Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-6317SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy ? Ott+' pi 't.`NluiGrr/4 b FILED-OFFICE .;F THE PRQTt ONO PAFRY 2011 SEP - I AM 9: 41 Richard W Stewart Solicitor CU PENNSYLVANIA .f Y John Mangiamele vs. Case Number Michael P. Ruell (et al.) 2011-6317 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 08/26/2011 05:14 PM - Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on August 26, 2011 at 1714 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notion the within named defendant, to wit: Ruells Lawn Care, LLC, by making known unto Michael Rueler of Ruells Lawn Care, LLC at 403 Deerfield Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pen 11 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct coVYF4 e. WN HARR SQN, DEPUTY 08/26/2011 05:14 PM - Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on August 26, 2011 at 1714 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Michael P. Ruell, by making known unto himself personally, at 40 eerfield Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011 its contents and at t e sathanding to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 00717 ,DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $74.44 August 29, 2011 SO ANSWERS, RbNl`V R ANDERSON, SHERIFF (ci CounivSuite : here f. teen: ,ft Ine .r.-.. L. 7t 1..P lr .are T2 I JOHN MANGIAMELE and CYNTHIA MANGIAMELE, Plaintiffs VS. MICHAEL P. RUELL, d/b/a RUELL' S LANDCAPE and RUELL' S LAWN CARE, LLC, Defendants it, 1, a r a.: . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 11-6317 CIVIL TERM DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW come the above-named Defendants, by their attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and make the following Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint: 1 through 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. Ruell denies that there were "multiple errors and deficiencies" in his work. To the contrary. Ruell completed the work in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties. 15. Denied. Ruell colored the concrete as directed by Plaintiffs. Ruell advised Plaintiffs that, because the work was being done in cold weather, there was some risk that the work would not be as Plaintiffs desired, including the color of the work, but Plaintiffs insisted that Ruell complete the work despite the cold weather. 16. Denied. The concrete installed by Ruell was not substandard and was of a good quality and was installed in a workmanlike manner. It do not contain the defects listed in Paragraphs 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Further, Plaintiffs themselves caused damage to the concrete by using the sidewalk, and allowing others to use the sidewalk, before the concrete had properly cured, all contrary to the express instructions given them by Defendant. 17. Denied. Ruell installed the walkways precisely where and how Defendants directed he install them. Any problem with water leakage into Plaintiffs' home or basement is not a result of the placement of the concrete walkways, which were placed exactly where the prior walkways were located. 18. Admitted. Ruell installed matte sealer on the concrete because the Plaintiffs directed him to do so. He spoke with Plaintiffs about a change from gloss sealer to matte sealer and Plaintiffs elected to have the matte sealer installed. Ruell charged an additional $150.00 to install that sealer pursuant to the arrangements to which the parties agreed prior to his installing the sealer. 19. Denied. Plaintiffs did not immediately complain about the work done by Ruell. The document attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and marked as Exhibit B is not a document which the parties prepared or which the Plaintiffs provided to Defendant prior to the commencement of this action. The top portion of that document was written by Defendant to explain that he could not install top soil until after spring weather arrived. The writing at the bottom of that document was not on it when Defendant delivered the document to Plaintiffs and Defendant believes that Plaintiffs added that language later. 20. It is admitted that Plaintiffs made additional payments to Defendant but denied that Defendant made any representatives to Plaintiffs to obtain those payments. 21. Admitted. 22. Denied. Ruell returned to the property and did landscaping and grading work. He offered to return to do additional work, but was not able to do that prior to the time this Complaint was filed. Ruell never represented that he would return to the property to "correct" any "substandard, deficient, and erroneous work." Ruell did not do any "substandard, deficient, and erroneous work" on the project. 23. Denied. Ruell denies that his work was incomplete or needed correction and, therefore, denies that Plaintiffs had to retain another contractor. 24. Denied. Ruell denies that any of the work he did damaged in any way the foundation of Plaintiffs' home and that, therefore, another contractor had to be engaged by Plaintiffs. 25. Ruell denies that he is responsible in any way to damage to Plaintiff's home's foundation or water leakage into it and denies that he is responsible in anyway to pay the cost which Plaintiffs claim to have incurred or claim they will incur. 26. Admitted. 27. Denied. The e-mail is not a written contract and does not, therefore, fit the definition of a "home improvement contract" set out in the statute. 28. Denied. Defendant denies that he is liable to Plaintiffs in any way because he completed his work in a good and workmanlike fashion, Plaintiffs accepted the work which he did, and paid Defendant for that work. 29. Denied as stated. Ruell never concealed his ownership interest in Ruell's Lawn Care, LLC. The work undertaken by Ruell was undertaken in his personal capacity, not in the name of the LLC. Ruell denies, however, any liability to Plaintiffs because Ruell did his work in a good and workmanlike fashion and did not cause any damage to Plaintiffs' property. 30. Denied as stated. Ruell has never contended that the contract with Plaintiffs was with Ruell's Lawn Care, LI,C. 31. Denied for the reasons set forth in the answers to Paragraphs 29 and 30 above. By way of further answer, Ruell states that he never obligated himself to do any work described on Plaintiffs' Exhibit C other than the delivery of topsoil. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 32. The averments set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 33. Ruell admits that he entered into the contract with Plaintiffs to do the work described on Exhibit A. 34. Admitted. 35. Denied. Ruell completed the repairs and work as described in Exhibit A, Plaintiffs accepted the work to their satisfaction, and Plaintiffs paid Ruell for the work he did. 36. Denied. Ruell's work was not "erroneous, substandard, deficient, or incomplete" and Ruell did not breach the contract between the parties. 37. Denied. Ruell's work met the standard of the industry at the time and in the place the work was done and Plaintiffs are not entitled to remove or replace his work or for the damages that they seek. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays this court to dismiss Plaintiff's claim and to enter judgment in favor of Defendant. COUNT II - PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 38. The averments set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 39. Denied. Ruell did not engage in unfair or deceptive practices and did not violate the Consumer Protection Act. 40. Ruell denies that he engaged in any "unfair or deceptive act or practice" and states specifically: a. He did not misrepresent the concrete which he installed. b. He did not misrepresent the quality, grade, or standard of the concrete which he installed. c. He did not make improvements or replacements of Plaintiffs' property which was, by nature or quality, inferior to or below the standard to which the parties agree. To the contrary, Ruell properly performed his obligations under the contract between the parties. d. Ruell did not engage in any other conduct which created a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. Ruell did not agree to return to the property to complete the work which Plaintiffs apparently inserted on their Exhibit B after Ruell presented it to them. 41. It is denied that Ruell or Ruell's Lawn Care, LLC had engaged in any prohibited acts under the statute and Ruell specifically denies these averments as follows: a. The contract between the parties did not fail to include the information required by the said statute. b. Although Ruell did not register as a contractor as apparently required by the Act, Plaintiff suffered no loss or prejudice as a result. c. Ruell did not abandon or fail to perform the home improvement contract with Plaintiffs. To the contrary, Ruell completed his performance under the contract in a good and workmanlike manner. d. Ruell did not materially deviate from or disregard plans or specifications without a change order. Ruell completed the work described in the contract between the parties in a good and workmanlike manner. e. Ruell requested, and Plaintiff voluntarily paid, the deposit which the parties mutually agreed upon. 42. Admitted. 43. Denied. Plaintiffs have not suffered any monetary loss. Ruell did not commit an unfair or deceptive act, practice, or method. 44. Denied. Plaintiffs are not entitled to any recovery because Ruell performed his obligations under the contract between the parties in a good and workmanlike fashion. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays this court to dismiss Plaintiff s claim and to enter judgment in favor of Defendant. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE 45. The averments set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 46. Admitted. By way of further answer, Ruell states that he performed his obligations under the contract in a good and workmanlike manner and did not cause any damage to Plaintiff's property. 47. Denied. Nothing that Ruell did on this project was improper, deficient, or erroneous and none of it caused water leakage or damage to the foundation of Plaintiffs' property. 48. Denied. Ruell did not damage Plaintiffs' property and is not liable to Plaintiffs for any corrective work. 49. Denied. No damage to Plaintiffs' property was caused by the negligence of Ruell. 50. Denied. Ruell is not liable to Plaintiffs for any work to repair their foundation or any water leakage into their property. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays this court to dismiss Plaintiff's claim and to enter judgment in favor of Defendant. COUNT IV - CONVERSION 51. The averments set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 52. Denied. Ruell properly performed his obligations under the contract with Plaintiffs and did not cause damage to Plaintiff's property, including damage to their foundation or water leakage. 53. The only actions taken by Ruell were to properly perform his obligations under the contract between the parties and all of those actions were taken with the consent and at the direction of Plaintiffs. 54. Denied. Ruell did not cause any damage to Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs have not been deprived of the ownership or use of their property as a result of any action or inaction by Ruell. 55. Denied. Ruell did not do anything to deprive Plaintiffs of their property. 56. Denied. Ruell is not liable to Plaintiffs because he did nothing to cause damage to their property. 57. Denied. Ruell's conduct was not malicious, wanton, willful, oppressive, and did not exhibit a reckless disregard or indifference to the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays this court to dismiss Plaintiff s claim and to enter judgment in favor of Defendant. el L. An es Attorney for Defendant Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 12' Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, Pa 17043 (717) 761-5361 I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unsworr, falsification to authorities). Date. Michael P. Ruell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served an original of the foregoing document upon counsel for the Plaintiff herein by regular mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Ryan P. Siney, Esquire Shumaker Williams, P.C. P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, Pa 17108 Date: 20 October 2011 . Amy M. I Sec ary for Samuel L. Andes JOHN MANGIAMELE and CYNTHIA MANGIAMELE, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL P. RUELL, d/b/a RUELL'S LANDSCAPE and RUELL'S LAWN CARE, LLC, Defendants `gym, 0& 00000 49 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO: 2011-6317 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this 19"' day of April, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery Responses, a RULE is issued upon Defendants to show cause why the relief requested in Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days from the date of this order. Thoma A. Placey C.P.J. Ryan P. Siney, Esq. Shumaker Williams, P.C. P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 For Plaintiffs ?muel L. Andes, Esq. 525 N. 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 For Defendants Cof1 ES' rYt??1 9// 2 C c? ? rnm r car- Q--n ?* : W C) ', 4 1 . JOHN MANGIAMELE and CYNTHIA MANGIAMELE, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL P. RUELL, d/b/a RUELL'S LANDSCAPE and RUELL'S LAWN CARE, LLC, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO: 2011-6317 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES and MOTION TO MAKE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ABSOLUTE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery Responses and Plaintiffs' Motion to Make Rule to Show Cause Absolute, referring to this court's April 19, 2012 Rule to Show Cause, and it appearing that Defendants have failed to file any response as to why the relief requested in the underlying motion should not be granted, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Make Rule to Show Cause Absolute is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery Responses is GRANTED. DEFENDANTS, Michael P. Ruell, d/b/a Ruell's Landscape and Ruell's Lawn Care, LLC, shall provide full and complete responses, or adequate reason as to why a response cannot lawfully be given pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents within FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this Order. ,m °''' " ? - GIS t 7 . ,., ;? `ry t. C"1 By the Court, Thomas A. Plater C.P.J. ?yan P. Siney, Esq. Shumaker Williams, P.C. P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 For Plaintiffs / Samuel L. Andes, Esq. 525 N. 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 For Defendants ! .E S wLat«ck? 5 / Z// ? JOHN MANGIAMELE and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CYNTHIA MANGIAMELE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. Civil Action No. 11-6317 Civil Term cz, MICHAEL P. RUELL, d/b/a RUELL'S A n . LANDSCAPE and RUELL'S LAWN M -0 .ter-" CARE, LLC, � �cr Defendants r-= --` C'3 PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE, SETTLE AND END ;>C= �rk3 To the Prothontoary: Please mark the above action as settled, discontinued and ended. SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated: April 2013 B p Y JZ Ke4f&h J. McDermott, I1, I.D. #205555 Evan C. Pappas, I.D. #200103 P.O. BOX 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 763-1121 Attorneys for Plaintiffs :253615 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kenneth J. McDermott, Esquire, of the law firm of Shumaker Williams, P.C., hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End on this date by depositing a copy of the same in the possession of the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Samuel L. Andes, Esquire Law Office of Samuel L. Andes 525 N. 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated: April 26, 2013 By z Kenj%e6 J. McDermott P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 763-1121