The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-1032IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RICHARD H. PIZZARRO 3 Conestoga Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Defendant(s) & Address(es) Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. X Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to ( )Attorney (X)Sheriff Richard H. Wix Es q. Wix Wenger & Weidner 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 _ (717) 652-8455 Names/Address/ Telephon No. of Attorney Signature of Attorney Supreme Court ID No. 07274 Date: March 6s 2003 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Pro honotary we" Date:_ by Deputy ( ) Check here if reverse is issued for additional information No. C73 ?!? ?k?t ? ??`?1 C i v i l Act i on - (X) haw ( ) Equity • Hoffman Mechanical 851 Bower Road Shermansdale, PA 17909 • and Farinelli Construction 3 Kacey Court, Suite 101 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 versus PROTHON. - 55 _ .fQ. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2003-01032 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PIZZARRO RICHARD H VS HOFFMAN MECHANICAL ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: HOFFMAN MECHANICAL but was unable to locate Them deputized the sheriff of PERRY in his bailiwick. He therefore serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS County, Pennsylvania, to On April 1st , 2003 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from PERRY Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Perry County 27.30 .00 64.30 04/01/2003 WIX WENGER WEIDNER Sworn and subscribed to before me this day of 3 A. D. 61, .1a tixi Prothonotaz`y So answer R . ' Thomas Kl i-ie Sheriff of Cumberland County SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2003-01032 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PIZZARRO RICHARD H VS HOFFMAN MECHANICAL ET AL VALERIE WEARY Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS FARINELLI CONSTRUCTION was served upon the DEFENDANT , at 0938:00 HOURS, on the 19th day of March 2003 at 3 KACEY COURT CTTTrPL+ I n, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 JEAN DIPPEL, CLERK by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 7.59 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 23.59 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this q (E-- day of a&-63 A. D. r honotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 04/01/2003 WIX WENGER WEIDNER By: ZzaL-- Deputy Sheriff In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland Pennsylvania Richard H. Pizzarro County, vs. Hoffman Mechanical SERVE: Hoffman Mechanical et al NO. 03-1032 civil Now, March 12., 2003 hereby deputize the Sheriff of I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do Perry County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, within upon at March 29, 2003 Writ of Summons 20 3, at 6:28 o'clock A M. served the Hoffman Mechanical 851 Bower Rd. Shermansdale, pa. by handing to Emily Hoffman a True & Attested and made known to Her ( Carroll Township) COPY of the original Writ of Summons the contents thereof. So answers, Donald E. Smith Chief Dep U heriff of Perry County, PA Sworn and subscribed before me this 3 % day of ,QY , 20 y 3 i.s RET EFLICKIINGER NOTARYPUBLIC MMIISEON EXRPIRES FEBC16 2004 COSTS SERVICE $ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT Pizzaro vs Case No.() 3 _ 10 3 9 Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: PI a-itti f f intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name Richard H. Wix,Esq. Sign Name Date: 10 / 2 0/ 0 6 Attorney for p l a i n t i f f Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. I. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. J j CD rll,- 12 F- q ? W ' Curtis R. Long Prothonotary office of the Protbonotarp Cumberfanb C auntp Renee K. Simpson Deputy Prothonotary John E. Slike Solicitor -a3- 110,3 a „ CVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009, AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE - THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R C P 230.2. BY THE COURT, CURTIS R. LONG PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 • (717) 240-6195 • Fax (717) 240-6573