Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-5439 o ~ - .5'139 C, v; I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA Anthony Andrezeski Erford Road Camp Hill, PA Wolpoff & Ambramson, LLP Philip C. Warholic, Esquire 267 East Market Street, I" Floor York,PA ]7403 and Capital Recovery Service LLC P. O. Box 1170 Fairfax, VA 22030 Plaintiff( s) & Addresses Detendant(s) & Addresses PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOT AR Y OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to ( X ) Attorney () Sheriff. fk~ Sign~~ ~f Attorney Supreme Court ID#_77414 Deanna Lynn Saracco, Esquire 76 Greenroont Drive Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Phone 717-732-3750 SaraccoLaw@aol.com Dated: /O/c1?"/d'j WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTlFF(S) ~S/ COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Jl" ,,1. /) -I( ~~thO; otary J J By: rrLO 1) 1( \ Deputy Dated:) 6 ',)3 -0 tj B >- ~ o M ~5? IT" U ::c IT" fE 0- ~~ a:UJ iE u.. o 'C) ~~ at C- E; :A ~ ~c. ::J .. E- ~:::f:::' \ C\. a . ) :;, ::- I \.C) -tt ~.;0 ~ ~ 6 II. ~ ~jtf ~\-- ~ ~ gg ::3 "-'-4. ~ <-. ...... (.) \.0 IN THE COURT OF COMMON F'LEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI, No.: 04-5439 Plaintiff, v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection and PHILIP C. W ARHOLIC, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection, and RJM ACQUISITIONS LLC, and CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVo LLC. Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO THE DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN: You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following page~;, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint is 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: 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 }~ ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Associa:tion 32 S. Bedford Street, Carlisle, P A 1-800-990-9108, 717-249-316ti NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quire defenderse de estas demandas expuetas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la excrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma excrita sus defensas <) sus objectiones alas demande, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted si~ previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Osted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A ON ABOGADO 1MMED1ATAMENTE. S1 NO T1ENE ABOGADOO S1 NO T1ENE EL D1NERO SOF1C1ENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERV1C10N, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OF1C1NA COYA D1RECC10N SE POEDECONSEG01R AS1STENC1A LEGAL. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI, Plaintiff, No.: 04~14J. 5/13 CJ Civil Action v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection : and PHILIP C. W ARHOLIC, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection, and SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS and /RJM ACQUISITIONS LLC, and CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVICE LLC.: Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT COUNT I - PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 1. Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. S2270 et seq. 2. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practict:s Act also violate the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. S2270.4(a). 3. That defendant engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as defined by FCEU and the regulations, including but not limited to, violations of37 Pa.Code SS303.3(3), 303.3(14), 303.3(18), 303.6 and 73 P.S. S201-2(4). 4. Defendant's acts as described herein were done with malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiffs rights with the purpose of coercing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt. 5. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf and against defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. S2270.5. COUNT II - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION P'RACTICES ACT 6. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the forgoing as if fully set forth herein. 7. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. S1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.C. SI692k(d) and 28 U.S.c. S1337. 8. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 9. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U .S.c. S 1692a(6). 10. Defendant, WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP, (Hereinafter Defendant W&A) is a business entity(ies) engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth via letters and telephone calls, with their principal place of business located at 702 King Farm Blvd, Rockville, Maryland, 20850-5775, also with offices located at 267 East Market Street, York, Pennsylvania. 11. Defendant, Philip C. Warholic, Esquire, (Hereinafter Defendant Warholic) is an individual engaged in the business of debt collection within this Commonwealth, located in the Rockville, Maryland office. 12. Defendant SHERMAN Acquisitions and Defendant RJM Acquisitions LLC, are limited liability corporation that purchases debts in default and then collects on those debts in default using attorneys such as defendant W &A. 13. Defendant Capital Recovery Service, LLC., if a is a business entity(ies) engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth via letters and telephone calls, with their principal place of business located at P. O. Box 1170, Fairfax, Virginia, 22030. 14. Defendant W &A, at the direction and control of Sherman/RJM Acquisitions, sent a letter to Plaintiff June 17, 2004, which is a "communication'" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. sI692a(2) and sI692a(5). 15. Defendant Capital Recovery Service, LLC, at the direction and control ofSherman/RJM Acquisitions, sent a letter to Plaintiff June 9, 2004, and July 19, 2004, which are "communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. sI692a(2) and sI692a(5). 16. Defendant W&A's agents contacted Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the alleged debt. 17. Defendant Warholic purportedly signed the letter dated June 17,2004, which is a "communication" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. sI692a(2) and sI692a(5). 18. At all pertinent times hereto, defendants were hired to collect an alleged debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") 19. All Defendants communicated with Plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this action, in connection with collection efforts, by letters, telephone contact or other documents, with regard to Plaintiff's alleged debt. 20. Defendants W&A's letter contained false, misleading, deceptive and confusing statements which violated the FDCP A. 21. Defendants Capital Recovery Service LLC's letter contained false, misleading, deceptive and confusing statements which violated the FDCP A. 22. The following paragraphs describe telephone communications between Plaintiff and defendant W &A and its agents. 23. On or about October 27, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., Plaintiff callt:d and asked for Attorney Warholic. 24. Plaintiff attempted to contact another attorney within the same law firm on October 26, 2004, the subject of another lawsuit, and because he was unsuccessful with that contact, Plaintiff decided he should find out if his name was still on the other account. 25. Plaintiff asked to speak with Attorney Warholic and Regina told him that he could not speak with the attorney. 26. Regina, an agent at defendant W&A's office, told Plaintiff that the attorneys do not corne to the telephone. 27. Plaintiff insisted and was given the following number to contact Attorney Warholic, 240- 386-3900. 28. Plaintiff called that number and asked to speak with Attorney Warholic. 29. Plaintiff was told to, "hold on we have to page him." 30. An voice message carne on and said that the attorney was not available. 31. Plaintiff waited on the line and was again transferred and asked that individual ifhe could speak with Attorney Warholic. 32. Plaintiff was told that he could not speak with the attorney but that anyone could help him. 33. Plaintiff hung up. This concludes the paragraphs relating to the telephone contacts. 34. W&A's agents ignored Plaintiff's dispute and continued lto attempt to collect the alleged debt. 35. Further, the debt belonged to Plaintiff's mother and Plaintiff is not liable on the alleged debt. 36. Defendants letter is clearly a form letter and contained no personal information to demonstrate it was written by an attorney. 37. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that his mother only owes Sears much less than the demanded amount, as such, Defendants added unlawful fees, costs and/or interest charges in violation of the FDCP A. 38. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants use their status as attorneys to create a false sense of urgency on the part of the consumer. 39. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants use their status as attorneys to intimidate, harass and mislead consumers. 40. Defendants added unlawful fees, costs, interest and/or other amounts to the alleged debt, in violation of 15 V.S.C. S 1692f(l) and l692e(2)A and B. 41. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that attorneys are liable for their letters and telephone contacts. Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, (2nd Cir. 1992). 42. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that an attorney did not afford Plaintiff's account individual review, in violation of the FDCPA and Bitah v. Gobal Collection Serv., 1997 WL 369437. See also, Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222(7th Cir 1996.) See also, Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003). 43. Defendant Capital Recovery Services, LLC, drafted and mailed two letters to Plaintiff, dated July 9,2004, and July 19,2004, during the same period that Defendant W&A was also attempting to collect on the alleged debt. 44. Defendant Capital Recovery Services, LLC, charged unlawful fees, interest or other charges to the account. (See letters, June letter demanded $3,440.38 and July letter demanded $3,445.66.) 45. At the same time, Defendant W&A was attempting to collect 4,696.82 for the same alleged debt. 46. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff does not owe the alleged debt. 47. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that his mother does not owe the amounts alleged in the defendants various letters. 48. Defendant Capital Recovery Service, LLC's letter further stated that Notice is hereby given that this item has already been referred to Capital Recovery Service, LLC for collection activity... We will at any time after 24 hours, take such course of action as we judge necessary and appropriate to secure payment in full." 49. Defendants' collection communications were intentionally confusing, misleading and otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs, in violation of 15 U.S.C. ~ 1692e(5) and (10), SI692f(8) and S1692j, see also, In re Belile, 208 B.R. 658 (E.D. Pa 1977). 50. Plaintiff believe and therefore aver that an attorney did not afford Plaintiffs account individual review, in violation of the FDCPA and Bitah v. Gobal Collection Serv., 1997 WL 369437. See also, Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222(7th Cir 1996.) 51. Further, Defendants letter indicated that an attorney personally reviewed the case, however, unlawful fees, costs and/or interest was charged, in violation of the FDCP A. 52. Further, Defendants letter indicated that an attorney personally reviewed the case, however, Plaintiff was told he could not speak with the attorney who signed the letter when he contacted the offices of defendant W &A. 53. Defendants letter does not indicate that an attorney personally reviewed the letter, in violation of the FDCP A. 54. All of Defendants letters were form letters and contained no personal information to demonstrate they were written by an attorney or that an attorney had special knowledge of Plaintiffs matter. 55. Defendant's communications created a false sense of urgency on the past of Plaintiff in violation ofthe FDCPA. Tolentino v. Friedman, 833 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Sluys v. Hand, 831 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); and Rosa v. Gaynor, 784 F. Supp 1 (D. Conn. 1989). 56. Any threat of litigation is false if the defendant rarely, sues consumer debtors or if the defendant did not intend to sue the Plaintiff. Bently v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1998). See also, 15 U.S.c. s1692e(5), 15 U.S.C. sI692e(10). 57. Defendants contacted Plaintiff and alleged that he owed the debt. 58. At all times pertinent hereto, defendants attempted to collect the alleged debt from Plaintiff. 59. Because Plaintiff does not owe the alleged debt and because the defendant discussed the alleged debt with him, defendant communicated with a third party about the alleged debt, in violation of the FDCP A. 60. Defendants' conduct rises to the level required for punitilve damages due to the form and language of its notice and the continuous and repetitive nature of the violations under the FDCP A. 61. AT all times pertinent hereto, defendants SHERMAN Acquisitions and RJM Acquisitions LLC, knew about defendant W&A's collection practices, acquiesced to, affirmed and ratified defendant W&A's collection activities and is liable to the same extend W&A and Defendant Warholic is liable. 62. At all time pertinent hereto, the defendants were acting by and through its agents, servants and/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the defendants herein. 63. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct ofthe defendants as well as its agents, servants, and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein. 64. As a result of defendants' intentional false, misleading, confusing and deceptive practices, Plaintiff suffered and is entitled to damages for emotional distress. 65. Defendants, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter alia, Sections 1692b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and/or n. 66. Defendants, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintiff. 67. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of defendant as aforementioned, plaintiff has been subjected to anxiety, harassment, intimidation and annoyance for which compensation is sought. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment on Plaintiff s behalf and against defendants and issue an Order: (A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or each separate and discrete incident in which defendants have violated the FDCP A. Kashak v. Raritan Valley Collection Agency, _F. Supp._(D.N.J. May 23, 1989), and Rabideau v. Management Adjustment Bureau, 805 F. Supp. 1086, 1095 (W.D.N.Y. 1992) (B) Award Plaintiff damages for anxiety, harassment, and intimidation directed at Plaintiff in an amount not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). (C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of$350.00/hour for hours reasonably expended by his attorney in vindicating his rights under the FDCPA, permitted by 15 U.S.c. SI692k(a)(3). (D) Award Plaintiff damages for emotional distress in an amount of not less than Ten (E) Dated: 1/5/05 Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). Award declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and pr:er or law~rovide. Deanna Lynn Saracco Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 SaraccoLaw@AOL.COM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI, Plaintiff, No.: O~tztr 5~31 Civil Action v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection : and PHILIP C. W ARHOLIC, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection, and SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS and /RJM ACQUISITIONS LLC, and CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVICE LLC.: Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and under penalty of perjury, hereby make this statement. Dated: --JeLvL - & ~DOiJ By: A,.1i Il~~ ~ ndrezeski (. (~) l.' " -', f-':> C.:> , '-') ~1 o -n --I :L" rnp ,..Cn -~:j\...( :-)'-j ~'2~ :':5i'l\ ~--. --h. ,:{.;:.., :.<: <- ::,-~-. -- I -J -:'l r':? en IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKL Plaintiff. No.: 04-5439 Civil Action v. WOLpOFF & ABRAMSON, LLp Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection : and pHILlp C. W ARHOLlC. Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection. and SHERMAN ACQUISITlONS and IRJM ACQUISITIONS LLC. and CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVICE LLC.: Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IMPORT ANT NOTICE TO: President, Capital Recovery Service LLC p. O. Box 1170 Fairfax, V A 22030 DATE OF NOTICE: FEBRUARY 8. 2005 YOU ARE IN DEF AUL T BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSON ALL Y OR BY ATTORNEY AND F[LE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (101 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGEMENT MA Y BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORT ANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, P A 717-249-3166, 800-99~ ! " / ' Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive, Enola, I' A 17025 (717) 732-3750 Fax (717) 728-9498 SaraccoLaw(i1?aol.com \'.....' Oi- l.\..' -- , - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI., Plaintiff NO. : 04-5439 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON,LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection And PHILLIP C. WARHOLlC, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection, And SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS and /RJM ACQUISITIONS LLC, AND CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVICE LLC. Defendants. ANSWER AND NOW, TO WIT, this \ 0 day of February, 2005, come Defendants Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. and Phillip C. Warholic, Esquire, by and through their attorneys, respond to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: COUNT 1 - PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 1. Denied. The statements in paragraph 1 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied. The statements in paragraph 2 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Denied. The statements in paragraph 3 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 4. By way of further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff of any wron';Jdoing on the part of the Defendants are hereby specifically denied a.nd strict proof is demanded at trial. 5. Denied. The statements in paragraph 5 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, reference is made to the preceding paragraphs of this Answer, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference as fully as though the same were here set forth at length. COUNT 11- FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 6. The statements in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's complaint constitute an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion that he is by definition an "individual and consumer" pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ~1692(a)(6), in actuality, subsection (a) Title 15. (3), not (a)(6) if 15 U.S.C. ~1692 defines this designation. 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. Although it is admitted that Defendant Wolpoff and Abramson, L.L.P. has a Maryland office located in Rockville at 702 King Farm Blvd, its principal office in Pennsylvania is located in York Pennsylvania at 267 East Market Street. In addition, it is specifically denied that Defendant Wolpoff and Abramson, L.L.P is a debt collection business; it is a law firm in the practice of debt collection. 11. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Philllip C. Warholic, Esquire is engaged in the business of debt collection; he is an attorney who practices debt collection law. 12. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 12. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of tile allegation contained in Paragraph 13. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 14. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 15. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 16. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 17. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 17. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 18. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 18. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 19. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient in'formation or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 19. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. The statements in paragraph 20 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 21. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 21. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial 22. Denied. The statements contained in paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's complaint are an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that Defendants' are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 23. Therefore, the same is clenied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 24. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 24. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 25. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 25. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 26. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 26. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 27. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 27. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 28. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 28. Therefore, the same is clenied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 29. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 29. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded attrial. 30. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 30. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 31. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient ,information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 31. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 32. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 32. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 33. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 33. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 34. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 34. Therefore, the same is clenied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 35. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 35. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 36. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 36. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded attrial. 37. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 37. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. By way of further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff of any wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 38. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 38. By way of further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff are hereby spl3cifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 39. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 39. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that defendants have ever, within the course of their practice, used their status as attorneys to intimidate, harass, or mislead consumers. 40. Denied. The statements in paragraph 42 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 41. Denied. The statements in paragraph 41 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer. the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 42. Denied. The statements in paragraph 42 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, any correspondence or legal action pertaining to any account handled by Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. is fully and thoroughly reviewed by their attorneys. 43. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 43. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 44. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 44. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 45. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of tile allegation contained in Paragraph 45. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 46. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 46. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 47. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 47. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded attrial. 48. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 48. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 49. Denied. The statements in paragraph 49 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff of any wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 50. Denied. The statements in paragraph 50 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, any correspondence or legal action pertaining to any account handled by Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. is fully and thoroughly reviewed by their attorneys. 51. Denied. The statements in paragraph 51 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extemt Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 52. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 52. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 53. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 53. Therefore, the same is ejenied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 54. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 54. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded attrial. 55. Denied. The statements in paragraph 55 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 56. The statements in paragraph 56 of Plaintiff's complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 57. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 57. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 58. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 58. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 59. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 59. Therefore, the same is (jenied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 60. Denied. The statements in paragraph 60 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 61. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 60. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 62. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 62. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 63. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 63. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 64. Denied. The statements in paragraph 64 are conclusions of law which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 65. Denied. The statements in paragraph 65 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 66. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient inl!ormation or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 66. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 67. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 67. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. New Matter 68. Paragraphs 1 through 67 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 69. If this Court were to find that the Defendants in any way violated the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (PFCEUA), 73 P.S. ~2270, et seq, when they communicated to Plaintiff, pursuant to ~ 227.5 of the same, any such violations were unintentional, resulted from a bonafide error, or were a result of incorrect information. Therefore, Defendants are in no way liable under the PFCEUA for their acts or omissions. 70. If this Court were to find that the Defendants in any way violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. ~ 1692, et seq., when they communicated with Plaintiff, pursuant to ~ 1692k(c) of the same, any such violations were unintentional and resulted from a bonafide error. Therefore, Defendants are in no way liable under the FDCPA for their acts or omissions. 71. Although not specified by Plaintiff, the relief sought by him in this action is limited to Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas arbitration limits. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Wolpoff & Atlramson, L.L.P., and Phillip C. Warhol ie, Esquire, demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, Anthony Andrezeski. Respectfully submitted, Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection 267 East Market Stneet York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 Counsel for Defendants VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby states that he is the attorney for the Defendants Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. and Philip C. Warholic, Esquire. Since defendants are located outside of this jurisdiction, in order to file this responsive pleading in a timely manner, the undersigned is authorized to make this verification on behalf of said Defendants, and verifies the statements ma,je in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, based upon information provided by the Defendants. The undersigned understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Donald P. i 10 No. 89451 i Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 Counsel for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI., Plaintiff NO. : 04-5439 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON,LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection And PHILLIP C. WARHOLlC, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection, And SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS and /RJM ACQUISITIONS LLC, AND CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVICE LLC. Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICI= AND NOW, this \ 0 day of February 2005, the undersigned hereby certify that the following persons were served with a true and correct copy of this Answer by United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, addressed as follows: Deanna Saracco, Esquire 76 Greenmont Dr. Enola Pa 170252-643 Do aid P. hi 10 No. 89451 Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP . Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection .~ 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (71 7) 846-1252 Counsel for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI, Plaintiff, No.: 04-5439 Civil Action v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection: and PHILIP C. W ARHOLIC, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection, and SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS and IRJM ACQUISITIONS LLC, and CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVICE LLC. Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER 68. This paragraph contains a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is hereby denied. 69. Denied. By way of further response, it is not an accident that the defendant caused 10,000 letters per week to be sent to all fifty states, thereby making it physically impossible for an attorney to conduct any type of review, and certainly making it impossible for an attorney to conduct an adequate review as required by the FDCP A. Defendants knowingly, intentionally and maliciously use their status as attorneys to intimidate, threaten and harass consumers in order to force consumers to pay alleged debts. In this case, had an attorney actually reviewed Plaintiffs account, he/she would have seen that Plaintiff does not owe the money. . Further, defendant, purporting to be a law firm, knowingly, purposefully, an intentionally informed Plaintiff that despite receiving a letter from an attorney, that defendant would NOT permit Plaintiff to speak with an attorney. 70. Denied. By way of further response, it is not an accident that the defendant caused 10,000 letters per week to be sent to all fifty states, thereby making it physically impossible for an attorney to conduct any type of review, and certainly making it impossible for an attorney to conduct an adequate review as required by the FDCP A. Defendants knowingly, intentionally and maliciously use their status as attorneys to intimidate, threaten and harass consumers in order to force consumers to pay alleged debts. In this case, had an attorney actually reviewed Plaintiffs account, he/she would have seen that Plaintiff does not owe the money. Further, defendant, purporting to be a law firm, knowingly, purposefully, an intentionally informed Plaintiff that despite receiving a letter from an attorney, that defendant would NOT permit Plaintiff to speak with an attorney. 71. Denied. Plaintiff requested relief in excess of the statutory amount for arbitration. By way of further response, the FDCP A is analogous to a tort as such, plaintiff seeks punitive damages. All acts done by defendant were willful, intentional and with reckless disregard to the rights of consumers. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court award Plaintiff an amount in excess of $35,000.00, plus attorney fees and costs as permitted by the federal and state statutes. Dated: 2/28/05 By: 7f~,^-~. '7 F~ Lawrence J. Rosen Attorney for Plaintiff 1101 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 717-234-4583 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI, Plaintiff, No.: 04-5439 Civil Action v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection: and PHILIP C. W ARHOLIC, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection, and SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS and IRJM ACQUISITIONS LLC, and CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVICE LLC. Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Certificate of Service: I hereby certifY that a true and correct copy was served on defendant W olpoff & Abramson, Philip Warholic, via U.S. First Class Mail as follows: Donald P. Shiffer, III Wolpoff & Abramson 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 Dated: 2/28/05 By: - ." ('. .' C..u.A)~I"""" 'y Iv'~ Lawrence'1. Rosen .-.\ ~.\~ :\ \ (.;J ~, 1:'- ~, tJ' SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2004-05439 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ANDREZESKI ANTHONY VS WOLPOFF & AMBRAMSON ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who bing duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent searc and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: WOLPOFF & AMBRAMSON LLP but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of YORK County, pennsylvania to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On March 14th , 2005 , this office was in receipt of th attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep York County Postage 18.00 9.00 10.00 21.62 .74 59.36 03/14/2005 DEANNA LYNN So a~~~r. ." <:;i?;~ R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland / .;:"--~'~~' ~ County SARACCO Sworn and subscribed to before me this 02/ day of 7f)~1- (;fOO ('/ A.D. ~.;. /W') <~~_ ," :~ ~ /' Pproth~otar~ COUNTY. OF Y@RK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SERVICE CALL (717) 771-9601 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 1 PLAINTtFF/S/ 2 COURT NUMBER 04-5439 .. TYPE OF WA:IT OR CO Notice and C 1 THRU 12 Y COPES SHERIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN INSTRUCT PLEASE TYPE ONLY DO NOT DETACH Anthony Andrezeski 3 DEFENDANT'S! Wolpeff & Abramson LLP 5 NAME OF INDIVIOUAl. COMPANY, CORPORATION. ETe TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE lEVIED. TTACHEC, OR SOLO Wolpeff & Abramson LLP 6 ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO '#lTH BOX NUMBER, APT NO. CITY. BORC. lVIIP, STATE AND ZIP CODE) 267 East Market Street 1st Floor York, PA 17403 7 INDICATE SERVICE a PERSONA\. 0 PERSON IN CHARGE DEPUTize M~l~1a (J 1ST CLASS MAil W P SlED '.J OTHER January 10 , 20 ~ I. SHERIFF OF 1IIIIIIIJI.: COUNTY, PA, do hereby de tize the sheriff of York COUNTY to execute this Writ and make return th eor<;lcCording to law, This depulization being made at the request and risk of the plainliff. '''''", . ." SHERIFF OF ~ eou TV Cumber Ian out of C010ty Thank yo\1~tmE',LAn) SERVE .. AT { NOW 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT \^IllLASS1$T IN EXPEDITING SERVICE Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. FDV,:\NCJ.': FE;,~ PD >jY SIJE{<IFF HOTE: ONlY APPLICABLE ON WRIT Of EXECUTION: N.B, WAIVER OF WATCHMAN. Arry deputy shefiff levying upon or attaching any property under wit without a watchman. in CUs.l.ody of whomever is found in possession. afte( ool.if)'ing person of levy Of attachment. withOut liability on the part of such deputy or th herein roc any loss, deslrudion, or removal of any property before sheriffs sale thereof ' 9. r?~~"~n i,~ 1)~p~,~~(~t)n~R~EY(; ~~[~~~!itR;1ry? S'8~;U~~i) () 1../\ , P 'I. I'D'! ,c) n wnt may leave same sheriff to any plainljrf 10, TELEPHONE NUMBE 7.2ft 732-37.r)O ", DATE FILED 1..7-.05 12 SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW ITtllsarea must be completed if notice is to be mailed) (,'~Uf1,_j:: -~t/>UD CO ~; ;::;:~r: :rFi:' /JT:~~':rJ.~; DO NOT WRITE BELOW TttS LINE 14, OATE RECElVEO 1~'12."O:) 13. I acknowtedge receipt of 1he writ or complaint as indicated above. SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF 1lE SI-ERFF 16 PERSONAl )<r RESlOENCE ( I POSTED ( PDE( ) SHERIFF'S OffiCE ( ) OTHER I ) 21, ATTEMPTS ~3, Adli'ance Costs IOO,lJO ..1 /;4 m 7 ;;; .o<d~ a s9 i./::Jtc; tflle 'y or. ~dAlA. DI'<J"7J4-J.:c<,~ ~ b"'"]e.. ~ /11/J/'!A-q~?1~ 22 REMARKS . AFFiRMED and s.ubscrt~d 10 before me thi$_ dayot 1 i~ ,20 ()543,"}~,a/,...../ t. t-.t2,:~i 'U.fJ'-- __Z.~ - -- "fNO~RY Notariai Seal \ James v. Vangreen, Notary Public- City of York, york county, PA My Commissic,l ~",es MaT. 21, 2006 4... Signature of Dep. Sheriff 46. Signature of York County Sherin \JlLU.Jl tl.::OSr: ?--It}.,.05 49 ATE 48 Signature of FOfe)gn County Shentf I ACKNO'WlEDGE RECEIPT or THE SHERiff'S RETURN SIGNATURE )F AUTH~IZEO ISSUING AUTHORI"'::.' AND TiTLE DATE RECEIVED ."" "''''''only 2, PIIIK. ....,,"'., 3, C...N...Ry - ShenK. Office 4, BLUE, Shenft's Office APR-19-05 04:27 PM DEANNA.LYNN.SMITH.ESQ ! 7177289498 P.03 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANTl40NY ANDREZESKI. No.: 04-5439 I I Plaintiff, Civil Action lV, I WOLI'OFF & ABRAMSON, U.P Attorn s inthc Practice of Debt Collection : and PIILlI' C. WARHOUC, Esquire, Attorn y intl1e Practice of Debt Collection. and SI ERMAN ACQUISITIONS and /RJM CQUISITIONS LLC, and CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVICE LLC. Defendants. Without Prejudicc STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL !AND NOW comes, Attorneys Deanna Lynn Saracco and Lawrence J. Rosen. for Plaintiff, , along \\-ith Ronald S Canter. Esquire, for Defendant and l1Ies this Stipulation of Dismissal I withou( Prejudice in the above referenced matter. , Rcspeclfully submittcd, Respectfully submitted, , , M~!~ Deanna, Lynn Saracco Lawrence J. Rosen Attomc~s for Plaintiff 76 Grednmont Drive Enola, fA 17025 (717)7~2-3750 Rona S Canter, Esquire IriWl''' Wolpoff & Abramson 26 East Market Street York, PA 17403 717-843-0973 Attorney for Defendant , Dated: 4/20/05 , Dated: I~)l' (') ?? -o(fi rnf;l ""'77] 21' 0}:. r.~ j... - ~;t.~. :;~ ::<! "'" = "'" <J' > -0 ::>0 N (To ~ 5:! n1::D r: -o1Q =,,0 ().(l.~ :::;:1.+', ';~{~ "::) ;::..' ,~ ~ -0 ~ r:: (.)1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI, Plaintiff, No.: 04-5439 Civil Action v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP , Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection : and PHILIP C. W ARHOLlC, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection. and SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS and /RJM ACQUISITIONS LLC, and I. CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVICE LLC. Defendants. Without Prejudice PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW SHERMAN ACOUISITlONS/ RJM ACOUISITIONS LLC AND CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVICE LLC I And now comes Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, Deanna Lynn Saracco. and files (this Praecipe to Withdraw the above captioned matter, without prejudice, as against defendants Sherman Acquisitions/RJM Acquisitions LLC and Capital Recovery Scrvice LLC. None of these defendants filed a pleading in this case. Dated: 4/20/05 Respectfully submitted, 1\ 11 i ;<.Lj(~-~". Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for PlaintifT 76 Grecnmont Drive. Enola. P A 17025 717-732-3750 ertificate of Service: I hereby certify that a truc and correct copy of the foregoing was served n attorneys for various defendants via U.S. First Class Mail, postagc prepaid, as t(Jllows: nita Tolani, Esquire EINBERG & JACOBS, LLP 1300 Rockvillc Pike, Suite 1200 ockvillc, MD 20852 Ronald J. Canter. Esquire WolpotT& Abramson 26 East Market Street York, PA 17403 717-843-0973 1Jf. JEt . I fated: 4/20/05 I By: ", c...::) <:';:::. -.;JI () -n ::;J... i'; i ~.:::1 .T~t,; :,::i~~) -< , ('': --I; -"'-'. ," ':-:' ["\"i c