Summons against Barton-Cotton, Incorporated which has an address of 1405 Parker Road, Baltimore, jat Maryland 21227. The address of Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc. is 212 West Dauphin Street, Enola, PA 17025-2209. ~ YOFFE & YOFFE, P.C. Sy l4IvvI'-Y /A ~ ~EFFRE~ N. YO~E, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff 214 Senate Avenue, Suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-1838 Attorney 10 No. 52933 i '-. ~ 1 worldwid\barttn\wr1t (1 ..0 0 r..: -l ." .' ~ , .(1C" .~ i~ 1"-:1'. , ;-..: ~" r-l '-'UJ , '__'J. ' " .., .10 ~.~ .-:J ".'1 '-00-1. ., ,J.-.,_. ~l'" .-.-. , .~-"',iln ,; .~:; ~:'? ::.t ~.) ::> ,. ~q -.. .0 .... ~ ~ .F f '" ..c: ""- !II ~ 0 d 2, c t r "" "f"~ ~ "- ~ -l:.. . . Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland Worldwide Telecammunication~. Inc. 212 West Dauphin Street Enola, Pa. 17025-2209 w. Coun or Conunon PI.... Barton-Cotton, Incorporated 1405 Parker Road Baltimore, Maryland, 21227 No. ---~?;,J!.~iL~iYJ.LTeJ!1!u_u__..___ 19____ In __ ~.i.'!g_ AqUm :!-S!'L___u _ _______________ __ To ..~r.tqr}:f:.2U9fl_t._!Ds:_qrP9J3~t~. _..__m. You are hereby notified that WqfJ~lQit_Tel~Q[UU>>lic<ltiO~_I~,___________________________________________________..____ the Plainlier hiS commenced an action in ------CiY.il_Law__n______u___________________________ against you which you are required to derend or a ddau1t judgment may be entered apin.t you, (SEAL) [late -~~_~_______________ 19_97_ Lawrence E. Welker ._--_._-----_._----p~~~~--------_._-------- (I J n.....n' By __.~~---~.--------~---------------___ Ileputy . . I -i"'c..o><: ~~~ g"'~ ~ I '-I ....lto n ~R I .... .. .... "". '-I ........ < i~g ~f~ '-I I :;e:f~: I: I I ~ I ul~.....z>< r . ~ ~ T I I" co' 0 ..... I .... .... ""- '"'l II elCYiO:rJ' 18 ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ 0). HI- It - ~~i .... ....~:. ....~Ill'tl -J .. 8. 8 o. n I , I .... r I , ....Ul I er j ~~ ~. i C I , "".. '" I .. I .....Q , ..... .... h III '" rT '" ... "". , '" '-I a ~ r 0 w . R . c:: \wp.S I \jdljldou\bu1oDc:oUaa. pu WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUmY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, vs. NO. 97-6543 BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO: WORLDWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., PLAINTIFF clo JEFFREY N. YOFFEE, ESQUIRE YOFFEE & YOFFEE 214 SENATE AVENUE, SUITE 204 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 AND NOW, this '7 ~ day of January, 1998, a Rule is issued upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days after service, or suffer a judgment of non pros, in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 51037. (.tl~ c:\wpSI'j<.Iljrhl\balhJlttlJUun pI.! WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, vs. NO. 97-6543 BARTON-corrON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. . CIVIL ACTION. LAW TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty days of service, or suffer a judgment of non pros. FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY Local Counsel for Barton-Cotton, Incorporated January 7, 1998 By mes D. Flower, Jr., Esquir 1 East High Street arlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243.5513 1.0. #27742 ,I ! I , I:"") V') 0 c; CO '~n "'t)f;'; '- ? ';'::"ft (!J~" ,~ : :iiTI ;'?( <- I ql"Tl , "' -.l "'6 I') !::':'t ,I ;;:~ s:) :'1 :S:a -. l.;C") ;.j.,-:: r- ;:,Jrn ~j --,t ,:::I ~ -<; r-> WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-6543 v. BARTON-COTTON, INC, Defendant CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Comes now the Plaintiff herein, WORLDWIDE I, , , , , I , \ t TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "Worldwide" Barton-Cotton Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Barton- or "the Plaintiff"), by counsel and as its complaint against the Cotton") herein alleges that: COUNT I: BREACH OF INTERSTATE CONTRACT JURISDICTION AND VENUE ,. ... 1. Worldwide is a Corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania and has its principal place of business located in the town of Enola in the State of Pennsylvania. 2. Barton-Cotton is a Corporation which has its principal place of business located in the City of Baltimore, in the State of Maryland. 3. The parties hereto entered into a contract dated July 18. 1996 (See Exhibit "A"), whi.ch recites that it was to be governed by the laws of Pennsylvania. 4. Worldwide was to perform its obligations under the contract entirely within the state of Pennsylvania. 5. Payment on the cont ract was to be made to Worldwide located in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Barton-Cotton agreed to a Pennsylvania venue in the event either party needed to resort to a Civil Court for enforcement. THE: PARTIE:S 7 t Worldwide is an independent consultant who makes a bus lness of ana lyzlng a client I s communications expenses with a vlew towilrds flndlng ne'lI or similar communications services from tho Bilmo or .1not.hor carrier at a lower rate. STATE:ME:NT OF THE: CASE i t. ~ i I I I I , f I i ! fl. A[t.'H <1 considerable investment of time and capital, Worldwlde hiHI developed computer programs, a tariff database, indust. ry contilct.s and other facilities and assets to ensure that it ciln sorvo itll clients with efficiency and thoroughness. 9. '1'0 recover these expenses, it claims a proprietary lnt.erost. in those assets and in the data it provides its clients. 10. On July 18, 1996, Worldwide and Barton-Cotton entered into d contract, a true copy of which is attached hereto as ~xhlblt "A" and incorporated by reference. 11. Several months prior to July 18, 1996, Worldwide and Ild rton-Cot ton had been communicating with each other in reference to t.he services which were eventually provided pursuant to the .July 18, 1996 contract. 12. During the months before it signed, Barton-Cotton had ample opportunity to request or negotiate changes in the contract; changes in the service Worldwide proposed; and changes in the fee Worldwide would expect under the contract. Barton-Cotton asked for no changes in the writing attached hereto. 13. The written agreement between the parties required that for the 1st 12 months after obtaining savings as a result of Worldwide's work, Barton-Cotton would pay Worldwide 50% of any reduction in long distance expenses Barton-Cotton realized as a result of Worldwide's work. 14. Worldwide performed as agreed, providing Barton- Cotton with copious data on available long distance rates and recommending a long distance program that would save Barton-Cotton approximately $4,198.00 per month over its then-current long distance plan. 15. Barton-Cotton has utilized Worldwide's recommendations, for its own benefit and implemented Worldwide's ideas without paying Worldwide any fee, in violation of the agreement between Barton-Cotton and Worldwide. 16. Barton-Cotton has damaged Worldwide to the extent of $25,188.00 which amount exceeds the jurisdictional limit above which cases are ineligible to be heard by a panel of arbitrators. 17. Worldwide has incurred and will incur Court costs and legal costs in the bringing of this action and requests that the same be added to the amount being sued for herein. ! f WHEREFOR~ Worldwide prays that: A. Judgment be entered against Barton-Cotton for $25,188.00 plus attorney fees plus any additional amounts proven at trial. B. Plaintiff have such other, further or different relief . .0,$1 as the law may allow and the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, .. YOFFE & YOFFE, P.C. By . /J7 EF EY YOFFE, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff 214 Senate Avenue, suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-1838 Attorney ID No. 52933 ~ , worldwid\barttn\comp ....,""-"" Wo/1dWldl TelecOlM\unIC8ll-. Incorpol'llllct 212 WMt o.upIIln lnet &.noll, PA 17021 Ouaran" -... .blna.. CentlnftAru;y On'Y ea.....IH"Q F.. AQ- --..... DurWol1dw1de T..ommunlcatlom: We he...by appoint you to ludlt our \ocaI and long eII"'_ IIlua..IlIUlllClllone wildof Involcu In Older for you to InIIM cOlt aavlng. __nclatlona to our fInn. "II 8gl'8td you wlU IlIIIlyzl our expe_ In th.... Intlrety Ind _Irch In deIall tha Fedaral Commu/llCIIIIOn CoIMlII8loR local Ind long dllllnee carTIer \aI1ffl1 of our local phona company Ind tha ..."vanllong dINnce oan1Il'I. "Is agreed you wII provtde ua with preliminary lIndlngs and later I dellliled raean:ll report otlIlIng the brOtdtII Ind moll comprelltllllv. ...ng. of It\tCOmmunlcaUons lIVings .nd rat. rec:ommtndIUonI pt'W1/llIO utlIIzlng our llhoIce of Itrtffll, CIIT1eI'l, apeClIIlllowanC8S. ...11II11, ...fundl Ind colt IWduClIonl. It I. und.ntoocI and IgrMd that you will be WOI1dng on I IIItc:t ~ COlJ1I~ncy'M ~- ...- yDUl' ~/IIng fie will be on hIlf of 111. -"'hly uvtnp M _.... ~ lIll'OU' ...po'" for I period of _ V- from tilt dMI of Imp"""ntIllon, AllIr ltIe IInlIwlllYt 1IlOllIhI, 100'lll of the long l.nn livings .re ours 10 keep. Since livings .re guarlllletd by you to occur, " thtrI .. no Dlvlngl rull1ed by ua, tilt... It tQ fit dua10 you. Ont-tlm. retund8 of pulltrtlf 0Vt1bllllngl will be IIIII'ICI on I 50150 btsIs upon COlltclJon. Your ongoIIlg lartff monKortng ..rvIce and bill .udlllng will be provided 10 UI II no lIdditlonal cost. COlI NYInlll will be CllCullllld from tilt objtcttvl atIndtrd of our currw/lt co... at tilt time of ludlt Iccordlng to Itle followlng fomlulu: COM RM..rtlnn Savin,. 1I...mp&.! .22 cenls cumnt cOlI per mlnUII. .oe cents new colt per mlnUII. .13 OllIla per mlnUII gro.. living. .13 cents per m1nUfll grou uvl"lP . 11,000 mlnutN at c"'''''' fit montll .If~ ~ Nvinp $104Ox~ . $120 due month on.. Rllfund 'Jlavlna. r;...mp": $1500 refund chtck to you x.lO. $750 uvtnQllonl tlmI"', Aller your worIt \I performed. Itrtlf recommendlllOns thllt we Impltmtnt .... ~ to be due to your worIl. TM...fo.... It IIlQreed thIl .ny recommendation In your reports thII we Impltlntnl II dttmtd IOOtfUd and we will not utilize the recommtndaUons In your ...ports during the Itnn wIIhouI plyrlIInl of your fM and noIIfIctlIon to you. TlIMt non-<:in:UrTIVt provlIlonI....InlIQI'lII to IhlIICllMftlllll......... ~~"II... tMI year pertod tiler tha delv./}' of your tlndll1Ql. Lastly, It Is agreed and underStood thlt this conlrICl Is govtrMd by tha 8llIlI of PtnnIylvanIl and any IClIon comm.nclng hereunder 11III1 be broughl In tha county of r.umblrllnd. Furtlllnnorl, we .....-nl thIt tht person IIgnlng Is I~ 10 .ngage your ..Meat. W. ~ 1CIu'MMi.. .-lpt of a copy of thII agreement, .nd \I we brelch this conlrlCl, WI will pey 1l11'll18OOllllll oourI and Itgll colla you Inour due to IUch llr1Iach. AccepClld by: ~ For .nd on bIhtJf of 'R ^"-'TllW - Cll'trOYNc.. ContIct NIInt:~~ t'\.~~ =~e~~ 1VTC 212 W. DAUPHIN ST E~OLA, PA 17025 . 8Ig~~- DI" HIm.: EXHIBIT "A" VERIFICATION I hereby state that I am an adult individual who is authorized to mat.:e this verif ication and that the facts set forth in the foreqoinq Plaintiff's Complaint for Damaqes is true to the best of my knowledqe, information. and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 54904 relatinq to unsworn falsification to authorities. Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc. Dated: ~0L_ Robert Schaner President Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc. wor lch.rl,J\b.rt. tn\cDCDp f I ~ ~~ ': (") 'r' c.- o:> <:> ;.J -" ;T:~~-: -., '" :-,J / .., U) 11i~ .- , , hJ .,....., , ~ . \. OJ " I " . .~;~) c :~ ) ~,~ : 1 - . ' ;;H ...~\:-.: '.:} ;..'-:> tjlTI , .. ~r ... =< c:- ,- i~ .r:' :..q " .... i . !:'\"'II.~I\ldljltl\..',\h'ltiln\"fltlun am WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, VS. NO. 97-6543 BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Dafendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOIlC.E YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead 10 the wilhin New Malter and Counterclaim within twenty days after service 01 this Answer and New Malter. FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY Altorneys for Ihe Delendant By {LL~ ())~- , .- \'*ll.\I\llU'IlIt"'I'II.uttltlooCllltl all' WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, vs. NO. 97-6543 BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWfB 1. After reasonable invesligallon, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 2. Denied in part and admitted in part. BARTON-COTTON, INC., is a corporation, which has its principal place of business located in Baltimore County, Maryland. 3. Denied. The Agreement does not recite thaI it was to be governed by the laws of Pennsylvania, only that it is "governed by the State of Pennsylvania..." 4. Denied. No provision of the contracl specified Ihat it was to be performed entirely wilhin Ihe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 5. Denied. The contract does nol specify where payment waG to be made. 6. Denied. There was no specific agreement relaling to venue. By way of further answer, however, Ihe contract does stale that "any action commencing hereunder shall be brought in the County of Cumberland. " 7. After reasonable investigation, Defendanl is withoul sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 10 the truth of this averment. 2 ~.\wpil\jtllj"J.",",h.'1,,,,,,.IlI.,,, :".. 8. After reasonable investigalion, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or informalion to form a belief as to the Irulh of this averment. 9. After reasonable investigalion, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as Ihe truth of Ihis averment. 10. Denied in part and admilted in part. BARTON.COTTON, INC., is without sufficient knowledge or information 10 form a belief as to the date upon which the contract was executed by Plainliff, allhough Plainliff has daled its signature as of July 18, 1996. 11. Denied. The first telephone conlact between BARTON.COTTON, INC. and the Plainliff did not occur until shortly before May 30, 1996, and Ihus, the Plainliff and BARTON- COTTON, INC. had not been communicating with each other for several months prior to July 18, 1996. In addition, BARTON-COTTON, INC., had only a few intermiltenl communications with the Plainlill prior 10 July 18, 1996, and did nol fuliy understand what services Ihe Plainliff proposed to provide pursuant to Ihe contact. 12. Denied. There was not a period of monlhs before Ihe conlract was execuled. Moreover, although BARTON-COTTON, INC. could have requested changes in the conlract, the proposed services and/or the fee, BARTON-COTTON, INC. is without sufficienl knowledge or informalion 10 determine whelher Ihose changes could have been successfuliy negotiated or made. BARTON-COTTON, INC. admils Ihat il asked for no changes in the writing altached to the Complaint as Exhibil "A". 3 ":\WI'.\I\jllljnl...-,ih;lll"Il:,"ltlU ;11I_ 13. Paragraph 13 characterizes the written agreement between the panles, which agreement speaks for itself. 14. Denied in part and admitted in part. BARTON-COTTON, INC. admits that WORLDWIDE provided it wilh data on long dislance rates thaI WORLDWIDE claimed were available. BARTON-COTTON, INC. is without knowledge or informalion upon which to form a belief as 10 the whelher lhose rales were aClually available. BARTON-COTTON, INC. specifically denies that WORLDWIDE "recommended" a long dislance program that would save BARTON-COTTON, INC. approximalely $4,198.00 per monlh, over its then-current long distance plan. 15. Denied. BARTON-COTTON, INC. has not ulilized any recommendation of WORLDWIDE, and has not violaled any agreement thaI it has wilh WORLDWIDE. 16. Denied. BARTON-COTTON, INC. has not damaged WORLDWIDE. 17. After reasonable investigalion, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 10 the nature and exlenl of court costs or legal costs incurred by Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant requesl that Ihe Complainl be dismissed. NEW..MAII.EB 18. Paragraphs 1 through 17 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 4 Mdr-03-YB 11:07A J.n~t ShlFrl&tt . ....j/.ill.....i"l:.,i. . "2..;i.'" n. ........u, ..... - -... 410-247-36B1 1&.'.'lD;..c. flOlO ~ fl P.01 41 QO? fW& fi' . VERlFIl!aTlQN I. ~tP-ph~n M Huohes , Oirec:()I" or PurCha5;~Q - ~... . at 8e/tan0C0n0n,'lnC, Mrtby wrfI"'IhII.~1lIlf1lll medt In the wIlNn ~ ... ~ II'ld 00IYeCl1O !hi b8et at mJ kna.l.11dge, Infor'rna1j()n and bGIef. I undelWIIInd that fIiIe ~1"'1Ib IweIn ... mede llAlject lID the pentItlea of 18 "Le.s. SeclIon 4IlO4, rNlIru lID ., ~.1.Q1\ tliJllclllan 10 ~ IINn'OH-COTrON. we. . Iy . AI Nfr.., /~'7/J'1jl./....-I DlIIe; M8reh a. 1_ r . 03/01/" .o~ 18:4' FAX 410144TT~Z , '''''Z/lftl1 11:'1 24.~UI FL PME .......\11. ~"-'M- - I I I v.EBIFlCAnON I, C;tllphen M Huohes . 01 rector of Purchas 1 no or~, '1nC.. hereby wrtfy that Ih8 lttate.nehlll made In the WIlhIn Instturnenl.... true. Ind 00l'ftClI 10 !he belt d my knaL\ltettg., lnfarmatIon IIrld beIef. I ~ N felB8 .....,lallllt herein ... mede subject to lhe penalties of 18 PLC.S. 5eclIon 4904, relali1g 10 ~ol' lI"lIll:l.ll.h .~ to d1a1llea. ., BARTON-C01TON, INC. . By , AI ATfA'A\ / YVJ(~~ .- i' i I , I I..... I'~. \. I DIlle: MM:tI 2, 1998 e n ..n :""l !;: c;:l -1\ -.- '"II ~: ... ~:.,.; ~l.l il :;n fI !,.., ~ ~t: I ^:l~J C.l?'" 0' , L ..0 r: " .:....-. ::" I):TI : :~:~C! :;;.; ,.(") . ,rn ..~( j r;! ~1 : )... (~. ~ .~ :J.l ,- ...... '. ,: ;'f WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-6543 v, CIVIL ACTION-LAW BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER 18. No response required. 19, Denied. The information provided to Defendant by P1aintitf it implemented would have saved Detendant as much money or more money than they are realizing under their current plan. By way ot further response, the second to last paragraph ot the contract between the parties indicates that the tariff recommendations implemented by the Detendant are presumed to be due to the work ot Plaintitf. 20. Denied. Plaintiff used its analysis to negotiate lower rates with both Cable and Wireless and Worldcom, Defendant then implemented the proposals with Cable and Wireless which Plaintiff had negotiated with cable and wireless. 21. Denied. Any changes implemented by the Detendant within two years ot the date of the contract tall under the terms and conditions ot the contract. After a change in long distance coverage is implemented, then Plaintiff is entitled to one half of the savings which occur in the twelve months following the change in long distance coverage. By way of further response, Plaintiff did realize savings as a result of the recommendations made by Plaintiff. YOFFE , YOFFE, P.C. By (f/~/)?~ 1'4E FR N. Y FFE, ESQUIRE ,. Attorney for Plaintiff 214 Senate Avenue, Suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-1838 Attorney ID No, 52933 wor ldw Ide\brl rt tn\ ,,,npons. t t WORLDW IDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANJ.A NO. 97-6543 v. CIVIL ACTION-LAW BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant ,I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .... the undersigned certifies that on the date indicftted below he served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to New Matter on the following individual at the address indicated. Service was , James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire 11 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3016 accomplished by hand delivering the same: .. , r Date: 3/19/98 YOFFE , YOFFE, P.C, By J!J~ f) t:d l~~fft N. Y6FFE, ESQUIRE Attorney for plaintiff 214 Senate Avenue, suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-1838 Attorney 10 No, 52933 worldw'd.'b...rl In\rnpponao I "V, > 8 .- ~ld Ctjlr, .r.. :CJ j' t].;-. ;..... J._(.:." :~?C'" r-,(") -1.::- j . ~ - ~ ;:0 q 'r:!J .~~li~ I) () :J ..t/:t 'j. -. J ",.. o ~ - ID .,., ~ N " oV 'I r' .... ,- " ~: \wp' l \jc.ll]uJoc.\bamn.:olbXl.t.lub"" 1f I ! I i I if WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, vs. NO. 97-6543 BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW AND NOW, this Q.BDfB ~, "Q day of March, 1998, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED thaI JAMES A. DUNBAR, ESQUIRE, by hereby specially admitted to the Bar of this Commonwealth under Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rule 301 as co-counsel representing Defendant BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED in this matter. J. . l,:: \wp~ I \JJljhk':llhalb."'IIUtln, Muliun ~ .! WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, vs. NO. 97-6543 i'\lt BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW M.QIlQ..IIi FOR SPECIAL ADM1S.SlQN ~ ., The undersigned, JAMES D. FLOWER, JR., ESQUIRE, respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rule 301, for the special admission pro hac vice of JAMES A. DUNBAR, ESQUIRE, in this matter and In support represents as follows; 1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before tho Supreme Court .- , of Pennsylvania, and am a member in good standing before the Bar of this Commonwealth. 2. I am a partner in Ihe law firm of FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY, and am counsel of record representing Defendant, BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED in Ihis matter. 3. JAMES A. DUNBAR, ESQUIRE, Is assoclaled with me In this matter and seeks admission pro hac vice on behalf of Defendanl BARTON-COTTON INCORPORATED. 4. JAMES A. DUNBAR, ESQUIRE, Is a member of the law firm of Venable, Baetjer and Howard, L.L.P., practicing at the firm's Baltimore, Maryland office, and is duly qualified to practice in the Courts of the State of Maryland. The supporting Affidavit of JAMES A. DUNBAR, ESQUIRE, is attached hereto. ~. \'4'r~ I \~li''''''r.:,'.ha''tllk"tlth''l. ",....,," 5. The admission of JAMES A. DUNBAR, ESQUIRE, pro hac vice will materially advance the conducl of Ihis matter on behalf of Defendant BARTON-COTTON INCORPORATED, and will prejudice no one. WHEREFORE, JAMES D. FLOWER, JR., ESQUIRE, respectfully requests thatthls Court specially admil JAMES A. DUNBAR, ESQUIRE, pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant BARTON-COTTON INCORPORATED in Ihis matter. FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys for Defendant \. (\ - --" /) \. By . /Lt' l ( \. .'leL' . - Ijames D. Flow r, Jr., Esquir~ 11 East High Street ( I Ca~lisle, PA 17013 \ / (717) 243.5513 1.0. #27742 ~ I JAMES D. FLOWER, JR., ESQUIRE, hereby verify that the statements made In the within Instrument are Irue and correct to Ihe best of my knowledge, Information and belief. I understand that false statemenls herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~-dfL&= ,-~' (h" S \\) , 'Ut< ( 1 James D. Flower, 'Jr. ......... j Dale: March ,q ,1998 "\wr"I\)dfjHlo.....\~r1"rh.IJ(It., M,~..., WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, vs. NO. 97-6543 BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW OF CO-COUNSEL ON...B.E 0 BARTON-COTTON. INCOBPORA TED COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ss.: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ) I, JAMES A. DUNBAR, ESQUIRE, having been duly sworn, take this Affidavit in Support of Ihe foregoing Motion for my Special Admission on behalf of BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant, as follows: 1. I desire to be specially admitted pro hac vice to the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, pursuanl to Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rule 301, as co- counsel for Defendant BARTON COTTON, INCORPORATED, in Ihe above caplioned matter. 2. I am a member of Ihe law firm of Venable, Baeljer and Howard, LL.P., and am duly licensed to praclice law by the State of Maryland. I was admilted to the Bar in the State of Maryland in 1981. I am a member in good standing of the Bar of Maryland, and am not under suspension or disbarmenl by any Court. .( ~ \\lIp~ I \JJljnk". \hl,t. lOIo" nU, "1 . M"ll< "I 3. Upon my admission pro hac vice, and pursuant to Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rule 301, I will assist and be associated In this matter with Pennsylvania counsel of record, James D. Flower, Jr. 4. The Defendant has asked me to represent It in trial of this matter along with James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire. 5. There is good cause for my admission pro hac vice, since I have an established client-allorney relalionship wilh Defendanl BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, and have been involved in litigation on their behalf, and am familiar with various personnel at BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, who may be wilnesses In this matter, or who may provide Information material to Defendant's defense. 6. If specially admitted to the Bar of Ihls Commonwealth, I will be admitted solely for the purpose of participating in this particular action. 7. I am willing and able to comply with all rules of this Court relating to admission, professional conduct, and civil procedure. 8. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in any way if I am specially admitted to the Bar of the Commonweallh of Pennsylvania as co-counsel for James D. Flower, Jr. In this matter. 9. No good cause exists to deny my special admission as co-counsel In this matter. James A. Dunbar, Esquire .' Sworn and subscribed to before me I q-ic I-- d" of M@h lnr1 t 0 ~-n1 ~_ .L' L 8- ~ fil :l:: ::c :fl. iBN{ ..... ill;>> ;\J 6'; ;t., ..,..m ."~C"~ W ;~6 G..,.. ~" ~. C:V ""t, :;:~ i: C") :.: (J- ',,,,C ,~O ~ ~m ;';:'.C: ~ :l; ..... =< c.lwpSll.)&Ujus.....\...f14I1M;uUuO r" WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYlVANIA Plaintiff, V5. NO. 97-6543 BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW fBA.EC.lf.E TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please substitute the attached original Verification for the FAXed copy of a Verification attached to the Amended Answer and New Matter filed in the above captioned case. FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys for the Defendant ,. E}y"'. Ct~\) ~'~.. . James D. Flower, Jr., quire \ 11 East High Street \j ~arlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5513 1.0. #27742 Date: May 22, 1998 " ("") ,:J ':1 " ':).) -,I -~ \ .. . . ,..,'. \..., t. ~ ~ ~_..: ,- , - r",) 'I .- ,') ,- ..!;~ ":') r.:l p'i 1 , I ~~} ',,' ..'J ,-, t,n -~ WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC" Plaintiff :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 97-6543 v, BARTON-COTTON, INC, Defendant CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CONSENT TO AMENDMENT Pursuant to ru1s 1033. the undersiqned on behalf of Wordwide Telecommunications. Inc. hereby consents to Barton-Cotton, Inc. amending the answer and new matter they previously filed in this case. YOFFE & YOFFE, P.C. Bi~ ('Lfid Esquire ~ Attorney for Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc. 214 Senate Avenue, Suite 203 camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-1838 Attorney ID No, 52933 Q .l:) n , ~'J "" .' -.. : '1'1 i .- , .<", I , , ; . ~J n - r.".; -:'1 )... , ; -.' --'C;' ., , ) t:~.1 -. , , , . j - ' . -< o- r..> -. " '\. (",~r. ",1" \ I;""" ,....{ \.' . '1' d (1\" \ C',"' '.. . .' u" \". cO q'3.1Ij~\~'O I" (.... ..." ,.'{ C;' \\ I.....,.:',,;i J,l "I') ,,,'J',,h \, ,U\~I...J' .~, ,I" .", \'U\~~,i{\.\"""!' , 1> .::\wp\l\joJlj'lk...-.\tl.'lll1kulh" I'll WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, vs. NO. 97-6543 BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. ; , , CIVIL ACTION - LAW .- l. AND NOW, comes Defendanl, BARTON-COTTON, tNCORPORATED, by and through its attorneys, VENABLE, BAET JER & HOWARD, and local counsel, FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY, and avers the following: 1. Plaintiff WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. filed a summons against Defendant BARTON-COTTON INCORPORATED, on November 24, 1997. 2. On January 7, 1998, a Rule was issued upon Plainliff to file a Complaint or suffer a judgment of non pros. 3. On or about February 11, 1998, Plainliff filed ils Complaint and served it upon Defendant's local counsel, which Complaint sought damages for fees it alleged to have earned as a telecommunications consultant to Defendant. 2 ~' I""p." I IjJl]ru.. 'Il.' .\blt1ln:uUun _I'rt 4. On March 3, 1998, Defendant filed an Answer and New Matter, denying liability and asserting that since no savings resulted from Plaintiff's services, no fees were due to Plaintiff. 5. Counsel for Defendant took Plainllff's deposlllon on March 19, 1998. At Plainliff's Deposition, Defendanl's Counsel learned in considerable detail about the false and Inaccurate represenlatlons made by Plainliff 10 Defendant concerning ils Iralnlng and experience, Its services, and Ihe alleged no-risk nalure of the conlracl. 6. As a result of Ihe information revealed al the deposition, Plaintiff wishes to sel forth addillonal allegalions In its New Malter, asserting the additional defense of fraud. A true and correct copy of the proposed Amended Answer and New Malter Is attached hereto as Exhibil "A". 7. Plaintiff would nol be prejudiced In any way by Defendant's proposed amendment of its Answer and New Matter. a. To deny Ihe proposed amendment would be inequitable in that it would deny Defendant the ability to assert a legilimale defense. 9. Defendanl has requested thaI Plaintiff stipulale to the amendment of Defendant's pleadings, and has provided an advance copy of Ihis Petition and the proposed Amended Answer and New Malter to Plaintiff, and Plainliff has not yel either agreed to so slipulate nor advised whether it will concur wilh the relief soughl In this Petition. 3 ~:\\ltr,\I\JJllldo_"h.I"......"t"'CII'.t WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that a Rule be Issued upon Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant should not be permitted to amend its Answer and New Matter. FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys for Defendant By ames D. Flow r, Jr., E qui 1 East High Street arllsle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5513 1.0. #27742 VENABLE, BAET JER & HOWARD, LLP Attorneys for the Defendant James A. Dunbar 1800 Mercanllle Bank & Trust Building 2 Hopkins Plaza Baltimore, MD 21201-2978 (410) 244-7400 4 May-?O-90 lO:51A ~an~t Shirrlutt . -.. -. .~~~ .~'.. ~~~~~~~ 4l0-Z47-360l . ~Wtt' nJ!"iENTHoll.. F ~ P.Ol P"<>l U6 ,"-,JlI;iGt.....,,~PW.- ,. ~IFICA1JON I, ITePHI!N M. HUGHII, Diflc;tor of PUrcnlling of B.r1on.COlIOn Incorporlled, hereby virWy 11\8t the stlllemonls ""do In ltlI within Instrumenl _e!tue and tOrtect to the best of my knowledge, information Bnd belief. I understand 'hat false stalemenlS tlereln ere made subject to the penalties or 18 Pa.C.S. SlJClion 4904, relaling 10 unsworn leltlHlcatlonto aUlhorIllts. BARTON.COTTON, INCORPORATED ~~,u ....1 YV7 .Jk i....~ SI phon M. Hughes Director 01 Purcnulng Dale: ""YrJ~ J() / 'H ~ I 5 c: \wpJ Iljdljrdoc.\b..rtOOl:oClon.am WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COU/IiTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plalnliff, vs. NO. 97-6543 oW BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOIlCE l YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the within New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty days 3fter service of this Amended Answer and New Matter. FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys for the Defendant .- \. EXHIBrr I "A" ,1:;\..pJI\).Illrdol;.\~odcla.ant WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plalnliff, vs. NO. 97-6543 BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1. Alter reasonable Invesllgallon, Defendant Is wilhout sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to Ihe truth of Ihis averment. 2. Denied in part and admitted In part. BARTONooCOTTON, INC., Is a corporation, which has Its principal place of business located in Baltimore County, Maryland. 3. Denied. The Agreement does not recite thaI il was to be governed by the laws of Pennsylvania, only Ihat il is "governed by the State of Pennsylvania..." 4. Denied. No provision of Ihe conlracl specified thaI it was to be performed Einlirely within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 5. Denied. The conlract does nol specify where payment was 10 be made. 6. Denied. There was no specific agreement relating to venue. By way of further answer, however, the contract does slale Ihal "any action commencing hereunder shall be brought In the County of Cumberland. " 7. Alter reasonable invesligation, Defendant is wilhout sufficienl knowledge or informalion to form a belief as to Ihe trulh of Ihis averment. 2 ~. \wr~ I ItJljrdt.. l\h.1I1Ul\",1I'1I11 ..II' 8. After reasonable Investigation, Defendant Is without sufficient knowledge or Information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 9. After reasonable investigation, Defendanlls without sufficient knowledge or ~.. Information to form a belief as the truth of this averment. 10. Denied In part and admitted in part. BARTON-COTTON, INC., Is wilhoul , sufficient knowledge or informallon 10 form a belief as to the date upon which Ihe conlract was execuled by Plaintiff, although Plaintiff has daled Its signature as of July 18, 1996. 11. Denied. The flrsl telephone contact between BARTON-COTTON, INC. and Ihe Plaintiff did not occur unlil shortly before May 30, 1996, and Ihus, the Plaintiff and BARTON- COTTON, INC. had nol been communicaling wilh each olher for several months prior to July ; I.. I r i I I I ! 18, 1996. In addition, BARTON-COTTON, INC., had only a few inlermittent communlcallons with the Plalnllff prior 10 July 18, 1996, and did nol fully understand what services the Plaintiff proposed to provide pursuant to the conlact. 12. Denied. There was nol a period of months before Ihe conlract was executed. Moreover, although BARTON-COTTON, INC. could have requested changes In the I conlracl, Ihe proposed services and/or Ihe fee, BARTON-COTTON, INC. Is wilhout sufficient knowledge or information 10 delermine whether Ihose changes could have been successfully I negotialed or made. BARTON-COTTON, INC. ad mils that it asked for no changes In the writing attached 10 the Complainl as Exhibil "A". 3 . c:\wpJI\jJfjrdocI\bartl'JfK'Ouon.II\' 13. Paragraph 13 characterizes the written agreement between the parties. which agreement speaks for Itself. 14. Denied in part and admitted in part. BARTON-COTTON, INC. admits that WORLDWIDE provided it wilh dala on long dislance rates Ihat WORLDWIDE claimed were available. BARTON-COTTON, INC. Is wilhout knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the whether those rales were actually available. BARTON-COTTON, INC. specifically denies thaI WORLDWIDE "recommended" a long dislance program that would save BARTON-COTTON,INC. approximately $4, 198.00 per month, over ils then-current long distance plan. 15. Denied. BARTON-COTTON, INC. has nol utilized any recommendation of WORLDWIDE, and has nol vlolaled any agreement Ihat it has with WORLDWIDE. 16. Denied. BARTON-COTTON, INC. has nol damaged WORLDWIDE. 17. After reasonable Investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to Ihe nature and exlent of court costs or legal costs Incurred by Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendanl request thaI the Complaint be dismissed. 18. Paragraphs 11hrough 17 of Defendanl's Answer are Incorporated herein by reference. 4 19. After consideration of Ihe Information provided by Plaintiff to Defendant. Defendant concluded Ihat Plalnllff's Informallon did nol provide opportunities which would have significantly Improved on Ihe rales which Defendanl had already worked out through olher sources. 20. Defendanl did nOI, in facI, Implement any recommendation in Plaintiff's report I ~ I and, consequently, Defendant did nol save any money as a result of any recommendation by Plaintiff. 21. Since Plainllff's fees were charged only on a conlin gent fee basis on monthly ~. r I i , savings accrued by Defendant for recommendalions 10 Plaintiff In Ihe first year after of the date of implemenlallon, and since no savings were accrued from any recommendations made by Plainllff, Defendanl is nolliable to Plainliff under Ihe Agreement. 22. In addition, Ihe contract upon which the Complaint relies was procured by the Plaintiff's fraud and hence does nol present a basis for recovery. The particulars of the fraud are as follows: 23. The conlract proposed and drafted by the Plaintiff was represented by the Plaintiff to be a "no-risk" contract. Specifically, paragraph 6 of a documenl received by the Defendant from the Plainliff stated, "we are absolulelv risk free.. We charge no money up front. Our mWl fees are a percenta!;le of Ihe money vou aaree we have saved you'" Plaintiff further represented Ihalll would be working on a "strict no-risk conlingency fee basis. n Plaintiff further represented that Ihe only fee would be one-half of the monlhly savings accrued by Defendant 5 . ~:\Wp~l\jufifll{A;.\b.I1tXU:IJl1un,lU'. "from the recommendations In [Plaintiff's) reports for a period of one year from Ihe date of Implementation. " 24. In this case, the Plaintiff has placed an entirely different Interpretation on its contract that It drafted. The Plaintiff claims that anv change In long-distance service Implemented by the Defendanl within two years after the receipt of Plaintiff's so-called "analysis" would automatically and Irrefutably be deemed to have occurred as a result of Plaintiff's work and would result In a financial obligation on the part of the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff never disclosed this interpretation of Its contract rights during the course of its communications with Defendant. 25. If the Plaintiff's current interpretation of its conlract rights Is correct (and Defendant believes that it Is not), then the representations set forth in paragraph 23 above, are and were Intentional false statemenls by the Plaintiff thaI were intended to induce the Defendant to enter into a contract Ihat was advertised as a "no-risk contracl," but in fact would inevitably result in financial obligations from Defendant to the Plaintiff. 26. The Defendant reasonably relied upon the Plaintiff's false representations as to the "no-risk" nature of the contract when it entered into the contract. If the Plaintiff had disclosed Ihe interpretation of the contracl thaI it advances in this case, ralher than depicting the conlract as a no-risk arrangement, then Defendant would not have enlered into the contract. 27. The Plaintiff made false and fraudulent representations in another respect. In the sollcilation malerials sent by the Plainlill to Ihe Defendant, Ihe Plaintiff stated "we're 6 . ,: \wp' I \~l}"*.\blnonconon-An.. \ . credible because we're Ihe only ones In Ihe communication Industry who Qet oald like vou -- from savlnas. H That statement was untrue. According to Plaintiff's deposition, there are at least " 700 other entities engaged In exactly the same type of business as the Plaintiff. ,... 28. Plainliff also made false representations Ihat were designed to convince the Defendant that II was a repulable, experienced, knowledgeable consultant wilh significant resources and expertise in Ihe lelecommunlcations business. Plaintiff represented that it had , "Invested thousands of programming hours and relained leading experts in regulalory and tariff analysis that have positioned us to be the authority in telecommunications cosl reduction. H Those statements were false. Worldwide Telecommunications consists of two employees .. Robert Schaner and his wife, Debbie Schaner .. and one independent consultanl who makes sales calls. Worldwide Telecommunications has nol invesled Ihousands of programming hours. It has not retained any experts in regulatory and tariff analysis. Worldwide Telecommunications r ! has been in business only since 1995, and is not an "authority" in lelecommunlcations cost reduction. In fact, Mr. and Mrs. Schaner, ralher Ihan being telecommunicalions experts, merely attended approximately two weeks of Iralning with a company called National Telecommunications in Bloomfield, New Jersey. In exchange for a $15,000 payment, they received National Telecommunications' data base and a series of form letters and business practices that Ihey could use in order to sel Ihemselves up as so.called "authorities" in telecommunications. Mr. Schaner's prior experience consisled largely of working as a micrographer for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania .. that is, someone who takes microfilm 7 . 1:;\wrJ I \~fjfdun\h'r1m1:Oftun.lm Y.E.BIflCAI1O.N I, STEPHEN M. HUGHES, Director of Purchasing, of Barton-Cotton, Incorporated, hereby verify thallhe statemenls made in the within inslrument are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, Informalion and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penallies of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED By Stephen M. Hughes Director of Purchasing Date: May , 1998 " 9 . \::\WI,~t\jJfjldl;"l\h.r1UN:tllk1l'l,an' WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, vs. NO. 97-6543 BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOIlCf YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead 10 the within New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty days after service of this Amended Answer and New Matter. FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys for the Defendanl ,: \ "'II~ I 'Jdljrdi.1l: . \haf100..;I"un. an. WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNlY, PENNSYLVANIA Plalnliff, vs. NO. 97-6543 BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1. After reasonable Investigation, Defendant is wilhout sufficient knowledge or informalion to form a belief as to the trulh of Ihis averment. 2. Denied in part and admitted In part. BARTON-COTTON, INC., Is a corporation, which has its principal place of business located in Baltimore County, Maryland. 3. Denied. The Agreement does nol recile that it was to be governed by the laws of Pennsylvania, only that it is "governed by the State of Pennsylvania..." 4. Denied. No provision of the contract specified thaI il was to be performed entirely wilhin Ihe Commonweallh of Pennsylvania. 5. Denied. The conlract does not specify where payment was to be made. 6. Denied. There was no specific agreement relating to venue. By way of further answer, however, the contracl does slate that "any action commencing hereunder shall be brought in the County of Cumberland." 7. After reasonable invesligalion, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to Ihe truth of this averment. 2 ~ \\IoII_\I\jJIJHk.t.'I\h.lh."I~h'Cl ,III' 8. After reasonable Investigation, Defendant Is without sufficient knowledge or Information to form a belief as to Ihe trulh of this averment. 9. After raasonable Invesllgatlon, Defendant Is wllhout sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as Ihe trulh of Ihis averment. 10. Denied in part and admitted in part. BARTON-COTTON, INC., Is without sufficient knowledge or informalion to form a belief as 10 the date upon which the contract was executed by Plaintiff, allhough Plaintiff has daled ils signalure as of July 18, 1996. 11. Denied. The first telephone contact between BARTON-COTTON, INC. and the Plaintiff did not occur until shortly before May 30. 1996, and Ihus. the Plainliff and BARTON. COTTON, INC. had not been communicating with each other for several months prior to July 18, 1996. In addition, BARTON-COTTON, INC., had only a few intermittent communications with the Plainliff prior 10 July 18, 1996, and did not fully understand what services the Plaintiff proposed to provide pursuant 10 the contact. 12. Denied. There was nol a period of months before Ihe contract was execuled. Moreover, although BARTON-COTTON, INC. could have requested changes in the contracl, the proposed services and/or the fee, BARTON-COTTON, INC. is without sufficient knowledge or information to delermine whether Ihose changes could have been successfully negolialed or made. BARTON-COTTON, INC. admils thaI il asked for no changes in the writing attached 10 the Complainl as Exhibit "A". 3 ,:\wp."I\jJtjll.k~a\hIl11W"llUlIn an' 13. Paragraph 13 characterizes the written agreement between the parties, which agreemenl speaks for itself. 14. Denied in part and admitted in part. BARTON-COTTON, INC. admits that WORLDWIDE provided it wilh dala on long dislance rales that WORLDWIDE claimed were available. BARTON-COTTON, INC. is without knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as 10 the whether Ihose rates were actually available. BARTON.COTTON, INC. specifically denies Ihal WORLDWIDE "recommended" a long dislance program that would save BARTON-COTTON,INC. approximetely $4, 198.00 per month, over its Ihen-currenllong distance plan. 15. Denied. BARTON-COTTON, INC. has nol ulilized any recommendation of WORLDWIDE, and has nol violated any agreement thaI it has with WORLDWIDE. 16. Denied. BARTON-COTTON, INC. has not damaged WORLDWIDE. 17. After reasonable investigation, Delendanl is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 10 Ihe nature and extent of court costs or legal cosls incurred by Plainliff. WHEREFORE, Defendant request that the Complaint be dismissed. 18. Paragraphs 11hrough 17 of Defendant's Answer are Incorporated herein by reference. 4 ~ \"I,\I\jllljllll:u\h~IIoIlll\.'Il(I.'" .:ill\ 19. Alter conslderallon of the Information provided by Plaintiff to Defendant, Defendant concluded Ihal Plaintiff's Information did nol provide opportunities which would have significantly Improved on Ihe rates which Defendant had already worked out through other sources. 20. Defendanl did nOI, In fact, implement any recommendation in Plaintiff's report and, consequently, Defendant did not save any money as a result of any recommendation by Plaintiff. 21. Since Plaintiff's fees were charged only on a contingent fee basis on monlhly savings accrued by Defendant for recommendations to Plaintiff In Ihe firsl year alter of the date of implemenlatlon, and since no savings were accrued from any recommendations made by Plainllff, Defendanl is not liable 10 Plainliff under Ihe Agreement. 22. In addition, the contract upon which the Complaint relies was procured by the Plaintiff's fraud and hence does not presenl a basis for recovery. The particulars of the fraud are as follows: 23. The conlracl proposed and drafted by the Plaintiff was represented by the Plaintiff to be a "no-risk" contracl. Specifically, paragraph 6 of a document received by the Defendanl from the Plaintiff staled, .we are absolutely risk free -- We charge no money up front. Our only fees are a percentage of the money vou aaree we have saved youl. Plaintiff further represented Ihal II would be working on a "stricl no-risk conlingency fee basis." Plaintiff further represented that the only fee would be one-half of the monthly savings accrued by Defendant 5 ~ \"'i,\ll.jJljnlt..-,\b'111I1kIlUllU &II' i I "from the recommendallons In [Plaintiff's] reports for a period of one year from the date of implementation. . 24. In Ihis case, the Plaintiff has placed an enlirely different interprelation on 115 contract Ihal it drafted. The Plainliff claims Ihat anv change in long-distance service Implemented by Ihe Defendanl within two years after the receipt of Plaintiff's so-called "analysis' would automalically and irrefulably be deemed to have occurred as a resull of Plainliff's work and would resull in a financial obligallon on the part of the Defendant 10 the Plaintiff. Plalnliff never disclosed this inlerpretation of its conlract righls during Ihe course of ils communications with Defendant. 25. If Ihe Plainliff's current interpretalion of ils conlract rights is correct (and Defendanl believes Ihat il is not), then the represenlations sel forth in paragraph 23 above, are and were intenlional false statements by the Plainliff Ihat were inlended 10 Induce the Defendant 10 enter into a conlracl that was advertised as a "no-risk conlrac.," but In fact would Inevitably resullln financial obligations from Defendanllo the Plainliff. 26. The Defendant reasonably relied upon Ihe Plainllff's false representations i , as to the "no-risk" nalure of the contract when it entered Into the contract. If the Plaintiff had I. disclosed Ihe interpretation of the contracllhat it advances in this case, rather than depicting the conlract as a no-risk arrangemenl, Ihen Defendanl would nol have entered Into the contract. " :..~ 27. The Plainliff made false and fraudulent representallons In another respect. In Ihe solicilalion male rials sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Plaintiff stated .we're 6 ~. : \YtpJ I \~fj nit" _ \h.ltll"~(ICh'll\ .Illl I I, credible because we're Ihe only ones In the communlcallon Industry who cet oald like vou -- from savlnas." ThaI slalement was untrue. According to Plaintiff's deposlllon, there are at least 700 other entilles engaged In exactly the same Iype of business as the Plaintiff. 28. Plaintiff also made false represenlallons that were designed to convince the , i , , ii Defendant that it was a reputable, experienced, knowledgeable consullant wllh significant resources and expertise In the telecommunications business. Plaintiff represented that it had "invested thousands of programming hours and relalned leading experts In regulatory and tariff analysis that have positioned us 10 be Ihe authority in lelecommunications cost reduction." Those stalements were false. Worldwide Telecommunicalions consists of two employees -- Robert Schaner and his wife, Debbie Schaner -- and one independent consultant who makes sales calls. Worldwide Telecommunications has not invesled thousands of programming hours. II has not retained any experts in regulalory and tariff analysis. Worldwide Telflcommunications has been in business only since 1995, and is not an "authority" In telecommunications cost reduclion. In facI, Mr. and Mrs. Schaner, rather Ihan being telecommunications experts, merely attended approximately two weeks of Iraining with a company called National Telecommunications In Bloomfield, New Jersey. In exchange for a $15,000 payment, they received Nallonal Telecommunications' dala base and a series of form letters and business pracllces that they could use in order 10 set themselves up as so-called "authorities" In telecommunlcallons. Mr. Schaner's prior experience consisted largely of working as a micrographer for Ihe Commonwealth of Fennsylvania -- thaI is, someone who takes microfilm 7 . c:\wp5l\jJljhkll.',\h.lh~~UUt~ an_ Ii I t pictures of state records. Mr. Schaner has no experience or expertise In telecommunications, other than what he learned during his brief training al Nallonal Telecommunications and the approllimately one year of experience that he obtained before he contacted the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff. 29. Defendant reasonably relied on those false representations In deciding to enter Into the contract on which the Plaintiff relies in this case. If the Defendant had known the true slate of fecls about the Plaintiff's lack of knowledge and expertise, and the true nature of the Plaintiff's operations, it would not have entered Into the contract. 30. Because the contracl on which the Plaintiff relies was procured by fraud, It should not be enforced by this Court and It cannot be the basis of any recovery by the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the Complaint be dismissed. FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY Date: May a.J-. ,1998 James D. FI wer, Jr. Attorney for the Plaintiff 11 East High Slreel Carlisle, PA 17013 I. D. #27742 VENABLE, BAET JER & HOWARD, LLP Attorneys for Ihe Defendant James A. Dunbar 1800 Mercanlile Bank & Trust Building 2 Hopkins Plaza Baltimore, MD 21201-2978 (410) 244-7400 8 M.y-20-YB 10:51A Janet Shlrrlett "'.....~'4.,lJU .J.~. _"J~"1t.1 .\w,.JI~~-.. 410-247-36B1 h_Jot.R f>O<G[Nr.;AL f"~ P.02 "AGE 15 By ~-1.U)'1J"'-' >11 JJv~,,) Sleph6" M. Hughes { DirtClor of Purchasing VEAIFI~A TION I. IT!PHIN M. HUGH!S, OirllClor of Purchasing, of Bltton-Cotton. lnoorporll.d, hereby verify lt1at thl statementa made in 1t11 willlln ;nslrum,n1 ere tru. Ind corr.ct to the b.lt of my knowledge, Information .,d belief I und.rstand It'IIl laIN IIUItlrnlnts htrtin are midi! IUbJtct 10 In. penlllits 01 18 Pa C.5, Stction 4904. r.l.ting 10 UNworn falsification 10 aultlonties BARTON. COTTON, INCORPORATED Date: Mey 010, 1998 9 WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ,; . Plainliff, NO. 97-6543 v. CIVIL ACTION-LAW .. BARTON-COTfON, INCORPORATED, Defendant. PI,AINTIFF'S REPLY TO AMENDED NEW MATIER ~ 18. No response required. 19. Denied. The information provided to defendant by plaintiff if implemented would have saved defendant as much money or more money than they are realizing under their current plan. By way or further response, the second 10 lasl paragraph of the contracl between the parties indicates thaI the tariff recommendalions implemenled by defendant are preswned 10 be due 10 - , the work of plainliff. 20. Denied. Plainliff used ils analysis 10 negoliate lower rales with both Cable and Wireless and WorldCom. Defendanl then implemenled the proposals with Cable and Wireless which plainliff had negolialed with Cable and Wireless. 21. Denied. Any changes implemented by defendant based 011 plaintiff's proposals within two (2) years of the date of the contracl fall under the lerms and condilions of the conmcl. After a change in long distance coverage is implemented. then plaintiff is entitled to one-half (Va) of the savings which occur in the twelve (12) months following the change in long distance coverage. By way of further response, defendant did realize savings as a resull of the recommendalions made by plaintiff. I . 22. Denied. Plaintiff did not misrepresenl any maleriallenns of the contract 10 defendanl which would conslilute fraud. All of Ihe lenns of Ihe contract were clearly staled to defendanl, as follows: Any changes implemented by defendanl as a result of plaintiffs proposals within two (2) years of the date of Ihe contracl fall under Ihe lenns and condilions of the contract. After a change in long dislance coverage is implemented, then plainliff is enlilled 10 one-half (V.) of the savings which occur in Ihe Iwelve (12) months following the change in long distance coverage. Defendanl signed Ihis contracl with plainliff. Furthennore, defendanl suffered no damages based on any detrimental reliance. In facI, defendant save money as a result of plainliffs proposals. Plainliff used ils analysis to negoliate lower rates with both Cable and Wireless and Worldcom. Defendanlthen implemented the proposals with Cable and Wireless which plainliffhad negoliated with Cable and Wireless. 23. Denied. Plainliff did not represenl to defendanlthalthe contracl was a "no risk" contract. Inslead, plainliff represented that the conlracl was a "Guaranleed Savings-Contingency Only Consulting Fee Agreement." As for Ihe conlents of paragraph six (6) of the staled documenl, after reasonable investigalion, plaintiff is withoul sufficienl knowledge or infonnalion to fonn a belief as to the lruth of this avennent. Plaintiff admits the remainder of this avennent. 24. Denied. Plaintiffs interpretation oflhe contracl are and were based on the staled tenns of the contact. These tenns are as follows: any changes implemented by defendanl based on plaintiffs proposals within two (2) years of the dale of the contracl fall under the lenns and conditions of Ihe contract. After a change in long dislance coverage is implemented, then plainliff is enlilled 10 one-half (,/,) of the savings which occur in the Iwelve (12) months following the change in long distance coverage. Plaintiff used its analysis to negoliale lower 2 rales with bolh Cable and Wireless and Worldcom. Defendanllhen implemenled the proposals with Cable and Wireless which plainlilT had negolialed wilh Cable and Wireless. 25. Denied. Plaintifrs interprelalion of the contracl are and were based on the following lerms. These terms are as follows: any changes implemented by defendanl based on plainlifrs proposals wilhin two (2) years of the date of the contracl fall under the lerms and conditioliS of Ll)e contract. After a change in long dislance coverage is implemenled, then plaintitris enlilled 10 one-half (V,) oflhe savings which occur in Ihe twelve (12) months following the change in long distance coverage. PlaintilTused its analysis 10 negotiale lower rales with bolh Cable and Wireless and Worldcom. Defendanl then implemented the proposals with Cable and Wireless which plainlilThad negoliated with Cable and Wireless. 26. Denied. PlaintilT made no false representalions to defendanl concerning the terms of the contract. Defendanl agreed 10 the following lerms in the contract: any changes implemenled by defendanl based on plainlifrs proposals within Iwelve (12) months of the dale of the conlracl fall under the lerms and condilions oflhe contract. After a change in long distance coverage is implemented, then plainlilT is enlilled to one-half (V,) of Ihe savings which occur in the twelve (12) months following Ihe change in long dislance coverage. PlaintilTused its analysis 10 negoliate lower rales with both Cable and Wireless and Worldcom. Defendant then implemented the proposals wilh Cable and Wireless which plainlilThad negotialed with Cable and Wireless. 27. Denied. In plainlifrs solicilalion material, plaintilT never slated that there were no other businesses conducling businesses similar 10 plainlifrs. The slalemenl made by plaintilT compares plainlilTto lelecommunicalion providers who operate communicalion syslems such as 3 lelephone lines and telephone servicing. 28. Denied. Plainliff represenled itself as an experienced and reputable consultant. This slalel!1enl is faclual, based on the number ofcuslomers plaintiff has saved money for. Such savings would nol have occured if plaintiff was nol experienced and knowledgeable in the area of lelecommunication savings. As staled previously, plainliffhas numerous cuslomers and has therefore invested thousands of hours in localing the lowesllelecommunicar.ion rales for its cuslomers. Plaintitl"s employees, including Mr. Schaner, keep abreast, via document review, lelephonc calls and industry infonnation, changes in laritl"s, rales and pricing in attempting to locale the lowesl possible rales for its customers. Experts have been retained 10 prepare the cost reduction reports after plainliff analyzes all possible savings plans. Concerning Mr. Schaner, his expertise and experience in telecommunication savings can be proven via the numerous cuslomers he has acheived savings for. As menlioned above, Mr. Schaner keeps abreast, via documenl review, telephone calls and industry infonnation, changes in taritl"s, rates and pricing in altempting 10 locale the lowesl possible rales for its cuslomers. 29. After reasonable invesligation, plainliff is without sufficienl knowledge or infonnation to fonn a belief as 10 the truth of this avcnnent. 30. Denied. The contracl between plainliff and defcndanl is enforceable because it was signed by defendant. Plaintiff did nol rcpresent any maleriaJ tenns of the contract to defendanl which would conslilule fraud. All of the lenns of the contracl were clearly stated: any changes implemcnlcd by defendant as a resul1 ofplainlitl"s proposals within two (2) years of the dale oflhc contracl fall under the lenns and condilions of the contract. After a change in long distance coverage is implemented, then plaintiff is enlilled 10 one-half (V.) of the savings which 4 ~\- occur in the Iwelve (12) months following Ihe change in long dislance coverage. Furthermore. defendanl suffered no damages based on any detrimental reli8l\ce. Plaintiff used its analysis 10 negotiale lower rates with both Cable and Wireless and Worldcom. Defendanl then implemenled the proposals with Cable and Wireless which plainliff had negolialed with Cable and Wireless. ".1' Daled: July 21,1998 THE LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE ::o~~~ ~~ LA W~E S. COVEN Attorney for Plainliff 314 U.S. Highway 22 Wesl SuileE Green Brook, N.J. 08812 (Attorney ID No. 63387) . :-. ~ , s WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS,INC" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PlainlitT, NO. 97-6S43 v. CIVIL ACTION. LA W ",. BARTON.COTION, INCORPORATED, Defendant. VERIFICATION i ~ , I hereby slate thaI I am an adull individual who is authorized 10 make this verification and thaI the facts sel forth in the foregoing Plainlifr s Reply 10 Amended New Malter are true 10 the best of my knowledge, informalion and belief. I understand that false slalemenls herein are Daled: 0?kd ~1~_J1 ~ Robert Schaner, Presidenl) Worldwide TeleCommunicalions, Inc. ~ ! subjecI to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904 relating 10 unsworn falsificalion 10 authorities. WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATlONS,INC" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, NO, 97-6543 v. CIVIL ACTION.LA W BARTON-COTION, INCORPORATED, Defendant. CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies thaI on the date indicated below he served a true and correct copy of the foregoing PlainlilT's Reply 10 Amended New Matter on the following individual at the address indicaled. Service was accomplished via facsimile and regular mail upon: . ' James D. Flower, Esq. 11 Easl High St. Carlisle, PA 17013-3016 .. - \. James A. Dunbar, Esq. Venable Attorneys al Law 1800 Mercantile Bank & Trust Building Two Hopkins Plaza Baltimore, MD 21201.2978 Dated: July 21,1998 THE LAW OFFIC S OF LAWRENCE S. COVEN . B. LAWRENCE S. COVEN Attorney for Plaintiff 314 U.S. Highway 22 West Suite E Green Brook, N.J. 08812 (Attorney ID No. 63387) I l l, :\ ;~ :t J. tt\..{ Cl .., (.-) ~:' ;',) , "'1 : .. .. ., 1 , , : , \.( I".) i " , L .. " "' ) , t.:: , , ! . , " ',1 0" WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintitf :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLFAS OF I CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA I NO. 97-6543 v, CIVIL TERM YOFFE , YOFFE, P.C, By n ~ #.:;11 ~FF~ YOFFE, ESQUIRE Attorney for Worldwide 214 Senate Avenue, suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-1838 Attorney ID No, 52933 BARTON-COTTON, INC, Defendant WITHDRAWAL/ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please withdraw the appearance of Jettrey N. Yoffe, Esquire in the above captioned matter and enter the appearance of LAWl!iNClJ", fJDvln'l Esquire, By w~",cr: S.CCl/fiN, t:::slJVlkt 314 U.S, Highway 22 West suite E Greenbrook, New Jersey 08812 worldwlde\barttn\wlthdrav .'"'1' , (") lO 0 .- r- eo "" , ::;.... 11ft: ~ :;J n!~,~. .-'... .i;g ..~., "j.. <'( "> ,.,F;; (/j ....." "~ r:;,' .,,1( ='? c' 'T] -"'\. , ~':,;~ :,,:;,..,.. (5~'" -...~ ~'~~ ~ -, :C) r.- ,'7-" -, r:t) ~ WORLDWIDE TELECOMMlJNICA'r10NS, · INC., IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . I'laintin: . v. CIVIL AC"rION LAW . BARTON.corroN,INC., NO. 97-6543 . . . . Delendant. . . . . . . . . . ORDER Upon considcration Defendants' Motion lor Commission 10 Take Out.of.. Stal~eposition of d-"3:: day of tional Tclccommunications Corporalc Designee, it is Ihis , 1999, by thc Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Pcnnsylvania. ~. ORDERED that Dcfendant's Motion for Commission to Take Oul-of-Slale Dcposition of National Tclccommunications Corporatc Dcsignce bc, and hereby is, GRANTED; and it is furthcr ORDERED thaI Dclendant bc permitted to take the deposition of a National Telecommunications Corporatc Designee in accordance with the accompanying Commission. ! i ! }' ! '- ,. Lr. f-; :;, , ~~ , , -'! ~.:, .' ....; " ~...J , " :0 N , ., " - . c ,,' ,j , , 'l- , , (H :j ~ 0 r~ , -, . - '. ::..: :-~ j:~-: ::1 -: ....) (l.) 'i; WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS. · INC., IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERI.AND COUNTY, PENNS YL VANIA . Plaintill', . v. CIVIL ACT[ON LAW . BARTON-COTTON. INC.. NO. 97-6543 . . . . Defendant. . . . . . . . . MOTION FOR COMMISSION TO TAKE OUT-OF-STATE DEPOSITION OF NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATE DESIGNEE Defendanl. Barton-Collon, Inc.. by it~ undcrsigned attorneys, hereby files this motion for issuance of a Commission to takc the deposition of a corporate designee of National Telecommunications. 150 Commerce Road, Cedar Grove, New Jersey 07009. [n further support of this motion. Defendant states the following: [. Robert Schaner, president of Plaintiff Worldwide Telecommunications. Inc., entered into a contract with National Telecommunications. Pursuant to that contract, Mr. Schaner purportedly received training from National Telecommunications on long- distance tariffanalysis. 2. Mr. Schaner also purchased sollware and other information from National Telecommunications which allowed him to fornl his own telecommunications consulting business. Worldwide Telecommunications. Inc. Mr. Schaner used the sollware he purchased from National Telecommunications, among other things, to generate the long- distance tariff proposal he presented to Defendant Barton-Collon. Inc. That long-dislance tariff proposal is althe center oflhis controversy. . 3. Teslimony from a National Telecommunications represenlative is relevanl 10 Defendant's affinnative defense that the alleged agreement between Plainliffand Defendanl relaling 10 long-distance lariffs was procured by fraud. Specifically, prior 10 Defendant's engagemenl of Plaintiffs services, Mr. Schaner represenled to Defendanl f r that he possessed certain expertise in the telecommunications business. Mr. Schaner laler conceded at his deposilion that he actually had no such expertise, but relied on Ihe alleged expertise of National Telecommunications - by whom he was purportedly Irained - as a basis for this representation. 4. Accordingly, testimony from a National Telecommunications representalive concerning the training and other infonnation provided to Mr. Schaner - or others similarly situated - will lead to the discovery ofinfonnalion relevanlto Ihe defense ofPlainliff's allegations herein. 5. This Court has authority 10 grant this motion and to issue the requested Commission pursuanlto Pa. Stal. Ann. IiI. 42, ~ 5325 (1998). Additional authorily is conferred by N.J. Civil Praclice Rule 4: 11-5, a copy of which is appended hereto as ExhibilA. 6. Defendanl has attempted to reach an agreemenl with Plainliffwhereby a National Telecommunications designee could be deposed withoullhe necessily of a Commission. These efforts have fai led. 7. A proposed Commission for the Deposition of a National Telecommunications Corporate Designee accompanies Ihis motion. 2 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue a Commission directing that a corporate designee of National Telecommunications be deposed for the purposes of Ihis case in the company's local jurisdiction, Essex Counly, New Jersey. Respectfully submilled, FLOWER, FLOWER & LINDSAY By: \ J 11 as! High Streel \{;j' car. lisle, Pennsylvania (717) 243-5513 . . #27742 17013 VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, LLP By: James A. Dunbar Mark D. Maneche 1800 Mercantile Bank & Trusl Building 2 Hopkins Plaza Ballimore, Maryland 21201-2978 (410) 244-7400 Allomeys for Defendanls " 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY thut on this ~uy of Junc, 1999. a copy ofthc foregoing Motion for Commission to Tukc Out-ol:Stutc Dcposition of National Telecommunicalions Dcsigncc was mailcd, first-class, postagc prcpaid, to John J. Murray, Jr. Esquire, The Law Officcs of Lawrencc S. Coven, 314 U.S. Highway 22 West. Suite E, Grecn Brook, New Jcrsey 08812. 4 ~ I, i I ORIGNJ R SUPER TAX SURR CTS CIV R. 4: 11-5 R.4;11-5 Paae I WEST'S Nt:W JERSEY RUI.ES Qt. COURT PART IV. RUI.ES GOVERNING CIVIl. PRACTlct: IN Tilt: SUPERIOR COURT, TAX COURT AND SURROGATE'S COURTS CHAPTER III. PRETRIAl. D1"COVERY; PRETRIAL CONFERENCE PROCEDURE RUI.E 4:11. DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL OR FOR USE IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS Copr. ,0 West Group 1998. All rights reserved. Currenr with amendmenrs effeclive 9-1-1998, 4: 11-5. Depositions Outside the Slate A deposition for use in an action in this Slate, whether pending. not yet commenced, or pending appeal, may be taken oUlside this slate either (al on notice pursuanlto R. 4: 14-2, or, in Ihe case of a foreign country. pursuant to R. 4: 12-3; (bl in accordance with a commission or leuer rogatory issued by a coun of this state. which shall be applied for by mOlion on nOlice; or (c) in any maMer slipulaled by Ihe panies. Depositions within the United States taken on nolice shall be laken before a person designaled by R. 4:12-2. Commissions and letters rogatory shall be issued in accordance with R. 4: 12-3. If the deposilion is tu be taken by slipulation. the person designated by the stipulation shall have the power by vinue of the designation 10 administer any necessary oath. NOle: Adopted July 22, 1983 to be effeclive Seplember 12. 1983; amended July 26, 198410 be effective Seplember 10, 1984. R.4:11.5 NJ R SUPER TAX SURR CTS CIV R. 4:11-5 END OF DOCUMENT EXHIBIT Copr. Q West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. GOVI. Works J A WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, · INC., PluinliO', IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . v. CIVIL ACTION LA W . BARTON-corroN, INC., NO. 97-6543 . D.:t\:ndunl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMISSION FOR Tllr. I>F.I'OSITION (n' NATIONAL H:LF.COMMUNICATlONS TIlE ('EOI'I.E OF TIlE ('OMMONWEAI.TII OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THE APPROPRIATE JUDICIAl. AIITlIORITY IN ESSEX COUNTY. NEW JERSEY: B.: it knuwn Ihul ()u':rIl.:r &. <iuldh.:rg. 5 1I.:.:k.:r Furm Road, Roselund, New I I i.. I r I I ! ! Jersey 0706K IN h.:r.:hy uppuinl.:d hy Ih.: CuurlufCul11mun Pleus of Cumberland County, l'ennsylvuniu,llN CUl11l11lssiun.:r uflh.: Cuurt 10 luk.: th.: d.:position ofNalional Td.:cummuniculiunN. 150 ('unUll.:rc.: Ruud, Ccdur Grow. N.:w Jerscy 07009, In conn,:cllun with Ih.: r.:fcrcnc.:d cus.:. DU':rIlcr &. (iuldh.:rll is Ihcrdilr.: uuthorizcd und directcd on any dalc or dates on which Nuid dcpuNitiun I11UY h.: sch.:dulcd, poslponcd or continucd, to causc a rcpr':NClllUliw uf Nllliunul Td,:cul11municalions 10 comc hcforc it Ihen and Ihcre to unNwcr '1ueNliunN rdllling lu th.: mullcrs In controvcrsy In this case. The d.:pusitiun iN lu be hdd ut the o/liccs of McCarter &. English. L.L.P, 4 (iut.:wuy C.:nler, 100 Mulhcrry Slre.:t, Ncwark. Ncw Jcrscy 07101-0632 0.. at somc other luculiun ullrced lu hy Ihe partics, where a reprcscntative ofNalional Tdccommunlcatlons is luunNwcr Ihe '1ucslions of any ofthc purtlcs to Ihe refcrcnced case. on oath or on ullimlUtlun. relating to the matters In controversy in said case. The National Telecommunications representative shall answer !irst questions asked hy the party rcqucsting thc dcposition, and thcn shall answcr any qucstions poscd hy othcr partics. Docmcr & Goldberg is furthcr cummissioncd to havc thc tcstimony of said witness taken stcnographically and to cause Ihc same to he thcrcafter rcduccd to typewriting and subscribcd by said witncss and ccrtificd to bc correct, unless said signing and certification is exprcssly waivcd by said witncss in its prcscncc. and to annex thcrcto any and all papcrs and documcnts produccd. The deposition should be captioned, headcd, and introduced as follows: WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS. INC., . IN TIlE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS Of CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA . Plaintiff, . v. CIVIL ACTION LA W . BARTON-COlTON. INC., NO. 91-6543 . Defendant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doerner & Goldberg shall further cause the deposition 10 include the questions and answers and each and all of the same in idcnticallanguagc uscd in said questions and by the witness. Thc queslions and answers should bc appropriately designatcd according 10 the party or allorney asking thc qucstions. Onc certificate, envelope and direction will answer for the entire deposition ofthc witness. Every document or othcr exhibil referred to in the deposilion and annexed thereto should be signed or initialed and marked in some manner for identilication. At the conclusion of the deposition, Doerner & Goldberg will annex thereto ils certificate in the following form: STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS. COUNTY OF ESSEX Personally appeared be Core me this _ day of , 1999, National Telecommunications, who made solemn oath (or aflimmtion) to the truth oCthe same which deposition was takcn to bc used in the lIbove-eaptioncd casc; the rcason for taking said deposition being that said dcponcnt is permllncntly located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Subscribed, taken and sworn to before me. Commissioncr Appointcd by the Court of Common Plells oCCumbcrland County, Pennsylvania Once said deposition Iranscript has bccn completed, Doerner & Goldberg shall forward it. together with this Commission, 10 Vcnllblc, Bactjcr and Howard. LLP. Two Hopkins Plaza. 1800 Mercantile Bank & Trust Building. Baltimorc, Maryland 21201.lInd shall scnd to all othcr parties a notice that the deposition has bccn transcribcd and so delivered. Doerncr & Goldbcrg may charge the cost, including its fees, for taking thc deposition to thc party, or his attorncy. on whosc behalf such dcposition is taken, and may supply each party with a copy thercot: at his. hcr or its requcst and cxpcnse. BY THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA Judge Daled: " (") c: :,>' ~). ri i ~ ~ -, !"'~, , ",,'.:\, \.n ,~} '- ::~ \J '1\ :.1 ._"l' .,r'~: ~ :::, -< ct.' ..., <Xl .,-, , j~: 1':"1 ':1 i,I~) ,-", . ." , ; ~ . ~ i-(1 '..J - ' ~~i -< N ~ ' . . r...l -{I :(" WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS,. INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . PlainlifT, . v. CIVIL ACTION LA W t:\ ..' -, i.,: '-' , -rJ' -, r , ... ".) " , .. .. L , : ' I I .., ; , . ..r , t:' , " ...~ ~ . , .:' .' :.,> ~~.j :.<! ." ." . BARTON-COlTON, INC., NO. 97-6543 . Defendant. . . . . . . . . . . . COMMISSION FOR THE DEPOSITION OF NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL VANIA TO THE APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY: Be it known that Doerner & Goldberg,S Bcckcr Farm Road, Roseland, New , Jersey 07068 is hcreby appointed by thc Court of Common Picas ofCumbcrland County. Pennsylvania. as Commissioncr of thc Court to takc thc dcposition of National Telecommunications, 150 Commercc Road, Cedar Grovc, Ncw Jcrscy 07009. in connection with the refcrcnced Cusc. Doerner & Goldberg is thercfore authorizcd and dircctcd on any date or dates on which said deposition may be scheduled, postponed or continued, to cause a representative of National Telecommunications 10 come before it then and there to answer questions relating to thc mailers in controversy in this case. The deposition is to be hcld atlhe officcs of McCarter & English, L.L.P. 4 Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Strcet, Newark, New Jcrscy 07101-0632 or al some other location agreed to by the parties, whcre a reprcsentativc of National Telecommunicalions is 10 answer the qucslions of any of the partics to thc referenced case, on oath or on affirmation, relating to the mallcrs in controversy in said casc. The National Telecommunications represenlative shall answer first questions asked by Ihe party requesting the deposilion, and Ihen shall answer any questions posed by other parties. Doerner & Goldberg is further commissioned to have the lestimony of said witness laken slenographically and to cause the same to be thereafter reduced to typewriting and subscribed by said witness and certified to be correct, unless said signing and certification is expressly waived by said witness in its presence, and to annex Ihereto any and all papers and documenls produced. The deposilion should be captioned, headed, and introduced as follows: WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICA TlONS. INC.. . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA . PlaintitT, . v. CIVIL ACTION LA W , . BARTON-COTTON. INC., NO. 97.6543 . Defendant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doerner & Goldberg shall further cause the deposition 10 include the questions and answers and each and all of the same in identical language used in said queslions and by the witness. The queslions and answers should be approprialely designated according 10 Ihe party or attorney asking Ihe questions. One certificale, envelope and direction will answer for the entire deposition of Ihe witness. Every documenl or other exhibil referred 10 in the deposition and annexed thereto should be signed or inilialed and marked in some manner for identification. At the conclusion of the deposition, Doerner & Goldberg will annex thereto its certificate in the following fonn: WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS. · INC., IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA . Plaintiff, . v. CIVIL ACTION LA W (""\ ..~ ') (.. ,~, :.' !.:: "1.1' r "' NO, 97-6543 . ~) " , , I';, C '. : ) ... .'. , , ., , ; , =:-, " . . . ~~ , " I - . ~--l ".oJ ....J -< '" ....; . BARTON-COTTON, INC., . Defendant. . . . . . . . . COMMISSION FOR THE DEPOSITION OF NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THE APPROPRlA TE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN ESSEX COUNTY. NEW JERSEY: Be il known that Doerner & Goldberg,S Becker Fann Road, Roseland, New ~ . Jersey 07068 is hereby appointed by Ihe Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Pennsylvania, as Commissioner of the Court to take the deposition ofNalional Telecommunications. 150 Commerce Road. Cedar Grove, New Jersey 07009, in conneclion with the referenced case. Doerner & Goldberg is therefore authorized and directed on any dale or dates on which said deposilion may be sch~duled, poslponed or continued, to cause a represenlative of National Telecommunications to come before it then and Ihere 10 answer questions relating to Ihe matters in controversy in this case, The deposilion is t(\ be held althe offices of McCarter & English, L.L.P, 4 Galeway Center, 100 Mulberry Street. Newark, New Jersey 07101-0632 or al some other localion agreed 10 by the partie.5, where a representative of National Telecommunications is to answer the queslions of any of the parties 10 the referenced case, on oath or on affinnation. relating to the matters in controversy in said case. The Nalional Telecommunications representative shall answer first 4ucstions asked by the party requestinllthe deposition. and then shall answer any 4uestions posed by other parties. I I I I i I I i" I ! ~ I Doerner & Goldberll is further commissioned to have the testimony of said witness taken slenographically and to cause the same to be thereafter redueed to typewritinll and subscribed by said witness and certified to be correct. unless said sillninll and certification is cxprcssly waived by said witncss in its prcsencc, and to anncx thcreto any and all papers and documents produced. Thc deposition should be captioned. headed. and introduced as follows: WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . PlaintifT, . v. CIVIL ACTION LAW , . BARTON-COTTON. INC., NO. 97-6543 . Defendant. r I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doerner & Goldberg shall further eause Ihe deposition to include the questions and answers and each and all of the same in idenlicallanguage used in said questions and by the witness. The questions and answers should bc appropriatcly designated according to Ihe party or allorney asking the questions. One certificate, envelopc and direction will answer for the enlire deposition of the witness. Every documcnt or other exhibit referred to in the deposition and annexed thereto should bc signed or initialed and marked in some manner for idenlification. Al the conclusion oflhc deposition. Doerner & Goldberg will annex therelo its certificate in Ihe following fonn: I~n ijl~o ~ .-I!lIM" ,~ I M ~ ;\ 'J . Ii 'i. Or. I~ Ul ".l.t.,..rIO ~ jr . ~ NN jr /1'10/1'1 ",...g. jr ..."N .941 .. .~ 1l ~n: ~~ -C>. =Qlro :>1 2! :801 .>Z :cri:f ~ ~~cri CO :~;:j~&i -:~'V~! : ctl ... U)::J c.!) =...JC') .- L N .... ~ o I , I I ~ '" ~ Z ~ old 0 .J, eUU I1=J usa (5 ~ s: '" ~ ~ ~~ 13_~ i~-~ ~ i . , WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, · INC., . IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiff, . v. CIVIL ACTION LA W . BARTON-COTTON, INC., NO. 97.6543 n (.: ""1" I.... ,~ ,'" ~ :; -, ., . . . . Defendant. . . . . . . . - , ('; ~:\ (..) j =2 . , .' ) .1 '!, ) -j.1 . , .;~ :1) .... . 'oj MOTION FOR COMMISSION TO TAKE OUT-OF-STATE DEPOSITION OF NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATE DESIGNEE . ,'; -', :.' .() Defendanl, Barton-Collon, Inc., by its undersigned allomeys, hereby tiles this mol ion for issuance of a Commission 10 take the deposition of a corporate designee of . , Nalional Telecommunications, 150 Commerce Road, Cedar Grove, New Jersey 01009. In further support of this motion, Delendant 5tates the following: I. Robert Schaner, president of Plaintiff Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc., enlered into a contract with National Telecommunications. Pursuanlto that conlmCl, Mr. Schaner purportedly received training from National Telecommunications on long- dislance lariff analysis. 2. Mr. Schaner also purchased software and other information from National Telecommunicalions which allowed him to form his own telecommunications consulting business, Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc. Mr. Schaner used the software he purchased from National Telecommunicalions, among other things, to generate the long- distance tariff proposal he presented 10 Defendant Barton-Collon. Inc. ThaI long-distance tariff proposal is althe center of this controversy. 3. Teslimony from a National Telecommunications representative is relevanl 10 Defendant's aflinnalive defense that the alleged agreement belween Plaintiff and Defendant relating 10 long-distance tariffs was procured by fraud. Specifically, prior 10 Defendant's engagemenl ofPlainlilfs services, Mr. Schaner represented 10 Defendanl Ihat he possessed certain expertise in the telecommunications business. Mr. Schaner laler conceded al his deposition Ihal he actually had no such expertise, bul relied on Ihe alleged expertise of National Telecommunications - by whom he was purportedly lrained - as a basis for this representation. 4. Accordingly, lestimony from a National Telecommunications representative concerning the Iraining and other infonnation provided 10 Mr. Schaner - or . . others similarly siluated - will lead 10 the discovery of infonnalion relevanllo the . defense ofPlaintitl's allegations herein. 5. This Court has authority to granlthis motion and to issue Ihe requesled Commission pursuanllo Pa. Stal. Ann. til. 42, 9 5325 (1998). Additional authorily is conferred by N.J. Civil Practice Rule 4: 11-5, a copy of which is appended herelo as Exhibil A. 6. Defendant has attempted to reach an agreemenl with Plainliffwhereby a National Telecommunications designee could be deposed wilhoulthe necessity ofa Commission. These efforts have failed. 7. A proposed Commission for the Deposilion ofa Nalional Telecommunications Corporate Designee accompanies this molion. 2 WHEREFORE, Defendant respeclfully requests thallhis Court issue a Commission directing that a corporate designee ofNalional Telecommunicalions be deposed for the purposes oflhis case in the company's local jurisdiclion. Essex County. New Jersey. Respeclfully submilted. FLOWER. FLOWER & LINDSAY By: \ J 11 asl High Streel \{iarlisle. Pennsylvania (717) 243-5513 . . #27742 17013 , VENABLE. BAETJER & HOWARD. LLP By: James A. Dunbar Mark D. Maneche 1800 Mercanlile Bank & Trusl Building 2 Hopkins Plaza Ballimore. Maryland 21201-2978 (410) 244-7400 Altomeys for Defendants 3 CERTlFICA TE OF SER VICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ~ay of June. 1999. a copy of the foregoing Motion for Commission 10 Take Out-of-State Deposition of National Telecommunications Designee wa~ mailed. Iirst-c1ass. postage prepaid. to John J. Murray, Jr. Esquire. The Law Offices of Lawrence S. Coven. 314 U.S. Highway 22 West. Suite E. Green Brook. New Jersey 08812. , ORIGNJ R SUPER TAX SURR CTS CIV R. 4: 11.5 R.4:11.5 Page 1 WEST'S NEW JERSEY RULES OF COURT PART IV. RULES GOVERNING CIVIL PRACTICE IN TIlE SUPERIOR COURT, TAX COURT AND SURROGATE'S COURTS CIIAPTER III. PRETRIAL DISCOVERY; PRETRIAL CONFERENCE PROCEDURE RULE 4:11. DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL OR FOR USE IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS Copr. 0 WeSI Group 1998. Aff righls reserved. Current wilh amendments effective 9-1-1998. 4: 11-5. DePOSilions OUlside Ihe Slale A deposillon for use in an action in Ihis stale, whelher pending, nol yet commenced, or pending appeal. may be talten outside this slate either (a) on nOlice pursuanllo R. 4: 14-2. or. in Ihe case of a foreign country, pursuanllo R.4:12-3; (b) In accordance wilh a commission or leller rogatory issued by a court oflhis stale. which shall be applied (or by mol ion on nOlice; or (c) in any maMer slipulated by lhe panics. Deposillons within the Uniled Slales lalten on notice shall be laken before a person designaled by R. 4: 12-2. Commissions and letlers rogatory shaff be issued in accordance wilh R. 4: 12-3. I( Ihe deposilion is 10 be talten by stipulalion. the person designated by the stipulalion shall have Ihe power by virtue of Ihe designalion to adminisler any necessary oath. Note: Adopled July 22. 198310 be effective Seplember 12. 1983; amended July 26, 1984 10 be e((eclive Seplember 10, 1984. ' R.4:11-5 NJ R SUPER TAX SURR CTS CIV R. 4: 11-5 END OF DOCUMENT EXHIBIT Copr.O West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. GOYI. Works J A Plainlill', IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYl.VANIA WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS. · INC.. . . v. CIVIL ACTION l.A W . BARTON-COTTON. INC.. NO. 97-6543 . Defendant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMISSION FOR TilE DEPOSITION OF NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS TilE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL VANIA TO TilE APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN ESSEX COUNTY. NEW JERSEY: Be it known that Doerner & Goldberg. 5 Becker Farm Road. Roseland, New Jersey 07068 is hereby appointed by Ihe Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. as Commissioner of the Court to lake Ihe deposilion of National Telecommunicalions. 150 Commerce Road. Cedar Grove. New Jersey 07009. in connection with the referenced case. Doerner & Goldberg is Iherefore aulhorized and directed on any dale or dates on which said deposition may be scheduled. postponed or conlinued. 10 cause a representative of National Telecommunications to come before it then and there to answer questions relaling to Ihe matters in conlroversy in this case. The deposition is to be held al the oflices of McCarter & English. L.L.P. 4 Gateway Center. 100 Mulberry Street. Newark. New Jersey 07101-0632 or at some other location agreed to by Ihe parties. where a representative of Nalional Telecommunications is to answer the questions of any of the parties to the referenced case. on oath or on affirmation. relating to the matters in controversy in said case. The National Telccommunications rcprescntativc shull answcr Iirst qucstions uskcd by the party I I I ! I , I r , requesting thc dcposition. and thcn shall answcr any qucstions poscd by othcr parties. Docrncr & Goldberg is furthcr commissioncd 10 havc thc tcstimony of said witness taken stenographically and 10 causc thc samc to bc thcrcaftcr rcduecd to typcwritingand subscribcd by said witncss and ccrtilicd to bc correct, unlcss suid signing and certilicalion is expressly waived by suid witness in its prcscnce. and to annex thereto I I I, I . I I ! I I I I I , I! .. .- IL any and all papers and documents produced. Thc dcposition should be captioncd. headed, and inlroduced as follows: WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., . IN TUE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . PlaintilT. . Y. CIVIL ACTION LA W . BARTON-COTTON, INC., NO. 97.6543 . Defendant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doerner & Goldberg shall further cause the deposition to include the questions and answers and each and all of the same in identical language used in said questions and by the witness. The questions and answers should be appropriately dcsignated according to the party or attorney asking thc questions. Onc certificate. envelope and direction will answer for the entire deposition of the wilncss. Every document or other exhibit referred to in the deposition and annexed thcrcto should be signed or initialed and marked in some manner for idcntilication. At the conclusion of the deposition. Doerner & Goldberg will annex thereto its certilicate in the following form: STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS. COUNTY OF ESSEX Pcrsonally appcarcd bcforc mc this _ day of . 1999. National Telecommunications. who made solcmn oalh (or allirmalion) to thc truth of the same which dcposition was taken 10 be used in the abovc-cuptioned casc; thc rcason for laking said dcposition being that said deponent is permanenlly locatcd outsidc thc Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Subscribed. takcn and sworn to before me, Commissioner Appoinlcd by the Court of Common Picas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Once said deposition transcript has becn completcd. Docmer & Goldberg shall forward it. together with this Commission. to Venablc, Baetjer and Howard. LLP. Two Hopkins Plaza. 1800 Mercantilc Bank & Trust Building. Baltimore, Maryland 21201. and shall send to all other parties a noticc thatthc deposilion has been transcribed and so delivered. Doerner & Goldberg may chargc the cost, including its fees. for taking the deposition to the party. or his attorney. on whose behalf such dcposilion is taken. and may supply each party with a copy thereof. at his. her or its request and expense. BY THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~,I.ED-OiF;C:: C',. '".- ,,,... "'.' 'OTlny 'j- , .' ,'_I"" .,', f"Vl "" .. I.~ .1... ..\ " ~ 99 AlJG '6 MilO: 55 CUM81;Ri..NjD COUNTY PENNSYlVftNlA '\ ~ d Lawrence S. Coven, Esq. 314 U.S. Highway 22 West Suile E Green Brook, New Jersey 08812 (732) 424-1000 Allontey for the Plaintiff, Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc Allontey 10# WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS,INC" : IN TilE COURT OF COMMON : PLEAS Plaintiff v, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA BARTON-COTTON, INCORPORATED : NO, 97-6543 DeCendanl WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance oCKevin L. Connors, Esq., on behalf of Plaintiff. Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc., in the above-captioned civil action. DATE: Re ONNERS, ESQUIRE 30 North Pollslown Pike Suite 210 Exton, PA 19341 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Lawrence S. Coven, Esq., on behalf of Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc., in the above-caplioned civil action. DO, ~~sW- LAWRENCE S. COVEN, ESQ. Allomey for the Plaintiff, Worldwide Telecommunications,lnc ~ .::> ( ~~, ':;0 ,.. ~~i ,.,; -:.1 I .' ~t ." ",-. ,. .." ~" ~8 -- .' , ~ . .1" e "1; ~ 0::> ;<1 u> ~: .. 1150 F irsl A vcnue King of Prussia, P A 19406 Auorney for the Plaintiff, Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc. 11 , .v , (") ,-:. ~ (;) -TJf:: ~ nil.! :;) ~"l :/C ("1.1 UJ" -.' r;:. .~) .. J;( .~,... .('-,.) ~C: ~~'.' ?"l => -<. -.I . ~~ , ,n - \. =, '. ~t.i .~ \ I THE LAW OFFICE OF JANET B. COVEN, P.C. Attorney ID 1# 63214 314 U.S. lIillhway 22 Wcst Suite E Green Brook, N.J. 08812 (732) 424-1000 Attorneys for Plaintiff, WORLD WIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. Plaintilf, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-6543 CIVIL ACTION-LAW I < WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATlONS,INC,. , v. BARTON.COTTON,INC., WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PRCTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of Stephen Beaudoin, on behalf of Plaintiff, Worldwide Telecommunications. Inc.. in the above-captioned civil action. DATE: JUNE 20, 2002 Respectfully submitted, ~~~d~ /S E EN BEAUDOIN. ESQ. REGER & RIZZO 1150 First Ave King of Prussia, P.A. 19406 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Janet B. Coven, on behalf of Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc., in the above-captioned civil action. DATE: JUNE 20, 2002 BY: ~.1!j ~ ET B. COVEN, ESQ. Attorney for the Plaintiff, Worldwide Telecommunications, Inc. s.r~tr'C\MIJ"OfFI{,E"IJ*IOl",,~"'O&U)WlIJ.AAlTOMW1""" A blry" ~.,. " (') c; I c:: ", , ~ "lJip '" !J)(,; :.;: .c._,I. 2::-r N , (~..- (I :' r:..l. . '.' ~C. -:':..1 '-j , ~C: ~'.) , ,., " ~~ ;. ~ ,~ ~fj IJI -< ,/