The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-7444COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of ~r1f~~-'~~~~ NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT I I COMMON PLEAS No. ~~ _ 7~~y ~~CG~' NOTICE 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. r . F T ST, •nM t_>~r~s~~t ~ r~ r 703 DATE OF JUDGMENT a~n ~ an ~ t t1. E~~ .]E' ~S G ~ P TA ~ tDr-'1T~~ ~RoPI,~RT=ES DOCKET No SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT O/R~ATTORNEY OR AGENT M.3.09305- GV oovo t 7y - 201 ~. /"~ This block will be sinned ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. I if apoellant was Claimant tsee Pa. R'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 SUPERSEDERS to the judgment for possession in this case. within twenty (20) days after lrling 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 vT y~~5 G u f] -~ ~ appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal -~~~* ~ Name of appeliee(s) (Common Pleas No. ~,7 - '7 ~~~ )within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. r JJJ~~~~ Signature of app ant or attorney or agent RULE: To ~~I[ ~ S ~(~~~ jq , appellees) eme oo -ap ae~ (1) You are notified thata 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 spon you'by personal service or by certified or registered mail. <2) .If you do not fle a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of servfcv of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: l:J,/// (2Q /.Z p C~ ~ ~ ~/1~ . T-T =it _Li~i~~~ ~s~"'~\7~~! ,r4~ I TSig atureo Prjot~ho aryOrDepu Z~ ~C~I N~ ! I ~C7 QQ ]]yy~ 1 ~~}vi.~ ~ . '~ufi ~. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIP~FO ~ }WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-05 ~~~~ ~~t~~l COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Mag. Dist. No: MDJ-09-3-05 MDJ Name: Honorable Brenda M. Knepper Address: 507 North York Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Telephone: 717-766-4575 Consolidated Properties 400 N. Front St. Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Disposition Summary MJ-0~930~5~CV-0000174-2012 Vikpta Judgment Summary P Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil Case Vikas Gupta v. Consolidated Properties Docket No: MJ-09305-CV-0000174-2012 Case Filed: 9/6/2012 ~~~ .Consolidated Properties Judgment for Plaintiff articipant JointlSeveral Liabilit\, Individual Liability Consolidated Properties Vikas Gupta $0.00 $2,217.66 $0.00 $0.00 Judgment Detail ~*Post,ludgmeny In the matter of Vikas Gupta vs. Consolidated Properties on 11/19/2012 the judgment was awarded as follows: Judgment Component Joint/Several I~h~r*• Individual Liability Deposit Anptle•+ Civil Judgment $0.00 Costs $1,802.66 $0.00 $115.00 Attorney Fees $0.00 $300.00 Disposition Da o 11/19/2012 $2,217.66 $o.oo $1,802 66 $115.00 $300.00 Grand Total: $2,217.66 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARYlCLERK 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. ~e,., Date Magisterial District Judge Brenda M. Knepper ~~ ;n"'}~ a true an correct copy o e recor o e orocee Anne ~.,., ~..,..... _ ... ___ Date Magisterial District Judge MDJS 315 Page 1 of 2 Printed: 11 /19/2012 10:56:50AM Vikas Gupta v. Consolidated Properties Participant List Private(s) Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., Esq. 36 Donegal Dr Garlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff(s) Vikas Gupta Go Douglas C. Lovelece, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant(s) Consolidated Properties 400 N. Front St. Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Docket No.: MJ-09305-CV-0000174-2012 MDJS 315 Page 2 of 2 Printed: 11/19/2012 10:56:50AM David J. Lanza I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Permsylvania 17011 (717) 730-3775 VIKAS GUPTA, V. Plaintiff CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES, Defendant 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-7444 Civil • ^a -? Y s. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 1 - 7 Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff bases a portion of the Complaint on the alleged failure of Defendant to provide certain lead paint information and pamphlets. Plaintiff fails to allege that any lead paint actually existed on the premises. Plaintiff fails to allege that Plaintiff suffered any harm from the alleged failure of Defendant to provide lead paint warnings or pamphlets. Plaintiff's allegations regarding lead paint warnings or pamphlets fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has failed to provide a proper verification pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024. Plaintiff has provided verification from Plaintiff's attorney on the basis that Plaintiff was unavailable at the time of the filing of the Complaint. More than one month has elapsed since the filing of the Complaint without Plaintiff providing a proper verification. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, thisv day of January, 2013, the undersigned does hereby certify that he did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Douglas Lovelace 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 David J. Lanza WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, David J. Lanza Attorney I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Plaintiff 124-9 Da-id .l. Lanza LD, No. 55782 2132 Market Street Attorney for Defendant Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 3 (717) 710-1775 A VIKAS GUPTA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. 12-7444 Civil V. CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES, Defendant PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 Plaintiff bases a portion of the Complaint on the alleged failure of Defendant to provide certain lead paint information and pamphlets. 3. Plaintiff fails to allege that any lead paint actually existed on the premises. 4. Plaintiff fails to allege that Plaintiff suffered any harm from the alleged failure of Defendant to provide lead paint warnings or pamphlets. 5. While Plaintiff cites statutory authority for the proposition that private parties are entitled to recover damages resulting from failure to provide pamphlets, Plaintiff has failed to allege actual damages resulting from the existence of lead paint or the absence of lead paint pamphlets. 6, Plaintiff is not entitled to maintain a cause of action related to a building in which he never lived (for reasons unrelated to lead) solely because he did not receive a lead paint pamphlet. 7. Plaintiff's allegations regarding lead paint warnings or pamphlets fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 8, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to address the primary issue raised by Defendant's initial Preliminary Objections. I I I� f � } WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. i i Respectfully submitted, David J. Lanza Attorney I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendant I 124-9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW this 25th day of March, 2013, the undersigned does hereby certify that he did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Douglas Lovelace 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 David J. Lanza fE 2' 13 APR -8 PH 12: 42 CUMBERLAND coUp4p, PENNSYLVANIA VIKAS GUPTA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA V. NO: 12-7444 CIVIL CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW Defendant PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1017(a)(4) AND NOW comes the Plaintiff,Vikas Gupta,by and through its attorney, Douglas C. Lovelace,Jr., Esquire, and respectfully provides the following answers to the Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint. 1. In its Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint, Defendant fails to state the provision or provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 1028 upon which it bases it preliminary objections. However,given the nature of Defendant's averments,Plaintiff concludes Defendant relies on Pa.R.C.P. 1028{a}(4),legal insufficiency of pleadings, and Plaintiff responds accordingly. 2. In its Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint, Defendant avers that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff responds by averring he states clearly in his First Amended Complaint(as he did in his Complaint) six causes of action upon which relief may be granted, to wit: breach of contract through breach of the implied warranty of habitability, private action for violation of Pennsylvania consumer protection laws under the provisions of 73 P.S. §201-9.2 and 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi), private action for violation of Pennsylvania consumer protection laws under the provisions of 73 P.S. §201-9.2 and 73 P.S. § 201-2 (4) (vii), private action for Defendant's violation of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4851-4856), fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Notwithstanding its sweeping assertion that "Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," Defendant appears to object to only one of Plaintiff's six causes of action; i.e., private action for Defendant's violation of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act(42 U.S.C. §§ 4851-4856). 3. In its Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint, Defendant correctly avers that Plaintiff bases a portion of his Complaint on the failure of Defendant to provide lead-based paint information and pamphlets. 4. Defendant bases his objections, in part, on the fact that Plaintiff did not aver in his Complaint that lead paint actually existed on the premises. Defendant's reliance on Plaintiff not averring the actual existence of lead paint, as a basis of Defendant's objection, is misguided, since proof of violation of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4851-4856) does not require a showing of the actual existence of lead paint. 5. In its Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint, Defendant incorrectly avers that Plaintiff failed to allege he suffered any harm from Defendant's failure to provide required lead- based paint information and pamphlets. Plaintiff alleged damages in the amount of$5,576.24. 6. Defendant bases his objections, in part, on the allegation that Plaintiff did not aver in 2 his complaint actual damages resulting from the existence of lead paint or the absence of lead- based paint information or pamphlets. Plaintiff averred actual damages in the amount of $5,576.24. Defendant appears to be laboring under the mistaken belief that damages resulting from a violation of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4851- 4856) are limited to damages resulting from physical illness caused by exposure to lead paint. Such is not the law. Since neither the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act(42 U.S.C. §§ 4851-4856) nor any of its implementing regulations define "damages," courts have employed a well-established principle of statutory construction, attributing the common-law definition of the term as used in 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(3); that is, damages that bear a causal relationship to Defendant's conduct. The damages Plaintiff claims bear such a relationship to Defendant's conduct, since Plaintiff would not have leased the property and suffered the economic damages imposed upon him had he been appropriately warned, as required by law, of the presence or potential presence of lead-based paint. 7. In its Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint, Defendant incorrectly avers Plaintiff never lived in the subject residence. Plaintiff, his wife, and their toddler daughter occupied the residence, as clearly averred in Plaintiffs complaint. 8. In the final three numbered paragraphs of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint, Defendant reiterates that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the aforementioned reasons Defendant's averments are in error. 9. In the final numbered paragraph of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint, Defendant incorrectly avers that Plaintiffs amended complaint fails to address Defendant's initial Preliminary Objections. As a courtesy to Defendant and to keep litigation costs low, Plaintiff responded to Defendant's initial preliminary objections by amending his 3 original Complaint to provide a legal citation that would instruct Defendant, as to the law regarding Defendant's apparent belief regarding the issue of damages. Defendant's failure to research the legal authority Plaintiff provided and its associated case law resulted in another round of unnecessary preliminary objections that significantly increase litigation costs for both parties. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Honorable Court enter an order overruling the Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint and requiring the Defendant to answer the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Res tfully submitted, DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE,JR., Esquire Attorney for the Plaintiff Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: April 8, 2013 (717)385-1866 4 VIKAS GUPTA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA V. NO: 12-7444 CIVIL CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW Defendant : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr.,attorney for Plaintiff, Vikas Gupta, hereby certify that on April 8, 2013, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Answer to Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint upon the below named individual by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. SERVED UPON: Consolidated Properties c/o David J. Lanza, Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 -4 A6� Kle - Douglas C. Lovelace,Jr.,Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 Attorney for Plaintiff PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint ................ ---------------------------------------- - CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) VIKAS GUPTA VS. CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES No. 12-7444 CIVIL Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: C") v "^ (a) for plaintiffs: , Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire (Name and Address) c' I CD 36 Donegal Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013 r ,t (b) for defendants: Y c-a _ c CD David J. Lanza, Esquire ' ' fi (Name and Address) X- = 2132 Market Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: September 27,2013 i Signature � �a VC beck fir. Print y r name Plaintiff Date: /�n� / !� Attorney for F1' (� INSTRUCTIONS: 1.Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. V 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. C� 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. )q, 77 - C1z4 fag X55-36 y` • VIKAS GUPTA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. • • CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES, DEFENDANTS : NO. 12-7444 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, P.J., EBERT, J., and PECK, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2013, upon consideration of Defendant Consolidated Properties' Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint, the briefs filed by the parties, and after argument held on September 27, 2013; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendant Consolidated Properties' Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint are SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part. Defendant's Preliminary Objection to Count IV of the Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff's Count IV - Private Action for Defendant's Violation of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4851-4856), is DISMISSED. Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Counts I, II, 111, V, and VI, are OVERRULED. Defendant is direct to file an Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order. By the Court M. L. Ebert, Jr., , J. } c-) LT] mw -- Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff avid J. Lanza, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 0-O ies 1 v tfft3 • David J. Lanza I.D.No. 55782 + 2132 Market Street THE..{, ^ = , �,, Attorney for Defendant Camp Hill,Pennsylvania 17011 (717) 730-3775 L 13 NOV 12 P; 3: c r CUMBERLAND COUN i t PENNSYLVANIA VIKAS GUPTA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff • • NO. 12-7444 Civil v. • CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES, • • Defendant • • ANSWER 1. Denied. Defendant is unaware of Plaintiff's current address. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The Agreement speaks for itself. 4. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The internal structure, including all dry-wall, was re-built subsequent to 1980. Only the foundation and exterior walls existed prior to 1980. This averment is irrelevant to the issues of this case in light of the Court's dismissal of Count IV of the Amended Complaint. 5. Admitted in part. Denied in Part. The original purpose of the structure is unknown to Defendant. Defendant used the structure for offices and storage beginning in 1989. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted insofar as the lower level is used for storage. 8. Denied. The building was rebuilt subsequent to 1980, including the replacement of drywall, wiring and insulation in 2011. This averment is irrelevant as a result of this Court's dismissal of Count IV. 9. Denied. The original purpose of the structure is beyond the knowledge of Defendant. By way of further denial, the structure has been re-built as described above in the 1980's and again in 2011. 10. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The house is 20 feet from a large parking lot and across the street from a townhouse development. The property borders an office park. Plaintiff saw the building and surrounding area prior to signing the Lease. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. This measurement is approximately correct. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. The only representations and covenants were contained in the Lease. Plaintiff had previously inspected the premises. 15. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. Defendant requested rent and a security deposit and requested the additional rent because Plaintiff wanted to move in early. 16. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The Lease speaks for itself. 17. Admitted. 18. Denied. It is beyond Defendant's knowledge what Plaintiff learned regarding his existing location. Plaintiff requested that Defendant allow access two days early. 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The Lease speaks for itself. 21. Denied. The Lease speaks for itself. This averment constitutes a legal conclusion. 22. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The Lease speaks for itself. 23. Denied. The Lease speaks for itself. By way of further denial, this averment implies that the issues of this case result from conditions within the landlord's control, which implication Defendant denies. 24. Admitted. 25. Denied. This averment is beyond the knowledge of Defendant. 26. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The extent of the condition is hereby denied as well as the type of insect that Plaintiff observed. 27. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The extent of the condition is hereby denied as well as the type of insect that Plaintiff observed. 28. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. It is admitted that Defendant would spray the property, but no promises were made as to a return date, as the spray would take a day or two to take effect. 29. Admitted. 30. Denied. The spraying and Defendant's removal of leaves from around the building eliminated 95% of the problem immediately, with the remainder being eliminated shortly thereafter. 31. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. This averment is irrelevant to the issues of this case. 32. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The exact quote is hereby denied as beyond Defendant's knowledge. 33. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. Defendant followed the recommendations of the exterminator, which recommendation was given at a meeting at which Plaintiff was present. 34. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. Plaintiff's exact words are hereby denied. Defendant informed Plaintiff that the terms of the Lease would be enforced and that Plaintiff could not terminate the Lease. 35. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. Defendant reiterated the terms of the Lease and offered alternate space to Plaintiff in another building, which offer Plaintiff refused. 36. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. Plaintiff's exact words are hereby denied. Defendant informed Plaintiff that the terms of the Lease would be enforced and that Plaintiff could not terminate the Lease. By way of further denial, the premises were habitable. 37. Admitted. 38. Denied. Plaintiff reported finding only a very small number of insects. 39. Denied. It is denied that the insect problem remained. Defendant ordered a second spraying to take care of the few remaining insects. 40. Admitted. 41. Admitted. 42. Denied. It is denied that more than 4 or 5 millipedes remained. 43. Denied. It is denied that Defendant or its employees made that statement. 44. Denied. The problem was resolved. 45. Denied. Defendant followed the instructions of the exterminator. Defendant needed to use the vacuum to remove from the carpet the dead millipedes killed by the exterminator. 46. Denied. The building has been rented to humans for residential purposes both before and after this Lease. 47. Denied. Defendant conducted more than a "superficial spraying." Defendant used a state licensed exterminator. Defendant's remedies resolved the situation. 48. Denied. Plaintiff inspected the premises on July 10th and noted no issues, including insect issues. The rains that drove in the insects occurred after the carpet cleaning of July 13th 49. Denied. The problem was remedied. The Lease allows time for problems to be cured. 50. Denied. Defendant offered to Plaintiff an apartment at Country Walk apartment complex, which offer Plaintiff refused. The apartment was habitable. Defendant cured the problem within a reasonable amount of time. • 51. Admitted. 52. Denied. Defendant claims the administrative fee set forth in the Lease. 53. Denied. Defendant told Plaintiff that they would enforce the Lease and require the 30 day notice set forth therein. The thirty day notice requires payment of the rent during that period. 54. Denied. There was no such offer as stated. 55. Admitted. 56. Denied. Defendant offered accommodations at Country Walk apartment complex. No such expense was necessary. Defendant provided habitable living arrangements at all times to Plaintiff. 57. Denied. Defendant was entitled to retain those amounts. This averment is irrelevant to the issues of this case. 58. Denied. Defendant was entitled to retain those amounts. The aforesaid expenses are not recoverable in this case. 59 — 62. Denied. These averments constitute conclusions of law. This Court has sustained Preliminary Objections related to the lead paint issue. Plaintiff has suffered no damages related to this issue. Defendant was under no duty to provide pamphlets in this case. 63. Denied. Defendant incorporates the denials of Ti 1 -62 as if set forth in full. 64. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. 65. Admitted. 66. Denied. Defendant provided no warranty or representation not set forth in the Lease. 67. Admitted. 68. Denied. This averment is inconsistent with Plaintiff's averments that Plaintiff occupied the premises on July 13, 2012. 69. Denied. The property was not and is not uninhabitable, unsanitary, unsafe or unfit. 70. Denied. It is denied that such conditions existed or that any warranty was breached. 71. Denied. Plaintiff sent an e-mail that Defendant did not receive until the next day. It is denied that the aforesaid conditions existed. 72. Denied. Defendant reported the actual steps being taken to remedy the problem. 73. Denied. Defendant remedied the problem. 74. Denied. Defendant remedied the problem. By way of further denial, it is denied that Plaintiff properly characterizes the problem. 75. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff correctly characterizes the condition or that Plaintiff used those terms at that time. 76. Denied. Plaintiff falsely characterizes the condition and the time period. 77. Denied. Plaintiff had no basis to demand a refund. It is admitted that Defendant has refused to issue a refund. 78. Denied. Defendant offered alternate housing that was superior to Plaintiff's hotel room, but such offer was refused. Plaintiff is not entitled to claim such expenses. By way of further denial, there was no breach of warranty. 79. Denied. There was no breach of warranty justifying this action. 80. Denied. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover these expenses. By way of further denial, there was no breach of warranty to justify this action. 81. Denied. Defendant incorporates the denials of 111 1 —80 as if set forth in full. 82. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. By way of further denial, this averment is irrelevant, as there were no deceptive acts. 83. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. By way of further denial, this averment is irrelevant, as there were no deceptive acts. 84. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. By way of further denial, this averment is irrelevant, as there were no deceptive acts that would invoke this statute. 85. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. By way of further denial, this averment is irrelevant, as there were no deceptive acts that would invoke this statute. 86. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. By way of further denial, this averment is irrelevant, as there were no deceptive acts that would invoke this statute. There was no confusion or misunderstanding, as Plaintiff inspected the premises and saw the same conditions that Defendant saw. 87. Denied. All representations were contained in the Lease, which speaks for itself. By way of further denial, the premises were and are habitable, notwithstanding temporary insect infestation resulting from sudden and overwhelming rain storms (lasting one and one-half days) after Plaintiff signed the Lease. 88. Denied. Defendant hired a licensed exterminator to resolve the issue, which exterminator successfully resolved the problem. 89. Denied. Defendant vacuumed and cleaned the carpets for the purpose of removing insects killed by the exterminator. Cleaning the carpets does not constitute a deceptive act. The exterminator instructed Defendant to clean the carpets. 90. Denied. Defendant successfully removed any insect infestation. Defendant hired a licensed exterminator just as it promised it would do and continued to work to resolve the problem until the insects were completely gone, all while offering alternate housing to Plaintiff in a nearby apartment complex. None of these statements were false. 91. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff suffered any damages. Plaintiff would not have incurred any expenses had he not abandoned the premises and breached his lease or had accepted accommodations at Country Walk. 92. Denied. Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested. There were no deceptive acts and no conduct that would justify invoking the statute. 93. Denied. Defendant incorporates the denials of¶¶ 1 —92 as if set forth in full. 94. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. By way of further denial, this averment is irrelevant, as there were no deceptive acts and no conduct that would justify invoking this statute. 95. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. By way of further denial, this averment is irrelevant, as there were no deceptive acts and no conduct that would justify invoking this statute. 96. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. By way of further denial, this averment is irrelevant, as there were no deceptive acts and no conduct that would justify invoking this statute. 97. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. By way of further denial, this averment is irrelevant, as there were no deceptive acts and no conduct that would justify invoking this statute. 98. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. By way of further denial, this averment is irrelevant, as there were no deceptive acts and no conduct that would justify invoking this statute. There were no such representations regarding the type, style, grade or quality of the unit in question. 99. Denied. The premises were fit for human habitation. To the extent Defendant made representations, such representations were true. • 100. Denied. The premises were fit for human habitation. To the extent that millipedes existed in the premises, Defendant offered alternate housing while such millipedes were eradicated. 101. Denied. Defendant provided habitable housing to Plaintiff at all times. 102. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of conduct of Defendant. The cited statute is inapplicable as a matter of law. 103. Denied. The aforesaid statute is inapplicable as a matter of law. 104 — 116. Denied. Count IV has been dismissed by this Court as inapplicable to this action. Defendant denies all averments set forth therein on this basis and as a factual matter. 117. Denied. Defendant incorporates the denials of¶¶ 1 — 116 as if set forth in full. 118. Denied. Defendant leased to Plaintiff completely habitable premises at all times. By way of further denial, all agreements and representations were contained in the Lease. 119. Denied. Defendant leased to Plaintiff completely habitable premises at all times. Any insect infestation began after Plaintiff's occupancy began and was, nevertheless, remedied by Defendant. 120. Denied. Defendant remedied any insect infestation. 121. Denied. Vacuuming and cleaning does not constitute a deceptive act, especially where Defendant has been advised to do so by the exterminator. 122. Denied. Plaintiff paid this money before insects entered the unit. Defendant made no fraudulent representations. 123. Denied. Defendant made no fraudulent representations. By way of further denial, Plaintiff paid expenses for hotel accommodations that were completely unnecessary, so it is impossible to determine what Plaintiff would have paid under different circumstances. • 124. Denied. It is denied that any such expenses were actual or necessary. By way of further denial, this and many other averments are repetitive of prior averments in this Amended Complaint. 125. Denied. This averment is scandalous, impertinent and vexatious. It is absurd to suggest that Defendant would willfully lease a unit to tenants despite knowing of the conditions that Plaintiff sets forth. In fact, any infestation occurred after Plaintiff moved in. Defendant worked diligently to solve the problem thereafter and did, in fact, solve the problem. 126. Denied. This averment is scandalous, impertinent and vexatious. Defendant engaged in no such conduct. 127. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff suffered any harm, strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 128. Denied. Defendant incorporates the denials of¶¶ 1 — 127 as if set forth in full. 129. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. 130. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law that requires no responsive pleading. 131. Denied. The terms of the transaction are set forth in the Lease. 132. Denied. Defendant provided habitable accommodations to Plaintiff at all times. 133. Denied. Defendant remedied, at its own expense, any problem with the premises. Defendant also made alternate housing available to Plaintiff at a nearby apartment complex. 134. Denied. Defendant was not unjustly enriched in any amount. Defendant remedied the problem with the unit and made alternate housing available to Plaintiff. Defendant provided habitable housing at all times to Plaintiff. It is absurd to impute a fraudulent scheme to Defendant where the problem was caused by rainstorms arising after occupancy and especially where Defendant has successfully rented this unit before and since Plaintiff's occupancy 135. Denied. Defendant incurred expenses pursuant to the Lease, which Lease Plaintiff has breached. There is no equitable principle that would allow Plaintiff to recover this money after Defendant remedied the premises and made alternative housing available only to have Plaintiff breach the Lease. Wherefore, Defendant demands that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and this Complaint be dismissed with costs and attorney fees awarded to Defendant. New Matter 136. Defendant incorporates the denials of¶¶ 1 — 135 as if set forth in full. 137. This action is barred by the economic loss doctrine. 138. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the gist of the action doctrine. 139. This action is barred by estoppel. 140. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 141. Plaintiff's action is barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. 142. Plaintiff's averments are scandalous, impertinent and vexatious, thus justifying attorney fees in favor of Defendant. Wherefore, Defendant demands that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and that this Complaint be dismissed with costs and attorney fees awarded to Defendant. Respectfully submitted, vid . Lanza Attorney I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Plaintiff 124-9 124-9 VERIFICATION I, Scott Steiger, Property Manager, verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date:_ I 1 1174/3 By: ± .' Scott S:aiger, Property Manager • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this WI-day of November, 2013, the undersigned does hereby certify that he did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Douglas Lovelace, Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 David J. Lanza VIKAS GUPTA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND, <' Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA rn a r� rn rn V. : cn r"". : NO: 12-7444 CIVIL ' CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES 3>c- : CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW Defendant PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW,this 2nd day of December, 2013, comes Plaintiff,Vikas Gupta,by and through his undersigned attorney,Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr.,Esquire, and files this Reply to Defendant's New Matter, and in support thereof states as follows: 136. No response required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 137. Denied. Defendant's averment sets forth an incorrect conclusion of law to which no further response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event and to the extent Defendant's averment is found not to be a conclusion of law,Plaintiffs Amended Complaint brings breach of contract,violation of Pennsylvania consumer protection law, fraudulent misrepresentation,and unjust enrichment counts;none of which are barred or in any way limited by the economic loss doctrine. 138. Denied. Defendant's averment sets forth an incorrect conclusion of law to which no further response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event and to the extent Defendant's averment is found not to be a conclusion of law, Plaintiff avers that the gist of the action doctrine does not bar or in any way limit his claims, in that Plaintiffs fraudulent misrepresentation clam is collateral to his breach of contract claim and Defendant owed Plaintiff legally imposed duties separate and distinct from Defendant's contractual obligations. 139. Denied. Defendant's averment sets forth an incorrect conclusion of law to which no further response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event and to the extent Defendant's averment is found not to be a conclusion of law, Plaintiff avers that Defendant fails to present grounds for invoking the doctrine of estoppel. 140. Denied. Defendant's averment sets forth an incorrect conclusion of law to which no further response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event and to the extent Defendant's averment is found not to be a conclusion of law,Plaintiff avers he has stated several claims upon which relief can be granted and was granted,by the lower court. 141. Denied. Defendant's averment sets forth an incorrect conclusion of law to which no further response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event and to the extent Defendant's averment is found not to be a conclusion of law,Plaintiff avers that he has not reached an accord and satisfaction with Defendant. 142. Denied. Defendant's averment sets forth an incorrect conclusion of law to which no further response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event and to the extent Defendant's averment is found not to be a conclusion of law,Plaintiff avers that, after hearing evidence presented by Defendant and Plaintiff,the District Court entered judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant. Subsequently, Defendant served Notice of Appeal and petitioned the Court of Common Pleas to issue a Rule upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint. Defendant filed two sets of Preliminary Objections,neither of which alleged Plaintiffs averments to be scandalous or impertinent, as provided for by Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). Now, after prolonging this litigation, Defendant makes the baseless claim that Plaintiffs averments are scandalous, impertinent and vexatious. 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant for damages in the amount of three times $5,576.24 plus accrued interest at the legal rate, award Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and costs, and grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate, an amount that does not exceed the jurisdictional amount for compulsory arbitration in accordance with local rule. Respectfully submitted, 7 l' av//f DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE,JR., Esquire Attorney for the Plaintiff Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 Dated: December 2, 2013 3 3 VIKAS GUPTA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO: 12-7444 CIVIL CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES : CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW Defendant VERIFICATION The undersigned does hereby verify, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities,that he is attorney for the Plaintiff herein and makes this Verification of the foregoing Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's New matter based upon the facts as supplied to him by Mr. Gupta,because he is outside the jurisdiction of the court and his Verification cannot be obtained within the time allowed for the filing of this pleading, and that the facts and circumstances set forth in this Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. Date: December 2, 2013 �� , (• a4A' Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney ID No.: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 Attorney for Plaintiff VIKAS GUPTA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO: 12-7444 CIVIL CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES : CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., attorney for Plaintiff,Vikas Gupta,hereby certify that on December 2, 2013, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's New Matter, upon the below named individual, by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. SERVED UPON: David J. Lanza, Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Consolidated Properties 0V•gn° 417l• Douglas C. Lovelace,Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 Attorney for Plaintiff S. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA VIKAS GUPTA Plaintiff • c. NO. 12-7444 CIVIL T1 VS zrri rn-.: r. CD CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES <C:17 map Defendant RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the following form: --c EA) THE PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS ° ' pit TO THE HONORABLE,THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: l`1,) Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr. , counsel for the plaintiff/efookleo* in the above action(or actions),respectfully represents that: � �tt' 1. The above-captioned action(or actions)is(are)at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is$ 16,728.72 The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is N/A The following attorneys are interested in the case(s)as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: David J. Lanza, Esquire, ID# 55782 WHEREFORE,your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three(3)arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. R pectfulllysub+mm d/, ys Dort icar c• 1-00e la"eV • l7� ��1.� ab Oowe e/ OP/ Caf+l P�14 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, , 20 , in consideration of the foregoing petition, Esq.,and Esq.,and Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action(or actions)as prayed for. By the Court, KEVIN A.HESS,P.J. VIKAS GUPTA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA • v. : NO: 12-7444 CIVIL CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES : CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas C. Lovelace,Jr., attorney for Plaintiff, Vikas Gupta, hereby certify that on January 27, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators, upon the below named individual by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. SERVED UPON: David J. Lanza, Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant e:4:;:zr.„ ?Q55;(... Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA VIKAS GUPTA • Plaintiff • •. NO. CIVIL CIVIL a - -� � VS 0-1• U3 N : 'Ce CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES r-° z Defendant > .. c)-'11 RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the:-.4 - following form: -< w THE PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS g '50 pit TO THE HONORABLE,THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: #100 Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr. , counsel for the plaintiffs in the above / l/ action(or actions),respectfully represents that: J00 1. The above-captioned action(or actions)is(are)at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is$ 16,728.72 The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is N/A The following attorneys are interested in the case(s)as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: David J. Lanza, Esquire, ID# 55782 WHEREFORE,your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three(3)arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. R pectfully subm' d, D.a lam, C. Dve Ia cc, ^ !c"�,1.$ U 0 w e al ,> �,lWt J4 eir ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, 4..,; ii _ �� ' , 20/1( , in consideration of the foregoing petition, i,/ .4� �i , L Esq.,and AL.4 7746ray,/ Esq.,and j_ 4_ �i ,f� .� _ �, Esq., are appoiiffed arbitrators in t a captioned action(or actions)as prayed a r. 8S fb,i t£C._ By the Court, ‘, 4,„ 4.44 A+ -b. �wza N KEVIN A.HES ,P.J. v u�k�s Our-1-k. Ls— //3 — • VIKAS GUPTA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO: 12-7444 CIVIL CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES : CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas C. Lovelace,Jr., attorney for Plaintiff, Vikas Gupta, hereby certify that on January 27, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators, upon the below named individual by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. SERVED UPON: David J. Lanza, Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant 1111..... Douglas C. Lovelace,Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 VIKAS GUPTA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION—LAW : NO. 12-7444 CIVIL CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES, : Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this 1D- day of February, 2014, the appointment of Christine Consiglio, Esquire, as a member of the Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case is VACATED. Sherri Coover, Esquire, is appointed in her place. BY THE COURT, AL. Kevin : . Hess, P. J. f-'Stephanie Chertok, Esquire Chairman Court Administrator - rn CO 'l z Fri W tJ ` ' cn r- — , -t " — c G3-°r; ra -V, Cor*olifiatei Piro( Plaintiff Defendant In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No. iQ 71-12-1q Civil Action —Law. Oath We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Cornm qwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. Sig ature S-tephanibe • etteAfok Nam, (Chairman) Law Firm Address Cavi /7013 City, Zip nature Sh Cooe-r Name C-af CCO Law Firm HOs)0 \ter &red - Address C We PA tiOt3 City; Zip • Award We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award.: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded; they shall be separately stated.) FOr 44v. Piot ty,-1--t 1;1 -Ole_ arbon,i" ,g11- 4 Date of Hearing: EMI/ Date of Award: 5-lelpi — --- --:--Arbitratoridissents 7 -Insert-name-if-applicabte:)---- • Notice of Entry of Award Now. the `-'14 day of //4 20 , at J .M., the above award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: S 4/& Prothonotary LED -OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTAR'f 2014 MAY -8 PM CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA hat 'd T taktZck , // bay / mai fed,..</ghy VIKAS GUPTA VS CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 12-7444 NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM AWARD OF BOARD OF ARBITRATORS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Notice is given that Defendant the award of the board of arbitrators entered in this case on May 8, 2014 •'-.;: c.r)3' w —k appeals from A jury trial is demanded E. (Check box if a jury trial is demanded. Otherwise jury trial is waived.) I hereby certify that 1711. the compensation of the arbitrators has been paid, or n2. application has been made for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. (Strike out the inapplicable clause.) Appellant or Attorney for Appellant NOTE: The demand for jury trial on appeal from compulsory arbitration is governed by Rule 1007.1 (b). No affidavit or verification is required. 3) rte:4 t._„ ,� 3pv7or