Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-1113KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID 92207 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 sbkope@kopelaw.com ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI, Plaintiffs, V. CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO, INC., JOHN LAKATOSH, and MATTHEW BRYANT Defendants. Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 6A -///3 (Civil Term) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED N O T I C E TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID 92207 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 sbkope@kopelaw.com ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI, PLEAS Plaintiffs, V. Attorney for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA : NO. 09A - //13 (Civil Term) CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO, INC., : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JOHN LAKATOSH, and MATTHEW BRYANT Defendants. COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Plaintiffs, Anthony and Ruth Ranieli, by and through their attorneys, Shane B. Kope, Esq., and Kope and Associates, LLC, and files this Complaint; and in support thereof, they aver the following: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs Anthony and Ruth Ranieli (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") against Defendants Crime Intervention Alarm Co. Inc., John Lakatosh and Matthew Bryant (hereinafter referred to individually as "CIA," "Lakatosh" or "Bryant" and/or collectively as "Defendants") for damages resulting from the actions, errors and omissions of Defendants by the way of the sale and installation of an electronic residential security monitoring system, as well as services thereto, in their home at 525 Eutaw Avenue, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. PARTIES 2. Plaintiffs Anthony and Ruth Ranieli, Husband and Wife, are adult individuals residing at 525 Eutaw Avenue, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant CIA is a Pennsylvania corporation with its corporate headquarters located at 320 Loucks Plaza, York, York County, Pennsylvania. CIA is engaged in the business of selling and installing electronic and security monitoring equipment and services. 4. Defendant Lakatosh is an adult individual and President of CIA with a known address of 320 Loucks Plaza, York, York County, Pennsylvania. 5. Defendant Bryant is an adult individual residing at 337 Floral Drive, Red Lion, York County, Pennsylvania. At all relevant times hereto, Bryant was acting either individually or as an authorized agent and representative of CIA. 6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant CIA was doing business in Pennsylvania and was selling and installing residential security monitoring equipment and services, including the system provided to the Plaintiffs. 7. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant CIA was acting through its agent, broker, servants, workmen, contractors, representatives and employees who were acting within the scope of their authority, in furtherance of Defendant CIA's business and within Defendant CIA's control or right of control. Page 2 of 19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This action arises under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 9. Venue is proper in the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County under Rules 1006(b) and 2179(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, in that Defendant regularly conducts business in Cumberland County. Further, the property at issue is located in Cumberland County. FACTS 10. On or about December 3, 2005, Defendant Bryant, visited Plaintiffs' residence to provide an estimate for installing a residential security and home monitoring system. Upon his arrival, Bryant explained that he was co-owner of CIA; Bryant provided Plaintiffs a business card that clearly stated he was an employee of CIA. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of said business card. 11. After visually inspecting the home, Bryant convinced Plaintiffs that they needed a security system that included a computer monitoring system and seven (7) cameras (hereinafter "the system"). The Plaintiffs were quoted a price of $3,470.00, which included the sale, installation and warranty of said system. A deposit of $1,735.00 was required to begin installation with the balance due upon completion. 12. Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the system as proposed. Thereafter, on or about December 3, 2006, the Plaintiffs and CIA entered into a written contract for the installation of the system. As required by the contract, the Plaintiffs submitted the first Page 3 of 19 payment in the amount of $1,735.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of said Contract. 13. Thereafter, Bryant installed seven (7) cameras, a computer tower, a computer monitor, a keyboard, and a fax/printer/copier. 14. The system did work properly upon its completion. 15. On December 9, 2005, Bryant returned to adjust the cameras; at that time, he also explained that the system needed a ground wire, which he would return to install on December 11, 2005. He also requested and was provided the final payment of $1,735.00. 16. On December 11, 2005, Bryant did not return to install the ground wire. 17. On December 14, 2005, Bryant arrived to explain that an electrician by the name of Todd Kramer would come to Plaintiffs' home later that day to install the ground wire, which would be a separate charge. Thereafter, Bryant left Plaintiffs' residence on the explanation that he was gong to Home Depot to purchase the ground wire for the electrician. Bryant never returned. The electrician never showed. 18. All attempts to reach Bryant over the next two (2) days were to no avail. 19. Therefore, on December 16, 2005, Plaintiffs called Defendant CIA and spoke with Defendant Lakatosh. According to Lakatosh, Defendant Bryant was not an employee of the company and that he had no authority to sale or install the system as a representative of CIA. Thereafter, Lakatosh offered to send out a representative of CIA to assess and repair the system. Page 4 of 19 20. On December 16, 2005, a CIA representative by the name of Derek Leuw arrived at Plaintiffs' residence and visually inspected the system. He explained that all the cameras needed to be replaced. 21. On December 17, 2005, Plaintiffs called Hewlett Packard to inquire about the system. During this phone call, the Plaintiffs discovered that the equipment was severally outdated. In fact, it was discovered that the computer tower was registered to Defendant John Lakatosh's brother, Christopher Lakatosh. 22. On December 19, 2005, Defendant Lakatosh arrived at Plaintiffs' residence and explained he would need a new contract wherein Plaintiffs would agree to pay him an additional $1,500.00 to repair and/or replace the system. Upon Plaintiffs' objection, Lakatosh reduced this amount to $750.00. 23. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs and CIA entered into another written contract for the repair and/or replacement of the system. As required by the contract, the Plaintiffs submitted payment in the amount of $750.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a true and correct copy of said Contract. 24. It was later discovered that this particular contract provided a service agreement requiring Plaintiffs to pay a monthly fee of $39.00 a month for a period of twelve (12) months, which not only could be increased by %10 per year, but also automatically renewed each year for a period of five (5) years. These terms were not explained to the Plaintiffs. 25. On December 21, 2005, Defendant Lakatosh's brother, Christopher Lakatosh, arrived at Plaintiffs' residence to repair the system pursuant to the contract. Mr. Page 5 of 19 Lakatosh claimed that he did, in fact, repair the system successfully and was to collect $750.00, whereupon Plaintiffs provided him a check for this amount. No training was provided to the Plaintiffs on how to use repaired system. In addition, Christopher Lakatosh did not replace the cameras as required by the contract. 26. Immediately upon Christopher Lakatosh's departure, the cameras failed to work properly, if at all. 27. On December 24, 2005, the Plaintiffs were unable to view videos from previous days. 28. On December 25, 2005, Camera #7 of the system failed to work at all. 29. On December 26, 2005, Cameras # 1 and #5 of the system failed to work at all. 30. On December 27, 2005, the Plaintiffs called Defendant CIA to explain that the system was not working properly. A representative from CIA informed Plaintiffs that Christopher Lakatosh would arrive on December 28, 2005, to repair the system. 31. On December 28, 2005, Christopher Lakatosh arrived to repair the system. Mr. Lakatosh disabled the zooming capabilities on the videos and explained that a new program was needed. Camera # 5 was not or could not be turned back on. 32. On December 31, 2005, the system continued to work improperly. The Plaintiffs, therefore, called CIA and spoke with a representative by the name of Sean Shaffer. Mr. Shaffer explained that he could not help them and that Plaintiffs were to call Christopher Lakatosh on January 2, 2006. 33. On January 2, 2006, Christopher Lakatosh and Sean Shaffer arrived at Plaintiffs' residence unannounced. Mr. Lakatosh proceeded to tell the Plaintiffs that nothing was Page 6 of 19 wrong with the system and that all problems with the system were the result of Plaintiffs' failure to receive adequate computer training. 34. Upon the departure of Mr. Lakatosh and Mr. Shaffer, the Plaintiffs called Defendant John Lakatosh who informed them that he would come to their residence on January 3, 2006 to assess the system Defendant Lakatosh did not arrived until January 4, 2006. 35. On January 4, 2006, Defendant Lakatosh explained to Plaintiffs that the system needed a new program; he offered to contact the Plaintiffs when the when the new program became unavailable. 36. On January 10, 2006, the monitor and / or all the cameras failed to work at all. 37. On January 13, 2006, the Plaintiffs called Defendant John Lakatosh to inform him of this latest system error. On this occasion, Defendant Lakatosh not only became verbally abusive, but also hung up on Plaintiffs three (3) separate times. Eventually, the Plaintiffs managed to make an appointment with Defendant Lakatosh for January 17, 2006. 38. On January 17, 2006, a representative from CIA by the name of Derek Leuw arrived at Plaintiffs' residence in lieu of Defendant Lakatosh. Mr. Leuw updated system with no other explanation. 39. On January 17, 2006, after Mr. Leuw's departure, the system failed to work in the same manner as before Mr. Leuw's arrival. The Plaintiffs attempted to call Mr. Leuw at CIA to explain this problem, but was forced to leave a message with a CIA representative by the name of Crystal. Page 7 of 19 40. On January 18, 2006, the Plaintiffs again called CIA in an attempt to reach Mr. Leuw. It was discovered that Crystal did not give Mr. Leuw the message from the previous day. Regardless, the Plaintiffs managed to make an appointment with Mr. Leuw for January 19, 2006. 41. On January 19, 2006, Mr. Leuw arrived to discover there was several hard drive / discs failures. In addition, the screen on the computer monitor was jumping. Mr. Leuw made no efforts to fix either problem. 42. On January 23, 2006, having not heard from Defendant CIA, the Plaintiffs called CIA and spoke with Defendant Lakatosh. Defendant Lakatosh agreed to send a representative to Plaintiffs' residence on January 26, 2006. 43. On January 26, 2006, Mr. Leuw arrived and apparently fixed the system where the computer screen was no longer jumping. No explanation was provided to Plaintiffs. 44. On February 8, 2006, the Plaintiffs discovered they could not scan videos prior to February 3, 2006, which they could do when the system was first installed; per the original order, the Plaintiffs were to have the ability to view videos for a period of two (2) months prior to the current date viewed. 45. The Plaintiffs thereafter called Defendant CIA to inform it of the problem. At some point that day, the Plaintiffs spoke with Mr. Leuw who asked Plaintiffs to call him later that day, as he was on call. When the Plaintiffs called later that day as instructed, they were forced to leave a message with Crystal. 46. On February 9, 2006, having not heard back from Mr. Leuw, the Plaintiffs, again, called CIA. This time they spoke with a CIA representative by the name of Christopher Page 8 of 19 Flynn. Mr. Flynn took notes on the problems and said a representative would call them back. 47. Later on February 9, 2006, having not heard back from CIA, the Plaintiffs, again, called CIA and spoke with Mr. Leuw. Mr. Leuw stated that he would confer with Defendant Lakatosh and then call the Plaintiffs the following day. Mr. Leuw also stated that he did not receive the messages left for him with Crystal on February 8, 2006. 48. On February 10, 2006, Christopher Flynn called and informed Plaintiffs that they needed a new hard drive, which would cost $250.00. The Plaintiffs explained to Mr. Flynn that the system was to be covered by the original warranty, so they had no intention of investing any further monies into the system. The Plaintiff went on to request that the system be removed and their money returned. 49. On February 20, 2006, Defendant Lakatosh called the Plaintiffs and explained that he needed $250.00 for a new hard drive. The Plaintiffs refused to pay these costs and, again, asked that the system be removed and their money returned. Defendant Lakatosh refused to refund the Plaintiffs' money. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT 50. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 51. On December 3, 2006, as stated, the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the Defendants in which the Defendants would install an electronic residential security monitoring system heretofore referred to as the system. Page 9 of 19 52. The Plaintiffs paid the amount of $3,470.00 to Defendants as part of that agreement. 53. In addition, on December 19, 2006, the Plaintiffs entered into another agreement with the Defendants in which the Defendants would repair and/or replace the original system. 54. The Plaintiffs paid the amount of $750.00 to Defendants as part of that agreement. 55. The Defendants breached both agreements and have failed to provide adequate and effective remedial measures. 56. The Defendants negligently, knowingly, recklessly and improperly installed the system. 57. As a proximate result of the Defendants' breach of the agreements, the Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined plus interest at the statutory rate from the date of the respective breach. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II FRAUD/INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION 58. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. Page 10 of 19 59. The Defendants intentionally, recklessly, and fraudulently misrepresented known material facts to the Plaintiffs, thereby causing the Plaintiffs to act and rely upon those facts in entering into an agreement to purchase Defendants' security system. 60. The facts which Defendants fraudulently misrepresented are outlined in the preceding paragraphs and include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The system that Defendants were offering to install would be installed correctly, in a manner that would result in the system functioning correctly; b. The system that Defendants were offering to install would come with a one (1) year warranty for all parts and labor. c. The system that Defendant was offering to install would install would provide the ability to view videos for a period of two (2) months prior to the current date viewed; d. The system that Defendants were offering to install would have a value equal to or greater than the amount paid for the system, when in truth and fact, said system as installed by the Defendant had no value and was worthless. 61. These representations were made by Defendants with the intention of misleading Plaintiffs into relying upon them, in that the Defendants intended to induce Plaintiffs to pay for a system that Defendants did not install adequately, was not fit for the purpose represented, and which would ultimately be worthless. 62. Defendants made these representations falsely, with knowledge of their falsity, or recklessly as to whether they were true or false. Page 11 of 19 63. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the information provided by the Defendants in determining whether to purchase the system from the Defendants. 64. Plaintiffs' damages were proximately caused by Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the systems' ability to monitor the Plaintiffs' home. 65. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on the representations made by the Defendants who purported to be experts in the sale and installation of electronic residential security monitoring systems, and if they had known the Defendants' system was not going to be adequate from the beginning, they would not have invested their initial $4,220.00 for the Defendant's deficient residential security monitoring system. 66. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, and the anticipated cost of securing an expert report. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Page 12 of 19 COUNT III NEGLIGENT REPRESENTATION 67. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 68. The Defendants made representations to Plaintiffs regarding the ability and qualifications of the Defendant in providing an electronic residential security monitoring system. 69. These representations were material to the Plaintiffs' decision to purchase the services of the Defendants in that the Plaintiffs would not have retained the services of Defendants had they known of the Defendants' incompetence, and that the system installed would ultimately be useless. 70. When these representations were made to Plaintiffs, Defendants knew or had reason to know that they were not truthful and accurate. 71. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care and competence in assessing, evaluating, and attempting to install an electronic residential security monitoring system. 72. These representations were made by Defendants with the intention of inducing Plaintiffs into relying and acting upon them, in that the Defendants intended to induce Plaintiffs to purchase their system. 73. Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon these misrepresentations in that Plaintiffs relied upon the only information available to them and provided by the Defendants in determining the qualifications and suitability of the Defendants. Page 13 of 19 74. Plaintiffs suffered damages, as detailed in preceding paragraphs, as a proximate result of their reliance upon Defendant's misrepresentations, in that Plaintiffs would not have otherwise purchased the Defendants' system. 75. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT IV VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 73 P.S. §201-1, et seq. 76. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 77. Defendants engaged in a series of unfair and deceptive acts and practices directed against the Plaintiffs under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §201-1, et seq. Page 14 of 19 78. These unfair and deceptive acts and representations include Defendants' requirement that Plaintiffs sign a five (5) year contract that included terms that were too small to read and failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose that: a. a service agreement was included that had a built-in or automatic five (5) year renewal clause; and b. the monthly fee thereto could increase each year by an amount of %10 per year for each of the five (5) year sign-up period. 79. Inadequately disclosed renewals and unfair price and increase language are not acceptable business practices. Further, any attempt to bury or omit these types of terms and conditions is deceptive. 80. Other unfair and deceptive acts and representations are outlined in this Complaint's foregoing paragraphs, which are incorporated herein by reference. 81. Defendants made these misrepresentations with the intention of inducing Plaintiffs to rely upon them, in that Defendants intended to induce Plaintiffs to purchase Defendants' system, and if Plaintiffs had known the truth, Plaintiffs would not have retained Defendants' services or purchased their system. 82. Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied on the misrepresentations made by Defendants who purported to be qualified in the field of residential electronic and security monitoring equipment and services. 83. Defendants' misrepresentations and failure to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. As a result of Defendants' unlawful acts, Plaintiffs suffered an ascertainable loss of money. Page 15 of 19 84. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' misrepresentation of thier ability and knowledge about residential electronic and security monitoring equipment and services, the Plaintiffs has been damaged. Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, and the anticipated cost of securing an expert report. 85. Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages in the discretion of the Court under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §201-9.2, et seq., and this would be an appropriate case for the maximum damages allowed by law given the conduct of Defendants. 86. Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. §201-9.2. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT V BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE 87. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. Page 16 of 19 88. The Defendants held themselves out as experts in the business of selling and installing residential electronic and security monitoring equipment and services and knew the exact purpose for which the Plaintiffs were purchasing the Defendants' system and were fully aware that the Plaintiffs were relying on the Defendants to install a system that met Plaintiffs' needs and effectively monitored Plaintiffs' home, thereby implicitly warranting to Plaintiffs that Defendants' system would, in fact, be suitable to meet the Plaintiffs' needs. 89. The Defendants produced a system which did not effectively monitor Plaintiffs' home, thereby breaching the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. 90. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Page 17 of 19 COUNT VII BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY 91. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 92. Defendants implicitly warranted that their residential security monitoring system would be functional. 93. The Defendants' system was not functional, thereby breaching the implied warranty of merchantability. 94. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on the foregoing Counts for the Page 18 of 19 full amount of Plaintiffs' damages in connection with their retaining the Defendants to install and service an electronic residential security monitoring system, plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees, and grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC Date: 00 S e B. Kope, Page 19 of 19 • n 0 fr. y.? one te r -. 00 .r a l O z ? ? n O n 3 o JEXHIBIT L W /t J Q E a M5 5e . ; 4?4( - )3tzjzL,-- G '3'7'7- f?a L oe.ivss 0-17). 3119- PAt 1-1-1957, PROPOSAL _ NO. ASH j- -Z V 1) 5 ,- SHEET NO. PROPOSAL SUBMI 1za< TTED TO: DATE NAME WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT ICiv 3 OS ttZ ADDRESS ADDRESS S h boys 4,- CITY STATE CnY STATE DATE OF PLANS +M ? C`' "[ lit ?-O L> PHONE tdp. 1Du 3 2 I?27S ?. / ARCHITECT t Y? q We hereby propose to fumish the nQttcis and pf?fn ssary for the completion of - J va"- . 6 h• C \'5t AAA- 'R 1 °[ , Pw Cx All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for boy work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of: // • with payments to be as follows Dollars ( y? a MY aReretiorhs or devOu- f-n above specNketlons involving extra coals "I be executed only upon written order, and WM become an extra charge Respectfully submitted over and abwe the estimate. AN agreements contingent upon stokes, accidents, or delays beyond our control. Per Note - This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. P be made as outlined above. ayments will SIGNATURE DATE AdW 9450 SIGNATURE'S EXHIBIT W J F Q CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO. INC. 320 Loucks Plaza York, PA 17404 (717) 846-4004 1-800-750-0857 Because... Every Second Counts) UNIT# SOLD BY: DATE SOLD: INSTALLATION DATE: TIME: Purchase Agreement 0F" Ault" zed Dealer CUSTOMER HOME TELEPHONE BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CLG ^'"` CITY /`? / STA a ZIP / 7,? 71 Type of Installation: Private Home Condominium Apartment Office ` r Store ? Factory 1-1 Other CENTRAL CONTROLLER KEY PAD KEY CHAIN WIRELESS KEY PAD UNIVERSAL TRANSMITTERS MOTION DETECTORS GLASS DETECTORS SMOKE DETECTORS LOW TEMPERATURE HEAT SENSORS CARBON MONOXIDE MEDICAL PENDANT cnma a rNrmcnt rum r-UU1PMENT Cash Price (including Sales Tax) $ y 3? O Paid With Order Cash ? Check 13 Visa [I MA;; s= p $ S 7 Balance on Completion $ TERMS AND PAYMENT FOR MONITORING SERVICE: Balanced to be Financed $ The CUSTOMER agrees to pay Crime Intervention Alarm Co. Inc.; (seller) its agents or asq#VF Ve sum of $ represenfin A?f `? services upon execution ofthis Agreement Buyer also agrees to pay SELLER a sum of $ Per month in re f ys of completion of the installation as monitoring charges. Payment will be made to Crime Intervention Alarm Co. Inc., 320 Louck 0 Louck each month fora ears from s Plaza, York, PA This Agreement will be renewed automatical for the same -?- N period of time as specified in the Agreement unless either party notifies the other in aui?ng of its intVjf{ion to terminate (by Certified Mail, Return Requested) prior to sixty (60) days from the expiration of the term. SELLER reserves the right to increase the monthly payment by a maximum of ten (10%) percent per year (for every year) of the Agreement between the parties. SELLER will give written Ito BUYER inthirty the (30) days prior to any increase. All accounts past due by more than thirty (30) days will be charged interest at the rate of 114% par month. Agreement are based on existing federal, state and local taxes and utiNty charges. Those charges include but are not limited to telephone company line charges. SELLER will have the right, at any time, to increase the monthly monitoring charges to reflect any additional taxes, fees, or charges of any utility or governmental agency relating to the installation or service provided in this Agreement. BUYER agrees to pay any increased monthly monitoring charges. IMPORTANT. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT INCORPORATES THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE THIS AGREEMENT BY REFERENCE. THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE MADE PART OF THIS AGREE- MENT. BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE OR SHE HAS READ THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT (BOTH SIDES) AND HAS RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS AGREEME/NT.. BUYER AND SELLER. TO ALL OF THE ABOVE: CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM This r / day of // ( 20 By. i `/!Z?/2 C Representative Title ' vustbmer ,-9lpproved By, Customer This Purchase Agreement Can be C a EXHIBIT GE [/ Lu J - REV 3/01 Q N J J Q VERIFICATION I, Anthony Ranieli and Ruth Ranieli, Plaintiffs in this matter, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint 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. Date: -? -,'? o J D 1 A thony Ranie Ruutt"anieli 0 41 W i f?.l r-: a C.'a 1`?7 C:3 { J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI # 08-1113 v. CIVIL ACTION -LAW CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO., INC., : JOHN LAKATOSH, ; AND MATTHEW BRYANT ************************************************************************** PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SUBMITTED FOR CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO., INC., AND JOHN LAKATOSH A. DEMURRER TO COUNT I 1. Matthew Bryant was sent to the Ranieli home in late November, 2005, after the Ranielis called Crime Intervention Alarm Co., Inc., (hereafter CIA) for an estimate. 2. The Ranielis believed that the CIA estimate was too expensive for them. 3. Matthew Bryant, unbeknownst to CIA, had formed a partnership with his wife, styled as DSS Security. 4. It was DSS Security which submitted an estimate to the Ranielis on December 3, 2005. 5. Neither CIA nor John Lakatosh have any relationship with the entity known as DSS Security. WHEREFORE, this count should be stricken as it relates to CIA and John Lakatosh. B. THE PLEADING FAILS TO CONFORM TO RULE OF COURT 1. Defendant CIA entered into an agreement with the Ranielis on or about December 19, 2005. 2. A full and complete of the parties agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. Plaintiff has failed to attach a complete copy of the contract to its complaint. WHEREFORE, the complaint should be stricken. C. FAILURE TO JOIN A NECESSARY PARTY 1. Exhibit B to the complaint makes reference to DSS Security, which is believed to be a partnership between Matthew Bryant and his wife, Ashley Bryant. 2. The rights of the parties and their respective potential liabilities cannot be fairly adjudicated without DSS Security as a party. WHEREFORE, the complaint should be stricken. D. THERE IS A FULL, COMPLETE, AND ADEQUATE NON-STATUTORY REMEDY AT LAW The CIA - Ranieli agreement provides for the sum of $250.00 in liquidated damages for any alleged breach of the complaint. WHEREFORE, the complaint should be stricken to the extent it seeks damages in excess of $250.00. E. DEMURRER 1. The complaint fails to establish any basis for personal liability as against John Lakatosh. WHEREFORE, the complaint should be stricken. F. DEMURRER TO COUNTS V AND VII 1. Plaintiff alleges that CIA breached the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. 2. CIA's contract has an effective disclaimer of implied warranties. WHEREFORE, Counts v and VII should be dismissed as they relate to CIA. G. MOTION FOR A MORE SPECIFIC COMPLAINT 1. Count IV fails to identify which Defendant allegedly made the improper representation. 2. As worded, it is not possible to intelligibly answer the allegations of Count IV. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff should be required to file a more specific complaint. H. DEMURRER 1. Ruth Ranieli is listed as a Plaintiff in the action. 2. The agreement with CIA was executed by Anthony Ranieli alone. 3. Ruth Ranieli has no cause of action against CIA or John Lakatosh. Respectfully submitted, Date: 3/3/08 By: X3North h C. Korsak, Esquire Queen Street York, PA 17403 (717) 854-3175 I.D. No. 22233 CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO, INC. 320 Loucks Plaza York, PA 17404 (717) 846-4004 1-800-750-0857 Because... Every Second Counts! UNIT# SOLD BY: DATE SOLD: INSTALLATION DATE: TIME: Purchase Agreement F" %ZURNTEW AuMorized Dealer CUSTOMER HOME TELEPHONE 712 r 0 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS _ CITY STATE f ZIP Type of Installation: Private Home Condominium Apartment Office Store Oactory Q other QUANTITY DESCRIPTION (all • • labor CENTRAL CONTROLLER KEY PAD KEY CHAIN WIRELESS KEY PAD UNIVERSAL TRANSMITTERS MOTION DETECTORS GLASS DETECTORS SMOKE DETECTORS LOW TEMPERATURE HEAT SENSORS CARBON MONOXIDE MEDICAL PENDANT `l lltwAP-Z ZX11127 .42 ., TERMS & PAYMENT FOR EQUIPMENT (aah Pricy /inciudina Sales Tax) $ ?? Z" ? ? 'T ?"3 ? ? ? w 7 u Q u ? .F ?u3 ? n ?M.r R U U F ? w ?` ? a0.i C 2, O d r o ? A. G G ? U 0 0 0 i >, .d f? N ypo 0 G ?' y C a 6 ^' G u ?- O ayi C j ? ?" ? pu. O C uyi ? ?u , Q y T J: O eNey? O '3 .C5' d '- O.F.. p r'°" A O 'd F u b0 ? F' U >uai?a°uum?Q ° duo A•a? ° dm? F UTnaU = a o cu A b G'»° T o f m a d v g o E n v g N m E u qd u A a °° N O ?° ?w E F .C?. >' °' O?' ? N O? E >` F? ^. O ? F O A .e ? u o ? o u .« ? Y o ? ° o u c° o :°- « o? u y?? U w u G 7" o n.. ? °/ u pm'Au °?•o H A aau E F, c °«?t F s fs u ?A' i° d b E y ai y, aFi ?« u -aa >?cy oqu °i 3 a ,J^ m ?'u T c Y ? m "? °y' r. emu" ? ? `.?'r° ? oy y `° ? °' c o a° u o ?? m n o a ?? ?? w y ? 6 ° ? a a ?¢ a q q F s ja .C u ^. K "° C O. T 7 eHi .C Y °' O? gut FJ m F G ie O ,.° ay0 O ?m 'C O O y y 3 ca `wd m u q Au Fay F v u o u bq F 6n a`? O `? a `y V a.V op ... °' o y w 8 0> G ?, ° •C ° yy C' u 'O F p i? tv. G m, w t o u .3 ?j u U 'm d c? R is p 3 e? d 'a u 6 'z Tx .5 .? A o a M °Yn o v o E H m t o uc? V of o" o f '0 J4. E > $ N ^Yus °$ u oo y o Y ° o a a o u V °o v y u 3 u E aA m r £' v °d b y F• w u > w m o $ U u w„ 5 E« ar " o f ° G ffi" by F you c' 3?°°tu? aE° bdus NF?,? F N $, u y a u ° T°: n 8 y c E c u u m.9? y u"E ,°,... a o$ ? p "? G. o O p W1 .Gj N ZY A .° m F o y Y G ?i 'A C 0 m O,'^myy C n-i ° 3 d u `C'. oD u y G° R u 4^ 3« a5 y w ^? q F q ? w p a -O "m' d ar TN.. w? rF Nom} w O?> y O d? C 0 •p $ E ?° E? ^' a " y u u F u? a u E° o T m? 2' ° pu ° u $ c ?• o ? ' o ? y, °° m ? • 5 T a C7 ° w ? ? ou K' ^? sa' ? ? v y $ m o o ? m ? u ;; `? o ? N A N >, ,iF,.. a) y aF+ C E C. '^y ° p„'00 50 Y a ?j T o ?• u v d o ? 4?y ? ? NOp " ? v c o m'x?"?• ? z+ ? v T ? o ?, v `° mac, ° ?, ? ? o > `? ? ? c ;? w r'? ? G U O. ,Aj G Q• . '^a Ury .4 U a. a O d ai aui v 3 "' o %. ° O ?pr, ? A? u K ? 'eEi ` p ° ? ° a u U G P' d ri b ° o o .O U u y $ u ? .9 d ? ? °? ? > Q •^ w$ c ` U •m ? p v F U A u Yo T o '3 « u a . u `?'? > po " c u t'" ' ? w d v u y Eq A ? o °° u u F a a r o u F• ;? ,c `° ,° O > °' N F d ?' Fo C m oo?• e? ,?^+^ A e w >, y s 0 o ? ? ? ?'' a u °? -o y 3 m :n u ' E m Fd 'stiy ' ?. •E w Ta 'a '? ......E u o x m « ? ?" . w aai X'i u s? ar F °t' E r: A s a o u p F o s 'pr N o U o° 7 0 ?p •°..? E .me ° $' a `? «' w m o y `C v n F .^5 V U o u '; > 3 H '? p° ?+ m a u o u y d o° U$ m °' a Ti u F° 3 a c m g o?$? 3 b o 'E ai 'E a u "? N o .5 °? u T F u o u m a 'S '? 7d T c u u ,?jt o cu?rO H C m + s .. O y a F~ o c3 G A u m G o ~aFi '^? u U O O F p O °? ?eO v .d n r 0. O tJ^ v d° Nm y O uy p0 as U >y 7 '° G'w r A.a >°' u? ??mo G ni o .o cF` o $ ? •E ?e o ? N F « a c? y a u ?.s> U o[ A ? .E " 3''+`•)T?.°wC?y'? Aw O'q U.N °?.ARV.u.0. '??4.0? dO FO aa'A pp pp a) .O •. .? U Ca ° T A C? C.? y A `° R O° y O O uO ^y ° O J y G "£ N 'O "3 qW N 9 N u FO y xin wU mo°-y F,?P`G g>'G a?c?' ??'?av ? aaF, ?•Z ?U J o2° o ???d?? ?'?a'?, ou A?ib a? °a' u q F• q U 7 u .F. F a N 7 y o N F m N a°• oar^ ° nG+a ou°° uu Fo??w F° dU °coy A E ?Za os•?, ?$,a .?w ?, ° ^ ?; TU U? E F' °?=. m •n? T? ?' Ear'.. «° « F?'° E ° o ? m ?, o °,,, 3? ary. ? ? ?`? E? y?.°?, °' " ? a?i'? °?•o o ? a? > E ?, o.y ? o? '? ? u u F °? 3 >'O ?•O £ o ? ? °' o ° u S >. ?a 8 g f ?° -a N °mo ? ? u y ? r. °?,? ? ?i>2 7, on u u 0 ? •° " ? F .? • y C ? F '+ p a ,° w w C ?„ Q o m ? y ' c? R U ? >, y ca ??' ? °J? o- '? ' ;°o' o y ? o m su .a G ? j3 v ? U c? ? ?? O ? ° ? bib 5 0 0 ,? F u u ?+ m N u ? m3 L N •? C C ? ee ' F ?? yCi *? R ? is y o ammod oaE obt UU zA c t a??'?a y= Ea oa$A F?`??g° o oho m?7?j O F O v ?'i } F y G °• oE?w?? ` °° a A w rp w?o ?n m •O G w ?'?? Gv y., u° "" TV, o 3 `".' ? O 5 ?• O ? ? ? ? ° ° r ? C C T ? ? p y' .? ? pie C ? ? ? ? y b u ? G a O O 0.U O L u ? ° ? V pw ,,O .o u p y ? {Si G `cd a -•. . ? y ? p y J T U 9' y 7 O 7, Fes` U ? ? A o ra a VERIFICATION The undersigned verifies that the statements made in the foregoing instrument which are within the personal knowledge of the undersigned, are true and correct, and as to the facts based on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believe them to be true. And further, this verification is signed on the recommendation of my attorney, who advises me that the allegations and language in this document are required legally to raise issues for resolution at trial, by the Court, or by continuing investigation and preparation for trial. I understand that some of these allegations may prove inappropriate after investigation and trial preparation are complete and I leave the determination of these matters to my attorney on his or her advice. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unworn falsifications to authorities. Date: 1 1 ?' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served electronically upon the following: Shane Kope, Esq. Kope and Associates 4660 Trindle Road Suite 201 Camp Hill. Pa. 17011 Date: 3/3/08 By: seph C. Korsak, Esquire 3 North Queen Street York, PA 17403 (717) 854-3175 I.D. No. 22233 ?, .-? _ i ??i 't? ' ;?:v X_ ?= ?? ?. ;?? r`? '?. c.:., ' a PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) Anthony and Ruth Ranieli vs. Crime Intervention Alarm Co., Inc., John Lakatosh and Tiatthew Bryant No. 08-1113 Term 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 all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Shane B. Kope, Esquire (Name and Address) 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201, Camn Hill, PA 17011 (b) for defendants: Josen_h C. Korsak, Escruire (Name and Address) 33 North Queen Street, York, PA 17403 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: P-lay 28, 2008 .Signatur Print your n7. Joseph orsak, Esquire Attome for efendants Date: April 10, 2008 Cr' e ntervention Alarm Co., Inc. & INSTRUCTIONS: J Lakatosh 1. Two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 12 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 5 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. C ? ? ??.) ti^ - e.'r? 1_i "? - .;_; ?-t?f . t'` ??, ----r ?? _ } ? ..,.... _ - ' r. * f i ?l e- ;\? ,,, Y- .1? .{ SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-01113 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RANIELI ANTHONY ET AL VS CRIME INTERVENITON ALARM ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: r?rit?'n 1.Tm TRT mmTT=T.T but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of YORK serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE County, Pennsylvania, to On March 31st , 2008 , this office was in receipt of t attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: So answer ??-- Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline Dep York County 27.59 Sheriff of Cumberland County Postage 2.91 67.50 ,? ?163?08 ?.- 03/31/2008 KOPE & ASSOCIATES Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of in his bailiwick. He therefore A. D. PENNY PRESS OF YORK, INC. Ph 5717) 843-4078 Fax (717) 848-1360 COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SEV CALL )I 771-9601 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN PLEASE TYPE ONLY LI1 E 1 THRU 12 DO NOT Y COPES 1 P INTIFF/S/ 2 C T U ER ' P-010 (01 "D LO-M 2* 0 ICLI 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINTN O T I C E, C I C A 3 DEFENDANT/S/ tf SQslt i , .? ?a?? A w c¢' 6 C ?yIL, corn P1,19 scot,/c l 5 NAME OF INDIVIDUAL COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLD AT t 6 ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT NO., CITY, BORO, TWP . STATE AND ZIP CODE) 7 INDICATE SERVICE' PERSONAL O PERSON IN CHARGE A AJ%D EPUTIZE O C RT MAIL O 1ST CLASS MAIL 0 POSTED 0 OTHER NOW March 6, 20 08 I, SHERIFF OF UNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the sheriff of York COUNTY to execute this Wr return there ding to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff., - SHERIFF OF C NITY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERe191T OF COUNTY er an Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. ADV FEE PAID BY CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF NOTE: ONLY APPUCABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriffs sale thereof 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11 DATE FILED . "r q4 Go -MOO Lr DN 11 cAMQ )}7LL PA I -M 70--ki 1613 a 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed if notice is to be mailed) &Rc S Air5 l-LC 40 lMODCE P ACfMB RL __ SHERIFF -0 1 SPACE OW F USE OF THE SM FF - DO 140T WRITE BELOW THIS LM 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15 Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. M J M C G I L,L Y C S O 3- 7-2008 13-21-2008 16. HOW SERVED PERSONAL ( } RESIDENCE ( ) POSTED( ) POE ( ) SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW 17. 1 hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, oompany, etc. named above. (See remarks below.) 18. NAPE AND TITLE OF INDIVIDUAL SERVED / LIST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship to Defendant) 19. Date of Service 20 Time of Service 21 ATTEMPTSI DI'te I Ti eel Miles Int. I D I I Time I Miles I Int I Dale I Time I Miles I Int. I Date I Time I Miles I Int. I Date I Time I Miles I Int I Date I Time I Miles I Int. 22 PER POST OFFICE CHECK DEF MOVED AND NEW ADDRESS IS 329 RIDER AVE., LANCASTER, PA 23. Advance Costs 24 Service Costs 25 N/F 26. Mileage 27 Postage 28. Sub Total 29. Pound 30 Notary 31. Surchg. 32. Tot. Costs 33 Costs Due Relund Check No. $125.00 R oo I- 10-W 1 '-5,9 1 . 6,171 9 a 1 61166 U. Foreign County Costs 35 Advance Costs 36 Service Costs 37 Notary Cert. 38 MileagelPostage/Not Found 39. Total Costs 40. Costs Due or Refund 41. AFFIRMED and subscribed to befor me 42 day of M A km,, ? n;ao NOTARLrd '_ zEAL A L. RC ^%?. AAN t ` ?TARP PUBLIC ITY OF YOB ', YORK CCUNTY )MMISSION EYPIRBSAUG. 12, 2000 44. Signature of 45. DATE Dep. Sheriff 46. Signature of York 47 DATE County Sheriff RIChNttu V. r t t ktt, jHtt<!rh 48 Signature of Foreign 49 DATE County Sheriff KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID 92207 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 sbkope@kopelaw.com ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI, Plaintiffs, V. Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA : NO. 2008-1113 (Civil Term) CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO, INC., : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JOHN LAKATOSH, and MATTHEW BRYANT Defendants. PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly reinstate the Complaint in the above-captioned Civil Action as to Defendant, Matthew Bryant for an additional thirty days. Respectfully Submitted, KOPE SOCITES, LLC By: SgANE B.KOPE„ Date: 44- J Uz ° o ?, SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-01113 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RANIELI ANTHONY ET AL VS CRIME INTERVENITON ALARM ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: BRYANT MATTHEW but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of LANCASTER County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTTrF On May 20th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of t attached return from LANCASTER Sheriff's Costs: So answer Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Thomas Kline Dep Lancaster Co 44.53 Sheriff of Cumber and County Postage 2.92 84.45 ? 3/jV/0 P C 05/20/2008 KOPE & ASSOCIATES Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. ,=IHEFRIFF'S OFFICE H 50 NOR TH D JKE Sl REET, P.O. BOX 83480, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17608-3480 • (717) 299-8200 n SHI::RIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN 1. PLAINTIFF/S/ 3. DEFENDANT/S/ PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY, DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES. 2. COURT NUMBER K 3y 08-1113 civil y Crime Intervention Alarm Co Inc et al 4 i rrt Ur WRIT OR COMPLAINT SERVE 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION ETC., TO BE SERVED Notice and Complaint 0 - Matthew Bryant 6. AD RRES 3 (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, Boro, Twp., State and ZIP Code) AT 329 Ridge Road Lancaster, PA 17603 7. INDICATE UNUSUAL SERVICFXI EPUTIZE ? OTHER Now, Prl _ 20 , I, SHERIFF OF Lancast<?r fR COUNTY, PA., do hereby d utize the Sherr' of execute to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. this Writ a uof _F 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR 01'HER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: sHeaiFF of couNrr .e Cumberland Please riail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN -Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction or removal of any such property before sherri's sale thereof. 9. SIGNATURE of ATTORNEY or other ORIGINATOR 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE SHANE B. KOPE, ESQ 717-761-7573 4/15/08 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed if notice is to be mailed) KOPE & ASSOCIATE'S 4660 TRINDLE RD, SUITE 201 CAMP HILL, PA. 17011 SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF SHERIFF ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ NAME of Authorized LCSO Deputy or Clerk 114. Date Received 115. Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. 16. 1 hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that I El have personally served, 11 have legal evidence of service as shown in "Remarks: "Remarks", have executed as shown m8 "Remarks", the writ or complaint described on the individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on, the individual, company, cor- poration, etc., at the address inserted below by handing a TRUE and ATTESTED COPY thereof. 17. 1 hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc., named above. (See remarks below) 18. Name and title of individual served (if not shown above) (Relationship to Defendant) 19. ? No Service See Remarks Below (No. 30) 20. Address of where served (complete only if different than shown above) (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, Boro, Twp. 21. Date of Service 22. Time State and Zip Code) AM PM EST EDST 23. ATTEMPTS D M s Dem. Int, Date Miles Dep. Int. Date Miles Dep. Int. Date Miles Dep. Int. Date Miles Dep. Int. 24. Advance Costs 25. Service Costs 26. Notary Cert. 27. Miles a/Posts a/N.F.? R g 9 28. Total Costs 29. COST DUE OR REFUNI 150.00 36.50 3. u3 S- ? _ r, 30. REMARKS: `-r ? _i?> S.T.A.: ANS ER. 31. AFFIRMED and subscribed to before me this 32. Signature of , 33. Date 34. day of 20 Dep. Sheriff Ol - , 37 S Prothonotary/Deputy/Notary Public 35. Signature of Sheriff 36. Date C MY COMMISSION EXPIRES O _ r 1. WHITE - Issuing Authority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY -Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE -Sheriff's Office off/ Anthony Ranieli et al 18-71 ,4 KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID 92207 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 sbkope@kopelaw.com ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI, Plaintiffs, V. Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. ? l/ 3 (Civil Term) CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO, INC., : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JOHN LAKATOSH, and MATTHEW BRYANT Defendants. N O T I C E TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS 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 YO"0 0T HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE TF-f O@ICEP SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP2"'1 cry rrz ?n CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET ''- CARLISLE, PA 17013 =" ? C TRUE COPS I T , I tort WAV 6A my twmo ho aw of "W 000 at. CQ*401 Pa. "mummy ,, KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID 92207 4660 Trindle Road., Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 sbkope@kopelaw.com ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI, PLEAS Plaintiffs, V. CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO, INC., JOHN LAKATOSH, and MATTHEW BRYANT Defendants. Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA : NO. (Civil Term) 4 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Plaintiffs, Anthony and Ruth Ranieli, by and through their attorneys, Shane B. Kope, Esq., and Kope and Associates, LLC, and files this Complaint; and in support thereof, they aver the following: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs Anthony and Ruth Ranieli (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") against Defendants Crime Intervention Alarm Co. Inc., John Lakatosh and Matthew Bryant (hereinafter referred to individually as "CIA," "Lakatosh" or "Bryant" and/or collectively as "Defendants") for damages resulting from the actions, errors and omissions of Defendants by the way of the sale and installation of an electronic residential security monitoring system, as well as services thereto, in their home at 525 Eutaw Avenue, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. PARTIES 2. Plaintiffs Anthony and Ruth Ranieli, Husband and Wife, are adult individuals residing at 525 Eutaw Avenue, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant CIA is a Pennsylvania corporation with its corporate headquarters located at 320 Loucks Plaza, York, York County, Pennsylvania. CIA is engaged in the business of selling and installing electronic and security monitoring equipment and services. 4. Defendant Lakatosh is an adult individual and President of CIA with a known address of 320 Loucks Plaza, York, York County, Pennsylvania. 5. Defendant Bryant is an adult individual residing at 337 Floral Drive, Red Lion, York County, Pennsylvania. At all relevant times hereto, Bryant was acting either individually or as an authorized agent and representative of CIA. 6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant CIA was doing business in Pennsylvania and was selling and installing residential security monitoring equipment and services, including the system provided to the Plaintiffs. 7. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant CIA was acting through its agent, broker, servants, workmen, contractors, representatives and employees who were acting within the scope of their authority, in furtherance of Defendant CIA's business and within Defendant CIA's control or right of control. Page 2 of 19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This action arises under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 9. Venue is proper in the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County under Rules 1006(b) and 2179(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, in that Defendant regularly conducts business in Cumberland County. Further, the property at issue is located in Cumberland County. FACTS 10. On or about December 3, 2005, Defendant Bryant, visited Plaintiffs' residence to provide an estimate for installing a residential security and home monitoring system. Upon his arrival, Bryant explained that he was co-owner of CIA; Bryant provided Plaintiffs a business card that clearly stated he was an employee of CIA. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of said business card. 11. After visually inspecting the home, Bryant convinced Plaintiffs that they needed a security system that included a computer monitoring system and seven (7) cameras (hereinafter "the system"). The Plaintiffs were quoted a price of $3,470.00, which included the sale, installation and warranty of said system. A deposit of $1,735.00 was required to begin installation with the balance due upon completion. 12. Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the system as proposed. Thereafter, on or about December 3, 2006, the Plaintiffs and CIA entered into a written contract for the installation of the system. As required by the contract, the Plaintiffs submitted the first Page 3 of 19 payment in the amount of $1,735.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of said Contract. 13. Thereafter, Bryant installed seven (7) cameras, a computer tower, a computer monitor, a keyboard, and a fax/printer/copier. 14. The system did work properly upon its completion. 15. On December 9, 2005, Bryant returned to adjust the cameras; at that time, he also explained that the system needed a ground wire, which he would return to install on December 11, 2005. He also requested and was provided the final payment of $.1,735.00. 16. On December 11, 2005, Bryant did not return to install the ground wire. 17. On December 14, 2005, Bryant arrived to explain that an electrician by the name of Todd Kramer would come to Plaintiffs' home later that day to install the ground wire, which would be a separate charge. Thereafter, Bryant left Plaintiffs' residence on the explanation that he was gong to Home Depot to purchase the ground wire for the electrician. Bryant never returned. The electrician never showed. 18. All attempts to reach Bryant over the next two (2) days were to no avail. 19. Therefore, on December 16, 2005, Plaintiffs called Defendant CIA and spoke with Defendant Lakatosh. According to Lakatosh, Defendant Bryant was not an employee of the company and that he had no authority to sale or install the system as a representative of CIA. Thereafter, Lakatosh offered to send out a representative of CIA to assess and repair the system. Page 4 of 19 20. On December 16, 2005, a CIA representative by the name of Derek Leuw arrived at Plaintiffs' residence and visually inspected the system. He explained that all the cameras needed to be replaced. 21. On December 17, 2005, Plaintiffs called Hewlett Packard to inquire about the system. During this phone call, the Plaintiffs discovered that the equipment was severally outdated. In fact, it was discovered that the computer tower was registered to Defendant John Lakatosh's brother, Christopher Lakatosh. 22. On December 19, 2005, Defendant Lakatosh arrived at Plaintiffs' residence and explained he would need a new contract wherein Plaintiffs would agree to pay him an additional $1,500.00 to repair and/or replace the system. Upon Plaintiffs' objection, Lakatosh reduced this amount to $750.00. 23. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs and CIA entered into another written contract for the repair and/or replacement of the system. As required by the contract, the Plaintiffs submitted payment in the amount of $750.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a true and correct copy of said Contract. 24. It was later discovered that this particular contract provided a service agreement requiring Plaintiffs to pay a monthly fee of $39.00 a month for a period of twelve (12) months, which not only could be increased by %10 per year, but also automatically renewed each year for a period of five (5) years. These terms were not explained to the Plaintiffs. 25. On December 21, 2005, Defendant Lakatosh's brother, Christopher Lakatosh, arrived at Plaintiffs' residence to repair the system pursuant to the contract. Mr. Page 5 of 19 I Lakatosh claimed that he did, in fact, repair the system successfully and was to collect $750.00, whereupon Plaintiffs provided him a check for this amount. No training was provided to the Plaintiffs on how to use repaired system. In addition, Christopher Lakatosh did not replace the cameras as required by the contract. 26. Immediately upon Christopher Lakatosh's departure, the cameras failed to work properly, if at all 27. On December 24, 2005, the Plaintiffs were unable to view videos from previous days. 28. On December 25, 2005, Camera #7 of the system failed to work at all. 29. On December 26, 2005, Cameras # 1 and #5 of the system failed to work at all. 30. On December 27, 2005, the Plaintiffs called Defendant CIA to explain that the system was not working properly. A representative from CIA informed Plaintiffs that Christopher Lakatosh would arrive on December 28, 2005, to repair the system. 31. On December 28, 2005, Christopher Lakatosh arrived to repair the system. Mr. Lakatosh disabled the zooming capabilities on the videos and explained that a new program was needed. Camera # 5 was not or could not be turned back on. 32. On December 31, 2005, the system continued to work improperly. The Plaintiffs, therefore, called CIA and spoke with a representative by the name of Sean Shaffer. Mr. Shaffer explained that he could not help them and that Plaintiffs were to call Christopher Lakatosh on January2, 2006. 33. On January 2, 2006, Christopher Lakatosh and Sean Shaffer arrived at Plaintiffs' residence unannounced. Mr. Lakatosh proceeded to tell the Plaintiffs that nothing was Page 6 of 19 wrong with the system and th failure at all Prob m to receive adequate co s with the mPufer training system were the result le 34. Upon the departure of Mr. Of Plaintiffs, Defends tosh a nt John Laka Laka toslWho informed th nd Mr. Shaffer th January 3, 2006 to asst the s e Plaintiffs e1n that he would co called January 4, 2006. Ystem. Defendant L me to their residence on 35. On January 4, 200?fe not arrived until needed a new ndant Lakato program; hfered sh ex to c plained to Plaintiffs that the system the Plaintiffs program became unavailabi w 36. the when the On January 10, 200Monitor and when ? new 37. On January 13, 2006;Iaintiff s or all the cameras fail of this latest system error. fis called Defend ° ant John ed to work at all. n Pccasion, Defendant Lakatosh to in form verbally abusive, but also ht Lakatosh not onl him Plaintiffs managed to laintiffs three (3) make?intment wit separate times Y became 2006. h Defendant Ca katosh for January Eventually, the 38. On January 17, 200 ry ?? ?entative from arrived at Plaintiffs' residence Defendant CIA by the name Of with no other explanation. Lakat°sh. Njr. Le Derek Leuw 39• On January 17, 2006, u , , same manner as before ws departure, the Ystem failed to Work Mr. W The pI a! 'tiffs attes CIA to explain this proble rnpted to in the a call Mr. Leuw at representative by the name c forced to leave message with a C/,4 'offs 40. On January 18, 2006, Leuw. the Plaintiffs It was discovered that again called CIA Previous day. Re Crystal did not in m Regardless, th give Njr L an ale pt to reach Mr Leuw for January 19, 20 the Plaintiffs managed euw the messa 06 to make 9e from the d41 On January fig, 2006, Mr appointment wiiscs th Mr• failures. in . Leuw arrived t an addition, the screen to discover there was made on co no efforts the to fix either computer several hard drive / 42 problem. monitor was um On January 23, 2 ping, Mr uw . Le 006, having jumping' with not heard from D representative Defendant Laka efe t ndant CI tative to pl osh. q, the plaintiffs aintiffs' Defendant Lak called 43. reside atosh On January 26, 2006, nce on January 26, 2006. agreed to send a the computer screen w Mr. Leuw arrived and a 44. On February as no longer jumping. No eXplanatio pparently fXed the syste Fe ?Y 8, 2006, the m where bru Plaintiffs discovered they could d to Plaintiffs. original order, the Plaintiff could do wh not scan video s were when the system s Prior to lonths prior to the c to have the was first installed'. ability to view per the urrent date viewed w vid The Plaintiffs videos for a Period of two thereafter (2) 17e point that day, called Defendant C/A the Plaintiffs to infor that day, as he was on spoke with Mr. Leuw w m it of the Problem call. When ho asked Plaintiff t were forced to leave a n the Plaintiffs s to At later call him On February with C that day as ; g, 2006 crystal. nstructed, having not heard back from 'Iq. This time they spoke with a CIA represen plaintiffs, again, tatwe Mr by the Leuw, the name of Christopher Page 8 Of 18 Flynn. Mr. Flynn took notes on the problems and said a representative would call them back. 47. Later on February 9, 2006, having not heard back from CIA, the Plaintiffs, a ain 9 , called CIA and spoke with Mr. Leuw. Mr. Leuw stated that he would confer with Defendant Lakatosh and then call the Plaintiffs the following day. Mr. Leuw also stated that he did not receive the messages left for him with Crystal on February 8, 2006. 48. On February 10, 2006, Christopher Flynn called and informed Plaintiffs that they needed a new hard drive, which would cost $250.00. The Plaintiffs explained to Mr. Flynn that the system was to be covered by the original warranty, so they had no intention of investing any further monies into the system. The Plaintiff went on to request that the system be removed and their money returned. 49. On February 20, 2006, Defendant Lakatosh called the Plaintiffs and explained that he needed $250.00 for a new hard drive. The Plaintiffs refused to pay these costs and, again, asked that the system be removed and their money returned. Defendant Lakatosh refused to refund the Plaintiffs' money. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT 50. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 51. On December 3, 2006, as stated, the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the Defendants in which the Defendants would install an electronic residential security monitoring system heretofore referred to as the system. Page 9 of 19 52. The Plaintiffs paid the amount of $3,470.00 to Defendants as part of that agreement. 53. In addition, on December 19, 2006, the Plaintiffs entered into another agreement with the Defendants in which the Defendants would repair and/or replace the original system. 54. The Plaintiffs paid the amount of $750.00 to Defendants as part of that agreement. 55. The Defendants breached both agreements and have failed to provide adequate and effective remedial measures. 56. The Defendants negligently, knowingly, recklessly and improperly installed the system. 57. As a proximate result of the Defendants' breach of the agreements, the Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined plus interest at the statutory rate from the date of the respective breach. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II FRAUD/INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION 58. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. Page 10 of 19 59. The Defendants intentionally, recklessly, and fraudulently misrepresented known material facts to the Plaintiffs, thereby causing the Plaintiffs to act and rely upon those facts in entering into an agreement to purchase Defendants' security system. 60. The facts which Defendants fraudulently misrepresented are outlined in the preceding paragraphs and include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The system that Defendants were offering to install would be installed correctly, in a manner that would result in the system functioning correctly; b. The system that Defendants were offering to install would come with a one (1) year warranty for all parts and labor. c. The system that Defendant was offering to install would install would provide the ability to view videos for a period of two (2) months prior to the current date viewed; d. The system that Defendants were offering to install would have a value equal to or greater than the amount paid for the system, when in truth and fact, said system as installed by the Defendant had no value and was worthless. 61. These representations were made by Defendants with the intention of misleading Plaintiffs into relying upon them, in that the Defendants intended to induce Plaintiffs to pay for a system that Defendants did not install adequately, was not fit for the purpose represented, and which would ultimately be worthless. 62. Defendants made these representations falsely, with knowledge of their falsity, or recklessly as to whether they were true or false. Page 11 of 19 63. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the information provided by the Defendants in determining whether to purchase the system from the Defendants. 64. Plaintiffs' damages were proximately caused by Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the systems' ability to monitor the Plaintiffs' home. 65. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on the representations made by the Defendants who purported to be experts in the sale and installation of electronic residential security monitoring systems, and if they had known the Defendants' system was not going to be adequate from the beginning, they would not have invested their initial $4,220.00 for the Defendant's deficient residential security monitoring system. 66. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, and the anticipated cost of securing an expert report. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Page 12 of 19 COUNT III NEGLIGENT REPRESENTATION 67. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 68. The Defendants made representations to Plaintiffs regarding the ability and qualifications of the Defendant in providing an electronic residential security monitoring system. 69. These representations were material to the Plaintiffs' decision to purchase the services of the Defendants in that the Plaintiffs would not have retained the services of Defendants had they known of the Defendants' incompetence, and that the system installed would ultimately be useless. 70. When these representations were made to Plaintiffs, Defendants knew or had reason to know that they were not truthful and accurate. 71. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care and competence in assessing, evaluating, and attempting to install an electronic residential security monitoring system. 72. These representations were made by Defendants with the intention of inducing Plaintiffs into relying and acting upon them, in that the Defendants intended to induce Plaintiffs to purchase their system. 73. Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon these misrepresentations in that Plaintiffs relied upon the only information available to them and provided by the Defendants in determining the qualifications and suitability of the Defendants. Page 13 of 19 74. Plaintiffs suffered damages, as detailed in preceding paragraphs, as a proximate result of their reliance upon Defendant's misrepresentations, in that Plaintiffs would not have otherwise purchased the Defendants' system. 75. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT IV VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 73 P.S. §201-1, et seq. 76. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 77. Defendants engaged in a series of unfair and deceptive acts and practices directed against the Plaintiffs under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P. S. §201-1, et seq. Page 14 of 19 78. These unfair and deceptive acts and representations include Defendants' requirement that Plaintiffs sign a five (5) year contract that included terms that were too small to read and failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose that: a. a service agreement was included that had a built-in or automatic five (5) year renewal clause; and b. the monthly fee thereto could increase each year by an amount of %10 per year for each of the five (5) year sign-up period. 79. Inadequately disclosed renewals and unfair price and increase language are not acceptable business practices. Further, any attempt to bury or omit these types of terms and conditions is deceptive. 80. Other unfair and deceptive acts and representations are outlined in this Complaint's foregoing paragraphs, which are incorporated herein by reference. 81. Defendants made these misrepresentations with the intention of inducing Plaintiffs to rely upon them, in that Defendants intended to induce Plaintiffs to purchase Defendants' system, and if Plaintiffs had known the truth, Plaintiffs would not have retained Defendants' services or purchased their system. 82. Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied on the misrepresentations made by Defendants who purported to be qualified in the field of residential electronic and security monitoring equipment and services. 83. Defendants' misrepresentations and failure to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. As a result of Defendants' unlawful acts, Plaintiffs suffered an ascertainable loss of money. Page 15 of 19 84. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' misrepresentation of thier ability and knowledge about residential electronic and security monitoring equipment and services, the Plaintiffs has been damaged. Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued -monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, and the anticipated cost of securing an expert report. 85. Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages in the discretion of the Court under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §201-9.2, et seq., and this would be an appropriate case for the maximum damages allowed by law given the conduct of Defendants. 86. Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. §201-9.2. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT V BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE 87. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. Page 16 of 19 88. The Defendants held themselves out as experts in the business of selling and installing residential electronic and security monitoring equipment and services and knew the exact purpose for which the Plaintiffs were purchasing the Defendants' system and were fully aware that the Plaintiffs were relying on the Defendants to install a system that met Plaintiffs' needs and effectively monitored Plaintiffs' home, thereby implicitly warranting to Plaintiffs that Defendants' system would, in fact, be suitable to meet the Plaintiffs' needs. 89. The Defendants produced a system which did not effectively monitor Plaintiffs' home, thereby breaching the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. 90. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Page 17 of 19 COUNT VII BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY 91. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 92. Defendants implicitly warranted that their residential security monitoring system would be functional. 93. The Defendants' system was not functional, thereby breaching the implied warranty of merchantability. 94. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on the foregoing Counts for the Page 18 of 19 full amount of Plaintiffs' damages in connection with their retaining the Defendants to install and service an electronic residential security monitoring system, plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees, and grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable. Date: a/ q Idoo e Respectfully Submitted, KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC NU- S e B. Kope, Page 19 of 19 ®R W'o 3 O ? ta> ?' M 0 0 M w CD C j? c ppA S4h. w ^ ert: ? _ -PP 0 i i E n oA 3 ? o co O i A a EXHIBIT W J J Pie /-F9.-6 ?-- ??- Six • azs8 ... PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: tNIA WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT AD ADDRESS y ft4 "n t . ?! ?'*>30V6 S CITY STATE' . CITY. STA I E, / DATE Cf PLANS P1iONEt4o c` R l ?-a o 3: .? S J ? r7 u AACHRECT: We hereby propose to fumish the 11 "N sand sary for the completion of G a Z PROPOSAL ?. ..v.--JAL rVu. Z DD5. acc. 3 SHEET NO. IZb<' All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for bov work and completed in a substantial workmanlike -manner for the sum of: ` with payments to be as follows Dollars (y371 nD an Wtaratiotu: or devietlort 6om above am aw ? tl; AD agrewr WW wig becom an 60a darp aft Wikn, Respectfully submitted " a"Wn* or dG*3 beyow our wmaj. contingam upon Per i s Note - This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL ------days. The above prices, specifications and be made as outlined above . cendifions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as ' specified. Payments will SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE uAd? 9450 _. EXHIBIT Q CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO. INC. 320 Loucks Plaza York, PA 17404 (717) 846-4004 1-800-750-0857 Because... Every Second Counts! ADDRESS UNIT# SOLD BY: DATE SOLD: INSTALLATION DATE: TIME: Purchase Agreement HOME TELEPHONE BUSINESS TELEPHONE 7 ? - O c/ - CITY F• Auffnrized STATE ZIP Type of Installation: IS Private Home ? CaWominium p Apartment ? once ` i E] Store p Factory ? Omer CENTRAL CONTROLLER KEY PAD KEY CHAIN WIRELESS KEY PAD UNIVERSAL TRANSMITTERS MOTION DETECTORS GLASS DETECTORS SMOKE DETECTORS LOW TEMPERATURE HEAT SENSORS CARBON MONOXIDE MEDICAL PENDANT . TERMS & PAYMENT FOR EQUIPMENT f/ Cash Price (including Sales Tax) $ ?" 3z D Paid With Order Cash ? Check ? Visa ? M p $ 7 Balance on Completion $ /? /S TERMS AND PAYMENT FOR MONITORING SERVICE: Balanced to be Financed $ The CUSTOMER agrees to pay Crane Intervention Alarm Co. Inc.: (seller) its agents or as5@pp a aura of repraeenmg I Z p services upon execution of this Agreement Buyer also agrees to pay SELLER as= of $ .? advance of completion of me installation as monitoring charges. Payment will be made to Crlma Intervention Alarm Co 320 Loucks a lie of rive (5/) ? fhe years from 'ft; Plaza, York, PA 1404 (by CertifieAgreement well be renewed d Mail, Return Requested) _prior ofsixty 60Oam the of time as specified in the Agreement uNess either party notifies the other in wiitlna-kof its h *Jon to temrintfe SELLER reserves the right to increase the mooch) days expiration of the rite term. ?? This written notice s BUYER might to days prior to any y payment nt by a accounts maximum of ten (1 D%) percent per year (for every year) of the Agreement behreen the parties. SELLER will Ail charged sBUYER in the A0) days pare based on I? due by more than thirty (30) days will be charged interest at the rate of 1A% per month. ? ified dtaAD c SELLER will have the righta any time, to in existing sfederal, state ? taxes and utRly charges. Those charges include but are not limited to telephone company line , at relating to the installation or service provided in this Agreemerd. BUYER a rees to a ??a to reflect any additional texas, fees, or charges of any utility or governmental agency 9 pay any increased d m monthly monitoring charges. IMPORTANT: THERE ARE ADDITIONAL TERNS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT INCORPORATES THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE THIS AGREEMENT BY REFERENCE. THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE MADE PART OF THIS AGREE- MENT. BUYER. ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE OR SHE HAS READ THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT (BOTH SIDES) AND HAS RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT. BUYER AND SELLEg.Sp?gGp TO ALL OF THE ABOVE: -CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM - ? ?• ?g ' This day of By. -15 i ' 20 Representative rMe ?? l 2- ; Customer This Purchase Agreement can be C ? EXHIBIT ,C }?? C REV 3x01 H • . . a VERIFICATION I, Anthony Ranieri and Ruth Ranieli, Plaintiffs in this matter, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint 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. A thony Ranie J D ?' Date: Rut Ranieli ? I S ?Z c? ? I ??? ?C?l 3 l ? 1 ?: 4 1 _ l.? e_ IlVT 1 ....d 1 }? e1..E i ? i ? ? ? ? M S ? ?? ?? ey ? :?? : ; ?? "' -- . ? ? KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID 92207 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 sbkope@kopelaw.com ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI, Plaintiffs, V. Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 2008-1113 (Civil Term) CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO, INC., : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JOHN LAKATOSH, and . MATTHEW BRYANT Defendants. PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly reinstate the Complaint in the above-captioned Civil Action as to Defendant, Matthew Bryant for an additional thirty days. Date: Respectfully Submitted, Ra 03 b r - w ?j Ut c? ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiffs : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO., INC., JOHN LAKATOSH, and MATTHEW BRYANT, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-1113 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, OLER AND GUIDO, J.J. ORDER AND NOW, this Z S- - day of June, 2008, the preliminary objections of Crime Intervention Alarm Co., Inc. and John Lakatosh, are SUSTAINED to the extent that the plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint attaching a complete copy of the agreement of the parties dated December 19, 2005. The remaining preliminary objections of the defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice to the defendants to raise the issues and, specifically, the question of the personal liability of John Lakatosh, following the development of a more complete record in the case. '' Shane B. Kope, Esquire For the Plaintiff 'rJoseph C. Korsak, Esquire For Defendants Crime Intervention and Lakatosh Cof t es /r.-a ILL BY THE COURT, 'evi A. Hess, J. "AW, C-Z Or Booz KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID 92207 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 sbkope@kopelaw.com ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI, Plaintiffs, V. CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO, INC., JOHN LAKATOSH, and MATTHEW BRYANT Defendants. Attorney for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA : NO. 2008-1113 (Civil Term) : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED N O T I C E TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID 92207 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 sbkope@kopelaw.com ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI, PLEAS Plaintiffs, V. CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO, INC., JOHN LAKATOSH, and MATTHEW BRYANT Defendants. Attorney for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA : NO. 08-1113 (Civil Term) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Plaintiffs, Anthony and Ruth Ranieli, by and through their attorneys, Shane B. Kope, Esq., and Kope and Associates, LLC, and files this Complaint; and in support thereof, they aver the following: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs Anthony and Ruth Ranieli (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") against Defendants Crime Intervention Alarm Co. Inc., John Lakatosh and Matthew Bryant (hereinafter referred to individually as "CIA," "Lakatosh" or "Bryant" and/or collectively as "Defendants") for damages resulting from the actions, errors and omissions of Defendants by the way of the sale and installation of an electronic residential security monitoring system, as well as services thereto, in their home at 525 Eutaw Avenue, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. PARTIES 2. Plaintiffs Anthony and Ruth Ranieli, Husband and Wife, are adult individuals residing at 525 Eutaw Avenue, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant CIA is a Pennsylvania corporation with its corporate headquarters located at 320 Loucks Plaza, York, York County, Pennsylvania. CIA is engaged in the business of selling and installing electronic and security monitoring equipment and services. 4. Defendant Lakatosh is an adult individual and President of CIA with a known address of 320 Loucks Plaza, York, York County, Pennsylvania. 5. Defendant Bryant is an adult individual residing at 337 Floral Drive, Red Lion, York County, Pennsylvania. At all relevant times hereto, Bryant was acting either individually or as an authorized agent and representative of CIA. 6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant CIA was doing business in Pennsylvania and was selling and installing residential security monitoring equipment and services, including the system provided to the Plaintiffs. 7. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant CIA was acting through its agent, broker, servants, workmen, contractors, representatives and employees who were acting within the scope of their authority, in furtherance of Defendant CIA's business and within Defendant CIA's control or right of control. Page 2 of 19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This action arises under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 9. Venue is proper in the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County under Rules 1006(b) and 2179(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, in that Defendant regularly conducts business in Cumberland County. Further, the property at issue is located in Cumberland County. FACTS 10. On or about December 3, 2005, Defendant Bryant, visited Plaintiffs' residence to provide an estimate for installing a residential security and home monitoring system. Upon his arrival, Bryant explained that he was co-owner of CIA; Bryant provided Plaintiffs a business card that clearly stated he was an employee of CIA. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of said business card. 11. After visually inspecting the home, Bryant convinced Plaintiffs that they needed a security system that included a computer monitoring system and seven (7) cameras (hereinafter "the system"). The Plaintiffs were quoted a price of $3,470.00, which included the sale, installation and warranty of said system. A deposit of $1,735.00 was required to begin installation with the balance due upon completion. 12. Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the system as proposed. Thereafter, on or about December 3, 2006, the Plaintiffs and CIA entered into a written contract for the installation of the system. As required by the contract, the Plaintiffs submitted the first Page 3 of 19 payment in the amount of $1,735.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of said Contract. 13. Thereafter, Bryant installed seven (7) cameras, a computer tower, a computer monitor, a keyboard, and a fax/printer/copier. 14. The system did work properly upon its completion. 15. On December 9, 2005, Bryant returned to adjust the cameras; at that time, he also explained that the system needed a ground wire, which he would return to install on December 11, 2005. He also requested and was provided the final payment of $1,735.00. 16. On December 11, 2005, Bryant did not return to install the ground wire. 17. On December 14, 2005, Bryant arrived to explain that an electrician by the name of Todd Kramer would come to Plaintiffs' home later that day to install the ground wire, which would be a separate charge. Thereafter, Bryant left Plaintiffs' residence on the explanation that he was gong to Home Depot to purchase the ground wire for the electrician. Bryant never returned. The electrician never showed. 18. All attempts to reach Bryant over the next two (2) days were to no avail. 19. Therefore, on December 16, 2005, Plaintiffs called Defendant CIA and spoke with Defendant Lakatosh. According to Lakatosh, Defendant Bryant was not an employee of the company and that he had no authority to sale or install the system as a representative of CIA. Thereafter, Lakatosh offered to send out a representative of CIA to assess and repair the system. Page 4 of 19 20. On December 16, 2005, a CIA representative by the name of Derek Leuw arrived at Plaintiffs' residence and visually inspected the system. He explained that all the cameras needed to be replaced. 21. On December 17, 2005, Plaintiffs called Hewlett Packard to inquire about the system. During this phone call, the Plaintiffs discovered that the equipment was severally outdated. In fact, it was discovered that the computer tower was registered to Defendant John Lakatosh's brother, Christopher Lakatosh. 22. On December 19, 2005, Defendant Lakatosh arrived at Plaintiffs' residence and explained he would need a new contract wherein Plaintiffs would agree to pay him an additional $1,500.00 to repair and/or replace the system. Upon Plaintiffs' objection, Lakatosh reduced this amount to $750.00. 23. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs and CIA entered into another written contract for the repair and/or replacement of the system. As required by the contract, the Plaintiffs submitted payment in the amount of $750.00 Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a true and correct copy of said Contract. 24. It was later discovered that this particular contract provided a service agreement requiring Plaintiffs to pay a monthly fee of $39.00 a month for a period of twelve (12) months, which not only could be increased by %10 per year, but also automatically renewed each year for a period of five (5) years. These terms were not explained to the Plaintiffs. 25. On December 21, 2005, Defendant Lakatosh's brother, Christopher Lakatosh, arrived at Plaintiffs' residence to repair the system pursuant to the contract. Mr. Page 5 of 19 Lakatosh claimed that he did, in fact, repair the system successfully and was to collect $750.00, whereupon Plaintiffs provided him a check for this amount. No training was provided to the Plaintiffs on how to use repaired system. In addition, Christopher Lakatosh did not replace the cameras as required by the contract. 26. Immediately upon Christopher Lakatosh's departure, the cameras failed to work properly, if at all. 27. On December 24, 2005, the Plaintiffs were unable to view videos from previous days. 28. On December 25, 2005, Camera #7 of the system failed to work at all. 29. On December 26, 2005, Cameras # 1 and #5 of the system failed to work at all. 30. On December 27, 2005, the Plaintiffs called Defendant CIA to explain that the system was not working properly. A representative from CIA informed Plaintiffs that Christopher Lakatosh would arrive on December 28, 2005, to repair the system. 31. On December 28, 2005, Christopher Lakatosh arrived to repair the system. Mr. Lakatosh disabled the zooming capabilities on the videos and explained that a new program was needed. Camera # 5 was not or could not be turned back on. 32. On December 31, 2005, the system continued to work improperly. The Plaintiffs, therefore, called CIA and spoke with a representative by the name of Sean Shaffer. Mr. Shaffer explained that he could not help them and that Plaintiffs were to call Christopher Lakatosh on January 2, 2006. 33. On January 2, 2006, Christopher Lakatosh and Sean Shaffer arrived at Plaintiffs' residence unannounced. Mr. Lakatosh proceeded to tell the Plaintiffs that nothing was Page 6 of 19 wrong with the system and that all problems with the system were the result of Plaintiffs' failure to receive adequate computer training. 34. Upon the departure of Mr. Lakatosh and Mr. Shaffer, the Plaintiffs called Defendant John Lakatosh who informed them that he would come to their residence on January 3, 2006 to assess the system. Defendant Lakatosh did not arrived until January 4, 2006. 35. On January 4, 2006, Defendant Lakatosh explained to Plaintiffs that the system needed a new program; he offered to contact the Plaintiffs when the when the new program became unavailable. 36. On January 10, 2006, the monitor and / or all the cameras failed to work at all. 37. On January 13, 2006, the Plaintiffs called Defendant John Lakatosh to inform him of this latest system error. On this occasion, Defendant Lakatosh not only became verbally abusive, but also hung up on Plaintiffs three (3) separate times. Eventually, the Plaintiffs managed to make an appointment with Defendant Lakatosh for January 17, 2006. 38. On January 17, 2006, a representative from CIA by the name of Derek Leuw arrived at Plaintiffs' residence in lieu of Defendant Lakatosh. Mr. Leuw updated system with no other explanation. 39. On January 17, 2006, after Mr. Leuw's departure, the system failed to work in the same manner as before Mr. Leuw's arrival. The Plaintiffs attempted to call Mr. Leuw at CIA to explain this problem, but was forced to leave a message with a CIA representative by the name of Crystal. Page 7 of 19 40. On January 18, 2006, the Plaintiffs again called CIA in an attempt to reach Mr. Leuw. It was discovered that Crystal did not give Mr. Leuw the message from the previous day. Regardless, the Plaintiffs managed to make an appointment with Mr. Leuw for January 19, 2006. 41. On January 19, 2006, Mr. Leuw arrived to discover there was several hard drive I discs failures. In addition, the screen on the computer monitor was jumping. Mr. Leuw made no efforts to fix either problem. 42. On January 23, 2006, having not heard from Defendant CIA, the Plaintiffs called CIA and spoke with Defendant Lakatosh. Defendant Lakatosh agreed to send a representative to Plaintiffs' residence on January 26, 2006. 43. On January 26, 2006, Mr. Leuw arrived and apparently fixed the system where the computer screen was no longer jumping. No explanation was provided to Plaintiffs. 44. On February 8, 2006, the Plaintiffs discovered they could not scan videos prior to February 3, 2006, which they could do when the system was first installed; per the original order, the Plaintiffs were to have the ability to view videos for a period of two (2) months prior to the current date viewed. 45. The Plaintiffs thereafter called Defendant CIA to inform it of the problem. At some point that day, the Plaintiffs spoke with Mr. Leuw who asked Plaintiffs to call him later that day, as he was on call. When the Plaintiffs called later that day as instructed, they were forced to leave a message with Crystal. 46. On February 9, 2006, having not heard back from Mr. Leuw, the Plaintiffs, again, called CIA. This time they spoke with a CIA representative by the name of Christopher Page 8 of 19 Flynn. Mr. Flynn took notes on the problems and said a representative would call them back. 47. Later on February 9, 2006, having not heard back from CIA, the Plaintiffs, again, called CIA and spoke with Mr. Leuw. Mr. Leuw stated that he would confer with Defendant Lakatosh and then call the Plaintiffs the following day. Mr. Leuw also stated that he did not receive the messages left for him with Crystal on February 8, 2006. 48. On February 10, 2006, Christopher Flynn called and informed Plaintiffs that they needed a new hard drive, which would cost $250.00. The Plaintiffs explained to Mr. Flynn that the system was to be covered by the original warranty, so they had no intention of investing any further monies into the system. The Plaintiff went on to request that the system be removed and their money returned. 49. On February 20, 2006, Defendant Lakatosh called the Plaintiffs and explained that he needed $250.00 for a new hard drive. The Plaintiffs refused to pay these costs and, again, asked that the system be removed and their money returned. Defendant Lakatosh refused to refund the Plaintiffs' money. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT 50. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 51. On December 3, 2006, as stated, the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the Defendants in which the Defendants would install an electronic residential security monitoring system heretofore referred to as the system. Page 9 of 19 52. The Plaintiffs paid the amount of $3,470.00 to Defendants as part of that agreement. 53. In addition, on December 19, 2006, the Plaintiffs entered into another agreement with the Defendants in which the Defendants would repair and/or replace the original system. 54. The Plaintiffs paid the amount of $750.00 to Defendants as part of that agreement. 55. The Defendants breached both agreements and have failed to provide adequate and effective remedial measures. 56. The Defendants negligently, knowingly, recklessly and improperly installed the system. 57. As a proximate result of the Defendants' breach of the agreements, the Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined plus interest at the statutory rate from the date of the respective breach. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT 11 FRAUD/INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION 58. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. Page 10 of 19 59. The Defendants intentionally, recklessly, and fraudulently misrepresented known material facts to the Plaintiffs, thereby causing the Plaintiffs to act and rely upon those facts in entering into an agreement to purchase Defendants' security system. 60. The facts which Defendants fraudulently misrepresented are outlined in the preceding paragraphs and include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The system that Defendants were offering to install would be installed correctly, in a manner that would result in the system functioning correctly; b. The system that Defendants were offering to install would come with a one (1) year warranty for all parts and labor. c. The system that Defendant was offering to install would install would provide the ability to view videos for a period of two (2) months prior to the current date viewed; d. The system that Defendants were offering to install would have a value equal to or greater than the amount paid for the system, when in truth and fact, said system as installed by the Defendant had no value and was worthless. 61. These representations were made by Defendants with the intention of misleading Plaintiffs into relying upon them, in that the Defendants intended to induce Plaintiffs to pay for a system that Defendants did not install adequately, was not fit for the purpose represented, and which would ultimately be worthless. 62. Defendants made these representations falsely, with knowledge of their falsity, or recklessly as to whether they were true or false. Page 11 of 19 63. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the information provided by the Defendants in determining whether to purchase the system from the Defendants. 64. Plaintiffs' damages were proximately caused by Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the systems' ability to monitor the Plaintiffs' home. 65. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on the representations made by the Defendants who purported to be experts in the sale and installation of electronic residential security monitoring systems, and if they had known the Defendants' system was not going to be adequate from the beginning, they would not have invested their initial $4,220.00 for the Defendant's deficient residential security monitoring system. 66. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, and the anticipated cost of securing an expert report. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Page 12 of 19 COUNT III NEGLIGENT REPRESENTATION 67. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 68. The Defendants made representations to Plaintiffs regarding the ability and qualifications of the Defendant in providing an electronic residential security monitoring system. 69. These representations were material to the Plaintiffs' decision to purchase the services of the Defendants in that the Plaintiffs would not have retained the services of Defendants had they known of the Defendants' incompetence, and that the system installed would ultimately be useless. 70. When these representations were made to Plaintiffs, Defendants knew or had reason to know that they were not truthful and accurate. 71. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care and competence in assessing, evaluating, and attempting to install an electronic residential security monitoring system. 72. These representations were made by Defendants with the intention of inducing Plaintiffs into relying and acting upon them, in that the Defendants intended to induce Plaintiffs to purchase their system. 73. Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon these misrepresentations in that Plaintiffs relied upon the only information available to them and provided by the Defendants in determining the qualifications and suitability of the Defendants. Page 13 of 19 74. Plaintiffs suffered damages, as detailed in preceding paragraphs, as a proximate result of their reliance upon Defendant's misrepresentations, in that Plaintiffs would not have otherwise purchased the Defendants' system. 75. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT IV VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 73 P.S. §201-1, et seq. 76. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 77. Defendants engaged in a series of unfair and deceptive acts and practices directed against the Plaintiffs under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §201-1, et seq. Page 14 of 19 78. These unfair and deceptive acts and representations include Defendants' requirement that Plaintiffs sign a five (5) year contract that included terms that were too small to read and failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose that: a. a service agreement was included that had a built-in or automatic five (5) year renewal clause; and b. the monthly fee thereto could increase each year by an amount of %10 per year for each of the five (5) year sign-up period. 79. Inadequately disclosed renewals and unfair price and increase language are not acceptable business practices. Further, any attempt to bury or omit these types of terms and conditions is deceptive. 80. Other unfair and deceptive acts and representations are outlined in this Complaint's foregoing paragraphs, which are incorporated herein by reference. 81. Defendants made these misrepresentations with the intention of inducing Plaintiffs to rely upon them, in that Defendants intended to induce Plaintiffs to purchase Defendants' system, and if Plaintiffs had known the truth, Plaintiffs would not have retained Defendants' services or purchased their system. 82. Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied on the misrepresentations made by Defendants who purported to be qualified in the field of residential electronic and security monitoring equipment and services. 83. Defendants' misrepresentations and failure to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. As a result of Defendants' unlawful acts, Plaintiffs suffered an ascertainable loss of money. Page 15 of 19 84. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' misrepresentation of thier ability and knowledge about residential electronic and security monitoring equipment and services, the Plaintiffs has been damaged. Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, and the anticipated cost of securing an expert report. 85. Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages in the discretion of the Court under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §201-9.2, et seq., and this would be an appropriate case for the maximum damages allowed by law given the conduct of Defendants. 86. Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. §201-9.2. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT V BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE 87. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. Page 16 of 19 88. The Defendants held themselves out as experts in the business of selling and installing residential electronic and security monitoring equipment and services and knew the exact purpose for which the Plaintiffs were purchasing the Defendants' system and were fully aware that the Plaintiffs were relying on the Defendants to install a system that met Plaintiffs' needs and effectively monitored Plaintiffs' home, thereby implicitly warranting to Plaintiffs that Defendants' system would, in fact, be suitable to meet the Plaintiffs' needs. 89. The Defendants produced a system which did not effectively monitor Plaintiffs' home, thereby breaching the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. 90. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Page 17 of 19 COUNT VII BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY 91. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 92. Defendants implicitly warranted that their residential security monitoring system would be functional. 93. The Defendants' system was not functional, thereby breaching the implied warranty of merchantability. 94. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the Plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to: a. Loss of approximately $4,220.00 initially spent by Plaintiffs for a residential security monitoring system; b. Continued expenditure of time; and c. Continued monetary loss spent to try and remedy the system installed by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined, together with compensatory damages, costs, interest, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on the foregoing Counts for the Page 18 of 19 full amount of Plaintiffs' damages in connection with their retaining the Defendants to install and service an electronic residential security monitoring system, plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees, and grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, TES, LLC Date: Sha Ko e, q. o2C? Page 19 of 19 _ `° 3 -MORE CD. C +- ` n rte.- M . y ` ?JF 00?. ' e? ??-' - A C fp n n a7 o A one. :f PROPOSAL • --w. ?' ate- f?rv T s?^d PROPOSAL NO. OFFS -` ?"l? J'G}. • a?.s0 - 1ASCf L r- Z 005'- j)cc. 3 SHEET NO. goat {ZDS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT. DATE / ?G4 3 as NAME tAy^t ADDRESS 5)k ooVF• ADDRESS L CITY, STAT, CITY STATE (.tom errs .. ' W 4 o DATE OF PLANS ?GL 3- 2 DD S PHONE NO. If LIq ? Ya ?1 ?•? • p ARCHITECT qL We hereby propose to furnish the rltQtt4s and p fo?fn V scary for the completion of 0 t? c L r Z- fofrnl 2 ?,r t • lz!?zK T" sdr t 6 mole, T !. All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted fo?bov work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of: >( •u/ " xx Dollars ($ ?3y? • nD with payments to be as follows Any alterations or deviation from above speokad" imoMrg extra coats Respectfully submitted wiN be executed only upon written order, and MH become an extra charge over and above the sstlmate. Al agreements oondngerx upon strikes, accidents, or delays beyond our control. Per o 5cea., L' Note - This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The, above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be made as outlined above. SIGNATURE DATE - ag 4- - 3' ? • Q \ SIGNATURE ?'?'' A.kvv,c OAr;n E7 CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO. INC. 320 Loucks Plaza York, PA 17404 (717) 846-0004 1-800-750-0857 Because... Every Second Counts! UNIT# SOLD BY: DATE SOLD: INSTALLATION DATE: TIME: Purchase Agreement F" ro s Authored Dealer 'CUSTOMER HOME TELEPHONE 712 G BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP / Type of Installation: 1% Private Home [] Condominium [] Apartment Office ` Store v Factory [] Other jffTSYSTEN1 DESCRIPTION (all products carrv a one VLar parts & labor v.aiiantV) TOTAL CENTRALCONTROLLER KEY PAD KEY CHAIN WIRELESS KEY PAD UNIVERSAL TRANSMITTERS MOTION DETECTORS GLASS DETECTORS SMOKE DETECTORS LOW TEMPERATURE HEAT SENSORS CARBON MONOXIDE MEDICAL PENDANT i 2,P- C - - TERMS & PAYMENT FOR EQUIPMENT Cash Price (Including Sales Tax) $ 7'2 a Paid With Order Cash 0 Check ? Visa ? M ?saat= ? $ 5 7 Balance on Completion $ Balanced to be Financed $ TERMS AND PAYMENT FOR MONITORING SERVICE: The CUSTOMER agrees to pay Crime Intervention Alarm Co. Inc.; (seller) its agents or ass sum of $ Zr_ ,representing I onths pnf" -repaid. g- services upon execution of this Agreement. Buyer also agrees to pay SELLER a sum of $ per month in advance each month fora pep of five (5) years from theaei? of completion of the installation as monitoring charges. Payment will be made to Crime Intervention Alarm Co. Inc., 320 Loucks Plaza, York, PA 1 404. i,•? /? This Agreement will be renewed automatically for the same period of time as spaded in the Agreement unless either party notifies the other in'wdting of its iimytPwn to terminate (by Certified Mail, Return Requested) prior to sixty (00) days from the expiration of the tern. --- SELLER reserves the right to Increase the monthly payment by a maximum of ten (109/6) percent per year (for every year) of the Agreement between the parties. SELLER will give written notice to BUYER thirty (30) days prior to any increase. All accounts past due by more than thirty (30) days will be charged interest at the rate of 11fr% per month. All charged specified in the Agreement are based on existing federal, state and local taxes and utility charges. Those charges include but are not limited to telephone company line charges. SELLER will have the right, at any time, to increase the monthly monitoring charges to reflect any additional taxes, fees, or charges of any utility or governmental agency relating to the Installation or service provided in this Agreement. BUYER agrees to pay any increased monthly monitoring charges. IMPORTANT: THERE ARE ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT INCORPORATES THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE THIS AGREEMENT BY REFERENCE. THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE MADE PART OF THIS AGREE- MENT. BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE OR SHE HASREAD THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT (BOTH SIDES) AND HAS RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT. BUYER AND SELLEB_TO.AG TO ALL OF THE ABOVE: CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM C Th is??.?c.?/? day of 20-? By: % Representativ/ Titlef Customer Approved By: f ..----'` Customer This Purchase Agreement Can be Cancelled No Later Than Midnight of c "W _{/j/'/1 'c ?, -- - REV 3/01 _- e _- ? a Z Z m n n ^ '°' J? 9 m T ?' r y Y ? y _ Y y oc O 3 ? r?m ? ?t_ ? rn 3 n - ^? m ` _ Opa^OC^ -- a _ _ mm z-?jm r. E v-- A??? x x 3zz c z 4z r. 3 o c. O^. zK ^rmi,m 0 -- 3 c i a O m z y F r' z a r ? Z - _ xa_ymy 'r 1 V _ F D m y 5 3 r ? ?-'Z'N ya zC A? iZYz 3, o y- _ 7 - m"? 2 CCn w `_ c? ? z? n y z ? 3 c n s> > ? G ?yan3,O? z! _P3 ° m y ??_.? r = f 3 3 v o 2 x 2 0 ° s T _ - A c £ E r-- 72 1 r°o n s z ? ? - -o' 3 c. .. e ry rt E? y c ? ?• 3 z v 3 0. 3 ?. 4 S o a y ? 3 ? ? - : 3 F c c v ? n - - Feu _ - c 2 E V w a _ = F y cam- '? 7 a n o y R ? F - u y < - - '' F ? n T c o = c 3 E, N _ °.° v ? `e 3 c c a o, ? w a c - ? r c c =G n m 3 3 41 7 =z ? (` n Y ii=w T y y. z 3 v = U o 'Q }°c',c`8c= OR 4 o f ? = rt m x F _. z?? ? a? ? ? A• ? ??a= ? .cam-°?'?? 4- R; ;j 5? d = c? _ sPP--' 3 3?=- ? ? X??v .2 A 71 7- G v a - c 4. Z S? c ^ c c a ° n ti a - as '- a IZ OR Z m -El -27 4-7 F, 75 Z; ?-3 d V VERIFICATION I, Anthony Ranieli and Ruth Ranieli, Plaintiffs in this matter, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Amended Complaint 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. Anthony kani uth anieli Date: ? W r _g ) , mil SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-01113 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RANIELI ANTHONY ET AL VS CRIME INTERVENITON ALARM ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: BRYANT MATTHEW but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of LANCASTER County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On July 8th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from LANCASTER Sheriff's Costs: So answer- -,_ :7 Docketing 18.00 ?J J Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Thomas Kline Dep Lancaster Co 44.06 Sheriff of Cumberland County Postage 2.61? n 83.67 111516Q c?. 07/08/2008 KOPE & ASSOCIATES Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. . SHERIFF'S OFFICE 50 NORTH DUKE STREET, P.O. BOX 83480, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17608-3480 • (717) 299-8200 ,32s3z ?g SHERIFF SERVICE PLEASE TYPE Oft, T Y PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN 00 NOT DET AMY COMM 1. PLAINTIFF/S/ ?2. COURT NUMBER Anthony Ranieli et al 08-1113 civil 3. DEFENDANTS/ I 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT Crime Intervention Alarm CO Inc et al Notice and Complaint SERVE 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC., TO BE SERVED Matthew Bryant 6. ADDRESS ((Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, Boro, Twp., State and ZIP Code) AT 329 Rider Avenue Lancaster, PA17603 7 INDICATE UNUSUAL SERVICE: ? DEPUTIZE ? OTHER Cumberland Now, June 10 20 08 , I, SHERIFF OF f COUNTY, PA., do hereby pputize the She ri f Lancaster County to execute this Wry&pdnd fum t eof ins to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. SHERIFF OF courrrvs 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: Cmberland Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. 3 H Cn n k z q NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN -Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction or removal of any such property before sherries sale thereof. 9. qXINRTURE of ATTORNEY or other ORIGINATOR 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE SHANE B. KOPE, ESO. 717-761-7573 6/9/08 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed If notice is to be mailed) KOPE & ASSOCIATES 4660 TRINDLE RD. STE. 201 CAMP HILL, PA. 17011 SPACE BELOW FOR U9E OF MOW oNLY -- Do N67 W-"m OW Tm 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ NAME of Authorized LCSO Deputy or Clerk 14. Date Received 15. Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above.) JAC KIE MICCICHE 717-390-2309 6/11/08 7/9/08 16. 1 hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that 10 have personally served, ? have legal evidence of service as shown in "Remarks:, ? have executed as shown in "Remarks", the writ or complaint described on the individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual, company, cor- poration, etc., at the address inserted below by handing a TRUE and ATTESTED COPY thereof. 17. hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc., named above. (See remarks below) 18. Name and title of individual served (if not shown above) (Relationship to Defendant) I 19. ? No Service See Remarks Below (No. 30) 20. Address of where served (complete only if different than shown above) (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, Boro, Twp. 21. Date of Service 22. Time State and Zip Code) AM PM EST EDST 23. ATTEMPTS ,Date Miles . Int. Date Miles Dep. Int. Date Miles Dep. Int. Date Mlles Dep. Int. Date Mlles Dep. Int. 24. Advance Costs 25. Service Costs 26. Notary Cert. 27. Mileage/Postage/N.F. 28. Total Costs 29. COST DUE OR REFUND R lba 150. 36.50 1 's3 --? jq? [65 30. REMARKS: S.T.A.: Z-Qp- F f` 5 0A \ v e- ?erc- li\e- P1st ct, SO ER. 31. AFFIRMED and subscribed to before me this 32. Sign re Dep. Sh A - YHNI ..rcrnar ?kull+' L' .te r. ° r ' ??? ? ? „r r? ILk t z p k { l • ?411 e 40 '"i .... .. tit ' ? .i . p r t ¢ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI # 08-1113 V. CIVIL ACTION -LAW CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO., INC., : JOHN LAKATOSH, AND MATTHEW BRYANT ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT'S JOINDER SUBMITTED BY JOHN LAKATOSH AND CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO., INC. 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied as stated. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Bryant acted on his own behalf or on behalf of DDS Security. 6. Denied as stated. CIA dealt with Plaintiffs after it became apparent that Matthew Bryant and/or DSS Security were unable to complete the job. 7. Admitted with clarification. Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security was not and is not in any relationship whatsoever with CIA. l 8. This is a conclusion of law for which no response is required. 9. See 8. Above. 10. Neither admitted nor denied. This is information solely within the control of an adverse parry. Proof of same is demanded at trial. 11. See 10. Above. 12. Denied as stated. The contract set forth as Exhibit B is between Plaintiffs and DSS Security. 13. See 10. Above. 14. See 10. Above. 15. See 10. Above. 16. See 10. Above. 17. See 10. Above. 18. See 10. Above. 19. Admitted, though this should have been clear had the Plaintiffs read the contract they signed. 20. Admitted. The cameras in question had been stolen from CIA by Defendant Bryant and were improperly installed at the Ranielis, rendering them inoperable. 21. See 10. Above. The computer tower was purchased by CIA. While in CIA's possession, Christopher Lakatosh registered the equipment with Microsoft. This equipment was later stolen from CIA by Matthew Bryant. 22. Denied as stated. Defendant CIA agreed to address the problems created by Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security. Defendant CIA charged $750.00 after discounting its bill. 23. See 22. Above. Further, this was not another contract but was the first contract between Anthony Ranieli only and CIA. 24. Denied as stated. The document speaks for itself. 25. Denied as stated. Christopher Lakatosh for CIA installed new cameras. Christopher Lakatosh is an installer. 26. See 10. Above. 27. See 10. Above. 28. See 10. Above. 29. See 10. Above. 30. See 10. Above. 31. See 10. Above. 32. Denied as stated. Defendant CIA never had an employee named Sean Shaffer. 33. See 10. Above. See also 32. Above. 34. See 10. Above. 35. See 10. Above. 36. See 10. Above. 37. Admitted with clarification. Defendant Lakatosh, for CIA, attempted to maintain a civil, adult conversation with Plaintiff Anthony Ranieli; however, Ranieli insisted on referring to Mr. Lakatosh as a "fucking thief'. CIA made repeated visits to the Ranielis home without charge. The Ranielis were computer challenged. 38. Admitted 39. See 10. Above. 40. See 10. Above. 41. Denied as stated. Video drivers needed to be installed. 42. See 10. Above. 43. Admitted. 44. Denied as stated. Defendant CIA does not know what promises or guarantees were made by Matthew Bryant on behalf of DSS. What Plaintiff wanted to do with his new system required an additional hard drive. 45. See 10. Above. 46. See 10. Above. 47. See 10. Above 48. Admitted. Anthony Ranieli was advised that a larger hard drive was needed for the cameras to do what he wanted them to do. 49. Admitted. COUNT 1 50. No response required. 51. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs contracted with Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security. 52. Denied as stated. This sum was paid to Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security. 53. Denied as stated. The contract referenced was with CIA. 54. Admitted, as to the CIA contract only. 55. This is a conclusion of law for which no response is required. 56. Admitted as to the work performed by Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security; denied as to the work done by CIA.. 57. See 55. Above. COUNT II 58. No response required. 59. See 55. Above. 60. Denied as stated. It is averred and believed that Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security made these representations. At the time done, Bryant acted for himself, not for CIA. 61. See 60. Above. 62. See 60. Above. 63. See 55. Above. 64. See 55. Above. 65. See 10. Above. 66. See 10. Above. 67. No response required. COUNT III 68. Denied as stated. Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security may have made such representations. 69. See 10. Above. 70. Denied as stated. Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security may have known his representations were incorrect and/or misleading. 71. See 55. Above. 72. Denied as stated. Any statements made by John Lakatosh on behalf of CIA were and are truthful and accurate. 73. See 55. Above. 74. See 55. Above. 75. See 10. Above. COUNT IV 76. No response required. 77. See 55. Above. 78. See 55. Above. 79. See 55. Above. 80. See 55. Above. 81. See 72. Above. 82. Denied as stated. Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security may have made such representations. 83. See 55. Above. 84. See 10. Above. 85. See 55. Above. 86. See 55. Above. COUNT V 87. No response required. 88. See 55. Above. 89. See 55. Above. 90. See 10. Above. COUNT VI NOTE THERE WAS NO COUNT VI PLEAD. COUNT VI 91. No response required. 92. See 55. Above. 93. See 55. Above. 94. See 10. Above. NEW MATTER 95. Matthew Bryan, as a representative of CIA made a proposal sometime in November or December of 2005. 96. The price quoted to the Ranielis was too high and was rejected by them. 97. Sometime subsequent, Matthew Bryant as DSS Security made a proposal to the Ranielis for the installation of security cameras. 98. Bryant at that time admitted to the Ranielis that he was operating his own business. 99. The Ranielis would later admit to John Lakatosh that they told Bryant that they would contract with him as a favor. 100. From that point forward, the Ranielis knew or should have known that Matthew Bryant as DSS Security had no connection of any kind with CIA. 101. Matthew Bryant admitted to the Ranielis that he was "going out on his own". 102. Plaintiffs paid Matthew Bryant as DSS Security the sum of $4,220.00. 103. When CIA first inspected the work of Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security, CIA took the serial numbers of the cameras. 104. The cameras had come from CIA inventory and had been stolen by Matthew Bryant. 105. The Ranielis had no computer background, did not understand computers, and could not fathom repeated training. 106. At all times John Lakatosh, as President of CIA, acted in good faith. 107. At all times relevant, CIA acted in good faith. 108. Neither John Lakatosh nor CIA are responsible for the contracts of Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security. 109. CIA contracted only with Anthony Ranieli. 110. Ruth Ranieli has no cause of action against John Lakatosh or CIA. b? 111. There is no basis in law or fact to hold John Lakatosh personally liable. 112. Matthew Bryant and/or DSS Security are solely liable to Plaintiffs. 113. Plaintiffs knew or should have known that Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security had no connection either with John Lakatosh or CIA. 114. Matthew Bryant delivered a CIA proposal for work at the Ranielis which the Ranielis rejected because of the cost. 115. Thereafter, on his own account, Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security contracted directly with the Ranieli. 116. There is no warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the same having been effectively disclaimed under the CIA contract. 117. There is no warranty of merchantability, the same having been disclaimed under the CIA contract. 118. Pursuant to the liquidated damages clause, Plaintiffs are entitled to a maximum of $250.00 from CIA. JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 119. CIA and John Lakatosh incorporate by reference all previous allegations in all previous paragraphs as though same were set forth herein at length. 120. The carelessness, recklessness and/or negligence of Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a consisted, inter alia, of the following: (a) failing to properly install security cameras. 121. If Plaintiffs sustained injuries and/or damages as alleged, same being specifically denied, then Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security is solely liable to Plaintiffs, or jointly and severally liable or liable over to CIA and John Lakatosh with respect to the cause of action declared upon by Plaintiffs in their Complaint. Any and all liability with respect to CIA and John Lakatosh is denied. 18. Furthermore, CIA and John Lakatosh are and/or may be entitled to contribution and/or indemnification from Additional Defendant Matthew Bryant t/d/b/a DSS Security, should Plaintiffs recover for damages allegedly sustained as is set forth in the complaint. Any and all liability with respect to CIA or John Lakatosh is denied. WHEREFORE, CIA and John Lakatosh respectfully request that this Honorable Court find Additional Defendant solely liable to Plaintiff, liable over to CIA and John Lakatosh, jointly and/or severally liable with CIA and John Lakatosh and/or liable over to CIA and John Lakatosh for contribution and/or indemnification upon a cause of action alleged by Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, Date: 7/18/08 By: ?:/z Jos ?T-61- Korsak, Esquire 33, h Queen Street Y , PA 17403 7) 854-3175 I.D. No. 22233 VERIFICATION The undersigned verifies that the statements made in the foregoing instrument which are within the personal knowledge of the undersigned, are true and correct, and as to the facts based on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believe them to be true. And further, this verification is signed on the recommendation of my attorney, who advises me that the allegations and language in this document are required legally to raise issues for resolution at trial, by the Court, or by continuing investigation and preparation for trial. I understand that some of these allegations may prove inappropriate after investigation and trial preparation are complete and I leave the determination of these matters to my attorney on his or her advice. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Date: e7 fo b CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served electronically upon the following: Shane Kope, Esq. Kope and Associates 4660 Trindle Road Suite 201 Camp Hill. Pa. 17011 Matthew Bryant c/o Adams County Prison 45 Major Bell Lane Gettysburg, Pa. 17325 Date: 7/18/08 By: Jusepn U. riorsax, rsquire 33 North Queen Street York, PA 17403 (717) 854-3175 I.D. No. 22233 n r C C KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID 92207 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 sbkope@kopelaw.com ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI, Plaintiffs, V. Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA : NO. 2008-1113 (Civil Term) CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO, INC., : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JOHN LAKATOSH, and MATTHEW BRYANT Defendants. PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the Plaintiffs voluntary discontinuance of the within action pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229. Respectfully Submitted, Date: ` ?06 r, !ASSOCIATES Sha . Kope, (Attorney or KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID 92207 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 sbkope@kopelaw.com ANTHONY AND RUTH RANIELI, PLEAS Plaintiffs, PA Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, v. NO. 2008-1113 (Civil Term) CRIME INTERVENTION ALARM CO, INC., : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JOHN LAKATOSH, and MATTHEW BRYANT Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Shane B. Kope, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this 16th day of September 2008, 1 served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Discontinue via regular U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Joseph C. Korsak, Esq. 33 North Queen Street York, PA 17403 c C ° ces Lfi V: Ca?1 A sx '?z