Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-0815 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 3800 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: lsaylor@pjdaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC. CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, : Defendant. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED 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 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, PA 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 2 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 3800 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjrlaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC. CIVIL ACTION uk T?"" Plaintiff, V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, . Defendant. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, PC-Tronix, Inc., by its attorney the Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., for Plaintiff's Complaint states: 1. Plaintiff PC-Tronix, Inc., is a Pennsylvania Corporation doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principle place of business at 5130 E. Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 2. Defendant is a Pennsylvania Corporation doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principle place of business at 309 South 10th Street, Lemoyne, PA, 17043. 3. Beginning in or about November of 2004 Plaintiff began providing professional computer services to Defendant for a fee. 4. Plaintiff continued to provide said services on a regular basis. 3 5. Defendant paid for said services rendered in a satisfactory manner until approximately December of 2006. 6. Defendant has failed to pay for the services set forth on the Statement dated January 24, 2008, for the amount therein indicated. A true and correct copy of said Statement is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 7. An agent of Defendant signed a work proposal regarding invoice number 8834 reflected on Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of said Proposal is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 8. Defendant made a partial payment in the amount of $6,487.20 on invoice number 8834. 9. Plaintiff performed all of the services set forth on Exhibit A. 10. Plaintiff sent Defendant invoices for all of said services. 11. Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to collect payment from Defendant by: a. Communicating with agents of the company; b. Introducing financing alternatives to the Defendant; c. Proposing a leasing alternative to the Defendant; and d. Sending a certified letter dated October 3, 2007, to the Defendant. A true and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 12. Despite Plaintiff's efforts, Defendant has refused to render payment in full. 13. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant owes Plaintiff a balance of Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen Dollars and Fifty Cents ($19,219.50) for services previously rendered. 4 COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 14. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth hereof and incorporates them herein by reference as fully as though set forth herein at length. 15. Plaintiff contracted with Defendant to perform the services set forth on Exhibit A for the amount therein indicated. 16. Plaintiff performed said services. 17. Plaintiff contacted Defendant on several occasions thereafter to request payment for services rendered. 18. Although duly demanded by Plaintiff, the balance due of Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen Dollars and Fifty Cents ($19,219.50) has not been paid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from Defendant in an amount that does not exceed the mandatory arbitration amount plus interests, costs and any other appropriate damages. COUNT II- UNJUST ENRICHMENT 19. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth hereof and incorporates them herein by reference as fully as though set forth herein at length. 20. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant was unjustly enriched by the Plaintiff in the form of Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen Dollars and Fifty Cents ($19,219.50) representing the amount of value of the services and/or materials and supplies provided to Defendant. 21. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant received the benefit of the services and/or materials and supplies provided to Defendant. 5 22. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant permitted Plaintiff to complete the services provided at Plaintiff's expense. 23. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant induced the Plaintiff into believing that Defendant would accept the responsibility for the services provided. 24. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant watched as Plaintiff completed the services and did nothing to stop the Plaintiff. 25. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant watched as Plaintiff completed the services and did nothing to inform the Plaintiff that the Defendant would not be responsible for the cost associated with the services provided. 26. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct, the Defendant derived a benefit from the Plaintiff. 27. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant accepted the benefit of the services provided without compensating or reimbursing the Plaintiff. 28. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that permitting Defendant to accept the services provided without compensating Plaintiff would unjustly enrich the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from Defendant in an amount that does not exceed the mandatory arbitration amount plus interests, costs and any other appropriate damages. COUNT III- QUANTUM MERUIT 29. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth hereof and incorporates them herein by reference as fully as though set forth herein at length. 30. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's charges as the Defendant utilized Plaintiffs services. 6 31. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant was provided a valuable service from the Plaintiff. 32. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant watched the Plaintiff provide that valuable service. 33. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant expected, prior to any work being commenced, that a fee was to be charged for the service. 34. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant induced Plaintiff to act on Defendant's behalf. 35. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that even if a contract does not exist, Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief in the form of quantum meruit for the valuable services, material and/or supplies provided to the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from Defendant in an amount that does not exceed the mandatory arbitration amount plus interests, costs and any other appropriate damages. COUNT IV- ACCOUNT STATED 36. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth hereof and incorporates them herein by reference as fully as though set forth herein at length. 37. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant received invoices for the services rendered. 38. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Plaintiff contacted Defendant on more than one occasion in attempt to collect payment on the invoices. 39. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant did not affirmatively contest the bills/invoices sent to Defendant by Plaintiff. 7 40. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant assumed liability for the charges stated within said bills/invoices. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from Defendant in an amount that does not exceed the mandatory arbitration amount plus interests, costs and any other appropriate damages. Respectfully submitted, LA OFFICES ETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72897 k' Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 200139 Attorneys for Plaintiff 3800 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 //? Ile /1- 6 8 VERIFICATION I, verify that the statements made in the forgoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 1/30 ZO g ? Y n Print Title: Signature 9 EXHIBIT A 10 IT DESIGN • INSTALLATION • SUPPORT 5130 E. Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone - 717-795-7231 Fax - 717-795-7061 PA Office Service Group, Inc. 309 South 10th Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 ATTN:Accounts Payable Statement Date 1/24/2008 Amount Due $19,219.50 Date Transaction Amount Balance POSG - Regular- 12/18/2006 INV #8822. Orig. Amount $2,930.00. 2,000.00 2,000.00 12/18/2006 1NV #8823.Orig. Amount $3,040.00. 3,040.00 5,040.00 01/01/2007 INV #8834. Orig. Amount $16,474.70. 9,987.50 15,027.50 01/01/2007 INV #8835. Orig. Amount $250.00. 250.00 15,277.50 01/31/2007 INV #8985. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,340.00 02/28/2007 INV #9047. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,402.50 02/28/2007 INV #9048. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,465.00 02/28/2007 1NV #9049. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,527.50 02/28/2007 INV #9187. Orig. Amount $531.25. 531.25 16,058.75 02/28/2007 INV #9188. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 16,121.25 03/14/2007 INV #9189. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 16,183.75 03/14/2007 INV #9190. Orig. Amount $187.50. 187.50 16,371.25 03/22/2007 INV #9209. Orig. Amount $375.00. 375.00 16,746.25 03/26/2007 INV #9236. Orig. Amount $503.25. 503.25 17,249.50 04/19/2007 INV #9371. Orig. Amount $562.50. 562.50 17,812.00 06/11/2007 INV #9522. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 17,874.50 06/21/2007 INV #9578. Orig. Amount $343.75. 343.75 18,218.25 07/12/2007 INV #9670. Orig. Amount $187.50. 187.50 18,405.75 07/30/2007 INV #9703. Orig. Amount $31.25. 31.25 18,437.00 08/01/2007 INV #9708. Orig. Amount $343.75. 343.75 18,780.75 08/16/2007 INV #9802. Orig. Amount $345.00. 345.00 19,125.75 09/25/2007 INV #9935. Orig. Amount $93.75. 93.75 19,219.50 1-30 DAYS PAST 31-60 DAYS PAST 61-90 DAYS PAST OVER 90 DAYS Amount Due CURRENT DUE DUE DUE PAST DUE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,219.50 $19,219.50 EXHIBIT B 11 G? 8. ZG06 9:07,AM PA 011T i ce Sere I ce G r o u P Unit Price 53,000.00 13K?? bc((A a n ivarno itwArD A COMPVTtI? AAA Dell Server Proposal le Customer roams PA Office Swice Group. Inc Address 309 S. 10th Street CITY Lemoyne State PA ZIP 17043 Phone (717) 7133.4793 E-mail Cft Dell Sower" I Dell Server (see server page) rte' ? ;...yc';;r V 1 Windows 2003 Small Business Server wi fi CALs 585000 1 Spit. Windows 2003 SBS CALs 5500 00 1 Symantec Backup Exec. V101 SBS Upgrade S47C.00 Tape Backup- 1 80/160 GB External Tape Drive $1,10C.00 10 Backup tapes -0,.\ $40.00 Plc ?3?9 P. i 121172006 RY TOTAL 53,000.00 $650.00 $500 00 $470.00 I $1,10000 $400.00 Labor - Standard Rats 1 install and configure Windows 2003 Server $1.000.00 $1,00000 1 Install and configure Exchange 2003 Sewer S 1,000.00 $1,00000 1 Instal latest service pack on Exchange S300.00 5300.00 1 Data migratton $800.00 $800.00 1 Create domain and setup users 3500.00 550000 1 install tape drive and SCSI controller card 5200 00 $200.00 1 Install and configure Backup Exec.' 5500.00 $500.00 'Includes f week of follow up to ensure proper backups. 1 I nstatl and configure Symantec AV saver and Comore S40000 $400.00 1 Setup and enable remote server management 3250.00 $250.00 7 Workstation setup Including Joining domain, profile setup. S300.00 $2.100.00 uninstall/rainstall SAV client install Outlook 2003 8 ! importing e-mail into Exchange I 3rd party apps will be setup at $125/hr. ork perfaaneid outside the scope of this proposal "` reS?rr> tr' t ??lr/?c ",1 til after com letion of rt fo l b t I s?4?fC/p?{??LdK ? 2 C? p or un r a payma We do not expec rc. eS p'/' work. and your satifaction is reached. SuSToal $13,170.00 Ara 6grApt; a : VVM4 date Order No. Rep FOS Balance from first oage -- Taxes PA 536710 TOTAL x13.537.20 town Payment Reaulred $6 48720 _c Office Use Only Signature Date '1 '. T, h Idill Rome! Peso * *-R - o (11?1d Phone: 717-795-7231 • Fax: 711-f96-7061 Email: irnfoOpc-tronix.com EXHIBIT C 12 PETER J. RUSSO, ESQUIRE JOHN N. PAPOUTSIS, ESQUIRE ASHLEY R. SIPE, PARALEGAL PA Office Service Group, Inc. Attn: Accounts Payable 309 South 10t' Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 RE: Outstanding Balance Owed Dear Sir or Madam: SCOTT A. STEIN, ESQUIRE ELIZABETH J. SAYLOR, ESQUIRE JANET E. BUSH, PARALEGAL VIA CERTIFIED MAIL PC-Tronix has retained our office to take whatever steps are necessary to collect the sum due to it for computer services provided. According to PC-Tronix's records, your balance due is as follows: AMOUNT DUE: $ 19,205.65 This claim has been referred to this office for prompt collection. It is overdue and our client insists upon timely settlement. If there is any valid reason for withholding payment, please advice at once by return mail; otherwise, we shall expect payment. Forward said payment in the envelope provided. I will expect a response within 30 days after your receipt of this letter. If you fail to timely respond, my client has requested that I file a legal action against you. There is nothing to be gained by delaying or avoiding communication; in fact your silence will likely have a negative impact upon the future handling of this matter. Very truly yours, E izabeth J. Saylor, Esquire EJS/ars cc: PC-Tronix If you do not dispute the validity of this debt or any portion of it within 30 days after receipt of this letter, we will assume it is valid. If you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion of it in writing within the 30 days, we will mail verification of the debt to you. At your written request, within 30 days, we will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor if different from the current creditor. This and any future communication from our firm are attempts to collect a debt and information obtained will be used for that purpose. LAW OFFICES OF PETER J.RUSSOP.c. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Wednesday, October 3, 2007 THE CHELSEA BUILDING 3800 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 PHONE: (717) 591-1755 FAX: (717) 591-1756 ¦ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Sigh P _ ftem 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. Mg? 10 .Print your narre,,lpd address on the reverse - 12 At[d so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by (Printed Name) I C. Date of Deltveryo, ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, g ermits ace or on the front If s 1"A I ". IQ ` . p p D. Is delivery address different from Item 17 ? Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YM enter delivery address below: ? No Pa c ,c4- SQ-(vicQ- a-rorvp Acccx??-s P?(?`? JV V 3CPi Service t e 3 c_ ,r1 0(43 yp . JDCerUW Mall O press Mall x_11 + 1 t?f ? Registered ? Return Receipt f or Merchandise /VI ? Insured Mau ? C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? pit Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number 7pO6 X810 ?QQ6 1052 7234 (Transfer from sevke label) PS Fort 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-0244-1540 I R CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this day served a true and correct copy of the Complaint, upon the following person, in the manner indicated: Service by Sheriff: PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC. 309 SOUTH 10TH STREET LEMOYNE, PA 17043 11 0b DATE: 113, Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire 13 Q W , N 'Ile '`_r71 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-00815 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PC-TRONIX INC VS PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP INC TIMOTHY REITZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP INC the DEFENDANT , at 1617:00 HOURS, on the 5th day of February-, 2008 at 309 SOUTH 10TH STREET LEMOYNE, PA 17043 by handing to SUZANNE CHIARA, 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 18.00 15.36 .58 10.00 .00 43.94 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 02/07/2008 PETER RUSSO By day A. D. Depu eri f I's PC-TRONIX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 08 - 815 CIVIL TERM PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP INC., CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINT To: PC - Tronix, Inc. c/o Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 3800 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Notice to Plead YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Motion to Strike Count III (Quantum Meruit) Since Count II (Unjust Enrichment) is the Same Cause of Action 1. Plaintiff s Complaint includes multiple counts labeled as Count II Unjust Enrichment and Count III Quantum Meruit. 2. As stated by our Superior Court in Northeast Fence & Iron Works, Inc. v. Murphy Quigley Co., Inc., 2007 Pa. Super. 287, 933 A.2d 664 at 667 (2007), the term "unjust enrichment is a synonym for quantum meruit."See also Mitchell v. Moore, 1999 Pa. Super. 77, 729 A.2d 1200, 1202 n. 2 (1999). Plaintiff's Complaint does not conform to law or rule of court and, therefore, in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (a)(2) Count III must be stricken since it is duplicative of Count II. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable to strike with prejudice either Count III (Quantum Meruit) or Count II (Unjust Enrichment) as they constitute a single claim under Pennsylvania law. Motion to Strike Count II (Unjust Enrichment) and Count III (Quantum Meruit) 4. Plaintiff has pled as Count I (Breach of Contract). 5. Plaintiff has pled as Count II (Unjust Enrichment) and Count III (Quantum Meruit). 6. As stated by our Superior Court in Villoresi v. Femminella, 2004 Pa. Super. 256, 856 A.2d 78 at 84 (2004), "a cause of action for unjust enrichment may arise only when a transaction of the parties not otherwise governed by an express contract confers a benefit on the defendant to the plaintiffs detriment without any corresponding exchange of value ... where an express contract already exists to define the parameters of the parties' respective duties, the parties may avail themselves of contract remedies and an equitable remedy for unjust enrichment cannot be deemed to exist. " See also Mitchell v. Moore, 1999 Pa. Super. 77, 729 A.2d 1200 at 1203 (1999). 7. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges in Count I the creation of an express contract. 8. As stated by our Supreme Court in Wilson Area School District v. Skepton et. al., 586 Pa. 513, 895 A.2d 1250 at 1254 (2006), "lt]he doctrine of unjust enrichment applies only to situations where there is no legal contract ... land] is inapplicable when the relationship between parties is founded upon a written agreement or express contract regardless of how harsh the provisions of such contracts may seen in light of subsequent happenings. " 9. If an express contract exists between the parties, then the Plaintiff may not pursue any equitable remedies available in claims raising unjust enrichment or quantum meruit. 10. Our Court "may not make a finding of unjust enrichment ... where a written or express contract between the parties exists." See Mitchell v. Moore, 1999 Pa. Super. 77, 729 A.2d 1200 at 1203 (1999). 11. The essential facts alleged to support the existence of an express contract in Count I are indistinguishable from the facts alleged in Count II and Count III of the Complaint. 12. Plaintiff's Complaint does not conform to law or rule of court and, therefore, in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (a)(2) Count II and Count III must be stricken since Plaintiff has pled Breach of Contract as Count I. See Hess v. Sexchick Poultry Services, Inc., 83 Pa. D. & C. 4th 289 at 297 (2006). 0 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable to strike with prejudice Count III (Quantum Meruit) and Count II (Unjust Enrichment) as those claims are inconsistent with a Breach of Contract cause of action alleged in Count I. Respectfully submitted, By: S en Howell, squire owell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Supreme Court ID 62063 (717) 770-1277 Attorney for Defendant PA Office Service Group, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire (Via Mail and Fax 591-1756) Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 3800 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 B Date: a /.? 17d eF le C: "TS -TI ; ?i CO ? LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 3800 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 591-1755 Attorney for PC-TroniX, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC., Plaintiff, PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, Defendant TO: PA Office Service Group, Inc. DATE OF NOTICE: February 26, 2008 CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO 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 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, PA 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72897 < Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 200139 Attorneys for Plaintiff 3800 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 3800 Market ;Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 591-1755 Attorney for PC-TroniX, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC TRONIX,"INC., Plaintiff, . 'vi. . PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Notice of Default Judgment upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Mail addressed as follows: PA Office Service Group, Inc. 309 South 1©t' Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Dater -0h,by o in Amber L. Southard, Paralegal ['? ?{ ?" } f: ? } CW:? ?? ""f'i - ?,y.? ? P e... t . .~.?} .`_ !'4 / ?j•-1 "t . ,i ... ; M !? LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@I.,jrlaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC. CIVIL ACTION O 8 - ?l s G rr? ?'?"1 Plaintiff, . V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, . Defendant. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED 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 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, PA 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 2 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjrlaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC. CIVIL ACTION 0 ? 8) S G7vr I ?"?-?^? Plaintiff, V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, . Defendant. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, PC-Tronix, Inc., by its attorney the Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., for Plaintiff's Complaint states: 1. Plaintiff PC-Tronix, Inc., is a Pennsylvania Corporation doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principle place of business at 5130 E. Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 2. Defendant is a Pennsylvania Corporation doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principle place of business at 309 South 10th Street, Lemoyne, PA, 17043. 3. Beginning in or about November of 2004 Plaintiff began providing professional computer services to Defendant for a fee. 4. Plaintiff continued to provide said services on a regular basis. 3 5. Defendant paid for said services rendered in a satisfactory manner until approximately December of 2006. 6. Defendant has failed to pay for the services set forth on the Statement dated January 24, 2008, for the amount therein indicated. A true and correct copy of said Statement is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 7. An agent of Defendant signed a work proposal regarding invoice number 8834 reflected on Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of said Proposal is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 8. Defendant made a partial payment in the amount of $6,487.20 on invoice number 8834. 9. Plaintiff performed all of the services set forth on Exhibit A. 10. Plaintiff sent Defendant invoices for all of said services. 11. Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to collect payment from Defendant by: a. Communicating with agents of the company; b. Introducing financing alternatives to the Defendant; c. Proposing a leasing alternative to the Defendant; and d. Sending a certified letter dated October 3, 2007, to the Defendant. A true and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 12. Despite Plaintiff's efforts, Defendant has refused to render payment in full. 13. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant owes Plaintiff a balance of Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen Dollars and Fifty Cents ($19,219.50) for services previously rendered. 4 COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 14. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth hereof and incorporates them herein by reference as fully as though set forth herein at length. 15. Plaintiff contracted with Defendant to perform the services set forth on Exhibit A for the amount therein indicated. 16. Plaintiff performed said services. 17. Plaintiff contacted Defendant on several occasions thereafter to request payment for services rendered. 18. Although duly demanded by Plaintiff, the balance due of Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen Dollars and Fifty Cents ($19,219.50) has not been paid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from Defendant in an amount that does not exceed the mandatory arbitration amount plus interests, costs and any other appropriate damages. COUNT II- UNJUST ENRICHMENT 19. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth hereof and incorporates them herein by reference as fully as though set forth herein at length. 20. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant was unjustly enriched by the Plaintiff in the form of Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen Dollars and Fifty Cents ($19,219.50) representing the amount of value of the services and/or materials and supplies provided to Defendant. 21. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant received the benefit of the services and/or materials and supplies provided to Defendant. 5 22. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant permitted Plaintiff to complete the services provided at Plaintiffs expense. 23. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant induced the Plaintiff into believing that Defendant would accept the responsibility for the services provided. 24. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant watched as Plaintiff completed the services and did nothing to stop the Plaintiff. 25. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant watched as Plaintiff completed the services and did nothing to inform the Plaintiff that the Defendant would not be responsible for the cost associated with the services provided. 26. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct, the Defendant derived a benefit from the Plaintiff. 27. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant accepted the benefit of the services provided without compensating or reimbursing the Plaintiff. 28. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that permitting Defendant to accept the services provided without compensating Plaintiff would unjustly enrich the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from Defendant in an amount that does not exceed the mandatory arbitration amount plus interests, costs and any other appropriate damages. COUNT III- ACCOUNT STATED 29. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth hereof and incorporates them herein by reference as fully as though set forth herein at length. 30. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant received invoices for the services rendered. 6 31. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Plaintiff contacted Defendant on more than one occasion in attempt to collect payment on the invoices. 32. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant did not affirmatively contest the bills/invoices sent to Defendant by Plaintiff. 33. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant assumed liability for the charges stated within said bills/invoices. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from Defendant in an amount that does not exceed the mandatory arbitration amount plus interests, costs and any other appropriate damages. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 200139 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 7 VERIFICATION 1, &4crT 4- YoyNr J7., verify that the statements made in the forgoing document are true and correct, and that I am authorized to execute this verification on behalf of PCtronix, Inc. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of , 8 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ab ylo 8? R o 6 ef_ T 6 • ! oy4y r 27? Print Title: Cot- Po f-v&7 e. 5 e c ??TQ r? R-A!34? 41,1 Signatur 8 .. Y ,- .. ,?. EXHIBIT A Statement IT DESIGN • INSTALLATION • SUPPORT 5130 E. Trindle Road Date Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 1/24/2008 Phone - 717-795-7231 Fax - 717-795-7061 Amount Due $19,219.50 PA Office Service Group, Inc. 309 South 10th Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 ATTN:Accounts Payable Date Transaction Amount Balance POSG - Regular- 12/18/2006 INV #8822.Orig. Amount $2,930.00. 2,000.00 2,000.00 12/18/2006 INV #8823.Orig. Amount $3,040.00. 3,040.00 5,040.00 01/01/2007 INV #8834.Orig. Amount $16,474.70. 9,987.50 15,027.50 01/01/2007 INV #8835.Orig. Amount $250.00. 250.00 15,277.50 01/31/2007 INV #8985. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,340.00 02/28/2007 INV #9047.Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,402.50 02/28/2007 INV #9048. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,465.00 02/28/2007 INV #9049.Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,527.50 02/28/2007 INV #9187. Orig. Amount $531.25. 531.25 16,058.75 02/28/2007 INV #9188.Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 16,121.25 03/14/2007 INV #9189. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 16,183.75 03/14/2007 INV #9190. Orig. Amount $187.50. 187.50 16,371.25 03/22/2007 INV #9209.Orig. Amount $375.00. 375.00 16,746.25 03/26/2007 [NV #9236. Orig. Amount $503.25. 503.25 17,249.50 04/19/2007 INV #9371. Orig. Amount $562.50. 562.50 17,812.00 06/11/2007 INV #9522. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 17,874.50 06/21/2007 INV #9578.Orig. Amount $343.75. 343.75 18,218.25 07/12/2007 INV #9670.Orig. Amount $187.50. 187.50 18,405.75 07/30/2007 INV #9703. Orig. Amount $31.25. 31.25 18,437.00 08/01/2007 INV #9708. Orig. Amount $343.75. 343.75 18,780.75 08/16/2007 INV #9802.Orig. Amount $345.00. 345.00 19,125.75 09/25/2007 INV #9935. Orig. Amount $93.75. 93.75 19,219.50 CURRENT 1-30 DAYS PAST 31-60 DAYS PAST 61-90 DAYS PAST OVER 90 DAYS Amount Due DUE DUE DUE PAST DUE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,219.50 $19,219.50 EXHIBIT B 10 'ee S• 0;0 9.OinM PA Office Service Groin No-"379 P- p a 77ZP0bD9Zd r? h . ?t C -- NLTRYlrfJllNO i COMPUMN *A& ?-_- Dell Server Proposal Customer Name PA Office Service Group, Inc Address 309 S. 10th Street City Lemoyne State PA 21P 17043 Phone (7171763-4.703-1 E-mail Oate 12/1712006 Order No. Rep RY FOB Urt{t Prica TOTAL D*N Senror* t 060 Server (see server page) $3.000.00 $3,000.00 Software 1 Windows 2003 Small Business Server w/ 5 CAs S55000 $65000 1 5pk, Windows 2003 SSS CALs S50000 $500 00 1 Symantec Backup Exec. V101 SBS Upgrade $47C.00 $470.00 i Taw Backup- 1 50//160 GB External Tape Drive S1,10C.00 $1.10000 1D Backup tapes _00-n $40.00 $400,00 Labor - Standard Rate ` - _. . 1 Install and configure Windows 2003 Server $1.000.00 $1,00000 1 Install and Configure Exchange 2003 Server $1,000.00 $1,00000 1 Install latest service pack on Exchange 5300.00 5300.00 1 Data migration 5800.00 5800.00 1 Create domain and setup users 3500.00 $50000 1 Install tape drive and SCSI controller card 520000 $200.00 1 Install and configure Backup Exec' 5500.00 $500.00 'I"ufts 1 week of follow up to ensure proper backups. 1 Install and configure Symentec AV server and consoie S40000 5400.00 1 7 Setup and enable remote server management W $250.00 $250.00 orkstation setup Including Joining domaln, profile setup. S300.00 52,100100 uninstalftinstall SAV client install Outlook 2003 8 ,mporGng e-mail rite Exc?renge 3rd party apps will be setup at $125/tu. txic performed outside the soope of this proposal +" fPs?Oi*/ [??p/C /hli? f'111x A2, We do not expect payment for labor until after completion of I S ??/?f?OU??Gd? ??? oL C t C' work. and your satifaction is reached. a e ?? e C?iy c SubTotal _ 513,170.00 We 6GrA ot Balance from first page VISA Taxes PA 5367.20 TOTAL fi13.537.20 Down Paymen t Reauired 56.457.20 c le-Q F? pllvo, ? Phone: 717-795-7231 • Fax: 717.195.1061 Email: infoOpc-tronix.com EXHIBIT C 11 LAW OFFICES OF PETER JAUSSOP.c. PETER). RUSSO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN N. PAPOUTSIS, ESQUIRE ASHLEY R. SIPE, PARALEGAL SCOTT A. STEIN, ESQUIRE ELIZABETH J. SAYLOR, ESQUIRE JANET E. BUSH, PARALEGAL Wednesday, October 3, 2007 PA Office Service Group, Inc. Attn: Accounts Payable 309 South l0' Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RE: Outstanding Balance Owed Dear Sir or Madam: PC-Tronix has retained our office to take whatever steps are necessary to collect the sum due to it for computer services provided. According to PC-Tronix's records, your balance due is as follows: AMOUNT DUE: $ 19,205.65 f This claim has been referred to this office for prompt collection. It is overdue and our client insists upon timely settlement. If there is any valid reason for withholding payment, please advice at once by return mail; otherwise, we shall expect payment. Forward said payment in the envelope provided. I will expect a response within 30 days after your receipt of this letter. If you fail to timely respond, my client has requested that I file a legal action against you. There is nothing to be gained by delaying or avoiding communication; in fact your silence will likely have a negative impact upon the future handling of this matter. EJS/ars cc: PC-Tronix Very truly yours, E I'zabeth J. Saylor, squire If you do not dispute the validity of this debt or any portion of it within 30 days after receipt of this letter, we will assume it is valid. If you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion of it in writing within the 30 days, we will mail verification of the debt to you. At your written request, within 30 days, we will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor if different from the current creditor. This and any future communication from our firm are attempts to collect a debt and information obtained will be used for that purpose. THE CHELSEA BUILDING 3800 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 PHONE: (717) 591-1755 FAX: (717) 591-1756 ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A Signafu ' item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. errt ,, ,, X t . Print yoyr. narpp And address on the reverse O's r2 d ! so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by (Printed Name) I C. Date of Delivery ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front If space permits. , q ` ` 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ? Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ? No I Pa C%C Acc ax9`? P Ove S 3kDt ?v D 3. Service Type `,,, (? _ (? 1 ?J C? ?? ?r 1' jEftw lied man ? Express Mail j ? Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise % 1 ? Insured Mau 17 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Exile Fee) ? Yes j P- 'Article Number 7006 (rmnsfw from service label) 0810 0006 1052 7234 t i Ps Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this day served a true and correct copy of the First Amended Complaint, upon the following person, in the manner indicated: VIA US MAIL: Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Attorney for Defendant DATE: 3 -? 8- 0'0 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire 12 CT i .y i -.a> ...t PC-TRONIX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 08 - 815 CIVIL TERM PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP INC., CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT To: PC - Tronix, Inc. c/o Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 3800 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Notice to Plead YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY OBJECTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Motion to Strike Count II (Unjust Enrichment) 1. Plaintiff has pled as Count I (Breach of Contract). 2. Plaintiff has pled as Count II (Unjust Enrichment). 3. As stated by our Superior Court in Villoresi v Femminella, 2004 Pa. Super. 256, 856 A.2d 78 at 84 (2004), "a cause of action for unjust enrichment may arise only when a transaction of the parties not otherwise governed by an express contract confers a benefit on the defendant to the plaintiffs detriment without any corresponding exchange of value ... where an express contract already exists to define the parameters of the parties' respective duties, the parties may avail themselves of contract remedies and an equitable remedy for unjust enrichment cannot be deemed to exist. " See also Mitchell v. Moore, 1999 Pa. Super. 77, 729 A.2d 1200 at 1203 (1999). 4. In a recent opinion reported in the Cumberland Law Journal, our Court cited with approval the following: Unjust enrichment/quantum meruit. Unjust enrichment occurs in the "absence of an agreement, whether express or implied," whenever one person receives unjust enrichment. Hershey Foods Corp. v. Ralph Chapek, Inc., 828 F.2d 989, 995 n.5 (3`d Cir. 1987) (applying Pennsylvania law); see also Murphy v. Haws & Burke, 235 Pa. Super. 484, 489, 344 A.2d 543, 546 (1975) (where oral, implicit compensation agreement existed between attorneys and law firm, no separate quantum meruit recovery could be obtained). See Gates & Associates et aL v. Magaro et al. 57 Cumberland Law Journal at 66 (2007). 5. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges in Count I the creation of an express contract. 6. As stated by our Supreme Court in Wilson Area School District v. Skepton et. al., 586 Pa. 513, 895 A.2d 1250 at 1254 (2006), "[t]he doctrine of unjust enrichment applies only to situations where there is no legal contract ... [and] is inapplicable when the relationship between parties is founded upon a written agreement or express contract regardless of how harsh the provisions of such contracts may seen in light of subsequent happenings." 7. If an express contract exists between the parties, then the Plaintiff may not pursue any equitable remedies available in claims raising unjust enrichment or quantum meruit. 8. Our Court "may not make a finding of unjust enrichment ... where a written or express contract between the parties exists." See Mitchell v. Moore, 1999 Pa. Super. 77, 729 A.2d 1200 at 1203 (1999). 9. The essential facts alleged to support the existence of an express contract in Count I are indistinguishable from the facts alleged in Count II of the Complaint. 10. Plaintiff's Complaint does not conform to law or rule of court and, therefore, in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (a)(2) Count II must be stricken since Plaintiff has pled Breach of Contract as Count I. See Hess v Sexchick Poultry Services, Inc., 83 Pa. D. & C. 4th 289 at 297 (2006). WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable to strike with prejudice Count II (Unjust Enrichment) as those claims are inconsistent with a Breach of Contract cause of action alleged in Count I. Respectfully submitted, By: 14, owell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Supreme Court ID 62063 (717) 770-1277 Attorney for Defendant PA Office Service Group, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 3800 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 B) Date: April 7, 2008 rv O MIN tt', F CO l 1 . C a ? rn C7: N C.J7 N --C' LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjrlaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC. CIVIL ACTION eAVf t fel-"' Plaintiff, V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, . Defendant. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED 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 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, PA 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 2 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjrlaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC. CIVIL ACTION 0 G W, j Plaintiff, V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, : Defendant. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, PC-Tronix, Inc., by its attorney the Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., for Plaintiff's Complaint states: 1. Plaintiff PC-Tronix, Inc., is a Pennsylvania Corporation doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principle place of business at 5130 E. Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 2. Defendant is a Pennsylvania Corporation doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principle place of business at 309 South 10th Street, Lemoyne, PA, 17043. 3. Beginning in or about November of 2004 Plaintiff agreed to provide professional computer services to Defendant for a fee. 3 4. Plaintiff continued to provide professional computer services on a regular basis. 5. Plaintiff provided Defendant with multiple statements reflecting the services rendered. 6. Defendant paid on the invoices reflected in the multiple statements in a satisfactory manner until approximately December of 2006. 7. Defendant has failed to pay for the services set forth on the statement dated January 24, 2008 (hereinafter "January Statement"), for the amount therein indicated. A true and correct copy of said January Statement is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 8. An agent of Defendant signed a work proposal regarding invoice number 8834 reflected on the January Statement. A true and correct copy of said Proposal is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 9. Defendant made a partial payment in the amount of $6,487.20 on invoice number 8834. 10. The remainder of the invoice numbers reflected on the January Statement were based on oral agreements between the parties. 11. Plaintiff performed all of the services set forth on the January Statement. 12. Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to collect full payment from Defendant by: a. Communicating with agents of the company; b. Introducing financing alternatives to the Defendant; c. Proposing a leasing alternative to the Defendant; and 4 d. Sending a certified letter dated October 3, 2007, to the Defendant. A true and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 13. Despite Plaintiff's efforts, Defendant has refused to render payment in full. 14. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant owes Plaintiff a balance of Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen Dollars and Fifty Cents ($19,219.50) for services previously rendered. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 15. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth hereof and incorporates them herein by reference as fully as though set forth herein at length. 16. Plaintiff offered to provide Defendant with the computer services reflected on the Proposal. A true and correct copy of said Proposal is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 17. The value of said services total Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven Dollars and Twenty Cents ($13,537.20). 18. Defendant rendered a partial downpayment to Plaintiff in the amount of Six Thousand Four Hundred Eight Seven Dollars and Twenty Cents ($6,487.20) as reflected on the Proposal. 19. Plaintiff performed all of the services set forth on the Proposal. 20. Defendant accepted said services by: a. signing the Proposal; b. accepting the benefit of all of the services provided by Defendant; and c. rendering partial payment for the services provided. 5 21. Although duly demanded by Plaintiff, the balance due of Seven Thousand Fifty Dollars ($7,050.00) has not been paid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from Defendant in an amount that does not exceed the mandatory arbitration amount plus interests, costs and any other appropriate damages. COUNT II- UNJUST ENRICHMENT 22. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth hereof and incorporates them herein by reference as fully as though set forth herein at length. 23. Plaintiff contracted with Defendant for the services set forth on the Proposal attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 24. The Proposal indicates that: a. Work station set-up would be billed at $300 per unit b. Third party apps would be set up at One Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($125.00) per hour. 25. The Proposal further indicates that there was work performed outside of the scope of the Proposal. 26. Said additional work is not reflected in the Proposal's total. 27. Invoice number 8834 is listed on the January Statement. 28. Invoice number 8834 on the January Statement, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, reflects; a. The total amount for services as reflected on the Proposal; b. Plus the total amount for the services performed in addition to those set forth on the Proposal; 6 c. Minus the down payment required as set forth on the Proposal. 29. Defendant was unjustly enriched by the Plaintiff in the form of Twelve Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Nine Dollars and Fifty Cents ($12,169.50). 30. The amount set forth in the above paragraph excludes the services and associated costs set forth in the Proposal, relief for which is requested under Count I herein. 31. Defendant received the benefit of the Remaining Services and/or materials and supplies provided to Defendant. 32. Defendant permitted Plaintiff to complete the Remaining Services at Plaintiff's expense. 33. Defendant accepted and appreciated the Remaining Services by: a. continuing to request Plaintiff to provide computer services; b. accepting the benefit of all of the services provided by Defendant; and c. rendering payment on certain invoices provided in multiple statements. 34. Defendant induced the Plaintiff into believing that Defendant would accept the responsibility for the Remaining Services. 35. Defendant watched as Plaintiff completed the Remaining Services and did nothing to stop the Plaintiff. 36. Defendant watched as Plaintiff completed the Remaining Services and did nothing to inform the Plaintiff that the Defendant would not be responsible for the cost associated with the Remaining Services provided. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct, the Defendant derived a benefit from the Plaintiff. 7 38. Defendant accepted the benefit of the Remaining Services provided without compensating or fully reimbursing the Plaintiff. 39. Permitting Defendant to accept the Remaining Services provided by Plaintiff without fully compensating Plaintiff would unjustly enrich the Defendant and be inequitable. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from Defendant in an amount that does not exceed the mandatory arbitration amount plus interests, costs and any other appropriate damages. COUNT III- UNJUST ENRICHMENT (ALTERNATIVE COUNT TO COUNT 1) 40. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth hereof and incorporates them herein by reference as fully as though set forth herein at length. 41. If the Proposal attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, is not deemed to be a contract, Plaintiff pleads in the alternative Defendant was unjustly enriched by Plaintiff in the form of Seven Thousand and Fifty Dollars ($7,050.00) representing the amount of the value of services and/or materials and supplies provided to Defendant (hereinafter Proposal Services). 42. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant received the benefit of the Proposal Services and/or materials and supplies provided to the Defendant that were not paid for. 43. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant permitted Plaintiff to complete the Proposal Services at Plaintiffs expense. 8 44. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant accepted and appreciated the Proposal Services by: a. continuing to request Plaintiff to provide computer services; b. accepting the benefit of all of the services provided by Defendant; and c. rendering payment on certain invoices provided in multiple statements. 45. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant induced the Plaintiff into believing Defendant would accept the responsibility for the Proposal Services. 46. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant watched as Plaintiff completed the Proposal Services and did nothing to stop the Plaintiff. 47. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant watched as Plaintiff completed the Proposal Services and did nothing to inform the Plaintiff that Defendant would not be responsible for the costs associated with the Proposal Services. 48. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that the value of the Proposal Services equal Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven Dollars and Twenty Cents ($13,537.20). 49. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Plaintiff rendered a down payment in the amount of Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Seven Dollars and Twenty Cents ($6,487.20). 50. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that despite repeated requests Defendant has failed to render payment for Seven Thousand and Fifty Dollars ($7,050.00) balance still owing for the Proposal Services. 51. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct, Defendant derived a benefit from Plaintiff. 9 52. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant accepted the benefit of the Proposal Services provided without fully compensating or reimbursing the Plaintiff. 53. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that permitting Defendant to accept the Proposal Services provided by Plaintiff without fully compensating Plaintiff would unjustly enrich the Defendant and be inequitable. COUNT IV- ACCOUNT STATED 54. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth hereof and incorporates them herein by reference as fully as though set forth herein at length. 55. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant received invoices for all of the services reflected on the January Statement which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 56. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Plaintiff provided all of the services that were reflected in said invoices. 57. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Plaintiff contacted Defendant on more than one occasion in attempt to collect payment on the invoices. 58. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant did not affirmatively contest the invoices and/or statements sent to Defendant by Plaintiff. 59. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative that Defendant assumed liability for the charges stated within said invoices and/or statements. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from Defendant in an amount that does not exceed the mandatory arbitration amount plus interests, costs and any other appropriate damages. 10 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72897 ,),,Zlizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire ' Attorney I.D. No. 200139 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 11 VERIFICATION I, fl'o,?-p?-7~ ?oa?, verify that the statements made in the forgoing document are true and correct, and that I am authorized to execute this verification on behalf of PCtronix, Inc. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Z C ` /:o 4e `7'-" / b ?•-Y 6 Print Title: Co f-tp. S e 0,X e7-cz? Signature `? EXHIBIT A 13 ?a Statement IT DESIGN . INSTALLATION . SUPPORT 5130 E. Trindle Road Date Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 1/24/2008 Phone - 717-795-7231 Fax - 717-795-7061 Amount Due $19,219.50 PA Office Service Group, Inc. 309 South 10th Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 ATTN:Accounts Payable Date Transaction Amount Balance POSG - Regular- 12/18/2006 INV #8822.Orig. Amount $2,930.00. 2,000.00 2,000.00 12/18/2006 INV #8823.Orig. Amount $3,040.00. 3,040.00 5,040.00 01/01/2007 INV #8834.Orig. Amount $16,474.70. 9,987.50 15,027.50 01/01/2007 INV #8835. Orig. Amount $250.00. 250.00 15,277.50 01/31/2007 INV #8985.Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,340.00 02/28/2007 INV #9047. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,402.50 02/28/2007 INV #9048.Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,465.00 02/28/2007 INV #9049.Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 15,527.50 02/28/2007 INV #9187. Orig. Amount $531.25. 531.25 16,058.75 02/28/2007 INV #9188.Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 16,121.25 03/14/2007 INV #9189.Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 16,183.75 03/14/2007 INV #9190. Orig. Amount $187.50. 187.50 16,371.25 03/22/2007 INV #9209. Orig. Amount $375.00. 375.00 16,746.25 03/26/2007 INV #9236. Orig. Amount $503.25. 503.25 17,249.50 04/19/2007 INV #9371. Orig. Amount $562.50. 562.50 17,812.00 06/11/2007 INV #9522. Orig. Amount $62.50. 62.50 17,874.50 06/21/2007 INV #9578. Orig. Amount $343.75. 343.75 18,218.25 07/12/2007 INV #9670. Orig. Amount $187.50. 187.50 18,405.75 07/30/2007 INV #9703. Orig. Amount $31.25. 31.25 18,437.00 08/01/2007 INV #9708. Orig. Amount $343.75. 343.75 18,780.75 08/16/2007 INV #9802.Orig. Amount $345.00. 345.00 19,125.75 09/25/2007 INV #9935.Orig. Amount $93.75. 93.75 19,219.50 CURRENT 1-30 DAYS PAST 31-60 DAYS PAST 61-90 DAYS PAST OVER 90 DAYS Amount Due DUE DUE DUE PAST DUE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,219.50 $19,219.50 EXHIBIT B 14 9 O;yfA PA Oaf Service Group Brf bc? 1V877YORN/wr0 W COMPUTlR x6LrK Dell Server Propose! Customer (MOMS PA Office SBrvice Grouts, Inc. Address 309 S. 10th Stmot City Lemoyne State PA 21P 17043 Phone (717) 763-4783 E-mail 4- Date 12117.12006 Order No. Rep RY FOB Qty Description Unit Price Doll sornr* 1 Dell Server (see server page) $3,000.00 Software 1 Windows 2003 Small Business Server w/ T5-Ls 555000 1 Spit. Windows 2003 SOS CALs 5500.00 1 Symantee Backup Exec. V101 SSS upgrade 5470.00 Tapir Backup- 1 80/160 G9 External Tape Drive $1100,00 10 Backup tapes _ CZM 540.00 We Agceot: Balance from first ?age VISA Taxes PA $$357.20 r TOTAL $13.537.20 flown pavment Required $8.487.20 c Office Use Only _ Signature Data No-31379 P. 1 TOTAL 53,000.00 $650 00 $50000 $470.00 $1,10000 $400.00 Labor - Standard Rate 1 Instau and configure Windows 2003 Server $1,000.00 $1,00000 1 Install and configure Exchange 2003 Server 51,000.00 $1,00000 1 Install latest service pack cm Exchange 5300.00 $300.00 1 Data migration 5800.00 $800.00 1 Create domain and setup users $500.00 $50000 1 Install tape drive and SCSI controller card S20000 $200.00 1 install and configure Backup Exec.` $500.00 5500.06 'Includes 1 week of follow up to ensure proper backups. 1 Install and configure Symantec AV server and consois S40000 $406,D0 1 Setup and enable remote server managernent $250.00 $250.00 7 Workstation setup Including Joining domain, profile setup. $300.00 $2,100.00 uninstall/rainstell SAV client install Outlook 2003 & importing e-mail into Exchange 3rd party apps will be setup at $125/tu. ` S trL'T? y?/iL7j? C? 'Work parfantled outsr<te the scope of this proposal We do not expect payment for labor until after completion of O is work. and your sati'faction is reached. C-* (- Clisfc SuSToial $ 13,170.00 ? z ?-p - o ry f i?ld 6 Phone: 717-795-7231 • Fax: 711-196-1061 Email: infoOpc-tronix.corn EXHIBIT C 15 LAW OFFICES OF PETER JAUSSOP._C. PETER J. RUSSO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS AT 1Aw SCOTT A. STEIN, ESQUIRE JOHN N. PAPOUTSIS, ESQUIRE ELIZABETH J. SAYLOR, ESQUIRE ASHLEY R. SIPE, PARALEGAL JANET E. BUSH, PARALEGAL Wednesday, October 3, 2007 PA Office Service Group, Inc. VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Attn: Accounts Payable 309 South 10" Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 RE: Outstanding Balance Owed Dear Sir or Madam: PC-Tronix has retained our office to take whatever steps are necessary to collect the sum due to it for computer services provided. According to PC-Tronix's records, your balance due is as follows: AMOUNT DUE: $ 19,205.65 This claim has been referred to this office fdr prompt collection. It is overdue and our client insists upon timely settlement. If there is any valid reason, for withholding payment, please advice at once by return mail; otherwise, we shall expect payment. Forward said payment in the envelope provided. I will expect a response within 30 days after your receipt of this letter. If you fail to timely -respond, my client has requested that I file. a legal action against you. There is nothing to be gained by delaying or avoiding communication; in fact your silence will likely have a negative impact upon the future handling of this matter. EJS/ars cc: PC-Tronix very truly yours; 1 E zabeth J. Saylor, Esquire If you do not dispute the validity of this debt or any portion of it within 30 days after receipt of this letter, we will assume it is valid. If you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion of it in writing within the 30 days, we will mail verification of the debt to you. At your written request, within 30 days, we will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor if different from the current creditor. This. and any future communication from our firm are attempts to collect a debt and information obtained will be used for that purpose. THE CHELSEA BUILDING 3800 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 PHONE: (717) 591-1755 FAX: (717) 591-1.756 ¦ Complete Items 1, 2, and & Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Deliver Is desired - A , • [ y . ; . ,,,,,, X ! .Ft yota?•rd address on tk?e reverse: so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the malipiece, B. Recelved by (P&Md Name) C. Date of Delivery or on the front If space permits. • 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is denvery address di[terent from Item 1? 0 Yea If YES, enter denvery address below. M No Pa C%-C SQ.ns.cQ cep i (?ccauY?? Pabk - i 30? 5ou ' (? . P O 3. Servioe lWo Certified Mau O mesa Man 0 Registered O Return Receipt for Merchandise ? Insured Man .0 C.O.D. 4. Restnided DelWeryr (Fobs Fee) p Yes 2. Article Number 7006 (rWafer from s+wVkg labeq 0810 0006 1052 7234 r Ps Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt tozsas o2 nn 7ti40 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this day served a true and correct copy of the Second Amended Complaint, upon the following person, in the manner indicated: VIA US MAIL: Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Attorney for Defendant G DATE: y-Uv Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire 16 _ - C7 rt HI ? YJ ( _ , . ,x.. .. ll7 -? 7 r 1 PC-TRONIX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 08 - 815 CIVIL TERM PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP INC., CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT To: PC - Tronix, Inc., c/o Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Suite 100, 5006 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Notice to Plead YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY OBJECTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Motion to Strike Count III (Unjust Enrichment) 1. Plaintiff has pled as Count I (Breach of Contract) a claim seeking $7,050.00 (see ¶21 of Second Amended Complaint) in damages. 2. Plaintiff has pled as Count III (Alternative Count to Count I) seeking the same $7,050.00 (see ¶41 and ¶50 of Second Amended Complaint) in damages as Count I (Breach of Contract). 3. As stated by our Superior Court in Villoresi v. Femminella, 2004 Pa. Super. 256, 856 A.2d 78 at 84 (2004), "a cause of action for unjust enrichment may arise only when a transaction of the parties not otherwise governed by an express contract confers a benefit on the defendant to the plaintiff s detriment without any corresponding exchange of value ... where an express contract already exists to define the parameters of the parties' respective duties, the parties may avail themselves of contract remedies and an equitable remedy for unjust enrichment cannot be deemed to exist. " See also Mitchell v. Moore, 1999 Pa. Super. 77, 729 A.2d 1200 at 1203 (1999). f 4. In a recent opinion reported in the Cumberland Law Journal, our Court cited with approval the following: Unjust enrichment/quantum meruit. Unjust enrichment occurs in the "absence of an agreement, whether express or implied," whenever one person receives unjust enrichment. Hershey Foods Corp. v. Ralph Chapek, Inc., 828 F.2d 989, 995 n.5 (3`d Cir. 1987) (applying Pennsylvania law); see also Murphy v. Haws ,& Burke, 235 Pa. Super. 484, 489, 344 A.2d 543, 546 (1975) (where oral, implicit compensation agreement existed between attorneys and law firm, no separate quantum meruit recovery could be obtained). See Gates & Associates et al. v. Magaro et al. 57 Cumberland Law Journal at 66 (2007). Plaintiff's Complaint alleges in Count I the creation of an express contract. 6. As stated by our Supreme Court in Wilson Area School District v. Skepton et. al., 586 Pa. 513, 895 A.2d 1250 at 1254 (2006), "[t/he doctrine of unjust enrichment applies only to situations where there is no legal contract ... [and] is inapplicable when the relationship between parties is founded upon a written agreement or express contract regardless of how harsh the provisions of such contracts may seen in light of subsequent happenings." 7. If an express contract exists between the parties, then the Plaintiff may not pursue any equitable remedies available in claims raising unjust enrichment or quantum meruit as Count III for the exact same damages. 8. Our Court "may not make a finding of unjust enrichment ... where a written or express contract between the parties exists." See Mitchell v. Moore, 1999 Pa. Super. 77, 729 A.2d 1200 at 1203 (1999). 9. The essential facts alleged to support the existence of an express contract in Count I are indistinguishable from the facts alleged in Count III of the Second Amended Complaint. 10. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint does not conform to law or rule of court and, therefore, in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (a)(2) Count III must be stricken since Plaintiff has pled Breach of Contract as Count I. See Hess v. Sexchick Poultry Services, Inc., 83 Pa. D. & C. 4th 289 at 297 (2006). WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable to strike with prejudice Count III (Alternative Count to Count I) as those claims are inconsistent with a Breach of Contract cause of action alleged in Count I. Respectfully submitted, By: Stev owdll, Esquire ell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Supreme Court ID 62063 (717) 770-1277 Attorney for Defendant PA Office Service Group, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Suite 100 5006 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 BY: Date: May 27, 2008 rT, co i? i Ca, , xi LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjdaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC. Plaintiff, V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED 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 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, PA 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 2 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjrlaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, Defendant. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, PC-Tronix, Inc., by and through its attorney the Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., for Plaintiff's Response states: 1. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 1 referenced a legal document that controls and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. 2. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 2 referenced a legal document that controls and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. 3. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 3 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 4. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 4 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 3 5. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 5 referenced a legal document that controls and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. 6. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 6 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 7. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 7 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 8. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 8 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 9. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 9 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 10. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 10 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Plaintiff denies all other allegations in Paragraphs 1-10 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections that are not specifically admitted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Second Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF-FrETER .C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 200139 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Plaintiff's Response to Preliminary Objections to Second Amended Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Mail addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Attorney for Defendant DATE: 6112. /0?, 4Z'y Amber L. Southard, Paralegal j„ .aC„e -" .9 co PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNT: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC., Plaintiff, V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED 1. State matter to be'argued (i.e. Plaintiff's motion for new trial, Defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendant's Preliminary Objections 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: a. For Plaintiffs: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Address: 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 b. For Defendants: Steven Howell, Esquire Address: 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: September 3, 2008 Elizabeth J. aylor, Esquire Attorney for PC-TroniX, Inc. Dated: August 11, 2008 _, _ a, s LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 3800 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 591-1755 Attorney for PC-TroniX, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC., CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM vi. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, . Defendant TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Mail addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Attorney for Defendant jym'144' S'? jvm 4d Amber L. Southard, Paralegal Date: August 11, 2008 C N cm -- FT) w PC-TRONIX, INC. V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2008 - 0815 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY, P.J., GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 9TH day of SEPTEMBER, 2008, Defendant's Preliminary Objections to the Second Amended Complaint are OVERRULED. Defendant is directed to file and answer within twenty (20) days. Edward E. Guido, J. Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire 'Steven Howell, Esquire :sld n f. Co 9 IAI v?v9 3 tl?q? i I: PC-TRONIX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 08 - 815 CIVIL TERM PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP INC., CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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 IMPORTANT RIGHTS. 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 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 By: Ho 1 Law Firm Bridge Street 'New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 Supreme Court ID 62063 PC-TRONIX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 08 - 815 CIVIL TERM PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP : INC., CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT To: PC - Tronix, Inc., c/o Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Suite 100, 5006 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Notice to Plead YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. ADMITTED. 2. ADMITTED. 3. DENIED AS STATED. While it is ADMITTED that the parties conducted business together in 2004 it is DENIED that any charges prior to those identified on a Dell Server Proposal dated December 17, 2006 are at issue in this litigation. 4. DENIED AS STATED. While it is ADMITTED that the parties conducted business starting September 8, 2006 it is DENIED that any charges prior to those identified on a Dell Server Proposal dated December 17, 2006 are at issue in this litigation. 5. DENIED AS STATED. While it is ADMITTED that the parties conducted business starting September 8, 2006 it is DENIED that any charges prior to those identified on a Dell Server Proposal dated December 17, 2006 are at issue in this litigation. 6. DENIED AS STATED. While it is ADMITTED that the parties conducted business starting September 8, 2006 it is DENIED that any charges prior to those identified on a Dell Server Proposal dated December 17, 2006 are at issue in this litigation. 7. ADMITTED that the Defendant has refused to pay for all of the services set forth on an invoice dated January 24, 2008 and attached to the Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit "A". Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 8. ADMITTED that the parties entered into a contract on or about December 17, 2008 for the provision of the items and services set forth on Exhibit "B" for $13,537.20 and that Defendant paid a down payment of $6,487.20 on or about December 18, 2006. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 9. ADMITTED that the Defendant paid the down payment required under the proposal in the amount of $6,487.20. 10. DENIED. Defendant did not agree to all of the charges set forth on Exhibit "A" (January 24, 2008 Statement) in multiple oral agreements. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 11. DENIED. Defendant did not agree to all of the charges set forth on Exhibit "A" (January 24, 2008 Statement) in multiple oral agreements. Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff successfully performed all of the charges set forth on Exhibit "A" (January 24, 2008 Statement). Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 12. ADMITTED. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 13. ADMITTED that Defendant has not paid all of the amounts set forth on Exhibit "A" (January 24, 2008 Statement). Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 14. DENIED. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. COUNT I - Breach of Contract 15. DENIED AS STATED. No answer required. If an answer were required Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶14 as though fully set forth. 16. ADMITTED. 17. DENIED AS STATED. If the Plaintiff had fully performed its obligation then the value of said services would be Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven Dollars and Twenty Cents ($13,537.20). Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 18. ADMITTED. 19. DENIED. Plaintiff did not perform all of the services in an appropriate manner. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 20. DENIED AS STATED. It is ADMITTED that the Defendant accepted the proposal for $13,537.20. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 21. DENIED AS STATED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff is owed $7,050.00. Plaintiff did not perform all of the services in an appropriate manner. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Count I and award judgment in favor of the Defendant. COUNT II - Unjust Enrichment 22. DENIED AS STATED. No answer required. If an answer were required Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶21 as though fully set forth. 23. ADMITTED that the parties entered into a contract for the provision of goods and services set forth in Exhibit "B". 24. DENIED AS STATED. Exhibit "B" speaks for itself and Plaintiff's characterization is hereby DENIED. 25. DENIED. Exhibit "B" states: "Work performed outside the scope of this proposal will be billed accordingly. We do not expect payment for labor until after completion of work and your satisfaction is reached." 26. ADMITTED. 27. ADMITTED only that the number 8834 appears on Exhibit "A". By way of further explanation Defendant is without sufficient information to ascertain how Plaintiff calculated the sum of $16,474.70 for "Invoice #8834". Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 28. DENIED AS STATED. It is ADMITTED only that the number 8834 appears on Exhibit "A". By way of further explanation Defendant is without sufficient information to ascertain how Plaintiff calculated the sum of $16,474.70 for "Invoice #8834". Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 29. DENIED AS STATED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner or that the Defendant was unjustly enriched in the amount of $12,169.50. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 30. DENIED AS STATED. It is ADMITTED only that the number 8834 appears on Exhibit "A". By way of further explanation Defendant is without sufficient information to ascertain how Plaintiff calculated the sum of $16,474.70 for "Invoice #8834". Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 31. DENIED AS STATED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner or that the Defendant was unjustly enriched in the amount of $12,169.50. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 32. DENIED AS STATED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner or that the Defendant was unjustly enriched in the amount of $12,169.50. It is further DENIED that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to provide such services or that it permitted the Plaintiff to complete the services at its expense. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 33. DENIED AS STATED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner or that the Defendant was unjustly enriched in the amount of $12,169.50. It is further DENIED that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to provide such services or that it permitted the Plaintiff to complete the services at its expense. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 34. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 35. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 36. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 37. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 38. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 39. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Count II and award judgment in favor of the Defendant. COUNT III - Unjust Enrichment 40. DENIED AS STATED. No answer required. If an answer were required Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶39 as though fully set forth. 41. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count I. 42. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count I. 43. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count I. 44. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count I. 45. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count I. 46. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count 1. 47. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count I. 48. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count I. 49. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count I. 50. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count 1. 51. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count I. 52. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count I. 53. DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count I. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Count III and award judgment in favor of the Defendant. COUNT IV - Account Stated 54. DENIED AS STATED. No answer required. If an answer were required Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶53 as though fully set forth. 55. DENIED. Plaintiff rarely sent regular invoices. 56. DENIED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner. It is further DENIED that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to provide all such services or that it permitted the Plaintiff to complete the services at its expense. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 57. ADMITTED. By way of further explanation, Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter. 58. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 59. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Count IV and award judgment in favor of the Defendant. NEW MATTER 60. Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice #8822 for $2,930.00. 61. Plaintiff's charges of $2,930.00 on Invoice #8822 are not appropriate because it misdiagnosed the technical issue and spent an inordinate amount of time in an attempt to repair the server only to recommend replacing the entire network server. Defendant, therefore, does not agree to pay $2,930.00 of Invoice #8822. 62. Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice #8823 for $3,040.00. Once again, Plaintiff misdiagnosed the technical issue and spent an inordinate amount of time in an attempt to repair the server only to recommend replacing the entire network server. Defendant, therefore, does not agree to pay $3,040.00 of Invoice #8823. 63. Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice #8835 for $250.00. Plaintiff did not provide Invoice #8835 at any time prior to the filing of the present civil action. 64. Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice #9575 for $343.75. This invoice was supposed to be charged to the Department of Veterans Affairs but it appears as a duplicate charge in Invoice #9708. 65. Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice #9708 for $343.75. This invoice was supposed to be charged to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 66. Plaintiff has overcharged Defendant as set forth in ¶60 - ¶64 by $6,907.50 67. Plaintiff did not provide regular invoices. For example, Invoice #9049 is dated 2/28/07 but is e-mailed on 5/11/07. Invoice 8985 is dated 1/31/07 but is e-mailed on 3/22/07. 68. Plaintiff attempted to process charges through an American Express charge account despite being told that the charges would no longer be authorized by Defendant. 69. Plaintiff attempted to charge for alleged services and goods on 11/1/07, 12/1/07, 1/1/08, 1/11/08. 70. Plaintiff attempts to double charge for items. 71. Exhibit "B" of the Second Amended Complaint has a line item charge of $1,100.00 for "80/160 GB External Tape Drive". 72. Plaintiff lists the exact same charge on Invoice 8834 as Exhibit "B". 73. Exhibit "B" of the Second Amended Complaint has a line item charge of $400.00 for "backup tapes". 74. Plaintiff lists the exact same charge on Invoice 8834 as Exhibit "B". 75. Invoice 9049 seeking a charge of $62.50 concerns services never performed at the Defendant's place of business or at its direction. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and award judgment in favor of the Defendant. COUNTERCLAIM - Breach of Contract 76. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant disconnected all e-mail and web hosting services on October 4, 2007 without notice. 77. Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff was compelled to obtain the services of another provider of e-mail and web hosting on October 4, 2007 at the cost of $267.50. WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiff PA Office Service Group demands judgment in its favor in the amount of $267.50 plus court costs and any other appropriate damages. Respectfully submitted, By: Wowell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Supreme Court ID 62063 (717) 770-1277 Attorney for Defendant PA Office Service Group, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Suite 100 5006 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 BY Date: September 26, 2008 oEoep. tD, iuvo.: L: jirlvt77701278 HOWELL LAW FIRM No. b W Fr. J 02/03 Verification I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authoddos. I veft ftt I am the President of the P.A, Office Service (Troup Inc. acid that I am authorized to execute this documeBY. Data: c° c:a .I rT-i _TJ 3 ri LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjdaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC., Plaintiff V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC., Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT To: PA Office Service Group, Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street Inc., c/o Steven Howell, Esquire New Cumberland, PA 17070 NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY OBJECTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Defendant filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs original, first amended, and second amended complaints. 2. Defendant's brief, in summary, argued that Plaintiff could not aver both Count I (Breach of Contract) and Count III (Unjust Enrichment). 3. Plaintiffs brief, in summary, argued that Plaintiff set forth all the elements for each cause of action and was permitted to plead in the alternative. 4. On September 3, 2008, Counsel for Defendant and Plaintiff appeared in argument court before the Honorable Judge Bayley and the Honorable Judge Guido. 5. On September 9, 2008, the Honorable Judge Guido entered an Order overruling Defendant's Preliminary Objections and directing Defendant to file an answer within twenty (20) days ("Order"). A true and correct copy of said Order is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. FAILURE OF A PLEADING TO CONFORM TO LAW OR RULE OF COURT OR INCLUSION OF SCANDALOUS OR IMPERTINENT MATTER AND NOW, COMES Plaintiff, PC-Tronix, Inc. (`Plaintiff') by and through its attorneys, the Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., makes the following preliminary objections to Defendant PA Office Service Group, Inc.'s, ("Defendant") Answer With New Matter And Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint, and pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) avers as follows: 1. A pleading may be dismissed if it fails to conform to law or rule of court or inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter. See Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). 2. In Count III of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff avers facts which set forth a cause of action for unjust enrichment. 3. Defendant, despite Order of Court responded to each and every substantive averment in Count III Unjust Enrichment (Paragraphs 41 through 53) as follows: "DENIED. To the extent services and goods are set forth on Exhibit "B" (Proposal Dated December 17, 2006) constitute a contract and/or express agreement, Plaintiff is precluded from seeking a dual recovery under a theory of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It is DENIED that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under any theory of unjust enrichment as outlined in Count III which simply seeks the same sum set forth in Count 1.11 Wherefore the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant the following relief: 1. Within twenty (20) days Defendant shall file an Answer, which conforms to the Rules of Civil Procedures, to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint; 2. Within twenty (20) days Defendant shall remit attorneys fees to Plaintiff; and 3. Any other relief that the Honorable Court finds appropriate. Respectfully submitted, LAW OF ES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P. C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 200139 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 EXHIBIT A PC-TRONIX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, NO. 2008 - 0815 CIVIL TERM INC. IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY, P.J., GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 9TH day of SEPTEMBER, 2008, Defendant's Preliminary Objections to the Second Amended Complaint are OVERRULED. Defendant is directed to file and answer within twenty (20) days. Edward E. Guido, J. Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Steven Howell, Esquire :sld r = Cot- r^ of My i 1 Irv CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections to Defendant's Answer to Second Amended Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Mail addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Attorney for Defendant DATE: I C )l (1108 -gnl? & IL&12dd Amber L. Southard, Paralegal ?' c? c? ?' `n <;, . ?.., ;, o ---+ -? _ `? fi' ' ? ? ?r.,j : r J??S _ . -i ,. ?? „? PC-TRONIX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 08 - 815 CIVIL TERM PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP INC., CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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 IMPORTANT RIGHTS. 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 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 By: klbwell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 Supreme Court ID 62063 PC-TRONIX, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 08 - 815 CIVIL TERM PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP INC., CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT To: PC - Tronix, Inc., c/o Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Suite 100, 5006 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Notice to Plead YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. ADMITTED. 2. ADMITTED. 3. DENIED AS STATED. While it is ADMITTED that the parties conducted business together in 2004 it is DENIED that any charges prior to those identified on a Dell Server Proposal dated December 17, 2006 are at issue in this litigation. 4. DENIED AS STATED. While it is ADMITTED that the parties conducted business starting September 8, 2006 it is DENIED that any charges prior to those identified on a Dell Server Proposal dated December 17, 2006 are at issue in this litigation. 5. DENIED AS STATED. While it is ADMITTED that the parties conducted business starting September 8, 2006 it is DENIED that any charges prior to those identified on a Dell Server Proposal dated December 17, 2006 are at issue in this litigation. 6. DENIED AS STATED. While it is ADMITTED that the parties conducted business starting September 8, 2006 it is DENIED that any charges prior to those identified on a Dell Server Proposal dated December 17, 2006 are at issue in this litigation. 7. ADMITTED that the Defendant has refused to pay for all of the services set forth on an invoice dated January 24, 2008 and attached to the Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit "A". Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 8. ADMITTED that the parties entered into a contract on or about December 17, 2006 for the provision of the items and services set forth on Exhibit "B" for $13,537.20 and that Defendant paid a down payment of $6,487.20 on or about December 18, 2006. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 9. ADMITTED that the Defendant paid the down payment required under the proposal in the amount of $6,487.20. 10. DENIED. Defendant did not agree to all of the charges set forth on Exhibit "A" (January 24, 2008 Statement) in multiple oral agreements. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 11. DENIED. Defendant did not agree to all of the charges set forth on Exhibit "A" (January 24, 2008 Statement) in multiple oral agreements. Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff successfully performed all of the charges set forth on Exhibit "A" (January 24, 2008 Statement). Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 12. ADMITTED. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 13. ADMITTED that Defendant has not paid all of the amounts set forth on Exhibit "A" (January 24, 2008 Statement). Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 14. DENIED. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. COUNT I - Breach of Contract 15. DENIED AS STATED. No answer required. If an answer were required Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶14 as though fully set forth. 16. ADMITTED. 17. DENIED AS STATED. If the Plaintiff had fully performed its obligation then the value of said services would be Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven Dollars and Twenty Cents ($13,537.20). Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 18. ADMITTED. 19. DENIED. Plaintiff did not perform all of the services in an appropriate manner. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 20. DENIED AS STATED. It is ADMITTED that the Defendant accepted the proposal for $13,537.20. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 21. DENIED AS STATED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff is owed $7,050.00. Plaintiff did not perform all of the services in an appropriate manner. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Count I and award judgment in favor of the Defendant. COUNT II - Unjust Enrichment 22. DENIED AS STATED. No answer required. If an answer were required Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶21 as though fully set forth. 23. ADMITTED that the parties entered into a contract for the provision of goods and services set forth in Exhibit "B". 24. DENIED AS STATED. Exhibit "B" speaks for itself and Plaintiff's characterization is hereby DENIED. 25. DENIED. Exhibit "B" states: "Work performed outside the scope of this proposal will be billed accordingly. We do not expect payment for labor until after completion of work and your satisfaction is reached." 26. ADMITTED. 27. ADMITTED only that the number 8834 appears on Exhibit "A". By way of further explanation Defendant is without sufficient information to ascertain how Plaintiff calculated the sum of $16,474.70 for "Invoice #8834". Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 28. DENIED AS STATED. It is ADMITTED only that the number 8834 appears on Exhibit "A". By way of further explanation Defendant is without sufficient information to ascertain how Plaintiff calculated the sum of $16,474.70 for "Invoice 48834". Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 29. DENIED AS STATED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner or that the Defendant was unjustly enriched in the amount of $12,169.50. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 30. DENIED AS STATED. It is ADMITTED only that the number 8834 appears on Exhibit "A". By way of further explanation Defendant is without sufficient information to ascertain how Plaintiff calculated the sum of $16,474.70 for "Invoice #8834". Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 31. DENIED AS STATED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner or that the Defendant was unjustly enriched in the amount of $12,169.50. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 32. DENIED AS STATED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner or that the Defendant was unjustly enriched in the amount of $12,169.50. It is further DENIED that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to provide such services or that it permitted the Plaintiff to complete the services at its expense. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 33. DENIED AS STATED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner or that the Defendant was unjustly enriched in the amount of $12,169.50. It is further DENIED that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to provide such services or that it permitted the Plaintiff to complete the services at its expense. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 34. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 35. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 36. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 37. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 38. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 39. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Count II and award judgment in favor of the Defendant. COUNT III - Unjust Enrichment 40. DENIED AS STATED. No answer required. If an answer were required Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶39 as though fully set forth. 41. It is expressly ADMITTED that the parties entered into a contract for the provision of goods and services set forth in Exhibit "B". It is expressly DENIED that the Defendant was unjustly enriched for the reasons set forth in response to ¶1 - ¶39 above and in Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim. Paragraph 41 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 42. DENIED. Defendant admits as set forth in ¶1 - ¶39 that certain goods and services were provided by the Plaintiff. It is expressly DENIED that Defendant received a benefit worth $7,500.00 for the reasons set forth in its New Matter and Counterclaim. Defendant incorporates by reference its response in ¶15 - ¶21 and its New Matter and Counterclaim as though fully set forth. 43. DENIED AS STATED. It is expressly ADMITTED that Plaintiff was permitted to work under the proposal attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit "B". It is expressly DENIED for the reasons set forth in Defendant's response to ¶15 - T21 and its New Matter and Counterclaim that Plaintiff is entitled to the $7,500.00 sought in Count III as an alternative Count to Count 1. 44. DENIED AS STATED. It is expressly ADMITTED that Plaintiff was permitted to work under the proposal attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit "B". It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiff provided computer services to the Defendant. It is DENIED that the Defendant accepted the benefit of the services since some of the services were not performed in a professional manner. It is ADMITTED that the Defendant made payments as set forth above towards the contract attached as Exhibit "B" to the Amended Complaint. It is expressly DENIED for the reasons set forth in Defendant's response to ¶15 - ¶21 and its New Matter and Counterclaim that Plaintiff is entitled to the $7,500.00 sought in Count III as an alternative Count to Count I. 45. DENIED AS STATED. It is expressly DENIED that the Defendant "induced" the Plaintiff to do anything referenced in Count 111. It is ADMITTED that the parties entered into a contract attached as Exhibit "B" to the Amended Complaint. It is expressly DENIED for the reasons set forth in Defendant's response to ¶15 - T21 and its New Matter and Counterclaim that Plaintiff is entitled to the $7,500.00 sought in Count III as an alternative Count to Count 1. It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiff performed some of the services but not all of the services in a professional manner. 46. DENIED AS STATED. It is expressly DENIED that the Defendant "watched as Plaintiff completed" the contract. It is ADMITTED that the parties entered into a contract attached as Exhibit "B" to the Amended Complaint. It is expressly DENIED for the reasons set forth in Defendant's response to ¶15 - ¶21 and its New Matter and Counterclaim that Plaintiff is entitled to the $7,500.00 sought in Count III as an alternative Count to Count 1. Plaintiff's failures to perform under the contract were made known to it by the Defendant during the course of the work or soon after. It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiff performed some of the services but not all of the services in a professional manner. 47. DENIED AS STATED. It is expressly DENIED that the Defendant "watched as Plaintiff completed" the contract. It is ADMITTED that the parties entered into a contract attached as Exhibit "B" to the Amended Complaint. It is expressly DENIED for the reasons set forth in Defendant's response to ¶15 - ¶21 and its New Matter and Counterclaim that Plaintiff is entitled to the $7,500.00 sought in Count III as an alternative Count to Count I. Plaintiff's failures to perform under the contract were made known to it by the Defendant during the course of the work or soon after. It is expressly DENIED that the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff that its failure to perform would affect its compensation due under the contract. It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiff performed some of the services but not all of the services in a professional manner. 48. DENIED. Plaintiff was permitted to work under the proposal attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit "B". It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiff provided computer services to the Defendant. It is DENIED that the Defendant accepted the benefit of the services since some of the services were not performed in a professional manner. It is ADMITTED that the Defendant made payments as set forth above towards the contract attached as Exhibit "B" to the Amended Complaint. It is expressly DENIED for the reasons set forth in Defendant's response to 115 - ¶21 and its New Matter and Counterclaim that Plaintiff is entitled to the $7,050.00 sought in Count III as an alternative Count to Count I or that the total value of services was worth $13,537.20. 49. ADMITTED that the Defendant paid the down payment required under the proposal in the amount of $6,487.20. 50. ADMITTED that Defendant has not paid the $7,050.00 sought in Count III. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. It is expressly DENIED that the Plaintiff is owed $7,050.00 balance for the reasons set forth in Defendant's response to ¶15 - ¶21 of the Amended Complaint and its New Matter and Counterclaim. 51. DENIED AS STATED. Paragraph 51 is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. If a response were deemed necessary it is expressly DENIED that Defendant derived a benefit from the Plaintiff in the amount of $7,050.00. Defendant incorporates by reference its response to 115 - ¶21 of the Amended Complaint and its New Matter and Counterclaim. 52. DENIED AS STATED. Paragraph 52 is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. If a response were deemed necessary it is expressly DENIED that Defendant accepted the benefit of the services without fully compensating or reimbursing the Plaintiff. Defendant incorporates by reference its response to ¶15 - ¶21 of the Amended Complaint and its New Matter and Counterclaim. 53. DENIED AS STATED. Paragraph 53 is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. If a response were deemed necessary it is expressly DENIED that Defendant accepted the benefit of the services without fully compensating or reimbursing the Plaintiff or that the Defendant was unjustly enriched. Defendant incorporates by reference its response to ¶15 - ¶21 of the Amended Complaint and its New Matter and Counterclaim. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Count III and award judgment in favor of the Defendant. COUNT IV - Account Stated 54. DENIED AS STATED. No answer required. If an answer were required Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶53 as though fully set forth. 55. DENIED. Plaintiff rarely sent regular invoices. 56. DENIED. It is DENIED that the Plaintiff provided all of the services in an appropriate manner. It is further DENIED that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to provide all such services or that it permitted the Plaintiff to complete the services at its expense. Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter as though fully set forth by way of further explanation. 57. ADMITTED. By way of further explanation, Defendant incorporates by reference its New Matter. 58. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. 59. DENIED. Plaintiff was fully aware of Defendant's complaints regarding its provision of goods and services and that the Defendant did not accept that all the charges were fair, reasonable or even performed at Defendant's request. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Count IV and award judgment in favor of the Defendant. NEW MATTER 60. Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice #8822 for $2,930.00. 61. Plaintiff's charges of $2,930.00 on Invoice 48822 are not appropriate because it misdiagnosed the technical issue and spent an inordinate amount of time in an attempt to repair the server only to recommend replacing the entire network server. Defendant, therefore, does not agree to pay $2,930.00 of Invoice #8822. 62. Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice #8823 for $3,040.00. Once again, Plaintiff misdiagnosed the technical issue and spent an inordinate amount of time in an attempt to repair the server only to recommend replacing the entire network server. Defendant, therefore, does not agree to pay $3,040.00 of Invoice #8823. 63. Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice #8835 for $250.00. Plaintiff did not provide Invoice #8835 at any time prior to the filing of the present civil action. 64. Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice #9575 for $343.75. This invoice was supposed to be charged to the Department of Veterans Affairs but it appears as a duplicate charge in Invoice 49708. 65. Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice #9708 for $343.75. This invoice was supposed to be charged to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 66. Plaintiff has overcharged Defendant as set forth in ¶60 - ¶64 by $6,907.50 67. Plaintiff did not provide regular invoices. For example, Invoice #9049 is dated 2/28/07 but is e-mailed on 5/11/07. Invoice 8985 is dated 1/31/07 but is e-mailed on 3/22/07. 68. Plaintiff attempted to process charges through an American Express charge account despite being told that the charges would no longer be authorized by Defendant. 69. Plaintiff attempted to charge for alleged services and goods on 11/1/07, 12/1/07, 1/1/08, 1/11/08. 70. Plaintiff attempts to double charge for items. 71. Exhibit "B" of the Second Amended Complaint has a line item charge of $1,100.00 for "80/160 GB External Tape Drive". 72. Plaintiff lists the exact same charge on Invoice 8834 as Exhibit "B". 73. Exhibit "B" of the Second Amended Complaint has a line item charge of $400.00 for "backup tapes". 74. Plaintiff lists the exact same charge on Invoice 8834 as Exhibit "B". 75. Invoice 9049 seeking a charge of $62.50 concerns services never performed at the Defendant's place of business or at its direction. 76. Plaintiff is precluded from a double recovery under a breach of contract claim in Count I and unjust enrichment claim in Count III which seek recovery of the same damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and award judgment in favor of the Defendant. COUNTERCLAIM - Breach of Contract 77. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant disconnected all e-mail and web hosting services on October 4, 2007 without notice. 78. Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff was compelled to obtain the services of another provider of e-mail and web hosting on October 4, 2007 at the cost of $267.50. WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiff PA Office Service Group demands judgment in its favor in the amount of $267.50 plus court costs and any other appropriate damages. Respectfully submitted, By: owell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Supreme Court ID 62063 (717) 770-1277 Attorney for Defendant PA Office Service Group, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire (Via Fax and US Mail) Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Suite 100 5006 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 B's Date: October 20, 2008 ct, 20. 2008' 11 08AM`iZ?°? Ho-?i?ptI "'N y.6340P1. 1 .. .?_?. .. ...? -„y,•...•?,..nw,+,>...,fi: ?-•:u,.,....?.?-?••..:,.:.?-,k'?i +,N„r.,.:,;._Zr.. 'LA:w•, ...?.?_...q>.•.na n5•fS':. .??:. .:.y.- n+,r.r.r:,?,..gq.rr.?w?'4wM n,.w.?.'.. .. ..,,:. ;.,./, + , . ,... ,, ,. ? .., ,.• ..;,• t.,..... c:. ... ...k.:: >i.ti ,. ?: ? .:i?a•:: dry .., . ... Ma...4w •. •..lp••. i:, ?;. .:;r:%. "•'-?i tik?'??'3:, Y`` =.i., ?,?..:ya??.+^Di'?m `tf?.%;?:.'g(',.+, ,tpi4s?.ri:.? rti,W `:'.` }tc1?,?,; ?: ?:1,?Sti`y.'•:r•<.a: .•Sitiyi:?::°3t:•• `??%? "ql'7 A: •y •q` i:l?: ?M ?ir,?.. 9,yn .:fc; : 14? K .+,?fi,??H .k N",'.• ?'?` -; 5...Ni t . t ;•X>•'tr• „u•, .r1•.+K, :. :7r.. a+f ;•?.. ? ,a'?d,?:--' ,R ,/ '?%i2?..+' -..i a f .izirv?;ae?:aruvi"?;±? r .`'WAR ,+inga.,?rtu:FiY% +cxqr:Iti?n"Ms`rt?.'3,;a`:'Y3wC?!R1 &"i=¢+n:Ck`+?:. :.+?h<i5ro?,., . •:q y' ,/" . ?.d,•. ",;^^ •r.3 ?,?+rJ,'.• .'frtia;.-Y d.'$F:?:7rf3+7;•, 'r,sv, ?:aiGilrhi,,'?rdJR •M.°/dAG?"e'Cs,•-r ,.y,".,.,lr y???????? 1?. ^.•w,!!+"r..?.:y?r nr- '1 .....• Pya^.?'Fa w: ?.. I. - 7w, tl r w ?t. ,k3K? , /, S ' `? ?a fi`;.•.•? 1.-- .r:, a7 p F4n `? WHfi`ca ¦b"i ; icveri "? that t11ei statelilents? xriade in tt e fore otni docitmez1ti are tiuc mid. o xrec :i ndeirstand t a false statGrioects h6re'in arvmade.$i b•eotto-the ieiaald of 18'Pa: -..Sectiona904`relating'6uzaswoffi-i fajsificati016 u io'ities:.!I vert y'?kiMl0.4 c{l.;`?tiie• •... .. ' .? _ ' President ofthe PA Office Service Group dire, and that I am authorized to execute this document. ay Ti 1, President PA Office Service Group Inc, Date: t ? ? °i ? - ? ?+ -ri ....'? _ 1 ? .. .1,..,.> 11 . , '..... ..) `: X i '?°` ., ? ?Z - 1 ? ? ? i // L., ? j 1'?.?, r ? ..+? .. «....+ (.l? ..[ t ?. ? O LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjrlaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC., Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC., Defendant TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE WITH NEW MATTER TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT To: PA Office Service Group, Inc., c/o Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY OBJECTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER 60. Denied. Plaintiff denies that Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice No. 8822 for $2,930.00. 61. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff's charges of $2,930.00 in Invoice No. 8822 are not appropriate because Plaintiff misdiagnosed the technical issue and spent an inordinate amount of time in an attempt to repair the server only to recommend replacing the entire network server. By way of further response, Plaintiff correctly diagnosed the data corruption problem approximately six (6) weeks previous to the services that were provided on the weekend of December 16, 2006 and reflected in Invoice No. 8822. Despite Plaintiff's recommendation, Defendant failed to grant Plaintiff permission to immediately act. As a result, the data corruption increased and caused more damage to the operating system. At the request of Defendant, Plaintiff spent multiple hours attempting to recover Defendant's Data and re-install Defendant's operating system. While Plaintiff was successful in recovering Defendant's data, due to the amount of corruption recovery of Defendant's operating system was unsuccessful. 62. Denied. It is denied that Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on Invoice No. 8823 for $3,040.00. It is further denied that Plaintiff misdiagnosed the technical issue and spent an inordinate amount of time in an attempt to repair the server only to recommend replacing the entire network server. By way of further response, Plaintiff incorporates its answer to Paragraph 61 as though fully set forth herein. If the computer services set forth on Invoice No. 8823 had not been provided Defendant's system would have been down during the delayed period until the new server was received and installed. 2 63. Denied. It is denied that Defendant did not authorize any work set forth in Invoice No. 8835 for $250.00. It is further denied that Plaintiff did not provide Invoice No. 8835 at any time prior to the filing of the present civil action. 64. Admitted in part, and denied in part. Plaintiff admits that Invoice No. 9575 is a duplicate of Invoice No. 9708 and as a result, Invoice No. 9575 has been overwritten and no longer exists in regards to Defendant. It is denied that the services set forth in Invoice No. 9708 were not authorized by Defendant. It is denied that the invoice was supposed to be charged to the Department of Veterans Affairs. By way of further response, Plaintiff was made aware that an outside entity was purchasing Defendant a lap top and printer. Plaintiff was never informed by Defendant that the outside entity would further cover the costs of labor regarding the installation of the lap top and printer, and therefore the invoice for said services were charged to Defendant and remained unchallenged by Defendant until Plaintiff's receipt of Defendant's New Matter. 65. Denied. Plaintiff denies that Defendant did not authorize any work set forth on invoice #9708 for $343.75. By way of further response, Plaintiff incorporates by reference Plaintiff's response to Paragraph 64 above, as though fully set forth herein. 66. Denied. The averment set forth in Paragraph 66 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 67. Denied. Plaintiff provided invoices and/or statements reflective of the ongoing services rendered by Plaintiff to Defendant beginning in or about November of 2004 and ending in or about January of 2008. 68. Admitted in part, and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff attempted to process charges through American Express charge account. It is denied that Plaintiff's attempts to do so were unauthorized. By way of further response, Defendant entered into a written agreement with Plaintiff authorizing Plaintiff to automatically charge said credit card on a monthly basis beginning on May 1, 2007, and ending upon Defendant providing written cancellation. Plaintiff has never received written cancellation from Defendant. 69. Plaintiff, after investigation, is without sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny as it is unable to decipher as to what services and/or goods Defendant is referencing in the averment. 70. Denied. The averment set forth in Paragraph 70 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiff denies that it attempts to double charge for items. 71. Denied. The averment set forth in Paragraph 71 references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. By way of further response, Exhibit "B" is a Dell Server Proposal regarding Invoice No. 8834. 72. Denied. The averment set forth in Paragraph 72 references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. By way of further response, Exhibit "B" is a Dell Server Proposal regarding Invoice No. 8834. 73. Denied. The averment set forth in Paragraph 73 references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly 4 denied. By way of further response, Exhibit "B" is a Dell Server Proposal regarding Invoice No. 8834. 74. Denied. The averment set forth in Paragraph 74 references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. By way of further response, Exhibit "B" is a Dell Server Proposal regarding Invoice No. 8834. 75. Denied. It is denied that Invoice No. 9049 seeking a charge of $62.50 concerns services never performed at the Defendant's place of business or at its direction. By way of further response, the invoices are reflective of ongoing services that were provided and billed for on a regular basis from June of 2006 until March of 2007 for which Defendant rendered payment for until February of 2007. 76. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 76 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Plaintiff denies all other allegations in Paragraphs 60 through 76 of Defendant's New Matter that are not specifically admitted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendant's New Matter and award judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM -BREACH OF CONTRACT 77. Denied. Plaintiff denies that it disconnected all e-mail and web hosting services on October 4, 2007 without notice. 78. Plaintiff, after investigation, is without sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny. 5 79. Plaintiff denies all other allegations in Paragraphs 77 through 78 of Defendant's Counterclaim -- Breach of Contract that are not specifically admitted. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER 80. Plaintiff incorporates its foregoing answer in Paragraphs 60 through 79 by reference. 81. Defendant has failed to set a claim upon which relief may be granted. 82. Defendant has failed to join an indispensable party. 83. Defendant has failed to mitigate its damages, if any. 84. Defendant's claim for recoverable damages is contrary to the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 85. Defendant may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 86. Defendant may be barred in whole or in part by the principle of res judicata. 87. Defendant's cause(s) of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Statute of Frauds. 88. Defendant's cause(s) of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Parol Evidence Rule. 89. Defendant's claim(s) may be barred by the doctrine of estoppel, waiver and/or laches. 6 90. Defendant's claim(s) may be barred by the Principles of Accord and Satisfaction. 91. Defendant's claim(s) may be barred by the doctrine of payment/release. 92. Defendant's claim(s) may be barred in whole or in party by the doctrine of economic loss. 93. Defendant voluntarily assumed the risk of the facts set forth in its pleadings and accordingly its claim(s) is barred. 94. Defendant's claim(s) may be barred and limited by the doctrines of contributory negligence, comparative negligence and/or assumption of the risk. 95. No conduct of the Plaintiff or its agent(s) resulted in or is the proximate cause of any injury or damage sustained by the Defendant. 96. Any injuries and/or damages claimed by the Defendant, if proven, were caused by persons other than Plaintiff and not within the control of Plaintiff. 97. At all material times hereto Plaintiff acted reasonably, appropriately and caused no injuries or damage to Defendant. 98. Any harm suffered by the Defendant arose out of its own non- performance of the essential obligations. 99. If the Defendant sustained damages alleged in its pleadings, which damages are strictly denied, then the damages were caused by the acts or omissions of entities or individuals over which Plaintiff had no control, or legal duty to control. 7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 200139 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 8 VERIFICATION I, Robe-v? X/9,??tq verify that the statements made in the forgoing document are true and correct, and that I am authorized to execute this verification on behalf of PCtronix, Inc. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: l1? D ICQV-U? -?f2(ld Print Title: Praj61et7 `?7 P",/- - Sign ture 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Plaintiff's Response with New Matter to Defendant's Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Mail addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Attorney for Defendant DATE: , I 1 os I I Amber L. Southard Paralegal 10 ;fl L__ _ woc„? ?_.... _, r , _- ,,..... PC-TRONIX, INC. PLAINTIFF VS. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP INC., DEFENDANT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08 - 815 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER 79. DENIED AS STATED. No answer required. If an answer were required Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶l - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 80. DENIED AS STATED. No answer required. If an answer were required Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶I - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 81. DENIED. Paragraph 81 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required the Counterclaim and New Matter set forth claims upon which relief may be granted. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 82. DENIED. Paragraph 82 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant has failed to join an indispensable party. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶I - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 83. DENIED. Paragraph 83 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant has failed to mitigate its damages. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in $1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 84. DENIED. Paragraph 84 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant has failed to plead recoverable damages under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 85. DENIED. Paragraph 85 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's claims are barred in whole or in part by any Statute of Limitations. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 86. DENIED. Paragraph 86 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's claims are barred in whole or in part by the principles of res judicata. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶l - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 87. DENIED. Paragraph 87 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's claims are barred in whole or in part by the Statute of Frauds. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶l - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 88. DENIED. Paragraph 88 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's claims are barred in whole or in part by the Parol Evidence Rule. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶l - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 89. DENIED. Paragraph 89 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel, waiver and/or laches. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 90. DENIED. Paragraph 90 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's claims are barred in whole or in part by the principle of accord and satisfaction. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 91. DENIED. Paragraph 91 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of payment/release. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 92. DENIED. Paragraph 92 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of economic loss. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶I - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 93. DENIED. Paragraph 93 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's claims are barred in whole or in part by any assumption of risk. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 94. DENIED. Paragraph 94 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of contributory negligence, comparative negligence and/or assumption of the risk. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 95. DENIED. Paragraph 95 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Plaintiff and/or its agents did not cause the damage for which a claim has been made. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 96. DENIED. Paragraph 96 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Plaintiff and/or its agents did not cause the damage for which a claim has been made. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶I - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 97. DENIED. Paragraph 97 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Plaintiff acted reasonably, appropriately and did not cause the damage for which recovery is sought by Defendant. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - T78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 98. DENIED. Paragraph 98 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's damages were caused by its failure to perform essential obligations. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. 99. DENIED. Paragraph 99 contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response were required it is specifically DENIED that Defendant's damages were caused by its failure to perform essential obligations or by entities or individuals over which the Defendant had control. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses in ¶1 - ¶78 of its Amended Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Second Amended Complaint as though fully set forth. WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiff PA Office Service Group demands judgment in its favor in the amount of $267.50 plus court costs and any other appropriate damages. Respectfully submitted, By: Ste n HoAell, Lrsq?7ire well Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Supreme Court ID 62063 (717) 770-1277 Attorney for Defendant PA Office Service Group, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire (Via US Mail) Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Suite 100 5006 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 BY: Date: NovemberZ q, 2008 11/20/2008 09:36 7177701278 HOWELL LAW FIRM PAGE 02/18 Verification I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I verify that I am the President of the PA Office Service Group Inc. and that I am authorized to execute this document. BY: • ?'"?"' Linda Till, resident PA Office Service Group inc. Date: r- _ c::a ? .) _ .a ?-i _ few. ,'?. ?5 ?.. '... ,..r..?^ r"v ? Y+ i S'?J ?, y LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjrlaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC., Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC., Defendant NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire, counsel for the plaintiff in the above action, respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $19,219.50 plus interest, costs of suit, attorneys' fees and any other appropriate damages. The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is $267.50 plus court costs and any other appropriate damages. The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire, Peter J. Russo, Esquire, and Steven Howell, Esquire. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, The Law Fi s of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72897 ,'?oElizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 200139 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC., CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff N. NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC., Defendant TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: Regular US Mail and addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Attorney for Defendant Date: Amber L. Southard, Paralegal S?? o ..o ? b p Tt a c o `AJ r L? 0. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC., CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff V. NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC., Defendant TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, a 200q , in consideration of the foregoing petition, Esq., and Esq., andj6LhjjV Oaja,?' Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action (or actions) as prayed for. By (hip Cou --'C''P`.. if Edgar B. Bayley, J. Dis ribution List: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Counsel for Plaintiff ?Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Counsel for Defendant COPIIES' YrLc7AL?CL CWI) I LL f ti? C% j y LL C) Q N C7 IL LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindie Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjdaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC TRONIX, INC. Plaintiff, V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED TO: CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT PRAECIPE FOR DISCONTINUANCE Kindly discontinue the above captioned Civil Action and mark as Settled with Prejudice. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire <Attorney I.D. No. 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 200139 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 ?.J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PC-TRONIX, INC. CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, NO. 08-815 CIVIL TERM V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC, Defendant. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Praecipe for Discontinuance upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: Hand Delivery to: Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Attorney for Defendant DATE: 5151 on lmQu d Amber L. Southard, Paralegal 2 r_' t =r r?-? PC-TRONIX, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PA OFFICE SERVICE GROUP, INC., DEFENDANT : 08-0815 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of March, 2009, the appointment of a Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case, IS VACATED. John H. Broujos, Esquire, Chairman, shall be paid the sum of $50.00. ?John H. Broujos, Esquire Court Administrator - P LUcU? i;J RL :sal L ozf 14S ftia t 3/a.4c)l 2 C` Cl- `-r CI rs ? ?° u? OC.C o ° c?a cv