The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About99-05801'. ,; .;- ..a -, 1 r? CLAYTON L. HEINEY and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 1999 V. JOHN C. STAHL, III, and CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUDY STAHL, Defendants 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 TARE THIS PAPER TO YOUR 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 OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. COURT ADMINISTRATOR Fourth Floor Cumberland County Court House Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 i NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted guiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA COYA DIRECCION SE ENCQENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SU PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. COURT ADMINISTRATOR Fourth Floor Cumberland County Court House Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 CLAYTON L. HEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, Plaintiffs V. JOHN C. STAHL, III, and JUDY STAHL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. - 1999 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Cleckner and Fearen, and in support of the within complaint, aver as follows: 1. Plaintiff Clayton L. Heiney (hereinafter "Clayton Heiney") is an adult individual who resides at 115 North 27th Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff Cynthia L. Heiney (hereinafter "Cynthia Heiney") is an adult individual who resides at 2627 Logan Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011. 3. Defendants are John C. Stahl, III, (hereinafter "John Stahl") and Judy Stahl, married adult individuals who reside at R.R. 1, Box 1339, Beavertown, Snyder County, Pennsylvania 17813. 4. During the fall of 1997, Defendants placed an advertise- ment in the Patriot News, which is circulated in, among others, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, for the sale of two (2) Weimaraner dogs. 5. In response to the said advertisement, Plaintiff Clayton Heiney contacted Defendants by telephone from his residence in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and spoke to Defendant John Stahl about his interest in purchasing the said dogs. 6. On approximately four (4) subsequent occasions during the fall of 1997, and before December 14, 1997, Plaintiff Clayton Heiney spoke to Defendant John Stahl by telephone from his residence in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, about a possible purchase of the said dogs. 7. During at least (2) of the telephone conversations described in paragraph 6, Defendant John Stahl represented to Plaintiff Clayton Heiney that the dogs were of excellent breeding and in top quality condition, and based upon these representations, Plaintiff decided to travel to Defendant Stahls' property to see the dogs. 8. On or about December 14, 1997, Plaintiffs met with Defendant John Stahl at Defendant Stahls' property in Snyder County, Pennsylvania and purchased from Defendants two (2) Weimaraner dogs, born August 11, 1997, for the aggregate sum of $900. 9. Full payment was tendered by check, and accepted by Defendants on December 14, 1997. 10. At the time Plaintiff Clayton Heiney was negotiating to purchase the dogs, both Plaintiffs noticed that the dogs had watery and reddish eyes, and asked Defendant John Stahl about said condition. - 2 - 11. Defendant John Stahl represented to Plaintiffs that the condition was caused by an allergy from sawdust and/or from a blocked tear duct, was not serious, and that he was treating the dogs with eyedrops. 12. On December 14, 1997, Plaintiff Clayton Heiney gave one of the dogs (Beauty) to Plaintiff Cynthia Heiney. 13. On December 18, 1997, Plaintiff Clayton Heiney took the other dog (Ellie) to Camp Hill Animal Hospital for an examination, at a cost of $26.50. 14. Dr. Trumble, a veterinarian at Camp Hill Animal Hospital, diagnosed Ellie's condition as "bilateral entropion of the lower lids," a congenital eye problem which would require surgical correction. 15. On December 18, 1997, Plaintiff Clayton Heiney advised Defendant John Stahl, by telephone, of the aforesaid diagnosis. 16. On December 19, 1997, Plaintiff Cynthia Heiney took Beauty to Pender Veterinary Clinic for an examination, at a cost of $49.00. 17. Dr. Julia Finlayson, a veterinarian at Pender Veterinary Clinic, diagnosed Beauty's condition as bilateral lower lid entropion and districhiasis bilaterally on both the upper and lower lids, both being congenital conditions requiring corrective surgery. 18. On December 20, 1997, Plaintiff Clayton Heiney advised Defendant John Stahl, by telephone, of the aforesaid diagnosis relating to Beauty. - 3 - 19. On January 2, 1998, Ellie was further diagnosed with districhiac lashes/cilia bilaterally within the upper and lower lid margins at a cost of $26.50. 20. Because the aforesaid conditions are hereditary, the veterinarians recommended that both Beauty and Ellie be spayed. 21. On January 16, 1998, Eric Smith, a veterinarian, confirmed the aforesaid diagnosis of entropion and districhiasis of both eyes (congenital conditions), at a cost of $70.00 for Beauty and $6.00 for Ellie, and recommended corrective surgery. 22. On February 12, 1998, Dr. Smith operated on both dogs, at a cost of $923.00 for Beauty, and $933.10 for Ellie. 23. On or about April 24, 1998, Beauty was spayed, at a cost of $105.00. 24. On or about March 11, 1998, Ellie was spayed, at a cost of $105.00. 25. In September of 1998, Ellie was diagnosed with cancer, and died of cancer on November 27, 1998. 26. On or about March 25, 1999, Beauty underwent further surgery by Eric Smith for correction of the reoccurrence of the aforesaid congenital eye conditions, at a cost of $485.10. 27. At no time prior to the purchase did Defendants provide to Plaintiffs any written documents whatsoever relating to the dogs. - 4 - COUNT I FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION 28. Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated hereby refer- ence. 29. The representations made by Defendant John Stahl, and described in paragraphs 7 and 11 hereof, were false, and Defendant John Stahl knew or should have known that the representations were false. 30. Plaintiffs would not have gone to Defendants' property in Snyder County to look at the dogs if Plaintiffs had been told or had known that the dogs were being treated by a veterinarian for any significant medical condition. 31. The breeding and condition of the dogs, and the condition of the dogs' eyes were material to Plaintiff Clayton Heiney, and he would not have purchased the dogs had he been told of their actual breeding and condition, and the actual condition of their eyes. 32. Plaintiff Clayton Heiney justifiably relied upon the misrepresentations made by Defendant John Stahl. 33. The services performed on the dogs were necessary for correction of the aforesaid conditions, and the cost thereof was reasonable and customary. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,729.20, together with interest and costs. - 5 - COUNT II UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW, SECTION 201-9.3 34. Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated hereby refer- ence. 35. Defendants are a "seller," as that term is defined in 73 P.S. 201-9.3(i). 36. Defendants' conduct as aforesaid violated Section 201-9.3 of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 37. Plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies of Section 201- 9.3, and to recover from Defendants the full amount of the purchase price for the dogs, together with treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs of suit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,700.00, attorney's fees and costs. COUNT III UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 38. Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein by reference. 39. Defendants' conduct as aforesaid was unlawful and in violation of Section 201-3 of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 40. Plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies set forth in Section 201-9.2 of said Law. - 6 - WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demand judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $8,187.60, (treble damages), attorneys' fees and costs. Respectfully submitted, CLECKNER AND FEAREN By J&W, ) Dennis J. Shatto, Esquire Attorney ID #25675 111 Locust Street P. 0. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 (717) 238-1731 - 7 - VERIFICATION I hereby verify and state that to the extent of the foregoing AMENDED COMPLAINT contains facts supplied by me, they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; however, to the extent that the foregoing document and/or its language is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CLAY N IN Y DATED:_ / z - 8 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, DENNIS J. SHATTO, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) indicated below, by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, this Arr day of -ULI?, 1999. Thomas C. Clark, Esquire 431 East Main Street P. 0. Box 57 Middleburg, PA 17842 CLECKNER AND FEAREN By Dennis J. Shatto, Esquire PA Attorney ID #25675 1 R 111 Locust Street P. 0. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 (717) 238-1731 - 9 - F:= C17 , CSI. ''_t u I L' CLAYTON L. HEINEY and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. qq t 801 - 1999 V. JOHN C. STAHL, III, and CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUDY STAHL, Defendants 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 TARE THIS PAPER TO YOUR 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 OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. COURT ADMINISTRATOR Fourth Floor Cumberland County Court House Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 N TICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted guiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IN'MEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUPICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SU PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. COURT ADMINISTRATOR Fourth Floor Cumberland County Court House Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)240-6200 CLAYTON L. HEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, Plaintiffs V. JOHN C. STAHL, III, and JUDY STAHL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CU14BERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 9 9 S56i - 1999 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Cleckner and Fearen, and in support of the within complaint, aver as follows: 1. Plaintiff Clayton L. Heiney (hereinafter "Clayton Heiney") is an adult individual who resides at 115 North 27th Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff Cynthia L. Heiney (hereinafter "Cynthia Heiney") is an adult individual who resides at 2627 Logan Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011. 3. Defendants are John C. Stahl, III, (hereinafter "John Stahl") and Judy Stahl, married adult individuals who reside at R.R. 1, Box 1339, Beavertown, Pennsylvania 17813. 4. On or about December 14, 1997, Plaintiff Clayton Heiney purchased from Defendants two Weimaraner dogs, born August 11, 1997, for the aggregate sum of $900. 5. Full payment was tendered by check, and accepted by Defendants on December 14, 1997. 6. At the time Plaintiff Clayton Heiney was negotiating to purchase the dogs, both Plaintiffs noticed that the dogs had watery and reddish eyes, and asked Defendant John Stahl about said condition. 7. Defendant John Stahl represented to Plaintiffs that the condition was caused by an allergy from sawdust and/or from a blocked tear duct, was not serious, and that he was treating the dogs with eyedrops. 8. On December 14, 1997, Plaintiff Clayton Heiney gave one of the dogs (Beauty) to Plaintiff Cynthia Heiney. 9. On December 18, 1997, Plaintiff Clayton Heiney took the other dog (Ellie) to Camp Hill Animal Hospital for an examination, at a cost of $26.50. 10. Dr. Trumble, a veterinarian at Camp Hill Animal Hospital, diagnosed Ellie's condition as "bilateral entropion of the lower lids," a congenital eye problem which would require surgical correction. 11. On December 18, 1997, Plaintiff Clayton Heiney advised Defendant John Stahl, by telephone, of the aforesaid diagnosis. 12. On December 19, 1997, Plaintiff Cynthia Heiney took Beauty to Pender Veterinary Clinic for an examination, at a cost of $49.00. 13. Dr. Julia Finlayson, a veterinarian at Pender Veterinary Clinic, diagnosed Beauty's condition as bilateral lower lid entropion and districhiasis bilaterally on both the upper and lower lids, both being congenital conditions requiring corrective surgery. - 2 - 14. On December 20, 1997, Plaintiff Clayton Heiney advised Defendant John Stahl, by telephone, of the aforesaid diagnosis relating to Beauty. 15. On January 2, 1998, Ellie was further diagnosed with districhiac lashes/cilia bilaterally within the upper and lower lid margins at a cost of $26.50. 16. Because the aforesaid conditions are hereditary, the veterinarians recommended that both Beauty and Ellie be spayed. 17. On January 16, 1998, Eric Smith, a veterinarian, confirmed the aforesaid diagnosis of entropion and districhiasis of both eyes (congenital conditions), at a cost of $70.00 for Beauty and $6.00 for Ellie, and recommended corrective surgery. 18. On February 12, 1998, Dr. Smith operated on both dogs, at a cost of $923.00 for Beauty, and $933.10 for Ellie. 19. On or about April 24, 1998, Beauty was spayed, at a cost of $105.00. 20. On or about March 11, 1998, Ellie was spayed, at a cost of $105.00. 21. In September of 1998, Ellie was diagnosed with cancer, and died of cancer on November 27, 1998. 22. On or about March 25, 1999, Beauty underwent further surgery by Eric Smith for correction of the reoccurrence of the aforesaid congenital eye conditions, at a cost of $485.10. 23. At no time prior to the purchase did Defendants provide to Plaintiffs any written documents whatsoever relating to the dogs. - 3 - COUNT I FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION 24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 are incorporated hereby refer- ence. 25. The representations made by Defendant John Stahl were false, and Defendant John Stahl knew or should have known that the representations were false. 26. The condition of the dogs, eyes was material to Plaintiff Clayton Heiney, and he would not have purchased the dogs had he been told of their actual condition. 27. Plaintiff Clayton Heiney justifiably relied upon the misrepresentations made by Defendant John Stahl. 28. The services performed on the dogs were necessary for correction of the aforesaid conditions, and the cost thereof was reasonable and customary. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,729.20, together with interest and costs. COUNT II UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW, SECTION 201-9.3 29. Paragraphs i through 28 are incorporated hereby refer- ence. 30. Defendants are a "seller," as that term is defined in 73 P.S. 201-9.3(i). - 4 - 31. Defendants' conduct as aforesaid violated Section 201-9.3 of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 32. Plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies of Section 201- 9.3, and to recover from Defendants the full amount of the purchase price for the dogs, together with treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs of suit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,700.00, attorney's fees and costs. COUNT I I I UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 are incorporated herein by reference. 34. Defendants' conduct as aforesaid was unlawful and in violation of Section 201-3 of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 35. Plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies set forth in Section 201-9.2 of said Law. - 5 - WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demand judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $8,187.60, (treble damages), attorneys, fees and costs. Respectfully submitted, CLECKNER AND FEAREN By Dennis J. Shatto, Esquire Attorney 1D #25675 111 Locust Street P. 0. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 (717) 238-1731 - 6 - VERIFICATION I hereby verify and state that to the extent the foregoing COMPLAINT contains facts supplied by me, they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; however, to the extent that the foregoing document and/or its language is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CLAXTON L.-HEINEY 7 . j - _. / CYNTHIA L. HEINEY DATED; ""?' v Q ti f '. V W LL O N ItiJ lyl ?W V; .??LL O\ J V 1 - CLAYTON L. HEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, Plaintiff Vs. JOHN C. STAHL, III and JUDY STAHL, Defendants TO: CLAYTON L. HEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY c/o Dennis J. Shatto, Esq. Cleckner and Fearen P.O. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 w w w w w w w w w IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99 - 5801 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Defendants' Preliminary Objections within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. THOMAS C. CLARK, P.C. BY TH MAS C. CLARK Attorney for Defendants 431 East Main Street P.O. Box 57 Middleburg, PA 17842 (570) 837-0091 Atty. Id. # 07661 i,w wrma or , rrwuaor.u coeron..wn an uo run Hour ro ro. o •cwaauno, r, no.a.oaes +narxoxuero?uvowi ru nreior.ura I CLAYTON L. HEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, Plaintiff vs. JOHN C. STAHL, III and JUDY STAHL, Defendants * IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS * CUMBERLAND COUNTY, * PENNSYLVANIA * * NO. 99 - 5801 * * CIVIL ACTION - LAW * * JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendants, John C. Stahl, III and Judy Stahl, by their undersigned counsel, preliminarily object to Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(1) as follows: Preliminary Objection Raising Question of Improper Venue The Defendants in the above captioned case are adult individuals who reside in Snyder County, Pennsylvania and at all times relevant to Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action resided in Snyder County. 2. This civil action has been brought in the County of Cumberland on an alleged cause of action which arose in Snyder County. 3. The Complaint fails to allege that the cause of action arose in Snyder County; the claim is based on Plaintiffs' purchase of dogs and alleged representations at the residence of Defendants at R.R.#l, Box 1339, Beavertown, Adams Township, Snyder County, Pennsylvania. 4. The Defendants have no residence or place of business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. Defendants were served with a copy of the Complaint in Snyder County. 6. No transaction or occurrence between Defendants and Plaintiffs took place in Cumberland County out of which the alleged cause of action arose. 7. Defendants intend to defend this action by reason that Defendants made no i fraudulent misrepresentations and did not violate any other law. t WHEREFORE, Defendants request that judgment be entered in favor of the Defendants i and against the Plaintiffs because the venue is improper or in the alternative, Defendants pray that this action be transferred to Snyder County. THOMAS C. CLARK. P.C. BY://N? Attorney for Defendant 431 East Main Street P.O. Box 57 Middleburg, PA 17842 (570) 837-0091 Atty. Id. # 07661 3 VERIFICATION We verify that the statements made in the foregoing Preliminary Objections are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. ` 1 C Lf HN C. STAHL, III 1C GL JUtg STAIYL WD:'S?STAHLJ.Ad SIK CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 15th day of October, 1999, I, Thomas C. Clark, Attorney for Defendants, do hereby certify that I served the foregoing Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Complaint by depositing same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Dennis J. Shatto, Esq. CLECKNER AND FEAREN P.O. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 171109-118 7 THOMAS C. CLARK ttomey for Defendants 431 East Main Street P.O. Box 57 Middleburg, PA 17842 (570) 837-0091 Atty. Id. # 07661 WWSSTAHLJ..dm S1K cr u, d o c1? w.. ri 3 C? ; U °- b C ~ 1L C.1 ON Ql ` f V Q W 4 z 0 o ° v ¢ > mw a OUQ ?z a zo z o > -;? C4 C, <F oza Uzi z V . L)U Q ? c Q ? 4 ? ? W 4 F=? O Z oz z c n U U z M. yo F ra ? i O:D O 7_ ? 0 m 0 O 0 [.l z d ° m m Yew °• ?° °? n nm a<,,,, , M- wJ°UU 2 N ?Llalmn Nm ° ° V p?DUCwn 3 N ZN U) D J Q w w a N 1.4 Wdap ° w xQ f? F SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 1999-05801 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HEINEY CLAYTON L ET AL VS. STAHL JOHN C III ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: STAHL JOHN C III but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of SNYDER County, Pennsylvania. to serve the within COMPLAINT On October 5th, 1999 this office was in receipt of the attached return from SNYDER County, Pennsylvania. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 8.00 Dep. Snyder Co 27.00 $=-UQ Sworn and subscribed to before me this Ji,r day of acQ,-' 19 2 A. D. ?Q --Pro ono ary-{ 7 SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 1999-05801 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HEINEY CLAYTON L ET AL VS. STAHL JOHN C III ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: STAHL JUDY but was unable to locate Her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of SNYDER County, Pennsylvania. to serve the within NOTICE AND COMPLAINT On October 5th, 1999 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from SNYDER County, Pennsylvania. Sheriff's Costs: So a w s: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 8.00 l? o s 10/05V1 Sworn and subscribed to before me this dIA-4-- day of C_cli?l 1991 A. D. _ A . ""??????''4??t qqqq S nGROC?aLT SAYED DISC 4 99-5801 MISC. DKT, BK. # 19 PAGE # Ww78 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CLAYTON L. 1IEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY VS JOHN C. STAHL, III and JUDY STAHL NO: 99-5801-1999 NOTICE and COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 1 Joseph Reigle, Jr., Deputy Sheriff for Patrick I. Mitchell, Sheriff of Snyder County, Pennsylvania, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that I did on the 29th day of September, 1999 at 6:45 P.M., serve the above described Notice and Complaint upon the above named defendant, John C. Stahl, IN, by handing to John C. Stahl, 111, himself, personally at the Snyder County Sheriffs Office, 12 South Main Street, Middleburg, Snyder County, Pennsylvania, a true and correct copy of the above described Notice and Complaint, and made known to John C. Stahl, 111, himself the contents thereof. 1 Joseph Reigle, Jr., Deputy Sheriff for Patrick 1. Mitchell, Sheriff of Snyder County, Pennsylvania, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that I did on the 29th day of September, 1999 at 6:45 P.M., serve the above described Notice and Complaint upon the above named defendant, Judy Stahl by handing to Judy Stahl, herself, personally at the Snyder County Sheriffs Office, 12 South Main Street, Middleburg, Snyder County, Pennsylvania a true and correct copy of the above described Notice and Complaint and made known to Judy Stahl the contents thereof. SO ANS W ERS PATRICK I. MITCHELL, SHERIFF SNYDER COUNTY, PA. BY:A ?2HIEF DEPUTY JOSEPH EI LE, JR. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF SNYDER SS: SWORN T AND SUBS 1 EFORE ME THIS DAY OF JZ 1999 OcrU IA I ION BY: SHERIFF OF CUMBERLA SNYDER COUNTY SHERIFF'S COSTS: Docketing, Service, eel $ 2100 Mileage -0. Notary 7.00 Deposit: S 75.00 Receipt #6149 IT-V-4 x / oo c« TOTAL:$ 27.00 In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Clayton L. Heiney, et. al. vs. John C. Stahl, III, et. al. Serve: John C. Stahl, III No. 99-5801 Ci Now, 9/21/99 , 19_,1, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Snyder County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, within upon at by handing to a and made known to copy of the original the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this _ day of , 19 19_, at o'clock M. served the COSTS SERVICE _ MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT County, PA In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Clayton L. Hein%* et. al. John C. Stahl, NISI, et. al. Serve: Judy Stahl No, 99-5801 Civil Now, 9/21 /99 , 19_, I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Snyder County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, 19_, at o'clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a and made known to copy of the original So answers, the contents thereof. Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this _ day of , 19 COSTS SERVICE _ MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT County, PA CLAYTON L. HEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, Plaintiff VS. JOHN C. STAHL, III and JUDY STAHL, Defendants TO: CLAYTON L. HEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY c/o Dennis J. Shatto, Esq. Cleckner and Fearen P.O. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 * IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS * CUMBERLAND COUNTY, * PENNSYLVANIA * NO. 99 - 5801 * I * CIVIL ACTION - LAW * * JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Defendants' Preliminary Objections within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. THOMAS C. CLARK, P.C. BY: T O AS C. CLARK Attorney for Defendants 431 East Main Street P.O. Box 57 Middleburg, PA 17842 (570) 837-0091 Atty. Id. # 07661 CLAYTON L. HEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, Plaintiff vs. JOHN C. STAHL, III and JUDY STAHL, Defendants * IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS * CUMBERLAND COUNTY, * PENNSYLVANIA * * NO. 99 - 5801 * * CIVIL ACTION - LAW * * JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants, John C. Stahl, III and Judy Stahl, by their undersigned counsel, preliminarily object to Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(1) as follows: Preliminary Objection Raising Question of Improper Venue The Defendants in the above captioned case are adult individuals who reside in Snyder County, Pennsylvania and at all times relevant to Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action resided in Snyder County. 2. This civil action has been brought in the County of Cumberland on an alleged cause of action which arose in Snyder County. 3. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint alleges that Defendants placed an advertisement for the sale of dogs in the Patriot News which newspaper is circulated in Cumberland County. 4. Paragraphs 5, G and 7 of the Complaint allege that Plaintiff Clayton Heiney contacted Defendants by telephone from his residence in Cumberland County and spoke to Defendant John Stahl on several occasions about the dogs offered for sale and on the basis of representations made by Defendant John Stahl, Plaintiffs decided to travel to Defendants' residence in Snyder County. 5. Thereafter, on December 14, 1997, Plaintiffs went to Defendants' residence in Snyder County to see the dogs; Plaintiffs purchased the dogs in Snyder County on December 14, 1997. 6. Thereafter, Plaintiffs allege the dogs were diagnosed with health problems and Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result thereof. Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation; Counts II and III allege violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Defendants have no residence or place of business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 9. Defendants were served with a copy of the Complaint in Snyder County. 10. No transaction or occurrence between Defendants and Plaintiffs took place in Cumberland County out of which the alleged cause of action arose; Defendants' alleged advertisement in a newspaper with circulation in Cumberland County and Plaintiff Clayton Heiney's telephone conversation with Defendant John Stahl during which Plaintiff was in Cumberland County and Defendant was in Snyder County are not "transactions or occurrences" within the meaning of Pa.R.C.P. 1006(a) which would confer venue in Cumberland County; venue is properly in Snyder County. 11. Defendants intend to defend this action by reason that Defendants made no fraudulent misrepresentations and did not violate any other law. WHEREFORE, Defendants request that judgment be entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs because the venue is improper or in the alternative, Defendants pray that this action be transferred to Snyder County. THOMAS C. CLARK, P.C. BY, I? ? OMASC.CLARK Attorney for Defendant 431 East Main Street P.O. Box 57 Middleburg, PA 17842 (570) 837-0091 Atty. Id. # 07661 VERIFICATION We verify that the statements made in the foregoing Preliminary Objections are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. JOHN C. N C. S J ? TAH//L, III U. W, Y S L CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE yh On the day of November, 1999, I, Thomas C. Clark, Attorney for Defendants, do hereby certify that I served the foregoing Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by depositing same in the U.S. Mai), postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Dennis J. Shatto, Esq. CLECKNER AND FEAREN P.O. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-184 THOMAS C. CLARK Attorney for Defendants 431 East Main Street P.O. Box 57 Middleburg, PA 17842 (570) 837-0091 Atty. Id. # 07661 WWSSTAIIL-POI A" S1K 6 I. W a z Q? o ZE U 00 3 w? oWea O ? ? z F y w y a 4 O? F" ? z? ??? Z?,D aFFO UZ Z UU U z d° m a m Y0 40 O 4 Q d V N N M n W J Ou z m m m "m 4?¢Ima Nm 3Li°-mj Z0 a En ma am u Jaww m =a ?a° o m4 F CLAYTON L. HEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, Plaintiffs V. JOHN C. STAHL, III, and JUDY STAHL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99 - 5801 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, and answer the Preliminary Objection as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that this action has been brought into the county of Cumberland. It is denied that the cause of action arose in Snyder county on the basis that such averment is a conclusion of law. Even if it is determined that the cause of action arose in Snyder County, a transaction or occurrence out of which the cause of action arose took place in Cumberland County, as alleged in the Amended Complaint. 3. It is denied that paragraph 4 of the Complaint alleges an advertisement for sale in the Patriot News. Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint contains language substantially similar to the averment in paragraph 3 of the Preliminary Objection, and speaks for itself. 4. It is denied that paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Complaint contain the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of the Preliminary Objection. Similar allegations appear in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Amended Complaint, but said paragraphs speak for themselves. 5. Admitted, with the reservation that the allegations of the Amended Complaint speak for themselves. 6. Admitted, with the reservation that the allegations of the Amended Complaint speak for themselves. 7. Admitted, with the reservation that the allegations of the Amended Complaint speak for themselves. 8. Denied, on the basis that Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment, and proof is demanded. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. The statements in paragraph 10 of the Preliminary Objection appear to be in the nature of conclusions of law. In the event an answer is required, however, the allegations set forth in paragraphs 4 through 7 and 30 of the Amended Complaint are transactions or occurrences out of which the cause of action arose, and properly confer venue in Cumberland County. 11. Denied. Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment, and proof is demanded. - 2 - WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, CLECKNER FEAREN By Za_!, / ?V Dennis J. Shatto, Esquire Attorney ID No. 25675 111 Locust Street P. 0. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 (717) 238-1731 Attorney for Plaintiffs - 3 - VERIFICATION I hereby verify and state that to the extent of the foregoing ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS, PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS contains facts supplied by me, they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; however, to the extent that the foregoing document and/or its language is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED.,1!/G / / '?'99 CLA ON L. HEINEY 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, DENNIS J. SHATTO, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) indicated below, by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, this A1" day of UGC !° ?Li 1999. Thomas C. Clark, Esquire 431 East Main Street P. 0. Box 57 Middleburg, PA 17842 CLECKNER AND FEAREN By Dennis J. Shatto, Esquire PA Attorney ID #25675 111 Locust Street P. 0. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 (717) 238-1731 5 try ?r I1 ', i 1 f ? 1L PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption not be stated in full) CLAYTON L. HEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, VS. JOHN C. STAHL, III, and JUDY STAHL (Plaintiff) (Defendant) No. 5801 Civil 19 99 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Preliminary objection 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Dennis J. Shatto Address: CLECKNER AND FEAREN P. 0. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 (b) for defendant: Thomas C. Clark, Address: P 0. Box 57 Middleburg, PA 17842-0057 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: March 1, 2000 Dated: &/ /jZ/?/ Attorney for Plaintiff r G " f1. raj I•_ p PRAEC-PE FOR -:ST:NG CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please !;ct t-?le lyt? matte- for the next A.-au7?.nt C,).,- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in ull) TO:: and (Plaint'°°) Vs. J V CI (. ., 7 1 7, and JUDY=....., (Cefe cant) ?c. t c _ C_•,-• o • State Tdtt°_ to be qazrgued t, etc(. =.e„ ply t_f's Tct -c to c?1a n _cr new t=4a1, ce_=nc_n-''s i..nt et Defendants' Preiiminar_ Cc___tzcn '_. Ident `y counsel who wi-1 ar:.ve case: (a) for plainti°f: Dennis j. -zhat:c Address: CLECKNE3 ANN ---AREN P. C. ScX 11_4% .._rlsbur: P'. 17108-:; 7 _M (b) for defe-ndant: - y Thomas= Address: _ v - h!iddlebcr _.. i73-2-;,;;c7 3 been, i notify a1p'= es in w t ne him t•.o days t.'?at t-'us cue has _.sted for ar_Lrnent• 4. Argunl-"t Cour Date: May 31, 2000 Dated: I?IA l ?.J i(1 CLAYTON L. HEINEY and CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, Plaintiffs vs. JOHN C. STAHL, III and JUDY STAHL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 99-5801 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE HOFFER, P J. AND HESS J. ORDER AND NOW, this / ?" day of July, 2000, it appearing that the transaction or occurrences pled by the plaintiffs involve, inter alia, fraudulent representations made to the plaintiffs in Cumberland County, the preliminary objections of the defendants to venue are DENIED. BY THE COURT, Dennis J. Shatto, Esquire For the Plaintiffs \ Thomas C. Clark, Esquire C For the Defendants y :rlm 4 Kevin .Hess, J. . ?? i, ?:.,? , ,., CLAYTON L. HEINEY and * IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CYNTHIA L. HEINEY, * CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff * PENNSYLVANIA vs. * NO. 99 - 5801 + JOHN C. STAHL, III and * CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUDY STAHL, + Defendants * JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' ANSWERS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT I. The averments of numbered paragraph 1 are admitted. 2. The averments of numbered paragraph 2 are admitted. 3. The averments of numbered paragraph 3 are admitted. 4. The averments of numbered paragraph 4 are admitted. 5. The averments of numbered paragraph 5 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments relating to Plaintiff Clayton Heiney's location at the time of the call or that such call was in response to the advertisement but the remaining averments are admitted. 6. The averments of numbered paragraph 6 are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff Clayton Heiney spoke to Defendant John Stahl by telephone. However, it is denied that Plaintiff Clayton Heiney telephoned from his residence in Cumberland County since Defendant John Stahl does not know where Plaintiff Clayton Heiney was calling from. TtlOYYRC1Aq{,P6 •.11OI•••gM•L [M.W,iON • ....N„N..•... 7. It is admitted that Defendant John Stahl represented to Plaintiff Clayton Heiney .o.so• n Nioouw•a. r• mu.oo•, „,„• „;•,,,,,,,, that the dogs were of excellent breeding. It is denied that Defendant John Stahl represented that the dogs were in top quality condition since he informed Plaintiff Clayton Heiney that one of the dogs had had a hernia operation and would most likely need a tear duct operation before Plaintiffs traveled to Defendants' residence to see the dogs. 8. The averments of numbered paragraph 8 are admitted. 9. The averments of numbered paragraph 9 are admitted. 10. It is admitted that both dogs had watery eyes. However, it is denied that the dogs j had reddish eyes. In further response, Defendant John Stahl informed Plaintiffs that one of the dogs would probably need a tear duct operation; furthermore, Defendant John Stahl gave eye drops from his veterinarian to Plaintiffs with instructions. 11. The averments of numbered paragraph I 1 are admitted. 12. The averments of numbered paragraph 12 are admitted. 13. The averments of numbered paragraph 13 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 14. The averments of numbered paragraph 14 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 15. The averments of numbered paragraph 15 are admitted. In further response, Defendant John Stahl advised Plaintiff Clayton Heiney to bring the dogs back and he would return Plaintiffs' money. 16. The averments of numbered paragraph 16 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 2 17. The averments of numbered paragraph 17 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 18. The averments of numbered paragraph 18 are admitted. In further answer, Defendant John Stahl again asked Plaintiff Clayton Heiney to return the dogs for a refund and he refused. 19. The averments of numbered paragraph 19 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 20. The averments of numbered paragraph 20 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are :without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 21. The averments of numbered paragraph 21 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to forth a belief as to the truth of the averments. 22. The averments of numbered paragraph 22 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 23. The averments of numbered paragraph 23 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 24. The averments of numbered paragraph 23 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 25. The averments of numbered paragraph 23 are denied since after reasonable i i investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 26. The averments of numbered paragraph 23 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 27. The averments of numbered paragraph 27 are admitted. In further response, Defendant John Stahl did not know Plaintiffs were going to buy the dogs when Plaintiffs came to see them. COUNTI FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION 28. No answer required. 29. The averments of numbered paragraph 29 are denied since Defendant John Stahl never made any false representations. 30. The averments of numbered paragraph 30 are denied since Plaintiffs went to Defendants' residence in Snyder County to see the dogs despite Defendant John Stahl's representation that one dog had eye problems in the nature of possible blocked tear duct. 4 31. The averments of numbered paragraph 31 are denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 32. The averments of numbered paragraph 32 are denied since Defendant John Stahl never made any misrepresentations to Plaintiffs. 33. The averments of numbered paragraph 33 are denied since Defendant John Stahl went to a local veterinarian, got a quote and offered to take the dogs to his veterinarian and have the corrective surgery performed by his veterinarian. WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed and judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs. COUNT 11 UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW, SECTION 201-9.3 34. No answer required. 35. The averments of numbered paragraph 35 are denied; Defendants are not "a kennel, pet shop owner or other individual who sells dogs to the public and who owns or operates a kennel or pet shop licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture or the United States Department of Agriculture." 36. The averments of numbered paragraph 36 are denied because Defendants in no way violated any provision of 73 P.S. § 201-9.3. 37. The averments of numbered paragraph 37 are denied since Defendants in no way violated any provision of 73 P.S. § 201-9.3. 5 WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed and judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs. COUNT III UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 38. No answer required. 39. The averments of numbered paragraph 39 are denied since Defendants conduct was not unlawful and was not in violation of 73 P.S. § 201-3. 40. The averments of numbered paragraph 40 are denied since Defendants in no way violated any provision of 73 P.S. § 201-9.2 WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed and judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs. CLARK, P.C. (_ 70MAS C. CLARK Attorney for Defendants 431 East Main Street P.O. Box 57 Middleburg, PA 17842 (570) 837-0091 Any. Id. # 07661 6 VERIFICATION We verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answers are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 7 OHN C. STAHL, III i JUDY STAHE 7 ii CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the day of August, 2000, I, Thomas C. Clark, Attorney for Defendants, do hereby certify that I served the foregoing Defendants' Answer by depositing same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Dennis J. Shatto, Esq. CLECKNER AND FEAREN P.O. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 L THOMAS C. CLARK Attorney for Defendants 431 East Main Street P.O. Box 57 Middleburg, PA 17842 (570) 837-0091 Atty. Id. # 07661 WDASISTAHL-A..doc SIK 8 L'y G: ?• QN W a a z O OOU ?a IW w w ?.. l oQ a w ? ? o uw ¢ > w 4 w zU UU U ..1 d -? F U v? oa O F Gz V aF R °- nn a? ° m ° G ' Y ?WW N f`?°U ?a 0 m m m" w a w J m z C C p m m J V O 'U F ° z U ° ° z La ; m QU7Nwam i? p C w C zq ° 0m" x w4 wz o °a W w? =a E $Z