Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-2571George W. Denke P0Box515 Hazleton PA 18201 570-233-5383 , COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY a i 201111A 31 AH g; 4 9 ti PENNSYLVAN COUNTY iA District Six Motocross Promoters Group, Inc. Pennsylvania Corp. Plaintiff, VERIFIED ANSWER HURRICANE HILLS MOTOR SPORTS, LLC DUTCHMAN MX PARK,LLC RACEWAY PARK, INC. JOSEPH FRITZ SR. ROBERT PAPP MICAHEL NAPP RICHARD SCHMIDT AND GEORGE DENKE Defendant. No- 11-2571 Defendants, by way of answer hereby states the following: 1. Denied 2. Defendant has no knowledge of this 3. Defendant has no knowledge of this 4. Defendant has no knowledge of this 5. Defendant has no knowledge of this 6. Defendant has no knowledge of this 7. Defendant has no knowledge of this 8. Admitted JURISDICTION AND VENUE. 9. Defendant has no knowledge of this 10. This allegation pleads a legal conclusion and therefore no response is necessary. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11. Admit 12. Denied that the individual members are part of the promoters group 13-16. Admit. 17-19. Defendants refer to the By Laws for the terms and conditions. 20. Admit he was removed but denied it was lawful. 21. Denied that this was in violation of any by laws. 22. Denied 23. Defendant refers to the by laws for terms and conditions. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 26. Denied he was lawfully removed. 27-29. Denied that such conduct was lawful. 30. Denied. 31. Denied that such notices were valid. 32. Denied. 33. Denied. COUNTI 34. Defendants repeat the allegations as if set forth above. 35. Denied. 36. Denied. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. WHEREFORE THE defendants demand judgment dismissing the first count with prejudice. COUNT II 41. Defendants repeat the allegations above as if set forth at length herein. 42. Denied that such removal was lawful. 43. Denied. 44. Denied. 45. Denied. 46. Denied. WHEREFORE the defendants demand judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues. DEFENSES 1. The complaint fails to state a cause of action. 2. The complaint lacks iurisdiction over the individual defendants. 3. The actions of the Plaintiff were void. 4. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. 5. Plaintiff violated statutory law and the by- laws 6. The individual defendants have no liability to the plaintiff. VERIFICATION I, George W. Denke, hereby state I am authorized to make this Verification on his behalf. I have read the foregoing answer and state that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa. C.S. 4904) relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. George W. Denke ro se Date T?} I/ Michael Napp 230 Pension Road Englishtown, NJ 07726 732-446-7800 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY District Six Motocross Promoters Group, Inc. Pennsylvania Corp. Plaintiff, VERIFIED ANSWER HURRICANE HILLS MOTOR SPORTS, LLC DUTCHMAN MX PARK,LLC RACEWAY PARK. INC. JOSEPH FRITZ SR. ROBERT PAPP MICAHEL NAPP RICHARD SCHMIDT AND GEORGE DENKE Defendant. : No- 11-2571 Defendants, by way of answer hereby states the following: 1. Denied 2. Defendant has no knowledge of this 3. Defendant has no knowledge of this 4. Defendant has no knowledge of this 5. Defendant has no knowledge of this 6. Admitted 7. Admitted 8. Defendant has no knowledge of this JURISDICTION AND VENUE. PPOTHONOTAWY 20 If I PR - I AM 9: 4 C, 113W BERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 9. Defendant has no knowledge of this 10. This allegation pleads a legal conclusion and therefore no response is necessary. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11. Admit 12. Denied that the individual members are part of the promoters group 13-16. Admit. 17-19. Defendants refer to the By Laws for the terms and conditions. 20. Admit he was removed but denied it was lawful. 21. Denied that this was in violation of any by laws. 22. Denied 23. Defendant refers to the by laws for terms and conditions. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 26. Denied he was lawfully removed. 27-29. Denied that such conduct was lawful. 30. Denied. 31. Denied that such notices were valid. 32. Denied. 33. Denied. COUNTI 34. Defendants repeat the allegations as if set forth above. 35. Denied. 36. Denied. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. WHEREFORE THE defendants demand judgment dismissing the first count with prejudice. COUNT II 41. Defendants repeat the allegations above as if set forth at length herein. 42. Denied that such removal was lawful. 43. Denied. 44. Denied. 45. Denied. 46. Denied. WHEREFORE the defendants demand judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues. DEFENSES 1. The complaint fails to state a cause of action 2. The complaint lacks jurisdiction over the individual defendants 3. The actions of the Plaintiff were void. 4. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. 5. Plaintiff violated statutory law and the by- laws 6. The individual defendants have no liability to the Plaintiff. VERIFICATION I, Michael Napp, hereby state I am authorized to make this Verification on his behalf. I have read the foregoing answer and state that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa. C.S. 4904) relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Michael Napp- az- pro se Date / y Richard Schmidt 230 Pension Road Englishtown, NJ 07726 c 732-608-6535 rnm a, =-n - zrn MM 'a M r n r- -Orn COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY ,,?D o° r-z -+a District Six Motocross Promoters Group, Mo zc-) Inc. Pennsylvania Corp. Plaintiff, VERIFIED ANSWER C3 rv ? -11 HURRICANE HILLS MOTOR SPORTS, LLC DUTCHMAN MX PARK,LLC RACEWAY PARK, INC. JOSEPH FRITZ SR. ROBERT PAPP MICAHEL NAPP RICHARD SCHMIDT AND GEORGE DENKE No- 11-2571 Defendant. Defendants, by way of answer hereby states the following: 1. Denied 2. Defendant has no knowledge of this 3. Defendant has no knowledge of this 4. Defendant has no knowledge of this 5. Defendant has no knowledge of this 6. Admitted 7. Admitted 8. Defendant has no knowledge of this JURISDICTION ANp VENUE. 9. Defendant has no knowledge of this 10. This allegation pleads a legal conclusion and therefore no response is necessary. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11. Admit 12. Denied that the individual members are part of the promoters group 13-16. Admit. 17-19. Defendants refer to the By Laws for the terms and conditions. 20. Admit he was removed but denied it was lawful. 21. Denied that this was in violation of any by laws. 22. Denied 23. Defendant refers to the by laws for terms and conditions. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 26. Denied he was lawfully removed. 27-29. Denied that such conduct was lawful. 30. Denied. 31. Denied that such notices were valid. 32. Denied. 33. Denied. COUNTI 34. Defendants repeat the allegations as if set forth above. 35. Denied. 36. Denied. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. WHEREFORE THE defendants demand judgment dismissing the first count with prejudice. COUNT 11 41. Defendants repeat the allegations above as if set forth at length herein. 42. Denied that such removal was lawful. 43. Denied. 44. Denied. 45. Denied. 46. Denied. WHEREFORE the defendants demand judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues. DEFENSES L The complaint fails to state a cause of action 2. The complaint lacks iurisdiction over the individual defendants 3. The actions of the Plaintiff were void. 4. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. 5. Plaintiff violated statutory law and the by- laws 6. The individual defendants have no liability to the plaintiff. VERIFICATION 1, Richard Schmidt, hereby state I am authorized to make this Verification on his behalf. I have read the foregoing answer and state that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa. C.S. 4904) relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Richard Schmid?? ` pro se Date 3/ 4. FILED-OFFICE Joseph C. Fritz OF T -PROTH-9tio p Ry 35 Pond View Drive 2011 APR -4 PM 2: So West Milford, NJ 07480 973-208-2905 CUMOERLANO COIJNT PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY District Six Motocross Promoters Group, Inc. Pennsylvania Corp. Plaintiff, : VERIFIED ANSWER HURRICANE HILLS MOTOR SPORTS, LLC DUTCHMAN MX PARK,LLC RACEWAY PARK, INC. JOSEPH FRITZ SR. ROBERT PAPP MICAHEL NAPP RICHARD SCHMIDT AND GEORGE DENKE : No- 11-2571 Defendant. Defendants, by way of answer hereby states the following: 1. Denied 2. Denied 3. Denied 4. Defendant has no knowledge of this 5. Defendant has no knowledge of this 6. Defendant has no knowledge of this 7. Defendant has no knowledge of this 8. Admitted JURISDICTION AND VENUE. 9. Defendant has no knowledge of this 10. This allegation pleads a legal conclusion and therefore no response is necessary. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11. Admit 12. Denied that the individual members are part of the promoters group 13-16. Admit. 17-19. Defendants refer to the By Laws for the terms and conditions. 20. Admit he was removed but denied it was lawful. 21. Denied that this was in violation of any by laws. 22. Denied 23. Defendant refers to the by laws for terms and conditions. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 26. Denied he was lawfully removed. 27-29. Denied that such conduct was lawful. 30. Denied. 31. Denied that such notices were valid. 32. Denied. 33. Denied. COUNTI 34. Defendants repeat the allegations as if set forth above. 35. Denied. 36. Denied. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. WHEREFORE THE defendants demand judgment dismissing the first count with prejudice. COUNT II 41. Defendants repeat the allegations above as if set forth at length herein. 42. Denied that such removal was lawful. 43. Denied. 44. Denied. 45. Denied. 46. Denied. WHEREFORE the defendants demand judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues. DEFENSES 1. The complaint fails to state a cause of action. 2. The complaint lacks jurisdiction over the individual defendants. 3. The actions of the Plaintiff were void. 4. Plaintiff is not entitled to iniunctive relief. 5. Plaintiff violated statutory law and the by- laws 6. The individual defendants have no liability to the plaintiff. VERIFICATION I, Joseph C. Fritz, hereby state I am authorized to make this Verification on his behalf. I have read the foregoing answer and state that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa. C.S. 4904) relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Joseph C. Fritz _ pro se Date 3 /% Hurricane Hills Motor Sports, LLC PO Box 469 West Milford, NJ 07480 973-208-2905 OFrNF pR? OF FICr O?j0 T 2011 APR COMB 4 PM 2. s0 P OS'yL A OUWT f.? NI,? COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY District Six Motocross Promoters Group, Inc. Pennsylvania Corp. Plaintiff, : VERIFIED ANSWER HURRICANE HILLS MOTOR SPORTS, LLC DUTCHMAN MX PARK,LLC RACEWAY PARK, INC. JOSEPH FRITZ SR. ROBERT PAPP MICAHEL NAPP RICHARD SCH1vIIDT AND GEORGE DENKE Defendant. : No- 11-2571 Defendants, by way of answer hereby states the following: 1. Denied 2. Denied 3. Denied 4. Defendant has no knowledge of this 5. Defendant has no knowledge of this 6. Defendant has no knowledge of this 7. Defendant has no knowledge of this 8. Admitted JURISDICTION AND VENUE. 9. Defendant has no knowledge of this 10. This allegation pleads a legal conclusion and therefore no response is necessary. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11. Admit 12. Denied that the individual members are part of the promoters group 13-16. Admit. 17-19. Defendants refer to the By Laws for the terms and conditions. 20. Admit he was removed but denied it was lawful. 21. Denied that this was in violation of any by laws. 22. Denied 23. Defendant refers to the by laws for terms and conditions. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 26. Denied he was lawfully removed. 27-29. Denied that such conduct was lawful. 30. Denied. 31. Denied that such notices were valid. 32. Denied. 33. Denied. COUNTI 34. Defendants repeat the allegations as if set forth above. 35. Denied. 36. Denied. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. WHEREFORE THE defendants demand judgment dismissing the first count with prejudice. COUNT II 41. Defendants repeat the allegations above as if set forth at length herein. 42. Denied that such removal was lawful. 43. Denied. 44. Denied. 45. Denied. 46. Denied. WHEREFORE the defendants demand judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues. DEFENSES 1. The complaint fails to state a cause of action. 2. The complaint lacks iurisdiction over the individual defendants. 3. The actions of the Plaintiff were void. 4. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. 5. Plaintiff violated statutory law and the bv- laws 6. The individual defendants have no liability to the plaintiff. VERIFICATION I, Joseph C. Fritz, hereby state I am the Member Manager of Hurricane Hills Motor Sports, LLC, and I am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. I have read the foregoing answer and state that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa. C.S. 4904) relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Joseph C. Fri pro se Date THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Civil Action District 6 Motor Cross Promoters Group, A, Inc. Pennsylvania Corp. o Plaintiff, a. c z? HURRICANE HILLS MOTOR SPORTS, LLC DUTCHMAN MC PARK, LLC a U o RACEWAY PARK, INC., JOSEPH FRITZ SR. ROBERT PAPP, MICAHEL NAPP RICHARD SCHMIDT AND GEORGE DENKE No-2011-2571 ? Defendants. CIVIL ACTION Affidavit of Peter A. Ouda Esq. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, I declare the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 1. My full name is Peter A. Ouda. I am a partner of the law firm of Peter A. Ouda, LLC.19 North Bridge St. Somerville NJ 08876. 908 927-9909, fax 908 927-9907 peteroudalaw@aol.com. 2. I seek to appear as counsel for the Plaintiff in the proceeding entitled District 6 Motor Cross Promoters Group v Hurricane Hills, Motor Sports, LLC. 2011- 2571. 3. There are no other pending actions in which I have applied for pro hac admission. 4. I am a member of the New Jersey bar and have been since May 1990. 5. 1 am in good standing in all the bars in which I am a member. 6. No disciplinary or grievance proceedings are pending against me. 7. No disciplinary or grievance proceedings have been previously filed against me. 8. I have not been denied pro hac vice admission in any other jurisdiction, nor has it been revoked by any court in any jurisdiction. 9. I shall comply with and be bound by the applicable statutes, case law, and procedural rules of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania including the rules of professional conduct. 10. I shall submit the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania courts and the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board with respect to acts and omissions occurring during the appearance in the matter for which admission pro hac vice is being sought. 11. I consent to the appointment of Mr. Ferdinand as the agent upon whom all process shall be made for all actions including disciplinary action that may arise out of the practice of law in the matter for which the admission pro hac vice is sought. 12. I have filed the Pennsylvania IOLTA Bond Form for Pro hac vice admission and paid the 100.00 fee. 4- Peter A. Ouda, Esq Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Notary Public S 2 THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Civil Action District 6 Motor Cross Promoters Group, Inc. Pennsylvania Corp. Plaintiff, _ C_- _ MW _rn c_._ C r" -0 r HURRICANE HILLS MOTOR SPORTS, LLC DUTCHMAN MC PARK, LLC v ° r-- RACEWAY PARK, INC., JOSEPH FRITZ SR. ROBERT PAPP, MICAHEL NAPP =6 Ei? RICHARD SCHIVIIDT AND GEORGE DENKE . No- 2011-2571 ' b Defendant. CIVIL ACTION Affidavit of Joseph R. Ferdinand, Esq. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, I declare the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 1. After reasonable investigation, I reasonably believe Peter A. Ouda, Esq is a reputable and competent attorney and I am in a position to recommend Peter A. Ouda, Esq. for admission. 2. I am not acting as a sponsor in any other cases. 3. I aver that the proceeds from the settlement of the cause of action in which Mr. Ouda is granted admission pro hac vice shall be received, held distributed an accounted for in accordance with Rule 1.15 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional conduct including the IOLTA provisions thereof if applicable. 1 . i Subscribed and sworn to before me this "I day of Notary Public My commission expires NOTARIAL SEAL GAIL MARCHETTI Notary Public HAZLETON CITY, LUZERNE COUNTY My Commission Expires Apr 5, 2012 Notice to Plead: to: Plaintiff District 6 Motor Cross Promoters Group, Inc. You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed new matter, pursuant to Pa R Civ. P. 1031.1 within 20 days hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Jose . Ferdinand, Esq. Gillespie Miscavige, Ferdinand & Baranko L? By: Joseph R. Ferdinand, Esq. 67 N. Church St. rn C= Hazelton, Pa 18201 Nrn ter,, ' r- ? b Peter A. Ouda, LLC o Zo 19 North Bridge St. -y -z Somerville, NJ 08876 -+ i 908 927-9909 927-9909 fax COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY District 6 Motor Cross Promoters Group, Inc. Pennsylvania Corp. Plaintiff, AMENDED VERIFIED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER HURRICANE HILLS MOTOR SPORTS, LLC DUTCHMAN MC PARK,LLC RACEWAY PARK, INC., JOSZEPH FRITZ SR. ROBERT PAPP, MICAHEL NAPP RICHARD SCHMIDT AND GEORGE DENKE Defendants. : No- 11-2571 (°j rnFz -'t; rn 70 c? ° C) rrn o -, i Cl) 70 r- Defendants, Hurricane Hills Motor Sports, LLC, Dutchman MC Park, LLC Raceway Park, Inc. Joseph Fritz Sr. Robert Papp, Michael Napp, Richard Schmidt and George Denke, by way and through their attorneys hereby file this Amended Verified Answer, and in support thereof hereby avers as follows PARTIES 1. The averments of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and therefore they are deemed denied. To the extent that a response is required, defendants deny that the address for the Plaintiff is 243 York Road Carlisle Pa. 17013. 2. The averments of this paragraph are denied as there is no entity named Hurricane Hills Sports Center, Inc. 3. The averments of this paragraph are denied as there is no entity named Hurricane Hills Sports Center, Inc. which is owned by Joseph Fritz, Sr. 4. The averments of Paragraph 4 are admitted. 5. The averments of Paragraph 5 are admitted. 6. The averments of Paragraph 6 are admitted. 7. The averments of Paragraph 7 are admitted. 8. The averments of Paragraph 8 are admitted. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. 9. The averments of paragraph 9 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary and they are therefore deemed denied. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are denied as the address given for the corporation is incorrect. 10. The averments of paragraph 10 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary and they are therefore deemed denied. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11. The averments of this paragraph are admitted. 12. The averments of this paragraph are denied because the individual defendants are not part of the promoters group. 13. The averments of this paragraph are admitted. 14. The averments of this paragraph are admitted. 15. The averments of this paragraph are admitted. 16. The averments of this paragraph are admitted. 2 17. The averment of this paragraph calls for a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is necessary and they are therefore deemed denied. To the extent that a response is necessary the defendants rely on the by-laws attached hereto. (Exhibit B). 18. The averment of this paragraph calls for a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is necessary and they are therefore deemed denied. To the extent that a responsible is necessary the defendants rely on the by laws attached hereto. (Exhibit B). 19. The averment of this paragraph calls for a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is necessary and they are therefore deemed denied. To the extent that a response is necessary the defendants rely on the by- laws attached hereto. (Exhibit B). 20 The averments of this paragraph are denied because the removal of Defendant Denke was not lawful. The defendants admit he was chairman commencing on September 2009. 21. The averments of this paragraph are denied as it is clear that defendants had the authority to effect the suspension. (See Exhibit Q. 22. The averments are of this paragraph are denied as defendants allege that the October 19, 2010 letter was sufficient notice. (Exhibit Q. 23. The averments are denied and defendant refers to the by- laws for terms and conditions. ( Exhibit B). 24. The averments of this paragraph are admitted. 25. The averments of this paragraph are admitted. 26. The averments are admitted to the as Mr. Denke did continue to act as Chairmen. The defendants deny that he was lawfully removed. 27. The averments of this paragraph are denied as the defendants allege that the meeting was not a valid one, according to the by-laws. 28. The averments of this paragraph are denied as the defendants allege that no directors could be voted in by members who were suspended. 30. The averments of this paragraph are admitted. 31. The averments of this paragraph are admitted but the defendants allege that such notices were not valid. 32. The averments of this paragraph are denied because the Plaintiff had no lawful authority to take such action described in this paragraph. 3 33. The averments plead a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is necessary are therefore they are therefore deemed denied. COUNT T 34. Defendants repeat the allegations as if set forth above. 35. The averments of this paragraph are denied because Plaintiff will not be harmed. 36. The averments of this paragraph are denied because Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. 37. The averments of this paragraph are denied because injunctive would inflict more harm on the defendants. 38. The averments of this paragraph are denied because Plaintiff can not prevail on the merits. 39. The averments of this paragraph are denied because the defendants' activity was lawful. 40. The averments of this paragraph are denied because the injunction will not further the public interest. WHEREFORE THE defendants demand judgment dismissing the first count with prejudice. COUNT II 41. Defendants repeat the allegations above as if set forth at length herein. 42. The averments are denied because such removal was not lawful. 43. The averments plead a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary and therefore they are deemed denied. 44. The averments of this paragraph plead a legal conclusion for which no response is necessary and therefore they are deemed denied. 45. The averments of this paragraph plead a legal conclusion for which no response is necessary and therefore they are deemed denied. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are denied as the defendants were not lawfully voted out of the corporation. 46. The averments of this paragraph plead a legal conclusion for which no response is necessary and therefore they are deemed denied. To the extent that a response is required the averments are denied as the defendants were not lawfully voted out of the corporation. WHEREFORE the defendants demand judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. 4 NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 47. The complaint fails to state a cause of action The Plaintiff has no authority to file this action because of certain violation of the by-laws. 48. The complaint lacks jurisdiction over the individual defendants. The individual defendants have no liability to the Plaintiff as they were not a part of the promoters group. 49. The actions of the Plaintiff were void. Because of certain violations of the by-laws, the actions of the Plaintiff are void. 50. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. There has been no violation of any laws or by- laws that would give rise to a claim for injunctive relief. 51. Plaintiff violated statutory law and the by- laws. The attached card, Exhibit A was sent to solicit members in a new organization and to the exclusion of the defendants herein. This was a violation of the by-laws of D6MXPG. Dated: I Ob/I Peter A. Ouda, LLC 19 North Bridge ST, Somerville, NJ 08876 908 927 9909 (pro hac vice motion pending) 5 VERIFICATION I, George Denke, Defendant herein, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Georg 9enke DATE : June 6, 2011 THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Civil Action District 6 Motor Cross Promoters Group, Inc. Pennsylvania Corp. r Plaintiff, M c ~- - M -<> ?n HURRICANE HILLS MOTOR SPORTS LLC ' -c? , DUTCHMAN MC PARK,LLC CD ' 10c? ? RACEWAY PARK INC JOSEPH FRITZ _r ' , ., SR. ROBERT PAPP MICAHEL NAPP , RICHARD SCHMIDT AND GEORGE DENKE No- 2011-2571 Defendant. CIVIL ACTION ORDER OF THE COURT AND NOW, this 9 .1 kday of 7vnt. 2011, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for leave to appear Pro hac vice is hereby granted and that Peter A. Ouda, Esq. is admitted to this court for this case only. L4 M?`I? Peter A -0-A&, &t °P 14'11 I?ille5pie kAisa. e F&dinastJ Brian U Senbaef? 1 THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Civil Action District 6 Motor Cross Promoters Group, Inc. Pennsylvania Corp. Plaintiff, HURRICANE HILLS MOTOR SPORTS, LLC DUTCHMAN MC PARK,LLC RACEWAY PARK, INC., JOSEPH FRITZ SR. ROBERT PAPP, MICAHEL NAPP RICHARD SCHMIDT AND GEORGE DENKE No- 2011-2571 Defendant. CIVIL ACTION MOTION FOR ADMISSSION PRO HAC VICE I, Joseph R. Ferdinand, Esq., counsel for the defendants in the above action files this motion for the admission of Peter A. Ouda, Esq. pro hac vice, averring as follows: 1. This is an action for injunctive relief filed by the Plaintiff. 2. I am a member in good standing of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and have been retained to serve as attorney of Record and Local counsel for defendants in the case at bar. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is my affidavit as required of the sponsoring attorney by Pa R. Civ. P 1012 d 2. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the affidavit of Peter A. Ouda as required by Pa. R. Civ P 1012(1)(c). 1 5. As is more fully set forth in my affidavit, I am acquainted with the candidate and can attest to his fitness for pro hac vice admission. 6. Good cause exists for admitting Peter A. Ouda, Esq. on a pro hac vice basis because the defendants have requested that Mr. Ouda represent them in this case. Wherefore, Joseph R. Ferdinand respectfully requests that this court enter an order admitting Peter A. Ouda, Esq. pro hace vice on behalf of defendants. Respectfully Submitted, J ph R. Ferdinand, Esq. 2 DISTRICT 6 MOTOCROSS PROMOTERS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF GROUP, INC., CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION PLAINTIFF V. HURRICANE HILLS MOTOR SPORTS LLC, DUTCHMAN MX PARK, LLC, RACEWAY PARK, INC., JOSEPH FRITZ, SR., ROBERT PAPP, MICHAEL NAPP, RICHARD SCHMIDT AND GEORGE DENKE, DEFENDANTS NO. 11-2571 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT Fri- R_ pry '?.'` ^ "YS f C2 AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment by Default and after oral argument, the Court noting that the Defendants have now retained counsel and have filed an Amended Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Motion for Judgment by Default is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that a hearing on the Plaintiff's Request for Special Injunctive Relief will be held on July 7, 2011, beginning at 1:15 p.m. in Courtroom No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. Plaintiff will be given 1 Y2 hours to present its testimony regarding special injunctive relief. Defendants will be given 1 Y2 hours to present their evidence. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the parties in this case file a pre-trial memorandum with the Court on or before the close of business on July 5, 2011, in the following format: 1. A concise statement of factual issues to be decided at the hearing. II. A list of witnesses the party intends to call at the hearing along with a concise statement of their anticipated testimony. III. A list of all exhibits each party anticipates presenting at the hearing. IV. A statement of any legal issues each party anticipates being raised at the hearing along with copies of any cases which may be relevant to resolution of the stated issue. By the Court, lx? ? M. L. Ebert, Jr., Jason B. Duncan, Esquire Brian Linsenbach, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff Peter A. Ouda, Esquire Joseph Ferdinand, Esquire OPI J. bas ®avidD. Buell' Prothonotary Office of the cProthonotary Cum5ertand'County, 1P- ennsyfvania Kirks. So/ionage, ESQ So[icitor —2S// CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER,2014, AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE —THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R.C.P.230.2. BY THE COURT, DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square 0 .Suite100.0 CarCsfe, TA ®. P- hone 717 240-6195 0 'Fa,c 717 240-6573