Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-3895BORTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIw ?M F ?-- --t -Ta V. - r BRENDA MAUS, to m DEFENDANT NO. 11-3895 CIVIL r-o ' ORDER OF COURT ND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2011, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Petitio n for Preliminary or Special Injunction not be Inc.; IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: A Rule is issued upon the Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should The Defendant will file an answer on or before April 29, 2011; Brenda Maus is prohibited from contacting known customers of Bortek Industries., Brenda Maus is prohibited from using or sharing with any third party information she learned Oring her employment with Bortek Industries, Inc.; the Cu A hearing will be held on Thursday, May 5, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 2 of nd County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., Wayne F Attorney Brenda I Defenda echt, Esquire for Plaintiff J. bas IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BORTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., l? r.V Plaintiff m .2:6; a V. No. 11-3895 Civil rte`-- CD CDC? BRENDA MAUS, Defendant r? PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Michael J. Crocenzi, Esquire and Steven E. Grubb of Goldberg Katzman, P.C. as counsel for the Defendant, Brenda Maus, in the above-captioned action. By: GOLDBERG KAWMAN, P.C. Michael J. Crocenzi, Esquire Attorney I. D. No. 66255 ?J 320 Market Street P. O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorney for D endant By: DATE: May 4, 2011 ?td4 oWE. Grubb, Esquire Attorney I. D. No. 75897 320 Market Street P. O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorney for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the 4t" day of May, 2011, addressed to the following: Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire Pecht & Associates, PC 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG,ICATZMAN, P.C. By Attorney I. D. No. 66255 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorney, for Defendant 206122.1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BORTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner ter'' law V. No. 11-3895 Civil r--` BRENDA MAUS, AA' c ' C Defendant DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY OR SPECIAL INJUCTION 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant Brenda Maus was an employee of Petitioner from September 18, 2006 until March 10, 2011. 3. Denied. On September 19, 2006, the day after she started working for Bortek Industries, Inc., Defendant Maus signed a document entitled "2006 Employment Agreement Terms, Responsibilities, and Handbook Acknowledgement." (See Exhibit A to Petitioner's Complaint). At the time Defendant Maus signed the document, she was employed and working as a Customer Service Representative and not as a Sales Representative. As a Customer Service Representative, she took phone calls from existing customers who were placing orders and/or transferred the customer to a sales representative. The document was not a legally binding employment agreement because it did not specify the duration of the employment. Defendant Maus admits that the document she signed on September 19, 2006 contained a covenant not to compete clause which prohibited her from contacting Petitioner's customers and competing with Petitioner for two years after her employment ended with Petitioner and within one hundred miles of any of the Petitioner's locations. The Petitioner does not have a protectible business interest in Defendant Maus' work as a Customer Service Representative. 4. Denied. In approximately September 2007, Defendant Maus started working for the Petitioner as a Sales Representative. In approximately the end of 2008 or early 2009, the Petitioner had Defendant Maus sign a Sales Compensation Terms and Agreement. (See Exhibit B to Complaint). Petitioner did not pay Defendant Maus based on the terms of the Sales Compensation Terms and Agreement and it did not serve as any additional consideration for any non-compete provision for her work as a Sales Representative for the Petitioner. Thus, there is no binding covenant not to compete pertaining to Defendant Maus' work as a Sales Representative for the Petitioner. 5. Denied. Defendant Maus is not bound by any covenant not to compete provision. Furthermore, the Court has already issued an Order dated April 25, 2011 enjoining Defendant Maus from contacting known customers of Petitioner, and using or sharing with any third party information she learned during her employment with Petitioner. 6. Denied. The covenant not to compete is not valid and does not bind Defendant Maus. Even if the covenant not to compete is binding, it is not reasonable in time, scope, and geographic area. It will prevent Defendant Maus from earning a living to support her family. 7. Denied. The covenant not to compete is not binding upon Defendant Maus based on her work as a Sales Representative with the Petitioner. Furthermore, this paragraph is now moot because the Court has already issued an Order dated April 25, 2011 prohibiting Defendant Maus from contacting any known customers of Petitioner and from using or sharing with any third party information she learned during her employment with Petitioner. 206120.1 WHERFORE, Defendant Maus respectfully requests this Honorable Court to rescind its April 25, 2011 Order prohibiting Defendant Maus from contacting customers of Petitioner and from using information she learned during her employment with Petitioner for her own benefit or for the benefit of any third party. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBER? A , P.C. Michael J. Crocenfi Attorney I.D. #66255 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 (717) 234-6808 (facsimile) Attorney for Defendant Date: May 3, 2011 206120.1 VERIFICATION I verify that the information contained in this statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: I renda Maus 206120.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 3`d day of May, 2011, I certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following counsel or party of record by delivering same via first class mail, addressed as follows: Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire Pecht & Associates, PC 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 GOLDBF,RG IAA IFZMAN, P.C. Attorney I.D. #66255 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorney for Defendant 206120.1 BORTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI A Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant No. 11-3895 Civil V. BRENDA MAUI, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED a ' -Va Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff V. ' -? MICHAEL BOARMAN, > Counterclaim Defendant NOTICE TO DEFEND TO: Michael Boarman 4713 Old Gettysburg Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 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 AN ATTORNEY AND FILLING 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 JUDGEMENT 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 PEOPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO THE TELEPHONE OR THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 { 00514795;v l } BORTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant V. BRENDA MAUS, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff V. MICHAEL BOARMAN, Counterclaim Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 11-3895 Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Bortek Industries, Inc. c/o Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire Pecht & Associates, PC 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the within New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Date: to It ill / GOLD G KA N, P.C. Mic J. Crocenzi, Esquire (I.D. #66255_ Steven E. Grubb, Esquire (I.D. #75897) 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 (717) 234-6808 (facsimile) Attorney for Defendant {00514795;vI} Michael J. Crocenzi, Esquire (I.D. #66255) Steven E. Grubb, Esquire (I.D. #75897) 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 (717) 234-6808 (facsimile) Attorney for Defendant BORTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 11-3895 Civil V. BRENDA MAUS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff V. MICHAEL BOARMAN, Counterclaim Defendant DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER. COUNTERCLAIM AND COMPLAINT V. MICHAEL BOARMAN Defendant Brenda Maus, by and through her counsel, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., files this Answer with New Matter, Counterclaim and Complaint versus Michael Boarman. 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. Plaintiff hired Ms. Maus as a customer service representative on September 18, 2006. {00514795;v1 } 5. Denied. The Agreement attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A was handed to Ms. Maus as part of the Employee Handbook which she received the day she started her employment. She turned the document in to Plaintiff after the start of her employment. The remaining allegations are denied since they refer to a document which speaks for itself. 6. Denied as stated. There was a "training program" for Ms. Maus' employment as a customer service representative, but not for her later position as a salesperson. Ms. Maus was paid commissions beginning in approximately January of 2008, and, approximately a year later, executed the document attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B. The remainder of these allegations are denied as legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and, furthermore, refer to written documents which speak for themselves. Any characterization of these documents is denied. 7. Denied. Ms. Maus resigned on March 10, 2011. 8. Denied as stated. Ms. Maus has become employed by Allied Cleaning Technologies ("Allied") after her resignation. 9. Admitted that upon becoming employed by Allied, Ms. Maus contacted customers and suppliers she had served while employed at Bortek. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied as legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 10. Denied as stated. Ms. Maus is employed by Allied which has a place of business at 47 Fairview Road, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. The remainder of the allegations are denied as legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 11. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Maus is without knowledge as to whether her actions have caused "harm" to Plaintiff, and, thus, this allegation is denied. The remaining allegations are denied as legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 2 100514795;v1} 12. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Maus is without knowledge as to whether her actions have caused "harm" to Plaintiff. The remaining allegations are denied as legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 13. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. Furthermore, this allegation makes reference to a written document which speaks for itself Any characterization of the written document is denied. 14. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 15. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 14, above, are incorporated by reference as though set out in full. 16. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. IT Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. Furthermore, Plaintiff's allegation refers to a written document which speaks for itself. Any characterization of said document is, thus, denied. 18. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. WHERFORE, Defendant Brenda Maus respectfully requests that Plaintiff's claim be dismissed with prejudice and all costs of court be paid by Plaintiff to Defendant. 19. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 18, above, are incorporated by reference as if set out in full. 20. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. Furthermore, this allegation refers to a written document which speaks for itself. Any characterization of said document is denied. 21. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 22. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 3 {00514795;v 1 } 23. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. WHERFORE, Defendant Brenda Maus respectfully requests that Plaintiff's claim be dismissed with prejudice and all costs of court be paid by Plaintiff to Defendant. 24. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 23, above, are incorporated by reference as though set out in full. 25. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 26. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 27. Denied. Ms. Maus worked full time during her employment by Plaintiff. The remainder of this paragraph is denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 28. Denied that Plaintiff compensated Defendant properly, as explained below in the New Matter and Counterclaim. Furthermore, it is denied that Ms. Maus made any misrepresentations to Plaintiff since she worked full time during her employment by Plaintiff. 29. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. Ms. Maus worked full time during her employment by Plaintiff and made no misrepresentations. 30. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. Ms. Maus worked full time during her employment by Plaintiff. WHERFORE, Defendant Brenda Maus respectfully requests that Plaintiff's claim be dismissed with prejudice and all costs of court be paid by Plaintiff to Defendant. NEW MATTER 31. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 30, above, are incorporated by reference as though set out in full. 32. Whine employed by Plaintiff, Plaintiff failed to pay Ms. Maus the appropriate compensation rates in accordance with Exhibit B attached to the Complaint. 4 {00514795;vII 33. Upon information, Bortek Industries, Inc., through Michael Boarman, would artificially inflate expenses attributable to sales by Ms. Maus which would reduce her profit margin and the commission payable to her. 34. Plaintiff s claim is barred by the doctrine of failure of consideration. 35. Plaintiffs claim is barred because there is no mutuality of obligation in that Plaintiff has failed in its contractual obligations to Defendant. 36. Plaintiff failed to pay Ms. Maus adequate consideration for the restrictive covenants it seeks to enforce. 37. The Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint identifies a measure of damages through the recovery of lost profits after an accounting. 38. Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and its harm is compensable in damages. 39. The "Employment Agreement" attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint is not sufficiently specifilc as to its terms, or understandable. 40. The document attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint is a contract of adhesion, forced upon all of Plaintiff's employees regardless of their job responsibilities. 41. Plaintiff does nothing to protect or back up any of the information for which it now seeks protection in this lawsuit. 42. Plaintiff does not have proprietary pricing information or strategies which it imparts upon its sales force. 43. Salesman typically get what they can get from a customer based on market forces and their own discretion. 44. Plaintiff seeks to enforce restrictive covenants for its own competitive advantage in an attempt to assert a monopoly in its industry. 5 100514795;vII 45. Plaintiff has no protectable business interest which can be protected through the restrictive covenants it seeks to enforce in this case. 46. Plaintiff's claim for liquidated damages is unenforceable. 47. The liquidated damages clause is punitive in nature. 48. The liquidated damages clause has no relation to a protectable business interest or potential damages which could be claimed by Plaintiff. 49. Plaintiff felt Ms. Maus' appearance reflected poorly on Plaintiff's business. 50. Plaintiff felt Ms. Maus did not possess organization qualities which reflect highly on Plaintiff's business. 51. Plaintiff did not deem Ms. Maus a competitive threat when she left the employ of Plaintiff. 52. The restrictive covenants asserted by Plaintiff are unreasonable in time and geographic limitation. 53. Plaintiff's claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. WHERFO E, Defendant Brenda Maus respectfully requests that Plaintiff's claim be dismissed with prejudice and all costs of court be paid by Plaintiff to Defendant. COUNTERCLAIM V. BORTEK INDUSTRIES. INC AND COMPLAINT V. MICHAEL BOARMAN 54. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 53, above, are incorporated by reference as though set out in full. 55. Counterclaim Plaintiff is Brenda Maus with a home address of 210 East Walnut Street, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 6 100514795;vII 56. Counterclaim Defendant is Bortek Industries, Inc. which is a Pennsylvania business corporation with its principal office located at 4713 Old Gettysburg Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 57. Michael Boarman is joined as a defendant in this claim, jointly and severally liable with Bortek, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2229. Mr. Boarman is the President and Chief Executive at Bortek and has a work address of 4713 Old Gettysburg Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 58. Since approximately August of 2007, Ms. Maus has been employed by Bortek as a salesperson. 59. During her employment, she was paid a base rate of compensation, as well as compensation based on commissions depending upon the profits generated by sales she made for Bortek. 60. Attached as Exhibit B to the underlying Complaint is the commission schedule Bortek was to have paid Ms. Maus on sales she made since approximately January of 2009. 61. Bortek, through Mr. Boarman, has breached the commission schedule by paying Ms. Maus commissions and wages at a rate lower than described on Exhibit B to the Complaint. 62. Bortek Industries has paid Ms. Maus commission rates of 0, 2 and 3% where the commission rates stated on Exhibit B do not permit commissions at a rate below 5%. 63. Bortek Industries has not justified the basis for its payment of commission rates lower than those stated in the written commission schedule (Exhibit B to the Complaint). 64. Additionally, it is believed, and, therefore, averred, that commissions were improperly calculated. 7 {00514795;vII 65. It is believed, and, therefore, averred, that Bortek, in actions by Mr. Boarman, artificially inflated and charged expenses at a rate higher than normal or appropriate, thus, reducing profit margins upon which salespersons' commissions are based. 66. This was done without justification, to the detriment of Ms. Maus. 67. A combination of improperly low commission rates and improperly exaggerated expense charges have resulted in Ms. Maus' wages being improperly reduced by an amount in excess of $5,000, although the full amount is not ascertainable absent discovery. 68. The decisions to pay wages at inappropriate commission levels, and with inflated expense rates, were controlled by Bortek's President, Michael Boarman. 69. Ms. Maus has been deprived of wages which constitute a breach of the written wage schedule. 70. Decision maker, Michael Boarman, was responsible for and participated in the decision not to pay Ms. Maus appropriate wages and is subject to personal liability under Pennsylvania's Wage Payment & Collection Law ("WPCL") 71. Ms. Maus is entitled to the award of her lost wages, together with attorneys fees, interest, liquidated damages and penalties under the WPCL for Bortek Industries and Michael Boarman's failure to pay her wages. WHERFORE, it is respectfully requested that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Brenda Maus an& against Bortek Industries, Inc., as well as Michael Boarman, jointly and severally, in an amount equal to her lost wages, which are believed to be in excess of $5,000, together with attorneys' fees, interest, liquidated damages and penalties, all available under the WPCL, and any other remedy this Court deems just and proper. 8 {00514795;v1} Respectfully submitted, GOLDB,WG KATZMAN, P.C_ Michael I Crocenzi, Esquire (I.D. #66255) Steven E. Grubb, Esquire (I.D. #75897) 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 (717) 234-6808 (facsimile) Attorney for Defendant Date: ""*/I j //' I 9 100514795;v 1 } VERIFICATION I verify that the information contained in the foregoing document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 6 ! 9 / I I Brenda Maus {00206120;v1}206120.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this I G day of _x,, , 2011, I certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following counsel or party of record by delivering same via first class mail, addressed as follows: Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire Pecht & Associates, PC 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 GOLDBE KATZMAN, P.C. Mi ael J. CrocenA, Esquire (I.D. #66255_ Steven E. Grubb, Esquire (I.D. #75897) 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 (717) 234-6808 (facsimile) Attorney for Defendant {00514795;vII Pecht & Associates, PC Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire PAID No.: 38904 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 691-9808 F! L 1 C' s -P , 14 nil JIB H AMII:' ? PI ENWSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW BORTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant V. No. 11-3895 CIVIL BRENDA MAUS, Defendant/ Counterclaim Plaintiff v MICHAEL BOARMAN, Counterclaim Defendant PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO: David Buell, Prothontary Please enter the appearance of the undersigned in the above-captioned matter on behalf of the Counterclaim Defendant Michael Boarman. June 17, 2011 PECHT ASSOC TES, PC By: Wayne . Pecht, Esquire PA ID: 38904 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-691-9808 phone 717-691-2070 fax Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this the 17th day of June 2011,1 served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance by US First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Steven E. Grubb Esquire Michael J. Crocenzi, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. 320 Market Street P O Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 June 17, 2011 Wayne M. echt PA ID No.: 38904 Pecht & Associates, PC 1205 Manor Drive Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 691-9808 P, Pecht & Associates, PC Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire PAID No.: 38904 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 691-9808 FILED-OFFIC _ r E , 0;- trlJ 0 H1 H JUN 20 AM 11: 8ERLAND C 0 U j'd ` PEIdNS`; ?_VAN 1, i1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW BORTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., PlaintiffJCounterclaim Defendant V. No. 11-3895 CIVIL BRENDA MAUS, Defendant/ Counterclaim Plaintiff v MICHAEL BOARMAN, Counterclaim Defendant ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire, hereby accept service of the Counterclaim Complaint filed in this matter on behalf of Counterclaim Defendant Michael Boarman. PECHT & ASSOCIATE, PC June 17, 2011 By: Wayne . Pecht, Esquire PA ID: 38904 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-691-9808 phone 717-691-2070 fax Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this the 17th day of June 2011, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Acceptance of Service by US First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Steven E. Grubb Esquire Michael J. Crocenzi, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. 320 Market Street P O Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 June 17, 2011 Wayne . Pecht PA ID No.: 38904 Pecht & Associates, PC 1205 Manor Drive Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 691-9808 C'7 rv r, SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTI' - 7j , F ' :: Ronny R Anderson ::0 ? Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy ' Richard W Stewart Solicitor opf,1E ' , =t SN P r Bortek Industries Inc vs. I Case Number Michael Boarman 2011-3895 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 06/16/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on June 16, 2011 at 2140 hours this Complaint and Notice upon defendant Michael Boarman is returned not served per request from Attorney Steven E. Grubb. SHERIFF COST: $28.44 SO ANSWERS, June 16, 2011 RbN?TY R ANDERSON, SHERIFF !s) County5uite Sherd, Teiemsott inc. Michael J. Crocenzi, Esquire (I.D. #66255) t Y 'l - o ` r S r` ?+i??A?T Steven E. Grubb, Esquire (I.D. #75897) E6ThO 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 0111 ,.UL 21 Vl 10` Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717 ) 2234-4161 34-6808 facsimile ?????P °NSY LV" A Attorney for Defendant BORTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant No. 11-3895 Civil V. BRENDA MAUS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff V. MICHAEL BOARMAN, Counterclaim Defendant COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF BORTEK INDUSTRIES, INC. AND MICHAEL BOARMAN Counterclaim Plaintiff, Brenda Maus, by and through her counsel, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., files this Reply to New Matter asserted by Counterclaim Defendants Bortek Industries, Inc. Michael Boarman as follows. 72. For the reasons stated in her Counterclaim, this allegation is denied, as Ms. Maus was not paid according to her purported contract. 73. Denied. Ms. Maus performed duties required of her while she was employed at Bortek Industries. 74. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 100550061;v1} 75. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 76. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 77. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. WHERFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiff requests judgment in her favor and against Defendant Bortek Industries, Inc. and Michael Boarman, jointly and severally, in an amount equal to her lost wages, which are believed to be in excess of $5,000, together with attorneys' fees, interest, liquidated damages and penalties, all available under the WPCL, and any other remedy this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, ZD G TZMAN C. rocen zi, Esquire (I.D. #66255) Steven E. Grubb, Esquire (I.D. #75897) 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 (717) 234-6808 (facsimile) Attorney for Defendant Date: July 26, 2011 2 f00550061;vlI VERIFICATION I verify that the information contained in the foregoing document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ';/? Breda Maus {00550061;vl} CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 26th day of July, 2011, I certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following counsel or party of record by delivering same via first class mail, addressed as follows: Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire Pecht & Associates, PC 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Thomas A. French, Esquire Rhoads & Sinon, LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 GOLDBERG KAT AN, P.C. chael J. Cro -i, Esquire (I.D. #66255_ Steven E. Grubb, Esquire (I.D. #75897) 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 (717) 234-6808 (facsimile) Attorney for Defendant 100550061;v1} • • BORTEK INDUSTRIES, INC. vs BRENDA MAUS To the Court: Case No. 11-3895 STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED C' Cn CD CEJ Bortek Industries, Inc. intends to proceed with the above captioned mar. Print Name Wayne M . Pecht Sign Name Date: /oL-ILt Attorney for Bortek Industries, Inc. IMPORTANT NOTE In the event that this is a second or subsequent filing of a Statement of Intention to Proceed, this matter will be referred to the President Judge for the purpose of conducting a status conference involving all counsel. The goal of the status conference will be to set the matter for trial or other final disposition within a time certain. Prior to the status conference, Counsel will be expected to submit to the court, in writing, a proposed schedule for the completion of discovery, the filing of dispositive motions and a report as to whether alternative dispute resolution has been used or discussed.