The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-4767 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP., Plaintiff, VS. GREG STEWART and JOE'S TREE SERVICE OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA INC., : Defendants. Civil Action-In Lawnn No. C% - q,7&1 ARBITRATION 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 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 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA. 17013-3387 (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP., Plaintiff, VS. GREG STEWART and JOE'S TREE SERVICE OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA INC., Defendants. Civil Action-In Law No. 0 F- y 3 ?. 7 CjZ,? T ARBITRATION COMPLAINT 1. This is an action by plaintiff, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP. to recover damages from defendant arising out of damage to property owned by PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP. 2. PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP. is a Pennsylvania corporation duly organized and existing and licensed to do business as a public utility under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at Two North Ninth Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, 18101. 3. Defendant, GREG STEWART, is an adult individual whose present whereabouts are unknown but is employed by Defendant, JOE'S TREE SERVICE OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA INC. 4. Defendant, JOE'S TREE SERVICE OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA INC., is Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business at 767 Humor Street, Enola, Pennsylvania, 17025. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was engaged in the business of producing, furnishing, supplying and distributing utility service to persons and businesses who requested utility service in accordance with the RateSchedules and General Rules and Regulations of Plaintiff s Tariff presently on file with the Public Utility Commission. COUNTI PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP. VS. GREG STEWART 6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are incorporated as referenced as if fully set forth herein 7. Defendants' agent, employee or representative, GREG STEWART, on or about November 30, 2007, struck and damaged overhead facilities while trimming trees near Plaintiff's equipment on private land in the vicinity of Country Club Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. Defendant did not exercise due care and did not take all reasonable steps to avoid damage or injury to property owned by PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP. 9. Defendant had a duty to protect Plaintiff's property at Defendant's location. 10. Plaintiff made demand on Defendant to repay the sums then due and owing to plaintiff, but Defendant has refused and continues to refuse to pay Plaintiff. 11. Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $4,642.53, including costs and attorneys' fees. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP. demands judgment against the Defendant in an amount of $4,642.53, together with pre judgment and post judgment interest, punitive damages and delay damages as the law may allow. COUNT II PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP. VS. JOE'S TREE SERVICE OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA INC. 12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are incorporated as referenced as if fully set forth herein. 13. Upon information and belief, on or about November 30, 2007, the overhead facilities were struck by Defendant's agent, employee, or representative, GREG STEWART, as well as under its supervision, direction and control. 14. Defendant, JOE'S TREE SERVICE OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA INC., is vicariously liable for the actions of its agent(s). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP. demands judgment against the Defendant in an amount of $4,642.53, together with pre judgment and post judgment interest, punitive damages and delay damages as the law may allow. Respectfully submitted, DATED: August 4, 2008 KRZYWICIQA$'SOCIATES By: Krzywicki, Esquire ope, PA. 18938 (n5) 862-4390 Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney I.D. 23754 VERIFICATION Pursuant to Rule 1024 (c), I, ANTHONY P. KRZYWICKI, ESQ., verify that I am the attorney for Plaintiff, in the within case; that the appropriate officers of the plaintiff are not available within the time for serving the foregoing to provide their verification; that I am sufficiently familiar with the facts set forth in the foregoing Pleading to take this verification; and that such facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, based upon the company's business records and matters of public record. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Consol. Stat. Ann. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: August 4, 2008 It !3 00 O s N 0 '1 r G3 ? 00 ?3 - C3 m CYJ h' 0 SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT FOUND CASE NO: 2008-04767 P COMMONTWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP VS STEWART GREG ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT 0MUT.TTDrr 00V0 but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the COMPLAINT & NOTICE the within named DEFENDANT 767 SOUTH HUMER STREET STEWART GREG , NOT FOUND , as to ENOLA, PA 17025 PER BILLIE PINCI, SECRETARY OF JOE'S TREE SERVICE, STEWART RESIDES IN GOLDSBORO IN YORK COUNTY. Sheriff's Costs: So answers: _ Docketing ? 18.00 Service G$ 15.00 s Affidavit 4I??a .00 R. Thomas Kline Surcharge OW 10.00 Sheriff of Cumberland County Not Found 5.00 48.00 KRZYWICKI & ASSOCIATES 08/14/2008 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-04767 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP VS STEWART GREG ET AL MARK CONKLIN , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon JOE'S TREE SERVICE OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA the DEFENDANT , at 0017:00 HOURS, on the 13th day of August 2008 at 767 HUMOR STREET ENOLA, PA 17025 BILLIE PINCI by handing to SECRETARY FOR BUSINESS a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Io8 Affidavit Surcharge I Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of So Answers: 6.00 00 0r 000000, .00 10.00 R. Thomas Klin .00 16.00 08/14/2008 KRZYWICKI & ASSOCIATES By: day A. D. Deputy Sheri IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP., Plaintiff, vs. GREG STEWART and JOE'S TREE SERVICE OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA INC., Defendants. Civil Action-In Law No. 08-4767 Civil Term ARBITRATION PRAECIPE TO SETTLE DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark this matter Settle, Discontinue, and End against the Defendants, without prejudice upon payment of your costs only. KRZYWICKI & DATED: September 29, 2008 BY: P. Kdzvwi P.O. Bo 05 New 144<71A_ 18938 (215)862-4390 Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney I.D. 23754 TES cs'? Cn t " n? L j i LE -C'-FIC . Of THE PROTHONOTARR r1cor-oXO, 1ocQs 0\o„,,,nl,S-C 2013, OCT 25 PH I: 140 vs 0. `� LA-n/-1 ` PENNSYLVANIA Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: L srn ` Y(Qs( \oc(Qs cut\A 9.)0\jp,(\-p intend4 to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name ( /?u fel,4J I ya v)c Sign Nam r---7 �V. f l Date: y2-,� J? Attorney for G.,c� ` !. (1.1"\ 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. I.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 showing 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 term ination 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. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION BRENDA TORRES, • Plaintiff, NO: 09-4767 Civil Term v. ROBERTO ESCALET, • • Defendant. . STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED To the Court: Plaintiff, Brenda Tones, and Defendant, Robert Escalet intend to proceed with the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, THE YORK LEGAL GROUP, LLC J7—cf2 „,OSACA ria L.I Thomas B. York, Esquire Attorney I.D.No. 32522 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tyork @yorklegalgroup.com Attorney for Plaintiff and Defendant Date: Octobers 2013 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 22nd I, Thomas B. York, hereby certify that on thisr-day of October 2013, I served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Statement of Intention to Proceed via U.S. First Class Mail, upon the following: Brenda Tones, Plaintiff 4 Hazelwood Path Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Roberto Escalet, Defendant 1465 Hill Crest Court Camp Hill, PA 17011 T omas B. York 2