Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-6861SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson FILED -OFF-I Ct Sheriff ?, :,arrtr?; `f HE °ROTHO'No- t'NAr Jody S Smith 201 1 SEP 12 PIS 2: 03 Chief Deputy - Richard W Stewart Solicitor CIMBERLAND °ENNSYL. /ANIA Kathy Notz Case Number vs. 2011-6861 Computerlube (et al.) SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 09/02/2011 01:37 PM - Noah Cline, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on September 2, 2011 at 1337 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Computerlube, by making known unto Chad Williams, Owner of Computerlube at 1184 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. NOAH CLINE, DEPUTY 09/02/2011 01:37 PM - Noah Cline, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on September 2, 2011 at 1337 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Chad E. Williams, by making known unto himself personally, at 1184 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $56.44 September 06, 2011 SO ANSWERS, RONITY R ANDERSON, SHERIFF 10 Ai" PA Attorney License No. 90994 29 OCT -6 P11 3. Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street ?UMSERLAINC G? ??s= i„ Carlisle, PA 17013 F E N N S Y L'VA ti ,^ (717) 241-6070 FAX (717) 241-6878 Snyder@romingerlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff Steven R. Snyder, Esquire IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA KATHY NOTZ, DOCKET NO. 2011-6861 Plaintiff : V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPUTERLUBE, AND ; CHAD E. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AS OWNER OF COMPUTERLUBE Defendants : PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS NOW COMES Plaintiff, Kathy Notz, by and through her attorney, Steven R. Snyder, Esquire with the Law Firm of Rominger & Associates, and files the within Response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections, and accompanying Memorandum of Law, and avers the following: Admitted. 2. The averments contained in paragraph 2 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections make reference to statements made in Plaintiffs Complaint which is a legal pleading filed with the Court and as such speaks for itself and to that end no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. 3. The averments contained in paragraph 3 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections make reference to statements made in Plaintiffs Complaint which is a legal pleading filed with the Court and as such speaks for itself and to that end no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. 4. The averments contained in paragraph 4 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections make reference to statements made in Plaintiffs Complaint which is a legal pleading filed with the Court and as such speaks for itself and to that end no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. 5. The averments contained in paragraph 5 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law and as such no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial, 6. The averments contained in paragraph 6 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law and as such no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. 7. The averments contained in paragraph 7 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections make reference to statements made in Plaintiffs Complaint which is a legal pleading filed with the Court and as such speaks for itself and to that end no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. 8. The averments contained in paragraph 8 or Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law and as such no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. 9. Denied. Plaintiff has clearly averred in her Complaint that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a verbal contract whereby Defendant agreed to repair two computers for Plaintiff and in return for Defendant's promise, Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendant for the said repairs. The contract between the parties was accompanied by mutual assent to all provisions and valuable consideration. See Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraphs 35 and 36. At no time during the initial formation of the contract did Defendant ever state that there was any time limit during which Plaintiff had to pick up the computers. In fact, Plaintiffs Complaint avers that: [alt that time [Plaintiff dropped off the computers at Defendant's store], the owner of the store, Williams informed Plaintiff that he was not familiar with how to repair one of the computers but would make some inquiries and was confident he could repair both machines. Williams further informed Plaintiff that he probably would need more time than usual due to the nature of the repair and the fact that he serviced several truckers in the area and had them stopping by to pick up equipment on their way back through town. Plaintiff informed Williams that she was in no hurry and that he should take whatever time he needed to perform the repairs. Over the following weeks Williams and Plaintiff spoke by telephone as to the status of the repairs. Plaintiffs Complaint further avers that: On or about April 22, 2011, Plaintiff received a telephone message from Williams indicating that the computers were repaired and ready to pick up. The following week, on or about May 6, 2001 Plaintiff entered William's store to pay for the repairs and pick up both computers. See Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraphs 5 through 10. Plaintiffs Complaint avers that the initial contract between the parties was silent as to the time limit during which Defendant would need to repair the computers. The Complaint further avers that during the time Defendant had the computers, Plaintiff and Defendant communicated as to the status of the repairs and at no time was there ever a time limit mentioned by Defendant. The reason for the delay in Plaintiff picking up the computers was because it took Defendant that long to actually fix the computers and not as a result of any delinquency on Plaintiffs part. In fact, when Defendant did finally have the computers fixed and called Plaintiff to inform her that the computers were ready to pick up, Plaintiff went to Defendants store to pick themup the following week. 10. Admitted. Plaintiff did not aver that any additional sum was paid to store the computers because the computers were not being stored. When the computers were delivered to Defendant for repairs, Defendant told Plaintiff he would need additional time to repair the computers. Notwithstanding that fact, the computers were kept by Defendant for less than a week from the time Defendant informed Plaintiff that they were ready to be picked up until Plaintiff went to pick up the computers. 11. The averments contained in paragraph 11 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law and as such no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. 12. The averments contained in paragraph 12 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections make reference to statements made in Plaintiffs Complaint which is a legal pleading filed with the Court and as such speaks for itself and to that end no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. 13. The averments contained in paragraph 13 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law and as such no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. Plaintiffs Complaint avers each and every element of a cause of action for Battery, including that Defendant intentionally attacked her. It will be up to the Court to determine. based on testimony offered at trial whether Defendant's actions were intentional based on the conduct of Defendant as evidenced by the testimony. Moreover, the facts in Plaintiffs Complaint, that, "fearing for her safety, Plaintiff turned to leave the store when Williams ran around the counter, grabbed Plaintiff by the throat, and threw her to the floor, while continuing to scream at her" and " (w)hen Plaintiff stood up and again attempted to leave the store, Williams again grabbed her by the throat, threw her against a wall and then grabbed her, threw her out the front door of the store and then threw her down the steps in front of the store where she fell to the ground" clearly demonstrate intentional conduct. See Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraphs 15 and 16. Plaintiff further avers in her Complaint that the entire event was recorded on video surveillance equipment which was later viewed by the police, and will demonstrate the intentional conduct of the Defendant. 15. The averments contained in paragraph 15 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law and as such no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. Further, for Defendant to assert that his conduct in brutally attacking Plaintiff inside his store and then throwing her out of the store and to the ground was somehow in self defense or in protection of his property is absurd and as unconscionable as his conduct on the day he attacked Plaintiff. Those averments contained in paragraph 15of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are Denied. 16. The averments contained in paragraph 16 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law and as such no response is required. 17. The averments contained in paragraph 18 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections make reference to statements made in Plaintiffs Complaint which is a legal pleading filed with the Court and as such speaks for itself and to that end no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. 18. The averments contained in paragraph 18 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law and as such no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. 19. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 19 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law and not issues to be decided through preliminary objections. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. Further, Plaintiffs Complaint avers each and every element of a cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, including the fact that Defendant's conduct, in brutally grabbing Plaintiff around the neck and throwing her up against a wall inside the store and then forcibly throwing her out of the store and to the ground was intentional and "extreme" and "outrageous." It will be up to the Court to determine, based on testimony offered at trial, including the video footage of the attack as viewed by the police, constitutes Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. 20. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 20 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law and not issues to be decided through preliminary objections. It is the responsibility of the Court to determine, based on testimony offered at trial, whether Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous, a decision which Plaintiff is confident a jury will reach at trial. 21. The averments contained in paragraph 21 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are conclusions of law and as such no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, they are denied and proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that Defendant's Preliminary Objections be DISMISSED, and that Defendant be ordered to file an ANSWER to Plaintiffs Complaint within twenty (20) days as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully Submitted, Date: October 6, 2011 By: /C - Steven R. Snyder, squire Rominger & Associates PA Attorney License No. 90994 155 South Hannover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Steven R. Snyder, Esquire PA Attorney License No. 90994 Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 FAX (717) 241-6878 snyder@romingerlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA KATHY NOTZ, DOCKET NO. 2011-6861 Plaintiff ; V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPUTERLUBE, AND CHAD E. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AS OWNER OF COMPUTERLUBE Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following by mailing a copy of same, via US Mail, first class, postage paid from Carlisle PA: Hilary P. Vesell, Esquire Kope & Associates, LLC 395 St. John's Church Road Suite 101 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Date: October 6, 2011 Steven R. Snyder, EAuire Rominger & Associates PA Attorney License No. 90994 155 South Hannover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: HILARY P. VESELL, ESQUIRE ID 308358 395 ST. JOHN'S CHURCH ROAD, SUITE 101 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 hvesell@kopelaw.com KATHY NOTZ, Plaintiff, Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. NO. 11-6861 c rna) rn c_.. -r:; rn - COMPUTERLUBE, AND z? n- CHAD E. WILLIAMS, INDIVIUDALLY AND: D ' AS OWNER OF COMPUTERLUBE <= -r° Defendants. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ?C-) 3 ?a W , NOTICE TO PLEAD AND NOW, this 9h day of January, 2012, you are hereby notified to plead responsively within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof, or judgment may be entered against you. KOPE AND ASSOCIATES, LLC t1 14 q. Hilary Veselltendants Attorney for KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: HILARY P. VESELL, ESQUIRE ID 308358 395 ST. JOHN'S CHURCH ROAD, SUITE 101 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 hvesell@kopelaw.com Attorney for Defendants ------------------------------------------------------ KATHY NOTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. NO. 11-6861 COMPUTERLUBE, AND CHAD E. WILLIAMS, INDIVIUDALLY AND: AS OWNER OF COMPUTERLUBE Defendants. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, comes the Defendants, Chad E. Williams and ComputerLube, by and through their counsel, Hilary P. Vesell, Esquire, and Kope & Associates, LLC, and files this its Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to the Complaint heretofore filed by the Plaintiff: ANSWER 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 5. Denied. To the contrary, the Plaintiff was told that the problems had to be diagnosed before the Defendants would know how to fix the Plaintiff's computers. 6. Denied. To the contrary, the Defendants are normally able to offer the next day service in their computer repair business. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. While it is admitted that the Plaintiff said that she was in no hurry to pick up the computers, it is specifically denied that Defendants told the Plaintiff that it would take longer than normal to fix her computers once the problems were diagnosed. 8. Denied. To the contrary, the two computers were repaired and ready for pick-up within a week of being dropped off. Furthermore, multiple phone calls were made by Defendants to Plaintiff within the following ninety (90) days to encourage Plaintiff to pick up her computers and to pay the outstanding repair bill. 9. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff was made aware that said computers were repaired and ready for pick-up within a week of being dropped off. 10. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff's computers were ready for pick-up within a week of being dropped off. Furthermore, Plaintiff waited over ninety (90) days to pick- up said computers after she was informed by phone that both were ready for pick-up. 11. Denied. To the contrary, when the Plaintiff entered the store her computer was placed by the Defendants on the counter specifically for her pick-up. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff was asked to leave the store after becoming hysterical and threatening to Defendant Chad E. Williams' two young children also present in the store. 14. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant Chad E. Williams calmly asked the Plaintiff to leave the store several times in order to protect his young children who witnessed the entire event as the Plaintiff was escalating in her erratic behavior and could not be calmed down. 15. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff attempted to leave with her computer without paying the repair bill when the Defendant Chad E. Williams retrieved said computer, at which point Plaintiff refused to leave Defendants' store. 16. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant Chad E. Williams escorted the Plaintiff out of the store in an attempt to protect his property, himself, and his family also present in the store after the Plaintiff refused to leave on her own after multiple requests. 17. Admitted in Part, denied in part. While it is admitted that there were witnesses to the entire event, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff was assaulted. To the contrary, Defendant Chad E. Williams was attempting to protect his property as well as his young children and girlfriend also present in the store witnessing the Plaintiffs erratic behavior. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Defendants called 911 from inside the store. 20. Denied. To the contrary, Defendants offered to show the police officer who arrived their video surveillance, which the police officer had not been previously aware of. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 22. Admitted in part, denied in part. While it is admitted that Defendants have video surveillance equipment, it is specifically denied that Defendant Chad E. Williams tried to hide this fact from police. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff was escorted out of the store in self- defense and defense of others. Furthermore, Defendant Chad E. Williams was also attempting to protect his personal property and the personal property of others present within the store. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the repair bill was seventy-five dollars ($75). 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the police officer gave the Defendants seventy- five dollars ($75) to pay the Plaintiffs computer repair bill. 27. Admitted. By way of further response, the fine was lowered from two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) to fifty dollars ($50). 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Plaintiff's posts to Facebook reflect that she did in fact continue working after said incident. (See Facebook posts attached as Exhibit "A.') 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Plaintiff's Facebook posts suggested that she was in fact able to work long shifts after said incident. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 32. Admitted. 33. Admitted. By way of further response, Defendants called Plaintiff once offering the replace the Plaintiff's computer with a more valuable computer. 34. No response required. 35. Admitted in Part, denied in Part. While it is admitted that the Defendants agreed to repair Plaintiffs two computers in return for Plaintiff's promise to pay for said repairs, the verbal contract required that the computers be picked up with thirty (30) days after all repairs were completed on both computers. 36. Denied. To the contrary, the verbal contract required that the two (2) computers be picked-up thirty (30) days after all repairs were completed. 37. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff breached the contract when she failed to pick up the computers within thirty (30) days of all repairs being completed on both computers without furnishing additional consideration to hold the contract open. 38. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages as she breached said contract. 39. No response required. 40. Admitted. 41. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant Chad E. Williams escorted the Plaintiff out of the store in self-defense and the reasonable defense of his property and other customer's property also present in the store. 42. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant Chad E. Williams' actions were in self- defense and in the defense of others also present in the store as well as personal property located in the store. 43. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant Chad E. Williams used a reasonable amount of force to remove Plaintiff from the store in order to protect not only himself, but his family also present at the time who witnessed the event as well as personal property present in the store. 44. No response required. 45. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant Chad E. Williams was privileged in his actions as they were for the self-defense of not only himself, but others present in the store at the time. Furthermore, Plaintiff has no known diagnosed physical or psychological injuries as a result of the incident in which she was the aggressor. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 47. After reasonable investigation, answering Respondent is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, such allegations are deemed to be denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 48. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant Chad E. Williams used reasonable force against Plaintiff in self-defense and in the defense of others also present within the store during Plaintiffs hysterical episode. NEW MATTER 49. On February 10, 2011, Plaintiff dropped off two computers at ComputerLube in clear view of a sign that Defendants have prominently displayed in the store alerting customers that the store is not responsible for any computers left over thirty (30) days after all repairs have been completed. 50. Within two weeks, on or about February 21, 2011, Defendants called Plaintiff to pick up Plaintiffs two computers, which had been repaired and were ready for pick up. 51. Plaintiff shortly thereafter left a voicemail for Defendants saying that she could not pick up the computers due to the fact that her husband had recently passed away. 52. As a result, Defendants held the computers for over ninety days, instead of the posted thirty (30) days without additional consideration. 53. Defendants called the Plaintiff again on April 20, 2011, asking her to pick up the computers. 54. At that time, the Plaintiff assured the Defendants that the two computers would be picked up within a week. 55. On or about April 29, 2011, the Defendants called the Plaintiff again and asked that the two computers be picked up. 56. The Plaintiff again promised that she would pick up the two computers, this time by the following Wednesday, May 4, 2011. 57. The Defendants were unable to mail the Plaintiff any notices as the Defendants were never given the Plaintiff's address and, thus, had no such documentation on file. 58. The Plaintiff finally arrived at ComputerLube on May 13, 2011, to pick up her two computers by which time the Defendants had already begun the reclamation process for said computers. 59. When Plaintiff learned that one of her computers had already been sold, she became inconsolable and aggressive toward Defendant Chad E. Williams. 60. In an attempt to protect not only himself, but his young children and girlfriend present in the store witnessing the events, as well as his personal property and computers belonging to other customers, the Defendant Chad E. Williams escorted the Plaintiff out of the store. 61. At this time, the Plaintiff tried to grab her computer and leave the store without paying the repair bill. COUNTERCLAIM COUNT I - BUSINESS DISPARAGEMENT & DEFAMATION 62. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 63. The Plaintiff intentionally and knowingly defamed and slandered Defendants by communicating to third parties that Defendant Chad E. Williams was incompetent and deficient in his professional capacity as a computer repair person and as such not to patronize the Defendants. 64. Plaintiff's statements to third parties, including but not limited to other ComputerLube customers and potential customers, were not a matter of public concern. Plaintiffs statements were defamatory and adversely affected the Defendants' professional reputation. 65. Plaintiffs statements were of or concerning Defendants in the view of a reasonable listener. 66. Plaintiff's statements accusing Defendant's of improper business conduct were communicated to third persons, including, but not limited to other ComputerLube clients, potential clients, and friends of Defendant Chad E. Williams, such as employees at the Petro-Stopping Center, a gas station, across from the Defendants' place of business. 67. Plaintiff's statements were false and untrue. 68. Plaintiffs statements adversely reflected on Defendants' professional conduct. 69. Plaintiffs statements were the cause of damage to Defendants, damage that manifested in the loss to Defendants' professional reputation and income. 70. Plaintiffs statements were slander per se. WHEREFORE, Defendants, prays this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, and, in so doing, grant the following: 1. Monetary damages to exceed $100,000.00; 2. Reasonable costs, interests and expenses including, but not limited to; 3. Punitive and/or exemplary damages, as determined by this Honorable Court; 4. Any other remedy that this Honorable Court may deem appropriate. COUNT II - LIBEL 71. The averments set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 72. The Plaintiff published written statements on the internet as to Defendant Chad E. Williams' incompetence and unsuitability as a computer repair person in the computer industry. (See reviews of the Defendants posted on internet by the Plaintiff attached as Exhibit `B.') 73. The Plaintiff made these statements with malice and without any reason to believe that the information conveyed had any basis in truth. 74. The Plaintiff's statements were completely false and uttered by the Plaintiff for the sole purpose of depriving the Defendants' of a good name and reputation. 75. The nature and content of the communication made by Plaintiff were defamatory as it was intended to and, in fact, ascribed to the Defendants' conduct, character or a condition that would adversely affect their fitness to properly conduct their business and profession. 76. The Plaintiff's communications harmed the reputation of the Defendants as to lower them in the estimation of the community and to deter third persons from associating with them. 77. The Plaintiff purposely sought to publish her communication to other parties in written form, thereby libeling the Defendants. 78. The written publication was undertaken maliciously for the purpose of affecting the reputation of the Defendants and exposing them to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. 79. The Plaintiff purposefully sought to publish her communication to other parties in written form by writing her comments on the internet, which were then subject to the observation and dissemination to multiple persons. 80. The libelous communications were expressly applied to the Defendants by name as the communications related solely to them, their conduct, and business. 81. Any recipient of the libelous communications would reasonably comprehend the nature and import of the allegations and that said allegations related expressly to Defendants. 82. As a direct and proximate result of the false and libelous utterances of the Plaintiff, the Defendants have been substantially injured as to their good name and reputation in the computer repair industry. WHEREFORE, the Defendant Chad E. Williams, respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff, in an amount in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) plus interest, costs, and punitive damages, together with any other relief this Court deems appropriate in the interest of justice. Date: 0114 Respectfully Submitted, KOPE AND ASSOCIATES, LLC Klau I wto Hilary Vesel sq. VERIFICATION I; Chad E. Williams, individually and as owner of Computer Lube, the Defendants in this matter, have read the foregoing Answer, New Matter, and Counterclaim. I verify that my averments in this Answer. New Matter, and Counterclaims are true and correct and based upon my personal knowledge. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities Dated: f I ?• ?. r, ad E, illiams 4- KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: HILARY P. VESELL, ESQUIRE ID 308358 395 ST. JOHN'S CHURCH ROAD, SUITE 101 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 hvesell@kopelaw.com ------------------------------------------------------ Attorney for Defendants KATHY NOTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. NO. 11-6861 COMPUTERLUBE, AND CHAD E. WILLIAMS, INDIVIUDALLY AND: AS OWNER OF COMPUTERLUBE Defendants. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hilary P. Vesell, Esquire do hereby certify that on this 9th day of January, 2012, 1 served a true and correct copy of Answer, New Matter, and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Complaint via hand delivery to: Steven R. Snyder, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hannover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 KOPE & ASSOCIATES, LLC zadl Hilary Ves ?jll Esq. .--.j 1l- ® May 16 at 8:59arn via God wants You to Know - See your Message from Gad Kathy NOU How crazy is this"' uke the man hoisen is wnbng these for me-I ;-oi May 18 at 8:473m RECENT ACTIVITY ® Kathy is using God wants You to Know Visit God wants YOU to Know Kathy Notz SOO much on my mind .... asking for prayers for a VERY special someone that her voice is FINALLY heard today and she soon begins the lite site has been begging for'-' (A.M.M.)v May 16 at 8:33arn 2 people like dLs. / y ` V J Kathy Notz Ugh head cold N May 16 at 6:50arn viz Phone Kathy Notz Exhausted & & wishing 1 was homerr May 1.5 at 10:13pni vsa Prone Clare Donnelly Medori where you at' May 15 at 10:14pm Kathy Nett Working hl gain- took a 4hr shift May 15 at 11:18pm Clara Donnelly Medori OMG. yuo rrst t,e rahe,,,trr: Rela¦ & est now' / May 16 at 6:47am % Kathy NOtit yea! worked Bum 9aln Sunda bl Jam MUnday was f suppose to stay tit 9 but my relief (amte n ear y w le ^ rt. o 24 firs again-tub ntuchl- IM WK tuesoay night tno for 15 roil' Got a wedding to pay form r) t May 16 at 8:32am Clare Donnelly Medori Right,... Relax when yuu get home May 16 at 4:35om Kathy Notz Raising a child us the single most important reason to break the chain. .u need to stop the madness & turn in a new direction- towards a place of yes, Bethenny Frankel ( thnk u Jessie I loveeee this t ucl May 15 at 7:23pm via Whone 2 people like this JeSS Notz ontg wv01 :1 a,.u,e L,vl' May 15 at 7:31pm 'tn?nk free ?r??s ,, Julie Schoenberg May 17 at 1 a0am Kathy Notz . „_.,. guess airyonr ms , ,.,. May 17 at 8:04am E Julie Schoenberg ?. ., fray UOe Ot me R r ,n.., !,t Margarita t "Z1111, May Oat '1:041xn Jess NotZ yPs fie wrP - < .re is n. .. .. .. B-rtnri vy tver After' Its es rm May 17 at 1:051xn E Julie Schoenberg when is ter. May 17 at 1: 11 pm Jess Notz well it was on Monday nights on bravo but the season just ended. ¢'s awesunie. May 17 a+ t 13pm Kathy Notz I arc I77T?L-F - (S r ' Chat (Ofifline) http://www.facebook.com/home.php 6/14/2011 v ¦ "Suruetimes family issues don't get resolved.. sometimes u Con t get a tear Jerkei Hollywood ending. Sometimes It's just over, & w left to dear with the attennath- Dut tr,u doesn't have to define you' Bethenney Frankel a May 1S at 6:08fxn via rPhone juke Schoenberg ekes this. Julie Schoenberg ! think m stealing Its from a Kathy May 16 at 1:31am Kathy Notz Go ahead! Cm reading APlace of Yes try Berm rinry Frankel & it was in mere... Great txiuk ?May 16 at 6:48dm Kathy Notz Tom turkey came visiting -lot Length: 0 29 May t5 at S.35prr, via rPhone Reshaie 2 people like this. Kathy Notz Longggg ikiyl Missing my lxxlbear-don'[ Like working tilt Sundays- it's our family fundayit :( gotta just tell myself it's worth the stoney' May 15 at 2:23pm via Phone 2 le I eo k h p t is p e t Kathy Notz My Taurus Horoscope The entry of Mercury and Venus into your sign niay, prove to i _ be very beneficial to you, Taurus, especially where relationships are concerned. The Moon enters that sector of your Solar Chart today, and although this doesn't always mean M the same thing, Venus i. See More Compatibility: Aries Mood: Annoyed Daily Lucky Color: Blue See More May 15 at 12:36pm via Daily Horoscope View Your Horoscope Kathy Notr You gain strength, confidence, & courage by every experience in which u really stop to look fear in the face. You r able to say to urseif, '1 lived thtu (fits hoitot . f t can take the next thing that comes along' -Eleanor Roosevelt may is at 10:51am Via Whole 4 people like mts ¦ MaNa Nott Amdn ! May 15 at 11:07am { Cathi George All let tlt,!, c ,,..,, , ? May 15 at 2:57p,n RECENT ACTIVITY ! ;jot the serail enl,i.' Trish Mullen Cugmi status '•.\\ Kathy Notz Ugh definitely not Irking this" Rainy Sunday rnum,rlg ! ni up It t,36 for work olahhh -? May 15 at 6:42am via Phone n the world.... knowing where rrty kids all are and that they are y & safe. So easy to close my eyes anti sleepDeen a long day Work tomorrow, so excited to get back- Sweet Dreams everyone" May j9 at 10 40wr, 3 people like this. Lisa Daniels Stevens Sleep well my dear May 14 at I.Or4'pm 1 Olson Kathy Notz Best feeling r happy, health http://www.facebook.com/home.php /r Chat(Offline) r 6/14/2011 i.vu Kathy NoU thank a '. isd you tuu May 14 at 10:43pm Edward Quinn Go to sloe .. n, ,,sio :,t y ;uyr -rt your dream vision wallridle Orr I gnt YJak 'Yi" yU ]VSIIiVr, rropeful thoughts ei Urdce, leuoy tu g_rt, yu., '!n uuyl .r Jay wn,ch you step ever ciuser to "it, ita yci,..Lt-,w ui ,Vdyne Dyer May 14 at 10:44pm 2 people Trish Mullen Cugini house phone is broke,kristin drppd in the tub„ughhhhhhhhm may 14 at 8:-19pnr Kathy Notr oh goad greet'' toi wen ,,i see ,f : nave une_: mogul have some put away_ di let I Khoo Dry i out taka ,atleiy wt of IT. May 14 at 1036pi) Kathy Notz talk to a tatronow. iii xvuu May 14 at 10:"6prn Kathy Notz She ran her little heart out- 50 proud of my boobear? May 14, 2011 7:26pm Length: 0 32 ,_--May 14at 7:26pm v,a iPhone Reshare / 2 people like th,s. Kathy NoU Quiet night ght at home- hoping to get some good sleep, back to work tomorrow- straight 24hr shift-, Cha Ching-Ia u ®-May 14 at 7:04pm via Phone Trish Mullen Cugini likes Ui s. peg ` Gilroy where are you waking 14 at 8:21pm thy mou private duty hone care. love .v 14 at at 1 0:3:1pm peg Gilroy good for u honey_ am su nappy you like It _____- -l4ay 14 at 11:05pm Kathy Notz Getting a hair dye - at Holiday Bronze. y 14 at 3:06pm via Phone Add Category 3 people like this. Trish Mullen Cugini o xxxxxi„ seats i May 14 at 3:07pm Kathy Notr Spur of me n o i an! , . •oU?•.y to gldnt drI0 sal 'I. .. ,.k ter very oo, iu,y a„ -May 14 at 3:21trnl Trish Mullen Cugini e?.,ioy to 00 a A,quwy tr is !aay 14 at 3'23pm Kathy Noll troy tied I need mis?, gearv On this day, God wants you to know .., that this very message is a little hug. Hugs tell us many things; that we are loved, that we are important, that we are valued. This message is a little hug from God telling you all those things. Enjoy it. be blessed by it and by to figure out a way to hug God back. ® May 14 at 8:57am via God wants You',,) Kno,v See Your Message from God Kathy Notz rages Z J UT ZLF i n Chat(Offline) J r - 1 http://www.facebook.com/home.php 6/14/2011 Computerlube, Carlisle, PA : Reviews and maps - Yahoo! Local Page 1 of 2 New User? Register Sign In Help Preview Mail wf Toolbar Yahoo, Mail ' A1400!a. LOCAL Search ? Web Search (3 ratings) Computerlube (717) 701-8716 1180 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, PA 17013 Cross Streets: Between Pilot Dr/Sunday Dr and N Middlesex Rd/Clinton Ave New Policy in Pennsylvania [ January 2012] If you drive less than 35 miles per day you better read this Car Insurance Trick... TruePolicy.corr YAX400 rr a FSemsan'M ,: ,g Share your photos of d Computerlube. Upload now. " 'K$iddIese.T <<; 11 i s ,, o? c 4d town :4YaA.aitYN? MH^4]VFCrtM1< Recent Reviews 1-3 of 4 User Rating: 5 out of 5 stars by John My comuter crashed on me over the holidays. I took it in to Computerlube and they diagnosed it for free. The prices are great. I had a bad virus and they removed it and installed virus protection on it for only $65. They also got it back to me by the next day. I spoke straight to the technician and he explained everything to me so that I understood what he was doing and the things that I have to do if I run into this situation again. I definately recommend this company. They are very friendly and the communication is great. I will be going back here if I have anymore computer problems. User Rating: 5 out of 5 stars by fungames1184 1 took my laptop here for physical repairs and a clean up to make my computer run better. Not only did their technician do a great job with my computer it was done in a very timely manner. I also spoke directly with him and he made it very easy for me to understand what was going on with my computer and what caused the problems I was having. I highly recommend taking your computer here for repairs. I gurantee you will be very satisfied with the service. You not only meet the tech but you meet his whole family. Very friendly enviroment. User Rating: 1 out of 5 stars by Harrisburg Explorer You Might Also Like Fast-Teks On-Site Computer Services 6 State Rd, Ste 115, Mechanicsburg, PA ROI Tech Consulting 2 Brighton Ln, Camp Hill, PA Absolute PC Repairs 1735 Shrivers Comer Rd, Gettysburg, PA Complete Computer Service Rte 22, Harrisburg, PA Get Local Recommendations Find discussions about Computerlube in Carlisle Ask locals for a recommendation on Computertube More Search Options Search the web for Computerlube in Carlisle, PA Reviews of Carlisle IT Services & Computer Repair on Yelp.com http://Iocal.yalioo.com/info-46384825-computerlube-carlisle 1/9/2012 Computerlube, Carlisle, PA : Reviews and maps - Yahoo! Local Page 2 of 2 Carlisle City Guide > Computers & Electronics > Communications & Networking > Computerlube True story: Woman took two computers into ComputerLube, near Carlisle Pennsylvania. ComputerLube is a computer repair store located near several truck stops off the New Kingston Exit of Interstate 81. The owner of the store, Mr. Chad Williams, told her he would need to consult with someone else but he felt sure he could repair both computers. When she went into the store, the following week to pick up the two computers, she noticed that one of her computers was on a shelf and was for sale. When she approached Williams to inquire as to the status of her two computers, Williams laughed at her and told her that her other computer had been sold. The woman then informed Williams that she was going to leave the store to go outside and call the police. At that point, Williams began yelling at her and came from around the counter and grabbed her by the throat and threw her to the floor. When she got up, Williams again grabbed her by the throat and threw her against the wall. He then drug her to the door and threw her out of the store, down the front steps and onto the ground. The entire time Williams was assaulting the woman, a woman and several small children were in a room behind the counter and witnessed the entire event. As the woman got up off the ground outside the store, the woman who was inside the store came out and told her, i? ?Thati C ?Is what you get when you mess with Chad.i l G Sign in to write a review of this business. Sound Choice. Inc User Rating: Good CATEGORY SPONSORS (866) 693-0220, 313 Lewisberry Road, New Cumberland, PA Business Profile - Sound Choice, Inc., has been doing business since 2007. We take pride in Nittanv Link. Inc. User Rating: Good (866) 763-3230, 500 North Front Street, Wormleysburg, PA Business Profile - Nittany Link, Inc.'s goal is to serve the customer in a fair and equitable... Harmony AudioNideo Services. LLC User Rating: Good (866) 617-8123, 651A West Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, PA Business Profile -Call Harmony AudioNideo Services for all of your home audio, video and media... Some business information provided by Inf04SA ®, Omaha. Nebraska Copyright ® 2012. Copyright ® 2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. CQoopyr,gl tAE Polite Privacy Policy I About Our Ads I Terms of Service I AddlE a Business I Yahoo! Maos Terms of Use I Hell) I Additional Terms of Service http://local.yatioo.com/info-46384825-computerlube-carlisle 1/9/2012 ComputerLube Reviews Carlisle, PA 17013 1 DexKnows.comTM Page 1 of 2 Find a Business Find a Person Get Mobile App Ad406tkwith Sign Up Log In What Where dlexknows BUSINESS OVERVIEW REVIEWS MAP Like ComputerLube (717) 701-8716 1179 Carlisle Pike, Carlisle, PA 17013 Send to Phone Reviews Dexknows (3) Great services by john- 01/02/2012 My comuter crashed on me over the holidays. I took it in to Computerlube and they diagnosed it for free. The prices are great. I had a bad virus and they removed it and installed virus protection on it for only $65. They also got it back to me by the next day. I spoke straight to the technician and he explained everything to me so that I understood what he was doing and the things that I have to do if I run into this situation again. I definately recommend this company. They are very friendly and the communication is great. I will be going back here if I have anymore computer problems. HlghlyRecommended by Fungamesl 184- 12/13/2011 1 took my laptop here for physical repairs and a clean up to make my computer run better. Not only did their technician do a great job with my computer it was done in a very timely manner. I also spoke directly with him and he made it very easy for me to understand what was going on with my computer and what caused the problems I was having. I highly recommend taking your computer here for repairs. I gurantee you will be very satisfied with the service. You not only meet the tech but you meet his whole family. Very friendly enviroment. Computer tube in Carlisle-Sold my ipad and then assaulted me by Kathy N- 05/1212011 II had this man arrested today for assaulting me. I went to pick up my computer only to find he had sold it without notifying me. I had dropped it off in Feb and he told me he needed time to fix it, it was an IPAD and he wasnot familiar. When I told him I was calling the police he attacked me, choked me, threw me against a wall, on the floor and out the door. I called the police and after viewing security tape he was in fact arrested. I am planning to file a criminal and civil suit against him and have this man pay for what he has done to me. I cannot work, I am sore and shaking in my shoes. PLease stay away from this place..call Middlesex police to verify my story. I am a woman 46yrs old. He did this in front of his wife and small children, and a bystander http://www.deKknows.comlbusiness_profileslcomputerlube-bl756101/reviews?pdt=pifree 1/9/2012 ComputerLube Reviews I Carlisle, PA 17013 1 DexKnows.comTM Page 2 of 2 as well. This animal had no right to steal my property but he had absolutely no right to put me...the law will handle him and I urge anyone to NOT go into this place. ?.<Y c, 'ottesville 0 a Like Directory I DexKnows Weddings I DexKnows Home Improvement ( Marketing Matters Scor's"olleo #dtant€celid © Dex 2012 All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use http://www.dexknows.comlbusiness-Profileslcomputerlube-bl756101/reviews?pdt=pifree 1/9/2012 d FILED-OFFICE Steven R. Snyder, Esquire OF THE PROTHONOTARY PA Attorney License No. 90994 2012 FEB 21 AM 9: 51 Rominger & Associates CUMBERLAND COUNTY 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 PENNSYLVANIA (717) 241-6070 FAX (717) 241-6878 snyder@romingerlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA KATHY NOTZ, DOCKET NO. 2011-6861 Plaintiff V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPUTERLUBE, AND CHAD E. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AS OWNER. OF COMPUTERLUBE Defendants PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM NOW COMES Plaintiff, Kathy Notz, by and through her Attorney, Steven R. Snyder, Esquire with the Law Firm of Rominger & Associates, and files the within Answer to Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim, and in support thereof, avers the following: PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS NEW MATTER 49. Denied. At the time Plaintiff dropped off the two computers at Defendant's store she saw no signs displayed alerting customers of any store policy what-so-ever, doubts that any such signs existed at the time and demands strict proof of same. 50- 56. Denied. The true and accurate facts regarding the dates when Plaintiff dropped off the computers for repair, when both computers were ready to be picked up and the communications between the parties during that time are accurately reflected in Plaintiff's Complaint. Given the conflicting version of dates and events set forth in Defendant's New Matter, Plaintiff now avers that Defendant has violated 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. 57. Whether Defendant did or did not have Plaintiffs address, or had it and lost it is information for which Plaintiff lacks specific information and as such cannot affirm or deny same and so the averments set forth in Paragraph 57 are denied and strict proof is denied a t trial. Plaintiff would assume that the customer's address would be something that Defendant would have obtained at the time the computers were dropped off. 58. Denied. Plaintiff went to Defendant's store to pick up her two computers on May 6, 2011 at which time she was severely beaten by Defendant. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 58 of Defendant's New Matter and as such denies same and demands strict proof at trial. Plaintiff will be interested in learning what the Defendant's "reclamation process" is exactly since, when she arrived, her computer had already been sold to someone else. 59. Denied. 60. Denied. 61. Denied. Plaintiff informed Defendant that she was going outside to call the police at which point Defendant attacked her. PLAINTIFFS ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS COUNTER CLAIM COUNTI BUSINESS DISPARAGEMENT AND DEFAMATION 62. No response require. 63 Plaintiff denies that she defamed or slandered Defendant and demands strict proof of same at trial. 64. Denied. The fact that Plaintiff was beaten up while in Defendant's store is most certainly a matter of public concern. Plaintiff further denies that any statements she may have made, in any way altered Defendant's reputation beyond what it currently is. 65. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 65 of Defendant's Counterclaim (and doubts Defendant has any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment as well) and as such denies same and demands strict proof at trial. 66. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 66 of Defendant's Counterclaim and as such denies same and demands strict proof at trial. 67. Denied. 68. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 68 of Defendant's Counterclaim and as such denies same and demands strict proof at trial. 69. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 68 of Defendant's Counterclaim and as such denies same and demands strict proof at trial. 70. Denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court DISMISS Defendant's Counterclaim insomuch as it fails to set forth the proper elements necessary to state a cause of action for Business Disparagement or Defamation. Moreover Plaintiff denies that Defendant's damages come anywhere near one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) or questions whether Defendant has ever earned that much money in the entire time he has been in business, and will demand strict proof of actual damages at trial. COUNT II LIBEL 71. No response required. 72. Denied. None of the written statements attached to Defendant's Answer with New Matter and Counter Claim make any reference to Defendant's computer skills. The only reference Defendant's beating up a woman who came into his store to pick up a computer. 73. Denied. In fact, the statements made in the writings attached to defendant's Answer are true, which is why they do not constitute liable, defamation or business disparagement. Truthful statements that harm another's reputation will not create liability for defamation. 74. Denied. 75. Denied. In order to establish that a statement is defamatory, Defendant must prove that the statement was untrue. The statements set forth in the attachment to Defendants answer are true, and as such, they do not constitute liable, defamation or business disparagement. Truthful statements that harm another's reputation will not create liability for defamation. 76. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 76 or what Defendant's reputation was before or after he beat her up and as such Plaintiff denies same and demands strict proof at trial. Plaintiff denies that any statements she may have made, in any way altered Defendant's reputation beyond what it currently is. 77. Denied. As stated above, the statements made in the writings attached to defendant's Answer are true, and as such, can not constitute liable, defamation or business disparagement. Truthful statements that harm another's reputation will not create liability for defamation. 78. Denied. Defendant cannot know what the writings attached to Defendants answer were "undertaken." Perhaps, whoever wrote them did so to warn the public about the violent propensity of Defendant to beat up women who come into his store. 79. It is admitted that the true statements contained in the writings attached to Defendants answer were obtained from the internet. 80. Denied. Again, the statements made in the writings attached to defendant's Answer are true, and as such, can not constitute liable, defamation or business disparagement. 81. Denied. As stated above, the statements made in the writings attached to Defendant's Answer are true, and as such, can not constitute liable, defamation or business disparagement. It is not disputed that the conduct written about in Defendant's exhibits relates expressly to Defendant, to the extent that Defendant violently battered Plaintiff while she was in his store. 82. Denied. It is denied that the statements attached as Exhibits to Defendant's Answer constitute liable. Truthful statements that harm another's reputation will not create liability for defamation. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the reputation or the Defendant, and as such, strict proof of that will be demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court DISMISS Defendant's Counterclaim insomuch as it fails to set forth the proper elements necessary to state a cause of action for Business Disparagement or Defamation. Moreover Plaintiff denies that Defendant's damages come anywhere near one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) or that Defendant has ever earned that much money in the entire time he has been in business, and will demand strict proof of actual damages at trial. PLAINTIFF'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 83. The written statements contained in the writing attached to Defendant's Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim made reference to conduct and character of the Defendant individually and were not directed at Defendant's business ability or the quality of computer service provided by Defendant's business, and as such the statements set forth in the writing cannot be considered business disparagement. 84. Defendant alleges in Paragraph 70, that the statements in the writing attached to Defendant's Answer constitute "slander per se" without stating the requisite elements to support the cause of action or any averments to support the claim and as such Defendant's slander per se claim should be DISMISSED. 85. As Defendant has failed to properly plead a cause of action for "slander per se" , Defendant must plead facts sufficient to establish special damages in order to prevail in his claim for, liable, defamation and business disparagement which Defendant has failed to do. As such, Both Defendant's Count I and Count II Counterclaims should be DISMISSED in their entirety. 86. In order to prevail in a claim for "commercial or business disparagement." a business must establish the existence of an oral or written publication of a disparaging statement concerning that business where: (1) The statement is false; (2) The publisher either intends the publication to cause financial loss or reasonably should recognize the publication would result in financial loss; (3) Financial loss does in fact result; and (4) The publisher either knows that the statement is false or acts in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Pro Golf Mfg. Inc. v. Tribune Review Newspaper Co., 809 A.2d 243 (Pa. 2002). 87. The statements contained in the writing attached to Defendants Answer with New Matter and Counter Claim are not false and as such do not constitute liable, defamation or business disparagement. 88. The statements contained in the writings attached to Defendant's Answer, are statements of pure opinion, which cannot be proven true or false, and as such cannot form the basis of a defamation or libel claim. 89. 42 Pa.C.S § 8342. Provides: In all civil actions for libel, the plea of justification shall be accepted as an adequate and complete defense, when it is pleaded, and proved to the satisfaction of the jury, under the direction of the court as in other cases, that the publication is substantially true and is proper for public information or investigation, and has not been maliciously or negligently made. 42 Pa.C.S § 8342 90. The statements made in the writing and any that may have been made verbally, which Plaintiff denies is the case, those statements are true and are proper for public information and investigation, and were not maliciously or negligently made. WHEREFORE, for the forgoing reasons, and in consideration of the aforesaid affirmative defenses, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court DISMISS Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaims I and II in their entirety and award Plaintiff both compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount in excess of the limits of arbitration, together with any other relief this Court deems appropriate and in the interest of justice. Date: February 21, 2012 By: /:.I Steven R. Snyder, Esq ire Rominger & Associates PA Attorney License No. 90994 155 South Hannover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Fax (717) 241-6878 snyder@romingerlaw.com Steven R. Snyder, Esquire PA Attorney License No. 90994 Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 FAX (717) 241-6878 snyder@romingerlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA KATHY NOTZ, Plaintiff V. COMPUTERLUBE, AND CHAD E. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS OWNER OF COMPUTERLUBE Defendants DOCKET NO. 2011-6861 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following by mailing a copy of same, via US Mail, first class, postage paid from Carlisle PA: Hilary P. Vesell, Esquire Kope & Associates, LLC 395 St. John's Church Road Suite 101 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Date: February 21, 2012 By: Steven R. Snyder, Esqu' e Rominger & Associates PA Attorney License No. 90994 155 South Hannover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Fax (717) 241-6878 snyder@romingerlaw.com