Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-6493CARL EDWIN FRIEDLI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, VS. NO. 014 [fl ! l_ t t3 MARK A. RENDS, Defendant. : CIVIL ACTION 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, 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. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 CARL EDWIN FRIEDLI, Plaintiff, vs. MARK A. RENDE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . NO. 014 --- 1011 Defendant. : CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Carl Edwin Friedli is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who resides at 113 West Vine Street, Shirmenstown, Pennsylvania 17011, Cumberland County. Carl is the owner and operator of Subway Sandwiches and Salads located at 20 W Main St, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (hereinafter "Subway"). 2. Defendant Mark A. Rende is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who resides at 64 Meadow Brook Court, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070, Cumberland County. 3. From September 15, 2004 to Mid-October, 2004 defendant was employed by plaintiff as a store manager at Subway. 4. Joshua Lewis Keller (hereinafter "Joshua"), a minor, is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who resides at 6412 Carlisle Pike, Lot 17, Mechanicsburg, PA 17058, Cumberland County. 5. Joshua was employed by plaintiff as a sandwich maker from, approximately, the middle of September, 2004 until the middle of October, 2004. STATEMENT OF CLAIM 6. In or around the middle of October, 2004, defendant quit his position as a store manager of Subway due to a conflict between him and plaintiff. 7. Shortly thereafter, in or around the middle of October, 2004, defendant telephoned Joshua's mother, Donna Miles, to tell her that plaintiff made inappropriate sexual comments to defendant concerning Joshua; specifically, that Joshua had "a nice ass" and that plaintiff "liked" Joshua because plaintiff "liked" "bad boys." Subsequent to this phone call, in or around the middle of October, 2004, Joshua quit his position at Subway. tie following week, in or around the end of October, 2004, Joshua came into sway to receive his final paycheck. 10. Upon exiting Subway, Joshua told three employees of Subway, Samantha Hogan, Dustin Leinbach and Greg Schreffeler, who were standing outside while on break, that plaintiff had put a "hit" on him. 11. Upon receiving this information from the employees, plaintiff telephoned Ms. Miles to inform her that he had never put a "hit" on Joshua, and to ask that Joshua stop making such accusations; it was then that Ms. Miles informed plaintiff of the comments (listed in paragraph 7 of this complaint) that defendant made to her regarding her son. 12. Upon information and belief of these comments, Joshua not only quit his job at Subway, but also falsely told other employees of Subway that plaintiff was making sexual advances toward him. 13. These comments by defendant imply that plaintiff desired to engage in sexual relations with Joshua. 14. A reasonable person could conclude that that defendant's comments were an accusation that plaintiff is a pedophiliac who acts or fantasies of engaging in sexual activity with his minor male employees. 15. Defendant's statements were false and defamatory per se and were intended to apply to plaintiff and were understood by those hearing the statements as being defamatory and applying to plaintiff. 16. No privilege exists permitting defendant to publish the defamatory statements about plaintiff or, in the alternative, defendant abused any such privilege. 17. Defendant's statements were published to those who had no legitimate reason to receive them and were published for an improper purpose, with malice, to injure plaintiff in the eyes of his employees, colleagues and the community at large. 18. Joshua's statements about plaintiff were untrue and were made maliciously, and defendant either knew or should have known them to be false. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory statements by defendant, Plaintiff has been greatly hurt and his reputation in the community has been severely damaged by the defendant's statements. 20. The revenues, profits and reputation of plaintiff has suffered as a direct and proximate result of the statements of defendant. COUNTI Slander 21. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 above by reference, as though fully set forth at length herein. 22. Defendants' false statements concerning plaintiff constitute slander. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for: (1) Compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $25,000; (2) Punitive damages; and (3) Attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court finds appropriate. COUNT II Invasion of Privacy 23. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 above by reference, as though fully set forth at length herein. 24. Defendants actions set forth above constitute an intrusion into plaintiffs personal seclusion and were highly offensive to him and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibility. 25. Defendant's actions constitute an invasion of privacy. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for: (1) Compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00; (2) Punitive damages; and (3) Attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court finds appropriate. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICE OF SHANE B. KOPE 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tele. (717) 761-7573, Date: Z? By: SHAN KOPE Supreme Court I.D. # 92207 VERIFICATION I, Carl Edwin Friedli, hereby acknowledge that I am the plaintiff in the attached Complaint against Mark A. Rende and that I have read the foregoing Complaint. I verify that the averments of my Complaint are true and correct and based upon my personal knowledge. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Dated: ! z ' 111'40y \- ?o?? Carl Edwin Friedli ?C3 .` t ti V tC"_3 N c? C"7 N N co C> .;3 CARL EDWIN FRIEDLI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 04-6493 CIVIL TERM MARK A. RENDE, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, Robert P. Kline, Esquire, hereby accept service of the Complaint in the above- captioned matter on behalf of my client, Mark A. Rende, and certify that I am authorized to do so. 41 VuA%wal'* 2 na 03' Date ROBERT P. KLINE, ESQUIRE Attorney ID#58798 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Acceptance of Service upon Plaintiff, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the 4th day of March, 2005, from New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Shane B. Kope, Esquire 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff ROBERT P. KLINE, ESQUIRE 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 Attorney for Defendant .. r..> ' r . .. ? `i? ??- i ., , ?: i.": ?_?,. ` GJ LAW OFFICES OF SHANE B. KOPE BY: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. 92207 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 sbkope(u)comcast. net CARL EDWIN FRIEDLI, Plaintiff, vs. MARK A. RENDE, Defendant. Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-6493 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLIAM Now comes Plaintiff, Carl Edwin Friedli, by and through his counsel, Shane B. Kope, Esquire, and interposes the following preliminary objections to Defendant's Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim. A. Procedural History 1. Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a Complaint on December 28, 2004. 2. The Complaint set forth claims against Defendant for Slander and Invasion of Privacy. 3. Defendant's counsel accepted service of the Complaint on behalf of Defendant on March 4, 2005. 4. Defendant filed an Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim on March 17, 2005. 5. Defendant's Counterclaim sets forth a claim for Abuse of Legal Process against Plaintiff. B. Preliminary Objection to Defendant's Counterclaim for insufficient specificity of a pleading pursuant to Pa R.C.P. 1028(a) (3). 6. Defendant's Counterclaim sets forth a claim against Plaintiff for "Abuse of Process." (Answer, ¶ ¶ 31-38.) 7. Defendant's Counterclaim fails to specify whether this cause of action is based upon the common law claim of abuse of process or a statutory claim for malicious use of civil proceedings. 8. Plaintiff is unable to ascertain from the pleading, in its present state, the nature of the claim asserted with sufficient precision to prepare a responsive pleading. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves the Court to order the Defendant to make his Counterclaim more specific by identifying whether the claim is based upon the common law claim abuse of process or the statutory claim of malicious use of civil proceedings. C. Motion to Strike - Preliminary Objection to Defendant's Counterclaim for Legal Insufficiency Pursuant To Pa R.C.P. 1028(a)(4). 9. To the extent that Defendant purports to state a common law claim for abuse of process, Defendant's allegations against Plaintiff are insufficient to sustain this cause of action. 10. Defendant's Counterclaim alleges that all statements published to third parties by Defendant concerning Plaintiff were true. (Answer, ¶ 32.) Page 2 of 7 11. Defendant's Counterclaim alleges that, in addition to Defendant, Plaintiff made these statements to one or more third parties. (Answer, ¶ ¶ 33-34.) 12. Defendant's Counterclaim alleges that because Plaintiff knew these statements were true, Plaintiff's current action in bringing the Complaint against Defendant is frivolous and amounts to an abuse of the legal process. (Answer, ¶ 37.) 13. To establish a claim for abuse of process it must be shown that defendant (1) used a legal process against the plaintiff, (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed; and (3) harm has been caused to the plaintiff. Shiner v. Moriarty, 706 A.2d 1228, 1236 (Pa. Super. 1998). 14. Defendant did not allege any facts to show Plaintiff intended to use the Complaint for a purpose that was unauthorized by law. 15. Defendant has not pled and cannot prove that the conduct of Plaintiff was an unauthorized goal of the procedure. 16. Moreover, Abuse of process focuses on the legal procedures the defendant utilized after the commencement of a civil action. Hart v. O'Malley, 436 Pa.Super. 151, 160, 647 A.2d 542, 546 (1994) (emphasis added). 17. Malicious use of civil process has to do with the wrongful initiation of such process. Rosen v. American Bank of Rolla, 426 Pa.Super. 376,381 627 A.2d 190, 192 (1993). (emphasis added). 18. The commencement and prosecution of civil proceedings is not considered "process" in the context of an abuse of process claim. Al Hamilton Contracting Co. v. Cowder, 434 Pa.Super. 491, 497, 644 A.2d 188, 191 (1994). Page 3 of 7 19. A plaintiff cannot assert a wrongful use of civil proceedings claim through an abuse of process claim. Dietrich Industries. Inc. v. Abrams, 309 Pa.Super. 202, 455 A.2d 119 (1982). 20. Assuming the verity of the facts set forth in the Counterclaim, such facts would lend themselves to the statutory malicious use of civil proceedings cause of action, as Defendant pleads that Plaintiff's wrongful conduct occurred at the instant action's initiation, not during the course of its execution. 21. Because Plaintiff commenced this action by filing the Complaint, there are no facts averred, or can be averred in Defendant's Counterclaim that show Plaintiff engaged in perversion of process after its commencement. 22. A court should sustain a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer and dismiss a pleading without leave to amend where it clearly appears that the defective pleading cannot be remedied to state a cause of action. Hohensee v. Shapp, 39 Pa. Commw. 478, 395 A.2d 636 (1978), order affd, 493 Pa. 222, 425 A.2d 744 (1981); Morgan v. Martin, 74 Pa. D. & C.2d 417, 1975 WL 16947 (C.P. 1975). WHEREFORE, in the more applicable alternative to preliminary objection section B, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim without leave to amend for incurable legal insufficiency. D. Motion to Strike - Preliminary Objection to Defendant's Counterclaim for Legal Insufficiency Pursuant To Pa R.C.P. 1028(a)(4). 23. To the extent that Defendant purports to state a statutory claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings, Defendant's allegations against Plaintiff are insufficient to sustain this cause of action. Page 4 of 7 24. Defendant's Counterclaim alleges that all statements published to third parties by Defendant concerning Plaintiff were true. (Answer, ¶ 32.) 25. Defendant's Counterclaim alleges that, in addition to Defendant, Plaintiff made these statements to one or more third parties. (Answer, ¶ ¶ 33-34.) 26. Defendant's Counterclaim alleges that because Plaintiff knew these statements were true, Plaintiff's current action in bringing the Complaint against Defendant is frivolous and amounts to an abuse of the legal process. (Answer, ¶ 37.) 27. In order to set forth a claim for malicious prosecution, the [moving party] must prove the following elements: (1) the [opposing party] has procured, initiated or continued the civil proceedings against [moving party]; (2) the proceedings were terminated in [moving party's] favor; (3) the [opposing party] did not have probable cause for his action; (4) the primary purpose for which the proceedings were brought was not that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claim on which the proceedings were based; and, (5) the [moving party] has suffered damages. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8354. 28. Even assuming the verity of the facts set forth in the Counterclaim, Defendant cannot maintain a statutory cause of action because the underlying action is still ongoing, thereby precluding any assertion of termination in his favor. 29. Furthermore, because the underlying action is still ongoing, it is clear that Defendant's Counterclaim cannot be remedied to state a statutory claim for malicious prosecution. 30. A court should sustain a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer and dismiss a pleading without leave to amend where it clearly appears that the Page 5 of 7 defective pleading cannot be remedied to state a cause of action. Hohensee v. Shapp, 39 Pa. Commw. 478, 395 A.2d 636 (1978), order affd, 493 Pa. 222, 425 A.2d 744 (1981); Morgan v. Martin, 74 Pa. D. & C.2d 417, 1975 WL 16947 (C. P. 1975). WHEREFORE, in the more applicable alternative to preliminary objection section B, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim without leave to amend for incurable legal insufficiency. E. Motion to Strike - Preliminary Objection to Defendant's Prayer for Attorney's Fees for Legal Insufficiency Pursuant To Pa R.C.P. 1028(a)(4). 31. Defendant's Answer and New Matter with Counterclaim requests attorney's fees and other legal costs under 42 Pa.S. § 2503. (Answer, ¶ 22(a), 25(a), 30 (a), 38(a).). 32. A claim for attorney's fees under 42 Pa.S. § 2503 is not properly raised in new matter but, instead, should be raised by petition to the court at the conclusion of the underlying action, using the record as a basis to support the claim. Shevchik v. Zeregel, 8 Pa. D. & CAth 66, 67 (1990); see also Seqhetti v. Heritage Resorts of Gettysburg, 19 Pa. D. & CAth 218, 1993 WL 739415 (C.P. 1993) (applying the same holding to a claim for attorney's fees via complaint). 33. Furthermore, Defendant has not identified under which of the ten subsections of 42 Pa.S. §2503 they seek attorney fees. 34. The record is also insufficient to determine whether Plaintiff engaged in a proscribed conduct under 42 Pa.S. §2503. See In re Estate of Schram, 696 A2d 1206 (Pa. Commw. 1997). Page 6 of 7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain this preliminary objection and dismiss Defendant's Prayer for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Date: March 28, 2005 Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICES OF SHANE B. KOPE SHANE BXOPE Attorney for Plaintiff Page 7 of 7 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Preliminary Objections are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: March 28, 2005 CART. FRIEIILI, Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Shane B. Kope, Esquire, hereby certify that on March 28, 2005, 1 served a copy of the foregoing by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Robert P. Kline, Esquire 714 Bridge Street P.O. Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 Attorney for Defendant Respe 4y-Submitted, Shane B. Kope, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff LAW OFFICE OF SHANE B. KOPE 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tele. (717) 761-7573 f? ?i l .? r _?.t i ' .. ?' >.i ? . .? ?ti, ? .. CARL EDWIN FRIEDLI, Plaintiff V. MARK A. RENDE, Defendant TO: Carl Edwin Friedli c/o Shane B. Kope, Esquire 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 04-6493 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, l?- r A&" Zoos Date ROBERT PETER KLINE, ESQUIRE 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 Attorney for Defendant CARL EDWIN FRIEDLI, Plaintiff V. MARK A. RENDE, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-6493 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CIVIL TERM ANSWER AND NOW, comes Defendant, Mark A. Rende, by and through his counsel, Robert P. Kline, Esquire, who answers the Complaint of Plaintiff as follows: Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. By way of clarification, Defendant's residence is located in York County. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted upon information and belief. 5. Admitted upon information and belief. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendant admits that he had a telephone conversation with Donna Miles during which Defendant related to Donna Miles statements that had been made by Plaintiff regarding her son, Joshua Miles. 8. The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 9. The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 10. The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 11. The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 12_ The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 13. The allegation of this paragraph is conclusory in nature and no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 14. The allegation of this paragraph is conclusory in nature and no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 15. Denied. All statements made by Defendant to Donna Miles were true. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. 16. The allegation of this paragraph is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. IT Denied. On the contrary, Defendant's factual statements were made out of a genuine concern for the welfare of the minor child. 18. The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. Further, whether or not Defendant had any knowledge of the truthfulness of the statements made by a third party beyond his control is irrelevant. 19. The allegation of this paragraph is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. 20. The allegation of this paragraph is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. 21. No response required. 22. The allegation of this paragraph is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. By way of further answer, any statements made to Donna Miles in the telephone conversation alleged in this Complaint were true. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, together with attorneys fees and costs of suit. COUNT II 23. No response required. 24. The allegation of this paragraph constitutes a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff waived any privilege of privacy regarding the statements that he made to Defendant regarding the minor child at the time that he made those statements. 25. The allegation of this paragraph constitutes a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff waived any privilege of privacy regarding the statements that he made to Defendant regarding the minor child at the time that he made those statements. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, together with attorneys fees and costs of suit. NEW MATTER 26. All statements made by Defendant to Donna Miles in the telephone conversation that is alleged to have occurred in Plaintiffs Complaint were true. 27. The truthfulness of those statements is an absolute defense to Plaintiffs claim of slander. 28. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has admitted to at least one other third party that he has, in fact, made the statements concerning the minor child which Defendant related to Donna Miles. 29. Plaintiff waived any right to privacy regarding his thoughts concerning the minor child when he published those thoughts by communicating them verbally to the Defendant. 30. The publication of Plaintiffs thoughts regarding the minor child by his verbal communication to Defendant, and the waiver of any right to privacy thereby, is an absolute defense to Plaintiffs claim of invasion of privacy. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, together with attorneys fees and costs of suit. COUNTERCLAIM 31. The responses to Plaintiffs Complaint, as well as the allegations of new matter raised by Defendant contained in Paragraphs 1 through 30 are incorporated herein by referenced. 32. All statements made by Defendant to Donna Miles in the telephone conversation that is alleged to have occurred in Plaintiffs Complaint were true. 33. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has admitted to at least one other third party that he has, in fact, made the statements concerning the minor child which Defendant related to Donna Miles. 34. Plaintiff is well aware that he did, in fact, make certain statements to the Defendant concerning the minor child which statements were accurately then relayed to Donna Miles, the parent of the minor child. 35. Despite Plaintiffs knowledge that he did, in fact, make such statements regarding the minor child to the Defendant and Plaintiffs admission to a third party that he made such statements, Plaintiff continues to pursue this cause of action. 36. There does not exist any basis whatsoever, either in fact or at law, to holding the Defendant liable to Plaintiff as to any of the allegations made in Plaintiffs Complaint. 37. Plaintiffs Complaint is a frivolous cause of action filed solely for the purpose of extorting a sum of money from the Defendant based upon a cause of action to which he is well aware has no basis whatsoever either in fact or at law for damages which, if in fact they do exist, have resulted from Plaintiffs own actions. Such actions by the Plaintiff is an abuse of the legal process and justifies the awarding of legal fees and costs to the Defendant. 38. Defendant has incurred and will continue to incur legal expenses and costs in defending this action until a final resolution is made. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, together with an award of attorneys fees and costs. Date: 1-4 YKkkr-" Zoot Respectfully submitted, ROBERT P. KLINE, ESQUIRE Court ID #58798 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-2540 Attorney for Defendant VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. 2co Date MARK A. RENDE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter upon Plaintiff, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the 17th day of March, 2005, from New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Shane B. Kope, Esquire 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff C// 1rCS??Yt ? ROBERT P. KLINE, ESQUIRE 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 Attorney for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim upon Plaintiff, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the 17th day of March, 2005, from New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Shane B. Kope, Esquire 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff ROBERT P. KLINE, ESQUIRE 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 Attorney for Defendant w U 3 JO A 3 ? m 3 to PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the the next Argument Court. n matter for CARL EDWIN FRIEDLI, Plaintiff, vs. MARK A. RENDE, Defendant. 1. Matter to be argued: PI, New Matter with Counterclaim 2. Counsel who will argue case: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PI CUMBERLAND COUNTY] PENN NO. 04-6493 CIVIL ACTION - LAW For Plaintiff: Shane B. Kope, Esquire, ID# 92207 Law Offices of Shane B. Kope 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 b. For Defendant: Robert P. Kline, Esquire 714 Bridge Street P.O. Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has? been argument. ?I 4. Argument Court Date: May 4, 2005 LAW OFFICE OF SHANE B. Shane VANIA for r? ?.. _ i ?? 1 ? - ` ! ` _: i } ,,. '. =. <?., CARL EDWIN FRIEDLI, Plaintiff V. MARK A. RENDE, Defendant TO: Carl Edwin Friedli c/o Shane B. Kope, Esquire 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 04-6493 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, 224 ?1 2seS Date ROBERT PETER KLINE, ESQUIRE 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 Attorney for Defendant CARL EDWIN FRIEDLI, Plaintiff V. MARK A. RENDE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-6493 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMENDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes Defendant, Mark A. Rende, by and through his counsel, Robert P. Kline, Esquire, who answers the Complaint of Plaintiff as follows: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted, Byway of clarification, Defendant's residence is located in York County. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted upon information and belief. 5. Admitted upon information and belief. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendant admits that he had a telephone conversation with Donna Miles during which Defendant related to Donna Miles statements that had been made by Plaintiff regarding her son, Joshua Miles. 8. The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 9. The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 10. The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 11. The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 11 The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 13. The allegation of this paragraph is conclusory in nature and no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. 14. The allegation of this paragraph is conclusory in nature and no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded, 15. Denied. All statements made by Defendant to Donna Miles were true. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. 16. The allegation of this paragraph is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. IT Denied. On the contrary, Defendant's factual statements were made out of a genuine concern for the welfare of the minor child. 18. The allegation of this paragraph is beyond the personal knowledge of the Defendant and, therefore, the allegation is denied and proof is demanded. Further, whether or not Defendant had any knowledge of the truthfulness of the statements made by a third parry beyond his control is irrelevant. 19. The allegation of this paragraph is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. 20. The allegation of this paragraph is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. 21. No response required. 22. The allegation of this paragraph is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. By way of further answer, any statements made to Donna Miles in the telephone conversation alleged in this Complaint were true. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, together with costs of suit. COUNT II 23. No response required. 24. The allegation of this paragraph constitutes a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff waived any privilege of privacy regarding the statements that he made to Defendant regarding the minor child at the time that he made those statements. 25. The allegation of this paragraph constitutes a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff waived any privilege of privacy regarding the statements that he made to Defendant regarding the minor child at the time that he made those statements. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, together with attorneys fees and costs of suit. NEW MATTER 26. All statements made by Defendant to Donna Miles in the telephone conversation that is alleged to have occurred in Plaintiffs Complaint were true. 27. The truthfulness of those statements is an absolute defense to Plaintiffs claim of slander. 28. Plaintiff has admitted to at least one other third parry that he has, in fact, made the statements concerning the minor child which Defendant related to Donna Miles. 29. Plaintiff waived any right to privacy regarding his thoughts concerning the minor child when he published those thoughts by communicating them verbally to the Defendant. 30. The publication of Plaintiffs thoughts regarding the minor child by his verbal communication to Defendant, and the waiver of any right to privacy thereby, is an absolute defense to Plaintiffs claim of invasion of privacy. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, together with costs of suit. Date:22 4"t ZoaS Res ectfully submitted, ROBERT P. KLINE, ESQUIRE Court ID 458798 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-2540 Attorney for Defendant VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Amended Answer and New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4404 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date MARK A. RENDE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended Answer and New Matter upon Plaintiff, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre- paid on the 22nd day of April, 2005, from New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Shane B. Kope, Esquire 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff { & -?? ROBERT P. KLINE, ESQUIRE 714 Bridge Street Post Office Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 (717) 770-2540 Attorney for Defendant t` 1.0 Tye. ?. _ THE LAW OFFICE OF SHANE B. KOPE BY: SHANE B. KOPE, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. 92207 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 761-7573 $bkope(o)comcast.net CARL EDWIN FRIEDLI, Plaintiff, vs. MARK A. RENDE, Defendant. Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-6493 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER NOW COMES Plaintiff Carl E. Friedli (hereinafter "Friedli" or "Plaintiff'), by and through his attorney, Shane B. Kope, Esq., and hereby responds to the New Matter of Defendant Mark A. Rende (hereinafter "Rende" or "Defendant") in accordance with the numbered paragraphs therein as follows: 26. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant's statements, and the implications thereof, made to Donna Miles during their telephone conversation were not only false but, defamatory. 27. The allegations set forth in paragraph 27 of Defendants' new matter are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations as set forth are denied. 28. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff as never made any comments whatsoever regarding the minor child, and certainly not the comments as relayed to Donna Miles by Defendant; accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot admit to saying something that he did not say in the first place. 29. The allegations set forth in paragraph 29 of Defendants' new matter are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations as set forth are denied. 30. The allegations set forth in paragraph 30 of Defendants' new matter are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations as set forth are denied. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff denies the averments contained in the Defendant's New Matter and respectfully request that judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendants for damages as set forth more fully in the Plaintiffs Complaint. THE LAW OFFICE OF SHANE B. KOPE Shane B. ope, Esq. Date: May 2, 2005 VERIFICATION I, Carl E. Friedli, Plaintiff in this matter, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer in Response to Defendant's New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: May 3, 2005 Carl E. Friedli CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Shane B. Kope, Esquire, hereby certify that on May 3, 2005, 1 served a copy of the foregoing Answer in Response to Defendant's New Matter by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Robert P. Kline, Esquire 714 Bridge Street P.O. Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461 Attorney for Defendant Shane .Cope, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. # 92207 LAW OFFICE OF SHANE B. KOPE 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tele. (717) 761-7573 Attorney for Plaintiff {J ^} __ -_{ .,.i; r" . i. t? vi _.. ?: j?J ? .' .. Curtis R. Long Prothonotary office of the Protbonotarp CumbPrrartb uCourttp Renee K. Simpson Deputy Prothonotary John E. Slike Solicitor Oq -L493 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE - THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R C P 230.2 BY THE COURT, CURTIS R. LONG PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 • (717) 240-6195 • Fax (717) 240-6571