The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About99-07449 2 0 t ti a r ig? i 1 Ii M.-' . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STACY L. HARMON 1223 Scenery Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Plaintiff NO. 7 T`7"{ v MARY HUBER 3 Patricia Drive Enola, PA 17025 Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to Attorney. Date: 11 1 3 /(l Ri and F. Maffet ,'/Jr. Esq. / / ID# 35539 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 233-4160 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT: MARY HUBER YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date :, , I e o. lC? / Proms onotary ? eputy By: ?? u_ - 4 , ,- C. U Gl cJ "' sal M m o J ? N 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STACEY L. HARMON 1223 SCENERY DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Plaintiff v MARY HUBER 3 PATRICIA DRIVE ENOLA, PA 17025 Defendant NO. 99-7449 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO REISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please reissue the Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action, originally filed on December 13, 1999. ^ XA' Date: Ido Richard F..(/Maffett, Esq. #ID #35539 MAFFETT & ASSOCIATES 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-233-4160 Attorneys for Plaintiff Olk c -nm : J r (J o 4 MAFFETT Er ASSOCIATES By: Richard F. Maffett, Jr., Esquire ID #35539 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-233-4160 Attorneys for Plaintiff STACEY L. HARMON, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v MARY HUBER, Defendant NO. 99-7449 CIVIL ACTION - LAW AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Richard F. Maffett, Jr., Esquire, do hereby certify that I served the Writ of Summons in the above-captioned matter upon the Defendant, Mary Huber, by mailing a true and correct copy of the same by first class mail, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on April 3, 2000, addressed to: MARY HUBER 3 Patricia Drive Enola, PA 17025 Said Writ of Summons was received by Mary Huber as evidenced by the Acceptance of Service dated April 16, 2000, attached hereto and signed by Mary Huber. Dated: June 5, 2001 Richard F. Maffe J ., Esq. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 5th day of June, 2001. i0 1 , Notary ELLEN ROS rns ENrnst NOT=reR3 0 C motH masslo MAFFETT Er ASSOCIATES By: Richard F. Maffett, Jr., Esquire #ID #35539 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-233-4100 Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, Mary Huber, Defendant, accept service of the writ of STACEY L. HARMON, Plaintiff V NO. 99-7449 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARY HUBER, Defendant Summons filed in the above-captioned matter. Date L MARY HU 'R Mailing Address 7 v> n ?g r i ?= n _ u ?• 1 . ;tIr C r Defendants Attorneys for Defendant Borough of Northumberland IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-6498 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-7449 CIVIL ? CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-3504 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RESPONSE TO MOT/ON TO CONSOL/DATEAND TRANSFER VENUE Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: C. Roy Weidner, Jr. I.D. No. 19530 301 Market Street P. 0. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 NICHOLAS REVEL, et al., v. MARY HUBER, Plaintiffs Defendant STACEY L. HARMON, V. MARY HUBER, Plaintiff Defendant NICHOLAS REVEL, et al., v. Plaintiffs BARRY LEE MUTSCHLER, et al., AND NOW, this ?* day of May, 2002, comes the Borough of Northumberland, through its undersigned attorneys, and responds to Mary E. Huber's motion to consolidate and transfer venue as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. It is admitted that at least four actions have been commenced in Cumberland County. That any actions have been commenced in Northumberland County is denied in that after a reasonable investigation, Defendant Borough of Northumberland is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averment. 3. Denied. On the contrary, by Order entered March 22, 2002, pursuant to stipulations of the parties in that action presented to the Court by Plaintiffs counsel, it was ordered that said action be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. However, Plaintiff has failed to pay the costs of transfer and the Prothonotary of Cumberland County has not transferred the action pending payment of those costs. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendant Borough of Northumberland stipulates and agrees to the instant motion and respectfully suggests that the three actions which are the subject of this motion be consolidated as well and transferred with the action that is referred to in paragraph 3 of the instant motion with Plaintiff to pay the costs of transfer. WHEREFORE, Defendant Borough of Northumberland concurs with the instant motion. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: G . C. Roy Weidner, Jr' :158787 5774-356 I_I i CERTIFICATE OF SERV/CE il'o 41h AND NOW, this 0 7 day of May, 2002, the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date serve a copy of the foregoing response to motion to consolidate upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Marston, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 Richard E. Freeburn, Esquire Freeburn & Hamilton 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Richard F. Maffett, Jr., Esquire Maffett & Associates 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 John F. Fox, Jr., Esquire 1310 Two Penn Center Plaza 15" & John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19102 :158787 5774-356 Jay W. Stark, Esquire Sr. Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 151h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Robert J. Menapace, Esquire Walsh & Menapace 62 North Front Street P.O. Box 556 Sunbury, PA 17801-2140 Paul W. Grego, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1857 William Penn Way P.O. Box 10248 Lancaster, PA 17605-0248 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: AP'4 ? l5 /? hjelle Hagy e.? _ V r C: ?i:'. O: _'- 'J _. '? C: ? ?- , ? ?' IILI ??:1 '- ? U 1' Stacey L. Harmon, vs Plaintiff Case No. 99-7449 Mary Huber De en ant Statement of intention to Proceed To the Court: Stace L. Harmon intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. J' 4 Print Name Ridmr ° Moffett Jr. Sign Name b9/28/05 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termnation of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that role continues to be applicable. 11 Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of temdnation. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. days of The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed period to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day under subdivision (d)(2). B. Inhere the action has not been terminated An action which has not been teminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. >- ?A Q? O r- lLlf ?L N :?? u LO o U O N f . STACEY L. HARMON, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA VS. NO. 99-7999 MARY HUBER, Defendant ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE SATISFY AND DISCONTINUE TO: CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY Please mark the above captioned matter, Settled, Satisfied and Discontinued with prejudice. DATE Richard F. Maffet , Jr., Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff -0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praccipe To Settle Satisfy and Discontinue by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John F. Fox, Jr., Esquire 1310 Two Penn Center Plaza 151h & John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19102 Richard E. Freeburn, Esquire Freeburn & Hamilton 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 171 10 Robert J. Menapace, Esquire Walsh & Menapace P.O. Box 556 Sunbury, PA 1780-2140 C. Roy Weidner, Jr., Esquire Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Jay W. Stark, Esquire Office of Attorney General Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Manson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 / ?? Dated: A?/,' Richard F. Maffett, Jr., squire 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-233-4160 ?1 J CID - IZ • { i..: L U N U V