HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-7630r
FflE~-~~ FP~~
~-
~~..,;,~ «;:., t
L~~~DL?~~ 13 ~~~ f€~ t
`'y' ~A)L[A°'~ r
~.~l~t(~iti7~t~ tr taie4'1{It E t
K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
v. NO. ~ l' `~ ~Q ~d
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC. and
BRUCE MALLISON,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
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 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN
GET LEGAL HELP.
LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 S. Bedford St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone: 800-990-9108
NOTICIA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de
estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de
plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una
apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita
sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado
que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una Orden contra
usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la
~'q~~ ~A
C~,~. asb~
~-~ asa~7
peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos
importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATEMENTE. SI NO
TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL
SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME FOR TELEPHONO A LA OFFICINA
CUYA DIRECION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARR AVERIGUAR DONDE
SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 S. Bedford St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone: 800-990-9108
K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC. and
BRUCE MALLISON,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.: ~C~ J 7~~~ C 1 ~/~ I
CIVIL ACTION - LA~I
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is K.I.S. Transport, LLC ("K.I.S."), a Pennsylvania Limited Liability
Company, with a principal place of business located at 3811 Copper Kettle Road, Camp
Hill, Cumberland County, PA 17011.
2. Defendant, Pittsburgh Power, Inc. ("Pittsburgh Power"), is a Pennsylvania
corporation with its principal place of business located at 3600 South Noah Drive,
Saxonburg, Butler County, PA 16056.
3. Defendant, Bruce Mallinson, is an adult individual, President of Pittsburgh
Power, Inc., who has a business office at 3600 South Noah Drive, Saxonburg,
Butler County, PA 16056.
FACTS
4. K.I.S. Transport, LLC, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company. Keith
A. Altland is the sole member of K.I.S. Transport, LLC.
5. K.I.S. is the owner of a 2004 Kenworth W900L that is leased to Shumaker
Trucking Co. of Dillsburg, PA, and driven by Keith A. Altland.
6. Pittsburgh Power is in the business of repairing, rebuilding, maintaining
and working on diesel engines and truck tractors.
7. Pittsburgh Power, through Bruce Mallinson, has represented through
various media published throughout Pennsylvania, including Cumberland County, PA,
that Pittsburgh Power does a better job on diesel engines than truck tractor dealers or
dealer authorized service centers achieving superior performance and fuel mileage.
8. Shortly before Thanksgiving 2009, the K.I.S. 2004 Kenworth's engine
blew.
9. The 2004 Kenworth was taken to Cleveland Brothers at Manada Hill,
Dauphin County, PA. A blown head gasket, cracked head and lost fourth cylinder were
diagnosed as the engine problems.
10. Cleveland Brothers advised Mr. Altland that Cleveland Brothers could
rebuild the engine and transmission for approximately $30,000.
11. On or about November 27, 2009, Mr. Altland had a telephone conversation
from his home in Cumberland County to Mr. Mallinson of Pittsburgh Power and
discussed rebuilding the engine on the 2004 Kenworth.
12. Mr. Mallinson represented that Pittsburgh Power could do the work
required on the 2004 Kenworth in 2'/z to 3 weeks and Mr. Altland advised Mr. Mallinson
that he wanted everything fixed on the 2004 Kenworth.
13. Mr. Altland towed the 2004 Kenworth to Pittsburgh Power at a cost of
$1,000.00. Mr. Mallinson gave Mr. Altland a list of parts to obtain for the rebuild. Mr.
Altland delivered $24,000.00 worth of parts that he obtained from Kenworth of
Pennsylvania in Carlisle, PA for the rebuild of the 2004 Kenworth.
14. During the November 27, 2009 telephone conversation, Mr. Mallinson
represented to Mr. Altland that the Pittsburgh Power rebuild would result in the 2004
2
Kenworth achieving more than 5.6 miles per gallon fuel efficiency.
15. During a December 8, 2009 conversation, Mr. Mallinson promised Mr.
Altland that the 2004 Kenworth, after being rebuilt by Pittsburgh Power, would achieve 7
miles per gallon fuel efficiency.
16. The representations and promises made regarding fuel efficiency were
material to the decision by K.I.S. to enter into the transaction with Pittsburgh Power for
the purpose of Pittsburgh Power rebuilding the 2004 Kenworth.
17. Conversations with respect to the transaction at issue in this case took
place with Mr. Altland in Cumberland County and representations were made to Mr.
Altland while he was in Cumberland County, and Mr. Altland accepted the proposal of
Pittsburgh Power to repair the 2004 Kenworth while he was in Cumberland County.
18. Transactions and occurrences giving rise to the causes of action at issue in
this case occurred in Cumberland County.
19. Pittsburgh Power completed its work on the 2004 Kenworth on or
about January 20, 2010. The work had taken approximately seven (7) weeks, as
opposed to the 2 to 3 weeks as had been promised.
20. Including the parts that had been delivered by Mr. Altland to Pittsburgh
Power, the total cost for the rebuild of the 2004 Kenworth by Pittsburgh Power was
$58,000.00. (Invoice for work performed by Pittsburgh Power, Inc. is attached as Exhibit
~,A~~~
21. K.I.S. was willing to pay $58,000.00 for the rebuild to Pittsburgh Power as
opposed to the $30,000.00 fora rebuild by Cleveland Brothers because of the
representations made by Pittsburgh Power concerning the superior rebuild, fuel
3
efficiency and the guarantee provided by Pittsburgh Power.
22. After Mr. Altland picked up the 2004 Kenworth at Pittsburgh Power on
January 20, 2010, the 2004 Kenworth, within approximately 8 days, was back at
Pittsburgh Power for 16 plus hours of repair and, again approximately 12 days after that
for two full days of repair, to correct multiple ongoing problems, including:
(a) The truck would not start properly and it was determined that the
cables were not properly hooked up to the battery and starter.
(b) The truck battery was ultimately destroyed through improper wiring
connection during rebuild and needs to be replaced.
(c) The clutch slipped and continues to slip.
(d) Air to air line's blowing off (01/25/10, 01/27/10, 01/31/10, 02/03/10).
A Pittsburgh Power mechanic was actually present during a test ride on this day
following initial repair efforts. He used "junk" parts to repair as no new clamps
were available in the shop)--still leaking air from inferior welds.
(e) Numerous oil leaks.
(f) The oil pan gasket was replaced and it was discovered that the oil
pan bolts were the old bolts and the old grommets and had never been replaced.
(g) The valves were way out of adjustment and an injector was offset
and installed incorrectly, tearing the rubber'0' ring at bottom of injector.
(h) The oil spinner was leaking oil and not properly installed in
accordance with the manufacture's instructions.
(i) The power steering pump was not properly installed and leaked oil.
Q) The fuel mileage obtained was only 5.31 miles per gallon as
4
opposed to the 7 miles per gallon that had been promised. Therefore, another
ECM was put on the vehicle, during the second follow up visit, by Pittsburgh
Power, Inc. as its solution to achieve the claim which failed producing only 5.32
mpg.
(k) Electric, fuel and air lines were not properly secured to prevent
wear and tear.
(I) Two inspections covers were not replaced
(m) Power Box was not secured, the mounting of which damaged the
interior dash area and was not placed according to the owner's specifications.
(n) The clutch brake failed.
(o) The clutch brake that had failed was a 2-piece clutch brake with a
manufacture date of September 2006. A 1-piece clutch brake, which is standard
when rebuilding the transmission and installing a new clutch, should have been
used instead of a 2-piece clutch brake. It is believed that when Pittsburgh Power did
the rebuild of the engine and transmission, it did not replace the clutch brake, but rather
used the old clutch brake.
(I) On March 18, 2010, the new ECM failed stranding the Kenworth on
I-81, while pulling a Haz-Mat load.
(m) It was discovered that the drive shaft was installed backwards and
the original u-bolt strap kits were used rather than replaced when Pittsburgh
Power did the rebuild.
(n) On or about April 1, 2010, the air conditioning failed.
(o) The wire harness for the Fass Fuel and Power Box were incorrectly
5
installed, which posed a fire hazard and required repair.
(p) The Fass Fuel system return fuel lines were not installed according
to manufacture's instructions. The Splitter valves installed by Pittsburgh Power
are incorrect. Fuel continues to be unequally distributed and is in excess of the
10 gal. industry standard.
(q) During the rebuild, the wiring harness on left side of the hood was
damaged causing the left turn signal to fail.
(r) The engine block heater wiring was not reinstalled or secured
properly.
(s) The head gasket is leaking.
(t) Front seal at crankshaft is leaking oil.
(u) Rocker box threads are stripped.
(v) Owner's indirect lighting under the cab was removed and damaged
during the rebuild and never replaced.
(w) Oil cooler and oil filter housing are leaking oil.
(x) Turbo oil return line is leaking oil.
(y) On or about April 30, 2010, the engine of the 2004 Kenworth that
had been rebuilt by Pittsburgh Power had excessive oil consumption, was running
hot risking engine failure, discharging coolant out of the overflow, had numerous
oil teaks and was taken off the road. K.I.S. Transport was unable to meet the
financial burden to complete more repairs.
24. The costs incurred for repairs, estimates of additional repairs, expenses
and lost revenues, all resulting from the poor workmanship, breaches of contract and
6
misrepresentations set forth herein are as follows:
Starter getting stuck (01/31/2010, 03/05/2010)--repaired $ 78.40
Clutch brake failed (03/11/2010)--repaired 64.12
ECM burned up (03/18/2010)--repaired 313.60
Oil leaks from power steering pump and air compressor--
repaired 474.44
Tow truck and trailer to fix ECM (after 03/18/2010); 708.31
Breakdown at Mile Marker 11 1-81 in Maryland with a Haz-mat
load
Tow truck operator found that second driveshaft installed
backwards with original strap kits, replaced original strap kit
on transmission u joints (3/20/2010)--repaired 14.80
Air conditioning quit working (04/01/2010); tore 0-ring-repaired 200.04
Repair wire harness for Fass Fuel and power box (3/18/2010}-
repaired 404.78
Estimate to replace engine following April 30, 2010 removal from
service (estimate to replace to restore vehicle's value and legal
operating status) 40,000.00
Clutch slipping since day one--estimate to repair clutch 2,350.00
Lost income for repair time at Pittsburgh Power and repairs done at
Kenworth of Pa., (322.51 /day x 7 days) 2,257.57
Tolls for follow-up repairs 114.40
Lost income since 05/01/2010 to 11/30/2010 ($162.40/day) company
driver versus owner operator. 25,340.56
Fuel cost (350 miles @ $3.30/gal. at 5.36 mpg) 215.48
Lost grant funding from Small Business Advantage Grant
Program for APU 5,703.00
25. Due to the 2004 Kenworth truck being out of service for past and future
repairs, revenue losses have and will be incurred.
26. Pittsburgh Power grounded the serial number off the engine block of the
2004 Kenworth and altered the factory settings on the ECM diminishing value and
rendering the vehicle illegal for on highway use.
7
COUNTI
Breach of Contract
K.I.S. Transaort. LLC v. Pittsburs~h Power. Inc.
27. The allegations of all prior paragraphs of the within Complaint are
incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length.
28. K.I.S. entered into a contract with Pittsburgh Power for the purpose of
Pittsburgh Power rebuilding the engine of the 2004 Kenworth. The work to be done
included rebuilding the engine, transmission, driveshaft and clutch. As set forth on the
invoice attached hereto as Exhibit "A", Pittsburgh Power guaranteed its workmanship
for six (6) months.
29. Pittsburgh Power promised to have the work done within 2'/~ to 3 weeks,
and it took over seven (7) weeks.
30. Pittsburgh Power promised that the rebuild would result in the 2004
Kenworth achieving 7 miles per gallon fuel economy.
31. Pittsburgh Power breached its contract with K.I.S. by:
(a) failing to have its work done when promised.
(b) the 2004 Kenworth did not achieve the fuel mileage promised by
Pittsburgh Power.
(c) Pittsburgh Power failed to properly perform the rebuild, used old
parts and charged for new parts, failed to use proper workmanship and failed to
properly carry out the rebuild, resulting in the numerous deficiencies, breakdowns
and follow-up repairs set forth herein.
(d) Pittsburgh Power's actions have led to the vehicle being inoperable
under Federal and State guidelines.
8
32. As a result of the breach of contract by Pittsburgh Power, K.I.S. has been
damaged in that:
(a) It has incurred repair expenses and will continue to incur expenses
for the repair of the 2004 Kenworth.
(b) It has incurred expenses in the nature of towing expenses, tolls, and
transportation expenses related to the need for further repairs to the 2004
Kenworth.
(c) It has lost revenue and will lose revenue due to down time related to
the repairs of the 2004 Kenworth.
(d) It has lost grant funding from Small Business Advantage Grant
Program.
(e) The vehicle is inoperable as a result of Defendant's actions
33. Pittsburgh Power breached the 6-month guarantee of its workmanship in
that deficiencies of its workmanship occurred within less than 6 months of the completion
of Pittsburgh Power's work and Pittsburgh Power's failure to repair the vehicle.
34. K.I.S. Transport lost revenue as a result of Pittsburgh Power taking more
than the promised 2'/2 to 3 weeks to rebuild the engine of the vehicle and in fact taking
over seven (7) weeks to do the initial rebuild of the 2004 Kenworth engine.
35. K.I.S. suffered further damages in that it paid approximately $58,000.00 for
the rebuild performed on the 2004 Kenworth by Pittsburgh Power and Pittsburgh Power
promised that the 2004 Kenworth would achieve 7 miles per gallon fuel efficiency after
the rebuild, which fuel efficiency has never been achieved. K.I.S. lost the benefit of its
9
bargain suffering damages of approximately $28,000.00 that is the difference between
the $58,000.00 paid to Pittsburgh Power and the $30,000.00 estimate of the rebuild
performed by Cleveland Brothers.
36. K.I.S. faces increased repair costs in the future due to the work performed
by Pittsburgh Power, and due to the deficient work performed by Pittsburgh Power and
the removal of the serial number from the engine block, and the altering of the ECM,
rendering it illegal. K.I.S. will not be able to have work done at certified CAT engine
repair facilities.
37. The removal of the serial number from the engine block, and altering of the
ECM of the 2004 Kenworth by Pittsburgh Power will result in a decrease in value of the
2004 Kenworth and potential loss of the vehicle if impounded at a DOT stop, criminal
prosecution, and associated legal costs may be involved.
WHEREFORE, K.I.S. Transport, LLC demands judgment against Pittsburgh
Power, Inc. in an amount in excess of the amount required for arbitration pursuant to
Local Rules of Civil Procedure, plus interest and costs of suit.
COUNT II
Misrearesentation
K.I.S. Transprort. LLC v. Pittsburgh Power. Inc. and Bruce Mallinson
38. The allegations of all prior paragraphs of the within Complaint are
incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length.
39. At all times relevant hereto, Bruce Mallinson was acting as an agent,
servant, and employee of Pittsburgh Power.
40. Mr. Mallinson intentionally or negligently or innocently represented to Mr.
Altland that a rebuild of the 2004 Kenworth would result in the 2004 Kenworth achieving
10
an additional 1.4 miles per gallon fuel efficiency, and further represented that as a result
of a Pittsburgh Power rebuild, the 2004 Kenworth would achieve 7 miles per gallon fuel
efficiency.
41. Mr. Mallinson intentionally or negligently or innocently represented to Mr.
Altland both in person, and in written and nationally published articles in industry
magazines and on the Internet, even specific to Mr. Altland's type of engine, that a
rebuild of the 2004 Kenworth would be of superior quality to the work done at certified
CAT repair facilities.
42. Mr. Mallinson knew, had reason to know or should have known that said
representations were false.
43. Mr. Mallinson made said representations with the intent that Mr. Altland
would rely on the rep"resentations and would agree that the 2004 Kenworth owned by
K.I.S. would undergo an engine rebuild by Pittsburgh Power.
44. The representation made by Mr. Mallinson that the rebuild by Pittsburgh
Power of the 2004 Kenworth would be of superior quality and workmanship and result in
fuel efficiency of 7 miles per gallon were material misrepresentations; the
representations were important to the decision by Mr. Altland on behalf of K.I.S. that
Pittsburgh Power would undertake the rebuild rather than having the rebuild performed
by another entity; and K.I.S. relied on the representation made by Mr. Mallinson that a
rebuild of the 2004 Kenworth by Pittsburgh Power would result in the 2004 Kenworth
achieving the fuel efficiency that had been represented by Mr. Mallinson, along with
decreased expenses related to operating and repair cost.
45 In the event that the misrepresentations by Mr. Mallinson are found to be
11
intentional, the misrepresentations amount to outrageous conduct entitling K.I.S. to an
award of punitive damages against Mr. Mallinson and Pittsburgh Power.
46. As a result of the misrepresentations made by Mr. Mallinson and Pittsburgh
Power, K.I.S. Transport is entitled to an award of damages, including those set forth in
Count I.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, K.I.S., demands judgment against both of the Defendants
in an amount in excess of the amount required for arbitration pursuant to local rules, plus
punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.
COUNT III
Nes~lis~ence
K.1.S. Transaort. LLC v. Pittsburs~h Power. Inc.
47. The allegations of all prior paragraphs of the within Complaint are
incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length.
48. Pittsburgh Power, by its agents, servants and employees, negligently and
carelessly performed the work on the 2004 Kenworth.
49. The negligence and carelessness of Pittsburgh Power and its agents,
servants and employees includes:
(a) Failure to use proper workmanship.
(b) Failure to use proper replacement parts.
(c) Installing illegally altered ECM units (2).
(d) Removing the serial number from the engine block of the 2004
Kenworth.
50. As a result of the negligence, Pittsburgh Power, its agents, servants and
employees, K.I.S. suffered damages and is entitled to an award of damages, including
12
those set forth in the above counts
WHEREFORE, K.I.S. Transport, L.L.C., demands judgment in its favor in an
amount in excess of the amount required for arbitration pursuant to local rules, plus
interest and costs of suit.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jason M. Weinstock, Esquire
Attomey I.D. No.: 69272
John Pozniak, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No.: 201073
IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C.
800 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Phone (717) 238-1657
By:
r
t~N POZNIAK~„
,/,
1
13
K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. .
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC. and
BRUCE MALLISON, .
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO..
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
VERIFICATION
I, KEITH A. ALTLAND, as authorized agent for K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC, Plaintiff
in the foregoing action, do hereby certify that I am authorized to execute documents on
behalf of K.I.S. Transport, LLC, and acknowledge on behalf of K.I.S. Transport, LLC that
the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that any false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18
Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
~~~
Keith A. Altland
Member, K.I.S. Transport, LLC
SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Ronny R Anderson
Sheriff
Jody S Smith
Chief Deputy
Richard W Stewart
Solicitor
t "X., i
VIL
R E F,, p.
10
P ;r
'i JP, 12 AN 9.;
K.I.S. Transport, LLC Case Number
vs.
Pittsburgh Power, Inc. (et al.) 2010-7630
SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE
12/14/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search
and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Pittsburgh Power, Inc., but was unable to locate them
in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Butler County, Pennsylvania to serve the within
Complaint and Notice according to law.
12/14/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search
and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Bruce Mallison, but was unable to locate him in his
bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Butler County, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint
and Notice according to law.
12/28/2010 10:54 AM - Butler County Return: And now December 28, 2010 at 1054 hours I, Michael Slupe, Sheriff of
Butler County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Complaint
and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Bruce Mallison by making known unto Pete Sharp,
adult in charge at 3600 S. Noah Drive, Saxonburg, Pennsylvania 16056 its contents and at the same time
handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same.
12/28/2010 10:54 AM - Butler County Return: And now December 28, 2010 at 1054 hours I, Michael Slupe, Sheriff of
Butler County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Complaint
and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Pittsburgh Power, Inc. by making known unto Pete
Sharp, Vice President of Pittsburgh Power, Inc. at 3600 S. Noah Drive, Saxonburg, Pennsylvania 16056
its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same.
SHERIFF COST: $53.00
January 10, 2011
SO ANSWERS,
RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF
--:'p; COU-,Suite Shenfl, fPnnsxt 6-.i
Countp of jOutter, Venns;plbanta
{ )ffic e cif C.ouiaty `sheriff
Michael T. Slupe, Sheriff
Mark A.. Peffer, Chief Deputy 4'hon)as W. King, 1.11, Solicitor
Sheriff File Number - 10006512
Court Docket #: 2010-7630 CMB
County of, Commonwealth of
K I S TRANSPORT, LLC
vs.
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC and BRUCE
MALLISON
Affidavit of Service
COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION
I hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that on 12/28/2010 at 10:54 AM at 3600 S NOAH DRIVE SAXONBURG, PA
.16056
the within COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION, was served on PITTSBURGH POWER, INC, the defendant
amed therein, in the following manner:
ALTERNATE PERSON
By delivering to and leaving with PETE SHARP the VICE PRESIDENT to the defendant a true copy thereof, a
person over the age of eighteen.
Fees Received from Attorney: $51.00
Attorney Name: IRA H WEINSTOCK, PC, 800 N SECOND STREET - SUITE 100 HARRISBURG, PA 17102
Affirmed & Subscribed to before
Me 12/30/2010
JASON YOUNG, Deputy Sheriff
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Sheriff, Butler County, Pennsylvania
Sheriff s Office
Courthouse • P.O. Box 1208 • Butler, PA 16003-1208
Fax: (724) 284- 5248 • Telephone (724) 284-5245 • TDD (724) 284-5473
1Q['*"ountp of 313utter, Venmiplbanta
( )f ice of Coulity Sherff
Michael T. Slupe, Sheriff
41Ark A. Peffer, Chief Depittv Thomas 'k. King, 1.11, Solicitor
Sheriff File Number - 10006512
Court Docket #: 2010-7630 CMB
County of, Commonwealth of
K I S TRANSPORT, LLC
vs
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC and BRUCE
MALLISON
Affidavit of Service
COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION
I hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that on 12/28/2010 at 10:54 AM at 3600 S NOAH DRIVE SAXONBURG, PA
*16056
the within COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION, was served on BRUCE MALLISON, the defendant named
herein, in the following manner:
ALTERNATE PERSON
By delivering to and leaving with PETE SHARP the VICE PRESIDENT to the defendant a true copy thereof, a
person over the age of eighteen.
Fees Received from Attorney: $51.00
Attorney Name: IRA H WEINSTOCK, PC, 800 N SECOND STREET - SUITE 100 HARRISBURG, PA 17102
Affirmed & Subscribed to before
Me 12/30/2010
Notary Public
My commission expires:
•
Sheriff, Butler County, Pennsylvania
Sheriffs Office
Courthouse • P.O. Box 1208 • Butler, PA 16003-1208
JASON YOUNG, Deputy Sheriff
Fax: (724) 284- 5248 9 Telephone (724) 284-5245 • TDD (724) 284-5473
C ,
4
Mark A.. Pe.ffer, Chief Deputy 'l hom.as W. King, III, Solicitor
Court Docket #: 2010-7630 CMB
County of, Commonwealth of
K I S TRANSPORT, LLC
vs
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC and BRUCE
MALLISON
Sheriff File Number - 10006512
Affidavit of Service
COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION
I hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that on 12/28/2010 at 10:54 AM at 3600 S NOAH DRIVE SAXONBURG, PA
16056 the within COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION, was served on PITTSBURGH POWER, INC, the defendant
Gamed therein, in the following manner:
ALTERNATE PERSON
By delivering to and leaving with PETE SHARP the VICE PRESIDENT to the defendant a true copy thereof, a
person over the age of eighteen.
Fees Received from Attorney: $51.00
Attorney Name: IRA H WEINSTOCK, PC, 800 N SECOND STREET - SUI 100 HARR RG, PA 17102
Affirmed & Subscribed to before ??
Me 12/30/ 10 J ON YOUN eputy Veriff
Notary Public
My commission expires:
•
PROTHONOTARY OFFICIAL TITLE
COMMISSION EXPIRES FIRST MONDAY IN JAN.
rMfiff, Butler Cou ty, Pe nsylvania
Sheriffs Office
Courthouse • P.O. Box 1208 • Butler, PA 16003-1208
1XICountp of 313utter, Venn,4plbanta
()f£ice ()f C,min.ty Sheriff
Michael T. Slupe, Sheriff
Fax: (724) 284- 5248 • Telephone (724) 284-5245 9 TDD (724) 284-5473
ouuxp of 313utter, Venmiplbanta
Office «f C ourtty She.1-Iff,
Michael T. Slupe, Sheriff
Mark A.. 11'e.ffer, Chief Deputy `I hom.as W. Kink, III, Solicitor
Court Docket #: 2010-7630 CMB
Sheriff File Number - 10006512
County of, Commonwealth of
K I S TRANSPORT, LLC
vs
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC and BRUCE
MALLISON
Affidavit of Service
COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION
I hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that on 12/28/2010 at 10:54 AM at 3600 S NOAH DRIVE SAXONBURG, PA
.1,6056
the within COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION, was served on BRUCE MALLISON, the defendant named
erein, in the following manner:
ALTERNATE PERSON
By delivering to and leaving with PETE SHARP the VICE PRESIDENT to the defendant a true copy thereof, a
person over the age of eighteen.
Fees Received from Attorney: $51.00
Attorney Name: IRA H WEINSTOCK, PC, 800 N SECOND STREET - SUITE 100 H ISB?PA 10
Affirmed & Subscribed to before
Me 12/30/2010 JASON YO G, Deputy eriff
44
ivvuuy ruvut;
My commission expirespROTHONOTARY OFFICE UAY NTH N. 2012 -1 )??
..,? gAp?R?S FIRST MON Sheriff, Butler C n , P nsylvania
GOlvnvlr?`'
U
Sheriff's Office
Courthouse • P.O. Box 1208 • Butler, PA 16003-1208
Fax: (724) 284- 5248 • Telephone (724) 284-5245 • TDD (724) 284-5473
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC. and
BRUCE MALLISON,
Defendants.
CIVIL DIVISION
Case No. 10-7630
Code:
( ,
DEFENDANTS' PETITION, T--P 77
TRANSFER VENUE TO
BUTLER COUNTY ;v
4..,._ 1
CD
Filed on behalf of the defendars `-'
- °- ? T
Counsel of record for these pa §t:
?w
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: THE PLAINTIFF
Sanford Kelson
Pa. ID No. 19798
8231 South Canal Road
You are hereby notified to file a written response to Conneaut Lake PA 16316
e j10 sed Pe Transfer Venue within
es from se ice hereof or the relief 814.382.4887
re u e y e? granted y the Court by default.
Michael J. Bruzzese
Pa. ID No. 63306
The Bank Tower, Suite 1008
's C tllt?v 307 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
412.281.8676
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff, Case No. 10-7630
V.
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC. and BRUCE
MALLISON,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO BUTLER COUNTY
AND NOW, come the defendants, by and through their counsel, and, pursuant to C.C.R.P.
206. 1, file this petition to transfer this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, and,
in support thereof, aver as follows:
1. This action arises out of repairs performed by the defendant Pittsburgh Power, Inc.
("Pittsburgh Power") on the plaintiff's truck. The complaint: contains claims for breach of
contract (Count I), misrepresentation (Count II) and negligence (Count III). The defendant
Bruce Mallinson is the owner and president of Pittsburgh Power and is individually named as
defendant in Count II of the complaint.
2. Pittsburgh Power's registered office and only place of business is located at 3600
S. Noah Drive, Saxonburg, Butler County, PA 16056. Mallinson is domiciled in Butler County
as well.
3. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P., Rules 2179 (relating to corporations) and 1006 (relating to
individuals), venue in Cumberland County is improper as to both of the defendants and the
defendants hereby petition that this case be transferred to Butler County, the only county in
which venue properly lies.
4. Pa. R.C.P., Rule 2179 provides as follows:
(a) ... [A] personal action against a corporation or similar entity may be
brought in and only in
(1) the county where its registered office or principal place of business
is located;
(2) a county where it regularly conducts business;
(3) the county where the cause of action arose;
(4) a county where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which
the cause of action arose ...
5. As stated above, the registered office and principal place of business for
Pittsburgh Power is in Butler County, not Cumberland County.
6. Pittsburgh Power does not regularly conduct business is Cumberland County:
a) Pittsburgh Power does not have any offices, garages or other facilities in
Cumberland County.
b) Pittsburgh Power does not have any mechanics, salesmen, or any other
employees, agents or representatives in Cumberland County.
C) The plaintiff is the only customer of Pittsburgh Power in Cumberland
County. The company does not regularly or consistently have customers
in Cumberland County.
d) No other activities of the business, whether ancillary or principal thereto,
are conducted in Cumberland County.
7. The plaintiff's cause of action arose in Butler County, not Cumberland County,
and the material transactions and/or occurrences related to the plaintiff's cause of action all took
place in Butler County:
a) The plaintiff brought his truck to Pittsburgh Power's facility prior to any
work being performed.
b) The plaintiff authorized and discussed the work to be performed at
Pittsburgh Power's place of business.
C) The contract between the plaintiff and Pittsburgh Power was entered into
at Pittsburgh Power's place of business in Butler County.
2
d) All of the repairs and work performed on the plaintiff's truck were done at
Pittsburgh Power's place of business in Butler County.
e) During the time the work was being done, Mallinson and Pittsburgh
Power's mechanics had telephone and other conversations and
communications with the plaintiff.
f) The plaintiff came to Butler County to pick up the truck after the work had
been performed.
g) The plaintiff paid for the repairs in Butler County.
8. Most of the critical witnesses are in Butler County, including the mechanics who
worked on the truck and the other employees who had contact and discussions with the plaintiff
or who were otherwise involved with this project.
9. Substantially all of the relevant events associated with the performance of this
contract occurred in Butler County.
10. The venue rule for individuals (Pa. R.C.P., Rule 1006) is substantially similar to
that for corporations and the factual analysis provided above applies to the individual defendant
Bruce Mallinson.
11. In compliance with C.C.R.P., Rule 208.3(a)(2), the defendants hereby advise the
Court that no judge has ruled upon this or any other issue in this :matter.
12. In compliance with C.C.R.P., Rule 208.3(a)(9) the defendants hereby advise the
Court that the defendants' counsel conferred with the plaintiff counsel regarding this petition
and the transfer of venue and that the plaintiff's counsel indicated that the plaintiff would not
consent to the relief sought herein.
3
WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that the Court grant this petition to
transfer this case to Butler County. The prbosed`Order axed to fron f this petition.
Sanford Kepi
Pa. ID No. 1.
8231 South Canal Road
Conneaut Lake PA 16316
814.382.4887
Michael J. Bruzzese
Pa. ID No. 63306
The Bank Tower, Suite 1008
307 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
412.281.8676
4
VERIFICATION
The undersigned verifies that the averments of fact contained in the foregoing PETITION
TO TRANSFER VENUE TO BUTLER COUNTY are true and correct to the best of his
knowledge and belief. The undersigned understands that this statement is made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
zC,
?
Date ce Mallinson ? -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that a true and. correct copy of the foregoing
DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO BUTLER COUNTY was served
by first class mail, postage prepaid upon the following:
Jason M. Weinstock, Esquire
Ira H. Weinstock, P.C.
800 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Dated: January 24, 2011
K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC,
Plaintiff
VS.
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC. and
BRUCE MALLISON,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW -?,
NO. 10-7630 CIVIL
IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE °'-
ORDER
h.J
rn
co
I
W
a
AND NOW, this 3 `day of February, 2011, upon consideration of the defendants'
"Petition to Transfer Venue," said petition is DENIED. The matter of improper venue is
properly raised by preliminary objection and not by petition. This order is entered without
prejudice to the defendants to file a petition seeking a transfer of venue for reasons of forum
nonconveniens.
BY THE COURT,
- 151144
Hess, P. J.
'Jason Weinstock, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
'Michael J. Bruzzese, Esquire
Sanford Kelson, Esquire
For the Defendants
Ma,led
,4131 11
0A
-,j
n ?:-
2?
:rlm
T r
K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC. and
BRUCE MALLISON,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.: I b -7 LQ'sV
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
.
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJEC T j::"
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff K.I.S. Transport, LLC, by and through its attor, -a Fc-;:7
Weinstock, P.C., and respectfully submits this Answer to Defendants' 5; Z3
P
Objections and in support thereof avers the following in response:
1. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that this action arose out of
repairs which Defendants performed on Plaintiff's truck pursuant to a contract and that
the Complaint contains claims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and
negligence. It is also admitted that Defendant Bruce Mallison is the owner and
president of Pittsburgh Power and is named individually in the Complaint. However, it is
specifically denied that the parties entered into a written contract for the repairs to be
performed here. Plaintiff is unaware of any written contract relative to the repairs.
2. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted only that Pittsburgh Power
maintains an address and that Mallison is domiciled in Butler County. However, Venue
is proper in Cumberland County and this case should not be transferred to Butler
County. The contract was entered into in Cumberland County. In addition, Defendants
conduct business throughout all of Pennsylvania, including Cumberland County, as well
as the rest of the United States, by selling their wares at various retail outlets and other
merchant stores.
3. Denied. Plaintiff respectfully submits that venue is proper in Cumberland
County as to both Defendants and that the case should not be transferred to Butler
County. Indeed, the cause of action arose in Cumberland County, plus transactions
and occurrences giving rise to the cause of action at issue also took place in
Cumberland County, rendering the venue proper under Pa.R.C.P. Rule 2179.
4. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants have
accurately stated the text of Pa.R.C.P. Rule 2179. However, it is specifically denied that
venue is not proper in Cumberland County. To the contrary, Plaintiff respectfully
submits that the cause of action arose in Cumberland County, plus transactions and
occurrences giving rise to the cause of action at issue also took place in Cumberland
County, rendering the venue proper under Pa.R.C.P. Rule 2179.
5. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Pittsburgh Power
maintains an address and place of business in Butler County; however, it is specifically
denied that venue is not proper in Cumberland County. Defendants do regularly
conduct business throughout all of Pennsylvania, including Cumberland County, as well
as the rest of the United States, through internet sales, truck shows, and sales through
retail outlets.
6. (a-d) Denied. Pittsburgh Power, through Bruce Mallinson, has represented
through various media published throughout Pennsylvania, including Cumberland
County, PA, that Pittsburgh Power does a better job on diesel engines than truck tractor
2
dealers or dealer authorized service centers achieving superior performance and fuel
mileage.
(a) Denied. Absent further discovery, Plaintiff does not have sufficient
knowledge as to the truthfulness of the allegation contained in this paragraph; it is
therefore denied. In addition, the facts alleged in this paragraph are irrelevant because
the cause of action clearly arose in Cumberland County. Likewise, there were
transactions and occurrences giving rise to the cause of action at issue which also took
place in Cumberland County, rendering the venue proper under Pa.R.C.P. Rule 2179.
(b) Denied. Absent further discovery, Plaintiff does not have sufficient
knowledge as to the truthfulness of the allegation contained in this paragraph; it is
therefore denied. In addition, the facts alleged in this paragraph are irrelevant because
the cause of action clearly arose in Cumberland County. Likewise, there were
transactions and occurrences giving rise to the cause of action at issue which also took
place in Cumberland County, rendering the venue proper under Pa.R.C.P. Rule 2179.
(c) Denied. Absent further discovery, Plaintiff does not have sufficient
knowledge as to the truthfulness of the allegation contained in this paragraph; it is
therefore denied. In addition, the facts alleged in this paragraph are irrelevant because
the cause of action clearly arose in Cumberland County. Likewise, there were
transactions and occurrences giving rise to the cause of action at issue which also took
place in Cumberland County, rendering the venue proper under Pa.R.C.P. Rule 2179.
What is more, Pittsburgh Power, through Bruce Mallinson, has represented through
various media published throughout Pennsylvania, including Cumberland County, PA,
3
that Pittsburgh Power does a better job on diesel engines than truck tractor dealers or
dealer authorized service centers achieving superior performance and fuel mileage. In
addition, Defendants do regularly conduct business throughout all of Pennsylvania,
including Cumberland County, as well as the rest of the United States, through internet
sales, truck shows, and sales through retail outlets.
(d) Denied. Absent further discovery, Plaintiff does not have sufficient
knowledge as to the truthfulness of the allegation contained in this paragraph; it is
therefore denied. In addition, the facts alleged in this paragraph are irrelevant because
the cause of action clearly arose in Cumberland County. Likewise, there were
transactions and occurrences giving rise to the cause of action at issue which also took
place in Cumberland County, rendering the venue proper under Pa.R.C.P. Rule 2179.
What is more, Pittsburgh Power, through Bruce Mallinson, has represented through
various media published throughout Pennsylvania, including Cumberland County, PA,
that Pittsburgh Power does a better job on diesel engines than truck tractor dealers or
dealer authorized service centers achieving superior performance and fuel mileage. In
addition, Defendants do regularly conduct business throughout all of Pennsylvania,
including Cumberland County, as well as the rest of the United States, through internet
sales, truck shows, and sales through retail outlets.
7. Denied. Plaintiffs cause of action clearly arose in Cumberland County,
not Butler County. On November 27, 2009, Keith Altland, who is the sole member of
K.I.S. Transport, LLC, had a telephone conversation from his home in Cumberland
County with Mr. Mallison of Pittsburgh Power, during which Mr. Mallison made an offer
4
to do the rebuild for Plaintiffs 2004 Kenworth truck and which Mr. Altland accepted. As
a result, Mr. Altland accepted the offer while he was in Cumberland County. It is well
settled that the place of making a contract is not where the offer is made, but where it is
accepted. Craig v. W.J. Thiele & Sons, Inc., 149 A.2d 35 (Pa. 1959). . In addition,
transactions and occurrences giving rise to the causes of action at issue in this case
occurred in Cumberland County.
(a) Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff brought
his truck to Pittsburgh Power's facility for the work to be performed. However, it is
specifically denied that venue is not proper in Cumberland County. Conversations with
respect to the transaction at issue in this case took place with Mr. Altland in Cumberland
County and representations were made to Mr. Altland while he was in Cumberland
County, and Mr. Altland accepted the proposal of Pittsburgh Power and Mallison to
repair the 2004 Kenworth while he was in Cumberland County. In addition, transactions
and occurrences giving rise to the causes of action at issue in this case occurred in
Cumberland County. After Mr. Altland had the 2004 Kenworth towed to Pittsburgh
Power, Mr. Mallison gave Mr. Altland a list of parts to obtain for the rebuild. Mr. Altland
delivered $24,000.00 worth of parts that he obtained from Kenworth of Pennsylvania in
Carlisle, PA for the rebuild.
(b) Denied. Conversations with respect to the transaction at issue in
this case took place with Mr. Altland in Cumberland County and representations were
made to Mr. Altland while he was in Cumberland County, and Mr. Altland accepted the
proposal of Pittsburgh Power to repair the 2004 Kenworth while he was in Cumberland
5
County. In addition, transactions and occurrences giving rise to the causes of action at
issue in this case occurred in Cumberland County. After Mr. Altland towed the 2004
Kenworth to Pittsburgh Power, Mr. Mallison gave Mr. Altland a list of parts to obtain for
the rebuild. Mr. Altland delivered $24,000.00 worth of parts that he obtained from
Kenworth of Pennsylvania in Carlisle, PA for the rebuild.
(c) Denied. The contract was entered into in Cumberland County
because Mr. Altland accepted Mr. Mallison's offer while he was on the telephone with
him on November 27, 2009 in Cumberland County.
(d) Denied. Defendants did not perform all of the repairs and work on
Plaintiff's truck at their facility in Butler County. To the contrary, Defendants actually
outsourced components of the truck to various facilities for transmission, machine shop
work, starter/alternator rebuild, and to set the timing on the engine. In addition, it is
specifically denied that venue is not proper in Cumberland County. To the contrary,
conversations with respect to the transaction at issue in this case took place with Mr.
Altland in Cumberland County and representations were made to Mr. Altland while he
was in Cumberland County, and Mr. Altland accepted the proposal of Pittsburgh Power
to repair the 2004 Kenworth while he was in Cumberland County. Likewise,
transactions and occurrences giving rise to the causes of action at issue in this case
occurred in Cumberland County.
(e) Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Mallison and
Pittsburgh Power employees had telephone conversations and communications with
Plaintiff while the work was being performed.
However, it is specifically denied that
6
venue is not proper in Cumberland County. To the contrary, conversations with respect
to the transaction at issue in this case took place with Mr. Altland in Cumberland County
and representations were made to Mr. Altland while he was in Cumberland County, and
Mr. Altland accepted the proposal of Pittsburgh Power to repair the 2004 Kenworth while
he was in Cumberland County. In addition, transactions and occurrences giving rise to
the causes of action at issue in this case occurred in Cumberland County.
(f) Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff came to
Butler County to pick up the truck after the work had been performed. However, it is
specifically denied that venue is not proper in Cumberland County. To the contrary,
conversations with respect to the transaction at issue in this case took place with Mr.
Altland in Cumberland County and representations were made to Mr. Altland while he
was in Cumberland County, and Mr. Altland accepted the proposal of Pittsburgh Power
to repair the 2004 Kenworth while he was in Cumberland County. In addition,
transactions and occurrences giving rise to the causes of action at issue in this case
occurred in Cumberland County.
(g) Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff paid for
the work in Butler County. However, it is specifically denied that venue is not proper in
Cumberland County. To the contrary, conversations with respect to the transaction at
issue in this case took place with Mr. Altland in Cumberland County and representations
were made to Mr. Altland while he was in Cumberland County, and Mr. Altland accepted
the proposal of Pittsburgh Power to repair the 2004 Kenworth while he was in
7
Cumberland County. In addition, transactions and occurrences giving rise to the causes
of action at issue in this case occurred in Cumberland County.
8. Denied. The critical witnesses are not located in Butler County. The
contract was entered into in Cumberland County because Mr. Altland accepted Mr.
Mallison's offer while he was on the telephone with him on November 27, 2009 while
Mr. Altland was in Cumberland County. It is well settled that the place of making a
contract is not where the offer is made, but where it is accepted. Craig v. W.J. Thiele &
Sons, Inc., 149 A.2d 35 (Pa. 1959).
9. Denied. Plaintiff respectfully submits that the cause of action arose in
Cumberland County, plus transactions and occurrences giving rise to the cause of
action at issue also took place in Cumberland County, rendering the venue proper
under Pa.R.C.P. Rule 2179.
10. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that the analysis for
individuals is substantially similar to that for corporations. However, it is specifically
denied that venue is not proper for either Defendant in Cumberland County. The cause
of action clearly arose in Cumberland County, plus transactions and occurrences giving
rise to the cause of action at issue also took place in Cumberland County, rendering the
venue proper under Pa.R.C.P. Rule 2179.
11. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that this action arises out of
the Defendants' misrepresentation and negligence with regard to the repairs of the 2004
Kenworth truck. However, it is denied that the parties entered into a written contract for
8
the repairs to be performed here. Plaintiff is unaware of any written contract relative to
the repairs.
12. Denied. The Gist of the Action doctrine does not bar Plaintiff's
misrepresentation claims contained in Count II of the Complaint. Plaintiff's
misrepresentation claims are not covered by the doctrine because the alleged
misrepresentation in this case is generally collateral to, and not interwoven with, the
terms of the contract itself. See Etoll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc., 811 A.2d 10,
14 (Pa. Super. 2002) citing Foster v. Northwestern Mutual Life, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
15078 (E.D. Pa. 2002). As a result, Count II of the Complaint should not be dismissed
and Mr. Mallison should remain as a party to this action.
13. Denied. The Gist of the Action doctrine does not bar Plaintiffs negligence
claims contained in Count III of the Complaint. Plaintiffs negligence claims are not
covered by the doctrine because the alleged negligence in this case is generally
collateral to, and not interwoven with, the terms of the contract itself. See Etoll, Inc. v.
Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc., 811 A.2d 10, 14 (Pa. Super. 2002) citing Foster v.
Northwestern Mutual Life, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15078 (E.D. Pa. 2002). As such,
Count III of the Complaint should not be dismissed.
14. Admitted.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, K.I.S., respectfully requests that the Court deny the
Preliminary Objections of the Defendants.
9
Respectfully Submitted,
Jason M. Weinstock, Esquire
IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C.
800 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Phone (717) 238-1657
By: IL?
-LL--
M. WEINSTOCK
I.D. No.: 69272
10
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND )
I verify that the statements made in the attached ANSWER TO
DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS are true and correct. I understand that
false statements herein are made subject to the penalties set forth in 18 Pa. C. S.
§4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
c-
DATED:- J
KEITH ALTLAND
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2011, I, Jason M. Weinstock, Esquire,
attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served the within PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER
TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS this day by mailing the same to:
Michael J. Bruzzese, Esquire
The Bank Tower, Suite 1008
307 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Keith Altland
3811 Copper Kettle Rd.
Camp Hill, PA 17011
By:
M. WEINSTOCK
I for the Plaintiff
K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC,
Plaintiff
vs.
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC. and
BRUCE MALLISON,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 10-7630 CIVIL
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS
BEFORE HESS, P.J. AND GUIDO J
ORDER
c
xr
?G
?n
?o
vc
--+
-c
AND NOW, this / 7 • day of June, 2011, following argument and upon further
review of the pleadings and briefs filed in this case, the Court being satisfied that the issue of
venue cannot be decided on the current state of the record, a brief hearing, limited to the facts
necessary to determine venue, is set for Thursday, July 14, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom
Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA.
BY THE COURT,
Kevin .Hess, P. J.
/Jason M. Weinstock, Esquire
John Pozniak, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Sanford Kelson, Esquire ooplo l? 1(
Michael J. Bruzzese, Esquire
For the Defendants
r_
J
-t1
cx?
?rn
o?
--+Cn
x?
o-6
Cr
--irn
v
-c
:rlm
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC. and
BRUCE MALLISON,
Defendants.
CIVIL DIVISION
ORDER
Case No. 10-7630
C')
C N
? Q
rn
? xy
r c
r-- r
-vim
CO ?
oQ
n
-nn
=Cj
ca c)
-- rn
AND NOW, this *'M day of 2011, upon consideration of the
defendants' motion, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED and that the
evidentiary hearing scheduled for Thursday, July 14, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. is hereby continued until
2011 at 111a a.m.
It is additionally ORDERED that the defendants are hereby GRANTED leave to file a
petition to transfer venue to Butler County for reasons of forum nonconviens on or by
2 i 2011 and that the plaintiff shall file its answer to said petition on or by
i V , 2011. The parties shall submit testimony and evidence in support of their
positions during the rescheduled evidentiary hearing.
?(M AJ - Erzzese
n 14 l.)einsf x-k.LE4W7-
BY THE COURT:
??a
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNS &VAMA''
K.I.S. TRANSPORT LLC
>
?' as
CIVIL DIVISION r i _4
t ?" r=
Plaintiff, Case No. 10-7630
V. Code: = - --
=
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC. and
PETITION TO TRANSFER W
BRUCE MALLISON VENUE TO BUTLER COUNTY
FOR REASONS OF FORUM
Defendants. NONCONVENIENS
Filed on behalf of the defendants
Counsel of record for this party:
Sanford Kelson
Pa. ID No. 19798
8231 South Canal Road
Conneaut Lake PA 16316
814.382.4887
Michael J. Bruzzese
Pa. ID No. 63306
JOHNSON, BRUZZESE & TEMPLE
1720 Gulf Tower
707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA. 15219
412.338.4790
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff, Case No. 10-7630
V.
PITTSBURGH POWER, INC. and BRUCE
MALLISON
Defendants.
PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO BUTLER COUNTY
FOR REASONS OF FORUM NONCONVENIENS
AND NOW, come the defendants, by and through their counsel, and file this petition to
transfer venue to Butler County for reasons of forum nonconveniens.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of repairs performed by the defendant Pittsburgh Power, Inc.
("Pittsburgh Power") on the plaintiff's truck. The complaint contains claims for breach of
contract (Count I), misrepresentation (Count II) and negligence (Count III). The defendant
Bruce Mallinson is the owner and president of Pittsburgh Power and is individually named as
defendant in Count II of the complaint.
2. The defendants filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff's complaint, raising,
among other things, improper venue.
3. The Court heard argument on the preliminary objections on Friday, May 27, 2011.
The presiding judges were the Honorable Kevin A. Hess and the Honorable Edward E. Guido.
4. On June 17, 2011, the Court entered an Order, scheduling a brief hearing limited
to the facts necessary to determine whether venue in Cumberland County is proper. Upon
motion of the defendants, the Court subsequently granted leave for the defendants to file an
additional and alternative petition to challenge venue for reasons of forum nonconveniens and
scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the venue issues for Friday, August 19, 2011 at 11:00 a.m.
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE FOR REASONS OF FORUM NONCONVENIENS
5. The Court may transfer venue for reasons of forum nonconveniens upon a
showing that the plaintiffs chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious to the defendants.
Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997).
6. As adduced by the preliminary objections of the defendants, the briefs filed and
the initial oral argument before the Court on May 27, 2011, the substantial majority of the
relevant contacts and occurrences in this case arose out of Butler County, where the defendants
do business (and in the case of Bruce Mallinson, where he resides).
7. Specifically, substantially all of the material transactions and/or occurrences
related to the plaintiffs claims took place in Butler County:
a) The plaintiff brought his truck to Pittsburgh Power's facility prior to any
work being performed.
b) The plaintiff authorized and discussed the work to be performed at
Pittsburgh Power's place of business.
C) The contract between the plaintiff and Pittsburgh Power was entered into
at Pittsburgh Power's place of business in Butler County.
d) All of the repairs and work performed on the plaintiff's truck were done at
Pittsburgh Power's place of business in Butler County.
e) During the time the work was being done, Mallinson and Pittsburgh
Power's mechanics had telephone and other conversations and
communications with the plaintiff.
f) The plaintiff came to Butler County to pick up the truck after the work had
been performed.
g) The plaintiff paid for the repairs in Butler County.
2
8. The only connection this dispute has to Cumberland County is the fact that the
plaintiff resides in Cumberland County, made one or two telephone calls to Mallinson to discuss
some aspects of the work while he was at home and that he purchased parts to be used by the
defendant Pittsburgh Power, Inc. in connection with the repairs to be performed.
9. Because the "center of gravity" in this case is Butler County, not Cumberland
County, and because of the reasons set forth immediately following, the prosecution of this case
in Cumberland County is oppressive to the defendants and venue should be transferred to Butler
County for reasons of forum nonconviens.
10. The defendants' witnesses, i.e., the mechanics and office personnel who worked
on the truck and dealt with the plaintiff, are located in Butler County and it would be extremely
burdensome and disruptive to the defendants' business and work schedule to make these
individuals travel to Cumberland County to appear for depositions and a trial that may last
several days.
11. In addition, the defendants plan to use expert witnesses to provide testimony and
opinions supporting their defense that the work done in this case was in accordance with the
terms of the contract. These experts are located much closer to Butler County than Cumberland
County and a trial in Cumberland County would substantially add to the costs associated with
bringing these experts to a distant forum.
12. Finally, additional sources of proof, such as exhibits to be used at trial and a
possible jury view of the defendants' premises, are located in Butler County. Specifically, the
defendants intend to show the jury various engine parts and components that are similar to those
used in connection with the repairs performed on the plaintiff's truck as an aid to explain how
and why the repairs were done. Many of these parts and components are large, heavy (weighing
hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of pounds) and bulky and are not easily transportable.
Further, the defendants will want to show the jury the actual work done on the plaintiff's truck,
which cannot be done in a courtroom setting. It will be necessary to have the plaintiffs truck
available at the defendants" premises so that the defendants can specifically show the jury the
work that was performed. The defendants will be severely prejudiced if this case remains in
Cumberland County because it will deprive them of the opportunity to present their evidence,
fact testimony and expert testimony in a way that will give the jury a good understanding of the
work that was actually performed.
WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the defendants'
preliminary objections as to improper venue or, in the alternative, grant this petition to transfer
the case to Butler County for reasons of forum nonconveniens. The defendants have attached a
copy of Bruce Mallinson's verification in ss rt of this petition and will file the original
separately. A proposed order is affixed to ke front ? s petition.
Pa. ID No. ?-
8231 South Canal Rc
Conneaut Lake, PA 1
814.382.4887
Michael J. Bruzzese
Pa. ID No. 63306
JOHNSON, BRUZZESE & TEMPLE
1720 Gulf Tower
707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
412.338.4790
4
VERIFICATION
The undersigned verifies that the averments of fact contained in the foregoing
PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO BUTLER COUNTY FOR REASONS OF
FORUM NONCONVENIENS are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. The
undersigned understands that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A.
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
'7-A'i -11
Date `Bfuce Mallinson
l
CERTIFICATE OF "SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO BUTLER COUNTY FOR REASONS OF
FORUM NONCONVENIENS was served by email and first class mail, postage prepaid upon
the following:
Jason M. Weinstock, Esquire
Ira H. Weinstock, P.C.
800 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Dated: July 29, 2011
K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff, c ^' '
V
NO
:10-7630 ZZ:
. .
PITTSBURGH POWER INC. and
CIVIL ACTION - LAW li:l
° CD
BRUCE MALLISON 77 `3
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ?-
77 c
Defendant.
!r-;
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO
BUTLER COUNTY FOR REASONS OF FORUM NONCONVENIENS
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff K.I.S. Transport, LLC, by and through its attorneys,
Ira H. Weinstock, P.C., and respectfully submits this Answer to Defendants' Petition to
Transfer Venue to Butler County for Reasons of Forum Nonconveniens, and in support
thereof avers the following in response:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants filed
preliminary objections to the Plaintiffs Complaint, raising improper venue, as well as
other issues. However, it is specifically denied that Defendants' preliminary objections
have any merit whatsoever.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that the Court scheduled a
brief evidentiary hearing limited to the facts necessary to determine whether venue in
Cumberland County is proper and that the Court granted leave for the Defendants to file
an additional petition to challenge venue for reasons of forum nonconveniens.
However, it is specifically denied that an evidentiary hearing is necessary for the issues
surrounding forum nonconveniens. To the contrary, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
has specifically instructed that "...there should be no necessity for an evidentiary
hearing on the petition" since the defendant bears the burden of establishing the need
for a transfer by detailed information in his petition, which should be adequate for the
trial judge to rule upon the petition. Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 701 A.2d
156, 162 fn 8 (Pa. 1997).
5. It is admitted that Defendants have cited a generally accepted principle of
law. By way of further response, it is well settled that a defendant may meet his burden
of showing that plaintiff's choice of forum is vexatious to him by establishing with facts
on the record that plaintiff's choice of forum was designed to harass defendant, even at
some inconvenience to the plaintiff himself. Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc.,
701 A.2d 156, 162 (Pa. 1997). Alternatively, the defendant may meet his burden by
establishing on the record that trial in the chosen forum is oppressive to him; for
instance, that trial in another county would provide easier access to witnesses or other
sources of proof, or to the ability to conduct a view of the premises involved in the
dispute. Id. at 162. However, the defendant must show more than that the chosen
forum is merely inconvenient to him. Id. at 162. Indeed, "[c]laims by the defendant in its
petition that no significant aspect of the case involves the chosen forum, and that
litigating in another forum would be more convenient... do not amount to a showing that
the chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious." Id. at 162. Further, the Supreme Court's
intent is that the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed by the grant of a
Rule 1006(d)(1) petition. Id. at 162.
2
6. Denied. The substantial majority of the relevant contacts and occurrences
in this case did not arise out of Butler County.
7. Denied. The substantial majority of all the material transactions and
occurrences related to Plaintiffs claims did not take place in Butler County.
(a) Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff brought
his truck to Pittsburgh Power's facility for the work to be performed. However, it is
specifically denied that the chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious to Defendants.
Conversations with respect to the transaction at issue in this case took place with Mr.
Altland in Cumberland County and representations were made to Mr. Altland while he
was in Cumberland County, and Mr. Altland accepted the proposal of Pittsburgh Power
and Mallison to repair the 2004 Kenworth while he was in Cumberland County. In
addition, transactions and occurrences giving rise to the causes of action at issue in this
case occurred in Cumberland County. After Mr. Altland had the 2004 Kenworth towed
to Pittsburgh Power, Mr. Mallison gave Mr. Altland a list of parts to obtain for the rebuild.
Mr. Altland delivered $24,000.00 worth of parts that he obtained from Kenworth of
Pennsylvania in Carlisle, PA for the rebuild.
(b) Denied. Conversations with respect to the transaction at issue in
this case took place with Mr. Altland in Cumberland County and representations were
made to Mr. Altland while he was in Cumberland County, and Mr. Altland accepted the
proposal of Pittsburgh Power to repair the 2004 Kenworth while he was in Cumberland
County. In addition, transactions and occurrences giving rise to the causes of action at
issue in this case occurred in Cumberland County. After Mr. Altland towed the 2004
3
Kenworth to Pittsburgh Power, Mr. Mallison gave Mr. Altland a list of parts to obtain for
the rebuild. Mr. Altland delivered $24,000.00 worth of parts that he obtained from
Kenworth of Pennsylvania in Carlisle, PA for the rebuild.
(c) Denied. The contract was entered into in Cumberland County
because Mr. Altland accepted Mr. Mallison's offer while he was on the telephone with
him on November 27, 2009 in Cumberland County.
(d) Denied. Defendants did not perform all of the repairs and work on
Plaintiffs truck at their facility in Butler County. To the contrary, Defendants actually
outsourced components of the truck to various facilities for transmission, machine shop
work, starter/altemator rebuild, and to set the timing on the engine. In addition, Plaintiff
incurred additional costs when his truck broke down in Cumberland County after the
rebuild, for which it underwent significant work and repairs in Cumberland County.
(e) Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Mallison and
Pittsburgh Power employees had telephone conversations and communications with
Plaintiff while the work was being performed. However, it is specifically denied that the
chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious to Defendants.
(f) Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff came to
Butler County to pick up the truck after the work had been performed. However, it is
specifically denied that the chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious to Defendants. To
the contrary, the truck is currently located in Cumberland County, which would provide
easy access to the key piece of evidence involved in the instant dispute.
4
(g) Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff paid for
some of the work in Butler County. However, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff paid
for all of the work in Butler County or that the chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious
to Defendants. To the contrary, the truck is currently located in Cumberland County,
which would provide easy access to the key piece of evidence involved in the instant
dispute. In addition, Plaintiff sent a down payment from his home in Cumberland County
before the work had begun in the amount of $5,000.00. What is more, Plaintiff paid for
the subsequent repairs to his truck in Cumberland County after the deficient rebuild at
Pittsburgh Power.
8. Denied. This case has a host of significant connections to Cumberland
County. Plaintiff resides in Cumberland County and had scores of conversations with
Defendants from his home in the chosen forum, including the conversation which formed
the underlying contract. Likewise, Plaintiff purchased parts to be used in the rebuild in
Cumberland County and had the subsequent repair work done in the chosen forum after
the deficient rebuild by Pittsburgh Power. Further, Plaintiff actually sent a down payment
from his home in Cumberland County before the work had begun in the amount of
$5,000.00. What is more, Defendants also regularly conduct business throughout all of
Pennsylvania, including Cumberland County, through intemet sales, truck shows, and by
selling their wares at various retail outlets and merchant stores, which Plaintiff submits
would necessarily involve contracting with various buyers, merchants, and other
consumers in furtherance of Defendants' corporate objectives.
5
9. Denied. Defendants have failed to show that Plaintiffs choice of forum is
oppressive or vexatious to Defendants, and as a result, this case should not be
transferred to Butler County for reasons of forum nonconveniens. Defendant has not
established any facts that Plaintiffs choice of forum was designed to harass Defendants,
so Defendant cannot meet its burden of showing the choice of forum is vexatious.
Likewise, Defendant has failed to establish that trial in another County would provide
easier access to witnesses or other sources of proof, or the ability to conduct a view of
the premises involved in the dispute. As such, Defendants have failed to show that the
chosen forum is oppressive as well. At most, Defendants have only shown that the
chosen forum is merely inconvenient to them, which is not enough to support a transfer
for reasons of forum nonconveniens. Plaintiff respectfully submits that the chosen forum
in Cumberland County would provide easier access to witnesses or other sources of
proof, as well as the ability to conduct a view of the key piece of evidence in the dispute,
which is the truck. Indeed, Plaintiff is located in Cumberland County and plans to
present testimony from various mechanics and machinists, who are located in
Cumberland, Dauphin, and York Counties, and who performed the subsequent repair
work after the deficient rebuild by Defendants, in support of his position.
10. Denied. Defendants have failed to show that Plaintiffs choice of forum is
oppressive or vexatious to Defendants, and as a result, this case should not be
transferred to Butler County for reasons of form nonconveniens. Defendant has not
established any facts that Plaintiffs choice of forum was designed to harass Defendants,
so Defendant cannot meet its burden of showing the choice of form is vexatious.
6
Likewise, Defendant has failed to establish that trial in another County would provide
easier access to witnesses or other sources of proof, or the ability to conduct a view of
the premises involved in, the dispute. As such, Defendants have failed to show that the
chosen forum is oppressive as well. At most, Defendants have only shown that the
chosen forum is merely inconvenient to them, which is not enough to support a transfer
for reasons of forum nonconveniens. Plaintiff respectfully submits that the chosen forum
in Cumberland County would provide easier access to witnesses or other sources of
proof, as well as the ability to conduct a view of the key piece of evidence in the dispute,
which is the truck. Indeed, Plaintiff is located in Cumberland County and plans to
present testimony from various mechanics and machinists, who are located in
Cumberland, Dauphin, and York Counties, and who performed the subsequent repair
work after the deficient rebuild by Defendants, in support of his position. Further, it
would be extremely disruptive and burdensome for Plaintiff, who is in his home forum, to
have to take off work and attend depositions and trial in Butler County, along with his
material witnesses, who are also located either directly in or around close proximity to
Cumberland County.
11. Denied. At least one Court has held that the convenience of a forum to
counselor paid experts is of absolutely no moment in the forum nonconveniens analysis.
Mills v. EvenFlo, et. al., 2009 Phila. Ct. Com. PI. LEXIS 25 (2009). Defendants have
failed to show that the chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious to them in any way
whatsoever. In any event, Plaintiff anticipates using an expert who is located in
Lancaster County, which is much closer to Cumberland County than Butler County.
7
12. Denied. Defendants have failed to show that Plaintiffs choice of forum is
oppressive or vexatious to Defendants, and as a result, this case should not be
transferred to Butler County for reasons of forum nonconveniens. Defendant has not
established any facts that Plaintiffs choice of forum was designed to harass Defendants,
so Defendant cannot meet its burden of showing the choice of forum is vexatious.
Likewise, Defendant has failed to establish that trial in another County would provide
easier access to witnesses or other sources of proof, or the ability to conduct a view of
the premises involved in the dispute. As such, Defendants have failed to show that the
chosen forum is oppressive as well. At most, Defendants have only shown that the
chosen foram is merely inconvenient to them, which is not enough to support a transfer
for reasons of forum nonconveniens. Plaintiff respectfully submits that the chosen forum
in Cumberland County would provide easier access to witnesses or other sources of
proof, as well as the ability to conduct a view of the key piece of evidence in the dispute,
which is the truck. Indeed, Plaintiff is located in Cumberland County and plans to
present testimony from various mechanics and machinists, who are located in
Cumberland, Dauphin, and York Counties, and who performed the subsequent repair
work after the deficient rebuild by Defendants, in support of his position. There is
absolutely no need for a jury view of Defendants' premises, as said premises have
nothing to do with the instant dispute, nor is there any need for Plaintiffs truck to be at
Defendants' premises for any potential jury view. As previously set forth above, the truck
is already located in the instant forum, which would provide the jury with the easiest
possible access to the key piece of evidence.
8
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, K.I.S., respectfully requests that the Court deny the
Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue to Butler County for Reasons of Forum
Nonconveniens.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jason M. Weinstock, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No.: 69272
John Pozniak, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No.: 201073
IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C.
800 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Phone (717) 238-1657
By
By
9
VERIFICATION
I, KEITH A. ALTLAND, as authorized agent for K.I.S. TRANSPORT, LLC, Plaintiff
in the foregoing action, do hereby certify that I am authorized to execute documents on
behalf of K.I.S. Transport, LLC, and acknowledge on behalf of K.I.S. Transport, LLC that
the statements made in Plaintiffs Answer To Defendants' Motion To Transfer
Venue To Butler County For Reasons Of Forum Nonconveniens are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that any false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18
Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: Keith A. Altland
Member, K.I.S. Transport, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 11th day of May, 2011 I, Jason M. Weinstock, Esquire, attorney
for Plaintiff, Keith Altland, KIS Transport, LLC, hereby certify that I served the within
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO
BUTLER COUNTY FOR REASONS OF FORUM NONCONVENIENS this day by
depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in the post office at
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
By First Class Mail:
Michael J. Bruzzese, Esquire
The Bank Tower, Suite 1008
307 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Keith A. Altland
3811 Copper Kettle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
By: