Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-2375Joseph D. Paluh, Plaintiff, Sa~.atore Spinelli, Esquire, and Telecheck Services, Inc., Defendants. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : :CIVILNO.: & q. ~3 Zs' ~t3~t : ; NOTICE TO TO THE DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN: 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 is 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 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 ALAWYER 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 Assciation 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quire defenderse de estas demandas expuetas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la excrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma excrita sus defensa$ o sus objectiones a las demande, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y pot cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADOO SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICION, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. JOSEPH D. PALUH, Plaintiff; SALVATORE SPINELLI, ESQUIRE AND TELECHECK SERVICES, INC. Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMM( CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~N PLEAS No.: COMPLAINT COUNT I - PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT Jurisdiction tbr this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Unitbrmity Act, 73 P.S. §2270 et seq. Defendant Salvatom Spine[Ii is an individual attorney and debt collector engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 135 Maxess Road, Suite 2B, Melville, NY 11747. Defendant Telecheck Services, Inc., (Hereinafter "Telecheck"), is a debt collector/business entity(ies) engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth via letters and tdephoue calls, with its principal place of business located at 5251 Westheimer, Houston, TX 77056, mailing address of Dept. 80, Denver, CO 80281-0080. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. ~2270.4(a). That defendant engaged in unthir methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as defined by FCEU and the regulations, including but not limited to, violations of 37 Pa. Code §§303.3(3). 303.3(14). 303.3(18L 303.6 and 73 P.S. §201-2(4). Defendant's acts as described herein were done with malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintifffs rights with the purpose of coercing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt. 7. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs, WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf and against defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. §2270.5. COUNT [1 - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 8. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.C. §I692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. §1337. 9. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [ 391 (b). 10. Plaintiffis an individual and consumer pursnant to 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6). 1 I. Defendant Salvatore Spinelli, Esquire, is an attorney an a debt collector engaged in the business of collection consumer debts in this Commonwealth, with his principal place of business located at 135 Maxess Road, Suite 2B, Melville~ New York, 11747. 12. Defendant Telecheck Services, lnc.~ (Hereinafter "Telecheck"), is a debt collector/business entity(ies) engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth via letters and telephone calls, with its principal place of business located at 5251 Westheimer. Houston. TX 77056, mailing address of Dept. 80, Denver, CO 80281-0080. 13. Defendant communicated with plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this action, in connection with collection eflbrts~ by letters, telephone contact or other documents, 14. 15. 16, 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. with regard to plaintiWs alleged and disputed debt. Defendant is a debt collectors as defined by 15 U.S.C. J 1692a(3). Defendant Telecheck retained attorney Spinelli to make a purported "settlement demand" to the Plaintiff. Defendant Telecheck also sent letters to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the alleged debt. All letters sent by the deIbndants were sent to Plaintiffafler he relocated to Pennsylvania. The letters sent by Telecheck and Spinelli are "communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. ~1692a(2) and §1692a(5). At all pertinent times hereto, defendants were hired to collect an alleged debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") The FDCPA applies to obligations and alleged obligations. Defendant alleged that Plainfiffowed an obligation to one of its clients for the purchase of personal/household/consumer goods, specifically, books. The FDCPA defines debt very broad, as an obligation, which is not specific as compared to the definitions of credit contained in other subsections of the Truth in Lending Act. A check is covered under the FDCPA. See, Charles v. Lundgren & Associates, P. C. et al., 119 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 1997); Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider~ et al., l 11 F.3d 1322, (7'h Cir. 1997); Snow v. Riddle. P. C.. No. 97-4045 (10th Cir. 1998); and DufI¥ v. Landberg, et al., No. 97-1560 (8'h Cir. 1998). Defendants, in their collection practices, used the same mass-mailed, form letters, same telephone contact and the same collection practices as collection agencies that collect on accounts. Defendants, in their collection efforts~ demanded retnm check fees in violation of 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Pennsylvania law~ 18 Pa.C.S. §4105(e)(3), and a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. Defendant in its collection eflbrts, demanded return check ~Ees in violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692f(1) and 1692e(2)A and B. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the tbllowing conduct is a violation of this section: ([) The collection of nay amount (including any interest, fee, charge or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. 15 U.S.C. §16921'(1). The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application or'the tbmgoing, the following is a violation of this section, (2) The fhlse representation of (A) the character~ amount or legal status of any debt, or (B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)A and B. There was never an express agreement by Plaintiff to pay any additional lees. Pennsylvania law permits a $20.00 fee~ upon conviction, There was no conviction in this case. On or about April 30, 2004~ defendant Spinelli, drafted and mailed a letter to Plaintiff which requested payment for books purchases. The amount demanded by Spinelli was more than twice the amount of the alleged debt. DefEndant Spinelli, hired by Telecheck, is not licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. The additional fees charged by Telecheck and Spinelli are not authorized by contract or law. Plaintiff believes and theretbre avers that Spinelli, an attorney apparently licensed to practice law in New York, Pennsylvania did not review PlaintifFs account. Plaintiffbelieves and therefore avers that no one at Telecheck reviewed her account. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that attorneys use their letterheads and status in a way collection agencies cannot and that a letter from attorney adds a heightened urgency to the claim. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that most attorney debt collector rarely, if ever, file suit against consumers. Courts have held that the threat of litigation is present simply because the letter comes from an attorney: the letter need not explicitly threaten suit. Crosslev v. Lieberman, 868 F.2d 566 (3d Cir. 1989). United States v. Central Ad}ustment Bureau, 667 F. Supp. 370, 397 (N.D. Tex. 1986). An attorney's interstate collection letters must avoid misrepresenting the attorney's authority to sue where he or she is not admitted to practice. Crosslev v. Lieberman, 868 F 2d 566 (3d Cir. 1989). It has long been held that the FDCPA does not permit attorneys to use facsimile signatures. Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993). Plaintiff believes and theretbre avers that the rationale behind this rule was a concern that attorneys were not actively involved in the collection process, and by at least requiring an actual signature, some degree of actual review was imposed. Defendant's letter is clearly a mass-mailed form letter and it is unclear t?om where the 45. 46, 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. letters from defendant Spinelli were mailed. Defendant's letter clearly contains a lhcsimile signature. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Telecheck and Spinelli acted in concert in order to mislead, confuse and deceive the Plaintiffas well as the least sophisticated consumer. Defendants Telecheck and Spinelli are liable for each other's actions under principal/agent theories as well as the FDCPA. Defendant's letterhead would easily confuse the least sophisticated consumer and cause the consumer to lhlsely believe that he/she could be sued in an out-of-state court. Rosa v. Gavnor, 704 F. Supp. I (D. Conn. 1989). Plaintiff believes and theretbre avers that defendant's legal letterhead was used 0o[ in connection with the practice of law, but rather as a debt collector for the sole purpose of intimidating the Plaintiff, as such, overshadowed the FDCPA. § 1692g. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692~: Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 15 U,S.C. §1692e. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with the collection ora debt. 15 U.S.C. §1692d. Det~endant violated this section of the FDCPA. The FDCPA states~ a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer. 15 U.S.C. §1692c(b). 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59~ Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. The FDCPA states, it is unlawthl to design~ compile and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the thlse believe in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer it participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating. 15 U.S.C. §1692j. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. The FDCPA states, it is unlawthl to add intercst~ charges, t~es or other costs unless authorized by law or contract: Plaintiffdoes not have a contract with Defendant. 15 U.S.C. §1692f and §1692e(2)(A) and (B). Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. The FDCPA provides certain rights to the consumer ~'egarding her right to dispute the alleged debt, 15 U.S.C. §1692g. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communications, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3). Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. Defendant's collection communications were intentionally conthsing, misleading and otherwise deceptive to the P[aintift~, in violation of 15 U.S.C. ~1692e(5) and (10), ~1692f(8) and ~1692j~ see also, In re Belile~ 208 B.R. 658 (E.D. Pa 1977). Defendant's communications created a false sense of urgency on the past of Plaintiff in violation of the FDCPA. Tolentino v. Friedman~ 833 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Slurs v. Hand~ 831 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); and Rosa v. Gavnor, 784 F. Supp 1 (D. Conn. 1989). 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. Any threat of litigation is false if the defendant rarely, sues consumer debtors or if the defendant did not intend to sue the Plaintiff. Bentlv v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1998). See also, 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5), 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10). At all time pertinent hereto, the defendant was acting by and through its agents, servants and/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment. and under the direct supervision and control of the defendants herein. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of'defendant as well as their agents, servants, and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendant's agents made fhlse threats of litigation. Defendants threat of litigation was false because defendant does not routinely file suit against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) and (10). Defendants letters were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) and (10), §1692f(8) and §1692j. Plaintiffwas confused, deceived and believed that litigation was imminent if settlement was not made. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of defendants rises to the level needed for punitive damages. Defendant, in its collection effbrts, violated the FDCPA, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and/or n. Defendant, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintiff. 70. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of defendants as aforementioned, plaintiff has been subjected to anxiety, harassment, intimidation and annoyance tbr which compensation is sought. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment on her behalf and against defendants and issue an Order: (A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($I ,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or each separate and discrete incident in which defendants have violated the FDCPA and/bt which Plaintiffcould have filed a separate action but consolidated her claims for judicial economy. (B) Award Plaintiffgeneral damages and punitive damages for anxiety, harassment, and intimidation directed at him in an amount not less than Ten Thousand Dollars $10,000.00), as well as the repetitive nature of defendants fbrm letters. ©) Award Plaintiffcosts of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of $300.00/hour for hours reasonably expended by his attorney in vindicating his rights under the FDCPA, permitted by 15 U.S.C. ~ 1692k(a)(3). (D) Award declaratocv and injunctive reliel: and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide. Dated: 5/24/04 By: /s/Demma Lynn Saracco Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750, Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw~aol.com WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfhlly requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment on her behalf and against defendants and issue an Order: (A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($l,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or each separate and discrete incident in which defendants have violated the FDCPA. Kashak v. Raritan Valley Collection A~encv, F. Supp.__(D,N.J. May ~a, 1989), and Rabideau v. Management Adjustment Bureau, 805 F. Supp. 1086, 1095 (W.D.N.Y. 1992) (B) Award Plaintiff damages for anxiety, harassment, and intimidation directed at him in an amount not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), as well as the repetitive nature of defendants tbrm letters. (C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of' $300.00/hour for hours reasonably expended by his attorney in vindicating his rights under the FDCPA, permitted by 15 U.S.C. SS 1692k(a)(3). (D) Award declaratory and injunctive relict; and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity ma5 provide. Dated: 5/1/03 By: ~a,~~ De,irma Lynn Saracco Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 SaraccoLaw~aol.com April 30, 2004 LAW OFFICES OF gSalvat re Fi.elli, 135 MAXESS ROAD, SUITE 2B MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 (631) 470-9812 FAX: (631) 454--4509 3821365-149 JOSEPH D PALUH 19222 MALVERN AVE # DOW ROCKY RIVER, OH 44116 WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY RE: TELECHECK SERVICES FOR BORDERS BOOKS ACCOUNT#: 3502155359100 CLAIM #: 3821365 AMOUNT: $84.19 Dear JOSEPH D PALUH: We are contacting you on behalf of Telecheck Services. They purchased your account from BORDERS BOOKS. Telecheck Services has placed your account with this office for collection. This serves as an attempt to collect a debt, and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This communication is from a debt collector. It is our client's contention thatyou paid for and received goods with a cheek that was dishonored by your bank, and as such, you are indebted to the client. Our client further contends that several attempts to resolve this matter have been unsuccessful. If you do not resolve this matter, you will leave us no alternative but to report your refusal to our client, at which time, they will be advised of all avenues open to them. Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of the debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume the debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice, that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such iudgment or verification. If you request this office in writing within 30 days after recexving this notice, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. You~.~ompt attention and response is requested. (Detach Here) RE: TELECHECK SERVICES FOR BORDERS BOOKS ACCOUNT:g: 3502155359100 CLAIM #: 3821365 AMOUNT: $84.19 Credit Card Payment Information Account Number: Expiration Date: Amount to be Applied to Card: $ Cardholder Signature: (Print Name Below Ume) A $20.00 bank fee will be applied to vonr account for any dishonored check deposited in accordance with New York State law. Telecheck Services P.O. Box 1286 Melville, NY 11747 *An $8.00 processing fee is charged to all credit card payments. PKG6-149 C10149 April 30, 2004 LAW OFFICES OF 135 MAXESS ROAD, SUITE 28 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 (631) 470-9812 FAX: (631) 454-4509 3821366-149 JOSEPH D PALLTH 19222 MALVERNAVE ROCKY RIVER, OH 44116 WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY RE: TELECHECK SERVICES FOR BORDERS BOOKS ACCOUNT#: 35021613504380 CLAIM #: 3821366 AMOUNT: $78.15 Dear JOSEPH D PALUH: We are contacting you on behalf of Telecheck Services. They purchased your account from BORDERS BOOKS. Telecheck Services has placed your account with this office for collection. This serves as an attempt to collect a debt, and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This communication is from a debt collector. It is our client's contention thatyou paid for and received goods with a check that was dishonored by },our bank, and as such, you are indebted to the client. Our client further contends that several attempts to resolve this matter nave been unsuccessful. If you do not resolve this matter, you will leave us no alternative but to report your refusal to our client, at which time, they will be advised of ail avenues open to them. Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of the debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume the debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving tiffs notice, that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy ora judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you request this office in writipg within 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. Yous.p~ompt attention and response is requested. (Detach Here) RE: TELECHECK SERVICES FOR BORDERS BOOKS ACCOUNT #: 35021613504380 CLAIM #: 3821366 AMOUNT: $78.15 Credit Card Payment Information Account Number: Expffation Date: Amount to be Applied to Card: $ Car&holder Signature: (Print Name Below Line) A $20.00 bank fez will be applied to your account for any dishonored check deposited in accordance with New York State law. Telecheck Services P.O. Box 1286 Melville, NY 11747 *An $8.00 processing fee is charged to all credit card payments. PKG6-149 C10149 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH D. PALUH Plaintiff, SALVATORE SPINELLI, ESQUIRE and TELECHECK SERVICES, INC. Defendants. NOTICE OF REMOVAL Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ## 1441 and 1446, Defendants Telecheck Services, Inc, ("Telecheck") and Salvatore Spinelli, Esquire ("Spinelli'), hereby give Notice of the Removal of the above-captioned action from the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania to this United States District Court for tJhe Middle District of Pennsylvania. In support of this NOTICE OF REMOVAL, Telecheck and Spinelli state as follows: 1. On May 24, 2004, Plaintiff, Joseph D. Paluh, filled a civil action against Telecheck and Spinelli in the Court of Common Pleas, Cumbe:rland County, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Summons and Complaint are a~iched hereto as Exhibit A. No other process, pleadings, or Orders have been filed in this action. Plaintiff sent copies of the complaint and summons to Telecheck and to Spinelli by certified mail. 2. Removal in this case is based on federal question jurisdiction. This Court has original jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. #1331 in that Plaintiff's Count II alleges a violation of the Federal Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act. 15 U.S.C. 1692. For this reason, this case is one that may be removed to this Court by Defendants Telecheck and Spinelli pursuant to 28 U.S.C. #1441 and 1446. 3. Fewer than thirty days have elapsed since June: 9, 2004, when this Complaint was served on Defendants Telecheck and Spinelli by certified mail. 4. This Court is the District Court of the United States for the district embracing the place in which the action is currently pending. 5. Tree and correct copies of this Notice of Removal with the accompanying exhibit are being served upon Plaintiff's counsel and filed with the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. #1446(d). Dated: June 23, 2004 Respectfully submitted, Thom.,~r~attle, PLLC /P~. ~.D. ~'o. 00232 I ~netsuit?;4f~;d Centre 301 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Robert J. Hannen Pa. I.D. No. 63432 333 Penco Road Suite A Weirton, WV 26062 Attorneys for Defendant Telecheck Services Inc. 2 Attorneys for Defendant Telecheck Services Inc. Salvatore Spinelli CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James T. Camey, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF REMOVAL upon the counsel for the plaintiff by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, on this 24th day of June, 2004 addressed to counsel as follows: Deanna Lynn Saracco 76 Greenmont Dr. Enola, PA 17025 I also hereby certify that I have served a true and exact copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF REMOVAL upon the Prothonotary of the Cou~rt of Common Pleas, Cumberland County by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid on this 24th day of June, 2004, addressed to the ProthG,notary as follows: / ~ Prothonotary Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 ~t~es '1'. Carney ~