Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-6386SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff ~a~~titr o1' ~nm~;cc~~~b Jody S Smith Chief Deputy C' ~-:'~: ~ ~~r Richard W Stewart ~ ~~~~'~ Solicitor ~a~F~cf ~,r,K~,.~ER~~~ Edirectconnect, Inc. vs. Case Number Marketlinkx Direct 2010-6386 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 10/08/2010 On this date Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff mailed the within Complaint and Notice by certified mail, return receipt requested to Marketlinkx Direct. 10/12/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he served the within Complaint and Notice upon the within named defendant, Marketlinkx Direct, in the following manner: On October 8, 2010 the Sheriff mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested a true and correct copy of the within Complaint and Notice to the defendant's last known address of 3650 Coral Ridge, Suite 105-106, Coral Springs, FL 33065. The certified mail return receipt card was received by the Cumberland County Sheriffs Office signed by and adult in charge on October 12, 2010. SHERIFF COST: $34.93 October 18, 2010 SO ANSWERS, ~~- RON R ANDERSOI~.,~SHERIFFb ~ o "~ -~ ~ o ---~ a© ~ ~ ~ mar= ~- --~ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~a x~ _ p ~ ~'!'t ~,',, ~ 0 ~ rTi r~,,~ ~' (c7 CountySuite Sherff, Teleosott. Inc. ^ Complels Iben~e 1 ~ 2. and 8. Also ~ompiaM ~ ' A ^~ r X ':~--.~`', ~.•'•/" O ^ Print you addreee on the reverse so that we crert return the c~nd to you. ^ Atta h hi d t th f th ~i l b k ~~ ~ ~ ~ s car o e m p ece, c t o e ac ~ ~„ ~ ,",, , or on the inxrt tf space perrrdts. . ^ D. Is deNvery eddroes dMferent from Item 1. Articb Addroeeed to: N YES, eater delivery address below: ~ Marketlinkx Direct 3650 Coral Ridge Suite 105-106 FL 33065" Coral Springs ~~ . , 3. Service lSrpe ^ certmed Mall ^ Express Mail ^ Registered D Fieturrr ror Mencharxilse ^ Insured Mail ^ C.O.D. 2 010- 6 3 86 4, Resa~ted oellveryr f>~raa Fes) ^ Yes ~ssrrke ?006 ~8 - - ---- -- - .,~ .,., Form 3$11, February 2004 DomestlcRetum Red ~~~~~,~~~Er~~~~~~r~~t~~~~rr~t#+ir~~#r: _.'~ ~ __ F F I i` 1 n r, Christopher E. Rice, Esquire fl H O V 18 All 11: ' << I.D. No. 90916 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FAEM L,J MARTSON LAW OFFICES Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff EDIRECTCONNECT, INC., Plaintiff V. MARKETLINKX DIRECT, Defendant To the Prothonotary: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 10-6386 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE Please enter the appearance of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER as attorneys for the Defendant, Marketlinkx Direct, Inc. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: 24 A S . /'z' Christopher E. Rice, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 90916 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Date: ?? who CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert P. Kline, Esquire 714 Bridge Street P.O. Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 MARTSON LAW OFFICES L'A 'a, (?2? By: A-W-4 2' M". Price Ten ast High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: ?? ?? ?U E. F:\FILES\ChenW14136 Marketlinkx\14136.1.ansI wpd MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant OF 1'KELPR0TNQ 0 TARY Christopher E. Rice, Esquire 2010 NOY 29 PM . Attorney I.D. No. 90916 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire CUMSERLANO COUNTY Attorney I.D. No. 203046 PENNSYLVANIA EDIRECT CONNECT, INC., Plaintiff, V. MARKETLINKX DIRECT, INC., Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 10-6386 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO: EDIRECT CONNECT, INC., and its attorney, ROBERT P. KLINE, ESQUIRE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. AND NOW, comes Defendant, Marketlinkx Direct, Inc., by and through its counsel, Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, and hereby answers Plaintiff's Complaint and states as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. Both Defendant's registered office and principal office are located at 3650 Coral Ridge Drive, Suite 105, Coral Springs, Florida. 3. Denied. The Universal Insertion Order is a document which speaks for itself. Any legal inferences attributed to the Agreement are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Denied. The data provided by Plaintiff failed to conform to either industry standards or to industry expectations. 0 5. Denied. The prices set forth in the Agreement are not fair and reasonable prices for the services performed. Furthermore, the Agreement is a document which speaks for itself 6. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the Agreement, Past Due Invoice Statement and other supporting invoices are documents which speaks for themselves. 7. Denied. The Past Due Invoice Statement is a document which speaks for itself. Furthermore, because Defendant denies that Plaintiff is due the amount claimed, the averment is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint contains an accurate quotation of a portion of the Agreement. It is denied that the Agreement provides that the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is the exclusive venue for this matter. Furthermore, the Agreement is a document which speaks for itself. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Marketlinkx Direct, Inc., demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff and that Plaintiff's civil action be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 9. Paragraphs 1 through 8 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein as is fully set forth at length. 10. Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiffprovided Defendant with lists containing, among other information, names, addresses and phone numbers for Defendant's use in telephone marketing. 11. In Defendant's business, data is described as "converting" if it provides a valid contact for Defendant's use in marketing. 12. Data does not convert if it results in, among other things, operator intercepts, fax machine numbers, disconnected numbers or tri-tone errors. 13. Defendant contacted Plaintiff in June 2010 to notify Plaintiff that the data provided by Plaintiff was not converting to either Defendant's expectations or industry standards. 14. From June 2010 through Plaintiff's initiation of this suit, Defendant attempted to resolve the insufficient data conversion with Defendant. 15. In August 2010, Defendant requested that Plaintiff stop delivery of the daily feed of data. r 16. Beginning in May 2010, the data provided by Plaintiff failed to conform to either Defendant's expectations or to industry standards. 17. Pursuant to industry standards and customs, prices for data provided to telephone marketers are adjusted based upon the conversion rates of data provided. 18. Because the data provided by Plaintiff failed to convert at adequate rates or adequately perform, Plaintiff is not entitled to the amounts claimed in its Complaint. 19. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 20. Plaintiff's claims are barred by justification. 21. Plaintiff's claims are barred by failure of consideration. Respectfully submitted, MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: J Christopher E. Rice, Esquire(/ Attorney I.D. No. 90916 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 203046 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: )) / Z9 ho Attorneys for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Joe Mazon, Vice President of Marketlinkx Direct, Inc., acknowledge that I have the authority to execute this Verification on behalf of Marketlinkx Direct, Inc., and certify that the foregoing Answer and New Matter is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of this document is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent the Answer and New Matter 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 the content of the Answer and New Matter is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. This statement and Verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. MARKEnINKX DIRECT, INC. By: Jo n, Vice President RIX EDIRECTCONNECT, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANIA C7 ? _ ^y VS. NO. 2010-6386 ?? ? ?r`- MARKETLINKX DIRECT, CIVIL TERM C - rn Defendant c:j ANSWER TO NEW MATTER -" AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Edirectconnect, Inc., by and through its counsel, Robert P. Kline, Esquire, and hereby answers Defendant's new matter and states as follows: 9. No response required. 10. Admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiff provided Defendant with data on a daily basis. However, Defendant was inconsistent in the frequency in which it uploaded the data to its own system, thereby potentially compromising its effectiveness. 11. Denied. Plaintiff is without specific knowledge as to the definition of the term "converting" as used in Defendant's call center business and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 12. Denied. Plaintiff is without specific knowledge as to the definition of the term "converting" as used in Defendant's call center business and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. By way of further answer, timeliness in the use of the data by the Defendant is also a variable that affects its effectiveness. 13. Admitted in part; denied in part. Admitted that Plaintiff contacted Defendant in June, 2010, to express concerns regarding the data. However, any allegation that the data was not converting to Defendant's expectations or industry standards is specifically denied and is further specifically contradicted by the reports that Defendant supplied to Plaintiff. 14. Denied as stated. On the contrary, Defendant's own reports indicate that it failed to address the variables that may have affected the effectiveness of the data that were under its sole control. 15. Denied. On the contrary, in August, 2010, Plaintiff informed Defendant that it would reallocate the data it was obtaining on behalf of Defendant to another client if payment was not made. Defendant acquiesced, and at that time, the daily feed of data was terminated. 16. Denied, proof demanded. On the contrary, variables under the Defendant's control, such as the timeliness of accessing the data, were the only variables that adversely affected the effectiveness of the data. 17. Denied. On the contrary, Defendant's written agreement with Plaintiff provided that Defendant was permitted to receive credit for any bad records submitted by Plaintiff to Defendant within ten days after the delivery of the data by Plaintiff. At no time whatsoever did Defendant exercise its right to demand credit pursuant to the agreement. 18. The allegation of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Any factual allegations contained therein are specifically denied and proof is demanded. By way of further answer, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Plaintiff is entitled to the full amount claimed in its Complaint. 19. The allegation of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied and proof demanded. 20. The allegation of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied and proof demanded. 21. The allegation of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied and proof demanded. Respectfully submitted, Date: ! 3 ? ? 2-0) C--% Robert P. Kline, Esquire Attorney ID #58798 Kline Law Office 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-2540 VERIFICATION I, Todd R. Vogelsong, President of Edirectconnect, Inc., verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. I further verify that as President of Edirectconnect, Inc., I have authority to execute this Verification on behalf of the Corporation. -I&I17holo Date TODD R. VOG fG CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to New Matter upon Defendant, by hand delivering same on the 14th day of December, 2010, addressed as follows: Christopher E. Rice, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant I ROBERT P. KLINI:, ESQUIRE 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 Attorney for Plaintiff David D. Buell" Prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary Cum6er[and County, Pennsylvania 7�yrkS. So/ionage, ESQ SoCicitor /6-ip3a, CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 28T" 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 ®Car[iste, TA 0 Phone 717 240-6195 0 Ta. 717 240-6573