Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-3114Abe tc-s S.P 7asS PSI-gy'p' L2p i k l -75nnu ?ar?lLP,_S In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No. -.311 q Civil.44-400_ S To Prothonotary 19 r Plaintiff RLED-OFFICE OF THE PQ,OT?10 _ ARY 2009 MAY 15 Pki 4 24 78.50 PD PLPF CASA 2TIf aasl48 No. Term, 19 YS. PRAECIPE Filed 19 0 Atty. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland WRIT OF SUMMONS MICHELLE A. PARSONS Plaintiff Vs. MARTHA J. DEIHL 75 BONNY BROOK RD., LOT #5 CARLISLE, PA 17013 Defendant Court of Common Pleas No 09-3114 CIVIL TERM In CivilAction-Law To MARTHA J. DEIHL, You are hereby notified that MICHELLE A. PARSONS, the Plaintiff(s) has / have commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. A (SEAL) Curtis-R. Lon Date MAY 15, 2009 By Attorney: Name: MICHELLE A. PARSONS Address: 2232 CANTERBURY DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Attorney for: Pro Se Telephone: 717-795-8175 Supreme Court ID No. Deputy Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County R Thomas Kline"rr *i umtirrf Edward L Schorpp Sheriff Solicitor Ronny R Anderson Jody S Smith Chief Deputy OFFICE' ` `"e S'-ER!rr Civil Process Sergeant SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 06/05/2009 R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant to wit: Martha J. Deihl, but was unable to locate her in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the within Writ of Summons as not found as to the defendant Martha J. Deihl. The Carlisle Postmaster has advised the defendant has moved and left no forwarding address. An exact address is not available. SHERIFF COST: $37.94 SO ANSWERS June 05, 2009 R THOMAS KLINE, SHERIFF 2009-3114 Michelle Parsons V Martha Deihl n a ' ? CO Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland WRIT OF SUMMONS MICHELLE A. PARSONS Plaintiff Vs. MARTHA J. DEIHL 75 BONNY BROOK RD., LOT #5 CARLISLE, PA 17013 Defendant Court of Common Pleas No 09-3114 CIVIL TERM In CivilAction-Law To MARTHA J. DEIHL, You are hereby notified that MICHELLE A. PARSONS, the Plaintiff(s) has / have commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered aa;?? (SEAL) Curtis R.J_Q , r t notary Date MAY 15, 2009 By Deputy Attorney: Name: MICHELLE A. PARSONS Address: 2232 CANTERBURY DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Attorney for: Pro Se Telephone: 717-795-8175 Supreme Court ID No. GOPY FROM HL Hb in Todkwjq moo, I tore ft so my hw ow Ift sI d 3W cc" 9 WNW, P$. u u;j U ? 'v Agic;~te~Ie A. Pars~cxis ~s ~ Case No. 09-3114 -~ ~ ~ -~ z m r-~ r-*~t - ~. Statement of Intention to Proceed ;~r~--- "~ ~t~-~ To the Court: Michelle A. Parsons Micheffe A. Parsons Print Name~_~ •-C ~ .~ ~ , ~~ intends to proceed with the above ca t~ ed~uattet' --~ _. ~ ~i 't I + ~ i? ~ . 1 ~I 1/t.~,~~..~~ ~~-~~ ' < Sign Name """ r ~-J 30Oct.2012 still searching for attorney Date: Attorney for __ Explanatory Comment I~he Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendatior+ merit comment.. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promufgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule. 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting l++c:al n+lcs. "['his nde was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle. 55 { Pa. 360.71 t) A.2d 1 104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to iota) rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901.' Rule of Juduial AdtninLetratina 1901(b) :has been atnencied to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. ti Inactive ('ases fhe purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the •gudicial system. The process is initiated by the ce~urt. .4t3er giving ,net.ice of iratea~t to ,terniic-ate ata aetic~ for ia~aclivity, the coLVSe cvf rlae procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case. they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." [f a party wishes to pursue the matter. he ur she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. N'du~re t{ae actd~rr dual heeaa lerrninated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated that party may proceed under Ru1e230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination oi~a viable action when tfie aggrieved party did no[ receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely the the notice of intention to ,proceed. fhe timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the enter of the order of termination on the dc+eket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the total must grant the petition and reinstate the action. if the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period. subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a showing to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable exphmation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision ~(d)(21. 13. l1~hene the action has not been terminated ~n action which has not been terminated btrt which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have bec;n the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.