The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-2316 -- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH A. COCCIARDI & ASSOCIATES, INe. 4 Kacey Court, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-5596 No. 01- ~')/b eo~l~~ v. MICHAEL R. REIPRISH and STEPHANIE E. REIPRISH 69 Autumnwood Drive Middletown, PA 17057-3640 CIVIL ACTION - LAW I EQUITY PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons against the Defendants, Michael R. Reiprish and Stephanie Reiprish, who may be served at 69 Autumwood Drive, Middletown, P A 17057-3640. ,.- ~ Date: If lit I ~<'O ( BY:~ , .----c;lenn R. 'Davis Attorney J.D. No. 31040 Chadwick O. Bogar Attorney J.D. No. 83755 LATSHA DAVIS & YOHE, P.e. P.O. Box 825 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0825 (717) 761-1880 ~ WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: MICHAEL R. REIPRISH STEPHANIE E. REIPRISH 69 AUTUMNWOOD DRIVE MIDDLETOWN, PA 17057-3640 You are hereby notified that Joseph A. Cocciardi and Associates, Inc., have commenced an action against you. Date: IJp~ll 19,.;)en1 Curt Long, Prothonotary. /) By: C~J'D. ~ d 65963.1 (J t(~ g ~l i ~~ Ul (Y8a :::: ~ ( I o -.f\ rw ..c:: ~ - t~ "'< SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2001-02316 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND COCCIARDI JOSEPH A & ASSOCIATE VS REIPRISH MICHAEL R ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn accordin9 to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT REIPRISH MICHAEL R , to wit: but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On May 23rd , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep. Dauphin Co. 35.25 .00 72 .25 OS/23/2001 LATSHA DAVIS & YOHE ---- County Sworn and subscribed to before me this /~ day of (~ ;2Arvr A.D. ~Q.~i~ Prothonotary SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE ~O: zOOl-02316 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND COCCIARDI JOSEPH A I" ASSOCIATE VS REIPRISH MICHAEL R ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: REIPRISH STEPHANIE E but was unable to locate Her in his bailiwicK. He therefore deputized the sheriff of County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On May 23rd 2001 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from ----- ~ Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6_00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 OS/23/2001 LATSHA DAVIS & YORE County Sworn and subscribed to before me this /Al.A- day of ~ . ;lM;( A.D. r/") Q_ n.., {)~', , ~ ~rothonotary I @iih:~ of tlt~ ~4~riff William T. Tully Solicitor J. Daniel Basile Chief Deputy Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania t 710 I ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania JOSEPH COCCIARDI & ASSOC. vs County of Dauphin REIPRISH MICHAEL R. Sheriff's Return No. 1241-T - -2001 OTHER COUNTY NO. 01-2316 AND NOW: May 10, 2001 at 8:41PM served the within SUMMONS upon REIPRISH MICHAEL R. by personally handing to STEPHANIE REIPRISH, WIFE 1 true attested copy (ies) of the original SUMMONS and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 69 AUTUMNWOOD DRIVE MIDDLETOWN, PA 17057-0000 Sworn and subscribed to So Answers, ,,'," = ,"" "'" ,., " "", "" J /!~ ~ 6-, ~1lAkna) ,""", "70C"" eo. I PROTHONOTARY ~6 Deputy S~ Costs: ~25 PD 05/04/2001 RCPT NO 149454 TITUS @iiit:e of i:lt~ ~4~riff Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor J. Daniel Basile Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania JOSEPH COCCIARDI & ASSOC. vs County of Dauphin REIPRISH MICHAEL R. Sheriff's Return No. 1241-T - -2001 OTHER COUNTY NO. 01-2316 AND NOW: May 10, 2001 at 8:41PM served the within SUMMONS upon REIPRISH STEPHANIE E. by personally handing to HER 1 true attested copy (ies) of the original SUMMONS and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 69 AUTUMNWOOD DRIVE MIDDLETOWN, PA 17057-0000 Sworn and subscribed to So Answers, ?R~ before me this 16IH day of MAY, 2001 ~~.~~ f PROTHONOTARY Costs: $35. RCPT NO TITUS In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumber~and County, Pennsylvania -Joseph A. Cocciardi & Assoc. V3. Michael R. Reiprish, e~. al. Serve: . 1 ., h No. 01-2316 Civil Mlchae R. Relprls Now, 4/20/01 ,20 DC, I, SHERIFF OF CtJMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff or Dauphin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk ofthe Plaintiff. . r~~l~-# Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, ,20 ,at o'clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a copy ofthe Oli ginal and made 1enown to the contents t..'1.ereof. So answers, Sberiff of County, PA Sworn and subscribed berore me this _ day or , 20_ COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDA V1T s; $ In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland Countv', Pennsvlvania .. ,"' ,." Joseph A. Cocciardi & Assoc. VS. Michael R. Reiprish. et. al. Serve: Stephanie E. Reipri.sh No. 01-2316 Civil Now, 4/20/01 , 20 0 t> , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. ./hlt . r~~~~~t! Sheriff ofCurnberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, ,20_, at o'clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a copy of the original and made Imown t.o the content.s thereof. So answers, Sberiff of County, P A Sworn. and subscribed before me this _ day of , 20_ COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE A.FFIDA VIT $ $ JOSEPH A. COCCIARDI & ASSOCIATES, INC. vs Case No. 01-2316 MICHAEL R. REIPRISH and STEPHANIE E. REIPRISH Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: Plaintiff intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name Glenn R. Davis Sign Name ~\~ Date: October 24, 2005 Attorney for Plaintiff Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 190 I. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. I. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 190 I." Rule of Judicial Administration 190I(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230( d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry ofthe order oftermination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. '\-,;- --\ >"'\, ~~, _~-1 ~: ( .:. (~>.J ../-----------------