Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-3563 .. SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITORNEYS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A ~ .. GLORIA NICKEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO.: 01- 3)&3 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC., Civil Action - Law Defendant 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 240-6200 SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Dated: /;-7"0 I oseph L. Hitc ings, Supreme Court I.D. # 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Plaintiff ,'- SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITORNEYS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA II r 1 .. GLORIA NICKEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO.: O/-.35~3 C4;J-r~ LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC., Civil Action - Law Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW, this <{1L day of , 2001, ~ , \ '-.1''\ ~__ - comes the Plaintiff, Gloria Nickey, by and through her undersigned attorneys, Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay and avers in support of her Complaint against Defendant as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Gloria Nickey, lS an adult individual residing at 2107 Lindsay Lot Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 2. Defendant, Lakeside Holding, Inc., is a foreign corporation doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with an address of One Beistle Plaza, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 3. At all times material hereto, Defendant owned the real property and business known as "The King's Inn and Nickey's Lounge" located at 105 West King Street, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17257. SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS'ATeLAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. P A ,- '. 4. The Kings Inn and Nickey's Lounge is a hotel, restaurant and bar, housed in a building that includes 16 rentable rooms. 5. For the past 3 years Plaintiff has worked in various positions in the business known as "The King's Inn and Nickey's Lounge", owned by the Defendant. 6. In 1999, H. Ric Luhrs, in his capacity as President and agent of Lakeside Holding, Inc., approached the Plaintiff, to inquire as to whether she would be interested in purchasing the business known as The King's Inn and Nickey's Lounge. 7. Plaintiff advised H. Ric Luhrs that she was in fact interested in purchasing the business and in September 2000 the parties entered into negotiations for the purchase of The King's Inn and Nickey's Lounge. 8. During the period in which the parties were trying to confirm the terms of the sale, H. Ric Luhrs, on behalf of the Defendant, made oral promises to the Plaintiff that he would in fact sell the property and business to her. 9. Although an Agreement of Sale was drafted and revised on several occasions, the Agreement was never fully executed by the parties. 10. Plaintiff, in reliance upon the oral promises of H. Ric Luhrs, as agent for the Defendant, contributed over 2 ,. SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A1TORNEVS'AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A r $60,000.00 of her own funds to the business, to pay operating costs and expenses of the business including but not limited to, payroll, utilities, building repairs, and the purchase of alcohol and food products. 11. From 1999 through the present, Plaintiff loaned various pieces of kitchen equipment for use by the restaurant, including among other things: a) A Cres-Core steamer; b) Two pressure fryers; c) Two tables; d) An imperial grill; and e) A flat two-foot grill. 12. The value of the equipment provided to the business by the Plaintiff exceeds $7,000.00. 13. Plaintiff has never been reimbursed for any of her financial contributions to the business, nor has she been reimbursed or paid for the equipment which she loaned to the business and which the business continues to use. 14. It has recently come to Plaintiff's attention that H. Ric Luhrs, on behalf of Lakeside Holding, Inc., plans to sell the business known as The King's Inn and Nickey's Lounge to a party other than the Plaintiff. 3 SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYSoAToLAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA j r 15. It is believed and therefore averred that said sale will include various items of equipment belonging to the Plaintiff and which remain In the business. 16. Defendant will be unjustly enriched if it is permitted to keep the financial contributions and kitchen equipment from the Plaintiff without reimbursing or returning said items to the Plaintiff. 17. As this action affects interest in the subject property and business, this action must be indexed as a lis pendens against the property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Gloria J. Nickey, respectfully demands judgment against Defendant, Lakeside Holding, Inc. In an amount in excess of $25,000.00, plus interest, costs and other damages as proven at trial. Respectfully submitted, SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Dated: ! --"1'01 )" J seph L. Hitchtn s, Esq re Attorney 1.0. # 65551 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Plaintiff 4 . . SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITORNEYS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A I I I I VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subj ect to the penal ties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED ~ {~ 'd-()O { 'j ~ ........... '" ~ -<.L ,\) .9v ~ r:- ~. ~ t -l::: V'( v ~ ~ .~ ~ i-- '-...'~ I ....c v. () 'i d . V}~ .~ (~ -.-. " ~. ~- =-...:.... ~;J! i'} --.>> -"-- :=; . S! ~:: ~~1 ::3 - . -.. ~ o ~,~ L'j l0 ;, '.- ;"", .., ("),~\ -0 :..) ., .. \ .-:-'" ::..0 -< '0 .;:' Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLORIA NICKEY, v. NO. 2001-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW, this (pm day of July, 2001, the Defendant, Lakeside Holding, Inc., by and through its attorney, Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire and responds as follows: 1. In early June, 2001, the Plaintiff, Gloria Nickey, filed a Complaint. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant corporation damaged the Plaintiff. 2. The aforesaid Complaint is insufficiently specific in reference to the alleged damages of $60,000.00 as to what items were paid, the dates paid, and which person or entity made a payment. 3. The Complaint is insufficiently specific in identifying the period of time which terms of a sale, if any, were being discussed and the oral promises, if any, that were made to the Plaintiff and the relevant time frame. 4 The Complaint is insufficiently specific in reference to the time that particular items of equipment were placed in the restaurant, as well as the value for each particular piece of equipment. 5. The Complaint was not properly served upon the Defendant, and hence, jurisdiction has not attached. 'I 6. The claim by the Plaintiff fails to conform to a rule of court in that any claim for the return of personal property must be raised by a replevin action, said claim to include the identity of the articles, their value and the location. NEW MATTER 7. The Defendant raises as new matter, the Statute of Frauds, which provides that no agreement for the sale of real estate will be enforced unless in writing and signed by the party to be charged. 8. The Defendant further alleges that the Plaintiff is to estopped from bringing any actions in reference to the real estate by failure to reach a final written agreement with the Defendant in reference to the real estate. 9. The Defendant further alleges that the Plaintiff is barred by the Doctrine of Latches and that she has not brought her claim within a timely fashion, if in fact the property was to be sold to her. 10. The Plaintiff claims that the Complaint is sufficient to give rise to a lis ,! pendens involving the real estate. The Defendant avers that the allegations set forth in the Complaint are insufficient to constitute the right to a lis pendens because title to the real estate is not involved in the litigation. It appears that the Plaintiff's claim is for money or for the return of property. 11. The Plaintiff's Complaint is not sufficient in that if the Plaintiff seeks return of items of equipment for which she has clear legal title and ownership, she must make a claim for the return in a replevin action. , .1 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint. Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER By: ~cB~ Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire Attorney for Defendant I. D. # 28351 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 rlo.d i r/clients/lakeside/n ic key .obj I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Preliminary Objections are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This verification is signed by Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, attorney for the Defendant and is based upon statements provided by Lakeside Holding, Inc. and other persons, as well as documents reviewed by the undersigned as attorney for Lakeside Holding, Inc.. This verification will be substituted and ratified by a verification signed by an officer of Lakeside Holding, Inc who is presently unavailable to sign said verification. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~;CU Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire Dated: 7/tp/ol Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLORIA NICKEY, v. NO. 2001-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 6, 2001, I, Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, of O'Brien, Baric & Scherer, did serve a copy of the Preliminary Objections, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below, as follows: Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay 26 West High Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 ~ }C06~.. Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA GLORIA NICKEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO.: 0 1 - 3 5 6 3 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC., Civil Action - Law Defendant 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 240-6200 SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Dated: <(rJt) ! / )1 4ph L. Hitchings, Es~re preme Court I.D. # 65551 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Plaintiff SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS'AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA ~ GLORIA NICKEYr IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTYr PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO.: 01- 3 563 LAKESIDE HOLDINGr INC., Civil Action - Law Defendant AMENDED COMPLAINT /l.,-\ r ;- \ ...1 comes the Plaintiff, Gloria Nickey, by and through her AND NOW, this ) .~\ rr , 2001, day of undersigned attorneys, Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay and avers in support of her Complaint against Defendant as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Gloria Nickey, lS an adult individual residing at 2107 Lindsay Lot Roadr Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 2. Defendant, Lakeside Holding, Inc., is a foreign corporation doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with an address of One Beistle Plaza, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 3. At all times material hereto, Defendant owned the real property and business known as "The King's Inn and Nickey's Lounge" located at 105 West King Street, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17257. SAID IS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. P A ,- 4. The Kings Inn and Nickey's Lounge is a hotel, restaurant and bar, housed in a building that includes 16 rentable rooms. 5. For the past 3 years Plaintiff has worked in various positions ln the business known as "The King's Inn and Nickey's Lounge", owned by the Defendant. 6. In 1999, H. Ric Luhrs, in his capacity as President and agent of Lakeside Holding, Inc., approached the Plaintiff, to inquire as to whether she would be interested in purchasing the business known as The King's Inn and Nickey's Lounge. 7. Plaintiff advised H. Ric Luhrs that she was in fact interested in purchasing the business and in September 2000 the parties entered into negotiations for the purchase of The King's Inn and Nickey's Lounge. 8. During the period in which the parties were trying to confirm the terms of the sale, H. Ric Luhrs, on behalf of the Defendant, made oral promises to the Plaintiff that he would in fact sell the property and business to her. 9. Although an Agreement of Sale was drafted and revised on several occasions, the Agreement was never fully executed by the parties. 10. Plaintiff, in reliance upon the oral promlses of H. Ric Luhrs, as agent for the Defendant, contributed over $60,000.00 of her own funds to the business, to pay operating SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITORNEVS'ATeLAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A costs and expenses of the business including but not limited to, payroll, utilities, building repairs, and the purchase of alcohol and food products. 11. From 1999 through the present, Plaintiff loaned various pieces of kitchen equipment for use by the restaurant, including among other things: a) ACres-Core steamer; b) Two pressure fryers; c) Two tables; d) An imperial grill; and e) A flat two-foot grill. 12. The value of the equipment provided to the business by the Plaintiff exceeds $7,000.00. 13. Plaintiff has never been reimbursed for any of her financial contributions to the business, nor has she been reimbursed or paid for the equipment which she loaned to the business and which the business continues to use. 14. It has recently come to Plaintiff's attention that H. Ric Luhrs, on behalf of Lakeside Holding, Inc., plans to sell the business known as The King's Inn and Nickey's Lounge to a party other than the Plaintiff. 15. It is believed and therefore averred that said sale will include various items of equipment belonging to the Plaintiff and which remain in the business. SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITORNEYSoAToLAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA II I 16. Defendant will be unjustly enriched if it is permitted to keep the financial contributions and kitchen equipment from the Plaintiff without reimbursing or returning said items to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Gloria J. Nickey, respectfully demands judgment against Defendant, Lakeside Holding, Inc. ln an amount in excess of $25,000.00, plus interest, costs and other damages as proven at trial. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Dated ;Y//3c' I .--\ I 11 q- j // :. ~/ " ) / /1./t \"/Zl'-~... , , Jo eph L. Hitchin s, Esqu~~ Attorney I.D. # 65551 - 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Plaintiff SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A II II I I J " VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Amended Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subj ect to the penal ties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: ~~0Jf~ Gloria . Nlckey SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITORNEYS'AfoLAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A ,. . 1'~~ CERTIFICATE OF SE~VICE. On this ~ day of ~..~-+ '-' 0 hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the ,20m, I foregoing Amended Complaint upon all parties of record Vla United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert O'Brien, Esquire 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY .l:::- at '. a (;:) N o .....J ~ ~ o r; '--.~ . 'r ~.I -< \. ) c.. , ~., ..._~ 0~.i =~ . _J ~ Ii GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff v. LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant . - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001-3563 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this t Ii day of ~~r , 2001, upon review of the Motion to Strike a Lis Pendens, a rule is issued upon the Plaintiff/Respondent to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. ~ rc-/1;,....,~ ..:20 ~J 'Y r;;... JlV'V'I't.L. ! II BY THE COURT :7 /ld J. i. \ 'P ~. ("J ~~ j~ ~2 c..~ _.~"! 4Ii'f..:( CJ "'<' , ....... ~ o ....... --------------- Ii . .' Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLORIA NICKEY, v. NO. 2001-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW MOTION TO STRIKE LIS PENDENS 1. Movant is Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, attorney for the Defendant in the above-captioned action. 2. Respondent is Gloria Nickey, by and through her attorney, Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire of Saidis, Shuff, Flower and Lindsay of 26 West High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 3. The Plaintiff/Respondent in the above-captioned action has filed a Complaint and the Defendant has responded to the Complaint with the filing of Preliminary Objections and New Matter. 4. The Complaint alleges that the action gives rise to the right to file a lis pendens against Defendant's real estate, located at 105 West King Street, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 5. The Complaint filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent does not allege that she has an interest or a claim in the title to the real estate and accordingly, the Complaint is insufficient to maintain a lis pendens against the real estate. WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests this Honorable Court order and direct that the lis pendens filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent be stricken. II , . - Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER By: ~-~::t).~rv--r-- Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire Attorney for Defendant I. D. # 28351 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 rlo.d i rIel ients/lakeside/nie key .mot I I Ii I' Ii . . VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Motion are true and correct and constitute only legal issues or matters of record in the Prothonotary's Office. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~ eVD~ Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Dated: 1/(; It) ( , I II I SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A17ORNEYS'AToLAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. P A GLORIA NICKEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO.: 0 1 - 3 563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC., Civil Action - Law Defendant PRAECIPE TO STRIKE LIS PENDENS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please strike and/or withdraw the Lis Pendens which Plaintiff had previously filed in this matter against the Defendant, Lakeside Holding, Inc., located at 105 West King Street, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 1'/1-01 '7 By: Joseph L. Hitchings, Esq re Attorney I.D. # 65551 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Plaintiff SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITORNEVS'AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ;;P-- day of .lv-fJ-t;/1(~ / hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the On this , 200(, I foregoing Praecipe to Strike upon all parties of record via United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert O'Brien, Esquire 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Byo// ~:~-- ~ I:::> v- T'\- ' , ~ ~ () ""- ...... ~ '- ~ ~ ~ <: ~ ~ ~ ~ Si. - VI ~ ....,.., ~ ~ ~ ~ r-- ::.., - ~ ~ ~ ~ o C -o~::; "1~' . 2~; ~'u f2:~- ",---\ j-;;~" ;::--;;. : :,:;, ''---; S:.- "'~ =< =:-:) r) ;-j Ci") ;;" "'."J t"...:" ""',"'"'! -,;;. :;";) i"J ID <,-1 ~~S ---,.: SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATrORNEVS-AT-UW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. P A " GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff v. i LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC., Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: DI- J.s-W (?,v:( ~~I Civil Action - Law PRAECIPE Please index this action as a lis pendens against the Defendant, Lakeside Holding, Inc. located at 105 West King Street, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17257. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY By: 9 p~ L.'?H'ig~ Esq. ~~h~igh St~:~~g~ Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff n -<<... /v ,~ --c r::: 1t tl::; () ,'",,\ \. ....... '\. ....'i " ...... f' "- Iv I r< ~ "- ~ ~ 1? '-.. '"--- .----.- II Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001-3563 CIVIL ACTION - LAW GLORIA NICKEY, v. LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF DEFAULT 1. Movant is Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, attorney for the Defendant. 2. Respondent is, Gloria Nickey, Plaintiff in the above captioned action. 3. On or about July 10, 2001, Movant mailed Preliminary Objections and New Matter to Respondent's counsel. Movant has no documentation nor recollection of extending the time for filing an amended complaint in response to the preliminary objections, beyond the 20 day rule. The amended complaint was not filed until August 13, 2001. Accordingly, the amended complaint is not properly before the Court and the Defendant is under no obligation to respond. 4. An examination of the amended complaint, in comparison to the original complaint, shows that only paragraph 17 was changed. 5. This elimination of paragraph 17 appears to be in response to a Rule issued by the Court on August 14, 2001, directing the Respondent to show cause why the lis pendens filed with the original complaint should not be removed. A Praecipe To Strike Lis Pendens was filed by the respondent on or about September 11, 2001. '1 Subsequent to the action of September, 2001, there has been no activity in the matter until the Plaintiff filed the default notice on or about March 16, 2005. Wherefore, Movant respectfully requests that the Court issue a rule upon the Plaintiff to show cause why the default notice should not be stricken, the Amended Complaint be dismissed as untimely filed and such other relief as is just and equitable. O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER By: ~ D!3::>;v , Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire Attorney for Defendant /.D. # 28351 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 II II VERI FICA TION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Motion are true and correct and constitute only legal issues or matters of record in the Prothonotary's Office. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. -=t2' D6;'V'--. Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Dated: 317-1 )oS I II I' II I 'I ,I :1 I' II II II I I GLORIA NICKEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001-3563 Plaintiff v. LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW i iI " I' ,I ii CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 22, 2005, I, Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, of O'Brien, Baric & Scherer, did serve a copy of the Motion To Strike Notice of Default, by first class I I II II I U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below, as follows: Michael E. Kosic, Esquire Angina and Rovner 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-1708 ~D6 ,v-r-- Robert L. 'O'Brien, Esquire I I I il --------- -- t:;~l;\, -:;, n c: r-.3. ~,..:" ., 'C:.'"'" --;':, ~,;JI" ~;.:J D, -, :;1..." ('lIP- nl>::': -~~~':\? '" -,I ,:;t~~ . :~\ ,- .~, ~;~ .< ~]?:'C~ :~r'f; :~i N - '"" ::c: ;:- .' - -1 II I I I I I I ANGINa & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney 1D#, 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 171 1D~ J 703 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik@.angino-rovneLcom GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. vs. NO. 01-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INe. Defendant PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Michael E. Kosik and the firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., for Plaintiff Gloria Nickey in the above-captioned action. ~~G~" ER,P.e. ( /(fA I' --rV1ichael E. Kosik LD. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: 3/16/05 296421 ANGINa & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney lD# , 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg. P ^ 17110.1708 (717) 238.6791 FAX (717) 238.5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik@angino.rovner.com GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. vs. NO. 01.3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INe. Defendant IMPORT ANT NOTICE TO: Lakeside Holding, Inc. c/o Robert O'Brien, Esq. O"Brien, Baric & Scherer I 7 West South S1. Carlisle, Pa. 17013 DATE OF NOTICE: March 16, 2005 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 MAYBE 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 HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249.3166 296421 II II I I I I ~ ANGINO & ROVNER, P.c. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney 10# : 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. vs. NO. 01-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant NOTICIA IMPORTANTE TO: Lakeside Holding, Inc. c/o Robert O'Brien, Esq. O"Brien, Baric & Scherer 17 West South St. Carlisle, Pa. 17013 DATE OF NOTICE: March 16, 2005 USTED HA NO COMPLIDO CON EL A VISO ANTERIOR PORQUE HA FALTADO EN TOMAR MEDIDAS REQUERIDAS RESPECTO A ESTE CASO. SI USTED NO ACTUA DENTRO DE DIEZ (10) DIAS DESDE LA FECHA DE ESTA NOTICIA, ES POSBILE QUE UN F ALLO SERIA REGISTRADO CONTRA USTED SIN UNA AUDIENCIA Y USTED PODRIA PERDER SU PROPlEDAD 0 OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES. USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTA NOTICIA A SU ABOGADO EN SEGUIDA. SI USTED NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 NO TIENE CON QUE P AGAR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, VA Y A o LLAME A LA OFICINA ESCRIT A ABAJO PARA A VERIGUAR A DONDE USTED PUEDE OBTENER LA A YUDA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, P A 17013 (71 7) 249-3166 296421 \1 ) ... 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: 3/16/05 29642\ I: I I I .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.c., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of NOTICE OF DEFAULT was sent to the following counsel of record by placing a copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: VIA CERTIFIED MAIL: Robert O'Brien, Esq. O"Brien, Baric & Scherer 17 West South St. Carlisle, Pa. 17013 1~ ' '. / n 'nl. W-y--'- Michelle M. Milojevich DATED: 3/16/05 29642l Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001 - 3563 GLORIA NICKEY, V. LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: 1. State matter to be argued: Preliminary Objections. 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire O'Brien, Baric & Scherer 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (b) Michael E. Kosic, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-1708 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: May 4, 2005. '~~~ Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire -. Date: March Z I ,2005 o ~j~i; q~_\:' ~L "::;(-. j~~ ~? ~, -< "'> c~::> = <J' :::;t po :;D 1'.) ""'C -~ ~, o -n ,-I ;1.- """f'~ Cr\j;;;":': -0fq :0'-,- >: )1..'-: ----1.-" -,-- " : ~~~ "fs {~f;j ~-::\ ;;:; "-C c- '" : IN THE COURT OF COMMON LEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PEN SYLVANIA : NO. 2001-3563 , 2005, upon revi w of the a--rv...... + -11,............... Motion to Strike Notice Of Default Judgment, a rl:llo is isslleEl ul3eA tl.e ...-;, J'<f -F~ ,{dJ.'/'l-'G{ i.3. ;JcriJ 5 {ti 9/' c?! a in (..+1 . . I - . I II . GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff v. LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW :1 :1 II ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this .z 8~ day of ,..., a..-d, I I ! I II I[ I I , BY THE COURT .4d i I I I , Ii ! I I I ~ .. . 0' Cr-' .i/-:) OJ -\ I I /12 d 'I d. J. ~ .''.{::) c;Z :8 Wi 5Z l:m~ suDl .AtJv'.LC::'K>U.Cdd 3Hl jO 3:XJ,'O{!31Ij ..--..--"- . GLORIA NICKEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001 - 3563 Plaintiff V. LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant CIVil ACTION - LAW MOTION TO CONTINUE ARGUMENT 1. Movant is Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, attorney for the Defendant, and he has the concurrence of Mike Kosic, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff to continue the Argument scheduled by Defendant on the preliminary objections filed and which is scheduled for Argument Court on May 4, 2005. Wherefor, Movant requests that the Argument scheduled for May 4, 2005, be continued generally. II I Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER ~ ~ Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire Allorney for Defendant I.D. # 28351 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 By: 0 "" c:. c:::;:o CI r....:;) ;:;"" "'., -n -r::{)'i fll "'" :.::J -c _L-n , ;;"0 rn--.. r- (i) '. -nfTi -" N ;i;~~ I-'~ ~ >' .~ ~:~i :3 5:. -'. c;-o ~? (--'jnl 0:=- ?J "', "< , \1 I;'. I I GLORIA NICKEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001 - 3563 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff V. LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant MOTION TO CONTINUE ARGUMENT 1. Movant is Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, attorney for the Defendant, and he has the concurrence of Mike Kosic, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff to continue the Argument scheduled by Defendant on the preliminary objections filed and which is scheduled for Argument Court on May 4, 2005. Wherefor, Movant requests that the Argument scheduled for May 4, 2005, be continued generally. Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER ~~AA~ Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire Attorney for Defendant J.D. # 28351 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 By: ~-=:;; <- =;; ..., (::::.:> (.;:.:> <:-t'\ ". " ;;u o ... -< ::r: in:!! ~~?, ~":.- ~f ' \. ~~ ?;;,~ ('~)fT'i ;",.1 .,-' __':J .< N :'0 -;j.. r;y .r. N . ~ RECEIVED APR 12 7005 '1)]'\ , I ! I' Ii GLORIA NICKEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2001 - 3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW , ! I i :1 II II I I ! I I I Ii II II Ii !I I, il I ORDER And Now this 12th day of April, 2005, after review of the attached Motion, the matter scheduled for hearing on Apri/13, 2005, is continued generally and may be listed for argument or hearing by either party at a future date. ;?) ~()~ ."'0'Jy )-~~ // 09 ( ')' \ '\- o\.\ \ ',~'~. "\\\ "'0\ ,;' i ("el r \ ,\;01 .,\:''' t..' ~.;. ::.0 ) I . . I I II II Ii i I I, Ii II RECEIVED APR 1 2 70~f1\ GLORIA NICKEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001 - 3563 Plaintiff V. LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant CIVil ACTION - LAW ORDER And Now this 12th day of April, 2005, after review of the attached Motion, the matter scheduled for Argument Court on May 4, 2005, is continued generally and may II I , , , II Ii il I i !I I! I: II I: "I I, ii I I I be listed for argument by either party at a future date. -. .~~ 6~ &Y~') . . 7' ,09 '0 /\~ 0'\ ".'-'-, , '. I,-~ t; i1 :01 \1'1 S I (lei'! SGOZ }\H'}J..c;>.j:j;.'i.l(kld ::1H1 ::10 :i',]:.L~1()-(Jjl:~~ II Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001 - 3563 CIVIL ACTION - LAW GLORIA NICKEY, v. LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 1. Movant is Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire, counsel of record for the Defendant, Lakeside Holding, Inc. 2. Subsequent to appearing for the Defendant the Defendant corporation was transferred to other individuals. 3. Pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7, Movant reasonably believes that he has a conflict of interest that precludes him from continuing his representation. WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests that he be permitted to withdraw as counsel. Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER \ ~ )c:::<Y:S~ Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire Attorney for Defendant I.D. # 28351 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 rlo.dir/litigationllakesideholding/withdraw.mot II CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 13, 2005, I, Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire of O'Brien, Baric & Scherer, did serve a copy of the Motion To Withdraw As Counsel, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below, as follows: Joel Zullinger, Esquire 20 East Burd Street Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 Jeff Goss Market Cross Pub & Inn 105 West King Street Shippensburg, Pennsylvania '17257 Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Angino & Rovner 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 / ~~ Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire o c ...., = C:~.'l "'" o -n -< T n,f'2 -,.ltG :60 ,J:F ;~:;r-n ..j -,.- ~)J -< <..... ;~;-; w ~;...':1> :z: C;? <., C? II II, . RECEIVED JUL 141tlOS .; Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001 - 3563 GLORIA NICKEY, v. LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this 15"' day of 1~ , 2005, upon consideration of the Motion To Withdraw As Counsel, a rule is issued upon Plaintiff to show cause, if any there be, why the relief requested in the Motion should not be granted. Rule returnable ;, days from service. BY THE COURT, J. -- f~i t \ r 0J ' ~~i? ~ '. ~1, ~ SS :S Hd S I -lnr S002 ,,"\,1""'(11"(11 :J1..11::10 a .L~\~Y~:~I~~~.Ci'3irJ !I Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~5u3 NO. 2001-3B3SCIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION-LAW GLORIA NICKEY, v. LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC" Defendant PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL AND APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please note my withdrawal as counsel for Lakeside Holding, Inc., Defendant in the above matter. Dated: cr/7/~ I , O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER BY:~~ri~n~ 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Lakeside Holding, Inc., Defendant in the above matter. Dated: -0/1! {)(, ( BY: Sa yJ. Wi 9974 Molly itcher Highway Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 r-<> \~ () r.;~ en .1 </J r.. -;:1 I""' -.I -:'.) -"." , ~:' N t:.n IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff vs. : CIVIL ACTION : NO. 01-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING COMPANY,INC., Defendant MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the defendant, Lakeside Holding Company, Inc., by and through its attorney, Sally J. Winder, and represents the following: 1. Plaintiff filed her complaint in this action on or about June 8, 2001. 2. Defendant filed preliminary objections to plaintiff's complaint on July 6,2001, and mailed a copy to plaintiff s attorney on July 10, 2001. A copy of the transmittal letter accompanying the mailing of the preliminary objections is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. 3. Defendant's then counsel, Robert 1. O'Brien, entered into no agreement with plaintiff's then counsel, Joseph 1. Hitchings, to extend the time for filing an amended complaint beyond the twenty (20) days allowed by Rule 1028(c)(l), Pa.R.C.P. 4. Plaintiff filed her amended complaint August 13,2001, without having petitioned for leave of Court to file her amended complaint. 5. Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed more than twenty (20) days after she had been served with a copy of defendant's preliminary objections. 6. Plaintiff's complaint has been filed in violation of the provisions of Rule 1 028( c)( 1), Pa. R.C.P. , 7. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be stricken. WHEREFORE, defendant, Lakeside Holding Company, Inc., respectfully requests this Court issue a rule upon plaintiff, Gloria Nickey, to show cause why her amended complaint should not be stricken as untimely filed, and for such other relief as is just and equitable under the circumstances. 2.ll J UJ ~ ) C'// 6 Sally Jtinder ,)' () 0 Attorney for defendant, Lakeside Holding Company, Inc. 9974 Molly Pitcher Highway Shippensburg, P A 17257 Telephone (717) 532-9476 1..(1\1' (!{//(CS O'IIR/EN, /JAR/C & SCIIERER f 7 II est .<.Iollth Stree/ CarlIsle. Penn\yl\"lmia 17013 Uohc,'rll. ()'fJrietl J)and ,'1. /Jnrlc .\ '"hod, I. Scht'n'r (71 7) J./9-6S73 Fax (71 7) J./9-5755 E-mail: ohs'dohslau',cmH July 10, 2001 Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire Saidis, Shuff, Flower and Lindsay 26 West High Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Re: Nickev V5. Lakeside HoldinQ. Inc. No. 2001-3563 Dear Mr. Hitchings: Enclosed please find Preliminary Objections and a Motion to Strike Lis Pendens I have filed recently in the above-referenced matter. Very truly yours, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER 12ffb I Pv6 Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire RLO/af Enc cc: ~.'LaCy ~.....' rlo .dirl clientsllakeside/h itc h ing s .Itr E X ti i I?; tT Ii '; A 0';' C") I r"-~) f\J "-., -::.:;, ,-~-':> " c) .." =? -.-, :..,.,-) c:,-:; I CJ a. '-) _. -i 0" ~:;'J --< /J '" i RECEiv , . c. 1 l\ ' 0 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff VS. : CIVIL ACTION : NO. 01-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this/or' day of February, 2006, upon consideration of the within Motion to Strike Amended Complaint, a rule is issued upon the plaintiff. Gloria Nickey, to show cause why the amended complaint filed by her should not be stricken. Rule returnable Z. 0 days after service thereof, and a hearing on the motion to be held on liu/I/Od I1J ' the iP 1.( day of ~A '..t I., , 2006, at /,' <~ , L. M. in Courtroom L-ofthe Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT J 13-00 ~ /W-__~'_;}J-eL JJls' /1J J. ".::-rJ S ~i :S '" t";,j S \ ffJ.:l ~unz ~D -, Ii II I ! II II II II II II II II II Ii II II II II II II II II II \! II ANGINO & ROVNER, P.c. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney ID#: 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. vs. NO. 2001-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes, Plaintiff Gloria Nickey, by and through her attorneys Angino & Rovner and answers Defendant's Motion as follows: I. Admitted. 2. It is admitted that Defendant Lakeside Holding, Inc. filed Preliminary Objections to II 'I II II II !I \1 I II II II Ii II II , Plaintiff s Complaint on July 6, 200 I. It is further admitted that a copy of the transmittal letter showing a copy of the Preiiminary Objections and Motion to Strike Lis Pendens were sent to the Plaintiff's Counsel on July 10, 2001 and was attached as Exhibit A to the Motion. It should be noted that the Certificate of Service to the Preliminary Objections indicates that service was being made via first -class US mail on July 6, 200 I, which conflicts with the date on the transmittal letter attached as Exhibit A. Plaintiff Gloria Nickey is not certain as to the date that the Preliminary 320123 Objections were served on her prior counsel and, therefore, is not in a position to admit or deny this allegation, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 3. Plaintiff Gloria Nickey is not in a position to admit or deny whether an agreement was entered into by Defendant's prior counsel, Robert L. O'Brien and Plaintiff's prior counsel, Joseph L. Hitchings, and therefore Plaintiff is not in a position to admit or deny whether an extension was entered into extending the time in which Plaintiff would have been entitled to file an amended pleading to the Preliminary objections pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 10238(c)(1). Strict proof of this allegation is required. 4. It is admitted that Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 13,2001 and that no Petition for Leave of Court was filed requesting permission to file the Amended Complaint. 5. Plaintiff Gloria Nickey is not in a position to admit or deny that the Amended Complaint was filed more than 20 days after the date Defendant's Preliminary Objections were served on her prior counsel. As stated in paragraph (2) above, Plaintiff is not aware of the date that the Preliminary Objections were served. The date of mailing on the Certificate of Service on the Preliminary Objections and the transmittal letter conflict and Plaintiff is not certain as to which date the Preliminary Objections were actually served on her prior counsel. 6. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was filed in violation of the provisions of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(c)(I). As previously stated, Plaintiff is not aware of the date that the Preliminary Objections were served, and the Certificate of Service on the Preliminary Objections and the transmittal letter conflict and Plaintiff is not certain as to which date the Preliminary Objections were served on her prior counsel. Defendant's counsel has not attached an Affidavit of Attorney Robert O'Brien confirming the date of mailing of the Preliminary Objections nor has any indication been given by Plaintiff's prior 320123 counsel Joseph L. Hitchings as to the date that the Preliminary Objections were received. Additionally, after the filing of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on August 13,2001, Defendant took no action either filing a Brief in Support of its original Preliminary Objections or moving to file additional Preliminary Objections or an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint or the within Motion to Strike for approximately four and one half years. Plaintiff's current counsel previously filed a Notice of Default Judgement on the Defendant, and Defendant's prior counsel Attorney Robert O'Brien filed a Motion to Strike Notice of Default. That matter is currently pending before the Court, having been continued at Defendant's request. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's Motion to Strike the Notice of Default should be addressed prior to or at the same time as the within Motion. Further, Defendant's failure to move forward on its Preliminary Objections for over four and a half years should be deemed as abandonment of any objection to Plaintiff original Complaint or any objection to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to take any action for this period of time. 7. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be stricken. Defendant has taken no action on its Preliminary Objections nor has it sought to seek to strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for over four and a half years. Defendant had the burden of moving forward on the Preliminary Objections as well as seeking a Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint and have not done so and should be deemed to have abandoned any objection to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint which should be permitted to proceed forward. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Gloria Nickey respectfully requests this court to deny Defendant's Lakeside Holding Company's Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint and permit Plaintiff's to 320123 proceed with entering a Default Judgment against the Defendant for failure to respond to the Plaintiffs Complaint. chael . Kosik I.D. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiff 320123 II II II 11 . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of the law firm of Angina & Rovner, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT was sent to the following counsel of record by placing a copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: VIA CERTIFIED MAIL: Sally J. Winder, Esquire 9974 Molly Pitcher Highway Shippensburg, P A 17257 /l1ul.d4 m 7JU1;P~- Michelle M. Milojevich DATED: 2/21/06 320123 --" -,I ., ;-\"~. f'" r (:.;'1 '--" . . ANGINO & ROVNER, P.c. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney ID# : 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. vs. NO. 2001-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF DEFAULT 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. It is admitted that on July 10, 2001, Defendant Lakeside Holding, Inc. filed Preliminary Objections and New Matter to Plaintiff's original Complaint. Defendant filed no Brief in Support of the Preliminary Objections. Plaintiff is unaware of the date of service of the Preliminary Objection on her counsel. It is admitted that Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on August 13, 2001 removing paragraph 17 which Plaintiff believed to be the subject of Defendant's Preliminary Objections. After the filing of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on August 13, 2001, Defendants took no action either in filing a Brief in Support of their original Preliminary Objections or moving to file additional preliminary objections or an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. In light of Defendant's failure to take any action, Plaintiff's new counsel filed a Notice ofIntent to Take a Default Judgement in order to get defense counsel to move forwarded with this action. 297511 4. Admitted. It is denied that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was in response to a Rule to Show Cause issued by the Court on August 14,2001 since such Rule was not issued lUltil a day following the filing of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Rule directed Plaintiff to show cause why the Lis Pendens filed with the original Complaint should not be removed. Within 30 days of the Ru1e, Plaintiff s cOlUlsel filed a Praecipe to Strike the Lis Pendens on September 11, 2001 rendering the Rule moot as well as mooting Defendant's original Preliminary Objections. It is admitted that subsequent to September, 2001, there was no activity by any party lUltil Plaintiff's filing of a Notice of Default on March 16, 2005. Defendants have taken no action to resolve their original Preliminary Objections or to file additional Preliminary Objections or to answer Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and therefore Plaintiff believes that a Notice of Intent to take Default was properly filed of record in order to get Defendant to take some action in response to the Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Gloria Nickey respectfully requests this court to dismiss Defendant's Motion to Strike the Notice of Default and require Defendant to Answer Plaintiff's Amended Complaint within 10 days so that the pleadings can be closed and discovery can be completed to decide the case on the merits. . chael E. osik J.D. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiff 297511 - . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO S1RIKE NOTICE OF DEFAULT was sent to the following counsel of record by placing a copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: VIA CERTIFIED MAIL: Sally J. Winder, Esquire 9974 Molly Pitcher Highway Shippensburg, P A 17257 17?IJhaJn 7h{~-' Michelle M. Milojevic DATED: 2/21/06 II II I I I I I I. !I 297511 !I II !! -".', , :,;;. '_b' r,,) \'~..' '.'.) C~', ( ~ '\ GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff Ys. LAKESIDE HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION ~ LAW NO. 01-3563 CIVIL IN RE: MOTION TO STRIKE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND NOW, this ORDER '1r day of March, 2006, argument on the within motion to strike notice of default judgment is set for Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 1 :30 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cwnberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, P A. ,Alchael Kosik, Esquire For the Plaintiff ~ally J. Winder, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm BY THE COURT, Ad I 'f~ {)I'~~o~ . 0 OJ' '._0. GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-3563 CIVIL LAKESIDE HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Defendant IN RE: MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER AND NOW, this I ~ I<' day of April, 2006, the motion ofthe defendant to strike amended complaint is DENIED. The motion to strike notice of entry of default judgment is DENIED and the defendant is directed to file an answer within twenty (20) days or suffer default judgment upon praecipe of the plaintiff. BY THE COURT, :rlm A4- .Alchael Kosik, Esquire F or the Plaintiff ~y 1. Winder, Esquire For the Defendant ~ ybbert L. O'Brien, Esquire , .1\' o >i "d (\_. CC)7 hlJ.... IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff VS. : CIVIL ACTION : NO. 01-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING COMPANY,INC., Defendant NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Gloria Nickey YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. Dated: L//;;L/; JOb /1 / ~JCu~ Sally J. inder, Attorney for Defendant, Lakeside Holding Company, Inc. 9974 Molly Pitcher Highway Shippensburg, PA 17257 (717) 532-9476 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff vs. : CIVIL ACTION : NO. 01-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Defendant DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NEW MATTER Comes now the defendant, Lakeside Holding Company, Inc., by and through its attorney, Sally J. Winder, and answers plaintiff's amended complaint as follows: I. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in Pennsylvania. It is denied that defendant has an address of One Beistle Plaza, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. To the contrary, defendant avers that, at all times material hereto, its only address, and its only place of business, was located at 105 West King Street, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. Defendant further avers that it never had an address and never had a place of business at One Beistle Plaza. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 5, and the same are therefore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. 6. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 6, and the same are therefore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. 7. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 7, and the same are therefore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. 8. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a be!iefas to the truth of the averments of paragraph 8, and the same are therefore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. 9. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 9, and the same are therefore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. 10. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 10, and the same are therefore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. II. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph II, and the same are therefore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. 12. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 12, and the same are therefore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. 13. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 13, and the same are therefore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. 14. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 14, and the same are therefore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. 15. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 15, and the same are th~refore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. 16. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 16, and the same are therefore denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. NEW MATTER For further defense, defendant avers the following new matter: 17. At all times material hereto, defendant was a Florida corporation having its principal place of business in Pennsylvania at 105 West King Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. 18. At all times material hereto, defendant had no place of business other than 105 West King Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. -2- 19. At all times material hereto, defendant had authorized no agent in writing to receive service of process for it. 20. The sheriff's return of service of original process in this case shows that the complaint and notice was served on June 14,2001, at One Beistle Plaza, Shippensburg, PA 17257, by handing a true and attested copy to Tom Reed (Supervisor). A copy of the sheriff's return is attached and marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. 21. At all times material hereto, Tom Reed was not an executive, officer, partner or trustee of defendant. 22. At all times material hereto, Tom Reed was not the manager, clerk or other person for the time being in charge of any regular place of business or activity of defendant. 23. No service of original process has ever been made on defendant in the manner prescribed by Rule 424, Pa. R.C.P., relating to service of original process on corporations. 24. In this case, the plaintiff has never obtained jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. 25. The statute oflimitations period in this case is four years. 26. The cause of action asserted by plaintiff in this case arose before June 8, 200 I, the date on which the complaint was filed. 27. The cause of action asserted by plaintiff in this case arose more than four years before the date of filing this answer and new matter. 28. Plaintiff's cause of action is time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 29. A major part of plaintiff s case relates to an agreement for the sale of real estate located at 105 West King Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. 30. At all times material hereto, plaintiff and defendant never entered into a written agreement for the sale of the real estate located at I 05 West King Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. 31. The Statute of Frauds provides that no agreement for the sale of real estate will be enforced unless in writing and signed by the party to be charged. 32. In this case, for purposes ofthe Statute of Frauds, defendant is the party to be charged. -3- 33. Plaintiff's claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds. 34. At all times material hereto, defendant was the alter ego ofH. Ric Luhrs. 35. At all times material hereto, H. Ric Luhrs was the sole stockholder of defendant. 36. At all times material hereto, H. Ric Luhrs was the president, agent, and chief executive officer of defendant. 37. At all times material hereto, H. Ric Luhrs failed to observe corporate formalities with regard to defendant. 38. At all times material hereto, H. Ric Luhrs substantially intermingled personal and corporate affairs with regard to defendant. 39. At all times material hereto, H. Ric Luhrs wholly ignored the separate status of defendant and so controlled and dominated its affairs that its separate existence was a mere sham. 40. Defendant believes, and therefore avers, that H. Ric Luhrs was the only person with whom plaintiff had discussions or negotiations about the business and real estate which was defendant's principal place of business at 105 West King Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. 41. H. Ric Luhrs died November 20, 2004. 42. Under the Pennsylvania Dead Man's Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 25930, pl~intiff is incompetent to testify to matters pertaining between herself and H. Ric Luhrs with respect to the real estate and business owned and operated by H. Ric Luhrs in the corporate form of defendant. 43. At all times material hereto, plaintiff and H. Ric Luhrs never entered into any agreement, either written or oral, for the purchase of the real estate and business owned by defendant. 44. If plaintiff contributed her own funds to pay expenses of the business, her contributions were gifts to the business and not loans to the business. 45. If plaintiff contributed personal property to help operate the business, her contributions were gifts to the business, made without any reasonable expectation of recovering such personal property to her ownership and possession. 46. Defendant has no legal obligation to reimburse plaintiff for any of her own funds contributed to pay expenses of the business. -4- 47. Defendant has no legal obligation to return to plaintiff's possession any personal property contributed to help operate the business. 48. Defendant has no legal obligation to pay plaintiff the value of any personal property contributed by her to help operate the business WHEREFORE defendant prays that this Court dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint and that judgment in the case be entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff, and that defendant be awarded its costs of defense, including attorneys fees, and such other and further relief as may be just and appropriate. Dated: 'fJdb) Db I ;J;- _ Sally J. W' der, Attorney for Defendant Lakeside Holding Company, Inc. 9974 Molly Pitcher Highway Shippensburg, P A 17257 (717) 532-9476 -5- SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-03563 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND NICKEY GLORIA VS LAKESIDE HOLDING INC BRIAN BARRICK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of , Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon LAKESIDE HOLDING INC the DEFENDANT , at 0016:45 HOURS, on the 14th day of June , 2001 at ONE BEISTLE PLAZA SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 by handing to TOM REED (SUPERVISOR) a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service . Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 13.02 .00 10.00 .00 41.02 So Answers: ~~ ~~~~~~~ R. Thomas Kline me this .tl ~ day of Sworn and Subscribed to before ~ 21>01 A.D. ~"-a.~.~ I rothonotary O. " AI' j:. )'- h', . \ t J_ VERIFICATION I am an officer of defendant corporation. I verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing. " Ie Co.- ~ " VI '2s are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I make this verification subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S.A. S 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ~/?-b 106 I t 7 :-- ~_3"\ <-" ANGINO & ROVNER, P.c. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney ID#: 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. vs. NO. 2001-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INe. Defendant PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEWMATfER 17. Admitted. It is admitted that Defendant was a Florida corporation with its principle place of business located at 105 W. King Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. By way of further response 1 Beistle Plaza, Shippensburg, PAis the address of one of its officers. 18. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Defendant Lakeside Holdings conducted business at any other location other than 1 05 West King Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. The Articles of Incorporation for Lakeside Holdings filed in Florida did identify Patricia D. Lacey, Assistant Secretary and an address at 1 Beistle Plaza, Shippensburg, P A. See. Annual Uniform Business Report for 2001 hereto as Exhibit A. 19. Denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief whether Defendant ever had an agent authorized to receive service of process. Service of process need only conform with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Pa.R.C.P. 424 which provides for service on any executive officer, partner, or trustee or manager, clerk or other person for the time being in charge of any regular place of business or entity of the corporation. 20. Admitted. 21. Denied. It is specifically denied that Tom Reed was not a person who for the time 325318 being was in charge of a regular place of business or activity of the corporation where service was made. The sheriffs return specifically identifies Tom Reed as "Supervisor" which indicates his position of authority and being in charge of the location where service was made. As previously indicated, the address where service was made was identified as an address for the Assistant Secretary of the corporation and, therefore, was a valid address on which service could be made and was made in this case. 22. Denied. It is specifically denied that Tom Reed was not a person who for the time being was in charge of a regular place of business or activity of the corporation where service was made. The sheriffs return specifically identifies Tom Reed as "Supervisor" which indicates his position of authority and being in charge of the location where service was made. As previously indicated, the address where service was made was identified as an address for the Assistant Secretary of the corporation and, therefore, was a valid address on which service could be made and was made in this case. 23. Denied. It is specifically denied that service was not made upon an individual who complies with the provisions of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 424. Additionally, Defendant did not raise this objection nor pursued this issue via Preliminary Objections and has now answered Plaintiff s Complaint, thereby waiving any issue of service. 24. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs have not obtained jurisdiction over the Defendant. Plaintiff maintains service was accomplished on the Defendant as required and in compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure as previously stated. Additionally, Defendants have waived any objection to service by failing to raise and pursue this issue by way of Preliminary Objection and have waived this issue by Defendant's counsel answering Plaintiff s Complaint. 325318 25. Denied. This averment is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be deemed proper, it is admitted that the statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiff's claim would be a four year or six year statute of limitations. Such allegation is irrelevant since the statute of limitations was adequately protected since the Complaint was timely filed and served on the Defendant. 26. Admitted. 27. Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant's filing of its Answer and New Matter is irrelevant to the running of the statue of limitations. Plaintiff's Complaint was timely filed and served on the Defendant as previously stated. 28. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff's cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. As previously stated, Plaintiff's Complaint was timely :filed and properly served on the Defendant. 29. Denied. It is specifically denied that a major part of Plaintiff's cause of action relates to an agreement of sale for real estate located at 105 W. King Street, Shippensburg, PA. To the contrary, it is averred that Plaintiff's Complaint states in paragraph 9, "although an agreement of sale was drafted and revised on several occasions, the agreement was never fully executed by the parties." Plaintiff's claim is for money loaned to the Defendant and equipment loaned to the Defendant and not for the breach of any agreement for the sale of real estate. 30. Admitted. See paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint previously referenced m paragraph 29 above. 31. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that an agreement for the sale of real estate is the basis for Plaintiff's Complaint as previously stated. As 325318 previously stated, Plaintiff's Complaint specifically avers that. no agreement was ever entered into and therefore the statute of Fraud is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claim. 32. Denied. Ibis averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that an agreement for the sale of real estate is the basis for Plaintiff's Complaint as previously stated. As previously stated, Plaintiff's Complaint specifically avers that no agreement was ever entered into and therefore the Statute of Fraud is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claim. 33. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that an agreement for the sale of real estate is the basis for Plaintiff's Complaint as previously stated. As previously stated, Plaintiff's Complaint specifically avers that no agreement was ever entered into and, therefore, the Statute of Fraud is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claim. 34.-40. It is specifically denied that Defendant Lakeside Holding Company, Inc. was an alter ego of H. Rick Luhrs, an individual. At all times relevant, Lakeside Holding Company, Inc. was a duly constituted Florida corporation which was registered to do business in Pennsylvania. Defendant Lakeside Holding Company, Inc. has not and cannot allege fraud or any circumstance in which to pierce its own corporate veil and any such allegations that Defendant Lakeside Holding Company, Inc. is not the proper party Defendant in this action is denied. 41. Admitted. 42. Denied. Ibis averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that the Pennsylvania Deadman's Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. ~5930, is applicable to Plaintiff's cause of action since the Plaintiff is suing a corporation not a person~ Furthermore, Plaintiff has already provided documentation prepared by the Defendant's own bookkeeper substantiating loans made by the 325318 Plaintiff to the corporation in the form of cash as well as payments for operating expenses and loans of equipment. 43. Denied. As previously stated, Plaintiff's complaint in paragraph 9 indicates that although discussions concerning an agreement of sale of Defendant Lakeside Holding had occurred an actual agreement was never achieved with the Plaintiff Gloria Nickey. Any agreement of sale for Defendant Lakeside Holdings would have to have been executed by the proper representatives of Defendant Lakeside Holdings Company, Inc. which never occurred. 44. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's contribution of her own funds to pay expenses of the business were gifts to the business. To the contrary, Plaintiff's contributions to the expense of the business were loans which were verified in the books and records of the business verifying that these were loans and not gifts. 45. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's contribution of her own funds to pay expenses of the business were gifts to the business. To the contrary, Plaintiff's contributions to the expense of the business were loans which were verified in the regular books and records of the business verifying that these were loans and not gifts. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's loans of personal property to the business were made without any reasonable expectation of recovery of her personal property or the value of the personal property which she loaned to the business. As previously stated, these loans were documented on the books of the business. In fact, Plaintiff Gloria Nickey was induced to make these loans and contributions to the business because she was in discussions to purchase the business and was anticipated that these contributions would have been used as payment towards the purchase price of the business which was never accomplished. It was always understood and expected by the Plaintiff Gloria Nickey that these loans would be honored and satisfied by the Defendant. 46. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Lakeside Holdings Company had no 325318 legal obligation to reimburse the Plaintiff for the monetary contributions and equipment which she loaned and contributed to the business. To the contrary, it is averred that these transactions were carried as loans on the books and records of the business documenting Defendant's obligation to repay the loans and return the property to the Plaintiff. 47. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Lakeside Holdings Company had no legal obligation to reimburse the Plaintiff Gloria Nickey for the monetary contributions and equipment which she loaned and contributed to the business. To the contrary, it is averred that these transactions were carried as loans on the books and records of the business for which Defendant had an obligation to repay the loans and return the property to the Plaintiff. 48. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Lakeside Holdings Company had no legal obligation to reimburse the Plaintiff Gloria Nickey for the monetary contributions and equipment which she loaned and contributed to the business. To the contrary, it is averred that these transactions were carried as loans on the books and records of the business for which Defendant had an obligation to repay the loans and return the property to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant's New Matter enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. ER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik I.D. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiff 325318 VERIFICA nON I, GLORIA NICKEY, do hereby swear and affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the penalties of the Rules of Civil Procedure relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~J~~ Dated: .,- ,-/,)-;.- cJ6 2001 UNIFORM BUSINESS REPORT (UBR) FILED DOCUMENT # P96000096933 .. .. .. 1" Jan 23, 2001 8:00 am 1. Entity Name Secretary of State LAKESIDE HOlDING COMPANY. INC. 01-23-2001 90091 043 '"**158.75 Principal Place of Business Ma~ing Address <<m LE LAC RO 1m) LE LAC RD BOCA RATON FL 33496 BOCA RATON Fl 33496 fjU6~08 2. Principal Place of. Business 3. Mallng Address IIIIIIIIII~III"IIIIIIII~ 1111111111I1""III1II~1I 1111111 Suite. ApI. II, etc. Suite. Apt. #. etc. DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE City & State City & State 4. FEI Number 65-0714325 I IApplied For r I Not Applicable Zip I Country Zip I Country 5. Certificate 01 Status Desired IXI $8.75 Additional Fee Required 6. Heme end Addreu of Cumlnt Realstered Agent 7. Name and Add..... of New Reglaterad Agent Neme ... . ...-- - - '. ~ ... - " LUHRS, H. Ale Street Address (P.O. Box Number is Not Acceptable) 6020 LE LAC AD BOCA RATON FL 33496 City FL 1 Zip Code 8. The above named entity submits this statement lor the purpose 01 changing Its registered office or registered agent, or both, In the Stale of Florida. SIGNATURE S91oU.. typed... ~...... oIngi11ored __ ondlillo I ~e. (NOT!: AogIAnd 1ogonI1i.,...... reQUQd-'-.oIng) DATE 9. This corporation is eligible to satisfy its Intangible RLE NOWIII FEE IS $150.00 10. Bection Campaign Financing $5.00 May Be Tax fling reql.irement end elects to do so. Atter MAY 1, 2001 Fee wiD be $550.00 Trust Fund Contribution. 0 Added to Fees (See criteria on beck) 0 Make Check Payable to Department of State 11. OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 12. ADDITIONS/CHANGES TO OFRCERS AND DIRECTORS IN 11 TITlE PST DDelelll TIM o Change o Addition NAME LUHRS, H. Ale NAME slRm AODAESS 6020 LE lAC AD SJIlEET ADllfIfSS CITY -SHIP I DlV'A DA~ Fl CITY-Sf-ZIP 11T\.E AS o Delete TmE o Change DAddItlcn NAME LACY. PATRICIA D. NAME STIIEET ADDRESS PO BOX 10, 1 BElSnE PLAZA STIIEET ADDRESS CITY-Sf-ZIP PA CITY-SHIP TlTI.E . . ''-' _ _.O~., TITlf - - o Change o Addition - NAME NAME STRfET ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS CITY-Sf -ZIP CHY-Sf-ZlP TmE o Delete TITlf o Change o AddUlon NAME NAME SfIlEET ADDRESS STRm ADDRESS CI1Y - SHIP CITY-SHP 1ITtf o Oelele 1ffi.E o Change o Addition NAME NAME STRm ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS CITY-Sf - ZIP CITY-Sf-ZIP lITlE o Delele 1ffi.E o Change o AddUion NAME NAME STREET AODRESS S1IIEEr ADDRESS CITY-Sf'ZlP CITY-Sf - ZIP 13. I hereby certi~ that the information suppfied with this f~ does not qualify for the axemplion stated in Section 119.07W)(i). Florida Statutes. I further certify that the information indIcated on Is report or supplemental report = accura~~~ that my signature shall have the same legal e eel as if made under oath; that I am an officer or director of the corporation or the receiver or trustee :rred 0 execute . report as required by Chapter 607, Florida StaMes: and that my name appears in Block 11 or Block 12 if changed. or on an attachment with an eddre .' Oth~.......w red. SIGNATURE: /~~~~- A( A'/-~ Lu/,rJ ,h~, ./1- q 9 ~- ~rr6 SIG TYND OR PRlIhED_ 01' __ OFFlCUI 0" IlIMC'IOR , o.r. DoyWne Phone . ." 8 cs' ~ ~ o , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MA TIER was sent to the following counsel of record by placing a copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: Sally J. Winder, Esquire 9974 Molly Pitcher Highway Shippensburg, P A 17257 11h..JdlltJ /Ju/Vl Michelle M. Milojevich DATED: 5/19/06 325318 () r; r:~" ---j -( "J <<:;;:) <::::) c:-.:r> o 11 ~ nl :!J r"- \7fn 'Ue:; ~J, ('-) .,....J -.~ ::. ;:a.: ~". --c l'\.' N ~.~ 9?~ '"'im ;~:t ~:Cj -< (.0 c> O"l .' ... ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney 10#: 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintims) E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com GLORIA NICKEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. vs. NO. 2001-3563 LAKESIDE HOLDING, INC. Defendant PRAECIPE TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS CASE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned action voluntarily dismissed and discontinued. ichael E. Kosik J.D. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: 12/11/06 . ".10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of PRAECIPE FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL was sent to the following counsel of record by placing a copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: Sally J. Winder, Esquire 9974 Molly Pitcher Highway Shippensburg, P A 17257 --mutJ~ 1Y7 r(ltt~ Michelle M. Milojevich DATED: /~/ ( -D ~ 320126 (') C -':I'~ '-vG~ n-H' , :.(~ -,:.-~ .--~~ : 'C5 c:::> 0"' o r'1i c-:. (!L }:2 ~'. - N <.-::: i.. -.>->c_-: ~;;:\ -"- ~ ...4 :J:,-n rnc: -,9,,8 - j \ ::_~~\ ~~'?, , -f' -0 :;;: ~t ~f. ,~ ..-\ '~'D :-<. ~? o ....()