Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-29-08 (2)IN RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Deceased ~^-> ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION ~o °° ..A' --`-' = -z7 r -p cn rTt r -s A~ - ~ N0 21-86-398 ~~ ~ ~' '~ ' -'-' . sue` w ~ - t... l , - ~ ..-.. j ~ r ) ~' N ~ RESPONSE OF ROBERT M. MUMM_A_ II TO THE MOTION OF BARBARA McK. J MUIVIlVIA AND LISA M. MORGAN TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORTS OF ROBERT C. MAY. ESO. AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, (the "Respondent" hereinafter) who responds as follows to the Motion of Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan to Strike Expert Reports of Robert C. May, Esq., and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Admitted. It is admitted that the Respondent has served two expert reports prepared by Attorney Robert C. May which discuss the effect of shareholder agreements as same relate to the two corporations and the ownership thereof. 2. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Attorney May has rendered opinions which relate to the Pennsylvania Supply Company shareholders agreement. Attorney May's expert report is in writing and speaks for itself, and the Respondent denies all characterizations of it as framed by the Movants. The Respondent further denies the allegations set forth in said paragraph as argumentative and not requiring a response. 3. Denied. The Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph #3 of the instant motion as argumentative, as purported conclusions of law, as legally insufficient, as impertinent and/or scandalous, and not requiring a response. Attorney May's expert report is in writing and speaks for itself, and the Respondent denies all characterizations of it as framed by the Movants. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Attorney May has rendered conclusions which relate to the 1961 shareholders agreement and the subsequent distribution of the assets of the Decedent. Any other or further characterizations set forth in Paragraph #4 of the instant motion are denied inasmuch as the expert report is in writing and speaks for itself, and the Respondent denies all characterizations of it as framed by the Movants. 5. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Attorney May refers to the `alleged' termination of the 1961 shareholders agreement. Any other or further characterizations set forth in Paragraph #5 of the instant motion are denied inasmuch as the expert report is in writing and speaks for itself, and the Respondent denies all characterizations of it as framed by the Movants. The Respondent further denies the allegations set forth in said paragraph as argumentative, as purported conclusions of law, and not requiring a response. 6. Denied. The Respondent denies that the Movants can incorporate an "accompanying memorandum of law" setting forth additional factual background, argument, and legal authority in support of the instant motion. The filing of said "accompanying memorandum of law" constitutes an attempt by the Movants to submit a brief which is not permissible at this juncture and which is not authorized by the rules of civil procedure inasmuch as this court has not promulgated a rule numbered as Local Rule 208.3(6) which addresses the filing of briefs accompanying motions. See, Pa.RC.P. 208.3; see also, Pa.R.C.P. 208.4(a)(2)(iixindicating the filing of initial briefs may only follow the entry of a court order setting forth the procedures the court will use in deciding the motion).1 ' The local rules of court reference briefing requirements in the context of Argument Court (see, C.C.R.P. 1028,1034(a),1035.2(a)); it is believed that there are no local rules which govern the filing of briefs at the time of the filing of motions. See, Pa. R.C.P. 208.3. According to C.C.R.P. 208.3(a)(5), no petition or motion (such as the instant motion filed by Movants) shall be placed on an argument court list unless directed by the Judge assigned thereto. Given that Judge Oler has not directed the instant motion to be placed on an argument court list, the Movants are not yet entitled to file any brief in support of the motion. In the absence of any other Order at this juncture, the Orphans' Court cannot consider the Movants' "accompanying memorandum of law" whether same is sought to be incorporated into the motion or whether same has been filed for consideration by the Orphans' Court separate and apart from the motion perse. 3 WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests that the Movants' Motion To Strike Expert Reports of Robert C. May, Esquire be DENIED. Furthermore, the "accompanying memorandum of law" which the Movants have attempted to incorporate into the instant motion must be stricken as not authorized by the rules of civil procedure. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Robert M. Mumma, II P.O. Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 (717) 612-9720 PRO SE 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Bazbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan's Motion to Strike Expert Reports of Robert C. May, Esquire was served this date by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire No V. Otto, III, Esquire Manson Law Offices 10 East High Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 Brady Green, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1701 Mazket Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Ralph Jacobs, Esquire 1515 Mazket Street -Suite 705 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Linda Mumma Roth PO Box 480 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Court-Appointed Auditor 1237 Holly Pike Cazlisle, PA 17013 ~~ DATE: September ~, 2008 BY: Robert M. Mumma, II Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 717-612-9720 PROSE