The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-6255 CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. RENEE SIEGEL, Defendant. NO. 07 - `zss CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE 0,-t'7Zz.,j YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days 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 withoul 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 SAMIS, FLOWER & LINDSM 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO 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 CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. RENEE SIEGEL, Defendant. NO. 607 - Le zSS' CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT 6"'. L'Tzz"? AND NOW comes Plaintiff through its attorneys, SAIDIS, FLOWER LINDSAY, and avers the following: 1. Plaintiff is the CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public school district, governed by the. Pennsylvania School Code, located entirely withii Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, RENEE SEIGEL, is an adult individual, residing at 1021 Ritner Highway, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. During the 2006-2007 school year, Defendant resided with school age children outside of the CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, in residence located at 7 Pine Road, Pine Ridge Estates, Mt. Holly Springs, Pennsylvania a residence which is located in the South Middleton School District. 4. Under the Pennsylvania School Code, students who are resident; SAIDIS, FLOWER & LH+4DSAY ;anw 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA of a public school district, are entitled to a free public education as supplied by school district. 5. The child is considered a resident of the school district in which his parents or the guardian of his or her person resides. 6. Students who reside in one school district, and who wish to attend school in another school district, are liable to the school district of which they are residents for tuition, which reflects the actual proportionate cost to the school district, providing a public education to said child. 7. During the 2006-2007 school year, Defendant had a fourth and an eleventh grader enrolled in the CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT. 8. The cost of elementary school tuition in the CARLISLE SCHOOL DISTRICT in that school year was Seven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-th and 45/100 ($7,253.45) Dollars, and the cost of secondary school tuition in CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT for that year was Seven Thousand Hundred Forty-six and 75/100 ($7,146.75) Dollars. 9. Since Defendant RENEE SEIGEL and her children resided in South Middleton School District in the 2006-2007 school year, and since her children attended the CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT in the 2006-2007 school year, CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT is entitled to reimbursement for tuition from Defendant in the amount of Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and 20/100 ($14,400.20 Dollars. 10. After demand for tuition in the amount of Fourteen Thousand Fou SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY A11- A ' 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA Hundred and 20/100 ($14,400.20) Dollars, said amount remains unpaid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in amount of Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and 20/100 ($14,400.20) Dollars, costs and interest, an amount requiring submission to a Board of Arbitration determination. SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: October , 2007 By -4'd 'e- 1?b James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire ` 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 1. D.#27742 SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA VERIFICATION I, MARY KAY DURHAM, Superintendent of the CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant herein, hereby verify that the statements made in the within Petition 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. CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT By 9tL&AQq"' Maryay Du am, Superintendent Date: Octobers U O? , 2007 OCT t.4 2007 w?0 oQ N ? Ln - c - L r, CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DISTRICT, Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA VS. RENEE SIEGEL, No. 07-6255 CIVIL TERM Defendant . CIVIL ACTION--LAW RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Renee Siegel, through her attorneys, MidPenn Legal Services, and makes the following response to the Complaint filed in the above captioned matter: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied as stated. The Defendant's residence for most of the 2006-07 school year was at 7 Pine Road is in Mount Holly. Two school districts, South Middleton Area School District and Carlisle Area School District, share responsibility for the education of middle and high school students in Mount Holly. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied as stated. Attendance in a school district that is not a child's district of residence is at the discretion of the receiving district and tuition may be charged. 7. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendant avers that she lived at 216 Garland Drive in the Carlisle Area School District for the month of August 2006 and part of September 2006. Defendant further avers that she made Plaintiff aware of her change in address immediately upon moving. 8. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny this averment. 9. Denied. By way of further answer, Defendant avers that CASD was informed of Defendant's change of address and was never informed that this would result in a tuition charge. Defendant did not know that her children were not registered in the proper district. By way of further answer, Defendant avers that since both of her children are in special education and require extensive services, changing their ti school would have negatively impacted their special education program and services. 10. Denied as stated. No amount has been paid Plaintiff because Defendant does not believe that this amount is owed. NEW MATTER 11. Under the Public School Code, 24 P.S. §24-2401, et seq. all children in the Commonwealth are entitled to a free, public education. 12. Under the Public School Code of Pennsylvania and the federal statute, namely the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, all eligible children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. 13. Defendant's children are entitled by both and federal and state law to a free and appropriate public education. 14. If Plaintiff claims that Defendant should have sought that education from the South Middleton or Mt. Holly public schools, those school entities are responsible for the entire costs of educating Defendant's children and are necessary parties to this suit. YY L ra e E. D' Alo A tt6rney for Plaintiff Atty. ID #26146 MidPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 243-1968 { . V VERIFICATION The above-named Defendant, Renee Siegel, verifies that the statements made in the attached Response to complaint and New matter are true and correct. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: November 8, 2007 6:±? Renee iegel CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff VS. RENEE SIEGEL, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 07-6255 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION--LAW PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS To the Prothonotary: Kindly allow, Renee Siegel , Defendant, to proceed in forma ap uperis. I, Grace E. D'Alo, attorney for the party proceeding in forma ap uperis, certify that I believe the party is unable to pay the costs and that I am providing free legal services to the party. j'Gea D' Alo Diamondstone Geoffrey Biringer Attorneys for Plaintiff MidPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 11 CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff vs. RENEE SIEGEL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 07-6255 CiviL TERM : CIVIL ACTION--LAW AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Grace D'Alo, Esquire, hereby certify that on November 8, 2007, a true and correct copy of the foregoing RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT AND NEW MATTER was served by first class, U.S. mail, upon James Flower, attorney for the Plaintiff, at the following address: James Flower 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED - D (coo G a e E. D' Alo to ey for Plaintiff At . ID #26146 MidPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 243-1968 ' CO c - CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. RENEE SIEGEL, NO. 07-6255 Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes Plaintiff through its attorneys, SAIDIS, FLOWER LINDSAY, and makes the following reply to Defendant's new matter: 11. Denied as stated. Under the Public School Code all children in Commonwealth are entitled to a free public education in the public school district in which each child is a resident. By way of further answer, this averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 12. Denied as stated. Under the Public School Code all children in Commonwealth are entitled to a free public education in the public school district in which each child is a resident. By way of further answer, this averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 13. Denied as stated. Defendant's children are entitled to a free and WER & LINDSAY ?-- w 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA appropriate public education in the school district in which they reside. By way further answer, Defendant's children, during the school year in question, were residents of the South Middleton School District and were entitled to a free and appropriate public education in that School District. As set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, in order fo .., Defendant's children to attend Carlisle Area School, Defendant was required to tuition. 14. Denied. Defendant chose to conceal her residence from Plai Carlisle Area School District and, consequently, has the obligation to pay tuition Carlisle Area School District. South Middleton School District would have supplied Defendant's children with a free public education. Sending her children to a district other than that in which she resided was Defendant's choice and does not co a financial obligation on the South Middleton School District. The South Middle School District is, consequently, not a necessary party to this action. SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: November -2_D _, 2007 B James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 I.D. #27742 SAIDIS, LEND AY 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA VERIFICATION I, MARY KAY DURHAM, Superintendent of the CARLISLE AR SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant herein, hereby verify that the statements made in within Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, informati and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT Bv1 J M Kay urham, Superintendent Date: November 2007 SAIDIS, LIlVDS Y 5 West High Street Carlisle, PA CJ ° C=3 -n C l>j iV ?? ff p SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-06255 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT VS SIEGEL RENEE TIMOTHY REITZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon SIEGEL RENEE the DEFENDANT , at 1955:00 HOURS, on the 29th day of October , 2007 at 1026 RITNER HIGHWAY CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to RENEE SIEGEL a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Postage Surcharge I!/o91Q1 ?? 18.00 4.80 .58 10.00 .00 ? 33.38 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of day So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 10/30/2007 SAIDIS FLOWER LINDSAY By: D puty She iff A.D. MARTSON LAW OFFICES PAGE 03(04 b8/bl/lblb E7ti:45 /17-243-1850 Carlisle Area School District ~.ain vs Renne Siegel In The. Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Case No. 07-6255 ~ ~ ~ rr~C~ IL ACTION c`~ ~ ~'r CIV ~ f ~ ~ ..., ob rrt p C7 Statement of Iatenflon to Prnceed ~ d •..,,, ~ -.. 2>C ~ ~~ 'f'o the Court: .~.! ~ b Carlisle Area School District ~ntendstoptoceedwiththeabovecaptionedma~oer.~ Print Narru James D. Flower, Jr. c Sign Name Date: ~ ~J~l-- / D Attameyfor Carlisle Area School District E:planatorq 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 Adtrrinistration 1901. Two aspects of the reco~runendation merit comment. L Rule ojetvll Procedure New Buie of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the tetntirtation 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, 331 Pa. 360,?t0 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice m the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be disrrtissed pursuant bo local rules irrgrletnerrting Rule of Judicial Administration l 90l" Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accomarodate the new role of'civt7 prooedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of rrtaturs set forth in subdivision {a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Ruk 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. Aaet giving notice of intent to terrrrittau an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the patties. Tf the parties do not wish to pursue the case, 'they will talcs no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of cause terrr»naiing tine mailer with piejudica for failure bo prosecute." 'If a party wishes to pursue thcmatter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Ti%kere the action lots 6etn ternttnated Tf the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Ru1e230(d) for relief ffasn the order of termination. An example of such a» ocaurrtnce aright be the termination of a viable action whey the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent id terrtrinau and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The drniug 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 ttrat the court must grant the petition and reinstate the aetion. Tf the petition is filed lour titan the thirty-day period, subdivision (dx3) requires that the plaintiff meat make a showing to the court that the petition was promptly Sled 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 temtirtation asr the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2)• B. Where tke action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to pressed tray have been the subject of inordittau delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the rerrredy of a common ]aw eon pros which exits independrntty of termination under Rute 230.2. OF CV '1? David D. Buell '' e Q 12enee IC Simpson Prothonota :,� a 15` Deputy Prothonotary V \0 2t f ° �irkSSohonage, ESQ, '4\77.v Irene E. Morrow . 4 r',< Solicitor 1750 24 Deputy Prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 017 —/2ss CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013,AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE-THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R.C.P.230.2. BY THE COURT, DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Suite 100 • Carlisle, 4'A 17013 • (717)240-6195 • Fa.,(717)240-6573