The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-08206 l>> ~ ~ llaV'r) c. Per ~ (t Ct ~d ) 5hawY\ R~otl'0JPLCi'V\1(ff ~ ) (Y\ (L.'t' YV\~ K~'f ~~ ~ VI (;- 12-~-tV\15 ~ VV\p t..; ~ \ l~ Dtf'eIAOQl'\fS OATH In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ::lo. ~ J..o,6 ~\); I 'f/S..2tl{) r) We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitut~o~ of this Common- wealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. , oZ}~{ -{9fb aJ.r:nan AWARD We, the undersigned arbitrators. having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awar~ed, they shall be separately stated.) --r_ V00 R'\J\.D \~~'U d,t~Y\15 applicable. ) . Arbitrator, dissents. i= Date of Hearing: ~//'1/()f l-f!I{j 01 Date of Award: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD Now, the tfl'-.aay of 4f'~~l award was entered upon the docket and parties or their attorneys. , ~~, at ~ f};.11., the above notice thereof given by lIla11 to the Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $,:;)91':> of) k'~",--"" , .--, -"'-"~"'I';"f"'3 '>;i~"',:, :- -"", ',' '1"{"~,:"--'~ ,', ' - "", "",,,! '-',-""";<'" ," ,.-, "_,'~ " "',-"", '<1"',1'. ~ - ,^t' -., '-", """, ,," ,,~, ,'<_"'" .-~ ,,",'~ ,~~, -- ~ ,~ ' - ~~ J:- '637(; () l~~P Npl(IJJR~ ~{~~ t ., o-tri<J~h'1 C-. ()S2,t/tSkIM-LG'L ~ Ibfs>~.9f._. ~ I Pit 17/)/3'T~ ~ 16dl2om"^1~ 7ttfbJv ~ ~ ~Jr4o' ~~ -- C) c: ?~ 7::" r:- :~. (Jl I ga. ~_ _, . _ ~ '"' _. C"". _ ,__~,_, __, _.~ _-c__'-'" -7''''''''._'",,_ .',e__, ".~!-' .' - ~l!~l!;'~~~~~,_~1~'?~1 ~nwr--".~'1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM /1, J/' (Yj JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMONPLEASN.. 00. 3cJjrZ> ~6 UiL NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is gi...n that the appellant has filed in the aOO... Caurt af Cammon Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the dote and in the case mentioned bel"", r, ZF CODe 17011 NAME OF APPB.lANT (,...!2amG" II N liYJ, ie.v! d t i? r:.~EbV€'5 Of'f. JdXlIESS OF APPEllANT ,(J;,IjO E CASE OF (Piaintiff) (Defendant) i::~vr Cv.OOOO5"OS--OO LT 19 This block will be signed ONLY when this notafian is required under Po. R.cPJP. No. 1008B. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS ta the judgment for possession in this case. Signature af Prothonatary or Deputy If appellant was CLAIMANT (see Pa. R.GP.JP. No. 1001 (6) in action before District Justice, he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE /This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001 (7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee). PRAECIPE: To. Prothonotary RULE: To. LA-j)LE . /11 J; I /iff" j /U ",( t: ' . Name of appel~s) fAil L ~ . f?7 J.. -I /1! 1'1'. 1t//I1. C , appellee(s), to. file a complaint in this appeal r Name of appeJJee(s) 8:;) ()G ('J\)\ L) within twenty (20) days after service af rule ar suffer entry af judgment af non pros. At~~ Signature of appellant or his attorney or agent Enter rule upon (Common Pleas No. 00 /I , appellee(s). (1) You are nofifoed that a rule is hereby entered upon you to. file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date af service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) ff you do. not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOu. (3) The dote af service af this rule if servioe was by mail is the date af mei' Date: I !- d 1- (J.Q. fY-. POPe 312-84 COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY :"'@I.! -j I ~---" ~. II ,."..,~'" ~"~~ " .-, ,~~' ,,-- - , ~ ' -nwr ~ PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DA YS AFTER filing the notice of appeal, Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby swear or affirm that I served a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pieas No, , upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) 0 by personai service 0 by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appeliee, (name) , on , 19_ 0 by personal service 0 by (certified) (regisfered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. o and further that I served the Rule to File a Complaint accompanying the above Notice of Appeal upon the appellee(s) to whom the Rule was addressed on . , 19_~ 0 by personal service 0 by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's atlached hereto, SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRiBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF _ _.19__ Signature 01 affiant Signature of official before whom effidavit was made Titfe of official My commission expires on , 19______ c;;;;:- ...e: r- ~- .--..l.:... C'\ cO CA t9 ~ (") ~; -OFi~ mrl~ Z:n ~i~ r=r--' ~~:,~ .c:;.....f-) 5>.......' ~. ~i , -'. :z C) ..-;::: c:> f'::J (") "TI ~~ :l ~ cA ~ 1',.) ::G ,- {TJ ---:-Jr:J , '0 ~??] C'in1 -I '> :0 -<: -0 :::::: r:.~ co -'1"-:::; ~ '11l1l ~,~~m;:iif!!'"~ji!j;'M"~*~H~\W'lj~:,,,.){Il~~"~"""'~1j'Y-.'1<"'""F~'''<T'~')''''-''~.';-,,'~ "'.0~R,'V",H;1\'"W'~'1~"'.- ~'(' '''"'j(~"",,--,,.,:,t, ~"'-'1-"';'''~t!'!Ii~W'I.' 09-1-01 - 1IC!{)- (Yc2XC,UI' NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIl?V CIVIL CASE ,i O.'-r PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS ,~"I~/) /' ' 'RADLE, MR. & MRS. WM. C.~) . u J.f I 925 CONLEY DRIVE C,~t{, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 I" . COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND Mag_ DisL No. OJ Name, Hon. CHARLES A. CLEMENT, JR. Add"" 1106 CARLISLE ROAD CAMP HILL, PA L ~ VS. Tolophooo (717) 761-4940 17011 DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS !GREENE, MR. & MRS. KENT - K"+hR1" 3804 GETTYSBURG RD. GREENE'S WEDDING & TUXEDO ~P HILL, PA 17011 Docket No.: cv- 0000505 - 00 Date Filed: 9/08/00 I MR. & MRS. KENT GREENE 3804 GETTYSBURG RD. GREENE'S WEDDING & TUXEDO CAMP HILL, PA 17011 ~ ,~: THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: [iJ Judgment was entered for: FOR PT.A TN'I'IFF (Name) Rllnr.R, MR &, MR!l WM (' [iJ Judgment was entered against: (Name) ~RRRNR MR _ &, MR S _ lrRlll'l' in the amount of $ A22 q4 on: (Date of Judgment) 10/2~/oO o Defendants are jointly and severally liable. o Damages will be assessed on: (Date & Time) __. o This case dismissed without prejudice. Amount of Judgment Judgment Costs Interest on Judgment Attorney Fees Total. $ $ $ $ $ 767.44 55.50 .00 .00 822.94 O Amount of Judgment Subject to AttachmenV Act 5 of 1996 $ Levy is stayed for days or 0 generally stayed. Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ o o ------------ ------------ Certified Judgment Total $ ~ Objection to levy has been filed and hearing will be held: Date: Place: Time: ",...,..'.::':'.."<',.... ,'-' -'" - ! .. ... ,,-\~~,'"\H ~.~-'~. j" - . ."",' ~~'I ", I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containi Date . District Justice My commission expires first Monday of January, AOPC 315-99 2002 SEAL 1?.--" ! "1"1' " COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAl, FROM IltdJ'CXJ JUDICIAL D'STRICT DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. ()(). ~tP ~t UiL NOTICE OF APPEAL Nofice is ,gNen that the appellant has filed in the abo... Caurt af Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the D,ist,rictJustice on the dote and in the case ~ bel"", d t i? tf.1Z6V~'5 C'4'1 LMO CASE OF (Plaintiff) IJ IJ I..€ fJ1 r, ZIP CODE 170// CV .. 0000 s-oS-- 00, LT 19 This block will be signed ON,L Y when this notafion is required under Po. R.c.P J.P. Ncl. 10088." \,' . , This Notice af Appeal. when recei""d by the District Jusfice, will "perote as a SUPERSEDEAS ta the judgment for passessian in this case. rI~I'). /(/flII, C. vs. (z6'EU" y, 'filiI-i. SIGNATURE OF APPelLANT OR HIS ATTORNEY OR AGeNT 4J {a-.:t;~ (Defendant) i::<?~j Signatu(e,af f'rothonatary or Deputy , If apPel(anfiNas CLAIMANT ($ee Pa. R.CP.JP. No. 1001 (6) in ,action before Qistrict Justice, he MUST FILE A' COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after , filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. ; 'I,I'RAECIPE TO'EtII'KR RULE TO FILE COMPLA,INT AND ItULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001 (7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee). PRAECIPE: To. Prothonotary Enter rule upon . fA/J L G" .1111-. "/Iff r. 1t//I1. C . appellee(s). to. file a complaint in this appeal , Name of appellee( s) (Common Pleas No. ()()" 8:;)DG ('tUi Ll within twenty (20) days a~ service af rule ar suffer eniry af judgment af non pros. ~~~, . SignatUre of ~~~ or his attom'ey or agent J!:II;)b;. I IYJ r. I /J1rs /U u. r. I Name 0/ appeil<>efs) , appellee(s). RULE: To. Date: 'Ii: "', i~ :,~' ..,,~:~ , ~- ~ ;~, ' ~ ~.,., -~-". ;~71;3~;,.~'~'~' I ;"E \;i\,.~",t,. ,', -., t:' U'Afj. ."'\. """ , '. 'j" \~ '~:.:;' .;f'lr, '_,' '_ ':..' -;.....*-.. "< ,~~~~""",~",,'"50."":'- - -',',", ",J , '..,.' N:)PC 312-84 COURT 'FILE ~'T" '"' _~~.,,"''' ., .~~""'"'.,~,..,"""~o~~ ,,_~" I, ~ ~,- . -~~ -", ''''''~~~."-, "--...~- ,,,,.,~, ~.~.,-" PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE CI)MPlAII~T (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DA YS AFTER filing fhe nolice of appeal, Check applicable baKes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF Ct-Mj}'y-Ll4#fJ ; S$ AFFIDAVIT: I hereby swear or affirm that I served cg/a copy of fhe Nolice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. 0 (}. r.l 0 I,. (.. t V/ ,t..upon the District Justice designated therein on (dale of service) AJ (II.) ?-:2_/ 20 (/0 ._, ~ by personal service D by (cerlified) (regi~erelj) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. and upon the appellee, (name) ;111-. t M r 5, tv, l(iA_1 C. K 4 0 ..If! , on I>/UI/ 1-1 , "Hl~ D by personal service ~ by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. ~ and further that I served the Rule to Filea Complaint accompanying the above Notice of Appeal UPOIl the appellee(s) to whom the Rule was addressed on jvu V ,.;) i ., 1~ by personal service Dl by (G~~jieCI) (registered) maii, sender's attached herelo. ~P.J2 .. /It, I::p\.t,'!_., SWORN (AFFiRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME k., . C' ~{, .- THIS;:J!). DAY OF Ar)J(?~ r'!J1J1J '.t.J"..(--rh'> / P"l.eJ1.r.-((, . Signature of affiant ritla of official My commission expires on .1~ ~._-^--~~..........,.,-- NOTARIAL SEAL.-----i , MARK A GRIFFIN, Nolary Public : i ,Camp HIli Borc. Cumberland COLll1lyl ! ~~~y Commission Expires Dee 20 20/)'::1 1 -, - . "-'-~..1 '", U S Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only No InSW3JlCe Cove/age Plovlded) C:l C:J ) ',I ", \ Certified Fee I,. CJ 'I' Tl ReceIpt Fee ,.; (E.~'i, ;smentRequiredj o Restricted Delivery Fee CJ (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ $1..25 STOI", -".1/ \I\('r\! ')-0 ~..",. na', )>, ~. "'ere I 1l\~~ J / ' Cl "." --/ o ~; -ate rrlfl .~~. ~~ ~::~ .'> L_ -;0- 3. ~~;::. :~:~ ~~' S"1\1lI.lIII' ~ II"' IlECIIAIlICS8UR6 PA 17055 ..II Postage $ $0.33 . ~' ,,) {::;G Cl II"' <0 CJ ".- -,' .-' CJ I1J ru Name (Please Print Clearly) (To be comPleted~Y l1er) M___ fTI m__f!J!::~..t__f1r UM. C Pf"tlk. g: St'.."A9)op!!/fx:-----m--7J;;;-m.--.----.m--.----m....... CJ cii;;Sis;..;..m...--...-.:?c2..--?'-.....f::!.-"....--.----. .m___m..".:.:;::;;:"'"_.. r'- m~ 1'& V/, H 7c7J " . ..1 ~,'~"" "_0' ., ~MI!_~r~i!Il~""_"~~I,.""'."JrJi""!' ,~~~III'~R~P"N.!I1'JIP!,." '''''''''',~~ ' - "~~~i~~ltli!' ,-' - < ~~.;,,"~;: .;i".~,\jN,:~,~"'_~"'..F~'-"iIi',_1"IJJ-,'!-.~~;""'~r:~"f,;;{\"';~'F""-:,I,,':;.,;,I"',;;!'j,J-,,':,-,"V,,""i':,~~'jJ;~~,' Hours: Daily 12-9 Sat.10-S Greene's C?-'lIlI t HoLL Bridal and For 3804 Ger:yl bWear Specialists C 5 urg Road amp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 76Hl569 .3 IJ;U IN.;' 2. C/? u /",' (If d r/fCi''1/9r '( j'Vp: 00, 9":2..(J~. C:/t//L c~/j 1~~~:3 ;Y'~;;? IJI~ / /R.~~clf?e~ ~ "M 6-' It Ie. CO~ ~ -tv ;118 ~,q'5. jU,#uU.#L /:(~ , .c . amplete Items 1 2 . Item 4 if Restricted 6~~d 3. l'Jsa complete Print your name and a~~ery IS desired. . ~~ tt;:,t we can return the res~an the reverse a thiS card to the ca to you. or on the front if space back ?' the mailpiece 1 . permits.' . ArtIcle Addressed to: - x D. Is delivery aOdress . I differentfro . f YES, enter delivery add m ttem 11 ress below: o Agent CJ AddreSsee DYes ONe Express Mail Return Re . o C.O.D. celpt for Merchandise ed Delivery? (Extra Fee) DYes Domes~' R . ' ! _; .,.e ~urn Receipt 102595.99-M.1769 '''''''--'1''1'--- , 1 r " ! " '""'I~~~ ,",' I, ., ~ ~-""~ .. GGm~llil"ile"'s 1, 2, anti 3. Also complete ttem 4 If Reslrtcled Delivery is desired. . Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. . Attach this card to the back of the ma;lp;ece, or on the front if space pennits. 1. Article Addressed to: x ~ DAQ$l1! o Addressee DYes o No ~ D. Is delivery address different from item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: ./kJ IIYI(L~ D/I.S/A R'f1Vl CRee/Vt C R(f.>-B-Nfs t$~/Oi?'" '.- '_-c, GE7N5.6c-12G /Cot D Ht LL flt1 /?o I J 3. Service Type l!f Certified Mail 0 Express Mail _ ~ 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise o Insured Mall CI C.O.D. ,4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes ?J ~Cf d1>r1f' . IlJi?~r;-. , . , ~'.'f '. "1'1" ",; "'I PS Fa 1Q2595.00-M-0952 ~. ~- , , (I! , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY William C. Radle and Sharon Radle, Plaintiffs v. Common Pleas No. 00 8206 (Civil) Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill, Defendants AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 8, 2000, I served a true and correct copy of the Complaint of William C. Radle and Sharon Radle on the Defendants, by mailing said copy by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested (original signed receipt attached), to the following address, Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill 3804 Gettysburg Road ,Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 J/L c /2Lk William C. Radle 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-9280 Sworn and subscribed to before me this I~ day of D('c(Jm~ -;-2000 e~fl/f~~ , My Commission Expires: NOTARrAJtSEAL' ' CAROlV~ l\. SAllMAN,lIlotatyf>oblfo , Harnsburg, lJauphln Cllonly' My Commission Expires Jan. 22,2004, I !ilII . j llI!! ,~ .",.. ~- .Y c. 0 r; ~ ~... ,--''''l'I'l''''"""".,!.-!.."""","~-~. ='- ~" ~";1,;c'I~.' -'~'" \~("'~lijl1l'ffT'Y~""""JW'riIit"""':~mT;Vnj~{ n c -,.,.... " ""'O~~ m,,, Z:X) ZC (fJ,,f'~~ -< ~,'~, ~\~ ~(~1 ~(j -e: z .-j '-<. o o CJ )"i"} " ~ } ';T~ cc> v (..;..3 ~ f"v ,"" ~i, _~^" ,.IM ~ftI~f1!!f\~;i(~"'~""""""'-~';';N!'''''''~,\;'~1:~,,"{~1{'''i!rl~~IW.~[!~~iIl~lIiI\t~.~~~; . ;"'''-'1''. T "1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY William C. Radle and Sharon Radle, Plaintiffs v. Common Pleas No. 00 8206 (Civil) Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill, Defendants AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 12, 20011 I served a true and correct copy of the Complaint of William C. Radle and Sharon Radle on the Defendants, by mailing said copy by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested (original signed receipt attached), to the following address: Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill 3804 Gettysburg Road Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 ~L c (2JJv William C. Radle 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-9280 Sworn and subscrib~ to before me this ~ day Of~~, 2001 e~~av My CommissiQn Expires: -, , , II - ~." ~" -~,~? --,<. ~''''''.,... ~J!I!"~ rFlllPI'IF' .... - "' ~ .,~ "~-~'> ~"~-,"" . 0 0 C'i C -n <'" L.. "l'tm "'" .:;1 ~' Z j.i1f9 ' ::1:~ ;g~ ""1m 0::> :,:"0 (~~~6 :<;0 -0 '--. ;c-+! i~ :::ll: '.~('5 w om ~ .. ~ t=) .-< ,-, _IT!J":Jyr.r,,\~"~""",Vf-~,,'-W.'n;l;"'fi(1'~fW~~W'!iW-'Jl~f\1~Ilfl!1:~~I!lI!W~':Ff~~J~ AI. ,. . Compi~t'e it~ms 1, 2, and 3:Also com'plete itemA if Restricted Delivery is desired. . Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. . Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: .... Kelv T CP'&EIVI: G f< E"[:/V IS Ch? fJ f/JL L r;t?7i'iS&~~ flJ) HILL. fJ/1 f')/) ( I f1././fI ]%'OV QrIl1 P D. Is delivery address fferent from item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: . nt Addressee Dyes ONe 3. o Express Mail o Return Receipt for Merchandise o C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) DYes 2, Article ~U~b~~l' (C~py ~~ ! J! I ,ii/it PS Farm 3811, July 1999 q Domestic Return Receipt . -~, I ,0,_ C"- 102595-00-M-0952 , - WILLIAM C. RADLE and SHARON RADLE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS NO. 8206 CIVIL XHX 2000 v. MR. & MRS. KENT GREENE d/b/a GREENE'S CAMP HILL, DEFENDANTS RULE 1312-1. The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the following fonn: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: WILLIAM and SHARON RADLE ,lCOlIIRlledlC>>ltdle plaintiff},ck;foodlmtin the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned actjon (or actions) is (are) at issue. 2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is $ $1,500.00 plus Interest. The counterclaim of the defendant in the .actionis The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counselor are otherwise disqualjfied to sit as arbitrators: not known WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. ORDER OF COURT R;%:nll~d, 0L- . ~pC 7P~ /7 , ~ I, in consideratWn of the ~ .-17-1l. J1Ab/_ I Esq., . ~-~r(./ , Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action (or Esq., and actions) as prayed for. By the Court, ~ PJ. -""~,~ ~, ~,' I . "^, - , II ~;;~" -~'li<'M:':~lf.m~~MHi~~lg""#llk_,,,,..,"'i<i''''i&&f''_~'.l!-'''"' .J --,~ " .ilIoI!.i.~,tlu:.i.1~ ~~ "- ~ \-j -- .. ~ ;;.. 0:: r:f ~.J,.Q Q;:;, i1l...._{~' O~-~::::: T ,... a.t-:/ LU_t:J: tE~},! ,,",-- ~ FiLED.....;FF!CE (,.. -,Y. '''''..'P'.'''''''T^''Y .If' ,1.'_' n'.-)ji.....,j!"Ifd ,""'0 o I .IAN I 9 PM 3: 31 CUM6aR!.AND COUNfY PaNNSYLVANIA co o c:; -'ll::: !:L co ~ Sf ......:::;;: ":if>:! ~1 cote ~ c.:> - ;;;;e ~ '"- o .. ~a"l~-~ill:nd .~-- ^', '. i I , I i i , '2 ~ ~~ 1! WILLIAM C. RADLE and, SHARON RADLE, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-8206 CIVIL V. MR. AND MRS. KENT GREENE d/b/a GREENE'S CAMP HILL Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE OF HEARING BY BOARD OF ARBITRATORS You are hereby notified that the Board of Arbitrators appointed by the Court in the above captioned case will sit for the purpose of their appointment on Wednesday, April 18, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Second Floor Hearing Room, of the Old Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire Tricia Dils Naylor, Esquire Karl Rominger, Esqui ,-/ By ., Chairman DATE: February 8, 2001 TO: Tricia Dils Naylor, Esquire 104 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Karl Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 William C. and Sharon Radle 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Mr. and Mrs. Kent Greene d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill 3804 Gettysburg Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 '-''1ll. I -~ ,ry'I' '" 1-". WILLIAM C. RADLE and SHARON RADLE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS NO. 8206 CIVIL x~~x 2000 v. MR. & MRS. KENT GREENE d/b/a GREENE'S CAMP HILL, DEFENDANTS RULE 1312-1. The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the following fonn: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: WILLIAM and SHARON RADLE ,lC(OOft&od>&1lt!dle plaintiffhd:efeodaxltin the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue. 2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is $ $1,500.00 plus Interest. The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counselor are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: not known WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. ORDER OF COURT . ~DN'~2 /'1 ,~I,inconsiderationo~the _ . . foregomg petl110n, . . '4'ucg- ... y, , Esq., ~ ~ /t~ Esq., and ,~/ftJ)/J"-{./K9vJ ,Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action (or actions) as prayed for. {I Respect~Piqy s~bmitted, /) ,tJ W~?Y\ c I~ ~/Y1 pC 7fbdde By the Court, ~ PJ -1- ~ ,-' '0"'10--1.' u ."--- Il IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY William C. Radle and Sharon Radle, Plaintiffs v. Co=on Pleas No. 00 8206 (Civil) Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill, Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 TIDS PAPER TO YOUR LA WYERAT 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, P A 17013 (717) 249-3166 , ')' . '~"'I .",," I-I - ~I - 1- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY William C. Radle and Sharon Radle, Plaintiffs v. . Common Pleas No. 00 8206 (Civil) Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill, Defendants COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: This Complaint is filed by William C. Radle and Sharon Radle, 925 Conley Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 (collectively, "Radles") in accordance with the Praecipe to Enter Rule to File Complaint and Rule to File dated November 21, 2000 entered pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed at the above docket number by Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene, d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill, 3804 Gettysburg Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 ("Greene's). In support of this Complaint, Radles aver that: I. On November 27, 1999, Radles purchased from Greene's, and made a down payment of $383.72, on a Mori Lee wedding gown for their daughter, Shannon Radle. After measuring Shannon Radle, Greene's said they would order a size 16 gown for her. Radles told Greene's that Shannon actually wears a size 10 or a size 12 dress, so they 2 ',I-!' .. ,- ~ r, I' asked that a 10 or 12 be ordered for their daughter. fustead, Greene's ordered a size 16 gown for Shannon Radle. 2. On January 24, 2000, Radles were informed that the gown Greene's ordered ("Gown No.1 U) had arrived, and a fitting took place. The gown was extremely large. The seamstress (presumably a Greene' s employee) told Radles that the size 16 gown was too large to be altered properly and she told Mrs. Greene to order a small size. On this date, the remaining balance of$383.72 was paid by Radles to Greene's. 3. On January 24,2000, Greene's ordered another size 16 gown, stating that Gown No. 1 was not really a size 16. 4. On April 20, 2000, Gown No.2 arrived and another fitting took place. Gown No.2, while not as large as Gown No.1, also did not fit Shannon Radle. Once again Greene's seamstress said that it was too large to be altered properly. Following that second unsuccessful fitting, Greene's made no effort to order the correct size gown and refused to refund the purchase price to Radles. 5. On or about June 12,2000, approximately six weeks prior to the wedding, Radles attempted on their own to find the same dress at another area bridal shop in a size 12 or a size 14. The same gown in a size 12 was located at a shop in Camp Hill. Shannon went to that shop for a fitting. The size 12 Mori Lee gown fit properly and needed no alterations. However, that gown was in very poor condition and Radles decided not to purchase it. 6. Thereafter, Radles searched the futemet and found the Mori Lee web page with a listing of stores in Pennsylvania that carried that particular Mori Lee wedding gown 3 '''';'''-~ 'I ," " ~ I - II. '::;f:llll'lll__1 .~ ,I in a size 12. Three stores were located, the closest being in Scranton, Pennsylvania. On June 19,2000, Radles traveled to Scranton, Pennsylvania and purchased the Mori Lee wedding gown in a size 12 which fit Shannon perfectly. 7. On June 25,2000, Radles sent a letter to Greene's expressing their displeasure with Greene's business practices and requesting the full refund of the purchase price of the gown, namely $767.44. 8. On July 7, 2000, Greene's responded, saying in effect that Shannon Radle had lost a significant amount of weight and that Greene's would not refund the purchase price of the gown. In fact, however, Shannon Radle's weight had not changed since the time she was first measured at Greene's. 9. On September 8, 2000, a Complaint was filed by Mr. & Mrs. Wm. C. Radle against Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene, d/b/a Greene's Wedding & Tuxedo, with District Justice Charles Clement 10. On October 24, 2000, a hearing was held before District Justice Clement at which time testimony was heard from Sharon Radle and Shannon Patackis (formerly Radle) on behalf of the Radles and from W. Kent Greene, Mrs. Greene and Barb Greene on behalf of Greene's. After two hours of testimony the hearing was concluded. 11. On October 26, 2000, ajudgment for Radles was entered against Greene's by District Justice Clement in the amount of Eight Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars and Ninety Four cents ($822.94). 12. On November 21, 2000, a Notice of Appeal was filed in the Court of Common Pleas from the judgment rendered by District Justice Charles A. Clement, Jr. 4 II' "' 'C{,! .- THEREFORE, Radles respectfully request that this Honorable Court schedule an arbitration panel to hear the evidence and render judgment against Greene's in the amount of Fifteen Hundred Dollars $1,500.00, plus interest and costs as allowed by law. Respectfully submitted, -1IJt~ c a,JJe William C. Radle, Appellee .~r~ Sharon Radle, Appellee 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-9280 Dated: December 6, 2000 5 ~ I' " j " VERIFICATION William C. Radle and Sharon Radle, each being duly sworn according to law, say that the facts set forth above are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information and belief. wJQ~ ( {2rlJA William C. Radle 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-9280 ~~/~~Jh Sharon Radle 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-9280 Sworn and subscribed to bef~e me this ~ day of CRnn~, 2000 ~J~a.~~ Not Public My Commission Expires: . N(jr^Rf~_. ,CAROLYNASt<lQrMM;~Bulllle .. . Harri~bufgJJ~lJJ;lI)jn~~!l\! , .MytomJ7lifiSiOn~1IJi122, --- ., . , \-,',~-< I'" 'll ~ -,.",-, 1'1, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CML ACTION - LAW William C. Radle and Sharon Radle v. Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill Defendants : No. 8206 CIVIL 2000 ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW COMBS the above Defendants and respectfully submits the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint: I. Admitted in part; denied in part. La. On the initial visit to Greene's Camp Hill on November 12, 1999 Shannon Radel (Purchaser: daughter of Plaintiffs) stated her normal dress size to be between "10 and 14" recorded by consultant Connie Sheaffer on Shannon's registration card, as opposed to "10 and 12" dress size as alleged by Plaintiffs (parents of Sharon Radle). Shannon subsequently tried on sample gowns, including Moo Lee style 6010, size 10 White. l.b. Shannon returned with her mother on November 27, 1999 and retried Mori Lee 6010 sample size 10, and it was recorded on the registration card "@4" from bust" by Barbara Greene (Store Manager), meaning 4 additional inches offabric was needed to zip the dress. Barbara G. also recorded Shannon's measurements: Bust 39", Waist 30", and Hips 41 3/4 ". I.c. Barbara G. eJi:plained to Shannon on November 27, 1999 that her measurements fell between size 14 and size 16. Specifically Shannon measured 1/2" greater than size 14 in the bust, 1" greater than size 14 in the waist, and 1/4" greater than size 16 in the hips. Do to a disparity between sizes, it is customary for a consultant to request a second opinion. l.d. A second opinion provi4ed by Kathleen Greene (owner), on November 27, 1999 concurred that Shannon would fall between size 14 and size 16. Kathleen also observed Shannon while wearing the sample size 10 with a 4" gap ftom zipping. Kathleen reviewed the manufacturer's size chart with Shannon and explained if she chose size 14, the gown would have to be let out in all three measurements: bust, waist, and hips. I.e. Kathleen also explained to Shannon on November 27, 1999 that there was no lace available on the waistband to let out the way the gown was constructed. Shannon was also advised that if she chose size 16, the gown would need to be taken in (altered) I" in the bust and 1/2 " in the waist, which would be preferable to ordering a size 14 and not having enough material to let out to attain a proper fit. I.f. At no time on November 27, 1999 did Plaintiffs request a size 10 be ordered as alleged, which was not an issue based on the inability of Barbara G. and Kathleen G to zip the sample size 10. Plaintiff did not question whether the sample was a true size 10, given the observable 4" gap from closing. I '~~I l.g. At no time on November 27, 1999 did Plaintiffs request a size 12 be ordered as alleged, given a size 12 would have would have been 2" from fitting in the bust, 2 1/2" from fitting in the waist, and 3 1/4 " from fitting in the hips. l.h. The final sizing decision to choose size 16 was made by Shannon with her mother's concurrence. Defendant subsequently placed an order with the manufacturer to provide a size 16 gown. l.i. Defendant was contractually bound to deliver a size 16 and no other. 2. Mmitted in part, denied in part. 2.a On January 14, 2000 as opposed to January 24, 2000 Plaintiffs were notified gown had arrived and verbally requested to try-on the gown within 7 days in accordance with the manufacturers claims liability limitations stated in the Terms of Sale. On Saturday, January 22, 2000 a try-on with a consultant as opposed to a scheduled fitting with a seamstress took place. The seamstress was called over by Defendants, as the gown was miscut too large: 41 1/2"in Bust and 34" in hip, meaning the gown was between a size 18 and 20. Kathleen G. explained to Plaintiffs a true size 16 would be re-ordered immediately. 2.b. Mrs. Sharon Radle proceeded to request Mrs. Greene order an additional size 14 in the event the size 16 was again too big. The exact quote extracted from a letter dated June 25, 2000 states " Mrs. Radle even asked if you could order a 14 and hold onto the 16 just in case the 14 was too small and could not be let out". Plaintiff in this instance is asking for both a size 14 and size 16 as of January 20, 2000 which wholly contradicts para. I of the Complaint, which states Plaintiffs "asked that a IO or 12 be ordered for their daughter. Instead, Greene's ordered a size 16 gown for Shannon Radle." 2.c. Plaintiffs reference to the seamstress telling Mrs. Greene to order a "small size" was predicated on the seamstresses not knowing the size 16 actually measured a size 18/20. A true size 16 would satisfy the "small size" requirement in this discussion. Any size smaller size than size 16 would have been too small, /lccording to measurements taken on November 27,2000. 2.d While the Plaintiff infers the seamstress a "small size" could be construed to be size 10 or 12 consistent with para. I of the Complaint, the Plaintiffs oral definition of "small size" as of January 20, 2000 restated in the June 25, 2000 request for refund letter to Defendant was size 14 and 16 and not size 10 or 12. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. 4.a. A second try-on took place with Kathleen Greene, owner on April 20, 2000. Seamstress My T N Dang did not attend. Defendant denies the truthfulness of statements attributable to a seamstress that was not present at Shannon's try-on on April 20, 2000. Explanatory Notation: The seamstress is a tenant in an adjacent building. "Try-ons" are conducted on a walk-in basis in the main store with "consultants" after garments arrive. "Fittings" are conducted in the adjacent building with the seamstress by appointment ouly. 2 11 "" >'p... II i~ f"q 4.b. During the April 20, 2000 try-on, Kathleen G determined that the gown being tried on by Shannon was big in the bust (about 2"), but properly fit in the hip, where she required a true size 16. 4.c. Mrs Radle expressed concerns about a, fabric bllckle in the bust, but was assured by Kathleen G that the buckle could probably be pressed out by the seamstress after the bust was taken in. KatWeen demonstrated by pulling in the excess fabric at the side seams on the size 16 Shannon was wearing and the buckle substantially disappeared. 4.d. Mrs. Radle appeared to be satisfied that the gown could be properly altered, and subsequently scheduled a fitting appointment with the seamstress for June 7, 2000. Plaintiffs elected to have wedding gown returned to storage as opposed to taking the gown from the store at this time. 4.e. Defendant unequivocally denies any knowledge pertaining to a "second unsuccessful fitting" or any reference to any discussion pertaining to reordering "the correct size gown" and absolutely no discussion of a refund, or refusal to provide a refund on April 20, 2000. All of these averments may have taken place on June 7,2000, after the manufacturer had already discontinued production of style 6010, but not on April 20,2000 as alleged in the Complaint. 4.f. Ownership as a result of acceptance of a true size 16 wedding gown paid in full on April 20, 2000 changed from Defendant to Plaintiff. Defendant maintained custodial possession with no ownership rights to Plaintiffs gown while in storage. Claims in the Complaint that the gown was too large to be properly altered attributed to a seamstress who was not present were not presented to Manager, Barbara G. until June 7, 2000, after the first one-hour and ten minute fitting appointment with the seamstress. 4.g. The terms of sale state "Claims beyond 7 days, including damage, will be disallowed." The Plaintiff could negate a change in ownership on April 20, 2000 by attributing claims made with Barbara G. on June 7, 2000 to a try-on involving Kathleen G. and no other on April 20, 2000. 5. Admitted in part; denied in part. 5.a. Plaintiffs acknowledgement that bridal shops were queried for either size 12 or size 14 is inconsistent with para 1 ofthe Complaint which states "so they asked that a 10 or 12 be ordered for their daughter". Plaintiff is predicating their Complaint on Defendant supplying a size 16 instead of size "10 or 12" as of November 27,1999, while soliciting another Camp Hill bridal shop for a size "12 or 14" on or about June 12, 2000. 5.b. If Shannon's weight did not vary since November 27, 1999 as alleged and the size 10-12 order request in para 1 of the Complaint were truthful, the Plaintiffs would have been looking for either a size 10 or size 12 and not a size 14 on or about June 12, 2000. In effect, the Plaintiffs are stating in para I of the Complaint that the Honorable Court should rule in their favor because Defendants failed to order a size 10 or 12 in November 1999 (ignoring a signed receipt for a size 16), while willing to accept a size 14 (or size 12..no preference identified) from another bridal shop in June 2000. 6. Admitted. 3 -~- 'II' """",~-,. ,~~I'" '.r",' 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admits sending the letter. 8. Admitted in part; denied in part. The gown size 16 chosen by Shannon had relatively little to do with her weight and was wholly dependent on measurements taken on November 27, 1999, whereby the size 16 chosen was 1" too large in the bust. Defendant is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of Shannon's weight in this averment. Strict proof is demanded at trial, jf relevant. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted I L Admitted. 12. Admitted. NEW MATTER 13. On November 27, 2000, plaintiff signed a receipt requiring Defendant to deliver a true size 16 and no other. Only after the Civil Trial as stated in the Complaint in para. I did the size specification requested by the Plaintiffs change to "size 10 or size 12" as opposed to size 16 on Shannon's receipt. 14. There are 110 manufacturer sizing standards in the US ready-to-wear women's apparel industry, cousisting of separate size charts for petites, junior, missy, and women's sizes, which vary by manufacturer. Conversely, the bridal industry combines junior and missy sizes, meaning a person with a true missy size range of 10-14 could readily translate to size 12 -16 in a wedding gown, which also varies by manufacturer. This differentiation was explained at the initial meeting on November 12, 1999. Shannon's normal dress size response was recorded as "10-14", which differs from "10-12" cited by Plaintiffs in Complaint.. 15. The most complex variable in the sizing equation is the projected size at the time of the wearing event, which averages nine months in advance. This elapsed time factor is compounded by individual body measurements that do not properly align with the manufacturer size charts. In Shannon's case, the largest controlling dimension was at the waist, meaning the garment would have been one inch too small had she chosen a size 14 on Nov.27, 1999. As of June 8, 2000 Shannon's bustIine based on a second set of measurements indicated a 3" differential, which explains why the top of the size 16 gown was excessive at a June 7, 2000 "fitting" the Plaintiff claims took place during a "try-on" on April 20, 2000. 16. Plaintiffs have created a reverse case against Defendant predicated on the notion that the end size 12 reportedly chosen for Shannon justifies a beginning size 12 rather than size 16 as ordered, under the gnise no variance in "weight" occurred. Strict proof will be required at trial as to the truthfulness of weight related averments made by Plaintiffs, more specifically to prove that no "measurement" related changes occurred subsequent to November 27, 1999. 4 '. "--J e~" 11 . . 17. Defendant denies Plaintiffs averments including "protests" outlined in the original Civil Complaint that Defendant overrode the Plaintiffs, misleading Shannon to ordering a size 16 when "she wears a size 10 (occasionally a 12 depending on the cut of the dress)". Plaintiffs had every opportunity to purchase the size 1 0 sample or place an order for size I 0 if such averments were truthful. Plaintiffi> had every opportunity to equally order a size 12, but it was readily apparent on November 27, 1999 a size 12 would still be 3 inches from zipping at the waist and hip. Plaintiffs were fully aware that the only viable choice as of November 27, 1999 was between a size 14 and size 16 and no other sjzes were considered. No record exists as to any discussion of future body measurement changes on November 27, 1999 that would lead to a conclusion that either a smaller or larger gown size would be anticipated as of August 5, 2000. 18. Defendants denial to purchase two gowns at Defendants expense on January 20, 2000 is the subject of a second series of "protests" by Plaintiffs, as referenced in the original Civil Complaint dated September I, 1999. Defendant effectively would have had to purchase four different dress sizes to accommodate the varying size related averments ( 10-16) in the combined original Civil Complaint and Complaint under adjudication. 19. The first fitting with a seamstress was conducted on June 7, 1999, wherein Shannon was pinned and re-pinned at total of four times. Following the pinnings, a hysterical Mrs. Radle confronted Barbara G, making a series of demands including consideration of a refund Shannon's gown was returned to storage, and Shannon and her mother returned the following day and were re-measured by a senior consnltant. All references to the first fitting with the seamstress on June 7, 2000 and the follow-on visit to the store involving a re-measurement on June 8, 2000 are missing in the Complaint. 20. Defendant avers Plaintiff took selected events that occurred involving Barbara G. on June 7, 2000, and moved said events to April 20, 2000, thus rl<iecting a change in ownership based on the notion that Defendant supplied a size 16 instead of a size 10 or 12. Shannon ended up purchasing a size 12 on June 19, 2000 based on new measurements provided by Mary Anna Conrad, a senior consnltant, on June 8, 2000, 12 days after the first fitting with a seamstress on June 7, 2000, which was cited in the Complaint as having taken place on April 20, 2000. 21. A Civil Complaint is the end result of Plaintiffs assessment on June 7, 2000 that a professional seamstress and former dress maker could not alter the size 16 to Plaintiff's expressed satisfaction. Plaintiff cites in a letter dated June 25, 2000 "it was great concern to us at this point that Greene's seamstress may not, in fact, know how to fix these problems and was telling Barb (daughter of owners) everything would be all right so as not to jeopardize her job!" The letter continues "We felt their was no guarantee that this gown would be fixed properly in time and conld not risk having their seamstress try to fix it at this late date and then not have it fit Shannon properly on her wedding day" . Plaintiffs are not only disavowing true ownership of a purchased gown left in storage until alterations, but is holding Defendant responsible for a personal misperception that a professional seamstress was incapable of providing the same quality custom alterations done numerous times over the past decade. Plaintiffi> will be required to prove at trial that seamstress was incapable of meeting thejr expectations, jf relevant. 22. The size 10 sample in mint condition was available on June 7, 2000 and wonld he exactly one inch smaller in the Bust and Waist, and 1 1/2 " smaller in the hips. At no time did 5 , . ~ " . , ,-, "" '--"' ^~r~" wi" . . Plaintiffs request to exchange the size 16 for the size 10, "Choosing to call 59 shops to locate a size 12 or 14, and proceeded to request more than double the actual cost of the gown in the Complaint, stating they originally asked for a "10 or 12" and received a size 16. 23. Lack of specificity as to the Plaintiffs declaration that either a size 10 or a size 12 be ordered on November 27, 1999 is predicated on an unproven averment that Shannon's weight had not changed since November 27, 1999. While the Defendant did not weigh Shannon Radle nor record or film the various dialogs that occurred, Defendant did re- measure Shannon Radle on June 8, 2000, who had changed to Bust 37", waist 30 1/2", and hip 4U 3/4 ", suggesting Shannon on this date was a true size 12 in the Bust, a true size 16 in the waist, and between a 14 and 16 in the hips in terms of Mori Lee measuring chart. Plaintiffs contention that no alterations were required in the size 12 gown subsequently purchased in Scranton implies either the measurements were in error, or Shannon continued to lose body mass (and possibly weight) after the time of purchase on June 19, 2000 to her wedding on August 5, 2000, or the plaintiff had waist and hip alterations performed while stating in the Complaint the size 12 "fit perfectly at the time of purchase". 24. Plaintiffs assertion that inquiries made to 59 bridal shops for a size 12 or size 14 was predicated on measurements provided by Defendant on June 8, 2000: Bust 37", Waist 30 1/2", Hips 40 3/4". Plaintiffs willingness to accept a size 14 in lieu ofa size 12 was based on the controlling waist measurement increasing 1/2" since November 27, 1999, while a 2" decrease in the bust occurred. Plaintiff subsequently sets forth a different set of size criteria for the Defendant in the Complaint from the other 59 bridal shops, stating a size 16 was supplied when a "10 or 12" was requested. 25. Plaintiffs letter dated June 25, 2000 employs a time compression technique in written averments to create the impression that events that occurred at a later date occurred earlier. The conspicuous omission of any reference to a first fitting conducted on the second floor of a building adjacent to Greene's Hill housing the seamstress on June 7, 2000 is paramount in this regard. If the Plaintiffs averments regarding April 20 are truthful, then all ofthe events cited subsequent to April 20 were contrived by the Defendants, including pinnings and re-measurements that took place on June 7 and June 8 respectively that led to numerous phone calls requesting a size 12 or a size 14. 26. A second fitting was scheduled on June 7, 2000 with My Dang, seamstress at 12:00 PM on June 20, 2000. Plaintiff did not keep the appointment, and did not return to claim the size 16 gown in storage since Apri120, 2000. 27. Plaintiff was advised in writing on July 7, 2000 that "Greene's acted in good faith and fulfilled all aspects of the Terms of Sale", and that size 16 was the proper size Shannon had selected November 27, 1999." Under the terms of sale, ownership transferred from the Defendant to Plaintiffs on April 20, 2000, consistent with the 7 day manufacturer time frame to file claims. Optional custodial possession of garments in storage does not covey gown ownership back to the Defendant, nor predicate ownership based on future satisfuction or other criteria beyond such time a purchase is fully paid, delivered, and accepted by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were under no obligation to use either in-house or external seamstress referrals, nor was the Defendant legally liable for the quality of work and attendant satisfuction or dissatisfaction of alterations performed by a professional seamstress. 6 -"-- ,..... HI . . . , . 28. The Defendant, acting as representative for the manufucturer, was legally bound to accept the garment as long as it met the specifications of the order placed on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was contractually bound to remit payment in full to the Defendant upon delivery and acceptance without claims,. Nothing in the Terms of Sale imply the size ordered by the Plaintiff would constitute a perfect fit, given a wide variance in body measurements from the manufucturers size chart in the general population. While the Defendant recognizes that changes in body measurements after the order is placed vary proportional to elapsed time to the wearing event, the ouly recourse for the Plaintiff was to rely on custom alterations. The Plaintiff choose instead to inject numerous unproven averments into the equation, causing the Defendant to go to extraordinary detail to demonstrate to the Honorable Court the Plaintiff had correctly chosen the correct size as of the time of purchase, and had substantially altered both events and timing of events to create the illusion the Defendant had mislead Plaintiffs into choosing an improper size, arguing that no change in weight had occurred from the onset. 29. Processes described herein have been repeated thousands of times over a forty year tenure by the Defendant. It is the contention ofthe Defendant that innuendo, misinformati(lll, unsupported allegations, omissions, and other unproven averments by the Plaintiffs, distort the good faith intent of the Defendant to provide precisely what the Plaintiff ordered, as well as any semblance of concern to remedy attendant body measurement changes using a professional seamstresses proficient in complex bridal alterations. It is the belief of the Defendant that the seamstress, given the opportunity by Plaintiffs, would have performed the same quality of expert alterations that annually draw appreciative reviews primarily where significant changes in weight and/or body measurements occur prior to the wearing event. 30. Shannon's final measurements were not identical to her starting measurements, even if her weight remained constant as cited by Plaintiffs. 31. Both the Plaintiffs size 16 wedding gown and the sample were compared against the manufacturer's size chart by the Defendant to assure accuracy. Both gowns, and size charts used to make sizing determinations were deemed 100% accurate by Kathleen Greene, owner. The deviance in measuring Shannon among the consultants was viewed to be fractionally insignificant, resulting in the conclusion that a 3" inch deviation from a size 16 occurred in the bust between November 27, 1999 and June 8, 2000. 32. Defendant concurs that had Shannon's measurements been the same on November 27, 1999 as on June 8, 2000 as alleged by Plaintiffil, a size 14 and would have been a proper choice consideration. Defendant concurs that had Shannon's measurements been less than as measured on June 8, 2000, a size 12 would have been the next proper choice consideratiolL 33. Plaintiff had one and ouly one sizing choice on November 27, 1999. Plaintiff chose size 16. Defendant properly delivered a true size 16 on April 20, 2000 and plaintiff accepted on that date and the garment placed in storage. 34. Wherefore, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court find in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs. J h~ j(~t:~, #Lj ~ffipJ;-~~ ~~~~~J;../Zt~;r~ ~~~~~d~uo~/).~7 rJfp ~V/ ~OC(J . ! ~, -'\1 - ~ . II, -. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY William C. Radle and Sharon Radle, Plaintiffs v. Common Pleas No. 00 8206 (Civil) Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill, Defendants PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER TO THE PROTHONOTARY: This Reply is filed by William C. Radle and Sharon Radle, 925 Conley Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 (collectively, "Radles") to the Answer and New Matter dated December 26, 2000 that was recently served on them by Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene, d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill, 3804 Gettysburg Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 (collectively, "Greenes). Paragraphs 13 through 34 of the Greene's latest document are improperly labeled ''New Matter." Those paragraphs are simply a confusing and repetitive listing of excuses and complaints by the Greenes to justify their complete failure to deliver a wedding gown that properly fit Shannon Radle. The Radles deny all of the claims in that "New Matter" that are inconsistent with the facts stated in their Complaint against the Greenes. In addition, no formal response to that supposed ''New Matter" was called for as part of the defendants "Answer and New Matter," so nothing more is required of the Radles now. The facts concerning this dispute will be established at the hearing on the plaintiffs' Complaint. '1_""" -'''r1 . ,. -, '"~ ,-- '-~', 'I o. THEREFORE, Radles respectfully request that this Honorable Court schedule an arbitration panel to hear the evidence and render judgment against the Greenes in the amount of Fifteen Hundred Dollars $1,500.00, plus interest and costs as allowed by law. Respectfully submitted, k~A4CM William C. Radle . ~~/P~ Sharon Radle 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-9280 Dated: January 10, 2001 "il ~, - -11;--- ~- ~ "-""" r VERIFICATION William C. Radle and Sharon Radle, each being duly sworn according to law, say that the facts set forth above are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information and belief. l0.JL C-~ William C. Radle 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-9280 ~~~ 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, PA (717) 697-9280 17055 Sworn and subscrib~ to before me this ~ day of ..JafY)//n~, 2001 _/J /II.I,.L I () JluumtuJ ~pUb1ic 1'-ly Commission .Expires: CAROLYN NOTARIAL SEAL -.--) A.SHUMAN N f Haro.sburg Dauph: (}tary Public My C~~Ssjon' EXPire;~ . ounty ._______sn. 22, 2004 -'..,...~~---, 'I .,- William C. Radle and Sharo.n Radle . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs v. Mr. & Mrs_ Kent Greene d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill Defendants No.. 8206 CIVIL 2000 ANSWER To Plaintiffs Reply To New Matter AND NOW COMES the above Defendants and respectfully submits the fo.llo.wing Answer in respDnse to. Plaintiffs Reply To. New Matter dated January 10, 2001. 1. On No.vember 27,1999, Defendant contractually agreed to. deliver a size 16 wedding go.wn to. Ms. Shanno.n Radle, residing at 2219 Brigade RDad, EnDIa, PA 17025 (717) 732- 1307 and no. Dther. 2. On September 8,1999, a Civil CDmplaint was filed with District Justice 09-1-01 by Mr. and Mrs. William C. Radle residing at 925 CDnley Drive, Mechanicsburg, P A (717) 697-9280 as "Plaintiffs". Defendant bas no. reco.rd o.fany sales transactio.n with either party representing themselves as PlaintiffS. 3. Use Dfthe term "Radles" in the CDmplaint cDllectively excludes ShannDn Radle (buyer) and includes William C. Radle and Sharo.n Radle, thus invalidating the Driginal sales agreement signed by adult-Shanno.n Radle and no. o.thers, if upheld by this Ho.nDrable Co.urt. William C. Radle is no.t kno.wn to. have been invo.lved in proceedings o.ther than as a spectato.r at the initial hearing under appeal. It is the Defendants po.sitio.n that a parent o.r o.ther persons that acco.mpany a buyer invo.lved in a sales transactio.n involving a no.n-minor as did Sharo.n Radle, whether or no.t they lent Dr supplied money Dn behalf o.fthe buyer, co.uld no.t subsequently enjo.in o.r replace the buyer fo.r purpo.ses o.f becDming either a defendant Dr plaintiff in a subsequent legal prDceeding. 3. The lawful basis for a bUYj:T mvo.lvedin ajo.int cDntractual agreement being supplanted by a third party witl)put the !!)q)ressed~eeil1.ent o.f seller is cDntested by Defendant."'" 4. Defendant bas no. o.bjection to defending against any and all averments made by Ms. Shanno.n Radle (buyer) in any capacity as Plaintiff. Ho.wever, no. averments in the CDmplaint are attributable to. ShluJuDn Radl~ (buyer), and all averments are attributable to' William C. Radle who. was not a witness, and Sharo.n Radle who. was a witness. 5. Defendant Dbjects fDr having to. defend against averments and conclusiDns co.ntained in the Co.mplaint by third PaTo/ witnesses and n~:m-witnesses filing as PlaintiffS by virtue o.f parentage. ",,~ '1' ',,-_ll""? " Therefore, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to validate the contractual agreement between Defendant as seller and Shannon Radle as buyer, and reject exclusionary parentage claims of Sharon and William C. Radle collectively filed as "Radles" or Plaintiffs, and find in fuvor of the Defendant. Respectfully SubJIWted, W~J(~ William K. Greene Greene's Camp Hill 3804 Gettysburg Road Camp Hill, P A 17011 (717) 761-0569 . "'-~~ r~---~ -!I-'- il I';->--~" - '1- ~ VERIFICATION Upon my personal knowledge, information, and belief: I, William K. Greene, hereby verny that the filcts averred in the forgoing Answer are true and COrrect. I understand that :false statements or averments therein made will subject me to criminal penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904. relating to uns;7;orn fulsification to authorities. January 28, 2001 By: tJ~ j(~ William K. Greene t/d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill ;'1" II 'I" ~'I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William K. Greene, hereby certifY that on the date indicated below, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Answer to Plaintifl's Reply to New Matter, addressed as follows: Mr. & Mrs. William C. Radle 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 0'>; ~1:20CI tu~ )~ 'rl " II . - , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY William C. Radle and Sharon Radle, Plaintiffs v. Common Pleas No. 00 8206 (Civil) Mr. & Mrs. Kent Greene d/b/a Greene's Camp Hill, Defendants PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: In accordance with Rule 1028 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs William C. Radle and Sharon Radle file the following Preliminary Objections to the pleading entitled "Answer to Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter" that was filed in this case by Defendants Mr. And Mrs. Kent Greene on January 29,2001: 1. In violation of Rule 1028(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendants' pleading entitled "Answer to Plaintiffs Reply to New Matter" fails to conform to a rule of court, namely, Rule 1017 of the Pennsylvania Rules, in that no such pleading is allowed when the prior pleading did not contain any new matter to which a reply is permitted. 2. The "defense" raised by Defendants in their pleading entitled "Answer to Plaintiffs Reply to New Matter", even if it were correct (which it is not), was waived by Defendants because they did not raise it either as (a) "New Matter" in their earlier :;':::- ,., ~- . 'I" , -11 0' l"l, , pleading entitled "Answer and New Matter" (filed on or about December 22,2000), or (b) as a Preliminary Objection questioning Plaintiffs' capacity to sue Defendants, as required by or provided for in Rilles 1030(a) and 1032(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted, \NL oM William C. Radle ~;K~ 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-9280 Dated: February 13, 2001 ,,'1 'I ", "f1- ':_ , , ~ -~r'~; VERIFICATION William C. Radle and Sharon Radle, each being duly sworn according to law, say that the facts set forth above are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information and belief. w~c~ William C. Radle ~../fJ~ 925 Conley Drive Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-9280 Sworn and subscribed to before me this /2~ day of 1e~ ,2001 ~(}~yap~iW My Commission Expires: NOTARIAL SEAL C~F("YN^,. SHUMAN, Notal)! Public Harriet",,.\? Dauphin County l>""mi""io~~2<Pires Jan. 22, 2004 n " SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2000-08206 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RADLE WM C MR ET AL VS GREENE KENT MR ET AL BRIAN BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within SUBPOENA was served upon DANG MY T N the WITNESS , at 0015:54 HOURS, on the 5th day of April , 2001 at POE: IRENES FORMAL WEAR 3702 GETTYSBURG RD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to MY DANG a true and attested copy of SUBPOENA together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 8.68 .00 10.00 .00 36.68 So Answers: ~~~; R. Thomas Kline 04/06/2001 WILLIAM C. Sworn and Subscribed to before By: AAD~1fL~. Deputy Sheriff me this ) 3..u... day of -D.F"-P (h,." I A. D . q ()~ ~thonotary ,^.D.f11 t~_^ , !I' - . ~., II