Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-2226IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO S 2003 Civil Action - Law CATHY CRALL SMITH ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY and 718 Second Street ERIE INSURANCE GROUP New Cumberland, PA 17070 4901 Louise Drive VS. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Plaintiff(s) and Address(es) Defendant(s) and Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. Said Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Cumberland County Sheriff in order to complete service upon Defendant. Dennis R. Sheaffer, Esquire TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 Z? I - Signature of ttorney Supreme Court I.D. #39182 Date: ,5--- Cl` -z33 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Prothonotary Date: By_,dr_ 1.. _ __A1 0.? _ _ l1 ?--- 58944.1 UUeputy - V ?? L4 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2003-02226 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COUNTY SMITH CATHY CARL VS ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of GERALD WORTHINGTON to law, Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according was served upon says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS the ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY 2003 at 0015:05 HOURS, on the 12th day of Mav DEFENDANT at 4901 LOUISE DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA_ 17055 MELVIN STRAIT, JR., (CLAIMS by handing to SUPERVISOR a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: 18.00 Docketing 6.90 Service 00 Affidavit , Surcharge 10.00 00 34.90 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 14 ?_ day of A. D. rothonotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 05/13/2003 TUCKER, ARENSBERG & SWARTZ By uDepty S iff CASE NO: 2003-02226 p SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. OF CUMBERLAND SMITH CATHY CARL VS ERIE INSURANCE COMP ?y ET AL GERALD WORTHINGTON Cumberland Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of County,pennsylvania who being duly sworn according to law' says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS ERIE INSURANCE GROUP was served upon DEFENDANT at 00--05 HOURS the at 4901 on the 1 day of LOUISE DRIVE May 2003 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 --------- - ------- MELVIN STRAIT, by handing to JR., (CLAIMS SUPERVISOR) a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing So Answers: Service 6.00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge .00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline 0 16.00 05/13/2003 Sworn and TUCKER, ARENSBERG & SWARTZ Subscribed to before me this ? By: -/= day of Deputy Sh ff `? A D othonotary CATHY CRALL SMITH, P-Laint-Iff-_ vs Case No. 03-2226 Civil ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY and ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, Defendants Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: Cathy Crall Smith, Plaintiff intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name Dennis R. Sheaf f er Date: 10/23/06 Sign Name 0 t Attorney for Plaintif f Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. 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 termination 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 Pa. 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 accommodate 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. 11 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 such an occurrence might be the termination of a 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 of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. 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 under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated 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. C= _n 2 i_ : irT, Cathy Crall Smith, ain i vs Case No. 03-2226 Civil Erie Insurance Company and Erie Insurance Group, Defendants Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: Cathy Crall Smith, Plaintiff intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name Dennis R. Sheaffer Sign Name 02964?2== Date: 10/26/09 Attorney for Plaintiff Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. 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 termination 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 Pa. 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 accommodate 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 such an occurrence might be the termination of a 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 of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. 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 under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated 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. sum-OFFM CF THE PROTHONOTARY 2089 OCT 26 PM 4: ©4 CUMBL.FILA 4;-'' GOUNN PENNS`(LVFvNA CATHY CRALL SMITH, Plaintiff, v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY AND ERIE : NO. 03-2226 INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE AND SATISFY TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please mark the above -captioned matter satisfied and discontinued. Respectfully submitted, TUCKER ARENSBERG, P.C. By: Dennis R. Shaffer Attorney I. D. #39182 2 Lemoyne Drive, Suite 200 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 234-4121 Date: December `T , 2014 Attorneys for Plaintiff HBG DB:HBG DB:147667-1 015485-019031 AND NOW, this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE day of December, 2014, Paulina Patti Thomas, Legal Assistant for the law firm of TUCKER ARENSBERG, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have this day served the within document by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: John A. Statler, Esquire Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Paulina Patti Thomas HBGDB:147667-1 015485-019031