Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-5627 MICHAEL L. BANGS, ESQUIRE I.D. #41263 429 SOUTH 18TH STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 730-7310 ) ) ) ) ) ) RICHARD LEE WAGNER and ) DAVID S. MARONIC, individually and ) t/d/b/a GOLF GREENS "FORE" U ofPA, ) Defendants ) MARTHA D. HEMPT, MARIAN H. AND EVAN SEMOFF, Plaintiffs vs. NOTICE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2004 ~-;'7 Clu~L-T~ CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER 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 Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 MICHAEL L. BANGS, ESQUIRE J.D. #41263 429 SOUTH 18TH STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 730-7310 ) ) ) ) ) ) RICHARD LEE WAGNER and ) DAVID S. MARONIC, individually and ) t/d1b/a GOLF GREENS "FORE" U ofPA, ) Defendants ) MARTHA D. HEMPT, MARIAN H. AND EVAN SEMOFF, Plaintiffs vs. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2004 - 5t....;)7 c;;;J ~ CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Michael 1. Bangs, Esquire, and file the following Complaint: 1. Plaintiff MARTHA D. HEMPT is an adult individual who resides at 420 Allendale Way, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and Plaintiffs MARIAN H. SEMOFF and EVAN SEMOFF are adult individuals who reside at 410 Candlewick Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (collectively called "Plaintiffs"). 2. Defendants RICHARD LEE WAGNER and DAVID S. MARONIC are adult individuals who, upon information and belief, operate or are trading or doing business as Golf Greens "Fore" U ofPA which is located at 6 Buttonwood Court, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (collectively called "Defendants"). 3. Defendants, individually and collectively, are in the business of the installation and design of synthetic putting surfaces. 1 4. On or about July 15,2004, Plaintiffs collectively entered into a contract with Defendants whereby Defendants agreed to install a 360 square foot green with drainage pipes; a four-foot retaining wall and a 4 x 7 foot patio walkway, among other things. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") . 5. Plaintiffs paid the Defendants the sum of$II,620.00 for the work outlined on the Agreement. 6. Defendants represented that they had the expertise and knowledge to design the putting surface which included the placement of the putting surface in the appropriate location in the backyard of the property in which it was to be located which is owned by Plaintiffs Marian H. and Evan Semoff. 7. The Defendants provided a guarantee or warranty that all of the work was to be done in accordance with the drawings and specifications and in a substantial workmanlike manner. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT 8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth. 9. Under the Agreement between the parties, Defendants agreed to install a 360 square foot green with appropriate drainage pipes; a four-foot retaining wall; a 4 x 7 patio walkway; installation of lights and a driving and chipping area. 10. Defendants agreed that they would place the putting green in the appropriate place at the residence of Plaintiffs Marian H. and Evan Semoff. 11. Defendants installed the putting green, retaining wall, walkway and lights at the premises of Plaintiffs Marian H. and Evan Semoff. 2 12. Defendants chose the spot in which to place the putting green and Plaintiffs depended upon Defendants' expertise in the appropriate placement of the putting green. 13. After the installation of the putting green, Plaintiffs became aware of significant problems with the installation which included, but are not limited to, the following: A. The putting green was installed in an area where rainwater washed over and washed out certain areas underneath the putting surface; B. The retaining walls were improperly installed; C. The walkway was improperly installed and in a dangerous condition; D. There was no drainage installed to prevent washout of any areas; E. The driving and chipping area was not included at all; F. The green was not properly affixed to the retaining wall; and G. The lights were improperly installed. 14. The work performed by Defendants under the Agreement was done in such a poor and unworkmanlike fashion that no repairs can be made to rectify those problems; rather, the entirety of the work has to be removed. 15. Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendants remove the putting green, retaining walls and walkway from the premises where it is located and return the funds paid to Defendants for the work performed. 16. Plaintiffs have obtained a cost to put the premises where the green is located back into the position it was prior to the work performed by Defendants and the cost to complete that work is $1,555.00, Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the estimate received. 3 17. Defendants have breached the Agreement with Plaintiffs by their failure to install the putting green, retaining wall and walkway in a good and workmanlike fashion and in the manner that is appropriate for the installation of that type of material. 18. As a result of the breach of the Agreement, Plaintiffs have incurred damages in the amount of$11,620.00 which represents the amount paid to Defendants plus an additional $1,555.00 which is the amount needed to return the premises to the condition it was prior to the work being performed by Defendants. 19. Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendants pay these sums and Defendants have failed or refused to make payment of the amounts due and owing. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, both individually and collectively, in the amount of $13, 175,00, plus interest, plus costs of suit. COUNT II BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth. 21. Defendants provided a warranty whereby they guaranteed that the work performed and the material provided was done in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted and that it was completed in a substantial workmanlike manner. 22. Plaintiffs, after investigation, have discovered that the work was not performed in a good and workmanlike fashion and in accordance with the specifications set forth by the manufacturer of these products, which include, but are not limited to, the following: A. The retaining wall was improperly installed according to the specifications; 4 B. The walkway was improperly installed and not in accordance with any specifications; C. The project did not include the proper drainage system to ensure that any runoff water would not washout any of the material underneath the putting surface; D. The putting surface was not installed properly; and E. The lights were not installed in accordance with the specifications required of installation of the lights. 23. Defendants breached the express warranty provided to Plaintiffs by their failure to properly design the putting green; by their placing of the putting surface in an improper area; by the installation of the putting green retaining walls and walkway not in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications; and by their failure to perform any of the work in a good and workmanlike fashion. 24. As a result of the breach of the express warranty provided by Defendants to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have incurred damages in the amount of $11 ,620,00 which represents the amount paid for the project which cannot be salvaged and must be removed. 25. As a result of the breach of the express warranty provided by Defendants to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have incurred additional damages to the premises where the putting green is located in order to restore the premises to its original condition prior to the work being performed by Defendants in the amount of$1,555.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, individually and collectively, in the amount of $13,175.00, plus interest, plus costs of suit. 5 COUNT III BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth. 27. If it is determined that the Agreement does not contain an express warranty, then it is averred that Defendants made an implied warranty to Plaintiffs that the work they were performing under the terms of the Agreement would be done in a good and workmanlike fashion and in accordance with the specifications for the installation of that material as indicated by the manufacturer of that material. 28. Defendants breached the implied warranty in that the work performed on the premises in the installation of the putting green, the retaining wall, and the walkway, as well as the lights, were not done in a good and workmanlike fashion and were not done in accordance with the specifications of the manufacturer for the installation of those materials. 29. As a result of the breach of the implied warranty, Plaintiffs have incurred damages in the amount of $11,620.00 which represents the amount paid for the work to be performed by Defendants under the terms of the Agreement. 30. Plaintiffs have also incurred an additional $1,555.00 as a result of the breach of the implied warranty in that these additional damages represent the cost to return the premises to the condition that it was prior to the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, walkway, and other materials as contained in the Agreement. 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, individually and collectively, in the amount of $13,175.00, plus interest, plus costs of suit. Respectfully submitted, ~~ili:f Lp Attorney for Plaintiffs ' 429 South 18th Street Camp Hill, P A 17011 (717) 730-7310 Supreme Court ID #41263 7 VERIFICATION We hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: I' I 03/ O~ )17a~;$< t)~.I'/ MARTHA D. HEMPT / ~~ 1J. ~. MARIANH. SEMOFF -- . /b ..... ~~,./ EVAN SEMO 8 EXHIBIT A "-", - ,: .,~'1' ;-~ ""'~~~~~'~'.;r~'</iVJ""'r~;~~:,...".~",_.~",.~:r~,~":,~~~~"""_'..'f,....,...'l-.,..'..,....."'.""""<-.~~.~"-;~,I...,r".".-:..~::JP........."'_'T'oI ",-:-.',,=~ -- I -~--------~ ~...., ' .... ~ ~ ,~ ;. , . Professionally Designed Putting Suifaces ~.".': . . ),!,,"""'t Proposal ,: ........... r- Customer Name Address City \... Phone t11 a,.r:.1r\,.. ~. E Vet ^- ~~(f L-/)J r ~!e,.)' J:.- 6'1, f(N~ 1!,-;/~f1 1-;011 7/'1- ;) r'j'i) "'\ ."". . ..J i i '. I We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perfJrm the labor necessary for the completion of: S <RO ~. /!- 0rw- :krJ1~ wi! d~/'~ f -~u . /r/J~J.t.jrt-. ~ifl.-,r7 uJ w./ '-IXI fJi pdt'h>-' '( t,J lvli.. t../~ {y.k,~ -I ~ IJ. () f}/~''''''''' 4? f,4#s tR 114~<;. i i' d<' L-P ; ~ fb" I~ . j)r,J/~/dj/l~ </"0- 1~/t/'Lf '''''''' ',.~.' '- "'~'''',.'''. ~,~ ,'tol..}<~ '. :. All material is guaranteed to be specified. and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and sp~cations submitted for above work completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum: Subtotal Jill {p >0 ,. ..... '. .. ,.,.:or.......... Any alteration or deviation from the above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written order, and will become an extra charge over and the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents, or delays beyond our control. ~.., ."'... State Tax ;. ~\o.""" Per: 6f-- tL TOTAL t IIi {p~ ~"" Respectfuliy submitted: 7)dA.6- tvll;( ..-- '\~~ '~~ Payments to be as follows: ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above price, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and hereby accept~d. You are authorized to do ttl.t, work as specified. Payments will be as outlined above. fi ./ /Jr ""'~':;'~ """"';::~' Signature: (W~ ~. 7 ;,., 1&'/ Slgnalure: lJU:.A 7 /. <./ ,4. I..&-?-"/'/ ~ Date: .-. Golf Greens "Fore" U of Central PA 6 Buttonwood Court - Mechanicsburg, PA 17030 Phone: 717-795-1901- Fax: 717-795-1902 .t ft ..... -.. ... /1 .1/ ' EXHIBIT B FROM :SEM0FF .10/08/2884 a9:40 FA~~ NO, : 717761 7::::'~,~ 7172321474 BLA(:.u...!,::,~,...r-ECJ~ -" If! J -: "2-Y ~-. " en ~l ~- I" ~ ."""""'.~~-~ October 8, 2004 'M.arion Semoff , .: !41O Candlewycl Rd. :. 'Camp Hill, PA l1011 . :RE:'. Golf Green q,uote 'Dear Mrs. SemQff, :, .'.OUt plio. to remove putting green, wall and paver walkway and res'tPre back to :' laWn by soddin, this aJe4l is: . ., " .: . . ! I LalNx '. .. '. . .. . ;t~Equipment :.. ~ and materials :. $1,'.76.00 $60 .00 $319,.QO .il,.5~~.OO . 'I" .. . . . " . , . : P1e~ lW ~ ~ con'tact me with any questions and/ or C("llti nent;.t; . , - -;"! . .. , , " ' . ., . I ~ ' . , . I 'I . , . , I : ~, . ~ . . ..,---.. - -~.. . .. 1360E. Lishw ~Road. ~:~~butg, PA 1~~,5~. 717-(j9~~~ ..:t:~X,'")1; ~J, lr~~_ ,_.' ~ ~ 8 7C) ~ ".,. 0 ~ (-) ~,';) ~:: c: :') -n .x- --I ~ -,'" :r: f1 " I .,~': ..... C'~ rne::: ...~ -oln ......... ~ I -c,o ~ ~ , , co (j(-) { - i' .~) -".--' r t N .. -0 (~Z5 ~ ~ .,.', .\ :.J~: ":rn - " J c..y l.~ )> '..... ~ ~/- ~~l :..,i (,J --< -<.. ~ Michael A. Groin, Esq. ID # 78625 Anderson, Gulotta & Hicks, P.C. 1110 North Mountain Road Harrisburg, P A 17112 (717) 541-1194 Attorney for Defendants MARTHA D. HEMPT, MARIAN H. AND EVAN SEMOFF, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA ~CHARDLEEWAGNERand DAVID S. MARONIC, individually And t/b/d/a1 GOLF GREENS "FORE U" OfPA, NO. 2004 CV 5627 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants JURY T~AL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATT]~R AND NOW come the Defendants, Richard Lee Wagner and David S. Maronic, individually and as Members of Golf Greens "Fore U" ofPA, LLC, by and through their attorney, Michael A. Groin, Esq., and file the following Answer and New Matter. 1. Admitted 2. Denied. By way of further response, Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central P A, LLC is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company. A copy of the Certificate of Organization of Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central PA, LLC is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 3. Admitted in part and Denied in Part. It is admitted tha.t Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central P A, LLC is in the business of installation of synthetic putting surfaces. It is denied that Richard Wagner and David Maronic are individually in the business of installation and design of synthetic putting surfaces. 4. Admitted in part and Denied in part. By way of further response, Martha Hempt entered into a contract with Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central P A, LLC to install a synthetic putting green at the home of Evan and Marian Semoff. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRAC1: 8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 are incorporated herein by reference as ifmore fully set forth. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Denied. Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central P A, LLC and its employees and subcontractors began installing the putting green, walkway and lights at the premises of Marian and Evan Semoff, but were prohibited from completing the installation by Evan Semoff. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state' that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. A. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants st.ate that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting grel~n, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any ofthe installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. B. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. c. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. D. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation ofthe putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems: with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. E. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting gn:en, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. F. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any ofthe installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. G. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. 14. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. 15. Denied. 16. Denied. 17. Denied. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with attorney's fees and costs associated with the defense of this action. COUNT II BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth. 21. Admitted. 22. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. A. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems: with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. B. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting gre:en, retaining wall, lights walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. C. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff: and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. D. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. E. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff: and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. 23. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants stat€:: that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff: and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with attorney's fees and costs associated with the defense of this action. COUNT III BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated herein by reference as ifmore fully set forth. 27. Denied. The averment in paragraph 27 constitutes a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. 28. Denied. By way of further response, Defendants state that they were prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendants were not given the opportunity to complete the installation. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with attorney's fees and costs associated with the defense of this action. NEW MATTER 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth. 32. The contract in question was entered into between Martha Hempt and Golf Greens "F ore U" of Central P A, LLC. As such, Plaintiffs are barred from recovering any damages from Richard Wagner and David Maronic individually because they were acting in their capacity as employees of Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central P A, LLC during the course of performance of the work in question. 33. Evan Semoffunreasonably prevented Golf Greens ("Fore U" of Central PA, LLC from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway in question. Any deficiencies in the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway in question were solely and directly caused by Evan Semoff's decision to prohibit Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central PA, LLC from completing the installation. 34. By unreasonably preventing Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central P A, LLC from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway in question, the Plaintiffs waived their right to seek damages against the Defendants. 35. By unreasonably preventing Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central P A, LLC from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway in question, the Plaintiffs breached their agreement with Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central P A, LLC. 36. The deficiencies in installation asserted by the Plaintiffs are speculative in nature. 37. The Plaintffs are barred from recovering any damages from the Defendants under the doctrine of estoppel. 38. The Plaintiffs are barred from recovering any damages from the Defendants under the doctrine of impossibility of performance. 39. The Plaintiffs are barred from recovering any damages from the Defendants under the doctrine of justification. 40. The Plaintiffs are barred from recovering any damages from the Defendants under the doctrine of release. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with attorney's fees and costs associated with the defense of this action. Respectfully Submitted, ANDERSON GULOTTA & HICKS, P.C. BY: ~)~ Michael A. Groin, Esq. J.D. No. 78625 1110 North Mountain Road Harrisburg, P A 17112 (717) 541-1194 Attorneys for Defendants </ Entity Number ~rn Filed with the Department at State on AUG 0 9 2002 Q . Microfilm Number CERTIFICATE OF ORGANIZATION-DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPAN OSC8: 15-8913 (Rev 95) In compliance with the requirements of 15 Pa_C.S. !l 8913 (relating to certificate of organization). the undersigned, desiring to organize 0 limited liability company, hereby staters) that: J' " I. The name of the limited liability company is: G oLf GJU1JV~ F()~ () of CEUnft L PQJll~'{LV RtJ/ A . L L C- '" 2 The (oj address of this limited liability company's initial registered office in this Commonwealth or (b) name at its commercial registered office provider and the county of venue is: (a) 11I1 CDUfJ11-\f c. LUG ftJ) Number and Street CA1'\PHILL fA. City state II 0 I I Zip (uJ\1B9:.LfWD County (b) c/o: Name of Commercial Registered Office Provider County For 0 limited liability company represented by 0 commercial registered office provider, the c,:>unty in (b) sholl be deemed the county in which the limited liobility company is located for venue and official publication purposes. 3. The name and address, including street and number, if any, of each organizer are: NAME OOv..G-LA-$ S. MA~ONrC. ::II- 1?fchPlnd L. ))JQ3110- Df\vIQ 5. rV\A\to~, c ADDRESS 1111 h02- .~ I W~; ~ Oo--K 15 Jr.d Muk. "'; cs6" ') . fit 1 7,,~ ~ COUYJ+':;J CLu.h 12oQ-eJ Cq YHp H ~ 1/ Pit 17 Gtb/tuell\L.;aN M ~~(S vJ1 (. fA.. 17CS-O I 4. (Strike out jf inapplicable): trmombcr'j illt""",,1 ill II,,,, LUIJ.pClrr,' if t1"l k~. pvidpncprj ky n certitkatlil of m"'mb",f.~~ interest . 6. The specified effective date, if any is: /I7tU..~gOA~Cflt of tAD compEH'l',' i~ ""'itori in n mnnngpr or managers. r;.l, /l~ day year UfDI'1 month ,1our, if any 5. (Strike out if inapplicable): 7. (Slrike out if inapplicable): The company is a restricted profe~~if)nnl rnmrrm\, organized 10 ,,,,,,Je, lhc follo..il '9 roslrictgd professional ~~r\/ireo{~: 8 For additional provisions of the certificate. if any. attach on 8 1/2 x 11 sheet. DSCB:15-8913 (Rev 95)-2 N TESTIMONY WHEREOS~l~)fganiler(sl has (hove) signed this Certificate of Or~Janizotion this -' J '_' - :zr { 9 day of L~I:,~, '!)Ii'j .V,vH 11. H AM ( J j 1 J iJ! j VERIFICATION , , [ hCl.'Cby certify that the facES set forth in the foregoing docameat arc lJ'Ue and ( , correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. 1 '~y aclcJ.owlcdge that the t I statements made herein are subject 0 the penalties of18 PA. C,S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn ! falsification to authorities. I ! Dated; ,v.N\ / 1- ~..fl)y Ricbaid Lee Wagner,' ~..id\.1&11y in his capacity as Mew.b<< of ~olf G.tetms <"Fore U" of CcmUal P A, Ltc III d I I I ! i, II ! ! q j. i t 1 I ; ! j i . > : ~ ; L . f r i , l l I 11/28/2BB4 23:21 9389611 DAVE MAROI'lIC PAGE Ell P,012/013 2004/NOV/29/MON 10:39 AM VElUFtCATION I hereby certify that the facb1 set forth in the foregoing documcot are true and correct to the best oflDY knowledge, informatiOD, and belief. I bereby acknowledge that the statanents made herein are subject 0 the pc:nalties of 18 P A. C.~I.A. 4904 relating to 1.1DSW011l falsification to authorities. Dated: IL4 /1 David s.~ c, in~Y and in liu cepacity as M~ of Golf <heeos "F~ U" of central J~ A, LLC .i MARTHA D. HEMPT, MARIAN H. AND EVAN SEMOFF, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RICHARD LEE WAGNER and DAVID S. MARONIC, individually And t/b/d/aJ GOLF GREENS "FORE U" OfPA, NO. 2004 CV 5627 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the within Answer, and New Matter on all parties in this action this .) ~ day of fJ HU..Jc r, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the Plaintiff's attorney of record at the following address: Michael L. Bangs, Esq. 429 South 18th Street Camp Hill, P A 17011 -4~. Michael A. Groin, Esq. .-nll, i:) i~: U,} ~-' Q c;~; -< c" -., -... ....., C;s;') (,:"j .;::- ;;E: C) ..:.2 (.) c.:) () -n -~ --:c '-n i'll F.:~ -f"1 ~ <".~~ "C-:~; ~:~~~~ ~~~~: ~l ""',""\ :-! F~ , " ~._.\ .,.,. ~1 -'0 =~b',= f:-..) (~'"' (y\ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR << , CASE NO: 2004-05627 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HEMPT MARTHA D ET AL VS WAGNER RICHARD LEE ET AL HAROLD WEARY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon MARONIC DAVID S the DEFENDANT , at 1620:00 HOURS, on the lOth day of November, 2004 at 6 BUTTONWOOD COURT MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to MARY MARONIC, BUSINESS MANAGER ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 .r~~<~~ R. Thomas Kline 11/12/2004 MICHAEL BANGS Sworn and Subscribed to before By: 7~fl l~~. Deputy Sher ff me this 5~ day of /l_ ~A.A.A'-'t ~i :2- tJzl."J./ A. D . ~'JQ~ AP~' rothonotary ,'7'1 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-05627 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HEMPT MARTHA D ET AL VS WAGNER RICHARD LEE ET AL HAROLD wFlAY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon WAGNER RICHARD LEE the DEFENDANT , at 1620:00 HOURS, on the lOth day of November, 2004 at 6 BOTTONWOOD COURT MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to MARY MARONIC, BUSINESS MANAGER ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 7.40 .00 10.00 .00 35.40 .~~~ R. Thomas Kline 11/12/2004 MICHAEL BANGS Sworn and Subscribed to before By: 7~~ Deputy Sheriff me this A' c::;.. '-.) day of SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-05627 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HEMPT MARTHA D ET AL VS WAGNER RICHARD LEE ET AL HAROLD WEARY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon MARONIC DAVID S T/D/B/A GOLF GREENS FORE U OF PA the DEFENDANT , at 1620:00 HOURS, on the lOth day of November, 2004 at 6 BUTTONWOOD COURT MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to MARY MARONIC, BUSINESS MANAGER ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 ~a~'.. .,~.,-{(? r ~7Z~>?r-~<. ,,'cr-:::..;;,~:.:,...,{c,.#," .; R. Thomas Kline 11/12/2004 MI CHAEL BANGS Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 5~ day of /~, Cry; ~,: , A.D. · -: C: )),(,#0,., ~, r thonotary . -iF) .. By: 7Ld~ Deputy She iff MICHAEL L. BANGS, ESQUIRE LD. #41263 429 SOUTH 18TII STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 730-7310 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF MARTHA D. HEMPT, MARIAN H. AND EVAN SEMOFF, Plaintiffs ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 2004-5627 CIVIL GOLF GREENS "FORE" U OF CENTRAL PENNSYL VANIA, LLC Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LA W JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER 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 Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 MICHAEL L. BANGS, ESQUIRE LD. #41263 429 SOUTH 181H STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 730-7310 MARTHA D. HEMPT, MARIAN H. AND EVAN SEMOFF, ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Plaintiffs ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 2004-5627 CIVIL GOLF GREENS "FORE" U OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LLC Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Michael L. Bangs, Esquire, and file the following Amended Complaint: 1. Plaintiff MARTHA D. HEMPT is an adult individual who resides at 420 Allendale Way, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and Plaintiffs MARIAN H. SEMOFF and EVAN SEMOFF are adult individuals who reside at 410 Candlewick Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (collectively called "Plaintiffs"). 2. Defendant GOLF GREENS "FORE" U OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, is a Pennsylvania limited liability company with its registered office at IIII Country Club Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter called "Defendant"). 3. Defendant is in the business of the installation and design of synthetic putting surfaces. 4. On or about July 15, 2004, Plaintiffs collectively entered into a contract with Defendant whereby Defendant's representatives, acting on behalf of Defendant, agreed to install a 360 square foot green with drainage pipes; a four-foot retaining wall and a 4 x 7 foot patio walkway, among other things. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement"). 5. Plaintiffs paid the Defendant the sum of$II,620.00 for the work outlined on the Agreement. 6. Defendant's representatives, employees, or agents, acting on behalf of Defendant, represented that they had the expertise and knowledge to design the putting surface which included the placement of the putting surface in the appropriate location in the backyard of the property in which it was to be located which is owned by Plaintiffs Marian H. and Evan Semoff, 7. Defendant provided a guarantee or warranty that all ofthe work was to be done in accordance with the drawings and specifications and in a substantial workmanlike manner. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT 8. Paragraphs I through 7 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth. 9. Under the Agreement between the parties, Defendant agreed to install a 360 square foot green with appropriate drainage pipes; a four-foot retaining wall; a 4 x 7 patio walkway; installation of lights and a driving and chipping area. 10. Defendant's representatives, agents or employees agreed that the putting green would be placed in the appropriate position at the residence of Plaintiffs Marian H. and Evan SemofI 11. Defendant, its employees, agents or subcontractors installed the putting green, retaining wall, walkway and lights at the premises of Plaintiffs Marian H. and Evan Semoff. 12. Defendant's agents, employees or subcontractors chose the spot in which to place the putting green and Plaintiffs depended upon Defendant's agents, employees or subcontractor's expertise in the appropriate placement of the putting green. 2 13. After the installation of the putting green, Plaintiffs became aware of significant problems with the installation which included, but are not limited to, the following: A. The putting green was installed in an area where rainwater washed over and washed out certain areas underneath the putting surface; B. The retaining walls were improperly installed; C. The walkway was improperly installed and in a dangerous condition; D. There was no drainage installed to prevent washout of any areas; E. The driving and chipping area was not included at all; F. The green was not properly affixed to the retaining wall; and G. The lights were improperly installed. 14. The work performed by Defendant's agents, employees or subcontractors under the Agreement was done in such a poor and unworkmanlike fashion that no repairs can be made to rectify those problems; rather, the entirety of the work has to be removed. 15. Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendant remove the putting green, retaining walls and walkway from the premises where it is located and return the funds paid to Defendant for the work performed. 16. Plaintitls have obtained a cost to put the premises where the green is located back into the position it was prior to the work performed by Defendant and the cost to complete that work is $1,555.00. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the estimate received. 17. Defendant has breached the Agreement with Plaintiffs by its failure to install the putting green, retaining wall and walkway in a good and workmanlike fashion and in the manner that is appropriate for the installation of that type of material. 3 18. As a result of the breach of the Agreement, Plaintiffs have incurred damages in the amount of $11 ,620.00 which represents the amount paid to Defendant plus an additional $1,555.00 which is the amount needed to return the premises to the condition it was prior to the work being performed by Defendant. 19. Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendant pay these sums and Defendant has failed or refused to make payment of the amounts due and owing. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant in the amount of $13,175.00, plus interest, plus costs of suit. COUNT II BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth. 21. Defendant provided a warranty whereby it guaranteed that the work performed and the material provided was done in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted and that it was completed in a substantial workmanlike manner. 22. Plaintiffs, after investigation, have discovered that the work was not performed in a good and workmanlike fashion and in accordance with the specifications set forth by the manufacturer ofthese products, which include, but are not limited to, the following: A. The retaining wall was improperly installed according to the specifications; B. The walkway was improperly installed and not in accordance with any specifications; 4 C. The project did not include the proper drainage system to ensure that any runoff water would not washout any of the material underneath the putting surface; D. The putting surface was not installed properly; and E. The lights were not installed in accordance with the specifications required of installation of the lights. 23. Defendant breached the express warranty provided to Plaintiffs by its failure to properly design the putting green; by its placing of the putting surface in an improper area; by the installation of the putting green retaining walls and walkway not in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications; and by its failure to perform any of the work in a good and workmanlike fashion. 24. As a result of the breach ofthe express warranty provided by Defendant to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have incurred damages in the amount of $11 ,620.00 which represents the amount paid for the project which cannot be salvaged and must be removed. 25. As a result of the breach ofthe express warranty provided by Defendant to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have incurred additional damages to the premises where the putting green is located in order to restore the premises to its original condition prior to the work being performed by Defendants in the amount of $1,555.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant in the amount of $13,175.00, plus interest, plus costs of suit. COUNT III BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth. 5 27. If it is determined that the Agreement does not contain an express warranty, then it is averred that Defendant made an implied warranty to Plaintiffs that the work it was performing under the terms of the Agreement would be done in a good and workmanlike fashion and in accordance with the specifications for the installation of that material as indicated by the manufacturer of that material. 28. Defendant breached the implied warranty in that the work performed on the premises in the installation of the putting green, the retaining wall, and the walkway, as well as the lights, were not done in a good and workmanlike fashion and were not done in accordance with the specifications of the manufacturer for the installation of those materials. 29. As a result of the breach of the implied warranty, Plaintiffs have incurred damages in the amount of $11 ,620.00 which represents the amount paid for the work to be performed by Defendant under the terms of the Agreement. 30. Plaintiffs have also incurred an additional $1,555.00 as a result of the breach of the implied warranty in that these additional damages represent the cost to return the premises to the condition that it was prior to the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, walkway, and other materials as contained in the Agreement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant in the amount of $13,175.00, plus interest, plus costs of suit. Respectfully submitted, ! MIC AEL L. BANGS Attorney for Plaintiffs 429 South 18th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 730-7310 Supreme Court ID #41263 6 VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO Pa. RoC.P. 1024(c) I, MICHAEL L. BANGS, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiffs, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief based upon information and documents provided to me by Plaintiffs. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ,/0 -) / , DATE: I ()/4 lev; , , l {' J / I'vly, (, V 1/'/ ~ICHAEL L. BANGS, Esj'e 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed to the following: Michael A. Gruin, Esquire Anderson, Gulotta & Hicks 121 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 DATE:~' I L( C'J .,' . ( ,";, I' , . ,'I'" \' ",) , ,I /1 "\ . ," , 'd\ld/ J, IlLJJ10 WENDY S. C}-IESBRO Legal Assistant EXHIBIT A )1 " .~ --~. ~."':".~...iVJ<.~"''J-'.!;<f'l''''''.~'' ~~,!,"V'~-""""ry.~.."DOC.~", ,_.n ...._~.,r'...p'....., _4' '" ~ ~. 1 Professionally Desi ened Putting Surfaces ,......,.. Proposal ..,......--,.. ~ Customer Name Add ress . City Phone !I1a..r'fl.- 'E VCl"'- ~~(/ '-IV r ~!t:o-J cl- L,r). (' Ov...-p /-(,I! pi 1/ I -'1 0 II 7!JI- :;> )-opa ~" We hereby propose to furnish the mater'lals and ,perf2rm the labor necessary for the completion of: :3(;0 .?i- 0ru.+-- ];~L..-fL,..J' ,../ d~:~f'" - c-s ilL U '" x7 ,~,tr-..' {J (v'r. /JJo..-; t.v ='79 !," ,< (yJ.~~.'- p? ~<-6f> (, Ii ",11/<. , I"'..-f ,.~ r' , ?r, J 'J / Ci, jF'1 .(/'-0'-- -ro V' #~ r V f~ I/\-<"( /J -,\0'" '....,. .-j"', ~, All material Is guaranteed to be specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and ..... speCifications submitted for above work completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum: Any alteration or deviation from the above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written order, and will become an extra charge over and the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents, or delays beyond our control. Subtotal 1/1 &.}-O i '1~ I ,~ State Tax I J;1(1{y~ .'4fII1'r-" TOTAL Respectfully submitted: })tLit.t<- tvl/;s Per: t~ lUG \~~ l' ,:~~ Payments to be as follows: ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above price, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be as outlined above. //7 e /If .~<;;- ,::,"'!::., ! Signature: ~ 7l'5'lci ( Date: Signature: )"h,. /0 / /,' fl .- .- ~ -- / / - /1.-/"".,/,," ~../ ( , ...., ""....... Golf Greens "Fore" U of Central PA 6 Buttonwood Court · Mechanicsburg, PA 17030 Phone: 717-795-1901 . Fax: 717-795-1902 ., ~ " /1 - .1, \ \ , \ \ \ \ ~ --------- ,{)M : SEM0FF 10/08/2804 89:48 7172321474 FA)( NO. : 7177E.l-;>2:.1 BLA(,~AI,:,:~PEC.O' '. l V I -~ ~ :-:. 0l 1-r ~~ -- ~N1RACTING, ."~.,,..~.CQfII October 8, 2004 . Marion Semoff 410 Candlewycl Rd. Camp HilL PAl 7011 :RE~ . Golf Green <j.uote 'Dear. Mrs. Semoff, ,:0Ut prl~ to remove putting green, wall and paver walkway and res1Pre back to . .la.wn bt soddinJ this area i$: ", . Labor '. , . . Truck Eqttipment $oct and materials $1,176,00 $60,00 $M9.00 ,$JJ?55,OO . ;:- . . P1easefeoil. ~tl> con'lll.d: me with any questions and/or co ml netl'" , ! . I :i . ":'!. .: ' . I ., . .-. '.-- - ,,:, ~ t 1360 E. Lisbw, Road. M..,h"nies!:>ut8', PA 17055 . '17-697.<<~9 . FAX. 71 ;~,. 1991 ,- -.-......-.. ._.- -.--.-..- MICHAEL L. BANGS, ESQUIRE J.D. NO. 41263 429 SOUTH 18m STREET CAMPHILL,PA 17011 (717) 730-7310 MARTHA D. HEMPT, MARIAN H. ) AND EVAN SEMOFF, ) Plaintiff ) ) vs. ) ) RICHARD LEE WAGNER and ) DAVID S. MARONIC, individually and ) t/d/b/a Golf Greens "Fore" U ofPA, ) Defendants ) ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2004-5627 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION -- LA \V JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CONSENT TO AMENDMENT OF PLEADING I, Michael A. Gruin, Esquire, attorney for Defendants in the above-captioned matter, hereby consent to the filing of an Amended Complaint to substitute Golf Greens "Fore" U of Central Pennsylvania, LLC, as Defendant in place of the existing defendants. ANDERSON, GULOTTA & HICKS Mt~.~ Attorney for Defendants 1110 North Monntain Road Harrisburg,PA 17112 (717) 541-1194 Attorney for Defendants Michael A. Groin, Esq. ID # 78625 Anderson, Gulotta & Hicks, P.C. 121 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 541-1194 Attorney for Defendant MARTHA D. HEMPT, MARIAN H. AND EVAN SEMOFF, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF OMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND OUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2004 CV 5627 GOLF GREENS "FORE U" OF Central Pennsylvania, LLC CIVIL ACTION - LA Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMA ED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW comes the Defendant, Golf Greens "Fore U" ofPA, L C, by and through its attorney, Michael A. Gruin, Esq., and file the following Answer and New atter in response to the Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs. I. Admitted 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT 8. Paragraphs I through 7 are incorporated herein by reference as i more fully set forth. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Denied. Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central PA, LLC and its emp oyees and subcontractors began installing the putting green, walkway and ights at the premises of Marian and Evan Semoff, but were prohibited from completi g the installation by Evan Semoff. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it w prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, d walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was irectly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given the opportunity to comple e the installation. A. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it was prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining w II, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any 0 the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given e opportunity to complete the installation. B. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it as prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining w I, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any 0 the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given e opportunity to complete the installation. C. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it as prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wa I, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given the opportunity to I I complete the installation. I D. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it was prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining w II, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any fthe installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given e opportunity to complete the installation. E. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it was prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining w I, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any fthe installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given e opportunity to complete the installation. F. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it was prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining w II, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given e opportunity to complete the installation. G. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it as prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining w I, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any 0 the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given e opportunity to complete the installation. 14. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it was prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lIghts and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given the opportunity to c mplete the installation. 15. Denied. 16. Denied. 17. Denied. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Honorable 000 enter judgment in tsi favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with attorney's fees and cost associated with the defense of this action. COUNT II BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated herein by reference if more fully set forth. 21. Admitted. 22. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it w prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, I ghts and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given the opportunity to complete the installation. I A. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it ras prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining W~I, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any 0 the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given e opportunity to complete the installation. B. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it as prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining w I, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any 0 the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given e opportunity to complete the installation. C. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it as prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining w I, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any 0 directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given e opportunity to complete the installation. D. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it as prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining w I, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any 0 the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given e opportunity to complete the installation. E. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it was prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wa!ll, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any O~the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given te opportunity to complete the installation. I 23. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it w prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, I ghts and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given the opportunity to c mplete the installation. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully request that the Honorable ourt enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with attorney's fees and cost associated with the defense of this action. COUNT III BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 26. Paragraphs I through 25 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth. 27. Denied. The averment in paragraph 27 constitutes a conclusion flaw to which no response is required. 28. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant states that it was prohibited from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway by Evan Semoff, and that any problems with any of the installation was directly related to the fact that the Defendant was not given the opportunity to c mplete the installation. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully request that the Honorable 000 enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with attorney's fees and cos associated with the defense of this action. NEW MATTER 31. Paragraphs I through 30 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth. 32. Evan Semoffunreasonably prevented Golf Greens "Fore U" of entral PA, LLC from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining all, lights and walkway in question. Any deficiencies in the installation of the utting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway in question were solely and 'rectly caused by Evan Semoff's decision to prohibit Golf Greens "Fore U" ofCe tral PA, LLC from completing the installation. 33. By unreasonably preventing Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central P , LLC from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, I ghts and walkway in question, the Plaintiffs waived their right to seek damages ag. t the Defendants 34. By unreasonably preventing Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central PA, LLC from completing the installation of the putting green, retaining wall, lights and walkway in question, the Plaintiffs breached their agreement with Golf Gree s "Fore U" of Central PA, LLC. 35. The deficiencies in installation asserted by the Plaintiffs are spe ulative in nature. 36. The Plaintffs are barred from recovering any damages from the efendant under the doctrine of estoppel. 37. The Plaintiffs are barred from recovering any damages from the Defendant under the doctrine of impossibility of performance. 38. The Plaintiffs are barred from recovering any damages from the Defendant under the doctrine of justification. 39. The Plaintiffs are barred from recovering any damages from the Defendant under the doctrine of release. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully request that the Honorable 000 enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with attorney's fees and cost associated with the defense of this action. Respectfully Submitted, ANDERSON GULO A & HICKS, P.C. BY: Micliae . G in, Esq. J.D. No. 78625 121 State Stree Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 541-119 Attorneys for efendant VERIFICATION I hereby certifY that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I hereby ackn wledge that the statements made herein are subject 0 the penalties of 18 P A. C.S.A. 4904 r lating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ~ 3 /0S- Dav . Maronic in his capacity as Member nd Officer of Golf Greens "Fore U" of Central PA, LLC MARTHA D. HEMPT, MARIAN H. AND EVAN SEMOFF, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2004 CV 5627 GOLF GREENS "FORE U" OF Central Pennsylvania, LLC CIVIL ACTION - LA Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMA DED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy ofthe withi Answer, and New Matter on all parties in this action this day of Afr, I , by firs class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the Plaintiff s attorney of record at the following addres : Michael L. Bangs, Esq. 429 South 18th Street Camp Hill, P A 170 II c~. Michael A. Gruin, Esq. --------- c~ ,> -::~ , "".l " ~'\ ., ~" J o' MICHAEL L. BANGS, ESQUIRE I.D. NO. 41263 429 SOUTH 18TH STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 730-7310 MARTHA D. HEMPT, MARIAN H. AND EVAN SEMOFF, Plaintiffs vs. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA NO. 2004 CV 5627 CIVIL ACTION GOLF GREENS "FORE U" OF CENTRAL: PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Please mark the above-referenced matter settled and discontinued. Date: August 10,2005 Respectfully submitted, ~.7 MICHAEL L. BAJ\fGS Attorney for Plaintiffs 429 South 18th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 730-7310 Supreme Court ID #41263 Q t;; .. -0(";-' 1:.',)';' :2.(. ([) '.' r::.'L ~ Y".( be. 7C:~ ){.. '2 ~ ~ ~ C"' - rV ---0 :;:P:.. <-t? o ....1 ~ -' ff.:!l ..,.,~ c9,'l' t-;'-l,() :"~" -'(, _...-('\ ')'" 'zR, o~ _\ ~ -;:..<. -