Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-463019HT-GU-GUlU 14.JG Li IonwiiCa 11L'11LPGi\ 0"0140011 r".UU6 0"RIGINAL THE 1 DISTRIBUTED 2010 JUG. 12 Ali 8: b9 J.C. EIIRLICH COMPANY, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 0001 1 ' UNTYDAUPa N COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff Sri' F i?`t'Ln'?I : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V : NO. 2009-CV-09374-CV THOMAS E. MARTIN, M. Defendant ORDER 0, AND NOW, this day of 2010, upon consideration of the following Petition of Plaintiff to transfer this action to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, it is hereby ORDERED that the said Petition of Plaintiff is GRANTED and this action, given the Civil Action number of 2009-CV-09374-CV, shall be transferred from the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Said action skull then proceed in accordance with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon transfer of the action.to Cumberland County, Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days to file a response to Defendant's Answer with New Matter. DISTRIBUTTON LIST Matthew Mayer, Esquire Leisawitz Heller 2755 Century Blvd. Wyomissing, PA 19610 'j) P???• prO-[TA ot`o-ia or% ft BY THE COURT: J. MAY 4 _ i hereby ce- ,',r =t ? nregoing is a true and coy reci to ?y of the original filed. `o ProthOnotarv TOTAL P.002 Thomas E. Martin, Jr. 201 South Broad Street Kennett Square, PA 19348 V7 20A0 Fil Ec ..?`• "1,:: 'r;RY 2010 J,1! #14 IG? J Mayor cz G .7-7 /y Stephen E. Farina Prothonotary OFFICE OF ? .0THONOTA.pV Front & Market Streets Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 780-6520 Curtis R Long, Prothonotary Cumberland County Court House Hanover & High Streets Carlisle, Pa 17013 IN RE: J.C. Ehrlich Company Inc Vs. Thomas E Martin Dauphin County Dkt No 2009 CV 9374 CV Cumberland County Dkt No. Dear Sir/ Madam: May 26, 2010 By Order of May 24, 2010 by John F. Cherry, Judge The above matter has been transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. I am, accordingly, sending originals of all the papers herewith. I Will appreciate the return of the attached receipt address to the Attention: of Ms. Lisandra Garcia. Very truly yours, Stephen E. Farina Prothonotary County of Dauphin Date: 5/27/2010 Dauphin County User: LGARCIA Time: 09:24 AM Complete Case History Page 1 of 3 Case: 2009-CV-09374-CV JC Ehrlich Company Inc vs. Thomas E Martin Jr Filed: 7/24/2009 Subtype: Civil Physical File: Y Appealed: N Comment: Status History Pending 7/24/2009 Closed 5/24/2010 Judge History Date Judge Reason for Removal 7/24/2009 No Judge, Administrative 5/21/2010 Cherry, John F. Current Payments Receipt Date Type Amount Jc Ehrlich Co mpany Inc (plaintiff 198606 7/24/2009 Civil Fil ing 132.00 Total 132.00 Plaintiff Name: JC Ehrlich Company Inc SSN: Address: DOB: Sex: Phone: Home: Work: Employer: Send notices: Y Litigant Type: Comment: Attorneys Phillips, Charles J (Primary attorney) Send Notices Defendant Name: Martin, Thomas E Jr SSN: Address: DOB: Sex: Phone: Home: Work: Employer: Send notices: Y Litigant Type: Comment: Attorneys PRO SE, (Primary attorney) Send Notices Register of Actions 7/24/2009 New Civil Case Filed This Date. No Judge, Filing: Complaint Paid by: Jc Ehrlich No Judge, Company Inc (plaintiff) Receipt number: 0198606 Dated: 7/24/2009 Amount: $132.00 (Check) For: Martin, Thomas E Jr (defendant) Plaintiff: JC Ehrlich Company Inc Attorney No Judge, of Record: Charles J Phillips Date: 5/27/2010 Time: 09:24tAM Page 2 of 3 Register of Actions 7/24/2009 Complaint filed. Dauphin County Complete Case History Case: 2009-CV-09374-CV JC Ehrlich Company Inc vs. Thomas E Martin Jr No Judge, AOPC CIVIL STATISTICAL REPORT No Judge, (AGING PURPOSES) 8/24/2009 Complaint: Sheriff of Dauphin County No Judge, returns Not Found as to Defendant(s). So Answers, J.R. Lotwick, Sheriff. to Thomas E Martin Jr on 8/24/2009; Assigned to Dauphin Co Sheriffs Office. Service Fee of $50.00. 8/31/2009 Complaint reinstated. See Praecipe, filed. No Judge, 9/18/2009 Complaint reinstated. See Praecipe, filed. No Judge, 10/12/2009 Reinstated Complaint: Sheriff of Dauphin No Judge, County returns Not Found as to Defendant(s). So Answers, J.R. Lotwick, Sheriff. to Thomas E Martin Jr on 1.0/12/2009; Assigned to Dauphin Co Sheriffs Office. Service Fee of $50.00. 11/4/2009 Complaint reinstated. See Praecipe, filed. No Judge, 11/16/2009 Reinstated Complaint: Sheriff of Dauphin No Judge, County returns Not Found as to Defendant(s). So Answers, J.R. Lotwick, Sheriff. to Thomas E Martin Jr on 11/16/2009; Assigned to Dauphin Co Sheriffs Office. Service Fee of $50.00. 3/25/2010 Complaint reinstated. See Praecipe, filed. No Judge, 4/7/2010 Reinstated Complaint: Sheriffs Return No Judge, filed stating service was completed. So answers J.R. Lotwick, Sheriff. to Thomas E Martin Jr on 4/7/2010; Assigned to Dauphin Co Sheriffs Office. Service Fee of $50.00. Chester County Sheriffs Costs: $46.60 4/26/2010 Answer to complaint and new matter, filed. No Judge, Defendant: Martin, Thomas E Jr Attorney No Judge, of Record: PROSE Certification of Service of defendant's No Judge, answer to complaint and new matter, filed. Preliminary objection, filed. No Judge, Brief in support of preliminary objection, No Judge, filed. Certification of Service of defendant's No Judge, preliminary objection, brief in support of and proposed order, filed. 5/19/2010 Petition to transfer action from court of No Judge, common pleas of Dauphin County to the court of common pleas of Cumberland County, filed. User: LGARCIA Date: 5/27/2010 Dauphin County User: LGARCIA 9 ? Time: 09:24 AM Complete Case History Page 3 of 3 Case: 2009-CV-09374-CV JC Ehrlich Company Inc vs. Thomas E Martin Jr Register of Actions 5/21/2010 Judge assigned to case. 5/24/2010 Upon consideration of the following Petition to transfer this action to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, it is hereby ORDERED that the said Petition of Plaintiff is GRANTED and this action, given the Civil Action number of 2009-CV-09374-CV, shall be transferred from the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania said action to Cumberland county, Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days to file a response to Defendant's Answer with New Matter. See ORDER filed. copies Dist by court 5/24/10 AOPC MONTHLY CIVIL COURT STATISTICAL REPORT DATA Transferred / ( Civil Action ) ****NO MORE ENTRIES CASE TRANSFERRED**** TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY h+q'??r ?InCl IS 8 Cherry, John F. Cherry, John F. Cherry, John F. No Judge, I hef16 ?il9t1i181 truefW" correFt copnyof $? iginal filed. C/ LEISAWITZ HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: Charles J. Phillips, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 39260 By: Matthew M. Mayer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 202678 2755 Century Boulevard Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 372-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff RAC !VED OFV IMAGED l? 2003 JUL 24 AM t1: 50 criUNTY PENNA J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff V. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION --LAW No. 2w7- CU, 05374-CV ASSIGNED TO: Defendant 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. Lawyer's Referral Service Dauphin County Bar Association 213 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Telephone: (717) 232-7536 Doc # 234301 r P LEISAWITz HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: Charles J. Phillips, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 39260 By: Matthew M. Mayer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 202678 2755 Century Boulevard Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 372-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff RECEIVED I ??. t _ qtr 2009 JUL 24 AM 11= 50 0AUPH1'! COUNTY PENHA J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION --LAW V. ,! NO. G,CV_0q3?q'-eV THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., Defendant ASSIGNED TO: COMPLAINT 1. The amount in controversy in this case is less than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). 2. Plaintiff, J.C. Ehrlich Company, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania having a place of business located at 1539 Bobali Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17104("Plaintiff'). 3. Defendant, Thomas E. Martin, Jr. is an adult individual with a mailing address at 329 Lamborntown Road, West Grove, PA 19390 ("Defendant"). 4. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was in the business of providing residential and commercial pest control services (the "Services"). 5. Defendant engaged Plaintiff to provide Services for a horse barn at his premises located at 1215 McCormick Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (the "Premises") through the execution of a work proposal dated August 29, 2008 ("Proposal #1"), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". 2 Doc # 234301 r 6. Pursuant to Proposal #1, Plaintiff was to provide Services to Defendant for a total cost of Fourteen Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Four and 60/100 Dollars ($14,744.60). 7. Defendant engaged Plaintiff to provide additional Services for a horse barn at the Premises through the execution of a work proposal dated October 17, 2008 ("Proposal #2"), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B". 8. Pursuant to Proposal #2, Plaintiff was to provide Services to Defendant for a total cost of Ten Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Seven and 501100 Dollars ($10,467.50). 9. The total cost of the Services provided by Plaintiff to Defendant pursuant to Proposals #1 and #2 was Twenty-Five Thousand Two Hundred Twelve and 10/100 Dollars ($25,212.10). 10. Proposals #1 and #2 included the exchange of certain monies for the aforementioned Services which were performed at the Defendant's request, by the Plaintiff, at the Premises. 11. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff performed Services at the Premises. 12. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant accepted the Services which were provided by Plaintiff. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT 13. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12 above as though the same were set forth fully at length herein. 14. On or about August, 2008, Plaintiff, pursuant to Proposal #1, performed the Services set forth in such Proposal for Defendant, for a total contract price of $14,744.60. 15. On or about October, 2008, Plaintiff, pursuant to Proposal #2, performed the Services set forth in such Proposal for Defendant, for a total contract price of $10,467.50. 3 Doc # 234301 16. Payment was due from Defendant upon receipt of each invoice from Plaintiff. 17. The Defendant was provided various invoices from October 2008 through and including May 2009 (collectively, the "Invoices"), for the Services provided by the Plaintiff, true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 18. The prices set forth in Exhibit "C" are the fair and reasonable charges for the Services provided to Defendant by Plaintiff and are the prices agreed to by and between the Plaintiff and Defendant. 19. Since completion of the Services, Defendant has acknowledged the amount owing and due to the Plaintiff and Defendant has made various payments to Plaintiff for the Invoices. 20. Notwithstanding the foregoing to the contrary, the Defendant has failed to remit full payment for all Invoices provided by the Plaintiff and has failed to pay the full amount due for the Services. 21. Plaintiff has attempted to enter into payment arrangements with the Defendant; however, the Defendant has failed to abide by and make payment pursuant to said arrangements. 22. By failing to pay in full for the Services provided, Defendant breached its agreements with Plaintiff. 23. As a result of the aforesaid breach of the agreements, Defendant is indebted to and has caused damages to the Plaintiff in the total amount of Eleven Thousand One Hundred Forty-Nine and 45/100 Dollars ($11,149.45), plus interest. 24. Defendant received, accepted and benefited from the Services provided by Plaintiff. 25. Despite repeated requests and demands, Defendant has failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse to pay the amount due and owing to Plaintiff. 4 Doc # 234301 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant, Thomas E. Martin, Jr., in the amount of Eleven Thousand One Hundred Forty-Nine and 45/100 Dollars ($11,149.45), plus court costs. COUNT II f UNJUST ENRICHMENT 26. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 25 above as though the same were set forth fully at length herein. 27. The Services provided to the Defendant by Plaintiff as identified in Exhibit "A" and "B" were requested by Defendant and Defendant received and accepted the benefits of the Services provided by Plaintiff. 28. At all times material hereto, Defendant was aware that Plaintiff was providing Services to Defendant and that Plaintiff expected to be paid for the Services. r 29. At all times material hereto, Defendant, with the aforesaid knowledge, permitted Plaintiff to provide the Services and to incur damages. 30. At all times material hereto, Defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining the benefit of the Services without paying Plaintiff fair and reasonable compensation therefore. 31. By reason of the aforesaid circumstances, Defendant is obligated to pay Plaintiff the remaining value of the Services in the amount of Eleven Thousand One Hundred Forty-Nine and 45/100 Dollars ($11,149.45), plus court costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant, Thomas E. Martin, Jr., in the amount of Eleven Thousand One Hundred Forty-Nine and 45/100 Dollars ($11,149.45), plus court costs. 5 Doc # 234301 COUNT III QUANTUM MERUIT 32. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 31 hereinabove as though the same were set forth herein in their entirety. 33. Plaintiff provided the Services pursuant to Proposal #1 and #2 at the request of Defendant fully expecting to be paid in full for its work. 39. Defendant requested and accepted the Services provided by Plaintiff. 40. To date, Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff, in full, for the Services provided pursuant to the Invoices and as a result, the sum of Eleven Thousand One Hundred Forty-Nine and 45/100 Dollars ($11,149.45) is still due and owing from Defendant to Plaintiff. 41. The remaining fair and reasonable quantum meruit value of the Services provided by the Plaintiff to Defendant is Eleven Thousand One Hundred Forty-Nine and 45/100 Dollars ($11,149.45). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant, Thomas E. Martin, Jr., in the amount of Eleven Thousand One Hundred Forty-Nine and 45/100 Dollars ($11,149.45), plus court costs. Respectfully submitted, LEISAWITZ HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: -Lt, Charles J. hillips, Esq ire Attorney I.D. No. 39260 Matthew M. Mayer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 202678 2755 Century Boulevard Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 372-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 Doc # 234301 EXHIBIT "A" Rol Bird Control Services August 29, 2008 Sara Dellinger 1215 McCormick Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Dear Ms. Dellinger, Thank you for the courtesies extended to The J.C. Ehrlich Company when we had the opportunity to survey and inspect your horse facility, in regards to Pest Bird Control. We have included Photos to better help visualize and describe the conditions that were found during that inspection. Photo 1 identifies one of three stable areas which were identified as areas of major concern during the inspection. The first stable building was Building 8, 9 which is experiencing a severe Feral Pigeon infestation as seen in Photo 2. These pest birds are nesting and roosting overnight in the protected soffit area that exists on both ends of the building. In conjunction with this over night roosting and nesting, were evidenced Pigeons roosting and nesting freely on the wooden supports and upper frame work that exists throughout this building. A similar infestation was found in Building 5, 6 and Building 3, 4. Significant accumulations of droppings and debris were evidenced in the soffit areas as seen in Photo 3. In conjunction with this upper level activity were evidenced accumulations of droppings and nesting material on the areas below, as seen in Photo 4. As you are aware, these pest birds create unsanitary, unsightly and corrosive conditions. The uric and nitric acid contained in wet droppings quickly erode all building surfaces and tend to create additional maintenance concerns. When excreted on walkways and steps, droppings present slippery, unsafe conditions. In addition, numerous viral and fungal diseases are enhanced by the accumulation of droppings and ecto parasites and other insects which breed in the droppings can be easily transmitted to building occupants and the horses. Sara Dellinger August 29, 2008 Page 2 Recommended Services L Population Reduction / Trapping To reduce the stress and impact that the resident population of pigeons is creating to your property, we recommend for your consideration a humane trapping program. We would be using the ground area as identified during out inspection directly across from Stable 8, 9 as seen in Photo 5. We would strategically place two traps on the ground. The traps will be prebaited with untreated whole kernel corn, with service visits twice a week to freshen the corn and the water supply. During this prebaiting phase, the doors of the traps will remain open. After bait acceptance has been established, corn will be placed inside the traps and the doors will be armed to allow the birds to enter but not exit. Trapped birds will be removed from the site two or three times per week and taken back to our local office where they will be humanely destroyed. The cost to provide the trapping control program, consisting of a total of eight (8) site visits, is $680.00 plus tax. This price includes all labor, materials, transportation, and insurance costs. It is with the understanding that three to four of the prebaiting services can be provided by in-house personnel to assist in reducing the cost. It must be noted, however, that 8 visits may not be sufficient to satisfactorily eliminate the current feral pigeon population and additional trapping services may be necessary to address the remaining resident pigeons or new birds which come into the area. Should additional visits be necessary above and beyond the initial trapping cycle, these services can be provided at a cost of $ 75.00 per service visit. Number 2 - Netting /Exclusion To address the Feral Pigeon infestation, we recommend a netting / exclusion service. With this service, the netting will be installed throughout the entire ceiling of each stable area as seen in Photo 6. Sara Dellinger August 29, 2008 Page 3 Netting Options There are two netting options available for your consideration: Option 1 is a 1/2" extruded plastic netting as seen in Photo 7. This product comes with a one year warranty and can be simply stapled up to the wooden rafters to exclude the pest birds from getting into these areas as previously described. The cost to provide Option 1 is $1260.00 plus tax. Option 2 is a %' polyethylene state of the art netting which comes with a 10 year warranty, as seen in Photo 8. Stainless steel aircraft cable will then be installed around the perimeter of the area to be treated. After the cable framework has been installed, hog rings will be used to attach the netting to the cable. Turnbuckles are used to tighten the cable to ensure that the netting system is taut and 100% effective in prohibiting the birds from accessing their current nesting locations The cost to provide Option 2 is $1930.00 plus tax. Netting Specifications Manufactured from multi-strand polypropylene fiber with ultra-violet inhibitors • Burst strength of 454 lbs • Melting point of 160-170°C • Light weight - 40gsm • Lightest of all commercial fibers with a specific gravity of 0.85 • Excellent insulator rating for use in applications near,electrical fittings • Resistant to acids and alkalis; can not be ingested by insects, moth larvae, silverfish, etc.; will not support growth of mildew; resistant to abrasion, ultra-violet light, depreciation caused by repeated flexing as occurs under windy conditions. III. Clean Out I F,xclusion During inspection and as seen in the Photos, it was identified that there are accumulations of debris and nesting materials in the soffit areas. In addition, as seen in Photo 9, there is a piece of flashing that has been ripped off of one of the fascia boards on Stable 5, 6. We would be providing and clean up / sanitation where we would be removing all accessible accumulations of droppings, debris and guano that exists in the soffit areas. In addition, the flashing as seen in Photo 9, will be replaced, to permanently exclude and clean these areas. The cost to provide this clean up / sanitation in the soffit areas is $275.00 plus tax, per Building. Sara Dellinger August 29, 2008 Page 4 Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this quotation for pest bird control. Should you have any questions about the proposal or if we can be of further help, you can reach Gregory Carrera at (717) 238-9590 extension 11628. Ehrlich technicians will be scheduled to provide the necessary services upon receipt of your authorization. Very truly yours, J. C. EHRLICH CO., INC. 44r P. 141wid, Kim D. Lewis Bird Division Manager KDL:smh . Enclosure 09/09/08 10:18 solo 478 0630 J C EERLICH 0008 k717 jv,/ -n3g7 2008 The L C. EHRLICH CO., NC., Bird Cot*ol Division, will provide the following control service(s), as outlined in our proposal letter dated August 29, 2008. Please check the seavice6 you -went performed / oanplote and rabmm this authorization start by mail' or you may fax it to 610.478-0630. L PopWlat M RedudION / ?rappfmg a0 168& 00 + W 6S-? .?O *v" Op&a-.1- Ptw& Ndttng @ $1260.00+ t= per bnildixg t c q Option 2 - Po&Aylene Neding (g) $1930.00 + taut per 6uilding Ckaa Up l Exclusi4a @ 1271.00 + fm per SOPU area per buudaeg r! ---7 _71 k743 A7 AU'IHORjZATION PLEASE PRINT NAME.._,. DATE: 1y P, O_ # Contact to Vhe"e service: ` Contact phone number: (7i 7 )- 13 F? BILL190 ADDRESS (if differew from above): /? `Mail m: J. C. Ehrlich Co., inc. Bird Coaftol Division PO Box 13848 Reading, PA 19612-3848 THOMAS E. MARMIR JR. Aucftw At L.. MARTIN LAW OMCZS. W 7013. is1tOAD S'I'iDL'I' PHOMi (610) 44+0W VMT Omcz DOX 397 PAX: (610 4/4l46A 'IQ tDdl 1•f 6QUAR1t, PA 19s tt EXHIBIT "B" Since 1928 Bird Control Services October 17, 2008 Sara Dellinger 1215 McCormick Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Dear Ms. Dellinger, Thank you for the courtesies extended to The J.C. Ehrlich Company when we had the opportunity to survey and inspect your horse facility, in regards to additional Pest Bird Control services to additional stables. Significant accumulations of droppings and debris were evidenced in the soffit area. In conjunction with this upper level activity were evidenced accumulations of droppings and nesting material on the areas below. As you are aware, these pest birds create unsanitary, unsightly and corrosive conditions. The uric and nitric acid contained in wet droppings quickly erode all building surfaces and tend to create additional maintenance concerns. When excreted on walkways and steps, droppings present slippery, unsafe conditions. In addition, numerous viral and fungal diseases are enhanced by the accumulation of droppings and ecto parasites and other insects which breed in the droppings can be easily transmitted to building occupants and the horses. Recommended Services Number 1- Netting /Fxclusion To address the Feral Pigeon infestation, we recommend a netting / exclusion service. With this service, the netting will be installed throughout the entire ceiling of each of the stables identified on the authorization sheet. October 17, 2008 Pg. 2 Netting Netting is a %' polyethylene state of the art netting which comes with a 10 year warranty. Stainless steel aircraft cable will then be installed around the perimeter of the area to be treated. After the cable framework has been installed, hog rings will be used to attach the netting to the cable. Turnbuckles are used to tighten the cable to ensure that the netting system is taut and 100% effective in prohibiting the birds from accessing their current nesting locations * The cost to provide netting is broken down on authorization sheet per stable/s. Netting Specifications Manufactured from multi-strand polypropylene fiber with ultra-violet inhibitors • Burst strength of 4541bs • Melting point of 160-170°C • Light weight - 40gsm • Lightest of all commercial fibers with a specific gravity of 0.85 • Excellent insulator rating for use in applications near electrical fittings • Resistant to acids and alkalis; can not be ingested by insects, moth larvae, silverfish, etc.; will not support growth of mildew; resistant to abrasion, ultra-violet light, depreciation caused by repeated flexing as occurs under windy conditions. H. Clean Out/Exclusion During inspection and as seen in the Photos, it was identified that there are accumulations of debris and nesting materials in the soffit areas. In addition, there is flashing that has damage on Stable #'s . We would be providing a clean up / sanitation where we would be removing all accessible accumulations of droppings, debris and guano that exists in the soffit areas. In addition, damaged flashing will be replaced, to permanently exclude and clean these areas. October 17, 2008 Page 3 Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this quotation for pest bird control. Should you have any questions about the proposal or if we can be of further help, you can reach Gregory Carrera at (717) 238-9590 extension 11628. Ehrlich technicians will be scheduled to provide the necessary services upon receipt of your authorization. Very truly yours, J. C. EHRLICH CO., INC. ArAw 40, IAWIs Kim D. Lewis Bird Division Manager KDL:smh Enclosure 'Or t. 2C. 2708110:46AM""Thomas E Ma r t in Jr 610444546 OIL Ic^? October 1711006 Pegs 4 ND. 1G63 P. 2- 02 The 1. C. MMUCH CO., INC., Bird Couch AivisiM will pwvide the following COIN scxvi a(s? u outlined in ow propoW ietta decal October 17, 2006. Piety check prices you wit poforme3 / compieft sad retum =his a ubwkWm dna by mail' you may fax it to 61M78.0630. 441-L 1ViMl wIKxt "m *.2 7 .-0 III: Cbm up !• 5..#1 ,SMirles 9 + tmc per i dk&g C$ r,. I '1 j! 3 0 • swum ®?.?. + Na per balft r7 A lnnw. 16'1 PLEASE PRINT NAM S2 Comma to schuhle service: - , r A 190!4 Coo" !bwe number. (147-1... asy -- - BIId.I1dG ADD14ESS (if differed from *NWI to: L C. Ehrlich Co., Iac. Bird CoWd Division PO Box 1364E R,e"O& PA 19612.3646 of 99"76-,400 7-07,- X 6-D TltL 'W, 7, -'dZi lobo. ? ??s? r b, EXHIBIT "C" NN NN NF+1•+F+r rr r rr x000000000 A W NrO?OmJmVtA W NrOt0mJ01 tnA W Nr w rt rt w w rt Y w w w w Y w rt Y w hl 'i1 • * rw w A n r x 0 0 w 0 K 01 N r w 0 P. rt r R N r w n \ \ x i P)• eJ OOD m • rt r A w N O " w w w 01000 w w » In B • w q ro w y R to w IMJI NNNto T rt m q O O O O W N N + w I'1 ,b, AAAA WlD tO • w a NN N!n axr r w H W W W W& O rt cY 00000000 w m r m m . rt Co rt » q N N r N N k J A%0 rr Wm0 rt 11 Nt001a A r m * 0 A * H w m . rt \ w r A N A } w N \\ \ k m 00 O o rt m w A WA w \\ \ w 00 0 0 m w h1 to %D ?o + » ". w N • * E w w a, to rt N O O N rt N 01 A ?0 • rt II r N r rt Ky + rt H N m VI • k ID O1 O O r ?• I I 1 » 0 J * 0 r m r W N r x r O W \0 + rt H o r rt N rt w to * A o w m r w w rt rt rt rt w w rt» rt w w r rt Y; w rt rt Y r r w r rt rt »• R ro x »• rx R Ew #1 r. 00 10 A Hw tJ p m Hw??++H WNM D tl- ?+ o 'aiOa *x OOD J 0 rt r + IgC'p 1-1 t10 MHO` *• w. M `C W. lO + N m 0 O M rt CJ I Nmr (r 0 r. x A 01? pl N *± f.. N Y . UI(n xR x *• 00 Yw rt m 0 ». n 0 rt. I-I O I••I p r + rt• N N r C R 0) OD ik M *• N O IQ t » A ro m R R *• x 0 *• N O J *• \ \ tl Y ? } w c H Y' r R \ \m roa *• o yf7 ?D a W w to rt rt. M R rt+ ? rt• y w. 0 rtm C rt N r 4 n co ?D %O R 01 r . r at M m * u r a Ao :+ O O R x w I m *• to rt J r d r * O m OO\ * lp R •• \ w • b .. W r w . w oo r+ trl ..\rt• a A r r 0 H m ON o kc » r *m w rt rt rt Y w w rt r» rt» w w ODD r?• nro . ?n W 30 bN11 G r? M n M N ?i N N N N C a 0 0 m 0 N ory r0r N F ro R M x r N n x 0 r °o O QI W fY 0 r wr N N N N N r r x x r r r r x x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A W Nr OtOmJ O?UI A W NrOlOma O1 UI A W Nr N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A W Nr OtDmJO?UIP W NN OtOmJ01NA W Nr r* fi w rt rt+** fi r w rt rt+* rt**+ r rt rt w w O w rt M ly j N W R to x?pp1 m m j w iP n N r K ?',w 7tly * H'O N } rt N L+1 O O Nero W N M 5?C1 rt+ N C fi• W y w 0 k \ \ O O 1010 rt p N• N N d p m H H N N * `C r •* NK N N a m W N C1N r r W o o m N- ;a dN A w r N to • * n rl-IwNrr•IwN r ul tq'}ry00*: ? 03 * ro 02000100 O NR Z + * ?+1H hl 'Vmm 'Vro 'J Ix-IGO roHH ++ w tril9 w www ww w Cmm I-I?OO +• ON rt n 0 O'q d r *• o * yK rtr<to N r @1`C '.6 M N r ro r O H • * KS to r Nl7m *• p rt 0/ N A iP N 01 0' 01 m •• l0 * ' K + * C7 'y 01010 t0 t0 w ww m K O *+ * a mA JJ J N Nr rb N- N + •• •• ? * N 01 0 m 01 M O& W w r W x A O * %ro r W* ta M Q + H O H m G ++ 0< K + hl r wN r wN rr".f < 'J * 'o rt J J m N w m w o w ww < K w'• N fi I PJln N Ol O J 0-OD OD M * x r r O 10 N• r H m K o : n rt r ? ? ? N J It ++ x t• ? w m o 0 0 o W n iC r• i m ?0 N ro O• r. ,b f] rt o w 00 to * ? e 1o to co W * to r w ale r . rt E \ •• rt rt• o q rt m m » d C chi + m \ * r w w 4 (1 m * r * N M m to m r C R OD *• o • rt N m J W J to m t \ r ro yy dl iP rt. O + w H r r to to 3 W to r+ co • + N at 01 Ot J K r w * + < I i I I ?L .. m i s r ro w N rl rt O y ? J tq J * C * m r d r * w N o w r o m 00% . * 3 r w to K •. \ * . •• rt p to b w r+ r } rt ip w w o o t+ to r . \ rt . w w cD a a• r r 10 w. * .n J r m ON 010 *. * w m w w m + r** rt rt w w* r** rt rt t rt** rt rt+* rt r w w N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a W Nr 0 %0 m Jmtn PW Nr 0W OD JmN PW Nr N N N N N H r H r r H r r r H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iP W NH 0\Om JO\tn Na W NH OIDm JO\U1A W Nr 4 rt 4 rt w rt 4 w 4 k rt 4 w 4 w rt 4 rt k rt r 4* rt * 4 /ti•• d N 4 . m W J q? o * K1 hl f? 47 w H b to + * tl pN O O w 10 W N Ntl y+ H 01 r O W. N N dJ m H W H H H * °mC r rt HR w N W. m W [r?H 0En 4 w A \ \ f? c* G] b Z 7N H * C Ci r» r h] co a°o m O O G31 yy ?pd w r mC 9?C w rP 19 C 0 ?P w . YP * P W NH Hw to HH W N In M??11 rt O? r ro 0 0 0v0 0 0 00 tl K 7.., 4• N O + * aH .4"d0-V01000 wro-nftj. vhtl?N Hdo+ * ?8 www www ww ro * 10 w. m * U0 4 ?cr HHC t0 * N N * Ay O W••d 4N Hro U1 ? f1 O 17 [9 rt o ti rt• w • * b (n HHHIn CN +' 0 * N N ?o t0 ?o m N ?P A m ?O w. ct + r p Y knlnMCn o coo omm R o + * W o 0 o r J J J r m m? W N y. m • rt H A A•P NHrH VI HH K H N +• ? 4 m oooommmomm :w 7xPro C w 4 m ? m A *' R w• r y tP II c1 + H + + n?j C rr r M w tow W NH WK) `i K rt. MH C * x • w J &Gl w co w tnm JN& w N %D U1 W W HJN V1wol tsH Na * O ro 4 Y• w 'P xl r H m w t • + m rr ct rt H O rt r N a J *+ + 4 m \ \ b u 4, n rt i m N ct o b n w s o N * ,V co w li rt N * r ? N * 33 *. m *• w C H A + w Y• En rr w + 4 E \ . w a. o r y y w m m 4 hl r C 4 m \ * r `o n r r 4 N VI 0% ?O cT co w II O J to W & *' \ * ro rt. o rt + ?o %D ?: m o m n? N w w • + w y * oa J ? ? * J W * m H d r * w m w w o o m 4• o •• \ * •• rt ?o r ?o to r t rt o o ?o w ?v .. w r*• H + » ? ° ,P m ? w 00 4+ mr * m w w SD H H o * o H 0) m o to r m k 4 m r w w 4 w* w* 4 w 4 4 4 r w 4 w r r 4 r* 4* w w N N N N N H r r r l••• r r r H r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & w N H O%D OD J 01 Ln •P wN H 0 %D OD J4 mLq w NH 1 N N N N N r r r r r r 1... r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P W Nr Obm?l 01 UI P W NrObm.101171 P W Nr r r rt w r w rt rt w rt r w**** rt* r* r rt* w r y r au to * w hl 41 b r. m r• W (((??? M N m N r P Y r r r R R 'to w 'Jd *• '4 ?C1 N + w II [+7 wNr rr o .1 10 LqN'l. P7 r+ r U1 w A % \\\ \\ \ O O V1 b G" * a U1 r w rR r- P. rrPar Nu r to 0"' p m H H HH r• K r m r ??++H AH w N n r A \\\ \\ •• R GI 7. A: r IL r r a 000 0- o M r-?0 rt r qq b b b m co m O O ? ?*. } r p H H H HH W NrH U10 r• O O y+y+y? y'j'?.z??•, zz w N 0 + r ?+J tl CCC C.CMMWCHCO *+ ' y. r r b? m H * ?o O g w. o * I„I roF+ C b * N N w \ A a O w r to r ro Cpl ''C r• b w O h V1 !1 O G7 r W w p Ln } K7 Ul d (E 1 y R } N ry N J rr P. In r •• b P W N O b m R O rt+ +} d y O 0 b b • } p, rat W OUIPPP W ? a N w 70 r a r• N r. m } ly owm OD rwww0R r *• ''C k N 0.4%0 O OD P W W O rt W W m E.0 O r R rt m ON O *' 9 r. } m w• r ro * H p ++ n C rt M wwwrrr W Nr p C w. ?+]r w v ao j(nwwo Ul a Pb< R t w [4 • rt N O NPOOb01 W rrae M w 'x P w O ? dl r- w ? Z1 w fop R R } . H O w r t•? P P r N J .? w+ m oor o a n r m w r m P R ry w * 000 0 m Y n r L, r hl b b m b H } In w g $3 !t3'?? H A • rt p H H '?1 H ?Q m *' } w M y + rt m y ad w . w E \ .. r • r O * r Ot } ? r (I\ rt r N P r r O m r r r N P J O to R a, * O r II J W ut P co rt. \ y ro w. o N N r W ?? a b r+ b ± w N P 01 m W R r W k. } w < I i i i z •. co H rt• rro * r' 3 rt o a ?+ C *a ••w } m r d r w w m } o m om }. o H w b R m U) H O oPw b •• w • r t* r m w m w o\r*+ W H r o w m m a r r o w o -l b r m m gi b *• } m * w co y} k w y} y rt w y rt rt y} rt r 4 M r} rt w r rt M rt w N N N N r r l-H r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 &W K)r 0 b m.10)UI P W Nrob OD 1(h U1 P W N) I-' f 1 N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P W Nr OtO ODV?UI .P W N r0?0 ODJ a1 Vi A W Nr rt rt rt?? M rt rt rt M rt? w rt rt? M rt? rt w M rt ?? 4 ? w 0 w R W J M X 7 rt m • ? ' W F R Kj ?.' y rt ry m N ? d• tl R w$ N 1 ',E b *' M + ' tl pro F•? fA w + ? w N n x UI W 0 ''Ay \\ o0 A t- . ', w. C a to • w Ow pm H H HH ?• `C r • * rR 0) 01 OD m N• H AV1 *• ? A \\ R R Z p w m ~ W m r L n * N t ?? ?o ?o 0 0 0 7 7D *. .• pa • 'p. I 9 H y Ln H * + ro x x? e R ? rt m O rt K1M 0 CChi H00 ro H W. *+ • * N'C o?lY .'1 r i3 y N R T N 7 9) w W n V 1 N w qO tO l7 b Y'G * O M w rt hJ Ky N y 0 O M l7 m * rt r• y rt m tl rr m.• tv rt R p mm W q w N i t ,• t a .. .. w FS o o R r + • G rt W w m m o o rt W M p C r m ON b * n * * r R ro ? * m Y H • 0 O * + A C rt i h] ?w? G * R o ? tl CC O? OD # H r 03 * 3 p y ? 03 .p rt O O d1 'U w M ?P m rt 70 t" rt • rt n m R R ?: ? m n M pC + i d `C * + M m m n *• * m R tj rt . m n ?. * i M In M m tt M to * w 0 H n *• s p Z w ? m H q m rt rt + w w r • m !p R -W r + *• . rt rt O rt 'y 'y M Oi O1 l y rr M O \ i w N CQ i m R 0% ? w r O rt Y y * \ rt ro 'y 01 iP w . O + rt fS 9 W w rt+ w rt * m G R r w ? m i. • * * F'• O ? M r ro O W m w .1 lq i r d r w w m rt o m om rt. o rt r r w R \ rt [a * W to in w •• w r w . } 0 0107 W O\ y+ O r * • w R o w • r r 0 rt• rt O N c or ON ON woo rt• k m k ? rt * m w rt w rt M r rt* w? rt rt rt rt*?? w* rt w w rt rt rt? N N N N N r r r r r r r r r F. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & W Nr 0 t0 Co ?3 (h Lq & W Nr 0 ko OD ?4 M L"& W Nr VERIFICATION bCllll d "re.tca , Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of J.C Ehrlich Company, Inc., verify that the attached Complaint is based upon information which I have furnished to my counsel and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the defense of the within lawsuit. The language of the Complaint is that of counsel. I have read the attached Complaint and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the attached Complaint is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. J. C. EHRLICH COMPANY, INC. By: David Wareing, Chief Financial Officer & Secretary DAU MAR 2 5 2010_ REINSTATE COWI LAINT N E. FARINA, PROTHONOTARY c MNSTATF COMPLMNT OTM SEP 1 8 2009 AUG 3 1 2009_ t.A#t!(cN E, i'.itzRINA, P ROM01"14"OTARY Di4il B , yO LANAT ???1 dTATP .. ARY LEISAWITZ HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: Charles J. Phillips, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 39260 By: Matthew M. Mayer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 202678 2755 Century Boulevard Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 372-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff -b Shari f E c? .sa > ?. N cn J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff V. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION --LAW : NO. 2009-CV-09374-CV : ASSIGNED TO: PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly reinstate the Complaint for Confession of Judgment. LEISAWITZ HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: MA Charles J. Phillip squire 2755 Century Blvd. Wyomissing, PA 19610 610-372-3500 610-372-8671 (fax) 236895 IMAGED LEISAWITZ HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: Charles J. Phillips, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 39260 By: Matthew M. Mayer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 202678 2755 Century Boulevard' Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 372-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff V. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION --LAW : NO. 2009-CV-09374-CV : ASSIGNED TO: PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly reinstate the Complaint in the above captioned matter. LEISAWITZ HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: C ps, Esquire ? ^= 2755 Century Blvd. y xa Wyomissing, PA 19610 c (A C _?-nrn 610-372-3500 ) 8671 (f 610 372 ZZ ='tnry co ax - - Z CI) ;*q W. = y,: = 0 -Z.4 -C -< J ; 236895 cf)tfix-t- of Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Depu William T. Tully Solicitor F: 't Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin 6 ? 4,x • ? ¢? r Charles E. Sheaffer Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY INC VS THOMAS E MARTIN, JR Sheriff s Return No. 2009-CV-09374-CV I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of the County of Dauphin, State of Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return, that I made diligent search and inquiry for THOMAS E MARTIN, JR the DEFENDANT named in the within COMPLAINT and that I am unable to find him/her in the County of Dauphin, and therefore return same NOT FOUND, AUGUST 24, 2009. PER CHESTER COUNTY, THREE ATTEMPTS MADE AT: 201 SOUTH BROAD ST, PO BOX 392, KENNETT SQUARE, PA 19348. OFFICE CLOSED, NO ANSWER. So Answers, Deputy: COUNTY OTHER Plaintiff. J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY INC Sheriffs Costs: $50 7/28/2009 Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pa. f'n tr- O 3'` G ?i or S N c 1. Ce t1itt of th e Sill cr Ur r -f Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully t Solicitor Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin Charles E. Sheaffer Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY INC VS THOMAS E MARTIN, JR Sheriff s Return No. 2009-CV-09374-CV 1 I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of the County of Dauphin, State of Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return, that I made diligent search and inquiry for THOMAS E MARTIN, JR the DEFENDANT named in the within REINSTATED COMPLAINT and that I am unable to find him/her in the County of Dauphin, and therefore return same NOT FOUND, OCTOBER 12, 2009. PER CHESTER COUNTY, 4 ATTEMPTS MADE AT: 329 LAMBORNTOWN RD, WEST GROVE, PA 19390., NO ANSWER OR RESPONSE TO CALL BACK CARDS LEFT. Deputy: COUNTY OTHER Plaintiff: J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY INC Sheriffs Costs: $50 9/8/2009 So Answers, h,, O C c`'3 M Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pa.' a o < S!i Q1 LEISAWITZ HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: Charles J. Phillips, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 39260 By: Matthew M. Mayer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 202678 2755 Century Boulevard Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 372-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff V. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., Defendant Ej ._ i b r i? NOV -1 AN 9: 30 7 R_WU IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION --LAW : NO. 2009-CV-09374-CV : ASSIGNED TO: PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly reinstate the Complaint in the above captioned matter. LEISAWITZ HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: 6A LALl Charles J. illips, Esquire 2755 Century Blvd. Wyomissing, PA 19610 610-372-3500 610-372-8671 (fax) 236895 ??? M1µ fr?. b Mtfirt- of 1t1e,*4v%rrff Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Depu ; William T. Tully Solicitor Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin Charles E. Sheaffer Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY INC VS THOMAS E MARTIN, JR Sheriff s Return No. 2009-CV-09374-CV 2 I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of the County of Dauphin, State of Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return, that I made diligent search and inquiry for THOMAS E MARTIN, JR the DEFENDANT named in the within REINSTATED COMPLAINT and that I am unable to find him/her in the County of Dauphin, and therefore return same NOT FOUND, NOVEMBER 16, 2009. PER CUMBERLAND COUNTY, CURRENT TENANT SANDRA GOSHORN, AT: 1215 MCCORMICK RD, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055., STATED DEFT DOES NOT LIVE THERE, BUT STATED THE DEFT DOES LIVE AT: 201 S. BROAD ST, KENNETT SQUARE, PA 19348 AND CAN BE REACHED AT: 610-444-0285. So Answers, Deputy: COUNTY OTHER Plaintiff: J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY INC Sheriffs Costs: $50 11/5/2009 IMAGED LEISAWITZ HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: Charles J. Phillips, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 39260 By: Matthew M. Mayer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 202678 2755 Century Boulevard Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 372-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff _C:EIVEU F ICE OF ,4C'NOTARY ?010 MAR 25 AM 9' 55 iIIN COUNTY PENNA J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff V. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION --LAW : NO. 2009-CV-09374-CV : ASSIGNED TO: Defendant PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly reinstate the Complaint in the above captioned matter. LEISAWITZ HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: L? (:p ? Charles J. Philli , Esq 're 2755 Century Blvd. Wyomissing, PA 19610 610-372-3500 610-372-8671 (fax) (00236895 )236895 r r ` ra i-nm ""Cf .r.... = -nn THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., pro se 201 S. Broad Street, P. 0. Box 392 r a : Kennett Square, PA 19348 phone 610 444-0285 -` fax 610 444-5460 J.C.EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION No. 2009 - CV - 09374 - CV THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND NEW MATTER Notice to Plead To the Plaintiff: You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter within 20 days after service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. ---------- -------- Thomas E. Martin, Jr., pro se 1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND NEW MATTER 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part and DENIED in part. It is admitted that Defendant agreed with Plaintiff for Plaintiff to install anti-pigeon netting and to eradicate a feral pigeon population at the farm owned in part by the Defendant. It is denied that Defendant was advised of the full cost in advance or that he agreed to pay such an estimated cost. It is further DENIED that the document attached as Exhibit "A" to the Complaint is a true and correct copy of any contract. On the contrary, attached hereto, marked Exhibit "D", and incorporated herein by reference thereto is a true and correct copy of the only work order signed by the Defendant, which DID NOT CONTAIN any cost estimate. The numbers shown on Exhibit "A" must have been added to the document after it was signed by the Defendant. 6. Denied. The proposal was indefinite concerning the total cost for the work to be done. In fact, the proposal referred to three buildings (not six) and failed to indicate the total cost. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. The total cost of the services provided was $7,295.00 plus tax plus $10,467.50. 2 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. The services were accepted subject to the written offers and estimates, which were not fulfilled. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT 13. Defendant hereby incorporates the responses to paragraphs 1 through 12 above as though the same were set forth fully at length herein. 14. Denied. The services were not "100% effective" as represented in the Proposal. 15. Denied. The services were not "100% effective" as represented in the Proposal. 16. Denied. Plaintiff agreed that the work would be billed to the Defendant 90 days after completion of the work. 17. Denied. Exhibit "C" is a computer printout of Plaintiff's records as to the account, not true and correct copies of invoices. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant believes and avers that the charges made for the services rendered were not fair or reasonable for the services provided, and they were not the prices agreed to by the Defendant. 19. Admitted in part and Denied in part. Defendant has admitted that some amount of money is due to the Plaintiff and will make additional payment to the Plaintiff upon resolution of the actual amount owed. 20. Admitted. 3 21. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant and Plaintiff have not entered into any agreements as to when payment would be made. 22. Denied generally as a conclusion of law. 23. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant owes some amount of money to the Plaintiff. The Defendant does not know how the figure of $11,149.45 was arrived at by the Plaintiff. 24. Admitted in part and denied in part. The services and materials offered by the Plaintiff were provided at the farm. However, they failed to conform to the representations made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. 25. Admitted in part and denied in part. The Defendant has, despite Plaintiff's repeated requests and demands, failed to pay the amount demanded because that amount is disputed and has not been resolved. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the court determine the amount owed to the Plaintiff. COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT 26. Defendant hereby incorporates the responses to paragraphs 1 through 25 above as though the same were set forth fully at length herein. 27. Admitted in part and Denied in part. The work done by the Plaintiff was requested by the farm manager of the Defendant and it was done according to representations made by Plaintiff's employees. However, it did not meet the representations and promises made in the Proposals. 28. Admitted. 29. Admitted. 30. Denied generally as a conclusion of law. 4 31. Denied generally as a conclusion of law. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the court determine the amount owed to the Plaintiff. COUNT III QUANTUM MERUIT 32. Defendant hereby incorporates the responses to paragraphs 1 through 31 above as though the same were set forth fully at length herein. 33. Admitted. [Paragraphs 34 through 38 do not appear in the Complaint.] 39. [sic] Admitted in part and denied in part. The Defendant requested the services offered in the original Proposals in accordance with their terms. The services were not "accepted" because they did not conform to the offer made of "100% effectiveness." 40. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant still owes some sum of money to the Plaintiff. It is denied that the amount claimed in the Complaint is owed. 41. Denied generally as a conclusion of law. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the court determine the amount owed to the Plaintiff. NEW MATTER s 42. In order to eradicate a feral pigeon infestation of certain farm buildings of the Defendant on property in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Plaintiff was engaged to install certain netting and other protective devices on the buildings recommended by the Plaintiff as sufficient to eliminate the problem. 43. In both Proposals the Plaintiff promised and agreed that the netting would be "100% effective in prohibiting the birds from accessing their current nesting locations." (page 2) 44. On or about August 29, 2008, Plaintiff offered to conduct such pest eradication for the following costs: a) Trapping - $680.00 plus tax b) Netting - $1,930.00 plus tax for each of 3 buildings, for a total cost of $5,790.00 plus tax c) Clean out/ exclusion - $275.00 plus tax for each of 3 buildings, for a total cost of $825.00 plus tax, for a total cost of $7,295.00 plus tax. 45. Defendant agreed to have Plaintiff conduct their eradication program on or about October 3, 2008 46. Notwithstanding the representations of the Plaintiff, the feral pigeons returned to their previous locations and new ones as well. 47. In late October, 2008, Plaintiff advised the Defendant's farm manager that due to a lull in work they could begin a second phase of the project immediately upon request by the Defendant. 48. Defendant told Plaintiff that due to financial conditions he was unable to pay for any of the work immediately. 45. Defendant agreed to allow Plaintiff to perform the second phase of the work if Plaintiff agreed to a 90 day delay in payment. 46. Defendant agreed to wait 90 days after completion of the work before being paid in full. 6 47. Defendant agreed to provide and provided a charge card number to the Plaintiff so that a deposit in the amount of $2,616.88 could be deducted from Defendant's account. 48. Defendant assumed that such money had been received by the Plaintiff since the Plaintiff never advised the Defendant that it had not been received. 49. Only months later did the Defendant learn and realize that the deposit had not been charged to Defendant's account and so the entire outstanding balance for the work was unpaid. 50. Plaintiff advised that the charge had not been made only after the Defendant inquired why it had not appeared on his account statements. 51. The Defendant made payments as follows: a) $4,800.00 to the Plaintiff on or about February 2, 2009, and b) an additional payment of $3,000.00 on or about April 1, 2009, by two checks, one dated two days later, or April 3, 2009. 52. Defendant has paid Plaintiff already the total sum of $7,800.00 for work performed. 53. This action concerns a contract which was accepted in Chester County, Pennsylvania. 54. Performance of the contract which was the subject matter of this action was in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 55. The Defendant was served in Chester County, Pennsylvania. 56. The only nexus between this action and Dauphin County is that the Plaintiff has its office and place of business in Dauphin County. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the court determine the amount 7 owed to the Plaintiff. April 26, 2010 Thomas E. Martin, Jr. VERIFICATION I hereby verify that all of the averments above are true and correct, based partly upon personal knowledge and partly upon information received and believed. I make this verification subject to the penalties of 18 P.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Thomas E. Martin, Jr. 8 08/09/08 13:18 '8`610 478 0630 S er t . 2008 a J C EHRLICH 0 006 717 `i'??- 03q 7 The J_ C. EHRLICH CO., INC_, Bird Control Division, will provide the following control service(s), as outlined in our proposal letter dated August 29, 2008. Please check the services you want performed / complete and return this authorization sheet by mail* or you may fax it to 610-478-0630. L Population Reduction / Trapping @ $680.00 + tax _4 11. Netting/Exclusion Option 1- Plastic Netting @ $X260.00+ tax per building Option 2 - Polyethylene Netting L $1930.00 + tax per building M. Clean Up tExclusion eQr $27.5.00 + tax per soffit area per building AUTHORIZATION: PLEASE PRINT NAME r, V* 14-1 K , ZY DATE: )U 3 ??? P. O. # Contact to schedule service: SSC?' .r'\- L? tyn Contact phone number: ('17 )_ itsq 13 Fn BILLING ADDRESS (if different from above): 4JQ 31.?f 1 A rn?ro r M'dttwYt *Mail to: J. C. Ehrlich Co., Inc. Bird Control Division PO Box 13848 Reading, PA 19612-3848 THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. Attorney At Law MARTIN LAW OFFICES, LLP 201 S. BROAD STREET PHONE: (610) 444.0285 POST OFFICE BOX 392 FAX: (610) 444.5460 KENNETT SQUARE, PA 19348 0(m arr 1 `D11 THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. pro se 201 S. Broad Street, P.O.Box 392 Kennett Square, PA. 19348 (610) 444-0285 J.C.EHRLICH COMPANY, INC. Plaintiff VS. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. Defendant x ""ED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION No. 2009 - CV - 09374 - CV JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that in this case a true copy of the Defendant's Answer to Complaint and New Matter was served on April 26, 2010, upon the Plaintiff's counsel and all unrepresented parties by ordinary United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Charles J. Phillips, Esquire Leisawitz Heller Abramowitch Phillips, P.C. 2755 Century Boulevard Wyomissing, PA 19610 THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. pro se o 0 D o -? C7 a ?p April 26, 2010 r lz-iE N - m Zr, 2nr45 fi 2>t7 a. O < ? O ? `rt C O 0 THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., pro se 201 S. Broad Street, P. 0. Box 392 Kennett Square, PA 19348 phone 610 444-0285 fax 610 444-5460 J.C.EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff VS. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION No. 2009 - CV - 09374 - CV JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND now, this _______ day of ___________, 2010, after consideration of the Preliminary Objection filed in this matter, the Objection is sustained. This matter shall be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, upon payment of any costs by Plaintiff only. BY THE COURT, J. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., pro se 201 S. Broad Street, P. 0. Box 392 Kennett Square, PA 19348 phone 610 444-0285 fax 610 444-5460 J.C.EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff VS. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. Defendant 71, N O -C d C> zc, D c a ?n o 'z C = ,? O fit C'0 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION No. 2009 - CV - 09374 - CV JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBIECTION 1. This action concerns a contract which was accepted in Chester County, Pennsylvania. 2. Performance of the contract which was the subject matter of this action was in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The Defendant was served in Chester County, Pennsylvania. 4. The only nexus between this action and Dauphin County is that the Plaintiff has its office and place of business in Dauphin County. Wherefore, Defendant does object to venue in this action and moves that IL r the matter be transferred to Cumberland County for further proceedings. Thomas E. Martin, Jr. pro se April 26, 2010 VERIFICATION I hereby verify that all of the averments above are true and correct, based partly upon personal knowledge and partly upon information received and believed. I make this verification subject to the penalties of 18 P.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Thomas E. Martin, Jr. t THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., pro se 201 S. Broad Street, P. 0. Box 392 Kennett Square, PA 19348 phone 610 444-0285 fax 610 444-5460 J.C.EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff VS. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. Defendant Co IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION No. 2009 - CV - 09374 - CV • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND now, this _______ day of ________, 2010, after consideration of the Preliminary Objection filed in this matter, the Objection is sustained. This matter shall be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, upon payment of any costs by Plaintiff only. BY THE COURT, ---------------------------- J. a tV ° -g THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., pro se ?p O O ; 201 S. Broad Street, P. 0. Box 392 Z Cn ° Kennett Square, PA 19348 °M phone 610 444-0285 o ' fax 610 444-5460 co J.C.EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff VS. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION No. 2009 - CV 09374 - CV JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 1. This action concerns a contract which was accepted in Chester County, Pennsylvania. 2. Performance of the contract which was the subject matter of this action was in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The Defendant was served in Chester County, Pennsylvania. 4. The only nexus between this action and Dauphin County is that the Plaintiff has its office and place of business in Dauphin County. Wherefore, Defendant does object to venue in this action and moves that the matter be transferred to Cumberland County for further proceedings. e M4- ? Thomas E. Martin, Jr. pro se April 26, 2010 VERIFICATION I hereby verify that all of the averments above are true and correct, based partly upon personal knowledge and partly upon information received and believed. I make this verification subject to the penalties of 18 P.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Thomas E. Martin, Jr. > U O Ti THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., pro se 3-; oQ 201 S. Broad Street P. 0. Box 392 " CD Kennett Square, PA 19348 Ao % 3M- CD phone 610 444-0285 z C VcDr7 -n C7, fax 610 444-5460 o ---------------------------------------------- A J.C.EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION No. 2009 - CV - 09374 - CV THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. . Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS This action arose from a contract dispute between the Plaintiff, a pest services company, and the Defendant, part owner of a farm in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. In August, 2008, Defendant's farm manager contacted Plaintiff to inquire concerning help in eradication of a feral pigeon problem at the farm. Plaintiff inspected the situation and made a written proposal for the work, which Defendant did not immediately accept. 0 In October, 2008, Defendant finally accepted the offer by signing it in Chester County, Pennsylvania, and sending a fax copy of it to the Plaintiff. The offer and acceptance were ambiguous, in the view of the Defendant, but that ambiguity which gave rise to this dispute is not the subject of this objection. In any event, the Plaintiff performed substantial and valuable services pursuant to the complaint, but all such services were performed in Cumberland County, and none were performed in Dauphin County where this suit was filed. In fact, there is no connection between Dauphin County and this dispute except that Plaintiff conducts business here and has an office here. Defendant later filed suit but was unable to serve the Defendant in Dauphin County and the Sheriff of Chester County was deputized to effect service. Service was made April 7, 2010, in Chester County, Pennsylvania. ISSUE Does proper venue for this matter lie in Dauphin County? ARGUMENT No. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006 provides, inter alia, that "(a) Except as otherwise provided by subdivision (b) and (c) of this rule [which are not.relevant to this matter], an action against an individual may be brought in and only in a county in which (1) the individual may be served or in which the cause of action arose or where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose or in any other county authorized by law ...." In this matter the Defendant was served in Chester County. The cause of action arose in Cumberland County because all of the performance by the Plaintiff under the contract was done in Cumberland County. a ? ' s The transaction or occurrence out of which the cause of action arose took place in Chester County. It is hornbook law that a contract is made where it is accepted. In this case, the contract was accepted in Chester County. Therefore, the action may be brought only in Chester County or Cumberland County. Defendant has no objection to either of those two counties for venue and suggests that Cumberland County is more appropriate for venue since witnesses concerning the work (with the exception of the Defendant) would find that venue more convenient than Chester County. CONCLUSION Wherefore, Defendant prays that the matter be transferred to Cumberland County. Thomas E. Martin, Jr. pro se April 26, 2010 THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., pro se 201 S. Broad Street, P. 0. Box 392 Kennett Square, PA 19348 phone 610 444-0285 fax 610 444-5460 J.C.EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff VS. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. Defendant 0 o -? ? C= o®: -?? -? _-n? rn `7 , z o m IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION No. 2009 - CV - 09374 - CV JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS This action arose from a contract dispute between the Plaintiff, a pest services company, and the Defendant, part owner of a farm in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. In August, 2008, Defendant's farm manager contacted Plaintiff to inquire concerning help in eradication of a feral pigeon problem at the farm. Plaintiff inspected the situation and made a written proposal for the work, which Defendant did not immediately accept. CO(? In October, 2008, Defendant finally accepted the offer by signing it in Chester County, Pennsylvania, and sending a fax copy of it to the Plaintiff. The offer and acceptance were ambiguous, in the view of the Defendant, but that ambiguity which gave rise to this dispute is not the subject of this objection. In any event, the Plaintiff performed substantial and valuable services pursuant to the complaint, but all such services were performed in Cumberland County, and none were performed in Dauphin County where this suit was filed. In fact, there is no connection between Dauphin County and this dispute except that Plaintiff conducts business here and has an office here. Defendant later filed suit but was unable to serve the Defendant in Dauphin County and the Sheriff of Chester County was deputized to effect service. Service was made April 7, 2010, in Chester County, Pennsylvania. ISSUE Does proper venue for this matter lie in Dauphin County? No. ARGUMENT Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006 provides, inter alia, that "(a) Except as otherwise provided by subdivision (b) and (c) of this rule [which are not relevant to this matter], an action against an individual may be brought in and only in a county in which (1) the individual may be served or in which the cause of action arose or where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose or in any other county authorized by law ...." In this matter the Defendant was served in Chester County. The cause of action arose in Cumberland County because all of the performance by the Plaintiff under the contract was done in Cumberland County. The transaction or occurrence out of which the cause of action arose took place in Chester County. It is hornbook law that a contract is made where it is accepted. In this case, the contract was accepted in Chester County. Therefore, the action may be brought only in Chester County or Cumberland County. Defendant has no objection to either of those two counties for venue and suggests that Cumberland County is more appropriate. for venue since witnesses concerning the work (with the exception of the Defendant) would find that venue more convenient than Chester County. CONCLUSION Wherefore, Defendant prays that the matter be transferred to Cumberland County. e W4. Thomas E. Martin, Jr. pro se April 26, 2010 t a., THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. pro se 201 S. Broad Street, P.O.Box 392 Kennett Square, PA. 19348 (610) 444-0285 J.C.EHRLICH COMPANY, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff VS. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. Defendant DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION No. 2009 - CV - 09374 - CV JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that in this case a true copy of the Defendant's Preliminary Objection, Brief in Support of Preliminary Objection, and proposed Order was served on April 26, 2010, upon the Plaintiff's counsel and all unrepresented parties by ordinary United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Charles J. Phillips, Esquire Leisawitz Heller Abramowitch Phillips, P.C. 2755 Century Boulevard Wyomissing, PA 19610 & ?01;, 0 ? THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. pro se April 26, 2010 C? 0 o© A o Z p Z Mao = ni o -? a r- < c J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff V. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., Defendant AND NOW, this day of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -- LAW NO. 2009-CV-09374-CV ORDER , 2010, upon consideration of the following Petition of Plaintiff to transfer this action to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, it is hereby ORDERED that the said Petition of Plaintiff is GRANTED and this action, given the Civil Action number of 2009-CV-09374-CV, shall be transferred from the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Said action shall then proceed in accordance with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon transfer of the action to Cumberland County, Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days to file a response to Defendant's Answer with New Matter. BY THE COURT: J. 0' " {00285409 1 LEISAWITz HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: Charles J. Phillips, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 39260 By: Matthew M. Mayer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 202678 2755 Century Boulevard Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 372-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., V. Plaintiff THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., Defendant r} 1" J!A Ga E F , :P N O , 4 C__ ? CDCD7C, CD 7;M - M s c ?r,. ® s o ?° CO V?J cn .91 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION --LAW NO. 2009-CV-09374-CV PETITION TO TRANSFER ACTION FROM COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY 1. J.C. Ehrlich Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Petitioner"), is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having a place of business located 1539 Bobaly Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17104. 2. Thomas E. Martin, Jr. (hereinafter "Defendant"), is an adult individual who resides in West Grove, Pennsylvania 19390. 3. On or about July 24, 2009, Petitioner filed a Complaint against Defendant for . breach of contract, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, as a result of unpaid invoices for services provided by Petitioner to Defendant. 4. Defendant responded to the Complaint by filing an Answer with New Matter on or about April 26, 2010, as well as Preliminary Objections, also filed on April 26, 2010, seeking to transfer the matter to Cumberland County or Chester County. {00285409 } 5. The basis of the transfer to Cumberland County is that it is the situs of the performance of the contract. 6. Petitioner attempted to contact Defendant so as to stipulate to transferring the case to Cumberland County, but has been advised that Defendant is out of the country. 7. In accord with the relief requested in Defendant's Order attached to his Preliminary Objections to transfer the matter to Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Petitioner seeks to have this matter transferred accordingly. A copy of Defendant's proposed Order is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". 8. Upon transfer to Cumberland County, Petitioner seeks to have twenty (20) days with which to respond to the Answer with New Matter filed simultaneously with the Preliminary Objections. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the within Petition and transfer the above-referenced matter to the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas consistent with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted, LEISAWITZ HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. By: Charles J. Phillip , squire Attorney I.D. No. 39260 By: Matthew M. Mayer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 202678 2755 Century Boulevard Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 372-3500 Attorneys for Plaintiff (00285409 ) EXHIBIT "A" THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., pro se 201 S. Broad Street, P. 0. Box 392 Kennett Square, PA 19348 phone 610 444-0285 fax 610 444-5460 J.C.EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff VS. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR. Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION No. 2009 - CV - 09374 - CV JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND now, this _______ day of ___________, 2010, after consideration of the Preliminary Objection filed in this matter, the Objection is sustained. This matter shall be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, upon payment of any costs by Plaintiff only. BY THE COURT, J. J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff V. THOMAS E. MARTIN, JR., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION --LAW NO. 2009-CV-09374-CV CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lori Binasiewicz, a paralegal with the law firm of Leisawitz Heller Abramowitch Phillips, P.C., hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition to Transfer, by mailing same by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on the 1$ day of May, 2010, to the following: Thomas E. Martin, Jr. 201 South Broad Street Kennett Square, PA 19348 LEISAWITz HELLER ABRAMOWITCH PHILLIPS, P.C. L r' Binasiewicz, Paralegal 55 Century Boulevard Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 372-3500 {00285409 } mtfirg of the Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Depu :._•:.•?: William T. Tully V t Solicitor Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin Charles E. Sheaffer Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY INC. VS THOMAS E MARTIN, JR Sheriff s Return No. 2009-CV-09374-CV 3 And now: APRIL 7, 2010 at 11:06:00 AM served the within REINSTATED COMPLAINT upon THOMAS E MARTIN, JR by personally handing to THOMAS E MARTIN, JR 1 true attested copy of the original REINSTATED COMPLAINT and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 201 SOUTH BROAD STREET (CHESTER CO.) KENNETT SQUARE PA 19348 So Answers, Deputy: COUNTY OTHER Plaintiff: J.C. EHRLICH COMPANY INC. Sheriffs Costs: $50 3/26/2010 Out Of County Cost: $46.60 CIVIL ASSIGNMENTS CASE NAME: JC Ehrlich v. Martin DOCKET NUMBER: 2009 CV 9374 MATTER ASSIGNED: Petition ASSIGNED JUDGE: Judge Cherry DATE OF ASSIGNMENT: May 21, 2010 Notes to Assigned Judge: Petition to Transfer Venue Deb Freeman DavidD. BueCC (Prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary Cum 6erCandfCounty, 1P- ennsy[vania rkS. Sofionage, fSQ Solicitor /6 - 36 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014, AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE — THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R.C.P.230.2. BY THE COURT, DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square 0 Suite100 ® Carlile, TA 0 (Phone 717 240-6195 0 'Tax 717 240-6573