The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-05508 .,,'.o!!Ii01ol " ~ " . '~J , . , MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORPORATION, Plaintiff : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : Docket No. 00 - S'SClJ> Ciu~l'-r~ v. PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, AND DAVID A. ROMANOWSKI, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants P~CIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue Writ of Summons in the above captioned action. --X.. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to Sheriff. _ Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the undersigned Attorney r ':) Z~ I,. E. MiIspaw,.k., . MILSPAW &BESBORE Supreme Ct. ID NO. 19226 130 State Street, P.O. Box 946 Harrisburg, P A 17101 (717) 236~7g1 WRIT OF SUMMONS Date: TO TIIE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT TIIE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOu. r /J Date: JJu ~ 9, ;;tODO ~J1*A ) 12~?- ~Y ~CJ""'e>, P 77?~ Deputy -" ~"- ,",-- , ~ ~ -nll_~',' I' MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORPORATION, Plaintiff : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. :DocketNo.tItJ- S50~ ~ I~ PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL LYNNE A. EWELL, AND DAVID A. ROMANOWSKI, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION -LAW INSTRUCTIONS TO SHERIFF Sir: Please deputizll the Sheriff ofMontgoInety County, Pennsylvania for the purpose of serving the Writ of Summons issued in the above captioned matter upon Defendants as follows: PRISM ENGINEERING, INC. 440 HorshamRoad, Suite 5 Horsham, P A 19044 JOHN R. EWELL c/o PRISM ENGDlEiRING, INC. 44tl HorsIwnRoall, Suite 5 HOl'Sham,PA 19044 LYNNE A. EWELL c/o PRISM ENGINIlERING. INC. 440 Horsham Road, Suite 5 Horsham, PA 19044 Kindly advise when service has been made. Date: f j'ZCUJ BY: LutIref E. MjIspaw. "' EsquHe 1>> State.Street, P.O. B0K 946 Harrisburg, PA 171084>946 ('117) 236-0781 Attorneys for P1aintiJI . -",^ , ~ --"'," ~ - -," ~, '""~Jtil&bd!,; MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORPORATION, Plaintiff : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : Docket No. PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, AND DAVID A. ROMANOWSKI, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants INSTRUCTIONS TO SHERIFF Sir: Please deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin Counly, Pennsylvania for the purpose of seIVing the Writ of Summons issued in the above captioned matter upon Defendant as follows: DAVID A. ROMANOWSKI 243 South Mill Road Hummelstown, PA 17036 Kindly advise when service has been made. Dare: UtV BY: Luther E. Milspaw, Jr., E 130 Stare Street, P.O. Box 946 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0946 (711) 236-0781 Attorneys for Plaintiff ""u ,~ ,~ ~ .~~ ~_:. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2000-05508 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP VS PRISM ENGINEERING INC ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: PRISM ENGINEERING INC but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore , deputized the sheriff of MONTGOMERY County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On Auqust 29th , 2000 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from MONTGOMERY Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge DEP. MONTGOMERY 18.00 9.00 10.00 65.00 .00 102.00 08/29/2000 MILS PAW & BESHORE S~~_> 0h~a~ff . Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this t e:- day of _ ),....."-;..11,, ,2tnJZJ A. D . o < ''FP~t~~y~ ~-~" ~ " = "" ~-.J ~ " -~~- U. t~~ . '"""""~iltjl\tRi , , SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2000-05508 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP VS PRISM ENGINEERING INC ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: EWELL JOHN R but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of MONTGOMERY County, pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On August 29th , 2000 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from MONTGOMERY Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of county Surcharge 6.00 .00 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 08/29/2000 MILS PAW & BESHORE S~~ R Thomas i e Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me i'f/'::: d f/l . thisit' ay o;tw-<-/ ,2,irfV A.D. q,u - /?ot~~~.~t~ . .~~~ "..~ .~ -. ~~iK,j SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2000-05508 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP VS PRISM ENGINEERING INC ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: EWELL LYNNE A but was unable to locate Her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of MONTGOMERY County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On Auqust 29th , 2000 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from MONTGOMERY Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge 6.00 .00 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 08/29/2000 MILSPAW & BESHORE ~~ R Thomas Kline . Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before ) day Of#<-t.. 0 ~ A.D. WC.~,~ Prothonotary me this tt-' (, ~ ..,. --1,- " :;:*' SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2000-05508 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP VS PRISM ENGINEERING INC ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: ROMANOWSKI DAVID A but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On Auqust 29th , 2000 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge DEP. DAUPHIN CO 6.00 9.00 10.00 29.25 .00 54.25 08/29/2000 MILS PAW & BESHORE ~~ R. Thomas K in Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me da.y of ~ 1ft:: this '" o&hlv A.D. ~-<-aj ~ '~ Prothono~a y - , " ~. -, - --'.< In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Manufacturing Concepts Corpor~tion' VS. Pris im Engineering, Inc., et. a~.1u ~ Serve : Prism EngineeriJ1g" Inc ~ 0":'~5508 Civil L-\l\o 1-\0('3, \\~~. I $\e ~ . I-\o~\\~, ((a-. \ ~Q'N Nr.N, 8/9' /00 , 20 0 (1 , I, SHERIFF OF CU1v1BERLAND COUN"TY, P A, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Montgomery County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk ofthe Plaintiff. . .. ~I r~~# f;;). SheriffofCumberl!lIld County, PA l!!/ Affidavit of Service Now, /It/'? IV v J J t/ /'1 /I'? ~ "Jf 50 7-- bbJ eLl A7if/Ji.l5 Jtij)j);LoFJ ~~/V 7C !:: &J ffZt. ,20 ().o , at O'f;d o'clock /4 M. served the . within upon 7/lff'f. o ",. c::: ..,--,' at by handil1g to a -r IC- 1./ }) copy of the original , . '.0' ~ ,.. S"VJl1/'t~ :",~ ....-1 0'1 ...< the contents thereof. and made known to A '8IlV JI" d J; /J14.rtfN Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this /.5" day of COSTS SERVICE JVIILEAGE AFFIDAVIT $ $ Notarial Seal . Helene Friedman. Notary Public Norristown BC?ro, Mo~tgomEtry Coun~ My CommiSSion Expires Apr. 1. 200 \N ~~~~ " ~,,~,'.- -, .';;1': j:n The Court of C{)lmmOIDl Pleas of C.umbedar.ld County, Pennsylvania Manufacturing Concepts Corporatioh VS. prisim En9inee. r~'n '.2.7='..3 et. al.. Serve: John R. Ewell v-"" No: 20-5508 Civil . t1>tO 14o~"'Q:,"", 0., ~e-.::> HOY'Sh~, (?-d. lCjO~~ N<>iv, 8!9' / 00 , 20 0 (1 , I, SHERIFF OF CU1v1BERLAND COUN"TY, P A, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Man t 90mery County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. .. ~j ~~~# . 1/1 SheriffofCumberl!lIldCotmty,PA G Affidavit of Service Now , Au J 1'/ ,20 Ou ,at (jf3tJ o'clock A M. served the J t/ "ez l"'-r.liJ J 0; AI III ~ C w!5'CL within at T1 !5()u 6 /lp t> off" o c:> upon ~ C'r ", a ~ -:J t:/ /-1;J 2 l';' tJ l>(..,/..- ~?-.tJ ff copy of the original v fi" /k t# #.-J .J~;.;; i~' . N O'l the contents thereof. ~. by handing to and made lm.own to /113~ IJ t5 .-< Notarial Seal Helene Friedman. Notary Public Norristown Boro. Montgomery County My Commission Expires Apr. 1. 2004 & ~ /i1 ~ fll;.J Sheriff of A~~#4f~/ Co nty, PA Sworn and subscrib methii~ day COSTS. SERV1CE I\1ILEAGE AFFIDAVIT $ $ VJ~ ~ X\ "_c ~''"'''''';JI In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Manufacturing Concepts Corporation YS. ~ Prisim Engineeri~~~., et. al.' Serve: Lynne A. Ewell J No. 20-5508 Civil t.f~o !--\Orf;\\rl.(r) .~r., ~c.6 ~1o('s;;;"6((\". ~'a. l qo~y Now, 8/9/00 ,200(1, I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Mon t 90mery County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk ofthe Plaintiff. . ~~~# . &. Sheriff of Cumberland County, P A r!3:!/ Affidavit of Service Now, )9 f/i /'-1 , 20 vO , at , of"J (; o'clock,4 M. served the upon f v 1V11/I'J/N -1 . :fi; j../ N K f" w ~ t. [. within at /tJ J3t:-(.I!5' /l j)j)fl~Jj' :;; /I.-J "? C tJ b (. L ~I./IC copy ofthe original 'J c::> ;::,. J v P1 /1'7,?/;1/Ji1; by handing to a and made known to ,413,1./ S- Notarial Seal Helene Friedman. Notary Public Norristown Bore, Montgomery County My Commission Expires Apr. 1. 2004 e;thZ]CO nts th~:: ~;; ..u~', ()') ~..j . .-< Sheriff of ) ~pd/;'-/r~ County, PA Sworn and subscrib me this/&" day . 20 tf-() ; '-1 COSTS SERVICE lYfILEAGE AFFIDA VIT $ $ 'J~~'l\ >'" ~ - ildJ,.J,j<ll_~j;;. t .". @flice of tlp~ ~4~~iff Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Ralph G. McAllister ChiefDepuly Michael W. Rinehart Assistant ChiefDepuly Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1710 1 ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP vs County of Dauphin ROMONOWSKI DAVID A Sheriff's Return No. 1838-T - -2000 OTHER COUNTY NO. 00-5508 AND NOW: A~gust 25, 2000 at 12:17PM served the ",ithin SUMMONS upon ROMaNOWSKI DAVID A by personally handing to HIM 1 true attested copy(ies) of the original SUMMONS and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 243 SOUTH MILL ROAD HUMMELSTOWN, PA 17036-0000 e..~aMMJ So Answers, JR~ Sworn and subscribed to before me this 25TH day of AUGUST, 2000 PROTHONOTARY By Sheriff's Costs: $29.25 PD 08/14/2000 RCPT NO 140038 MLYNEK ""~ j I" . 't,R. ,~In The Court of Gommon Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. ~~anufacturing Concepts Corporation . VS, Prism Engineering, Inc., et. al. Serve: David A. Romanowski No. 20-5508 Civil Now, 8/9/00 ,200(1,1, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. . .... r~~t:~# Sheriff of Cumberland County, P A Affidavit of Service Now, , 20_, at 0' clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a copy of the original and made known to the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of County. PA Sworn and subscribed before me this _ day of 20 '- COSTS SERV1CE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT $ $ ',", =,^,,- n~11 ~- - " ~-~ ~ , ,- -I - ~" J~!;~,'i MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP., Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000-5508 CIVIL TERM vs. PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, and DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, Defendants. PRAECIPE TO the Prothonotary: Please enter our appearance as attorneys for Plaintiff, Manufacturing Concepts Corp., in the above-captioned matter. GATES & By: Esquire supreme Court I.D. #66737 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-9600 Dated: --.N 01/.. ~ , 2000 '".~. ,-"-~ ""..~ . . MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, AND DAVID A. ROMANOWSKI, Defendants ~,~,~> - ...~ \ III.II!!I ~~~ .~ .2J~1l\;>., . : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ; Docl<etNo.,,{'OOO - 5.5:0 S : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please Withdraw tile appearance of tile undersigned for Plaintiff in tile above captioned asction November 2, 2000 ther E.MiI$paw, r., E MILSPAW & BESHoRE Supreme Ct. ID NO. 19226 no Slate Street, P.O. Box HarRsburg, PA 1710l (117) 236.0781 .-" I "';~c -~---.~illll,~~~~ - '!.t~';~"~~~Bl . "~"'""">~'''''''_~'''~~~'~ ...,,,,,,,,~. ~ ,~_ ._,,' V~~,~. ."~,,c. ,~_..,..,- ~ "_', ~~. " ~~,~" " . - '. ~- .... "-~-Ii ~. " -,," ~ 'tr-MI'llig-Ll" ." '-'-, ~-, ~,-,- 0 co t--:) c: C.:> 'Tl ;;: .~ P'- -oce (;J 'n mrT: ~:.: "t";;: z::n ZC- en 1.1)2;- .t:- ;.:::! r:C" 0 '< " :,:.::.... -_:::-i -?n ...l____ C)-~ Z(", -:;:..( .J J>" 'E (.'3rn c: z -1 =< => 55 -< .. ,. ' - "'r.'~ , MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP., Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, and DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, Defendants. NO. 2000-5508 CIVIL TERM NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment 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 ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 'i ., , ,"~- ^ ;@ ~ i I ! MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP., Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, and DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, Defendants. NO. 2000-5508 CIVIL TERM COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Manufacturing Concepts Corporation (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), by and through its counsel, Gates & Associates, P.C., and makes the fOllowing complaint: 1. Plaintiff is a pennsylvania business corporation having its principal offices at 3901 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 106, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, pennsylvania 17011. 2. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff has engaged in the business of selling software, hardware, training and support services for computer aided design ("CAD") and computer aided machining ("CAM") throughout Pennsylvania, Maryland, virginia, West Virginia and Delaware. 3. Defendant Prism Engineering, Inc. (hereinafter "prism") is a corporation having its principal office at 440 Horsham Road, Suite 5, Horsham, Montgomery County, pennsylvania 19044. '.'. "'& 4. Defendants John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell are an adult married couple, and at all times relevant hereto, they have been the sole owners of Prism's corporate stock and have acted as Prism's principal corporate officers. 5. Defendant David A. Romanoski (hereinafter "Romanoski") is an adult individual now residing at 243 South Mill Road, Hummels town , Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17036. 6. From September 30,1996, through June 11, 1999, Romanoski was employed by Plaintiff as a sales representative. 7. In connection with such employment, Plaintiff entrusted Romanoski with a database containing the names, addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers and contact persons for more than 900 of Plaintiff's customers. 8. Plaintiff developed its customer database over the course of twelve years at great expense and effort, prior to Romanoski's employment. 9. On or about June 11, 1999, Romanoski terminated his employment with Plaintiff. 10. Upon information and belief, Romanoski thereafter became associated with Prism either as an employee or an independent 2 '-~=~ ". ;a:eL contractor/agent. 11. Plaintiff subsequently learned that Prism had solicited several of the customers identified on Plaintiff's database. 12. Prism has admitted that it has Plaintiff's customer database and that it received the database from Romanoski. 13. Upon information and belief, Romanoski is still associated with Prism. 14. Upon information and belief, Prism has solicited and continues to solicit customers identified on Plaintiff's database. 15. upon information and belief, Prism was not familiar with said customers before its acquisition of Plaintiff's database. COUNT I CONVERSION 16. The averments of the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 15 are incorporated herein by reference. 17. Romanoski and Prism wrongfully and intentionally converted Plaintiff's customer database for their own use and gain. 18. Plaintiff has an immediate right to the return of its database. 19. Since learning that Plaintiff's database had been converted, Plaintiff's officers and employees have expended 3 -~~ ~ substantial time and money in order to investigate the extent of Prism's solicitations and mitigate the damages caused by Prism's solicitations. 20. Plaintiff has lost and continues to lose revenue due to the conversion of its database. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Romanoski and Prism, jointly and severally, for: A. An accounting of all revenues collected by Romanoski and/or Prism from Plaintiff's customers; B. Damages in an amount exceeding the threshold for compulsory arbitration under local rules, plus punitive damages, pre-Judgment interest, costs and attorney fees; C. A permanent injunction enjoining Romanoski and Prism, either individually or through any other corporation or entity, from soliciting the customers identified in Plaintiff's database; and D. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. 4 ~ - ,,- ""'---'- , --~ - -.(-. COUNT II INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 21. The averments of ,the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated herein by reference. 22. Romanoski and Prism have, without privilege or other lawful justification, communicated with Plaintiff's customers with the intent to interfere with the performance of the contracts between Plaintiff and said customers and to induce said customers to refrain from further business with Plaintiff. 23. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendants' communications with Plaintiff's customers have caused Plaintiff pecuniary damages by interfering with the performance of the contracts between Plaintiff and said customers and by inducing said customers to refrain from further business with Plaintiff. 24. It is believed and therefore averred that Romanoski and Prism intend to further communicate with Plaintiff I s existing customers with the intent to interfere with the performance of the contracts between Plaintiff and said customers and to induce said customers to refrain from further business with Plaintiff. 5 " . h~" WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands jUdgment against Romanoski and Prism, jointly and severally, for: A. An accounting of all revenues collected by Romanoski and/or Prism from Plaintiff's customers; B. Damages in an amount exceeding the threshold for compulsory arbitration under local rules, plus punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorney fees; C. A permanent injunction enjoining Romanoski and Prism, either individually or through any other corporation or entity, from sOliciting the customers identified in Plaintiff's database; and D. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT III UNFAIR COMPETITION 25. The averments of the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated herein by reference. 26. Plaintiff's customer database contains proprietary information which is vital to the conduct of Plaintiff's business. 6 '" . 11 flU J" ---'- ~ -'" - - < -~~-"",,," "'" 27. Romanoski acquired Plaintiff's customer database in his capacity as Plaintiff's employee. 28. Prism knew or should have known that Romanoski acquired the database through his employment with Plaintiff. 29. It is inequitable and unjust for Romanoski and Prism to use the database to benefit themselves to the detriment of Plaintiff. 30. Prism's sOlicitation of Plaintiff's customers is likely to cause confusion among the customers because Plaintiff and Prism offer similar products and services, most notably "MasterCAM" products. 31. It is inequitable and unjust for prism to use the aforesaid confusion to benefit itself to the detriment of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Romanoski and Prism, jointly and severally, for: A. An accounting of all revenues collected by Romanoski and/or Prism from Plaintiff's customers; B. Damages in an amount exceeding the threshold for compulsory arbitration under local rules, plus 7 -~, '--.li punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorney fees; C. A permanent injunction enjoining Romanoski and Prism, either individually or through any other corporation or entity, from soliciting the customers identified in Plaintiff's database; and D. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT IV INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY OF JOHN R. EWELL AND LYNNE A. EWELL FOR PRISM'S OBLIGATIONS 32. Paragraphs 1 through 31 of this complaint are herein incorporated by reference. 33. As the sole shareholders and principal officers of Prism, John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell have controlled Prism's business operations at all times relevant to this action. 34. As the sole shareholders and principal officers of Prism, John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell materially participated in the conversion of Plaintiff's database and solicitation of Plaintiff's customers, as more fully described above. 8 -~ "L~:i 35. As the sole shareholders and principal officers of Prism, John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell personally profited from the conversion of Plaintiff's database and solicitation of Plaintiff's customers, as more fUlly described above. 36. John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell have operated Prism as an alter eqo of themselves and should, therefore, be required to individually satisfy Prism's obligations to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell, jointly and severally, for: A. An accounting of all revenues collected by the Ewells, or either of them, from Plaintiff's customers; B. Damages in an amount exceeding the threshold for compulsory arbitration under local rules, plus punitive damages, pre-judgment interest. costs and attorney fees; C. A permanent injunction enjoining the Ewells, either individually, jointly or through any corporation or other entity. from sOliciting the customers identified in Plaintiff's database; and 9 DATE: -I. .-"^ ~LJ _, D. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. Illik;J1 , Respectfully submitted, GATES & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ?~!: i;!@ Mark E. Halbruner, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #66737 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne. PA 17043 (717) 731-9600 (Attorneys for Plaintiff) 10 L' ..iElL' JAN-II-OI THU 10:40 GATES & ASSOCIATES P.C. FAX NO, 7319627 P.02 VERIFICATION The foregoing pleading is based partially upon information which 1 have provided and part.ially upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in preparat ion of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of my counsel and is noL my own. I have read the document and - to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to Ute best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that che content of the document is that of my counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, wtlich provides that if T make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORPORATION, a pennsylvania corporation Date, #_ "' k::' <'^_, ~"^-,,-,,-,.,rl ~. ~"~--' ~_ij ~1IilllIWs ~~ J_ ~.~~ ~.... ~. ~^)i"" ~~'<"') ~(j; "-..: '.'1 ^ , t1~~/h' ./44; ,," ,/>;,~~ 'q,,,,- ~!,.~ 'C'.:1') "., ~ if&l """ ,(.,-,~',::>-. ".. '. '</tc~';'O/i/> """'~ 'v.( 1J,/ ., '- ."t~,... ,.~ - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark E. Halbruner, Esquire, of the law firm of Gates & Associates, P.e., hereby certifY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint. on this date by first-class United States mail, to the following: Ralph R. Smith, III, Esquire Pepper Hamilton LLP Liberty View Bldg., Suite 420 457 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-2220 (Attorneys for Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell) David A. Romanoski 243 South Mill Road Hummelstown, PA 17036 GATES & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By:m#~f~~- Mark E. Halbruner, EsqUire 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne, P A 17043 (717) 731-9600 Date: \ 1./ 9, /0 ( , ",' 1 I ~ I I I. I', I I I: I: I ': ~-<""- . -. = _,; _, _ -'~'--i-, ., --"-"- , ""-b:1 . .. Ralph R. Smith, 3rd PEPPER HAMILTON ILP 200 One Keystone Plaza North Front and Market Streets P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181 Attorneys for Defendants Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORPORATION, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, v. CNIL ACTION - LAW PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, and DAVID A ROMANOSKI, NO. 2000-5508 CNIL TERM Defendants. ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes Prism Engineering, Inc. ("Prism"), John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell, by and through its counsel, Pepper Hamilton LLP, and submits the following Answer with New Matter in response to the complaint filed against them in the above action: 1. After reasonable investigation, these defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and accordingly leaves plaintiff to its proofs. 2. After reasonable investigation, these defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and accordingly leaves plaintiff to its proofs. 3. Admitted. '" , "v.,_., -., . -. 'N"-" __ ".".', ~- ,'. _,,'~,"., '.,,;,,~.', .~.>.'~""_ _,_L__ ,_,".J.C,: 4. To the extend that this paragraph states legal conclusions, no response is required. However, to the extent that this paragraph contains facts as opposed to legal conclusions, those facts are admitted. 5. After reasonable investigation, these defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and accordingly leaves plaintiff to its proofs. 6. After reasonable investigation, these defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and accordingly leaves plaintiff to its proofs. 7. After reasonable investigation, these defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and accordingly leaves plaintiff to its proofs. 8. After reasonable investigation, these defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and accordingly leaves plaintiff to its proofs. 9. After reasonable investigation, these defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and accordingly leaves plaintiff to its proofs. 10. It is admitted solely that Romanoski became associated with Prism as an independent contractor. All other allegations of this paragraph are denied. 11. Denied. 12. Denied. -2- - """"-10.'.' - e,,'~ .' ;, l-- ,,-~ -' '-;,--, ]0\ 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. 15. Denied. COUNT I CONVERSION 16. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs 1 through 15 above as fully set forth herein. 17. Denied. 18. This paragraph states a legal conclusion for which no response is required. 19. After reasonable investigation, these answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph, and accordingly leaves plaintiff to its proofs. 20. Denied. WHEREFORE, Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell hereby demand judgment in the form of the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, along with an award of defense costs and such other further relief as this court deems equitable and just. COUNT II INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 21. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs 1 through 20 above as fully set forth herein. 22. Denied. 23, Denied. -3- .-,-,:.^'" -;'-.- -'-'j 24. Denied. WHEREFORE, Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell hereby demand judgment in the form of the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, along with an award of defense costs and such other further relief as this court deems equitable and just. COUNT III UNFAIR COMPETITION 25. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs 1 through 24 above as fully set forth herein. 26. After reasonable investigation, these defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and accordingly leaves plaintiff to its proofs. 27. After reasonable investigation, these defendants are without know ledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and accordingly leaves plaintiff to its proofs. 28. Denied. 29. This paragraph states legal conclusions for which no response is necessary. To the extent that this paragraph states anything other than legal conclusions, they are denied. 30. Denied. 31. Denied. WHEREFORE, Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell hereby demand judgment in the form of the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, -4- , " --0_"7;'" ~ . " , '" v' - _ ,. ,,' _ . , .,' ',-~ ,~.__", ._' - ". ." ,c:-"~f:j along with an award of defense costs and such other further relief as this court deems equitable and just. COUNT IV INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY OF JOHN R. EWELL AND LYNNE A. EWELL FOR PRISM'S OBLIGATIONS 32. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs 1 through 31 above as fully set forth herein. 33. It is admitted only that John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell are sole shareholders and principal officers of Prism (JOHN: PLEASE CONFIRM OR DENY THIS FOR ME). The remaining allegations of this paragraph state legal conclusions for which no response is required. However, to the extent that this paragraph states anything other than legal conclusions, they are denied. 34. Denied. 35. Denied. 36. Denied. WHEREFORE, Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell hereby demand judgment in the form of the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, along with an award of defense costs and such other further relief as this court deems equitable and just. NEW MATTER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 37. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. -5- " "'--",,". .- -~ ..'. ~,- " - - - "'~. .~." ~ .~ ,," ;,",-" 38. These answering defendants breached no duties, contractual or otherwise, to plaintiff. 39. Plaintiff's claims are barred by its failure to Mitigate Damages. 40. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands. 41. The alleged actions ofthese answering defendants did not cause any damages to plaintiff. 42. To the extent that Prism Engineering received any information from David Romanoski, it was neither confidential nor proprietary under the applicable Pennsylvania law. 43. Plaintiff is unable to establish an entitlement to any type of injunctive or other form of equitable relief. 44. Any losses allegedly suffered by plaintiff were not the result of any conduct by these answering defendants. c2/~J;/ Ralph R. Smith, 3rd PEPPER HAMILTON UP 200 One Keystone Plaza North Front and Market Streets P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181 (717) 255-1155 Attorneys for Defendants Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell Dated: February 21,2001 NJ: #34086 vI (Q@%OlLWPD) 121556-3 -6- =- ,_ 'f> ',,'. .'" " ,'~' .. FEB-05-2001 11:45 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP-NJ 855 665 7743 P.09/ll VERIFICATION The foregoing pleading is based partially upon information which r have provided and partially upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in defense of this lawsuit. The language of the document is that of my counsel and is not my 9wn. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is trUe and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the elltent that the content of the document is that of my counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are subject to the penalties of 18 PA.C.S. ~ 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, r may be subject to criminal penalties. PRISM ENGINEERING, INC. Dated: February .2001 ii"'. ... . 'ci.' --,',c'-- ,,~". ~~, .~,,'~ .~ ,~",~,," ~ "',.. -, . .:. ~,,~-._. , <'" ,,:.' ,~_ he' . - - -;.," ;, , :'-- h ~. <C. ",;.;~,",.,., . ",,,.. ~ " . . .' ,. ..,d .. ...,.. " __I i 0 C) c:: -. .." ---I S -nUi i'1 m[p ':~O -- ~~~: '''-.) "" --< ,- - ~[$, ----:1 f:Y <-~ c: ;~~ ~ C- -< cn .", -< " . "" "'.~. ,', ',,'" , . ' "'".'.'. '^" "J' ,..., ,"~' " r-:'1 Ralph R. Smith, 3rd PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 200 One Keystone Plaza North Front and Market Streets P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181 Attorneys for Defendants Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORPORATION, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, v. CNll., ACTION - LAW PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, and DAVID A ROMANOSKI, NO. 2000-5508 CIVIL TERM Defendants. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of defendants, Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell in the above-captioned matter. a~~~ Ralph R. Smith, 3rd PEPPER HAMILTON ILl' 200 One Keystone Plaza North Front and Market Streets P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181 (717) 255-1155 Attorneys for Defendants Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell Dated: February 21,2001 NJ: #34612 vI (QPGOl!.WPD) 121S56-3 ~,"F " :iU! > '." "".' ",''; ~,;lli>~'''' ., " ~ - ~ _'0," A-l~' ,-~- ' _ ~",C ," ,.~ '., ,~ Ijgl_- 0 c::> C) c "(1 <" -" --.~ -Ol~. i"'T1 - - "T1 ml"i'i tX} 1 1'''- 2:'X1 7',r- N -- ~:~~'T: f'0 , ~~.i CJ 5C~: --T '"' :::D zC: ."'.. C> ~(od N -j rr: C__ ~;;; z: !;:"" =<! :TJ 0:> -< ,', ,""'_ _..-,O.'",_,~-" ',.' '._ ",-,.> - _.__" ""__~_,,' ,~;",,"~', _'. +_~, MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : No. 2000-5508 Civil Term PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, and DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP., Plaintiff Mark E. Halbruner, Esquire Gates & Associates, P.C. 1013 Mumma Road Suite 100 Lemoyne, P A 17043 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed NEW MATTER within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. By: DATE: ~. 2~,()( ~" ' ";"":'001 L,' I '~ 'I J 1 '1 :'~ ,'1 ,. I [j i~ l i~ !~ '.1 ~ :~ ~ l ~ l, ;j l I I " I rl ,1 I ~ ., tl ._L__ . ul ,""n '_'_ ~>",u" _~, __, ,_,_ ,,"'., - "' '. --, - , '-';;' ',.. , ';..~, ,Yo"",",;', ,n,. ....1 - ---" MANUFACTURlNG CONCEPTS CORP., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : No. 2000-5508 Civil Term PRISM ENGINEERlNG, INC., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW and DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DAVID A. ROMANOSKI WITH NEW MATTER 1. Admitted. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant, in the course of his employment with MCC, came ,:: '~ -.~'~ , . . " -'"'':'-"~=,,,,~,, !'- . c' ," =~,,- , .",,-J;o- k" , .c -"- L~':':: into personal contact with many individual and corporate customers who utilized CAD/CAM software. Defendant provided product support and application engineering services to those individual and corporate customers, and, in the course of providing such services, became aware of their names, addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, and contact persons. The remaining averments are denied as, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. To the contrary, on September 10, 1999, Defendant entered into a sub-dealer agreement with CNC Software, Inc. for the purpose of marketing Mastercam Software as a sub- dealer of Prism Engineering, Inc., an authorized Mastercam Reseller. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 13. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant continues to operate under the sub-dealer agreement with CNC Software, Inc. . . - ~.' , .' :,,0' ,"",c_f'.-.-,. -cl- 1,/ 0 --'j ",) -; ,,-,,:, , . . ,. . 'JL:~ 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. COUNT I 16. Denied. This paragraph contains no averments offact to which Defendant may reply, 17. Denied. Defendant specifically denies any wrongful conversion of Plaintiff' s data base. 18. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are conclusions oflaw not requiring answers by Defendant. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. WHEREFORE, Defendant David A. Romanoski demands judgment against Plaintiff, with cost of suit. COUNT II 21. This paragraph contains no averments of fact to which Defendant may respond. 22. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant has communicated with individuals and corporations which may, at one time, have been customers of MCC, to which individuals and corporations he ^,,'"" ",' "C""'" ,- , .",',. ':. <' --,~ "0<' " - .", ., ,- ~--- Co_' 'oL"",,\ provided services during his employment with MCC and with whom he developed a personal relationship during his tenure with MCC. In addition, Defendant has responded to contacts which he received from individuals and corporations which may have been customers ofMCC prior to the termination of Defendant' s employment with MCC. The remaining averments ofthis paragraph are denied, as after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 23. Denied. Defendant specifically denies that any action or conduct of Defendant has caused Plaintiff to suffer any pecuniary damage whatsoever or that any action or conduct of Defendant has caused any customer ofPlaintiffto refrain from doing business with Plaintiff. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. WHEREFORE, Defendant David A. Romanoski demands judgment against Plaintiff, with cost of suit. COUNT III 25. This paragraph contains no averments of fact to which Defendant may reply. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. ,- , -;''0"", '_,"_'",,' ';,,'" I','''..; ,-, ", 'J'.. -., -';;;'; 27. Denied. By way of further answer, the averments of the foregoing paragraph 7 are incorporated herein by reference. Defendant specifically denies that he acquired any proprietary information in his capacity as Plaintiffs employee. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 29. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are conclusions of law not requiring answer by Defendant. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 31. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are conclusions of law not requiring answer by Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant David A. Romanoski demands judgment against Plaintiff, with cost of suit. COUNT IV 32. - 36. The averments ofthese paragraphs are directed to Defendants other than answering Defendant. NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT DAVID A. ROMANOSKI 37. Defendant Romanoski was employed as an at will employee of MCC prior to the termination of his employment on or about June 11, 1999. " ,",__ ~~ ,',',,' >0.".,. ""''''",''''~~""""", ,..,,~ "'_''',' ".'$,".'. 0',,, - ~" ,',' ," ,', 'C'" . ',. ".;.. .,' '.'<' .',." ;{ '1 38. Defendant had no written employment contract with MCC and was not constrained by ~; :! ,\ ., i: i! it L\ l! " Ii iI j1 any covenant not to compete after his termination of employment. 39. Throughout the course of his employment with MCC, Defendant became personally II [j n U ~ :j \~ acquainted with many individuals and corporations who were customers ofMCC, as well as many other individuals and corporations who were not customers ofMCC. 40. Since the time of the termination of his employment with MCC, Defendant has ij I' I! ~ " ~ ,1 if !} Ii I ! continued to provide services to the individuals and corporations with whom he dealt prior to and during his course of his employment with MCC, as well as with individuals and corporations who have contacted him since the time of his departure from MCC. 41. Defendant has not utilized any confidential information of any nature whatsoever which was supplied to him by MCC, and denies any such confidential information was supplied to him by MCC. 42. After his departure from MCC, many individuals and corporations made contact with Defendant and requested Defendant's services in support of their CAD/CAM software, and Defendant has continued to provide those services to individuals and corporations, including some who may previously have been customers of MCC. 43. All of the individuals and corporations who have continued to deal with Defendant have done so out of consideration for Defendant's individual aptitude, skill, dexterity, manual and menta! ability, and subjective knowledge, which attributes are the property of Defendant, and not the property ofMCC. 44. Defendant is justified in utilizing the information which he possesses in the conduct of his business after termination of his employment with MCC. '-'-'~, WHEREFORE, Defendant David A. Romanoski demands judgment against Plaintiff, with cost of suit. DATE: 2 -~) .... 0/ , ".""0'_'" ,,';' ,<'.',' "._,-".'._-- , "'~ .- ,',.2' .," ',< , -<~;! ti " iJ l~ ~j 'i fJ H .. "' I'j .. ij Ii :'1 rJ I,j " :1 .. :I i,J 'I Ij il ['j I il ~l r~ IJ ~ I 11 i , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, on the date below he served a true copy of the ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DAVID A. ROMANOSKI WITH NEW MATTER on the person below, at the address set forth by First Class United States Mail: MARK E. HALBRUNER, ESQUIRE GATES & ASSOCIATES, P.c. 1013 MUMMA ROAD SUITE 100 LEMOYNE, P A 17043 RALPH R. SMITH, III, ESQUIRE PEPPER HAMILTON LLP LIBERTY VIEW BUILDING, SUITE 420 457 HADDONFIELD ROAD CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002-2220 ON LD.#25 97 407 N Front Street P.O. Box 12027 Harrisburg, PA 17108-2027 (717) 232-0511 DATE: 2,-t."J ....O( . .... " 'O~ "'n h"' .'" 0"'" ,~" ,,>,~', '" '~'~",~", ,.,.~"'L""",,__, '-,'.";,0",,,< ", _"',. _,''''~ '~,; . VERIFICATION I, DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, hereby verify that I am the Defendant herein, and that the statements made in the foregoing ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DA VID A. ROMANOSKI WITH NEW MATTER are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned also verifies that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 4-!l4ri /21 David A. Romanoski Date: 01/;).9/0/ , '~'i:~' ~ 1< ., '"";.~ ;'::jif'L'f "'" <~ "" '.~" '~'~. ~.i '~'- ,. "iUIU n 1=1 n C < -" -C ," r'!'" TT; ,..-0 :z::. r'..) :-:' u; ......; ~. - G -n :s ..' -, 2-) z l_ , c::::; ,n 0:;: Cd ~ c , --, L.. ;D ~ .~. -< ~ ~ .,.. . " 0" ~ '" ' '0'='"'. ~,. ,- ~,.'" _~ .." l..<,., _ . ,---,<,"" -""..,.",- .~,,_. - ~- ',' ~,'~"""'.;"r ~'" ,-,',""r,"=,'~'" "'''~,".. >,,,-,"'. '~._~.'''"~-'~'-~'",-"W' - ~"""';~f~:,i . I [! r i I' i' Ii I " I~i 1'1 .. i; I:: ! vs. : No. 2000-5508 Civil Term I:: i I; 11 I'i I , ;': r:: I MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, and DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED i: n I i,; I:: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Enter my appearance as attorney for Defendant David A. Romanoski in the above-captioned matter. By HONY S I.D.#25497 407 North t Street P.O. Box 12027 Harrisburg, P A 17108-2027 (717) 232-0511 DATE: 2- e.-? -0 I " ~~ ~. ~~ _" _.'k." ~"n,. _ _ ~~"""<"<~' .,. "_, "-",,,,-,,,,.-. " <>.~, .~. .~, """'. <' ,ij ::~ ,/ ,[' >1 :;'j ):~i . ,: "I i~ I"~ ., ,Ji ',: I, i:,j 1~1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE , :~ ,< " 1:1 , !I~ i~ .., :~j ~ The undersigned hereby certifies that, on the date below he served a true copy of a Entry of ~l Ii /~ ,"J ., "I l !!~ :',1 Appearance, on each of the persons listed below, at the addresses set forth, by First Class United States Mail: MARK E. HALBRUNER, ESQUIRE GATES & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1013 MUMMA ROAD SUITE 100 LEMOYNE PA 17043 I~ ~! I',~ !~ ~ RALPH R. SMITH III, ESQUIRE PEPPER HAMIL TON LLP SUITE 420 LIBERTY VIEW BUILDING 457 HADDONFIELD ROAD CHERRY HILL NJ 08002-2220 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ONY ST LD.#25497 407 North P.O. Box 12027 Harrisburg, PA 17108-2027 (717) 232-0511 By: DATE: -Z-Z?-O( '-, _,~' I "",~. ~,);L)Jilll1J1] J .JlI!l1lfn:".,[)!1~,~ ,," ;,," - " " ,'"-~.--",'-- -, -<' ~, ,,,,,,..,,,.,' ., ',<:',",,'",0 _~L", .." y, '";;,~::: .~~",_ ~ "~, .." "-,.~,".",,.' ^~~~. """"'" , n CI (') C ~n -;". -.-, -C r;.:; ~q " ~ IT) r ~~ "- Z ~J'--' ~',- .. "/ r-- . ~ )'--, cii '-J .~- , , - r "- ) r:: C! ~~ - C" -- 2 C) '-'::-;- C-=-.' C') :.J i'i, -- c: :;..-J ':';>- ~ :"1 -" .r:- -< ~ ~- :~ f MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP., Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION . LAW PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, and DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, Defendants. NO. 2000-5508 CIVIL TERM I' ~ REPLY TO NEW MATTER RAISED BY DEFENDANTS PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL AND LYNNE A. EWELL ~ ~ !l ~ AND NOW, comes Manufacturing Concepts Corporation (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), by and through its counsel, Gates & Associates, P.C.. ~ ~ and makes the following reply to the new matter raised by " G ~ Defendants Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell: 37. Denied as a conclusion of law for which no response is required. 38. Denied as a conclusion of law for which no response is required. 39. Denied as a conclusion of law for which no response is required. TO the extent a response is required. Plaintiff has expended substantial time and money in efforts to mitigate its damages. ~ ^- ---'.'11I111&J 40. Denied as a conclusion of law for which no response is required. 41. Denied as a conclusion of law for which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, see the complaint. 42. Denied as a conclusion of law for which no response is required. 43. Denied as a conclusion of law for which no response is required. 44. Denied as a conclusion of law for which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, see the Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the answering Defendants for the relief described in the Complaint. Respectfully submitted, GATES & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /1!0Aj ~ ~.. Mark E. Halbruner, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #66737 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-9600 (Attorneys for plaintiff) DATE: ~/I/Ol 2 q,,,>,.- " ~ VERIFICATION The foregoing pleading is based partially upon information which I have provided and partially upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of my counsel and is not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the document is that of my counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation Date: ~9/f/ ~ .",~ , "....""'.'1 , I I I I ~. i1la 'oM;, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark E. Halbruner, Esquire, of the law firm of Gates & Associates, P.c., hereby certifY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing reply. on this date by first-class United States mail, to the following: Date: Ralph R. Smith, III, Esquire Pepper Hamilton LLP Liberty View Bldg., Suite 420 457 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-2220 (Attorneys for Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell) Anthony Stefanon, Esquire 407 North Front Street P.O. Box 12027 Harrisburg, PA 17108-2027 (Attorney for David A. Romanoski) ~IIJo\ GATES & ASSOCIATES, P.c. BY: Mark E. Halbruner, E quire 10 13 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 73 1-9600 (Attorneys for Plaintiff) -~\; MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP., Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, and DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, Defendants. NO. 2000-5508 CIVIL TERM REPLY TO NEW MATTER RAISED BY DEFENDANT DAVID A. ROMANOSKI AND NOW, comes Manufacturing Concepts Corpora tion (hereinafter "plaintiff"), by and through its counsel, Gates & Associates, P.C., and makes the following reply to the new matter raised by Defendant David A. Romanoski: 37. Admitted. 38. Admitted. 39. Admitted in part, and denied in part. It is admitted that throughout the course of his employment wi th Plaintiff, Defendant Romanoski came in contact with Plaintiff's customers. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. . ~,~ i, ;.i.,~". n; 40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 41. Denied for the reasons more fully described in the Complaint. 42. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to i , , .i i the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 43. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and proof thereof is demanded if relevant. 44. Denied as a conclusion of law for which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, see the Complaint. 2 ~ ".~ 1'1]5i;; WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands jUdgment against Defendant Romanoski for the relief described in the Complaint. Respectfully submitted, GATES & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~Ac. -;;;j~ Mark E. Halbruner, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #66737 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-9600 (Attorneys for Plaintiff) DATE: ") (~/O{ 3 . .- , -, '~, VERIFICATION The foregoing pleading is based partially upon information which I have provided and partially upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of my counsel and is not my own. I have read the document and to the extent t.hat it is based upon information which I have given to my counseL it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the document is that of my counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. &4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation BY: Date: -i0/ - ." -"['J';- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark E. Halbruner, Esquire, of the law firm of Gates & Associates, P.c., hereby certifY that I selVed a true and correct copy of the foregoing reply, on this date by first-class United States mail, to the following: Ralph R. Smith, III, Esquire Pepper Hamilton LLP Liberty View Bldg., Suite 420 457 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-2220 (Attorneys for Prism Engineering, Inc., John R. Ewell and Lynne A. Ewell) Anthony Stefanon, Esquire 407 North Front Street P.O. Box 12027 Harrisburg, PA 17108-2027 (Attorney for David A. Romanoski) GATES & ASSOCIATES, P.c. BY: U1/M4~~ Mark E. Halbruner, 'squire 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne. PA 17043 (717) 731-9600 (Attorneys for Plaintifl) Jlg/nl I I Date: DEe 0 6 2002 L/ MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. : No. 2000-5508 Civil Term PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW and DAVID A. ROMANOSKl, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW this +- 10 day of f~daiJ, upon consideration of the Motion of Anthony Stefan on for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant David A. Romanoski, and upon consideration of the Consent of David A. Romanoski for Withdrawal of Appearance, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Anthony Stefanon is granted leave to withdraw his appearance as counsel for Defendant David A. Romanoski. 12-JO.O!J. t~~ ~1\J\3 1:0: ( J '\)0..\1 \ d. t\. RoO') a..~OSr\\ . o.tl:h. \-It 0.. \ 'oru.~e. p. . ijv~~\~ ,I ~ t e. t"MOJ By the Co~ y J. / . ~,~c >- g; i~ ~~~ 9.c-~' ~h- G.::"! 1--. tL C'! '"=,' ;,~~",", .",,~<~~ .,'=~ I' cr; N ~ z: 8~i <-J5~ i:i~ J)LU :.1J0.. "'5: ~"j o ~. 0:: a c..:, Ltj ~ N C; "~"""<"'~.' '" "~. ~," ",,~ -,",'~~'o" '0 ..'",,>__ ~_,i" c ,^~~,. "~",~",__,, ^. ~ ~. ,~_" .. 0,.. ~, ~ ,~"-, ' ,. --'~~." ,~. ,", ~ " ,1_ "" --,e", '-" '^ '", ,; ;;< ..-.' ,..-<- .' " -" ~ .,- "'.,.-;'_0,'." ii'. -- --~,~ \iill ,- , MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : No. 2000-5508 Civil Term PRISM ENGINEERING, INe., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW and DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION OF ANTHONY STEFANON FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DAVID A. ROMANOSKI 1. The undersigned, Anthony Stefanon, attorney, is counsel of record for Defendant David A. Romanoski in the above-captioned matter. 2. This motion is filed pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1012(b). 3. There has been no docket activity in this case since March 8, 2001. 4. Defendant David A. Romanoski wishes to exercise the right to represent himself pro-se in this litigation. 5. Attached as Exhibit A is the original Consent of David A. Romanoski for Withdrawal of Appearance. 6. The withdrawal of appearance by Anthony Stefanon, attorney will not operate to cause any delay in the litigation. " , , '~,., . ,,;....-', . ',,"', "" ~, r 'd"'. "..._, /"',,::"':..n! ""'""i WHEREFORE, the undersigned requests that the court grant leave to withdraw as attorney for David A. Romanoski. DATE:_t V 'i---(lV , .'-.-'1.:'. c., . - '''': :';~' ,,11 - -~^~4Ii CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, on the date below he served a true copy of the MOTION OF ANTHONY STEFANONFORLEA VE TOWITHDRA WAS COUNSEL FOR DAVID A. ROMANOSKI on the persons listed below, at the addresses set forth by First Class United States Mail: MARK E. HALBRUNER, ESQUIRE GATES & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1013 MUMMA ROAD SUITE 100 LEMOYNE, PA 17043 RALPH R. SMITH, III, ESQUIRE PEPPER HAMILTON LLP LIBERTY VIEW BUILDING, SUITE 420 457 HADDONFIELD ROAD CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002-2220 By: DATE:~ Z- L{ -() ~ .' . ~- '""- ^' "<'-"~A~ ..- ,,-,'._, '. ,. -"'~-" "," ;, ,"';-':-'~"",";, "-..i~- ",::-', '..''',~''': ',. ",', .-~ '0__ -~,;":. ._''-',:,o',,'_i,'" '_ '~~_ . . MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : No. 2000-5508 Civil Term PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R_ EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW and DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CONSENT OF DAVID A, ROMANOSKI FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE 1. The undersigned is David A. Romanoski, an adult individual namedasa Defendant in the above-captioned matter. 2. Anthony Stefanon, Attorney, entered his appearance and represented me in my capacity as Defendant in the above-captioned matter. 3. By this document, I do hereby consent to a withdrawal of appearance by Anthony Stefanon as attorney on my behalf in this matter. 4. I am aware of the procedural status ofthis case, and I have chosen, of my own free will, to proceed without counsel. 5. The undersigned verifies that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa CSA Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 'JJ?-qlur , I ffil!J2l David 'A. Roinanoski ':1 ~---"'-, .-" '" .... C:::---- .. -;,S. .",',"" ;.,.:,' ~ -,~ "'-'" <-~,- ~' '~ '- ".' ,,-~,-~-~., "l'"f'~Ii" .'~ 'l. -~~.......... ~"'~ . . 0 C) 0 c:: N ""T1 s: ,:::") urn t'rt 2] mrr< n z--. ']-;-1 ...1,., I , 7;--- ',---' ~~~- <.fl ~~, ~o '"U ~o ::x '~~~~ --0 :~srn ;}>(.:: ~l L c:- ;?; ::< ?i ~, . ~" .'" " ,>- _"..,0"" .~ ^ ,.'_' 0"' ''''-i,,-':O -; .,) . .' "'~, . 'I, __,;;&"""_ , ,~~ , .~,,"', ,', '.,. - ",'., , " . <:".,r,'" MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS CORP., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : No. 2000-5508 Civil Term PRISM ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN R. EWELL, LYNNE A. EWELL, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW and DAVID A. ROMANOSKI, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw my appearance as counsel for Defendant David A. Romanoski. LD.#254 407 N ont Street P.O. Box 12027 Harrisburg, PA 17108-2027 (717) 232-0511 DATE:_I'L.....- I ~l1z.-...- ~",~"~" - ,~'-" "', -," ''',', ,~" - '"""-"',... '-" "h,.;",'",,',- ,L.'..,_,_ _, ,. "'O",;,.H C";'.'_~' i "'"-"""'1 .. , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, on the date below he served a true copy of the PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE on the persons listed below, at the addresses set forth by First Class United States Mail: MARK. E. HALBRUNER, ESQUIRE GATES & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1013 MUMMA ROAD SUITE 100 LEMOYNE, PA 17043 RALPH R. SMITH, III, ESQUIRE PEPPER HAMIL TON LLP LIBERTY VIEW BUILDING, SUITE 420 457 HADDONFIELD ROAD CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002-2220 DATE: /2""'13ro2.--' '~ :""""';'" ~"~ d"' '~ " ,,-,",-,. :,';..i;"' :...' 'T "~-;;" - . ,''':..IlIIIIiIiL ~~- " -,~,- o c V~S OJ!Ti :2:( ~~ ~:,~;' ~i,:~.. ..,;:C- ;~C) Pc .":.... ::3 -, C__liiiIIiiiH F';' !-j: L: I:' r' ~ Ii,.' ., ::i ii; I'..: i! iii ~i II " i i o t....:: :::J r'q C., a -'j"j -) -:l~:! ~:S~'::? , ~ () -"'!'l :'-'~~B Orn :::,;! 5:J -< -.J > =,i: 0;)