Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-2975N TAN HURST d/b/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLTEK SYSTEMS, Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO.OS-o297S CIVIL ACTION TRAVIS STELZER, Individually and TRAVIS STELZER d/b/a CIVIL ACTION - LAW TOP GUN STAFFING, INC., and TOP GUN STAFFING, INC., a Corporation Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint, order and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and by 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, OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. STAN HURST d/b/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLTEK SYSTEMS, Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 05r-7975 CIVIL ACTION TRAVIS STELZER, Individually and TRAVIS STELZER d/b/a CIVIL ACTION - LAW TOP GUN STAFFING, INC., and TOP GUN STAFFING, INC. a Corporation, Defendants COMPLAINT AND NOW, this 9th day of June, 2005, comes the Plaintiff, STAN HURST d/b/a ALLTEK SYSTEMS, by and through his attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, and makes the following Complaint against the Defendants, TRAVIS STELZER, Individually and TRAVIS STELZER d/b/a TOP GUN STAFFING, INC., and TOP GUN STAFFINC, INC., a Corporation, averring as follows: 1. The Plaintiff is Stan Hurst, an adult individual principally residing and doing computer repair and maintenance business at 401 East Louther Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendants are Travis Stelzer, Individually and Travis Stelzer d/b/a Top Gun Staffing, Inc., and Top Gun Staffing, Inc., a Corporation, with business addresses of 1602A Spring Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, and 4646 Westchester Court, Duluth, Georgia 30096. 3. The Plaintiff provided computer maintenance and repair to the Defendants over a period from May 7, 2004 to June 23, 2004, for a total of $2,320.76. A copy of the invoice sent to Defendants on November 8, 2004 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 4. The Defendants have failed to reimburse the Plaintiff for services rendered or to provide in writing any reason for its refusal to pay for said services. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT 6. The averments of fact alleged in items one (1) through five (5) are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference. 7. The Defendants, by their actions in refusing and failing to pay for services including computer parts and labor rendered by Alltek Systems amounts to a breach of contract by the Defendants. 8. Despite repeated demands, Defendants have refused and failed to pay the outstanding bill and has refused and failed to provide Plaintiff with a written explanation as to the reason or reasons for denial of payment. 9. The Plaintiff is entitled to certain damages, including but not limited to, receiving the full amount of the outstanding bill and attorneys fees and costs associated with this litigation. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Stan Hurst, d/b/a Alltek Systems, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment against each Defendant in the invoice amount of Two Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 76/100 ($2,320.76) Dollars, plus costs, interest, and all other relief this Honorable Court deems fair and just. 2 Date: June 9, 2005 By: Respectfully Submitted, IRWIN A. 60 West PbTfr Carlisle, Penn (717) 249-2353 KnigHt, III, ID #25476 A Street E EXHIBIT "A" Alltek Systems 401 E. Louther St. Carlisle, PA 17013 717-2459480 fax 717-245-9997 Bill To: F p Gun Staffing 2A Spring Road lisle, PA 17013 PO Number Terms Net on Receipt Customer # Invoice Number. 073104109 Date: November 08, 2004 Ship To: Top Gun Staffing 1602A Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Service Rep. Project Travis S er Office Network Description 5/07/04 -6/23/04 Labor (See Detaiq Parts (See Detail) Thank You for Choosing Alltek Systems. We Value Your Business. Qty/Hrs Price/Rate Tax Amount 40.50 45.00 v 1,822.50 1.00 3 889 4o 366.89 Sub-Total State Tax 6.00% on 2,189.39 Total 0 - 30 days I 31 - 60 days 61 - 90 days > 90 Ys $0.00 $0.00 $2,320.76 $0.00 $2,189.39 131.37 $2,320.76 Total $2,320.76 Alltek Systems 401 E. Louther St. Carlisle, PA 17013 717-245-9480 fax 717-245-9997 Bill To: Top Gun Staffing ATTN: Travis Seltzer 4646 West Chester Court Duluth, GA 30096 4 Invoice Number: 073104-109 Ship To: Date: November 08, 2004 F op Gun Staffing TTN: Travis Seltzer 14646 West Chester Court Duluth, GA 30096 PO Number Terms Customer # Net on Receipt Description j 5/07/04 --6/23/04 Labor (See Detail) Parts (See Detail) Thank You for Choosing Alltek Systems. We Value Your Business. Service Rep. I Project Travis Seltzer I Off. Netwrk/Ca rl isle Qty/firs Price/Rate i Tax Amount 40.50 45.001 v 1 1,822.50 1.00 366.89 '/ I 366.89 Sub-Total State Tax 6.00% on 2,189.39 Total 0 - 30 days I 31 - 60 days i 61 - 90 days J > 90 days $O.DO -? $0.00 $2,320.76 $0.00 $2,189.39 131.37 $2,320.76 Total $2,320.76 M M 1? Q1 ? O 00 Cl) N ? r M N N A O O FO F-F V Q C a ? t7 L IF VERIFICATION The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. 1 STAN HURST -' Date: ?c,` l Fi J ^1V tl c 1 1 4q n r- L :J . ?o ?Tl LJ n) w 0 T T 1 ?l ?r` STAN HURST & ALLTEK SYSTEMS, Plaintiffs vs Case No. 2005-2975 CIVIL TERM TRAVIS STELZER & TOP GUN STAFFING, INC. Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: STAN HURST & ALLTEK SYSTEMS intends to proceed with the abov captioned matter. Print Name MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III Sign Name Date: OCTOBER 27, 2008 Attorney for PLAINTIFFS Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case. they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. ?..?a .'? ? , ? '? ?? _ ^?J ?. '^--y ?` STAN HURST d/b/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLTEK SYSTEMS, . Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. • . 2005 - 2975 CIVIL TERM . _3. TRAVIS STELTZER and TOP GUN STAFFING, ~ Defendants STATEMENT nF INTENTION TO PROCEED TO THE COURT: Stan Hurst d/b/a Alltek Systems, Plaintiff, intends to proceed with the above-captioned , matter. Respectfully Submitted: IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. Marcus A. Mc ight, II, Esq. Supreme Court# 76 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: October 21, 2011 Stan Hurst d/b/a Alltek Systems vs Case No. 2005-2975 c Travis Stelzer d/b/a Top Gun Staffing, Inc. Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: The Plaintiff intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name Marcus A.McKnight, III Sign Name Date: October 21, 2014 Attorney for PLaint if f Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. I. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Ru1e230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty -day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a showing to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty -day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.