Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-2674
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No.? NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Dis- trict Justice on the date and in the case mentioned below. NAME OF APPELLANT MAG. DIST. NO. OR NAME OF D.J. ur?r?eaoi /cnr? /?/5 //'// Ott_3-0<1 _J dno ADDRESS OF ??TE ( 4O ZIP I IE "J l!J LEANT I 4/i.. t.I S ILA / / rl L 04n4,' ,,05 1 V A"18L0.5/0 vs. .J 1W'4-))ttJ1V CLAIM NO. I ISIBNPI UXt UY APetLIA V MS MS Pi'etitrvi CV YEAR 60S' 04 LT YEAR 1V./nI F (.AL C?-NI ?S((J This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under PA. If appellant was Claimant (see PA R.C. P.J. P. R.C.P.J.P. No. 10086. This notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as No. 1001(6)) in action before district Justice, he A SUPERSEDEAS to the Judgment for possession in this case. MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. gna ure o ra ono ary a epu PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see PA R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon T NOw1A5 S. 'iD ,/q M YS (LO S t y , appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Name of appellee(s) (Common Pleas No within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of ju gment of non pros. Signature of pellant I is attorney or agent RULE: To T Noy"45 T, `IV I /? A (5/Z,051 0 , appellee(s) Name of appellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty(20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU UPON PRAECIPE. C (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. (L J 3 Year -2C2 o, -j-_? ly, Date: Signature of rothonotary or puty White - Prothonotary Copy Green - Court File Copy Yellow - Appelant's Copy Pink - Appellee Copy Gold - D. J. Copy Proth. - 76 PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN If 0) DAYS AFTER filing the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF 6()YA6G(L ,Aw6 ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby swear or affirm that I served 2 i5' copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. , upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) , year , Q by personal service Lk-jDy (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name -n4 0 -o l q5 S , on -year- Elby personal service E] by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. and further that I served the Rule to File a Complaint accompanying the above Notice of Appeal upon the appellees) to whom the Rule was addressed on year , F1 by personal service ?by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS _ DAY OF , YEAR _ Signature or official before whom of davit was made Title of offmal My commission expires on year C: :: N O -rt c -' , am , - ?ljarure7-oTA?nt 2 r "J? ? U y A ` FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID #61919 600 N. Second Street Penthouse Suite P. O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Tel.: (717) 236-8000/Fax: (717) 236-8080 NOV 2 2 20051, Attorney for Plaintiff THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION RULE TO SHOW CAUSE PURSUANT TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE 206.4(c) AND NOW, this ?3 d day of N IY ?' , 2005, a Rule is hereby issued upon Respondent/Defendant to show cause why the relief sought in the within Petition should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE (?o days after service. J. 'J 1' J i _„? NOV 2 2 2005 FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. 600 N. 2nd Street, Fifth Floor P.O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)236-8000 (717)236-8080 (fax) friedmanandkinp@hotmail.com Richard S. Friedman John F. King November 16, 2005 Cumberland County Prothonotary Cumberland County Court House I Courthouse Square Carlisle PA 17013 In re: D'Ambrosio v. Marcin t/a Cottman No. 2005-2674 Dear sir or madam: Enclosed please find an original and three copies of a Petition for Allowance to File Amended Complaint and a Rule to Show Cause. I would appreciate your forwarding one to the Court Administrator for assignment to a judge and holding the others in your office until the Rule to Show Cause is signed, at which time I would appreciate your conforming the copies and returning them to me in the envelope provided so I may serve the proper parties. I have also enclosed one more Rule to Show Cause with an envelope addressed to the defendant's attorney, which I understand you are required to mail once the Rule is signed. Should there be any question regarding this matter, I would appreciate your calling my office. Thank you very much for your help in this matter. Very truly yours, o n F. King JFK/ka enclosures cc: Thomas D'Ambrosio THOMAS D'AMBROSIO Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO: 2005-2674 :CIVIL ACTION :TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW, this -2,Y'1'day of June 2005, Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambrosio, by himself, in Pro Se at this point, avers the following in his response to Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiffs Complaint. COUNTI IMPROPER SERVICE 1. Plaintiff did serve a Complaint upon Defendant's purported counsel and also had the courtesy to send a copy direct to the Defendant. Plaintiff was unclear if Defendant had truly hired and was working through Coyne & Coyne, PC, as Defendant had previously represented himself. Plaintiff had placed a phone call to the Defendant's purported attorneys prior to the service of any documents to ask questions regarding representation, rules, preferences, proceedings and so on. This phone call which is acknowledged as being received by the Defendant's purported attorney's in a cover letter sent to Plaintiff, copy enclosed, was never returned by either Coyne & Coyne, PC., or the Defendant himself. Another reason that Plaintiff had immediately phoned the purported attorney's office was to get a typed copy, or at least a legible copy, of the Notice of Appeal, as the one received by the Plaintiff was partially handwritten, illegible and unreadable, upon its arrival, copy enclosed. 2. Defendant claims that Plaintiff improperly served Defendant even though the Plaintiff used the style and manner that is customarily used and accepted in Plaintiffs home state. Plaintiff is not an attorney and simply used a general form of service which has been readily accepted in the past. Had Coyne & Coyne, PC., returned Plaintiffs phone call regarding this and other issues, Plaintiff would have gladly changed the format of his documents and will gladly do so for the remainder of the above listed action should Plaintiff have to continue to represent himself. Plaintiff did search, as suggested by the Cumberland County courthouse staff, for the exact format on the document in question, but could not find an exact copy of such nor could Plaintiff find the exact procedures for service. WHERFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to proceed with Plaintiff's Complaint in the normal fashion and Plaintiff also asks that the Honorable Court understands that the Plaintiff is severely disabled and living on a very limited income and therefore asks for some leniency regarding Court Rules and procedures. Plaintiff would also like the Honorable Court to know that Plaintiff is aggressively attempting to hire a Cumberland County attorney at this time. COUNT H PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO LACK OF UNIFORMITY OF PLEADING TO THE LAW OF COURT 3. Again, Plaintiff not being an attorney and not getting a return call from Defendant's purported attorney, the Plaintiff in his Complaint simply used information taken from a lower Court Justice and the Pennsylvania's Attorney General's office in hopes of providing the reasons for the case itself. 2 4. Plaintiff firmly believes that the Complaint was concise and clear. It was only a few short paragraphs' long and easy to read and understand in Plaintiffs own opinion. Defendant claims that the Complaint "rambles on" and fails to conform to Pennsylvania Civil Rules but Defendant is not specific on any of the issues Defendant raises. The Plaintiff believes he did a good job in highlighting the issues of the Complaint itself and finds that the Complaint in question is worded surprising similar to other Complaints found in other Pennsylvania Court files of successfully argued cases. 5. The Plaintiff did file the Complaint in question in response to a partially handwritten and illegible Notice of Appeal filed by the Defendant. Plaintiffs Complaint was filed timely and just as instructed by the Cumberland County Prothonotary Clerk's Office recommended to Plaintiff. Plaintiff followed the Clerks instructions and recommendations as noted when Plaintiff phoned the Clerks office and exchanged emails on several occasions prior to the filing of the Complaint itself. WHEREFORE, again the Plaintiff is attempting to do as good a job as possible representing himself at this point and therefore respectfully requests that the Honorable Court to show leniency regarding any imperfections and technicalities that the Defendant refers too and that the Honorable Court allow this case to remain open and proceed in normal fashion. COUNT III INSUFFICENT SPECIFITY OF A PLEADING 6. The Plaintiff stated several reasons for bringing the case forward within Plaintiffs Complaint including allegations of disregard for Pennsylvania State Codes involving auto repair and allegations regarding Unfair Business Practices by the Defendant. If Defendant would like more specificity, the Plaintiff thought he was purchasing an actual factory rebuilt genuine CrMC transmission for his handicap van. Upon returning home from the repair shop, Plaintiff discovered this was not the case even though Plaintiff had paid an astronomical price for the transmission. Plaintiff believes he is a victim of Fraud under the Pennsylvania Codes. Plaintiff was also denied the inspection and return of any and all purported bad parts which is violation of Pennsylvania Code as well. Plaintiff feels he has raised the proper issues within the timely Complaint without going into great detail and having to "ramble on" within the Complaint itself. WHERFORE, the Plaintiff asks the Honorable Court to overlook any imperfections within the Plaintiffs Complaint and Service procedures and therefore allow this case to remain open and proceed in normal fashion. The Plaintiff, who has suffered an immense financial loss and has incurred significant expenses and other physical and mental expenditures due to the actions of the Defendant's auto shop, has no intention of dismissing this case on Plaintiffs own behalf. Date: Thomas 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, ]Michigan (989) 422-2950 In Pro Se AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMENNWEATH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Thomas D'Ambrosio, swears according to the law, deposes and says that he is acting as his own attorney, as the Plaintiff, in Pro Se, and that he did mail a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Response to Preliminary Objections in the above matter, by first class mail, to the Defendants Attorney at the following address: Cumberland County Courthouse Attn: Prothonotary Clerk's Office 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Which is believed to have satisfied the requirements of service by mail pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.403. Date: 2!? 7 Tho 'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake., Michigan 48629 (989) 422-2950 In Pro Se AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMENNWEATH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Thomas D'Ambrosio, swears according to the law, deposes and says that he is acting as his own attorney, as the Plaintiff, in Pro Se, and that he did mail a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Response to Preliminary Objections in the above matter, by first class mail, to the Defendants Attorney at the following address: Cumberland County Courthouse Attn: Prothonotary Clerk's Office 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Which is believed to have satisfied the requirements of service by mail pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.403. Thomas,P?Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, Michigan 48629 (989) 422-2950 In Pro Se COYNE & COYNE, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW Henry F. Coyne Lisa Marie Coyne Austin F. Grogan 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011-4227 (717) 737.0464 Facsimile (717) 737-5161 Thomas D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Dear M. D'Ambrosio: June 15, 2005 Re: D'Ambrosio vs. J.Marcin This will acknowledge receipt of some type of document from you on June 10, 2005 and your phone call to this office at the end of May 2005. In light of the document which does not conform to any rule of procedure I have filed the enclosed document to strike your document. Please have your attorney contact me as soon as possible. Sincerely yours, COYNE & COYNIE, P.C. ln.." 4 ? Austin F. Grogan, I3sq. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE OF APPEAL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT JUDICIAL DISTRICT COMMON PLEAS No. _ 77 4r%A .? ':h NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by #0 Dis- frid JNetice on the date and In the case mentioned below. NAME OF APPELLANT NAG. q6T. NO. OR NWE OF O.J. A00r1ESS OF APPELLANT CITY STATE zwoom DATE Of MOMENT N ThE CAM OF rPr4WWfl MEFE10Wn vs. CLAM NO. SIONATUIE APPELLANT OR He ATTORNEY OR AGEW CV YEAR LT YEAR This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under PA. ff appettaro was Claimant (see PA R.C.P.J.P. This notice o of f A App p08eal,8. Th No. 1001(6)) in action before d(stnbt Jim he when received by the District Juice, will operate as This A SUPERSEDEAS to the Judgment for possession in this case. MUST FILE A COWLAI)VT wN#n twe * RM days alter /Abrg this NOTICE of APPEAL. , PRAECIPE TO ENTER 8111.E TO FILE t:OtYlPlA1NT AND RULE TO FILE (Itas sec*m of form to be used ONLY when eppallant wan DEFENDANT (aee PA R.C.P.J.P. No.. 1001(7) M adbn bof" DWrk-OusNee. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notce of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Nm o(appelbetA) (Common Pleas No. ti 7y ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of not pros. Signature esppeHent or his Mtomsyar4o" RULE: To appellee(s) None of eppeeM(s) (1) You are rw6fM that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complM in this appeal within twenty(20) days after the dale of seoom4 this rule upon you by personal service or by oRyn6Wd or registered roes. you do rliR a ZamplBint wflhlrtthis time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU (2) if UPON PiIAECIPE. (3) The doe d service of this rule X saftewas by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: ; , ". .. , Vear?,?.__ sown of Prommotary or WAW White - PraMaot"Come, .. - ,' Groan - Corm Rte Copy Yeaew - Appa 3C.aPy Pink - Appellee Copy Gold - D. J. Copy Proth. - 76 `? ?? -? {q? AH ??t .?`1 V- (? o : „Q 4 ? .?. ."?" r???•? ?u, c!' ?+? p COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CnI1NTY CIF- CUMBERLAND Meg. Dist No. 09-3-04 MDJ Name. Hon. THOMAS A. PLACEY Aloes, 104 S SPORTING HILL RD MECHANICSBURG, PA Tsiephone. (717 ) 761-8230 17050 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT PLAINTIFF: CIVIL CASE NAME wid ADDRESS FD'AMBROSIO, THOMAS J 225 CHIPPENDALE DR HOUGHTON LAKE, MI 48629 L J VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS rJ. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, LLC 3600 CARLISLE PIKE DBA: COTTMAN TRANSMISSION LCAMP HILL, PA 17011 J J. MARLIN ENTERPRISES, LLC 3600 CARLISLE PIKE Docket No.: CV-0000605-04 DBA: COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Date Filed: 9/28/04 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR PLAINTIFF __ ® Judgment was entered for: (Name) n g AmnAngrn, TRnma-g ;r ® Judgment was entered against: (Name) r_ a4 rN ENTERPRISES, 2.T.C in the amount of $ A, i 1 a _ 5p on ? Defendants are jointly and severally liable. El Damages will be assessed oh: El This case dismissed without prejudice. Amount of Judgment Subject to ? Attachment/i Pa.C.S. § 8127 $ Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ (Date of Judgment) 4/?p5 (Date & Time) Amount of Judgment Judgment Costs Interest on Judgment Attornev Fees Post Judgment Credits Post Judgment Costs Certified Judgment Total $ ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGEMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. E.( (f Date Magisterial District Judge I certify that this is a true a d correct copy To f ?mrd of the p oceedings containing the judgment. Date""""??^? 1f ^~ Magisterial District Judge My commission expires first Monday of January, 2010 . SEAL AOPC 315-05 DATE PRINTED: 4/26/05 10:08:19 AM U.S . Post al Service,. CE RTIF IED R ECEIPT (Dom estic M ail Only, No Insuranc e Co verage Provided) o m ri-i )')rl)I lgli?i( ru Postage $ a C.0r,d Fee Return ReCiepl Fee -- (Endorse re.m Regw,d) O Restricted Delivery Fea t `p (Entlorsemant Roquir.d) ru N Total Postage .4 Fees $ s M Sent TO -( - Street Mf Ao.; /e U ? C - or PO Box No. D? PostmarN Herd l? TC?' - --- ------ Q- ??Ta:an?l?nou??ifanaa?loT3r_ (Domestic Mail Only; Np insurance Covers; C2 l - rn -- -- ru Postage $ R Certified Fea t Retum Findept Fee C:l (Endorsement Required) PostmarK Mg! M Restreed DeliveryFee jij: kdi `? (Endorsement Requlred) II ti $ I// Total Postage 8 Fees Sam,To --"- o -t* /vi 4S ?. n, A, bkcs to I` Street. Apt No.; ----- - ---- -- - --- or PO eox.. .-a-- Ul!¢D?. _t- .... . - ._-------- GH. Shit21Pnt I ov }e.,; (.-s. t'ti it"IT U 9 Gig PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER tiling the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF `r U A4,6 L I' ? - : as AFFIDAVIT: I hereby swear or affirm that I served 0v4 copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. 05 " ;2 (e 7 / , upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) M A ?tZ S , year A00 , ?by personal service ?y (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name T 140 r"A /YI A year ap(DSJ, C]by personal service on (certified) (reg) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. and further that I served the Rule to File a Complaint accompanying the above Notice of Appeal upon the appellee(s) to whom the Rule was addressed on q,4 7.3 , year,200S by personal service [3 certified) (regiefevd) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS _ Z DAY OF dl A , YEAR -ZOOS' Sf)na m aroHkial bolore whom allida;M a u --fs _ m Tee or ollfcol My commission expires on , year 0f? PUALIC N Twit, aRBEfru1 NO wolf" • SgnaNrr7 '-v SgnaNre olAlA®nr l C^ o 0 _ (. ?. G 'P c rs CJ rQ Q K VJ COMMONW EALTN OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. J y iIT t zVr NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Dis- trict Justice on the date and in the case mentioned below. NAME OF APPELLANT MAG. DIST. NO. OR NAME OF p J ,- ADDRESS OF APPELLANT CITY STATE ZIP CODE DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF (PLAINTIFF) (DEFENDANT) I? L4 2- 1a-0 1? Li iI,i'(1;dC.L1-,jEij t NI' i vs. "f..(,?,v CLAIM NO. -- --- (SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT Oa HIS ATTORNEY OR AGENT CV YEAR G1? "- © LT YEAR 1 I- y. This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under PA. If aW;C11taNltvO(?@e PA R,C.P.J.P. R.C.P.J.P. No. 10086. This notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as No. 1001(6)) in action before district Justice, he A SUPERSEDEAS to the Judgment for possession in this case. MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was-WENDANT (see PA R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary ?114 Enter rule n T lkOytir.A': J_ i) ,ti+wl li ;mac,-; r f , appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Name of appeflee(s) (Common Pleas No`0 ? - cX1 L, 7V ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signature of appellant or attorney or agent RULE: To appellee(s) Name of appeffee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty(20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail, (2) If you do ndt'.tile a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU UPON PAAtCIPE. (3) The date of service of this rule it service was by mail is the date of the mai(rng. r4 rx Date: Year a?''C? ?I Signature o Prothonotary or puty White - Prothonotary Copy ' Green - Court File Copy, Yellow - Appelant's Copy Pink - Appellee Copy Gold - D. J. Copy Froth. -76 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE 9`j' JURISDICTIAL DISTRICT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff, V. Case No.: 05-2674 J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendants, THOMAS D'AMBROSIO 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 (989) 422-2950 COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-0464 COMPLAINT On November 29, 2003, plaintiff came in contact with the defendant's business and attempted to get his vehicle repaired. Plaintiff's dealings with defendant led to the following issues whereby plaintiff feels the defendant has violated Pennsylvania laws. The issues are as follows: . . . A 1. The defendant refused to do only the work requested by plaintiff. 2. Defendant said they were installing a genuine factory GMC rebuilt transmission but in fact only repaired plaintiff s own original transmission. 3. Defendant overcharged plaintiff for all work performed. 4. Defendant refused to allow plaintiff to inspect any and all damaged parts and refused to return any and all damaged parts even though plaintiff had agreed to pay any and all "core charges" and defendant had agreed to return all defective parts upon completion of the work on December 1, 2003. Plaintiff asserts that defendant has violated Title 35 of the Pennsylvania Code and that a breach of defendants duty also occurred and therefore the sanctions of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Law be applied. Additionally, because of the unfair trade practice that the plaintiff became a victim of, plaintiff asks that the court allow for treble damages on the automotive repair amount of $3,384.58. Plaintiff also seeks to recover any and all current and future court costs and legal fees, along with any and all current and future attorney fees and any and all current and future related general expense and travel costs, as well. The current total of all costs and expenses is $748.37 and as a result the plaintiff civilly asks the court for a total award of $10,902.11, as of the date below. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 6, 2005 ` Tho D'Ambrosio In Pro Se 2 {'°? r-? ? ?i C__ ?n , ,. i ? ? ? - ?- `' -»?, ' _ ? ?? ?? ? COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE 9' JURISDICTIAL DISTRICT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff, V. Case No.: 05-2674 J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendants, THOMAS D'AMBROSIO 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 (989) 422-2950 COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-0464 PROOF OF SERVICE On the date listed below, I mail via First Class Mail Service through the United States Postal Service a document titled COMPLAINT to the following parties: Cumberland County Courthouse Prothonotary Office 1 Courthouse Square Room Carlisle, PA 17013 J. Marcin Enterprises/Cottman Transmission 3600 Carlisle Pike Camp Hill, PA 17011 COYNE & COYNE PC 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 I declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge information and belief. Dated: June 8, 2005 17 2 1.= 1, ? Th s D'Ambrosio In Pro Se 2 ? Q c=? r t •,-? '" may, f '? ?: ? (.*? ..> .r i.. r: THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW, this 15"r" day of June 2005, Defendant, J. Marcin Enterprises, d/b/a Cottman Transmission (hereinafter Cottman Transmission) by and through its counsel, Coyne & Coyne, P.C., avers the following in support of the Preliminary Objections: COUNTI The Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambrosio, served a purported Complaint on Defendant and Defendant's counsel on or about June 10. 2005 (copy of purported complaint attached); 2. The Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambrosio, has executed improper service on the Defendant, Cottman Transmission. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNTII PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO LACK OF UNIFORMITY OF PLEADING TO LAW OF COURT 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are incorporated by reference. 4. Plaintiff purported complaint rambles on and fails to conform to the Pa. Rules of Civil Procedures 5. The Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambrosio filed a Complaint as a result of an appeal from a District Justice decision. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to conform to the Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure and the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint. COURT III INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY OF A PLEADING 6. The Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable court to compel the Plaintiff to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a cause of acti Date G 3"1 au -j COYNE & CO , P.C. Austin F. Grogan, Esquire 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-0464 Attorney for Defendant ID #59020 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Austin F. Grogan, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the attorney for Defendant, J. Marcin Enterprises, LLC, t/d/b/a Cottman Transmission Center, and that he did mail a true and correct copy of the Defendant's Preliminary Objection in the above matter, by first class mail, to the Plaintiff at the following address: Thomas D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 which satisfied the requirements of service by mail pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.403. Date 6-./,?=oC v. Austin F. Grog4ii, Es u• e 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)737-0464 Attorney for Defendant ID #59020 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE 9' dURISDICTIAL DISTRICT a COURT OF COMMON PLEAS -- " JUN 10 2005 ------------- THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff, V. Case No.: 05-2674 J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendants, THOMAS D'AMBROSIO 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 (989) 422-2950 COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-0464 COMPLAINT On November 29, 2003, plaintiff came in contact with the defendant's business and attempted to get his vehicle repaired. Plaintiff s dealings with defendant led to the following issues whereby plaintiff feels the defendant has violated Pennsylvania laws. The issues are as follows: 1. The defendant refused to do only the work requested by plaintiff. 2. Defendant said they were installing a genuine factory GMC rebuilt transmission but in fact only repaired plaintiff s own original transmission. 3. Defendant overcharged plaintiff for all work performed. 4. Defendant refused to allow plaintiff to inspect any and all damaged parts and refused to return any and all damaged parts even though plaintiff had agreed to pay any and all "core charges" and defendant had agreed to return all defective parts upon completion of the work on December 1, 2003. Plaintiff asserts that defendant has violated Title 35 of the Pennsylvania Code and that a breach of defendants duty also occurred and therefore the sanctions of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Law be applied. Additionally, because of the unfair trade practice that the plaintiff became a victim of, plaintiff asks that the court allow for treble damages on the automotive repair amount of $3,384.58. Plaintiff also seeks to recover any and all current and future court costs and legal fees, along with any and all current and future attorney fees and any and all current and future related general expense and travel costs, as well. The current total of all costs and expenses is $748.37 and as a result the plaintiff civilly asks the court for a total award of $10,902.11, as of the date below. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 6, 2005 Thomas Ambrosio In Pro Se 2 I I OL I Hd `IIiH dumO aid als T-MD 009£ uoiSSnusuzzZ uecull()DMsudialug U!OJPI l T £IOLI Fed `alsgxeD uzoog arenbS asnogimo0 I aatllO ,Smjouogloid asnoglmoO ,flunoO pusllaqumO :sail red BuTmollo3 agl of INI6 IdInIOO pallll luaumaop n aatAji S julsod sawlS paltufl agl onoigl aotAZaS I!uW ssuiO lsn3 LIA Itau I `molaq palsq alsp agl uO 30IAllaS 30 J00Hd 0b0-L£L (LIL) I IOLT Vd `II?H dTMVD laaJIS IaXmW 106£ lunpua3a(l io3 SAMUOUV 'O'd `dN,k00 W dNA03 096Z-ZZb (686) 6Z98b INi `a)TI uolgSnoH aAjJG aTpuaddig0 SZZ OISO2IgM,(l SVWOHL `sluepua;a(l `NOISSIKSW,dl NmL.LOO,algJp `SdSIW"91Nd NIO2IVW T bL9Z-90 :'ON QSVD A 33Tlulutd `OISO2I£IY V,(l SVWOHI SVH'ld NOYIIWW 30 INnOO 13MISIQ'IVI.LOIQSRIflf u6 H3.L NI VINVA'USNNdd 30 HI'IVHA1NOMVOO c`? ? -4 ?" qty f_.; ? T _,i' rnr ?, ? i ?? ???J{ - -[3 ? '',C?i s: it 51 Y.`.. .r =?.?C .L C`- FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID #61919 600 N. Second Street Penthouse Suite P. O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Tel.: (717) 236-8000/Fax: (717) 236-8080 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARLIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES the Petitioner/Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambrosio, by and through his attorneys, Friedman & King, P.C., and petitions this Honorable Court as follows: 1. Petitioner/Plaintiff is Thomas J. D'Ambrosio, an adult individual who resides at 225 Chippendale Dr., Houghton Lake, Michigan, 48629, and who is represented by John F. King, Esquire, of the law firm of Friedman & King, P.C. 2. Respondent/Defendant is J. Marcin Enterprises, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability corporation with a registered address at 3600 Carlisle Pike, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, PA 17011, t/d/b/a Cottman Transmission, and which entity is represented by Austin F. Grogan, Esquire, of the law firm of Coyne & Coyne, P.C. 3. On or about April 26, 2005, a Notice of Judgment/Transcript was issued by Magisterial District Judge Thomas Placey as a result of an action brought by Petitioner/Plaintiff against Respondent/Defendant. A copy is attached hereto and marked Exhibit A. 4. Subsequent to the filing of an appeal to the above-referenced District Justice decision, the Petitioner/Plaintiff did file pro se a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas against the Respondent/Defendant, docketed to the above term and number. A copy of said Complaint is attached hereto and marked Exhibit B. 5. On or about June 15, 2005, the Respondent/Defendant, through its legal counsel, Austin F. Grogan, Esquire, did file Preliminary Objections to the Petitioner/Plaintiffs pro se complaint. A copy of said Preliminary Objections is attached hereto and marked Exhibit C. 6. On or about July 5, 2005, still acting pro se, Plaintiff filed a "Response to Preliminary Objections", a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit D. 7. There have been no pleadings beyond Exhibit D, until the filing of the within Petition. 8. Subsequent to the filing of the Petitioner/Plaintiff s "Response to Preliminary Objections", Petitioner/Plaintiff retained the services of Friedman & King, P.C. 9. Respondent/Defendant has not filed a praecipe listing the case for argument, as allowed by Cumberland County Rule 1028(c). 10. The Petitioner/Plaintiff is desirous of filing an amended complaint by and through his now-retained legal counsel. 11. It is believed and therefore averred that any delay in the filing of an amended complaint since the filing of the Respondent/Defendant's Preliminary Objections on June 15, 2005, would in no way prejudice the rights of the Respondent/Defendant. 12. Allowing Petitioner/Plaintiff to file an amended complaint would avoid wasting the Court's time and resources, in that it would allow a proper complaint to be filed and answered, and litigation to proceed, and in that it would avoid a hearing for argument on the Preliminary Objections, the result of which would likely be an order for Petitioner/Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. 13. Pursuant to Cumberland County Rule 208.2(d), the concurrence of opposing counsel, Austin Grogan, Esquire, was sought by way of telephone communication. Counsel for Petitioner was informed that Mr. Grogan will be unavailable for an extended period of unknown duration. Attempts to contact Mr. Grogan's associates were unsuccessful. WHEREFORE, Petitioner/Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant an Order directing the Petitioner/Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Respectfully submitted, P.C. Date: I h tor- Joym F. King, Stre Esq6jte r?(0 N. Second Stree?t? Penthouse Suite P. O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 236-8000 VERIFICATION I, John F. King, Esquire, hereby acknowledge that I am the attorney for the Plaintiff in the foregoing action; that I have read the foregoing Plaintiff's Petition for Allowance to File Amended Complaint, and the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The Plaintiff is temporarily out of this court's jurisdiction and unable to verify. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: d_ Jo F. King, Esquire A mev for Plaintiff THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b(a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John F. King, Esquire, hereby certify that on November 16, 2005, I served a copy of the within Petition for Allowance to File Amended Complaint, upon counsel of record for the defendant, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Austin F. Grogan, Esq. Coyne & Coyne, PC 3901 Market St. Camp Hill PA 17011-4227 'P.C. Jol/h r. King, Esquire 6 N. Second Street enthouse Suite P. O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 236-8000 }? ?,??,? COMMONWEALTH OF NNSYLVANIA Cnl INTY (-)F CUMBERLAND 09-3-04 VAOJ Nz,re: Horv. THOMAS A. PLACEY Adel"` 104 8 SPORTING HILL RD MECHANICSBURG, PA THe111rn,?. (717) 761-8230 17050 THOMAS J. D'AMBROSIO 225 CHIPPENDALE DR HOUGHTON LAKE, MI 48629 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF NAME :rm AnnNf SS FD.AMBROSIO THOMAS J , 225 CHIPPENDALE DR HOUGHTON LAKE, MI 48629 L J VS. DEFENDANT'. NAME a,d ADDRESS 5. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, LLC 3600 CARLISLE PIKE DBA: COTTMAN TRANSMISSION LCAMP HILL, PA 17011 J Docket No.: CV-0000605-04 Date Filed: 9/28/04 _ :'J0 ® Judgment was entered for: (Name) n * 7AmRRnRTn, TwnmAR I ® Judgment was entered against' (Name) T vaurrv EMTEa sT.axs T?C_ in the amount of S R,, 11-4 _ RD On: ? Defendants are jointly and severally liable. ? Damages will be assessed on: ? This case dismissed without prejudice. (Date of Judgment) 4,42fl/0F (Date & Time) Amount of,ludgment Judgment Costs Interest on Judgment Attorney Fees Total Amount of Judgment Subject to ? Attachment/42 Pa.C.S. § 8127 $ Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ Certified Judgment Total $ ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 70 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU ?` - MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGM£NTlTRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGEMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND No FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. 4"oG L -Q:? Date ?fi/47YLa?Y L 1 Magisterial District Judge I certify that this is a true a 4d correct co of reicord ofihe p oceedingc containing the judgment. Qal.?? 1A --' , Magisterial District Judge My commission expires first Monday of January, 2010 . SEAL AOPC 315-05 DATE PRINTED: 4/26/05 10:08:19 AM 010 THOMAS J. D'AMBOSIO, Plaintiff + $j V. District Court 09-3-04 J. MAKIN ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant CV-0605-04 SUMMARY OF FACTS Plaintiff is the owner of a fully handicap power equipped 1991 GMC Rally STX van which had over 216000 miles on it in November 2003. On a return trip to Michigan the van began exhibiting power loss and Plaintiff saw white smoke upon entering Cumberland County. Plaintiff quickly got off the Turnpike and took the van to a service station that was unable to provide full assistance but did provide transmission fluid, other service shop names and directions as requested. Plaintiff contacted Defendant, who does business as a Coffman Transmission franchise, for transmission service. In Plaintiff's unrebutted testimony, Defendant's employee assured Plaintiff that they could have him back on the road Monday if the van was there by 8:00 a.m. that day. A towing service was identified and Plaintiff found a hotel to wait for the collection of the van for Monday service. On Monday, 1 December 2003, Plaintiff called his mechanic in Michigan who advised to get the van back to him for repair and that Defendant should be authorized to change the fluid and unplug the torque converter. Defendant called Plaintiff who advised it was too late to do that change, recommending that the transmission needed to be replaced or overhauled and that the parts would be in Tuesday. Plaintiff reasserted the request for a fluid change and need to be back on the road Monday as promised. Defendant called back around noon advising a rebuilt transmission could be installed today but that it would cost extra. Plaintiff acquiesced to this latter option that would get him back on the road and paid $3384.58 Lo Defendant. This was paid after delivery and subsequent return to the shop for repairs to the original work. Plaintiff's repeated requests for the return of the parts were denied. Plaintiff asserts in this action that he has been taken advantage of, lied to, and deceived. In support of this claim documentary evidence was submitted, some of which are hearsay statements that cannot be used in support of the claim. In review this evidence indicates cost paid for towing, transmission service and costs associated preparing for trial. Further that the rebuilt transmission is actually an OEM, not rebuilt part, which Plaintiff contends, is an overhaul of his transmission. Defendant presented evidence of in shop records, purchase of the rebuilt transmission from the dealership and time sheets. Further, Defendant indicated that Plaintiff's mechanic never called them even though that option was available. Defendant argued that it was improper for that mechanic to allow Plaintiff to make such a long distance trip knowing of the torque converter shutter problems Plaintiff had previously experienced. Finally, Defendant returned the parts to the builder to avoid the core change on Plaintiff. DISCUSSION The burden of proof in every civil case is on a plaintiff to show that a defendant breached an owed duty, which has resulted in measurable damages. Plaintiff's asserts several generic claims for recovery, including contract, warranty and fraud. The fraud Plaintiff generally referred to is specifically found in Title 35 of the Pennsylvania Code at section 301.5. This provides that "with regard to a repair shop, the following is considered... unfair acts or practices... (4)(i)-to have parts replaced returned to the customer at the completion of the service or to inspect the parts." It is clear from the unrebutted testimony that the parts were requested on several occasions and that they were not returned. Defendant's reducing the cost to Plaintiff by not incurring a core charge does not rebut the testimony. It is also not rebutted in the documentary evidenced presented. Thus, Defendant is found in breach of this duty and the sanctions of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) become applicable.' Under section 201.9.2 of the UTPCPL up to three times the actual damages sustained may be awarded, together with costs and attorney fees. In this case Plaintiff did receive some service prior to the unfair practice. These include towing and inspection. The inspection was line item priced at $375.00 but the towing was not priced; therefore, a flat towing fee of $75.00 is applied. This results in fair trade practices charges with tax of $477.00.2 This leaves an amount obtained in violation of the UTPCPL of $2907.58, which when trebled is beyond the District Court jurisdictional damage limit; therefore, the jurisdictional amount of $8000.00 shall be awarded. Judgment is in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $8000.00, together with the costs of this case. The parties have previously been advised of their appeal rights and the original exhibits have been returned to the presenting party. 26 APR 05 Date 4Thos . Placey D.]. 'This finding makes factual determinations on the other allegations and defenses Immaterial. 'Tax was applied to all as it was imposed to the total in the invoice. Exti?bi+ r3 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE 91h JURISDICTIAL DISTRICT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 05-2674 J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendants, THOMAS D'AMBROSIO 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 (989) 422-2950 COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-0464 COMPLAINT On November 29, 2003, plaintiff came in contact with the defendant's business and attempted to get his vehicle repaired. Plaintiff's dealings with defendant led to the following issues whereby plaintiff feels the defendant has violated Pennsylvania laws. The issues are as follows: 1. The defendant refused to do only the work requested by plaintiff. 2. Defendant said they were installing a genuine factory GMC rebuilt transmission but in fact only repaired plaintiff's own original transmission. 3. Defendant overcharged plaintiff for all work performed. 4. Defendant refused to allow plaintiff to inspect any and all damaged parts and refused to return any and all damaged parts even though plaintiff had agreed to pay any and all "core charges" and defendant had agreed to return all defective parts upon completion of the work on December 1, 2003. Plaintiff asserts that defendant has violated Title 35 of the Pennsylvania Code and that a breach of defendants duty also occurred and therefore the sanctions of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Law be applied. Additionally, because of the unfair trade practice that the plaintiff became a victim of, plaintiff asks that the court allow for treble damages on the automotive repair amount of $3,384.58. Plaintiff also seeks to recover any and all current and future court costs and legal fees, along with any and all current and future attorney fees and any and all current and future related general expense and travel costs, as well. The current total of all costs and expenses is $748.37 and as a result the plaintiff civilly asks the court for a total award of $10,902.11, as of the date below. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 6, 2005 Thomas D'Ambrosio In Pro Se COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE 91h JURISDICTIAL DISTRICT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 05-2674 J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendants, THOMAS D'AMBROSIO 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 (989) 422-2950 COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-0464 PROOF OF SERVICE On the date listed below, I mail via First Class Mail Service through the United States Postal Service a document titled COMPLAINT to the following parties: Cumberland County Courthouse Prothonotary Office 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 J. Marcin Enterprises/Cottman Transmission 3600 Carlisle Pike Camp Hill, PA 17011 COYNE & COYNE PC 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 I declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge information and belief. Dated: June 8, 2005 -- Thomas D'Ambrosio In Pro Se ?X?nr??+ THOMAS D'ANIBROSIO, Plaintiff V. i. MARCLN ENTERPRISES, d,Rr/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendant INTHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS r _ r-i r rs AND NOW, this _?51 day of June 2005, Defendant, J. Marcin Enterprises, d/b/a Cottman Transmission (hereinafter Cottman Transmission) by and through its counsel, Coyne & Coyne, P.C., avers the following in support of the Preliminary Objections: COUNTI IMPROPFRSFRVICE 1. The Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambrosio, served a purported Complaint on Defendant and Defendant's counsel on or about June 10. 2005 (copy of purported complaint attached): 2. The Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambrosio, has executed improper sen'ice on the Defendant, Cottman Transmission. WflrREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNT 11 PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO LACK OF UNIFORMITY OF PLEADING TO LAW OF COURT 3. Paragraphs I and 2 are incorporated by reference. 4. Plaintiff purported complaint rambles on and fails to conform to the Pa Rules of Civil Procedures 5. The Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambresio filed a Complaint as a result of an appeal from a District Justice decision. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs Complaint fails to conform to the Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure and the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiff s Complaint. COURT III INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY OF A PLEADING Ci. The Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable court to compel the Plaintiff to dismiss the Complaint for failure to striate a cause of actiT ; s i LGuefii,? - J -- Date -G COYNE & COY]\'#, P.. Austin F. Grogan, Esquire 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-0464 Attorney for Defendant ID 459020 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Austin F. Grogan, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the attorney for Defendant, J. Marcin Enterprises, LLC, Udfb/a Cottman Transmission Center, and that he did mail a true and correct copy of the Defendant's Preliminary Objection in the ahove matter, by first class mail, to the Plaintiff at the following address: Thomas D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 which satisfied the requirements of service by mail pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.403. 7 ° C? Date ?n- /A- ?'??` .? Austin F. Grogan Es u e 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)737-0464 Attorney for Defendant ID #59020 ?x?, e,+ ? THOMAS D'AMBROSIO :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. :NO: 2005-2674 :CIVIL ACTION J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendant :TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW, this day of June 2005, Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambrosio, by himself, in Pro Se at this point, avers the following in his response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNTI IMPROPER SERVICE 1. Plaintiff did serve a Complaint upon Defendant's purported counsel and also had the courtesy to send a copy direct to the Defendant. Plaintiff was unclear if Defendant had holy hired and was working through Coyne & Coyne, PC, as Defendant had previously represented himself. Plaintiff had placed a phone call to the Defendant's purported attorneys prior to the service of any documents to ask questions regarding representation, rules, preferences, proceedings and so on. This phone call which is acknowledged as being received by the Defendant's purported attorney's in a cover letter sent to Plaintiff, copy enclosed, was never returned by either Coyne & Coyne, PC., or the Defendant himself. Another reason that Plaintiff had immediately phoned the purported attorney's office was to get a typed copy, or at least a legible copy, of the Notice of Appeal, as the one received by the Plaintiff was partially handwritten, illegible and unreadable, upon its arrival, copy enclosed. 2. Defendant claims that Plaintiff improperly served Defendant even though the Plaintiff used the style and manner that is customarily used and accepted in Plaintiffs home state. Plaintiff is not an attorney and simply used a general form of service which has been readily accepted in the past. Had Coyne & Coyne, PC., returned Plaintiffs phone call regarding this and other issues, Plaintiff would have gladly changed the format of his documents and will gladly do so for the remainder of the above listed action should Plaintiff have to continue to represent himself. Plaintiff did search, as suggested by the Cumberland County courthouse staff, for the exact format on the document in question, but could not find an exact copy of such nor could Plaintiff find the exact procedures for service. WHERFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to proceed with Plaintiff's Complaint in the normal fashion and Plaintiff also asks that the Honorable Court understands that the Plaintiff is severely disabled and living on a very limited income and therefore asks for some leniency regarding Court Rules and procedures. Plaintiff would also like the Honorable Court to know that Plaintiff is aggressively attempting to hire a Cumberland County attorney at this time. COUNT II PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO LACK OF UNIFORMITY OF PLEADING TO THE LAW OF COURT 3. Again, Plaintiff not being an attorney and not getting a return call from Defendant's purported attorney, the Plaintiff in his Complaint simply used information taken from a lower Court Justice and the Pennsylvania's Attorney General's office in hopes of providing the reasons for the case itself. 4. Plaintiff firmly believes that the Complaint was concise and clear. It was only a few short paragraphs' long and easy to read and understand in Plaintiffs own opinion. Defendant claims that the Complaint "rambles on" and fails to conform to Pennsylvania Civil Rules but Defendant is not specific on any of the issues Defendant raises. The Plaintiff believes he did a good job in highlighting the issues of the Complaint itself and finds that the Complaint in question is worded surprising similar to other Complaints found in other Pennsylvania Court files of successfully argued cases. 5. The Plaintiff did file the Complaint in question in response to a partially handwritten and illegible Notice of Appeal filed by the Defendant. Plaintiffs Complaint was filed timely and just as instructed by the Cumberland County Prothonotary Clerk's Office recommended to Plaintiff. Plaintiff followed the Clerks instructions and recommendations as noted when Plaintiff phoned the Clerks office and exchanged emails on several occasions prior to the filing of the Complaint itself. WHEREFORE, again the Plaintiff is attempting to do as good a job as possible representing himself at this point and therefore respectfully requests that the Honorable Court to show leniency regarding any imperfections and technicalities that the Defendant refers too and that the Honorable Court allow this case to remain open and proceed in normal fashion. COUNT III INSUFFICENT SPECIFITY OF A PLEADING 6. The Plaintiff stated several reasons for bringing the case forward within Plaintiffs Complaint including allegations of disregard for Pennsylvania State Codes involving auto repair and allegations regarding Unfair Business Practices by the Defendant. If Defendant would like more specificity, the Plaintiff thought he was purchasing an actual factory rebuilt genuine GMC transmission for his handicap van. Upon returning home from the repair shop, Plaintiff discovered this was not the case even though Plaintiff had paid an astronomical price for the transmission. Plaintiff believes he is a victim of Fraud under the Pennsylvania Codes. Plaintiff was also denied the inspection and return of any and all purported bad parts which is violation of Pennsylvania Code as well. Plaintiff feels he has raised the proper issues within the timely Complaint without going into great detail and having to "ramble on" within the Complaint itself. WHERFORE, the Plaintiff asks the Honorable Court to overlook any imperfections within the Plaintiffs Complaint and Service procedures and therefore allow this case to remain open and proceed in normal fashion. The Plaintiff, who has suffered an immense financial loss and has incurred significant expenses and other physical and mental expenditures due to the actions of the Defendant's auto shop, has no intention of dismissing this case on Plaintiffs own behalf. Thomas D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, Michigan (989) 422-2950 In Pro Se AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMENNWEATH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Thomas D'Ambrosio, swears according to the law, deposes and says that he is acting as his own attorney, as the Plaintiff, in Pro Se, and that he did mail a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Response to Preliminary Objections in the above matter, by first class mail, to the Defendants Attorney at the following address: Cumberland County Courthouse Attn: Prothonotary Clerk's Office 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Which is believed to have satisfied the requirements of service by mail pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.403. Date: Thomas D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, Michigan 48629 (989) 422-2950 In Pro Se r? h ... ? ? i L. . _. . ? ..1 i --i ? ?_ 4 .` _ 1 "? ? ,, t.. FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID M1919 600 N. Second Street Penthouse Suite P. O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Tel.: (717) 236-8000/Fax: (717) 236-8080 Attorney for Plaintiff THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION Kindly substitute the attached verification of Plaintiff for the verification previously signed by counsel for Plaintiff and attached to the Petition for Allowance to File Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted, FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. i Date: 1 2- John'F. King, Esquire 600- Second Street Penthouse Suite P. O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 236-8000 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. No. 2005-2674 J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a CIVIL ACTION COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant VERIFICATION I, Thomas D'Ambrosio, hereby acknowledge that I am the Plaintiff in the foregoing action; that I have read the foregoing Petition; and the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ?A Dated: ??(?5 /0 r -- `, i _I f' i r FRIEDMAN and KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID # 61919 600 North 2nd Street Penthouse Suite Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)236-8000 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES dlbla COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION MOTION TO MAKE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ABSOLUTE AND NOW COMES Thomas D'Ambrosio, Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, John F. King, Esq., and Friedman & King, P.C., and respectfully requests this Court to make absolute the Rule to Show Cause which was issued in the above-captioned matter on November 23, 2005, and in support states the following: A Petition for Allowance to File Amended Complaint was filed by the Petitioner on November 18, 2005. Said Petition was served on Defendant, by and through its attorneys, Austin F. Grogan, Esq. and Coyne & Coyne, P.C., concurrent with filing. See the Certificate of Service attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Rule to Show Cause was issued on November 23, 2005, and was served on Defendant, by and through its attorneys, Lisa Coyne, Esq. and Coyne & Coyne, P.C.., on December 5, 2005. See the Certificate of Service attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Defendant's attorney, Lisa Coyne, Esq. of Coyne & Coyne, P.C., has, by telephone conversation with John F. King, Esq., indicated that she will not oppose said petition and does not intend to file an answer thereto, but rather, will await Plaintiff's filing of the amended complaint contemplated in the petition. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court make the Rule to Show Cause Absolute. Dated: -A42-2+0 S' Respectfully submitted, FRIEDMAN and KING, P.C. Bv_ John F. King, Esquire C ID# 07176 600 N. Second Street Penthouse Suite Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 236-8000 Petitioner TO: Lisa Coyne, Esq. Coyne & Coyne, PC 3901 Market St. Camp Hill PA 17011-4227 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 22nd day of December, 2005, I am this day serving the foregoing motion to make rule absolute upon the person and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Service by First Class Mail addressed as follows: Lisa Coyne, Esq. Coyne & Coyne, PC 3901 Market St. Camp Hill PA 17011-4227 foht F. King, Esq. 1. ,?i" ...._?. G ? ? .i? ??? ?^ THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES dfb/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John F. King, Esquire, hereby certify that on November 16, 2005, I served a copy of the within Petition for Allowance to File Amended Complaint, upon counsel of record for the defendant, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Austin F. Grogan, Esq. Coyne & Coyne, PC 3901 Market St. Camp Hill PA 17011-4227 P.C. Jolti r. King, Esquire 690 N. Second Street enthouse Suite P. O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 236-8000 t THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/bla COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 5th day of December, 2005, I served the Rule to Show Cause why the petition for leave to file amended complaint should not be granted, upon the person and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Service by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, addressed as follows: Lisa Coyne, Esq. Coyne & Coyne, PC 3901 Market St. Camp Hill PA 17011-4227 Said mailing was accepted by Lisa Coyne, Esq. on December 7, 2005, as evidenced by the attached receipt. John F. King, Esq. l THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. 7. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ¦ Prim your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ A h this card to the back of the mailplece, or the front it apace permits. 1. Artl Addressed to: LISA co,,/? pjv. COyA)? 4 co 1/j 42?- P? 39o1 MARKE-T ST CAMP NIL-L- Pf} I-7011- Ll z2- 7 2. Article Number PS Form CIVIL ACTION ? Agent by (Pdneeb Name) I C. Date of D. Is dalNary addiess diflef rd from Itsrr, ? 11 Yed If YES, enter dellvery address belowI ? No 3. Service Type ',XCe Wed Mail O 6cprass Mall O Reeletered D Return Receipt for Merchandise O scoured Me# ? C.O.D. 4. ResMcted Delivery? Pft Feel 0 Yes vke,aw'7ooo lo"--To ooo.r August 2001 Domestic Rahn Receipt ,ozssso2-eM,sw ?, ,.? ?., -; ?:; _ - : _., - t,r -? THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant L) r'_- ' ? 9 2005 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS U CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION ORDER AND NOW, this lb day of December, 2005, upon consideration of the verified Petition for Allowance to File Amended Complaint, and Rule to Show Cause, and there being no opposition thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Petition is granted and that Petitioner, Thomas D'Ambrosio, be permitted to file an amended complaint in the above matter.. J. Distribution: Lisa Coyne, Esq., Coyne & Co/y/ne, PC, 3901 Market St., Camp Hill PA 17011-4227 7 /? . /"? . r-11_ 1-03 UG -'_-D 1'• FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID #61919 600 N. Second Street Penthouse Suite P. O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Tel.: (717) 236-8000/Fax: (717) 236-8080 Attorney for Plaintiff THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Amended 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 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 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 acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despuds de la notificaci6n 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 per cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado per 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 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID #61919 600 N. Second Street Penthouse Suite P. O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Tel.: (717) 236-8000/Fax: (717) 236-8080 Attorney for Plaintiff THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES dlbla COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambrosio, by and through his attorneys, John F. King, Esq. and the firm of Friedman & King, P.C., and brings this action, averring as follows: 1. Plaintiff is Thomas D'Ambrosio, an adult individual who resides at 225 Chippendale Dr., Houghton Lake, Michigan, 48629. 2. Defendant is J. Marcin Enterprises, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business at 3600 Market St., Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant operates a car repair business known as Cottman Transmission at 3600 Market St., Camp Hill, Cumberland County, PA 17011. 4. On or about Saturday, November 29, 2003, while in the area of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, Plaintiff began to experience significant difficulty with the operation of Plaintiff's full sized 1991 GMC handicapped equipped van (Plaintiff is a quadriplegic), the specific nature of said difficulty being a whining noise emanating from the transmission, and smoke coming out from under the vehicle. 5. Plaintiff drove said vehicle to a local hotel, and contacted an agent of Defendant, known to Plaintiff only as Arthur, to seek the services of Defendant. 6. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff made Arthur, Defendant's agent, aware that time was of the essence in the providing of said services, because Plaintiff needed to get home for a variety of personal reasons. 7. During Plaintiff's initial telephone conversation with Defendant's agent, Arthur, on November 29, 2003, Plaintiff fully explained the malfunctioning of Plaintiff's vehicle to said Defendant's agent and stated Plaintiff's opinion that the cause of the malfunction was a faulty torque converter. 8. Likewise during said initial telephone conversation, Plaintiff told Defendant that he thought the problem was most likely the torque convertor, and that he wanted the Defendant to unplug said torque converter and fully service the transmission with fluid and a new filter and screen. 9. Plaintiff did agree to pay a $375.00 inspection fee, and was told by Defendant that if he (Plaintiff) needed major work, he could apply the $375.00 to the work, but in fact Plaintiff never received said credit. 10. At that time, Plaintiff also advised Defendant's agent, Arthur, that Plaintiff had replaced the vehicle's torque converter on or about March 18, 2003, and that said torque converter was under warranty, as would be verified by paperwork contained in Plaintiff's vehicle, and could be replaced at no charge should the torque converter need to actually be replaced. 11. Defendant's agent, Arthur, assured the Plaintiff that the vehicle could be repaired and made fully driveable by the afternoon of Monday, December, 1, 2003. 12. Relying upon such assurance, Plaintiff allowed Plaintiff s vehicle to be towed to the repair shop operated by Defendant. 13. On or about Monday, December 1, 2003, at approximately 10:20 a.m. local time, Plaintiff spoke with Defendant's agent, Arthur, and was told that a mechanic for Defendant was in the process of diagnosing the problem with Plaintiff s vehicle. 14. After telephone consultation with Gary Hudson, a Michigan-based mechanic well known to Plaintiff, Plaintiff again telephoned Defendant's agent, Arthur, at approximately 11:00 a.m. on December 1, 2003. 15. During said telephone conversation, Plaintiff instructed Defendant's agent, Arthur, to confine repair efforts on the vehicle to a change of the transmission fluid, filter and screen, and the unplugging of the torque converter as previously requested by Plaintiff. 16. Defendant's agent, Arthur, refused to comply with Plaintiff's instructions and indicated that various parts of Plaintiff's transmission were defective, and that if Plaintiff s instructions were followed, the vehicle would break down within one block of leaving Defendant's place of business. . 17. Defendant's agent, Arthur, advised Plaintiff at that time that the entire transmission would need to be rebuilt at a cost estimated by Arthur to be between Two Thousand Two Hundred ($2,200.00) Dollars and Two Thousand Four Hundred ($2,400.00) Dollars. 18. Defendant's agent, Arthur, indicated to Plaintiff that the repair could not be completed until at least the following day, Tuesday, December 2, 2003. 14. Plaintiff reiterated to Defendant's agent, Arthur, the need for Plaintiff to begin his return trip to his home in Michigan by the end of Monday, December 1, 2003. 20. Defendant's agent, Arthur, offered to procure a completely remanufactured transmission, which the Defendant identified as a "genuine GMC rebuilt transmission", have it installed, and render Plaintiff s vehicle driveable by the early evening of Monday, December 1, 2003 21. Defendant's agent, Arthur, indicated that the cost of a completely remanufactured transmission being installed into Plaintiff s vehicle would be "a little extra" (i.e., a little more than the $2,200.00 to $2,400.00 previously quoted). 22. Plaintiff agreed to have Defendant, by and through its agents, perform the work offered by Defendant's agent, Arthur. 23. At approximately 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 1, 2003, Defendant's agent, Arthur, delivered Plaintiff's vehicle to the hotel where Plaintiff was then and there staying. 24. The vehicle, as delivered to Plaintiff at said place and time, was not safely driveable due to a variety of problems, including but not limited to gears "slipping" in the transmission, non-functioning headlights, an improperly functioning wheelchair lift, and non-functioning turn signals, all of which problems did not exist at the time the Plaintiff turned over the vehicle to Defendant. 25. At Plaintiff s request, the vehicle was returned to Defendant's place of business for additional repairs. 26. Said repairs were completed. 27. Defendant, through its agent, Arthur, presented an invoice to Plaintiff in the amount of Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-Four Dollars and Fifty-Eight Cents ($3,384.58). A copy of said invoice is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 28. Exhibit A states that Defendant "....install[ed] remanufactured transmission..." 29. No less than four (4) times during Plaintiff's dealings with Defendant's agent, Arthur, Plaintiff requested the return of all parts which Defendant had claimed to be faulty and which Defendant had claimed to replace. 30. Defendant, by and through its agent, Arthur, refused to return said parts to Plaintiff. 31. Defendant's agent, Arthur, gave various different reasons for his refusal to return said allegedly defective and replaced parts to Plaintiff, including statements that the parts were too large to be placed in Plaintiff's van, the parts were in pieces, and that it was against the store owner's policy to return defective parts. 32. Upon returning to Michigan, Plaintiff had the vehicle inspected by Plaintiff s mechanic, Gary Hudson. 33. Plaintiff has been informed by said Gary Hudson that the transmission which said Gary Hudson found in Plaintiff's vehicle on or about December 4, 2003 was the same transmission which was originally installed in Plaintiff s vehicle upon its manufacture and original sale. 34. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant knowingly defrauded Plaintiff, in that Defendant, by and through its agents, did purport to install a remanufactured GM transmission into Plaintiff s vehicle, but it is further believed, and therefore averred, that Defendant merely replaced the torque converter, serviced the transmission fluid, painted the transmission case, and installed a new oil cooler, all in an attempt to persuade Plaintiff that he had received a remanufactured transmission. 35. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the sole cause of the operating difficulties experienced by Plaintiff on or about November 29, 2003 was a faulty torque converter. 36. Based upon Plaintiff's original purchase of the torque converter, the approximate charge for replacing the torque converter would have been $30.00 for fluids, as the torque converter itself would have been replaced at no charge, and labor would have been reimbursed by the company which sold Plaintiff the original torque converter. COUNTI VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA STATUES TITLE 73 TRADE AND COMMERCE KNOWN AS THE "UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW" 37. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth herein. 38. Defendant, by its actions set forth above, violated the regulations contained in 73 P.S_ Sec. 201-2(4)(vii) by "(R)epresenting that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another", in that Defendant represented that it was installing a remanufactured transmission into Plaintiff's vehicle, when in fact Defendant merely replaced the torque converter and took the other actions set forth in paragraph 33 above. See also Johnson v. Hyundai Motor Am., 698 A.2d 631, 1997 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2187 (Pa. Super Ct. 1997), appeal denied by 551 Pa. 704, 712 A.2d 286, 1998 Pa. LEXIS 434 (1998). 39. Defendant, by its actions set forth above, violated the regulations contained in 73 P.S. Sec. 201-2(4)(xv) by "(K)nowingly misrepresenting that services, replacements or repairs are needed if they are not needed", by representing to Plaintiff that the simple repair sought by Plaintiff (unplugging the torque converter and servicing the fluids and transmission screen and filter) was insufficient and would result in the vehicle's breakdown after it had been driven only one block from the shop, and that the entire transmission would need to be rebuilt. Moreover, when Plaintiff reiterated that the repair must be completed within the time constraints stated by Plaintiff since the onset of Plaintiff's dealings with Defendant, Defendant thereupon offered to install a remanufactured transmission, which was likewise unnecessary, which offer was in violation of 73 P.S. Sec. 201-2(4)(xv). 40. Defendant, by its actions set forth above, violated the regulations contained in 73 P.S. Sec. 201-2(4)(xvi) by "(M)aking repairs, improvements or replacements on tangible, real or personal property, of a nature or quality inferior to or below the standard of that agreed to in writing." Specifically, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that Defendant had installed a remanufactured transmission, when in fact Defendant had merely replaced the torque converter, serviced the transmission fluid, painted the transmission case, and installed a new oil cooler, all in an attempt to persuade Plaintiff that he had received a "genuine GMC rebuilt transmission". See also Johnson v. Hyundai Motor Am., 698 A.2d 631, 1997 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2187 (Pa. Super Ct. 1997), appeal denied by 551 Pa. 704, 712 A.2d 286, 1998 Pa. LEXIS 434 (1998). 41. Defendant is entitled to treble damages in accordance with 73 P.S. See. 201-9.2(a). See also Johnson v. Hyundai Motor Am., 698 A.2d 631, 1997 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2187 (Pa. Super Ct. 1997), appeal denied by 551 Pa. 704, 712 A.2d 286, 1998 Pa. LEXIS 434 (1998). 42. Defendant is entitled to attorney's fees in accordance with 73 P.S. Sec. 201-9.2(a). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant in a total amount of Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-One Dollars and Eighty-Two Cents ($13,651.82) as itemized below: A. Ten Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Three Dollars and Seventy-Four Cents ($10,153.74) representing treble damages of the sum paid by Plaintiff to Defendant. B. Attorney's fees in the amount of Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-Four Dollars and Fifty-Eight Cents ($3,384.58) owed to Friedman & King, PC by Plaintiff in accordance with Plaintiff s written contract with said Friedman & King, PC. C. Plaintiff s costs of filing the initial action at the office of the local District Justice, in the amount of One Hundred Thirteen Dollars and Fifty Cents ($113.50). Said sum is less than Thirty-Five Thousand ($35,000.00) Dollars and therefore is bound for compulsory arbitration. Date: 3 f'-1 O b r Respectfully submitted, FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. { I ?.; John F. King, quire 600 N. Second St et Penthouse Suite P. O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 236-8000 JFK:ka VERIFICATION I, Thomas D'Ambrosio, hereby acknowledge that I am the Plaintiff in the foregoing action; that I have read the foregoing Complaint; and the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: /? ? ??? THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES dlbla COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 14th day of March, 2006, I served the within Amended Complaint upon the person and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Service by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, addressed as follows: Lisa Coyne, Esq. Coyne & Coyne, PC 3901 Market St. Camp Hill PA 17011-4227 L. ` J F. King, Esq. n x c ?x AV7 U o x w n > w ? o? . ~ a W u ? a a y • 1 a ? p , u .iii I ? ?,. ZJ a r` . e w r ? G ti ' z r - O U O + .r , ¢ w w? v m v J a{ ? z w a . ? ? r w w 3 wv ? <- C Q A Q 2 S ? ¢ .., W a I a as W U W ti N ? n d ? w . V _1 ? yr !A J 1 1 ?. N W U._L _u 1F '? m'j a ? 3 ? ' '695 y Z 7 _ d .4 P+^(? TV 11 p. ? ? F p U ? fo . O' ,: aF a 4.°J J Y r w ? , tlV? VPs ?.t "'ml i Z n 7 '1 Fz ? 0 7 p i °a J h h 0 ? 3 F ? J? ? s i V Z 2 a O ? O ? S C W - 2 I- ?2 Z O , O ¢ - j W x a f x ?=<J n o =- Q a ?. m¢ww w U J= U z S x z- L O 2 1 ' G L u ? i 1 S Q V. ?z1 o> ? Qn _ l r o N `S N S ? t S # ? I ? I I? a l.:. r I c I _ i 'Q' w W r' c u z eu o? W il ? Z ? W w ? ?• ZI W J4 O a fr• I ?I z ` , ? Y41 Y J Y j J W O% ? ? Q u Z Q U F W p Y I m ji? r -T ? l n O N W ? ? W 2 ` ?• v ¢ a i ? ? a O r N ? N N E N Q d u. = +( W O S ? ?.. n e W s z W z N 0 0 0 ? I ? IJ O s Z (W? CI wQ a Wo g J i 11 El El O z W I Y U z w z i 0 0 0 ? _ k9 z u U of QZ U? wa WO w a = T o z f y o % a i 2 > m z by 1. W w :? a r < l9 W ?- G 2 W r' ? m u 8 S N C7 ?? -n r .. d .-? y'.y. ^^ll ^ ' {Zj t ? , ?' r7 fi? ?? lJ 'l7 ?. n t _ _? O? n ? COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (7t7) 737-0464 Attorneys for Defendant THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vs. : No. 2005-2674 Civil Term J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, : Civil Action Defendant ANSWER AND NOW COMES, the Defendant, J. Marcin Enterprises d/b/a Cottman Transmission, by and through its attorney, Lisa Marie Coyne, avers the following in support of its Answer: Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further answer, Plaintiff's 1991 GMC had 216,271 miles upon it when it ceased to be operational and had to be towed to Defendant's garage. 5. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff contacted Defendant's employee after normal business hours. However, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the remainder of this paragraph and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant. 1 6. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff advised Defendant's employee that the reason for Plaintiff's demand for prompt and immediate service was that Plaintiff had urgent "medical reasons" to return to his home; however, it is denied that Plaintiffs stated reason for "time of the essence" service was truthful. It is denied that Plaintiff advised Defendant that the nature of Plaintiffs urgency to return to his home was for general "personal reasons". Furthermore, Plaintiff purposefully misrepresented the nature of his supposed urgent need return to his home. Plaintiffs supposed urgent necessity to return to his home was not because of medical reasons as Plaintiff stated to Defendant, but it was merely because Plaintiff had a sports banquet to attend. Based upon Plaintiffs misrepresentation as to the medical nature of his urgent need to return to his home and Defendant's reliance upon that misrepresentation, Defendant gave immediate attention to Plaintiffs vehicle notwithstanding the fact that Defendant had seven (7) other customers ahead of Plaintiff when Defendant's shop opened for business on Monday, December 1, 2003. 7. Denied. It is denied that during the initial conversation on November 29, 2003 that Plaintiff fully explained the malfunctioning of the vehicle or that Plaintiff advised Defendant's employee that Plaintiff was of the opinion that the malfunction was a faulty torque converter. 8. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff advised Defendant's employee during his initial conversation with Defendant's employee that the problem was most likely the torque converter and that he limited Defendant to unplugging the torque converter and fully service the transmission with fluid and a new filter and screen. 2 9. Admitted, in part and Denied, in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff coordinated for his vehicle to be towed to Defendant's shop because Defendant's vehicle was not operational and it is admitted that Plaintiff authorized Defendant to remove, check, and reinstall the transmission for a fee of $375.00. The removal, check, and reinstall authorization was to afford the Defendant the ability to diagnosis the internal malfunction of Plaintiff's transmission. This removal, check, and reinstallation authorization was requested after Defendant had performed a free external check of the transmission which was inconclusive as to why the vehicle was not operational. It is denied that Defendant advised the Plaintiff that the $375.00 fee would apply as a credit to the work, if any, that Defendant was requested to undertake to make Plaintiff's vehicle operational. 10. Admitted, in part and Denied, in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff advised Defendant that Plaintiff had his vehicle's torque converter was replaced. It is denied that Plaintiff advised Defendant that the replacement occurred on or about March 18, 2003. Rather, Plaintiff advised Defendant that the replacement occurred in May 2003. It is further denied that Plaintiff advised Defendant concerning any warranty, yet alone that the warranty for the torque converter was supposedly contained in Plaintiffs vehicle. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in this paragraph and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 11. Denied. It is denied that Defendant assured Plaintiff that the vehicle could be repaired and made fully drivable by the afternoon of Monday, December 1, 2003. By way of further answer, Defendant advised Plaintiff that if the visual inspection revealed a minor problem, it may be completed by the end of business on Monday, December 1, 2003, but that 3 Arthur was not a technician and nothing could be done until Monday when the technician could investigate the vehicle all of which was explained to the Plaintiff prior to Plaintiff arraigning for Plaintiffs vehicle to be towed to Defendant's transmission shop. 12. Denied. Paragraph 11, supra, is incorporated herein. Furthermore, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in this paragraph as they relate to Plaintiff s reliance and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 13. Admitted, in part and Denied, in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff spoke to Defendant's employee on December 1, 2003. It is denied that that the conversation occurred at approximately 10:20 a.m. advising Plaintiff that the Defendant's mechanic was in the process at that time of diagnosing the problem to Plaintiffs vehicle. By way of further answer, Defendant conferred with Plaintiff on December 1, 2003 at 10:30 a.m. after Defendant had completed a visual external inspection of the vehicle which was inconclusive and Defendant requested permission from Plaintiff to perform a removal, internal inspection, and reinstallation of the transmission to determine the cause of the vehicle's inoperability. 14. Denied, in part and Admitted, in part. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning any conversation or consultation with Gary Hudson, a Michigan-based mechanic well known to Plaintiff and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant. It is admitted that Plaintiff contacted Defendant and advised Defendant that Plaintiff had spoken with a mechanic; however, Defendant is without knowledge or information 4 sufficient to form a belief as to whether or not the conversation with Defendant's employee occurred at 11:00 a.m. Furthermore, Defendant's employee requested Plaintiff to have Plaintiff's mechanic contact Defendant's technician so that the diagnosis and recommended repair could be discussed directly between mechanics once the removal and internal inspection of the transmission was completed; however, Plaintiff refused such contact between the mechanics. 15. Denied as stated. Paragraph 14 response is incorporated herein. By way of further answer, it is denied that during an 11:00 a.m. telephone call that Plaintiff directed Defendant to limit work to unplugging the torque converter, change transmission fluid, filter and screen. It is admitted that after Plaintiff authorized Defendant to remove, disassemble and internally inspect the transmission at approximately 12:45 p.m. on December 1, 2003, Defendant contacted Plaintiff and advised Plaintiff of the results of the internal inspection of the transmission and repair options and associated costs at which point the Plaintiff, for the first time, requested the so-called "repair efforts" as stated. It is denied that Defendant's removal and diagnosis steps were undertaken after Plaintiff had disclosed his "thoughts" concerning the torque converter or the request to "change" the transmission fluid, filter and screen when it was determined that there was only a small amount of transmission fluid left in the transmission when the vehicle was towed to Defendant's shop and that Plaintiffs vehicle was completely not operational at that time. 16. Denied, in part and Admitted, in part. It is denied that Defendant's employee refused to comply with Plaintiffs instructions. It is admitted that various internal parts of 5 Plaintiff's transmission were defective and/or damaged as revealed upon internal inspection and that Plaintiff was advised that the defective and/or damaged parts made Plaintiff's vehicle incapable of safe and sustained operation, yet alone for a return trip to Michigan with a transmission which had in excess of 216,271 miles of use. It is admitted that Defendant's employee advised Plaintiff that the "repair efforts" as then suggested by Plaintiff would not result in the safe, reliable, or extended operation of Plaintiff's vehicle yet alone traveling to the Turnpike from Defendant's shop. 17. Denied as stated. It is denied that Defendant's agent advised Plaintiff of "estimated" cost of repairs. Rather, after the removal and internal inspection of the transmission was authorized, Plaintiff was advised of two repair options for the transmission. Plaintiff was advised that under the Service Grade 2 Cottman overhaul option, the cost would be $2,021.87 (plus tax) or, under the Service Grade 1 Cottman remanufacture option, the cost would be $2,477.33 (plus tax). Plaintiff was not provided with estimated costs, but was provided with actual costs for all service options prior to authorization being granted. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. By way of further answer see Paragraph 6, supra, which is incorporated herein. 20. Denied as stated. Plaintiff initiated and requested Defendant to obtain costs for certified rebuilt GM unit after rejecting the options outlined in Paragraph 17, above. Defendant offered to procure a completely remanufactured GM transmission and that it would be a genuine GM rebuilt transmission. It is denied that Defendant identified this option as a "genuine GMC 6 rebuilt transmission". It is further denied that Defendant's employee initiated discussion of such an option. Rather, it was Plaintiff who initiated the suggestion that a rebuilt transmission option, rather than a repair option, be explored because Plaintiff indicated that his medical needs supposedly required him to return to Michigan by the following day. 21. Denied. Defendant advised Plaintiff of the exact cost of the rebuilt transmission option in the amount of $3,384.58 (tax included) which included installation of an auxiliary cooler, fluid, flushing cooler lines, towing vehicle, removal, check and installing of transmission. The exact cost was provided to Plaintiff prior to securing Plaintiff's authorization to obtain and install the rebuilt transmission. It is denied that Defendant advised Plaintiff that the cost for a rebuilt transmission would be "a little extra". To the contrary, Defendant advised Plaintiff of the actual cost of each option before Plaintiff decided which option he would authorize. 22. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendant received Plaintiff's authorization at 12:25 p.m. on December 1, 2003 and Defendant requested Plaintiff's Michigan Driver's License Number. 23. Admitted. 24. Admitted in part and Denied, in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff advised Defendant that his headlights and turn signals were not operating and Defendant's agent advised that those items would be investigated upon the return to the shop while the Plaintiff paid the outstanding invoice. Defendant secured the ground for the headlight and turn signal and they were operational when Plaintiff departed for Michigan. At no time after test driving the vehicle upon Plaintiff's travel from his hotel in Mechanicsburg to Defendant's shop did Plaintiff advise 7 Defendant that there were gears "slipping" in the transmission or that there was an improper functioning wheelchair lift and therefore, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments in this paragraph and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 25. Admitted, in part and Denied, in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff drove to Defendant's shop after Defendant's employee had driven the vehicle to Defendant's hotel to retrieve Plaintiff so that Plaintiff could test drive the vehicle and come to Defendant's shop to pay for the services which Plaintiff had authorized. However, it is denied that Plaintiff "returned" to Defendant's shop which suggests that Plaintiff had ever physically been to the Defendant's shop previously. Plaintiff was physically present at Defendant's shop only one time and that was to pay the final bill at approximately 6:00 p.m. on December 1, 2003 at which time Plaintiff advised Defendant's employee that the headlights and turn signal were not operating. Defendant investigated the problem and determined that the headlights and turn signal grounds were corroded and then cleaned the corrosion from the wires and re-grounded the wires. Upon re-grounding the headlights and turn signals, they were operational. It is further denied that any additional "repairs" were required. 26. Admitted. It is admitted that the only complained "repair" to be remedied after Plaintiff test drove the vehicle was the non-functioning headlights and turn signal. By way of further answer, Paragraphs 24 and 25 are incorporated herein. 27. Admitted in part, and Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant presented Plaintiff with an invoice in the amount of $3,384.58 for work and services authorized by Plaintiff 8 and performed by Defendant. It is denied that Exhibit "A" is an accurate or complete copy of that invoice. 28. Denied. The document speaks for itself. 29. Denied. It is denied that at any time from November 29, 2003 though the time that Plaintiff took possession of his vehicle and paid the invoice on December 1, 2003 that Plaintiff ever requested the return of any parts. Plaintiff never requested any parts upon final payment of invoice. It was only weeks later that Plaintiff contacted Defendant and requested the return of any parts for the first time, at which point Plaintiff was advised that there would be a charge for the core if the local GM dealership still had the Plaintiff's core which Defendant had returned. 30. Denied. Paragraph 29 above is incorporated herein. Defendant did not refuse to return the parts. Plaintiff never requested the parts at the time of delivery of vehicle and payment of invoice on December 1, 2003. 31. Denied. It is denied that Defendant gave any, yet alone various different reasons for "refusal" to return parts. It is denied that there is a "store owner's policy" not to return defective parts. If Plaintiff had requested the parts, they would have been provided and a core charge imposed for the remanufactured transmission. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 9 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph as it relates to Plaintiff's beliefs and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further answer, it is denied that Defendant knowingly defrauded Plaintiff. It is denied that Defendant merely replaced the torque converter, serviced the transmission fluid, painted the transmission case, and installed a new oil cooler in an attempt to persuade Plaintiff that he had received a remanufactured transmission. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph as it pertains to Plaintiffs "belief' and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. COUNTI 37. No response required. 38. Denied. These are legal arguments and conclusions to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied and demands 10 strict proof thereof at trial. Plaintiff requested a remanufactured transmission and that is what Defendant installed in Plaintiff's vehicle. Furthermore, paragraphs 1 through 36 of this answer are incorporated herein by reference. 39. Denied. These are legal arguments and conclusions to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied and demands strict proof thereof at trial. It is denied that the repairs required to make Plaintiff's vehicle operational were simple in that upon internal visual inspection, it was apparent that the transmission would have to be rebuilt. It is denied that the Defendant offered to install a remanufactured transmission. Rather, it was the Plaintiff himself who suggested and requested that Defendant provide such an option after the Plaintiff advised that he could not wait an additional day for the repair to be completed. Furthermore, paragraphs I through 36 of this answer are incorporated herein by reference. 40. Denied. These are legal arguments and conclusions to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied and demands strict proof thereof at trial. Plaintiff requested a remanufactured transmission and that is what Defendant installed in Plaintiff's vehicle along with a new auxiliary cooler, fluid, and the flushing of cooler lines. It is denied that Defendant persuaded Plaintiff to elect the remanufactured transmission option rather than to remain an additional day to complete the required work encompassed by the two other options given to Plaintiff. Furthermore, paragraphs 1 through 36 of this answer are incorporated herein by reference. 11 41. Denied. This a legal argument and conclusion to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 42. Denied. This is a legal argument and conclusion to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied and demands strict proof thereof at trial. Furthermore, the Act speaks for itself and relates only to the award of reasonable attorney fees. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this Honorable Court find in favor of the Defendant and Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted: COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Date: By: ; L L L LA a Marie Coyne, squire a. Supreme Ct. N . 53788 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Attorney For Defendant 12 VEItIETCAIION The facts set forth m the foregoing are true and correct to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, information and belief and are verified subject to the penalties for unworn falsification to authorities under 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904. Q--I?t-2O0(o CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lisa Marie Coyne, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, caused a true and correct copies of the attached Answer to be served upon the person named below by way of first class mail, postage prepaid. John F. King, Esquire 600 N. Second Street P.O. Box 984 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Date: L ° 0 6 COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Lisa/? arie Coyne, E quire O1 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Pa. S. Ct. No. 53788 C_ .. F tIEDMAN & KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID #61919 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel.: (717) 236-8000/Fax: (717) 236-8080 Attorney for Plaintiff THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION PETITION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AND NOW comes the Petitioner, Friedman & King, P.C., by John F. King, Esquire, seeking leave of this Honorable Court to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambrosio, pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1. 16(4), and avers as follows: 1. Petitioner is counsel of record for Plaintiff herein by virtue of having filed a Petition For Allowance to File Amended Complaint on November 18, 2005. 2. Petitioner and Plaintiff entered into a contingent fee agreement on or about November 16, 2005. 3. The Plaintiff insists upon taking action with which Petitioner has a fundamental disagreement. 4. The Plaintiff fails and refuses to follow the sound legal advice of Petitioner. 5. The Plaintiff has expressed his interest and willingness to proceed on a pro se basis. WHEREFORE, Petitioner seeks leave of this Honorable Court to terminate Petitioner's representation of the Plaintiff, and to withdraw his appearance as counsel in the above-captioned matter. Date: Respectfully submitted, FRIEDMAN & KING. P.C. J F. King, Esqui 320 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 236-8000 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John F. King, Esquire, hereby certify that on January 4, 2008, I served a copy of the within Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Plaintiff's Counsel, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas D' Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Dr. Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire Coyne & Coyne, P. C. 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 , P.C. ?o F. King, Esquire 0 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 236-8000 i' ni fll .rte ?ti I . FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID #61919 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel.: (717) 236-8000/Fax: (717) 236-8080 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AND NOW comes the Petitioner, Friedman & King, P.C., by John F. King, Esquire, seeking leave of this Honorable Court to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff, Thomas D'Ambrosio, supplements his Petition, pursuant to Cumberland County Local Rule 208.3(a)(2) and (9), as follows: 1. The Honorable Edward E. Guido previously ruled upon a Motion to File an Amended Complaint; and 2. Defendant's counsel, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esq., concurs with this Petition. Dated: January 4? , 2008 Respectfully submitted, FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. Y John F. King, Esq. ID #61919 3 820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 236-8000 (717) 236-8080 FAX friedmanandking_(,hotmail.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 16th day of January, 2008,1 served the should not be granted, upon the person and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Service by first class mail addressed as follows: Thomas D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Dr. Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Lisa Coyne, Esq. Coyne & Coyne, PC 3901 Market St. Camp Hill PA 17011-4227 ?- J Sharry Seman l i'V\ C? ?J _ .??; e j .. ` ` } ?? ? t, ?,J ,? f _ ? _.1_, ?:. . "... ...u _ ,. - _ l L ! "'ry _, y ,_?. E ' -} 3/'?/' JAN 0 9 2008 m/ FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID #61919 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel.: (717) 236-8000/Fax: (717) 236-8080 Attorney for Plaintiff THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this. day of , 2008, upon consideration of the foregoing Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Plaintiff's Counsel, the Court grants a Rule to Show Cause why the appearance of John F. King, Esquire, and Friedman & King, P.C., on behalf of Plaintiff should not be allowed to be withdrawn. RULE RETURNABLE WITHIN 36 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS RULE. ALL PROCEEDINGS TO ME ILE. J. DISTRIBUTION: Thomas D'Ambrosio, 225 Chippendale Dr., Houghton Lake, MI 48629, (989) 422-2950 ?Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, 3901 Market St., Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227, (717) 737-0464 ?John F. King, Esquire, 3820 Market St., Camp Hill, PA 17011, (717) 236-8000 00P jF-.S rnov t Lcc ?/3%s VINVA-IASNN3d M.NW),", CRl,-, ?? '8V* o C C *Zl Wd 0C NVf' SOOZ 1WiCNO I 8d 3HL 3O 3Ojj4O-CI3'tt3. FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID #61919 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel.: (717) 236-8000/Fax: (717) 236-8080 Attorney for Plaintiff THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION PRAECIPE Please file the attached Certificate of Service and make it part of the record. Respectfully submitted, Date: C Jolm-F. King, Esquirl 3820 Market Street -"Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 236-8000 P.C. THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION CERTIFICATE.OF SERVICE I, John F. King, Esquire, hereby certify that on February 4, 2008, I served a copy of the Rule to Show Cause and Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Plaintiff's Counsel, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas D' Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Dr. Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire Coyne & Coyne, P.C. 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 FRIEDMAN.&KING, P.C. ohn F. King, Esquire 820 Market Street C p Hill, PA 17011 (717) 236-8000 C7) FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID #61919 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel.: (717) 236-8000/Fax: (717) 236-8080 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION MOTION TO MAKE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ABSOLUTE John F. King, Esquire, respectfully requests this Court to make absolute the Rule to Show Cause which was issued in the above-captioned matter on January 30, 2008, and in support states the following: 1. A Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Plaintiff's Counsel was filed by the Petitioner on January 8, 2008, and a Supplement to Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Plaintiffs Counsel was filed on January 17, 2008. 2. The Rule to Show Cause was issued on January 30, 2008, and was mailed to Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, attorney for Defendant, and Thomas D'Ambrosio, Plaintiff on February 4, 2008. See the Certificate of Service attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 3. To date, no response has been forthcoming from the Plaintiff or Attorney Coyne to this Honorable Court's Rule to Show Cause. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court make the Rule to Show Cause Absolute. Respectfully submitted, P.C. Date `:&--Al Jo?fi F. King, EsquN 20 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 236-8000 ?' (F THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ---C-UJMBERL-AND-COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. No. 2005-2674 J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a CIVIL ACTION COTTMAN TRANSMISSION - Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, ohn F. King, Esquire, hereby certify that on February 4, 2008, I served a copy of the Rule to Show Cause and Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Plaintiffs Counsel, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Y Thomas D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Dr. Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire Coyne & Coyne, P.C. 3901 Market.Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 G, P.C. ohn . King, Esquire Market Street 0 %82 p Hill, PA 17011 (717) 236-8000 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this - 169A day of March, 2008, I served the foregoing Motion to Make Rule Absolute upon the person and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Service by First Class Mail addressed as follows: Thomas D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Dr. Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire Coyne & Coyne, P.C. 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 .C. Jo F. King, Esquire 0 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 236-8000 t FRIEDMAN & KING, P.C. John F. King, Esquire ID #61919 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel.: (717) 236-8000/Fax: (717) 236-8080 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION AMENDMENT TO MOTION TO MAKE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ABSOLUTE AND NOW comes the Petitioner, Friedman & King, P.C., by John F. King, Esquire, seeking to make the Motion to Make Rule to Show Cause Absolute, amends his Motion, pursuant to Cumberland County Local Rule 208.3(a)(2) and (9), as follows: 1. The Honorable Edward E. Guido previously ruled upon a Motion to File an Amended Complaint; and 2. The Honorable Edward E. Guido issued said Rule to Show Cause on January 30, 2008; and 3. Defendant's counsel, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esq., concurs with this Motion. Respectfully submitted, Date: i Jo F. King, Esquire ID61919 ,3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 236-8000 (717) 236-8080 FAX friedmanandkingnhotmail.com ,r THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 14th day of March, 2008, I served the Amendment to Motion to Make Rule to Show Cause Absolute, upon the person and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Service by first class mail addressed as follows: Thomas D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Dr. Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Lisa Coyne, Esq. Coyne & Coyne, PC 3901 Market St. Camp Hill PA 17011-4227 John F. King, Esquire Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 236-8000 n -TI VAR 1 2 20oe THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. No. 2005-2674 J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a CIVIL ACTION COTTMAN TRANSMISSION Defendant ORDER *"#- AND NOW, this A day of March, 2008, upon consideration of the verified Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Plaintiff's counsel, and Rule to Show Cause, and there being no opposition thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Petition is granted and that Petitioner, John F. King, Esquire, and the firm of Friedman and King, P.C., be permitted to withdraw their appearance of record for the Plaintiff in the above matter and the Prothonotary shall so mark the docket. J. o?/ KLNI I . HV 9? 14 0001 'V.'.. ,..-T- ilk D1r3l?r AND NOW, 200 , in consideration of the foregoing RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the Following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: counsel for the plamuff/defendant in the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $/Q, 7 The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise, disqualified to sit as arbitrators: WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3)' arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respec y submitted, , r ORDER OF COURT petition, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.? ??? 20 Esq., and Esq., and captioned action (or actions) as prayed for. Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above By the Court, EDGAR B. BAYLEY Hi, Hopefully I have filled this out correctly. Should you need to reach me: Tom D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, Michigan 48629 989-422-2950 hlcomp@charter.net v W ? oc/ q ?a C ism w f? I ???-? l?s?Ilssratl IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.o?GY?-"??7? , 20 RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the Following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: counsel for the plaintiff/defendant in the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that: . 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $_`Q, 7 Y` The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: 4417 A1114 P- A*W6- WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respec y submitted, , f ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, 200.9 , inconsideration of the foregoing petition, _ 61, a? Esq., and CL--A ? Esq., and Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action ( actions) as prayed for. -7 By a urt, CAkj Er" E AR B. BAYLEY I Il-i ?. LL CV o? 1 COYNE & COYNE, PC. Lisa Marie Coyne, Esq. Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO: 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, EDGAR B. BAYLEY, President Judge: AND NOW COMES the Defendant, J. Marcin Enterprises, d/b/a Cottman Transmission, by and through its counsel, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire and avers the following in support of the Motion to Strike the Appointment of Arbitrators: 1. On May 24, 2005, Defendant timely filed a Notice of Appeal and Plaintiff was Ruled to file a Complaint following proceedings before MDJ Placey. 2. On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff served a purported Complaint on Defendant and Defendant's counsel. 3. On June 15, 2005, Defendant filed Preliminary Objections to the "Complaint". -1- 4. On or about July 5, 2005, Plaintiff filed, pro se, a Response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections, but did nothing to move the case. 5. Then on November 18, 2005, Plaintiff, now represented by Attorney John King, filed a Petition for Allowance to File an Amended Complaint, which the Defendant did not object. 6. On December 27, 2005, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion to Make Rule Absolute its Petition to File an Amended Complaint since the undersigned counsel did not object and on December 30, 2005, Judge Guido granted Plaintiff's Petition and Plaintiff was permitted to amend his complaint. 7. Rather than promptly file an Amended Complaint, however, Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, did not file his amended complaint until March 15, 2006; nearly two and a half months after Judge Guido granted Plaintiff's request to be permitted to amend his complaint. 8. On April 20, 2006, Defendant filed its Answer. 9. On June 21, 2006, Plaintiff, through his counsel, filed Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents which Defendant promptly answered on July 19, 2006. 10. Discovery progressed for Plaintiff and on December 13, 2006, Defendant and two (2) employees appeared for depositions at Attorney King's office. 11. Upon conclusion of the lengthy Depositions by Attorney King, it became abundantly clear to Plaintiff's own counsel that Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant were not supported by the facts given the credible and truthful testimony of the deposed witnesses and as a -2- result of the depositions, Plaintiff's own counsel indicated to the undersigned counsel that he would speak to Plaintiff to recommend that Plaintiff withdraw and discontinue the frivolous case. 12. Meanwhile, Defendant, through counsel, repeatedly requested informal discovery from Plaintiff which was focused primarily upon the need for an inspection of Plaintiff's vehicle; however, Plaintiff refused the requests and then on January 8, 2008, Attorney John King, Plaintiff's attorney filed a Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Plaintiff's Counsel stating in the Petition that: 663. Plaintiff insists upon taking action with which Petitioner [Attorney King) has a fundamental disagreement. 4. Plaintiff fails and refuses to follow the sound legal advice of Petitioner. " (See, Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff.) 13. On March 25, 2008, Judge Guido granted the Petition for Attorney King to withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff; 14. Since March 25, 2008, Plaintiff continues to refuse to comply with Defendant's request for inspection of the vehicle and instead, apparently, filed a Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators on March 16, 2009 without any advance or concurrent notice to Defendant and his attorney. 15. Plaintiff never served the undersigned counsel of record with a copy of the Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators and it was not until Thursday, March 25, 2009 that the undersigned counsel had any knowledge that Plaintiff had filed anything with the Court when the -3- undersigned counsel was surprised to receive a call from Attorney Robert Saidis' office inquiring as to dates for an arbitration. 16. Discovery is clearly not complete due to no fault of the Defendant and this matter is not in proper position for arbitration despite Defendant's continual efforts to complete discovery both when Plaintiff was represented by Attorney King and now, when Plaintiff is represented pro se. 17. On March 30, 2009, the undersigned counsel received a fax consisting of a coversheet and a semi-blank document which is wholly illegible and appears to be an after-the- fact attempt by Plaintiff to provide this office with a copy of a document he filed with the Court. (A copy of the document is attached as Exhibit "A".) 18. The Honorable Edward E. Guido was previously assigned to this case and Ruled upon Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint as well as Attorney King's Petition To Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff; however, the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley, President Judge, issued the Order for Appointment of Arbitrators. 19. No request for continuance has previously been requested by the Defendant and Defendant has always promptly answered all pleadings, promptly complied with all discovery requests from Plaintiff, and cooperated with Plaintiff's counsel in the prompt scheduling of depositions of all witnesses identified by Defendant through discovery. 20. The granting of Defendant's relief requested will not unreasonably delay these proceedings in that Plaintiff has already failed to diligently pursue this matter for the last four years. -4- WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to Strike the Appointment of Arbitrators and direct that Plaintiff promptly comply with Defendant's discovery requests. Date 3 d C Respectfully submitted: COYNE & COYNE, P.C. By: -5- Lisa arie Coyne, Esq. Pa upreme Ct. No. 5378 O1 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Attorney for Defendant Recipient Information To: pwLisya Coyne Faox #: 7T7 oyn & Coyne Sender Information From: Tom D'Ambrosio Email address: hloomp@charter.net Sent on: Monday, March 30 2009 at 2:14 PM CDT This tax was sent using the FaxZero can free fax service. FaxZero.com has a zero tolerance policy for abuse and junk faxim K this fax is spurn or abusive. p?eese e-mail support@faxzemcom or send a tax to ®00?60?titisti. Specify fax Of77353711. We wi/ add your fax Hour ber to the block fist. f ? ? !I L.I ...... ................... y i .r h y?y??? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, of Coyne & Coyne, P.C., hereby certify that true copy of the Motion to Strike Appointment of Arbitrators was mailed on March 30, 2009, to the below-referenced individual at the below listed address by way of first class U.S. Mail: Thomas J. D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Robert C. Saidis, Esq., Chairman of Arbitrators Saidis, Flower & Lindsey 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Richard L. Webber, Jr., Esq., Arbitrator 126 East King Street Shippensburg, PA 17357 C. Roy Weidner, Jr., Esq., Arbitrator 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Date: _313402 COYNE & COYNE, P. C Lis arie Coyne, Esquire 3 arket Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Pa. S. Ct. No. 53788 Attorney for Defendant -6- CO THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, DEFENDANT 05-2674 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of April, 2009, the appointment of a Board of Arbitrators, IS VACATED.' The Chairman, Robert C. Saidis, Esquire, shall be paid $50.00. By the ? Thomas D'Ambrosio, Pro se 225 Chippendale Drive /Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Lisa Coyne, Esquire For Defendant .,,Robert C. Saidis, Esquire Chairman Board of Arbitrators .,,?Richard L. Webber, Esquire Zc- Roy Weidner, Jr., Esquire Edgar B. Bayley, J. (20t1C S /K9l LL Court Administrator _ 7[ucecL r;J pt L :sal ' The case is not at issue. Plaintiff has not responded to any informal request for discovery. Within fifteen (15) days of this date defendant shall, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure, serve on plaintiff a request for inspection of the subject vehicle to which it is entitled before the case can go to trial. 'WAItSP+ld Is 4 2" Mim +allt Jo COYNE & COYNE, PC. Lisa Marie Coyne, Esq. Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Attorney for Defendant THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO: 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have this date served an original Request for Production of Documents AND Request for View of Motor Vehicle upon the following individual, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the following: Thomas J. D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Date: 0 COYNE & COYNE, P.C. By: 1, sa Marie Coyne, Es . a. Supreme Ct. No. 53788 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 Attorney for Plaintiff Al FIGE F HE - `(''N? - AA A `( 2009 APR -7 PIN 1- 29 i ' COYNE & COYNE, PC. Lisa Marie Coyne, Esq. Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Attorney for Defendant THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: AND NOW COMES the Defendant, J. Marcin Enterprises, d/b/a Cottman Transmission, by and through its counsel, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire and avers the following in support of the Motion to Compel: 1. On May 24, 2005, Defendant timely filed a Notice of Appeal and Plaintiff was Ruled to file a Complaint following proceedings before MDJ Placey. 2. On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff served a purported Complaint upon Defendant and Defendant's counsel. 3. On June 15, 2005, Defendant filed Preliminary Objections to the "Complaint". 1 i 4. On or about July 5, 2005, Plaintiff filed, pro se, a Response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections, but did nothing to move the case. 5. Then on November 18, 2005, Plaintiff, now represented by Attorney John King, filed a Petition for Allowance to File an Amended Complaint, which the Defendant did not object. 6. On December 27, 2005, Plaintiffs counsel filed a Motion to Make Rule Absolute its Petition to File an Amended Complaint since the undersigned counsel did not object and on December 30, 2005, Judge Guido granted Plaintiffs Petition and Plaintiff was permitted to amend his complaint. 7. Rather than promptly file an Amended Complaint, however, Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, did not file his amended complaint until March 15, 2006; nearly two and a half months after Judge Guido granted Plaintiffs request to be permitted to amend his complaint. 8. On April 20, 2006, Defendant filed its Answer. 9. On June 21, 2006, Plaintiff, through his counsel, filed Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents which Defendant promptly answered on July 19, 2006. 10. Discovery progressed for Plaintiff and on December 13, 2006, Defendant and two (2) employees appeared for depositions at Attorney King's office. 11. Upon conclusion of the lengthy Depositions by Attorney King, it became abundantly clear to Plaintiffs own counsel that Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant were not supported by the facts given the credible and truthful testimony of the deposed witnesses and as a result of the depositions, Plaintiffs own counsel indicated to the undersigned counsel that he would speak to Plaintiff to recommend that Plaintiff withdraw and discontinue the frivolous case. 2 12. Meanwhile, Defendant, through counsel, repeatedly requested informal discovery from Plaintiff which was focused primarily upon the need for an inspection of Plaintiff's vehicle; however, Plaintiff refused the requests and then on January 8, 2008, Attorney John King, Plaintiff s attorney filed a Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Plaintiffs Counsel stating in the Petition that: 643. Plaintiff insists upon taking action with which Petitioner [Attorney King) has a fundamental disagreement. 4. Plaintiff fails and refuses to follow the sound legal advice of Petitioner. " See, Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff.) 13. On March 25, 2008, Judge Guido granted the Petition for Attorney King to withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff; 14. Since March 25, 2008, Plaintiff continues to refuse to comply with Defendant's request for inspection of the vehicle and instead, apparently, filed a Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators on March 16, 2009 without any advance or concurrent notice to Defendant and his attorney. 15. Plaintiff never served the undersigned counsel of record with a copy of the Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators and it was not until Thursday, March 25, 2009 that the undersigned counsel learned that Plaintiff had filed anything with the Court when the undersigned counsel was contacted by Attorney Robert Saidis' office inquiring as to dates for an arbitration. 16. Defendant promptly filed a Motion to Strike the Appointment of the Board of Arbitrators which was granted by Order of this Court, dated April 2, 2009 and Defendant was directed to request formal discovery and view of vehicle. See Exhibit "A". r' 17. On April 3, 2009, Defendant served a Request for Production of Documents upon the Plaintiff which was due to be answered no later than May 3, 2009. See Exhibit "B". 18. No objections or protective orders where sought by Plaintiff concerning the discovery propounded upon Plaintiff. 19. As of the date of this Motion to Compel, Plaintiff has not answered the discovery propounded upon him and Defendant has not received any of the discovery materials as requested in Defendant's Request for Production of Documents. 20. Without the required discovery materials, Defendant cannot adequately prepare for trial. 21. The Plaintiff has been unresponsive and therefore, in accordance with the local rules of this court, it is believed that that Plaintiff opposes the relief sought in this motion. 22. Judge Guido was involved in this case to the limited extent that he adjudicated Attorney King's Petition to Withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff and President Judge Bayley has most recently been involved with regard to the appointing and then striping the Board of Arbitrators. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order the Plaintiff to (1) immediately provide the discovery materials requested in Defendant discovery and (2) to award Defendant reasonable attorney fees incurred by Defendant in pursuing Motion to Compel and which would not have been incurred if Plaintiff 4 has complied with the reasonable discovery requests, and (3) all other relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court. Respectfully submitted: COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Dated: By: Lis arie Coyne, Esquy P . S. Ct. No. 53788 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Attorney for Defendant THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, PLAINTIFF V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 05-2674 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of April, 2009; the appointment of a Board of Arbitrators, IS VACATED.' The Chairman, Robert C. Saidis, Esquire, shall be paid $50.00. By the Edgar B. Bayley, J. Thomas D'Ambrosio, Pro se 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Lisa Coyne, Esquire For Defendant Robert C. Saidis, Esquire Chairman Board of Arbitrators Richard L. Webber, Esquire C. Roy Weidner, Jr., Esquire Court Administrator :sal ' The case is not at issue. Plaintiff has not responded to any informal request for discovery. Within fifteen (15) days of this date defendant shall, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure, serve on plaintiff a request for inspection of the subject vehicle to which it is entitled before the case can go to trill. COYNE & COYNE, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW Henry F. Coyne Lisa. Marie Coyne John W. Carter Mr. Thomas J. D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011-4227 April 3, 2009 Re: D'Ambrosio v. Marcin Dear Mr. D'Ambrosio: Enclosed please find the following discovery requests: (717) 737-0464 Facsimile (717) 737-5161 www.coyneandcoyne.com 1. Defendant's Request for Production of Documents; and 2. Defendant's Request for View and Inspection of Vehicle. 3. Additionally, I have enclosed a verification form that you are required to sign verifying the information you provide in reference to this request. We have requested to view the van at issue here at our office on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Realizing that you will have to travel to Pennsylvania, we are willing to forego the requirement that you produce the van for inspection within 30 days of this date and have, instead, scheduled June 29, 2009 as the date of inspection and view. If you prefer an earlier date, please advise my office and we can coordinate an earlier date and time. Very truly yours, LMC/jwc Encls. Cc: J. Marcin Enterprises, LLC, w/encls. COYNE &COYNE, P.C. Li Marie Coyne COYNE & COYNE, PC. Lisa Marie Coyne, Esq. Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTIMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendant DEFENDANT'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT TO: Thomas J. D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. Nos. 4003.4 and 4009, please f nnish at our office, on or before thirty (30) days of service hereof, documents identified in the Plaintiff's Complaint and a photostatic copy or like reproduction of the other materials requested concerning this action or its subject matter which are in your, your agents, employees, and attorneys possession, custody or control and which are not protected by the attorney/client privilege; or, in the alternative, produce the said matter at said time to permit inspection and copying thereof. Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO: 2005-2674 : CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED This Request for Production of Documents is intended to cover the vehicle identified in Plaintiffs Complaint and all documents in the possession, custody and control of Defendant, his agents, employees, and attorneys, and is deemed to be continuing, thereby requiring Defendant to modify and/or supplement his responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents and Things as he obtains further or additional documents up to the time of trial. COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Dated: P-!1 By: Lisa arie Coyne, Esq. Pa. eme Ct. No. 537 48 ,3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 Attorney for Plaintiff V INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS The following definitions are applicable to and incorporated by reference into each Request for Production of Documents: A. "Document' -as used herein, means and refers to the original and all copies of any written, typed or other graphic matter of any kind, no matter by whom prepared whether sent or received or neither, including but not limited to: 1. Contracts, agreements, letter and other forms of correspondence or communications; 2. Memoranda, reports, financial statements and transcripts; 3. Minutes, records or transcripts of meetings and conferences, and lists of persons in attendance; 4. Reports and summaries of interviews; and 5. Records, memoranda, notes and notations of all telephone conversations. B. "Incident"-as used herein, means and refers to the accident of January 21, 2008 which is the subject matter of this litigation. CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE If you object to the production of any document on basis of attorney/client privilege, attorney work product or on the basis of any other privilege doctrine, statute or rule, please state the following: (a) the nature of the document; (b) the date of the document; (c) the author of the document; (d) the current location of the document; (e) the individual who has current control over the document; and (f) adequate information pertaining to how the document falls within the protection of non- disclosure. 2 V REOUESTED DOCUMENTS: Any and all statements concerning this action or its subject matter obtained by you or anyone acting on your behalf. 3 v 2. Any and all maintenance, repair, and service logs and receipts for the subject vehicle from May 1, 2003 to date. 4 3. Any and all investigation reports, except those protected from discovery, prepared by you or by anyone on your behalf in regard to the evaluation and litigation of the instant action. 5 4. Any and all curriculum vitae (i.e., resume) for each and every person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial. 6 Any and all expert reports from each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial. 7 6. Copies of all statements, memoranda, summaries of other writings, documents, diagrams and pictures obtained from your investigation. 7. All documents in your possession, custody or control prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial of this case, except those documents which disclose the mental impressions of your attorney or your attorney's conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes or summaries, legal research or legal theories, and except those documents prepared in anticipation of litigation by your representatives to the extent that they would disclose the representatives' mental impression, conclusions, or opinions respecting the value or merit of the claim or defense. 9 0- 8. To the extent that you have not already provided the same in response to previous requests herein, all statements obtained from any witnesses or memoranda of conversations with witnesses or recordings of witnesses' statements made or obtained during the course of the investigation or matters relating to this lawsuit, and all such statements, memoranda, or records made by parties to this lawsuit or their representatives. 10 r 9. To the extent not already provided in response to previous requests herein, all statements made by any party to this action, including written statements, signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person malting it, or stenographic, mechanical, electrical or other recording or transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement and contemporaneously recorded, as allowed by Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5. 11 OP 10. To the extent that you have not already provided the same, copies of all records, documents and memoranda which have any bearing upon the matters alleged against the Defendant. 12 11. To the extent not already provided, copies of all experts' reports made or secured by you in connection with your investigation of the matters relating to this lawsuit. G. 13 n 12. To the extent not already provided, copies of all exhibits that you intend to use at trial and/or to offer into evidence at the trial of this matter. 14 f i 13. Any and all documents which evidence any facts on the basis of which you will assert the cause of action stated in the Complaint. 15 w 4* This request for Production of Documents shall be deemed to be continuing. If between the time of your Reply to this Request for Production of Documents and the time of trial of this case, you or anyone acting on your behalf learn the identity and whereabouts of any other documents not identified in your answers, to interrogatories or in this Request for Production of Documents or if you obtain or become aware of additional requested information not supplied in your answers or reply, you shall promptly furnish same to the undersigned by supplemental answers and/or documents. Respectfully submitted: COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Dated: 3141 d 16 By: ?--- e Coyne me Ct. N o. 537 8 4SUPre 3901 Market St. Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-0464 Attorneys for Plaintiff PROOF OF SERVICE I, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have this date served an original of the foregoing Request for Production of Documents on the following individual, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the following: Thomas J. D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Date: 3. Zcri ? - "'?" 71 ? arie Coyne 17 1 0# PROOF OF SERVICE I, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have this date served an original of the foregoing Motion to Compel on the following individual, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the following: Thomas J. D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 Date: 0 6 1 h 2 6,13 j lli i y v ?ys ; i COYNE & COYNE, PC. Lisa Marie Coyne, Esq. Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendant Defend +P",,} Thomas D'Ambrosio, Plaintiff, Pro Se ? Lisa Marie Coyne, Esq. For Defendant COP 1 'es i rt'a I LL JUN 0 4 2009,!? Attorney for Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT By the J. 1 w? 0 AND NOW, this day of 2009, upon consideration of ant's Motion to Compel Discovery, a hearing ccher?„1P,? -r - MAIA%4NU m Nnoo f!f :lVl::. ,:-Tm 6 4 :Zl Wd 6- Nnr 6OU nilr-wu COYNE & COYNE, PC. Lisa Marie Coyne, Esq. Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Attorney for Defendant THOMAS D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff V. J. MARCIN ENTERPRISES, d/b/a COTTMAN TRANSMISSION, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 2005-2674 CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have this date served a coy of the Court Order, dated June 5, 2009, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the following: Thomas J. D'Ambrosio 225 Chippendale Drive Houghton Lake, MI 48629 COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Date: Y' z I ?-F) Li Marie Coyne, EA. a. Supreme Ct. No. 5378 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4?2' Attorney for Plaintiff 1 FILEL}-CJF`,i,F OF THE ', ?'i?A?Y 2009 JUN I I PM 2= 4 1 cum"Ei'l" '147 PiENNSYLVANIA DaviddD. Bueff Prothonotary KirkS. Sohonage, ESQ, Soricitor 7750 Renee X Simpson 1" Deputy Prothonotary Irene E. 31orrow 2"' Deputy Prothonotag Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County, Tennsykania Alls- Za" CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012, AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE -THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R.C.P. 230.2. BY THE COURT, DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Suite 100 • Carlisle, ,4 17013 9 (717)240-6195 • Fa,?(717 240-6573