Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-0317Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Mark C. Duffle L D. No. 75906 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 RAYMOND W. FISHER and MANDY FISHER, husband and wife, 1228 King's Circle Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Plaintiffs V. GERALD PHILLIPS and SUSAN PHILLIPS, husband and wife, 3810 Golfview Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. O? - 317 CI u ?? 1 E2Yy? CIVIL ACTION PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue a Writ of Summons against the Defendants in the above-captioned matter, and forward said Writ of Summons to the Cumberland County Sheriff for service upon Defendants. JOHNSON, DUFFIE TEWA Date: r 122 i b r By: M C. Duffle torney I.D. No. 7 06 301 Market Street :223390.1 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION TO: GERALD PHILLIPS and SUSAN PHILLIPS ER YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFFS HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date:. 02 3 OD? ?/ t/!? j . ?On Prothonotary, Civil Division T /)? U2 fi ? ? R ? ?..? ? . ? ?,? SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-00317 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND FISHER RAYMOND W ET AL VS PHILLIPS GERALD ET AL CPL. MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS PHILLIPS GERALD the DEFENDANT , at 1416:00 HOURS, on the 27th day of January 2004 at 3810 GOLFVIEW DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 GERALD PHILLIPS a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs Docketing 18.00 Service 8.97 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 36.97 Sworn and ?Subscribed to before me this V day of A. D. Pr honogary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 01/28/2004 JOHNSON DUFFIE ST?EIDNER By: Deputy SheYff was served upon by handing to SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-00317 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND FISHER RAYMOND W ET AL VS PHILLIPS GERALD ET AL CPL. MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon PHILLIPS SUSAN the DEFENDANT , at 1416:00 HOURS, on the 27th day of January 2004 at 3810 GOLFVIEW DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to GERALD PHILLIPS, HUSBAND a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before e this day of D0? A.D. of o tary So Answers: 7. R. Thomas Kline 01/28/2004 JOHNSON DUFFIE STEW WEIDNER By. „eputy Sherif RAYMOND W. FISHER and MANDY FISHER vs Case No. 04-317 GERALD PHILLIPS and SUSAN PHILLIPS To the Court: Statement of Intention to Proceed RAYMOND W. FISHSER and MANDY FISHER intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name Mark C. Duf f ie , Esquire Sign Name Date: P124107 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Raymond W. & Mandy Fisher Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff' must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. ? ;., -?, 4..e? C_. _ , ?? _, CPS , - ? r7't sue' { _? ? "?y? f: ('J `_ _q • • "er '- w ' '' ??