HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-0995MAJOR CASE/NON-JURY MATTER
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES HEARING IS REQUIRED
?S -Q4S ?rvt
LAW OFFICES OF JEFF B. FEINMAN, P.C.
By: Jeff B. Feinman, Esquire
Identification No. 55765
One Merion Road
Merion Station, PA 19066 Attorney for Plaintiff
(610) 980-0800
HOLLY EVANS
7073 Carlisle Pike, Lot 27
Carlisle, PA 17103
Vs.
JOSEPH EDWARD FRIARY
211 South Market Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
PRAECIPE TO ISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly issue a Writ of Summons in connection with the above matter.
LAW OFFICES OF JEFF B.
BY:
JEFF
, ESQUIRE
RC.
L VI
U
a
Yr
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
WRIT OF SUMMONS
HOLLY EVANS
7073 CARLISLE PIKE, LOT 27
CARLISLE, PA 17013
Plaintiff
Vs.
JOSEPH EDWARD FRIARY
211 SOUTH MARKET STREET
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
Defendant
Court of Common Pleas
No. 05-995 CIVIL TERM
In CivilAction-Law
To JOSEPH EDWARD FRIARY
You are hereby notified that HOLLY EVANS, the Plaintiff has / have
commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend
or a default judgment may be entered against you.
(SEAL)
CURTIS R. LONG
Prothonotary n
Date FEBRUARY 25, 2005 `By ?iia, o Y' C /?L2
Deputy
Attorney:
Name: JEFF B. FEINMAN, ESQUIRE
Address: ONE MERION ROAD
MERION STATION, PA 19066
Attorney for: Plaintiff
Telephone: 610-980-0800
Supreme Court ID No. 55765
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2005-00995 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
EVANS HOLLY
VS
Y JOSEPH EDWARD
BRIAN BARRICK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according
says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon
FRIARY JOSEPH
t
law,
DEFENDANT , at 2116:00 HOURS, on the 23rd day of March , 2005
at CUMBERLAND COUNTY PRISON 1101
CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to
JOSEPH FRIARY
a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together ?ith
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents
Additional Comments
BY LANDLORD THAT
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Service 11.10
Postage .37
Surcharge 10.00
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this day of
o S A.D.
A
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
03/24/2005
JEFF FEINMAN
By:
Deputy
j os ??h E fr; c(r y
Case No.
vs
?F 4 DTs
Statement of Intention to Proceed
To the Court: E C41-` intends to proceed with the above captioned matter.
OS r r ?? ?'
Print Name Sign Name
Date: 1O' 1 -0 D Attorney fbi
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 is 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 esult of delay in prosecution is required
before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of udicial 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. f 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 p0ceed 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 fil?ng 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 30.2.
-TI
a ^ 1
David l). Bueff
Prothonotary
KirkS. Sohonage, ESQ,
Soficitor
z
Renee K. Simpson
1't Deputy Prothonotary
Irene E. 9Yorrow
2 d Deputy Prothonotary
Office of the Prothonotary
Cum6erland County, Tennsykania
n5- 99'!) CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES
AND NOW THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011, 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,
DAVID D. BUELL
PROTHONOTARY
One C'ourthouse Square • Suite 100 • Carfisfe, P,4 17013 9 (717 240-6195 • Ea.X (717 240-6573