Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-1331 CA �_. 7= COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C. BY: Steven M. Williams, Esquire Identification No.: 62051 Michael L. Solomon, Esquire Identification No.: 36031 240 North Third Street, 71h Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION,INC., NO. 13-1331 Civil Defendant CJI JURY TRIAL DEMANDIO PRAECIPE "I'o the Prothonotary: Please accept for filing, as supplemental proof of service of the Notice of Appeal in this case_ the attached Domestic Return Receipts. Respectfully Submitted, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Fyian, PC Dated: 3,� Z�/ By. teven M. Williams, PA I.D. 462051 swilliams @cohenseglias.com Michael L. Solomon, PA I.D. 436031 msolomon @cohenseglias.com 240 North Third Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 Attorneys for Defendant #2049582-v1 51845-0001 i IN Complete items 1,2,and 3'Also complete A. Sign re ` item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse X— 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Recei ed tinted Name) C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of"'the mailpiece, �� f r f f or on the front if space permits. 5 1. Article Addressed to: s ivery address different from item 1? Oyes If YES,enter delivery address below: cp% Realty Management, Inc. 5006 Trindie Road,Suite 100 Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 3. Service Type Certified Mail 0 Express Mail 0 Registered return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C.C.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number ?QQS 323Q QQQQ 3414 Q24? (Transfer from service label) __0 _._—.— PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 COMPLETE THIS SE CT/Otj ON DELiVERY ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A• ig re item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse X 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. g ceived by(Printed Name) Date of Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. D. is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: R No Honorable Paula P. Correai 5275 East Trindie Road,Suite 110 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 3. Sery ce Type Iff Certified Mail ❑roprbss Mail 0 Registered Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C.C.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Articie Number (Transfer from service label) ?008 3 2 3 0 0000 3 41 4 0292 PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-o2-M-1540 } moo C_ ri�� C) COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C. `' c� '°_ Steven M. Williams, Esquire r r' Identification No.: 62051 Michael L. Solomon, Esquire = ' Identification No.: 36031 msolomon@cohenseglias.com Identification No.: 36031 240 North Third Street, 7t'Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. . WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER, Defendant . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION OF COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C. FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND STEVE WESTHAFER AND REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY STAY,WITH CONCURRENCE OF PLAINTIFF AND NOW, comes Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C. ("CSPG&F") and files this Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for DefendantS, Westhafer Construction, Inc. and Steve Westhafer (collectively, "Westhafer") in the above-captioned matter, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Westhafer engaged CSPG&F to represent its interests in this case. 2. In its representation, CSPG&F appeared and represented Westhafer at a Magisterial District Court proceeding, filed an appeal of an adverse judgment therein, and has attempted to negotiate a settlement of this case on behalf of Westhafer. 3. Despite demand, Westhafer has refused to pay CSPG&F's attorney's fees incurred in its representation of Westhafer in this case. 4. CSPG&F has repeatedly notified Westhafer that it would seek leave of Court to withdraw as attorneys for Westhafer if Westhafer did not pay CSPG&F's fees. 5. Notwithstanding repeated assurances, Westhafer has failed to pay CSPG&F's fees. 6. CSPG&F is entitled to withdraw as counsel for Westhafer in the above-captioned matter pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(5), which states that a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if"the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled." 7. CSPG&F is entitled to withdraw as counsel for Westhafer in the above-captioned matter pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(6), which allows a lawyer to withdraw from representing a client "if the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client." 8. Because Plaintiff has agreed to stay in this case pending the resolution of this Motion, see below, the withdrawal of CSPG&F will not cause any material adverse affect on Westhafer's interests. Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(1). 9. Due to Westhafer's refusal to pay CSPG&F for its services in this case, and based upon the Rules of Professional Conduct cited above, CSPG&F is entitled to withdraw as counsel for Westhafer. 10. Plaintiff has filed a Complaint in this case, and an Answer by Westhafer is overdue. However, no 10-day notice has yet been served. In order to provide Westhafer with the opportunity to obtain substitute counsel in this case, CSPG&F requests that this Court stay this case for two weeks after the entry of this Court's order(the "Stay"). 11. No discovery is necessary or required in connection with this Motion. 12. No hearing is necessary or required in connection with this Motion. 13. On June 6, 2013, the undersigned spoke with Plaintiff's counsel, Paul D. Edger, regarding the filing of this Motion. Plaintiff's counsel concurs in this Motion and in the Stay requested herein. WHEREFORE, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant it leave to withdraw as counsel for Defendant, Westhafer Construction, Inc. and Steve Westhafer, in this case, issue a stay of this case for two weeks after the entry of this Court's order, and grant such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully Submitted Cohen Seglias P s Greenhal urman, PC Dated: �j f� /j By: teven M. Williams, PA I.D. #62051 silliams@cohenseglias.com Michael L. Solomon, PA I.D. #36031 msolomon @cohenseglias.com 240 North Third Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, this day to the following: Paul D. Edger, Esquire Peter J. Russo, Esquire Lindsey Gingrich-Maclay, Esquire The Law Office of Peter J. Russo, Esquire 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Plaintiff Steve Westhafer Westhafer Construction, Inc. 71 Silver Crown Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Respectfully Submitted, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, PC Dated: �7/17/zg By: Alison Zortman, Leg9lsistant VERIFICATION I, Steven M. Williams, hereby state that I am partner with the law firm of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C., and am authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I have reviewed the facts set forth in the foregoing Motion, and state that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 63 Steven M. Williams REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION—LAW WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION,: INC., and STEVE WESTHAFER,: Defendants NO. 13-1331 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION OF COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C. FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND STEVE WESTHAFER AND REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY STAY, WITH CONCURRENCE OF PLAINTIFF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14th day of June, 2013, upon consideration of the Motion of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C. ("CSPG&F") for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, and in consideration of Plaintiff's concurrence therein, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Leave To Withdraw as Counsel is GRANTED and CSPG&F, and all attorneys associated therewith, shall be permitted to withdraw their appearance as counsel of record for Defendants, Westhafer Construction, Inc., and Steve Westhafer, in the above-captioned matter, by filing a Praecipe with the Prothonotary. It is further ORDERED that a stay is hereby issued in this case for 30 days after the entry of this Order. FURTHER, Westhafer Construction, Inc. is ordered to obtain substitute counsel within 30 days after the entry of this Order. BY THE COURT, rn xr-n r*r cn,r Christyj& L. Peck, J. ca+ ; -< cx; ,,,4aul D. Edger, Esq. Peter J. Russo, Esq. Lindsey Gingrich-Maclay, Esq. The Law Office of Peter J. Russo, Esq. 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Plaintiff even M. Williams, Esq. 240 North Third Street 7'h Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 -Steve Westhafter Westhafer Construction, Inc. 71 Silver Crown Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 :rc 12T 1Vp-.-LCC-L r i '1 R 13 IN 19 01 �lii�i��Rt_A1�D CflGv°i Y COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C. Steven M. Williams, Esquire Identification No.: 62051 Michael L. Solomon, Esquire Identification No.: 36031 msolomon @cohenseglias.com Identification No.: 36031 240 North Third Street, 7`h Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. . WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE To the Prothonotary: In accordance with the Order entered by the Honorable Judge Christylee L. Peck on June 14, 2013, please note in the docket of this case the withdrawal of my firm and me as counsel for the Defendants. Respectfully Submitted, Cohen Seglias P as Greenhall Furman, PC Dated: ����l�)? By: l even M. Williams, PA I.D. #62051 Williams @cohenseglias.com Michael L. Solomon, PA I.D. #36031 msolomon @cohenseglias.com 240 North Third Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Praecipe was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, this day to the following: Paul D. Edger, Esquire Peter J. Russo, Esquire Lindsey Gingrich-Maclay, Esquire The Law Office of Peter J. Russo, Esquire 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Plaintiff Steve Westhafer Westhafer Construction, Inc. 71 Silver Crown Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Respectfully Submitted, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, PC Dated: �j��/�� By: 4� Alison Zortman, LegKXssistant 2189728.151845-0001 REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION e~s c -r- WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 -U and STEVE WESTHAFER zM Defendants Nr— JURY-TRIAL DEMANDED j`�. '' - o c at=X�.. TO: Westhafer Construction, Inc. and Steve Westhafer 71 Silver Crown Drive -< Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 DATE OF NOTICE: August 26,2013 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO PLEAD TO THE COMPLAINTS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED MATTER. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Court Administrator, Fourth Floor Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle,PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 Res ectfull Submi ThelCaw Off of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 Lindsay Gingrich-Maclay, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 87954 p Paul D. Edger, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 312713 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Date: August 26, 2013 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 i REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER Defendants JURY-TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Derek M. Strouphauer, Paralegal, hereby certify that I have on this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons, in the manner indicated: US MAIL Westhafer Construction, Inc. and Steve Westhafer 71 Silver Crown Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RU P.C. By: D oup , Para ega Date: August 26, 2013 z 21 !3 SEP -a5 Aid 10. 29 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL&FURMAN,P.C. Steven M. Williams,Esquire Identification No.: 62051 Michael L. Solomon,Esquire Identification No.: 36031 msolomon@cohenseglias.com Identification No.: 36031 240 North Third Street,7`"Floor Harrisburg,PA 17101 (717)234-5530 REALTY MANAGEMENT,INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD To:, Realty Management, Inc., c/o Paul D. Edger, Esquire, The Law Office of Peter J. Russo, Esquire, 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the within New Matter and Counterclaims within twenty (20) days from service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully Submitted, Cohen Seglias Pal Greenhall an, PC Dated: `� NJl?j By: Leven M. Williams, PA I.D. #62051 silliams@cohenseglias.com Michael L. Solomon, PA I.D. #36031 msolomon @cohenseglias.com 240 North Third Street, 7t' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 Attorneys for Defendants 2 REALTY MANAGEMENT,INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER,NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS AND NOW, come Defendants, Westhafer Construction, Inc. (hereinafter "WCI") and Steve Westhafer (hereinafter "Mr. Westhafer"), by and through their attorneys, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C., and file this Answer, New Matter and Counterclaims, stating the following: Parties 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. It is admitted only that Mr. Westhafer is the President of WCI and that his current address is as stated. It is specifically denied that Mr. Westhafer is an appropriate defendant in this case, as set forth more fully below, and proof is demanded. 4. Admitted upon information and belief. Operative Facts 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to answer this paragraph, the same therefore being specifically denied, and proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the Allentown Enterprise project, defined in Plaintiff's paragraph 6 is referred to hereafter as the "Project." 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to answer this paragraph, the same therefore being specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 8. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. By way of further answer, WCI was never asked to provide a bid for the Project. By way of further answer, Plaintiff asked WCI to provide a proposed budget for the Project, and Plaintiff and WCI thereafter negotiated a final budget price of$75,000 for the Project. 9. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. By way of further answer, WCI was never asked to provide a bid for the Project. By way of further answer, Plaintiff asked WCI to provide a proposed budget for the Project, and Plaintiff and WCI thereafter negotiated a final budget price of$75,000 for the Project. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff and WCI had done business in the past. The remainder of this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff and WCI did not enter into a written contract for the Project. The remainder of this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 2 12. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. By way of further answer, WCI understood that Plaintiff had a contract directly with Enterprise Rent-A-Car and was either the owner of, or the general contractor for, the Project. 13. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. By way of further answer, WCI's role on the Project was as a sub-contractor to Plaintiff. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that WCI was obligated to pay the bills and invoices of its sub-contractors who provided materials or services for the Project. The remainder of this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 15. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. By way of further answer, Exhibit A is an invoice that represents work completed by Dutts. 16. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an answer to this paragraph, the same therefore being specifically denied and proof is demanded. 17. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an answer to this paragraph, the same therefore being specifically denied and proof is demanded. 18. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. By way of further answer, Flynn never had any conversations with Defendants regarding Dutts' invoice. By way of further answer, WCI was unable to pay Dutts' invoice because Plaintiff failed and refused to pay to WCI the amounts owed to it. 19. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. By way of further answer, Flynn never had any conversations with Defendants regarding Dutts' invoice. 3 20. Admitted upon information and belief. By way of further answer, Plaintiff's payment of Dutts' invoice should have been credited to the amounts that Plaintiff owed to WCI. 21. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 22. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 23. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 24. Admitted. 25. Admitted. 26. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that the Plaintiff's claim in this case does not exceed the jurisdictional limit for mandatory arbitration. First Cause of Action Breach of Contract 27. Paragraphs 1 through 26 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 28. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff and WCI orally agreed that WCI would undertake the Project for the sum of $75,000. The remainder of this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 29. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that WCI was obligated to pay the bills and invoices of its sub-contractors who provided materials or services for the Project. The remainder of this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 30. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff agreed to pay to WCI the sum of $75,000 in exchange for WCI undertaking the Project. The remainder of this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 4 31. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that WCI was unable to pay some of its sub-contractors' invoices because Plaintiff failed and refused to pay to WCI the amounts owed to it. 32. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. By way of further answer, WCI was unable to pay some of its sub-contractors' invoices because Plaintiff failed and refused to pay to WCI the amounts owed to it. 33. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems an answer is required, after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an answer to this paragraph, the same therefore being specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 34. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems an answer is required, this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 35. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems an answer is required, this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 36. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems an answer is required, this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 37. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems an answer is required, this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 5 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismiss Plaintiff's claims, and grant such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Second Cause of Action Uniust Enrichment 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 39. Denied. This paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 40. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems an answer is required, this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. 41. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems an answer is required, this paragraph is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismiss Plaintiff's claims, and grant such other relief that as Court deems just and appropriate. New Matter 42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 43. WCI is a corporation duly formed, registered and authorized to do business in Pennsylvania. 44. Plaintiff orally contracted with WCI for the Project. 45. All payments from Plaintiff relating to the Project were made to WCI. 6 46. All payments from WCI to its sub-contractors were made via checks drawn on WCI's accounts. 47. Mr. Westhafer is a shareholder of WCI. 48. Mr. Westhafer was not a party to the oral contract between Plaintiff and WCI. 49. Mr. Westhafer did not guarantee WCI's obligations under the oral contract that Plaintiff had with WCI. 50. At no time has Mr. Westhafer agreed to pay any debts of WCI. 51. All dealings that Mr. Westhafer had with Plaintiff relating to the Project was merely in his capacity as a representative of WCI. 52. As is well known to Plaintiff, Mr. Westhafer is not a proper party to this action. 53. WCI substantially performed all of its obligations under the oral contract relating to the Project. 54. WCI earned full payment of the contract price relating to the Project. 55. Notwithstanding WCI's completion of its work on the Project, Plaintiff failed to pay all amounts to WCI to which WCI was entitled to be paid. 56. WCI repeatedly requested payment from Plaintiff so that it could pay its sub- contractors. 57. In response to its requests for payments, WCI was repeatedly told by Plaintiff such things as "when we have money, we will pay you," "we'll get you paid," "we don't have the money to pay you," "just stall [your subs]," and, "if you just pay your subs a little bit, they will leave you alone for a while. 58. To the extent that WCI did not pay its sub-contractors, such nonpayment was a direct result of Plaintiff's failure to pay to WCI all amount owed to it. 7 59. To the extent that Plaintiff paid Dutts, as alleged in its Complaint, WCI is not obligated to pay such amount to Plaintiff; rather, Plaintiff was obligated to credit such payment against the amounts owed to WCI. 60. In addition to the Project, Plaintiff and WCI had various oral contracts and one written contract, regarding various other projects on which WCI was working for Plaintiff (the "Other Contracts"). A true and correct copy of the written contract between the parties is attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiffs Complaints docketed at 2013-1330, 2013-1334 and 2013-1335, and is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 61. WCI substantially performed all of its obligations under the Other Contracts. 62. WCI earned full payment of the amounts owed to it under the Other Contracts. 63. Notwithstanding WCI's completion of its work under the Other Contracts, Plaintiff failed to pay all amounts to WCI to which WCI was entitled to be paid. 64. As a result, WCI was unable to pay all of its sub-contractors who performed work on the projects for which the Other Contracts were in place. 65. To the extent that WCI did not pay its sub-contractors, such nonpayment was a direct result of Plaintiff's failure to pay to WCI all amount owed to it. 66. To the extent that Plaintiff paid any of WCI's sub-contractors, WCI is not obligated to pay such amounts to Plaintiff, rather, Plaintiff was obligated to credit such payments against the amounts owed to WCI under the Other Contracts. 67. Plaintiff has no right to claim attorney's fees in this case, and such demand should be stricken. 8 Counterclaim—Count I Breach of Contract 68. Paragraphs 1 through 67 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 69. Plaintiff's failure to pay to WCI the amounts it was owed on the Project constituted a breach of the parties' oral contract. 70. Plaintiff's failure to pay to WCI the amounts it was owed under the Other Contracts constituted a breach of the Other Contracts. 71. WCI was damaged as a result of Plaintiff's breaches of the parties' oral contract related to the Project and as a result of Plaintiff's breaches of the Other Contracts. 72. WCI's damages are in excess of$49,600. 73. WCI is entitled to recover its damages from Plaintiff. 74. In addition to its damages, WCI is entitled to recover interest, penalties and attorney's fees under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Act. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Westhafer Construction, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, penalties, attorney's fees, the costs of this action and for such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Counterclaim—Count II Breach of Contract 75. Paragraphs 1 through 74 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 9 76. In or about July 2012, Plaintiff and WCI entered into an oral contract whereby WCI agreed to lease to Plaintiff a security fence that Plaintiff used at an Enterprise Rent-A-Car construction site in Middletown, Pennsylvania. 77. Pursuant to the oral contract, Plaintiff leased the fence on a month to month basis at a monthly rental rate of$480.00. 78. Notwithstanding that Plaintiff had possession of and used the fence through March 2013, Plaintiff has failed and refused to pay the monthly rental fees to WCI. 79. Rent in the amount of$3,360.00 through March 31, 2013 is due to WCI. 80. On February 27, 2013, WCI notified Plaintiff that if the rental amounts are not paid by March 15, 2013, WCI intended to remove the fence from Plaintiff's construction site. 81. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff did not pay the rental amounts to WCI. 82. Plaintiff has removed the fence from its construction site, and has not returned it to WCI. 83. WCI does not know where the fence is located. 84. Plaintiff's failure to return the fence to WCI or to allow WCI to retrieve it constitutes a breach of the oral contract between the parties. 85. The fence is valued at approximately $4,000. 86. As a result of Plaintiff's breaches, WCI has been damaged in the amount of the unpaid rents and the value of the fence. 87. WCI is entitled to recover its damages from Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Westhafer Construction, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at 10 trial, plus interest, the costs of this action and for such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, Cohen Seglias P s Greenhal Furman, PC Dated: cll u1 3 By: teven M. Williams, PA I.D. #62051 swilliams@cohensegliias.com Michael L. Solomon, PA I.D. #36031 msolomon @cohenseglias.com 240 North Third Street, 7t"Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 11 VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing, and verify that the statements therein are correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. Steven Westhafer 2279765.1 51845-0001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing was sent by first class mail,postage prepaid, this day to the following: Paul D. Edger, Esquire Peter J. Russo, Esquire Lindsey Gingrich-Maclay, Esquire The Law Office of Peter J. Russo, Esquire 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Plaintiff Respectfully Submitted, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, PC Dated: By: '2 �� Alison Zortman, Le ssistant 2280086.1 51845-0001 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO,P.C. �,+'; 'lc i{j BY: Paul D. Edger, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 312713 2;113 OCT 2 1 P 11: ; 6 Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 'CU'" 2E {AND COUNTY 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 'E+ SYLV�� IA Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Attorneys for Plaintiff REALTY MANAGEMENT,INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. : NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER Defendants : JURY-TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Realty Management, Inc., by and through their attorney Paul D. Edger, Esquire and the Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C.; and avers the following in support of their Answer to Defendants' New Matter and Counterclaims: 42. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a response to the averment contained in Paragraph 42 pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(d). 43. Admitted. 44. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is further stated that the parties did enter into an oral contract concerning the work to be conducted after the Defendant submitted a bid for the project Plaintiff was seeking bid proposals on. It is denied that the parties to the contract were only Plaintiff and WCI, as Steve Westhafer, individually, was also a party to the oral contract. 45. Denied. This Paragraph 45 is denied, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, payments by the Plaintiff were made to both WCI and Steve Westhafer, depending on the work completed. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Defendant's averment, and therefore, strict proof is demanded. 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Defendant's averment, and therefore, strict proof is demanded. 48. Denied. This Paragraph 48 is denied, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the contract with Plaintiff was for the services of WCI, as well as with Steve Westhafer, individually. 49. Denied. This Paragraph 49 is denied, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, all obligations made under the oral contract were made by Steve Westhafer individually, and at other times, on behalf of WCI. 50. Denied. This Paragraph 50 is denied, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, Mr. Westhafer at numerous times offered Plaintiff personal assurances and personal assets in order to pay debts of WCI, including Mr. Westhafer's Mercedes-Benz and other classic vehicles. 51. Denied. This Paragraph 51 is denied, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, Westhafer represented himself and made personal assurances on his own behalf, outside of his acting as a representative of WCI. 52. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 52 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant filed Preliminary Objections asserting his claim to his being an inappropriate party, and has therefore consented to his participation in this litigation. 53. Denied. This Paragraph 53 is denied, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, Defendants have failed to perform its obligations under the contract in way of paying all sub-contractors hired by Defendant for the project, and as such, placed Plaintiff in danger of liens being placed upon the property and litigation for nonpayment of work. 54. Denied. Defendants failed to comply with essential terms of the contract agreed by the parties, but regardless, Plaintiff paid Defendant full payment of the contract, including those costs owed to sub-contractors. 55. Denied. This Paragraph 55 is denied, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, Plaintiff has provided WCI with full payment of all work completed on this project. 56. Denied. This Paragraph 56 is denied, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, WCI did make requests for payment at times other than those guaranteed by Plaintiff for the timing of said payments, but all payments were made by Plaintiff to WCI. 57. Denied. This Paragraph 57 is denied, and strict proof is demanded. 58. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 58 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff paid to Defendant all sums owed to Defendant under the terms of the oral contract. Defendants' failure to properly pay its subcontractors and place Plaintiff in threat of liens being placed upon the property is only the fault of the Defendants' own failures. 59. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 59 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff had already paid Defendants in full all sums owed to Defendants pursuant to the agreement reached between the parties. Further, Plaintiff is under no obligation to "credit" the Defendant, when the subcontractor notified Plaintiff that but for Defendants' failure to pay, the result would include a lien being placed upon the subject property and cause additional financial harm unto the Plaintiff 60. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 60 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Further, the contract is a document which speaks for itself, and therefore no response is required. 61. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Defendant's averment, and therefore, strict proof is demanded. 62. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Defendant's averment, and therefore, strict proof is demanded. 63. Denied. This Paragraph 63 is denied, and strict proof is demanded. 64. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 64 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff fully paid Defendants all sums owed to Defendants for this project. Any attempt by the Defendants to relate issues with other contracts between the parties to payment of Dutts for this current project has no weight, since Defendant was paid in full by Plaintiff for this project, which included the work completed by Dutts, but Defendants failed to pay Dutts itself 65. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 65 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff fully paid Defendants all sums owed to Defendants for this project. Any attempt by the Defendants to relate issues with other contracts between the parties to payment of Dutts for this current project has no weight, since Defendant was paid in full by Plaintiff for this project, which included the work completed by Dutts, but Defendants failed to pay Dutts itself 66. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 66 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff had already paid Defendants in full all sums owed to Defendants pursuant to the agreement reached between the parties. Further, Plaintiff is under no obligation to "credit" the Defendant, when the subcontractor notified Plaintiff that but for Defendants' failure to pay, the result would include a lien being placed upon the subject property and cause additional financial harm unto the Plaintiff 67. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 67 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. COUNTERCLAIM—COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT 68. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a response to the averment contained in Paragraph 68 pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(d). 69. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 69 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff paid Defendant the full sum owed to the Defendant for the Allentown Project, and therefore no breach of contract exists. 70. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 70 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff is unaware of any other contracts which a balance is owed by Plaintiffs to Defendant(s), and therefore strict proof is demanded of the Defendant(s). 71. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 71 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 72. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 72 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 73. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 73 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 74. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 74 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim and enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. COUNTERCLAIM—COUNT II BREACH OF CONTRACT 75. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a response to the averment contained in Paragraph 75 pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(d). 76. Admitted. 77. Admitted. 78. Denied. Plaintiff made numerous attempts to notify Defendants in March of 2013 that the Plaintiff was no longer in need of the security fence, and for the Defendant to pick up the fence. Defendant never responded to Plaintiff's numerous requests, and in order to protect Defendant's property, properly stored the fence for safekeeping. As such, any rental fees after Defendant refused to retrieve its property were waived due to the Defendants' failure to retrieve its property after Plaintiff's notification. Plaintiff is still in possession of the fence in Plaintiff's storage, and has sought numerous attempts to return the fence to Defendants. 79. Denied. Plaintiff made numerous attempts to notify Defendants in March of 2013 to the date of this Answer that the Plaintiff was no longer in need of the security fence, and for the Defendant to pick up the fence. Defendant never responded to Plaintiff's numerous requests, and in order to protect Defendant's property, properly stored the fence for safekeeping. As such, any rental fees after Defendant refused to retrieve its property were waived due to the Defendants' failure to retrieve its property after Plaintiff's notification. 80. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Defendant's averment, and therefore, strict proof is demanded. 81. Denied. Plaintiff did not pay the rental amounts to WCI, due to numerous attempts made by the Plaintiff to notify Defendants in March of 2013 that the Plaintiff was no longer in need of the security fence, and for the Defendant to pick up the fence. Defendant never responded to Plaintiff's numerous requests, and in order to protect Defendant's property, properly stored the fence for safekeeping. As such, any rental fees after Defendant refused to retrieve its property were waived due to the Defendants' failure to retrieve its property after Plaintiff's notification. Plaintiff has sought an opportunity since March of 2013 for Defendants to retrieve their fence. 82. Denied. Plaintiff made numerous attempts to notify Defendants in March of 2013 to the date of this Answer that the Plaintiff was no longer in need of the security fence, and for the Defendant to pick up the fence. Defendant never responded to Plaintiff's numerous requests, and in order to protect Defendant's property, properly stored the fence for safekeeping. As such, any rental fees after Defendant refused to retrieve its property were waived due to the Defendants' failure to retrieve its property after Plaintiff's notification. Plaintiff is still in possession of the fence in Plaintiff's storage, and has sought numerous attempts to return the fence to Defendants. 83. Denied. Plaintiff made numerous attempts to notify Defendants in March of 2013 to the date of this Answer that the Plaintiff was no longer in need of the security fence, and for the Defendant to pick up the fence. Defendant never responded to Plaintiff's numerous requests, and in order to protect Defendant's property, properly stored the fence for safekeeping. As such, Defendant is aware of the location of the fence and is willfully ignoring the fact in an attempt to seek additional rental fees from the Plaintiff 84. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 84 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 85. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Defendant's averment, and therefore, strict proof is demanded. 86. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 86 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 87. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 87 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim and enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: L . Russo. 'squire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 r Paul D. Edger, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 312713 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: October 18, 2013 REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. : NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER Defendants • : JURY-TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Derek M. Strouphauer, Paralegal, hereby certify that I have on this day served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Answer to New Matter and Counterclaims upon the following persons, in the manner indicated: FIRST CLASS MAIL Westhafer Construction, Inc. c/o Steven M. Williams, Esquire 240 N. Third Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. By: D ;∎-• roupp a P- , araleg. Date: October 18, 2013 I=ILE0- IC' LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO,P.C. OF TH P R o l 4O TA BY: Paul D. Edger, Esquire � �j OCT 24 PAM l: 04 PA Supreme Court ID: 312713 Email: pedger @pjrlaw.com CUMBERLAND COUNTY Peter J. Russo,Esquire PENNSYLVANIA PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 Email: prusso @pjrlaw.com 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiff REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER Defendants JURY-TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO AMEND VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly amend Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants' New Matter and Counterclaims, which was filed on October 21, 2013, by adding the attached, original verification signed by Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: eter J. o, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 PPaul D. Edger, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 312713 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: October 22, 2013 VERIFICATION I, Thomas Flynn, President of Realty Management, Inc. that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of perjury of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date:. -A 1 Thomas Flynn, President Realty Management, Inc. LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO,P.C. BY: Paul D. Edger, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 312713 Email: pedger @pjrlaw.com Peter J. Russo,Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 Email: prusso @pjrlaw.com 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Attorneys for Plaintiff REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION,INC. NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER Defendants JURY-TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Derek M. Strouphauer, Paralegal, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Praecipe to Amend Verification upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: Westhafer Construction,Inc. c/o Steven M. Williams, Esquire 240 N. Third Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 rek trou auer,P a ga Date: CJ 1LiL fi IS Lit r'r" q COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C. Steven M. Williams, Esquire swilliams @cohenseglias.com Identification No.: 62051 Michael L. Solomon, Esquire msolomon @cohenseglias.com Identification No.: 36031 240 North Third Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA v. WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER, Defendants • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SECOND MOTION OF COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C. FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND STEVE WESTHAFER AND REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY STAY, WITH CONCURRENCE OF PLAINTIFF AND NOW, comes Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C. ("CSPG&F") and files this Second Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendants, Westhafer Construction, Inc. and Steve Westhafer (collectively, "Westhafer") in the above-captioned matter, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Westhafer engaged CSPG&F to represent its interests in this case. 2. In its representation, CSPG&F appeared and represented Westhafer at a Magisterial District Court proceeding, filed an appeal of an adverse judgment therein, filed an Answer, New Matter and Counterclaims, and has attempted to negotiate a settlement of this case on behalf of Westhafer. 3. This Court entered an Order on June 14, 2013 granting permission for CSPG&F to withdraw as counsel of record for Westhafer. However, Westhafer thereafter paid a portion of its past due obligation to CSPG&F, and CSPG&F continued in its representation of Westhafer. 4. Despite further demand, however, Westhafer has again refused to pay CSPG&F's attorney's fees incurred in its continued representation of Westhafer in this case. 5. CSPG&F has repeatedly notified Westhafer that it would seek leave of Court to withdraw as attorneys for Westhafer if Westhafer did not pay CSPG&F's fees. 6. Notwithstanding repeated assurances, Westhafer has failed to pay CSPG&F's fees 7. CSPG&F is entitled to withdraw as counsel for Westhafer in the above-captioned matter pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(5), which states that a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if "the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled." 8. CSPG&F is entitled to withdraw as counsel for Westhafer in the above-captioned matter pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(6), which allows a lawyer to withdraw from representing a client "if the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client." 9. The withdrawal by CSPG&F will not cause any material adverse affect on Westhafer's interests. Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(1). 10. Due to Westhafer's refusal to pay CSPG&F for its services in this case, and based upon the Rules of Professional Conduct cited above, CSPG&F is entitled to withdraw as counsel for Westhafer. 11. The pleadings are closed, but no discovery has commenced yet in this case. 12. No discovery is necessary or required in connection with this Motion. 13. No hearing is necessary or required in connection with this Motion. 14. The Honorable Judge Christy Lee Peck has had prior involvement in this case. 15. On November 22, 2013, the undersigned communicated via email with Plaintiff's counsel, Paul D. Edger, regarding the filing of this Motion. Plaintiff's counsel has no objection to this Motion. WHEREFORE, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant it leave to withdraw as counsel for Defendants, Westhafer Construction, Inc. and Steve Westhafer, in this case and grant such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully Sub -i, Cohen Seglias ' llas Greenha & Furman, PC Dated:(1)25-)I 3 By: 'teven M. Williams, PA I.D. #62051 silliams@cohenseglias.com Michael L. Solomon, PA I.D. #36031 msolomon @cohenseglias.com 240 North Third Street, 7t1 Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Second Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, this day to the following: Paul D. Edger, Esquire Peter J. Russo, Esquire Lindsey Gingrich-Maclay, Esquire The Law Office of Peter J. Russo, Esquire 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Plaintiff Steve Westhafer Westhafer Construction, Inc. 71 Silver Crown Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Respectfully Submitted, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall& Furman, PC Dated: Vae-51 By: /:�/%/ /�! Alison Zortman, L Assistant VERIFICATION I, Steven M. Williams, hereby state that I am partner with the law firm of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C., and am authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I have reviewed the facts set forth in the foregoing Motion, and state that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 11)7, 1) L■■■ :teven M. Williams REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. r-r I r'71 ; WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 �- and STEVE WESTHAFER r.-,�, - C Defendants L"" • �''S y v JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - ORDER AND NOW, this . L day of ? �y��{ ..ti/ , 2013, upon consideration of the Second Motion of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C. ("CSPG&F") for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, and in consideration of Plaintiff's concurrence therein, it is hereby ORDERED that the Second Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel is GRANTED and CSPG&F, and all attorneys associated therewith, shall be permitted to withdraw their appearance as counsel of record for Defendants, Westhafer Construction, Inc. and Steve Westhafer, in the above-captioned matter, by filing a Praecipe with the Prothonotary. BY THE COURT: {? / J. L _Riftribution: ven M. Williams, Esq., 240 North Third Street, 7"' Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Paul D. Edger, Esq., Peter J. Russo, Esq. and Lindsey Gingrich-Maclay, Esq., 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 teve Westhafer and Westhafer Construction, Inc.,71 Silver Crown Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. (2 flhz; (ccL 2403680.1 51845-0001 /�/ • /• �ry t ;1,ED.0 It, 0 Tf o}Ro TA 2Q13 0EC 13 pu f. 30 rU�'�NNSYLY OOUNTY A Nla COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C. Steven M. Williams, Esquire swilliams @cohenseglias.com Identification No.: 62051 Michael L. Solomon, Esquire msolomon@cohenseglias.com Identification No.: 36031 240 North Third Street, 7t' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA v. WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE To the Prothonotary: In accordance with the Order of the Honorable Judge Christylee L. Peck dated December 4, 2013, please note in the docket that the undersigned and his firm hereby withdraw their appearance as counsel for Defendants in this case. Respectfully Submitted, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & F PC Dated: /pZ////j. By: -yen M. I iaams, PA I.D. #62051 swilliams@cohenseglias.com Michael L. Solomon, PA I.D. #36031 msolomon @cohenseglias.com 240 North Third Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-5530 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Praecipe was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, this day to the following: Paul D. Edger, Esquire Peter J. Russo, Esquire Lindsey Gingrich-Maclay, Esquire The Law Office of Peter J. Russo, Esquire 5006 East Trindle Road Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Plaintiff Steve Westhafer Westhafer Construction, Inc. 71 Silver Crown Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Respectfully Submitted, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, PC / r Dated: /o0//� By . : ii lison ortman, .- :al Assistant 2424124.1 51845-0001 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO,P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 5006 E. Trindle Road Suite 203 Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 �� w t I' ��a,V Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Attorneys for Plaintiff REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER Defendants JURY-TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTION INTERROGATORIES REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANT (First Set) TO: THE PROTHONOTARY This is to certify that on this day, I,Peter J. Russo, did serve a copy of Plaintiffs Contention Interrogatories Requests for Admissions Addressed to Defendant(First Set) to Defendants, Westhafer Construction, Inc. and Steve Westhafer,by depositing a copy of same with the UPS, which was addressed as follows: Westhafer Construction, Inc. Steve Westhafer 71 Silver Crown Drive 71 Silver Crown Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 lly S ed Peter J. Russo, Esq. Date: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Attorneys for Plaintiff REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. NO. 2013-1331 and STEVE WESTHAFER Defendants JURY-TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Peter J. Russo, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Plaintiffs Contention Interrogatories Requests for Admissions Addressed to Defendant(First Set) upon the person (s) and in the manner indicated below, service by UPS, and Addressed as Follows: Westhafer Construction, Inc. Steve Westhafer 71 Silver Crown Drive 71 Silver Crown Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Peter J. , Esquire Date: Wednesday, January 07, 2015