The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-4526MIRROR IMAGE, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COTTON TRADERS, INC. and CHRISTOPHER R. CIVIL DIVISION -LAW SILVA, Personal Guarantor Defendants NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claim 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 an 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 TWO LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 MIRROR IMAGE, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. (D5 -)4S"4 aIVtC_ COTTON TRADERS, INC. and CHRISTOPHER R. CIVIL DIVISION - LAW SILVA, Personal Guarantor Defendants COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, MIRROR IMAGE, INC. by its attorneys, KNUPP, KODAK & IMBLUM, P.C., brings this action of Assumpsit against the Defendants to recover the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND SEVENTY CENTS ($15,464.70), along with interest thereon from April 29, 2005 upon a cause of action of which the following is a statement: The Plaintiff, MIRROR IMAGE, INC., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Rhode Island, having its principal office and place of business at 190 Exchange Street, Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02860. 2. The Defendant, COTTON TRADERS, INC., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having its principal office and place of business at 257 North 24`h Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 3. The Defendant, CHRISTOPHER R. SILVA, Personal Guarantor, is an adult individual with an address of 257 North 24`h Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 4. Plaintiff, at the request of Defendant, performed printing services to the Defendant in the amount of Twelve Thousand, Eight Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars and Twenty-Five Cents ($12,887.25) as shown by Plaintiffs Statement hereto attached, marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. F:\USER\STACY\CCP COMPLAINTS\WORK\31582.wpd:08Au905 5. The prices charged for said services provided were just and reasonable, were the legal and market prices therefor and were the prices which the Defendant orally promised and agreed to pay to Plaintiff. 6. Due to the default of Defendant, and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Credit Application/Personal Guaranty executed by Defendant hereto attached, marked Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof, attorney's fees in the total amount of Two Thousand, Five Hundred Seventy-Seven Dollars and Forty-Five Cents ($2,577.45) have been added to said account. 7. Plaintiff frequently demanded payment from Defendants of said amount due and owing as aforesaid, but Defendants refused and neglected and still refuse and neglect to pay said amount of any part thereof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff brings this suit to recover from Defendants the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND SEVENTY CENTS ($15,464.70), along with interest thereon from April 29, 2005. Respectfully submitted, KNUPP, KODAK & IMBLUM, P.C. Robert D. Kodak 407 North Front Street Post Office Box #11848 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848 (717) 238-7151 Attorney ID No. 18041 Attorney for Plaintiff F:\USER\STACY\CCP COMPLAINTS\WORK\31582.wpd:08Au905 06/22/2005 11:24 1-508-252-3460 ? COASTAL CREDIT PAGE 02 M'Fr/?V. Image, Inc. - 180 Exchange St. Statement Pawtucket. RI 02860 9hbment Owls: PAOne: 1601)726-5353 APr 26, 2005 Fax 1601)729-7676 C.eetOmerAccountID: COTTRAO ^wWrN Of.' C02TON TRADERS, INC, 257 WORTH 24TN ST 110 RILL, PA 17011 Amount Enclosed 1 Date Date Due Involoe No. Paid PO / Deecrlption Amount 3/1/05 3/1/03 2005-3 swence DON rOLL rILINENT 650.00 3/26/05 3/26/OS 650,00 15890 Part POO 23.27.31.31 36.75 186.75 I,DOIV 3/21/05 3/28/09 15982 PON 23.25.26.27.29 500.90 1,117.25 16031 9EIEC 3/21/01 3/28/05 3121/05 POO SHOICIN LADIEB 500.00 3/21/OS 16032 1,687.25 DON BNOkIN HEN9 3/20/Db 3/28/0! 500.00 2,187.25 16033 POI NAME COURT 3/26/05 3/24/05 16068 500.00 2,187.25 6/7/09 6/7/05 RTN DEPOSIT DON ROAD MAP $00.00 3,117.25 PON Prepayawnt 3,900.00 •/1/05 6/1/05 RIND DEPOSIT 7,017.25 PON Prepayment 6/26/05 6/26/05 3,500.00 10,517.25 RANK CNAAGEB G P3N 6ANK CNARGEI c 2, 300. pp 12,181.25 rEES Tow 12.117.25 0 - JO 31 - 00 61 - 90 9,700.00 Ova 90 days AN 3,187,25 ON wanon. Oh noft& o fair open w pt un s 0.00 0100 "no o"n 0 am f 8) daysM? awtihan n@ ' or fm any Nar ores, she b dVoKas aafnod walwd and d mlaa and walwr a Il "?"f eti dab e/ ha hvoNfa. N htlun to Iw sad by the 0y 4 eenemon Mall bpi of u assn. wfln hyyp Mwaro. 1/ooY.akn aa on r 6W a adae6ha8 ccnsdana Yr, unleM e" inane wtl by tfy luaforrmf, any ano aI ON, M: MMload amwbnm of me ODOM "ats and M& DOW and fr. 06/22/2005 11:24 1-508-252-346'0 COASTAL CREDIT Il"Mmum ?1•RUG PAGE 03 PAGE 02 ?? /I - t? . 10L33(i?p ,lAp aIp77fii7i. KOM xxw Minor Inter Inc. e, ow Bpi. er. +w. Flw kr?+o 4478 -nil NP WhNIWW" far a f?? ?yrN 1NF awt fM PSrs aM D fa>t3rn ly 00t wfaK M ArTw Lab iu P ass r. MAr FqM 7M. f!7 sib ?. am,% aP Sri a+? ylr???? D?M? Y ....... .?.. Fb t ID r -------- PAN* YMf IM1?11*Mw _1_ t?,?y oftMM omm MOM* ??MwA ?12k31i .brrw ia: at C' ?1 aIhN6? iy??XN"'••rwne ano ?Mrif. hWR??i M??? 3*MY+oc N?M M?WI?YRM,?Mra!?41t 1?Ip?11M?p of na,fy,,,y CA. mow r M+hr t?T• s¦?•.iw,a• now OB/.29/2005 14:48 1-508-252-3480' 06/25/2005 00:17 4017297475 ::'l08i206°; 25-3d60 IN-64-r00e :2:49 Roupp RODAR 1 [RRWp COASTAL CREDIT MIRROR IMAGE COASTAL CREL I1' 1r.L.al1[ l.L' A T I ON T9T 2" T1ss ..PAGE 02 PAGE 02 PACE !6 P.06 Met of IIt 1?R !. NACi6, INC., vccily tllrt tAe tlMtemeou made in the efoneoin8 dovvarel ere tW end WWI Y z;;< f7 TV ::u u.1 'h,i ,pre nateetartfs brie ae e9rde evf jeer to the peflc tia of t 1 h, C. S. ¢904, rolrtln? w vuv , .rn ae:leeaoa w eulhocitlee. M A014 INC. gr. 1 Tide: title, dqL 1.912 .. 'A14RA0 VWAo01:<n I lei.. "CTRL P cf //`? t7 c n lll/// I ? ? I ? TI X7 { I con SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-04526 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MIRROR IMAGE INC VS COTTON TRADERS INC ET AL RONALD HOOVER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon COTTON TRADERS the DEFENDANT , at 1730:00 HOURS, on the 14th day of September, 2005 at 257 NORTH 24TH STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to AMY SILVA, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs Docketing 18.00 Service 12.00 Postage .37 Surcharge 10.00 .00 40.37 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of Sr. A.D. Pr Hbta So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 09/15/2005 KNUPP KODAK IMBLUM By: C2 - Deputy She iff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-04526 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MIRROR IMAGE INC VS COTTON TRADERS INC ET AL RONALD HOOVER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon SILVA CHRISTOPHER R the DEFENDANT , at 1730:00 HOURS, on the 14th day of September, 2005 at 257 NORTH 24TH STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to AMY SILVA, WIFE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of CJ A.D. Prot tarT So Answers: r F i R. Thomas Kline 09/15/2005 KNUPP KODAK IMBLUM By: Deputy She iff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MIRROR IMAGE, INC Plaintiff, V. COTTON TRADERS, INC., CHRISTOPHER R. SILVA, Defendants Civil Division-Law No. 05-4526 Civil Term ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM Defendants Cotton Traders, Inc., and Christopher R. Silva, by and though counsel, Clark Law Office, answers the Complaint in the above captioned matter, includes New Matter and Counterclaim and avers in support as follows: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1. Admitted on information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted that Christopher R. Silva is an adult residing at the address as averred; the remainder of the averment is a legal conclusion and is therefore denied. 4. Denied, and strict proof thereof demanded at trial. To the contrary, Defendant Cotton Traders disputes any liability to Plaintiff: as Cotton Traders paid Plaintiff in advance for certain services that Plaintiff nonetheless failed to perform as contracted, and for which Plaintiff is liable to or liable over to Cotton Traders; as Cotton Traders did not contract with Plaintiff for certain services alleged in Exhibit A; and as Cotton Traders did not agree to be liable for and/or is not legally liable for items listed in Exhibit A of the Complaint. 5. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. To the extent an answer is required the averment is denied and Defendant Cotton Traders disputes any liability to Plaintiff. as Cotton Traders paid Plaintiff in advance for certain services that Plaintiff nonetheless failed to perform as contracted, and for which Plaintiff is liable to or liable over to Cotton Traders; as Cotton Traders did not contract with Plaintiff for certain services alleged in Exhibit A; and as Cotton Traders did not agree to be liable for and/or is not legally liable for items listed in Exhibit A of the Complaint. 6. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. To the extent an answer is required from Cotton Traders the averment is denied and Defendant Cotton Traders disputes any liability to Plaintiff: as Cotton Traders paid Plaintiff in advance for certain services that Plaintiff nonetheless failed to perform as contracted, and for which Plaintiff is liable to or liable over to Cotton Traders; as Cotton Traders did not contract with Plaintiff for certain services alleged in Exhibit A of the Complaint; as Cotton Traders did not agree to be liable for and/or is not legally liable for attorney fees; and as the purported Credit Application/Personal Guaranty does not constitute a valid or binding document. To the extent an answer is required from Silva the averment is denied and Silva disputes any liability to Plaintiff: as Silva did not agree to be liable for and/or is not legally liable for attorney fees; and as the purported Credit Application/Personal Guaranty does not constitute a valid or binding document. 7. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. To the extent an answer is required from Cotton Traders the averment is denied and Defendant Cotton Traders disputes any liability to Plaintiff. as Cotton Traders paid Plaintiff in advance for certain services that Plaintiff nonetheless failed to perform as contracted, and for which Plaintiff is liable to or liable over to Cotton Traders; as Cotton Traders did not contract with Plaintiff for certain services alleged in Exhibit A of the Complaint; as Cotton Traders did not agree to be liable for and/or is not legally liable for attorney fees; and as the purported Credit Application/Personal Guaranty does not constitute a valid or binding document. To the extent an answer is required from Silva the averment is denied and Silva disputes any liability to Plaintiff: as Silva did not agree to be liable for and/or is not legally liable for attorney fees; and as the purported Credit Application/Personal Guaranty does not constitute a valid or binding document. WHEREFORE, Cotton Traders, Inc. and Christopher R. Silva respectfully request that the Court dismiss the Complaint, enter judgment in their favor and against Mirror Image, Inc., and award them such other further relief as may be just. NEW MATTER 8. Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 9. Plaintiff's averments are barred by the doctrine of waiver. 10. Plaintiff's averments are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 11. To the extent that Plaintiff's averments state a claim, which Defendants deny, its alleged claim amounts are offset by amounts due by Plaintiff to Cotton Traders. 12. Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence against Cotton Traders. 13. To the extent that the "Credit Application/Personal Guaranty" purports to create a "guarantor" relationship, which Cotton Traders and Silva deny, the same is unenforceable where, as here, Plaintiff failed to act with due diligence against Cotton Traders. 14. Plaintiff modified and/or rejected the underlying terms of the "Credit Application/Personal Guaranty." 15. To the extent that the "Credit Application/Personal Guaranty" purports to create a "guarantor" relationship, which Cotton Traders and Silva deny, the same is unenforceable where, as here, Plaintiff modified and/or rejected its underlying terms. 16. To the extent that Silva was a "guarantor" of an "obligation" owed Plaintiff, both of which Silva denies, then Silva was nonetheless discharged by Plaintiff. 17. Plaintiff did not advise Silva of its acceptance of Silva's alleged guaranty. 18. To the extent that Plaintiff purports Silva to be a "guarantor" of an "obligation" owed Plaintiff, both of which Silva denies, then said guaranty is unenforceable where as here, Plaintiff did not advise Silva of its acceptance of his alleged guaranty. 19. Plaintiff and/or its agents misrepresented to Cotton Traders and Silva that the purported "Credit Application/Personal Guaranty" was for the purpose of extending open terms to Cotton Traders, a representation on which Cotton Traders and Silva reasonably relied. 20. Plaintiff's representations were fraudulent, as on information and belief, Plaintiff never intended to extend open terms to Cotton Traders but instead intended to exploit a denied credit application as leverage over Cotton Traders and/or Silva. 21. The "Credit Application/Personal Guaranty" and its terms are void and unenforceable due to Plaintiff's fraud. 22. Neither Cotton Traders nor Silva is bound to pay "reasonable legal fees and costs of suit." 23. Any "legal fees and costs of suit" claimed by Plaintiff are unreasonable and unenforceable. WHEREFORE, Cotton Traders, Inc. and Christopher R. Silva respectfully request that the Court dismiss the Complaint, enter judgment in their favor and against Mirror Image, Inc., and award them such other further relief as may be just. COUNTERCLAIM Count I Cotton Traders, Inc. v. Mirror Image, Inc. Breach of Contract 24. Cotton Traders incorporates by reference its averments in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the foregoing Pleading. 25. In or about February 2005, Cotton Traders engaged Mirror Image to perform certain screenprinting services on a fulfillment basis. 26. The fulfillment basis contemplated by the parties provided that Cotton Traders would cause artwork and shirts to be delivered to Mirror Image, and that Mirror Image would then apply the artwork to the shirts and ship the shirts to Cotton Traders' customers. 27. Under the aforesaid oral arrangement, Cotton Traders paid Mirror Image a contracted fee for applying the artwork and the actual costs of shipping; said fees and expenses were covered to by an upfront fee paid by Cotton Traders and the cost of the shirts (including delivery to Mirror Image) was borne exclusively by Cotton Traders. 28. In February 2005, Cotton Traders paid Mirror Image the amounts of $650.00 and $3500.00, respectively, in advance toward fulfillment of numerous purchase orders. 29. Mirror Image breached its obligations on said purchase orders in numerous ways: a. Mirror Image failed to perform the work contracted; b. Mirror Image failed to follow the instructions provided by Cotton Traders; c. Mirror Image failed to print shirts as directed; d. Mirror Image failed to adhere to artwork provided by Cotton Traders; e. Mirror Image failed to ship goods to Cotton Traders' customers as directed; and f. Mirror Image failed to correct its numerous errors as described in this paragraph, despite reasonable notice from Cotton Traders. 30. As a direct result of the breaches described above, Cotton Traders has suffered losses valued by the difference in market value of goods that Cotton Traders contracted with Mirror Image and the contract price, plus interest, an amount that currently is not known, but will be ascertained in the course of discovery. 31. Mirror Image is liable to Cotton Traders, or in the alternative liable over to Cotton Traders in the amount of said losses. WHEREFORE, Cotton Traders, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor and against Mirror Image, Inc. in an amount less than Twenty-Five Thousand dollars, the limit for compulsory arbitration of claims in Cumberland County, plus such other further relief as may be just. COUNT II Cotton Traders, Inc. vs. Mirror Image, Inc. Replevin 32. Cotton Traders incorporates paragraphs 23 through 31 of the Counterclaim as if set forth in full. 33. Cotton Traders entrusted Mirror Image with shirts and artwork as described above. 34. Cotton Traders paid for and has title to said property. 35. Mirror Image's possession of said property is unlawful. 36. Mirror Image is liable to Cotton Traders for return of said property and for damages for its unlawful retention, an amount that currently is not known, but will be ascertained in the course of discovery, or alternatively is liable over to Cotton Traders in the amount of same damages. WHEREFORE, Cotton Traders, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor and against Mirror Image, Inc. in an amount less than Twenty-Five Thousand dollars, the limit for compulsory arbitration of claims in Cumberland County, plus such other further relief as may be just. COUNT III Cotton Traders, Inc. and Christopher R. Silva vs. Mirror Image, Inc. Fraud 37. Cotton Traders and Silva incorporate paragraphs 23 through 36 of the Counterclaim as if set forth in full. 38. Mirror Image represented to Cotton Traders and Silva that the "Credit Application/Personal Guaranty" was for the purpose of considering open credit terms for Cotton Traders. 39. On information and belief, said representation was false and was intended to induce Cotton Traders and/or Silva to sign said "Credit Application/Personal Guaranty." 40. On information and belief, Mirror Image never intended to consider open credit terms for Cotton Traders and instead intended to use said document to unreasonably leverage payments from Cotton Traders and/or Silva for transactions between Mirror Image and Cotton Traders. 41. Cotton Traders and Silva reasonably relied on said representation in completing said "Credit Application/Personal Guaranty." 42. As a direct and proximate result of said misrepresentation, Cotton Traders and Silva have been damaged in an amount that currently is not known, but will be ascertained in the course of discovery. 43. Mirror Image is liable to Cotton Traders and/or Silva, or alternatively is liable over to Cotton Traders in the amount of same damages. WHEREFORE, Cotton Traders, Inc., and Christopher R. Silva respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Mirror Image, Inc. in an amount less than Twenty-Five Thousand dollars, the limit for compulsory arbitration of claims in Cumberland County, plus such other further relief as may be just. Respectfully submitted, CLARK LAW OFFICE Dated: October 24, 2005 BY: ??. Frank P. Clark, Attorney I.D. #35443 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 Attorney for Defendants VERIFICATION The undersigned, Frank P. Clark, of the Clark Law Office hereby certifies that the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim has been prepared by me with knowledge and information acquired during the course of my representation of Plaintiff Christopher R. Silva that I execute this Verification as a signature of Plaintiff, that said Plaintiff's signature cannot be obtained in the time permitted for the filing of said Answer to Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim, and that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Frank P. Clark Dated: October, 2005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rebecca C. Hoskins, Legal Assistant, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim upon the following below-named party by depositing same in the U.S. Mail, postage pre- paid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, this 24h day of October 2005. SERVED UPON: Robert D. Kodak Knupp, Kodak & Imblum, P.C. 407 North Front Street Post Office Box # 11848 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848 0 ?W'OL C/ "?/') Rebecca C. Hoskins, Legal Assistant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MIRROR IMAGE, INC Plaintiff, V. COTTON TRADERS, INC., CHRISTOPHER R. SILVA, Defendants. Civil Division-Law No. 05-4526 Civil Term PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendants, COTTON TRADERS, INC and CHRISTOPHER R. SILVA, with respect to the above captioned matter. CLARK LAW OFFICE Dated: October 24, 2005C / Frank P. Clark Attorney I.D. #35443 20 Erford Road Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rebecca C. Hoskins, Legal Assistant for Clark Law Office, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Enter Appearance upon the following below-named parties by U.S. mail, postage paid, this 24th day of October, 2005. SERVED UPON: Robert D. Kodak Knupp, Kodak & Imblum, P.C. 407 North Front Street Post Office Box # 11848 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848 Rebecca C. Hoskins, Legal Assistant, Clark Law Office 2 Robert D. Kodak, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. 18041 KNUPP, KODAK & IMBLUM, P.C. Post Office Box 11848 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848 717-238-7151 Fax: 717-238-7158 email: robert.kodak@verizon.net Attorney for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant MIRROR IMAGE, INC. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. COTTON TRADERS, INC., CHRISTOPHER R. SILVER Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs NO. 05-4526 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFFICOUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, this 28" day of November, 2005, comes Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, MIRROR IMAGE, INC., by and through its attorney, ROBERT D. KODAK, ESQUIRE, KNUPP, KODAK & IMBLUM, P.C., and files the following Reply to New Matter and Counterclaim, as follows: Reply to New Matter 8. Denied. The allegation in Paragraph 8 is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is necessary. 9. Denied. The allegation in Paragraph 9 is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is necessary. 10. Denied. The allegation in Paragraph 10 is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is necessary. 11. Denied. Cotton Traders, Inc. and Christopher R. Silva (hereinafter "Cotton Traders" and "Silva" and/or "Defendants") are not due any offsets as there are no monies due from Mirror Image, Inc. (hereinafter "Mirror" and/or "Plaintiff") to Cotton Traders. 12. Denied. Plaintiff exercised due diligence in regard to its decision to do business with Defendants. Evidence of same is Plaintiffs requirement that Defendants execute the Credit Application/Personal Guaranty. 13. Denied. The Credit ApplicationiPersonal Guaranty speaks for itself. The document is evidence, in and of itself, that Plaintiff exercised due diligence in its relationship with Defendant, Cotton Traders. F:\USER\BONNIEJO\NEWMATTE\REPLY\WORK\31582newmatt-cclaim.wpd:28NovO5 2 14. Denied. The document speaks for itself. Any proof of modification or rejection of its underlying terms must be proven by Defendants at trial. 15. Denied. The response to Paragraph 14 is incorporated fully and at length herein. Proof of the allegation is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. The Personal Guaranty speaks for itself and has never been modified, rejected or otherwise discharged by Plaintiff. 17. Denied. The document speaks for itself and with Defendant Silva's executing same, Plaintiff had not further obligation to advise Silva of its acceptance of Silva's guaranty. Rather, Silva accepted Plaintiff's requirement of the Personal Guarantyby execution of same in order to be considered for credit terms for his company, Cotton Traders, from Plaintiff. 18. Denied. Plaintiff s response to Paragraph 17 is incorporated fully and at length herein. 19. Denied. Cotton Trader's Credit Application was denied due to several references. Cotton Trader was informed that it could not have terms and Plaintiff asked for credit card payments only. Defendants refused to use credit cards and eventually Plaintiff relented and allowed Defendants to pay by check. F:\USER\BONNIEJO\NEW MATTE\REPLY\WORK\31582newmatt-eclaim.wpd:28NovO5 20. Denied. Plaintiff is unsure what the term "leverage" is intended to mean in the case at bar. Due to Cotton Trader's bad credit, Plaintiff insisted on up-front payments which turned out to be a wise move since Cotton Trader bounced checks to Plaintiff at the end of their relationship. 21. Denied. The allegation of fraud is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further reply, the Credit Application/Personal Guaranty is fully enforceable according to its terms. 22. Denied. The attorney's fees and costs are recoverable by Plaintiff for Defendants' breach of contract and are allowed by the contract document. 23. Denied. Plaintiff's response to Paragraph 22 is incorporated fully and at length herein. Reply to Counterclaim CountI Breach of Contract 24. Mirror Image, Inc. (hereinafter "Mirror" and/or "Counterclaim Defendant") incorporates by reference its averments in Paragraphs 1 through 7 of its Complaint and Paragraphs 8 through 23 of its Reply to New Matter. 25. Admitted. F:\USER\BONNIEJO\NE W MATTE\REPLY\ W ORK\31582newmatt-eclaim."d:28Nov05 26. Admitted. 27. Admitted. 28. Denied. Cotton Traders paid Mirror Three Thousand, Nine Hundred ($3,900.00) Dollars and Three Thousand, Five Hundred ($3,500.00) to do work on an overtime basis over Easter weekend, 2005. The reason Mirror had to do the work over Eastern weekend was because Cotton Traders and Silva (hereinafter "Cotton Traders" and "Silva" and/or "Counterclaim Plaintiffs" [collectively]) made numerous claims about these checks, including categorically that Silva had sent via Federal Express overnight service the checks to Mirror but Mirror never received the "Fed-Ex" and, when Mirror requested Counterclaim Plaintiffs' tracking numbers, Counterclaim Plaintiffs had no such tracking numbers. Mirror wanted cleared funds before the work began. Counterclaim Plaintiffs stalled and when they gave Mirror the checks on Good Friday, Mirror did the work over Easter weekend only to have the checks provided by Counterclaim Plaintiffs bounce. 29. Denied. Mirror's response to Paragraph 28 hereinabove is incorporated fully and at length herein. Additionally, Mirror is acknowledged as perhaps the best screen printing company in the world. The results in this case for Counterclaim Plaintiffs were top quality. All work was done F:\USER\BONNIEJOINEWMATTE\REPLY\WORK\31582newmatt-cclaim.wpd28Nov05 5 according to professional screen printing standards despite Counterclaim Plaintiffs' often contradictory and unclear instructions. Further, this was a big rush job over a major holiday. Mirror did thirteen (13) designs over the holiday weekend when the normal turnaround time for an order of this size was often (10) business days. After the weekend, minor changes were requested by Counterclaim Plaintiff but Mirror refused to do further work because Counterclaim Plaintiffs' checks had bounced; therefore, Mirror could not continue. 30. Denied. Mirror's responses to Paragraphs 28 and 29 hereinabove are incorporated fully and at length herein. Additionally, Mirror is without sufficient information, knowledge or belief to respond to the allegation and proof of Counterclaim Plaintiffs' alleged losses are demanded at trial. 31. Denied. Mirror's response to Paragraph 30 hereinabove is incorporated fully and at length herein. WHEREFORE, Mirror Image, Inc. requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Counterclaim of Cotton Traders, Inc. and Christopher R. Silva and enter Judgment in favor of Mirror Image, Inc. and against Cotton Traders, Inc. and Christopher R. Silver as prayed for in the Complaint of Mirror Image, Inc. F:\USER\BONNIEJO\NEW MATTE\REPLY\WORK\31582newmatt-cclaim.wpd:28Nov05 Reply to Counterclaim Count H Replevin 32. Mirror Image, Inc. incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 23 through 31 hereinabove fully and at length herein. 33. Admitted. 34. Denied. Proof of the allegation is demanded at trial since the evidence is exclusively within the possession of the Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 35. Denied. Counterclaim Plaintiffs abandoned their property by not picking up the blank shirts and said shirts have been donated to charity. Mirror does have some of Counterclaim Plaintiffs' printed shirts and they are welcome to them as they always have been. 36. Denied. Mirror's responses to Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 hereinabove are incorporated fully and at length herein. WHEREFORE, Mirror Image, Inc. requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Counterclaim of Cotton Traders, Inc. and Christopher R. Silva and enter Judgment in favor of Minor Image, Inc. and against Cotton Traders, Inc. and Christopher R. Silver as prayed for in the Complaint of Minor Image, Inc. F:\USER\BONNIEJO\NEW MATTE\REPLY\WORK\31582newmatt-cclaim.wpd:28Nov05 Reply to Counterclaim Count III Fraud 37. Mirror Image, Inc. incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 23 through 36 hereinabove fully and at length herein. 38. Admitted. 39. Denied. Mirror had every reason to expect to issue credit terms to Defendant, Cotton Traders, however, it turned out that it was unable to do so because of Defendant's bad credit references. 40. Denied. Mirror's response to Paragraph 39 hereinabove is incorporated fully and at length herein. 41. Denied. Mirror has no way of knowing what Defendants did or did not rely on to make their business decisions. 42. Denied. The allegation as to alleged misrepresentation is denied. The remainder of the allegation is too vague for a response. 43. Denied. Mirror's response to Paragraph 42 hereinabove is incorporated fully and at length herein. F:\USER\BONNIEIO\NEWMAT'rE\REPLY\WORK\31582newmatt-cclaim.wpd:28Nov05 8 WHEREFORE, Mirror Image, Inc. requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Counterclaim of Cotton Traders, Inc. and Christopher R. Silva and enter Judgment in favor of Mirror Image, Inc. and against Cotton Traders, Inc. and Christopher R. Silver as prayed for in the Complaint of Mirror Image, Inc. Respectfully submitted, KNUPP, KODAK $t IMBLUM, P.C. Robert D. Kodak 407 North Front Street Post Office Box #11848 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848 (717) 238-7151 Attorney I.D. No. 18041 Attorney for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant F:\USER\BONNIEJOW EWMATTE\REPLY\WORK\31582newmatt-cclaim.wpd:28Nov05 11(23(2005 20:16 4017297476 MIRROR IMAGE .. 6? euu_ ,? 1e:4B RNUP,P 31]7Al F. Ih,B),`J1N Y lj-'1U-CTIUN PAGE 01/01 c i MIRROR IMAGE, INC., verify Oat the stawments made in the d0mgo.ng d0e'nc31 nt are true a:I-' c -mm I understand That false stateolsn is herein are trade subject 'so the pena lties of 1 E; 1,&. (". -3. § I.'' r eating to tutsworn falsification to aazth uitios. AURROU D4AGr, INC. +1 ? 2 Title. P:\tIS13RD 14N1:J0\i EWMAT E\REPLYkWOPX\31S82novmien-onial vrpo 21NOV01 ;T02 ;, 1m i i(mL) wa :vo) 0fl93 V,z 303 1 S' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, ROBERT D. KODAK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have this date served a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant's Reply to New Matter and Counterclaim in the above- captioned matter upon the below listed individual(s) by causing same to be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: FRANK P CLARK ESQUIRE CLARK LAW OFFICE 20 ERFORD ROAD STE 300A LEMO'YNE PA 17043 KNUPP, KODAK-4? IMBLUM, P.C. Robert D. Kodak 407 North Front Street Post Office Box 11848 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848 (717) 238-7151 Attorney I.D. No. 18041 Attorney for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Dated: November 28. 2005 F:\USER\BONNIE]OWEWMATTE\REPLY\WORK\31582newmatt-cclaim.wpd:28Nov05 MIRROR IMAGE, INC. Plaintiff v COTTON TRADERS, INC., and CHRISTOPHER R. SILVER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-4526 CIVIL TERM CIVIL DIVISION - LAW PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please substitute the attached Verification to Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim that was filed on November 30, 2005, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, KNUPP, KODAK A BLUM, P.C. Robert D. Kodak 407 North Front Street P.O. Box 11848 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848 (717) 238-7151 Attorney I.D. No. 18041 Attorney for Plaintiff H JJ -?00S 15:49 KYl'PP 6]'h': i7e'i. li '?1 }'_U[l:.lt-.AT1Q Vrp-sam? KwAZ? t t MIRROR IMAGE, INC., verify it at the statements made in the aforcgo.ng doeu- it at are true j?::, c : rre ct. )understand that false stalem-nts herein ire- rr ade subject :o the pznglties of 1 f i A. (` r at; ng t) unswom falsification u• a a IT >rities. L stte,l:- `l ) `I-?-? ---- 1 l`flKROR LNUtGE, INC. A'y' - -- - - - --- Title fy-c-F:IUSERM( !.'MI JOI''EWMgT7'E11tEPLY1WORIC\31582nerv.m,na-o::lnim.v?7ac.21TOv )5 2 TO(? 5 X215 LIE- 3 f' 7':P00 09f: Z!1Z 3017 1.' - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, ROBERT D. KODAK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on December 1, 2005, 1 served a true and correct copy of the PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION in the above-captioned matter upon the below listed individual(s) by causing same to be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: FRANK P. CLARK ESQUIRE CLARK LAW OFFICE 20 ERFORD ROAD STE 300A LEMOYNE PA 17043 KNUPP, KODAK & IMBLUM, P.C. Robert D. Kodak 407 North Front Street Post Office Box 11848 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1848 (717) 238-7151 Attorney I.D. No. 18041 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: December 1. 2005 ;'.> '7 r? t' _? ;„? 'r , r? ? ?.??, n. c, -? v Curtis R. Long Prothonotary office of the Vrotbonotarp QCumberlanb Countp Renee K. Simpson Deputy Prothonotary John E. Slike Solicitor 6S'- '4192 4o 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) 240-6573