The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97-06676 .,.. -"I ( " h; "". i' Sl ,-, I-u ;;, r )', , f'"' :1... I.F..~ ejl,,'. l' . .....) (i" ':1"'" " E;' ,,' " c, , - _L ,," " I -, ~ I . ("':1 , 1.5 <.1\ U ~'~~~9E= ...:::?j= I ~\--4i,~ * Olt l1'UT r.a~ =::. 2.7 7:' t PU MiliA : lIH334 u. . POITAOl,: '* CERIIFIED , ' Z 332 877 622 COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, Office of The Sheriff 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 '...... ""j'.1', fl~i~~. ;/,\,$i>~ tiilUlfi~ -!.f~ I ,'I ~i'\" r 10,:: ('!-'"---' t'N . . ,. .," R.B. JY~.t the LUS FL 33'-/1,/ , i ,. .,. ...'l ~ '. . . , I I I ~ //(ltl/ 2. ('frY N U) ( 0 ,((6;~LWH~"/lt S ;((' i 'iSt LI t{ \~"-R. il,.flit ti,l [I.v, 1" ( ) ~~ '"' () ',. ,>J f)', 0;:' , , ~ ':: ! , 'i , ) , , \' ~_' j 1 , I)'. (1::' 1.',1 " , " , ',I. n l,' ~ , . , , r"q ,j t.J ,;), ELL,EN and MW\GIIl\N LONEI<GAN, PL,AIN'l'I FFS IN TilE COURT OF COMMON Pf,EAS OF CUMUERL,ANlJ COUNTY, I'ENNSYLNANIA v. CIVIl, AC'l'ION - f,AW SCO'1'1' FITTON, ROBmn BIELEFELD, and R.S.B. FARMS, INC., DEf"ENDANTS 97-6676 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, thIs 30th day of October, 2001, in the case of Lonergan versus Fitton at No. 97-6676 CivIL Term, and an objection to purging the case having been filed by Plaintiff's counsel on the basis of impending activity, and there appearing to be no objection to retaining the case as an active one, the case is stricken from the purge list upon the condition that activity occur within the caSG within 6 months. In the event that no such activity on the record occurs, the case will be deemed purged and dismissed without further order of court. By the Court, Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 N. Twelfth St. Lemoyne, PA 17043 For the Plaintiffs . ~ !-J;:, ~~5 ( , ~'. -:'i' ; ~I_i I " , i .n , .. , '. I "il I- ,. , } : - .. ~ ;c , .. ~'.) , III l '.J .' :;! ;.-! :-.J ~.n C.l .... Scott Fitton, Defendant Pro Se P.O. Box 4205 Ithaca, NY 14852 Robert Bielefeld, Defedant Pro Se P.O. Box 4205 Ithaca, NY 14852 R.S.B. Farms, Inc., Defedant Pro Se P.O. Box 4205 Ithaca, NY 14852 pcb "7 }f; .j I I, , I Ii ji i EllEN lONERGAN and MEAGHAN lONERGAN, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I[ II [i II II I I OBJECTION TO PURGE I AND NOW come the above-named Plaintiffs, by their attorney, Samuel L. Andes, I and object to the purge of this case tor the following reason: 1. Litigation of the case has been complicated and delayed by the fact that the Defendants do not maintain a permanent residence. As a result of that, service of process upon the Defendants was difficult and they have been difficult to reach or to communicate with regarding the case. 2. Plaintiffs have a valid claim for a substantial amount of money resulting from misconduct by the Defendants. Plaintiffs Intend to file a Complaint to pursue this matter. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A Is a copy of the draft of the Complaint which Plaintiffs have prepared and Intend to file prior to 30 October 2001. ,3. Plaintiffs' preparation of the case has further been delayed by the fact that one of the Plaintiffs, Meaghan Lonergan, has been critically III for much of the time since this action was commenced and her Illness was such that It prevented her from assisting the other Plaintiff and their attorney in preparing and pursuing this claim. 3. If the case Is purged at this time, Plaintiffs will suffer a substantial financial loss II and be deprived of their legal rights to pursue this claim against the Defendants. I~ WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this court to remove this case from the current purge Ii list and allow Plaintiffs reasonable time to pursue their claim. 'I I, II [ ,I I II vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW SCOTT FITTON, ROBERT BIELEFELD, and R.S.B. FARMS, INC., Defendants NO. 97.6676 CIVIL TERM ~~ Samu L. Andes Attorney for Plaintiffs Supreme Court 10 # 17225 525 North 12th Street Lemoyne, Pa 17043 (717) 761-5361 ELLEN LONERGAN and MEAGHAN LONERGAN, 1665 Slata Hili Road Camp HIli, PA 17011 (as to bothl Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION. LAW SCOTT FITTON, ROBERT BIELEFELD, and R,S,B. FARMS, INC., 1',0. Box 4205 Ithaca, NY 14852 (as to all threa) Dafendants NO, 97-6676 CIVIL TERM COMPLAINT AND NOW come the above-named Plaintiffs, by their attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and make the following Complaint In this matter: 1. Tile Plaintiffs are Ellen Lonergan and Meaghan Lonergan, adult individuals who reside at 1555 Slate Hill Road in Camp HIli, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendants Scott Fitton and Robert Bielefeld are adult Individuals who reside, to the best of Plaintiffs' knowledge at 100 Graham Road, Apartment 1-A, Ithaca, New York, 14850. 3, The Defendant R.S,B, Farms, Inc., Is, to Plaintiffs' best knowledge, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York which maintains Its offices at 100 Graham Road In Ithaca, New York. 4. In November of 1996 and all other times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were the owners of a valuable horse known as "Island Bay." 6. In 1996 the Defendants were engaged in the business of training, caring for, buying, selling, and leasing horses and negotiating and arranging for the buying, selling, and leasing of horses. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants held themselves out to Plaintiffs as experienced, qualified, and experts in such matters. 6. In November of 1996, Plaintiffs engeged Defendants to sell Island Boy and pieced the hOl'seln the personal possession and core of 011 threo Defendants for the purposes of arranging such a sale. ' I , 7. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Defendants mistreated the horse while It was In their possession. The mistreatment consisted of overworking, straining, and otherwise abusing the animal and failing to properly safeguard and core for the onlmal while In their possession. 8. In early 1997, Defendants, on behalf of Plaintiffs, entered into an agreement to sell tha horse for a sale price of $125,000.00. Plolntlffs approved the terms of the sale. 9. The Intended sale of the horse was not consummated because the horso failed a veterinarian test conducted by the prospective purchasers. 10. The horse failed the veterinarian examination because of Its abuse and mistreatment at the hands of the Defendants while the horse was In their possession. 11. As a result of the abuse and mistreatment of the horse, Plaintiffs lost the benefit of sale of the horse for $125,000.00. 12. In the Spring of 1997, following the failure of the sale of the horse, Defendants entered Into a lease arrangement for the horse which was directly contrary to the authorizations and Instructions of Plaintiffs. 13. Defendants placed the horse in the possession and custody of the parties to whom they leased the horsa without Plaintiffs' consent or authority. Defendants retained all of the rental payments for the horse. 14. Defendants have failed and refused to account to Plaintiffs for the funds they received as a result of their rental and other use of the horse while In their possession. Plaintiffs believes that the sums received by Defendants exceeded $30,000.00. 15. The horse was returned to Plaintiffs in a damaged, injured, and inferior condition. 16. Defendants, by their conduct in Injuring and damaging the horse which caused the lost of Its sale, and by their effort leasing the horse and retaining the proceeds of the il !: i il ELLEN LONERGAN and MEAGHAN LONERGAN, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I' II vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW SCOTT FITTON, ROBERT BIELEFELD, and R.S.B. FARMS, INC., Dafendants NO. 97.6676 CIVIL T~RM COMPLAINT AND NOW come the above-named Plaintiffs, by their attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and make the following Complaint In this matter: 1. The Plaintiffs are Ellen Lonergan and Meaghan Lonergen, adult Individuals who reside at 1555 Slate Hili Road In Camp HIli, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendants Scott Fitton and Robert Bielefeld are adult individuals who reside, to the best of Plaintiffs' knowledge at 100 Graham Road. Apartment 1-A, Ithaca, New York, 14850. 3. The Defendant R.S.B. Farms, Inc., Is, to Plaintiffs' best knowledge, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York which maintains Its offices I at 100 Graham Road In Ithaca, New York. 4. In November of 1996 and all other times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were , [I the owners of a valuable horse known as "Island Bay." 5. In 1996 the Defendants were engaged In the business of training, caring for, buying, selling, and leasing horses and negotiating and arranging for the buying, selling, and leasing vf horses. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants held themselves i out to Plaintiffs as experienced, qualified, and experts In such matters. I' 6. In November of 1996, Plaintiffs engaged Defendants to sell Island Bay and 1, placed the horse In the personal possession and care of all three Defendants for the " i' purposes of arranging such a sale. " , 7. Unbeknownst to Plolntlffs, Defendants mistreated the horse willie It was In thalr possession. The mistreatment consisted of overworking, straining, and otherwise abusing the animal and failing to properly sefegLJard and care for tile animal while In their possession. 8. In early 1997, Defendants, on behalf of Plaintiffs, entered into on agreement to r sell the horse for a sale price of $125,000.00. Plaintiffs approvod the tarms of the sole. 9. The intended sale of the horse was not consummated because the horse failed a veterinarian test conducted by the prospective purchasers. Ii 10. The horse failed the veterinarian examination because of Its abuse and Ii , mistreatment et the hands of the Defendants while the horse was in their possession. Ii 11. As a result of the abuse and mistreatment of the horse, Plaintiffs lost the Ii benefit 01- sale of the horse for $125,000.00. !! 12. In the Spring of 1997, following the failure of the sale of the horse, I' I! Defendants entered Into a lease arrangement for the horse which was directly contrary to il the authorizations and Instructions of Plaintiffs. [I II 13. Defondants placed the horse In tile possession and custody of the parties to Ii whom they leased the horse without Plaintiffs' consent or authority. Defendants retained II all of tho rental payments for the horse. Ii 14. Defendants have failed and refused to account to Plaintiffs for the funds they I received as a result of their rental and other use of the horse while in their possession. Plaintiffs believes that the sums received by Defendants exceeded $30,000.00. 15. The horse was returned to Plaintiffs in a damaged, Injured, and Inferior condition. 16. Defendants, by their conduct In injuring and damaging the horse whlcll caused the lost of' Its sale, and by tholr effort Icaslng the horse and retaining the proceeds of the lease, have injured Plaintiffs In an amount Plaintiffs to be In excess of $155,000.00, although Plaintiffs require additional information, to be obtained through formal discovery, to ascertain the exact amount of their damage