HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-04-08N_
n p ;-,t
~Q ~ i-,_~;--_
~e~n n ~;
~ 1"" --`
~~ ~ :~,
y~~ ~
1N RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON~LEAS O~" ''
ROBERT M. MUMMA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Deceased
ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION
N0.21-86-398
MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF RULE 206.7(a) ORDER
AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, who files the instant Motion to Strike the
Answer to Motion for Entry of Rule 206.7(a) Order, and in support thereof avers as follows:
1. On August 22, 2008, the undersigned Movant filed a Motion for Disqualification of Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius ("MLB" hereinafter) and The Martson Law Office ("Martson" hereinafter)
from Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts.
2. On August 28, 2008, the Orphan's Court issued the following Order:
AND NOW, this 28~' day of August, 2008, upon consideration of the Motion to
Disqualify Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and the Martson Law Office from Continuing
Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts, it is ordered that:
1. A Rule is issued upon all interested parties and the said law firms to show cause
why Movant is not entitled to the relief requested;
2. Answers to the motion shall be filed within 21 days of the date of this order;
3. The petition shall be decided under Pa. R.C.P. 206.7;
4. Depositions shall be completed within 49 days of the date of this order;
5. Argument shall be held on Wednesday, December 17, 2008, at 11:00 a.m., in
Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
6. Briefs shall be submitted at least seven days prior to argument.
7. Pending argument and further order of court, neither law firm is prohibited from
continuing its representation of record herein.
BY THE COURT,
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
3. In accordance with said Order of August 28, 2008, Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M.
Morgan filed an Answer and New Matter on September 18, 2008.
4. Despite the instructions in Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008, neither of the said law
firms, i.e., neither MLB nor Martson, on their own accord or via other counsel retained
by either of the said law firms, returned a rule to show cause why the relief requested
should not be granted, nor was an answer filed on behalf of either of the said law firms.
5. Despite the instructions in Paragraph # 1 of Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008,
neither of "the said law firms" responded to the rule returnable to show cause why
Movant is not entitled to the relief requested.
6. Despite the instructions in Paragraph #2 of Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008,
neither of "the said law firms" filed an answer to the motion either within 21 days of the
order or at any other time thereafter.
7. On November 21, 2008, the undersigned filed a motion entitled "Motion for Entry of a
Rule 206.7(a) Order". Said motion expressly relied upon Paragraph #3 of Judge Oler's
Order of August 28, 2008 which provided that the motion to disqualify Estate counsel
was to be decided under Pa. R.C.P. 206.7.
8. Said Motion for Entry of a Rule 206.7(a) Order requests the Court to enter an appropriate
Order under Pa. R.C.P. 206.7(a) given that all averments of fact in the motion to
disqualify Estate counsel shall be deemed admitted because the said law firms failed to
comply with the August 28, 2008 Order by not showing cause why the relief requested
should not be granted and by not filing an Answer on behalf of the said law firms.
9. Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008 at Paragraph #7 provides: "Pending argument and
further order of court, neither law firm is prohibited from continuing its representation of
record herein." Failure of the said law firms to comply with said Order now calls into
question whether the said law firms can continue its representation inasmuch as all
averments of fact in the motion to disqualify Estate counsel shall be deemed admitted
pursuant to Rule 206.7(a).
10. On November 26, 2008, an "Answer to Motion for Entry of Rule 206.7(a) Order" was
filed. The introductory paragraph of said Answer states: "Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
("Morgan Lewis") and The Martson Law Office (the "Martson Firm"), in addition to
Barbara McI~. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan respond as follows to the Motion of Robert
M. Mumma, II to disqualify Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and The Martson Law
Office from Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts:".
11. Paragraph #7 of said Answer to Motion for Entry of Rule 206.7(a) Order states in
pertinent part as follows: "Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Answer
and New Matter were filed on behalf of the Executrices by their counsel. Any inference
as to the intent of the Order or the Answer and New Matter is denied as those are writings
which speak for themselves. By way of further response, neither Morgan Lewis nor the
Manson Firm, asnon-parties, understood the August 28, 2008 Order to place them under
an obligation separately to file a formal answer to the Robert M. Mumma, II's Motion.
To the extent that the law firms were under such obligation, both firms hereby
incorporate and adopt statements and averments of the Answer and New Matter of Mrs.
Mumma and Mrs. Morgan as if fully set forth herein." Paragraph #7 of said Answer
continues on with a further response by Morgan Lewis to Paragraph 18 of the Motion to
Disqualify by setting forth asingle-spaced sub-paragraph which indicates that MLB has
not located a copy of the personal financial statement in Morgan Lewis' files.
12. Paragraph #8 of said Answer to Motion for Entry of Rule 206.7(a) Order states as
follows: "Admitted in part; denied in part. See number 7, above."
13. Paragraph #9 of said Answer to Motion for Entry of Rule 206.7(a) Order states as
follows: "Admitted in part; denied in part. See number 7, above."
14. The WHEREFORE clause of said Answer to Motion for Entry of Rule 206.7(a) Order
states as follows: "WHEREFORE, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan, along with their
counsel, Morgan Lewis and the Manson Firm, respectfully and collectively request that
Mr. Mumma, II's Motion for Entry of Order be denied."
15. The undersigned Movant hereby files the instant Motion to Strike as Untimely said
Answer to Motion for Entry of Rule 206.7(a) Order to the extent same was filed on
behalf of MLB and Martson and to the extent said Answer constitutes an attempt by the
said law firms to incorporate and adopt the statements and averments of the Answer and
New Matter of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan as if fully set forth therein, same being
untimely under both Pa.R.C.P. 206.7 and Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008.
16. The said law firms cannot assert that they, whether asnon-parties or as the legal counsel
specifically named in a motion to disqualify said counsel, did not understand they were
under an obligation separately to file an Answer to the Motion to Disqualify MLB and
Martson from Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts, especially in
light of the express, direct, and plain language of Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008
which specifies as follows in its Paragraph #1: "A Rule is issued upon ald interested
parties and the said law,firms to show cause why Movant is not entitled to the relief
requested." (emphasis added).
17. Despite the express, direct, and plain language of Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008,
neither of the said law firms, i.e., neither MLB nor Manson, on their own accord or via
other counsel retained by either of the said law firms, returned a rule to show cause why
the relief requested should not be granted, nor was an answer filed on behalf of either of
the said law firms within the 21 days specified in said Order.
18. According to Pa.R.C.P. 206.7(a), all averments of fact are to be admitted if an answer is
not filed.
19. As evidenced by the averments admitted in Paragraph #7 of the aforesaid Answer to
Motion for Entry of a Rule 206.7(a) Order filed on November 26, 2008, the said law
firms failed to file a formal answer.
20. The said law firms attempt to incorporate and adopt as their own the statements and
averments of the Answer and New Matter filed on behalf of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs.
Morgan "as if fully set forth herein" constitutes an attempt to file an Answer beyond the
21 day period provided in the August 28, 2008 Order. Hence, same must be stricken as
untimely, and the Court "shall enter an appropriate order" as specified in Pa.R.C.P.
206.7(a).
21. The undersigned has not obtained the concurrence of counsel to the other interested
parties (or in this instance, from either of the said law firms) inasmuch as the prior
actions, statements and representations of said counsel (or in this instance, of either of the
said law firms) have indicated that the undersigned would not receive cooperation from
them with respect to the relief sought via the instant motion.
22. The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., has previously ruled on prior motions filed in this
case.
WHEREFORE, based upon the reasons set forth hereinabove, the undersigned
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court strike as untimely the Answer to Motion for Entry
of Rule 206.7(a) Order filed on November 26, 2008 to the extent same was filed on behalf of the
said law firms, and to the extent said Answer filed on November 26, 2008 constituted an attempt
by the said law firms to incorporate and adopt as their own the statements and averments of the
Answer and New Matter of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan as if fully set forth therein, such an
attempt being untimely under both Pa.R.C.P. 206.7 and Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008.
According to Pa.R.C.P. 206.7(a), this Court "shall enter an appropriate order" declaring
all averments of fact set forth in the Motion to Disqualify MLB and Martson as deemed admitted
in light of the admitted failure of the said law firms to file separately an Answer within the 21
days specified in the August 28, 2008 Order.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ p ~ ~ ~
~ ~~~~~~ S
Robert M. Mumma, II
Box F
Grantham, PA 17027
(717) 612-9720
PROSE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing
Motion to Strike the Answer to the Motion for Entry of Rule 206.7(a) Order to be served this
date by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
Martson 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: December 4, 2008 BY: ~~,~~ ~~"~
Robert M. Mumma, II
Box F
Grantham, PA 17027
717-612-9720
PROSE