The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-5608 COMMONWIALTH 0' PENNSYLVANIA ". COURT Of COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL ~. FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT C__NPLlASNo. D3-S~OJ> (!t;"'t.LY~ NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case n... ,tialled be""" JUDICIAL DISTRICT Cumberland County NAME Of """"-'NT Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc. ADDIESS OF APffUANf OTY I MJG. D1ST. NO. OR NAME Of OJ. Thomas A. Placey STATE ZP COIlE 6714 Carlisle 1>>:n:OFJl..lDGMENt 9/24/03 ClAIM NO Pike I~ TH: CASE OF (Ptalrtlff) Mechanicsburg PA Cumberland Valley Motors v. Chris J. Hall (~I Chris J. Hall vs. Cumberland Valley Motors SlGNArLiRE OF APPB.LANT OR tIS ATtORNEY OR AGENt 17050 CV IT This black will be signed ONLY when this notofion is required under Po. R.cP JP. No. 10088. This Notice of Appeal. when recei'led by the District Justice. will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. 0000261-03 ~",0..)\NCW~ Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy If appellant was CLAIMANT (see Pa. R.cP.JP. No. 1001 (6) in action before District Justice, he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001 (7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee). PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon <l1dst:qiEr Hlll , appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal /} Name 01 appeIIee(S) (Common Pleas No. ()] - !;[,Of (: t'UiL 1EJz...."lf'<!ithin twenty (20) days ~ ^~ce of rule or suffer entry of judgment af non pros. '~o--C1. ~~~~or_ Suraket:' itilliars, P.c. , oppeIlee(s). 88 P.O. !be Hm:iS::nrg, ffi 171 00 (1) You are nofified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of _vice of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail <l1dst:qiEr Hlll Name 01 """,,_sJ RULEI To (2) ~ you do not file a complaint within this fime. a JUDGMENT Of NON PROS WIll BE ENTERED AGAINST YOu. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of mailing. Date: Or+- :14 . ~ '-- ~O~D_J:)77;CJ)~/~.t&:- AOPC 312-90 COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF . S5 AFFIDAVIT: I hereby swear or affirm that I served o a copy 01 the Notice 01 Appeal, Common Pleas No. upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) 0 by personal serVice 0 by (certllled) (registered) mail, sender's receipt allached hereto, upon the appellee, (name) on o by personal serVice by (certIJled) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. to File a Complainl accompanying the above Notice of Appeal upon Hie appellee(s) to whom o by personal service 0 by 'certif!ed) (registered) o and furfherthat I served the the Rule was addressed on mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF My commission (l() '"f::J (:J'bo> t: ~~ "--:") - ~ ~ ~ () -- ~f:! <> ~ ~ ! r NOTICE OF JUDGM~TiTRANSCRIPT PLAINTIFF/JUDGME~Y~~!J):e6e ..., fHALL, CHRISTOnus.K J 9 9 MOUN'l'AIN LANE NEWBURG, PA 17240 L .COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND Mag. Dial. No.: 09- 3 - 04 OJ N~rTl,; Hon. THOMAS A. PLACEY Add,..., 104 S. SPORTING HIt.L RD_ MBCHANICSBURG, PA VS. DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT C~IIn9l,'\iDRE6S lCuImBRLAND VALLEY IIO'I'ORS 6714-6720 CARLISLE PIKE MBCHAN:tCSBt1IlG, PA 1.7050 L Docket No.: ey- 0000261- 03 Date Filed: 9/04/03 CROSS COMPLAINT 001 T.~."on., (717) 761- 8230 17050 ctIIIBERLAJl1D VALLEY IIO'l'ORS 6714-6720 CARLISLE PIKE MBCHANJ:CSBURG, PA 17050 . If > THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: [i] Judgment was entered for: POR pT.ATNTTPP (Name) 'A'AT.T., f".J:l1n~'IlC)p'A'1Qil .T !iJ Judgment was entered against: (Name) . CllImRllT.ltt.NTl VAT.T.1IlY MO'I'ORS In the amount of $ (Date of Judgment) (Date & Time) 9/24/0'" 7,400; on on: o Defendants are jointly and severally liable. D Damages will be assessed on: o This case dismissed without prejudice. Amount of Judgment Judgment Costs Interest on Judgment Attorney Fees Total O Amount of Judgment Subject to AttachmenV42 Pa.C.S. ~ 8127 $ o Portion of JUdgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ Certified ,Judgment Total $ _I I ..J & $ 7,400.00 $_ 5. 00 $ .00 $ .00 $ 7,405.00 ------------ ------------ ANV PARTY HAS THE AIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAVS AFTER THE EI'lTRV OF JUDGMEI'lT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOT ARY/C~ERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON P~EAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COpy OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMEI'lTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RU~ES OF CIVIL FAOCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICES, IF THE JUDGMEI'lT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGIolEI'lT IN THE COURT OF COMMON P~EAS, A~~ FURTHEA PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MA v BE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUSTICE. UNLESS THE JUDGMEI'lT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTJiR~i!'tr,,+:r.HE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRV OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUQGl\l~NT oEB:iOIi';A\lS.IN FULL, SETT~ES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. ./" . I.,., _'. ~~.. . (~? 'DJ,JJ""~ s bontaining the judgment. . ,;;~~::"' "'" oopy )'oom".' My commission expires flrSl Monday of January, 2G04 . , District Justice SEAL Aope 315-03 DATB PRIN'l'ED: 9/24/03 4,20.." DII" , COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: ctlKBBRLAND NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: .. N......d ADDRESS --, !cUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS 6720 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBORG, PA 17050 L MBg. Cis!. No.: 09-3-04 OJ Noam.: !-ton. 'l'HOMAS A_ PLACBY Add'..., 104 S. SPORTING HILL RD. MECBANICSBURG, PA .J VS. To"."", (717) 761- 8230 DEFENDANT: fiALL, CHRJ:S 99 MOUlfi'AI:N NEWBURG, PA L DocKet No.: CV-0000261-03 Date Filed: 5/19/03 .J a NAMe an(l ADDRESS ., 17050 J LANE 17240 CUMRRRT.um VALLEY MOTORS 6720 CARLISLE PIKE MBCHANJ:CSBtJRG, PA 17050 ~ , . THIS IS TO, NOTIFY YOU THAT: .. . Judgment: " [i] Judgment was entered for: ....011 "PT.lI. TJGlI'IPP " ":. (Name) I"T1MR~T.ll.1ITn VAT.I.J!V MnTnRS [i] Judgment was entered against: (Name) Rll.T.T., C"JfRTS .'{ in the amount of $ (Date of Judgment) Q/24/n1 _nn on: D Defendants are jointly and severally liable. D Damages will be assessed on: D This case dismissed without prejudice. D Amount of Judgment Subject to AttachmenV42 Pa.C.S. ~ 6127 $ o Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ (Date & Time) Amount of Judgment Judgmenl Costs Interest on Judgment Attorney Fees Total $ $ $ $ $ .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ ------------ ------------ Certified Judgment Total $ ANY PAFlT'f..l'IAS THE illGHT TO APREAL WITj,jIN 3D DA VS AFTEB THE ENTRV OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARV/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE F1ULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUSTICE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE IN1;SAtsTEiM~.;r:HE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUD~~~NT DEB*,~;!!A'Ys.tN FULL. SETTLES, OR OaRWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. /J /~~ ': (:., , ,( r" ..\ '?4" ~03 Date. ' ~ ~ '";i,' < ,'" , D~~C}JUstice , I ce~lf that this is a true art6~ 0 zthB -ecord of the pr1>cee~ontaining t~e Judgment. ~1 _ Date C ~,District Justice --- My commission expires first Monday of Janu y, ~ 004 SEAL AOPC 315.03 9/24/03 4,19,40 PM DATE PRINTBD: ,', "'...."4.. ..,..... -.,.......,.. ,,,..'~ . . PROOF OF SERVI E OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA! 1 COUNTY OF Cumberland I . ss _._._._._._._....-..._---~--_..----_...-----.._..--- -------., AFFIDAVIT: I hereby swear or a irm that I served J;[J a copy of the Notice of ppeal, Common Pleas No. 03-569.8 Ci vi~_'I'en]1upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) Octc> r 28 ,2003 ,_, n by personal service rn by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, nd upon the appellee, (name)~stophe:rHall ._______, on Octol:JE!r~~003 0 by personal service ~ by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. ~ and further that I served he Rule to File a Complaint accompanying the above Notice of Appeal upon the appellee(s) to whom the Rule was addressed n()(::tober}4, 2003._,_. [] by personal service ~ by (certified) (registered) mail. sender's receipt atta hed hereto. SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCR.I.IS S...IE. D SE.FO..R..E.. ME THIS cd DAY OF i\lCy.kb< r .?lQQS I (', . i 1/ VI ,-A., _ J ! "~..:J ~~ 'q"e,\]'f\,{"",-L Signature:?] offielD! before whom affidaVit was made ..1\10 ~t'.x 'f......Pu.,blLL-. ....... ..' Tiile of offiCial NOt My comml'ssion expires on K,~Y_",,~,! __ Camp HID. MyComm ~!:1.<A~i.W:~' ~......._.._ , Signature of affiant (') <::> 0 C W ~ ~ ~1 ~cr.: ~;;J C"" 0 -r' .< (-r,~ 2" I wI;. ''')rrt -<f!''''';'' W ;;CJ ~f:, .-';l b ~:j~ ~C ::r (')-TI C' :i>c~ - ~l~ 2: .. =< <::) ~ (-.) -< f"'.'-"" C_NWIALTH O~ piNNS'I'LVANIA COUIlT Of COM_ PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL . , \ , FROM JUDICIAL DISTIlICT DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COM_N PLEAS No. D3 - ::,~,!." Q? NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is 9i- that the appellant hQs filed in the above Caurt of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case n1entiolled bel""" Cumberland County iJ ' G~, Lh;<-hj QTY NAME D.J. ...... Cumberland Valle Motors Inc. AI'I'EUANT TATE Zl'C "" 6714 Carlisle ..-e N (Plairt.Iff) Mechani r Cumberland Valley Motors v, Chris J, Hall vs. nJltE OF LANT Chris J. Hall (~) 9/24/03 Signature of Prot/Jonolary or Deputy ~l-I Cc )\Kl(Lv -Lt1-- If appellant was CLAIMANT (see Pa, R.GP.JP. No, 1001 (6) in action before District Justice, he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT wfthin twenty (20) days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL CV LT This block w~1 be signed ONLY when this nc>ta~on is required under Po. R.cP JP. No. 10088. This No~ce 'of Appeal, when received by the Dist,ict Justice, will operate as a i';" SUPERSEDEAS to the.. judgment' for possession in this case. 0000261-03 PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of tonn to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R,CP.JP No, 1001 (7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee). PRAECIPEI To Prothonotary Enter rule upon (]1rf.d'l'= H3ll . ,appellee(s),ta file a complaint in this appeal Name 01 awel/ee(5) (Convnon Pleas No. 0" . ,C::LOP (! I ~,,' L l~ ~ithin twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pro~ .(\It Oh;~ (1. S lAJC;VS-P /... - SignIlIuIe 01 ~1Ia0 ol.lfl. a'IliimOy or.~ , appeIlee(s), ~ liti.lJ,jam, P.e. P.o. B:K 88 H:u::l:i::b:o:., m 171 08 (1) You are nc>~fied that 0 rule is hereby entered upon you 10 file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the.t!obl.of. _vice of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered moiL RULE I To (]1rf>'ll.ll.... H3ll Name 01_5) (2) If you do noifi1iicj'c:~nt within this time, a JUDGMENT Of NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOu. ,"::' . :. ":01 "\' (3) The t!obl of service of this ruI8 if s~vice was by ma~ is the date of moi~ng. Dc.+ . ~l,/ ' ,;J(:(~ '.... '. "-- 4..1<1 (!. G21,) r~- 11 ,f::;1l ~-0I or- Dote: AOPC 312-90 COURT FlU .S. Postal Service ERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (DomestIc Mall Only; No Inswance Coverage Plovlded) '" '" :r .-'l '" 00 .-'l ru Postage $ Certified Fee M Return Receipt: Fee C (Endorsement Required) CJ RestrIcted Delivery Fee C (Endorsement Required) C Total Postage & Fees :r IT' .-'l .-'l C C f'- Postm"'" "". omplete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete . em 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. . rint your name and address on the reverse o that we can return the card to you. . ttach this card to the back of the mail piece, r on the front if space pennits. 1~cJI#L ~9fi~dd t~)# /J~9'o 2. Article Number (Copy'from service labAll A ~eived byJf'1e8Je Jrlnt C C J r/5/'"1rvl c. Signature o Agent o Addressee DYes~ D No x~ D. Is delivery address different from item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: 3 SeIV)o<l'Type wrGertified Mail o Registered o Insured Mail o Ex..,Bl'ess Mail g..,:f"'eturn Receipt for Merchandise DC.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) DYes 700~ ~~~O noo~ 2~85 ~455 102595-00-M-0952 , --, Form 3811, July 1?99 I I,' , Domestic Return Receipt , Postal ServIce RTIFIED MAil RECEIPT (Domestic MtHI Only, No InsLlrance Cove/age Provided) ru IT' 0 F F I C I A l U 00 1"- ;T Postage $ 00 n Certified Fee ru - r'l Return Receipt Fee 4A~' He.. C (Endorsement RequIred) C Restricted Delivery Fee C (Endorsement Required) C Total Postage & Fees $ ;T IT' n n c c 1"- ,mplete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete am 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 'int your name and address on the reverse ) that we can return the card to you. ltach this card to the back of the mailplece, on the front If space permits. :icle Addressed to: D. Is elivery address item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: DAgen' I O~' DYes DNa ~-;~~:J \ I /..-4 /~0 3. Servi~ ~ertifiedMail o Registered o Insured Mail o Exp~all ~ Receipt for Merchandise 00,0.0. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) o Ves 1 "\rtlcle Number (Copy from service label) 7D01 1940 OODl 2184 7892 ,q Form 3811 , July 1999 Domestic RetLlm Receipt 102595.00.M.0952 CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v, : No, 03-5608 Civil Term CHRISTOPHER], HALL, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant NOTICE 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 MAYBE 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 Bar Association 2 Liberty A venue Carlisle,PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 A VISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADOIA EN CORTE. Si usted desea defendersede las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente 0 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 Ie advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda 0 cualquier otra CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiff v, : No. 03-5608 Civil Term CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc., by and through its counsel, Shumaker Williams, P,C., and states the following: I. Plaintiff, Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc" is a Pennsylvania corporation with its registered address as 6714-20 Carlisle Pike, Cumberland COWIty, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050, 2. Defendant, Christopher J. Hall, is an adult individual who resides at 99 Mountain Road, Cumberland County, Newburg, Pennsylvania 17240. 3. Plaintiff hired Defendant on April 1 , 2002 as an aLltomobile technician to work in its service shop, 4, While he was employed for Plaintiff, Defendant failed to properly service two transmissions for two of Plaintiff's customers, 5. On February 28, 2003, Plaintiff requested that Defendant complete transmission recall work for one of its customers. 6. Specifically, Defendant needed to remove the fluid out of the transmission to complete the recall and then replace new transmission fluid in the transmission, 7. Defendant drained the transmission fluid out of the customer's car and completed the recall work. 8. Defendant then put windshield washer fluid III the transmission rather than transmission fluid, 9. Defendant recognized his mistake of putting windshield washer fluid in the transmission rather than transmission fluid, 10, Defendant did not correct his mistake on February 28, 2003. II. Rather, Defendant took the car out of the shop, parked the vehicle in the service lot, and delivered the keys and paperwork to the service advisor without notifYing the service advisor or shop foreman of his mistake, 12, The customer picked up her car on February 28, 2003, 13. On March 1,2003, the customer returned her car and advised Plaintiff that she was having problems with her car. 14. Specifically, the customer complained that the car was shuddering on turns. 15. Defendant again drained the transmission fluid out of the transmission and added new transmission fluid to the customer's car. 16. Plaintiff's shop foreman, Garry Williams, drove the customer's car after the transmission was drained for the second time and determined that the vehicle exhibited severe torque binds, which caused the vehicle to shudder on turns, 17, While Mr. Williams was in the process of diagnosing the problem with the customer's car, Defendant admitted his error. 2 18, Mr. Williams was advised that Defendant put windshield washer fluid in the transmission fill tube rather than transmission fluid, 19. Mr. Williams determined that in the process of operating the vehicle, the windshield washer fluid was dispersed throughout the transmission resulting in internal contamination of the transmission assembly, 20. Therefore, Mr. Williams decided that because of Defendant's error, Plaintiffwould have to replace the transmission, 21, Plaintiff had to advise its customer that windshield washer fluid was put in the transmission, the transmission had to be replaced, and it would take Plaintiff some time to fix her car because a new transmission had to be ordered for her car and then it would take at least one day to put a new transmission in her car. 22. Plaintiff had to provide a rental car for its customer until the transmission could be replaced by Plaintiff. 23, When the transmission for the customer's car came in on March 6, 2003, Defendant was out sick; therefore, Mr. Williams had to put a new transmission in the customer's car. 24, After the transmission was replaced in the customer's car, the vehicle operated as designed on a road test and, as of this date, she had not returned it to Plaintiff for a torque bind condition, 25. On or about March 4, 2003, Plaintiff requested that Defendant replace an engine for one of its customers, 3 26, While Defendant was aligning the engine and transmission together, there was a loud crack, which was heard by several of Plaintiff's employees in the shop. 27, The next day, Defendant removed the engine and torque convertor to locate the source of the loud noise heard the previous day, 28. On March 5, 2003, Defendant advised Mr. Williams that he damaged a customer's vehicle when he replaced the engine, 29. Defendant and Mr, Williams tore the engine apart to look at the damage and saw that the transmission case was broken and the transmission oil pump was crushed, 30, Mr. Williams determined that Defendant failed to properly align the transmission torque converter shaft with the transmission oil pump prior to reinstallation of the engine, which caused the aforementioned damage to the customer's car. 31, The parts and labor cost for replacing the transmission case and oil pump was approximately the same price as replacing the complete transmission; therefore, Mr. Williams decided that Plaintiff should replace the transmission. 32. Therefore, on March 12,2003, Mr. Williams had to replace the transmission for the customer. 33, After replacing the customer's transmission, the vehicle operated as designed on a road test and, as of this date, the customer has not returned the vehicle to Plaintiff for any transmission concerns. 34, On March 7, 2003, Defendant quit. 4 35, Before and after Defendant terminated his employment with Plaintiff, he advised Steve Gotwols, Director of Operations of Plaintiff, that he would reimburse Plaintiff for the damage he caused to the two customers' vehicles. 36, When Defendant quit, he left his toolbox at Plaintiffs service shop. 37. Defendant's toolbox is locked and Plaintiff does not have a key to it 38. On several occasions, Plaintiffhas arranged for Defendant to pick up his toolbox, but Defendant fails to show up and remove his toolbox from Plaintiffs service shop. Count I Breach of Contract 39, Paragraphs I through 38 above are incorporated herein by reference, 40. On April 1,2002, Defendant executed a contract with Plaintiff whereby in exchange for employing and paying Defendant, he agreed that Plaintiff could take the following deductions from his paycheck: accounts receivables, health insurance, group insurance, 401k, damages caused by Defendant, and insurance deductibles caused by Defendant A true and correct copy of the contract is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," 4 I, Defendant understood and knew that a material t,erm of the contract was to pay for insurance deductibles that Plaintiff incurred due to his failure to properly service a customer's vehicle. 42, Defendant understood and knew that a material term ofthe contract was to pay for damages incurred by Plaintiff as a result of his failure to properly service a customer's vehicle. 5 customers, 43. On two occasions, Defendant failed to properly service vehicles owned by Plaintiff s 44, With regard to both occasions, Defendant admitted his errors to Plaintiff, 45, When Defendant put windshield washer fluid in a customer's transmission, rather than transmission fluid, Plaintiff submitted an invoice in the amount of $3, 131.84 to its insurance company due to Defendant's error. 46. It cost Plaintiff $3,13 1.84 in parts and labor to fix this customer's car, 47, Plaintiff submitted this invoice to its insurance eompany, which paid $2,631.84 of the invoice. 48, 49. $500.00. 50, 51. The insurance company did not pay the $500,00 deductible. According to the contract, Defendant is responsible for the insurance deductible of Defendant told Plaintiff he would pay the insurance deductible, To date, Defendant has not paid Plaintiff for the insurance deductible it incurred as a result of Defendant's error. 52, Defendant breached his contract with Plaintiff by failing to pay the insurance deductible of$500,00, 53, In addition, the Defendant breached his contract with Plaintiff by failing to pay the additional damages that resulted in his error of putting windshield washer fluid in a customer's transmission, rather than transmission fluid 6 54, Plaintiff had to pay for the customer's rental car from March I, 2003 through March 8,2003, while a new transmission was put in her car. 55, The cost ofthe customer's rental was $210,00, 56. In addition, Plaintiff had to pay for an extended warranty on the customer's vehicle due to Defendant's error. 57. The cost of the extended warranty was $700,00, 58, Also, Plaintiff had to deliver the car to its customer when the vehicle was fixed, which cost Plaintiff $28.70. 59, Plaintiff lost this customer and goodwill due to Defendant's mistake with her transmission. 60. According to the contract, Defendant is responsible for the additional damages he caused due to his error in servicing this customer's vehicle. 61, Defendant told Plaintiff he would reimburse Plaintiff for the additional damages it incurred due to his error in servicing this customer's vehicle. 62. To date, Defendant has not paid Plaintiff for the ,additional damages it incurred as a result of his error in servicing this customer's vehicle. 63, Defendant breached his contract with Plaintiff by failing to pay the additional damages caused by his error in servicing this customer's vehicle. 64, When Defendant failed to properly align the transmission torque converter shaft with the transmission oil pump prior to reinstallation of the engine, ill caused damages to Plaintiff, 7 65, Specifically, it cost Plaintiff $2,852,70 in parts and labor to replace the customer's transmission. 66, Plaintiff did not submit this invoice to its insurance because the car did not leave the Plaintiff's lot. 67, In addition, Plaintiff had to pay employees' wages for redoing work completed by Defendant. 68, $2,852.70, 69, 70, According to the contract, Defendant is responsible for the invoice in the amount of Defendant told Plaintiff he would pay this invoi'~e. To date, Defendant has not paid Plaintiff for this invoice, which it incurred as a result of Defendant's error, 71, Defendant breached his contract with Plaintiff by failing to pay this invoice. 72, Defendant's breach of contract has caused and continues to cause damages to Plaintiff, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc" respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant and award Plaintiff damages in an amount less than the mandatory arbitration amount of$25,000,00, plus interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and/or appropriate. Count II Negligence 73, Paragraphs 1 through 72 above are incorporated herein by reference, 8 74, Defendant had a duty to properly service vehicles and complete his work in a workmanlike manner for Plaintiff. 75. Defendant breached its duty to Plaintiff by failing to properly service transmissions for two of Plaintiff s customers. 76. First, Defendant failed to properly complete the recall work for Plaintiffbecause he refilled the customer's transmission with windshield washer fluid instead of transmission fluid. 77, Defendant admitted his error of putting windshield washer fluid in the customer's transmission rather than transmission fluid. 78, Accordingly, Defendant breached his duty to Plaintiff, 79, As a direct and proximate result of Defendant' s breach of his duty, Plaintiffhas been damaged because it had to pay an insurance deductible in the amount of$500,00, 80. In addition, Plaintiff had to pay the following additional damages: the customer's rental car, which cost $21 0,00; an extended warranty on the customer's vehicle, which cost $700.00; and delivery charges, which cost $28,70. 81. But for Defendant's negligent conduct in servicing the customer's vehicle, Plaintiff would not have suffered the injuries set forth above. 82, The damages incurred by Plaintiff due to Defendant's error of putting windshield washer fluid in a transmission were foreseeable. 83. Defendant could foresee that putting windshield washer fluid in a transmission would cause Plaintiff to have to replace the transmission. 9 84. Second, Defendant failed to properly align the transmission torque converter shaft with the transmission oil pump on a customer's vehicle prior to reinstallation of the engine, 85, Defendant admitted his error of failing to properly align the transmission torque converter shaft with the transmission oil pump on a customer's car, 86, Accordingly, Defendant breached his duty to Plaintiff. 87. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of his duty, Plaintiffhas been damaged because it had to pay $2,852,70 to fix the customer's car and correct Defendant's mistake. 88, In addition, Plaintiff had to pay employees' wages for redoing work completed by Defendant. 89, But for Defendant's negligent conduct in servicing the customer's vehicle, Plaintiff would not have suffered the injuries set forth above, 90, The damages incurred by Plaintiff due to Defendant's error of failing to properly align the transmission torque converter shaft with the transmission oil pump were foreseeable. 9 L Defendant could foresee that failing to properly align the transmission torque converter shaft with the transmission oil pump would cause the transmission case to break and transmission oil pump to crush and Plaintiff to have to replace the transmission, 10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defimdant and award Plaintiff damages in an amount less than the mandatory arbitration amount of$25,000.00, plus interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and/or appropriate. SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated: ~~\\')/~ By S\&,r,'={\ (;. c)\,JJC\J'l1tf2.. Anthony J. Foschi, J.D. #55896 Melissa A, Swauger, J.D. #82382 P,O, Box 88 Harrisburg, P A 17108 (717) 763.1121 Attorneys for Plaintiff : 160508 11 - ~, Y. ~.. ", I Hereby give my perlOission for Cumberland Valley Motors to deduct from my paycheck for: Accounts Receivable,. Blue CrossIBlue Shield Group Insurance 40lk Damages and or Insurance deductible caused by myself Signature ct" ~-- tt.-- Date: LI-/~;L " 11/lel2ee3' 19: 11 ' 7177637467 SHUMAKER WILLIAMS PAGE 16 VERIFICATION The undersigned, Monique C. Ullom, hereby veJ'ifies and states that: 1. She is the President ofCumbel'land Valley, Motors, Inc.; 2. She is authorized to make this VeJ'ification on its behalf; 3. The facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, infonnation and belief; and 4. She is aWlIl'e that any false statements hereil1l1l'c made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. ~4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: IIII'Z-(03 e=:~:'::::::~) -- Moiiiquc C, Ullom, President -- ----- 11/10/2003' 19: 11 ' 7177637467 SHUMAKER WILLIAMS , PAGE 17 VERIFICATION The undersigned, Steve Gotwols, hereby verifies and states that: 1. He is a Director ofOpenrtions of Cumberland Valley, Motors, Inc.; 2. He is authorized to make this Verification on its behalf; 3. The facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief; and 4. He is aware that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, L: Dated: f I ( I z.( 03 Steve '015 (") c ;;- ;pu",' -:,.lr,: 2;: (is '. ~(, ~, Z' j;'C, ". d-~ .:2 C.,) ~ r;~J ::::J UJ C) (...) ~::- ,~} '.> .4.) -< ,~ o o ;1 I :'1. :'-~ j~ "i:-~:l r j~, 'j..i-i (') r., v, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 2003- 5608 CIVIL TERM CHRISTOPHER J, HALL, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Defendants NOTICE 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 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. 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 Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 CHRISTOPHER J, HALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, NO. 2003- 5608 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Defendants COMPLAINT 1, Plaintiff, Christopher J, Hall is an adult individual with a residence at 99 Mountain Lane, Newburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17240, 2, Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors is a business involved in the sales and repairs of motor vehicles with a location at 6714/20 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050, It is believed that Cumberland Valley Motors is a corporation, 3. Defendant Steve Gotwols is an adult individual and serves as Field Operations Director of Cumberland Valley Motors, Mr. Gotwols Is an agent of the aforesaid Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors. 4, During the week of February 24-28, 2003, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors and under the supervision of the Defendant, Steven Gotwols. Prior to that week, the Plaintiff had also been so employed, beginning his employment with the Defendants approximately a total of eleven consecutive months with the Defendants, 5. When the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants he was promised that in 1 addition to his compensation for the repair work performed on vehicles brought to their business, he would receive training on the motor vehicles, particularly the Subaru models, that he was hired to work on. 6, During the eleven months of his employment with the Defendants, he received a total of five hours of training on the Subaru Forrester model which was being introduced. During the aforesaid week in February, 2002, he was called in by Mr. Gotwols and told that he had damaged vehicles he had worked on and that the Defendants demanded that he repay the cost of $3,352,70, 7. The Plaintiff acknowledged that he had misaligned the engine in a reinstallation such that there was internal damage to the transmission when the vehicle was driven. The Plaintiff acknowledged that he would correct this problem by paying for the cost of the parts, that he would rebuild the transmission and reinstall it at no expense to the Defendant or the customer. This matter had been discussed with Mr. Gotwols and that corrective process had been approved, Despite that understanding, the Defendant chose to replace the transmission with a re-manufactured one and were charging the Plaintiff $2,500,00, 8, The Defendants also allege that the Plaintiff had damaged a vehicle that was still under warranty when he performed a recall on a "park pall" pin that kept the transmission locked in park, The owner experienced a problem and the Plaintiff stated that a very small amount of solvent had been mistakenly let into the transmission, The procedure for correcting this problem was to drain and flush the transmission and that 2 should have taken care of the matter, if the matter was in any way related to the small amount of solvent. If the customer was experiencing trouble with the transmission slipping, it may have been caused by some other situation not related to any of the repair work that he undertook, Rather than utilize this process, the Defendants decided to give the customer a new transmission and purchase an extended warranty for the vehicle. They told the Plaintiff that he had to pay for the new transmission and the extended warranty. 9, The Plaintiff felt that he was being treated very unfairly and told the Defendants that he was terminating his employment on March 7, 2003. He took some of his tools on March 7, 2003 and indicated that he would return to get the rest of his tools. March 7, 2003 was a Friday and the Plaintiff returned on Monday, March 10, 2003, Upon his return, the Plaintiff was told by John Dick, the Defendants Parts Manager, that if he did not pay the amount demanded by the Defendants that his tools would be kept at the Defendants business, The Plaintiff then spoke with Steve Gotwols who stated if the Plaintiff signed an agreement to repay the amount they demanded, he could have his tools. 10, Plaintiff was in agreement that he should pay for the parts and provide free labor to repair the one motor vehicle where he had misaligned the engine while doing the repairs but refused to acknowledge any responsibility for the other transmission, 11. The Defendants continued and presently continue to refuse the Plaintiff 3 the use of his tools. The Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors filed a District Justice action against the Plaintiff demanding $3,352,70, The Plaintiff counterclaimed against Cumberland Valley Motors in that action for the replacement cost of his tools, as well as his lost wages because of his inability to work fully without his tools, After the hearing, the Plaintiff was awarded the amount of $8,000,00, the jurisdictional limits of the magistrate against the Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors, 12, At the time of the aforesaid hearing, the Plaintiff presented a list and testified under oath of the tools that he recalled were in the box that the Defendants refused to return. 13. Subsequent to the hearing the Defendant, Steve Gotwals, individually and as agent of the Defendant CVM, prepared and forwarded to the Plaintiff a letter dated October 16, 2003, which, in effect, accused the Plaintiff of lying under oath and committing perjury. A copy of this communication was forwarded to the law firm of Shumaker Williams where staff and other individuals viewed this communication, 14. In response to the communication, the Plaintiff appeared at the Defendants' business on October 30, 2003 where the tool box was opened, Substantially all the tools that the Plaintiff testified to were in the box, Some tools were missing and the Plaintiff believes that the Defendants removed these items, or in the alternative, that while the Defendants had control of the toolbox, that individuals, unknown to the Plaintiff, removed the tools, The tools that were missing are a digital volt and ohmmeter and dial indicator measuring tool. 4 15, On October 30, 2003, the Plaintiff again requested the return of his toolbox and tools, Once again the Defendants' refused to return the tools. 16. The lack of tools has caused the Plaintiff's income to diminish which has caused financial hardship, He is behind in the payment of his regular obligations and is unable to replace his tools because of the financial hardship and expects to continue to suffer a loss of income due to the deprivation of his tools, 17, At the time the Plaintiff terminated his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff had a job offer to work for Andrew Juliana at a Mercedes BenzlBMW dealership and repair shop, The Defendants' depriving the Plaintiff of his tools caused him to lose this position, COUNT 1 in CONVERSION Vs. Steve Gotwols and Cumberland Valley Motors 18, The Plaintiff incorporates the averments and all reasonable inferences therefrom in Paragraphs 1 through 17, herein. 19. The Plaintiff is the owner and has the right to possession of his toolbox and the following tools: battery tester; W' air drill; 3/8" air drill; Y:," 90 degree air drill; 2 drill bit sets; air hammer and bit set; brake tool set; steering wheel pull set; damper wheel pull set; vacuum tester; transmission, 011 and power steering pressure tester; 5 digital, volt and ohmmeter; timing light; hex bit socket set; short combination wrenches; short combination rachet wrench; long wrench set; 2 metric wrench sets; 2 standard wrench sets; 2 punch sets; open end wrench set; 1/4" socket set; hole saw set; dial indicator measuring set; pry bar set; extractor set; tool box; extractor and drill set; screw extractor; torque set; 3/8" socket set shallow; 3/8" socket set deep. The value of the aforesaid tools is excess of $6,000.00. 20. The Defendants have intentionally deprived the Plaintiff of possession of the aforesaid tools. 21. The actions of the Defendants are outrageous and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs right to possession of his toolbox and tools and has resulted in a loss of income and financial hardship to be suffered by the Plaintiff, Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that; A. judgment in his favor and against the Defendants for the value of his toolbox and tools; B. judgment in his favor and against the Defendants for the lost income the Plaintiff has experienced by the Defendants having deprived the Plaintiff of the aforesaid items and; C, punitive or exemplary damages against the Defendants for their outrageous and reckless disregard of the Plaintiff's right to possession of his tools. D. The total damages claimed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in this Count are in excess of $25,000,00 6 COUNT 2 for TRESPASS TO CHATTEL Vs. Steve Gotwols and Cumberland Valley Motors 22, The Plaintiff incorporates the averments and all reasonable inferences therefrom in Paragraphs 1 through 21, herein. 23. The actions of the Defendants have caused the Plaintiff to suffer a decline of income which continues to the time of this Complaint and is reasonably expected to continue into the future. 24, The actions of the Defendants are outrageous and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiff's rights, Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that; A judgment in his favor and against the Defendants for the value of his lost income and; B. punitive or exemplary damages against the Defendants for their outrageous and reckless disregard of the Plaintiff's right to possession of his tools, C, The total damages claimed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in this Count are in excess of $25,000,00 7 COUNT 3 for DEFAMATION Vs. Steve Gotwols and Cumberland Valley Motors 25, The Plaintiff incorporates the averments and all reasonable inferences therefrom in Paragraphs 1 through 24, herein, 26. The communication dated October 16, 2003, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 27. The communication, in addition to the distribution to Shumaker Williams, was distributed to other owners or employees in the Cumberland Valley Motors organization, 28. The communication was prepared intentionally or in reckless and wanton disregard of the Plaintiff's rights, 29. As aforesaid, the Plaintiff had testified under oath as to the existence of the tools in the toolbox and the innuendo of the communication is that he had lied under oath, as to a material matter, in a court proceeding, thereby committing perjury. 30. The testimony of the Plaintiff was relied on by the District Justice as evidenced by his written "Facts From Trial" attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Accordingly, the accusations by the Defendants constitute libel per see 8 Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that; A judgment be entered in his favor and against the Defendants for defamation and damages awarded and; B. punitive or exemplary damages against the Defendants for their outrageous and reckless disregard of the Plaintiff's rights to his good name and character. C, The total damages claimed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in this Count are in excess of $25,000.00 Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER < ~ Robert L O'Brien, Esquire LD, # 28351 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 rlo.dir/clients/hall/complaint.pld 9 VERIFICATION The statements in the foregoing Complaint are based upon information which has been assembled by my attorney in this litigation, The language of the statements is not my own, I have read the statements; and to the extent that they are based upon information which I have given to my counsel, they 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. 94904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. DATE: I/-/L/- tJ '3 ~~.~::{~ NDV-14-2003 09:25 PM EDDY.S.TIRE 7'17 249 6600 P.01 6714120 Carlisle Pika MechanlcabuNI, PA 17050 Phone (7171 697-9448 1 {800l 382-1436 CUMBERLANDVALLEY MOTORS October 16, 2003 Chris Hall 99 Mountain Lane Newburg, PA 17240 Dear Chris: At the hearing held at District Justice Placey's office last month you presented a list of tools that you had left In your toolbox. We have witnesses who say that . you emptied the toolbox the day you lel'l:, leaving behind only the box and some miscellaneous Items. Therefore, we are planning to open your toolbox to verify and Inventory the contents. If you would like to be present for the inspection of the contents please contact me no later than October 30, 2003 by Spm so we can arrange a mutually acceptable time. If I have not heard from you by the date above we will proceed without you. Should you have questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 717-697- 9448. Slncereiy, ~/~~1 Steve GOtw~ Fixed Operations Director cc: Melissa Swauger, Shumaker Williams t i I, " 'c ~ "~-I' :'~ r '(A"'" .,t.:':;,: ,;,:'::'; ~,\I CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS, Plaintiff .~ v. District Court 09-3-04 CHRIS J. HALL, Defendant CV-0261-03 CHRIS J. HALL, Cross-Plaintiff v. District Court 09-3-04 CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS, Cross-Defendant CV-0261-03-cc-01 FACTS FROM TRIAL Cumberland Valley Motors (CVM), a multi brand auto dealership, employed Christopher J. Hall (Hall) as an automobile technician. Hall worked in the Subaru line of vehicles within CVM's service Shop. Hall, a general mechanic of 20 years, worked in this position for CVM since February 2002. Hall has no specialized education, training or experience repairing Subaru vehicles. Hall did receive one manufacturer's course on the new model vehicles while at CVM. In February/March 2003, Hall worked on two Subaru transmissions that were alleged to have not been serviced in a quality and workmanlike manner. CVM caused the vehicles to be reserviced at a cost of $500.00 and $2852.70, which represents cost after any insurance payments. Hall acknowledged the service issues, offered to make the corrections on his own time, and pay for the necessary parts. Hall's estimate for the corrections included $400.00 to $500.00 in parts for one vehicle and simply a transmission flush for the other. The flush cost would be the use of in house equipment and 11 to 13 quarts of transmission fluid. Frustrated with the repair services chosen by CVM, Hall left employment leaving behind personal tools valued at $6168.95. CVM's parts and service manager offered to Hall an opportunity to pick up the tools and make arrangements to settle up the repair issues. While the manager was out, CVM's upper management vetoed this offer and instructed that the tools were to be held until full satisfaction was made by Hall. When employment began Hall signed authorization for payroll deductions for damages caused by himself. In the interim time Hall has been working without these tools, and estimates the difference in incomes between jobs at $10,000.00 over six months. 1/ If ""B DISCUSSION The issues in the claim are whether the employee is contractually responsible for "negligent" work damages to the employer. If so, what is the reasonable mitigated cost of these damages. Hall admitted doing work that caused remedial measures to be taken by CVM. The payroll deduction authorization is not found to be contractually binding in this instance. The parole evidence given by a former CVM manager indicates the negligence discussed with Hall was for operation and not repairs of a vehicle. Further, the ambiguous language of the authorization does not empower CVM, as it attempted here, to hold an employee a work hostage. There being no contractual obligation here, the tort laws must be reviewed. There is no employee immunity provision found that prevents this claim. The applicable review is whether Hall breached a duty of care owed to CVM that has resulted in damages. This was not willful or malicious conduct on Hall's part but simple ordinary negligence, which Hall has honestly admitted.1 Hall is liable for the damage caused. This damage is the reasonable cost to repair. The customer relation reason for replacing the transmission by CVM is profit driven; however, this is not the mitigated damage. The flush recommended by Hall mayor may not have been sufficient repair. One will never know. Thus, an only nominal damage of $100.00 is awarded for this damage. The other vehicle is Hall estimated at and has a CVM deductible of $500.00, which will be awarded as damages to CVM. The counterclaim involves the unlawful restraint of Hall's personal property. A district court has no equitable powers to order the return of the property; although it is the right thing to do. The jurisdictional limit of a district court is $8,000.00 and Hall's claim far exceeds that limit. It is found that Hall is entitled to the return of his tools. Absent that authority monetary damages against CVM are awarded in the amount of the tools. Additionally, Hall lost employment potential as a result of not having his tools, which when combined with tool award is more than the jurisdictional limit. Thus, $8,000.00 is awarded to Hall, that must be set off for judgment. Judgment In the computer shall be recorded in favor of Hall on the counterclaim in the aggregate amount of $7,400.00 together with the costs of this action. The parties have previously been advised of their appeal rights and the original exhibits have been returned to the presenting party. 24 Seot 2003 Date ~ern"~, / Thom s . Placey DJ. I CVM may share in this negligence by its lack of proper training or inadequate supervision; however, what training or supervision is required cannot be judged from the facts presented. The proportional amount of liability by CVM will not be speculated at In this decision. 0 C1 Q ~,:,: (.1 ;,t: -I:' i,:~': ':,:) U;-'\ [T' ! H'. ~:: ." :;:< . OJ '~.) ~'~ ::-"'0 ..~:,( joO Z' , ( ) ~~ 0 :-1 );" . "-.'\ ~ , " '1::.- ui :J') -c (1) -< John R. Ninosky, Esquire LD. '78000 lJOJ.DBBIUI, ItM'ZMAH " SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-5608 CIVIL TERM Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendants, Cumberland Valley Motors and Steve Gotwols, in the above-captioned matter. GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. :{l , R. NinoSky, Es A orney I.D. 78000 P.O. Box l268 Harrisburg, PA l7l08-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants DATE: January 6, 2004 104743.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served on the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on January 6, 2004: Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire O'Brien, Baric & Scherer 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Christopher Hall GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. By ~ It/1k~~ Jo R. Ninosky, Esq 're Attorney 1.0. No.: 78000 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA l7l08-1268 (717) 234-4l6l Attorneys for Defendants 104744.1 (') "" c = 0 C;:::J < ~- -n !':~ '- -l >- -r ~~ f11;;g I -om _J SS6 -n :r:=::; _1'"- ~:lf~ r~~) ;:;,-} U1 ::D CO M< John R. Ninosky, Esquire 1.0. .'78000 GOIDBDm, KA'J!ZIGUf " SBIHDN, P. C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg. PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Defendant NO. 2003-5608 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. By ~ f.(^!'j~~ J n R. Ninosky, Es uire I. D. #: 78000 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA l7108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-416l Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: January 6, 2004 104745.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served on the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United states Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on January 6, 2004: Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire O'Brien, Baric & Scherer 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Christopher Hall GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. By Cf:A/V [> Il(iu1-i-f(; JohnR. Ninosky, Esqi re Attorney I.D. No.: 78000 320 Market street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA l7l08-1268 (717) 234-416l Attorneys for Defendants 104744.1 o r-~ _b._;>" ~" c;~ ~.", .c- <- ):.:0.:. Z o '01 ::-I pf;:n .- -crm ;\]0 c~6 =-C=H ~.;:0 ~:~5m ::~ ~u -< I _J lJ ::.C: \';' <J1 .... John R. Ninosky, Esquire 1.D. '78000 GOI.DBBRS, Ul'DQH " SHIPMAN, P. C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 AttorneY8 for Defendants CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Defendant NO. 2003-5608 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE reinstate the Complaint the above-captioned matter. The Defendant is now located at 99 Mountain Road, Newburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, l7240. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. DATE: January 6, 2004 104745.1 L--- By Jo R. Nlnosky, I. D. #: 78000 P.O. Box l268 Harrisburg, PA l7l08-l268 Telephone: (717) 234-416l Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served on the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United states Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on January 6, 2004: Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire O'Brien, Baric & Scherer 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Christopher Hall GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. BYJai!!!;/~ Attorney I.D. No.: 78000 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17l08-l268 (717) 234-416l Attorneys for Defendants 104744.1 , () "-> 0 c.:::J ~; ,:~ '11 ~- :~~: <- =;j :-.'.' J-..... miD ::1': I 'Dr", :06 -.J () =:::i-1-:', '=' ;~::;: -TJ ::c: G~f;;~' f'.) c." 5.~ <.';:) ......, SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT SERVED CASE NO: 2003-05608 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS VS HALL CHRISTOPHER J R. Thomas Kline Sheriff , who being duly sworn the within named PLAINTIFF according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for HALL CHRISTOPHER J , to wit: but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the COMPLAINT & NOTICE the within named PLAINTIFF 99 MOUNTAIN ROAD NEWBURG, PA 17240 NOT SERVED , as to , HALL CHRISTOPHER J UNABLE TO SERVE PRIOR TO EXPIRATION. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18,00 13,80 .00 10.00 .00 41,80 So ans~ ___<:::::~'-=~'~=~-'~,"~~~~.::,~'~~"::~:~~ ~~;:::c..'::.::::::....._- R~ Thomas fcrl~--' Sheriff of Cumberland County SHUMAKER WILLIAMS 12/19/2003 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 7~ day of ~LU/ A.D. C! 71.< <'ff(. . , ~ dUV'f () 1" . Prothonotary SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2003-05608 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS VS HALL CHRISTOPHER J RONALD HOOVER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon HALL CHRISTOPHER J the PLAINTIFF at 1813:00 HOURS, on the 9th day of January , 2004 at 99 MOUNTAIN LANE NEWBURG, PA 17240 by handing to CHRISTOPHER J HALL 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 So Answers: 18,00 13,80 ,00 10.00 .00 41.80 /' /,- ."://::'~ .i-fi; />;,:.'~~:-.? ,..,':.<.......~,-~-. R, Thomas Kline 01/12/2004 GOLDBERG KATZMAN SHIPMAN Sworn and Subscribed to before By: ~oq Deputy Sheriff me this ,<, I'i ,~ day of /'" (h~"J .~Db 'f (I ~ '" , '-- I n,d/"J..'u :~t onotary , A.D. +r John R. Ninosky, Esquire 1.D. 178000 CIOl.DB&ItB, D!DAR G SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-5608 CIVIL TERM Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO THE PLAINTIFF: You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from the date of service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. DATE: / /J1 01 104766.1 /0 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. By~:N- ,K~~~ Jo n R. Ninosky, Esquire Attorney I.D. 78000 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17l08-l268 (717) 234-4l61 Attorneys for Defendants John R. Ninosky, Esquire LD. 178000 GOI.D__, KA'l'DmJ1 , '1lI1IGUI, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-5608 CIVIL TERM Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Cumberland Valley Motors and Steve Gotwols, by and through their counsel, Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C., file this Answer With New Matter by respectfully stating the following: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. Mr. Gotwols is no longer employed by Cumberland Valley Motors. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors. The remainder of this allegation is denied in that it contains conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained herein are denied. 5. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 3 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff damaged vehicles during the course of his employment with Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors. It is also admitted that a demand was made upon Plaintiff to recover for costs caused by Plaintiff's work. The remainder of this allegation is denied in that it contains conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averments contained herein are denied. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff admitted that he mis-aligned an engine during re- installation, thereby causing damage to a transmission in a vehicle. The remainder of this allegation is denied in that it contains conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averments contained herein are denied. 8. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff installed windshield wiper fluid in a transmission of a vehicle on which he was working. The remainder of this allegation is denied in that it contains conclusions of law and 2 fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averments contained herein are denied. 9. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 9 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff has admitted to mis-aligning an engine during a repair he effectuated upon a vehicle. The remainder of this allegation is denied in that it contains conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averments contained herein are denied. 11. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that there was a District Justice Hearing on this matter. It is denied that the outcome of the District Justice Hearing has any relevance to the case at issue. Further, the remainder of this allegation contains conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained herein are denied. 12. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 12 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 3 l3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that a letter was forwarded to Plaintiff. The letter speaks for itself. By way of further answer, this averment contains conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averments contained herein are denied. 14. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 14 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 15. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph l5 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 16. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph l6 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 17. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 17 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 4 COUNT 1 IN CONVERSION vs. Steve Gotwols and Cumberland Valley Motors lB. The answers to paragraphs 1 though 17 above are answered as though fully set forth herein at length. 19. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 19 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 20. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 20 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 2l. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 21, including subparagraphs A through D are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. COUNT 2 for TRESPASS TO CHATTEL vs. Steve Gotwols and Cumberland Valley Motors 22. The answers to paragraphs 1 though 21 above are answered as though fully set forth herein at length. 5 23. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 23 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 24. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 24, including subparagraphs A through C are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. COUNT 3 for DEFAMATION vs. Steve Gotwols and Cumberland Valley Motors 25 The answers to paragraphs 1 though 24 above are answered as though fully set forth herein at length. 26. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 26 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 27. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 27 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 6 28. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 28 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 29. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 29 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. 30. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 30, including subparagraphs A through C are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment contained herein are denied. WHEREFORE, the Defendants demand judgment against the Plaintiff and respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Compliant be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 31. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 32. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the Complaint filed by Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors, in the action found at 03-5608, herein as if fully set forth at length. 7 33. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate his alleged damages. WHEREFORE, the Defendants demand judgment against the Plaintiff and respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Compliant be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. DATE: 11~7f7 104764.1 )j I ~ By ~;~1 J ;(,~{~ John R. Ninosky, Esqu're Attorney I.D. 78000 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA l7l08-l268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants 8 VERIFICATION I, MaNIQuE: ULL-owt , an authorized representative of Cumberland Valley Motors, have read the foregoing and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of l8 Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; I verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to the penalties of l8 Pa. C.S. ~4904. Cumberland Valley Motors =---~ ~ cs By c DATE: 104978.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served on the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United states Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on January 29, 2004: Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire O'Brien, Baric & Scherer l7 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Christopher Hall GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. '7 By ;,tJ/f" (' (, John Ninosky, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 78000 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-l268 (717) 234-4l6l Attorneys for Defendants 104744.1 ...., "'" ~ = -<- ~ ~:n :z: (.) ~2 0 '---; ..", -, ':~.) :!:" " :Jc (~jj '-,) c: ~ isFJ .' ;;;J <I} ;;::;.t , ~o CJl -< II CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2003-5608 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION-LAW CHRISTOPHER J, HALL, Defendant ANSWER 1, Admitted, 2. Admitted, 3. Admitted, Mr. Hall recalls that he was hired in April, 2002, 4.-24. The Defendant incorporates the Complaint he filed No. 2003-5608 against the Plaintiff, Cumberland Valley Motors, The Defendant denies that he filled the transmission with windshield washer fluid. A very small amount of solvent was let into the transmission after the transmission was refilled with transmission fluid. 25,-33. The Defendant incorporates the allegations in the aforesaid Complaint filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, Specifically, the Defendant refers to paragraph 7 in response to these allegations. 34. Admitted. 35. The Defendants response to the allegations herein are contained in his Complaint against the Plaintiff. Specifically it is denied that the Defendant agreed that he would reimburse the Plaintiff for the damages but rather that he would pay for the parts necessary to repair and provide free labor to do the repair work. II 36,-38. The Defendant incorporates herein his averments in his aforesaid Complaint The Plaintiff has never made the tool box available for the Defendant but has retained it unjustly and as set forth in Defendants Complaint 39, The Defendant incorporates his responses in paragraphs 1,-38, herein. 40. At the time the Defendant signed the paperwork he was informed by the manager at CVM that the damages were for the operation of a motor vehicle rather than for the repair of a motor vehicle, For example, if Mr. Hall had been test driving a car and drove it into a post causing damages he would have to pay the deductible for that repair work, 41, Defendant specifically denies that he was responsible for deductibles for failure to properly a customers vehicle. Defendant incorporates the response contained in paragraph 40 herein, 42, The Defendant specifically denies that any term of his contract was to pay for damages incurred as a result of his failure to service a customers vehicle. Strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. The Defendant again incorporates his Complaint in its entirety herein, 43.-72. Denied by the Defendant and he incorporates his Complaint herein in essence the Plaintiff admits that he is responsible for the cost of the parts for the damage when he misaligned the engine and that he would have provided the labor at no cost had the Plaintiff not treated him so unfairly in regard to demanding payment from him for the two motor vehicles in consideration of his continued employment II 73.-91. The Defendant incorporates the averments in his Complaint herein. The Defendant further states that he never received the training that he had been promised by the Plaintiff. Therefore the Plaintiff did not adequately train the Defendant as promised so that he could properly perform all his labors. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff, Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER /-12:~~ Robert L O'Brien, Esquire LD, # 28351 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 - rlo.dir/clienls/hall/answer,pfd II i VERIFICATION The statements in the foregoing Answer are based upon information which has been assembled by my attorney in this litigation. The language of the statements is not my own. I have read the statements; and to the extent that they are based upon information which I have given to my counsel, they 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 Pac C.S, S 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. DATE: lj_ L-/_ 0 C/ e~~ ~4~ Christopher J. Hall I II CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 5", 2004, I, Robert L O'Brien, Esquire, did serve a copy of an Answer by first class U.S, mail, postage prepaid, to the party listed below, as follows: John R. Ninosky, Esquire Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C, 320 Market Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1268 ~~~ Robert L O'Brien, Esquire "" ~ 0 = ~- = ::-:.:; .J:..- I':n 7'~,.. - ~ 50 ~~ I -n U1 c5,( -~" ,1 r~~ - ::z: ,~() (i w ~~rn ',...;; ",;:... ~J N <.'-1 "< "" w '1\ v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 2003-5608 CIVIL TERM CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Defendants RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER 31, Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 31 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required, If a response is deemed required, the averments contained therein are denied. 32, The Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the Answer contained to the Complaint filed by the Defendant. Procedurally, the Plaintiff points out that he was initially the moving party before the District Justice and a Rule was issued for him to file a Complaint. 33, Denied. Plaintiff denies that he has failed to mitigate his alleged damages, He in fact found employment as soon as possible but due to his not having many of his tools he is unable to maximize his income. Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER ~ ~^}.Jl..r- Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire 1.0. # 28351 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 rlo.dir/clients/hall/newmatter ,res II I hereby certify that on March '5' ,2004, I, Robert L O'Brien, Esquire, did serve a copy of the Response To New Matter, by first class U.S, mail, postage prepaid, to the CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE party listed below, as follows: John R. Ninosky, Esquire Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, p,C, 320 Market Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1268 r 0~, RODen . O'Brien, Esquire II I VERIFICATION The statements in the foregoing Response To New Matter are based upon information which has been assembled by my attorney in this litigation. The language of the statements is not my own, I have read the statements; and to the extent that they are based upon information which I have given to my counsel, they 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, S 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities, DATE: {/~ L/--OL/ I ~~--- $# Christopher J. Hall o ~; L :.:..~ '" = = .r- :x ?o J 01 U =.:- o ~n :=t" m- -Or,:; :06 ~N-r rj" "'--0 (5,'1;1 ~; .< Cd r9 o MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDV A & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Identification No,: 68958 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 0980.0536 Attorney for Defendant( s), CUMBERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County vs, CUMBERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS AND STEVE GOTWOLS, No, 2003-5608 CIVIL TERM ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendant(s), CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS, in the within action. Defendant(s) hereby demands ajury trial in this matter. Jury of twelve with alternates, demanded. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA&ME RS " '-7 BY: JEFF Y C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Att ey for Defendant( s), C ERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS d STEVE GOTWOLS (') c -:)% IT1 \~'", f ~ ,,;;- _.. y;~~ ~ ~ = .r:- ~ ~ rn-n "Fn ::lJO ~Q ;I;::d ;d(") 3m -< 35 -< ~.. ~ -< I W '" :K r:-.> Ul <Xl MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS & LEDV A BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 68958 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZ&L File No. 0980.0536 Attorney for Defendants, CUMBERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS, INC" and STEVE GOTWOLS CUMBERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS vs, CHRISTOPHER J. HALL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County No. 2003-5608 CIVIL TERM WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of defendant( s), CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS, in the within action, A/ t, fi/11{j~.5t!,JrrJ3 J R, Ninosky, Esquire - , Attorney 1.0. No, 78000 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, p,c. P.O, Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Tel: (717)234-4161 (') C 7" ;:g~! :Z~.; ;;7 f'" ((:J , .......+ . ~t~. ;g:- ,~ \. : >C) c ~ "" = = ..,- :x on- -< o ., -< :r: 01::0 -Or;:; :Oy 86 ==H Qo 2srn ~-.l ;~ :.< ", ..,- " ::;:: ':-1 .. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDV A & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE BY: JOHN C, BOBBER, JR., ESQUIRE Identification Nos.: 68958 & 81886 22nd Floor - 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No, 0980.0536 Attorney for Defendant(s): CUMBERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS CHRlSTOPHER 1. HALL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County vs. CUMBERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS AND STEVE GOTWOLS No. 2003-5608 CIVIL TERM WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE Kindly withdraw our appearance on behalf of Defendants, Cumberland Valley Motors and Steve Gotwols, in connection with the above-captioned matter, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. BY ~ t< M./Jr4 HN R. NINOSKY, ESQUIRE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendants, Cumberland Valley Motors and Steve Gotwols, in connection with the above-captioned matter. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDV A & MEYERS BY: J Y C, SOTLAND, ESQUIRE JOHN C. BOBBER, JR" ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s): CUMBERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS ,...., 0 (~,? = = -n ~-:;: .c- .... '- ::J:-r: (:= rnp-= :;,--.. r,1 f"~ y co -TJ ~~ r:~ " ,,'-' ';I -, 0 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: (Check one) ( x for JURY trial at the next term of civil co I I t. i for trial without a jury. ----------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, ( X) Civil Action - Law ( ) Appeal from A bitration ( ) (other (Plaintiff) vs. CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS AND STEVE GOTWOLS, The trial list will be called n 04/19/200 and Trials comrence on May 1 6 , 005 (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on A nr . 1 27 2005 (Briefs are due 5 days before Jretrials.) vs. (The party listing this case )r trial shall provide forthwith a copy of tt e praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to loca Rule 2l4.1.) No. 2003-560<Sivil Term 19 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files th s praecipe: Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, 19 West South Street, Carlisle PA 17013 Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: John C. Bo b be , Esq uire, 1528 Walnut Street 22nd Floor PhiladelDhia PA 19102-361 This case ~s ready for trial. Signed:~A'; Print Narre: Robert L. O'Br';'en, Esquire Date: 03/28/2005 Attorney for: Plaintiff --------- C1 r-:) ,-:::;;, ~&-~ ~ ::;-::i f'.) c;> C' ': c , ~i. --,,'.~ q. ~JJ , '.-, -g,o i"1b '~2'~J "~i?-) ".~ [1:1 ,:>. 0-) .' ':<. c.) C 14 Christopher J, Hall : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, Cumberland Valley Motors and Steve Gotwols : NO, 03-5608 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, April 19, 2005, counsel having failed to call the above case for trial, the case is stricken from the May 16, 2005 trial term. Counsel is directed to relist the case when ready. By the Court, )*Obert L O'Brien, Esquire t. For the Plaintiff ~hn C. Bobber, Esquire For the Defendant Court Administrator J '~ " ? C\,O ()i\ -\ jhk "::1,"::.) .,s .,:.. (" '", UJ 61 " "IOZ 'Jjij, PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE POCII'HOI'OI'ARY OF CUMBERLA!>[) coumY Please list the following case: (Check one) (X ) for JURY trial at the next tenn of civil court. for trial without a jury. ----------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) (X) Civil Action - Law Appeal from Ami tration Christopher J. Hall, ( Plaintiff) (other) vs. The trial list will be called on and June 21, 2005 Cumberland Valley Motors and Steve Gotwols, Trials conmence on J u 1 Y 1 8, 2 0 0 5 (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on June 29, 2005 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.) vs. (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 2l4.1.) No. 5608 Civil Term fcj{ 2003 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Robert L. O'Brien, Esq., 19 West South Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: John C. Bobber, Esq., 1528 Walnut St., 22nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 This case is ready for trial. Signed: Fe~~ Print Narre: Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire Date: OS/26/05 Attorney for: PIa i n t iff MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDV A & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Identification No,: 68958 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZ&L File No. 0980,0536 Attorney for Plaintiffs, CUMBERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS, INC., and STEVE GOTWOLS CHRISTOPHER J. HALL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County vs, CUMBERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS No, 2003-5608 CIVIL TERM DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY .JUDGMENT Defendants, Cumberland Valley Motors and Steve Gotwols ("CMV"), by and through their undersigned counsel, Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, respectfully move this Honorable Court for summary judgment on Count III of Plaintiff, Christopher J. Hall's Complaint (defamation), and in support thereof states as follows: L Plaintiff, Christopher J, Hall ("Hall") was employed by CMV, as a automobile mechanic from April 2002 to March 2003, See Complaint '1[4, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." While in the employment of CMV, his employer claimed that Hall negligently performed two customer vehicle repair jobs, causing CMV to incur additional ex:penses in repairing and restoring said vehicles to their original condition. See Exhibit "A," 'Il'Il6-8. 2. Following each instance referenced above, Hall went to his supervisors at CMV, acknowledged that he was negligent in the handling of the vehicles, expressed his willingness to take full responsibility for the resultant damage, offered to pay for the replacement parts and perform any and all repairs on the vehicle on his own time without compensation. See Exhibit "B," Hall's deposition testimony, p. 13, p. 17,ln. 17-21, p, 20, In, 16 - p. 2L,ln. 23. 3. CMV informed Hall that he was responsible for reimbursing it for the deductib1es CMV paid on the reparation and restoration of the vehicles damaged by him pursuant to company's policy, See Exhibit "B," p, 17, In. 17 - p. 18" In. 8; and see Exhibit "C," Permission for Deductions, 4, On March 7, 2003, Hall, feeling dissatisfied with how CMV handled the aforementioned two incidents triggered by his negligent repair of vehicles, voluntarily terminated his employment with CMV, took some of his tools with him, and advised CMV that he would return to retrieve the rest of his tools at a later time, See Exhibit "B," p, 23, In, 14 - p, 24, In. 9. 5, Hall claims that did come back to CMV to retrieve the rest of his tools and was informed by CMV that he could not take the tools until he reimbursed CMV on the deductibles it paid to repair and restore the aforementioned two vehicles damaged by him, See Exhibit "B," p, 28, In, 2-1 L 6. Hall claims he did not come to an agreement with CMV as to his obligation to pay the deductibles and left CMV's premises without retrievi~llg all of his tools. See Exhibit "B," p, 29, In, 4-19, 7. CMV then filed a lawsuit against Hall at the District Court 09-3-04 seeking to recover the deductibles paid on the repair and restorations of the vehicles damaged by HaiL Hall counterclaimed seeking a return of his tools and alleging that CMV's withholding of his tools had caused him a loss in income. 8. At the dearing before Magistrate Placey, Hall presented a list of tools that 2 he left on CMV's premises,l 9. On September 24,2003, the Magistrate awarded Hall $7,400,00 plus costs and both parties appealed. See Exhibit "A," attachment "B." 10, On October 16, 2003, Steve Gotwols, CMV's Fixed Operations Director, sent a letter (the "letter") to Hall and carbon copied its attorney, Melissa Swauger. of Shumaker Williams. See Exhibit "D." The letter notified Hall of CMV's intention to inspect and verify the contents of his toolbox left at CMV and provided Hall an opportunity to be present at the inspection, 1 L On November 14, 2003, Hall filed a Complaint against CMV alleging, inter alia, that because he had testified under oath as to the existence of the tools in the toolbox, the aforementioned letter had insinuated that "he had lied under oath, as to a material matter, in a court proceeding, thereby committing perjury," See Exhibit "A," '][29. 12. However, Hall did not reference anywhere in his Complaint the fact that he appeared at CMV's inspection of his toolbox on October 30,2003, that the tool box was opened in his presence, that he acknowledged "substantially all the tools...were in the box," except two items, and that as of the date of his deposition, he has all of his tools back, but for two tools that he loaned to a co-worker. See Exhibit "B," p. 30, In, 12 - p. 31, In, 10. 13, Based on the facts of record, Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of libel per se action. First, the letter was privileged and protected under the doctrine of judicial immunity, Second, even if not privileged, Hall failed to prove that the letter was susceptible to I CMV was not permitted to present any evidence because it was not represented by an attorney, 3 defamatory meanihg in the minds of average recipients under the circumstances of this case and that the letter was published to unauthorized third parties not ptivileged to receive such communication. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Cumberland VaHey Motors and Steve Gotwols, respectfuHy request that this Honorable Court grant its motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's defamation claim from his Complaint. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDV A & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY. CiSOTLAND, ESQUIRE / Attorney r Defendants: CUMB RLAND VALLEY MOTORS, INC., and STEVE GOTWOLS 4 MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDV A & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 68958 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZ&L File No. 0980,0536 Attorney for Plaintiffs, CUMBERLAND V AILEY MOTORS, INC., and! STEVE GOTWOLS CHRISTOPHER J. HALL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County vs, CUMBERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS No, 2003-5608 CNIL TERM DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY .JUDGMENT I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff, Christopher J, Hall ("Hall") was employed by CMV, as a automobile mechanic from April 2002 to March 2003. See Complaint 'I! 4, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." While in the employment of CMV, his employer claimed that Hall negligently performed two customer vehicle repair jobs, causing CMV to incur additional expenses in repairing and restoring said vehicles to their original condition. See Exhibit "A," 'lI'lI 6-8, Following each instance referenced above, Hall went to his supervisors at CMV, acknowledged that he was negligent in the repair of the vehicles, expressed his willingness to take full responsibility for the resultant damage, offered to pay for the replacement parts and perform any and all repairs on the vehicle on his own time without compensation, See Exhibit "B," Hall's deposition testimony, p. 13, p, 17, In. 17-21, p, 20, In, 16 - p. 21., In. 23. CMV informed Hall that he was responsible for reimbursing it for the deductibles CMV paid on the restoration of the vehicles damaged by him pursuant to company's policy. See Exhibit "B," p, 17, In, 17 - p, 18., In, 8; and see Exhibit "C," Permission for Deductions, On March 7, 2003, Hall, feeling dissatisfied with how CMV handled the aforementioned two incidents triggered by his negligent repair of vehicles, voluntarily terminated his employment with CMV, took some of his tools with him, and advised CMV that he would return to retrieve the rest of his tools at a later time. See Exhibit "B," p. 23, In. 14 - p, 24, In, 9. Hall claims that did come back to CMV to retrieve the rest of his tools and was informed by CMV that he could not take the tools until he reimbursed CMV on the deductibles it paid to repair and restore the aforementioned two vehicles damaged by him. See Exhibit "B," p. 28, In. 2-11. He also claims he did not come to an agreement with CMV as to his obligation to pay the deductibles and left CMV's premises without retrieving all of his tools, See Exhibit "B," p. 29, In. 4-19. CMV then filed a lawsuit against Hall at the District Court 09-3-04 seeking to recover the deductibles paid on the repair and restorations of the vehicles damaged by HalL Hall counterclaimed seeking a return of his tools and alleging that CMV's withholding of his tools had caused him a loss in income. At the hearing before Magistrate Placey, Hall presented a list of tools that he claims he left on CMV's premises, 1 The District Magistrate awarded Hall $7,400,00 plus costs and both parties appealed. See Exhibit "A," attachment "B." On October 16, 2003, Steve Gotwols, CMV's Fixed Operations Director, sent a 1 CMV was not permitted to present any evidence at this hearing because it was not represented by an attorney. 2 letter (the "letter") to Hall and carbon copied its attorney, Melissa Swauger. of Shumaker Williams. See Exhibit "D," The letter notified Hall of CMV's intention to inspect and verify the contents of his toolbox left at CMV and provided Hall an opportunity to be present at the inspection. On November 14, 2003, Hall filed a Complaint against CMV alleging, inter alia, that because he had testified under oath as to the existence: of the tools in the toolbox, the aforementioned letter had insinuated that "he had lied under oath, as to a material matter, in a court proceeding, thereby committing perjury," See Exhibit "A," '1129. However, Hall did not reference anywhere in his Complaint the fact that he appeared at CMV's inspection of his toolbox on October 30,2003, that the tool box was opened in his presence, that he acknowledged "substantially all the tools...were in the box," except two items, and that as of the date of his deposition, he has all of his tools back, but for two tools that he loaned to a co-worker. See Exhibit "B," p, 30, In. 12 - p. 31,ln, 10. Based on the facts of record, Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of a defamation or libel action. First, the letter was privileged and protected under the doctrine of judicial immunity. Second, even if not privileged, Hall failed to prove that (1) the letter was susceptible to defamatory meaning in the minds of average recipients under the circumstances of this case and (2) the letter was published to unauthorized third parties not privileged to receive such communication, Summary Judgment is proper at this point. 3 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Summary Jud2ment Standard A party may move for summary judgment after the relevant pleadings are closed under the following circumstances: (1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by additional discovery or expert report, or (2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury, Pa, R. Civ, Pro. 1035.2. When the record clearly shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the court may grant summary judgment. Harleysville Ins, Cos, v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Ins. Co., 568 Pa. Super. 255, 795 A.2d 383 (2002). The case must be clear and free from doubt on the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Washington v. Baxter, 553 Pa, 434, 441, 719 A.2d 733,737 (1998); Pennsylvania Public Utilitv Comm. Bar Assoc, v. Thornburgh, 498 Pa, 589,450 A.2d 613 (1982), Where the relevant facts are not in dispute, summary judgment is appropriate. Dianlond Energv lnc, v, Pennsvlvania Public Utilitv Commission, 653 A.2d 1360, 1367 (Pa. Cmmwlth. 1995). Plaintiff's defamation claim is ripe for review under summary judgment. B. Defamation Claim In an action for defamation under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiff has the burden of proving (1) defamatory character of the communication; (2) its pLlblication by the defendant; (3) its application to the plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipi,ent of its defamatory meaning; 4 (5) the understanding by the recipient of it as intended to be applied to the plaintiff; (6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from its publication; and (7) abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion. 42 Pa,C.S.A. S 8343(a); see also Okocci v, Klein, 270 F. Supp. 2d 603,615 (ED, Pa, 2003), The Plaintiff in this case failed to establish a case of defamation action against Defendants, 1, Plaintiff's defamation claim should be dismissed because he failed to prove that the communication at issue was defamatory. To sustain Plaintiff's claim, he must establish that the challenged publication is defamatory in that it tends to harm plaintiff's reputation so as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter others from associating or dealing with him, Thomas Merton Center v, Rockwell Intern: Com., 442 A2d 213,215,497 Pa, 460, 464, Sup. 1981, cert,denied 102 S.Ct. 2961,457 U,S, 1134 (1981), In determining whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning, the court must look to the effect that the communication is fairly calculated to produce, and the impression that it would naturally engender, in minds of average persons, Corabi v, Curtis Publishing Co" 441 Pa, 432, 441 (1972). Also, alleged d,efamatory statement must be reviewed in its entirety. Id. However, the fact that challenged statements may annoy or embarrass a person is not sufficient as matter of law to create an action in defamation, Wilson v, Slatalla. 970 F. Supp, 405, 415 (E.D.Pa, 1997), Under Pennsylvania law; injury to reputation is judged by reaction of other persons in community, and not by party's self-estimation, Id. Keeping these principles in mind, the communication at issue here, the October 16, 2003 letter of Gotwols to Hall does not exhibit on its face, any evidence of being defamatory in character. The contents of the letter simply made a reference to the hearing before District 5 Justice Placey in the previous month, during which, Hall presented a list of tools that he had left in his toolbox, After the hearing, for purpose of verifying Hall's list of tools, CMV informed Hal!, of its intended inspection of Hall's toolbox and provided Hall an opportunity to attend the inspection. The letter also alluded to the fact that there were witnesses who say that Hal! emptied his toolbox on the day he quit his job at CMV, which is a fact that the Plaintiff does not dispute? Hal! admitted that he took the top and side parts of his toolbox, but left the bottom part of the toolbox. See Exhibit "B," p. 23, In. 1-18, The letter is fairly innocuous; it was an opinion letter by Gotwols that basically states that he didn't believe the inventory stated by Hall was correct because others reported that he took tools before he left Opinion alone is not enough to create a cause of action in libeL Baker v. Lafavette College, 516 Pa. 291 (1986), In his Complaint, Plaintiff made a bare allegation, with respect to the contents of the letter, that "the innuendo of the communication is that he had lkd under oath, as to a material matter, in a court proceeding, thereby committing peIjury." See Exhibit "A," '1129. However, Plaintiff provided no evidence that an average recipient of this letter, under the unique circumstances of this case, would think upon reading the letter, that Hall had lied under oath and thereby committed perjury, See Exhibit "D." Plaintiff failed to show that the letter was defamatory and summary judgement on that count is proper. 2. Plajntiff's defamation claim should be dismiss4ld because he failed to prove that the communication at issue containing the alleged defamation was published. 'There is no mention of which toolbox he emptied, Plaintiff admits that he took the top and side parts of his toolbox, but left the bottom. See Exhibit "B," p. 23, In. 8-18, 6 Under Pennsylvania law, innuendo may be used to explain in what manner the article is defamatory, The hmuendos, however, must be "warranted, justified and supported by the publication," Rei~hman v. Bureau of Affirmative Action, 536 F. Supp, 1149, 1180 (M,D.Pa. 1982). The Plaintiff presented no evidence whatsoever that the recipient of this letter, Ms, Melissa Swauger of Shumaker Williams (CMV's attorney), understood it as having a defamatory meaning. Steve Gotwols, the representative who signed the letter on behalf of CMV, did not testify as to any intention on the part of CMV to publish this letter in a way that would cause embarrassment and/or humiliation to Hall in his community or circle of friends, or to cause any other harm to Hall. In fact, this letter was only carbon copied to CMV's counsel, Ms, Swauger, as a privileged communication between attorney and client. Thus, Plaintiff did not satisfy his burden of proof with respect to the publication prong of a defamation action. 3. The letter is privileged and protected under the doctrine of "judicial immunitv." Even if this Court somehow finds that the letter was somehow defamatory, the letter from Gotwols to Hall is considered privileged and is therefore be protected under the doctrine of "judicial immunity," Judicial immunity applies where a challenged communication is published prior to, or during, a judicial proceeding and the communication bears a certain relationship to the proceeding so as to qualify it as privileged, Post v. Mendel, 510 Pac 213, 507 A,2d 351 (1986). Judicial immunity is granted to judges, lawyers, witnesses and all others directly involved in ajudicial proceeding to make comments relevant to the proceeding, Barto v, Felix, 378 A,2d 927,929 (Pa. Super, 1977), It is necessary that a protected communication be pertinent and material to the. redress sought and that the communication have been issued in the regular 7 course of the proceedings. See Post v. Mendel, 510 Pa. 213, 50? A.2d 351 (1986). The communication in Post was not protected by judicial immunity because that case involved a letter written from one attorney to opposing counsel alleging trial misconduct--in other words, it did not pertain to the case itself but to the attorney's behavior in court. In the instant case, the letter is directly pertinent and material to the redress sought because CMV was in the midst of litigation and was seeking to overturn the magistrate's ruling which was based on the value of Hall's tools still in CMV's possession. The letter relates to taking inventory of the contents of Hall's toolbox as part of the investigation and the ongoing litigation. If one has conversion and trespass to chattel claims, especially when litigation is ongoing and one party was allegedly in possession of the other party's property, part of the judicial proceedings will surely involve an accounting or inventory of the property to establish facts for the judicial proceeding. The situation is analogous to scheduling an Independent Medical Examination for a plaintiff in a personal injury case. IMEs are routinely scheduled between the parties within the regular course of judicial proceedings and are pertinent and mat,erial to the redress or relief sought in a personal injury action. The communication would have to be privileged and protected; counsel, paralegals and secretaries would be sued every time one would attempt to schedule an IME. One purpose of an IME is to determine the extent of injuries to an individual. The "innuendo" present in a communication scheduling an IME is that the party's injuries are not as severe as he or she claims and an independent review is necessary. The same analysis applies here. An inventory of the property and a verification of the contents of a toolbox is certainly pertinent and material to the relief sought; that CMV converted Hall's tools, see Exhibit "A," 8 Complaint at 'll19, and that Hall suffered a decline in income, see Exhibit "A," Complaint at'll 23, because he was unable to get another job because he did not have some of the tools. Even if there is de facto defamation by innuendo contained within the letter, it should still be protected under the doctrine of "judicial immunity." For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should grand Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss with prejudice Count III (Defamation) of Plaintiff's Complaint. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDV A &: MEYERS BY: /' JEFFREY C. S AND, ESQUIRE Attorney for fendants: CUMBERL ND VALLEY MOTORS, INC., and STEVE GOTWOLS 9 VERIFICATION The averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing are true based upon the signer's personal knowledge or information and belief. If the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact, signer has been unable, after reasonable inv(:stigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent aveI'J1ients are true, but signer has knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief that one of them is true. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 P A C.S. 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. JEFFREY C. h Date: June 21. 2005 FILf No.503 12/17 '03 17:40 NGV-21-2003 FRI 03:48 PM CVM DODGE lD : UN] 'v'ERSAL -UNDERI~R ITERS FAX : FAX NO. 717 681 0822 PAGE 12/ P. 06 CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYI-VANIA NO, 2003- 5608 CIVIL. TERM CUMBERLAND VALLF::Y MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Defendants ~- '.....~ NOTlcg You have been sued in oourt. If yol.l wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this COmpl~lnt and notice are served, by entering a written appl"aranoe personally or by an attomey and filing in writing with the court, your defenses or objetition& to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that If you fail to do 60, the case may proceed without you and iii 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 reUef requested by the plaintiff. YOLl mElY los6 money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE:: THIS PAPER TO YOUR l..AWYE::R AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE:: A I-AWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONS:, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SlOT FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A I-AWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFOl'D 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, Cumberlancl COunty Bar Assochltlon 32 South l3edford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 1701:1 (717) 249-3166 (') ~~ ':', ~.~.~ !~. \' , I) , ..,1~ I;.," '!~"~"'.~.>:" ", ~; <"l::.,,~; ~"~:..<C\::~,}7~) ~~ ) , '. , ~r. ' ; '; ,... \..' : \ ;~! '." ': '. ,'. .:;: :/~':'...:,:~ '~:.." ".~ /~'~ : '~,". '. .<::~~ j~'?~ ;~i~;.: ;"i;~~~;:ir~~,;?t~~~~~~ ""~C''''t2rv :::: f;; >.,fr, ". ~ .;l) .-.; ..~: ..... (~ FILe: 1Jo.503 12/17 '03 17:41 ID:UNIVERSAL-UNDERvJRlTERS FAX: PAGE 13/ 25 NOV-21-2003 FRI 03:49 PM CVM DODGE FAX N:J, 717 691 0822 p, 07 CHRISTOPHER J, HALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLANC' COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2003- 56011 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND VAlLI2Y MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Defendants ~--,....-:. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Christopher J. Hall is an adult individual with a residence at 99 1. Mountain Lane, Newburg, Cumbelfland County, Pennsylvania 17240. 2. Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors is a business involveej in the sales and repair'll of motor vehicles with a location at 6714120 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberlanct County, Pennsylvania 17050. It is believed that Cumberland Valley Motors is a corporation. 3. Defendant Steve Gotwols Is an adult individual and serves as Field Operations Director of Cumberland Valley Motor'll. Mr. Gotwols is M agent of the aforSllsid Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motor'll. 4. During the weeK of February 24-28, 2003, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors and under the supervision of the Defendant. Stellen Gotwols. Prior to that week, the Plaintiff had also been so employed, peginnlng his employment wIth the Defendants approximately a total af eleven consecutive months with the Defendants. 5. When the plaintiff was hired Py the Defendants he was promised that in 1 FILE No.503 12/17 '03 17:41 ID:UNI'v'ERSAL-UNDERWRITERS FAX: NOV-21-2DD3 FRl D3:49 PM CVM DODGE FAX NO, 717 591 0822 PAGE 14/ 25 p, 08 1.;...~ .,...-;. addition to his compensation for the repair work performed on vehicles brought to their business, he would receive training on the motor vehicles. particularly the Subaru models. that he was hired to work on. 6. During the eleven months of his employment with the Defendants, he received a totEll of five hours of training on the Subaru l=orrester model which was being introduced, During the aforesaid week in February, 2M2, he was called in by Mr, Gotwois and tolcl that he had damaged vehicles he had worked on and that the Defendants demanded that he repay the cost of $3,35.!.70, 7. The Plaintiff acknowledged that he had misaligned the engine In a reinstallation such that there was internal damage to the transmission when the vehicle was driven. The Plaintiff acknowledged that he would ~:orrect this problem by paying for the cost of the parts, that he would rebuild the transmission and reinstall it at no expense to the Defenaant or the customer. This matter had been discussed with Mr. Gotwols and that corrective process had been approved. Despite that understanding, the Defendant chose to replace the transmission with a ro"manufactured one end Were charging the Plaintiff $2,500.00. 8, The Defendant& also allege that the Plalnlliff had damaged a vehicle that was stilll.lnder warranty when he performed a recall on a "park pall" pin that kept the transmission locked in park. The owner experienced a problem and the Plaintiff stated that a very smllll amount of solvent had been mistakanly let into the transmission. The procedl.lre for correcting this prOblem was to drain and flush the transmission and that 2 FILE No.S03 12/17 '03 17:41 lD:Ut,1'v'ERSAL-UNDERWR1TERS cAX: NOV-21-2003 FRI 03:50 PM CVM DODGE FAX NO, 717 691 0822 PAGE 15/ 25 p, 09 !;.-.",,'::, should have taken care of the matter, jf the matter was in any way related to the small amoU nt of solvent. If the customer was el<;periencing tmutlle with the transmission slipping, it may have been caused by some other situatilon not related to any of the repair work that he undertook. Rather than utilize this process, the Defendants decided to give the customer a new transmission and purchase an e~tended warranty for the vehicle. They told the plaintiff that he had to pay for the~ new transmission and the extended w:Jrraroty, 9. The Plaintiff felt that he was being treated very unfairly and told the Defendants that he WaS terminating his employment on March 7, 200$. He took some cf his tDOls on March 7, 2003 and indicated that he would return to get the rest of his tools. March 7, 2003 was a Fricjay and the Plalntlff returned on Monday, March 1Q, 2003. Upon his return, the Plaintiff was told py John Pil~k, the Defendants Parts ManElger, that if he did not pay the amount demanded by the Defendants that his tools would be kept at thf3 Defendants business. The Plain@f then spoke with steve Gotwals who staled if1he Plaintiff signed an agreement to repay the amount they demanded, he could hllve his tools. 10. PlaIntiff was in agreement that he should ~\ay for the parts and provide free laoor to repair the one motor vehicle Where he had misaligned the engine while cjoing the repairs but refused to acknowlecjge any responsIbility for the other transmission. 11. The Defendants continued and preliBntly c:ontinue to refuse the Plaintiff 3 FILE No.503 12/17 '03 17:~1 ID:UNIVERSAL-UNDERWRITERS FAX: NOV-21-2003 FRI 03:50 PH CVM DODGE FAX NO, 717 691 0822 PAGE 16/ 25 p, 10 ~-- ,.....-:, the use of his tools. The Defendant, CLJmherland Valle:( Motors filed a District Justice action against the Plaintiff demanding $3,352.70. The Plaintiff counterclaimed against Cumberland Valley Motors in that action for the replacement cost of his tools, as well ,as his lost wages because of his Inability to worle fuliy without his tools. After the hearing, the Plaintiff was awarded the amount of $8,000,00, the juriSdictional limits of the magistrate against the Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors. 12. At the time of the aforesaid hearing, the Plaintiff presented a list and testified under oath of the tools that he recalled were in the box that the Defendants refused to return. 13. Subsequent to the hearing the Defendant, Steve Gotwals, individually and as agent of the Defendant CVM, prepared and forwardE,d to the Plaintiff a letter dated October 16, 2003, which, in effect, accused the Plaintiff of lying under oath and committing pe~ury. A copy of this communication was forwarded to the law firm of Shumaker Williams where staff and other individuals vl.:wed this communication. 14. In response to the communication, the Plaintiff appeared at the Defendants. business on October 30, 2003 where the t':lol box was opened. Substantially all the tools that the Plaintiff testified to WElre in the box. Some tools were missing and the Plaintiff believes that the Defendants n=movecl these items, or in the alternative, that while the Defend,mts had control of thE' toolbox, that individuals, unknown to the Plaintiff. removed the tools. The tools that were missing are a digital volt and ohmmeter and dial indicator measuring tool. 4 NOV-2\-2003 FRI 03:50 PM CVM DODGE lD : UN ] I,IERSAL -U~,DERWR lTERS FAX : FAX NO, 1\1 69\ 0822 PAGE 17/ 25 p, \ 1 FILE ~'Jo.503 12/17 '03 17:42 ~-- .....-;. 15, On October 3D, 2003, the Flaintiff again requested the return of his toolbox and tools. Once again the Defendants' refused to return the tools. 16. The lack oftoo/s has caused the Plaintiff:s income to diminish which has caused financial hardship. He is behind in the payment of his regular obligations and is unable to replace his toals because of the financial hardship and expects to continue to suffer a loss of income due to the depriv~tion of his tools. 17. At the till1e the PI,lintiff terminated his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff had a job offer to woll< for Andrew Juliana ;:It a Mercedes BenzlBMW dealership and repair shop. The Defendants' depriving the Plaintiff of his toots causeQ him to lose this position. COUNT 1 in CONVERSION Vf$. Su.ve Gotwols and C\.lmberland Vallev MotCl~ 18. The Plaintiff Incorporates the averments and all reasonable inferences therefrom in Paragraphs 1 through 17, herein. 18. The Plaintiff is the owner and has the right to possession of his toolbox and the following tools: battery tester: W air drill; 3/B" air drill; W' 90 degree air drHl; 2 drill bit sets: air hammer ana bit set; brake tool set; steel~ng wheel pull set; damp=r wheel pull set; vacuum tester; transmission, oil and power steeling pressure tester; I;i FILE No.503 12/17 '03 17:42 NOV-21-2003 FRI 03:50 PM CVM DODGE ID : UN] VERSAL -UNDERWR ITERS I' AX : FAX NO. 717691 0822 PAGE 18/ 25 P. 12 digital, volt and ohmmeter; timing light; hex bit socket set; short combination wrenches; short combination mchet wrench; long wrench set; 2 metric wrench sets; 2 standard wrench sets; 2 punch sets; open end wrench lie!; 1/4" sClcket set; hole saw set; dial indicator measuring sel; pry bar set; extractor SBt; tool box; e:itractar and drill set; sorew extractor; torque set; 3/8" socket set shallow; 318" socket set deep. The value of ';..- .,,,;...- the aforesaid tools is excess of $6,000.00. 20. The Defendants have kilentionallydeprivecl the Plaintiff of possession of the aforesaid tools. 21, The actions of the Defendants are outrageous and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiff's right to possession of his toolbox and toolll ahd has resulted in a loss of income and financial hardllhip to be suffered bY the Plaintiff. Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfullY requests that; A. judgment in his favor cmd against the Defendants for the value of his toolbox and tools; B. jUqgment in his favor and against the Defendants for the fast income the Plaintiff has experienced by the Defendanta hi~vrng deprived the Plaintiff of the aforesaid items and; C, punitive o[ exemplary damages against the Defendants for their outrageous and reCKless disregard of the plaintiff's right to possession of his tools. D. The total dam"ges claImed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in this Count are in excess of $25,000.00 6 NOV-21-2003 FRl 03:51 PM CVM DODGE lD: Ut~ 1 VERSAL -UNDERlNR lTERS FA>(: FAX NO, 111 591 OB22 PAGE 19/ 25 P. \3 F1LE No.503 12/17 '03 17:42 COUNT 2 for TRI:SPASS To CHATTEl. Vs. Steve Gotwoll> and Cllmberland Valley Mot.;)rs 1.;.-- ..;;,...~ . 22. The Plaintiff incorporates the averments ~Ind aU realiionai:lle inferences therefrom In Paragraphs 1 ttlrough 21, hiOrein. 23. The act10ns of the Defendants have causl~d the Plaintiff to sUffer a decline of income which continues to the time of this Complaint and is reasonably elCpec:ted to continue into the future, 24. The actions of the Defendants are outragElous and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiff's rights. Wherefore, the PI<lintiff respectfully requests that; A. Judgment in his favor and against the Defendants for the value of his loet Income and; B. punitive or exemplary damagBs against the Defend<lnts for their outrageous and reckless disregi'lrd of the Plaintiffs right to posse5Slon of his tool&, C. The total damages claimed by the F'laintiff agall'\St the Defendant:, in this Count are In elCcesll of $25,000.00 7 FILE No.503 12/17 '03 17:42 ID:UNIVERSAL-UNDERWRITERS FAX: NOV-21-2003 FRl 03:51 PM CVM DODGE fAX NO, 111 691 0822 PAGE 20/ 25 p, 14 COUNT 3 for DJ::FAMA TlON Vs. Steve GotwollO and Cumberland Valley Motol'8 4~,.,..'::. 25. The Plaintiff Incorporates the averments and all re<'lsonable inferences therefrom in Paragraphs 1 through 24, herein, 26, The communication datec:l October 16, '2003, is attached hereto as Exhibit "AlP, 27. The communication. in acldltlon to the dietribution to Shumaker Willililms, was clistributed to other owners or employees in the Cumberland Valley Motors organization. ;1.8. The communication was prepared intentloll'lally or in reckless and wElnton disregarq of the Plaintiffs rights. 28. As aforesaid, the Plaintiff had testified under oath <'IS to the existence of the tools in the toolbox and the Innuendo of the communication is that he had lied under oath, as to a material matter, in a court proceeding, theneby committing perjury. SO, The testimony of the Plaintiff was relied on by the District Justice as evicfenced by his written "Facts From Trial" attached her'9to as Exhibit 'B". Accordingly, the accusations by the Defendants oonstitute libel per SEL 8 FILE ~'o.503 12/17 '03 17:43 lD:U~,lVERSAL-U~,DER\~RlTERS FAX: ~OV-21-2003 FRl 03:51 PM CVM DOD~E FAX HO. 1\7 691 0822 PAGE 21/ 25 p, 15 '-;-- "..';. Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that: A judgment be entered in his fl'wor ..md against the Defendants fOf defamation and dllmages awarded and; e. punitive or exemplary damalles a~l<linst the Defendants for their outrageous <lnd reckless disregard of the Plaintiff's rights to his good name and character. C. The total damages alalmeel by the Plaintiff against the DefenCiants In this Count are in exoess of $25,000.00 RespectfullY slJbmltteel. O'BRIEN. aAHIC & SCHERE:R ~ ~~ Robert 1_. O'Brien, Esquire 1.0. # 211351 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 rIQ.dir/cljun~/halllcompllllnt.pld 9 FILE No.503 12/17 '03 17:43 ID:UNIVERSAL-UNDERWRITERS FAX: NOV-2\-2003 rRl 03:51 PM CVM DODGE r~X NO. 111 681 0822 PAGE 22/ 25 p, \6 VERIFICATION 4- ~~ The statements in the foregoing Complaint are b,ased upon informCltion which has been assembled by my attorney in this litigation. The language of the statement~ is not my own. I have read the statementS: and to the ext,snt that they are based upon information which \ have given to my counsel, they are tfue and cofrec! to the best of my Knowleclge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 1 B Pa. C.b. S "1904 fellating 10 unsworn t",Isifications to authorities. PATE: II - / l-(_ Z; '3 ~~h.~4 FILE No.503 12/17 '03 17'43 ID:UNIVERSAL-UNDERWRITERS F'AX: NOV-21-2003 FRI 03:52 PM CVM DODGE FAX NO. 717 691 0822 PAGE 23/ 25 p, 17 HOY-14-~eea 09~25 PM EDDY.S.Tl~E 717 249' 650e P.61 r\-'lt~''li'',;~1;1: '" .. ioIr.f":'I..I:i;~1.~'~i;1 . : ":,.,'; .: .'If,:,' . '".,' ."i"" I: '"" 1 :"", ,', '~'J~',~,bll':"w',' .,,,,,. ,","1'1 ~:t;< 11~ ~l !., . ~~I(lj.t )'~ili:1 ,"; jl::li::~ ,;;:.. . :1::1 f( ""r I"lll . ,'.~.-' ~l it' .. '1," ......../ ,.,1 J ~"~l' '~~"'4 . " ";qr:.;[.. r:; j!i'l,\.:.l;'::' ,;~:; '1 \.\1", .:!~J.(!o.IH'il""II. "':1' . .,'1 " '" . I... ~~!;c-.,.. :..:~~., "l.1~~~.:Jdi:~I~i "," ;.~:!, .:. : +;: 6714JED Carli.le Pike MachaniCfpuN,J. PA 17050 Phone 17171 =87.9448 1 1800l S82.1435 CUMBERLANDVAU.EV WJTORS 4. ......':.. Octlltler 16, 2003 Chris Hall 99 Mountain I..ane New~lJrg, PA 17240 Dear Chris: At the hearing held at Dlitrlct 3ustice P1a"Y'lii office last monlt1 you pruBnted a . list of tools that you hild left In your toolbox. We hav,e witnesses who say that you emptied the toolbox the day you left, leaVIng behind only the box and liome miscellaneous Items. Therefore, we are planning to ollen your tool~ to verify and Inventory the contents. . !f you would lIlee to be preaent for the InspectlOI\ of ttle contents pluse contact me no ~ter than October 30, 2Q03 by 5pm $0 we can arrange a mutlJlllly acceptable time. If I hive not heard from you by the date above wa will proceecl without you. Should you have quemonl pleasa do not heliiltllta to, (:entict me at 717-697- 9448. Slnclireiy, ~~'~ Steve GO~?J Axed Operllt1onli Director cc; Milllssa Swauger, Shumaker Williams .' .,' ,r;( ; ~ 'H.~~: A '.((:i:, r;>-~1 \,V.!~i:;I!~!\! N)V-21-2003 FRI 03:52 p~ CVM DODGE F~X NO. III 681 0822 PAGE 24/ 25 P. 18 FILE ~Jo.503 12/17 '03 17:43 lD:UN]VERSAL-U~JDERWRlTERS FAX: CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS, Plalntiff ~~.~1Iia v. District Court 09-3-04 CHRIS), HALL, Defendant CV-0261-03 CHRIS J. HALL, Cross-Plaintiff v. DIstrIct court 09-3-04 4.--,....-;. CUMBERLAND VAlLEY MOTORS, Cross-Defendant , Cv'':02tilc03-cc-u,j. FACTS ~o~ T[UAl Cumberland Valley Moters (CVM), a multi brand al.n:o dealership, employed Christopher J. Hall (Hall) as an automobile techniCian. H,all worked in the 5ubaru line of vehlc;les within CVM's servlc;e shop. Hall, a general mechanic of 20 years, worked In this position for CVM since February 2002. Hall hall no specl<lllwcl eclucatlon, training or experience repairing Subaru vehicles, Hall dId receIve one manufacturer's course on the new model vehicles while at CVM. In February/March 2003, Hall worked on two Sub'lTU transmissions that were alleged to have not been serviced in a quality and workrnanlike manner. CVM caused the vehicles to be reserviced at a cost of $506,00 and $2652,70, which represents cost after any insurance payments. Hall acknowledged the se.l'\llce ISSUes, offered to make the corrections on his own time, and pay for the necessary parts. Hall's estimate for the corrections Included $400.00 to $500.00 ln parts for l)ne vehicle and simply a transmission flush for the other. The flush cost would be, the use of in house equipment and U to 13 quarts of transmission fluid. Frustrated with the repair selVlces chosen by CVM, Hall left employment leaving behind personal tools valued <It $6168.95, CVM's parts f1nd service manager offered to Hall an opportunity to pick up the tools and make arrang<aments to settle up the repair Issues. While the manager was out, CVM's upper management vetoed this offer and instructed that the tools were to be held until full satisfaction was made by Hali, When employment began Hall signed authorIzation for payroll deductions for damages causea by himself. In the Interim tIme Hall has been working without these tools, and estimates the difference In Incomes between jobs at $10,000.00 over six months. I( II -::B FILE No.503 12/17 '03 17:43 ID:UN1VERSAL-UNDERWRITERS =AX: PAGE 25/ 25 NOV-21-2003 FRl 03:52 PI1 CVI1 DODGE FAX NO. 717 891 0822 p, 19 DISCUSSION \-- ."""~ The lssues in the claim are whether the employee is contractually responsible for "negligent" work damilges to the employer, If so, what is the reasonable mitigated cost of these damages. Hall admitted doing work that caused remedial measures to be taken by CVM. The payroll deduction authorization is not found to be contractually binding In this instance, The parole evidence given by a 1'ormer CVM manager Indicates the negligence discussed with Hall was for operiltion and not repairs of a vehicle. further, the ambiguous language of the authorization dOt$ not empower CVM, as it attempted here, to hold an employee a work hostage. There being no contractual obligation here, the tort laws must be reviewed. There is no employee Immunity provision found that prevents this claim. The applicable review is Whether Hall breached a duty of care owed to CVt1 that r.a~resultes (n damages. This was not wlllful or malicious conduct on Hall's part but simple ordinary negligence, which Hall has honestly admitted.. Hall Is liable for the damage caused. This damage is the reasonable cost to repair. The customer relation reason for replacing the transmission by CVM is profit driveni however, this is not the mitigllted damage. The flush recommended by Hall mayor may not have been sufficient repair. One will never know. Thus, an only nomina! damage of $100.00 Is awarded for this damage. The othar vehlde Is Hall estimated at and has a CVM deductible of $500.00, which will be awarded as damages to CVM. The counterclaim involves the unlawfUl restraint of Hall's personal property. A distrIct court has no equitable powers to order the return of the property; although it is the right thing to do. The jurisdictJonallimit of a district c:ourt Is $8,000.00 and Hall's claim far exceeds that limit. It Is found that Hall Is entitled to the return of hIs tools. Absent that authority monetary damages agaln$t CVM are awarded In the amount of the tools. AdditionallY, Hall lost employment potenti'll 'lS'a result of not h'lvlng his tools, which when combIned with tool award is more than the jl.lrisdictionallimit. Thus, $8,000.00 is awarded to Hall, that must be ~et off for jud~Jment. Judgment In the computer shall be recorded in favl~r of Hall on the counterclaim in the aggregate amount of $7,400,00 together with the tosts ofmls action. The parties have previously been advised of their appeal rights and the original exhibits have been returned to the presenting partY. 24 Sect 2003 Date 6y the ,-", 'Of, ./ ~~ ~ Th() s . Placey D.J. J CVM may share in this neg\lgen~ by Its la~ (If ptCper tnlininQ or InaGleq\.late \i\lperv\$lolli however, what training er slIpervlslon i$ reqlllred c.llnnot be jlldged from the fadS pre\lef1teQ. TIle proportional lilmount of liabllity by CVM will net be speC\Jlated at in thIs decision. '\ ~.. !' In The Matter Of: Christopher J Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et al. Christopher J Hall August 24, 2004 '~!~"" Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. 1427 East Market Street, York, PA 4309 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, PA (717) 845-6418 or (717) 236-0623 ~..... " Original File CH082404.TXT, 35 Pages Min.UScript@FileID:1515461981 Word Index included with this Min-U-Scriptali ....- .. Christopher J. Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et al. Christopher ). Hal August 24, 200. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, . Civil Action - Law Plaintiff . vs. . No. 2003.5608 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS. and STEVE GOTWOLS, Defendants. Jury Trial Demanded Deposition 01: CHRISTOPHER J. HALL Taken by : Delendanl Dale : August 24,2004; 5;14 P.M. Place : 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania Before : Gail D. McLucas, Notary Public Registered Professional Reporter APPeARANCES: O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER By: ROBERT L. O'BRIEN, ESQ. For. Plaintiff MINTZER SAAOWlTZ ZEAlS LEDVA & MEYERS By: JOHN C. BOBBER. ESQ, For. Oafendants .. I INDEX WITNESS CHRISTOPHER J, HALL By Mr. Bobber 3 Examination [1] STIPULATION [2] It is hereby stipulated by and between [3J counsel for the respective parties that reading, (4/ signing, sealing. certification and filing are [5] hereby waived; and all objections except as to 15] the form of the question are reserved tO,the [7] time of trial. ['] CHRISTOPHER]. HALL. called as a witness. 19] being duly sworn. testified as follows: (10] EXAMINATION. (1\] BY MR. BOBBER: [12] 0: ~r, Hall, my name is John Bobber. I represent [13] Cumberland Valley Motors and Steve Gotwols in (14J this action, [15] Before we begin, I JUSt want to give you a (16J couple instructions, You were here when Steve ]17] was deposed. It's imponant that one of us (18] speak at one time because she's taking [19] everything down. It's hard if you try to. (20] sometimes people have a tendency to try to {21] finish my questions before I get them out. {'22] Try to keep all your answers verbal. I {'23] noted you were nodding your head there, but she {'24] needs to take a down yes or no. It's hard for [2S] her to get a nod of the head, Page 4 [t] If you don't know the answer to a question, {2] try not to guess. But if you're going to guess, [3] qualify it as such. I don't expect us to be ]4] very long. If you need a break for any reason. , [5] JUSt let me know, [6] Are you under any drugs or medication that [7] may affect your testimony today? ['] A: No. ]9] 0: C:ln I get your address? [10] A: 99 Mountain lane. That's Newburg, PA. 17240. (1\] 0: And are you married? ]12] A: No. 113) Q: D'O you reside with anyone? {14] A: No. , [15] 0: Do you have any children? (16] A: No, (1~ 0: And your date of blnh? ]18] A: 11/5/59, (19] 0: 't,ur Social Security number? (20] A: 186-5()'2556. i21] 0: And this is a standard deposition question.! Page 2 [2'Z] hate to ask it. but do you have any criminal (23/ convictions within the Jast seven years? [24] A: No. (25] 0: I'm sorry. it's a standard question. Page 3 Page 5 ]1] A: 1\'0 problem. [2] 0: Where did you go to. did you complete high i3{ school? [4] A: Yes. With aGED. '78. [5] 0: And did you have any more education after that? [6] A: ]ust' ~ome tecr.nicalm>;ni"g classes throughout [7J my career, 1'1 0: Can you briefly go through them. If you can [9] remember? ]10] A: Alpha Romeo training was the first, in the early ]1\] '80s. i12] 0: I'm sorry that was? [13] A: Alpha Romeo, Italian make. Along with Fiat i14] Lancia traIning. L.a.n.c+a.After that. [1S] there .was a few classes for Mazda factory PSI training. 11~ 0: Do you know when you took those? (18] A: r would have to get a resume out, which I could [19] do to give you some recollection of dates. Mid [20] to later '80s. {'21] 0: Ii don't need exact dates,]ust trying to get a [22] general background for you. Do you recall any (23] other ones? (24] A: Nothing specific. ]25] 0: Can you just. maybe. go through some of your ~-:- Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. (3) - Page Min-U-Script<a> Christopher J. Hall August 24, 2004 Christopher J. Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et aL Page 6 [1] past employers before you came to Cumberland [2] Valley? {3} A: Prior to Cumberland VaHey was Bavarian motors. [4\ Actually, excuse me, Bavarian Enterprises in [5] Harrisburg. ['I Q: Do you recall when you. what years you were (7] there? [8] A: Approximately a year and a half prior to my [9] employment at CYM. [1~ Q: What about before that? [11] A: Eddy'sTire. where I'm presently employed. [12] Q: Do you recall the dates you were there before [13] you were at Cumberland Valley? 114] A: No, but generally speaking. it would have been a [ISI year. I think I was there 14 months or so when [16] he first opened his business. [17] Q: And before that. is it safe to say that you have [18] had some. you've worked around different shops? [191 A: Yes. Primarily automotive repair. [201 Q: As a tech? Primarlly as a tech? {21] A: I would say mechanic. [22] Q: Did you work at the Cumberland Valley Motors (231 store in Carlisle? [241 A: Yes, {2S] Q: When did you work there? Page 7 [1] A: That was prior to Eddy's Tire and Auto, and that [2] was for their Chrysler Jeep. [31 Q: And can you tell me around. approximately the [4] dates that you worked there? [5] A: I'm going to have to count back from my first '['] emploYhlent at Eddy's Tire and r believe that W?S i'1 a year and a half. 18 months, 14 to 18 months, [81 somewhere in there. ['I Q: You were there for that long? [10] A: Yes. [111 Q: Who was your supervisor at Cumberland Valley [12] when you worked there? [131: A: Dan Ta}'!or. {14J Q: The Dan Taylor that we mentioned in our earlier (151 deposition? [181 A: Correct. 117] Q: Who hired you to work at Cumberland Valley [181 Motors when you came? [191 A: Originally? [20] Q: Yes, (21J A: Or the second time? {221 Q: Let's talk about the second time. now. We are {23] talking about your start date - [241 A: Dan Taylor. With Cumberland Valley Subaru, it [25] was Dan Taylor. Page 8 [II Q: Okay. And do you remember when you were hired? [2] A: Not exactly, no. [31 Q: Were YOIl specifically hired to work on Subarus? [4] A: Yes. [51 Q: Did they ever offer to you to go to a Subaru (6] school to lean) to work on Subarus? [7] A: Several times. ['I Q: Do you know who offered you? ['I A: Most of the times I was. when I was told there {to] was some training coming up, it was through Gary (ll} Williams, the shop foreman. 112] Q: And did you ever go to any of the Subaru [131 training classes? ['4] A: I went to one introductory class for a day. [151 Q: And that was just an introduction class. Did ['"I you get certified or any kind of certifications [17] from that? [18] A: There's some type of record of it on your Subaru [191 training history, but it was just a new model. [2OJ One of the thlings in the introductory was one of {21] the new things that Subaru was taking on. which {22] was OnStar, the GM system. {23} Q: At the time you were hired there, were you a {24] certified tech for anything else? [25] A: What aspect? Page 9 [1] Q: For any other- {21 A: Factory certified? No. [3] Q: Did you have any certifications in any other [4] areas? [5] A: Just some training as far as electrical and that {61...;..1\'aS tsr~ugh e:venLr13 classes offered by different (7J parts stores. . .,......-- [81 Q: When you first started at Cumberland Valley [9] Subaru. were you aware of the company's policy {10] with respect ItO if a mechanic would break [11] something, who was responsible for the payment? [12] A: I thought I was when I first signed that {13] document in question, but what has transpired [141 since then tells me that, no, I was not aware. ['S] Q: When you say the document in question - [18] A: The rekase for the deductibles. [17] Q: That we had marked in the previous deposition as [18] Gorwols Number 1? [191 A: Yes. [20] Q: Is that your signature on that document? [211 A: Yes. [22] Q: And at the time you first started. what was your [23] understanding of the policy? {241 A: Deductibles. I could be held responsible for in [25J the event of an accident. I was told just to ~....... Page 6 - Page 9 (4) Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. Min-U-Script@ Christopher J. Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et at Christopher J. Hall August 24, 2004 Page 10 Page 12 (1] pertain to collision, if I was driving a car and [2[ I wrecked a car, I'd be responsible for the ['I deductible. And in agreeance (sic) with that [41 understanding, I signed that document. [51 Q: When you worked at the other Cumberland Valley. [61 the Chrysier Jeep. were you aware that they had [7] a policy with respect to damaging vehicles? [61 A: I think it was the same form that I had signed 191 previousiy.And if so, it should be in my [101 record. [11] Q: Did you damage or have an accident with any P21 vehicles at the Cumberland Valley Jeep store? (13j A: Not that I can remember. 1141 Q: Did you become aware of a policy while you were P~ working at the Cumberland Valley Subaru if (16] another mechanic or technician damaged a pn customer's vehicle, whether or not they would be (181 responsible? 1191 A: In what respect? Cosmetic damage. mechanical (20) damage, collision damage? [211 Q: Either or, {22] A: Just collision. [2'1 Q: Just collision? [24J A: Correct, was my understanding. [25] Q: Do you know if any technicians were ever charged Page 11 PI for anything other than collision? [21 A: Actually. nothing comes to mind. None of the ~[ guys that I worked with ever. on my side. ever [41 incurred any problems. I know they had some (5] problems with some, it was a part failure or [6] something like that, with Volkswagen, g'Jys:.but ! [7] have no idea what tl'anspired with that. [6] Q: You say. who are the people that you worked with [9] on the Subaru side? Who were the other {to] technicians? [111 A: Mr.Weller, Gary Williams and first name Todd. I P21 forget his last name, ["] Q: Todd? ['4[ A: Yes. I forget his last name. I believe he's [IS[ still with them. P61 Q: Let's talk about the incident on February 28, pn 2003, I believe this is where Mrs. Baney was a (18) customer who brought her vehicle in. Do you [19[ recall what kind of car it was, just off the top (20] of your head? [21] A: Subaru. (22] Q: It was a Subaru? 123[ A: Yes, 124[ Q: As you sit here today. do you recall doing work [25) on that vehicle? [IJ A: Yes. [2[ Q: And can you tell me what you needed to do t': {3l that vehicle? [4] A: There may have been some items in addition to, [51 but the Subaru transmission recall. [6[ Q: Do you recall whether or not you had to drop the (7l transmission? 18] A: Transmission pan. as pan of the recall. ~] I'm going to need to take a break and call [10[ up my shop. I expected to get back there before [l1J closing. time at 5:30. [1~ MR. BOBBER: Go right ahead. 1"1 (Recess taken) [14] BY MR. BOBBER: 115] Q: Before we broke, I was asking you questions [16[ about the first incident on February 28, 2003. 117] I believe Ms. Baney brought her vehicle in to [18] have some transmission work. Can you explain to [19[ me what you needed to do to that vehicle? [201 A: For the recalll [21] Q: Yes. 122[ A: It's a matter of replacing a pan they refer to [2'[ as a pa.rk paw. They must have been experiencing [24] some type of failure with that pan, It was a 1251 safety issue. It keeps the car in park, It, Pagel: {1] covered a vast amount of Subarus, so there were [21 a lot of them out there to be done. [31 Q: When is the first time that you realized that [41 you poured windshield washer fluid into the {5] transmission? - [6] ._ ......,,: Insmr~a,T']..eQ1J.sly o. [7J Q: As soon as you did it? ~~ [81 A: Yes. I~ Q: Do you know if anyone was. saw or witnessed [10] this? [t11 A: The gentleman I was working next to, Mr.Weller, [1~ I don',: know whether he directly witnessed it. ["[ but as soon as I staned to add a little washer [14} solvent to the funnel in the transmission flU [15] tube, I realized what I had done. I can't (16] remember my exact words at the time, but at a [17] volume sufficient for him to understand that I [16[ had just made a mistake,And I proceeded to [191 explam to him what happened. [20] Q: So he came over to you? (21] A: I don't know whether he came over to me. In a [22] shop, you work so close, you're within 10 feet. [23] Q: Do you recall what you said to him? [24[ A: Not my exact words. [2S[ Q: They don't have to be the exact words, but. Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. (5) Page 10. Page 1 Min-U-Script@ Christopher J. Hall August 24, 2004 [l[ A: Oh, crap. I'} Q: And do you recall what he had said, if anything? I'} A: Can't really recall. [41 Q: Did he say anything to you about draining the [~ fluid out before you staned the vehicle? ['} A: He said, I think he recommended to take the pan [7j down on the vehicle. And because of the weight [81 difference between water and transmission fluid, [9} I did not do that. But I did drain the pan. PO} Q; You drained the pan after you poured the [111 windshield washer fluid in? [1>1 A: Yes, I pulled the plug out of it. '131 Q: And what did Mr. Weller ask you to do? [\4} A: He really didn't ask me to do anything. [151 Q: What did he suggest? ["I A: I don't know what. if anything. he suggested. [171 We're co-workers.We work with each other. P8} Q: When is the first time that you told your ['8} supervisor that you had poured windshield washer (20J fluid into the transmission fluid tube? {21} A: I believe it was the same time sequence, within ["'l half an hour or so of when the incident (23J occurred. [>41 Q: Was the vehicle still in the shop? [2SI A: Yes, [11 Q: Or was it moved? ['1 A: I can't remember. The vehicle had not left. f.)} Q; Do you recall if you scaned the vehicle after [41 you had poured the - can you go through the (51 sequence of events, if you can? ['I A: Not really. To the best of my recollection, [7l after that fluid was 'addc-d, drained the {8} transmission pan. replenished the fluid, drained [91 out along with, if, whatever amount it was, it ['OJ was a miniscule amount of fluid. Replenished (t1] the transmission fluid out of my own personal ['>1 transmission fluid that I had there for Subaru. [13" factory fluid and let Gary')mow. Because in the [141 event, any incident like that, let him know. [151 And we talked, whatever we came to and 116J stuff like that, whatever decision was made was [1~ made. And that was the end of it. [181 0: Was the vehicle sraned before you had drained [191 and I'll say contaminated fluid. that's my word. [2Q1 not yours. Was the vehicle started at any time (21) while the contaminated fluid was in the- pan? [2~ A: No, [231 0: I believe you stated it was a half an hour later [241 that you informed the shop foreman of this? [25} A: I don't remember the time sequence. but it Pago 14 Pago 15 Christopher J. Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et aL Pago 1 6 ['I wasn't days later or a week. It was the same ['1 day. . 1'1 Q: And do you recall what the shop foreman had said (41 ro yo u? [S} A: I think he, along the lines, did you drive the {'I car. recheck th,e transmission fluid in it and [7J was the transmission fluid clear. Things [8} penaining to that. was the shifting quality of [9] the transmission, was it bad. I told him after [101 I had driven the car, there was no errors in the [1 'I transmission's shifting or problems. [121 0: When did you drive the car? [13} A: After I had finished whatever services. [141 Q: So you put the windshield washer fluid in the {IS} transmission fluid. You drained it and then you (16] put transmission fluid back into it and then you [17] drove the vehicle? [18] A: Yes. ['9} Q: Can you tell me how far you drove the vehicle? (201 A: Normal ':est drive is probably a mile. [>11 Q: A mile? [22} A: Mile. mile and a half, depending on traffic and 12'1 which loop you take. f24} Q: Did you know that the customer brought the [25} vehicle back "nd complained of some problems? ( Page 17 ['I A: Yes. {21 0: What was told to you? [3} A: The transmission was demonstrating ~hat was {41 referred to as torque bind. [5} 0: Do you know whether or not contaminated fluid ~ :~~ would ---:"?use tho:1t}_ [7j' A: I would say y~s. ' _ ~. , '8} Q: Did anyone ask you to work on this vehicle again [91 when it was brought back in? 1'01 A: What exactly transpired at that point in time. [' 'I I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure that Gary took a ['>1 look at it and had trie do something to it. I f131 think we tried to put some conditioner in it [14] which has some type of agent for moisture that's [15} in the fluid, for dispersing any moisture in the ["I fluid. And that was unsuccessful. ['~ Q: Did you ever tell Steve that you would pay for (1'1 the damage, pay the deductible? [191 A: I told him that I'm responsible for what [20} occurred. I didn't say I'm going to pay for the {>1} damages, [2'1 Q: Did he ask you to pay? [231 A: It was put to me that they decided that they [241 were going 1:0 replace that transmission for the (25] customer to the customer's satisfaction and I - ..~.-::-' ';:".'" Page 14 . Page 17 (6) Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. Min-U-Script@ Christopher ]. Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et al. Christopher]. Hal August 24, 200' Page 16 Page 20 " 1'1 was to pay the deductible. 121 Q: Did you agree to that? 131 A: No. 141 Q: What did you say when they approached you with 151 that? 1'1 A: Probably something along the lines of whatever. 171 Q: Whatever? (81 A: A facetious answer. 191 Q: Can you recall what date they approached you [101 with this? [II[ A: It was in the week period prior to my leaving. [121 Q: Now, the problem of windshield washer fluid and (13] transmission fluid, that has nothing. co do [t4J whether the car is a Suharu, is tJ:1at correct? lIS] If you do that to any car - (161 A: Contaminants are just that. Doesn't matter [17] whether it's in your food,in your transmission I"] fluid, /19] Q: What I mean is. it doesn't matter if it's a [20/ Subaru. If it would have happened to a Ford - 121] A: It would have done the same thing? No. it would 12~ not have. 12'/ Q: It would not have done the same thing? 124] A: Correct, it would not have. Subarn. in the [251 event there was a similar drive line or a III preny accurately. There was a problem with the 12/ engine where it needed to be removed from the 1'1 vehicle and after completing those repairs. the [4J problem occurred on reinstallation. It was an 15/ alignment problem between rhe engine and [6] transmission. 171 Q: And what specifically wasn't lining up properly? [8] A; Torque converter to input shaft on the 19/ transmission. I'm assuming that. I never had IIO[ the opportunity to remove either the 111] transmission or the engine and identify 1'2/ components that were broken, scratched. scarred. 113] Q: When you were tightening the bOlts and lining [14/ these up, can you tell me what happened, if lIS] anything? [181 A: After tightening the bolts between the engine [17] and the: transmission, there was a noise that {lSI came out ofit. 119] Q: What kind of noise? 120j A: A crack. [21[ Q: What did you do afrer you heard the crack? 122/ A: I :knew that I made a mistake. 123] Q: And then what did you do? 124] A: I think I probably went right to Gary. our sh,op [25J foreman. Page 19 (1/ transax1e in the,Subaru with a viscous coupler [21 in it, yes, there is a possibility that (3] contaminants could cause a similar problem. But {4J only in a similar type of trdnsaxle for an 15/ all-wheel drive vehicle. -161' ,0 My point being thac the problem inrhe car' 171 and the only thing that arose as far as problems 16] in the car was a condicion called torque bind [91 and that was only experienced when the vehicle 1'0/ was in a turn. That's because of the different (111 distances of the front and rear wheels when you [12) trave!jn a turn, as 9Pposed to inside and (131 outside wheels, because of the rndius of a turn. J"I Q: Ler's talk a little bit about the second [151 incident. And according to my notes, this 1"/ happened on March 4th. 2003. Does that sound (17\ about correct? [tSt A: You're bener able to say that than I am at this {Hi! point. (201 Q: And this is for Mrs. Pavco's vehicle. This is [21/ the one I'm talking about. Do you recall [221 working on that vehicle? 123/ A: Yes. 124[ Q: Do you recall whar needed to be done? 125] A: Not exactly, but Steve Gotwols summed it up Page 21 [II Q: And what did you tell Gary. if you can remember? 121 A: I explained to him what happened and he says. [3] oh, I bet you I know exactly what happened.And 14] then h,e proceeded to explain to me what it 15] sounded like occurred. He had been working. he '~iBi scill he' is\voiking0n SubarllS ,nd he's'good at 171 what he does. He has a vast amount of 16] experience with Subarus, /9J Q: So after that happened, you never did anything [10] to that, anything else to that vehicle? 1"1 A: No, no. I was told. we'll let you know. [12] Q: Did you tell Steve that you were responsible for [131 this damage? [141 A: Yes. I did. [IS/ Q: Did you tell him that you would pay for it? I"] A: No, I did not. 117/ Q: Did they ask you to pay for it? 118] A: The only thing that we talked about is. if there [191 was some parts broken in the transmission that 120] Gary had indicated possibly were damaged because 12'/ of this. I did volunteer to pay for those parts. 122] I also volunteered my time to make any and all (231 repairs. [24[ Q: And who did you tell this to? 125/ A: Gary, the shop foreman. I do believe that we -- ~.- Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. (7) Page 18 - Page 2 Min-U.Script<i> Christopher ]. Hall Au~st 24, 2004 [1] had an instance to speak to Steve about it, but I~ I'm not exactly sure. ~I 0: Do you recall how close in ,time this [41 conversation was until the time that you (51 actually left? 161 A: Within a two.week period. (7J 0: Within twO weeks? 181 A: Yes. (81 0: The problem with the transmission not lining up {101 with whatever you told me before. is that 1"1 something that is just specific to Subarus? (12] A: In this instance, not just Subarus.There are a [131 few different manufacturers that use two input (141 shafts and at the time I did not know that. (151 0: According to our records that you left on March (161 7,2003, does that sound about correct? (17] A: Was it a Friday? (161 0: r don't know. 1191 A: For all practical purposes. I would say that [2OJ sounds correct. 1211 Q: When you were leaving, did you speak to anyone? (221 A: No. (231 0: Did anyone help you load some of your tools into (241 your truck? (2~ A: I don't recall. Page 23 PI 0: What tools did you have there? Let's stan (21 with. let me be a little bit more specific. How ~I many toolboxes did you have there? {41 A: You could accUrately account for it as one set. (5' Top, bottom and side cabinets. Top. bottom box (6' and a side cabinet and quite a few miscellaneous [7] items. (81 0: Did you say top. bottom and a side cabinet? {91 A: Correct. (101 0: So there were three cabinets? ("I A: Correct. 1121. 0: And w~re they detachable? (13]' A: Yes, (141 0: And when you left, which pans of that toolbox (151 did you take with you? 1161 A: Top and side, (17] 0: And you left the bottom? lIS! A: Correct. 1191 Q: Did you have any conversation with Steve before {20, you left? (211 A: If I did, it was abcupt and brief. [221 0: Were you dissatisfied with working there in the (231 last month that you were there? (241 A: It was a smaller period of time than that. (251 0: What brought up your dissatisfaction? Christopher ]. Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et al. Page 22 Page 24 (11 A: Company's unwillingness to stand behind 121 employees. [31 0: And can you tell me what incident. what happened (41 to make you believe that? 15J A: First instance was the transmission recall {6] incident. (7J 0: Oh, basically, the incidents? (81 A: These twO issues that are. that we 'ce talking {91 about now. (101 0: After you left on the 7th. when did you start 1"1 with Eddy's Tice? (121 A: It was within a week. It was the next week. lla} 0: If March 7th was a Friday, was it a Monday? [14} A: Monday ocTuesday of the next week. (151 0: When you wece working at Cumberland Valley. how (161 much did you make. what were you being paid? [17] A: I was being paid a flat rate and I believe it ("I was 17 or 1750 an hour. I can check my records (191 and let you know exactly. 1201 0: I could, too. I'm just asking. When you (211 started working at Eddy's Tire. what were you (22] making there' (231 A: He hired me at salary. 750 a week. '(241 0: Any overtime? (2~ A: No, not with salary. ( ........ Page 2S (11 0: Did you have another job besides Eddy's Tire. a !2l nighttime job or a second job? ~} A: Having 'to do some work at home to try and make (41 ends meet. but that's it. 151 0: What were your hours at Eddy's Tite? 16' A:J::ignt to five. Monday through Ftiday. [71 -0;- What ''';'ere your hours 'at Cumberland Valley (81 Subaru? 191 A: I think we startedat 7:30. (101 0: 7:30 until? {11J A: Five.And we were on rotation for Saturdays. [12} 0: Did you make any overtime when you worked at (131 Cumberland Valley Subaru? 1141 A: Flat rate. Ovenime is pertaining to hourly (15] employees only. (161 0: Besides the work that you were doing at home. [17] did you receive any other income after you left [161 Cumberland Valley? 1191 A: No. 1201 0: I believe there was some testimony, maybe during (21] the district justice hearing that you were (221 offered another job at anothet dealership? (231 A: A priv2.te repair facllity. 124) 0: And where was that? (25J A: Bavari~m Enterprises. where I was previously ~--;. P3Qe 22 . Page 25 (8) Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. Min-U-Script@ Christopher J. Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et al. Christopher J. Hall August 24, 2004 Page 28 (1) employed. )2) Q: Before you worked at Cumberland Valley, I think (3) you said that you worked at Bavarian Enterprises [4] in Harrisburg. Correct? )5) A: Correct. )5) Q: This is before you were working at Cumberland J7] Valley Subaru? [S] A: Correct. )9) Q: Can you tell me what you were making then, what [10J were you being paid? )11) A: I think the salary was 45. [12) Q: 45,000 a year? (13] A: Yes. But there were other things to factor into (14J that as far as performance and bonuses. [15) Q: And after you left Cumberland Valley Subaru, (16) were you offered a job to work at Bavarian [17] Enterprises again? (ta] A: Actually not. Because, speaking with the owner, (19) Andy. he expressed to me that I would be a (20) candidate - ~11 Q: Andy's last name is? (221 A: Guliani. [23) Q: Do you know how to spell it? )24) A: Not off the top of my head. [25) Q: I'm sorry to interrupt. Can you tell me. (l] continue? ~J A: But because of the fact that to work for him. I [3) need what I had prior to that, I need a full set 14] of tools. [5) Q: When did you have a conversation with Andy? [6J A: -\,(,/ithin.a month after this "transpired. J7] Q: Mr, Gotwols testifted that there was a window {S] where you could come in and get your tools. Do [9} you recall his testimony? )") A: Yes. I do recall his testimony. {ll] Q: Was that accurate? (12] A: No, it was not. (13] Q: Can you explain to me - [14) A: To the best of his knowledge, I would say that, (15] yes, it is. (16] Q: It's accurate to him? [171 A: Yes, [18) ,Q: Why don't you elaborate? [") A: The following Monday after I left, I went to go [201 to retrieve the rest of my tools. I was told by [21) the parts manager,John Dick, and it was pretty [22] much summed up as, no pay, no tools. And then I [23) was told thatI'm not allowed on the premises (24] anymore. [25) Q: Who told you that? Page 26 Page 27 [I) A: John Dick. [21 Q: Did you later have a conversation with Steve [3) about going to get your tools? [4) A: Yes. [5) Q: And can you- [6) A: Couple of instances. J7] Q: Let's talk about those. [8) A: Summed up, same thing. [9) Q: He said- [10) A: You pay the deductibles for those repairs on the (111 transmissions, you can have your tools. [12) Q: Do you know when the first conversation you had [131 to that respect was? [14) A: Not to my knowledge. Most of the transactions [15) between CYM. no matter who as an employee it was [16] and myself, are documented in letters. )171 Q: I'm going to show you what's been marked as [") Gotwo!, Number 4. Can you take a minute and {19] look at "that letter? [20) A: Okay. [21] Q: Om you tell me what's inaccurate about this (22] letter? 123) A: The context he'll get back to me. Which.! may [24) have sald to him. [25) Q: You may have said to get back to him? Page 29 [I) A: If [ did say that to him, it was sarcastic. ~) Because I never agreed with their policy or (31 their procedures in this instance. [4) Q: Did you have a conversation with Mr. Gowols on [5) the 21st: with respect to whether or not you - (6('CDlllci c,J:i.lrl~'and g.tt yop,r.!,ools? J7] A: I don't recall the exact timing of who I spoke [81 to after the first time I returned. which was [9) the following Monday after I left. I was told (10] no. [II) Q: That was told to you by John Dick, correct? {12] A: Correct. I was told several times, you can come (13] and get your tools anytime you 'Want. 114) Q: Who told you that? [15) A: Stephen in phone calls. [16) Q: He told you that you could come and get them [17] anytime? [18} A: Yes.As soo,n as I signed the agreement to pay ["I them back. [20} Q: Did he talk to you about setting up a payment [21] plan? ~2) A: I d,on't recall. ~31 Q: Now, when he said that you could get your tools [241 back if you signed an agreement. do you know [25] what the terms of that agreement was going to -...::"',,:,,-:: " Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. (9) Page 26 - Page 29 Min-U-Script@ Christopher J. Hall August 24, 2004 Christopher J. Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et a1 ~ [11 be? [21 A: Payment in full for what they felt to be their ['I losses. [4] Q: And that was what Steve told you? [51 A: It's in one of the Ieners. This letter right [6] here. [7J Q: But there was no talk about how payment would be (81 made? ~I A: No. [101 Q: Are you still working at Eddy's? ["I A: Yes. [121 Q: And you do have your. since this time. you have [13] the tools in your possession, correct? [14] A: They were returned to me three weeks ago. [1~ Q: And everything was in there that you had in [16] there? [17] A: Yes. except for stuff that was out on loan when [18) I packed my tools up and co-workers still (19) possess those. to the best of my knowledge. (20) Q: Do you know who still has some of your Stuff? (21) A: NO.At that point in time when I was working [22) with those guys. I got along and trusted [2') everybody in the facility. There wasn't anybody (24) that I wouldn't loan a tool to in good faith. 12~ Q: Can you tell me ":9ich tools that you still don't Page 31 [11 have that you loaned to people at - [21 A: The only two that I know of specifically is a [31 voltohmmeter that is on this list. {4] Q: A volt ohmmeter? [5] A: Digital volt ohmmeter is on this list. The case [61 that was in the toolbox in question I thrt;w away , ~-[7J the other day because it was empty. When I [8) worked there. there was a digital volt ohmmeter ~I to go into that case.And when I left there I 1101 didn't have it. 1"1 Q: A digital? [1~ A: Volt ohmmeter. [131' Q: Oh,voltohm.o-h-ml [141 A: Yes. [15] Q: Did you say you recalled loaning that to (16] someone? [17] A: I didn't throw it away. It was there at my work {la] when I went to work. day in, day out and after (19) my leaving transpired, it wasn't there anymore. [20] Q: Is it possible that someone borrowed it and (21) didn't return it? [22J A: Yes, possibly. [2'1 Q: Do you know who may have loaned it? [241 A: As I told you already, I would have lent any of (25] my tools to anyone in there. Page 30 Page 32 [1] Q: Can you tell me anything else on there that you [2] had that someDne may have - ['I A: A dial indicator. [41 Q: A dial indicator? [5] A: Measuring device. [6] Q: And do you know who borrowed that from you? [7J A: That was a tool that was used day in, day out [8] with Subarus, especially penaining to their [9] brakes. checking the run out on the rotors. [10] Q: Anything else? ["] A: No. not that I recall. (121 Q: Just a few more questions. I'm going to talk a [131 little bit about this lener that's been marked [14] as Gotwols 2. [15] A: Yes. I'm familiar with this lener. [18] Q: And you heard Mr. Gotwols testify that he signed [17] this letter but he didn't prepare the body of (181 it? 1'91 A: Yes. I did. [201 Q: Were you aware of that? [21J A: No, I was not. [221 Q: Does it surprise you? [2'] A: Very little. penaining to this case. [24] Q: When YClU received this lener. did you show it . [251 to anyone? ,,, 1':' I Page 33 [11 A: Yes. my "ttorney. [21 Q: Did you show it to anyone else? 131 A: I can't recall anybody specifically that I would [41 have shown it to. [51 Q: Do you believe that your good name and (6J reputatio~l was 'haLni~d in this letter by the [7J contents? .. ' . [81 A: Yes. I do, [9] Q: And can you tell me what injuries you suffered 1101 because of what was wrinen in this lener? [111 A: I would say disappointment. firSt off. Very [12J confused that co-workers would bear false [13] witness against somebody, for whatever reason, [141 whether it's my case or anyone else's. [15] Q: The letter states that - [15] A: Allow me to finish. [17] Q: Oh, I'm ,;orry. Go ahead. [181 A: Just lying is wrong. I don't panake in it, so [19) I don't feel other people have a right to do [2OJ that either. [21] Q: Let me just read a linle ponion of this to [2~ you. Quote, "We have witnesses .who say that you [2'1 emptied the toolbox the day you left, leaving [24] behind only the box and some miscellaneous {2SJ items." ~""'- ~-" Page 30 . Page 33 (10) Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. Min-U-Script@ Christopher J. Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et al. Christopher J. Hall August 24,2004 Paga 34 (1] Is that what you're referring to? [2] A: That's pan of it, ~] 0: What's the other pan of it? [4] A: What's the other pan of it? [~ 0: Yes. [6] A: What I panook to be a threat to my best 171 interests, in other words be there or beware, we (II] are going to open it with or without you. So [9] bring your keys along. [10] So I feel I was threatened by this company. (11] as well. [1~ MR. BOBBER: That's all I have. Thank you (13] very much. [14] MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you. [15] (The deposition concluded at 6:04 p.m.) [Hi] [1~ [18J [191 [20] [211 [22} [23] [24] [25] Paga 35 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA } ) ss COUNTY OF YORK I. Gail D. McLucas, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public In and for the Commonwealth 01 Pennsylvania and County 01 York, do hereby certify thallhe foregoing deposition was laken before me at the lime and place hereinbefore sellorth. and thalli is the testImony of: CHRISTOPHER J. HALL Ilur1her certify thai saki witness was by me duly swam 10 leslity the whole and complete truth in said cause; that the testimony then given was reported by me stenographically, and subsequenlly transcribed under my direction and supervision: and Ihallhe loregoing is a lull, true and correcltranscrlpt 'of my original shorlhand notes. I further cerllfy thai I am not counsellor or related to any ot the parties 10 the foregoing cause, or employed by lhem or their allorneys, and am nollnleresled In the subject mailer or outcome thereol. Dated at York, Pennsylvania this 7th day 01 September, 2004. Galt D. McLucas, Notary Public Registered Prolessional Reporter (The foregoing cerliflcation 01 this transcript does not apply to any reproduction 01 the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or supervision 01 the cerlilying reporter.) . ~:... Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. (11) Page 34 - Page 3: Min-U-Scripi@ Christopher J. Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et al. 1 19:18 1013:22 11/5/594:18 146:15:7:7 17 24:18 17.5024:18 172404:10 187:7.7 186-50-25564:20 2 232:14 200311:17: 12:16: 19:16; 22:16 21 st 29:5 2811:16;12:16 4 428:18 4526:11 45,00026:12 4th 19:16 5 5:3012:11 6 6:0434: 15 7 722:16 750 24:23 7S 5:4 7:3025:9.10 7th 24:10, 13 8 80s 5:11,20 9 994:10 A able 19:18 abrupt 23:21 accident 9:25; 10:11 according 19:15: 22: 15 account 23:4 accurate 27:11, 16 accurately 20:1: 23:4 action 3:14 Actually 6:4: 11:2; 22:5; 26:18 add 13:13 added 15:7 addition 12:4 address 4:9 affect 4:7 again 17:8; 26:17 against 33:13 agent 17:14 ago 30:14 agree 18:2 agreeance 10:3 agreed 29:2 agreement 29:18, 24, 25 ahead 12:12: 33:17 alignment 20:5 all-wheel 19:5 Allow 33:16 allowed 27:23 Along 5:13; 15:9; 16:5; 18:6; 30:22; 34:9 Alpha 5:10.13 amount 13:1: 15:9, 10: 21:7 Andy 26:19; 27:5 Andy's 26:21 anymore 27:24: 31:19 approached 18:4,9 Approximately 6:8: 7:3 areas 9:4 arose 19:7 around 6:18;7:3 aspect 8:25 assuming 20:9 -- - attorney 33:1 Auto 7:1 automotive 6:19 aware 9:9, 14; 10:6, 14: 32:20 away 31:6, 17 B back 7:5: 12:10: 16:16, 25: 17:9; 28:23, 25: 29:19, 24 background 5:22 bad 16:9 Baney 11:17; 12:17 basically 24:7 Bavarian 6:3,4; 25:25; 26:3.16 bear33: 12 become 10:14 begin 3:15 behind 24:1; 33:24 besides 25:1, 16 best 15:6: 27:14; 30:19; 34:6 bet 21:3 better 19:18 beware 34:7 bind 17:4; 19:8 birth 4:17 bit 19:14; 23:2; 32:13 BOBBER 3:11, 12; 12:1:!. 14: 34:12 body 32:17 bolts 20:13, 16 bonuses 26:14 borrowed 31:20: 32:6 bottom 23:5, 5, 8.17 box 23:5; 33:24 brakes 32:9 break 4:4: 9:10: 12:9 brief 23:21 briefly 5:8 bring 34:9 broke 12:15 broken 20:12; 21:19 brought 11:18: 12:17; 16:24; 17:9: 23:25 business 6:16 c cabinet 23:6, 8 cabinets 23:5, 10 call 12:9 called 3:8; 19:8 calls 29:15 came 6:1; 7:18; 13:20, 2Jl; 15:15; 20:18 Can 4:9; 5:8.8. 25; 7:3; '_0;1,3; 12:2, L~: 15:4,5: 16:19; 18:9; 20:14; 21:1: 24:3,18; 26:9. 25: 27:13: 28:5,11.18.21: 29:12; 30:25; 32:1: 33:9 candidate 26:20 car 10:1,2; 11:19; 12:25; 16:6,10,12; 18:14, 15; 19:6,8 career 5:7 Carlisle 6:23 case 31:5. 9: 32:23: 33:14 cause 17:6; 19:3 certification 3:4 certifications 8:16; 9:3 certified 8:16.24; 9:2 charged 10:25 check 24:18 checking 32:9 children 4:15 CHRISTOPHER 3:8 Chrysler 7:2: 10:6 class 8:14, 15 classes 5:6, 15; 8:13; 9:6 Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. Min-U-Script1:Bl clear 16:7 close 13:22: 22:3 closing 12:11 co-workers 14:17; 30:18;33:12 collision 10:1,20,22.23: 11:1 coming 8:10 company 34:10 company's 9:9; 24:1 complained 16:25 complete 5:2 completing 20:3 components 20:12 concluded 34:15 condition 19:8 conditioner 17:13 confused 33:12 Contaminants 18:16; 19:3 contaminated 15:19.21; 17:5 contents 33:7 context 28:23 continue 27:1 conversation 22:4; 23:19; 27:5; 28:2, 12; 29:4 converter 20:8 convictions 4:23 Cosmetic 10:19 counsel 3:3 count 7:5 couple 3:16; 28:6 coupler 19:1 covered 13: 1 crack 20:20, 21 crap 14:1 criminal 4:22 Cumberland 3:13: 6:1. 3, 13.22:-7:li.17. 24;9:8:-' 10:5,12,15: 24:15; 25:7, 13,18: 26:2. 6.15 customer 11:18; 16:24: 17:25 customer's 10: 17; 17:25 CVM 6:9: 28: 15 D damage 10:11, 19,20, 20;17:18:21:13 damaged 10:16; 21:20 damages 17:21 damaging 10:7 Dan 7:13, 14, 24. 25 date 4:17: 7:23; 18:9 dates 5:19, 21; 6:12; 7:4 day 8:14; 16:2; 31:7,18. 18: 32:7. 7: 33:23 days 16:1 dealership 25:22 decided 17:23 Christopher J. Hall August 24, 2004 decision 15:16 deductible 10:3: 17:18; 18:1 deductibles 9: 16,24; 28:10 demonstrating 17:3 depending 16:22 deposed 3: 17 deposition 4:21; 7:15: 9:17;34:15 detachable 23:12 device 32: 5 dial 32:3,4 ~ick 27:21; 28:1; 29:11 difference 14:8 different 6: 18; 9:6: 19: 1 0; 22:13 Digital 31:5. 8,11 directly 13:12 disappointment 33:11 dispersing 17:15 dissatisfaction 23:25 dissatisfied 23:22 distances 19:11 district 25:21 document 9:13,15,20: 10:4 documented 28:16 done 13:2.15; 18:21, 23: 19:24 down 3:19,24; 14:7 drain 14:9 ' drained 14:10: 15:7,8, 18; 16:15 draining 14:4 drive 16:5, 12. 20: 18:25; 19:5 driven 16:10 driving 10:1 drop,12:6 drove 16:17, 19 drugs 4:6 duly 3:9 during 25:20 ~-:'" E earlier 7:14 eariy 5:10 Eddy's 6:11; 7:1, 6: 24:11,21: 25:1, 5; 30:10 education 5:5 Eight 25:6 Either 10:21; 20:10: 33:20 elaborate 27:18 electrical 9:5 else 8:24; 21:10: 32:1, 10: 33:2 else's 33:14 employed 6:11: 26:1 employee 28:15 (1) I - employee christopher J. Hall Christopher J. Hall v. August 24, 2004 Cumberland Valley Motors, et at employees 24:2; 25:15 lIat 24:17; 25:14 I later 5:20: 15:23: 16:1; 33:24 employers 6:1 Iluid 13:4; 14:5. 8, 11, 20, 28:2 mistake 13:18; 20:22 employment 6:9; 7:6 20; 15:7,8,10,11,12.13, learn 8:6 model 8:19 emptied 33:23 19.21; 16:6,7,14,15,16; idea 11:7 leaving 18:11; 22:21; moisture 17:14, 15 empty 31:7 17:5,15,16; 18:12. 13, 18 identify 20: 11 31:19: 33:23 Monday 24:13.14; 25:6; end 15:17 lollowing 27:19: 29:9 important 3:17 left 15:2; 22:5, 15: 23:14, 27:19; 29:9 ends 25:4 follows 3:9 inaccurate 28:21 17,20: 24:10: 25:17; month 23:23; 27:6 load 18:17 26:15; 27:19: 29:9: 31:9: engine 20:2, 5, 11, 16 Ford 18:20 incident 11:16; 12:16; 33:23 months 6:15; 7:7, 7 14:22: 15:14: 19:15: 24:3, Enterprises 6:4; 25:25; foreman 8:11: 15:24; 6 lent 31:24 more 5:5; 23:2; 32:12 26:3,17 16:3; 20:25; 21:25 incidents 24:7 lettE" 28:19, 22; 30:5; Most 8:9: 28:14 errors 16:10 lorget 11:12.14 income 25: 17 32:13.15,17.24; 33:6, 10, Motors 3:13; 6:3, 22; 7:18 especially 32:8 form 3:6; 10:8 incurred 11:4 15 Mountain 4:10 evening 9:6 Friday 22:17; 24:13; 25:6 indicated 21:20 letters 28:16; 30:5 moved 15: 1 event 9:25; 15:14; 18:25 Iront 19:11 indicator 32:3. 4 line 18:25 Mrs 11:17; 19:20 events 15:5 lull 27:3; 30:2 informed 15:24 lines 16:5; 18:6 much 24:16; 27:22;34:13 everybody 30:23 lunnel13:14 injuries 33:9 lining 20:7, 13; 22:9 must 12:23 exact 5:21; 13:16. 24, 25: list ~,1:3, 5 myse1128:16 29:7 G input 20:8; 22:13 little 13:13; 19:14: 23:2; inside 19:12 exactly 8:2; 17:10; 19:25; instance 22:1, 12; 24:5: 32:13,23; 33:21 N 21:3; 22:2; 24:19 Gary 8:10; 11:11; 15:13; 29:3 load 22:23 EXAMINATION 3:10 17:11; 20:24; 21:1, 20. 25 instances 28:6 loan 30:17,24 name 3:12; 11:11.12.14; except 3:5;30:17 GED 5:4 Instantaneously 13:6 loan,.d 31:1.23 26:21; 33:5 excuse 6:4 general 5:22 instructions 3:16 loaning 31:15 need 4:4; 5:21; 12:9; expect 4:3 generally 6:14 interests 34:7 long 4:4; 7:9 27:3,3 expected 12: 10 gentleman 13:11 interrupt 26:25 look 17:12; 28:19 needed 12:2,19; 19:24; experience 21:8 GM 8:22 into 13:4; 14:20; 16:16; loop 16:23 20:2 experienced 19:9 good 21:6; 30:24; 33:5 22:23; 26:13; 31:9 loss"s 30:3 needs 3:24 experiencing 12:23 Gotwols 3:13; 9:18; introduction 8:15 lot 1:0:2 new 8:19. 21 expiain 12:18; 13:19; 19:25; 27:7; 28:18; 29:4; introductory 8:14,20 lying 33:18 Newburg 4:10 21:4: 27:13 32:14.16 issue 12:25 next 13:11; 24:12, 14 ( explained 21:2 guess 4:2, 2 issues 24:8 M nighttime 25:2 expressed 26:19 Guliani 26:22 Italian 5:13 nod 3:25 guys 11:3,6; 30:22 items 12:4; 23:7; 33:25 making 24:22; 26:9 nodding 3:23 F manclger 27:21 noise 20:17, 19 H J manufacturers 22:13 None 11:2 facetious 18:8 many 23:3 Normal 16:20 lacility 25:23: 30:23 half 6:8; 7:7; 14:22: 15:23; J 3:8 Marcl, 19:16; 22:15: noted 3:23 lact 27:2 16:22 Jeep 7:2; 10:6, 12 .:"~:13 notes 19:15 lactor 26:13 HALL 3:8.12 joiJ'25:1, 2. 2,22; 26:16" mark"d 9:17; 28:17; number .4:19; 9:18;28:18 ~~.~~ lactory 5:15;9:2; 15:13 happened 13:19: 18:20; John 3:12; 27:21; 28:1; 32:13 failure 11:5; 12:24 19:16; 20:14; 21:2. 3. 9; 29:11 marriled 4:11 0 laith 30:24 24:3 justice 25:21 matter 12:22; 18:16, 19; false 33:12 hard 3:19,24 28:15 O'BRIEN 34:14 lamiliar 32:15 harmed 33:6 K may 4:7: 12:4: 28:23, 25; o-h-m 31:13 lar 9:5; 16:19; 19:7: 26:14 Harrisburg 6:5: 26:4 31:23: 32:2 objections 3:5 February 11:16;i2:16 ha,te 4:22 mayb,. 5:25; 25:20 head 3:23, 25; 11:20; keep 3:22 Mazdll 5:15 occurred 14:23; 17:20: leeI33:19: 34:10 20:4; 21:5 leet 13:22 26:24 keeps 12:25 mean 18:19 off 11:19; 26:24;33:11 lelt 30:2 heard 20:21; 32:16 keys 34:9 Measuring 32:5 offer 8:5 lew 5:15; 22:13; 23:6: hearing 25:21 kind 8:16;11:19;20:19 mech..nic 6:21; 9:10; offered 8:8; 9:6: 25:22; 32:12 held 9:24 knew 20:22 10:16 26:16 Fiat 5:13 help 22:23 knowledge 27:14; 28:14; mechanical 10:19 ohm 31:13 liling 3:4 hereby 3:2, 5 30:19 medication 4:6 ohmmeter 31:4. 5.8.12 liII13:14 high 5:2 meet 25:4 one 3:17, 18; 8:14, 20. 20; linish 3:21; 33:16 hired 7:17; 8:1, 3, 23; L mentioned 7: 14 19:21; 23:4; 30:5 linlshed 16:13 24:23 Mid 5:19 ones 5:23 lirst 5:10: 6:16: 7:5; 9:8, history 8:19 L-a-n-c-i-a 5: 14 mile 16:20.21.22,22 only 19:4,7,9: 21:18; 12.22: 11:11: 12:16; 13:3; home 25:3, 16 Lancia 5:14 mind 11:2 25:15: 31:2: 33:24 14:18; 24:5; 28:12; 29:8; hour 14:22; 15:23; 24:18 Lane 4:10 miniscule 15:10 OnStar 8:22 33:11 hourly 25:14 last 4:23: 11:12.14: minut.. 28:18 open 34:8 five 25:6. 11 hours 25:5,7 23:23; 26:21 miscellaneous 23:6; opened 6:16 employees - opened (2) Min,U-Script@ Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. Christopher J. Hall v. Cumberlalld Valley Motors, et at opportunity 20:10 opposed 19:12 Originally 7:19 out 3:21; 5: is; 13:2; 14:5. 12; 15:9, 11: 20:18; 30:17; 3l:18; 32:7. 9 outside 19:13 over 13:20. 21 overtime 24:24; 25:12. 14 own 15:11 owner 26:1B p p.m34:15 pA 4:10 pac ked 30: 18 paid 24:16, 17; 26:10 pan 12:B; 14:6,9,10; 15:8,21 park 12:23, 25 part 11:5: 12:8,22.24; 34:2.3.4 partake 33:18 parties 3:3 partook 34:6 parts 9:7: 21:19, 21; 23:14; 27:21 pasl6:1 Pavco's 19:20 paw 12:23 pay 17: 17, 18, 20, 22: 18:1; 21:15.17, 21; 27:22; 28:10; 29:18 paymenI9:1I; 29:20; 30:2.7 people 3:20; 11:8; 31:1; 33:19 perfcirmance 26:14 period 1B:I1; 22:6; 23:24 personal 15:11 pertain 10:1 perlaining 16:8; 25:14; 32:8, 23 phone 29:15 plan 29:21 plug 1{12 polnI17:10; 19:6.19; 30:21 policy 9:9. 23; 10:7.14; 29:2 porlion 33:21 possess 30:19 possession 30: 13 possibilily 19:2 possible 31:20 possibly 21:20; 31:22 poured 13:4: 14:10, 19: 15:4 praclical22:19 premises 27:23 prepare 32:17 presently 6: 11 pretty 17:11; 20:1; 27:21 previous 9:17 previously 10:9; 25:25 Primarily 6:19. 20 Prior 6:3. 8; 7:1; 18:11; 27:3 private 25:23 probably 16:20; 18:6: 20:24 problem 5:1; 18:12; 19:3, 6: 20:1, 4, 5; 22:9 problems 11:4.5: 16:11. 25; 19:7 procedures 29:3 proceeded 13:18: 21:4 properly 20:7 pulled 14:12 purposes 22:19 put 16:14, 16; 17:13,23 Q qualify 4:3 qualily 16:B quite 23:6 Quale 33:22 R radius 19:13 rale 24:17; 25:14 read 33:21 reading 3:3 realized 13:3.15 really 14:3,14; 15:6 rear 19:11 reason 4:4: 33:13 recall 5:22; 6:6,12: 11: 19, 24; 12:5,6,8,20: 13:23: 14:2,3; 15:3; 16:3; 18:9; 19:21. 24; 22:3, 25; 24:5; 27:9,10: 29:7, 22; 32:11; 33:3 recalled 31:15 receive 25:17 received 32:24 Recess 12:13 recheck 16:6 recolleclion 5:19; 15:6 recommended 14;6 record 8:18; 10:10 records 22:15; 24:18 refer 12:22 referred 17:4 referring 34:1 reinstallation 20:4 release 9: 16 remember 5:9: 8:1; 10:13; 13:16; 15:2,25: 21:1 remove 20: 1 0 removed 20:2 repair 6: 19; 25:23 repairs 20:3; 21:23; 28:10 replace 17:24 replacing 12:22 replenished 15:8, 10 represent 3:12 reputation 33:6 reserved 3:6 reside 4:13 respect 9:10; 10:7, 19; 28:13; 29:5 respective 3:3 responsible 9:11. 24; 10:2.18; 17:19; 2l:12 rest 27: 20 resume 5:18 retrieve 27:20 relurn 31:21 returned 29:8; 30:14 right 12:12; 20:24; 30:5; 33:19 Romeo 5:10.13 rotation 25:11 rolors 32:9 run 32:9 s sale 6:17 safety 12:25 salary 24:23.25; 26:11 same 10:8; 14:21; 16:1; 18:21,23: 28:8 sarcastic 29: 1 -sCf~sioc.~ion 17;25 Saturdays 25:11 saw 13:9 sea rred 20: 12 school 5:3; 8:6 scratched 20:12 sealing 3:4 second 7:21, 22; 19:14; 25:2 Security 4:19 sequence 14:21; 15:5. 25 services 16:13 set 23:4: 27:3 setting 29:20 seven 4:23 Several 8:7; 29: 12 shaft 20:8 shafts 22:14 shifting 16:8.11 shop 8:11; 12:10; 13:22; 14:24: 15:24; 16:3; 20:24; 21:25 Filius & McLucas ReportiIlg Service, Illc. Min.U.Script<B> shops 6: IS show 28:17; 32:24: 33:2 shown 33:4 sic 10:3 side 11:3.9; 23:5, 6, 8, 16 signature 9:20 signed 9:12; 10:4, 8; 29:18.24: 32:16 signing 3:4 similar 18:25; 19:3.4 sit 11 :24 smaller 23:24 Social 4:19 solvent 13:14 somebody 33:13 someone 31:16, 20; 32:2 sometimes 3:20 somewhere 7:8 soon 13:7,13; 29:18 sorry 4:25; 5:12; 26:25; 33:17 sound 19:16; 22:16 sounded 21:5 sounds 22:20 speak 3:18; 22:1, 21 speaking 6:14: 26:18 specilic5:24; 22:11: 23:2 specifically 8:3; 20:7; 31:2;33:3 spell 26:23 spoke 29:7 stand 24:1 standard 4:21, 25 start 7:23; 23:1; 24:10 started 9:8, 22; 13:13; 14:5: 15:3, 18, 20; 24:21; 25:9 stated 15:23 states 33:15 Slephen 29:15 Steve 3:13, 16; 17:17; 19:25; 21:12; 22:1; 23:19: 28:2; 30:4 sliIl1l:15; 14:24: 21:6: 30:10,18,20,25 stipulaled 3:2 STIPULATION 3:1 store 6:23; 10:12 stores 9:7 sluH 15:16; 30:17, 20 Subaru 7:24: 8:5.12.18. 21; 9:9: 10:15; 11:9. 21, 22; 12:5; 15:12: 18:14. 20, 24; 19:1; 25:8.13: 26:7, 15 Subarus 8:3.6: 13:1: 21:6,8; 22:11.12; 32:8 suHered 33:9 suHicient 13:17 suggest 14:15 suggesled 14:16 'I summed 19:25; 27:22; 28:8 Christopher J. Hal August 24, 200' supervisor7:l!; 14:19 sure 17:11, 11; 22:2 surprise 32:22 sworn 3:9 syslem 8:22 T talk 7:22; 1l:16: 19:14: 2B:7; 29:20; 30:7; 32:12 talked 15:15:21:18 talking 7:23: 19:21; 24:8 Taylor 7:13,14,24,25 lech 6:20.20: 8:24 lechnical 5:6 technician 10:16 lechnicians 10:25; 11:10 lells 9:14 lendency 3:20 lerms 29:25 lesl 16: 20 lestilied 3:9; 27:7 leslify 32:16 testimony 4:7; 25:20; 27:9,10 Ihought 9:12 Ihreal 34:6 threatened 34:10 Ihree 23:Hl: 30:14 Ihrew31:6' ' throughout 5:6 Ihrow 31:17 lightening 20:13, 16 limes 8:7. 9: 29:12 timing 29:7 Tire 6:11; 7:1, 6; 24:11:-' 21; 25:1, 5 today 4:7; 11 :24 Toddll:Jl,13 _ laid 8:9; 9:25; 14:18i>;-N-;; 16:9;17:2,19:21:11: " 22:10; 27:20, 23, 25; 29:9, 11.12.14,16; 30:4; 31:24 took 5:17: 17:11 100130:24: 32:7 toolbox 23:14; 31:6; 33:23 loolboxes 23:3 lools 22:23; 23:1; 27:4, 8, 20, 22; 28:3, 11; 29:6, 13, 23:30:13.18.25;31:25 lop 11:19: 23:5, 5, 8,16; 26:24 torque 17:4; 19:8; 20:8 Iraffic 16:22 Iraining 5:6, 10.14, 16; 8:10.13,19;9:5 transactions 28:14 Iransaxle 19:1,4 transmission 12:5,7,8, 18; 13:5, 14: 14:8.20: 15:8,11.12; 16:6, 7. 9.15, (3) opportunity - transmissioll Christopher J. Hall August 24, 2004 Christopher J. Hall v. Cumberland Valley Motors, et aL 16;17:3,24: 18:13. 17; 20:6.9. 11, 17; 21 :19: 22:9: 24:5 transmission's 16:11 transmissions 28:11 transpired 9: 13; 11 :7: 17:10; 27:6; 31:19 travel 19:12 trial 3:7 tried 17:13 truck 22:24 trusted 30:22 try 3: 19,20,22; 4:2: 25:3 trying 5:2] tube 13:]5: 14:20 Tuesday 24:14 turn 19:10,12,]3 two 22:7.13; 24:8: 3]:2 two-week 22:6 type 8:18: ]2:24; 17:]4: 19:4 u under 4:6 unsuccessful] 7:16 unwillingness 24:1 up 8:10; ]2:]0; ]9:25; 20:7.14; 22:9; 23:25: 27:22; 28:8; 29:20; 30: 18 use 22:13 used 32:7 v Valley 3:13: 6:2. 3. ]3. 22; 7:11.17,24: 9:8; 10:5, 12. 15: 24:]5; 25:7, 13, ]8; 26:2.7.15 vasil;\:!: 2]:7 vehicle 10:17: 11:18.25; ]2:3.17,19: 14:5.7.24; 15:2,3.18.20: 16:17, 19, 25; 17:8; 19:5,9.20,22; 20:3: 21:10 vehicles 10:7, 12 verbal 3:22 viscous 19:1 Volkswagen 11:6 volt 31:4, 5.8.12,13 voltohmmeter 31:3 volume 13:17 volunteer 21:21 volunteered 21:22 w ]2, ]4,23 weeks 22:7; 30:14 weight 14:7 Weller 11:11; 13:11; 14:13 what's 28:17.21; 34:3, 4 wheels 19:11, 13 Williams 8:11; 11:11 window 27:7 windshield 13:4; 14:11, 19: 16:14: 18:12 within 4:23; 13:22; 14:21; 22:6,7; 24:12; 27:6 without 34:8 witness 3:8; 33: 13 witnessed 13:9.]2 witnesses 33:22 word 15:19 words 13:16.24.25: 34:7 work 6:22. 25; 7:17; 8:3, 6; 11:24; 12:18; 13:22; 14:17: 17:8: 25:3, 16; 26:16: 27:2; 31:17,18 worked 6:18;7:4, 12: 10:5: 11:3,8; 25:12; 26:2. 3;31:8 working 10:15; 13:11; 19:22; 21:5.6: 23:22; 24:15,21; 26:6; 30:10. 21 wrecked 10:2 written 33:]0 wrong 33:]8 y year 6:8,15; 7:7; 26:12 years 4:23: 6:6 waived 3:5 washer 13:4.13: 14:11, 19: 16:14; 18:12 water 14:8 week 16:1; 18:11: 24:12. transmission's, years (4) ~A' -;.~ Min-U-Script@ Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc. ; o .; . ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ . Ii a ~ ~ - ?",G~ \..n'-Ie: ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ',. ,--- - - ... . -.,-,; - - - - LA vrrEB.'S 'NO'!'ES .~ " I Hereby give my permission for Cumberland Valley Motors to deduct from my paycheck for: Accounts Receivable,; Blue CrosslBlue Shield Group Insurance 401k Damages and or Insurance deductible caused by myself Signature c:t:...~ tL::::. Date: 1./_ /..@J- "':;.-""" --'"--j (~ Q ~-2003 09:25 PM EDDY.S.TIRE 717 249 661313 P.l3t :; '! i \ i ; :i' ~ , , .,';' ,.'. l,': .f:;if: ,!;:,j' f;~(}:.. I,l, 'f'lj ",' 'l t ~~,!. ill!, ~ \: h .,: ..:: ,;. 1 ,"t~'T.11 .' ,., r]l , " . :'1;l'JI/""'~"':";f:Lir,.. ":';I!lti'l ,.": ',' 'l . I~,.,!..." .':! \:~, . I,:;;: I(j :"., '~~ ::' ',:i~'," :i\ t' . '~ "" ~ I " . ' 'II '.: ' " ,'" I:j:i~i\\l: 'i' " ,,,., "'1\ , '0 '::'!;:! .H "Jon .r., ,miL "!'~' . CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS October 16, 2003 Chris Hall 99 Mountain Lane Newburg, PA 17240 Dear Chris: 6714/20 Carlisle Pika Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone (7171 697.9448 1 (8001 382.1436 At the hearing held at District Justice Placey's office lasle month you presented a list of tools that you had left In your toolbox, We have witnesses who say that . you emptied the toolbox the day you left, leaving behirid only the box and some miscellaneous Items. Therefore, we are planning to opEm your toolbox to verify and Inventory the contents. If you would like to be present for the inspection of thE! contents please contact me no later than October 30, 2003 by Spm so we can arrange a mutually acceptable time. If I have not heard from you by the elate above we will proceed without you. Should you have questions please do not hesitate to C(lntact me at 717-697- 9448.' ' Sincerely, ~/;~1 Steve GOtwo~ Fixed Operations Director cc: Melissa Swauger, Shumaker Williams l'C'.<,>(',r' ,(.'......101- A ) 'le>: ;-:.:.;\,V.~...t;:.i::/,: r;f)fWbl~ -If.). CERTIFICATE OF SERVICI~ The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that service of a true and correct copy of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was made to the below-named counsel on the date named below via United States First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER 19 West South Street Carlisle, P A 17013 MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDV A & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. Attorney for efendant(s), CUMBERLAND V ALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS --.. Dated: June 21. 2005 , r-) \..~~ 0-' 0 (;'? -n :..;l c. (-- - I -< f',' W -1 :Con rn~:~ ,~ -' , C) - ~~'t - .:() "(-.;;rn "::::\ ":0 '-< -::) r;:' c'1 o (}Y\~\~ 12 and 13 VS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 5608-2003 CIVIL TERM./ NO. 4776-2004 CIVIL TERM CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS, STEVE GOTWOLS and MONIQUE ULLOM, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants . CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS NO. 2004-4766 CIVIL TERM MONIQUE ULLOM, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE A pretrial conference was held Wednesday, June 29th, 2005, before the Honorable Edward E. Guido, Judge. Present for the Plaintiff was Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, and present for the Defendants was John C. Bobber, Jr, Esquire. This is a claim for defamation and the conversion of the tools and conversion rade by Plaintiff and a counterclaim for damages to motor vehicles that the Plaintiff worked on by Defendant. Counsel indicates that the case will take about one and a half days to try. There are no scheduling conflicts. Defense counsel filed a motion for summary judgment on June 20, 2005. By separate order, we will be dismissing the motion as untimely filed. Edward E. Guido, J. Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ~.~ f..3tJ,()5 John C. Bobber, Jr:, Esquire 1528 Walnut Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Court Administrator ~k,., Prothonotary :mlc Jrl51 NJ~ CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Plaintiff IN THE COLRT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS NO. 5608-2003 CIVIL TERM ~ NO. 4776-2004 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS, STEVE GOTWOLS and MONIQUE ULLOM, CIVIL ACTIJN - LAW Defendants / CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS NO. 2004-4766 CIVIL TERM MONIQUE ULLOM, Defendant CIVIL AC1;ION - LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2005, it appearing to Che court that this case "'as originally filed in 2003, originally listed for trial on March 28, 2005, and relisted for trial in May of 2005, the summary judgment motion filed on June 20, 2005, is dismissed as being untimely. Edward E. Guido, J. Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ~.3D.6:{ ~~' John C. Bobber, Jr., Esquire 1528 Walnut Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 :mlc ( CHRISTOPHER 1. HALL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS, STEVE GOTWOLS, AND MONIQUE ULLOM : NO. 2003 - 5608 CIVIL /' '11'1- : NO. 2004 - 4776 CIVIL VERDICT OUESTION 1: DO YOU FIND THAT DEFENDANT DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF THE USE OR POSSESSION OF HIS TOOLS WITHOUT HIS CONSENT? YES V NO IF YOU ANSWER QUESTION #1 "NO," PLAINTIFF CANNOT RECOVER AND YOU SHOULD NOT ANSWER ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AND SHOULD RETURN TO THE COURTROOM. QUESTION 2: STATE THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, IF ANY, YOU AWARD TO PLAINTIFF. $ \ ~ I S 00 QUESTION 3: STATE THE AMOUNT OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES, IF ANY, YOU A WARD TO PLAINTIFF. . $ 0 DATE: JULY \ ~ ,2005 ~~. FOREPERSON ...-<-9, CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS and STEVE GOTWOLS, Defendant and CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Plaintiff v. MONIQUE ULLOM, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-5608 CIVIL TERM NO. 04-4766 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2005, the Defendants' motion for nonsuit as to the defamation claim is granted. ~ert L. O'Brien, Esquire For the Plaintiff ~hn C. Bobber, Esquire For the Defendants srs ~ ./ LO ;;1 ':\d -r' 00 ~[jflr ^tNiO\\.>, :.\-}c\d "3'[-\i -30 3:)\:\i(::e{Ff1B Christopher Hall vs Cumberland Valley Motors In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No.2003-5608 Civil PRAECIPE Please mark the above captioned action as settled and discontinued. David D. Buell, Prothonotary 20 Civil Term Attorney Info: Robert L. O'Brien, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 CO ( ) : Christopher Hall VS Cumberland Valley Motors In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No 2003-5608 Civil PRAECIPE Please mark the above captioned action as settled and discontinued. David D. Buell, Prothonotary Attorney info: Jcffrcy C. Sotland (68958) 20 Civil Term Attorney for Defendant Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, LLP 1500 Market St., Ste. 4100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 :i