Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-3490IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff V. CRAIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant NOTICE NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 NOTICIA USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO O NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC., NO. 07. 3'1 4o dzud 7Z, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. CRAIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff, Professional Resource Group, Inc. (hereinafter "PRG"), is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal business address at 470 Friendship Road, Suite 300, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111. 2. Defendant, Craig Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter "CRAIG"), is a Florida corporation with its principal business address located at 107 Buchanan Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida, 32920. 3. PRG is in the specialized business of placement of skilled information technology professionals on a contract basis. 4. CRAIG is a competitor of PRG for government information technology contracts. 5. PRG hired Keith P. Brenneis (hereinafter "Brenneis") pursuant to an Hourly Employment Agreement with PRG on October 25, 2004 (see Exhibit "A" for a true and correct copy of said Agreement incorporated herein), and assigned him to work for a PRG client, Defense Information Systems Agency (hereinafter "DISA") at Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 6. During his tenure with PRG, Brenneis was introduced and exclusively devoted his unique information technology skills and experience to the servicing and cultivation of PRG's contract with DISA, which included the following: a. Provide database management support in the broad range of maintenance and utilization of the Oracle; Oracle 9iAS, e-business and I I i; and IDMS database software operating in the architecture of the DECC Mechanicsburg systems, to include but not limited to, installation, maintenance and tuning; b. Install, maintain and tune Oracle 9iAS and all components. Provide product administration support including working with the customers to tune and debug any and all components of Oracle 9iAS; C. Build new Oracle subsystems and IDMS central versions and; migrate application database subsystems; troubleshoot and run diagnostics of applications, system and vendor software. Monitor and tune Oracle and IDMS databases and applications. Perform database software upgrades, installations and maintenance with SMP/E; d. Provide technical consulting services to the customer on questions and issues relating to the database software maintained on the DECC Mechanicsburg systems, including all changes and upgrades; Monitor products within the database environments using such system monitors as Omegamon, Omegaview, OEM or like products; f. Provide support in the customer problem resolution process to resolve 2 errors in systems software. Provide a status report to the Task Monitor for review and comment, when requested; g. Perform trend analysis on system performance, recommend configuration changes to the Task Monitor, and participate in the planning activities to schedule system upgrades; h. Provide project management support in planning and definition; i. Support and train government personnel within the IDMS/Oracle team; and j. Support DECC Mechanicsburg efforts to implement assured computing environments using various techniques including parallel sysplex, SMS, data sharing, and more. 7. Brenneis's position required security clearance with an IT-1 access level. IT-1 access requires an individual with top secret eligibility. In order to obtain the required access level and eligibility, Brenneis had to submit to a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI). The successful completion of the investigation made Brenneis eligible for IT-1 access. This level of eligibility and access takes approximately one year to obtain. Furthermore, PRG offered Craig the option of subcontracting Brenneis from PRG to avoid any non-compete issues while maintaining continuity of service to the client. 8. During the years that Brenneis was contracted to DISA by PRG, he gained valuable in-depth knowledge of DISA systems, data bases, processes, procedures and security. This knowledge was important to be able to work effectively in the DISA environment. 3 9. Brenneis was the only individual with the experience and ability to comply with the necessary criteria for the position in the time frame required for CRAIG to provide continuity of effective support to DISA. His background and experience made him very attractive to CRAIG and DISA. 10. The position and responsibilities Brenneis currently has at DISA with CRAIG are essentially the same as those Brenneis had at DISA with PRG. 11. Paragraph 12 of the Hourly Employment Agreement entitled COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE set forth that during the term of the Hourly Employment Agreement and for a period of twelve months following this Agreement, Brenneis "agree[d] not to solicit or accept any employment or work from any organization where they or their client was introduced to Brenneis through the employment process with PRG." 12. On or about January 27, 2007, CRAIG received a direct government award of the information technology contract with DISA that had previously been serviced by PRG. 13. CRAIG, in an effort to enhance and maintain its new relationship with DISA, offered Brenneis an immediate "take-it-or-leave-it" employment position which required Brenneis to break the non-compete covenant of his employment contract with PRG. 14. On or about January 26, 2007, Brenneis resigned from PRG and started work for CRAIG on January 29, 2007, with Brenneis being specifically assigned to PRG's client, DISA. COUNT I - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS (PRG vs. CRAIG) 15. The pleadings set forth in paragraphs 1 through 14 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 4 16. A valid employment contract existed between PRG and Brenneis that contained non compete language. 17. Prior to hiring Brenneis, CRAIG knew about the non compete language in Brenneis's Hourly Employment Agreement with PRG because PRG informed CRAIG and because it is standard procedure in this highly technical industry. 18. CRAIG's hiring of Brenneis directly interfered with Brenneis's performance and obligations of his employment agreement with PRG. 19. CRAIG's hiring of Brenneis and its interference with the contractual terms between PRG and Brenneis were improper. 20. PRG suffered actual harm by CRAIG's interference with the contractual relations between PRG and Brenneis. 21. PRG suffered damages for lost profits in the amount of $13,363.00. WHEREFORE, PRG respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in its favor and against CRAIG in the amount of $13,363.00 plus costs and such other relief this Court deems just. COUNT II - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP (PRG vs. CRAIG) 22. The pleadings set forth in paragraphs 1 through 21 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 23. PRG had a prospective and positive contractual relationship with DISA due to the skills Brenneis exhibited in meeting the highly technical requirements of the position. 5 24. CRAIG had no right, privilege, or justification in hiring Brenneis to work in a position that was clearly in direct violation of the non compete language of which Brenneis was subject and of which CRAIG was aware. 25. CRAIG has a reasonable likelihood or probability of receiving the option year of the contract due to the pre-existing relationship with Brenneis established through PRG. 26. CRAIG's actions of hiring Brenneis in violation of the non-compete harmed PRG by preventing PRG from having an opportunity to participate in the option year of the contract. 27. PRG suffered actual harm resulting from CRAIG's conduct. 28. PRG suffered damages for lost profits in Option Year One of $13,764.00. WHEREFORE, PRG respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in its favor and against CRAIG in the amount of $13,764.00 plus costs and such other relief this Court deems dust. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL Dated: b /11 /0'7 By: Craig A. iehl, Esquire Attorney ID No. 52801 3464 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011-4436 Tel: (717) 763-7613 Fax: (717)763-8293 Counsel for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, HARRY G. BAKER, GENERAL MANAGER, PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff above-named, being duly sworn according to law, deposes that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true, as he verily believes. Date:04U? HARRY BAKER EXHIBIT A `' PROF ESSIONAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC. Information Technology Services and Staffing qkv,20 4076 Market Street-Ste 213 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 612-9800 pr @ r cor g p g p.com HOURLY EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT NO. AGREEMENT made on October 25, 2004 between PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC., hereinafter referred to as "PRG", and Keith P. Brenneis, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant". This agreement supersedes any and all Agreements previously signed with PRG and confirms your agreement to terms and conditions of employment stated herein. STATEMENT OF PRG BUSINESS: PRG offers the services of experienced professional personnel (consultants) on a temporary basis to clients who agree to pay applicable fees for agreed to services. 1. CLIENT: PRG wishes to provide services of Consultant to various clients per PRG agreement with said clients. Consultant agrees to accept an initial assignment with DISA DECC Mechanicsburg. 2. TERM: This agreement shall commence on date written above. This agreement will remain in effect until terminated by either party by means set forth in Paragraph 6. Consultant agrees to report to Client's place of business to commence Client contract on November 1, 2004. 3. COMPENSATION: Compensation will be at the rate specified in PRG Offer Letter, for hours worked and billed to client. PRG is under no obligation to pay for hours not approved by or billed to client. All billable time must be reported using PRG approved timesheets which must be approved and signed by client before processing. PRG workweeks run Saturday through Friday and pay periods span two weeks. Paychecks are produced and dated for the Wednesday following pay period. 4. DUTIES OF CONSULTANT: Consultant agrees to perform duties per Client Service Agreement and as client reasonably requests and agrees to comply with all applicable rules governing conduct at Client's place of business. 5. WORK SCHEDULE: Consultant agrees to observe Clients normal working hours. Also, at Client request, work hours may be varied to meet Client requirements, including off hour "Call-Out" as needed. 6. TERMINATION: This agreement shall be subject to termination by any of the following means: a) On TBD, or otherwise by mutual agreement of PRG and Consultant. Work done after this date signifies agreement that this contract continues in effect until the last day worked. b) When the Client no longer needs or desires services of Consultant. c) By PRG for cause, for performance unsatisfactory to Client, or otherwise upon Client's request, effective upon notice. d) By Consultant upon three (3) weeks notice to PRG (prior to notifying Client). PRG is responsible for notifying Client. 7. ILLNESS, VACATION, PERSONAL TIME: Consultant will notify Client and PRG any day that he/she is unable to work. Vacation requests are to be made to Client and confirmed with PRG. Page 1 of 2 8. PERSONAL AUTO USE: Use of personal auto at request of Client is at discretion of Consultant. Consultant is responsible for proper insurance coverage and PRG shall not be liable or obligated for damages or losses sustained by Consultant under any circumstance. 9. LIABILITY: PRG is not responsible for any loss or damage suffered by client by reason of the negligence or other unauthorized act of the consultant in the scope of the performance of assigned duties. 10. EXPENSES: Consultant will not incur any expenses chargeable to Client or PRG without prior authorization. 11. NON-DISCLOSURE: Consultant agrees to sign agreement not to disclose confidential information relating to Client's business upon request of Client. 12. COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE: During the term of this Agreement and for 12 months following PRG Employment, Consultant agrees not to solicit or accept any employment or work from any organization where they or their client was introduced to Consultant through the employment process with PRG. 13. WORK PRODUCT: Work in process, associated materials and work product produced while employed by PRG is exclusive property of PRG or PRG client if so designated. 14. EEOC: PRG pledges to strive to eliminate discrimination in employment. Assignments will be made solely on the basis of qualifications without regard to race, color, creed, national origin, age or sex. 15. SEVERABILITY: Each provision of this Agreement is severable. The invalidity or unenforceability of one provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision. 16. WAIVER: If PRG should waive employees breach of any provision of this Agreement, such waiver shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of any provision of this Agreement. 17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This document contains the entire Agreement of the parties and may be changed only by an Agreement in writing signed by both parties. 18. DISPUTES: It is agreed that disputes will be resolved under American Arbitration Association procedures. Any subsequent legal action with respect to this agreement shall be filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. 19. REVIEW OF THIS AGREEMENT: Consultant has read this Agreement in full and, as an independent contractor, understands and accepts the terms and conditions of temporary hourly employment with PRG. 20. SIGNATURES: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, PRG and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above. By: - 14, Professional Resource Group, Inc. 12c? 5 By: Consultant Soc.Sec. # . Jam. > ?'' - ?S^l Date le) 1,-L / Page 2 of 2 (AQ Q _ 10 ? l f,ii DO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff NO. 07-3490 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. CRAIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant RETURN OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the Complaint was served upon the party and in the manner indicated below: Service by Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Craig Technologies, Inc. 107 Buchanan Avenue Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 In accordance with Pa. R.C.P. No. 405(c), the United States Postal Service Domestic Return Receipt bearing the signature and date of receipt of service by Defendant (June 18, 2007) is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Date: 1/1 C LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL By: Craig Diehl, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 52801 3464 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011-4436 Tel: (717)763-7613 Fax: (717)763-8293 Counsel for Plaintiff EXHIBIT A 410 t uuue `1U55 4328 a? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, the Aj oZ day of 2007, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Return of Service was served upon the opposing party by way of United States first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Craig Technologies, Inc. 107 Buchanan Avenue Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 (Defendant) Z-4 e ? ?-? - y Barbara J. Smith, Legal Secretary ? D ? `? G ...? -??' ? ?y ? ?^3 f ? .{- ? . 7 .} ? "'?J j^: `.` "° ;"5 ?"? ? ?? .- HAROLD S. IRWIN, III, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 29920 64 SOUTH PITT STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 243-6090 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff VS. CRAIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2007 - 3490 CIVIL TERM DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT NOW, comes the defendant, by its attorney, Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire, and responds to plaintiffs' complaint, representing as follows: 1. The averments of paragraph one of plaintiffs' complaint are admitted. 2. The averments of paragraph two of plaintiffs' complaint are admitted. 3. The averments of paragraph three of plaintiffs' complaint are admitted. 4. The averments of paragraph four of plaintiffs' complaint are admitted 5. The averments of paragraph five of plaintiffs' complaint are admitted. 6. The averments of paragraph six of plaintiffs' complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation defendant is without knowledge sufficient to prove the truth of the averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 7. The averments of paragraph seven of plaintiffs' complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation defendant is without knowledge sufficient to prove the truth of the averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 8. The averments of paragraph eight of plaintiffs' complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation defendant is without knowledge sufficient to prove the truth of the averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 9. The averments of paragraph nine of plaintiffs' complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation defendant is without knowledge sufficient to prove the truth of the averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 10. The averments of paragraph ten of plaintiffs' complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation defendant is without knowledge sufficient to prove the truth of the averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 11. The terms of Brenneis' employment agreement attached to plaintiff's complaint as Exhibit "A" speak for themselves and therefor no response is required to this paragraph. 12. The averments of paragraph twelve of plaintiffs' complaint are admitted. By way of further response, at the time the contract was awarded to defendant, plaintiffs contract with DISA had already expired. 13. The averments of paragraph thirteen of plaintiffs' complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that after plaintiff's contract with DISA had expired and after Brenneis had already terminated his employment relationship with plaintiff, defendant offered Brenneis employment. It is denied that the offer of employment to Brenneis "required" Brenneis to break any covenant he had with plaintiff. On the contrary, defendant offered positions to all the individuals who were performing on the old contract which had already expired and Brenneis voluntarily accepted the offer. 14. The averments of paragraph fourteen of plaintiffs' complaint are admitted. COUNT I - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 15. Defendant's responses to plaintiffs' complaint, paragraphs one through fourteen inclusive, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 16. The averments of paragraph sixteen of plaintiffs' complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 17. The averments of paragraph eighteen of plaintiffs' complaint are admitted; however, by way of further response, defendant understood that Brenneis had been given permission by plaintiff to discuss employment with defendant. 18. The averments of paragraph eighteen of plaintiff's complaint are denied. On the contrary, the contract had already been awarded to defendant and Brenneis had already tendered his resignation to plaintiff prior to being employed by defendant. 19. The averments of paragraph nineteen of plaintiffs complaint are denied. On the contrary, defendant had no contract with plaintiff, offered employment to all the individuals who had been performing on the expired contract and Brenneis accepted the employment freely and voluntarily. 20. The averments of paragraph twenty of plaintiffs' complaint are denied. On the contrary, plaintiffs contract was expired, DISA awarded the new contract to defendant and no harm came to plaintiff by reason of anything defendant did or did not do. Plaintiff simply lost the contract with DISA because its contract rates were too expensive. 21. The averments of paragraph twenty-one of plaintiffs' complaint are denied. On the contrary, plaintiff's suffered no damages as the result of any action or inaction on the part of defendant. Plaintiff simply lost the contract with DISA because its contract rates were too expensive. WHEREFORE, defendant demands that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered on behalf of the defendant and against the plaintiff. COUNT II - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP 22. Defendant's responses to plaintiffs' complaint, paragraphs one through twenty- one inclusive, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 23. The averments of paragraph twenty-three of plaintiffs' complaint are denied. Plaintiff had no prospective or positive contractual relationship with DISA due to the fact that their contract had expired and DISA awarded its contract to defendant because plaintiff's contract rates were too expensive. 24. The averments of paragraph twenty-four of plaintiffs' complaint are denied. On the contrary, defendant had no contract with plaintiff, offered employment to all the individuals who had been performing on the expired contract and Brenneis accepted the employment freely and voluntarily. 25. The averments of paragraph twenty-five of plaintiffs' complaint are entirely speculative and specifically denied. On the contrary, due to the fact that their contract had expired and DISA awarded its new contract to defendant because plaintiff's contract rates were too expensive, it is highly unlikely that any future contract or option year contract would be awarded to plaintiff. 26. The averments of paragraph twenty-six of plaintiffs' complaint are specifically denied. On the contrary, due to the fact that their contract had expired and DISA awarded its new contract to defendant because plaintiff's contract rates were too expensive, it is highly unlikely that any future contract or option year contract would be awarded to plaintiff. Furthermore, Brenneis had already terminated his employment with plaintiff prior to the offer of employment by defendant. 27. The averments of paragraph twenty-seven of plaintiffs' complaint are denied. On the contrary, plaintiff's contract was expired, DISA awarded the new contract to defendant and no harm came to plaintiff by reason of anything defendant did or did not do. Plaintiff simply lost the contract with DISA because its contract rates were too expensive. 28. The averments of paragraph twenty-eight of plaintiffs' complaint are denied. On the contrary, plaintiff's suffered no damages as the result of any action or inaction on the part of defendant. Plaintiff simply lost the contract with DISA because its contract rates were too expensive. WHEREFORE, defendant demands that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered on behalf of the defendant and against the plaintiff. July ad , 2007 HAROLD S. IRWIN, II Attorney for defendo 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 243-6090 Supreme Court ID No. 29920 VERIFICATION I verify that I am the President of Craig Technologies, the defendant in this action, that I am authorized to make this affidavit on its behalf, and that the facts contained in the foregoing answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4094, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. July 2007 -Iitzy CAROL CRAIG CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: CRAIG A DIEHL ESQ 3464 TRINDLE RD CAMP HILL PA 17011 July ?fir, 2007 HAROLD S. IRWI?III Attorney for defe ar 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 243-6090 Supreme Court ID No. 29920 PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff V. CRAIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA D7-.sg9o NO. -5i?-3490 20 RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the Following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: CRAIG A. D I EHL , ESQUIRE counsel for the plaintiff/d6mdau& in the above action (arsotpons), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (m actnovj is)(zm)mt issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $ 27,127-00 The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: HAROLD S. IRWIN III, ESQUIRE WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, aa? (1, n?. fl, Craig A. Die 1, Esquire ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, .200 , in consideration of the foregoing petition, Esq., and Esq., and Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action (or actions) as prayed for. By the Court, EDGAR B. BAYLEY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, the J/ day of 2007, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS was served upon the opposing party by way of United States first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Harold S. Irwin III, Esquire Irwin Law Office 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Defendant) ZA??? -- ' lx--:Z7Z- y Barbara J. Smith, Legal Secretary Af- C> 4 PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff V. CRAIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07- 3g9o NO. OV-3490 20 RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the Following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: CRAIG A. D I EHL , ESQUIRE counsel for the plairntiff/dtfcadwk in the above action (ara , respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (m aQfia> # i&-(zm) at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $ 2 7 ,12 7.0 0 The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: HAROLD S. IRWIN III9 ESQUIRE WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, A AA -A, Craig A. Die 1, Esquire ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, , 200 -7 , in consideration of the foregoing petition, ?. Esq., and 0&:, (mac . Esq., and Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the a ve captioned a tion (or actions) as prayed or. By Court, \??4W ?.? AY FA%j ieh?' ?- fs'R- ?,roi 8 % CL uj - h? w PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE GROUP,: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CRAIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DEFENDANT 07-3490 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2?3 day of August, 2007, the appointment of Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire, to the Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case, IS VACATED. David W. DeLuce, Esquire, is appointed in her place. Henry F. Coyne, Esquire Chairman `-/ David W. DeLuce, Esquire Court Administrator :sal By the Edgar B. Bayley, J. CL- C`J 1 2-1 i.t_t r zt CV3 LL- 0-,,is k L:7-tt\j # C?O- I(o l')? bq 'w w Cos& Ale, C Cam. As Est -ub tlj:tt-4-,v?@ In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland Plaintiff 2 0 07 . 3 z4 County, Pennsylvania No. 'Defendant Civil Action - Law, Oath We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. ?' ?"4'9 Signature Sign tore a rr- LY, Ape Icyrd Pe-Lwce- Name (Cha' ) Name Name L t" 1 V--'?1'n f _ ..w hT7_...n t .? 1 4 Law F' Law Firm cSq e 9 4hhWk't5'&- Address C4 - Pat. City, Address city, r" Zip Jo ?C,vt,srnc ? w Law Firm (6 Address /,,W? k -1 764 city, zip 17,011 1? 15740 11 31 100501 Award We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the ,,delay are awarded, they shall be separatelaj states following award:. ,,(Note: If damages for ?C?t•S spun, Z,CU?` pyt or, dissents. (insert name if applicab . I Date of Hearing. l () ! `o (Chairman) ? Date of Award: V-A- d7 ? 1 d y: WE Nonce of Entry of Award L , at j r,:2, , _A M., the above award was Now, the )L4k day of , 20 L- entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ 2ASn . m By: Prothonotary Deputy IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff NO. 07-3490 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. CRAIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ; Defendant : NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM AWARD OF BOARD OF ARBITRATORS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Notice is given that Plaintiff, Professional Resource Group, Inc., appeals from the decision of the board of arbitrators entered in this case on December 14, 2007. I hereby certify that the compensation of the arbitrators has been paid. Date: January 10, 2002 LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL By: Craig Diehl, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 52801 Nathanael J. Byerly, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 85679 3464 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel: (717)763-7613 Fax: (717)763-8293 Counsel for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, the 10 day of SzAr? , 2008, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM AWARD OF BOARD OF ARBITRATORS was served upon the opposing party by way of United States first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Harold S. Irwin III, Esquire Irwin Law Office 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Defendant) Barbara J. Smith, Legal Secretary TIC 0 -C, 'D .L