The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-1356 LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., Y. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG husband and wife and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. G1 ~ -13'~~ civil CIVIL ACTON -LAW Defendants :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, 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 (800) 990-9108 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accibn dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes Para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INi'ORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALdFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (800)990-9108 SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. i , r' Dated: 2j ~ ~' ~~ By ~~v~U 1.~1. S WUN Keith A. Clark, LD. #06244 Melissa A. Swauger #82382 P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)763-1121 Attorney for Plaintiff LIBERTY FORGE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HOSPITAL[TY, INC., :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff . v. No. Civil HOWARD KRUG and :CIVIL ACTION -LAW RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., by and through its counsel, Shumaker Williams, P.C., and states the following: 1. Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation with its registered address as 3425 Simpson Ferry Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011, Cumberland County. 2. Defendant, Howard B. Krug, is an adult individual who resides at 1400 Montfort Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110, Dauphin County. 3. Defendant, Ruth Ann Krug, is an adult individual who resides at ]400 Montfort Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 171 L0, Dauphin County. 4. Defendant, Karl Bau, is an adult individual who is believed to reside at 65640 Avon Court, Naperville, Illinois 60540. 5. Defendant, Wendy Bau, is an adult individual who is believed to reside at 65640 Avon Court, Naperville, Illinois 60540. 6. In March 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug contacted Plaintiff about hosting the wedding and reception of their daughter, Defendant Wendy Bau. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug wanted the wedding to be held in Plaintiff's gazebo and the reception to be held in Plaintiff s tent. 8. On April 20, 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug executed Plaintiffs Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract and chose Plaintiff to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. A true and correct copy of the contract is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 9. By April 21, 20041etter, Defendant Howard Krug forwarded the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form executed by his wife to Plaintiffand sent Plaintiffa check in the amount of $1,937.70, representing the required 15% deposit of the estimated charges for Defendants Wendy and Kar] Bau's wedding and reception. 10. In June or July 2004, Defendants advised Plaintiff that they hired a band to play at the reception, but did not advise Plaintiff of the band's start and end time. 11. On August 7, 2004, Plaintiff s employees met with Defendants about the details for the wedding and reception scheduled for September 5, 2004. 12. At this meeting, Plaintiffs employees advised Defendants that Plaintiff needed to comply with all Pennsylvania liquor laws regarding noise and local ordinances regulating noise. 13. In addition, Plaintiff s employees advised Defendants that, pursuant to Pennsylvania liquor laws regarding noise and local ordinances regulating noise, Plaintiff could only allow a disc jockey to play in the tent. 14. During this meeting, Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug met and spoke to another weddingclientofPlaintiff, who was having their daughter's wedding reception atPlaintift's facility, and Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug learned that this client's daughter had to move her reception from the tent into the Wedge Restaurant because she hired a band and, in order to comply with Pennsylvania liquor laws regarding noise and the local ordinance regulating noise, Plaintiff could not allow a live band to play in the tent. 15. Also at this meeting, Defendants scheduled a rehearsal dinner for 62 people to be held at Plaintiff's facility on September 4, 2004 at 730 p.m. 16. In August 2004, Defendants guaranteed that 188 guests would attend the reception on September 5, 2004. 17. Under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug was required to pay, no later than August 22, 2004, Plaintiff s charges for audio visual and miscellaneous set up, renting its facility, serving dinner and desserts to 188 guests, and serving alcohol. 18. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 19. On September 2, 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug advised Plaintiffls employee of the band's start and end time and, for the first time, advised Plaintiff that the band would play until 12:00 a.m. 20. Plaintiff s employee advised Defendant Ruth Ann Krug that the band could notplay in the tent so that Plaintiffcou]d comply with Pennsylvania liquor laws regarding noise and the local ordinance regulating noise. 21. Because Defendants wanted a live band to play in the tent on September 5, 2004, Defendants met with one of Plaintiff s employees on September 4, 2004 to settle the issues with the music. 22. At this meeting, Plaintiff s employee advised Defendants that ifthey wanted the band to play, they would have to move that part of their reception inside to the Wedge Restaurant and have the dinner in the tent to accommodate the large number of guests; otherwise, Plaintiff would be a violating Pennsylvania liquor laws regarding noise and the local ordinance regulating noise. 23. Because Defendants wanted the band to play, they agreed to move that portion of their reception inside to the Wedge Restaurant and have the dinner in the tent. As an accommodation, Plaintiff agreed not to charge Defendants for (1) a disc jockey to play in the tent during dinner, (2) the use of the Wedge Restaurant, (3) the rental of a dance floor, (4) decorating the Cumberland Room, located in the Wedge Restaurant, with flowers, and (5) hors d'ouevers and snacks. 24. On September 4, 2004 after the meeting, Defendant Wendy Bau provided Plaintiff with the following schedule for the September 5, 2004 wedding: 6:30 p.m. wedding music begins; 6:45 p.m. wedding ceremony begins; 7;15 p.m. cocktail hour begins; 8:15 p.m. reception begins in tent and disc jockey plays; 8:45 p.m. salad served; 9:25 p.m. main course served; and 10:15 p.m. move to Wedge Restaurant for cake cutting, dessert, and band begins playing. 25. The rehearsal dinner was held at Plaintiffs facility on September 4, 2004 and 62 people attended. 26. Even though Defendants only guaranteed 188 guests, 189 guests actually attended the wedding and reception. 4 27. Afer the wedding, Plaintiffserved hors d'ouevers and snacks on the terrace patio and dinner in the tent and a disc jockey provided music. 28. Plaintiff provided an open bar to guests during dinner and the reception. 29. Plaintiff made desserts available to the guests on two large trays in the deck area, as requested by Defendants at the September 4`h meeting, and served wedding cake in the Wedge Restaurant. 30. The band played in the Wedge Restaurant from 10:15 p.m. until 130 a.m., but the band could have played unti12:00 a.m., which is the time limit allowed bylaw in that facility. 31. After the reception, Defendants and guests expressed their gratitude, including hugs by the bride and Defendants, to Plaintiff's employees for their attention to detail, service, and food. 32. According to the Defendants, the wedding and reception were successful. 33. In addition, afrer the reception, Plaintiff provided complimentary transportation in its company van to a nearby hotel for some of Defendants' guests. 34. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug ordered the flowers for the tent area with her own florist and had her florist decorate the tent area; Plaintiff was not responsible for the flowers in the tent area. 35. Plaintiffprovidedflowers inthe Cumberland Room ofthe Wedge Restaurant, which cost Plaintiff $588.00, but Plaintiff did not charge Defendants for these flowers. 36. Plaintiffpaid a disc jockey $595.00 to perform on September 5, 2004 during dinner; Plaintiff did not charge Defendants for the disc jockey service. 37. Plaintiff paid $1,200.00 to rent a dance floor, which the Defendants ordered; however, Plaintiff did not charge the Defendants for renting a dance floor. 5 38. An invoice for the wedding and reception held at Plaintiff's facility on September 5, 2004 was sent to the Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug on three separate occasions in September 2004 because Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to pay Plaintiff 14 days prior to the event in accordance with the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 39. Under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug was charged a total of $3,164.40 for the rehearsal dinner held on September 4, 2004 and $19,431.20 wedding and reception held on September 5, 2004. A true and correct copy of the invoice is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 40. At the rehearsal dinner on September 4, 2004, Plaintiff charged Defendant Ruth Ann Krug $2,170.00 for the buffet rehearsal dinner served to 62 people, $358.50 for the alcohol served, $130.20 for sales tax, and $505.70 for gratuity. 41. DefendantHowardKrugpaidPlaintiff$3,164.40on September 4, 2004 forthebuffet rehearsal dinner, alcohol served at the rehearsal dinner, tax, and gratuity. 42. Plaintiff did not charge for the hors d'ouevers and snacks that were served on September 5, 2004. 43. Plaintiffcharged $318.00 forrentingthe Liberty Gazebo, but did not charge forusing Plaintiffls tent, deck, terrace patio, and Cumberland Room in the Wedge Restaurant. 44. Plaintiffcharged $10,968.30 for the 188 dinners and desserts served to guests, which amount includes service charges and taxes. 45. Plaintiffcharged $7,104.90 for the alcohol consumed at the reception, which amount includes service charges. 6 46. Plaintiffcharged $1,040.00 for the audio visual and miscellaneous setup, but did not charge Defendants $1,200.00 for the rented dance floor. 47. Plaintiff only collected a deposit of $1,937.70 from Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug and payment For the rehearsal dinner, leaving a balance of $17,493.50 due to Plaintiff under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. See Exhibit "B." 48. AttheendofSeptember2004,whenPlaintiffsinvoicefortheweddingandreception was not paid, Plaintiff charged Defendant Howard Krug's credit card, which was given to Plaintiff by him at the rehearsal dinner on September 4, 2004. 49. Thereafter, Defendant Howard Krug disputed the credit card charges by Plaintiff, alleging he was not a signatory on the Plaintiffs Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 50. However, all of the Defendants were involved in the planning, negotiation, and scheduling of Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. S L In addition, Defendant Howard Krug is an attorney and was an integral part in planning Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 52. AlloftheDefendantsrequestedthatPlaintiffhostDefendantsWendyandKarlBau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. 53. In addition, Defendant Wendy Bau confirmed, by written directive to Plaintiffprior to the event, the details, exact venue locations, and procedures For the wedding and reception and Plaintiff complied with such written directive. 7 54. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffbelievesthat Defendant Howard Krug alleged facts and circumstances to the credit card company to secure a reversal of charges to their credit card account, which were not accurate and may constitute further evidence of the claims stated in this Complaint and/or libel. 55. Accordingly, to date, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff the balance of $17,493.50 for audio visual and miscellaneous set up, renting its facility, serving dinner and desserts to 188 guests, and serving alcohol on September 5, 2004. Count I Breach of Contract Plaintiff vs. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug 56. Paragraphs 1 through 55 above are incorporated herein by reference. 57. On April 20, 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug executed Plaintiffls Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract and Defendants chose Plaintiff to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. See Exhibit "A." 58. On Apri122, 2004, Plaintiff executed the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. Id. 59. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug understood and knew that a material term of the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract was that she would have to pay an additional deposit of 50% of the estimated charges 90 days prior to the wedding and reception. 60. The Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract provides that "[a]n additional deposit of 50% of estimated charges shall be due ninety (90) days prior to the event." Id. at 1. 8 61. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug breached the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract by not paying Plaintiff the additional deposit of 50% ofthe estimated charges, which amounted to $6,459.00, 90 days prior to September 5, 2004. 62. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug understood and knew that a material term of the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract was that she would pay in full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception based upon the guaranteed minimum no later than August 22, 2004, 14 days before the wedding and reception. 63. The Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract provides that "[fJull payment for the Event shall be due fourteen (14) days prior to the Event based upon the guaranteed minimum provided by Patron." Id. at 1-2. 64. The Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract further provides, in pertinent part: Payment in Advance: Unless credit has been established in advance by Patron with Liberty Forge, payment in full of the entire contract price must be made in cash, approved check or credit card fourteen (14) days prior to the Event.... Payment in advance shall include all beer, wine, and liquor to be consumed at the event, if being done on a consumption basis. Credit for unopened bottles will be given following the event. Prior to the Event, patron agrees to provide Liberty Forge with credit card information sufficient to cover incidental charges, additional food and beverage ordered or supplied or for damage that may occur the day of or during the Event as set forth below. Patron agrees to such amounts as may be charged to their credit card(s) with the provision that such amounts are deemed reasonable by the patron. la. at z. 65. Finally the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract provides "Service Charge. Twenty (20) percent is the standard service charge." Id. 66. In August 2004, Defendants guaranteed that 188 guests would be at the reception on September 5, 2004. 9 67. Under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug was obligated to pay Plaintiff's charges for audio visual and miscellaneous setup, renting its facility, serving dinner and desserts to 188 guests, and serving alcohol no later than August 22, 2004, 14 days before the wedding and reception. 68. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 69. At the rehearsal dinner on September 4, 2004, Defendant Howard Krug provided Plaintiff with a credit card to pay Plaintiff's charges. 70. An invoice for the wedding and reception held at Plaintiffs facility on September 5, 2004 was sent to the Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug on three separate occasions after the wedding because Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to pay Plaintiff 14 days before the wedding and reception in accordance with the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 71. Thereafter, Defendant Howard Krug disputed the credit card charges by Plaintiff, alleging he was not a signatory on the Plaintiff's Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 72. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffbelieves that Defendant Howard Krug alleged facts and circumstances to the credit card company to secure a reversal of charges to their credit card account, which were not accurate and may constitute further evidence of Defendant's breach ofthe contract and/or libel. 10 73. Accordingly, to date, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug has failed to pay Plaintiffthe balance of $17,493.50 for audio visual and miscellaneous set up, renting its facility, serving dinner and desserts to 188 guests, and serving alcohol on September 5, 2004, pursuant to the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 74. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug breached the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract by not paying Plaintiff in full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 75. Plaintiff only collected a deposit of $1,937.70 from Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug and payment for the rehearsal dinner, leaving a balance of $17,493.50 due to Plaintiff under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. ee Exhibit "B." 76. Plaintiff s damages as a result of Defendant Ruth Ann Krug's breaches of the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract include, but are not limited to: $318.00 for renting the Liberty Gazebo to Defendants, $10,968.30 for the 188 dinners and desserts served to guests, which amount includes service charges and taxes, $7,104.90 for the alcohol consumed at the reception, which amount includes service charges, and $1,040.00 for the audio visual and miscellaneous set up. 77. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug's various breaches of the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract have caused and continues to cause damages to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant Ruth Ann Krug and award Plaintiffdamages inthe amount of$17,493.5Q plus interest, costs, and such other reliefas the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. Count iI Third-Party Beneficiary Plaintiff vs. Defendants Wendy Bau and Karl Bau 78. Paragraphs 1 through 77 above are incorporated herein by reference. 79. On April 20, 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug executed Plaintiffs Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract and chose Plaintiff to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. See Exhibit "A." 80. Plaintiff intended to and did host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. Id. 81. Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau were the intended beneficiaries of the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 82. Defendants Wendy and Kar] Bau fial]y participated in discussions and meetings with Plaintiff s employees regarding their wedding and reception. 83. In addition, Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau agreed to the terms and conditions of Plaintiff s Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 84. In addition, Defendant Wendy Bau sent Plaintiff a final, detailed schedule of their wedding events on September 4, 2004. 85. To date, Plaintiff has only been paid a deposit of $ ] ,937.70 for hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004, 12 86. As a result, Plaintiff's damages from hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception, include, but are not limited to: $318.00 For renting the Liberty Gazebo to Defendants, $10,968.30 for the 188 dinners and desserts served to guests, which amount includes service charges and taxes, $7,104.90 for the alcohol consumed at the reception, which amount includes service charges, and $1,040.00 for the audio visual and miscellaneous set up. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau and award Plaintiff damages in the amount of $17,493.50, plus interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. Count III Unjust Enrichment Plaintiff vs. Al] Defendants 87. Paragraphs 1 through 86 above are incorporated herein by reference. 88. Plaintiffhas conferred a benefit upon Defendants by hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception at its facility on September 5, 2004 in accordance with the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 89. Defendants knowingly acceptedthisbenefitandallowedPlaintifftohostDefendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception at its facility on September 5, 2004. 90. Allowing Defendants to retain the benefit of not paying for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception, which was hosted by Plaintiff, is grossly unjust to Plaintiff. 91. Plaintiff is entitled to the value of hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 13 92. To date, Plaintiff has only been paid a deposit of $1,937.70 for hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. 93. Accordingly, Plaintiff s damages from hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception, include, but are not limited to: $318.00 for renting the Liberty Gazebo to Defendants; $10,968.30 for the 188 dinners and desserts served to guests, which amount includes service charges and taxes; $7,104.90 for the alcohol consumed at the reception, which amount includes service charges; $1,040.00 for the audio visual and miscellaneous set up; $588.00 for flowers in the Cumberland Room and Wedge Restaurant; $595.00 for a disc jockey to perform on September 5, 2004 during dinner; $1,200.00 for renting a dance floor; and $2,820.00 for providing hors d'oeuvres and snacks to 188 guests; and allowing Defendants to use the Wedge Restaurant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., respectfu]ly requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants and award Plaintiff damages in the amount of $22,696.50, plus interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. CountlV Fraud Plaintiff vs. All Defendants 94. Paragraphs 1 through 93 above are incorporated herein by reference. 95. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff in full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 14 96. Defendants agreed thatPlaintiff, in its sole discretion, could move Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception from the reserved venue to another available venue at Plaintiff's facility. 97. Defendants agreed to conduct Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception in full compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 98. Defendants agreed that Plaintiff had the right to approve, terminate, and/or control the volume of any band at Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's reception. 99. Defendants' representation to pay in full was material to this transaction because Plaintiff would not have hosted Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception if it thought it was not going to receive payment for the services it provided to Defendants. 100. Defendants' representation to allow Plaintiff, in its sole discretion, to move Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception from the tent to another available venue was material to Plaintiff when deciding to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 101. Defendants' representation to comply with all federal, state, and local laws was material to Plaintiff when deciding to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 102. Defendants' representation to allow Plaintiff to control the noise of the band Defendants hired to play at Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's reception was material to Plaintiff when deciding to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 15 103. Defendants' representation to pay Plaintiff in full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception was false and Defendants knew that such statement was false when they made it. 104. Defendants' representation to allow Plaintiff, in its sole discretion, to move Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception from the tent to another available venue was false and Defendants knew that such representation was false when they made it. 105. Defendants' representation to comply with all federal, state, and local laws was false and Defendants knew that such representation was false when they made it. 106. Defendants' representation to allow Plaintiff to control the noise of the band they hired to play at Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's reception was false and Defendants knew that such representation was false when they made it. 107. Defendants knew that Plaintiff expected it would get paid for hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 108. Defendants agreed to pay for the wedding and reception with the intent to induce Plaintiff to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 109. Defendants never had any intention ofpaying P(aintiffin full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 110. AttheendofSeptember2004,whenPlaintiffsinvoicefortheweddingandreception was not paid, Plaintiff charged Defendant Howard Krug's credit card, which was given to Plaintiff by Defendants at the rehearsal dinner on September 4, 2004, for the invoice amount. 16 111. Thereafter, Defendant Howard Krug disputed the credit card charges by Plaintiff, alleging he was not a signatory on the Plaintiff's Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 112. AlloftheDefendantsrequestedthatPlaintiffhostDefendantsWendyandKarlBau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. 1 13. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffbelieves that Defendant Howard Krug alleged facts and circumstances to the credit card company to secure a reversal of charges to their credit card account, which were not accurate and may constitute further evidence of fraud and/or libel. 1 l4. Defendants knew that Plaintiff, a Licensee, had to comply with the Pennsylvania liquor laws. 115. Defendants knew Plaintiff could not allow a band to play in its tent due to a local ordinance controlling noise. 116. ]n fact, Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug knew that another wedding client of Plaintiff had to move their daughter's reception from the tent to the W edge Restaurant so that the band they hired could play in the tent. 117. Defendants said they would allow Plaintiffto move the venue ofDefendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception with the intent to induce Plaintiffto host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 118. Defendants represented thatthey would comply with all federal, state, and local taws with the intent to induce Plaintiffto host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 17 119. Defendants represented that they would allow Plaintiff to control the noise of the band they hired with the intent to induce Plaintiff to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 120. Defendants never had any intention of complying with Pennsylvania liquor laws or local ordinance regulating noise. 121. During the August 7, 2004 meeting with Plaintiffls employees, Defendant Howard Krug claimed that because his daughter was having a Jewish wedding, the First Amendment would protect Plaintiff if the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board fined Plaintiff for a noise violation. 122. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendants' representation to pay for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception and, thus, hosted Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 123. Plaintiff justifiably re]ieduponDefendants'representationto allowPlaintifftomove the venue of Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 124. PlaintiffjustifiablyrelieduponDefendants'representationtocomplywithallfederal, state, and local laws. 125. PlaintiffjustifiablyrelieduponDefendants'representationtocontrolthenoiseofthe band Defendants hired. 126. Plaintiff was damaged because it relied upon Defendants' representation to pay Plaintiff in full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 18 127. Specifically, Plaintiff hosted Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004 and incurred damages that include, but are not limited to: $318.00 for renting the Liberty Gazebo to Defendants, $10,968.30 for the 188 dinners and desserts served to guests, which amount includes service charges and taxes, $7,104.90 for the alcohol consumed at the reception, which amount includes service charges, and $1,040.00 for the audio visual and miscellaneous set up. 128. Plaintiff was damaged because it relied upon Defendants' representation to allow Plaintiff to move the venue of Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 129. Plaintiff was damaged because it relied upon Defendants' representation to comply with all federal, state, and local laws. 130. Specifically, Plaintiff s additional damages include, but are not limited to: $588.00 for flowers in the Cumberland Room and Wedge Restaurant; $595.00 for a disc jockey to perform on September 5, 2004 during dinner; $1,200.00 for renting a dance floor; and $2,820.00 for providing hors d'oeuvres and snacks to 188 guests; and allowing Defendants to use the Wedge Restaurant. 131. Defendants' conduct ofallowing Plaintiffto host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception with no intention ofpaying for the services Plaintiff rendered to Defendants is outrageous, malice, and wanton disregard of Plaintiff. 132. Defendants agreed to move the reception to the Wedge Restaurant, have a disc jockey play in the tent, and have the band play in the Wedge Restaurant. 19 133. After the reception, all of the Defendants expressed their gratitude to Plaintiffs employees for their attention to detail, service, and food, but knew they would never pay Plaintiff for the services Plaintiff rendered. 134. Defendants advised Plaintiff that Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception were successful, despite their intention not to pay for it. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants and award Plaintiffdamages in an amount in excess of the mandatory arbitration amount of $25,000.00, plus punitive damages, interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated ~J' ~ ~' ~~ :175025 By ~j~xn ~. S ~yWJG~~ Keith A. Clark, I.D. #06249 Melissa A. Swauger #82382 P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (7]7)'763-1121 20 ~ -' \/ ~ 3804 Lisburn Road, lllechazucsb~ug, PA 17Q5~- Phone: 777-79~-9380 Fax: 717-79~- MaiG~ Addre9s: PA- Boz 1229, Camp Hill, P9 I700]-1229 Food 8 Beverage Standard Reservation Form Event Name: Krug/Bau Wedding Salesperson_ MarkeOng Department Customer Narne: Ruth Ann iCtug (4!10) Contact_ Ruth Ann Krug Address: 1400 Montfort Drive, Business Phorre: (717) 234-7224 City: Harrisburg State: PA Zip= 17110 Home Phona: Booking IDft 366 Fax: Thank you for choosing to hest your event at Liberty Forge. The staff at Liberty Forge is dedicated to making the event special for you and your guests. If at any time we can be of service, please do not hesitate t0 approach on of our staff fc assistance. We wiA be grad to help. Please verify the information below as it wiS1 help you and us better prepare for yov r event. Guarantea Deposit • Patron shah, at least fourteen (14) days prior to Me date of Event, specify in writing to Liberty Forge the exact number to be in attendance. This number shall constitute a gua2nteed minimum and Patron will be charged accordingly. At the time of signing this agreement, Patron shat! pay a deposit of 15% of estimated Event Charges: An additional deposit of 50°.6 of estimated charges shat Ue due ninety (90) days prior fo fhe event $1,937.70 56,459.00 Number in Attendance: • PaVOn shall, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the Evenk specify in writing to liberty Forge the e>mct number to be In attendance. This number shaD constitute a guaranteed minimum and Patron will be charged accordingly. FuM payment for the Event shaD be due fourteen (14} days prior to the Event based upon the guaranteed minimum provided by Patron. • Patron stroll, at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of Event, spedfy to Liberty Forge the final count for the Event Terms and Conditions • Standard Reservation Terms and Condfions on the following Pages shop apply to all Events. Date_ ~~ 5t8Yt-EMpFT$15e>•. .: ~§tt=. 3lT' _ _ _ - - _RUOfiI _ . ~,. '3~errfal 09/OSROOd 05:30 pa -06:00 pm Mectine TBD ~ - Pcansxlvaairr Room 50.00 D9/05lLODJ 06:30 pm - 07:30 prn Weddr°~ Cere:mo 'Ibeater 200 Liberty Gazebo 5300.00 09/052004 07:30 pm -12.30 am Wedding Ree tioa Banged - oonds 200 Liberty liiL ?op St1:00 Cat _> .Ghat+ge3= =t3l5c ~ _..SfV;'6Rr"g== '`-°SutyTtst~- :e'~a_f-~ :-T6dt.2; '~it3= Total Room Rental 5300.00 SD.00 50.00 S~•~ Std.DO 50.00 50.00 ,S,?1e,00 idio Vlcual3 Mice Se4rp 50.00 SD_DD SO.DO 50.00 50.00 50.00 SO.DD SO.OD Bat Services 50.00 SD.OD SO.DD 50.00 SO.DO 50.00 50.00 50.00 Fovd 8 Beverage St O,OO0.0D SO,OD S~OD0.00 112,000.00 SWO_DO SD.DO 50.00 512,600.00 arkingfrraMc Control 50.00 50.00 L0.00 SD.DD SD.DD SDDO W_OD SD.DO Rvcreadon 50.00 SO.DO 50.00 SO.OD f0_DO SO.DO SD.DO SD.00 Grand Totals 510,300.00 SD.OD 52000.00 312.300.00 S6t B.DD SD.OD 50.00 St2,978.00 Peer I of i 3gp4 L[sbucn Road, bicchatticsburg, PA 170ii- Phone_ 72T-79i-9630 Fa>` 717-795-1OD2 Llailirt~Address: P.O. Box 1229, Camp Hill,PA 17001-1229 Method of Payment Bank Name: Driver's L;c#: Name on Card: Dlrt°et Entf #: Gard Number. Gard Ezpira teas- Liberty F~trge Food and Beverage Service Standard Terms and Condltlons ~eFlnHlons: As used herein, tt>e folbr.ing terms shall rove tM (stewing meanings: 'EverrY -the 9df outktg, toumamarrt, wedding, banquet or other priw3te function }orm~ng Itre subject of ttx Reservation Agreentern ('A9reerrrerd'k -LIDerty Forge or'LF' - Liberty Forg• NmpdaNty, Inc. and/or LFGC, ln~ "Perms -the person, corporation, entity. organization yr asaowtion rontraGi"r9 v+itlr lACrty :orge forthe Even[ Guanntaed Numt»r. Patron shall, at bast fourteen (1~) days prWr to the date of (rive Event, Spxyy it vrriang to LrLetty Fore the ezict numtxr b t>c in a ttendance- The number mall mrtsatule a gwranteed mirnmum arW Patron witl De d+vged acmrdtr,gy. Full payment for the Event shag be due iourtoen (t<) days Prhr to the Evert based upon the guaranteed malimum provided ray Patron. Cancellatlon try Patron: M Patron cancers the Evert d otherwise terminates Nis ABA a[ kart sa (61 monttrs Arlon to the tlok pt Event, or it ttx pg reemeM n terminated by LbeRy Forge td Weadr ltvaraof tN Patron, the deport rrNl be (dieted es 6gtirdatM damages. in the evarrf of cancoflatlon by Patron withn sht (6) months prior b the date of Event, the Patron Trig be stressed a nncetbtion lee dtwenty-Hue (TS) pert~M of the estimated charge of the Event. d the deport, whiMern a greater. This doll not apDy H DaKon reboot¢ He eerr4acied events_ Payment in Advance Unrsr oast has aeon esbaasMd ti advance by Psbon rv'adr Literh Forgq DaYrwrt b toll d the enure contract pica roust t>c made in ash. appeared rived( or credt card to.rrteren (14) days pear to lire Ereni N srrdr payrneta b rear received, LF may temrMrale Vic Agreement aril retain aH d part of Pstron9 deport(s) in a¢ardanw wdgr fM above provisions. PeynreM n adrym slut trrelde as beer. vane. end aquae b Ire cnnsrrned at the event, 7 beig done on a consumpgon tocic C]edt for unopened Isottles wrig beg4an foaowirg the evert Prior to the Evert. Patron e9~s to P~~ ~~ Fargo Mdtlr vadk nM irr(dmytrOn ruffidenl m tarrK M'rddsnbt tdtangee. addiliorq bad ant Irtvrxage tndarM d cuppfed a for damage that may omrr Me day of d dur'rrg Ina Event as sat /orth bebw: Patron ogees to arch anwut~ as nvry be Merged !o nte;r ttedt ord(s) rrah the pro.~rsion that sudt amorrrts are deemed reasenabk by the patron Facta[y Far. Patrons specifidlian of the aspacied nrttnbv of attendees at tM ttrnv of the sgnug oEbrn Agretrrrrent K used by [F to boon tree Event ;nto rrRan venue. venues are sekeaed based on [he number b he kr attendanea and the evPeo4d tohl revenue fo tK realced. Patron - arlnowle~ges Wt a deoeare M Ina e>perled number o/ aserrdes fd the Event fly irnpee[s trbeRy Forge's buzlners_ Ttrerefore, Patron age es M PaY a (aeifiy !ee equal to S75 Per person Y the gwmteed minhaxrr number in arserrdarrQ r4prararye • deveax e! 1w[rdy Qp) percvrt or more Gam the ezpected member o! aeerrdee! declared l>y Patrnn at rive (tree tN Dee signing d rtes Agreement M requietl. ire Lt5 Per Person fatal'ty fee star b paid art the dHtarance between rive etrper$d nerrrber of altendens ttedared when tltas Agremtent oar stgnrld and Theguararteed rNMnvm dsdared Iourteen tta) days Aria m me Ewrrt Deper~lD en the numWr atdwlly attendsrq tt+e C-vant and M bur andcipa4dreverarq LF, 'n tb rot dacrefrrr. wserves the n9ht ad art tines b n+ew the Even[ ham fire razarved werare (epees) m artoMrer aveiabkeesare at tJbeRy Forge stet edrrgares b quaRy ,nd Patron agrees to accept such substfiAion "sn her tikuatiolL "azos: In addtion to the Merges set forth eIlewheR qr Mrs Agreernerlt, Patron agrsar iD DeY aPPfuble iaderal state, rtarrticipal d ofiter tam mpored d applicable to the Evers d tMC Agreement erica Inereaxs: Pricec quoted herein for events rMedukd more tlwn twelve (t ~ months alter rile dale hereof era subjtxt to pries Inceaser equN b x Conwmer Prirx Index (CPI). A/ hems. Phibdetphb, Penrcylvarria. LF agrees to be botrfd M fie prkequnted Tterlkr for a period one (t) year from x data of the signed agn_bmerrt. zeusM Non-Perlormanu: If iw eery raacdt beydM its canted itrquWttg. but not ILnrled to sbirx. hbo- disfwles. accldenis. govt7rvnertt regdy4ons. d frictions or regulabonr txr travel txntrrroaties or strpptec, 6cb of rRr, terrorist ~DCb or ar3s Mead and [F a trtabk to pec4mn its obagatiom 'trier ttws AgreemrnC sod, rrdt•perfdmanx k e>sused and t.F may tem+inate this /4Dreemeet ttribut firMer lola7rly d any sabre end sAaf rdum the atren's deptnR In no Brent shag L.F ae Iabk for txruequarHkl damages o-arry natpre. rt for anyresson the span reserved is net avabak for Me rent. LF may subsbLste oMer space at [Reny Forye, comparable in tpratlty pravidts9 Patton agrees to atxept rtes( suDsttutions. oviston of Beverages and/or Food: Nether Patron rtor eery of Paholt's gnats or Mgees may biog arty beverages arrri7or food of any kind to tF Moot eicpress vmtten permission from !f. voice Charge. Twenty (2~ percent is Me standard setvka d+arge. •nduct of Event Patron undertakes To mnduU the Event in an ordery mar[nef. In tug tmrrDtiatrQ rrld+apOticabh federal, state and tout terra and iuiaaona and Ruks of CondtM of Liberty Forge. Patron assttmns hr9 tesponslWtgy kx ttx eorxlu4 of aH prisons M attendance and br any damagq to to premises or property of IJberty Forge ottsed of attritwbble to Patmn, d Patron's agents, irv,'(ata, ernpbyees, d indepemleM rrontradon prayed by Patron. plays and DecoratioN Patron's Property. Ap displays, decorations, ant egtripmem propeaed by Patron shag be subject to prior wr;tten ,pproval ar and none may be attached or displayed without prior wrgten approval of !F. A dean-up charge d ffi per sour may be aaxssed b Patron fd gean- af displays and7or decorations Installed or used by Patron or Patron's (rtes party vendors and Pabpn agrees ro env s~~.r..w...___ ._ ... . 334~i Lisburn Road, Mcchanicsbtu„ PA 17055- Phone 717-795-9880 Fax: 717-795-1D02 Maiiir>r; Address: P.O. Box 1229, Camp HiU, PA 1700]-1229 ventlorc, '~ncJu tling DhctPgrapharc, must be apPro'red In w"ttyr9 oY ~ prior b the Event Any personei Prnar!y of 7otron or Patron'6 3uesG or'in~,yg ss Brought onlo tnc L~bery Forgi premises and left the2on, eittw_r prior b, during, orollPwing the Event shall be sok risk of Patron and LF shall nol Se liabl_ For any i~ss of or 3anrage to anY such prop°ly. for zrry reason. 3acurity. If rsquhad, b :he sole fudgment, of lF, LF shag Drcvld- (at Palron'S sob tact and a,ryanse) searrtty pe oormei necessary (In sole opinion o' li) to maintain ad_quare security and/or CnFc car,trol rr%asur-s in FqM of the s¢e and nature of tl+e xxd Arty se~wRy exPertscs payable by Ga!r~n will be Presented to Patron at least thirty (3D1 days prior to event >nd t» ctat p~yaDle at that time by Patron. Alcoholic 9everagee. Vbeny Forge, as a rrcrnsx, is te5portsib6 [or 1M adrnlnMratbn of the sale and Servke d atcolroFc beverages in acordan¢ Wth PA Liquor Centel Board Regulations, k e tf' poFry. there)ore, Mat a1 alohoFc tsverages must De suppMd try LF. M alcohofc beverages are to be served on LF Premises for elsewhere Liberty Forge's atcohoRc buverage Manse) U wiR require that bererages tr_ dispensed w,ly t>y LF server; an bartenders. LF's atai+dic Aevaragr RoeM.e requ'ves LF to (t) ragout proper identification (pl,ob ID) d ary per..on d gtnnGonabk age and refux alcoholic beverage service i- the person b either urdcrage err proper idenaTOtbn onnd !>e Produced ai+d (iy refux alcoholic beverage Scrvirf_ to a cry person wno, in LF's lodgment appears irrtoxlo[ed. Aesvmptlon of tM Risk As a asrbtbn o1 use of LJbcrty Forge and at assaeisbe fapiliti~. IncRrdlrg twt rid Atr,ltad kr Me golf cotrx, Pr-+c3'r-o range. voneybaM couR. mink!ure golf coupes, Yeibw Breeches Creep tor+ar Atka Cemna+^MY Perk, arry dv,ing fSctly and Pro shop Rha -FacrTi6"eel. Me Patron andor any user d the Facttles (Uro'Patrnras7 nrsisr,O aM ri~1c o(Deporvt injury. deaM~ or property bss resuhir,g horn arty vvse wnatcoever, incltbing but not Rmned to: the scoatere, and other reotrational equtpmerrt: mtmon with natural or marvrrade objects; dangers associated vrid, I'ghtn my meinknance orb irrigation equlpmerrt, water hazards. ParMS, avearrrs. dunes, sand traps, -oreCiCt erb dtdORCist wr~ti,er, I><a~ka Putdr,g greens, tees. birways, 9nbns. d'a^^9 range. vdkyhall rourb, motorced golf carte, rnfrintae golf coupe:, drMways, roads, cart paths. bridges, parking bts_ and the Yelbw Breeches Creek travel wthar or beyond the Fadtin; or negFgenoe d any typo (Y+cltbit9 Ddf rnurse ar+dNr pnCto range design and layout). preach of contract or breads of statulurY duly d ore on tlr DaR of IFGG Inc. LrLeny Forgo Golf Course. t~Y Forge HosPtalily Inc, LCerty Adventures, ins, Liberty Forge Aroorctum, [M John G. WRMarns Seholephip Foundatbn, a a^Y alllNme or subeiaory d LFGC, lac arvf/or the American Gaup Compenks. their nrrmrs, stodcMklerr„ manogep, adiinors, errsptoyae6, agents, teprtleMatives and aporaors d any IoumamerrL Party- outlng. league, or other Event and Ihelr ascgrn Drereinafla coRecJivsly relarrod to ts'L~erly Forge7. Arboretum and Gds COSUSe: Patron. guests. and lr,ukees of any event are not perrMthad en Vie go-eourse; bt gardens, or arboretum n,itt,out Pdor vrrltten permyion dlF. MangsnerR~ for photograph bken M the arbaredan and gardens must be made er advance. Music and ErrbrbNUnent Disc jockeys. barbs. and otlner efdabiranent am perm'rlled in the Wedge, on the dedr, n the 4bertY Top Tam and elsewhere el LAerty Forge vdth Prior w!r[ten approval fiom LF. However, a! a PA Liquor ConUnt BcarO icansee, LF mutt and reserves the right to approve. termimla, arnUw eontrd the voknr,a d wry errtertaimnent at tlro event Time: Any lurr~on tax may tun ova. the tune staled >n fhb ogrermerN a~ rte rlwrged 5500.110 Der boor {or arty Porliorr tM2en over orb above arry tralanoe dtr for d+e event No Smoking: ~ »king k prehR~7ad in xdain venues at Lit>crty Forys. Patron. is im#ees and guocts are requeslM to observe such DrW+Ipitlons for everyoneb Moymant Back-up Leeatien: In the ewK d inekrrrent vve:afher the xremony orb rr cocktai rerzption wU be 1reM b 02 Wedge Dkurtg Room Use of wedge DerJt UrJess othrwise provided hereke, Patron agrees iftd use of the Wedge Deck b rid aaiuahro 7rtd MM some portlons may be used for dmring, bevoroge service and/or other yrtnq fur>dlolts. Contract Ezpiratlon. Tba tGnn! d the Sbndold R[servatbn Fotrn shah be veld and the reSenratiDrl ds~ .r7 not Ue avglabk begkMYg the 7410 calendar day tolbwirg tiro creeution of the Standard Reservation Form by t.Aerty Forge, Ieiks3 a signed ropy d 1M Standafd Resenatiort Forte k returnee to C,rteny Foge v.4tk dye requk~ deposl prior b the tatir ®lendar day following tM esxcution d ttta SMbart Reservation Fcrtn try lJberty Forge. The Sbr>dard Reservation Fenn shah only be badlrlg and niforcea6la upat LuLerty Forge t•ios,lblllt, Inc isipted by Ore Sades Okector sn0 counter-signed by ether the PresldaM, Vice p7esldaM w Treasurer. The above provkionl. Terms and Cendilions and deh8 spedlkatioro as ovMmd i1t the Ftopesol ere approved and al>xpled ~- ~ `y ~'/~/o patron Harp 3804 lisbum Road, Mcchwicsburg, PA 17055- Phoac: 717-793-9880 Fax: 717-791002 rood and Beverage invoice Dates October B, 2D0! Event: Custoner Name: Ruth Mn Krug (1110) .StlOtC$ 1x00 Montrort Dr+ve Ciry: Hrrspury State. PA Zip' 17110 Booting lD: 386 KrvglBau wsda~ng t2) Event Gonbct Mrt_ Ruth Mn Krug 'acuinW Viiorre: (717) 234-T22~ Home PAonr. ssucnQ c~++xt whs. t~ Asu+ Krug Trlephone: Cr~~17S4-7221 Faz Tool Charges 5300.00 .~,.~T;.. - - Food and Dinner Bufist - t ~ EJnIt~Price S-1'S~~ Todl 52,17U.00 Harntxirpsrs, vep9ie burgers and Kosher H Marirvted and Btsaq d Chicken Asaorb0 Rolls, Lethrce. 7omab, Onion and Pickles Cheese tray for Flamtiurysrs-sepa'ate from else Mitred ReasfW Baksd Beans '.Bacon l Mitred Greene Salad w8h'assorted i Pa4te 5abd and Pasta Sabd MoZa-W iuNlrMv6iara Sauce DesseA Aesortbd ItaFan Ice (mckrdstp dtdeo~s), candles. mini el+eeseiakea cookies snd b[ownies i Hors C Oev~cs HOra doueures ... 515.00 S0.D0 ~ Butlared Flora dottrwres SO.DO 10.00 ~ Barquelle d Papaya and Spicy Asian Chicken sated Moison Marinated Chicken ard- Mushrtsonf Kabobs. Vegetable Sprldd Rolle with Peanut Sauee Cold Station SO.DD 50.00 i Sliced Seasarial trash Frvit with Non- Dai Ftot Csrarttel ' Gartlari Cruditae with. Mort-D ' Di I Crostinis with a Trio of Brtesctxttas Hot Station 50.00 SD.DO Mini Kosher Cocctad Waivers Wrapped I in Putt Pastry with Whiskey Sauce and a j i Mustsrd Sauce ' l . - . 3804 Lisburn Road, Mcchaaicsburg, PA 17055- Phonc: 717-795-9580 Fax: 717-795-1002 JEiSO.I~ rlpVer Jalap rvRfl Yvalnl):5, ~ Grapes and Carrot Zest (House Assorbd Ratis (IJo Butterj -Rosemary and garFic oil and Flaishmen's unsaved ma on Tabb for C ntree ~ - Muatxoorn Shitted B2a51 of chidsen with Wert, Vekxite ana Seasonal s7 seo.oo ss.aeo.oo Sakicfion ~ Envee rte2 -Sweet Gsrper Terryald Saknon with Seasonal vegetable and 90 Sa5.00 51,050 00 Rim . Entree ft3 -Non. ~' . V Meal ~ 5 y10_D0 ~_~ Entrse >I~t - Kosher meals trom enfnste orderi 5 5 ~.~ S175.00 Entree >IS -Children's Meals (chicken {=t ~ and 1 572.50 550.00 Entree 116 -Vendor Meats -Tray of as~sortad wrap sandwiches, pasta salad t~.L 10 ' 615.00 515D.DD 24 I QS.OD I 5600 00 ToW ~~ 570,675.00 ToW Charges 56.279.25 3804 I-esbvm Road, Mcchanicsbatg, PA 17055- Phoac: 717-795-9880 Fa~c: 717-795-1002 Seri s Houae Musir.LMs~,le~ 1 ~~~ SO.DO ~ 'Red eM Red Linens ~ SO.DO SO.DO Our cents ~ SO-~ SO.DO Setu ~-~ SO.DO Sta ~ Rents! t S'.a00.D0 5300.D0 I Scund S Renisl i 5384.00 S36t.00 i 5 linen Rergal ~ 5356.00 5356.W _ ~ Rented Dance Fbor 5.200.00 SD.DD Total Chsrges S1,O4o.Ut? Total Charges ~ ~ r ~•; ~LLioW - _ ~ , Catspery G liealill On l:hrQ fob Te! Tact Tax 2 Tac ~ Total Room Nantal f700m .00 m.Oa 50.00 Elam 10.00 50.00 5311.00 Audio Vfsual i Mtrc Soup 57,040.00 10.00 70-00 f0m 50.00 fDAO fOm ft,DM_00 ear s.nil~.. 14;276.26 LOAD nsff.s5 s6m fom fDm so:DD s>•ssc7D Food L eswwsOs f10,tT6.00 50m 57.776AD SOm 1652.50 f0.00 LOAD 111,702.50 7arYlnpriralRc CanVal 10.00 50:00 50.00 SOm fOm fOm 50.00 50.00 Racreatl0n 110.00 10.00 SOm 50.00 fpm 10.00 50.00 iO.W Grand Totals it6,4M35 50.00 S3,t1Q.06 f0.00 5670-50 SOAO 50.00 132.606.10 k Paid MIOW'IC S1.D37.~0 . .~~ Gals DllO 01112!2004 _._ MuOUeK Patel D0b P6i11 51.937.70 D4f2712D04 9slmes 50.00 Paid 53.16[.40. OW132004 53,164.40 09Yt312004 50.00 De "Paid 55.000:00. 0laf30120D4 55,000-00 D913W2004 50.00 ' Pea ss.ooa.oo oar~G2oo4 S5,D00.oo o~3orto04 to.oo De 'Paid 51,000.00 D913G2004 S1,D00.00 09r30d2004 S0.0p De kPaid S5,D00.00 10/062004 S6.ODD.00 1W062004 5000 Method of Payment kame on Card: Card Number. Card Expiration: Bank Name: Drtver't Licf: Less Deposit- 52!.102.10 Amount Due: Si,o93.so VERIFICATION The undersigned, Kurt E. Williams, hereby verifies and states that: ~~ He is the President of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. and authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. He is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 3 I I~JS Ku illiams, President Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. VERIFICATION The undersigned, Luke A.V. Grumbine, hereby verifies and states that: 1. He is the Chief Financial Officer of Liberty Forge Hospitality, ]nc. and authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. He is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904,Irelating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated:j'151~~ _/~ ~..,1~.1 ~/ ~ ,.1%c~, ~.r.-~<. Luke A.V. Grumbine, CFO Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. VERIFICATION The undersigned, Jennifer Beard, hereby verifies and states that: ~~ r ~ 1. She is the Vice President of Sales for Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc, and authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. She is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. `\ Dated: 3 ~ I~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~_~~~~--P--L--~~ Jenni er Beard, VP of Sales ~ ' Libei<ty Forge Hospitality, Inc. .~ ~~ ~i ~ T n ~ ~ __ ~ ~ - `_~ cr . ~ J -} N ~ ~ _ fi ~ ~ ~a -' ~1 f .. ~. ~~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2005-01356 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY INC VS KRUG HOWARD ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who eing duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent sear h and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT KRUG HOWARD but was unable to locate Him to wit: in his bailiwick. He t deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE h 2005 this office was in receipt of t attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Dauphin County 36.00 Postage .74 73.74 04/08/2005 SHUMAKER WILLIAMS So R. /Thomas Klink Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed o before me t this ~~ day of 1 U U5 A D. _, N ~ U'L~->~ Prot notary ~'v J SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2005-01356 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY INC VS KRUG HOWARD ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent sea$ch and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: l KRUG RUTH ANN but was unable to locate Her deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On 8th 2005 this attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 n~ 04/08J2005 SHUMAKER WILLIAMS So an County, Pennsylvani to was in receipt of t e ~_ . ~//i' R. Thomas Kline/ Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this ' ~~~ day of 4' L P Both notary ~ ~~ in his bailiwick. He there Liberty Forge Hospitality Inc VS. Howard Krug et al SERVE: OS-1356 civ Howard Krug N o . Now, March 17, 2005 , L SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COIJN'11 hereby deputize the Sheriff of ~4~"s' County to execute thi<. deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, ~.ffidav~# ~f Sefl-viee Now, within upon at by handing to a and made lrnown to copy of the original the ~, e7 ~-, ~, . c" c ;: 'i . ~~ .. ,, the contents So answers, Sheriff of COSTS Sworn and subscribed before SERVICE me This day of . ?0~ MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT 20 , at o'clock M. s County, S ', PA, do Writ, this Liberty Forge Hospitality Inc VS. Howard Krug et al SERVE: Ruth Ann Krug No 05-1356 Now, Marsh 17 zoos , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNT , PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of ~auph~ County to execute this T>\jrit, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. r Sheriff of Cumberland County, affidavit ~f Sea~g~e lvow, within 20_, at o'clock _ M. served the upon at by handing to and anade lmown to Sworn and subscribed before ane This u day of , ~Q copy of the original So answers, the contents Sheriff of COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT County, C~~~~~Q z~~ ~e ~~Pxzff Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Dauphin County Hatrisbwg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: {717) 255-2660 fax (717) 255-2859 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin AND NOW:March 25, 2005 COMPLAINT KRUG HOWARD to HOWARD KRUG DEFT of the original upon by personally handing COMPLAINT and makinglknown to him/her the Contents thereof at 1400 MONTFORT DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17110-0000 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 1ST day of APRIL, 2005 So Answers, ~~~~ NOTARIAL/N SfEAL MARY JANE 5NYDER, Notary Public Highspirq Dauphin County My Commission Expires Sept. 1, 2006 J. Daniell Basile Michael W~. Rinehart Assistant C ief Deputy LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY INC vs • KRUG HOWARD Sheriff's Return No. 0499-T - - -2005 OTHER COUNTY NO. OS-1356 at 8:20AM served the within Sheriff of Dau in`~Co~nty Pa. h no ! , ti s .rw„S+ "~ By Deputy Sheriff Sheriff's Costs:$36.00 PD 03j21/20 5 RCPT NO 205018 DB 1 true attested aopy(i~s) ~~~.ic~e ~~ Q o~5~~exr"ff Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717)255-2660 fax:(7l7)255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin AND NOW:March 25, 2005 COMPLAINT KRUG RUTH ANN to RUTH ANN KRUG DEFT upon by personally handing 1 true attested copy( es) of the original COMPLAINT and makin known to him/her the contents thereof at 1400 MONTFORT DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17110-0000 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 1ST day of APRIL, 2005 ~9j~2CC/ '~r~C~a~,t/ NOTARIAL SEAL MARY JANE SNYDER, Notary Public Highspire, Dauphin County My Commission Expires Sept. 1, 2006 J. Dani 1 Basile Chiet' eputy Michael . Rinehart Assistant C ief Deputy LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY INC vs ' KRUG HOWARD Sheriff's Return No. 0499-T - - -2005 OTHER COUNTY NO. OS-1356 at 8:20AM served the within So Answers, ~'~~~ Sheriff of au ir>OCqunty, By C Deputy Sheriff Sheriff's Costs:$36.00 PD 03/21/ 005 RCPT NO 205018 D3 John W. Purcell, Jr. LD. 29955 Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 jpurcell@pkh.com LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. OS-1356 CIVIL VS. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG husband and wife, Defendants KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, Defendants CNIL ACTION-LAW and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW COMES, Howard B. Krug and Ruth Ann Krug, Wendy Baum and Karl Baum, by their attorneys, Purcell, Krug, by their attorneys, Purcell, Krug & Haller, who file Preliminary Objections Co the Complaint in the above captioned matter, and aver as follows: I. DEMURRER AS TO COUNT III OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT I . Plaintiff alleges a breach of contact action against the Defendant Ruth Ann Krug based on an attached Contract signed only by Ruth Ann Krug. 2. By admission of the Plaintiff, none of the remaining Defendants were parties to the contract between it and Ruth Ami Krug. 3. Despite the Contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Ann Krug, Plaintiff includes a count for "Unjust Enrichment" against "All Defendants". 4. The facts alleged by Plaintiff in support of Count III are identical to its Breach of Contract claim against Ruth Ann Krug. 5. Plaintiff has failed to allege any ambiguity or uncertainty as to the terms of the Contract its own agents prepared. 6. To the extent Plaintiff claims it relied on any alleged fact or assertion of fact not contained in the contract, it was not entitled to do so as a matter of law. 7. Plaintiff has failed to allege that it has no adequate remedy at law. 8. The Contract provides Plaintiff an adequate remedy at law, making equitable relief requested by Plaintiff unavailable as a matter of law. 2 9. Plaintiff has failed to state a sustainable cause of action for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit against any of the Defendants, including the Defendant Ruth Ann Krug, when it is basing its claim on one of express Contract between itself and one of the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Honorable Court to dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint. II. DEMURRER AS TO COUNT IV OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 10. Plaintiff asserts a claim against "All Defendants" for "Fraud" in Count IV of the Complaint. 11. Count N is merely a re-casting of Plaintiff s breach of contract claims into a tort claim. 12. Plaintiff has failed to allege that any wrong to be ascribed to Defendants is the gist of the action, the contract being collateral. 13. Furthermore, fraud has not been alleged with sufficient specificity. 14. Plaintiff admits that it was paid each time a payment was requested prior to the actual wedding. See ¶ 9, 39 and 41. 15. Plaintiff does not allege, nor could it, that any additional payment under the contract was requested, despite several meefings on-site prior to the wedding. 16. Plaintiff has failed to allege any ambiguity or uncertainty as to the terms of the Contract its own agents prepared. 17. To the extent Plaintiff claims it relied on any alleged factor assertion of fact not contained in the contract, it was not entitled to do so as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Honorable Court to dismiss Count IV as to the Plaintiff's claim for fraud. III. DEMURRER AS TO COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 18. Plaintiff asserts a claim against Wendy Bau (sic) and Karl Bau (sic) in Count II as Third Party Beneficiaries. 19. Plaintiff has not stated a cause of action for any sustainable claim against Wendy Baum or Karl Baum as third party beneficiaries of the Contract between Ruth Ann Krug and the Plaintiff. 20. Pennsylvania law does not recognize a cause of action against a third party beneficiary based on contract, as there is no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the alleged third party beneficiaries. 21. At best, the claim of the Plaintiff against Wendy a Baum and Karl Baum is redundant and duplicative of Count 1II. WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Honorable Court to dismiss Count II of the Plaintiff s Complaint. IV. MOTION TO STRIKE 22. Plaintiff has violated Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b) by failing to aver averments of fraud with particularity. 23. The allegations of the Complaint contain numerous instances of impertinent or scandalous material, including voluminous allegations that have no bearing on the stated causes of action, and can only be characterized as evidence. 4 24. Plaintiff s claim for breach of contract is adequately presented in ¶¶ 1,3, 8, 66, and 74-76 of the Complaint. All of the remaining paragraphs of the complaint are redundant, repetitious, verbose and unneeded, and in violation of Pa. R.C.P. 1019 (a) requiring the facts upon which the cause of action is based to be stated in a concise and summary form. 25. Additionally, Plaintiff has included statements concerning "libel" on the part of one or more of the Defendants, without bringing a cause of action, or alleging a claim for libel as part of the Complaint. 26. Plaintiff has joined three non-parties to the alleged contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Ann Krug, alleging that they received the benefit of the services contracted by Ruth Ann Krug and allegedly performed by Plaintiff, presumably as necessary or indispensable parties to its claim. 27. Those services consisted of serving hors d'oeuvres and snacks to the guests (¶ 27), providing an open bar to the guests (¶ 28), making desserts available to the guests (¶ 29), allowing a band to play to the guests in the Plaintiff's facility (¶ 30), providing dinners and desserts to the guests (¶ 44), and alcohol (¶ 45), and audio visual and miscellaneous set up (presumably for the band to play to the guests) (¶ 46). 28. Plaintiff further alleges in paragraph 27, 67, 76, 86, 93, and 127, that the Plaintiff provided all of these services for 188 guests. 29. The claim for Unjust Enrichment is that the named Defendants were unjustly enriched by the provisions of the services to 188 guests, however, the services were not rendered simply to or for the benefit of the Defendants, but to all 188 guests. 30. Clearly, as indicated in the Complaint, the services provided by the Plaintiff benefitted the 188 guests of Ruth Ann Krug, who, if a claim for Unjust Enrichment is to be made, all of the guests are indispensable parties to the proceeding. 31. Plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment against the four Defendants should be no more than for the pro rata cost of the claim for four guests, or $482.90 32. Plaintiff's request for unjust enrichment contradicts the amount of claim under Count I of the Complaint ($22,696.50 vs. $17,493.50), and Plaintiff's claim for the reasonable value of the services cannot exceed the contracted amount of the services reduced by payments. WHEREFORE, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug and Howard B. Krug hereby requests this Honorable Court to strike the Complaint: A. For failure to plead its cause of action in a concise and summary form in conformity with Pa. R.C.P 1019(a): and B. For failure to join indispensable parties; and C. For failing to plead proper damages; and D. For failing to plead averments concerning fraud with particularity, in conformity with Pa. R.C.P 1019 (b). PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER By ~hn W. Purcell, Jr. I.D. #29955 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA ] 7102 (717)234-4178 Date: April 12, 2005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Purcell, Jr., Attorney for the Defendants, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the Plaintiff by forwarding said copy to its attorneys at the following address, by first class U.S. Mail on April 12, 2005: Keith A. Clark, Esquire Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire Shumaker Williams, P.C. P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys for the Plaintiff JOHN W/PURC>/L,L, JR. LD. N 29955 r y t~ r~ .;. ~ -L Y. R~ .J"a W ~~ `~ ) ~] } r 1 Rl ~~ 1 _~ -~ 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) Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. (Plaintiff) vs. Howard Krug and Ruth Ann Krug, Husband and Wife, and Karl Bau and Wendy Bau, Husband and Wife (Defendant) No. OS-1356 Civil 'Term State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff s motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to compplaint, etc.): Defendants' Preliminary Objections 2. Identify counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiff: Melissa A. Swauger, Shumaker Williams, P. C., P.0. Box 88, (Name and Address) Harrisburg, PA 17108 (b) for defendant: Sohn W. Purcell, Jr., Purcell, Krug & Haller, Name a~td Address 1719 N. Front St., arras urg, P 17102 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: June 1, 2005 ^. ~1 X.I~JN riil~~dL~.~ ignature ~ Melissa A. Swauger, 1182382 Print your name Plaintiff Date: April 20, 2005 nnnmeyror LIBERTY FORGE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HOSPITALITY, INC., :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. No. OS-1356 Civil HOWARD KRUG and CfVIL ACTION -LAW RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and KARI, BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SS. I, Melissa A. Swauger, being duly sworn according to law depose and say that on April 5, 2005, I served a Complaint upon Defendant Wendy Baum by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the possession of the United States mail, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed at 510 E. 20`h Street, Apartment 9E, New York, NY 10009. A copy of the signed return receipt card is attached hereto. Dated: L~I~~1ID~ f ~~ c~` ~~W~-- Melissa A. Swauger Sworn to and subscribed before me this (~' day ofd "~ r ~ , 2005. r ~' ~1~~-~lY-lGt, it ~ Notary Public My COnlnll~ TH OF PENNSYLVAWA ~k~Gir+zl Seel Kt~b~ i..'r2vna,an, na :zany Public Camp Hltl &uu, Cumberland CpIAy My Canmisgon E>~'raS Juno 14, 2008 :176631 ~bBf' PennsylveMa AswrAetlon or NotaAes rL F ~ Postage $ r^i $$$ Certified fee ~ ~ Retum Recalpt Fee (Endorsement Required _ © Q Restrigad Delivery Fee (Entlarsement flequired) o Total Postage & Fees T EI a-i rl O ~.P _, ~"~ I Postmark Here ^ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ^ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: ena~ ~ • ~atwvn , to C . ao~ SF~t; ,.; ~gEres~ //trv Mork, NV /G~4 l~l~ ..~ ~ ., 2. Article Number (Copy from service labeq PS Form 3811, July 1999 rU.S. Pq~t al Service CE RTIF IED M AI L REC EIPT (Do mesti c Mai, C: n fy. No In surance Cove P rov itleAJ A. Received by IP/ease Prin[ Clearly) ~ B. Date of Delivery G. Signature X ~ ~ /~ ^ Agent ~~[,/ ^ Addre D. Is delivery atldress different from item 7? ^ Ves If VES, enter tlelivery adtlress below: ^ No 3. Se~Gice Type ~ Certified Mail ~^ E~Tess Mail ^ Registered l7'Reiurn Receipt for Merchandise ^ Insuretl Mail ^ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra fee) Yes 701 1940 ^0~1 2184 8172 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-00-M-0952 LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and No. OS-1356 Civil CNIL ACTION -LAW KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SS. I, Melissa A. Swauger, being duly sworn according to law depose and say that on April 5, 2005, I served a Complaint upon Defendant Kazl Baum by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the possession of the United States mail, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed at 510 E. 20"' Street, Apartment 9E, New York, NY 10009. A copy of the signed return receipt card is attached hereto. Dated: ~~ ~~ l~~ Sworn to and subscribed before me thi ~~1 ~` d~aQy of - l i , 2005. ti ~J~ ~~F~Lt~~c-IZ~ ~ Notary Public My Commission Expires: COMMpNWEgLTH FPENNSYLVgWq Nolxlal Seal ~P FWI AihIC :176640 -"~'~0mmi~,~kesJuleu~2o08 Member. Pennsylvania Associailon O/ 8 ~..~ G ~,,~ ~- Melissa A. Swauger LS. Postal Service :ERTIFIED N%IAIL~"ECEIPT Domestic Mail Onl Ins~~~„ce Coveraoe Provides v'1 .0 as ~ t s0 .. _.~. S Postage $ v0 ~ (7J Certified Fee 3 d Return Receipt Fea /~ ~ ~~ Pa6°°°~ H ~ (Endorsemen[Requiretl) ere O Restricted Delivery Fea ~ (Entlarsement Required) Q TotalPostage&Fees S Cj. 3o T G' r9 ent o ~(~ Q __ Sfreet, Apt. No.: y _________________________..______.___ or POBOxNO. $IO ~, p'f(~^ ~. ~, ~9iE ) ~ ~ City, Stete, ZIP+9---~~-----~~~--~ ~/cw Yotk NU /aa'~9 :.. .. ^ Crsmplete items 1, 2, and 3. Also domplete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ^ Print your name and address on the reverse so :hat we can return the card to you. ^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. L Article Adtlressed t°: +* ~. n. (~.. /~e < r-: I . ~~ si E~ ao* ~°' ~ . ~ 9~ ~_ A. Receivetl by (Please Pnnt Clearly) ~ B. Date of Delivery C. Signature /L/ ^ Agent X /`~ ~- ^ Addressee D. Is tlelivery address different from item 1? ^ Ves If VES, enter delivery atldress below: ^ No 3. S~ice Type 1 l10 Certified Mail ^ 6cpress Mail FWD ! ^ Registered Return Receipt for Merchandise ^ Insured Mail ^ G.O.D. 4. Restrictetl Delivery? (Extra Feel yes 2. ArticleNUmber(Copy/romservicelabeq -7001 1941] 0001 2184 8165 PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 1iJ2595~00~M-0952 r ~ ~^ !.'~ , C ;, _ ~C. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 05-1356 CIVIL HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants object to the proposed objections for the following reasons: Subpoena that is attached to these A. The information requested is irrelevant to the underlying cause of action filed by Plaintiff as it asks for information concerning records of the Defendant, Howard Krug, generated after the contract was entered into and after services were performed. B. Preliminary Objections are still pending in which Defendants, Howard Krug, Karl Baum and Wendy Baum, may be dismissed from the claim, thereby obviating the necessity of obtaining the records which are personal and confidential to the Defendant, Howard Krug. BY: Date: June 1, 2005 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717)234-4178 Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICgTE OF SERVICE -, ANGEL,q S SHAFFER counsel for Defen an employee of the law fir Subpoena was se dants, hereby certify that service of the D m of Purcell, Krug & Haller, rued upon the folio efendants' Objections to wing by First Class Regular mail on June 1, 2005: Keith q. Clark, Esquire Melissa q. Swauger, Esquire P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, pq 1708 A~omey for P/aintiff Ange • Shaff er r.J ~.., P ~ J ~ ~ G:J T1 Cr __ C.~_ -f: ~.~. - .,. _,~1 i _ C , {~`J _ ~~ (, li __ Cs~ 1 ~~~ '~ ~~ LIBERTY FORGE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HOSPITALITY, INC. :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG n/ 0 . D S _ / 3 ~ ~ C' ; ~ v. L V. • KARL BAU and WENDY BAU ~ / 1 • Ci ~ v~ L fj' C f pan / _ L/-1 (~J IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY GUIDO JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6T" day of JUNE, 2005, after reviewing the briefs filed by the parties and having heard argument thereon, Defendants' Preliminary Objections are GRANTED in part. The demurrers to Count II, "Third-Party Beneficiary" and Count IV "Fraud" are GRANTED. The remaining preliminary objections are DENIED. r.award E. Guido, J. ~ith A. Clark, Esquire Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg Pa. 17108 Y I~m W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire I~~~CI 1719 North Front Street -1~~ v\ Harrisburg pa, 17102 / :sld QCO~~t/a a~,~wen~usNr~:~~ JllN+?, ~~, ~~ n~ 9 ~ ~z Ord 9- ~rnr sooz ~~~1C~,+UH1C?6'd X41. ~© 3Jli-t(3-Q~1~ John W. Purcell, Jr. I.D. 29955 Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 email: jpurcell@pkh.com LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT' OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, Defendants No. 05-1356 CAVIL CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA PURSUANT 7'O RULE 4009.21 Defendant objects to the proposed subpoena that is attached to these objections for the following reasons. A. The information requested by the subpoena is overly broad, and is not designed to lead to admissible evidence in the subject contract action. B. The subject material between Howard B. Krug and his credit card company is privileged pursuant to Federal law. C. The information requested in the subpoena is oonfidential financial information wholly unrelated to the Plaintiffs cause of action, and is irrelevant to the Plaintiffs cause of action as it asks for information concerning records of the Defendant Howard Krug generated after the contract was entered into and after the services were performed, and after invoices were sent. D. The subpoena issued by the Plaintiff is part of ai continuing pattern of legal harassment and exaggeration of the Plaintiff's claims. The possibility of the Plaintiff obtaining discoverable material is far outweighed by the burden imposed on the Defendant and the confidentiality of his personal financial affairs. E. This is the second time that the Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena was prepared and served on the Defendants, attempting to sere the exact same subpoena that was previously objected to, requiring the incurrence of unnecessary attorney's fees, reimbursement of which the Defendant requests. PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER L BY John .Purcell, Jr. . #29955 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 1 i'102 (717) 234-4178 Date: ~ `/ ~ ~ ~- . COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., Plaintiff v. File No. OS-13_`6 Civil Howard Krug and Ruth Ann Krug, husband and wife, and Karl Bau and Wendy Bau, husband and wife, Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Citibank Cilstomer Service (Name of Person or Entity) ' W ithin twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you aze ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto at P.O. Box 6500, Sioux Falls. SD 57117 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents o:r produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of corrq~liance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by thug subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to coatply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Melissa A. Swauger ADDRESS: P.O. Box 88 Harri ch ~rga PA 171 n8 TELEPHONE:_ ~717Lgn~4_1FSs SUPREME COURT ID t# 8Z38L"~ ATTORNEY FOR: Pla nti BY THE COURT: /S/ ~sa,4~,~ '~• Pmdronotary, Civil Divisio Date: ~ ~ ~<~2Cr~S eal of the Court ~E=_~ ~~ EXHIBIT A 1. Any and all notes, memoranda, cottespondenoe, telephone messages, computer entries, computerprint-outs, computer records, e-mails, or other documents that relate orreferto any disputed transactions regarding Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. dated after September 4, 2004 for Howard B. Krug's Citibank Visa card, which exgires on January 31, 2006 and number ends with 8627. 2. Any and all affidavits of unauthorized use, including any supporting documentation, completed by Howard B. Krug that relate or refer to Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. dated after September 4, 2004. 3. Any and all statements prepazed by Howard E3. Krug that relate or refer to any disputed transactions regarding Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. dated after September 4, 2004. 4. Any and all notifications of disputed items prepared by Howard B. Krug that relate or refer to Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. dated after September 4, 2004. 5. Any and all notes, memoranda, corresponden<;e, telephone messages, computer entries, computer print-outs, computer records, e-mails, or other documents prepared or drafted by Howard B. Krug regarding Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. dated after September 4, 2004. 6. Any and all notes, memoranda, cottespondenc:e, telephone messages, computer entries, computer print-outs, computer records, e-mails, or other documents prepared or drafted by Citibank regarding Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. dated after Sleptember 4, 2004. #176955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Purcell, Jr., Attorney for the Defendants, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the Plaintiff by forwarding said copy to its attorneys at the following address, by first class U.S. Mail on June 24, 2005: Keith A. Clark, Esquire Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire Shumaker Williams, P.C. P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys fc C) r> C;? - n ter'. .a ..-.~::~ U -n ,~ _ ~ _;~ ,`a i, _' -J %t j _ ~, ". _- _-, i? _~ 1, i l t ~ - ~ { C.5 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) Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. (Plaintiff) vs. Howard Krug and Ruth Ann Krug, Husband and Wife, and Karl Bau and Wendy Bau, Husband and Wife (Defendant) No. OS-1356 Civil Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plainfiff s motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Preliminary Objections of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. to Counterclaim 2. Identify counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiff: Melissa A. Swauger Shumaker Williams, P. C. (Name and Address) P.0. Box 88, Harrisburg, PA 17108 (b) for defendant: Sohn W. Purcell, Jr., Purcell, Krug & Haller, (Name and Address) 1719 N. Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17102 3. I will notify all paRies in writing within two days that this case has been fisted Yor argument. 4. Argument Court Date: 24. 2005 ~y.1,~~, Gl~Swcu~~ SignaNre Melissa A. Swauger, ii82382 Print your name Date: July 25, 2005 Plaintiff Ariomey for ~ h; (_> J1 ~]7 ~ ~ T ~::7?~ L ~f' ~~ '..::\~~1~ lw < ~] ~ LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., v. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. OS-1356 Civil CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. TO COUNTP;RCLAIM AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., by and through its counsel, Shumaker Williams, P.C., to make the following Preliminary Objections, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2) and (4), to the Counterclaim: A. Leal Insufficiency ] . Count II of the Counterclaim purports to state a cause of action against Plaintiff for violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"). 2. To state a private cause of action under the UTPCPL, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug must show that she purchased goods or services for personal, family, or household purposes and she suffered a loss of money as a result of an act or practice declared unlawful by the UTPCPL. 73 P.S. § 201-9.2. 3. Accepting all the factual allegations of Count II as true, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug has failed to state a cause of action for violation of the UTPCPL because she admits that she did not pay Plaintiff for the services it rendered on her behalf on September 5, 2004. 4. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug has failed to state a cause of action for violation of Sections 201-2(4)(v), (vii), (ix), (xiv), or (xxi) of the UTPCPL lbecause she did not establish that Plaintiff engaged in fraudulent or deceptive conduct. 5. Rather, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug merely alleges that Plaintiffbreached the contract between them. 6. The underlying foundation ofthe UTPCPL is fraud prevention. See Weinberg y. Sun Co., Inc., 565 Pa. 612, 777 A.2d 442 (2001). 7. Clearly, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug is attempting to restate her breach of contract action under the UTPCPL to collect treble damages and attorney fees. 8. Therefore, Count II of the Counterclaim is legally insuffident. 9. Count III of the Counterclaim purports to state a cause of action against Plaintiff for fraud. 10. Accepting all the factual allegations of Count III as true, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug has failed to state a cause of action for fraud because an allegation that the band should have played in the tent is merely contractual in nature and not a representation upon which one could base a fraud claim. 11. Moreover, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug's alleged damages aze not a result of any fraudulent conduct by Plaintiff, but rather are a result of her oven various breaches of the contract between her and Plaintiff. 12. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug is attempting to restate her breach of contract claim as a fraud claim so that she can request punitive damages. 13. Therefore, Count III of the Counterclaim is legally insufficient. 2 14. Count IV of the Counterclaim purports to state a cause of action against Plaintiff for violation of Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act ("FCEUA") 15. Accepting all the factual allegations of Count IV as true, Defendant Howard Krug has failed to state a cause of action for violation of the FCEUA because no private right of action exists under the FCEUA. 16. In addition, Defendant Howard Krug has not and cannot aver that Plaintiff collected money from him for the wedding and reception held on September 4, 2004. 17. Further, Defendant Howard Krug admits that Plaintiff was authorized to charge his credit card for the rehearsal dinner. 18. Finally, Defendant Howard Krug failed to state azry factual averments that Plaintiff engaged in conduct that qualifies as unfair or deceptive under the FCEUA or UTPCPL. 19. Accordingly, Count IV of the Counterclaim is legally insufficient. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. respectfully requests that, pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4), this Honorable Court sustain its Preliminary Objections to Counts II, III, and IV of the Counterclaim on the basis that such Counts are legally insufficient. B. Failure to Conform 20. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(b) provides that all averments of fraud must be pled with particularity. 21. Count III contains averments of fraud that are pled only generally in violation of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(b). 3 22. Furthermore, Count III does not contain averments of facts relating to fraud, but rather bald allegations and conclusions of law in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(b). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. ,respectfully requests that, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2), this Honorable Court sustain its Preliminary Objection to Count III of the Counterclaim on the basis that it violates Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(b). SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated "~ ~~ ~~~~~ < By K ith A Cl ~k LD 6249 e . zu , . Melissa A. Swauger #82382 P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 :179518 (717) 763-1121 Attorneys for Plaintiff 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICIC I, Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire, of the law firm of Shumalcer Williams, P.C., hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. to Counterclaim on this date by depositing a copy of the same in the possession of the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquirre PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2392 SHUMAKISR WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated: ~ ~ ~- 'l ~ By U Y~-~~~ G S W ~C'7~ Melissa A. Swauger P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)763-1121 ~., ~_; ~ ~ o r 531 ~~ (_, '_~ r.._ ~ ... (:1 ._ I I _~~..-. fV ~'I U.f ;_:.:1 _.. ~( i r ;(.( U _ ~_~ (:? A7 Cwt < LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., v. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 05-1356 Civil CNIL ACTION -LAW Defendants : NRY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., by and through its attorneys, Shumaker Williams, P.C., to state the following Reply to Defendants' New Matter as follows: 135. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that in late February 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug contacted Plaintiffregarding the availability of its facility on September 5, 2004. The remaining averments in paragraph 135 of the New Matter are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments that Defendant Ruth Ann Krug called "other venues to determine those available for a September 5, 2004 wedding reception, as this date was already cleared with and reserved by Ruth Ann Krug's desired band" and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 136. Admitted. 137. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 137 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 137 of the New Matter. 138. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 138 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 138 of the New Matter. 139. Admitted in part with clarification and denied in part. It is admitted that Jennifer Beard met with Defendant Ruth Ann Krug at Liberty Forge for a tour of Plaintiff's facility in early March 2004. The remaining averment in paragraph 139 of the New Matter is specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to fore a belief as to the truth ofthe averment that Plaintiff's facility was the last facility toured by Defendant Ruth Ann Krug on March 1, 2004. 140. Admitted with clarification. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug advised Jennifer Beard that Defendant Ruth Ann Krug required a limited, dietary Kosher menu. 141. Denied. It is specifically denied that Jennifer was told in early March 2004 "that the seven piece Ivan Taub Orchestra had already been reserved and tentatively booked to play at the reception on September 5, 2004 from 8:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m." To the contrary, it was not until June or July 2004, that Plaintiff was advised that a band was hired to play at the Defendants' reception on September 5, 2004. However, Defendants did not advise Plaintiffofthe band's start and end time at that time. 142. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Ruth Ann Krug also expressed [to Plaintiff in early March 2004] how excited she was to have this band perform at the reception of her daughter." By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 141 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. Finally, the remaining averment in paragraph 142 of the New Matter is specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment "owing to her attendance at other band performances." 143. Denied It is specifically denied that Jennifer was told in early March 2004 that the "band was reserved before any wedding location was even chosen." By way of further response, Plaintiffs response to paragraph 141 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. Finally, after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that "[t]his band was reserved before any wedding location was even chosen" and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 144. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]fter the tour, Jennifer was advised by Ruth Ann Krug that the Wedge Restaurant was rejected as a reception site because of its size and room configuration, which impacted upon large numbers dancing to the live band." By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 141 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 145. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Ruth Ann Krug told Jennifer that the Liberty "Big Top" tent (`tent') was the only venue at Liberty Forge of interest." By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 141 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 3 146. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]hroughout their dealings, Jennifer Beard was advised that the most material and critically important issue was having the Ivan Taub Orchestra perform during the entire wedding reception, which was to take place in the tent at Liberty Forge." To the contrary, Jennifer Beard believed that Defendants Wendy and Karl Baum andtheir happiness were the most paramount issue. By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 154 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 147. Admitted. In addition, Plaintiff believes that it did fully accommodate the express needs of Defendants as the wedding and reception were successful and Defendants expressed their gratitude to Plaintiff s employees for their attention to detail, service, and food. 148. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffis without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments that Defendant Ruth Ann Krug was impressed by Jennifer Beard's "professionalism, skill, and eagerness to please of Liberty Forge and its staff, as well as its available facilities, to meet the expressed needs of this wedding, including dancing." By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 147 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 149. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[n]o warnings, problems, conditions, or objections were asserted by Jennifer with regard to the band performing in the tent, Jennifer understanding that Liberty Forge would then be eliminated as a location for the wedding."Byway of fiuther response, Jennifer Beard and other employees, agents, and contractors of Plaintiff consistently advised the Defendants that a band without amplification could perform in the tent until 11:00 p.m. on September 5, 2004. In addition, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 154, 160-161, 163-183 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 4 By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that "Liberty Forge would then be eliminated as a location for the wedding." 150. Admitted in part with clarification and denied in part. It is admitted that Jennifer provided a DVD and informational booklet to Defendant Ruth Ann Krug in early March 2004. It is specifically denied that a DVD is attached as Exhibit "A" to Defendant's New Matter. 151. Denied. The averments in paragraph 151 of the New Matter improperly summarize a written document and such document speaks for itself. 152. Admitted. 153. Admitted in part with clarification and denied in part. It is admitted that Ruth Ann Krug called Jennifer Beard to reserve Plaintiff s facility, including the tent, for September 5, 2004. The remaining averment in paragraph 153 of the New Matter is specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient infonnation or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that "[a]fter reviewing Liberty Forge packet and comparing the facilities offered by others" Defendant Ruth Ann Krug called Jennifer Beard to reserve the tent for September 5, 2004 and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 154. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffis without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth ofthe averments that "[o]n March 8, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug signed a contract dated March 3, 2004 to have the Ivan Taub Orchestra play at the scheduled wedding (location to be determined) on September 5, 2004 from approximately 8:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m."and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. If the most critical issue to Defendant Ruth Ann Krug was that Ivan Taub Orchestra perform at her daughter's wedding reception as 5 pleaded in paragraph 146 of the New Matter and if she executed a contract with such band prior to booking Plaintiff s facility, then it is suspect why Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to timely obtain Plaintiffs prior written approval of Ivan Taub Orchestra's performance in accordance with the contract, to wit, "bands, and other entertainment are permitted in the Wedge, on the deck, in the Liberty Top Tent and elsewhere at Liberty Forge with prior written apnroval from LF."(Underlining added). Furthermore, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to fulfill her contractual obligations to Plaintiff with regard to the band's performance and is now attempting to use the band's failure to perform in the tent as a basis for non-payment. Byway of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 141 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 155. Admitted. 156. Admitted in part with clarification and denied in part. It is admitted that the date next to Defendant Ruth Ann Krug's signature on the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form is Apri12Q, 2004. It is also admitted that Defendant Attorney Howard Krug negotiated with Jennifer Beard about revising and rewriting thePlaintiff s standard Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form, and did, in fact, modify sections of the contract. Specifically, Defendant Attorney Howard Krug demanded that under the "Payment in Advance" section of the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form, Jennifer Beard add: "Patron agrees to such amounts as may be charged to their credit card(s) with the provisions that such amounts are deemed reasonable by the patron." In addition, Defendant Attorney Howard Krug demanded that she add the following sentence at the end of the section entitled "Cancellation by Patron": "This shall not apply if patron rebooks the contracted events." It is further admitted that Defendant Ruth Ann Krug executed the Food and Beverage Standazd Reservation Form, which was negotiated and revised by Defendant Attorney 6 Howard Krug. Finally, it is admitted that Defendant Ruth Ann Krug executed a check in the amount of $1,937.70. However, this check was drawn on a joint checking account of Howard and Ruth Ann Krug. The Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form was returned to Plaintiff by Defendant Attorney Howard Krug with a cover letter on stationery of Purcell, Krug & Haller. The remaining averments in pazagraph 156 of the New matter are specifically denied. To the contrary, by Apri121, 2004 letter, Defendant Attorney Howard Krug forwarded the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form executed by his wife to Plaintiff and sent Plaintiff a check in the amount of $1,937.70, representing the required 15% deposit of the estimated charges for Defendants Wendy and Karl Baum's wedding and reception. The $1,937.70 check was drawn on the account of Howard and Ruth Ann Krug. By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 154 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 157. Denied. The averments in paragraph 157 of the New Matter improperly summarize a written document and such document speaks for itself. 158. Admitted with clarification. It is admitted that Defendant Ruth Ann Krug executed the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form after Defendant Howard Krug's requested revisions to the contract were completed. By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 154 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 159. Admitted in part with clarification and denied in part. It is admitted that only Defendant Ruth Ann Krug executed a check for the initial 15% deposit from a joint account in the names of Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug. It is further admitted that Defendants failed to issue any other check to Plaintiff as payment for the wedding and reception held at Plaintiff's facility on September 5, 2004. 7 The remaining averments in paragraph 159 of the New Matter are specifically denied. By way of further response, under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug was required to provide Plaintiff with credit card information sufficient to cover charges under the contract, to wit, "[p]rior to the Event, Patron agrees to provide Liberty Forge with credit card information sufficient to cover incidental charges, additional food and beverage ordered or supplied or for damage that may occur the day of or during the Event." On September 4, 2004, Defendant Howard Krug presented a credit card to Plaintiff. Accordingly, pursuant to the contract, Plaintiff had a credit card on file to use for charges. Further, at the conclusion of the reception on September 5, 2004, Plaintiff's total charges, pursuant to the contract with the Defendants, was $19,431.20 less the deposit of $1,937.70, For a balance of $17,493.50. The Defendants gave no notice to Plaintiff or its employees prior to the Event, on the day of the Event, or three weeks after the Event that there was any dispute or question about the amount due to Plaintiff. To the contrary, at the conclusion of the Event, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug promised to return the next day to settle the account. She did not return the next day, but did return two days after the reception to pick up flowers that Plaintiff was storing in anair-conditioned environment for her. 160. Denied It is specifically denied that "Ms. Beard was at all times aware that the chosen venue for the reception with seven piece orchestra was to be in the tent." By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 141 and 154 ofthe New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, Jennifer Beard and other employees, agents, and contractors of Plaintiff consistently advised the Defendants that a band without amplification could perform in the tent until 11:00 p.m. on September 5, 2004. I61. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time until September 4, 2004 did Plaintiff advise Ruth Ann Krug that a live band could not perform in the tent for any reason." To the contrary, Jennifer Beard and other employees, agents, and contractors of Plaintiff consistently advised the Defendants that a band without amplification could perform in the tent until 11:00 p.m. on September 5, 2004 due to local ordinances and liquor laws and regulations. By way of further response, Defendants admit to discussing these volume and time limitations with Jennifer Beard as early as August 7, 2004. In addition, the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form provides that "[d]isc jockeys, bands, and other entertainment are permitted in the Wedge, on the deck, in the Liberty Top Tent and elsewhere at Liberty Forge with prior written approval from LF." At no time did any of the Defendants request or obtain from Plaintiff written approval of the Ivan Taub Orchestra as required by the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form. Furthermore, Defendant Howard Krug negotiated and requested changes to Plaintiffs standard Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form, yet he did not object to or attempt to rewrite the aforementioned provision in the contract. Moreover, Defendant Howazd Krug visited Plaintiff s facility the weekend after the August 7, 2004 meeting and spoke to Plaintiffs agent regarding noise and volume limitations. By way of further response, Plaintiff s response to paragraph 154 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 162. Admitted. As provided in the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form, Plaintiff"reserves the right to approve, terminate, andfor control the volume of entertainment at the event "Defendant Howard Krug had the opportunity to revise this contract provision and chose not too. In addition, Plaintiff requires the people contracting with it for an event "to conduct the Event 9 in an orderly manner, in full compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations and Rules of Conduct of Liberty Forge." 163. Denied in part and admitted in part. It is denied that Jennifer Beard advised Defendants that a neighbor complained approximately 25 times to township police. It is admitted that on August 7, 2004, Jennifer Beard advised Defendants that a neighbor complained to the local police about late night music and a local ordinance prohibited Plaintiff from allowing a band to play in the tent a$er 11:00 p.m. 164. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Jennifer advised that police had never issued a single citation to Plaintiff as a result of these numerous calls." To the contrary, Jennifer Beard advised the Defendants that a neighbor was unhappy with the way local police responded to her calls. 165. It is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Jennifer advised the Defendants on August 7, 2004 that a neighbor contacted the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. The remaining averment in paragraph 165 is specifically denied on the basis that after reasonable investigation, Plaintiffis without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board "became involved to assist the neighbor." 166. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]his filing, according to Jennifer, led to a mediation, during which Liberty Forge threatened that the neighbor's continuing complaints would result in mobile homes and trailers being brought onto the grounds, turning it into a trailer park." To the contrary, Jennifer Beard never advised Defendants that the neighbor's complaints would result in Plaintiff changing its premier property into a trailer park or that such was stated at a 10 mediation. By way of further response~fter reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that "this filing...led to mediation." Plaintiffdoes not understand what filing Defendants are referencing in this paragraph. 167. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Jennifer also indicated that the neighbor was very intimated by such a possibility." By way of further response, Plaintiff s response to paragraph 166 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. In addition, this neighbor works at the Office of Attorney General and is not intimidated by anyone. 168. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff erected a wall between the tent and neighbor's property. The remaining averment in paragraph 168 of the New Matter is specifically denied. Plaintiff did not erect a wall due to mediation. 169. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Jennifer also advised that Liberty Forge hired the former Mayor of Camp Hill for political advantage to monitor noise levels for events held in the tent." To the contrary, Jennifer Beard advised Defendants on August 7, 2004 that a private investigator was hired by Plaintiff to ensure that bands without amplification did not play in the tent past 11:00 p.m. Plaintiff hired this private investigator due to his remarkable qualifications and impeccable recommendations. At the time Plaintiff hired this private investigator, it did not know he was a former Mayor of Camp Hill. 170. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Jennifer minimized the monitoring, assuring Ruth Ann Krug that such would have little impact on the wedding, the band or volume of its play, owing to the placement of sound barrier and Plaintiff sguest-friendly, control." To the contrary, Jennifer Beard and other employees, agents, and contractors of Plaintiff consistently advised the Defendants that a band without amplification could perform in the tent until 11:00 p.m. on 11 September 5, 2004. At no time did Jennifer Beard tell the Defendants that Plaintiff would break the laws for their event. Jennifer Beard told Defendants that the private investigator would monitor events in the tent, including their event. Furthermore, at no time did Jennifer Beard believe Defendants were above the law, despite Howard Krug being an attorney and his assertions that the First Amendment would protect his daughter's event. By way of further response, Plaintiffs responses to paragraphs 154 and 161 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 171. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Jennifer again firmly and unconditionally advised that the neighbor fully agreed, and the mediated agreement resolved the entire problem." To the contrary, Plaintiff could not ignore or break a local ordinance or violate liquor laws and regulations based upon a neighbor's approval or a mediated agreement. In addition, Jennifer Beard and other employees, agents, and contractors of Plaintiff consistently advised the Defendants that a band without amplification could perform in the tent until 11:00 p.m. on September 5, 2004. By way of further response, Plaintiff s response to paragraph 154 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 172. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Jennifer did not state that there was a continuing LCB problem." To the contrary, Jennifer advised Defendants on August 7, 2004 that due to the liquor laws and regulations, a band with amplification could not play in the tent at any time. Furthermore, Defendants knew Plaintiffreserved the right to approve, terminate, and/or control the volume of entertainment at the event as stated in the contract and they were required to conduct the wedding and reception in full compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. In addition, Defendant Howard Krug visited Plaintiff s facility the weekend after the August 7, 2004 meeting to monitor noise and volume limitations and spoke with Plaintiff's agent. 12 In addition, Plaintiff s response to paragraph 154 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that "Defendants left the meeting thinking all is fine." At that point, Jennifer Beard believed Defendants were going to conduct their event in accordance with all applicable laws. 173. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[o]n August 7, 2004, Jennifer never advised Defendants that a band could not entertain in the tent, owing to LCB rules or regulations or any other reason." To the contrary, Jennifer Beard and other employees, agents, and contractors of Plaintiffconsistentlyaduised the Defendants that a band without amplification could perform in the tent until 11:00 p.m. on September 5, 2004. By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 154, 170, and 172 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 174. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Jennifer also did not advise that there was any township ordinance requiring band music to stop in the tent at 11:00 p.m." By way of further response, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 154, 161, 163, 169, and 170 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 175. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Jennifer Beard met with the Defendants on August 7, 2004. The remaining averments in paragraph 175 of the New Matter are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in paragraph 175 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 13 176. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that "[o]n hearing this, Defendants immediately returned to speak to Jennifer" and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. The remaining averment that "who responded that the decision to move the other wedding was made prior to the mediation and settlement with the neighbor" is specifically denied. To the contrary, Jennifer Beard advised the Defendants that the reason that the reception was moved from the tent was because that particular patron wanted the band to use amplification. In addition, Plaintiffs response to paragraph 171 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 177. Denied It is specifically denied that "Jennifer repeated that the noise issue, having been completely resolved at the mediation, had been totally eliminated and would have no impact on the wedding, at which the band would play during the reception in the tent, as scheduled." By way of further response, Plaintiffls responses to paragraphs 161, 163, and 169- 172 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 178. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Jennifer Beard was fully aware, owing to the importance ofthis band to Ruth Ann Krug, that had she disclosed that no band could play in the tent, the wedding at Plaintiff's facility would have been canceled and another location found." To the contrary, Jennifer Beard did disclose to Defendants at the August 7, 2004 meeting that only a band without amplification could play in the tent until 11:00 pm. By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 141, 142, 149, 154, 161, 170 and 171 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the importance of the band to Defendant Ruth Ann Krug and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 14 179. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time thereafter, prior to September 4, 2004, did Jennifer or Plaintiff advise Ruth Ann Krug that Liberty Forge was cited by or engaged in continuing legal proceedings with the LCB, Defendants being left under the clear impression that the mediation led to the resolution of the tent-noise issue entirely." By way of further response, Plaintiffl s responses to paragraphs 161,172,173, and 177 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of Defendants' impressions from the August 7, 2004 meeting and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 180. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff received a Notice of Violation letter dated August 9, 2004 from the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement. 181. Admitted with clarification. It is admitted that a Citation dated August 26, 2004 was issued to Plaintiff by the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement. 182. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph 182 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial 183. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Plaintiff decided to comply with LCB rules and stop bands from performing in the tent, because the music invariably escaped the boundaries of Plaintiff s licensed property, despite its much touted `sound barrier. "' To the contrary, Plaintiff permits bands without amplification to perform in the tent until 11:00 p.m. By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs and 154 and 161 of the New Matter aze incorporated herein by reference. 15 184. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Plaintiff did not in good faith make Ruth Ann Krug or any Defendant aware of this position or decision, despite its contract of April 20, 2004 and the express and implied duties thereof" To the contrary, Jennifer Beard and other employees, agents, and contractors of Plaintiff consistently advised the Defendants that a band without amplification could perform in the tent until 11:00 p.m. on September 5, 2004. By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to pazagraphs 154, 161, 165, 170, 172, and 173 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 185. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time prior to September 4, 2004 did Plaintiff advise any Defendant of this information, despite the negative impact it would have on this long planned wedding, with a band already scheduled to play in the tent." By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 141, 143, 145, 161, and 163-179 ofthe New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 186. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t all significant times it was known to Plaintiff that the reception was scheduled to commence in the tent on September 5, 2004 at approximately 8:15 p.m. and continue through approximately 12:30 a.m., with the band playing throughout." To the contrary, on September 2, 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug advised Plaintiff's employee of the band's start and end time and, for the first time, advised Plaintiff that the band would play until 12:00 a.m. In addition, on September 4, 2004, Defendant Wendy Baum provided Plaintiff with the following schedule for the September 5, 2004 wedding: 6:30 p.m. wedding music begins; 6:45 p.m. wedding ceremony begins; 7:15 p.m. cocktail hour begins; 8:15 p.m. reception begins in tent and disc jockey plays; 8:45 p.m. salad served; 9:25 p.m. main course served; and 10:15 p.m. move to Wedge Restaurant for cake cutting, dessert, and band begins playing. Byway 16 of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 141 and 154 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 187. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph 187 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, Plaintiff s response to paragraph 154 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 188. Admitted with clarification. The only specific schedule for wedding events provided to Plaintiffwas on September 4, 2004 by Defendant Wendy Baum, which stated 6:30 p.m. wedding music begins; 6:45 p.m. wedding ceremony begins; 7:15 p.m. cocktail hour begins; 8:15 p.m. reception begins intent and disc jockey plays; 8:45 p.m. salad served; 9:25 p.m. main course served; and 10:15 p.m. move to Wedge Restaurant for cake cutting, dessert, and band begins playing 189. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 189 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 189 of the New Matter. 190. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[o]n or about August 17, 2004 Plaintiff, by its authorized employee, ordered staging to be erected for the band in the tent, as per recent request of the band." To the contrary, the stage was used in the Wedge Restaurant. By way of further response, in accordance with Defendant Wendy Baum's contract amendment for the September 5, 2004 wedding, the band was to play in the Wedge Restaurant. 17 191. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[o]n September 2, 2004, seventy-two (72) hours before the wedding, when Ruth Ann Krug called her to see, in general, if any problems existed, Jennifer Beard told Ruth Ann Krug for the first time that the band could not play in the tent after 11:00 p.m., owing to township ordinance." To the contrary, on September 2, 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug advised Plaintiff's employee of the band's start and end time and, for the first time, advised Plaintiff that the band would play until 12:00 a.m. Jennifer Beard advised Defendant Ruth Ann Krug, as she had done in the past, that a band without amplification could not play in the tent past 11:00 p.m. due to a local noise ordinance. However, Jennifer Beard did not tell Defendant Ruth Ann Krug that a band could never perform in the tent. By way of further response, Plaintiffs responses to paragraphs 154, 161, 163, 169, 170, 174 and 176-177 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 192. Admitted in part with clarification and denied in part. It is admitted that Brett Shaffer left afollow-up telephone message for Defendant Ruth Ann Krug later in the evening on September 3, 2004. However, Brett Shaffer previously spoke with Defendant Ruth Ann Krug on Friday afrernoon, September 3, 2004. The remaining averment is specifically denied on the basis that after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that Defendant Ruth Ann Krug did not get the message until the next morning and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 193. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[b]y telephone during the morning of September 4, 2004, Brett Shaffer told Ruth Ann Krug that as per LCB rules, no band could legally play in the tent under any circumstances, which last minute disclosure caused emotional distress for Ruth Ann Krug and Wendy Krug." To the contrary, on September 4, 2004, Brett Shaffer again 18 advised Defendant Ruth Ann Krug that a band without amplification could play in the tent until 11:00 p.m., which was not a last minute disclosure as Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 161, 163, 169, 170, and 174 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, Brett Shaffer informed Defendant Ruth Ann Krug that a band without amplification could not legally play in the tent past 11:00 p.m. Also, at no time did Brett Shaffer or any employee of Plaintiff advise Defendant Ruth Ann Krug that no band could legally play in the tent under any circumstances. However, Brett Shaffer did advise Defendant Ruth Ann Krug that if the Defendants were unwilling to comply with the laws, their band would not be permitted to use the tent. The averment that Defendants Ruth Ann Krug and Wendy Baum were emotionally distressed is specifically denied on the basis that after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such averment and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 194. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[i]n response to her question why she was never told about this proscription before, Mr. Shaffer told Ruth Ann Krug that a morning meeting was scheduled to determine just that." To the contrary, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug was consistently told by Plaintiff's employees, agents, and contractors that a band without amplification could play in the tent until 11:00 p.m. By way of further response, a morning meeting was not scheduled on September 4, 2004. 195. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a meeting was scheduled for September 4, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. with Brett Shaffer to finalize the wedding and reception details. Moreover, after this meeting on September 4, 2004, Defendant Wendy Baum provided Plaintiffwith 19 an amendment to the contract, indicating the following schedule for the September 5, 2004 wedding: 6:30 p.m. wedding music begins; 6:45 p.m. wedding ceremony begins; 7:15 p.m. cocktail hour begins; 8:15 p.m. reception begins in tent and disc jockey plays; 8:45 p.m. salad served; 9:25 p.m. main course served; and 10:15 p.m. move to Wedge Restaurant for cake cutting, dessert, and band begins playing. The remaining averments are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in pazagraph 195 of the New Matter. 196. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph 196 of the New Matter. 197. Admitted with clarification. Brett Shaffer advised that liquor laws and regulations prohibited a band with amplification to perform in the tent. 198. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]llegedly, Jennifer had twice been instructed to meet with Defendants to fully and honestly disclose the band problem, the first time approximately a month earlier, in early August."Byway of further response, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 161, 163, 169, 170, and 174 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 199. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[i]n the beginning of September, when he saw an invoice for band staging to be erected in the tent, Mr. Shaffer allegedly confronted Jennifer, resulting in the late evening message to Ruth Ann Krug on September 3, 2004." To the contrary, Brett Shaffer did not confront Jennifer Beard or see an invoice for band staging. Byway of further response, Plaintiffls response to paragraph 192 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 20 200. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[h]e was most apologetic and accepted full responsibility for this problem on behalf ofLiberty Forge." To the contrary, the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form provides that "[d]isc jockeys, bands, and other entertainment are permitted in the Wedge, on the deck, in the Liberty Top Tent and elsewhere at Liberty Forge with prior written approval from LF." At no time did any Defendant request or obtain from Plaintiff written approval of the Ivan Taub Orchestra as required by the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form. Furthermore, Defendant Howard Krug negotiated and requested changes to Plaintiffs standard Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form, yet he did not object to or attempt to rewrite the aforementioned provision in the contract. Finally, Defendants agreed to conduct the wedding and reception in full compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations and Rules of Conduct of Plaintiff. By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 154 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 201. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[h]e advised that Jennifer Beard had been allegedly fired because of her dishonesty, deception, and failure to deal with the problem honestly and openly with Ruth Ann Krug." To the contrary, Brett Shaffer never stated Jennifer Beard was fired. To the contrary, Jennifer Beard was never terminated by Plaintiff. 202. Denied It is specifically denied that [a]llegedly, no one checked to determine whether Jennifer had honestly disclosed all to Ruth Ann Krug until the eve ofthe wedding." Byway of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 161, 163, and 169- 172 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 203. Admitted. It was not Brett Shaffer's job to request money from the Defendants. 21 204. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[o]n behalf of Liberty Forge, Mr. Shaffer agreed to make up for this situation, but under no circumstances could a band play in the tent." To the contrary, Brett Shaffer advised Defendants that a band without amplification could perform in the tent until 11:00 p.m. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment regarding making "up for this situation" in paragraph 204 of the New Matter. 205. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Mr. Shaffer made several suggestions, and despite fears that guests would leave at 10:15 p.m., a settlement agreement was reached by the terms of which the wedding would continue at Liberty Forge, with significant event changes benefitting Ruth Ann Krug to make up for this situation." To the contrary, Brett Shaffer advised Defendants that if they wanted the band to play with amplification or after 11:00 p.m., then they would have to move that part of their reception inside to the entire Wedge Restaurant and have the dinner in the tent to accommodate the large number of guests; otherwise, Plaintiff would be violating Pennsylvania liquor laws and regulations regarding noise and the local ordinance regulating noise. Because Defendants wanted the band to play with amplification after 11:00 p.m., they agreed to move that portion of their reception inside to the Wedge Restaurant and have the dinner in the tent. As an accommodation and with no additional cost or expense to Defendants, Plaintiff agreed not to charge Defendants for (1) a disc jockey to play in the tent during dinner, (2) the use of the entire Wedge Restaurant, (3) the rental of a dance floor, (4) decorating the Cumberland Room, located in the Wedge Restaurant, with flowers, and (5) hors d'ouevers and snacks. Plaintiff usually charges $15,000.00 for the use of the entire Wedge Restaurant. 22 By way of further response, the averment that a settlement agreement was reached is denied as a conclusion of law. Such averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averment that a settlement agreement was reached as stated in paragraph 205 of the New Matter. 206. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[b]y the terms of the settlement agreement, once dinner was completed between 10:00 and 10:15 p.m., the venue for the reception would change to the Wedge Restaurant, where the band could play, as no large dinner tables were needed." To the contrary, Plaintiff followed the contract amendment, which included a detailed schedule for the September 5, 2004 wedding: 6:30 p.m. wedding music begins; 6:45 p.m. wedding ceremony begins; 7:15 p.m. cocktail hour begins; 8:15 p.m. reception begins intent and disc jockey plays; $:45 p.m. salad served; 9:25 p.m. main course served; and 10:15 p.m. move to Wedge Restaurant for cake cutting, dessert, and band begins playing. Plaintiff performed in accordance with the contract amendment at no additional charge to Defendants. By way of further response, the averment that a settlement agreement was reached is denied as a conclusion of law. Such averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averment that a settlement agreement was reached as stated in paragraph 206 of the New Matter. 207. Denied in part and admitted in part. The averment that a settlement agreement was reached is denied as a conclusion of law. Such averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be 23 required, Plaintiffspecifically denies the averment that a settlement agreementwas reached as stated in paragraph 207 of the New Matter. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that "Liberty Forge would reimburse or credit Defendant for all economic losses, to the extent of unnecessary or partially unnecessary expense, including lost band playing time (inability to play in the tent from 8:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.). A dessert buffet of several desserts would be served without charge. Snack food to create a late night parry atmosphere would be served without charge. The Wedge Terrace would be decorated for a reception, including full flowers, without charge. Martini bar without charge." Furthermore, such accommodations were not stated in the contract amendment. To the contrary, Plaintiff agreed to provide a dessert buffet for Defendants, but Plaintiff did not agree to serve the desserts. In addition, Plaintiff agreed to make snack food available, but did not agree to serve it. Also, Plaintiff agreed to decorate the Cumberland Room in the Wedge Restaurant with flowers. Finally, Plaintiff agreed to allow Defendants to have a Martini bar if they paid for it. By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 206 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. It is admitted that Plaintiff agreed to keep the guests motivated to remain at the wedding during the change of venues, to include rides to the Wedge Restaurant, without charge. 208. Denied in part and admitted in part. The averment that a settlement agreement was reached is denied as a conclusion of law. Such averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averment that a settlement agreement was reached as stated in paragraph 208 of the New Matter. 24 It is admitted that a wedding and reception took place at Plaintiff's facility on September 5, 2004 in accordance to the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form, signed by Defendant Ruth Ann Krug on April 20, 2004, as amended by Defendant Wendy Krug via email dated September 4, 2004. By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 206 and 207 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 209. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Mr. Shaffer's September 3rd and 4th contacts and agreements were with Ruth Ann Krug and no other Defendant." To the contrary, Mr. Shaffer met and spoke with Defendant Ruth Ann Krug on September 3 and 4, 2004. In addition, Mr. Shaffer met with all the Defendants on September 4, 2004 and it was immediately thereafter that Defendant Wendy Baum provided Plaintiff with a written contract amendment. By way of further response, The averment that an agreement was reached is denied as a conclusion of law. Such averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which a responsive pleading is not required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averment that an agreement was reached as stated in paragraph 209 of the New Matter, except as to heretofore set forth by the amendmentprepared by Defendant Wendy Krug on September 4, 2004. 210. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[o]n or about September 4, 2004, an employee of Plaintiff advised Ruth Ann Krug that Jennifer was very upset and exceptionally sorry for all that had occurred." To the contrary, Jennifer Beard was neither upset or regretful on September 4, 2004. 211. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[i]ncredibly, Jennifer appeared at the September 4, 2004 rehearsal dinner, where she told Ruth Ann Krug that she had been fired." To the contrary, Jennifer Beard was not at the rehearsal dinner on September 4, 2004. Moreover, Plaintiff did not 25 terminate Jennifer Beard at any time. 212. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the rehearsal dinner was held on September 4, 2004. The remaining averments in paragraph 212 of the New matter are specifically denied. To the contrary, the rehearsal dinnerwas quite eventful and successful. In addition, Plaintiff presumed that the credit card was provided to it in accordance with the contract. If such credit card was not presented in compliance and fulfillment of the specific contract provisions, then Defendants were then and at all times thereafter in breach of contract, which breach continues, because they have received goods and services from Plaintiff in the amount of $17,493.50, which have not been paid. Finally, Plaintiffls response to paragraph 159 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. By way of further response, the averments that "to help his wife during this stress-filled time, Howard B. Krug paid for the dinner in full, at its conclusion, by credit card slip he expressly signed after review and approval of the billing" are denied on the basis that after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such averments and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 213. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph 213 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 214. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[o]n September 4, 2004, no additional funds, besides those necessary to pay the exact bill for the rehearsal dinner, were requested of Howard Krug for the wedding." To the contrary, the payment provisions in the Food and Beverage Standard 26 Reservation Form are clear with specific provisions for use of the credit card requested for such purposes. Furthermore, Defendant Howard Krug negotiated and revised such terms in the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form. By way of further response, Plaintiff s response to paragraph 159 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 215. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time was Howard Krug advised that his credit card would be used for anything other than the rehearsal dinner." To the contrary, one account was setup for the rehearsal dinner, wedding, and reception. Under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug was required to provide Plaintiffwith credit card information sufficient to cover charges under the contract. On September 4, 2004, Defendant Howazd Krug presented such credit card information to Plaintiff for such purpose. Accordingly, pursuant to the contract, Plaintiffhad such credit card information on file to use for charges. Byway of further response, Defendant Howazd Krug, an attorney, negotiated and revised the portion of the contract acknowledging that the reheazsal dinner, wedding, and reception were one event. Specifically, he demandedthat the following sentence be added to the contract: "This shall not apply if patron rebooks the contracted events." By way of further response, Plaintiffs responses to paragraphs 159 and 212 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 216. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time did Howard B. Krug authorize Plaintiff to use his credit card to pay for the wedding." By way of further response, Plaintiffs responses to pazagraphs 159 and 212 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 217. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time did Howard B. Krug authorize Plaintiff to use his credit card without his signature." By way of further response, Plaintiffs responses to paragraphs 159 and 212 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 27 218. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time did Ruth Ann Krug leave with Plaintiff a credit card of record." To the contrary, Plaintiff had a reasonable basis to presume it was provided with a valid credit card in accordance with the contract. Plaintiff had no reason to believe, at that point, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug would breach the contract and not fulfill her contractual obligation to give Plaintiff a credit card. Moreover, there was no separate contract for the rehearsal dinner. Also, the initial deposit given to Plaintiff came from a joint checking account in the names ofHoward and Ruth Ann Krug. By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 159, 212, and 215 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 219. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time did Plaintiff object to this lack of credit card on record." To the contrary, Plaintiffdid have a credit card on record. By way of further response, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 159, 212, and 215 through 218 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 220. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time between April 22, 2004 and September 5, 2004 did Plaintiff request an additional deposit toward the cost of the wedding and reception, despite the express terms of the contract between the parties." To the contrary the payment provisions in the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form are clear. By way of further response, prior to leaving the reception, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug promised she would stop by the next day to take care of things and she did not imply or suggest that the bill would be disputed. However, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to fulfill her promise and made no further attempt to pay Plaintiff for the wedding and reception it hosted for her daughter. By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 159 and 212 ofthe New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 28 221. Denied It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time between April 22, 2004 and September 5, 2004 did Plaintiff ever request that the entire wedding and reception be paid for, despite the terms of the contract between the parties." To the contrary, the contract did not state Defendant Ruth Ann Krug only had to pay upon Plaintiff s request. By way of further response the contract is a document that speaks for itself. In addition, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 212 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 222. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time did Plaintiffremind Ruth Ann Krug to make any payment pursuant to the terms of the contract." To the contrary, the contract did not state Defendant Ruth Ann Krug only had to pay in accordance with its terms if she was reminded. By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 212 ofthe New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 223. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Ruth Ann Krug made all payments requested by Plaintiff on or before September 29, 2004." To the contrary, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to pay in accordance with the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form. By way of further response, prior to the conclusion of the reception Brett Shaffer was calculating the final bar bill and Defendant Ruth Ann Krug advised him that she was leaving and would be back the next day to take care of things because she did not want to wait until he added all the bar slips and tabs, which bar bill total was approximately $7,100.00. When Defendant Ruth Ann Krug did not return and pay the next day as promised, an invoice was mailed to Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug on or about September 10, 2004. By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 159 and 212 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 29 224. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[ojn September 5, 2004, the following reception problems were noted: a. During the cocktail hour, the outside bartender ran out of white wine and never replaced it. b. The outside bar never had nor secured Bloody Mary mix, despite requests. c. Tip jars were placed at all bars throughout the evening, despite the fact that a service charge was added to Ruth Ann Krug s bill. d. There were either too many or insufficient chairs at many tables in the tent to seat the number of guests assigned to each table, causing guests to embark on a scavenger hunt in the tent for available chairs. e. No salad dressing was served or present on the dry salad. f. For the majority ofthe dinner in the tent, the bar was closed, guests being falsely told that this was on the instructions of the bride and groom. g. Only two choices of dessert were placed on trays in an obscure area of the Terrace, rather than the agreed dessert buffet. h. The Terrace patio, although decorated with Fall flowers, lacked tablecloths and flowers or centerpieces on the tables, resulting in guests sitting at bare, ugly tables. i. The dance floor intended for the tent, so that traditional circle dances could take place, was not installed in the tent, making it impossible for the majority of guests to participate. j. Defendants aze unaware of any snacks served at the reception. k. No non-dairy desserts were served at the wedding, despite charges. 30 1. The wedding reception in the tent was hurried. m. At the beginning of the wedding, guests were charged for drinks, and it is unknown whether Plaintiffs charges to Ruth Ann Krug include drinks paid for by guests." To the contrary, Plaintiff did not run out of white wine during the cocktail hour. Also, none of the Defendants requested Bloody Mary mix to be served at the bars. Further, tip jars were not placed at the bars throughout the evening. Rather, wedding guests provided gratuities to the bartenders on their own volition and without request from any of Plaintiff's bartenders. It is not uncommon in the hospitality industry for wedding guests to offer gratuities to bartenders at a bar. Finally, none of Defendants' guests were charged for alcohol at the hosted bars. However, the bar lounge of the Wedge Restaurant was open to the public until approximately 9:30 p.m. In addition, table and chairs were set up in accordance with the seating chart from Defendants. Also, salad dressing was made available as requested by Defendants. Further, the cocktail hour was conducted in accordance with Defendant Wendy Baum's schedule and instructions. A dessert buffet, with several dessert selections, was available to guests on the deck and the buffet included several desserts. In fact, the wedding guests consumed all of the desserts. Moreover, Defendant Karl Baum consumed non-dairy desserts. Plaintiff only agreed to decorate the Cumberland Room with flowers. In addition, snacks were made available to the wedding guests. Plaintiff never agreed to table service of the snacks. The wedding reception was a success. In fact, Defendants not only acknowledged how successful the reception was to Plaintiff s employees, agents, and contractors, but some embraced Plaintiffs employees with expressions of gratitude. Defendant Howard Krug embraced one of 31 Plaintiff s managers to express his gratitude. Many guests complimented Plaintiff s employees, agents, and contractors for the excellent service and food and incomparable venue and its beauty. 225. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]he Ivan Taub Orchestra played until approximately 12:15 a.m., a loss of approximately 50% of the four hours scheduled for music, Ruth Ann Krug having paid $7,000 for four hours of scheduled music, resulting in a loss of $3,500." To the contrary, the Ivan Taub Orchestra played until approximately 1:45 a.m. However, the orchestra could have played as late as Defendants wanted. None of Plaintiffs employees advised the orchestra to stop performing. Furthermore, the orchestra was set up and ready to perform at 9:00 p.m. By way of further response, Plaintiffs response to paragraph 154 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Defendant Ruth Ann Krug had to pay $7,000 for four hours of scheduled music, resulting in a loss of $3,500 on the basis that after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such averment in paragraph 225 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time oftrial. By way of further response, Plaintiffls response to pazagraph 154 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 226. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]he florist expense for decorating the tent was significantly lost, as the guests were in the tent for no more than two hours, roughly half of the scheduled time. Thus, 50% of the floral expense was lost and made unnecessary." To the contrary, Plaintiff duplicated the flowers in the tent at the Wedge Restaurant without any charge to Defendants. Therefore, the wedding guests saw substantially the same flowers in the Cumberland Room of the Wedge Restaurant as they saw in the tent. 32 227. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[i]n addition, Plaintiff agreed to place flower bowls at the tables in the tent once the excessive heat dissipated to avoid wilting; however, this was never done and the entire expense for such was lost." To the contrary, flowers were on the tables in the tent. However, once the guests left the tent, the flowers were moved to the lower level of the Wedge Restaurant in an air-conditioned environment. Two days afrer the wedding and reception, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug returned to take the flowers, but did not attempt or offer to pay her outstanding bill of $17,493.50, as she had promised to do on the night of the reception by returning the next day. 228. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 228 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 229. Denied It is specifically denied that "[t]he small plates of non-dairy desserts were never served, for a loss of $636 plus 20% service charge or $756." To the contrary, non-dairy desserts were available and consumed by the guests. In fact, Defendant Karl Baum consumed non- dairy desserts. 230. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]n accounting of the tips paid by the guests was never provided to Ruth Ann Krug, despite her obligation fora 20% service charge." By way of fiarther response, tip jars were not placed at the bars throughout the evening. Rather, wedding guests provided unsolicited gratuities to the bartenders on their own volition and without request from any of Plaintiff's bartenders. It is not uncommon for guests, who attend parties, banquets, and weddings, to provide gratuities to bartenders. 33 231. Denied. To the contrary, the $1,040.00 charge was for stage rental, sound system rental, and special linen rental. The line item contract charge on the Food and Beverage Invoice is for both "Audio Visual and Miscellaneous Setup" and not as stated by Defendants. 232. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 232 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, Plaintiff performed in accordance with the amendment to the contract. 233. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]he following charges should be reduced by half or more because of the short amount of time spent at the tent reception, or as provided above: Item Char e Credit a. Band (lost 2 hours - 50%) $7,000 $3,500 b. Florist (tent deco) (50% use) 1,860 930 c. Unserved non-dairy desserts 756 756 d. Stage rental for band (50% use) 300 150 e. Sound system rental (50% use) 384 192 f Special linen rental for tent tables 356 178 g. Audio/Visual setup 1,040 520 Total Credit for losses and unserved items: $6,226** ** Not including tip credit against service charges and drinks paid for by guests and possibly charged to Ruth Ann Krug at beginning of event " By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 224-231 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the $1,040.00 charge was for stage rental, sound system rental, and special linen rental. Defendants are attempting to collect $520.00 twice in the calculations stated above. Specifically, Defendants claim they are owed $520.00 for audio, visual, and miscellaneous setup and then they claim they are owed an additional $520.00 ($150 for stage rental, $192 for sound system rental, and $178 for special linen rental). Accordingly, the lowest calculations, if one would believe the Defendants, should be $5,706, but Plaintiff specifically denies 34 that such or any amount is owed to any of the Defendants. 234. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[o]n or about September 29, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug received a call from a Liberty Forge employee inquiring whether a billing had been received." To the contrary, Plaintiff's employee contacted Defendant Ruth Ann Krug requesting payment of its bill, and Defendant Ruth Ann Krug promised Plaintiff s employee that she would return the next day following the Event to make payment. She returned two days later to pick up flowers, but not to pay her bill of $17,493.50. 235. Admitted. 236. Denied. It is specifically denied that"[t]heemployeeresponded thatcorporatebilling was notoriously slow." By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 223 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 237. Denied It is specifically denied that "[i]t is during this conversation of September 29, 2004 that Ruth Ann Krug advised the employee that she needed the bill, as she intended to dispute same where appropriate after review." After multiple attempts to collect the $17,493.50 and learning there was not enough credit for the total amount due under the credit card information that Plaintiff received and relied upon to fulfill the contract requirements, Plaintiff found out there may be a question about the bill. At no time did Defendants state the amount in dispute or direct Plaintiff not use the credit card. By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 212, 223, and 227 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 238. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffis without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 238 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 35 239. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that "[n]o bill prior to that dated September 29, 2004 was ever received" contained in paragraph 239 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. Byway of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 223 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 240. Denied It is specifically denied that "[t]he bills failed to include any credit or reimbursement for Defendant's losses or the credits due and stated in this New Matter for items not provided." To the contrary, Plaintiff did not owe any credit or reimbursement to Defendants. By way of further response, Plaintiffs responses to paragraphs 224-231 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 241. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in pazagraph 241 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. Byway of further response, the payment provisions in the contract were clear. In addition, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 223, 234, and 237 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. 242. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t all times Plaintiffwas awaze that Defendant had losses to be discussed and addressed in the billing; however, Plaintiff chose to ignore same entirely." To the contrary, Plaintiff addressed all of Defendants' issues at the September 4, 2004 meeting and followed the contract amendment. 243. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t no time was Plaintiff authorized to charge the credit card of Howard Krug for anything other than the rehearsal dinner, without his specific approval and signature." By way of further response, Plaintiff s responses to pazagraphs 159 and 36 215 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 244. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Plaintiff never requested such consent or authorization from either Ruth Ann Krug or Howard B. Krug." By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 159 and 215 through 218 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 245. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[p]ursuant to the written contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Ann Krug, Liberty Forge could not charge anything to a credit card not on file for `Patron' Ruth Ann Krug without her prior review and approval as `reasonable'." By way of further response, the averments in paragraph 245 ofthe New Matter improperly summarize a written document and such document speaks for itself. 246. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Liberty Forge never had a credit card on file for Ruth Ann Krug." By way of further response, Plaintiffls responses to paragraphs 159 and 215 and 218 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 247. Denied. The averments in pazagraph 247 of the New Matter improperly summazize a written document and such document speaks for itself. 248. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]he underlined language quoted above was added by Ruth Ann Krug to Plaintiffls standazd agreement to prevent unauthorized credit card charges to a credit card on file." By way of further response, Plaintiffls responses to paragraphs 156 and 223 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug blatantly ignored her payment obligations under the contract. She returned to Plaintiff s facility two days after the wedding and reception and did not attempt to pay her outstanding bill or dispute any charge. 37 249. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 249 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, the payment provisions in the contract were clear. 250. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[n]o attempt by Liberty Forge to use the Visa card of Howard B. Krug was made until September 30, 2004, one day after Ruth Ann Krug advised the Liberty Forge employee that she may dispute Plaintiff s billing." To the contrary, Defendant Howard Krug's credit card was used to pay for the rehearsal dinner on September 4, 2004. Byway of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 159 and 215 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 251. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[i]t is believed and therefore averred that on September 30, 2004, the following unsuccessful attempts were made to charge the credit card of Howard B. Krug by Plaintiff: Date Merchant Amount 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $22,432.20 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $22,432.20 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $1,200.00 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $6,000.00 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $12,000.00 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $6,000.00 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $6,000.00" By way of further response, the averments in paragraph 251 of the New Matter improperly summarize a written document and such document speaks for itself. To the contrary, the aforementioned amounts were not charges to Defendant Howard Krug's credit card and Plaintiffdid not receive such amounts from Defendant Howard Krug. By way of further response, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 159 and 223 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 38 252. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[i]t is believed and therefore averred that the initial sums Plaintiff attempted to charge against Defendant's Visa card $22,432.20, exceeds the amount Plaintiff has ever claimed is owed in this case since September 5, 2004." To the contrary, Plaintiff neither charged Defendant Howard Krug's credit card for $22,432.20 nor received $22,432.20 from Defendant Howard Krug. By way of further response, the digital dining system calculated the $22,432.20, not Plaintiff. The credit card company's software adds 20% as a reservation of funds pending gratuity verification, if applicable. 253. Denied in part and admitted in part. It is specifically denied that "Plaintiffcontinued in its attempts to use without authorization the credit card of Howard Krug, and Plaintiff, without authorization and actual approval, obtained three (3) separate payments on September 30, 2004 of $5,000, $5,000, and $1,000 respectively." By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 159, 215, 251, and 252 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. It is admitted that the total amount outstanding was $17,493.50 and Plaintiff received payment of $11,000.00 from Defendant Howard Krug's credit card. However, Defendant Howard Krug was successful in getting such payment reversed. Therefore, Plaintiff only received the initial deposit of $1,937.70 and payment for the rehearsal dinner. 254. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]hus, on September 30, 2004, Plaintiff made Ten (10) attempts to use the credit card ofHoward B. Krug without authorization, securing payment of $11,000 finally in the last three." By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to pazagraphs 159, 212, 215, 251, 252, and 253 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 255. Denied in part and admitted in part. It is specifically denied that "on or about October 6, 2004 Plaintiff attempted an 11th unauthorized charge ... [to] the credit card of Howard B. Krug." 39 To the contrary, Plaintiff was authorized to charge the credit card on file. By way of further response, Plaintiff's response to paragraph 159 of the New Matter is incorporated herein by reference. It is admitted that Plaintiff received payment of $4,943.94 from Defendant Howard Krug's credit card. However, Defendant Howard Krug was successful in getting such payment reversed. Therefore, Plaintiff only received the initial deposit of $1,937.70 and payment for the rehearsal dinner. 256. Denied. It is specifically denied that "that through the unauthorized use of Defendant's Visa, Plaintiff received $15,943.94." To the contrary, Plaintiff did not retain the $15,943.94 from Defendant Howard Knrg's credit card because he was successful in getting the Plaintiff s charges reversed. By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 159, 212, 215, 253, and 255 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 257. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffis without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 257 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, Plaintiffis responses to paragraphs 159 and 212 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 258. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Plaintiffwas aware at all times that it was not authorized to use this credit card to pay for the wedding and reception." By way of further response, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 159, 212, 215 through 218, 223, and 248 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 40 259. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 259 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 259 of the New Matter. 260. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 260 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in pazagraph 260 of the New Matter. 261. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in pazagraph 261 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 261 of the New Matter. 262. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 262 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 262 of the New Matter. 263. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Plaintiff knew or should have known, and disclosed to Ruth Ann Krug when it was contracting or dealing with her, that LCB rules and regulations barred the performance of a live band in the tent." By way of further response, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 161, 162, 172, 173, 177, and 179 of the New Matter aze incorporated herein by reference. 41 264. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Plaintiff knew or should have known, and disclosed to Ruth Ann Krug when it was contracting or dealing with her that a township ordinance barred live music emanating from the tent after 11:00 p.m." By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 154, 161, 163, 169, and 170 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 265. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 265 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 266. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 266 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 267. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 267 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 267 of the New Matter. By way of further response, Plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 154, 161, 163, 169, 170, 172-174, 176-177, 179, 191-193, 195, and 205 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 268. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 268 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 268 of the New Matter. By way of further response, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 161, 163, 169, 170, 172-174, 176-177, 179, 191-193, 195, and 205 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by 42 reference. 269. Denied as a conclusion of law. The avennents contained in paragraph 269 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 269 of the New Matter. By way of further response, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 144-145, 154, 159, 161, 163, 169, 170, 172-174, 176-177, 179, 191-193, 195, and 205 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 270. Denied. To the contrary, none of Plaintiff s employees served alcohol to a minor on September 5, 2004. 271. Denied. ABerreasonableinvestigation,Plaintiffiswithoutsufficientinformationor knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 271 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, Plaintiffs responses to paragraphs 159 and 215 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 272. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 272 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 272 of the New Matter. By way of further response, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 159 and 215 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 273. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants Wendy and Karl Baum are Defendants "in this case solely to intimidate and coerce Ruth Ann Krug to pay this debt." To the contrary, Plaintiff has a factual and legal basis to state claims against all Defendants. Specifically, 43 Defendant Wendy Baum provided a written contract amendment. 274. Denied. The averments in paragraph 274 of the New Matter improperly summarize the Court's June 6, 2005 Order and such document speaks for itself. 275. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]here was never a factual basis to bring a fraud count against Defendants individually or collectively." By way of further response, the Court's June 6, 2005 Order did not state there was no factual basis to bring a fraud count. 276. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 276 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 277. Denied. It is specifically denied that there was anything improper with the Verification of Kurt E. Williams and Plaintiff did not have a good faith basis for the fraud count against all or any of the Defendants. 278. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 278 of the New Matter and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 279. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 279 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 279 of the New Matter. 280. Admitted It is admitted that Brett Shaffer does not work for Plaintiff at this time. 281. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Jennifer Beard does not work for Plaintiff at this time. It is denied that she was terminated by Plaintiff. 44 282. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 282 constitute conclusions of ]aw which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 282 of the New Matter. 283. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 283 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 283 of the New Matter. 284. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 284 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 284 of the New Matter. 285. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 285 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 285 of the New Matter. 286. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 286 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 286 of the New Matter. 45 287. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 287 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 287 of the New Matter. 288. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 288 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 288 of the New Matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants and award Plaintiffdamages in an amount in excess of the mandatory arbitration amount of $25,000.00, plus interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated .~~~ ~~o ~ By ~ i~~~ (.l..Sw~t.~~~- '~ 111 Keith A. Clark, LD. #06249 Melissa A. Swauger #82382 P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 :179438 (717) 763-1121 46 VERIFICATION The undersigned, Brett Shaffer, hereby verifies and states that: He was an employee of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. and authorized to make this Verification. 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. He is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authoritiles. Dated: '1 ~025~~~ l Brett Shaffer VERIFICATION The undersigned, Kurt E. Williams, hereby verifies and states that: He is the President of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. and authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; and He is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. i Dated: ~ Ia5/~ urt E. Williams, President Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. VERIFICATION The undersigned, Luke A.V. Grumbine, hereby verifies and states that: He is the Chief Financial Officer of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. and authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are tme and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. He is awaze that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~1 ~ Dated: ~~S~~s '~~ U ~ l'L`~~-~-~ Luke A.V. Grumbine, CFO Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire, of the law firm of Shumaker Williams, P.C., hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff s Reply to New Matter on this date by depositing a copy of the same in the possession of the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2392 SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated: ~ (~SIaS By ~ V\~A./~/Cti ~~,1WO+Nc~~ Melissa A. Swauger P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)763-1121 rl hJ - ~ C5 - ~:;; -n <_ -a _ -`~ ~- R - n~ ~_-_> C1i ' )r..~ y _._. _! - rn ~ C.J °,O C,; John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire PA Atty. ID No. 29955 PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER 1719 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Telephone: (717)234-4178 Email: Ipurcell(rDpkh.com LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 05-435SCIVIL. (6dc~l w~an~ r1 9- /h es HOWARD B. KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. Keith A. Clark, Esquire Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to file a written response to the attached New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof orjudgment may be entered against you. Date: ~ ~ o~ BY: 'ID No. 29955 ~J Nichole M. St ley O'Gorman, Esquire ID No. 79866 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-417'8 Attorney for Defendants John W. Purcell, Jr. I.D. 29955 Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717)234-4178 email: jpurcell@pkh.com LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiff VS. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG husband and wife, Defendants KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, Defendants and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-1356 CI\/IL CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS NOW COMES Defendants by their attorneys, Purcell, Krug & Haller in response to the Complaint as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. Defendants do not know the person referenced in the Complaint. 5. Denied. Defendants do not know the person referenced in the Complaint. 6. Denied as stated. In late February 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug contacted Plaintiff about hosting the September 5, 2005 ~roedding and reception of her daughter, Wendy Krug, as the band for the event was open and tentatively booked for that date. 7. Admitted, as the size and configuration of the VVedge Restaurant was deemed unsuitable for the wedding and reception. See Wew Matter. 8. Admitted, as to Wendy Krug's and Karl Baum's wedding and reception, after changes were agreed upon by the parties. However, Plaintiff was chosen in very early March. 2004. 9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant Howard B. Krug forwarded Exhibit "A", signed solely by Defendant Ruth Ann Krug, with a check fora 15% deposit, also signed by Defendant Ruth Ann Krug, to Plaintiff for the wedding and reception. Defendant Howard Krug did not sign either the contractual document or the check. 10. Denied. On March 1, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug advised Plaintiff, by its authorized employee, Jennifer Beard, that the Ivan Taub ~Drchestra, a seven piece band was reserved and tentatively booked for September 5, 2004 to play in the tent during the reception between 8:15 p.m. and 12:15 a.m.. Throughout their dealings, Jennifer Beard was impressed that the performance of this live band at the reception in the tent was a material and critically important issue to Ruth Ann Krug. Jennifer Beard confirmed and represented that the engagement of this seven piece, live band to play in 2 the tent for the reception presented no problem and could be easily accommodated. This representation that the band would perform in the tent by Jennifer Beard continued until September 4, 2004, when her supervisor, Brett Shaffer, met with Defendants and informed them that no live band could perform in the tent because of Liquor Control Board rules and regulations. Ruth Ann Krug reasonably relied on this continuing representation as to her detriment. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied as stated. At the scheduled, first meeting on August 7, 2004, Jennifer Beard advised Defendants of a "cranky" neighbor, who had on numerous occasions filed reports with the police regarding late night, noise originating from the tent, without result. Although the neighbor finally complained to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board ("LCB"), Jennifer stated that a mediation with the neighbor had resulted in a complete settlement and resolution of this is:aue. This resolution was achieved, as per Jennifer, after Liberty Forge told the neighbor that it would bring trailers onto the facility and turn it into a trailer park if her complaints continued. In the mediated settlement, Liberty Forge allegedly agreed to erect a sound barrier between the tent and the neighbor's property and would have an employee monitor noise levels at all events held in the tent. To these ends, and for political purposes, Liberty Forge had allegedly hired the former Mayor of Camp Hill to perform the monitoring, and he would be dressed in a business suit to look like a guest. Jennifer assured Ruth Ann Krug that these steps were taken solely to keep the complaining neighbor happy, and Jennifer represented that this monitoring would have little or no impact on the band or volume of its play in view of the sound barrier and the guest-friendly-way the monitoring 3 was being carried out. She emphasized that this mediated agreement had resolved the problem entirely. At no time were Defendants told by Jermifer that no band could entertain in the tent, owing to LCB rules and regulations or that any LCB problem continued to exist after the mediation. 13. Denied. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 12 is incorporated herein. No such advice was given until September 4, 2004 by Brett :ihaffer. Defendants were continuously assured by Jennifer that the band could and would perform in the tent, a provision which Jennifer Beard understood was critical to Defendants. To these ends, Jennifer Beard scheduled staging to be erected in the tent for the band's use on or about August 17, 2004. Had this disclosure been made to Defendants on August 7, 2004, another venue would have been sought. 14. Denied as stated. After the first August 7, 2004 meeting with Jennifer Beard, Defendants walked over to inspect the tent and rel:urned to the Wedge Restaurant, where they spoke with a woman whose daughter's August 7, 2004 wedding event had been moved from the tent to the Wedge Restaurant because of a "noise problem". No specifics were given. On hearing this, Defendants immediately sought a second meeting with Jennifer Beard. Jennifer repeated that the Krug/Baum wedding would not be similarly impacted, as the decision to move the other wedding event was made rior to the mediation and settlement with the neighbor. The noise issue having been completely resolved at the mediation, according to Jennifer, it would not have any impact on the subject wedding event. The band would play in the tent. There was no hint that Defendant's band could not play under any circumstance inside the tent at the reception, as scheduled, until September 4, 2004. 4 15. Denied as stated. Ruth Ann Krug scheduled 'the rehearsal dinner -not other Defendants. 16. Denied as stated. Solely Ruth Ann Krug guaranteed 188 guests - no other Defendant did such. A guest suffering from cancer and on a feeding tube who could neither eat nor drink at the wedding was excepted by Plaintiff from the number of guaranteed guests attending the reception on September 5, 2004. This guest left at the conclusion of the wedding and did not stay for either 1:he cocktail hour or reception. 17. Denied. The contract speaks for itself. This issue was never raised by Plaintiff until after the wedding was held, despite Plaintiffs knowledge of the non- payment. This term was waived by the parties through their continuing dealings disregarding this item. At no time did Plaintiff threaten to cancel the reception or even remind Ruth Ann Krug that any payment was due after the deposit was sent with the signed contract. 18. Denied. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 17 is incorporated herein by reference thereto. Defendant made all payments when requested, up to and including the date of the wedding. The course of dealing of the parties waived these terms. 19. Denied. PlaintifFs employee was advised of the band's start and end time in early March 2004. Furthermore, the contractual documents confirm that the reception would continue until 12:30 a.m. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 10 is incorporated herein by reference thereto. 20. Denied. Defendants' answers to Paragraph 10 -12 are incorporated herein by reference. This information was not given to Defendants until September 4, 2004, the day before the wedding, by Brett Shaffer. 5 On September 2, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug called Jennifer Beard to ensure that there were no last minute problems. For the first time, Jennifer asked whether she was correct that the band would stop playing in the tent at 11:00 p.m. Despite discussions since March of 2004 and a contract of April 2004, this was the first time Ruth Ann Krug was told that music would not be allowed in the tent after 11:00 p.m. by virtue of a township ordinance. Never before had this 11:00 p.m. deadline been disclosed. The reception was scheduled to continue through 12:30 a.m., as per the original contract. Had this issue been disclosed earlier in June, prior to printing invitations, the wedding could have been scheduled an hour and a half earlier. Jennifer made no mention of LCB rules or regulations on September 2, 2004. Ruth Ann Krug believed that the band could play in the tent until at Veast 11:00 p.m., as per Jennifer. It is believed and therefore averred that on or about September 2, 2004, Jennifer Beard had band staging scheduled for erection in the tent. 21. Denied. After Plaintiff shifted from a position of totally satisfying Defendant, then to the September 2, 2004 position that no band could play in the tent after 11:00 p.m. (township ordinance), then to a September 4, 2004 position, expressed by telephone, that no band could play for any period of time in the tent, such shifts taking place within less than a 72 hour period, a meeting was scheduled at Liberty Forge on September 4, 2004, at 1:00 p.m. with Brett Shaffer, the Director of Food and Beverage and Jennifer Beard's supervisor. The meeting was to discuss and settle the issues between the parties. Despite the fact that many guests were arriving by the afternoon of September 4, 2004, Defendant's' plans to greet their friE~nds and relatives had to be significantly curtailed by this meeting. 6 22. Denied as stated. At the meeting with Mr. Shaffer, Defendants were told that LCB rules and regulations totally prohibited a band from playing in the tent, as the music would escape the premises. He indicated that Jennifer was aware of this for sometime and that he had twice instructed her to meet with Ruth Ann Krug to cancel the band and suggest alternative options. Despite his in:>tructions, he alleged that he had only just learned that Jennifer had deceived Ruth Ann Krug and disregarded his instructions when he observed an invoice for band staging to be erected in the tent. On confronting Jennifer, the deception, non-disclosure, and disregard of his instructions was revealed. He was most apologetic, accepting full responsibility for this problem on behalf of Liberty Forge. He also advised that Jennifer had been fired although a meeting with the "owner" was scheduled. Mr. Shaffer discussed options. He agreed that Liberty Forge would be responsible for all losses to Ruth Ann Krug resulting from Jennifer's deception, misrepresentations, and failure to disclose earlier. 23. Denied as stated. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 22 is incorporated herein by reference thereto. The critical importance of this band playing at the reception was made known to Liberty Forge at all times. IVotwithstanding this, under all options the tent could not serve as a venue for a live band. Ruth Ann Krug's only option at this stage, twenty-four hours before the wedding„ was to bifurcate the festivities by moving them from the tent to the Wedge Restaurant midway through the reception, after the main course was consumed. This required guests to walk up to the Wedge Restaurant, where the band would begin to play ai approximately 10:15 p.m. Despite Defendant's fears that guests would leave at 10:1;5 p.m., an arrangement was reached with Plaintiffs authorized employee by the terms of which the wedding would 7 continue at Liberty Forge under a modified agreement beneficial to Ruth Ann Krug. The agreement encompassed not only items one through five, stated by Plaintiff in Paragraph 23 of its Complaint, but also the following: A. Liberty Forge would reimburse or credit Defendant for all financial losses, including but not limited to lost band playing time resulting from the band's inability to play until 10:15 p.m. B. A dessert buffet, consisting of severa{ desserts, was to be sen+ed without charge. C. Snack food, to create a late night party atmosphere, would be served without charge. D. The Wedge Terrace would be appropriately decorated, including flowers, without charge. E. Steps would be taken to keep the guests motivated to stay at the wedding; to wit, rides to the Wedge from the tent without charge. F. Liberty Forge would hire a disc jockey to play music in the tent at no charge to Defendant. G. Free martini bar. 24. Admitted. It is admitted that Wendy Krug took this step to lighten her mother's burden. 25. Admitted. 26. Denied as stated. The answer to Paragraph 1Ei is incorporated herein. 27. Denied as stated. To the best of Defendants' knowledge, the food and service during the cocktail hour was lacking in both quality and quantity. It is admitted that dinner took place in the tent, during which a disc jockey provided music at no 8 charge to Defendant, pursuant to the September 4, 2004 agreement of the parties. 28. Denied. The bar in the tent was closed durirn3 most of dinner time. During the cocktail hour, the bartender ran out of white wine and never replaced it. He also had no bloody mary mix, a common mixer. Tip jars were located at all bars throughout the evening, despite the fact that gratuities were added to Defendant's bill, and there was no reason for guests to feel obligated to separately tip the bartenders. This cheapened the wedding. 29. Denied as stated. Two choices of desserts (instead of the promised dessert buffet) were placed on trays and located in an obscure area of the Terrace, where guest tables went uncovered. 30. Denied. The band played from approximately 10:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m., a loss of approximately 50% of the $7,000 paid for the four hours of scheduled music. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. In any event, given the circumstances, the time, and the type of event, such expressions and politeness should noel be confused with true feelings or the loss of what had been bargained for. As to Defendants, this did not happen with regard to Jennifer, who did appear despite being allegedly terminated. 32. Denied. The answer to Paragraph 31 is incorporated herein. The wedding and reception were not successful, inasmuch as it was not` in accordance with the detailed and meticulous planning that had gone into it, most of which had to be discarded at the last minute, to the great chagrin and emol:ional heartache of the Defendants. This was not stated seriously by any Defendant, if it were stated at aN. 9 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief at to the truth of this averment. Proof is demanded at trial. 34. Denied. The florist expense for the decorating of the tent was lost after two hours, half the scheduled time, because the guests vacated the tent to either go home or to the Wedge at approximately 10:15 p.m. In addition, Plaintiff agreed to place the glasses containing fresh flowers in water at each tent table upon the dissipation of excessive heat in the tent to avoid wilting. This was not done, despite Plaintiffs Mission Statement. 35. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff provided available fall flowers at its own cost in the Wedge Restaurant, as part of the settlement agreement with Ruth Ann Krug. Tablecloths and centerpieces were not provided in the decorated Terrace area, where guests sat around bare tables. The cost is unknown and irrelevant to Defendants. In further reply, see New Matter below. 36. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a disc jockey was hired by Plaintiff, as part of its settlement agreement with 14uth Ann Krug, to perform during the dinner. The balance of the averment is denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Pursuant to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, this was a no charge item. 37. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a dance floor was ordered by Ruth Ann Krug for the tent so that certain traditional circle dances, in which 10 most of the guests participate, could occur. The expanded dance floor was not placed in the tent. The balance of the averment is denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the cost averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Pursuant to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, there was to be no charge for this under the settlement agreement. 38. Denied. Defendants received only two billinga~ dated September 29, 2004 and October 8, 2004, respectively. No prior bill was received, and the bills failed to include credit or reimbursement for Defendant's losses. In further reply, see New Matter below. Plaintiffs reasons for sending such late invoices is unknown to Defendant, as such knowledge is solely within the exclusive control of Plaintiff. Proof is demanded. 39. Denied. Exhibit "B" speaks for itself. In any event, Plaintiff had agreed to reimburse Defendant for losses but ignored same in its billings and refused to consider same. 40. Admitted. 41. Admitted in part. In further reply, see New Matter below. Howard B. Krug paid for the rehearsal dinner in full, at Plaintiffs request, to assist his burdened spouse. After reviewing the invoice and approving same, a credit curd invoice was signed by Howard B. Krug. He gave Plaintiff no authority to ever usE+ that card again for anything but the cost of the rehearsal dinner, and it should not havE: been used electronically and without signature on the invoice 26 days later to pay for the wedding and reception. 11 42. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "B" speak for themselves. Defendant is unaware of any "snacks" being served, despite prior agreement for no charge snacks in conformity with the September 4, 2004 settlement agreement between the parties. 43. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "B" speak for themselves. Items were not billed pursuant to the contract between the parties. The tent could not be used as represented. Plaintiff understood this and billed accordingly. 44. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit 'B" speak for themselves. Dinner was rushed and non-dairy deserts were never served. Ini further response, see Defendants' New Matter. 45. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "B" speak for themselves. Without a review of the actual records of alcohol consumed, Defendant cannot agree with the summary provided by Plaintiff, especially since guests we're charged separately for drinks at the outset and no accounting for tips from tip jars has been provided, despite a 20% service fee charged Defendant. 46. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "B" speak for themselves. See answer to Paragraph 37 and New Matter. It is not clear that this floor was used ; however, in any event, it was not used for the tent. 47. Denied. It is admitted that a deposit of $1,937.70 was paid by Ruth Ann Krug and that Plaintiff was always aware of this. The balance of the averment is denied, based on Plaintiffs breach of the contract, as modified, and its other breaches, deceptions, and violations by its employee, as set forth in New Matter and Counterclaims herein. No such balance is due. Exhibit "Et" appears to contradict this allegation. 12 48. Admitted, but no such invoice dated prior to :>eptember 29, 2004 was ever received. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 41 is incorporated herein by reference thereto. Although Plaintiff did this, it was never authorizf:d to charge the subject credit card for anything other than the rehearsal dinner without the saecific approval and signature of Howard B. Krug. Plaintiff had neither. In fw~ther reply, see New Matter. Pursuant to the written contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Ann Krug, the former could not charge anything to a credit card unless same was on file for and the charges found reasonable by Ruth Ann Krug. Liberty Forge never had a credit card on file for or Ruth Ann Krug's prior approval of the charges. Ruth Ann Krug had to approve any charges as reasonable before even a credit card on file could be used. In fact, Plaintiff was aware when it put through the charges that it was Ruth Ann Krug's intent to dispute charges where needed, after review. 49. Denied as stated. Defendant Howard Krug disputed the Plaintiff's unauthorized, unreasonable and unapproved credit card charges for a number of reasons, as more fully set forth in the New Matter below and in the Answer to Paragraphs 41 and 48, incorporated herein by reference •ihereto. 50. Denied. Ruth Ann Krug was the principal person involved in the planning, negotiations and scheduling decisions for the event. She had some help and suggestions from others, as any mother would for such a task. However, Plaintiff was to and did contact Ruth Ann Krug for all decisions concerning significant and material issues and problems. Proof is demanded. 51. Denied. It is admitted that Howard B. Krug is sin attorney, as is Plaintiff's 13 President and others involved or associated with Plaintiff. The said Defendant contributed nothing toward the planning of his daughter's wedding. His only role was to review the legal terms of Plaintiff's proffered contract. Once Plaintiffs deceptions were made known, Defendant did attempt to cheer up Wendy and advise Ruth Ann Krug. 52. Denied. As set forth in the contract attached gas Exhibit "A" to Plaintiff's Complaint, only Ruth Ann Krug requested that Plaintiff host the wedding. In addition, Paragraphs 6-7 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated Herein. No Defendant other than Ruth Ann Krug made such a request of Plaintiff. Proof is demanded. 53. Denied as stated. On September 4, 2004, Mr. Shaffer requested, after the parties came to a new agreement, a new schedule for the wedding and reception, as things had obviously changed, due to the deceptions, misrepresentations, and non- disclosures of Plaintiffs authorized employee, Jennifer Beard. Wendy lightened this last minute burden, acting with her mother's prior approval, by typing the schedule after discussion. At this point on September 4, 2004, after 3:30 p.m., Ruth Ann Krug was very involved with family, friends and problems concernincl elderly relatives, among others. 54. Denied as stated. The Answers to Paragraph 48 and 49 are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Unauthorized use of a credit card, provided 26 days earlier by a third party to pay for the rehearsal dinner, would obviously be unrelated to the legitimacy of any debt contracted by Ruth Ann Krug to Plaintiff for the wedding and reception. Plaintiff has clearly admitted it was given the subject credit card to pay for the rehearsal dinner, alleging nothing more regarding authorization. After failing in its attempts to charge $22,432.20 (more than that claimed by Plaintiff is even due), it did not voluntarily return said funds. See New Matter. 14 55. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the alleged balance of $17,493.50, claimed by Plaintiff has not been paid. It is denied that the amount is due and owing for the reasons set forth herein and in New Matter. Aside from Ruth Ann Krug, the other Defendants have no obligation, if any exists, to make any payment to Plaintiff. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRAC"f PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT RUTH ANN KRUG 56. Defendant's response to Paragraphs One through Fifty-Five are incorporated herein by reference. 57. Defendant's answer to Paragraph 8 hereof is incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff's standard contract was changed in several respects prior to execution. 58. Denied. Exhibit "A", signed by Jennifer Beard on behalf of Plaintiff, speaks for itself. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. A copy of the fully signed contract was never forwarded by Plaintiff to Defendant until it was included with Plaintiff's Complaint. 59. Denied. Exhibit "A" speaks for itself. In further reply, Plaintiff never requested an additional deposit 90 days prior to the wedding, and despite knowledge of there being no additional deposit, hosted the wedding. Neither of the parties understood this payment to be "material" and by their actions waived the term. See Defendant's answer to Paragraph 17 and 18. 60. Denied. The document speaks for itself. See response to 59 above. 15 61. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. See response to 59 above. 62. Denied. Plaintiff never requested that Ruth Ann Krug pay for the full amount of the wedding and reception 14 days prior thereto. Plaintiff hosted the wedding without requesting any additional compensation, until a bill was received in very early October by Defendant. This term was waived by the agreement and actions of the parties. Also, Defendant was entitled to credits and reimbursement for her losses and under the contract for improper charges, as per the agreement of £~eptember 4, 2004, all of which Plaintiff has refused to consider since the wedding was concluded. 63. Denied. The document speaks for itself. See. response to 62 above. 64. Denied. The contract attached as Exhibit "A° and the clause in question speak for themselves. Defendant never placed a credit card on file for these purposes, and the charges were not for "incidentals". The charges vrere never deemed reasonable by "Patron" Ruth Ann Krug, prior to the use of the credit card of Howard B. Krug by Plaintiff, especially in view of her losses and the items not provided (See New Matter); thus, the clause is inapplicable. Plaintiff agreed sand did not require a credit card from Defendant. In further reply, see New Matter below. 65. Denied. Exhibit "A° speaks for itself. However, Plaintiff never disclosed it would have tip jars placed at all bars, thereby cheapening the wedding and exceeding the established 20% service charge to be paid by Ruth Arin Krug. Such tips should be accounted for and considered against Plaintiffs bill for service charges. 66. Denied. See response to paragraph 16. 16 67. Denied. See response to paragraph 62. 68. Denied. See response to paragraph 62. 69. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant's answer to Paragraph 41 is incorporated herein by reference. It is admitted that Howard B. Krug provided a credit card to pay the Plaintiff's charges for the rehearsal dinner only and that this transaction required his actual signature. It is denied that the credit card was provided to pay for the entire wedding and reception or in any way authorized Plaintiff to utilize the card for any purpose without his express prior approval and signature. Plaintiff never requested permission or consent for such use, but it eventually used the card to pay for the wedding and reception, improperly receiving $15,943.94. It is believed and therefor averred that Plaintiff was aware that such use was improper when it did so without the signature, advance authorization, and prior bill review by Fioward B. Krug, who was not even a signatory to the contract. 70. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 38. 71. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 49. 72. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 54. 73. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 55. 74. Denied as a conclusion of law. Defendant's Answer to Paragraph 63 is incorporated herein by reference. Defendant has significant losses for which she is entitled to reimbursement and credit. See New Matter. 75. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 47. 76. Denied as a conclusion of law. These sums area not due, as previously set 17 forth herein. In addition, Defendant is entitled to setoffs, credits, and deductions, as per the September 4, 2004 agreement of the parties. Defendant is also entitled to reduction for Plaintiffs failure to pertorm in conformity with the contract, its own advertised standards, and possibly with the accepted professional standards of the Food and Beverage industry when conducting weddings. 77. Denied as a conclusion of law. In further reply, to the extent this paragraph contains factual averments, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the same and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant, and dismiss the Complaint. COUNT II THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANTS WENDY BAU AND KARL BAU 78 through 86. No response required per the Court Order granting Preliminary Objections dated June 6, 2005. COUNT 111 UNJUST ENRICHMENT PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS 87. The Answers to Paragraphs One through Eighty-Six of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 88. Denied as a conclusion of law. Plaintiff has conferred no benefit on Defendants other than Ruth Ann Krug, with whom it contracted, any more than it conferred a benefit on other guests in attendance at the wedding. 18 89. Denied as a conclusion of law. Plaintiff has pan express contract with Ruth Ann Krug, as modified on September 4, 2004. In any event, this benefit was accepted by Ruth Ann Krug, pursuant to an express contract with Plaintiff to provide the facility and services. Other Defendants have derived no more benefit than any other guest. Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief, as it has an adequate remedy at law. 90. Denied as a conclusion of law. An express contract exists with Ruth Ann Krug. Plaintiff should not be entitled to equitable relief. In any event, considering what Plaintiff did to Defendants by its authorized employer, its actions on the eve of the wedding, and its improper actions after the wedding, it is not unjust that it receive nothing. 91. Denied as a conclusion of law. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 90 is incorporated herein. 92. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 47. 93. Denied as a conclusion of law. All items, by express agreement, were to be without charge so long as Defendant held the wedding at Liberty Forge, which occurred. In any event, Plaintiff cannot recover in equity or escape from the terms of its contract with Ruth Ann Krug. See New Matter. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and dismiss the Complaint. COUNT IV FRAUD PLAINTIFF V. ALL DEFENDANTS 94 through 134. No response required per the Covert Order granting Preliminary Objections dated June 6, 2005. 19 NEW MATTER 135. In late February 2004, Ruth Ann Krug called Plaintiff (hereinafter "Liberty Forge") and other venues to determine those available for a September 5, 2004 wedding reception, as this date was already cleared with and reserved by Ruth Ann Krug's desired band. 136. Jennifer Beard advised the date was available at Liberty Forge. 137. At all times relevant hereto, Jennifer Beard w<as an authorized employee of Plaintiff, acting within the course, scope and in furtherance: of her authorized duties. 138. Plaintiff is vicariously liable for the actions and statements of its employee, Jennifer Beard. 139. On March 1, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug met Jennifer Beard at Liberty Forge to tour the facility, which was the last facility toured that day. 140. Ruth Ann Krug advised Jennifer that she required a venue for September 5, 2004 to meet certain dietary standards, accommodate 200 guests, and have a large dance floor with space for a large band to play at the formal, evening reception. 141. Jennifer was also told that the seven piece Ivan Taub Orchestra had already been reserved and tentatively booked to play at the reception on September 5, 2004 from 8:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m. 142. Ruth Ann Krug also expressed how excited sYie was to have this band perform at the reception of her daughter, owing to her attendance at other band performances. 143. This band was reserved before any wedding location was even chosen, as explained to Jennifer. 20 144. After the tour, Jennifer was advised by Ruth Ann Krug that the Wedge Restaurant was rejected as a reception site because of its size and room configuration, which impacted upon large numbers dancing to the live band. 145. Ruth Ann Krug told Jennifer that the Liberty "Big Top" tent ("tent") was the only venue at Liberty Forge of interest. 146. Throughout their dealings, Jennifer Beard was advised that the most material and critically important issue was having the Ivan Taub Orchestra pertorm during the entire wedding reception, which was to take place in the tent at Liberty Forge. 147. Ms. Beard emphasized at this meeting that Liberty Forge was fully capable of accommodating the expressed needs of Ruth Ann Krug, and color photos were shown of Liberty Forge weddings, including those in the tent. 148. Ms. Beard impressed Ruth Ann Krug with the professionalism, skill, and eagerness to please of Liberty Forge and its staff, as well as its available facilities, to meet the expressed needs of this wedding, including dancing. 149. No warnings, problems, conditions, or objections were asserted by Jennifer with regard to the band performing in the tent, Jennifer understanding that Liberty Forge would then be eliminated as a location for the wedding. 150. Ruth Ann Krug was given a packet, which included a DVD and an informational booklet, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 21 151. The informational booklet at page 3 provided that "dance floors can be placed at any of the various dining venues....". 152. The DVD appeared to show a dance floor in the tent. 153. After reviewing the Liberty Forge packet and comparing the facilities offered by others, Ruth Ann Krug called Jennifer Beard to reserve the tent for September 5, 2004. 154. On March 8, 2004 Ruth Ann Krug signed a contract dated March 3, 2004 to have the Ivan Taub Orchestra play at the scheduled wedding (location to be determined) on September 5, 2004 from approximately 8:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m. 155. Until Plaintiff forwarded its original March 2004 contract for signature by Ruth Ann Krug, it had no contact whatsoever with Howard Krug. 156. On April 20, 2004, after amendment of Plaintiffs standard contract, Ruth Ann Krug signed the contract between the parties, as well as a check fora 15% deposit, both of which were mailed to Jennifer Beard at Liberty Forge. 157. Based on Exhibit "A" to the Complaint of Liberty Forge, Jennifer Beard was authorized to sign the contract on behalf of Plaintiff. 158. At no time did any Defendant other than Ruth Ann Krug sign the contract between the parties. 159. No Defendant other than Ruth Ann Krug signed a check or provided funds toward the cost of the wedding and reception. 160. Ms. Beard was at all times aware that the chosen venue for the reception with seven piece orchestra was to be in the tent. 22 161. At no time until September 4, 2004 did Plaintiff advise Ruth Ann Krug that a live band could not perform in the tent for any reason. 162. It is believed and therefore averred that at all times Plaintiff, its managers and employees knew or should have known prior to September 4, 2004 of the proscription of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board ("LCB") rules and regulations with respect to noise and music emanating from the boundaries of a licensed establishment. 163. On August 7, 2004, Jennifer Beard advised C)efendants of a cranky neighbor who had complained approximately twenty-five (25) times to township police with regard to hearing late night music emanating from the tent. 164. Jennifer advised that police had never issued a single citation to Plaintiff as a result of these numerous calls. 165. Jennifer also advised that the neighbor eventually called the LCB, which became involved to assist the neighbor. 166. This filing, according to Jennifer, led to a mediation, during which Liberty Forge threatened that the neighbor's continuing complaints would result in mobile homes and trailers being brought onto the grounds, turning it into a trailer park. 167. Jennifer also indicated that the neighbor was very intimidated by such a possibility. 168. As a result of the mediation, Plaintiff agreed to erect a sound barrier between the tent and the neighbor's property. 169. Jennifer also advised that Liberty Forge hired the former Mayor of Camp Hill for political advantage to monitor noise levels for events held in the tent. 23 170. Jennifer minimized the monitoring, assuring Ruth Ann Krug that such would have little impact on the wedding, the band or volume of its play, owing to the placement of the sound barrier and Plaintiff's guest-friendly, control. 171. Jennifer again firmly and unconditionally advised that the neighbor fully agreed, and the mediated agreement resolved the entire problem. 172. Jennifer did not state that there was any continuing LCB problem, and Defendants left the meeting thinking all was fine. 173. On August 7, 2004, Jennifer never advised Defendants that a band could not entertain in the tent, owing to LCB rules or regulations or any other reason. 174. Jennifer also did not advise that there was any township ordinance requiring band music to stop in the tent at 11:00 p.m. 175. After meeting with and being assured by Jennifer on August 7, 2004, Defendants walked to the tent and returned to the Wedge Restaurant, where they met the mother of a bride scheduled to be married that day, and she advised that her wedding had to be moved to the Wedge Restaurant becaause of "noise problems" in the tent. 176. On hearing this, Defendants immediately returned to speak to Jennifer, who responded that the decision to move the other wedding was made prior to the mediation and settlement with the neighbor. 177. Jennifer repeated that the noise issue, having been completely resolved at the mediation, had been totally eliminated and would have no impact on the wedding, at which the band would play during the reception in the tent, as scheduled. 24 178. Jennifer Beard was fully aware, owing to the importance of this band to Ruth Ann Krug, that had she disclosed that no band could play in the tent, the wedding at Plaintiffs facility would have been canceled and another location found. 179. At no time thereafter, prior to September 4, 2004, did Jennifer or Plaintiff advise Ruth Ann Krug that Liberty Forge was cited by or engaged in continuing legal proceedings with the LCB, Defendants being left under the clear impression that the mediation led to the resolution of the tent-noise issue entire. 180. It is believed and therefore averred that in July or early August, 2004 Plaintiff received from the LCB a Notice of Intent to File Citation against Plaintiff. 181. It is further believed and therefore averred that on August 26, 2004, a citation or series of citations were issued against Plaintiff by the LCB. 182. At no time did Plaintiff or its authorized employees advise any Defendant of receipt of the Notice of Intent or the actual filing of citation(s) against Plaintiff by the LCB. 183. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff decided to comply with LCB rules and stop bands from performing in the tent, because the music invariably escaped the boundaries of Plaintiffs licensed property, despite its much touted "sound barrier". 184. Plaintiff did not in good faith make Ruth Ann Krug or any Defendant aware of this position or decision, despite its contract of April 20, 2004 and the express and implied duties thereof. 25 185. At no time prior to September 4, 2004 did Plaintiff advise any Defendant of this information, despite the negative impact it would Have on this long planned wedding, with a band already scheduled to play in the tenet. 186. At all significant times it was known to Plaintiff that the reception was scheduled to commence in the tent on September 5, 20(14 at approximately 8:15 p.m. and continue through approximately 12:30 a.m., with the band playing throughout. 187. At all times, Plaintiff was aware that Defendant relied on representations that the band would play in the tent. 188. Plaintiff was also aware that Defendant had a specific schedule for wedding events, based in part on band play. 189. During the contract period, Plaintiff owed a dluty to Defendant of good faith, full disclosure, and fair dealing. 190. On or about August 17, 2004 Plaintiff, by its authorized employee, ordered staging to be erected for the band in the tent, as per recent request of the band. 191. On September 2, 2004, seventy-two (72) hours before the wedding, when Ruth Ann Krug called her to see, in general, if any problems existed, Jennifer Beard told Ruth Ann Krug for the first time that the band could not play in the tent after 11:00 p.m., owing to township ordinance. 192. On September 3, 2004, at 10:30 p.m. Brett Shaffer, the Director of Food and Beverage at Liberty Forge (and Jennifer's supervisor), called Ruth Ann Krug, requesting that she call him immediately; however, she did not get the message until the next morning. 26 193. By telephone during the morning of September 4, 2004, Brett Shaffer told Ruth Ann Krug that as per LCB rules, no band could IegaVly play in the tent under any circumstances, which last minute disclosure caused emotional distress for Ruth Ann Krug and Wendy Krug. 194. In response to her question why she was never told about this proscription before, Mr. Shaffer told Ruth Ann Krug that a morning meeting was scheduled to determine just that. 195. As a result of these stress inducing, last minuite position shifts by Plaintiff, and in an attempt to salvage this wedding, because it was too late to secure an alternate site, a face to face meeting was scheduled for September 4, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. with Brett Shaffer, and this lasted until almost 3:00 p.m. 196. Although many guests were to arrive during the morning and afternoon of September 4, 2004, Defendants' plans with out-of-town guests were cancelled, as Ruth Ann Krug and family did not return home from the meeting until approximately 3:30 p.m. 197. At the September 4, 2004 meeting, Mr. Shaffer repeated that LCB rules and regulations prohibited a band from playing in the tent, as the music would escape the premises. 198. Allegedly, Jennifer had twice been instructed to meet with Defendants to fully and honestly disclose the band problem, the first time approximately a month earlier, in early August. 199. In the beginning of September, when he saw an invoice for band staging to be erected in the tent, Mr. Shaffer allegedly confronted .lennifer, resulting in the late evening message to Ruth Ann Krug on September 3, 2004•. 27 200. Fie was most apologetic and accepted full responsibility for this problem on behalf of Liberty Forge. 201. He advised that Jennifer Beard had been sillegedly fired because of her dishonesty, deception, and fai{ure to deal with the problem honestly and openly with Ruth Ann Krug. 202. Allegedly, no one checked to determine whiether Jennifer had honestly disclosed all to Ruth Ann Krug until the eve of the wedding. 203. At no time did Mr. Shaffer request additional funds of Ruth Ann Krug toward the cost of the wedding on behalf of Plaintiff. 204. On behalf of Liberty Forge, Mr. Shaffer agreed to make up for this situation, but under no circumstances could a band play in the tent. 205. Mr. Shaffer made several suggestions, and despite fears that guests would leave at 10:15 p.m., a settlement agreement was reached by the terms of which the wedding would continue at Liberty Forge, with significant event changes benefitting Ruth Ann Krug to make up for this situation. 206. By the terms of the settlement agreement, once dinner was completed between 10:00 and 10:15 p.m., the venue for the reception would change to the Wedge Restaurant, where the band could play, as no large dinner tables were needed. 207. The settlement agreement approved by Ruth Ann Krug and Brett Shaffer, Plaintiffs authorized employee, provided for several additional items beyond those admitted by Plaintiff in Paragraph 23 of its Complaint, including the following: a. Liberty Forge would reimburse or credit Defendant for all economic losses, to the extent of unnecessary or partially unnecessary 28 expense, including lost band playing time (inability to play in the tent from 8:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.). b. A dessert buffet of several desserts would be served without charge. c. Snack food to create a late night party atmosphere would be served without charge. d. The Wedge Terrace would be decorated for a reception, including full flowers, without charge. e. Steps would be taken to keep the guests motivated to remain at the wedding during the change of venues, to include rides to the Wedge, without charge. f. Martini bar without charge. 208. As a result of this settlement agreement, the wedding took place at Liberty Forge. 209. Mr. Shaffer's September 3rtl and 4`h contacts and agreements were with Ruth Ann Krug and no other Defendant. 210. On or about September 4, 2004, an employee of Plaintiff advised Ruth Ann Krug that Jennifer was very upset and exceptionally sorry fir all that had occurred. 211. Incredibly, Jennifer appeared at the September 4, 2004 rehearsal dinner, where she told Ruth Ann Krug that she had been fired. 212. The rehearsal dinner of September 4, 2004 took place uneventfully, and to help his wife during this stress-filled time, Howard B. Krug paid for the dinner in full, at its conclusion, by credit card slip he expressly signed after review and approval of the billing. 29 213. On September 4, 2004, at the time of payment for the rehearsal dinner, Plaintiffs employee stated that there was $1,937.70 on deposit for the wedding. 214. On September 4, 2004, no additional funds, besides those necessary to pay the exact bill for the rehearsal dinner, were requested of Howard Krug for the wedding. 215. At no time was Howard Krug advised that his credit card would be used for anything other than the rehearsal dinner. 216. At no time did Howard B. Krug authorize Plaintiff to use his credit card to pay for the wedding. 217. At no time did Howard B. Krug authorize Plaintiff to use his credit card without his signature. 218. At no time did Ruth Ann Krug leave with Plaintiff a credit card of record. 219. At no time did Plaintiff object to this lack of credit card on record. 220. At no time between April 22, 2004 and Septernber 5, 2004 did Plaintiff request an additional deposit toward the cost of the wedding and reception, despite the express terms of the contract between the parties. 221. At no time between April 22, 2004 and Septernber 5, 2004 did Plaintiff ever request that the entire wedding and reception be paid for, despite the terms of the contract between the parties. 222. At no time did Plaintiff remind Ruth Ann Krug to make any payment pursuant to the terms of the contract. 223. Ruth Ann Krug made all payments requested by Plaintiff on or before September 29, 2004. 30 s 224. On September 5, 2004, the following reception problems were noted: a. During the cocktail hour, the outside bartender ran out of white wine and never replaced it. b. The outside bar never had nor secured Bloody Mary mix, despite requests. c. Tip jars were placed at all bars throughout the evening, despite the fact that a service charge was added to Ruth Ann Krug's bill. d. There were either too many or insufl9cient chairs at many tables in the tent to seat the number of guest:> assigned to each table, causing guests to embark on a scavenger hunt in the tent for available chairs. e. No salad dressing was served or present on the dry salad. f. For the majority of the dinner in the tent, the bar was closed, guests being falsely told that this was on they instructions of the bride and groom. g. Only two choices of dessert were placed on trays in an obscure area of the Terrace, rather than the sigreed dessert buffet. h. The Terrace patio, although decorated with Fall flowers, lacked tablecloths and flowers or centerpieces on the tables, resulting in guests sitting at bare, ugly tables. i. The dance floor intended for the tent, so that traditional circle dances could take place, was not installed in the tent, making it impossible for the majority of guests t:o participate. 31 j. Defendants are unaware of any snacks served at the reception. k. No non-dairy desserts were served at the wedding, despite charges. I. The wedding reception in the tent was hurried. m. At the beginning of the wedding, guests were charged for drinks, and it is unknown whether PlaintifFs charges to Ruth Ann Krug include drinks paid for by guests. 225. The Ivan Taub Orchestra played until appro~:imately 12:15 a.m., a loss of approximately 50% of the four hours scheduled for music, Ruth Ann Krug having paid $7,000 for four hours of scheduled music, resulting in a loss of $3,500. 226. The florist expense for decorating the tent was significantly lost, as the guests were in the tent for no more than two hours, roughly half of the scheduled time. Thus, 50% of the floral expense was lost and made unnecessary. 227. In addition, Plaintiff agreed to place flower bowls at the tables in the tent once the excessive heat dissipated to avoid wilting; however, this was never done and the entire expense for such was lost. 228. The total loss for the decorations, bowls and other flower involvement was approximately $930. 229. The small plates of non-dairy desserts were never served, for a loss of $636 plus 20% service charge or $756. 230. An accounting of the tips paid by the guest:; was never provided to Ruth Ann Krug, despite her obligation fora 20% service charge. 32 231. Although there was a charge for an audiolvisual miscellaneous setup of $1,040, it is believed and therefore averred that this was intended for use by the band for a four hour period, which lasted only two hours. It is believed and therefore averred that the disc jockey brought his own music, speakers, and other audio/visual equipment. 232. Had Ruth Ann Krug been properly advised that the wedding would have to be bifurcated to have the band, tent decorations and expenditures would have been minimal. 233. The following charges should be reduced by half or more because of the short amount of time spent at the tent reception, or as provided above: Item Charge Credit a. Band (lost 2 hours - 50%) $7,000 $3,500 b. Florist (tent deco) (50% use) 1,860 930 c. Unserved non-dairy desserts 756 756 d. Stage rental for band (50% use) 300 150 e. Sound system rental (50% use) 384 192 f. Special linen rental for tent tables 356 178 g. AudioNisual setup 1,040 520 Total Credit for losses and unserved items: $6,226'` " Not including tip credit against service charges and drinks paid for by guests and possibly charged to Ruth Ann Knig at beginning of event. 234. On or about September 29, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug received a call from a Liberty Forge employee inquiring whether a billing had been received. 33 235. Ruth Ann Krug advised the employee that no bill had yet been received. 236. The employee responded that corporate billing was notoriously slow. 237. It was during this conversation of September 29, 2004 that Ruth Ann Krug advised the employee that she needed the bill, as she intemded to dispute same where appropriate, after review. 238. Ruth Ann Krug received only two separate billings, dated September 29, 2004 and October 8, 2004, respectively. 239. No bill prior to that dated September 29, 2004 was ever received, if even sent. 240. The bills failed to include any creditor reimbursement for Defendant's losses or the credits due and stated in this New Matter for items not provided. 241. Prior to receiving Plaintiffs invoices, Ruth Anri Krug had no idea of the final billing total. 242. At all times Plaintiff was aware that Defendant: had losses to be discussed and addressed in the billing; however, Plaintiff chose to ignore same entirely. 243. At no time was Plaintiff authorized to charge the credit card of Howard Krug for anything other than the rehearsal dinner, without his specific approval and signature. 244. Plaintiff never requested such consent or authorization from either Ruth Ann Krug or Howard B. Krug. 245. Pursuant to the written contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Ann Krug, Liberty Forge could not charge anything to a credit card not on file for "Patron" Ruth Ann Krug without her for review and approval as "reasonable". 246. Liberty Forge never had a credit card on file for Ruth Ann Krug. 34 247. The contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Anri Krug provides in pertinent part under "PAYMENT IN ADVANCE" with respect to "incidental charges" that: Patron agrees to such amount as may be charged to their credit cards with the provision that such an-counts are deemed reasonable by the patron. (emphasis added). 248. The underlined language quoted above was added by Ruth Ann Krug to Plaintiff's standard agreement to prevent unauthorized credit card charges to a credit card on file. 249. At no time were Plaintiffs charges deemed reasonable or even seen by Ruth Ann Krug prior to Plaintiffs unauthorized use of the credit card of Howard Krug to pay its charges. 250. No attempt by Liberty Forge to use the Visa card of Howard B. Krug was made until September 30, 2004, one day after Ruth Ann Krug advised the Liberty Forge employee that she may dispute Plaintiffs billing. 251. It is believed and therefore averred that on September 30, 2004, the following unsuccessful attempts were made to charge the: credit card of Howard B. Krug by Plaintiff: Date Merchant Amount 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $22,432.20 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $22,432.20 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $1,200.00 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $6,000.00 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $12,000.00 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $6,000.00 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $6,000.00 (See fax from Citi Bank to Howard B. Krug from S. Larson dated January 17, 2005, attached hereto as Defendants' Exhibit "B".) 35 252. It is believed and therefore averred that the initial sums Plaintiff attempted to charge against Defendant's Visa card $22,432.20, exceeds the amount Plaintiff has ever claimed is owed in this case since September 5, 2004. 253. It is believed and therefore averred that Plainntiff continued in its attempts to use without authorization the credit card of Howard Krug, and Plaintiff, without authorization and actual approval, obtained three (3) separate payments on September 30, 2004 of $5,000, $5,000, and $1,000 respectively. (See Exhibit "B" of Plaintiff's Complaint.) 254. Thus, on September 30, 2004, Plaintiff mad~s Ten (10) attempts to use the credit card of Howard B. Krug without authorization, securing payment of $11,000 finally in the last three. 255. It is further believed that on or about October 6, 2004 Plaintiff attempted an 11'h unauthorized charge and received a payment of $4,643.94 from the credit card of Howard B. Krug. (See Exhibit "B" of Plaintiffs Complaint.) 256. It is further believed and therefore averred thiat through the unauthorized use of Defendant's Visa, Plaintiff received $15,943.94. 257. As a result, Howard B. Krug canceled the credit card, at great trouble and inconvenience. 258. Plaintiff was aware at all times that it was not: authorized to use this credit card to pay for the wedding and reception. 259. As an express contract with Ruth Ann Krug exists, Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief for unjust enrichment or for any equitable or other relief against any Defendant other than Ruth Ann Krug. 36 260. Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. 261. Plaintiffls request for equitable relief is barred by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands by virtue of its actions and representations. 262. Due to the express contract as modified, Plaintiff cannot recover, if at all, more than that due under its existing contract, as reduced or eliminated by Defendants' Counterclaims and defenses. 263. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff knew or should have known, and disclosed to Ruth Ann Krug when it was contracting or dealing with her, that LCB rules and regulations barred the performance of a live band in the tent. 264. It is believed and therefore averred that Plainttiff knew or should have known of and disclosed to Ruth Ann Krug when it was contracting or dealing with her that a township ordinance barred live music emanating from the tent after 11:00 p.m. 265. It is believed and therefore averred that Liberty Forge recklessly failed to train, supervise or reasonably monitor its employee, Jennifer Beard, and bestowed upon her inordinately high levels of authority after only a short time on the job. 266. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff failed to investigate the prior performance and conduct of Jennifer Beard as an erployee in this field before it hired her in late 2003 or in January or February 2004. 267. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff acted very late regarding this band issue and wedding changes, thereby coercing Ruth Ann Krug to accept a wedding of lesser quality to that which was contracted for and desired. 268. It is believed and therefore averred that Ruth Ann Krug, owing to duress, agreed to a bifurcated wedding, rushed dinner service, and use of the Wedge Restaurant for half the reception, as it was too late to make changes. 37 269. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff's employee may have engaged in a "bait and switch" course of conduct, as she knew Ruth Ann Krug did not want the reception and dinner dance to be held in the Wedge Restaurant. 270. It is believed and therefore averred that during the wedding, one or more minors somehow received intoxicating beverages on Plaintiffs premises. 271. It is believed and therefore averred that employees of Plaintiff were ordered to use the credit card of Howard B. Krug to pay for the wedding reception, Plaintiff knowing that such action was not authorized by Howard B. Krug. 272. It is further believed and therefore averred thiat Plaintiff was aware that unauthorized charges against a credit card without the express consent of the owner is improper and prohibited in law. 273. It is further believed that the daughter and son-in-law of Ruth Ann Krug and Howard B. Krug have been included as Defendants in this case solely to intimidate and coerce Ruth Ann Krug to pay this debt. 274. Count IV of Plaintiffs Complaint was dismissed by the Court of Common Pleas on the basis of a demurrer. 275. There was never a factual basis to bring a fraud count against Defendants, individually or collectively. 276. It is believed and therefore averred that this was no more than an attempt to increase damages and further intimidate Defendants. 277. It is further believed and therefore averred that Curt Williams, Esquire, Plaintiffs President, signed a verification to the Complaint knowing that there was no good faith basis for the fraud count against all or any of the Defendants. 38 278. It is believed and therefore averred that this was not the first time Plaintiff has canceled events or made last minute, significant changes in wedding receptions. 279. It is believed and therefore averred that given the pertormance of Plaintiff during this event, including but not limited to the stress it created during the days before September 5, 2004, the deception and misrepresentation of its employee, evidently supported by Plaintiff, and its own failure to comply with accepted practice standards of the hospitality industry, Plaintiff should receive nothing. 280. It is believed and therefore averred that Brett Shaffer was terminated by or no longer works for Plaintiff. 281. It is believed and therefore averred that Jennifer Beard was terminated by or no longer works for Plaintiff. 282. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for interest, attorneys fees and costs. 283. Plaintiff s claims are barred in whole or in part by collateral estoppel. 284. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by waiver. 285. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by duress. 286. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by release. 287. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of novation of contracts. 288. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by accord and satisfaction. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismi:~sed by this Honorable Court. 39 COUNTERCLAIMS COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT RUTH ANN KRUG v. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. 289. Ruth Ann Krug incorporates by reference all factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 134 of the Answer to the Complaint and paragraphs 135 through 288 of the New Matter, as if set forth at length. 290. By reason of Liberty Forge's failure to conform to its own written Agreement, as subsequently modified by the parties on September 4, 2004, it is in breach of the contract. See paragraphs 193 through 198 of New Matter above. 291. By reason of Liberty Forge's breach of the contract, Ruth Ann Krug has incurred damages and expenses, including but not limited to those stated in paragraphs 222-231 of New Matter. It is believed and therefore averred that these damages may increase, based upon some charged beverages being paid for separately by guests at the commencement of the wedding, as well as guests being solicited for tips, despite Ruth Ann Krug being charged a service fee of 20%. 292. Despite the parties' agreement, Liberty Forge failed to give or even discuss appropriate credits, billing Ruth Ann Krug for the full amount of the wedding. Wherefore, Ruth Ann Krug requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Ruth Ann Krug and against Liberty Forge in the amount of $6,226.00, plus interest and costs of suit. 40 COUNT II UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW RUTH ANN KRUG v. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. 293. Ruth Ann Krug incorporates by reference all factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 93 of the Answer to the Complaint and paragraphs 135 through 288 of the IVew Matter, as if set forth at length. 294. At all relevant times, Liberty Forge was engaged in trade or commerce, as defined in the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Collection Law 73 P.S. §201-1 et seq. (hereinafter "UTPCL"}. 295. Ruth Ann Krug entered into the transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. 296. Implied, if not expressed, in the Liberty Forge Agreement, the statements of Jennifer Beard, and the written information packet given to Ruth Ann Krug on March 1, 2004, including the Liberty Forge "Mission Statement", was that Liberty Forge would provide honest, high quality services through creative staff, who would help Ruth Ann Krug design "a unique and personalized wedding." See Exhibit "A" hereof. 297. The Mission Statement further provides that the Liberty Forge objective is "to make each visit to Liberty Forge an event worth remembering and repeating." See Exhibit "A" hereof. 298. Liberty Forge violated the UTPCL as follows: a. By representing that the goods and services which it was to provide to Ruth Ann Krug, and indirectly to her family, friends and guests, had the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or qualities that in fact they did not have. 73 P.S. §201-2(4)(v) 41 b. By representing that the goods and services provided by Liberty Forge to Ruth Ann Krug, her family, friends and guests, were of a particular standard, quality or grade, when in fact they were of another standard, quality or grade. 73 P.S. §201-2(4)(vii) c. By advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. 73 P.S. §201-2(4)(ix) d. By failing to comply with the terms of its warranty given to Ruth Ann Krug at and prior to the contract for the purchase of goods and services. 73 P.S. §201-2(4)(xiv) e. By engaging in fraudulent or deceptive: conduct which created the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. 73 P.S. §201-2(4)(xxi) 299. More specifically, as to each of the above, respectively, and as more fully stated in the New Matter: a. Liberty Forge, by its authorized employee, continuously represented that a band, hired by Ruth Ann Krug, would be able to perform at and for the entire wedding reception (to 12:30 a.m.), scheduled for the tent, as promised, represented and warranted by Liberty Forge, when it knew, or should have known, that such was proscribed by LCB rules and regulations and township ordinances. In addition, Liberty Forge failed to notify Ruth Ann Krug until the day before the wedding, when it would obviously be too late to cancel the contract and make other arrangements. 42 b. The goods and services provided by Liberty Forge were well below the professional standard, quality or grade represented to Ruth Ann Krug when she entered into the contract, based on Liberty Forge Highlights, Jennifer Beard statements, and during the course of planning the entire event. c. Exhibit "A" and the accompanying DVD (video of tent with dance floor referring in audio to Wedge}, constitute an advertisement that, along with the assurances and reassurances given during the meetings with Liberty Forge, clearly indicate an intent to provide goods and services of a superior quality that were not provided and create a level of confusion or misunderstanding through deception. d. Liberty Forge's written solicitations, set. forth and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" ,and its written contract, contains statements which, taken as a whole, constitutes a promise or warranty with which Liberty Forge failed to comply with regard to hosting a quality event. e. Liberty Forge's actions and omissions by its employee were fraudulent and/or deceptive, which created the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding on the part of Defendant, who believed that the wedding and reception would be held in accordance with her expectations, conversations, and agreements with Liberty Forge, which did not happen. 43 f. Liberty Forge failed to provide Ruth Ann Krug an opportunity to approve or question the billing of Liberty Forge before the latter attempted to put charges through on the credit card of Howard B. Krug without authorization, in violation of the written contract between the parties. 300. Section 201-9.2 of the aforementioned Law allows the Court, in its discretion, to award up to three times the actual damage:; sustained but not less than $100.00, and further to provide other relief, including the award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 301. Liberty Forge's actions in utilizing the credit card of Defendant Howard B. Krug, spouse of Ruth Ann Krug, without authorization, signature or consent, to pay sums in excess of that it claimed to be due from Ruth Anin Krug for the wedding reception, violates both Federal and State law, especially in view of the fact that there was no contractual or other obligation with any Defendant providing for this and approximately ten attempts were made for decreasing amounts on September 30, 2004, all on the same day, with an 11'" charge put through six (6) days thereafter on October 6, 2004. 302. Ultimately, $15,943.94 was paid to and received by Liberty Forge from the credit card of Howard B. Krug, but this sum was eventually reclaimed by Citicard VISA involuntarily, without the cooperation of Liberty Forge, which refused to discuss the issue. 44 303. Ruth Ann Krug has had to retain counsel, thereby incurring current bills exceeding $1,000 and increasing. 304. Liberty Forge's actions justify the Court awarding Defendants treble damages and attorneys fees' under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law because the non-disclosure and deception of its authorized employees, as follows, have proximately resulted in damages to Defendant: a. Breaching the contract and settlement agreement between the parties; and b. The continuing misrepresentation to and deception of Defendant with respect to its ability to have the scheduled band play in the tent, as planned and scheduled for alimost six months thereby disrupting the smooth flow of the planned event; and c. The failure to reveal the truth of the situation until one day before the scheduled wedding, when it was loo late to either cancel or move the event; and d. Providing inferior goods and services, contrary to its promises, contracts and warranties; and e. Attempting to extract more than the actual amount claimed by Liberty Forge to be owing, as per its billing, by charging the credit card of Ruth Ann Krug's spouse, Howard B. Krug, who was never a party to the contract and had not authorized the use of his credit card for that purpose; and 45 f. Forcing Defendants to hire attorneys and incur attorneys' fees exceeding $1,000 and expending significant effort in resisting the credit card charges and defending this. action. WHEREFORE, Ruth Ann Krug requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against Liberty Forge in the amount of $1 £3,678.00, plus interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and the costs of suit. COUNT III FRAUD RUTH ANN KRUG VS. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. 305. Paragraphs 1 through 93 of the Answer and Paragraphs 135 through 288 of New Matter are incorporated herein. 306. Liberty Forge is vicariously responsible for the actions, statements and omissions of its authorized employee Jennifer Beard, acting with the scope and in furtherance of her employment duties. 307. It is alleged and therefore averred that prior to September 4, 2004, while acting within the authorized scope and in furtherance of her employment duties, Jennifer Beard continuously represented to Ruth Ann Krug that a band could perform in the tent at Liberty Forge, a material fact in this transaction. 308. It is further believed and therefore averred than. these continuing representations that the scheduled band could play throughout the reception in the tent were made falsely, with knowledge of their falsity, or recklessly without regard to whether they were true or false, with intent to cause Ruth Ann Krug to rely by entering into a 46 contract with Liberty Forge to host the wedding and subsequently to keep the wedding at Liberty Forge until such time as it became too late to move: the wedding elsewhere. 309. Ruth Ann Krug was at no time aware of the falsity of these statements and continuing misrepresentations, and she justifiably relied uK>on same. 310. As a proximate result of Ruth Ann Krug's justifiable reliance on continuing misrepresentations since March 1, 2004, the planned reception could not be moved to the venue of another host and had to be materially changed on September 4, 2004, within 24 hours before the wedding, resulting in significant losses to Ruth Ann Krug, including but not limited to $6,226. 311. Liberty Forge's evil motive and reckless indiffE:rence to the rights of others amounts to outrageous conduct, warranting the imposition of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Ruth Ann Krug demands that a judgment be entered against Liberty Forge in the amount of $6,226 for actual damages, plus interest and costs of suit, and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional liimit requiring arbitration. COUNT IV FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT HOWARD B. KRUG v. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. 312. Counterclaim Plaintiff incorporates by reference all factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 93 of the Answer to thES Complaint and paragraphs 135 through 288 of the New Matter, as if set forth at lengtlh. 313. Liberty Forge has alleged that Howard B. Krug, among other things, requested goods and services from it. 47 314. Although Howard B. Krug denies such, if it is judicially determined to be correct, Howard B. Krug would enjoy the rights and protecl:ions under the UTPCL and The Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (hereinafter "FCEUA"). 73 P.S. §2270.1 et seq. (2000). 315. The FCEUA prohibits creditors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices with regard to the collection of debts. Id. at §2270.2. 316. Pursuant to the FCEUA, the acts of creditors .are covered. Id. at §2270.3. 317. The FCEUA states, in pertinent part, as follows: a. A creditor may not engage in any conduct, the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Id. at §2270.4(b)(4). b. A creditor may not use any false, decE~ptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Id. at §2270.4(b)(5). c. A creditor may not use any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. ...including: i) The collection of any amount...unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. 73 P.S. §2270.4(b)(6)(I). 48 318. Liberty Forge has violated the above through the use of the credit card of Howard B. Krug for the payment of a debt for which he did not contract, and the unauthorized electronic use of his credit card without his signature on an invoice for payment of wedding bills. 319. On September 30, 2004, Liberty Forge attempted approximately ten (10) electronic charges against the aforesaid credit card for decreasing amounts, some 26 days after Howard B. Krug used it solely to pay for the rehearsal dinner, after reviewing and approving the Liberty Forge billing. 320. Liberty Forge made the electronic charges at or shortly after being informed by its employee that Ruth Ann Krug would review the billing when received and that such would be subject to dispute. 321. Said charges served to deprive Mr. Krug of hiss right to the use and possession of his property. 322. After expending considerable time and effort, Howard B. Krug succeeded in reversing the credit card charges, Liberty Forge refusing to discuss the unauthorized use issue. 44 323. The collection efforts of Liberty Forge, among other things, included the following: a. Reference to an alleged criminal fraud violation by Howard B. Krug; b. Threat of depositions of the bridal party and wedding guests; c. Assertion of substantial claims or counlterclaims against Mr. and Mrs. Krug and their attorney; All of this in violation of FCEUA at §2270.4(b)(5)(v), (vii), and 4(b)(6). 324. Liberty Forge now asserts in its Complaint, a public document available for inspection by the general public, that Mr. Krug civilly defrauded Liberty Forge and made inaccurate and possibly libelous statements to Citibank to secure reversal of the wrongful charges. 325. Liberty Forge knew that these intimidating allegations could not be substantiated, and it is believed and therefore averred that they were made solely for the purpose of further harassing, intimidating, and disgracing Eulr. Krug, in violation of the FCEUA at §2270.4(b)(5)(v), (vii), (x) and 4(b)(6). 326. Howard B. Krug's credit card was charged $15,943.94 after eleven electronic charges occurring on September 30, 2004 (ten reducing charges) and October 6, 2004 (one charge), all at least 26 or more days after the credit card was originally tendered for payment of the rehearsal dinner. 327. Pursuant to the FCEUA and UTPCL, Howard E3. Krug may be entitled to treble damages and reasonable counsel fees, as well as costs and expenses. 328. Howard B. Krug has expended in excess of $180 for counsel fees, which amount has increased as a result of this litigation. 50 WHEREFORE, Howard B. Krug respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against Liberty Forge in the: amount of $47,831.82 plus reasonable counsel fees as well as the costs and expenses of this action plus interest. PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER Date: Q ~ BY: Jo n W. P rcell, Jr.,~uire; ID 955 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 1'102 (717) 234-4178 Attorney for Defendants S1 Highlights Liberty orge The history and of Liberty Forge Video AT NATURE'S DOOR... LIBERTY FORGE A STORIED PLACE For your personal copy of the video, please call Liberty Forge at 717.795.9880 x 213 or Email us at www.LibertyForge.net. The video describes by pictwres and story this historic place and its unique programs for your health and pleasure. In the next few minutes we will visit the historic site of Liberty Forge and witness its natural beauty... the wide variety of programs for persoxis of all ages and interests... the many dining opportunities and venues... the facilities for weddings, corporate meetings and holiday parties.., and the unique, corporate picnic and golf outing opportunities. The question is often asked, "when was the begin- ning of Liberty Forge?"... The answer to this surprises most!... Liberty Forge had its start when George Washington was President of the United States. Yes, it start- ed more than two hundred years ago... It was an iron forge and its location along the Yellow Breeches was ideal for the making of iron ore as was the abundant forests of hard- wood trees on the property... The manor house and the barn that housed the mules for operation of the forge were located where the present Green Storage Building is on Lisburn Road... The hardwood trees were essential to make coke, a key ingredient in the making of iron ore. The forge was located where now is they miniature golf course... Two hundred years ago and for almost one hundred years after that beginning, it was called Liberty Forge.,. as it is now called. Liberty Forge is located next to the historic village of Lisburn... Lisburn was a cro:>sroads for colonial travelers headed west... It was the first overnight stop after crossing the Susquehanna River near the village of Goldsboro... Lisburn was then an integral part of the trail west. Liberty Forge became in time one of the lazgest employers in Cumberland County.. It participated fully in the great Industrial Revolution of the United States in the mid 1800's... Its demise came upon the invention of the Bessemer Furnace in the late 19th century. -1- During the early part of the 20th. century the land was subdivided into various smaller parcels... Beginning about 1985, the Williams family began to reassemble the subdivided parts to save it from another housing develop- ment. Today... Liberty Forge presents a wide variety of pro- grams, activities and dining opportunities for persons of all ages and interests. Since the opening of the first phase in June 2003, we , have hosted the blessing and celebration of hundreds of weddings and receptions in the first five months... Generally there are at least faur weddings each week in the natural beauty of the five lakes,, gardens and gazebos.., All present unique photo opportunities... Other one-of-a-kind photo opportunities exist in the Wedge that include the unique winding staircase and elevated stage where the wedding party can be rememk~ered in all its splendor. The variety of reception facilities, makes Liberty Forge affordable and exciting for wedding couples, their families and guests... Liberty Forge has the largest perma- nent heated tent facility in Central Pennsylvania that per- mits receptions of over 800 persons. It is a unique venue that allows the wedding at one of the gazebos and the reception in the Liberty Big Top that overlooks lakes and gardens. In addition, in the Wedge, the Pennsylvania Room allows receptions and parties for up to 125 persons... It is equipped with multiple plasma televisions for teleconfer- encing as well as entertaimnent, and dance floor, if desired. -z- Dance floors can be placed at a~1y of the various dining ven- ues and all are integrated by the state-of-the-art sound sys- tem. Nothing is quite so unique as the elevated 3,000 square foot tented Wedge Deck: that presents a panoramic view of three lakes, gardens anal is fully enclosed for all sea- son use, and accommodates receptions for up to 100 per- sons. The Wedge presents additional, exciting reception and party opportunities for up to 300 persons that are with- out equal in Pennsylvania... Liberty Forge was awarded the first place blue ribbon for 2003, for the design and construc- tion of the Wedge... It was awarded by the International Timber Frame Association, an association comprising mem- bers in Europe, Canada and the United States... This presti- gious honor recognizes the unique construction of this tim- ber frame building that is pegged together to create a venue for fine dining unlike any other place in Pennsylvania... It is done with elegance and grace that is breathtaking... Wood craftsmen, architects and builders come to Liberty Forge to study this construction wonder. To add to the special elegance and grace of the Wedge, the Cumberland Room for groups up to 300 fea- tures not only statues and scixlptures, but original art by the honored Canadian artist Francine Gravel... Liberty Forge is one of the largest collectors of this highly acclaimed interna- tional artist from Montreal, Canada. Throughout the Wedge as well as the gardens will be found numerous life size statues and fountains... One stat- ue that no one can miss is the life size black bear at the entrance to the Wedge. -3- Adjoining the Wedge is located th.e beautiful outdoor Terrace Garden, overlooking three lakes, fountains, and gardens for casual outdoor dining, receptions or cocktail parties for up to 200 persons. Opening in the Spring of 2004 will be the second of three phases for Liberty Forge. This second phase will include the Cool Beans Cafe, featuring gourmet coffee choices, ice cream, light din- ing fare, and will be open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. each day. It will present a variety of breakfast and othex dining items for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The Cool Beans Cafe is located next to the new miniature golf course. This sports miniature golf course is the longest course of its type in Pennsylvania and is con:>tructed along the historic and beautiful Yellow Breeches Creek. It is designed to accommo- date persons with physical challenges and is ADA approved. The second phase, opening in the Spring of 2004, includes in addition to the Cool Beans Cafe and miniature golf course, the new 300 yard lighted golf practice and instruction facility. There are so many activities at Liberty Forge. To mention a few would include the gazden and arboretum tours, the newest, finest and challenging 18 hole, all bent grass golf course,... river trips by kayaks, canoes and rafts that last from 3 to 6 hours with lunches provided,.,. volleyball, hor~aeshoes, and biking,... fly fish- ing instruction and... catch and release pond fishing. The gardens and arboretum are nationally registered by the National Arboretum Association. Liberty Forge is a unique venue for so many types of events... We have hosted in the first six months, individual groups up to 900 people for corporate outings and picnics... -9- Frequently such events start as a golf outing in the morning and then followed by a variety of activities from cooking classes, pony rides, miniature golf, golf les;~ns, garden tours, pond fishing and fly fishing, river trips, and the always enjoyable Liberty Forge Trolley... 71ze Liberty Forge Trolley is available to transport our guests from one venue to another. In addition, during these corporate outings and pic- nics, golf carts holding from 2 to 8 person:; are available for personal or group self tours. Because only about 10 percent of people in Pennsylvania play golf... and about 13 percent nationwide, most golf tournament sponsors need to appeal to all per- sons... Liberty Forge is totally unique in that respect, since our golf outings are designed to appeal to both golfers as well as non-golfers... While the golfers enjoy the newest, finest golf course in the area, the non-go'(fers can engage in so many other, varied events and then all meet at the end of the day for the banquet. All food at Liberty Forge is prepared on site by our team of professional chefs, some graduates of the American Culinary Institute, Hyde Park, New York.., We maintain two state-of-the-art kitchens... One kitchen is designed sole- ly for the preparation of food for ala carte fine dining in the Wedge... There is a second, separate banquet kitchen locat- ed in the Wedge that prepares food for large groups of up to 800 persons. Dur Mission Statement is: 1. To bring all guests back to nature with our varied outdoor programs. -5- 2. To give all guests a place for escape and serenity... close to home and at affordable prices. 3. To provide varied wedding smd reception venues of incomparable beauty in Central Pennsylvania. 4. To assist our guests to design unique and personalized events, weddings, and corporate out ings and assist in doing so by the creative staff of Liberty Forge. 5. To make each visit to Liberty Forge an event worth remembering and repeating. 6. To call each guest by name. 7. To remind all our guests that when we fail to achieve our goals or our Mission Statement that they will hopefully advise us promptly so that we can make amends and to do better fo:r them and for other guests who favor us with their patronage. Your visit to Liberty Forge begins by a call to our Sales Office at 717-745-9880, or a visit to our web site. You will be asked to complete an event inquiry form that will help us to expedite the process of attending to your needs and planning your special event. Upon receipt of that event inquiry form it will be assigned to an Event Coordinator. Each event is custom designed and coordinated to fit your culinary tastes, budget and interests. Thank you for visiting Liberty Forge in the last few minutes. We hope we may serve. you, your family and friends. -6- AT NATURE'S DOOR, LIBERTY FORGE, A STORIED PLACE Just ten minutes from Harrisburg and minutes from anywhere on the West Shore 3804 Lisburn Road Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Next to Lower Allen Community Park {717)795-9880 extension 213 www.LibertyForge.net 3 (11i17/200~ 15:26 FA.Y 600 33Q 6709 SD CRT .,., Facsimile ct~~ank Cardmember Services To: Howard Krug Fax; Ci l 7~ ,~ 3 `!'O y 04 From: Custurner Service Date: dl/17/1005 Re: Aceount#412800339213XXXX No. of Pages (including this page): I Dear Mr. Krug, 1D: P30337.'i Phone 300-550-5114 Thank you for contacting Citibank Customer Service. As you requested, listed below is the information you requested regarding failed authorizaAOn attempts on 9/30/2004 for the account number listed above. Date Merchant Amount 9%30!2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality 23,432.20 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality 23,432?0 9/30!2004 Liberty Fo~gaIiaspitaliry 1200.00 „ i~.,.o, lt~,t . , 9f30f2004 Liberiy orge Hospitality 6000.00 9/30!2004 Libcny Forge Hospitality 13000.00 9/30/2004 Libcny Forge Hospitality 600D.00 9/30/2004 T iherly Forge Hospitality 6000.(>n Tf we may be of any further assistance, please don't hesita[e [o contact[ us at 1-800-950-5114 Sincerely~,,{p ~' [!t ~s~ S. Larson Customer Service fedout regu/anonr ruryirr ur ro print the Jndewaq aufrmenr The frderot Fqual Crcdir OppommiryAct prohd»u crrdJront from direriminotiay ugauur prdir uppJitm+n on the M^~ of race, coJuy rclig/wc national origin, ,rx swrird t+araa, aye (provided rhr applicant hat the rapociry eo ester eua a hindLtq canmxet); lxeaure alt nr part of the appficanr'r inrnme drrrver from any pdJlic as+irranee pro gram; ar lxcafae the appticwu hoe N good faith rsercited any right order the Con• runirr Credo Protection Acr. Ths Fedrr4l Ay~9. Thar adminislsrt eompivs.ce rwrh rhie Imo eoncrmhir Cidlank (Sanrh Ouknra} NA Q Ae Cauepuo4u ofrhe Currency, CusraarrAnir+ar+rr Group, 1307 McXimuy Sneec Suite 34;10. Hau:ron, p"", T70/0•p050. VERIFICATION I, RUTH ANN KRUG, hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. _ /cam- RUTH ANN KRU Date: 7 7 ~ 5 LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. Plaintiff vs. HOWARD B. KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, Defendants and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND C:OUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-1359 CI\/IL CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendants :JURY TRIAL DE'.MANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, ANGELA S. SNAPPER, an employee of the law firm of Purcell, Krug & Haller, counsel for Defendants, hereby certify that service of the attached ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM was made upon the following by placing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first class mail, postage prepaid, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on Ju~/~, 2005. Keith A. Clark, Esquire Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiff ~! ~ ~. ANG S.SH,AFFER n ~ ~ c ~ r ~ m '!'j ~ ~ C~ i -v ~f > ' ; ~~ - - ^'c„ m W 1 -{ ~ ~-~~ ~"~a ~ LIBERTY FORGE HOSPTTALTTY, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and No. OS-1356 Civil CIVIL ACTION -LAW KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, LibertyForge Hospitality, Inc, byand through its counsel, Shumaker Williams, P.C., to file its Unopposed Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated September 14, 2005 and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Following a default notice, Defendants filed an Answer to Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, violation of Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), fraud, acid violation ofFair Credit Extension Uniform Act ("FCEUA"), on July 7, 2005. 2. On July 25, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Reply to New Matter, Preliminary Objections to the Counterclaim, and Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument. In its Preliminary Objections, Plaintiff averred that Defendants failed to state a claim for violation of the UTPCPL, fraud, and violation of the FCEUA. In addition, Plaintiff alleged that L)efendant Ruth Ann Krug stated her fraud claim without particularity in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(b). On August 12, 2005, Plaintiff filed its Brief in Support of its Preliminary Objections to Counterclaim. 4. On August 19, 2005, Defendants filed their Brie1'in Opposition. 5. Oral argument was held on August 24, 2005 before the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley and the Honorable Edward E. Guido. 6. By September 14, 2005 Order, the Honorable Edward E. Guido dismissed Plaintiff s Preliminary Objections as mootbecause an examination ofthe docket revealedthat the Counterclaim was not filed in the above-captioned matter. By September 19, 2005 letter, Defendants' counsel advised Plaintiff s counsel that Defendants' Counterclaim was filed with the incorrect docket number (OS-1359) instead of the correct docket number (OS-1356); therefore, Defendants' Counterclaim was not properly filed in the above-captioned matter prior to the Court's September I4, 2005 Order. A true and correct copy of the September 19, 2005 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Defendants' counsel did advise, however, that the Defendants' Counterclaim is now filed in the above-captioned matter. See Exhibit "A." 9. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that: this Court vacate its September 14, 2005 Order and determine Plaintiffs Preliminary Objections 1:o Counterclaim on its merits. 10. Defendants' counsel, John Purcell, Esquire, wsu contacted by undersigned counsel with respect to this Motion and he concurs with the Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated September 14, 2005. 2 WHEREFORE,Plaintiff,LibertyForge Hospitality,Inc, respectfullyrequeststhatthis Court reconsider and vacate its September 14, 2005 Order in which it dismissed Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections as moot on the basis that the Defendants' Counterclaim has now been filed in the above- captioned matter and make a determination on Plaintiff s Prelirinary Objections to Counterclaim on the merits. SHUMAk:ER WILLIAMS, P.C. ~~~~~~~ B ~wGt.d,~ Dated y Keith A. Clark, LD. #06 9 Melissa ?.. Swauger #82382 P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 as,6ts (717> 76~~,-1121 Attorney:> for Plaintiff .d5 15:14 PURCELL KRLKa RND HRLLER raw oi~tr,>rs t 719 MOR7N FI10NT 3TRlE1 HARRISBURG, PENNSYWANIA 17102-2392 HCIWARCI B.KRUC TELEPHONE (717)234-A178 [~ p, f]AU,~ FAX (717) 233.1149 Jowv W. Rnceu. Js. JRl M. W WDU BAANJ• 7Yl8A N1QlOLB M.37Af3Y Q"(ARW.N IJSnA, RYNARn September 19, 2005 VIA FAX ONLY: 763-7419 Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire 5humaker William PC P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Ire: Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. v. Krug et al. Dear Melissa: 7172340409 P.02 HERSHEv (71716313618 J068P11 NKBLGY (1410.1 W91 JCFIN W. plg1CELL a cewrr I am in receipt of the Order dated Septembor 14, 2005 whereby Judge Guido dismissed your PO's due to our Counterclaim not being filed. Please note tb~at when the Counterclaim was filed, it was filed with the incorrect docket number (OS-1359) instead of the correct number (05- 1356). The Prothonotary did not catch this mistake and docketed the Counterclaim to the incorrect docket number. As of this date, the Prothonotary corrected the OS-1356 docket and inserted the Counterclaim into the correct file. You may want to ?Hle a petition with the Court to resolve this matter. Thank you. JWP,JI2:ase very truly yours, John W. Purcell, Jr. (Dtctaee~ but not read) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICI~] I, Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire, of the law firm of Shumalker Williams, P.C., hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated September 14, 2005 on this date by depositing a copy of the same in the possession of the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire PURCELL, KRUG & HA]LLER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2392 Dated: ~ ~~ ~~~ By SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. ~~ C(~~;cv~- Melissa A. Swauger P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg., PA 17108 (717)763-1121 C J "~ ra C~ ~ O - n -{ tV ~ -p Cft rt~ '- Q1 r ~`~ ~ > 'T} - ,_' -f~ '(1 ? _ Ci ;ern y N ~ ~ F a c.~ "" to ~ -~ #31 LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. V. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG V. KARL BAU and WENDY BAU IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.2005 - 1356 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM BEFORE BAYLEY, GUIDO, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14T" day of SEPTEMBER, 2005, it appearing to the Court after an examination of the docket that no counterclaim has been filed in this matter, the Plaintiffs Preliminary Objections thereto are DISMISSED as moot. the Court, Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire Court Administrator Edward E. Guido, J. ~ D -o~- sld ` p ~ ~.i~ /` ~1 r~ ~~~ !~.__i,I ~ i ~~- LIBERTY FORGE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HOSPITALITY, INC., :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. No. 05-1356 Civil HOWARD KRUG and CNIL ACTION -LAW RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and K.ARI, BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED `I~O,R~jD~ER AND NOW, this ~ ~ day of y"" , 2005, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated September 14, 2005, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this Court will reconsider and vacate its Order dated September 14, 2005 and make a determination on Plaintiffs Preliminary Objections to Counterclaim on the merits. J. 1~- _ I ~. 1.~ LIBERTY FORGE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HOSPITALITY, INC. :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU NO. 2005 - 1356 CIV"IL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM BEFORE BAYLEY, GUIDO, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13T" day of DECEMBER, 2005, upon consideration of the preliminary objections of Plaintiff to Defendants' counterclaim, and after reviewing the briefs filed by the parties, and having heard argument thereon, the preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to Counts II, III and IV of the counterclaim are GRANTED. By the Court, ~fCeith A. Clark, Esquire Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire P.O. Sox 88 Harrisburg Pa. 17108 ~hn W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire ] 719 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pa. 171092 Court Administrator ((50i.) Edward E. Guido, J. o~ ~.. ~~`3 i ~ ~ - ~ :., (. ~. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., v. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 05-1356 Civil CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., by and through its attorneys, Shumaker Williams, P.C., to state the following Answer to Counterclaim as follows: 289. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference its Complaint and Reply to New Matter as if set forth at length. 290. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 290 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 290 of the Counterclaim and paragraphs 193 through 198 of the New Matter. By way of furtherresponse, Plaintiffls responses to paragraphs 193 through 198 ofthe Reply to New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 291. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 291 constitute conclusions of law which require no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies the averments contained in paragraph 291 of the Counterclaim and paragraphs 222 through 231 of the New Matter . By way of further response, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 222 through 231 of the Reply to New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 292. Admitted in part and denied as a conclusion of law in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff billed Ruth Ann Krug for the wedding and reception it provided to Defendants. The averment that "[d]espite the parties' agreement, Liberty Forge failed to give or even discuss appropriate credits" contained in paragraph 292 constitutes a conclusion of law which requires no responsive pleading. To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, Plaintiff specifically denies said averment contained in paragraph 292 of the Counterclaim. By way of further response, Plaintiff s responses to paragraphs 224 through 234, 237, and 240 of the Reply to New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants and award Plaintiff damages in an amount in excess of the mandatory arbitration amount of $25,000.00, plus interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. SHUMAKER. WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated ~ ~ ~ ~~° ~ ~~ ]80763 By 1;,/YJ Ui ~ Sww~~ln-~ Keith A. Clark, LD. #06249 Melissa A. Svvauger #82382 P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 763- ] 1 <! ] 2 VERIFICATION The undersigned, Luke A.V. Grumbine, hereby verifies and states that: Alva 1~ r'~ r~.'~ },tii'L 1. He is the Chief Financial Officer~fLiberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. and authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. He is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. / ~, i Dated: ~ Z~ Z o j OS ~C. til` 4 ~~ Lcs ~,.~-` Luke A.V. Grumbine, CFO Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. vEiul{icaTioly The undersigned, Kuri E. Williams, hereby verifies and states that: 1. He is the President of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. and authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are tnte and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. He is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: t Z ~ZO~~ ~ ~~ Kurt E'.. Williams, President Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, I, Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire, of the law firm of Shumaker Williams, P.C., hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Counterclaim on this date by depositing a copy of the same in the possession of the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire PURCELL, KRUG & HAL]'.ER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 1 7 1 02-23 92 SHUMAKEF: WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated: { Z JZ~~~~ By ~~ Ct. 1 ~~G~~,~t- II Melissa A. Swauger P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 763-11:? 1 (~ h~ _ Y i._) ~ -~ ~~ '_ r'1 - I a ~ ~ ~ _ 7~] ~~' N jt_f 4~ -;, ..__ _,. _ , , ~~ i"n ' .. ra , 4,.. ,t LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA vs. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG NO. 2005 - 1356 CIVIL TERM and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, Defendants APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF INTERLOCUTORY ORDER PURSUANT TO 42 Pa.C.S.A. &1311(b) and 42 Pa.C.S.A. §702(b) AND NOW, come the Defendants, Howard Krug and Ruth P,nn Krug and Karl Bau and Wendy Bau, through their attorneys, Purcell Krug & Haller, and file the following Application for Amendment of Interlocutory Order Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §1311{b) and 42 Pa.C.S.A. §702(b) and aver as follows: 1. On July 25, 2005, the Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitaliity, Inc. filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer to Counts II, III and IV of the Defendants' four Counterclaims. 2. Subsequently, the Defendants filed an Answer to the Preliminary Objections; both parties filed Briefs in support of their positions; and Oral Argument was held orn August 24, 2005. 3. On December 13, 2005, Judge Edward E. Guido issued an Order granting the Plaintiff s Preliminary Objections to Counts II, III and IV of the Defendants' Couinterclaim. A true and correct copy of Judge Guido's December 13, 2005 Order, which was entered of record the same day, is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". 4. The Court's December 13, 2005 Order is not considered a final Order pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §341(c) because Count I of the Defendants' Counterclaim remains viable. 5. Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §312, §1311 and §702(b), an appeal may be taken by permission from an interlocutory order of a lower Court if the lower Court certifies that: "[S]uch order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ull:imate termination of the matter." 6. Defendants believe that based on the facts of the case, the Pennsylvania statutes and subsequent case law, all three dismissed Counts of their Counterclaim sets forth valid causes of action for the Plaintiff's violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, ("the UTPCPL") in Count II; the Plaintiffs commitment of common law fraud in Count III; and the Plaintiff's violation of the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (the "FCEUA") in Count IV, and that such issues present controlling questions of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal regarding the Trial Court's granting of the P'laintiff's Preliminary Objections to Counts II, III and IV of the Defendants' Counterclaims would materially advance the ultimate termination of the case. 7. It is believed and averred that the Court dismissed Count II for violation of the UTPCPL on the basis that the Defendants failed to state a claim for fraud. The UTPCPL was amended on February 2, 1997 to allow relief under the statute without the need to :show common law fraud. Although the Defendants separately assert in Count III of their Countercaims that there is fraud in this case, it is no longer necessary to prove fraud to be entitled to recovery under the UTPCPL. Nevertheless, there has been a difference of opinion among appellate courts following amendment of the statute. The Defendants direct the attention of the Court to Commonwealth v. Percudani, 825 A.2d 743, 747 (Comm. Ct. 2003), wherein the Commonwealth Court determined that the Superior Court was incorrectly using the pre- amendment language in its post 1996 rulings and was improperly holding that the elements of fraud were necessary to secure relief under the UTPCPL. Thus, two of the Commonwealth's appellate courts disagree on the legal interpretations and applications of the current Ul"PCPL and these differing opinions will have a material effect on the ultimate outcome of this case. 8. Alternatively, it is believed and averred that the Court dismissed Count II based upon the Plaintiff's representation that the Defendant, Ruth Ann Krug has paid nothing under the contract she executed. This is not correct, as Defendant paid $1,937.70 at contract signing, and the Plaintiff applied this sum to reduce its demand, set forth in its suit. The Defendant also paid her band, the florist and others in full even though the Plaintiff's actions prevented her from receiving the full value of their services. The Plaintiff has sued to fully recover on its contract and in equity, and should the Plaintiff prevail in its claim, the Defendant will then be obligated to pay. To prohibit the Defendant from pursuing a UTPCPL claim unless and until she has paid in full on the contract would defeat the very existence of the UTPCPL and eliminate the deterrent effect of that statute. They UTPCPL is intended to provide supplemental relief to those causes established in contract, common law tort and fraud. 9. In Count IV, the Defendants' counterclaim pled under the FCEUA provides concurrent remedies to that allowed under the UTPCPL, and Count IV is therefixe inextricably intertwined with the counterclaim made by the Defendants in Count II. 10. In Count III, the Defendants sufficiently, specifically and substantially pled a claim for common law fraud which is independent of the contractual clairn in Count I of the Defendants' Counterclaims. 11. Failure to allow an immediate appeal will likely result in a duplication of efforts and a waste of judicial resources, if all of the Defendants' counterclaims are not allowed to be tried at the same time. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to amend its December 13, 2005 Interlocutory Order to certify that: "Such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate determination of the matter." Respectfully John W. Pur II, Jr., Esquire Attorney I 29955 L, KRUG & HALLER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 Dated: ~'~ Z I (/t ~ Attorney for Defendants LIBERTY FORGE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HOSPITALITY, INC. :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU N0.2005 - 1356 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF' S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM BEFORE BAYLEY, GUIDO, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13T" day of DECEMBER, 2005, upon consideration of the preliminary objections of Plaintiff to Defendants' counterclaim, and after reviewing the briefs filed by the parties, and having heard argument thereon, the preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to Counts II, III and IV of the counterclaim aze GRANTED. By the Court, Keith A. Clazk, Esquire Melissa A. Swauger, Esr P.o. BoX ss Harrisburg, Pa. 1710f c~°~~ i~~ ~~4 ~a5_ Ed'.wazd E. Guido, J. John W. Purcell, 1r., Esquire 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pa. 171092 Court Administrator ~A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barbara A. Shadel, an employee of the law firm of Purcell, Krug & Haller, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Application for Amendment of Interlocutory Order Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §1311(b) and 42 Pa.C.S.A. §702(b) on the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class Postage, Postage Prepaid, addressed as follows: Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire P. O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiff s Barbara A. Shadel' Dated: ~ / ~ 1 ~~76 ' +:~ i C 7 ~ ~, .~ ~~ ~.-: c.• ,-~ C~ ~:. _`Y t• John W. Purcell, Jr. I.D. 29955 Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 email: jpurcell@pkh.com LIBERTY FORGE : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HOSPITALITY, INC., :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff VS. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG husband and wife, Defendants NO. 05-1356 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION-LAW and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND NOW, come the Defendants Howard Krug, Ruth Ann Krug, Karl Baum and Wendy Baum, by their attorneys, Purcell, Krug & Haller, who file the following Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order of December 13, 2005, and in support thereof aver as follows: 1. On July 7, 2005, the Defendants filed an Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and four Counterclaims. 2. The Counterclaims consisted of Count I, a claim for breach of contract; Count II, a claim under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("the UTPCPL"); Count III, a claim for common law fraud, and Count IV, a claim under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (the "FCEUA") 3. On July 25, 2005, the Plaintiff filed Preliminary Objections in the Nature of a Demurrer to Counts II, III, and IV of the Defendants' Counterclaims. 4. The Defendants filed a Response to the Preliminary Objections and both parties briefed their positions. 5. After Oral Argument, your Honorable Court entered an Order on December 13, 2005 granting the Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections as to Counts II, III and IV, thereby dismissing Defendants' claims under the UTPCPL, for common law fraud, and under the FCEUA. 6. The Court did not issue a Memorandum or Opinion setting forth its reasons for dismissing the three Counts. 7. The claims under the UTPCPL and the FCEUA are statutory claims, that are supplemental, and in addition, to common law claims for breach of contract and fraud. To prohibit the Defendants from pursuing a UTPCPL and FCEUA claims would defeat the very existence of both statutes and eliminate their deterrent effect. 8. The Defendants have set forth valid causes of action under both statutory schemes in Counts Il and IV based on the actions or omissions of the Plaintiff and based on the factual averments set forth in the pleadings. In particular: a. Defendants alleged conduct goes beyond a mere breach of contract between the parties. Defendants have averred, for example, that despite knowledge of facts surrounding the ability of a band to play at the wedding, Plaintiff hid those facts, and continuously, and fraudulently, led the Defendants to believe that a band would be able to play, and waited until a day before the wedding to break the news of the adverse facts. This is a clear violation, on its face, of the UTPCPL. b. Defendants have also alleged that, compounding the above problem, Plaintiff attempted to collect the debt, which they knew to be disputed, by an unauthorized charge on the Defendants credit card, which is, on its face, a violation of the FCEUA. c. The UTPCPL was amended on February 2, 1997 to allow relief under the statute without the need to show common law fraud. Although the Defendants separately assert in Count III of their Counterclaims that there is fraud in this case, it is no longer necessary to prove fraud to be entitled to recovery under the UTPCPL. d. Remedies under the FCEUA are provided under the UTPCPL. e. Under Pennsylvania law, in ruling on a demurrer, the Court must accept as true all well pleaded facts.Dixon v. Cameron County School District, 802 A. 2d. 696 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) 9. In addition, the Defendants have set forth a valid cause of action for common law fraud in Count III based on the actions or omissions of the Plaintiff and based on the factual averments set forth in the pleadings. 10. As noted above, Defendants have averred allegations of fraud that rise above a mere re-recitation of their breach of contract claims. 11. Concurrent with the filing of the instant Motion for Reconsideration, the Defendants have also filed an Application for Amendment of Interlocutory Order pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. §1311(b) and 42 Pa. C.S.A. §702(b). 11. Dismissal of only three of the four Counterclaims is an Interlocutory Order, preventing the litigation of the issues contained in the dismissed Counterclaims at trial, or an immediate appeal of the denial of their claims. 12. The Defendants believe and therefore aver that in the interest of the economy of judicial resources and time, all claims should be tried at the same time. 13. The Defendants believe and therefore aver that the Court was in error in dismissing Counts II, III and IV of the Defendants' Counterclaims. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to reconsider its Order of December 13, 2005, and to deny the Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections to Counts II, III and IV of the Defendants' Counterclaim. Respectfully submitted, PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER Jo n W. Purcell,-Jr. . #29955 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Carol Masich, legal assistant to John W. Purcell, Jr., Attorney for the Defendants, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the Plaintiff by forwarding said copy to its attorneys at the following address, by first class U.S. Mail on June 24, 2005: Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire Shumaker Williams, P.C. P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys far the Plaintiff ~'~.a~ ~ 1 1 10~,6zu~,'\. Carol Masich, Le al Assistant to JOHN W. PURCELL, JR. I.D. NO. 29955 ~~ ~~ ;~ C` =t7 -~ ~ C__ -~ ,. t. -!'I 7..._ 'll ~-- _,.. ~ -,. L~ -. ~1 -~~ ail ~4~ .._ Li ~A~ ~ ~ ; a~6 ~- 1~ LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiff vs. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG and KARL BAU and W ENDY BAU, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005 - 1356 CIVIL TERM Q ,'~''y1~` O R D E R AND NOW, this ~v day of January, 2006, based on the Defendants' Application for Amendment of Interlocutory Order Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §1311(b) and 42 Pa.C.S.A. §702(b), IT IS HEREBY ORBERED th~ecemoer 7s, zuuo Vraer IssU6O Vy uus wail a aniciiucaw- o ecember, 2005, upon consideration oche pr ain i o e en un erc aim, an a er reviewing the ereon, a prei ns un s an o e coun erclaim ar-' e~RT~D. or e ermination o e ma er. Edward E. Guido, J. Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 ~~,C.~,~ J~ Court Administrator i' Ott, '"w =ii'{1 _... !. ~:~ ~ • ~ -~ ~~~I l1/7 2006 1 John W. Purcell, Jr. I.D. 29955 Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 email: jpurcell@pkh.com LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiff IN THE CUUKI OF CUMMUN FLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-1356 CIVIL VS. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG husband and wife, Defendants and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, Defendants CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ d`ay of , 2006, upon consideration of ,~EN,Ev the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration, it is hereby O°°^^~^ --~' ^^^°~^^-"--t %~ t n Obj hereby denied- BY J. ~llelissa A. Swauger, Esquire P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 ~hn W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Court Administrator J ~~ O~ ~~,~ .,, iS .. ;. ~~,,., ~~; .L .. _. _ ,. ~ ,. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiff v. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, KART. BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife No. OS-1356 Civil CNIL ACTION -LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE APPEARANCE PLEASE substitute the appearance of Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire, with the appearance of Evan C. Pappas, Esquire, on behalf of Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., in the above-captioned matter. Dated: ~~. t , Z~ 186695 SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. By Evan C. Papp 00103 P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)763-1121 Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Evan C. Pappas, Esquire, of the law firm of Shumaker Williams, P.C., hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Praecipe to Substitute Appearance on this date by depositing a copy of the same in the possession of the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 SHLTMAKER WILLIAMS. P.C. Dated: in~r~. ~ ,~-~ BY Evan C. Pappas ~ ~ \ P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA ] 7108 (717)763-1121 . , ,-, ; ~ ,,~ ,-:; r ~ ; ,:, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. OS-1356 Civil CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., by and through its counsel, LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., v. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife Shumaker Williams, P.C., to make the following Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1034: 1. Plaintiff commenced the above-captioned matter on March 16, 2005 by filing a Complaint, stating causes of action for breach of contract, third-party beneficiary, unjust enrichment, and fraud. 2. On April 13, 2005, Defendants filed Preliminary Objections. 3. Oral argument was held on June 1, 2005. 4. By June 6, 2005 Order, the Court granted Defendants' Preliminary Objections for legal insufficiency with regard to Count II "Third-Party Beneficiar}~' and Count IV "Fraud." The remaining preliminary objections were denied. 5. Following a default notice, Defendants filed an Answer to Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, violation of Unfair Trade r ~ r Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), fraud, and violation of Fair Credit Extension Uniform Act ("FCEUA"), on July 7, 2005. 6. On July 25, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Reply to New Matter. 7. In addition, Plaintiff filed Preliminary Objections to the Counterclaim. 8. Oral argument was held on August 24, 2005. 9. By December 13, 2005 Order, this Court granted all of Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections and dismissed Counts II, III, and IV of the Counterclaim. 10. The Answer to the Counterclaim was filed on December 22, 2005. 11. On January 11, 2006, Defendants filed an Application for Amendment of Interlocutory Order seeking to amend the December 13, 2005 Order. 12. This Court denied the Petitioners' Application for Amendment of Interlocutory Order by Order dated January 18, 2006. 13. On February 16, 2006, Defendants filed a Petition for Review in the Superior Court seeking to amend the December 13, 2005 Order and reinstate Counts II, III, and N of Defendant's Counterclaims. 14. On March 2, 2006, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants' Petition for Review. 15. By March 23, 2006 Order, the Superior Court denied Defendants' Petition for Review. 16. The pleadings are closed in this matter. 17. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1034(a), "[a]fter the relevant pleadings are closed ...any party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Pa.R.Civ.P. 1034(a). 2 ~ i f In addition, the court may "enter such judgment or order as shall be proper on the pleadings." Pa.R.Civ.P. 1034(b). 18. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when no genuine issue of fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Crosby v. Kotch, 135 Pa. Commw. 470, 474, 580 A.2d 1191, 1194 (1990). 19. Defendants aver that theyreached a settlement agreement with Plaintiff on September 4, 2004. See Answer to Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim, ¶205, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 20. Defendants further aver that their losses from the settlement agreement total $6,226.00 and have filed a counterclaim for such amount alleging breach of contract. Id. at ¶¶233, 289-91. 21. Plaintiff has sued Defendants for $17,493.50 due to their various breaches of the contract. See Plaintiff s Complaint, ¶¶56-77, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 22. Accordingly, as a matter of law, Defendants admit that they owe Plaintiff $11,267.50, the difference between the total balance claimed by Plaintiff and the amount claimed by Defendants in their Counterclaim. 23. By entering a judgment of $11,267.50 against Defendants, the parties will be in a better position to settle this matter. 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. , respectfullyrequests that, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1034, this Honorable Court enter judgment on the pleadings in its favor and against the Defendants in the amount of $11,267.50. SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated: ~'v-/~ By Evan C. Papp , I.D. #2 3 P.O. BOX 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 :184725 (717) 763-1121 Attorney for Plaintiff 4 A ~ t. John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire PA Atty. ID No. 29955 PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER 1719 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Telephone: (717)234-4178 Email: ~purcellC~pkh.com LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 05-1359 CIVIL HOWARD B. KRUG and RUTH ANN :CIVIL ACTION -LAW KRUG, husband and wife, : Defendants and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, : husband and wife, Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED `_ , ~' ~ _ ~:_~ -r, ~, ~-'- 'T NOTICE TO PLEAD ~ r = ~ ~~ ~-~' TO: Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. ~~ '' `i3~ _..? c7 _ -n = -~~ Keith A. Clark, Esquire ~ ,:=`, ~~ Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire .~ ~ ~,, ::.~~ P.O. Box 88 ~ z c._~ -~~ Harrisburg, PA 17108 --~ ~ YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to file a written response to the attached New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or judgment may be entered against you. BY: L.".`Es. ~ ~ V ~.,vnn vv. rurc i, ur.~sguire ID No. 29955 Nichoie M. St ley O'Gorman, Esquire ID No. 79866 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~. ~ John W. Purcell, Jr. I.D. 29955 Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 email: jpurcell@pkh.com LIBERTY FORGE : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HOSPITALITY, INC., :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. 05-1356 CIVIL VS. CIVIL ACTION-LAW HCaWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG husband and wife, Defendants and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS NOW COMES Defendants by their attorneys, Purcell, Krug & Haller in response to the Complaint as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. Defendants do not know the person referenced in the Complaint. 5. Denied. Defendants do not know the person referenced in the Complaint. 6. Denied as stated. In late February 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug contacted Plaintiff about hosting the September 5, 2005 wedding and reception of her daughter, Wendy Krug, as the band for the event was open and tentatively booked for that date. 7. Admitted, as the size and configuration of the Wedge Restaurant was deemed unsuitable for the wedding and reception. See New Matter. 8. Admitted, as to Wendy Krug's and Karl Baum's wedding and reception, after changes were agreed upon by the parties. However, Plaintiff was chosen in very early March, 2004. 9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant Howard B. Krug forwarded Exhibit "A", signed solely by Defendant Ruth Ann Krug, with a check fora 15% deposit, also signed by Defendant Ruth Ann Krug, to Plaintiff for the wedding and reception. Defendant Howard Krug did not sign either the contractual document or the check. 10. Denied. On March 1, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug advised Plaintiff, by its authorized employee, Jennifer Beard, that the Ivan Taub Orchestra, a seven piece band was reserved and tentatively booked for September 5, 2004 to play in the tent during the reception between 8:15 p.m. and 12:15 a.m.. Throughout their dealings, Jennifer Beard was impressed that the performance of this live band at the reception in the tent was a material and critically important issue to Ruth Ann Krug. Jennifer Beard confirmed and represented that the engagement of this seven piece, five band to play in 2 .,~ the tent for the reception presented no problem and could be easily accommodated. This representation that the band would perform in the tent by Jennifer Beard continued until September 4, 2004, when her supervisor, Brett Shaffer, met with Defendants and informed them that no live band could perform in the tent because of Liquor Control Board rules and regulations. Ruth Ann Krug reasonably relied on this continuing representation as to her detriment. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied as stated. At the scheduled, first meeting on August 7, 2004, Jennifer Beard advised Defendants of a "cranky" neighbor, who had on numerous occasions filed reports with the police regarding late night noise originating from the tent, without result. Although the neighbor finally complained to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board ("LCB"), Jennifer stated that a mediation with the neighbor had resulted in a complete settlement and resolution of this issue. This resolution was achieved, as per Jennifer, after Liberty Forge told the neighbor that it would bring trailers onto the facility and turn it into a trailer park if her complaints continued. In the mediated settlement, Liberty Forge allegedly agreed to erect a sound barrier between the tent and the neighbor's property and would have an employee monitor noise levels at all events held in the tent. To these ends, and for political purposes, Liberty Forge had allegedly hired the former Mayor of Camp Hill to perform the monitoring, and he would be dressed in a business suit to look like a guest. Jennifer assured Ruth Ann Krug that these steps were taken solely to keep the complaining neighbor happy, and Jennifer represented that this monitoring would have little or no impact on the band or volume of its play in view of the sound barrier and the guest-friendly-way the monitoring 3 ~~ was being carried out. She emphasized that this mediated agreement had resolved the problem entirely. At no time were Defendants told by Jennifer that no band could entertain in the tent, owing to LCB rules and regulations or that any LCB problem continued to exist after the mediation. 13. Denied. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 12 is incorporated herein. No such advice was given until September 4, 2004 by Brett Shaffer. Defendants were continuously assured by Jennifer that the band could and would perform in the tent, a provision which Jennifer Beard understood was critical to Defendants. To these ends, Jennifer Beard scheduled staging to be erected in the tent for the band's use on or about August 17, 2004. Had this disclosure been made to Defendants on August 7, 2004, another venue would have been sought. 14. Denied as stated. After the first August 7, 2004 meeting with Jennifer Beard, Defendants walked over to inspect the tent and returned to the Wedge Restaurant, where they spoke with a woman whose daughter's August 7, 2004 wedding event had been moved from the tent to the Wedge Restaurant because of a "noise problem". No specifics were given. On hearing this, Defendants immediately sought a second meeting with Jennifer Beard. Jennifer repeated that the Krug/Baum wedding would not be similarly impacted, as the decision to move the other wedding event was made prior to the mediation and settlement with the neighbor. The noise issue having been completely resolved at the mediation, according to Jennifer, it would not have any impact on the subject wedding event. The band would play in the tent. There was no hint that Defendant's band could not play under any circumstance inside the tent at the reception, as scheduled, until September 4, 2004. 4 15. Denied as stated. Ruth Ann Krug scheduled the rehearsal dinner -not other Defendants. 16. Denied as stated. Solely Ruth Ann Krug guaranteed 188 guests - no other Defendant did such. A guest suffering from cancer and on a feeding tube who could neither eat nor drink at the wedding was excepted by Plaintiff from the number of guaranteed guests attending the reception on September 5, 2004. This guest left at the conclusion of the wedding and did not stay for either the cocktail hour or reception. 17. Denied. The contract speaks for itself. This issue was never raised by Plaintiff until after the wedding was held, despite Plaintiff's knowledge of the non- payment. This term was waived by the parties through their continuing dealings disregarding this item. At no time did Plaintiff threaten to cancel the reception or even remind Ruth Ann Krug that any payment was due after the deposit was sent with the signed contract. 18. Denied. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 17 is incorporated herein by reference thereto. Defendant made all payments when requested, up to and including the date of the wedding. The course of dealing of the parties waived these terms. 19. Denied. Plaintiffs employee was advised of the band's start and end time in early March 2004. Furthermore, the contractual documents confirm that the reception would continue until 12:30 a.m. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 10 is incorporated herein by reference thereto. 20. Denied. Defendants' answers to Paragraph 10 -12 are incorporated herein by reference. This information was not given to Defendants until September 4, 2004, the day before the wedding, by Brett Shaffer. 5 i r ~ ~ ~' 7 ~ i i On September 2, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug called Jennifer Beard to ensure that there were no last minute problems. For the first time, Jennifer asked whether she was correct that the band would stop playing in the tent at 11:00 p.m. Despite discussions since March of 2004 and a contract of April 2004, this was the first time Ruth Ann Krug was told that music would not be allowed in the tent after 11:00 p.m. by virtue of a township ordinance. Never before had this 11:00 p.m. deadline been disclosed. The reception was scheduled to continue through 12:30 a.m., as per the original contract. Had this issue been disclosed earlier in June, prior to printing invitations, the wedding could have been scheduled an hour and a half earlier. Jennifer made no mention of LCB rules or regulations on September 2, 2004. Ruth Ann Krug believed that the band could play in the tent until at least 11:00 p.m., as per Jennifer. It is believed and therefore averred that on or about September 2, 2004, Jennifer Beard had band staging scheduled for erection in the tent. 21. Denied. After Plaintiff shifted from a position of totally satisfying Defendant, then to the September 2, 2004 position that no band could play in the tent after 11:00 p.m. (township ordinance), then to a September 4, 2004 position, expressed by telephone, that no band could play for any period of time in the tent, such shifts taking place within less than a 72 hour period, a meeting was scheduled at Liberty Forge on September 4, 2004, at 1:00 p.m. with Brett Shaffer, the Director of Food and Beverage and Jennifer Beard's supervisor. The meeting was to discuss and settle the issues between the parties. Despite the fact that many guests were arriving by the afternoon of September 4, 2004, Defendant's' plans to greet their friends and relatives had to be significantly curtailed by this meeting. 6 22. Denied as stated. At the meeting with Mr. Shaffer, Defendants were told that LCB rules and regulations totally prohibited a band from playing in the tent, as the music would escape the premises. He indicated that Jennifer was aware of this for sometime and that he had twice instructed her to meet with Ruth Ann Krug to cancel the band and suggest alternative options. Despite his instructions, he alleged that he had only just learned that Jennifer had deceived Ruth Ann Krug and disregarded his instructions when he observed an invoice for band staging to be erected in the tent. On confronting Jennifer, the deception, non-disclosure, and disregard of his instructions was revealed. He was most apologetic, accepting full responsibility for this problem on behalf of Liberty Forge. He also advised that Jennifer had been fired although a meeting with the "owner" was scheduled. Mr. Shaffer discussed options. He agreed that Liberty Forge would be responsible for all losses to Ruth Ann Krug resulting from Jennifer's deception, misrepresentations, and failure to disclose earlier. 23. Denied as stated. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 22 is incorporated herein by reference thereto. The critical importance of this band playing at the reception was made known to Liberty Forge at all times. Notwithstanding this, under all options the tent could not serve as a venue for a live band. Ruth Ann Krug's only option at this stage, twenty-four hours before the wedding, was to bifurcate the festivities by moving them from the tent to the Wedge Restaurant midway through the r~~.~eption, after the main course was consumed. This required guests to walk up to the Wedge Restaurant, where the band would begin to play at approximately 10:15 p.m. Despite Defendant's fears that guests would leave at 10:15 p.m., an arrangement was reached with Plaintiff's authorized employee by the terms of which the wedding would 7 continue at Liberty Forge under a modified agreement beneficial to Ruth Ann Krug. The agreement encompassed not only items one through five, stated by Plaintiff in Paragraph 23 of its Complaint, but also the following: A. Liberty Forge would reimburse or credit Defendant for all financial losses, including but not limited to lost band playing time resulting from the band's inability to play until 10:15 p.m. B. A dessert buffet, consisting of several desserts, was to be served without charge. C. Snack food, to create a late night party atmosphere, would be served without charge. D. The Wedge Terrace would be appropriately decorated, including flowers, without charge. E. Steps would be taken to keep the guests motivated to stay at the wedding; to wit, rides to the Wedge from the tent without charge. F. Liberty Forge would hire a disc jockey to play music in the tent at no charge to Defendant. G. Free martini bar. 24. Admitted. It is admitted that Wendy Krug took this step to lighten her mother's burden. 25. Admitted. 26. Denied as stated. The answer to Paragraph 16 is incorporated herein. 27. Denied as stated. To the best of Defendants' knowledge, the food and service during the cocktail hour was lacking in both quality and quantity. It is admitted that dinner took place in the tent, during which a disc jockey provided music at no 8 s ~ i ~ ~ 4' 1 w charge to Defendant, pursuant to the September 4, 2004 agreement of the parties. 28. Denied. The bar in the tent was closed during most of dinner time. During the cocktail hour, the bartender ran out of white wine and never replaced it. He also had no bloody mary mix, a common mixer. Tip jars were located at alt bars throughout the evening, despite the fact that gratuities were added to Defendant's bill, and there was no reason for guests to feel obligated to separately tip the bartenders. This cheapened the wedding. 29. Denied as stated. Two choices of desserts (instead of the promised dessert buffet) were placed on trays and located in an obscure area of the Terrace, where guest tables went uncovered. 30. Denied. The band played from approximately 10:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m., a loss of approximately 50% of the $7,000 paid for the four hours of scheduled music. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. In any event, given the circumstances, the time, and the type of event, such expressions and politeness should not be confused with true feelings or the loss of what had been bargained for. As to Defendants, this did not happen with regard to Jennifer, who did appear despite being allegedly terminated. 32. Denied. The answer to Paragraph 31 is incorporated herein. The wedding and reception were not successful, inasmuch as it was not in accordance with the detailed and meticulous planning that had gone into it, most of which had to be discarded at the last minute, to the great chagrin and emotional heartache of the Defendants. This was not stated seriously by any Defendant, if it were stated at all. 9 M • t 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief at to the truth of this averment. Proof is demanded at trial. 34. Denied. The florist expense for the decorating of the tent was lost after two hours, half the scheduled time, because the guests vacated the tent to either go home or to the Wedge at approximately 10:15 p.m. In addition, Plaintiff agreed to place the glasses containing fresh flowers in water at each tent table upon the dissipation of excessive heat in the tent to avoid wilting. This was not done, despite Plaintiffs Mission Statement. 35. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff provided available fall flowers at its own cost in the Wedge Restaurant, as part of the settlement agreement with Ruth Ann Krug. Tablecloths and centerpieces were not provided in the decorated Terrace area, where guests sat around bare tables. The cost is unknown and irrelevant to Defendants. In further reply, see New Matter below. 36. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a disc jockey was hired by Plaintiff, as part of its settlement agreement with Ruth Ann Krug, to perform during the dinner. The balance of the averment is denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Pursuant to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, this was a no charge item. 37. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a dance floor was ordered by Ruth Ann Krug for the tent so that certain traditional circle dances, in which 10 .._ most of the guests participate, could occur. The expanded dance floor was not placed in the tent. The balance of the averment is denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the cost averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Pursuant to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, there was to be no charge for this under the settlement agreement. 38. Denied. Defendants received only two billings dated September 29, 2004 and October 8, 2004, respectively. No prior bill was received, and the bills failed to include credit or reimbursement for Defendant's losses. In further reply, see New Matter below. Plaintiff s reasons for sending such late invoices is unknown to Defendant, as such knowledge is solely within the exclusive control of Plaintiff. Proof is demanded. 39. Denied. Exhibit "B" speaks for itself. In any event, Plaintiff had agreed to reimburse Defendant for losses but ignored same in its billings and refused to consider same. 40. Admitted. 41. Admitted in part. In further reply, see New Matter below. Howard B. Krug paid for the rehearsal dinner in full, at Plaintiff s request, to assist his burdened spouse. After reviewing the invoice and approving same, a credit card invoice was signed by Howard B. Krug. He gave Plaintiff no authority to ever use that card again for anything but the cost of the rehearsal dinner, and it should not have been used electronically ar-d without signature on the invoice 26 days later to pay for the wedding and reception. 11 . ;. i + ~ ', 42. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "B" speak for themselves. Defendant is unaware of any "snacks" being served, despite prior agreement for no charge snacks in conformity with the September 4, 2004 settlement agreement between the parties. 43. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "B" speak for themselves. Items were not billed pursuant to the contract between the parties. The tent could not be used as represented. Plaintiff understood this and billed accordingly. 44. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "B" speak for themselves. Dinner was rushed and non-dairy deserts were never served. In further response, see Defendants' New Matter. 45. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "B" speak for themselves. Without a review of the actual records of alcohol consumed, Defendant cannot agree with the summary provided by Plaintiff, especially since guests were charged separately for drinks at the outset and no accounting for tips from tip jars has been provided, despite a 20% service fee charged Defendant. 46. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "B" speak for themselves. See answer to Paragraph 37 and New Matter. tt is not clear that this floor was used ; however, in any event, it was not used for the tent. 47. Denied. It is admitted that a deposit of $1,937.70 was paid by Ruth Ann Krug and that Plaintiff was always aware of this. The balance of the averment is denied, based on Plaintiffs breach of the contract, as modified, and its other breaches, deceptions, and violations by its employee, as set forth in New Matter and Gounterclaims herein. No such balance is due. Exhibit "B" appears to contradict this allegation. 12 48. Admitted, but no such invoice dated prior to September 29, 2004 was ever received. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 41 is incorporated herein by reference thereto. Although Plaintiff did this, it was never authorized to charge the subject credit card for anything other than the rehearsal dinner without the specific approval and signature of Howard B. Krug. Plaintiff had neither. In further reply, see New Matter. Pursuant to the written contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Ann Krug, the former could not charge anything to a credit card unless same was on file for and the charges found reasonable by Ruth Ann Krug. Liberty Forge never had a credit card on file for or Ruth Ann Krug's prior approval of the charges. Ruth Ann Krug had to approve any charges as reasonable before even a credit card on file could be used. In fact, Plaintiff was aware when it put through the charges that it was Ruth Ann Krug's intent to dispute charges where needed, after review. 49. Denied as stated. Defendant Howard Krug disputed the Plaintiff's unauthorized, unreasonable and unapproved credit card charges for a number of reasons, as more fully set forth in the New Matter below and in the Answer to Paragraphs 41 and 48, incorporated herein by reference thereto. 50. Denied. Ruth Ann Krug was the principal person involved in the planning, negotiations and scheduling decisions for the event. She had some help and suggestions from others, as any mother would for such a task. However, Plaintiff was to and did contact Ruth Ann Krug for all decisions concerning significant and material issues and problems. Proof is demanded. 51. Denied. It is admitted that Howard B. Krug is an attorney, as is Plaintiff's 13 ., , President and others involved or associated with Plaintiff. The said Defendant contributed nothing toward the planning of his daughter's wedding. His only role was to review the legal terms of Plaintiff's proffered contract. Once Plaintiff's deceptions were made known, Defendant did attempt to cheer up Wendy and advise Ruth Ann Krug. 52. Denied. As set forth in the contract attached as Exhibit "A" to Plaintiff's Complaint, only Ruth Ann Krug requested that Plaintiff host the wedding. In addition, Paragraphs 6-7 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein. No Defendant other than Ruth Ann Krug made such a request of Plaintiff. Proof is demanded. 53. Denied as stated. On September 4, 2004, Mr. Shaffer requested, after the parties came to a new agreement, a new schedule for the wedding and reception, as things had obviously changed, due to the deceptions, misrepresentations, and non- disclosures of Plaintiff's authorized employee, Jennifer Beard. Wendy lightened this last minute burden, acting with her mother's prior approval, by typing the schedule after discussion. At this point on September 4, 2004, after 3:30 p.m., Ruth Ann Krug was very involved with family, friends and problems concerning elderly relatives, among others. 54. Denied as stated. The Answers to Paragraph 48 and 49 are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Unauthorized use of a credit card, provided 26 days earlier by a third party to pay for the rehearsal dinner, would obviously be unrelated to the IocJitimacy of any debt contracted by Ruth Ann Krug to Plaintiff for the wedding and reception. Plaintiff has clearly admitted it was given the subject credit card to pay for the rehearsal dinner, alleging nothing more regarding authorization. After failing in its attempts to charge $22,432.20 (more than that claimed by Plaintiff is even due), it did not voluntarily return said funds. See New Matter. 14 55. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the alleged balance of $17,493.50, claimed by Plaintiff has not been paid. It is denied that the amount is due and owing for the reasons set forth herein and in New Matter. Aside from Ruth Ann Krug, the other Defendants have no obligation, if any exists, to make any payment to Plaintiff. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT RUTH ANN KRUG 56. Defendant's response to Paragraphs One through Fifty-Five are incorporated herein by reference. 57. Defendant's answer to Paragraph 8 hereof is incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff s standard contract was changed in several respects prior to execution. 58. Denied. Exhibit "A", signed by Jennifer Beard on behalf of Plaintiff, speaks for itself. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. A copy of the fully signed contract was never forwarded by Plaintiff to Defendant until it was included with Plaintiffs Complaint. 59. Denied. Exhibit "A" speaks for itself. In further reply, Plaintiff never requested an additional deposit 90 days prior to the wedding, and despite knowledge of there being no additional deposit, hosted the wedding. Neither of the parties understood this payment to be "material" and by their actions waived the term. See Defendant's answer to Paragraph 17 and 18. 60. Denied. The document speaks for itself. See response to 59 above. 15 61. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. See response to 59 above. 62. Denied. Plaintiff never requested that Ruth Ann Krug pay for the full amount of the wedding and reception 14 days prior thereto. Plaintiff hosted the wedding without requesting any additional compensation, until a bill was received in very early October by Defendant. This term was waived by the agreement and actions of the parties. Also, Defendant was entitled to credits and reimbursement for her losses and under the contract for improper charges, as per the agreement of September 4, 2004, all of which Plaintiff has refused to consider since the wedding was concluded. 63. Denied. The document speaks for itself. See response to 62 above. 64. Denied. The contract attached as Exhibit "A" and the clause in question speak for themselves. Defendant never placed a credit card on file for these purposes, and the charges were not for "incidentals". The charges were never deemed reasonable by "Patron" Ruth Ann Krug, prior to the use of the credit card of Howard B. Krug by Plaintiff, especially in view of her losses and the items not provided (See New Matter); thus, the clause is inapplicable. Plaintiff agreed and did not require a credit card from Defendant. In further reply, see New Matter below. 65. Denied. Exhibit "A" speaks for itself. However, Plaintiff never disclosed it would have tip jars placed at all bars, thereby cheapening the wedding and exceeding the ~~tablished 20% service charge to be paid by Ruth Ann Krug. Such tips should be accounted for and considered against Plaintiffs bill for service charges. 66. Denied. See response to paragraph 16. 16 67. Denied. See response to paragraph 62. 68. Denied. See response to paragraph 62. 69. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant's answer to Paragraph 41 is incorporated herein by reference. It is admitted that Howard B. Krug provided a credit card to pay the Plaintiff s charges for the rehearsal dinner only and that this transaction required his actual signature. It is denied that the credit card was provided to pay for the entire wedding and reception or in any way authorized Plaintiff to utilize the card for any purpose without his express prior approval and signature. Plaintiff never requested permission or consent for such use, but it eventually used the card to pay for the wedding and reception, improperly receiving $15,943.94. It is believed and therefor averred that Plaintiff was aware that such use was improper when it did so without the signature, advance authorization, and prior bill review by Howard B. Krug, who was not even a signatory to the contract. 70. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 38. 71. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 49. 72. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 54. 73. Denied. -See Answer to paragraph 55. 74. Denied as a conclusion of law. Defendant's Answer to Paragraph 63 is incorporated herein by reference. Defendant has significant losses for which she is entitled to reimbursement and credit. See New Matter. 75. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 47. 76. Denied as a conclusion of law. These sums are not due, as previously set 17 forth herein. In addition, Defendant is entitled to setoffs, credits, and deductions, as per the September 4, 2004 agreement of the parties. Defendant is also entitled to reduction for Plaintiff's failure to perform in conformity with the contract, its own advertised standards, and possibly with the accepted professional standards of the Food and Beverage industry when conducting weddings. 77. Denied as a conclusion of law. In further reply, to the extent this paragraph contains factual averments, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the same and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant, and dismiss the Complaint. COUNT II THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANTS WENDY BAU AND KARL BAU 78 through 86. No response required per the Court Order granting Preliminary Objections dated June 6, 2005. COUNT III UNJUST ENRICHMENT PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS 87. The Answers to Paragraphs One through Eighty-Six of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 88. Denied as a conclusion of law. Plaintiff has conferred no benefit on Defendants other than Ruth Ann Krug, with whom it contracted, any more than it conferred a benefit on other guests in attendance at the wedding. 18 89. Denied as a conclusion of law. Plaintiff has an express contract with Ruth Ann Krug, as modified on September 4, 2004. In any event, this benefit was accepted by Ruth Ann Krug, pursuant to an express contract with Plaintiff to provide the facility and services. Other Defendants have derived no more benefit than any other guest. Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief, as it has an adequate remedy at law. 90. Denied as a conclusion of law. An express contract exists with Ruth Ann Krug. Plaintiff should not be entitled to equitable relief. In any event, considering what Plaintiff did to Defendants by its authorized employer, its actions on the eve of the wedding, and its improper actions after the wedding, it is not unjust that it receive t'~,ing. 91. Denied as a conclusion of law. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 90 is incorporated herein. 92. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 47. 93. Denied as a conclusion of law. All items, by express agreement, were to be without charge so long as Defendant held the wedding at Liberty Forge, which occurred. In any event, Plaintiff cannot recover in equity or escape from the terms of its contract with Ruth Ann Krug. See New Matter. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and dismiss the Complaint. COUNT IV FRAUD PLAINTIFF V. ALL DEFENDANTS 94 through 134. No response required per the Court Order granting Preliminary Or~jections dated June 6, 2005. 19 NEW MATTER 135. In late February 2004, Ruth Ann Krug called Plaintiff (hereinafter "Liberty Forge") and other venues to determine those available for a September 5, 2004 wedding reception, as this date was already cleared with and reserved by Ruth Ann Krug's desired band. 136. Jennifer Beard advised the date was available at Liberty Forge. 137. At all times relevant hereto, Jennifer Beard was an authorized employee of Plaintiff, acting within the course, scope and in furtherance of her authorized duties. 138. Plaintiff is vicariously liable for the actions and statements of its employee, Jennifer Beard. 139. On March 1, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug met Jennifer Beard at Liberty Forge to tour the facility, which was the last facility toured that day. 140. Ruth Ann Krug advised Jennifer that she required a venue for September 5, 2004 to meet certain dietary standards, accommodate 200 guests, and have a large dance floor with space for a large band to play at the formal, evening reception. 141. Jennifer was also told that the seven piece Ivan Taub Orchestra had already been reserved and tentatively booked to play at the reception on September 5, 2004 from 8:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m. 142. Ruth Ann Krug also expressed how excited she was to have this band p~:rform at the reception of her daughter, owing to her attendance at other band performances. 143. This band was reserved before any wedding location was even chosen, as explained to Jennifer. 20 144. After the tour, Jennifer was advised by Ruth Ann Krug that the Wedge Restaurant was rejected as a reception site because of its size and room configuration, which impacted upon large numbers dancing to the live band. 145. Ruth Ann Krug told Jennifer that the Liberty "Big Top" tent ("tent") was the only venue at Liberty Forge of interest. 146. Throughout their dealings, Jennifer Beard was advised that the most material and critically important issue was having the Ivan Taub Orchestra perform during the entire wedding reception, which was to take place in the tent at Liberty Forge. 147. Ms. Beard emphasized at this meeting that Liberty Forge was fully capable of accommodating the expressed needs of Ruth Ann Krug, and color photos were shown of Liberty Forge weddings, including those in the tent. 148. Ms. Beard impressed Ruth Ann Krug with the professionalism, skill, and eagerness to please of Liberty Forge and its staff, as well as its available facilities, to meet the expressed needs of this wedding, including dancing. 149. No warnings, problems, conditions, or objections were asserted by Jennifer with regard to the band performing in the tent, Jennifer understanding that Liberty Forge would then be eliminated as a location for the wedding. 150. Ruth Ann Krug was given a packet, which included a DVD and an informational booklet, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 21 151. The informational booklet at page 3 provided that "dance floors can be placed at any of the various dining venues....". 152. The DVD appeared to show a dance floor in the tent. 153. After reviewing the Liberty Forge packet and comparing the facilities offered by others, Ruth Ann Krug called Jennifer Beard to reserve the tent for September 5, 2004. 154. On March 8, 2004 Ruth Ann Krug signed a contract dated March 3, 2004 to have the Ivan Taub Orchestra play at the scheduled wedding (location to be determined) on September 5, 2004 from approximately 8:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m. 155. Until Plaintiff forwarded its original March 2004 contract for signature by Ruth Ann Krug, it had no contact whatsoever with Howard Krug. 156. On April 20, 2004, after amendment of Plaintiff s standard contract, Ruth Ann Krug signed the contract between the parties, as well as a check fora 15% deposit, both of which were mailed to Jennifer Beard at Liberty Forge. 157. Based on Exhibit "A" to the Complaint of Liberty Forge, Jennifer Beard was authorized to sign the contract on behalf of Plaintiff. 158. At no time did any Defendant other than Ruth Ann Krug sign the contract between the parties. 159. No Defendant other than Ruth Ann Krug signed a check or provided funds tc~~<<~~~c~ the cast of the wedding and reception. 160. Ms. Beard was at all times aware that the chosen venue for the reception with seven piece orchestra was to be in the tent. 22 161. At no time until September 4, 2004 did Plaintiff advise Ruth Ann Krug that a live band could not perform in the tent for any reason. 162. It is believed and therefore averred that at all times Plaintiff, its managers and employees knew or should have known prior to September 4, 2004 of the proscription of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board ("LCB") rules and regulations with respect to noise and music emanating from the boundaries of a licensed establishment. 163. On August 7, 2004, Jennifer Beard advised Defendants of a cranky neighbor who had complained approximately twenty-five (25) times to township police with regard to hearing late night music emanating from the tent. 164. Jennifer advised that police had never issued a single citation to Plaintiff as a result of these numerous calls. 165. Jennifer also advised that the neighbor eventually called the LCB, which became involved to assist the neighbor. 166. This filing, according to Jennifer, led to a mediation, during which Liberty Forge threatened that the neighbor's continuing complaints would result in mobile homes and trailers being brought onto the grounds, turning it into a trailer park. 167. Jennifer also indicated that the neighbor was very intimidated by such a possibility. 168. As a result of the mediation, Plaintiff agreed to erect a sound barrier between the tent and the neighbor's property. 169. Jennifer also advised that Liberty Forge hired the former Mayor of Camp Hill for political advantage to monitor noise levels for events held in the tent. 23 170. Jennifer minimized the monitoring, assuring Ruth Ann Krug that such would have little impact on the wedding, the band or volume of its play, owing to the placement of the sound barrier and Plaintiff's guest-friendly, control. 171. Jennifer again firmly and unconditionally advised that the neighbor fully agreed, and the mediated agreement resolved the entire problem. 172. Jennifer did not state that there was any continuing LCB problem, and Defendants left the meeting thinking all was fine. 173. On August 7, 2004, Jennifer never advised Defendants that a band could not entertain in the tent, owing to LCB rules or regulations or any other reason. 174. Jennifer also did not advise that there was any township ordinance requiring band music to stop in the tent at 11:00 p.m. 175. After meeting with and being assured by Jennifer on August 7, 2004, Defendants walked to the tent and returned to the Wedge Restaurant, where they met the mother of a bride scheduled to be married that day, and she advised that her wedding had to be moved to the Wedge Restaurant because of "noise problems" in the tent. 176. On hearing this, Defendants immediately returned to speak to Jennifer, who responded that the decision to move the other wedding was made prior to the mediation and settlement with the neighbor. 177. Jennifer repeated that the noise issue, having been completely resolved at the mediation, had been totally eliminated and would have no impact on the wedding, at which the band would play during the reception in the tent, as scheduled. 24 178. Jennifer Beard was fully aware, owing to the importance of this band to Ruth Ann Krug, that had she disclosed that no band could play in the tent, the wedding at Plaintiff s facility would have been canceled and another location found. 179. At no time thereafter, prior to September 4, 2004, did Jennifer or Plaintiff advise Ruth Ann Krug that Liberty Forge was cited by or engaged in continuing legal proceedings with the LCB, Defendants being left under the clear impression that the mediation led to the resolution of the tent-noise issue entire) . 180. It is believed and therefore averred that in July or early August, 2004 Plaintiff received from the LCB a Notice of Intent to File Citation against Plaintiff. 181. It is further believed and therefore averred that on August 26, 2004, a citation or series of citations were issued against Plaintiff by the LCB. 182. At no time did Plaintiff or its authorized employees advise any Defendant of receipt of the Notice of Intent or the actual filing of citation(s) against Plaintiff by the LCB. 183. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff decided to comply with LCB rules and stop bands from performing in the tent, because the music invariably escaped the boundaries of Plaintiff's licensed property, despite its much touted "sound barrier". 184. Plaintiff did not in good faith make Ruth Ann Krug or any Defendant aware of this position or decision, despite its contract of April 20, 2004 and the express and implied duties thereof. 25 185. At no time prior to September 4, 2004 did Plaintiff advise any Defendant of this information, despite the negative impact it would have on this long planned wedding, with a band already scheduled to play in the tent. 186. At all significant times it was known to Plaintiff that the reception was scheduled to commence in the tent on September 5, 2004 at approximately 8:15 p.m. and continue through approximately 12:30 a.m., with the band playing throughout. 187. At all times, Plaintiff was aware that Defendant relied on representations that the band would play in the tent. 188. Plaintiff was also aware that Defendant had a specific schedule for wedding events, based in part on band play. 189. During the contract period, Plaintiff owed a duty to Defendant of good faith, full disclosure, and fair dealing. 190. On or about August 17, 2004 Plaintiff, by its authorized employee, ordered staging to be erected for the band in the tent, as per recent request of the band. 191. On September 2, 2004, seventy-two (72) hours before the wedding, when Ruth Ann Krug called her to see, in general, if any problems existed, Jennifer Beard told Ruth Ann Krug for the first time that the band could not play in the tent after 11:00 p.m., owing to township ordinance. 192. On September 3, 2004, at 10:30 p.m. Brett Shaffer, the Director of Food arPU Beverage at Liberty Forge (and Jennifer's supervisor), called Ruth Ann Krug, requesting that she call him immediately; however, she did not get the message until the next morning. 26 193. By telephone during the morning of September 4, 2004, Brett Shaffer told Ruth Ann Krug that as per LCB rules, no band could legally play in the tent under any circumstances, which last minute disclosure caused emotional distress for Ruth Ann Krug and Wendy Krug. 194. In response to her question why she was never told about this proscription before, Mr. Shaffer told Ruth Ann Krug that a morning meeting was scheduled to determine just that. 195. As a result of these stress inducing, last minute position shifts by Plaintiff, and in an attempt to salvage this wedding, because it was too late to secure an alternate site, a face to face meeting was scheduled for September 4, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. with Brett Shaffer, and this lasted until almost 3:00 p.m. 196. Although many guests were to arrive during the morning and afternoon of September 4, 2004, Defendants' plans with out-of-town guests were cancelled, as Ruth Ann Krug and family did not return home from the meeting until approximately 3:30 p.m. 197. At the September 4, 2004 meeting, Mr. Shaffer repeated that LCB rules and regulations prohibited a band from playing in the tent, as the music would escape the premises. 198. Allegedly, Jennifer had twice been instructed to meet with Defendants to fully and honestly disclose the band problem, the first time approximately a month earlier, in early August. 199. In the beginning of September, when he saw an invoice for band staging to be erected in the tent, Mr. Shaffer allegedly confronted Jennifer, resulting in the late evening message to Ruth Ann Krug on September 3, 2004. ~7 200. He was most apologetic and accepted full responsibility for this problem on behalf of Liberty Forge. 201. He advised that Jennifer Beard had been allegedly fired because of her dishonesty, deception, and failure to deal with the problem honestly and openly with Ruth Ann Krug. 202. Allegedly, no one checked to determine whether Jennifer had honestly disclosed all to Ruth Ann Krug until the eve of the wedding. 203. At no time did Mr. Shaffer request additional funds of Ruth Ann Krug toward the cost of the wedding on behalf of Plaintiff. 204. On behalf of Liberty Forge, Mr. Shaffer agreed to make up for this situation, but under no circumstances could a band play in the tent. 205. Mr. Shaffer made several suggestions, and despite fears that guests would leave at 10:15 p.m., a settlement agreement was reached by the terms of which the wedding would continue at Liberty Forge, with significant event changes benefitting Ruth Ann Krug to make up for this situation. 206. By the terms of the settlement agreement, once dinner was completed between 10:00 and 10:15 p.m., the venue for the reception would change to the Wedge Restaurant, where the band could play, as no large dinner tables were needed. 207. The settlement agreement approved by Ruth Ann Krug and Brett Shaffer, i'f~~~`~?'~; ~€utl~~orized employee, provided for several additional items beyond those admitted by Plaintiff in Paragraph 23 of its Complaint, including the following: a. Liberty Forge would reimburse or credit Defendant for all economic losses, to the extent of unnecessary or partially unnecessary 28 expense, including lost band playing time (inability to play in the tent from 8:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.). b. A dessert buffet of several desserts would be served without charge. c. Snack food to create a late night party atmosphere would be served without charge. d. The Wedge Terrace would be decorated for a reception, including full flowers, without charge. e. Steps would be taken to keep the guests motivated to remain at the wedding during the change of venues, to include rides to the Wedge, without charge. f. Martini bar without charge. 208. As a result of this settlement agreement, the wedding took place at Liberty Forge. 209. Mr. Shaffer's September 3`~ and 4~' contacts and agreements were with Ruth Ann Krug and no other Defendant. 210. On or about September 4, 2004, an employee of Plaintiff advised Ruth Ann Krug that Jennifer was very upset and exceptionally sorry for all that had occurred. 211. Incredibly, Jennifer appeared at the September 4, 2004 rehearsal dinner, whoa cr5f~~~- t~~l~ Ruth Ann Krug that she had been fired. 212. The rehearsal dinner of September 4, 2004 took place uneventfully, and to help his wife during this stress-filled time, Howard B. Krug paid for the dinner in full, at its conclusion, by credit card slip he expressly signed after review and approval of the billing. 29 213. On September 4, 2004, at the time of payment for the rehearsal dinner, Plaintiffs employee stated that there was $1,937.70 on deposit for the wedding. 214. On September 4, 2004, no additional funds, besides those necessary to pay the exact bill for the rehearsal dinner, were requested of Howard Krug for the wedding. 215. At no time was Howard Krug advised that his credit card would be used for anything other than the rehearsal dinner. 216. At no time did Howard B. Krug authorize Plaintiff to use his credit card to pay for the wedding. 217. At no time did Howard B. Krug authorize Plaintiff to use his credit card without his signature. 218. At no time did Ruth Ann Krug leave with Plaintiff a credit card of record. 219. At no time did Plaintiff object to this lack of credit card on record. 220. At no time between April 22, 2004 and September 5, 2004 did Plaintiff request an additional deposit toward the cost of the wedding and reception, despite the express terms of the contract between the parties. 221. At no time between April 22, 2004 and September 5, 2004 did Plaintiff ever request that the entire wedding and reception be paid for, despite the terms of the contract between the parties. 222. At no time did Plaintiff remind Ruth Ann Krug to make any payment pursuant to the terms of the contract. 223. Ruth Ann Krug made all payments requested by Plaintiff on or before September 29, 2004. 30 224. On September 5, 2004, the following reception problems were noted: a. During the cocktail hour, the outside bartender ran out of white wine and never replaced it. b. The outside bar never had nor secured Bloody Mary mix, despite requests. c. Tip jars were placed at all bars throughout the evening, despite the fact that a service charge was added to Ruth Ann Krug's bill. d. There were either too many or insufficient chairs at many tables in the tent to seat the number of guests assigned to each table, causing guests to embark on a scavenger hunt in the tent for available chairs. e. No salad dressing was served or present on the dry salad. f. For the majority of the dinner in the tent, the bar was closed, guests being falsely told that this was on the instructions of the bride and groom. g. Only two choices of dessert were placed on trays in an obscure area of the Terrace, rather than the agreed dessert buffet. h. The Terrace patio, although decorated with Fall flowers, lacked tablecloths and flowers or centerpieces on the tables, resulting in guests sitting at bare, ugly tables. i. The dance floor intended for the tent, so that traditional circle dances could take place, was not installed in the tent, making it impossible for the majority of guests to participate. 31 j. Defendants are unaware of any snacks served at the reception. k. No non-dairy desserts were served at the wedding, despite charges. I. The wedding reception in the tent was hurried. m. At the beginning of the wedding, guests were charged for drinks, and it is unknown whether Plaintiffs charges to Ruth Ann Krug include drinks paid for by guests. 225. The Ivan Taub Orchestra played until approximately 12:15 a.m., a loss of approximately 50% of the four hours scheduled for music, Ruth Ann Krug having paid $7,000 for four hours of scheduled music, resulting in a loss of $3,500. 226. The florist expense for decorating the tent was significantly lost, as the guests were in the tent for no more than two hours, roughly half of the scheduled time. Thus, 50% of the floral expense was lost and made unnecessary. 227. In addition, Plaintiff agreed to place flower bowls at the tables in the tent once the excessive heat dissipated to avoid wilting; however, this was never done and the entire expense for such was lost. 228. The total loss for the decorations, bowls and other flower involvement was approximately $930. 229. The small plates of non-dairy desserts were never served, for a loss of ~~>~3G plus 20% service charge or $756. 230. An accounting of the tips paid by the guests was never provided to Ruth Ann Krug, despite her obligation fora 20% service charge. 32 231. Although there was a charge for an audio/visual miscellaneous setup of $1,040, it is believed and therefore averred that this was intended for use by the band for a four hour period, which lasted only two hours. It is believed and therefore averred that the disc jockey brought his own music, speakers, and other audio/visual equipment. 232. Had Ruth Ann Krug been properly advised that the wedding would have to be bifurcated to have the band, tent decorations and expenditures would have been minimal. 233. The following charges should be reduced by half or more because of the short amount of time spent at the tent reception, or as provided above: Item Charge Credit a. Band (lost 2 hours - 50%) $7,000 $3,500 b. Florist (tent deco) (50% use) 1,860 930 c. Unserved non-dairy desserts 756 756 d. Stage rental for band (50% use) 300 150 e. Sound system rental (50% use) 384 192 f. Special linen rental for tent tables 356 178 g. AudioNisual setup 1,040 520 Total Credit for losses and unserved items: $6,226*" ** Not including tip credit against service charges and drinks paid for by guests and possibly charged to Ruth Ann Krug at beginning of event. 234. On or about September 29, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug received a call from a Liberty Forge employee inquiring whether a billing had been received. 33 235. Ruth Ann Krug advised the employee that no bill had yet been received. 236. The employee responded that corporate billing was notoriously slow. 237. It was during this conversation of September 29, 2004 that Ruth Ann Krug advised the employee that she needed the bill, as she intended to dispute same where appropriate, after review. 238. Ruth Ann Krug received only two separate billings, dated September 29, 2004 and October 8, 2004, respectively. 239. No bill prior to that dated September 29, 2004 was ever received, if even sent. 240. The bills failed to include any creditor reimbursement for Defendant's losses or the credits due and stated in this New Matter for items not provided. 241. Prior to receiving Plaintiff s invoices, Ruth Ann Krug had no idea of the final billing total. 242. At all times Plaintiff was aware that Defendant had losses to be discussed and addressed in the billing; however, Plaintiff chose to ignore same entirely. 243. At no time was Plaintiff authorized to charge the credit card of Howard Krug for anything other than the rehearsal dinner, without his specific approval and signature. 244. Plaintiff never requested such consent or authorization from either Ruth Ann Krug or Howard B. Krug. 245. Pursuant to the written contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Ann Krug, Liberty Forge could not charge anything to a credit card not on file for "Patron" Ruth Ann Krug without her prior review and approval as "reasonable". 246. Liberty Forge never had a credit card on file for Ruth Ann Krug. 34 247. The contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Ann Krug provides in pertinent part under "PAYMENT IN ADVANCE" with respect to "incidental charges° that: Patron agrees to such amount as may be charged to their credit cards with the provision that such amounts are deemed reasonable by the patron. (emphasis added). 248. The underlined language quoted above was added by Ruth Ann Krug to Plaintiffs standard agreement to prevent unauthorized credit card charges to a credit card on file. 249. At no time were Plaintiff s charges deemed reasonable or even seen by Ruth Ann Krug prior to Plaintiffs unauthorized use of the credit card of Howard Krug to pay its charges. 250. No attempt by Liberty Forge to use the Visa card of Howard B. Krug was made until September 30, 2004, one day after Ruth Ann Krug advised the Liberty Forge employee that she may dispute Plaintiffs billing. 251. It is believed and therefore averred that on September 30, 2004, the following unsuccessful attempts were made to charge the credit card of Howard B. Krug by Plaintiff: Date Merchant Amount 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $22,432.20 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $22,432.20 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $1,200.00 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $6,000.00 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $12,000.00 0/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $6,000.00 9/30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality $6,000.00 (See fax from Citi Bank to Howard B. Krug from S. Larson dated January 17, 2005, attached hereto as Defendants' Exhibit "Bn.) 35 252. It is believed and therefore averred that the initial sums Plaintiff attempted to charge against Defendant's Visa card $22,432.20, exceeds the amount Plaintiff has ever claimed is owed in this case since September 5, 2004. 253. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff continued in its attempts to use without authorization the credit card of Howard Krug, and Plaintiff, without authorization and actual approval, obtained three (3) separate payments on September 30, 2004 of $5,000, $5,000, and $1,000 respectively. (See Exhibit "B" of Plaintiffs Complaint.) 254. Thus, on September 30, 2004, Plaintiff made Ten (10) attempts to use the credit card of Howard B. Krug without authorization, securing payment of $11,000 finally in the last three. 255. It is further believed that on or about October 6, 2004 Plaintiff attempted an 11th unauthorized charge and received a payment of $4,943.94 from the credit card of Howard B. Krug. (See Exhibit "B" of Plaintiffs Complaint.) 256. It is further believed and therefore averred that through the unauthorized use of Defendant's Visa, Plaintiff received $15,943.94. 257. As a result, Howard B. Krug canceled the credit card, at great trouble and inconvenience. 258. Plaintiff was aware at all times that it was not authorized to use this credit card to pay for the wedding and reception. 259. As an express contract with Ruth Ann Krug exists, Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief for unjust enrichment or for any equitable or other relief against any Defendant other than Ruth Ann Krug. 36 260. Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. 261. Plaintiffs request for equitable relief is barred by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands by virtue of its actions and representations. 262. Due to the express contract as modified, Plaintiff cannot recover, if at all, more than that due under its existing contract, as reduced or eliminated by Defendants' Counterclaims and defenses. 263. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff knew or should have known, and disclosed to Ruth Ann Krug when it was contracting or dealing with her, that LCB rules and regulations barred the performance of a five band in the tent. 264. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff knew or should have known of and disclosed to Ruth Ann Krug when it was contracting or dealing with her that a township ordinance barred five music emanating from the tent after 11:00 p.m. 265. It is believed and therefore averred that Liberty Forge recklessly failed to train, supervise or reasonably monitor its employee, Jennifer Beard, and bestowed upon her inordinately high levels of authority after only a short time on the job. 266. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff failed to investigate the prior performance and conduct of Jennifer Beard as an employee in this field before it hired her in late 2003 or in January or February 2004. 267. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff acted very late regarding this band issue and wedding changes, thereby coercing Ruth Ann Krug to accept a wedding of lesser quality to that which was contracted for and desired. 268. It is believed and therefore averred that Ruth Ann Krug, owing to duress, agreed to a bifurcated wedding, rushed dinner service, and use of the Wedge Restaurant for half the reception, as it was too late to make changes. 37 269. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiffs employee may have engaged in a "bait and switch" course of conduct, as she knew Ruth Ann Krug did not want the reception and dinner dance to be held in the Wedge Restaurant. 270. It is believed and therefore averred that during the wedding, one or more minors somehow received intoxicating beverages on Plaintiffs premises. 271. It is believed and therefore averred that employees of Plaintiff were ordered to use the credit card of Howard B. Krug to pay for the wedding reception, Plaintiff knowing that such action was not authorized by Howard B. Krug. 272. It is further believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff was aware that unauthorized charges against a credit card without the express consent of the owner is improper and prohibited in law. 273. it is further believed that the daughter and son-in-law of Ruth Ann Krug and Howard B. Krug have been included as Defendants in this case solely to intimidate and coerce Ruth Ann Krug to pay this debt. 274. Count IV of Plaintiffs Complaint was dismissed by the Court of Common Pleas on the basis of a demurrer. 275. There was never a factual basis to bring a fraud count against Defendants, individually or collectively. 276. It is believed and therefore averred that this was no more than an attempt to increase damages and further intimidate Defendants. 277. It is further believed and therefore averred that Curt Williams, Esquire, Plaintiffs President, signed a verification to the Complaint knowing that there was no good faith basis for the fraud count against all or any of the Defendants. 38 { 278. It is believed and therefore averred that this was not the first time Plaintiff has canceled events or made last minute, significant changes in wedding receptions. 279. It is believed and therefore averred that given the performance of Plaintiff during this event, including but not limited to the stress it created during the days before September 5, 2004, the deception and misrepresentation of its employee, evidently supported by Plaintiff, and its own failure to comply with accepted practice standards of the hospitality industry, Plaintiff should receive nothing. 280. It is believed and therefore averred that Brett Shaffer was terminated by or no longer works for Plaintiff. 281. It is believed and therefore averred that Jennifer Beard was terminated by or no longer works for Plaintiff. 282. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for interest, attorneys fees and costs. 283. Plaintiff s claims are barred in whole or in part by collateral estoppel. 284. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by waiver. 285. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by duress. 286. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by release. 287. Plaintiff s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of novation of contracts. 288. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by accord and satisfaction. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed by this Honorable Court. 39 COUNTERCLAIMS COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT RUTH ANN KRUG v. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. 289. Ruth Ann Krug incorporates by reference all factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 134 of the Answer to the Complaint and paragraphs 135 through 288 of the New Matter, as if set forth at length. 290. By reason of Liberty Forge's failure to conform to its own written Agreement, as subsequently modified by the parties on September 4, 2004, it is in breach of the contract. See paragraphs 193 through 198 of New Matter above. 291. By reason of Liberty Forge's breach of the contract, Ruth Ann Krug has incurred damages and expenses, including but not limited to those stated in paragraphs 222 -?31 of New Matter. It is believed and therefore averred that these damages may increase, based upon some charged beverages being paid for separately by guests at the commencement of the wedding, as well as guests being solicited for tips, despite Ruth Ann Krug being charged a service fee of 20%. 292. Despite the parties' agreement, Liberty Forge failed to give or even discuss appropriate credits, billing Ruth Ann Krug for the full amount of the wedding. Wherefore, Ruth Ann Krug requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Ruth Ann Krug and against Liberty Forge in the amount of $6,226.00, plus interest and costs of suit. 40 COUNT II UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW RUTH ANN KRUG v. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. 293. Ruth Ann Krug incorporates by reference all factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 93 of the Answer to the Complaint and paragraphs 135 through 288 of the New Matter, as if set forth at length. 294. At all relevant times, Liberty Forge was engaged in trade or commerce, as defined in the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Collection Law 73 P.S. §201-1 et seq. (hereinafter "UTPCL") 295. Ruth Ann Krug entered into the transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. 296. Implied, if not expressed, in the Liberty Forge Agreement, the statements of Jennifer Beard, and the written information packet given to Ruth Ann Krug on March 1, 2004, including the Liberty Forge "Mission Statement", was that Liberty Forge would provide honest, high quality services through creative staff, who would help Ruth Ann Krug design "a unique and personalized wedding." See Exhibit "A" hereof. 297. The Mission Statement further provides that the Liberty Forge objective is "to make each visit to Liberty Forge an event worth remembering and repeating." See Exhibit "A" hereof. 298. Liberty Forge violated the UTPCL as follows: a. By representing that the goods and services which it was to provide to Ruth Ann Krug, and indirectly to her family, friends and guests, had the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or qualities that in fact they did not have. 73 P.S. §201-2(4)(v) 41 b. By representing that the goods and services provided by Liberty Forge to Ruth Ann Krug, her family, friends and guests, were of a particular standard, quality or grade, when in fact they were of another standard, quality or grade. 73 P.S. §201-2(4)(vii) c. By advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. 73 P.S. §201-2(4)(ix) d. By failing to comply with the terms of its warranty given to Ruth Ann Krug at and prior to the contract for the purchase of goods and services. 73 P.S. §201-2(4)(xiv) e. By engaging in fraudulent or deceptive conduct which created the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. 73 P.S. §201-2(4)(xxi) 299. More specifically, as to each of the above, respectively, and as more fully stated in the New Matter: a. Liberty Forge, by its authorized employee, continuously represented that a band, hired by Ruth Ann Krug, would be able to perform at and for the entire wedding reception (to 12:30 a.m.), scheduled for the tent, as promised, represented and warranted by Liberty Forge, when it knew, or should have known, that such was proscribed by LCB rules and regulations and township ordinances. In addition, Liberty Forge failed to notify Ruth Ann Krug until the day before the wedding, when it would obviously be too late to cancel the contract and make other arrangements. 42 b. The goods and services provided by Liberty Forge were well below the professional standard, quality or grade represented to Ruth Ann Krug when she entered into the contract, based on Liberty Forge Highlicthts, Jennifer Beard statements, and during the course of planning the entire event. c. Exhibit "A" and the accompanying DVD (video of tent with dance floor referring in audio to Wedge}, constitute an advertisement that, along with the assurances and reassurances given during the meetings with Liberty Forge, clearly indicate an intent to provide goods and services of a superior quality that were not provided and create a level of confusion or misunderstanding through deception. d. Liberty Forge's written solicitations, set forth and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" ,and its written contract, contains statements which, taken as a whole, constitutes a promise or warranty with which Liberty Forge failed to comply with regard to hosting a quality event. e. Liberty Forge's actions and omissions by its employee were fraudulent and/or deceptive, which created the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding on the part of Defendant, who believed that the wedding and reception would be held in accordance with her expectations, conversations, and agreements with Liberty Forge, which did not happen. 43 f. Liberty Forge failed to provide Ruth Ann Krug an opportunity to approve or question the billing of Liberty Forge before the latter attempted to put charges through on the credit card of Howard B. Krug without authorization, in violation of the written contract between the parties. 300. Section 201-9.2 of the aforementioned Law allows the Court, in its discretion, to award up to three times the actual damages sustained but not less than $100.00, and further to provide other relief, including the award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 301. Liberty Forge's actions in utilizing the credit card of Defendant Howard B. Krug, spouse of Ruth Ann Krug, without authorization, signature or consent, to pay sums in excess of that it claimed to be due from Ruth Ann Krug for the wedding reception, violates both Federal and State law, especially in view of the fact that there was no contractual or other obligation with any Defendant providing for this and approximately ten attempts were made for decreasing amounts on September 30, 2004, all on the same day, with an 11th charge put through six (6) days thereafter on October 6, 2004. 302. Ultimately, $15,943.94 was paid to and received by Liberty Forge from the credit card of Howard B. Krug, but this sum was eventually reclaimed by Citicard VISA involuntarily, without the cooperation of Liberty Forge, which refused to discuss the issue. 44 303. Ruth Ann Krug has had to retain counsel, thereby incurring current bills exceeding $1,000 and increasing. 304. Liberty Forge's actions justify the Court awarding Defendants treble damages and attorneys fees' under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law because the non-disclosure and deception of its authorized employees, as follows, have proximately resulted in damages to Defendant: a. Breaching the contract and settlement agreement between the parties; and b. The continuing misrepresentation to and deception of Defendant with respect to its ability to have the scheduled band play in the tent, as planned and scheduled for almost six months thereby disrupting the smooth flow of the planned event; and c. The failure to reveal the truth of the situation until one day before the scheduled wedding, when it was too late to either cancel or move the event; and d. Providing inferior goods and services, contrary to its promises, contracts and warranties; and e. Attempting to extract more than the actual amount claimed by Liberty Forge to be owing, as per its billing, by charging the credit card of Ruth Ann Krug's spouse, Howard B. Krug, who was never a party to the contract and had not authorized the use of his credit card for that purpose; and 45 f. Forcing Defendants to hire attorneys and incur attorneys' fees exceeding $1,000 and expending significant effort in resisting the credit card charges and defending this action. WHEREFORE, -Ruth Ann Krug requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against Liberty Forge in the amount of $18,678.00, plus interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and the costs of suit. COUNT III FRAUD RUTH ANN KRUG VS. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. 305. Paragraphs 1 through 93 of the Answer and Paragraphs 135 through 288 of New Matter are incorporated herein. 306. Liberty Forge is vicariously responsible for the actions, statements and omissions of its authorized employee Jennifer Beard, acting with the scope and in furtherance of her employment duties. 307. It is alleged and therefore averred that prior to September 4, 2004, while acting within the authorized scope and in furtherance of her employment duties, Jennifer Beard continuously represented to Ruth Ann Krug that a band could perform in the tent at Liberty Forge, a material fact in this transaction. 308. It is further believed and therefore averred that these continuing representations that the scheduled band could play throughout the reception in the tent were made falsely, with knowledge of their falsity, or reckfessfy without regard to whether they were true or false, with intent to cause Ruth Ann Krug to rely by entering into a 46 contract with Liberty Forge to host the wedding and subsequently to keep the wedding at Liberty Forge until such time as it became too late to move the wedding elsewhere. 309. Ruth Ann Krug was at no time aware of the falsity of these statements and continuing misrepresentations, and she justifiably relied upon same. 310. As a proximate result of Ruth Ann Krug's justifiable reliance on continuing misrepresentations since March 1, 2004, the planned reception could not be moved to the venue of another host and had to be materially changed on September 4, 2004, within 24 hours before the wedding, resulting in significant losses to Ruth Ann Krug, including but not limited to $6,226. 311. Liberty Forge's evil motive and reckless indifference to the rights of others amounts to outrageous conduct, warranting the imposition of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Ruth Ann Krug demands that a judgment be entered against Liberty Forge in the amount of $6,226 for actual damages, plus interest and costs of suit, and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit requiring arbitration. COUNT IV FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT HOWARD B. KRUG v. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. 312. Counterclaim Plaintiff incorporates by reference all factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 93 of the Answer to the Complaint and paragraphs 135 through 288 of the New Matter, as if set forth at length. 313. Liberty Forge has alleged that Howard B. Krug, among other things, requested goods and services from it. 47 314. Although Howard B. Krug denies such, if it is judicially determined to be correct, Howard B. Krug would enjoy the rights and protections under the UTPCL and The Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (hereinafter "FCEUA"). 73 P.S. §2270.1 et seq. (2000). 315. The FCEUA prohibits creditors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices with regard to the collection of debts. {d. at §2270.2. 316. Pursuant to the FCEUA, the acts of creditors are covered. Id. at §2270.3. 317. The FCEUA states, in pertinent part, as follows: a. A creditor may not engage in any conduct, the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Id. at §2270.4(b)(4). b. A creditor may not use any false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Id. at §2270.4(b)(5). c. A creditor may not use any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. ...including: i) The collection of any amount...unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. 73 P.S. §2270.4(b)(6)(I). 48 318. Liberty Forge has violated the above through the use of the credit card of Howard B. Krug for the payment of a debt for which he did not contract, and the unauthorized electronic use of his credit card without his signature on an invoice for payment of wedding bills. 319. On September 30, 2004, Liberty Forge attempted approximately ten (10} electronic charges against the aforesaid credit card for decreasing amounts, some 26 days after Howard B. Krug used it solely to pay for the rehearsal dinner, after reviewing and approving the Liberty Forge billing. 320. Liberty Forge made the electronic charges at or shortly after being informed by its employee that Ruth Ann Krug would review the billing when received and that such would be subject to dispute. 321. Said charges served to deprive Mr. Krug of his right to the use and possession of his property. 322. After expending considerable time and effort, Howard B. Krug succeeded in reversing the credit card charges, Liberty Forge refusing to discuss the unauthorized use issue. 49 v 323. The collection efforts of Liberty Forge, among other things, included the following: a. Reference to an alleged criminal fraud violation by Howard B. Krug; b. Threat of depositions of the bridal party and wedding guests; c. Assertion of substantial claims or counterclaims against Mr. and Mrs. Krug and their attorney; All of this in violation of FCEUA at §2270.4(b)(5)(v), (vii), and 4(b)(6}. 324. Liberty Forge now asserts in its Complaint, a public document available for inspection by the general public, that Mr. Krug civilly defrauded Liberty Forge and made inaccurate and possibly libelous statements to Citibank to secure reversal of the wrongful charges. 325. Liberty Forge knew that these intimidating allegations could not be substantiated, and it is believed and therefore averred that they were made solely for the purpose of further harassing, intimidating, and disgracing Mr. Krug, in violation of the FCEUA at §2270.4(b)(5)(v), (vii), (x) and 4(b)(6). 326. Howard B. Krug's credit card was charged $15,943.94 after eleven electronic charges occurring on September 30, 2004 (ten reducing charges) and October 6, 2004 (one charge), all at least 26 or more days after the credit card was originally tendered for payment of the rehearsal dinner. 327. Pursuant to the FCEUA and UTPCL, Howard B. Krug may be entitled to treble damages and reasonable counsel fees, as well as costs and expenses. 328. Howard B. Krug has expended in excess of $180 for counsel fees, which amount has increased as a result of this litigation. 50 WHEREFORE, Howard B. Krug respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against Liberty Forge in the amount of $47,831.82 plus reasonable counsel fees as well as the costs and expenses of this action plus interest. BY: Date: V PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER Jo n W. P rcell, Jr.,~ ID 955 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 Attorney for Defendants S1 .~ Highlights Liberty forge The history and prog of Liberty Forge Video AT NATURE'S DOOR... LIBERTY FORGE A STORIED PLACE For your personal copy of the video, please call Liberty Forge at 717.795.9880 x 213 or E-mail us at www.LibertyForge.net. The video describes by pictures and story this historic place and its unique programs for your health and pleasure. In the next few minutes we will visit the historic site of Liberty Forge and witness its natural beauty... the wide variety of programs for persons of all ages and interests... the many dining opportunities and venues... the facilities for weddings, corporate meetings and holiday parties... and the unique, corporate picric and golf outing opportunities. The question is often asked, "when was the begin- ning of Liberty Forge?"... The answer to this surprises most!... Liberty Forge had its start when George Washington was President of the United States. Yes, it start- ed more than two hundred years ago... It was an iron forge and its location along the Yellow Breeches was ideal for the making of iron ore as was the abundant forests of hard- wood trees on the property... The manor house and the barn that housed the mules for operation of the forge were located where the present Green Storage Building is on Lisburn Road... The hardwood trees were essential to make coke, a key ingredient in the making of iron ore. The forge was located where now is the miniature golf course... Two hundred years ago and for almost one hundred years after that beginning, it was called Liberty Forge... as it is now called. Liberty Forge is located next to the historic village of Lisburn... Lisburn was a crossroads for colonial travelers headed west... It was the first overnight stop after crossing the Susquehanna River near the village of Goldsboro... Lisburn was then an integral part of the trail west. Liberty Forge became in time one of the largest employers in Cumberland County... It participated fully in the great Industrial Revolution of the United States in the mid 1800's... Its demise came upon the invention of the Bessemer Furnace in the late 19th century. -1- art of the 20th century the land During the early p was subdivided into various sm~e ~P ocreass embleg about 1985, the Williams f~Y beg subdivided parts to save it from another housing develop- meet. Today... Liberty Forge presents a e for v ersonsoo P~ grazns, activities and dining opPortumti P ages and interests. of the first phase in June 2003, we , Since the op~g have hosted the blessing and celebratio e mo ~ dreds of weddings and recepti least four weddings each week in the Generally there are at ardens and gazebos... All natural beauty of the five lakes, g er one-of-a-kind ue hoto opportunities... Oth present uniq p hoto oppo~iiities exist in the W ed tha e where the P staircase and ele g unique winding wedding party can be remembered in all its splendor. The variety of reception fa w ddu~ Couples thefr Forge affordable sand L b ~ Forge has the lazgest perma- families and gue u~ Central Pennsylv~a that per- nent heated tent facility ~ ue venue mits reception of over 800 Pne of the gazebos and the that allows the wedding at o rece lion in the Liberty Big Top that overlooks lakes and P gardens. In addition, in the Wedge, the PennsYlvaiua ROOm arties for up to 125 persons... It is allows receptions and P e uipped ~~ multiple plasma tele aanCe floorl f desired. q as well as entertainment, and encing -2- 4~ Dance floors can be placed at any of the various dining ven- ues and all are integrated by the state-of-the-art sound sys- tem. Nothing is quite so unique as the elevated 3,000 squaze foot tented Wedge Deck that presents a panoramic view of three lakes, gardens and is fully enclosed for all sea- son use, and accommodates receptions for up to 100 per- ~ sons. The Wedge presents additional, exciting reception and party opportunities for up to 300 persons that aze with- out equal in Pennsylvania... Liberty Forge was awarded the first place blue ribbon for 2003, for the design and construc- tion of the Wedge... It was awarded by the International Tunber Frame Association, an association comprising mem- bers in Europe, Canada and the United States... This presti- gious honor recognizes the unique construction of this tim- ber frame building that is pegged together to create a venue for fine dining unlike any other place in Pennsylvania... It is done with elegance and grace that is breathtaking... Wood craftsmen, architects and builders come to Liberty Forge to study this construction wonder. To add to the special elegance and grace of the Wedge, the Cumberland Room for groups up to 300 fea- tares not only statues and sculptures, but original art by the honored Canadian artist Francine Gravel... Liberty Forge is one of the largest collectors of this highly acclaimed interna- tional artist from Montreal, Canada. Throughout the Wedge as well as the gardens will be found numerous life size statues and fountains... One stat- ue that no one can miss is the life size black beaz at the entrance to the Wedge. -s- Adjoining the Wedge is locatedeth fountains, and gardens Terrace Garden, overlookin gcthreeol or~cocktail parties for up to for casual outdoor dining, p 200 persons. Opening in the Spring of 2004 will ase will incl de the Cool phases for Liberty Forge. This second p Beans Cafe, featuring gourmet coffee choices, ice cream, light din- in fare, and will be open from 7 a.m. to 9 p•m• i emsfor breakfast, g present a variety of breakfast and other dmulg lunch and dinner. The Cool Beans Cafe is locatedCO~s isethe log t corurse golf course. This sports miiuature go of its type in Pennsylvania and is constru~ desiloed o a otmmo' and beautiful Yello hBs c~ ~~e ~ S and ~ ADA approved. date persons with P Y The second phase, opening in the Sprang of 2004, includes in addition to the Cool Beans Cafe and ~a~ n a~~ Se' ~e new 300 yard lighted golf practice and ins There are so many activities at Lobe tours, the newest, a few would include the garden and arb finest and challenging 18 hole, all bent grass golf course,... river trips by kayaks, canoes and rafts that last S and biking, ~ fly fish' lunches provided,... volleyball, horseshoe , ing instruction and... catch and release pond fishing. The gardens and arboretum are nationally registered by the National Arboretum Association. ue venue for so many types of Liberty Forge is a uniq events... We have hosted in the first sixamdOn ~~ s dividual groups up to 900 people for corporate outings P -4- Frequently such events start as a ga tiv ti ~m ~~g g and then followed by a vane go olf lessons, garden classes, pony rides, miniature olf, g tours, pond fishing and fly fishing, river trips, and the always enjoyable Liberty Forge Trolley... The Liberty Forge Trolley is available to transport our guests from one~venue to another. In addition, during these corporate outings and pic- nics, golf carts holding from 2 to 8 persons are available for personal or group self tours. Because only about 10 percent of people in Pennsylvania play golf... and about 13 percent nationwide, most golf tournament sponsors need to appeal to all per- sons... Liberty Forge is totallyto queal to both golfers as e our golf outings are designed pp well as non-golfers... Wtule ~thee nonrsolfeors cane engage~in finest golf course in the area, g so many other, varied events and then all meet at the end of the day for the banquet. All food at Liberty Forge is prepared on site by our team of professional chefs, some graduates of the American Culinary Institute, Hyde Pazk, New York... We maintain two state-of-the-art kitchens... One kitchen i.s designed sole- ly for the preparation of food for al{ ban ~ ~d ~ n ocate Wage... There is a second, sepaza q ed in the Wedge that prepares food for large groups of up to 800 persons. Our Mission Statement is: 1. To bring all guests back to nature with our varied outdoor programs. -5- 2. To give all guests a place for escape and serenity... close to home and at affordable prices. 3. To provide varied wedding and reception venues of incomparable beauty in Central Pennsylvania. 4. To assist our guests to design unique and personalized events, weddings, and corporate out ings and assist in doing so by the creative staff of Liberty Forge. 5. To make each visit to Liberty Forge an event worth remembering and repeating. 6. To call each guest by name. 7. To remind all our guests that when we fail to achieve our goals or our Mission Statement that they will hopefully advise us promptly so that we can make amends and to do better for them and for other guests who favor us with their patronage. Your visit to Liberty Forge begins by a call to our Sales Office at 717-795-9880, or a visit to our web site. You will be asked to complete an event inquiry form that will help us to expedite the process of attending to your needs and planning your special event. Upon receipt of that event inquiry form it will be assigned to an Event Coordinator. Each event is custom designed and coordinated to fit your . culinary tastes, budget and interests. Thank you for visiting Liberty Forge in the last few minutes. We hope we may serve you, your family and friends. -6- l t AT NATURE'S DOOR, LIBERTY FORGE, A STORIED PLACE Just ten minutes from Harrisburg and minutes from anywhere on the West Shore .. _ .~ 3804 Lisburn Road Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Next to Lower Allen Community Park (717)795-9880 extension 213 www LibertyForge.net Ol/1i'20U3 1x:26 F~L 603 330 6709 . ~ ~ .Facsimile 70: Howard Krug F~ C, ~-~) a3 y-py o9 Date: 01/1711005 Re: l~ccount #412500339213X~CXX No, of Pages (including this page): 1 5ll i:K'l ct~bank Cardmember SerYicts From: Customer Service ID: P303375 Phone 3Q0-950-51 I4 Dear Mr. Krug, Thant: you for contacting Citibanl: Customer Service. listed below is the information you requested regarding uested failed authori2arion ~attetapts • • ' As you req on 9/30/2004 . for the account number listed above. Date Merchant Amount 2? 432.?U ~~t30/2004 Liberty Forge Hospitality , 2~ 43~ ~0 9/30/2004 L•ibzrty, Forge Hospitality Liberty prpz,l~spitaliry :' , t ,_00.00 .. . • 9/30/2004 9/30/2004 Liberty gorge Iiaspitality 6000.00 1?000.00 9!3012004 Libcny Force Hospitality ~~.~ 9/30/2004 Libcny Forge Eospitality 6000.(>v 9/30/2004 Libcsry Forge Hospitality If we may be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact us at I-800-950-5114. Sincezcly, • ~ a,~e~ S. Larson Customer Service Ftdernl reRulatianr nguirr sir t° print the joll°x~nt t 'B'T upp[it~attt on the bath °fraee, cnl°r, re[i~+ua. the federn! Equal Crrdit Opportunirr Ae[ prohibitr cr ~ !xe°ure °U or rt o the nmi°naI origin, tex nwrirul transit aBe !Provided the o 6indL~g contract); pa j good jairx esercited any right undo the C°n- applicaru't income derive jrotn an) puhlit astirtanee crmb~g Citibank (South ptrkamJ. NA a the rm„er CrrtCu proterti°n Act TJu Fer[em[ Agenry thnr °wtan, T, t^. 77010.9050. Comptr°Qtr ojriie Currents. Grttotner A.ssit~anee Gr ~. ~` ~ .. , ~ r. ~ f. J VERIFICATION I, RUTH ANN KRUG, hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~~ ~'~ RUTH ANN KRUG Date: 7 7 ~ 5 ,. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC Plaintiff vs. HOWARD B. KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, Defendants and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, Defendants f ,. ., r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-1359 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, ANGELA S. SNAPPER, an employee of the law firm of Purcell, Krug 8~ Haller,. counsel for Defendants, hereby certify that service of the attached ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM was made upon the following by placing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first class mail, postage prepaid, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on Ju~~, 2005. Keith A. Clark, Esquire Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiff • ~~~-~, ANG S. SNAPPER g { . ,. , LIBERTY FORGE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HOSPITALITY, INC., :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v• No. (Ji'I (, Civil HOWARD KRUG and :CIVIL ACTION -LAW RUTH ANN KRUG husband and wife and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife Defendants :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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. [F YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAYBE 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 J. ~ , ° ; Carlisle, PA 17013 - - • (800) 990-9108 : ; AVISO _ .. ~;: .. USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defendeise ale' lase-` deinandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accibn dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando lc°;~c:,almente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por ,, , ~~ r ecerito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accibn como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 Dated: ,~j I (~' ~~ SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. By '~h ~~rU Cl ~ Swcw y~-~- Keith A. Clark, I.D. #06249 Melissa A. Swauger #82382 P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 763-1121 Attorney for Plaintiff .f , LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., v. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff . No. Civil CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., by and through its counsel, Shumaker Williams, P.C., and states the following: 1. Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation with its registered address as 3425 Simpson Ferry Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011, Cumberland County. 2. Defendant, Howard B. Krug, is an adult individual who resides at 1400 Montfort Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110, Dauphin County. 3. Defendant, Ruth Ann Krug, is an adult individual who resides at 1400 Montfort Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110, Dauphin County. 4. Defendant, Karl Bau, is an adult individual who is believed to reside at 6S640 Avon Court, Naperville, Illinois 60540. 5. Defendant, Wendy Bau, is an adult individual who is believed to reside at 6S640 Avon Court, Naperville, Illinois 60540. !, r 6. In March 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug contacted Plaintiff about hosting the wedding and reception of their daughter, Defendant Wendy Bau. 7. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug wanted the wedding to be held in Plaintiff s gazebo and the reception to be held in Plaintiff s tent. 8. On April 20, 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug executed Plaintiff s Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract and chose Plaintiff to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. A true and correct copy of the contract is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 9. By Apri121, 20041etter, Defendant Howard Krug forwarded the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form executed by his wife to Plaintiffand sent Plaintiffa check in the amount of $1,937.70, representing the required 15% deposit of the estimated charges for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 10. In June or July 2004, Defendants advised Plaintiff that they hired a band to play at the reception, but did not advise Plaintiff of the band's start and end time. 11. On August 7, 2004, Plaintiff's employees met with Defendants about the details for the wedding and reception scheduled for September 5, 2004. 12. At this meeting, Plaintiff's employees advised Defendants that Plaintiff needed to comply with all Pennsylvania liquor laws regarding noise and local ordinances regulating noise. 13. In addition, Plaintiff s employees advised Defendants that, pursuant to Pennsylvania liquor laws regarding noise and local ordinances regulating noise, Plaintiff could only allow a disc jockey to play in the tent. 2 ~~ 14. During this meeting, Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug met and spoke to another wedding client of Plaintiff, who was having their daughter's wedding reception at Plaintiff's facility, and Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug learned that this client's daughter had to move her reception from the tent into the Wedge Restaurant because she hired a band and, in order to comply with Pennsylvania liquor laws regarding noise and the local ordinance regulating noise, Plaintiff could not allow a live band to play in the tent. 15. Also at this meeting, Defendants scheduled a rehearsal dinner for 62 people to be held at Plaintiff s facility on September 4, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. 16. In August 2004, Defendants guaranteed that 188 guests would attend the reception on September 5, 2004. 17. Under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug was required to pay, no later than August 22, 2004, Plaintiff's charges for audio visual and miscellaneous set up, renting its facility, serving dinner and desserts to 188 guests, and serving alcohol. 18. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 19. On September 2, 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug advised Plaintiff s employee of the band's start and end time and, for the first time, advised Plaintiff that the band would play until 12:00 a.m. 20. Plaintiff s employee advised Defendant Ruth Ann Krug that the band could not play in the tent so that Plaintiff could comply with Pennsylvania liquor laws regarding noise and the local c:,~~dinance regulating noise. 3 ,r .S } ~~ 21. Because Defendants wanted a live band to play in-the tent on September S, 2004, Defendants met with one of Plaintiff's employees on September 4, 2004 to settle the issues with the music. 22. At this meeting, Plaintiffs employee advised Defendants that ifthey wanted the band to play, they would have to move that part of their reception inside to the Wedge Restaurant and have the dinner in the tent to accommodate the large number of guests; otherwise, Plaintiff would be a violating Pennsylvania liquor laws regarding noise and the local ordinance regulating noise. 23. Because Defendants wanted the band to play, they agreed to move that portion of their reception inside to the Wedge Restaurant and have the dinner in the tent. As an accommodation, Plaintiff agreed not to charge Defendants for (1) a disc jockey to play in the tent during dinner, (2) the use of the Wedge Restaurant, (3) the rental of a dance floor, (4) decorating the Cumberland Room, located in the Wedge Restaurant, with flowers, and (5) hors d'ouevers and snacks. 24. On September 4, 2004 after the meeting, Defendant Wendy Bau provided Plaintiff with the following schedule for the September 5, 2004 wedding: 6:30 p.m. wedding music begins; 6:45 p.m. wedding ceremony begins; 7:15 p.m. cocktail hour begins; 8:15 p.m. reception begins in tent and disc jockey plays; 8:45 p.m. salad served; 9:25 p.m. main course served; and 10:15 p.m. move to Wedge Restaurant for cake cutting, dessert, and band begins playing. 25. The rehearsal dinner was held at Plaintiffs facility on September 4, 2004 and 62 people attended. 26. Even though Defendants only guaranteed 188 guests, 189 guests actually attended the ,~,~edding and reception. 4 ,~ 27. After the wedding, Plaintiffserved hors d'ouevers and snacks on the terrace patio and dinner in the tent and a disc jockey provided music. 28. Plaintiff provided an open bar to guests during dinner and the reception. 29. Plaintiffmade desserts available to the guests on two large trays in the deck area, as requested by Defendants at the September 4`h meeting, and served wedding cake in the Wedge Restaurant. 30. The band played in the Wedge Restaurant from 10:15 p.m. until 1:30 a.m., but the band could have played until 2:00 a.m., which is the time limit allowed by law in that facility. 31. After the reception, Defendants and guests expressed their gratitude, including hugs by the bride and Defendants, to Plaintiff's employees for their attention to detail, service, and food. 32. According to the Defendants, the wedding and reception were successful. 33. In addition, after the reception, Plaintiff provided complimentary transportation in its company van to a nearby hotel for some of Defendants' guests. 34. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug ordered the flowers for the tent area with her own florist and had her florist decorate the tent area; Plaintiff was not responsible for the flowers in the tent area. 35. Plaintiffprovidedflowers inthe Cumberland Room of the Wedge Restaurant, which cost Plaintiff $588.00, but Plaintiff did not charge Defendants for these flowers. 36. Plaintiffpaid a disc jockey $595.00 to perform on September 5, 2004 during dinner; Plaintiffdid not charge Defendants for the disc jockey service. 37. Plaintiff paid $1,200.00 to rent a dance floor, which the Defendants ordered; however, Plaintiffdid not charge the Defendants for renting a dance floor. 5 l ,r ~ ~ 38. An invoice for the wedding and reception held at Plaintiff s facility on September 5, 2004 was sent to the Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug on three separate occasions in September 2004 because Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to pay Plaintiff 14 days prior to the event in accordance with the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 39. Under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug was charged a total of $3,164.40 for the rehearsal dinner held on September 4, 2004 and $19,431.20 wedding and reception held on September 5, 2004. A true and correct copy of the invoice is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 40. At the rehearsal dinner on September 4, 2004, Plaintiff charged Defendant Ruth Ann Krug $2,170.00 for the buffet rehearsal dinner served to 62 people, $358.50 for the alcohol served, $130.20 for sales tax, and $505.70 for gratuity. 41. Defendant Howard Krug paid Plaintiff $3,164.40 on September 4, 2004 for the buffet rehearsal dinner, alcohol served at the rehearsal dinner, tax, and gratuity. 42. Plaintiff did not charge for the hors d'ouevers and snacks that were served on September 5, 2004. 43. Plaintiffcharged $318.00 for renting the Liberty Gazebo, but did not charge for using Plaintiff s tent, deck, terrace patio, and Cumberland Room in the Wedge Restaurant. 44. Plaintiff charged $10,968.30 for the 188 dinners and desserts served to guests, which amount includes service charges and taxes. 45. Plaintiffcharged $7,104.90 for the alcohol consumed at the reception, which amount includes service charges. 6 + .e 46. Plaintiffcharged $1,040.00 for the audio visual and miscellaneous set up, but did not charge Defendants $1,200.00 for the rented dance floor. 47. Plaintiff only collected a deposit of $1,937.70 from Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug and payment for the rehearsal dinner, leaving a balance of $17,493.50 due to Plaintiff under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. See Exhibit "B." 48. At the end of September 2004, when Plaintiff s invoice for the wedding and reception was not paid, Plaintiffcharged Defendant Howard Krug's credit card, which was given to Plaintiff by him at the rehearsal dinner on September 4, 2004. 49. Thereafter, Defendant Howard Krug disputed the credit card charges by Plaintiff, alleging he was not a signatory on the Plaintiff's Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 50. However, all of the Defendants were involved in the planning, negotiation, and scheduling of Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 51. In addition, Defendant Howard Krug is an attorney and was an integral part in planning Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 52. All of the Defendants requested that Plaintiffhost Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. 53. In addition, Defendant Wendy Bau confirmed, by written directive to Plaintiffprior to the event, the details, exact venue locations, and procedures for the wedding and reception and Plaintiffcomplied with such written directive. 7 .e 54. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffbelieves that Defendant Howard Krug alleged facts and circumstances to the credit card company to secure a reversal of charges to their credit card account, which were not accurate and may constitute further evidence of the claims stated in this Complaint and/or libel. 55. Accordingly, to date, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff the balance of $17,493.50 for audio visual and miscellaneous set up, renting its facility, serving dinner and desserts to 188 guests, and serving alcohol on September 5, 2004. Count I Breach of Contract Plaintiff vs. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug 56. Paragraphs 1 through SS above are incorporated herein by reference. 57. On April 20, 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug executed Plaintiff s Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract and Defendants chose Plaintiff to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. See Exhibit "A." 58. On Apri122, 2004, Plaintiff executed the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. Id. 59. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug understood and knew that a material term of the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract was that she would have to pay an additional deposit of 50% of the estimated charges 90 days prior to the wedding and reception. 60. The Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract provides that "[a]n additional deposit of 50% of estimated charges shall be due ninety (90) days prior to the event." Id. at 1. 8 61. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug breached the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract by not paying Plaintiffthe additional deposit of 50% of the estimated charges, which amounted to $6,459.00, 90 days prior to September 5, 2004. 62. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug understood and knew that a material term of the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract was that she would pay in full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception based upon the guaranteed minimum no later than August 22, 2004, 14 days before the wedding and reception. 63. The Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract provides that "[fJull payment for the Event shall be due fourteen (14) days prior to the Event based upon the guaranteed minimum provided by Patron." Id. at 1-2. 64. The Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract further provides, in pertinent part: Payment in Advance: Unless credit has been established in advance by Patron with Liberty Forge, payment in full of the entire contract price must be made in cash, approved check or credit card fourteen (14) days prior to the Event.... Payment in advance shall include all beer, wine, and liquor to be consumed at the event, if being done on a consumption basis. Credit for unopened bottles will be given following the event. Prior to the Event, patron agrees to provide Liberty Forge with credit card information sufficient to cover incidental charges, additional food and beverage ordered or supplied or for damage that may occur the day of or during the Event as set forth below. Patron agrees to such amounts as may be charged to their credit card(s) with the provision that such amounts are deemed reasonable by the patron. Id. at 2. 65. Finally the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract provides "Service Charge. Twenty (20) percent is the standard service charge." Id. 66. In August 2004, Defendants guaranteed that 188 guests would be at the reception on September 5, 2004. 9 67. Under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug was obligated to pay Plaintiff s charges for audio visual and miscellaneous setup, renting its facility, serving dinner and desserts to 188 guests, and serving alcohol no later than August 22, 2004, 14 days before the wedding and reception. 68. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 69. At the rehearsal dinner on September 4, 2004, Defendant Howard Krug provided Plaintiff with a credit card to pay Plaintiff s charges. 70. An invoice for the wedding and reception held at Plaintiff s facility on September 5, 2004 was sent to the Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug on three separate occasions after the wedding because Defendant Ruth Ann Krug failed to pay Plaintiff 14 days before the wedding and reception in accordance with the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 71. Thereafter, Defendant Howard Krug disputed the credit card charges by Plaintiff, alleging he was not a signatory on the Plaintiff's Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 72. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffbelieves that Defendant Howard Krug alleged facts and circumstances to the credit card company to secure a reversal of charges to their credit card account, which were not accurate and may constitute further evidence of Defendant's breach of the contract and/or libel. 10 73. Accordingly, to date, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug has failed to pay Plaintiffthe balance of $17,493.50 for audio visual and miscellaneous set up, renting its facility, serving dinner and desserts to 188 guests, and serving alcohol on September 5, 2004, pursuant to the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 74. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug breached the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract by not paying Plaintiff in full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 75. Plaintiff only collected a deposit of $1,937.70 from Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug and payment for the rehearsal dinner, leaving a balance of $17,493.50 due to Plaintiff under the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. See Exhibit "B." 76. Plaintiff s damages as a result of Defendant Ruth Ann Krug's breaches of the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract include, but are not limited to: $318.00 for renting the Liberty Gazebo to Defendants, $10,968.30 for the 188 dinners and desserts served to guests, which amount includes service charges and taxes, $7,104.90 for the alcohol consumed at the reception, which amount includes service charges, and $1,040.00 for the audio visual and miscellaneous set up. 77. Defendant Ruth Ann Krug's various breaches of the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract have caused and continues to cause damages to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant Ruth Ann Krug and award Plaintiffdamages in the amount of $17,493.50, plus interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court ma ~ deem necessary and appropriate. 11 Count II Third-Party Beneficiary Plaintiff vs. Defendants Wendy Bau and Karl Bau 78. Paragraphs 1 through 77 above are incorporated herein by reference. 79. On April 20, 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug executed Plaintiffs Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract and chose Plaintiff to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. See Exhibit "A." 80. Plaintiff intended to and did host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. Id. 81. Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau were the intended beneficiaries of the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 82. Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau fully participated in discussions and meetings with Plaintiff s employees regarding their wedding and reception. 83. In addition, Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau agreed to the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 84. In addition, Defendant Wendy Bau sent Plaintiff a final, detailed schedule of their wedding events on September 4, 2004. 85. To date, Plaintiffhas only been paid a deposit of $1,937.70 for hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. 12 r 86. As a result, Plaintiff's damages from hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception, include, but are not limited to: $318.00 for renting the Liberty Gazebo to Defendants, $10,968.30 for the 188 dinners and desserts served to guests, which amount includes service charges and taxes, $7,104.90 for the alcohol consumed at the reception, which amount includes service charges, and $1,040.00 for the audio visual and miscellaneous set up. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau and award Plaintiff damages in the amount of $17,493.50, plus interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. Count III Unjust Enrichment Plaintiff vs. All Defendants 87. Paragraphs 1 through 86 above are incorporated herein by reference. 88. Plaintiffhas conferred a benefit upon Defendants by hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception at its facility on September 5, 2004 in accordance with the Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 89. Defendants knowingly accepted this benefit and allowed Plaintiffto host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception at its facility on September 5, 2004. 90. Allowing Defendants to retain the benefit of not paying for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception, which was hosted by Plaintiff, is grossly unjust to Plaintiff. 91. Plaintiff is entitled to the value of hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's ~~~edding and reception. 13 1 92. To date, Plaintiff has only been paid a deposit of $1,937.70 for hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. 93. Accordingly, Plaintiff s damages from hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception, include, but are not limited to: $318.00 for renting the Liberty Gazebo to Defendants; $10,968.30 for the 188 dinners and desserts served to guests, which amount includes service charges and taxes; $7,104.90 for the alcohol consumed at the reception, which amount includes service charges; $1,040.00 for the audio visual and miscellaneous set up; $588.00 for flowers in the Cumberland Room and Wedge Restaurant; $595.00 for a disc jockey to perform on September 5, 2004 during dinner; $1,200.00 for renting a dance floor; and $2,820.00 for providing hors d'oeuvres and snacks to 188 guests; and allowing Defendants to use the Wedge Restaurant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants and award Plaintiff damages in the amount of $22,696.50, plus interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. Count IV Fraud Plaintiff vs. All Defendants 94. Paragraphs 1 through 93 above are incorporated herein by reference. 95. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff in full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 14 96. Defendants agreed that Plaintiff, in its sole discretion, could move Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception from the reserved venue to another available venue at Plaintiff s facility. 97. Defendants agreed to conduct Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception in full compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 98. Defendants agreed that Plaintiff had the right to approve, terminate, and/or control the volume of any band at Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's reception. 99. Defendants' representation to pay in full was material to this transaction because Plaintiff would not have hosted Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception if it thought it was not going to receive payment for the services it provided to Defendants. 100. Defendants' representation to allow Plaintiff, in its sole discretion, to move Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception from the tent to another available venue was material to Plaintiff when deciding to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 101. Defendants' representation to comply with all federal, state, and local laws was material to Plaintiff when deciding to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 102. Defendants' representation to allow Plaintiff to control the noise of the band Defendants hired to play at Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's reception was material to Plaintiff when deciding to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 15 103. Defendants' representation to pay Plaintiff in full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception was false and Defendants knew that such statement was false when they made it. 104. Defendants' representation to allow Plaintiff, in its sole discretion, to move Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception from the tent to another available venue was false and Defendants knew that such representation was false when they made it. 105. Defendants' representation to comply with all federal, state, and local laws was false and Defendants knew that such representation was false when they made it. 106. Defendants' representation to allow Plaintiff to control the noise of the band they hired to play at Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's reception was false and Defendants knew that such representation was false when they made it. 107. Defendants knew that Plaintiff expected it would get paid for hosting Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 108. Defendants agreed to pay for the wedding and reception with the intent to induce Plaintiffto host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 109. Defendants never had any intention of paying Plaintiff in full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 110. At the end of September 2004, when Plaintiff s invoice for the wedding and reception was not paid, Plaintiffcharged Defendant Howard Krug's credit card, which was given to Plaintiff by Defendants at the rehearsal dinner on September 4, 2004, for the invoice amount. 16 111. Thereafter, Defendant Howard Krug disputed the credit card charges by Plaintiff, alleging he was not a signatory on the Plaintiff s Food and Beverage Standard Reservation Form contract. 112. All of the Defendants requested that Plaintiffhost Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004. 113. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffbelieves that Defendant Howard Krug alleged facts and circumstances to the credit card company to secure a reversal of charges to their credit card account, which were not accurate and may constitute further evidence of fraud and/or libel. 114. Defendants knew that Plaintiff, a Licensee, had to comply with the Pennsylvania liquor laws. 115. Defendants knew Plaintiff could not allow a band to play in its tent due to a local ordinance controlling noise. 116. In fact, Defendants Howard and Ruth Ann Krug knew that another wedding client of Plaintiffhad to move their daughter's reception from the tent to the Wedge Restaurant so that the band they hired could play in the tent. 117. Defendants said they would allow Plaintiffto move the venue of Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception with the intent to induce Plaintiffto host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 118. Defendants represented that they would comply with all federal, state, and local laws with the intent to induce Plaintiffto host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 17 119. Defendants represented that they would allow Plaintiff to control the noise of the band they hired with the intent to induce Plaintiff to host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 120. Defendants never had any intention of complying with Pennsylvania liquor laws or local ordinance regulating noise. 121. During the August 7, 2004 meeting with Plaintiff's employees, Defendant Howard Krug claimed that because his daughter was having a Jewish wedding, the First Amendment would protect Plaintiff if the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board fined Plaintiff for a noise violation. 122. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendants' representation to pay for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception and, thus, hosted Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 123. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendants' representation to allow Plaintiffto move the venue of Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 124. PlaintiffjustifiablyreBed upon Defendants' representation to comply with all federal, state, and local laws. 125. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendants' representation to control the noise of the band Defendants hired. 126. Plaintiff was damaged because it relied upon Defendants' representation to pay Plaintiff in full for Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 18 e 127. Specifically, Plaintiff hosted Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception on September 5, 2004 and incurred damages that include, but are not limited to: $318.00 for renting the Liberty Gazebo to Defendants, $10,968.30 for the 188 dinners and desserts served to guests, which amount includes service charges and taxes, $7,104.90 for the alcohol consumed at the reception, which amount includes service charges, and $1,040.00 for the audio visual and miscellaneous set up. 128. Plaintiff was damaged because it relied upon Defendants' representation to allow Plaintiff to move the venue of Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception. 129. Plaintiff was damaged because it relied upon Defendants' representation to comply with all federal, state, and local laws. 130. Specifically, Plaintiff s additional damages include, but are not limited to: $588.00 for flowers in the Cumberland Room and Wedge Restaurant; $595.00 for a disc jockey to perform on September 5, 2004 during dinner; $1,200.00 for renting a dance floor; and $2,820.00 for providing hors d'oeuvres and snacks to 188 guests; and allowing Defendants to use the Wedge Restaurant. 131. Defendants' conduct of allowing Plaintiffto host Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception with no intention of paying for the services Plaintiff rendered to Defendants is outrageous, malice, and wanton disregard of Plaintiff. 132. Defendants agreed to move the reception to the Wedge Restaurant, have a disc jockey play in the tent, and have the band play in the Wedge Restaurant. 19 133. After the reception, all of the Defendants expressed their gratitude to Plaintiff's employees for their attention to detail, service, and food, but knew they would never pay Plaintiff for the services Plaintiff rendered. 134. Defendants advised Plaintiff that Defendants Wendy and Karl Bau's wedding and reception were successful, despite their intention not to pay for it. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants and award Plaintiffdamages in an amount in excess of the mandatory arbitration amount of $25,000.00, plus punitive damages, interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. Dated 3 `~ ~ I ~~ By ~z, ~. S wu,Nr Keith A. Clark, I.D. #0624 Melissa A. Swauger #82382 P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 :»so2s (717) 763-1121 20 Exhibit ~ ,~ ~~ ~, 3804 Lisburn xoad; Mcchanicsbitrg, PA 17055- Phone: 71?-795-9380 Fax: 717-79.5-10 Mailir~ Address: P.O. Box 1229, Camp H;lt, PA 27001-1229 Food 8 Beverage Standard Reservation Form Event Name: Krug/Bau Wedding Salesperson. Marketing De~artrnent Customer Name: Ruth Ann Krug (4/10) ContacL• Ruth Ann Krug Address: 1400 Montfort Drirvs, Business Phono: (717) 234-7224 City: Harrisburg State: PA Zip: 17110 Homs Phons: Booking IDit 3B6 Faz: Thank you For choosing to host your event at Liberty Forge. The staff at Liberty Forge is dedicated to making the event special for you and your guests. It at any time we can tie of service, please do not hesitate to approach on of our staff for assistance. We wig be glad to help. Please verify the information below as k wip help you and us better prepare for you r event. Guarantee Doposlt: Patron shah, at least fourteen (14) days prior to tt'~e date of Event, spettify in yang ~ (.iberty Forge the exact number to t>e in attendance. This number shah canstihrte a guaranteed minimum and Patron will be charged accordingly, At the time of signing this agreement; patron shah pay a deposit of 1596 of estimated Event Charges: 51,937.70 An additional deposit of SOX of estimated charges Shah tie due ninety (90) days p~ ~ ~ ~~ Number in Attendance; 56,459.00 • Patron shah, at bast fourteen (t4) days prior to the date of the Evart, . number b be M attendancx. This number shah consb'tuta a ~~ in rig tD liberty Forge the eat accordir-glty. FuN payment for ttx Event shah be due fourteen 1~4 td ~ minimum and Patron wit be charged guaranteed minimum prodded ~ Pam ~ ) ~ l~r to the Event based upon the • Patron shah, at least seventy-Mro (TZ) Novrs in advanrx of Event. sperm to Vbe F Event. rty urge the Gnat count for the Terms and CondRiorrsc • Standard Reservation Terms and Conditions ~ the 1bNo+rvirtg pages shah apPtj/ b alt Event. ~~os/ZOa os:3o pa _ 06:0o prw M ~°C TB.D 2S - PesntYlvsaie 09/OSROW 06:30 par - 07_30 prw C ~d"~ 1Rooiw 50.00 ?lreatcr X00 Li bn't7 Cmbe 5300 69 09MSR004 07:30 par - 12:30 ani K~f~ Beegeel . ernds ~ t46cth- ~ top 50:00 v~se8prx : - - Room Remy ~dlo vtswr a rr1;u Setup ear St+rvices Food i Bevarag~ ~rklnctrTnf;le Contra) Rocriatb~~- =-sand Tobh 1 Des. t ,.C e 3$04 Lisburn Road, ?~icchznicsbutg, PA 170.5- Phone: 71T-74~-9830 Far.: 717-795-1002 ldailirtg Address: P.O. Box 1229, Czmp I-~iIl, pA 17002-1229 Method of Payment Bank Name: Name on Card: Driver'sl;c*: Gard Numbor. Qlrrct ~( Gard Expint-on: Liberty Forge Food and Beverage Service Standard Terms snd Condltiorts I~flnRtons: As used herein, the tollowinQ terms sear rove tin falowin9 meanings 'Evertl'- ttrepolf outlrg tourn~rnsrrt, w~ddtr-g, banquet or other prir3te function fom'>Mg the subject of the Rsservotion Agreement ('/lgreentent'k -I-r~eftY For9r: or ~.F' - LipeAY Forge Hr»lstatity, tnc. a~wor ~FC;e. Inc. 'Patron' -the Denon, corporation, entt~r, OrginiZatlOn or aSaorlAtion Clontndlrk~ with LiDe*ty rorpe forths Event. GuaranEsed NumbK Patron shah, at host tourben (t t) days prior b the dale of td.e Event. sRedy- in vrr~rrg to Eberly Forge tee Brad numtxr to bt: in attendance. The numfaer seats ratrtstitule: a gwrnrleed minimum and Patron wip na charged aooordingy. Fop payment for d+e Event shs11 be due fourtosn (1 t) days prior fo ffro Event based upon the guaranteed mMlirntrRr protiided t~f Patron. Gncslfatlon W Pairon: M Patron pools the Event at otherwise Ierminetes this App at 4s! sec (67 rtronttrs prior to the dole of Event, a if the Agreement is terminated by Lrbertp Foye for breacA thereof by Patron the depocR wNl be torfe~bla igtridated damages. In the swot of canodlatlen ray Patron within sfx (61 months prtor to the dale of Event, the Patton r+ig be amassed s csrrcellstisrr tae of twsnly`.Mo (25) percent of tfre eslimakd charge of tM Event. or the depose, whichever a greater. TAis shalt not apply K patron nebeeta Meeorreoeted evenla. Payment :n /ldvencc unless vedR fns bson srtbbtf3Frod b sdrenee by Patron v+~ Lbety Fall PaYf1ard ti f W d tl+e onRire costrsd pr;oe moat t~ made in osh, approved efredt or etedR card farrben (14) daps pier b M+e Evoet N sLdr psytnMlf 's oat rlseived, LF nay bnnlnab IA's Agre;~m and retain >w ar psvt d Pstrony depoart(s) in armrdarrc~ v+dMr tfre obeve pfovisions. Psytrred it adrsiee shat helnde aM beer virtue erld r~nsumed st the eva:nt. d being dame on a eonsurnpron bade. t~ed1! tot uneperNd hordes rsi segbou Wowing fire eMOnt Prior b the E~.bp~ n agrees b psrvide LrbeR1- Ferpe vets ersdlt ~ardweiorrrretion strffiioent b saver Ineldrrtal vtergee- arldlorral loud and Eeverage ordered or toppled or for damage that nnp ooeer the day d or during the Evart as sat fortA bebw: Patrar. sgees to svae anrwrre: a mrp t-e ehorged b their aedd eard~s) rrllls the provision that sudr aerrora~ts ors derrrsd reasonable by the pebar~ FacNfly Fee: PaMonb apeaife~iion of Ure sorpeelod rrrerrrber d atlendees at tl+e tknt, d M+e s+9rritg ef'rris Aprese+errt k read pyr L.F b Oosk Ilre Event into certain verruos. Vsrxrss are seleeESd taped on firs nurrrbs- b bt 4r• slterrdanas acrd the erpeeiN total revenue b be rssl¢ed, patron paf- +a ~rtif- ~ ~ DK gwranleed minirMen number 'b stlowdarres naVwoorMs s dsertass e~1 trr~ ~ Palrvn ayrses trr~y too) peraerrt ar nwro berry tl+e expected merrrtrer d aYsrrdees doelsrtd of- Peron at the ttrrre d the sigrrirrQ d If+b I-Etearwent K rogrired. lte t/S pry pereorr ~- fee ~qa ~ paid on fire dNferorroe betrwen the eked nrsnber d nlendees dscbrod wtren b ~ /lgteetnent >t-ae atgrrad ertd 1f rayrrsratMeed rr~nsre yob fautl.en f fie) dais prior b tM E+rsrrt Dsperrrlrtg M lee nunebs- amisty etlotrd'rg 1~ C-trertl strd ire blsl asQciprod twrerrtrs~ (f. it ib epic d6esefian. ~se.rrre the rl9ltt at >• t"ina: b nvsw dye [vent Arewr tee reesrwd venue ~) ue atroMw>r+7itevents at rlb.ry- Fer9e test oorrrperes b q~ .ne Patron agrees b a¢spt sudr sersetlhrtion ~ her dls~elGot~ ro:os: M addition to tee sat forth ebewhere in fAr Agr~etrreret. Patron apnNS m Pry appieabb tsdoral able. nxtniopal or oM+er bees rposed or applkable to the Event or thk Agreernetrt. -rtee lnereesw: Preece pooled frertin for everrlt scheduled nv~re ltron t+Melve (1~ r*orrths after tllt dale heree[ats subject to pica bQMSe! aqua( b x Consun+er Preno Indac (CPI), /1l thins. PAaedelpfrb, PennspNanis. tF aproas tr; bt sound dy ~pr~4rroled herein lbr s period one ~l) yo,x horn ,e date d N+e stg-red agreomsnt xcused Non-Porlorsnance: If for any rsacon berorrd r~s eontrd inekrditrg. sot not IltrNad to st-iter. bbo- dispstes. accldenls. 9ovarrirnarx striations or regerblions on trawl, corrrrrtodl'ies or strppllst, acts d tarx. tsrrorkst sl/oles a acts dtaod snd t.Fs unable to perbnn ~ a~bsons' vdsr tAis Agreement sucA nor-perfonnanae k erstrsed and tF nsalr t:rlnittale lfris /rlpnsernerrt wttrisrlt Rullrer tttrbEly of atrlr naRere ~ ~ ~ atron's deposit. In no event shag if t» tbob Ibt aortsegwrMlsl damages d any na'ltltre. d for an)Iressotl thrt space recetred is rro f ~ ~ rent, lF may subsb~t,te other sp-xe at lberty Forge, oompsrable it qua tl~r providn9 Patton agre4 b acaspt svt~f bvision of Beverages and/or Food: tVefirer Pabort nor af+Y of Patron's gtresb or IrnrRees may! bi thout eupress wnTten penrtissiort from tF. ~ ary and+or food of any kkrd to LF ~rvlco Charge. Twenty (2~ percefrt is tM standard setvk:o d+srge. ~nduet of Evsnt Patron undertakes tD conduct tf+! Event in an ortkry manner. Nt tie/ mmp~earrlpt spp~apy ~~ sbte and beat lows and iuladons and Rules of Conduct of Uberty Forge. Patron assumes wN tesportsbllly lDr the conduQ plop p~,= b ttDnrdarra acrd ~ ~ ie to premises or property of Uberty Forge mused d attributable to Patron, or Patron's ageott; b-ilees. ~ or dependent ~ ployed by Patron. plays and DecoratioN Patron's Propert~r_ All displays, dorA-ations, and equipment proposed btr patron ~aq be ~,~ to prior wr~ten ,paroval c f and none mry be attached or dryplayed without prior wrkten approval of LF. A demon-up charge d ~ ~r ~r R,at, tK ~~ ~ paten ~ ~~ s/displays and/or deeoretions ktstalkd or used t»r Patron or Patron's third party vendors and Pa6oe aoreas: m ~,,,, «r•r. ,.......__ ,- ... . S~u.~ Lisburn Road, Mcchznicsburg, PA 17055- Phone: 727-795-9880 Pax: 717-795-1002 MaiIir,~ Address: P.O. Box 1229, Camp HiI~ PA 17001-2229 vendor:, inrJuding photogr3phars, must tH approved to wrttk+g by LF arior to tho Event. My persanol pr~pgrty or ?a1r~n or ?atron'c 3uesG or inyt.9S drought onto the Lbery gorge pTrrtixs and teR thereon, ether prior tD, during, or fDll~rNng the Event, shall be sok rlk or ?etron and LF shall n of S e liable for ~ r+y las: ~ or damage to arty such property, ror any reala-. Socvrtty: If requhed, to ;t,e sol~ludgmerrt, of lF, tr shall prcvlda (at Patron'SSON cost aM U) to maintain adequaEe seeunly an ~ ~OfF 'control rr+easur~s in bptit of the sae and natures d tf+ee~nsr~ ~s~ ~ Fnmbls try pa;ry~ will De presented to Patron al least thi Ys prior to event and t>• sl+ak papabla at That !lrna trp Patron. Ateohollc t3everspes: t.itrerty Forge, b a t'icensee, is -esporesibls roc tt-s adrntntrlratbrl of Ma sale and savlcr d slcahofie bev„ragey in sr~ordarn~ nth ?A Liquor Cant:ot Board Regulations. K e t.F poFcp, therebrt, that sM slcntw6c beverages must bs seppMad by tF. N aleohofit: bluer be lervcd on LF p-ernises (or eisewl+ere Cibe+tp Forge's akoho/e bsuersge ~eanse) L.F wig rege~re the bererages ~ ~s-O sge! ere tD barbnden:. LF's alcoholic bewrsge roen.e requires t.F to (1) regnant proper identification (phob tl~ aI onh b7- L.F sang; ter,; akohollc bovraraga seMes i/ the person a either umOe or a^f- Per+on d que~trionable age and refvx rage p+oper identiFcatbn orxrot ba Drodueed and ~ refuse alcoholic person who, in LF's juogrner>< appears inbxloted. ~*a9e servlrl to a cry Asavmp~tio~n d the Rtrk: As a condxlon o/ use oI tJDerty Forge and aM associated l'aciilr'p~~ IncRrding twt not RrMMd b the yog ~, Praair~ vollsytaa~ muR miniahrre gal! coarrse~ Yellow Beeches Cresl~ fewer A/ss Cn+lrntarartp Park. arrp daninq {~ ahd Dro shop Mrs 'Facrxties rarrpe=. Patron and/or any user of the Fadltks (the 'Patrons? assures r rislt otpeAatsl iry'aI-. death or propertr loss resulprtq t}wtt arep catrle wfiatsosver, including but not tlrnrted tff the scoolera, and other reere~ational aqulpmar~ eapopt wtb natural ~ ~~ °bl~ dar~gay's associated vrilh - tees, ~ once ~~ lion equlpnrent, walar hazards, Ponds. ~ mMature felt forsea~ and urllbrecalt weatM.r, Dractks p~,Q 9~rtt b"^g uvrars, g drhrhtp range, volkpbalt eaorrts, motori~ad g courses; drlwMr~ps, roads, qrt ~ ~~h bYiead+ ~~ co^traei~ktrrearh dof ~ ~ Pa t d tneln~ ~ ~ FP"rclud~ poll caxse andlb~ ~ ~~~ ~+d /-aiventures, Inc, L,berty Forge Arborehrrr, t?re JWtn G, Wt~ orga• ~• ~~~ Forge: - IrrG. Group Companies, their officers, stodtholders;, rrtanagers, adiristta, emplsyaasF_ d tFGC, Inc mdlb- ~ ~~n league. or othv Evr!nt and ttratr asrigrta pKreiraaAer eollee3valr rained b se 'Lr~erlp Forge'). Ctrs °1f a^!- burnamerK paw oertlnS. Arbo GoN Cota~r ~~ bkan In tl+e ar~oreterrrr PMa~Rlad on the go/ epur~, ti 9p~~. er arbgy~ Prbr vrrltMn n d LF. gardens must tea made in advance, •lswrhert at LrDerh Forps wit ~ wriaet-~. acrd other a~ Did in fire Vlkclpe, on thl dock n the ~Y Top Tent and aPP~. btrnirotat. arrdlor oorttrd the vahrrrre bornertEe LrtsrFirnert at tAa arerttA ~i0~r Control Board t+ceruaa, LF r*uct and reserves lira right b babnae dtr= Igor tl~ia e.re~ rut wen fife tine stated !n this agreerrtary w~ hf! rlta.ryad 5600.Ot) par hour (or sap p~orlian yrara~ ~ ~ shore air everyone• ~o1~nr~ ~ ~e.7ed in aeRain venuar< st t~ertp Forps. Palrow, rb invrlees aril guests ere aaequesfey b ~~ such Prohlblllarts ta- Barak-up Loeaaen; M the swat d inelerrtent weatMr the Used ~ wed9a Reek lhriess otl+arwise hers agrees Mist use of Nte vlkeys Osdc a not ordta>;tra Ord tJtet some Dadons mey De d'nk+0. gage service sndror other Conlrsct EaryiraHort. TAa bey o f tl+a Sbnderd Rrservatbn Forte shag a void end the calendar day rolbwirg the ~;ert of fire Smndard Reervaebn Fpm, bl- trDertr F r'~s"ra~'~ ~ d ~ ~~re F~orq~~The StsrdardFRs vrAtlr the requlnsd dam prior b !!te 1Nh oalenthr der /otbthn9 ~ ~Wiarr of Ma tht t~ e cannier-signed blr .tl-er tl+a Prestdan~t, v~ ~kl~.nt ~urtrer,fbre's°le "°°" G~°r!p F°r9e t~losp+t>wAr. 4+e irsyrrad~e~r ~ Ito, a~rtd The shove provkions, ?erns and Condaliorrs and detail sprrpleat;oro as ouf4tad iR tht Pr~esN tae appr~ ertd ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,, , patron iberty Forge -/ and a ooeicai reception ~ be heb in the Hlredga CMMrKJ RDOrn 0 Exhibit 3Si74 Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 1705'5- Pbosc: 727-799880 Fax: 717-795-1002 Fovi and Beverage invoice Datt:Oc-tober B, 2004 Event : KniQ/Bau Wedding (~ Custconer Nan+s: Ruth Mn KrT~ (tN 0) Event Cabo: ~, Ruth Mn Kra Caer~r. T.oo uo~rrore ~-,re a~s:~.ss PAoee: t7+~ n~rua Ha., Pr„~ 'ty: Hrr:sburT, State. PA 2tp: 17TT0 gj~ GO~Ct tN~R Rt~t11 /1nQ Krvo Booiatp tD: 386 rslet~onr t»~?3~T224 F~c ._ __. _ ~R?5200a - ..~.~., au Ot3:30 -.07.:00 P~° 50.00 OAIt?5rt200+1 07:1 t d ~ P ~~ 5300-~ ~~~ Od:30 - 1:30 am tga • 9 T 60.00 - 50.00 . T°ty . _ 1300.00 `+s+~~e'ss tt~1 ke ~~ Wti7 ~~ 1 ~an~ With A1011- MMM RQ!ir1Cr t'rOC~(tsll WefrT~rs Ylhapped 'rn PuR Pastry with Whiskey Sauce snd a I Hosted ' Gcapls end Carrot Zest (House Dresses Arsoetsd Rolls (No -Rosemary and Oar6c oil snt! Flsisl+rs~an's unsahed marpsririe on Yibk for drppino Entree 6;1 - ~AusMoorn Slulfsd Breast of Chici~en with herb Velocrte and Seasonal vepttabNt So1sC'iion Erwee trZ : S1~aft lsi~par Tsrryald Saknon with S~isdisi vepstable and Rior Entret 03 -Non DiirY. Vepatarian Meal Entree'tatit - Kosher meals tlom errtrss.b des~el-{ordering ~ EntrN #i5 - ' ~ 's Msals F'r+9ies arnd :F~} Enle~ae ~ : Nlndor AMe1s -Tray d sssortid wrap sardM~ehas, Pasts ssbd ~•R+ ~ •~w•• ~ P~ ~.a~wnpeon ear troroae an Hosted C ~~ Gdnsttr~tblion esv Ie 1neMidin~ f d~snrpr0rti loyf- llidb+r csrsrnony tab. ~] 00 ~ ~ B % St0.0~ 53,!80.00 ~ 5t5-~ 54.050.00 5 5 5t0-~ ~•~ 5200.00 5175.00 4 512.50 u0.00 ~o 24 sts.ao so.oo 525.00 5~50.0~ so.oo St300.00 TOE C~~ 510,175.00 ~ Llr~t ~~ 535x.50 Total 535!1.50 50.00 50.00 ~ 55.920.75 15.920.75 53.00 S0_D0 So.00 ~ 50.00 Total Chsrpes ~. 380 Lisburn Road, Mechaaiccbeug, PA I70S5- Phoac: 717-?95-9580 Fax: 727-795-1002 Dinn 56,278.25 ttti 380 Lisburn Road, Mcc~aiccbtssg, PA 17055- Phonc: 727-795-9880 Fax: 71?-795-1002 - 1W F~dere~nt Ser., s House MusiC.Llle~Jaa ' 50.00 50 00 Red ar+d Red Linens 50.00 ~ 50.00 Our cer~te ~ 50.00 ~'~ ~ Setu 50.00 50.00 S Rbcttsl t X00,00 5300.00 Sound RsMal t 5384.00 x.00 i Liman Rant~M t 5356.00 5'356 00 Rented Dsrx~ Fbor ~ St.20!0.Q0 . t0_en Total ChsrOes Total Chafes i;::~ r • ~ • ~ ~ ~ .~?.: i.;i3~ SOW .' . D~ iR M slab Td Tas 1 Tas 2 so.sa >».a :~.tas.as at~.oo som sam soon sooo si~~ :o.o~ so.0o ~a.ee soos aee AAO ~~ ~~ 00 A.00 fO.N ~ i1~.IM-2i x.00 S3.i1~./i S0.00 iS70.N f~.OO Method of Permer~ N=rne on Carl: card NumFxr. Card Expiration: 8ar+k Naere: Driver's LicR: Less Deposit.- Amoucit Due: ?as ~ ~~ sl,oso.oo 50.00 S21-- 1 s~.asa.so VERIFICATION The undersigned, Kurt E. Williams, hereby verifies and states that: 1. He is the President of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. and authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. He is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ~ I1~~`~ K it iams, President Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. r ~ w ~ , . ~ r ~ VERIFICATION The undersigned, Luke A.V. Grumbine, hereby verifies and states that: 1. He is the Chief Financial Officer of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. and authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. He is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ~jl 1 `~~i ..~ ~ ~~ ~ , . ~. ~ ~. Luke A.V. Grumbine, CFO Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. VERIFICATION The undersigned, Jennifer Beard, hereby verifies and states that: 1. She is the Vice President of Sales for Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. and authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief; and 3. She is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. .-I Dated: 1/ (l `~ "~ ~.~ ~ Jenni er Beard, VP of Sales ' Libetty Forge Hospitality, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Evan C. Pappas, Esquire, of the law firm of Shumaker Williams, P.C., hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on this date by depositing a copy of the same in the possession of the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2392 Dated: ~/~~ SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. By Evan C. Pappas, I.D. # 03 P.O. BOX 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 763-1121 C`~ ~ C`J - j ..~ E '.'~ T -r1 --+5, 1 N -`ice } (V ~ fiL_? ,. ~ _ ; ,- t " ~"' i-Ca~e ~ ,- ~ ~~ .~ .._: ~} 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) LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. (Plaintiff) vs. HOWARD and RUTH ANN KRUG, Husband and Wife, KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, (Defendant) Husband and Wife No. OS-1356 ,Civil Tenn 1. State matter to be azgued (i.e., plaintiff s motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Plaintiff s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadines 2. Identify counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiff: Evan C. Pannas, Esquire (Name and Address) Shumaker Williams. P.O. Box 88, Harrisbure PA 17108 (b) for defendant: John W. Purcell Jr Esquire (Name and Address) Purcell, Krue and Haller. 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg PA 17102 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: Date: ~ ~ .l Plaintiff Attorney for 190152 Evan C. Pappas Prin[your name ~l a O c.: ~? 'st _ ?-~, ,, , il~r ;3t-' W ` r* qY c' ~r;~ o . ='~ .~ ~ i LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiff, v. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN, KRUG, and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 05-1356 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24'^ day of July, 2006, it is hereby ordered and directed that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. Evan C. Pappas, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Shumaker Williams, P.C. P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 John W. Purcell, Jr., Esq. Attorney for Defendants Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2392 BY THE COURT, M.L. Ebert, Jr., J. ~• [Stl-UKt ULEK antl EBERT. JJ. ~< Ir //~~ ,.~.~ .i 1'~J 1 l.. `h,-~ John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire PA Atty. I D No. 29955 PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Telephone: (717) 234-4178 Email: ipurcell@pkh.com LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 05-CIVIL HOWARD B. KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, Defendants and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, Defendants :CIVIL ACTION -LAW MOTION TO COMPEL AND NOW, comes Movants, by and through their attorney, John W. Purcell, Jr., and files the following Motion to Compel: 1. On August 1, 2006, Defendants served on the Plaintiff, Defendants First Set of Interrogatories and a Second Request for Production of Documents. 2. On or about October 25, 2006, counsel for the Plaintiff forwarded Plaintiffs Answers to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to counsel for the Defendants. 3. Interrogatory No. 26, requested as follows: As to any document requested in Defendants' Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff or Defendants' Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff, identify each and every document withheld or not provided and the reason for such. No. 26 Answer: See privilege log attached hereto. 4. In the privilege log attached to the aforementioned Answer, Plaintiff identifies two documents, one dated May 19, 2004 and described as "Shumaker Williams PC memorandum to file" and another document dated October 2, 2004 described as "memorandum from John Williams to Kurt Williams, Luke Grumbine and Marci DesForges re: Brett Shaffer". See copy of privilege log attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 5. Plaintiff claims that the documents should not be provided based on the attorney/client privilege and the privilege relating to mental impressions. 6. Defendants do not believe that either of the documents are protected by the claimed privileges inasmuch as of the date of the documents, there was no litigation or claim in existence and neither of the privileges could possibly apply. In addition, John Williams is not an attorney for or representative of the Plaintiff. 7. In addition, the documents appear sequentially with other documents already provided by the parties which bear directly on the claims of the Defendants and the defenses of the Plaintiff, as indicated by the documents already provided. 8. Plaintiff also provided a document referenced as Bates No. 1354, which is illegible. See attached Exhibit "B" 9. Finally, in request No. 10 of the Defendants' Second Request for Production of Documents, Plaintiff was specifically asked to provide an undated "confidential" email from an unknown person which preceded and was referenced by a document provided by the Plaintiff, with Bates No. 1065, dated April 5, 2005. Since the document is referenced in the provided Bates No. 1065, Defendants believe the document exists and should be provided. 10. Defendants have requested by correspondence on December 22, 2006, access and copies of the requested documents. See attached Exhibit "C". 11. Defendants received a reply that counsel for the Plaintiff would be out of town and not able to respond until January 9, 2007. 12. On January 15, 2007, counsel for the Defendants sent a second inquiry relating to the documents to counsel for the Plaintiff. See attached Exhibit "D". 13. Counsel for the Defendants on January 19, 2007, left a voice mail for counsel for the Plaintiff inquiring as to whether any response would be forthcoming, but to this date no reply or return phone call has been received. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter an Order requiring the Plaintiff to provide the documents requested. By PURCELL, KRUG AND HALLER ohn W. urcell, Jr., Esquire ~ #299 1'7~19...DJ~6rth Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 717 234-4178 Attorney for Defendants Date: February 9, 2007 EXHIBIT "A" .~ v ~ ~ U O r-, ~~ ~ o ~z v ~~ ~w 0 ~o ~. 0 a~i .~ a O N O N a o ~ o ~ a W °o b z ~b v rn ~ v > o ~ ~ o o~ o•.~,-d.b ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~~~ ~ ° ~' s ~ a~i ~" ^ , j y ~ v ~, ~ ~ ~ ,~ U ~ ~ 'o o ~. ~~ o ° 3 vex ~ ~ ~, rr1 ~ ~, ,tea U '~ ~ ~ `*~ a~i '~, ~' ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ o cd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bo v en c ~ v~ o c 0 ~i"o ~~s ~, ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~-. ~v~~v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ v ~ ~ .~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ Q., 0. or o y ~. rn ~ .~ M ~ O ~+ l ~ •~ M M O U' O ~ v~ z a v z v v ^~ H ~ a ~ c ~ ° ~ ~' ~. W ~ c A w o ~ v ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a; ~ as ti ~ v U ~ ~ ~; ~ i ~ o ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~w b v ~ i ~ ~a A ~ ~ v ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ W o 0 0 _ ~ ~ N A o o ° 0 o~ M O~ EXHIBIT "B" t immediately take the action discusse ~,. ~rtue issue, but I now know it is having '"`° ~-orate that we cannot allow to co ` .cts you or Bob may have for r '~ `, suit Qf "prospecting",then an i e person, make sure the ems ;deter to the affected person as to tech.: Marci or Luke can help you con p discuss with me at our Monday mE want #o discuss speafic and propeci ~OMPTLYfor so many reasons. UVhe© tha affected person is notified,have the Employee Notices in hand, have Kurt or ~ uke with you at such time as witnesses, get returned immediately the keys, fob, phone and other properly of the company and ESCbRT such person off the premises with notice not to return without first taildng to Luke or Kurt. Then"problems are so "cancerous" in that dept,to use Bob's expression, that we must excise it immediately by a replacement. We will discuss the time window to do this, but if we do not get it fixed in that time, then i see Bob fearing two hats tempority and you moving back to FOH until a replacement is found and Bob can get our of the kitchen. 'b-.;. We Have allowed this to continue much too long and it has consumed my time and the tme of other corporate tearrt"persons. end persons in. other depts and taken us all away from so many other masters. The opportunities for ~ nid he n the"' on, are now exhausted, not to mention the huge bias f~sses we are sufFering. I ~ '~ a ~tpe and competence of the person we need, t~utit ot$"Vvantt`to discuss on ~~.. ~ ~ ;-a tj.., r~ ,.....,,,. , Monday,.. eh ~l`~`t us` do sb~ A ut i'deem the DFB and Restaurant Manager as the`pFo~~er persons to address this . '~` ~ u~t and give you"any help you need, but you must ask for any help or advice you may ~,~ ., s~ ~_.: w' ~ ~ ~~~ r ~ other issues on my plate at this time. Thad told aboui~ one person that you fob. he may even know the person. "' ¢ ~'"'-~ ' ~ 1 ' .r , , ' ,Dirt Wms and Luke are to get control and copses ,; ,r'elant~~les in that dept. As" Jen and the matters you discussed with me last night. You should NOT have any more discussions with her` t~'r ahy -~inptoyrrient rr~tters at this time. Simply say to her, if she asks or wants to engage in discusssion that she should continue to do what she has been doing and cover her duly time,and that the company is still working over the best plan to implement for the sales dept and we are focused now on a new person in sales etc etc. I want some time to see what replacements have been found by Mara and to talk again to Donna Rau and that will not happen for another week, since she felt on vacation in Fla, as you heard. So take no affimative action re Jen at this time and we will only implement the program on incentives in sales, as we have been developing, to such other team members when finalized. You do have a full plate to get that dept re-organized and functioning and to keep on top of it. Again, bring to the Monday meeting any problems or issues that you need help on. We have made positive and noticeable progress since you arrived and for that we are grateful,but at the same time, we will not achieve our targets without some personnnel changes in key areas. Most of us know the problem areas so we need be become more pro active in taking action faster. _. I am not sure about how to addresss Dennis and that should be on the agenda on Monday as well and l woul~"""' welcome any advice and input from Bob on Dennis. ~:. thanks, jgw '.;, ~:-_ _ ., ',t y ~•-. .:~. = r - : ,; Friday, September 17, 2004 America Online: Globalu EXHIBIT "C" LAW OFFICES HOWARD B. KRUG LEON P. HALLER JOHN W. PuRCELL JR JILL M. WnvExn NICHOLE M. STACEY O'GORMAN LISA A. RYNARD LATOYA C. WINFIELD 1719 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17102-2392 TELEPHONE (717) 234-4178 FAx (717) 234-0409 HERSHEY (717)533-3836 JOSEPH NISSLEY (1910-1982) JOHN W.PURCELL OF COUNSEL December 22, 2006 VIA FAX ONLY: 763-7467 Harry Levy, Esquire Shumaker Williams PC 3425 Simpson Ferry Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc. vs. Kruct, et al Dear Harry: As a follow-up to our conversation of December 19, 2006 with respect to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Second Request for Production of Documents. With regard to Bates No. 1354, it is illegible. See enclosed. With regard to Docs. dated 05/19/04 and 10/02/04, (Privilege Log), respectively, Plaintiff has refused to provide the documents on the basis of attorney/client privilege and the privilege relating to the mental impressions of a representative concerning value/merit of a claim, defense, or respecting strategy. On October 2, 2004, there was no litigation or claim in existence. The privilege could not possibly apply. Furthermore, we are more interested in factual comments about the incident than Mr. Williams' evaluation of any possible claim. The documents in question certainly bear on what Liberty Forge knew and when it knew information about its employees, the very persons who personally dealt with Defendant. Request No. 10 of the Second Request for Production of Documents asked Plaintiff to provide the undated, "confidential" E- mail from an unknown person, which preceded and was answered by Bates No. 1065 (April 5, 2005.) Since No. 1065 was authored by John Williams, it is difficult for me to believe that the document does not exist and your chief officer/owner cannot provide the Harry Levy, Esquire December 22, 2006 Page Two document itself or information regarding the document. Please speak with Mr. Williams and advise, at the very least, the date and the identity of the person who authored the requested confidential E-mail. If Plaintiff persists in its refusal to provide the aforesaid documents, we have been instructed to file on December 28, 2006, a motion to compel you to provide same. Thank you. Sincerely yours, John W. Purcell, Jr. JWP,JR/clm cc: Howard & Ruth Ann Krug EXHIBIT "D" HOWARD B. KRUG LEON P. HALLER JOHN W. PURCELL JR JILT. M. WINEKA NICHOLE M. STACEY O'GORMAN LISA A. RYNARD LATOYA C. WINFIELD ~/LAW OFFICES ~/ ~~ 1719 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17102-2392 TELEPHONE (717) 234-4178 FAx (717) 234-0409 January 15, 2007 VIA FAX ONLY: 763-7467 Harry Levy, Esquire Shumaker Williams PC 3425 Simpson Ferry Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 HERSHEY (717)533-3838 JOSEPH NISSLEY (1910-1982) JOHN W. PURCELL OF COUNSEL Re: Liberty Forge Hospitality. Inc. vs. Rruc, et al Dear Harry: Just a short reminder that, now that you are back from the holidays, we need a response to my letter of December 22, 2006. In addition, while you are at it, without the necessity of filing another discovery request, we would appreciate a copy of the recent correspondence to the Township that was referenced in recent newspaper articles concerning the closing of Liberty Forge business. If you need a formal discovery request, I would be happy to provide it. I await your reply. Very truly yours, John W. Purcell, Jr. JWP, JR : cm cc: Howard & Ruth Ann Krug CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, ANGELA S. SNAPPER, an employee of the law firm of Purcell, Krug & Haller, counsel for Defendants, hereby certify that service of the foregoinc~111OTION TO COMPEL was made upon the following by facsimile and first-class mail, postage prepaid on February ~, 2007: First Class Mail Harry Levy, Esquire Shumaker Williams P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Facsimile (717} 763-7467 Ange S. Shaffer ;~~, w.+,,, ~~ ~~~ _ ~~ ~ ~;; ` ,Y$ 4~, 1 " ~ ~ f. ,~~ ~~ ~~ ~.: ~ :.c. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HOWARD B. KRUG AND RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife DEFENDANTS V. KARL BAU AND WENDY BAU, husband and wife, DEFENDANTS 05-1356 GIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2007, upon consideration of the Motion to Compel filed by the Defendants, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule is issued upon the Plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted; 2. The Plaintiff will file an answer on or before March 16, 2007; 3. If no answer to the Rule to Show cause is filed by the required date, the relief requested by Defendants shall be granted upon the Court's receipt of a Motion requesting Rule be made Absolute. If the Plaintiff files an answer to this Rule to Show Cause, and the answer raises disputed issues of material fact, an evidentiary hearing will then be scheduled. The Prothonotary is directed to forward said Answer to this Court. By the Court, ~, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Harry Levy, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Defendants bas ~~ 3 ~ti a 9 ~ It ~:_. ~'vl4$~ it3 LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiff VS. HOWARD KRUG and RUTH ANN KRUG, husband and wife, Defendants and KARL BAU and WENDY BAU, husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-1356 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JOINT PRAECIPE TO MARK THE CASE SETTLED AND DISCONTINUED TO THE DAUPHIN COUNTY PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above captioned matter Settled and Discontinued. SHUMAKER WILLIAMS Date: May, 2007 BY: Date: May ,2007 BY: Evan_C. Pappas, I.D. Counsel for Plaintiff Plll~CELL, KRU~QLLER -cell~Jr., Esquire Defendants t"1 -n ~ ~_: ~ , ..-- _., -~; - -'- r ~; ~ ~ ~