The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-0642ROBERT L. FOLTZ, Plaintiff vs. TOM IWANOWICZ, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS To the Prothonotary: Please issue a writ of summons in the above captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Sheriff of Cumberland County to be served on the Defendant. Date: February 13, 2004 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Supreme Court ID# 81924 (717) 241-6070 To The Above Named Defendant: WRIT OF SUMMONS Tom Iwanowiez 106 Butcher Hill Boiling Springs, PA 17007 YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: r ?- I5-6? Prothonotary By: i G-p-C t? D U)y LIU c"ll C C ? l1J t C' vs Case No. ac)H Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name?? a6 E • 'B _ Sien Name J . Date: III i1 hn Attorney for Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (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 riming 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. cc) ROBERT L. FOLTZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ; NO. 04-642 - CIVIL TOM IWANOWICZ, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE UPON PLAINTIFF TO FILE A COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Writ of Summons on Defendant on February 13, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. Plaintiff filed a Statement of Intention to Proceed on Defendant on November 1, 2007. 3. Defendant files this pleading on Plaintiff to file a Complaint in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Mark A. Mateya, Es ire Attorney ID No. 78931 P.O. Box 127 Boiling Springs PA 17007 (717) 241-6500 (717) 241-3099 Fax Counsel for Defendant Date: J(v )61 April 14, 2009, Rule to File Complaint Issued. ROBERT L. FOLTZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: TOM IWANOWICZ, Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS To the Prothonotary: Please issue a writ of summons in the above captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Sheriff of Cumberland County to be served on the Defendant. Date: February 13, 2004 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Supreme Court ID# 81924 (717) 241-6070 To The Above Named Defendant WRIT OF SUMMONS Tom Iwanowicz 106 Butcher Hill Boiling Springs, PA 17007 YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: r ?- 13-0y ( I wuli? Prothonotary By: ; GL-y. vs Case No. Aa?ia'" aoo? Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Corot: intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name 1?UlC? E . VV V6 WQL# f Sien Name Date: 11111D I Attorney for Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (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 (dx2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (dx3) 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 (dx2). 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. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Mateya, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document on the following person(s) by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, by way of United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania addressed to: Karl E Rominger Esquire 15 South Hanover Street Carlisle PA 17013 Dated: Z J Mark A. Mateya, Esquir PO Box 127 Boiling Springs, PA 17007 (717) 241-6500 (717) 241-3099 Fax X61 F jr N 2??q kpR Zt4 At, 8: 41 G,j ; J y yi L ROBERT L. FOLTZ, Plaintiff vs. TOM IWANOWICZ, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO: 2004-642 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE Please mark the above captioned matter as settled and discontinued with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, Rominger & Associates Date: March 30, 2010 Kae'E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Plaintiff N _ - ? o rt r? :.. rr; W At) tt9