Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-5266f"~r ~ ESTATE OF JEPTHA B . 1i00LUM8 , Plaintiff 1722 Walnut Bottom Road Carlisle, PA 17013 vs. B & C PROPERTIES, L.P. Defendant 1000 Bryn Mawr Road Carlisle, PA 17013 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07 - S.?.~ L ~ Tm.-. CIVIL ACTION - To: CURTIS R. LONG, PROTH01iOTARY, Cumberland County Courthouse one Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 PRA~CIP~ FOR WRIT OF SUI~tMO~~ Rindly issue a Writ of Summons against Defendant in the above- captioned matter. Date: Auqust 31, 2007 Respectfully submitted, ~~ Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, Estate of Jeptha D. Woolums 127 S. Market Street, P.O. Box 95 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-697-7050 PA ID 62469 Q c~ U O ~ ¢ ~~ C ~ (rJ ~ --w G'~ ~ ~.-' ~ ~ GJ s f f r ,~ ~ ~ " ~ ~~.'~ _ t V - ~ ~._ .. •° J pt 4°7 '~ ~ ~ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland WRIT OF SUMMONS Court of Common Pleas Estate of Jeptha B. Woolums. 1722 Walnut Bottom Road Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Plaintiff Vs. No 07-5266 B & C Properties L P 1000 Bryn Mawr Road Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Defendant In CivilAction-Law To B & C Properties, L P, You are hereby notified that Estate of Jeptha B. Woolums the Plaintiff(s) has / have commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment maybe entered against you. (SEAL) is R. Long, Prothon tart' Date August 31, 2007 By Deputy Attorney: Name: Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire Address: 127 S. Market Street, P. O Box 95 Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 Attorney for: Plaintiff Telephone: 717-697-7050 Supreme Court ID No. 62469 ESTATE OF JEPTHA B. WOOLUMS, Plaintiff v. B & C PROPERTIES, L.P. Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2007-5266 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Helen L. Gemmill and Kimberly M. Colonna of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC as counsel on behalf of Defendant B & C Properties, L.P. in the above- referenced matter. Respectfully submitted, McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC e, ire ~ c.~m Helen L. Gemmill (ID No. 60661) Kimberly M. Colonna (ID No. 80362) 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Tel: (717) 232-8000 Fax: (717) 237-5300 Attorneys for Defendant B & C Properties, L.P. Dated: October 3, 2007 ~~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served this date first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire 127 S. Market Street P.O. Box 95 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 /~-~- L. Helen L. Gemmill Dated: October 3, 2007 c~? ~' _~ -- c'~? `_ +-ice ~ ~ -.-,~_~ V° .~ ,. ___. _ .:. ... r. it ~..-. ~ t..~ .~ r~ "V. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE N0: 2007-05266 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WOOLUMS JEPTHA B ESTATE OF VS B & C PROPERTIES L P KENNETH GOSSERT Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon B & C PROPERTIES LP the DEFENDANT at 1142:00 HOURS, on the 25th day of September, 2007 at 1000 BRYN MAWR ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to HAROLD BRANDY CONTROLLER a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Postage Surcharge qfl I~ ~D~ D~ Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of 18.00 So Answers: 4.80 ~ ~~ .41 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 33.21 09/26/2007 ANDREW SHEELY By: day A.D. Estate of Jeptha B. Woolums vs B & C Properties, LP 07 - 5266 Case No. r- ~ c~ ~~ n _ ~~ ~3~ cn Statement of Intention to Proceed ~~ ~ To the Court: Estate of Jeptha B. Woolums Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire Print Name Date: (© ~ ~ Ts' c-~ ~ Z~ ~c a N --a ~, -L intends to pro eed with the above c_ tinned matter. ~ 'i~~~ Sign Name Estate of Jeptha B. Woo urns Attorney for Explanatory Comment 0 --~ rof.~-.-.,,'. ~~ o° -i p o o~ --iT~ D -~ 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. I. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination 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.2d 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 rule continues to be applicable. II 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 Ru1e230(d) for relief from the order of termination. 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. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of 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 showing 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 prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (dx2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated 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. 5111-TC r v e 17#4. tvidiriNti vs CaseNo. - f3 4 £ er ter p Statement of Intention to Proceed -n_Au ; rn rri*71 • L C F z -,0 To the Court: cart �c 61/4 intends to roceed with the above. 1ponedbnattter,T, cp Print Name/ l elf ( ��-- 7 Sign Name 46/4/_ '•• 174.- Date: /0/2-&Z&11-01 3 Attorney for Ra.,11 G? 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. I.Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination 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.2d 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 rule continues to be applicable. II 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 Rute230(d)for relief from the order of termination. 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. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of 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 showing 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 prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision(d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may 1 ' 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. •