HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-08 (3)IN RE: ESTATE OF
ROBERT M. MUMMA
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 21-86-398
REPLY OF ROBERT M. MUMMA. II TO NEW MATTER
OF BARBARA McK. MUMMA AND LISA M. MORGAN TO MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY MORGAN. LEWIS & BOCKIUS AND THE MARTSON LAW OFFICE
FROM CONTINUING LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF
THE ESTATE AND THE TRUSTS
AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se (the "Movant" hereinafter), who files
the following Reply to New Matter as follows:
51. The Movant hereby incorporates by reference the averments of Paragraphs 1 through
50 of the Motion to Disqualify Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and The Martson Law Office From
Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts.
52. Admitted in part; denied in part. A prior motion was filed in January 1989 which
sought to have Morgan Lewis disqualified from acting as counsel for Mrs. Mumma and Mrs.
Morgan; the pending August 2008 motion seeks to disqualify Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and The
c7
Martson Law Offices from continuing legal representation of the Estate and the=~~usts. c=
,. -~ o
~ ~~
53. Admitted. -~~~ ` ~ -''
-~ _, ~
-~
~ --- -
__~.) w
_ --, . .
/ ~
1
54. Denied as stated. By way of further response, the motions filed by the Movant are in
writing and speak for themselves, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed
by the Respondents.
55. Denied as stated. By way of further response, the motions filed by the Movant as
well as Judge Sheely's opinion are in writing and speak for themselves, and the Movant denies
all characterizations of same as framed by the Respondents. Moreover, Judge Sheely's prior
opinion issued some twenty years ago is not dispositive of the pending motion to disqualify
Morgan, Lewis and The Martson Law Offices from continuing legal representation of the Estate
and the Trusts which was filed in August 2008.
56. Denied as stated. By way of further response, the motion filed by the Movant is in
writing and speaks for itself, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by
the Respondents.
57. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Judge Sheely held a hearing on
January 25, 1989. By way of further response, the hearing transcript is in writing and speaks for
itself, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the Respondents.
58. Admitted.
59. Denied as stated. By way of further response, Judge Sheely's opinion is in writing
and speaks for itself, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the
Respondents. Moreover, Judge Sheely's prior opinion issued some twenty years ago is not
dispositive of the pending motion to disqualify Morgan, Lewis and The Martson Law Offices
from continuing legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts, same being filed in August
2008.
60. Denied as stated. By way of further response, Judge Sheely's opinion is in writing
and speaks for itself, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the
Respondents. Moreover, Judge Sheely's prior opinion issued some twenty years ago is not
dispositive of the pending motion to disqualify Morgan, Lewis and The Manson Law Offices
from continuing legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts, same being filed in August
2008.
61. Denied as stated. By way of further response, Judge Sheely's opinion is in writing
and speaks for itself, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the
Respondents. Moreover, Judge Sheely's prior opinion issued some twenty years ago is not
dispositive of the pending motion to disqualify Morgan, Lewis and The Manson Law Offices
from continuing legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts, same being filed in August
2008.
62. Denied as stated. By way of further response, Judge Sheely's opinion is in writing
and speaks for itself, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the
Respondents. Moreover, Judge Sheely's prior opinion issued some twenty years ago is not
dispositive of the pending motion to disqualify Morgan, Lewis and The Manson Law Offices
from continuing legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts, same being filed in August
2008. Byway of additional response, Judge Sheely's conclusions of law in 1989 contain
chronological or time-based references which specifically state in pertinent part "the subject
matter of the pending lawsuits are not substantially related to any prior legal representation ... ",
"... is not now relevant to the pending lawsuits", and "... their current representation ... ", all of
which lend credence to the viability of the pending motion filed in August 2008 inasmuch as
Judge Sheely left the door open for the filing of future (and ripe) motions to disqualify counsel.
3
63. Denied as stated. See response above at Paragraph 62 which is incorporated herein.
64. Denied as stated. By way of further response, the motions filed by the Movant are in
writing and speak for themselves, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed
by the Respondents.
65. Denied as stated. By way of further response, Judge Sheely's order is in writing and
speaks for itself, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the
Respondents. See also response above at Paragraph 62 which is incorporated herein.
66. Denied as stated. By way of further response, docket entries are in writing and speak
for themselves, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the
Respondents. See also response above at Paragraph 62 which is incorporated herein.
67. Denied as stated. By way of further response, the motion filed by the Movant as well
as Judge Sheely's opinion and any Superior Court opinions and orders are in writing and speak
for themselves, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the
Respondents. Moreover, Judge Sheely's prior opinion issued some twenty years ago is not
diapositive of the pending motion to disqualify Morgan, Lewis and The Martson Law Offices
from continuing legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts which was filed in August 2008.
68. Denied. By way of further response, the motion filed by the Movant is in writing
and speaks for itself, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the
Respondents. See also responses above at Paragraphs 52 and 62.
69. Denied as stated. By way of further response, the motions filed by the Movant are in
writing and speak for themselves, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed
by the Respondents. See also responses above at Paragraphs 52 and 62.
4
70. Denied as stated. By way of further response, the motions filed by the Movant are in
writing and speak for themselves, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed
by the Respondents. See also responses above at Paragraphs 52 and 62.
71. Denied as stated. By way of further response, the motions filed by the Movant are in
writing and speak for themselves, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed
by the Respondents. See also responses above at Paragraphs 52 and 62.
72. Denied as stated. By way of further response, the motions filed by the Movant are in
writing and speak for themselves, and the Movant denies all chazacterizations of same as framed
by the Respondents. See also responses above at Paragraphs 52 and 62.
73. Denied. By way of further response, the motion filed by the Movant as well as Judge
Sheely's opinion and any appellate court opinions and orders are in writing and speak for
themselves, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the Respondents.
Moreover, Judge Sheely's prior opinion issued some twenty years ago is not dispositive of the
pending motion to disqualify Morgan, Lewis and The Martson Law Offices from continuing
legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts which was filed in August 2008. By way of
additional response, the averments of Paragraph 73 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required.
74. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 74 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required. See also responses above at Paragraphs 52 and 62.
75. Denied as stated. By way of further response, the claims filed by the Movant are in
writing and speak for themselves, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed
by the Respondents.
76. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that such an action was commenced at
the stated docket number; it is denied that same is diapositive of the pending motion filed in
August 2008. By way of further response, the action filed by the Movant is in writing and
speaks for itself, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the
Respondents. In addition, the averments of said paragraph are denied to the extent that same
constitute argument and/or purported conclusions of law. Therefore, no response is required.
77. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that a rule to file a complaint was
filed; it is denied that same is diapositive of the pending motion filed in August 2008. By way of
further response, the rule filed is in writing and speaks for itself, and the Movant denies all
characterizations of same as framed by the Respondents. In addition, the averments of said
paragraph are denied to the extent that same constitute argument and/or purported conclusions of
law. Therefore, no response is required.
78. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that a judgment was entered in
February 1991; it is denied that same is diapositive of the pending motion filed in August 2008.
By way of further response, the judgment entered is in writing and speaks for itself, and the
Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the Respondents. In addition, the
averments of said paragraph are denied to the extent that same constitute argument and/or
purported conclusions of law. Therefore, no response is required.
6
79. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that such a motion was filed; it is
denied that any subsequent disposition by the court in October 1993 is diapositive of the pending
motion filed in August 2008. By way of further response, the motion and order are in writing
and speak for themselves, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the
Respondents. In addition, the averments of said paragraph are denied to the extent that same
constitute argument and/or purported conclusions of law. Therefore, no response is required.
80. Denied. By way of further response, the complaint filed by the Movant as well as
Judge Sheely's opinion and the hearing transcript are in writing and speak for themselves, and
the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the Respondents. Moreover, Judge
Sheely's prior opinion issued some twenty years ago is not diapositive of the pending motion to
disqualify Morgan, Lewis and The Martson Law Offices from continuing legal representation of
the Estate and the Trusts which was filed in August 2008. In addition, the averments of said
paragraph are denied to the extent that same constitute argument and/or purported conclusions of
law. Therefore, no response is required.
81. Admitted as stated.
82. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that disqualification motions may not
have been filed in other matters to date; it is denied that the absence or presence of a
disqualification motion in other matters is diapositive of the pending motion. In addition, the
averments of said paragraph are denied to the extent that same constitute argument and/or
purported conclusions of law. Therefore, no response is required.
83. Admitted as stated. See also response below to Paragraph 84.
7
84. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that disqualification motions may not
have been filed in other matters to date; it is denied that the absence or presence of a
disqualification motion in other matters is diapositive of the pending motion. By way of further
response, the fact that the Respondent's New Matter sets forth several overlapping actions and
matters whereby both The Manson Law Offices and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius have jointly
represented the Executrices /Trustees lends further support for the granting of the pending
motion as pled therein. In addition, the averments of said paragraph are denied to the extent that
same constitute argument and/or purported conclusions of law. Therefore, no response is
required.
85. Denied as stated. The terms "numerous letters", "other papers", and
"correspondence" are vague and ambiguous. In addition, the averments of said paragraph are
denied to the extent that same constitutes argument. Therefore, no response is required.
86. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that both law firms have been counsel
to the Executrices /Trustees for more than 20 years; it is denied that said averment is diapositive
of the pending motion filed in August 2008. By way of further response, the fact that the
Respondent's New Matter acknowledges the continuous joint legal representation of The
Manson Law Offices and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius lends further support for the granting of the
pending motion as pled therein. In addition, the averments of said paragraph are denied to the
extent that same constitutes argument. Therefore, no response is required.
8
87. Denied. The preparation and filing of various briefs, papers, and correspondence by
the two law firms is not diapositive of the pending motion to disqualify Morgan, Lewis and The
Martson Law Offices from continuing legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts which
was filed in August 2008. By way of further response, the fact that the Respondent's New
Matter acknowledges the continuous joint legal representation of The Martson Law Offices and
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius lends further support for the granting of the pending motion as pled
therein. In addition, the averments of said paragraph are denied to the extent that same constitute
argument and/or purported conclusions of law. Therefore, no response is required.
88. Denied. The term "under these circumstances" is vague and ambiguous; therefore,
no response is required. Byway of further response, it is denied that said averment is diapositive
of the pending motion to disqualify Morgan, Lewis and The Martson Law Offices from
continuing legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts which was filed in August 2008. In
addition, the averments of said paragraph are denied to the extent that same constitute argument
and/or purported conclusions of law. Therefore, no response is required.
89. Denied. The term "at this late juncture" is vague and ambiguous; therefore, no
response is required. By way of further response, it is denied that said averment is diapositive of
the pending motion to disqualify Morgan, Lewis and The Martson Law Offices from continuing
legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts which was filed in August 2008. In addition, the
averments of said paragraph are denied to the extent that same constitute argument and/or
purported conclusions of law. Therefore, no response is required.
9
90. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Movant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of this averment; strict proof is
demand. By way of further response, the fact that the Respondent's New Matter acknowledges
the continuous joint legal representation of The Martson Law Offices and Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius lends further support for the granting of the pending motion as pled therein. In addition,
the Movant cannot formulate a written reply in response to what the Respondents may believe or
postulate or hypothesize as to what would "necessarily result" and/or "severely impact" and/or
"timely conclude" and/or "effectively defend"; therefore, the allegations set forth in Paragraph
90 of the New Matter are denied as vague, ambiguous, argumentative, self-serving, and legally
insufficient. Hence, no response is required.
91. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Judge Sheely's opinion
contained said quotation; it is denied that said quotation issued some twenty years ago is
diapositive of the pending motion to disqualify Morgan, Lewis and The Martson Law Offices
from continuing legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts which was filed in August 2008.
See also response above at Paragraph 62. By way of further response, Judge Sheely's opinion is
in writing and speaks for itself, and the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by
the Respondents. By way of further response, this averment is denied as argumentative, self-
serving, and legally insufficient. Hence, no response is required.
10
92. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Executrices /Trustees have consistently
sought to have the accounts and the objections resolved so that the Estate can be closed. It is
specifically denied that the Movant has a "goal" of delaying this process indefinitely. By way of
further response, the instant motion filed by the Movant is in writing and speaks for itself, and
the Movant denies all characterizations of same as framed by the Respondents. By way of
further response, this averment is denied as argumentative, self-serving, and legally insufficient.
Hence, no response is required.
WHEREFORE, the Movant respectfully requests that Your Honor issue an appropriate
final order which GRANTS the instant Motion to Disqualify Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and The
Manson Law Office From Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts, that
said law firms be ordered to refrain from any communication with any replacement counsel
subsequently retained by the Executrices/Trustees which would maintain or further perpetuate
the prejudice and detriment to the interests of the aforesaid beneficiaries, and that said law firms
be ordered to deliver in toto the complete records of the Estate, the Trusts, and the Decedent to
such replacement counsel whether same be in the possession or in the control of said two law
firms, or in the alternative, that Your Honor issue an appropriate Order which schedules a
hearing on this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Mumma, II
P.O. BOX 58
Bowmansdale, PA 1700$
(717) 612-9720
PROSE
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply to
New Matter of Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan to Motion to Disqualify Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius and The Manson Law Offices from Continuing Legal Representation of the
Estate and the Trusts 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
Carlisle, PA 17013
Brady Green, Esquire
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Ralph Jacobs, Esquire
1515 Market 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
Carlisle, PA 17013
DATE: October 7, 2008 BY: -~L--~~ ,l ~„~~Zt~~~
Robert M. Mumma, II
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
717-612-9720
PROSE