HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-2316 FX
.
.. ....
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH A. COCCIARDI &
ASSOCIATES,INe.
4 Kacey Court, Suite 100
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-5596
No. 01- ~')Jb
(L~l~~
v.
MICHAEL R. REIPRISH and
STEPHANIE E. REIPRISH
69 Autumnwood Drive
Middletown, PA 17057-3640
CIVIL ACTION - LAW jEQUlTY
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please issue a Writ of Summons against the Defendants, Michael R. Reiprish and
Stephanie Reiprish, who may be served at 69 Autumwood Drive, Middletown, PA
17057-:3640.
Date: 'i jlt / ;),<<:;> (
I ,
BY:~. ~~
~ ~nn R. 'Davis -
Attorney I.D. No. 31040
Chadwick O. Bogar
Attorney I.D. No. 83755
LATSHA DAVIS & YOHE, P.e.
P.O. Box 825
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0825
(717) 761-1880
WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO: MICHAEL R. REIPRISH
STEPHANIE E. REIPRISH
69 AUTUMNWOOD DRIVE
MIDDLETOWN, PA 17057-3640
You are hereby notified that Joseph A. Cocciardi and Associates, Inc., have
commenced an action against you.
Date: IJi''''-'! l /9: ~I
Curt Long, pmthonOIa~
By: ~-'tt-j';' ) JJ
65963.1
:,;ii"".,
"_T',' ,,-,_{o ',-,',--
1"1 '! ' I~ - ..
r'
, ,~
-.
, -,~ > ,. ~- '--<' '. o'I-"'--"~" ---",. 'Oc -~' "~,,
t
Iill!IP'
";'"' ,"'"
~,~~
,m:1II~
-,','e -~,"""' '"r~_r."'_~~"'" ",_~< '~"'-"'_""'''''~~.si-''''''~-_'_' __,~_ ~ ~ =. ,___"~~,=_
__ (3
ttlt
.......
.....
o
..c
~
-
Vl
~
1 ~
~ ~\)
~B~
~~
t~
~
.--~
.-
c-:-:;
...;::
._',J
(;--,
....
.-'j
--,i
9
Ilfn~!If~~''j!jI'>,\!'''j}Ij~~_!!i~!']I:I!'f\''~tf''-f:~~~'~~*,${',R'lWI\'k'R'~4''1~~ll'!!Hm~'-ff'illmpW~~!!\1l!!!~
....,.,
en
r .-~,
--~ "
SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY
'" ..
CASE NO: 2001-02316 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
~ COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
COCCIARDI JOSEPH A & ASSOCIATE
VS
REIPRISH MICHAEL R ET AL
R. Thomas Kline
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being
duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and
and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT
REIPRISH MICHAEL R
but was unable to locate Him
deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN
serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS
, to wit:
in his bailiwick. He therefore
County, Pennsylvania, to
On May
23rd , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the
attached return from DAUPHIN
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Out of County 9.00
Surcharge 10.00
Dep. Dauphin Co. 35.25
.00
72.25
OS/23/2001
LATSHA DAVIS & YOHE
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this />>- day of ~
;M;-vr, A.D.
~Q'~/~
Prothonotary
!"I'f;'"_,'Il!:ll'Yl'I., """!_~.
T_ 'j"!I_',
,-. -,
County
,I
SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY
..
CASE~O: lOOl-023l6 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
.
COCCIARDI JOSEPH A & ASSOCIATE
VS
REIPRISH MICHAEL R ET AL
R. Thomas Kline
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being
duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and
and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT
, to wit:
REIPRISH STEPHANIE E
but was unable to locate Her
in his bailiwick. He therefore
deputized the sheriff of
County, Pennsylvania, to
serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS
On May
23rd , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Out of County
Surcharge
6.00
.00
10.00
.00
.00
16.00
OS/23/2001
LATSHA DAVIS
~
So a
attached return from
- as Kline
'ff of Cumberland County
& YOHE
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this /Al.A- day of ~, ,
24-01 A.D.
0'f'.A-- Q. n",POL,..;; ~
Prothonotary I
'"~""----~'-"'--"''"''''._-< -~ ,--
11"-1'
~,
" .
-
~
@~litt of tq~ j&4~J;iff
William T. Tully
Solicitor
J. Daniel Basile
Chief Deputy
Mary Jane Snyder
Real Estate Deputy
Michael W. Rinehart
Assistant Chief Deputy
Dauphin County
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889
Jack Lotwick
Sheriff
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
JOSEPH COCCIARDI & ASSOC.
vs
County of Dauphin
REIPRISH MICHAEL R.
Sheriff's Return
No. 1241-T - -2001
OTHER COUNTY NO. 01-2316
AND NOW: May 10, 2001
at 8:41PM served the within
SUMMONS
upon
REIPRISH MICHAEL R.
by personally handing
to STEPHANIE REIPRISH, WIFE
1 true attested copy(ies)
of the original
SUMMONS
and making known
to him/her the contents thereof at 69 AUTUMNWOOD DRIVE
MIDDLETOWN, PA 17057-0000
Sworn and subscribed to So Answers,
".'m m. '"" "" "'" 0' ~', ""' J f~
Ai. (\ .
L..--- (+)~ Sherlff of D hi County, Fa.
PROTHONOTARY
Deputy
Costs:
RCPT NO
PD 05/04/2001
149454
TITUS
-'\~ . ".>.." . <. ",,,,~,,,~:,','-.<o$",'J_':'" '"
_.1""1,> 4:. .". ~,"._ ,r "'.'" . '" _ I,'
~, ,~,.."
"
17"
.
@iiite of tIre ~4eriff
...,.....
William T. Tully
Solicitor
J. Daniel Basile
Chief Deputy
;
Mary Jane Snyder
Real Estate Deputy
Michael W. Rinehart
Assistant Chief Deputy
Dauphin County
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889
Jack Lotwick
Sheriff
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
JOSEPH COCCIARDI & ASSOC.
vs
County of Dauphin
REIPRISH MICHAEL R.
Sheriff's Return
No. 1241-T - -2001
OTHER COUNTY NO. 01-2316
AND NOW: May 10, 2001
at 8:41PM served the within
SUMMONS
upon
REIPRISH STEPHANIE E.
by personally handing
to HER
1 true attested copy(ies)
of the original
SUMMONS
and making known
to him/her the contents thereof at 69 AUTUMNWOOD DRIVE
MIDDLETOWN, PA 17057-0000
Sworn and subscribed to
So Answers,
JR~
b,'W",", """'",t!'" ,.~ HAY, 2"'"
~~.(f~)
,
PROTHONOTARY
Costs: $35. 05/04/2001
RCPT NO 149454
TITUS
, .~. . -c-~-''''> -_-"'_~ ,.-
_,,0__
~"_~I"r_~~> _
"'I'
"
I
n "'" r; ..t: ~ n".t: ;,..., ,., d r +" D ~.
In In€: COH.rt (h Common f ieas Of 'LUm[lerftan vomrhY, Jl. ennSYllVanla
. -- .Joseph A. Cocciardi & Assoc.
VS.
Michael R. Reiprish, e.t. al.
,
Serve' No. 01-2316 C'v'}.
. - . Michael R. Reipri..sh . ~ ~
Now,
4/20/01
, 20 (> (J , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P.A.., do
hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin
County to execute this Writ, this
deputation being made at tile request and risk of the Plaintiff. .&/d
. . ~J1?~~1'
Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA
Affidavit of Service
Now
,
,20_, at
o'clock
M. served the
within
upon
at
by handing to
a
copy of the ari ginal
and made lcnown to
the contents thereof.
So answers,
Sheriff of
County. P A
Sworn and subscribed before
me this _ day of ,20_
COSTS
SERV1CE
J\.1ILEAGE
}\FFIDA "lIT
$
$
:#~--- ,
- .'~
"~.- - ", r'1
"' "
I'
}I,n The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Joseph A. Cocciardi & Assoc.
VS.
Michael R. Reiprish. et. al.
Serve' Stephanie E. Reiprish No. 01-2316 Civil
Now,
4120/01
,2000, I, SHERIFF OF CUl'vlBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do
hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin
County to execute this Writ, this
deputation being made at the request and risk ofthe Plaintiff.
. r~~--.e:~$
SheriffofCrnnb~UmdCounty, PA
Affidavit of Service
Now,
,20_, at
o'clock
M. served the
within
upon
at
by handing to
a
. copy of the ad ginal
and mac1e lmown to
the contents thereof
So answers,
Sheriff crf
County, P A
Sworn and subscribed before
me this _ day of
. 70
,--
COSTS
SERVICE
Jv.1ILEAGE
AFFIDA VIT
$
$
"'?,ifI-~
<,~
o~, ~~^"
~ .
,', '~l"'l':~ "",
.' "
..I..
~ - ' l' I
~"T
"~ ~
lJ
-
JOSEPH A. COCCIARDI & ASSOCIATES, INC.
vs
Case No. 01-2316
MICHAEL R. REIPRISH and
STEPHANIE E. REIPRISH
Statement oflntentionto Proceed
To the Court:
Plaintiff
intends to proceed with the above captioned matter.
PrintName Glenn R. Davis
Sign Name
Go..2Q:Jo
Date: October 24, 2005
Attorney for
Plaintiff
Explanatory Comment
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the tennination of
inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 190 I. Two aspects of the recommendation merit
comment.
1. Rule of civil Procedure
New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the
scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The terminatico of these cases for inactivity was previously
governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is
tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting
local rules.
This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pac 360,710 A.2d
1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required
before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901."
Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to acconnnodate the new rule of civil procedure. The
general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable.
II Inactive Cases
The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the
court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties.
If the parties do not wish to pursue the case. they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of
course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute:' If a party wishes to pursue the matter. he or she
will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue.
a Where the action has been terminated
If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed
under Rule230( d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of sucb an occurrence might be the termination
ofa viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file
the notice of intention to proceed.
The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of
the entry of the order oftennination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and
reinstate the actiou. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff
must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or
legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of
termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period nnder subdivision (d)(2).
B. Where the action has not been terminated
An action which has not been tenninated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may
have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a
common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.
',~~-
_"."F,
rl-~ " - .,~
if]
.,. ,'" """''''~''''''^~,,<",,<
'"
.,,~
"N
''',' ",...,"".~" _ r. ~=.r." ,,,","" .~"''-_ ",,,~",,, _ ._ " ~,~ __~, ~_
I
tf l, l
t~4L
"0< '.
....r
IImnl'",
~
~
o
-n
-I
;~fJ
~'~E
8~f~
c~-l"
?~~~
-'
J;~
~<
C)
c~
-,
N
~
t:,?
(-<)
CO
~."~.i.t<m-,&",,.;I1l!'!iIll~,Mil;?!!!ffi;J;I'l"_&.\tfQ1~~ll'l"l'fl~~Ilf'~l\-"'1";'i'/"f'~';'~f';""~"r""'-;";t"""';,<l7r""s:t'iI"WHf;,,,r~",.1I'>'f~,WIW.'f\"Wo/l""~"',",:;I\f!I'EjW,~~~