HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-00313
FIL~'()-omcr:
(IF T',:': (;'Y)'I,II,:/,!')]'M'lY
" /'.., , .' '. '\/1
99 ./III. - 9 ('1/ /?l S 9
"'V' ':,/ 'I ",', ./ " '''(
V II'k,.( L.I ,( ,J I.A_, ,)1', r ,
Il:N\J~.;'rT'.l/'i"!,>\
'J9.:m CIVIL
Scrlgnoll .II', 10 renHlve duct tupe tlllll Scrignoli, .II'. hud plueed on u gyn1l1ushun floor, Words
\\Iere exehunged helween Serignoli, .II'. und Ihe euslodillns. The cnslodians repOl'led the incidenl
10 Ihelr superiors, which led I ':ust l'ennshol'O Areu School Dislrict employee Ill'. (;Ienn Zehner to
send Rodger Serignoli, .II'. IIleller notilYing him 11m I he would not he permilled to uttend
uetivities Oil school properlies thaI Wt're not educationally related Il)r one yeur. The letter \\IUS
mistakenly sent to Ihe plaintin; Rodger Serignoli, Sr.
Tht' mistuken rt'eeipt of this letler inlended Il)r his son upset the pluintitI The plaintiff
sent Dr. Zehner a letter demanding an apology. Zehner responded hy sending lhe plaintitT II
letter of apology. On .Ianuary 20, 1999 lhe plaintllT instituted the presenlnction against the East
I'ennshoro Area School District, Zehner, the t:ustodians involved in the dispute, and various
other school distriel employees. In lhe complaint. the plaintiff sels forth causes of uetion hased
upon dellunation (Counl I), conspiracy (Count II). negligence (III), Ibud hy use of the United
States Poslal Service (IV), aud emotional distress (V), The defendants have tiled a preliminary
ohjeetion has cd on the plaintilrs Illilure to make propcr scrvice pUTsuant to l'a.R.C.P, Rule 400,
us well us preliminary o~jections in the nnture ofdemurrcrs to all six counts of the plaintiffs
complaint. For the following reasons we grant the delendants' preliminnry o~jections.
Thc test Illr preliminmy ol~iections is whether it is clear and frec from douht Iromnll the
facts pleadcd thatlhe pleadcr will he una hie to prove filets legally sufficient to eSlahlish his I'ight
to relict: Firin~ v, Kephil[j. 466 I'a. 560, 56.1, .15.1 A.2d Hll, 105 (1976). In delcrmining
whether to sustain preliminary objections. this court must accept as true all wcll plt'udcd material
I1lcts us well us uny reusonahle inll'rences lhat lIlay he dl'Uwn from Ihose lilets. Bower v, Bowe~,
5.11 Pn. 54, 57, 611 A.2d IRI, 182 (I'a. 1(92).
2
99-)1) CIVIL
Thc plaintitrs scrvicc of proccss is palcntly defccllvc, Thcrc Was an acccptance of
sCl'vicc. us ul/owcd under Pa,I{,(',p, Rulc 402, hy dclcndunls East Pcnnshoro Arca School
District, Zchncl'. Punt, and Schmick, Ilowcl'l'r, s('l'vicc ofthc complaint as to thc various othcr
dclcndants was llltcmplcd villmlli!. pursullnl to pll.R.C.p, Rulc 40(), scrvicc of proccss is to hc
donc hy tlw sheriff, and pursuant to Rulc 403, scrvicc of original Pl'Ol~CSS hy mail is pcrmittcd
only in ccrtllin circumstanccs, No llSpCCt ofthc plaintiff's complaint flll/S wilhin one ofthosc
calflgorlcs wlllll'C sCl'vicc of proccss hy muil is pl'OpCI' and thercforc the service of process as to
the remaining dcfcndunts is defel~tive.
Ncverthclcss, cven had the pluintifl's servicc ofpl'Ocess conformed to the Pcnnsylvania
Rulcs ofeivil proccdurc, the dcfendants' preliminary o~jcctions as to al/ six counls of the
complaint must bc granlcd. First, cach oflhe plaintifrs tori claims against thc Easl Pmmsboro
Arca School Dislrict as II govcrnmcntal cntity arc bal'l'cd by govcl'mllenlal immunity under 42
Pll.C.S.A, Scction 8541, which slatcs that no local govcrnmcnt agency is liahle f(lI' injury l;aus(~d
hy Ihc governmenlagcncy 01' by onc of its cmployees cxccpt as provided hy the act. A school
district is dcfincd liS a local llgcncy for purposcs of govcrnmental immunity. Petula 1'. Mcllody.
]58 Pa.C'ol11l11w. 212, 216, 631 A.2d 762. 764 (Pa. ('onll11W, C't. 1(9)).
In ol'dcr f(lI' a local govcrnmcntal agency to bc liablc undcr 42 Pa,C.S.A, Seclion 8542(a),
a plllintiff l11ust show that thc dal11ages would bc I'ccovcrablt, pursuant to the common law or II
slulule, that thc injury was causcd hy thc ncgligcnt act oflhc agcncy or its cmploycc, nnd that thc
ncgligcnt actllll/s into onc of Ihe eight exccptions 10 govcrnl11cntal immunity dcscribcd in
Section 8542(h). Malia v. Monchak, 116 Pa, ('ommw 484, 4<)1,543 A,2d 184, 188 (l'a,
COl11mw, Ct. 1988), Thc cight cxccptions to I(wal govcrnmcntagcncy immunity listcd in Scctlon
8542(b) arc; (I) vchicle liability; (2) Cllrc, custody or control ofpcrsonal propcrly; (3) rcal
.1
1)9')13 CIVIl.
properly; (4) trees, 1m me l:ontwls and street lighting; (S) utility service fllCililies; (6) streets; (7)
sidewalks; and (H) carc, cllstody 01' control ofanimah. 42I'a,c'S,A, Scction HS42(h). Clearly,
none of the counts of the plaintilrs complaint thalallegc lIegligenlacls lilll within one of the
nhllve eight exceptions,
Addilionally, Section HS42 (a)(2) slutcs that "ncgligcnt uels" do not include acts
which constitule a crime, actual fl'llud. actual malice or willfulmiseonduct. Therell,re. pursuant
10 Se\:tion HS42(a)(2), local government agencies cannot he Iiablc for thc willlltl 01' inlentional
acts oflhcir employces, Stgjner v, Steiner, 97 I'a, Commw, 440, SO') A2d 136H (I'a, Conllnw,
Ct. 19H6), Thus the counts of the plaintilrs complaintllgaillst thc East l'onnshol'O Area School
District alleging willHilmisconduct must he dismissed ulong with tho counts alleging negligent
conduct.
The defendants have also tiled demulTers to the plaintiffs claims against the individual
doJ(JI1danls as well. An ~'mployee of a local govcrnment is liahle for personal injuries caused by
acts of tlK' employee performed within thc scope of his omee or duties only to the same extent as
the local government agency. 42 l'u.C.S.A. Section HS4S. The plaintiff has not alleged any fuets
in the eonlplaint that show tllllt any of the Sd1001 district cmployee:l named as defendants in this
actiollacted oUlside the scope of their duties liS employees of the Eastl'ennshoro Area School
Distdct. There/i)re, in order lor the claims against the individuals 10 survive the defendants
prdimillary objectiolls. the plaintiff must cither allege negligcnt acts by the d"fendant employees
that filII within one oftlw cight ~'xccptiolls to immunity listed in Section H542(b), or allege facts
that the employees' acts constituted a crime, actual fraud, actualmulke or willfitlmisl:Onduet, ill
which case the delense of oflicial immunity is waived. 42 l'a,C.S.A. Section H5S0,
4
')()..1I.1('/VIL
The preliminury ohiectionus to the dclil/Ilution c1uill1l1guinst the individuul defendunts
(count I) is gl',mtcd, Anuction fi\i' detil/nation docs not lillI within onc ofthc eight exceptions
listed in 42 PuJ ',S,^, Section 8545. Thercfhw, the pluintiff would huve to ullege that thc
Iihelous or slundel'OUs uCIS by uny of the val'ious individual defendants WCfl) done willfully or
maliciously in ordcr to uhl'Ogate thc official immunity defcnsc pursullnt to 42 PA.CS,A. Scction
8550, "Willlillmisconduct" under Section 8550 rcquires a party to have acted with more than
gross negligence 01' recklcssncss. McNeal v. Cjtv of Eastolj, 143 Pa, ('o01mw, 151. 159, 598
A,2d 038, 642 (Pa. ('onHnw, ('t. 1991). Willful misconduct means that the actor desircd to hring
about thc I'csult that followed, or clsc thut the actor was aware that the result was suhstantially
ccrtuinto occur, Williams v. Citv of Philadelnhia. 131 Pa. Commw, Ct. 71,76, 569 A,2d 419,
421 (I'll, Commw, Ct. 1990).
The plaintiff's eompluint states that "the al()remcntioned defendants, did with willful,
wanton and rcekless disregard activcly with knowledgc and forcthought conspire to lihel (the
plaintif!)." The complaint gocs on to mcntion that the dc/cndants made "slandcrous accusations"
and that the dcfcndants "administcrcd punishment Irol11 unsubstantiatcd chal'gcs hy usc of the
United Statcs MaiL" This colorlllllanguagc is I'cpeatcd throughout count I. and throughout thc
cntirc complaint. Ilowewl', these statemcnts are mercly conc!usionary allegations without any
undcrlying tilctual hasis. In fact, thc cntirc complaint contains only limitcd factual avcrments.
There/lll'e, as 11ll' plaintiff has Iililcd to allcge any lill'ts that support a claim that thc deflmdants
acted willllilly to dcthmc the plaintiff~ thc dcfendants' preliminary ohiection as to count I is
granted.
The ddcndants' preliminary ohjeetion to the plaintiff's conspirncy claim (count
II) will also he sustained, The elements ofu conspiracy claim arc as 1()IIows: (I) a comhinution
5
99.) I) CIVIL
of two 01' morc pCI'Sons uctlng with u coml11on purpose to do un unluwlllllIet or to do nlllwlhlllct
hy unlllwllilmellns or fi'r IIn unlllwflll purpose; (2) IIn overt act done in pursuunee of the comll1on
purpose; and (J) IIctulII leglll damage. Strieklllnd v. I JniY.~l'sitv of SCl'Untol1, 700 A,2d 979, 987.
988 (I'll, Supcr, 1(97), The court went on to state that "proofofmuliee or intent to Injure Is
cssentlalto the proof of II eonspimcy." liL The plaintiff has agllln f'alled to allege Ihcts thnt
estahlish thlltllny of the Individual dclendants acted in concert to intentlonlllly Clluse injury to thc
plllillliff. Count II of the complaint Is filled with statements that tll{' defendants conspired to
slllnder and Iihclthe plalntlfT, inflict severe punishment. alld perform various other alleged
wrongdoings. These lire once again hald cencluslons without any factual underpinning and
therefore the defendants' preliminary ohjection liS to count If of the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff's fraudulent misrepresentation claim (count III) and fraud hy use of
the United States Poshll Service (count V) must also fail. The clements of fraud arc as follows:
"there must he (I) al/'audulent misrepresentation; (2) a fraudulent utterance thereof; (3) an
intention h~ the maker that till: recipient will therehy he Induccd to act; (4)justifiahle rcliance hy
the recipient upon the misrepresentation; and (5) dalnage to the rccipient as a proximate result."
pelahantv v. First Pennsvlvaniallank, 318 Pa. Super. 90, 108,464 A.2d 1243, 1252 (Pa. Super.
CI. 1(83).
The plaintllThas f~liled to allegc any filets to support a claim that any ofthc various
defendants intcntionally induced him to act, that he justifiably rclicd upon any
misrepresentations hy the defendants, or that any misrepresentation caused him to sum,r damage.
Counts IlIlInd V of the complaint nl{'rcly reeyclc the same conclusionary statemcnts contained
within the various other counts of the complaint. Therefore, the defendants' prcliminllry
o~jeetions to wunts Iflllnd V arc granted.
11
(19-JIJ CIVIL
Thc dclendants' prcliminary o~jcetion to thc plaintiff's negligence claim (eollnt IV) is
also grunted, As previously diseusscd, local govcl'l1mcnt cmployees nre immune to negligence
claims hnsed on injuries enused hy acts perfflrmcd within the scopc of the cmployces' duties,
unless the negligtmt acts JillI within onc of the eight cxeeptions listed in Section 8542. 42
l'a,C.S.A. Scction 8542. 8545, The plnintifl's t:omplaint mnkes no mention of nny specific
neglig.ent nets thnt fhll outside the scope of the employet)s' ofl1cial dutics, nor docs it nllege nny
negligent acts that would nlll within one of thc eight listed exceptions to officinl immunity;
thereforc the deJcndnnts' prcliminary ohjcction as to count IV of the complnint is grunted.
The dclcndnnts hnve also tiled II preliminary ohiection thc plaintiffs claim for
i"cmotional distress" (count IV). It is unclear from the plaintilTs complaint whether the plaintiff
is asserting an intentional or negligent inllietion of emotional distress clnim. Under 42 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 8545, negligent inllietion of emotionnl distress docs not Jail within one of the eight
exceptions to ofl1cial immunity Ji)r local government agency employees, Therefore the plaintiff
has no cnuse of action for negligent inllietion of emotional distress.
Intcntional inllietion of emotional distress is a tort recognized hy the courts of
Pennsylvnnia. MeNcal v. City of Easton, 143 Pa. Commw, 151, 156, 598 A.2d 638, 640 (Pn.
Commw. ('t. 19(1), To state a cause of action for intentional inlliction of emotional distress, the
plaintiff must alll'ge: (I) extrcme and outrageous conduI;t on the part of the defendants; (2)
intentional or reckless conduct; (3) thc conduct must cause emotional distress: (4) and thc
distress must he sevcre. Kesslery. Monsour, 865 (i,Supp, 234, 241 (M,D. Pa. 1(94). The
complaint Inils to allege filets that any of the indiyidual dcfendants engnged in outrageous
eondll\:t, 01' thnt tlll're was conduct that was intentionallll' reckless, Under count VI, the
eomplnintagnin recites conclusionnry statements with littlc or no liletual avcrmcnts. Therefore,
7
..
II!).) IJ CIVIL
'l'hc dcfcndunts' prcliminary ohjcction to thc plaintiff's I1t'gligcncc claim (count IV) is
ulso grul1tcd, As previously discusscd. local govcl'l1mcnt cmploy(~cs arc immunc to ncgligcncc
claims bascd on injuries eauscd hy acts pcrl(lI'mcd within thc seopc of the employ(~cs' dutics,
unless thc ncgligentacts fIlII within onc ofthc cight t.xccptions listcd In Section 8542, 42
Pa,C.S.A, Scction 8542.8545, Thc plaintin's complaint makcs no mcntion of any spccific
ncgligent acts that filII outsidc thc scopc of thc cmployccs' official dutics, nor docs it ulicge any
ncgligent acts that would lilll within one of thc cight listcd cxceptions to official immunity;
thcrcforc thc defcndants' prcliminary ohjcction as to count IV ofthc complaint is grantcd.
The defcndunts havc also tilcd a prcliminury o~icction thc plaintiffs claim f(lr
"cmotional distrcss" (count IV), It is unclcar "'om the plaintiff's complaint whcthcr thc plaintiff
is asscrting an intcntional or ncgligcnt infliction of emotional distrcss claim, Undcr 42 Pa,c'S.A.
Scction 8545, ncgligcnt infliction ofcmotional distrcss docs not fall within one ofthc eight
cxeeptions to ofticial immunity for local governmcnt agency cmployccs. Thcrcforc the plaintiff
has no causc of action for negligent infliction of emotional distrcss.
Intentional infliction of cmotional distrcss is a tort recognized by thc courts of
Pcnnsylvania. McNeal v. Citv of Euston, 1431'a. Commw. 151, 156,598 1\.2d 638, 640 (Pa,
CommW. Ct. 1991). '1'0 statc a causc of action f(lI' intcntional infliction of cmotional distress, thc
plaintiff mustallcgc: (I) cxtrcmc and outragcous conduct on the part of the dcfendants; (2)
intentional or rcckless conduct; (3) thc conduct must cause cmotional distrcss; (4) und thc
distrcss must he sel'Crc, KesslcLV. Monsour, 865 F.Supp, 234. 241 (M,D. PU. 1994), Thc
complaint lillls to allegc filcts that any ofthc individuul defendants cngagcd in outragcous
conduct, or thut there was conduct that was intentionul or reckless, Undcr count VI, thc
complaint aguin recites conclllsionary statcments with little 01' no filctllal avcrments. Thcrcl(lre,
7
99..11.1 CIVIL
''''' d'f"d"",,., P"",,,,",,,y "bi" ",," II. ,,, lh, P'. '"'ill'. "o""U,,,,,,, d1""~,, ""'110 ,. .",,,"" ~
Well.
/'",." Y. 'b, d'''''d,,,,,,., b"" Iii", " ""lillO'""", "bJ"Ii"" ,,, u. ".;" iiiI'. """'" r",
P."Ii" "'"''''',' """;Ii" """,,,,,, "" '"'' """,,,,,,,,. p"""." ,,, "" C,' A, S"Ii"" '''',1.
"''';'''' · I,,,,, '" """'''''' ''''''Y '" .,,,,,,., ." """'Y """"y" '''Ii", wi U, ,,, 10', "m"",
""""Y, .,,,~, "7/"''''',3'19, 4/f) m,/), I',l, '992); ~
~. 1.13 1'., C""'m", '74, '''. ,." A.2d II ')3. "" /1'" (''''''",w Cl. /990)
lb,... "or ",,' '" ,,, .""" Ii" d.",,,,,,. .", "" 1\", """""10 A"" 8"">0' Ii;,,,;,, ,. ,..""',
"'''''''''''''''"" 'w lh, ""'" IiIl'I..... ",,' "",,"" "" Y ,,,,. by,,,,, "b"", ",,,,,,.. ""p'''y,,, """, ;"
lh,;, ,,,", 'd"", 0'",,, iI Y. ""y """'" f" P""'f)" d"",.,,, "'''d '" ,"" "''' "f '.. ""P'''y",. ,.
It/so hurred.
"0, ''''' """'" ,.,.,. """". lh, d, '"'.,,",.' Pro""",,,y "h)"Ii". ,. ,"" P"'''''Il'.
cOIl1P/lti/lt Itre grUnted.
AND NOW, this
QRDEB.
r-
dlty ofJlI/y, /999, the preliminary ohjec/ions of/he
do f,,,,,,,,. ,,, U. P";''',"'. """",,,"' "" G RA "llili "'" 'b, '''"'P'''''' ,. lJJ 8M '8SP'Ii,
llY TIlE COURT,
/~odger Eo Sgrig/loli, Sr.
P/ai/ltifl'
Jltmes K. Thonl/ts, 1/, 1!S(llIire
For the Defcndants
/
H
4. Plaintiff avers in part that the libelous
correspondence was sent to the address of Rodger Sgrignoli, Sr.,
but denies in part Defendant's assertion "instead of Rodger
Sgrigno11 Jr.", and PIa in ti ff further asserts dIscovery must
proceed in order to uncover reasoning behilld Defendants reckless
character assassination of Sgrignoli family.
5. Plaintiff deni.es Defendants' paragraph five, and
Plaintiff asserts Rodger Sgrigno.li, Sr. expected to receive a
written letter of apology, see ~xhibit 2 to Plaintiff's
Complaint.
6, PlaintIff avers to Defendants' paragraph 6, and
Plaintiff asserts that Zehner's apology constitutes an admission
of lIability, Plaintiff further asserts that copies of apology
were not sent to all who had received copies of libelous letter,
see cc: of Plaintiff's Complaint Exhibits I and 3.
.,. Plaintiff avers to Defendants' paragraph seven.
8, Plaintiff denies Defendants' paragraph eight,
and asserts that public school boards have a respondeat superior
responsibi.l..ity for the Administrators placed under them,
9. Plaintiff avers to Defendants' paragraph nine,
and asserts that now EX-Principal Capriotti's role in this
libelous conspiracy will become apparent with the conclusion of
discovery and trial,
10. Plaint.I ff denies Defendants' paragraph ten,
and assets that he never COil fronted any janitors at East
Pennsboro Area School District.
11. PlaIntiff denies Defendants' paragraph
eleven, and addresses Defendants' subtopics, individually:
1Z, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' paragraphs
twelve, thirteen, and fourteen are nonsensical, as time running
for Complotion of service had not expired as of F'ebruary 8, 1999.
13. Piaintiff asserts that Defendants' paragraphs
15 through 17 are also nonsen,;ical. Roquestlng in excess clearly
does not violate the specific sum clause,
14, In paragraphs 18 through 34, Defendants
claims that because the Defendant's can hide behind a
governmental shield, that their actions are immune to civil
liability; however, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S,A. Section 8550, M1n
any action against a local agency or employee thereof for damages
on account of the employee in which it is judicially determined
that the act of the employee cause the injury and that such act
constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful
misconduct, the proviBions of sections 8545, 8546, 8548, and 8549
shall not apply." The Plaintiff asserts that banning a solid tax
paying citizen from public faciiity, through a series of
slanderous statements, through libelous publications to other
Governmental Entities, without any subsequent finding of facts,
and then a t.t€'mpting to fr~udulently cover-up those act) ons by
fai11.ng to lift the ban, and by failing to notify all person's
having knOWledge of the iibelous letter constitutes willful
misconduct,
15. Defendants' paragraphs thirty-five
through fifty-seven site no legal reference. They have no
factual basis, and are intended to mislead this Honorable Court,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Rodger E. Sgrignol.i. Sr., Pro se,
respectfully request this Honorable Court deny Defendants'
oJ'
;
.. .
I ~.j .
at II Helen Street, Enola 17025 and all times relevant hereto, Sgrignoli was father of Rodger E,
Sgrignoli Jr., an Agent of the East Pennsboro Youth Athletic Ll'ague, a nonprofit corporation
c(lnducting business in nast Pennsboro Township, the County ofC'umberland of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant's, Dr. Glenn W. Zehner, Individually, and Lk Glenn W Zd1l1er, East
Pennsbol'O Area School District, hereinaller "Zehner", is a domiciliary of East Pennsboro
Township, County of Cumberland of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 3 Charisma
Drive, Campi 1111, 170 II, lInd at all times relevant hereto, Zehner was an Agent for the East
Pennsboro Area School District, hereinaller "EP School District", under the authority EI' School
District, the East Pennsboro Area School Doard, hcreinaller "The Board", the East Pennsboro
Area School Board Member, Individually, hereinafter "The Member", did with willful, wanton
and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethooght participate in acts and ollenses as
described in the paragraphs below causing damages to Sgrignoli.
3 Defendant's, Carole A Cappriotti, Individually, and Carole A Cappriolli, Principal, East
Pennsboro Elementary School, hereinal\er "Cappriolli", is a domiciliary of Com berland County,
Pennsylvania, residing at 2118 Cantebury Drive, Mechanicsburg, 17055, and at all times relevant
hereto, Cappriolli was an Agent for EP School District, under the authority EP School District,
the Board, the Member, did with willful. wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge
and forethought participate in acts and oflenses as described in the paragraphs below causing
damages to Sgrignoli.
4. Defendant's, Marcia Greene, Individually, and Marcia Greene, East Pennsboro Area
School Disll'ict, hereinal\er "Gn~ene", home address unknown at time of filing, at all times
relevant hereto, Green was an Agent fClr FP School District, under the authority EP School
District, the Board, tlw Member., di(1 will willfh), wanton and rcckless disregard actively with
knowledge and fClI'ethought participate in al'ts ami oflcnses as described in the paragraphs below
causing damages to Sgrignoli
5 Defendant's, Mr. Pierce, Individually, and Mr. Pierce, East Pennsboro Area School
District, Iwreinallm "Pierce", home address unknown at lime of liIing, at all times relevant hereto,
,
J!
,
, ,
4, t
Pierce was IIn Agent lor EP School District, under the authority El' School District, the 110ard,
the Member, did will willflil, wanton and reckless disregard IIctively with knowledge and
Il)rethought pal1icipate In IIcts and otlcnses as dcscribed in the paragraphs below causing damages
to Sl(ril(noli
6. Defendant's, The Board, conducting operations In East Pennsboro Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, al 890 Valley Street, Enola, 17025, did with willful, wanton
and reckless disregard aClively with knowledge and forethought participate in acts and offenses as
described In the paragraphs below causing irreparable damages to Sgrignoli.
7. Defendant's, The Member, Anthony j, Filippelli, residing al 107 Miller Street
SUnlnwrdalc, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17093, did with
willtlll, wanlon and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought participate in acts
and offenses as described in the paragraphs below causing damages to Sgrignoli
8, Defendant's, EP School District, a quasi-governmental entity, conducting business at 890
Valley Street, E1101a, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025, did
with willful, wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought participate in
acts and otlcnses as described in till' paragraphs below causing damages to Sgrlgnoli,
VENUE
9. Venue is proper in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, as EP School District, has
operated, and continues to operate within Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
GI~Nr<:RAL ALLEGATIONS
10. On or about FebrualY 27, 1998, the afclrementioned Defendants, did with willful,
wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to libel Sgrlgnoli
through a st'ril's of slanderous accusations. through negligent actions, without any finding of nlct,
..
.
", I
'J I, I
hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting lInd sentencing him to extraordinary and severe
punishmont, and administering punishment from unsubstantiated charges by use of the United
Stales Mail causing cmotionlll distrcss lInd irreparablc damllgcs to Sgrignoli, (sce lelter addresscd
to Plaintil1' datcd February 27, I f)9R, hereinan(~r "F.xhibit OIW").
II. On 01' about April 16, 199R, Sgrignoli madc a rcqucst to lhe Defendants, for II post
conviction and scntencing hearing and Sgrignoli's rcqucst was accepted, (see Exhibit 2, l'laintifrs
leller to Dcfcndant, and Exhibit :I, Defendant's lellcr of apology),
I
UHF-I.
12. Sgrignoli, rcpleads the abovc wcll-plcd paragraphs 7, 8, inclusive:
13. On or about February 27, 1998, the aforementioned Defendants, did with willful,
wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli
through a series of slandcrous accusations, through negligcnt actions, without any finding of fact,
hearing or other arbitrary p\'(lcess, convicting and scntcncing him to cXlraordinary and scverc
punishment, and administcring punishmcnt n'omunsubstantiatcd chargcs by use of lhc United
Statcs Mail causing cmotional distrcss and irrcparablc damages to Sgrignoli, (sec Exhibit One),
14 On or about April 16, 199R, Sgrignoli madc a rcqucst to tbe Dcfcndants, for a post
conviction and scntcncing hearing and Sgrignoli's request was acceptcd, (see Exhibit 2, Plaintiffs
leller to Dcfcndant, and Exhibit 3, Defendant's Icllor of apology).
15, Sgrigl;"li'~ danllgcs dircctly and proximately causod by thc Dcfendant's egregious
conr1uctl. nd actions inr,lude, but arc not limited to the following:
~. Loss ufrl'putation in an amount that will excced
$1,000,00000,
b, Prcsent and illtme emotional dislrcss and any costs that may bc associated;
4
~
("; .....:j. ~~
"
1'_1 ~ I-
('j; ..9'
j' -
(j IJ'{ t-
LO \0
'--:J, '1" ~
;- t'"
t! .r1f
(--, 11' 4
lit j c6
~~~
\
)
J
('l
....'
'(y
F
,
/,i
':--\
. rl
.J
~j
,'-j~
r--
',..r>"
).
r
y ~-
'." '\ t
,.. ~..
!
I',R ^,E;E~}. I' ~~, .X().~, _~.I!11'~~G. . gll ~>.E_!':!)J~ .'.!Jl.ClQ~ E NT
(MulJt be typl1'wri lion itld nublli thrl in dupliclIte)
TO '{'HE PROTHONo'r.\RY Of' CUMUEIH,ANll COUNTY:
Plco!aSO list the wit.h1n matter for tJ1fl next Argunent Court.
--------------------------------------------------------'~----------------------~-----"-
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
RODm\H E. SmUr.NOL!, SH"
VB.
(Plaintiff)
n ~O ~
C 1..0
",.
, no
"'r1fJ,:] .'i"
OH,., "
r;:>iY ~o I i'iiIJ
,
G~~!~ u, TJ~
fjf:;' :~: <,
",f; Cl .." ",' -r
.._,. ,'j:d
'''Cy .~
-(J
):> (~.. S~ ,'jrl1
~ ~
". '-'1
CX) ~
EAST PENNSAORO AREA SCHOOL D1STRIC1', et al.,
(Defendant)
No. 99 -.. 313 _ Civil
19
L State matter to be argued (Le.. plaintiff's ITDtion for new trial. defendant's
demurrer to complaint, etc.):
Defendants' Preliminary Objections
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a) for plaintiff: Hodger' E. Sgr'ignoli, Sr',
Address: 11 Helen St reet
Enola, I' ^ 1702;'
(b) for defendant: ,lnmes f{. Thomas, II
Address: Douglas B. Mar'oetlo
1'.0. Box 999
IIm'risblll'g', P ^ 17 t OR-0999
3. I will notify aU parties in writing within t'oO days that this case has
been listed for argtJrent.
4. Arg\.rnent Court [\lte: May 2fi. 199!1
Il'tted: 4/;,/H9
"'-~) ) _...-:::',_c~;....;>
, \ ~2"/"~/)~Z-~~
- ^t~ far Defendants
se,
,?'Co \
3\
S'C" 3t \
\\. \:.'\\ \.\\3
\0,1'0 'Ct.S 'C\.C\
O'C ." .}o 0 \CS
S, 35' -\ 31' W>
V" . 1'1: ~O'- 1'\.3
:;e'C \3' ,,0'C \.~3 3\"\'
\,-0(\" Co'0.\V eOI' 1'\\s'1 01'
'1:\' 0\ '0' 1'0 \Ce
I: I.C ,,\Ie. 1:\\ ~~.
'\ \ I' .' ,~\ c. , \" 'I'i \ ' 50'
1'\' 0;011:.CI CO ot
~~, '('cO 0\ 'pc\ ~ot ('0'f().i)1' \,'(00\
",-<<.\11 .,t,' " '011' "C <()'f
"IJP" \'\, ~,". 1\ ,
<' S C'GI';:' 1:' \
\' '.1'.1:.
\I'\:.\ o\lC \i\' \'0'
'i'\.3 \11 ,,\J COlt.? "",,~.\\
. \:.\\' 1:.5 1:.,\\0' S<)c
'I'i' 0,31' 01: e'
<01' '1 "I\'C
DC" co\' ocee>
\.eo ,?'C
t\. '\1\\
{C\ \:.5'
o 03\\
tol'
De
~
~'\.~ ~
99~ 1.0~ ~ -.~fSl
~o ' "cot r-'
1.\> ~ 't. '0
C1.'-I .-." ,.... ...------
""'~' .... ,.,.. ',r. ______
.... ------
.,.... .. ,."'" ,#' ,,,,. ~ '"
'" ." .....' .,.... ~ >>-'
· . '1$ cfJ\> ______ C~
. . . .'" '"
~ 0 tIJ1> /~~...,r-Gf.
'\)t'- . ~~ _______ Of
.-1\01\1> t
yv.' , , ~\:.!.............. yt'-c:fJ.
.... '8f..~-- , \11
e\:. 'O~ ~1.~
-------- y~'t
9
V~ ~1.""
~~ &"ta'1
~ C '9f>~
!t O~,
CO~CO~
't~~ ....~
1.~ ~~
C~
SOO
1:0
'Ce.
\:.5
el'
M \:.'
t'S 0\1
'\lI:.\\\'f M e."\'\\.
\3\ ~.,\\O '??
'i' . , \,
O\:., o\: I' I.
\:.\\ teo \II:. \:.'
. S "31\ . 0.3 eS
'C'. 1''-' .e\l C\\'
sC {.O "C\' 'C.O S
,;5 lic ,I:. v " I:.c. '\Ie
,,\\ \:.\CO .\I\CC SU> \c\\
\:.0 t.~' SOl , \:.00. 'I'i'\\'. \~O
d ,,0'C 0\ \)1\\ ,sl:.. ,6 I:.
'\Ie ~, c c ~ ~
,'e) , , < 1:' , I\C" \\\', oe.C\ 1:.\\
'-' .' \:.0 \~ ~ A
~\ \It. ('co? ,,\I' 'VI:. eO. '
0\.." "" . "e> ('C ~\I
' I' ,\1< \,C. <;0'
<' e 30 II <; .
,{, ,'\1\ 0'C\\\,.
,'I\t ' ~,".' \,-cl:. <; \.
~ v~ ~o'
'2., 1'\<' 3 \ \, '.
,,\I . 'l'iO \"leI \ \. \
,~ \ \ ., C
3, . . ('e> , \N '
" 0 "e., < '\ '\ \ \
~ \\"h \:." \:'
1'\ \ CO'C \ ,II\: \"l'\\ \.'
\\ · \. ( l.
(\01 'CO \p.I' '"
· el' ~'C\I "0 ' ,,,,\:.0,,
\)0' 9" v '20\:."
.;,\. ce.o,. eO
51:. \,\\., \ I:. .
1'0 'Ce, \)1\
\",0 \,,'f
" - 0"1.'
'f'~
\.\\
. \II:.
\,\0'
6
\:.0
O~V
\:.\.
3
"
01\
\. 'CS
\le
...,\\\
I": III
,] I <11
VI II In "
h': ~l'~:(\'h
I,jl (jI)
!li';J ....1]
"I "
-
'..) .
(~,;l
. ..
N,'
.1'""\"
.... '"
.,
q'"1"
,....."
'fiII-",
r')
-
"
,>
\
.\
'~ 'ii,
,{I
"
~;. \ ,\ ~-.
'"
",
"
,
,.
l;t',':,:::'
f\ '1:"\,' '~::~:,:;~ ,: ,',
\ 'f. I \,.,
"l~',
,
.
.1'/"
'i.,'
\ '
.
,i"
~~\l
\\
: I~
"u,
,',,;, I .
~;:'c' i.'I, "i, \
)~. ;('..
.J~/' ,. ;'1
-/~ 'i
;'/'.'-'
"
"
"
"
iI' "
--
-
:Ii
I,
...\'(',I:',i'
, ';"'I.i~}':,
'" '-I!'~Y'.,l' '~,
',' !,(. n"'~"\''''';'
",:",~I' ',eft,l! '~I:>~' ~"i~~','
",i"'-,~.'rlf} !,.'1 . ,
.",IY.>(t:, .,,; ,'~;'
.,,';.,':',Jt,"i\..l';,';',-,':;'
Jl\~':'._:h:-"I~r.,'j,.l ,
~ .t .: 'I!; :'.~, ;
'1'.( -,; ';-"\' ,r.:
f;,r,i.., ,',',
I,." ,
, '~
--
fTl
~
r-
"
,.': ','~
Q.)
, ----..
CS
'~
'. ':
, ":,,,
,~.' I
,i{
'::>-~
c:
"
,'/.'
,
,; \
o
1"
f\J
>,
".
,,:~ '\:_~,:"
!y.1\".;,.':,
J .- .'''... ". -'. '~I!
...,;,,\/'., ~'.
, . ',!
'f"'oIt .-',
',\"'1l /,
\';;"':1':' "i!
i\'" .
i ;~':;;~. -;~;'
,3~ t\ ~ ,1-j-I'
'I H' '"l);':-'~t
!.' " ~h: h~'
,.'."
fTl
....
o
, \;,
N
\ (~
I
I
I,
,
H .
1'""-
1"'", --.
I
~I $~~:, '
~ '...~.i';'
~\l~ ".;'$
.:::1:.. 0' >,1..1,1
"~t ~ t ~ f
':::: \.\
f.:) , . " III
lJ.:J ' .. ' 3
i3 . r: CIJ~
!lJ . ,:f1 lloS"
i3 JJ.dl'" ",S
1 ~ L e u_
>- ." l' ., ~ Ii: ff'-
c5 ~ 4I~, VI ;:0 D
B '- ~n'v't'~ .
. ..."," fi ~ t-l ~T tJ ...
1./ g....J ql~' C/) .J ~I ...
Q.: ~ ~J tt ,J VI VI [)
... c: '-{ .!:; :g .~ .~ C)
I .........Q
:., ,;,;
hi
( ,. ~
, "
;'I_!/,', ,'I:.
,:;\~-~~::~,I}\ "~I
\1\
K
'0
r-
"
:~ ",l',\"~, .;if i" /.J-
;(:',;w.:.
., .:. "-'Z'.;'ttI..',)~,~_~
("',H'~'iI:"'.""~Y
.:?:~ . r/:'(:;'~~:'>v, r:~
'(' 1/1,;1, ,!,..j~t~' I I.' \-\.If ,', /,
:<" ,Ii t:,.:"~' ':',L '... "'''I,
',,; '1\',' "..'.'~~ ?~( '. "i'l~'
, ,t,',', l'd~,(r T.:H'l~ 'l'*, ~,~~ I
,
:,
'~i\}~ ':,
>.p"}"I'
,>
I
c.;"
.'; "~'.'
".1.
"rt -
, 1,1",'
, ,\ 'j,
'.
,
';J
I ~
"
.,:i
"
I ,I,
I I (l'
Iii 1111" I
fHI "'..; 'f'
n, ,./ "", I
I II .f)
,,;11 ') ,I,'l
III '"
"
LU,
00"
"
'I
("Y'1,.
LI"'l.{'
""7"
.ul' ",
,;.;.,.t)f"I'~"~'!'
? 11_~':!~'J~-'! ,', . ,,//)
',(\i,ll\."i .'_ \
, 1,;1,~.;lj
'>l"t ill\r,
',;. \'l,~~:h:~~;
',"''''1$1
,,:\!-,..:,
, '.\
~~ ~~!
- I
1
;",
r
t1
~
,-', I
I"l
,
~r l.,';,
Q,I
\p
"
"
"
"
~
o
'-.
L
0-
~
q).
:::>
r_
L.:.:
Q
-
.,
'n
rc
C',
\"'1 '
~l<lllllllf
n B ~ Mil
;,i ~~,Ir, .!l~H.!l
I' .. ..QI;;
- " 'tlt!UI20
"" 1"".l:'C!.j:l
~1 ':\,i I' 'n ~r n
l' !',~';v:Jfv: u
, :'- (~_r:! n (j
"........_'-J
2")
;j J
r
-0 :
~
~.
--
~
'c:r'
(y) ,~
..........
-- IU
ro ~
:,
c-
.(I
.11
"
I"
Ul
hi
i ~
, '0
, '\'-'
/'ti -
5~_
~:~ ti"",
.~~,~~-~ ;1t~'<-\"'\'1"
, ~ I) '" ,l,.."
, C'
'.
("'\'
I ~,
.1
.
I'."J
'.
,"',,'
;\ ~ ,-,) , ~;.1.', 1'- : ~
,'(, .' 'IWli . ~
:,;~'.j,,;ll,{'i,~. I.". ~~t
-f ';'-",':\':"._.}' .;
(. "
'1' "'_
f"~' _, I.'
; ~,:,:{. if' ,\
, ,
',' J'ytJJ,~;
'i/ ""..- "'_:.' J'-/ ~'.
,. ...
1,,'f:"!{:>~l:' ,/" ':',':_,;',_:'(, ,:,'>~
".,.\\\t'ff' F"i,;itf,I,$'
" H.',\ " folj :\'i:J1lli1':M\
I,~'~J\';;~ ,'I(,('rM'-iI.,~~'I*~
~
N
,~ ~
i v') .
~~
I.l..i '
-....\q:
,~ -...l
l ::t Cl
" .......
~:,<:.
.........\.\J
...
"
II (JI
~(;I : I y 1:")\.
n., I ' .1 ,,'
1'\')(""\
U;llljl ,( 1i~1
. "'1 III
, .
II ~1 "
t,:! "
r I : ~
~ II
~ Y
E
en>'
en:: I
" ,
~::I
,
,;,
.
-....;,
~
()
"
~
"l:
U
j . ~
:,1
,','
l~~Qlzt~'>:,',
..:J "QI ~,ii;.~::
. ,~o ""l,' {
51 ''$1'
. 9/iJQ .,..
/;l/!Jk: Ii
:" g!:J!rs,""'" ';":
I'. '" ;., (j '" ,::;~.", 1.1""
't,.....<f ~o ....s,', ';l"'iI~I,i .
""0{j"O!?' \~i',\
~,..''''
oe;o '. ','"
I ,'~'
~,
"-.\
o
~
q::
C)
: i
, /
)-
-
,....
~
~
~
'-
~
<)
^'
~
:::J
~
~
~
.,......
'<
"C
(J
Oc
.......
-:
\'-6'
~
c;:)
c:....
""'-
t
...
~
:;)
~,
.0
'~"
'.' ..'\
;' ~ J
.' :"':::1::.:"
'.' ",",
'0,' "
4..i'
.~,'
"
~
k0,..,.".
~'~" "
, ,I
~, 01
,"\ '
u\
, "
~ j' ,,),,1;\, I
i\
,
", I
, ,
,':/i,~;~ '
" Y,trM1:,.'.'
, 'l'i~,," ~~ ~ 1"
, \~ri.li,'i~;'
W,'" .,J
" '
, ' ,; .'~:,)~;':'"
l'l
>.....1;,\ '
"., .' '\~"! '.~ ','i
\'-','
..
J
,
,
"
"
~ ; ( ,
"
,"
'J .", " ,
;""1',:,'.<".:'" \
\." ,.",1. ,
/'....',.1-II'i:'
"
"
.'
>" cO I,;
0, \.;
i" f;t') " "
" , , ,
, " ,
- -'
H, ..~... J
(,{il '.;) !/i
i ..~ 'I .
I 1 (".J
('I: (, , 1\11
(" HJ_
...1
" (~n :~j
u ... , ()
.
"