Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-6463ComMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of _`' # a? OCT 16 AFB 11: 1 NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Judge on the date and in the case referenced below. %-V l L4- l A V"\ NAME OF APqLL Vvy?L_ %R?NV..'.. - _? 01, LIyIL-??J?i? 1 ADDRESS OF APPELLANT [-? 3Pa.-4 vV1RN vA- `Jn V f__ DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF (Plaintiff) 1N1*, g i I k ti- w 1 I- L_ 1 R VV- Mnr`.VrT Mn 4?G?. `DIST. NO. NAME OF MDJ JM Ci 3 CITY /? /1 STATE ZIP CODE n ;'4 (Defendant) L") 5'j' P- ? I _? DU0v) , VL,?- 14-R)__ L_t<- o S L/\J This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. Ri`C.P.D.J. No. 1001(6) in action R.C.P.D.J. No. 10088. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the Magisterial District Judge, will before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before Magisterial District Judge. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Name of appellee(s) (Common Pleas No. ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signature of appellant or attorney or agent RULE: To , appellee(s) Name of appellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: 20 Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL..e AOPC 312-05 C3MMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil Case Mag. Dist. No: MDJ-09-3-04 MDJ Name: Honorable Paula P. Correal Address: 5275 East Trindle Road Suite 110 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: 717-697-2201 William & Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 William & Myrna Rosenkrantz V. Bobby Rahal Lexus Docket No: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 Case Filed: 6/13/2012 Disposition Summary Docket No Plaintiff Defendant Disposition Disposition Date MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 William & Myrna Rosenkrantz Bobby Rahal Lexus Judgment for Defendant 09/17/2012 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. 9// ?. Date Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P. Correal?"^9 I certify that this is a true and correct copy o the record o the proceedings containing the judgment. Date Magisterial District Judge *Comment: Insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to prevail. MDJS 315 Page 1 of 2 Printed: 09/18/2012 3:35:17PM William & Myrna Rosenkrantz V. Bobby Rahal Lexus Participant List Private(s) Heather Russell Fine, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Edward A. Gray, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Dennis P. Ziemba, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Plaintiff(s) William & Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Defendant(s) Bobby Rahal Lexus 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Docket No.: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 MDJS 315 Page 2 of 2 Printed: 09/18/2012 3:35:17PM FILED-OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTAR 2012 OCT 24 PM 12: 29 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER riling of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF C, y?,.1rJ Q.i. a-_? > ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served l.L _6g43 ? a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. upon the Magisterial District Judge designated therein on (date of service) 1 /b, 20 t.by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) , on to I ib 20 l -1, y personal service? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SW I4JAFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS .. DAY OF Wc, 20 /-L 4z z- 4 Alwm Signature of ofcial efore whim affidavit vvbftade ?:) arw -1y 1?/d io?v`?a?r Title of official My commission expires on 20 3 o AL6,4 ? t4AL_ c?=?Cv S Signature of affiant U& v...v._ Ai? Prothonotary, COMMI KII CM1% CarYsle, PA My ConrNsdon Expires the Pat Mondq 6f *L 2W AOPC 312A - 05 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA, ESQUIRE HEATHER RUSSELL FINE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. Nos.: 76098 & 88020 dziemba@eckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place - 50 South 16th Street - 22°d Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215)851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, v. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, r , ..._ . .,r,.. , L.~~r<..,.:° IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs No. 12-6463 Defendant PETITION TO STRIKE APPEAL PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P.M.D.J. NO. 1006 Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, through its counsel, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, hereby petitions this Court to strike the Notice of Appeal filed by plaintiffs in this matter. In support of this Petition, defendant avers as follows: 1. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in June, 2012 in the Cumberland County Magisterial District Court, docket # MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012. 2. A hearing was held before Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P. Correal on September 10, 2012. 3. Following the hearing, on September 18, 2012, a verdict was entered for defendant Bobby Rahal Lexus. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 4. Plaintiffs timely filed a Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2012. A true and correct copy of the time-stamped Notice of Appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 5. Pa.R.C.M.D.J. No. 1004(A) requires plaintiffs to file a Complaint within 20 days of filing a Notice of Appeal. See id.; Exhibit "B." 6. To date, plaintiffs have failed to file a Complaint as required by Pa.R.C.M.D.J. No. 1004(A). 7. Pa.R.C.M.D.J. No. 1006 requires the Prothonotary to strike plaintiffs' appeal due to their failure to file a Complaint within 20 days of filing their Notice of Appeal. See Pa.R.C.M.D.J. No. 1006 ("Upon failure of the appellant to comply with Rule 1004A ...the prothonotary shall, upon praecipe of the appellee, mazk the appeal stricken from the record.") 8. Defendant Bobby Rahal Lexus therefore requests that this Court strike plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, respectfully requests that this Court enter defendant's proposed Order. ECxEP BY: Dated: November 28, 2012 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Notice of .ludgmentlTranscriptCIvil Case Mag. Dist. No: MDJ-09-3-04 MDJ Name: Honorable Paula P. Correa! Address: 5275 East Trindle Road Suite 110 '~ Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717-G97-2201 Heather Russell Fine, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Ptace 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 WiNiam & Myrna Rosenkrantz v. Bobby Rahal Lexus Docket No: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 Case Filed: 6/13/2012 Disposition Summary Docket No Plaintiff Defendant p~position Disposition Date MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 William & Myrna Rosenkrantr Bobby Rahai Lexus Judgment for Defendant 09/17/2012 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARYICLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THtS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, lF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. `d " ti 9 ~ ~'',~,. ,.~ Date Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P. Correai cacti that t is ~s a true an correc copy o e recur o e prose ngs con airnng a lu gment Date Magisterial District Judge *Comment: Insufpcient evidence for Plaintiff to prevail. MDJS 315 Page 1 of 2 Printed: 09!1812012 3:35:17PM ~, CQMAIONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ;::i ; :_ .:_ , i Judicial District, County Of "~ ` ' ~' " y''' ' i.,IS,. ~~'' ~ QCT 16 AM I I ~ I L~ NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. /~ _ GPI tL3 Cr,, - P~NNS~~~~QOF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Jud eon the date and in the case referenced below. ~~ l t-a-- t A w~ ADDRESS OF APPEI.tANT 3Ps.~- VY1AN~ti ~n+VE.._. DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OP (PfaintMl) ~~ DOCKET No. ~' o Sc w+~-r11~~,~- (~n~~' ~~l~y~.L yLA~t~-~gi.. L~~~ S JT (N2 ATTnRNEY OR NT -~ This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. If appeNarrt was Claimant (see Pa. f~C'P.D.J. No. 1001(6) in action R.C.P.O.J. No. 10088. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the Magisterial District Judge, will before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED operate as a SUPERSEDERS to the judgment for possession in this case. within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE ofAPPEAL. Signature d Pro;horwtery a Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before Magisterial District Judge. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal io be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Narrw of appedae(s) (Common Pleas No. )within twenty (20} days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signature of appellant or attorney or agent RULE: To appellees) Name orappefles(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a cornpiaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: . 20 Signature aP-arrwraary or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WRH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. /43..t''171~• Q~yfGy( AOPC 312-05 ~ a~~3 r: ~ ~Cw h.A~ ~ . ~ t7 f ~ e-u-~,~ STATE ZIP CODE _w l '~ t ty ` C~`MMOt~IVClEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Case Mag. Dist. No: MDJ-09-3-04 MDJ Name: Honorable Paula P. Correal Address: 5275 East Trindle Road Suite 110 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: 717-697-2201 William & Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 William & Myrna Rosenkrantz v. Bobby Rahal Lexus Docket No: MJ-09304CV-0000196-2012 Case Filed: 6113/2012 _ _ _ __ Disposition Summary Docket No Plaintiff Qgfendant Disposition DISDOSItIOn Date MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 William S Myrna Rosenkrantz Bobby Rahal Lexus Judgment for Defendant 09/17/2012 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF A<°PEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARYICLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT A,S OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. 9~ d. ,~ Date Senior Magisteria! District Judge Peula P. Correal w ce i at this is a true an correct copy o e reco o the proce mgs contarnmg t e!u gment. Date Magisterial pistrict Judge *Comment: Insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to prevail. MDJS 315 Page 1 of 2 Printed: 09/1812012 3:35:17PM William & Myrna Rosenkrantz v. Bobby Rahal Lexus Docket No.: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 Participant List Privates} Heather Russell Fine, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Edward A. Gray, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Dennis P. Ziemba, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Plaintiffs} William & Myma Rosenkranfz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Defendant(s) Bobby RahalLexus 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 MDJS 315 Page 2 of 2 Printed: 09/18!2012 3:35:17PM ~'ILEO-OFFtCE OF THE PROTHONOTAR`i' 2012 0Ci 24 PM !~: 29 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PEHHSYlVANIA PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER (ding of the no6ice of appeal Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ~~ ~,.,,S.j,.,,,..~,.,..~ ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served ~_~y~3 ^ a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. _ upon the Magisterial District Judge designated therein on (date of service) » ! b 20 l -~i by personal service ^ by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appease, (name) , on ~c I tV 20_~i ~]l~personal service^ by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWOR~AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS -~ DAY OF t~, 2p /1 ~~~~- Signature of oflfcia! store wh affidavit acts (Y t~~y ~/I~io~wTan~ Trt!e of official ~R; Mew ~4Jt.~ My commission expires on . 20 ~.~"" _ a.'`... Signature o/afffant (~ ~..~ Mfg CeawUrien IE~ira tM Rt~lAoad~rC ~, AOPC 312A - 05 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA HEATHER RUSSELL FINE Attorney I.D. Nos.: 76098 & 88020 dziemba@eckertseamans.com hfine@eckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place 50 South 16d' Street - 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, v. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Plaintiffs Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY No. 12-6463 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the Entry of Appearance, Jury Trial Demand and Petition to Strike Appeal were served upon all interested parties in the manner indicated below. FIRST CLASS MAIL Addressed as follows: Myrna & William Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 ECxER BY: ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA, ESQUIRE HEATHER RUSSELL FINE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. Nos.: 76098 / 88020 dziemba~a),eckertseamans. com Two Liberty Place - 50 South 16`h Street - 22°d Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys, for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, v. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Plaintiffs Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY No. 12-6463 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND Be advised that Dennis P. Ziemba, Esquire and Heather Russell Fine, Esquire are entering their appearance as counsel for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, in the above captioned matter. A jury trial consisting of a panel of twelve (12) jurors~is hereby requested. ECKERT c~ 1V~ELLOTT, LLC BY: ~ ~'" DE I P. IEM A, ESQUIRE HEATH R`RUSS LL FINE, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defen ant, Bobby Rahal Lexus C m PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL � r' (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) r- c TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY ` Please list the following case for a Jury Trial. 53 � --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- CAPTION OF CASE jentire caption must be stated in full] (che one) Civil Action-Law W t 4 A 1 C?SG-to V-VcA v. F-1 Appeal from arbitration El 0!;c _rU IL►°(�4&A- 2— (other) (Plaintiff) No. a�t 2— GJ' LiVIl Tm vs. The trial list will be called on _'�` 3 �LA o S and (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on S`='�'` x (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials) vs. Trials commence on Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: te"-v S j? Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: This case is ready for trial. Signed: Print Name:W��-�A Sc"'c c✓te�''"Z Date: �O'�'-L 3 Attorney for: ��'�' SC WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant 12-6463 CIVIL TERM RE: CIVIL TRIAL LIST ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 2013 , this being the time and place set for the Call of the Civil Trial List, and no parties having appeared in this matter, it is hereby stricken from the trial list. By the Court, Chris ylee L. Peck, J. .,14illiam & Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Pro Se Plaintiffs eather Russell, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 15th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 For the Defendant Court Administrator - �6=L I J Tt Prothonotary -i-�' r i I-- c :vae .�CD c;,' CD PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) _ - a TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY =M M Please list the following case for a Jury Trial. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --mac'---- �=-„ - - CAPTION OF CASE c Jentire caption must be stated in fulll (chec one) era = Civil Action-Law ❑ Appeal from arbitration El (other) e- v\.&yy\-.,vR (Plaintiff) No. Civil Term l� L9 S15-r,-)LLVI.A i� The trial list will be called on "I`l and 1 1- Li- t 3 (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on ((-- a ) (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials) �6o6JS-1 r ANtpL.- vs. Trials commence on Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who s this praeci e: '�1�r u S Cam= Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: This case is ready for trial. Signed: PrintName: w[[-�-«w. Date: A, �� Attorney for: �r�S� WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW BOBBY RAHAL LEXIS, Defendant 12-6463 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CALL OF THE CIVIL TRIAL LIST ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12th day of November, 2013,. this being the time and place set for the Call of the Civil Trial List, and no parties having appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff or Defendant, this matter is hereby stricken from the trial list . By the Court, Christ lee L. Peck, J. �� ti t fir''{ William & Myrna Rosenkrantz : Plaintiffs Pro Se sue } Heather Russell Fine, Esquire >.C= co CD For the Defendant —� - Prothonotary (�� Ct . Admin. C77 pcb CHIT C PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) v +'rP7 ) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY c 3.w ry Please list the following case for a .fury Trial. �' cr° ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------wry---- --- -=.. CAPTION OF CASE :r. jentire caption must be stated in full] (check one) ❑M Civil Action —Law ❑ Appeal from arbitration William & Myrna Rosenkrantz (other) 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg PA 17110 p (Plaintiff) No. 12-6463 Civil Term vs. The trial list will be called on Bobby Rahal Lexus - 6715 Carlisle Pike and Jan 7 2014 Mechanicsburg PA 17050 0 (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on JAN 22 2014 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials) VS. Trials commence on Feb 3 2014 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Prose 17 T- Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: 42q. '7,51 Heather Russell Esq C'�S 2 Liberty Place 50 South 15th Street Philadelphia Pa 19102 This case is ready for trial. Signed: �-- Print Name: William Rosenki Date: 11 /25/2013 Attorney for: #5 MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT v CIVIL ACTION - LAW 12-6463 CIVIL TERM BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant IN RE: CASE STRICKEN FROM TRIAL LIST ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2014 , Plaintiff appearing for the scheduled pretrial conference, and upon first review of the file it appearing that this is an arbitration case, the matter is stricken from the civil jury trial list . By the Court- Thomas A. Placey C. P.J. Zw/i"iliam Rosenkrantz, pro se 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 A eather Russell Fine, Esquire Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 For Defendant Court Administrator Q :mae rqw C_ z M x.• t Ccnr- P ter,-, F ! ' l r-z . "�W X C") �� >C= ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN&MELLOTT,LLC H. BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA, ESQUIRE HEATHER RUSSELL FINE, ESQUIRE �° '' Attorney I.D. Nos.: 76098 & 88020 ''`' dziemba @eckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place - 50 South 16th Street—22nd Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, Plaintiffs : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY • v. : No. 12-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, • Defendant PRAECIPE TO ACT UPON RULE RETURNABLE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, through its counsel, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, respectfully submits this Praecipe to Act Upon the Rule Returnable Issued on December 27, 2012, and schedule plaintiffs' underlying Motion for Reconsideration for Argument. In support of this Praecipe, defendant avers as follows: 1. Pro se plaintiffs, Myrna and William Rosenkrantz, filed a Complaint in June of 2012 in the Cumberland County Magisterial District Court. 2. After a hearing, Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P. Correal determined plaintiffs had insufficient evidence to prevail on their claims, and entered a verdict for defendant on September 18, 2012. See Notice of Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit"A." 3. Plaintiffs filed a deficient Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2012. See Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, attached as Exhibit `B." 4. Due to the deficiencies in plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, defendant filed a Petition to Strike plaintiffs' Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.C.M.D.J. No. 1006. The Prothonotary thereafter properly struck plaintiffs' Appeal. See Order dated December 4, 2012, attached hereto as Exhibit "C." 5. On or about December 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's December 4, 2012 Order. See Motion for Reconsideration, attached hereto as Exhibit "D." 6, This Court issued a Rule Returnable on December 27, 2012, directing defendant to show cause within twenty days why plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration should not be granted. See Rule Returnable, attached hereto as Exhibit "E." 7. Defendant timely filed a response to plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. See Response to Motion for Reconsideration, filed January 9, 2013, attached hereto as Exhibit"F." 8. To date, plaintiffs have failed to take any steps to place their Motion for Reconsideration before the Court for argument or decision on the papers. 9. To the contrary, and without reference to their still pending Motion for Reconsideration, on November 25, 2013 plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to List this Case for Jury Trial. See Praecipe for Listing Case for Jury Trial, attached hereto as Exhibit "G." 10. In addition to the procedural deficiencies within that Praecipe, plaintiffs listed an incorrect name and address for defense counsel. Id. 11. As a result, the Praecipe was never received by defense counsel. 12. Defense counsel likewise did not receive notice of the pretrial conference held January 22, 2014, at which plaintiff was in attendance. 13. Defense counsel's first notice of the pretrial conference was upon receipt of this Court's January 22, 2014 Order' which struck the matter from the civil jury trial list, deeming it more properly an arbitration matter. See January 22, 2014 Order, attached hereto as Exhibit"H." 14. However, before any additional steps can be taken in this case there must be a full and final resolution of plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. 15. In the interests of judicial economy and to achieve a final resolution of this aged case, defendant files the instant Praecipe to Act Upon Rule Returnable and place plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration before the Court's consideration. 16. Defendant respectfully requests oral argument on plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. ECKERT SEAM,. S C. '.N ME -L'i ' , ,C-- • BY: ire 4 ISI'. Zu 's :A, :• 1 MP" HEATH SI ' S .El, FINE,E'QUIRE Two Libe '1. e 50 South 16th Street, 22d Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 Date: February 5,2014 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus This Court's Order was mailed to the correct name and address for defense counsel. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN&MELLOTT,LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA HEATHER RUSSELL FINE Attorney I.D. Nos.: 76098 & 88020 dziemba@eckertseamans.com hfine @eckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street—22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus • MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiffs : COUNTY • v. : No. 12-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, • Defendant CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the forgoing Praecipe to Act Upon Rule Returnable was served upon all interested parties in the manner indicated below on February 5, 2014. FIRST CLASS MAIL Addressed as follows: Myrna& William Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 ECKERT SEA A '. CHE N : �, LLOTT,LLC BY: A / A HEA HE R IS F.II E Attorneys it Defendant, :obby Rahal Lexus COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ''9 fry: ' :� � Case Mag. Dist. No: MDJ-09-3-04 William & Myrna Rosenkrantz MDJ Name: Honorable Paula P.Correa) v. Address: 5275 East Trindle Road Bobby Rahal Lexus Suite 110 Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 Telephone: 717-697-2201 Heather Russell Fine, Esq. Docket No: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Case Filed: 6/13/2012 Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street,22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Disposition Summary Docket No Plaintiff Defendant Disposition Disposition Date MJ-09304-CV-0000195-2012 William&Myrna Rosenkrantz Bobby Rahal Lexus Judgment for Defendant 09/17/2012 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES,IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL,SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. (?//51/ /f y Date Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P.Correa) "ti;'•µ✓ I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. Date Magisterial District Judge *Comment: Insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to prevail. • MDJS 315 Page 1 of 2 Printed:09/18/2012 3:35:17PM CdMf4IONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL Judicial District,County Of ' i FROM 1 OCT 1 6 AM 11; I j MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT C,UMKRLik4 C(3Jt 1`t COMMON PLEAS No. /a - 6i/43 C40 'ENNSA WOF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Judge on the date and in the case referenced below. `AI 1 LI--(14 v .\ NAME OF AP_PSLLANT ,� MAG.DIST.NO. `''NAME OF MDJ Lk) LIM`�,I Ptiv � 1 L O W I z-.4.-x)I.�,-� ►,v�v 1- O Ci- 3-!2 T . P L ADDRESS OF APPELLANT CITY STATE ZIP CODE trin A fV 0/L 0 el►V E—_ 1/47)-3 V ✓L ! !J� k '1 t to DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF(Plaintiff) ►ran y p. (Defendant)' 1 I —>/ W� trot I{°S1F"w►�✓��y DOCKET No. SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY OR AGENT IAN - 09 0 000 I l tp- 20 �v G.,._ t, This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. . . .D.J. No. 1001(6) in action R.C.P.D.J.No. 1008B. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the Magisterial District Judge, will before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. within twenty (20)days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT(see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before Magisterial District Judge. IF NOT USED,detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon appellee(s),to file a complaint in this appeal Name of appellee(s) (Common Pleas No. )within twenty(20)days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signature of appellant or attorney or agent RULE: To ,appellee(s) Name of appellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty(20)days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time,a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: .20 Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. re4 AOPC 312.05 /03. p° G�7 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ' Case Mag. Dist.No: MDJ-09-3-04 William& Myrna Rosenkrantz MDJ Name: Honorable Paula P.Correal V. Address: 5275 East Trindle Road Bobby Rahal Lexus Suite 110 Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 Telephone: 717-697-2201 William &Myrna Rosenkrantz Docket No: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 3824 Manor Drive Case Filed: 6/13/2012 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Disposition Summary Docket No Plaintiff Defendant Disposition Disposition Date MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 William&Myrna Rosenkrantz Bobby Rahal Lexus Judgment for Defendant 09/17/2012 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES,IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL,SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. 9/e/d, (egi' Date Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P.Correal I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. Date Magisterial District Judge *Comment: Insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to prevail. MDJS 315 Page 1 of 2 Printed:09/18/2012 3:35:17PM William & Myrna Rosenkrantz Docket No.: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 v. Bobby Rahal Lexus Participant List Private(s) Heather Russell Fine,Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott,LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street,22nd Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 Edward A.Gray,Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott,LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street,22nd Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 Dennis P.Ziemba, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott,LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street,22nd Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 Plaintiff(s) William&Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg,PA 17110 Defendant(s) Bobby Rahal Lexus 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 MDJS 315 Page 2 of 2 Printed:09/18/2012 3:35:17PM FILED-OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2012 OCT 24 PM12: 29 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN(10)DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF �v►.sh��` ,� ;ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby(swear)(affirm)that I served a-043 ❑ a copy of the Notice of Appeal,Common Pleas No._ upon the Magisterial District Judge designated therein on (date of service) /4/1v,20 t by personal service ❑ by(certified)(registered)mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) ,on to I Ito 20 I Z y personal service❑ by(certified)(registered)mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. 1. D y VU4E4)04-, LL U S (SWORN.I-IAFFIRMED)AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS-27" DAY OF AMC,20/1 4j41.- tom/ Q�tr- Signature of official efore wh m affidavit ade Signature of affiant 1A—Acr (�¢pr1Ly /4°lD fiA Ito 4127 Title of official M•44.441 / a.J 4 Prothonotary.Cumberland Card Carlisle,PA My commission expires on ,20/y My Commission Expires etjan.2914 AOPC 312A-05 1 WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ: MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA • • vs. . No. 2012-CV-6463 • BOBBY RAHAL LOCUS • • Defendant • MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND NOW, comes William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz,pro se and files this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Pa. R.C.P.1930.2 and Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701(b)(3),and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiffs/Movants are William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz with a current address of 3824 Manor Drive,Harrisburg,PA 17110. 2. Plaintiffs/Movants filed an appeal of a verdict of Senior Magistrate District Judge Paula P. Correal entered on September 18,2012 on October 16,2012 with the Prothonotary of Cumberland County. Plaintiffs/Movants filed the original complaint with the Magistrate District Judge and the Prothonotary of Cumberland County Pro Se. 3. On October 16,2012,Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz,upon delivery of the Appeal to the Prothonotary specifically asked what Plaintiff needed to file to complete the appeal. Prothonotary advised Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that the only requirement to complete the appeal was to serve the Appeal and submit to the Prothonotary Proof of Service of the Appeal. The Prothonotary did not instruct Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that Plaintiff was required to file a Complaint within twenty days of the filing of the Appeal. 4. Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz returned to the Prothonotary of Cumberland County on October 24, 2012 with a completed Proof of Service. Again Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz asked the Prothonotary if any additional documents were needed to complete the Appeal. Again the Prothonotary advised Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that no other documents were needed to complete the Appeal. 5. On or about November 30,2012,Plaintiff was served with Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a Complaint within twenty(20)days of the Appeal. 6. By Order of Court dated December 4,2012,this Honorable Court,with hearing or an opportunity to be heard, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a Complaint. 7. Plaintiffs/Movants have acted Pro Se in this matter. Plaintiffs/Movants are not attorneys and have no legal background. 8. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Court reconsider the Court's Order Dismissing Plaintiffs action and allow Plaintiff to file the attached Complaint for the following reasons: A. Plaintiffs/Movants are Pro Se and have no legal background. While it does appear that Plaintiffs/Movants were required to file a Complaint with this Court prior to November 16,2012,Plaintiffs were unaware of this requirement.Additionally, Plaintiffs were specifically advised by the Prothonotary that no additional documents were necessary to complete Plaintiffs' Appeal leading Plaintiffs' to believe that Plaintiffs had complied with all requirements for the filing of an Appeal. B. Defendant will not be harmed by the Court's granting of this Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant is fully represented by counsel and has been provided with the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims through the proceeding before the Magisterial District Court. C. The Order of Court dismissing Plaintiffs' Appeal will result in great prejudice to the Plaintiffs as Defendant's actions and negligence resulted in a great financial loss to the Plaintiffs. 9. Petitioner respectfully suggests that this Honorable Court reconsider its Order and take the following action: A. Issue an Order reversing the Court's Order of December 4, 2012. B. Allow the Plaintiffs to file the attached Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs/Movants request that the Court grant reconsideration. By: William Rosenkrantz By: ILLAA .. My If: Rosenkra z WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ: MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA vs. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LOCUS • • Defendant ORDER AND NOW,this l?? day of e✓ 2012,upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration,the following is hereby ORDERED that the Order of Court dismissing Plaintiffs' Appeal is hereby vacated. Plaintiffs are Ordered to file Plaintiffs' Complaint in the above referenced matter within ten(10) days of this Order. J. Distribution: Willaim Rosenkrantz,Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive,Harrisburg PA 17110 Dennis Ziemba,Esquire Two Liberty Place,50 South 16`h Street,22nd Floor,Philadelphia PA 19102 with the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims through the proceeding before the Magisterial District Court. C. The Order of Court dismissing Plaintiffs' Appeal will result in great prejudice to the Plaintiffs as Defendant's actions and negligence resulted in a great financial loss to the Plaintiffs. 9. Petitioner respectfully suggests that this Honorable Court reconsider its Order and take the following action: A. Issue an Order reversing the Court's Order of December 4,2012. B. Allow the Plaintiffs to file the attached Complaint. WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs/Movants request that the Court grant reconsideration. By: William Rosenkrantz By: Ii. ei Myrn1Rosenkr. . z WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ • MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA vs. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS • Defendant • COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES PLAINTIFFS, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz, Pro Se,who file this Complaint against Defendant and aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs are William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz of 3824 Manor Drive, Harrisburg,PA 17110. 2. Defendant is Bobby Rahal Lexus, 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg,PA 17050. 3. On or about January 23,2011,Myrna Rosenkrantz purchased a 2010 Lexus HS 250 (hereinafter"vehicle")from the Defendant. 4. On or about January 25,2012 ,while driving the vehicle, Myrna Rosenkrantz experienced an unwanted acceleration of the vehicle while applying the brakes. With her foot fully engaging the break petal,the vehicle continued to accelerate. 5. The Defendant was notified immediately about the defect in the vehicle and the unwanted acceleration. The Plaintiffs provided the vehicle to Defendant on or about January 28, 2012. 6. The Defendant kept the vehicle for two and one half days. At the conclusion of the two and one half days,the Defendant advised the Plaintiffs that the vehicle was safe to drive. 7. On April 9,2012,the Plaintiffs were driving the vehicle in Florida. 8. On April 9,2012, despite Defendant's assurances that the vehicle was safe to drive,the vehicle again experienced an unwanted acceleration. The vehicle accelerated while Myrna Rosenkrantz was stepping on the brake pedal. 9. As a result of the second unwanted acceleration,the vehicle lurched forward injuring a third party and crashing into the wall. 10. As a result of the second unwanted acceleration, and believing the vehicle was unsafe to drive, Myrna Rosenkrantz,after notifying the buyer of the unwanted acceleration problems with the vehicle,sold the vehicle at a loss. 11. As a result of Defendant's negligent service of the vehicle,Plaintiffs have suffered the following losses; A. $5,000.00 for the down payment on the car to Defendant; B. $4,449.00 loss in value of the vehicle; C. $2,100.00 increase in insurance for replacement vehicle purchased; D. $160.00 for bra for new vehicle; and E. $30.00 for sun visor that could not be used in new vehicle. 12. Plaintiffs' loss of$11,739.00 was due to the negligent repair and negligent representations of the Defendant. WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs,William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz,respectfully request that this Court find Defendant negligent and award Plaintiffs$11,739.00 plus cost and fees,which amount is within the arbitration limits. �..Ai� My, Rosenkrant William Rosenkrantz WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ: MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs • CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA • • vs. • No. 2012-CV-6463 • BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS • • Defendant • MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND NOW,comes William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz,pro se and files this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.1930.2 and Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701(b)(3),and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiffs/Movants are William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz with a current address of 3824 Manor Drive,Harrisburg,PA 17110. 2. Plaintiffs/Movants filed an appeal of a verdict of Senior Magistrate District Judge Paula P. Correal entered on September 18,2012 on October 16,2012 with the Prothonotary of Cumberland County. Plaintiffs/Movants filed the original complaint with the Magistrate District Judge and the Prothonotary of Cumberland County Pro Se. 3. On October 16,2012,Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz,upon delivery of the Appeal to the Prothonotary specifically asked what Plaintiff needed to file to complete the appeal. Prothonotary advised Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that the only requirement to complete the appeal was to serve the Appeal and submit to the Prothonotary Proof of Service of the Appeal. The Prothonotary did not instruct Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that Plaintiff was required to file a Complaint within twenty days of the filing of the Appeal. 4. Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz returned to the Prothonotary of Cumberland County on October 24,2012 with a completed Proof of Service. Again Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz asked the Prothonotary if any additional documents were needed to complete the Appeal. Again the Prothonotary advised Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that no other documents were needed to complete the Appeal. 5. On or about November 30,2012,Plaintiff was served with Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a Complaint within twenty(20)days of the Appeal. 6. By Order of Court dated December 4,2012,this Honorable Court, with hearing or an opportunity to be heard, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a Complaint. 7. Plaintiffs/Movants have acted Pro Se in this matter. Plaintiffs/Movants are not attorneys and have no legal background. 8. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Court reconsider the Court's Order Dismissing Plaintiffs action and allow Plaintiff to file the attached Complaint for the following reasons: A. Plaintiffs/Movants are Pro Se and have no legal background. While it does appear that Plaintiffs/Movants were required to file a Complaint with this Court prior to November 16,2012,Plaintiffs were unaware of this requirement.Additionally, Plaintiffs were specifically advised by the Prothonotary that no additional documents were necessary to complete Plaintiffs' Appeal leading Plaintiffs' to believe that Plaintiffs had complied with all requirements for the filing of an Appeal. B. Defendant will not be harmed by the Court's granting of this Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant is fully represented by counsel and has been provided with the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims through the proceeding before the Magisterial District Court. C. The Order of Court dismissing Plaintiffs' Appeal will result in great prejudice to the Plaintiffs as Defendant's actions and negligence resulted in a great financial loss to the Plaintiffs. 9. Petitioner respectfully suggests that this Honorable Court reconsider its Order and take the following action: A. Issue an Order reversing the Court's Order of December 4, 2012. B. Allow the Plaintiffs to file the attached Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs/Movants request that the Court grant reconsideration. By: N. • William Rosenkrantz By: LA IL !.0 t41,.44 My d Rosenkrantz WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ: MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • • vs. •• • No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant • • ORDER AND NOW,this D day of 2012,upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration,the following is hereby ORDERED that the Order of Court dismissing Plaintiffs' Appeal is hereby vacated. Plaintiffs are Ordered to file Plaintiffs' Complaint in the above referenced matter within ten(10)days of this Order. J. Distribution: Willaim Rosenkrantz,Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive,Harrisburg PA 17110 Dennis Ziemba,Esquire Two Liberty Place, 50 South 16th Street,22"d Floor,Philadelphia PA 19102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William Rosenkrantz, do hereby certify that on this +c day of �`-' 201_,I served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail,postage prepaid as follows: Dennis Ziemba,Esquire Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street,22nd Floor Philadelphia PA 19102 r n William Rosenkrantz WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ: MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs • CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA vs. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant • • COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES PLAINTIFFS, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz,Pro Se,who file this Complaint against Defendant and aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs are William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz of 3824 Manor Drive, Harrisburg,PA 17110. 2. Defendant is Bobby Rahal Lexus,6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg,PA 17050. 3. On or about January 23, 2011,Myrna Rosenkrantz purchased a 2010 Lexus HS 250 (hereinafter"vehicle")from the Defendant. 4. On or about January 25,2012 ,while driving the vehicle,Myrna Rosenkrantz experienced an unwanted acceleration of the vehicle while applying the brakes. With her foot fully engaging the break petal,the vehicle continued to accelerate. 5. The Defendant was notified immediately about the defect in the vehicle and the unwanted acceleration. The Plaintiffs provided the vehicle to Defendant on or about January 28, 2012. 6. The Defendant kept the vehicle for two and one half days. At the conclusion of the two and one half days, the Defendant advised the Plaintiffs that the vehicle was safe to drive. 7. On April 9, 2012,the Plaintiffs were driving the vehicle in Florida. 8. On April 9,2012, despite Defendant's assurances that the vehicle was safe to drive,the vehicle again experienced an unwanted acceleration. The vehicle accelerated while Myrna Rosenkrantz was stepping on the brake pedal. 9. As a result of the second unwanted acceleration,the vehicle lurched forward injuring a third party and crashing into the wall. 10. As a result of the second unwanted acceleration, and believing the vehicle was unsafe to drive,Myrna Rosenkrantz, after notifying the buyer of the unwanted acceleration problems with the vehicle, sold the vehicle at a loss. 11.As a result of Defendant's negligent service of the vehicle,Plaintiffs have suffered the following losses; A. $5,000.00 for the down payment on the car to Defendant; B. $4,449.00 loss in value of the vehicle; C. $2,100.00 increase in insurance for replacement vehicle purchased; D. $160.00 for bra for new vehicle; and E. $30.00 for sun visor that could not be used in new vehicle. 12. Plaintiffs' loss of$11,739.00 was due to the negligent repair and negligent representations of the Defendant. WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz,respectfully request that this Court find Defendant negligent and award Plaintiffs$11,739.00 plus cost and fees,which amount is within the arbitration limits. My t*. Rosenkran z William Rosenkrantz I • e MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs v : No. 12-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, • Defendant ORDER AND NOW, on this t day of`. , 2012, upon consideration of Defendant's Bobby Rahal Lexus, Petition to Strike Appeal, and any Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Petition is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal is hereby STRICKEN. BY THE COU; • Thomas A. Placey Common Pleas Judge E;51— am> t—..-, t •— co TRUE COPY FROM In Testimony Whereof, I ht;re unto set my hand and the seal of said Cou t at Carlisle,Pa. This .A day of ,2010) Prothonota hoY i iu� nta ' �aeg� • �j _. WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ ° ui.,.rlizt MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ, . 14:4. Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF v. THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant NO. 2012-6463 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this 27th day of December 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration that does not have the concurrence of Defendant, a Rule shall be issued upon Defendant to show cause, if any, why the motion should not be granted. This Rule is returnable within twenty (20) days of issuance. BY • 0 Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. Distribution List: William Rosenkrantz 'm t --; Myrna Rosenkrantz Y cn r r� 3824 Manor Drive r' Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dennis Ziemba, Esq. 2 Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, 22"d Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 r3;L&, AcjltaI Lex u5 tkajed k • MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiffs : COUNTY v. • : No. 12-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant ORDER AND NOW, on this day of , 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, and Defendant's, Bobby Rahal Lexus, Response thereto,it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is DENIED. BY THE COURT: , J. f • ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN&MELLOTT,LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA,ESQUIRE HEATHER RUSSELL FINE,ESQUIRE r; i' Attorney I.D.No.: 76098/88020 ,=' -T ; dziemba @eckertseamans.com , --.Cs hfine @eckertseamans.com co -1' Two Liberty Place = "Zir 50 South 16th Street,22d Floor G ``' r' Philadelphia,PA 19102 W ' (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lents • MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiffs : COUNTY v. . . : No. 12-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant • RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT,BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS,To PLAINTIFFS'MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, through its counsel, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, respectfully submits this Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and respectfully requests that this Court deny plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and enter defendant's proposed Order. 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and,therefore, said averments are denied. 2. Denied as stated. Defendant admits only that plaintiffs filed a document entitled "Notice of Appeal,"which was docketed by the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on October 16, 2012. This filing is a handwritten form document that identifies William and Myrna Rosenkrantz as Appellants and is signed by Appellant William Rosenkrantz. By way of further response, this document contains the following language directly below the signature of Appellant William Rosenkrantz: If Appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. 1001(6) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. See plaintiffs'Notice of Appeal, attached as Exhibit"A,"which speaks for itself 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. By way of further response, the Notice of Appeal is a handwritten form document that identifies William and Myrna Rosenkrantz as Appellants and is signed by Appellant William Rosenkrantz. Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal contains the following language directly below the signature of Appellant William Rosenkrantz: If Appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. 1001(6) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20)days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. See plaintiffs'Notice of Appeal, attached as Exhibit"A." 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averuients in this paragraph and,therefore, said averments are denied. By way of further response, the Notice of Appeal is a handwritten form document that identifies William and Myrna Rosenkrantz as Appellants and is signed by Appellant William Rosenkrantz. Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal contains the following language directly below the signature of Appellant William Rosenkrantz: If Appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. 1001(6) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. • See plaintiffs'Notice of Appeal, attached as Exhibit"A." 5. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and,therefore,said avellnents are denied. 6. Denied as stated. Defendant admits only that its Petition to Strike Appeal was granted by this Court on December 4, 2012. This Court's Order is a written document which speaks for itself. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. By way of further response, the Notice of Appeal is a handwritten form document that identifies William and Myrna Rosenkrantz as Appellants and is signed by Appellant William Rosenkrantz. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or infoimation sufficient to foam a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. By way of further answer, defendant specifically denies that plaintiffs were "unaware of this requirement" to file a Complaint within 20 days of filing their Notice of Appeal, as the requirement is clearly pre-printed on the very form filled out in handwriting by plaintiffs and signed by Appellant William Rosenkrantz. The answering defendant denies there has been any prejudice to plaintiffs. 9. Denied. WHEREFORE,Defendant,Bobby Rahal Lexus,respectfully requests that this Court deny plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and enter defendant's proposed Order. ECKERT SEAMAI S C:ERIl'Y&MELLOTT LLC BY: "A/AIL A D i • • ZIP I:�;, S. S HEATHE'}RU' L FINE,E QUIRE Attorney for efe, ��nt, Bobby Rcthal Lexus Dated: January 8,2013 • • • ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN&MELLOTT,LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA,ESQUIRE HEATHER RUSSELL FINE,ESQUIRE Attorney I.D.No.: 76098/8 8020 dziemba@eckertseamans.com hfine@eckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street,22d Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiffs COUNTY v. • : No. 12-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant • MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT, BOBBY RAHAL LEYUS,To PLAINTIFFS'MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, through its counsel, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, submits the following Memorandum of Law in Support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration: I. INTRODUCTION In the present matter, plaintiffs seek relief from their own failure to follow the instructions clearly set forth on their own filed Notice of Appeal. Specifically,plaintiffs failed to file a Complaint despite the clear and unambiguous language set forth on their Notice of Appeal: If Appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. 1001(6) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. See plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, attached as Exhibit "A." Plaintiffs' failure to follow the clear dictates of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and their lack of good cause to justify their failure to follow these clear dictates,merits a denial of their Motion for Reconsideration. A. Statement of Facts Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in June of 2012 in the Cumberland County Magisterial District Court. After a hearing, Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P. Correal determined plaintiffs had "insufficient evidence" to prevail on their claims, and entered a verdict for defendant on September 18, 2012. See Notice of Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit`B." Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2012, using a publicly available pre-printed form. That pre-printed form contains a clear instruction, printed partially in capital letters as follows: If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(6)) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE OF APPEAL. See Exhibit "B." This warning is located directly below the handwritten signature of plaintiff William Rosenkrantz. Id. Despite this clear and unambiguous instruction, plaintiffs failed to file a Complaint within the required 20-day time period. As a result, Bobby Rahal Lexus filed a Petition to Strike plaintiffs' Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.C.M.D.J. No. 1006. The Prothonotary thereafter properly struck plaintiffs' Appeal. Plaintifffs now, without a showing of good cause, filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant Bobby Rahal Lexus respectfully requests this Court deny plaintiffs' Motion, based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with established court rules and their failure to provide good cause to excuse that failure. II. ARGUMENT A. The Prothonotary properly struck the Notice of Appeal based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with well-established, clear court rules. Plaintiffs in this case sought to appeal the decision of the magisterial district judge by filing a Notice of Appeal. Pa. R.C.M.D.J.No. 1002(A). That, however, is insufficient under the law to preserve their claim. Rule 1004(A) of the Rule of Civil Procedure for Magisterial District Judges specifically requires a Complaint be filed within twenty days of the filing of a Notice of Appeal. Id. ("If the appellant was the claimant in the action before the magisterial district judge, he shall file a complaint within twenty (20) days after filing his notice of appeal."). The Rule also provides a specific mechanism to strike any appeal that does not comply with that requirement. See Pa. R.C.M.D.J. No. 1006 ("Upon failure of the appellant to comply with Rule 1004A ... the prothonotary shall, upon praecipe of the appellee, mark the appeal stricken from the record. The court of common pleas may reinstate the appeal upon good cause shown."). The Official Note to this Rule specifies that this rule "is intended to provide sanctions for failing to act within the time limits prescribed." Id. This is not a case in which pro se plaintiffs are disadvantaged due to their possible unfamiliarity with procedural requirements. They were not required to locate a rulebook or research caselaw in order to discover their obligation to file a Complaint within twenty days. Indeed, this warning, pre-printed in capital letters, appears on the very form plaintiffs used in filing their Notice of Appeal. See Exhibit "A." The warning is not in fine print, arguably obscured on the back of the form, or hidden in a rulebook in the stacks of a remote law library. The warning is directly beneath Mr. Rosenkrantz's handwritten signature. Id. In fact, Mr. Rosenkrantz's signature is physically touching a portion of the typewritten warning itself. Id. It therefore defies logic for plaintiffs to claim that they were unaware of the requirement to file a Complaint within the twenty-day time period. B. Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause for their failure to comply with established court rules: Plaintiffs set forth a bald allegation in their Motion for Reconsideration that they were "specifically advised" by "the Prothonotary" that they need not file a Complaint. See Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration at paras. 3, 4 and 8. Whether this statement is accurate or not, it does not absolve plaintiffs of the requirement to adhere to established court rules or permit them to ignore the plain language contained in the form they signed. Nor does plaintiffs' unsupported allegation provide a satisfactory excuse to constitute "good cause"to require the reinstatement of plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal. While Rule 1006 does not define "good cause," Pennsylvania courts in similar situations have noted that simple, unintentional errors are not enough to overcome well established court rules. Slaughter v. Allied Heating, 636 A.2d 1121, 1125 (Pa. Super. 1993) ("an unspecified allegation that [appellant's] failure to comply with Rule 1005B [relating to the service of the notice of appeal] was attributable to `inadvertent error' is insufficient to show good cause."); Finney v. Commonwealth of PA, 472 A.2d 752, 753-54 (Pa. Commw. 1984) (holding that petitioner was not entitled to an appeal based on his claim he did not understand the proper procedure for an appeal, noting that "[p]ossible ignorance of the law does not excuse a party to an action perform his statutory obligation to file an appeal within the prescribed appeal period.") Claimed ignorance of the law, even with pro se plaintiffs, is clearly insufficient to set aside established legal requirements, particularly in the face of the clear language that was pre- printed on the Notice of Appeal. Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 235 (Pa. Super. 2012) ("Neither the court system nor the correctional system is obliged to educate or update prisoners concerning changes in case law.") (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs' effort to place blame on the Prothonotary is not sufficient to carry plaintiffs' "good cause" burden. Whatever conversation plaintiffs may have had with the Prothonotary does not excuse plaintiffs' failure to follow the clear instructions on the Notice of Appeal. It was not the Prothonotary's obligation to confirm that plaintiffs met their statutory obligations. It was not the Prothonotary's obligation to follow up with plaintiffs twenty days later to confirm they filed a Complaint. Sole responsibility for the failure to file a Complaint falls upon plaintiffs, and plaintiffs have provided this Court with no "good cause"to justify this failure. As a result, this Court should deny plaintiffs' Motion. In conclusion, plaintiffs failed to comply with an essential court rule. Plaintiffs failed to file a Complaint within the mandated twenty-day period subsequent to the filing of a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiffs further failed to demonstrate "good cause"for this noncompliance. Plaintiffs cannot cite ignorance when their obligations were clearly set forth on the very document they executed to initiate their appeal. As a result,this Court should deny plaintiffs'Motion. III. RELIEF Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration be denied. ECKERT SEAM• S CITE' •,MELLO T, BY: ,®1I, �® DES S ZIE II: •, ' Q , t!r HEATHE'+RUS I L F I J E,ESQUI' Attorney fo Defe ant, Bobby Rahal exits Dated: January 8, 2013 VERIFICATION I,Heather Russell Fine,hereby state: 1. I am counsel for Defendant,Bobby Rahal Lexus, in this action. 2. I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 3. I understand that the statements made in this Petition are subject to the Penalties i of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4909 relating to unsworn falsification 'o auth. itie•. . .. Lip , ► HEA . • RU F , *o I' Dated: January 8, 2013 { r EXHIBIT "A" . CdMf01ONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ." NOTICE OF APPEAL (.i.'I) Judicial District,County Of '}j��fj`' I FROM "` ` 79I7 OCT 16 Mill: 11 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT OUMER(L .tOi_nCI UNT Y COMMON PLEAS No. /a - f,i/ 3 tf NE.NUS 1 ti OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Judge on the date and in the case referenced below. '-V t L _t J vM NAME O APP LANT MAG.DIST.NO. NAME OF M/D�J UL) �> )),t�s hl I v 2 f�v-7-1_, 1nA v - 1- 3-0.4, J'cam.r/� . C O J'NI ADDRESS OF APPELLANT CITY STATE ZIP CODE 3 '3.`4 VV 4 N ,ti n,v E.--- l-1 A 4..rz.1.s✓3 t DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF(Plaintiff) vin■I /4' (Derendentl' I k I w L A.n` 0 i�0ln10.4 yLA.14 s DOCKET No. SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY OR AGENT . \4\ 09 ' 0 — G�. 0000 I `ftP—, This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. . .D,J. No. 1001(6) in action R.C.P.D.J.No,1008B. This Notice of Appeal,when received by the Magisterial District Judge,will before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession In this case, within twenty (20)days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. Slgnalure of Prothonotary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FiLE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT(see Pa,R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7)in action before Magisterial District Judge. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon appellee(s),to file a complaint in this appeal Name of appellee(s) (Common Pleas No. )within twenty(20)days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signature of appellant or attorney or agent RULE: To ,appellee(s) Name of appellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to tile a complaint in this appeal within twenty(20)days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) if you do not file a complaint within this time,a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule If service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: • ,20 Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THiS NOTICE OF APPEAL. 103.s(?)pol,dpi e( AOPC 312-05 2,14t ���3 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 11 Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND En"io Case Mag.Dist.No: MDJ-09-3-04 William& Myrna Rosenkrantz MDJ Name: Honorable Paula P.Correa( V. Address; 5275 East Trindle Road Bobby Rahal Lexus Suite 110 Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 Telephone: 717-697-2201 William&Myrna Rosenkrantz Docket No: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 3824 Manor Drive Case Filed: 6/13/2012 Harrisburg, PA 17110 • Disposition Summary Docket No Plaintiff Defendant Disposition Disposition Date MJ-09304-CV-0 00 01 9 6-201 2 William&Myrna Rosenkrantz Bobby Rahal Lexus Judgment for Defendant 09/17/2012 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES,IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL,SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. 944, Qgir' ek& Date Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P.Correal I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. Date Magisterial District Judge *Comment: Insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to prevail. MDJS 315 Page 1 of 2 Printed:09/18/2012 3:35:17PM William&Myrna Rosenkrantz Docket No.: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 v. Bobby Rahal Lexus Participant List Private(s) Heather Russell Fine,Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott,LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street,22nd Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 Edward A.Gray,Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott,LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street,22nd Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 Dennis P.Ziemba,Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott,LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street,22nd Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 Plaintiff(s) William&Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg,PA 17110 Defendant(s). Bobby Rahal Lexus 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 MDJS 315 Page 2 of 2 Printed:09/18/2012 3:35:17PM FILED-OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2012 OCT 24 P1112: 29 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN(10)DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal, Check applicable boxes.) i I COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF C_,_, ;ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby(swear)(affirm)that I served l�_oy63 ❑ a copy of the Notice of Appeal,Common Pleas No. upon the Magisterial District Judge designated therein on (date of service)f')//l?20 by personal service ❑ by(certified)(registered)mail, sender's receipt attached hereto,and upon the appellee, (name) ,on 10 1 fb 20 I Z I ersonal service0 by(certified)(registered)mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. `J n 16 y VtA4., .L„ t ' ) S (SWORNAFFIRMED)AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS.2 DAY OF o,20/ 1- ,(Z Signature of official afore wh m ade Signature of affiant LAD, Title of official N�ffefo.141 + Prothonotary,Cumbedand Court%Carlisle,PA My commission expires on ,20/f My C0mmission Expires a1e first Monday djolt 2014`. AOPC312A-o5 • • EXHIBIT "B" COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ot' Case Mag. Dist. No: MDJ-09-3-04 William &Myrna Rosenkrantz MDJ Name: Honorable Paula P.Correal V. Address: 5275 East Trindle Road Bobby Rahal Lexus Suite 110 Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 Telephone: 717-697-2201 Heather Russell Fine, Esq. Docket No: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 Eckert Seamans Cherin &Mellott, LLC Case Filed: 6/13/2012 Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street,22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 • Disposition Summary Docket No Plaintiff Defendant Disposition Disposition Date MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 WI11Iam&Myrna Rosenkrantz Bobby Rahal Lexus Judgment for Defendant 09/17/2012 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES,IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE, UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL,SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT, / /0'‘, • t Date Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P.Correal - %'J"X. I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing-he judgment. Date Magisterial District Judge *Comment: Insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to prevail. • MDJS 315 Page 1 of 2 Printed:09/18/2012 3:35:17PM ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN&MELLOTT,LLC BY: DENNIS P.ZIEMBA,ESQUIRE HEATHER RUSSELL FINE,ESQUIRE Attorney I.D.No.: 76098/88020 dziemba@eckertseamans.com hfine @eckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22d Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiffs : COUNTY v. : No. 12-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LOCUS, Defendant • CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the.Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration was served upon all interested counsel in the manner indicated below on January 8, 2013. Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL Addressed as follows: Myrna&William Rosenkrantz 3 824 Manor Drive Harrisburg,PA 17110 ECKERT SE• •+ 9 HE: i &MELLOTT,LLC BY: J./1 /i DE P 'Z' : ESQUIT" HEA RUSSE►L FINE,ESQUIRE Attorney for Defenda 1, Bobby Rahal Lexus 3 (09/6--- PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) r rjCO cy TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY -<� rU Please list the following case for a jury TrIa . c - CAPTION OF CASE jentire caption must be stated in fully (check one) ? ilk Civil Action —Law U Appeal from arbitration n William & Myrna Rosenkrantz (other) 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg PA 17110 (Plaintiff) No. 12-6463 Civil Term vs. The trial list will be called on Bobby Rahal Lexus - 6715 Carlisle Pike and Jan 7 2014 Mechanicsburg PA 17050 (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on JAN 22 2014 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials) vs. Trials commence on Feb 3 2014 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Prose Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: 7s'pd /7 Heather Russell Esq C ti 2 Liberty Place 50 South 15th Street /1 ,Z/�p‘�� Philadelphia Pa 19102 `7 • This case is ready for trial. Signed: Print Name: William Rosenk• !11111° Date: 11 /25/2013 Attorney for: 1 1 7 f i • i i ##5 MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT v CIVIL ACTION - LAW . 12-6463 CIVIL TERM BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant . IN RE: CASE STRICKEN FROM TRIAL LIST ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2014 , Plaintiff appearing for the scheduled pretrial conference, and upon first review of the file it appearing that this is an arbitration case, the matter is stricken from the civil jury trial list. By the Court 1./( Thomas A. WPlacey C.P.J. William Rosenkrantz, pro se 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 /eather Russell Fine, Esquire Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 For Defendant Court Administrator . • :mae mutt c_ =71 z -V : eor.es irlitick, cn 1"— NI x r2 ' Ca = liatill V >c-) dE c)-ri v 2f' C11- PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for thnee. Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE caption must be stated in full) Myrna and William Rosenkrantz vs. Bobby Rahal Lexus No 12-6463 Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Pro se (Name and Address) (b) for defendants: Dennis P. Ziemba (Name and Address) 15 S. 16th Street, 22nd Floor, Phila., PA 19102 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: April 4,2014 D- - Is P Zie u . . 4167Jallirs Print your name —.I' Bobby Rahal Lexus Date: February 11 , 2014 Attorney for 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. ably ask ��.15-p bly ckA- y(a906 8 -301 y4 (D 0 • LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. 1 rr`; � + , Peter J. Russo, Esquire u; << PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 2, ; Email: prusso @pjrlaw.com 'n 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 r N/5 Y�,�OUNT Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ • MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS • Defendant ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Peter J. Russo, Esquire, and the Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., as counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz, in regard to the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, L O S . RUSSO, P.C. By: � Peter . •uss PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Date: ;—)tio � LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 Email: prusso @pjrlaw.com 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. • No. 2012-CV-6463 • BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Derek M. Strouphauer, Paralegal,hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Entry of Appearance upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below as follows: United States Regular Mail Dennis P. Ziemba, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 a -rek M. Stroupha er, Paralegal Date: abp/do/� ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA, ESQUIRE HEATHER RUSSELL FINE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. Nos.: 76098 & 88020 dziemba@eckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place - 50 South 16th Street — 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus riLED-LIFFILE DF THE. PROTHONOTARY alit MAR 11 Ali 11: 02 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, v. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Plaintifft : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY : No. 12-6463 Defendant MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE To THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, through its counsel, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, respectfully submits this Motion to Make Rule Absolute in reference to the Rule Returnable Issued on December 27, 2012, and respectfully requests this Court schedule plaintiffs' underlying Motion for Reconsideration for Argument. In support of this Motion, defendant avers as follows: 1. Pro se plaintiffs, Myrna and William Rosenkrantz, filed a Complaint in June of 2012 in the Cumberland County Magisterial District Court. 2. After a hearing, Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P. Correal determined plaintiffs had insufficient evidence to prevail on their claims, and entered a verdict for defendant on September 18, 2012. See Notice of Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 3. Plaintiffs filed a deficient Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2012. See Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, attached as Exhibit "B." 4. Due to the deficiencies in plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, defendant filed a Petition to Strike plaintiffs' Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.C.M.D.J. No. 1006. The Prothonotary thereafter properly struck plaintiffs' Appeal. See Order dated December 4, 2012, attached hereto as Exhibit "C." 5. On or about December 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's December 4, 2012 Order. See Motion for Reconsideration, attached hereto as Exhibit "D." 6. This Court issued a Rule Returnable on December 27, 2012, directing defendant to show cause within twenty days why plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration should not be granted. See Rule Returnable, attached hereto as Exhibit "E." 7. Defendant timely filed a response to plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. See Response to Motion for Reconsideration, filed January 9, 2013, attached hereto as Exhibit "F." 8. To date, plaintiffs have failed to take any steps to place their Motion for Reconsideration before the Court for argument or decision on the papers. 9. To the contrary, and without reference to their still pending Motion for Reconsideration, on November 25, 2013 plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to List this Case for Jury Trial. See Praecipe for Listing Case for Jury Trial, attached hereto as Exhibit "G." 10. In addition to the procedural deficiencies within that Praecipe, plaintiffs listed an incorrect name and address for defense counsel. Id. 11. As a result, the Praecipe was never received by defense counsel. 12. Defense counsel likewise did not receive notice of the pretrial conference held January 22, 2014, at which plaintiff was in attendance. 13. Defense counsel's first notice of the pretrial conference was upon receipt of this Court's January 22, 2014 Order' which struck the matter from the civil jury trial list, deeming it more properly an arbitration matter. See January 22, 2014 Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "H." 14. However, before any additional steps can be taken in this case there must be a full and final resolution of plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. 15. In the interests of judicial economy and to achieve a final resolution of this aged case, defendant files the instant Motion to Make Rule Absolute and respectfully requests this Court schedule plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration for hearing. 16. Defendant respectfully requests oral argument on plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. Date: March 10, 2014 BY: DE �'.!'I ► BA, QU HEAT 'I R U' SELL ' INE, ES Two Liberty 50 South 16th Street, 22d Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus This Court's Order was mailed to the correct name and address for defense counsel. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA HEATHER RUSSELL FINE Attorney I.D. Nos.: 76098 & 88020 dziemba@eckertseamans.com hfine @eckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street — 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 851 -8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, v. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiffs : COUNTY : No. 12 -6463 Defendant CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the forgoing Motion to Make Rule Absolute was served upon all interested parties in the manner indicated below on February 5, 2014. FIRST CLASS MAIL Addressed as follows: Peter J. Russo, Esquire 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Plaintiffs ECKERT SE MELL?TT, LLC J. HE AT H' 'R I " Attorneys for Defen ant, Bobby Rahal Lexus BY: it COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Mag. Dist. No: MDJ-09�-04 MDJ Name: Honorable Paula P. Correal Address: 5275 East Thr,dle Road Suite 110 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: 717'697-2201 Heather Russell Fine, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 5O South 1Oth Street, 22ndFloor Phi|ade|phia, PA 19102 Notice mf Judgment/Transcript Civil Case William & Myrna Bosenkrantz v. Bobby Rahal Lexus Docket No: 186-2012 Case Filed: 6/13/2012 Disposition Summary Docket No Plaintiff Defendant Dispnn0Unn Disposition Date Mue9304'Cv'0000196-2012 William &Myrna Rosenkrantz Bobby Rahal Lexus Judgment for Defendant 09/17/2012 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF TH1S NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY TI-IE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JLJDGMENT. Senior 1 certify that this is a true and correc copy of the record of the proceedirlgs contairnng the judgmenL Date Magisterial District Judge *Comment: Insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to prevail. 4 i‘ostAxs • CdMAIONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County 0 131? OCT 16 A1111 : 11 L.UM ERLA :_ �`COijNT`r !�tNNS�j OF APPEAL NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. _ 6i/43 ect‘,Q Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Judge on the date and in the case referenced below. %.Vt Li— tP.IAA NAME OE aNp 1'1 o S Cr) I �✓C� i 2— MAG. DIST. NO. IN, N -Opt- 3-v NAME OF MDJ �Cw h.A C 0 NJ% ADDRESS OF APPELLANT - C SE a -,4 try) !L CITY O ,.,E_ IIA�SJ3 ✓L STATE t"� ttv ZIP CODE OATE OF JUDGME yr, T No. N THE CASE OF (Plaintif)� I A. (Defendant)' 0 SE. 1AA, 0t010y . A•!� Vvk - p9'Dv`�- 17--- This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 10088. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the Magisterial District Judge, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY OR f appellant was Claimant (see Pa. D.J. No. 900 6) n action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before Magisterial District Judge. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon Name of appellee(s) appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal (Common Pleas No. ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signature of appellant or attorney or agent RULE: To , appellee(s) Name of appellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint In this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: 20 Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. / 03.42) ppl. 'r 1 ,'e 2144+t a�ao3� AOPC 312 -05 COMMONWEALTH - 0FPENNSYLVAN|A COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Mag. Dist. No: MDJ-09-3-04 MDJ Name: Honorable Pauta P. Correa Address: 5275 East Trindle Road Suite 110 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: 717'697-2201 William &Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 ■ Disposition Summary Docket No Plaintiff Defendant Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil Case William &Myrna Rosenkrantz v. Bobby Rahal Lexus Docket No: 96-212 Case Filed: 6/13/2012 Disposition Disposition Date Judgment for Defendant 09/17/2012 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON pLsAm, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS woTICs OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON pLsAa. ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT op COMMON PLEAS AND mo FURTHER PROCESS MAY Bs ISSUED av THE M«o/sTen IAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED1N THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTJON W!TH THE MAGSTERAL DISTRICT JUDGE F THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. Senior Ma utenaoistnct Judge Paula P. Correa] 1 certify that this is a true and correct copy u/ the record of the pro proceedings containing the judgmenL . Date Magisterial District Judge *Comment: Insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to prevail. William & Myrna Rosenkrantz v. Bobby Rahal Lexus Private(s) Plaintiff(s) Participant List Heather Russell Fine, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Edward A. Gray, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Dennis P. Ziemba, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 William & Myma Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Defendant(s) Bobby Rahal Lexus 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Docket No.: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 MDJS 315 Page 2 of 2 Printed: 09/18/2012 3:35:17PM FILE0 -OFF10E OF THE PROTHONOTARY 20I2 OCT 24 PM 12: 29 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER Wing of the notice of appeaL Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF C„.., ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served 141-6q a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. upon the Magisterial District Judge designated therein on (date of service) /q/b, 20 by personal service Ej by (certified) (registered) mail, senders receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) , on 10 I to, 20 1 Eil4ersonal serviceD sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORMIAFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS *-2."- DAY OF , 20 la- t Signature of official efore wh m affidavit , ade piri7 Ike ary Title of official pf,a4.1 P sc.r My commission expires on 20/V AOPC 312A - 05 by (certified) (registered) mail, D 1.1316 A 4.)44AL- LU Prothonotary, Cumberland Com% Carlisle, PA Comerisdon Expires the First Monday of )an. 2014 I WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ: MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ Plaintiffs vs. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2012-CV-6463 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND NOW, comes William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz, pro se and files this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Pa. R.C.P.1930.2 and Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701(b)(3), and avers as follows: . Plaintiffs/Movants are William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz with a current address of 3824 Manor Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 2. Plaintiffs/Movants filed an appeal of a verdict of Senior Magistrate District Judge Paula P. Correal entered on September 18, 2012 on October 16, 2012 with the Prothonotary of Cumberland County. Plaintiffs/Movants filed the original complaint with the Magistrate District Judge and the Prothonotary of Cumberland County Pro Se. . On October 16, 2012, Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz, upon delivery of the Appeal to the Prothonotary specifically asked what Plaintiff needed to file to complete the appeal. Prothonotary advised Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that the only requirement to complete the appeal was to serve the Appeal and submit to the Prothonotary Proof of Service of the Appeal. The Prothonotary did not instruct Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that Plaintiff was required to file a Complaint within twenty days of the filing of the Appeal. 4. Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz returned to the Prothonotary of Cumberland County on October 24, 2012 with a completed Proof of Service. Again Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz asked the Prothonotary if any additional documents were needed to complete the Appeal. Again the Prothonotary advised Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that no other documents were needed to complete the Appeal. 5. On or about November 30, 2012, Plaintiff was served with Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of the Appeal. 6. By Order of Court dated December 4, 2012, this Honorable Court, with hearing or an opportunity to be heard, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a Complaint. 7. Plaintiffs/Movants have acted Pro Se in this matter. Plaintiffs /Movants are not attorneys and have no legal background. 8. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Court reconsider the Court's Order Dismissing Plaintiff's action and allow Plaintiff to file the attached Complaint for the following reasons: A. Plaintiffs/Movants are Pro Se and have no legal background. While it does appear that Plaintiffs /Movants were required to file a Complaint with this Court prior to November 16, 2012, Plaintiffs were unaware of this requirement. Additionally, Plaintiffs were specifically advised by the Prothonotary that no additional documents were necessary to complete Plaintiffs' Appeal leading Plaintiffs' to believe that Plaintiffs had complied with all requirements for the filing of an Appeal. B. Defendant will not be harmed by the Court's granting of this Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant is fully represented by counsel and has been provided with the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims through the proceeding before the Magisterial District Court. C. The Order of Court dismissing Plaintiffs' Appeal will result in great prejudice to the Plaintiffs as Defendant's actions and negligence resulted in a great financial loss to the Plaintiffs. 9. Petitioner respectfully suggests that this Honorable Court reconsider its Order and take the following action: A. Issue an Order reversing the Court's Order of December 4, 2012. B. Allow the Plaintiffs to file the attached Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs /Movants request that the Court grant reconsideration. By: By: William Rosenkrantz WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ: MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ Plaintiffs vs. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2012-CV-6463 ORDER AND NOW, this day of r) ea—r 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, the following is hereby ORDERED that the Order of Court dismissing Plaintiffs' Appeal is hereby vacated. Plaintiffs are Ordered to file Plaintiffs' Complaint in the above referenced matter within ten (10) days of this Order. J. Distribution: Willaim Rosenkrantz, Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive, Harrisburg PA 17110 Dennis Ziemba, Esquire Two Liberty Place, 50 South 16th Street, 22 nd Floor, Philadelphia PA 19102 with the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims through the proceeding before the Magisterial District Court, C. The Order of Court dismissing Plaintiffs' Appeal will result in great prejudice to the Plaintiffs as Defendant's actions and negligence resulted in a great financial loss to the Plaintiffs. 9. Petitioner respectfully suggests that this Honorable Court reconsider its Order and take the following action: A. Issue an Order reversing the Court's Order of December 4, 2012. B. Allow the Plaintiffs to file the attached Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs/Movants request that the Court grant reconsideration. By: By: William Rosenkrantz WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES PLAINTIFFS, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz, Pro Se, who file this Complaint against Defendant and aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs are William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz of 3824 Manor Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 2. Defendant is Bobby Rahal Lexus, 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 3. On or about January 23, 2011, Myrna Rosenkrantz purchased a 2010 Lexus HS 250 (hereinafter "vehicle") from the Defendant. 4. On or about January 25, 2012 , while driving the vehicle, Myrna Rosenkrantz experienced an unwanted acceleration of the vehicle while applying the brakes. With her foot fully engaging the break petal, the vehicle continued to accelerate. 5. The Defendant was notified immediately about the defect in the vehicle and the unwanted acceleration. The Plaintiffs provided the vehicle to Defendant on or about January 28, 2012. 6. The Defendant kept the vehicle for two and one half days. At the conclusion of the two and one half days, the Defendant advised the Plaintiffs that the vehicle was safe to drive. 7. On April 9, 2012, the Plaintiffs were driving the vehicle in Florida. 8. On April 9, 2012, despite Defendant's assurances that the vehicle was safe to drive, the vehicle again experienced an unwanted acceleration. The vehicle accelerated while Myrna Rosenkrantz was stepping on the brake pedal. 9. As a result of the second unwanted acceleration, the vehicle lurched forward injuring a third party and crashing into the wall. 10. As a result of the second unwanted acceleration, and believing the vehicle was unsafe to drive, Myrna Rosenkrantz, after notifying the buyer of the unwanted acceleration problems with the vehicle, sold the vehicle at a loss. 11. As a result of Defendant's negligent service of the vehicle, Plaintiffs have suffered the following losses; A. $5,000.00 for the down payment on the car to Defendant; B. $4,449.00 loss in value of the vehicle; C. $2,100.00 increase in insurance for replacement vehicle purchased; D. $160.00 for bra for new vehicle; and E. $30.00 for sun visor that could not be used in new vehicle. 12. Plaintiffs' loss of $11,739.00 was due to the negligent repair and negligent representations of the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz, respectfully request that this Court find Defendant negligent and award Plaintiffs $11,739.00 plus cost and fees, which amount is within the arbitration limits. Myra Rosenkrant William Rosenkrantz WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ: MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ Plaintiffs vs. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2012 -CV -6463 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND NOW, comes William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz, pro se and files this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Pa. R.C.P.1930.2 and Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701(b)(3), and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiffs /Movants are William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz with a current address of 3824 Manor Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 2. Plaintiffs /Movants filed an appeal of a verdict of Senior Magistrate District Judge Paula P. Corneal entered on September 18, 2012 on October 16, 2012 with the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, Plaintiffs / Movants filed the original complaint with the Magistrate District Judge and the Prothonotary of Cumberland County Pro Se. On October 16, 2012, Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz, upon delivery of the Appeal to the Prothonotary specifically asked what Plaintiff needed to file to complete the appeal. Prothonotary advised Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that the only requirement to complete the appeal was to serve the Appeal and submit to the Prothonotary Proof of Service of the Appeal. The Prothonotary did not instruct Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that Plaintiff was required to file a Complaint within twenty days of the filing of the Appeal. 4. Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz returned to the Prothonotary of Cumberland County on October 24, 2012 with a completed Proof of Service. Again Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz asked the Prothonotary if any additional documents were needed to complete the Appeal. Again the Prothonotary advised Plaintiff William Rosenkrantz that no other documents were needed to complete the Appeal. 5. On or about November 30, 2012, Plaintiff was served with Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of the Appeal. 6. By Order of Court dated December 4, 2012, this Honorable Court, with hearing or an opportunity to be heard, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a Complaint. 7. Plaintiffs/Movants have acted Pro Se in this matter. Plaintiffs /Movants are not attorneys and have no legal background. 8. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Court reconsider the Court's Order Dismissing Plaintiff's action and allow Plaintiff to file the attached Complaint for the following reasons: A. Plaintiffs/Movants are Pro Se and have no legal background. While it does appear that Plaintiffs/Movants were required to file a Complaint with this Court prior to November 16, 2012, Plaintiffs were unaware of this requirement. Additionally, Plaintiffs were specifically advised by the Prothonotary that no additional documents were necessary to complete Plaintiffs' Appeal leading Plaintiffs' to believe that Plaintiffs had complied with all requirements for the filing of an Appeal. B. Defendant will not be harmed by the Court's granting of this Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant is fully represented by counsel and has been provided with the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims through the proceeding before the Magisterial District Court. C. The Order of Court dismissing Plaintiffs' Appeal will result in great prejudice to the Plaintiffs as Defendant's actions and negligence resulted in a great financial loss to the Plaintiffs. 9. Petitioner respectfully suggests that this Honorable Court reconsider its Order and take the following action: A. Issue an Order reversing the Court's Order of December 4, 2012. B. Allow the Plaintiffs to file the attached Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs/Movants request that the Court grant reconsideration. By: By: William Rosenkrantz WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ: MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ Plaintiffs vs. BOBBY RAHAL LOCUS Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2012 -CV -6463 ORDER AND NOW, this ID day of E -c- 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, the following is hereby ORDERED that the Order of Court dismissing Plaintiffs' Appeal is hereby vacated. Plaintiffs are Ordered to file Plaintiffs' Complaint in the above referenced matter within ten (10) days of this Order. J. Distribution: Willaim Rosenkrantz, Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive, Harrisburg PA 17110 Dennis Ziemba, Esquire Two Liberty Place, 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor, Philadelphia PA 19102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William Rosenkrantz, do hereby certify that on this +c day of = -�-`' �'' 201_, I served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Dennis Ziemba, Esquire Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia PA 19102 William Rosenkrantz WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ: MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ Plaintiffs vs. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No, 2012-CV-6463 COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES PLAINTIFFS, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz, Pro Se, who file this Complaint against Defendant and aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs are William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz of 3824 Manor Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 2. Defendant is Bobby Rahal Lexus, 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050, 3, On or about January 23, 2011, Myrna Rosenkrantz purchased a 2010 Lexus HS 250 (hereinafter "vehicle") from the Defendant. 4. On or about January 25, 2012 , while driving the vehicle, Myrna Rosenkrantz experienced an unwanted acceleration of the vehicle while applying the brakes. With her foot fully engaging the break petal, the vehicle continued to accelerate. 5. The Defendant was notified immediately about the defect in the vehicle and the unwanted acceleration. The Plaintiffs provided the vehicle to Defendant on or about January 28, 2012. 6. The Defendant kept the vehicle for two and one half days. At the conclusion of the two and one half days, the Defendant advised the Plaintiffs that the vehicle was safe to drive. 7. On April 9, 2012, the Plaintiffs were driving the vehicle in Florida. 8. On April 9, 2012, despite Defendant's assurances that the vehicle was safe to drive, the vehicle again experienced an unwanted acceleration. The vehicle accelerated while Myrna Rosenkrantz was stepping on the brake pedal. 9. As a result of the second unwanted acceleration, the vehicle lurched forward injuring a third party and crashing into the wall. 10. As a result of the second unwanted acceleration, and believing the vehicle was unsafe to drive, Myrna Rosenkrantz, after notifying the buyer of the unwanted acceleration problems with the vehicle, sold the vehicle at a loss. 11. As a result of Defendant's negligent service of the vehicle, Plaintiffs have suffered the following losses; A. $5,000.00 for the down payment on the car to Defendant; B. $4,449.00 loss in value of the vehicle; C. $2,100.00 increase in insurance for replacement vehicle purchased; D. $160.00 for bra for new vehicle; and E. $30.00 for sun visor that could not be used in new vehicle. 12. Plaintiffs' loss of $11,739.00 was due to the negligent repair and negligent representations of the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz, respectfully request that this Court find Defendant negligent and award Plaintiffs $11,739.00 plus cost and fees, which amount is within the arbitration limits. William Rosenkrantz ■r7 ICILX= MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs v. BOBBY RAHAL LOCUS, : No. 12 -6463 Defendant ORDER AND NOW, on this 44 day of , 2012, upon consideration of Defendant's Bobby Rahal Lexus, Petition to Strike Appeal, and any Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Petition is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal is hereby STRICKEN. Thomas A. Piney Common Common Pleas Judge TRUE COPY FROM R.Zr:CC► ,:'D In Testimony whereof, 1 here unto set my hand and the seal of said Cou at Carlisle, Pa. This ,5" dayof0� , 20 /0 � lhoy . . %C. WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ, Plaintiffs v. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2012-6463 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this 27th day of December 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration that does not have the concurrence of Defendant, a Rule shall be issued upon Defendant to show cause, if any, why the motion should not be granted. This Rule is returnable within twenty (20) days of issuance. B Distribution List: William Rosenkrantz / Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dennis Ziemba, Esq. 2 Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 ,e4441 Lex uS CO p, e3 ;Aka 1 I Thomas A. P acey C.P.J. MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, V. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiffs : COUNTY : No. 12 -6463 Defendant ORDER AND NOW, on this day of , 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, and Defendant's, Bobby Rahal Lexus, Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is DENIED. BY THE COURT: ECKERT SEAMANS 01TRIN & MELLOTT, LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA, ESQUIRE - HEATHER RUSSELL FINE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No.: 76098/88020 dziemba@eckertseamans.com hfine@eckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22d Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby .Rahal Lexus MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON WILLIAM ROS 9 TZ, : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiffs COUNTY • V. : No. 12-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT, BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, To PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, through its counsel, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, respectfully submits this Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and respectfully requests that this Court deny plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and enter defendant's proposed Order. 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 2. Denied as stated. Defendant admits only that plaintiffs filed a document entitled "Notice of Appeal," which was docketed by the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on October 16, 2012. This filing is a handwritten form document that identifies William and Myrna Rosenkrantz as Appellants and is signed by Appellant William Rosenkrantz. By way of further response, this document contains the following language directly below the signature of Appellant William Rosenkrantz: If Appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. 1001(6) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. See plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, attached as Exhibit "A," which speaks for itself. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. By way of further response, the Notice of Appeal is a handwritten form document that identifies. William and Myrna Rosenkrantz as Appellants and is signed by Appellant William Rosenkrantz. Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal contains the following language directly below the signature of Appellant William Rosenkrantz: If Appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. 1001(6) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. See plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, attached as Exhibit "A." 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. By way of further response, the Notice of Appeal is a handwritten form document that identifies William and Myrna Rosenkrantz as Appellants and is signed by Appellant William Rosenkrantz. Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal contains the following language directly below the signature of Appellant William Rosenkrantz: If Appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. 1001(6) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. See plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, attached as Exhibit "A." 5. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 6. Denied as stated. Defendant admits only that its Petition to Strike Appeal was granted by this Court on Dedember 4, 2012. This Court's Order is a written document which speaks for itself. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. By way of further response, the Notice of Appeal is a handwritten form document that identifies William and Myrna Rosenkrantz as Appellants and is signed by Appellant William Rosenkrantz. • Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. By way of further answer, defendant specifically denies that plaintiffs were "unaware of this requirement" to file a Complaint within 20 days of filing their Notice of Appeal, as the requirement is clearly pre-printed on the very form filled out in handwriting by plaintiffs and signed by Appellant William Rosenkrantz. The answering defendant denies there has been any prejudice to plaintiffs. 9. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, respectfully requests that this Court deny plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and enter defendant's proposed Order. ECKERT SE s C a& MELLOTT LLC BY: Dated: January 8, 2013 D Attorney Jo E, E QUIRE nt, Bobby .R hal Lexus ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA, ESQUIRE HEATHER RUSSELL FINE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No.: 76098/88020 dziemba@eckertseamans.com hfine@eckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22d Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiffs .: COUNTY : No. 12-6463 BOBBYRAHAL LEXUS, Defendant • MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT, BOBBY RAHALLEXUS, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, through its counsel, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, submits the following Memorandum of Law in Support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration: I. INTRODUCTION In the present matter, plaintiffs seek relief from their own failure to follow the instructions clearly set forth on their own filed Notice of Appeal. Specifically, plaintiffs failed to file a Complaint despite the clear and unambiguous language set forth on their Notice of Appeal: If Appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. 1001(6) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. See plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, attached as Exhibit "A." Plaintiffs' failure to follow the clear dictates of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and their lack of good cause to justify their failure to follow these clear dictates, merits a denial of their Motion for Reconsideration. A. Statement of Facts Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in June of 2012 in the Cumberland County Magisterial District Court. After a hearing, Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P. Correal determined plaintiffs had "insufficient evidence" to prevail on their claims, and entered a verdict for defendant on September 18, 2012. See Notice of Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit "B." Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2012, using a publicly available pre-printed form. That pre-printed form contains a clear instruction, printed partially in capital letters as follows: If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(6)) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE OF APPEAL See Exhibit "B." This warning is located directly below the handwritten signature of plaintiff William Rosenkrantz. Id. Despite this clear and unambiguous instruction, plaintiffs failed to file a Complaint within the required 20-day time period. As a result, Bobby Rahal Lexus filed a Petition to Strike plaintiffs' Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.C.M.D.J. No. 1006. The Prothonotary thereafter properly struck plaintiffs' Appeal. Plaintifffs now, without a showing of good cause, filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant Bobby Rahal Lexus respectfully requests this Court deny plaintiffs' Motion, based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with established court rules and their failure to provide good cause to excuse that failure. . ARGUMENT A. The Prothonotary properly struck the Notice of Appeal based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with well-established, clear court rules. Plaintiffs in this case sought to appeal the decision of the magisterial district judge by filing a Notice of Appeal. Pa. R.C.M.D.J. No. 1002(A), That, however, is insufficient under the law to preserve their claim. Rule 1004(A) of the Rule of Civil Procedure for Magisterial District Judges specifically requires a Complaint be filed within twenty days of the filing of a Notice of Appeal. Id. ("If the appellant was the claimant in the action before the magisterial district judge, he shall file a complaint within twenty (20) days after filing his notice of appeal."). The Rule also provides a specific mechanism to strike any appeal that does not comply with that requirement. See Pa. R.C.M,D.S. No. 1006 ("Upon failure of the appellant to comply with Rule 1004A ... the prothonotary shall, upon praecipe of the appellee, mark the appeal stricken from the record. The court of common pleas may reinstate the appeal upon good cause shown."). The Official Note to this Rule specifies that this rule "is intended to provide sanctions for failing to act within the time limits prescribed." Id. This is not a case in which pro se plaintiffs are disadvantaged due to their possible unfamiliarity with procedural requirements. They were not required to locate a rulebook or research caselaw in order to discover their obligation to file a Complaint within twenty days. Indeed, this warning, pre-printed in capital letters, appears on the very form plaintiffs used in filing their Notice of Appeal. See Exhibit "A." The warning is not in fine print, arguably obscured on the back of the form, or hidden in a rulebook in the stacks of a remote law library. The warning is directly beneath Mr. Rosenkrantz's handwritten signature. Id. In fact, Mr. Rosenkrantz's signature is physically touching a portion of the typewritten warning itself. Id. It therefore defies logic for plaintiffs to claim that they were unaware of the requirement to file a Complaint within the twenty-day time period. B. Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause for their failure to comply with established court rules. Plaintiffs set forth a bald allegation in their Motion for Reconsideration that they were "specifically advised" by "the Prothonotary" that they need not file a Complaint. See Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration at paras. 3, 4 and 8. Whether this statement is accurate or not, it does not absolve plaintiffs of the requirement to adhere to established court rules or permit them to ignore the plain language contained in the form they signed. Nor does plaintiffs' -unsupported allegation provide a satisfactory excuse to constitute "good cause" to.require the reinstatement of plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal. While Rule 1006 does not define "good cause," Pennsylvania courts in similar situations have noted that simple, unintentional errors are not enough to overcome well established court rules. Slaughter v. Allied Heating, 636 A.2d 1121, 1125 (Pa. Super. 1993) ("an unspecified allegation that [appellant's] failure to comply with Rule 1005B [relating to the service of the notice of appeal] was attributable to 'inadvertent error' is insufficient to show good cause); Finney v. Commonwealth of PA, 472 A.2d 752, 753-54 (Pa. Commw. 1984) (holding that petitioner was not entitled to an appeal based on his claim he did not understand the proper procedure for an appeal, noting that "[p]ossible ignorance of the law does not excuse a party to an action perform his statutory obligation to file an appeal within the prescribed appeal period.") Claimed ignorance of the law, even with pro se plaintiffs, is clearly insufficient to set aside established legal requirements, particularly in the face of the clear language that was pre- printed on the Notice of Appeal. Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 235 (Pa. Super. 2012) ( "Neither the court system nor the correctional system is obliged to educate or update prisoners concerning changes in case law. ") (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs' effort to place blame on the Prothonotary is not sufficient to carry plaintiffs' "good cause" burden. Whatever conversation plaintiffs may have had with the Prothonotary does not excuse plaintiffs' failure to follow the clear instructions on the Notice of Appeal. It was not the Prothonotary's obligation to confirm that plaintiffs met their statutory obligations. It was not the Prothonotary's obligation to follow up with plaintiffs twenty days later to confirm they filed a Complaint. Sole responsibility for the failure to file a Complaint falls upon plaintiffs, and plaintiffs have provided this Court with no "good cause" to justify this failure. As a result, this Court should deny plaintiffs' Motion. In conclusion, plaintiffs failed to comply with an essential court rule. Plaintiffs failed to file a Complaint within the mandated twenty -day period subsequent to the filing of a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiffs . further failed to demonstrate "good cause" for this noncompliance. Plaintiffs cannot cite ignorance when their obligations were clearly set forth on the very document they executed to initiate their appeal. As a result, this Court should deny plaintiffs' Motion. III. RELIEF Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration be denied. Dated: January 8, 2013 ECKERT SEA S CHE • if MELLO TBY: ®1- / Atil DE 11 S' ZIE 11: •, Q,W HEATHE RUS 1 L F I, E, ESQUI Attorney fo Defe ant, Bobby Rahalkexus VERIFICATION I, Heather Russell Fine, hereby state: 1. I am counsel for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus, in this action. 2. I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 3. I understand that the statements made in this Petition are subject to the Penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4909 relating to unsworn falsification Dated: January 8, 2013 o autho tie A . COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of 21312 OCT 16 MI II: I I :( NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT uUMERD3: COUNTY COMMON PLEAS No. fa - �VV (3 t,/1 LNZ'NS�j tig,OF APPEAL Notice Is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Judge on the date and In the case referenced below. , ' -t7 I L .. I A IM NAME OF APP,ELIANTA U) \ 1 l 17 S tE h) i L2/Q P71-- MAG. DIST. ND. Ir+� D - 0 el- 3 -v NAME OF MOJ C ADDRESS OF APPELLANT . DATE OF JUDGM CITY STATE Co u L ZIP COOS OCXET IN THE CASE OF (Plaintiff) ln1 WILu -1R S,= - 11©o_o t' ■ This block will be signed ONLY when this notation Is required under Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No, 10088. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the Magisterial District Judge, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession In this case. Srgnalwe of PaNhonolary or Deputy (oaten i� vU��y y'L 4z GNATURE OF APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY OR A ` C� If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. .D.J. No. 1001(6) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FiLE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No, 1001(7) In action before Magisterial District Judge. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon Name of appellee(s) appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal (Common Pleas No. ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signature of appellant or attorney or agent RULE: To , appellee(s) Name of appellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint In this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complain) within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU, (3) The date of service of this rule If service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: 20 Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. /03...a) p, l. ad AOPC 312.05 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Mag. Dist. No: MDJ- 09 -3 -04 MDJ Name: Honorable Paula P. Correal Address: 5275 East Trindle Road Suite 110 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: 717 -697 -2201 William & Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil Case William'& Myrna Rosenkrantz V. Bobby Rahal Lexus Docket No: MJ- 09304 -CV- 0000196 -2012 Case Filed: 6/13/2012 Disposition Summary Docket No Plaintiff Defendant Disposition Disposition Date MJ- 09304 -CV- 0000196 -2012 William & Myrna Rosenkrantz Bobby Rahal Lexus Judgment for Defendant 09/17/2012 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY /CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. 9/e/m, Date Senior Magisterial District Judge Paula P. Correal I certi t at this is a true and correct copy o e record o the proceedings con aining t elu.gment. Date Magisterial District Judge *Comment: Insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to prevail. MDJS 315 •Page 1 of 2 Printed: 09/18/2012 3:35:17PM William & Myrna Rosenkrantz v. Bobby Rahal Lexus Private(s) Plaintiff(s) Participant Ust Heather Russell Fine, Esq. • Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Edward A. Gray, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Dennis P. Ziemba, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 William & Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Defendant(s) Bobby Rahal Lexus 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Docket No.: MJ-09304-CV-0000196-2012 MDJS 315 Page 2 of 2 Printed: 09/18/2012 3:35;17PM FILED-OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2012 OCT 24 P1112: 29 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE' OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF �y,,�,,..�� ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served a_dq‘3 ❑ a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. upon the Magisterial District Judge designated therein on (date of service) lob b 20 1 Y by personal service ❑ by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) , on to ( Ib 20 1 'iersonal service❑ by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. o61su r t44L (SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS .2 DAYOFMe.,20 /.L Signature of official afore wh m affidavit ade Signature of affiant b/22/-d/ Title of official pd. Ua +J it-r" My commission expires on , 20 /Y AOPC 312A - 05 Prothonotary, Cumberland Counts Caddo, PA My Commies/cc Parkes the Pim Monday orlon. 2O)4 . EXHIBIT "B" • COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANiA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Mag. Dis No: MDJ-09*-04 • MDJ Name: Honor:able Paula P. Correa! Address: 5275 East Trindle Road Suite 110 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: 717-697-2201 Heather Russell Fine, Esq, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Uberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, RAi91O2 Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil Case William & Myrna Rosenkrantz v. Bobby Rahal Lexus Docket Na 196-2O12 Case Filed: 6/13/2012 ` . — Disposition Summary ----- ----- Docket No Plaintiff Defendant DIspookion Disposition Date mJ-0e304-ov-00001e6-2012 William & Myrna nvovnNamu Bobby nu*mLexu Judgment for Defendan 09n7o012 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE pnoT*omoTAnvmLenxor COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. SeolormagIsteria|mmrict Judge Paula P. Correa' I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the Judgment. Date MagisterIal District Judge *Comment: Insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to prevail. MoJuu1s Page 1 of 2 Printed: 09/18/20 u 3:3517pw ECKERT SEAMANS CIEERIN & MELLOTT, LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA, ESQUIRE HEATHER RUSSELL FINE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No.: 76098/88020 dziemba@eckertseamans.com hfine@eckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22d Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiffs : COUNTY V. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant : No 12-6463 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the, Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration was served upon all interested counsel in the manner indicated below on January 8, 2013. Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL Addressed as follows: Myrna & William Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 AN A A. LOTT, 11C ECKERT S DE r , ES Q HEA I ' RT.'S SE L FINE, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defenda t, Bobby Rahal Lexus BY: PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case for a Jury Trial. CAPTION OF CASE jentire caption must be stated in fulil William & Myrna Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg PA 17110 (Plaintiff) VS. Bobby Rahal Lexus - 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg PA 17050 (Defendant) VS. 1,1 rri Cr: c-D -t7 . • . i2) (check one) Civil Action — Law E Appeal from arbitration tlaiL (other) No. 12-6463 Civil Term The trial list will be called on and Jan 7 2014 Pretrials JAN 22 2014 be held on (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials) Trials commence on Feb 3 2014, Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Prose Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Heather Russell Esq 2 Liberty Place 50 South 15th Street Philadelphia Pa 19102 This case is ready for trial. Date: 11 / 25/ 2013 Signed: Print Name: William Rosenk Attorney for: 4-.2q rirpol p cds #5 MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and . - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, • . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v Plaintiffs THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CIVIL ACTION - LAW 12-6463 CIVIL TERM BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant IN RE: CASE STRICKEN FROM TRIAL LIST ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2014, Plaintiff appearing for the scheduled pretrial conference, and upon first review of the file it appearing that this is an arbitration case, the matter is stricken from the civil jury trial list. By the Cou Thomas A. Placey William Rosenkrantz, pro se 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 /leather Russell Fine, Esquire Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 For Defendant Court Administrator :mae Cct trz.(c, C.P.J. .- -i; r, rrill20 c..... = 331. rT = r"" (1), N) ..... 6 •-.. .4.- -&-,7- --I c-; ~-7.1 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 Email: prusso @pjrlaw.com 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591 -1755 Facsimile: (717) 591 -1756 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ Plaintiffs vs. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant • • PR0 HO 0 TA R5 2014 HAR 13 AM 8: 2 CUMBERLAND COUNTY Y PENNSYLVANIA; COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2012 -CV -6463 PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE 1. Admitted. 2. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 2 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 3. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 3 are conclusions of law to which ho response is required. -- 4. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 4 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a Rule Returnable was issued by the Court. The balance of the averments relate to documents which speak for themselves. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a Rule Returnable was issued by the Court. The balance of the averments relate to documents which speak for themselves. 8. Denied. Plaintiffs have proceeded pro se and only recently secured counsel. The Plaintiffs provided information to counsel which indicated the matter was scheduled from Argument Court. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a Rule Returnable was issued by the Court. The balance of the averments relate to documents which speak for themselves. 10. Admitted. 11. Denied. Plaintiff has no information to determine the truth or falsity of the averments made in this paragraph. 12. Denied. Plaintiff has no information to determine the truth or falsity of the averments made in this paragraph. 13. Denied. Plaintiff has no information to determine the truth or falsity of the averments made in this paragraph. 14. Admitted. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. Date: aba By: Respectfully submitted, RUSSO, P.C. Peter . usso, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 Email: prusso@pjrlaw.com 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ .• MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ashley R. Malcolm, Paralegal, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Plaintiffs Answer to Defendant's Motion to Make Rule Absolute upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below as follows: United States Regular Mail Dennis P. Ziemba, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Date: Ashley R. Male b im, Paralegal MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, Plaintiffs v. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant Countp of Cumber laub IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2012-06463 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 18th day of March 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Make Rule Absolute, it is hereby ORDERED that ORAL ARGUMENT is scheduled for 11 April 2014 at 11:30 a.m., in Courtroom Number Six of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Distribution: COURT, P. Ziemba, Esq. Heather Russell Fine, Esq.. 2 Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 eter J. Russo, Esq. 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Qc€ S Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs: VS : 2012 -6463 CIVIL TERM BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant . IN RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION TO STRIKE THE APPEAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2014, following argument on the Motion For Reconsideration of the Petition to Strike the Appeal, the motion is granted. The appeal is reinstated. Plaintiffs shall file complaint within 20 days of this date. No further relief is granted at this time. By the Court Thomas k Placey, C.P.J. Deter J. Russo, Esquire 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 For the Plaintiffs /Dennis P. Ziemba, Esquire 2 Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 For the Defendant :mlc V WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS 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. Court Administrator, Fourth Floor C-., _ Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 �� ' S. m (717)240-6200 - cn Q '^G WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Bobby Rahal Lexus c/o Dennis P. Ziemba, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectful Submitted-- Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Rd, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Peter J. Russo, Esquire I.D. No. 72897 Date: H1 3 (s �l �1 a LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 Email: prusso@pjrlaw.com 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW, COME the Plaintiffs, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz by and through their counsel, Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. and aver the following in support of their Complaint: PARTIES and VENUE 1. Plaintiff, William Rosenkrantz is an adult individual with address of 3824 Manor Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 2. Plaintiff, Myrna Rosenkrantz is an adult individual with address of 3824 Manor Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 3. Defendant is Bobby Rahal Lexus with a business address of 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ("Dealership"). 4. Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus is a fictitious name entity for Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation with a registered office located at 6305 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant acted by and through its employees, agents and/or representatives. 6. Cumberland County is the proper venue for this matter pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1006 (a)(1). OPERATIVE FACTS 7. On or about January 29, 2011, Myrna Rosenkrantz entered into a written agreement with Defendant for the purchase of a 2010 Lexus HS 250 (hereinafter "Vehicle"). Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the written agreement between the Parties. 8. In order to purchase the Vehicle, Plaintiffs entered into a written agreement with Lexus Financial for the financing of the Vehicle. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the written agreement between the Parties. 9. On or about January 20, 2012, while driving the vehicle, Myrna Rosenkrantz experienced an unwanted acceleration of the Vehicle while applying the brakes. 10. The unwanted acceleration of the Vehicle occurred while Myrna Rosenkrantz's foot was fully engaging the break petal, yet the Vehicle continued to accelerate. 11. On January 20, 2012, Plaintiffs notified the Defendant about the defect in the Vehicle and the unwanted acceleration. 12. On January 20, 2012, Plaintiffs notified George Arhondhais, who is the Sales Manager of the Defendant. 13. It is therefore averred that George Arhondhais, is the employee and/or agent of the Defendant. 14. On or about January 23, 2012, the Defendant picked up the Vehicle at the Plaintiff's home in order for Defendant to address the Plaintiffs' concerns regarding the unwanted acceleration. 15. Defendant had possession of the Vehicle at the Dealership for two and one half days. 16. On or about January 25, 2012, Defendant advised the Plaintiffs that the Vehicle was ready to be picked up from the Dealership. 17. On or about January 25, 2012, Plaintiffs specifically asked Tom Schrieber the General Manager if the Vehicle was safe to drive. 18. On or about January 25, 2012, Tom Schrieber specifically advised Plaintiffs that the Vehicle was safe to drive. 19. In April of 2012, Plaintiffs had planned to travel to Florida. 20. Based upon the representations by Defendant, Plaintiffs decided to drive the Vehicle to Florida. 21. On April 9, 2012, despite Defendant's assurances that the Vehicle was safe to drive, the Vehicle again experienced an unwanted acceleration. 22. During the April 9, 2012, incident, the Vehicle again accelerated while Myrna Rosenkrantz's foot was fully engaging the break petal. 23. As a result of the unwanted acceleration on April 9, 2012, the Vehicle launched forward injuring a third party and crashing into the wall. 24. As a result of the second unwanted acceleration on April 9, 2012, despite the representations of the Defendant, Plaintiffs believed the Vehicle was unsafe to drive. 25. Plaintiff, after notifying the eventual buyer of the Vehicle about the unwanted acceleration problems, sold the Vehicle at a loss for $4,449.00. 26. In addition to the loss on the sale of the Vehicle, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffs have suffered the following losses: a. The $5,000.00 down payment on the Vehicle; b. $2,100.00 increase in insurance for replacement vehicle purchased; c. $160.00 for bra for new vehicle; and d. $30.00 for sun visor that could not be used in new vehicle. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Misrepresentation) 27. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 26 as though fully set forth herein. 28. In 2009, Toyota received numerous complaints about cars that accelerated on their own. 29. Early in 2010, Toyota announced a recall of about 87,000 Toyota Prius and Lexus HS 250 from the model year 2010 to fix a brake problem. 30. The gasoline-powered portion of the Lexis HS 250 powertrain is a 2AL 2AZ-FXE inline- four engine similar to the Toyota Camry Hybrid. 31. It is believed, therefore averred that Lexus and Toyota used common parts which were involved in the recalls in early 2010. 32. It is believed, therefore averred that Plaintiffs' vehicle was one of the vehicles affected by the know problems regarding brakes and unwanted acceleration. 33. It is believed, therefore averred that Defendant was aware of the recall when the Plaintiffs reported their unwanted acceleration experience to the Defendant. 34. Defendant knew or should have known of unwanted acceleration problems associated with the 2010 year model Lexus HS 250, including the Vehicle purchased by Plaintiff. 35. Despite Defendant's knowledge of unwanted acceleration problems associated with the 2010 year model Lexus HS 250, Defendant failed to disclose the issue to Plaintiffs prior to the purchase of the Vehicle. 36. Despite their knowledge of the aforesaid unwanted acceleration problems associated with the 2010 year model Lexus HS 250, Defendant failed to disclose the issue to Plaintiffs prior to returning the Vehicle to them in January of 2012. 37. Defendant had a duty to disclose to the Plaintiffs the aforesaid problems associated with unwanted acceleration and failed to do so. 38. Plaintiffs relied upon the misrepresentations of Defendant, its employees, agents or representatives. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations of Defendant, its employees, agents or representatives, Plaintiffs purchased a vehicle when they otherwise would not have done so. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations of Defendant, its employees, agents or representatives, Plaintiffs drove the Vehicle to Florida when they otherwise would not have done so. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations of Defendant, its employees, agents or representatives, Plaintiffs have suffered damages as set forth in this Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz respectfully request judgment in their favor and against Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus in an amount which is within the limits of the compulsory arbitration limits compensatory damages and such other relief as the Honorable Court may deem just and proper. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act) 42. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 41 as if more fully set forth herein. 43. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law 73 P.S. §§201-1 et. seq. (hereinafter "UTPCPL") Plaintiff is an individual who executed a written agreement to purchase of a vehicle from Defendant and, as such, the Plaintiffs have standing to bring a private action to recover damages caused by the practices declared unlawful by the UTPCPL. 44. Defendant's failure to disclose the unwanted acceleration problems associated with the 2010 year model Lexus HS 250 prior to the execution of the written contract by the Plaintiff constitutes engaging in fraudulent or deceptive conduct, which caused a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding, which is an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the UTPCPL. (See 73.P.S. §201-2(4)(xxi)). 45. The statement that the Vehicle was "safe to drive" when in fact it was not constitutes fraudulent or deceptive conduct, which caused a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding, which is an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the UTPCPL. (See 73.P.S. §201-2(4)(xxi)). 46. Defendants further violated the UTPCPL by representing that their goods and services were of a particular standard, quality or grade, when they were, in fact, of another. (See 73.P.S. §201-2(4)(v)). 47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violation of the UTPCPL, the Plaintiffs have suffered damages as described herein. 48. Under the UTPCPL, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover, in addition to the damages set forth above, their attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting this matter, as well as treble damages against Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz respectfully request judgment in their favor and against Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus in an amount which is within the limits of the compulsory arbitration limits compensatory damages and such other relief as the Honorable Court may deem just and proper. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Loss of Consortium) 49. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 48 as if more fully set forth herein. 50. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiffs William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz were married and living together as husband and wife. 51. As the sole, direct, legal and proximate result of the acts of Defendant, William Rosenkrantz has been deprived of the services, assistance, consortium and companionship of his wife, and Myrna Rosenkrantz. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz respectfully request judgment in their favor and against Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus in an amount which is within the limits of the compulsory arbitration limits compensatory damages and such other relief as the Honorable Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF PETER I RUSSO,P.C. By: Peter J. Russo, Esquire -- PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Date: � VERIFICATION We, Myrna Rosenkrantz and William Rosenkrantz, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document(s) are true and correct. We understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: [ c1 Myr Rosenkr ntz Date: 2- /4 / William Rosenkrantz MBobby Rahal Honda Bobby Rahal Acura Bobby Rahal Toyota-Scion Bobby Rahal Lexus 6696 Carlisle Pike 6694 Carlisle Pike 6711 Carlisle Pike 6715 Carlisle Pike eg Mechanlesbu'rg,PA 17050 Mechanicsburg PA 17050 Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 717-766-0300 717-790-6000 717-691-0500 717-691-5600 AUTOMOTIVE GROUP Bobby Rabal Toyota-Scion Bobby Rahal Lexus Bobby Rahal Used Car Outlet of Lewistown of Lewistown 6694 Carlisle Pike 425ElectrlcAvenue 425ElectricAvenue Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 Lewistown,PA 17044 Lewistown,PA 17044 717-790-6000 717-248-0119 717-248-0119 , PLEASE ENTER MY ORDER FOR THE FOLLOWING DEAL NO. CUENT NO. OCCUPATION W NEW ❑USED ❑DEMO ❑CAR ❑TRUCK ❑LOANER 11 YEARMAKE MODEL TYPE DATE SALESPERSON 2010 LEMS I HS 50H SON 01/29/11 SAMUEL J GARI.STO JR � ARFIRE TRIM IM Auto PURCHASER {'� ❑MANUAL MYRNA C ROSENKRANTZ IV i 3 1� 1 A14 2 Q 1 5 _ CO-PURCHASER N/A STOCKNO. MILES CODE yCORRESPONDENCETO C 9810C ESTIMATED DELIVERY DATE TIME ❑AM ADDRESS 01 29 it 0P 3824 MANOR OR CASH❑ FINANCED® LEASE❑ CITY STATE ZIP COUNTY �E•'-MAIL DESCRIPTIONOFTRADEAN ` 't�yi'•.^�t•, r ` , YEAR• . MAKE. MODEL TYPE 2007 . MAZDA CY.'7 SW RES.PHONE BUS.PHONE STOCKNOLX154O6A t/MILES,/ <,7 _ r C. (71/) f r �l/ICK CELLFAX \ TITLED TO:. MYRNA C ROSENKRANTZ PURCHASER'S SOC.SEC.NO. CO.PURCHASER'SSOC.SEC.NO. v) 193 - 29 : 27 167 . 04 PURCHASER'S DRIVERS LICENSE NO, CO-PURCHASER'S DRIVERS LICENSE NO. VEHICLE BEING TRADED-IN: ❑LEASE ❑ OWNEDBYYOU PAYOFF PRICE OF VEHICLE DOES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERTAIN.TO.YOUR TRADE-IN: R-Titled,Branded Title,True Miles Unknown(TMU)&Grey Market ACCESSORIES ❑YES NO Custorner's Signature X- LICENSE PLATE NO. VALID EXPIRES LIEN HOLDER II ADDRESS HE HV RF L73J. ONE CREDIT UNION.PLACE HARRISI31JR6 ACCT,B TITLE# 64828518001 19fla )234-8484 "W9912 Uf1 VERIFIED BY COLLISION COVERAGE NA% ESG R KISER AHoN,61. 71.7) -0190 ADDT5 CHESTNUT ST CAMP HILL PA.17011 PO A4VE IFIED BY DATES U6'TTT461.6 TO Qa'l11 40-110 CAP INSURANCE INSURANCE CO. COMP COLL SUB TOTAL NATIONWIDE 0 100.00 AF 235.00 WARRANTY INFORMATION SERVICE PLAN FACTORY WARRANTY.The factory warranty constitutes all of the warranties with respect to the saleTYPE PLAT Y N I.iFI tI n F Ill Ir r T RI F of this ttemdlems.The soler hereby expressly dlsctalms all warranties,e0har expressed or implied Including eery Implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose,and the seller neither assumes MONTHS MILES 7� nor authorizes any other person 16 assume for it arty lability In connection with the sale of this Item/terns. 4. 75000 ❑USED CAR WARRANTY-THE INFORMATION YOU SEE ON THE WINDOW FORM FOR THIS VEHICLE IS PART OF THIS CONTRACT.INFORMATION ONTHE'WINDOW FORM OVERRIDES ANY 1. TOTAL'SALE PRICE OF VEHICLE CONTRARY PROVISIONS IN THE CONTRACT OF SALE. 37990 00 .❑.AS.IS.=This.metoovehlclels sold.:AS IS'wlthout any warrapty,eilhar expressed,or Implied.The purchaserwOl bear the entire'expeeseof repaldngorcorrecting airy defect that piesenty iedsledr0iatmay 2. ALLOWANCE ON TRADE-IN _ !• occur M the vehicle. - � . 17000,00 PURCHASER'S- r 3. TAXABLE BALANCE(UNE t-LINE 2) SIGNATUREX'"• DATE 4. STATE SALES TAX CO-PURCHASER'S t' SIGNATURE X DATE 5. LUXURY TAX THE ORDER PRICE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE CANNOT BE INCREASED AFTER THIS ORDER REGISTRATION TITLE TRANSFER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEALER OR THE AUTHORIZED DEALER REPRESENTATIVE 6. UNLESS THE INCREASE IS DUE TO THE PASSAGE OF A-LAW OR REGULATION OF THE ENCUMBRANCE MESSENGER UNITED STATES OR THE COMMONWEALTH WHICH:REQUIRES ADDITION OF NEW EQUIP- 7. 5.00 MENT TO CERTAIN VEHICLES:CHANGES IN TRANSPORTATION OR EXISTING TAX RATES: NIA OR,IN THE CASE OF FOREIGN MADE VEHICLES,IS DUE TO A RE-EVALUATION OF THE 8, TAG PA.TIRE TAX UNITED STATES DOLLAR VIS-A•VISTHE CURRENCY OF THE COUNTRY OF MANUFACTURE. N/A 5.00- THIS ORDER IS NOT BINDING UPON EITHER THE DEALER OR THE PURCHASER UNTIL 9. ON-LINEREG.FEE DEALER ON-LINE REG.FEE SIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER REPRESENTATIVE.YOU,THE BUYER MAY CANCELN/A THIS ORDER AND RECEIVE A FULL REFUND ANY TIME BEFORE RECEIPT OF A COPY OF 10 DOCUMENTARY FEE THIS ORDER SIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER REPRESENTATIVE BY GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE OF CANCELLATION TO THE DEALER. 11. BALANCE OWED ON TRADE I CERTIFYTHAT I AM LEGAL AGE OR OLDER.I ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A COPY OF 13158.42 THIS ORDER AND I ACCEPT THE TERMS ANDCONDITIONSINCLUDING THE REVERSE 12 LIFE,ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INS. SIDE OF THIS ORDER. 1/A PURCHASER'S TOTAL. SIGNATURE X ��'- DATE � �,.5 CO-PURCHASER'S PARTIAL PAYMENT A SIGNATURE X DATE hl _'DC I CASH DUE ON DELIVERY ;/A ACCEPTED BY DATE I A } EALER OR HIS AUTHO RED REPRESENTATIVE- UNPAID CASH BALANCE - 3551•t.9.47 i STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. As used in this Order the term(a)"Dealer"shall mean the authorized Dealer to whom this.Order is addressed and who shall becomeL.a.party hereto.by its acceptance hereof(b)"Buyer",shall.mean the party executing this Order as such,on title face hereof;and(c);!'Manufacturer"shall mean the Corporation that manufactured:the vehicle"or chassis, t being understood by Buyer and Dealer that Dealer is in no respect the agent of Manufacturer, and that reference to Manufacturer herein is for the purpose of explaining generally certain contractual relationships existing between Dealer,Owner and Manufacturer with respect to new motor vehicles: 2. Buyer agrees to deliver to Dealer satisfactorily evidence of title to any used motor vehicle traded hereunder at the time .of delivery of such used motor vehicle to Dealer.Buyer warrants any such used motor vehicle to be his property free and clear of:all liens and encumbrances except as otherwise noted herein. 3. Manufacturer has reserved the right to change the design of any new motor vehicle,chassis,accessories or parts there- of previously purchased by or shipped to Dealer or being manufactured or sold in accordance with Dealer's orders. Correspondingly,in the event of any such change by Manufacturer,Dealer shall have no obligation to Buyer to make the same or any similar change in any motor vehicle;chassis,accessories or parts thereof covered by this Order either before or subsequent to delivery thereof to Buyer. 4. Dealer shall not be liable for failure to deliver or delay in delivering the motor vehicle covered by this Order where such failure or delay is due,in whole or in part,to any cause beyond the control or without the fault or negligence of Dealer. 5. The price for the motor vehicle specified on the face of this Order includes reimbursement for Federal Excise taxes,but _does not include sales taxes,use taxes or occupational taxes based on sales volume,(Federal,State,or Local)unless expressly so stated.Buyer assumes and agrees to pay,unless prohibited by law,any such sales,use or occupational taxes imposed on or applicable to the transaction covered by this Order,regardless of which party may have primary tax liability therefor. 6. The price for the motor vehicle specified above cannot be increased after the contract has been accepted by or on behalf of the Dealer unless the increase is due to the passage of a law or regulation of the United States or The Commonwealth which:requires the addition of new equipment to certain vehicles;changes in transportation costs or existing tax rates;or;in the case of foreign-made vehicles,is due to a revaluation of the United States dollar Vis-A-vis the currency of the country of manufacture. EXHIBIT B RETAIL INSTALLMENT CONTRACT—SIMPLE INTEREST II�II'�IIIII IIIIII III'I�IIII VIII III IIIIII II I�I I Dealer Number: 63705 Account Number: Buyer.(end Co-Duyer).—Name(s)and Address(es).(Incldde County and Zrp Code) Creditor(Seller) Name and Business Address MYRNA C ROSENKRANI7 3824 MANOR DR BOBBY RAHAI_ t_EXUS HARRISBURG PA 17110DAUPHIN 6715 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG PA 17050 Meaning of Words.In this contract the words you,"your"and yours'refer to the Buyer and Co-Buyer,if any.The Word'Creditor"refers to the Creditor(Seller)named above and,after assignment to Lexus Financial Services,a division of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation('TMCC7-and any subsequent assignee. Who is Bound.You may buy the vehicle described below for cash or on credit.The cash price Is shown below as'Cash Price"The credit price is shown below as'Total Sale Price'By signing this contract,you choose to buy the vehicie.on credit under the terms on the front and bade of this contract and you are lnd'wkivally liable to the Creditor for any amount due. DescdPffon of Vehicle.You agree to buy and the Creditor agrees to sell the following vehicle:. Nev;UseEorDehxi, Yea 1.. T4 Meke. . r., Madel,t Body l i Uetilde IdeogBcation No +, Odometer Miles Pdmary; M I DIAL UUMMAYNItN r(n JUDtolal is negative,lotel uownpaymem Is N.UU) Unpaid Balance of Cash Price(1minus 2) $ 3319Z.82 (3) Other Charges Inclueing Amounts Paid to Others on Your Behalf(Seger may retain,or receive a portion of these amounts): A Cost of Required Physical Damage Insurance Paid to the Insurance Company Named Below-Covering Damage to the Vehicle $ N/A B Cost of Optional Credit Insurance Paid to the Insurance Company or Companies Named Below Life$ N/A Disabllity,Accident and Health$ N/A $ N/A C Cost of Optional Mechanical B�P,)akdovr�i Protection'Paid to the MBP Company Named Below-Covering Certain Mechanical Repairs h1ldd�J $, 1755.00 D Lien Notation Fee Paid to Public Officials $ - 5.00 E Government License andlor Registration Fees_ U•UUf $ I.00 F Government Certificate of Title Fees . = $ U G Other Charges(Creditor must Identify who will receive payment and describe purpose) to N'/A. _. fol; N/A $ N/A _ to for .NIA $ N/A to for N/, $ N/A to Pile 10r$ to for $ 5— ;o r for r . . $` z5 00 Totat'Other Charges and Amounts Paid to Others on Your Behalf. (4) 'Amount Financed—Unpaid Balance(3+4) $ 35585 47 (5) Additional 6. Finance Charge $ 8176.85 (6) Disclosures T Time Balance—Total of Payments(5+6) $ 413762 32 (7) Required By g3 W_0 98 MAR 15th 11 State Law 6 Payment Schedule yglenis of$ eac monthly beginning Year. one final payment of$ TO•`38 due�kT I Ah Year 1 Required Physical Damage Insurance.Physical damage Insurance Is required,but you may provide the required_Insurance;coverage through an existing policy of insurance owned or controlled by you or through anyone you want who is reasonabty accepiable.to the Creditor.If you buy h .are through the Creditor andaccepted,by the insurance company,the pogdes or certificates issued by the Insurance company will describe the terms and conditions.The cost of this Insurance is shown in 4A of the Itemization above. ❑ $ NIA I Deductible Collision and either: Insurance Company N/A Term: N/Amonths ds NIA Deductible Comprehensive including Fire, Theft and Combined Additional Coverage. Optional,if desired—❑ Towing and Labor Costs ❑ Rental Reimbursement ❑ CB Radio Equipment ❑_Fre,.Theft.and Combined.Addiiional Coverage Optional Credit Insurance.Credit life insurance and credit disability insurance are not required to obtain credit,and will not be provided unless you sign and agreeto pay the additional cost,which is shown below and in 4B of the itemization above. Type Premium Term(months) Signature Credit Life ❑Single Coverage $ N/A I want the specified ❑Joint Coverage $ N/A N/A crediitlifeCoverage. Buyer Signature Date Co-Buyer Signature Date Credit Disability I ant the spcifiedw SingleCovere a(Buyer Only)$ N/A N/A abldy Buyer Signature Date Co-Buyer Signature Date .: If you elect optional credit Insurance coverage and Lare accepted by the insurance company,the terms and conditions will be as described In the'policfes or certificates issued bythe Insurance company.The original amount of the decreasing term credit file insurance will not exceed$ N/A CreditdisabilityInsurance payments will equal the monthly payment amount but will not be more than$ N/A Insurance Company N/A THE INSURANCE,IF ANY,REFERRED TO IN THIS CONTRACT DOES NOT INCLUDE LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE CAUSED.TO.OTHERS. Optional Mechanical Breakdown.Protection.Mechanical breakdown protection is not required to obtain credit and you may purchase it from anyone you want who Is reasonably acceptable to the Creditor.You may purchase mechanical breakdown protection under this contract by signing below and agreeing to pay the additional cost,which is shown In 4C of the Itemization above. The term of this protection will be 84 months from the date of delivery or until the odometer of the vehicle shows . 75000 miles,whichever occurs firsL If you purchase this protection,you have reviewed the terms of the contract which describes this protection and you understand that a copy of the completed contract will be sent to you as soon as practicable. MBP Company U S $ 0.00 Deductible 01/29/2011 Buyer Signature Date Co-Buyer Signature Date THE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE MAY BE NEGOTIATED WITH THE DEALER. THE DEALER MAY ASSIGN THIS CONTRACT AND RETAIN ITS RIGHT TO RECEIVE APART OF THE FINANCE CHARGE. iceipl of Goods and Promise to Pay.You agree that you have received the vehicle and/or services described above,and have accepted delivery of the vehicle in good condifion.You promise to Iy to the Creditor the Total Sale Price shown above by making the Total Downpayment and paying the Creditor the.Totai of Payments in accordance with the Payment Schedule shown above Id all other amounts due under this centred APORTANT:READ THE ADDITIONAL TERMS ON REVERSE SIDE BEFORE SIGNING BELOW. NOTICE TO BUYER: Io not sign this contract in blank. lou are entitled to an exact.copy of the contract you sign. ►eep it to protect your legal rights. ignature of Buyer Signaturrgaf Co-B er j ccepted BOBBY RAMAL L EXUS ey ��- (i'/ �• BUS- MGR. Creditor ➢ SlgnatureandTitle rou signed this contract and received a completely filled-in copy on JANI IAR-Y P9 Year 20t] Ignature of Buyer Signature of Co-Buyer This contract is assigned toTMCC subject to repurchase under the terns of the'Sellees This.contract is assigned.to TMCC without recourse or limited recourse under the Assignment"on the reverse side. terms of the`Seller's.Assignment"on a reverse skis. 12(tRRY RA14AI 1 PY110, Seller BY (If Corp:or Partnership) (Title) Seller By. ,Iu Corp.or Partndrship) (Title) PENNSYLVANIA(For use In O,eSrere of PonnsyNeMe) DISTRIBUTION:wtirE-TNICC COPY:CANARY-SELLER COPY;PINK:-2 BUYER'S COPIES 3203PA 11/07 OTHER IMPORTANT AGREEMENTS Payments Before or After Scheduled Due Date.This is a simple interest contract.This means Repossession of the Vehicle for Failure to Pay.if you default under this contract,the that the amount of the Finance Charge may vary.The Finance Charge and Total of Payments Creditor can take the vehicle from you(repossession).To take the vehicle the Creditor can shown on the front of the contract are based on the assumption that all payments are made enter your property,or the property where it is stored,so long as it is done peacefully and when due.The Creditor credits each payment first to accrued Finance Charge,then to the lawfully.if there is any personal property in the,vehicle,such as clothing,the Creditor can unpaid balance of the Amount Financed and the remainder to unpaid charges.The Creditor store it for you.Any accessories,equipment,accessions or replacement parts will remain computes your Finance Charge each day on the unpaid balance of the Amount Financed.The with the vehicle. earlier you make payments before their due dates,the less Finance Charge you will owe.The Creditor will send you te check for any amount owed to you after your last payment.The later Getting the Vehicle Back Aller Repossession.If the Creditor repossesses the vehicle,fileCreditor will send you a notice of repossession.'You have the right to get the vehicle back you make payments after they are due,the greater the Finance Charge,The Creditor will advise you of any additional amount you owe at the end of the contract term.You understand that (redeem)and terminate the contract by tendering:(a)the entire amount you owe on the payment of any installment after it is due will be a default on your part as stated below. contract(not just past due payments)plus any unpaid late charges;and(b)if you were in Ownership,Location and Risk of Loss.You agree to pay the Creditor all you owe under this default for more than 15 days at the time of repossession,the actual,necessary and reasonable costs of retaking,repairing and storing the vehicle which are supported by receipts or other :ontract even if.the vehicle is damaged,.destroyed or missing.You agree not to sell,transfer, satisfactory proofs of payment.Your right to redeem will end when the vehicle is sold or when -ent lease or remove the vehicle from the state in which you reside on the date of this the Creditor enters Into a contract for its disposition,whichever occurs first. :ontract without the prior written permission of the Creditor.The vehicle will be kept at the Sale of the Repossessed Vehicle.The Creditor will you specify in this contract unless another address is provided to the Creditor in il send you a written notice of sale at least Nriting.You will notify the Creditor in writing.of any change in your address where the 15 days before selling the vehicle.If you do not redeem the vehicle by the date on the notice, rehicle is regularly located.Under no circumstances will you be permitted to remove the the Creditor can sell it.The Creditor will use the net proceeds of the sale to pay all or part of rehicle from the continental United States,except to Canada and then only for a period of your debt. 30 days or less.You agree to keep the vehicle property maintained.You agree not to To the extent permitted by law,the net proceeds of sale will be figured this way:Any late charges mpose the vehicle to misuse or confiscation.You will make sure the Creditor's security and any charges for taking,storing,cleaning,advertising,leasing and/or selling the vehicle and nterest(lien)on the vehicle is shown on the title, arty reasonable attorney fees and court costs will be subtracted from the selling price. fazes and Other Charges.You are responsible for and will pay when due all taxes,repair bills, If you owe the Creditor less than the net proceeds of sale,the difference is owed you,unless ;forage bills,fines,assessments and other charges in connection with the vehicle.If you fail to the Creditor is required to pay it to someone else.For example,the Creditor may be required to aay these amounts the Creditor may do so for you.If the Creditor does so,you agree to repay pay a lender who has given you a loan and also taken a security interest in the vehicle. he amount when the Creditor asks for it.You agree to comply with all registration, icensing,tax and title laws applicable to the vehicle. If you owe more than the net proceeds of sale,you agree to pay the difference between the net proceeds of sale and what you owe when the Creditor asks for it.If you do not pay this Security Interest.You hereby grant the Creditor asecurity interest in:(1)the vehicle being amount when asked,you may also be charged interest at the Annual Percentage Rate rurehased,any accessories and equipment then installed in the vehicle,any accessions applicable to this contract,not to exceed the highest lawful rate,until you do pay all you owe. nstalled in or affixed to the vehicle and any replacement parts installed in the vehicle;(2) Collection Costs.If this contract is referred for collection to an attorney who is not a salaried nsurance premiums and charges for mechanical breakdown protection contracts returned to employee of the Creditor,you agree to pay the attorney's reasonable fee and any court costs. he Creditor,(3)proceeds of any insurance policies or mechanical breakdown protection You also agree to pay the Creditor a check collection charge,as authorized by law,plus the :ontract on the vehicle;and(4)proceeds of any insurance policies on your life or health amount charged by the financial institution for each check,draft or other form of payment vhich are financed in this contract.This secures payment of all amounts you owe in this which is returned or dishonored for any reason. :ontract and in any transfer,renewal,extension,refinancing or assignment of this contract. his also secures your other agreements in this contract. Credit information.You hereby authorize the Creditor to Investigate your credit worthiness Iequired Physical Damage Insurance.You agree to have physical damage insurance covering and credit capacity In connection with the establishment,maintenance and collection of.your )ss or damage to the vehicle for the term of this contract.The physical damage insurance must account and to furnish information concerning your account,including insurance Information, lame the Creditor as loss payee and must require 10 days advance written notice to the to credit reporting agencies and others who may lawfully receive such information. ;reditor before any cancellation or reduction in the insurance coverage.You agree to deliver Interest after Maturity.If there Is a balance due when this contract matures,you agree to pay 1romptly to the Creditor whatever written proof of Insurance coverage the Creditor may interest at the Annual Percentage Rate applicable to this contract,or if that rate is not easonably request.At any time during the term of this contract,if you do not have physical authorized,the highest lawful rate: lamage insurance which covers both the interest of you and the Creditor in the vehicle,then Delay in Enforcing Rights and Changes in this Contract.The Creditor can delay or refrain from he Creditor may buy it for you.If the Creditor does not buy physical damage insurance which enforcing any of its rights under this contract without losing them..For example,the Creditor can avers In Interests in the vehicle;it may,if it decides,buy insurance which covers only the extend the time for making some.payments without extending others.Any change in the terms ;reditors Interest of this contract must be in writing and signed by the Creditor.No oral changes are binding.if arty he Creditor is under no obligation to buy insurance,but may do so if it desires.If the Creditor part of this contract is not valid,all other parts will remain enforceable. uys coverage protecting bath the Interest of you and the Creditor,ft will let you know what Warranties Seller Disclaims.You understand that the Seller is not offering any express Ipe it is,the amount of the coverage and the charge you must pay.The charge will consist of warranties unless:(I)the Seller extends a written warranty;or(ii)the window form for a used to cost of the Insurance and a finance charge at the Annual Percentage Rate applicable to this or demonstration vehicle indicates that the Seller is giving express warranties, ontract or,if that rate is not authorized,the highest lawful contract rate.You agree to pay the harge in equal installments along with the payments shown an the payment schedule. In addition,there are no implied warranties of merchantability or fitness ' 'the vehicle is lost or damaged,you agree that the Creditor can use any insurance settlement for particular purpose or any other implied.warranties by the Seller ithertorepalrthe vehicle ortoapply toyour debt. covering the vehicle unless:(i)you purchased the vehicle for personal, ate Charge.If a payment is not paid Within 90 da d in full within 10 days after it is due,you agree to pay a family,or hous from the date of this contract,sehold use;(it)the Seller extend yDu enter into a service a written warranty;(iii) rte charge of 2%of the unpaid amount of the late payment,computed on the basis of a full alendar month for any fractional monthly period in excess of 10 days.Acceptance of a late contract with the Seller which applies to the motor vehicle being ayment or late charge does not excuse your late payment or mean that you can keep making purchased;or(iv)the window form for a used or demonstration vehicle ayments after they are due.The Creditor may also take the steps set forth below it there Is states that the Seller is giving implied warranties.To the extent permitted ny late payment. by applicable law,the Seller shall have no responsibility to you or to any rsurance or Mechanical Breakdown Protection Contracts.This contract may contain other person with respect to any interruption of service;loss of business. harges for insurance or mechanical breakdown protection contracts,if you default under or anticipated profit or consequential damages. cis contract,you agree that the Creditor may claim benefits under these contracts and An implied warranty of merchantability generally means that the vehicle is fit for the ordinary ,rrninate them to obtain refunds for unearned charges.You agree to cooperate with the purpose for which such vehicles are generally.used.A warranty of fitness for a particular reditor in collecting any proceeds or cancellation refunds,including executing all necessary purpose is a warranty that may arise when the Seller has reason to know the particular apers. purpose for which you require the vehicle and you rely on the Seller's skill or judgment to isurance or Mechanical Breakdown Protection Contract Charges Returned to Creditor.If furnish a suitable vehicle. ny charge for required insurance is returned to the Creditor,it may be credited to your account This provision does not affect any warranties covering the vehicle which may be provided by r used to buy similar insurance or Insurance which covers only the Creditor's Interest in the the vehicle manufacturer. chicle.Any refund on optional insurance or mechanical breakdown protection contracts blamed by the Creditor will be credited to your account These credits will be applied Governing Law.This contract will be governed by the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. i as many of your mature and unpaid installments as they will cover. Used and Demonstration Car Buyer's Guide.The Information you see,an the window form• efault and Required Repayment in Full Before the Scheduled Dale.You will be in default for this vehicle is part of this contract.Information on the window form overrides any nder this contract 9 you fail to pay any payment according to the payment schedule;if contrary provisions in this contract of sale.The preceding NOTICE applies only to a used or ankmptcy or insolvency proceedings are initiated by or against you;if any person tries to take demonstration vehicle sale. ,y of your property by legal proceedings while it is in your possession or control;if you use Gula Para Compradores de Vehfculos Usados o Demostraciones.La informacilin que ve to vehicle for illegal purposes;or it you,break any of the agreements in this contract.If you an at lormularlo de la ventanflla para este vehfculo forma parte del prosenle contrato.La ,e In default,the Creditor can accelerate the payments under this contract and demand that informacien del formulario de la ventanflla dela sin efecto todas las disposiciones an au pay all that you owe at once.The Creditor may also lake the steps set forth below if you contrario contenida en el contrato de venta.EI AVISO anterior se aplica soiamente a la vent@ efault under this contract. de vehfculo usado o demostracfdn. IOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE:SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF.' RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. SELLER'S'ASSIGNMENT If this contract is rescinded,cancelled,voided or otherwise made unenforceable,Seller Seller sells and assigns to Toyota Motor Credit Corporation("TMCC")all of its right,title shall pay TMCC the full amount TMCC paid to purchase it. and interest in this contract. Seller shall be liable even if a waiver,compromise,settlement or variation of the terms In addition to the Seller's Warranties and Representations in the Retail Sales Financing of the contract releases the Buyer. Agreement("Master Agreement),Seller,warrants and represents that:(1)The contract Seller waives notice of acceptance of this guarantee and notices of no and arose from the retail sale of the property described on the face of the contract;(2)Seller non-performance.' had title to the property at the time of tale free of any rens;(3)All disclosures required by the law were properly made to the Buyer prior to the Buyer signing the contract;(4) CONTRACTS ASSIGNED SUBJECT TO REPURCHASE All insurance disclosures made by Seiler are complete,accurate and properly made in accordance with applicable law;(5)All insurance documentationwill be delivered If this contract is assigned subject to repurchase,in addition to the foregoing guarantees, to the Buyer within the time required by law;(6)To the best of Seller's knowledge, Indemnities and obligations,Seller unconditionally guarantees to repurchase this contract the Customer Statement is accurate;(7)The downpayment received by Seller is exactly in the event of a default and pay all losses and expenses incurred by TMCC as provided as stated:(8)The contract is enforceable:(til Seileriq liraneed as rens lmd by law•rim by the terms of the Master Agreement. avium una wuunut a yuu idn w pay:airy payarom :m auumy m W e-payumm ue suuuro;n ••.• ......,_._.._...,,__--.-- bankruptcy pr insolvency proceedings are Initiated by or against you;If any person tries to take demonstratimvehicie sale. any of your property by legal proceedings While itis in your possession or control;llyou'use . Gula Para,Compradores de.Vehfculos Usados.o Demostraclones.La infonnad6n que v the vehicle for illegal purposes;or if you,break any of the agreements in this contract.If you in of formulario de la.ventaollla para este vehlculo forma parte del presente contrato.L are In default,the Creditor can accelerate the payments under this contract and demand that informacibn del formulario de la ventanilla dela sin efecto todas las dlsposlciones e you pay all that you owe at once.The Creditor may.also take the steps set forth below If you centrado contenida on at contrato de venta.EI AVISO anterior se aplica solamente a to vent default under this contract. de vehlculo usado o demostraci6n. NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULI ASSERT AGAINST THE-SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR,WITH,THE PROCEEDS HEREOI RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. SELLER'S'ASSIONMENT If this contract is rescinded,cancelled,voided or otherwise made unenforceable,Seller Seller sells and assigns to Toyota Motor Credit Corporation('TMCC")all of its right,title shall pay TMCC the full amount TMCC paid to purchase it. and interest in this contract. Seller shall be liable even it a waiver,compromise,settlement or variation of the terms In addition to the Seller's Warranties and Representations in the Retail Sales Financing of the contract releases the Buyer. Agreement("Master Agreement'),Seller warrants.and represents that(1)The contract Seller waives notice of acceptance of this guarantee and notices of non-payment and arose from the retail sale of the property described on the face of the contract;(2)Seller non-performance. had lige to the property of the time of.sale free of any liens;(3)All disclosures required by the law were properly made to the Buyer prior to the Buyer signing the contract;(4) CONTRACTS ASSIGNED SUBJECT TO REPURCHASE All insurance disclosures made by-Seller are complete,accurate and properly made in accordance with applicable law;(5)All insurance documentation will be delivered If this contract is assigned subject to repurchase,in addition to the foregoing guarantees, to the Buyer within thetime required,by law;(6)To the best of Seller's knowledge, indemnities and obligations,Seller unconditionally guarantees to repurchase this contract the Customer Statement is accurate;(7)The'downpayment received by Seller is exactly in the event of a default and pay all losses and expenses incurred by TMCC as provided as stated;(8)The contract is enforceable;(9)Seller is licensed as required by law;(10) by the terms of the Master Agreement. Seller has fully complied With all.consumer protection,insurance and other laws and regulations applicable to the sale of any Item contained in this contract;(11)Any CONTRACTS ASSIGNED WITHOUT RECOURSE OR WITH LIMITED RECOURSE optional mechanical.breakdown protection sold under this contract is offered for sale in If this contract is assigned without recourse or with limited recourse,such assignment connection with comparable rash transactions at a pace equal to that disclosed on the Is without recourse to the Seller except in the circumstances set forth above and face of the contract;and(12)Seller has complied with all applicable requirements of In the Master Agreement and in and to the extent that an amount Is stated(n the the FTC Used Motor Vehicle Trade flegulatioo Rule.. following paragraph. Each of these warranties and representations is material to TMCC's acceptance of this Seller unconditionally guarantees that if Buyer defaults in the payment of any installment contract.If any of them is breached or is erroneous,Seller unconditionally promises under this contract, Seller will pay, upon demand by TMCC,the unpaid balance to accept reassignment of this contract and to.pay TMCC;upon demand,the full amount of the unpaid balance under this contract,Seller also agrees to indemnify TMCC to the full extent of all losses or expenses Incurred by TMCC as a result of such breach up to the sum of$ or error. Seller agrees to indemnify TMCC for any judicial setoff or loss suffered as a result of a claim or defense of Buyer against Seller. 32031RA 11/01 i. ' LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 Email: prusso@pjrlaw.com 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA VS. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Ashley R. Malcolm, Paralegal, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Motion to Make Rule Absolute upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below as follows: United States Regular Mail Dennis P. Ziemba, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 Ashley R. Ma!!, Paralegal Date: � 3�)` °L:' -3 (V.'4it' 02 CUMBERLAND GOUN PENNSYLVANIA ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA, ESQUIRE HEATHER RUSSELL FINE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. Nos.: 76098/88020 dielnba@eckertseamans.com. hfine(a?cckertseamans.com Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, v. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Plaintiffs Defendant To PLAINTIFFS: You are hereby notifi Matter pursu • Crossclai (20) be .� ,"-��� for Defendant, Te Pa. R.C. ursuant to Pa. s service the ter = against y f lead to the enclosed New 1030 and New Matter • twenty or a default judgme may Mechanicsburg Inc. d/b/a Bobby Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Lexus ahal Lexus : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY : No. 2012 -CV -6463 ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, TEAM RAHAL OF MECHANICSBURG INC. D/B/A BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendant, Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Lexus, through its counsel, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, responds to plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: Parties and Venue 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied as stated. Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg Inc. is located at 6715 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 5. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. 6. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. On present information and belief, the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County currently has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action. Bobby Rahal Lexus reserves all defenses to and right to challenge this Court's subject matter jurisdiction if it discovers any information that would deprive or divest this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Bobby Rahal Lexus reserves all defenses that venue is improper and/or inconvenient in the The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Operative Facts 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. Answering defendant admits that a 2 copy of what appears to be a purchase contract is attached to plaintiffs' Complaint as Exhibit "A." No admissions are intended or made regarding Exhibit "A." 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. Answering defendant admits that a copy of what appears to be a retail installment contract is attached to plaintiffs' Complaint as Exhibit "B." No admissions are intended or made regarding Exhibit "B." 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. Answering defendant denies the vehicle is defective. By way of further response, plaintiffs' vehicle was towed to answering defendant's business location on or about January 24, 2012. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. By way of further response, George Arhondhais is a sales consultant for Bobby Rahal Lexus. 13. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. 3 14. Denied as stated. Answering defendant admits that plaintiffs' vehicle was towed to answering defendant's location on or about January 24, 2012. 15. Denied as stated. Answering defendant admits that plaintiffs' vehicle was at answering defendant's business location for a period of time commencing on January 24, 2012. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to foim a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. Answering defendant denies the vehicle is defective or unsafe to drive. By way of further response, Tom Schrieber is the Sales Manager of Bobby Rahal Lexus. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. By way of further response, answering defendant denies the vehicle is defective or unsafe to drive. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 4 21. Denied. After reasonable knowledge or information sufficient to form this paragraph and, therefore, said averments 22. Denied. After reasonable knowledge or information sufficient to form this paragraph and, therefore, said averments 23. Denied. After reasonable knowledge or information sufficient to form this paragraph and, therefore, said averments 24. Denied. After reasonable knowledge or information sufficient to form this paragraph and, therefore, said averments 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in are denied. investigation, answering defendant is without a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in are denied. investigation, answering defendant is without a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in are denied. investigation, answering defendant is without a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in are denied. investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 26. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. First Cause of Action Misrepresentation 27. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its response to the allegations of paragraphs 1-26 of plaintiff s Complaint, as though said answers were fully set forth herein. -5 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 29. Denied as stated. Answering defendant understands that Toyota issued a recall involving the brakes on certain Toyota Prius and Lexus HS 250 vehicles. By way of further response, the recall did not apply to the subject vehicle. 30. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. 31. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. By way of further response. By way of further response, the recall referenced in paragraph 29 of plaintiffs' Complaint did not apply to the subject vehicle. 32. Denied. Answering defendant denies the subject vehicle was "affected by know (sic) problems regarding brakes and unwanted acceleration." 33. Denied as stated. The recall referenced in paragraph 29 of plaintiffs' Complaint does not apply to the subject vehicle. 34. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the -6 averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. By way of further response, answering defendant denies the 2010 Lexus HS250 experienced "unwanted acceleration problems." 35. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. By way of further response, answering defendant denies the 2010 Lexus HS250 experienced "unwanted acceleration problems." 36. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. By way of further response, answering defendant denies the 2010 Lexus HS250 experienced "unwanted acceleration problems." 37. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. By way of further response, answering defendant denies the 2010 Lexus HS250 experienced "unwanted acceleration problems." 38. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant 7 is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. By way of further response, answering defendant denies it made any "misrepresentations" to plaintiffs. 39. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. By way of further response, answering defendant denies it made any "misrepresentations" to plaintiffs. 40. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. By way of further response, answering defendant denies it made any "misrepresentations" to plaintiffs. 41. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. By way of further response, answering defendant denies it made any "misrepresentations" to plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Lexus, demands judgment against plaintiff, together with costs. Second Cause of Action Violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act 42. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its response to the allegations of paragraphs 1-41 of plaintiff s Complaint, as though said answers were fully set forth herein. -8 43. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. 44. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. By way of further response, answering defendant denies it engaged in "fraudulent or deceptive conduct." 45. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. 46. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. By way of further response, answering defendant denies it "violated the UTPCPL." 47. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. 48. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Lexus, demands judgment against plaintiff, together with costs. -9 Third Cause of Action Loss of Consortium 49. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its response to the allegations of paragraphs 1-48 of plaintiffs Complaint, as though said answers were fully set forth herein. 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, said averments are denied. 51. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that a further response is required, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, the averments are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Lexus, demands judgment against plaintiff, together with costs. NEW MATTER 52. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 53. The injuries and/or losses sustained by plaintiff were caused entirely by or contributed to by the negligent or liability -producing acts or omissions of individuals and/or entities other than answering defendant. 54. The negligent acts or omissions of individuals or entities other than answering defendant may have constituted intervening and/or superseding acts of negligence. 55. The product was not in a defective condition at the time it left the possession and control of answering defendant. 56. The product may have been substantially altered and/or changed after it left the possession, custody and control of answering defendant. - 10- 57. Plaintiffs' action may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 58. At all relevant times hereto, answering defendant complied with all applicable laws, regulations and standards. 59. Plaintiff and/or other individuals may have been negligent with respect to the maintenance of the subject product, and therefore, the sole cause or a substantial cause of the accident described in plaintiffs' Complaint. 60. Answering defendant neither owed nor violated any duties to plaintiff. 61. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the doctrine of federal preemption. 62. Plaintiffs may have failed to give timely notice of any alleged breach of warranty as required by law. 63. If plaintiffs purchased the subject vehicle as alleged, there would have been delivered with the vehicle a New Vehicle Limited Warranty. This warranty speaks for itself and defendant pleads the terms and limitations in said warranty. 64. Plaintiffs may have failed to provide answering defendant, its agents, or authorized dealers a reasonable number of attempts to repair or correct the alleged nonconformities. 65. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to identify a misrepresentation by answering defendant. 66. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to identify a fraudulent conduct by answering defendant. 67. The allegations contained in plaintiffs' Complaint do not give rise to the imposition of discretionary damages pursuant to the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. - 11 - 68. Plaintiffs are barred by the doctrines of waiver and estoppel in asserting this claim. 69. Answering defendant reserves the right to assert additional New Matter as investigation into this matter continues. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Lexus, demands judgment against plaintiff, together with costs. ECKERT S MANS C. N & MELL T, LLC Dated: June 2, 2014 BY: - 12 - IS P. ZIEMBA, EATHER RUSSEsr~ " E, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Lexus 1, 6c4atici VERIFICATION , verify and affirm that 1 am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Lexus, in this matter, and that the statements in the foregoing Response are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 1 understand that the statements herein are made subject to, the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 36/1 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC BY: DENNIS P. ZIEMBA, ESQUIRE HEATHER RUSSELL FINE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. Nos.: 76098/88020 dziemba@eckertseamans.com hfine( eckertscamans.com Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 851-8400 Attorneys for Defendant, Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Lexus MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ and : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs v. : No. 2012 -CV -6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the Answer with New Matter of Defendant, Team Rahal of Mechanicsburg Inc. d/b/a Bobby Rahal Lexus, to Plaintiffs' Complaint, were served upon all interested counsel in the manner indicated below on June 2, 2014. Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL Addressed as follows: Myrna & William Rosenkrantz 3824 Manor Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 ECKER 1 ANS CHER & 1 ELLOT Ade I E tf ISP. ZIEMBA, VIRE HEATHER RUSSELL F E, ESQUIRE Attorney,for Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus BY: WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, COME the Plaintiffs, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz by and through their counsel, Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. and aver the following in support of their Answer to Defendant's New Matter: 52 —69. Denied. The averments contained in paragraphs 52 —69 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, William Rosenkrantz and Myrna Rosenkrantz respectfully request judgment in their favor and against Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus in an amount which is within the limits of the compulsory arbitration limits compensatory damages and such other relief as the Honorable Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Uire' PE'PER J. RUSSO,P.C. By: Peter us '`- PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 -, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 r- Attorneys for Plaintiffs <%= Date: ( < VERIFICATION We,Myrna Rosenkrantz and William Rosenkrantz, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document(s)are true and correct. We understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: f ` My a Rosenkr tz /) Date: William Rose tz J � LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO,P.C. Peter J. Russo,Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 Email: prusso@pjrlaw.com 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA VS. No. 2012-CV-6463 BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ashley R. Malcolm, Paralegal, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Motion to Make Rule Absolute upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below as follows: United States Regular Mail Dennis P. Ziemba,Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street,22nd Floor Philadelphia,PA 19102 Ashley R alcolm, Paralegal Date: (012cQ u W 770 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSS9, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 Email: prusso@pjrlaw.com 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ Plaintiffs vs. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2012 -CV -6463 JOINT MOTION TO STAY ACTION AND NOW COME, the Plaintiffs, William and Myrna Rosenkrantz joined by the Defendant, Bobby Rahal Lexus and aver the following in support of their request to stay the above -captioned matter: 1. This matter is an appeal from a Magisterial District Justice hearing. 2. After a number of procedural issues were resolved, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2014. 3. Defendant filed a response with new matter on June 3, 2014. 4. Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendant's new matter. on June 26, 2014. 5. Plaintiffs, in their amended complaint, advanced certain allegations that may make them eligible to be a part of an Intensive Settlement Program initiated by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 6. The undersigned believe it will be beneficial to the parties as well as the Court to stay this matter, permitting Plaintiffs the opportunity to investigate their opportunities within the class action. 7. The Honorable Thomas A. Placey has been the only judge to rule upon prior matters in this case. WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant the parties stay the proceedings in this matter until further application by the parties. By: Date: > > la_l1 y pect u Peter . ' usso, quire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, P 7050 Attorneys fefin 'ffs By: Im�w_`• entiis P. Ziemba, Es. _— PA Supreme Court c!98 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorneys for the Defendant Date: �1Ur Cr THE ROT HONG' n - Zhil4 DEC --5 PM 2: 42 CUMBERLAND COUNTY WILLIAM ROSENKRANTZ arREtiNSYLVAN A MYRNA ROSENKRANTZ, Plaintiffs v. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant oou itp:of QCumberianb IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12-6463 CIVIL TERM IN RE: JOINT MOTION FOR STAY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of December 2014, upon consideration of the Joint Motion for Stay, the Motion is GRANTED and the matter is STAYED until further action by the parties. Thomas A. Placey Dom' tribution: ✓DDennis P. Ziemba, Esq. ./Peter J. Russo, Esq. C8 issi2 trLL ia./S1/1( C.P.J.