Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-3155THE LAW FIRM OF MAY & MAY, P. C. 4330 Carlisle Pike Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-612-0102 Fax: 717-612-0103 ROBERT C. MAY, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff, ID# 65602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW AND EQUITY James A. Blessing dba Blessing Quality Painting 210 Regal View Carlisle, PA 17013 PLAINTIFF v. Paul E. Shoap 71 Broad Street Newville, PA 17241 and Donald Hickok 210 Reynolds Avenue Mont Alto, PA 17237 DEFENDANTS No. p `7 - 3 I SS ~ b~j I -~ crr• JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 an 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 for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO 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 HELP. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 THE LAW FIRM OF MAY& MAY, P. C. 4330 Carlisle Pike Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-612-0102 Fax: 717-612-0103 ROBERT C. MAY, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff, ID# 65602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW AND EQUITY James A. Blessing dba Blessing Quality Painting 210 Regal View Carlisle, PA 17013 . PLAINTIFF v. NO. ~~., ?,,ASS ~ t v r ~ 'f't~rw Paul E. Shoap 71 Broad Street Newville, PA 17241 and Donald Hickok 210 Reynolds Avenue Mont Alto, PA 17237 DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, James A. Blessing dba Blessing Quality Painting ("Blessing"), by and through his counsel, attorney Robert C. May, Esquire of The Law Firm of May & May, P.C., respectfully files this complaint against Paul E. Shoap and Donald Hickok, and in support thereof alleges the following: 1. Plaintiff Blessing is a resident of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, with an address of 210 Regal View, Carlisle, PA 17013. 2. Plaintiff Blessing operates a sole proprietorship called "Blessing Quality Painting" for the purpose of providing painting services. 3. Defendant Shoap is a resident of Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, with an address of 71 Broad Street, Newville, PA 17241 ("Shoap"). 1 4. Defendant Hickok is a resident of Mont Alto, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, with an address of 210 Reynolds Avenue, Mont Alto, PA 17237 ("Hickok"). In 2003 Plaintiff Blessing began providing painting services to Hoffman's Custom Contracting, Inc., having an address of 35 Chelsea Lane, Carlisle, PA 17013 ("Hoffman"). 6. From 2003 through Apri12007, Plaintiff Blessing's painting services to Hoffman constituted a substantial portion of Plaintiff Blessing's painting services revenue. 7. All of Plaintiff Blessing's painting services to Hoffman have occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Blessing, as part of his business, subcontracted with Defendants Shoap and Hickok to provide services to Plaintiff Blessing's client, Hoffman. 9. No written contract was entered into by Plaintiff Blessing, on the one hand, and Defendants Shoap or Hickok, on the other hand, nor were there any specific terms as to when payment would be made by Plaintiff Blessing for services provided by Defendants Shoap and Hickok. 10. In Apri12007, Plaintiff Blessing was informed by Timothy Hoffman, President and CEO of Hoffman ("Tim Hoffman"), as well as Hoffman's foreman, Mike, that Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok were each claiming to have worked a significantly higher number of hours on Hoffman's painting services than Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok were actually working. 11. Such inflated hours by Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok was costly to Plaintiff Blessing, who received a fixed amount per Hoffman job. 2 12. Plaintiff Blessing confronted Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok about the overbilling allegations. 13. Plaintiff Blessing demanded an accounting from Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok for the amount of hours overbilled and also, the amount of hours for which Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok had not yet been paid since the last time either had been paid. 14. Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok refused to submit either an accounting of the amounts overbilled or an accounting of hours actually worked for which Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok had not yet been paid. 15. Plaintiff Blessing believes and therefore avers that the amount by which he has been overbilled by Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok exceeds the amount of actual hours for which Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok have not been paid, and therefore, Plaintiff Blessing owes Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok nothing. 16. In Apri12007, Plaintiff Blessing was notified by Tim Hoffman that Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok performed a painting job for a Hoffman house which was of poor quality. 17. Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok had not performed painting services of such poor quality prior to this instance. 18. Plaintiff Blessing demanded that Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok remedy and "repaint" or otherwise "repair" the inferior work on the particular Hoffman house. 19. Plaintiff Blessing believes and therefore avers that Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok took two and one half weeks to "repaint" and "repair" said inferior work on the particular house. 3 20. Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok demanded to be paid from Plaintiff Blessing for the additional two and one half weeks of work. 21. Plaintiff Blessing maintained and continues to maintain that the Defendants are owed nothing for the "repaint" and "repair" work, and that Plaintiff Blessing owes Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok nothing. 22. On April 26, 2007 and Apri127, 2007, Plaintiff Blessing received two voice mails from Tim Hoffman, that Defendants Shoap and Hickok were causing "commotion" at a Hoffman job site and claiming that Plaintiff Blessing had not paid Defendants Shoap or Hickok for their painting services. 23. On Apri130, 2007, Defendants Hickok and Shoap ceased working as a subcontractor for Plaintiff Blessing. 24. From May 1, 2007, through May 5, 2007, Defendants Hickok and Shoap called Plaintiff Blessing demanding payment. 25. On May 6, 2007, Plaintiff Blessing called Defendants Hickok and Shoap and indicated that payment would be made if and when each of them documented the hours for which they worked and for which they had not been paid, subject to deduction for the "repaint" and "repair" on the Hoffman house which took Defendant Hickok and Defendant Shoap two and one half additional weeks, and subject to deduction for the overbilling reported to Plaintiff Blessing by Tim Hoffman and Hoffman's foreman, Mike. 26. On May 7, 2007, Tim Hoffman called Plaintiff Blessing to inform him that Defendants Hickok and Shoap were calling Tim Hoffman on a "constant" basis demanding payment. 4 27. On May 7, 2007, Plaintiff Blessing told Tim Hoffinan that any amounts due to Defendants Hickok and Shoap would be paid by Plaintiff Blessing upon their documenting the hours for which they had not been paid and for which they were actually owed. 28. On May 10, 2007, Tim Hoffman called Plaintiff Blessing to inform him that Defendants Hickok and Shoap "were all over me," but upon reexplanation of the situation by Plaintiff Blessing, Tim Hoffman agreed with Plaintiff Blessing's analysis of the payment situation and requested Plaintiff Blessing to begin painting a new house. 29. On May 14, 2007, Tim Hoffman called Plaintiff Blessing to inform him that Defendants Hickok and Shoap "were still all over me," but upon reexplanation by Plaintiff Blessing that Defendants Hickok and Shoap had still not submitted any documentation as to amounts owed, Tim Hoffman asked Plaintiff Blessing to begin working on the new home. 30. On May 15, 2007, Plaintiff Blessing entered onto a job site of Plaintiff Blessing for S & A Homes, Inc., in Carlisle Borough, and noticed the following equipment owned by Plaintiff Blessing and having a total replacement value of $1,330 was missing: One (1)Nova 390 Sprayer with a replacement value of $700. One (1) Lowes Sprayer with a replacement value of $430. Three (3) six foot ladders, aluminum, 3001bs, with a replacement value of $200. 31. On May 16, 2007, Plaintiff Blessing began working on the Hoffman job site as requested by Tim Hoffman. 32. On May 16, 2007, Plaintiff Blessing was confronted by each of Defendants Shoap and Hickok on the Hoffman job site, where they were not authorized to enter but nonetheless entered, to confront Plaintiff Blessing regarding their payments. 33. At such May 16, 2007, Plaintiff Blessing confronted Defendants Shoap and Hickok regarding the missing equipment from the S & A Homes, Inc. job site. 34. At such May 16, 2007 confrontation, neither of Defendants Shoap or Hickok would unequivocally confirm taking the equipment from the S & Homes, Inc. site. 35. At such May 16, 2007 confrontation, Plaintiff Blessing asked Defendants Shoap and Hickok to leave as Plaintiff Blessing "had work to do," to which Defendants Shoap and Hickok replied "not for long" in the presence of Steve Calaman who happened to be at the job site. 36. Immediately after such May 16, 2007 confrontation, Defendants Shoap and Hickok traveled to Tim Hoffman's residence and home office at 12:15 p.m. 37. On May 16, 2007 at 2:30 p.m., Tim Hoffman called Plaintiff Blessing at Plaintiff Blessing's residence following his meeting at his residence and home office with Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok, and there ensued a 35 minute telephone conversation. 38. In said 35 minute telephone conversation, Tim Hoffman indicated that he had sought the advice of his attorney after Defendants Shoap and Hickok left from Tim Hoffman's residence and home office. 39. In said 35 minute telephone conversation, Tim Hoffman indicated that he was advised by his attorney that Defendants Hickok and Shoap posed a threat of placing mechanics liens on the properties they worked upon and that this would involve homeowners. 40. In said 35 minute telephone conversation, Tim Hoffman indicated that he was making a business judgment, based on the risk of the mechanics liens, to replace Plaintiff Blessing with Defendants Shoap and Hickok for painting services. 41. In said 35 minute telephone conversation, Tim Hoffman asked Plaintiff Blessing to abort the work begun on the new Hoffman house and send a final bill for services rendered. 6 42. In said 35 minute telephone conversation, Tim Hoffman indicated that he was providing future work to Defendants Shoap and Hickok as a means to prevent them from filing mechanics liens against Hoffman and Hoffman's homeowners. 43. Since said 35 minute telephone conversation, Plaintiff Blessing has not returned to the job site and has sent a final bill for services rendered. 44. Plaintiff Blessing has had no revenues or prospect of revenues from Hoffman since said 35 minute telephone conversation. 45. Plaintiff Blessing believes, and therefore avers, the Defendants Shoap and Hickok have been contracted with directly by Hoffman to perform painting services for Hoffman on the job site to which Plaintiff Blessing was dismissed on May 16, 2007. 46. Plaintiff Blessing believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants Shoap and Hickok have created a partnership or an entity to pursue the painting work as a direct contractor of Hoffman. 47. Defendants Shoap and Hickok had the intent in contacting Tim Hoffman at various times in May, 2007, including May 16, 2007, to attempt to usurp the contractual relationship between Plaintiff Blessing and Hoffman. 48. Defendants Shoap and Hickok did usurp the existing contract between Plaintiff Blessing and Hoffman on May 16, 2007. 49. Defendants Shoap and Hickok communications with Tim Hoffman were calculated to create distrust and concern on the part of Tim Hoffman to terminate Hoffman's contract with Plaintiff Blessing and reestablish such contract with Defendants Shoap and Hickok. 7 50. Due to Defendants Shoap and Hickok's communications with Tim Hoffman, Hoffman has canceled its contract with Plaintiff Blessing and now contracts directly with Defendants Shoap and Hickok. 51. Plaintiff Blessing believes, and therefore avers, that such painting services will no longer be offered by Hoffman when the time for any mechanics lien that can be placed by Defendants Shoap and Hickok expires, being approximately October 2007. 52. Plaintiff Blessing, after May 16, 2007, inquired of Tim Hoffman as to the return of his equipment and materials which Plaintiff Blessing had left at the job site who indicated that Plaintiff Blessing was to work out the return with Defendants Shoap and Hickok who had possession of said equipment and materials. 53. Plaintiff Blessing, after May 16, 2007, demanded that Defendants Shoap and Hickok return to Plaintiff Blessing the following equipment and materials, with a replacement value of $887, which were retained by Defendants Shoap and Hickok on the Hoffman job site: One (1) 8x161arge rolling poll with a replacement value of $75. One (1) 7x12 spray pole with a replacement value of $252. Two (2) 3x6 rolling polls with a replacement value of $40. Three (3) large green buckets with a replacement value of $70. Three (3) 4x8 rolling polls with a replacement value of $50. Three (3) sanding polls with a replacement value of $75. One (1) Craftsman power drill with a replacement value of $80. Three (3) Wooster 9 inch rolling frames with a replacement value of $35. Three (3)18 inch rolling frames with a replacement value of $60. Various sanding blocks, brushes, drop clothes and rags with a replacement value of $150. 54. Defendants Shoap and Hickok refused to return Plaintiff Blessing's personal property from the Hoffman job site. 55. On May 21, 2007, Plaintiff Blessing, still missing the equipment from the S & A Homes, Inc. site filed police report no. 2007-OS-1135 to report the equipment as stolen to the Carlisle Borough police, naming Defendants Shoap and Hickok as the perpetrators. 8 56. On May 24, 2007, the Carlisle Borough police contacted Plaintiff Blessing that Defendants Shoap and Hickok had returned the three (3) items stolen from the S & A Homes, Inc. job site, along with two of the buckets, one of the Wooster 9 inch rolling frames, two caulk guns and some drop cloths. 57. Plaintiff Blessing believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants Shoap and Hickok took possession of the missing equipment from the S & A Homes, Inc. job site. COUNTI CONVERSION 58. Blessing incorporates herein the foregoing paragraphs as though set forth at length. 59. Plaintiff Blessing owned all right, title and interest to all of the equipment stolen from the S & A Homes, Inc. job site as well as the equipment not returned from the Hoffman job site. 60. Defendants Shoap and Hickok took possession of all such equipment without privilege or justification, and with the intent to take ownership of all such equipment. 61. Plaintiff Blessing has suffered actual damages through the loss of such equipment in the amount of its replacement value. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Blessing respectfully requests that Your Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Shoap and Hickok in the amount of $2,207.00, together with interest, attorneys fees, punitive damages, and all such other relief Your Honorable Court deems necessary and just. 9 COUNT II TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS 62. Plaintiff Blessing incorporates herein the foregoing paragraphs as though set forth at length. 63. Plaintiff Blessing possessed a current contractual relationship with Hoffman. 64. Defendant Shoap's and Hickok's actions were neither privileged nor justified, and were done with specific purpose or intent to harm Plaintiff Blessing by usurping the contract Plaintiff Blessing held with Hoffman in order to obtain the contract directly. 65. Plaintiff Blessing has suffered actual damages through the loss of the Hoffman contract and the profits that are generated through such contracts. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Blessing respectfully requests that Your Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Blessing and against Defendants Shoap and Hickok in an amount greater than $50,000, together with interest, attorneys fees, punitive damages, and all such other relief Your Honorable Court deems necessary and just. Respectfully Submitted: THE LAW FIRM OF MAY & MAY, P.C. 4330 Carlisle Pike Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 612-0102 Attorneys for Plaintiff Blessing By ~--. Robert C. May Identification No.: 65602 DATED: May ~ `~, 2007 10 VERIFICATION I, James A. Blessing, verify that the facts contained in the foregoing Complaint of Plaintiff, James A. Blessing, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. es A. Blessing 1~ ~ W ~ ~ v Q ~ oe C'~ ~" t.:~ ~' c_ -:3 °~ ~ , S __- ~`? ,LJ: JAMES A. BLESSING d/b/a/ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BLESSING QUALITY PAINTING, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, . v. N0.:07-3155 PAUL E. SHOAP and . DONALD HICKOK, CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 JAMES A. BLESSING d/b/a/ BLESSING QUALITY PAINTING, Plaintiff, v. PAUL E. SHOAP and DONALD HICKOK, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.:07-3155 CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT and NEW MATTER: COUNTERCLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Paul E. Shoap and Donald Hickok, by and through their attorneys, Christopher J. Marzzacco, P.C. and Angelica L. Revelant, Esquire of Wiley, Lenox, Colgan & Marzzacco, P.C., and file the instant Answer to Complaint and New Matter, and in support thereof, aver as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. By way of further response, Plaintiffl s company was not the only services used by Hoffman's Custom Contracting, Inc. In fact, it is believed and therefore averred that, since 2003, Hoffman used at least three (3) other painting contractors. 6. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 7. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 8. Admitted. By way of further response, Defendants were subcontracted to provide services to clients and for jobs other than Hoffman's since 2004. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that no written contract was entered into by Plaintiff and Defendants. It is denied that no specific terms with regazd to payment by Plaintiff for services provided by Defendants. On the contrary, Defendants had an oral agreement with Plaintiff to perform painting services. Per this agreement, Defendant Shoap would be compensated at $20.00 per hour and Defendant Hickok would be compensated at $18.00 per hour. At the completion of each assigned job, Defendants would orally indicate their hours of work to Plaintiff, at which time Plaintiff would make payment to Defendants. Payment was made upon completion of a job by Defendants or upon payment to Plaintiff by client. Defendants aver that Plaintiff owes Defendants for jobs completed but for which they have not yet been compensated. 10. Denied. Defendants aze without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regard to what Plaintiff was allegedly informed of through Timothy Hoffinan or his foreman, Mike. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Defendants specifically deny that they claimed hours for which they did not work. On the contrary, Defendants only claimed hours for which they actually provided painting services. By way of further response, Defendants were not obligated nor did they provide their hours to Hoffman and it is believed and therefore averred that Hoffman did not keep track of subcontractor hours or would have any knowledge as to the hours worked by Defendants. 11. Denied. Defendants aze without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regard to whether the amount paid by Plaintiff to Defendants was "costly," however it is denied that Defendants submitted "inflated hours." It is denied that Defendants were to receive a fixed amount per Hoffman job. On the contrary, Defendants had an oral agreement with Plaintiff to perform painting services at an hourly rate. Per this agreement, Defendant Shoap would be compensated at $20.00 per hour and Defendant Hickok would be compensated at $18.00 per hour. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. Denied. It is denied that Defendants were confronted by Plaintiff about overbilling allegations. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that Plaintiff requested an accounting or that Defendants have refused to provide such accounting of hours worked. It is admitted that Defendants have worked hours for which they have not yet been paid and have provided Plaintiff with the number of hours worked as per the parties' practice. The parties' practice was for Defendants to submit requests for payment at the completion of a job to Plaintiff by verbally indicating the number of hours they spent on a particulaz job. Plaintiffwould thereafter pay Defendants for said hours. At no time was a request for written verification of hours made by Plaintiff. Defendants have made repeated requests for payment for all hours worked, and aver that Plaintiff owes Defendants for hours worked for which they have not yet been paid. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that Plaintiff requested an accounting or that Defendants have refused to provide such accounting of hours worked. It is admitted that Defendants have worked hours for which they have not yet been paid. It is denied that Defendants have not provided Plaintiff with the number of hours worked. The parties' practice was for Defendants to submit requests for payment at the completion of a job to Plaintiff by verbally indicating the number of hours they spent on a particulaz job. Plaintiffwould thereafter pay Defendants for said hours. At no time was a request for written verification of hours made by Plaintiff. Defendants have made repeated requests for payment for all hours worked, and aver that Plaintiff owes Defendants for hours worked for which they have not yet been paid. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants have not been paid for hours worked. It is denied that Defendants over billed Plaintiff. It is further denied that Plaintiff owes Defendants nothing. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. In fact, Plaintiff owes Defendant Shoap approximately $4,500.00 and Defendant Hickok $3,200.00. 16. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regard to notification by Tim Hoffman that a painting job was of poor quality. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response, Defendant Shoap had not begun work on said site when Defendants were requested to "fix" a job done by third parties. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendants were contracted to fix and complete a job, of which inferior work was performed by third parties. It is denied that any inferior work was performed by Defendant Shoap or Defendant Hickok. On the contrary, third parties "prepared" the site and performed an inferior job, to which Defendants were contracted to "fix" and complete said job site. 17. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants had not performed painting services of poor quality. It is denied that the painting j ob in said instance was of poor quality or that said job was performed by Defendants. On the contrary, said prep work and painting were performed by third parties, after which Defendants were contracted to "fix" and complete said job with their quality work. 18. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants were contracted to "repaint" or otherwise "repair" the work done on the Hoffman house. It is denied that Plaintiff "demanded" that they perform this work, but were contracted to do said work. Any implication that Defendants performed the initial inferior work is denied. In fact, the prep work was performed by third parties and Defendants were contracted to "repair" the inferior work done by said third parties. 19. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants performed painting services on the Hoffman house to "repaint" and "repair" inferior work completed by third parties. Defendants aze without sufficient information or knowledge as to whether said job took two and one half weeks. 20. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants performed painting services on the Hoffman house to "repaint" and "repair" inferior work completed by third parties. Defendants aze without sufficient information or knowledge as to whether said job took two and one half weeks. It is admitted that Defendants requested payment for the services provided on said house, for which they have not yet been paid. 21. Denied. It is denied that Defendants aze owed nothing for the "repaint" and "repair" work done on said Hoffman house. In fact, Defendants submitted their hours to Plaintiff for said work and have not been paid to date. Defendants deny any implication that they performed inferior work previously that they were merely "fixing." In fact, third parties performed the prep work, which was considered inferior, and Defendants were contracted to fix said inferior work, for which they should be compensated according to the terms of the oral contract between Plaintiff and Defendants. 22. Defendants aze without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regazd to notification by Tim Hoffman that Defendants were causing a "commotion" at a Hoffrnan job site. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. It is admitted that Plaintiff has not paid Defendants for some painting services provided. 23. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Defendants ceased work for Plaintiff in Apri12007, however the specific date of termination is unknown. 24. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Defendants have requested payment for services provided, however the specific dates of requests are unknown. 25. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants are owed money by Plaintifffor services provided. It is denied that Plaintiffrequested documentation of the hours they worked and for which they were not paid. Defendants have verbally indicated the number of hours for which they were to be compensated, however, Plaintiff has failed to pay Defendants to date for all work performed. It is denied that deduction should be made for services performed to "repaint" the Hoffinan house, as Defendants provided services for which they were not paid. 26. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regard to notification to Plaintiff by Tim Hoffman that Defendants were calling Tim Hoffinan "on a constant basis demanding payment." Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 27. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regard to notification to Tim Hoffman by Plaintiff that Defendants would be paid by Plaintiff upon documentation of hours. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 28. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regard to notification by Tim Hoffinan to Plaintiff that Defendants "were all over him," regarding discussion or "analysis of payment situation" or the request by Tim Hoffinan to paint a new house. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 29. Defendants aze without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regazd to notification by Tim Hoffman to Plaintiffthat Defendants "were still all over him," discussion or "analysis of payment situation" or the request by Tim Hoffman to begin painting a new house. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 30. Defendants aze without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regazd to whether Plaintiff appeazed on the job site or noticed that some equipment was allegedly missing, or that the values set forth for said equipment are accurate. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 31. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regazd to whether Plaintiff began working on the Hoffman j ob site or whether such work was requested by Tim Hoffman. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 32. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants confronted Plaintiff regarding the payments due to them for services provided. It is admitted that Defendants have repeatedly requested payment from Plaintiff, however Plaintiff has failed to pay Defendants to date for services rendered. It is denied that Defendants were not authorized or permitted on a Hoffman site, as it is believed and therefore averred that Defendants were welcome and authorized on any Hoffman site per Tim Hoffman. 33. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff confronted Defendants regazding equipment belonging to Plaintiff at the S & A Homes site. It is denied that any equipment was "missing" from said job site. 34. Admitted. By way of further response, Defendants deny any allegation of conversion of Plaintiff s equipment. 35. Denied. It is denied that any such conversation took place between Plaintiff and Defendants. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 36. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants contacted Tim Hoffman at his office. It is denied that Defendants traveled to Hoffinan's office immediately after any "confrontation" with Plaintiff. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 37. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regazd to whether Plaintiff received a phone call from Tim Hoffinan or the time or length of said alleged conversation. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 38. Defendants aze without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regard to whether Tim Hoffinan sought the advice of an attorney or whether this indication was made to Plaintiff by Tim Hoffinan. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 39. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regazd to whether Tim Hoffinan's attorney advised Mr. Hoffman with regard to mechanics liens against the properties that Defendants worked upon or whether this indication was made to Plaintiff by Tim Hoffman. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 40. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regard to whether Tim Hoffman "made a business judgment, based on the risk of mechanics liens, to replace Plaintiff Blessing with Defendants Shoap and Hickok for painting services" or whether this indication was made to Plaintiff by Tim Hoffman. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 41. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regazd to whether Tim Hoffinan asked Plalntiffto abort the work on the new house and send a final bill for services. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 42. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regazd to whether Tim Hoffinan indicated to Plaintiff that future work would be provided to Defendants Shoap and Hickok for painting services to prevent the filing of mechanics' liens. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 43. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regard to whether Plaintiff has returned to the job site or has sent a final bill for services rendered. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 44. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regazd to whether Plaintiff has received any revenue or prospect of revenue from Hoffman since said alleged conversation between Hoffman and Plaintiff. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 45. Admitted. It is admitted that Defendants have contracted with Hoffman to perform painting services to Hoffman, including the site for which Plaintiff began working. It is believed and therefore averred that Hoffman requested Defendant's services on said site and Plaintiff indicated to Hoffman that Defendants were paid to date and would be providing services on said house. 46. Denied. It is denied that Defendants have created a partnership or entity to pursue painting services. The remainder of this averment is denied. 47. This is a statement of legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, this averment is denied. It is denied that Defendants had any intent or made contact with Tim Hoffman with intent to "usurp" any contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Hoffrnan. 48. This is a statement of legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, this averment is denied. It is denied that Defendants "usurped" any contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Hoffman. 49. Denied. It is denied that any such communications with Tim Hoffinan took place or that any communication was intended or calculated to create distrust and concern regarding Plaintiff. The remainder of this averment is denied. 50. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge as to the truth of the averment with regard to whether Hoffman has cancelled any contract with Plaintiff. It is denied that any communications between Defendants and Hoffman had any effect on any contractual relation between Plaintiff and Hoffman. 51. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regazd to whether Hoffman will offer painting services to Plaintiff in the future or as to when said mechanics liens would expire. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The remainder of this averment is denied. 52. Defendants aze without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regard to whether Plaintiff contacted Tim Hoffman regarding the return of equipment and materials Plaintiff left at the job site or any response by Tim Hoffinan. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 53. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants aze without sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the averment with regazd to the replacement value of said equipment and materials. By way of further response, the majority of the items listed were returned to police, including one 8x16 rolling poll, one 7x12 spray pole, at least one 3x6 rolling poll, three large green buckets, one 4x8 rolling poll, one sanding poll, two or three Wooster 9" rolling frames, and one 18" rolling frame. Defendants were not in possession of the Craftsman drill and therefore, it was not returned to police or Plaintiff. The remaining items were not returned due to normal wear and teaz from use on a job. 54. Denied. By way of further response, the majority of the items listed were returned to police, including one 8x16 rolling poll, one 7x12 spray pole, at least one 3x6 rolling poll, three lazge green buckets, one 4x8 rolling poll, one sanding poll, two or three Wooster 9" rolling frames, and one 18" rolling frame. Defendants were not in possession of the Craftsman drill and therefore, it was not returned to police or Plaintiff. The remaining items were not returned due to normal weaz and tear from use on a job. 55. Defendants aze without sufficient information or knowledge as to whether Plaintiff is still "missing" equipment or whether any such police report was filed indicating the equipment was stolen. Defendants returned the items listed to police, including one 8x 16 rolling poll, one 7x 12 spray pole, at least one 3x6 rolling poll, three large green buckets, one 4x8 rolling poll, one sanding poll, two or three Wooster 9" rolling frames, and one 18" rolling frame. Defendants were not in possession of the Craftsman drill and therefore, it was not returned to police or Plaintiff. The remaining items were not returned due to normal weaz and teaz from use on a job. 56. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge as to the truth of the averment that Cazlisle police contacted Plaintiff regazding the returned items. It is specifically denied that any such equipment or items were stolen. It is admitted that said items were returned to police by Defendants. 57. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that any equipment was missing or that Defendants took possession of said equipment. It is admitted that Defendants had lawful possession of these items for use on a job. It is admitted that these items were returned to police by Defendants once work for Plaintiff terminated. 58. Pazagraph Fifty-eight (58) is an incorporation pazagraph to which no response is required. 59. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff owned such equipment used on the job sites indicated. It is denied that any such equipment was stolen or not returned. Defendants returned the items listed to police, including one 8x16 rolling poll, one 7x12 spray pole, at least one 3x6 rolling poll, three large green buckets, one 4x8 rolling poll, one sanding poll, two or three Wooster 9" rolling frames, and one 18" rolling frame. Defendants were not in possession of the Craftsman drill and therefore, it was not returned to police or Plaintiff. The remaining items were not returned due to normal wear and tear from use on a job. 60. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants had lawful possession of these items for use on a job. It is admitted that these items were returned to police by Defendants once work for Plaintiffterminated. It is denied that Defendants took possession of said equipment without privilege or justification and with the intent to take ownership of said equipment. The remainder of this averment is denied. 61. Defendants are without knowledge or sufficient information as to the truth of the averment that Plaintiff has suffered actual damages through any alleged loss of said equipment or any such replacement value thereof. It is denied that Plaintiff lost said equipment as all items in Defendants' possession were returned to police. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 62. Paragraph Sixty-two (62) is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. 63. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge as to whether any current contractual relationship exists between Plaintiff and Hoffman. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 64. Paragraph Sixty-four (64) is a statement of legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averment is denied. Defendants did not act in any manner which was not privileged or justified, or in any means to usurp any contract between Hoffinan and Blessing or with any such intent to harm Plaintiff. The remainder of this averment is denied. 65. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge as to whether Plaintiff has suffered actual damages through the alleged loss of any Hoffman contract or whether any such profits were generated from any such contracts. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. NEW MATTER: COUNTERCLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT 66. Paragraphs One (1) through Eight (8) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 67. Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok have a contract with Plaintiff Blessing for payment for painting services provided by Defendants asnon-employee subcontractors. 68. Defendants are to be compensated for services rendered at a rate of $20.00 per hour for Defendant Shoap and $18.00 per hour for Defendant Hickok. 69. Though no written contract was entered into by these parties, the agreement of the parties since 2004, and their subsequent actions in accordance with said agreement, reveal that Defendants were to be compensated at the above-referenced rates, with Defendants verbally indicating to Plaintiff the number of hours worked at the completion of a job and Plaintiff compensating Defendants accordingly. 70. Defendants were contracted by Plaintiff, asnon-employee subcontractors, to perform painting services for various clients since 2004. 71. Defendants performed all services requested by Plaintiff since 2004. 72. Plaintiff owes Defendant Shoap approximately $4,500.00 for services rendered. 73. Plaintiff owes Defendant Hickok approximately $3,200.00 for services rendered. 74. Plaintiff has failed to pay for all services rendered by Defendants to date. 75. Despite Defendants' repeated requests to Plaintiff for payment, Plaintiff has failed to make payments due. 76. It is believed and therefore averred that the last partial payment made to Defendants was made in March. 77. Plaintiff has breached the contract with Defendants for failure to pay for services rendered. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff be found in breach of said contract between Plaintiff and Defendants and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay to Defendant Shoap and Defendant Hickok the amounts due of $4,500.00 and $3,200.00, respectively, with interest, along with attorney fees and costs associated with the necessity of bringing this action for payment due, along with any other such relief the Court deems necessary. Dated: ~ - ~ 3 '" ~ Respectfully submitted, WILEY, LENOX, COLGAN & MARZZACCO, P.C. Christop a J. Mar acco, squire I.D. # 78262 130 West Church Street Suite 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 432-9666 Angelic . Revelant, Esquire I.D. # 202759 130 West Church Street Suite 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 432-9666 M JAMES A. BLESSING d/b/a/ BLESSING QUALITY PAINTING, Plaintiff, v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 07-3155 CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, Paul E. Shoap, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. CS. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. PAUL E. SHOAP and DONALD HICKOK, Defendants. Date: ~/i~~~ ~,~.R~ Paul E. Shoap, Defendant I, Donald Hickok, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. CS. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 3 6 ~ :~ ~/ ~~_/~~ Donald Hickok, Defendant .. JAMES A. BLESSING d/b/a/ BLESSING QUALITY PAINTING, Plaintiff, v. PAUL E. SHOAP and DONALD HICKOK, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.:07-3155 CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher Marzzacco, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, as follows: Robert May, Esquire 4330 Carlisle Pike Camp Hill, PA 17011 WILEY, LENOX, COLGAN & MARZZACCO Date: ~~, 3 _ ~ By: 'stophe arzzacco, Es uir I.D. #78262 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 432-9666 r--3 C~ r°~ '""~' _... r--1 _ a t~ ;t ate. i - ® ;'1 ..- J~ } ". -T • ~~ ~. V..~ SHOAP PAUL E ET AL CASE NO: 2007-03155 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BLESSING JAMES A DBA BLESSING VS VALERIE WEARY Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon erJnr~ ~nrTr. ~ the DEFENDANT at 2012:00 HOURS, on the 31st day of May 2007 at 71 BROAD STREET NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to PAUL E SHOAP a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge o J D91 D'I `~"" SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR So Answers: 18.00 11.5 2 ~'~'''r 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 39.52 07/05/2007 MAY & MAY Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of day Deputy Sheriff A.D. C S SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-03155 P ~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BLESSING JAMES A DBA BLESSING VS SHOAP PAUL E ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT HICKOK DONALD but was unable to locate Him to wit: in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE County, Pennsylvania, to On July 5th 2007 this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: So answe~~- Do cke t i ng 6. 0 0 ~...-! .._._--- Out of County 9 , 00 -~"~ ""~~ ~. _._ Surcharge 10.00 R: Thomas Kline Dep Franklin Co 44.06 Sheriff of Cumberland County Postage 1,31 7 0. 3 7 ~/ ~,,, ~/U 4/b ~ 07/05/2007 MAY & MAY Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A.D. 1 ~n The Court of Common Pleas. o~F Cumberland County, Pennsylvania James A. Blessing dba Blessing Quality Painting i VS. Paul E. Shoap et al SERVE: Donald Hickok No, 07-3155 civil Now, May 30, 2007 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. %~~~ ~~ Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service at Now, // 20 07 , at ~ o'clock 7~ M. served the within ~-~~-~~~`' - upon ,~~ tee.-.t__ ~9C.-c l.~c-~ t~-~- duo by handing to ~-~'~-~-'`-~ ~'~ a .~~t'`"`-~.-~ ..-c_. ~ copy of the original and made known to ~~ ~c.~,t.. ~~ ' - Sworn and subscrib before me this 1/~' day ~f , 20_Z, n t.~ac~` .-.~-- ~ Notarial ~ Rk~qud ~. McCarhf ~ public gao, Franklin Counhl __ ~_~_~.~ F,ceire! Jan. 28, 2011 the contents thereof. So answers, ~x~C~~ Sheriff of ~ County, PA COSTS SERVICE $ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE N0: 2007-00118 T COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF FRANKLIN JAMES A. BLESSING D/B/A BLESSI VS PAUL E. SHOAP ET AL EDWARD C GEBHART SR Deputy Sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMP CIVIL ACTION was served upon HICKOK DONALD the DEFENDANT at 0014:49 Hour, on the 11th day of June 2007 at 210 REYNOLDS AVENUE MONT ALTO, PA 17237 DONALD HICKOK by handing to a true and attested copy of COMP CIVIL ACTION together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing .00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge .00 Sworn and Subscribed to before ~~ me this 13 day of &00 _ ~L~~ c~~'-~ T A . D . ~ 1~~1 / Notary Notarial Sri Richard D. McGarry, Notary Public Chamberst~,,rr Soro, Frar~in County My Commission Expires Jan. 28, 2011 So Answers: EDWARD C G BHA T SR By Deputy Sheriff 06/13/2007 MAY AND MAY NotarW 3eN Richard D. McGarry, Notary PnbNc Chaml-ersturg Bono, Fnmidin Counly My Commission Expires Jan. 28,1011 •' ~ JAMES A. BLESSING d/b/a/ BLESSING QUALITY PAINTING, Plaintiff, v PAUL E. SHOAP and DONALD HICKOK, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.:07-3155 CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MUTUAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT For the sole consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and releases granted by and among Plaintiff, James A. Blessing d/b/a/ Blessing Quality Painting, and Defendants, Paul E. Shoap and Donald Hickok, each party hereby releases and forever discharges the others, their heirs, executors, administrators, agents and assigns and all other persons, firms or corporations liable or, who might be claimed to be liable, none of who admit and liability to the undersigned but all expressly deny and liability, from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action or suits at law or in equity, of any kind or nature whatsoever, and arising from or because of any matter or thing done, omitted or suffered to be done by any of those released hereby, or those in privity therewith, prior to and including the date hereof, those claims known and unknown, both to person and property, which have resulted or may in the future develop from those acts as more fully set forth in the pleadings in an action instituted in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County as captioned above. It is further understood and agreed that by entering into this Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement, that none of the parties admits liability or any responsibility for anything claimed in the pleadings by any parties in said fled action, but to the contrary, it is understood and acknowledged that none admit any liability and that the aforesaid Mutual Release is made solely for the purposes of avoiding further litigation and as a matter of economics. It is understood and agreed that no payment will be made by Plaintiff to Defendants or Defendants to Plaintiff as a part of this settlement, but that the consideration for this release of all claims is the release of all existing claims made by and against Plaintiff and by and against Defendants as well as all potential future claims by and/or against Plaintiff and Defendants in consideration for the release of all claims by and against the other, including but not limited to ', joining Plaintiffs or Defendants as a parry in other potential litigation arising out of the claims set forth in the pleadings. It is further understood and agreed and made part hereof, that neither the undersigned nor our attorneys nor other representatives, will in any way publicize, in any news or communications media, including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, radio or television, or to any other person, corporation, business, or other such organization, the facts or terms and conditions of this settlement. All parties to this agreement expressly agree to decline comment of any aspect of this settlement to any member of the news media. This paragraph is intended to becomes part of the consideration for settlement of this claim. The undersigned hereby declare that the terms of this Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement have been completely read and are fully understood and voluntarily accepted for the purpose of making a full and final compromise adjustment and settlement for any and all claims on account of the claims and damages above-mentioned, and for the express purpose of precluding forever any further or additional suits arising out of the aforesaid claims. Each party shall execute a Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End to be filed in connection with this Release. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set o~zr hands, in multiple originals, in the presence of the undersigned competent witness, this ~ day of (~C~j~~ , 2007. J lessing d/b/a Blessm ality Painting Plaintiff obert May, Esquire ~~~ Paul E. Shoap Defendant onald Hickok Defendant Christopher Mar acco, quire Angelica a elant, Esquire •' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SS. COUNTY OF ~~'y, On this, the ~ day of , 2007, before me a Notary Public, personally appeared James Blessing, individua ly and for Blessing Quality Painting, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand d official seal. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL Notary Pu lic DARCIE A. NfrIL, Notary Public Boro of Celrllsle, Cumberland County My Commialsion Expiros Nov. 24, 2009 COMM IA . SS. COUNTY OF 'C~1-~-- On this, the ~ day of a U~;~- , 2007, before me a Notary Public, personally appeared Paul E. Shoap, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. to set my hand and official seal. Notarial Seal Jeanette L. Roberts, Notary Public Dillsburg Boro, York County ` My Comm~sion Expires Aug. 22, 201o No ry Public Member, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA . SS. COUNTY OF ~.~-- On this, the ~" day of U ~ ~~ , 2007, before me a Notary Public, personally appeared Donald Hickok, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notarial Sea- N Public Jeanette L. Roberts, Notary Public Dillsburg Boro, York County My Commission Expires Aug. 22, 2010 Member, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries ~~~ rte, :~ -~ ~:~ -r't --3 i ~~ ~f~ .. r.,,~; JAMES A. BLESSING d/b/a/ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BLESSING QUALITY PAINTING, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, v. N0.:07-3155 PAUL E. SHOAP and DONALD HICKOK, CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE. DISCONTINUE AND END To the Prothonotary: Kindly mark this action, including all claims and counterclaims by and against all parties, settled, discontinued and ended. Respectfully submitted, Date; a~~~a'~ Date: ~~ /~~~ `1 WILEY, LENOX, COLGAN & MARZZACCO, P.C. Christopher J. M zzacco, squire I.D. No. 78262 Angelic Revelant, Esquire LD. No. 202759 130 West Church Street Suite 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 432-9666 MAY & MAY, P.C. ~a~ d-c ~~tiy R~ibert C. May, Esquire I.D. No. 65602 4330 Carlisle Pike Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 612-0102 f'} !"•J :~~ l C167~ i .~ __ v_~ _ T-~ ~ ~ + 1""' t .T i ""~ • • J .'