Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05276KARLA A. NICKERSON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2001- S;2% CIVIL TERM VAN C. NICKERSON, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons against the defendant, Van C. Nickerson, and enter my appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, Karla A. Nickerson. Please direct the Sheriff to serve the defendants as follows: Van C. Nickerson 1400 Newville Road Carlisle, PA 17013 By: Date: September 7, 2001 Respectfully submitted, IRWIN, McK)W.HT & 60 Wesf Po t Street, Carlisle, 17013 (717) 249-2 53 -Supreme Court I. No: 25476 To: VAN C. NICKERSON You are hereby notified that Karla A. Nickerson, plaintiff, has commenced an action against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. PROTHON Y B3,, Z?2D P DEP TY Date: 2001 Q ` 1{9?V^2/J W p p IVr rRj d-.3 f? t? 4 iL SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-05276 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND NICKERSON KARLA A VS NICKERSON VAN C KENNETH GOSSERT , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon CKERSON VAN C the DEFENDANT , at 1725:00 HOURS, on the 24th day of September, 2001 at 1400 NEWVILLE ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to VAN NICKERSON 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 18.00 Service 6.50 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 34.50 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this aP'-? day of OZ9 A. D. Prothonotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 09/25/2001 IRWIN MCKNIGHT & HUGHES By: D puty Sh if In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania NICKERSON KARLA A VS NICKERSON VAN C File No. 2001-05276 STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED To the Court: KARLA A. NICKERSON intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Date: October 25, 2004 Attorney fofKarla A. MARCUS A MCKN'PII ESQ IRWIN & McKNIGHT 60 WEST POMFRET STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 °? ? C . C. ± f^1 C'? .4` -?? 1. ?..., ? 2 -.,- ? ri n ? ?? { ... ) l'? ,? ' nl . ' 1_J ?1 i ?A, w ?1 v.. }s ?1 ?C ??? KARLA A. NICKERSON.) PLAINTIFF V. VAN C. NICKERSON, DEFENDANT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY : PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001-5276 CIVIL ACTION - LAW STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED TO THE COURT: Plaintiff intends to proceed with the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & Mc"IGHT By: arcus A. cKni I, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No: 25476 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Date: November 1, 2007 ca ` ` __, - _ ---a -??- --z F.,., ?? ? f'S -- t -r; Z i ? ? ".y W i ti, ,.. ? '~: F1~~D-~~F(C~ KARLA A. NICKERSON, PLAIN IFF ~~i0 C~, T 22 ~`~~~ 3~ c vs _ CUB°1~~~;L.r ~~ G~Ur~!' P f°~~~~~YL`~A~!~, VAN C. NICKERSON, DEFENDANT Case No. 2001-5276 CIVIL TERM Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: KARLA A. NICKERSON, PLAINTIFF intends to proceed v~ the abov ,~aptioned rnatter. Print Name MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III Sign Date: OCTOBER 22 , 2010 Attorney for 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. I. 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 promuigated 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 maybe 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 temrinated, that party may proceed under Ru1e230(d) for relief from the order of terminarion. An example of such an occurrence might be the temvnation 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 showing to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failwe 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.