Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-08469 ;i RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA NO. 00 -/>Jtl.q G(J~l '-r~ CIVIL ACTION - LAw WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO: William S. Keezer 400 Cassel Street Marysville, P A 17053 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 PHONE: (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 Document #191622 RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICIA TO: William S. Keezer 400 Cassel Street Marysville, P A 17053 USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/AEN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siquientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y A viso radicando personalmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecenciaescrita 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 cuaiquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda 0 cuaiquier otra reclamacion or remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicionai.. U sted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE P AGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 VA Y A A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARA A VERIGUARDONDE PUEDE ENCONTRARASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, P A 17013 PHONE: (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 Document # 191622 """""'''''''~,~,~ RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.fJ0- N<..q ~ .,-~ CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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: I. Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, is a corporation licensed to do business in the Commonwealth ofPe1111sylvania, with a principal place of business at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 2. Defendant, William S. Keezer, is an adult individual with a principal place of residence at 400 Cassel Street, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17053. 3. On or about June 8, 1999, Plaintiff entered into a Promissory Note with Defendant, which provided that Plaintiff would pay Defendant's relocation costs provided Defendant did not terminate his employment with Plaintifffor a period of two (2) years. (A copy of the Promissory Note is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A"). 4. In the event that Defendant terminated his employment within the first year, the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note obligated Defendant to reimburse Plaintifffor all relocation costs. 5. In the event that Defendant terminated his employment within the second year, Defendant's obligation to reimburse Plaintiff for relocation costs would be reduced by Plaintiff at the rate of l/lih per month for each month worked during the second year. Document #191622 ,"",1'" '.; I' -" .....~.j, 6. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note 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. 7. Pursuant to the Promissory Note, Plaintiff relocated Defendant and incurred costs and expenses in the amount ofTen Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars. 8. On or about August 18, 2000, nine (9) months and twenty (20) days prior to the expiration of the second year of the Promissory Note, Defendant terminated his employment with Plaintiff. 9. As of the filing of this Compl!!int, the balance due, owing and unpaid on the Promissory Note is $8,037.60. 10. Plaintiff has retained the services of the law firm or Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. in the collection of amounts due from Defendant. II. 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. 12. Plaintiff has performed any and all conditions precedent to the bringing of this action. COUNT I Breach of Contract 13. The averments of paragraphs I through 12 above are hereby incorporated by reference. -2- Document #191622 1& "J I, I .~ 14. Plaintiff, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note, relocated Defendant. 15. Defendant accepted relocation by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff paid for the relocation costs and expenses pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note. 16. Defendant, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note has, by terminating his employment with Plaintiff prior to the expiration of the required two-year time period as required in the Promissory Note, obligated himself to repay the relocation costs incurred by Plaintiff. 17. By reason of Defendant's breach of the Promissory Note, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of$8,037.60. 18. 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 Promissory Note, all to the damage of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of Eight Thousand Thirty Seven and 601100 ($8,037.60) Dollars, together with interest, damages for delay, costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. COUNT II Uniust Enrichment 19. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth. - 3 - Document #191622 ""', r i ,..,-...~"" 20. Defendant accepted and received the benefit of having his relocation costs paid for by Plaintiff, but failed to satisfy the two-year time period as required in the Promissory Note and, therefore, was unjustly enriched in the amount of Eight Thousand Thirty Seven and 60/100 ($8,037.60) Dollars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of Eight Thousand Thirty Seven and 60/100 ($8,037.60) Dollars, together with interest, damages for delay, costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By E~ E. Ral Godfrey, Es Attorney LD. No. 77052 P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Dated: (l/rftu , Attorneys for Plaintiff -4- Document # 191622 PROMISSORY NOTE Agreement made this eighth day of June, 1999, by and between WiUiam S. Keezer, hereinafter "Employee,' and Rite Aid Corporation, hereinafter "Rite Aid." Whereas, Employee is employed by Rite Aid as a Performance and Capacity Planner; and Whereas, Rite Aid is Willing to offer and pay to Employee a lump-sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) toward relocation expenses; and Whereas, Employee has commenced employment with Rite Aid effective June 8, 1999; Now, therefore, Employee and Rite Aid agree as tallows: 1. Rite Aid has paid to Employee the total amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) 2. In the evel1t that Employee terminates employment for any reason(s) with Rite Aid, or in the event that Rite Aid terminates Employee'S employment tor any good or valid cause, then Employee shall be obligated to repay to Rite Aid the above payment as follows: a. If tennination of employment occurs on or before June 7, 2000, then the Employee agrees that he is indebted to Rite Aid, and hereby promises to repay to Rite Aid, the total sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,OOO,OO). b. FOllowing the aforementioned date, and thereafter, Employee shall continue to be obligated to Rite Aid for the Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), provided however, that this obligation shall be forgiven by Rite Aid at the rate of 1/12 pet month with the result being that as of June 8, 2001, Employee shall not longer be obligated to repay any oftl1e Ten Thousand DOllar ($10,OOO.00) lump-sum total. j~~ ~ " J.. ; 3. Employee agrees and acknowledges that this Agreement does not constitute an employment agreement for any period or length of time with 'Rite Aid. 4. Employee further agrees and acknowledges tI'lat his emplOyment is "at wlll.. 5. Employee further agrees that if Rite Aid initiates legal action to enforce this Agreement, and to collect sums due, in the event that Rite Aid is wnolly or partially successful in an action against Employee, Employee agrees to pay all of Rite Aid's costs and expenses of such enforcement, including reasonable attorneY's fees. 6. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 7. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held contrary to law, or invalid or unenforceable in any respect, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall survive and remain in full force and effect. 8. This Agreement contains all of the terms and conditions of the agreement between Rite Aid and Employee wlth respect to its subject matter. and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements with respect thereto. In witness Whereof, the parties, hereto, intending to be legally bound, have executed year first written. /!JL.~ J4 . ~ William S. Keezer " - . ~~~ , .' ~ 'jji" VERIFICATION I, Tracy 1. Schrey, hereby certify that the following is correct: The facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are based upon information which I have furnished to counsel, as well as upon information which has been gathered by counsel and/or others acting on my behalf in this matter. The language of the Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Complaint, and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the content of the Complaint is that of counsel, I have relied upon such counsel in making this Verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Complaint are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~~d Document #: 184204.1 SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY .' , . CASE NO: 2000-08469 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RITE AID CORPORATION VS KEEZER WILLIAM S R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: KEEZER WILLIAM S but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of PERRY County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On January 3rd , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from PERRY Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge 18.00 9.00 10.00 .00 .00 37.00 01/03/2001 METZGER, WICKERSHAM "~~ R. homas Kline . Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ /0- day Of~,,, Mj dM; I A.D. ()'r~ C >vr,N~-V ~' Prothonotary '"~" ~ ',;, - ., , " _ I i """"""....:,~ "~~'-~'h'r'€; < ' SHERIFF'S RETURN In the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County, Pennsylvania Rite Aid Corp. NO. 00-8469 vs William Keezer 400 Cassel St. Marysville Pa. 17053 George W. Frownfelter, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant(s) to wit, William Keezer 400 Cassel St. Marysville Pa. 17053, but was unable to locate him/her in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the Notice, NOT FOUND ", as to the within named Defendant(s) William Keezer Plaintiff was to give Sheriffs Office current address of defendant, but she never did so Notice, was NOT SERVED. ~:~r~ ~ Fr~wnji ter Sworn and subscribed to before me Sheriff of Perry County this _ day of , 2000. < , " , RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. NO. 00 - f4t..CP CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA C;c:>~C~~ WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO: William S. Keezer 400 Cassel Street Marysville, P A 17053 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 PHONE: (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 Document # 191622 TRuE COpy FROM RECORD In Tostlmooy whereot I here Ilnto SlItmy hand aI'ld the _ of. said~"'.. at CarI.!sIe, Pa. ~ Ttws~~d:Y~~~~ PI' . otary .;.~ ' L , . RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICIA TO: William S. Keezer 400 Cassel Street Marysville, P A 17053 USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/AEN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siquientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y A viso radicando personalmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecenciaescrita 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 smna de dinero reclamada en la demanda 0 cualquier otra reclamacion or remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. U sted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEV ARESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE P AGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 VA Y A A LA SIGUIENTEOFICINAPARA A VERIGUARDONDE PUEDE ENCONTRARASISTENCIALEGAL. Cmnberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle,PA 17013 PHONE: (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 Document #191622 RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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, 17011. 2. Defendant, William S. Keezer, is an adult individual with a principal place of residence at 400 Cassel Street, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17053. 3. On or about June 8, 1999, Plaintiff entered into a Promissory Note with Defendant, which provided that Plaintiff would pay Defendant's relocation costs provided . Defendant did not terminate his employment with Plaintiff for a period oftwo (2) years. (A copy of the Promissory Note is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A"). 4. In the event that Defendant terminated his employment within the first year, the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note obligated Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff for all relocation costs. 5. In the event that Defendant terminated his employment within the second year, Defendant's obligation to reimburse Plaintiff for relocation costs would be reduced by Plaintiff at the rate of 1/12th per month for each month worked during the second year. Document # 191622 ,r..ol!lU'"'""' i i "L -' -",-.. :~;, 6. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note 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. 7. Pursuant to the Promissory Note, Plaintiff relocated Defendant and incurred costs and expenses in the amount ofTen Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars. 8. On or about August 18, 2000, nine (9) months and twenty (20) days prior to the expiration of the second year of the Promissory Note, Defendant terminated his employment with Plaintiff. 9. As of the filing of this Complaint, the balance due, owing and unpaid on the Promissory Note is $8,037.60. 10. Plaintiff has retained the services of the law firm or Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. in the collection of amounts due from Defendant. 11. 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. 12. Plaintiff has performed any and all conditions precedent to the bringing of this action. COUNT I Breach of Contract 13. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 12 above are hereby incorporated by reference. -2- Document # 191622 -"l j 4<. ,-",1 14. Plaintiff, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note, relocated Defendant. 15. Defendant accepted relocation by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff paid for the relocation costs and expenses pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note. 16. Defendant, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note has, by terminating his employment with Plaintiff prior to the expiration of the required two-year time period as required in the Promissory Note, obligated himself to repay the relocation costs incurred by Plaintiff. 17. By reason of Defendant's breach of the Promissory Note, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of$8,037.60. 18. 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 Promissory Note, all to the damage of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of Eight Thousand Thirty Seven and 60/100 ($8,037.60) Dollars, together with interest, damages for . delay, costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. COUNT II Uniust Enrichment 19. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth. - 3 - Docurnent#191622 -......, , -1'1 - ,~ 20. Defendant accepted and received the benefit of having his relocation costs paid for by Plaintiff, but failed to satisfY the two-year time period as required in the Promissory Note and, therefore, was unjustly enriched in the amount of Eight Thousand Thirty Seven and 60/100 ($8,037.60) Dollars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of Eight Thousand Thirty Seven and 60/100 ($8,037.60) Dollars, together with interest, damages for delay, costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees, which amount is within the limits for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By 2,1?~ E. RalP1{ Godfrey, Es . Attorney LD. No. 77052 P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Dated: !l/r ftO , Attorneys for Plaintiff - 4- Docurnent#191622 , . ~. _ .&.'-" : PROMISSORV NOTE Agreement made this eighth day of June, 1999, by and between WiUiam S. Keezer, hereinafter "Employee: and Rite Aid Corporation, hereinafter "Rite Aid: Whereas, Employee is employed by Rite Aid as a Performance and Capacity Planner; and Whereas, Rite Aid is Willing to offer and pay to Employee a lump-sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) toward relocation expenses; and Whereas, Employee has commenced employment with Rite Aid effective June S, 1999; Now, therefore, Employee and Rite Aid agree as follows: 1. Rite Aid has paid to Employee the total amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) 2. In the event that Employee terminates employment for any reason(s) with Rite Aid, or in the event that Rite Aid terminates Employee's employment for any good or valid cause, then Employee shall be obligated to repay to Rite Aid the above payment as follows: a. If termination of employment cx:curs on or before June 7, 2000, then the Employee agrees that he is lndetrted to Rite Aid, and hereby promises to repay to Rite Aid, the total sum of ren Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). b. Following the aforementioned date, and thereafter, Employee shall continue to be obligated to Rite Aid for the Ten Thousand Dollars ($10.000.00), provided however, that this obliga60n shall be forgiVen by Rite Aid at the rate of 1/12 per month with the result being that as of June 8, 2001. Employee shall not longer be obligated to repay any of the Ten Thousand Dollar ($10,000.00) lump-sum total. - I ~ . '" . . . 3. Employee agrees and acknoWledges that this Agreement does not constitute an employment agreement for ClOy period or length of time with Rite Aid. 4. Employee further agrees and acl<nowledges that his employment is "at will.. 5. Employee further agrees that if Rite Aid initiates legal aelion to enforce this Agreement, and to collect sums due, in the event that Rite Aid is wholly or partially successful In an action against Employee, Employee agrees to pay all of Rite Aid's costs and expenses of such enforcement, including reasonable attorney's fees. 6. This agreement shall be govemed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 7. If any provision of this Agreement Shall be held contrary to law, or invalid or unenforceable in any respect, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall survive and remain in full force and effect. 8. This Agreement contains all of the terms and conditiOns of the agreement between Rite Aid and Employee with respect to its subject matter, and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements with respect thereto. In witness Whereof, the parties, hereto, intending to be legally bound, haVe executed year first written. . M:~~ ~~ L. .c - VERIFICATION I, Tracy 1. Schrey, hereby certifY that the following is correct: The facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are based upon information which I have furnished to counsel, as well as upon information which has been gathered by counsel and/or others acting on my behalf in this matter. The language of the Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Complaint, and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the content of the Complaint is that of counsel, I have relied upon such counsel in making this Verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Complaint are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. g4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~~d ,; ~ >, . Document #: 184204.1 . .::;~> r::t:..: .~,...<< "-J',. , =.- ' rJr.;'.' \.".:'lf~~ . . ~, - ~--~ , \:,i\\ff ~\\I'. ';;\\,,\\\1 c "f ' 0 ,Q... . ~ ~ \1 ,,'l-\~! \.i . \Wl"\~\)t~,\.", ...., . .~n.lrff.t... " C\lr, , ""-I ~ p,,'I.. no.. \ \l~ ,r',C''-I,.,,~ ~~\\ 1. ..n\ ,lecr-h ~ 3 liS PH '00 (j ;',\'-':'; \j ~~\" ot.~'\s\\.. CAhLlSLE T fENNsnvAIlIIA "' ~ I_l~'" !lIl~.,~~~. ~~Jli!I!T ,"" ',,~ -- ~'" ~~ .~-~~~~<'~~~~~"""""'" " ~:!>:~'1 1::::;;:..., c;.."-.. r::::r.' e'>::!;:-. ~: = \:::.It.. a a --p, :J: c::r ;I'j Pl fl1 A':':::v- C") A~ ~':r1 .....'-rl W u) Gc-; {::? - ::;:c) ..;..- ~'-;"l .::J: ~'1 -<C:=3 P"'1 -.I "~r.nWlllJl,Ii!~!iIli~I__~ .. '" '. " .. RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: J .. ~~",,' ",' '. "', , " -',;, , .. " .. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA NO. 00-8469 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Please reinstate the Complaint in the above matter. Dated: ,~~k Document #.' 195903.1 METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By E. Ralp G frey, quire Attorney LD. o. 7052 P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff :';;'[:'li.,,~'tL:_~~~''';:''';~''''J~~:mlRlti:: - -'iJ'~" '-"'~ ':' '-'-..' ,- ' .__~!P.Ii~'I~I"-%"~Bhfilf,: I"~ -;:..'-"<; , -, b, ~~. 0 ~,,' " " .. "'"", ",,,,_" ,".. ,~ ,~. neW" <. ",,__ 0"" " ",~ _U~,L -': " .l.lDl!l~IUJ' ,~ ~ - -,'- ;,;- , ill ,0 0 -0 ~ .on <- -~ -UCUJ "'" -'r" ~n~ :;e iAl~~ :-cl N -';,1- 'I ZS ~~"'O ~L s:- ,:--:' L '::-:!.,C,J, ,<:0 ~ -'r-r~ -5-n ~o ~v$,J ;;;2. q:: all CO{ ~ r::- ?E ...l '< RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff v, WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant I.~ i..,) " '-"" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-8469 CML TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Attached hereto as Exhibit" A" is Return of Service of Ronald D. Marshall. Dated: Document #: 197342,] METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By E. Ralph Go ey, squire Attorney J.D. No. 77052 P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, P A 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff . "'"..;.. '~>"'.'. ,~~ -' -JI"Lj ... RETURN OF SERVICE I, m/'l/i/"/ (}, t1I/1i'J,~~ hereby swear or afflffil that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and on the 27F,( day of 5;(t,vldJ i'I.J,/ , 2001, I served a true and correct copy ofthe Complaint in the matter of Rite Aid Corporation v. William S. Keezer docketed at 00-8469 in the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County on W, LLlNn 5" /0( /-E 21'/7 at 'lHdl1ifd7/I'N ') fll 6'l'j [;I IO~ t.,//rTc),/Ol fjtf. c1418, by personally handing a copy of the same to tvl ~.t,Ar1 l', l<6tf z-s./? 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. 12~,,~~<t; ~~/ Dated: ,!Jj/j"p/lny 1. 0 2{;CJ/ Document #: 195942,] . " _ _L ,~=J .', ." ;',~; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE , 0:11. AND NOW, this l- day of February, 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 Affidavit of Service this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Williams C. Dissinger, Esquire Dissinger and Dissinger 28 North 32nd Street Camp Hill, P A 17011 ~ E. Ralph G dfrey Document #: 197342,] RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA vs. WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant NO. 00-8469 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections . to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE 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 William C. Dissi er, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff II l RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA vs. WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant NO. 00-8469 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER. NEW MATTER AND COUNTER-CLAIM AND NOW COMES the Defendant, William S. Keezer, by and through his attorneys, Dissinger and Dissinger, and avers the following Answer and respectfully represents that: 1. ADMITTED. 2. DENIED. 8330 Meeting Defendant, William S. Street, Apartment 109, Keezer, currently resides at West Chester, Ohio, 45069. 3. ADMITTED in part, and DENIED in part. It is admitted that on or about June 08, 1999, Plaintiff entered into a Promissory Note with Defendant. The remainder of paragraph three (3) is a legal conclusion for which no answer is required. 4. DENIED. Paragraph four (4) interprets the terms of the Promissory Note and, therefore, is a legal conclusion for which no answer is required. 5. DENIED. Paragraph five (5) interprets the Promissory Note and, therefore, is a legal conclusion for which no answer is , ! required. 6. DENIED. Paragraph six (6) interprets the terms of the Promissory Note and, therefore, is a legal conclusion for which no answer is required. iL ... '. 7 . ADMITTED. 8. ADMITTED in part, and DENIED in part. It is admitted that Defendant resigned from Rite Aid Corporation on August 18, 2000. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph eight (8) are denied. 9. DENIED. 10. Defendant is without sufficient information to either deny or admit the averment in paragraph ten (10). 11. Defendant is without sufficient information to either deny or admit the averment in paragraph eleven (11), 12. Paragraph twelve (12) contains legal conclusions for which no answer is required. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT 13. No answer is required. 14. ADMITTED. 15. ADMITTED. I 116. DENIED. Paragraph sixteen (16) contains legal conclusions i I for which no answer is required. 17. DENIED. 18. DENIED. lL ~ WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that Plaintiff's breach of Contract claim be dismissed. COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT 19. No answer is required. 20. DENIED. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that Plaintiff's claim for Unjust Enrichment be dismissed. NEW MATTER FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT 21, The averments of paragraph one (1) through twenty (20) above are hereby incorporated by reference. 22. Defendant was contacted by a recruiter for Plaintiff, stephen Rubin of MMI, Inc. in Massachusetts. 23. Mr. Rubin informed Defendant that the Rite Aid Corporation position was for a Performance/Capacity person and that the Defendant's background appeared to be a very good fit. 24. Defendant was interviewed by telephone by Jay Stewart, the manager of Capacity Planning and Performance Management (CPPM). 25. At the same time, Defendant was also interviewed by telephone by Kathy Green, who would later become his mentor. 26. they Jay Stewart, were looking Kathy for a Green and Stephen Rubin indicated that person experienced in capacity planning, Ii .'" and who knew SAS, a data analysis programming system and language. 27. The Rite Aid Corporation interviewers were also interested in Defendant's experience with main-frame storage and emphasized that Defendant's experience might help reduce the cost of storage and develop a reporting system. 28. Both Jay Stewart and Stephen Rubin informed Defendant that the company was growing. 29. Defendant then traveled to Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, and interviewed with Rite Aid Corporation recruiter, Michelle Krebs, Jay Stewart, Manager of Capacity Planning and Performance Management, Lawrence Baker, Senior Director of IS Infrastructure, and Kathy Green. 30, Jay Stewart showed the Defendant the computer room and indicated that almost all of the systems fell under the CPPM umbrella and that the Defendant would be involved in monitoring Ii 'their performance. i 31. In the interview with Lawrence Baker, Mr. Baker brought up the fact that Rite Aid Corporation stock had fallen in value in February and Mr. Baker indicated it was because the stockholders did not like the fact that the earnings were not as high as expected. '.32. Mr. Baker gave the Defendant the impression that the " ,I falling stock was temporary in nature, and that Rite Aid Corporation was not in financial distress. 33. i job " After negotiations with Plaintiff. regarding salary, Defendant accepted the II 34. Late in August of 1999, Defendant received an investment news item from a friend in a brokerage house that indicated that Rite Aid Corporation might fail to meet some debt payments. 35. Defendant approached Jay Stewart, his manager, who assured Defendant that the company was not in financial danger. 36. that Jay Stewart told Defendant that there was no problem and he knew things that the news article did not. 37, Jay Stewart also told Defendant that the worst that would 'happen was that Rite Aid corporation would sell their I subsidiary, PCS. · 38. On September 23, 1999 a notice was sent out to Rite Aid Corporation employees that there would be a mandatory meeting the next morning. 39. At 8:30 a,m, on September 24, 1999, less than four (4) months after Defendant was hired and assured that Rite Aid ,Corporation was prospering, three hundred thirty (330) people were fired from the headquarters staff, including five (5) people under the Defendant's director, Kent Smith. 40. On that date, Defendant's mentor, Kathy Green, was fired. 41. In the following months, in addition to the layoffs, Rite Aid Corporation began to cut costs, 42. During that time, Defendant's job assignments were changed numerous times and the skills for which he was hired were no longer being utilized in these new projects. II 43. Since he commenced his employment with Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant only worked on one project which utilized the professional skills for which he was hired, 44. that Thereafter, he would be the Director, Kent Smith, informed Defendant working as a Storage Technician, 45. Defendant's work at that point in time consisted of storage management and fixing broken SAS Code Systems. 46. Defendant was no longer involved in capacity planning and performance management, the position for which he was recruited. 47. Also during that time, Defendant's place of work was changed, and he was moved to a less desirable work environment. 48. Defendant's workplace was moved out of a leased space into a building already owned by Rite Aid Corporation. 49. Defendant was moved from an eight by eight (8x8) foot cubicle with sixty-six (66") inch high walls to a shared twelve by six (12x6) foot space with forty-two (42") inch high walls in a large open office on the front end of a warehouse. 50. The environment was noisy and there was no space for spreading out graphs, listings, and other work necessary for Defendant to do his job, 51. Defendant was forced to move his work to the lunchroom which had large tables, however, it was not adequately heated in the winter. 52. Had Defendant known of Plaintiff's financial troubles prior to accepting the employment, Defendant would have never accepted the job offer, -. , .c ,; ^ j ~_ 53. Had Defendant known that he would not be performing the job for which he was hired, Defendant would have never accepted the employment with Rite Aid Corporation. 54. If Defendant had not been assured of Plaintiff's financial security and the fact that the company was growing prior to accepting the employment, Defendant would have never moved his family from Ohio to accept a position at Rite Aid Corporation. 55. Defendant justifiably relied on Plaintiff's representations about the financial position of Rite Aid Corporation prior to accepting the employment and entering into the Promissory Note, II WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that Plaintiff's claims Breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment be dismissed. for i I I ! Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant is directed to answer the following counterclaim within twenty (20) days, or suffer possible default. COUNTERCLAIM FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff avers by way of counterclaim: 56. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through fifty-four (54) above are hereby incorporated by reference. , I 57. Plaintiff's misrepresentations as to the financial security of the corporation caused Defendant to accept employment and enter into a Promissory Note with Plaintiff. II t__ 58. The representations of Plaintiff as to the financial condition of Rite Aid Corporation were made with the intent to induce Defendant into accepting employment with Plaintiff. 59. Defendant believes that such representations were materially false as evidenced by the company's massive layoffs shortly after Defendant was hired. 60. Plaintiff made the representations to Defendant with actual 'knowledge of their falsity at the time they were made or in , reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. ! 61. Plaintiff had knowledge of the actual financial condition of I' .. Rite Aid Corporation superior to that of Defendant, and had exclusive access to such knowledge such that Plaintiff had a duty to advise Defendant of Rite Aid Corporation's actual insecure !financial condition. '62. Plaintiff had knowledge of the actual financial condition of Ri te Aid Corporation superior to that of Defendant, and had exclusive access to such knowledge such that Plaintiff had a duty to advise Defendant of the potential for numerous changes in his job position and working environment. 63. In justifiable reliance upon the material misrepresentations of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's failure to advise Defendant of the actual insecure financial position of Plaintiff, Defendant signed the Promissory Note. 64. As a result of the misrepresentations of and due to Plaintiff's failure to advise Defendant of the actual insecure financial position of Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant has been damaged as follows: lL 1 I I I I I I II , ' , ' Ii :' II A. When Defendant resigned from Rite Aid Corporation due to the working conditions and insecure financial position of Rite Aid Corporation, he was earning ninety-one thousand eight hundred dollars ($91,800.00) per year, In the position he accepted with SAS Institute after resigning from Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant's income was reduced to earning eighty-nine thousand two hundred seventy two dollars ($89,272.00) per year. B. Defendant incurred costs in relocating to the Dayton/Cincinnati area in order to accept his new employment. C. In order to accept the employment at Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant and his wife went through the pain of closing down a home daycare business that had been in existence for fourteen (14) years. D. Defendant and his wife lost profits from the daycare business. E. Defendant's wife was not able to find suitable employment in the Camp Hill area and her income was minimal during the time Defendant worked for Rite Aid Corporation. F. In order to accept the Rite Aid corporation employment, Defendant endured emotional distress because he had to leave his two (2) sons who were in school at that time at Wright state University in the Dayton area of Ohio. G. Defendant endured the emotional distress of leaving his extended family that lived in Ohio. or H. In order to relocate to Pennsylvania and sustain his sons who were living in Ohio, Defendant had to cash in his 401 (k) . I. Defendant turned down a counter-offer from his prior employer in order to accept the position with Rite Aid Corporation. WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff demands judgment against Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid Corporation, in an amount not less than two hundred fifty thousand ($250,000,00) dollars exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully Submitted, DISSINGER & DISSINGER By: ~4~ Wi ham C. Diss' ger ___, Attorney for Defendant Supreme Court ID# 27737 400 South State Road Marysville, PA 17053 (717) 957-3474 , , ,. II . VERIFICATION I, William S. Keezer, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer and counterclaim are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904, relating to unsworn falsification , to authorities. , ,I J!;,,4g~ l1 1 RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA vs. "WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Ii Defendant NO, 00-8469 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE II II. I, Karen L. Koenigsberg, Esquire, do hereby certify that a : copy of the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim has been duly served upon E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage i prepaid, addressed as follows: E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. P. O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Date' 1~1 il L .' ,- ~, ~ , ".[,'J,;'- 1;"'_'''''''' ""o,j' "'_'; RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA NO. 00-8469 CIVIL TERM WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant JURY lRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION The parties to the above captioned action, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate that the prayer clause contained in Defendant's Counterclaim shall be amended to read as follows: WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffdemands judgment against Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, in an amount which exceeds the limits of compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. METZGER, WI RSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. Dated: ~~/r>1 By '"""'~- - DISSINGER & DISSINGER Dated: 3/1 'j /0 I By Document #: 199182.1 - -="'~. .. '__"____'_T'-n _, ; ." .. ~~~...Ml!iiil:l'iIi;!!,lP.~__ii!~~~~I.~9"'~~;;';-~1O;Rjiilio~,-.lllt4i " '. OB.' ~""~,_,,,", _ _ ~'~,~'~'~'=r .' '~__''''_'''~' .'" ~~ .ill' "",. , 1lftilillj;,' ".>,- -,~ ,~~, -",~~ -~,"' ,- , ~,~" o C :<;:. -orc pIer ~~; ~,c; ~$?, --'--' YC ~ c;:-., .". ~ ;::; , \ {"0 , ,--I , ~/ "~, , i,-' , )O,.,j _ __~ .-7, ,,,.,.,,,,, ~;~ h~ \~~ :J:! C< --, v ~.".' -)",~ S:-? (,) -- . . ",~' ,~ -_ "l'_ '''''.' ~", RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA NO. 00-8469 CIVIL TERM WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY OF PLAINTIFF, RITE AID CORPORATION, TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, through its counsel of record, Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P .C., replies to Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim as follows: 21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 22. Admitted, 23. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the position was for a Performance/Capacity person. The remaining allegations of paragraph 23 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Admitted. 25. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Kathy Green interviewed Defendant by telephone. It is expressly denied that Kathy Green was Defendant's Mentor. The remaining allegations of paragraph 25 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 26. Admitted. 27. Denied. It is denied that at the time of the telephone interview, Plaintiff was also int(:rested in Defendant's experience with mainframe storage and emphasized that Defendant's Document #199186 .. '--'f,o;_" ""~ ~ " - , "'., experience might help reduce the cost of storage and develop a reporting system. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 28. Denied. It is denied that Jay Stewart and Stephen Rubin informed Defendantthat the company was growing. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. Admitted but with qualifications. It is admitted only that Defendant traveled to Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, and interviewed with Michelle Krebs, Jay Stewart, Lawrence Baker and Kathy Green. The remaining allegations of paragraph 29 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. Admitted. 31. Denied. It is denied that La)'l'fence Baker brought up the fact that Rite Aid Corporation stock had fallen in value in February, It is further denied that Mr. Baker indicated that the stock had fallen because stockholders did not like the fact that the earnings were not as high as expected. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 32. Denied. It is expressly denied that Lawrence Baker gave the impression or made any statements or references about the nature of Plaintiff' s stock or [mancial condition. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 33. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is only admitted that Defendant accepted employment with Plaintiff. The remaining allegations of paragraph 33 are denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff does not have sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegation that Defendant received an investment news item in late August of 1999 from a friend in a brokerage house that indicated that Plaintiff might fail to meet -2- Document #199186 , , - 1__', ~ " . "- ti " some debt payments. Accordingly, the allegations contained in paragraph 34 are deemed denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 35. Denied. It is denied that Defendant approached Jay Stewart about the fmancial condition ofthe company, or that Jay Stewart assured Defendant that the company was not in financial danger. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff does not have sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny knowledge of a news article. Accordingly, this allegation is denied. It is further denied that Jay Stewart told Defendant that there was no problem with Rite Aid Corporation or that he knew things that an alleged article did not. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 37. Denied. It is denied that Jay Stewart told Defendant that the worst that would happen was that Plaintiff would sell its subsidiary, PCS. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 38. Admitted. 39. Admitted in part with qualifications; denied in part. It is admitted with qualifications that on September 24, 1999, five (5) people under Kent Smith were laid off. It is expressly denied that these people were fired. Furthermore, it is denied that exactly three hundred thirty (330) people were fired; however, there were other layoffs in other departments of which the exact number is unknown. It is expressly denied that Plaintiff assured Defendant that it was prospering. Any remaining allegations of paragraph 39 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 40. Denied. It is only admitted that Kathy Green was laid off from her job, not fired. Furthermore, it is specifically denied that Kathy Green was Defendant's mentor. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. - 3 - Document #199186 ",' . "" ,~ [. .........:,'< 41. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that Plaintiff reduced its expenses in the following months following the layoffs. Any remaining allegations of paragraph 41 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 42. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant continued in his job of Performance/Capacity Planner, and his skills were continually being utilized. Any remaining allegations of paragraph 42 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 43. Denied. To the contrary, since Defendant commenced his employment with Plaintiff, Defendant utilized his professional skills in many projects for which he was hired. Any remaining allegations in paragraph 44 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 44. Denied. It is denied that Kent Smith informed Defendantthat he would be working as a Storage Technician. By way of a further answer, Defendant, while employed with Plaintiff, was employed as a Performance/Capacity Plrnmer. Any remaining allegations of paragraph 44 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, 45. Denied as stated. Defendant continued to work in the Performance/Capacityplanner position, which included working on SAS to create and fix performance reports. In addition, Defendant also worked on storage management. Any remaining allegations of paragraph 45 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 46. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant at all times was involved in the capacity planning and performance management, the position for which he was recruited. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 47. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant's department was relocated to a different building because of a new lease agreement. It is specifically denied that -4- Document #199186 %'1',;t',~~~!i%~'*'tt - ,,,,1 - ~,,"7 ,_~ ,-- " ,-. ~ "~ it I L ", ~ "~' .~~, the new building had a less desirable work environment. Any remaining allegations of paragraph 47 are denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time of trial. 48. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant's department was relocated from one building leased by Plaintiff to a new building also being leased by Plaintiff. It is denied that Plaintiff owned the new building. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 49. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant was provided with the same work environment and accommodations needed to perform his job in the new building as was provided in the old building. The remaining allegations of paragraph 49 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 50. Denied. To the contrary, thr:;r~ was plenty of space to spread out graphs, listings, and other work allowing Defendant to properly perform his job. Furthermore, it is denied that the environment was noisy. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 51. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant was never forced to move his work into the lunchroom because he was always provided with adequate space to perform his job. It is further denied that the lunchroomwas not adequately heated in the winter. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 52, Denied. Paragraph 52 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response may be required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff made any statement that intentionally deceived Defendant or gave Defendant any impression concerning Plaintiff s financial status or stability prior to or after Defendant accepted the job of Performance/Capacity Planner. Or executed the promissory Note, Furthermore, Defendant voluntarily and knowingly obligated himself to repay Plaintiff the relocation cost if he failed to - 5 - Document #199186 ~""""'" .~-- ";', ':~ work the required time by signing the Promissory Note. Any remaining allegations of paragraph 52 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 53. Denied. Paragraph 53 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, at all times while Plaintiff employed Defendant, Defendant performed the duties and assignments of the job for which he was hired. Any remaining allegations are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 54. Denied. Paragraph 54 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is denied that Plaintiff ever assured Defendant of its financial condition or that it was growing prior to accepting employment. Any remaining allegations are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 55. Denied. Paragraph 55 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is denied that Plaintiff made any representation to Defendant about its financial position prior to accepting employment or entering into the Promissory Note. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in its favor and against Defendant, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. COUNTERCLAIM FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT 56. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Plaintiff s Complaint and paragraphs 21 through 55 of its Reply to Defendant's New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 57. Denied. Paragraph 57 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is denied that Plaintiff made - 6 - Document #199186 "'-"" -, ' " any representation as to its financial security in order to have Defendant accept employment and/or enter into the Promissory Note. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 58. Denied. Paragraph 58 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is denied that Plaintiff made any representations as to its financial condition with the intent to induce Defendant into accepting employment with Plaintiff. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 59. Denied. Paragraph 59 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is denied that Plaintiff made any material false misrepresentations or that the layoffs establish any such representations. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 60. Denied. Paragraph 60 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is denied that Plaintiff made any representations to Defendant with actual knowledge of their falsity at the time they were made or in reckless disregard oftheir truth or falsity. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 61. Denied. Paragraph 61 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is denied that Plaintiffhad superior knowledge to that of Defendant or had exclusive access to knowledge. Furthermore, it is expressly denied that Plaintiffhad any duty to advise Defendant. Any remaining allegations in Paragraph 61 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 62. Denied. Paragraph 62 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is denied that Plaintiffhad superior knowledge to that of Defendant or had exclusive access to knowledge. Furthermore, it is -7- Document #199186 - " , , i -j .L,;.~ ._ 1M" expressly denied that Plaintiffhad any duty to advise Defendant. Any remaining allegations in Paragraph 62 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 63. Denied. Paragraph 63 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is expressly denied that Plaintiff made any material misrepresentations as to its financial position. It is also denied that Defendant justifiable relied upon any representations of Plaintiff. Any remaining allegations of paragraph 63 are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of triaL 64. Denied. Paragraph 64 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff made any misrepresentations or Defendant sustained any damages. Furthermore, it is expressly denied that: a) Defendant's election to resign his position with Plaintiff and/or his acceptance of a position at SAS Institute with a lower salary was due to his working conditions and/or any alleged insecure financial position of Plaintiff; b) Defendant incurred any costs in relocating to Dayton/Cinci1111ati area in order to accept his new employment as a result of any misrepresentation of Plaintiff c) Defendant went through any pain of closing down a home day care business; d) Defendant lost profits from the daycare business; e) Defendant's wife was unable to fmd suitable employment in the Camp Hill area or that her income was minimal during the time Defendant worked for Plaintiff; t) Defendant endured any emotional distress because of accepting employment with Plaintiff; - 8 - Document #199186 ,~~ - '~ .;l ~--= ,~ ..> ,- ^-..; g) Defendant endured emotional distress ofleaving his family in Ohio; h) Defendant had to cash his 40 I K in order to relocate; and/or i) Defendant turned down a counter-offer from his prior employer in order to accept , the position with Plaintiff. Strict proof of the above allegations is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff avers that it is not liable to Defendant in any amount whatsoever and prays that the Counterclaim against it be dismissed and that it be awarded costs of defense, attorney fees and such other relief as may be just and appropriate. NEW MATTER TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM By way of further answer and defense, Plaintiff avers the following New Matter in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030: 65. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Plaintiff s Complaint and paragraphs 21 through 64 of its Reply to Defendant's New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 66. Defendant voluntarily and knowingly accepted employment with Plaintiff and executed the promissory note. 67. Plaintiffs' cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 68. If Plaintiff sustained any injuries as alleged in his Counterclaim, which is strictly denied, then his injuries were caused by his own voluntary resignation and not because of any actions and/or inactions of Plaintiff. 69. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 70. Plaintiffs' claims are barred or limited by the doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. -9- Document #199186 ;0; , . 71. Plaintiff made no representations as to its financial security, which caused Defendant to accept employment or to enter into a promissory' Note. 72. Plaintiff made no representations with the intent to induce Defendant into accepting employment. 73. Plaintiff made no materially false representations to Defendant. 74. Plaintiff made no representations with actual knowledge of their falsity. 75. Plaintiff did not have knowledge superior to Defendant. 76. Defendant did not rely upon any representations of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff avers that it is not liable to Defendant in any amount whatsoever and prays that the Counterclaim against it be dismissed and that it be awarded costs of defense, attorney fees and such other relief as may be just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By ~ E. Ralph odfrey, Esqui Attorney LD. No. 77052 P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Dated: '/11/ Attorneys for Plaintiff - 10- Document #199186 'w....... - J IJo':'" ...........""" VERIFJ:CATION I, Kent Smith, hereby certify that the following is correct The faclS set forth in the foregoing Reply of Plaintiff; Rite Aid COJporation, to Defendant's New Matter and COWlterclaim are based upon information which I have furnished to counsel, as well as upon information which has been gathered by counsel and/or others acting on my behalf in 1bis matter. The language of the Reply of Plaintiff, Rite Aid Cotporation., to Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Reply ofPlainliff;. Rite Aid Coxporation, to Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim, and to the extent that it is based upon information which 1 have given to counsel, it is tme and correct to the best of my Jcnowledge, information, and belief To the extent that the content of the Reply of Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, to Defendant's New Matter and Coumerclaim. is that of counsel, I have relied upon such counselin making this V t:rification. I hereby 8C;knowledgethat1:he facts set fOItb.m the afo!csaidReply ofPlainti~ Rite Aid CoxpO/:8.tion, to Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim Me made subjectto the penalties of 18 Pa C.SA ~4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. ~~Cfu J~ Kent Smith Date; ~_ ^<,.- ~ 1 i, ;.."",.:.., , "', 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 Reply of Plaintiff, Rite Aid Corporation, to Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: William C. Dissinger, Esquire Dissinger & Dissinger 400 South State Road Marysville,PA 17053 ~ Document #199186 - t" , ~ oW ~ .,' '"~_, . , RITE AID CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA NO. 00-8469 CML TERM WILLIAM S. KEEZER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE, AND END COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM Please settle, discontinue, and end Plaintiff Rite Aid Corporation's Complaint against William S. Keezer with prejudice. Please settle, discontinue, and end Defendant William S. Keezer's Counterclaim against Rite Aid Corporation with prejudice. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By E. Ralph 0 ey, squire Attorney I.D. No. 77052 P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: / hsJ2- I ! DISSINGER AND DISSINGER By aren 1. Koenigsber , 28 North 320d Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-2840 Attorneys for Defendant Dated: nnr"m~nt:!:l' ???11(J J .llie ~~~'~~' ~'!!I~~&!HIi'Wh- ~'~.":il!!I~~~;~M0j;'>,E:;~j.~""''''''tl\'1oljj,1'~'''.'-'~~'~'"~''--'''''. '"~iiIor"jP=~IfJ~~lA1l1ll.lltifu,:'~~~lr ~~ =~~.. (') a ~ -o~ 1'-> '- -----4 mW :> i::~1: '"T] Z:x, z , t;r- N __}J8 -<~.~' w ,~', , !<~j v ~:~~! >'c ' .. :z 0 ::r g~~ -0 Pc - :z .. c-< =<! w 55 \D -< "