Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-08393 J. '" "f - ~ l',; ,_ '" J." ~ , ,0'.' "" ' L,::''''- -' .. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff vs. NO. 00-8393 STEVENW.EMMET, Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW 1u:5t.<Ji 1 ' 2002, in consideration of the foregoing petition, ~~,ESq.14M.J #~ESq.and ~A,v ~1At4~ ' Esq. are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action(s) as prayed for. By the Court, J. ~ -- -" =~~ ~'~n',M Ii II " I 1 i, II fl .. -. ~~, c' O""'-~ "',~'^' '~, ",~''',"..'''"' ,_ - ~I ,., .',-, ,~,,'~ -"'~"~".I " -~"\~,"",,--, 'I-"'-'''~"'~'<'_._''' -~~.~ "-~ FFD-(\fF'''t'- OF T!~I~' ~;,t'1r-~' ,~'--', - ",r" "']"\iOjMI\/ , ,':',,' I ' ", 'I "~_ ,,'"\I" 02 AUG 29 Pl'l I.,; ?? , '- CU',')),'" '1iI..",.:R' """'-1' ('Fir 'f'l1;l 'U,;J..., Vv J\J;; PENNSYLV!~NlA ", ".f' ...~~\..,...., <, _JL~,~ _,<,J~,.,lIl.'J~~'ll'iW~,'l:Jl""'''"'~liS'''''W''.'1''~';'-&''''9!c-Ct\~llIl'~~~~1W!li11~~l'-~ , ~,'- ~" ^ ~ 'd ~~ .. .~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff vs. NO. 00-8393 STEVENW.EMMET, Defendants . . CIVIL ACTION -LAW PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: I, E Ralph GOOfrey, Esquire, Counsel for the Plaintiff in the above action(s), respectfully represent that: 1. The above-captioned action( s) is at issue. 2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is $ $24,624.52 + costs. The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is $ 0.00. The following attorneys are interested in the case( s) as counselor are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Phillip Warholic, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York,PA 17403 THEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully Submitted, GODFREY & COURTNEY, P.C. Date: 'if/ 'Z- 7;: Z- . f f~~ By ^, ~ '" ,.-; .' e""~l"_" ^ <.i.;,"~^ ""~,,,,,,:~, ,,*' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE k- AND NOW, this n rday of -11..... - uS (r 2002 I E Ral h G dfr E f D'- ~ ",. p 0 ey, squire,o GODFREY & COURTNEY, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Amended Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Phillip Warholic, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 ~-~ E. Ralph Godfrey iDiMl il1I1'Iiilllj~iIIliPR.ti~~iW~~lilil64r~llllilJ~m'1\,:h<Ol&',,-",-{0Ml.J2"h"1-W,:","'*:';wr*il,~:;jAiJ ~",,,,,,,'" '0< ."~~. . . ~J~ . ,y ,~ ~,-,I, ,~,"",~,""_~ ,-= ,,_I~"~,. " ,I~, ".,. - - ~ ~l.~"'- .~~...... " r~ ~-- E 0 0 N :s.. ,., '-om ;!:!: =---:1 mrtl ,.- r\~ Z::n ''-' Z. "J co 5:':: Co ::;~~,8 ;:$.:;;:-- "~h:' ..._c_, :ji: "" "1"- -'ri r. ::.:: &;~~ -'('" >,,;;::: aJ ~ ,~ ~ '0 :IJ -< GS eJI ~, ~, ~,", --", , ~~~, " ": N '... "., ~~ ..' -.,-'.." -'., )," '",.'')-- . ~"',~'O "J - >:;"f_';:',,~,,:,C,--,::.".'-':_' ';iF'-,'-,' -"'_lii~; RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA v. : NO. 00-8393 CIVIL TERM STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant 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 in the Second Floor Hearing Room at the old Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday, November 6, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. If any attorney has an objection or conflict with this date, that attorney shall assume responsibility to reschedule this hearing at a time suitable to all attorneys. William A. Addams, Esquire Kara Haggerty, Esquire John C. Oszustowicz, Esquire By: ~ William A. Addams, Chairman Board of Arbitrators DATE: September 25,2002 TO: E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire GODFREY & COURTNEY, P.C. P.O. Box 6280 Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Plaintiff Phillip Warholic, Esquire WOLFSON & ASSOCIATIONS, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, P A 17013 , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 00-8393 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, cornes Defendant, Steven W. Ernmet, by and through his attorney, Daniel F. Wolfson, and the law firm of Wolfson & Associates, P.C, and hereby answers Plaintiff's Second Arnended Cornplaint as follows: I . Adrnitted. 2. Adrnitted. 3. Adrnitted. 4. Denied: By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a rnatter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant. 5. Denied. By way of further answer, as previously stated, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a rnatter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant. " , 6. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff Ii . entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses. 7. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a rnatter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses. 8. Adrnitted in part; denied in part. It is adrnitted only that Defendant terminated his ernployrnent with Plaintiff on or about October 15, 1999. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a rnatter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses. Also, during his exit interview with Plaintiff, Defendant was told that he was leaving in good standing with his rnanagers and no relocation agreernent was ever discussed. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied Defendant owes any money to Plaintiff for the aforementioned reasons. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient 2 II information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, sarne is denied and strict proof is dernanded at trial. I I. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to forrn a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, sarne is denied and strict proof is dernanded at trial. 12. Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Second Arnended Cornplaint is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessalY, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph I 2 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Cornplaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 13. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a rnatter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never rnade any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses. 14. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a rnatter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never rnade any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses, and therefore there was no contract that Defendant could breach. 3 II 15. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a rnatter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never rnade any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses, and therefore there was no contract that Defendant could breach. 16. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a rnatter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never rnade any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses, and therefore there was no contract that Defendant could breach. 1 7. Denied. By way of further answer, It is specifically denied Defendant owes any money to Plaintiff for the aforernentioned reasons. 18. Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Cornplaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 19. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff 4 II '-" '-,;';' entered into any oral contract with Defendant by rnaking a promise for a promise. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant. 20. Denied. By way of fulther answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a rnatter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never rnade any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses, so therefore Defendant could not have misled Plaintiff in any way. 2 I . Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a rnatter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never rnade any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses. 22. Denied. By way of fUlther answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses, and Defendant never promised Plaintiff that Defendant would reimburse Plaintiff for the value of relocating hirn if he did not work for a full year. Unjust enrichrnent is an equitable doctrine having the requisite elernents of "benefits 5 Ii '" conferred on defendant by plaintiff, appreciation of such benefits by defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circurnstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value." Styer v. Hugo, 422 Pa. Super. 262, 267, 619 A.2d 347, 350 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) (quoting Wolf v. Wolf, 356 Pa. Super. 365, 514 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 527 Pa. 218, 590 A.2d 901 (1991)). Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting all of the elements of unjust enrichment, and therefore a claim for unjust enrichrnent by Plaintiff against Defendant is unwarranted. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Cornplaint with prejudice and enter judgrnent in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff along with the allowable costs of this action. Respectfully subrnitted, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire WOLFSON & ASSOCIATES, P.c. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 2061 7 Attorney for Defendant 6 II >^ VERIFlCA lION Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, hereby states that he is the attorney for the Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, and he is authorized to take this verification on behalf of said Plaintiff in the within action and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 9- '1'- 0-1 . Daniel F. Wolfson, quire WOLFSON & ASSOCIA T 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 2061 7 Attorney for Defendant II IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYlVANIA RITE AID CORPORA nON, Plaintiff No. 00-8393 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this l.(-!J. day Of~200 1, I, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing "Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Second Arnended Cornplaint" upon counsel of record by regular rnail, postage pre-paid and addressed as follows: E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.c. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Respectfully submitted, ~I F. Wolfson, Esquir WOlFSON & ASSOCI TES, P.c. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 2061 7 Attorney for Defendant II " ~~l<t>M-1lli[j;:j~\i!ke!:"i;,!!~iM;*~"!i'!:"",,"':'cl&.~IfliW.ollh'''"';''i!A'';:'hl'''';l',:;'-,M';H"~;'C"ii<liil:"-!lf!:4!IlIi~' ,'-~ '""''''IU'yr- iftiiiMJ~m " ___~".,c "'^, ""',c,~ <<~, _ ~ ",,"I ",,,,,",, ,_ d,~" e, -j'_" _~, ",_",. ;" ,L " ,I~_ ",,~'8"_ ~__, ~..~" _", ~,,_ '^ ""--, C) f;~ cBr-:3 :;;,f1 ~)> ~ ~~I~~) .~-'~' ,~ ' en__", -~ "<', _ C" '" ." .~ --' -' -, I "'iil~ ',';" I",'.,',,','. "I It " I': r;; , :~ : 1"; I' I" 'I"'; 'L ;: I,' ,: I~ i :,) ii ~ ~ [i i ,I , , ! <,:,) [,I .' Ii ,I I, ii I' ~ !, :~ 'i 'I I, Ii if i ~ I I: II " I I I ,I I I ?~ J c 0...) C') ~::~; ~i] -< - ~ "" ~"," , . .. ", . .. "I -<, "~ ,.: , , '.' , ",,,,-,;"'- ~< :"->,~ "-~;;-:J,i"","'" ~, , " 0'"" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff vs. NO. 00-8393 STEVENW.EMMET, Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO TIlE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. as counsel of record for Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter. PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO TIlE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire of Godfrey & Courtney, P.C. as counsel of record for the Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter. Respectfully submitted, By: GODREY & COURNTEY, P.C. f~ E. Ralph Godfrey, Esq . Attorney ID# 77052 P.O. Box 6280 Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-540-3900 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: July 29, 2002 ~~~!Ii__fllij'_~Mj . H , ...,..._,"".""'.,,_..." 'C"'~'~~"""'-""C er,",,,",,,,,,_ ,~, ,', ^v"",~,1 o~,',' .-"'_"7, ~"~-~ ;-"''1"'"""I,7,'c___w~_,,,,,_"' c'" " "1,,,- -'l*i'- ," ""'''' (') C ~, ""'CtP r\I~'; 1k:':J.\ :7-C '!2<1;:, r:;L.. 5;"0 ~C) 7C 3 .' .-,,,"',",,,,,," """,,,,"",' C) \",) ~ '~ -" GO ~" ,. r;'CJ '-1'1 .~l, 'P 'f ~. .< -r'. '~~'~':~i , ~)(::J -'..1~" -...~ -1'", ~,~~5{, ':-:-:, 7 ~ C? '.J' (,.l p ;5)) -"' ~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 00-8393 vs. CIVIL ACTION . LAW STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, by and through his attorney, Daniel F. Wolfson, and the law firm of Wolfson & Associates, P .c., hereby prelirninarily objects to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and in support thereof avers the following: The Parties: 1. Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, is a corporation licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, is an adult individual with a last known address of 6288 NW 47th Court, Coral Springs, Florida. Procedural Backlrround: 3. On or about Decernber 1, 2000, Plaintiff filed its Complaint under the above caption against Defendant. 4. Defendant was served with Plaintiff's Cornplaint on or about January 27, , 2001. Ii 5. That on or about March 5,2001, Defendant tiled Preliminary Objections, and a Brief in Support of said Preliminary Objections, to Plaintiff's original Complaint. 6. That on or about March 20, 2001, in a perceived attempt to cure Defendant's Preliminary Objections, Plaintiff tiled an Amended Cornplaint. 7. The only substantive allegations included in Plaintiff's Arnended Complaint which were not set forth in the original Complaint related to Plaintiff's allegations that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract, and not a relocation agreement, which was referred to in Plaintiff's original complaint. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO.1- FAILURE OF A PLEADING TO CONFORM TO Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(hl 8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 of the within Prelirninary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 9. Paragraph four (4) of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that" . . . Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract by which Plaintiff promised to pay for Defendant's relocation costs to Pennsylvania in return for Defendant's promise not to terminate his employment with Plaintiff for a one-year period." 1 O. Paragraph five (5) of the Plaintiff's Amended Cornplaint alleges that "The contract provided that should Defendant terminate his employment within the one- 2 Ii . '~ 11. Pa. R. Civ. P. 101 9(h) requires that "{a} pleading shall state specifically whether any claim or defense set forth therein is based on a writing. If so, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing. . ." 1 2. Plaintiff states that it's cause of action is based on a contract entered into by the parties, but Plaintiff's Amended Cornplaint fails to attach a copy of any such contract, or anything else which would support Plaintiff's allegations that any contract was ever entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant. 13. Under Pa. R. Civ. P. 1 028(a)(2), a party rnay prelirninarily object by way of a motion to strike off a pleading because of lack of conforrnity to a rule of court. 14. By failing to attach a copy of the referred to contract, showing that Defendant consented to the terms of any contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to conform to Rule 101 9(h) and therefore must be stricken. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Steven W. Ernrnet, respectfully requests that Honorable Court sustain his Preliminary Objection No. 1 and strike the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to conform to a rule of court. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO,2- LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING (DEMURRER),PURSUANTTO Pa. R. Civ. P. 1028(aH4) PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISING FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 15. Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the within Prelirninary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. ! 3 . t 6. Count I of Plaintiff's Arnended Complaint attempts to assert a claim against Defendant for breach of contract. t 7. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure permit a party to file a preliminary objection where a pleading is legally insufficient. t 8. Plaintiff's Amended Corn plaint does not sufficiently allege the existence of an express or implied contract because Plaintiff attaches no contract, or any docurnent, signed by Defendant, as an exhibit, to show that Defendant consented to the terms of any contract, nor does Plaintiff specifically allege that any oral and/or irnplied contract was ever agreed to between the parties to the present action. t 9. Since Plaintiff's Amended Cornplaint does not sufficiently allege the existence of an express or implied contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, there could be no breach of any contract on the part of Defendant. 20. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting any element of a cause of action for breach of contract, because Plaintiff has shown nothing to prove that a contract and/or agreernent ever was entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant, written, oral or ortherwise, Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim of breach of contract. WHEREFORE, Defendantrespectfully requests this Honorable Court sustain Defendant's Preliminary Objection No.2 by way of dernurrer"and disrniss the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, with prejudice. 4 Ii PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO.3 - RAISING FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of the within Preliminary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 22. Count II of Plaintiffs Arnended Complaint atternpts to assert a c1airn against Defendant for unjust enrichment. 23. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure perrnit a party to file a preliminary objection where a pleading is legally insufficient. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1028{a)(4). 24. Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine having the requisite elements of "benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff, appreciation of such benefits by defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value." Styer v. Hulto, 422 Pa. Super. 262, 267,619 A.2d 347, 350 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) {quotingWolfv. Wolf, 356 Pa. Super. 365, 514 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 527 Pa. 218, 590 A.2d 901 (1991)). 25. The main focus of the doctrine of unjust enrichment is whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched. Styer v. Hulto, 422 Pa. Super. At 268, 619 A.2d at 350. 26. In order for enrichment to be unjust, the Plaintiff rnust have been misled by the Defendant in some manner. Ravin. Inc. v. First City Co., 692 A.2d 677, 582 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). 27. Plaintiff has alleged nothing in it's Complaint, nor it's Amended Complaint 5 which is legally sufficient to show that Defendant rnisled the Plaintiff in any way, because no there is no evidence that any contract, written, oral or otherwise, was ever entered into by the parties that would mandate Defendant to pay the relocation costs back, and nothing pertaining to that issue was ever discussed at Defendant's exit interview when he left Plaintiff's employ, and therefore a claim for unjust enrichrnent by Plaintiff against Defendant is unwarranted. 28. If this Honorable Court decides that an express agreernent concerning relocation matters did exist, Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment is still not warranted because as an equitable doctrine, unjust enrichrnent "is clearly inapplicable when the relationship between the parties is founded on a written agreement or express contract." Roman Mosaic and Tile Co. v. Vollrath, 226 Pa. Super. 215, 217, 313 A.2d 305, 307 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974) (quoting Third Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Scranton v. Lehi~h Valley Coal Co., 353 Pa. 185, 193,44 A.2d 571 (1945)). 29. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting any element of a cause of action for unjust enrichment, if the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant is founded upon an express agreement or if there was no agreement between the parties at all, Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim of unjust enrichment. 6 Ii WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court sustain Defendant's Preliminary Objection No.2 by way of demurrer, and dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Daniel F. Wolfson, qUIre WOLFSON & ASSOCIATES, P.c. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846.1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant ii 7 . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 00-8393 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~day of March, 2001, I, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Arnended Complaint upon counsel of record by regular mail, postage ,pre-paid and addressed as follows: E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.c. 321 1 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Respectfully submitted, ;&-:vC'~~ WOLFSON & ASSOCIATES, P.c. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant II lt1l~j;~I>'~m,;f,E",\,;i;"";;;"jw",~~,",!'d;.J;hl.~'J..'J!\l*.!>>'1'l;~K,b,,jri--f~t.\:',t\ll;">"''''''''',^~d'''c''';i:iJUiIO~~~tJjff' " """ ,"",,, ,"',~, ~ c '"_ ';_,",' f '_',~*"7~if'! "<,,. 1.- ."_,."".c-,,,' ,- ,,-;.j- C1';:;",;, --" :~jiMlll:~~~ii!il#.;HWllUll~ _ .__:t2l .....,~INIJlA~ . {! ;i i' I, I: I !: i: !: i: i) ", ,~ ""~'" ~"",' -,,,~-' '. " i; " 0 ......'~. ",..,' C 5": .~1> -c ~')'''' , m f"l , ::::J -~ Z t: , c'> r< ,0 : -<:::-. :? 1-:: C) n : ::'-:::. --, ~f~ ~ -' z :.n -,."" -! :.0 -< to -< PJ 131! '~"~' , r,"'" '.', , "'co'" '. ,_ , ,~ '''",fJ,",~", '~,' _ ,'-,-~ , ,~ ~, , I ,',- ,. ,; .Ie';';;", 0"" '>-"";""<,,,-'s,";',"G":_:"-,,,;;,\,,~_~,,,,),,~, '"' -.,;., r RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 00-8393 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.1. ORDER AND NOW, this 3}* day of July, 2001, the preliminary objection of the defendant based on a violation of Rule Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(h) is SUSTAINED. The plaintiff is granted leave to amend in order to state whether the agreement between the parties was oral or written and, if written, to attach a copy of the writing to the complaint. The preliminary objection of the defendant in the nature of a demurrer to the cause of action for breach of contract is DENIED. The preliminary objection of the defendant to the count of unjust enrichment is DENIED without prejudice. BY THE COURT, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire For the Plaintiff ~ ~ cr:ti Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm - "'.'~ ,~' ,~ ,,-,." '. - .'. ,O"M" ,,*',),' '''.,;;',j' ,,- _,~ ,~ ,'", "---c' .-'= - 7!'H1I'I!, ',",".-- ,,',"0 - ~,~,,' '"~'. ~~ '. - r--~ ~-<'" -Tr'~-'"w''''''~'~T'lf"'tflijf:';i" '~'Y' -', """-""I'iJj"" ,"'C '~",""-" ""'~ii~"nllfl'j( ,~ ,", ~iiltrrlillIrl1rllrlnll lil' , "" "J" "",". ! ~" ,~. r~1 1:-"'1; 'j: 'J,'"' -. ,:..-~..... Vi. Vt_ " ,,,C,, c::;,-JI,'n,'I,-'TAlRY .,:,-..\....Itr-u o I AU'; - 2 Mi 10: I S CUMBEfil.Ai\O caU/IN PENNSYI_VANLtI ~ ~"'"' , ~~,..k-~,"" ,.".,...,,~~.\Wl~crn~"!'i'~--iI(.,'lr~~'~~-'H!'~~~;>.1~~,ll!If~~;t:isro~~~ .' -"''; RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 00-8393 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J. OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are the defendant's preliminary objections to the plaintiff's amended complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, Steven W. Emmet, then residing in Florida, accepted employment with Rite Aid Corporation in Pennsylvania on March 8, 1999. On the date the defendant accepted employment with the plaintiff, he entered into a contract by which the plaintiff promised to pay the defendant's relocation costs on condition that he continue his employment for at least one year. The complaint goes on to recite that the defendant "personally assured and represented to Plaintiff that he would work the one-year time period and honor and observe the contract." According to the complaint, the defendant left his employment on October 15, 1999. The plaintiff now seeks reimbursement of the relocation costs in the amount of$18,941.94. The defendant has raised three preliminary objections. The first is a contention that the amended complaint does not comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h). Some confusion has been engendered in this case because the defendant urges upon the court an outdated version ofthe rule, claiming that 10 19(h) contains a requirement that a copy of any written agreement be attached to the complaint. It is true that the filing of a complaint requires the attachment of any ,OO-83~3 CIVIL copy of a written agreement, but that requirement appears under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(i) not 1019(h). The current 1019(h) requires the complaint to specifically state whether the agreement was oral or written. Interestingly, plaintiff's amended complaint does not state whether the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant was oral or written but merely alleges that the parties "entered into a contract." The defendant is "in the right church but the wrong pew." We will nonetheless sustain the preliminary objection but grant a relief slightly different from the one requested. The second preliminary objection in this case is in the nature of a demurrer. The defendant contends that the complaint fails to set forth a claim for breach of contract. The question presented by a demurrer is whether, on the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. McMahon v. Shea, 547 Pa. 124, 129,688 A.2d 1179, 1181 (1997). A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only in cases that are clear and free from doubt. Firing v. Kephart, 466 Pa. 560, 353 A.2d 833, 834 (1976). Under Pennsylvania law, a cause of action for breach of contract is established by showing the existence of a contract to which the plaintiff and defendant were parties, the essential terms of that contract, a breach of the duty imposed by the contract and resulting damages. Cottman Transmission SYstems, Inc. v. Melodv, 851 F.Supp. 660, 672 (B.D. Pa. 1994). In the present case, we are satisfied that the amended complaint sets forth the required elements for a cause of action for breach of contract. To the extent that there is uncertainty as to whether or not the contract was oral or written, this matter will be resolved by our treatment of the first preliminary objection. ~ ~'" ..00-8393 CIVIL In preliminary objection number three, the defendant contends that the amended complaint does not set forth a claim for unjust enrichment. "The elements of unjust enrichment are benefits conferred on one party by another, appreciation of such benefits by the recipient, and acceptance and retention of these benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for the recipient to retain the benefits without payment of value." 16 Summ. Pa. Jur. 2d Com ~ 2:2 (1994); Stver v. Hugo, 422 Pa.Super. 262, 267, 619 A.2d 347,350 (Pa.Super. 1993), aff'd, 535 Pa. 610,637 A.2d 276 (1994). In this case, the plaintiff alleges that it conferred a benefit on the defendant by relocating him from Florida to Pennsylvania, that this was a benefit enjoyed by the defendant and was a benefit the defendant agreed to accept in exchange for working for the plaintiff for a period of no less than one year. It may well be, of course, that the claim for unjust enrichment will be subsumed by the breach of contract action. In fact, it has been held that an action for unjust enrichment will not lie where there is a written or express contract between the parties. See Mitchell v. Moore, 729 A.2d 1200, 1203 (Pa.Super. 1999). Again, this matter cannot be fmally addressed until the nature of the contract between the parties has been properly pled. Thus, we will deny this preliminary objection but reserve to the defendant the right to revisit the matter. ORDER AND NOW, this "J ,- day of July, 2001, the preliminary objection of the defendant based on a violation of Rule Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(h) is SUSTAINED. The plaintiff is granted leave to amend in order to state whether the agreement between the parties was oral or written and, if written, to attach a copy of the writing to the complaint. 3 r r> ",' '-", '" ~ ,~, -- -~~" , - .oG-8393 CIVIL The preliminary objection of the defendant in the nature of a demurrer to the cause of action for breach of contract is DENIED. The preliminary objection of the defendant to the count of unjust enrichment is DENIED without prejudice. BY THE COURT, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire For the Plaintiff 44- Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm 4 -" . L L. _,_ _ ,I JIh<iII5OI,' RITE AID CORPORATION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 00-8393 v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant 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 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 A VISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos viente (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y A viso radicando personalmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se Ie advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier SUIlla de dinero reclamada en la demanda 0 cualquier otra reclamacion 0 remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Document #: 212731,] ..:.~, ~ , ~-~ l'~.\;~_' Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u ostros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO IlENE UN ABODGADO 0 NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 VA Y A A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARA A VERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Documeflt #: 212731.1 =~I , '~""~!1i~~""" RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 00-8393 v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, by and through its attorneys, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire and Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, is a corporation licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 30 Hnnter Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, is an adult individual with a last known address of 6288 NW 47th Court, Coral Springs, Florida. 3. On or about March 8, 1999, Defendant accepted employment with Plaintiff in Pennsylvania. 4. On the same date, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral contract whereby Plaintiff agreed to pay for Defendant's relocation costs to Pennsylvania in return for Defendant's promise not to terminate his employment with Plaintiff for a one-year time period. 5. The oral agreement provided that should Defendant terminate his employment within the one-year time period, Defendant would be obligated to reimburse Plaintiff for all relocation costs as well as all actual expenditures incurred by Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the relocation costs, including all costs oflegal action and reasonable attorney's fees. Document #: 212731.1 ,. .1 " ,1.- . ~' '~~ 6 Defendant personally assured and represented to Plaintiffthat he would work the one-year time period and honor and observe the contract. Without these assurances and representations, Plaintiff would not have paid for Defendant's relocation costs and expenses. 7 Pursuant to the contract and based upon the representations and assurances of Defendant, Plaintiff relocated Defendant and incurred costs in the amount of$18,941.94. 8 On or about October 15, 1999, prior to the expiration of the required one-year time period, Defendant, with full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the contract as well as his prior representations and assurances to Plaintiff, terminated his employment. 9. As of the filing of this Complaint, the balance due, owing and unpaid by Defendant is $18,941.94. 10 As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable attorney's fees in the collection of amounts due and owing by Defendant, and Plaintiff shall continue to incur such attorney's fees throughout the conclusion of the proceedings. II. Plaintiff has performed any and all conditions precedent to the bringing of this action. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT 12. The averments of paragraphs I through II are hereby incorporated by reference. 13. Plaintiffrelying upon the representations and assurances of Defendant as well as the terms and conditions of the contract, relocated Defendant. 14. Defendant breached the contract by failing to work the required one-year time period. Document #: 212731.1 1--- " ~ """"'"""~ 15. Defendant also breached the contract by failing to repay the relocation costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of his relocation. 16. Because of Defendant's breach of the contract, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $18,941.94, plus attorney fees, costs and interest. 17. Despite reasonable demand, Defendant has failed, refused and continues to refuse to pay all sums due and owing, all to the damage of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $18,941.94, together with interest, reasonable attorney's fees, damages for delay, costs of this action, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT 18. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 17 are hereby incorporated by reference. 19. Plaintiff conferred a benefit in the amount of $18,941.94 upon Defendant by promising to pay for his relocation to Pennsylvania in return for Defendant's promise not to terminate his employment for one year. 20. Defendant misled Plaintiff with his assurances and representations that he would work the required one-year time period or reimburse Plaintifffor the costs and expenses incurred as a result of his relocation. 21. Relying upon the representations and assurances of Defendant, Plaintiff paid for Defendant's relocation to Pennsylvania. Document #: 21273J,J " l_;.: " 22. Defendant accepted and retained the benefits of Plaintiff relocating him, but failed to complete the required one-year time period or reimburse Plaintiff the value of relocating him and, as a result, has been unjustly enriched in the amount of$18,941.94. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $18,941.94, together with interest, damages for delay and costs of this action, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERE, P.c. 9. By: o E. RALP GOD REY, ESQUIRE I.D. 77052 3 211 North Front Street Post Office Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: ?f /1&(0 I , Document #: 212731.1 AUG-14-01 TUE 02:04 PM RITE AID HR DEPT FAX NO, 717 731 3860 ,"- -, .~ 'L . -__I '~, ~ "'. P. 02 -. VERIFICATION I, Tracy SChrey, Esquire, make this Verification on behalf of Rite Aid Corporation. I state that I am authorized so to do on its behalf and certifY that the facts sct forth ill the foregoing St.'Cond , Amended Complaint are true and corrretto the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and further Slate that false statement~ herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S.A. 94904, relating to unsWorn falsifications to authorities. Rite Aid Corporation Dated: tJf/I~ I D""""""" #, ,00803. / - -- ,,", , ,,!.. . "'O~~_:, " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2001, I, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certifY that I served a copy of the within Amended Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York,PA 17403 €I~(~~ E. Ralph Godfrey Document #: 212731.1 ~j~~~Mi.'I\tHH;ljJ;Mil!JIli!I!i;!"Jit!~J&imiffif"~W;;l~,-;i,,,.'t;"'",t,,<,,,,- ,""0J"\"","'i'~@f"'~""""""J.b.' 'I";?~""-"-~, ,..."", ""_'~ ," ,. .. ,~ ~,="'~,'"" "~~""~~'~~""T~",k~.",,,,,c,,,..~,,. ,_ ",~", ",<, ,,~'\~L, ilt.~ ~....-< '~;&1IiIlt ~'.~ ;1I~."_."-' 1liiillilIlll!il!'~' ,~ ,-" '>,,", " ~ -,,~ ,~,. - .'~ c:1 il II i (') ,'" , C O? ~"' OJ r~;-~ n . L..': :j") Z ;Z c'"",'! UJ - (=i -< C=-l." --;.-:! '" ~(..:: )>L r',:,l 'c: Z ~ =< .-J Ii -< -~" r .~~~ ~~ . ,I ~" , ~ l 11Miil1!~!Y~ RITE AID CORPORATION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 00-8393 v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant 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 Document #: 200803,J ""'~_ri'" '-';:!If,; RITE AID CORPORATION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 00-8393 v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant A VISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos yiente (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y A yiso radicando persoualmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se Ie adyierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un faIIo por cualquier suma de dinero recIamada en la demanda 0 cualquier otra recIamacion 0 remedio soIicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas ayiso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u ostros derecl10s importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABODGADO 0 NO PUEDEPAGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA SIGUlENTE OFICINA PARA AVERIGUARDONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LffiERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Docume(lt #: 200803.1 ~~~-" '" . <, -,," "~--~ RITE AID CORPORATION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 00-8393 v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, by and through its attorneys, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire and Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, is a corporation licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, is an adult individual with a last known address of 6288 NW 47th Court, Coral Springs, Florida. 3. On or about March 8, 1999, Defendant accepted employment with Plaintiff in Pennsylvania. 4. On the same date, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract by which Plaintiff promised to pay for Defendant's relocation costs to Pennsylvania in return for Defendant's promise not to terminate his employment with Plaintiff for a one-year time period. 5. The contract provided that should Defendant terminate his employment within the one-year time period, Defendant would be obligated to reimburse Plaintiff for all relocation Document #: 200803.1 , .ifII;l,ill..m~~....I.~ "" ., " T".I!E!s:hOll'~,_ costs as well as all actual expenditures incurred by Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the relocation costs, including all costs of legal action and reasonable attorney's fees. 6. Defendant personally assured and represented to Plaintiff that he would work the one-year time period and honor and observe the contract. Without these assurances and representations, Plaintiff would not have paid for Defendant's relocation costs and expenses. 7. Pursuant to the contract and based upon the representations and assurances of Defendant, Plaintiffrelocated Defendant and incurred costs in the amount of $18,941.94. 8. On or about October 15, 1999, prior to the expiration ofthe required one-year time period, Defendant, with full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the contract as well as his prior representations and assurances to Plaintiff, terminated his employment. 9. As of the filing of this Complaint, the balance due, owing and unpaid by Defendant is $18,941.94. 10. As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable attorney's fees in the collection of amounts due and owing by Defendant, and Plaintiff shall continue to incur such attorney's fees throughout the conclusion of the proceedings. 11. Plaintiff has performed any and all conditions precedent to the bringing of this action. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT 12. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 11 are hereby incorporated by reference. Document #: 200803.1 "",,,," -j ~. I^' -'_'1. 13. Plaintiff relying upon the representations and assurances of Defendant as well as the terms and conditions of the contract, relocated Defendant. 14. Defendant breached the contract by failing to work the required one-year time period. 15. Defendant also breached the contract by failing to repay the relocation costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of his relocation. 16. Because of Defendant's breach of the contract, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $18,941.94, plus attorney fees, costs and interest. 17. Despite reasonable demand, Defendant has failed, refused and continues to refuse to pay all sums due and owing, all to the damage of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $18,941.94, together with interest, reasonable attorney's fees, damages for delay, costs of this action, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT 18. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 17 are hereby incorporated by reference. 19. Plaintiff conferred a benefit in the amount of $18,941.94 upon Defendant by promising to pay for his relocation to Pennsylvania in return for Defendant's promise not to terminate his employment for one year. Document #: 200803.1 "~~ , ,-",~,," 20. Defendant misled Plaintiff with his assurances and representations that he would work the required one-year time period or reimburse Plaintiff for the costs and expenses incurred as a result of his relocation. 21. Relying upon the representations and assurances of Defendant, Plaintiff paid for Defendant's relocation to Pennsylvania. 22. Defendant accepted and retained the benefits of Plaintiff relocating him, but failed to complete the required one-year time period or reimburse Plaintiff the value of relocating him and, as a result, has been unjustly enriched in the amount of $18,941.94. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $18,941.94, together with interest, damages for delay and costs of this action, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.e. By: Dated: E. RALP GO F I.D. 77052 3211 North Front Street Post Office Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff Document #: 200803,1 1lillIS~ft,,,,l MAR-19-01 MON 05:02 PM RITE AID HR DEPT ." "-" .,,""'....... FAX NO. 717 731 3860 P. 02/02 ,1-1671 !,<(.)G;E' &-'9 VERIFICATION - .~ I. Tracy Schrey, Esquire. make this Verification on behalf of Rile ,\ ;.: ': \'poration. r state filar r ;un authorized so 10 do on its belk11fand certity that the facts setfor!.!, ;., ',"" !0regoing ,\'ll~nded Complaillt are true and eorrectto the best of my knowledge, in,:'.. ",,, :;, "1 and belief, and {<mhe,' state tbat false statements herein aro made st1bject to the penalties '." '. :..'.. C.s,A, ~4904, rdnting to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Rite Aid Corporation I)"kc.l: __r..!;} ~/ i""I''''II'I''-!:;_.OO,WU,J 1- ;; ~ -~ -' j .L , :'s;:iiiljtlliiallial.~~__ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2001, I, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certifY that I served a copy of the within Amended Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York,PA 17403 E. Ralph Godfrey Document #: 200803.1 ~~~~ ,,,'- _l ~ , ;"'f-," RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this _ day of , 2001, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the Preliminary Objections of Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, are overruled. It is further ordered that Defendant shall file an Answer to the Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. BY THE COURT: J. Document #: 2048/7./ I" .~' '.. -" ,_: ~' '; , " ,-, " "~"""i RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, by and through its attorneys, Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., hereby answers Defendant's Preliminary Objections as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted, but with qualifications. It is admitted that Defendant, in violation of the agreement with Plaintiffs counsel which provided Defendant with an unlimited extension to file an Answer only, breached this agreement and filed Preliminary Objections on or about March 5, 2001. 6. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that on March 20, 2001, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Any remaining allegations in paragraph 6 are denied. 7. Denied. The Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. Document #: 202726,1 :'0 " ,~ , ,'f , ~ ' "'-'. -'),"-'-^ 1;! PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO.1 - FAILURE OF A PLEADING TO CONFORM TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE l019(h) 8. No response required. 9. Denied. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. 10. Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. II. Denied. Paragraph II is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, paragraph II is denied. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(h) states: "When any claim or defense is based upon an agreement, the pleading shall state specifically if the agreement is oral or written." It does not state "the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing." 12. Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. To the extent that a response may be required, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(i) permits the Plaintiff to set forth the substance of the contract in writing when a copy is not accessible to the pleader. The Amended Complaint clearly pleads a cause of action for breach of contract. 13. Denied. Paragraph 13 is denied as a conclusion of law. 14. Denied. To the contrary, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(h) does not require the attachment of the contact to the Complaint. Furthermore, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(i) permits the Plaintiff to set forth a cause of action for breach of -2- Document #: 202726,] ~, _I _I, . , 0 "",,0.<, " j-." "~"'i contract even though the contract has not been attached to the Amended Complaint since Plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts and allegations of the substance of the writing. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant's Preliminary Objections. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO.2 - LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING (DEMURRER) PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE l028(a)(4) 15. No response required. 16. Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. To the extent that a response may be required, Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint properly asserts a claim against Defendant for breach of contract. 17. Denied. Paragraph 17 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is legally sufficient. . 18. Denied. Paragraph 18 is denied as a conclusion of law. To the extent that a response may be required, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges the existence of an express or implied contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. Furthermore, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that the Defendant has consented to the terms of the Relocation Agreement. 19. Denied. Paragraph 19 is denied as a conclusion of law. To the extent that a response may be required, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges the existence of an express or implied contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. - 3 - Document #: 202726.1 -.~~. . , '~ "' 20. Denied. Paragraph 20 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, Plaintiff has properly pled facts supporting each element of a cause of action for breach of contract and, therefore, has properly pled a legally sufficient claim for breach of contract. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny Defendant's Preliminary Objections. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO.3 - FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 21. No response required. 22. Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. 23. Denied. Paragraph 23 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 24. Denied. Paragraph 24 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, benefits were conferred upon Defendant by Plaintiff, the benefits were appreciated by Defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits without payment of value by Defendant would be inequitable. 25. Denied. Paragraph 25 is denied as a conclusion of law. 26. Denied. Paragraph 26 is denied as a conclusion of law. To the extent that a response may be required, Defendant misled Plaintiff when he agreed to work the one year time requirement in order to have his relocation costs paid for by Plaintiff. - 4- Document #: 202726.1 , "hi I I .., I . =" .~ _ n' - ~ 0" '......,;_:, 27. Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. To the extent that a response may be required, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint has alleged sufficient facts to show that Defendant misled the Plaintiff which would mandate Defendant paying the relocation costs back to Plaintiff. 28. Denied. Paragraph 28 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, even if this Honorable Court decides that there is an express agreement between the parties, Plaintiff may still pursue a claim for unjust enrichment. 29. Denied. Paragraph 29 is denied as a conclusion oflaw. To the extent that a response may be required, Plaintiffhas properly pled facts which support every element of its cause of action for unjust enrichment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny Defendant's Preliminary Objections. Respectfully submitted, METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. F By E. Ralph odfrey, Esquire Attorney J.D. No. 77052 P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, P A 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: - 5 - Document #: 202726.1 ~ ~. I . . ,,0 " , ~-' ~ '1!iilliIII~", CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l^- AND NOW, this 11;. day of April, 2001, I, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Plaintiff s Answer to Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York,PA 17403 [! -6- Document #: 202726.1 ;;I.''''' A.' .4J . . """",,,,,,,,,,";j;~, > ,- . . PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next: Pre- TrialArgument Court ~ Argument Court (;APTION()Fc}lsi-------------------------------------------------------------- (entire caption must be stated iu full) RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaiutiff No. 00-8393 Civil Action - Law v. STEVENW. EMMET, Defendant I. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.) Defendant'sPretiminary Objections to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.c. P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg,PA 17110-0300 (b) for defendant: DanielF. Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates,P.c. 267 East Market Street York,PA 17403 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.c. By Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: April 10, 2001 Document #: 202751.1 - .~ , ~ -, .' faolj!/!;C' " ,,.. . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~ day of April, 2001, I, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served a copy of the attached Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 cz. Document #: 202751.1 ii:'~': "~*I.~~mi~limtimm~~i'&f;-iM'::'1>,"-liiH~ij",,:c'-w';oi,_"~r1ri'~:lii-lji;iJ'i;;')""'~~~~~~;I''';''- ,- .~ ~ ~ W'AI I I. ~ .< ~" ' --~.~ '='- Ik~"" .~ "~' ~- ~ . - ,,~, ~ [) ~ ri2if:(' ;?; 2-: ~~- G') __~:-- -/ . ~~ ;.::: '-j -.. "] . n ~'- i '. . ." -\J ':;.:] -',"' ..---.-'~ ~, '.,,;' :J1 (::J ~ 6" 811 _tl'jGi..l_""""'-"~~ ~I . ."~,, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 00-8393 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OB1ECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, by and through his attorney, Daniel F. Wolfson, and the law firm of Wolfson & Associates, P .c., hereby preliminarily objects to the Plaintiff's Complaint and in support thereof avers the following: The Parties: 1. Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, is a corporation licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, is an adult individual with a last known address of 6288 NW 47th Court, Coral Springs, Florida. Procedural Backltround: 3. On or about December 1, 2000, Plaintiff filed its Complaint under the 4. Defendant was served with Plaintiff's Complaint on or about January 27, 1 2001. II -",",,..,,,., PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. 1- FAILURE OF A PLEADING TO CONFORM TO Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(h) 5. Paragraphs 1 through 4 of the within Preliminary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 6. Paragraph four (4) of the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that" . . . Plaintiff and Defendant agrees that Plaintiff would pay for Defendant's relocation costs to Pennsylvania, but in the event Defendant terminate his employment with Plaintiff within the one year time period following his beginning of employment, Defendant would be obligated to reimburse Plaintiff for all relocation costs." 7. Paragraph five (5)ofthe Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that "Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relocation agreement agreed to by Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant agrees to pay all actual expenditures incurred by plaintiff in an attempt to collect the relocation costs, including all costs of legal action and reasonable attorney's fees." 8. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(h) requires that "{a} pleading shall state specifically whether any claim or defense set forth therein is based on a writing. If so, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing. . ." 9. Plaintiff states that it's cause of action is based on a relocation repayment agreement, but Plaintiff's Complaint fails to attach a copy of any agreement, or anything . else which would support Plaintiff's allegations that an agreement was entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant which would support Plaintiff's allegations in the present matter. 10. Under Pa. R. Civ. P. 1028(a)(2), a party may preliminarily object by way of a motion to strike off a pleading because of lack of conformity to a rule of court. 2 Ii -k~. 1 1. By failing to attach a signed Relocation Repayment Agreement, showing that Defendant consented to the terms of said Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to conform to Rule 1 019(h) and therefore must be stricken. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, respectfully requests that Honorable Court sustain his Preliminary Objection No. 1 and strike the Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to conform to a rule of court. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. 2- LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING (DEMURRER) PURSUANT TO Pa. R. Civ. P. 1028(aH4) PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISING FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 12. Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the within Preliminary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 13. Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint attempts to assert a claim against Defendant for breach of contract. 14. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure permit a party to file a preliminary objection where a pleading is legally insufficient. 15. Plaintiff's Complaint does not sufficiently allege the existence of an express or implied contract because Plaintiff attaches no Relocation Agreement, signed by Defendant, . to show that Defendant consented to the terms of said Relocation Agreement, nor does Plaintiff allege that any oral and/or implied contract was ever agreed to between the parties to the present action. 3 II ','~.., 16. Since Plaintiff's Complaint does not sufficiently allege the existence of an express or implied contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, there could be no breach of any contract on the part of Defendant. 17. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting any element of a cause of action for breach of contract, because Plaintiff has shown nothing to prove that a contract and/or agreement ever was entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim of breach of contract. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court sustain Defendant's Preliminary Objection No.2 by way of demurrer, and dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, with prejudice. PRELIMINARY OB1ECTION NO.3 - RAISING FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 18. Paragraphs 1 through 17 ofthe within Preliminary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 19. Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint attempts to assert a claim against Defendant for unjust enrichment. 20. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure permit a party to file a preliminary objection where a pleading is legally insufficient. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1028(a)(4). 21 . Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine having the requisite elements of : "benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff, appreciation of such benefits by defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value." Styer v. HUl!o, 4 ii ~w.. '" ~"~~. ~.-~"~I, lljj.,~, 422 Pa. Super. 262, 267, 619 A.2d 347, 350 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) (quoting Wolf v. Wolf, 356 Pa. Super. 365, 514 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Van Buskirkv. Van Buskirk, 527 Pa. 218, 590A.2d 901 (1991)). 22. The main focus of the doctrine of unjust enrichment is whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched. Styer v. HUl!o, 422 Pa. Super. At 268, 619 A.2d at 350. 23. In order for enrichment to be unjust, the Plaintiff must have been misled by the Defendant in some manner. Ravin. Inc. v. First City Co., 692 A.2d 677, 582 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). 24. Plaintiff has alleged nothing in it's Complaint which is legally sufficient to show that Defendant misled the Plaintiff in any way, because no Relocation Agreement was ever entered into by the parties that would mandate Defendant to pay the relocation costs back, and nothing pertaining to that issue was ever discussed at Defendant's exit interview when he left Plaintiff's employ, and therefore a claim for unjust enrichment by Plaintiff against Defendant is unwarranted. 25. If this Honorable Court decides that an express agreement concerning relocation did exist, Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment is still not warranted because as · an equitable doctrine, unjust enrichment "is clearly inapplicable when the relationship . between the parties is founded on a written agreement or express contract." Roman . Mosaic and Tile Co. v. Vollrath, 226 Pa. Super. 215, 217, 313 A.2d 305, 307 (Pa. . Super. Ct. 1974) (quoting Third Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Scranton v. Lehil!h Valley Coal Co.. 353 Pa. 185, 193, 44A.2d 571 (1945)). 5 II ,-~"~ lili_" '~1ll O""L_L~" .' L ' "c ~ ..""""""~">"-,",,,,-..r-"".i;; 26. If Plaintiff wants to continue to allege that the relationship between itself and Defendant is founded upon an express agreement, the doctrine of unjust enrichment cannot apply to Plaintiff's claims and Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim for unjust enrichment. 27. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting any element of a cause of action for unjust enrichment, if the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant is founded upon a written agreement or if there was no agreement between the parties at all, Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim of unjust enrichment. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court sustain Defendant's Preliminary Objection No.2 by way of demurrer, and dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, with prejudice. I , '1 Ii Respectfully submitted, ~~~ . Daniel F. Wolfso, quire :::::>- WOLFSON & ASSOCIATES, P.c. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant 6 ,~I......." - 1- ~, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff No. 00-8393 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 1 st day of March, 2000, I, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon counsel of record by regular mail, postage pre-paid and addressed as follows: E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.c. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Respectfully submitted, ~-;q;;z. Daniel F. olfson, ire WOLFSON & AS OCIATES, P.c. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant II "~IS~j:IJMi1ffl~flm~~!l~iIll!~~-;!I;<Mli#mWio"".h'i""~ ,="~;',,,"--i' c-""M'"'"Hi,:--\l,e-m~~ltH~!liIl!l;ii>1J!!;13ii\1~~~~~lI.i!JiJi:"-' ;...W~- ~X:ili " . E~ I ~;~\ C: ( ,C I,~; ,.. ~ . - . (,; C' ( -- r;~ ~,c., ~i ,...', ... ;,< ....,_J ~;J C" 2: --, :iJ .< \0 ~"'... tB 6'></ ,', "j." >R, '-~,?__"P'~_\"-" ",,""" _8,~","-"_".,Y' r1:-'h9''''".~ " - L~",,.,."-~ _,"" "~. ~' ,,~~. "J eH___~, ~~ ,-,~' ". J r RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff v. STEVEN W. EMMET Inc. Dated: Defendant 1- ~ ~ . -.' ~ " ~, ~" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 00-8393 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is Return of Service of Bill Greenberg Special Services, <'(;(0(0 ( Document #: 198286.1 METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By S::. P- ~ E. Ralph Godfrey, E re Attorney I.D. No. 77052 P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff " 0, '~ ", ~ ,- _""'.0 ~-~1 I , " VERIFIED R~TURN OF SERVICE STEVEN W. EMMET COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CASE: 00-8393 CIVIL DIVISION RITE AID CORPORATION NOTICE 20 DAY I COMPLAINT vs. STEVEN W. EMMET Pursuant to the request of E. Ralph Godfrey,Esg, 3211 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA. BILL GREENBERG SPECIAL SERVICES, INC., received this process on January 25, 2001 at 11:20 A.M. I, JEAN-MARIE JEAN-BAPTISTE served same on STEVEN W. EMMET, at 6288 NW 47TH COURT, CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065 on JANUARY 27, 2001 at 10:30 A.M. INDIVIDUAL SERVICE By serving the within named person a copy of the above named document(s). FS 48.031(1) MILITARY STATUS: Based upon inquiry of party served, defendant is not in the military service of the United States. I ACKNOWLEDGE that I am authorized to serve process,. in good standing in the jurisdiction wherein this process was served and I have no interest in the above action. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the forgoing document and that the facts stated in it are true. January 30th, 2001 BILL GREENBERG SPECIAL SERVICES, INC. 18450 HE 2ND AVENUE MIAMI, FL 33179 OFFICE (305) 770-4438 9 - -~ - ~ -f; ,'" ~ ~- , , ., . RETURN OF SERVICE I, J<c....> t.sk. , do hereby swear or affirm that I am over the age of eighteen (18) - and on the day of ~ t..I'\U"'"') , 2001, I served a true and correct copy ofthe Complaint in the matter of Rite Aid Corporation v. Steven W. Emmet docketed at 00-8393 in the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County on Srwh-> vJ. €.... ""<t at (.~n NW '111<- ("",A, (ur..\ Sf"'....}, FI"'..:h. , by personally handing a copy of the same to S'\~b-> w. 6'..._1- The above statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and I acknowledge that it is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. #y.: 1/319 o.re' 1j,;l7/o1 I Document #: 195946.1 -,"''''''''''''' ~ "<0 ,.. . " .' - RITE AID CORPORATION : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 00-8393 CIVIL v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please reinstate the Complaint in the above matter. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By Dated: Attorneys for Plaintiff Document #: 195904.1 ~~i~_W ""~"""""""',_Mij,i:;lIciJf~__~'f/i",!i;'iif::ti,~"";4'Y<~'0~"""~~~~~'sUillrM~'-~~ '. " '~,,~-~p .,... ~- - .- ' ..~ ._~ . ,__, L "~,. .. ~'~,_L ~__,,,,__~L... "_.' ," L ~.- ".--~,. ,,~- " ._" l!. ... f: 0 p" ~U:i t.. 11 flJ.m Jo>, :::j 2'"-", ~ r'r1::r; :ZC" N j"~ CO ." :IlfE :-<,,";;<, .j;. ~C ::) 1.~ ~() """ :-~-~~ ::;;: >8 \....0 9:' .-2:': ,,-~ ill ~ '"..)' CJI ':-I - ?E '< ~l/ :~; . ~ :- , ,-,-' '..~"'" "'-";>"~d:U'i RITE AID CORPORATION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. DOCKET NO. tr).G3~ ri0J CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant 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 LillERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Document #: 185731.1 , '" ,,' ,---, ,- ,,, -, ,-' '''" RITE AID CORPORATION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant A VISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos viente (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se Ie advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero rec1amada en la demanda 0 cualquier otra rec1amacion 0 remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u ostros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABODGADO 0 NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA SIGUlENTE OFICINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Document#: 185731.1 "~ '. , RITE AID CORPORATION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. rJ1;- %'393 {l,;J -r~ Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, by and through it s attorneys, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire and Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, is a corporation licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, is an adult individual with a last known address of 6288 NW 47th Court, Coral Springs, Florida. 3. On or about March 8, 1999, Defendant accepted employment with Plaintiff in Pennsylvania. 4. On the same date, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that Plaintiff would pay for Defendant's relocation costs to Pennsylvania, but in the event Defendant terminate his employment with Plaintiff within the one year time period following his beginning of employment, Defendant would be obligated to reimburse Plaintiff for all relocation costs. Document #: 185731.1 . <-"-~.;.ki ~, -,., "--,,~-- "", c '" '> ;d'''~l 5. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relocation agreement agreed to by Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant agreed to pay all actual expenditures incurred by Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the relocation costs, including all costs of legal action and reasonable attorney's fees. 6. Pursuant to the relocation agreement, Plaintiff relocated Defendant and incurred costs in the amount of $18,941.94. 7. On or about October 15, 1999, prior to the expiration of the required one-year time period, Defendant terminated his employment with Plaintiff. 8. As of the filing of this Complaint, the balance due, owing and unpaid on Defendant's account with Plaintiff is $18,941.94. 9. Plaintiff has retained the services ofthe law firm or Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. in the collection of amounts due from Defendant 10. As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable attorney's fees from the law office of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. in the collection of amounts due and owing by Defendant incident to the within action, and Plaintiff shall continue to incur such attorney's fees throughout the conclusion of the proceedings. 11. Plaintiff has performed any and all conditions precedent to the bringing of this action. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT 12. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 11 above are hereby incorporated by reference. Document #: 185731.1 ~ . " > . " .. i " , '. " ~'- ---ii 13. Plaintiff, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relocation agreement, relocated Defendant. 14. Defendant accepted relocation by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff paid for the relocation costs and expenses pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relocation agreement. 15. Defendant, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relocation agreement has, by terminating his employment with Plaintiff prior to the expiration of the required one-year time period, obligated himself to repay the relocation costs incurred by Plaintiff. 16. By reason of Defendants' breach of the relocation contract, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $18,941.94. 17. Despite reasonable demand, Defendant has failed, refused and continues to refuse to pay all sums due and owing as a result of Defendant's breach of the relocation agreement, all to the damage of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $18,941.94, together with interest, reasonable attorney's fees, damages for delay, costs of this action, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT 18. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth. Document #: 185731.1 ~L , .~ ' > .' " ~-" ,~ ~,- " 19. The Defendant accepted and received the benefit of having his relocation costs paid for by Plaintiff, but failed to complete the one-year time period and, therefore, was unjustly enriched in the amount of $18,941.94. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $18,941.94, together with interest, damages for delay and costs of this action, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. By: E. RALPH GOD REY, LD. 77052 3211 North Front Street Post Office Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: 17-10, tv I I Document #: 185731.1 , ~~ - I _ .J. " - , ~~. VERIFICATION The undersigned, being the ., of Rite Aid Corporation makes this Verification on its behalf, being authorized so to do, ce ing that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, and further states that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. ~4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Rite Aid Corporation Dated: /f'fjo() Document #: 185731.1 ~~~I~~!l~~ilf,~:~~";.iJ!"~_~'<ELid~_"~""^'" "ioi:>,"",hI.>lli"-",~'~_41.;;--,illlii!(;l.l>!!',!l!lmiO~4#J!iri.'o~,\!;m;; JUt '- . ~- _.(7~.....:?t ,~/ :O~.~~~":7 ........., ..... ...~}~;~~~l.~~~% " .................... PROTP'tONOTARY ~ ~~~ ~ ~. . ~ ~. o c: s: ~~~ll: ~\~~~~ \ . \ ~:3 ~ ~ t~ ~ \; ~ X) t'. ~ ~ \ V ~;5 eJ4 ~ Q (0'1) Cl 'Tl o r"1 " I ...,..! ::c -rI nl:;;t~, :f~ <5c') ::::j~i ~.~ (5lfl ~ "" . ,. " ~ ~,; 5;/-e-- v -(,v.. W. IE /K WLd ~fJ-;J ~fF'-~) ) ) ) ) ) ) I In The Court of Common Pleas of ~ Cumberland County, ?ennsylvania .I . tXJ- 83'73 , ~ Olo. OATH We do solemnly swear (or arfirm) the Constitution of the United States '.oIealt.b aIMi, th;9J: we '.oIill discharge the .....~ c'""': t;: .- :::'--; ... ) .,~,... ~J,~ '.;:;- " .-'" ,., --,'-':1;' ~~.~'~,'---"- (~' '-v., --,):;:::::: -;~ ~7' 2~ ':~f1 ~ \,..,.; ~:: "S; ]L (':.1 :-3 () c; 0 that we will supoort, obey and defend and the Constit~tioa of this Common- duties or our -fi with fidelity. AWARD We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) 9u :fLth- r:.~ lda<;<o/I.--~: --d . ..J d '" <N!J ~ n__ ,,'\u 7( T :; 3.. ~ (Jr:1-(J - applicable.) . Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name i= Date of Hearing: Date of Award: ---.//-/3- tJ? _ Chair.nan /.\ w. ~OTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD ~ow, thel3.tLday or 1l{!I/'C-Uibey- ,~~, at ,lK, f.~l., the above award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parti~s or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid uponotppeal: $ d10. ~_~:ti~m@;;1jfhE!!!i~i:i<11it-Jj~~'iiI:~"'''''Y1:;odl'il'-ihi':''0~_d"_:''!",r,,"!_''-'~''d;""_,,,i'''h_,r't,;''1;jj''''l.!j!&~iIl''li!ll1i'-'ilElil'<ll~~I:t'jf~~!>.fi'$H~~S\'lli.iii-U~~~~.~~ 1" . /ft:f~~ - /)7 :4,~r-r /~,;U . deL 6-:f}U4-(!;c..-J--<-:) ()s;t:usrOi<.nc, ~ ~~ _ /'7 /l t,'^^ ~ l<'ukJMOs I~ (1_ J-' ~~ I-Of'.(J3 ~., y '--'-" f ..:::::- \ ~ ~ '1~ - "- 1- r~ ,_, .;~ ,L., _~.,' " ~.~_~_..~I . , ~_. jbt-"~'"" ' ,,_ I ":i i;1 II I:' [I II ,] 1 J il II ,. ,I . ~'. ,.;, "- . - ~- ---_OO.~ ..r~ ..., .. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff NO. 00-8393 vs. STEVENW.EMMET, Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW PRAECIPE TO SATISFY JUDGMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please satisfy the Judgment that was entered against the Defendant in the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, GODFREY & COURlNEY, P.C. By: ~:~ ID # 77052 P.O. Box 6280 Harrisburg, P A 17112 717-540-3900 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: 4.10.2003 Document #: 218597.1 j~ ,~ "" .~' " lalLih ~ . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this L day of b ( ,2003, I, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of GODFREY & COURTNEY, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Praecipe this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Phillip Warholic, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 ~~~ Document #: 218597.1 ~~~f~-~i>:!Ii' ."~,,,^,_ ~.''', ,,=. ~ M . ..- ~ ~;Wjll!i;glt-i_~",;I'"-"~',,'Q;f.'-<<;li~~~',,^"'.li'~~~OIsi'fuIll~:IIIF'~W>'" ~' ';"~~j 1i""" >N' t~_ """_,",, _"~ "",I, . ',H, ,,~.,"\', ."__ do ,', ..,1" ... " ~- ~, , ,~~ [) fo: C3F~ zt- en.,' .....,....,.. ~l~ ~~=', c_: :;:: -< .-. '..,' c,...:. ~....) (J1 . ., - ("")- fl '...[J RITE AID coRPoRATION Plaintiff V. STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . : DOCKET NO. ~-~,~,~ ~ : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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 Document #: 185731.1 RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff V. STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : DOCKET NO. : : CIVIL ACTION LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las paginas, debe romar accion dentro de los proximos viente (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anterionnente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u ostros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABODGADO O NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Document #: 185731.1 RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff V. STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : DOCKET NO. ~0- ~.3q.3 ~ -7"'zz.,~ . : CIVIL ACTION LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, by and through it s attorneys, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire and Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, is a corporation licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, is an adult individual with a last known address of 6288 NW 47~ Court, Coral Springs, Florida. On or about March 8, 1999, Defendant accepted employment with Plaintiff in Pennsylvania. 4. On the same date, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that Plaintiff would pay for Defendant's relocation costs to Pennsylvania, but in the event Defendant tetnlinate his employment with Plaintiff within the one year time period following his beginning of employment, Defendant would be obligated to reimburse Plaintiff for all relocation costs. Document #: 185731.1 5. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relocation agreement agreed to by Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant agreed to pay all actual expenditures incurred by Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the relocation costs, including all costs of legal action and reasonable attorney's fees. 6. Pursuant to the relocation agreement, Plaintiff relocated Defendant and incurred costs in the amount of $18,941.94. 7. On or about October 15, 1999, prior to the expiration of the required one-year time period, Defendant terminated his employment with Plaintiff. 8. As of the filing of this Complaint, the balance due, owing and unpaid on Defendant's account with Plaintiff is $18,941.94. 9. Plaintiff has retained the services of the law firm or Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. in the collection of amounts due from Defendant 10. As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable attorney's fees from the law office of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. in the collection of amounts due and owing by Defendant incident to the within action, and Plaintiff shall continue to incur such attorney's fees throughout the conclusion of the proceedings. 11. Plaintiff has performed any and all conditions precedent to the bringing of this action. 12. reference. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT The avei-inents of paragraphs 1 through 11 above are hereby incorporated by Document #: 185731.1 13. Plaintiff, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relocation agreement, relocated Defendant. 14. Defendant accepted relocation by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff paid for the relocation costs and expenses pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relocation agreement. 15. Defendant, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relocation agreement has, by tes~inating his employment with Plaintiff prior to the expiration of the required one-year time period, obligated himself to repay the relocation costs incurred by Plaintiff. 16. By reason of Defendants' breach of the relocation contract, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $18,941.94. 17. Despite reasonable demand, Defendant has failed, refused and continues to refuse to pay all sums due and owing as a result of Defendant's breach of the relocation agreement, all to the damage of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $18,941.94, together with interest, reasonable attorney's fees, damages for delay, costs of this action, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT 18. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint arc hereby incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth. Document ti: 185731.1 19. The Defendant accepted and received the benefit of having his relocation costs paid for by Plaintiff, but failed to complete the one-year time period and, therefore, was unjustly enriched in the amount of $18,941.94. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $18,941.94, together with interest, damages for delay and costs of this action, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. Dated: METZGER, WIC~_..g~AM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. 3211 North Front Street Post Office Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff Document #: 185731.1 VERIFICATION The undersigned, being the~/l~/~t)/~5~/~ °f Rite Aid C°rp°rati°n makes this_,l- Verification on its behalf, being authorized so to do, Cer~rying that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, info~atiOn and belief, and further states that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Rite Aid Corporation Dated: Document #: 185731.1 COI~A'I NT REINSTATED ..- · -.; ................ PROTI*tONOTARY RITE AID CORPORATION Plaimiff V. STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · DOCKET NO. 00-8393 CIVIL : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PRAECIPE Please reinstate the Complaint in the above matter. Dated: METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff Document ti: 195904.1 RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff V. STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 00-8393 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Inc. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Attached hereto as Exhibit "A' is Return of Service of Bill Greenberg Special Services, Dated: METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By Attorney I.D. No. 77052 P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff Document #: 198286.1 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Uu~BERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VERIFIED R~','uKR OF SERVICE STEVEN W. EMMET CASE, 00-8393 CIVIL DIVISION RITE AID CORPORATION vs. STEVEN W. EMMET NOTICE 20 DAY / COMPLAINT Pursuant to the request of E. Ralph Godfrey,Esq, 3211 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA. BILL GREENBERG SPECIAL SERVICES, INC., received this process on January 25, 2001 at 11:20 A.M. I, JEAN-MARIE JEAN-BAPTISTE served same on STEVEN W. EMMET, at 6288 NW 47TH COURT, CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065 on JANUARY 27, 2001 at 10~30 A.M. INDIVIDUAL SERVICE By serving the within named person a copy of the above named document(s). FS 48.031(1) MILITARY STATUS: Based upon inquiry of party served, defendant is not in the military service of the United States. I ACKNOWLEDGE that I am authorized to serve process, in good standing in the jurisdiction wherein this process was served and I have no interest in the above action. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the forgoing document and that the facts stated in it are true. January 30th, 2001 BILL GREENBERG SPECIAL SERVICES, INC. 18450 NE 2ND AVE~u~ MIAMI, FL 33179 OFFICE (305) 770-4438 RETURN OF SERVICE I, 'J~o.,o ilalgr-,>la , do hereby swear or affirm that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and on the _~day of ~'t~,x,,~.~5 ,2001, I served a true and correct copy ofthe Complaim in the matter of Rite Aid Corporation v. Steven W. Emmet docketed at 00-8393 in the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County on Svtoe~ ~. ~e~A at 6, z~5; ~.'~ '~' ~,,,~ C~,-~ Se,..,qs ~ lr~o,,t~. , by personally handing a copy of the same to S'rg~ to. ~.,~ ~- The above statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, infomlation and belief and I acknowledge that it is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Dated: Document #: 195946.1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant No. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, by and through his attorney, Daniel F. Wolfson, and the law firm of Wolfson 6~ Associates, P.C., hereby preliminarily objects to the Plaintiff's Complaint and in support thereof avers the following: The Parties: 1. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, is an adult individual with a last known address of 6288 NW 47th Court, Coral Springs, Florida. Procedural Background: 3. On or about December 1, 2000, Plaintiff filed its Complaint under the above caption against Defendant. 4. Defendant was served with Plaintiff's Complaint on or about January 27, 2001. Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, is a corporation licensed to do business in the PRELII~IlNARY OBJECTION NO. 1- FAILURE OF A PLEADING TO CONFORI~I TO Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(h) 5. Paragraphs 1 through 4 of the within Preliminary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 6. Paragraph four (4) of the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that"... Plaintiff and Defendant agrees that Plaintiff would pay for Defendant's relocation costs to Pennsylvania, but in the event Defendant terminate his employment with Plaintiff within the one year time period following his beginning of employment, Defendant would be obligated to reimburse Plaintiff for all relocation costs." 7. Paragraph five (5) of the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that "Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relocation agreement agreed to by Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant agrees to pay all actual expenditures incurred by plaintiff in an attempt to collect the relocation costs, including all costs of legal action and reasonable attorney's fees." 8. Pa. R. Civ. P. lO19(h) requires that "{a) pleading shall state specifically whether any claim or defense set forth therein is based on a writing. If so, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing..." 9. Plaintiff states that it's cause of action is based on a relocation repayment agreement, but Plaintiff's Complaint fails to attach a copy of any agreement, or anything else which would support Plaintiff's allegations that an agreement was entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant which would support Plaintiff's allegations in the present matter. 10. Under Pa. R. Civ. P. 1028(a)(2), a party may preliminarily object by way of a motion to strike off a pleading because of lack of conformity to a rule of court. 1 1. By failing to attach a signed Relocation Repayment Agreement, showing that Defendant consented to the terms of said Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to conform to Rule ! O1 9(h) and therefore must be stricken. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, respectfully requests that Honorable Court sustain his Preliminary Objection No. 1 and strike the Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to conform to a rule of court. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. 2- LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING (DEMURRER) PURSUANT TO Pa. R. Civ. P. 1028(a)(4) PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISING FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 1 2. Paragraphs ! through 1 2 of the within Preliminary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. ! 3. Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint attempts to assert a claim against Defendant for breach of contract. 1 4. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure permit a party to file a preliminary objection where a pleading is legally insufficient. 1 5. Plaintiff's Complaint does not sufficiently allege the existence of an express or implied contract because Plaintiff attaches no Relocation Agreement, signed by Defendant, to show that Defendant consented to the terms of said Relocation Agreement, nor does Plaintiff allege that any oral and/or implied contract was ever agreed to between the parties to the present action. 1 6. Since Plaintiff's Complaint does not sufficiently allege the existence of an express or implied contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, there could be no breach of any contract on the part of Defendant. ! 7. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting any element of a cause of action for breach of contract, because Plaintiff has shown nothing to prove that a contract and/or a~reement ever was entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim of breach of contract. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court sustain Defendant's Preliminary Obiectlon No. 2 by way of demurrer, and dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, with prejudice. PP~ELIHINARY OBJECTION NO. 3 - P~ISING FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 18. Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the within Preliminary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 19. Count [! of Plaintiff's Complaint attempts to assert a claim against Defendant for unjust enrichment. 20. The Pennsylvania P~ules of Civil Procedure permit a party to file a preliminary objection where a pleading is legally insufficient. Pa. P~. Civ. P. 1028(a)(4). 2 !. Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine having the requisite elements of "benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff, appreciation of such benefits by defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value." Styer v. Hugo, 422 Pa. Super. 262, 267, 619 A.2d 347, 350 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) (quoting Wolf v. Wolf~ :]56 Pa. Super. 365, 514 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986), overruled on other ~Trounds by Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 527 Pa. 218, 590 A.2d 901 (1991 )). 22. The main focus of the doctrine of unjust enrichment is whether the defendant has been unjusdy enriched. at 350. 23. Stver v. Hugo. 422 Pa. Super. At 268, 619 A.2d In order for enrichment to be unjust, the Plaintiff must have been misled by the Defendant in some manner. Ravin, Inc. v. First City Co., 692 A.2d 677, 582 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). 24. Plaintiff has alleged nothing in it's Complaint which is legally sufficient to show that Defendant misled the Plaintiff in any way, because no Relocation Agreement was ever entered into by the parties that would mandate Defendant to pay the relocation costs back, and nothing pertaining to that issue was ever discussed at Defendant's exit interview when he left Plaintiff's employ, and therefore a claim for unjust enrichment by Plaintiff against Defendant is unwarranted. 25. If this Honorable Court decides that an express agreement concerning relocation did exist, Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment is still not warranted because as an equitable doctrine, unjust enrichment "is clearly inapplicable when the relationship between the parties is founded on a written agreement or express contract." Roman Mosaic and Tile Co. v. Vollrath~ 226 Pa. Super. 21 $, 217, 313 A.2d 305, 307 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974) (quoting Third Nat'l Bank 6~ Trust Co. of Scranton v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 353 Pa. 185, 193, 44 A.2d 571 (1945)). 5 26. If Plaintiff wants to continue to allege that the relationship between itself and Defendant is founded upon an express agreement, the doctrine of unjust enrichment cannot apply to Plaintiff's claims and Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim for unjust enrichment. 27. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting any element of a cause of action for unjust enrichment, if the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant is founded upon a written agreement or if there was no agreement between the parties at all, Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim of unjust enrichment. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court sustain Defendant's Preliminary Objection No. 2 by way of demurrer, and dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, WOLFSON 6t ASSOCIATES, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant 6 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff USe STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant No. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 1 st day of Harch, 2000, 1, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the forej~oing Brief in Support of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon counsel of record by regular mail, postage pre-paid and addressed as follows: E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS ~ ERB, P.C. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Respectfully submitted, 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant pucut TO TI~ pROTItoNOTARY OF cuMBERLAND cOUNTY: please list t~e within matter ~or t~e next: ere-~rial Argument cou~ Argument cou (entire caption must be stated in full) RITE All) CORPOl~TlOlq, Plaintiff ¥. sTEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant No. 00-8393 Civil Action - LaW State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.) Defendant's Preliminary Obiecti°ns to plaintiff s Amended Complaint. Identify counsel who will argue case: E Ralph Godfrey, Esquire (a) for plaintiff: ~V~etzger,Wickersham,Knauss & Erb, P.C. P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire (b) for defendant: Wolfson & Associates,P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 I will notify nil parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument- METZGER, WICKERSHAM' KNAUSS & ERB, P.C- By ~ e P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: 702751.1 _CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this/~day of April, 2001, I, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served a copy of the attached Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 -. ~alph G~dfrey ~ Document ii.- 202751. I RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, by and through its attorneys, Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., hereby answers Defendant's Preliminary Objections as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted, but with qualifications. It is admitted that Defendant, in violation of the agreement with Plaintiff's counsel which provided Defendant with an unlimited extension to file an Answer only, breached this agreement and filed Preliminary Objections on or about March 5, 2001. 6. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that on March 20, 2001, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Any remaining allegations in paragraph 6 are denied. 7. Denied. The Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. Document #: 202726.1 9. itself. 10. itself. 11. required. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. 1 - FAILURE OF A PLEADING TO CONFORM TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1019(!1) No response required. Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for Denied. Paragraph 11 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is To the extent that a response may be required, paragraph 11 is denied. not accessible to the pleader. breach of contract. 13. Denied. 14. Denied. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(h) states: "When any claim or defense is based upon an agreement, the pleading shall state specifically if the agreement is oral or written." It does not state "the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing." 12. Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. To the extent that a response may be required, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 10190) permits the Plaintiff to set forth the substance of the contract in writing when a copy is The Amended Complaint clearly pleads a cause of action for Paragraph 13 is denied as a conclusion of law. To the contrary, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(h) does not require the attachment of the contact to the Complaint. Furthem~ore, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 10190) pemfits the Plaintiff to set forth a cause of action for breach of Document #: 202726.1 -2- contract even though the contract has not been attached to the Amended Complaint since Plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts and allegations of the substance of the writing. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant's Preliminary Objections. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. 2 - LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING (DEMURRER) PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1028(a)(4) 15. No response required. 16. Denied. PlaintifFs Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. To the extent that a response may be required, Count I of PlaintifFs Amended Complaint properly asserts a claim against Defendant for breach of contract. 17. Denied. Paragraph 17 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is legally sufficient. 18. Denied. Paragraph 18 is denied as a conclusion of law. To the extent that a response may be required, PlaintifFs Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges thc existence of an express or implied contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. Furthem~ore, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that the Defendant has consented to the temlS of the Relocation Agreement. 19. Denied. Paragraph 19 is denied as a conclusion of law. To the extent that a response may be required, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges the existence of an express or implied contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. Document #: 202726.1 -3- 20. Denied. Paragraph 20 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, Plaintiff has properly pled facts supporting each element of a cause of action for breach of contract and, therefore, has properly pled a legally sufficient claim for breach of contract. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny Defendant's Preliminary Objections. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. 3 - FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 21. 22. itself. 23. Denied. pleading is required. No response required. Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for Paragraph 23 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive 24. Denied. Paragraph 24 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, benefits were conferred upon Defendant by Plaintiff, the benefits were appreciated by Defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits without payment of value by Defendant would be inequitable. 25. Denied. Paragraph 25 is denied as a conclusion of law. 26. Denied. Paragraph 26 is denied as a conclusion of law. To the extent that a response may be required, Defendant misled Plaintiff when he agreed to work the one year time requirement in order to have his relocation costs paid for by Plaintiff. Document #: 202726.1 -4- 27. Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. To the extem that a response may be required, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint has alleged sufficient facts to show that Defendant misled the Plaintiff which would mandate Defendam paying the relocation costs back to Plaintiff. 28. Denied. Paragraph 28 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, even if this Honorable Court decides that there is an express agreement between the parties, Plaintiff may still pursue a claim for unjust enrichment. 29. Denied. Paragraph 29 is denied as a conclusion of law. To the extem that a response may be required, Plaintiffhas properly pled facts which support every element of its cause of action for unjust enrichment. WHEREFORE, Plaimiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny Defendant's Preliminary Objections. Dated: Respectfully submitted, METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. E. Ralph ~odfrey, Esquire ~] Attorney I.D. No. 77052 P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attomeys for Plaintiff Document #: 202726.1 -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this I~-~day of April, 2001, I, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Plaintiff s Answer to Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 Document #: 202726.1 -6- RITE AID CORPORATION Vo STEVEN W. EMMET Plaintiff : . . : : Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this __ day of ., 2001, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the Preliminary Objections of Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, are overruled. It is further ordered that Defendant shall file an Answer to the Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. BYTHECOURT: Jo Document #: 204817.1 RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff V. STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : DOCKET NO. 00-8393 : : CIVIL ACTION LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : 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 Document #: 200803,1 RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff V. STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos viente (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anterioLmente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u ostros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABODGADO O NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Document ~: 200803.1 RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff V. STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : DOCKET NO. 00-8393 : : CIVIL ACTION LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, by and through its attorneys, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire and Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, is a corporation licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, is an adult individual with a last known address of 6288 NW 47~ Court, Coral Springs, Florida. On or about March 8, 1999, Defendant accepted employment with Plaintiff in Pennsylvania. 4. On the same date, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract by which Plaintiff promised to pay for Defendant's relocation costs to Pennsylvania in return for Defendant's promise not to terminate his employment with Plaintiff for a one-year time period. 5. The contract provided that should Defendant terminate his employment within the one-year time period, Defendant would be obligated to reimburse Plaintiff for all relocation Document #: 200803.1 costs as well as all actual expenditures incurred by Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the relocation costs, including all costs of legal action and reasonable attorney's fees. 6. Defendant personally assured and represented to Plaimiff that he would work the one-year time period and honor and observe the comract. Without these assurances and representations, Plaimiff would not have paid for Defendant's relocation costs and expenses. 7. Pursuant to the contract and based upon the represemations and assurances of Defendam, Plaimiff relocated Defendam and incurred costs in the amoum of $18,941.94. 8. On or about October 15, 1999, prior to the expiration of the required one-year time period, Defendam, with full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the contract as well as his prior representations and assurances to Plaintiff, terminated his employment. 9. As of the filing of this Complaim, the balance due, owing and unpaid by Defendant is $18,941.94. 10. As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable attorney's fees in the collection of amounts due and owing by Defendant, and Plaintiff shall continue to incur such attorney's fees throughout the conclusion of the proceedings. 11. Plaintiff has performed any and all conditions precedent to the bringing of this action. 12. reference. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT The aveiments of paragraphs 1 through 11 are hereby incorporated by Document #: 200803.1 13. Plaintiff relying upon the representations and assurances of Defendant as well as the terms and conditions of the contract, relocated Defendant. Defendant breached the contract by failing to work the required one-year time 14. period. 15. Defendant also breached the contract by failing to repay the relocation costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of his relocation. 16. Because of Defendant's breach of the contract, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $18,941.94, plus attorney fees, costs and interest. 17. Despite reasonable demand, Defendant has failed, refused and continues to refuse to pay all sums due and owing, all to the damage of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $18,941.94, together with interest, reasonable attorney's fees, damages for delay, costs of this action, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT The aveLments of paragraphs 1 through 17 are hereby incorporated by 18. reference. 19. Plaintiff conferred a benefit in the amount of $18,941.94 upon Defendant by promising to pay for his relocation to Pennsylvania in return for Defendant's promise not to terminate his employment for one year. Document #: 200803.1 20. Defendant misled Plaintiff with his assurances and representations that he would work the required one-year time period or reimburse Plaintiff for the costs and expenses incurred as a result of his relocation. 21. Relying upon the representations and assurances of Defendant, Plaintiff paid for Defendant's relocation to Pennsylvania. 22. Defendant accepted and retained the benefits of Plaintiff relocating him, but failed to complete the required one-year time period or reimburse Plaintiff the value of relocating him and, as a result, has been unjustly enriched in the amount of $18,941.94. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $18,941.94, together with interest, damages for delay and costs of this action, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. Dated: METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By: E~~Y. ES~ I.D. 77052 3211 North Front Street Post Office Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff Document #: 200803.1 RITE ~ID HR DEPT F~× NO, 717 731 3860 ~1671 P, 02/02 r'-¥.~;E; 6/9 VERIFICATION I, Traev Schrcy, Esquh~, make this Verification on behalf of Rite, ,. ;,: .: '," ¢oration. I state, lha~ ! am authorized so to doon ils b~lmlfand certify that the facts ~t fofl.b :.: '!'., ~bregoing · \n~ended Cmu plaint ~e true and correct to file bcsl of m~v knowle, dge, in.l:,' J':: ;, ii. ,:~ and b~licf., and tbrlhcr state that ihlse statements h~reh~ are nmde subject to ~h~ penalli~s (,:: :..' i':,. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unswom falsificalions to authorities. Rite Aid Corporation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2001, I, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Amended Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 E. Ralph Godfrey Document #: 200803.1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff VS. STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant No. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OB1ECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, by and through his attorney, Daniel F. Wolfson, and the law firm of Wolfson ~ Associates, P.C., hereby preliminarily objects to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and in support thereof avers the following: The Parties: 1. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, is an adult individual with a last known address of 6288 NW 47th Court, Coral Springs, Florida. Procedural Background: 3. On or about December 1, 2000, Plaintiff filed its Complaint under the above caption against Defendant. 4. Defendant was served with Plaintiff's Complaint on or about January 27, 2001. Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, is a corporation licensed to do business in the 5. That on or about March 5, 2001, Defendant filed Preliminary Objections, and a Brief in Support of said Preliminary Objections, to Plaintiff's original Complaint. 6. That on or about March 20, 2001, in a perceived attempt to cure Defendant's Preliminary Objections, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. 7. The only substantive allegations included in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint which were not set forth in the original Complaint related to Plaintiff's allegations that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract, and not a relocation agreement, which was referred to in Plaintiff's original complaint. PRELIHINARY OBJECTION NO. 1- FAILURE OF A PLEADING TO CONFORH TO Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(h) 8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 of the within Preliminary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 9. Paragraph four (4) of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that"... Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract by which Plaintiff promised to pay for Defendant's relocation costs to Pennsylvania in return for Defendant's promise not to terminate his employment with Plaintiff for a one-year period." 10. Paragraph five (5) of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that "The contract provided that should Defendant terminate his employment within the one- year time period, Defendant would be obligated to reimburse Plaintiff for all relocation costs as well as all actual expenditures incurred by plaintiff in an attempt to collect the relocation costs, including all costs of legal action and reasonable attorney's fees." 2 11. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(h) requires that "{a} pleading shall state specifically whether any claim or defense set forth therein is based on a writing. If so, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing..." 12. Plaintiff states that it's cause of action is based on a contract entered into by the parties, but Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to attach a copy of any such contract, or anything else which would support Plaintiff's allegations that any contract was ever entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant. 13. Under Pa. R. Civ. P. ! 028(a)(2), a party may preliminarily object by way of a motion to strike off a pleading because of lack of conformity to a rule of court. 14. By failing to attach a copy of the referred to contract, showing that Defendant consented to the terms of any contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to conform to Rule 1019(h) and therefore must be stricken. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, respectfully requests that Honorable Court sustain his Preliminary Objection No. 1 and strike the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to conform to a rule of court. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. 2- LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING (DEMURRER) PURSUANT TO Pa. R. Civ. P. 1028(a)(4) PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISING FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 15. Paragraphs ! through ! 4 of the within Preliminary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 16. Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint attempts to assert a claim against Defendant for breach of contract. ! 7. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure permit a party to file a preliminary objection where a pleading is legally insufficient. 18. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not sufficiently allege the existence of an express or implied contract because Plaintiff attaches no contract, or any document, signed by Defendant, as an exhibit, to show that Defendant consented to the terms of any contract, nor does Plaintiff specifically allege that any oral and/or implied contract was ever agreed to between the parties to the present action. 19. Since Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not sufficiently allege the existence of an express or implied contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, there could be no breach of any contract on the part of Defendant. 20. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting any element of a cause of action for breach of contract' because Plaintiff has shown nothing to prove that a contract and/or agreement ever was entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant, written, oral or ortherwise, Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim of breach of contract. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court sustain Defendant's Preliminary Objection No. 2 by way of demurrer, and dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, with prejudice. 4 PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. 3 - RAISING FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIH 21. Paragraphs ! through 20 of the within Preliminary Objections are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 22. Count I1 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint attempts to assert a claim against Defendant for unjust enrichment. 23. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure permit a party to file a preliminary objection where a pleading is legally insufficient. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1028(a)(4). 24. Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine having the requisite elements of "benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff, appreciation of such benefits by defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value." Stver v. Hugo. 422 Pa. Super. 262, 267, 619 A.2d 347, 350 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) (quoting Wolf v. Wolf, 356 Pa. Super. 365, 514 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. Ct. ! 986), overruled on other grounds by Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 527 Pa. 218, 590 A.2d 901 ( 1991 )). 25. The main focus of the doctrine of unjust enrichment is whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched. Stver v. Hugo. 422 Pa. Super. At 268, 619 A.2d at 350. 26. In order for enrichment to be unjust, the Plaintiff must have been misled by the Defendant in some manner. Ravin, Inc. v. First City Co., 692 A.2d 677, 582 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). 27. Plaintiff has alleged nothing in it's Complaint, nor it's Amended Complaint 5 which is legally sufficient to show that Defendant misled the Plaintiff in any way, because no there is no evidence that any contract, written, oral or otherwise, was ever entered into by the parties that would mandate Defendant to pay the relocation costs back, and nothing pertaining to that issue was ever discussed at Defendant's exit interview when he left . Plaintiff's employ, and therefore a claim for unjust enrichment by Plaintiff against Defendant is unwarranted. 28. if this Honorable Court decides that an express agreement concerning relocation matters did exist, Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment is still not warranted because as an equitable doctrine, unjust enrichment "is clearly inapplicable when the relationship between the parties is founded on a written a~reement or express contract." Roman klosaic and Tile Co. v. Vollrath, 226 Pa. Super. 215, 217, 313 A.2d 305, 307 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974) (quoting Third Nat'l Bank 6~ Trust Co. of Scranton v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co, 353 Pa. 185, 193, 44 A.2d 571 (1945)). 29. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting any element of a cause of action for unjust enrichment, if the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant is founded upon an express agreement or if there was no agreement between the parties at all, Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim of unjust enrichment. 6 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court sustain Defendant's Preliminary Objection No. 2 by way of demurrer, and dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, WOLFSON 6: ASSOCIATES, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant 7 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant No. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this~_~day of March, 2001, !, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, do hereby certify that ! have served a copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint upon counsel of record by regular mail, postage pre-paid and addressed as follows: E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAH, KNAUSS 6: ERB, P.C. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Respectfully submitted, WOLFSON 6: ASSOCIATES, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant RITE AID CORPORATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : 00-8393 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEVEN W. EMMET, : Defendant : IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J. ORDER AND NOW, this :~l~' day of July, 2001, the preliminary objection of the defendant based on a violation of Rule Pa.R.Civ. P. 1019(h) is SUSTAINED. The plaintiff is granted leave to amend in order to state whether the agreement between the parties was oral or written and, if written, to attach a copy of the writing to the complaint. The preliminary objection of the defendant in the nature of a demurrer to the cause of action for breach of contract is DENIED. The preliminary objection of the defendant to the count of unjust enrichment is DENIED without prejudice. E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire For the Plaintiff Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire For the Defendant :rim BY THE COURT, mCHess, J. RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff VS. STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-8393 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J. OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are the defendant's preliminary objections to the plaintiff's amended complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, Steven W. Emmet, then residing in Florida, accepted employment with Rite Aid Corporation in Pennsylvania on March 8, 1999. On the date the defendant accepted employment with the plaintiff, he entered into a contract by which the plaintiffpromised to pay the defendant's relocation costs on condition that he continue his employment for at least one year. The complaint goes on to recite that the defendant "personally assured and represented to Plaintiff that he would work the one-year time period and honor and observe the contract." According to the complaint, the defendant left his employment on October 15, 1999. The plaintiff now seeks reimbursement of the relocation costs in the amount of $18, 941.94. The defendant has raised three preliminary objections. The first is a contention that the amended complaint does not comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h). Some confusion has been engendered in this case because the defendant urges upon the court an outdated version of the rule, claiming that 1019(h) contains a requirement that a copy of any written agreement be attached to the complaint. It is tree that the filing of a complaint requires the attachment of any 00-8393 CIVIL copy of a written agreement, but that requirement appears under Pa.R.Civ. P. 1019(i) not 1019(h). The current 1019(h) requires the complaint to specifically state whether the agreement was oral or written. Interestingly, plaintiff's amended complaint does not state whether the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant was oral or written but merely alleges that the parties "entered into a contract." The defendant is "in the right church but the wrong pew." We will nonetheless sustain the preliminary objection but grant a relief slightly different from the one requested. The second preliminary objection in this case is in the nature of a demurrer. The defendant contends that the complaint fails to set forth a claim for breach of contract. The question presented by a demurrer is whether, on the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. McMahon v. Shea, 547 Pa. 124, 129, 688 A.2d 1179, 1181 (1997). A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only in cases that are clear and free from doubt. Firing v. Kephart, 466 Pa. 560, 353 A.2d 833,834 (1976). Under Pennsylvania law, a cause of action for breach of contract is established by showing the existence of a contract to which the plaintiff and defendant were parties, the essential terms of that contract, a breach of the duty imposed by the contract and resulting damages. Cottman Transmission Systems, Inc. v. Melody, 851 F.Supp. 660, 672 (E.D. Pa. 1994). In the present case, we are satisfied that the amended complaint sets forth the required elements for a cause of action for breach of contract. To the extent that there is uncertainty as to whether or not the contract was oral or written, this matter will be resolved by our treatment of the first preliminary objection. '00-8393 CIVIL In preliminary objection number three, the defendant contends that the amended complaint does not set forth a claim for unjust enrichment. "The elements of unjust enrichment are benefits conferred on one party by another, appreciation of such benefits by the recipient, and acceptance and retention of these benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for the recipient to retain the benefits without payment of value." 16 Summ. Pa. Jur. 2d Com§ 2:2 (1994); Styer v. Hugo, 422 Pa. Super. 262, 267, 619 A.2d 347, 350 (Pa. Super. 1993), afl'd, 535 Pa. 610, 637 A.2d 276 (1994). In this case, the plaintiff alleges that it conferred a benefit on the defendant by relocating him from Florida to Pennsylvania, that this was a benefit enjoyed by the defendant and was a benefit the defendant agreed to accept in exchange for working for the plaintiff for a period of no less than one year. It may well be, of course, that the claim for unjust enrichment will be subsumed by the breach of contract action. In fact, it has been held that an action for unjust enrichment will not lie where there is a written or express contract between the parties. See Mitchell v. Moore, 729 A.2d 1200, 1203 (Pa. Super. 1999). Again, this matter cannot be finally addressed until the nature of the contract between the parties has been properly pled. Thus, we will deny this preliminary objection but reserve to the defendant the right to revisit the matter. ORDER AND NOW, this ~! t~ day of July, 2001, the preliminary objection of the defendant based on a violation of Rule Pa.R.Civ. P. 1019(h) is SUSTAINED. The plaintiff is granted leave to amend in order to state whether the agreement between the parties was oral or written and, if written, to attach a copy of the writing to the complaint. 00-8393 CIVIL The preliminary objection of the defendant in the nature of a demurrer to the cause of action for breach of contract is DENIED. The preliminary objection of the defendant to the count of unjust enrichment is DENIED without prejudice. E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire For the Plaintiff BY THE COURT, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire For the Defendant :rim RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff V. STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : DOCKETNO. 00-8393 : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : 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 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos viente (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o pot medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte pot escfito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de romar accion como se describe antefiormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamation o remedio solicitado pot el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya pot la Document #: 212731.1 Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u ostros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABODGADO O NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Document ti: 212731.1 RITE AID CORPORATION Plaintiff V. STEVEN W. EMMET Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : DOCKETNO. 00-8393 : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, by and through its attorneys, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire and Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, is a corporation licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, is an adult individual with a last known address of 6288 NW 47th Court, Coral Springs, Florida. On or about March 8, 1999, Defendant accepted employment with Plaintiff in Pennsylvania. 4. On the same date, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral contract whereby Plaintiff agreed to pay for Defendant's relocation costs to Pennsylvania in return for Defendant's promise not to terminate his employment with Plaintiff for a one-year time period. 5. The oral agreement provided that should Defendant terminate his employment within the one-year time period, Defendant would be obligated to reimburse Plaintiff for all relocation costs as well as all actual expenditures incurred by Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the relocation costs, including all costs of legal action and reasonable attorney's fees. Document ti: 212731.1 6 Defendant personally assured and represented to Plaintiff that he would work the one-year time period and honor and observe the contract. Without these assurances and representations, Plaintiff would not have paid for Defendant's relocation costs and expenses. 7 Pursuant to the contract and based upon the representations and assurances of Defendant, Plaintiff relocated Defendant and incurred costs in the amount of $18,941.94. 8 On or about October 15, 1999, prior to the expiration of the required one-year time period, Defendant, with full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the contract as well as his prior representations and assurances to Plaintiff, terminated his employment. 9. As of the filing of this Complaint, the balance due, owing and unpaid by Defendant is $18,941.94. 10 As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable attorney's fees in the collection of amounts due and owing by Defendant, and Plaintiff shall continue to incur such attomey's fees throughout the conclusion of the proceedings. 11. Plaintiff has perforated any and all conditions precedent to the bringing of this action. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT 12. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 11 are hereby incorporated by reference. 13. Plaintiff relying upon the representations and assurances of Defendant as well as the terms and conditions of the contract, relocated Defendant. 14. Defendant breached the contract by failing to work the required one-year time period. Document #: 212731.1 15. Defendant also breached the contract by falling to repay the relocation costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of his relocation. 16. Because of Defendant's breach of the contract, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $18,941.94, plus attorney fees, costs and interest. 17. Despite reasonable demand, Defendant has failed, refused and continues to refuse to pay all sums due and owing, all to the damage of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $18,941.94, together with interest, reasonable attorney's fees, damages for delay, costs of this action, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT 18. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 17 are hereby incorporated by reference. 19. Plaintiff conferred a benefit in the amount of $18,941.94 upon Defendant by promising to pay for his relocation to Pennsylvania in return for Defendant's promise not to temfinate his employment for one year. 20. Defendant misled Plaintiff with his assurances and representations that he would work the required one-year time period or reimburse Plaintiff for the costs and expenses incurred as a result of his relocation. 21. Relying upon the representations and assurances of Defendant, Plaintiff paid for Defendant's relocation to Pennsylvania. Document #: 212731.1 RUG-14-O1TUE 02:04 PH RITE RID HR DEPT FaX NO, 717 731 3860 P, 02 VERIFICATION I, Tracy Schrey, Esquire, make this Verificationon behalf of Rite Aid Corporation. I state that I am authorized so to do on its behalf and certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Second Amended Complaint ~ true and correct 1o the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and further state that false stat~m~nm herein are made subject to thc penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unswom falsifications m authorities. Dated: Rim Aid Corporation / / l~ument #: 200803.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2001, I, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Amended Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 E. Ralph Godfrey Document #: 212731.1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff VS. STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant No. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Steven W. Emmet, by and through his attorney, Daniel F. Wolfson, and the law firm of Wolfson e~ Associates, P.C., and hereby answers Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint as follows: I. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4.. Denied. By way of further answer, it Js specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant. 5. Denied. By way of further answer, as previously stated, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant. 6. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses. 7. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses. 8. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant terminated his employment with Plaintiff on or about October 15, 1999. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses. Also, during his exit interview with Plaintiff, Defendant was told that he was leaving in good standing with his managers and no relocation agreement was ever discussed. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied Defendant owes any money to Plaintiff for the aforementioned reasons. I O. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. I I. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this allegation. Therefore, same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 1 2. Paragraph 1 2 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 2 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. I 3. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses. 1 4. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses, and therefore there was no contract that Defendant could breach. I 5. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses, and therefore there was no contract that Defendant could breach. I 6. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regardin~ relocation costs and/or expenses, and therefore there was no contract that Defendant could breach. 1 7. Denied. By way of further answer, It is specifically denied Defendant owes any money to Plaintiff for the aforementioned reasons. 1 8. Paragraph 1 8 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, same is denied and the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 8 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 1 9. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff 4 entered into any oral contract with Defendant by making a promise for a promise. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant. 20. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses, so therefore Defendant could not have misled Plaintiff ill any way. 2 I. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses. 22. Denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff entered into any oral contract with Defendant. As a matter of fact, the relocation policies and procedures utilized by Plaintiff were never discussed with Defendant, and therefore, Defendant never made any personal assurances nor representations to Plaintiff regarding relocation costs and/or expenses, and Defendant never promised Plaintiff that Defendant would reimburse Plaintiff for the value of relocating him if he did not work for a full year. tJniust enrichment is an equitable doctrine having the requisite elements of "benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff, appreciation of such benefits by defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value." StYer v. Hugo, 422 Pa. Super. 262, 267, 619 A.2d 347, 350 (Pa. Super. Ct. 199:3) (quoting Wolf v. Wolf, :356 Pa. Super. :365, 514 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986), overruled on other ~,rounds by Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 527 Pa. 218, 590 A.2d 901 ( 1991 )). Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting all of the elements of unjust enrichment, and therefore a claim for unjust enrichment by Plaintiff against Defendant is unwarranted. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice and enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff along with the allowable costs of this action. Respectfully submitted, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire WOLFSON ~: ASSOCIATES, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 1740:3 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant VERIFICATION Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, hereby states that he is the attorney for the Defendant, ;teven W. Emmet, and he is authorized to take this verification on behalf of said Plaintiff in he within action and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that false statements herein are made subject to the )enalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. )ate: 267 East Market Street York, PA ! 7403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff VS. STEVEN W. EMMET, Defendant No. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE this ~//'~-~ day of~)2001, I, Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire, do AND NOW, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing "Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint" upon counsel of record by re~lar mail, postage pre-paid and addressed as follows: E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS ~ ERB, P.C. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA ! 7110-0300 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Respectfully submitted, 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 ID No. 20617 Attorney for Defendant IN ~ COURT OF COMMON PI.EAS CUMBERI.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff VS. STEVENW.EMMET, Defendants NO. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION-LAW PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. as counsel of record for Plahatiffin the above-referenced matter. PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire of Godfrey & Courtney, P.C. as counsel of record for the Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter. Respectfully submitted, GODRE¥ & COURNTEY, P.C. By: ~/~ ~-~" ' ^ttomey ID# 77052 P.O. Box 6280 Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-540-3900 Dated: July 29, 2002 Attorney for Pla/ntiff IN ~ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE Am CORPORATION, Plaintiff VS. STEVENW.EMMET, Defendants NO. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION-LAW ORDER OF COURT ~AND NOWy~ ~-~ , 2002, in consideration of the foregoing petition, ~ '""~'-' -.~_~.~. t~/r~o~ ,Esq. are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action(s) prayed for. By the Court, IN ~ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERI,AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE All} CORPORATION, Plaintiff VS. STEVENW. EMMlt, T, Defendants NO. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION-LAW PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: I, E Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, Counsel for the Plaintiff in the above action(s), respectfully represent that: I. The above-captioned action(s) is at issue. 2. The claim of the plaintiffin the action is $ $24,624.52 + costs. The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is $ 0.00. The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Philip Warholic, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 THEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully Submitted, GODFREY & COURTNEY, P.C. Date: By E.tE~alp~n O~quire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~ ~day of ~-O~-TCr~ ~- ,2002, I, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of GODFREY & COURTNEY, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Amended Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Daniel F. Wolfson, Esquire Phillip Warholic, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 In The Court of Common Pleas of Cu~eriand County, Pennsylvania OATH We do solemnly swear (or affirm) chat we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Common- wealth a~d~ th~ we will discharge the duties~~ AWARD fif~a with fidel~iCy. Chairman We, the umdersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If d~g~s for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) · Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if app~icable.~ Date of Hearing: i~ ~ .... ihairma Date ward: NOTICE OF ~-lqTRY OF AWARD award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail co the partiee or their attorneys. ¢ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff VS. STEVENW.EMMET, Defendants NO. 00-8393 CIVIL ACTION -LAW PRAECIPE TO SATISFY JUDGMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please satisfy the Judgment that was entered against the Defendant in the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 4.10.2003 By: GODFREY & COURTNEY, P.C. ID # 77052 P.O. Box 6280 Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-540-3900 Attorney for Plaintiff Document 14:218597.1 .CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this z4:Y/~ day of ./~ ( ,2003, I, E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of GODFREY & COURTNEY, P.C., attomeys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Praecipe this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Phillip Warholic, Esquire Wolfson & Associates, P.C. 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 ~. RalP~~9 Document it: 218597.1