HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-03479 (2)MORGAN PRODUCTS LTD.,
Plaintiff
VS.
FINITE MATTERS LTD.,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99- 3`179 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this complaint and Notice are
served, by entering a written appearance personally or by
attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or
objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned
that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a
judgment may be entered against you by the court without further
notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other
claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money
or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE
THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUR WHERE YOU CAN GET
LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone: (717) 249-3166
MURGAN PRODUCTS LTD., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
vs. )
FINITE MATTERS LTD., ) NO 9 47 CIVIL TERM
Defendant.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Morgan Products Ltd., by its attorneys, states as its complaint against defendant
Finite Matters Ltd. as follows:
I. Plaintiff Morgan Products Ltd. ("Morgan") is a domestic corporation which has its
principal place of business in Virginia. The transactions and conduct described herein were with
Morgan's sales and distribution division, Morgan Distribution, which is located at 303 Mulberry
Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. Morgan is in the business of
the wholesale sale of doors, windows and other millwork to the residential and commercial
building industry.
2. Defendant Finite Matters Ltd. ("Finite") is a domestic corporation with its
principal place of business in Virginia. Finite is located at 2604 Fairground Road, Goochland,
Virginia 23603-3101. Finite's president and registered agent, Benjamin Jefferson Slone III, is
also located at 2604 Fairground Road, Goochland, Virginia 23603-3101. Finite is in the business
of developing information management software and providing consulting services to commercial
businesses such as Morgan.
3. Starting in the spring of 1997, Morgan entered into discussions with Finite for the
design, development, and implementation of a computer based marketing and information
publishing system for Morgan which would include a computerized product catalog, CD- rom and
World Wide Web website.
4. Finite represented to Morgan that Finite had the capability and resources to design,
develop, and implement a computer based marketing and information publishing system for
Morgan.
5. Finite also represented to Morgan that Finite possessed the experience, expertise
and knowledge to complete the design, development, and implementation of a computer based
marketing and information publishing system for Morgan in a timely and cost efficient manner.
6. Morgan did not have a computer based marketing and information system when it
began its discussions with Finite, and had little or no knowledge or expertise about these systems.
7. In the summer of 1997, Finite presented Morgan with an offer to design, develop,
and present a prototype sample of the computer based marketing and information system
("prototype sample").
8. Morgan accepted Finite's offer to create the prototype sample.
9. In January 1998, Finite completed the prototype sample.
10. Upon the completion of the prototype, Finite gave a presentation of how the
computer based marketing and information system would work at Morgan's 1998 national sales
conference in Tampa, Florida.
11. Finite invoiced, and Morgan paid, a total of $29,229 for the design, development,
and presentation of the prototype sample.
2
12. Following Finite's presentation of the prototype sample and a further presentation
of the prototype sample to Morgan at Morgan's offices in Mechanicsburg, Morgan requested and
Finite offered to provide a timetable and quote of the cost to design, develop, and implement the
computer based marketing and information publishing system for Morgan which was
demonstrated in Tampa at Morgan's national sales conference.
13. On April 12, 1998, Finite sent to Morgan in Mechanicsburg the quote attached
hereto as Exhibit A which set forth in detail the cost and promised timetable to develop and
implement the complete computer based marketing and information system. Pursuant to this
quote Finite agreed to complete the system, including project formulation, project design,
database creation, catalog publishing, CD-ROM application, World Wide Website and interface
with certain of Morgan's existing computer programs and systems for a total cost of $455,134.00.
Finite also represented in the same document that it would complete the project on or before
December 14, 1998, pursuant to a detailed timetable provided as part of the quote.
14. In undertaking the project on behalf of Morgan, Finite knew that Morgan would be
relying almost exclusively on Finite's superior knowledge, experience and expertise and was
expecting Finite to be completely honest and forthright in its dealings with Morgan. Morgan at all
times relied upon Finite's representations regarding its experience, capabilities and integrity in its
dealing with Finite.
15. Between April, 1998 and November, 1998, Finite undertook to complete the
computerized marketing and information system for Morgan. During this same time period Finite
began to suggest to Morgan that it needed more or additional computer enhancements for its
marketing and information systems. Morgan considered these proposals but never authorized
Finite to do any more than that which was presented as part of the original prototype sample
Finite had developed and demonstrated in January, 1998.
16, Beginning in or about November, 1998, Morgan became extremely concerned
about the progress and cost of the project because to that point nothing appeared to have been
accomplished and Finite had begun to invoice Morgan for "extra" work which had never been
authorized or approved.
17. In November, 1998, Morgan refused to pay any further invoices submitted by
Finite and insisted that Finite provide it with a definitive date for the completion of the project and
the exact cost to complete the project.
18. Finite failed to provide the requested time and cost information and instead
continued to work on the project and continued to submit invoices to Morgan although it was not
being paid.
19. The project was not completed by December 14, 1998 as Finite had promised, and
by December, 1998 it was obvious to Morgan that Finite could not complete the project in any
reasonable amount of time or for cost anywhere near the cost initially quoted. Morgan continued
to insist on a firm date for the completion of the project and an exact cost but Finite failed and
refused to provide them.
20. By February, 1999, after numerous attempts to obtain a firm date and cost for the
completion of the project, Morgan instructed Finite to do no further work. By that time, Finite
had submitted invoices totaling over $720,000.00 for a project that was nowhere near completion
and for which Morgan had already paid more than $280,000.00.
21. To date Morgan has received no work product of any sort from Finite and has paid
4
over $280,000.00 for absolutely nothing useable or in use in Morgan's business, and no product
covered in the April, 1998 proposal has been delivered to Morgan.
COUNT I
Common Law Fraud
22. Morgan incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 21 above as paragraph 22
of this Count 1.
23. In order to induce Morgan to proceed with the computer based marketing and
1 information system project described above, Finite represented to Morgan that:
a. Finite had the capability and resources to design, develop, and implement a
computer based marketing and information publishing system for Morgan;
b. Finite possessed the experience, expertise and knowledge to complete the design,
development, and implementation of the computer based marketing and
information publishing system for Morgan in a timely and cost efficient manner;
and
c. Finite possessed the ability to understand Morgan's needs and requirements for a
computer based marketing and information publishing system, and that Finite had
the ability to apply that knowledge and understanding to design, develop, and
implement a system in a timely manner and cost effective manner that would satisfy
Morgan's needs.
24. Finite's representations to Morgan were false and misleading, and Finite knew that
its representations were false and misleading when made.
25. Morgan, a wholesaler of doors, windows and other millwork, was not experienced
5
and had no expertise in developing computer based marketing and information systems and had a
right to rely on Finite's representations and it was reasonable for it to do so.
26. Finite, in a classic "bait and switch" maneuver, made its false representations to
Morgan with the intent to induce Morgan to engage Finite's services and undertake the computer
based marketing and information system project knowing that, once Morgan had expended
considerable funds toward the completion of the project, Finite could take advantage of Morgan's
inexperience and naivete in the area and hold Morgan hostage on a partially completed project
and demand from Morgan considerably more money to complete the project.
27. As a direct and proximate consequence of Finite's conduct Morgan has been
damaged in that it has paid over $280,000.00 for a computer based marketing and information
system and has received nothing useable or in use in Morgan's business. In addition, Finite's
failure to complete the project has delayed Morgan's publication of its price lists and has caused
Morgan to lose potential business and profits.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Morgan Products Ltd. prays for the entry of a judgment in its
favor and against defendant Finite Matters Ltd. for :
a. actual and consequential damages in an amount not less than $280,000.00;
b. lost profits;
C. punitive damages;
d. attorneys' fees;
e. costs of suit; and
f. such further or alternative relief as the Court deems just under the
circumstances.
COUNT 11
Breach of Contract
28. Morgan incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 27 of Count I as
6
paragraph 28 of this Count II.
29. By reason of Finite's conduct described above, Finite breached its agreement to
design, develop and implement a computer based marketing and information system in the time
frame and for the cost represented to Morgan and Morgan has been damaged thereby.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Morgan Products Ltd. prays for the entry of a judgment in its
favor and against defendant Finite Matters Ltd. for :
a, actual and consequential damages in an amount not less than $280,000.00;
b. lost profits;
C. costs of suit; and
d. such further or alternative relief as the Court deems just under the
circumstances.
COUNT III
Recission
30. Morgan incorporates and realleges paragraphs I through 29 of Count II above as
paragraph 30 of this Count III.
31. Finite made the above misrepresentations in order to induce Morgan to undertake
and pay for the development of a computer based marketing and information system which Finite
knew it could not produce in the time frame and for the price it quoted.
32. By reason of Finite's false representations Morgan was fraudulently induced to
i undertake and pay for the development of the computer based marketing and information system
I
which Finite did not and never could deliver for the price and in the time frame it represented.
33. By reason of Finite's fraudulent inducement, Morgan has paid over $280,000.00
for a computer based marketing and information system which was never completed and which
Morgan never received in whole or part.
7
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Morgan Products Ltd, prays for the entry of a judgment
rescinding the agreement between the parties and requiring Finite to return to Morgan all monies
it has paid in connection with the project to develop and implement a computer based marketing
and information system, plus interest and its cost of suit.
ADDAMS & RUNDLE
By: /
William A. Addams
Supreme Court I.D. No. 06265
28 South Pitt Street
P.O. Box 208
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-8300
NISEN & ELLIOTT
Michael H. Moirano
Robert B. Christie
200 West Adams Street
Chicago, IL 606006
(312) 346-7800
8
VERIFICATION
David Braun hereby verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are
true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and understands
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904
relating to unswom falsifications.
AWWA-_7
Date: - 3 - ?9
moil cxhlb:: P.
JUN-03-1999 17 04 NISEN & ELLIOTT P.02/03
Morgan Distribut ion JE MIS
I
P
Td
%
• mQm
Ww
y
a
hh
25.000 t7
N
Marti
11
D
1
MWQ,Qo- •d
Pr'•c17
I 1 I6 111
9
54,600.00
Pm •O TNltt
1 Ir•n a• N0116 0 $3.3m T•un
20220 M Whom a 6t .a0000 Project Temoll
p N100 0 1 A ?
ply#10004 5,0041 A mm.r
+ Den 6 IN06 •
A
JMH
0 W - Pre' N,10
rligi,\
?..
15 01404". Dftkzn 61
1 h 0 11 J 0 I 6a0 Pmrww"
I? Awlsm • 606
t ee tt
.
•. n 62 IrOA T nkf•n
K d A /17 T M
21 00 m1mbind Terrywo 1 Aodl?A)d • 1 T n
7! AppkWftnMC4R4WAm + o -
kn I.oo
1 T••I 6 Mtn 0 mmw
M t O 110jw. Do DDrd. T Mr
2s m •
Pubfth 1 D
•
.. ... 000
r
.. ,
JEUM
>m n 00 libb/1748 Arnim =16-09
K'
aar l 101 Nt 00 P am,
Ox
u• Ljmw d
00E ___4&M 31&WN +
mom.
t0'N
7
0 P
6. 1 T O
O r" cmmOM 17.00 tl n0jams S&7 4Q,00
nt
56 Mlw "two DADMI 10. NwNO/W 1L41 0 sa.m.00
e
n
•n•r
>d C?W* M ".00 a T
D a 17
ao
a
Train
If.md +
m•r
•+
1 0100d coo am 1 .m
4 ji1
IN
' 17 1 0 .m m'wA
a A
q 6
l ?u 'n
NFA rn•-err
40,0011
600d
'k.
96
01
N
0
1
r\¢."eutwiat tsw??n'
as ' ry I tt
S0 TM bn• 1
St Tram P?nti S-000 N Nev 0 ,400 00
I
I
__
Prva: A012" ?7
ft" 1 1 ., PWA DM•Y -
JAN-03-1999 17:05
P.03/03
NISEN & ELLIOTT
Morgan Distribution F
i
FICJMT?
Mt1T 0.1
3c ymm Uomu 1
pmjs T"m 02
pro TNm 0.1
may 02
T 0.1
pro Ttwn 0.1
1.0
mww1A, Awl T90A1 .
ae '
nrmwa6
rrops.?mM a
mfr 0.
Dab I Tww9dw 1 0
r Twnpw t
Fm U r0.0
94 1.0
IOM /m0
0 .
D0
pu ing TMUW1
b
pro p 1.0
PMOW
0.t
PAqW
02
• pmom t¢
., CDPW SOM mLIMA 1.
howwn w 1
00
hop to
Pful mw CO
7 7 Pwo
Od
mN 1.0
rroprw?wnor0.
Ptep'rllflwf
rIq as
to
0.5
NOOf?+mr t.
?mec:?pntns W4d m A suMwry
h0' = - F9004 DMW .
TOTAL P.03
o a
T tx
T
h
O
o:
r rc ct n
v cn =
?ti Ca
I SHERIFF'S RETURN U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL
CASE NO: 1999-03479 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
MORGAN PRODUCTS LTD
VS.
FINITE MATTERS LTD
R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
served the within named DEFENDANT, FINITE MATTERS LTD
by United States Certified Mail postage prepaid, on the 10th _ day of
June 1999 , at 8:00 HOURS, at 2604 FAIRGROUND ROAD
GOOCHLAND, VA 23603-3101
a true and attested copy of the attached NOTICE AND COMPLAINT
The returned receipt card was signed by SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE
on 6/17/1999.
Sheriff's Costs: So answers: /
Docketing 18.00
Cert. Mail 4,00
Affidavit s ice, 1
Surcharge 8.00 om
??-0 6 % 21 S 19 9 9UNDLE
Sworn and subscribe o before me
this ,2/ day of
j.... _ (-,) _ -)ln,
rotnonoT-a
i
r:m ar
„..i . _.._ ....? .....
q' J2 q tf
a
IV SENDER: I also wish to receive the
$
N • ComploIgitems I and0r 2lot additional services.
• CompleMtlorOs 3,40, and 4b. following services (for an
d • Print your narhb and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this OXtra fee):
a
1 card to you
• Attach lhie fort, to the fwnl of Its mailpiece, or on the back d space does not
1. ? Addressee's Address y
Z
•Wrmit
Reoelpf Requested' on the mailpioce below the adlcle number.
into'Return
2.0 Restricted Delivery
r?I
E • The Serum Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date Consult postmaster for fee. o
delivered. _
0 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article N u
mber
f a l
d J? ?Y ¢
n Finite Matters, Ltd.
4b. Service Type
5
E 2604 Fairground Rd ? Registered Certified
Goch).'and, VA 23603-3101 ? Express Mail ? Insured
? Return Receipt for Merchandise ? COD y
7. Date of Deliv "; I C, e? E
o
i _
5. Received By: (Print Name) 8. Addressee's Address (Only it equested m
r and lee is paid) m
6. Sign. , . (Addresseo or Ageti(n '
x z 1 Cte, zti ,
22 PS Form 3811, December 1994 Ic-w 14I+-o.?ev Domestic Return Receipt
,
- I
First-Class Mail i -
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ?I I Postage 8 Fees Paid
1 I ? USPS i
Permit No. G•t0 ,
i
• Print your name address and ZIP Code in this box •
i
DEPARTMENT
CUtdBERLP,fll; . ??
ONE COURipl1?''"p13uA;YE
I', CARLISLE
' i
pg 111111 1 till
I
i
w
?ti
f \FILESIDATAFILfiW ENDOCW9994.PM. "I.
Crested. 07107M 02 14.57 PM
Revised. 07107M 0:.)X 45 PM
9594 1
MORGAN PRODUCTS LTD.,
Plaintiff
V.
FINITE MATTERS LTD.,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-3479
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
Defendant : JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Enter the appearance of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO on behalf of
Defendant in the above matter. Defendant hereby demands a twelve juror jury trial in the above
captioned action.
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By ?- i v
George B. Faller, J Is(
I.D. No. 49813
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated: July 7, 1999
CERTIFICAIR OF SERVICE
I, Nichole L. Myers, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby
certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post
Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
William A. Addams, Esquire
ADDAMS & RUNDLE
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Michael H. Moirano, Esquire
Robert B. Christie, Esquire
NISEN & ELLIOTT
200 West Adams Street
Chicago, IL 60606
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By _ iC 6t 4
Nichole L. Myers
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: July 7, 1999
L ?
C)
C
I
alt!
Fl . 51
+)
u
rn yr
MA?RTSON?¦ODE\EAARRRDD?ORFF/FF WILLIAMS & OTTO
INI'ONAIAII,IXr??
AIMN:1 Y
TEN EAST HICN STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
MORGAN PRODUCTS LTD,
Plaintiff
V.
FINITE MATTERS LTD,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-3479 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
TO: MORGAN PRODUCTS, LTD, Plaintiff, and their attorney, WILLIAM A. ADDAMS,
ESQUIRE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE
ENCLOSED NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS
FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
AND NOW, comes Defendant Finite Matters Ltd. ("Finite"), by and its attorneys,
CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP and MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO and hereby
and the Complaint of Morgan Products Ltd. ("Morgan") as follows:
I. Finite admits the allegations of paragraph 1 upon information and belief. Finite
affirmatively states that the transactions referred to in Morgan's Complaint did not occur exclusively
in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and further states that meetings, presentations and other
transactions between Morgan and Finite occurred in places other than Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, including transactions which occurred in Virginia.
2. Finite admits the allegations of paragraph 2.
3. Finite denies the allegations of paragraph 3. Finite affirmatively states that when
Morgan first contacted Finite, in March of 1997, Morgan was interested in hiring Finite to develop
software for a computerized product catalog only. This initial contact led to Morgan's request, in
June, 1997 that Finite demonstrate a CD-ROM it had created for another client. In August, 1997
Morgan requested that Finite develop a Prototype Project to demonstrate that Finite understood
Morgan's products and software needs. Morgan agreed in advance to pay Finite for development
of the Prototype Project at Finite's customary hourly rate of $125. Based upon the successful
completion of the Prototype Project, in November, 1997, Morgan next requested that Finite develop
additional software proposals for presentation at Morgan's sales meeting in early 1998. Morganpaid
Finite at its customary $125 hourly rate for the development of these proposals. Thereafter, in April,
1998, at Morgan's request, Finite submitted to Morgan it schedule of costs totaling $454,814.00 for
development of software fora catalog, a CD-ROM application and a World Wide Website.
4. Finite admits the ollegations of paragraph 4. Finite affirmatively states that Morgan
independently investigated Finite's ability to design and develop software suitable for its needs by
requiring Finite to develop and present a Prototype Project, and by requiring Finite's presentation
at the 1998 Morgan sides meeting, before Morgan hired Finite to undertake development of software
for use in Morgan's operations,
5. In response to the allegations of paragraph 5, Finite states that in April, 1998 it
presented to Morgan an esifnntle ofthe costs and line required to develop acatalog, DC-ROM and
World Wide Wchsitc, which was entcient and reasonable, given the scope of the project envisioned
at that time.
6. Afler reasonable investigation, Finite lacks sufficient information to admit or deny
the allegations of paragraph (i, and therefore denies such allegations and requires proof of the
allegations.
7. h, response to the allegations of paragraph 7, Finite incorporates by reference the
relevant portions of its response to paragraph 3 set forth above.
8. In response to the allegations of paragraph 8, Finite incorporates by reference the
relevant portions of its response to paragraph 3 set forth above.
9. ht response to the allegations of paragraph 9, Finite incorporates by reference the
relevant portions of its response to paragraph 3 set forth above.
10. In response to the allegations of paragraph 10, Finite incorporates by reference the
relevant portions of its response to paragraph 3 set forth above.
11. In response to the allegations of paragraph 11, Finite incorporates by reference the
relevant portions of its response to paragraph 3 set forth above.
12. In response to the allegations of paragraph 12, Finite incorporates by reference the
relevant portions of its response to paragraph 3 set forth above.
13. In response to the allegations of paragraph 13, Finite admits that the documents
attached as Gahibil A to the Complaint are documents Finite created and sent to Morgan, in April,
1998, relating to the estimated cost and time required for development of the software applications
which Morgan was requesting at that time. Finite denies any allegations of paragraph 13 which are
inconsistent with the express terms of Exhibit A. Finite affirmatively states that the catalog, CD-
ROM, and World Wide Website software applications which are the subject of Exhibit A do not
accurately describe the scope of the work Morgan later requested that Finite perform. Finite states
that following receipt of the April, 1998 estimate, Morgan repeatedly expanded the scope of work
requested of Finite, beginning in May, 1998 and continuing until October, 1998, when Morgan
requested that Finite implement an Enterprise Wide software project.
14. In response to the allegations of paragraph 14, Finite admits that Morgan requested
that Finite apply its experience and expertise in software development in undertaking its work for
Morgan. Finite denies the allegations of paragraph 14 insofar as they state or imply that Finite was
not honest in its dealings with Morgan.
15. Finite denies the allegations of the first sentence of paragraph 15 insofar as Morgan
intends to allege that the project undertaken by Finite between April and November, 1998 was
limited to the catalog, CD-ROM and World Wide Website envisioned in the April, 1998 estimate.
Finite affirmatively states that the software development project undertaken from April through
November, 1998 at Morgan's request was far more comprehensive than the project described in the
April 12,1998, estimate and, in fact, involved what Morgan and Finite referred to as the "Enterprise-
Wide" project, embracing all of Morgan's information systems company-wide. Finite denies the
remaining allegations contained in the second and third sentences of paragraph 15.
16. After reasonable investigation, Finite lacks sufficient information to admit or deny
the allegations of paragraph 16 regarding Morgan's state of mind, and therefore denies the
allegations and requires proof of these allegations. Finite affirmatively states that beginning with
Finite's October, 1998 invoice, Morgan stopped paying Finite's monthly or semi-monthly invoices
for work. completed. When Finite inquired about payment of invoices presented in October, 1998
and thereafter, Morgan never expressed any concern about the nature, scope or cost of the work
being performed, and Morgan encouraged Finite to continue working and promised payment in full
when Morgan's cash flow improved.
17. In response to the allegations of paragraph 17, Finite admits that Morgan stopped
paying Finite's invoices beginning with the October 15, 1998 invoice. Finite denies that Morgan
refused to pay any invoice, questioned Finite's work or requested information regarding a project
completion date or total costs until February 1999. In fact, Morgan encouraged Finite to continue
working from October 1998 until early February, 1999, and promised full payment when Morgan's
cash flow improved.
18. In response to the allegations of paragraph 18, Finite admits that it continued to work
on development of software for Morgan and continued to submit invoices to Morgan after Morgan's
payments ceased, in October, 1998, because Morgan requested that Finite continue working and
promised full payment. In fact, in December, 1998, Finite delivered to Morgan an Oracle data base
and Morgan requested that Finite begin putting Morgan data into the Oracle data base. Finite denies
any remaining allegations of paragraph I S.
19. In response to the allegations ofparagraph 19, Finite states that the project envisioned
by the April 12, 1998 estimate with an estimated completion date in December, 1998 was expanded
by Morgan in the summerand fall of 1998, and became an Enterprise-Wide software project, which
involved a vastly increased scope of work and costs. Finite denies that the project envisioned by the
April 12, 1998 estimate was the project being pursued by Morgan and Finite at year-end of 1998.
Finite denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 19.
20. In response to the allegations of paragraph 20, Finite admits that in mid-February,
Morgan, for the first time, instructed Finite to cease work and that invoices were sent for work
performed. Despite its prior agreement to pay for the work it authorized and approved, Morgan has
refused payment as set forth in Finite's counterclaim.
21. Finite denies the allegations of paragraph 21 and hereby incorporates by reference
the answers to paragraph 20 and the averments of Finite's counterclaim.
WHEREFORE, Finite Matters, Ltd. prays for entry of judgment in the amount of
8490,044.0.3, plus pre judgment interest, and the costs of this action.
1.
CountI
Common Law Fraud
22. In response to the allegations of paragraph 22, Finite incorporates by reference its
responses to paragraphs I through 21 above.
23. Finite denies the allegations ofparagrapli 23. To the contrary, see the allegations set
forth and the avemients of Finite's counterclaim.
24. Finite denies the allegations ofparagraph 24. To the contrary, see the allegations set
forth and the averments of Finite's counterclaim.
25. Finite denies the allegations of paragraph 25. To the contrary, see the allegations set
forth and the averments of Finite's counterclaim.
26. Finite denies the allegations of paragraph 26. To the contrary, see the allegations set
forth and the averments of Finite's counterclaim.
27. Finite denies the allegations of paragraph 27. To the contrary, seethe allegations set
forth and the averments of Finite's counterclaim.
WHEREFORE, Finite Matters, Ltd, prays for entry of judgment in the amount of
$490,044.03, plus pre judgment interest, and the costs of this action.
Count li
. Breach Of Contract
28. In response to the allegations of paragraph 28, Finite incorporates by reference it's
responses to paragraphs 1 through 27 above.
29. Finite denies the allegations of paragraph 29. To the contrary, see the response to
paragraphs 3 and 13 through 20 which are hereby incorporated by reference.
WHEREFORE, Finite Matters, Ltd. prays for entry of judgment in the amount of
$490,044.03, plus pre judgment interest, and the costs of this action.
Count III
Recision
30. In response to the allegations of paragraph 30, Finite incorporates by reference its
responses to paragraphs 1 through 29 above.
j
31. Finite denies the allegations of paragraph 31. To the contrary, see the response to
paragraphs 3 and 13 through 20 which are hereby incorporated by reference.
32. Finite denies the allegations of paragraph 32.
33. Finite denies the allegations of paragraph 33.
WHEREFORE, Finite Matters Ltd, moves for entry of an order denying all of the relief
requested by Morgan Products Ltd., dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, and awarding Finite
Matters Ltd. its costs and attorneys fees incurred in defense of the Complaint.
New Matter
34. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Answer are incorporated herein by
reference.
35. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
36. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action for attorneys fees.
37. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
38. Plaintiff s Complaint is barred by impossibility of performance due to the actions of
Plaintiff.
39. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by collateral estoppel.
40. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by res judicata.
41. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the statute of frauds.
42. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by waiver.
WHEREFORE, Finite Matters Ltd. moves for entry of an order denying all of the relief
requested by Morgan Products Ltd., dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, and awarding Finite
Matters Ltd. its costs and attorneys fees incurred in defense of the Complaint.
Counterclaim
43. Finite Matters, Ltd. ("FML") is a Virginia corporation with its principal offices
located in Goochland County. FML specializes in the design and development of software
publishing applications for businesses.
44. Upon information and belief, Morgan Products, Ltd. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal office in Williamsburg, Virginia. Morgan manufactures and distributes fixtures and
other construction materials to contractors and retailers.
45. Beginning in March, 1997, and continuing for several months thereafter,
representatives of Morgan and FML engaged in discussions, via meetings, telephone conferences
and correspondence, regarding software development services which FML could provide to Morgan
in order to enhance Morgan's marketing and distribution system.
46. On or about June 5, 1997, FML gave Morgan a field demonstration of a CD-ROM
it had created for another client, Hubbell Lighting, Inc. ("Hubbell"). Following the demonstration,
Morgan indicated that it wanted FML to perform software development to aide Morgan's marketing
efforts.
47. At a meeting on or about August 7, 1997, Morgan requested that FML develop a
prototype project designed to demonstrate FML's understanding of Morgan's products and FML's
ability to develop a system tailored to those products. Shortly thereafter, in accordance with
Morgan's request, FML submitted a proposal for a "Prototype Project." FML provided a cost
estimate that the Prototype Project would not exceed twenty-three thousand dollars ($23,000.00).
48. FML and Morgan continued discussions regarding the Prototype Project into
September, 1997, at which point Morgan hired FML to proceed with the Prototype Project. The total
amount billed for the project at FML's customary hourly rates was approximately twenty thousand
dollars ($20,000.00), which Morgan paid in full. Morgan never expressed any dissatisfaction with
the completed product or any dissatisfaction with the hourly rates or the course of dealing established
during the Prototype Project.
49. Based on FML's successful completion of the Prototype Project, Morgan requested
that FML give a presentation to Morgan's entire sales force at the 1998 annual meeting and requested
that FML submit additional software development proposals to Morgan. FML billed Morgan at its
customary hourly rate of $125 for the development of proposals and the presentation, which Morgan
paid in full. Anticipating a continuing relationship with Morgan, FML reduced its customary hourly
rates and agreed to charge Morgan $110 for the work of program developers and $100 for the work
of non-programmers.
50. On or about April 12, 1998, FML submitted a schedule of costs for various projects
requested by Morgan, totaling four hundred fifty four thousand eight hundred fourteen dollars
($454,814.00). The April 12, 1998 schedule included costs for development of a world wide web
site, a catalog publishing application, a CD ROM application and for development of the related data
base.
51. Morgan and FML continued discussions regarding services FML could provide for
Morgan. Based on these discussions, Morgan requested that FML develop additional products,
which were not included on the April 12, 1998 schedule of costs. Specifically, Morgan directed
FML to develop a prototype "Field Application" to replace the CD-ROM Application envisioned
by the April 12, 1998 schedule. Work performed on the "Field Application" was billed at the same
agreed upon reduced hourly rates, was completed by July 1998, and was paid for in full by Morgan.
Based on the successful completion of the prototype "Field Application," Morgan next instructed
FML to develop a full-scale "Field Application."
52. In August 1998, Morgan further expanded the scope of FML's engagement to include
an "Enterprise-Wide Project" which far exceeded the scope of the other projects discussed until that
time. On or about August 17, 1998, Morgan's Michael Wertz provided FML with a document
entitled "Vision Strategy And Business Process" outlining Morgan's goals for the future. This
document specifically mentioned FML's role in developing Morgan's technological capabilities.
Morgan requested that FML develop a proposal for an "Enterprise-Wide Project" based on the "
Vision Strategy And Business Process" document.
53. Based on Morgan's "Vision Strategy And Business Process" document, FML
submitted a proposal to Morgan entitled "Morgan Distribution Information Project Requirements
Document," dated August 28, 1998, which quoted verbatim extensive portions of Morgan's "Vision
Strategy And Business Process " document. The project outlined in the "Morgan Distribution
Information Project Requirements Document" was referred to by Morgan and FML as the
"Enterprise-Wide Project."
54. Morgan and FML met in August 1998, and several times in October, 1998, to discuss
implementation of the "Enterprise-Wide Project." At a meeting on October G, 1998, David Braun,
president of Morgan Distribution, a division of Morgan Products, authorized and directed FML to
proceed with development of the "Enterprise-Wide Project." On or about November 2, 1998, FML,
in conjunction with a subcontractor, Rockridge Consulting Services ("Rockridge"), submitted amore
detailed outline of the "Enterprise-Wide Project". Afurther revised version ofthe"Enterprise-Wide
Project" was submitted to Morgan in late November, 1998 and included a detailed estimate of the
number of days required to complete each phase of the project. This information enabled Morgan
to determine the anticipated expense of the project.
55. The Enterprise-Wide Project required FML to integrate the various marketing-
oriented projects they had already begun into a system which interacted with all other aspects of
Morgan's operations. Morgan, through David Braun, indicated that it wanted a software system
which would enable management to analyze all aspects of the business, which would be accessible
system-wide, and which would provide information for other projects previously discussed between
FML and Morgan, including the catalog database publishing, a world-wide-web site, and the field
application, as well as other Morgan information systems already in existence.
56. Morgan authorized FML to proceed with the "Enterprise-Wide Project" as outlined.
On November 13, 1998, Morgan authorized FML's contractor Rockridge to purchase Oracle
Corporation software for use in the "Enterprise-Wide Project." Morgan later authorized the purchase
of additional third party software to support the project. In November, 1998, FML delivered a
schedule of ongoing project costs for the remainder of 1998 to Morgan. Morgan accepted this
information and made no comment regarding displeasure with the project's schedule, personnel, or
costs. On December 15, 1998, FML and its contractor Rockridge met with Morgan and delivered
and installed the catalog publishing database portion of the "Enterprise-Wide Project" on computers
at Morgan's Mechanicsburg, PA location. This task included the installation of third party software
from Oracle Corporation.
57. FML continued to send bi-monthly invoices to Morgan, and to keep Morgan apprised
of FML's progress. The invoices included the fees and expenses of FML and its subcontractors.
Over the next several months, FML conferred with and gave presentations to Morgan personnel
regarding the Enterprise-Wide Project, the catalog database publishing, the field application and the
world-wide-web site projects. These conferences included, but are not limited to, the following
dates: August 29, 1998; September 29,1998; October 6,1998; October 15, 1998; October 26, 1998;
November 2, 1998; December 15, 1998; January 6, 1999; January 13, 1999; February 1, 1999;
February 4,1999; February 8,1999; February 24, 1999; and March 30, 1999. During the same time
period, FML corresponded frequently with Morgan regarding the Enterprise-Wide Project. FML
also provided updated proposals and schedules, reports, and written status documents to keep
Morgan informed of schedule, costs, and status. On October 21, 1998 and November 11, 1998
respectively, FML provided Morgan an analysis of their AS 400 system and of their database
software as part of the "Enterprise-Wide Project." On October 23,1998, FML provided Morgan the
"Strategy Vision and Business Process Implementation" document for use in apresentation by Braun
to Morgan's sales managers. On or before November 10, 1998, FML provided Morgan with revised
catalog publishing and field application schedules. On November 11, 1998, FML provided Morgan
with project cost estimates through January, 1999. On January 19, 1999, FML delivered detailed
schedules and cost estimates for all working projects to Morgan personnel, including Braun. Morgan
accepted all of this information and expressed no concern regarding project schedule, personnel, or
costs. FML project status reports were transmitted via email to Morgan and attached to bi-weekly
invoices on a periodic basis.
58. FML continued submitting bi-weekly invoices to Morgan, and Morgan continued to
pay FML for its work on these various projects. In November, 1998, Morgan paid in full FML's
invoices through October 15, 1998. Although FML continued to perform the work requested by
Morgan and continued to submit invoices to Morgan bi-weekly, FML has not received payment for
any work done by FML or its subcontractors after October 15, 1998.
59. In January, 1999, Morgan, through David Braun, assured FML that payment forwork
performed after October 15, 1998 would be made. These assurances were repeated by Braun as late
as February 4, 1999. In mid-February, 1999 Morgan reversed its course and refused to pay FML for
its work performed after October 15, 1998, incorrectly claiming that project costs exceeded the
estimates provided.
60. Morgan contracted with FML to provide computer programming services. The
parties established a course of dealing in which Morgan periodically specified its requirements for
computer software and authorized FML to perform the work necessary to fulfill Morgan's
requirements. FML provided cost estimates arid charged Morgan for its services at established,
agreed upon, hourly rates, billed on a bi-weekly basis, for which payment was due within 30 days.
61. Morgan currently owes FML four hundred ninety thousand, forty-four dollars and
MAR 22 2000 13:31 FR CHRISTIAN-BARTON 804 697 4112 TO 39072714900005#1 P.02102
three cents ($490,044.03) for workperformed through February 1999. FML has made demand for
payment and Morgan has refused payment.
62. Morgan has breached the patties' contract by failing to make payment on a timely
basis for work performed by FM.
WHEREFORE, Finite Matters Ltd. prays for entry of judgment in the amount of
$490,044.03. Plus prryudgmeat interest, and the rusts of this action.
CMUSTIAN & BARTON
James E. VWZ Esquire
909 East Min Street, Suite 1200
Richmond, VA 23219-3095
(804) 697-4100
MARTS EARDORFF WLLTAMS 8t OTrO
By
Goo B. aller, Jr., Esquire
T.D. Number 49613
'fen Past High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3093
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
Finite Matters, Ltd.
Date: 3);Ll ILO
** TOTAL PAM.02 **
MAR 21 2000 15:05 FR CHRISTIAN BARTON 804 6974112 TO 3907271490000541 P.02i02
VERIFICATION
James E. Moore, Esquire, of the firm of CHRISTIAN & BARTON, and George B. Faller,
Jr., Esquire, of the firm of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO, attorneys for
Defendant in the within action, certify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with
New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information
and belief. They understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of IS
Fa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
Jam ,.1 oore, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr., Esqui
FWILE"ATAnUM..Epp,pp ng 1a
** TOTA1- PAGE.02 **
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Nichole L. Myers, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby
certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim was served this date
by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
William A. Addams, Esquire
ADDAMS & RUNDLE
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-0208
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By &
Nichole L. Myers
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: vlac )I QO
C?j 1:4:
I,U
u. cl ~)
C) 0
MORGAN PRODUCTS LTD.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FINITE MATTERS LTD.,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 99-3479 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
Plaintiff Morgan Products Ltd. ("Morgan"), by its attorneys ADDAMS & RUNDLE and
NISEN & ELLIOTT, states as its reply to defendant Finite Matters Ltd.'s ("Finite") answer with
new matter and answer to its counterclaim as follows:
Morgan Products Ltd.'s Answer to New Matter
34. Morgan admits to Paragraph 34, but by doing so, does not admit to any factual averments
contained in Paragraphs I through 33 of Finite's Answer.
35. The conclusion of law alleged in Paragraph 35 of Finite's Answer is denied.
36. The conclusion of law alleged in Paragraph 36 of Finite's Answer is denied.
37. The conclusion of law alleged in Paragraph 37 of Finite's Answer is denied.
38. The conclusion of law alleged in Paragraph 38 of Finite's Answer is denied.
39. The conclusion of law alleged in Paragraph 39 of Finite's Answer is denied.
40. The conclusion of law alleged in Paragraph 40 of Finite's Answer is denied.
41. The conclusion of law alleged in Paragraph 41 of Finite's Answer is denied.
42. The conclusion of law alleged in Paragraph 42 of Finite's Answer is denied.
M_orrean Products Ltd's Answer to Counterclaim
43. Morgan admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 43. After
reasonable investigation, Morgan is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the remaining factual averments contained in Paragraph 43, and thus
denies the same.
44. Morgan admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 44, and states in the affirmative that
Morgan is in the business of the wholesale sale of doors, windows, and other millwork to the
residential and commercial building industry.
45. Morgan admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 45.
46. Morgan admits that Finite gave Morgan a demonstration on or about June 5, 1997 and after
reasonable investigation, Morgan is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph
46. Morgan denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 46.
47. Morgan denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 47 and states in the
affirmative that Morgan requested Finite to submit an offer to design, develop, and present a
prototype of a computer based marketing and information system for Morgan's consideration
at an August 7, 1997 meeting. Morgan admits to the allegations contained in the second and
third sentence of Paragraph 47.
48. Morgan admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 48 to the extent
that Morgan accepted Finite's offer to design, develop, and present a prototype of a
computer based marketing and information system for Morgan's consideration, and denies
the allegations in Paragraph 48 to the extent that they conflict with the parties agreement
concerning the Prototype Project. Morgan denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 48 and states in the affirmative that Finite invoiced Morgan $29,229 for the
design, development, and presentation of the Prototype Project and that Morgan paid that
amount in full.
49. Morgan denies the first sentence of Paragraph 49, and states in the affirmative that the
Prototype Project included a presentation of the project and that the Prototype Project was
not completed until the presentation was made. After reasonable investigation, Morgan is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 49, and therefore denies the same. Morgan states in the
affirmative that Finite invoiced Morgan $29,229 for the Prototype Project and that Morgan
paid that amount in full.
50. Morgan admits to the allegations contained in Paragraph 50, and states in the affirmative that
Finite's April 12, 1998 proposal represented that Finite would complete the project on or
before December 14, 1998, and Morgan further states that it accepted Finite's April 12, 1998
proposal (the "April 12, 1998 Contract").
51. Morgan admits that it held discussions with Finite regarding Finite's progress under the April
12, 1998 Contract and denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 51.
52. Morgan admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 52 that it provided Finite with a copy of
a Morgan document titled "Vision Strategy and Business Process" and the contents of that
document speak for itself. Morgan denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
52.
53. Morgan admits that from time to time Finite submitted additional proposals to Morgan and
Morgan denies that it accepted any additional proposal subsequent to Finite's April 12, 1998
proposal, and Morgan denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 53.
54. Morgan denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 54, and states in the affirmative that
Morgan met with Finite several times in between April and November 1998 for the purpose
of reviewing the status of Finite's progress under the April 12, 1998 Contract.
55. Morgan denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 to the extent that they conflict with
the project Morgan authorized as a result of accepting Finite's April 12, 1998 proposal, and
Morgan states in the affirmative that it never authorized Finite to perform any work outside
of the scope of the April 12, 1998 Contract.
56. Morgan admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 56 that it agreed to the purchase of
software sold by the Oracle Corporation, and affirmatively states that that purchase was made
solely on Finite's representation that it could not complete its obligations under the April 12,
1998 Contract without that software. Morgan denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 56, and states in the affirmative that Morgan never authorized Finite to perform
any work outside of the scope of the April 12, 1998 Contract.
57. Morgan admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 57 that from time to time Morgan and
Finite met regarding the status of Finite's progress of Finite's obligations under the April 12,
1998 Contract. Morgan denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 57 and
states in the affirmative that Morgan never authorized Finite to perform any work outside of
the scope of the April 12, 1998 Contract.
58. Morgan admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 58 that Finite submitted a steam of
invoices to Morgan totaling over $720,000 for a project that was nowhere near completion,
and that Morgan paid Finite in full on all invoices through October 15, 1998. After
reasonable investigation, Morgan is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth concerning the work performed by Finite or its subcontractors, and
therefore denies the same. Morgan admits that starting in November 1998 it refused to pay
Finite on invoices submitted by Finite because Finite had invoiced Morgan for extra work that
was never authorized or approved by Morgan and because Finite failed to provide any
evidence that it would complete its obligations under the April 12, 1998 Contract by the
agreed date of December 14, 1998. Morgan denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 58, and states in the affirmative that Morgan never authorized Finite to perform
any work outside of the scope of the April 12, 1998 Contract.
59. Morgan denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 59.
60. Morgan denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 to the extent that they conflict with
the terms contained in April 12, 1998 Contract, and Morgan states in the affirmative that
Morgan never authorized Finite to perform any work outside of the scope of the April 12,
1998 Contract.
61. Morgan denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 61, and states in the affirmative that no
such amount is owed Finite.
62. Morgan denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 62,
63. Morgan denies all allegations that are not specifically admitted.
NEW MATTER
Finite's Counterclaim fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
2. Finite's Counterclaim fails as a matter of law because Finite has failed to fully perform all of
its obligations under the parties' April 12, 1998 Contract.
3. Finite's Counterclaim is barred by the statute of frauds.
4. Finite's claim for damages contained in its Counterclaim for purported contacts executed
subsequent to the April 12, 1998 Contract are barred for failure to allege the necessary
elements for the formation of contract.
Finite's claims contained in its Counterclaim are barred for lack of consideration.
6. Finite's Counterclaim is barred by Finite's fraudulent conduct during the course of executing
the April 12, 1998 Contract.
Finite's Counterclaim is barred by Finite fraudulently inducing defendant Morgan Products,
Ltd. to enter into the April 12, 1998 Contract.
WHEREFORE, Morgan Products, Ltd. requests that the Court dismiss with prejudice Finite
Matters, Ltd.'s Counterclaim, award Morgan Products, Ltd. its costs incurred in defending this
matter, and award such further or alternative relief as the Court deems appropriate under the
circumstances.
MORGAN PRODUCTS LTD.
By
One of Its Attomeys
William A. Addams
ADDAMS & RUNDLE
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-0208
717-249-8300
Michael H. Moirano
Robert B. Christie
NISEN & ELLIOTT
200 West Adams street
Chicago, Illinois 606006
312-346-7800
APR-20-2000 13'20 Nisen & Elliott 3123469316 P.02i02
YERIEKATION
Robert B. Christie, of the law firm of Nisen & Elliott, attorney for the plaintiff Morgan
Products, Ltd. in this action, certifies that the statements made in the foregoing Reply and Answer
with New Matter are true and cornet to the best of his knowledge, information, and belicE He
understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of lg Pa,C.S. Section 4904
relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
Rob Chnstte
7
TOTAL P.02
I?r
w
IN.-,
MORGAN PRODUCTS LTD.,
Plaintiff
V.
FINITE MATTERS LTD.,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-3479 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this (ity of June, 2000, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion
To Compel, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why the relief
requested should not be granted.
RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service.
BY THE COURT,
William A. Addams, Esq.
28 South Pitt Street
P.O. Box 208
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
George B. Faller, Jr., Esq.
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Defendant
y Oler, Jr.,- J.
o
Z0 0
05
:rc
_ -'ADDAIIFS & RUNDLE
AT
RNEYB AT LA
I'
.
O
V
28 SOUTH P{TT 3YtiEET j
? ` r
JUN' s "
G?
,
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17019
TELEPHONE (717) 2AB$300 ?,
.
a
MORGAN PRODUCTS LTD., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. NO. 99-3479 CIVIL TERM
FINITE MATTERS LTD.,
Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of June, 2000, in consideration of
the within Motion to compel, the Defendant, Finite Matters, LTD.
is hereby ordered to answer the Plaintiff's interrogatories in
accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 4006 and to respond to the request for
production of documents in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 4009.12
within thirty (30) days of service of this Order or be subject to
sanctions as provided in Pa. R.C.P. 4019.
By the Court
Distribution:
William A. Addams, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiffs
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Attorney for Defendants
MORGAN PRODUCTS LTD.,
Plaintiff
Vs.
FINITE MATTERS LTD.,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-3479 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MOTION TO COMPEL
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Morgan Products LTD., by its
attorneys, Addams & Rundle, and moves your Honorable Court to
issue an order to compel the Defendant to respond to discovery
requests, and in support thereof asserts the following:
1. This action arises out of a dispute involving a contract
which required Defendant Finite Matters to design, develop and
implement a computer based marketing and information publishing
system for Plaintiff Morgan Products LTD at its place of business
in Mechanicsburg.
2. The Defendant's office and principal place of business
is in Virginia.
3. On November 18, 1999 the Plaintiff served
interrogatories and a request for production of documents on the
Defendant to develop facts including the identity of witnesses,
expert witnesses and other items regarding the Defendant's
performance of the contract.
4. The Defendant has failed to answer the interrogatories
and request for production, and has filed no objection and has
requested no extension of time.
5. On February 28, 2000 counsel for the Plaintiff sent the
letter attached as Exhibit "A" to Defendant's counsel requesting
its response to the discovery requests. There was no reply to
the letter.
6. The Plaintiff requires the information requested to
prepare for trial.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs moves your Honorable Court to
issue an order to compel the Defendant to answer the
interrogatories in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 4006 and to respond
to the request for production of documents in accordance with
Pa. R.C.P. 4009.12, or suffer sanctions as provided in
Pa. R.C.P. 4019.
Respectfully submitted,
ADDAMS & RUNDLE
By:
Willk-m A. Addams
Supreme Court I.D. No. 06265
28 South Pitt Street
P.O. Box 208
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-8300
Attorneys for Plaintiff
? A
FEB-28-2000 11:15
PAUL r. OCRSOSI
COWARO I. MOELLCR
ANTHONY PACKARD
MARKF. CAENOCR
MICHAEL J. DALLY
JOHN FOSTER LCOCM
JOHN N. KNCAFSEY
MICHACLH. MOIRANO
ROBERT O. APOOLCTON
WILLIAM O. OALJOA, JR.-
KENNETH J. ROJC
THOMAS Y. MOCAULEY
HELEN M. JCH8CN
NMLNAN A. WALKER
DANIEL F. OAW80N
MICHAEL J. PAYLIOCK
Writtr'E Dircci NO N'umbor (696.2S30)
Nisen & Elliott
LAW OFFICES ,
NISEN & ELLIOTT
6UITC 11600
400 WCCT ADAMS STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 00606
(J 1 C1340.1600
FAA 9319) 346-03 10
February 28, 2000
SENT VIA FACSIMILE (717-243-1850) & U.S. MAIL
George R Faller, Jr., Esq.
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East high Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Re: Morgan Products Ltd v Finite Matters Ltd, Case No. 99-3479
Dear Mr. Faller:
31234693:6 P.02:02
ROBERT B. CHRISTIE
--JENNIFER ¦. CROMHCCCKC
DONALD 6 rROCNLRC
THOMASN.JVrrERNYRUCM
BRENDAN J. KCLLY
MANY RODE C. MANCNR
BRADLEY S. MCCANN
ORIAN 0. PROCTOR
PETER 6, ROCSCR
BRIAN C. KELLY
Or COUNSEL
DONALD C. SHINE
-ALSO AOMITTCO IN rLORIOA
--ALSO AOMITTED IN OCOIN) A
In July 1999, Morgan Savo Finite additional time to file its answer in the above
referenced matter so the parties could attempt to resolve their differences through alternative
dispute resolution. However, attempts to settle this matter, through mediation or otherwise, have
not been successful. Furthermore, I have no knowledge of any on going discussions toward that
end.
Accordingly, Morgan requests Finite to file its answer in the above referenced matter and
respond to Morgan's discovery requests, which were served on Finite on or about November 16,
1999, within twenty days (on or before March 20, 2000).
Very truly yours,
Robot B. Christie -J'--
cc: William A. Addams, Esq. (717-249-6154)
I d_:
p y.
f '
I
r
i
TOTAL P.02
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 15th day of June, 2000, I, William A. Addams,
of Addams & Rundle, attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that
I have served a copy of the Motion to Compel by mailing a copy of
the same by United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
41
v
C
1=
1?'Ll
G (}
LAwOFfICC• Of MICHAEL J. I-IANr•T
• AI'"rORN1E\'S F• COIIINSl:L1"0115 AT LAW
19 I1NUxmwoon Avi NWI 'S1111'1 •106 CAIMS11. PA 17013-91-12
717.249.5373 1Ax 717.219.0457 wwW.11AN1'11A\V111kM.COM
MORGAN PRODUCTS LTD, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 99-3479 CIVIL TERM
FINITE MATTERS LTD,
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE
Sir:
Please withdraw the appearance of Addams & Rundle and enter the appearance of the
Law Office of Michael J. Hanft for the Plaintiff.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. HANFT
By: ?w!i'
William' ,k. Addams
Attorney I.D. No. 06265
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-5373
TO: Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary
DATE: April 18, 2001
FWVtt lbldaU'iim lxK\\\VOa. NV.IV'ruci?x Kl*1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2001, I, Mary M. Price, hereby certify that I have this
day served a copy of the Praccipe to withdraw and enter appearance by mailing a copy of the
same
by United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
i
:.'
,: ?
„-
.. _
,
,-
.._ .-;
MORGAN PRODUCTS LTD
VS
FINITE MATTERS LTD
STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED
To the Court:
Morgan Products Ltd intends to proceed with the above captioned matter.
Date: October 4, 2004
William A. Addams
Attorney for Morgan-Prodaets Ltd
>.
cr; Co
rJ
?::_
tt.lfl N _') _.
a_
}x, Z
t=-
: C
Ln_ -T
?
J
tV -
AS OF 3- IS-- aO'D-7
CASE# , 9qq - 3 y ? 9
HAS BEEN SCANNED.
ALL EARLIER
FILINGS TO THIS
CASE HAVE BEEN
MICROFILMED.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
1V1UEgd1l FEUUUCLS, LLU. in me t-ourt or t-ommon ideas of
Cumberland County Pennsylvania
Plaintiff
No 99-3479 Civil Term
Vs.
Finite Matters Ltd. Civil Action Law
Jury Trial Demanded
Defendant
Praecie
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT:
Please mark this action and counterclaim settled and discontinued with
prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and fees.
Date:
.Eabfttai`y , 2007
William A. Addams
A orney for Plaintiff
i
G ge B. Faller, Jr.
Attorney for Defen ant and
Counterclaim Plaintiff
Frt fir, ?33
Ul C?
rv
w