HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-3078NM(David 1D. Buell
,Prothonotary
XirkS. Sohonage, ESQ
Solicitor
l§nee X. Simpson
1st Deputy (Prothonotary
Irene E. 94orrow
2"-Deputy (Prothonotary
Office of the Prothonotary
CumberlandCounty, 1Tennsykania
Z, - 340 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES
AND NOW THIS 25T" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011, AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE -THE ABOVE
CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA
R.C.P 230.2
BY THE COURT,
DAVID D. BUELL
PROTHONOTARY
One Courthouse Square 9 Suite 100 9 Carlisle, PA 17013 0 (717) 240-6195 • Fad, (717 240-6573
Robert E. Kelly, Jr.
Attorney I.D. No. 21925
Lee S. Cohen
Attorney I.D. No. 89278
KELLY, PARKER & COHEN LLP
5425 Jonestown Road, Suite 103
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 920-2220
FAX (717) 920-2370
rkelly@kuc-law.com
Icohen@kpc-_Iaw.com
I iLED-OFF tc
[IF THE PROTHmOT;
1012 JAN -9 AN 11: 17
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
IFS GROUP, LLC, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiff,
PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IAN M. CASTANEIRA,
Defendant, NO. 02-3078 CIVIL
VS.
STEPHEN P. GIFT, TERRY E. LEMON,
and JOSEPH E. KRICHTEN,
Additional Defendants
PETITION OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF
IAN M. CASTANEIRA TO REINSTATE ACTION
Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Ian M. Castaneira, by his counsel, Kelly, Parker &
Cohen, LLP respectfully submits this Petition pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 230.2 and requests that
the Court reinstate this action and, in support, sets forth the following:
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. This matter was commenced by Plaintiff IFS Group, LLC ("IFS") on June 26,
2002 against Defendant Ian M. Castaneira ("Castaneira").
1
2. Following the initial filing of preliminary objections, Castaneira filed an Answer
with New Matter and a Counterclaim against IFS on September 6, 2002. The Answer, New
Matter and Counterclaim were filed by counsel for Castaneira. IFS has not filed a responsive
pleading to the Counterclaim or to the New Matter.
3. On September 13, 2002, Castaneira filed Writs of Summons against Additional
Defendants Stephen P. Gift, Terry E. Lemon and Joseph E. Krichten. The Writs of Summons
were served on September 18, 2002. To date, no Notice of appearance has been filed on behalf
of any of the additional defendants.
4. On April 18, 2007, in connection with the reformulation of their law firm counsel
for Castaneira filed a simultaneous withdraw of appearance and entry of appearance. A copy of
the Entry of Appearance is attached as Appendix A.
5. The parties have engaged in discovery concerning the issues in the case, including
the Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena in February, 2008 served by Castaneira.
B. NOTICE OF TERMINATION
6. Apparently, on or about August 26, 2011, the Office of Prothonotary issued a
Notice of Termination ("Notice") under Pa. R. Civ. P. 230.2 indicating that this Action was the
subject of possible dismissal.
7. However, and contrary to the provisions of Rule 230.2 (b)(1), the Notice was not
served upon counsel for Castaneira whose appearance was listed of record, although the Notice
was served upon counsel for IFS according to the 2011 Purge List ("Purge List"). A copy of the
Purge List is attached as Appendix B.
2
8. Further, the Purge List recently obtained by Castaneira reflects, incorrectly, that
none of the defendants (actually defendant and counterclaim defendants) is represented by
counsel even though Castaneira has been represented in this Action since 2002 and, in addition,
counsel filed a formal Entry of Appearance in 2007 at the time of the reformulation of the law
firm representing Castaneira. See Appendix B.
9. Instead, based on information and belief, the Prothonotary's office served the
Notice upon Castaneira at 501 California Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17109. While this had been
the address listed for Castaneira listed in the Complaint, Castaneira has not lived at that address
since 2004 and, in fact, has not owned that property since June, 2011. See Affidavit of Ian M.
Castaneira attached as Appendix C ("Castaneira Affidavit")
10. Upon information and belief, including information from the Office of
Prothonotary, the Notice was not returned to the Prothonotary's Office and, therefore,
publication of the Notice was not undertaken in accordance Pa. R. Civ. P. 230.2(b)(2).'
11. As a result, neither Castaneira nor his legal counsel received actual notice of the
potential dismissal of this Action nor did they receive constructive notice through publication.
12. As a consequence of the Notice not being received by Castaneira's counsel or by
Castaneira, the Statement of Intention to Proceed required to maintain the action as active was
not filed. On this basis, the Office of the Prothonotary issued an Order of Termination on
October 25, 2011 ("Order"), a copy of which is attached as Appendix D.
' As set forth in the Note to Rule 230.2(b)(2), if a notice is mailed to an attorney and is returned by the postal
service, the Prothonotary is to check a legal directory or contact the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts
for a current address. However, because in this instance the Notice was not sent to counsel and returned, the
provisions of the Note are not applicable.
3
13. Upon information and belief, a copy of the October 25 h Order was served only
upon Castaneira at the California Avenue address and not upon his counsel of record. As a
result, a copy of the Order of Termination was not received by either Castaneira or his counsel.
14. In the course of performing a computer internet search in late December, 2011,
Castaneira happened to come across a copy of the Purge List. A copy of the Purge List
discovered by Mr. Castaneira at that time is attached as Appendix B. The list indicates that this
matter was on the List for possible termination and did note the identification of counsel for IFS
but indicated no identification of counsel for the defendant(s). This was the first notification
which Castaneira or his counsel had that this matter was listed for potential termination or, in
fact, that the matter had subsequently been terminated in October 2011.
C. BASIS FOR REINSTATMENT OF THIS ACTION
15. Pa. R. Civ. P.230.2(d) provides that "an aggrieved party" may petition the Court
to reinstate a dismissed action. Because the October 25t' Order would terminate his counterclaim
Castaneira qualifies as an aggrieved person under Rule 230.2(d).
16. This Rule provides that if a Petition is filed within thirty (30) days of the entry of
the Order of Termination then "the court shall grant the petition and reinstate the action". The
Official Note to Rule 230.2(d)(2) also specifically provides that this 30-day period is not
intended to set a standard of timeliness for petitions under this rule.
17. Rule 230.2(d)(3) specifically permits a petition be filed more than thirty (30) days
after the entry of the Order of Termination and indicates that the Court "shall grant the Petition
and Reinstate the Action" upon a showing that (a) the Petition was timely filed following the
entry of the Order of Termination and (2) there is a reasonable explanation or a legitimate excuse
4
for the failure to file a (i) a statement of intention to proceed or (ii) a petition to reinstate the
action within the automatic 30-day period provided in Rule 230.2(d)(2). Castaneira has satisfied
all the requirements of Rule 230.2(d)(3).
18. At set forth above, Castaneira or his counsel did not become aware of the Purge
List, the Notice or the Order of Termination until late December, 2011 when by happenstance
Castaneira learned of its existence during the course of an unrelated internet search. This
Petition is timely filed based upon the very recent acquisition of knowledge of the existence of
the Notice and Order of Termination.
19. Further, the Notice itself is ineffective and void. Rule 230.2(b)(1) requires that
the Notice be served on counsel of record and, only if a party is unrepresented, may the Notice
be served upon an unrepresented party. In this case, Castaneira had counsel of record throughout
the entirety of this litigation, specifically including the Entry of Appearance submitted to the
Court in April, 2007. As a consequence, the Notice of Termination itself should be deemed null
and void and, as a result, this Court should reinstate this action.
20. Castaneira has provided a reasonable explanation and a legitimate excuse for the
failure to have filed either the Statement of Intention to Proceed or a Petition to Reinstate within
the initial 30-day Time period expressly authorized Rule 230.2(d)(2). Simply, the Notice was
not received by Castaneira's counsel of record or by Castaneira and neither counsel nor
Castaneira had knowledge of existence of the Notice or Order of Termination until late
December, 2011.
21. Accordingly, Castaneira has satisfied the requirements of Pa. R. Civ. P. 230.2(d)
warranting the reinstatement of this action.
5
22. Castaneira desires to continue this litigation which involves, at least in the
Counterclaim, a significant claim. The dismissal of this action, particularly under the
circumstances in this case, would constitute obvious prejudice to Castaneira as well as an
injustice.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in this Petition as well as in the attached
Castaneira affidavit of Ian M. Castaneira, Defendant Ian M. Castaneira respectfully requests that
the Court reinstate this action.
Respectfully submitted,
y
Robert E. Kelly, Jr.
Attorney ID No. 29125
Lee S. Cohen
Attorney ID No. 89278
KELLY, PARKER & COHEN LLP
5425 Jonestown Road, Suite 103
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 920-2220 (P)
(717) 920-2370 (F)
rkelly@kkpc-law.com
lcohen@kpc-law.com
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff
Ian M. Castaneira
Dated: January 9, 2012
6
APPENDIX A
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IFS GROUP. LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
IAN M. CASTANEIRA,
Defendant
VS.
NO. 02-3078 CIVIL -•
r- o
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
co
Im
J?-
C, :
STEPHEN P. GIFT, TERRY E. LEMON,
and JOSEPH E. KRICHTEN,
Additional Defendants
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly withdraw the appearance of Robert E. Kelly, Jr., Esquire, and Kelly, Hoffman &
Goduto LLP, 300 North Second Street, 10th Floor, Post Office Box 62003, Harrisburg, PA
17106-2003, on behalf of Defendant Ian M. Castaneira.
Respectfully submitted:
L
Robert E. Kell l;f.
Attorney No. 21925
KELLY, HOFFMAN & GODUTO LLP
Commerce Towers - 10`h Floor
300 North Second Street
Post Office Box 62003
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 920-8100
1
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter the appearance of Robert E. Kelly, Jr., Esquire, and Kelly, Parker & Cohen
LLP, 300 North Second Street, 10th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101, on behalf of Defendant Ian M.
Castaneira. We are authorized to accept service of all documents in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert E. elly, J .
Attorney No. 219
KELLY, PARKER & COHEN LLP
Commerce Towers - 10th Floor
300 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 920-2220
i
Dated: April 13, 2007
Counsel for Defendant Ian M. Castaneira.
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this 13 day of April 2007. I, Lee S. Cohen, Esquire. in the law firm of Kelly, Parker &
Cohen LLP, hereby certify that I have, this day, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE AND PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY
OF APPEARANCE upon the person(s) and at the address(es) below named by United States
First Class Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, PA:
Stephen L. Grose, Esquire
Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP
635 North 12`h Street
4`h Floor
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Counsel for Plaintiff and Additional Defendants
11
4 j tee S. Cohen, Esquire
APPENDIX B
c
0
E
E
O
0
w
O
7
O
V
d
w
C
C Lo
m O
CL
O E
C_ '0-
Ix
E
O
co
N
0 Im =
N O
W
c
r
N c`
(a
CD
a
cc !?
C
L 0
L
m t
3
N
$ z'
?.
m
M
U
V
0
7
N
W
m
o 'a
v
c
o
?
3
0
0
w
=
r
J W
J
c co 0 0
O U m y W
In
O it a } In
w
U)
O U = ¢ W O
> a co F- °
2 2 2 = 2 _ 2
C9 (7 0 C7 } = W W C7 LL U
U)
Y Y Y Y } W W Q
2 Z
Y LL
W
W
LL in
2
jr
LL (
j
2
U'
Q Q Q ¢ W 0 = 0 m m Q U
2 Z
U) (n cn j Y U w w U' U1 co (n W
U
2 U
2 U
2 U
It Y
2 Y
2 0
j d
w
O J
2 U
2 Z
Z a
W
s 5 5 g a Q
Q
Y 22 0 ?_
°6 u j
}
W J Q < _ °? ' U Q
Z Ix
L) a
?W In Uaa rr
JZ j LLi
LLJ
y? Q-
¢a ?
MLLI }
ZZ OU
F- wolf
w 1- °.0zw
L.U QQ
2- Z
w ui
F-
O ?
ln } J W
W Y
U cr 2
W i0?
0:r 20Z
:3 0 w
J
0 I W a
u' ww Od
z}ln
osa W? ?¢a ? >
a O
S
a a CD ? -j wa
m JJ O ? _ QOQ a w W ?Z F
-l
n
JZ ¢
W W ?
N
Q
Q? Lij
T 1:
2 W
LL
cl
>- LL
z
M
220
LL
a
=
F-
}¢
F-
Z
fn fn CL
x
Z
U
Q
L) F-
QZ
LU
c o
J J -
° QUS
o
O
0
Z
0 0
}
2Zm?
QJ
Q
00U LL
00
00
W
)
2
a
U=z
0
?
~az 0 IX Q ?2CO J W~ M
I-JQ
¢ ?a
O (1)LO of
Q U V
¢Zw
U' Un.M Q
O QQ
2(A ?J¢}
F-¢<m0 »0
? m
? 2?
F-(n Zt
Ji
¢ln w
00 00
mm
ug Q
a
> Q Y J
z u
D C6
f-
2 U) D 0 J
LLJ Q Z 06 !A
m ¢ '2 S J Wa
06 In
H
0 U ?
(
X
°
W 2 of
2 =
Q N
° Z 0
0 Q
co U
z of
W
J W W 00 ¢ Z otf fA
DY =Q z D z :3 LLS 0 w >
J
2m Co (L
U) qln
[ic zit z z
¢
0 ?
Co o a
:?M w? c
i F ¢W U) F¢-- 3
z z U .
w W2 O
EZ
w LL
Z W W W Y
? W LL ~ Z (27
0° z co 2 0 0 2 Q
Q
Q W 2 Q W 0 Q O w LL
w
w 2 2 F- Y . U (? d 2 Y C7 -
z g Z_ z_ z_ Z
U) U U) (7p N ? Q
] J JQ U)
N
d
O 0 0 O O O 2 CL 0- a 0 a 0 0
0 3 0 ? 3 ? ° 0 a
I L)
a
M
N N
O M
O N
N O O
l) eW
+' M co M
N O
In
a
co
to
T co
O
? f• M (
)
co M
O co o
N 9 CO O
N O
N N
N N
N M
N
p
f 01 m 0 O O O 0 0 O 0 O
APPENDIX C
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN
AFFIDAVIT
I, Ian M. Castaneira, hereby depose and state that:
I am an adult individual and able to make this affidavit, and am a defendant and
counterclaim plaintiff in the civil action in the court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
No. 02-3078 ("Civil Action").
2. I currently reside at 320 Rosedale Avenue, Highspire, PA 17034 and have lived at
that address since November, 2004.
3. In 2002 I did own and reside at 501 California Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17109 but
have not lived at or maintained that address as my residence since November, 2004. Further, I
have not owned the California Avenue property since June, 2011.
4. In late December, 2011, I first became aware that the Civil Action had been the
subject of a notice of termination and had been dismissed when I happened to perform an
internet search of my name and saw a copy of the Cumberland County Purge list which is
attached to this Affidavit.
Prior to that date I had no knowledge that the Civil Action was the subject of a
possible dismissal under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure or that it had been dismissed
in October, 2011.
6. Upon becoming aware of the existence of the Purge List I contacted the legal
counsel who represent me in the Civil Action to inform them of what I had learned. I was then
advised by legal counsel that, following their investigation, the Civil Action had been dismissed
by an Order of October 25, 2011 and was further advised that the filing of a Petition to Reinstate
would be required to re-activate the Civil Action. I was further informed that my legal counsel
had not received either the Notice of Termination or the October 25th Order of dismissal.
7. I did not receive any document from the Cumberland County Office of
Prothonotary during 2011 indicating that the Civil Action was the subject of a possible dismissal
or purging nor did I receive a copy of any notice or order indicating that the Civil Action had
been dismissed. In particular, I did not receive a copy of a Notice of Termination or the Order
dated October 25, 2011 indicating that the Civil Action had been dismissed until receiving a
copy of the Order very recently from my legal counsel.
8. I have been recently informed that the Notice of Dismissal and perhaps the Order
of October 23, 2011 were sent to me at the 501 California Avenue address but I did not receive
either document.
9. I desire to continue to pursue the Counterclaim filed in this action which involves
an amount of money of significance to me.
10. The statements contained in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of muy
knowledge, information and belief.
I M. Castaneira
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this l? day of
January, 2012.
/ NOTARIAL SEAL
DANA Y. THOMPSON, Notary Public 2
City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County
My Commission Expires October 10, 2015
N N N N N O O O
N O
O 'P tgyQ
? 91 t0
S
7
1
W
V N
CO N
O O
N b
v
fl
co W
''
J ,
"'
N
tD
j
a
O
AAA
N
C» A Co w co Cr co co O N W N W
D 0 - * ::E -E ? 2 : O
O
0
0 o
m
o u O O
?
O
O
O
0
0
-n 0
c c > c c c c c 0
m c
z z z z z o
o
(^
?
Om
?
c
D
o
mD
K
a:
X
0
m
O
m
cn
m
z
=
p
p _
o
f
z m z
° O
-? m
mcmn cn Z? O
? m ao m
-
- ? a,
m c
M
O M
X -ml D C7 Z* I
D ?? r D 0 ;u n
m S ? c
n
o
v, z
'
cm
z 0 r.
?z
(n 6)
?
--o T
U) m
K
a?
3
n K o G)
xm 3 z z m x ? K
m n x0 -
i
m
m
a
? 9
9
z D z v
° D ? ? m o D ? o
m
,W
D?
c
O
o n
c
-
go
r
o U)m D
z co
co C
D t s? Z D
A 0
n
m ? g W
-
=
m
D
z
m U)
a
o
CL Pr
-
rT-
D
? z < U
D ?t1
D coa)
00 o0
m0
- EnD
?nZ CD
K
0 c c v?D-1
?Dr -
p cn?
D
r 0
D r. u0
m-D
z G) Q
D. r n
o W
= a
p,
K
0=K r
2 O c
r cn
m cncn
0 0 u
-+? i
rx ?m
xcn ? p?K
?33 D?
?m ? <
D? ?
r ?
?
OD -a .? 3
m
zm?
ZD
:E L
D o
n m
z S
?? mO
? Qz
D?
_
-u DD
nm
? Dcaz
z ° 0z
Mp 0
c zP r-
Dm2 -
C m <
eD
?
D o r X
z p p
mm
? - n
zg
G) T
X rl
m
D D
Orr -< m.
T ;omC O T O =_
O
m a A D
C
i
mz U)
-i
r-
r
m
U)
o-0
zi
p
c
m
u
44 -
9 o
'D
z >
ri)
l)
c
mD ` cn -?? 0 n j < -cnK M
D
z-0
D ?
z
m
z` mm ?m
- m
z o
r 0(nc
zm? z
Xv
ZO o R
co ccn
r{cn rn p
N-
DO
Ocn zz
-A -1 0
D
?Z m n M D3 xm
mZOm 0
X m
;D co
m? ? r ..
3 (7)
r? ZZ go C O
T ?D
m m ?nDDV
D 9. C- K? ? • n oc N
u
" <
? = tG C
s
m
m m
D
25
r
D
?
z?
0
oo??
D D n
C
cn
??
m<
W N
m z
n z
D m
N
9.. ;u
D D D
C. pn
m
n o c
oo
Q, z O c y
a
m '
-I
m
D
m
-{
D
D
D
D
D
D
D s
o
3
m
a z
z ;o
o x
r 0
z m <
0 m
?7 ;o
T. ;o
0 ;o
0 M
0 X
0
O 3
z U) m z m n ? m ccn ccn m o
3 D m O = v m D D D D 0 z
,n 3 T Z1 M T M K n n n =.
0 -n z O
m r-
m c m m z z z z
3
m m ? m c? o
? xi
_ C-
X °- = = =
o?
0
co -0 M 0
0 m
m D m n O'
O c
n
D D
X
O. O
cn X D
G7
m
°
0 co
0
O
m
m D m 0
r r D
APPENDIX D
(David (D. Bueff
,Prothonotary
Kirks. Sohonage, E'SQ
Socicitor
knee x Simpson
I" Deputy Prothonotary
Irene E. 5'Morrow
2"° Deputy Prothonotary
Office of the prothonotary
Cumberfand County, (Pennsylvania
/) Z -31) 78 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES
AND NOW THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011, AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE -THE ABOVE
CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA
R.C.P 230.2
BY THE COURT,
DAVID D. BUELL
PROTHONOTARY
One Courthouse Square • Suite 100 • Carfisfe, PA 17013 • (717)240-6195 • FaX(717? 240-6573
IFS GROUP, LLC, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IAN M. CASTANEIRA,
Defendant, NO. 02-3078 CIVIL
VS.
STEPHEN P. GIFT, TERRY E. LEMON,
and JOSEPH E. KRICHTEN,
Additional Defendants
VERIFICATION
I, Ian M. Castaneira, hereby depose that I have read the foregoing PETITION TO
REINSTATE ACTION which has been drafted by counsel. The factual statements contained
therein are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief, although the
language is that of counsel and, to the extent that the content of the foregoing document is that of
counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification.
This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that, if I make knowingly false statements, I
may be subject to criminal penalties.
Da a IanM. astaneira
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this 9th day of January, 2012, I, Dana Y. Thompson, a Paralegal of the law firm of
Kelly, Parker & Cohen LLP, hereby certify that I have, this day, served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing PETITION OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM OF PLAINTIFF
IAN M. CASTANEIRA TO REINSTATE ACTION on the person(s) and at the address(es)
below named by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid in Harrisburg, PA:
Stephen L. Grose, Esquire
Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal LLP
635 North 12" Street
4'' Floor
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Counsel for Plaintiff
Dana Y. Tl?ompson
IFS GROUP, LLC, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IAN M. CASTANEIRA,
Defendant
V..
STEPHEN P. GIFT, TERRY E.
LEMON, and JOSEPH E.
KRICHTEN,
Additional Defendants
: NO. 02-3078 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PETITION OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM
PLAINTIFF IAN M. CASTANEIRA TO REINSTATE ACTION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 1St day of February, 2012, upon consideration of the Petition of
Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Ian M. Castaneira To Reinstate Action, a Rule is
hereby issued upon Plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested should not be
granted.
RULE RETURNABLE within 21 days of the date of service of this order.
BY THE COURT,
Stephen L. Grose, Esq.
635 North 12th Street, 4th Floor
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorney for Plaintiff
Christylee eck, J.
M (7)
--
?.r?i
?- a
Robert E. Kelly, Jr., Esq.
Lee S. Cohen, Esq.
5425 Jonestown Road
Suite 103
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Attorneys for Defendant
and Counterclaim Plaintiff
Ian M. Castaneira
:rc Ce4 ?1311a
'e t
AA I
AM, I O T ;,0%
Stephen L. Grose, Esquire COUNTY
Attorney I.D. No. 31006
Saidis Sullivan & Rogers ''`', `
635 N. 12`y' Street, Suite 400
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 612-5802 (Phone)
(717) 612-5805 (Fax)
s re(cr?ssr-attorneys.com Counsel for Plaintiff & Additional Defendants
IFS GROUP, LLC, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
IAN M. CASTANEIRA, : NO. 02-3078 CIVIL
Defendant :
vs.
STEPHEN P. GIFT, TERRY E. LEMON
and JOSPEH E. KRICHTEN,
Additional Defendants
RESPONSE TO PETITION OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM
PLAINTIFF, IAN M. CASTENEIRA, TO REINSTATE ACTION
AND NOW, come Plaintiff, IFS Group, LLC, and Additional Defendants, Stephen P.
Gift, Terry E. Lemon, and Joseph E. Krichten, by and through their counsel, Saidis Sullivan and
Rogers, and responds to Defendant's Petition to Reinstate Action as follows:
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Answer, New Matter
and Counterclaim were filed by counsel for Defendant on September 6, 2002. However, by
letter dated September 20, 2002, counsel for Defendant agreed to provide Plaintiff an unlimited
extension of time to respond to the New Matter and Counterclaim, allowing time for the parties
t
to attempt to resolve the matter. Counsel for Defendant also agreed to provide Plaintiff with a
fifteen (15) day notice in which to file a reply to the New Matter and Counterclaim, if one was
required. A true and correct copy of the letter dated September 20, 2002, is attached hereto as
Exhibit A. No such request has ever been made by Defendant or his counsel.
3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on September 13, 2002,
Defendant filed Writs of Summons joining Additional Defendants, Stephen P. Gift, Terry E.
Lemon and Joseph E. Krichten (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Additional
Defendants"), and that the Writs were served on September 18, 2002. While no formal notice of
appearance had been filed on behalf of the Additional Defendants, correspondence was directed
from counsel for Defendant to counsel for Plaintiff and Additional Defendants to resolve all
matters among all parties through a global resolution. Such communications indicating counsel
for Plaintiff was also considered counsel for the Additional Defendants should be in the
correspondence file of counsel for Defendant. Further, counsel for Defendant served
Interrogatories Directed to Plaintiff and to Additional Defendants on counsel who had entered its
appearance for Plaintiff and received responses to the same, so he was well aware that the
Additional Defendants were in fact represented by the same counsel. (See Exhibit B and
Exhibit C identified below.)
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted in part and denied in part. Initial settlement discussions broke down
and discovery was served by Defendant on Plaintiff and Additional Defendants, to which
responses were filed. Settlement discussions occurred between October 2002 and February
2003, with Plaintiff and Additional Defendants providing their final position letter on February
2
26, 2003. No response to that settlement letter was ever received from counsel for Defendant,
nor was any further action taken by the Plaintiff and Additional Defendants, nor any discovery
served by Defendant on Plaintiff and Additional Defendants.
As a result, on September 16, 2005, all parties were notified by the Court that the case
would be terminated unless a party filed a Statement of Intention to Proceed. A true and correct
copy of that Notice of Proposed Termination is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Attorney Kelly
filed a Statement of Intention to Proceed on behalf of Defendant dated October 3, 2005, a true
and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E. It was not until November 22, 2006,
over a year later, however, that Defendant filed Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents Addressed to Plaintiff and Additional Defendants. A true and correct copy of the
service letter dated November 22, 2006, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Responses to the
discovery requests were served on counsel for Defendant on January 16, 2007. A true and
correct copy of the cover letter dated January 16, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit C. In a
letter dated January 19, 2007, counsel for Defendant confirmed with counsel for Plaintiff and
Additional Defendants that the extension of time to respond to Defendant's New Matter and
Counterclaim, as set forth in the letter dated September 20, 2002, was still in place. A true and
correct copy of the letter dated January 19, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit F. No demand to
file an answer to the New Matter and Counterclaim has ever been made upon Plaintiff.
On July 16, 2007, Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents and
Interrogatories on Defendant. Responses were served by Defendant on October 12, 2007, and
supplemental responses were served on November 26, 2007, and December 21, 2007.
On February 4, 2008, Defendant filed a Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena upon
Linsco/Private Ledger Corporation, which Plaintiff and Additional Defendants did not oppose.
As a result, on March 4, 2008, counsel for Defendant provided counsel for Plaintiff and
Additional Defendants with the documents produced in response to that subpoena. A true and
correct copy of the cover letter from Defendant's counsel dated March 4, 2008, is attached hereto
as Exhibit G. There was no further activity by any party in the case from March 4, 2008,
through August 26, 2011, when the second Notice of Proposed Termination of Court Case was
issued by the Prothonotary, requesting a Statement of Intention to Proceed be filed on or before
October 25, 2011, if any party wanted to proceed. A true and correct copy of the Notice of
Proposed Termination dated August 26, 2011, is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
The parties have not engaged in discovery concerning any issues since February 2008,
nor has there been any other correspondence, communication or any indication that Defendant
wished to proceed with his counterclaim or to pursue any action against the Additional
Defendants. The case is now over eleven (11) years old and Defendant has never requested
Plaintiff file an answer to his New Matter and Counterclaim nor has Defendant proceeded with a
complaint on his Writs against Additional Defendants.
B. NOTICE OF TERMINATION
6. It is admitted, upon information and belief, that on August 26, 2011, the Office of
the Prothonotary properly issued a Notice of Termination under Pa. R. Civ. P. 230.2 to counsel
for the Plaintiff and Additional Defendants and to the Defendant.
7. Denied as stated. It is admitted that a copy of the Notice was received by counsel
for Plaintiff and Additional Defendants, who intentionally did not file a Notice of Intention to
4
Proceed as they believed the matters closed due to inactivity. Based upon the Notarized Letter
from the Prothonotary dated January 26, 2012, a true and correct copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit I, the Notice of Proposed Termination was properly served on the Defendant.
8. Plaintiff and Additional Defendants have no knowledge as to where, how or when
Defendant came into possession of the 2011 Purge List attached as Appendix B to his Petition.
However, the Notice of Proposed Termination dated August 26, 2011, was sent to Defendant at
his last known address and not returned to the Prothonotary as undeliverable. See Exhibit I. It
is presumed a copy of the Order dated October 25, 2011, was likewise sent by the Prothonotary.
9. Plaintiff and Additional Defendants believe and therefore aver that both the
Notice and the Order were mailed to Defendant's last known address and not returned to the
Prothonotary. See Exhibit I.
10. Admitted. Publication under Rule 230.2(b)(2) was not required since the mailing
was not returned to the Prothonotary. See Exhibit I.
11. Admitted. However, it is believed that if the address used by the Prothonotary to
notify Defendant was no longer valid, the Notice and the Order would have been returned to the
Prothonotary. That did not occur. See Exhibit I. Therefore, under the law of this
Commonwealth set forth in the "Mailbox Rule" line of cases, the Notice and Order are presumed
to have been served on the Defendant, unless properly rebutted.
Under the "Mailbox Rule," the mailing of a notice, whether to counsel or a party,
establishes a rebuttable presumption that the notice was received, which shifts the burden to the
intended recipient to prove the notice was not received, and testimony alone does not rebut that
presumption. Pa. R. Civ. P. 440(b)(2). See, Wheeler v. Red Rose Transit Authority, 890 A.2d
5
1228, 1231 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). In that case, the attorney for the plaintiff failed to rebut the
presumption that he received notice of intent to terminate a case for inactivity and thus lacked a
legitimate excuse for not filing a petition to reinstate the case in a timely manner. The
Prothonotary in the instant case confirms that the Notice was mailed to Defendant's address of
record and was not returned. See Exhibit I. The Defendant's affidavit, which is solely
testimony, does not, as a matter of law, rebut the presumption of service of a properly mailed
notice to him. Therefore, that affidavit is inadequate to rebut the presumption established in law.
See also, Kane v. Vig_unas, 697 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 2009) (the court reversed the lower court
because it did not "mail" the notice but placed it in the counsel's courthouse mailbox. The court
reasoned the presumption under the mailbox rule did not apply as Rule 230.2 "requires" the
mailing, since only a returned "mailing" requires publication. Since the "mailing" and therefore
the opportunity for returned mail were not present, the Court refused to apply the Mailbox Rule
presumption of service. Mailing did occur here and therefore the "Mailbox Rule" and
presumption of service applies); Samaras v. Hartwick, 698 A.2d 61, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 1997) (the
Superior Court reversed the trial court's granting of a petition to re-open holding "the
presumption of service under the Mailbox Rule is not nullified solely by testimony denying
receipt of the item mailed" and holding to the contrary is in direct contravention of established
law) (emphasis added).
Further, a due process argument is also unavailing in that an action terminated where
notice has been given does not violate due process and Defendant offers no authority for such
conclusion. Wheeler, Id. at 890 A.2d 1332.
6
Therefore, Plaintiff and Additional Defendants believe Defendant is deemed by law to
have "notice" of the potential dismissal of this action and the ultimate dismissal under the
Mailbox Rule, and his affidavit does not rebut that presumption.
12. It is admitted only that the Order terminating this matter dated October 25, 2011,
was attached as Appendix D to Defendant's Petition is true and correct and properly entered, and
believed to be served by the Prothonotary. It is denied that Defendant did not receive proper
notice under the Mailbox Rule.
13. Denied. The assumed mailing of the Order to Defendant's last known address,
which was not returned as undeliverable, under the Mailbox Rule, is presumed to have been
served. There is no evidence, other than Defendant's affidavit, to suggest the Notice and Order
mailed to the Defendant at his last known address was not received by him, as it was not returned
to the Prothonotary's office as undeliverable. See Exhibit I. Proper service was effected as
stated above.
14. Plaintiff and Additional Defendants have no knowledge of these facts, deny the
same, and argue proper notice was given as stated above.
C. BASIS FOR REINSTATMENT OF THIS ACTION
15. Pa. R. Civ. P. 230.2(d)(2) does not pertain to this action because the Petition was
not filed within thirty (30) days after the entry of the termination on the docket.
16. Pa. R. Civ. P. 230.2(d)(2) does not pertain to this action because the Petition was
not filed within thirty (30) days after the entry of the termination on the docket.
17. It is admitted only that Rule 230.2(d)(3) permits a petition to reinstate to be filed
more than thirty (30) days after the entry of the order upon a showing that the petition was timely
7
filed, following entry of the order for termination and there is a reasonable explanation or
legitimate excuse for the failure to file both (a) a statement of intention to proceed prior to the
date of the order of termination, and (b) the petition to reinstate the action within thirty (30) days
after the entry of the order. It is denied that Defendant and his counsel have satisfied the
requirements of Rule 230.2(d)(3). Specifically, counsel for Defendant knows the requirements
of the rules and knew that no activity had taken place on the case since March 2008 (more than
three (3) years) and that such actions would subject the case to dismissal by the Prothonotary.
No reasonable explanation is given by Defendant regarding why the Notice sent to him was not
returned to the Prothonotary. Further, the presumption created by the Mailbox Rule is not
rebutted, as a matter of law, by testimony alone from Defendant (or counsel) that they did not
receive the Notice or the Order. Under the precedent in Samaras and Wheeler, supra.,
disregarding the application of the Mailbox Rule is an error of law.
18. There is no reasonable explanation given by Defendant as to why nearly four (4)
months after the Notice was served and two (2) months after the entry of an Order dismissing the
case was sent, he simply became aware of the dismissal when "by happenstance Castaneira
learned of its existence in the course of an unrelated internet search." The factual allegations are
denied and the conclusions of law are denied by application of the Mailbox Rule.
19. Plaintiff and Additional Defendants specifically deny the allegations set forth in
this paragraph as conclusions of law to which no response is required. Counsel for Defendant
had been notified of the previous Notice of Proposed Termination in this same case in 2005 and
filed a Statement of Intention to Proceed. Defendant took no action other than to serve
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, the last occurring in March 2008.
8
There is no reason why counsel for Defendant should not have been aware that this case was
going to be dismissed, since he knew no action had taken place for more than three and a half
(3 %2) years. Further, notice is presumed to have been properly served on the Defendant under the
Mailbox Rule.
20. Neither Defendant nor his counsel have provided a reasonable explanation or
legitimate excuse for their failure to timely file a Statement of Intention to Proceed, particularly
in light of the presumed service on the Defendant under the Mailbox Rule.
21. Paragraph 21 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Further,
it is denied that reinstatement of this action is warranted or even allowed as a matter of law under
these facts and for the legal reasons stated above, including application of the Mailbox Rule.'
22. Denied. If the Counterclaim involved a significant claim, as asserted, why has so
little action been taken by Defendant or his counsel for nearly ten (10) years and no action since
March 2008? Indeed, counsel for Defendant has never requested the Plaintiff file an answer to
Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim for over ten (10) years. Further, no action
whatsoever has been taken on the Writs filed by Defendant against the Additional Defendants,
nor has a Third Party Complaint been filed. If there were any legitimate claims by Defendant,
they would have and should have been brought by now. This is the second time in six (6) years
1. Counsel for Defendant is presumed to be aware of Rule 230.2 regarding termination of inactive cases
and should know the Court may terminate a case in which there has been no activity of record for two
(2) years or more. There was no activity in this case since March 2008, when the documents were
received in response to the subpoena issued upon LPL Financial. Clearly three (3) years and five (5)
months elapsed from that time and Counsel for Defendant or Defendant should have taken some action
to keep the matter alive. This was not the first Notice of Proposed Termination that Defendant or his
counsel received. In fact, a Notice of Proposed Termination was filed in 2005, when there had been
another period of more than two (2) years of inactivity and they were well aware that there were more
than three (3) years of inactivity from March 2008 through August 2011.
9
that this case has been Noticed for Potential Dismissal, and no substantive action has been taken
by Defendant.
Justice delayed is justice denied. In the instant case, that applies to Plaintiff and
Additional Defendants. Any of the claims or counterclaims that Defendant may now wish to
proceed with will prejudice Plaintiff, as well as Additional Defendants, because memories have
faded, witnesses have moved and no reasonable explanation is given why no action has been
taken by Defendant to pursue his alleged claims, despite the passage of ten (10) years and after
one Notice of Proposed Termination was already sent in 2005. The effect of granting a
reinstatement now, after the matter has been properly dismissed under the second Notice of
Proposed Termination, would be to allow the case to proceed for yet another two (2) or three (3)
years, only to be listed for dismissal again after further inactivity.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons and case law set forth above and in the attached Exhibits,
Plaintiff and Additional Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Defendant's Petition
to Reinstate and let the Order dated October 25, 2011, dismissing the matter with prejudice,
stand.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS SULLIVAN & ROGERS
Dated: February 2012 By:
-77e4 V
Stephen L. Grose, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 31006
10
? ?
?`?T
?? ?
KELLY, HO FFMAN & GODUTO LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
COMMERCE TOW FRS - 1 OTH FLOOR
300 NORTH SECOND STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 17101
POST OFFICE Box 62003, HARRISBURG, PA 17106-2003
TELEPHONE(717)920-8100
FACSIMILE (717) 920-0691
Robert E. Kelly, Jr.
Extension 102
rkelly@,khgllp.com
September 20, 2002
Stephen L. Grose, Esquire
Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal LLP
210 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 11963
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963
Re: IFS Group, LLC v. Ian M. Castaneira
No. 02-3078 (Civil) (Cumberland C.P.)
Dear Steve:
I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation yesterday, September 19, 2002.
In that telephone conversation, I agreed to provide you an unlimited extension in which
to respond to the New Matter and Counterclaim which we filed on behalf of Mr. Castaneira. The
purpose of this extension is to allow the parties to attempt to resolve this matter. If we reach a
point where the discussions no longer seem fruitful, we will provide you with a fifteen-day
notice in which to file your reply to the New Matter and Counterclaim.
Please let me know if this does not accurately summarize our understanding.
Very truly yours,
REK/bls
Ro ert . Ke y, Jr.
ll?\ ?
"IQ1C4'
.11 . ill ATTORNEYS AT LAW
COMMERCE TOWERS - 10TH FLOOR
300 NORTH SECOND STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 17101
POST OFFICE BOX 62003, HARRISBURG, PA 17106-2003
TELEPHONE(717)920-x100
FACSIMILE (717) 920-0691
Lee S. Cohen
Extension 1 .6
lcohen@khgllp.com
November 22, 2006
Stephen L. Grose, Esquire
Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal LLP
210 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 11963
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963
Re: IFS Group, LLC v. Ian M. Castaneira v. Stephen P. Gift, et al.
No. 02-3078 Civil - Cumberland County C.C.P.
Dear Mr. Grose:
Enclosed for service upon you are Interrogatories of Defendant Ian M. Castaneira
Addressed to Plaintiff and Additional Defendants (First Set) and Request for Production of
Documents Addressed to Plaintiff and Additional Defendants (First Set).
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
1.Very truly yours,
Lee S. Cohen
LSC/jaa
Enclosures
cc: Ian M. Castaneira (w/enc.)
?i
;,??
??
??
CHARLES W. RUBENDALL I I
ROBERT L. WELDON
EUGENE E. PEPINSKY, JR.
JOHN H. ENOS III
GARY E. FRENCH
DONNA S. WELDON
BRADFORD DORRANCE
JEFFREY S. STOKES
ROBERT R. CHURCH
STEPHEN L.GROSE
R. SCOTT SHEARER
ELYSE E. ROGERS
CRAIG A. LONGYEAR
JOHN A. FEICHTEL
DONALD M. LEWIS=
STEPHANIE KLEINFELTER
ERIC R. AUGUSTINE
TODD F. TRUNTZ
CAROL L. VERISH
KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ESTABLISHED IN 1878
635 NORTH 12T" STREET, 4T" FLOOR
OF COUNSEL:
LEMOYNE, PA 17043 HEATH L. ALLEN
N. DAVID RAHAL
PHONE 717-612-5800 SAMUEL C. HARRY
FAX 717-612-5805 -
HARRISBURG OFFICE:
EIN No. 23-0716135 210 WALNUT STREET
www.keeferwood.com HARRISBURG, PA 17101
PHONE 717-255-8000
January 16, 2007
Writer's Contact Info
Phone: (717) 612-5802
Fax: (717) 612-5805
saroseLwkeeferwood.com
Robert Kelly, Esquire
Kelly Hoffman & Goduto, LLP
Commerce Towers - 10" Floor
300 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Re: IFS Group, LLC v. Ian M. Castaneira v. Stephen P. Gift et al.
Cumberland County C.C.P. No. 02-3078
Dear Bob:
Enclosed are the Plaintiff and Additional Defendants' Responses to your Request for
Production of Documents and Interrogatories in the above matter. I believe they are consistent
with our discussions relative to our responses being limited to events up through May 31, 2002.
I have not provided you with the Amended Operating Agreement dated January 1, 2002,
as that was attached as Exhibit A to your Answer and New Matter. Further, I have not provided
you with a copy of the actual letter of termination of Ian, as I believe he has that in his
possession. If not, please advise. it
I note in a letter from you dated September 20, 2002, that we have "an unlimited
extension in which to respond to the New Matter and Counterclaim," pending notification from
you to the contrary. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your convenience.
After you have had an opportunity to review these discovery responses, please contact
me to discuss the matter and to see if these matters can be settled at this juncture.
Sincerely„
KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP
By
Stephen L. Grose
SLG/krh
Enclosures
cc: Joseph Krichten (w/ encls.)
? ??
\??
Office of the Prothonotaq
Cumberland County
Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Case # 02-3078
NOTICE OF PROPOSED
'T'ERMINATION OF COURT CASE
To: STEPHEN L GROSE ESQ
The court intends to terminate this case without further notice because
the docket shows no activity in the case for at least two years.
You may stop the court from terminating the case by filing a Statement
of Intention to Proceed. The Statement of intention to Proceed should be
filed with the Prothonotary of the Court at:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY
ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
717-240-6195
on or before October 25, 2005.
Date
IF YOU FAIL TO FILE THE REQUIRED
STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED, THE
CASE WILL BE TERMINATED
September 16, 2005 ?a
Date of this Notice 0
ffic
??r
`? ,-.,\
-?
??
IFS GROUP, INC.
vs Case No. C L - 3 G -7Cf
'LAN M. CASTANEIRA
Statement of Intention to Proceed
To the Court:
Defenc33nf Tan M st-anei ra intends to proceed with the above captioned matter.
r
Print Name, R Bert E. Kelly, Jr. Sign Name
Kelly, Hoffman & Goduto LLP
Date: 10/3/05 Attorney for Defendant Ian M. Cas taneira
Explanatory Comment
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of
inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit
comment.
1. Rude of civil Procedure
New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the
scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously
governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is
tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting
local rules.
This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d
1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required
before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901."
Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The
general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable.
II Inactive. Cases
The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the
court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties.
If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of
course t.:rminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a herty wishes to pursue the matter, he or siie
will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue.
a. Where the action has been terminated
If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed
under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination
of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file
the notice of intention to proceed.
The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of
the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the covet must grant the petition and
reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff
must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or
legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of
termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2),
B. Where the action has not been terminated
An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may
have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a
common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this 4"' day of October 2005, I, Pamela L. Russell, a legal secretary in the law firm of
Kelly, Hoffman & Goduto LLP, hereby certify that I have, this day, served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED on the person(s) and at
the address(es) below named by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg,
PA:
Stephen L. Grose, Esquire
Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal LLP
210 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 11963
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963
Counsel for Plaintiff
L. Russell
A-ft
ALL STATE'S LEGAL 800-2 2 2 0510 E011 RECYCLED 1 .
'X?
• ,/a-7 I P'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
COMMERCETOWERS- 10'"FLOOR
300 NORTH SECOND STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 17101
POST OFFICE Box 62003, HARRISBURG, PA 17106-2003
TELEPHONE(717)920-8100
FACSIMILE (717) 920-0691
Robert E. Kelly, Jr.
Extension 102
rkelly(?Okhgllp.com
January 19, 2007
Stephen L. Grose, Esquire
Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal LLP
635 North 12th Street
4th Floor
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Re: IFS Group, LLC v. Ian M. Castaneira v. Stephen P. Gift, et A
No. 02-3078 Civil - Cumberland County C.C.P.
Dear Steve:
Thank you for your letter of.lanuary 16, 2007, and its enclosures. We will review the
material provided and be back with you with our thoughts regarding the discovery and where we
will proceed next.
With regard to the extension of time in which to respond to the New Matter and
Counterclaim, the agreement set forth in my letter dated September 20, 2002, is still in place
pending notification to you.
We will be back in touch with you once we have had chance to review these matters to
see if a resolution is achievable at this time.
Very truly yours,
REK,%plr
Robert* elly, Jr.
cc: Ian M. Castaneira
??
?/
`\n?
?/
??^?
??
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
COMMERCE TOWERS - 10"' FLOOR
300 NORTH SECOND STREET, HARRISBURG. Pfd 7101
TELEPHONE(717)920-2220
FACSIMILE (717) 920-2370
Lee S. Cohen
Extension 116
Icohennkpc-1aw.com
March 4, 2008
Stephen L. Grose, Esquire
Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal LLP
635 North 121h Street
4th Floor
Lemoyne, PA. 17043
Re: IFS Group, LLC v. Ian M. Castaneira v. Stephen P. Gift,
Terry E. Lemon, and Joseph E. Krichten
No. 02-3078 Civil (Cumberland County C.P.)
Dear Steve:
Enclosed please find the documents we received from LPL Financial Corporation in
response to our Subpoena to Produce Documents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule
4009.22.
If you should have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Lee S. Cohen
LSC/plr
Enclosures
cc: Ian M. Castaneira
?\
\?
???
i?
Office of the Prothonowy
Cumberland County, P4
David D. Buell
Prothonotan'
Case ;H- (s) 02-3078 08-1539
NOTICE OF PROPOSER
TERMINATION OF COURT CASE
To: STEPHEN L. GROSE, ESQ.;
The court intends to terminate this case(s) without further notice because the
docket shows no activity in the case for at least two years.
You may stop the court from terminating the case by filing a Statement of
Intention to Proceed. The Statement of intention to Proceed should be filed with the
Prothonotary of the Court at:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY
ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
717-240-6195
on or before October 25. 2011.
Date
IF YOU FAIL TO FIDE THE REQUIRED STATEMENT OF
INTENTION TO PROCEED, THE CASE WILD BE TERMINATED
Aup_ust 26.2011
Date of this Notice David D. Buell, Prothonotary
CHECK YOUR CASE (s) # at vs ww.ccpa.n et
Put cursor on the word "Government" for a drop clown box. Then put your cursor on
the word "Courts". Click on the word "Prothonotary". This will bring you to the
"Prothonotary Home Page". On the left hand NTavigation Bar click on
"Searchable Civil Records by Docket #". Follow these directions exactly.
NOTE:
The complete list can be found at iA-.,?A,.ccpa.nc-1
1
?\
\/
?,
?\
w
(David Q Bueff
Prothonotary
VrkS. Sohonage EsQ,
Solicitor
office of the Prothonotary
Cum6erfand County, Pennsy(vania
1/26/12
Stephen L. Grose, ESQ
Dear Attorney Grose,
knee x Simpson
(Deputy Prothonotary
Irene E. Morrow
2nd Deputy Prothonotary
I certify that PURGE notification on case # 02-3078 was mailed to:
Ian M. Castaneira
501 California Avenue
Harrisburg, PA 17055
on 8/26/2011. We accept that mailing as proof of service because the
mailing was not returned to us by the US Postal Service for non-delivery.
I have enclosed the procedure by which we prepare, terminate and publish
the PURGE.
Please cont t me if you have further questions.
Z ??--
id D. Buell, Prot onotary Date
Prothorsotary, Ctsnsbertand County, CarW PA
My Commission Expires tine First Mondayolran.2014
One Courthouse Square* Carfisfe, ('A 17013 • (717)240-6195* EaY (717) 240-6573
M - r
PURGE
Rule 230.2 - Termination of Inactive Cases
The Court may initiate proceedings to terminate a case in which there has been no
activity of record for two years or more.
• The Purge List is prepared listing
o Case #
o Action
o Plaintiff
o Defendant
o Attorney for Plaintiff
o Attorney for Defendant
• A Notice of Proposed Termination of Court Case and a Statement of Intention to
Proceed is mailed
o To the Attorney for each party if they are represented
OR
o To each Parry if unrepresented
¦ Use the address that is Indexed on the Litigant Screen
o When a Notice is returned by the postal service
¦ Attorney - Check for Correct Address and resend
¦ Plaintiff or Defendant - Record on the list for Returned Addresses
• Notice shall be served by advertising
• If no Statement of Intention to Proceed has been filed within 60 days the
Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with
prejudice for failure to prosecute
o Order of Court is Docketed which Terminates the Case
o Order of Court is Scanned on Laserfiche
N "
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephen L. Grose, Esquire, one of the attorneys for Plaintiff and Third Party
Defendants hereby certify that I have served the foregoing paper upon counsel of record this date
by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, first-class postage
prepaid, addressed as follows:
Robert E. Kelly, Jr., Esquire
Kelly Parker & Cohen, LLP
5425 Jonestown Road, Suite 103
Harrisburg, PA 17112
SAIDIS SULLIVAN & ROGERS
By??
Step n L. Grose
Dated: February / C, 2012