HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-5364COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF• COILHERLAND
Mag. Dist. No.:
09-2-02
NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIP~T
CIVIL CASE
PLAINTIFF' NAME and ADDRESS
rYYII
~
FER, TIILOTSY E
54 8. NEST ST
CARLISLE, PA 17013
L J
VS.
DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESs
~SNNP INC, ~
469 E718T NORTH ST
CARLISLE, PA 17013
~- .J
Docket No.: CV-0000166-08
_
Date Filed: 6/12/08
MDJ Name: Hon.
JESSICA HRENBAEER
Address: 18 N HANOVER ST ST8 106
CARLISLE, PA
Telephone (717) 240-6564 17013
ATTORpBY FOR PLAINTIFF
STEPHAITIE S. CBSRTOS
61 N LOATHER ST
CARLISLE, PA 17013-2936
THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT:
Judgment: FOR PLAINTIFF
(Date of Judgment)
8/05/08
® Judgment was entered for: (Name) ~~• TIILOTSY 8
® Judgment was entered against: (Name) SNAP INC.
in the amount of $ 269.3
Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
Damages will be assessed on Date & Time
This case dismissed without prejudice.
Amount of Judgment Subject to Attachment/42 Pa.C.S. § 8127
Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of
residential lease
Amount of Judgment $ 190.35
Judgment Costs $
Interest o~n Judgment $ •
Attorney Fees $
Total $ 269.35
Post Judgment Credits $
Post Judgment Costs $
Certified Judgment Total $
ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE
OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU
MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS'NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL.
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE
JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST
COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE .
UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE
A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL,
SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT.
~~"'~~ Date ~ t.~-~----~"r"'-' ;Magisterial District Judge
I ce ify that this is a t ue a d c r ct copy of a record of the proceedings containing the judgment.
erial District Judge
`i-"=- Date ~
My commission expires first Monday of January, 2012 SEAL
AOPC 315-07
~e
a ~ ~,
~ .
~ ~
y,~
-L. W
~ ~
N w ~-
O A
° o
~ ~ rs
-
~ ~-t
F,
C
j
,~,__
~.
--
~ ~ -~
n
Opinion• Timothy E. Yufer v. SWWP, Inc.
During the hearing of August 5, 2008, Mr. Yufer was represented by Stephanie
Chertok, Esq., and SWWP was represented by its owner, Michael Palson. Mr. Yufer
filed a claim for back wages and other pay that he alleged he was owed. Mr. Palson
testified that he believed Mr. Yufer had been paid everything to which he was entitled
This Court does not find sufficient evidence that Mr. Yufer is owed any overtime
wages. Mr. Yufer testified that from his "rough calculations," he worked five hours of
overtime for which he was not compensated. However, he had no evidence to
substantiate this time, and "rough calculations" do not meet the burden of proof of a
preponderance of the evidence.
As to the amount claimed fora "readjustment to net pay," Mr. Yufer admitted that
he authorized this repayment for wages that he was incorrectly paid. Thus, there is no
evidence that he is owed this amount either.
Mr. Yufer is also seeking an amount for unpaid wages, since he alleges that his
pay was incorrectly reduced to $9.00/hour, from his original wage of $12.00/hour. The
Court does find that this reduction was not to be paid before March 28, 2008, as per the
note on Mr. Yufer's evaluation, and thus will find for Mr. Yufer on this issue. Thus, Mr.
Yufer should receive $120.00 from his Mazch 28, 2008 paycheck (40 hours x $3.00), and
the Court will award another $24.00 for eight hours worked from the April 11, 2008
paycheck. Additionally, it was not rebutted that Mr. Yufer should receive his 5.15 hours
of vacation pay; however, at the ending wage of $9.00/hour, this would be $46.35, for a
total of $190.35.
Finally, the Court does not find any justification for an award of attorney's fees in
this case. There is neither a contract nor a statute which calls for the imposition of such
an award.
As a result of the above, Judgment is being awarded for the plaintiff in the amount
of $190.35, plus court costs of $79.00, for a total Judgment in the amount of $269.35.
It is so Ordered.
Date: ~ ~j DEC
^~~ ~~
Jes ' a E. Brewbaker
Magisterial District Judge
(Seal)