HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-3957
F:\f]LES\DAT AF]LE\GeneralICurrent\1 ]63] .2.com ]/mar
Created 6/28105 10:56AM
Revised 8/3/058:2IAM
Christopher E. Rice, Esquire
Attorney J.D. No. 90916
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
Attorney J.D. No. 75901
MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RONALD J. STOUDT d/b/a
STOUDT CONSTRUCTION,
Claimant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO. 05- 39 ~7
CIVIL ACTION
GEORGE MANUEL d/b/a
GM MECHANICAL SERVICES,
Owners
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 Plaintiffs. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LA WYER 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 MAYBE ABLE TO
PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL
SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCE FEE OR NO FEE:
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 249-3166
RONALD J. STOUDT d/b/a
STOUDT CONSTRUCTION,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO.05- .3 951
CIVIL ACTION
GEORGE MANUEL d/b/a
GM MECHANICAL SERVICES,
Defendant
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff, Ronald 1. Stoudt d/b/a Stoudt Construction, has its principal office at 57
Mountain View Terrace, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241.
2. Defendant, George Manuel d/b/a GM Mechanical Services, has its principal office
at 10 South East Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (hereinafter "GM").
3. Defendant was hired by Plaintiff as a subcontractor to install plumbing, heating and
air conditioning at Lot 30, Greenspring Road, Newville, PA (hereinafter "Premises"), as part of the
construction of a residence.
4. Defendant and Plaintiff entered into two separate contracts: one for the plumbing and
one for air conditioning and heating. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of
the plumbing contract.
5. On March 2, 2005, Plaintiff paid Defendant $4,000.00 in advance of Defendant
providing the services promised.
6, On March 26, 2005, Defendant began working at the Premises in accordance with the
terms of the contracts by, among other things, installing the plumbing on the Premises.
7. On that same day, Defendant failed to properly install the plumbing and failed to
complete the work,
8. On that same day, Defendant left the Premises and stated that he would keep the
advance payment of $4,000.00,
Count I
Breach of Contract
9. Paragraphs 1 through 8 are incorporated herein by reference.
10. Defendant's failure to complete the work according to the plumbing contract
constitutes a breach of the contract.
II. As a result of Defendant's breach, Plaintiff had to hire another subcontractor to
complete the work that Defendant was supposed to perform.
12. As a result of Defendant's breach, Plaintiff had to hire another subcontractor to
correct the mistakes that Defendant made when performing the work.
13. Plaintiff did not breach any of the terms of the contract.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in excess of $4,000.00, plus
costs, interest, and any other relief that this Court deems appropriate.
Count II
Nel!lil!ence
14. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are incorporated herein by reference.
15. Defendants agreed to perform certain aspects of the construction project in a
workmanlike manner.
16, Plaintiff relied on Defendant's expertise and professional reputation in the execution
of the terms of the contract.
17. Defendant had a duty to Plaintiff to construct, among other things, the plumbing
system, free and clear of any defects.
18. Defendant had a duty to Plaintiff to complete the work according to the terms ofthe
contract.
19. The defective condition of the work performed by Defendant at the Premises as set
forth above is the sole and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, which includes the
following:
a. Failing to adequately administer the worked performed by Defendant, his
agents or employees, of the plumbing;
b, Failing to adequately supervise the worked performed by Defendant, his
agents or employees, of the plumbing;
c, Failing to provide labor and material necessary for the plumbing to be free
from defects;
d. Failing to perform according to the contract, including, but not limited to,
performing in a workmanlike manner;
e. Failing to construct the residence according to local codes and ordinances;
f. Failing to properly and sufficiently install the plumbing and related
construction; and
g. Failing to correct and/or notify Plaintiff that the plumbing was incorrectly
installed and the work performed inadequate and incorrect.
20. As a result of Defendants ' negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered loss, harm, and damage
for repairs and remediation, which were required to cure the defective construction as well as
consequential damages,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in excess of$4,000.00, plus
costs, interest, and any other relief that this Court deems appropriate.
MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
(lL J..,4 f. ~
Date: [3.- ~ ~()?
By
Christopher E. Rice, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 90916
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PRUPUSAL
GM MECHANICAl SERVIces
105 S EAST ST
CartiSle PA 17013
Page No. L_ of
1 Pages
___....-._'"~_V^____.___~.____~_~.___.,_..,,~.^"_'''_"
OSt\L SUBMITTED TO'
STOUDT CoNSTRUCTION PHONE (717) nM789 fOATE 912~12004
r JOS NAME Loa home
- ~ET
PA CITY STATE
Me submit s 'fications and estimate for:
or!< required from rough-in to finish fur the completinn of indoor plumhing system Which will include the rough-in ofWlder grOlmd drain lines
.'aler lines where nesacauy. All dmin lines will be schedule forty PVC and are to be insWled in accordance with local and or national codes. A
an! Mana-Bloc water supply manifuld will be insWled , which provides eaclt hot or cold water line with it's own shut olfvalve. This system
es equal pressure to each fixture. Hot water i. to he provided by a gas fired 75 gallon powervented water heater, All work perfonned by OM
IANICAL SERVICES is warrantied for a period of 000 calander year from the date of worle perfonned,
.
"eby propose 10 furnish labor and materials-complete in accordance wilh the above specifications. for the sum of
.f/12,240 wilh payment to be made as follows:
s~ of 50% is required benne work can begin. llala""" is due upon complelion. Twenty five pen::enl of depos~ is non refundable if this
:;lis cancelled for reasons be nd t"" control of GM MECHANICAL SERVICES.
lterialls guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices, Any
,on or deviation from above specificatiOns involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders and will become an
:harge over and ebove lite estimate, All agreemenb contingent upon slJikes, accident, or delays beyond our control.
'roposa! is subject to acceptance within 30 days and it is void Ihareafter at tile option of !he undersigned
rized Signature
~ove prices. specifications and conditions are hereby accepted, You are authorized to do the work as specified, Payment will be
as outlined above.
ted:
Signature:
Signature:
EXHIBIT "A"
VERIFICATION
The foregoing Complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel
in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not my own.
I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to
my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent
that the content of the document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this
verification,
This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of I 8 Pa. C.s. Section 4904
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false
averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties,
~~~
Ronald J. Stoudt
~
(:)
7l
-
f::. <rt
~ p...;
C) -
~-.!:::
--
r-'
..-::)
""4..
tr1
.1r1.
V(
o
-V
r
!::
k
o
-n
.-\
:0 't:~(8
:-' ~ ..::-)
_,~ . In
,
-;.\
-.~,:i
~:~A
--
~~,.~
-
RONALD J. STOUDT d/b/a
STOUDT CONSTRUCTION
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO, 05-3957
GEORGE MANUEL d/b/a
GM MECHANICAL SERVICES
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Ronald J. Stoudt d/b/a Stoudt Construction, Plaintiff
c/o Christopher E. Rice, esquire
Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from
service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you.
SALZMANN HUGHES, P.c.
E. R ph Godfrey,
Attorney LD. No. 052
95 Alexander Spring Road
Suite 3
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 249-6333
Dated:
'!!~f~/
Attorneys for Defendant
RONALD J. STOUDT d/b/a
STOUDT CONSTRUCTION
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
NO. 05-3957
GEORGE MANUEL d/b/a
GM MECHANICAL SERVICES
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER
Defendant, George Manuel d/b/a GM Mechanical Services, by and through his attorneys,
Salzmann Hughes, P,C., answers the corresponding numbered paragraphs ofPlaintitTs
Complaint as follows:
1, Admitted.
2, Admitted but with qualifications, Defendants address is 105 South East Street,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
3. Denied. Defendant had provided proposals to Plaintiff concerning plumbing and
heating and air conditioning at the property located at Lot 30, Greenspring Road, Newville, P A.
Defendant only provided the work for the plumbing. Strict proof is demanded at the time of
triaL
4. Denied. Plaintiff never gave consideration for the HV AC proposal and, therefore,
there was no contract. Also, the Plaintiff never signed the proposals and, therefore, there was no
written contract. Strict proof is demanded at the time of triaL
5. Denied. The $4,000.00 payment was for the rough in portion of the plumbing
project, which was completed, Strict proof is demanded at the time of triaL
6. Denied. Paragraph 6 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that a response may be required, Defendant started the work on or about
March 26, 2005 and completed the rough in portion. Defendant could not continue because of
Plaintiff s failure to have the residence in the appropriate condition. Strict proof is demanded at
the time of tria\.
7. Denied. Paragraph 7 is denied as a conclusion oflaw. To the extent that a
response may be required, it is denied that Defendant did not properly install the plumbing or
complete the work. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
8. Denied. Defendant was prepared to perform the remaining terms of the contract. but
Plaintiff breached the contract by not having the project ready for the work. Pursuant to the
proposal, the deposit was non-refundable, Strict proof is demanded at the time of tria\.
Count I
Breach of Contract
9. Denied. Paragraph 9 is an incorporation paragraph, which does not require a
response. To the extent that a response may be required, Defendal1t incorporates his responses to
Paragraphs I through 8,
10. Denied. Paragraph 10 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive
pleading is required, Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
1 L Denied, Paragraph 11 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive
pleading is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial.
12, Denied. Paragraph 12 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive
pleading is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
- 2 -
13. Denied. Paragraph 13 is a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that a response may be required, Plaintiff breached the tenns and conditions
of the alleged contract, which tenninated any requirement Defendant had under the alleged contract.
Therefore, Plaintiffwas the cause of his own damages,
Count II
Negligence
14, Denied. Paragraph 14 is an incorporation paragraph which does not require a
response. To the extent that a response may be required, Defendant incorporates his responses to
Paragraphs 1 through 13.
15. Denied, Paragraph 15 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive
pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, Defendant, at all times,
perfonned his work in a non-negligent manner. Strict proof is demanded at the time of triaL
16. Denied, Paragraph 16 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive
pleading is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
17. Denied, Paragraph 17 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive
pleading is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftriaL
18. Denied. Paragraph 18 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive
pleading is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftriaL
19, Denied. Paragraph 19 and 19(a)-(g) are denied as conclusions of law, To the extent
that a further response may be required, it is specifically denied that Defendant committed the
allegations contained in paragraph 19(a) - (g). Strict proof is demanded at the time of triaL
- 3-
20. Denied. Paragraph 20 is denied as a conclusion oflaw to which no responsive
pleading is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time of triaL
WHEREFORE, Defendant avers that he is not liable to Plaintiff in any amount whatsoever
and prays that the Complaint against him be dismissed and that he be awarded costs of defense,
including attorney fees, and that he may have such other and further relief as may be just and
appropriate.
NEW MATTER
By way of further answer and defense, Defendant avers the following New Matter in
accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030:
21, To the extent that any and all claims are established, Plaintiff s claims are barred
pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S,A Section 7102. ]n the
alternative, without prejudice to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, any damages which
were legally suffered and can be proven at trial shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of
negligence attributed to Plaintiff under the facts and circumstances as they exist.
23. Plaintiffs cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations,
24, If Plaintiff sustained the injuries as alleged in his Complaint, which is strictly denied,
then they were caused by the negligence, carelessness. and/or recklessness of individuals or entities
over whom the answering Defendant had neither control nor right to controL
25. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
26. Plaintiffs claim is barred or limited by the doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral
estoppeL
- 4-
27. Answering Defendant did not breach any duty of care owed to Plaintiff under the
circumstances,
28. At all times relevant hereto, answering Defendant acted in a safe, legal, and
non-negligent manner.
29. Plaintiffs claim is barred and/or limited by Plaintiffs contributory negligence,
30, At all times relevant hereto, Defendant performed his work in accordance with the
terms and conditions ofthe alleged contract.
31, Since the conditions were caused by the sole acts of the Plaintiff, the contract
provided that the deposit was non-refundable, which bars Plaintiffs claim,
32, The $4,000,00 retained by Defendant was the actual value of the work performed,
33. Plaintiffs claims are barred by accord and satisfaction,
34. Plaintifffailed to perform the conditions precedent to the defendant's obligations
under the contract thereby relieving Defendant of any obligation under the alleged contract.
35, Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.
36, Should Plaintiff recover, Defendant is entitled to setoff, recoupment and/or credit
for the value of the work that was perfonned,
- 5 -
WHEREFORE, Defendant avers that he is not liable to Plaintiff in any amount
whatsoever and prays that the Complaint against him be dismissed and that he be awarded costs
of defense, including attorney fees, and that he may have such other and further relief as may be
just and appropriate.
SALZMANN HUGHES, p,c.
Dated:
Attorneys for Defendant
- 6 -
VERIFICATION
I, r;O'J' lJiflM..d..flT , hereby certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing
Defendant's Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint are based upon infornlation which [
have furnished to counsel, as well as upon information which has been gathered by counsel
and/or others acting on my behalf in this matter. The language of the Defendant's Answer and
New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint is that of counsel and not my own, I have read the
Defendant's Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint, and to the extent that it is based
upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the content of the Defendant's Answer and
New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint is that of counsel, I have relied upon such counsel in making
this Verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Defendant's
Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint are made subject to the penalties of
18 Pa. C.S.A. 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities,
Date: ,lIS J oS-
I .
Document #: 160979.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this.?&) f\. day of:;;: ",..t1;c..
, 2005, I, E, Ralph Godfrey, Esquire, of
Salzmann Hughes, P.c., attorneys for Defendant, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within
Defendant's Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint this day by depositing the same in
the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Christopher E. Rice, Esquire
Martson, Deardorff, Williams & otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, Pa 17013
r-' ~
0 <=
c~:)
c-: U' ::?::rl
u'
1," c;-\ f11r:::
-0 -em
N :n'b
0 n
:.;: -.'\~
'""" _,t..-1
..,.. QC?
- L>{1"\
, ~ S
..",.
';;t - ~
-~
-<. \5',
F\FILES\DA T AFILE\General\Cl.lrrenl\11631.2,resp,nm
Created: 9123105 8:48AM
Revised: 9123/05 0:06PM
Christopher E. Rice, Esquire
Attorney LD, No. 90916
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
Attorney LD. No. 75901
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
10 East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RONALD J. STOUDT d/b/a
STOUDT CONSTRUCTION,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: NO. 05-3957 CIVIL ACTION
GEORGE MANUEL d/b/a
GM MECHANICAL SERVICES,
Defendant
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Ronald J. Stoudt d/b/a Stoudt Construction, by and through
his attorneys, and hereby responds to the Defendant's New Matter as follows:
Plaintiffs Complaint is incorporated herein by reference.
21-29, Denied as conclusions oflaw.
30, Denied, Defendant failed to perform his work in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the contract.
31, Denied, The contract speaks for itself.
32, Denied, Defendant failed to perform his work and any work that he did was
negligently performed,
33, Denied as a conclusion of law.
34. Denied as a conclusion oflaw. By way offucther response, the document speaks for
itself.
35, Denied as a conclusion oflaw.
36. Denied. Defendant failed to perform the work agreed to in the contract.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in excess of$4,000.00. Plus
costs, interest, and any other relief that this Court deems appropriate,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
Date: 1 j.u. / (J ~ -
By: U~)' IZ-
Christopher E. Rice, Esquire
J.D. No. 90916
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent of MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO,
hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's New Matter was
served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage
prepaid, addressed as follows:
E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire
SALZMAN HUGHES, P.c.
95 Alexander Spring Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
, 0
By .
Mary
10 E High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: September 26, 2005
0 "" 0
c:::~
C ~':.:':~ -n
c.ro
, (/) %~
fl"'
-0 ""0\>"1
!'.) :IJCJ
0' (:J(1.,
~.. ~~~~
--
-".".
, i5,TI
c -;
::~ ;p.
j :~
, - (.oj
----
-
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2005-03957 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
STOUDT RONALD J ET AL
VS
MANUEL GEORGE ET AL
DAVID MCKINNEY
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within NOTICE was served upon
MANUEL GEORGE D/B/A GM MECHANICAL SERVICES the
DEFENDANT
, at 0016:36 HOURS, on the 17th day of August
at 465 N PITT ST
2005
CARLISLE, PA 17013
by handing to
GEORGE MANUEL
a true and attested copy of NOTICE
together with
COMPLAINT
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
So Answers:
18.00
4.00
.00
10.00
.00
32.00
~/l;I/'~#e
R. Thomas Kline
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this qc,-rl-' day of
ilui:uM (1..: ~D
P ~o~
08/18/2005
MARTSON, DEARDORFF & WILLIAMS
By: lJ P#~
Deputy Sheriff ~
.
F\FILES\DA T AFILE\General\Current\11631.2.pra
Crealed: 9/23/05 848AM
Revised \ll1106935AM
Christopher E. Rice, Esquire
Attorney LD. No. 90916
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
Attorney LD, No. 75901
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RONALD 1. STOUDT d/b/a
STOUDT CONSTRUCTION,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: NO. 05-3957 CIVIL ACTION
GEORGE MANUEL d/b/a
GM MECHANICAL SERVICES,
Defendant
PRAECIPE
To the Prothonotary:
Please mark the above captioned action settled, discontinU(~d and ended, with prejudice.
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
Date: January 11,2006
By: ~ %y-'- ~ ~
Christopher E. Rice, Esquire
LD. No. 90916
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff
,.
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent of MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO,
hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post
Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire
SALZMANN HUGHES, P.c.
95 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 3
Carlisle, PA 17013
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
,(~
By
Mary Price
10 Eas High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: January 11, 2006
'-
,;
'~i I
.-\
::c
iTI
1'0
r'~)
c:-~