The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-0708Linda J. Kingsborough, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. 2005- 76S' CIVIL TERM CAMPUS DOOR, INC., CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons against the defendant, CAMPUS DOOR, INC., and enter my appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, Linda J. Kingsborough. Please direct the Sheriff to serve the defendant as follows: Attention: Damien Q. Elias President and Chief Executive Officer CAMPUS DOOR, INC. 1415 Ritner Highway Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & Mc HT By: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire 60 West Pomfret Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No: 25476 Date: February 8, 2005 To: CAMPUS DOOR, INC. You are hereby notified that Linda J. Kingsborough, plaintiff, has commenced an action against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. et"-T Jl°., „ ta,.:. PROT OTARY By: (2 , a4 DEPUTY Date:lltL? _ Y , 2005 (y? ??? ttt ?? -r C.n c <? F\PILBSVOATA 1L6AGen rMACUranN 1379. 1.praAt& Created 2/11105 2 %PM Revised: 2111105 2:33PM Carl C. Risch, Esquire I.D. 75901 Christopher E. Rice, Esquire I.D. 90916 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, Plaintiff V. CAMPUS DOOR, INC., Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-708 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE Enter the appearance of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO on behalf of the Defendant in the above matter. Issue a rule upon the Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days from service thereof or suffer judgment of non pros. MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO C444 i2_.. Dated: February 11, 2005 Carl C. Risch, Esquire LD_ 75901 Christopher E. Rice, Esquire I.D. 90916 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant RULE AND NOW, this (/ day of February 11, 2005, a Rule is issued upon the Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof. /s4 L'/ ' "(w" iq Prothonotary ??? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Marcus A. McKnight, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF IRWIN & MCK[VIGHT 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 MARTSON DEAF.DORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO z y icia D. Ecken oad East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: February 11, 2005 .5 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-00708 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KINGSBOROUGH LINDA J VS CAMPUS DOOR INC BRIAN BARRICK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn accordinglto law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon CAMPUS DOOR INC DEFENDANT th , at 1445:00 HOURS, on the 11th day of February a 2005 at 1415 RITNER HIGHWAY CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to ELIAS, PRESIDENT, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together w1th and at the same time directing His attention to the contents the Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 3.70 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 31.70 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day ofnAe- j o?G2?1 ! A. D. Prothonotar So Answers: R. 02/14/2005 MARCUS MCKNTG By. Deputy LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, Plaintiff V. CAMPUS DOOR, INC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2005-708 NOTICE TO DEFEND 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, order 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 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 (717) 249-3166 1-800-990-9108 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES Act of 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. 2 LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, Plaintiff V. CAMPUS DOOR, INC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2005-708 COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, by and through her attorneys, & McKnight, and makes the following Complaint against the Defendant, CAMPUS DOOR, INC., follows: 1. The Plaintiff is Linda J. Kingsborough, an adult individual residing at 928 Alexander Spring Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. The Defendant is Campus Door, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation with an address of 1415 Ritner Highway, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The Plaintiff, Linda J. Kingsborough, was hired by the Defendant, Campus Door, Inc., on September 4, 2001, and was hired under the job description of Administrative Assistant. 4. After Plaintiff was hired, she served as Administrative Assistant/Executive Assistant to the President of the Defendant, Mr. Damien Q. Elias. 5. 3 The Plaintiff was promoted on May 1, 2002 to office manager of the Defendant, Campus Door, Inc. and provided a raise in the amount of $8,000.00 to annual salary of $38,000.00. The Plaintiff always received outstanding written evaluations from the Defendant, Campus Door, Inc. 6. The Plaintiff continued in the position of office manager until October 19, 2004 when she was without warning by the Defendant. 7. The Plaintiff's immediate supervisor was the President, Daimen Q. Elias. At least once every six months the President, Damien Q. Elias, stated to the Plaintiff that she had her job with Campus Door, for as long as he owned said company. 8. In the course of her employment, the President, Damien Q. Elias, engaged in a course of conduct demeaned and humiliated the Plaintiff. He would engage in angry outbursts in which he would and scream at the Plaintiff. 9. This course of conduct directed at the Plaintiff caused her to become despondent and depressed. 10. The Defendant, through the actions and statements of the President, Damien Q. Elias, claimed that the President of said company was entitled to treat the Plaintiff as badly as he desired since he owned the Defendant, Campus Door, Inc. 4 The Defendant, employer, Campus Door, Inc., knew that the Plaintiff was seeking medical help to cope with the depression caused by the conduct of the President, Damien Q. Elias. 12. When the Plaintiff explained that she needed on-going medical treatment from her family doctor, William Phalen, the Defendant, through the President, Damien Q. Elias, terminated her employment. 13. The conduct of the Defendant's President breached the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Campus Door, Inc. The employer, Defendant, through its president repeatedly promised the Plaintiff on-going employment. Based upon those promises, the Plaintiff did not seek other employment or the specialized training which would have been available to her. 14. At the time of her termination, the Plaintiff, Linda J. Kingsborough, was earning $46,500.00 per annum. Since her termination on October 19, 2004, she has sustained in excess of $25,000.00 in wage loss. 15. In addition to the above, the Plaintiff lost employee benefits including stock options, retirement and health insurance. These losses exceed $1,500.00 per month and are continuing. 5 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Linda J. Kingsborough, seeks damages, which are in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand and no/100 ($25,000.00) Dollars with the cost of this action and interest as permitted by law. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & McKNIGHT By: Date: May 3, 2005 Marcus A McKnigh , E Supreme ua .#: 25476 60 West Po ret Street Carlisle, P 17013 (717) 249- 353 Attorney for e Plaintiff GIMMcKNIGHT/LITIGATIONIKINGSBOROUGH. LINDVCOMPLAINT-KINGSBOROUGH 6 VERIFICATION The foregoing Complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by counsel myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this document they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, to unworn falsification to authorities. i s EI 7 J.I SB UGH May 3 2005 7 LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CAMPUS DOOR, INC., NO. 2005-708 Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached document was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows: Carl C. Risch, Esq. Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 IRWIN & By:' Marcus Ar1177 igh" 60 West P treet Carlisle, P (717) 2 49-2353- Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476 Date: May 4, 2005 r?? r?; ra O -_? -ii "? .-i -"`. ? ? ?-? n ? t ?. .F? -.y ':i ?? -?? -??, t ? ? . (.4 ; FAFILESVDATAFILFVGencrelACunenlAI 1379.2.po Created 519/05 934AM Revised'. 5/13105 11 18AM Carl C. Risch, Esquire I.D. 75901 Hillary A. Dean, Esquire I.D. 92878 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, Plaintiff V. CAMPUS DOOR, INC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-708 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT TO: LINDA J. KINGSBOROGH, Plaintiff, and her attorney, MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III, ESQUIRE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Campus Door, Inc., by and through its attorneys, Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, and hereby preliminarily objects to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: On May 4, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking damages for breach of contract between Plaintiff and Campus Door, Inc. 2. In Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that she was employed by the Defendant as an Administrative Assistant/Executive Assistant. 3. In Paragraph 7, Plaintiff alleged, "At least once every six (6) months the President, Damien Q. Elias, stated to the Plaintiff that she had her job with Campus Door, Inc. for as long as he owned said company." 4. Nowhere in Plaintiff's Complaint does she allege that she was hired by Campus Door, Inc. under a written contract for employment for any definite period of time. OBJECTION I LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY UNDER PA. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) (DEMURRER) 5. Paragraphs 1 through 4 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 6. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state the elements necessary to allege the existence of a contract between the parties. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to allege that any consideration was given for Defendant's alleged statements that Plaintiff, "had her job with Campus Door, Inc. for as long as he owned said company." 8. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to allege that any statements made by Defendant comprised a contract between the parties. 9. Pennsylvania law is clear in holding that an employer's oral promises of permanent employment are insufficient to create an enforceable obligation on the part of the employer. Mumhv v. Publicker Industries, Inc. , 516 A.2d 47 (Pa.Super.1986). See also Preobrazhenskaya v. Mercy Hall Infirmary, 2002 WL 32396244 (W.D.Pa. 2002) *4 (for a comprehensive discussion of employment contracts and promises of permanent employment). 10. Contracts for employment for an indefinite duration are insufficient to overcome the presumption that an employee is an at-will employee as a matter of law. Murphy v. Publicker Industries, Inc., 516 A.2d 47(Pa. Super. 1986). 11. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to allege that the Plaintiff justifiably relied on a statement regarding Plaintiffs indeterminable length of employment. 12. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was an at-will employee who, under Pennsylvania law, could be terminated by her employer at any time for any reason (or lack of reason). 13. The Complaint is insufficient as a matter of law to establish an employment contract between the parties. WHEREFORE, this Court is asked to sustain Defendant's preliminary objections on the ground of legal insufficiency and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Carl C. Risch, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.75901 Hillary A. Dean, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 92878 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: May'3 , 2005 Attorneys for Defendant LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, Plaintiff V. CAMPUS DOOR, INC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-708 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER AND NOW, this day of 2005, in consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, said objections are SUSTAINED, and the Complaint is dismissed. By the Court: J Carl C. Risch, Esquire I.D. 75901 Hillary A. Dean, Esquire I.D. 92878 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-708 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CAMPUS DOOR, INC., Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hillary A. Dean, an authorized agent for Mattson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Marcus A. McKnight, Esquire IRWIN & McKNIGHT 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO BY 1 ( ?? illary A. Dean squire Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 F? ?1 [_ .--1 ??? C W ?? -? ? i p.: ? <_'\ ::: .._ .? f `: PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) LINDA J. (Plaintiff) Vs. CAMPUS DOOR, INC. (Defendant) No. 708 Civil. XW 2005 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., Plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurer to complaint, etc.): Defendant's Preliminary objections to Plaintiff`s Commlaint 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Address: 60 West Pcmfret Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) for defendant: Carl C. Risch, Esquire Address: 10 East High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: July 6, 2005 p?TI cr?.r' ? (, T `' VtTC. n _, , i>- ,aC1 ,, 4 \, ,', ?' l .4 lµ ? ',? S'. LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, PLAINTIFF V. CAMPUS DOOR, INC., DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 05-0708 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5 day of August, 2005, the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff's complaint, IS GRANTED. Plaintiffs complaint, IS By the,.Coui Edgar B. Bayley, J. v4atthew A. McKnight, Esquire For Plaintiff /arl Risch, Esquire For Defendant sal (( 3 D?.U O THE" P 2005 AUG -2 i'!I ;.,, G'i -V Oki LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, PLAINTIFF V. CAMPUS DOOR, INC., DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 05-0708 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., August 1, 2005:-- Plaintiff, Linda J. Kingsborough, filed a complaint against defendant, Campus Door, Inc. Plaintiff avers that defendant hired her as an administrative assistant on September 4, 2001. She worked for the president of the company, Damien Q. Elias. On May 1, 2002, she was promoted to office manager and given a raise of $8,000, which increased her earnings to $38,000 per annum. She was earning $46,500 per annum when she was fired on October 19, 2004. Plaintiff alleges: The Plaintiff's immediate supervisor was the President, Daimen [sic] Q. Elias. At least once every six (6) months the President Damien Q. Elias, stated to the Plaintiff that she had her job with Campus Door, Inc. for as long as he owned said company. In the course of her employment, the President, Damien Q. Elias, engaged in a course of conduct which demeaned and humiliated the Plaintiff. He would engage in angry outbursts in which he would yell and scream at the Plaintiff. This course of conduct directed at the Plaintiff caused her to become despondent and depressed. The Defendant, through the actions and statements of the President, Damien Q. Elias, claimed that the President of said company was entitled to treat the Plaintiff as badly as he desired since he owned the Defendant, Campus Door, Inc. 05-0708 CIVIL TERM The Defendant, employer, Campus Door, Inc., knew that the Plaintiff was seeking medical help to cope with the depression caused by the conduct of the President, Damien Q. Elias. When the Plaintiff explained that she needed on-going medical treatment from her family doctor, Dr. William Phalen, the Defendant, through the President, Damien Q. Elias, terminated her employment. (Emphasis added.) Seeking damages in excess of $25,000, plaintiff avers: The conduct of the Defendant's President breached the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Campus Door, Inc. The employer, Defendant, through its president repeatedly promised the Plaintiff on-going employment. Based upon those promises, the Plaintiff did not seek other employment or the specialized training which would have been available to her. (Emphasis added.) Defendant filed a preliminary objection in the form of a demurrer to plaintiff's complaint. The objection was briefed and argued on July 6, 2005. The standard for ruling on a demurrer is whether, accepting as true all well-pled allegations of material fact and the inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, the law states with certainty that no recovery is possible. Selfspot, Inc. v. Butler County Family YMCA, 818 A.2d 587 (Pa. Commw. 2003). In Pennsylvania, an employee must prove that the employer and employee had an intention to overcome an at-will presumption to create a different employment relationship. See Veno v. Meredith, 357 Pa. Super. 85 (1986). The Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated in Veno: The most elementary way that the parties can overcome the at-will presumption is by express contract. For example, a contract may be made for a definite term, or it may forbid discharge in the absence of just cause or without first utilizing an internal dispute resolution mechanism. The presumption may also be overcome by implied contract. That is, all -2- 05-0708 CIVIL TERM of the surrounding circumstances of the hiring may indicate that the parties did not intend the employment to be "at-will". Another way that the at-will presumption may be overcome is where the employee gives the employer sufficient consideration in addition to the services for which he was hired. With one exception, definiteness in the duration of a term of employment is required to overcome the at-will presumption. See Darlington v. General Electric, 350 Pa. Super. 183 (1986). The exception is where an employee can prove that the employer agreed to employ the employee for life or permanently, and that the employee gave the employer sufficient additional consideration for this promise over and above the employee's services. Murphy v. Publicker Industries, Inc., 357 Pa. Super. 409 (1986), citing Lucacher v. Kerson, 158 Pa. Super. 437 (1946). Additional consideration is present when an employee affords an employer a substantial benefit other than the services which the employee is hired to perform, or when the employee undergoes a substantial hardship other than the services for which the employee is hired to perform. Darlington, supra. In the case sub judice, any forbearance by plaintiff of not seeking other employment or the specialized training that would have been available to her would not have afforded defendant a substantial benefit other than the services which plaintiff was hired to perform. Plaintiff has not pled that when she was hired by defendant it was other than at-will. Rather, she alleges that she was subsequently promised by Damien Elias that as long as he owned Campus Door, Inc., she would be employed. Plaintiff maintains that her additional consideration in reliance on these promises is adequately pleaded by her having continued to work for defendant despite being -3- 05-0708 CIVIL TERM demeaned, humiliated and verbally abused. She argues in her brief that "[h]aving to endure such continuous outbursts was not something [she] was hired to perform." If proven, however, such poor working conditions would not constitute other services for which she was hired to perform. Working for a lousy boss instead of a good one is not other service that would constitute the additional consideration necessary to support a claim for damages resulting from being fired from a job that was promised for an indefinite period. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2005, the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff's complaint, IS GRANTED. Plaintiffs complaint, IS By the Edgar B. Bayley, Matthew A. McKnight, Esquire For Plaintiff Carl Risch, Esquire For Defendant :sal -4- LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, Plaintiff vs Case No. 2005-0708 CIVIL TERM CAMPUS DOOR, INC. To the Court: Defendant Statement of Intention to Proceed LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name MARCUS A. MCKNIGHT, III Sign Name Date: OCTOBER 27, 2008 Attorney for PLAINTIFF Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case. they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. L`} rv -- r i7D x. w co --C LINDA J. KINGSBOROUGH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . ~ c~. CAMPUS DOOR, INC., . NO. 2005 - 0708 CIVIL TERM ~l C:) Defendant . ~ ` a = tv , ~ , ~ . t STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED TO THE COURT: Linda J. Kingsborough, Plaintiff, intends to proceed with the above-captioned matter. I Respectfully Submitted: I IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. ~ Marcus A. cKni ht, I, Esq. Supreme Court ID 76 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: October 21, 2011