HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-6476SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN & BROWN, P. C.
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Supreme Court ID No. 66266
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
(717) 540-5481 facsimile
Email: PMacdonald-Matthes@ssbc-law.com
.Attorneys for Defendant/Petitioner
C-)
C r a C
?? T3 G"3 'V t''1
1> --
<Q :X
-rte C G? 7 ?d
JAIRAM 7, INC.,
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
V.
HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC T/A COUNTRY
OVEN RESTAURANT F/K/A SAHAR MATER
ENTERPRISES CARLISLE, LLC T/A MATER
RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT AND
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT
. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: DOCKET No. 11-6476
. CIVIL ACTION- AT LAW
. IN CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION
. OF REAL PROPERTY
DEFENDANT/PETITIONER
DEFENDANT'S PETITION TO STRIKE OR ALTERNATIVELY OPEN CONFESSED
JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE STAY OF EXECUTION
AND NOW, comes :Defendant/Petitioner, HNS Management, LLC, t/a Country Oven
Restaurant f/k/a Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC t/a/ Mater Restaurant Management and
Country Oven Restaurant, ("Petitioner") by and through its counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman &
Brown, P. C., and files its Petition to Strike, or Alternatively Open Confessed Judgment and
Request for Immediate Stay of Execution, and in support thereof avers as follows:
Introduction
On June 23, 2011, Defendant/Respondents HNS Management, LLC t/a Country Oven
Restaurant f/k/a Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC t/a Mater Restaurant Management and
Country Oven Restaurant (hereinafter collectively "Petitioner") filed a three count Complaint'
against Plaintiff/Respondent, Jairam 7, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") in the Court of Common
Pleas, Cumberland County Pennsylvania at Docket Number 11-5234. A true and correct copy of
Petitioner's Complaint is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "A".2 A mere cursory review
of the Complaint reveals that it involves the Parties' Joint Venture Agreement and the
Respondent's violations attendant to the same.
As evidenced by the letter dated June 14, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit "B", the
Respondent's counsel knew as early as June 14, 2011, that Petitioner was represented by the
undersigned law firm. Prior to the Petitioner filing its Complaint, Petitioner's counsel had several
telephone conversations with Respondent's counsel, as well as multiple email exchanges.
Finally, Respondent's counsel knew that Petitioner was represented by counsel in regard to the
Joint Venture Agreement by virtue of the fact that Respondent's counsel filed Preliminary
Objections to the Complaint on July 19, 2011, and a Brief in support of the same on August 15,
2011, and served Petitioner's counsel with the same. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent's
counsel (a) knew that Petitioner was represented by counsel; and (b) knew that an action against
his client involving the Parties' Joint Venture Agreement had already been filed with this
Honorable Court on June 23, 2011, Respondent's counsel determined to file an action in
Petitioners' Complaint consists of three counts, to wit: Count I- Breach of Contract; Count II- Fraudulent
Misrepresentation and Count III- Tortitious Interference with Prospective Contractual Relations. See Exhibit "A".
2 We would ask that the Court to take judicial notice that the Exhibits attached to the Complaint were not included in
this Petition as the Exhibits are attached to the Complaint filed at Docket No. 2011-5234.
2
s
I 1
Confession of Judgment in Ejectment against Petitioner on August 16, 2011-almost two (2)
months AFTER the Complaint arising out of the same document had been filed with this
Honorable Court (unbeknownst to Petitioner and the undersigned counsel). Indeed, it was only
following oral argument on the Respondent's Preliminary Objections to Petitioner's Complaint
on Friday, August 26, 2011, (lid Respondent's counsel advise the undersigned counsel that a
Complaint in Confession had been filed against her client.3
In their haste to confess judgment, Respondent and Respondent's counsel have
improperly and unlawfully confessed judgment against an entity not indentified in the document
containing the warrant of attorney filed with the Court and have thus failed to abide by the strict
statutory requirements for entering judgment by confession in ejectment in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. Because Respondent and Respondent's counsel have failed to abide by the
strict requirements imposed for confessing judgment, as more fully discussed at length herein,
the confessed judgment in ejectment must be immediately stricken, or in the alternative opened
and the above captioned action stayed.
Parties
1. Petitioner, HNS Management LLC t/a Country Oven Restaurant (hereinafter
"HNS") is a Pennsylvania limited liability company having a registered place of
business located at 1245 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17013. HNS trades and does business as the "Country Oven
Restaurant." Prior to its official name change filing with the Pennsylvania
3 As will be discussed herein, the explanation for Petitioner's lack of knowledge regarding the filing of the
Complaint in Confession of Judgment lies in the fact that according to the information on the docket in this matter,
coupled with an explanation received by the Prothonotary, Respondent's counsel failed to properly serve Petitioner
with the Complaint in Confession of Judgment, together with the required notices, in accordance with the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
3
Department of State on or about March 11, 2008, HNS was previously known as
Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC. Sahar Mater Enterprises traded and did
business as both Mater Restaurant Management and the Country Oven
Restaurant. The only members of HNS are Ali Mater and Sahar Mater. HNS is
hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner".
2. Respondent is a Pennsylvania business corporation having a registered business
address located at 1245 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17013-1621.
3. Petitioner and Respondents are hereinafter referred to collectively as the
"Parties".
1. Petition to Strike Confessed Judgment
4. The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 3 are incorporated by reference
as if more fully set forth at length herein.
5. On August 16, 2011, Respondents' counsel apparently filed a Complaint in
Confession of Judgment [in Ejectment]4 against Petitioner based on a warrant of
attorney set forth in an undated and unsigned document captioned "Joint Venture
Agreement -Country Oven, Inc. and JAIRAM 7 Inc." See Plaintiff's Complaint.
(Emphasis added).
6. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2956 provides that the Prothonotary shall
enter judgment in conformity with the confession.
a While the Respondent's Complaint seeks judgment in ejectment by confession, the Complaint itself is titled
"Complaint in Confession of Judgment".
4
7. A review of the above referenced caption reveals that Respondent confessed
judgment against Petitioner NOT Country Oven, Inc.
8. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2952(a)(2) provides that the original or
photostatic copy or like reproduction of the instrument showing the defendant's
signature must be attached to the Complaint in Confession of Judgment.
9. A review of Exhibit "A" to the Respondent's Complaint in Confession of
Judgment reveals that it is an undated and UNSIGNED document.
10. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2951(c) provides that "when the original
or photostatic copy or like reproduction of the instrument showing the
defendant's signature is not attached to the complaint, judgment may be
entered only by leave of court after notice." (Emphasis added).
11. Petitioner is unaware, (nor has Respondent averred) that the appropriate leave of
court was sought (in accordance with Pa. R.Civ.P. 2951(c) after notice to
Petitioner) to attach an unsigned document containing a warrant of attorney to its
Complaint in Confession of Judgment.
12. Pennsylvania law is clear that a judgment may be entered, under an authorization
contained in an instrument, only against a person who has executed the
instrument. See Union Bank of Nanty-Glo v. Schnabel, 291 Pa. 228, 139 A. 862
(1927).
13. Pennsylvania law further provides that generally for a warrant to confess
judgment to be valid, the warrant must be signed by the person to be bound by it,
and if the warrant is contained in a writing that includes other provisions, the
signature must be so placed on the writing that there is no doubt of the intention
of the signer to be bound thereby. See Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien &
Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250 (3`d Cir. 1994).
14. A plain reading of Respondent's Complaint in Confession of Judgment reveals
that it was filed in direct contravention to Pa. R.Civ.P. 2951(c).
15. A plain reading of the purported warrant of attorney attached to Respondent's
Complaint reveals that the Prothonotary did not enter judgment against Petitioner
in conformity with the confession in direct contravention to Pa.R.Civ.P. 2956.
16. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2952(a)(4) provides that a Complaint in
Confession of Judgment must contain a statement of any assignment of the
instrument.
17. In paragraph 6 of Respondent's verified Complaint Respondent avers that it "is
not aware of any assignment of the Joint Venture Agreement." The case caption
of the Respondent's Complaint as filed with the Court clearly belies this
contention. Indeed, if Respondent's claim was true and correct then Respondent
would have confessed judgment against Country Oven, Inc. and not Petitioner-
who as previously stated herein is not a named party to, nor is a signatory to the
document that Respondent has attached to its Complaint as Exhibit "A" as
evidence of the warrant of attorney.
18. Assuming arguendo that Respondent had pled an assignment of the Joint Venture
Agreement to :Petitioner, Pennsylvania law would have precluded Respondent
from filing a Complaint in Confession of Judgment against Petitioner as the
general rule is that an instrument authorizing the confession of judgment against a
6
particular person confers no authority to confess judgment against an assignee of
such person. See e.g., Kait v. Rose, 351 Pa. 560, 41 A.2d 750 (1945).
19. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2952(a)(5) provides that a Complaint in
Confession of Judgment must contain either a statement that judgment has not be
entered on the instrument in any jurisdiction or if it has been entered an
identification of the proceedings.
20. In paragraph 7 of its Complaint, Respondent avers that "judgment has not
previously been previously entered on the Joint Venture Agreement in any
jurisdiction." While it is technically correct that a judgment has not been
previously entered on the Joint Venture Agreement attached to Respondent's
Complaint (because it was never executed and further because it names a non-
existent entity, to wit: "Country Oven, Inc."), Respondent and Respondent's
counsel both knew that a Complaint concerning a Joint Venture Agreement that
was signed by the above-captioned Parties5 was pending in this Honorable Court
and that said Complaint had been filed almost two (2) months prior to
Respondent's Complaint. Possessing this information, Respondent and
Respondent's counsel both had an affirmative obligation under Pennsylvania law
not to file a Complaint in Confession of Judgment against Petitioner when (a)
they were utilizing a document that neither included Petitioner's name, nor was
signed by the Petitioner; and (b) when the litigation on the same matter is
currently pending against Respondent in the SAME Court. Indeed, the proper
5 While a signed Joint Venture Agreement between the above captioned Parties does exist (and in fact was provided
to the undersigned counsel by Respondent's counsel via email dated June 22, 2011, as evidenced by the email
exchange between counsel attached hereto and collectively marked as Exhibit "C") it is not the document that
Respondent has attached to its Complaint for Confession of Judgment against Petitioner.
7
course of action would have been for Respondent and Respondent's counsel to
file an Answer and Counterclaim to the Petitioner's Complaint filed at Docket
No. 2011-5234 assuming arguendo that Respondent has a valid basis upon which
to assert a counterclaim that does not run afoul of Pa. R.Civ.P. 1023.
21. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2952(a)(7) provides that a Complaint in
Confession of Judgment must contain an itemized computation of the amount
then due, based on matters outside the instrument if necessary, which may include
interest and attorney's fees authorized by the instrument.
22. A review of the Respondent's Complaint in Confession of Judgment reveals that
it does not contain the required itemized computation.
23. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2971(a)(2) provides that when filing a
Complaint in Confession of Judgment in Ejectment for possession of real property
the Complaint must contain a description of the property.
24. A review of Respondent's Complaint reveals that no property description is
included in the Complaint in direct contravention of Pa. R.Civ. P. 2971(a)(2).
25. Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §2737(3), at the time a creditor files for a judgment by
confession under the provision setting forth the power of the prothonotary to enter
judgment of confession, must comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure regarding confession of judgment, including any notice provisions.
26. As a preliminary matter, Respondent's counsel failed to properly serve Petitioner
with its Complaint in Confession of Judgment in which Respondent seeks a
confessed judgment in ejectment. Indeed, the undersigned counsel only found out
about the Respondent's Complaint in Confession of Judgment on Friday, August
26, 2011, following oral argument on Respondent's Preliminary Objections to
Petitioner's Complaint arising out of the Parties' Joint Venture Agreement when
Respondent's counsel advised the undersigned counsel that the same had been
filed on August 15, 2011.
Upon receipt of information that a Complaint in Confession of Judgment
had been filed., the undersigned counsel's office contacted the Cumberland
County Prothonotary's Office and confirmed that said Complaint had been filed.
A review of the Complaint as filed with the Court reveals that (a) the
Respondent's counsel provided the Court with an incorrect address for the
Petitioner on the Notice of Judgment and Execution Required by Rule 2937.2, to
wit: "1245 Carlisle Pike, Carlisle, PA" (when Petitioner's address is 1245
Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, PA); (b) no Sheriff's service was requested by
Respondent's Counsel; and (c) no certificate of service was attached to the filing
indicating an alternative manner of service utilized by Respondent's counsel.
On Friday, August 26, 2011 (following the undersigned counsel's
discussion with Respondent's counsel regarding Respondent's Complaint in
Confession of Judgment wherein the undersigned counsel advised Respondent's
counsel that she was unaware that said Complaint had been filed), Petitioner's
employee called to Petitioner to report that an envelope had been placed on the
counter at the Petitioner's restaurant that afternoon. A subsequent review of the
contents of the envelope bearing a return address of "Clymer Musser Brown &
Conrad, P.C." revealed that the envelope contained a copy of the Respondent's
Complaint.
9
A copy of the envelope is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and a review of
the same reveals three (3) critical pieces of information to wit: (A) Respondent's
counsel improperly attempted to serve Petitioner via certified mail, return receipt
requested; and. (B) Respondent's counsel used an incorrect address for Petitioner,
to wit: "1245 Carlisle Pike" rather than "1245 Harrisburg Pike"; and (C)
Petitioner was never served with the same, as evidenced by the "green card" that
is still attached to the reverse side of the envelope (assuming arguendo that
Petitioner could be served via certified mail (which Petitioner does NOT concede
for the reasons stated herein below)6
27. As previously stated herein, Respondent is seeking a confessed judgment in
ejectment for possession of real property.
28. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 410 provides that "in actions involving title
to, interest in, possession of, or charges or liens upon real property, original
process shall be served upon the defendant in the manner provided for by Rule
400 et seq."
29. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400 requires that service of original process
must be served by the sheriff.
30. As previously stated herein, Petitioner was not properly served with Respondent's
Complaint in Confession of Judgment via sheriff and thus service of the
Respondent's Complaint in Confession of Judgment for Ejectment was made in
direct contravention to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
b The original envelope as it was delivered to Petitioner's restaurant will be produced at the time of hearing on this
matter.
10
31. A review of the Complaint in Confession of Judgment and corresponding
confession of judgment documents filed by Respondents' counsel Plaintiff reveal
that there are fatal defects and/or irregularities which appear on the record, to wit:
a. 42 Pa. C.S. §2737.1, which was enacted on December 20, 2000, and
became effective February 2001, provides in relevant part that: At the time
that a creditor files for a judgment by confession under Section 2737(3)
(relating to powers and duties of the office of the Prothonotary), the
creditor filing the judgment shall provide the Debtor with the written
instructions regarding the procedure to follow to strike the judgment...
The instructions provided to the Debtor shall explain to the Debtor that
under this Section he is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees as
determined by the Court if he was incorrectly identified.
b. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2959, a defendant must also be provided with
written, instructions regarding the procedure to follow to strike the
judgment, and an explanation that a defendant that was incorrectly notified
and had a confession of judgment entered against it, is entitled to costs and
reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the Court. A review of the
Rule 2973.2 Notice provided by Respondent to Petitioner (which
Petitioner only received on August 26, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit
"E" reveals that Respondent and/or Respondent's counsel failed to
comply with the statutorily required Notice provision, as set forth in 42 Pa.
C.S. §2737.1 and the applicable rule of civil procedure, Pa. R.Civ. P.
2959, and thus there is a fatal defect on the face of the record. See First
11
Union National Bank et al. v. Portside Refrigerated Services, Inc., 2003
Pa. Super. 244 (2003).
39. Pennsylvania law is clear that the court may grant a petition to strike off a
judgment if a fatal defect or irregularity appears on the record. See e.g., First
Union National Bank et.al. v. Portside Refrigerated Services Inc., 2003 Pa.
Super. 244 (2003); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Copley Qu-Wayne Associates, 546
Pa. 98, 683 A.2d 269, 273 (1996).
40. As a direct and proximate result of Respondent's failure to comply with the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Petitioner has had to incur counsel fees
and costs associated with the preparation and filing of the within Petition and a
request for reimbursement of those counsel fees and costs in an amount not less
than $3,000 is hereby made.
41. Petitioner has been and will continue to be prejudiced unless Respondent's
confessed judgment in ejectment is immediately stricken.
WHEREFORE, Defendant/Petitioner, HNS Management, LLC, t/a Country Oven
Restaurant f/k/a Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC t/a/ Mater Restaurant Management and
Country Oven Restaurant, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this Petition to
Strike, strike off the confessed judgment by Respondent against Petitioner, and further award
Petitioner all such other relief as is proper and just, included but not limited to counsel fees and
costs incurred in the filing of this Petition.
12
II. In the Alternative. Petition to Open Confessed Judgment
42. The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 41 are incorporated by reference
as if more fully set forth at length herein.
43. In the alternative, the Petitioner has good and meritorious defenses that warrant
the opening of the confessed judgment to wit:
a. The warrant of attorney upon which Respondent has filed its Complaint in
Confession of Judgment for Ejectment, and which Respondent has attached to
its Complaint does not authorize a judgment by confession against Petitioner;
b. Respondent's counsel purportedly "served" Petitioner at "1245 Carlisle Pike,
Carlisle, PA 17013, (as evidenced by the copy of the Respondent's counsel's
envelope, see Exhibit "D"). The Petitioner's correct address is 1245
Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, PA. The Rule 236 Notice (Pennsylvania Rule of
Civil Procedure provided to the Cumberland County Prothonotary by
Respondent's counsel also apparently included this incorrect address, as
evidenced by the "Plaintiff's Affidavit" filed with the Court on August 15,
2011 in support of Respondent's Complaint; (c) Petitioner had previously
advised Respondent and Respondent's counsel via telephone on January 4,
2011 that all correspondence should be sent to Petitioner at the following
address, to wit: 6121 Blue Ridge Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17112. Petitioner
believes and therefore avers that Respondent deliberately provided the wrong
mailing address in order to delay and/or prevent Petitioner's notification of the
confessed judgment. In addition, Respondent and/or Respondent's employees
and/or agents collects all mail that is received at the 1245 Carlisle Pike
13
address as it is the Hotel's address. Petitioner believes and therefore avers
that Respondent deliberately failed to provide Petitioner with the Rule 236
Notice that was mailed by the Court, as well as the certified mail notification
in an effort to prevent Petitioner and Petitioner's counsel from being able to
timely respond and move to strike the improperly confessed judgment. See
Petitioner's Affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit "F";
d. 42 Pa. C.S. §2737.1, which was enacted on December 20, 2000, and became
effective February 2001, provides that: At the time that a creditor files for a
judgment by confession under Section 2737(3) (relating to powers and duties
of the office of the Prothonotary), the creditor filing the judgment shall
provide the Debtor with the written instructions regarding the procedure to
follow to strike the judgment. A Debtor who has been incorrectly identified
and had a confession of judgment entered against him shall be entitled to costs
and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the Court. The instructions
provided to the Debtor shall explain to the Debtor that under this Section he is
entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the Court if
he was incorrectly identified.
Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ.P 2959, a defendant must also be provided with
written instructions regarding the procedure to follow to strike the judgment,
and an explanation that a defendant that was incorrectly notified and had a
confession of judgment entered against it, is entitled to costs and reasonable
attorney's fees as determined by the Court. A review of the Notice provided
by Respondent to Petitioner (which Petitioner only received on August 26,
14
2011) (see Exhibit "F") reveals that Respondents and/or Respondents'
counsel failed to comply with the statutorily required Notice provision, as set
forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §2737.1 and Pa. R.Civ. P. 2959, and thus there is a fatal
defect on the face of the record. See First Union National Bank et al. v.
Portside Refrigerated Services, Inc., 2003 Pa. Super. 244 (2003); and
e. For all of the reasons set forth in Petitioner's Complaint filed against
Respondent on June 23, 2011 in this Honorable Court at Docket Number 11-
5234, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated by
reference as if more fully set forth at length herein, Respondent is equitably
estopped from asserting an event of default against Petitioner which is a
condition precedent to the entry of a confessed judgment; and
f. Petitioner has advised Respondent that in light of the fraud perpetrated on
Petitioner vis-a-vis the release of previously escrowed funds to Respondent,
coupled with Respondent's continuing material violations and/or breach of the
Parties' Joint Venture Agreement, that all future Joint Venture payments
beginning February 2011, would be placed into escrow pending a satisfactory
resolution of the issues between the Parties. See Petitioner's Affidavit attached
hereto as Exhibit 'T". Based on this knowledge, Respondent is equitably
estopped from attempting to confess judgment in ejectment against Petitioner;
g. All joint venture payments for 2010, and the joint venture payment due for
January 2011, have been paid contrary to the representations set forth in
Exhibit "C' to Respondent's Complaint in Confession of Judgment.
15
WHEREFORE, Defendant/Petitioner, HNS Management, LLC, t/a Country Oven
Restaurant f/k/a Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC t/a/ Mater Restaurant Management and
Country Oven Restaurant, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this Petition to
Strike, or in the alternative Open the confessed judgment in ejectment by Respondent against
Petitioner, and permit Petitioner to proceed with his defenses and counterclaims against
Respondents, and further award Petitioner all such other relief as is proper and just, included but
not limited to counsel fees and costs incurred in the filing of this Petition.
III. Request for Stay of Execution
44. The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated by reference
as if more fully set forth at length herein.
45. The law does not favor judgments entered by confession. See e.g., Beckett v.
Laux, 577 A.2d 1341 (Pa. Super. 1990).
46. Respondent and/or Respondent's counsel, in filing its Complaint in Confession of
Judgment requesting confessed judgment in ejectment failed to adhere to strict
statutory requirements as well as the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure.
47. Petitioner has good and meritorious defenses to the judgment entered by
confession which have been timely filed.
48. Petitioner has suffered and will continue to suffer prejudice unless this Honorable
Court enters an Order striking the confessed judgment in ejectment that was
entered on August 15, 2011 and further staying any further execution on the
confessed judgment.
16
WHEREFORE, Defendant/Petitioner, HNS Management, LLC, t/a Country Oven
Restaurant f/k/a Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC t/a/ Mater Restaurant Management and
Country Oven Restaurant, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court (a) grant this Petition
to Strike off the confessed judgment, or in the alternative (b) Open the confessed judgment by
Respondent and permit Petitioner to proceed with its defenses against Respondent's claims; (c)
further stay all proceedings herein; and (d) further award Petitioner all such other relief as is
proper and just, including but not limited to counsel fees and costs incurred in the filing of this
Petition.
Respectfully Submitted,
Paige Ma6donald-Matthes, Esquire
SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN,
& BROWN, P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road
Suite 201
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
Date: August 31, 2011 Attorney for Petitioner
17
VERIFICATION
I, Sahar Mater, Member of HNS Management, LLC t/a Country Oven Restaurant f/k/a
Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC t/a Mater Restaurant Management and Country Oven
Restaurant, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Defendant's Petition to Strike, or
Alternatively Open Confessed Judgment and Request for Stay of Execution are true and correct.
I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: Yom- ) 0 HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC T/A COUNTRY OVEN
RESTAURANT F/K/A SAHAR MATER ENTERPRISES
CARLISLE, LLC T/A MATER RESTAURANT
MANAGEMENT AND COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT
B_`'?
Sahar Mater, Member
1_ ? C-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing Petition to Strike, Open and Stay Confessed Judgment on the following
persons by placing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on the 31St day of August,
2011:
JAMES N. CLYMER, ESQUIRE
CLYMER, MUSSER, BROWN & CONRAD, P.C.
408 WEST CHESTNUT STREET
LANCASTER, PA 17603
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN & BROWN, P.C.
Paige aM cdonald-Matthes, Esquire
?J
__---
HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC t/a
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT f/k/a
SAHAR MATER ENTERPRISES
CARLSILE, LLC t/a MATER
RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT AND
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET NO.
l ' -j J Y
V.
JAIRAM 7, INC.,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
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 withoutfurther notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other
claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights
important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS
OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL
SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.
Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service
32 S. Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
AVISO
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas
que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acc16n dentro de los
pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando
personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por
escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le
advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede
proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier
otra reclamac16n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la
Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos
importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI
USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA
OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN
ABOGADO.
SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE
QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE
OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE
CUALIFICAN.
Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service
32 S. Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
2
SERRAI ELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P. C.
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Supreme Court III No. 66266
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
(717) 540-5481 facsimile
Email: PAfacdonald-Matthes(a?,ssbc-law. C0777
Attorneys for Plaintiff
HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC tla
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT f/k/a
SAHAR MATER ENTERPRISES
CARLSILE, LLC t/a MATER
RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT AND
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET NO.:
3AIRAM 7, INC.,
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, HNS Management LLC t/a Country Oven Restaurant f/k/a
Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC t/a Mater Restaurant Management and Country Oven
Restaurant by and through its counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P. C., and files
its Complaint against Defendant, Jairam 7, Inc., and in support thereof aver as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, HNS Management LLC t/a Country Oven Restaurant (hereinafter
"HNS") is a Pennsylvania limited -liability company having a registered place of
3
business located at 1245 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17013. HNS trades and does business as the "Country Oven
Restaurant." Prior to its official name change filing with the Pennsylvania
Department of State on or about March 11, 2008, HNS was previously known as
Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC. Sahar Mater Enterprises traded and did
business as both Mater Restaurant Management and the Country Oven
Restaurant. The only members of HNS are Ali Mater and Sahar Mater. HNS is
hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff'.
2. Defendant, Jairam 7, Inc. (hereinafter "Defendant") is a Pennsylvania business
corporation having a registered business address located at 1245 Harrisburg Pike,
Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013-1621.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of this
litigation.
4. Venue is proper in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania pursuant to Pa. R.Civ.P.
2179(2) as Cumberland County is a county where all of the Defendants regularly
conduct business.
Venue is also proper in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania pursuant to Pa. R.C.P.
2179(4) as Cumberland County is the county where the occurrence took place out
of which the Plaintiff's cause of action arose.
4
6. Finally, venue is proper in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania pursuant to Pa.
R.Civ. P. 2179(5) and Pa. R.Civ. P. 1062 as Cumberland County is where the
subject Country Oven Restaurant is located.
ARBITRATION
7. Plaintiff's claims exceed the arbitration limits of this Court.
BACKGROUND
8. On or about June 20, 1998, Defendant entered into a Lease Agreement for the
kitchen, restaurant and banquet facilities located in what was formerly known as
the Best Western-Carlislel located at 1245 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania., and what is now known as the Country Oven Restaurant 1
(hereinafter "Lease Agreement") with Beauty Seven, a Pennsylvania general
partnership consisting of Nayana A. Parikh, Vasanti J. Parekh and Bharti M.
Shah. Despite repeated and numerous requests for a copy of the Lease Agreement
from Defendant and more recently, Defendant's counsel, no such document has
been provided to Plaintiff. As Plaintiff does not have possession of the Lease
Agreement, Plaintiff is presently unable to attach a copy of the Lease Agreement
to this Complaint. Upon information and belief, a copy of the Lease Agreement is
in the possession and control of Defendant and/or Defendant's counsel.
1 NOTE: The Best Western-Carlisle was subsequently changed to a Howard Johnson Hotel, which was in turn
subdivided by Defendant and the pro?erty is now divided as a Howard Johnson Hotel and a Travel Lodge.
5
9. Upon information and belief, in April 20042, Defendant and Mater Restaurant
Management entered into a Joint Venture Agreement, (prepared by Defendant
and/or Defendant's counsel), whereby a joint venture known as "BWCO Joint
Venture" was formed. Ali Mater signed the Joint Venture Agreement on behalf of
Mater Restaurant Management. A copy of what Defendant has represented to
Plaintiff as the Joint Venture Agreement that was signed by the Parties is attached
hereto and is marked as Exhibit "A". A copy of the "non-black line" version of
the Joint Venture Agreement which had been previously given to Plaintiff by
Defendant is attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
10_ Pursuant to the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement, and specifically paragraph
3 of the same, the operation of the restaurant, banquet hall and liquor business and
the provision of all food and beverage services for patrons of the hotel is under
the exclusive supervision of Plaintiff as the "Restaurateur ".
11. On April 8, 2004, Defendant entered into a Lease Assignment Agreement with
"BWCO Joint Venture" pursuant to which Defendant assigned all of its right, title
and interest to that portion of the Lease Agreement that relates to the restaurant
and banquet facilities located at 1245 Carlisle Pike [sic], Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
subject to the terms of the BWCO Joint Venture Agreement, to BWCO Joint
Venture. A copy of the April 8, 2004 Lease Assignment Agreement is attached
hereto and is marked as Exhibit "C".
z NOTE: Although the computer drive path indicated on both Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto indicate that
the Joint Venture Agreement was prepared on April 28, 2003, Plaintiff believes. and therefore avers that the Joint
Venture Atrreement may have actually been executed by the Parties as late as April 8, 2004, based on a certain
Lease Assignment Agreement relating to the control of the restaurant and banquet facilities, as will be discussed in
paragraph 11 herein-
6
12. As evidenced by the signature of Beauty Seven's authorized partner General
Partner on page 2 of Lease Assignment Agreement, Beauty Seven consented to
the assignment of the Lease Agreement from Defendant to the BWCO Joint
Venture.
13. As the Joint Venture Agreement is not dated by either Party, the initial term of the
Joint Venture Agreement is not known by Plaintiff. Upon information and belief
however, the original term of the Joint Venture Agreement expired in 2008 and
was subsequently renewed for another five (5) year term by virtue of the
provisions set forth in paragraph 5 of the Joint Venture Agreement.
14. In late 20098, early 2009, Defendant unilaterally determined to subdivide and sell
the Howard Johnson Hotel so that the property now consists of a 70 room
(approximately) Travel Lodge and a 70 room (approximately) Howard Johnson
Hotel. Each one of these hotels now has a separate entrance, as well as separate
parking lots.
COUNT I- BREACH OF CONTRACT
15. The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 14 are incorporated by reference
as if more fully set forth at length herein.
16. Pursuant to the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement, and specifically paragraph
7 of the same, Defendant is responsible for all renovations to the Banquet Hall
and Plaintiff is responsible for all renovations to the Restaurant.
17. In accordance with the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement, Plaintiff made
substantial renovations to the restaurant, coffee shop and lounge located at the
7
Property. To date, Plaintiff has expended the approximate sum of $350,000.00 in
making renovations to the restaurant.
18. Although responsible for the renovations of the Banquet Hall pursuant to the
terms of paragraph 7 of the Joint Venture Agreement, Defendant has failed and
has otherwise refused to make any renovations to the Banquet Hall.
Consequently, Plaintiff has made substantial renovations to the Banquet Hall
which renovations to date have cost Plaintiff the approximate sum of
$350,000.00.
19. Pursuant to paragraph 9A of the Joint Venture Agreement, Defendant is
responsible for the (i) repair and maintenance of the structural components of the
Property (consisting of the footings, foundation, structural steel, exterior brick
masonry work, and the building roof); (ii) the repair and restoration of the interior
of the Property damaged as a result of damages or repairs or maintenance to the
Property's structural components, and (iii) repair and maintenance of the HVAC
system; and (iv) repair and maintenance of all utility lines on the Property, except
those inside the Restaurant and Banquet Hall, and not buried or encased.
20. Contrary to the provisions of Paragraph 9A of the Joint Venture Agreement,
Defendant has failed and has otherwise refused to properly maintain and repair
the roof on the Property. Consequently, every time it rains the ceiling in the
restaurant, including the coffee shop, bar and dining room leaks to such a degree
that Plaintiff must install buckets at the corresponding leak locations to prevent
customers from slipping and falling on the hardwood floors that Plaintiff has
installed- Color photographs of the water damage in the coffee shop, the ceiling
8
falling down by the dishwashing stand in the kitchen due to the roof leak, the
leaks in the dining room ceiling and the water damage to the ceiling above the
coffee station are attached hereto and are collectively marked as Exhibit "D".
21. As a direct and proximate result of the roof leak, the hardwood floors that
Plaintiff has installed in the restaurant and coffee shop are now warped and
permanently water stained. See Exhibit "D." In addition, on January 15, 2011, the
roof leak caused several ceiling tiles in the banquet room to fall down during an
event that was taking place there. Finally, the roof leak caused damage to
Plaintiff's freezer. A picture of the damage to Plaintiff s freezer as it continues to
exist as of June 23, 2011, is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "E".
22. On May 19, 2011, Plaintiff sent the Defendant's Office Manager an email
notifying Defendant that the coffee shop roof was leaking all over the tables.
Defendant failed and otherwise refused to respond to this email. A true and
correct copy of the May 19, 2011 email is attached hereto and is marked as
Exhibit 'T'
23. Contrary to the provisions of Paragraph 9A of the Joint Venture Agreement,
Defendant has failed and has otherwise refused to properly maintain the sewer
lines located outside of the banquet facility. Consequently, every time Plaintiff
books a large event in the banquet facility, the bathrooms in the banquet facility
back up.
24. In or about November 2010 Plaintiff contacted a plumbing contractor to come in
and review the problem with the sewer lines located outside of the banquet
facility. Said contact was made with the plumbing contracting following an event
9
that took place in the banquet facility for 300 people and the bathrooms in the
facility backed up. According to the plumbing contractor hired by Plaintiff, Roto
Rooter, the problem is with the main sewer line outside of the banquet hall and
despite the fact that the plumbing contractor specifically discussed the problem
with the sewer line with the Defendant, Defendant continues to refuse to address
the issue.
25. Contrary to the provisions of Paragraph 9A of the Joint Venture Agreement,
Defendant has failed and has otherwise refused to properly maintain and repair
the HVAC system. Consequently, both the Restaurant and Banquet Hall are not
properly heated during the fall and winter months and are not properly air
conditioned during the spring and summer months.
26. In order to address the problem with the HVAC system, Plaintiff advised
Defendant in 2010 that Plaintiff would replace the HVAC system in the Banquet
Hall and in return Plaintiff's obligation to pay Defendant a "Venture Distribution"
in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Joint Venture Agreement would be abated.
Defendant objected to Plaintiff's proposal and the Parties eventually agreed that
they would split the cost of the new HVAC system, which was $8,000. Contrary
to Defendant's promise, by and through its authorized agent, "Jeetal", to pay one-
half of the costs associated with the new HVAC system, Defendant only paid
Plaintiff the sum of $3,500.00.
27_ Following Plaintiff's installation of the new HVAC system, it was discovered that
-the electrical wiring in the Property was in such poor condition that it could not
support the new HVAC system that was installed. Despite repeated and
10
numerous requests for Defendant to address and repair the electrical problems in
accordance with paragraph 9A of the Joint Venture Agreement, Defendant has
failed and has otherwise refused to address the electrical problems in the Property.
28. Pursuant to paragraph 9F of the Joint Venture Agreement, Defendant is
responsible for the maintenance of the parking lot areas.
29. For the past three (3) years, Defendant has failed and has otherwise refused to
properly maintain the parking areas. Specifically, Defendant has caused debris in
the parking lot areas to build up, and has further allowed tree branches, tree
stumps, masonry blocks and weeds to be dumped in the parking lot areas. Color
photographs depicting the condition of the parking lot as of June 21, 2011, are
attached hereto and are collectively marked as Exhibit "G".
30. Pursuant to paragraph 3B of the Joint Venture Agreement, Defendant is
responsible for the operation of the Hotel. Part of Defendant duties and
responsibilities as the operator of the Hotel is to make sure that the establishment
is clean and free of pests.
31. Defendant has failed to properly maintain the Hotel to ensure that it is free from
pests and consequently, Plaintiff now has a cockroach infestation problem.
32. While Plaintiff has retained the services of Terminix to address the pest control
problem in the restaurant and banquet hall, Plaintiff has been advised by Terminix
that the treatment is not working due to the fact that Defendant is not similarly
treating the hotel rooms which are located in the same building as the restaurant.
In fact, these are the very same rooms in which some of the hotel employees
11
reside. Plaintiff's offer to bring Terminix in to give the Defendant an estimate for
their services has been routinely ignored by Defendant.
33. As a direct and proximate result of the problems associated with the leaking roof,
the faulty sewer line, the HVAC system, the pest problem and the parking lot,
Plaintiff has been advised by event coordinators located in and about the Carlisle
area, including Mary Jane Ziegler, that they will no longer book any functions at
Plaintiff's business. The loss of several opportunities to book large groups for the
banquet hall during the past year has resulted in a substantial loss of revenue to
Plaintiff.
34. Pursuant to paragraph 16 of the Joint Venture Agreement, parking on the entire
tract of land comprising the Property shall be available for customers of both the
Hotel Rooms and Restaurant portions of the Property.
35. In or about the last part of 2008, early 2009, Defendant unilaterally determined to
close a vital area of the parking lot that was previously available for truck
parking. As a direct and proximate result, there is very little, if any, parking area
for truckers who regularly frequent the restaurant and coffee shop.
36. During the past several months, there were three (3) separate incidents where
Defendant's hotel staff harassed Plaintiff's customers who were dining in the
Country Oven for parking in the "dip" which is the dedicated parking lot for the
banquet facility. The Plaintiff's customers were told by hotel front desk staff
members that if they did not move their trucks they would be towed and the
police would be called- The most recent event occurred in May, 2011, where a
National Freight driver, "Mike" and a NNT driver, "Tony" were harassed by
12
Defendant's employees for parking their trucks in the parking area, contrary to the
clear provisions of paragraph 16 of the Joint Venture Agreement which gave them
the right to park in the lot.
37. In addition to plaintiffs customers being harassed and verbally assaulted by
Defendant's employees, Plaintiff has also been verbally harassed by Defendant's
employees. Specifically, on November 20, 2010, Defendant's employee,
Anilkumar R. Parikh ("Anil") entered the kitchen of the restaurant and started
yelling at Plaintiff s employee and his father-in-law (who was also in the kitchen
assisting him) telling them that he was going to "shut theirs down." Anil's actions
were so threatening that the police had to be called and upon information and
belief a citation for disorderly conduct was issued to Anil. A true and correct
copy of the police report concerning the November 20, 2011 incident is attached
hereto and is marked as Exhibit "H".
38_ Defendant's action, by and through its agent, materially breached Plaintiff's right
to quiet enjoyment of the restaurant premises.
39. Pursuant to paragraph 9G of the Joint Venture Agreement, the responsibilities for
maintenance, repair and improvements set forth in paragraphs 9A-H of the
Agreement are premised upon the configuration of and the facilities upon the
Property as existing at the time of execution of the Agreement. This paragraph
further provides that "Should the configuration and/or facilities be changed
materially subsequent to the execution of the Agreement, the parties will negotiate
in good faith in an attempt to reconsider the responsibilities for repair and
maintenance; as set forth in the Agreement.
13
40. In or about 2009, Defendant unilaterally determined to subdivide the Property
which resulted is the creation of two (2) separate hotels, to wit: the Howard
Johnson Carlisle and the Travel Lodge. Plaintiff was never consulted about this
change, nor was Plaintiff advised that such change was occurring until it was
completed.
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unilateral decision to subdivide
the Property, there are now two separate entrances instead of one entrance that
previously led into the restaurant and coffee shop which has resulted in a
significant decrease in the amount of customers for the restaurant and coffee shop.
42. 'The significant decrease in the amount of customers for the restaurant and coffee
shop, coupled with the loss of the banquet business has resulted in a financial loss
of approximately $239,000.00 for Plaintiff for combined calendar years 2009 and
2010, as evidenced by the Point of Sale print outs attached hereto and collectively
marked as Exhibit "I".
43. On September 8, 2009, Plaintiff sent Defendant written notification of its breach
of the Joint Venture Agreement and gave Defendant thirty (30) days to correct the
problems. A true and correct copy of the September 8, 2009 letter is attached
hereto and is marked as Exhibit "J".
44. Upon receipt of the September 8, 2009 letter, coupled with Plaintiff's threat to
withhold venture distribution payment until such breach was cured, Defendant
agreed to meet with Plaintiff to discuss the problems. Despite Defendant's
assurances that Defendant's breach would be cured if Plaintiff made the joint
venture payment due, Defendant failed to honor its agreement to cure its breach.
14
45.
46.
Defendant's breach of its oral promise to cure
As a direct and proximate result of commencing October 2010'
aintiff orally notified Defendant that e Distribution Payments into an escrow
its breach Pl
plaintiff would be paying the Joint Venture
until such time that the breach was cured.
account letter from Defendant's
ecember, 31, 2010, Plaintiff received a CC' On or about D in default of the Joint
ising Plaintiff that it was
counsel, James Clymer adv Joint Venture distribution
Bement„ due to the non-payment of the
V enture Agr 2010 letter is attached
e and correct copy of the December 31 >
payments. A tru
hereto and is marked as Exhibit
Defendant s counsel a letter outlining the
On January 3, 2011, Plaintiff sent
47. meats to Defendant -
reasons true and correct
reasons why Plaintiff had not made the pay
letter rs attached hereto and is marked as
copy of Plaintiff s January 3, 2011
Exhibit "V) and advised that
48. On January 17, 2011- Defendant's counsel '`'rote to Plaintiff an or 2-3
22, 2011, Harshad DeSai will be on-site
inning January
Plaintiff that "beg unde on how to resolve
rstanding
eeks to meet with [Plaintiff) and come to an w the responsibilities of each party for
conflicts of the past and correctly identify
the „ ounsel further represented that at the
the items that need to be repaired now,
conclusion of the meeting, the Parties agreement would be memorialized in
hick would act as an amendment to the Joint
"Memorandum of Understanding' w ° f th
V e January 17, 2011, letter is
Bata}"e Ag1eement." A tie and correct copy
ched hereto and is marked as Exhibit «M "
atta
15
49. In reliance on the representations of Defendant's counsel, Plaintiff agreed to pay
Defendants the sum of $25,600.00. However; contrary to the assurances given by
Defendant's counsel no such meeting between Defendant and Plaintiff occurred
and the problems identified by Plaintiff continue to go unresolved.
50. In February, 2011, Plaintiff again orally notified Defendant that Plaintiff would
again resume making payments into an escrow account until such time that
Defendant cured its breach.
51. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Defendant has failed and has
otherwise refused to cure its breach of the Joint Venture Agreement.
52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach, Plaintiff has incurred
damages in excess of $250,000. Such damages include the following:
a. Damage to wood flooring in restaurant and coffee shop- $2,000.00
b. Defendant Outstanding Share of Cost for new HVAC- $500.00
C. Plaintiff's Total Cost of HVAC that does not work due to faulty
electrical wiring in premises- $4,000.00
d. Loss of Revenue due to reconfiguration of hotel $239,000
e. Water damage to tables and chairs (refinishing costs) -
$800.00
f. Terminix Invoices $1,500.00
g. Compressor for freezer damaged by water leak $2,800.00
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, HNS Management, LLC, respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant, Jairam 7, Inc. in an amount
16
in excess of $250,000, together with interest and costs, and further award Plaintiff all such other
relief as is proper and just.
COUNT III- FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
53. The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 52 are incorporated by reference
as if more fully set forth at length herein.
54_ On September 8, 2009, Plaintiff sent Defendant written notification of its breach
of the Joint Venture Agreement and gave Defendant thirty (30) days to correct the
problems or else Plaintiff would contact the Board of Health and/or take legal
against Defendant.
55. Upon receipt of the September 8, 2009 letter, coupled with Plaintiff's threat to
withhold Joint Venture distribution payment until such breach was cured,
Defendant by and through its agent, Jeetal Parikh agreed to meet with Plaintiff to
discuss the problems. Despite Defendant's assurances that Defendant's breach
would be cured if Plaintiff made the joint venture payment due and further did not
pursue legal action against Defendant to enforce and/or terminate the Joint
Venture Agreement, Defendant failed to honor its agreement to cure its breach.
56_ Defendant's representation that if Plaintiff paid the Joint Venture Distributions
Defendant would cure its breach by way of the application of Plaintiff's payment
of the Joint Venture Distribution payment was made falsely and with knowledge
of its falsity. Alternatively said statement was made by Defendant with reckless
indifference as to whether such statements were true or false.
17
57. Defendant made such statement and representation to Plaintiff with the specific
intent of misleading Plaintiff into relying on the same and paying Defendant the
Joint Venture Distribution payments.
58. As Plaintiff believed that Defendant was dealing in good faith, and further that
Jeetal Parikh was clothed with the authority to act on behalf of the Defendant and
commit to the terms of the Parties' oral agreement, Plaintiff justifiably relied on
Defendant's statement and representation and agreed to (a) not to bring legal
action against Defendant to terminate the Joint Venture Agreement and (b) pay
Defendant the Joint Venture Distribution requested by Defendant.
59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's fraudulent misrepresentation,
Plaintiff suffered damages, as more specifically set forth in paragraph 53 herein.
60. Defendant, by and through its authorized legal counsel further represented to
Plaintiff on January 17, 2011, that if Plaintiff paid Defendant the sum of
$25,600.00 (which sum represented the amount of the Joint Venture Distributions
for October 2010-January 1, 2011, that Plaintiff had escrowed in light of
Defendant's breach of the Joint Venture Agreement) that Defendant would meet
with Plaintiff and address the problems that constituted a material breach of the
Joint Venture Agreement by Defendant. See Exhibit "M" attached hereto.
61. Defendant, by and through its authorized legal counsel further represented to
Plaintiff that a "Memorandum of Understanding" would be drafted incorporating
the terms of the Parties' settlement discussion and that said Memorandum of
Understanding would "act as an amendment to the Agreement so that there was a
process for resolution of complaints in the future.
18
62. Defendant's representations to Plaintiff as set forth in paragraphs 61 and 62 herein
were made falsely, and with the knowledge of its falsity.
63. Defendant's representations to Plaintiff were made with the specific intent of
misleading Plaintiff into relying on the same.
64. As Plaintiff believed that Defendant was dealing in good faith, and further that
Defendant's attorney, James Clymer, Esquire was clothed with the authority to act
on behalf of the Defendant and commit to the terms of the Parties' oral
agreement, Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendant's statement and representation
and agreed to (a) not to bring legal action against Defendant to terminate the Joint
Venture Agreement and (b) pay Defendant the Joint Venture Distribution
requested by Defendant.
65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's fraudulent misrepresentation,
Plaintiff suffered damages, as more specifically set forth in paragraph 53 herein.
66. Upon information and belief, the representations made by the Defendant in 2009,
and in 2011 were not only intentionally misleading and false, the representations
made by the Defendant was for the purpose of securing additional cash for
Defendant so that Defendant could renegotiate the terms of its mortgage and
further advance the pecuniary interests of Defendant's principals. By advancing
its own pecuniary interest to the financial detriment of Plaintiff, Defendant acted
in callous disregard of Plaintiff s best interests and in a willful and wanton
manner warranting the imposition of punitive damages against Defendant in
Plaintiffs favor.
19
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, HNS Management, LLC, respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant, Jairarn 7, Inc. in an amount
in excess of $300,000, plus interest and costs and punitive damages, and further award Plaintiff
all such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNTIV- TOR TIO US INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL
AFT ATTnIVV
67. The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 66 are incorporated by reference
as if more fully set forth at length herein.
68. Although not contractually obligated to do so, between 2003 and June 23, 2011,
Plaintiff expended a substantial sum of money making renovations to the banquet
hall facility.
69. Defendant knew at all times relevant that the rental of the banquet hall facility
was a major source of revenue for Plaintiff.
70. Defendant knew at all times relevant that the HVAC system servicing the banquet
hall was in a state of such disrepair that the banquet hall was not properly heated
during the fall and winter months and was not properly cooled during the spring
and summer months.
71. Defendant knew at all times relevant that the sewage line outside of the banquet
facility was in a state of disrepair such that the bathroom facilities in the banquet
hall are not equipped to handle a large volume of users.
72. Defendant further knew at all times relevant that the roof of the banquet hall leaks
and that said roof leaks were causing a tremendous amount of water damage to
the banquet facilitieS_
20
71 Despite Plaintiff's repeated and numerous requests for Defendant to make the
repairs necessary to the banquet hall such that Plaintiff could successfully market
and book events at the banquet hall, Defendant failed and otherwise refused to act
on Plaintiff's requests.
74. Plaintiff specifically advised Defendant in 2008, September 2009, and again in
December 2010, that if the required repairs were not made to the to the banquet
facility that Plaintiff would lose banquet contracts.
75_ Defendant deliberately engaged in a campaign to harm Plaintiff by preventing
Plaintiff from being able to enter contractual relationships for the banquet hall due
to the facilities complete state of disrepair, coupled with the appalling conditions
of the parking lot servicing the banquet facility.
76. Defendant had no privilege or justification for deliberately engaging in a course of
conduct designed to frustrate Plaintiff's ability to successfully contract events for
the banquet facility.
77. The approximate value of the banquet contracts for 2011 that Plaintiff has lost for
the banquet facility as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions is
$10,000.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, HNS Management, LLC, respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant, Jairam 7, Inc. in an amount
21
in excess of $300,000, plus interest and costs, and further award Plaintiff all such other relief as
is proper and just.
Respectfully submitted,
KZ>L
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire J
Attorney ID No. 66266
SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN,
& BROWN, P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road, Suite 201
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
Date: June 23, 2011
22
VERIFICATION
I, Sahar Mater, Member of Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC, verify that the
statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: C" 2 z - ec, 1- '7
SAHAR MATER ENTERPRISES CARLSILE,
LLC
By:
Sahar Mater, Member
22
. 5x .. ......... 11 k ... ... ....
S ? SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN & BROWN P.C.
June 14, 2011
VIA TELECOPY ONLY
STEVEN J. SCHIFFMAN
James N. Clymer, Esquire
te1 717.635-2914 CLYMER, MUSSER, BROWN & CONRAD P.C.
fax 717.635.2944 408 West Chestnut Street
sschiffman@SSBC-LAW.COM P. O. Box 1766
Lancaster, PA 17608-1766
2080 LINGLESTOWN RD. STE 201 Re: Mater Restaurant Management/Jairam 7 Inc.
HARRISBURG, PA 17110-9670 Dear Mr. Clymer:
tel 717.540.9170
11-072
fax 717.540-5481 I am in receipt of your correspondence dated June 9, 2011 with regard to
the above-referenced matter.
WWW.SSBC-LAW.COM
Please be advised that Attorney Ric Martsolf of our office represents
Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle LLC in this matter. Please direct all further
communications to his attention.
Mr. Martsolf is currently out of town and we request an additional ten (10)
days to review this matter and consult with our clients.
Best regards.
V?
f;
Ste,
SJS/ner
cc: Ms. Sarah Mater
?n
Paige Macdonald-Matthes
From: Paige Macdonald-Matthes
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:57 PM
To: 'law@cmbclaw.com'
Subject: Contact Information and Request for Signed Copies of Documents
This message is for James Clymer, Esquire and will serve as a follow up to our telephone conversation this afternoon.
Please forward signed copies of the Joint Venture Agreement that you reference in your June 9, 2011 correspondence, as
well as signed copies of any other documents (including a Lease agreement) that you may have ASAP.
My contact information is below.
Thank you,
Paige
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Serratelli, Schiffman & Brown. P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
(717) 635-2922 (direct dial)
Pmacdonald-matthesC?ssbc-law.com
Paige Macdonald-Matthes
From: Paige Macdonald-Matthes
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:18 AM
To: 'jim.clymer@cmbclaw.com'
Subject: FW: Contact Information and Request for Signed Copies of Documents
Importance: High
Jim
Please see the email that I sent you below yesterday at 3:57pm. Please email the documents I requested ASAP!
Thank you
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Serratelli, Schiffman & Brown, P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
pmacdonald-matthes(o)-ssbc-law.com
From: Paige Macdonald-Matthes
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:S7 PM
To: 'law@cmbdaw.com'
Subject: Contact Information and Request for Signed Copies of Documents
This message is for James Clymer, Esquire and will serve as a follow up to our telephone conversation this afternoon.
Please forward signed copies of the Joint Venture Agreement that you reference in your June 9, 2011 correspondence, as
well as signed copies of any other documents (including a Lease agreement) that you may have ASAP.
My contact information is below.
Thank you,
Paige
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Serratelli, Schiffman & Brown, P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
(717) 635-2922 (direct dial)
pmacdonald-matthes(@-ssbc-law.com
Paige Macdonald-Matthes
From: Paige Macdonald-Matthes
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:12 PM
To: 'James N. Clymer'
Subject: RE: Jairam- Mater
Jim
You emailed me a black line version of the Joint Venture agreement. While the last page of the document. is
signed, it does not appear to be part of the black-line document but yet has the same date on the drive path. Can
you please explain?
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Serratelli, Schiffman & Brown, P.G.
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
pmacdonaid-matthes@ssbc-law.com
From: James N. Clymer (mailto:jim@cmbclaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 201112:36 PM
To: Paige Macdonald-Matthes
Subject: Jairam- Mater
My mistake. I apparently accidentally attached the wrong pdf file from our system. The signed version is
attached.
James N. Clymer, Esq.
Clymer, Musser, .Brown & Conrad, PC
408 West Chestnut St.
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 299-7101 (Voice)
(717) 299-5115 (Fax)
#rnbclaw.com
6/22/2011
zg r
Paige Macdonald-Matthes
From: Paige Macdonald-Matthes
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:49 PM
To: 'James N. Clymer'
Subject: RE: Jairam- Mater
Jim
Thank you for the explanation. It appears however, that you may not be getting a true explanation from your
client. The reason I say this is that the "clean" joint venture agreement that you first to sent me consists of 30
pages. The black line version that you sent via your second email consists of 35 pages. The signature page
(which is not part of a black line document) bears the page number 35. This means that an additional 5 pages of
the agreement were added at some point. I need to see/have a copy of the clean document consisting of 35
pages that was signed by the parties.
Please get back to me on this ASAP.
Thanks,
Paige
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Serratelli, Schiffman & Brown, P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
pmacdonald-Matthes@ssbc-law.com
From: James N. Clymer [mailto:jim@cmbclaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 20111:38 PM
To: Paige Macdonald-Matthes
Subject: RE: Jairam- Mater
I agree with your assessment. It would appear that there was another clean copy that was signed but when I
asked for the signed version, that was all they could come up with. I believe I had prepared the original draft but
someone else black lined amendments to it and I was not involved in those changes nor in the execution. I have
been assured that the black lined version is what was signed - that they circulated the signature page for signing.
At this point, you have everything that they have provided me.
James N. Clymer, Esq.
Clymer, Musser, Brown & Conrad, PC
408 West Chestnut St.
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 299-7101 (Voice)
(717) 299-5115 (Fax)
limCa.ctr?aciaw.com
6/22/2011
From: Paige Macdonald-Matthes [mailto:PMacdonald-Matthes@ssbc-law.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:12 PM
To: James N. Clymer
Subject: RE: Jairam- Mater
Jim
You emailed me a black line version of the Joint Venture agreement. While the last page of the document is
signed, it does not appear to be part of the black-line document but yet has the same date on the drive path. Can
you please explain?
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Serratelli; Schiffman & Brown, P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
pmacdonald-matches@ssbc-law.com
From: James N. Clymer [mailto:jim@cmbclaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:36 PM
To: Paige Macdonald-Matthes
Subject: Jairam- Mater
My mistake. I apparently accidentally attached the wrong pdf file from our system. The signed version is
attached.
James N. Clymer, Esq.
Clymer, Musser, Brown & Conrad, PC
408 West Chestnut St.
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 299-71.01 (Voice)
(717) 299-5115 (Fax)
Jim a?cmbcIaw.com
6/22/2011
Paige Macdonald-Matthes
From: James N. Clymer Uim@cmbclaw.coml
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:41 PM
To: Paige Macdonald-Matthes
Subject: RE: Jairam- Mater
Paige
I believe the first document I sent you was the original draft that I had prepared and sent to my client. it was
obviously altered substantially by someone, including changing the name of a party. The original draft was still in
our system and when I sent you the email, I inadvertently must have clicked on that old version rather than the
copy my secretary had just scanned from the hard copy in the file.
I will attempt to find out whether another clean copy exists but I do believe the black lined version is the final copy
that was signed. As you note, the signature page does correspond with the pagination of the black lined copy.
Jim
James N. Clymer, Esq.
Clymer, !'Musser, I3ro-vf? & Conrad PC
408 West Chestnut St.
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 299-7101 (Voice)
(717) 299-5115 (Fax)
jim(a!crnbc1a-"7.com
From: Paige Macdonald-Matthes [mailto:PMacdonaid-Matthes@ssbc-law.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 20111:49 PM
To: James N. Clymer
Subject: RE: Jairam- Mater
Jim
Thank you for the explanation. It appears however, that you may not be getting a true explanation from your
client. The reason I say this is that the "clean" joint venture agreement that you first to sent me consists of 30
pages. The black line version that you sent via your second email consists of 35 pages. The signature page
(which is not part of a black line document) bears the page number 35. This means that an additional 5 pages of
the agreement were added at some point. I need to see/have a copy of the clean document consisting of 35
pages that was signed by the parties.
Please get back to me on this ASAP.
Thanks,
Paige
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Serratelli, Schiffman & Brown, P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
6/22/2011
pmacdonald-matthes@ssbc-law.com
From: James N. Clymer [maiito:jim@cmbclaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 20111:38 PM
To: Paige Macdonald-Matthes
Subject: RE: Jairam- Mater
I agree with your assessment. It would appear that there was another clean copy that was signed but when I
asked for the signed version, that was all they could come up with. I believe I had prepared the original draft but
someone else black lined amendments to it and I was not involved in those changes nor in the execution. 1 have
been assured that the black lined version is what was signed - that they circulated the signature page for signing.
At this point, you have everything that they have provided me.
James N. Clymer. Esq.
Clvnier, Musser. Brown & Conrad PC
408 West Chestnut St.
Lancaster. PA 17603
(717) 299-71011 (Voice)
(717) 299-5115 (Fax)
jim(a),cm16claw,corn
From: Paige Macdonald-Matthes [mailto:PMacdonaid-Matthes@ssbc-law.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:12 PM
To: James N. Clymer
Subject: RE: Jairam- Mater
Jim
You emailed me a black line version of the Joint Venture agreement. While the last page of the document is
signed, it does not appear to be part of the black-line document but yet has the same date on the drive path. Can
you please explain?
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Serratelli, Schiffman & Brown, P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 540-9170
pmacdonald-matthes@ssbc-law.com
From: James N. Clymer [mailto:jim@cmbclaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:36 PM
To: Paige Macdonald-Matthes
Subject: Jairam- Mater
My mistake. I apparently accidentally attached the wrong pdf file from our system. The signed version is
attar_.hed
James N. Clymer, Esq.
6/22/2011
^ r_
Clymer, Ahisser, Brown & Conrad PC
408 West Chestnut St.
Lancaster. PA 17603
(717) 293-7101 (Voice)
(717) 299-5115 (Fax)
pm?g-;cmhclaw.com
6/22/2011
?ka?
1
m
m a
??
;
?? m
O O
U p
m o p ul
T
F
2 D g m p
ul ¢ ci
° ? bol m
m
c
Q
e
y W
m' U
HkO? p
d X m d co
co
r
ru
0
Elm,.'
. yC
0i Z
ND C««
vi
c r
_
(7 r 0 V Y ?
m
V
? ,.
Q
` t
0
1
. .
. 272-
U o p
?
??
.
m ¢ m h V . E
E°_5vc m V! C.
¦ ¦ ¦
S
f
_n I
pJ '
Y
A
I
James N. Clymer, Esquire
Attorney ID 27151
Clymer, Musser, Brown & Conrad, P.C.
408 W. Chestnut St.
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 299-7101
Attorney for Plaintiff
JAIRAM 7, INC.
V.
HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC t/a
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT f/k/a
SAHAR MATER ENTERPRISES
CARLISLE, LLC t/a MATER
RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT AND
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT
IN THE COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET NO.:
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
IN CONFESSION OF
JUDGMENT FOR POSESSION
OF REAL PROPERTY
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION REOUIRED BY RULE 2973.2
NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS
TO: HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC t/a COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT f/k/a
SAHAR MATER ENTERPRISES CARLISLE, LLC t/a MATER
RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT AND COUNTRY OVER RESTAURANT
1245 Carlisle Pike
Carlisle, PA 17013
A Judgment for possession of real property has been entered against you
and in favor of the Plaintiff without any prior notice or hearing based on a Confession of
Judgment contained in a written agreement or other paper allegedly signed by you. The
Sheriff may remove you from the property at any time after thirty (30) days after the date
on which this notice is served on you.
You may have legal rights to defeat the judgment or to prevent your
money or property from being taken. YOU MUST FILE A PETITION SEEKING
RELIEF FROM THE JUDGMENT AND PRESENT IT TO A JUDGE WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THIS NOTICE IS SERVED ON
YOU OR YOU MAY LOSE YOUR RIGHTS.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, TELEPHONE
THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL
HELP.
LAYWER REFERAL SERVICE
CUMBERLAND BAR ASSOCIATION
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone: (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108
?x??
AFFIDAVIT OF SAHAR MATER
1. My name is Sahar Mater. I am an adult individual with a residence address of
6121 Blue Ride Avenue, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112.
2. I am a member of HNS Management, LLC and was formerly a member of Sahar
Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC.
3. As is evident by the document that Plaintiff/Respondent Jairam 7, Inc.
(hereinafter "Respondent") has attached to its Complaint in Confession of
Judgment as Exhibit "A", I did not sign a Joint Venture Agreement between
"Country Oven, Inc. and Jairam 7, Inc.", nor did any other member of HNS, LLC
and/or Sahar Mater Enterprises Carlisle, LLC execute the same.
4. As was averred in the Complaint that HNS Management filed against Respondent
on June 23, 2011 at Cumberland County Docket No. 11-524, in April 2004,
Respondent and Mater Restaurant Management entered into a Joint Venture
Agreement whereby a Joint Venture known as "BWCO Joint Venture" was
formed (hereinafter "BWCO Joint Venture Agreement")
5. Beginning in September 2009, I advised Respondent's agent, "Jeetal Parikh," that
all future Joint Venture payments due under the BWCO Joint Venture Agreement
would be paid into escrow unless and until Respondent made substantial repairs
and/or improvements to the facilities, and further improved the sanitary
conditions of the premises otherwise I would report the matter to the Department
of Health and move to dissolve the Joint Venture.
6. Based on Respondent's assurances of immediate performance, I agreed to release
the sum of $6,400.00, which represented the Joint Venture Payment due for
September 2009. When no immediate performance occurred, (despite
Respondent's representations and assurances) I again notified Jeetal that I was
escrowing the Joint Venture Payment. This practice of escrowed payments and
empty promises of immediate performance occurred through September 2010.
7. All Joint Venture Payments were made in 2010, contrary to Exhibit "C" attached
to Respondent's Complaint in Confession of Judgment.
8. On or about January 4, 2011, I advised Respondent's counsel, James Clymer,
Esquire, that all correspondence and notices pertaining to the BWCO Joint
Venture should be mailed to my address located at 6121 Blue Ridge Avenue,
Harrisburg, PA 17112. The reason I made this request is that the address that was
being used "1245 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, PA 17013" is the Respondent's hotel
address and I was not timely receiving my mail at that address because
Respondent and/or Respondent's agents failed to give me my mail.
9. In October 2010, I again began to escrow Joint Venture payments due to
Respondents' material breach of the Joint Venture Agreement and notice of my
decision was orally provided to Respondent's agent, "Jeetal", as well as orally to
Respondent's counsel, James Clymer, Esquire
10. On January 3, 2011, I wrote to Respondent's counsel, James Clymer, Esquire and
again explained my reasons for escrowing the Joint Venture payments, and further
requested immediate action on Respondent's part to correct the situation. No
corrective action was taken by Respondent despite the specific promises of
immediate performance that were made to me in November, 2009 that prompted
me to release funds that were previously escrowed to Respondent.
2
11. Based on Respondent's fraud, material breach of the BWCO Joint Venture
Agreement and tortuous interference with prospective contractual relations, HNS
Management authorized the filing of a Complaint against Respondent on June 23,
2011, as previously mentioned herein above.
12. I was unaware that Respondent had filed a Complaint in Confession of Judgment
requesting ejectment on August 16, 2011, as neither I nor any other member of
HNS Management was served with notice of the same. Moreover,
notwithstanding the fact that Respondent's counsel, James Clymer, Esquire was
aware that the LLC was represented by legal counsel, no notice of the filing of the
Complaint in Confession of Judgment was provided to our legal counsel.
13. I never received a letter from the Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
regarding the Complaint in Confession of Judgment that was apparently filed on
August 16, 2011. I believe that this may be because the certification of last
known address is 1245 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, PA 17013.
14. I never received notification that a certified letter had been mailed to HNS
Management by Respondent's legal counsel, James Clymer, Esquire. I believe
that this may be because the certification of last known address is 1245
Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, PA 17013.
15. On Friday, August 26, 2011, I was notified for the first time that a Complaint in
Confession of Judgment had been filed by Respondent.
16. During the afternoon of Friday, August 26, 2011, an envelope from Respondent's
counsel's office mysteriously appeared on the counter of my restaurant located at
3
the hotel. I was notified of the arrival of this envelope by Robbie James, who is
my manager at the restaurant.
17. Ali Mater picked up the envelope on August 26, 2011 at approximately 6:30p.m.
Enclosed in the envelope was a copy of Respondent's Complaint. This was the
first time that I saw Respondent's Complaint in Confession of Judgment.
I, Sahar Mater, Member of HNS Management, LLC have read the forgoing document and
verify that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Sahar Mater
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN
SS:
C?
On this, the 3V day of August, 2011, before me, the undersigned officer, personally
appeared Sahar Mater known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same for the purposes
therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
CO1bIl?tONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
NOTARIAL SEAL
Debra A. Evangelisti, Notary Public
Susquehanna Township, Dauphin County
My commission expires May 07, 2012
A? d?;?)
'Notary Public
4
Z-/
JAIRAM 7, INC.,
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
V.
HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC T/A COUNTRY
OVEN RESTAURANT F/K/A SAHAR MATER
ENTERPRISES CARLISLE, LLC T/A MATER
RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT AND
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT
DEFENDANT/PETITIONER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Q
DOCKET No. 11-6476 -v
CIVIL ACTION- AT LAWC ',.
IN CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT FI3R O SgiSSM?in
OF REAL PROPERTY
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOW, thisday of S; ng;?4
, 2011, upon consideration of the
Defendant/Petitioner's Petition to Strike or, Alternatively, Open Confessed Judgment, it is
hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff/Respondent, Jairam, 7, Inc., SHOW CAUSE before this Court
on the day of , 2011, a"w, or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard, in Courtroom
No.3, Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, why the above captioned Confessed
Judgment should not be stricken or opened according to the prayer of said Petition.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant/Petitioner shall cause a copy of this
Rule and his said Petition to be served on Plaintiff/Respondent forthwith.
a any ana iscovery as to e sai e i on
no later than 50- -, - J ef this %1r.
sled
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except as expressed in this Order, all other
proceedings herein are STAYED until further Order of this Court.
By t urt:
J.
Distribution List:
James N. Clymer, Esquire, Clymer, Musser, Brown & Conrad, P. C., 408 West Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, Serratelli, Schiffman, & Brown, P.C. 2080 Linglestown
Road, Suite 201, Harrisburg, PA 17110
0 ?4wlj
P
'ILED
,
V`e 7 riL P F 0TF6:. 1517", %;E
??? ? SCP 2b ?? 15 7
Kathleen E. Holmes, Esquire
Attorney ID 73380 CUMBERLAND C'QUONITY
Clymer, Musser, Brown & Conrad, P. C. PENNSYLVANIA
408 W. Chestnut St.
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 299-7101 Attorney for Plaintiff
JAIRAM, 7, INC., IN THE COURT OF
Plaintiff COMMON PLEAS
V. CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC, t/a
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT f/k/a
SAHAR MATER ENTERPRISES
CARLISLE, LLC t/a MATER
RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT AND
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT
Docket No.: 11-6476 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
IN CONFESSION OF
JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION
OF REAL PROPERTY
AND NOW comes Plaintiff/Respondent, Jairam 7, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
"Respondent"), by and through its counsel, CLYMER, MUSSER, BROWN & ONRAD,
P.C., and files its Answer to Defendant/Petitioner's Petition to Strike, or Alternatively,
Open Confessed Judgment and Request for Immediate Stay of Execution as follows:
Introduction
Respondent, through the undersigned counsel, filed a Complaint in Confession of
Judgment on August 16, 2011 with the Prothonotary of the Cumberland County Court of
Common Pleas. On August 16, 2011, Respondent's counsel was informed by the
Cumberland County Prothonotary's office that self-addressed stamped envelopes would
need to be submitted to the Court so that the Notice of Judgment and Execution Required
by Rule 2973.2 could be sent to the Defendant. The undersigned counsel's office
immediately forwarded said envelopes to the Cumberland County Prothonotary so that
the Notice could be timely served.
Respondent's counsel attempted to serve Defendants with a copy of the
Complaint in Confession of Judgment, Confession of Judgment, Notice of Judgment and
Execution Required by Rule 2973.2 and Plaintiff s Affidavit by Certified Mail, Restricted
Delivery. The package and green card were returned to the undersigned prior to August
26, 2011. The undersigned counsel is confident that the package made it to 1245
Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania since it was returned by Anil Parikh, who is the
on site manager of the Howard Johnson where Country Oven Restaurant does business,
because it was not claimed by Petitioner. On August 26, 2011, the undersigned counsel
personally served an employee of Country Oven Restaurant who was standing behind the
bar when the package was handed to her. Service upon Defendant was made on August
26, 2011 and an Affidavit of Service will be filed by the undersigned counsel confirming
the same. Alternatively, Respondent can reinstate the Confession of Judgment and
serve Petitioner by utilizing the Sheriff.
The Complaint in Confession of Judgment and Plaintiff's Affidavit accurately
reflect the address of Defendant. The Notice of Judgment and Execution Required by
Rule 2973.2 is not defective inasmuch as personal service was made upon the Defendants
on August 26, 2011 and Defendants have actively participated in this Action for
Confession of Judgment by filing the Petition to Strike or, Alternatively, Open Confessed
Judgment. Moreover, Petitioners can easily remedy the address reflected in the
description of the property by filing an Amended Confession of Judgment and
supplement the record by submitting the signed Joint Venture Agreement that was
attached as Exhibit "B" to Petitioner's Breach of Contract claim, which also allows for
confession of judgment in ejectment and is signed by a representative of Petitioner.
Accordingly, Defendant's Petition to Strike or, Alternatively, Open Confessed Judgment
must be dismissed.
Parties
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
I. Petition to Strike Confessed Judgment
4. The answers set forth in paragraphs 1 through 3 are incorporated by
reference as if more fully set forth at length herein.
5. Admitted to the extent that Respondent's counsel filed a Complaint in
Confession of Judgment seeking ejectment against Defendant based on the Joint Venture
Agreement relied upon by Defendant in their Breach of Contract Claim against
Respondent and attached as an Exhibit thereto at Docket Number 11-5234 in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted to the extent that Respondent confessed judgment against
Petitioner, which filed a Breach of Contract lawsuit against Respondent pursuant to and
0.
dependent upon the parties' Joint Venture Agreement.
8. Admitted and it is further averred that Respondent's Exhibit "A" attached
to the Complaint in Confession of Judgment is the exact Joint Venture Agreement relied
upon by Defendant in their Breach of Contract Claim against Respondent and attached as
an Exhibit thereto at Docket Number 11-5234 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County.
9. Admitted to the extent that Respondent's Exhibit "A" attached to the
Complaint in Confession of Judgment is the exact Joint Venture Agreement relied upon
by Defendant in their Breach of Contract Claim against Respondent and attached as an
Exhibit thereto at Docket Number 11-5234 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County.
10. Admitted and it is further averred that, in the event that the Court should
deem it necessary, Respondent shall submit a copy of the signed Joint Venture Agreement
that was attached as Exhibit "B" to Petitioner's Breach of Contract claim, which also
allows for confession of judgment in ejectment and is signed by a representative of
Petitioner.
11. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 11.
12. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12 as they are
conclusions of law.
13. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 as they are
conclusions of law.
14. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14 as they are
conclusions of law.
15. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15 as they are
conclusions of law.
16. Admitted.
17. Admitted and it is further averred that, in the event that the Court should
deem it necessary, Respondent shall submit a copy of the signed Joint Venture Agreement
that was attached as Exhibit "B" to Petitioner's Breach of Contract claim, which also
allows for confession of judgment in ejectment and is signed by a representative of
Petitioner, Mater Restaurant Management.
18. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 as they are
conclusions of law.
19. Admitted.
20. Admitted and it is further averred that, in the event that the Court should
deem it necessary, Respondent shall submit a copy of the signed Joint Venture Agreement
that was attached as Exhibit "B" to Petitioner's Breach of Contract claim, which also
allows for confession of judgment in ejectment and is signed by a representative of
Petitioner, Mater Restaurant Management. However, paragraph 20 is also denied to the
extent that it included a conclusion of law.
21. Admitted and it is further averred that the Complaint in Confession of
Judgment is seeking ejectment and not money damages.
22. Admitted and it is further averred that the Complaint in Confession of
Judgment is seeking ejectment and not money damages.
23. Admitted.
24. Denied. It is denied that no property description is included in the
Complaint. On the contrary, it is averred that Respondent's Complaint contains a
property description referring to the commercial property described as the restaurant and
banquet facilities located at 1245 Carlisle Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania utilized by the
Defendants at the property.
25. Admitted.
26. Denied. It is denied that Respondent's counsel failed to properly serve
Defendant with its Complaint in Confession of Judgment. On the contrary, it is averred
that Respondent properly served Defendant by personal service on August 26, 2011.
Alternatively, Respondent can reinstate the Confession of Judgment and serve Petitioner
by utilizing the Sheriff if required.
It is denied that Sheriff service is required if declaratory relief is being
sought. On the contrary, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400 allows service by a
competent adult, which occurred in the instant action by the undersigned on August 26,
2011. Alternatively, Respondent can reinstate the Confession of Judgment and serve
Petitioner by utilizing the Sheriff if required.
It is denied that the address on the Notice renders the Confession of
Judgment is deficient. On the contrary, it is averred that the Complaint in Confession of
Judgment and Plaintiff's Affidavit accurately reflect the address of Defendant. The
Notice of Judgment and Execution Required by Rule 2973.2 is not defective inasmuch as
personal service was made upon the Defendants on August 26, 2011 and Defendants have
actively participated in this Action for Confession of Judgment by filing the Petition to
Strike or, Alternatively, Open Confessed Judgment. Moreover, Petitioners can easily
remedy the address reflected in the description of the property by filing an Amended
Confession of Judgment.
It is denied that a Certificate of Service is required to be attached to the
Complaint in Confession of Judgment when it is filed. On the contrary, Respondent is
required to and will file am Affidavit of Service indicating that personal service was
made upon the Defendants on August 26, 2011. Alternatively, Respondent can reinstate
the Confession of Judgment and serve Petitioner by utilizing the Sheriff if required.
27. Admitted.
28. Admitted.
29. Denied. It is specifically denied that Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure
400 requires that service of original process must be served by the sheriff. On the
contrary, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400 allows service by a competent adult,
which occurred in the instant action by the undersigned on August 26, 2011.
30. Denied. It is denied that Respondent's counsel failed to properly serve
Defendant with its Complaint in Confession of Judgment. On the contrary, it is averred
that Respondent properly served Defendant by personal service on August 26, 2011.
Alternatively, Respondent can reinstate the Confession of Judgment and serve Petitioner
by utilizing the Sheriff if required.
31 a. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 31 a. as they are
conclusions of law.
31 b. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 31 b. as they are
conclusions of law.
39 Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39 as they are
conclusions of law.
40. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 40 as they are
conclusions of law. Moreover, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 40.
41. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41 as they are
conclusions of law.
WHEREFORE, Respondent/Plaintiff, Jairam 7, Inc., respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court deny Petitioner's Petition to Strike, strike off the confessed judgment by
Respondent against Petitioner, and deny Petitioner's request for any additional relief.
II. In the Alternative, Petition to Ouen Confessed Judgment
42. The answers set forth in paragraphs 1 through 41 are incorporated by
reference as if more fully set forth at length herein.
43a. Denied. It is denied that the warrant of attorney does not authorize a
judgment by confession against Petitioner. On the contrary, it is averred that the warrant
of attorney does authorize a judgment by confession against Petitioner inasmuch as
Respondent can submit a copy of the signed Joint Venture Agreement that was attached
as Exhibit "B" to Petitioner's Breach of Contract claim, which also allows for confession
of judgment in ejectment and is signed by a representative of Petitioner.
43b. Denied. It is denied that Respondent deliberately provided the wrong
mailing address to delay and/or prevent Petitioner's notification of the confessed
judgment. On the contrary, it is averred that the Complaint in Confession of Judgment
and Plaintiff s Affidavit accurately reflect the address of Defendant. The Notice of
Judgment and Execution Required by Rule 2973.2 is not defective inasmuch as personal
service was made upon the Defendants on August 26, 2011 and Defendants have actively
participated in this Action for Confession of Judgment by filing the Petition to Strike or,
Alternatively, Open Confessed Judgment. Moreover, Petitioners can easily remedy the
address reflected in the description of the property by filing an Amended Confession of
Judgment.
Additionally, inasmuch as this was a new action, service upon Petitioner's
counsel was not an option and the undersigned counsel is confident that the package
made it to 1245 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania since it was returned by Anil
Parikh, who is the on site manager of the Howard Johnson where Country Oven
Restaurant does business, because it was not claimed by Petitioner.
43d. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43b. as they are
conclusions of law.
43e. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43e. as they are
conclusions of law.
43f. Denied. It is specifically denied that Petitioner ever placed Joint Venture
payments into an escrow account. On the contrary, it is averred that Petitioner has never
provided any proof that any Joint Venture payments have been placed into an escrow
account. Moreover, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43f. as they
are conclusions of law.
43g. Denied. It is denied that all Joint Venture payments for 2010 and for
January 2011 have been paid. On the contrary, it is averred that no Joint Venture
payment has been made since September 2010 and, if any funds were placed into an
escrow account as alleged, it is further averred that Respondents have not been provided
any proof of the same.
WHEREFORE, Respondent/Plaintiff, Jairam 7, Inc., respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court deny Petitioner's Petition to Strike, or in the alternative Open the
confessed judgment in ejectment by Respondent against Petitioner and deny Petitioner's
request to proceed with defenses and counterclaims against Respondent and deny
Petitioner's request for any additional relief.
III. Request for Stay of Execution
44. The answers set forth in paragraphs I through 43 are incorporated by
reference as if more fully set forth at length herein.
45. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 45 as they are
conclusions of law.
46. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46 as they are
conclusions of law.
47. Denied. It is specifically denied that Petitioner has good and meritorious
defenses to the judgment entered by confession. On the contrary, Respondent
incorporates its answers to paragraph 43a. through g. as if more fully set forth at length
herein.
48. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 48 as they are
conclusions of law.
WHEREFORE, Respondent/Plaintiff, Jairam 7, Inc., respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court deny Petitioner's request to (a) grant this Petition to Strike off the
confessed judgment or, in the alternative (b) open the confessed judgment by Respondent
and permit Petitioner to proceed with its defenses against Respondent's claim; (c) further
stay all proceedings herein; and (d) award Petitioner any other requested relief.
Respectfully submitted,
CLYMER, MUSSER, BROWN & CONRAD, P.C.
By: 7?U 46yteu",
Kathleen E. Holmes, Esquire
Attorney ID 73380
408 W. Chestnut St.
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 299-7101
Date: `? ?? (1 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Respondent, Jairam, 7, Inc.
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, that I am counsel for
Respondent, Jairam 7, Inc., and I am authorized to act on its behalf; that the facts set forth
in the foregoing Answer were either provided to me by Respondent and verified by
Respondent or gathered by me; and that to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief, those facts that were gathered by me are true and correct.
CLYMER, MUSSER, BROWN & CONRAD, P.C.
By:
Kathleen E. Holmes, Esquire
Attorney ID 73380
Date: Attorneys for Defendant/Respondent, Jairam, 7, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kathleen E. Holmes, hereby certify that I have this date served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing Answer on the person and in the manner stated as follows:
PERSON SERVED:
PLACE OF SERVICE
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Serratelli, Schiffman & Brown, P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road
Suite 201
Harrisburg, PA 17110
DATE OF SERVICE
September 26, 2011
METHOD OF SERVICE: Facsimile and Hand-Delivered
Date: c f
Kathleen E. Holmes, Esquire
Attorney ID 73380
Clymer, Musser, Brown & Conrad, P.C.
408 W. Chestnut St.
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 299-7101
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Respondent,,
Jairam, 7, Inc.
JAIRAM 7, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff/Respondent CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 11-6476 CIVIL TERM
HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC t/a CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT
f/k/a SAHAR MATER
ENTERPRISES CARLISLE, LLC
t/a MATER RESTAURANT
MANAGEMENT AND COUNTRY IN CONFESSION OF
OVEN RESTAURANT, JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION
Defendant/Petitioner OF REAL PROPERTY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2012, after
hearing, we are satisfied that the petition was timely filed and
that the Defendant has presented a viable defense. The request
to open the judgment by confession is granted. The judgment is
open. We will have a hearing on the merits on March 16, 2012,
commencing at 9:15 a.m.
By the Court,
r-..
c'7
c C
KJ3 C..
Z ? -urn
Edward E. Guido, J. .?T- --
? James N. Clymer, Esquire T?c> :c xF
For the Plaintiff/Respondent =C) w car+:.
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire v? w
co y
'
For the Defendant/Petitioner
srs
l? P'?
JAIR.AM 7, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC t/a : NO. 2011 - 6476 CIVIL TERM
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT :
f/k/a SAHAR MATER
ENTERPRISES CARLISLE, LLC
t/a MATER RESTAURANT
MANAGEMENT AND COUNTRY :
OVEN RESTAURANT
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 12TH day of MARCH, 2012, the hearing scheduled for Friday,
March 16, 2012, at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom # 3 is continued to FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2012,
at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom # 3.
y the Court,
/James N. Clymer, Esquire
408 West Chestnut Street
Lancaster, Pa. 17603
1/Peter Good, Esquire
River Chase Office Center
4431 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pa 17110-1709
?Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
2080 Linglestown Rd., Suite 201
Harrisburg, Pa. 17110
sld Copy ej Ina -led 311311?
Edward E. Gudo,
c ?
MW
c ri
r
SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP
River Chase Office Center, 3`d Floor Peter M. Good, Esquire
4431 North Front Street pgood@sasllp.com
Harrisburg, PA 17110 Jessica E. Mercy, Esquire
(717) 234-2401 jmercy@sasllp.com
Attorneys for Defendant
JAIRAM 7, INC.
Plaintiff/Respondent
V.
HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC T/A
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT
F/K/A SAHAR MATER ENTERPRISES
CARLISLE, LLC T/A MATER
RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
Defendant/Petitioner
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET NO. 11-6476
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW C-
?c 1
IN CONFESSION OF JUDGMEN PR
POSSESSION OF REAL PROPE°Y
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE
Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff, Jairam 7, Inc.
CLYMER, MUSSER, BROWN & CONRAD, P.C.
----------
Date: ?
c... B
y James e D- # 27151
408 West Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 1760$
(717) 291-7101
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE
Please enter our appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff, Jairam 7, Inc.
SMWLA ERSON & SACKS
Date: v By:
od, Esquire ID #64316
Jessica E. Mercy, Esquire ID #206405
River Chase Office Center, 3rd Floor
4431 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 234-2401
I.`
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
a'
I hereby certify that on this )?day of A 2012 a true and correct copy of
the foregoing document was served upon counsel as addressed below by depositing the
same in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid:
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
SMIGEL, AND RSON & SACKS, LLP
By: OR
Peter M. Goo 4, Esquire ID# 64316
Jessica E. Mercy, Esquire ID# 206405
River Chase Office Center, 3rd Flr.
4431 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 234-2401
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP a _ r t i
River Chase Office Center, 3`a Floor R 0 k 10 0 Sri Peter M. Good, Esquire
4431 North Front Street pgood@sasllp.com
% Jessica E. Mercy, Esquire
Harrisburg, PA 17110 21i 2 (h. 16 PH 2: 'J
(717) 234-2401 jmercy@sasllp.com
`I BE R L A I ND C 0 U N ; Attorneys for Defendant
JAIRAM 7, INC.
Plaintiff/Respondent
V.
HNS MANAGEMENT, LLC T/A
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT
F/K/A SAHAR MATER ENTERPRISES
CARLISLE, LLC T/A MATER
RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT AND
COUNTRY OVEN RESTAURANT
Defendant/Petitioner
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET NO. 11-6476
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
IN CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT FOR
POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY
PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE/DISMISS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please mark this action settled, dismissed, and discontinued with prejudice.
Date: May / I , 2012
SMIGEL, AN ERSON & SACKS
By:
Peter M. Good, Esquire ID #64316
Jessica E. Mercy, Esquire ID #206405
River Chase Office Center, 3`d Floor
4431 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 234-2401
r , %
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this / r day of May, 2012 a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel as addressed below by depositing the same
in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid:
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
Serratelli, Schiffinan, Brown & Calhoon, P.C.
2080 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP
By:
Peter M. GZe , Esquire ID# 64316
Jessica E. cy, Esquire ID# 206405
River Chase Office Center, 3rd Flr.
4431 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 234-2401
Attorneys for Plaintiff