The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About99-03181 MAY 2 u 1999 0 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLAINTIFF PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY FRANCES BONILLA PENNSYLVANIA VS NO: qq - 3l s/ DEFENDANT MEIJA Q. WILLIAMS ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this0 day of May, 1999, upon consideration of the attached Custody Stipulation, the Plaintiff shall have legal and physical custody of the minor child, Britan Xavier Williams Morales. BY THE / I z7, PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT Smm to and subscribed beforeme this. U011• ayof mg-'A /19.6:3 NOTARIAL SEAL ELAINE M. REGI, NotaryPublic City of Cadisle, Cumberland County M Comm' S1011 ExpRes Nov 6. 2000 L .- I . i di tT U K b 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLAINTIFF PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY FRANCES BONILLA PENNSYLVANIA VS NO: DEFENDANT MEIJA Q. WILLIAMS CUSTODY STIPULATION It is hereby stipulated that: MEIJA Q. WILLIAMS 1. Defendant is an adult individual who currently resides at 10 E. Main Street, Elizabethville, Pa 17023. 2. Plaintiff is an adult currently residing at 104 E. Green Street, Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055. 3. The Defendant is the legal parent of Britan Xavier Williams Morales. The Defendant wishes to give up her legal right of custody of the aforementioned minor. The Plaintiff, the aforementioned minor's paternal grandmother, will have complete and sole custody of Britan Xavier Williams Morales in all matters concerning his well being. 4. There is a requirement for Meija Q. Williams to pay child support in the amount of $55.50 per week. DATE:V"F- if DATE: C `% 5' Swom to and Subscribed Deferent thisr3t.?,_dayof M?? 18.E f?-UA NOTARIAL SEA- L FELAINE M. REGI, Notary Public I Carlisle, Cumberland County msswn Erp,rns Nov 6 2000 Respectfully Submitted: Plaintiff 1 ?•Art,, t? U Defendant ti' Sf) l_ V.: r_ ;.::? '' ? - . ? ?-? .. , ? ''_" (i... ._ ... ?:Ii11 ?V ?, ; ?; :? ? ?? ,;; ik a ,. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Louis J. Capozzi, Jr., Plaintiff, Civil Action Nos. 97-5584, V. 9-398 nd 99-3542 Latsha & Capozzi, P.C., Kimber L. Latsha; Glenn R. Davis and Douglas C. Yohe Defendants ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF AND NOW, this day of January, 2004, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Post-Trial Relief, and noting that all of the issues raised in that Motion were raised in the parties' post-hearing Briefs and were addressed by the Court's Opinion and Verdict In Re Damages, issued December 22, 2003, in this matter, it is hereby Ordered that the Motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth in that Opinion and Verdict. By the Court Edgar B. Bayley, J. rryG IFtt?AI Nd p I xl. q;v/yF I.n?.rtsr ? :`.MV I. vl I n Louis J. Capozzi, Jr,, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, Civil Action Nos. 97-5584, v. 99-3981 and 99-3542 Latsha & Capozzi, P.C., Kimber L. Latsha; Glenn R. Davis and Douglas C. Yohe Defendants PLAINTIFF'S INTERIM RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF Plaintiff Louis J. Capozzi, Jr. ("Capozzi") submits this initial response to Defendants' Motion for Post-Trial Relief. Post-trial motions are required after a "decision ..r in the case of a trial without jury," Rule 227.1(c)(2)Pa.R.C.P., and that appears to be the posture of this case. See Plowman, Spiegel, & Lewis, P.C., 723 A.2d 1060 (Pa. Super. 1999). In the situation of a jury trial, or even of a non-jury trial in which the Court rules immediately upon the close of evidence, post-trial motions allow a more considered review of the legal issues that may have moved by rapidly during trial. Full briefing after entry of the verdict can be helpful in those circumstances and the Court will, on occasion, conclude that a trial decision was in error. That is not the case here. The Court's verdict followed a simple trial of Bess than one day in which there were few, if any, important evidentiary disputes.I The Court's verdict For example, plaintiff's counsel objected to testimony on what happened to the law firm after June 10, 1997. The Court allowed the evidence while stating that it understood the point being raised, and ultimately determined that the evidence was, in fact, irrelevant to the inquiry. During Mr. Snmeltzer's testimony, he began addressing that issue and plaintiff s counsel objected: MR. HOFI?MAN: Your Honor, I don't want to interrupt much, and we have had our little colloquy in which I understand Your Honor will hear testimony on things that happened after June IOth. I just want to make clear that I object to the writness' testimony on that as well as the prior witness, and I understand how Your Honor is dealing with it. THE COURT: 1-inc. Your objection is continuing. See Smehzer Testimony. N.T. 6. hir. Wix objected to a single question plaintiffs counsel asked during cross-examination of Mr. Snmeltrer and plaintiff's counsel withdrew it and rephrased the question. See Smcher Testimony, N.T. 34. ?x:,? Ix avtin: m rxrruun. likewise followed full post-trial briefing in which the parties addressed every issue presented in the post-trial Motion. As a result, the Court has, by its Opinion of December 22, 2003, fully considered and rejected every issue defendants now raise. The goal of post-trial motions is to allow the trial court to correct errors without the need for appellate review. Cf. Burnhauserr v. Bumbeiger, 745 A.2d 1256, 1259 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discussing rationale for "waiver rule" applicable to post-trial review). Although plaintiff does not want to prejudge the issue, plaintiff believes that the Court, in light of its recent and lengthy Opinion, has reached the result that the Court believes is correct and is unlikely at this stage to reverse course. Thus, plaintiff respectfully suggests that the Court deny the Motion without further briefing on the basis of the prior-filed Opinion. Plaintiff is, of course, fully prepared to Brief the matter again in response to defendants' supporting Brief. But this matter has been before the Court since 1997, and it is time, plaintiff respectfully submits, to move it expeditiously to a final conclusion. Simply stated, further briefing and yet another Court opinion will shed little, if any, more light or understanding on the logic of and bases for the Court's decision- making, and thus will contribute to further delay without commensurate benefit. CONCLUSION I-or these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny defendants' Post-Trial Motions without further delay, on the basis of the Court's Opinion of December 22, 2003. A proposed form of order is submitted with this Brief. REED SMITH LLP 213 Market Street, 9th?Floor P. O. Box 11844 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 257-3042 Y ? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 6, 2004, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Richard H. Wix, Esquire Wix, Wenger& Weidner 705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 REED SMITH, LLP By ??1?-.-? I Robert B. Hoffman PA 23846 213 Market Street, Ninth Floor P. O. Box 11844 Harrisburg, PA 17108 rhoffman n reedsmith.com (717) 257-3042 eeaierovnn+ai rm?r nu.,. lunm?u rRU 4 fe wa i- G CV p: o N CO ) 1 ?2 LL?U ? I:a Q •J l=J _? CV U