Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-06817 , ~~, .~ '~ 1 f ,"JI .~ -::t . . .tJ -;;' ~ I VI j,,1/J \ " , " '\ ) ,/' _/ '~ r! JI r - ~ t , . , ~, BEATRICE SAUSSAMAN, plaintiff IN TlIE COURT OF COIIMON PLiiAS OF ClmBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA r" f, . v. NO. 97-6817 CIVIL 1997 HARRISBURG MAID SERVICES, INC., Defendant I , CIVIL ACTION - LAW RULE 1312-1. The Per.ition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substant~ally in the following form: r ! t ~.': I' l' ' PETITION FOR APPOINTIlENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Briqid O. Alford. Esquire . counsel for the plaintiif/~jilt~ in the above action (or actions). respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) ~t i,sue. 2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is $.l..200. 00 TI1e counterclaim of the defendant in the action is The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counselor are other- wise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Richard F. Maffett, Jr., Esq., 2201 N. 2nd St., Harrisburg, PA 17110 ~rney for Defendant WHEREFORE. your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, ~M-~ -2 - til/-", ~f2- Brigid Q. Al~or~Esquire n I,... ORDER OF COlIRT ~uprerne Court 1.0. No. 38590 A~m NOW.~ U , lfi f' . in consideration of the foregoing petition, l ~1 J1 R ',).11' ~ l!.1A.... Esq., ~f.<Jcl"'-' .A!11.J'.t'.t7 Esq., and ~ftUJ>V 4ivy[(fJ!.."j.r' ,Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above-captioned action (or actionq) as prayed for. P. J. '- (''1 h: . J I LlI' v...' () ~ . I' '.' , . L.. (", i " ( " , <, , i.i I (. 1,'1 I L., li. (, , tj 1_'\ ':.J " ~ ..~ .~ . (~ - ~ ~ "~ ("~ 0'~\ '-...J r---- .... N :.:) '- BEATRICE SAUSSAMAH, Plaintiff IN TUE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-6817 v HARRISBURG MAID SERVICES, INC., CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, this ~*~ day of January, 1998, comes the Defendant, HARRISBURG MAID SERVICES, INC., by its attorney, Richard F. Maffett, Jr., Esqu~re, and in answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, avers the following: 1. Admitted. 2. Denied. Oefendant was a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; however, it has been liquidated. Defendant does not have a principal place of business, nor does it offer residential and cf)rnrnercial cleaning services to the public. 3. Denied. To the best of Defendant's knowledge, information and belief, Defendant did not make public advertisement of its services containing the language quoted by Plaintiff. Defendant was a franchioe of Mini Maid Services Company, Inc., who has Mini Maid franchises nationwide. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether. Mini Maid Services, Ino., in their public advertisement may have made the representatiolls alleged. .i' ~ ~ " , , 4. Admitted. Defendant has made advertisements containing similar representations. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to Plaintiff's motivations for hiring Defendant. The remainder of this Paragraph is admitted. 6. Denied. Defendant's cleaning procedure requires that its employees work as a team performing assigned tasks under the supervision of a team leader. 7. Admitted. B. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant's employees cleaned Plaintiff's spare bedroom on August 21, 1996. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is wlthout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what, If anything, Plaintiff placed in the spare bedroom, when the alleged items were placed there, and/or the value of any items allegedly placed there. rroof of the same is demanded at trial. 9. Denied. Oefendant. is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to when Plaintiff noticed her diamond ring was mi.ssing, or whether it was missing from the jewelry bag. Proof of the same is demanded at trial. 10. Denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to who had been upstairs in 2 Plaintiff's home since August 21, 1997. Proof of the same is demanded at trial. 11. Denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to who took Plaintiff's ring, or whether the ring was lost or misplaced rather than being taken. Proof of the same is demanded at trial. A thorough investigation by the East pennsboro Police, with which Defendant fully cooperated, failed to uncover evidence sufficient to charge any person with the theft of Plaintiff's ring. In the alternative, should Pl.aintiff establish that one of Defendant's employees did take Plaintiff's diamond ring, it is denied that they were acting within their capacity as an employee and/or agent of Defendant. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT 12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein as fully as though set forth at length. 13. Denied. Oefendant's agreement with Plaintiff was that Defendant would provide cleaning services to Plaintiff in exchange for payment by Plaintiff at the rates charged by Oefendant. 14. Admitted in part, denied in part. Plaintiff paid Defendant for cleaning services which Defendant rendered through 3 November 13, 1996, not September, 1996. The balance of this Averment is admitted. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. 17. Denied. It is denied that Defendant failed to properly supervise its employees. Defendant's employees were supervised while at Plaintiff's residence by a team leader, and were also subject to supervision by management staff. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the manner in which it is alleged Defendant failed to supervise its employees and/or how the alleged failure of supervision constituted a breach of the contract between the parties. Proof of the same is demanded at trial. Plaintiff received all of the cleaning serviceB she paid for. It is further denied that Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff. 18. Denied. Defendant hired only reliable and trustworthy employees as determined by a three page employment application, which includes an inquiry as to criminal record, and confirmation of positive employment and personal references prior to hiring, and which is followed up by extensive training. In the alternative, it is denied that any alleged failure of Defendant to hire reliable and trustworthy employees constitutes a breach of the contract with Plaintiff, since Defendant had no agreement with Plaintiff as to the reliability and trustworthiness of its ~, 4 employees. Defendant's only agreement with Plaintiff was to provide cleaning services for the agreed-upon fee, which Defendant did. 19. Denied. Defendant io without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether one of Defendant's employees, or any other person, took Plaintiff's ring. Proof of the same is demanded at trial. In the alternative, should it be proven that one of Defendant's employees took Plaintiff's ring, it is denied that would constitute a breach of contract between the parties since the employee, in committing the alleged theft acted outside the scope of their authority and capacity as an employee and/or agent of Defendant. 20. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is denied that Plaintiff's demand for payment of $2,500.00 is proper and that Defendant's refusal to pay Plaintiff the amount demanded is wrongful, since Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff in any amount. 21. Denied. Defendant has no contractual obligation to pay Plaintiff the amount claimed an due. Oefendant has not breached the contract with Plaintiff. 22. Denied. Defendant did not breach its contract with Plaintiff. Defendant is without knowledgs or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Plaintiff has suffered 5 damages in the amount of $2,500.00. Proof of the same is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be disrniss~d and that judgment be entered in its favor 'together with the costs of this action. ! i I " COUNT II CIVIL CONVERSfQN 23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein as fully as though set forth at length. 24. Denied. Oefendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Plaintiff is the proper owner of the diamond ring. Proof of the same is demanded at trial. 25. Denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Plaintiff had a right of property in the diamond ring. Proof of the same is demanded at trial. 26. Denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to how Plaintiff alleges Defendant interfered without lawful justification with Plaintiff's right of property in the diamond ring. Proof of tho same is demanded at trial. No employee or agent of Defendant, while acting within 6 the scope of their employment or agency with Defendant, converted Plaintiff's diamond ring. 27. Oenied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to how Plaintiff alleges Defendant deprived Plaintiff of her alleged right of property in said diamond ring. No employee or agent of Defendant while acting within the scope of their employment or agency with Defendant, converted Plaintiff's ring. WHEREf'ORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in Oefendant's favor together with the cost of this action. COUNT III NEGLIGENCE 28. Paragraphs 1 through 27 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein as fully as though set forth at length. 29. Denied. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care only to supervise its employees to the extent necessary to perform the contracted-for cleaning services. Defendant owed Plaintiff no duty of care to have only reliable and trustworthy employees clean Plaintiff's residence. 30. Denied. Defendant owed Plaintiff no duty of care in hiring and/or providing reliable and trustworthy employees to clean Plaintiff's residence. In the alternative, Defendant did 7 not breach its duty of care, nor was it negligent in its supervision of its employees, nor in its selection of employees to clean Plaintiff's residence. Oefendant's employees were properly supervised at Plaintiff's residence by a team leader and were also proper.ly supervised by Defendant's management staff. Defendant did not breach its duty of care, nor was it negligent in hiring unreliable or. untrustworthy employees. Defendant, at all times, used due care and caution to hire only employees that were reliable and trustworthy. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be diemissed and that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor together with the costs of this action. COUN'r IV ~IGENT MISREPRESENTATION 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein as fully as though set forth at length. 32. Denied. Defendant's promotion of its employees as individuals with uncommon reliability and trustworthiness was true. Defendant made no material misrepresentation to Plaintiff. 33. Oenied. It is denied that Defendant made any misrepresentation to Plaintiff which resulted in the alleged theft of the aforesaid diamond ring. 8 34. Denied. Defendant made no material misrepresentations to Plaintiff. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $2,500.00. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor. together with the costs of this action. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 35. Paragrapho 1 through 34 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein as fully as though oet forth at length. 36. By failing to properly secure the diamond ring, and take affirmative steps to assure its safety, Plaintiff assumed the risk that it would be taken, thereby barring Plaintiff's recovery. 37. Plaintiff was negligent by failing to take reasonable measures to secure the diamond ring and by failing to take affirmative steps to assure its safety. 38. Plaintiff's negligence is greater than any alleged negligence by Defendant, thereby barring Plaintiff's recovery. WHEREFORE, Oefendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor together with the CCtsts of this actlon. 9 ":~ ~ --- '.., . ' " . . . I ~ r, , m:lhomolbq.llIlIa.II"ulIl<ompl.ln, lonu.ry 12, IWR Brlllld Q. Alford. Esquire Supreme Coull 1.0. No. 3~90 Dylan Painter Dayton. Esquire Supreme Court 1.0. No. 76438 BOSWELL. SNYDER. TINTNER & PICCOLA 3 U North Prom Street Harrlsburll. PA 1710\ (7 J 7) 236-9377 Attorneys for Plaintiff BEATRICE SAUSSAMAN Plaintiff, v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 97-6817 HARRISBURG MAID SERVICES. INC. Defendant. : CIVIL ACTION . LAW COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Beatrice Saussaman, by her attorneys. Brigid Q. Alford, Esq., Dylan Painter Dayton, Esquire, and Boswell, Snyder, Tintner & Piccola, presents her Complaint against Defendant Harrisburg Maid Services. Inc.. as follows: 1. Plaintiff is an adult individual currently residing at P.O. Box 133 Summerdale, Pennsylvania 17093. 2. Defendant Is a corporation incorporated under the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania whose principal place of business is 3930 Chambers Hill Road. Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17111 and which offers residential and commercial cleaning services to the public. 3. In public advenisement of its services, Defendant represented that "Y ou can have peace of mind. Mini Muid is a trusted organization. We have a proven record for dependability and integrity. We are fully insured and bonded. Mini Maid long ago earned the trust of thousands of clients we service across the nation. You can rely on Mini Maid," 4. Defendant's advertisement further represented that "our team concept uses a unique system including quality control measures. which assure you service of uncommon reliability from people you can trust...," 5. In reliance of Defendant's above-stated representations. on or about 1995, Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant for Defendant's employees to clean her home on a regular basis; in order to allow access to Defendant's employees. Plaintiff permitted Defendant to keep a key to her home. 6. As part of the cleaning procedure, each of Defendant's employees would go individually and independently to separete rooms of the house. 7. On August 21.1996. Defendant's employees entered Plaintiffs home for the purpose of cleaning. 8. At least one of Defendant's employees entered into and cleaned the spare bedroom on August 21, 1996. in which bedroom Plaintiff had placed a bag of jewelry. including a ladies heirloom, diamond ring valued and apprnised at $2,500, to pack for an upcoming trip. 2 ,,>. ..:r .' [?- ", ~ LII( '-\. ,j.. " l' .-. 1.\1 ~.'t' I ~'.' " f,oi' _ J, , I (, , L' ". .> () .;J' I..) m:\ homo\ bql\ Utla.t\ laulilm.n\ ,.,ply.l1m Fcbruuy 9,.1998 Brlgid Q, Alford. Esquirc Suprernc Court 1.0. #38590 Charles J. Hartwcll, Esquire Supreme Court I.D, #52655 BOSWELL, TINTNER, PICCOLA & WICKERSHAM 315 North Front Sueet P,O. Bo~ 741 Harrisburg, PA 17IOS.{)741 (717) 236-9377 Atlomcys for Plaintiff iV , v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 97-6817 BEATRICE SAUSSAMAN, Plainliff HARRISBURG MAID SERVICES, INC., Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW REPLY TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND NEW MATTER Plaintiff Beatrice Saussaman. by her attorneys, Brigid Q. Alford, Esquire, Charles J. Hartwell, Esquire, and Boswell. Tintner, Piccola & Wickersham, presents her Reply to Affirmative Defenses and New Matter. as follows: 1-35. Paragraphs I through 35 of Plaintiff's Complaint in this matter are incorporated hereby reference as though set forth at length herein. 36. Denied. Plaintiff expressly denies that she failed to properly secure the diamond ring or take affirmative steps to assure its safety. Rather, she placed the ring in a bag within her own residence. Insofar as Defendant alleges that Plaintiff assumed the risk that It would be taken, said averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required, To the extent that a response is deemed required, the same is hereby denied. Moreover. it is expressly denied that any action taken by Plaintiff will bar recovery in this mailer. 37. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 37 constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the same are hereby denied. By way of furlher answer, Plaintiff took reasonable measures to secure the diamond ring, and took affirmative steps to assure its safety by keeping it within her own home which was locked at the time of its removal. 38. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 38 constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required. the same are hereby denied. and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial of this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment in her favor and award her $2,500.00. plus interest and costs of suit. which amount is less than the compulsory arbitration limit amount of $25,000.00 for Cumberland County. 2 ~~ '"", "0- r ""l' I" N >., ~1I'" .> l.'.. >, p".:' 1.._- .t':i ~;;;: c. LJj" In .. -:-'1." h'.l I~I , ~ ,., ~ I.l.. 07 " 0 Ln (,l BEATRICE SAUSSAMAN, Plaintiff IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Y. NO. 97..Q17 CIVIL 1997 HARRISBURG MAID SERVICES, INC., CIVIL ACTION . LAW Defendant NOTICE OF ARBITRATORS' HEARlfi!l. Brigid Q. Alford, Esquire Boswell. Snyder, Tintner & Picolla 315 North Front Street Harrisburg. PA 17101 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Richard F. Maffett. Jr.. Esquire 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Coullsel for Defendant) AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 1998, you are hereby notified that the arbitrators appointed in the above-captioned action will hold a hearing for the purpose of their appointment as follows: Date: September 3. 1998 11me: 1:00 p.m. Locallon: Second Floor Hearing Room, Old Courthouse Building Carlisle. Pennsylvania CAVEATS: 1. Those parties wishing to introduce videotape evidence will be expected to have the necessary equipment to display the videotape present at the arbitration location. 2. In the event that deposition transcript' are to be usoo as evidence. transcripts should be providoo 10 each arbitrator at least one week prior to the hearing, J. Parties wishing to argue legal points will be expectoo to haw copies of statutes. cases. etc.. with relevant portions highlighted for each arbitrator and opp sing counsel at the commencement of the hearing. igler. Esquire. Chairman cc: Melissa Peel Greevy. Esquire. Arbitrator Dawn S. Sunday. Esquire. Arbitrator Court Administrator Bulletin Board, Prothonotary's Oftice :I't'.~ Richard F. Maffett, Jr., Esquire supreme court 10' 35539 2201 North second street Harriaburg, PA 17110 717-233-4160 ...................................................,,,.....,,..............................................."............. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT BEATRICE SAUSSMAH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v I NO. 97-6817 HARRISBURG HAID SERVICES, IIlC., I CIVIL ACTION - LAW ....,.................~,~.~!~,~,~~,~....................................................,.........,....1 ARBITRATION BRIEF I. Fs,ots Beginning in 1995, Plaintiff engaged Harrisburg Maid Services, Inc. (hereinafter Mini Maid) to clean her home bi- weekly. On August 21, 1996 a three person team employed by Defendant cleaned Plaintiff's home. Several daya later, on August 24, 1996, Plaintiff discovered a diamond ring missing. She alleges that one of Mini Maid's employees took the diamond ring. Plaintiff seeks to recover the alleged value of the ring from Mini Maid alleging counts of breach of contract, civil conversion, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff claims that Mini Maid is liable for the value of the missing ring because: one of its employees took the ring; Mini Maid hired employees who were not reliable and trustworthy; Mini Maid failed to properly supervise its employees; and, misrepresentations were made in promoting the employees as reliable and trustworthy. II . &:,CJUlllent A. Assuming for the sake of argument that the evidence establishes that a Mini Maid employee took Plaintiff's ring, the law is clear that Plaintiff cannot recover from Mini Maid for tho unauthorized action of its employee beyond the scope of their employment. Where an employee acts in their own interest which is antagonistic to that of their employer, or commits a crime for their own benefit in a matter which is beyond the scope of their employment, the employer who has received no benefit therefrom, is not liable for the employee's tortious act. Cover v Cushinq gapital CorDoration, 344 Pa. Super. 593, 497 A.2d 249, 252 (1985); lIeller v Patwil "ornes. Inc., _ Pa. Super. _, 713 A.2d 105, 107 (1998). B. Neqliaent Hiring The hiring of an employee who turns out to be dishonest is not negligent where the employee is interviewed and their resume reviewed prior to hiring. A background check is not required. Heller v Patwil Homes, sUDra. at 108-109. To determine whether the svidence establishes a negligent hire, a two-part inquiry must be made. Initially it must be determined what was the employee's conduct prior to the alleged tortious act, and was it of such a nature to indicate a propensity for illegal activity. Secondly, it must be determined whether the employer knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of t.he 2 prospsctive smployee's propensity for illegal activity. ~, at lOB. Even knowledge of past criminal activity on the part of the prospective employee will not create liability on the part of the employer for a negligent hire if the employment is of a type unrelated to the past crimJ.nal behavior. l.d..., at 109. The evidence in this case establishes that Mini Maid was not aware of a propensity for theft involving any of the three employees who cleaned Plaintiff's house, nor was there anything in the employee's past conduct which should have cau~ed Mini Maid to know of a propensity for theft in the exercise of ordinary care. As a result, Plaintiff cannot recover from Mini Maid for a negligent hire. C. Nealiaent Suoervision An employer has a duty to supervise only with respect to the employee's activities conducted within the scope of their employment. There is no duty upon an employer to discover, at its peril, criminal activity of an employee outside the scope of employment. ~over v Cushina Caoital Coro., ~~, at 253-254. A causs of action for negligent supervision can be established only where there is a total abssnce of supervision after the employer has actual notice, or in the exerc.ise of oI'dinary care has constructive notice, of tortious activity on the part of tho employee. Heller v patwil Homes, Inc., ~uora" at 109. 3 Co/,.o"O,....lEAl TH OF PHINSVL VANIA ....... COURTOF COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT I J FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS NO_!]? :_f.qSJ[T_~;,g."R(/t'1 NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is oi\lcn that thl! iJPI.U!llant I1JS fillHlm thl! JhO\ll! COllll of CO/II111on Pleas JIl ,IPPCIII 't'lJJll the jlldUIIWIlt rl~ndl!rcd IlY tho Oiurlct Justicu all tht! dati.! und in thu CIlSt! Il11Hltjorwd helow, ii'i'ii'iQ........,-"'.-,-'--------- ,-- - n._. -..... - --- - - m___" m_. -- _m --r="'" '.0, .. .... o. 0 . ilarrisburg Maid Services, Inc. 09-1-02 'A'irDi"iii""O'iA~".I.I.M'" ------~- - --~fV---.--~-- .T~" . I'~ CODa 104l Princess Drive Oberlin PA 17113 lJ.....,. all' 'VO'U'.", ------ ;-,;'TiI.-c.."""""-O...-;;;-,;-::,;;;......_... ")",.',1,,,,, 11/14/97 C""'I/IlII NO. Beatrice Saussrnan Harrisburg Maid Services, Inc. v. ----------- ~- --l..I~.'~.u... ".....I.I..""',-O....-",."u'O".....,, 0" ""UNT CV1997-0000318-97 d' t1"~jA7}~ (:~. L T 19 - fV'. ..J I . This hT~(;k will ho slunu{j ON L Y ;'lIJn this 1101il11011" j-s--~quired~dGr -p; - Rtchllrd-r-;---Ma f f.~ t t , --3 L ., E;1:)~1 u.i. L t: If appttll,1f1t WJ~' CliJllnant (sue Pa. R.C,P.J.P. R,C,P,J,P, No, 10088. This Notice of Appeal, when n)cl)ived hy till! District Justice, will OplHJW as a SUPERSEDEAS to the jud(JrlHHlI for pmSIJSSIOn in this CJ$t!, No. 1001(6) in action before District JIJstice, he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT witlli" tlVelllV (20) days alter lillllY Ilis NOTICE 01 APPEAL. Sl.lJfI,ltUftf 0' Protlll)llor,Jry Of DeplHy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This s.!ction of fotm to bt,l IISf!d ONL Y when c1fJfJt,lII.Hlt was DEFENDANT (sf!e Pa, R.C.P.J.P, No, 1001(7) in action before District Justice, IF NOT USED, detach from copy of "otiee of appeal to be serv(:d upon iJppt!IIt.>t!). PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary EIHer rule upon Bea tr ice Saussman , appellee(s), to file a complaint In this appeal N,Jftltf of Jppl1l1Utdj) ICommon Pleas No, q'7- ~ 8 Lu~~e.cm) wilhin twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. _.dAA s,In:,u," 01 ,II'n< t, ::;,;.fI:'t'{~ n"y or agent Beatrice Saussrnan Richard F. Maffett, Jr., Esqu re RULE: To__,____~___._._______, app.II."Is) 2201 N SecOM St NiJlnU of iJPPI9/11!8(j) .. Harrisburg, PA 17110 m 7) 233-4l60 (1) You are notified that J rllle is hereby entered upon you to fill! a complaint in thiS appeal within twenty (20) ddYS after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal serviclI or by certified or reyiswred mail. 121 II you do nOI (d. a complaint wllhin IhlS time, "JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU, (3) The d.lle of service of thii rule if service was hy mati IS the d,lle of mailing. Date: CJo C'. I ~_, 1921 .___~-.... f) lYllA.HThUYJ 4tv Slqn.ltur, 01 ~rG'honotJry or O'pury . i/ll. .ope 31290 I I ,'I f " '/III '~lnMIIY ~...VlllD7 lO:S,1 '0'717 233 23U '. l .. eOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF' cmmBRLAND ~1I',CiIl.NQ,: 09-1-02 OJ Namo: ~m "RQB;mlT V. I4ANLOVB ""~..: 1901: STATE STREET 'cAHP lULL, PA T.,.....,,;(717,) 761-0583 17011-0000 ATTOllNBYpBP' PRIVATE : lUCJJARD J!. MAFFETT, JR. BSg. 2201 NORTH SECOND ST HARRISBURG, PA 17110 ~ SOCIIA & MAFFErI' 1410021002 NOTICE OF JUDGMENTrrRANSCRIPT CIVil CASE PLAINTIFF; N.... "" .CCAEB6 IsAUSSHAN, BBA'l'lUCB ..., PO BOX 133 SUMHBRDAJ'.B, I?A 17093 L -.J VS. OEFENDANT: NAMIi '" ADD.." tiIARRISBURG MAID SERVICES, INC. -I 3930 CBAHBBRS HILL A'l"l'N: MR. & MRS. MILLER ~ISDURG, PA 17111 ~ r'"''"''' CV'ODoonB-97[.ir&.t. Date Flied; 8/21/97 ~ '""7_tH!~S-T.oN.QTIFV.,VOU'J~T:._.- .....____".,....,""-t ..---"-. - JUdgment: .', FOR PI;AnlTTPP [iJ Judgmllnt was entered for: (Name) AlInRRMAII1~ J\F.A'l'RTr'R [iJ Judgment was entered against: (Name) nARRT!lRTnlCl .'''Tn RRRVT(!R!l, TN(~ In the amount of $ , <;/;1 <;n. on: o Defendants are Jointly and severally liable, 0' Damages'will be assessed on: o This case dismissed without prejudice, O Amount of Judgment Sublecllo Attachment/Act 5 of 1996 $ [] Levy Is stayed for days or 0 generally stayed. o Objection to levy h~s been filed a~d hearing will be, held: ,.- r~~ Date: Time: (Date 01 Judgment) 11/14/9'1 (Date & Time) Amount of Judgment Judgment Costs Interest on Judgment Attorney Fees Total $ ~.500.00 $ 6J.50 $ .00 $ .00 $,2,563.50 Post Judgment Credits Post Judgment Costs $ $ ~=:!~========= Certified Judgment Total $ ANY PARTY tlA9 TftE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFfEfl THE F.N"TRY OF JUDQM,~"1~l!!'IIt,J\ NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTfIONOT \YjfLERK OF THE COU T OF MMON J>LEA9i~"l8l~~\~~i(l\J~, MU9l'.NCi~E _^ COPY OF THIS ~ lcii OF I ' NSC pTFOAM WITH .YO~.:i~~~.~~~l. l\-\lH~ Dale _ - : ~, "District Justice. _ 'I'. :' I'" , I t'~~fr ~~ Itlts I,s a true a~ e elldings contaih,~ \he judgment.,; , . '. \L~1 Date ~ "'-}~=-__,_~_ ' b,!Strl~'Justice My commi5Sion expires first Mond,1y of January, 2000 SEAL 1 fIIIIf;, _.,.~...-<<II'DV 9 tD 2,w. \ \\ e..", Sol Lt '.\1 ,Y\( It\.\ ) ) 1 ) ) L\M,v.,.)b't( 'I Y\{QJC( Sa,\'l<lC",:7, 'J;,,, ; In The Court of Common Plaas of Cumberland County, ?ennsyl',an.ia ~o. (17, G:,~ II (uu.:Q 19 n OATH We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we the Constitution of the United States and the '.ealth and that we ,,,ill discharge the duties will support, obey and defend Cons titut:l,o~ or this CotlU:lon-. o fice with fidelity. ~_. a r.nan \ , (t'"", (~r;i.v .,r/'WI ,-/QrSl -Yf?C (cy~ ) AWARD We, the undersigned arbitrators. having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) A.u.xa.\&. 'OR5C W-e ~(lml'\l~ D~~J J./..\"t~ t\~lC\-' t t.1.. Z<;OO IJl,,",-, H':~~Jl"r a.lLcQ (~7b; ~ LH.LCt-. Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name i: _L ,. II .-.u( ~;y \.. (.€~It~ - ~'(J 6---) applicable. ) Date of Rearing:, ?, SD~I- l'l\~ Date of Award: ~SDt\. l Ctc)~ ~OTICE OF ~~RY OF AWARD lIow. the.:{(ulday or! - c;:~ pi ~ ".6'i/1.. , 19~. at~, 2...H., the above award was entered upon the do~k$c aud notice "hereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation "-0 be paid upon appeal: $ ,:]C)() Cy') ~/a) h) , k 4J!:',J, Cl I. othonotary // C".. . 3,.:,,~.!c,J.' c' 1Ai"'d! r 8~H.1 r.~, ) ,. '. ". lr, C'.: C', ,. {:"l lJ.l1 (,. f':', ~. .I., f't t: ,-,I .' J t;ll I " 10_ rl: F: .- l! .-n ) c..J (J' I.) )