Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-7411F' \FILES\Clients\7436\7436.43. pra 1 /ajt Created: 9/20/04 0:06PM Revised: 12/10/07 0:24PM 7436.43 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Katie J. Maxwell, Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES I.D. Nos. 29943 and 206018 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff DANNY L. TURNER, 210 Big Pond Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 Plaintiff V. PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., 1001 Paxton Street Harrisburg, PA 17104, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07- 7YI r ( ;( 7-i, CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please issue a Writ of Summons upon Pennsy Supply, Inc., and return it to our office for service. Respectfully submitted, MARTSON LAW Hub*rt X. Gilroy, Esq Katie J. Maxwell, Esq 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: Attorneys for Plaintiff w W W FT- CD 1. 4 V ` _ FV Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland WRIT OF SUMMONS Danny L. Turner 210 Big Pond Road Shippensburg, Pa. 17257 Plaintiff Vs. Pennsy Supply Inc. 1001 Paxton Street Harrisburg, Pa. 17104 Defendant Court of Common Pleas No 07-7411 In CivilAction-Law To Pennsy Supply, Inc., You are hereby notified that Danny L. Turner the Plaintiff(s) has / have commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. (SEAL) Date December 10, 2007 s Curtis R. Long, Protho otary L Deputy Attorney: Name: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. Address: 10 East High Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Attorney for: Plaintiff Telephone: (717)243-3341 Supreme Court ID No. 29943 W, r_1 DANNY L. TURNER V. PENNSY SUPPLY, INC. TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : DOCKET NO. 07-7411 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE Kindly enter the appearances of each of the undersigned in this action, and please note that Michael A. Finio has accepted service of the Writ of Summons dated December 10, 2007, on behalf of Defendant, Pennsy Supply, Inc. Respectfully submitted, Michael A. Finio, %S?l ire Attorney I.D. No. 3 Matthew M. Haar, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 85688 Emily H. Damron, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 205919 SA UL EWING LLP Penn National Insurance Plaza 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7671 (telephone) (717) 257-7585 (facsimile) Date: December 18, 2007 Attorneys for Defendant 40% CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on the date set forth below I did cause to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance and Acceptance of Service upon the following counsel of record by sending same via United States first-class mail, postage prepaid: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: December 18, 2007 Ca ? C C. ° rTI "t`I C t ? C 77 M? f ? DANNY L. TURNER vs Case No.2007-7411 F PENNSY SUPPLY, INC. , rr, Statement of Intention to Proceed rn C: n To the Court: Martson Law Offices intends to proceed witl 1!1e above captioned matter. §tgn Name V sy Print Name Hubert X Gi.l F . ci rQ3L, _ Date: Sppt-p e____ _ X010 Attorney for Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1995) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule o1' civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. It Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." if a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Ruic230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a showing to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. F,"LE J_C?FF 'J" THE PROTfioilu-Y�,w, DANNY L. TURNER ?013 S�.� �� � �'� 9' 43 2007-7411 vs CUMBERLAND COUNTY Case No. PENNSYLVANIA SUPPLY,INC. �€ Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: Plaintiff, Danny Turner intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Print Name Sign Name September 20, 2013 Plaintiff Date: Attorney for Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. I.Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v.Eagle, 551 Pa.360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision(a)of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity,the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and"the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter,he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d)for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket,subdivision(d)(2)provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision(d)(3)requires that the plaintiff must make a showing to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision(d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.