Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-3134 Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC Daniel Santucci Attorney I.D. #92800 Gregory R. Dye Attorney I.D #205316 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, PA 19103 800-850-1079 Attorney for Plaintiff, TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK C C) r-3 -Fo c:=) TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A RETAILERS NATIONAL c/o Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Plaintiff, vs. KIM LEE 5136 JENNIFER CIR MECHANICSBURG PA 17050-2753 Defendant. -1 -i -,c -n tT1-'- IN THE COURT OF COMMON P& U 4 cn 7? - v 1 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA x> C-) = r CIVIL ACTION = C)? 31 Gtv<< N II o o. - NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 2613547 PPTCPADI ?ias .oot?da ? L' k,* 449 OY AVISO Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defen derse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hase falta ascentar una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un aboga do y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisa do que si usted no se de fiende la corte tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suva sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propieda des u otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE, SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. SERVICIO DE REFERENCIA LEGAL 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 267-2032 Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC Daniel Santucci Attorney I.D. #92800 Gregory R. Dye Attorney #205316 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, PA 19103 800-850-1079 Attorney for Plaintiff, TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A RETAILERS NATIONAL c/o Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC Plaintiff, VS. KIM LEE 5136 JENNIFER CIR MECHANICSBURG PA 17050-2753 Defendant(s). IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION No. COMPLAINT Plaintiff TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK, claims as follows: 1. The Defendant(s), KIM LEE , is a resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendant(s) opened an account agreeing to make monthly payments as required by the terms of the account, for purchases charged to the account. 3. The Defendant(s) did make purchases and charged same to the account but failed to make the monthly payments called for on the account. There is a balance due and owing of $3087.85. 4. Plaintiff declared Defendant(s) to be in default and demands payment of the balance. 2613547 PPTCOCCI WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK, prays for judgment in its favor and against Defendant(s), KIM LEE in the amount of $3087.85, plus costs. Respectfully submitt , TARGET NATIONAC BANK F/KtA RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK Ofi&'6-its Attorn ys Daniel Santucci, Attorney No. 92800 Gregory R. Dye Attorney #205316 Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (800) 850-1079 Dated: March 2, 2011 VERIFICATION I, the undersigned attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, based upon information provided by the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff is presently located outside of this jurisdiction, and that in order to file the within document in an expedient and timely manner I am authorized to sign this verification on behalf of the Plaintiff. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the p Ities of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. l PPTXVERI Exhibit "A" PPTXEXAI Court Judicial(Circuit/District) Original Creditor Name: Target National Bank Debtor Name: KIM LEE Co-Debtor Name: Account Number: XXXXXXXXXX301153 AFFIDAVIT OF ACCOUNT STATE OF MINNESOTA SS: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The undersigned, ADETOKUNBO OYEWO states that: 1. 1 am a representative of Target National Bank and am authorized to verify current balances due and owing to Target National Bank on credit card accounts. 2. As of the date of this affidavit I have reviewed the records of the above listed person and account, and that the amount due and owing to Target National Bank on this account, over and above all known legal set-offs is $3,087.85 . 3. That reasonable inquiry has been made to determine if the defendant is in the military service of the United States of America, and to the best of my knowledge that defendant is not in such military service and is therefore not entitled to the rights and privileges provided under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940, as amended. That the above information is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and based upon the books and business records of Target National Bank. Authorized Agent of Target National Bank Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 31st day of January, 2011. N ary Public My Commission expires: XXXXXXXXXX301153 M LNFC •• JANICE L. LOKEN WEARY PiJ"-WW4E90TA C!? Cort km Ear's= Jse. 31, 2M3 Theundersigned does hereby verify subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, that he is, ADETOKUNBO OYEWO, a Custodian of records for Target National Bank, Plaintiff herein, that he is duly authorized to make this Decleration and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint in Civil Action are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. L*--vkp,> - A, ADETO BO OYEWO Authorized Agent of TARGET NATIONAL BANK XXXXXXXXXX301153 LNFC Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC Attorney for Plaintiff, Daniel Santucci, Attorney I.D. #92800 TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK Gregory R. Dye, Attorney I.D. #205316 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, PA 19103 800-850-1079 TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A RETAILERS NATIONAL c/o Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Plaintiff, vs. KIM LEE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION No. 5136 JENNIFER CIR MECHANICSBURG PA 17050-2753 Defendant(s). AFFIDAVIT OF NON-MILITARY SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: County of Chester: I, Daniel Santucci/Gregory R. Dye, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say I am the attorney for Plaintiff and I am authorzied to make this affidavit on Plaintiff's behalf. I hereby certify that the Defendant is at least 18 years of age and not in the Military Service of the United States, nor any State or Territory thereof or its allies as defined in the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act of 2004 and any amendments thereto. I also herby certify that the statements made in the foregoing Affidavit of Non-Military Service are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BLATT, HASEN ILER, & MOORE, L Dated: March 2, 2011 By: Gregory R. Dye 2613547 PPTJCAMI 111111 IN I IN NCI IN 111111111111111111111111111111111111 Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC Daniel Santucci Attorney I.D. # 92800 Gregory R. Dye Attorney LD #205316 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, PA 19103 610-902-0644 Attorney for Plaintiff, TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A RETAILERS NATIONAL BAN c/o Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC IN THE COURT OF COMMON KE a 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 - - --? Philadelphia, PA 19103 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Pgco Plaintiff, vc g T CIVIL ACTION VS. , -313 CiIA ( N cQ Q KIM LEE o. =C) c -- 5136 JENNIFER CIR MECHANICSBURG PA 17050-2753 --c ° f Defendant(s). PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly ENTER my appearance in the above-captioned matter on behalf of PLAINTIFF TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK. Papers may be served at the address set forth below: Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone Number: 1-610-902-0644 Dated: March 2, 2011 By: BLATT, HASENMI & MOORE, LLC / Gregory R. Dye KER 2613547 PPTXPEAI 11111111 IIII 111111111111111111 IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII 111111 III IIII I. IN THE COURT OF COMMONPLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TARGET NATIONAL BANK FAVAI RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK, Plainitff CIVIL ACTION V. No.2011-11-3134 c n KIM LEE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . > ` Defendant i NOTICE TO PLEAD - ` - TO: Blatt, Haseruniller, Leibsaker & Moore, LLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TO; Target National Bank F/K/A Retailers National Bank 3901 West 53`d Street Sioux Falls, S.D. 57106-4221. (atty. For Plaintiff, TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK, ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED PLAINTIFF: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED, LEE'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM DATE OF SERVICE HEREOF, OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. r BY: DATE 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANA TARGET NATIONAL BANK FIKIAI RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION V. No.2011-11-3134 KIM LEE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK'S COMPLAINT KIM LEE, (hereinafter referred to as LEE) pro se, filed on April 28, 2011 these Preliminary objections to the Complaint of Plaintiff, TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK, (hereinafter referred to as Bank) pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2)(3) and (4) from the records and 1028a(1) and (5) cannot be from facts and under Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(d) a response is required or a judgment will be obtained. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW TO LEE'S LEGAL ARGUMENT Bank lacks capacity to sue as it has NOT produced a Certificate of Authority to do business in Pennsylvania, has no known registered place of business within Pennsylvania and based upon the LEE's understanding, belief and understanding has not registered its name as a fictitious name, the Preliminary Objection to Strike/Demurrer BANK 's Complaint based on its lack of capacity to sue pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 1028(a) (4) and (5) should be stricken for legal insufficiency and lacks capacity to file this complaint and Plaintiff has not identified the parties, proved standing and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. By reason of Pa. R. C. P. 1019, under the Pennsylvania system of fact pleading, the pleader must define the issues; every act or performance essential to that end must be set forth in the complaint. Miketic v. Baron, 450 Pa. Super. 91,104, 675 A .2d 324, 330 (Pa Super. 19961 citing SantiaLro v. Pennsylvania Nat Mut Cas Ins Co., 418 Pa Super. 178, 183, 613 A .2d 1235,1238 11992); Pa. R. C P 10191The complaint must not only apprise the LEE of an asserted claim, but it must also synopsize the essential facts to support the claim. (citing Pa. R. C. P. 1019(a) and Kraisa v Keypunch, Inc., 424 Pa Super. 230, 234, 622 A .2d 355,357 19( 93)). Furthermore, the complaint must apprise the LEE of nature and extent of plaintiff s claim so that LEE has notice of what plaintiff intends to prove at trial and may prepare to meet such proof with his own evidence. Weiss v. Eguibank 460 A .2d 271, 313 Pa Super. 446 (Pa Super.1983). "The purpose of Rule 1019(1) is to "require the pleader to disclose the material facts sufficient to enable the adverse party to prepare his case." Landau v. Western Pennsylvania National Bank. 282 A .2d 335.339 (Pa 1971) "Where the plaintiff relies upon a 4 contract in which he or she has privity but to which he or she is not a direct party, the complaint is required to show how the privity of contract arose." 4 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d 422:10 at 124. Plaintiff's summits only Exhibit "A" is an improper Affidavit of Account. The verification is also improper according to PA. P.R.C. 1024 (c). The proper verification should be established by an officer of the plaintiff with first hand requisite (personal) knowledge and must state his/or her authority, knowledge of the subject matter and specifically list with specificity the documents that the verification is based upon. Daniel Santacci and/or Gregory R. Dye and/or One of it's Attorneys does not have any of these attributes and the fact that he is an attorney, trained in law and has been warned many times of improper verifications still practices signing verifications thus harming citizens of the Commonwealth in which another Complaint is being filed with the PA. Attorney General Office. One of its Attorney knows, should know and/or ignores Pa. Rules of Evidence for his self-enrichment and knows that he is acting against the warning of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 1. Plaintiff BANK of their Plaintiff's Complaint in Paragraph 3 it states "The Defendant did make purchases and charged same to the account but failed to make the monthly payments called for on the account. There is a balance due and owing of $3087.85.Plaintiff, TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK, has filed a cracker jack box complaint that has violated Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a) (1), this court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter and personam jurisdiction as well, Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) Plaintiff's Complaint does not conform to any rule of law and the contents of said Complaint are scandalous to be filed by an attorney, (a)(3), the Complaint is so insufficient and lacking in specificity the Defendant is denied her due process rights in even understand what she is being charged with, (a)(4)', (a)(5) ' This Complaint is so poor that the Plaintiff does not even state the alleged account number, no executed cardholder agreement, no statement of accounts and lacks any resemblance of a complaint in this fact pleading state. 5 the Plaintiff clearly lacks capacity to sue and this Court is denied the right to address these preliminary objections until discovery and/or depositions are complete, this court cannot rule upon these preliminary objections upon the facts in this case.2 Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1028 makes it clear under NOTE: Preliminary Objections raising an issue under subdivision (a)(1), (5) (6) (7) or (8) cannot be determined from facts of record.3 1 a. The Plaintiff has not attached the required executed application and/or the executed caed holder agreement or any statement of accounts, accounting ledgers or proof that this alleged debt was not securitized and purchased by a debt purchaser as required by Pa. R.C.P. 1019. 2. Banks Complaint fails to conform Pa. R.C.P. 1019(f) for it fails to makes averments of time, place and items purchased with specificity. 3. The failure of the Complaint to show the how, what, when, where and by whom the alleged items and/or purchases were made is a great failure of this Complaint and should be dismissed as a matter of law. 4. Bank failed to comply with Pa. R.C.P. 1019(h), for failing to state in pleading whether the agreement is oral or written. 5. Bank failed to comply with Pa. R.C.P. 10199(i), for failing to attach a copy of the executed card holder agreement. 6. LEE hereby demands that the Bank produce pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1021 of all the accounting ledgers to determine if Bank used Bank liabilities or net worth to create this fraudulent account. z This Complaint is based upon conclusions of law without any requisite personal knowledge. 3 This Court, for it to rule on these Preliminary Objections this Court will have to create evidence, determine the validity of the Courts evidence and try this case. 6 7. LEE seeks this Courts compliance with imposing sanctions under Pa. R.C.P. 1023.4 and/or in the alternative issue under PA. R.C.P. 1023.3 Sanctions to Show Cause against the Plaintiff s Counsel for maliciously filing improper verifications in other counties in Pennsylvania. 8. LEE emphatically states that if Bank has in their possession any executed card holder agreement than it was obtained through fraud and through a Community Uniform Securitization Identification Procedure search, the search will reveal that the Bank is not the holder in due course and/or the note holder and must prove that LEE applied, received, identify objects, cash advances and used and made payments to the Bank.4 9. LEE states that bank lacks legal standing under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(1) thus robbing this Court of personam jurisdiction to even hear this case. 10. LEE states that the bank lacks capacity to sue pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(5) for they do not have any admissible evidence and this Court must order discovery and/;ort deposition before it can even determine these Preliminary Objections. 11. Furthermore, based on information and belief, the LEE objects pursuant to PA. R.C.P. 1028(3) (insufficiency specificity in a pleading) and alleges that Plaintiff has failed to attach documents supporting the amount claimed; failed to attach any executed and/or unsigned account application and/or card holder agreement; failed to attach proof of assignment; and failed to prove its right to bring this action in the courts of Pennsylvania. The Superior Court, in an action involving the alleged assignment of a credit card debt, found that Plaintiff's failure to attach the writings establishing its right to judgment was fatal to the claims set forth, including improper assignment. LEE, based upon his belief, understanding, knowledge and information states that 4 Lee has one expert Money and Banking Expert and possibly a former Vice-President of a Major East Coast Bank with over 31 years experience with a masters degree reading to testify to this fraud that is being committed upon this Court and Defendant. 7 this alleged debt is fraudulent and that Plaintiff placed this fraudulently created negotiable instrument into a trust account through securitization and TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK has already collected upon this fraudulently obtained instrument. Atlantic Credit and Finance v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340, 345 (Pa. Super.2003). 12. Accordingly, as TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK's Complaint fails to properly set forth a cause of action for breach of contract, account stated and/or any other cause of actions and makes it very difficult and/or even impossible for LEE to properly defend against this frivelous action and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court should sustain LEE's Preliminary Objections to the Complaint, order the Complaint stricken, dismiss the action with prejudice and/or grant such other or additional relief as the Court deems just for violating and not limited to PA. R.C.P. 1028a (1), (2). (3), (4) and (5). 13. In ruling on preliminary objections, this Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and all inferences reasonable deductible therefrom. Dorfman v. Pennsylvania Social Services Union Local 668 of the Service Employees Internationalists Union, 752 A .2d 933 (Pa Cmwlth. 2000). However, this Court should not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations or expressions of opinion. Turner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 749 A .2d 1018 (Pa Cmwlth 2000.) 14. LEE, based upon LEE's understanding, beliefs, information and knowledge has never entered a indebtedness relationship with the alleged Plaintiff and had never used the Plaintiffs credit card, received any monthly statement pertaining to Plaintiffs credit card, never executed and/or became bound to any terms and conditions of any credit card agreement and/or application and never issued checks that were applied to the referenced credit card account for the purpose of this litigation and the Plaintiffs is totally deficient under Pa. Rule of Procedures 1028(1), (2), (3) (4) and (5) for the compliant has no attached exhibits. 15. In paragraph two (2), three (3) and four 4 of Plaintiffs Complaint it clearly establishes deficiencies for failure of a pleading to conform to law or rule of court (1028 (2), insufficient specificity in a pleading 1028 (3), 1028 (4) legal insufficiencies of a pleading. 16. Plaintiff implies that monthly statements of account were mailed to LEE, and Lee actually made purchases but has failed to attache any admissible evidence and because of the deficiently of the Complaint Lee does not understand if this Complaint is based upon a account stated or breach of contract and until Lee understands the true nature of this cracker-jack box complaint this Court must grant Lee's Preliminary Objections and dismiss this Complaint for insufficiency of pleading and a due process violation upon the rights of Defendant Lee. (Yanko vs. Donaldson. 65 Pa D & C 341.1949 WL 2883 (C P 1949') (LEE is entitled to have a complete itemization of all the charges and payments for which a recovery is sought) is a real travesty on justice and an attempt to deprive LEE of her Constitutional rights to a fair and honest trial and a violation of the Professional Code of Conduct. 17. In paragraph four (4), Bank claims that Exhibit "A" is a "true, correct copy and legal affidavit but it fails to comply, for it lacks specificity in defining and stating specific documents as custodian of records under Pa. R.E. §803(6) would have reviewed and has failed to attached a certified copy of said documents as required and violates Pa. R.C.P. 1028(3) and (4). 18. THE GENUINE LACK OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AS REQUIRED pursuant to Pa. Rules of Procedures 1021, (demand for accounting) and this complaint is 9 based upon the legal insufficiently of the pleading and it fails to establish any credible admissible evidence and the Courts herein Pennsylvania are fact pleading states and the exhibits must be attached has violated Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure 1028 (1), (2), (3) (4) and (5). 19. The Plaintiff failed to assemble the entire set of agreements that specifically applied to the LEE's account during their unsupported claim when the alleged account was open and during the entire period of claiming its existence and failed to support in other documents specifically the interest rate, fees for attorney fees, interest rates on purchases, cash advances and/or balance transfers and they failed most importantly, never proved that the alleged agreements were actually offered and by what method, date and type of service was offered to the LEE. The Plaintiff's Counsel failed to support this Complaint by failure to attach all documents as required. 20. The Plaintiff has failed to support their allegation for they have not (1) proven an offer was rendered, (2) an acceptance in strict compliance with the terms of the offer, (3) mutuality (Meeting of the minds), (4) each parties consent to the all the terms and agreement, including any alleged, (5) and execution and delivery of the contract with the intent it be mutual and binding on both parties (6) identify who specifically used the alleged credit card, where was it used, what merchandise was obtained with specificity and (7) bank must prove consideration was given to fund the alleged account. 21. Bank has failed to plead any specific averments of time, place, date, liability for payment, nonpayment of and/or refusal to make payment of any credit card account, any specific averments regarding damages and/or any specific averments regarding the entry of any Agreement between BANK and LEE and this Court should strike and/or dismiss Plaintiff's 10 Complaint for failure to comply with PA. R.C.P. 1019(f), (h) and (i), and PA. R.C.P. 1028(a) (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) and these Preliminary Objections should be sustained and Strike/Demurrer of Plaintiffs Complaint for insufficiently and for lack of capacity to sue. Accordingly, just as in Marine Bank v. Orlando, 25 Pa D & C .3d 264 (1982), Bank fails to properly set forth a cause of action for breach of contract or account stated, LEE is unable to properly defend against the action and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court should sustain LEE's Preliminary Objections to the Bank's Complaint and strike Bank's Complaint, dismiss the action and/or grant such other or additional relief as the Court deems just. 22. Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading jurisdiction. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) states that "the material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." The purpose of Rule 1019(a) is to "require the pleader to disclose the 'material facts' sufficient to enable the adverse party to prepare his case." Landau v. Western Pennsylvania National Bank, 282 A.2d 335, 339 (Pa 1971) A complaint "must not only give the LEE notice of what the plaintiffs' claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, but it must also formulate the issues by summarizing those facts essential to support the claim." Alpha Tau Omega Fraternitv v. University of Pennsylvania, 464 A .2d 1349,1352 (Pa Super. 1983) 23. In Pennsylvania the complaint must contain the material facts on which the cause of action is based stated in a concise and summary form pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a). Material facts sufficient to meet the requirement of the rule are those that are essential to show the liability that is sought to be enforced. A complaint must do more than give the LEE fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. It should formulate the issues by fully summarizing the material facts and properly informed the LEE of the charges against to properly allow sufficient time for the LEE to understand and examine all the evidence 11 that could be used at trial. Baker V. Rangos, 229 Pa. Super. 333, 324 A .2d 498 (1974) For a proper statement of account the first statement should show a zero balance and must show debits and credits with specificity. 24. Pa. R. C. P. 1019(i) provides that when a claim is based upon writing the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing, or the material part thereof, to its pleading. The Rule also provides that if the writing is not accessible to the pleader, it is sufficient to so state, together with the reason why is not accessible; however, the pleader us also set forth the substance of the document in writing. Ordinarily, a complaint should be stricken for failure to attach an essential document. Adamo v. Cirri, 656 A.2d 576 (Pa Cmwlth 1995) Worldwide Asset Purchasing, LLC v. stern, 153 PLJ 111, (Wettick 2004) Judge Wettick ruled in the above referenced case, "I said that whenever a claim involves one period of time in which the initial terms and conditions of the credit card agreement apply and other periods of time in which amended terms and conditions apply, the plaintiff must attach to the complaint both the original and amended terms and conditions with the dates on which they are applicable. The plaintiff has not attached any contract and/or agreement. 25. The supported evidence by LEE that the fraudulently obtained negotiable instrument was monetized and then securitized without the acknowledgement and legal consent of LEE proves that the Bank has no standing and for they are not the real party of interest and this case should be dismissed. 27. Plaintiff's Exhibit "A" does not include the necessary elements to be classified as a Statement of Account for this document does not include the amounts of the charges that are part of the claim, the dates of the charges, credits for payments if any, dates and amounts of interest charges, and dates and amounts of other charges. The complaint should - contain sufficient 12 documentation and allegations to permit a LEE to calculate the total amount of damages that are allegedly due by reading the entire accounting ledger showing all the charges with specificity. Traditionally, an account stated was a promise by a debtor to pay a stated account of money which the parties had expressly agreed upon. Wafter H.E. Jaeger. 15 Williston on Contracts 41862 (3d ed. 1972). The doctrine was expanded to include an implied promise by the debtor to the creditor: "To establish an account stated there must be a contract between the parties, that is, an express or implied promise by the debtor to the creditor." Id. at 566 (footnote omitted). Black's Law Dictionary 18 (8t" ed. 2004) defines account stated as follows: A balance that parties to a transaction or settlement agree on, either expressly or by implication. The phrase also refers to the agreement itself or to the assent giving rise to the agreement. Standard Pennsylvania Practice (Second), Action on account stated, describes an account stated as follows: An account stated is an account in writing, examined and accepted by both parties. Defendant has never used a credit card from TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK which explains the insufficiencies in Plaintiffs complaint Observation: An account stated is an agreement between parties to an open account; it includes a promise by the debtor, express or implied, to pay that balance. LEE has never agreed to become indebted to the alleged Plaintiff at anv time in any specific amount of money. To produce an account stated, the account must be rendered, and the other party must accept, agree to, or acquiesce in the correctness of the account. 4 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d §22:17 at 303 (2001) (footnotes omitted). LEE has never accepted any statement of accounts 13 The creation of an account stated is discussed in Contracts, Sections 512 and 513 of the Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia (Second). The relevant portions of the discussion are set forth below: § 512. General Considerations An account stated has been defined as an account in writing, examined and expressly or impliedly accepted by both parties thereto, as distinguished from a simple claim or a mere summary of accounts. In an action upon an account stated, it is not necessary to show the nature of the original transaction or indebtedness or to set forth the items entering into an account in the pleadings. However, in an action of enforcement of accounts stated, the plaintiff must prove there is an account in writing, examined and accepted by both parties, of which acceptance need not be expressly so, but may be implied from the circumstances. There must also be evidence of an acceptance, at least from the circumstances, by the LEE. 13 P.L.E.2d Contracts §512 at 9-10 (2001) (footnotes omitted). § 513. Assent of Parties as to Account To produce an account stated, the account must be rendered, and the other party must accept, agree to, or acquiesce in the correctness of the account, under such circumstances as to import a promise of payment on the one side and acceptance on the other. In short, there must be a meeting of the minds, and there can be no account stated where the account rendered meets with general objection. Acceptance or acquiescence need not be manifested expressly, but may be implied from the circumstances. Where the debtor has had an opportunity to scrutinize the account, his silence is prima facie evidence of acquiescence in an account stated, but the rule is otherwise if the debtor makes a timely objection. Something more than mere acquiescence by failing to take exception to a series of statements of account received in the mail is required to create an account stated. 13 P.L.E.2d Contracts §513 at 11-12 (2001) (footnotes omitted). 14 27. Judge Wettick stated that he has reviewed the limited Pennsylvania case law discussing an action upon an account stated. The case law is accurately summarized in Sections 512 and 513 of the Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia. The opinions in the following cases appear to be the most recent Pennsylvania state court published opinions addressing the cause of action of an account stated: Obermaver, Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel v Banta 28 Pa D &C 4th 225 (C P Phila 1996), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 687 A .2d 866 (Pa Super. 1996); C -E Glass v Ryan, 70 Pa. D.&C.2d 251 (C P Beaver 1975); and Ryon v Andershonis, 42 Pa D.&C.2d 86 (C.P. Schuylkill 1967) 28. In Obermayer, the Court stated that in the action of enforcement of accounts stated, the plaintiff must prove there is an account in writing examined and accepted by both parties 28 Pa D &C 4th at 233 In this case, the Court found acceptance because the Defendant expressed concern to the plaintiff about his ability to pay the fees recorded in the accounts Id at 233-34. The LEE has never assented and/or the Plaintiff cannot prove that LEE assented or acquiesced and the LEE has never admitted ever having a credit card account with TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK, or any of its assigns. 29. In C-E Glass, the plaintiff alleged that it sent statements each and every month. 70 Pa. D.&C.2d at 252. It attached to the complaint a monthly statement of account showing the amounts allegedly due for each of four invoices and a total balance due. It did not include information about the goods purchased or the amounts charged. The Court held that these allegations did not state a cause of action on an account stated because "something more than mere acquiescence by failure to take exception to a 15 series of statements of accounts received in the mail is required." Id. at 253. In the case at hand the Plaintiff's Exhibit "A" does not qualify as a statement of account for it does not clearly depict any specific charges and/or purchases and/or the amount charged and does not give LEE the sufficient numbers to add to double check the figures and all of this is actually meaningless when LEE emphatically denies that she ever used a TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/WA/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK Credit Card. 30. In Ryon, an insurance broker sued for insurance premiums. 42 Pa. D.&C.2d The complaint alleged that an account had been stated and the defendant has refused and neglected to pay the account. The Court ruled that these allegations did not set forth a cause of action on an account stated: "[m]utual assent to the correctness of the computation is essential to an account stated. Here, there is no allegation that LEE assented to the correctness of the account submitted to him." Id. at 88 (citations omitted). 31. According to this legal authority (Wettick), there cannot be an account stated without evidence showing an agreement (express or implied) that the Defendant owes the amount set forth in the account. Plaintiffs complaint does not include any factual allegations that would support a finding of an express or implied agreement that the cardholder agrees to a specific amount owed and a itemized list with specificity the itemized amounts, pricing, dates of purchase, whom purchased what merchandise and list all payments that gives LEE the opportunity to challenge the alleged debt and furthermore LEE states that Exhibit "A" is nothing more than a cursory statement and does not prove any indebtedness by LEE, but puts LEE in a position of filing a Title 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. lawsuit. 16 32. LEE objects to Plaintiffs attorney writing the verification. Pa. R.C.P 1024(c) states in pertinent part, "The verification shall be made by one or more of the parties filing the pleading unless all the parties (1) lack sufficient knowledge or information, or (2) are outside the jurisdiction of the court and the verification of none of them can be obtained within the time allowed for the pleading. In such cases, the verification may be made by any person having personal knowledge or information and belief and shall set forth the source of the person's information as to matters not stated upon his or her own knowledge and the reason why the verification is not made by a party". Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1002 which references "Authority of Attorney", it states in pertinent part, "Any act other than verification required or authorized by this chapter to be done by a party may be done by the party's attorney" (emphasis added) With respect to the aforementioned, Plaintiff's action should be dismissed for failure to adhere to Pa.R.C.P 1024 (c), Pa.R.C.P. 1002 and Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a) (2) for woeful lack of proper verification. 33. "When suit is brought against a defender by a stranger to his contract, he is entitled to proof the plaintiff Is the owner of the claim against him... otherwise, the LEE might find herself subjected to the same liability to the original owner of the cause of action, In the event that there was no actual assignment". Produce Factors Cori). v. Brown, 179 A.2d 919, 921 (Pa Super. 1962). citing Brown v Esposito 42 A .2d at 94. 34. Pa. R.C.P. 1019(f) states that "averments of time, place and items of special damage shall be specifically stated." This court concurs with the decision in Worldwide Asset Purchasina, LLC v. Stem 153 P L J 111 (C P Allegheny 200411.1 which held that 17 in suits to recover credit card debts, under Rule 1019(f) the "LEE is entitled to know the dates on which individual transactions were made, the amounts therefore and the items purchased to be able to answer intelligently and determine what items he can admit and what items he must contest." Id. at 112. Worldwide Asset Purchasing described the requirements to adequately plead and prove an account: An account must show the name of the party charged. It begins with a balance, preferably at zero, or with a sum recited that can qualify as an account stated, but at least the balance should be a provable sum_ Following the balance the item or items, dated and identifiable by number or otherwise, representing charges, or debits, and credits, should appear. Summarization is necessary showing a running or developing balance or an arrangement which permits the calculation of the ..,. balance claimed to be due." Id., citing Asset Acceptance Corp V. Proctor, 804 N.E.2d 975, 977 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). 35. In the case of Roberts v. Fleet Bank 342 F .3d 260, 265-266 (3d Cir. 2003) Judge Fox describes the disclosure requirements of the Schumer Box. (Listed below) The information contained in the Schumer Box is a material part of the writing upon which the Plaintiff is based; it establishes the agreed-upon contract terms for the interest rates and fees. Without attaching the Schumer Box or setting forth its substance in the complaint, the Plaintiff does not adequately plead the basis for the amounts of interest, late fees, returned check fees, and over-the-limit fees alleged to be owed. The failure to either attach a copy of the original Schumer Box and any subsequent amendments, or to set forth the substance of the information contained in the Schumer Box in the complaint, constitutes a failure under Rule 1019(i) to attach a material part of the writing upon which the claim is based. UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS ASSIGNEE OF 18 PALISDES COLLECTIONS, LLC v. Jenny-T. Vo Control Number, 08206576- 080920, Common Please of Philadelphia First Judicial District of Pennsylvania 36. The listed paragraphs below is LEE's objections and additional inadequacies concerning the One of its Attorney affidavit. a. This case presents a set of facts and a pattern of evidentiary and pleading inadequacies commonly seen in the personal appearance part of the Civil Court concerning debt collectors. b. Plaintiff now demonstrates how weak and lacking of admissible evidence to incompliance with Pa. Rules of Evidence be. c. Based upon LEE's understanding, information, believes and knowledge One of its Attorney either purchased the debt or employed by another debt purchaser to collect on a fraudulent debt. d. Since the affiant neither has personal knowledge of the facts nor can attest to the genuineness or authenticity of the documents, plaintiff has not made out its prima facie case. e. One of its Attorney states under the threat of Perjury 18 Pa. C.S. A. 4904 that the statements made in his Complaint are true and correct and this action would qualify for sanction under Pa. R.R.C. 1023.4. f. In Pennsylvania a Compliant must be supported by a Affidavit by an person with requisite knowledge of the facts, together with a copy of the pleadings and attach a certified copy of all the listed evidence reviewed by affiant as referenced in the "Affidavit", and by other available proof. g. The movant must tender evidence, by proof in admissible form, to establish the cause of action "sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment." h. Failure to make such showing requires the dismissal of the Plaintiff's Complaint. i. A conclusory affidavit, or an affidavit by a person who has no personal knowledge of the facts, cannot establish a prima facie case. .i. A mere conclusory assertion of a fact, without any 19 evidentiary basis, is insufficient. k. When the affiant relies on documents, the documents relied upon must be annexed to the affidavit. 1. The affiant must establish an adequate evidentiary basis for them. Mere submission of documents (Affidavit) without any identification or authentication is inadequate. m. When the movant seeks to have the Court consider a business record, the proponent must establish that it meets the evidentiary requirements for a business record, by, for example, having a corporate officer swear to the authenticity and genuineness of the document. Pa. Rules of Evidence 803.6 and Title 42 §6108. n. LEE wished to depose Attorney One of its Attorney concerning his first hand requisite knowledge. o. One of its Attorney's bald implied, but unsupported statement that LEE entered into a contract is not probable, since Affiant acknowledges that he is not relaying on any documents in his possession. p. The Complaint is equally ineffective to establish that LEE signed a contract, since it does not exist. q. The Affiant describes one document as "account statement that does not reflect any purchases made by LEE along with periodic payments. The Affiant lacks personal knowledge to prove directly that LEE used the credit card, obtained a credit card, applied for a credit card, made any payments on a credit card, became indebted to TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK on a credit card and simply cannot prove a person, place, thing and/or event making her Affidavit hearsay at best. r. The mere fact that One of its Attorney does not even state that he had reviewed any files, has the files in his possession or even mentioned them in direct relationship to this case, his failure prove their insufficient evidence. S. Even if plaintiff were asserting a claim for an account stated, One of its Attorney's statement would be totally inadequate to support it. One of its Attorney does not even assert whether he claims that the documents were sent by TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK or one of its subsidiaries by the bank, but, either way, One of its Attorney's statements are not sufficient to 20 establish mailing and/or receiving. t. One of its Attorney does not claim to have personal knowledge of this account. Certainly, One of its Attorney does not claim to have mailed these statements himself. Where One of its Attorney does not have personal knowledge that a particular document was mailed, One of its Attorney cannot establish that it was mailed by describing a regular office practice for mailing documents of that type when One of its Attorney worked for TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK. U. Since One of its Attorney neither has personal knowledge of the facts nor can attest to the genuineness or authenticity of the documents, plaintiff has not made out its prima facie case and their complaint must be dismissed with prejudice. v. One of its Attorney or the Plaintiff cannot substantiate that LEE used the card for any purchases and/or cash advances or even became indebted to Plaintiff. w. Plaintiff has not produced or shown any authenticity and relevancy of the document(s). Attaching no documents to a Complaint without the legal requirements of verification and/or affidavit is no more acceptable than standing up in open court and attempting to offer the same documents into evidence without a witness or a stipulation. Plaintiff has not proven any of these alleged bold allegations and not authenticated any documents, produced any admissible evidence, has not proven standing so therefore this Court lacks Personam and Subject Matter Jurisdiction and lacks any credible evidence based upon personal knowledge that can attest to who used this alleged card, what was purchased, dates, times, place and actual damages suffered by Plaintiff. X. The One of its Attorney is not a custodian of the records so therefore Bank lacks sufficient knowledge to substantiate any material facts in order to substantiate any indebtedness on behalf of LEE. y. One of its Attorney is equally ineffective to establish that LEE signed a contract, since it does not exist. Z. Therefore, the Attorney One of its Attorney cannot rely on the account statements which Bank proffered to establish LEE's default without having first hand knowledge. 21 aa. One of its Attorney does not claim to have personal knowledge of this account. Certainly, One of its Attorney does not claim to have mailed these statements himself. Where One of its Attorney does not have personal knowledge that a particular document was mailed, One of its Attorney cannot establish that it was mailed by describing a regular office practice for mailing documents of that type. bb. One of its Attorney cannot prove that LEE has ever received any account statements. cc. One of its Attorney is not a custodian of the records and through Discovery, LEE will be able to prove that LEE is not indebted to TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK in any amount. WHEREFORE, LEE respectfully request this Court to dismiss Plaintiff's action for failure to comply with 1019, 1033, 1028, 1024 and 1035.4 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures and any other governing law or statute appertaining thereto. LEE also states that she plans to exercise her rights under Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1007.1 to have a Jury Trial and LEE also seeks this Court to sanctions under Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure 1023.1(d) the activities of this law firm and a judicial complaint should be filed for violating all the referenced rules clearly stated in this Complaint and a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for improper violations under Title 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. i IM EE Respectfully submitted, Date: April 29, 2011 22 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TARGET NATIONAL BANK FIKIAI RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION V. CASE No.2011-3134 KIM LEE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant VERIFICATION The undersigned Defendant, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Preliminary Objections and Brief in Support of these Preliminary Objections are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and based upon my understanding that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Date Kim Lee TARGET NATIONAL BANK FAVAI RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK Plaintiff ; CIVIL ACTION v. No.2011-11-3134 KIM LEE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused to be served a true and copy of the within LEE's Preliminary Objections via first class mail by a proof of mailing upon the following persons: TARGET NATIONAL BANK F/K/A/ RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK 3901 West 53rd Street Sioux Falls, S.D. 57106-4221 Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 Date: April 29, 2011 KIM LEE 23 Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC Daniel Santucci Attorney I.D. #92800 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-564-1567 Attorney for Plaintiff, TARGET TARGET NATIONAL BANK c//o Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC Plaintiff, vs. KIM LEE Defendant(s). IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS c? N CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA MW --, m- rn = rte- -o M CIVIL ACTION NO. 2011-11-3134 z> ONS Plaintiff, Target National Bank, through its attorneys, Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker and Moore, does hereby answer defendant's preliminary objections to amended complaint, and states as follows: 1. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 2. Denied, Defendant is asking plaintiff to spell out all transactions, which in this case would make the complaint so voluminous as to make its filing impracticable. 3. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 4. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 5. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 6. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 7. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 8. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 9. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 10. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 11. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 12. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 13. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 14. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 15. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 16. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 17. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 18. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 19. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 20. Denied in as much as the paragraph includes other denied paragraphs. 21. Denied, Plaintiff is the original creditor. 22. Denied, Plaintiff is the original creditor. 23. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 24. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 25. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 26. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 27. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 28. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 29. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 30. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 31. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 32. Denied, there are more than sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint for Defendant to prepare a defense. 33. Denied in as much as it includes previously denied paragraphs. 34. Admitted, Plaintiff is a National Bank, based in Minnesota. 35. Denied, Plaintiff is a Minnesota National Bank; getting verification in time to file an Amended Complaint is impracticable. 36. Denied, Plaintiff is a Minnesota National Bank; getting verification in time to file an Amended Complaint is impracticable. 37. Denied, Plaintiff is a Minnesota National Bank; getting verification in time to file an Amended Complaint is impracticable. 38. Denied, Plaintiff is a Minnesota National Bank; getting verification in time to file an Amended Complaint is impracticable. 39. Denied, Plaintiff is a Minnesota National Bank; getting verification in time to file an Amended Complaint is impracticable. 40. Denied, Plaintiff is a Minnesota National Bank; getting verification in time to file an Amended Complaint is impracticable. 41. Denied, Plaintiff is a Minnesota National Bank; getting verification in time to file an Amended Complaint is impracticable. 42. Denied, Plaintiff is a Minnesota National Bank; getting verification in time to file an Amended Complaint is impracticable. 43. Denied, Plaintiff is a Minnesota National Bank; getting verification in time to file an Amended Complaint is impracticable. 44. Denied, Plaintiff is a Minnesota National Bank; getting verification in time to file an Amended Complaint is impracticable. 45. Denied, Plaintiff is a Minnesota National Bank; getting verification in time to file an Amended Complaint is impracticable. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC Daniel Santucci Attorney I.D. #92800 1835 Market Street, Suite 501 Philadelphia, PA 19103 800-850-1079 TARGET NATIONAL BANK cHo Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC Plaintiff, VS. KIM LEE Defendant(s). PRAECIPE TO REFER PRI To the Prothonotary: ry$.- r?i?LEO-O? tee Attorney or TA R y TARS WOV 21 pM 3: 43 CUMBERLANO COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3134-CIVIL DISPOSITION THE Kindly refer the matter of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to the Court for disposition on this case. David D. Buell' (Prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary Cum6er[and County, ' ennsylvania /1-3/31/ ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES rkS. Sohonage, T S'Q, Solicitor CIVIL TERM 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 ® Suite100 ® Car[is(.e, TA ® (Phone 717 240-6195 0 'Tax 717 240-6573