Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-6847Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Michael J. Cassidy I.D. No. 82164 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoync, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Plaintiff FRANK J. KESSLER 407 Louisa Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17050, Plaintiff V. BRIAN TEMPLETON 8 Carol Lane, Suite A Enola, PA 17025, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. O,- CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUrY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFENn To the Defendant: 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 defense 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Michael J. Cassidy I.D. No. 82164 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Plaintiff FRANK J. KESSLER 407 Louisa Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17050, Plaintiff V. BRIAN TEMPLETON 8 Carol Lane, Suite A Enola, PA 17025, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURYTRIALDEMANDED AND NOW, this ~O~day of November 2001, comes the Plaintiff, FRANK J. KESSLER, by and through his undersigned attorneys, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, and files this Complaint, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. The Plaintiff, FRANK J. KESSLER, is an adult individual who resides at 407 Louisa Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. The Defendant, BRIAN TEMPLETON, is an adult individual who resides at 8 Carol Lane, Suite A, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 3. Plaintiff is a good, true, honest, and virtuous citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has at all times abided by and conducted himself in accordance with the laws of Pennsylvania, and during his entire life has remained free from and unsuspected of manner of stalking and any other such crimes. Plaintiff was known and respected as a person of good name, credit, and reputation, by reason of which he gained the love, good will, and esteem of all his neighbors, associates, employer, and diverse other good people of this state. 4. For many years, Plaintiff has engaged in and carried on the trade and business of salesman by means of which he has earned his livelihood and acquired wealth. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Cleveland Brothers Equipment Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Cleveland Brothers"), as a salesman. 5. On October 25, 2001, Defendant, intending to depdve Plaintiff of his good name, credit, and reputation, and to bring him into disrepute among his neighbors, associates, and employer, did place or caused to be placed, a telephone call to Cleveland Brothers, which said caller identified himself as a Detective with the Pennsylvania State Police, and which call was received by Mr. William Kirchhoff, owner of Cleveland Brothers, and Mr. Michael Ryan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Cleveland Brothers. During said telephone call, Defendant did speak and publish, or caused to be spoken and published, the following false and defamatory words concerning the Plaintiff: "A criminal complaint has been filed against Frank Kessler by Linda Buffington for stalking;" thereby meaning and intending to impute the Plaintiff with the crime of stalking. 6. The Plaintiff has never been guilty of the crime charged by the Defendant, and the words uttered, or caused to be uttered, by the Defendant were and are untrue, and were known by the Defendant to be untrue when uttered and published. 7. The Defendant is a person of apparent responsibility whose position in life is calculated to give credit to the utterances and charges made by him. 8. By reason of the above, the Plaintiff has been greatly hurt and injured in his good name, fame, and reputation, and has been brought into disgrace and disrepute among his neighbors, associates, employer, and diverse other persons, who, ever since the speaking and publication of the false, scandalous, and defamatory words by the Defendant, have suspected him of committing stalking and believed him to be deserving of punishment. 9. By reason of the false and defamatory statements made, or caused to be made, about and concerning him by the Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered special damages in an amount in excess of twenty- five thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($25,000.00). 10. Defendant acted with actual malice in perpetrating the defamatory comments in that he knowingly made, or caused to be made, the defamatory statement impugning the Plaintiff with having committed a crime, knowing that said statement was false, and published said defamatory statement to the Plaintiff's employer, Cleveland Brothers, for the sole purpose of causing pain, angui.sh, and embarrassment, to the Plaintiff and injuring the Plaintiff's good name, fame, and reputation, and bringing Plaintiff into disgrace and disrepute among his neighbors, associates, employer, and diverse other persons. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Frank J. Kessler, demands judgment against Defendant Brian Templeton in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($25,000.00), plus punitive damages, together with costs and attorney fees. :152031 Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER . Attorney I.D. No. 82164 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Plaintiff I, FRANK J. KESSLER, verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: //~_~ Frank J. Kess~r LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, B.S.N., M.§.N., J.D. 5021 EAST TRINDLE ROAD, gUITI; 100, MEC'HANICSBURG, PA 1705Q FRANK J. KESSLER, PLAINTIFF VS. BRIAN TEMPLETON, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6847 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION. LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Brian Templeton. Dated: December ] ~ , 2001 Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, P.C. Susan K~y Candjeff6,~qui~e --' '~ ~ ~ PA I.D. # 64994 .] 5021 East Trindl'/Y-R~oad Suite 100 Mechanicsburg PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 SHERIFF'S RETURN - CASE NO: 2001-06847 p COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KESSLER FP~ANK J VS TEMPLETON BRIAN REGULAR SHAWN HARRISON Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon TEMPLETON BRIAN the DEFENDANT at 1732:00 HOURS, on the 6th day of December at 8 CAROL LANE SUITE A 2001 ENOLA, PA 17025 BRIAN TEMPLETON by handing to a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 9.75 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 37.75 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this /~ day of ~ ~.9~! A.D. ~Pothonotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 12/10/2001 JOHNSON DUFF~2DNER By: ~ J ~Deput~ S~eri~f--~__~ FRANK J. KESSLER, PLAINTIFF VS. BRIAN TEMPLETON, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6847 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTEP AND NOW COMES, the Defendant, BRIAN TEMPLETON, by and through his attorney, Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire, of the Law Firm of Susan Kay Candielio, P.C., and files the following Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint and also files New Matter: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a basis to determine the truth of the averment and said paragraph is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of ~ial. 4. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a basis to determine the truth of the averment and said paragraph is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted Defendant did on or about October 25, 2001 make a telephone call to Cleveland Brothers and spoke briefly with the first individual who answered the telephone. Defendant then spoke with a second individual with whom he shared his concerns. It is denied this telephone call was ever intended to deprive Plaintiff of his good name, credit, and reputation and to bring him into disrepute among his neighbors, associates, and employer. It is denied Defendant stated he was a Detective with the Pennsylvania State Police. It is denied Defendant spoke the words "A criminal complaint has been filed against Frank Kessler by Linda Buffington for stalking." 6. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a basis to determine the truth of the averment and said paragraph is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time oft. rial. It is denied Defendant uttered the words Plaintiff alleges Defendant spoke and it is further denied Defendant could have known the alleged words were untrue, since he did not state them. 7. Admitted. 8. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a basis to determine the truth of the averment and said paragraph is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. It is denied Defendant made or caused to be made any false and defamatory statements about and concerning Plaintiff. Further, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a basis to determine the truth of the averment of special damages and said paragraph is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of 10. Denied. It is denied Defendant knowingly or otherwise caused any defamatory statements to be made. It is denied Defendant acted with any malice toward the Plaintiff. It is denied Defendant made any statements to impugn the Plaintiff with having committed a crime. It is further denied the Defendant acted in any manner and/or made any statements about the Plaintiff for the sole purpose of causing pain, anguish and embarrassment to the Plaintiff and/or to injure the Plaintiff's good name, fame and reputation and bring the Plaintiff into disgrace and disrepute among his neighbors, associates, employer, and diverse other persons. 11. Paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Answer and New Matter are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 12. From October 2, 2001 through October 25, 2001, Defendant was told by Linda Buffington (hereinafter known as "Ms. Burlington') that she no longer wanted any contact with Plaintiff. 13. From October 2, 2001 through October 25, 2001, Defendant did observe frequent telephone calls from Plaintiff to Ms. Burlington, which Defendant observed caused Ms. Buffington to become very distraught and upset. 14. From October 2, 2001 through October 25, 2001, Ms. Buffington shared numerous actions the Plaintiff had taken with respect to her and that she was in fear of Plaintiff and felt Plaintiff to be capable of anything. 15. Ms. Buffington also has a young son, about whom she also stated to Defendant she was fearful for. 16. From October 2, 2001 through October 25, 2001, Defendant heard Ms. Buffington on the telephone telling Plaintiff to no longer contact her and to leave her alone. 17. From October 2, 2001 through October 25, 2001, Ms. Buffington told Defendant of numerous occasions when the Plaintiff physically intruded into her life and would not leave. 18. During ail times from their first meeting on September 30, 2001 through October 25, 2001, Defendant was with Ms. Buffington and at her residence at her specific request. 19. October 25, 2001, Defendant found a note taped on the windshield of his car which stated "YOU'RE A DEAD MAN". 20. On October 25, 2001, Defendant made the decision to attempt to stop these actions. Defendant placed a telephone cail to Plaintiff's place of employment and asked to speak with Plaintiff's immediate supervisor. 21. Defendant shared with the gentleman a general statement of the difficulties he and Ms. Buffington were having with the Haintiff and asked the gentleman if he could speak with the Plaintiff to ask that he stop these actions and prevent any further problems. 22. Defendant also stated to the gentleman, if Plaintiff did not stop these actions, Ms. Buffington was going to file a criminai action with the State Police for stalking and Defendant was going to file a criminai action with the State Police for making life-threatening threats. 23. At no time did Defendant state he was a Detective with the State Police or any criminal action had been filed against the Plaintiff. 24. At no time did Defendant have any intention of harming the Plaintiff in any manner. Defendant took the action of speaking with Plaintiff's immediate supervisor to bring an end to the Plaintiff's actions solely to prevent any further problems and/or having to bring this matter into thc legai system. 25. Defendant made a few generai statements of and concerning Plaintiff's behaviors, which were tree, only to Plaintiff's immediate supervisor for the sole purpose of seeking the Plaintiff's immediate supcrvisor's assistance to bring the Plaintiff's actions to an end in an amicable manner to avoid any foray into the legal system. 26. Plaintiff has not established the legal elements necessary for an action in defamation. WHEREFORE, DEFENDANT, BRIAN TEMPLETON, requests this Honorable Court dismiss the Complaint presented by the Plaintiff, Frank J. Kessler, and order Plaintiff to reimburse Defendant for the counsel fees which he has incurred in proceeding in this matter. Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, P.C. Dated: December o?-O, 2001 Susan Kay Ca~tidie[l~, Esquire Counsel for Defena]ant PA I.D. # 6499g'~ 5021 East Trindle Road Suite I00 Mechanicsburg PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the facts averred in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Ps C.S.A. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. DATED: I '2.- t"l --o t GEORGE BRIAN TEMPLETON Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Michael J. Cassidy I.D. No. 82164 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Plaintiff FRANK J. KESSLER, Plaintiff BRIAN TEMPLETON, Defendant IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6847 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER TO NEW MA TTER AND NOW, this I~'~- day of January 2002, comes Plaintiff, FRANK J. KESSLER, by and through his undersigned attorneys, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, and files this Reply to New Matter, and in support thereof avers as follows: 11. Denied. Defendant's averment is denied to the extent that Defendant's answers to Plaintiff's Complaint are inconsistent therewith. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and, as such, said averment is denied. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and, as such, said averment is denied. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and, as such, said averment is denied. 15. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Ms. Burlington has a young son. The balance of Defendant's averment is denied to the extent that after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and, as such, said averment is denied. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and, as such, said averment is denied. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and, as such, said averment is denied. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and, as such, said averment is denied. By way of further denial, Plaintiff specifically denies that he had any communication whatsoever with Defendant or left any note taped to the windshield of Defendant's car. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Admitted in part. Denied in part. To the extent Defendant has made the admission, Plaintiff admits that Defendant did place a telephone call to Plaintiff's place of employment on or about October 25, 2001. However, the balance of Defendant's averment is denied to the extent that Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant did identify himself as a detective with the Pennsylvania State Police. 21. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant did communicate with the gentleman. However, the balance of Defendant's averment is denied to the extent that it characterizes the nature or content of the communications with the individuals at Plaintiff's place of employment. By way of further denial, Defendant specifically identified himself as a Detective with the Pennsylvania State Police and stated that Ms. Buffington had lodged a criminal complaint against Plaintiff for stalking, although formal charges had not been filed against Plaintiff. 22. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant did communicate with the gentleman at Plaintiff's place of employment and that Ms. Buffington was going to initiate formal criminal proceedings against Plaintiff if he did not cease and desist from certain alleged activities. However, the balance of Defendant's averment is denied, specifically with respect to any insinuation that Plaintiff was actually stalking Ms. Buffington or that Plaintiff made threats on the life of Defendant. Furthermore, it is specifically denied that Defendant stated to the gentleman at Plaintiff's place of employment that Defendant was going to file a criminal action with the state police for the alleged threats made against him by Plaintiff. 23. Denied. Defendant's averment is denied in its entirety. On the contrary, upon placing the calf to Plaintiff's place of employment, Defendant identified himself to Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Ryan as "Detective Grimes of the Pennsylvania State Police." 24. Denied, After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and, as such, said averment is denied. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment with respect to the reason why Defendant made certain statements to certain individuals at Plaintiff's place of employment, and, as such, to that extent Defendant's averment is denied. By way of further denial, Defendant, while unlawfully posing as a member of the Pennsylvania State Police, clearly and plainly stated to Plaintiff's employer that Plaintiff was engaged in the unlawful activity of stalking Ms. Buffington, which said allegation is completely without merit. Furthermore, Defendant did not make the defamatory statements to Plaintiff's immediate supervisor. Rather, Defendant made the defamatory statements to Mr. Kirchoff, owner of Cleveland Brothers Equipment Company, Inc., and Mr. Ryan, Chief Financial Officer. 26. Denied. Defendant's averment states a legal conclusion to which no pleading is required and, as such, said averment is therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Frank J. Kessler demands judgment against Defendant Brian Templeton in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, plus punitive damages, together with costs and attorney fees. :153310 JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Mic~a¢ J. Cassidy '~' Attdm'ey I.D. No. 82164 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVlCF AND NOW, this I~"m day of January 2002, the undersigned does hereby certify that he did this date serve a copy of the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MA'II'ER upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire LA W FIRM OF SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, p.C. 5021 East Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER Mi~__~/J, Cassidy I, FRANK J. KESSLER, verifl/that the statements made in this Answer to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. ,~4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: Frank J. Kessler