Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-1356Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. By: Neil Sarker, Esquire ID. NO. 203465 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 / West Chester, PA 19380 (610) 696-2120 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 701 East 60th Street N Sioux Falls, SD 57117 Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. VIRGINIA A RETH : NO. OS -13S1o ?l v 27 Richard Road, Mechanicsburg PA 17050-6831 Defendant : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Complaint - Notice You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within (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 claim 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. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. LAWYER REFERENCE AND INFORMATION SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Assoc. 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone No. 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108 C-13276 10 Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. By: Brit J. Suttell, Esquire ID. NO. 204140 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 610-696-2120 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. Plaintiff V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-1356 CIVIL TERM VIRGINIA A RETH Defendant : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Certificate of Service I, Brit J. Suttell, Esquire do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the within Brief in support of Preliminary Objections on pro se defendant, Virginia A Reth at his/her address of record via first class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth below. Date: N Gi L, Z ?u Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. By: % _... Brit . Suttell, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff The law firm of Burton Neil & Associates is a debt collector. C-13276 C? ::'1 .. . , -,.; -,? ,i;:. - .r' °` L"".al a. , j ii 1 Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. By: Neil Sarker, Esquire ID. NO. 203465 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 (610) 696-2120 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 701 East 60th Street N Sioux Falls, SD 57117 Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 0 f- "5t- C`? l VIRGINIA A RETH 27 Richard Road, Mechanicsburg PA 17050-6831 Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Complaint Plaintiff is CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., with place of business located at 701 East 60th Street North, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 2. Defendant is Virginia A Reth, who resides at 27 Richard Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is a national banking association, engaged in various types of banking business including consumer lending through the issuance of credit cards. 4. Plaintiff furnished consumer credit to the defendant by means of a credit card with account number 5424180329767864 hereinafter referred to as the credit card account. 5. Plaintiff kept accurate running records of all debits and credits to the account. 6. Plaintiff mailed to defendant monthly statements for the account including the billing statement attached hereto as Exhibit A. The monthly statements accurately stated the previous balance, the debits and credits to the account for the prior billing period. 7. Before plaintiff mailed Exhibit A, defendant had for many months made payments on account of the billing statement or retained the statement without payment. 8. Defendant's actions as set forth above constituted an account stated between parties for the sum of $19,504.72 which sum reflects the Exhibit A statement balance less credits, if any, which were applied subsequent to the date of Exhibit A. Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the sum of $19,504.72, and the costs of this action. Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. By: Neil Sarker, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff The law firm of Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. is a debt collector. C 0 1 0 1 5) Lli C 0 00 `r C 00 o C In r N Z C V o Q 01 M Iri M l I N o Q d r o a (O o co O\ < Q Q 4 A LQ I 1 G 01 ~ N OI a0 1 1 0 O O O O O p O 0 10 F FW- 1 0 F 0 N n 0 O OJ 0 O ?0 Q CC O 0 it IZ lz q? N J Co Y ,? O J O q M ) 0! OOo U 0 V O O 0 V O O 0 V O 0 N co Eu'?- 4 of io O O 0 0 pG O 0 V "b o Ojr 0oO o I I ! F I ii rc d cc d FE m r? _ -- V m to to W O ? I L W W d ? l i i V ? ) V W O W O a 0 a ? tI = 3 _ _ < L 0 r 9 U! U U V N W? w? tj U. U W ? t+. Z!. -4( Z1 Z 4 2 CL Z i z Z 2 (I - In Y Y O J I` O W r S 0 p O VJ 0 O N O r • W W S at O 0 Q O O O « N < 0 O N S O 0 O + N < O °` V W a' V a V V ° U a L U N E U Q Y G ¢ J > O O N O d V P m p c a Y m p 0 fY fL Y aD y M G a V ? s L LL m ? ? i I v v u r p = Y? i N ° M N M N M N Y N M N Y ? N M E E Ern p Y ° y 0 {0 0 Ta d° o Ta a° o a ° o GN CL C> q aD ? m Oi ? 0 O H 0 F o O O S 7 Z O t7 d m q q N 0 S S Y u O Y ° V N p C ° ° d aA. ' „ a Oi O! O O O N O 4 V 4 4 Y O C O u Q> Q Ln 4 N N Oi O O m N. O o m NJ O O O A e7 N 0 O 00 M CO U N Y ? 0 U N O O O O ql o O U 0 ? ry J Y u Y 000000 MC 32 A 0 VIRGINIA A RETH 27 RICHARD ROAD CITI CARDS MECHANICSBURGPA 17050-6831 P.O. BOX 182564 COLUMBUS, OH43218-2564 > r 2 O O O 0 O > O 6 « O N Vi O C M y m Yo tv $ - to E u y Q N a O u O O C V c E yq -) 0 n) 3.S, C o 03 0 O U N ?• E> n O H a n L Y n o' ° 'c n E 7 v: y ? 0 3 c u u' ? Y E r r- E E mo 'E O J c» j? rE 5. cl 0 > O >yey dY L O N+. alL C W._L" O?. c ° v: ° ? Y 7 ? u N v d Z :t: E .r ? ? 0 O N n) 0 V ,^ H v ¢ D O C R ~ F y C C J J O o? j Oa- V N? Y O a V J y 'C V 0 in E .1 ~ do u 0 3: C \ E Y YI ?r d d o' 2 N _C CTy y>'r E r E ~ 01 ae u m ¢ m t: 0n OYtuE co N Z a ai O 7 0 > L r?D O > a ` O ¢.? t: 7.L.. ? N r- F" O F- ¢ U ¢ E U f O v0 Fo u > O in OdtP peitl __ _ ertioun t (+iitl _ __ __ t tiFU p _ __ _ DetaM and follow payment matructione en nyane Make check Payable to:Citi Cards ? ` ? r Total New Balan ce: - Account Number: $19,504.72 5424 1803 2976 7864 Minimum Amount Due: Amount Enclosed: $3,775.44 Payment Due Date: 11/15/2007 Paymot must he received by 5:0o PM Ixal time On the Payment dui data. EXHIBIT a• a a z l7 ? > r- E 0 V ui a 3 'ul e e_ c r ° ? c o .c a, N q q ? Vl ..a ? C.0 Ypa T 0w Eul « 010x 0 em =OO v _= Vmn < r o ? ? (7 3• v o c ? J <HW M m O. O. C `a! m f1 W W O O O '?? i u r+ o r+ ? E c R u m en p V O ! iE « f O O C 9 19 1 ! du r o0 0 o 0 o F u9 Q O q r r a U t ? Y ! i ? m c r? ri o o r 1? ? rn co o. m N N q v ? E q u C VJ j q • 7 'O O q X 0 ? a y U ?U U VI h C X 10 E e 0 r n• o c -E .. ?Ea O >U V ° E .O V ui N ? QO m N c V E c ° o a0 w=z ?°,E n o p ro o F cy O n tL 0 0 zo porn ?o g m C N r N y ? a > a v c E -E a ==w -o ° V m =_ c o- O N N . Verification I, Shauna Houghton am an employee of Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., (USA) which is by contract the service provider for plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. retained to perform services on its behalf. I am authorized to make this verification as attorney- in-fact for plaintiff under powers of attorney from plaintiff to Citicorp Credit Services, Inc. (USA) and to me. The foregoing averments of fact in the within pleading are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to the authorities. Signature Shauna Houg ton Virginia A Reth 5424180329767864 Ai -w. O -n l:J C73 ;J {! J k-D ?? SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-01356 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CITIBANK SOUTH DAKOTA NA VS RETH VIRGINIA A RONALD HOOVER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon 'DP'r TJ 1TTTJr1-TNTT7\ L the DEFENDANT , at 1935:00 HOURS, on the 7th day of March , 2008 at 27 RICHARD ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050-6831 by handing to CHRIS GOODERHAM, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 11.52 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 00 x14a) 3 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 03/10/2008 BURTON NEIL By: Deputy S eriff A. D. Burton Neil & Associates, P.C By: Neil Sharker, Esquire ID. NO. 203465 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, Pa 19380 (610) 696-2120 Attorney for Plantiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. Plaintiff, V. VIRGINIA A. RETH 27 Richard Road Mechanicsburg PA 17050 Defendant, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : Case No. 08-1356 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION -LAW VERIFIED ANSWER Now comes the defendant and hereby specifically answers the allegations in plaintiff s complaint, to wit: 1. Defendant denies plaintiffs allegation number 1 and demands strict proof thereof. 2. Defendant denies plaintiff's allegation number 2 and demands strict and authenticated proof thereof. 3. Defendant denies plaintiffs allegation number 3 and demands strict and authenticated proof thereof. 4. As to all allegations not specifically admitted herein, they are hereby denied and defendant demands strict and authenticated proof thereof each. 5. In defense of the unsupported allegations raised in plaintiffs complaint, defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses. . U I . Burton Neil & Associates, P.C By: Neil Sharker, Esquire ID. NO. 203465 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, Pa 19380 (610) 696-2120 Attorney for Plantiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. 701 East 60et Street N Sioux Falls, SD 57117 Plaintiff, V. : Case No. 08-1356 Civil Term VIRGINIA A. RETH 27 Richard Road Mechanicsburg PA 17050 Defendant, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE OF FILING Please take Notice that on the 9th day of April, 2008, there was filed with the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses in the above-captioned matter. BY: Virginia Reth 27 Richard Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Virginia Reth hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer was sent to Plaintiff, by first class mail addressed to its attorney: Neil Sarker, Esquire at 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170, West Chester, PA 19380 on this 9th day of April, 2008. BY: Virginia Reth 27 Richard Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES DEFENDANT'S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING TO SUE 6. Defendant reasserts and realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-6 above, and incorporates same by reference herein. 7. Plaintiff that is named in the caption set forth above is no longer the owner or holder of the contract, account, debt obligation or other instrument that is the basis of this cause of action. To wit, this cause of action is being brought in the name of the named plaintiff, however, the named plaintiff has sold, assigned, forwarded, subrogated, entered into a novation of the alleged contract or otherwise relinquished ownership and/or control of the account, contract, debt obligation or other instrument upon which the action is based, and has transferred the asset(s) off of its books for regulatory capital and accounting purposes. 8. Further, plaintiff has received money or credit pursuant to an insurance settlement, based upon the disputed account relationship between plaintiff arid defendant. 9. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff lacks standing to bring a cause of action in this matter. DEFENDANT'S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: ESTOPPEL 10. Defendant reasserts and realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-10 above, and incorporates same by reference herein. 11. Plaintiff that is named in the caption of this cause of action was served with defendant's valid disputes with respect to the alleged account, and failed to respond and satisfy defendant's disputes of the alleged debt. Plaintiff has thus defaulted upon its claim by failing to respond thereto. As such, plaintiff is estopped from bringing the instant cause of action. In addition, defendant served written demands for verification, validation and documentation concerning the account, and the alleged debt that is at issue herein, as was defendant's right under established principles of contract law and the terms of the! Fair Credit Billing Act. Named plaintiff failed to respond to defendant's demands for documentation, verification and validation, and continued to pursue the collection of the alleged debt, in violation of established principles of contract, collections and administrative . law, thus precluding the pursuit of any collection activities on the disputed account that is the basis for this cause of action. DEFENDANT'S THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: NO PRIOR COURSE OF DEALING 12. Defendant reasserts and realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-12 above, and incorporates same by reference herein. 13. Plaintiff has failed to properly allege or establish a prior course of dealings between the parties to support a claim in account stated. 14. As a result of the above, plaintiff's claims for account stated are without foundation or evidentiary support and must be denied. DEFENDANT'S FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: STATUTE OF FRAUDS 15. Defendant reasserts and realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-15 above, and incorporates same by reference herein. 16. a(77he primary theory of statutes of frauds, past and present, is that they are means to the end of preventing successful courtroom perjury . The means to this end is simply the requirement of a writing signed by the party to be charged .... (B]ut the statute of frauds writing requirement is . . . so far from any kind of guarantee against successful perjury that it is inappropriate even to call it a means to fraud prevention at all." James J. White & Robert S. Summers. Uniform Commercial Code Sections 2-8. at 82 (0 ed. 1995). 17. The statute of frauds declares certain contracts judicially unenforceable if they are not committed to writing and signed by the party to be charged. 18. In the case at hand no contract signed by the defendant has been offered as evidence since one does not exist. Therefore the plaintiff's claim falls under the statute of frauds and is rendered unenforceable under the statute of frauds as well. 19. A contract that can not be performed within one year of its making is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. 20. In the matter at hand, the alleged contract between the parties can not be performed within one year, as the complaint does not indicate or claim that the "contract" has any specific ending date. Therefore the plaintiff's claim falls under ./ . the statute of frauds and is rendered unenforceable under the statute of frauds as well. 21. A contract for the sale of goods valued at $500 or more is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. 22. Here, the alleged "contract" alleged by the plaintiff indicates that goods may have been bought for $500 or more. Therefore the plaintiff's claim falls under the statute of frauds and is rendered unenforceable under the statute of frauds as well. DEFENDANT'S FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: FAILURE TO REFLECT MITIGATION OF DAMAGES 23. Defendant reasserts and realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-23 above, and incorporates same by reference herein. 24. A plaintiff, after a breach of contract, is required to make reasonable efforts to alleviate the effects of the injury or the breach. 25. In the instant case, on information and belief, plaintiff has received remuneration or other valuable consideration in some form from the sale of the alleged debt to an unnamed debt buyer and/or collector, which remuneration has not been reflected in the amount sought from defendant herein. 26. In addition, in the instant case, on information and belief, plaintiff has received remuneration or other valuable consideration from the payment of an insurance policy on the alleged account, which remuneration has not been reflected in the amount sought from defendant herein. 27. In addition, plaintiff has added interest and penalties after the time that the account was charged off, without a legal basis for doing so. 28. In the case at hand the plaintiff has not offered or alleged any evidence or actions on its part to reflect the above reasonable effort to mitigate its claimed damages. Therefore the plaintiffs claim should be barred for failure to properly reflect its mitigation of damages. 29. If the defendant can show the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages the plaintiffs recovery may be reduced. . WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully moves this Honorable Court to: 1. Dismiss this cause of action with prejudice; 2. Award defendant its attorney fees and costs of defending this frivolous cause of action; 3. Award defendant such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper in law and equity. VIRGINIA A. RETH 27 RICHARD ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 VERIFICATION VIRGINIA A. RETH certifies that she has read the pleadings and affirmative defenses set forth herein, and that to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, believes that they are well grounded in fact and warranted 1by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and that they are not imposed for any improper purpose such as unnecessary delay or to harass or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. DATED this 9th day of April, 2008. VIRGINIA A. RETH 27 RICHARD ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Subscribed and swom to before me a notarypublic this 9TH of April, 2008. j 12 41., Signature of N ry COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notarial Scat Robert J. Reese, Notary Public Silver Spring'1vvp., Cumberland County My Commission lixpires Aug. 10, 2008 nber. Pennsytvonto Assoc+ction of Caries .4 Burton Neil & Associates, P.C By: Neil Sharker, Esquire ID. NO. 203465 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, Pa 19380 (610) 696-2120 Attorney for Plantiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS V. Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : Case No. 88-1356 CIVIL TERM VIRGINIA A. RETH 27 Richard Road Mechanicsburg PA 17050 Defendant, : CIVIL ACTION -LAW AFFIDAVIT OF VIRGINIA A. RETH STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND JURAT Comes now VIRGINIA A. RETH, the Affiant, and does solemnly affirm under oath and penalties of perjury, that the statements herein are true and correct in substance and in fact, to wit: 1. I am competent and qualified to testify as to the facts herein. 2. 1 have no recollection of ever borrowing any money from the plaintiff. 3. 1 never promised to pay the plaintiff any amount of money. 4. 1 do not owe the plaintiff any money, and I am not indebted to the plaintiff in any way. 5. 1 am not in possession of, nor do I recall ever receiving from plaintiff the agreement attached to plaintiffs complaint as Exhibit A, and I hereby dispute its authenticity. 6. 1 never assented to the terms of any agreement with plaintiff and never defaulted on any agreements I may have had with the plaintiff with respect to the disputed debt heriein. T 1 have disputed the alleged debt with plaintiff, who has not provided me with documentation validating plaintiffs claim herein. 8. 1 cannot recall ever receiving the alleged billing statement that is attached as Exhibit B to plaintiffs complaint herein and I hereby dispute 9. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA JURAT COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ?t::r cil Burton Neil & Associates, P.C By: Neil Sharker, Esquire ID. NO. 203465 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, Pa 19380 (610) 696-2120 Attorney for PlantifF CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. 701 East 60th Street N : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Sioux Falls, SD 57117 PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, V. : Case No. 08-1356 Civil Term Defendant, : CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE OF FILING VIRGINIA A. RETH 27 Richard Road Mechanicsburg PA 17050 Please take Notice that on the 23rd day of April, 2008, there was filed with the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, Defendant's Requests for Admissions of Fact in the above- captioned matter. BY: Virgi eth 27 Richard Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Virginia A. Reth hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing request for admissions were sent to Plaintiff, by first class mail addressed to its attorney: Burton Neil & Associates, P.C, By: Neil Sharker, Esquire ID. NO. 203465,1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170, West Chester, Pa 1 80 on this 23rd day of April 2008. BY: Virgi 27 Richard Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 1 Burton Neil & Associates, P.C By: Neil Sharker, Esquire ID. NO. 203465 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, Pa 19380 (610) 696-2120 Attorney for Plantiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. 701 East 60"' Street N : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Sioux Falls, SD 57117 PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, V. : Case No. 08-1356 Civil Term VIRGINIA A. RETH 27 Richard Road Mechanicsburg PA 17050 Defendant, : CIVIL ACTION -LAW DEFENDANTS FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the plaintiff pursuant to section 7361 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7361, Rule 4014, that each of the following requests for admission must either be admitted or denied within 45 days and in the manner required by the rules. Be advised that if you are the attorney for the plaintiff and you answer these questions under oath, you will be subject to cross examination and waive the attorney client privilege. These requests for admission are directly and specifically relevant to the subject matter of the pending cause of action, as established in the allegations in plaintiffs complaint, and to defendant's specifically delineated affirmative defenses. Defendant requests that the Plaintiff answer fully and in writing each of the following Requests for Admission and serve said answers at Defendant's mailing address within 45 days of the s date of service. Failure to answer these requests for admissions within 45 days after service shall result in their admission for the purpose of this action. GENERALPROCEDURE These Requests for Admission have been served upon you. They are to be answered under oath within 45 days of the date of service in the manner provided by the Civil Rules and Local Rules of the Court in which this matter is filed. These requests for admissions are continuing, and in the event you discover other information or documentation which alters, modes, deletes, or augments the answers given now or at any time hereafter, you are to provide such information by supplemental answers. If the response to any of these Requests for Admissions is anything other than an unqualified admission of the facts states in the request, the response shall admit each fact that is true and qualify or deny the remainder of the facts stated in the request. All the facts forming the basis of the denial must be stated in your response. If you cannot admit or deny a fact, you must set forth in detail the reason why you cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A lack of information or knowledge may not be used as a response unless you have made a reasonable inquiry and the information known to you is insufficient to enable you to admit or deny the request. If objection is made to any of these requests, the reasons therefore must be specifically stated in the response. If you fail to admit the truth of any matter set forth in these requests, and if the serving party later proves the truth of the matter, you may be liable for reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including attorney's fees and legal costs, and other sanctions available under the rules. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1. Admit that plaintiff and defendant did not execute a bi-lateral written contract related to the disputed account in the above-captioned cause of action. Response: 2. Admit that plaintiff cannot produce any records showing payments to vendors for goods and services allegedly charged by defendant on the disputed account. Response: 3. Admit that Citibank is in possession of an account and/or GENERAL LEDGER statement verifying through bookkeeping entries that Citibank has been fully paid according to the alleged contract. Response: 4. Admit that Citibank is not in possession of any original or copies of credit card slips signed by Defendant. Response: 5. Admit that Citibank does not have any party with personal knowledge, competent to be called as a witness that can testify under oath that Defendant agreed to any of the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement. Response: 6. Admit that the GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES (GAAP), along with the Citibank's BOOKKEEPING ENTRIES (that are related to and associated with this account) reveal the true substance of the alleged loan agreement and that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate, that as result of any alleged "extension of credit" to the Defendant; that the Plaintiff risked any of its own assets, and therefore is damaged as a result of the alleged default or breach of the alleged written agreement.. Response: 7. Admit that Citibank is not in possession of any original written agreements bearing Defendant's signature, wherein the Defendant agreed to the alleged terms and conditions. Response: 8. Admit that Citibank cannot demonstrate that as a result of any alleged "extension of CREDIT" to the Defendant that Citibank suffered any LEGAL DETRIMENT as a result of the alleged default or breach of any alleged written agreement. Response: 9. Admit that Citibank is not in possession of a written agreement for services between Citibank and Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. that authorize Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. to bring this specific action for CASE NO.: 08-1356, or that could be produced if requested or subpoenaed. Response: 10. Admit that Citibank Credit Card received Defendant's written billing error disputes as that term is defined pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1666(a), which are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Response: 11. Admit that Citibank did not respond appropriately as required by federal statute to written FAIR CREDIT BILLING ACT billing disputes made by Defendant. Response: 12. Admit that Citibank has no standing to bring this instant action under C.F.R., Regulation Z, Sec. 226.13 Billing error resolution: d) Rules pending resolution. Until a billing error is resolved under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, the following rules apply: (1) Consumer's right to withhold disputed amount; cotlection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay (and the creditor may not try to collect) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount (including related finance or other charges)." If the cardholder maintains a deposit account with the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or other charges if a billing error notice is received any time up to 3 business days before the scheduled payment date. 30 A creditor is not prohibited from taking action to collect any undisputed portion of the item or bill; from deducting any disputed amount and related finance or other charges from the consumers credit limit on the account; or from reflecting a disputed amount and related finance or other charges on a periodic statement, provided that the creditor indicates on or with the periodic statement that payment of any disputed amount and related finance or other charges is not required pending the creditors compliance with this section. a Response: 13. Admit that Citibank Credit Card did not properly respond to Defendant's billing error disputes, and they are barred from any collection attempts, including this specific action, as outlined in Regulation Z CFR Sec. 226.13 (d)1 Billing Error Resolution. (see above) Response: 14. Admit that the Citibank agrees that Defendant cannot be required to repay this alleged debt unless the Plaintiff establishes with certainty that they are the current owner of the account and holder of the original signed agreement, and suffered a legal detriment. Response: 15. Admit the officers of Citibank know and understand that if Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. purchased or received this account in any form or manner that makes them substantive owner, that Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. is the true Plaintiff and is therefore committing an INTRINSIC FRAUD upon the court Response: 16. Admit that Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. does not represent Citibank with a written power of attorney that could be produced from Citibank, if requested or subpoenaed. Response: 17. Admit that Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. purchased information of this alleged debt from alleged Plaintiff in order to turn it into a judgment for collection. Response: 18. Admit that plaintiff has charged off the disputed amount claimed on herein. Response: 19. Admit that plaintiff has identified the amount that was charged off on the disputed account as bad debt or taken some other tax adjustment with respect to the disputed account that it has claimed on herein. Response: 20. Admit that the plaintiff named in the caption of this cause of action never loaned money to the defendant. Response: 21. Admit that the named plaintiff failed to disclose to the defendant the material fad that it did not loan money to the defendant. Response: 22. Admit that the account that is the subject of this cause of action is currently in dispute. Response: 23. Admit that plaintiff filed or issued an insurance claim related to the disputed account. Response: 24. Admit that named plaintiff received money, credit, or some other valuable consideration in payment or settlement on an insurance claim related to the alleged default in the disputed account herein. Response: 25. Admit that Citibank cannot demonstrate that as a result of any alleged "extension of CREDIT" to the Defendant that Citibank suffered any LEGAL DETRIMENT as a result of the alleged default or breach of any alleged written agreement. Response: 26. Admit that Citibank has no witnesses with PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the specific allegations made in the complaint. Response: 27. Admit that Citibank is not in possession of a written agreement for services between Citibank and plaintiffs counsel that authorize plaintiffs counsel to bring this specific action, or that could be produced if requested or subpoenaed, whether privileged or not. Response: 28. Admit that defendant does not owe plaintiff any debt related to the account that is the basis of cause of action. Response: END OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Discovery r ested and demanded this 23rd day of April 2008. is eth 27 Richard Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717-712-3853/butterflies6899@yahoo.com VERIFICATION 1, , state that I am the person chosen by plaintiff to respond to the foregoing requests for admission of facts; that I have responded to the same; that I have read the answers to same; that I have first-hand knowledge of the events and responses that I have given; and that said responses are true and correct to my knowledge, first-hand information and belief. ANSWERS and RESPONSES dated this day of , 20 Witness for the Plaintiff STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND JURAT Subscribed and sworn to before me a notary public this - day of , 2006. Signature of Notary [Is] rg co ? s f i Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. Plaintiff V. VIRGINIA A RETH Defendant NO. 08-1356 CIVIL TERM 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Preliminary Objections 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Brit J. Suttell, Esquire c/o Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. address: 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170, West Chester, PA 19380 b) for defendant: Virginia A Reth, Pro Se address: 27 Richard Road Mechanicsburg PA 17050-6831 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: May 28, 2008 Brit J. ttell, Esquire Attorney for the Plaintiff The law firm of Burton Neil & Associates is a debt collector. d?s c_ s Y? CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. Plaintiff V. VIRGINIA A. RETH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-1356 Civil Term Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Order AND NOW, this day of , 2008, plaintiff's preliminary objections to defendant's pleading are SUSTAINED and the following is hereby ORDERED: 1. Defendant's pleading is stricken in its entirety under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(2) for failure to include a proper verification; 2. Paragraphs 6 through 29 of defendant's pleading are stricken for failure to comply with various rules of court and law under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(2); 3. Paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 19 through 26 are stricken with prejudice for inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(2); and 4. All of defendant's affirmative defenses are stricken, with prejudice, for legal insufficiency under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(4). BY THE COURT: J., BURTON NEIL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Brit J. Suttell, Esquire, Id. no. 204140 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 610-696-2120 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 08-1356 Civil Term VIRGINIA A. RETH Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs Preliminary Objections to Defendant's Verified Answer A. Failure to Conform to Law or Rule of Court - Pa R C P 1028(aN21 1. Defendant's verification to her pleading is contrary to the requirements of Pa. R. C. P. 1024 in that: a. The verification contains language drawn from Pa. R. C. P. 1023.1; and b. The verification fails to adhere to the requirements of Pa. R. C. P. 76 by not averring that the statements made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 2. Defendant fails to set forth her affirmative defenses under a heading entitled "New Matter" contrary to Pa. R. C. P. 1030(a). 3. Defendant's affirmative defense paragraphs 6, 10, 12, 15, and 23 are not proper new matter contrary to Pa. R. C. P. 1030 in that the paragraphs neither assert facts that are not merely denials to the preceding pleading or assert an affirmative defense. 4. Paragraphs 6 through 29 of defendant's pleading are all contrary to Pa. R. C. P. 1019(a) in that they fail to state any facts upon which defendant relies. 5. Also, paragraphs 7, 11, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, and 28, of defendant's pleading fail to state defendant's defenses in a concise and summary form as required by Pa. R. C. P. 1019(a). 6. Additionally, paragraphs 9, 11, 13, 14, 16 through 22, 24, and 27 through 29, of defendant's pleading all argue law rather than averring facts as required by Pa. R. C. P. 1019(a). 7. Paragraphs 7, 11, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 28 of defendant's pleading are also contrary to Pa. R. C. P. 1022 because they contain more than one allegation per paragraph. 8. The following paragraphs all appear to be in the nature of preliminary objections which is contrary to Pa. R. C. P. 1028 and were waived under Pa. R. C. P. 1032 since defendant filed an answer: a. Paragraph 7 of defendant's pleading alleges lack of standing; b. Paragraph 9 of defendant's pleading also alleges lack of standing; c. Paragraph 11 of defendant's pleading alleges that plaintiff is barred from filing suit as a matter of law which is considered a demurrer under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(4); d. Paragraph 13 of defendant's pleading alleges plaintiff has failed to establish an account stated which would also be considered a demurrer under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(4); e. Paragraph 14 of defendant's pleading also alleges plaintiff has failed to establish an account stated which would be considered a demurrer under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(4); f. Paragraph 18 of defendant's pleading alleges that plaintiff's claim is barred as a matter of law under the statute of frauds, which would be considered a demurrer under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(4); and g. Paragraph 20 of defendant's pleading also alleges that plaintiff's claim is barred as a matter of law under the statute of frauds, which would be considered a demurrer under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(4). 9. The following paragraphs of defendant's pleading all reference a writing which defendant failed to attach as required under Pa. R. C. P. 1019(i): a. Paragraph 7 references an assignment, novation, contract or other instrument; b. Paragraph 8 references an insurance settlement agreement; c. Paragraph 11 references multiple writings, including dispute letters, and written demands for verification and validation; d. Paragraphs 20 and 22 reference a contract between plaintiff and defendant; and e. Paragraph 26 references an insurance policy. WHEREFORE, plaintiff moves this Honorable Court to strike defendant's pleading under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(2). B. Inclusion of Scandalous or Impertinent Matter - Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(2) 1. Paragraph 5 of defendant's pleading states that plaintiff complaint contains "unsupported allegations" which is impertinent to the matter before the court and should be stricken with prejudice. 2. Paragraph 7 alleges that plaintiff both no longer owns the account or has charged the account off its books for accounting purposes both of which are impertinent to the matter before the court and should be stricken with prejudice. 3. Paragraph 8 alleges the existence of an insurance agreement which is impertinent to the matter before the court and should be stricken with prejudice. 4. Paragraph 11 alleges that plaintiff failed to verify or validate the debt and references the Fair Credit Billing Act, all of which are impertinent to the matter before the court and should be stricken with prejudice. 5. Paragraph 14 alleges that plaintiff's complaint is without foundation or evidentiary support which is both scandalous and impertinent to the matter before the court and should be stricken with prejudice. 6. Paragraphs 16, 17, and 19 through 24 all attempt to recite which is impertinent to that matter before the court since defendant's pleading is not the place for legal argument and should be stricken with prejudice. 7. Paragraph 18 alleges that no contract exists which is impertinent to plaintiff s account stated complaint and should be stricken with prejudice. 8. Paragraph 25 alleges that plaintiff sold the debt which is both scandalous and impertinent matter and should be stricken with prejudice. 9. Paragraph 26 alleges that plaintiff was paid through an insurance policy which is impertinent to the matter before the court and should be stricken with prejudice. 10. Paragraph 28 alleges that plaintiff has not offered or alleged any evidence which is impertinent because plaintiff is not required to plead evidence in its complaint and therefore should be stricken with prejudice. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff moves this Honorable Court to strike paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19 through 26, with prejudice under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(2). C. Legal Insufficiency of a Pleading (Demurrer) - Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(4) 1. Paragraphs 6 through 19 of defendant's pleading all fail to allege any material facts upon which a cause of action could rest. 2. As a matter of law, defendant cannot prevail on fact-less defenses. 3. Defendant alleges that plaintiff lacks standing to sue in paragraphs 6 through 9 but she cannot prevail on this defense as a matter of law for the following reasons: a. Defendant fails to attach an assignment or other documentation showing plaintiff does not own the debt; b. Defendant fails to allege any material facts as to when this sale alleged occurred or to whom this debt was sold; c. Defendant's allegation that debt is no longer owed as a result of defendant charging the matter of its books for accounting purposes is not a legal defense; and d. Defendant failed to attach a copy of the alleged insurance settlement upon which defendant's defense relies. 4. Defendant alleges that plaintiff s claim is barred by estoppel in paragraphs 10 and 11 but she cannot prevail on this defense as a matter of law for the following reasons: a. The Fair Credit Billing Act, which is part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, does not allow for a private cause of action therefore cannot be used as a defense as a matter of law; b. The Fair Credit Billing Act does not preclude plaintiff from litigating the debt as a matter of law; and c. As a matter of law, plaintiff's alleged failure to respond to defendant's disputes does not preclude plaintiff from pursuing the outstanding balance. 5. Defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint fails to allege a prior course of dealing between plaintiff and defendant in paragraphs 12 through 14, but she cannot prevail on this defense as a matter of law for the following reasons: a. Defendant failed to plead any facts in support of this defense; b. The alleges are in the nature of a preliminary objection which defendant waived and therefore she cannot prevail on objections under the title "affirmative defense;" and c. Plaintiff's complaint adequately pled an account stated cause of action. 6. Paragraphs 15 through 22 of defendant's pleading allege the affirmative defense of statute of frauds, but defendant cannot prevail on this defense as a matter of law for the following reasons: a. Defendant failed to please any facts in support of this defense; b. Defendant failed to attach a copy of the alleged contract; and c. The statute of frauds only applies to contracts for the sale of goods, as a matter of law, not service contracts. 7. Defendant's final affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages, as set forth in paragraphs 23 through 29, is also legally insufficient because defendant cannot prevail as a matter of law for the following reasons: a. Defendant failed to set forth fact supporting the basic elements of this affirmative defense; and b. Defendant failed to allege what remuneration plaintiff allegedly received. WHEREFORE, plaintiff moves this Honorable Court to strike defendant's affirmative defenses with prejudice under Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a)(4). Burton eil & Associates, P.C. By Brit . Suttell, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff In making this communication, we advise our firm is a debt collector. Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. By: Brit J. Suttell, Esquire ID. NO. 204140 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 610-696-2120 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. Plaintiff V. VIRGINIA A RETH Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-1356 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Certificate of Service I, Brit J. Suttell, Esquire do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the within Preliminary Objections and Praecipe for Argument on pro se defendant, Virginia A Reth at his/her address of record via first class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth below. Date: &"( 20 2"'K Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. By: Brit J. uttell, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff The law firm of Burton Neil & Associates is a debt collector. C-13276 CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. VIRGINIA RETH, DEFENDANT : 08-1356 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND EBERT J ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Td day of June, 2008, there being no facts pleaded in any of the affirmative defenses set forth in the pleading filed by defendant in response to plaintiff's complaint, and as a matter of law each affirmative defense being without legal foundation, the five affirmative defenses set forth in defendant's pleading, ARE STRICKEN. By the Court, vlB'rit J. Suttell, Esquire 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 Virginia Reth, Pro se 27 Richard Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 :sal OnP1'es LL 1 -M\1 U. Ebert, Jr., J. VNN n ?1 V?E, 3HI rr BURTON NEIL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Brit J. Suttell, Esquire, Id. no. 204140 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 610-696-2120 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-1356 Civil Term VIRGINIA RETH Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Plaintiff, Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., by and through its undersigned counsel, Burton Neil & Associates, P.C., hereby moves this Court under Pa. R. C. P. 1034 for judgment on the pleadings against the defendant in the sum of $19,504.72, plus the costs of this action, and in support thereof states as follows: 1. The pleadings, consisting of the complaint and defendant's answer, are closed.' 2. Defendant's pro se answer is entirely unresponsive to any averment in plaintiff s complaint and accordingly admits all the complaint averments. 'Defendant's answer originally contained New Matter. However, by Order dated June 3, 2008, the Honorable Judge M. L. Ebert, Jr., struck the five affirmative defenses which comprised defendant's New Matter. 3. By reason of the foregoing, there is no genuine issue of material fact which will require a trial. WHEREFORE, plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings under Pa. R. C. P. 1034 in the sum of $19,504.72, plus the costs of this action. Burt Ne' A ociates, P.C. y Brit . Suttell, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff In making this communication, we advise our firm is a debt collector.. BURTON NEIL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Brit J. Suttell, Esquire, Id. no. 204140 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 610-696-2120 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 08-1356 Civil Term VIRGINIA RETH Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 1. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiff sued defendant to recover the unpaid balance due on a credit card account in the sum of $19,504.72. The defendant filed an answer with new matter. Plaintiff filed preliminary objections to defendant's new matter. By Order dated, June 3, 2008defendant's new matter was stricken. No mention was made in the Order allowing for an amended pleading nor did defendant file an amended pleading. Therefore, the pleadings are closed and are limited to the complaint and answer.' Defendant's answer contains general denials which have the effect of admitting all allegations in the complaint. As a result, plaintiff files this motion for judgment on I Pa. R. C. P. 1028(e). the pleadings since there is no genuine issue of material fact which will require a trial. II. Issue Whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact which will require a trial? III. Argument A. Standard for Decision Pa. R. C. P. 1034(a) provides that "[a]fter the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings." "The motion for judgment on the pleadings should by granted only in clear cases, which are free from doubt, and where there are no issues of fact. The deciding court should grant judgment only where the case is clear that a trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise." 6 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d § 31:39 and the cases cited therein. In determining a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a Court's considerations must be limited exclusively to the pleadings and any document properly annexed thereto. Keil v. Good, 467 Pa. 317, 319, 356 A.2d 768 (1976). Additionally, in Epstein v. Kramer, 374 Pa. 112 (1953), a motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly raised where the material facts were not in dispute. B. Defendant's Unresponsive Answer Conclusively Admitted All Averments of the Complaint. Defendant's answers to paragraphs 1 through 3 of plaintiff's answer are identical: "Defendant denies plaintiff's allegation number 1 and demands strict proof thereof." This is a classic general denial. Pa. R. C. P. 1029(b) provides as follows: "Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required are admitted when not denied specifically or by necessary implication. A general denial or a demand for proof, except as provided by subdivisions (c) and (e) of this rule, shall have the effect of an admission." Furthermore, a specific denial has been defined as follows: "Although no fixed rule can be stated for determining whether a denial is specific, generally for a denial to be specific, it must deny what is averred and then must affirmatively aver what did occur in place of the facts as averred." 5 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d § 26:40 and the cases cited therein. See also Swift v. Milner, 371 Pa. Super. 302, 538 A.2d 28 (1988) (Where the Court held that the word "denied" without more amounted to a general denial and was thus an admission under Pa. R. C. P. 1029(b)). Therefore, defendant's responses to paragraphs 1 through 3 of the complaint must be deemed admissions of those paragraphs in plaintiff's complaint. Additionally, paragraph 4 of defendant's answer is also a general denial for those reasons stated above. Paragraph 5 of defendant's answer is completely unresponsive to the corresponding complaint allegation and therefore is also admitted under Pa. R. C. P. 1029(b). Defendant failed to answer the remaining three paragraphs of plaintiff's complaint, thus are also admitted. See Pa. R. C. P. 1029(a) and (b). Therefore, defendant admitted each and every allegation contained in plaintiff s complaint. Pennsylvania law is clear - these admissions are binding and conclusive on defendant. See Tops Apparel Mfg. Co. v. Rothman, 430 Pa. 583, 244 A.2d 486 (1968); Jewelcor Jewelers & Distributors v. Corr, 373 Pa. Super. 536, 542 A.2d 72 (1988). IV Conclusion The defendant having effectively admitted all allegations in plaintiffs complaint, there is no genuine issue of material fact which will require a trial.2 Therefore, judgment on the pleadings is proper and should be entered under Pa. R. C. P. 1034(a) for plaintiff and against 2That defendant is pro se does not entitle her to a lenient application of court rules, absolve her of adherence to them or free her from the risk of adverse consequences for failure to do so. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n. 46, 955 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1972); Peters Creek Sanitary v. Welch, 545 Pa. 309, 681 A.2d 167 (1996); Jones v. Rudenstein, 401 Pa. Super. 400, 585 A.2d 520 (1991), appeal denied, 529 Pa. 634, 600 A.2d 954 (1991). defendant in the sum of $19,504.72, plus the costs of this action. Burto Neil. Associates, P.C. f. y Brit uttell, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff In making this communication, we advise our firm is a debt collector. Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. By: Brit J. Suttell, Esquire ID. NO. 204140 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 610-696-2120 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. VIRGINIA A RETH NO. 08-1356 CIVIL, TERM Defendant : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Certificate of Service I, Brit J. Suttell, Esquire do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the within Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Praecipe for Argument, proposed Order and supporting Memorandum of Law on pro se defendant, Virginia A Reth at his/her address of record via first class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth below. Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. Date:' By: / Brit . Suttell, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff The law firm of Burton Neil & Associates is a debt collector. C-13276 r7 lw Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. Plaintiff V. VIRGINIA A RETH Defendant NO. 08-1356 CIVIL TERM 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Brit J. Suttell, Esquire c/o Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. address: 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170, West Chester, PA 19380 b) for defendant: Virginia A Reth, Pro Se address: 27 Richard Road Mechanicsburg PA 17050-6831 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: September 3, 0/08 I Brit J. ttell, Esquire Attorney for the Plaintiff The law firm of Burton Neil & Associates is a debt collector. CO ?., CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. VIRGINIA RETH, DEFENDANT : 08-1356 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this i?A' - day of September, 2008, the motion of plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings, IS GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff, Citybank (South Dakota), N.A., against defendant, Virginia Reth for $19,504.72. it J. Suttell, Esquire 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 For Plaintiff Xginia Reth, Pro se 27 Richard Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 :sal A 1jj.. ?' V7 Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. By: Brit J. Suttell, Esquire ID. NO. 204140 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 610-696-2120 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. Plaintiff V. VIRGINIA A BETH Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-1356 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW Praecipe for Entry of Judgment on Court Order To the Prothonotary: Enter judgment on behalf of the plaintiff, CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., and against the defendant, VIRGINIA A RETH, as per the Court's Order dated September 3, 2008 and assess damages in the sum of $19,504.72. Burto eil iates, P.C. B 136 6. Suttell, Esquire And now, this 15*` day of %&p+, , 200> judgment is entered on behalf of the plaintiff, CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. and against the defendant, VIRGINIA A BETH, in the sum of $19,504.72. Prothonotary of Cumberland County I S eputy 'o In making this communication, we advise that this office is a debt collector. CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., PLAINTIFF V. VIRGINIA RETH, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 08-1356 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of September, 2008, the motion of plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings, IS GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff, Citybank (South Dakota), N.A., against defendant, Virginia Reth for $19,504.72. Brit J. Suttell, Esquire 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 For Plaintiff Virginia Reth, Pro se 27 Richard Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By the Court, f, Edgar B. Bayley, J. :sal Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. By: Brit J. Suttell, Esquire ID. NO. 204140 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 610-696-2120 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. 701 East 60th Street N Sioux Falls, SD 57117 Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-1356 CIVIL TERM VIRGINIA A RETH 27 Richard Road Mechanicsburg PA 17050-6831 Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Certification of Address and Affidavit of Non-Military Understanding that false statements herein are subject to penalty under 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, I verify that: 1. The above are the precise last-known addresses of the judgment creditor and debtor. 2. Pursuant to Section 201(b)(1)(A) of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003 (SCRA) the defendant is not in the military service of the United States based on information received from the defendant and/or the Department of Defense website. B on Neil & s ates, P.C. By: Brit J. uttell, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff In making this communication, we advise that this office is a debt collector. Sv .? Cj -TI o ?t T ic -1) . .. Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. By: Brit J. Suttell, Esquire ID. NO. 204140 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 610-696-2120 Attorney for Plaintiff CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff V. : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VIRGINIA A RETH NO. 08-1356 CIVIL TERM Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Rule of Civil Procedure No. 236 (Revised) Notice is given that a JUDGMENT in the above captioned matter has been entered against you on !%'Wt. 15 . &WR Prothonotary of Cumberland County I - '? / ?", A - 'p. " - putt' ota If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact: Brit J. Suttell, Esquire Attorney for Party Filing 1060 Andrew Drive, Suite 170 West Chester, PA 19380 Phone: 610-696-2120 In making this communication, we advise that this office is a debt collector.