Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-03878 ,?i JUN 2 5 1999 V Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Mark C. Duffle 1. D. No. 75906 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Petitioners MARK D. ZERBE and JAMIE L. RUDISILL, Petitioners V. PENN HARRIS COMPANY, t/d/b/a RADISSON PENN HARRIS HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER, Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. QQ- 3$78 CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY AND NOW, this '3-5V4 day of :1 unG , 1999, a hearing on the issues raised in the attached Emergency Petition for Special Relief shall be held on , 1999, at DO o'clock __P.M. in Courtroom No. of the Cumberland County Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT: J. l r it ' .1 1..... I ' ?: ? J ?,?" ii_4 Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Mark C. Duffle 1. D. No. 75906 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 MARK D. ZERBE and JAMIE L. RUDISILL, Petitioners V. PENN HARRIS COMPANY, t/d/b/a RADISSON PENN HARRIS HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER, Respondent Attorneys for Petitioners IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. '?9- 3875 CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY AND NOW, come the Petitioners, Mark D. Zerbe and Jamie L. Rudisill, by and through her attorneys, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, and in support of this Emergency Petition for Special Relief aver as follows: 1. Petitioner, Mark D. Zerbe, is an adult individual residing at 207 West Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.. 2. Petitioner, Jamie L. Rudisill, is an adult individual residing at 207 West Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with its registered offices located at 208 Walnut Street, P. O. Box 1226, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 17108. 4. Respondent trades and does business in the Radisson Hotel and Convention Center, a fictitious name filed January 22, 1980. 5. Respondent owns and operates a facility called the Radisson Penn Harris Hotel and Convention Center, located at 1150 Camp Hill Bypass, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Petitioners herein have been engaged since August 13, 1998, and will wed at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church on July 31, 1999. 7. Petitioners initially made contact in late August or early September of 1998, with Mr. John Hanks, Catering Sales Manager, and employee of Respondent. 8. On September 16, 1998, Petitioners and Linda Rudisill, mother of the bride-to- be, met with Mr. Hanks. 9. At that September 16, 1998 meeting, the parties discussed the following: Various wedding reception packages. Reservation of 25 rooms held up to 4 weeks prior to reception Layout of facility. • The contract and $500.00 deposit. • Extending the reception hours to begin at 4:00 P.M. rather tt 3n 6:00 P.M. Cancellation policy on the proposed Contract. Any other questions Petitioners may have. 10. Respondent mailed a contract to Petitioners under cover of letter dated October 14, 1998. A true and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". 11. Petitioner Zerbe signed contract and hand delivered to Respondent the same with deposit check of $500.00 on or prior to October 30, 1998. 12. On or about October 17, 1998, the parties hereto entered into a written contract (hereinafter he "Contract") whereby Respondent agreed to provide Petitioners services pertaining to the wedding 2 reception, which include, but are not limited to, a ballroom, dinner and hors d' oeuvres', beverages for the guests, as well as a reservation block of twenty-five (25) rooms for overnight guest accommodations and the presidential suite for the bride and groom. A true and correct copy of said Contract is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". 13. On or prior to October 30, 1998, as indicated in the Contract, Petitioners forwarded a check for Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) to Respondent, representing the requisite deposit for the reception. 14. The Contract provided that approximately 200 people would be expected to attend the reception and the minimum food and beverage bill would total Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00). In the event that the attendance and the per-head cost of the receipt does not meet Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00), Petitioners agreed to upgrade the menu to meet the Twelve Thousand Dollar ($12,000.00) minimum. 15. In addition to the Twelve Thousand Dollar ($12,000.00) minimum, the October 14, 1998 Contract required a taxable 17.5% service charge on the food and beverage cost, which at a minimum of Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00) totals Two Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($2,100.00). 16. In addition, the Contract required a six percent (6%) tax charge on the food and beverage cost, as well as the service charges which totals Eight Hundred Forty-six Dollars ($846.00). 17. The Contract provides for a total minimum charge of Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-six Dollars ($14,946.00). 18. On April 7, 1999, Petitioners and Clair and Linda Rudisill, parents of the bride-to-be, again met with Mr. Hanks and arranged for the "Emerald Reception Package" and selected a menu for the occasion. In addition, at that meeting the parties discussed the following: Finalizing all details for the event Confirmation of overnight reservations Flowers, centerpieces, menu, cake, champagne toast • Extension of period of open bar Itinerary for the event Place settings 3 19. Mr. Hanks at this time indicated that the parties would not need to meet again until Wednesday, July 28, 1999, for the purpose of finalizing head-count and final payment. 20. On May 4, 1999, Petitioners received from Respondent signed by eight members of the "Radisson Team" a letter indicating that Mr. Hanks has accepted another position and has left the employ of the Respondent. Via written correspondence the Respondent indicated to Petitioners that Petitioners should "rest assured, Mr. Hanks left detailed instructions on the handling and characteristics of your account. We believe this will insure a smooth transition from one account representative to another." A true and correct copy of said correspondence is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C". 21. On or about June 1, 1999, Petitioners sent out invitations for their wedding and reception to approximately 250 perspective guests. 22. On or about Tuesday, June 8, 1999, the first guest, Mrs. Julie Linsey, as directed in the invitation, contacted the Respondent to reserve a room for the evening of July 31, 1999. 23. At the time Mrs. Linsey telephoned the Respondent, Respondent indicated that they did not have any room reservations for the Petitioners' wedding reception or any record of the Petitioners' reception. 24. On or about June 8, 1999, Mrs. Linsey contacted Petitioners and indicated that there were no rooms available at Respondent's hotel and convention center. 25. On or about June 8, 1999, Petitioner Zerbe contacted Ms. Ericka Cowell, an employee of Respondent, at which time Ms. Cowell informed Petitioner Zerbe that Respondent did not have any agreement for rooms. Petitioners were directed to contact Ms. Carolie Taylor, an employee of Respondent. 26. From June 8 through 14, 1999, Petitioners continually discussed the guest block of rooms and their alleged unavailability. Ms. Taylor repeatedly reassured Petitioners that the reception "would be lovely" and that she was working to find guest rooms at a nearby hotel, the Hampton Inn. 4 27. On or about June 11, 1999, Sandi Sipe, an employee of Respondent, contacted Petitioners to schedule a meeting on June 14, 1999. 28. On June 14, 1999, Petitioners met with Tom Dickert, General Manager, Sandi Sipe, and John Connor, Controller, to discuss the guest room problem. 29. At that time Mr. Dickert indicated that both the rooms and the reception were cancelled. 30. Respondent, at no time prior to Petitioners contacting Respondent, ever informed Petitioners that they were terminating Petitioners' Contract and entering into an agreement with American Coed, a ballroom dancing convention for the same ballroom and overnight accommodations of two hundred fifty-two (252) rooms. 31. Prior to Petitioners being informed that the contract had been terminated and the terms therein would not be honored by Respondent, Petitioners' photographer for the reception was aware that the wedding reception had been cancelled. 32. Respondent has attempted to provide "comparable accommodations" for Petitioners at the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center, located in Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 33. Petitioners' purposely contracted with the Respondent due to the proximity of the venue for the wedding reception. 34. Petitioners have contracted with Catalano's/Angelino's Restaurant located on Front Street in Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania, to accommodate the rehearsal dinner of fifty (50) guests on Friday, July 30, 1999. 35. The proximity of the rehearsal dinner to the Respondent's hotel and convention center is approximately 1.5 miles, a determining factor in Petitioners selecting Catalano's/Angelino's Restaurant for the rehearsal dinner. 5 36. The church in which Petitioners will be married is St. Elizabeth Ann Salon Catholic Church in Upper Allen Township, Pennsylvania. The distance from the church to the Respondent's hotel and convention center is approximately six (6) miles further, providing further basis for selecting Respondent's hotel and convention center for Petitioners' wedding reception. 37. The morning prior to the wedding, the Petitioners have planned a golf outing for the guests at Range End Country Club located in Dillsburg, Pennsylvania, approximately ten (10) miles southwest of Respondent's hotel and convention center. Again, the proximity of Respondent's hotel and convention center was a determinative factor in selecting the location for the golf outing. 38. Respondent has attempted to provide "comparable accommodations" at the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center in Hershey, located approximately seventeen (17) miles east of Respondent's hotel and convention center. 39. The distance to the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center from the rehearsal dinner at Catalano's/Angelino's Restaurant in Wormleysburg is approximately seventeen (17) miles. The distance from St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church in Upper Allen, the location of the rehearsal, as well as the wedding ceremony, is approximately twenty-three (23) miles from the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center. The distance between Range End Golf Club, the location of the golf outing is approximately thirty (30) miles from the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center. 40. Petitioners have spent countless hours purchasing and preparing decorations for the reception hall that would be appropriate for Respondent's facility. 41. Petitioners have arranged with the limousine company to provide transportation for the entire wedding party from St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church to the reception at Respondent's hotel and convention center. The cost of transportation will increase due to the distance to travel. 42. Petitioners have spent countless hours planning the meal and hors d'oeuvres and are forced to begin the process once more. 6 43. Petitioners have sent well over 250 invitations to prospective guests with directions on how to reserve rooms at Respondent's hotel and convention center, as well as directions on how to arrive there safely. 44. Petitioners had invitations professionally prepared indicating the locale of the wedding reception as the "Radisson Penn Harris Hotel and Convention Center." A true and correct copy of the invitation is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "D". 45. Since June 8, 1999, Petitioners have spent countless hours on the phone to guests who have been unable to reserve a room at Respondent's hotel and convention center. 46. Respondent agreed to and later confirmed to Petitioners room prices of $79.00 to $84.00, a discounted rate. The "comparable accommodations" being offered at Hershey Lodge and Convention Center cost $169.00 per night. COUNTI Iniunctive Relief• specific Pedgirmanca 47. Paragraphs 1 through 46 are incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 48. Petitioners have entered into a contract for a wedding reception whereby Respondent agreed to provide all services on their behalf. 49. A wedding and wedding reception are two of the most important events in a person's lifetime. Petitioners have spent months diligently working and planning for the perfect wedding day. 50. Harm caused by the Respondent's actions is not harm that is reparable or which would carry m adequate remedy at law. 51. The consequential and naturally arising damages from Respondent's actions are not ones in ?hich Petitioners can place a monetary value. 7 52. The Respondent has repudiated its obligations under the Contract and success in the underlying action of breach of contract would be certain. WHEREFORE, Petitioners request your Honorable Court to grant the Special Emergency Injunctive Relief of Specific Performance and direct the Respondent to fulfill its obligations under the Contract attached hereto as Exhibit "B" COUNT II 53. Paragraphs 1 through 52 are incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 54. Respondent's actions as set forth herein have been deceitful and deceptive, providing relief under the Unfair Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Law of Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, in the alternative, Petitioners would request that your Honorable Court allow them to file a Complaint under the Unfair Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Law of Pennsylvania, seeking any and all penalties as provided by the Act. COUNT III 55. Paragraphs 1 through 55 are incorporated as is set forth fully herein. 56. Respondent's actions constitute an anticipatory renunciation or repudiation of the Contract, thereby breaching the same. 57. Respondent's actions as set forth above are outrageous and egregious. 8 58. Respondent's actions as set forth above are deceitful and dishonest. WHEREFORE, Petitioners request in the alternative that your Honorable Court permit Petitioners to file a Complaint under a count for breach of contract thereby entitling them to compensatory and punitive damages as well as any other remedies available of law. Respectfully submitted. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART By: Attorney I. D. No. 75906 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-01 Telephone (717) 761-45 Attorneys for Petitioners 9 I, MARK D. ZERBE, do verify that the statements made in the foregoing Emergency Petition for Special Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Wa is 0 Oa---e MAR RBE Dated: i4*,A- ?.? / /? I, JAMIE L. RUDISILL, do verify that the statements made in the foregoing Emergency Petition for Special Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. J IE L. RUDISILL Dated: (i -(? -C) ? CERTIFICATE OF SERV/CE AND NOW, this 2 day of domle-1 , 1999, the undersigned does hereby certify that he did this date serve a copy of the for going Petition for Special Emergency Injunctive Relief upon the other parties by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: PENN HARRIS COMPANY 208 Walnut Street, P. O. Box 1226 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1226 W. SCOTT STARUCH, ESQUIRE 20 Erford Road Lemoyone, PA 17043 MR. TOM DICKERT, GENERAL MANAGER Radisson Penn Hams Hotel and Convention Center 1150 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & Mdrk C. Duffle I. D. No. 75906 IJ 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone: (717) 761454 Attorneys for Petitioners 12 Radisson. P E N N H A R R I S H O T E L 6 CONVENTION CENTER October 14, 1998 Mr. Mark Zerbe 207 West Lisburn Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Dear Mr. Zerbe: Thank you for selecting the RADISSON Penn Harris Hotel and Convention Center to host your July 99 Wedding Reception. Enclosed please find two copies of your Banquet Event Order outlining the details and billing requirements as we discussed. Kindly sign and return one copy with any additions, changes, etc. by October 30, 1998. Your menu selection is due by May 30,1999. Your guaranteed count and final payment are due on or before July 28, 1999. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you. If you have any questions, please contact either myself or our Catering Assistant, Miranda Rose, at (717) 763-7117. I look forward to making this a successful event for you and your guests. Sincerely, Jo Hanks, Jr. Director of Catering JWmar Enclosures Our Staff Delivers "Genuine Hospitality" evitlr a "PAS I CAN" Attitude! EXHIBIT "A" 1150 Camp Hill Bypass, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: (717)763.7117 / Fax: (717)763.4518 / Soles & Calving Fax: (717)763.7120 RADISSON PENN HARRIS HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER FUNCTION ARRANGEMENTS DAY _I OF I ORGANIZATION Zerbe Wedding DATE July 31, 1999 BOOKED BY Mark Zerbe & Jamie DAY Saturday ADDRESS 207 West Lisburn Road ARRIVAL TIME Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 MEAL TIME PHONE NUMBER 691-6649(H) / 761.6345(W) MEETING TIME 4:30pm - 11:00pm FAX NUMBER FUNCTION Wedding Reception ROOM h Ballroom (Requests North) # EXP 900 # GTD _ OVERNIGHTS YES FOOD AND BEVERAGE SET UP RECEPTION - rh BALLROOM - 4.30om Menu & Details To Be Determined by May 30, 1999 DINNER - rh BALLROOM - Oom Menu & Details To Be Determined by May 30, 1999 Marquis to Read: RECEPTION / DINNER - rh BALLROOM - 4:30pm-11:00om Details To Follow .The client must meet a $12,000.00 Minimum for Food and Beverage. If the minimum is not met, the client will choose to upgrade the Food selections to meet the minimum or pay the difference. The amount of the Food and Beverage minimum DOES NOT include applicable service charge (17%) or tax (6%). On-Site Contact: FOOD PER COVER SEE ABOVE ROOM RENTAL $12,000.00 Minimum TAX CHARGE 6% PAYMENT Due 7/28/99 Mead Reverse Side As Well) SERVICE CHARGE 17.5% (taxable) DEPOSIT $500.00 Due with Signed BOOKED BY: , . f DATE: O /y SALES MANAGER: 10p, - CLIENTS SIGNATURE: DATE: _ Contract by 10/30/98 EXHIBIT "B" L CONTRACT TERMS 1. All menu selections should be submitted to the catering OM08 fourteen (14) days scheduled event. Ploaae consult with your hotel prior to the contact for additional, creative menu Ideas. Menu prices will be guaranteed six months prior to the function date. 2. A final guarantee of the attendance at any catering function must be received 72 working hours prior to the event. (Monday through Friday) Guarantees are not subject to reduction. If no guarantee Is received at the appropriate Ume, the number expected will be used as the final guarantee and charges will be made accordingly. 3. Function rooms are assigned at the time of the booking based upon estimated number of persons Ii r attendance. The Radisson Penn Halls Hotel and Convention Center reserves the right to reassign function rooms based upon the guaranteed number of persons in attendance. 4. All cancellations must be received by the Hotel In writing from the guest. Events canceled and rescheduled Immediately will be given special consideration. In the event of a cancellation, the following guidelines apply. Canxled ri cane Ilatlon o B months prior Forfeit Deposit 2.5 months prior 50% of estimated revenues 1 monlh4 days prior 75% 01 es8mated revenues 3 days prior Full payment of estimated revenues 5. Guest agrees to begin its function promptly at the scheduled time and Guest, Its attendees or invite 3s agree to vacate the designated function space at the closing hour indicated. In the event of a schedule change by the guest at the time of the function, the guest must contact the catering office who will make every effort 10 accommodate the schedule changes. 6. No food and beverages of any kind will be permitted to be brought Into Hotel function space by the Guest, their attendees or invitees. All food, liquor, beer and wine must be supplied by the Radisson Penn Halls Hotel and Convention Center, unless otherwise specified by the Hotel. If alcoholic beverages are being served, the Pennsylvania minimum age requirement of 21 must be observed. 7. If direct billing Is requested, a completed credit application must be submitted to our accounting office 30 days prior to the scheduled function for approval. Once approved, payment is required upon receipt of billing statement. 8. Al banquet checks must be signed by the person In charge or a designated representative at the completion of each function. Any discrepancies In counts or charges should be Identified and resolved at that time. 8. A deposit Is required for all cateringlsoclal functions upon signing of the contract. Deposit requirements are based on requested space and time of year. All deposits are nonrefundable, based on canceiialion guidelines. 10. Payment is due In full three days prior to all catering functions and Is based on estimated revenues (your final guarantee). Any remaining balance Is due at the end or the function. 11. Guest agrees to be responsible for any damages done to the premises or any other part of the Convention Center and the Hotel during the time of the guest, attendees or Invitees. 12. The Hotel will not assume responsibility for damages or toss of any merchandise or artictes lee in the Convention Center or the Hotel prior to, during, or following the Patron's function(s), pri vate security may be requested by the Guest when valuable merchandise or exhibits are displayed at the Guest's expense. 13. The Hotel requires that signs or banners not be displayed In public areas of the Hotel or Convention Center, unless otherwise specified. Hotel personnel will assist the Guest with hanging signs or banners in•Ihe assigned meeting rooms. 14. Al decorations must be approved by the catering office prior to the function. There will be a $100.00 cleaning fee for glitter or other Items that will cause damage to our llnens, etc. 15. G exh!bIts and any other Items to and from the Convention Center and the uest is responsible for all arrangements and all expenses of shipping materials, merchandise, , notified In advance f shipping arrangements toe sure proper acceptance e of these (Hems arriving at the Hotel. Shipments will be received no more than three (3) days prior to the function date. 16. All federal, state, city and municipal taxes. Ups and service charges applicable to this function are in addition to the prices set forth on the front of this agreement (unless the proper lax is Indicated on the front side) and shall be paid by the Guest in accordance with payment policy set forth in this agreement. 17. This agreement Is contingent upon the ability of the Hotel to perform its obligation hereunder, and is subject to strikes, labor disputes, electrical blackouts or shortages, damage or destruction of the f Hotel, accidents or other causes beyond the Hotel's control. In no event shall Hotel be liable to Guest beyond the amount paid by Guest for the use of rooms and function space reserved. If the function space reserved herein cannot be made aval able to the Guest. Hotel reserves the right to substitute comparable accommodations for the function, which substitution shall be deemed by the Guest as full performance under this agreement. Hotel's discretion as to comparability of accommodations shall be bihding on Guests Radisson. P E N N H A R R I S H O T E L L CONVENTION CENTER &J') DW-P May 4, 1999 Mark Zerbe Zerbe Wedding 207 West Lisburn Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Dear Mr. Zerbe: The Radisson Penn Hams Hotel and Convention Center announces the departure of our Catering Director, John Hanks, Jr. John has accepted another position in the Harrisburg area and we are sorry to see him go. It is hard to say goodbye to someone who has been part of our sales team for the past year. And it is not easy to let go of a hard worker. As I am sure you will agree, Mr. Hanks was a valuable member of the Radisson Sales Team. We will be assigning another member of our team to your account. They will be contacting you closer to your event to arrange an introductory meeting and see how we might better serve you. Rest assured, Mr. Hanks left detailed instructions on the handling and characteristics of your account. We believe this will ensure a smooth transition from one account representative to another. We appreciate your business with the Radisson Penn Harris Hotel and Convention Center and look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, The Radisson Teary. 1150 Camp Hill Bypass, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: (717) 763-7117 /Fax: (717) 763-4518 /Sales Fax: (717) 763-7120 Mccl Fax: (717) 763-1204 EXHIBIT "C" CtCr and oWrr. Glair (Rudirill reruest the honour of pour presence at the marriage of their darghter &amie (?epnn to CCCark 7avid gerbe Ion f CUr and CCfrs frames 05%erbe j 06alurdap, the thirtpfirst of &ulp C>?nteteen hundred and ninetp nine at two o clock ¦I E: Q&dnt (aliaabeth inn Caton Catholic Church C4lechawcsburg -322enns,vlvania EXHIBIT "D" DIRECTIONS TO CHURCH: From Route 15 North: Take the Bowmansdale/Mechanicsburg exit (Route 114). Turn right at stop sign. At the fast traffic light, turn left onto Kim Acres Drive. Follow approximately h of a mile to stop sign. Go straight into church parking lot. From Route 1S South: Take the Bowmansdale/Mechanicsburg exit (Route 114). • Turn left at stop sign. At the first traffic light Ptamig left lot. onto Kim Acres Drive Follow approximately % of a mile to stop sign. Go straight into church From PA Turnpike: Exit 17 (Gettysburg Pike Exit) to Route 15 South, then follow above directions. DIRECTIONS FROM CHURCH TO RADISSON PENN HARRIS: Turn right out of church parking lot. Follow signs to Route 15 North. Once on Route 15 North, travel approximately four miles until you come to a series of tragic lights. Go straight through five lights. Just before the sixth traffic light, get into the right hand lane and follow sign for 11 and 15 North towards Marysville. Radisson will be less than Y, of a mile after the sixth light on the left. RADISSON PENN HARRIS HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER 1150 Camp FLIT Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3734 Telephone *There is a block ofrooomsreserved 7 or our out of town guests. Please make room reservations before June 30 ifplanning to stay at the hotel. (Reception fvlla)viS at f ur a'clack GP-Tdirron 'Penn &6anrr deatel E'amp &6ill, kDmxvlnania le-se replp before Oup Ist,," OW I C~ umber attenhtg - CS?3ecf 6hicken 'Q , yt l -bnaera?d ?iece?46ie.n ?'A?dd?flyf• ?t?Yea4 ??iyela(da ?YUdIlArcvlk C?e?r?fe>aYeam ?yt C?CaJai/w?lC?>rtil??,lyly???>a??'??,/ryym?pll/i @?aauy lY°y??? CifJU!!'eIW?(O?Y(D•(cYW ao{Y/Nie.(' (AfM f?•f4l?P n/lke?dlnwi.yJ c?°rwdiG4 ?alGa!/e " c_?xid ?% i ua>e!!a e%di aa4 cvavna>a &?.a ?iG-.u:ed ypYOlL? IGid e'arsgl eg aY Gurus ?? 10nked 9klo4a. . / 0le./oeex• (!yyMtY C?(i'A?fCO f??M9feJ lyl-A-A /> al-v 90-4 hO aa! 4 (Y-1 d?d n/--) .fed ?a>den c?aladwllk Cd7Pa+Iwa .?>euunS ?ama>ffc???y?e c?alad •OSHFcax• ?r?nroe ou. mn/e lka>. lux. n?(kelnl(natii[?`? ? feken 59"a/m. 42leH mZ?4? ?c9j`e;f Mme V aH L1./0,fy. Lg-"/., milk V' /Lf. ?j wn. LCPauu (?>Af(ed c?/nHndeY milk »em<m ?Ik'(?f a!!eY ?yGf? ?pz.'kd ty?ic.(cu (?i sca:lu:l4 C?:/r,:Ar,: ?•ccr. C?::cc LOU.tnauea> 594/1 ?elecllnnflo}/eyelak(e ('Lct%".4 cp ?f?k ?^lh]ullel +br e, ?era?ufaled gee, GP& 15J.00?faY?ieYaon /.. 2 i .A F Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Mark C. Duffle I. D. No. 75906 301 Market Street Attorneys for Plaintiffs P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 MARK D. ZERBE and JAMIE L. RUDISILL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioners V. PENN HARRIS COMPANY, Ud/b/s RADISSON PENN HARRIS HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER, Respondent To: Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 NO. C?9 _ 3S? 79 CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY AND NOW, this OaLday of June, 1999, issue a summons against PeA*J 9A./%.r and cause the same to be served forthwith at its address, which is 1150 Camp Hi Bypass, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011, and 208 Walnut Street, P. O. Box 1226, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17108-1226. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & By: Y Mark C. Duffle Attorney I. D. No. 75906 I 301 Market Street I P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 124252 L ` r in C6 ! C6 cy- f - Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland Mark D. Zerbe and Jamie L. Rudisill Court of Common Pleas V& No. 99-3878 Equity Term Penn Harris Company, t/d/b/s Radisson Penn Harris Hotel and In ___Giyil_ Action ___E_quity"----------- Convention Center 1150 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011 and 208 Walnut Street, P.O. BOX 1226, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1226 To Penn_ Harris_ Com-- - pany,t__tJJJA_ Radisson Penn Harris Hotel and Convention -_ Center You are hereby notified that Mark_ D_Zerbe and Jamie L. Rudisill --------------------------------- -------------- ------------------- the Plaintiff s havecommenced an action in __ Civil Action ___Equity_______________________ against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. (SEAL) ----- CurtisR. Long ..................... -------------- Prothon??otaa?ry pp MM,?..,, Date _ June _2L----------------- 19-29- By - C? :J___SlX 2-0017_ ' Deputy i i 0 Ni E! .a uU ? 00 00 Mi rnii rni 6 z N .,i E N ro c N O N N oro 7 xa N g a f N A ? ro w0 W0 N N N c r • N 4 W C C = N N 04 C.) E T E o c u C O C •rl N N w ••i P. C N N (0 0 c 5 N O N U c•a r1010 N (0 c IL a 10 a? 7 W tl i c O 0 44 D U N N ro N 3 .a w N m m 3 0 w C N O N I w M N 0 N N o N•4 N no W W ti Ln 44 W to u'I w C •¢ v 4) CD 4 •x • •ID u 0 N x c n N£O >I- N.C? m E C • ro 000 Nn E n m a a - a I' Gerard J. Pisarcik, Esq, PA ID No. 39181 20 Erford Road, Suite 305 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 975-0600 I Attorney for Respondent MARK D. ZERBE and JAMIE L, RUDISILL, Petitioners V. PENN HARRIS COMPANY, t/d/b/a RADISSON PENN HARRIS HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER, Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE TO PLEAD NO. 99-3878 CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY TO: Mark D.Zerbe and Jamie L. Rudisill You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof, or a judgment may be entered against you. Gerard J. Pisarcik, Esq. PA ID No. 39181 20 Erford Road, Suite 305 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 975-0600 Attorney for Respondent MARK D. ZERBE and JAMIE L. RUDISELL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioners V. PENN HARRIS COMPANY, t/d/b/a RADISSON PENN HARRIS HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER, Respondent NO. 99-3878 CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY ANSWER TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AN NOW, comes Respondent, and in support of its answer to Petitioners' Petition for Special Emergency Injunctive Relief, avers as follows: 1 through 8. Admitted with the exception of paragraph 3 which is denied. Respondent is Penn Lodge Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, with its registered office located at 1150 Camp Hill Bypass, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. 9. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 9 and same are therefore denied. 10. Admitted. 11, Admitted. 12, Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a true and correct copy of the Contract is attached as Exhibit "B". It is specifically denied that the Contract provided for a reservation block of twenty-five (25) rooms for overnight guest accommodations and the presidential suite for the bride and groom. By way of further response, as the Contract is a written document that speaks for itself, any characterization thereof is denied and the remaining averments of paragraph 12 are denied. 13 through 17. Admitted. 18 and 19. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraphs 18 and 19 and same are therefore denied. 20 through 22. Admitted. 23 and 24. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraphs 23 and 24 and same are therefore denied. 25 through 28. Admitted. By way of further response, Carolie Taylor is the Rooms Sales Manager for Respondent and at the time of her conversation with Petitioners, she was not aware of the mistake concerning the date of the reception. 29. Denied. To the contrary, during said meeting, Mr. Dickert informed Petitioners of the mistake that had been made, apologized for it and informed them that comparable accommodations had been made. 2 30. Denied. At no time did Respondent ever inform Petitioners that the Contract was being terminated. By way of further response, Respondent incorporates by reference herein the averments of paragraph 29 above as if fully set forth. 31. Denied. Respondent never informed Petitioners that the Contract was being terminated nor that Respondent would not honor the terms thereof. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 31 and same are therefore denied. 32. Denied as stated. To the contrary, Respondent has provided comparable accommodations for Petitioners at the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center, located in Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 33 through 37. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraphs 33 through 37 and same are therefore denied. 38. Denied as stated. Respondent has provided comparable accommodations at the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center in Hershey. 39. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the mileages are as stated in the averments of paragraph 39. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the location of the rehearsal, rehearsal dinner, golf outing and wedding and same are therefore denied. 40 through 46. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraphs 40 through 46 and same are therefore denied. 47. The averments of paragraph 1 through 46 of Respondent's Answer are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 48. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Petitioners and Respondent entered into the Contract. By way of further response, Respondent incorporates by reference herein its answer to paragraph 12 above as if fully set forth. The remaining averments are denied. Since the Contract is a writing and as such speaks for itself any characterization thereof is denied. 49. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 49 and same are therefore denied. 50. The averments of paragraph 50 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Respondent avers that any alleged harm to Petitioners is reparable and Petitioners can be compensated by monetary damages. As such, Petitioners can bring a breach of contract action against Respondent and thus have an adequate remedy at law. 51. The averments of paragraph 51 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Respondent avers that any such alleged damages can be quantified and are capable of having a monetary value placed on them. 52. The averments of paragraph 52 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 4 WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny the Special Emergency Injunctive Relief of Specific Performance and award Respondent its costs, expenses, attorneys fees and such other additional relief as this Court deems just and proper. 53. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 52 of Respondent's Answer are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 54. The averments of paragraph 54 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Respondent avers that at all times relevant herein it has acted reasonably and fairly to rectify its inadvertent mistake. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny Petitioners' request for Special Emergency Injunctive Relief of Specific Performance and award Respondent its costs, expenses, attorneys fees and such other additional relief as this Court deems just and proper. 55. The averments of paragraphs I through 54 of Respondent's Answer are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 56. The averments of paragraph 56 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 57 and 58. The averments of paragraphs 57 and 58 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Respondent avers that at all times relevant herein it has acted reasonably and fairly to rectify its inadvertent mistake. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny Petitioners' request for Special Emergency Injunctive Relief of Specific Performance and award Respondent its costs, expenses, attorneys fees and such other additional relief as this Court deems just and proper. 5 NEW MATTER 59. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 58 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 60. On or about June 8, 1999, Respondent's General Manager Tom Dickert spoke by telephone with Petitioner Mark Zerbe concerning the guest room situation. 61. As a result of Mr. Dickert's said phone conversation, Respondent checked its reservation records regarding the date of Petitioners' wedding. During the course of checking said records, Respondent discovered for the first time that the date of Petitioners' wedding had been inadvertently and mistakenly entered in Respondent's records as taking place on Saturday, July 24 rather than on Saturday, July 31, 1999. 62. Respondent noted during its review of said records that its ballroom had already been contracted for by American Coed Pageant since October, 1998. Petitioners' discussions and contract negotiations with Respondent in October, 1998 had taken place virtually simultaneously with those of American Coed Pageant and Respondent. 63. Respondent thus also learned for the first time that said ballroom had been contracted for by both Petitioners and American Coed Pageant for the same date, that is, July 31, 1999. 64. American Coed Pageant will have an approximate total of 1,000 people using Respondent's ballroom over the course of six days, from July 27 through August 1, 1999, for a talent contest. American Coed Pageant also reserved a block of 200 guest rooms during this same time period. 6 65. Immediately upon discovering said mistake, Respondent proceeded to determine if both affairs could be held at its facilities. Despite its best efforts to accommodate both affairs on site, Respondent determined that it could not do so. 66. Respondent then attempted to find comparable accommodations for both Petitioners' wedding and said talent contest. 67. Upon realizing that said talent contest involved 1,000 people, a duration of six days, and a guest room requirement of 200 rooms, Respondent concluded that the only solution was to find comparable accommodations for Petitioners' wedding reception. 68. Respondent quickly discovered that because the tourist season in the Harrisburg- Hershey area is at its height during the month of July, it would encounter much difficulty in finding comparable accommodations for Petitioners' wedding reception. 69. During the course of the next two days, June 9 and June 10, 1999, Respondent expended its best efforts to find comparable accommodations for Petitioners' wedding reception, contacting several other catering establishments, including the Harrisburg Hilton and Towers and the Marriott Hotel. 70. Respondent finally succeeded in finding comparable accommodations for Petitioners' wedding reception at the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center. 71. Respondent was also successful in procuring a reservation block of twenty five (25) rooms for overnight guest accommodations at the same facility. Said rooms were given by the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center as a courtesy to Mr. Dickert. 72. Once Respondent had obtained said comparable accommodations, Mr. Dickert directed Respondent's employee Sandi Sipe to contact Petitioners to schedule a meeting for June 14, 1999, so that he could inform Petitioners in person of said mistake and present them with said comparable accommodations he had procured. 73. Rather than call Petitioners simply to inform them of the mistake by telephone, Mr. Dickert intended to have a solution, i.e., comparable accommodations, when he did inform Petitioners of same in person. 74. At said meeting on June 14, and after apologizing for said mistake, Mr. Dickert informed Petitioners that although Respondent was not able to hold their wedding reception at Respondent's facility, Respondent had made comparable accommodations for them at the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center. 75. At said meeting, Mr. Dickert also informed Petitioners that Respondent offered to pay for Petitioners' additional expenses associated with relocating their wedding reception to the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center. 76. At said meeting, Mr. Dickert also informed Petitioners that his staff was at their disposal to help with the attendant adjustments required to be made, i.e., extra or new invitations to be sent out, notification of guests, etc. 77. Petitioners responded that they required "two to three days to think about it." 78. At no time during said meeting did Petitioners raise any issue concerning the additional distance to Hershey. 79. Hershey Lodge and Convention Center has agreed to provide Petitioners with a reception package that is comparable to the "Emerald Reception" package that Petitioners had contracted for with Respondent and as more particularly described in Exhibit "D" to Petitioners' Petition. 8 80. When compared to the "Emerald Reception", the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center's reception package does not include hors d'oeuvres but does include one (l) additional hour of open bar during the reception, which is believed to be a costlier feature of the reception. 81. Petitioners have alleged no specific damages resulting from Respondent's actions other than increased transportation costs to transport the wedding party to the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center; additional phone calls to guests; a difference in guest room rates; and additional hours in planning. 82. To the extent these alleged damages have been or will actually be incurred by Petitioners, said alleged damages can be quantified and reduced to a dollar figure. 83. Any alleged injury incurred by Petitioners is not irreparable and can be adequately compensated by an award of damages. 84. Petitioners' remedy at law is adequate. 85. Paragraph 17 of the Contract, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "B" to Petitioners' Petition, provides in relevant part as follows: "If the function space reserved herein cannot be made available to the Guest, Hotel reserves the right to substitute comparable accommodations for the function, which substitution shall be deemed by the Guest as full performance under this agreement. Hotel's discretion as to comparability of accommodations shall be binding on Guest." 86. Since Respondent has substituted comparable accommodations to Petitioners at the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center, said substitution is binding on Petitioners and Respondent has performed in accordance with and has not materially breached the terms of the Contract. 87. Since Respondent has performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, Petitioners' right to relief is far from clear and, in fact, Petitioners would not prevail on the merits of this case should this matter proceed to trial. 88. Greater injury would result from this Court's granting the injunction rather than from a refusal to grant the injunction in that if the injunction were granted, the talent contest of American Coed Pageant could not be held since no comparable accommodations could be found, thereby preventing American Coed Pageant from holding its said affair and subjecting Respondent to legal action from American Coed Pageant, including, but not limited to, a possible injunction action and a breach of contract action. 89. Nowhere in their Petition have Petitioners alleged or shown that injunctive relief is necessary to prevent immediate injury. 90. An injunction is not reasonably suited to abate the activity complained of since the aforesaid inadvertent error of Respondent was a one-time occurrence and Respondent has provided Petitioners with comparable accommodations in accordance with the terms of the Contract. 91. The power of this Court to grant an injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Court and its decree in granting or refusing an injunction is one of grace and not of right. Petitioners have not established their entitlement to an injunction. 92. Under the facts and circumstance of this case, general equity jurisdiction is not warranted. 93 Petitioners have requested, in effect, a mandatory preliminary injunction. A mandatory preliminary injunction is an extraordinary judicial act and should be issued only in rare or exceptional cases and more sparingly than a preliminary injunction which is merely prohibitory. This matter is not so rare or exceptional so as to entitle Petitioners to a mandatory preliminary injunction. 10 94. Petitioners are not entitled to specific performance since Respondent has not breached the Contract. 95. Petitioners are not entitled to specific performance since they have an adequate remedy at law. 96. Petitioners are not entitled to specific performance since their right to relief is far from clear and, in fact, they would not prevail on the merits of the underlying dispute. 97. Petitioners are not entitled to specific performance since such a remedy would result in hardship and/or injustice to Respondent and American Coed Pageant as more particularly set forth in paragraph 88 above. 98. Petitioners are not entitled to specific performance since the circumstances of this matter do not shock the concept of fairness and justice so as to have equity intervene. 99. A decree of specific performance is a matter of grace and not of right. Petitioners have not established an entitlement to specific performance in this matter. 100. To prevail under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. Sections 201-1 et seq. (the "Act"), Petitioners must prove three elements: (1) that the transaction at issue is trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act; (2) that the Act grants a private cause of action for their alleged injuries sustained; and (3) that the wrong allegedly committed by Respondent either (a) constitutes malfeasance, i.e., improper performance of a contractual obligation or (b) said wrong is either unfair or deceptive because it is fraudulent conduct creating the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding within the meaning of the Act. 101. Respondent's conduct in scheduling Petitioners' wedding reception for Saturday, July 24 rather than Saturday, July 31, 1999 does not constitute malfeasance within the meaning of the Act since Paragraph 17 of the Contract cited in paragraph 85 above provides that Respondent reserves the right to substitute comparable accommodations, which substitution shall constitute full performance under the Contract. Respondent has exercised this right, thereby fulfilling its contractual obligation to Petitioners. 102 Respondent's aforesaid conduct is not unfair, deceptive or fraudulent within the meaning of the Act since it was done inadvertently, mistakenly and with absolutely no intent to defraud Petitioners. 103. Petitioners' Petition does not establish any of the foregoing elements so as to entitle Petitioners to relief under the Act. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny Petitioners' request for Special Emergency Injunctive Relief of Specific Performance and award Respondent its costs, expenses, attorneys fees and such other additional relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, 41- 'Gerard J. Pisa(cfk, Esq. Atty I.D. 39181 20 Erford Road, Suite 305 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 975-0600 Attorney for Respondent 12 Jul-02-99 10:16A LS&P 717 975 3871 P.14 VERIFICATION Subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities), I, Thomas A. Dickert, hereby declare that, as general manager of the Radisson Penn Harris Hotel and Convention Center, 1 am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Respondent and that the facts set forth in the foregoing ANSWER TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Thomas A. Rickert CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gerard J. Pisarcik, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 2nd day of July, 1999, I served a true and correct copy of the Respondent's ANSWER TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF by U.S. first class mail postage prepaid upon the person indicated below: Mark C. Duffle, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorney for Petitioners :; . <<. - _ ; Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Mark C. Duffle I. D. No. 75906 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 MARK D. ZERBE and JAMIE L. RUDISILL, Petitioners V. PENN HARRIS COMPANY, t/d/b/a RADISSON PENN HARRIS HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER, Respondent Attorneys for Petitioners IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3878 CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY AND NOW, COME the Petitioners, Mark D. Zerbe and Jamie L. Rudisill, by and through their attorneys, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, and file this Reply to New matter to Respondent's Answer to Petition for Emergency Injunctive Relief: Specific Performance and in support thereof aver as follows: 59. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 56 Petitioner' Petition for Special Emergency Injunctive Relief of Specific Performance are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 60. Admitted. By way of further response, said telephone conversation was initiated by Petitioner Mark Zerbe and prompted by room unavailability. 61. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 61 and the same are therefore denied. 62. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of 62 and the same are therefore denied. By way of further response, Petitioners discussions and contract negotiations began with Respondent in September of 1998, prior to those that allegedly occurred between the American Coed Pageant and Respondent. 63. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 63 and the same are therefore denied. 64. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 64 and the same are therefore denied. 65. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 65 and the same are therefore denied. 66. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that respondent attempted to find "comparable" accommodations for Petitioners' wedding. Any inference that that the Respondent has provided "comparable" accommodations specifically denied. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 66 as they pertain to Respondents attempting to locate comparable accommodations for the talent contest, and same are therefore denied. 67. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 67 and the same are therefore denied. 68. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 68 and the same are therefore denied. 69. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 69 and the same are therefore denied. 70. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Respondent found accommodations for Petitioners' wedding reception at the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center. It is denied that these accommodations are "comparable." It is further denied that the Respondent has successfully provided accommodations for the Petitioners' wedding reception. 71. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Respondent procured a reservation block of twenty-five (25) rooms for overnight guest accommodations at the Hershey Lodge and Convention. It is denied that these accommodations are "comparable." Petitioners further deny any inference regarding the "success" of the reservation. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments in Paragraph 71 and the same are therefore denied. 72. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the meeting of June 14, 1999 was scheduled and, in fact, took place. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the averments in Paragraph 72 and the same are therefore denied. 73. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 73, which outline the Respondent's intentions and the are therefore denied. 74. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted at said meeting on June 14, 1999, that Mr. Dickert informed Petitioners that the respondent was not going to provide the wedding reception services at Respondent's facility. It is further admitted the Respondent had made arrangements for Petitioners at the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center. It is denied that the accommodations that have been provided to Petitioners are comparable in any way. 75. Denied. Mr. Dickert informed Petitioners that Respondent would pay for postage to inform the guest of the relocation of the wedding reception. 76. Admitted. 77. Admitted. 78. Admitted. By way of further response, Petitioners, devastated by the notice of cancellation, were presented with so many problems that they did not discuss any one in particular, but immediately left and sought legal counsel. 79. Denied. The Hershey Lodge and Convention Center has offered to provide Petitioners with a reception package that is not "comparable" to the "Emerald Reception" package that Petitioners had contracted for with Respondent. In fact the Hershey Lodge and Convention Center refuses to provide hors d'oeuvres that were included in the original "Emerald Reception" package with Respondent. By way of further response, the reception package the Hershey Lodge and Convention proposes is not "comparable" to the one Respondent was required to provide under the contract. 80. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Hershey Lodge and Convention Center's package does not include hors d'oeuvres and does include one (1) additional hour of open bar. The remainder of Paragraph 80 is denied. 81. The averments of Paragraph 81 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Petitioners aver that in addition to the damages outlined by Respondent in Paragraph 81, the consequential damages resulting directly from Respondent's actions have yet to be ascertained in full. 82. The averments of Paragraph 82 constitute conclusions of law to which not response is required. To the extent a response is required, the damages cannot be wholly quantified or reduced to a dollar figure, therefore the averments contained in Paragraph 82 are denied. 83. The averments of Paragraph 83 constitute conclusions of law to which not response is required. To the extent a response is required, Petitioners aver that the damages are irreparable and no quantitative award of money damages is appropriate, therefore the averments contained in Paragraph 83 are denied. 84. The averments of Paragraph 84 constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 85. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Paragraph 17 provides this language outlined in Respondent's New Matter in part. It is denied that this is relevant and the same is taken out of context as part of a force majeure clause. 86. Denied. Paragraph 17 is a force majeure clause and provides for "causes beyond the hotel's control," such as "strikes, labor disputes, electrical blackouts or shortages, damage or destruction to the hotel." If on occasion, the facility is unavailable to due circumstances beyond the hotel's control, then certainly "comparable accommodations" would have to be provided to provide any service at all. Certainly the Respondents actions were not those that were beyond the Respondent's control. The remainder of the averment of Paragraph 86 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 87. The averments of Paragraph 87 constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 88. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Petitioners are without knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 88, and the same are therefore denied. The remainder of the averments in Paragraph 88 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 89. required. 90. required. 91. required. 92. required. 93. required. 94. required. The averments in Paragraph 89 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is The averments in Paragraph 90 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is The averments in Paragraph 91 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is The averments in Paragraph 92 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is The averments in Paragraph 93 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is The averments in Paragraph 94 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is 95. The averments in Paragraph 95 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 96. The averments in Paragraph 96 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 97. The averments in Paragraph 97 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 98. The averments in Paragraph 98 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 99. The averments in Paragraph 99 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 100. The averments in Paragraph 100 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 101. The averments in Paragraph 101 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 102. The averments in Paragraph 102 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 103. The averments in Paragraph 103 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant the Special Emergency Injunctive Relief of Specific Performance as requested and deny Respondent it costs, expenses, attorneys, fees and other additional relief requested. Respectfully submitted. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART 8, WEIDNER Attorney I. D. No. 75901 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 7614540 Attorneys for Petitioners I, MARK D. ZERBE, do verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. bt Z MARK . E E Dated: _ / / j I, JAMIE L. RUDISILL, do verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Q ?1 ?i Xj ?,?Cl OIL J MIE L. RUDISILL Dated: I 4' -(?? CER T/F/CA TE OF SER VICE AND NOW, this T-fk day of ? 1999, the undersigned does hereby certify that he did this date serve a copy of the oregoing Answer to New Matter upon the other parties by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: GERARD J. PISARCIK, ESQUIRE 20 Erford Road, Suite 305 Lemoyne, PA 171043 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART Mark C. Duffie Y? 1. D. No. 7590 75906 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone: (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Petitioners :124494 d C LL. ? ?Ctl r cy% U C? MARK D. ZERBE and JAMIE RUDISILL, PETITIONERS V. PENN HARRIS COMPANY, t/d/b/a RADISSON PENN HARRIS HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER, Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 3878 78 CIVIL ACTION - LAW I, W. SCOTT STARUCH, Esquire, attorney for Respondent, Penn Harris Company, t/d/b/a Radisson Penn Harris Hotel and Convention Center, in the above-captioned action, hereby accept service of the Writ of Summons and the Petition for Special Emergency Injunctive Relief on behalf of the Respondent, and certify that I am authorized to do so. Date: By: 0"La-/i Wha L 20 Erford Road &1E44W t/, Lemoyne, PA 17043 AsAec/ :121501 i i C w S? cn c? J C)2, qQc: a_ ¢ ?y . at .'. cn ri wr Vii;, 1 j 7> iZ Z MARK D. ZERBE and JAMIE L. RUDISILL, Plaintiffs V. PENN HARRIS COMPANY, t/d/b/a RADISSON PENN HARRIS HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER, Defendant . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY 99-3878 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 1999, upon consideration of the Petition for Special Emergency Injuctive Relief; Specific Performance filed on behalf of Mark Zerbe and Jamie L. Rudisill, and it being indicated by counsel for the parties in open court that this matter is being resolved amicably, the hearing scheduled for this date is cancelled. By the Court, "Jr., J Wesley O Mark C. Duffie, Esquire C; JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street rj P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 For the Plaintiffs Gerard J. Pisarcik, Esquire LAWS, STARUCH & PISARCIK 20 Erford Road, Suite 305 Lemoyne, PA 17043 For the Defendant C?? 'J 3 99. > '-i c? 1 t