Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-7190COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. 0g - "'IM Lllt t NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. 'eti r- ,hoes A P(wiv JAS 43??P fin} 5N? pus I CA--5 -ol I - ------ -- - ---- / V64 r ItAI ZIP CODS K (Plain cwj r' i/ V y r/??( (DefendaMl) rT 1771 ZIP CODE DATE OF JU`? GME ? TINTHECASEO J fir/ ? T o DT <? OCKET No. SIGNATU OFAP L T R A ORNEY OR AGENT C V - 0000 4 This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. If appellant was Cvimaif ( e Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(6) in action R.C.P.D.J. No. 1008B. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary t ` Enter rule upon i It c; C4 13 On 11 J f appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal erne of appall (s) f (Common Pleas No. _ 96 1 IJ ) within twenty (20) days after f rule o su r e try of judgment of non pros. S' atu of appellant or attorney or agent RULE: To Ck„ ( 'L [C4 Vd 1 , appellee(s) Name of appellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Dater 1<C . / 20 Signature o Prothonotary or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-02 WHITE -COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN - COURT FILE YELLOW - APPELLANT'S COPY PINK -COPY TO BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD -COPY TO BE SERVED ON DISTRICT JUSTICE PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served ? a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas , upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) 20 , ? by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) on ,20 ? by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF .20 Signature of official before whom affidavit was made Title of official My commission expires on 20 x? c Signature of affiant C ` = ?a `c1 t, , r'1`i F F M Z t ` C-i '., rf?, # %.0 . -r =IK 7TH- ?' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ' COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND Mag. Dist. No.: 09-3-04 MDJ Name: Hon. THOMAS A. PLACLY Address: 104 S SPORTING HILL RD MECHANICSBURG, PA Telephone: (717 ) 761-8230 17050 JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS P. 0. BOX 246 NORTHUMBERLAND, PA 17857 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: DEFAULT JUDGMENT PLTF NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS I'JAIROD AND CHRISTY LAUDIG 13 DENALT DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 L J VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS 51S BASEMENT SYSTEMS P. 0. BOX 246 NORTHUMBERLAND, PA 17857 L J Docket No.: CV-0000467-08 Date Filed: 7/18/08 (Date of Judgment) 11/13/08 ® Judgment was entered for: (Name) JAIROD AND CHRISTY L, AUDIO ® Judgment was entered against: (Name) JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS in the amount of $ 8,126.0 ? 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 $ 8,000.00 Judgment Costs $ 126.00 Interest on Judgment $ .00 Attorney Fees $ . UD Total $ 8,126.00 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 JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT 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 Magisterial District Judge I certify that this is a true and correct copy ?f th of the pAeedings containing the judgment. Date Magisterial District Judge My commission expires first Monday of January, 2010 SEAL AOPC 315-07 C7 ru ca ? np r , M X Jj .., = { co m C3 PROOF OF SERVICE OF.. NOTICE,-OF APP AND-,RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER riling of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF S() L4 A ekl- ; ss -10 AFFIDAVIT. I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served ? a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas f j -74 IC70, upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) 10 20 ? by personal service by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) CiyttiL LQ,J,a, on _I) _ a 2008 ? by personal service Xby (certified) (egistered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN) AFFIRMED) A SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OFiA2&4! ? 20.0_ S' n off al before whom affidavit was made Signature of affrant Title of official 7 My commission expires /-,.k 15, 20?_. 1??A Co Nowwriii1m Oi SWAOM OAK M11DLR COIMIy Cp??NMOn bPW ,Ion 6.2009 t;UMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. .; NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. MAG. .NO ! .,. ? N OF D.J. AUDRESA F APPELLANT CITY STATE ZIP CODE L V_ DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE O J(Plaintiff) {De>andeMl. - V (A 09 This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. If appellant was s Cl ma ( Pa. R. C. P. D. J. No. 1001(6) in action R.C.P.D.J. No. 1008B. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature of Prothonaary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT A140 RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon _ a Ilee I q :. l f, ppe (s), to filea complaint in this appeal Name of a elf PP (s) (Common Pleas No. $ ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or ff r e try of judgment of non pros. etappekam arafcmeyorawt z RULE: To appellee(s) \J L' <;r t Naft of aAl)"aa(e) ,. (1) You are n4tiWthat a -rylais k Wgby ente d upon Y to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you dra'not fde a complaint withir5 this'time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: ?f ,r ?O f at- o' rgthor&aryor Deputy YOU MUST INCL,,1)0E;A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-02 WHITE -COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN - COURT FILE YELLOW -APPELLANT'S COPY PINK -COPY TO BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD -COPY TO BE SERVED ON DISTRICT JUSTICE y ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Anicie Addressed to: Jawej A f? Dc-Loc, ( uQ- J t??..Jlr X tatureIUI A ? Agent ? Addressee B R``e__celve by ( S t? Name) (A l C. Date of Delivery K vO 0. Is delivery add ress r®nt r item 1? ? Yes ,om It YES, enter d e' address below:. ? No (Z" DEC 1 3. Service Type Certified Mail c p tvl? I ? Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise ? Insured Mail ? C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number 7007 0710 0000 4440 5757 (transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-154o ¦ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Aso, complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: 1' rA/'{ -0 -A- .o0 C) C,(-P--LA 1b?I .S Spbrt`rn 4i,(? RootC? A. Aignkre X ? Agent ? Addressee B.eived b (Print Name) C. Date of Delivery r CO D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ? Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ? No 3. Ice Type Certified mail ? Express Mail ? Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise ? Insured Mail ? C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes umber 2. Article Number ? (transfer N t from service IabeQ 50 4 0:1 1 n OC)Qn 14 y 40 -52+ PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 10259502-M-1540 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS 15 Susquehanna Trail Shamokin Dam, Pennsylvania 17876 You are hereby notified to file a written a written response to the enclosed Plaintiffs' Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. T e aw Offices o o, P.C. Attorneys for the Defendant Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID No. 72897 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717-591-1755 Date: December 30, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 60 Silvermine Road Seymour, Connecticut 06483 You are hereby notified to file a written a written response to the enclosed Plaintiffs' Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. T e Offices o e er . usso, P.C. Attorneys for the Defendant Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID No. 72897 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717-591-1755 Date: December 30, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mds adelante en las siguientes pdginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mds aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN BOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD and CHRISTY LAUDIG PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-CV-7190 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, COME Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig, Christy Laudig, and Joan Schulz by and through their attorneys, Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., and file the within Complaint, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1 2. 3 4. PARTIES Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig (hereinafter "Jairod") and Christy Laudig (hereinafter "Christy") are adult citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing at 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. Plaintiffs, Jairod and Christy are husband and wife and are equitable owners of 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050. Plaintiff, Joan Schulz (hereinafter "Joan") is an adult citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing at 6 Ridgeview, Hawley, Pennsylvania 18428. Joan is the legal title owner of the property known as 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050. 5. Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems (hereinafter "JES") is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company with a principle place of business located at 15 Susquehanna Trail, Shamokin Dam Pennsylvania 17876. 6. Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. is a Connecticut Corporation with a principle place of business located at 60 Silvermine Road, Seymour, Connecticut 06483. 7. Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. is the world leader in developing and providing products that result in dry, below-grade space. 8. Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. has a network of more than 300 dealers throughout the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ireland including Defendant JES. FACTUAL AVERMENTS 9. It is believed, therefore averred that in December of 2005, in anticipation of selling his home, Robert O'Brien, the then owner of 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050 (hereinafter "the Property"), attempted to find a contractor who could address a water infiltration issue in his basement. 10. It is believed, therefore averred that Robert O'Brien contacted Basement Systems, Inc. who directed him to the local dealer, JES Construction North, LLC. 11. On or about December 6, 2005, JES, an authorized dealer for Basement Systems, Inc., entered into an agreement for the installation of a WaterGuard® Perimeter Waterproofing System, WaterGuard® Port Inspection/Dehumidifier Drain, a SuperSump® Basement Water Removal System and a WaterWatch® Pump Failure Alarm System (hereinafter "the WaterGuard System") for Robert O'Brien at 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. Attached is a true and correct copy of the agreement as Exhibit A. 12. The agreement provides for a transferable lifetime warranty. 13. It is believed, therefore averred that on or about December 27, 2005 and December 28, 2005 JES installed the WaterGuard System at 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 14. In March of 2006, Robert O'Brien sold 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050 to Joan, Jairod and Christy. 15. On March 23, 2006, JES issued a warranty to Jairod and Christy. 16. In March of 2006, Jairod and Christy experienced water in their basement inside the perimeter of the WaterGuard System. 17. Plaintiffs immediately called JES came to the Property and advised the Plaintiffs that the issue was likely their current sump pump wasn't sufficient to handle the job of removing the water from their basement. 18. JES provided a new sump pump without cost to the Plaintiffs. 19. The replacement sump pump appeared to resolve the water infiltration issues until March 5, 2008, when at approximately 6:30 am, Plaintiffs noticed approximately 1 - 2 inches of water throughout their basement inside the perimeter of the WaterGuard System. 20. At that same time, Plaintiffs noticed that their shower drain was backed up and there was no water in their toilets. 21. On the morning of March 5, 2008, Plaintiffs contacted JES and provided the person who answered all of the pertinent information. 22. After hearing nothing from JES, after 5:00 pm on March 5, 2008, Plaintiffs again called JES. 23. Ultimately, at approximately 8:00 pm on March 5, 2008 two service representatives of JES arrived. 24. Jairod explained that he believed the WaterGuard System discharge pipe may have been run into the septic system. 25. The JES representatives advised Jairod that the WaterGuard System discharge pipe should not be run into the septic system so the likely problem was again the current sump pump wasn't sufficient to handle the job. 26. After advising Jairod of the need for a larger sump pump. The JES representatives then left the Property. 27. Plaintiffs learned that unbeknownst to Robert O'Brien or the Plaintiffs, JES had installed sump pump discharge line directly into the septic system, 28. Once it was determined that the sump pump discharge line was installed directly into the septic system, JES re-directed the sump pump discharge line away from the septic system. 29. Plaintiffs Jariod and Christy found the Owners Manual for the WaterGuard System which was attached to the sump pump. Attached is a true and correct copy of the Owners Manual as Exhibit B. 30. Once JES re-directed the sump pump discharge line away from the septic system, the Plaintiffs no longer experienced water being discharged in their basement. 31. Installing the sump pump discharge line directly into the septic system is not permitted by the manufacturer of the system which was sold to Robert O'Brien and installed at 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 32. As a result of the installing the sump pump discharge line directly into the septic system, the Plaintiffs' septic system was overtaxed and the water backed up through the system into the basement. 33. It is believed, therefore averred that at all times relevant hereto Defendant JES was acting as a servant to its master, Defendant Basement Systems, Inc., in accordance with its dealer agreement. COUNT ONE NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANT JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC 34. Plaintiff avers each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs I though 31 of the Complaint and incorporates each and every one herein by reference as previously set forth herein. 35. At all times relevant hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, JES held itself out as specializing in basement waterproofing, crawl space moisture control, and foundation repair. 36. At all times relevant hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, JES held itself out as "the authorized Basement Systems dealer in Pennsylvania" being qualified and certified to fix a leaky wet basement. 37. At all times relevant hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, JES held itself out as an installer of a "state-of-the-art French drain system called WaterGuard - a patented product only available through Basement Systems dealers". 38. At all times relevant and material hereto, and at the time of the incident complained of the Defendant JES, individually and by and through, agents, employees, officers, and servants were responsible for: a. the proper installation of the WaterGuard System including, but not limited to the placement of the sump pump discharge line; b. the exercise of control over its agents, employees, officers, staff, administrators, representatives, servants and other personnel; c. the exercise of control over the procedures and policies that the agents, employees, staff, administrators, representatives, servants, and other personnel had the obligation of enacting and performing; d. the training and certification its employees, staff, administrators, representatives, servants, and security personnel including, but not limited to, those procedures, policies and duties that it devised and enacted or lack thereof. 39. At all times relevant hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, JES had a duty to install the WaterGuard System in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications including, but not limited to those set forth in the Owner's Manual. 40. JES knew or should have known that the installation of the sump pump drainage line into a septic system was not permitted by the WaterGuard System Owner's Manual. 41. JES knew or should have known that the installation of the sump pump drainage line into a septic system could cause a back up of water. 42. JES, through its agents, employees, officers, staff, administrators, representatives, servants, and other personnel breached the duty owed to Plaintiffs by committing one or more of the following negligent acts of commission and/or omission: a. failing to properly install the WaterGuard System; b. failing to properly install the sump pump drainage line; c. failing to adequately warn the consumer of the hazards of an improperly installed WaterGuard System; d. failing to adequately warn the consumer of the hazards of an improperly installed sump pump drainage line; e. failing to provide foreseeable safeguards to prevent the above-described incident; f. failing to properly investigate and act accordingly upon the first incidence of water infiltration; and g. such other negligence as may be revealed through discovery. 43. As a direct and proximate result of JES' negligence, Plaintiffs suffered damage to their home and personal possessions and may in the future continue to suffer the same, including, but not limited to: a. damage to carpet requiring replacement; b. damage to paneling requiring replacement; c. damage to insulation requiring replacement; d. damage to baseboard molding requiring replacement; e. damage to walls requiring re-painting; and f. temporary loss of use of their basement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig, Christy Laudig and Joan Schulz, respectfully requests this Court enter an Order entering judgment in its favor, and against judgment against Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, in an amount to be proven at trial, together with its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. COUNT TWO UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES DEFENDANT JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH. LLC 44. Plaintiff avers each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 though 41 of the Complaint and incorporates each and every one herein by reference as previously set forth herein. 45. Defendant JES represented that work provided would be "according to the standard practice." 46. The Owner's Manual for the WaterGuard System installed by JES does not allow for the running of sump pump discharge lines into a septic system. 47. Contrary to the standards provided by the manufacturer in the Owner's Manual, Defendant JES ran the sump pump discharge lines into the Property's septic system. 48. Defendant JES claims the decision to deviate from the standards as provided by the manufacturer in the Owner's Manual was acknowledged not by the homeowner or the party who executed the contract with JES but rather some third party who happened to be at the Property on the day of the installation. 49. Defendant JES failed to comply with the terms of the contract for the purchase and installation of the WaterGuard System for the Property. 50. Defendant JES failed to comply with the terms of the standards as provided by the manufacturer in the Owner's Manual for the installation of the sump pump discharge lines. 51. Defendant JES failed to adequately notify the homeowner of the deviation from the manufacturer's standards as set forth in the Owner's Manual for the installation of the sump pump discharge lines. 52. Defendant JES' conduct was deceptive and likely to created confusion or misunderstanding. 53. Defendant JES engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its trade or business. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig, Christy Laudig and Joan Schulz, respectfully requests judgment against Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems for treble damages but in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional amount in actual damages as provided in 73 Pa. C.S. §201-9-2, together with attorney's fees, delay damages, interest, cost of suit, as well as any other reasonable amount deem appropriate by the Court for future costs. COUNT THREE NEGLIGENCE-VICARIOUS LIABILITY DEFENDANT BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC 54. Plaintiff avers each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 though 51 of the Complaint and incorporates each and every one herein by reference as previously set forth herein. 55. The occurrence of the aforesaid incident and the subsequent damages to the Plaintiffs, resulting therefrom were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the servant, Defendant JES, therefore making the master, Defendant Basement Systems, Inc. vicariously liable, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. failing to properly install the WaterGuard System; b. failing to properly install the sump pump drainage line; c. failing to adequately warn the consumer of the hazards of an improperly installed WaterGuard System; d. failing to adequately warn the consumer of the hazards of an improperly installed sump pump drainage line; e. failing to provide foreseeable safeguards to prevent the above-described incident; ff, failing to properly investigate and act accordingly upon the first incidence of water infiltration; and g. such other negligence as may be revealed through discovery. 56. As the result of the negligence of servant, Defendant JES, therefore making the master, Defendant Basement Systems, Inc. vicariously liable to Plaintiffs who has sustained damages, including, but not limited to: a. damage to carpet requiring replacement; b. damage to paneling requiring replacement; c. damage to insulation requiring replacement; d. damage to baseboard molding requiring replacement; e. damage to walls requiring re-painting; and f. temporary loss of use of their basement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig, Christy Laudig and Joan Schulz, respectfully requests this Court enter an Order entering judgment in its favor, and against judgment against Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. in an amount to be proven at trial, together with its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, USSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney ID No. 72897 Prussogpjrlaw.com Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney ID No. 20013 lsaylorgpjrlaw.com 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717-591-1755 Date: December 30, 2008 EXHIBIT A ruflug?l For Office Use Only INSTALLATION { /3 Net JY l DATE JES Construction North, UC Basement heiroament Sped~ P.O. Box 246, Northumberland, PA 17857 1-877-242-7511 SUBMITTED TO -71 .1. to q PHONE (HOME) -7 - 323 t DATE BID PHONE (WORK) / - 4e.- c:5 STREET /3 •w LT ;? . ALTERNAIWEPHONE -7 FAX CITY, STATE & ZIP CODE E-MAIL Mt A. -,, I LS ? 04 / 7c*V Cc JOB LOCATION i%io .J- r. Lo & C? 1 iJ': ?? f+t C??.( LhC3 ..? f- --- -- - _I h?13 ?1i5_i; LIFS?'l.?tg i? t?,t?r?t c 1 j?,P' ?tP iw S,T 1.,? 74 3 p4'lE..,r . S ^ ? ' ? ? !' ? r- ?? ? ?3Ff 2 _ - ? 1---_t .-- qt _ _e ? ._? E5__-E?? r _1?Z ?w?_G+?_ INt • ? f__?.a KcPf?lcc?-----l-rt?t??ea.?-? ---------- --------------------------- ---------------- Quantity System Features: Quantity System Features: { y I , ,, , WaterGuard- WaterGuard Porte FloodRin FloodChek" WaterWatch Alarms - ; ^' IceGuar UltraSum RainChute- Tri feSafe° i ; RainChute EZ- Bri htWail' Panels L ` Brf htPoat° CleanPump Stands T ! - t- `- `-= ThertalDr Floor un s EvedAst indow ou e WeIIDuc -- Thy Wail TrenchDrain- ?' D Tra lean ace -- - - - - -' '-+T,rT CactusBoard- FlexiS an- -L t i + SanlD CS° SanlD - - - - - ; T 777, 3"or 4" Pi 1 1/2" Pipe T`T + -t T? ! ;•? ±- ?- T 1 TyP Wall: ' Tof Wall Finish: ' - - 1 - - - - - p - - •?--?- --?- Block O Stone O Poured Concret n ov r - tu WP li M - - +- I-' - -- - - -1 - - - - e O Other ane ng [ uds O Sheetrock O firring f J Sy Wffi to drain into: C3 Other - ' - i ! 9!_ Su erS m N , T T ---- '- ' ' p u p- ew yp Floor Finish: _ T:-_ T ?xN" ? Floo of Drain oncrete O Tile , i v? y - - - ' O Existing Sump O Carpeting - r ?- - -- 1- ?,- k- - - -? + -? - - + -- - ; ,- O Other O Other The contractor's representative has fully explained the merits of the waterproofing system. I understand a WaterGuard or DryTrak system will remedy the problem with water from the joint where the floors and walls meet. I fully understand and accept the transferable warranty, which covers only the areas of the basement addressed. There will be no charge for service calls which are leaks in the system covered under warranty. Partial perimeter systems carry a limited warranty. Sump pumps are covered under a separate manufacturer warranty. Installation of DryTrak alone will not eliminate floor crack seepage. Installation of the system does not include painting, finished carpentry, extending discharge lines, electrical work, or replacement of floor tile or carpeting unless specified. Contractor is not responsible for frozen discharge lines without an IceGuard, condensation, water once pumped from house, window well flooding, or fuel tanks or lines. Homeowner responsible for moving objects away from walls and back. Some dust should be expected from work. Payments to be made in full upon completion. We Propose to furnish material and labor-complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: crQ dollars Deposit Required $ Deposit Paid $ - ? Balance Due Upon Installation It _ oeo. All material is guaranteed to be as specrfied. All work to be completed according to the standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, Authorized and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents Signature or delays beyond our control. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. Homeowner assumes all responsibility for damages due to breakage of any hidden fuel/utility service lines, though we will do Note: This proposal may be our best to avoid such damage. All proposals based primarily on homeowners description of problem. withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. Acceptance of Proposal - The above prices, specifications , conditions and separate warranty are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. A full perimeter system was recommended ? X You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made ?( R & ? as outlined above. SignatureX Z ,? (,g Date of Acceptance: __ /,z S ignature NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL Your Right To Cancel You are entering into a contract. If that contract is a result of or in connection with a salesman's direct contact with or call to you at your residence without your soliciting the contract or call, then you have a legal right to void the contract or sale by notifying us within three business days from whichever of the following events occurs last: or 1. The date of the transaction, which is 2. The date you received this notice of cancellation. How to Cancel If you decide to cancel this transaction, you may do so by notifying us in writing at Contractor's Name: Contractor's Address: Contractor's Telephone: You may use any written statement that is signed and dated by you and states your intentions to cancel, or you may use this notice by dating and signing below. Keep one copy of the notice because it contains important information about your rights. If you cancel by mail or telegram, you must send the notice no later than midnight of (or midnight of the third business day following the latest of the two events listed above). If you send or deliver your written notice to cancel some other way, it must be delivered to the above address no later than that time. I Wish To Cancel Date: Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Date: Date: The undersigned acknowledges receipt of the two copies of the Notice of Right To Cancel Owner's Signature Date: Date: Owner's Signature EXHIBIT B +r O +r ® O CS O C O al Do W x cz HI-E G ?y 2" c N cu cn m v O ,,., ° °E' N x ? ° 4- cC N 4- ?.: O H n c`"a y ° O a v w O .? O 4+ O b 0 -- v ° +r+ h h t"r 4J {-. of a 'td - m x O +? D O." , y +? ?; bO G CU 'CS a cz «S v Q a H oo b O U JM4 cu h ° .n N 3 v O to ° 0 Q, N C a H cz ?' bo C,3 w ca, a b0 w G. ° h > F" per- H El 0 b.0 0 (v r (U - ?z w p 0 o ? 10 k -0 45 bo J- . °_° 0 v o n v 3 a `? 41 v v v 3 ?oov >.',uv ?q oa f H h ? 00 ? ?, 3 3 fC ¢ ", GJ w v 4Z .2 co? cz 24: "at c CZ ? ti Z cu 0? t ?-0v z ? q p O? O - O vii = O co p v w U r AG 'G ti O O Q W cU, = °' ci .+ p 4- 4. 4-1 f ??u U V YO .? h N r u c ?' h O h y O a_ o Who Y r .-. C O z N ? ? o O N N a E 01 0 Z 0 CIS a) n U C U E T E N ca m in v 0 0 N O H a a c a. 3 a O O a? a? E a} c? ++ a x0 +?, w a ^O a O a1 0 C) Q4 > O h a a ?+ by ... r- `" a+ .. w +, a CA cOd ?" p aa)i iC U , y O +? a N O ?? a! v O E? pN w m cu C14 c,3 cu C) I., cl > m -- cz Id o cz 4- s-.4 41 4- 4- CZ CU v cz?++ V v4' p O ++ ?+ vOi '- vD " 4J h O C c°\j .0 Ln H a v y G O w-? to va m S] v iU4 Q .- "0 0 m O a V y o it a "O "O H cCS cC co O •.. .C] ,p - N a +?- O w A H a O ? s: +, h a V O co O ccf v] M O E .? +, M O a H p r, O s. Z .C Q+ 2HOM?yaJ.??O O OHU??Oa???0v.DOa ?+9+??0 14-4 V5 4? 4 CZ O 41 + V O O ?w b0 O (V a G ca O ! ctt a Z O O a O w id cz O? cq w V + . 4 of O ? cz a O •^" `+ w wo ,X a.-w a+?", ?a??Z??o n? .? cz b4 d-, 3 O a y a O d+ s. ?• O ' a F. V) ca ?a O c? V' = v +- CZ V O iG 03 V V) '(V ? O a a cd U n a, y a ay ° v? v O ; m ° V a CS x G v O `a 00 O 3 v v -? O a a u 0 -0 ?" v V E t z a ,`? 3 3 a ?' b°+D? a v Q" O `a w f' q c a a i vpi W v 3 p 3 4' ,? O O H Z •Cy O ce W H H b O 'C O 00 4-4 n C 03 U .?? O ,,,_, V) a 4, +, Q V f. O, a O a V cn O 4- O TS c? O j O p w .X a te. w ?, i O O U a +4- D ?•, ??., ?'" a a •" t,,," '? .^" ° v v ° O >, a O :? ?• cn h h a F. V, ?., 4-; a 'C3 7$ cz v 'O p O O H y D V S? . x ,w O a 4 O O *' b p v N m CZ C,3 w C) w N C: +, tVC -v O co H C: O b0 a +?- >a. p N o p er a E- N cn a L7 0} v m =U a o v, a vOi cz bjO v H qvd CZ G, bA N 9' n µ ,? N a E O i? a s LS 41 Q) ti v ?. u v W 'O a O UO r_: +? O E H U 04 a U W w„ bU `a C3 O 4, air u a o O bao- CZ 4 M z Q) 4-1 CU U cCv (V °V v°. °V U ° °u 3 vOi m u o .? o ° CZ M r4., y'< a Q" V) Ga Ew C) cz C's a p Y of 4- H H O cz V) a ?' 3 o a v 3 O o o. vRya o o ?. o En 0 zs G ¢ n y o E Q) cz "r. +, CL * a ) .O N O ca +, bO O p a Cq3 ?. a.? 4-4 V) eq 0 V) I.. cu cu cz N 3 41 > r. u V) Q) o W5 04 4-1 w 0-0 .C ,r a Q) co r. co o o c. o o a y, Mc V N p a) ? V 3 4? V. V+v' O Q cz O x0 x ?? O U O cz •., of ... H a O cz as O .O ccs O c-' y a U ' w O s ^O F, O ? ?- y cz O r bA q a }" w r. LX4 "O Q a G. E a a Q V) v cz y cC a r y [_? .. O w a (V IX4 .7 c cd w0 i. W L1 C >, a r . ' M O O. a ?"» p 4, + • O Z: V, fop 9 p 0 0? a ,O a a a CZ CZ V) s, cu r, w Q) v O a O b4 ? v ? a u o M C7 ?a+ a co 4- U '0 ?' ? q N O ? c N, f • .? O cad ? O O C >, 4 + c?? °o ?+1 LI p +, O • +, O O • ... cc 'O O cc a r, , , O N c? a a a L+1 E- V ?''. °; 4O U Q 0 O v O v cu O 4- 4,"0 w v x o ti a o °? oo?oo b.ov33 =°? o ca a GI -O O U Qcts ?N cz O O G1 'O O ^H - n O •., 3 D. czcz O O: O -a ". .0 r ?•,' O G b ?'O p' n r ??,0 ' " c O O a+ O' + 41 ?? 3 L3 ?? ? H O ? O u V O v W O? C) y c! =? ... cC O O v cCt y w, bO "o ;•1 cz O, 4? >1 r. U , N cn 4? CO .o O 3 ? O m ct p?? vh ?v a,uao 1-4 °' Qod } ^ " u 'p C U U_ >O, b0 N n cu - O +-+ u + 4L >, O ? Q 4-4 4? '? N Q >,•,[ ?. '"S. .1.., O ;y "0 4J L"i CJ cz v) .+ O O. yv 4? (V h h h RS W) cz O -GJ ''' •?,,, y?.,"'?-+ V H t~C U 11".7 C1. cc o a3 ?, a N N o ate}' ? CIO c.V5 a ? o o. ;:s Q, al ?w?? ado v.ao¢3b u C-) Q) u a 0 O u O is aa?o O G A v G +? cz a, ?_ 3 v 4O N 'C1 } v C; a! ^ s M V) N i. 9 O W O h cC + U ?y cu 0 4- lu V, lc? H p u0 ct1 v X ' v Q* O E?-+ ?` C~ U o bD 3 Q 9 t? 'p o pb p'" bmp ?L ?' v a'"i O a; 4.1 vObvA?O[° O V?? 0I-Jc O " +> 0 Wale +r.?? ujNY?h? w N •N,? vi O f .i ++ C'^ -rn-. N +`?•+ t?•? "N,i C: 'y N ? v t]./ cz cn "? O c? tv V +•?,+^••" L10 A Q ayi .... Q+.... C-n O y +u-c O N O ,4 4n IRS, E w cqa Q) a) 4. w V5 = I + L) 4, + C 4 O O N am 4 cn ? ? +41+ 464 Cr W5 cn 4? ? aU+ „ o 5 Q4 -6 - °mow:o 3 q cm 4- A3°4? G a 00 cc u 4 Cl......, w 4+ ?i .4S b40 w cz O O 4? 4? C a 3 cv X V cu a? cu H .? LS w? v4? CZ ?.? o o K CU M O 4-1 o ? V' 4? C) 0 - v v N v o v .r v cz O 0.0 4n 0.' v u fl b0 4- cz a) co O 0 cu 1=4 w ?= C,3 X03 ? w a? bA 3 •? 41 m O OJ ti O N ?, b F. bQ 3 4 4-1 ? >- cu °. CS. ? a x e cu M V) v C? bto3? W C3+J 4 w v 4 v? uQ ° p +?+ C's O cd v a O Cs'?+ E'?., v m = co W3 e Vf U 4? col C) 5 .., .3 - M m a vva-°O aYW:c o 4- aj 333 o h w w m C V) g o oa ?Q)? p?a)U°vo?a0y *'3C)4 A o b?4v C+ ° O O G v 3 Q.?.? co cz O.O u a ?a a CZ 04'M V) ??.Izo o „ct n.. 0 41 o C cu >- cu it I.. rl, r} 'C3 A h v L3 O 4? CU h C? eC ) ,? ?+ O cCS ~O ) Y O N M O co 3 4 0 V, cz > co y,0 0O w (U C13." iv+ ca R3 3 9.1 u0 3 Ow N W 'C3 3 'cs 3 y?C14 N v N -0 4" F4 0 3 a4? ,O c0 cti m j ::s :M O O Q x O ` + O A +?, c? C1 3 O ?! ?" Q to p m u> m os 3 3'D V) N u .-"0 o.'a h ..o vs Rs ? °. v x L7 cu y 0 cu V O co a? u m cu cz t0 V O y O u'' u4+Lf Q) CO -0 o L7 ++ O cn o Q 4? 4_ v c = K N .- Q1 v C3+A U ? y,, ? Ci Z ?? cz C) ? - 4-1 b4 o + C N +, ` a v r7N.= v ?O. ate, boQ v) 4-44 w y ?. ro^? ??N. CS+h 0 C•v cz v cz? x? co W 4.1 cz v v Q) 4? -0 ' ad 4- CL) O C) m as o ° N y a Cs al O U C N E c a? E cc$ m 0 0 N O 11 N e i- CC v ? p v bo o M cz U v cc O O V v '? O v N 4? O V a ?1?3x h 4- 4' v ,D cd 03 E p"auJ to ,0 CC 7d y? - CZ n N^U., U Fri v v O M W cCS `? N cC ? 3 3 0 O +, v .J bQ p 4- M ,U, O h ._., cC o Cld x Q) M O a +' and O O w ? u G1. O M ?i ? a0 u >14Q) t 4- 14. + O + O v v a 3 D w O aJ w. +" p _? fl O Q O a a u? ??? M O v +, "C3 GJ 4J v ?. C.i .O w ? ? 4J ? ? N x a O > C M O O M O ?. 4- U 0 ~ 4- 4 9 CC"C CSC 3 u C,3 CU M W ?r b04 (?,x j J1 3 41 0 4- CU M C) ba +?,? O v vQ LO W M y v v _c? v° a M M M to v +, ??voo?'?`av?.o +J 3 v 3 QUJV3v C a p h O cCS O +, 4, '? w O 4, .:. O Q) O iC ` O O E v bO O 0 vi u vdV) On U O 3 v ' .. O -" O ? .o j2 C) bjO .0 i. } 4? O v H a: .., C"" 't7 p +- M ++ v v R3 f" v h v cz 3 0 y v U aJ.? O O?? O ?w•O"" ti 0 tb 4, Q) M 4? En v "O k O ?' 1i. u? ° O v17i o bow o b v 3 vo M`b p 4; D ' ca O 3 `n DD 0 s. b.0 0 cCM•orbo•4+wv??O >C 3 w c?vvvvcd.?vD,? ??vN3cw&3 C,3 4? 3 o ?vO bo v' v+.?...?n*/u?.9 W o U w 4. A+4 b H M v [?- O bo v x 4.° ??M Upav0 n 04 0 >1 p 0'?Ov moo} 4- Gip c ? O O O 0`"x00 ° +' ++ D1 M M O ? ice . 41 au, 0??.. Oo ;?oo3a?a M C) v m v .0?3P ? O O Ou M yJ (1) CC W M O v .O M 03 4 N + p m + C"C ?. O >, i- Z i..?.l 171 N E3aa HiC? uOE?-•? Q. o n v 0 c) O " D. V •v aJ v O O. to 0 V) O v +- m n v vZ v cl i v GL ? ? O cu U bo H v N v u. z_M O z> (L' m 3 a O D. O u0 ti. ?. r a ? v p co M c? A. O D M L5iv O y +? v v ^? C7 Cf 9., ?4? a.N?'W' ?a?J`b°hJ o C4 mm u ? .? cC bo N u0 v p E 'd -T4 W (V 0 V .0 v r cri a ?: u G.' u rvl c? ? ? h ? CU 4? 4-; V3 r. a) cu ?] ~ O '05 0 v bo?,? 0 Q C1, ? ,,•, y O 4? (? C1+ +, a "i 4Z L h wQpw v a O 4 > O a v 4? O r Q > C6 ?v3h?4? o ? 4 + v c W 00. F6 .4 Z O O ??u °? G 4v CCU-: v N .J fW- .?M m 0 E- .OV?E W?o 41 w = "a n CC «s 0 vJ r b y o w at .? bhp CC H °oHu?o y W Q. N C Q1 e .; L C W C m N 92 a., O O O O r 4+ O O 171'CS 04 a O +5 O r:: a w ?, •O M ° G. N 'n m U 1.4-0 C14 O C +, hI v a ,?. a u 'M bo v ° cC 4' h v o a. C1.?, O~'-' w h o 30 o ?r. aU r °'' E Q"0 b4W Pav,-p w boQ O,O D, CC p v ' o u xy v33Z?;?vo 0 A-, 64 cu 0 V, 61 Cc Q.) 4- A te, R, 4? N x , 3aJa,aJ? ° O U r. O H O O .-, m y .0 W 4. cz s. cC >, M 0 b4 O O , - a1 O , ° 14 ,`? ? p N O D`'3 bo a. _ .. v Q. '0 F+I cu i. w r•' p a v D, cC M Z CZ.? H V x >, O ?a ",-°'a °cC?x ) Cn T C aa) co co N U E Q) Z) a Cf) c N N Cn co m `r 0 0 N OO LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG and JOAN SCHULZ PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-CV-7190 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, Christy Laudig, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 1 x 3 4- G MW A, pt au cQc Christy Laudig III LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG and JOAN SCHULZ PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-CV-7190 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, Jairod Laudig, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 3I J r Laudi 12/30/2008 10:07 r"ram: 5706858093 WOODLOCH 12/ LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS !0% EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 ?,!SCHANICSBURG, PA 17050 ;717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTI LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMI snd JOAN SCHULZ CUMBERLAND CO1 PL A,QITIFFS V. CIVIL ACTION - Ll YES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, : NO. 2008-CV-7190 PLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS : and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. : DEFENDANTS : JURY TRIAL DEW I, Joan Schulz, verify that the statements made in the foregob correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to tb § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date:o Joan i? 8 09:41 PLEAS rV, PENN PAGE 02/02 #748 P.002002 ,VANIA document hr true aril penalties of I Pa. C. S. LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 31, 2008 I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons, in the manner indicated: CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS 60 Silvermine Road 15 Susquehanna Trail Seymour, CT 06483 Shamokin Dam, PA 17876 THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs BY-0?J, Q ?5 CZ?? Amber L. Southard, Paralegal r . DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 55666 BY Christine L. Line, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 93257 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)7314803 (Fax) JAIROD LAUDIG & CHRISTY LAUDIG AND JOAN SCHULZ , Plaintiffs ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 7/MO NO. CV-"M-2008 V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC D/B/A JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS AND BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. AND NOW, comes Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc., by and through its counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. and files the within Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff initiated this action by way of Complaint filed with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County on or about December 31, 2008. See Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 2. This matter involves a claim for property damages resulting from an allegedly improperly installed basement water removal and prevention system, referred to as the WaterGuard System, that failed on or about March 5, 2008. 1 3. This WaterGuard System was allegedly improperly installed by Defendant JES and in deviation from installation instructions provided in the Owners Manual, attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint as Exhibit "B." 4. Plaintiffs have raised three causes of action in their Complaint, only one of which is directed against Defendant Basement Systems, Inc., hereinafter (Defendant BSI). 5. Plaintiffs make the following allegations against Defendant under this single count: 55. The occurrence of the aforesaid incident and the subsequent damages to the Plaintiffs, resulting therefrom were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the servant, Defendant JES, therefore making the master, Defendant Basement Systems, Inc. vicariously liable, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. failing to properly install the WaterGuard System; b. failing to properly install the sump pump drainage line; C. failing to adequately warn the consumer of the hazards of an improperly installed WaterGuard System; d. failing to adequately warn the consumer of the hazards of an improperly installed sump pump drainage line; e. failing to provide foreseeable safeguards to prevent the above-described incident; f. failing to properly investigate and act accordingly upon the first incidence of water infiltration; and g. such other negligence as may be revealed through discovery. 56. As the result of the negligence of servant, Defendant JES, therefore making the master Defendant Basement Services, 2 Inc. vicariously liable to Plaintiffs who has sustained damages, including but not limited to: a. damage to carpet requiring replacement; b. damage to paneling requiring replacement; C. damage to insulation requiring replacement; d. damage to baseboard molding requiring replacement; e. damage to walls requiring re-painting; and f. temporary loss of use of their basement. See Exhibit "A," ¶ 55 - 56. 1. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY PLEAD FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST DEFENDANT, BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., BASED ON A MASTER-SERVANT RELATIONSHIP THEORY. 6. Defendant hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 4 as if set forth at length herein. 7. Preliminary Objections on the ground of legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurrer) are appropriate and should be sustained when the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. See Cianfrani v. Commonwealth State Employees Retirement Board, 479 A.2d 468, 469 (Pa. 1984). 8. Furthermore, a party is required under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) to formulate a concise summary of facts to serve as a basis for a cause of action. See Miketic v. Baron, 675 A.2d 324 (Pa.Super. 1996). 3 9. Plaintiffs aver a master-servant relationship between the named Defendants, without providing any supporting facts as to the specific relationship alleged to exist between Defendant JES and Defendant BSI. 10. Without providing facts to support a master-servant relationship between the named Defendants, Plaintiffs averment of vicarious liability must be stricken from the Complaint. 11. The master-servant relationship exists where the employer-master, has the right to select, remove, discharge and direct the employee-servant, both as to what work is done and the way and manner in which a job is done. See Kiehl v. Action Mfg. Co., 535 A.2d 571 (Pa. 1987); Rolick v. Collins Pine Co., 925 F.2d 661 (3d Cir. 1991). 12. In a negligence action, the complaint should aver that the servant, or employee, was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time complained of See Farbo v. Caskey, 116 A. 543 (Pa. 1922). 13. As averred, Plaintiffs do not claim that Defendant BSI, had an employer- employee relationship with Defendant JES, such that a master-servant relationship could exist. 14. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not aver that Defendant BSI had the requisite control over Defendant JES's actions, such that a master-servant relationship could be inferred. 15. It is believed that Plaintiffs fail to make these specific averments because they are unable to do so: both Defendants, as a matter of public record, are corporations, neither could be the master or servant of the other. See Corporate Filings of named Defendants, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" 4 16. In fact, the factual allegations of the Complaint only establish that Defendant JES sold, serviced and mis-installed the basement water system. Therefore, even assuming as true the conclusory allegation of a master-servant relationship, Defendant JES's improper installation in violation of installation instructions constitutes conduct outside the course and scope of employment, for which Defendant BSI, as a matter of law, can not be liable. 17. In the absence of any facts indicating that a master-servant relationship existed between the parties, Plaintiffs demand for damages on this count must be dismissed with prejudice. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc., requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for Plaintiffs' failure to sufficiently plead their claim for damages arising out of vicarious liability. II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE OTHERWISE FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY PLEAD FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM OF LIABILITY AGAINST DEFENDANT, BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., AS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT EXISTS 18. Defendant hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth at length herein. 19. Preliminary Objections on the ground of legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurrer) are appropriate and should be sustained when the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. See Cianfrani v. Commonwealth State Employees Retirement Board, 479 A.2d 468, 469 (Pa. 1984). 5 20. Furthermore, a party is required under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) to formulate a concise summary of facts to serve as a basis for a cause of action. See Miketic v. Baron, 675 A.2d 324 (Pa.Super. 1996). 21. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to recover against Defendant BSI relating to any alleged failure of a product sold to them by Defendant JES there is no privity of contract capable of sustaining such an action as a matter of law. 22. Privity of contract is that connection or relationship which exists between two or more contracting parties. See Salvador v. Atlantic Steel Boiler Co., 319 A.2d 903, (Pa. 1974). 23. Where a contract does not give one party a mutual or successive relationship to the rights of the other party, the contract is insufficient to establish privity between the parties for purposes. See generally Derry Tv. School Dist. V. Day & Zimmerman, Inc. 498 A.2d 928 (Pa.Super. 1985). 24. Significantly, Plaintiffs have failed to aver any facts establishing any contractual relationship, actual or implied, between Defendant BSI and Defendant JES. 25. In the absence of Plaintiffs pleading any facts capable of establishing a contractual relationship between Defendants, Plaintiffs' claim for damages against Defendant BSI must be stricken from the Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc., requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for Plaintiffs' failure to sufficiently plead their claim for damages. III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY PLEAD FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM OF LIABILITY AGAINST 6 DEFENDANT, BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., AS NO AGENCY RELATIONSHIP EXISTS 26. Defendant hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth at length herein. 27. Preliminary Objections on the ground of legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurrer) are appropriate and should be sustained when the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. See Cianfrani v. Commonwealth State Employees Retirement Board, 479 A.2d 468, 469 (Pa. 1984). 28. Furthermore, a party is required under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) to formulate a concise summary of facts to serve as a basis for a cause of action. See Miketic v. Baron, 675 A.2d 324 (Pa.Super. 1996). 29. To the extent that Plaintiffs aver the existence of an agent-principle relationship, the same is barred as a matter of law. 30. "Agency is the relationship which results from (1) the manifestation of consent of one person to another than (2) the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and (3) consent by the other so to act" See Chalupiak v. Stahlman, 81 A.2d 577 (Pa. 1951). 31. Such agency results "only if there is an agreement for the creation of a fiduciary relationship with control by the beneficiary." See Smalich v. Westfall, 269 A2d 476, 480 (Pa. 1970), citing Rosenberg v. Cohen 88 A.2d 707 (Pa. 1952). 32. Further, the principle has the power to revoke the agent's authority, although this would constitute a breach of contract with him. See Id. 7 33. Plaintiffs fail to aver any facts in support of their belief that Defendant BSI maintained an agent-principle relationship with Defendant JES. 34. More, Plaintiffs fail to aver any facts in support of a contractual relationship between the parties, such that Defendant BSI would be capable of revoking Defendant JES's authority. 35. Without averring the same, Plaintiffs have not met their burden and Defendant's demurrer on these grounds must be granted. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc., requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for Plaintiffs' failure to sufficiently plead their claim for damages. IV. PARAGRAPHS 55 AND 56 MUST BE STRICKEN FOR LACK OF SPECIFICITY. 36. Defendant hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 35 as if fully set forth at length herein. 37. Defendant BSI objects to the following allegations against it: 55. The occurrence of the aforesaid incident and the subsequent damages to the Plaintiffs, resulting therefrom were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the servant, Defendant JES, therefore making the master, Defendant Basement Systems, Inc. vicariously liable, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (...) g. such other negligence as may be revealed through discovery. 56. As the result of the negligence of servant, Defendant JES, therefore making the master Defendant Basement Systems, Inc. vicariously liable to 8 Plaintiffs who has sustained damages, including, but not limited to: See Exhibit "A," ¶ 55 - 56 (emphasis added). 38. A party may file Preliminary Objections on the basis of failure of a pleading to conform to a rule of law or rule of court and/or for insufficient specificity in the pleading. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(3). 39. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(a), requires a plaintiff to clearly plead the material facts upon which a cause of action is based. 40. The allegations set forth in the Complaint must contain averments that a plaintiff will eventually have to prove in order to recover and they must be sufficiently specific so as to permit a defendant to prepare a defense. See Baker v. Rangos, 324 A.2d 498 (Pa.Super. 1974). 41. Vague allegations within a Complaint unfairly afford a plaintiff with an opportunity to develop new theories of liability claims after the statute of limitations has run. See Conner v. Allegheny General Hospital, 461 A.2d 600 (Pa. 1983). 42. First, and without alleging any specificity as to what and how, Plaintiffs generally aver that Defendant BSI is vicariously liable to Plaintiffs "generally." See Exhibit A, ¶55. 43. Second, and without alleging any specificity as to what and how, Plaintiffs aver that Defendant BSI is liable to Plaintiffs for "such other negligence as may be revealed through discovery." See Exhibit A, ¶55(g). 9 44. Finally, Plaintiffs aver that Defendant BSI is vicariously liable to Plaintiffs for damages, "including, but not limited to." See Exhibit A, 156. 45. The aforementioned general allegations do not provide any facts that support theories of liability and subjects Defendant to potential prejudice and permits Plaintiffs to have ever-evolving theories, even after the statute has run. 46. Therefore, Defendant BSI requests that the aforementioned be stricken from the Complaint. In the alternative, Plaintiffs should be required to file an amended Complaint wherein they plead the aforementioned with greater specificity. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss paragraphs 55, 55(g), and 56 of Plaintiffs' Complaint for lack of specificity. In the alternative, Plaintiffs should be required to file an amended Complaint wherein he pleads the aforementioned with greater specificity. Date: January 20, 2009 Respectfully Submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. By: f' Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 55666 Christine L. Line, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 93257 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, Basement Systems, Inc. 10 C"ki 6-J A ,, V4 a'11--- , LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS 15 Susquehanna Trail Shamokin Dam, Pennsylvania 17876 You are hereby notified to file a written a written response to the enclosed Plaintiffs' Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. e aw Offices o o, P.C. Attorneys for the Defendant Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID No. 72897 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717-591-1755 Date: December 30, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 60 Silvermine Road Seymour, Connecticut 06483 You are hereby notified to file a written a written response to the enclosed Plaintiffs' Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Offices o er . usso, P.C. Attorneys for the Defendant Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID No. 72897 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717-591-1755 Date: December 30, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 AVISO LISTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mAs adelante en las siguientes p6ginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dfas despu6s de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aquf en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mis aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN BOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD and CHRISTY LAUDIG PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-CV-7190 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, COME Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig, Christy Laudig, and Joan Schulz by and through their attorneys, Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., and file the within Complaint, and in support thereof, avers as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig (hereinafter "Jairod") and Christy Laudig (hereinafter "Christy") are adult citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing at 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. Plaintiffs, Jairod and Christy are husband and wife and are equitable owners of 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050. 3. Plaintiff, Joan Schulz (hereinafter "Joan") is an adult citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing at 6 Ridgeview, Hawley, Pennsylvania 18428. 4. Joan is the legal title owner of the property known as 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050. 5. Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems (hereinafter "JES") is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company with a principle place of business located at 15 Susquehanna Trail, Shamokin Dam Pennsylvania 17876. 6. Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. is a Connecticut Corporation with a principle place of business located at 60 Silvermine Road, Seymour, Connecticut 06483. 7. Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. is the world leader in developing and providing products that result in dry, below-grade space. 8. Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. has a network of more than 300 dealers throughout the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ireland including Defendant JES. FACTUAL AVERMENTS 9. It is believed, therefore averred that in December of 2005, in anticipation of selling his home, Robert O'Brien, the then owner of 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050 (hereinafter "the Property"), attempted to find a contractor who could address a water infiltration issue in his basement. 10. It is believed, therefore averred that Robert O'Brien contacted Basement Systems, Inc. who directed him to the local dealer, JES Construction North, LLC. 11. On or about December 6, 2005, JES, an authorized dealer for Basement Systems, Inc., entered into an agreement for the installation of a WaterGuard® Perimeter Waterproofing System, WaterGuard® Port Inspection/Dehumidifier Drain, a SuperSump® Basement Water Removal System and a WaterWatch® Pump Failure Alarm System (hereinafter "the WaterGuard System") for Robert O'Brien at 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. Attached is a true and correct copy of the agreement as Exhibit A. 12. The agreement provides for a transferable lifetime warranty. 13. It is believed, therefore averred that on or about December 27, 2005 and December 28, 2005 JES installed the WaterGuard System at 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 14. In March of 2006, Robert O'Brien sold 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050 to Joan, Jairod and Christy. 15. On March 23, 2006, JES issued a warranty to Jairod and Christy. 16. In March of 2006, Jairod and Christy experienced water in their basement inside the perimeter of the WaterGuard System. 17. Plaintiffs immediately called JES came to the Property and advised the Plaintiffs that the issue was likely their current sump pump wasn't sufficient to handle the job of removing the water from their basement. 18. JES provided a new sump pump without cost to the Plaintiffs. 19. The replacement sump pump appeared to resolve the water infiltration issues until March 5, 2008, when at approximately 6:30 am, Plaintiffs noticed approximately 1 - 2 inches of water throughout their basement inside the perimeter of the WaterGuard System. 20. At that same time, Plaintiffs noticed that their shower drain was backed up and there was no water in their toilets. 21. On the morning of March 5, 2008, Plaintiffs contacted JES and provided the person who answered all of the pertinent information. 22. After hearing nothing from JES, after 5:00 pm on March 5, 2008, Plaintiffs again called JES. 23. Ultimately, at approximately 8:00 pm on March 5, 2008 two service representatives of JES arrived. 24. Jairod explained that he believed the WaterGuard System discharge pipe may have been run into the septic system. 25. The JES representatives advised Jairod that the WaterGuard System discharge pipe should not be run into the septic system so the likely problem was again the current sump pump wasn't sufficient to handle the job. 26. After advising Jairod of the need for a larger sump pump. The JES representatives then left the Property. 27. Plaintiffs learned that unbeknownst to Robert O'Brien or the Plaintiffs, JES had installed sump pump discharge line directly into the septic system, 28. Once it was determined that the sump pump discharge line was installed directly into the septic system, JES re-directed the sump pump discharge line away from the septic system. 29. Plaintiffs Jaiid and Christy found the Owners Manual for the WaterGuard System which was attached to the sump pump. Attached is a true and correct copy of the Owners Manual as Exhibit B. 30. Once JES re-directed the sump pump discharge line away from the septic system, the Plaintiffs no longer experienced water being discharged in their basement. 31. Installing the sump pump discharge line directly into the septic system is not permitted by the manufacturer of the system which was sold to Robert O'Brien and installed at 13 Dewalt Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 32. As a result of the installing the sump pump discharge line directly into the septic system, the Plaintiffs' septic system was overtaxed and the water backed up through the system into the basement. 33. It is believed, therefore averred that at all times relevant hereto Defendant JES was acting as a servant to its master, Defendant Basement Systems, Inc., in accordance with its dealer agreement. COUNT ONE NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANT JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC 34. Plaintiff avers each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 though 31 of the Complaint and incorporates each and every one herein by reference as previously set forth herein. 35. At all times relevant hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, JES held itself out as specializing in basement waterproofing, crawl space moisture control, and foundation repair. 36. At all times relevant hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, JES held itself out as "the authorized Basement Systems dealer in Pennsylvania" being qualified and certified to fix a leaky wet basement. 37. At all times relevant hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, JES held itself out as an installer of a "state-of-the-art French drain system called WaterGuard - a patented product only available through Basement Systems dealers". 38. At all times relevant and material hereto, and at the time of the incident complained of the Defendant JES, individually and by and through, agents, employees, officers, and servants were responsible for: a. the proper installation of the WaterGuard System including, but not limited to the placement of the sump pump discharge line; b. the exercise of control over its agents, employees, officers, staff, administrators, representatives, servants and other personnel; c. the exercise of control over the procedures and policies that the agents, employees, staff, administrators, representatives, servants, and other personnel had the obligation of enacting and performing; d. the training and certification its employees, staff, administrators, representatives, servants, and security personnel including, but not limited to, those procedures, policies and duties that it devised and enacted or lack thereof. 39. At all times relevant hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, JES had a duty to install the WaterGuard System in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications including, but not limited to those set forth in the Owner's Manual. 40. JES knew or should have known that the installation of the sump pump drainage line into a septic system was not permitted by the WaterGuard System Owner's Manual. 41. JES knew or should have known that the installation of the sump pump drainage line into a septic system could cause a back up of water. 42. JES, through its agents, employees, officers, staff, administrators, representatives, servants, and other personnel breached the duty owed to Plaintiffs by committing one or more of the following negligent acts of commission and/or omission: a. failing to properly install the WaterGuard System; b. failing to properly install the sump pump drainage line; c. failing to adequately warn the consumer of the hazards of an improperly installed WaterGuard System; d. failing to adequately warn the consumer of the hazards of an improperly installed sump pump drainage line; e. failing to provide foreseeable safeguards to prevent the above-described incident; f, failing to properly investigate and act accordingly upon the first incidence of water infiltration; and g. such other negligence as may be revealed through discovery. 43. As a direct and proximate result of JES' negligence, Plaintiffs suffered damage to their home and personal possessions and may in the future continue to suffer the same, including, but not limited to: a. damage to carpet requiring replacement; b. damage to paneling requiring replacement; c. damage to insulation requiring replacement; d. damage to baseboard molding requiring replacement; e. damage to walls requiring re-painting; and f. temporary loss of use of their basement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig, Christy Laudig and Joan Schulz, respectfully requests this Court enter an Order entering judgment in its favor, and against judgment against Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, in an amount to be proven at trial, together with its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. COUNT TWO UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES DEFENDANT JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH. LLC 44. Plaintiff avers each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 though 41 of the Complaint and incorporates each and every one herein by reference as previously set forth herein. 45. Defendant JES represented that work provided would be "according to the standard practice." 46. The Owner's Manual for the WaterGuard System installed by JES does not allow for the running of sump pump discharge lines into a septic system. 47. Contrary to the standards provided by the manufacturer in the Owner's Manual, Defendant JES ran the sump pump discharge lines into the Property's septic system. 48. Defendant JES claims the decision to deviate from the standards as provided by the manufacturer in the Owner's Manual was acknowledged not by the homeowner or the party who executed the contract with JES but rather some third party who happened to be at the Property on the day of the installation. 49. Defendant JES failed to comply with the terms of the contract for the purchase and installation of the WaterGuard System for the Property. 50. Defendant JES failed to comply with the terms of the standards as provided by the manufacturer in the Owner's Manual for the installation of the sump pump discharge lines. 51. Defendant JES failed to adequately notify the homeowner of the deviation from the manufacturer's standards as set forth in the Owner's Manual for the installation of the sump pump discharge lines. 52. Defendant JES' conduct was deceptive and likely to created confusion or misunderstanding. 53. Defendant JES engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its trade or business. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig, Christy Laudig and Joan Schulz, respectfully requests judgment against Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems for treble damages but in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional amount in actual damages as provided in 73 Pa. C.S. §201-9-2, together with attorney's fees, delay damages, interest, cost of suit, as well as any other reasonable amount deem appropriate by the Court for future costs. COUNT THREE NEGLIGENCE-VICARIOUS LIABILITY DEFENDANT BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 54. Plaintiff avers each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 though 51 of the Complaint and incorporates each and every one herein by reference as previously set forth herein. 55. The occurrence of the aforesaid incident and the subsequent damages to the Plaintiffs, resulting therefrom were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the servant, Defendant JES, therefore making the master, Defendant Basement Systems, Inc. vicariously liable, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. failing to properly install the WaterGuard System; b. failing to properly install the sump pump drainage line; c. failing to adequately warn the consumer of the hazards of an improperly installed WaterGuard System; d. failing to adequately warn the consumer of the hazards of an improperly installed sump pump drainage line; e. failing to provide foreseeable safeguards to prevent the above-described incident; f. failing to properly investigate and act accordingly upon the first incidence of water infiltration; and g. such other negligence as may be revealed through discovery. 56. As the result of the negligence of servant, Defendant JES, therefore making the master, Defendant Basement Systems, Inc. vicariously liable to Plaintiffs who has sustained damages, including, but not limited to: a. damage to carpet requiring replacement; b. damage to paneling requiring replacement; c. damage to insulation requiring replacement; d. damage to baseboard molding requiring replacement; e. damage to walls requiring re-painting; and f. temporary loss of use of their basement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig, Christy Laudig and Joan Schulz, respectfully requests this Court enter an Order entering judgment in its favor, and against judgment against Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. in an amount to be proven at trial, together with its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, USSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney ID No. 72897 prussoCit,Rirlaw.com Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney ID No. 20013 Isaylor&irlaw.com 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717-591-1755 Date: December 30, 2008 vmlotrf 8 err r For 0lfice Use Only idsTALLATION t ! `(} Cw DATE / 7 jes Construction North. hilt MrIk -, and 001111. P.O. Box 246, Northumberland, PA 17657 1-877-242-7511 SUBMITTED TO PHONE (HOME) DATE 810 r PHONE (WORK) /Z rc %S STREET 13 A A ALTERNATIVE PHONE FAX t - 15 I-r STATE 3 ZIP CODE CITY EMAIL , MGcHA1%J I ILS ?!ALQ A 110-0 JOB LOCATION TL x c3bJ 419irrio+ O ..4 AiLi Kr;eLo4ff 0. --- -- - - -______- __-------- _?.- rasa: ?: W#W wrd Polf : +-i- :--j--j--?- -r-T-- uba Er PoMtti 1 i ear - WAR ra -i--i--I i i i 4" Plot 112 ? ? i ` - - - ;-t- -;-? -? -= I ry$p Wag: Ty of Wag Finish: ' - -*- - -? -+ -1- t>>I Elock D Stone bwn over O Pound Concrete I!rPww tng s de i . O Shoetrock O flrring {- i - , + I i ' ' Sy to drain Into: 0 other Su'er30044W Floor Finish: D Flw Drain crete O Tile P O Existing Sump O Carpeting Other O other The contractor's representative has fully explained the merits of the waterproofing system. I understand a WaterGuard or DryTrak system will remedy the problem with water from the joint where the floors and walls meet. I fully understand and accept the transferable warranty, which covers only the areas of the basement addressed. There will be no charge for service calls which are leaks in the system covered under warranty. Partial perimeter systems carry a limited warranty. Sump pumps are covered under a separate manufacturer warranty. Installation of DryTrak alone will not eliminate floor crack seepage. Installation of the system does not include painting, finished carpentry, extending discharge lines, electrical work, or replacement of floor tie or carpeting unless specified. Contractor is not responsible for frozen discharge lines without an IceGuard, condensation, water once pumped from house, window well flooding, or fuel tanks or lines. Homeowner responsible for moving objects away from walls and back. Some dust should be expected from work. Payments to be made In full upon completion. We PMPOSC to furnish material and tabor-complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: 0-6` dollars v U ?? Balance Due Upon Installation $ dd0.''? Deposit Required $ - Deposit Paid $ All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed according to the standard practices. Any Authorized alteration or deviation from above spedications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. AA agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents Signature or delays beyond our control. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. Homeowner assumes all responsibility for damages due to breakage of any hidden fuel/tAlity service Knee, though we will do Note: This proposal may be our best to avoid such damage. All proposals based primarily on homeowners description of problem. withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. Acceptance of Proposal - The above prices, specifications, A full perimeter system was recommended ? X conditions and separate warranty are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. ////?1l? ? You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made / ?& ? ture lam! 12 X , as outlined above. Signa . Date of Acceptance: !? Signature NU I lUt Ut- HI UM I I U UANUtL Your Ric iht To Cancel You are entering into a contract. If that contract is a result of or in connection with a salesman's direct contact with or call to you at your residence without your soliciting the contract or call, then you have a legal right to void the contract or sale by notifying us within three business days from whichever of the following events occurs last: 1. The date of the transaction, which is ; or 2. The date you received this notice of cancellation. How to Cancel If you decide to cancel this transaction, you may do so by notifying us in writing at Contractor's Name: Contractor's Address: Contractor's Telephone: You may use any written statement that is signed and dated by you and states your intentions to cancel, or you may use this notice by dating and signing below. Keep one copy of the notice because it contains important information about your rights. _ If you cancel by mail or telegram, you must send the notice no later than midnight of (or midnight of the third business day following the latest of the two events listed above). It you send or deliver your written notice to cancel some other way, it must be delivered to the above address no later than that time. I Wish To Cancel Date: Owner's Signature Date: Owner's Signature Date: i The undersigned acknowledges receipt of the two copies of the Notice of Right To Cancel Date: Owner's Signature Date: Owner's Signature I E?IIBIT B r r v 0 of t N ? H to n co O ? b a ?o u 6J G+ ? H ° H `' qy O PA cV ?.. O b0 $ aA N y? N ~ A M OJ 'iy eK O E cc w ? .r «+oRys+e o y4 ? C >1W O?Q vF ? ? a ? p,A .v ?? O ?b? H d? a ? a 0 a- U4 n O •ci a y H ? 'y Q1 v' bQ -Owl 'd no V. v i }, :3 do 6 enO z 2s o 3 °' ?? 3 > ' c $ to cu Q4 U W ..• ? ? ? e+?a `43 IS O? Y) a" Vi N O a c 3 w ? O N A /"1 0 °c m m ?q Q] v "Co r M ?r d r v 3 H u 2 a C N h 0 Ih ? v o ? N L• O y d v ? 4 1 a am N U G N N ;1, 0 w W o 'd m, c ?Gev?Oaw N o o+ O m H G 'dam G3J w OOdyto'C•OGG¢3w d G o> V •. u N •^" v ?a ,; oa xGcv ny $x: w ? ?.Hr•aura? p? `? J td 'CS r a r H cG4 O w pVj N 4 A W N W R y CJ O v co +. d A y O a"+ cpd r4! O'er '' ?'. w '? H +' N w 3 Rs O w U "? C xo w°i'•NC?v,R 3 s,ry? NVG3 ?°?? ?+ =, Nrw.?rA cyd NE'NNy v w CO A v ~ w •o tw.r '? O' H N N ' Q H W O ?'"' (? w 4.0 G ? ? w w w ? Csao• ?w oG 'CA, G `° O w avi o o S- V. 6 ?v? ?a G o o ?a vi,?R ptto0 aw?QOboo rAww to 51 cd .1 H w H .i . :' ?0 4+ :: . Q co W A.0 , V - .N ?' ? ? ? N N O Q S H iG S? d? vN 4+ 1+ O N qyj V G N O A N y ??^ O 'O w G 3 ,O rtd G O .? cC O p-, ? ". O N w A A o '+?' ? ? G G © A cud ;n ? " o N +:+ tr`, ? °? ? G '•i A w `.Na, 3 A a?io? u O pco 4 0cy d A`:+C??• HusOO ++w4.0 µp S??'H" ? ?? N ed "dCa+O3 GpO °'Nt0 VwG..... ??++C y,.•? a ?... HG .r. W ',+ 14 e0µ.4 wa bow ^d bbo W p 6J O w µ H Oy H rp O" p ?O 3 ?' c!j r0 '?' A P N +H' .-+ '4 R "o j co VA b C: edo Np w 3G?w0 y° ?Q?Nyo'D ?O°' ?G znG ?u?.61anua'"sc°G - co 45 A?a ?J-4 O?+0 dtA+?0drp ? VcAjHNbQVN` c~d r' 7 H w e0 G o w ..+ O .? N +r .d O ,O„ d i- A ca or wA? G w ?.??Op G t?yGa> v?' yw +??t3y C.NAD3?wyy. ,,OV,.4GOywv rz :A .?H A O wA w e0y N30 ?y GG ?+NN?? urZ oGNs w ?aiu w y o c "` °; N.? W G Q p w a, y G G.0 eva ac yam" OH? `? ?y O nrp? to W o '? w ... O w u N H ,O o ?, H F -d A w biD 3i C ,, cv u 'u v ,?•,, a d?rA?p4yRt QO+3Q.Q??? F"twn,?,wu'?i'?',nw?oa°??w??' ?1c, "w oprN y oo v ?N GwGyG A.+a`r aiur NG N?+O p co G+to *A. jo 2° ?? wC va o dG p p?°r3 ?GA?vo tnA H??Gw+. uHeaHo v r..r Ql A .? J•+ .H ..•? ..-+ H .V a H .O u U N C1 w p y p y X O .? y v •d a o??, a?w ?rG be a xt tC ~ y N H??' N 00 •? •p O ? d o ja ? 'o ? O ..•? G +?.G Q A +w' Gi' u cGa v ?' t° p w ai 15 ;z p?yrN AA y.. ;: ? ?G H O o -0 All r }ai a? 'O ttn Y s a N A .fin ? V ?$ bo G G Oa? .? A 4 cn 3 y ? s. w,a ?? cU pw r o. ao w 3aa $40 . n cii vs C4 *A z -. A.A 00 OA 5 co 0 OA yN y;O war ?Gv age`s cCes w G ?w w A G y o: 3 .G u u C? d w A v o 4) a no N A ,. h'O A'4 r 4"'vi 6 v ° Q N. 4.0 ^ V$ .0- Sao o °A' Q. !: 0 3 1-- o .G., v,AAp e0y...?, ,, u N P, o cv m A ??°, .ab en ?+ to * : ? = p w A s IZ eu? Zj W GA w da °'?o:: xGO v co w G1+ ..t .u tw/, S? 'rr O ? ;? ? tA. N A ` 1 ? A -•t o ? C7 G ?,•,t4„ A y w a+ ,p ,n ? N 'O y ? ..' unKy ? t "4 ? CJ 'O 0,0 en C:6, w ?+ r H c3 s 5.0 N of A ++ H. G ?' A w y ea 'Ci O,, rb° o?w wao E-•E?,oy d?a co a??? ,yA y ?+ u w Q w lo. IIA .r y W ?'? p a? t"H 'd E-+ ,b w G", u? ?o a, p u N A m a. y? o 5 V.,a A w • G A d o a t?.1 d ? O O cad "a4 ? ? H y `? .?..+ qy •d 4J d O ?.^ ??„ 0 Q tud • r y 'd ' ? 7 C ^ "o ...°.? b4 W G O a? cad p '?.'-? ? O ? ? ?'' ''' '? y ? '~G 'Q p '?j ? p e'd O? N?.?. [?? i.?yA? ?•OG?o"OCaoo?C...? y'.Ga?? CR ?? 0~4 A?'GR CY - 0?3O?? D„ ?C ?..•ta? 0$?Oof e`nd pp?`N?' ° Gwj,edo uG C ? •yp ca7- cd y G ". ? :? ? v ? ,a„ 0 ? ? ;; ? A R cPa -? O q ? a ,?, :moo +'? ?vo?Np?,p Hy ^?OAd ?p.ts ?`c?d? x7vyn? " 6r 67 N O p,3 O 'f y d i+'?+ ?+ A lid r Q L u'oro ? Q""?..?.?, G ?a ,.? ? ?' H G"GC R ? o x •'' C ?^' off.. a?? co C W v 'G y ar H N- .? d„ vo??''"R? w ti+ r+ w a * a N a ° d to Cj •• i C+ cd 't7 a w a uF,ou O'd O O cr+4 O O K?' i• C y?0y'wNC'a?y"D yt??,cd ?G aiCG?++G.G?N? a GpA C y p,CCC d w f'+? A?+. C7 doe '' a p w d o a, u w "' C" no R N O1 'y G a?4 *' D ?, a o o? y? "d O loV a( .,A N+ d w H 'd o o aa+ S? a G ? G& 3i p p co G" ° o'' ?'G++ w•?? 01?i ; ,wn 3 a a hY18 C3 r. w C O ?," N N+ ? gpO,Cg,,d Q % G y Q'? A l h O s" Op. O Avg ?. N ?'+ p a A A Y 1 i^ cG0 4 A .C. -t? 4A A °•aa,R oa ?a pAoo^ 3?3w A. Z t•? ;;,'g 3 RCS 7 d u N a? ?,w f- E m N m 3 °p a C O N N '?' 'C N U N a '4 G V H ?r• w h o a ?? ??? a d d +' a•O? a? p ?° a G v,? 4+ 7 ?: 000 a:• u eYV-. ?? a v tO i A w a w a .6,* w t?+d ASS F .1.+'.` G ?y ;;?; 3 a A" 7'+ ? = v ??. YO w y y ? 3 .u•+ 4 p '' ? A ..? :? .d ? ?+ ??"+ C ? ??. ? '? +O+ 'rJ y ,,,, a o N ? ? oCi A w3 u???+? ?oop°' ??? ?p' ? A`?+??'?O` d? d v'•? °?' fl ? OJ y "'` ° '?? cd y. y O .? bQ a w N ?+ C4'S+ p. ,,, N a $ ?+ a a 'd 'd ,l, Q w w v a a ., A ....? •c3 a u .. 3 a ca'b N °7 .cC p ? O Oa y y O+ DO p v .yC ?? p. µ, 40 e0-e t- .. N O+fS u 'a e? p C t 0,?5 ? v y 6? v .O :S ""i. O •^•+ may,, N +? ?q p ?z y w a+ 7` p d v ?'• S+ `?` ?w? L: N O O N b0 :..? " Cd O A u ,C, O O ? ...? Gy '3 O O H r °? °'? a s "Q Q !3 cb?'+ • H H O CJ w C+ w". •Cf t; O N '"' ?. y a ?rG?+ ?+ iv C'S+ ,'.?,' a? G '? v, a? d ?? v D a y ?" y p cd cd •^' liG n0'? .. n a ^ N ? ?` >C N ? w .C y ?+ '?? G " i' ? O N ?+- ?•"'" ? ? '•' id ? y C ed 3 a ed °?N w *60 a , O ..+ V N A Q N ?' ?, ?cd ?' p.?? o N G 3 °> p r ca a ? ? C ? "? a? d c: O a ? ,?,, N _, a oa "ar 3 ca 3 a d" N °} v N C +? a V 7 a ed v ?? `? CA p "r oR aCiN„P $ 3° ?,3 ?ad??Cea ?es? A?i cGda,% s, ,«?-? v '" cNe ? ? ? C •'d Q w c+•+0 a $ Y +?'" ' N "? ?a,, .y., r ? N H .°? w °?+ ? `' v p o Ca G.3 v 7 G a? rd ea a. °; o?,ei Ao 3 p.d? W .? N O C ? O ° tC ,7L ''' `?r '.G ISOed .• .1 a`1i td O aU0 b0 A - °V t0 d ? at" a°A =;110 O ?' ° ° ? a w Q td V ? a w F N ? N ry t17 O w Lei ? ? H ? • ? a.+ O w+ o p? 3 ... a "a 0 4w 4' 0 ... .L; • -? a Q b? y a Q C 4! RS r. O N ,"a. O N d p ?' N ?' 4J O N 4) ? O fr p p b0 R w y O a+ au ?. f0 ?'.+ 61. w 1-4 o a o o oo a b ?jN D. ° ? .0 a V a O4-J + u v N H C. w n.O c ° O w Q'a 4i >?"' 4a cVC N-[ Cam. o O Z 3 v N a f'. i+ a '??U.?w a a ..r N .c.. :3 0 a 4. a S? C H fW >+a 0 bDa O,?" O M.2 p p i a O O N? OCca ShpCa;0 ?Cps"' •n z??i?cvy ?' N V~ a O N° 6J w N o 5 0 a {.?vrr Q ,r C C3 ?y ?" pp cc O y >, 0 3 v ?, .., 3 N c?1 0.- 0 R1 +/ Z.?i a i.' [ Cy w ..r y I.f M 0 > 4"a P. O Q.? w w i v O. AG p .? O 'd??. 3 Co O O ,° v ?.d a,0A OHO vbA° [o w 1, ?Coopao6 V2 a 0 O.O v Er ?.Cf0 C+a+w a 0 0 a w? a - a o N E U a 23 G v Uf4Ic o?0 a °" h 1.4 W qj 0 y fn 10a1 a ?,' ?a'' N w 3 +?' p •° ~ '~u d ?+ p. y .?D=.O>N y A '+ >, a^ Ovv,a?N?c?V? 20C j ??,aO C ?M? ,. rte, 3 G N w w eo D.-'4 0-- dva!v!+ u O 04 42 > 'a j 3 3 a E- = _°: 0. x w o v 0004.. "="O E-? .. ?". U a U f/] r+ fm w w .4. O a °a4 0 V O O N oOvC: 3 17 w. M.0 ate., C > py??•Lyw?yy?Hv Q. ++mCa>°.D°.yC :3 w >.... O iV!" O 44 RS 4? i+ it p•"?•N.V ?oo?> 0- bo C: > q) cu 4MI C: M c" v vaCQT.?C o c p ?4 u Ow 00 4 &A .0 D' O a>, i Mt. 2 co ?0 ?ya?aO?W?cn ? ?.. 3?O??q+•'?vcCc t' ?da,4jv?yL.P oQ.Qr0R9o?b1D3aa( w >. 5 E N .Q +'O.' ? 4 h ~ 4 / y E?• °?Q+ eOav;O,?04?i w .fl ed C oa u > fc'b 0 y.d ' w00 4 go 4 Ow0? a? O. o >. 3 4 V „mow O o0 O a B fn iv a 0uk' Wap??a+ ?wp'Cv? ?py?R? [??30q w?y0a i 0 a Q. ca - N Q y 00 V. F-r a p? p 0 u p }>` cu V Cam'. ??gr.m% wYO v?o cwC r- cc M vi 'Q?+w 0. W,Z17 fo ? ? o?,i w V C N >, 0 C ed w b ed . .?. ? A O LOS C b bo '0 cu 04 " go. o cu {"+J"•. fan 3 ts. ?'' cv a•+ ao 'w hFr C a aai Er A a w a a s I C w .«• ? cis O ° ?'+'?' r°•+ °0, y O O' C Q O aO..r ?0 fn ?.+ 0 C) a u ., Oo a p.'o M .- a y a h V fd O 16, Q.' w ?r > , 0 3 a' oo O O u t a. o 4.0 bog A.? O cu t QicCn ayi r ? ? w Cs'Nv??'$?wa3,C,?y cc 0.°owavim Rx a w M «i .Q ? ?f0 O V lJ ?? ?. 04 4' y U 6d f"?a'p "Ct ti aoo? a t3?a 6. :3 fn p, > U1 C ? a N (cc N, any 0 0 ?• s.. O- a p r,, W O N Qr -0 3r. aoa ?Ofa C C 4)M aw°E°'c a3dc0 Gw! ? 0 eVfi a Q " 03 p cc ?`f. 3 a +?+ O +Q+b 00 3" a. y O 0. is a Q ..., C Q. Qf U c E N C N m m m 0 0 c E d r m d E S m LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG and JOAN SCHULZ PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-CV-7190 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, Christy Laudig, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: I R - 3 a - O F Ovw /C 4'a C4 Christy Laudig VERIFICATION I, Jairod Laudig, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS , V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ??? ?!' -1 ?4e J Laudi 12/30/2008 10:07 5706858093?- F rolu 12130 LAW OMC]c!9 OF PZTlZR J. RUSSO, Y.C. s ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS II «J^6 $AAS1" TRIIVDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 ?,! CHANICSBURG, PA 17050 ;717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUUDIG, CHRIM LAUDIG : COURT OF COMIMH sod JOAN SCR[JLJ; : CUMBERLAND COi PLAQFi' M V. CIVIL ACTION - LI TLS CONSTRUCTION NORT$, NO. 2006-CV-7190 LLC dlWa JIGS BASEMNT SYSTEMS and BASEWNT SYMMS, INC. DZMNDANTS JURY TRIAL DZIMU yE16IFICTION 1. loom Schutz. verify that the statements made in the fmcgon correct. I u Womtand that false statements herein are made subject to a § 4904 relating to wnsvNom falsification to authorities. OsLs:1 1A O? Joan 09;41: PAGE 02/02 #748 P.0021002 . PLC" TX, PZW VANIA --meat. true sod penalties of 1 Pa. C. S. LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 31, 2008 I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons, in the manner indicated: CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS 60 Silvermine Road 15 Susquehanna Trail Seymour, CT 06483 Shamokin Dam, PA 17876 THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs BY:S?I,d22/??Sr??1CL'A'?C Amber L. Southard, Paralegal c1 i Business Entity Page 1 of 1 Corporations Online Services I Corporations I Forms I Contact Corporations I Business Services Search By Business Name By Business Entity ID Verify Verify Certification Online Orders Register for Online Orders Order Good Standing Order Certified Documents Order Business List My Images Search for Images Business Entity Filing History Date: 1/19/2009 (Select the link above to view the Business Entity's Filing History) Business Name History Name Name Type JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, Current Name L.L.C. Limited Liability Company - Domestic - Information Entity Number: 3007358 Status: Active Entity Creation Date: State of Business.: Registered Office Address: Mailing Address: 5/29/2001 3:20:33 PM PA 15 SUSQUEHANNA TRAIL SHAMOKIN DAM PA 17876-0 No Address Home I Site Map I Site Feedback I View as Text Only I Employment Ply Rome Copyright ® 2002 Pennsylvania Department of State. All Rights Reserved. Commonwealth of PA Privacy Statement https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp? 1909690 1/19/2009 Business Entity Page 1 of 2 Corporations Online Services I Corporations I Forms I Contact Corporations I Business Services Search Business Entity By Business Name Filing History By Business Entity ID Date: 1/19/2009 (Select the link above to Verify Verify Certification view the Business ' Online Orders Entity s Filing History) Register for Online Orders Order Good Standing Business Name History Order Certified Documents Order Business List Name Name Type My Images Search for Images )ES BASEMENT SYSTEMS Current Name Fictitious Names - Domestic - Information Entity Number: 3005891 Status: Active Entity Creation Date: 5/18/2001 State of Business.: PA Principal Place of Business: 116 MT AETNA RD HAGERSTOWN PA 21740-0 Mailing Address: No Address Owner Information Owner(s) for: JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS Owners Name: JESSE P WALTZ Mailing Address: [Address Not Available] Name: JES CONSTRUCTION INC Mailing Address: [Address Not Available] Home I Site Map I Site Feedback I View as Text Only I Employment https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp? 1908313 1/19/2009 Business Entity PA Home Copyright ® 2002 Pennsylvania Department of State. All Rights Reserved. Commonwealth of PA Privacy Statement Page 2 of 2 https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp? 1908313 1/19/2009 C.O.N.C.O.R.I). business inquiry Page 1 of 1 BUSINESS DETAILS: Business Name: Business ID: Business Address: BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 0248875 60 SILVERMINE ROAD, SEYMOUR, CT, 06483 Mailing Address: Citizenship/State Inc: Last Report Year: 60 SILVERMINE ROAD, SEYMOUR, CT, Domestic/CT 2008 06483 Business Type: Stock PRINCIPALS: Name/Title: LAWRENCE M. JANESKY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE M. JANESKY TREASURER LESLIE H BIEBER VICE PRESIDENT BUSINESS SUMMARY: Agent Name: LAWRENCE M. JANESKY N View Name History Business Status Active Business Address: 60 SILVERMINE ROAD, SEYMOUR, CT, 06483 60 SILVERMINE ROAD, SEYMOUR, CT, 06483 60 SILVERMINE ROAD, SEYMOUR, CT, 06483 Date Inc./Register: May 21, 1990 Agent Business Address: 365 BENTON ST, STRATFORD, CT, 06497 View Filing History Cancel Residence Address: 725 BREAKNECK HILL ROAD, MIDDLEBURY, CT, 06762 725 BREAKNECK HILL ROAD, MIDDLEBURY, CT, 06762 42 SMITH STREET, APT #3, SEYMOUR, CT, 06483 Agent Residence Address: 1 CLAYTON ST, MILFORD, CT, 06460 View Shares http://www.concord-sots.ct.gov/CONCORD/InquiryServlet?eid=14&businesslD=0248875 1/19/2009 C.O.N.C.O.R.D. Page 1 of 1 bu5i iness filings NAME CHANGE HISTORY: Business ID: Business Name: 0248875 BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. No Name Change Records found for Business with ID: 0248875 Cancel http://www.concord-sots.ct.gov/CONCORD/InquiryServlet?eid=22&businesslD=0248875 1/19/2009 C.O.N.C.O.R.D. business Fiiings FILING HISTORY: Page 1 of 1 Business ID: Business Name: 0248875 BASEMENT SYSTEMS, IN C. Filing #: Filing Date/Time: Effective Filing Type: Vol Type: Volume: Start # Date/Time: Page: Pages: 0000077322 12:00:00 AM REPORT(1992) 0 0000077321 May 21, 1990 ORG REPORT C 11630 1999 0 12:00:00 AM 0000077320 May 21, 1990 INCORPORATION C 11630 1996 0 12:00:00 AM 0001516054 Feb 27, 1995 REPORT (1994) B 00006 1580 2 8:30:00 AM 0001632720 Jun 27, 1996 REPORT (1996) B 00074 0764 3 8:30:00 AM 0001745206 May 21, 1997 May 21, 1997 REPORT (1997) B 00139 2926 3 8:30:00 AM 8:30:00 AM 0001851171 Jun 08, 1998 Jun 08, 1998 REPORT (1998) B 00196 2093 3 8:30:00 AM 8:30:00 AM 0001975836 May 12, 1999 May 12, 1999 REPORT (1999) B 00265 2389 3 8:30:00 AM 8:30:00 AM 0002112994 May 09, 2000 May 09, 2000 REPORT (2000) B 00338 2115 3 8:30:00 AM 8:30:00 AM 0002259031 May 15, 2001 May 15, 2001 REPORT (2001) B 00413 0303 2 8:30:00 AM 8:30:00 AM 0002474345 Jun 05, 2002 Jun 05, 2002 REPORT (2002) B 00525 0113 2 8:30:00 AM 8:30:00 AM 0002657908 Jun 09, 2003 Jun 09, 2003 REPORT (2003) B 00618 2347 2 8:30:00 AM 8:30:00 AM 0002799831 Sep 17, 2004 Sep 17, 2004 REPORT (2004) B 00694 0772 2 2:06:00 PM 2:06:00 PM 0002964018 Jul 26, 2005 REPORT (2005) B 00784 2261 2 3:58:04 PM 0003227209 Jun 05, 2006 REPORT (2006) B 00923 0150 3 11:56:30 AM 0003496441 Jul 09, 2007 REPORT (2007) B 01061 2633 2 8:30:00 AM 0003756099 Aug 14, 2008 REPORT (2008) B 01195 1132 2 12:52:30 PM Cancel http://www.concord-sots.ct.govICONCORD/InquiryServlet?eid=23&businessID=0248875 1/19/2009 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, January 20, 2009, I, Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Peter Russo THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (Plaintiff Counsel) JES Contrstuction North LLC 15 Susquehanna Trail Shamokin Dam, PA 17876 Charles E. ick, Jr., Esquire C? r''' ?" G ? r, _ ? -; f?1 :•_? ` r .? :? ` ?:? c -, 3 sl {?,? PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) JAIROD LAUDIG & CHRISTY LAUDIG AND JOAN SCHULZ Vs. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC DB/A JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS AND BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., No. CV-7190-2008 Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendant's Preliminary Oblections to Plaintiffs' Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Peter Russo, 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 100, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (b) for defendants: Charles E. Haddick, Jr., and Christine L. Line, 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Camp Hill, PA 17011 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: March 18, 2009 Signature Charles E. Haddick. Jr. Print your name Attorney for Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. Date: January 20. 2009 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 12 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 5 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. r r' co 390957 a i DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 55666 BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. BY Christine L. Line, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 93257 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 Fax JAIROD LAUDIG & CHRISTY LAUDIG IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND JOAN SCHULZ , OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. CV-7190-2008 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC D/B/A JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS AND BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc., in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: January 20, 2009 B Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 55666 Christine L. Line, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 93257 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, Basement Systems, Inc. 1 r' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, January 20, 2009, I, Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Peter J. Russo, Esquire The Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 arles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire n.? ra 7 TY. .... ? -? X17 ? 1 +M` •ri J "V a LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD and CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF CO ON PLEAS PLAINTIFFS : CUMBERLAND OUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - AW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT NO. 2008-CV-71 SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DE ED TO: JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS DATE OF NOTICE: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FATV TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FIL IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLA S SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE ATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHO A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIG S. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO HAVE A LAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICES T FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT ING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THI OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGEN IES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED E OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Lawyers Referral ; Cumberland County Courthouse Fourth Floor Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 The Law Offices of t*terZ Russo, P.C. Attorneys for the Defendant Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID No. 72897 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 1 050 717-591-1755 Date: February 10, 2009 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD and CHRISTY LAUDIG PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - AW NO. 2008-CV-7190 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 10, 2009 I have served 4 true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons, in the manner FIRST CLASS MAIL JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS 15 Susquehanna Trail Shamokin Dam, PA 17876 THE LAW OFFICES OF Attorneys for Plaintiffs J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: L Ashley . Sipe, t-?? *.? yT Ora LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD and CHRISTY LAUDIG PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS TO: THE PROTHONOTARY: COURT OF COM CUMBERLAND( CIVIL ACTION - NO. 2008-CV-7191 JURY TRIAL DEr Kindly withdraw Count Three of Plaintiffs' Complaint Systems, Inc. without prejudice. --------- Date: February 10, 2009 The Law Offices dM Attorneys for the Plain Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID No. 72897 5006 East Trindle Roac Mechanicsburg, PA 1 i 717-591-1755 PLEAS TY, PENNSYLVANIA W as to Defendant Basement P.C. Suite 100 4'. LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD and CHRISTY LAUDIG PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS COURT OF COMMON CUMBERLAND COIUN CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-CV-7190 JURY TRIAL DE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 10, 2009 I have served a foregoing document upon the following persons, in the manner FIRST CLASS MAIL PLEAS , PENNSYLVANIA and correct copy of the JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC BASEMENT =ick , INC. d/ b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS c% Charles E. , r. 15 Susquehanna Trail Dickie McCamey Shamokin Dam, PA 17876 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 THE LAW OFFICES OF PETERIJ. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs BY: Sipe, r r, N , t:.3 CN LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT To the Prothonotary: Please enter a judgment of default in favor of plaintiff Jairod Laudig, Christy Laudig and Joan Schulz and against defendant JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems for their failure to plead to the cross complaint in this action within the required time. The complaint contains a notice to defend within 20 days from the date of service thereof. Plaintiff was served with the Praecipe to Enter Rule to File Complaint and Rule to File on or about December 12, 2008. Plaintiff filed a complaint and mailed the Complaint via US Regular Mail and Certified Mail on or around December 30, 2008 with an answer due on or before January 19, 2009. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a copy of Plaintiffs' Written Notice of Intention to File Praecipe for Entry of Default Judgment, which I certify was mailed by regular mail and certified mail to the defendant at their last known address on February 10, 2009, which is at least 10 days prior to the filing of this Praecipe. Please enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter . usso, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 200139 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Date: 21 A C4 l poi LAW OFFICES OF PETER J• RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD and CHRISTY LAUDIG PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW c • 2008-CV-7190 NO r r, : w ? 1 . _ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED = P.- :aS TO: JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS DATE OF NOTICE: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 R"ORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO HAVE A LAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Lawyers Referral Service Cumberland County Courthouse Fourth Floor Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 The Law Offices of 1PektJ,Russ09 P.C. Attorneys for the Defendant Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID No. 72897 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717-591-1755 Date: February 10, 2009 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD and CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFFS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT NO. 2008-CV-7190 SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 10, 2009 I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons, in the manner indicated: FIRST CLASS MAIL ? C r - ` ?`?4 JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS 15 Susquehanna Trail Shamokin Dam, PA 17876 THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs BY: -" 0 0 1 k n"?-L Ashley Sipe, P egal LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, upon the following person, in the manner indicated: Service by US FIRST CLASS MAIL and CERTIFIED MAIL: JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems 15 Susquehanna Trail Shamokin Dam, PA 17879 DATE: 02 O?J`-??9 JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems 3112 N. Old Trail Shamokin Dam, PA 17876 ??; ? c? ," .,r ? -. c. ?--- ?; ?, w _ F? ,? ;.. •? ??? 1 '?'`??? fi ?? ?' LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG and JOAN SCHULZ PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2008-CV-7190 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND NOW, COMES, Peter J. Russo, Esquire, Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig, Christy Laudig, and Joan Schulz and Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire, Counsel for Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. (hereinafter collectively known as "Parties") and submit the following stipulation: 1. On or about December 31, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Basement Systems, Inc. and JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems. 2. On or about January 20, 2009, Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire enter his appearance on behalf of Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. 3. On or about January 20, 2009, Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint. 4. The Parties are in agreement that Plaintiffs shall withdraw its claims against Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc., without prejudice. 5. On or about February 12, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Withdraw Claim against Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc., without prejudice. 6. Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems has not entered an appearance and, to date, has been unresponsive. 7. Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems has been provided notice of Plaintiffs' Withdraw Claim against Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc., without prejudice without objection or response. 8. Plaintiff and Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. seek an Order of Court approving the Stipulation of the Parties. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jairod Laudig, Christy Laudig, and Joan Schulz and Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. request this Honorable Court to order the claims against Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. be withdrawn without prejudice. Respectfully submitted, Charles E-If taddick, Xr., Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill,PA 17011 Counsel for Basement Systems, Inc. Date: J II - D Peter J. Russo, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: .3 - NI-C) A . ? LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, ; NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS ; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, upon the following person, in the manner indicated: Service by US FIRST CLASS MAIL and CERTIFIED MAIL: JES Construction North, LLC JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems d/b/a JES Basement Systems 15 Susquehanna Trail 3112 N. Old Trail Shamokin Dam, PA 17879 Shamokin Dam, PA 17876 Ashley R. ipe, Pai legal DATE: ^7 ?7 MAR 1, 8 20fflo? JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and JOAN SCHULZ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS , V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, : NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. , DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, THIS 14lk day of March, 2009, upon consideration of the Stipulation of the Parties, Plaintiffs claims against Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. are hereby dismissed without prejudice. Distribution List: /eter J. Russo, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Cou 1 for Plaintiffs harles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill,PA 17011 Counsel for Basement Systems, Inc. Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems 15 Susquehanna Trail Shamokin Dam, PA 17879 North, LLC X'.-,-Construction JES Basement Systems 3112 N. Old Trail Shamokin Dam, PA 17876 J Judge 5 .« 11. K 62 :6 WV ?Z HVW 60OZ 3Hi WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY LLP By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire ID# 87939 2000 Market Street 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-7900 JAIROD LAUDIG and CHRISTY LAUDIG vs. Attorney for Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC : NO.: 2008 CV 7190 DB/A JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC. Defendants demand a trial by jury with twelve (12) jurors. Respectfully submitted, WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETO FIRES & NEWBY, LLP By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems Date: 7f r-^' <__k ?.? ?? ., .._. i„4,R iT?v -', y.? ??.,, .? -? LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG And JOAN SCHULZ PLAINTIFFS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION -LAW V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, No. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS : DEFENDANT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND NOW, COMES The Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., and sets forth the following: 1. On or around December 12, 2008 Plaintiff was served with a Praecipe to Enter Rule to File Complaint. 2. On or around December 31, 2008 Plaintiff filed a complaint and mailed the complaint via US Regular Mail and Certified Mail to the defendants. 3. On or around the January 19, 2009 the twenty (20) days following service had elapsed and a Written Notice of Intension to File Praecipe for Entry of Default Judgment was filed and mailed by regular mail on February 10, 2009 to the defendants. 4. More than ten (10) days had elapsed and on February 25, 2009 a Praecipe for Entry of Default Judgment was filed. 5. To date defendant has yet to respond to the aforementioned Complaint, Notice of Intent to File Default Judgment or Praecipe for Entry of Default. 6. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $8,126.00, including, but not limited to: Kuhn's Custom Flooring $4138.87 Simonton Beach - $2,991.60 Thermal Pad - $539.40 Concrete tackless tackstrips - $28.97 Seam tape - $8.90 Install new carpet and pad with power stretching everything - $570.00 Including seams and r/r of any doors needed Installation $200.00 Dry Wall $400.00 Baseboard $200.00 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court to enter a Rule to Show Cause why a hearing should not be held to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, Jariod Laudig, Christy Laudig and Joan Schulz and against JES Basement Systems in an amount to be proven at trial, together with its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs expenses, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Date: By: Peter so, Esquire Supreme Court ID #72897 Elizabeth Saylor, Esquire Supreme Court ID #200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG COURT OF COMMON PLEAS And JOAN SCHULZ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION -LAW V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, No. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing documents upon the following persons, in the manner indicated: FIRST CLASS MAIL Andrew R. Benedict, Esq. Weber, Ballagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires &Newby, LLP 200 Market Street 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 5 n Date: BY: Ashley R. Sip , Paralegal i ALEQN-'XTICE OF THc PROTKN3TAAY 2009 APR - f PM 12: 43 G? P OLV A JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG And JOAN SCHULZ, PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-7190 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2009, upon consideration of the Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Judgment filed by the Plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule is issued upon the Defendants to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted; 2. The Defendants will file an answer on or before April 28, 2009; 3. The Prothonotary is directed to forward said Answer to this Court. 4. If no answer to the Rule to Show cause is filed by the required date, the relief requested by Plaintiff shall be granted. If the Defendant files an answer to this Rule to Show Cause, the Court will determine if further order or hearing is necessary. By the Court, Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 ./ Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 200 Market Street, 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 bas M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. J. D tES mac Lam. P go :ZI Y3C L? t7Ca7 ili31i4w SA" TO THE PLAINTIFF AND CO-DEFENDANTS: Please be advised that you are required to respond to the New after and cross claims within 20 days or a Juimay be entered against you. Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY LLP By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire ID# 87939 2000 Market Street 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-7900 Attorney for Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems JAIKUU LAUUICi and CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC DB/A JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. : NO.: 2008 CV 7190 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. f 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 5. Admitted. By way of clarification, because of changes to the 911 system, the new address for Answering Defendant is 3112 North Old Trail, Shamokin Dam, PA 17876. 6. This averment is not directed to Answering Defendant, therefore, no answer is made or intended to be made. 7. This averment is not directed to Answering Defendant, therefore, no answer is made or intended to be made. 8. This averment is not directed to Answering Defendant, therefore, no answer is made or intended to be made. Factual Averments 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 11. Denied. The Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a document which speaks for itself. I 12. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment as the Proposal is a document which speaks for itself. 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 18. Admitted. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 23. Denied. All aspects of this averment concerning representatives of Answering Defendant are specifically denied. As alleged representatives have not been identified with sufficient particularity; Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 25. Denied. All aspects of this averment concerning representatives of Answering Defendant are specifically denied. As alleged representatives have not been identified with sufficient particularity; Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 26. Denied. All aspects of this averment concerning representatives of Answering Defendant are specifically denied. As alleged representatives have not been identified with sufficient particularity; Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 27. Denied. Answering Defendant specifically denies that it installed a sump pump discharge line directly into the septic system without the knowledge of Robert O'Brien. 28. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. By way of further answer, the Owner's Manual is a document which speaks for itself. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. By way of further answer, this averment is denied as a conclusion of law. 33. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. COUNT ONE Negligence Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC 34. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference answers to paragraphs 1- 33 as though each were fully set forth herein at length. 35. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 36. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 37. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 38. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. By way of further answer, all aspects of this averment concerning agents, employees, officers and servants are specifically denied. Since alleged agents, employees, officers and servants have not been identified with sufficient particularity; Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 39. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 40. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 41. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 42. (a-g) Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. By way of further answer, all aspects of this averment concerning agents, employees, officers, staff, administrators, representatives, servants and other personnel are specifically denied. Since alleged agents, employees, officers, staff, administrators, representatives, servants and other personnel have not been identified with sufficient particularity; Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 43. Denied. All aspects of this averment concerning negligence, by or on behalf of, Answering Defendant are specifically denied. All other aspects of this averment are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant judgment in its favor and dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint. COUNT TWO Unfair Trade Practices Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC 44. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference answers to paragraphs 1- 43 as though each were fully set forth herein at length. 45. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is not required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 46. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is not required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. By way of further answering, the Owner's Manual is a document which speaks for itself. 47. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is not required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. By way of further answering, the Owner's Manual is a document which speaks for itself. 48. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 49. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 50. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 51. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 52. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant's was deceptive and likely to create confusion or misunderstanding. 53. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant judgment in its favor and dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint. COUNT THREE Negligence - Vicarious Liability Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. 54. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference answers to paragraphs 1- 53 as though each were fully set forth herein at length 55-56. These averments are not directed to Answering Defendant. Therefore, no answers are made or intended to be made. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant judgment in its favor and dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint. NEW MATTER 1. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. No omissions or conduct on the part of defendant contributed to plaintiffs' damages, if any. 3. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. 4. The damages complained of by plaintiffs pre-existed or are unrelated to the incident which is the subject matter of this Complaint. 5. The negligence of plaintiffs either bars plaintiffs' right to recover completely or reduces plaintiffs' claims based upon the extent of plaintiffs' negligence under the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence. 6. Plaintiffs' alleged damages, if any, were the result of an unavoidable accident or sudden emergency. 7. Plaintiffs' alleged damages were proximately caused in whole, or in part, by the bulk of third parties, including plaintiffs, for whom defendant is not legally responsible. 8. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 9. Service of process was improper and/or insufficient. 10. This Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction over defendant. 11. It is further specifically denied that any act or omission on the part of defendant was the sole or proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages or injuries. 12. At all times relevant herein, defendant acted in accordance with the applicable state and federal laws. 13. Plaintiffs' claims for damages are excessive and unsupported and, therefore, must be barred or reduced. 14. Defendant had no notice. 15. In as much as Pa.R.C.P. 1032 provides that if a party waives all defenses not presented by way of answer, defendant, upon advice of counsel, hereby asserts all of the affirmative defenses set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1010(a). 16. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant engaged in any unfair or deceptive trade practices. 17. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant violated 73 P.S. §201-1, et seq. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant judgment in its favor and dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint. NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS AGAINST DEFENDANT, BASEMENT SYSTEMS. INC. PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P.1031.1 1. Answering Defendant incorporates herein at length, as though set forth in full, all of the above answers, denials and averments set forth in the above Answer with New Matter of said defendant. 2. Answering Defendant denies that it is liable to any party in this lawsuit for any amount of money under any theory of law or facts. 3. In the event that there is a judgment, verdict or award entered against Answering Defendant, then it is alleged that said judgment, award, or verdict is the sole and exclusive result of the liability producing conduct of Basement Systems, Inc. 4. In the event that an award, judgment or verdict is entered against Answering Defendant, then it is alleged that Basement Systems, Inc. is jointly and severally liable for such award, judgment or verdict or directly liable to plaintiff for any such award, judgment or verdict. 5. In the event that a judgment, award or verdict is entered against Answering Defendant, then it is alleged that Basement Systems, Inc. is liable to Answering Defendant for indemnity or contribution on all claims set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, D&D Heating & Cooling, Inc., respectfully request judgment in its favor and against Basement Systems, Inc. Respectfully submitted, WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAP TON FIRE NEWBY, LLP By: auk 1AL41/(C/ Andrew R. nedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems Date: `'b VERIFICATION I, Michael J. Waltz, state that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer of Defendant JES Construction North, LLC, d/b/a JES Basement Systems with New Matter and New Matter Cross Claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire, hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the following Answer with New Matter and Cross-Claim Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1031.1 was sent by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Respectfully Submitted, WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY, LLP By: ///?V/ Dated: 7 9410 9 Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, D&D Heating & Cooling, Inc. FILCH- Cc r C,- Pi A ii?r I1 : 2009 APR 21-1 PM, 2.4 CUM "V, ?1 , s.u ,"t. irn WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY LLP By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire ID# 87939 2000 Market Street 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-7900 Attorney for Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems JAIROD LAUDIG and CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC D/B/A JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. : NO.: 2008 CV 7190 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT, JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC D/B/A JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT Responding Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC, d/b/a JES Basement Systems, by and through its attorneys, Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, LLP, hereby files this Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Judgment and responds as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Responding Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Responding Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Responding Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Responding Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 5. Denied. It is specifically denied that Responding Defendant had yet to respond to the documents filed by Plaintiffs. In fact, three days before this Motion was filed, counsel for Responding Defendant entered their appearance. Since that time, an Answer with New Matter and Crossclaim have also been filed. 6. Denied. The amount of damages, if any that Plaintiffs are entitied to, are in dispute in this matter. WHEREFORE, Responding Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC, d/b/a JES Basement Systems respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Judgment as moot since Responding Defendant has counsel who has entered his appearance and has filed an Answer. Respectfully submitted, WEBER GALL GHER SIMPSON STAPLETO IRES & NEWBY, LLP By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems Date: `? A VERIFICATION The undersigned, verifies and states that he is the attorney for Responding Defendant in this action and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Response of Defendant JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems to Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Judgment are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire, hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the following Response of Defendant JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems to Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Judgment was sent by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Basement Systems, Inc. 60 Silvermine Road Seymour, CT 06483 Respectfully Submitted, WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY, LLP By: Idx Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Dated: JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems OF THE RFD ; NOTAPY 2009 APR 28 Ail 10: 4 9 JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG And JOAN SCHULZ, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS, DEFENDANT NO. 08-7190 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2009, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Judgment, and the Defendant's Answer thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant JES Construction North, LLC, d/b/a JES Basement Systems in the amount of $8,126.00. --- Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 200 Market Street, 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 bas sl ?lo? By the Court, -I,,, ? `` M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Hrl 70.0 V 'v 3HI wy WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY LLP By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire ID# 87939 2000 Market Street 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-7900 Attorney for Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems JAIROD LAUDIG and CHRISTY LAUDIG : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC D/B/A JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. : NO.: 2008 CV 7190 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS TO VACATE AND OPEN DEFAULT JUDGMENT Moving defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, by and through its counsel, Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, LLP hereby Petitions to Vacate and Open Default Judgment and in support thereof, avers the following: 1. On or about December 31, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Complaint. 2. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered property damage as a result of work performed previously by moving defendant. 3. Counsel for moving defendant filed an Entry of Appearance on March 30, 2009 after having sent a copy to counsel for plaintiffs on March 26, 2009 See the Entry of Appearance, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and the Letter dated March 26, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 2 4. Despite having received the Entry of Appearance, counsel for plaintiffs filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment upon moving defendant on March 31, 2009. See Exhibit "C". 5. Counsel for moving defendant telephoned plaintiffs' counsel upon receipt of the Motion and spoke with paralegal, Ashley Sipe. A message was left for Attorney Russo to call back, however, no one from plaintiffs' counsels' office returned the call. 6. Moving defendant then filed an Answer with New Matter on April 27, 2009. See Exhibit "D". 7. Moving defendant then filed a Response to Plaintiffs' Praecipe for Default Judgment on April 28, 2009 and referenced the above filings. 8. By way of Court Order dated April 30, 2009, this Honorable Court granted plaintiffs' Praecipe for Default. See Exhibit "E". 9. Moving Defendant has a meritorious defense to plaintiffs' Complaint in that the work performed was approved by the homeowner at the time and the fact that the plaintiffs, who are the current homeowners, bought the house in the condition that it was in and had the right to inspect the basement drainage system at the time of closing. 10. Finally, plaintiffs will not suffer any prejudice by the opening of the default judgment entered against moving defendant. 11. Accordingly, moving defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant their Petition and open the default judgment filed against it. 3 WHEREFORE, defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant its Petition and open the default judgment entered against it. Respectfully submitted, WEBER GALL GHER SIMPSON STAPLETO S & NEWBY, LLP By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems Date: 'r/7 I or I -T 4 WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY LLP By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire ID# 87939 Attorney for Defendant, 2000 Market Street JES Construction North, LLC 13th Floor d/b/a JES Basement Systems Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-7900 JAIROD LAUDIG and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CHRISTY LAUDIG : CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. , JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC NO.: 2008 CV 7190 DB/A JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS TO VACATE AND OPEN DEFAULT JUDGMENT 1. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems', Petition to Open Default Judgment. II. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED A. Whether Defendant Promptly Filed this Petition? Suggested Response: Yes. B. Whether this Court Should Open the Default Judgment Entered Against Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems? Suggested Response: Yes. 5 III. FACTS On or about December 31, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Complaint. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered property damage as a result of work performed previously by moving defendant. Counsel for moving defendant filed an Entry of Appearance on March 30, 2009 after having sent a copy to counsel for plaintiffs on March 26, 2009 See the Entry of Appearance, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and the Letter dated March 26, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit «B„ Despite having received the Entry of Appearance, counsel for plaintiffs filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment upon moving defendant on March 31, 2009. See Exhibit "C". Counsel for moving defendant telephoned plaintiffs' counsel upon receipt of the Motion and spoke with paralegal, Ashley Sipe. A message was left for Attorney Russo to call back, however, no one from plaintiffs' counsels' office returned the call. Moving defendant then filed an Answer with New Matter on April 27, 2009. See Exhibit "D". A Response to Plaintiffs' Praecipe for Default Judgment was filed on April 28, 2009 and referenced the above filings. By way of Court Order dated April 30, 2009, this Honorable Court granted plaintiffs' Praecipe for Default. See Exhibit "E". Moving Defendant has a meritorious defense to plaintiffs' Complaint and plaintiffs will not suffer any prejudice by the opening of the default judgment entered against moving defendant. 6 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Standard of Review. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 237.1 states that no judgment by default shall be entered by the prothonotary unless the praecipe for entry includes a certificate of service that a written notice of intention to file the praecipe was mailed or delivered at least ten days prior to the date of the filing of the praecipe to the party against whom judgment is to be entered and to the party's attorney of record, if any. See, Pa.R.C.P. 237.1(a)(2)(ii). A default judgment may be opened when three elements are established: the moving party must (1) promptly file a petition to open the default judgment, (2) show a meritorious defense, and (3) provide a reasonable excuse or explanation for its failure to file a responsive pleading. Schultz v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 477 A.2d 471, 472 (Pa. 1984); Penn-Delco School District v. Bell Atlantic-Pa. Inc., 745 A.2d 14, 17 (Pa.Super. 1999). B. Moving Defendants Petition Has Been Promptly Filed. The Court Order provided moving defendants until April 28, 2009 to file a Response. A Response was file timely and was referenced in the Court Order of April 30, 2009. See Exhibit «E„ C. Moving Defendants Have Shown a Meritorious Defense. A copy of moving defendant's Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaim to Plaintiffs' Complaint, which was originally filed on April 27, 2009, is attached Exhibit "D" to this Petition. This case involves property damage from an allegedly negligent basement drainage system. However, the original owner was made aware of how the system was to work and agreed to it. Furthermore, plaintiffs bought the house after having had the ability to have the 7 system inspected and were provided with the previous owner's paperwork. Plaintiffs could have chosen to simply not purchase the home. Moving defendant has provided reasons why plaintiffs may not be entitled to the relief they have requested in their complaint, as stated in greater detail above. Accordingly, this Honorable Court should find that moving defendant has a meritorious defense to plaintiffs' cause of action. D. Moving Defendants Have Provided a Reasonable Excuse or Explanation For Its Failure to File A Responsive Pleading. Moving defendant properly and in a timely fashion filed the appropriate documents with this Honorable Court. V. RELIEF Based on the all of the foregoing, Moving Defendant is respectfully requesting that this Honorable Court grant its Petition to Vacate and Open the Default Judgment entered against JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems. Respectfully submitted, WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLET S & NEWBY, LLP By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems Date: 8 VERIFICATION I, Andrew R. Benedict, hereby states that he is the attorney for the defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, and as such verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Petition to Vacate and Open Default Judgment are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. lk Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire, hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the following Petition to Vacate and Open Default Judgment was sent by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 WEBER GAL GHER SIMPSON STAPLETO RES & NEWBY, LLP By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Date: JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems 10 00yy0 25' WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY LLP By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire ID# 87939 2000 Market Street 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-7900 Attorney for Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems JAIROD LAUDIG and CHRISTY LAUDIG vs. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC D/B/A JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.: 2008 CV 7190 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED C-) t? G c C" ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC. Defendants demand a trial by jury with twelve (12) jurors. Respectfully submitted, WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETO FIRES & NEWBY, LLP By: 1114& 1 Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems Date: ZE` WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY LLP March 26, 2009 Prothonotary Direct Dial: (267) 519-4984 Cumberland County- Email: abenedict@wglaw.com _- - -- -Court-of Common-Pleas--- - 1 Courthouse Square, 3R Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Jairod & Christy Laudig v. JES Construction North, LLC, et al Cumberland County, CCP, No.: 2008 CV 7190 Our File Number: 0044625 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find the original and one copy of my Entry of Appearance on behalf of Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Bathroom Systems. Kindly file the original and return the time stamped copy to our office in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope. Thank you. Very truly yours, n f? Andrew Benedict ARB/can Enclosure cc: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Peter J. Russo, Esquire CHERRY HILL HARRISBURG LONDON NEW YORK NEWARK PHILADELPHIA PITTSBURGH SCRANTON WASHINGTON, PA WILMINGTON 2000 MARKET STREET • 13TH FLOOR • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 972-7900 • (215) 564-7699 (FAX) • WWW.WGLAW.COM LAW OFFICES OF PETER J.RUS so p_c. PETEK J. Russo, EsoUtkr ASHLEY R- SIPE. PARALEGAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW ELIZABETH J. SAYLOR, ESQVIR1r AMBER L. SOUTHARD. PARALEGAL bra 1W4-April- JQ= 20Q9 Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire 2000 Market Street 13"' Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 RE: Laudig v. JES Construction North, LLC dlbla JES Basement Systems NO. 2008-CV-7190 Dear Attorney Benedict: We tried mailing you the enclosed documents, but unfortunately we had an incorrect address. have enclosed our Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Judgment which was mailed to the Prothonotary on March 31, 2009. Also, enclosed in the order we just received from Judge Ebert. I apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for your assistance in this matter and should you have any questions please feel free to contact me. My direct extension is 103. Yery truly yours, Enclosures Ashley R:Sipe, Par legal t f 5006 EAST TRUNDLE ROAD, SUITE 100, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 PHONE: (717) 591-1755 FAX: (717) 591-1756 ZO'd LL:DL 60OZ OL adV V8LLL69LLL:xe3 3N0 H38V3S PETM J. RUSSO. ESQUM ASHLEY R SIPE. PARALEGAL LAW OFFICES OF PETER j.RUSSOP.c. ATTORNEYS AT L kW Tuesday, March 31, 2009 ELIZABETH J. SAYLOR. ESQUIRE AMBER L. SOUTHARD. PARALEGAL -- -Offlco#-the Prothonotary - Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 RE: Laudig v. JES Construction North, LLC dlbla JES Basement Systems NO. 2008-CV-7190 Dear Prothonotary: Enclosed please find the originals and two copies of a Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Judgment in regards to the above referenced matter. Kindly file the original and send the time stamped copies to our office in the envelope provided. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, 'k-1 A'k Enclosures Ashleylg, Sipe, Paraafega i? 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 PHONE: (717) 591-175S FAX: (717) S91-1756 EO'd LL:VL 6002 Ol aaV V9LLL6SLLL:Xe3 3N0 H38V3S LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 -- FAX - JAIROD-LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIC -i-COURT OF COMMON-PLEAS p?n-d-JOAN MBERLAND COI?Nrt, fPE-NNSYL-VAN1A------- PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION -LAW V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, No. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS DEFENDANT ORDER AND NOW, this day of 2009 upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Judgment, judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems in the amount of $8,125.00. BY THE COURT, J. VO'd ZI:bL 600Z OL add V8LLL69LLL:Xe3 ]NO H38V3S Distribution List* Peter J. Russo, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Y ;?nenediet?-Esq - -- Weber, Ballagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires &Newby, LLP 200 Market Street 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 90 'd Z L : V L 600Z O L aaV V 8L L L65L LL :xe3 3N0 H38VIS 1 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD L--AUDIG, CHRISTY-LAUDIG- -. COURT- OF COMMON PLEAS -- _ And 10AN-SCHIaL Z - CUM$EoL ND CO U TY-, PENNSYLVANI PLAINTIFFS : CIVIL ACTION - LAIN v. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, : No, 2008-CV-7190 LLC dlbla JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS DEFENDANT ORDER AND NOW, this day of 2009, upon consideration of the foregoing petition, it is hereby order that (1) hearing shall be held on in Courtroom of the Cumberland County Courthouse; and (2) a rule is issued upon the respondent to show cause why the petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested; (3) the respondent shall file an answer to the petition within twenty days of service upon the respondent; (4) notice of the entry of this order shall be provided to all parties by the petitioner. 90'd Zl:bl 6002 Ol aaV V9Lll69LLL:Xe3 3N0 H38V3S BY THE COURT, J. Distribution List: Peter--J.-Russo.-Esquire taw-Offices Of Peter j. Russo, P.G. 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Andrew R. Benedict, Esq. Weber, Ballagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires &Newby, LLP 200 Market Street 13cn Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 LO *d Z L : V L 600Z OL aaV V9LLL69LLL:Xe3 3N0 H38V3S LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX -------JAR OD LA ERG, C tRISTY a w U014 OF GOMMONAI EAS - And JOAN SCHULZ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION -LAW V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, No. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS : DEFENDANT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND NOW, COMES The Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., and sets forth the following: 1. On or around December 12, 2008 Plaintiff was served with a Praecipe to Enter Rule to File Complaint. 2. On or around December 31, 2008 Plaintiff filed a complaint and mailed the complaint via US Regular Mail and Certified Mail to the defendants. 3. On or around the January 19, 2009 the twenty (20) days following service had elapsed and a Written Notice of Intension to File Praecipe for Entry of Default Judgment was filed and mailed by regular mail on February 10, 2009 to the defendants. 4. More than ten (10) days had elapsed and on February 25, 2009 a Praecipe for Entry of Default Judgment was filed. 80 'd Zl:bl 60OZ OL aatl VOLLL69LLL:Xe3 3N0 H38V3S 5. To date defendant has yet to respond to the aforementioned Complaint, Notice of Intent to File Default Judgment or Praecipe for Entry of Default. 6. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $8,126.00, including, but not limited to: --- - hEtaitnr?'s Ctistorrr Flooring 387 Simonton Beach - $2,991.60 Thermal Pad - $539.40 Concrete tackless tackstrips - $28.97 Seam tape - $8.90 Install new carpet and pad with power stretching everything - $570.00 Including seams and r!r of any doors needed Installation $200.00 Dry Wall $400.00 Baseboard $200.00 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court to enter a Rule to Show Cause why a hearing should not be held to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, Jariod Laudig, Christy Laudig and Joan Schulz and against JES Basement Systems in an amount to be proven at trial, together with its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs expenses, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Date: 13y: Peter Russo, Esquire Supreme Court ID #72897 `Elizabeth Saylor, Esquire Supreme Court ID #200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 60'd Z L : V L 6002 OL aaU V9LLL69LLL:XeJ ]NO HAVtl S LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG And JOAN SCHULZ PLAINTIFFS V. : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, : No. 2008-CV-7190 LLC dlbla JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS : DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing documents upon the following persons, in the manner indicated: FIRST CLASS MAIL Andrew R. Benedict, Esq. Weber, Ballagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires &Newby, LLP 200 Market Street 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Date: BY:''?. Ashley R. SipT, Paralegals 4 i 0 L 'd Z L :b L 6002 O L add VBL L L69L LL:X6A 3N0 HHUS .IAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY L.AUDIG And JOAN SCHULZ, PLAINTIFFS V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC dlb/a J ES-BASEMENT SYSTEMS, -- - - -- - - ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 7t' day of April, 2009, upon consideration of the Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Judgment filed by the Plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule is issued upon the Defendants to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted; 2. The Defendants will file an answer on or before April 2.8, 2009; 3. The Prothonotary is directed to forward said Answer to this Court. 4. If no answer to the Rule to Show cause is filed by the required date, the relief requested by Plaintiff shall be granted. If the Defendant files an answer to this Rule to Show Cause, the Court will determine if further order or hearing is necessary. By the Court, Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 200 Market Street. I e Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 bas M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. !S?` Pa' LL'd ZL:bL 6002 01 aatl V8LLL69LLL:Xe3 ]NO H38V3S 0 TO THE PLAINTIFF AND CO-DEFENDANTS: Please be advised that you are required to respond to the NewJ4atter and cross claims within 20 days WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON or a Ja ay be entered against you. Andrew R Benedict, Esquire ?_ - 1 5 1 - r _Z: m-7 By: Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire ID# 87939 2000 Market Street 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-7900 Attorney for Defendant, =Y ?r JES Construction North, LLC J d/b/a JES Basement Systems JAIROD LAUDIG and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CHRISTY LAUDIG CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC NO.: 2008 CV 7190 DB/A JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT, WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without _ -. - ----- o haliaf ae *n tho f?nith nffihie a?iarmPri#-anr?_ - -- - -_ e Term -- _ -knowledge or in accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 5. Admitted. By way of clarification, because of changes to the 911 system, the new address for Answering Defendant is 3112 North Old Trail, Shamokin Dam, PA 17876. 6. This averment is not directed to Answering Defendant, therefore, no answer is made or intended to be made. 7. This averment is not directed to Answering Defendant, therefore, no answer is made or intended to be made. 8. This averment is not directed to Answering Defendant, therefore, no answer is made or intended to be made. Factual Averments 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 11. Denied. The Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a document which speaks for itself. 12. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment as the Proposal is a document which speaks for itself. 13. Admitted. --D,&?anttis out knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 18. Admitted. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 23. Denied. All aspects of this averment concerning representatives of Answering Defendant are specifically denied. As alleged representatives have not been identified with sufficient particularity; Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 25. Denied. All aspects of this averment concerning representatives of Answering Defendant are specifically denied. As alleged representatives have not been identified with sufficient particularity; Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 26. Denied. All aspects of this averment concerning representatives of Answering Defendant are specifically denied. As alleged representatives have not been identified with sufficient particularity; Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 27. Denied. Answering Defendant specifically denies that it installed a sump pump discharge line directly into the septic system without the knowledge of Robert O'Brien. 28. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. By way of further answer, the Owner's Manual is a 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. By way of further answer, this averment is denied as a conclusion of law. 33. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. COUNT ONE Negligence Defendant JES Construction North, LLC_ 34. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference answers to paragraphs 1- 33 as though each were fully set forth herein at length. 35. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 36. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading eTi1?LL1I?*l1?'1iL? J' 7 "D " -" averment. 37. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 38. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. By way of further answer, all aspects of this averment concerning agents, employees, officers and servants are specifically denied. Since alleged agents, employees, officers and servants have not been identified with sufficient particularity; Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 39. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 40. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 41. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 42. (a-g) Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive denies this averment. By way of further answer, all aspects of this averment concerning agents, employees, officers, staff, administrators, representatives, servants and other personnel are specifically denied. Since alleged agents, employees, officers, staff, administrators, representatives, servants and other personnel have not been identified with sufficient particularity; Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 43. Denied. All aspects of this averment concerning negligence, by or on behalf of, Answering Defendant are specifically denied. All other aspects of this averment are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant judgment in its favor and dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint. COUNT TWO Unfair Trade Practices Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC 44. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference answers to paragraphs 1- 43 as though each were fully set forth herein at length. 45. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is not required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 46. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading this averment. By way of further answering, the Owner's Manual is a document which speaks for itself. 47. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is not required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. By way of further answering, the Owner's Manual is a document which speaks for itself. 48. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and, accordingly demand strict proof thereof. 49. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 50. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 51. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. 52. Denied. This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant's was deceptive and likely to create confusion or misunderstanding. 53.- - - Denied This averment states a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that such a pleading is required, Answering Defendant denies this averment. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant judgment in its favor and dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint. COUNT THREE Negligence - Vicarious Liability Defendant, Basement Systems, Inc. 54. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference answers to paragraphs 1- 53 as though each were fully set forth herein at length 55-56. These averments are not directed to Answering Defendant. Therefore, no answers are made or intended to be made. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant judgment in its favor and dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint. NEW MATTER 1. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. No omissions or conduct on the part of defendant contributed to plaintiffs' damages, if any. 3. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. 4. The damages complained of by plaintiffs pre-existed or are unrelated to the ___ _ incident which is-the- subject matter-- of this Complaint---- -__-_- 5. The negligence of plaintiffs either bars plaintiffs' right to recover completely or reduces plaintiffs' claims based upon the extent of plaintiffs' negligence under the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence. 6. Plaintiffs' alleged damages, if any, were the result of an unavoidable accident or sudden emergency. 7. Plaintiffs' alleged damages were proximately caused in whole, or in part, by the bulk of third parties, including plaintiffs, for whom defendant is not legally responsible. 8. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 9. Service of process was improper and/or insufficient. 10. This Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction over defendant. 11. It is further specifically denied that any act or omission on the part of defendant was the sole or proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages or injuries. 12. At all times relevant herein, defendant acted in accordance with the applicable state and federal laws. 13. Plaintiffs' claims for damages are excessive and unsupported and, therefore, must be barred or reduced. 14. Defendant had no notice. 15. In as much as Pa.R.C.P. 1032 provides that if a party waives all defenses not presented by way of answer, defendant, upon advice of counsel, hereby asserts all of the affirmative defenses set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1010(a). 16. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant engaged in any unfair or - --- -- --deceptive trade practices. - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --- --- --- - -- 17. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant violated 73 P. S. §201-1, et seq. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant judgment in its favor and dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint. NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS AGAINST DEFENDANT, BASEMENT SYSTEMS. INC. PURSUANT TO Pa.RC.P. 1031.1 1. Answering Defendant incorporates herein at length, as though set forth in full, all of the above answers, denials and averments set forth in the above Answer with New Matter of said defendant. 2. Answering Defendant denies that it is liable to any party in this lawsuit for any amount of money under any theory of law or facts. 3. In the event that there is a judgment, verdict or award entered against Answering Defendant, then it is alleged that said judgment, award, or verdict is the sole and exclusive result of the liability producing conduct of Basement Systems, Inc. 4. In the event that an award, judgment or verdict is entered against Answering Defendant, then it is alleged that Basement Systems, Inc. is jointly and severally liable for such award, judgment or verdict or directly liable to plaintiff for any such award, judgment or verdict. 5. In the event that a judgment, award or verdict is entered against Answering Defendant, then it is alleged that Basement Systems, Inc. is liable to Answering Defendant for indemnity or contribution on all claims set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, D&D Heating & Cooling, Inc., respectfully -request judgment in its favor-and againstBasement Syct m ; InC Respectfully submitted, WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STA=TON FIRE NEWBY, LLP By: ?/ C C'- Andrew R. nedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant JES Construction North, LLC d/b/a JES Basement Systems Date: ? `'d VERIFICATION I, Michael J. Waltz, state that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer of Defendant JES Construction North, LLC, d/b/a JES Basement Systems with New Matter and New Matter Cross Claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I -- - - understand-that the statements-herein-are-made-subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S:-Section- - - ------- -- 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire, hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the following Answer with New Matter and Cross-Claim Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1031.1 was sent by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Respectfully Submitted, WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY, LLP By: ///?V/ Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Dated: '1 D&D Heating & Cooling, Inc. JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG And JOAN SCHULZ, PLAINTIFFS V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-7190 CIVIL AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2009, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Judgment, and the Defendant's Answer thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant JES Construction North, LLC, d/b/a JES Basement Systems in the amount of $8,126.00. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Andrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 200 Market Street, 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 bas By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. LSE COPY FR0 RECORD in T Ty Wwad, I h! am Sd my ha+k F4? r. -.. . „? OF T 2GC1, 1.Y, SO 112' • JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG And JOAN SCHULZ, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS, DEFENDANT NO. 08-7190 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12th day of May, 2009, upon consideration of the Defendants' Petition to Vacate and Open Default Judgment; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Petition is DENIED. By the Court, -' Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 ndrew R. Benedict, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 200 Market Street, 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 bas I%n `*` M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. S 0 :0 WV £ I M 60OZ ?iivvv _;?'f?JL ?Q LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5006 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 - PHONE (717) 591-1756 - FAX JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG and JOAN SCHULZ PLAINTIFFS V. : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, : NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS : and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT PRAECIPE TO SATISFY AND DISCONTINUE JUDGMENT Kindly discontinue the above captioned Civil Action and mark as paid in full and satisfied. espectf bmitte LAW OFFI-ETMR-zf-RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 200139 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 JAIROD LAUDIG, CHRISTY LAUDIG and JOAN SCHULZ PLAINTIFFS V. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JES CONSTRUCTION NORTH, : NO. 2008-CV-7190 LLC d/b/a JES BASEMENT SYSTEMS : and BASEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ashley R. Sipe, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Praecipe for Satisfy and Discontinue Judgment upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Mail addressed as follows: Andrew Benedict, Esquire Weber, Gallagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires, & Newby, LLP 2000 Market Street 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 DATE: X5131 ? 09 Ashley R. ipe, Para egal 2 do ?i G 'ni??Y 2099 SEEP - f PH 1* 39 CUMI $8.00 PA ATrY Co- 33 tq e a8o 015