Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-3496John R. Druschel and Associates, LLC, Plaintiff vs Deana Davis, David Furline, and The IV League, LLC, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. JURY TRIAL REQUESTED CIVIL ACTION AT LAW NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013-3308 (717) 249-3166 John R. Druschel and Associates, LLC, Plaintiff vs Deana Davis, David Furline, and The IV League, LLC, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. JURY TRIAL REQUESTED CIVIL ACTION AT LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, John R. Druschel and Associates, LLC, by and through their attorney, Mark K. Emery, Esquire, and files this Complaint as follows: John R. Druschel and Associates, LLC, ("Plaintiffs") is Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company with an address for transacting business at 3901 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. 3. 4. 6. Defendant Deana Davis ("Davis") is an adult individual with a current residence of 524 Chaparral Drive, Cranberry Township, Pa. 16066.. David Furline ("Furline") is and adult individual with a current address of 2607 Wyncote Road, Bethel Park, Pa. 15102. Upon information and belief, The IV League, LLC, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company with a current address for conducting business of 524 Chaparral Drive, Cranberry Township, Pa. 16066. Plaintiff is in the business of providing pharmacy supply companies with nurse staffing and nurse availability for intravenous medical services. As part of Plaintiffs business, it subcontracted with Defendants Davis and Furline to Provide services to Plaintiffs clientele. Plaintiff and Defendants Davis and Furline entered into a related business relationship where as Davis and Furline would act as independent contractors to provide nursing services to Plaintiffs, clientele. 8. No written contract was entered into between the parties, nor were there any specific terms as to when payment would be made for services provided by Davis and Furline. 9. It was the agreement of the parties that Davis and Furline would receive payment for their services subsequent to when Plaintiff received payment from the pharmacy supply service. 10. Upon information and belief, Davis and Furline created The IV League, LLC in or about August, 2004, and since such time the have operated under such entity. 11. Based partially upon late payments from the various general pharmacy supply companies, payments from Plaintiff to Defendants became in arrears. 12. In or about June 2005, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an agreement where Plaintiff would make payment to Defendants of all outstanding balances due on or before June 30, 2005. 13. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, on June 16, 2005 Defendants contacted at least one of the Plaintiff s clients, OmniCare Pharmacy Services of Pennsylvania, stating to OmniCare that Plaintiff was not making payments to them, and that if payment was not made by June 30`s Defendants would cease all further services. 14. The intent of such contact was not to advise Omni Care of the potential loss of services, but rather to attempt to usurp the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Omni Care. 15. Defendants did usurp the existing contract between Plaintiff and OmniCare, and have now commenced providing services directly to OmniCare and direct interference with the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and OmniCare. 16. Defendants action was calculated to create a distrust and concern on the part of Omni Care in order to induce Omni Care to terminate its' contract with Plaintiff and reestablish such contract with Defendants. 17. In or about June 2005, Defendant Furline, while providing services as a subcontractor of Plaintiff, advised a nursing home that the general pharmaceutical supplier, Millennium Pharmacy Services, was not making payment when due. 18• Furline's comments were meant to induce the nursing home to contract directly with the IV League, rather than using Millennium Pharmacy Services. 19. Millennium Pharmacy Services utilizes Plaintiff to provided such services. 20. Furline's comments were made in his individual capacity, as well as in his capacity as a representative and member of The IV League. 21. Defendant's conduct was meant to induce Millennium Pharmacy Services and or the nursing home to contract directly with Defendants rather than through Plaintiff. 22. Due to Defendant's actions, Millennium Pharmacy Services has canceled its contract with Plaintiff and now contracts directly with Defendants. COUNTI TORTIOUS INTERFF.RJ?Ncv IUIF rTv.,.,n._.? 23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated fully herein by reference. Purpose or intent to harm Plaintiff by usurping the contract Plaintiff held with such entities in order to obtain the contract directly. 26. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages through the loss of the contracts with OmniCare and Millennium and the profits that are generated through such contracts. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgement for it and against Defendants jointly and severally and award all further relief allowed by law. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY By. Mark K. E e , Esquire - Court I.D. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 DATE: Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION 1, John R. Druschel, on behalf of John R. Druschel & Associates, LLC, hereby verify that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that the Information contained therein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of IS Pe.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. *R. Druscdh , Manager DATE: 7 9 ? Z -- T In '? 3 John R. Druschel and Associates, LLC, Plaintiff vs Deana Davis, David Furline, and The IV League, LLC, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLA'.ND COUNTY DOCKET NO. 05-3496 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED CIVIL ACTION AT LAW NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013-3308 (717) 249-3166 John R. Druschel and Associates, LLC, Plaintiff vs Deana Davis, David Furline, and The W League, LLC, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. 05-3496 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED CIVIL ACTION AT LAW AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, John R. Druschel and Associates, LLC, by and through their attorney, Mark K. Emery, Esquire, and files this Amended Complaint as follows: John R. Druschel and Associates, LLC, ("Plaintiffs") is Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company with an address for transacting business at 3901 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendant Deana Davis ("Davis") is an adult individual with a current residence of 524 Chaparral Drive, Cranberry Township, Pa. 16066.. David Furline ("Furline") is and adult individual with a current address of 2607 Wyncote Road, Bethel Park, Pa. 15102. 4. Upon information and belief, The IV League, LLC, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company with a current address for conducting business of 524 Chaparral Drive, Cranberry Township, Pa. 16066. 5. Plaintiff is in the business of providing pharmacy supply companies with nurse staffing and nurse availability for intravenous medical services. 6. As part of Plaintiff's business, it subcontracted with Defendants Davis and Furline to provide services to Plaintiff's clientele. 7. Plaintiff and Defendants Davis and Furline entered into a related business relationship where as Davis and Furline would act as independent contractors to provide nursing services to Plaintiffs' clientele. 8. No written contract was entered into between the parties., nor were there any specific terms as to when payment would be made for services provided by Davis and Furline. 9. It was the agreement of the parties that Davis and Furline would receive payment for their services subsequent to when Plaintiff received payment from the pharmacy supply service. 10. Upon information and belief, Davis and Furline created'rhe IV League, LLC in or about August, 2004, and since such time the have operated under such entity. 11. Based partially upon late payments from the various general pharmacy supply companies, payments from Plaintiff to Defendants became in arrears. 12. In or about June 2005, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an agreement where Plaintiff would make payment to Defendants of all outstanding balances due on or before June 30, 2005. 13. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, on June 16, 2005 Defendants contacted at least one of the Plaintiffs clients, OmniCare Pharmacy Services of Pennsylvania, stating to OmniCare that Plaintiff was not making payments to them, and that if payment was not made by June 301h Defendants would cease all further services. 14. The intent of such contact was not to advise Omni Care of the potential loss of services, but rather to attempt to usurp the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Omni Care. 15. Defendants did usurp the existing contract between Plaintiff and OmniCare, and have now commenced providing services directly to OmniCare and direct interference with the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and OmniCare. 16. Defendants action was calculated to create a distrust and concern on the part of Omni Care in order to induce Omni Care to terminate its' contract with Plaintiff and reestablish such contract with Defendants. 17. In or about June 2005, Defendant Furline, while providing services as a subcontractor of Plaintiff, advised a nursing home that the general pharmaceutical supplier, Millennium Pharmacy Services, was not making payment when due. 18. Furline's comments were meant to induce the nursing home to contract directly with the IV League, rather than using Millennium Pharmacy Services. 19. Millennium Pharmacy Services utilizes Plaintiff to provided such services. 20. Furline's comments were made in his individual capacity, as well as in his capacity as a representative and member of The IV League. 21. Defendant's conduct was meant to induce Millennium Pharmacy Services and or the nursing home to contract directly with Defendants rather than through Plaintiff. 22. Due to Defendant's actions, Millennium Pharmacy Services has canceled its contract with Plaintiff and now contracts directly with Defendants. COUNTI TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP 23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated fully herein by reference. 24. Plaintiff possessed a current contractual relationship with both OmniCare and Millennium. 25. Defendant's actions were neither privileged nor justified, and were done with specific purpose or intent to harm Plaintiff by usurping the contract Plaintiff held with such entities in order to obtain the contract directly. 26. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages through the loss of the contracts with OmniCare and Millennium and the profits that are generated through such contracts. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgement for it and against Defendants jointly and severally and award all further relief allowed by law. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY By: ,l - Mark K. Emery, Esquir , Supreme Court I.D. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg. PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiff DATE: July 26, 2005 VERWICATION I, John R. Druschel. on behalf of John R. Druschel & Associates, LLC. hereby verify that i have read the foregoing Complaint and that the Information contained therein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Ps.C.S. § 41104 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. -7 oh R. Druschd. Manager DATE: ! ` ? ? Y ? '? n? C i ?-,? ?) ?'- c- -!1 cri _ ? .? __ -r-n ? ? _?., c-' "' ? __ -_ ?.- ? O John R. Druschel and Associates, LLC, Plaintiff vs Deana Davis, David Furline, and The IV League, LLC, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. 05-3496 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED CIVIL ACTION AT LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, I, Mark K. Emery, Esquire do hereby certify that Plaintiff s Amended Complaint was served upon Defendants on July 26, 2005 by mailing a true and correct copy via United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Mr. David Furline 2607 Wyncote Road Bethel Park, PA 15102 Ms. Deana Davis 524 Chaparral Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 The IV League, LLC 524 Chaparral Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 DATE: July 29, 2005 RespectL ly submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY By: Mark K. Emery, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiff r.7 ? . tTr .?i i _?`?'. (?.? ye Ci •. '.?G ?.. C,:. R. DRUSCHEL AND CIATES, LLC, Plaintiff VS. QA DAVIS, DAVID FURLINE, THE IV LEAGUE, LLC, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO: 05-3496 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED CIVIL ACTION AT LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: John R. Druschel and Associates, LLC and Mark K. Emery, Esquire (Attorney for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant) You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Defendants' New Matter and Counterclaim Plaintiff s Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. Dated: August /S , 2005 Kichard C. Snelbaker, Esquire 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiff JOHN R. DRUSCHEL AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ASSOCIATES, LLC, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : DOCKET NO: 05-3496 VS. JURY TRIAL REQUESTED DEANA DAVIS, DAVID FURLINE, AND THE IV LEAGUE LLC CIVIL ACTION AT LAW Defendants DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM ANSWER AND NOW, come the Defendants by their attorneys, Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C., and respond to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as follows: Admitted. 2. All averments in paragraph 2 are admitted except the status of Deana Davis as a defendant. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, it is denied that Deana Davis has been properly named as a defendant, said averment being scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken. 3. The averments in paragraph 3 are admitted as stated. If Plaintiff intends by such identification to characterize David Furline as a defendant, it is denied for all the reasons set forth hereinbelow, that he has been properly named as a defendant, said averment being scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken. 4. Admitted. Admitted. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. Admitted except to the characterization of Davis and Furline being defendants. For all the reasons set forth hereinbelow, it is denied that Davis and Furline have been properly named as defendants, said averment being scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken. Admitted except to the characterization of Davis and Furline being defendants. For all the reasons set forth hereinbelow, it is denied that Davis and Furline have been properly named as defendants, said averment being scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken. 8. It is admitted that no written contract was made by the parties. It is denied that there were no specific terms as to when payments would be made to Davis and Furline. On the contrary, on Plaintiff's proposal, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would pay for the services two (2) times per month in full. 9. It is admitted that only for payment timing and cash flow purposes, it was agreed that Plaintiff would pay Davis and Furline for their services after Plaintiff received payment from the pharmacy supply service, but it is denied that Plaintiff s liability to Davis and Furline was conditioned on Plaintiff's receipt of payment from such pharmacy supply service. On the contrary, Plaintiff was obligated to pay Davis and Furline for their services regardless of Plaintiff s recovery of monies from the pharmacy service. By way of further response, it is averred that on Plaintiff's proposal, the parties agreed that such payments would be made two (2) times per month in full. 10. Admitted. By way of further response, it is averred that contemporaneously with LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. the formation of The IV League LLC the parties mutually cancelled Davis' and Furline's relationship as individuals and substituted said new limited liability company for said individuals, all other terms of their contract remaining the same. 11. It is admitted that payments from Plaintiff to The IV League LLC became in arrears. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that said arrearage situation was based partially upon late payments from various general pharmacy supply companies and, therefore, it is deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case, if relevant. By way of further response, it is averred that Plaintiff breached the parties' contract by failing to pay for the Defendant's services in full. 12. It is denied that the parties entered into the agreement as alleged in paragraph 12. On the contrary, it is averred that Plaintiff unilaterally promised payment of all outstanding balances by June 30, 2005, which promise Plaintiff failed to keep. 13. It is denied that Defendants made the contact as alleged. On the contrary, it is averred that The IV League LLC made such contact, the substantive content of the contact being as contained in paragraph 13. It is denied that said contact was made "unbeknownst to Plaintiff' On the contrary, it is averred that after numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain payment from Plaintiff, Defendant The IV League LLC contemporaneously with its contact with OmniCare Pharmacy of Pennsylvania ("OmniCare"), gave notice to Plaintiff containing the same content. 14. It is denied that the intent of the contact with OmniCare was an attempt to usurp the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and OmniCare. On the contrary, the sole purpose and intent of such contact was to advise OmniCare of The IV League LLC's intent to discontinue its services in a good faith effort to discharge its ethical responsibility to OmniCare and Plaintiff in order that other services could be arranged for OmniCare's clients in a timely manner. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & 15. It is denied that the Defendants usurped any contract between OmniCare and BRENNEMAN, P.C. Plaintiff or interfered with any such contractual relationship. On the contrary, for reasons beyond Defendants' actual knowledge, OmniCare and Plaintiff terminated their business relationship whereupon OmniCare agreed to have The IV League LLC perform the required services. It is denied that Davis and Furline individually have a contractual relationship with OmniCare. On the contrary, only The IV League LLC has provided services for/to OmniCare. 16. It is denied that Defendants' action was calculated to create a distrust and concern in order to induce OmniCare to terminate its contract with Plaintiff and reestablish such contract with Defendants. On the contrary, it was The IV League LLC's action to advise OmniCare of its intention to discontinue its services in a good faith effort to discharge its ethical responsibility to OmniCare and Plaintiff in order that other services could be arranged for OmniCare's clients in a timely manner. 17. It is denied that Furline was a subcontractor of Plaintiff in June 2005. On the contrary, as averred in paragraph 10 above, The IV League LLC became the subcontractor of Plaintiff in August 2004. It is further denied that Furline made the alleged statements for any improper purpose. On the contrary, and again as averred hereinabove, The IV League LLC via Furline gave good faith notice to one of its service recipients that it would be terminating its services because The IV League LLC was not being paid by Plaintiff who blamed the non- payment on Millenniums' failure to pay Plaintiff. 18. It is denied that Furline's comments were made to induce the nursing home to LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. deal directly with The IV League LLC rather than Millennium. On the contrary, The IV League LLC's comments via Furline were made to give timely notice to the nursing home to obtain substitute services upon The IV League LLC's discontinuance of service through Plaintiff. 19. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief that "Millennium Pharmacy Services utilizes Plaintiff to provided [sic] 4 such services" and, therefore, the same is deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case, if relevant. 20. It is denied that Furline's comments were made in his individual capacity. On the contrary, such comments were made solely as a member or representative of The IV League LLC. 21. It is denied that Defendants' conduct was meant to induce Millennium Pharmacy Services and/or the nursing home to contract directly with Defendants rather than through Plaintiff. On the contrary, as averred above, it was The IV League LLC's good faith purpose to inform the nursing home of The IV League LLC's impending termination of services in order for the home to arrange for substitute services. 22. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments that Millennium Pharmacy Services cancelled its contract with Plaintiff, and, if true, that such cancellation was "due to defendants' actions" and, therefore, the same are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case, if relevant. It is denied that Millennium Pharmacy Services now contracts directly with Defendants. On the contrary, none of the persons/entities identified as a Defendant herein has any contractual relationship with Millennium Pharmacy Services. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. COUNTI 23. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 22 hereinabove are incorporated herein by reference thereto as though fully set forth herein. 24. The content of paragraph 24 is a series of conclusions of law to which no response is required and, therefore, are deemed to be denied. To the extent that said content is determined to be factual, Defendants, after reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the statements and, therefore, are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case, if relevant. 25. The content of paragraph 25 is a series of conclusions of law to which no response is required and, therefore, are deemed to be denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants' alleged actions were not performed to harm Plaintiff nor to usurp contracts in order to obtain the contracts for the account of The IV League LLC or anyone else. On the contrary, it was Defendants' purpose to alert interested persons/entities of the discontinuance of The IV League LLC's services because of Plaintiff's defalcation in properly paying The IV League LLC in order that such persons/entities could make arrangements for substitute services in a timely manner. 26. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments that Plaintiff has suffered actual damages and/or profits generated through the alleged loss of contracts with OmniCare and Millennium and, therefore, said averments are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case, if relevant. 6 WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER By way of further response and defense, Defendants aver the following New Matter: 27. No contract exists whereby any Defendant is restricted or prevented from competing with Plaintiff. 28. Under the original contractual terms, Davis and Furline, as individuals, were separate subcontractors of and with Plaintiff. 29. Upon the formation of The IV League LLC on or about August 20, 2004, and by agreement of all parties, Davis and Furline as individuals ceased being subcontractors of and with Plaintiff, and The IV League LLC became the sole subcontractor in substitution for said individuals. 30. Plaintiff as improperly joined David and Furline as defendants. 31. Plaintiff and Defendant The IV League LLC agreed (as did the previous individual subcontractors) that Plaintiff would pay The IV League LLC for its services in full two (2) times per month pursuant to billings from The IV League LLC. 32. Attached hereto marked "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by reference thereto is a tabulation of amounts billed by The IV League LLC for services rendered to OmniCare and Plaintiffs payments on account thereof. 33. Beginning in September of 2004, Plaintiff began to fail to pay two (2) times per LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. as agreed and failed to remit payment in full at any time thereafter. 34. Plaintiff s last payment to The IV League LLC was on May 25, 2005. 35. The unpaid balance owing by Plaintiff to The IV League LLC on the OmniCare account is $74,045.00. 36. Attached hereto marked "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference thereto is a tabulation of amounts billed by The IV League LLC to Plaintiff for services rendered to Millennium and Plaintiff's payments on account thereof. 37. Beginning in February 2005, Plaintiff began to fail to pay two (2) times per month as agreed and failed to remit payment in full at any time thereafter. 38. Plaintiff's last payment to The IV League LLC was on June 30, 2005. 39. The unpaid balance owing by Plaintiff to The IV League LLC on the Millennium account is $10,805.00. 40. Upon information and belief, it is averred that OmniCare and Millennium paid intiff for all amounts billed to Plaintiff as shown on Exhibits A and B. 41. Before making the contacts averred in paragraphs 42 and 43 hereinbelow, The IV LLC made repeated efforts to discuss with Plaintiff the Plaintiff's defaults, leaving us telephone messages, to which Plaintiff made no responses thereby indicating its n to not pay The IV League LLC in breach of the parties' agreement. 42. The IV League LLC's contact with OmniCare in June 2005 was for the sole of informing OmniCare that The IV League LLC was intending to terminate its services OmniCare clients in order that OmniCare could make timely arrangements for substitute 43. The IV League LLC's contacts with a nursing home client of Millennium in July LAW O MCES SNELOAKER & 005 was for the sole purpose of informing the nursing home that The IV League LLC was BRENNEMAN, P.C. intending to terminate its services in order that said nursing home could make timely arrangements for substitute services. 44. In making the contacts averred in paragraphs 42 and 43 above, The IV League LLC was motivated solely by moral and/or ethical concern for the medical welfare of the patients otherwise anticipated to be served. 45. Upon information and belief, it is averred that Plaintiff voluntarily cancelled its contract with OmniCare for those customers served by The IV League LLC. 46. All of Defendants' conduct was privileged and justified. 47. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to set forth any claim or cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 48. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be stricken for failure to comply with Pa. R.C.P. 1021 (c). WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. COUNTERCLAIM THE IV LEAGUE LLC V. JOHN R. DRUSCHEL AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. COUNTI-CONTRACT 49. The Counterclaim Plaintiff herein is IV League LLC, a Pennsylvania limited LAW OFFICES SNELEAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. liability company, having its principal office and place of business at 524 Chaparral Drive. Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania 16066. 50. The Counterclaim Defendant herein is John R. Druschel and Associates, L.L.C., a Pennsylvania limited liability company having its principal place of business at 3901 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill (Hampden Township), Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 51. Counterclaim Plaintiff is in the business of inserting intravenous catheters in patients in nursing homes. 52. Counterclaim Defendant is also in the business of inserting intravenous catheters in patients in nursing homes. 53. On or about August 20, 2004, the parties hereto entered into an oral contract whereby Counterclaim Plaintiff agreed to perform intravenous catheterization services to various nursing homes or other similar facilities in western Pennsylvania on behalf of Counterclaim Defendant, the relevant terms of which were/are as follows: A. Counterclaim Plaintiff would provide its services as a subcontractor (independent contractor) to Counterclaim Defendant. B. Counterclaim Defendant promised to pay to Counterclaim Plaintiff for said services on a unit basis fee per procedure as follows: Procedure/Service Fee per Procedure Midline Catheter $120.00 for first 100 per calendar month Midline Catheter $115.00 for next 100 (101-200) per calendar month Basic IV $75.00 PICC Line $285.00 Advance Visit $150.00 The amount due to be determined from Counterclaim Plaintiffs submission of itemized billings therefor to Counterclaim Defendant two (2) times per month. Payment in full LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. was to be made by Counterclaim Defendant for each such billing two (2) times per month. 10 54. Counterclaim Plaintiffs first services were for patients of Omnicare Pharmacy Services of Pennsylvania ("Omnicare") (a client of Counterclaim Defendant). 55. In keeping with the parties' contract aforesaid, Counterclaim Plaintiff submitted its periodic billings to Counterclaim Defendant for services to OmniCare patients as set forth in detail under the headings of "Billing Date" and Billing Amount" on the attached statement of account marked "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by reference thereto. Counterclaim Defendant paid the amounts shown on Exhibit A under the headings of "Payment Date" and "Payment Amount". 56. As charted on Exhibit A, Counterclaim Defendant neglected and failed to pay Counterclaim Plaintiff in accordance with the parties' contract as aforesaid, leaving an unpaid balance of $74,045.00 due Counterclaim Plaintiff. 57. Commencing on or about February 1, 2005, at Counterclaim Defendant's request, the parties agreed to expand the services of Counterclaim Plaintiff to include facilities served by Millennium Pharmacy Services ("Millennium") (another client of Counterclaim Defendant) on the same general terms as the parties' original contract aforesaid, but using the following fee rates per procedure: Procedure/Service Midline Catheter Basic IV PICC Line Advance Visit Fee per Procedure $150.00 $100.00 $285.00 $150.00 58. In keeping with the parties' contract aforesaid, Counterclaim Plaintiff submitted LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. its periodic billings to Counterclaim Defendant for services to Millennium patients as set forth in detail under the headings of "Billing Date" and "Billing Amount" on the attached statement of account marked "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference thereto. Counterclaim 11 Defendant paid the amounts shown on Exhibit B under the headings of "Payment Date" and "Payment Amount". 59. As charted on Exhibit B, Counterclaim Defendant neglected and failed to pay Counterclaim Plaintiff in accordance with the parties' contract as aforesaid, leaving an unpaid balance of $10,805.00 due Counterclaim Plaintiff. 60. Counterclaim Plaintiff has demanded payment from Counterclaim Defendant, which Counterclaim Defendant has failed and refused to pay. 61. The amount due Counterclaim Plaintiff is the sum of the "Unpaid Balances" from Exhibit A and Exhibit B, in the total amount of $84,850.00. WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiff demands judgment against Counterclaim Defendant in the amount of $84,850.00 plus interest and the costs of this action. The damages claimed by Counterclaim Plaintiff exceed the amount established by this Court for compulsory arbitration. ALTERNATIVE: COUNT lI - QUANTUM MERUIT In the event it is determined that no express contractual basis existed in fact or law as alleged in Count I above, Counterclaim Plaintiff avers in the alternative as follows: 62. The averments contained in paragraphs 49 through 61 hereinabove are incorporated herein as though set forth at length hereinbelow. 63. Counterclaim Defendant accepted Counterclaim Plaintiffs services and work. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 64. Counterclaim Plaintiffs services and work fulfilled Counterclaim Defendant's obligations to OmniCare and Millennium. 12 65. The fair market value of Counterclaim Plaintiff's services and work performed at Counterclaim Defendant's request are the values set forth in paragraphs 53 and 57 hereinabove and as totaled on Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto, all of which are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 66. Counterclaim Defendant has failed and refused to pay the fair market value of said services and work performed by Counterclaim Plaintiff as aforesaid. 67. It is unjust and unfair for Counterclaim Defendant to receive, use and consume the values of Counterclaim Plaintiff's services and work without full payment therefor. WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiff demands judgment against Counterclaim Defendant in the amount of $84,850.00 plus interest and the costs of this action. The damages claimed by Counterclaim Plaintiff exceed the amount established by this Court for compulsory arbitration. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By ?- 'c and C. Snelbaker, Esquire Pa. Supreme Ct. I.D. #: 06355 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiff LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 13 BILLING DATE BILLING AMOUNT PAYMENT DATE PAYMENT AMOUNT UNPAID BALANCE 9/1/04 - 9/15/04 9,965.00 9,965.00 9/16/04 - 9/30/04 8,020.00 17,985.00 10/1/04 -10/15/04 11,910.00 29,895.00 10/15/04 8,000.00 21,895.00 10/16/04 - 10/31/04 12,000.00 33,895.00 10/26/04 1,965.00 31,930.00 10/30/04 8,020.00 23,910.00 11/1/04-11/15/04 9,070.00 32,980.00 11/15/04 12,000.00 20,980.00 11/16/04 - 11/30/04 12,695.00 33,675.00 12/1/04 - 12/15/04 12,290.00 45,965.00 12/17/04 11,910.00 34,055.00 12/16/04- 12/31/04 16,695.00 50,750.00 1/1/05 - 1/15/05 13,805.00 64,555.00 1/8/05 9,070.00 55,485.00 1/16/05 - 1/31/05 13,925.00 69,410.00 1/25/05 12,695.00 56,715.00 2/1/05 - 2/15/05 15,980.00 72,695.00 2/16/05 - 2/28/05 13,670.00 86,365.00 2/16/05 12,290.00 74,075.00 311/05 - 3/15/05 11,715.00 85,790.00 3/16/05 - 3/31/05 11,405.00 97,195.00 3/17/05 18,000.00 79,195.00 4/1/05 - 4/15/05 13,315.00 92,510.00 4/11/05 27,000.00 65,510.00 4/14/05 10,760.00 54,750.00 4/16/05 - 4/30/05 12,175.00 66, 925.00 5/1/05 - 5/10/05 6,445.00 73,370.00 5/11/05 - 5/20/05 6,655.00 80,025.00 5/12/05 13,315.00 66,710.00 5/21/05 - 5/31/05 7,310.00 74,020.00 5/25/05 13,670.00 60,350.00 6/1/05 - 6/10/05 6,735.00 67,085.00 6/11/05-6/20/05 6,960.00 74,045.00 TOTALS 232,740.00 158,695.00 74,045.00 EXHIBIT A BILLING DATE BILLING AMOUNT PAYMENT DATE PAYMENT AMOUNT UNPAID BALANCE 2/l/05 - 2/15/05 1,600.00 1,600.00 2/16/05 - 2/28/05 1,100.00 2,700.00 3/1/05 - 3/15/05 1,800.00 4,500.00 3/16/05 - 3/31/05 3,250.00 7,750.00 4/1105 - 4/15/05 1,950.001 9,700.001 4/5/05 1,525.00 8,175.00 4/14/05 1,800.00 6,375.00 4/16/05 - 4/30/05 3,075.00 4/28/05 1,175.00 9,450.00 8,275.00 5/1/05 - 5/15/05 1,950.00 10,225.00 5/10/05 3,880.00 6,345.00 5/16105 - 5/31/05 2,300.00 8,645.00 5/22/05 640.00 8,005.00 611/05 - 6/15/05 3,250.00 11,255.00 6/13/05 3,000.00 8,255.00 6/16/05 - 6/30/05 2,750.00 11,005.00 6/30/05 2,500.00 8,505.00 7/1/05-7/11/05 2,300.00 10,805.00 TOTALS 25,325.00 14,520.00 10,805.00 EXHIBIT B VERIFICATION I, Deana Davis, do hereby verify as follows: that I am a named Defendant in the Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim; that the facts contained in said document my personal knowledge are true and correct; that the facts contained in said document not my personal knowledge, I believe them to be true and correct based upon the information others; and that I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Deana Davis Dated: August /f , 2005 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. VERIFICATION I, David Furline, do hereby verify as follows: that I am a named Defendant in the Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim; that the facts contained in said document my personal knowledge are true and correct; that the facts contained in said document not within my personal knowledge, I believe them to be true and correct based upon the information others; and that I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties 18 PA C.S. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Q J _ -71?tj? David Furline Dated: August /5- , 2005 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. VERIFICATION I, Deana Davis, do hereby verify as follows: that I am a member of The IV League, LLC, a limited liability company, which company is a Defendant and the Counterclaim Plaintiff in the foregoing Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim; that I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of said Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff; that the facts contained in said document within my personal knowledge are true and correct; that the facts contained in said document not within my personal knowledge, I believe them to be true and correct based upon the information of others; and that I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. (NL Deana Davis Dated: August /S , 2005 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this date serving a true and correct copy of the within Defendants' Answer to Amended Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim by sending the same by first-class mail, postage paid, to the attorney for Plaintiff addressed as follows: Mark K. Emery, Esquire Law Offices of Mark K. Emery 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 and C. Snelbaker, Esquire Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 Attorneys for Defendants Dated: August 15, 2005 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. ' C1 p lJ? 'C '' T ? n'. ?,?, ? - ? -?? ?. f,c .... ?) ?-, r? ?,;; ? ?? .? - ? . , `= [-s x r `? w :< N SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2005-03496 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND JOHN R DRUSCHEL & ASSOCIATES VS DAVIS DEANA ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT DAVIS DEANA to wit: but was unable to locate Her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of BUTLER County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On August 31st , 2005 , this office was in receipt o attached return from BUTLER Sheriff's Costs: So answers Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 ---?? Surcharge 10.00 R.'Thomas Kline Dep Butler County 49.00 Sheriff of Cumberla nd County Postage 1.11 V / 1 1 08/31/2005 MARK EMERY Sworn and subscribed to before me this 1(,2 day of Proms ota In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania John R. Druschel and Associates LLC vs. Deana Davis et al SERVE: Deana Davis No 05-3496 civil Now, July 12, 2005 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Butler County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, 20 , at o'clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a copy of the original and made known to the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of COSTS Sworn and subscribed before SERVICE $ me this day of , 20 MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT County, PA Countp of Jgutler, Venuoplbonio Office of Counry Sheriff Dennis C. Rickard, Sheriff Douglas R. Hays, Chief Deputy Court Docket #: 2005-3496 CMB County of Butler County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania JOHN R DRUSCHEL AND ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. DEANA DAVIS; THE IV LEAGUE, LLC Thomas W. King, 111, Solicitor Sheriff File Number - 05001508 Affidavit of Service S A I I I1j?f4 CO++`+ COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION - NOTICE TO DEFEND, COUNTS & VERIFICATION I hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that on 8/8/2005 at 1:50PM at 524 CHAPARRAL DRIVE CRANBERRY TWP, PA 16066 the within COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION - NOTICE TO DEFEND, COUNTS & VERIFICATION, ?as served on DEANA DAVIS, the defendant named therein, in the following manner: PERSONAL PERSON By delivering to and leaving with DEANA DAVIS personally a true copy thereof, said person being known or identified to me as the person mentioned and described therein. SERVICE ATTEMPTS This is the first attempt at service Deputy Notes: Fees Received from Attorney: WRIT ($9.00), COPIES ($10.00), MILEAGE ($15.00), SERVICE ($15.00) Total Charges $49.00 Attorney Name: LAW OFFICES OF MARK K EMERY, 410 NORTH S aNDEJ Affirmed & Subscribed to before Mee August 10, 2005 RICAKSEC, epu Sheriff Notary Public _ - - ' / ALL My commission expirEBOTHONOTARY OFFICIAL TITLE Sheriff, Butler County, Pennsylvania 0oh"P.MN n gp; LIRST moNnAV IN .IAN 2tft30 Dennis C. Rickard `,edti'ndc. 6u. 1 , 1'40( II), Office Courthouse • P.O. Box 1208 • Butler, PA 16003-1208 Fax: (724) 284- 5248 • Telephone (724) 284-5245 • TDD (724) 284-5473 SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2005-03496 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND R DRUSCHEL & ASSOCIATES VS DAVIS DEANA ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: FURLINE DAVID but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of ALLEGHENY County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On August 31st , 2005 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from ALLEGHENY Sheriff's Costs: So answers -) =,- Docketing 6.00 f -- _ "----1 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 R: Thomas Kline Dep Allegheny Cc 50.00 Sheriff of Cumberland County Notary 3.00 ,Q.v? 08/31/2005 MARK EMERY Sworn and subscribed to before me this day of D ' A.D. P onot y In ThCourt of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania John R. Druschel and Associates LLC vs. ?J Deana Davis et al V / SERVE: David Flurline No. 05-3496 civil l{O? wtl, (- July 12, zoos I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUN'T'Y, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Allegheny County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County; PA Affidavit of Service Now, .7 / J UV 'k 20 zat 9.'/--r--o'clock 1-2 M. served the r ro within Co r?'??O?f9 /N r- upon at --,-*07 e by handing to a copy of the, original and made known to / ?rGh?-?' the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of County, PA COSTS Sworn and subscribed before SERVICE $ me this _ day of _ MILEAGE p AFFIDAVIT - SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2005-03496 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND JOHN R DRUSCHEL & ASSOCIATES VS DAVIS DEANA ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: IV LEAGUE LLC THE but was unable to locate Them deputized the sheriff of BUTLER serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE County, Pennsylvania, to On August 31st , 2005 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from BUTLER Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 08/31/2005 MARK EMERY So answers,, R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland 61ounty Sworn and subscribed to before me p- ? this RP day of 02UU? D. Pr not y in his bailiwick. He therefore In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania John R. Druschel and Associates LLC VS. Deana Davis et al SERVE: The IV League LLC No 05-3496 civil Now, July 12, 2005 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Butler County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, within upon at by handing to _ a and made known to copy of the original the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of COSTS Sworn and subscribed before SERVICE $ me this day of , 20 MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT 20, at o'clock M. served the County, PA County of 38utrer, Vennoplbania Office of County Sheriff Dennis C. Rickard, Sheriff Douglas R. flays, Chief Deputy Thomas W. King, 111, Solicitor Court Docket #: 2005-3496 CMB County of Butler County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania JOHN R DRUSCHEL AND ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. DEANA DAVIS; THE IV LEAGUE, LLC Sheriff File Number - 05001508 Affidavit of Service COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION - NOTICE TO DEFEND, COUNTS & VERIFICATION I hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that on 8/8/2005 at 1:50PM at 524 CHAPARRAL DRIVE CRANBERRY TWP, PA 16066 the within COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION - NOTICE TO DEFEND, COUNTS & VERIFICATION, vas served on THE IV LEAGUE, LLC, the defendant named therein, in the following manner: PERSONAL PERSON By delivering to and leaving with DEANA DAVIS, OWNER, personally a true copy thereof, said person being known or identified to me as the person mentioned and described therein. SERVICE ATTEMPTS This is the first attempt at service Deputy Notes: Fees Received from Attorney: WRIT ($9.00), COPIES ($10.00), MILEAGE ($15.00), SERVICE ($15.00) Total Charges $49.00 Attorney Name: LAW OFFICES OF MARK K EMERY, 410 NORTH ON STREET , HARRISBURG, P 17101; a.:. Affirmed & Subscribed to before , Me August 10, 2005 I 1`?s1tD S 7AKS? e ty Sheriff `,. V Notary Public My commission expires: PROTHONOTARY OFFICIAL TITLE Sheriff, Butler County, Pennsylvania COMANG6 811 ¢008 Dennis C. Rickard i ?`+a}lA a?Im, LnI' LS vtkr P ^ P i'i_K41)1+ i 1.,aut$heriff's Ofrlce Courthouse • P.O. Box 1208 • Butler, PA 16003-1208 Fax: (724) 284- 5248 • Telephone (724) 284-5245 • TDD (724) 284-5473 John R. Druschel and Associates, LLC, Plaintiff vs Deana Davis, David Furline, and The IV League, LLC, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. 05-3496 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED CIVIL ACTION AT LAW PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, by and through its attorney, mark K. Emery, Esquire, and files this Answer to New Matter and Counterclaims, as follows: 27. Admitted. It is admitted that no written contract exists which includes a restricted covenant. Lack of a written contract including such a restricted covenant does not vitiate Plaintiff's rights at common law to protect the contractual relationship between it and its clientele. 28. Admitted. 29. Admitted. 30. Denied as a legal conclusion. 31. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff agreed to pay any Defendant two times per month pursuant to billings from Defendants. 32. Denied. Paragraph 32 refers to a writing which speaks for itself and is therefore denied. 33. Denied. It is denied that the parties agreed that payments would be made two times per month. Therefore, Plaintiff was not required to make payments on such terms. 34. Admitted. It is admitted that the last payment on the Omni Care account was made on May 25, 2005. By way of further response Plaintiff and the Defendants had an agreement in which Defendants agreed and acknowledged that they would be paid in full by June 30, 2005. Prior to the date such payment was going to made Defendants tortuously interfered with Plaintiff's contractual relationships and therefore forfeited their right to such payment. 35. Denied as a conclusion of law. 36. Denied. Paragraph 36 refers to a writing which speaks for itself and is therefore denied. 37. Denied. It is denied that the parties agreed that Defendant would be paid two times per month. 38. Admitted. 39. Denied as a conclusion of law. 40. Admitted. It is admitted that Omni Care and Millennium eventually made payments to Plaintiff for all amounts that Defendants invoiced. The full payments were made after June 30, 2005. 41. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants made attempts to discuss the payments due them. It is further specifically denied that Plaintiff provided no response. On the contrary, Plaintiff and Defendants had reached an agreement where Defendants would be paid in full by June 30, 2005, and Defendants accepted such terms. 42. Denied. Upon information and belief Defendants' contact with Omni Care in June 2005 was for the sole purpose of attempting to usurp Plaintiffs contract with Omni Care. By way of further response, Defendants had no contractual relationship with Omni Care or the treatment facilities. There is no reason to make any such contacts or for Defendants to believe that either Plaintiff or Omni Care, had not, and/or would not, have in place substitute services. Further, Plaintiff was the actual provider of the services to the treatment facilities, not Defendants, and therefore Defendants' refusal to provide services after June 2005 would have had no impact on the treatment services as Plaintiff would have none the less provided such services had Defendants refused to do so. 43. Denied. Upon information and belief Defendants' contact with Millennium in June 2005 was for the sole purpose of attempting to usurp Plaintiff's contract with Millennium. By way of further response, Defendants had no contractual relationship with Millennium or the treatment facilities. There is no reason to make any such contacts or for Defendants to believe that either Plaintiff or Millennium had not, and/or would not, have in place substitute services. Further, Plaintiff was the actual provider of the services to the treatment facilities, not Defendants, and therefore Defendants' refusal to provide services after June 2005 would have had no impact on the treatment services as Plaintiff would have none the less provided such services had Defendants refused to do so. 44. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants motivation was for moral and/or ethical concerns. Such self-serving statements attempt to obscure the fact that there would have been no break in treatment or services had Defendants refused to provide services after June 2005 as either Plaintiff and/or Millennium and/or Omni Care would have been able to provide such services on their own. 45. Denied. 46. Denied as a conclusion of law. 47. Denied as a conclusion of law. 48. Denied as a conclusion of law. By way of further response, such argument may be raised solely by preliminary objections, which Defendants have not done, and therefore such claim is waived. COUNTERCLAIM THE IV LEAGUE LLC v. JOHN R. DRUSCHEL AND ASSOCIATES. LLC COUNTI CASH CONTRACTS 49. Admitted upon information and belief. 50. Admitted. 51. Admitted. 52. Admitted. 53. Admitted. a. Admitted b. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the fee per procedure is correct. It is specifically denied that Counterclaim Plaintiffs were going to be paid two times per month. 54. Admitted. 55. Admitted. It is admitted that Counterclaim Plaintiffs submitted periodic billings for services to Omni Care and Counterclaim Defendant made payments when Omni Care paid for the invoices submitted by Counterclaim Plaintiff. 56. Denied. Paragraph 56 is denied to the extent that it refers an Exhibit "A" as such exhibit is a writing which speaks for itself and it is therefore denied. 57. Denied. Paragraph 57 refers to a writing which speaks for itself and is therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that the parties agreed that Counterclaim Plaintiff would be paid two times per month. 58. Admitted. It is admitted that Counterclaim Plaintiffs submitted periodic billings for services to Millennium and Counterclaim Defendant made payments when Omni Care paid for the invoices submitted by Counterclaim Plaintiff. 59. Denied as a conclusion of law. 60. Denied. It is specifically denied that Counterclaim Defendant refused to pay. On the contrary, the parties entered an agreement where Counterclaim Plaintiffs agreed to accept payment in full by June 30, 2005. Prior to such date Counterclaim Plaintiffs tortuously interfered with Counterclaim Defendant's contractual rights with Omni Care and Millennium and therefore forfeited right to payment. 61. Denied as a conclusion of law. WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgement for it and against Counterclaim Plaintiffs. COUNT II QUANTUM MERUIT 62. Paragraphs 27 through 61 are incorporated fully herein by reference. 63. Admitted. 64. Admitted. 65. Admitted. 66. Denied as conclusion of law. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Counterclaim Defendants failure to pay is unjust and unfair, as the amount allegedly due is far less than the damages sustained by Counterclaim Defendant for counterclaim Plaintiffs tortious acts. WHEREFORE, Counter Claim Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgement for, in and against Counter Claim Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY By: Mark K. Emery, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 DATE: Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, Janice Druschel, as the personal representative of the Estate of John R. Drushel, hereby verify that I have read the foregoing Answer to New Matter and Counterclaims and that the information contained therein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: Janice Druschel /O- 7 a5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, I, Mark K. Emery, Esquire do hereby certify that Plaintiff's Answer to New Matter and Counterclaims was served upon Defendants on October 7, 2005 by mailing a true and correct copy via United States first class mail, addressed as follows: Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARK K. EMERY By: / Mark K. Emery, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 72787 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-9883 Attorney for Plaintiff ? ?? `'? `; ? r-, _-? ? ? _-a J N r ', C'? (?) D CJ ; I r/ E%Zp 2/6/ 05 COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF s;R )771960 ` 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN PLEASE TYPE ONLY LINE 1 THRU 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES 1 PLAINTIFFIS! 2 COURT NUMBE .1V U4- LEASECOMM CORPORATION v u 1 u 7 a a a } d a 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT 3. DEFENDANT/S/ ANDREW HORTON, PFRSONAL GUARANTOR & T/A NIKOLI'S PIZZA PARLOR WRIT OF EXECUTION/PERS. PROP SERVE 5 NAME OF INDIVIDUAL. COMPANY, CORPORATION. ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED. A TACHED. OR SOLD ANDREW HORTGNr PERSONAL GUARANTOR & T/A NIKOLI'S PIZZA PARLOR 6 ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BM BER, APT NO CITY, BORIC. TWP . STATE AND ZIP GDDE) AT 825 MARKET STREETr WOLF PA 173447 ). INDICATE SERVICE O PERSONAL U PERSON IN CHARGE U DEPUTIZE '-I CERT MAIL U 1ST CLASS MAIL U PASTED 'J OTHER NOW .20-- I, SHERIFF OF YORK COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the sheriff of COUNTY to execute this Writ and make return thereof according to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff SHERIFF OF YORK COUNTY e. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE LEVY UPON ALL PERSOANL PROPERTY SET SH,LE 25 DAYS FROM LEVY ALLOLJ E hMeTZONS FORTS ENCLOSED NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or 31 any property under within writ may leave same t liabsrry on the pad of such deputy a the sheriff to any plaintiff valhout a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or tPoinfien heron for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sti sate thereof 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY ( ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11 DATE FILED ROBERT D. KODAKr ESQ-^^'?^ ?1na_TRnR xzgtf?f 717-238-7151 11/ /O5 BELOW (This area must be ROBERT D. KODAK, E-W- n n Rnx 11R4R. HARRISBURG PA 17108-1848 3b19A 5PAGE BELOW FOK U,E Ur IML Mtacrtr' - w mat Went lc ocs.v? area s.N? 13. f acLmAVtedge receipt of the win 14 DATE RECEIVED 15 ExpvalionlHeanng Dale or complaint as md"ted above. i-SOWSAN 11/22/05 2/0/06 16. HOW SERVED. PERSONAL ( ) RESIDENCE ( ) POSTED( ) POE ( ) SHERIFFS OFFICE ( ) OTHER ( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW 17. O I hereby cer ity and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locale the individual, company. etc named above. (See remarks below.) t9. Dale of ServKe 20 Time of Semce 16. NAME AND TITLE OF INDIVIDUAL SERVED/ LIST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relabonsmp to Defendant) Mores Int Dale Txne Miles Int. Da?T'?Miles Dale Time M? r,?T ?? Ti ATTEMPTS Time Miles Int Dat Time MAes t Date Time -- r I T 22 Levy not done within life of Sarit. Writ expired. Deputy was refused entry onto premises. 4 / 23. Advance Costs 24 Sen?ce Casts 25 N/F 26 Mileage 27 Postage 2B. Sub Total 29. Pound 70 Notary 11 ,1111 32 111111 77 A2T.Refund Check No 28,00 19.40 47.40 4.00 5.00 56.40 143.60 6001 '260 - 34. Foreign County Coats 35. Advance Costs 36 Serve Costs 37 Notary CM. T3B M4eayHPOStage/Nol Found 39 Total Costs 40 Costs Due or Refund If, AFFI bunbed to before INS 44. Signature of 45 DATE 42 FRE ;Mi' / RY NVI ,SEAL LkSR.'L. ROMAN IAVIDTARY PUB Den- Sheriff ak ? to 46 Spnty Shamir ?` county 5ned 47 DATE 2/16/06 , LIC CrN OF Y?CRK YORK COLINW +y iMy -OVU&Sti?.N E74P'111.ESAUC. 12.2W9 48 Signature of Foreign 49 DATE County Sheriff _ 50. I ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE SHERIFF'S RETURN SIG NATURE 51 DATE RECE IVED 1. WHITE - Issuing Authority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY - Sheens Office 4. BLUE - Sherers Office (.i .j ,1?ti?.? ' ?' ` (' SHERIFF' S RETURN OF SERVI CE 02/07/2006 LEVY NOT DONE WITHIN LIFE OF WRIT. WRIT EXPIRED. DEPUTY WAS REFUSED ENTRY ONTO PREMISES. SHERIFF COST: $56.40 (PAID) SO ANSWERS, 0500?A-<?, February 16, 2006 WILLIAM M HOSE, SHERIFF Curtis R. Long Prothonotary (Office of the J)rotbonotarp Cumberranb Counrp Renee K. Simpson Deputy Prothonotary John E. Slike Solicitor Q S - 3Y9& CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 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, CURTIS R. LONG PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 • (717) 240-6195 • Fax (717) 240-