HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-2510 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Court of Common Pleas
Civil Cover. Sheet For Prothonotary Use Only:
CUMBERLAND County
Docket No:
The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This forth does not
supplement or replace the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law or rules of court.
Commencement of Action:
❑x Complaint ❑ Writ of Summons ❑ Petition ❑ Notice of Appeal
S ❑ Transfer from Another Jurisdiction ❑ Declaration of Taking
E
C Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name:
T . Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc. Battlestone Steel, LLC
[_
I El Check here if you are a Self- Represented (Pro Se) Litigant
O Name of Plaintiff /Appellant's Attorney: Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
N Dollar Amount Requested: X within arbitration limits
Are money damages requested? : ❑ Yes El No (Check one) outside arbitration limits
A
Is this a Class Action Suit? ❑ Yes ❑x No
Nature of the Case Place an "X" to the left of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your
PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one that
you consider most important.
TORT (do not include Mass Tort) CONTRACT (do not include Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS
❑ Intentional 9 Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies
❑ Malicious Prosecution ❑ Debt Collection: Credit Card ❑ Board of Assessment
❑ Motor Vehicle ❑ Debt Collection: Other ❑ Board of Elections
❑ Nuisance ❑ Dept. of Transportation
❑ Premises Liability ❑ Zoning Board
S ❑ Product Liability (does not include El Statutory Appeal: Other
mass tort) Employment Dispute:
E Discrimination
❑ Slander /Libel/ Defamation
C ❑ Other: ❑Employment Dispute: Other
Judicial Appeals
T ❑ MDJ - Landlord /Tenant
I ❑ Other: ❑ MDJ -Money Judgment
O MASS TORT ❑ Other:
❑ Asbestos
N ❑ Tobacco
❑ Toxic Tort - DES
❑ Toxic Tort - Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS
❑ Toxic Waste ❑ Ejectment ❑ Common Law /Statutory Arbitration
❑ Other: ❑ Eminent Domain /Condemnation ❑ Declaratory Judgment
B N Ground Rent ❑ Mandamus
❑ Landlord /Tenant Dispute ❑ Non- Domestic Relations
❑ Mortgage Foreclosure Restraining Order
PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY ❑ Partition ❑ Quo Warranto
N Dental ❑ Quiet Title ❑ Replevin
❑ Legal
❑ Medical ❑ Other: ❑ Other:
❑ Other Professional:
Pa.R.C.P. 205.5 212010
a
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire OF THE PRCI FLED -.G" EiCE
NOP OT fi r
Attorney ID # 78014
4833 Spring Road 2014 APR 22 P11 j. 00
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582 -4006 CUMBERLAND COUNTY
(717) 582 -7476 fax P ENNSYLVANIA
Attorney for Plaintiff
BREHM -LEBO ENGINEERING, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. �7 p�s! 1C U / ` L jjYl
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LLC, CIVIL ACTION — LAW
Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Battlestone Steel, LLC, Defendant
630 Freedom Drive
King of Prussia, PA 19406
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 Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose
money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249 -31.66
Date:
a, squire
o ID # 7801 3 pring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090 A0
(717) 582 -4006
Attorney for Plaintiff 4 10.3- 75,0 el lof�
C' # 330/
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
Attorney ID # 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582 -4006
(717) 582 -7476 fax
Attorney for Plaintiff
BREHM -LEBO ENGINEERING, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO.
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LLC, CIVIL ACTION —LAW
Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc., by and through its attorney,
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire, and files this Complaint and avers as follows:
1. The Plaintiff, Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc., is a Pennsylvania Corporation with an
address of 17 State Avenue, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013.
2. The Defendant, Battlestone Steel, LLC, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability
Company with an address of 630 Freedom Drive, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
3. The Defendant, Battlestone Steel, LLC's principal place of business is 630 Freedom
Drive, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
4. The Defendant was hired by Carlisle Events as the contractor to conduct the
mediation and renovations of the former Lear Corporation Plant and Building located at 50 Spring
Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. This facility was also known as the IAC Building.
5. On February 21, 2012, Mr. Abe Shah contacted Mr. Lebo through his secretary, Mai
Lee. During the process of demolition, Mr. Shah had destroyed several structural building
components within the factory /warehouse complex and was "required by the owner to hire a local
engineering company to assist him in this process of site demolition ".
t
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 1 -SITE STRUCTURAL (IAC BUILDING)
6. Beginning on February 21, 2012, Plaintiff was initially verbally asked by the
Defendant to look at structural issues throughout the facility to determine what items were critical
and provide designs and details to stabilize the structure.
7. As part of this task, the Plaintiff was directed to look at the remaining structures
to assure that there were no dangerous structural situations on the site.
8.. The total invoices for Task 1 total $4,472.60 and despite repeated demand for
payment, an outstanding balance for Task 1 exists in the amount of $2,235.30.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 2— SITE SURVEY (IAC BUILDING)
9. Continuing on February 29, 2012, Plaintiff requested a meeting to discuss
survey work requested by the Defendant.
10. On Thursday, March 1, 2012, Doug Brehm met with Abe Shah and Justin Crider
of the Defendants to review the scope of the survey request.
11. Doug Brehm and Plaintiff were verbally directed to inventory and document all
impervious surfaces, including paving, concrete buildings, etc., and to investigate all utilities
serving or crossing the site.
12. This task was completed over a period of several months and invoices totaling
$11,926.92 were provided to the Defendants.
13. Despite repeated demand for payments there is an outstanding balance of $10,071.32
or 84% uncollected for Task 2.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 3 —DEMO PLAN (IAC BUILDING)
14. On or about May 2012, at the verbal request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff
completed a demolition plan for the Defendant for purposes of recording how much concrete,
pavement, etc., would be generated in the demolition.
15. This task was completed by the Plaintiff and copies, of the plan were provided to
Defendant's field office in the late summer or early fall of 2012.
16. Invoices totaling $2,361.35 were provided to Plaintiff as a result of Task 3.
17. Despite repeated demand for payments there is a 100% outstanding balance of
$2,361.35 as a result of this Task.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 4— UTILITY RESEARCH (IAC BUILDING)
18. Also in May 2012, Plaintiff was verbally requested by the Defendant to research
records and coordinate with the Borough of Carlisle regarding documentation of the utilities located
at the site.
19. This task involved coordinating with the Borough of Carlisle for a demolition permit
and coordinating and facilitating the means of having all utilities disconnected in accordance with
all local, state, and federal laws. This task involved numerous site visits and meeting and
coordinating with contractors regarding these efforts.
20. As a result of Task 4, invoices totaling $8,514.50 were provided to the Defendant.
21. Despite repeated demand for payment, $6,121.35 or 72% remains outstanding as a
result of Task 4.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 5 —RECYCLING (IAC BUILDING)
22. Continuing to assist with the site project, in August 2013, Plaintiff was verbally
requested by Defendant to prepare used steel inventories and try to find buyers of used steel for
reuse on other projects so that the Plaintiff could consider "reselling" the steel for use in other
projects.
23. The Plaintiff also, as part of this task,, was evaluating the steel in a certain portion
of the complex to see if it could be resold to Carlisle Events for use in a new structure at the car
show /fairgrounds.
24. Plaintiff was verbally requested by Defendant to find a company that might
consider purchasing the transformer oil remaining on site in 55 gallon barrels.
24. Additionally, this task included the Plaintiff trying to find a buyer for diesel
fuel from a 20- thousand gallon tank on the site. Plaintiff located a buyer, but when the parties
attempted to test the diesel fuel, there was no oil in the tank.
25. As a result of this Task, Plaintiff provided the Defendant an invoice in the amount
of $2,292.82.
26. Despite repeated demand for payment, payment is still outstanding in the amount of
$2,292.82 or 100% of the total billed for this Task.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 6— NPDES (IAC BUILDING)
27. Also in August, 2013, at a site meeting, Plaintiff was verbally directed by
Defendant to prepare an NPDES permit for the Defendant. At a site meeting in the presence of
Carlisle Events representative, Scott Amig, Mr. Shah agreed to pay the Plaintiff between $20,000
and $30,000 to prepare an NPDES permit.
28. This plan and permit were to also consider future uses for this site as proposed by the
current owner. The current owner verbally agreed to pay their portion of any planning efforts
related to the NPDES permit.
29. As a result of this Task, the Plaintiff performed due diligence in researching all
environmental reports to be sure that they were properly identified and addressed any issues that
might represent themselves as possible contaminants.
30. This task also included several meetings at the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection to identify and resolve any issues with the Department for the various
roles in the permit process.
31. In December 2012, Greg Lebo re- advised the Defendant that this process would
likely have a cost of approximately $30,000.00.
32. In March 2013, the Defendant told the Plaintiff to stop working on the permit until it
was resolved as to how much of the expense Defendant was going to be able to have Carlisle
Events cover.
33. As a result of Task 6, Plaintiff incurred costs and expenses and provided invoices to
the Defendant in the amount of $10,330.25.
34. Despite repeated demand for payment, $10,330.25 or 100% of the total billed for this .
task remains outstanding.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 7 - PennDOT H.O.P. (IAC BUILDING)
35. Continuing in August 2013, Plaintiff was verbally directed to prepare and
facilitate the obtaining of highway occupancy permits through the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation to permit utility work to be completed within the State's Right -of -Way.
36. Pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the Plaintiff split up its time on this work so
that some of the work was billed to Carlisle Events.
37. Plaintiff provided an invoice to the Defendant in the amount of $1,630.40.
38. Despite repeated demand for payment, $1,630.40 or 100% of the total billed for this
task remains outstanding.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -XX -135, INVESTORS BANK Construction Estimating
39. In August 2013, in addition to the site work Plaintiff was also verbally asked by the
Defendant to start reviewing project listings in New York City.that the Defendant wanted to bid
on to do the construction renovations.
40. The Plaintiff looked at several projects and provided feedback on critical items in
the bid specification packages that the Defendant needed to consider.
41. On or about January 2013, Plaintiff provided Defendant with an invoice, No.
0016829, in the amount of $795.40.
42. Despite repeated demand for payment, $795.40 or 100% of the total billed for this
project remains outstanding.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -XX -135, INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
43. Plaintiff was verbally asked by the Defendant to speak to the contractor at a
Comfort Suites to try and sell them used or recycled steel for a project they were doing on the
Harrisburg Pike.
44. As part of this Project Number, Plaintiff was also asked to find the owner of a
particular Dauphin Oil property located on PA State Route 0641.
45. At the point where Plaintiff secured information about the ownership of the Dauphin
Oil property, Defendant had continued to pay various invoices from the Plaintiff.
46. On or about January 2013, Plaintiff provided the Defendant with an invoice, No.
0016830, in the amount of $1590.80 as a result of this project.
47. Despite repeated demand for payment, $1,590.80 or 100% of the total billed for
this project remains outstanding.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012-CL-098,. BARGE DESIGN
48. Plaintiff was verbally asked by the Defendant and by his secretary via email to
design an equipment barge out of old propane tanks for use to transport equipment from the MV
Miner wreck site to a land port. Plaintiff performed preliminary design and conceptual drawings of
the structure.
49. On or about January 2013, Plaintiff provided the Defendant with an invoice, No.
0016827, in the amount of $2,762.60 as a result of this project.
50. Despite repeated demand for payment, $2,762.60 or 100% of the total billed for the
project remains outstanding.
COUNT I — BREACH OF CONTRACT
51. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
52. Plaintiff at all times performed work in good faith and provided services of value
to. Defendant. On several occasions as the Plaintiff verbally demanded payment from the
Defendant, the Defendant demanded that he was a "man of his word and would pay his bills ".
53. The above - referenced projects constitute an on -going and continuous oral contract
between Plaintiff and Defendant, as the Defendant continued to declare that he would pay but
that the Plaintiff needed to complete the NPDES permit process so that he could finish the
project..
54. In the alternative, each project number constitutes a separate oral contract between
Plaintiff and Defendant.
55. Plaintiff met all conditions precedent to payment under the contracts.
56. Despite request, Defendant has breached the contract and has failed to make
payment for services rendered as set forth above.
57. As a result, Defendant is in breach of contract.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on behalf of Plaintiff against Defendant in the
amount of Forty Thousand One Hundred Ninety -One and 59/100 Dollars ($40,191.59) with simple
interest.
COUNT II — QUANTUM MERIUT
58. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein..
59. Defendant knowingly received the value of the services of Plaintiff.
60. The charges for said services by Plaintiff are reasonable and industry standard.
61. Defendant had knowledge of all services to be performed by Plaintiff and directed
Plaintiff to perform those services.
62. By allowing Defendant to retain the benefit from Plaintiff's services, it will be
unjustly enriched and Plaintiff has suffered severe financial detriment.
63. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the fair market value of the services rendered
and benefits provided to Defendant.
64. The reasonable value of Plaintiff's services provided to Defendant is $40,191.59.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in the
amount of Forty Thousand One Hundred Ninety -One and 59/100 Dollars ($40,191.59) with simple
interest in the amount of 1.5% monthly as typically stated industry standard rates.
Respectfully submitted,
Date:
IW. rk
e Allshouse, squire
y ID # 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582 -4006
Attorney for Plaintiff
e �
VERIFICATION
I, Gregory S. Lebo, P.E., Vice President of Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc., being authorized
to do so, verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and�belief.
I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: 2 14 B
i Gregory S: Lebo,'P.E., Vice President , t
. r ,
SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Ronny R Anderson _
TILED—OFFICE
Sheriff OF THE PROTHONOTARY
y, of CitiiTer
Jody S Smith C'G 1 ti Hh 52
Chief Deputy —B fit'"{
Richard W Stewart :a;!`s CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Solicitor OFFICE OF THEy,mERIFF PENNSYLVANIA
Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc.
vs. Case Number
Battlestone Steel, LLC 2014-2510
SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE
04/22/2014 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry
for the within named Defendant to wit: Battlestone Steel, LLC, but was unable to locate the Defendant in
the Sheriffs bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Montgomery, Pennsylvania to serve
the within Complaint & Notice according to law.
05/06/2014 The Sheriff of Montgomery County, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search
and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit: Battlestone Steel, LLC, but was unable to locate the
Defendant in his bailiwick. The Montgomery County Sheriff therefore returns the within requested
Complaint & Notice as "Not Served" at 630 Freedon Avenue, Floor 3, Suite 32, King of Prussia, PA
19406.
SHERIFF COST: $37.49 SO ANSWERS,
May 06, 2014 RONNY R ANDERSON, SHERIFF
(c) CountySuite Sheriff, Teleosoft. Inc.
0
N
N
N
I0
0
X Manner:
w
a Notes:
LL
0
Y
M - [Serve To:
w
Name:
Primary
Address:
ce0
0 Phone:
J
LL
Alternate
z Address:
w
ZPhone:
0
Ronny R Anderson
Sheriff
Jody S Smith
Chief Deputy
VO0 tic/ 2/
SHERIFF'S (5FFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNT
ti
Ot E IInOtt/
�j/b
ir
r VS�
r e, tJw'
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
Richard W Stewart
Solicitor
Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc.
vs.
Battlestone Steel, LLC
Case Number
2014-2510
SERVICE COVER SHEET
Service Details:
Category: ICivil Action - Complaint & Notice
w
w
re Name:
w
M
Deputize
Expires:
05/22/2014
Zone:
Warrant:
[Final Service:
Battlestone Steel, LLC
630 Freedon Avenue
Floor 3, Suite 32
King of Prussia, PA 19406
DOB:
[Attorney / Originator:
0
0
N
0
N
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LL(
Served: Personally • Adult In Charge • Posted • Other
Adult In
Charge:
Relation:
Date:
Deputy:
Time:
Mileage:
Mark W. Allshouse
Phone:
[Service Attempts:
Date:
Time:
Mileage:
Deputy:
5
G
J
[Notes / Special Instructions:
No LI5TUJG 1Q- & 'I kris fr4-045c
Vit) �dt lc,o 20 1-0114 it t O
, -, I 7-1:3 :
=_4U'«rte;
-, .'• I`i
_4
."'T)a.:r
Now, April 22, 2014 I, Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Montgomery- oun y to
execute service of the documents herewith and make return thereof according to law.
Return To:
Cumberland County Sheriffs Office
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
)
ic) CouritySu:te Sheriff Te;eesoft, Inc
Ronny R Anderson, Sheriff
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
Attorney ID # 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
(717) 582-7476 fax
Attorney for Plaintiff
FILEO-OFFICE_
OF THE PROTHONOTARY
20! MAY Ili AM Ili 47
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
BREHM-LEBO ENGINEERING, INC.,
v.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 14-2510 Civil Term
: CIVIL ACTION — LAW
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LLC,
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please reissue the Complaint in the above -captioned matter as the original Complaint will
soon expire. Kindly forward the Reinstated Complaint to the Sheriff of Cumberland County for
deputization and service by the Sheriff of Chester County.
Date:
k W. Allshouse, -quire
ttorney ID #78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Plaintiff
117/.7.- ro6ta7ty
Cktrf? 3.a"
/z 3O
Ronny R Anderson
Sheriff
Jody S Smith
Chief Deputy
Richard W Stewart
Solicitor
SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
bt Cumber,
FTHE S RIFF
t-
THEr THOk, TA
14 i3 Pig 2: 52.
CUMBERLAND �SPENNSYLVANIA A
Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc.
vs.• Case Number
Battlestone Steel, LLC 2014-2510
SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE
05/14/2014 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry
for the within named Defendant to wit: Battlestone Steel, LLC, but was unable to locate the Defendant in
the Sheriffs bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Chester, Pennsylvania to serve the
within Complaint & Notice according to law.
06/13/2014 The requested Complaint & Notice returned by the Sheriff of Chester County, the within named
Defendant Battlestone Steel, LLC, not found. Carolyn B. Welsh, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to
and made part of the within record.
SHERIFF COST: $37.49 SO ANSWERS,
June 10, 2014 RONR ANDERSON, SHERIFF
(c) CountySuite Sheriff, Tel"osoft, Inc.
Ronny R Anderson
Sheriff
Jody S Smith
Chief Deputy
'/<74-- c
171.3 5 -
SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
�Q�vim of Curr Lrrr,�„0
•
OFFICE OF WE SHERIFF
Richard W Stewart
Solicitor
!95 EAST SWEDESFORD RAOD, NO. 268, WAYNE, PA 191 EXP: 06/13/2014
Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc.
vs.
Battlestone Steel, LLC
Case Number
2014-2510
[Service Details:
SERVICE COVER SHEET
Category:
Manner:
Notes:
Civil Action - Complaint & Notice
Deputize
Expires:
06/13/2014
Zone:
Warrant:
[Serve To:
Name:
Primary
Address:
Phone:
Alternate
Address:
Phone:
[Final Service:
Battlestone Steel, LLC
295 East Swedesford Raod
No. 268
Wayne, PA 19087
DOB:
Served:
Adult In
Charge:
Relation:
Date:
Deputy:
Personally • Adult In Charge - Posted • Other
Time:
Mileage:
[Attorney / Originator:
Name:
Mark W. Allshouse
Phone:
L ervice Attempts:
(1rHL1
31(b ij/'l
Date:
o • Time:
▪ Mileage:
v
N Deputy:
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LL(
2
3
5
[Notes / Special Instructions:
1.ocraTlem. s 4 UIQ .--orte acs T -s e0.130A c4Nh.s'EavE Pa ?oX&5
3-7 ice--_ A 4fri3
Now, May 14, 2014 I, Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Chester County to,,
execute service of the documents herewith and make return thereof according to law. -
Return To:
Cumberland County Sheriffs Office
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
fci GountySuite Sheriff. Teleosoft. Inc.
R -{f_
Ronny R Anderson, Sheriff
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
Attorney ID # 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
(717) 582-7476 fax
Attorney for Plaintiff
i'ROTH'01 Q
ONNOV j: 26' , :Mai 0
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
BREHM-LEBO ENGINEERING, INC., : IN THE COURT OFCOMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. : NO. 14-2510 Civil Term
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LLC, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please reissue the Complaint in the above -captioned matter as the original Complaint has
expired. Kindly forward the Reinstated Complaint to my office for service.
Date: 11/25/N
ark. W. Allsho . se, Esquire
Attorney ID #7:014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Plaintiff
11'15 PA A11-4
e13g73
0* 3139g5
BREHM-LEBO ENGINEERING, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL4VANA
v. : NO. 14-2510 Civil Term
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LLC, , : CIVIL ACTION — LAW
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
I, Wendy R. Bennett, Esquire, accept service of the Complaint on behalf of Defendant,
Battlestone Steel, LLC, regarding the foregoing action.
Date: aktlq.
Wend ' is ehnett, Esquire
Cohen, Seglias, Pallas, Greenhall & Furman, PC
United Plaza, 19th Floor
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 564-1700
(267) 238-4402 (fax)
COHEN, SEGLIAS, PALLAS,
GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C.
Edward Seglias, Esquire, PA Id. #55103
Wendy R. Bennett, Esquire, PA Id. #208968
eseglias@cohenseglias.com
wbennett@cohenseglias.com
30 South 17th Street, 19th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-564-1700
BREHM-LEBO ENGINEERING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
To Plaintiff:
You are hereby notified to file a written
response to the enclosed Preliminary
Objections within twenty (20) days from
service hereof or a judgment may be entered
against you.
Cohen, 'ias, Pallas, Greenhall
& Furm. , P.C.
Attorneys.for Plaintiff/Claimant,
Battlestone Steel, LLC
. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
. OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LLC, NO. 14-2510 Civil Term
Defendant.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT BATTLESTONE STEEL, LLC
TO THE COMPLAINT OF BREHM-LEBO ENGINEERING, INC.
Defendant Battlestone Steel, LLC ("Battlestone") by and through its undersigned counsel
hereby preliminarily objects to the Complaint of Plaintiff Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc.
("Brehm -Lebo"), and in support thereof state as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. Brehm -Lebo commenced this civil action by Complaint against Battlestone on or
about April 22, 2014 which was re -instated on May 14, 2014 and again on November 26, 2014.
A true, accurate and complete copy of Brehm-Lebo's Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit
2. In the Complaint, Brehm -Lebo sets forth causes of action for Breach of Contract
(Count I) and Quantum Meruit (Count II), generally alleging that it is owed $40,191.59 for work
it purports to have performed pursuant to an oral contract and as allegedly set forth in certain
invoices which are not attached to the Complaint.
3. Moreover, in the Complaint, Brehm -Lebo alleges that Battlestone and/or its
agents made certain specific, quoted statements that Brehm Lebo alleges support its claims
without providing any details or specific reference to the date or other contextual information as
to when and where such statements were made.
FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a) (2), (3) and (4) AND 1019
No Quantum Meruit and breach of contract
4. Battlestone incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
5. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a) provides, in relevant part:
Preliminary objections may be filed by any party on any pleading
and are limited to the following grounds:
(2) failure of a pleading to conform to law or rule of
court ...;
(3) insufficient specificity in a pleading; [and]
(4) legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurrer)[.]
6. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure also govern the contents of pleadings
and the degree of specificity in averments. Specifically, Pa.R.C.P. 1019 provides, in relevant
part, that:
(a) The material facts on which a cause of action or defense is
based shall be stated in a concise and summary form [and]
2
(f) Averments of time, place and items of special damage
shall be specifically stated.
Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) and (f).
7. Rule 1019(a) requires that:
the complaint must notify the defendant of the plaintiff's claims by
stating the ground upon which those claims rest and by identifying
the issues in dispute. . . . This notice enables the defendant to
prepare a proper and responsive defense.... It also promotes the
speedy and inexpensive resolution of disputes.
Dickerson v. Brink Truck Leasing, 524 A.2d 908, 910 (Pa. Super. 1987) (citations omitted).
8. "Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) has been construed to mean that the complaint must not only
apprise the defendant of the claim being asserted, but it must also summarize the essential [or
material] facts to support the claim." Krajsa v. Keypunch, Inc., 622 A.2d 355, 357 (Pa. Super.
1993) (citing Dickerson, 524 A.2d at 910).
9. "The purpose of this rule is to require the plaintiff to disclose the material facts
sufficient to enable the adverse party to prepare the case." Bennett v. Beard, 919 A.2d 365,
367 (Pa. Commw. 2007) (citing Landau v. Western Pennsylvania, National Bank, 282 A.2d 335,
339 (Pa. 1971); see also Marine Bank v. Orlando, 25 Pa. D. & C.3d 264, 268 (Pa. Erie Cty. Ct.
Comm. Pl. April 7, 1982) ("It cannot be doubted that an essential purpose of pleading is to
provide the opposite party with knowledge of facts surrounding the cause of action.")
10. A defendant is entitled to a specific statement of the claims alleged. In re: Estate
of Davis, 348 A.2d 134, 135 (Pa. 1975).
11. Averments relating to place and time, in relation to an oral contract and/or
statements allegedly made by defendant, must be pled with specificity. Id.
12. When alleging an oral contract, "[d]efendants are entitled to an itemized statement
of the services rendered, their nature, their particular value and the circumstances under which
they were rendered, including times and places." Huey v. Newcomer, 7 Pa. D. & C.2d 67, 68
(Pa. Fayette Cty. Ct. Comm. Pl. July 2, 1956).
13. "Damages in support of an action in quantum meruit are essentially special, and
must be pleaded in accordance with Pa. R. C. P. 1019(0." Id. at 68-69 (citing Lenker v. Thayer,
3 Pa. D. & C. 2d 117 (Pa. Dauphin Cty. Ct. Comm. Pl. May 2, 1955)); accord Pulli v. Warren
Nat'l Bank, 412 A.2d 464, 465 (Pa. 1979).
14. "In determining sufficiency of the pleadings in a complaint, the court will
consider `whether the plaintiff's complaint informs the defendant with accuracy and
completeness of the specific basis on which recovery is sought so that he may know without
question upon what grounds to make his defense.' Capital One Bank, N.A. v. Clevenstine, 7 Pa.
D. & C.5th 153, 153 (Pa. Centre Cty. Ct. Comm. Pl. Jan. 30, 2009) (quoting Rambo v. Greene,
906 A.2d 1232, 1236 (Pa. Super. 2006).
15. "The Rules of Civil Procedure are drawn on the theory that the issues are to be
formed by the pleadings and the discovery process is merely an auxiliary aid to counsel."
Marine Bank, 25 Pa. D. & C.3d at 267 (finding a plaintiff is not entitled to relief unless
allegations setting forth entitlement to relief is adequately pled in the complaint).
16. Where allegations in a pleading are not specific, a party may file a preliminary
objection ... or to move to strike that portion of the pleading as not conforming to the rules of
court under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) and (3). Connor v. Allegheny Gen. Hosp.,-461 A.2d 600, 603
n.3 (Pa. 1983).
17. As pled, Brehm-Lebo's claim for $40,191.59 allegedly arises from what is
4
described as a "verbal" direction or "task" or, giving all benefit to Brehm -Lebo, is alleged to be
an an oral contract and/or a claim arising under the quasi -contractual theory of quantum meruit.
See e.g., Exhibit "A" at ¶¶ 6, 11, 14, 18, 22, 27, 35, 39, 43, 48, ; see also ¶ 36 referencing an
"agreement of the parties" and ¶¶ 53-54 alleging "on-going and continuous" or "separate" oral
contract(s).
18. In addition, Brehm-Lebo's claims allegedly rely upon certain quoted statements
made by Battlestone Steel and/or its agent(s). Id. at ¶¶ 5, 52
19. However, Brehm -Lebo fails to specifically provide "an itemized statement of the
services rendered" and/or an plead "their nature, their particular value and the circumstances
under which they were rendered, including times and places" with specificity in derogation of
Pa.R.C.P. 1019.
20. Moreover, Brehm -Lebo fails to identify the source from which the quoted
statements allegedly made by Battlestone Steel and/or its agent(s) are taken or otherwise plead
the facts and circumstances surrounding and giving rise to said quoted statements with the
specificity required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019.
21. Finally, in its claim for quantum meruit, Brehm -Lebo has failed to identify with
any specificity how its charges are "reasonable and industry standard" or how it has valued the
"fair market value" of its services. Id. at ¶¶ 60 and 63.
22. As such, Brehm-Lebo's Complaint must be striken pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
1028(a)(2), (3) and (4) and for lacking the requisite specificity and otherwise failing to conform
to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
WHEREFORE, Battlestone Steel, LLC respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
SUSTAIN its Preliminary Objections, STRIKE the Complaint of Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc.
5
and grant such additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2), (3) and (4) AND 1019
Writing not attached.
23. Battlestone incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
24. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(i) further requires that "[w]hen any claim or defense is based
upon a writing, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing, or the material part thereof, but if
the writing or copy is not accessible to the pleader, it is sufficient so to state, together with the
reason, and to set forth the substance in writing." Pa.R.C.P. 1019(i).
25. Failure to attach the writings which assertedly establish a plaintiff's right to a
judgment against defendant, or failure to otherwise explain why such writings cannot be attached
as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019(i), is fatal to the plaintiffs claims set forth in its complaint.
Atlantic Credit and Finance, Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340, 345, ¶13 (Pa. Super. 2003); see also
General State Authority v. Lawrie and Green, 356 A.2d 851, 854 (Pa. Commw. 1976) (defendant
was entitled to have those documents which formed basis of demand appended to the complaint);
Laska v. Winter, 79 Pa. D. & C. 170, 178 (Pa. Bucks Cty. Ct. Comm. Pl. March 12, 1951)
(Under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(i), plaintiff must attach a copy of writings upon which its claim is based
or explain why he cannot do so.)
26. Accordingly, "a complaint should be stricken for failure to attach an essential
document." Adamo v. Cini, 656 A.2d 576, 579 (Pa. Cmmw. 1995).
27. Brehm -Lebo indirectly refers to alleged outstanding invoices provided by Brehm -
Lebo to support the work it purports to have performed. See e.g., Exhibit "A" at ¶¶ 8, 12, 16, 20,
25, 33, 37, 41, 46, 49,
6
28. Whereas Brehm -Lebo has identified that the agreement upon which its claims are
based was oral (thus satisfying Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h)), Brehm-Lebo's Complaint is still "deficient"
in that its claims clearly arise from invoices - which are writings that are not attached to Brehm-
Lebo's Complaint — in derogation of Pa.R.C.P. 1019(i).
29. Moreover, Brehm -Lebo has failed to elucidate the reason that it has failed to
attach the referenced writings that support its alleged claim to its Complaint. See generally
Exhibit "A."
30. Accordingly, Brehm -Lebo has failed to attach a copy of these invoices which are
writings and otherwise essential documents that apprise Battlestone of the specific material facts
necessary for Brehm -Lebo to prevail upon its claims. See generally Adamo, 656 A.2d at 579.
31. Moreover, Brehm -Lebo' s failure to provide writings referenced in its Complaint
is compounded by its further failure to adequately apprise Battlestone of the specifics of the
work that was allegedly performed by Brehm -Lebo for Battlestone's benefit including the dates,
the labor rates, the amount of time and actual tasks allegedly performed by Brehm -Lebo.
32. Due to the sparsity of specifics within the allegations found in the Complaint and
Brehm-Lebo's failure to attach essential writings it references within its Complaint, Battlestone
can in no way adequately answer Brehm-Lebo's Complaint or prepare a defense to Brehm-
Lebo's claims.
33. As such, Brehm-Lebo's Complaint must be striken pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
1028(a)(2), (3) and (4) and for lacking the requisite specificity and for failure to attach
referenced writings as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019(i).
WHEREFORE, Battlestone Steel, LLC respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
SUSTAIN its Preliminary Objections, STRIKE the Complaint of Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc.
7
and grant such additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Dated: January 5, 2015 By:
8
COHEN, SEGLIAS, PALLAS,
GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C.
1
EDWAt►ir'' LIAS ESQUIRE
WENDY R. BENNETT, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Defendant, Battlestone Steel,
LLC
EXHIBIT "A"
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
Attorney ID # 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
(717) 582-7476 fax
Attorney for Plaintiff
CE
OF THE
NOTARY.
'wP
2314 APR 22 P ! 3: 00
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
BREHM-LEBO ENGINEERING, INC.,
v.
:.IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff , : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. /V- 921- /o (iv.
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LLC,
: CIVIL ACTION — LAW
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Battlestone Steel, LLC, Defendant
630 Freedom Drive
King of Prussia, PA 19406
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 Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose
money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
Date: ' /a2 o7b1 y.
PROTHQ OTARY
ark W. Allshouse. squire
Attorney ID # 7801
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Plaintiff
TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
M Testimony whereof,1 here unto set my hand
and the seplof said ColtM .v
This day of , ,r
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
Attorney ID # 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
(717) 582-7476 fax
Attorney for Plaintiff
BREHM-LEBO ENGINEERING, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. : NO.
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LLC, : CIVIL ACTION — LAW
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc., by and through its attorney,
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire, and files this Complaint and avers as follows:
1. The Plaintiff, Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc., is a Pennsylvania Corporation with an
address of 17 State Avenue, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013.
2. The Defendant, Battlestone Steel, LLC, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability
Company with an address of 630 Freedom Drive, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
3. The Defendant, Battlestone Steel, LLC's principal place of business is 630 Freedom
Drive, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
4. The Defendant was hired by Carlisle Events as the contractor to conduct the
mediation and renovations of the former Lear Corporation Plant and Building located at 50 Spring
Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. This facility was also known as the IAC Building.
5. On February 21, 2012, Mr. Abe Shah contacted Mr. Lebo through his secretary, Mai
Lee. During the process of demolition, Mr. Shah had destroyed several structural building
components within the factory/warehouse complex and was "required by the owner to hire a local
engineering company to assist him in this process of site demolition".
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 1- SITE STRUCTURAL (IAC BUILDING)
6. Beginning on February 21, 2012, Plaintiff was initially verbally asked by the
Defendant to look at structural issues throughout the facility to determine what items were critical
and provide designs and details to stabilize the structure.
7. As part of this task, the Plaintiff was directed to look at the remaining structures
to assure that there were no dangerous structural situations on the site.
8. The total invoices for Task 1 total $4,472.60 and despite repeated demand for
payment, an outstanding balance for Task 1 exists in the amount of $2,235.30.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 2- SITE SURVEY (IAC BUILDING)
9. Continuing on February 29, 2012, Plaintiff requested a meeting to discuss
survey work requested by the Defendant.
10. On Thursday, March 1, 2012, Doug Brehm met with Abe Shah and Justin Crider
of the Defendants to review the scope of the survey request.
11. Doug Brehm and Plaintiff were verbally directed to inventory and document all
impervious surfaces, including paving, concrete buildings, etc., and to investigate all utilities
serving or crossing the site.
12. This task was completed over a period of several months and invoices totaling
$11,926.92 were provided to the Defendants.
13. Despite repeated demand for payments there is an outstanding balance of $10,071.32
• or 84% uncollected for Task 2.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 3 - DEMO PLAN (IAC BUILDING)
14. On or about May 2012, at the verbal request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff
completed a demolition plan for the Defendant for purposes of recording how much concrete,
pavement, etc., would be generated in the demolition.
15. This task was completed by the Plaintiff and copies of the plan were provided to
Defendant's field office in the late summer or early fall of 2012.
16. Invoices totaling $2,361.35 were provided to Plaintiff as a result of Task 3.
17. Despite repeated demand for payments there is a 100% outstanding balance of
$2,361.35 as a result of this Task.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 4— UTILITY RESEARCH (IAC BUILDING)
18. Also in May 2012, Plaintiff was verbally requested by the Defendant to research
records and coordinate with the Borough of Carlisle regarding documentation of the utilities located
at the site.
19. This task involved coordinating with the Borough of Carlisle for a demolition permit
and coordinating and facilitating the means of having all utilities disconnected in accordance with
all local, state, and federal laws. This task involved numerous site visits and meeting and
coordinating with contractors regarding these efforts.
20. As a result of Task 4, invoices totaling $8,514.50 were provided to the Defendant.
21. Despite repeated demand for payment, $6,121.35 or 72% remains outstanding as a
result of Task 4.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 5— RECYCLING (IAC BUILDING)
22. Continuing to assist with the site project, in August 2013, Plaintiff was verbally
requested by Defendant to prepare used steel inventories and try to find buyers of used steel for
reuse on other projects so that the Plaintiff could consider "reselling" the steel for use in other
projects.
23. The Plaintiff also, as part of this task, was evaluating the steel in a certain portion
of the complex to see if it could be resold to Carlisle Events for use in a new structure at the car
show/fairgrounds.
24. Plaintiff was verbally requested by Defendant to find a company that might
consider purchasing the transformer oil remaining on site in 55 gallon barrels.
24. Additionally , this task included the Plaintiff trying to find a buyer for diesel
fuel from a 20- thousand gallon tank on the site. Plaintiff located a buyer, but when the parties
attempted to test the diesel fuel,there was no oil in the tank.
25. As a result of this Task, Plaintiff provided the Defendant an invoice in the amount
of $2,292.82.
26. Despite repeated demand for payment, payment is still outstanding in the amount of
$2,292.82 or 100% of the total billed for this Task.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 6- NPDES (IAC BUILDING)
27. Also in August, 2013, at a site meeting, Plaintiff was verbally directed by
Defendant to prepare an NPDES permit for the Defendant. At a site meeting in the presence of
Carlisle Events representative, Scott Amig, Mr. Shah agreed to pay the Plaintiff between $20,000
and $30,000 to prepare an NPDES permit.
28. This plan and permit were to also consider future uses for this site as proposed by the
current owner. The current owner verbally agreed to pay their portion of any planning efforts
related to the NPDES permit.
29. As a result of this Task, the Plaintiff performed due diligence in researching all
environmental reports to be sure that they were properly identified and addressed any issues that
might represent themselves as possible contaminants.
30. This task also included several meetings at the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection to identify and resolve any issues with the Department for the various
roles in the permit process.
31. In December 2012, Greg Lebo re -advised the Defendant that this process would
likely have a cost of approximately $30,000.00.
32. In March 2013, the Defendant told the Plaintiff to stop working on the permit until it
was resolved as to how much of the expense Defendant was going to be able to have Carlisle
Events cover.
33. As a result of Task 6, Plaintiff incurred costs and expenses and provided invoices to
the Defendant in the amount of $10,330.25.
34. Despite repeated demand for payment, $10,330.25 or 100% of the total billed for this
task remains outstanding.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -023, TASK 7 — PennDOT H.O.P. (IAC BUILDING)
35. Continuing in August 2013, Plaintiff was verbally directed to prepare and
facilitate the obtaining of highway occupancy permits through the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation to permit utility work to be completed within the State's Right -of -Way.
36. Pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the Plaintiff split up its time on this work so
that some of the work was billed to Carlisle Events.
37. Plaintiff provided an invoice to the Defendant in the amount of $1,630.40.
38. Despite repeated demand for payment, $1,630.40 or 100% of the total billed for this
task remains outstanding.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -XX -135, INVESTORS BANK Construction Estimating
39. In August 2013, in addition to the site work Plaintiff was also verbally asked by the
Defendant to start reviewing project listings in New York City that the Defendant wanted to bid
on to do the construction renovations.
40. The Plaintiff looked at several projects and provided feedback on critical items in
the bid specification packages that the Defendant needed to consider.
41. On or about January 2013, Plaintiff provided Defendant with an invoice, No.
0016829, in the amount of $795.40.
42. Despite repeated demand for payment, $795.40 or 100% of the total billed for this
project remains outstanding.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -XX -135, INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
43. Plaintiff was verbally asked by the Defendant to speak to the contractor at a
Comfort Suites to try and sell them used or recycled steel for a project they were doing on the
Harrisburg Pike.
44. As part of this Project Number, Plaintiff was also asked to find the owner of a
particular Dauphin Oil property located on PA State Route 0641.
45. At the point where Plaintiff secured information about the ownership of the Dauphin
Oil property, Defendant had continued to pay various invoices from the Plaintiff.
46. On or about January 2013, Plaintiff provided the Defendant with an invoice, No.
0016830, in the amount of $1590.80 as a result of this project.
47. Despite repeated demand for payment, $1,590.80 or 100% of the total billed for
this project remains outstanding.
PROJECT NUMBER: 2012 -CL -098, BARGE DESIGN
48. Plaintiff was verbally asked by the Defendant and by his secretary via email to
design an equipment barge out of old propane tanks for use to transport equipment from the MV
Miner wreck site to a land port. Plaintiff performed preliminary design and conceptual drawings of
the structure.
49. On or about January 2013, Plaintiff provided the Defendant with an invoice, No.
0016827, in the amount of $2,762.60 as a result of this project.
50. Despite repeated demand for payment, $2,762.60 or 100% of the total billed for the
project remains outstanding.
COUNT I — BREACH OF CONTRACT
51. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
52. Plaintiff at all times performed work in good faith and provided services of value
to Defendant. On several occasions as the Plaintiff verbally demanded payment from the
Defendant, the Defendant demanded that he was a "man of his word and would pay his bills".
53. The above -referenced projects constitute an on-going and continuous oral contract
between Plaintiff and Defendant, as the Defendant continued to declare that he would pay but
that the Plaintiff needed to complete the NPDES permit process so that he could finish the
project..
54. In the alternative, each project number constitutes a separate oral contract between
Plaintiff and Defendant.
55. Plaintiff met all conditions precedent to payment under the contracts.
56. Despite request, Defendant has breached the contract and has failed to make
payment for services rendered as set forth above.
57. As a result, Defendant is in breach of contract.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on behalf of Plaintiff against Defendant in the
amount of Forty Thousand One Hundred Ninety -One and 59/100 Dollars ($40,191.59) with simple
interest.
COUNT II — QUANTUM MERIUT
58. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
59. Defendant knowingly received the value of the services of Plaintiff.
60. The charges for said services by Plaintiff are reasonable and industry standard.
61. Defendant had knowledge of all services to be performed by Plaintiff and directed
Plaintiff to perform those services.
62. By allowing Defendant to retain the benefit from Plaintiff's services, it will be
unjustly enriched and Plaintiff has suffered severe financial detriment.
63. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the fair market value of the services rendered
and benefits provided to Defendant.
64. The reasonable value of Plaintiff's services provided to Defendant is $40,191.59.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in the
amount of Forty Thousand One Hundred Ninety -One and 59/100 Dollars ($40,191.59) with simple
interest in the amount of 1.5% monthly as typically stated industry standard rates.
Date: 1{/Zf/Zo1 L/
Respectfully submitted,
rk W. Allshouse, squire
torney ID # 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
I, Gregory S. Lebo, P.E., Vice President of Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc., being authorized
to do so, verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: 1%¼_ tc', 'Zo I4
By:
Gregory S. Lebo, P.E., Vice President
COHEN, SEGLIAS, PALLAS,
GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C.
Edward Seglias, Esquire, PA Id. #55103
Wendy R. Bennett, Esquire, PA Id. #208968
eseglias@cohenseglias.com
wbennett@cohenseglias.com
30 South 17th Street, 19th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-564-1700
BREHM-LEBO ENGINEERING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LLC,
Defendant.
-a 18
CO
',ull\
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Claimant,
Battlestone Steel, LLC
. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
. OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
•
•
•
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 14-2510 Civil Term
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Wendy R. Bennett, Esquire, hereby certify that on January 5, 2015, the foregoing
Preliminary Objections, Proposed Form of Order and this Certificate of Service were served via
email and USPS first class mail upon the following:
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
mark@christianlawyersolutions.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
WE D_'r R. BENNETT, ESQ.
.),/
PRAECIPE FOR LI ING CAS OR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next
Argument Court.) Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
Brehm -Lebo Engineering, Inc.
vs.
Battlestone Steel, LLC
:.r
G -
c
' ?J •
:
z_ _
14-2510 Civil`—�'`
No. Term, ..._
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to
complaint, etc.):
Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint
2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases:
(a) for plaintiffs:
Mark W. Allshouse, Esq. •
(Name and Address)
4833 Spring Road, Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(b) for defendants:
Edward Seglias, Esq./Wendy R. Bennett, Esq., Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.0
(Name and Address)
30 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for
argument.
4. Argument Court Date:
February 6, 2015
•
Date: January 9, 2015
Wendy R. Bennett, Esq.
S'gn tur
Print you ame
Battlestone Steel, LLC
Attorney for
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT
ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument:
2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument.
3. The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument.
4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT
ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. 1 :)
P4k1A
OP‘ 1;4•11(3
?.31sla�
COHEN, SEGLIAS, PALLAS,
GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C.
Edward Seglias, Esquire, PA Id. #55103
Wendy R. Bennett, Esquire, PA Id. #208968
eseglias@cohenseglias.com
wbennett@cohenseglias.com
30 South 17th Street, 19th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-564-1700
BREHM-LEBO ENGINEERING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Claimant,
Battlestone Steel, LLC
. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
. OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
BATTLESTONE STEEL, LLC, • NO. 14-2510 Civil Term
Defendant.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Wendy R. Bennett, Esquire, hereby certify that on January 9, 2015, the foregoing
Praecipe for Listing Case (Preliminary Objections) for Argument and this Certificate of Service
were served via email and USPS first class mail upon the following:
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
mark@christianlawyersolutions.com
Attorney for Plaintiff