HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-71096
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH and : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs,
V. : No. 2007 - CIVIL TERM
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants.
: CIVIL ACTION
NOTICE TO DEFEND
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint, order and
notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and by filing in
writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are
warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered
against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for
any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other
rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU
DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE
THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL
HELP.
Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-3166
Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable
accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our
office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court.
You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing.
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH and : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs,
V. : No. 2007 - O q CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Gnana M. Chinniah a/k/a Gnanachandra M. Chinniah
and Suganthini Chinniah, by and through their attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, to make the
following Complaint and in support thereof avers as follows:
1. Plaintiffs, Gnana M. Chinniah a/k/a Gnanachandra M. Chinniah and Suganthini
Chinniah, are married adults with a principal residence located at 506 Erford Road, Camp Hill,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011.
2. Defendant East Pennsboro Township (hereinafter the "Township") is a
municipality with its principal offices located at 98 South Enola Drive, Enola, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania 17025.
3. Defendant Jeffrey S. Shultz is a Building Inspector and Codes Enforcment Officer
of East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, charged with the duty of
issuing building permits and performing inspections for construction in East Pennsboro
Township.
4. On or about September 5, 2007, Plaintiffs purchased three (3) tracts of land in
East Pennsboro Township, collectively known and numbered as 3 Cassatt Street, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025.
5. Lot 3A contains approximately 3,928 square feet, as more particularly identified
on that subdivision plan for Cassatt Street Townhomes recorded on August 16, 2004, in the
Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at Plan Book 89, Page 81.
6. At the time of purchase by Plaintiffs, Lot 3A was improved with a partially
finished two (2) story townhouse structure consisting of a poured concrete slab, framing, siding,
doors and windows, and a completed roof structure.
7. Lot 3B contains approximately 2,822 square feet, as more particularly identified
on that subdivision plan for Cassatt Street Townhomes recorded on August 16, 2004, in the
Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at Plan Book 89, Page 81.
8. At the time of purchase by Plaintiffs, Lot 3B was also improved with a partially
finished two (2) story structure separated into first and second floor apartments with segregated
entrances, and consisting of a poured concrete slab, framing, siding, doors and windows, and a
completed roof structure.
9. Lot 3C contains approximately 3,602 square feet, and currently does not include
any improvements.
10. Framing in both the townhouse and apartments units on Lots 3A and 3B
respectively had been completed by the previous owner prior to the adoption of the Uniform
Construction Code in Pennsylvania.
11. Upon information and belief, the framing in the structures was commenced in
1999 and substantially completed in 2000.
2
12. Following the substantial completion of the framing in the structures, the prior
owner of the properties had taken limited steps to finish the construction of the structures in
order to obtain occupancy permits.
13. The partially completed structures had therefore remained uncompleted and
vacant for approximately the last seven (7) years.
14. Defendant Township, through its authorized agents and representatives, had at
various times conducted multiple site visits and inspections of the structures in order to assess
the progress of construction and compliance with the applicable building codes.
15. It is believed and therefore alleged, that the Township's previous building
inspector and/or codes enforcement officer inspected the framing in both structures when
framing was completed by the prior owner.
16. At the time of purchase by Plaintiffs, Township building inspectors and/or codes
enforcement officers had made notations on insulation in between framing members.
17. These notations by Township officials included directions to the previous owner
as to the type of drywall to be installed in order to comply with applicable fire codes.
18. Also on or about September 5, 2007, Plaintiff Gnana M. Chinniah and legal
counsel met with the Township Zoning Officer, the Township Solicitor, and Defendant Shultz in
order to confirm the intent of Plaintiff to obtain new permits necessary to complete the
construction of the townhouse and apartments on Lots 3A and 3B.
19. It was agreed by the parties that additional parking and access requirements were
necessary for the completion of construction of the apartments on Lot 3B.
3
20. It was also emphasized and discussed that the improvements already existing on
the properties predated the adoption of the Uniform Construction Code, but that any future
construction on the properties would need to be in compliance with the current code.
21. Plaintiffs subsequently submitted revised parking plans and an easement
agreement to the Township in order to address the parking and access requirements.
22. On or about October 11, 2007, upon payment of the necessary fees, Plaintiffs
were issued separate Construction Permits in order to complete structures on Lot 3A and 3B.
23. The issued permits were to "Finish Interior of Dwelling Including HVAC,
Electrical, Plumbing, Drywall, Carpet, Deck and Landscaping" that had not been completed
under the original permit issued to the prior owner. A true and correct copy of the Construction
Permits dated October 11, 2007 and signed by Defendant Jeffrey S. Shultz are attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
24. Neither of the Construction Permits attached as Exhibit "A" reference the need to
have an inspection of the framing that had already been constructed at the properties.
25. Plaintiffs subsequently had the rough electrical work inspected and approved by
one of the third party inspection agencies authorized by the Township.
26. On or about November 2, 2007, Defendant Shultz was scheduled to perform an
inspection of the work performed at the townhouse on Lot 3A.
27. Plaintiffs had originally requested that Defendant Shultz inspect the rough
plumbing work completed at the townhouse on Lot 3A and verify the types of insulation used at
various locations in the townhouse, but Plaintiffs' plumber was not available to meet Defendant
Shultz at the property on November 2°d
4
28. Defendant Shultz, however, proceeded to conduct a "framing inspection" at the
townhouse, and insisted that the insulation and partial drywall installed by Plaintiffs needed to be
removed. A true and correct copy of the Inspection Report is attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit "B."
29. The majority of the unresolved items listed on the Inspection Report attached as
Exhibit "B" involve that stated inability by Defendant Shultz to perform a "framing inspection."
30. Defendant Shultz was never requested to perform a framing inspection, as the
framing, windows, and doors had already been constructed at the properties some seven (7) years
ago, and framing work was not part of the building permits attached as Exhibit "A."
31. On or about November 16, 2007, Defendant Shultz notified Plaintiffs and their
legal counsel that a "Stop Work Order" was being issued because a "framing inspection" was not
completed.
32. Defendant Shultz did not inspect the apartments located on Lot 313, and did not
specify which property or properties would be affected by the threatened "Stop Work Order"
33. On or about November 20, 2007, Defendants issued a "Stop Work Order" against
all three (3) lots owned by Plaintiffs for the stated reason of "failure of framing inspection." A
true and correct copy of the certified letter from Defendant Shultz dated November 19, 2007 is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C."
COUNT I - PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
34. The averments of fact alleged in items one (1) through thirty-three (33) of this
Complaint are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference.
5
35. 34 Pa. Code § 403.64 provides that a "construction code official shall inspect all
construction for which a permit was issued."
36. The permits attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and issued to Plaintiffs by Defendants
did not include framing work, as that work was previously completed prior to enactment of the
Uniform Construction Code and as Plaintiffs believe that the work was previously inspected by
Defendants.
37. 34 Pa. Code § 403.81 authorizes a building code official to issue a stop work
order only when work is being done in a dangerous or unsafe manner or is contrary to the
requirements of the Uniform Construction Code.
38. Defendant Shultz issued a stop work order for all three (3) properties owned by
Plaintiffs, even though construction permits were only issued for Lots 3A and 3B, and even
though he had inspected only the townhouse located at Lot 3A.
39. Defendants issued a stop work order based on the erroneous assumption that the
framing has never been inspected.
40. Defendants have not alleged that the framing was done in a dangerous or unsafe
manner.
41. The framing work has not been done contrary to the Uniform Construction Code
because it was constructed years prior to the adoption of the new code and prior to the ownership
of the properties by Plaintiffs.
42. Furthermore, inspection of the framing was not a matter included on the permits
for either property as signed by Defendant Shultz.
6
43. Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon their meeting with Defendants prior to purchasing
the properties, and the building permits issued to Plaintiffs which did not include work or
inspections of work already completed at the properties.
44. Plaintiffs in relying upon the representations of Defendants proceeded to finish
the interior construction on the properties in accordance with the issued permits.
45. Plaintiffs have now incurred significant time and expense in proceeding to finish
the interior construction work in accordance with the issued permits.
46. Defendants should be equitably estopped from issuing a stop work order for
inspection of framing that was not completed by Plaintiffs and was not within the scope of the
building permits issued to Plaintiffs.
COUNT II - MANDAMUS
47. The averments of fact alleged in items one (1) through forty-seven (47) of this
Complaint are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference.
48. Defendant Shultz was not scheduled to inspect and in fact did not inspect the
apartments located at Lot 3B, Cassatt Street, Enola.
49. Without inspecting the apartment units Defendants could not know whether any
work completed on those units was dangerous, unsafe, or contrary to the Uniform Construction
Code.
50. By issuing a stop work order on units that Defendants have never inspected under
the permits issued to Plaintiffs, Defendants have acted outside of their statutory scope of
authority.
7
51. Because Defendants lacked the authority to issue a stop work order on Lots 3B,
Plaintiffs have been denied the reasonable use and enjoyment of their property.
52. Notwithstanding the compliance by Plaintiffs with the procedures to obtain
building permits and with the request for inspections of the work authorized by the permits,
Defendants have failed and refused to lift the stop work order issued against the properties.
53. Defendants continue to fail and refuse to lift the stop work orders issued against
the properties.
54. Plaintiffs wish to have the building permits reinstated so that they may make the
best use of the properties, which uses are not detrimental to the Township and which comply
with the applicable building and zoning ordinances.
55. Plaintiffs have lost considerable time and resources, and will continue to incur
significant costs as a result of the unauthorized actions of Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gnana M. Chinniah a/k/a Gnanachandra M. Chinniah and
Suganthini Chinniah, respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
a. Award Plaintiffs damages and costs for the loss in use and enjoyment of the
properties against which the stop work orders have been issued, the additional
interest and expense incurred because of Plaintiffs' financing, and the costs of
litigation;
b. Direct Defendant Jeffrey S. Shultz to lift the stop work orders issued against the
properties, reinstate the construction permits previously issued to Plaintiffs, and
perform only those inspections of work contemplated by the permits;
C. In the alternative, authorize a third-party agency under contract with East
Pennsboro Township to perform the inspections of the properties to ascertain
compliance with the Uniform Construction Code;
d. Retain jurisdiction to ascertain that the Court's decree is obeyed; and
8
C. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate, proper,
necessary and just.
Respectfully submitted,
IRWIN & McKNIGHT
v •
By.
Doug as G. filler, Esquire
Supreme Co I.D. # 83776
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2353
Dated: November 27, 2007 Attorney for Plaintiffs
9
VERIFICATION
The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by my
counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this
document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I
understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
GNANACHANDRA CHINNUH
Date: 11/26/07
EXHIBIT "A"
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
East Pennshoro Township Building Department 98 S. Egola Drive Enola,PA 17025-2796 (7171732.0711
Project Address 3 CASSATT ST, ENOLA
Parcel Number 09-15-1291-014 Legal Description Lot: S 3A, CASSATT STREET Plan Book: 67 Plan Page: 19
TOWNHOUSE
Permit Type BUILDING Construction Category + Class SINGLE FAMILY INTERIOR REMODEL
Property Owner CHINNIAH, GNANACHANDRA M & SUGANTHINI
Mailing Address 506 ERFORD RD City, State, Zip CAMP HILL, PA 17011
Phone Number 717-732-6273
Occupant / Business Name
Contractor SELF
Mailing Address SAME AS APPLICANT City, State, Zip
CorltVactoes Phone Number 717-732-6273
Workmen's Comp
Expiration Date
Insunince Company
Flood Plain? -- --- - - ----------------------------
LI
Census # 434
Census Subcode R
Census Description RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR COMPLETION
Zoning RHD
Construction Value $30,000.00
Number of Stories 2
Permit Number 20070305 Date Issued 10/11/2007 Total Fee $1,247.00 Receipt # 07474$0747
Notes
FINISH PROJECT (ORIGINAL PERMIT #99248) - FINISH INTERIOR OF DWELLING INCLUDING HVAC, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING,
DRYWALL, CARPET, DECK AND LANDSCAPING
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
The applicant agrees to comply with all township ordinances and state laws relating to building construction, and hereby authorize representatives
of this township to enter upon the above-mentioned property for inspection purposes.
Please review attached inspection sheet and call at least 24 hours before requested inspection.
Unless noted under "Special Conditions", this permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not started within 180 days,
or iNBpended or abandoned for a period of 180 days anytime after work has commenced.
? ` ?L'f,L '?'rvl,Cif
f *iitative
oppIMient Re relorlized P Date
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
t.sst PeflsOM ToWflsnlti Utsiorm Ikpanmenl 0:5. Fnula Drive Enola. PA 17625.2796 t" 7324711
Arojaet,? 9 C:ASSATT ST. ENOLA
Parol nwanoer 09-15_1291.D16 I gal naetcrlpdnn I M, S 8A, CASSATT "STREET Flan Book; 67 Plan Page! •10
1 UW NHgUSF
peornit Tree BUILDING Constnrolion Category + Clara miATI FAMILY INTERIOR REMODEL
P.QPWv Ownu CHINNIAN, CNANAGWANDRA M a F,UCANTI IINI
111 "'1 Address 506 ERFORD RD City, state, Zip CAW HILL, VA 17011
Pft 1116fillm 717-717-V7i
Ooeopa A 1 Buair.o Name
Canhrauur RFI F
111111 Ada SAUF AS APPLICANT City, Stnto, Zap
Car aludle s Piror? Number 717-732-0273
Waraana ivs Cann
E
i
i
O
f
sp
r
an
a
lnumr we t;onloany
Flood Prinz L
Ce? 0 434
cerraae sriroodo R
CAffaaws Gescs"on Ht4IUtN I IAL IN 11:10014 COMPLETION
zaniq RHf1
Canarrtian value m"000.00
9Nenber of Stories 2
Pram b Number 20070306 Dab issued •1 Qhl 1 P-W7 Tokd Fee $1,237.00 Receipt M 07474
Notes
FINISH PROJECT for 3B Caasall Stnal(ORIGINAI PEP.MIT #96273) FINISW INTERIOR OF DWELLINGS TO INCLUDE ELCCTRIC,
PLUMINNO, HVAC, DRYWALL, CARPET
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
The applicant vqr es to comply with all township v dliiarrrxa *uU olatr bows mloting W building wnstructi?n, and hereby authortre nepnesenuldve5
nrlhin Inwnship In nnlar iipnn tho Abow-mentioned property for inspedivn purpvsua,
Please mview aKaehed Inspoction sheet and can at least 2-1 hums before requerled ire protion.
Unless not00 unttt t "Speoal Gondmons'", tf09 parmR bee mm null anti void if wrrrtr nr rnn&tnrMinn aulhnri7Cd is not started within 180 days,
or suspended or abannonca ror a pCrivd of 100 days anytime sitar work nan no nmenr,ei7
G- 1t;o m WWI. rwnt Aspra restive Doe
EXHIBIT "B"
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP
98 SOUTH ENOLA DRIVE
ENOLA, PA 17025
(717) 732-0711
(717) 732-7810 Fax
Building Permit # ?O ;'CO 30
INSPECTION REPORT
LOCATION:
/0 -7 1,P13c)
DATE: TIME: ( RECrIVED BY: ,
rt +Uelo r3"y,) t t?, ea_r- j ko pt ry? "`'o co"7rW-1ra ! rJ $ re C, ors 4o
At the applicant's request a non-destructive inspection of the 1.n S<t'?
was
performed at the above referenced location. The following conditions were o served and recommendations made. Please refer
any questions or comments to the Building Inspector at the Township Office.
5C rth r- e
r ?
L'. /V o ! i ix?7to- !'.).01 Y1 c> (,47>". ?tFA.P. f ' 1$_01,140 YwOt1+
TY
I.W u? C ? t :s v
?r'J rJ"'t T CL ?1"i O :mo d /n,S y7, ,:2
v0, rrjz ' J C? ?n ?l Tl OCR [ r
CL(. i"{'t? ran, r1 ? 1 t'; S GC'_r?i bY?
' •Z„/'vt..i? ?1 ?1!7? ?J J?..li ? ? i?1 ?Y ?'• / ?"?? ? ??riL.+ ? S? i
??*? .?. c??r, ,,? t C.? ?'rGT : ? ??;??.??C• <-Y UL1 ?,,?y1 r.Y? GU?xZ! / frZ t?
EXHIBIT "C"
November 19, 2007
Mr. Gnana Chinniah
506 Erford Road
Cam Hill, PA 17011
RE: Failure of framing inspection/Stop Work Order
3 Cassatt Street, Units A, 8, & C
Tax Id # 09-15-1291-014
Enola, PA 17025
Certified Mail 7006 0810 0006 7759 3654
& First Class Mail
Dear Mr. Chinniah,
An inspection conducted at your property located on 3 Cassatt Street on
November 2 has revealed many issues that prohibit me from approving the
framing. On Friday, November 16, 2007 1 sent your Attorney, Mr. Douglas Miller
a letter regarding all of the circumstances leading up to this point. A copy of this
letter is attached. Until resolution of all violations noted on the inspection report
and the fire protection of the roof no further construction or inspections will be
scheduled.
Pursuant to this notice, no work may As cannin?ue nr thresume e letter prior to re-
inspection and approval of all framing issue
Miller, I am providing two choices for resolution of these issues. In accordance
with East Pennsboro Ordinance # 681-04, failure to comply will constitute
violation, which upon conviction is punishable by fiseen?tonexceed one thousand
the
dollars ($1,000.00) per violation plus costs of pro
violation continues after the notice has been served shall be deemed a separate
offense.
If you feel that this notice has been issued in error, or you wish to
appeal this notice of violation, you will have the West Shore Cog.
notice to begin the Appeal process. The appeal is thou
A complete list of the procedure and forms f such an appeal is $500 East
Pennsboro Township Office. The current cost
Mr. Gnana Clumah
506 Fxford Road
Camp Ihll, PA 17011
November 19, 2007
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If you should
lease contact me at
have any questions concerning this enforcement notice, p
the Township office at 732-0711.
SincerelY,
Jeffrey S. Shultz
Building Inspector/Codes Enforcement officer
cc. East Pennsboro Teyynship Board of Commissioners
Manager
Mr. Robert Gill, East Pen ? bHousing and Community Development
Mr. John Owen, Director
Mr. Robert Gould, Codes Enforcement Office Solicitor
Mr. Henry Coyne, East Pennsboro Township
Enc: Inspection Report dated Novembr 22, 2007
PAUCC Chapter 403, section 403.64
PAUCC Chapter 403, section 403.122
PAUCC Chapter 403, section 403.81
November 16, 2007 letter to Attorney Douglas Miller
'
1 ? •_
p
P
\
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH and : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs,
V.
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants.
PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND NOW, this 7t` day of December, 2007, come the Plaintiffs, Gnana M. Chinniah
a/k/a Gnanachandra M. Chinniah and Suganthini Chinniah, by and through their attorneys, Irwin
& McKnight, and respectfully petition this Court for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Pa. R.
Civ. P. No. 1531, and in support thereof aver as follows:
1. Plaintiffs, Gnana M. Chinniah a/k/a Gnanachandra M. Chinniah and Suganthini
Chinniah (hereinafter collectively "Chinniah") filed a Complaint against Defendants in this
matter with regard to Defendants' issuance of a stop work order against Plaintiffs' property
located at 3A and 3B Cassatt Street, Enola, Cumberland County.
2. Plaintiffs' Complaint avers that at the time that Plaintiffs purchased Lots 3A and
3B the properties were already improved with partially finished two (2) story structures
consisting of poured concrete slabs, framing, siding, doors and windows, and a completed roof
structure.
3. Framing in both of the structures on Lots 3A and 3B had been completed by the
previous owner prior to the adoption of the Uniform Construction Code in Pennsylvania, and
upon information and belief the framing had been commenced in 1999 and completed in 2000.
4. After the prior owner installed the framing, doors, and windows, the partially
completed structures had remained uncompleted and vacant for approximately the last seven (7)
years.
5. Defendant East Pennsboro Township (hereinafter the "Township"), through its
authorized agents and representatives, had at various times conducted multiple site visits and
inspections of the structures in order to assess the progress of construction and compliance with
the applicable building codes.
6. Plaintiffs' Complaint therefore alleges that the Defendant Township's previous
building inspector and/or codes enforcement officer inspected the framing in both structures
when framing was completed by the prior owner in approximately 2000.
7. The Complaint further alleges that at the time of purchase by Plaintiffs, the
Township building inspectors and/or codes enforcement officers had made multiple notations on
insulation in between the previously installed framing members.
8. These notations by Township officials included directions to the previous owner
as to the type of drywall to be installed in order to comply with applicable fire codes.
9. The parties also had a meeting in the Township municipal building on September
5, 2007, at which time it was emphasized and discussed that the improvements already existing
on the properties predated the adoption of the Uniform Construction Code, but that any future
construction on the properties would need to be in compliance with the current code.
10. On or about October 11, 2007, and upon payment of the necessary fees, Plaintiffs
were issued separate Construction Permits in order to complete structures on Lot 3A and 3B.
2
11. The issued permits were to "Finish Interior of Dwelling Including HVAC,
Electrical, Plumbing, Drywall, Carpet, Deck and Landscaping" that had not been completed
under the original permit issued to the prior owner, and were signed by Defendant Jeffrey S.
Shultz.
12. Neither of the Construction Permits explicitly include or otherwise reference the
need to have an inspection of the framing that had already been constructed at the properties.
13. Defendant Shultz was never requested to perform a framing inspection, as the
framing, windows, and doors had already been constructed at the properties some seven (7) years
ago, and framing work was not part of the building permits issued to Plaintiffs.
14. Nevertheless, on or about November 16, 2007, Defendant Shultz notified
Plaintiffs and their legal counsel that a "Stop Work Order" was being issued because a "framing
inspection" was not completed.
15. Defendant Shultz did not inspect the apartments located on Lot 3B, and did not
specify which property or properties would be affected by the threatened "Stop Work Order."
16. On or about November 20, 2007, Defendants issued a "Stop Work Order" against
all the lots owned by Plaintiffs for the stated reason of "failure of framing inspection."
17. 34 Pa. Code § 403.81 authorizes a building code official to issue a stop work
order only when work is being done in a dangerous or unsafe manner or is contrary to the
requirements of the Uniform Construction Code.
18. Defendant Shultz issued a stop work order for all of the lots owned by Plaintiffs,
even though construction permits were only issued for Lots 3A and 3B, and even though he had
inspected only the townhouse located at Lot 3A.
3
19. Defendants issued a stop work order based on the erroneous assumption that the
framing has never been inspected.
20. Defendants have not alleged that the framing was done in a dangerous or unsafe
manner.
21. The framing work has not been done contrary to the Uniform Construction Code
because it was constructed years prior to the adoption of the new code and prior to the ownership
of the properties by Plaintiffs.
22. Furthermore, inspection of the framing was not a matter included on the permits
for either property as signed by Defendant Shultz.
23. Plaintiff subsequently requested in writing that Defendants lift the stop work
orders, which Defendants have failed and refused to do.
24. As a result of Defendants' willful and wrongful actions in issuing stop work
orders which exceed their statutory authority, Plaintiffs are unable to complete necessary
improvements, or to otherwise utilize the structures.
25. Defendants' actions and threats are thereby preventing Plaintiffs from lawfully
continuing construction work on their property and from the reasonable use and enjoyment
thereof.
26. Defendants should be equitably estopped from issuing a stop work order for
inspection of framing that was not completed by Plaintiffs and was not within the scope of the
building permits issued to Plaintiffs.
4
27. The issuance of the preliminary injunction is reasonably suited to prevent further
wrongful acts by Defendants and maintain the current status quo pending final resolution of
Plaintiffs' Complaint.
28. The issuance of a preliminary injunction will not cause undue inconvenience or
loss to the Defendants, but will prevent irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs.
29. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the continuing harm and
injury caused by the Defendants' wrongful and unauthorized actions.
30. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving at trial that Defendants' activities are
actionable and enjoinable, and that Defendants have no authority to issue a stop work order on a
property which they have already approved inspection or made no attempt to inspect.
31. In support of this Petition for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff incorporates herein
the Complaint filed in this action on November 27, 2007, as if the same were fully restated at
length.
32. No attorney has yet entered an appearance of record for either party following the
filing of the initial Complaint in this matter, therefore no objection or concurrence has been
sought.
33. No Judge has previously been assigned to this action or issued any prior order in
this matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an order
enjoining and restraining Defendants and their employees, agents, assigns and successors in
interest from further stop work orders issued without statutory authority on Plaintiff's property at
5
3 Cassatt Street, Enola, Cumberland County, and retain jurisdiction of this matter to ascertain
that the Court's order and decree is obeyed.
Respectfully submitted,
IRWIN & McKNIGHT
By: AV t -
Douglas Miller, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 83776
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-2353
Date: December 7, 2007 Attorney for Plaintiffs
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by first class United States mail,
postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, on the date set forth below:
East Pennsboro Township
98 South Enola Drive
Enola, PA 17025
(Defendant)
Jeffrey S. Shultz
East Pennsboro Township
98 South Enola Drive
Enola, PA 17025
(Defendant)
Date: December 7, 2007 IRWIN & McKNIGHT
-A?A- "A.
Douglas G. ' er, Esquire
Supreme Court ID No. 83776
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222
(717) 249-2353
r
rn
.
.
WSJ 1
•-
L Y p
r •.. )
pe
C . .• .
COYNE & COYNE, P.C.
BY: Henry F. Coyne, Esquire
Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 06250
Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire
Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788
3901 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227
(717) 737-0464
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH and
SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs
Attorneys for Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: No. 2007-7109 Civil Term
V.
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants
: Civil Action
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRANCE OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANTS
To The Prothonotary:
Kindly enter our appearances as co-counsel for Defendants in this matter.
Dated: (Z - J - o -7
COYNE & COYNE, P.C.
By:
C?? -.' q1A
Henry F. Co e, Esquire
a. Sup Ct. No. 0,6250
By:
Pisa )Marie Coyne, E quire
upreme Ct. NO. 53788
3901 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227
(717) 737-0464
Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, of Coyne & Coyne, P.C., hereby certify that true copy of the
foregoing Praecipe for Entrance of Appearance for Defendants was served this date upon the below-
referenced individuals at the below listed address by way of first class mail, postage pre-paid:
Douglas G. Miller, Esq.
Irwin & McKnight
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
Dated: 1 Z -11-0-7 Q -
Li a Marie Coyne
C'?? ?'=~' -r?
.--?
t: 7 t" -?-s
? ?. ?a ?-?i ?.---
t 3 .,., ct
r?,
?
G% ,
-;?° ; ?:
??
.
__4?a
„,
-.. G+`,
GNANA M. CHINNIAH
a/k/a GNANACHANDRA
M. CHINNIAH and
SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs
EAST PENNSBORO
TOWNSHIP and JEFFREY S.
SHULTZ,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 07-7109 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 17`h day of December, 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiffs'
Petition for Preliminary Injunction, a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, January 15, 2008,
at 2:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania.
./ouglas G. Miller, Esq.
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiffs
ast Pennsboro Township
98 South Enola Drive
Enola, PA 17025
Defendant, pro Se
frey S. Shultz
East Pennsboro Township
98 South Enola Drive
Enola, PA 17025
Defendant, pro Se
BY THE COURT,
t
J. es ey Oler, J ,
:rc
ViNVIOASNN]d
6 Z :01 WV 81 030 LOOZ
)&IQNv HIC,bd :-JH1 JO
30t-,H0-(MIA
FRANCIS R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES Attorney for Defendants,
BY: David P. Kararnessinis, Esquire East Pennsboro Township
ID#: 50836
ffr S Shultz
1500 Market Street, Suite 2920 and Je ey
Philadelphia, PA 19102
267-675-3028
GNANA M. CHINNIAH, a/k/a
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH
AND SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
vs.
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP AND
AND JEFFREY S. SHULTZ
CIVIL ACTION: 2007-7109
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendants, East Pennsboro Township
and Jeffrey S. Shultz.
FRANCIS R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES
r'
BY:
DaAdPtaammessinnis, Esquire
Attorney for Defendants
ID#: 50836
o O
n rr; C-4 rig
zr CY'%
?
? ? ' f C3
z
tea m
w
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2007-07109 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
CHINNIAH GNANA M ET AL
VS
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP ET AL
ROBERT BITNER
Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP
the
DEFENDANT , at 1505:00 HOURS, on the 30th day of November-, 2007
at 98 SOUTH ENOLA DRIVE
ENOLA, PA 17025 by handing to
JACKIE WELTMER, ACCT PAYABLE, ADULT IN CHARGE
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Postage
Surcharge
01
2-v'
Sworn and Subscibed to
before me this
of
So Answers:
18.00
9d
14.40 z°
.58
10.00 R. Thomas Kline
.00
42.98 12/04/2007
MARCUS MCKNIGHT
By.
A7]?- ?
day eputy Sheriff
A.D.
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2007-07109 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
CHINNIAH GNANA M ET AL
VS
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP ET AL
ROBERT BITNER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
SHULTZ JEFFREY S the
DEFENDANT r at 1505:00 HOURS, on the 30th day of November-, 2007
at 98 SOUTH ENOLA DRIVE
ENOLA, PA 17025 by handing to
JEFFREY SHULTZ
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 6.00
Service .00
Affidavit .00
Surcharge, a 10.00
00
16.00
Sworn and Subscibed to
before me this day
of
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
12/04/2007
MARCUS MCKNIGHT
B
Deputy Sheriff
A. D.
w +r„
HARTMAN UNDERHILL & BRUBAKER LLP
Christopher S. Underhill, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 07013
221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 299-7254
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
ORIGINAL
Attorneys for Defendants
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
and SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH, : PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs,
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
V.
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and CIVIL ACTION
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants.
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter my appearance on behalf of Jeffrey S. Shultz and East Pennsboro
Township, Defendants in the above captioned case.
Papers may be served at the address set forth above.
HARTMAN UNDERHILL & BRUBAKER P
Dated: December 28, 2007 By:
Christopher S. Underhill
Attorney I.D. No. 07013
Attorneys for Defendants
221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 299-7254
00499981,1 1
JAM191,qo
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
PROOF OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am this day serving the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of
Appearance upon the person and in the manner indicated below.
Service by First Class Mail, addressed as follows:
Douglas G. Miller, Esquire
Irwin & McKnight
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
HARTMAN UNDERHILL & BRUB LLP
By:
Christopher S. Underhill
Attorney I.D. No. 07013
Attorneys for Defendants
Dated: December 28, 2007 221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 299-7254
00499981.1 2
s?
??? ??rry
? ? ? ?f
?•
r''-
,,,.. .?
-? ?
T I
HARTMAN UNDERHILL & BRUBAKER LLP
Christopher S. Underhill, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 07013
221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 299-7254
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
ORIGINAL
Attorneys for Defendants
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH
and SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs,
V.
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1. Admitted.
2. Denied. The Complaint speaks for itself.
3. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the
allegations of this paragraph.
4. Denied. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or
deny the allegations of this paragraph.
5. Denied. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or
deny the allegations of this paragraph.
00499965.1 1
JAMIOIAO
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
6. Denied. The Complaint speaks for itself.
7. Denied. The Complaint speaks for itself.
8. Denied. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or
deny the allegations of this paragraph.
9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that there was a meeting on September 5,
2007 but it is denied that there was discussion to the effect that the improvements on the
property predated the Uniform Construction Code or that such property was not subject
to the Uniform Construction Code. To the contrary, Plaintiffs and their counsel were
advised that a framing inspection would have to be performed. It is admitted that all
future construction is subject to the Uniform Construction Code.
10. Admitted that exterior completed, but very little of the interior
11. Denied. The permits speak for themselves.
12. Denied. The permits speak for themselves.
13. It is admitted that Defendant Shultz was not requested by the Plaintiffs to
perform a framing inspection, but as stated above he made it clear to Plaintiffs and their
counsel that such an inspection would have to be performed. The Defendants are
without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation that the framing, windows
and doors had been constructed before the effective date of the Uniform Construction
Code, but because there is no record that a framing inspection had been performed and
00499965.1 2
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
because the framing windows and doors had been in place for some time, Defendant
Shultz was obligated to make a framing inspection to make sure that the improvements
had not been constructed in a dangerous or unsafe manner. In addition, a framing
inspection had not yet been performed because the mechanicals had not been completed
and would be necessary before work could be performed.
14. Admitted.
15. Admitted that Mr. Shultz did not inspect Lot 3B becasue Mr. Chinniah
stated it was not ready for inspection. Denied that the Stop Work Order does not specify
the property to which it applies. It specifically refers to, "3 Cassatt Street, Units A, B and
C."
16. Admitted.
17. Denied. 34 Pa. Code § 403.81 speaks for itself.
18. Denied. The Stop Work Order speaks for itself.
19. Denied as stated. There is no record of a prior, satisfactory inspection
which was required by East Pennsboro Township ordinances even before the adoption of
the Uniform Construction Code.
20. Denied. The Inspection Report attached as Exhibit "B" notes, among other
things, "No Firestopping completed throughout." Exhibit "B," paragraphs 2, 6.
21. Denied. Work was done without a framing inspection whether under the
00499965.1 3
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
Uniform Construction Code or prior building code.
22. Denied. The permits speak for themselves.
23. Admitted.
24. Denied that issuing the Stop Work Order was willful and wrongful. On the
contrary, it was reasonable and required because there was no prior framing inspection
and because at least part of the condition at the site was dangerous and unsafe.
Admitted that until the Stop Work Order is lifted Plaintiffs cannot complete the work and
utilize the structures.
25. Denied that the Plaintiffs may lawfully continue construction work. No
work can be performed until they address the Code violations noted in the Inspection
Report.
26. The allegations of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
27. The allegations of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. Further denied that an injunction is appropriate for the reasons set
forth above.
28. The allegations of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, this paragraph is denied as stated. If a
preliminary injunction is issued, Plaintiffs will be able to proceed with construction of
00499965.1 4
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
structures that do not comply with the law.
29. Denied. As stated in the Stop Work Order, Exhibit "C," Plaintiffs have the
remedy of appealing to a board of appeals. Note: the Board is misnamed in Exhibit "C."
It is the Capital Area COG.
30. The allegations of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, it is denied that Plaintiffs will succeed.
Defendant Shultz properly issued a stop work order and no work should be performed at
the site until the conditions are corrected.
31. Admitted that the Complaint is incorporated by reference. Defendants have
filed preliminary objection thereto concurrently with the filing of this Answer on the
basis of that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their remedies by appealing to a board of
appeals.
32. Undersigned counsel has entered his appearance concurrently herewith. It
is believed that Henry F. Coyne of Coyne & Coyne, the Township solicitor, has already
entered his appearance.
33. A hearing has been scheduled for January 15, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. before
Judge Oler.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that the Petition for
Preliminary Injunction be denied.
00499965.1 5
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
HARTMAN UNDERHILL &
By:(!
Attorney I.D. #07013
Attorneys for Defendants
Date: December 28, 2007 221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 299-7254
00499965.1 6
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I
understand that false statement herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: December 27, 2007
Jef e Vz 6/
00499965.1
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that I amTownshi r Manager of East Pennsboro Township, that as
such I am authorized to make this verification; and that the information set forth in the
foregoing Answer to Petition for Preliminary Injunction is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that any false statements contained
herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP
F
Dated: December 27, 2007 By:
Robert L. Gill, Township Manager
00499965.1
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
PROOF OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am this day serving the foregoing Answer to Petition for
Preliminary Injunction upon the person and in the manner indicated below.
Service by First Class Mail, addressed as follows:
Douglas G. Miller, Esquire
Irwin & McKnight
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
HARTMAN UNDERHILL & BRUBAKER LLP
By:
Christopher S. Underhill
Attorney I.D. No. 07013
Attorneys for Defendants
Dated: December 28, 2007 221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 299-7254
00499965.1 9
Cl
m
1 ?
r czy
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
HARTMAN UNDERHILL & BRUBAKER LLP
Christopher S. Underhill, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 07013
221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 299-7254
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH
and SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs,
Attorneys for Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
V.
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants.
: CIVIL ACTION
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
Defendants preliminarily object to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:
As disclosed by Exhibit "C" to the Complaint, Plaintiffs have (1) failed to exercise
or exhaust a statutory remedy or (2) have a full and adequate non-statutory remedy at law
because they can appeal the Stop Work Order to a board of appeals.
HARTMAN UNDERHILL & BRUBAKE P
Date: December 28, 2007 By:
Christopher S. Underhill
Attorney I.D. #07013
Attorneys for Defendants
221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 299-7254
00499952.1 1
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
PROOF OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am this day serving the foregoing Preliminary Objections
upon the person and in the manner indicated below.
Service by First Class Mail, addressed as follows:
Douglas G. Miller, Esquire
Irwin & McKnight
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
HARTMAN UNDERHILL & BRUB LLP
?.
Sy:
Christopher S. Underhill
Attorney I.D. No. 07013
Attorneys for Defendants
Dated: December 28, 2007 221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 299-7254
00499952.1 2
-r?
r f
ra? :.. 6
Y
r?
?
^
^I{
Vr
As
• GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
GNANA CHANDRA M. CHINNIAH CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
and SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs
v CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORTS
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP
and JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants 07-7109 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 2008, upon
consideration of Plaintiffs' Petition for Preliminary Injunction,
and pursuant to an agreement reached between the parties, it is
ordered and directed as follows:
1. The stop work order issued against lot 3-B,
Cassatt Street, Enola, Pennsylvania, is hereby lifted effective
immediately. Plaintiff shall not perform any drywall or
insulation work prior to appropriate inspections by Defendants or
their approved representatives;
2. With regard to lot 3-A, Cassatt Street,
Enola, Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to a
meeting at the property to be held to identify areas to be
randomly inspected by Defendants or their approved
representatives;
3. After being notified by Plaintiffs,
Defendants or their approved representatives shall perform
standard code inspections of both properties identified herein;
and
4. This matter shall remain open pending the
contemplated inspections herein. Upon satisfactory resolution
and inspections, this matter shall be withdrawn by Plaintiffs,
with prejudice.
>- co
3 !
L
.
C
AV
By the Court,
J. Wesley Aer, Jr., J.
Douglas G. Miller, Esquire
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Plaintiffs
Christopher S. Underhill, Esquire
221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
For Defendants
(20 FI ES 'en1 LLZ
mae
GNANA M. CHINNIAH &Wa : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH and : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs,
V. : No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants.
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
AND NOW comes Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, of the law firm of Irwin & McKnight,
and respectfully petitions this Honorable Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for
Plaintiffs for the following reasons:
1. Douglas G. Miller, Esquire and the law firm of Irwin & McKnight were retained
by Plaintiffs, GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH and SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH for the
purpose of pursuing a claim against the Defendants, EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP anD
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ, on or about November 27, 2007.
2. Following consultation with the Plaintiffs, a Complaint was filed with the
Prothonotary on their behalf.
3. Following the filing of the Complaint, several pleadings were filed on behalf of
both Plaintiffs and Defendants through their respective legal counsel.
4. Following an agreement reached between the parties, an agreement was reached
and entered as an Order of Court dated January 15, 2008.
5. The Order dated January 15, 2008, stated in Paragraph 4 that the matter was to
remain open pending satisfactory inspections.
2
6. The undersigned is unable to continue representation of the Plaintiffs for the
following reasons:
a. There has been a serious failure of communication between legal counsel
and the Plaintiffs;
b. Plaintiffs by their conduct have rendered it unreasonably difficult for legal
counsel to fulfill its representation by this failure of communication; and
c. Plaintiffs have disregarded an agreement with legal counsel as to the
payment of fees and costs.
7. This matter was previously ruled upon by the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
8. The Defendants are represented by Christopher S. Underhill, Esquire. Attorney
Underhill was consulted prior to the filing of the instant Petitioner and does not oppose the rquest
for withdrawal of the undersigned.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court grant the request of
Douglas G. Miller, Esquire and the law firm of Irwin & McKnight as set forth in the above
Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel.
Respectfully submitted,
IRWIN & MCKNIGHT
Dated: August 5, 2009
DonglasIG. Miller, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. 83776
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2353
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by first class United States mail,
postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, on the date set forth below:
Christopher S. Underhill, Esquire
221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Gnanachandra Chinmah
Suganthini Chinniah
506 Erford Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Date: August 5, 2009 IRWIN & McKNIGHT
f
Douglas#G. Miller, Esquire
Supreme Court ID No. 83776
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222
(717) 249-2353
FILED-
OFi
2009 AJG --5 pt-i 2 4;
CUM ,'NiY
AUG 0 6 200
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH and : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs, .
V. : No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants.
RULE
AND NOW this day of 2009, upon consideration of the
open all p7r-tlt S
Motion for Leave to Withdraw Appearance, a rule is hereby issued to show cause why the within
request should not be granted.
Rule returnable 14 days after service.
BY THE COURT:
By
ll/istnbution List:
? D-uglas G. Miller, Esquire
/Gnanachandra M. and Suganthini Chinniah, Plaintiffs
./6hristopher S. Underhill, Esquire (For Defendants)
e7
F'+.LF`
CF-I THE 2059 k --7 A i IC,: 5
?? n
ORIGINAL
HARTMAN UNDERHILL & BRUBAKER LLP
Christopher S. Underhill, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 07013
221 East Chestnut Street Attorneys for Defendants
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 299-7254/(717) 299-7254 (facsimile)
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH
and SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs
V.
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
: No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
: CIVIL ACTION
ANSWER TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
The Defendants, East Pennsboro Township and Jeffrey S. Shultz have
no objection to the withdrawal of Douglas G. Miller, Esquire and the Law Firm of
Irwin & McKnight as counsel for the Plaintiffs.
Date:
{00557241.1)
HARTMAN UNDERHILL & BR
By:
Christopher S. Underhill
Attorney I.D. #07013
Attorneys for Defendants
1
LLP
JAWI@190
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am this day serving the foregoing Answer upon
the persons and in manner indicated below.
Service by First Class Mail, addressed as follows:
Douglas G. Miller, Esquire
Irwin & McKnight
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
Sean M. Concannon, Esquire
James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly
P.O. Box 650
Hershey, PA 17033
HARTMAN UNDERHILL & BRUBAKER LLP
Date: By:
Christopher S. Underhill
Attorney I.D. #07013
Attorneys for Defendants
{00557241.1} 2
He
3 14 PO :35
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH and : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs,
V.
No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants.
MOTION TO MAKE RULE TO
SHOW CAUSE ABSOLUTE
AND NOW come Douglas G. Miller, Esquire of the law firm of Irwin & McKnight, and
respectfully moves this Court to make absolute the Rule to Show Cause which was issued in the
above-captioned matter on August 7, 2009, and in support thereof aver as follows:
1. On or about August 5, 2009, attorney for Defendant, Douglas G. Miller, filed a
Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel with regard to the above-captioned matter.
2. On or about August 7, 2009, the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., entered an Order
of Court issuing a Rule upon all parties to show cause why the requested relief should not be
granted, returnable within 14 days of service. A true and correct copy of the Order is attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
3. Attorney for Defendant, Christopher S. Underhill, filed a response indicating that
they had no objection to the granting of the Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel. No
response was received by the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue an Order
making their Rule Absolute and granting the request of Douglas G. Miller, Esquire and the law
firm of Irwin & McKnight to withdraw as counsel for the Defendant.
Respectfully Submitted,
IRWIN & McKNIGHT
r
By: ? ',
Doug as G. filler, Esquire
Supreme Court ID No. 83776
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-2353
Dated: October 7, 2009
2
EXHIBIT "A"
AVG 0 6 20096
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH and : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH, .
Plaintiffs,
V.
: No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and • CIVIL ACTION
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants.
RULE
AND NOW this'- day of
, 2009, upon consideration of the
AAf"?
Motion for Leave to Withdraw Appearance, a rule. is hereby issued to show ause?wh y the within
A
request should not be granted.
Rule returnable ?y days after service.
BY THE COURT:
Distribution List:
By
VIA'"
,
j
Douglas G. Miller, Esquire
Gnanachandra M. and Suganthini Chinniah, Plaintiffs
Christopher S. Underhill, Esquire (For Defendants)
tyf, 1 tWi3 uht0 Setmy h
A 1077-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by first class United States mail,
postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, on the date set forth below:
Christopher S. Underhill, Esquire
221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Gnanachandra Chinniah
Suganthini Chinniah
506 Erford Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Date: October, 2009 IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C.
ZV. JAAAJA
Dou as Miller, Esquire
Supreme Court ID No. 83776
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222
(717) 249-2353
FILED-2 FF?C F'
Tj:
TAPY
2099 0 C7 --9 PM 3: 16
` OCT 12 200
GNANA M. CHINNIAH a/k/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
GNANACHANDRA M. CHINNIAH and : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SUGANTHINI CHINNIAH,
Plaintiffs,
V. : No. 2007 - 7109 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and
JEFFREY S. SHULTZ,
Defendants.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this tday of 2009, upon consideration of Plaintiffs'
_ 2? 4 j
Motion to Make Rule to Show Cause Absolute, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that
the Rule issued August 7, 2009, is hereby made absolute and the Petition for Leave to Withdraw
as Counsel filed by Douglas G. Miller, Esquire of Irwin & McKnight, is granted.
BY THE COURT
Honorable J.
ICE
CAF Tj- r ?.?. {TRY
/0?S/OF ?::W'1
2009 OC T 15 PH 3: F 9
NITY
&.
. .c.s
c L%,> I'ak
e
~: G .~t-rv `~' ~-t ~ ,r~/ ; c;-d-~ , rv nr P Ism-E-~
v~, Case No. ~> ~ ~' ~~ i .~ `~
~~
Statement of Intention to Proceed i~~-+
~, r N
-6 ~ cn
r
i~o the Court: ~~ ~
i' ~ ~
~.'J1'k pill /Vl ~~~i ~'"~ ~~ f~ ~ _ intends to proceed with the above captiopr~~att~
-~ "'
ri mt Name ~N ~ rvA __~..~~ +'~'~/ t1}-!.t Sign Name L-~
bate: ~ ? r2 ~ % ,2.,'~ / "L. _ Attorney for ~"~~' ~"~
Explanatory Comnnent
i1ie Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of
inactive cases and a~.ncnded Rule of .ludicial Administration 1901. fwo aspects of the recommendation merit
comment.
l Rule ~;; aril Pr~~~cedui•E~
Ne~~- Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases evithin the
scups o~ the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity vas previously
t i>verned by Rulc of Judicial Administratio^ 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is
t,iilored io the nods of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a unit<~rm statewide pracii;:c. I~~reempting
local ruhs.
~l-his rule ryas promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa 3GU.710 A.2d
1 104 (1998) in vvhicli the court held that "prejudice co the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution 's required
heE2~re a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementine Rule of .ludicial ,4dministralion 1901.~~
Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(bl has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure- The
general policy of the F~~rompt disposition of matters set forth in subdi~aision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable.
1i Inacti~~c' Cases
The purpose of Rule 23Q2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the ,judicial system. The process is initialed ny the
court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties.
1? the parties do not ~~:ish to pursue the case, the}~ will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter- an ~7rder as of
course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute.~~~ I1 a party wishes to pursue the nr<uter. he or she
~~ill file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shat] continue.
t; N"{ua•e [he oc[inrz hes been terminated
If the action is tcnninated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed
under Riile230(dj for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination
of a viah!c action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file
tic notice of intention to proceed.
I~he tuning of the tiling of the petition to reinstate the action is important. if the pe~;ition is filed within. thirty days of
the entry of the order of termination on the docket. subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and
r; instate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff
must make a showine. to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or
~:: f'_.111ma1e excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior ~o the entry oC th~~ order of
t~~rminaLon on the docket and for the failure to file the petition ~~ithin the thirh~~-day period under subdivision (d)(2).
[3_ l"Pher.; the action has nor been terminated
An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing oCa notice of intention to pr;~ceed may
have been the suhjec~ of inordinate delay. In such an instance. the aggrieved party may pursue tl~ic re~ncdy of a
c~~mnurri la~ti non pros ~s~hich exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.
('h
~~~e
--1
~~
t'~~
~~
o~
-+o
z --,
Q -•^~
~~
Q tT.
~;:~
:~}