The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-2770NoTtCB OF &first' COU~,T FILE TO BE FILED wITH FKoTHOI4OTAKY notice o/ap~al' Check epDlicable box~t COUNTy OF AFFIDA ~~. .. ~ ece~pl a,ached her~~_, Upon the Distric~ ~usl' . · . ,,a~ ~ se~ the Rule to F -- -una~ sonice ~ by (ce~-' ' ~.;g~Szere~) ~aJl. sender'- the Rule was a~Ores~a on .e a Complaint acc~S~~'" a mail, Sender's receipt atta .~ ~ eaOve Notice of Appeal ~.: ~Ce,pt a.ach, hereto. ~ORN (AFFIRME~) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME tis '~"~ DAY OF by (ce~jfi~) ('registered) · . COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND 09-1-01 CHARLES A. CLEMENT, 1106 CARLISLE ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 761'4940 17011 LEE CARD/CUSTOM SHOE HEPAIH 328 MARKET ST LEMOYI~, PA 17043 CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF. NAME and ADDRES~ USPUHLEE, NARY BETH NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT 422 DEERFIELD RD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 VS. DEFENDANT: ~AME a~ ADORESS rCUSTOM SHOE REPAIR 328 MARKET ST LEMOYNE, PA 17043 Docket No.: CV-0000132-01 Date Filed: 3/07/01 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: [] Judgment was entered for: (Name) ]Judgment was entered against: (Name) in the amount of $ '%~ _ =;t3 on: [--~ Defendants are jointly and severally liable. ] Damages will be assessed on: ]This case dismissed without prejudice· Amount of Judgment Subject to --]Attachment/Act 5 of 1996 $. [--~ Levy is stayed for days or [] generally stayed· [--~ Objection to levy has been filed and hearing will be held: (Date of Judgment) (Date & Time) 4/11/nl Amount of Judgment $ 277. Judgment Costs $ 45. Interest on Judgment $ . Attorney Fees $ .0g Total $ 322.50 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ Certified Judgment Total Date: Place: Time: ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT'BY FILlinG A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CI¥,~..DIVlSI.~N. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRipT FORM WITH YOM~'NoTICE OF APPEAL.' 4/it/ZOODate · · ~; :, District Justice I certify that this is a ti'ac and correct copy of the record of the proceedings c°ntain[hg"'~he.] istrict.Justice''D 'udg[nent. , - Date My commission expires first Monday of January, AOPC 315-99 2002 SEAL PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT i'Ti'fi~ p~ool o! 'J~,rwce MUST EiE FILED WITHIN TEN 110I DA YS AFTER filing the not~ce of appeal. Check apphca&le boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AFFIDAVIT: ; hereby swear or affirm that I served [~ ,:cpV m ~he Nollce of Appeal Common P!e,~s No. ~L;_~__. upon the District Jushce ~$esiqr,ated ~here, n on :'da;e of serwcel ~~~ ..... ~ by personal service ~y ~regislered) mail. sender's ;ece~ul al;acb~ h~reto, and Ul)0~ the appellc~ ~namo) .~R~ ~14 ~L~ on ._~[~-.~ · ~ :: ~ by person'al serv,ce ~eni~h'egislered) mad. sender's receipt attac~ hereto. [.~,~ r,d, furthe~ tha~ I se~v~ the Rule Io File a Complain t accompan~ lhe above Nobce of Appeal upon the~e s) to whom ..... a~ ad.~essea on ..~~ ......... ~ "' LJ by personal serwce ~((certd,eO~llreg~slered) ~WOI~N {~-~I:IRM~?i~} .~ND SL)~:~CRIBED BEFORE ME . .. ......................... ~ ....................... ~_~' ;';; · .... .............................. CNIP HILL PA 17011 .? CQ&MtONV6~ALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS Ne. ~..,'/~ . i.' '~ ?~" NOTICE OF APPEAL Nolim is giv~ that Iha appellee' has flied in the abo~ Co~t of Common Pleas an appeal flam ~he judgment rendmed by the Distrid Justice an the 1008~. : This Notice of Appeal, when received by lira District Justice, .will operote as a SUI~:RSEDEAS to the judgment for pmsession in this cas~ ~4;nalu~e o( F,~',otaty or Deputy lO01( 6 J [n. sCtion before ~,st~ict J~stice, he ~L;ST FILE A COMPLAINT within twen~ (20) days afar fil~ his NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAECIPE TO ENTER"I~ULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE section o( (txrn to be used ONLY ~ appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. RC.P~I.P. No, 1001(7) in action before Dis~'ict Just~c~ IF NOT USED, deeach fram copy of not~ce cfi appeal to be sened upon appellee). PRAEClPE, To Pmthanotary z ',. Nwr, e ~/aR~s) ' '? (CQmmoflPhmshlG ~' /' "'~"2/~ /'~/:" )wlthintwanty(20)daysaflmrse~ceofruhlorsuf~arantJ'.yofjudgn~el'ofnenpm~ (1) you am notified Ihat a role is hereby entBmd upan you Io filB a camplaint in Ihb appeal within twadY (20) days afl~ lhe ~ °f (2) If yau do nor Ge a c~mplaint within tfiis time, a JUDGMENT Of NC~I PROS ~-L BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU' % ,. o;,. ... ..; , Dale: ""' . , · ,-., .- ~ Sg~e ~',~oll~mm~ m' . COURT FILE Mary Beth Spuhler Plaintiffs Custom Shoe Repair Lee Card, owner Defeod~_~t In the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No. CV 19 0000 132-01 ol- ,e T'-/o Civil Action- Law The Plaintiff, Mary Beth Spuhler, an individual filed a case against the Defendant, Mr. Card of Custom Shoe Repair with our district justice on 3/07/01 for the following reason: 1. Deeemher 2000, I took 4 items (2 different shoes and 2 pocketbooks) into shop for repair. 2. Early San,nry went back to pick up items. The 2 shoes were fixed. The purses were not done. The defendants crossed out the shoes on my ticket and wrote 2 bags. He explained a machine needed fixing. I was to come back next week. 3. I, the plaintiff went back the second week of San,ary and the purses were not done. I was to come back for them again. 4. Monday, Feb. 12, I went back he said they were in storage. He would get them. I was to come back 5. Thursday, Feb. 15, I went back, he said he would get them on the weekend. He said come back Monday. Business Bureau. I hated wasting any more time on this project, felt robbed, and furious he could got away with this. lO.I couldn't bring myself to go in and beg any more for my items. I decided to file the suit on March 7, 2001 with your court. 11.I was stunned when he decided to fight this case. All I wanted was my Oroton purse and my mom's white purse. This is the first time I realized he might have sold my purse! 12.At this point, I, the plaintiffassume, he does not want to pay for the purse. 13.We went to court the judge heard the case. Tbe judge looked around and said, "Where are her pocketbooks?" The defendant said the pocketbooks are at my office. The judge said this is ridiculous. Mary Beth, you can have the money or the purses. 14.Fru~huted and upset, I said, "I believe it will hurt him more to pay the money. I will take the money". I feel he owes me the money, and my pocketbooks for my time and upset (and that does not nearly cover my cost for this disgrace). 14.The dffendant, Mr. Card told the judge and me, that he would put the check in the mail today. I am still waiting. Respectfully, Mary Beth Spuhier May 24, 2001 7~3 - q~ q' hm DISTRICT JUSTIC! JUDGMJNT ff ~ was CLAIMANT (see Pa. R.C. RJ.P. N~ lO01( 6 ) in action before District Jus#ce, he MUS'~ RLE A COMPLAINT within twer4y (20) days afb.- filing his N~TICE ol APPEAl_ · PRAECi~i TO EhliK RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (Th~ Mc#~o~ ~lm lP be u~ed ONL Ywhen ~oel~M wM DEF~YDAl~i' (Me )~ RC~PJ.P.. Nc~ 1001(7) ~l ~fJon bedb~ D~M~ ~u~ AC NOT U~D~ ~ ~ ~ M r~.~ M ~OpMI W be ~sn, ed upon 'PRAEClPEi'/To EnWnkul~ /7/*]~'y ~r.~.~ ?~L~alL¢~ ,Ms~tofiboCanl~intinthbapped COPY TO BE SERYED ON APPELLEE MARY BETH SPUHLER, Plaintiff VS, CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, owner Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. CV 19 0000 132-01 i¢t0(-,,o.'7'-7o : CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO: Mr. Lee Card Custom Shoe Repair 328 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 IMPORTANT NOTIC; DATE OF NOTICE: June 25,2001 YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO TAKE ACTION REQUIRED OF YOU IN THIS CASE. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING, AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service Cumberland County Courthouse Cadisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 MARY BETH SPUHLER, Plaintiff VS. CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, owner Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. CV 19 0000 132-01 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO: Mr. Lee Card Custom Shoe Repair 328 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to file a written response to the attached Petition Raising Additional Claims within twenty (20) days from service hereof or judgment may be entered against you. DATE: June 25, 2001 By: MARY BETH SPUt{LER, Plaintiff CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, Owner Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA No. CV 19 0000 132-01 CIVIL ACTION - LAW The Plaintiff, this case against the Defendant, for the following reasons: 1. Plaintiff resides at AMENDED COMPLAINT Mary Beth Spuhler, an individual has filed Mr. Card of Custom Shoe Repair 422 Deerfield Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. Defendant's place of business is located at 328 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043. On December 2000, Plaintiff took four items (two different pairs of shoes and two pocketbooks) into Defendant's shop for repair. In early January Plaintiff went back to pick up the items, at which time the two shoes were fixed but the purses were not done. Defendant crossed out the shoes on Plaintiff's ticket and wrote "two bags" on the ticket, explaining that a machine needed to be fixed and Plaintiff was to come back the following week to retrieve the pocketbooks. Plaintiff went back the second week of January but the purses were still not done. Plaintiff was told the purses were still not done. Plaintiff was told to come back for them again. 7. On Monday, February 12, 2001, Plaintiff returned, but Defendant said the pocketbooks were in storage, and he would get them later - Plaintiff was to come back again. 8. On Thursday, February 15, 2001, Plaintiff went back and Defendant said he would get them on the weekend, telling Plaintiff to return on Monday. 9. On Monday, February 19, Plaintiff went back and Defendant said he did not have them, saying he was working 16 hours a day and did not have time to get them. 10. Plaintiff then asked Defendant to go get her purse right then from his basement storage area, and he refused. 11. On Monday, February 26, 2001, Plaintiff telephoned the Defendant, and he informed her that he didn't have them yet. 12. On Wednesday, February 28, Plaintiff felt that she should have gotten them at this point so Plaintiff returned to the store to pick up her pocketbooks, but Defendant said that he didn't have them. 13. Defendant did not produce the pocketbooks at a District Justice hearing either. 14. The replacement value of the two purses is $350.00. 15. Plaintiff has been deprived of the use of her pocketbooks since December 2000. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests this Court enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $350.0o. By: Dated: June 25, 2001 VERIFICATION I, Mary Beth Spuhler, hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Mary Betf~-~puhler / Date: June 25, 2001 MARY BETH SPUHLER, : Plaintiff : V. .. CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, : OWNER, : : Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. Docket# C)I - O~-I-I(~) CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD AND NOW, this ~_day of ~,~,~-, 2001, you are hereby notified to plead responsively within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof, or judgment may be entered against you. :147553 Lee Card MARY BETH SPUHLER, Plaintiff V. CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, OWNER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. Docket CIVIL ACTION - LAW P~ OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, this ,=IG? day of ,~'~,,,<., 2001, comes the Defendant, Custom Shoe Repair and Lee Card and files these preliminary objections in support thereof avers as follows: Preliminary objection raising issue of failure of service under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(1). 1. Plaintiff filed what appears to be a Civil Complaint on May 24, 2001. Plaintiff attempted to serve a copy of the Complaint via certified mail to the Defendant, 328 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043. Pa. R.C.P. 400 provides that, "original process shall be served in the Commonwealth only by the Sheriff' or "by a competent adult in the following actions: equity, partition, prevent waste, and declaratory judgment when declaratory relief is the only relief sought. 4. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to conform with Pa. R.C.P. 400. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Complaint of Plaintiff be dismissed. II. Preliminary objection raising the Issue of failure of a pleading to conform to Rule of Court under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). Plaintiff's Complaint does not include a Verification as required by Pa. R.C.P. 1024. Plaintiff's Complaint does not include a Notice to Defend as required by Pa. R.C.P. 1018.1. Plaintiff's Complaint incorrectly designates the Distdct Justice Docket No. as the Court of Common Pleas Docket No. in violation of Pa. R.C.P. 1018. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Complaint be dismissed. III. Preliminary objections raising Issue of Demurrer under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4). The Plaintiff wholly fails to set forth any facts which identify the Defendant as the party liable in this matter. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to set forth any facts which would provide a foundation for recovery under any legal theory. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, LEE CARD I, LEE CARD, do vedfy that the statements made in the foregoing Preliminary Objections of Defendant to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. ~.904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. LEE CARD :147554 CERTIFICATE OF SERVlCF AND NOW, this o~0~'~ day of :~u,-,<. , 2001. the undersigned does hereby certify that he did this date serve a copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon the following by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania. addressed as follows: Mary Beth Spuhler Datad: CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR Lee Card. Owner :147456 MARY BETH SPUHLER, Plaintiff V. CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, OWNER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. o CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO: Mary Beth Spuhler DATE OF NOTICE: July..,~, 2001 IMPORTANT NOTICE OF PENDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRI'I-FEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAY~ FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAl. ADVICE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 By: .~~ MARY BETH SPUHLER, : Plaintiff : : v. : No. 01-02770 : CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, : LEE CARD, Owner : Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA P~AECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCZ TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Howard B. Krug, Esquire on behalf of Mary Beth Spuhler, Plaintiff in the above-captioned case. Date: August 2, 2001 Harrisburg, PA 17102-2392 (717) 234-4178 MARY BETH SPUHLER, Plaintiff v. CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, Owner Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA No. 01-02770 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Pl&intiff'e Response to De£en&m-t's Preliminary Ob4ection- NOW COMES Plaintiff, Mary Beth Spuhler, by her attorneys Purcell, Krug and Haller and respond to the Preliminary Objections of Defendant as follows: A. Before responding, it should be noted that Plaintiff filed on or about June 26, 2001 an Amended Complaint, which was docketed by the Court to the correct docket number, which plaintiff believes and therefore avers rectifies all of the issues raised by Defendant in his preliminary objections, except for the use of the District Justice docket number, which was docketed by the Prothonotary to the correct county number and will be recognized by Plaintiff from this point forward. The stated docket number was an error. I. 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. It was served upon Defendant. See Affidavit of Service and signed green card. 3. Denied as a conclusion of law. In fact, the o Wherefore, dismissed. 1-2. applicable rule is Pa P, DJ 1005(d), which requires either "leaving a copy for or mailing a copy to ..." Defendant, which was done with respect to both the Original Complaint and the Amended Complaint. Denied as a conclusion of law. Plaintiff did comply with Pa RDJ 1005(d), and Defendant received the Complaint and Amended Complaint. See Affidavits of Service, copies of which are attached hereto. Defendant's service objection should be II. Admitted. However, this was resolved by virtue of the Verification and Notice to Plead included with the Amended Complaint. Admitted. However, use of the ~istrict Justice Docket Number in this Court was an error resolved by the Prothonotary by correct filing, without prejudice to Defendant. Although this was not corrected in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff requests that the Amended Complaint be corrected nunc pro tunc or leave of court be granted for the filing of a Second Amended Complaint. Defendant would be in no way prejudiced by the granting of this request. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court dismiss this objection. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests the opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint and serve same upon Defendant, pursuant to the applicable rules. III. 1. Denied. The Original Complaint and the Amended Complaint specifically identify the Defendant, Lee Card t/a Custom Shoe Repair as the responsible Defendant. 2. Denied. Since Defendant has retained the subject handbags, depriving Plaintiff of her property, Defendant is responsible for the monetary value of the lost handbags, plus costs and interest. Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the demurrer filed by Defendant be dismissed. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that she be given an additional opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint. IN CONCLUSION, Plaintiff requests that the preliminary objections of the Defendant be dismissed in their entirety and Defendant be requested to answer the Amended Complaint, with Defendant to pay docket costs and interest. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to correct any defects of record. lly submitted, #79866 1719 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Esq. Dated: August 2, 2001 VERIFICATION I, Mary Beth Spuhler, hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing Response are true and correct to the best that of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, to authorities. of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand false statements made herein are subject to the penalties relating to unsworn falsification Mary Beth Spuhler Date: August 2, 2001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC~ I, BETTY G. RYE, an employee of the law firm of Purcell, Krug &Haller, counsel for Plaintiff, hereby certify that service of the foregoing Response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections was made upon the following by placing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, and also by certified mail, return receipt requested, on August 3, 2001 to: Lee Card t/a Custom Shoe Repair 328 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Betty ~. Rye MARY BETH SPU~LER, Plaintiff v. CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, Owner Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA No. 01-02770 CIVIL ACTION - LAW AFFIDAVIT OF 8ERVZ~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COUNTY OF I, Mary Beth Spuhler, Plaintiff in the above action, hereby swears and affirms that on the ~kS~day of June, 2001, I sent, by certified mail, return receipt requested, an Amended Complaint in a lawsuit against Defendant, Lee Card t/a Custom Shoe Repair. The Return Receipt Card signed by the Defendant on ~;~- ~ , 2001 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Ma~c,'~etn Spuhle~ Sworn and subscribed to before this ~ day of ~~_~, 2001 Notary Public I,JOTARIAI. SEAL ,,',~ ~,?c;,:.27 ~._~,~i~' ..~ t!.~v.,~..~,?~O1 EXHIBIT "A" MARY BETH SPUHLER, : Plaintiff : V. CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, : LEE CARD, Owner : Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA No. 01-02770 CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF I, Mary Beth Spuhler, Plaintiff in the above action, hereby swears and affirms that on the ~9 '°)day of May, 2001, I sent, by certified mail, return receipt requested, a Complaint in a lawsuit against Defendant, Lee Card t/a Custom Shoe Repair. The Return Receipt Card signed by the Defendant on ~)~.~ 3 ~ , 2001 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". - Mar~'Beth Spuh~er Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ day of ~*~ , 2001 Notary Public J · Attach thi~ card to the back of the madlple~e, ~. or on the f~m'~t If sisece ioermb. B~ Date o~ De~-y nco.,,. EXHIBIT "A' MARY BETH SPLS{LER, Plaintiff v. CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, Owner Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA No. 01-02770 CIVIL ACTION - LAW AFFIDAVIT OF SERVI~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : COUNTY OF I, Mary Beth Spuhler, Plaintiff in the above action, hereby swears and affirms that on the ~ r~day of June, 2001, I sent, certified mail, return receipt requested, an Amended Complaint lawsuit against Defendant, Lee Card t/a Custom Shoe Repair. The Return Receipt Card signed by the Defendant on ~'~W~. ~ ., 2001 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". by in a Max~L)Bet h Spuhl e~ Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ day , 2001 Notary Public EXHIBIT ~A" ./ MARY BETH SPUHLER, Plaintiff CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, Owner Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA No. 01-02770 CIVIL ACTION - LAW AFFIDAVIT OF SERVI~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COUNTY OF : I, Mary Beth Spuhler, Plaintiff in the above action, hereby swears and affirms that on the ~9 ~ day of May, 2001, I sent, by certified mail, return receipt requested, a Complaint in a lawsuit against Defendant, Lee Card t/a Custom Shoe Repair. The Return Receipt Card signed by the Defendant on ~ 3D 2001 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Marl~Beth Spuh~r Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ day of ~, 2001 Notary Public PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND coUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. MARY BETH SPUHLER, Plaintiff vs. CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, Owner Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA No. 01-02770 CIVIL ACTION - LAW State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): (a) Defendant's Preliminary Objections. Names and addresses of all attorneys who will argue the case: (a) Plaintiff: Howard B. Krug, Esquire 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 for argument. / 4. Argument Court Date: _~~ 111 2001 uate ~~ Plaintiff (b) Defendant: Lee Card, Pro Se Custom Shoe Repair 328 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 I will notify all parties in writing w?in two days that this case has been listed (717) 234-4178 Phone Number I, BETTY G. RYE, an employee of the law firm of purcell, Krug &Haller, counsel ~or plaintiff, hereby certify that service of the ~oregoing pRAECIPE FOR LISTING cASE FOR ARGUMENT waS made upon the follOWing by placing a copy of same in the United states Mail, postage prepaid, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on August 15, 2001: Lee card Custom shoe Repair 328 Market street Lemoyne, PA 17043 MARY BETH SPUHLER, Plaintiff CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, Owner Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-2770 CIVIL ACTION - LAW AFFZDAVIT OF SERVZC; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COUNTY OF DAUPHIN I, Howard B. Krug, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, Mary Beth Spuhler, in the above action, hereby swear and affirm that on the 15ch day of August, 2001, I sent, by certified mail, return receipt requested, restricted delivery, a Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument to the Defendant, Custom Shoe Repair, Lee Card, Owner. The Return Receipt Card signed by the Defendant on August 16, 2001 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Sworn and subsc,r]ibed _to befor~ me this ~! day , 2001. I · Complete items 1,2, and3. AJeocomplete ~ A. RecaivedbY(/=kw~eP~f~tC~ g. T~teofl~llv~y item 4 If R,tflcted Delivery l, d,lred. II ~. ~.~.41~*~ · pfint your name and addmae on the reverae II c. s<,~,,....--~ ~_. ~ soth~twec~nreturnthecardtoyou. II X ~..~ ~ · Att~this oexd to the back of the m~ilpiece, °r °l the front if sPaCe pmmlts' [~ D. ~-de~,e~ addrm~ cr~ffemnt from i~m ~ ? 3. Selvloe Type [] Reglatemd .[~ Return Receipt for IVlemhmldlec [] Ineured Mall [] C.O.D. PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domemlc Return Receipt 102595-00.M-0~52 EXHIBIT ~A" MARY BETH SPUHLER, Plaintiff V. CUSTOM SHOE REPAIR, LEE CARD, OWNER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-02770 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw the Prelimina~J Objections filed on behalf of Defendant Custom Shoe Repair in the above-captioned matter since Plaintiff has timely filed an Amended Complaint in response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFLE, ~'I'EWART & WEIDNER P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant DATED: ,2001 :151097 ~ERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this -~4'~ day of 0~,,.>~,~ . 2001. the undersigned does hereby certify that he did this date serve a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Withdraw upon the following by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail. first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne. Pennsylvania. addressed as follows: Howard B. Krug, Esquire Nichole M. Staley O'Gorman, Esquire Purcell, Krug & Hailer 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-4178 DATED: 2001 By: M C. Du e ! MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: ARTHUR W. LEFCO, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 12909 DOUGLAS E. HERMAN, ESQUIRE Identification No. 86569 1845 Walnut Street, 17th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 575-2600 Attorneys for Defendant, lmhoff & Assoc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CORY A. CORMANY Vo ABOM & KUTULAKIS, MCSHANE PRACTICES, ROMINGER, BAYLEY, & WHARE, ABELN LAW OFFICES, IMHOFF & ASSOCIATES, PC, PIONTEK LAW OFFICE AND GARY LYSAGHT CASE NO. 02-2770 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DOCKET NO. CR-0000204-04 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT~ IMHOFF & ASSOCIATES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Objecting Defendant, IMHOFF & ASSOCIATES, PC, files the within Preliminary Objection to Plaintiff's Complaint, and in support thereof, states the following: 1. Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit by filing a Complaint on or about November 24, 2004. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. With respect to the Objecting Defendant, Imhoff & Associates, PC, the Plaintiffs Complaint states the following: a. "Imhoff & Associates, PC is a proprietorial law firm practicing law in the County of Cumberland, Pennsylvania" [paragraph 6]; b. "Cory Cormany claims from the Defendants [including Imhoff & Associates]... complete amnesty immunological and official civiil action" [ad damnum clause]. 3. With respect to Objecting Defendant, Plaintiff attached but one Exhibit to his Complaint, to wit, a letter from Vincent Imhoff, Esquire, of Imhoff & Associates, addressed to Mr. Cormany, which advises the latter of Imhoffs professional services. 4. The balance of Plaintiff's Complaint details facts pertaining to his arrest in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, for, among other things, possession of controlled substances, and the subsequent criminal proceedings. 5. Plaintiff's Complaint does not plead the existence of an attorney-client relationship between the Objecting Defendant and Plaintiff, nor does it plead facts which would support any theory of liability or damages against the Objecting Defendant. 6. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure authorize a preliminary objection to a complaint based upon the "legal insufficiency of [the] pleading (demurrer)". See Pa.R.C.P. 1028 (a)(4). 7. When considering a demurrer, a court must treat as true all material facts set forth in the pleading at issue as well as all inferences which may reasonably follow therefrom. The question presented by a demurrer is "whether, on the facts averred, the law states with certainty that no recovery is possible." Corestates Bank, Nat'l Assn. v. Cutillo, 723 A.2d 1053, 1057 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citation omitted). 8. Pennsylvania courts have instructed, however, that "[a] demurrer only admits facts well pleaded; it does not admit matters of legal inference and argument, however clearly stated." Kaufman v. Kaufi'nan, 228 Pa. 58, 70 A. 956, 958 (1908) (emphasis added) (instructing that averments of "legal inference" and "conclusions of law" are not admitted for purposes of a demurrer). Himmelreich v. Baugher Ins. Agency, 28 Pa.D.&C. 4th 416, 420 (C.C.P. Adams 1995) (instructing that a demurrer "does not admit conclusions of law but does test the legal sufficiency of the pleadings"). 9. Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading jurisdiction, and accordingly, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure instruct, in pertinent part: "The material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." See Pa.R.C.P. 1019 (a). 10. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state facts which, if true, would support any cause of action against the Objecting Defendant. WHEREFORE, Objecting Defendant, IMHOFF & ASSOCIATES, respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs claim(s) against it with prejudice, and award it any other relief which this Court deems to be just and proper. Alternatively, Objecting Defendant requests that this Court order Plaintiff to file a more specific pleading which ,clearly states the theories of liability and damages Plaintiff purports to assert against the Objecting Defendant. Respectfully Submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN ARTHI~.~LEF(70, ESQUIRE DOUGLAS $. HEti'aMAN, ESQUIRE Date: }'~-/[q/Oq \01 __ 17~LIAB\DFH\LLPG\681961XDFIdS12052\00133