Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-7975JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ. 503 Magaro Rd., Enola, PA 17025 Plaintiff V. ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC.,: 840 Market St., Lemoyne, PA 17043 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. A_ - 79 75 0-iVilTem CIVIL ACTION - LAW --` =- Defendants : NOTICE rte -- You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, 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 Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 .-I --i S oo pa Arr/ c* 74a JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ. Plaintiff V. ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., : Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT - CIVL ACTION AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, James G. Gault, Esquire, who files the following Complaint against the above-named Defendants and avers as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil action brought by Plaintiff James G. Gault, Esquire (hereinafter "Attorney Gault") against the Defendants Robert M. Mumma, II (hereinafter "Mumma") and Mann Realty Associates, Inc. (hereinafter "MRA") to recover monetary sums owed for legal services provided by Attorney Gault for the time period encompassing June 20, 2011 through August 5, 2011. Prior thereto, Attorney Gault had rendered legal services on a continuous full-time basis beginning in November 2007 and had been previously paid therefor by the Defendants until payment stopped as of the week ending June 19, 2011. PARTIES 2. Attorney Gault is an adult individual residing at 503 Magaro Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 3. Attorney Gault is an attorney licensed to practice law in the county, state, and federal courts situate in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Supreme Court ID No. 49687). 4. Defendant Mumma is an adult individual who maintains an office and place of business at 840 Market Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17043. Mumma is the owner, president, CEO, and/or CFO of Defendant MRA. 5. Defendant MRA is a Pennsylvania business corporation with a principal place of business located at 840 Market Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17043. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action arises under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. See, 42 Pa.C.S. § 931(a). 7. Venue properly lies with this Honorable Court because (a) the Defendants regularly conduct and/or conducted business in Cumberland County during all material times hereto; (b) the instant causes of action arose in Cumberland County; and/or, (c) transactions or occurrences as described herein took place in Cumberland County out of which the causes of action set forth herein arose. See, e.g., Pa.R.C.P. 1006, 2179. 8. Judge Masland and Judge Oler have entered Orders in collateral matters involving cases related to this Honorable Court's recent grant(s) of Attorney Gault's leave to withdraw as counsel for Mumma and/or his companies. See: Abel Personnel v. Mann Realty Associates Inc. 2011-3025 (See, Judge Masland's Order dated July 22, 2011); Madison Excavation and George Estee v. Kimbob Inc. 2010-6392 (See, Judge Masland's Order dated July 22, 2011); Mumma v. Morgan et al., 2010-7924 (See, Judge Oler's Order dated August 17, 2011); Camp Hill Auto Parts v. Kimbob Inc. 2010-3673 (See, Judge Oler's Order dated August 17, 2011). See, Local Rule C.C.R.P. 208.3(a)(2). 3 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9. On November 7, 2007, Mumma conducted a job interview of Attorney Gault in the Lemoyne office of MRA. At the conclusion thereof, Attorney Gault was hired on an hourly basis to perform various legal research and legal writing projects. 10. The majority of the work involving said legal research and legal writing was performed in different office suites located at 840 Market St., Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, being the same location as MRA's principal place of business. 11. Over the ensuing months and years, Mumma requested Attorney Gault to represent his interests or the interests of his companies (including MRA) in a variety of legal matters before county, state, and federal courts situate in Pennsylvania. 12. Said legal representation involved a variety of long-standing legal matters including complex and convoluted cases which often involved issues of collateral estoppel, res judicata, judicial estoppel, waiver, etc., and with some having been handled by prior legal counsel who had sought leave to withdraw. See, e.g.: a. Mann Realty Associates Inc v Lower Swatara Twp and Martin L Grass and Mark G. Caldwell, t/a Double M Development, Dauphin County No. 2006-CV-4153-LU; b. Mumma and Mann Realty Associates Inc v Killian & Gephart et al., Dauphin Co. Docket No.: 2010-CV-8145; c. Martin L. Grass and Mark G. Caldwell t/a Double M Development v. Mumma et al., Pennsylvania Superior Court Docket No. 1036 MDA 2011, appeal from No. 5381 Equity 1996; 4 d. Mumma v. Penny Supply Inc 3`d Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-2194, appeal from the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania - Docket No.: 1:10- CV-1469; e. Penny Supply, Inc. v. Mumma et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-00451 (Judge Caputo; Magistrate Judge Smyser); £ Adams County Asphalt Co. v. Oldcastle Inc and Pennsy Suppl Inc., Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-2163 (Judge Jones), remanded to U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania at Adv. No. 1:08-AP-0064 (Judge Thomas); g. Mumma et al. v. Benedict B. Randolph Pennsy Supply Inc and Danny L Turner, Civil Action No. 1:98-CV-87 (Judge Jones); h. Mumma v. Oldcastle, Inc. et al., 3`d Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03-2016, appeal from the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania - Docket No.: 1:98- CV-0425; i. Mumma v. High-Spec Inc. et al., 3`d Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 09-4667, appeal from the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania - Docket No.: 1:09- CV-1447; J. Mumma v. Bobali Coro. Kim Company and Pennsylvania Supply Co., 3`d Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 09-2173, appeal from the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania - Docket No.: 1:08-CV-1965; k. Mumma v. Boswell Tintner Piccola and Wickersham Estate of Robert M. Mumma Lisa M. Morgan, Barbara McK Mumma, and George Hadley Jr., Pennsylvania Supreme Court, appeal from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania Docket No.: 1823 MDA 2009 affirming No. 2004-CV-1779; 1. Mumma v. Dauphin Deposit Bank & Trust Co., Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 758 MDA 2008, affirming No. 4753-S-1993; in. Barbara McK. Mumma, et al v Mumma and High=Spec Inc., Pennsylvania Supreme Court, appeal from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania Docket No.: 462 MDA 2007. n. Mumma and High-Spec Inc. v. Estate of Robert M Mumma, et al., Pennsylvania Supreme Court, appeal from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania Docket No.: 461 MDA 2007; and, o. Mumma v. Lisa M. Morgan, Estate of Robert M Mumma Kim Company, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-0802 (Judge Rambo). 13. During the three year and eight month period between November 2007 and June 2011, Attorney Gault would always submit a weekly invoice to the Defendants at the beginning of each week for the number of hours worked during the immediately preceding week. 14. Thereafter, the Defendants - either by way of the MRA bookkeeper or by way of Mumma personally - would eventually give Attorney Gault a check or checks as payment for said number of hours worked. 15. Although the timing of issuing checks to Attorney Gault was never routine or predictable, and although Attorney Gault often went for many weeks at a time without getting a check or checks, the Defendants had always paid Attorney Gault eventually and without objection for each and every invoice that he had ever submitted during the aforesaid period between November 7, 2007 and June 19, 2011. 16. By way of example, Attorney Gault submitted the following invoices and received the following checks: a. INVOICE dated Monday, May 24, 2010 in the amount of $1,883.75 for the 34.25 hours worked during 05-17-10 through 05-23-10; Check # 4489 from MRA on 09-02-10 in the amount of $17,036.00 which included the amount of $1,883.75 as denoted by Mumma's personal handwritten itemization on the check stub; b. INVOICE dated Monday, May 31, 2010 in the amount of $1,677.50 for the 30.5 hours worked during 05-24-10 through 05-30-10; Check # 4489 from MRA on 09-02-10 in the amount of $17,036.00 which included the amount of $1,677.50 as denoted by Mumma's personal handwritten itemization on the check stub; c. INVOICE dated Monday, June 7, 2010 in the amount of $1,732.50 for the 31.5 hours worked during 05-31-10 through 06-06-10; Check # 4489 from MRA on 09-02-10 in the amount of $17,036.00 which included the amount of $1,732.50 as denoted by Mumma's personal handwritten itemization on the check stub; d. INVOICE dated Monday, June 14, 2010 in the amount of $2,090.00 for the 38 hours worked during 06-07-10 through 06-13-10; Check # 4342 from MRA on 06-17-10 in the amount of $2,090.00; e. INVOICE dated Monday, June 21, 2010 in the amount of $1,883.75 for the 34.25 hours worked during 06-14-10 through 06-20-10; Check # 4489 from MRA on 09-02-10 in the amount of $17,036.00 which included the amount of $1,883.75 as denoted by Mumma's personal handwritten itemization on the check stub; £ INVOICE dated Monday, June 28, 2010 in the amount of $1,938.75 for the 35.25 hours worked during 06-21-10 through 06-27-10; Check # 4364 from MRA on 07-07-10 in the amount of $1,938.75; g. INVOICE dated Monday, July 5, 2010 in the amount of $1,925.00 for the 35 hours worked during 06-28-10 through 07-04-10; Check # 4389 from MRA on 07-07-10 in the amount of $1,925.00; h. INVOICE dated Monday, July 19, 2010 in the amount of $2,200.00 for the 40 hours worked during 07-12-10 through 07-18-10; Check # 4489 from MRA on 09-02-10 in the amount of $17,036.00 which included the amount of $2,200.00 as denoted by Mumma's personal handwritten itemization on the check stub; i. INVOICE dated Monday, August 2, 2010 in the amount of $2,062.50 for the 37.5 hours worked during 07-26-10 through 08-01-10; Check # 4489 from MRA on 09-02-10 in the amount of $17,036.00 which included the amount of $2,062.50 as denoted by Mumma's personal handwritten itemization on the check stub; J. INVOICE dated Monday, August 9, 2010 in the amount of $2,200.00 for the 40 hours worked during 08-02-10 through 08-08-10; Check # 4489 from MRA on 09-02-10 in the amount of $17,036.00 which included the amount of $2,200.00 as denoted by Mumma's personal handwritten itemization on the check stub; k. INVOICE dated Monday, August 16, 2010 in the amount of $1,485.00 for the 27 hours worked during 08-09-10 through 08-15-10; Check # 4489 from MRA on 09-02-10 in the amount of $17,036.00 which included the amount of $1,485.00 as denoted by Mumma's personal handwritten itemization on the check stub; 1. INVOICE dated Monday, August 23, 2010 in the amount of $1,911.25 for the 34.75 hours worked during 08-16-10 through 08-22-10; Check # 4489 from MRA on 09-02-10 in the amount of $17,036.00 which included the amount of $1,911.25 as denoted by Mumma's personal handwritten itemization on the check stub; 8 m. INVOICE dated Monday, April 4, 2011 in the amount of $2,400.00 for the 40 hours worked during 03-28-101 through 04-03-11; Check # 4875 from MRA on 04-07-11 in the amount of $2,400.00; n. INVOICE dated Monday, April 11, 2011 in the amount of $2,295.00 for the 38.25 hours worked during 04-04-11 through 04-10-11; Check # 4893 from MRA on 04-12-11 in the amount of $2,295.00; o. INVOICE dated Monday, April 18, 2011 in the amount of $1,950.00 for the 32.5 hours worked during 04-11-11 through 04-17-11; Check # 4906 from MRA on 04-20-11 in the amount of $1,950.00; p. INVOICE dated Monday, May 9, 2011 in the amount of $2,160.00 for the 36 hours worked during 05-02-11 through 05-08-11; Check # 4947 from MRA on 05-10-11 in the amount of $2,160.00; and, q. INVOICE dated Monday, May 16, 2011 in the amount of $2,280.00 for the 38 hours worked during 05-09-11 through 05-15-11; Check # 4958 from MRA on 05-17-11 in the amount of $2,280.00. (Copies of the foregoing Invoices and the corresponding check stubs are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein). 17. The last payment of legal fees by the Defendants to Attorney Gault was made for the Invoice dated Monday, June 20, 2011 in the amount of $2,400.00 for the 40 hours worked during the week encompassing June 13, 2011 through June 19, 2011, same being paid by a check which was hand-delivered on July 6, 2011. 18. For the seven weeks at issue subsequent to June 19, 2011, however, the Defendants failed to issue any further checks to Attorney Gault notwithstanding that he had continued to perform legal work and had submitted Invoices for said work. 19. To wit, the Defendants failed to pay Attorney Gault the sum of $8,010 for the time period encompassing June 20, 2011 through July 14, 2011, and, thereafter, the Defendants failed to pay Attorney Gault the sum of $4,005 for the time period encompassing July 15, 2011 through August 5, 2011 as follows: a. INVOICE dated Monday, June 27, 2011 in the amount of $2,400.00 for the 40 hours worked during 06-20-11 through 06-26-11; b. INVOICE dated Monday, July 4, 2011 in the amount of $2,400.00 for the 40 hours worked during 06-27-11 through 07-03-11; c. INVOICE dated Monday, July 11, 2011 in the amount of $1,200.00 for the 20 hours worked during 07-04-11 through 07-10-11; d. INVOICE dated Monday, May 18, 2011 in the amount of $2,010.00 for the 33.5 hours worked during 07-11-11 through 07-14-11; and, e. INVOICE dated Saturday, August 6, 2011 in the amount of $4,005.00 for the 66.75 hours worked during 07-15-11 through 08-05-11. (Copies of the foregoing Invoices are attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein; see also, Paragraphs #28 - #30 hereinbelow). 20. The hourly rate paid by the Defendants for all prior legal work performed by Attorney Gault during the 2011 calendar year was $60.00. (See, e.g., Exhibit A, copies of Invoices and the corresponding check stubs for April 4, 2011 through May 16, 2011). 21. The hourly rate paid by the Defendants for all prior legal work performed by Attorney Gault had been $60.00 since the second week of November 2010; previously thereto, the hourly 10 rate had been $55.00 but it was increased by $5.00 in the second week of November 2010 with said rate increase corresponding to Attorney Gault's anniversary date. (See, Paragraph #9 hereinabove). 22. Although some may have elaborated on certain work performed during a given work week, Attorney Gault's Invoices - as accepted without objection by the Defendants for over 3'/z years - were to reflect the total number of hours worked per week without necessarily having to itemize specific billable hours, daily logs, phone calls, file reviews, etc. due to the vast demands of keeping pace with all of the Defendants' litigation in all of the various county, state, and federal courts. (See generally, Exhibits A and B). 23. The Defendants always accepted said Invoices representing the weekly total number of hours worked and never requested that Attorney Gault submit any itemized invoices, prepare more detailed billings, or otherwise present any greater account of time spent in any given week. 24. In a letter dated September 25, 2010 sent to Mumma, Attorney Gault indicated that he had undergone cardio-vascular assessment and testing secondary to an ongoing and sustained increase in work-related stress, anxiety, and tension; said letter further advised that the treating cardiologist had recommended a reduction in work hours and other proactive measures to reduce exposure to work-related stress. (A copy of said letter will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 25. Although the initial treatment plan was to institute a 3'/2 day work week, work demands and ever-present court filing deadlines arising from all of Mumma's litigation often required Attorney Gault to work in excess of 3'/z days per week. 11 26. In a letter dated May 2, 2011 sent to Mumma, Attorney Gault indicated that he would be relocating to Maryland secondary to upcoming wedding nuptials and that his last day to report to the Lemoyne office would be September 2, 2011, thereby providing Mumma with a four month advance notice regarding the retention of successor counsel. (A copy of said letter will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 27. Attorney Gault's letter dated May 2, 2011 specified that he reserved the right to adjust his departure date for an earlier cessation of work dependent on two factors: (#1) if he was not paid timely or regularly, or (#2) if he was subjected to further unacceptable work demands or conditions, including both professional working relationships and inter-personal relationships. 28. On Wednesday, May 25, 2011, Attorney Gault sent an email to Mumma which indicated, inter alia, as follows: "Should I be concerned that this week marks the Fourth week where I was not paid?" (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 29. On Thursday, June 2, 2011, Attorney Gault sent an email to Mumma which indicated, inter alia, as follows: "I have only been paid for 2 weeks in a 7 week span." (underlining in original). (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 30. On the afternoon of Friday, July 1, 2011, Attorney Gault sent an email to Mumma which indicated, inter alia, as follows: "As of Tuesday, there were four (4) outstanding weeks. Today, I was only paid for one of those weeks, without any explanation as to why I was not being paid in full. Susie [a bookkeeper] apparently had three other invoices that I previously submitted but I 12 did not receive checks for those three other weeks. [PJlease recall the final passage of the letter dated May 2, 2011 which I sent to you confirming my relocation date of September 2 - that final passage referenced that I did not expect to work and not get paid, and that I reserved the right to accelerate my termination date in the event of non payment for several weeks." (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 31. On the evening of Friday, July 1, 2011, Mumma sent an email to Attorney Gault which indicated, inter alia, as follows: "Jim, You will receive a second payment on July 5. then the next two on the 10`"." (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 32. On Friday, July 8, 2011, Mumma sent an email to Attorney Gault which indicated, inter alia, that a meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, July 12, 2011 in the Lemoyne office; however, for the reasons set forth herein, Attorney Gault was unable to attend said meeting. (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 33. On Saturday, July 16, 2011, Mumma sent an email to Attorney Gault which indicated, inter alia, as follows with respect to the payment of the overdue Invoices: "Had you come to the office we would have given you the checks per the schedule I previously emailed you." (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 34. Notwithstanding the written promise to pay Attorney Gault one check on July 5, 2011 and two other checks on July 10, 2011 as expressly stated by Mumma in his email of July 1, 2011, the Defendants did not abide by their promise and have not paid Attorney Gault which stands in stark contrast to what Mumma had stated in his email of July 1, 2011. 13 35. Also, the Defendants did not abide by the statement in the July 16, 2011 email that checks would be given had Attorney Gault came to the office insofar as Attorney Gault's father appeared in person at the Lemoyne office on July 18, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. and requested said overdue checks, but the Defendants did not provide same. 36. Thus, the Defendants have failed to pay Attorney Gault the sum of $8,010.00 for the time period encompassing June 20, 2011 through July 14, 2011. (See, Invoices in Exhibit B). 37. Thereafter, the Defendants have failed to pay Attorney Gault the sum of $4,005.00 for the time period encompassing July 15, 2011 through August 5, 2011. (See, Invoice in Exhibit B). 38. With respect to factor #I of the two factors delineated in Attorney Gault's letter dated May 2, 2011 (see above at Paragraph #27), the Defendants have failed to pay Attorney Gault the total sum of $12,015.00 for legal services required in the context of his legal representation for the time period encompassing June 20, 2011 through August 5, 2011. 39. With respect to factor #2 of the two factors delineated in Attorney Gault's letter dated May 2, 2011 (see above at Paragraph #27), professional considerations weigh against detailing same on this Court's public docket with respect to the unacceptable work demands or conditions attributable to Mumma and the working or inter-personal relationships at issue. (Said details can be provided to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 40. In a letter dated May 18, 2011 authored by Attorney Gault's treating cardiologist at the Moffitt Heart and Vascular Group in Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania, Dr. Keith Rice stated that Attorney Gault's cardiac complaints and symptoms "are stress related and secondary to his job" and that he suspects the symptoms will improve when Attorney Gault leaves the area and looks 14 for a new job. (A copy of said medical report will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 41. During the early summer of 2011, it became self-evident that factor #1 of the two factors delineated in Attorney Gault's letter dated May 2, 2011 (see above at Paragraph #27) would not be honored insofar as Attorney Gault was not being paid timely or regularly by the Defendants. (See, Paragraphs #28 - #30 hereinabove). 42. During early July 2011 it also became self-evident that factor #2 of the two factors delineated in Attorney Gault's letter dated May 2, 2011 (see above at Paragraph #27) would not be honored insofar as Attorney Gault endured an intolerable and bellicose confrontation by Mumma in the Lemoyne office on Thursday, July 7, 2011 which constituted the proverbial `last straw that broke the camel's back' regarding the previously noted unacceptable work conditions attributable to Mumma. (Details of the July 7, 2011 episode in the Lemoyne office can be provided to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 43. Following the July 7, 2011 episode in the Lemoyne office, Attorney Gault cleaned out his office drawers on the morning of Friday, July 8, 2011 and promptly notified Mumma via email that he would be completing all assigned work projects remotely and that he would no longer be physically reporting to work each day at the Lemoyne office so as to avoid such bellicose confrontations, and therein specified as follows: "My health will not permit me to be subjected to the unacceptable and unreasonable behavior and statements that occurred yesterday in the office...[Ijt is unacceptable to me and my health to work in an office where I am subjected to undue cardiac stress." (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 15 44. On Friday, July 8, 2011, Mumma sent an email to Attorney Gault which indicated, inter alia, that he was to continue handling four specific projects which involved important court filing deadlines during the following week, i.e., the week of July 11, 2011; said four specific projects identified by Mumma were `Double M,' `P Circuit [appeal],' `Oler appeal,' and `Barton.' (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 45. During the early part of the week of July 11, 2011, Attorney Gault consulted and retained an ethics law specialist in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (Attorney Robert Davis, Jr.) for professional legal guidance on the appropriate manner to extricate himself from the situation in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct and said guidance plan was followed for all assigned projects and court filings due in county, state, and federal courts during the week of July 11, 2011. 46. Attorney Gault timely filed all court filings that were due in county, state, and federal courts during the week of July 11, 2011, namely the four specific projects identified by Mumma in his email of July 8, 2011; however, the Defendants have refused to pay Attorney Gault for the legal work which they specifically requested to be completed. (See, Paragraphs #36 and #44 hereinabove; see also, the Invoices in Exhibit B). 47. In an email sent by Mumma on July 12, 2011, Attorney Gault was advised by Mumma, inter alia, to return all files to the Lemoyne office.." (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 16 48. In an email sent by Mumma on July 14, 2011, Attorney Gault was advised by Mumma, inter alia, that he was no longer authorized to enter the office building located at 840 Market St., Lemoyne, Pennsylvania or to in any way access the office computers.." (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 49. In an email sent by Mumma on July 15, 2011, Attorney Gault was advised by Mumma, inter alia, that he had hired replacement counsel although the identity of said replacement counsel was not disclosed by Mumma. (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 50. On July 15, 2011, Attorney Gault filed the first two (2) of twenty-five (25) separate Motions or Petitions seeking court orders granting leave to withdraw as counsel from a variety of county, state, and federal courts situate in Pennsylvania. 51. From July 15, 2011 through July 29, 2011, Attorney Gault filed twenty-three (23) separate Motions or Petitions seeking court orders granting leave to withdraw as counsel from a variety of county, state, and federal courts situate in Pennsylvania and each of these twenty-three (23) court filings averred that Attorney Gault was "owed in excess of $8, 000 for legal services provided." 52. Following receipt of service of the aforesaid twenty-three (23) separate Motions or Petitions filed between July 15, 2011 and July 29, 2011, neither Mumma nor MRA (nor any of Mumma's companies) filed any answer, reply, or response, nor did same otherwise object in any manner whatsoever to the averment that Attorney Gault was owed in excess of $8,000.00. 17 53. In adjudication of the aforesaid twenty-three (23) separate Motions or Petitions seeking leave to withdraw (with each averring that Attorney Gault was owed in excess of $8,000.00), each and every county, state, or federal court granted the relief sought by Attorney Gault. (See, e.g., Paragraph #8 hereinabove regarding four Motions granted by this Honorable Court). 54. On August 23, 2011, Attorney Gault filed two (2) additional Motions or Petitions seeking court orders granting leave to withdraw as counsel; each of these two (2) additional court filings averred that Attorney Gault was now "owed in excess of $12, 000 for legal services provided." 55. Following receipt of service of the aforesaid two (2) additional court filings, the Defendants did not file any answer, reply, or response with those two courts which denied the averment that Attorney Gault was now owed in excess of $12,000.00. 56. In adjudication of the two (2) additional Motions or Petitions seeking leave to withdraw (with each averring that Attorney Gault was owed in excess of $12,000.00), each of the two courts granted the relief sought by Attorney Gault. (See, York Building Products Co., Inc. v. Mumma et al., No. 2010-SU-2791-89, York County, Pennsylvania, Order dated August 25, 2011; Kimbob, Inc. v. HACC, 1211 MDA 2011, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Order dated September 16, 2011 granting relief sought retroactive to July 29, 2011). 57. Therefore the Defendants, especially Mumma, had twenty-five (25) separate occasions to file an answer, a reply, a response, or some other written objection with the various county, state, and federal courts to contest the averment that Attorney Gault was owed the amounts at issue (as detailed in the unpaid Invoices set forth in Exhibit B), but the Defendants failed to do so. 18 58. By virtue of the doctrines of res judicata, judicial estoppel, waiver, and/or collateral estoppel, or other legal principles, the Defendants are thus barred from denying that Attorney Gault is owed the amounts at issue (as detailed in the unpaid Invoices set forth in Exhibit B). 59. Attorney Gault was requested to perform legal services by the Defendants from November 7, 2007 through September 2, 2011; however, Attorney Gault was not paid for the legal services required during the timeframe encompassing June 20, 2011 through August 5, 2011. (See, Invoices in Exhibit B). 60. As a general rule, the relationship of attorney and client, and the rights, powers and obligations resulting therefrom, ordinarily continue until there has been a complete and final accomplishment, fulfillment, or end of the business upon which the attorney has been employed, and only upon said complete and final end does the relationship or employment terminate, which includes the grant of motions to withdraw as counsel. 61. In an email sent to Attorney Gault by Mumma on July 21, 2011, Mumma stated, inter alia, as follows: "You need to continue with the cases until either your motions are Qranted you meet with us to transition the case or September 2, 2011." (emphasis added; a copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 62. Accordingly, Attorney Gault was required to continue to perform legal work regarding his representation of the Defendants until his twenty-five (25) separate Motions or Petitions for leave to withdraw as counsel were granted by the various county, state, and federal courts. 19 63. All of the courts granted the relief sought by Attorney Gault in all twenty-five (25) of the separate Motions or Petitions for leave to withdraw as counsel that were filed, with said court Orders being issued on various dates from July 22, 2011 through October 4, 2011. 64. In addition to receiving the direct benefit of Attorney Gault's legal services for the time period at issue, Mumma further received a direct and/or indirect benefit by way of utilizing Attorney Gault's withdrawal from the cases as a basis for obtaining extensions of valuable time from county, state, and federal courts within which to file complex briefs or pleadings in several complicated court matters. (See, Mumma v. Morgan et al., 1:11-CV-0802, U.S. District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania; Grass et al. v. Mumma et al., 1036 MDA 2011, Superior Court of Pennsylvania; Groves v. Mumma, 637 MDA 2011, Superior Court of Pennsylvania; Mumma v. Morgan et al., 2010-CV-16273-CV, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania). 65. During a phone call received on July 22, 2011 placed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Attorney Gault was advised that Mumma had filed a disciplinary complaint/inquiry with the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on July 21, 2011. 66. After Attorney Gault filed his written response with the Disciplinary Board on August 1, 2011, Mumma's disciplinary complaint was summarily dismissed as a result of the initial intake review performed by the Disciplinary Counsel. 67. After being advised that his disciplinary complaint was summarily dismissed, Mumma sought further review of the matter with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel who again confirmed that there was no basis for disciplinary action against Attorney Gault and who again confirmed the dismissal of the disciplinary complaint filed by Mumma. 20 68. Similarly, Mumma filed a motion for extension of time with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania which averred that he had contacted the Disciplinary Board about Attorney Gault and which further averred that the Disciplinary Board decided against taking any disciplinary intervention regarding Attorney Gault. (See, Groves v. Mumma, 637 MDA 2011, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, motion filed on July 25, 2011, paragraph #8). 69. In an email sent on July 1, 2011, Mumma expressly stated that Attorney Gault should expect payment of his Invoices "in thirty days or sooner." (A copy of said email will be made available to the Court for in camera review if so directed). 70. More than thirty days have expired since the Invoices set forth in Exhibit B were presented to the Defendants and same have not been paid as previously represented by Mumma. 71. The Defendants failed to pay Attorney Gault the sum of $8,010.00 for the time period encompassing June 20, 2011 through July 14, 2011. 72. The Defendants failed to pay Attorney Gault the sum of $4,005.00 for the time period encompassing July 15, 2011 through August 5, 2011. 73. The Defendants failed to pay Attorney Gault the total sum of $12,015.00 for legal services provided to the Defendants in the context of his legal representation for the time period encompassing June 20, 2011 through August 5, 2011. (See, Invoices in Exhibit B). COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT or IMPLIED CONTRACT 74. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 21 75. The Defendants and Attorney Gault entered into an ongoing contractual relationship regarding the receipt and provision of legal services. 76. Attorney Gault's advice and services were sought and received by the Defendants, especially at the direction and request of Mumma. 77. Attorney Gault promptly acted in a professional capacity on behalf of the Defendants' various legal interests and pursuant to Mumma's demands, instructions, and directions. 78. Mumma routinely participated in the legal matters handled by Attorney Gault by furnishing the necessary records and documents, by communicating with Attorney Gault concerning the legal proceedings, by signing pleadings prepared by Attorney Gault, by appearing in court with Attorney Gault, and by paying the costs and expenses associated with the cases. 79. The Defendants were aware that legal work was being performed by Attorney Gault during the time period at issue, knowingly accepted the benefit of Attorney Gault's services rendered, consented thereto without filing an objection to the performance of said legal work, and benefitted directly and/or indirectly therefrom. 80. The Defendants and Attorney Gault engaged in prior transactions for approximately 3'/2 years whereby Attorney Gault would perform legal services during a week and would submit a weekly Invoice, with said Invoices eventually being paid some time thereafter (except for the Invoices set forth in Exhibit B) on an unpredictable basis or irregular timetable. 22 81. The Defendants had always previously accepted said Invoices representing the weekly total number of hours worked and never requested that Attorney Gault submit any itemized invoices. 82. Beginning in November 2010, Attorney Gault billed the Defendants at the rate of $60.00 per hour, and beginning in November 2010 and continuing through June 19, 2011, the Defendants agreed to pay Attorney Gault at the rate of $60.00 per hour. 83. During the prior months in 2011, Attorney Gault had agreed to cap or limit any given week's total billing to the sum of $2,400.00 which represented a 40 hour work week (i.e., $60.00/hr. X 40 hours/week threshold = $2,400.00 cap or limit), even though the work demands often required working greater than the stated amount of 40 hours. 84. Although Gault was often required to work many weeks that exceeded 40 hours, he did not seek payment for those hours exceeding the 40 hour threshold nor did he seek any higher overtime rate above or beyond the $60.00 per hour agreed upon rate. 85. After paying Attorney Gault for all legal work previously performed for the preceding period of November 7, 2007 through June 19, 2011, the Defendants have refused to pay Attorney Gault for the final seven weeks of legal work represented by the Invoices set forth in Exhibit B. 86. The Defendants materially breached the contractual relationship with Attorney Gault. 87. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breach, Attorney Gault has suffered and continues to suffer damages in excess of $12,015.00. 88. The Defendants' conduct is without excuse or justification. 23 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: (a) Enter judgment in Attorney Gault's favor and against the Defendants; (b) Award Attorney Gault the amount of $12,015.00 as money damages representing the substantial pecuniary loss sustained; (c) Award counsel fees, costs, pre judgment and post judgment interest, and delay damages; and, (d) Award such other and further relief as is just, proper, and equitable. - OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE - COUNT II ACCOUNT STATED 89. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 90. The Defendants and Attorney Gault had either a pre-existing account or a running account as averred hereinabove. 91. The Defendants previously accepted, agreed, acceded, acquiesced, and/or assented to the hourly rate, the hours per week, and the work billed by Attorney Gault. 92. Although the Defendants, especially Mumma, had twenty-five (25) separate occasions to file an answer, a reply, a response, or some other written objection with the various county, state, and federal courts to contest the averment that Attorney Gault was owed the amounts at issue (as detailed in the unpaid Invoices set forth in Exhibit B), the Defendants failed to do so. 93. The Defendants never previously objected to the Invoices submitted by Attorney Gault. 24 94. An account has been stated against the Defendants based upon the aforesaid acceptance agreement, and/or acquiescence, the promises to pay, the pre-existing account, their failure to file any objections to the amounts at issue, their failure to object that the services performed relative to the account were not satisfactory or not competent, and/or that the account stated is not subject to impeachment for mistake or fraud. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: (a) Enter judgment in Attorney Gault's favor and against the Defendants; (b) Award Attorney Gault the amount of $12,015.00 as money damages representing the substantial pecuniary loss sustained; (c) Award counsel fees, costs, pre judgment and post judgment interest, and delay damages; and, (d) Award such other and further relief as is just, proper, and equitable. - OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE - COUNT III QUASI-CONTRACT / UNJUST ENRICHMENT / QUANTUM MERUIT 95. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 96. The final and complete end of the business upon which Attorney Gault had been retained by the Defendants since November 2007 occurred when the Motions or Petitions to withdraw as counsel were granted by the various county, state, and federal courts. 97. Attorney Gault was expected to - and required to - perform all necessary legal work involved with and leading up to the grant of his leave to withdraw as counsel by the various county, state, and federal courts, and Mumma has acknowledged same. (See, Paragraph #61 hereinabove). 25 98. The Defendants' actions and conduct have caused Attorney Gault to suffer substantial pecuniary loss. 99. The Defendants' actions and omissions in failing to pay for legal services procured were wrongful and caused Attorney Gault to suffer substantial pecuniary loss as he was required to continue to perform work regarding the representation of the Defendants until the various county, state, and federal courts granted him leave to withdraw as counsel. 100. The Defendants' actions and omissions involving the parties' contractual relationship permits recovery for pecuniary loss by Attorney Gault under quasi-contract principles in the event that contractual recovery is unavailing. 101. By passively receiving the benefit of legal representation until the date that the various county, state, and federal courts granted leave to withdraw, the Defendants were unjustly enriched to the detriment of Attorney Gault who was required to continue to perform work regarding the representation of the Defendants until said withdrawal was granted. 102. By virtue of the parties' various undertakings and promises as set forth herein, Attorney Gault conferred direct and/or indirect benefit upon the Defendants. 103. The Defendants wrongfully secured, passively received, and/or otherwise appreciated the said benefit conferred by Attorney Gault. 104. The Defendants profited from their actions and omissions to the detriment of Attorney Gault. 105. Attorney Gault had and has a reasonable expectation of payment from the Defendants. 26 106. Under the circumstances, the Defendants' acceptance and retention of the benefit conferred by Attorney Gault renders it inequitable for the Defendants to appreciate the benefit without paying Attorney Gault. 107. Under the circumstances, it is inequitable for the Defendants to appreciate the benefit since it was derived from unfair and inequitable conduct. 108. Under the circumstances, it is inequitable and/or unconscionable for the Defendants to retain the benefit without paying Attorney Gault. 109. The Defendants are under a duty imposed by law to pay Attorney Gault because the Defendants unfairly benefitted at the expense of Attorney Gault. 110. The Defendants have been unjustly enriched because Attorney Gault provided legal services and performed other legal work regarding the representation of the Defendants until he was granted leave to withdraw by the various county, state, and federal courts. 111. The Defendants received benefit from the legal work regarding the representation of the Defendants performed by Attorney Gault which is further reflected by the Invoices set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: (a) Enter judgment in Attorney Gault's favor and against the Defendants; (b) Award Attorney Gault the amount of $12,015.00 as money damages representing the substantial pecuniary loss sustained; (c) Award counsel fees, costs, pre judgment and post judgment interest, and delay damages; and, (d) Award such other and further relief as is just, proper, and equitable. 27 - OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE - COUNT IV PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 112. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 113. Attorney Gault relied to his detriment on the promises and representations of the Defendants. 114. The Defendants made promises that the Defendants should have reasonably expected to induce action or forbearance on the part of Attorney Gault. 115. Attorney Gault actually took action and refrained from taking action in his business affairs in reliance on the promises of the Defendants. 116. Under the circumstances, injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promises of the Defendants as same pertain to payment to Attorney Gault. 117. The Defendants received benefit from the legal work regarding the representation of the Defendants performed by Attorney Gault which is further reflected by the Invoices set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: (a) Enter judgment in Attorney Gault's favor and against the Defendants; (b) Award Attorney Gault the amount of $12,015.00 as money damages representing the substantial pecuniary loss sustained; (c) Award counsel fees, costs, pre judgment and post judgment interest, and delay damages; and, 28 (d) Award such other and further relief as is just, proper, and equitable. - OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE - COUNT V FRAUD / INTENTIONAL NUSREPRESENTATION 118. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 119. The Defendants fraudulently and intentionally misrepresented known material facts to Attorney Gault, thereby causing him to act and rely upon same in the continuation of providing legal services during time periods at issue. (See, e.g., Paragraphs #30 - #36 hereinabove). 120. The Defendants' representations were made with the intention of misleading Attorney Gault into relying upon them in that the Defendants intended to induce him to continue providing legal services. 121. The Defendants made the representations falsely and/or with knowledge of their falsity. 122. Attorney Gault justifiably relied upon the representations of payment made by the Defendants. 123. Attorney Gault's damages were directly and/or proximately caused by the Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the intent to pay for legal services. 124. As a direct and/or proximate cause of the Defendants' misrepresentations, Attorney Gault has been damaged in an amount equal to the Invoices set forth in Exhibit B. 29 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: (a) Enter judgment in Attorney Gault's favor and against the Defendants; (b) Award Attorney Gault the amount of $12,015.00 as money damages representing the substantial pecuniary loss sustained; (c) Award counsel fees, costs, pre judgment and post judgment interest, and delay damages; and, (d) Award such other and further relief as is just, proper, and equitable. Dated: October 19, 2011 5LMagaro Road E a, Pennsylvania 17025 (410) 208-8453 jggault@comcast.net 30 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, VERIFICATION I, James G. Gault, do hereby verify that any statements of fact made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements therein are subject to the penalties contained in 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. /0/Ill DA E 31 EXHIBIT A JAMES G. GAULT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 jggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, May 24, 2010 (05-17-10 through 05-23-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES ContractAttorney Work / Litigation Services 34.25 HOURS TOTAL DUE this _INVOICE _@_$55 001hr.: $1,883.75 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 iggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, May 31, 2010 (05-24-10 through 05-30-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract Attorney_ ork/ Litigation Services 30.5 HOURS TOTAL DUE this INVOICE _@ 55,0W/_hr.: $1,477.50 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 jggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, June 7, 2010 (05-31-10 through 06-06-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract Attorney Work / Litigation Services 31.5 HOURS TOTAL DUE this INVOICE @_$5500/hr: $1,732.50 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 jggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, June 14, 2010 (06-07-10 through 06-13-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract Attorney_Work/ Litigation Services 38 HOURS" ** includes 3.25 hours on the weekend for retrieving, assembling and organizing files for Auditors hearings** TOTAL DUE this INVOICE @45-5._00/hr.: $Z090-00 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 jggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, June 21, 2010 (06-14-10 through 06-20-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract Attorney Work / _Litigation Services 34.25 HOURS TOTAL DUE this INVOICE_@ $55QQ/hr.: #18$3.75 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 jggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, June 28, 2010 (06-21-10 through 06-27-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES CcintractAttorney Work/ Litigation Services 35.25 HOURS TOTAL DUE this INVOICE_@_$5 5 W/hr.: $1938.75 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 iggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, July 5, 2010 (06-28-10 through 07-04-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract Attorney Work / Litigation Services 35 HOURS TOTAL DUE this INVOICE @_$55.-Q0/hr,: $1,925.00 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 iggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, July 19, 2010 (07-12-10 through 07-18-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract-Attorney Work/ Litigation Services 57_ HOURS TOTAL _Indudi_r?g evenings_and-Sat-urday 40 HOURS charged: 17 hours over 40 hour weekly base is being waived by JGG TOTAL DUE this INVOICE @_ 55,00/hr.: $2,200.00 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 jggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, August 2, 2010 (07-26-10 through 08-01-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract Attorney Work/ Litigation Services 37.5 Hours TOTAL DUE this INVOICE _@ $5-5,00/hr.: $2,062,50 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 iggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, August 9, 2010 (08-02-10 through 08-08-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract AttorneyWork/ Litigation Services 53 HOUR-5-TOTAL-including evening& and Saturday 40 HOURS charged: 13 hours over 40 hour weekly base is being waived by JGG TOTAL DUE this INVOICE @_$55_,04/hr.: #2,2.00.00 JAMES G. GAULT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 jggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, August 16, 2010 (08-09-10 through 08-15-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract_Attorney_Work / Litigation Services 27 HOURS TOTAL DUE this INVOICE _@ $55.00/hr.: $1,485.00 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 jggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, August 23, 2010 (08-16-10 through 08-22-10) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract A-tt-orney.Work/-Litigation Services 34.75 HOURS TOTAL DUE this INVOICE @_$55.00/hr; $1,911.25 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 iggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, April 4, 2011 (03-28-11 through 04-03-11) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contrast Attorney Work/ Litigation Services 40 HOURS X $60.00 = $ 2,400.00** OVERTIME WAIVED - Overtime required primarily by Groves matter and Randolph-Turner meeting with Smeltzer on Friday, and by Cleveland Bros. matter on Wednesday, plus other matters. TOTAL DUE this INVOICE_@_$60.00/hr.: $2,400.00 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 iggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, April 11, 2011 (04-04-11 through 04-10-11) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract Attorney Work / Litigation Services 38.25 HOURS X $60.00 = $2,295.00 TOTAL DUE this INVOICE-@-WQ91_hr,: $_2,29540 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 iggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, April 18, 2011 (04-11-11 through 04-17-11) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract-Attorney _Wo-rk / Litigation Services 32.5 HOURS X $60.00 = $1,950.00 TOTAL DUE this INVOICE@_$60 00/hr.c $1,950,00 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 jggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, May 9, 2011 (05-02-11 through 05-08-11) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract Attomey Work/ Litigation Services 36 HOURS X $60.00 = $2,160.00 TOTAL DUE this _INVOICE_@$60.00/hr.: $2,160.00 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 iggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, May 16, 2011 (05-09-11 through 05-15-11) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract Attorney Work/ Litigation Services 38 HOURS X $60.00 = $2,280.00 TOTAL DUE this INVOICE-_$60..0.0/Ir.: $2,2.80,00 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES INC 4 l' .r 4489 4489 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES INC P.O. BOX 5 NUMBER CAMP HILL, PA 17001 60-1878/313 DATE AMOUNT ? PAY TO THE ORDER 7 C?9 • ? ... Jae HIM pp0 -_ i s'vfTi"?ek7_R`'(,T1?1ri7IL araa _r?e.i,.i':a?i r? szs x moll 11 11'00448911' 1:0 3 L 3 L8 78 71: 2 20 L00 3 29811' I 4 " 4 L MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES INC 06117/10 Check* 4342 Vendor ID:GAULT Vendor Name: James Gault invoice No. Date Invoice Amount Amount Paid Discounts Taken Credits Taken Net Amount 061410 06/14110 2090.00 2090.00 0.00 0.00 2090.00 Net Check Amt 2090.00 07/07/10 Check* 4364 Vendor ID:GAULT Vendor Name: James Gault Invoice No. Date Invoice Amount Amount Paid Discounts Taken Credits Taken Net Amount 06282010-2 07/06110 1938.75 1938.75 0.00 0.00 1938.75 Net Check Amt 1938.75 4389 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES INC 07/07/10 Check*. 4389 Vendor ID: GAULT Vendor Name: James Gault Invoice No. Date Invoice Amount Amount Paid Discounts Taken Credits Taken Net Amount 07052010 07/07/10 1925.00 1925.00 0.00 0.00 1925.00 Net Check Amt 1925.00 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES INC 4364 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES INC Vendor ID: GAULT Vendor Narte:.?anes Gault 04/07/11 Check . 4875 4875 Invoice No, pate frnoice Amount 4/4 04/04/11 Amount Paid Discounts Taken Credits Taken 2400.00 2400.00 Net Amount 0'00 0.00 2400.00 Net Check Amt 2400.00 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES INC 4893 04/12/11 Check * 4893 Vendor ID: GAULT Vendor Name: James Gault Invoice No. Date Invoice Amount Amount Paid Discounts Taken Credits Taken Net Amount 4111 04/11/11 2295.00 2295.00 0.00 0.00 2295.00 Net Check Amt 2295.00 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES INC 4906 04/20/11 Check It 4906 Vendor ID: GAULT Vendor Name: James Gault Invoice No. Date Invoice Amount Amount Paid Discounts Taken Credits Taken Net Amount 4118 04/18111 1950.00 1950.00 0.00 0.00 1950.00 Net Check Amt 1950.00 Vendor ID: GAULT Vendor Name: James Gault 05/10/11 4947 Check #: 4947 Invoice No. Date Invoice Amount 5/9 Amount Paid Discounts Taken Credits Taken 05/09/11 2160.00 - -------- - -------- Net A?t?atrt 2160.00 0.00 0.00 216(}00 Net Check Amt 2160.00 Invoice No. Date Invoice Amount Amount Paid Discounts Taken Credits Taken Net Amount 5/16 5S/16J11 2280.00 2280.00 0.00 0.00 2280.00 Net Check Amt 2280.00 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES INC 4958 05/17/11 Check #: 4958 Vendor tD: GAtit_T Vendor Name: James Gault EXHIBIT B JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 iggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, June 27, 2011 (06-20-11 through 06-26-11) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract-Attorney Work / Litigation Services 40 HOURS X $60.00 = $21400.00 Longer hours accrued this period primarily as a result of new federal action in the 802 case with Judge Rambo, plus appellate court filings in multiple appeals to the Superior Court. TOTAL DUE this INVOICE @_$60.00/hr.: $2,400.00 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 jggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, July 4, 2011 (06-27-11 through 07-03-11) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contrar-t Attorney Work / Litigation Services OVERTIME WAIVED: 40 HOURS X $60.00 = $2,400.00 Longer hours accrued this period primarily as a result of York Building Products case, argument court briefs in Cumberland Co., Barton suit, plus other appellate court filings in multiple appeals to the Superior Court. TOTAL DUE this INVOICE _@$b0 04/hr.: $2,400,00 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 iggault@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, July 11, 2011 (for week of 07-04-11 through 07-10-11) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract Attorney Work /_Litigation Services 20 HOURS X $60.00 = $1,200.00 Two complete days workecLat temQyne_Office_on 07-06-11 and 07-07-11. TOTAL DUE this INVOICE _@ $60.00/hr : $1,200,00 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 iggauit@comcast.net INVOICE Monday, July 18, 2011 (for week of 07-11-11 through 07-14-11) ATTORNEY SERVICES Contract Attorney Work /_Litigation Services 33.5 HOURS X $60.00 = $2,010.00 Double M_Rule 1925W-statsme-mt; 3rd Circuit Brief ofAppelUnt and three volume appendix in Quarry Leawcase;_SuperiQr Court Brief -of Appellant and Reproduced Record irr Estate_ap-ealvUUsaA qualificat*uo _Response_to Barton's motion for summary judgment multiple trips to Harrisburg; trip to Carlisle. TOTAL DUE this INVOICE_ @ $10.00/hr.: $2,010.00 JAMES G. GAU LT ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 503 MAGARO RD. 717-350-0328 ENOLA, PA 17025 jggault@comcast.net INVOICE SATURDAY, AUGUST 6, 2011 (for dates of 07-15-11 through 08-05-11) ATTORNEY SERVICES: 66.75 HOURS X $60.00 = $4,005.00 Continuation of representation of interests pursuant to Rules of Professional Conduct: Research of county, state, and federal rules of court, and related procedures for stays, ten day notices, and praecipes; Preparation of appropriate withdrawal motions and other notices to courts, opposing counsel and all parties; Filing and service of Motions and/or Petitions to Withdraw, inclusive of Briefs in Support and Reply Brief; forwarding of related responses, correspondence, emails, notices, and court Orders; arranging personal service; review of dockets; management of deadlines for responsive pleadings; telephone calls with opposing counsel; travel to multiple courts and post offices. Said legal services protecting client interests in the following matters: 1. Writ of Summons case in Dauphin County: RMMII v. Lisa M. Morgan, et al.; docket no. 2010-CV-16273-CV. 2. Writ of Summons case in Cumberland County: RMMII v. Lisa M. Morgan, et al.: docket no. 2010-7924-filed in person. 3. Cleveland Bros. case in Westmoreland County: docket no. 2890 of 2010. 4. Adams County Asphalt Co. case before Judge Thomas: docket no. Adv. No. 1:08-ap- 00064-JJT. 5. New federal action before Judge Rambo: RMMll v. Estate/MLB/Kim Co.: docket no. 1:11- cv-0802. 6. Randolph Turner case before Judge Jones: docket no. 1:98-cv-87. 7. York Building Products case before Judge Jones: docket no. 1:1 0-cv-1 677. 8. Abel Personnel case in Cumberland County: docket no. 2011-3025. 9. Madison Excavation and George Estep case in Cumberland County: docket no. 2010-6392. 10. Camp Hill Auto Parts case in Cumberland County: docket no. 2010-3673. 11. Double M case in Dauphin County: docket no. 5381 Equity 1996. 12. Double M case inn Superior Court: docket no. 1036 MDA 2011. 13. Mann Realty Associates, Inc. Land Use Appeal case in Dauphin County: docket no. 2006- CV-4153 LU. 14. Writ of Summons case in Lebanon County: RMMII v. Lisa M. Morgan, et al.: docket no. 2011-00021. 15. Writ of Summons case in Perry County: RMMII v. Lisa M. Morgan, et al.: docket no. CV WS 2011-24. 16. Pennsy Supply v. RMMII and Caco case in Dauphin County: docket no. 201 0-cv-01 857-eq. 17. RMMII and Mann Realty v. Killian Gephart and Tom Scott case in Dauphin County. docket no. 2010-cv-8145-cv. 18. Hbg. Redevelopment Authority case in Dauphin County: docket No. 201 0-cv-1 2959-ml. 19. HACC case in Adams County: docket no. 2010-s-807. 20. 3rd Circ appeal involving Oldcastle/Adams County Asphalt case before Judge Muir: docket no. 03-2016. 21. 3RD Circ appeal involving Pennsy Supply confession of judgment case before Judge Jones: docket no. 11-2194. 22. RMMII v. Pennsy Supply confession of judgment case before Judge Jones: docket no. 1:11- cv- 1469. 23. RMMII v. Bobali, Kim Co., and PSC case before Judge Rambo: docket no. 1:09-cv-1965. [Additional motions/petitions and related legal services to protect client interests remain to be completed in other county trial court and state court appellate matters] TOTAL DUE this INVOICE @ $60.00/hr.: $4,005.00 JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. No. 11-7975 - Civil Term ROBERT M. MUMMA, II and MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., mco C Defendants zm - x ?- .? r^ ` Z MOTION REQUESTING THAT ARGUMENT DATE BE CONTINUED ' ^o AND NOW, comes Defendants, Robert M. Mumma, II and Mann Realty Associates, Inc., by counsel, John M. Kerr, Esquire, and files the within Motion, the nature of which is as follows: 1. On December 20, 2011, Plaintiff James G. Gault, Esq. filed a Praecipe to List Defendants' Preliminary Objections for Argument Court on January 6, 2012 (see attached copy of Praecipe). 2. Undersigned counsel filed the referenced Preliminary Objections on behalf of Defendants, Robert M. Mumma, II and Mann Realty Associates, Inc. 3. On Thursday, December 22, 2011, undersigned counsel is undergoing knee replacement surgery and will not return to work until Monday, January 30, 2012. 4. As a result, undersigned counsel requests that the listing appended to this Motion be held over for the next session of Argument Court, which would be on February 24, 2012. 5020 Ritter Road Suitc 104 Mechanlcshurg, PA 170.-6 F'tioM;. 71 7.766.4008 F, x 717.766.4066 WHEREFORE, it is requested that the Court grant a continuance of the argument date relative to pending Preliminary Objections, until February 24, 2012. Respectfully submitted, ?4 e. gil z - Jo n M. Kerr, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 26414 John Kerr Law, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road Suite 104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: December 22, 2011 i , K , J- ., l'1 5020 Ritter Read Suite lo'l Mechanicsburg, I n 17055 131to NE 717.766A008 P,x: 71 7.766. 4.066 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) James G. Gault, Esq. vs. -L, RobertM.Mumma, II&Mann Realty Assos,inc © No 11-7975 Civil Terrri 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: James G. Gault, Esq. (Name and Address) 503 Magaro Rd., Enola, PA 17025 (b) for defendants.- John M. Kerr, Esquire (Name and Address) 5020 Ritter Rd., Ste. 104, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: January 6, 2012 re Print your name l( Plaintiff December 20, 2011 Attorney for Date: INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James G. Gault, Esq., do hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument this date by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: John M. Kerr, Esquire 5020 Ritter Rd. Ste. 104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Counsel for Defendants: Robert M. Mumma, II and Mann Realty Associates, Inc. DATE: December 20, 2011 \4ames G. Gault, Esquire PA Supreme Ct. Id. No. 49687 503 Magaro Road Enola, PA 17025 Tele: (410) 208-8453 jggault@comcast.net CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he has served a copy of the foregoing, "Motion Requesting That Argument Date Be Continued," on the below-named individual in the manner indicated: First Class mail, Postage Prepaid i James G. Gault, Esquire 503 Magaro Road Enola, PA 17025 John ,14. Kerr, Esquire 5020 Ritter Road Suite 104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: December 22, 2011 Y1j I trn;t . 5,020 Ritter Road Suite 104 Mo harucsburg 11/1 17055 PHUhF 717.766.4008 F x 71 7.766.4066 JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 503 Magaro Road. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Enola, PA 17025, : V. ROBERT M. MUMMA, II and NO. 2011-7975 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC. 840 Market Street, : Lemoyne, PA 17043 CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, P.J. ORDER AND NOW, this Z*7 ' day of February, 2012, upon consideration of Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, the response filed thereto, and the briefs submitted in lieu of argument, the Preliminary Objections of the Defendants are hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are given twenty (20) days from the date of this order to file an answer to Plaintiff's complaint. BY THE COURT, / Hess, P.J. /a SG?ti ?? h1. rr CZ) -C al 'T z' can , l Q E i JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 503 Magaro Rd., Enola, PA 17025 : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : DOCKET NO. 11- 7975 CIVIL TERM ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and CIVIL ACTION - LAW c MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC.,: r 840 Market St., Lemoyne, PA 17043 Defendants cn [.s PRAECIPE TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a default judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, James G. Gault, Esq., and against the Defendants, Robert M. Mumma, II and Mann Realty Associates, Inc., for failure to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs Complaint. 1. The Plaintiff's Complaint was served upon the Defendants on October 26, 2011 as confirmed by the Return of Service of the Sheriff s Office of Cumberland County dated October 28, 2011. A true and correct copy of the Return of Service is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A. 2. The Notice Of Intention To Take Default Judgment required by Pa.R.C.P. 237.1(a)(2) was mailed to the Defendants' counsel on March 19, 2012. A true and correct copy of the Notice Of Intention To Take Default Judgment is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit B. 3. The Notice Of Intention To Take Default Judgment mailed to the Defendants' counsel on March 19, 2012 was delivered (i) by U.S. First Class Mail as confirmed by the U.S. Post Office Form 3817 dated March 19, 2012, and (ii) by U.S. certified mail, return receipt, #7011 2000 0001 2523 4075 indicating delivery accepted on March 20, 2012. A true and correct has h ?Z#.27,3-z/s copy of each U.S. mailing receipt dated March 19, 2012 is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit C. 4. In addition to the foregoing, receipt of The Notice Of Intention To Take Default Judgment was personally acknowledged by said Defendants' counsel pursuant to an email sent by Attorney Kerr on March 27, 2012 which expressly recognized that the ten day period expired on Thursday, March 29, 2012. A true and correct copy of said email exchange is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit D (3 pages). WHEREFORE, Please Assess Damages in the amount of $12,015 as set forth in the Plaintiff's Complaint. Dated: March 30, 2012 79M 's G. Gault, Esq. 503;agaro Road Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 (410) 208-8453 jggault@comcast.net PLAINTIFF I hereby certify that written notice of the intention to take a default judgment was mailed to counsel representing the party against whom judgment is to be entered after the default occurred and at least ten days prior to the date of the filing of this praecipe. A copy of the notice of intention to enter judgment by default is attached hereto as Exhibit R Dated: March 30, 2012 CERTIFICATION OF ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES I hereby certify that the addresses of the Plaintiff and the Defendants are as follows: PLAINTIFF James G. Gault, Esq. 503 Magaro Road Enola, PA 17025 DEFENDANTS Mann Realty Associates, Inc. 840 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Dated: March 30, 2012 Robert M. Mumma, II 840 Market St. - Suite 33333 Lemoyne, PA 17043 d1p James G. Ga t, Esq. tLAINTIFF AFFIDAVIT OF NON-MILITARY SERVICE I, James G. Gault, Esquire, being a licensed attorney in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and an officer of its courts, hereby swear upon all information, knowledge, and belief that Defendant Robert M. Mumma, II is not currently in the military service of the United States, nor any State or Territory thereof or its allies as defined in the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 and the amendments thereto. Dated: March 30, 2012 AND NOW, to wit, this _ 0 74? day of 691e , 2012, Judgment is entered as above in favor of the Plaintiff and st the Defendants. ;) 00 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff ?a?ntr of cumbrr Jody S Smith Chief Deputy -? ?. -A n Richard W Stewart Solicitor OFrICE OF THE Sf EWr James G. Gault vs. Robert M. Mumma, II Case Number 2011-7975 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 10/26/2011 02:30 PM - William Cline, Corporal, who being duly swom according to law, states that on October 26, 2011 at 1430 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Robert M. Mumma 11, by making known unto Lori Perry, Office Manager for Robert M. Mumma 11 at 840 Market Street, Suite 158, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Penns nia 17043 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and c9rreq opy of the same. WILLIAM CLINE, DEPUTY 10/26/2011 02:30 PM - William Cline-, -Corporal, who being duly swom according to taw; states that on October 26, 2011 at 1430 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit Mann Realty Associates, Inc., by making known unto Lori Perry, Office Manager for Mann Realty Associates, Inc. at 840 Market Street, Suite 158, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17043 its contents and at the same time handing to her ;pe rs onal the said true and correct copy of the same. z?7- M CLINE, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $60.44 October 28, 2011 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF E?ttw-r l1 (c) ComySuffe Shenft. TeteosoR. Inc. JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ. Plaintiff v. ROBERT M. MUIVIlVIA, H, and MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . Docket No. 11-7975 CIVIL TERM Civil Action - Law NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO: JOHN KERR, ESQUIRE 5020 Ritter Rd. - Suite 104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Counsel for Defendants ROBERT M. MUMMA, H, and MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC. Date of Notice: March 19, 2012 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. 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 Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3302 (717) 249-3166 Ja'mps G. Gault, Esquire 503 agaro Road Enola, PA 17025 410-208-8453 ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 If Pait icted Delivery Is desired. ¦ Print your nano and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed too: -J04 czy, 'j r.6 ecl,?•t,65 V'r5? P?, c a 13 Agent x *hW Ay- B. R vAH (Printed Name) C. Pate of Delivery o-. D. Is delivery address different from Item 11 ? Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: lp No 3. Type Certified Mail ? Express Mail 17 RegisOeted 0 Retum Receipt for Merchandise 13 insured mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Deliver!? (E7rfra Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number (i>awwfmmWnIke law 7011 2000 0001 2523 4075 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-WIM ; (Domestic Mail G For deliveryinform. MI rU ?ti . 45 1?1i Un Postage $ G ni -7, Certified Fee p' " rl s Post & C3 Return Receipt Fee j; Her O (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee / (Endorsement Required) O Total Postage & Fees rl-I ent To r--1 ?- .' ....... ..........°--'----...........°--°---°'- Q freet, Apt. No.; r%- or PO Box No. ------------------------------ City, State, ZIP+4 ?ry ?` XFINITY Connect XFINITY Connect Re: today's phone message From : jggault@comcast.net Subject : Re: today's phone message To : John Kerr <kerrlaw@comcast.net> Bcc : rebecca703 <rebecca703@msn.com> Attorney Kerr, Page 1 of 2 jggault0comcast.ne + Font Size - Tue, Mar 27, 2012 06:27 PM You were directly copied on my email of 03/02/12 sent to Alan Haar with respect to my demand for my 1099 I.R.S. form - therein, said email disclosed the Omer dated 02/27/12. You thereafter acknowledged same by sending a reply email to me indicating that you would look into the matter. With respect to the filing of any matters in Gault v. Mumma et al., I intend to proceed as permitted by the Penna. Rules of Procedure without granting any extensions. It would appear that you are correct in your calculation that the expiration of the 10 day period is Thursday, March 29. Perhaps I will see you at the Prothonotary's office first thing Thursday morning. Sincerely, J.Gault PS > With respect to said I.R.S. matter, I have submitted - based upon the advice of my CPA - a request for a determination and I was advised that the I.R.S. will be in contact with Mumma and/or Mann Realty in the near future. Apparently, the outcome of the determination which was requested could alter our respective tax liabilities, as well as the imposition of penalties or fines upon the Employer/Firm. From: "John Kerr' <kerrlaw@comcast.net> To: jggauft@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:04:42 PM Subject: RE: today's phone message Attorney Gault: I have returned from my Florida vacation. As you know, for some reason Judge Hess' office never mailed me the Oder denying my Preliminary Objections. Had they done so, I would have filed my Answer timely. I am planning to file my Answer first thing Thursday morning. This is the tenth day from the date of your default notice. To the extent that this would require an additional day extension, I am requesting that you grant to me this extension, given the circumstances of not timely receiving the Order from Judge Hess. I would appreciate this courtesy and thank you for e-mailing me the Order.... John Kerr John Kerr Law, PC John M. Kerr, Esquire 5020 Ritter Road Suite 104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 P. (717) 766-4008 F. (717) 766-4066 Email: kerriaw@comcast.net website: WWW.johnkerriaw.com E1 i 6ir J- -3 n http://sz0019.wc.mail.comcast.net/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=200921&tz=America/New ... 3/27/2012 XFfNITY Connect XFINITY Connect Re: today's phone message From : kerrlaw@comcast.net Subject : Re: today's phone message To : jggault@comcast.net Reply To : kerrlaw@comcast.net Page 1 of 1 j9gault0comcast.ne + Font Size - Tue, Mar 20, 2012 03:39 PM Thank you Attorney Gault. I never received the decision and am in Florida on vacation. I will return on Thursday and address this matter promptly. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: jggault@comcast.net (Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:28:55 +0000 (UTQ To: kerdaw<kerrlaw@comcast.net> Subject: today's phone message In response to the cryptic voicemail message delivered by Kerr Law this morning which inquired about the "decision" in the "Mumma case" and said law office's request for a copy of same because it had reportedly not rec'd. same in the mail, there are obviously many many decisions in Mumma's cases and the message delivered this morning was very non-specific (this is especially certain given Judge Rambo's decision issued yesterday). To the extent that this morning's voicemail message had intended to reference the most recent Order issued by Judge Hess in the matter of Gault v. Mumma et al., I have attached a scan of the Order dated 02-27-12. The 10 day notice was mailed by me on 03-19-12. ].Gault E??t 161.7- P'- 3. of ; r (ys http://sz0019.wc.mail.comcast.netlzimbra/h/printmessage?id=198872&tz=America/New ... 3/30/2012 XFINITY Connect XFINITY Connect Page 1 of 1 jnauf Ocomcast.ne + Font Size - Re: today's phone message From : jggault@comcast.net Subject : Re: today's phone message To : ken-law <kerrtaw@comcast.net> Bcc : rebecca703 <rebecca703@msn.com>, jagaga <jagaga@comcast.net> Order attached. From: jggault@comcast.net To: "kerdaw" <kerriaw@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 11:28:55 AM Subject: today's phone message Tue, Mar 20, 2012 03:29 PM 1 attachment in response to the cryptic voicemail message delivered by Kerr Law this morning which inquired about the "decision" in the "Mumma case" and said law office's request for a copy of same because it had reportedly not rec'd. same in the mail, there are obviously many many decisions in Mumma's cases and the message delivered this morning was very non-specific (this is especially certain given Judge Rambo's decision issued yesterday). To the extent that this morning's voicemail message had intended to reference the most recent Order issued by Judge Hess in the matter of Gault v. Mumma et al., I have attached a scan of the Order dated 02-27-12. The 10 day notice was mailed by me on 03-19-12. J.Gault 02-27-12 Order denying POs.pdf °f 468 KB ,Uk 11 D - ?y 17 http://sz0019.wc.mail.comcast.net/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=198869&tz=America/New ... 3/30/2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James G. Gault, Esq., do hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment on the 30th day of March, 2012 by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the Defendants addressed as follows: JOHN KERR, ESQUIRE 5020 Ritter Rd. - Suite 104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Counsel for Defendants ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC. Dated: March 30, 2012 es G. Gault, Esq. 5 3 Magaro Road no la, Pennsylvania 17025 (410) 208-8453 jggault@comcast.net WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) NO 2011-7975 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO THE SHERIFF OF ; DAvPHi'd COUNTY: To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ. Plaintiff (s) From ROBERT M. MUMMA, II - 840 MARKET ST., LEMOYNE, PA 17043 (1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant (s)and to sell (2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of GARNISHEE(S) as follows: PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., - 1001 PAXTON ST., HARRISBURG, PA 17104 and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is enjoined from paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defendant (s) or otherwise disposing thereof; (3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment is found in the possession of anyone other than a named garnishee, you are directed to notify him/her that he/she has been added as a garnishee and is enjoined as above stated. Amount Due $12,015.00 Interest @ 6% - $720.90 Atty's Comm Atty Paid $200.44 Plaintiff Paid Date: 4/27/2012 (Seal) L.L. Due Prothy Other Costs -]??. ?. David D. Buell, Prothonotary Y? Deputy REQUESTING PARTY: Name JAMES G GAULT, ESQ. Address: 503 MAGARO RD ENOLA, PA 17025 Attorney for: PLAINTIFF Telephone: 410-208-8453 Supreme Court ID No. 49687 JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN IA V. ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and : DOCKET NO.2011- 7975 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC.,: Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW m A z.,; ?r -? - PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION rte- ' `? °? To the Prothonotary: , Issue writ of execution in the above matter, (1) directed to the Sheriff of DAUPHIN COUNTY; (2) against ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, 840 Market St., Lemoyne, PA, 17043, Defendant; and (3) against PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., 1001 Paxton St., Harrisburg, PA, 17104, Garnishee; (4) and enter this writ in the judgment index (a) against ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, Defendant, and (b) against PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., as Garnishee, as a lis pendens against real property of the defendant in name of garnishee as follows: (Specifically describe property) Sheriff is to levy / execute upon the rents & royalties payable by garnishee to defendant (5) Amount due Interest @ 6% Costs to be added TOTAL ,*.2 q - 0 0 Pd '4f? 60 q u C 19F q2. Jo ??- 16. '5-0 15V Pd 9f .?OD• 14 A'f? C#- 7 q ,214,o2.7g3q7 w(I ? Of '5?'X 1SS v Pcl 2. aS dve (1o .5o LL $ 12,015.00 $ 720.90 $ 1,280.53 $ 14,016.43 JaWes G. Gault, Esq. 503 Magaro Rd. Enola, PA 17025 (410) 208-8453 PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James G. Gault, Esq., do hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe on the 27 h day of April, 2012 by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the Defendants addressed as follows: JOHN KERR, ESQUIRE 5020 Ritter Rd. - Suite 104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Counsel for Defendants ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC. Dated: April 27, 2012 4es G. Gault, Esq. Penna. Sup. Ct. ID # 49687 503 Magaro Rd. Enola, PA 17025 (410) 208-8453 jggault@comcast.net JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA V. ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and DOCKET NO.2011- 7975 r, : f ; MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC.,: ro3 C N Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW -O N rr; 70= -J ---1 PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION -v - c ca - DC To the Prothonotary: W Issue writ of execution in the above matter, (1) directed to the Sheriff of Cumberland County; (2) against MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., 840 Market St., Lemoyne, PA, Defendant; and (3) against METRO BANK, 65 Ashland Ave., Carlisle, PA, Garnishee; (4) and enter this writ in the judgment index (a) against MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, and (b) against METRO BANK, as Garnishee, as a lis pendens against real property of the defendant in name of garnishee as follows: (Specifically describe property) Sheriff is to levy / execute upon the Defendants bank accounts (5) Amount due Interest @ 6% Costs to be added TOTAL 2 q - C o ?W If ?'? d0. Nq CB F oo .2 Go. u? ?f C# 7q I p-f .27L13g7 \64 0f '?-x 15sved 4 •y?tt- $12,015.00 $ 720.90 $ 1,280.53 $ 14,016.43 es G. Gault, Esq. 50 Magaro Rd. Enola, PA 17025 (410) 208-8453 PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James G. Gault, Esq., do hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe on the 27th day of April, 2012 by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the Defendants addressed as follows: JOHN KERR, ESQUIRE 5020 Ritter Rd. - Suite 104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Counsel for Defendants ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC. Dated: April 27, 2012 ??'" <` Jam s G. Gault, Esq. Per . Sup. Ct. 113#49687 503 Magaro Rd. Enola, PA 17025 (410) 208-8453 j ggault@comcast.net JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and DOCKET NO.2011- 7975 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC.,: c Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION r To the Prothonotary: b = Issue writ of execution in the above matter, (1) directed to the Sheriff of Cumberland County; (2) against MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., 840 Market St., Lemoyne, PA, Defendant; and (3) against INTEGRITY BANK, 3345 Market St., Camp Hill, PA, Garnishee; (4) and enter this writ in the judgment index (a) against MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, and (b) against INTEGRITY BANK, as Garnishee, as a lis pendens against real property of the defendant in name of garnishee as follows: (Specifically describe property) Sheriff is to levy / execute upon the Defendants bank accounts (5) Amount due $ 12,015.00 Interest @ 6% $ 720.90 Costs to be added $ 1,280.53 TOTAL $14,016.43 J es G. Gault, Esq. 5 Magaro Rd. Enola, PA 17025 (410) 208-8453 PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James G. Gault, Esq., do hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe on the 27th day of April, 2012 by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the Defendants addressed as follows: JOHN KERR, ESQUIRE 5020 Ritter Rd. - Suite 104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Counsel for Defendants ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC. Dated: April 27, 2012 s G. Gault, Esq. Pe a. Sup. Ct. ID # 49687 503 Magaro Rd. Enola, PA 17025 (410) 208-8453 jggault@comcast.net WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) NO 2011-7975 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ. Plaintiff (s) From MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., - 840 MARKET ST., LEMOYNE, PA (1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant (s)and to sell (2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of GARNISHEE(S) as follows: METRO BANK - 65 ASHLAND AVE., CARLISLE PA INTEGRITY BANK - 3345 MARKET ST., CAMP HILL, PA and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is enjoined from paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defendant (s) or otherwise disposing thereof, (3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment is found in the possession of anyone other than a named garnishee, you are directed to notify him/her that he/she has been added as a garnishee and is enjoined as above stated. Amount Due $12,01.5.00 L. L. $.50 Interest @ 6% - $720.90 Atty's Comm °% Atty Paid $200.44 Plaintiff Paid Due Prothy $2.25 Other Costs - PARPO•s3 Date: 4/27/2012 (Seal) REQUESTING PARTY: Name JAMES G GAULT, ESQ. Address: 503 MAGARO RD ENOLA, PA 17025 Attorney for: PLAINTIFF Telephone: 410-208-8453 David D. Buell, Prothonotary '-'ax ?!O" Z/ Deputy Supreme Court ID No. 49687 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Anderson i" ri_i`0i` 1i THE PROTHOINO Ai, S Smith zf Deputy xichard W Stewart Solicitor James G. Gault vs. Robert M. Mumma, II (et al.) 2012MAY -7 PM 12: 45 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Case Number 2011-7975 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 05/03/2012 09:25 AM - Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on April 3, 2012 at 0923 hours, attached as herein commanded all goods, chattels, rights, debts, credits, and monies of the within named defendant, to wit: Mann Realty Associates, Inc., in the hands, possession, or control of the within named garnishee, Integrity Bank, 3345 Market Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011, by handing to Jessie Mull, Assistant Branch Manager personally three copies of interrogatories together with three true and attested copies of the writ of execution and made the contents there of known to her. 05/03/2012 11:36 AM - Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on April 3, 2012 at 1132 hours, attached as herein commanded all goods, chattels, rights, debts, credits, and monies of the within named defendant, to wit: Mann Realty Associates, Inc., in the hands, possession, or control of the within named garnishee, Metro Bank, 65 Ashland Avenue, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013, by handing to Maria Theodorator, Assistant Store Manager personally three copies of interrogatories together with three true and attested copies of the writ of execution and made the contents there of known to her. 05/07/2012 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states this writ is returned SATISFIED. SHERIFF COST: $391.85 SO ANSWERS, May 07, 2012 RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF O's- Pd - A s`D t.L. I'd, 7 ygoe-, r. ??eun ,c See ff . Teleasofi. Inc. DISTRIBUTION PLAINTIFF James G. Gault, Esquire WRIT NO. 2011-7975 James G. Gault, Esquire -vs- Mann Realty Associates, Inc. Real Debt $ 12,015.00 Interest 720.90 Attorney's Comm. Writ Costs, Atty 200.44 Writ Costs, Pltff. Miscellaneous 1,280.53 Attorneys Fees $ 14,216.87 Sheriff's Costs: Docketing $ 18.00 Poundage 240.30 Law Library .50 Prothonotary 2.25 Service Mileage 21.00 Postage 1.80 Advertising Postpone Sale Bad Check Charge Surcharge 50.00 Garnishee 18.00 Levy 40.00 TOTAL $ 391.85 Defendant Paid to Sheriff Advance Costs Total Collected DISTRIBUTION Pd. To Pltff. Refund of Adv. Costs Sheriff's Costs $ 14,216.87 250.00 391.85 $ 14,608.72 250.00 $ 14,858.72 So Answe Ro Y . Anderson Sh f B i f-' ;IED-OFFIGE , i k1E PROTNONOTAtt 2012 JUL 30 PM 3: 37 COMSERLTY PENNSYLVANIA JAMES G. GAULT, ESQ. Plaintiff V. ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC.,: Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN DOCKET NO.2011- 7975 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO MARK JUDGMENT SATISFIED To the Prothonotary: Kindly mark the judgment entered against the Defendants in this case as satisfied, and discontinued. Date: iz & l l Z i ?.i /, Janes G. Gault, Esq. Penna. Sup. Ct. ID # 49687 503 Magaro Rd. Enola, PA 17025 (410) 208-8453 PLAINTIFF Q? (- 0? ?sc?sc? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James G. Gault, Esq., do hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the Defendants addressed as follows: Counsel of Record for Defendants in Docket No. 11-7975: JOHN KERR, ESQUIRE 5020 Ritter Rd. - Suite 104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Additional Counsel for Defendants in re Writ of Execution & Satisfaction: DEAN WEIDNER, ESQUIRE 508 No. Second St. Harrisburg, PA 17108-0845 _. j Dated: es G. Gault, Esquire Penna. Sup. Ct. ID # 49687 503 Magaro Rd. Enola, PA 17025 (410) 208-8453