The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-5760MICHAEL J. GALORE Plaintiff, v. TSF REALTY, AND T&C TOWING AND RECOVERY Defendants. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUN"TY, PA Term: 2012-CV No.: 12-5760 t -~ rv ,--ti ,-rn O ~ '.T7 !T f:rlT~ J ~ . ~--- - -~. r -_ .~: } ;_,~ NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Michael J. Galore 20 Locust Valley Road Exeter, RI 02822 YC-L1 ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Dated: October 29, 2012 Respectfully submitted, SAUL EWING LLP J .' - / --~ Joel C. Hopkins, Esquire Nicholas V. Foa, Esquire Attorney ID No. 85096, 313977 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 257-7525 Counsel for Defendant THE Realty, Inc. 188818b 10:29/12 Joel C. Hopkins, Esquire Nicholas V. Fox, Esquire Attorney ID Nos. 85096, 313977 SAUL EWING LLP 2 North Second Street, Seventh Floor Harrisburg;, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 257-7525 Counsel for Defendant THE Realty, Irzc. MICHAEL J. GALORE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COiINTY, PA Plaintiff, v. Term: 2012-CV No.: 12-5760 TSF REALTY, AND T&C TOWING AND RECOVERY Defendants. ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER Defendant, THE Realty, Inc. ("THF") (incorrectly identified in the Complaint as "TSF Realty"), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Answer with New Matter, and in support thereof avers as follows: Complaint Admitted upon information and belief. 2. .Admitted in part, denied in part. It is denied that a proper defendant in this case is "TSF Realty." Responding defendant is THE Realty. The remaining averments of this paragraph are admitted. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to determine the truth of the averments in this paragraph, and those 88818.6 I O/^-,9/ 12 averments are therefore denied. By way of further response, whether Plaintiff was shopping, what he was shopping for, and the duration of his time inside a store, is irrelevant to the issues that are raised in the Complaint. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to determine the truth of the averments in this paragraph, and those averments are denied. By way of further response, it is irrelevant for what purpose the Plaintiff may have parked his truck -parking is parking. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to determine the truth of the averments in this paragraph, and those averments are denied. By way of further response, what Plaintiff may or may not have asked the tow truck operators, and their response thereto, is irrelevant to the issues being raised in the Complaint. 6. Denied. After :reasonable investigation, the Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to determine the truth of the averments in this paragraph, and those averments are denied. By way of further response, while it is unclear what "hearing' the Plaintiff is referring to, under the assumption that it was the hearing held before the L)istrict Justice, and from which this matter flows, what Defendant may or may not have said during that hearing is :irrelevant in this litigation. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to determine the truth of the averments in this paragraph. and those averments are denied. By way of further response, the existence of other trucks in the vicinity and the location of their respective drivers is irrelevant to the issues raised in the Complaint. 1888I8b IOr'_91~~ -2- Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to determine the truth of the averments in this paragraph, and those averments are denied. By way of further response, Plaintiff's call to Mechanicsburg police is irrelevant to the issues raised in the Complaint. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to determine the truth of the averments in this paragraph, and those averments are denied. By way of further response, what local law enforcement officers may or may not have said in response to Plaintiff's inquiry is irrelevant to the issues raised in the Complaint. 10. Denied. After :reasonable investigation, the Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to determine the truth of the averments in this paragraph. and those averments are denied. By way of further response, any advice police offered Plaintiff is irrelevant 1:o the issues raised in the Complaint. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to determine the truth of the averments in this paragraph, and those averments are denied. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to determine the truth of the averments in this paragraph, and those averments are denied. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to determine the truth of the averments in this paragraph. and those averments are denied. 18881Rb 10/~9,~1~ -3- 14. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, THF Realty was never named as a party in any complaint filed by the Plaintiff before any Magisterial District Court, nor was it ever served with process in such an action. THF did attend the Magisterial District Court Hearing as a witness. It is admitted that the District Court Judge attempted to enter judgment against THF, despite the fact that the Judge had no legal basis for doing so. In any event, the foregoing is irrelevant in this matter because this Court reviews the claims presented de novo. 15. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, any judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Court is irrelevant because this Court reviews the claims presented de novo. 16. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant THF appealed the decision dated August 22, 2012. The remainder of this paragraph is denied as legal conclusions to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant THF respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 17. Plaintiff s Complaint must be dismissed because it constitutes nothing more than a recitation of facts that are wholly irrelevant to any affirmative cause of action against the defendants,. 18. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 19. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to plead with specificity the nature of relief sought. ,sasis.e ior_9,i_ _4_ 20. The Complaint fails to allege any facts demonstrating that Defendant THE engaged in any conduct that would give the Plaintiff a right to relief before this Court. 21. Because the Plaintiff has not alleged facts supporting any compensable claim, the Complaint is legally insufficient and must be dismissed pursuant to Pa. R Civ. P. 1028(x)(4}, 22. Plaintiff s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands. 23. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. 24. Plaintiff s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of laches and estoppel. 25. THE Realty, Inc. is not the owner of the Silver Spring Commons shopping center. 26. At all times relevant hereto, signs were posted in the Silver Spring Commons parking lot (the "Parking Lot") that read, "AT`TENTION TRUCKERS ALI_, TRACTORS & TRAILERS & BOBTAILS PARKING PROHIBITED BY THE SILVER SPRING DEVELOPMENT L.P." 27. The aforementioned signs were posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 28. On March 27, 2011, Plaintiff parked in the Parking Lot in derogation of unambiguous, legally imposed parking restrictions. 188818.6 10/29- I2 'S- 29. Because the Plaintiff parked his vehicle in a restricted area, Defendant exercised :its legal right to have the Plaintiff s vehicle removed from the Parking Lot pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3353(b)-(c). 30. When T&C Towing undertook to lawfully remove the Plaintiff s vehicle from the Parking Lot. T&C allowed the Plaintiff to avoid having the vehicle ultimately towed, stored and impounded by paying a fee that represented only a portion of the costs Plaintiff would have been lawfully rewired to pay if the vehicle had been towed. 31. Plaintiff is barred from recovery in this case because Plaintiff s own negligent conduct contributed to any damage to property or economic losses incurred. 32. THF's actions have been and are justified as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, Defendant THE respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. Dated: October 29, 2a 12 Respectfully submitted, SAUL EWING LLP f ~, / ~~' .~ Joel C. Hopkins, Esq ireu Nicholas V. Fox, Esquire Attorney ID No. 85096, 313977 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 257-7525 Counsel for Defendant THF' Realty, Inc. lassie b ~a_eiiz -~- ~RfW~RP x%~4v"va~, +:;1~#nwucaiyii.wSp.s14e:ndiHcm. __...~.,. ,. e. -t'w~~..'yc~f5 .-ws~.u,.-. F ~..at~~O'.' 9'n~',~,k~~~ G~«°F~l~~ ~~%ll~. ~ ~.F~CI ,~1~~~a~,T:Fr:.~~ '1' 1~E",~.. ;~i~ , .,~ 1~~"3`rrti +4~ ~k: c' ;.-r~.. r1~ 1 1 ,ri, ,,~tiF~., ~-: ~. T~Z7Ri~~~t.af ,e~p ~ i~~->1`t 1 ~'. ~@~.3,~"~."` '*~~ ~'~ 1i~k~+~' ~~$w'~ti "~ :~' ,il..,.. `FS ~ ~. ~k~ 5~:_ ~, 5rtik:3?M,i~.` ~ t`p~~ ~S`3 i"., l ~ 1 -i i 1, '~ . r~ ~ ~'FI!a~.e' ~ ~ ~ 1 _ - r 4 `S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 29, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing .9nswer with New Matter via U.S. Mail upon the following: Michael J. Calore 20 Locust Valley Road Exeter, RI 02822 Plaintiff i ii--- E. ~ ~'=-~ Nicholas V. Fox, Esquire ~ 188818.6 I OI_9i1'_