The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-7894,COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of CUMBERLAND NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Judge on the date and in the case referenced below. MAG. DIST. NO. NAME OF MW MIK EALENNA ORR 09-3-05 MARK MARTIN ADDRESS OF APPELLANT CITY STATE 507 NORTH YORK STREET MECHANICSBURG ZIP CODE PA 17055 DATE OF JUDGMENT EIN THE CASE OF (Plaintiff) (Defenda12/03/10 VNV FUNDING, LLC MIKEALENNA ORR DOCKET No. SI a TURE OF APPELLANT R ATTORNEY OR AGENT CV-0000407-2010 This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. I ppellant was aimant a. . P. J. No. 1001(6) in action R.C.P.D.J. No. 1008B. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the Magisterial District Judge, v? l before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before Magisterial District Judge. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon LVNV FUNDING, LLC Name of appellee(s) appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal (Common Pleas No. 10 I Bqq ) within twenty (20) da? after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. RULE: To LVNV FUNDING, LLC Name of appellee(s) slgnatuce.bt apf5elnt or attorney or agent JAMES V. NATALrE, ESQ. (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: DIM0.2010 ignature of Prothonotary or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-05 FILED-DFFICE THE PROTHONMARCl' 2010 DEC 28 PM 2: 43 CUMBERLAND COUNT' PENNSYLVANIA 10 05-DEC-2010 SUN 23:22 MDJ MARTIN 9305 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND [Wag, Dist. No, MDJ-09.305 MDJ Name: Honorable Mark Martin Address: 507 North York Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17033 Telephone: 717.766.4575 mlKeaienna Orr 808 Fairfield St #a Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Dleporiltlon Summary FAX No, 7177662238 P. 001 Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil Case Lvnv Funding Llc V. Mikealenna Orr Docket No. MJ-09305-CV-0000407-2010 Case Filed; 101181'2010 Docket No Plaintiff Defendant MJ-09305-CV-0000407-2010 Lvnv Funding Llc Mikealenna Or Disposition Disposition Date D r efault Judgment for Plaintiff 1710312010 Judgment Summary' Jo1nt/Several Liabil[ty Iridfviduai Liability " "' Amo nt' Participant u Mikealenna Orr $0.00 $1,179.23 $1,179.23 Judgment Detail (*PastJudgment) ......:.,_..,.._..:.,.,.,..,,......_..?... ,...._.......,..__...,. In the matter of Lvnv Funding Llc vs. Mikealenna Orr on 12103/2010 the disposition is Default Judgment for Plalntiff and judgment was awarded as follows: Judgment Component Joint/Several Liability Individual Liability c46ts Deposit Applied Amount $0.00 $96.50 Civil Judgment $0.00 $1 082 73 $96,50 , . $1,082.73 Grand Total: $1,179.23 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT SY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITHTHE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTJUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. A?£•?, 1?--3 10 ?-' Ate- **/I?-' La Oats V, Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin I certify that this Is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. Date Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin MDJS 315 Page 1 of 1 Printed; 1 2/06/2010 10: 1 9;44AM FILED-OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2011 In,;.' 11: 32 CUMBF-RI-AND +.?NTY PENNSYLV` PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served ® a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No.10-7894, upon the Magisterial District Judge designated therein on (date of service) 1/3, 2011, ? by personal service ® by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) LVNV FUNDING LLC, on !/3,2011 ?by personal service _ sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THI 4 DAY OF January, 2011 ignature of icial before w om affidavit was a e by (certified) (registered) mail, Signature of affiant Gretchen DeWitt -Titjif of o Icial My commission expires on March, 2014 apMMONWEALn of PENNSYLVANIA Nodal seal 7ermlt M. Ke suk Notary Public Somerset eoro, Somerset Courrhr My CAnmtadon 0? MKO 30, 2014 Member, Pennsvinania As9od8tlan of Notaries AOPC 312A - 05 ti ti rq ti m ru a 0 C3 C3 N 0 rq 0 N m r-I ti m ti 0 C3 C3 0 r- -0 a 0 r-I 0 M1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LVNV FUNDING LLC Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. MIKEALENNA ORR Defendant NO. 10-7894 Petition to Enter Appearance 2011 ? 4 AM CUMBE va p 5 Please enter my appearance as the attorney representing the Defendant, Mikealenna Orr, in the above captioned case. submitted, ID #208790 Harold Shepley & Assoc., LLC 209 West Patriot St. Somerset, PA 15501 (814) 444-0500 Attorney for Defendant a -_ ; mix cnr -- 2 G7 ?"C) -v O ? T"+ j IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LVNV FUNDING LLC Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. MIKEALENNA ORR Defendant NO. 10-7894 DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028 F ILED-O F IC ,c) I" THE PROTFIONOTAI 2011 FEB 14 AM 10: '54 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA AND NOW COMES the Defendant, Mikealenna Orr, by and through his attorney, James Vincent Natale, Esquire, and makes this Defendant's Preliminary Objections pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028 as follows: COUNTI 1. Plaintiff failed to plead a date that Defendant allegedly contracted for and/or opened the alleged account. 2. The date that Defendant allegedly contracted for and/or opened the alleged account is a material fact that must be plead in the complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). 3. Plaintiff is required to provide the date that Defendant allegedly contracted for and/or opened the alleged account pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1019(f), because Plaintiff seeks to collect on the interest, late fees, finance charges, and other alleged costs, which are items of special damage. 4. Plaintiff complaint contains insufficient specificity of its pleadings, PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that the Court order Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint or dismiss this action with prejudice. COUNT II 1. Plaintiff basis its claim against the Defendant upon the allegation that Plaintiff purchased the alleged account from HSBC/Orchard Bank. 2. Plaintiff failed to specify whether the alleged purchase agreement was oral or written as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h). 3. Plaintiff complaint contains insufficient specificity of its pleadings, PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that the Court order Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint or dismiss this action with prejudice. COUNT III 1. If the purchase agreement between HSBC/Orchard Bank and the Plaintiff is written, then Plaintiff has failed to attach a copy of the writing, or provide a reason why the writing is not accessible and set forth the substance of the writing. 2. Plaintiff's complaint fails to conform with the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 1019(1). 3. Plaintiff complaint contains insufficient specificity of its pleadings, PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that the Court order Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint or dismiss this action with prejudice. COUNT IV 1. The verification of Plaintiff's complaint was signed by Michael F. Ratchford, Esq. 2. Pa.R.C.P. 1024 requires that all pleadings setting forth new allegations be verified by the pleading party. 3. The exception to Pa.R.C.P. 1024 does not apply to the Plaintiff, because although the Plaintiff is outside the jurisdiction, there was no time limit for the filing of the complaint. In addition, the verification does not set forth the source of Michael F. Ratchford's information as to the matters not stated upon his knowledge, and provide a reason why the verification is not made by a party. 4. Plaintiff's complaint fails to conform to law or rule of court, Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that the Court order Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint or dismiss this action with prejudice. submitted, Mmes Vincent Natale, Esquire- ID #208790 Harold Shepley & Assoc., LLC 209 West Patriot St. Somerset, PA 15501 (814) 444-0500 Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LVNV FUNDING LLC Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 10-7894 MIKEALENNA ORR Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I served this Entry of Appearance, Defendant's Preliminary Objections, and Brief by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, at 120 North Keyser Ave. Scranton, PA 18504 on Michael F. Ratchford, Esquire, and Heather K. Woodruff, Esquire, the attorney for the Plaintiff, LVNV Funding LLC, on February 10, 2011. I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Dater -1 l Server's Signature Printed Name and Title Harold Shepley & Assoc., LLC 209 West Patriot St. Somerset. PA 15501 Server's Address IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LVNV Funding LLC, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff c3 vs. c) rya r -*? r? F 1 NO: 10-7894 f- 'r w 74 C) Mikealenna Orr, c"D Defendant 'r ?-i f s l PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Plaintiff, LVNV Funding LLC, by and through its attorneys, Edwin A. Abrahamsen & Associates, responds to Defendant's Preliminary Objections as follows: I.- V. Denied. The allegations of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law, which are deemed denied. To the extent a further response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies that its Complaint fails to satisfy the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in any manner, and particularly not as alleged by the Defendant. To the contrary, Plaintiff set forth with particularity the allegations against the Defendant and attached the cardmember agreement which is the writing that governs the parties' agreement. Additionally, Plaintiff denies that the Complaint is deficient in any manner, and particularly not as alleged by Defendant. To the contrary, Plaintiff set forth with particularity the amount owed, the date the account became delinquent and Plaintiffs right to collect the debt and attached the cardmember agreement which is the writing under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(i) that governs the parties' agreement. Such allegations satisfy the Plaintiff's pleading burden. See, Opinions of.- The Honorable Terrance Nealon in Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. v. Michelle Barnard, Lackawanna County C.C.P. Civil Action, attached hereto as Exhibit "A "; The Honorable Hiram Carpenter in American Express v. Josephine Peyton, Blair County C.C.P. Civil Action attached hereto as Exhibit "B "; and The Honorable David C. Klementik in Commonwealth Financial Systems Inc. v. Jennifer L. Reeping Somerset County C.C.P. Civil Action, attached hereto as Exhibit "C". WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny the Defendant's Preliminary Objections and award counsel fees and such other relief this Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, ar =cam' Edwin A. Abrahamsen & Associates, P.C. Kevin J. Cummings, Esquire Attorney I.D. Nos.: 86285/209660 120 N Keyser Avenue Scranton, PA 18504 (570) 558-5510 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LVNV Funding LLC, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff : vs. NO: 10-7894 Mikealenna Orr, Defendant : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kevin J. Cummings, Esquire, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections and Memorandum in Support thereof was served via first class United States Mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth below upon the following: JAMES V. NATALE, ESQ. 209 W. PATRIOT ST SOMERSET, PA 15501 Date: BY: Edwin A. Abrahamsen & Associates, P.C. Kevin J. Cummings, Esquire Attorney I.D. Nos.: 86285/209660 120 N Keyser Avenue Scranton, PA 18504 (570) 558-5510 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LVNV Funding LLC, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff : vs. NO: 10-7894 Mikealenna Orr, Defendant : PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Plaintiff, LVNV Funding LLC, by and through its attorneys, Edwin A. Abrahamsen & Associates, P.C., submits this brief in support of its response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections and avers the following in support: 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiff filed a Complaint, sounding in breach of contract, against Defendant in regard to Defendant's failure to repay a credit card account. Plaintiff's Complaint had attached to it the cardmember agreement upon which the breach of contract action is based. Defendant filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint in which Defendant improperly claimed that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege allegations of a breach of contract. A review of the Complaint shows that Plaintiff properly alleged its right to the account, Defendant's use of the credit card to charge thousands of dollars in expenses, her subsequent failure to repay the debt and the rate at which interest accrues. Further, Plaintiff attached the cardmember agreement which governs the parties' agreement. Such allegations satisfy the Plaintiff s pleading burden. See, Opinions of The Honorable Terrance Nealon in Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. v. Michelle Barnard, Lackawanna County C.C.P. Civil Action, attached hereto as Exhibit ":A "; The Honorable Hiram Carpenter in American Egress v. Josephine Peyton, Blair County C. C.P. Civil Action attached hereto as Exhibit "B "; and The Honorable David C. Klementik in Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. v. Jennifer L. Reeping, Somerset County C. C. P. Civil Action, attached hereto as Exhibit "C ". II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did Plaintiff sufficiently set forth the allegations establishing Defendant's breach of contract? Suggested Answer: Yes III. LEGAL DISCUSSION 1. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF PA.R.C.P. 10190 Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(f) states, "Averments of time, place and items of special damage shall be specifically stated." See PA. R. C. P. 10190. Plaintiff complied with the requirements of this Rule by specifically referencing the date on which Defendant's account became delinquent. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged the date the account became delinquent. See Complaint. Further, Plaintiff specifically noted the amount owed by the Defendant at the time it was received by the Plaintiff. See, Plaintiff's Complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff specifically set forth the rate at which the account accrues interest. See. Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff also attached a copy of the cardmember agreement which is the writing that governs the parties' agreement. Plaintiff also plead its standing to pursue this action. Such allegations satisfy the Plaintiff's pleading burden. See, Opinions of The Honorable Terrance Nealon in Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. v. Michelle Barnard, Lackawanna County C.C.P. Civil Action, attached hereto as Exhibit "A. " and the Honorable Hiram Carpenter in American Express v. Josephine Peyton, Blair County C.C.P. Civil Action attached hereto as Exhibit "B. " The Honorable David C. Klementik in Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. v. Jennifer L. Ree in Somerset County C. C. P. Civil Action, attached hereto as Exhibit "C ". The court in Marine Bank v. Orlando, 25 Pa. D & C. 3d 264, 265 stated that "the primary function of pleadings is to form the issue and to restrict the proof of trial to those issues." In this matter, Plaintiff's Complaint clearly and unambiguously sets forth that Defendant opened the account with HSBC/Orchard Bank and was assigned account number 5440455014997327. See, Plaintiff's Complaint. Further, Plaintiff alleged that the cardmember agreement related specifically to Defendant's delinquent credit card. It is not a boilerplate Bill. Moreover, the Complaint sufficiently set forth that the Defendant defaulted on her account by failing and refusing to make payments as they became due and alleged the specific date on which the account became delinquent. B. DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A DEMURRER A demurrer can only be sustained where the Complaint is clearly insufficient to establish the pleader's right to relief. Firing v. Kephart, 466 Pa. 560, 353 A. 2d 833 (1976). For purposes of testing the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleading, a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer admits as true all well pleaded material, relevant facts and every inference fairly deductible from those facts. Savitz v. Weinstein, 395 Pa. 173, 149 A. 2d 110 (1959) Hoffman v. Misericordia Hospital o Philadelphia, 439 Pa. 501, 267 A. 2d 867 (1970). Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the Defendant used the card, received account statements, failed to make her payments as required and that the account became delinquent. Plaintiff sufficiently alleged the principal amount due at the time Plaintiff received the account and the rate at which the account accrues interest. Further, Plaintiff sufficiently alleged the court costs to which Plaintiff is entitled. IV. CONCLUSION Defendant's Preliminary Objections should be denied. The allegations of the Complaint sufficiently set forth the account number, the date the subject account became delinquent, and the total amount due and owing. The totality of Plaintiff's Complaint more than adequately puts the Defendant on notice of the claim being brought against her and gives her a sufficient factual basis to formulate a defense. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to deny Defendant's Preliminary Objections and Order Defendant to file an Answer. Respectfully submitted, BY: Edwin A. Abrahamsen & Associates, P.C. Kevin J. Cummings, Esquire Attorney I.D. Nos.: 86285/209660 120 N Keyser Avenue Scranton, PA 18504 (570) 558-5510 EXHIBIT A P 1: 4viONEAY-??3 FINAI?ICIAL IN T? COUI 'T OF COMMON PLEAS T`EMS, INC. ' OI LA CKA WAI A COUNTY Plaintiff . CWIL AMOIJ-- AT LAW. - VS.. NG_• €?7 CV 13844 ;HELLE BARNA RD : - Defendant ORDER . . Defendant,- Michelle B=ar4 ("Barnard'.') has filed Prey objections to tie co plaint that has been filed by plainti ff Commonwealth Financial Wys s, Inc. (MS g this credit card collection :action. Preliminary objections in the naffs of a demurrer °`can here the cone Taint is clearly insdMc?ent to esfabRiU the pleader's rigs onl be sustained w P _ ." Reed v. Duuis 920. A.2d 861, 864 (Pa. Super. 2007). For pwToses of testi reling the lf y sufficiency of the challenged pleading,a deminrer admits as true all well-pleaded.fa? le . .. and every inference fairly deducible from those facts.. Hess V. F03i Rothschild. T - 925 A-2d 798, 805 (Pa. Super: 2007). Pre61i uiary objections w)uch rest in the dismissal of a . claun may be sustained only in cases that are clear and free.from dom. B Woyne v . : - cl PiIresf'Communi Associate 924 A-2d 675.679. 'x: Stipp : 2W7). `"Fo jbp ew azid i that the lawwquld. with c i doubt that dismissal is aPPrOpn it must *P'u n the facts averred." Reardog 4 AIl?e. At recovery by the plaintiff upo Super. 2007j. If any dobbt exists as to whether a deter should ?bo d 477; 480 (Pa. 'o - objections.' that doubt should be resolved in favor :of overruling ii?e pry ne, O MM ' Re VRra. - avers that Barnard t`applied for and received a credit card issued by FIRST CFSI I t number 4366133031317395", and that according to the bilf C CONY with the Rcco to the cow-Ply as ??? A, that attached o sale, affidavit and assignment which are I CONY to Unifund- (Docket Entry No. 1, cr t card account was sold by FIRST CARD CFS1 alleges that it subsec{uently `bias assigned all sights f xi certahi card'aecoimts .: 5). CF fr , m Unifun including the account opeed by [Bar€?arQ with Acxas? ramber d, g, ?., q6}.:CFSI has attached asu-bt B to the complaint copies of 613303131739 '' (Z 4 661330313M98.7 ent niemarializng Uhifunei'S went of 132MU `S bill of sale, affidavit and assignn4 it card 'account to.CFSI. ; exhibit B}: I . CFSI further avers that Batnard?;s ".credit card was sub}ecttarfe term of the . . - - M Gardmember Agreement" and has attached a. copy of that Agiems to the complaint.- (U, g t "C"• CFSI alleges that Barnard used-ft credit card -for pumbases, cash " I andExhibi ) advances and/or balance transfers" and "was mailed account statern?ate' for those charges; ulted under the to=-of the Agreement. by failing and re€ is ng to make monthly t "defy el ts on the account as -they became due." - W(, g94 O). 'Accirding to CFSI, Barnard'.. principal amount due of - P LY.unt . . ' . became-delinquent on September 12, 2006" and had a ? - : ? :• ` ` • - - . $7,091.71 at the time that the account wss assigned to CFSI. ad-. q?l 1-12): Since ti2e agreement provides that "anyunpaid balance acczues infest at the rate cf.". credit ?ard' percent, CFSI seibmits that "[tIhe total amount due and ovriragCFSIj including 14.15 p intdrest is $10,740.15." ad., 1"13-14). Additionally., inasmuch as the cm6t cmd-agreement er states that vmmard] is liable for [CFSI's] court costs and reaaanable attorney's fees fal i meent."-cn the amount of o alance", d ?l5), CFSI -demands judg b in a amount of 25/o of the $10740.15 pluscosts.of sw 't, reasonable attorney's fees and -any other relief Who Court. , _ - deems just and appropriate." (Id., p. 3)- I Barnard essentially raises two arguments in her preliminary, objections. First, citing Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a) which requires the pleader to attach a copy of a writ ngto the complaint whenever any claim is based on that writing, Barnard contends that th?,' complaint should be I issed due to CFSI's alleged failure to attach documentation sub_ntraffig the. - dism ass gnment of Barnard's credit card debt to CFSL Second, Barnwd mbmits that CFSIss . requisite sPecif city siriae CFSI has not averred the date on which complaint lacks the . g I and made her credit card charges, the specific amounts that she edged Sher card and the articular items that she purchased on those dates. (Docket Entry Na. 2, INI6-20, 23-25; -38,40-41). The purpose of pleadings is to place a defendant on native of th&claims upori which: the defendant will have to defend. City of Newcastle v. Uzarnere, 8" A.2d 763, 767-760, (Pa Cmwlth. 2003); Yacoub y Lehr Valley Medical Associates, -905 A.2d 579, 589 (Pa. Su er. 2003), app. denied, 573 Pa. 692; 825 AN 639 (2003). Under-Rule I019(a)i a co . plaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiffs claims and a summary ofthe m Lrial facts that support those claims. Carlson v Community A ServicM ing 824 A.2d 1228, .1232 (Pa_ SuPer..2003); McClell 413 Pa Super: x€141, 604 A.2d at . - _ . .. _ . .. .: 105-97..0." 1_n. determining whether the allegations of a complaint hav° been stated with ?he specificity, the court should not focus. upon one pa 47'ph of the complaint in sary ub 805 A.2d at 5g9, and should instead examine. the paragraph in context :ion, Yarn. Cher atleoatians in.the complaint. Rac?ison S13 A2d2, 870 (Pa. all o ;r. 2002)- Examining the exhibits attached thereto in their the allegations of the complaint and CFSI has adequately -averred the various assignments which afford it standi rety, ng and , capacity to sue Barnard for her outstanding credit card debt. Moreover, CESI has cap vided Barnard with fair notice of its claim and a summary Of the material facts orting that claim. Any additional specifics regarding the individual credit card P rsactions maybe appropriate subjects for discovery, but do not warrant dismissal of the mplaint pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a) or {f). NOW this 16`x' day of August, 2007, upon consideration oMefendagt's AND liminectiori to Plaintiff's Complaint", the memoranda. of lavif sdwdtted by the... ary Obj dnt of counsel- on August 16,.2007, and based upon the reasoning des and the Oral gum forth above, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED the . Defendant's preliminary' objection to plaintiffs complaint is OVERRULFD; 2.. Within twenty (20) days.of the date of this order, the deferidant'shall file a isive pleading to the complaint. EXHIBIT B cOpRT o 'c0MMck1* s QF* gIrA1I? C;puC, pE?'V?ANi iERI AN EXFRIrSS CEN'F'URIO1?1 B ANEC Pldiotiff NO.2009- GN 0007 i CI?II i. - CUDi'F CALF ,IOSEP i INF pEYTON,. Befendarit a CARPEN R III pRESIDING JUDGF, HON. IRAM A. , . CQDNSIt L FM PLARC DAVID .. A'a' FdAK99, ESQUI 'TI<IIOMAS MICOA.EL, ESQUIRE ISE ESt UIItE COUNSEL FOIL Dl3F.`t?ANT WXDE GAR t OPINION AND ORDER O ona GkA by the 'phis matter eo.oes before the Court oil, r l?iectl I tin this Credit:Cai'ci Collection Case. The objections ire two is "'tuts; F?efen ' ' Taint fails to state a sufficient factual basis, as there is ad atexegt Tie€endant s comF . whether or not the agreedidiit alleged between the Plaintiff and Defegd??t ?-°r? or of itte Second, Plaintiff does not ptoyido 9dY *4 nthistoty; rePapMMtbb tiQa or Wr ct?e?t tirti ntatian td substarttigte their OegadOtis as to the monies owed, MI doa held to a conclusion on-luly 15, 2004. ftcr review of the Complaint, hearing the argument, and co?sidemtign of over enera[ly, we tone[udd the preliminrll OtSjectiansare not treatm Ut'Of these cases g . i?en our new CXedit Card Court; these objectpfts are aetzidll ntoo# Ito ous:.In art, g . mer ti afiaf` OiSdoytr?+Otd tirhith will supply this inforimation if requested tlarongh the Y. Conciliation on ere. the abj tions presently 1s1 so Eioldiiig, we would snake several observations. First, Eve believe Judge • '. F G into sf Its Atlantic Credit anc! Fissartce vs. Gailiacea, 929 k2d 344 (PaStiper Nettic s p 2x.03) and PentiSylvan6 Rule of Civil Prod Mur-61019 are controlltag. Wheae a Ceedit Card" Colnga I y sends a credit card an offer occurs. The consumer's use-of the dird is the acceptance Of tbd contract. lst its COMPlaint', P[aintlff has pled that the IDe idaatt recemd and used a card. This establishes the contract. Each time the consumer uses the card, they are ac-alp trig the tenets (and any changes) issued by the Com any Fach upe estab[islfes new contract. Here, what Defendant requests be included in the Complaint are rztte s of . proof (since there are sgffcient facts Bled to support the cause of aetgou)?- eviewing the Coatplalnt, Plaintiff is well able to answer all.of.the. dkgafiQ1191: for exam e, Plaintiff knows if hg has used the. card. Ptairttiff has al?qast eer y been receivinl statements from the Company as to amounts owed :a ,cons dO-rzbEe period cif tune- g • pr€or to this Iing4tion' E ea.if l'Iaitttiff his not been receiving tliosestatesnents, I>owever, she can answer the Complaint by requiring strict proof of the aigiaurit aqd tec}uestfit : - diSCOVei?. - - - - Is to Plaintiffs assertion that the Complaint does not proy1de an acEpusit hilt k?, 1'?paYm Int obligatiotis, or any doc6nientatitin we are satisfied none of that sfauld be - .require I aft he pleading stage It is true that (dlftately) Plaintlf fitzag be r-equired to prodeice gffitietit account statements to include any ternis and condi?lo¢s up oa whir " charges are based. (H4149er; even falliiYe.to provide codiplete information may only Waive interest and finance charges). However;. these are again matters, of proof 2i Md not plegdkog. Issues such as Complete account history and repaymcnt obligations are essentially irreleya t to th6 pleading. NVhe$er they are important at trial is a matter to be deter ed later. They. do eot.i6pact a ComplAW which Plaintiff is per&dtiy able.to ins«Ex n its present'taiin;. Discovery is inother matter. Deferidant's counsel may through the DistAvery Order obtaine? at the Concili Lion Conference (which has already occurred) receive much of the inforsnlon he requests in these objections. Defendant to answee the C &raplaint within hve ty (20) days. BY THE COUR'T', SA 7 /G oQ . FILED:L EXHIBIT 19 -JQt•1.13. ZI n . BANK COMMON r,T ` 11fTwW {?nTQ _yW1J7?1a n mwilli Of ?3N 311a D+ J) n li S OF sommi_.1?. PAO ;;1NC. sssis PVN1S'yLVANIA ' 10 A, tLC• atdgaec of CHASE } 140.288 CNIL 2W9, V. Zt L: REF-p?G• j . ?_ ? ? : ? ° ? ? Defendant. , • V adit Anthony R Burg. F-Sq- aidarn: Crregory T. Ar im, Esq. December 15, 2009 Int; j ffih ORANDUM . befoie the Court is Dcfcodant ]eanifcr Y.. Res The me= that is cu Wly icy objections to Plsiatiff C09=00wesm Flol=al Systems. I=, odanf") P . . cf Chase law& USA, NA-'s 1` Fa'A xof Utufiu gorifolio A. 11C, g led Complaint- Tn ac vbmce with the following, Defendant's preltmroarY 04 ° ° led- . • - _ . • (Amended Compl. dart applied for a First USA Haab ('`Fitt credit cad Compl l 5.): Must granted her application and opened a "revolving aid " Defcadm ac=Pted ft tj:z= sad • -.. . •credit Icssd•accouat" in ht;tame.' (k?) .Subsoquas?Y. . • by usigg . 9feeDum of tha revolvhn open-end credit ar cour?t contained in [a) written a and/or to obtain cash ad van= indicated by ft Aeonmt• . . • ? ??? thet card to yoke purchases . I t: 4 j k t I ?. .11 t I t --3AN.13.2010?f?: . I_ 1 gsatemmts provided by plainfifC" (Id j 6.} " Qa August Ig. 20M and ftmafer,1M bm&ch af' obligati) ns under the hal t' Defendant failod.tQ make payments as they bwme due as r i d.by she attached-statements ...:' d17.) a?eemeat provides "for acceleration of the mfire balms due and awing , Defer I 's breach of [it] under the section relmed to as `DeWt/CoUcc ian Cost"" (Id I S ificglly, Plaintiff alleges that the "entim balance due is a princiPle amou"t of 8) pe,?. . $9,653 92:g1us " interest [fit] has &=d at the rate of 6.00% Per Mum or! [III - . [since] the March 21, 2MV (Id 118-10.) t Marsh is, 20%; Chase Bank USA, N-A- ("Chase"), which had merged with First, interests ... in and Who= certain reeeivab e, j?d$rn cs assip "-a [of its] nghss, title and • ' Unifrurd Portfolio A, LLC ("U (Id I . or a ddc?ces. debt desk in Ezhtbit 1 to t to ft Amended CompleM ar its con L Ex. A)• However, "E brt !" was rat Am ? Fxlu'bif A: 'reze is some discrepancy reBards to the subsequent ffiignment ' - portfolio that, inter altgwdudc d th.°• Cornplamtalleges.t' x Unifund "assigned an acc,aunt * -• sewn of _e above aPtioneii defendant to [Plaintiff]= - i (Id 12) The exhibit to vkich tlze. ` that on Tanusry 2,20R, "Un CCJtFirs refetmces; however. provides averment - red] to [Ring ne Belo Inc] a1] of its good and mrskclablz title, (sold),gn[od];.and t<ansfer[ : five aacl cteac of all. liens, claims and eucumbrawxs in and to the Accounts listed in *e Acco it 5ch ulQ wed as Appendix A[.]° (ComOL Ex B (emphasis adde4) A:gah bowev I.4 the dxument was not attached- pre Mareh.1.0. 2009.. Plaintiff filed a Complaint to which Defendant filed p? - • : on June 1, 2009, the Court shuck the Ca mpimt wft Iewe to objbctioasortMarch 27,2004.. 2 mom= Mel OCRs- . E l 1? t { i • J(aN.13: Z010?11':3ew' r atnerul A • ?•! :. Compla 1028(a MTPJZY- 70' t r Ammdtd On Aui;s• 31, 2009, pwntaffttmely fi{? ° In-gym ofthe ps?ties tubes 4, 2009, DefendW filed the pr elurnumY oh3ectFOas.tc? t . On Sep - . . , • Defendant objects under the trounds set forth in subd'svWS, . t. Specifically, ) and I WaX4) of pm=ylvania's Rules of Civil Proceduxe_ Ditcfcssion and of ?t oa the $? a eliminalY objection may be?fil?d. a, pr ,' .,_ . pennsylveal ". question mdmRxdet 'Salty. is a pleading. PLPRCiv.P. lb2g(a}(3). 1 is. whether the complain is saili ¢ ady clear to e,aable the defendant his 102g(a)() i , . dcf I ' ?r `?nc?t3ier the plaintiff s complaint informs tlu defendant with accrosacg a=te ess of do specific bL,,is on which recaverY is sougbi so that he may t covupl ?• - . r. up defense's Rambo V, Cieenew, 9 A2d 1235 :- questton aa g•?uads to. make his p Esseatiallp, the objection r *&m a courttO cmrsvidO 1 (Pa.S .• "Caatents of Pleadings, Ge? d c Ate" has eo I plied with Rule;1Q19, • - Co?plaint k , ? ? hffie, Defen,deoat alleges that plsotttiff s Amended .. credit d [cjonma or (aj ` and the . insuffoieat bemuse it failed to•affach the enfire .. car "complletc.Writtcn s?i?menu from Fast Q, Chase and Unifvad indica'ag thsr Ett's . " which the Corot addresses in Part I(A).' McVII Br nc? Iot sale(s), accourlt:v?as included in . t 5. Additionally, nefendsnt objects because lffdid lim. Qb? m7 Prelim: Dl,? ns. 4 . ) pre • * ° ecifcc-,A3, a m nl for not 4s c the date of the ggmmoncemeuit of the alleged agreetnm or $P l n which theram adcicsses id the ptd sums outstanding and for the amounts in disputes Obj,n?.118,10 :(Prelim t . Pact Ift . f } f t? r .C f i' 443--P- 4__._--- __--JPN. 13. 2E n Re ule 1019 3uN? Eons {a), (lil? ?1 ,q, The clu?etrseMS ofR. . Kula 1014(x) preswa?s that K[tl6r matend facts on ,Mch a cause of actiou of def+ensa bastated in a concise and sutntnas5r form." Pa10 l(a}. Reny. our is based ls Su a Coon stated. "We have constre to m the carnplsint mush only ' the mmtial facts apprise the defendW of the claim being assn ud, but it must also stmunartze X009) (citing Lartd? v to suPP Irt claim." Steiner v. Markel, 968 A2d 1253,1260 (P P "[t]he a. Nat I Nat'l Bad M A.2.d335 (Pa.1971)). Spy' t?lY,.tbe Irandau Court stated dint . of tfie Yule is t:o re4uize the Pleader to disclose the `material facts' sufficreaE to citable pwrposa .. the edvetse p?S? Plegare his case=' 282 A.2d ai 339 (citing &rnith v, AlleglrrnY Counry,155 At Ieast snce 1959, It [bas] not [been) ne Y nor deshShk tl? 'A..2d 6115 (Pa.1959))- ? be leaded: so 1(mg as ft tssential facts to mpport a r]aim . psrticct:latities of evis3ential fact p - - • ' ihaae is a I Petmsylvsnls law.cltariy esrdbl?hes that are,". 1SS:A?616r Ace tdingl9; ° tine[s] of avidence' • and "essential faots to be pleaded in t ooutplairtt." thffeac?betwn?n. - Id at 61'f; aft Smith was deaded, our Supreme Court admits thaot "the line onabale!ss, shortly ` •I,:pleeding feCts.and evidence is not always bd6?•j Bata v Ce ntral Pem Nat7 Bank bets. ?.. 224 A.?d I-74 .179 (P.a.1966). WS is'espacially ttm in *? of mat cod coilecsion of like the one' that. is 6=erdly before the Court. Coarpare Atlantic Credit and Rizirm, fnr- V. Giuliarn 329:A.Zd.?4o (Pa-Super.2003), wj(h Capital One Bank V. Cleverw rne, 7 Pa. D..& . ?. CSrh !-((].P..(centre 2009),and F7or.Tdwide Aster purc w5-jng LLC v. Stern. 153 P-L-L 111 (C.P.. A.?lle ?env 2004), .1 1 1 i f 1. I ' l i il. f f 1 - relitdmty objecO•in a L or Court considet? a 1028(a)(3) P riulia'r'°• the Super . n case. 929 AN at 344. S?Cifically, the Gittliana Cotat ca edit colleo . relirnirt? ?ectiott whetber ? defendant's mgu a°t. which was set forth in the farm of s g I . em was enured, established a •-Meritorious defanse.'t fry Bled a?a a default jud_ ttat rz+om [tom etssigt?)'• ?di?ed that it was `the Vambaser of the acco The platrt4sff had ' bemeen [assignor] and {the gig-iffl* or erther.any but fa.?ed to contract or $gem attach sheet Bch appears ?? tract or agreement beRwec'n. (assigti°rj and it other than a sing!a y. I " Icy at34t_ TIm ' from (assignor) addressed to (the Phu to be ti monthly = ==1 had a meritorious defense for two ms's. Id at 34-, 7 fi defendam alleged that she obj eclon [veas) that the complaint, which cayzirted numeTaus factual svermcnts taef rot b=n aired by Pe-R C,P. No. l 024. but rather had b verify ed by an verified as m .... „ no p?sottaI knovdadgm of the individ4 idaliW as ``?gal7 for [the p&i6fQ o?, ? - ff" td. nU second preluan? 1 of the corporate p1 facts iAd. not an off,= ... had failed w attwb to the complaint nay witting wasthat . {the plainli? ? and the defmdantI as required by ga .C.P- Z Q19r dpi . the contract betwemIthe .assign _or] n is of [the asst]- - - Id tbatithadpmubgL thecontrectvel ?gh aver. ' [of ,,. ?.epl ff] . '. - that the deft - bad .' 'detatioa of these objections, the Gtr?liar?a Court held al-344; jp cotta: I : ed meritorious defense .and remanded for the trial court to open the defm* judFaeM '. eStab a theptelitninesYnbjections Id- at 345. esta6lisi ad: the ma?l?' mum (t) M*, `a "Uk jud mcd MY be opened when dove of art and () P M* a t w mm bk a pet doo to opm to default pd? (2) show a mli on for is a,.. to file a responsive Fl&W rdet 342 (atarior eta or 5 i? t . r I tl 3 It } 3 • F ' t f -TAM. 13.2010-.11:3ZPr- . ?c I I Z intamtid and to the alleged accotmz[-" Id a la fos tvsro reasons. . - court in Allegheny County decided the 2004 case of Worldwide l et out LLC v,' Stern. It considered Giuitana in deteraiming wltetber to SUSS n a _ purclsetsinp? . lainWs complaint, which was filed in a catlif card all that the P. objecdon alleging preliminary ` . with the pleading requimmel of Rule 1019. 173 P.L J.111. collection case, failed to comply Gru Specifically, the count in SYerr? -`et out the folIouing language from iita verb: I s which fly establish [the y . (T)he plaintiff g."fetilene to attach the writing umhamd . aimifr'sj right to ajudgement ; .. t'as"d on an alleged debt it allegedly p pl ., laiadfpsj complaint. Tiros, the Pre]WORry . is fatal to the eiaitns set forth in the (P objocttoas of [tho-defendantj based on fig= to produce a cardholder agreettreeit btesrieat account, as well as evidence of the assignment, establishes a • ?isari? defenses." I iag Gtultafea, 829 A.2d at 345). t gtimately, the Sterne court held Eltei mn td az l l'(4uot ' taintif!r- must attach the doccuneats establishing a chain of tides €o. titer assi?t`P ' I019(i) tequites•a party to attach all documents chic few the COMP laenebecaizse •CRjule ... 2tiea of the plus cause :ofact?Q t." ld:d'1.13. "Pt?e Steve court stag c>attt die found [the dd at and P party t6 [the`e creme relatieynship card Iaix a [v+'as] not ' unless [the) plaintiff [could] establish that (itj .. _ acgssifed [the] right, [tlie credit card issuer) ] . to Somerset County the Stern retie of w i .Tise fourt win not Wend First, Giuifarta does not require it Second. Rule 200 "Prosecutions of Actions by Red I' ^ is the rule that oontrols vvhether.the assigetneatt catr>zacts nerd to be Parties.u?h¢tezrst.•• , . ?o e complaint. aoi Rule 1019. th otrted by and is the ' e 2002 prohties. in PeruT „A actions slsall bo pros '.1 namelc€?eaeal.Psri7cin interest." pe.RCi?.P. 2002- The Superior Court consideted Rule. ?rappri- .. ostto. 42 A.2d 93 (pa.Suger 1945). caoninBrostv?P 2Q02. • E •f? f - 1 1, t ` i. aSSi?ee to Stle iM WS 1n grown, the S?°r Cow noted that tlio rule "pe'ilrUf[S ail the assiguoi as a notnio p=Y" if and only if it `'trace[s] [ ] . own name without joining its assipm7 42 A.Zd as 93. leading the derivation of [the] cx?se of1Oa from t } { P ` ... . • . • .i ' • "The derivation of the title to she cause of actffia must e Sp ;ci$c oy, the BIG*n Court sue' if he alleged srively as a fem. tlsat the defendant may mgWire proof of the assigturcetrt i 'the Bra:s?ra court tection must ba afforded the defendant[,j' 9o desires. lei at 94. -Ms PTO t fired himself subjected to the same liability to the held; "[o]therwise, the.defendaat rrugh • ownm of the cause of action, in the event that tbere was no achW =sign=t" Id oTr?na1 ?a Bra>Krr, the plaintiff had averred that it was the real p=ry in interest because the I . had 1 been la?rfnlly dad duly es aped to the pWDOF:. Id at 43- - rez' it h contract-. ha[dj. I :. Id The Cmtrt noted that the plaintiff was "not requites 10 set out not done so5n a.plead;mg- a,copy of rare assignmeru as an exhibit to the[]pleadngs. th[e] lassipmn ntyetbatim or atrech. it-did need to make "an a?S? a1le Grit a€fa? in a sodpd '' Hawv=c, Id (wiphs and ft parties tut I Able of proof[, e.g.,] state[] the fact and data of the assigun din;.s p? plea ' I ?: _ rdin the court held drat the avctment "[?] Baal upon thsretq.? ;= lr? •at Q4. AGE 9? .. claim against defendant" because it had "failed to allege the plaiatifs whictt;t4 bass ft .t. plus ~• Id at 94, P-Mo case of Brown. The Superior Court case of Givliana comports with the Supreme C As the AI,1eg Y Cotes court in tern noted, the Giuliana Court stated that "tire preliminay to produce a catdholdet agnee:nenx 2,d statrmeot are • I the plaintiff j based on fen. obi ?s of [ a meritorious defuse. " S rern,153 MOM I as welt as evidence of ro'F#9??rnent, establishes 1 Z Z 829 AZd at 345 (emphasis added))_ Concezning the rest P&MY in inte.rci% P.L,J? at 111(q?ibting 7 ' .. .. J 1. ? NEW= s I : ' tl t f [ t. t s . i F .f L -J•AtR.13.2019--1 . , .CITE G€?J the assj at 344 (empty to tbz the B' 1 f Pa. t hold that . c?npla vvas MMMcieat solely be= idw Court did no . ? coatza? bad aot tin ?h?- 'The platnt?ff s failure to Provide any + cl MM of 'dared the fad that the cotn? ?t bad not 1?tt prt0*11 ved€ie. Id. .gpmenf' o v rrof a eaification is not w le 45'. 'Ibe Giudtana Court stated, "[Z7be Stu:cement it without It n plerading is mere tarralsors, and acnrro notfung_-29 A.? at 34.4 Ls added). ACCOrdingh, the Cr uliana plaintiff's WMP16nt was tnsufficienc en. Feoaxds in : (I }its aveatnent effectively " aamount[edl to no?mg" as did interest because l $te in said I wn pl ait s; and (2) it did not attach a document that vaould c'0mPens p]ead. ld• weed,•Ru)e 102.4, ",VefBcation." provides, in peronent pm thgt 11[e]very corrtainiu8 a,.,v lent of fact nor appearfng of record in the acdan slm)1 -..107.4 (einplRsis added}- {Wdb?er; e!! ea if Rule 2002 were aot co&alting, Rule 1019 does not regttr`Fe $e tri the - ? edtiff is the real Party in te st • ie}?ts estab,I-g tom'tlie : plain - .tD - ` .. u1e.I419 bdigision (h? its ate, and subdivision Ct} Provide: iplao R . claim ar defense is based upon an agreement the gtt . (h) ? When ?any at is oral or writtcrL • ' ;iiieally if the ageeme ` t is in writing, it must be attwima to the pieadgrgr See Ncre: If the agicem? . uonC) ofthis tula - f) When any. claim or defem.1s based upon a writing. the Pieadea S' an of the wtitin? or the material Part thereof; but if the writing ? - . - not with ? capx?s ancesszble to the pleaders it is sufficient to state, together ` reason, and to scf forth the substance in writing- ; . ' AoeordingTy Rule 1019 requires the real putt in interest ("e.tht it. be rat assig:ee) to state s??ly she. th? fnitisl cmdh card issUeT or a suT?setltt macm whicfs the aluint is based is oral or - The rule is not d with the ream uP°n is-??•?..... •. ••' _ .' . -. I' It I II I- . E? •f? I f 1 I t JFNI.13.2010®11 THOWT 08 reempt(s) t+ n. which the "the deri>iteon of the title to the (clailizr.. is based. &'o?, 42 A.2d etA.k, see also.Foner v Peat Marwick Main & Co., 597 A.2d 392,397 (Pa.Clavalth_1991) (=dng•?-ie.distinction between "documents (that) may constitute important evidence- in the litigation" And "dott=ents wroth aea? d'e legal Obligations (that the defenda?stj is said is the com I plai• ;tttto have bleached (emphasis in aligning)). To the extent that the agre==e that sabdivi I (h) considers is vuritteo, it must be attached to the pleading. purstmat to subdivision (i). Pa.R;Civ?P.1019(h) (note). Subdivision simply provides that the real patty in intctest is to stt" a copy of the agreement if it is accesmIle to it. Gluliana comports with this faint: } .. .. • . the Superior Court remanded for the ttW court to sustain "the sound preliminary obje oo" regardirI the plaintiIrs "fail[ure] to attach tothe complaint any writing evidencing as5f ootutaci b tw=. tthe assiguozj and [the defendant] as =pLired by Pa,RC-P. l019[.r 929 --- A2d at 343_ ' S e Court stated, "Judg mew gnat Imft Y Levln,.146 A. 533 (P& 1929), t.he upr ' he and, before [al plaintlf?is entitled co recover. . streagcr to the.conract, ' entered iniavo of a • the-b?4 d is on :him J0 show he has an interest therein.- Id. ttt 34 (emphasis added)- Certainlyt.w'l assignee'cretlitoz`•plaintiff has the option ofproving that it is the real party in interest by to the complaint the docim ents that establish its title to the catm of _ • mg , r-dthat action. HoweX?. oar state cars not utilize aprood pleadingscheme;itiswotIestabIL4 • • I•j L "P y Y aiautilizes afa0pleaft scheme." Gates v Gates, 4671 A2d 1024,103()-31' (Pa-St .20091 (TPA" Wes)- Cases in which a plainti ff seeks to recover crecrt card debt are no TereM of pleading. If the legislature wants more from the assigtte e-c ! ft or ' • in terms . 9 t 1 l ? i. I 't _ l- i? ? t. .t 13. Z010'?11= -JAN. ofthe tabEe'af -be additional rotes. A per than W= plaintiffsl it's fire p splays tW it has not yett done m, Peasisyaua's Rules of Civil.progediue. however, di Iri the instant case, the Court holds that "the coniplauit is sufficiently clear'ta amble [] D efezidsnt to prepare l J defense" Rambo, 906 A.2d at 1235. Plaintiff sadsfied e • [ ] ? 1019(h by plug thai its claim is based on the written credit card agreewent (See Comgi. 5.) Plaintiff- satisfied File 1019(j) by attaching as alleged "true and oorrect copy" ofthe eat. (Id; See Compl. Ex. C-) Under Rule 2002. Plaintiff do`s Dot nod w h to the agree m i indicating that Defendant's acceuat was Complaint [tile] complete writsen assignments - . includi d in the lot sale(sy, (Prelim- Obj'DS_ 5.) All that it needs to do is "trace[. in the leed• the d vatton of [the]• cam of ae ran from [its) assignor[,' which it did? Browne. 42 p j _ F cootdingly, the Court disagrees with Defendant's as?oa that A-2d - ,93; (See,Compl. 2.). . A Co l ig insti S*A in regards to the attachment of the agreement and ft fsgYi n"- a The RegpiremeWl aI Rule 1019 Sadi *.ion 10 could not simply assn that a sp? o - •?: h-M Stern oo?urt also. held that the wmpl?t . arnouri?of a gr?! was:owed..153 P_Ll_ si 1-12. According to the oacac " . ' Undat Rule 1019; a complaint must iwhxk the a:a0ua19 of the cha ffsdaa are part.of the claiin,.the dates of tha charges, csodits for paymenm if anyiI dazes and amouats of in=n chaff. and dais and Mnotmts of other chwges_ 7be complaint should contain stifficiMt dooumwtation and a0cptions to petmk a defeodaat to calmilate the total amount of daalages drat are allegedly due 6y. reading the documents attached to the complaint anal the allcgacdons within die •. . hed m • ' • • • . } ?? - . ' • . .. . • ? - t?e?tae 2 The Gault notes tha then is a disa?tpa iry between The CompW= aitd The do ==O that Ptaia The ColapTainC :{Cowp= C=pL j , +vteli Cac?p K ) s g bh e the cow rates - -rot PlaintifP.?(Coarpl Esc _8 ai eat is b== "(Jt?iifimlso torOCRus s dart dot P=ytvatw's Rules oiC do not t? Dc ttdant to . al • " ( h?atis:add?l 'iv+l'I Pm=dm . . ?1oe cam al admit tfi?sE the WkPd is s tact. See PAX Cir Y.1029. 10 ?:. f i tI: V1 . ' t i •• 1 t' f 1 • ?•. t .,J?I.13. Z01 . I 0?1 Id D. & knov rTto?. x.11 . 1 t'? e CCAtre COMAY teoe?Y P?? ?tions arEd-room?u oinitted)• ? sts? U?? M - ital. one Bank v Cleverisc?. 7 Pa ice as to how Rule 1019 allegealY so Provides in Cap I the Cievensn?e Court held tbas "E-1 defend t fs eratitled to C?Sth.et 155-56. SpeC?calmade, rbe Rmouatr- ttterefara and the oas were made, t the dares on whicb indi f .b° able to answer intelligently and detetFnfne wlesi items he esrt iii and ed to r? I I? items pIRrhas Id at l 56 (citations ornitted- ble coatasf' under Rule 1019 stvision vicies, in p?? P? th.^t I O l9(f)1? lri S to the ddes that must be Ptes Rule Srate • me .:. shall l 9f tally stated." Pe-RCiv.P_ 10 1 9(f I. Ili General «[a]vemaeuts of n Coaunonwed& Court ry V. Lmorie and Green, 336 A.2d 951(Pa.Cm AEaiho arltb.i976}, ft l: the ?tdency Of a cosiLPW1t in regards "the considered a Preleminmy objection testier iststaace I aveTrod" under R dt 1019(f). Id at 855-56. It sez O1? ? Spif rein of times . betie?Y ?? to enable ono€6rat ben the enls of action acaved mnst . ? •?-. . _ t1EC staaue of limitations if Bpglicable. Id at 85 ((Lthe de cnda>n to PIZ.W.. Z 49$, 509-10 (Fa-std 197a)? In the B41" case: - ? Rengo?, X24 pzd• . of the last acts taken p=DMIt . "e Court was cow.tned with the to pkltESa& if the std of limk466sr. 'tn a consP'tree'Y the defendant cnablm8 talioxES dots tint begin to run is a ;barred the.action. Since statute °f iimi . the Coon reasoned tlLit Y Cass until the last act of conspizac that coasp'ttacYlcaded 'd 6* sntictures of ?- ?f ficietu facts relating to time bats brxa P - ' - PaR.C-P. 140. 1019(n bad lea met to inal? the dates le and Green court went on to hold dial the pleinirff needed M. 'Ilie..I.aw?' . t) .[?at9 some idea of whcthe?r a ttitatton of action dose were ft. s `; ovld . e ia that CVMAt1i 2006). altFt, 910 A2d 775. (-. Sill ntrruimt'e available. Id, aced rd P v Co E?es a debtor to make rnmtmuta taon?lY .1e typical ctedit card age reg a ! . m the uaigne ttat?tre of Mxh.ag?? a debmr is typi?l7'?e to rcanedY gmmm- ' . . f? . I. 4fE.. _ i r I '. t[ ?JAN.13.201 34AMr...,pROTHMOTA (. OMM40.449010PA2NOMM i ... ?..: .: .. . the l bdance due for Febiuwyr irk ate :1 4 January, for n;empl-ti by paying defaul fee for MUWY. • In such cases, 3anuaws. default (along with the creditor`s breach:of ewtraot moot when the debtor remedes it by plying the mia?m mdered, claim) s•effex?ely balanco due. for Febrv, - if the debtor does not remedy JanWJ7's default 1a• FebTSra1Y, she the defaults of both in March_ Accordingly. a debtor wbo usually, will be eeble to remedy eernent that requi= monthly coa??vety fails to pay cautinually breaches the chit card agr psyraLM Nonetbeless, each -stamment provides her with a. new opportunity to remedy her br Ie_ si That being said, the cause of action accrues when the credrto7 no loners provides the I rpmitY. a g• when the creditor closes out the account and a ays a third . debtor with this oppo paM to:re:cover the amount due. `'('lie Court bolds that a Complaint sacking danuges for ft breach of a et card meat us es Rule 1019 in regards to subdivision UP requirement d A time be . - solo as the" pefa danto (has) some idea ofwbethera lemon of ??{?11J?•averced . , • ? n Id ?e complaint must contaiir a specific &w or dates , acucur:de;?n?e L?) available.. Is' • e dl= whether -the plaintiff his complied with the four-year ate of w?h from it rs limiu Ci6ns. PaR;Civ.$.1419(f); 42Pa.C.S.A. Q 5525(aXg). Contrary to Defert&Ws'. ob}eCI4.0 it does not need to ."State the date of the commencement of the alleged sg+xasea t- tI,e instant cash Plai Wffbas satisfied this rule. Plaintiff pled the "?er?i ?tt 18. zoos 'an Defendant breached her contractual duty to pay' (CoinpL 7) kither. a " ?• ei:,?e .. . ' ' .. . nti ed mdemot tbat substantiates the allegation by adwbing an aacoua statement i'IeiI'ffpro`trd .. ,• 1 regarding od of June 28, 2005 through J* 2$, 2005. transactions during the prri - - - - 12 I fl I. fl •j `` t 1 . t 1. f> t' 1 .' 1. ' f 449-?-P .i dement displays that. daring thrs p?o? Defendant's ac6atrrtt gs 1;.Fx.-A2.) (?ruF. tad gZ00.00 for a p drat she mad& debited 124.94 fotitems LhIt she P and tYedi ent in the aired that she M9kr het next Mh n um monINY Paym t?atau?t of (Id.) It ? reQ . I t 17, 200$. (Id.) 5162.0® by Augur l n regards to the damages tbat must be pled, Rule 10190) alsfl states that ?[sjvertnencs ifically stated-" P&R-Civ.P.1019(0- Our Supreme of .. items of sue? damage shall be spy n darnages" fmm -general damages : has disringttishedthese so-Cai]ed "sib Court either general. those which are the usual and ord'tnarY Damages are I)IC& es of the wrong done, or Vccial, these which are not the usual W uenc of tha wrong done, but which dePend ? ? ordmn5? toa9.. may proved wild being specWY ?stamtxs. • General damag wrong done beitng sufficient to pleaded, the averment of the facts shov?ting the on the othar hand, may not entitle PIa'snth .to establish them. Sp l ? I averred. - y p?oyed =10P the special facts giving rise to ?. - • Dohan, 167 A. 310, 312'(Pa- 1933) (? ertstiotis omitted. Axgttsbly. a. .. p?o;,s ?gdurg Co.. y.- Mltaat sn . for bteactt of a credit card a,==t seeks to rimer general and special crediton. x, - ' .. of a . ent would be that "the usual and M Unary 00ce damages= Sgecifieally, the argum s been lent Puts the creditor otd drat debto I .s Wince to repay the money that he qr sb had , , . acc;otmt; far"amnple. Would accrue intc=SL if fiicby if invested a savings : damages. However, in credit card. oould recover that amount in general AccocY,•a aedi?r ~ creditor sceks to recover snore; it seeks to recover the principle tunount collet on: casks; . the; in mast if not all--cases. exorbitant terms of • plus e _ t3tatl?as eccraed P°- .' retest ... Accord 'igIy. Rule 1019(j) requires the creditor to plead the."sprcisl es if it seeks td recover this fcfs, a t2ye'temas of the sgreement regarding the interest rat , U _ 13 JAN. 13.2010--1 raRv . I j A aint sufficiently sP=iqc if it :. . '!. IZyonetheless, Pecazsylwanla s.standa=d that comp, ith enougb facts to enable Iiirn to frame a proper answer t (simply. .Vow the adverse patY e?+ ` 1 ?, as well:. Commonweaftfr ex tee hfiFk an d Pre re ahefensa" applies vahen pleading danns$ Axartlimg)Y, a 6took Dairies, Inc, 370 A-744 , 768 (Pa.(:mwlth-19?'1}. Bd v- terry i _ to lead e 102&( a (3} vidence. ~ I ob]'ection "is not available as a tool to compwl asi opposes Pte` p • ? ? i•: - where the details of items of sp°c1al damaged plead?'ges?et are and will bs tovetrul J readil I obtainabie.by disccm+ery" Id (ons omitud). f "erwngli feats to e?algte h€ia to • I Jn Ceaes involving Credit card collection, the deb-10f has • a deleas ' even if subsequent changes to the fi*w tiie i ?$ phepare fra laiut: Id Indeed, Rule 1 OX "f?_rus;. tare not pleaded iii or attached to the comp to TS?yr permits a defendant?to admit, decry, or state "that after rnabte ?eci of Ra7ure • e or infotmaiion sazfficiaut to form it befiiref as to • . inve_ sliga??k???o; shg?.is without knowledg JQ19, a ' ender Ride tieitih of as averment - Pa-R.ClvP.1029(a)-(4 Accardingly, the } is of the cbmtes that are part of died R-4- the need to `Seclude the ammui complairJ doe; not " credits for paymepts if any, data and amoams of interest ngcs. and • ?es•??xhe Charges, - . ? - - - ' d " because the alleged debtor can "answer imm.ften Y and. dates t9 of atber cb?arges -Fir. 153 P.LJ. at Ldetermine what items be can admit sari what be must M=r iegatzlIess. Stem 1,12 { phas added}; Cievens?ine, 7 P$ D. & C.5th at 156. pis ff alleges that the "end bal=6 due" is a pdroq& amount of .hoithe.?nstant _ _ . o - " . - annum on [a -_- (since]. - $9,65 ;92,1?i? "tie isiturst [that] has @ocnhed at the rate of 6A0 /o per • .`• :: Marc 21, 2006." (ld;?' 10•} GVhraeas this alleged "principls ataoeiztt" is actlly the attachedw ce" of the most decent account staternent that plaintiff has. it alsP "OT :. ! . ' .14 98 t . 1 l . f -R - tl j _?? . `: .. ? .. ? " . - '.•? leaded generally' „ ?anrrybro? fJ?irie5 .. . , • tlast "?h, :details of items of s?? dasnages? L?j P ? - .370 p.Zd at 768..Qcatly, the previous balance consists of the arnotmt rhea tfie csedztnr " ?'? end other fees ttsstt had accrued ' - adyenced,on b`ltalf of Uefe?tdant, as well as the insesest - - ?? -• ? v?ellmaybr"resdily. • p?taatit to ?t? eeedit card ?eesnent. Nonetheless. these amounts very . ?,:.:. Defeodant's objection ? else obtain?bla by discoverg'," and the Coeur does trot sustaui ? ? ? ??u? {ac?^ to answer t'he Complaint. Id . certaiiy. ?>? . . " T.o be clear,?tbe Court is not holdis:g that a onditoz csa rtcaver damages (?e? or ' ? vin theA?. Z1sis ?? c?n(y would not enter an order e-antiag a motion . specials wtthoul pro B .. . . ? - - ? leadin ' or swnrnsry judgment in favor of one without proo€ l?pvever, . . for yudgment on ? P g' ?, vb"ection assettirsg that 1=led?txff mast ? seed to ovesivla I3efeada?t's grelirni??Y .. ? . ? proof not ?q?? . -- now " ? ?11yc:s?ccount for the purported sums outs >? for the amounts ? dispute-? . ;, _. - . j t" . . .?? . 1? E rs ?t -? t ?• i - II. ? . a 4 -,,? ?.?,..?.----- - . . • . .•Ia ?sides?on of a Rule t028(a?4) objection, it is noted that the Court tsba abide tsy the follo?citsg staadst'd: . r. s" .. ' ? the dismissal of a complains based upon grtl'sflainary . . ;. ?? ;; ?llsea ieviewiag objeitiosss in the oatiue of a detnesszer, we treat ns tree all well-pleaded , and all inferences fairly. d?ble therefrom. Whes-e the . • `'' o ections will result m the dismissal of dse $ctio0. the objeraioas prelim'sisarY- ?] may be sesstainod o?Y is ears that are clear and free from doesbt. To 1>= clear eiid fret"from doubt that dismissal is appropriate. it rnust'aPPear with ecrtaFr?? t recovery by the plaintiffispeui the facts averredE.• . ?tt?a the laa? would not p? the objections. . `Arty dAUbt should,be resolved by a refusal to ?istain . Swisher v Pity, 86.$ A.2d 1228,1230 (pa,Supe1.200? (quoting Reevesv. ?ddler? fithlesZc `• ? ? ` ? 1115,1122 (Pa.Super?AQ?)). - . Assn $?6 A,?d f? j i i . ? ..f . ,i " - ? ? •. ? ?. d.4999M-1 .® for .b=& l'tsh s onus of contract in PdMsylva P most aeslab. a o . action I ? (2) a $ Y I - inc?Iu`g its essesrtid terms, existeaee plead:'"??? of a contract, v C b7'? urd 723 A 2d .. ' thacaersd and (3) resultant damages „ CoreStaees Bank. N.A. o. I g _1999) (citing Get Scare Atih v Coleman Cable & Wire C, 265 A.2d 1053,105.8 (1 ,347,4 {Pa,Cm??ltb.1976)). "QUhile not cvdryterm of a contrast must be; stag if, Mete leaded ,, Id (citing Smith V. Srrairh, 422 A-2d 1379, detail, every elemcat must sp5cailY P 82 (Pal'su*..1980? afb's in .1,W4 to the fast eIM=t, ur)t is settled Iaw that tbe_ offeror is roaster offer, ace and 1bat= or mode of acceptance must be d and his provision as to time, pl . ?.: Yavt SchoiaclE v Uyx Liabj1hy &t Co_ ,122 A.2d 509.514 (Pa_1457). ate pas ge of tii?ie had p acd tie offeror with new ways to masft r his offer. t?s t oral pt}IGgfcopEractlawstillapplies. i4 FoIdman v: Google; Lrc. 513 F.Supp.2d 229 (F-Dpa'07)' . .hoar ?? ... . - - . surd the.w?bsite op?r for aftedly ovelbil£tt bim. Id at adverhsCr:on an intetm website. i which the I the rforeeability of a foram selection clause in a con1 act :AI issrre?as 231.3 et. Id at 231. Sp::ciScally, "[t]he type of contract U iwue .. . Patueseoter? over the inter io c net :.. "apps on= . (was :. ... to as a `cliclcwrap' agteemeat.&l„ w h'ch "ap . ] ... ires that a user consent to say:terms or conditions by clicking va a dialog box webpM. and w on th ia?xda to proceed with the intesn?t transaction:' Id at 236 (cita6otzs emitted), ,• .. The 1 ltan , xi?r stated: To deTCSmirio.wIsethet' a clickwM agntmcnt is enforceable, corms preseried WIA the issue apply o udWonal p *idples of oorrrratt law andTorus on wke fh4 loft ] had rea"Wble notice of wd I.,mifestedassent ro the dieTWrW =grebrierrt. Absaat a 61jo wnn& of fiend. failrue to read as enforceable c#icsp } f r' 16 Rim M, -JAN. 13. 2010--I.L : 3r-.-'PROniONOT t 1 : ,ant; as with any binding contract, will not =use, co ranee wtth that `eta &d`Wt htt ?• .g - j !d { hasis-ad&4 ib.m it considered d1e plairidr 3 mvmaril .. action clause, t• edge of the fOTUM sal o kno l and th=fore that there was no' ` of the mmft qusiei for contiract gosmation." !d at 236-38_ ' 'The reldman.comt rejected this argument, stating: ! In order mbe cliclcwrap] [a] greement gage reasonable isotiee of its tarns- 1 { un Lhe user had to visit a web ne wbfch efi?played the, to activate aa•[] aeco t, [which] was iminediasely vistlsle 1 :: [a]?ecanent in a scrollable text box[,] ... [ to read the terms a -. tba user, as was a prominent admonition in boldface eed ED Conditions carefully, and with ins action to indicatt; assent if the user agr t t ;. the terms, 1 Id at 7 It concluded: j bWe lmovea ofthe existm= of A rya prudent ] to Have had ieaso ft in ?e the a [ clicki to the above iems and of the terms. By cng oa"Yes; Y agree tfec r button, [ ) [P] indtcaw assent to the terms. , ' aad t of art ppamss•coutmd for reas(mNe oohce of terms a]gc v t r sat s5ed. PlaintC3 film to read ft case; does not exxrt:se him from being bound by 93.=PrCSS j ' Id at ?38. iemit?es a me& card issue's _`. Ia rC jm&tD credit card agreements, rypicaUy, an offeree offer in tam2ul,"wlticb consists of the nature of the agreement, e-, the leans of $e offer, and, ! !l. P?h 'e credcard itself offenee may havc iavitcd the credit card issuer to make this (the I ;y the oartnay 1 ve mde the offer of its owrr j offer by=llig aot a credit card application ar r ce the offeroo is in pos=y sibzi of the credit card, he or she has the of volit}aa}} the dtdifcard to make A Antic gs %ing e ring the of "Many times, ` " had• reamonabla noticeof and maaifested assent" to f ' ame?itaa e.; So long the credit card user . . .449-'.18"? JAN. 13.2610""113?AT _ €ti the instant cw, pendant eg .pCd or Unsigned by Q Defendant, veilMrIg the exis== of the [c]ontender [ l° c to the pxported terms and conditions." (Pl.'s Br. alleged credit accmnnt or an agree?eo "'Without more," Defendant proceeds, "it is impossible to disocm from Peel' I Obj'ns- 3 I' ' wnt whehcr Defendant ever agreed to s credit account w"h the allied PlaiF s CQ?P, . ) • ' for a wbat the terms were agt•eed to A • cred - : =i ttSC the Ct?It card 255#Iei'S .:.I,. '-cazd agyeettieterms bca '. be, or also is bound by is : terms the cr od vridx[ ] . ` ' ' rovis3on as to time, pltux and ate or mode of acceptsrca moistP h Vo t Schoiack 122 A-2d at 514. Feldtn I • , 513 F.a pp- 9,236; ell es that "Plaintiff does not attach any writwst . . ..u ?ngtns .. - ntr it it &p& . ed %r tbe .credit . - that Dcfex?daat a?pgli : The Compl t>?lies this argume • vm {f i revolving open-end mo card amount ... sttbjed W t? stated . card `sack .•_ . „ (Comfit. 5) it i alleged that- : ib s in a written awowt t: cart is attached to the Complaint (Idj 'I .tad ccn - agteetn .0L Of the agFeem's- ;.? mat P? Provides • .. emt that establm the terms of your Cardmetaber Aw=nt :?his isth+?Agr ! aceounts yned with us through oth= with First Q (mclad' ardN"sa PpTO and whose name may be b? ? ° p e. ase read it carefully and keep it for year reeds. on the facx of yota Caid? but lease be sure to sign the back of ?, Yo=u 40, riot need to i?gn rWs Agrccm9A P ens of caaht in : yM Cmd if you have not &Lady done so. All count arc being made by gust Q. Any use of your Card colmacdc%with your Ac = orAecom+r corrJa your acceptance of the terms and con&tkns of this stiff nuns that the Defendant ac=jftd the teens (td Esc ??.(anP1sas's addr.) F?a• `. Maas oche revolving open end credit account contained in tite afQie=000. d using the credit card to make purchase. and/or to obtain cam - . ; 060. vvritttrlabY t. . f? i s t I t •I. . t 1 - . t' t i IMF, 449"_"P . f 9?F l . ? f this further by providing evidence to subsmusiate svances[ :l" and Plsmtiffvat step ' erns. (Id 7:) Tlze Coin holds that . ;l.. glleetion b attar •,jjht of her account staters { led ,the existmcc c f a contract," and by attaching a C-OPY of the entire sufficiently p i+ received, Plaintiff bas ` imlu&Aed] its writte lR=Unta0m nt that Defendant allcgedlY I 723 AN at 1058 (?? &?L State ,4?sth., 365 A.2d at essential tersasG]"' COPeStates Barr, 1349) thus, i'laiatiff has satisfied ft fast element of its breach of contract claim ;. { two elements are also satisfied. Plaintiff pled "a breach of a duty imposed by as they became due,., the contract : in that it is alleged "Defendant failed to make paymerns of obligations tinder she [a]greement" Id.; (Compl. 7.) F'mally. W111C I WAS ?`rrl I: " of. she principle bslnee dne plus the interest that it has PlairrbfY pled ft "resultant daaiaSes accrued; ; 723 A.2d at I05g (citing 365 A2d at 1349 (COuVL 11.8, 9') tally pleaded each of the ? elements that it will need to prove m i Plsiutiffl?rs.sp .. against Defendant fora breach of ooritrad claim. Defendant's WC.1 t}IS(ax4) order to rel_Iim ary_objectionis.ther. fore overruled- p . • ? •r...,-. - 19 i 7-7 - 449 ice. Z? ¢ ROTFNDT -JAN. 13.2010°'11:I31' IN THE COUP OF COMMO14 LTH FINANAC - ) PLEAS OF SOMERSET coum Y,: COMMON SYS j Mg+ INC. assmoc of UNm ..1% pEWSyL1?ANIA FOR LLC; as?PM of CHASE ) LIOA; ) BANK USA, 14-IL N0.2SS CML 2009 . Plainriff, ? i 7INNiFER L. REEPINO, ) Defendant". ? ) - • . ORDER " l I ' day of January, 2010, in accordance with. the . foie ' A1?ID now, this :?....._ ... _ - ? • Defendettt N Defendant's OmUmsinary obj? o"' are OVERRULED: &d ded Complaint within twenty (20) days Biro cd to•file an Answer to the Amen ? BY THE COURT: : David C. KI«ncntik, J. 20 : 0.449'.21 :.. JAN.13.2010/1.':3ggM?.Rp'THONOT .. .. Gregory T. Artim, Esq f 1751 ? Lincoln Highway } No ersailes, Pa.-15137 Christoper R.•.Giles;-Esq: I 450 South Main Street l Suite-, 00, f Greensburg, Pa. 15601 . = }