Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06021JODY KAY NOSS, PLAINTTIFF, V. AMANDA B. ETTER also known as AMANDA B. HOWARD, DEFENDANT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.2001- `cR t CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff and issue a Writ of Summons against the Defendant, Amanda B. Etter also known as Amanda B. Howard. Please direct the Sheriff to serve the Defendant as follows: Ms. Amanda B. Etter Ms. Amanda B. Howard 1022 Trindle Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully mitted, IRWIN, IGHT GGH?ES Martus A. Mc t, H 60 West Po mfr Street, arlisle, PA 17013 Date: October 19, 2001 (717) 249-2353 eme Court I.D. No: 25476 To: AMANDA B. ETTER also known as AMANDA B. HOWARD You are hereby notified that Joday Kay Noss the plaintiff, has commenced an action against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. Date: & ob i-/9 , 2001 ?? Q O c7 -da o RS <<:_ ? e5 7 v1 `' c q0? S -7- SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-06021 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND NOSS JODY KAY VS ETTER AMANDA A/K/A AMANDA HOWA CHIEF DEPUTY RON ANDERSON , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon HOWARD AMANDA B A/K/A AMANDA B ETTER the DEFENDANT , at 0950:00 HOURS, on the 24th day of October 2001 at CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQ CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to AMANDA HOWARD a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. .00 Sheriff's Costs: So erir??.? Docketing 18.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania File No. 2001-06021 NOSS JODY KAY VS ETTER AMANDA STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED To the Court.• JODY KAY NOSS intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Date: OCTOBER 25, 2004 A McKNIGHT IVI ESQ IRWIN 60 WEST POMFRET STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 c> C c-? ?--n ill ?_. r!? 9 JODY K. NOSS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY : PENNSYLVANIA V. , NO. 2001-6021 AMANDA B. ETTER also known as AMANDA B. HOWARD, CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT , STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED TO THE COURT: Plaintiff intends to proceed with the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & Mod"IGHT By: Marcus A. M I, Esquire Supreme Court . No: 25476 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Date: November 1, 2007 C'-} ? [,. r? ? -t7 .,.i ?,?;? ? r?s ? ? ?( j -? ?tlt _.... I_ i ? -.?,? '- ?,". ? ? . ~ ' t - t,?a -rr , 1 "Fit~ED-O~ FiC~ OF TS~~ ~'F~CT~-SCI®TAf~Y JODY K. NOSS, PLAINTIFF 22 Pia 3~ 23 vs ~~k~~~~~ ~,r~~ CC~t~~~ ~ ~~fa~~~~~~~~~~~ AMANDA B. ETTER also known as AMANDA B. HOWARD, DEFENDANT Case No.20O1-6021 CIVIL TERM Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: JODY K. NOSS, PLAINTIFF intends to proce 'th the a ve captioned matter. G Print Name MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III Sign Name Date: OCTOBER 22, 2010 Attorney for JODY K. NOSS, 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. I. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the temunation 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 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 terminated, that party may proceed under Ru1e230(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 (dx2) 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 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.