The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-05350 . . .. NICOLE DEVITT, BRENT SmCKLEY CHRISTOPHER C. SHULL, MICHELLE GUYTON, ELIZABETH A. STEPHAN, HEATHER ANN MEIER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. No. 00-5350 FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORPORATION: and BARBARA ALTIZER, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Nicole Devitt, Brent Shickley, Christopher C. Shull, Michelle Guyton, Elizabeth A. Stephan, Heather Ann Meier, Plaintiffs You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed NEW MATTER and COUNTER CLAIM ofthe Defendants Friendly Ice Cream Corporation and Barbara Altizer within twenty (20) days from the date of service hereof or a Default Judgment may be entered against you. BALABAN AND BALABAN tricia Car Zuc PA J.D. #37334 Michael V. Bro PA J.D. # 79984 27 North Front Street P.O. Box 1284 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1284 (717) 234-3282 (voice) (717) 233-4264 (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendants Date: February 9, 2001 G:\B&B\CLIENTS\947\notpld - NICOLE DEVITT, BRENT SmCKLEY CHRISTOPHER C. SHULL, MICHELLE GUYTON, ELIZABETH A. STEPHAN, HEATHER ANN MEIER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. No. 00-5350 FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORPORATION: and BARBARA ALTIZER, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' ANSWER. NEW MATTER & COUNTER-CLAIM AND NOW, this 9th day of February 2001 comes the Defendants, Friendly Ice Cream Corporation and Barbara Altizer, by and through their attorneys, Balaban and Balaban, and file their Answer, New Matter and Counter-claims to the Plaintiffs' Complaint. In support thereof, Defendants aver as follows: 1.- 6. Denied as stated. Answering Defendants are without first hand information necessary to admit or deny of the averments in paragraphs 1 through 6 of the Complaint as to the residence of Plaintiffs, however for purposes of this pleading said averments are admitted upon information and belief. 7. Admitted. n,_. . - . 8. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Barbara Altizer is an adult individual. Defendant Barbara Altizer is not currently employed with Defendant Friendly Ice Cream Corporation. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint are therefore denied. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. At all times relevant, it was clear in the minds of Plaintiffs, that each Plaintiff owed Defendant Friendly's money for meals which they each ordered, received and consumed on April 13, 2000 and for which they did not pay, nor did they offer to pay. Any "confusion" was feigned by Plaintiffs in an effort to avoid payment to Defendant Friendly. II. Denied. It is specifically denied that any employee of Defendant Friendly's provided any or all of the Plaintiffs with anything other than efficient and courteous service. Moreover, near the conclusion of their meals, Plaintiffs were provided with a group bill which they refused to pay and which they requested to be separated into five (5) separate bills after the meal had been served and consumed. Thereafter, having caused the delay of which they complain, Plaintiffs failed to afford Defendants a reasonable time to issue separate bills, before willfully leaving the premises without paymg. 2 , , 12. Denied. Plaintiffs using belligerenttones and body language stormed the register and demanded not to pay for the meals they had just finished consuming. The basis of Plaintiffs Complaint was thatthey had received larger sundaes than they had ordered and consumed them without complaint, but were expected to pay only for the smaller size sundaes which they had ordered. Plaintiffs then willfully left the premises to avoid paying for their respective meals. 13. Denied. Plaintiffs after having refused the customary group bill, failed to afford Defendants with a reasonable time to issue and recalculate their bills. By way of further answer, Defendants would have provided Plaintiffs with separate bills had Plaintiffs not willfully left the premises. 14. Denied. It is specifically denied that any of the Plaintiffs offered to "sort out the bill for their respective lunches and pay for same", and proof thereof is specifically demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically averred that Plaintiffs repeatedly demanded that they not be responsible for paying for their respective meals because they received, and consumed, without complaint, larger sundaes than they had ordered and were being charged only for smaller sundaes. 3 0" =,~ "_0 ^~ , 15. Denied. It is specifically denied that any of the Plaintiffs offered to pay for their meals prior to willfully leaving the premises to avoid payment, nor did any Plaintiff ever undertake to produce or tender any cash, credit card or other mode of payment to any employee of Defendant Friendly' s, and proofthereofis specifically demanded. 16. Denied. At no time did Barbara Altizerrefuse to accept payment from the Plaintiffs. Further stated, Barbara Altizer could not refuse payment, in that Plaintiffs never offered payment. Further still, Barbara Altizer courteously and as expeditiously as possible under the circumstances, attempted to reconcile the Plaintiffs' unpaid bill. 17. Denied. It is specifically denied that Barbara Altizer lacked sufficient capacity to reconcile the Plaintiffs' bills. Rather, Plaintiffs willfully left the premises without affording a reasonable length of time to allow for the reconciliation of their respective bills. It is further specifically denied that Barbara Altizer made any comment relative to an inability of "her computer". By way of further answer, Plaintiffs' characterization and use of "confused" is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. 18. Denied. Plaintiffs willfully left the premises to avoid payment. By way of further answer, it is specifically averred that Plaintiffs acted in a concerted and collective manner to delay and prevent Defendants from presenting Plaintiffs with fully itemized individual bills for the meals provided to and consumed by them. 4 I I I, "~.- . , ~ , "- "' . , 19. Denied. At no time relevant to the averments in paragraph 19 of the Complaint did any of the Plaintiffs act in a reasonable capacity. Rather, Plaintiffs acted in a consistently rude, obnoxious and discourteous fashion, and acted in concert. Moreover, not one ofthe Plaintiffs offered to restate the items they had eaten, nor did any offer to pay during the "exchange". It is admitted that one (1) of the Plaintiffs made a comment relative to the number of bills to be totaled. The remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint are denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. 20. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs willfully left the premises to avoid paying for meals which they received and consumed. Relative to the averment in paragraph 20 of the Complaint concerning the Plaintiffs' place of employment, Defendants admit same on information and belief. 21. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information to formulate a conclusion relative to the time and place of any telephone call placed by Plaintiff Nicole Devitt, and averments regarding such are therefore denied. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint are denied in that Defendants can neither admit, nor deny, the substance of a telephone call as alleged. Such allegation is therefore denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 5 -, ,-" .", < 22. Denied. Defendants hereby incorporate their answer to paragraph 21 of the Complaint as if fully set forth in its entirety. 23. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief relative to the matters alleged in paragraph 23 of the Complaint and such averments are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs' characterization in paragraph 23 of the Complaint relative to the term "embarrassing" is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. Further still, the averments are denied in that they concern third party conduct to which there has been no averment concerning participation by Defendants and any inference drawn relative to such participation is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 24. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief relative to the matters alleged in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and such averments are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 'Further still, the averments are denied in that they concem third party conduct to which there has been no averment concerning participation by Defendants and any inference drawn relative to such participation is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 25. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief relative to the matters alleged in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and such averments are 6 "~ .~ 0:, therefore denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs' characterization in paragraph 25 of the Complaint relative to their use of the words "permitted" and "forced" are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. Finally, the averments are denied in that they concern third party conduct to which there has been no averment concerning participation by Defendants and any inference drawn relative to such participation is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 26. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that upon information and belief that Plaintiffs are were provided with the summary citations attached as Exhibit" A" to Plaintiffs Complaint. Any characterizations regarding the contents or import of said summary citations, which are documents which speak for themselves, is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. 27. Defendants answer to paragraph 26 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein as if set forth in its entirety. 28. Denied as stated. Proceedings before District Justice Susan Day are a matter of judicial record and any characterization relative to such proceedings by the Plaintiffs is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. It is admitted that the charges against Plaintiffs in Exhibit "A" to Plaintiffs Complaint were dismissed. 7 ;', ~~ !""",,~~ " < COUNT I: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 29. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to paragraphs I through 28 of the Complaint as ifrestated in their entirety. 30. Denied as a conclusion oflawto which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Friendly's former employee, Defendant Barbara Altizer contacted the Pennsylvania State Police after Plaintiffs willfully left Defendant Friendly's Carlisle Restaurant's premises to avoid paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. 31. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiffs ever attempted to make any payment to Defendants prior to willfully leaving Defendant Friendly's premises to avoid paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. 32. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs' use and characterization of the phrase "actual malice" is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. 8 - ~ , Further, it is specifically denied that Defendant Barbara Altizer ever acted with malice toward any or all of the Plaintiffs. 33. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. By way of further answer, criminal proceedings are a matter of judicial record and any characterization of the outcome of same by Plaintiffs is therefore denied. 34. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs' characterization in paragraph 34 of the Complaint relative to their use of the words "ill repute" and "humiliation" are specifically denied as conclusions oflaw to which no response is legally required. Finally, the averments of paragraph 34 of the Complaint are denied in that they concern third party conduct which is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 35-37. Denied as a conclusions oflaw to which no response is legally required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Friendly Ice Cream Corporation respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and to order Plaintiffs Complaint dismissed with prejudice. 9 ,- ~V,l ,~ ,- - ~'._' . --. . ~ ~- COUNT II: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION Elizabeth Ann Steohan. Marv Michelle Guvton. Brent William Shicklev. Christooher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Barbara Altizer 38. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1 through 37 of the Complaint as if restated in their entirety. 39. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Barbara Altizer contacted the Pennsylvania State Police after Plaintiffs willfully left Defendant Friendly's Carlisle Restaurant's premises to avoid paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. 40. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiffs ever attempted to make any payment to Defendants prior to willfully leaving Defendant Friendly's premises to avoid paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. 41. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs' use and characterization of the phrase "actual malice" is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. 10 ",~ Further, it is specifically denied that Defendant Barbara Altizer ever acted with malice toward any or all of the Plaintiffs. 42. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further answer, criminal proceedings are a matter of judicial record and any characterization of the outcome of same by Plaintiffs is therefore denied. 43. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs' characterization in paragraph 43 ofthe Complaint relative to their use of the words "ill repute" and "humiliation" are specifically denied as conclusions oflaw to which no response is legally required. Finally, the averments of paragraph 43 of the Complaint are denied in that they concern third party conduct which is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 44-46. Denied as a conclusions oflaw to which no response is legally required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Barbara Altizer respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiffs and to order Plaintiffs Complaint dismissed with prejudice. 11 COUNT III: ABUSE OF PROCESS Elizabeth Ann Stenhan. Marv Michelle Guvton. Brent William Shicklev. Christopher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Friendlv Ice Cream COl1loration 47. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1 through 46 of the Complaint as if restated in their entirety. 48-50. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. 51. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant Friendly's carried on any form of criminal review relative to conduct engaged in by Plaintiffs. 52. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. 53. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, Plaintiffs' characterization relative to the outcome of criminal proceedings, which are a matter of judicial record, is specifically denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. 12 '''-', "';~ ~ I~- -.,- - - ~ , 54. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs' characterization in paragraph 54 of the Complaint relative to their use of the words "ill repute" and "humiliation" are specifically denied as conclusions oflaw to which no response is legally required. Finally, the averments of paragraph 54 of the Complaint are denied in that they concern third party conduct which is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 55-57. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Friendly Ice Cream Corporation respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and to order Plaintiffs Complaint dismissed with prejudice. COUNT IV: FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT Elizabeth Ann Steohan. Mary Michelle Guyton. Brent William Shickley. Christooher Carl Shull. Nicole Deyitt. Heather Ann Meier Y. Friendly Ice Cream COl"{loration 58. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to paragraphs I through 57 of the Complaint as if restated in their entirety. 59. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. 13 .--, ''; ..1--- 60. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs were "required" to do anything and proof thereof is specifically demanded. It is further specifically denied that Plaintiffs waited "for an excessive amount of time" and proof thereof is specifically demanded. Further still, it is specifically averred that Plaintiffs acted in a concerted and collective mauner to delay and prevent Defendants from presenting Plaintiffs with fully itemized individual bills for the meals provided to and consumed by them. Moreover, Plaintiffs did not "wait" for any reasonable length of time prior to absconding from the premises without paying. Finally, prior to willfully leaving the premises, none of the Plaintiffs ever offered to pay for the meals which they ordered and consumed. 61. Denied. Prior to willfully leaving the premises, none of the Plaintiffs ever offered to pay for the meals which they ordered and consumed. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. 62. Denied. It is specifically denied that the "Manager" ever demanded that any or all of the Plaintiffs do anything and proof thereof is specifically demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is averred that Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the 14 --'"< ,~ "~- ~ -" Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. 63-64. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. 65. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further answer it is specifically averred that on April 13, 2000 all of the Plaintiffs willfully left Defendant Friendly's premises without paying for meals which they ordered, received and consumed. 66. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs ever rendered any advice to Defendants and proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is denied that any or all of the Plaintiffs ever "demanded to be permitted to leave" and proof thereof is specifically demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is averred that Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. 67. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that any of Defendant' s employees ever had any or all of the Plaintiffs in their custody or control and therefore were without the ability to grant a release to any of them. By way of further answer, it is averred that 15 '-, Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. 68. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiffs ever offered to pay any money to Defendants for the meals which they ordered, received and consumed prior to willfully leaving the premises, nor did any or all of the Plaintiffs ever, in fact, pay for said meals. 69. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. 70. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. Further, the averments of paragraph 70 of the Complaint are denied in that they concern third party conduct which is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 71. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of more specific response, Plaintiffs averments relative to "severe damage to their credit" is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 72. Denied. It is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiff were ever "held or detained" at Defendant Friendly's Carlisle Restaurant. Rather, it is averred that 16 :q ---:-"~~r,- _~"_. ,__~,,_ "." '" _ "'-'''~- ~'_^'no ", Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 72 of the Complaint are denied as conclusions oflaw to which no response is legally required. 73. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants are without sufficient information to form a conclusion relative to th'1 veracity ofthe averments in paragraph 73 of the Complaint and such averments are therefore specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 74. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, the avetments of paragraph 74 of the Complaint are denied in that they concern third part)[ conduct which is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 75-78. Denied as conclusions oflaw to which no response is legally required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Friendly Ice Cream Corporation respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and to order Plaintiffs Complaint dismissed with prejudice. 17 'rr' ."~,,'I .. COUNT V: FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT ~Iizabeth Ann Stenhan. Marv Michelle Guvton. Brent William Shicklev. Christonher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Barbara Altizer 79. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to paragraphs I through 78 of the Complaint as if restated in their entirety. 80. Denied as a conClusion oflawto which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs were "required" to do anything and proof thereof is specifically demanded. It is further specifically denied that Plaintiffs waited "for an excessive amount of time" and proof thereof is specifically demanded. Further still, it is specifically averred that Plaintiffs acted in a concerted and collective manner to delay and prevent Defendants from presenting Plaintiffs with fully itemized individual bills for the meals provided to and consumed by them. Moreover, Plaintiffs did not "wait" for any reasonable length of time prior to willfully leaving the premises to avoid paying. Finally, prior to willfully leaving the premises, none of the Plaintiffs ever offered to pay for the meals which they ordered and consumed. 18 .-....-, , ~,," ,~" , '-"'-' -~, - , 81. Denied. Prior to willfully leaving the premises, none of the Plaintiffs ever offered to pay for the meals which they ordered and consumed. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. 82. Denied. It is specifically denied that the "Manager" ever "demanded that any or all of the Plaintiffs do anything and proof thereof is specifically demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is averred that Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. 83-84. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. 85. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. By way of further answer it is specifically averred that on April 13, 2000 all of the Plaintiffs willfully left Defendant Friendly's premises to avoid paying for meals which they ordered, received and consumed. 86. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs ever rendered any advice to Defendants and proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is denied that any or all of the Plaintiffs ever "demanded to be permitted to leave" and 19 , . . "~N"' "~:1 '-' ~I - ',-- ~",,-"<'. proof thereof is specifically demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is averred that Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consUllled. 87. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that any of Defendant' s employees ever had any or all of the Plaintiffs in their custody or control and therefore were without the ability to grant a release to any of them. By way of further answer, it is averred that Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consUllled. 88. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiffs ever offered to pay any money to Defendants for the meals which they ordered, received and consUllled prior to willfully leaving the premises, nor did any or all of the Plaintiffs ever, in fact, pay for said meals. 89. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. 20 ,.,." -~, ' . --, 90. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. Further, the averments of paragraph 90 of the Complaint are denied in that they concern third party conduct which is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 91. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of more specific response, Plaintiffs averments relative to "severe damage to their credit" is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 92. Denied. It is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiff were ever "held or detained" at Defendant Friendly's Carlisle Restaurant. Rather, it is averred that Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 92 of the Complaint are denied as conclusions oflawto which no response is legally required. 93. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants are without sufficient information to form a conclusion relative to the veracity of the averments in paragraph 93 of the Complaint and such averments are therefore specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 21 , "I 94. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, the averments of paragraph 94 of the Complaint are denied in that they concern third party conduct which is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 95-98. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Barbara Altizerrespectfu1ly requests the Court to enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiffs and to order Plaintiffs Complaint dismissed with prejudice. COUNT VI: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Elizabeth Ann SteDhan. Marv Michelle Guvton. Brent William Shicklev. ChristoDher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Friendlv Ice Cream CorDoration 99. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1 through 98 of the Complaint as if restated in their entirety. I 00-1 0 I. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. 22 ""-- , 102. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiffs ever offered to pay any money to Defendants for the meals which they ordered, received and consumed prior to leaving the premises, nor did any or all of the Plaintiffs ever, in fact, pay for said meals. 103. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. 104. Denied. It is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiff were ever "held" at Defendant Friendly's Carlisle Restaurant. Rather, it is averred that Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 104 of the Complaint are denied as conclusions oflaw to which no response is legally required. 105. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, the averments of paragraph 105 of the Complaint are denied in that they concern third party conduct which is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. I 06-11 O. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. 23 . W'l!!" ~ I --,.-, .NVO WHEREFORE, Defendant Friendly Ice Cream Corporation respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and to order Plaintiffs Complaint dismissed with prejudice. COUNT VII: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Elizabeth Ann Steohan. Mary Michelle Guvton. Brent William Shicklev. Christooher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Barbara Altizer Ill. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to paragraphs I through 11O ofthe Complaint as if restated in their entirety. 112. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. 113. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiffs ever offered to pay any money to Defendants for the meals which they ordered, received and consumed prior to leaving the premises, nor did any or all of the Plaintiffs ever, in fact, pay for said meals. 114. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. 24 " c__ . " lIS. Denied. It is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiff were ever "held" at Defendant Friendly's Carlisle Restaurant. Rather, it is averred that Plaintiffs were at all times free to leave the Carlisle Friendly's Restaurant as is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs did leave the premises, albeit without paying for meals which they ordered and consumed. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 104 of the Complaint are denied as conclusions oflaw to which no response is legally required. 116. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, the averments of paragraph 116 of the Complaint are denied in that they concern third party conduct which is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 117-121. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Barbara Altizer respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiffs and to order Plaintiffs Complaint dismissed with prejudice. 2S ~ ~I'" ~ ~,. ~ '1' .,.' "',.'''> COUNT VIII: ABUSE OF PROCESS Elizabeth Ann Stenhan. Marv Michelle Guvton. Brent William Shicklev. Christonher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Friendlv Ice Cream Corporation 122. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants hereby incorporate their answers t{) paragraphs 1 through 121 of the Complaint as if restated in their entirety. 123. Denied as conclusions oflaw to which no response is legally required. 124. Denied. It is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiffs ever offered to pay any money to Defendants for the meals whichthey ordered, received and consumed prior to leaving the premises, nor did any or all of the Plaintiffs ever, in fact, pay for said meals. By way of further answer, it is admitted only that after Plaintiffs willfully left Defendant Friendly's Carlisle Restaurant to avoid paying for meals which Plaintiffs ordered and consumed did Defendant Barbara Altizer contact law enforcement officials to report the incident. The remainder of the averments in paragraph 124 of the Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. 125. Denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, the averments of paragraph 125 of the Complaint are denied in that 26 I'''~ ~ ."" 'I'_~ - -, ~ ~- \1 ,I , I :-.'1 :''KC'llR."" they concern third party conduct which is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 126-131. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Friendly Ice Cream Corporation respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and to order Plaintiffs Complaint dismissed with prejudice. COUNT IX: ABUSE OF PROCESS Elizabeth Ann Stenhan. Marv Michelle Guvton. Brent William Shicklev. Christonher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Barbara Altizer 132. Denied as a conclusion oflawto which no response is legally required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1 through 131 of the Complaint as if restated in their entirety. 133. Denied. It is specifically denied that any or all of the Plaintiffs ever offered to pay any money to Defendants for the meals which they ordered, received and consumed prior to willfully leaving the premises, nor did any or all ofthe Plaintiffs ever, in fact, pay for said meals. By way of further answer, it is admitted only that after Plaintiffs willfully left Defendant Friendly's Carlisle Restaurant to avoid paying for meals 27 4 which Plaintiffs ordered and consumed did Defendant Barbara Altizer contact law enforcement officials to report the incident. The remainder of the averments in paragraph 133 of the Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. 134. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is legally required. By way of further response, the averments of paragraph 134 of the Complaint are denied in that they concern third party conduct which is specifically denied and proof thereof demanded at trial. 135-141. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is legally required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Barbara Altizer respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiffs and to order Plaintiffs Complaint dismissed with prejudice. 28 "~- .-..... ~ NEW MATTER 142. Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to paragraphs I through 141 of the Complaint as ifrestated in their entirety. 143. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under any Count of Plaintiffs Complaint. 144. At all time relevant, Defendants actions were reasonable and appropriate to the circumstances. 145. On April 13, 2000, Plaintiffs did order, receive and consume meals at Defendant Friendly's Carlisle Restaurant and willfully left the premises without paying for said meals and without having made any offer to pay for said meals. 146. On April 13, 2000, as part of their meals Plaintiffs ordered sundaes as deserts. 147. The sundaes which the Plaintiffs received and consumed were larger than those which they had ordered. 29 ',,,,, I~ ~ 148. Although the Plaintiffs enjoyed the benefit of receiving and consuming larger sundaes than ordered, the Plaintiffs were only charged for the price of the smaller sundaes. 149. Plaintiffs acted in concert to avoid payment to Defendants and to defraud Defendants of payment. 150. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were free to leave Defendant Friendly's Carlisle Restaurant and did, in fact, willfully leave the premises. 151. Plaintiffs were never detained, forcibly or otherwise, by Defendants. 152. Defendants never acted with actual intent to confine the Plaintiffs in any way. 153. At all times relevant, Defendants acted III accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 154. At all times relevant, Defendants acted in good faith and without malice towards Plaintiffs. 155. To the extent it would be determined that Defendants instituted criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs, it is averred the Defendants had probable cause to do so. 30 -'-'!".........~I -., . 156. Defendants are nor liable for any conduct of the Pennsylvania State Police or any other third party. WHEREFORE, Defendants Friendly Ice Cream Corporation and Barbara Altizer respectfully request the Court to enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs and to order Plaintiffs Complaint dismissed with prejudice. COUNTER-CLAIM - Breach of Contract Friendlv Ice Cream Corporation v. Elizabeth Ann Stenhan. Marv Michelle Guvton. Brent William Shicklev. Christonher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier. iointlv and severallv 157. Paragraphs 1 through 156 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein as if restated in their entirety. 158. The Plaintiffs collectively ordered, received and consumed meals valued at Fifty- Eight and 65/1 00 ($58.65) Dollars for which they did not pay and have not paid after demand by Defendants. 31 "'.',. , "I . . WHEREFORE, Defendant Friendly Ice Cream Corporation respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs Elizabeth Ann Stephan, Mary Michelle Guyton, Brent William Shickley, Christopher Carl Shull, Nicole Devitt and Heather Ann Meier, jointly and severally, in the amount of Fifty-Eight and 65/100 ($58.65) Dollars, together with interest thereon and such other and further relief as the court may deem appropriate. Respectfully submitted, BALABAN AND BALABAN icia Carey ucker A LD.# 37334 Michael V. Brown P A LD.# 79984 27 North Front Street P. O. Box 1284 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1284 (717) 234-3282 (voice) (717) 233-4264 (facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiff G:\B&B\CLIENTS\947\answerl 32 ""I. , ' '" ~ , VERIFICATION Todd schwendenmann I, Jlllm '}:a1I""","C'I~iIlil8 M"",,,ger of Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, hereby verify and confirm that I am authorized to sign this Verification on behalf of Friendly Ice Cream Corporation in this action, and I further acknowledge that I have read the foregoing Pleading and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand also that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of18 Pa. C.S. 9 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~ Date: ~/4;~ Claim.a 1fftllttgCi Friendly Ice Cream Corporation Todd Schwendenmann Assistant Treasurer G:\B&B\CLIENTS\947\ Verif.doc .;," '.. '~I- " ". _~_" ~'c" ; VERIFICATION I, Barbara Altizer, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C,S. ~4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~ ~arbara ~~ ALTIZ~ " Dated: !-;)q-o ( / [... G:\B&B\CLIENTS\947\althizer.ver .' ., ,~- ~- ., ,-- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 9th day of February 2001, I, Michael V. Brown, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Answer, New Matter & Counter-Claim by way of hand delivery on the parties designated below: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger Law Offices 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 . Brown G:\B&B\CLIENTS\947\certl.svc ~","W;-1 J _ ."1 . -- - ~~,~ !Il4,..~",~~ c' o ...'-~ ':::v ...~..^ -O~;;':"_ 1111 L: \t :;i?C.-. ~2':: :-2. -,., .<",\ 'e:J , ,J:) ''0 ~:~? . () <l - l"} _if'1llcremIW~l!'l"fI'f,"""'1II'~!Il~~~U~~~_._..,. ~"~ . NICOLE DEVITT, BRENT SHICKLEY CHRISTOPHER C. SHULL, MICHELLE GUYTON, ELIZABETH A. STEPHAN, HEATHER ANN MEIER, Plaintiffs : IN T~ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 00-5350 V. FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORPORATION, and BARBARA ALTIZER Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND I You have been sued in Court. If you wish to d,bfend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or1by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set fort;h against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a jj1dgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD qNE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHBRE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle,PA 17013 Phone: (717) 249-3166 ,-~--"\ -" ',''"' 'I' ,,- ~,__,_ ''''' - - ~, ,< ., <, =,. _,~ "1__ NICOLE DEVITT, BRENT SmCKLEY CHRISTOPHER C. SHULL, MICHELLE GUYTON, ELIZABETH A. STEPHAN, HEATHER ANN MEIER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. :NO. 00-5350 CiviL-- FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORPORATION, and BARBARA ALTIZER Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAIl'!IT I. Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Stephan is an adult indjividual and resides at IS Lower Trail, Fairfield, P A 17320. 2. Plaintiff Mary Michelle Guyton is an adult individual and resides at P.O. Box 1362, Carlisle, PA 17013. 3. Plaintiff Brent William Shickley is an adult ~ividual and resides at 470 Blue Mountain Parkway, Harrisburg, P A 17112. 4. Plaintiff Christopher Carl Shull is an adult individual and resides at R.D. #3, Box 205, Newport, P A 17074. 5. Plaintiff Nicole Michelle Devitt is an adult incijvidual and resides at 201 Hickory Lane, Shippensburg,PA 17257. 6. Plaintiff Heather Ann Meier is an adult individual and resides at 534 Wannspring Road #4, Charnbersburg, PA 17201. 7. Defendant Friendly Ice Cream Corporation is believed to be a bnsiness corporation located at 1855 Boston Road, Willbrahm, MA 01095 and doing business in Pennsylvania at 938 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, PA 17013. TiT[ ". '_~'~I'~ '_,".__ '",' _'__ .,'~;" __."_w,"'>' ",,,,,,_,_,_,,,. _,,~",_,"'.'_'__ .' ,"., ,"'" . '_' _' . ,.'r< _.',_ 8. Defendant Barbara Altizer is an adult individual and her place of employment is Friendly's Restaurant, 938 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, P A 17013. 9. On or about April 13, 2000, Plaintiffs traveled to Friendly's Restaurant at 938 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, P A 170 I 3 and ordered lunch items. 10. On April 13, 2000, there was confusion surrounding the amounts that each Plaintiff owed for their respective lunches. II. The Plaintiffs waitress failed to return to the table with a check and/or to request payment. 12. The Plaintiffs walked to the register and asked for a check or itemization so that they could pay for their respective obligations. 13. The hostess and other staff of Friendly's were unable to provide a guest check or itemization of the respective obligations of the Plaintiffs. 14. The Plaintiffs offered to sort out the bill for their respective lunches and pay the same. IS. All of the Plaintiffs offered to pay several times, attempting to tender cash and/or credit cards. 16. Defendant Barbara Altizer, the manager of the Carlisle Friendly's refused payment until she could work out the bill to her own satisfaction. 17. Defendant Barbara Altizer was confused and commented that her computer would not allow her to change the arrangement of the bills and or determine who purchased what items. 18. The Plaintiffs were forced to wait for an excessive amount of time while Defendant Barbara Altizer tried to sort out the amounts of their bills. 19. Plaintiffs very reasonably offered to restate each item they had eaten so they could be ,",,+ .' ,.,<-,~,-,. - ~- , ,- ,- ,. - " _.~ ..-".,,' - -' ~- ,. d 1 , i reentered and totaled. The Plaintiffs repeatedly offered to pay during this exchange. 1 , 20. Finally, the Plaintiffs became fed up and left Friendly as they were due back at their mutual employer, Sprint. 21. Upon arrival at their workplace, Plaintiff Nicole Devitt called a manager at another Friendly's Restaurant in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania to explain the situation. 22. The manager told her not to worry and that she would call the Carlisle Friendly's to straighten matters out after her own lunch rush was over. II .!.,~ 23. In an embarrassing episode, the police arrived at the Plaintiffs' workplace at 1 :40 P.M. i!: and told them all to report the Pennsylvania State Police Barracks. 24. PlainitffElizabetll Ann Stephan was handcuffed and forcibly arrested upon inquiring as to the Officers presence t f 25. The Plaintiff.~ were not pennittedto leave the~State Police Barracks,. and were detained there until approximately4:00 P.M., consequently. being forced to miss work. 26. The Plaintiffs all received summary citations. See ExhibitA. 27. The Commonwealth charged the Plaintiffs with violations of 18 Pa,c.s. 3926 - Theft of Services. 28. On July13, 2000 District Justice Susan Day summarily dismissed the charges in regards :," ;; to all of the Plaintiffs because the Commonwealth could not sustain the charge. > 1 ii COUNT I: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION Elizabeth Ann Ste.phan. Mary Michelle Guyton. Brent William Shickley. Christooher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Friendlv Ice Cream Corooration 29. The prior paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference. 30. Defendant Friendly's, through its agent, servant and employee, Defendant Barbara Altizer, instituted the proceedings for theft of services on April 13, 2000. 31. Defendant Friendly's, through its agent, servant and employee, Defendant Barbara Altizer, was aware that the claim was without probable cause because the Plaintiffs attempted to make payment. 32. Defendant Friendly's, through its agent, servant and employee, Defendant Barbara Altizer, acted with actual malice because it did not have probable cause to initiate a prosecution. 33. The criminal proceedings terminated in favor of the Plaintiffs. 34. As a result of the above conduct of Defendant Friendly's, through its agent, servant and employee, Defendant Barbara Altizer, the Plaintiffs have been brought into the direct and ill repute among their friends and business associates and have been subject to great humiliation. 35. Plaintiffs suffered various injuries including mental anguish, emotional distress, harm to their reputations, humiliation, injury to their feelings, and pecuniary losses. 36. Plaintiff's injuries were caused solely by the unlawful and malicious acts of the Defendant. 37. By reason of the malicious, wanton and willful conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff demands punitive damages. %!l,,__ , ., 'I ," ,,, r~_ ~<r',_', _' '" ,,' ~ ", "_ _ , ,~,-, -~" -~- WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant for their compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, along with costs, interest and attorneys fees. COUNT II: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION Elizabeth Ann Steohan. Mary Michelle Guyton. Brent William Shicklev. Christooher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Barbara Altizer 38. The prior paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference. 39. Defendant Barbara Altizer instituted the proceedings for theft of services on April 13, 2000. 40. Defendant Barbara Altizer, was aware that the claim was without probable cause because the Plaintiffs attempted to make payment. 41. Defendant Barbara Altizer, acted with actual malice because it did not have probable cause to initiate a prosecution. 42. The criminal proceedings terminated in favor of the Plaintiffs. 43. As a result of the above conduct of Defendant Barbara Altizer, the Plaintiffs have been brought into the direct !md ill repute among their friends and business associates and have been subject to great humiliation. 44. Plaintiffs suffered various injuries including mental anguish, emotional distress, harm to their reputations. humiliation, injury to their feelings, and pecuniary losses. 45. Plaintiff's injuries were caused solely by the unlawful and malicious acts of the Defendant. '^ <. _~,". ,L' ,~, ~ ,~v,_ ~d_ - -, ~ 46. By reason of the malicious, wanton and willful conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff demands punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant for their compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, alomg with costs, interest and attorneys fees. COUNT III: ABUSE OF PROCESS Elizabeth Ann Stephan. Mary Michelle Guyton. Brent William Shicklev. Christooher Carl ShulL Nicole Devitt. Heather AIm Meier v. Friendlv Ice Cream Corporation : ~ 47. The prior paragraphs ofthis Complaint are incorporated by reference. 48. On or about May 25th, 2000 Defendant Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, through its employee and agent John A. Wallace, acknowledged its civil liability by offering a $500.00 settlement. See Exhibit B. 49. At the same time ofthe settlement offer Defendant Friendly's threatened the Plaintiffs with continued criminal prosecution if the Plaintiffs refused their settlement offer, but offered to discontinue the same if the civil releases were signed. See Exhibit B. 50. The use of criminal charges as a bargaining tool in a civil settlement negotiation represents a manifestly blatant instance of an abuse of process. J't 51. Friendly's had completed an internal review of the criminal charges and agreed or should have known they could not be sustained. 52. Using the pending criminal charge as a "bargaining tool" was a blatant misuse of the penal system, law enforcement and the judicial process. 53. Defendant continued to attempt to misuse the criminal process until the criminal charges " ~i ~ "', '. -v ,,~, ",'y_ ,_ L ~ - ~'- , were ultimately terminated in Plaintiff's favor. 54. As a result of the above conduct of Defendant, the Plaintiffs have been brought into the direct and ill repute among their friends and business associates and have been subject to great hwniliation. 55. Plaintiffs suffered various injuries including mental anguish, emotional distress, harm to their reputations, hwniliation, injury to their feelings, and pecuniary losses. 56. Plaintiff's injuries were caused solely by the unlawful and malicious acts ofthe Defendant. 57. By reason of the outrageous, malicious, wanton and willful conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff demands punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant for their compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, along with costs, interest and attorneys fees. COUNT IV: FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT Elizabeth Ann Stephan. Mary Michelle Guyton. Brent William Shicklev. Christooher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Friendly Ice Cream Comoration 58. The prior paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference. 59. At all times material hereto, Defendant Friendly Corporation acted through its agents, servants and employees who in turn were acting within the course and scope of their agency and employment for Defendant. 60. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiffs offered to pay, but were required to wait for an excessive amount of time while the Manager Barbara Altizer attempted to determine the ~~~ ~ ~,. _=~ c ~ "'- I I r i I I, " II U ~ " ~I I' II ~I i\ 'I )1 ;'1 ::.1 11 - I' : ,-~ proper amount of the bill. 61. Plaintiffs offered repeatedly to pay so they could leave. 62. The Manager deltUlnded the plaintiffs not leave until she had resolved the bill to her own satisfaction. 63. The tone and demeanor of the manager was threatening. 64. The manger's words and actions suggested to the Plaintiffs that they were not free to leave the restaurant. 65. Plaintiff did not steal any merchandise or anything from the Defendant. 66. Plaintiffs so advised Defendants employees and demanded to be permitted to leave. 67. Defendant's employees refused to release the Plaintiffs and persisted in their constructive holding and detention of Plaintiffs. 68. Defendant's employees acted without any reasonable or probable cause in light of Plaintiffs' repeated offers to pay and acted contrary to the laws of the Commonwealth. 69. Plaintiffs were subject to great humiliation, pain and suffering by reason of the constructive detention of the Plaintiffs and by being compelled to stand idly for an excessive amount of time while the Manager haggled over the bill that they very reasonably repeatedly offered to restate and pay. 70. As a result of the Defendant's conduct Plaintiffs were further detained for over two hours by the Pennsylvania State Police. 71. By reason of the acts of Defendant's employees, Plaintiffs suffered severe damage to their credit and reputation and were therefore hindered. 72. The Plaintiffs were held and detained against their will in Friendly's, a public place, over a bill dispute. This is clearly a humiliating and unnecessary temporary detention. -~, - '-"'. , " ~ , 73. The Plaintiffs did not return until approximately 4:00 P.M. to their place of work from the State Police Barracks. 74. The detention at the barracks was an extremely embarrassing and needless and was the direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct and actions. 75. As a result of the above conduct of Defendant, the Plaintiffs have been brought into the direct and ill repute among their friends and business associates and have been subject to great humiliation. 76. Plaintiffs suffered various injuries including mental anguish, emotional distress, harm to their reputations, humiliation, injury to their feelings, and pecuniary losses. 77. Plaintiff's injuries were caused solely by the unlawful and malicious acts of the Defendant. 78. By reason of the outrageous, malicious, wanton and willful conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff demands punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant for their compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, along with costs, interest and attorneys fees. COUNT V: FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT Elizabeth Ann Stephan. Mary Michelle Guyton. Brent William Shicklev. Christopher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Barbara Altizer 79. The prior paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference. 80. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiffs offered to pay, but were required to wait for an '{. '-~"-'r" ,> _n -'~ ,-""y^,",,~_" ,- '""'" --''''"~ . ,.n",," .,''t'Q~? ~,' ., '0 - ", , ~, ,- ~, excessive amount of time while the Defendant Barbara Altizer attempted to determine the proper amount of the bill. 81. Plaintiffs offered repeatedly to pay so they could leave. 82. The Manager demanded the plaintiffs not leave until she had resolved the bill to her own satisfaction.. 83. The tone and demeanor of the manager was threatening. 84. The manger's words and actions suggested that the Plaintiffs left the were not free to leave the restaurant 85. Plaintiff did not steal any merchandise or anything from the Defendant. 86. Plaintiffs so advised Defendant and demanded to be permitted to leave. 87. Defendant refused to release the Plaintiffs and persisted in their constructive holding and detention of Plaintiffs. 88. Defendant acted without any reasonable or probable cause in light of Plaintiffs' repeated offers to pay and acted contrary to the laws of the Commonwealth. 89. Plaintiffs were subject 10 great humiliation, pain and suffering by reason of the constructive detention ofthe Plaintiffs and by being compelled to stand idly for an excessive amount of time while the Manager haggled over the bill that they very reasonably repeatedly offered to restate and pay. 90. As a result of the Defendant's conduct Plaintiffs were further detained for over two hours by the Pennsylvania State Police. 91. By reason of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiffs suffered severe damage to their credit and reputation and were therefore hindered. 92. The Plaintiffs were held and detained against their will in Friendly's, a public place, over ~"." ,.,. . d ,.. _,.' ,""_<_ "" __~ '" _ ..,. ".- -F.' .0 a bill dispute. This is clearly a humiliating and unnecessary temporary detention. 93. The Plaintiffs did not return until approximately 4:00 P.M. to their place of work from the State Police Barracks. 94. The detention at the barracks was an extremely embarrassing and needless and was the direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct and actions. 95. As a result of the above conduct of Defendant, the Plaintiffs have been brought into the direct and ill repute among their friends and business associates and have been subject to great humiliation. 96. Plaintiffs suffered various injuries including mental anguish, emotional distress, harm to their reputations. humiliation, injury to their feelings, and pecuniary losses. 97. Plaintiffs injuries were caused solely by the unlawful and malicious acts of the Defendant 98. By reason of the outrageous, malicious, wanton and willful conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff demands punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant for their compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, along with costs, interest and attorneys fees. COUNT VI: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Elizabeth Ann Steohan. Mary ~ichelle Guyton. Brent William Shicklev. Christopher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Friendlv Ice Cream Corooration 99. The prior paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference. '~~ ',","",~~,- -"- "G <.,- ,_ -,' ..-' _', ',-;" , ~ ,-.-r-., ~"'_, " _ 'r. '. 100. At all times material hereto, Defendant Friendly Corporation acted through its agents, servants and employees who in turn were acting within the course and scope oftheir agency and employment for Defendant. 101. Defendant Friendly Corporation continual refusal to deal reasonably with the plaintiffs through its agents, servants and employees and its subsequent accusation of theft of services and misleading the police, resulting in an arrest, constituted outrageous conduct that caused the Plaintiffs emotional distress. 102. Defendant Friendly's Corporation through its agents, servants and employees intentionally ignored the Plaintiffs reasonable offers to pay. 103. Defendant Friendly's Corporation through its agents, servants and employees should have known theft of services had not been committed and probably did. 104. The Plaintiffs were held in Friendly's, a public place, over a bill dispute. This is clearly a humiliating and unnecessary temporary detention. 105. The Police came to the Plaintiffs' workplace. TIle Plaintiffs did not return until approximately 4:00 P.M. This was an extremely embarrassing and needless detention. 106. The Plaintiffs, therefore, were caused to suffer great pain and mental anguish. 107. As a result of the above conduct of Defendant, the Plaintiffs have been brought into the direct and ill repute among their friends and business associates and have been subject to great humiliation. 108. Plaintiffs suffered various injuries including mental anguish, emotional distress, harm to their reputations, humiliation, injury to their feelings, and pecuniary losses. 109. Plaintiff's injuries were caused solely by the unlawful and malicious acts of the Defendant . .,< - '-I' _ ~ '" _ en; ~ , n ' - -,>-,.,~-, ,,"' , . ~- I 10. By reason ofthe outrageous, malicious, wanton and willful conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff demands punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant for their compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, along with costs, interest and attorneys fees. COUNT VII: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Elizabeth Ann Stephan. Mary Michelle Guyton. Brent William Shicklev. Christopher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Barbara Altizer Ill. The prior paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference. 112. Defendant Barbara Altizer's continual refusal to deal reasonably with the plaintiffs and her subsequent accusation of theft of services and misleading the police, resulting in an arrest, constituted outrageous conduct that caused the Plaintiffs emotional distress. 113. Defendant Altizer's intentionally ignored the Plaintiffs reasonable offers to pay. 114. Defendant Altizer should have known theft of services had not been committed and probably did. 115. The Plaintiffs were held in Friendly's, a public place, over a bill dispute. This is clearly a humiliating and unnecessary temporary detention. 116. The Police came to the Plaintiffs' workplace. The Plaintiffs did not return until approximately 4:00 P.M. This was an extremely embarrassing and needless detention. 117. The Plaintiffs, therefore, were caused to suffer great pain and mental anguish. ',<,~ ,~ '" ,I ~ 118. As a result of the above conduct of Defendant, the Plaintiffs have been brought into the direct and ill repute among their friends and business associates and have been subject to great humiliation. 119. Plaintiffs suffered various injuries including mental anguish, emotional distress, harm to their reputations. humiliation, injury to their feelings, and pecuniary losses. 120. Plaintiff's injuries were caused solely by the unlawful and malicious acts of the Defendant 121. By reason of the outrageous, malicious, wanton and willful conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff demands punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant for their compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier offact, along with costs, interest and attorneys fees. COUNT VIII: ABUSE OF PROCESS Elizabeth Ann Stephan. Mary Michelle Guyton. Brent William Shicldev. Christopher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Friendlv Ice Cream Corporation 122. The prior paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference. 123. At all times material hereto, Defendant Friendly Corporation acted through its agents, servants and employees who in turn were acting within the course and scope of their agency and employment for Defendant. 124. On April 13, 2000, the Defendant Friendly Corporation acted through its agents, servants and employees, knowing that the Plaintiffs had repeatedly offered to pay, wrongfully and 'f~r">',.'" or!,',~ ~~",y,_, """,_",1"'_ ~_"'_ ~ '_e ,,""., _.,. ,'.--'-","!"---I maliciously and with intent to injure the Plaintiffs, requested that the police detain Plaintiffs and file a criminal claim without merit. 125. The police in acting upon request of the Defendant arrested and detained Plaintiffs and brolfght charges of theft. 126. ,The only legitimate purpose for directing the police to detain the Plaintiffs would be if one believed they had committed theft of services. 127. Upon information and belief, one can infer an ulterior motive and a use of the process for a purpose other than for which it was designed when the one initiating the process has full knowledge that the Plaintiffs tried to pay the bill and therefore were not guilty of theft of services. 128. As a result of the above conduct of Defendant, the Plaintiffs have been brought into the direct and ill repute among their friends and business associates and have been subject to great humiliation. 129. Plaintiffs suffered various injuries including mental anguish, emotional distress, harm to their reputations, humiliation, injury to their feelings, and pecuniary losses. 130. Plaintiff's injuries were caused solely by the unlawful and malicious acts of the Defendant. 131. By its aforesaid conduct, the Defendant maliciously, willfully and intentionally abused the criminal process and is liable to Plaintiffs for damages and punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant for their compensatory damages in excess of $50,000 exclusive of interest and costs and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. "[I "",~"., . ,,'F.-._ c ," ' ,<." ".' '7.0 , ,_. COUNT IX: ABUSE OF PROCESS Elizabeth Ann Steohan. Mary Michelle Guyton. Brent Willian! Shicklev. Christooher Carl Shull. Nicole Devitt. Heather Ann Meier v. Barbara Altizer 132. The prior paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference. 133. On April 13, 2000, the Defendant Barbara Altizer, knowing that the Plaintiffs had repeatedly offered to pay, wrongfully and maliciously and with intent to injure the Plaintiffs, requested that the police detain Plaintiffs and file a criminal claim without merit. 134. The police in acting upon request of the Defendant arrested and detained Plaintiffs and brought charges of theft. 135. The only legitimate purpose for directing the police to detain the Plaintiffs would be if one believed they had committed theft of services. 136. Upon information and belief, one can infer an ulterior motive and a use of the process for a purpose other than for which it was designed when the one initiating the process has full knowledge that the Plaintiffs tried to pay the bill and therefore were not guilty of theft of services. 137. By reason of the foregoing conduct of the Defendant, the Plaintiffs were prevented from working and were compelled to employ an attorney to their injury and detriment. 138. As a result of the above conduct of Defendant, the Plaintiffs have been brought into the direct and ill repute among their friends and business associates and have been subject to great humiliation. 139. Plaintiffs suffered various injuries including mental anguish, emotional distress, harm to their reputations. humiliation, injury to their feelings, and pecuniary losses. i1'l!J!!'!!l. .""~ I - , - . .6 ~ : ~ ~',. -- -~ < -""T'_'~ ,e. .. 140. Plaintiff's injuries were caused solely by the unlawful and malicious acts of the Defendant. 141. By reason of the outrageous, malicious, wanton and willful conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff demands punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant for their compensatory damages in excess of $50,000 exclusive of interest and costs and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. ,,;l"~ I:' ". , , ,^ ,> ,-" . VERIFICATION I verify that I am a petitioner and that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of IS Pa. C. s. 9 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: Dec.. l~ 2000 M ~~~~c~ SA,'<-It-j ~C~~ Christop . er Carl Shull ~ a.lrJu'vt Heather Ann Meier ' ~//';/L0zuj,/~ 11~ Nicole Michelle Devitt CO, I~ ,,_, ,~~ ,~_,_,_ '''-_.--' r,'" "'__ _ e , _" ,~,~,~"___",.~,",_ ,-. J._' COMMONWEALTH 01= PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: COMBE'RLANIl 09-3-03 NOTICE OF TRIAL SUMMARY CASE Mag. Dist. No,: OJ Name: Hon. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN K. DAY Add"" 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 NT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA T",phoo" (717) 486-7672 17065 VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS InEVITT, NICOLE 201 HICKORY LANE SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 L Docket No.: NT- 0000394 - 00 Date Filed: 4/18/00 "I ATTORNEY DEF PRIVATE : .J ~- ~ CARL ROMINGER 50 E. HIGH ST. CARLISLE, PA 17013 118 53926 SSA4 THEn OF SERVICES Charqe(s): This court has received your plea of NOT GUILTY to the above summary violation(s). The sum of $ .00 has been accepted as collateral for your appearance at trial. Your trial has been scheduled as follows: Date: o Place: DISTRICT COURT -3-0 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 MT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA 17065 Time: PM You have the right to be represented by an attorney. You have the right to have any witnesses present. It is your responsibility to notify your attorney and/or witnesses of this trial date and time. Should you fail to appear, a warrant may be issued for your arrest. If you have any questions, please call the above office immediately. If you are disabled and require assistance, please contact the Magisterial District office at the address above. 5/08/00 Date , District Justice My commission expire$ first Monday of January, 2. 04. SEAL PATE PRINTED: 5/08/00 AOPC 611.98 . "'",",,"~ , -~ .~ tSOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA , CITATION NO. Q0007175-0 1. IF) 17 11. Date of Birth t; ;i/;7~ 12. Aeside'l!ptalus (R~Resident (N) 'Kl Non.Residenl (U) 'tT Unknown (S) 17. Dale Notified 13. Type of Arresl (0) 0 On-View Asian Hispanic Unknown 16. Parent's Name 10. Sex (M) D Male Female Summoned/Ciled 18. T1me o Criminal Trespass o Criminal Mischief o Retail Theft 21. P.e. Code 26. COSTS 27. J.e.p. 1.50 28. TOTAL DUE $ )!jlssued X t:>t.( I 0 Filed Filed on Info. Received 42. 1 verify that the facls Set forth in this citation are true and correct to the besl of my knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made subject 10 the penalties of Section 4904 01 the Crimes Code (18 Pa. C.SA ~ 4904) relating to unsworn falsification to 8ulhorilles. NATU 00007175-0 5~.lnit. Badge No. 5(i01.. SP7-0017B AOPC 407C-95 (REV. 1/2000) DISTRICT JUSTICE ',,,,, ~ . . . COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND Mag. Di~l. No.: 09-3-03 NOTICE OF. TRIAL SUMMARY CASE DJ Name: Hon. SUSAN K. DAY Add,,,,, 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 MT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA PENNSYLVANIA VS. T"'pho", (717) 486-7672 17065 DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS 'sHULL, CHRISTOPHER CARL RD 3, BOX 205 NEWPORT, PA 17074 L Docket No.: NT- 0000393 - 00 Date Filed: 4/18/00 -, ATTORNEY DEF PRIVATE : ..J ...... ~ CARL ROMINGER 50 !. HIGH ST. CARLISLE, PA 17013 118 53926 SSA4 THEFT OF SERVICES Charqe(s): This court has received your plea of NOT GUlL TV to the above summary violation(s). The sum of $ has been accepted as collaterai for your appearance at trial. .00 Your trial has been scheduied as follows: Date: 00 Place: DISTRICT COURT 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 MT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA 17065 Time: : PM You have the right to be represented by an attorney. You have the right to have any witnesses present. It is your responsibility to notify your attorney and/or witnesses of this trial date and time. Should you fail to appear, a warrant may be issued for your arrest. If you have any questions, please call the above office immediately. If you are disabled and require assistance, please contact the Magisterial District office at the address above. 5/08/00 Date , District Justice , My commission expirei first Monday of January, 2. 04. SEAL DATE PRINTED: 5/08/00 CITATION NUMBER: Q0007172-4 DATE CITATION SIGNED: 4/18/00 AOPC 611-98 1-." - ~ _. ~n - <. (0 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NON-TRAFFIC CITATION CITATION NO. Q0007172-4 1. 9. RaceJEthnicily (W) ~ While (A) 0 Asian (8) 0 Black (H) 0 Hispanic (I> 0 NRlive American (U) 0 Unknown 14. JUVENilE 15. Parents Notified 16. Parent's Name DYes DYes 11. Date of Birth (M1001Y!1 Dt:t( fJ6{ 72. 12. Resident Status 13. Type of Arrest (R)~sidenl (0) 0 On-View (N) liII Non-Resident (U) tJ Unknown (5) Summoned/Cited 17. Dale Notified 18. Time 19. Charge o Disorderly Conduct 0 Criminal Trespass ~ Theft of SelVices o Harassment 0 Public Drunkenness 0 Scattering Rubbish o Purchase, Consumption, Possession or Transportation of Liquor or Malt or Brewed Beverages o Other .:bNatu~ of Offense o Criminal Mischief o Retail Theft A 21. PA Code 22. CRIMES CODE TITLE 18 o 23. SECTION 25. FINE 26. COSTS 27. J.G.P. 29. 28. TOTAL o Lab Services Requested DUE $ \I\.Jd Q 0007172-4 SP7.0017B AOPC 407C-95 (REV. 1/2000) ------ DISTRICT JUSTICE "W",,!,]_ ", ',' " . COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND' Mag. Disl. No.: 09-3-03 NOTICE Of TRIAL SUMMARY' CASE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DJ Name: Hon. SUSAN K. DAY Addc,'" 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 MT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA T",phooo (717) 486-7672 17065 VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS IsHICKLEY, BRENT WILLIAM 470 BLUE MTN PARKWAY HARRISBURG, PA 17112 L Docket No.: NT- 0000392 - 00 Date Filed: 4/18/00 I ATTORNEY DEF PRIVATE : CARL ROMINGER 50 E. HIGH ST. CARLISLE, PA 17013 .J 118 53926 55A4 THEFT OF SERVICES Charqe(s): This court has received your plea of NOT GUILTY to the above summary violation(s). The sum of $ .00 has been accepted as collateral for your appearance at trial. Your trial has been scheduled as follows: Date: Time: . . PM Place: DISTRICT COURT 09 - - 03 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 MT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA 17065 You have the right to be represented by an attorney. You have the right to have any witnesses present. It is your responsibility to notify your attorney and/or witnesses of this trial date and time. Should you fail to appear, a warrant may be issued for your arrest. If you have any questions, please call the above office immediately. If you are disabled and require assistance, please contact the Magisterial District office at the address above. 5/08/00 Date , District Justice My commission expire' first Monday of January, 2 04. SEAL DATE PRINTED: 5/08/00 CITATION NUMBER: Q0028066-3 DATE CITATION SIGNED: 4/18/00 Aope 611-98 r., I"'" .--". ..-.- ",_" --- :i % COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NON-TRAFFIC CITATION CITATION NO. 2. Oockel N"~'I_ Asian Hispanic Unknown 16. Parent's Name 10. Sex 1M) %Male {F) 0 Female 1t. Date of Birth , ~7~31~~ 12. ReSm'de I Status 13. Type of Arrest { esident (0) 0 On.view (N) Non-Residenl (U) Unknown (S) SummonedfC\\ed 17. Dale NotIfied 18. Time 19. Charge o Disorderly Conduct ~ ~ . .:,..d T,,,~t-',J!,s ~ Theft of Services o Harassment /'[j" Public Drunkenness 0 Scattering Rubbish o Purchase, Constntlp1ion, Posses~on or Transp01\ation of UqUOf or Malt or Brewed Bevemges o Diller 20 alure of Of e(lsa I I o Criminal Mischief o Relail Theft 21. PA Code - 26. COSTS 7 27. J.G.? 29. o Lab Services Requested 38. Cnty.Code SP7.0017B AOPC 407C.95 (REV. 1/2000) ~.;teOt DISTRICT .1I1~TI(,!: " .-. .....- CO~~MONWEALTH OF' PENNSYLVANIA . . COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND 09-3-03 NOTICE OF TRIAL SUMMARY'CASE Mag. Dlsl. No.. OJ Name: Hon. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN K. DAY Add",,, 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 MT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA T,',p'''' (717) 486-7672 17065 VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS [(;UYTON, MARY MICHELLE PO BOX 1362, WILLOW RD CARLISLE, PA 17013 L Docket No.: NT- 0000391- 00 Date Filed: 4/18/00 ., ATTORNEY DEF PRIVATE : CARL ROMINGER 155 S HANOVER ST CARLISLE, PA 17013 -.J ..- ~ r8 53926 55A4 THEFT OF SERVICES Charqe(s): This court has received your plea of NOT GUILTY to the above summary violation(s). The sum of $ has been accepted as collateral for your appearance at trial. .00 Your trial has been scheduled as follows: Date: Time: : PM Place: DISTRICT COURT 09 -3 - 3 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 MT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA 17065 You have the right to be represented by an attorney. You have the right to have any witnesses present. It is your responsibility to notify your attorney and/or witnesses of this trial date and time. Should you fail to appear, a warrant may be issued for your arrest. If you have any questions, please call the above office immediately. If you are disabled and require assistance, please contact the Magisterial District office at the address above. 5/08/00 Date , District Justice My commission expire$ first Monday of January, 2. SEAL DATE PRINTED: 5/08/00 CITATION NUMBER: Q0007174-6 DATE CITATION SIGNED: 4/18/00 AOPC 611-98 . -~" ,'F " ." . . ?:. ~ , .,.,"~ . . """ . __.m___~ I COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CITATION NO. Q0007174-6 19, Charge o Disorderly Conduct 0 Criminal Trespass tt.' Theft of SelVices o Harassmen! 0 Pu~lc Drunkenness /fj Scaltering Rubbish o Purchase, Consumption, Possession or Transportation of Liquor or Mall or Brewed Beverages o Other Nature of Offense 10 o L 8. ~endanl's Address !S~eet-City-State-Zip Code) r_1() . I ~ (:,2. u..o 9. l=lace/Ethnicity IW) r1t White IA) 0 Asian (B) 0 Black (H) 0 Hispanic (I) 0 Native American (U) 0 Unknown 14. JUVENilE 15. Parents Notified 16. Parent's Name DYes 0 Yes IF) j5rFemale ~ 11. Date of Birlh 12. (MMIOONY)/ ( Ct.( 7'z 13. Type of Arrest (0) 0 On.View IS) 10. Sex (M) 0 Male o Criminal Mischief o Retail Theft Q 0007174-6 57, Supv. Init. """(JAA $P7-0017B AOPC 407C-95 (REV. 1/2000) DISTRICT JUSTICE ~'ll" ~I ~. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLANn ' 09-3-03 ())?~ -~, r/<>>. tv(~~/ COMMONWEALTH OF /~ PENNSYLVANIA VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS BIER, HEATHER ANN 534 WARMS PRING RD#4 CHAMBERSBURG, PA. 17201 L NOTICE OF ,TRIAL SUMMARY CASE Mag. Dist. No.: OJ Name: Hon. SUSAN K. DAY Add"" 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 MT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA T",p"'"(717) 486-7672 17065 I ATTORNEY DEF PRIVATE : CARL ROMINGER 50 E. HIGH ST. CARLISLE, PA 17013 .J Docket No.: NT- 0000395 - 00 Date Filed: 4/18/00 118 53926 55A4 THEFT OF SERVICES Charqe(s): This court has received your plea of NOT GUILTY to the above summary violation(s). The sum of $ has been accepted as collateral for your appearance at trial. Your trial has been scheduied as follows: .00 Date: Time: . . PM Place: DISTRICT COURT - - 03 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 MT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA 17065 You have the right to be represented by an attorney. You have the right to have any witnesses present. It is your responsibility to notify your attorney and/or witnesses of this trial date and time. Should you fail to appear, a warrant may be issued for your arrest. If you have any questions, please call the above office immediately. If you are disabled and require assistance, please contact the Magisterial District office at the address above. 5/08/00 Date My commission expirei first Monday of January, 2. 04. , District Justice SEAL DATE PRINTED: 5/08/00 CITATION NUMBER: Q0028067-4 DATE CITATION SIGNED: 4/18/00 AOPC 611-98 '\;0"" . . - ,., - , "' .--~ ~ 1 _ . ~.~, ." " COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NON-TRAFFIC CITATION 'CITATION NO. 13. Type of Arrest (0) D On*View Summoned/Ciled 18. Time 19. o Criminal Mischief D Retail Theft 21. PA Code 1 26. COSTS 27. J.C.P. 28. TOTAL DUE 34. Code 2..13 I 41. a 0028067-4 5~lnlt. Badge No. Il. SP7.0017B AOPC 407C.95 (REV. 112000) DISTRICT JUSTICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENN'SYLVANIA . . COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND 09-3-03 NOTICE OF. TRIAL SUMMARY CASE COMMONWEALTH OF Mag. Dist. No.: OJ Name: Hon. SUSAN K. DAY Add,,,,, 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 MT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA PENNSYLVANIA r",ph", (717) 486-7672 17065 VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS 'sTEPHAN, ELIZABETH ANN 15 LOWER TRAIL FAIRFIELD, PA 17320 L Docket No.: NT- 0000390 - 00 Date Filed: 4/18/00 I ATTORNEY DEF PRIVATE : -1 ~.i.....,.,._ ~ CARL ROMINGER 155 S. HANOVER ST. CARLISLE, PA 17013 r8 S3926 SSM THEFT OF SERVICES Charqe(s): This court has received your plea of NOT GUILTY to the above summary violation(s). The sum of $ .00 has been accepted as collateral for your appearance at trial. Your trial has been scheduled as follows: Date: Time: : PM Place: DISTRICT COURT 229 MILL STREET, BOX 167 MT. HOLLY SPRINGS, PA 17065 You have the right to be represented by an attorney. You have the right to have any witnesses present. It is your responsibility to notify your attorney and/or witnesses of this trial date and time. Should you fail to appear, a warrant may be issued for your arrest. If you have any questions, please call the above office immediately. If you are disabled and require assistance, please contact the Magisterial District office at the address above. " 5/08/00 Date , District Justice My commission expire.i first Monday of January, 2. 04. SEAL DATE PRINTED: 5/08/00 CITATION NUMBER: Q0007173-5 DATE CITATION SIGNED: 4/18/00 AOPC 611.98 :~._.,...-..., ".., ...". ,,,- ", '. F -~ -" ~ ~OMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NON-TRAFFIC CITATION . CITATION NO. Q0007173-5 L 2. Docket N'T"!310-00 ~ 9. RacelEthnicity (W) ~ White (A) 0 Mian (B) 0 Black (H) 0 Hispanic (I) 0 Native American (U) 0 Unknown 14. JUVENILE 15. Parents Notified 16. Parenfs Name o Ves 0 Ves 12. Resrd~t~us 13. Type of Arrest (A) esident (0) 0 On-View (N)'tia: Non-Resident (U) U Unknown (S) Summoned/Cited 17. Date Notified 18. Time 19. Charge ~ o Disorderly Conduct 0 Criminal Trespass ~ Theft of Services D Harassment 0 Public Drunkenness 0 Scattering Rubbish o Purchase, Consumption, Possesslon or Transportation of Liquor or Malt or Brewed Beverages o Other ature of Ol5'ib D Criminal Mischief D Retail Theft D 21. PA Code. 22. CRIMES CODE TITLE 18 o 23:!tf2Z c1 s: 170 ~ lLJL'XJ 1.50 2 25. FINE 26. COSTS 27. J.e.p. 29. 28. TOTAL $ o Lab Services Requested DUE I c007174 - ~. 00007173-5 57. Supv. lnit. 1::JM mo. SP7.00178 AOPC 407C.95 (REV. 1/2000) DISTRICT JUSTICE .. ,'-~It'!'f ,-, ~- ,- "',- ll~s '[PJ~{ID Great Food &. Ice Cream Via Facsimile (717-241-6878) and Regular Mail May 25, 2000 Attorney Karl E. Rominger ROMINGER LAW OFFICES 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 RE: Your clients - Nicole Devitt, Christopher C. Shull, Elizabeth A. Stephan, Brent Shickley, Michelle Guyton and Heather Ann Meier Dear Mr. Rominger: This correspondence follows your telephone conversation with Todd Schwendenmann regarding the above individuals. As discussed, Friendly's is willing to drop the charges associated with the April 13, 2000 incident at the Carlisle location and additionally Friendly's will make payment to each of your clients in the amountof $500 in exchange for a release of all claims from each of them. Attached are the release documents. Please convey this offer to your clients and advise accordingly. The offer will remain open until June 1,2000. i'l Thank you for your attention to this matter. ~! :'j !;:i ~;j 'I t~ .., tl I 1:1 i Vetv-tmly,yours,! 07 7J -j- j _ ,- /",,! i / ! J '.", It i I , .f ///. l)~f .f ~ f II ~ I j~ / I \.~ lv(l r ~J. if / ~ Y1 f' J~,.- "~-. Jolfu A. Wallace . claims Manager i' :'1 ip :j .. .. ';~ '~i JAW/rl Ene!. CC: Todd Schwendenmann File exhi6/f B - ,'; :" ::1 , , ',1 ,,; 'j 1 "J' Friendly Ice Cream Corporation. 1855 Boston Road. Wilbraham, Massachusetts 01095. (413) 543-2400 . "I ::~ ; 'I' '~~I- ~~. , - "~- , ~, ,."" ,''''- .. 0--- ., ~ . ,. '\ -0,,' ..,. ~. .'~ . , , CERTIFICATE OFiSERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiffs, do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of the Complaint upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Friendly Ice Cream Corporation 938 Walnut Bottom Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Barbara Altizer, Manager Friendly's Restaurant 938 Walnut Bottom Road Carlisle, P A 17013 ~. fJ ec. / Cf 2 t:l () <)' / I ;."""""', '.."_c, ,--^ ... -"-, ,~ .~, ..~" '" ._,,_ ,'-.. - ';"""'C -~ - 0'. ;_ . ~-. ,= . ' NICOLE DEVITT, BRENT SHICKLEY CHRISTOPHER C. SHULL, MICHELLE GUYTON, ELIZABETH A. STEPHAN, HEATHER ANN MEIER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. ; NO. ~6 - 5300 0io: l FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORPORATION, and BARBARA ALTIZER : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS To the Prothonotary: Please issue a writ of summons in the above-captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to R Thomas Kline, Sheriff of Cumberland County, for service on the Defendants: Friendly Ic~ Cream Corporation, 938 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, PA; and Barbara Altizer at Friendly's Restaurant, 938 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, P A. Date: fJ u, 1/ L()rJ () ?~- Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger Law Offices 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Plaintiffs "10 r, ",'"","""_=_._.,,. ~"., ~, __~_ ~ _ ~ ~ ^ . ~ 'il I :i ~i, :! " ::i 'j! ,I, :~!i :!j , ,. ;;''": 1 l""_~: 1 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2000-05350 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND DEVITT NICOLE ET AL VS FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORPORATION CPL. MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pensylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORPORATION the DEFENDANT , at 0016:35 HOURS, on the 3rd day of August , 2000 at 938 WALNUT BOTTOM ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to BRANDlE STETS 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 Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: ~K ""'<t:~t 18.00 3.10 .00 10.00 .00 31.10 R. Thomas Kline 08/04/2000 ROMINGER LAW OFFICES By, -#~-D~ Deputy Sh f ._________ Sworn and Subscribed to before q~ me this day of () of$:;;, ;'"", A 0 D 0 o 'nt"i. -' ~ rothonotary , ~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2000-05350 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND DEVITT NICOLE ET AL VS FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORPORATION CPL. MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pensyl vania , who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon ALTIZER BARBARA the DEFENDANT , at 0016:35 HOURS, on the 3rd day of August , 2000 at POE: FRIENDLY'S RESTAURANT 938 WALNUT BOTTOM ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to BRANDlE STETS (MANAGER) 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 Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 So ;:?~~~i R. Thomas Kline.. < .", '" ,-"......_~ .~.~- "'., 08/04/2000 ROMINGER LAW OFFICES Sworn and Subscribed to before By: me this qE? day of ()"1~ .;Lov<J A. D. ~~~~ rothonotary , <-"""~ --, , . MORGAN R. ESSIG, . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : NO. 00-5450 CIVIL TERM : DAWNE'l'TE R. HUGI, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant . IN CUSTODY . OODER OF COURT AND lUI, this JiA consideration of the attached and directed as follows: day of ,,~ , 2000, upon Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered t; l. The Father, Morgan R. Essig, and the Mother, Dawnette R. Hugi, shall have shared legal custody of Makenna N. Hugi, bom December 9, 1999. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the Child's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding her health, education and religion. ::j :,1 ~' i 2. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Child. Ii" 3. The Father shall have partial physical custody of the Child on alternating weekends from Friday, when the Father shall pick up the Child at the daycare provider by 4:20 p.m., through Sunday at 6:00 p.m., when the Mother shall pick up the Child at the Father's residence. The alternating weekend periods of custody shall begin on Friday, September 29, 2000, at the paternal grandmother'S residence. The Father shall ensure that the paternal grandmother is present during all overnight periods of custody. ,.: !,:: i:i: I::' :::1 In addition, the Father shall have partial physical custody of the Child every Wednesday, beginning October 4, 2000, from after day care, when the Father shall pick up the Child by 4:20 p.m. through 8:00 p.m., when the Father shall transport the Child to the Mother's residence. :'" 4. In 2000, the Father shall have custody of the Child on Thanksgiving Day from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. 5. OVer the Christmas holiday in 2000, the Father shall have custody of the Child on Christmas Eve from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. and the Mother shall have custody of the Child on Christmas Day. 6. Neither party shall consume alcohol or use illegal drugs during his or her periods of custody with the Child. :"j 7 . unless otherwise provided in this Order or agreed between the parties, the party receiving custody of the Child shall be responsible to provide transportation for the exchange of custody. 8. The parties and their counsel shall attend an additional Custody !"." l' <, Conciliation Conference in the office of the Conciliator, Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire, on Wednesday, January 3, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. 9. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a Custody conciliation Conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. J. l~ -{f)o.JJ. /()-J.j-OO -RXS cc: Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire - Counsel for Father Keith o. Brenneman, Esquire - Counsel for Mother ':1~ 1.'- tllltdI~~_'N..a,jm"m."",i,,,,-,~~~~~.i"lTl1l .-" '.~. ,lID' ~ ~-, ,!llIIU 1~ ,.,. "< ".. l!"-. " =~.' <, - ,,~'"" """"'" .~ ( /"- ,', '/' '> 1'// /";') .i,.:,/.-I:<?t"'l/' ell'< ",.".,~."0 VI? . 'Ie '//'1 .c.{/) l' . '/(~) 'v('<: (;, "/ .... _) ".~;"th <4/",. ,) ^ 'iJ/1.""" 'J"." r'A,' 'Tr A '-hj n 1. 1$1/; ''<;>1'''' . . .. .., VII{<' U ''>0 ()Izj~vf~{;~' .. . MORGAN R. ESSIG, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : NO. 00-5450 CIVIL TERM : DAWNETTE R. HUGI, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : IN CUSTODY CUST<DY <DiCILIATICJ!l' SUMMARY REPCm IN ACCXIIDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND CXXJNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Makenna N. Hugi December 9, 1999 Mother/Father 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on September 27, 2000, with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Morgan R. Essig, with his counsel, Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire, and the Mother, Dawnette R. Hugi, with her counsel, Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. ~flk-~4 Date ~ Z ,;1.000 . i2~~.~f'r7' ~ Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire { Custody Conciliator ,nnJ_ ,-I'"~ ~ NICOLE DEVITT, BRENT SHICKLEY CHRISTOPHER C. SHULL, MICHELLE GUYTON, ELIZABETH A. STEPHAN, HEATHER ANN MEIER, Plaintiffs V. FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORPORATION, and BARBARA ALTIZER Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 00-5350 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please discontinue the above captioned case with prejudice upon agreement of the parties. Date: January 21, 2002 -,... '1 " Respectfully submitted, -- - - .. - -- Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Defendants l . .~ - '''"'-'' 0;::-...." ~ -<'.- , ""~~,,, .""-<."" . '~'~';::~:, __t",.__,...",", '''.'.. ,~ ,ll!WIi"1iIl ~I -"~-"' - , .~-~ 'I '"" '" ,.., "~,, """-,,, (] 0 0 C N 'n -,.. j "" -00:1 ;~ ~-:l ~ mn, ~ ""c_ ~~~- N :~::!, e,..:, "<(.dC ~C) ~"'C1 -',-:2:\ -" , :Pr, , '"...,};ei ;z.' J"O:;,fn --c ~ :PC: ~ :::. => )~ '" -<. fv ~ ~ll ~,~" ~~-W-f',~mn';F"~-fmI~1iU'f~iI',l!!lliI!I'tllf!'_In"t';4~T1l:\illfJ_llJI~~I_I!.iT~,!,_~"~: