Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-5067Neil A. Grover, Esquire #53142 Attorney for Plaintiff 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/ FAX (717) 233-2342 .erover1 aw(a)jx. netcom. com PATRICIA ILLAR 251 INDIAN CREEK DR. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. TRINDLE BOWL INC., a Pennsylvania : Corporation; and KARL SCHWEITZER,: individually and as an authorized representative of TRINDLE BOWL, INC.: 4695 E. TRINDLE RD. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. Jury Trial Demanded PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons against each of the two (2 ) above-named Defendants. Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFIC OF NEIL A. GROVER Dated: q1A 7 ? By - ?'? L=' Neil A. Grover, quire #53 42 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/ FAX (717) 233-2342 groverlaw it ix. netcom. com Attorney for Plaintiff t? r ? ha\ *N t.n` PATRICIA ILLAR 251 INDIAN CREEK DR. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Plaintiff V. TRINDLE BOWL INC., a Pennsylvania : Corporation; and KARL SCHWEITZER,: individually and as an authorized representative of TRINDLE BOWL, INC.: 4695 E. TRINDLE RD. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. Jury Trial Demanded WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: Prothonotary 4-- .r -.. Neil A. Grover, Esquire #53142 Attorney for Plaintiff 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/ FAX (717) 233-2342 zroverlaw(a)ix. netcom. com PATRICIA ILLAR 251 INDIAN CREEK DR. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. ??. 5Oh1 ?iv?? TRINDLE BOWL INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; and KARL SCHWEITZER,: individually and as an authorized representative of TRINDLE BOWL, INC.: 4695 E. TRINDLE RD. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Defendants Jury Trial Demanded NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiff Patricia Illar intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served. Date: September 27, 2005 Neil A. Grover, squire PA # 53142 LAW OFFICE OF NEIL A. GROVER 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/FAX (717) 260-9651 groverlaw@ix.netcom.com Attorney for Plaintiff PATRICIA ILLAR, Plaintiff V. TRINDLE BOWL INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; et al., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. { ?5'J0?7 Jury Trial Demanded SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Unemployment Compensation Board of Review Commonwealth of Pennsylvania L&I Building, 7" & Forester Streets Harrisburg, PA 17121 ATTENTION: Edward Rawlings, Systems Administrator Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents and things: THE COMPLETE HEARING RECORD from the May 27 2005 hearing in _matter of Patricia. Illar v TRINDLE BOWL, INC., Appeal No 05-09-F-2183 including a copy of the audio tape of testimony, all exhibits and a video tape made by the employer that was confiscated and retained by the Referee. These documents and things should be produced at the following location: LAW OFFICE OF NEIL A. GROVER, 2201 North 2nd Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 17110. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the parry making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Neil A. Grover, Esquire PA # 53142 LAW OFFICE OF NEIL, A. GROVER 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/FAX (717) 260-9651 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF BY THE COURT: Date: Prothonotary, Civil Division Seal of the Court c? Y '77 C? f"?7 A -z Y > cd N n +? O cd Y zi O 0. ? r O0 N 0 O d 4-' a., +, CA 0 w c N c0, cd cd 41 0 F'?.? qd a> v 4- cn W ° an v cd v U cd U) cd ° Cd W O Q o P+ o 3 -+ r 'ATRICIA ILLAR, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW fRINDLE BOWL, INC. and KARL NO. 05-5067 CIVIL SCHW EITZER, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire and Snelbaker & P, C. as attorneys for the Defendants in the above-captioned action. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. BY Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 October 17, 2005 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Defendants LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to be served upon the person and in the indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Neil A. Grover, Esquire 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 By. Date: October 17, 2005 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. I?i7rvti.-- Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Defendants Trindle Bowl, Inc. and Karl Schweitzer LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. r- ? i?l ?? ri _ _ ? C ? __ ?l _. ° 5".5 ° ? - f.J ATRICIA ILLAR, Plaintiff V. TRINDLE BOWL, INC. and KARL SCHWEITZER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-5067 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 4009.1(c) Defendants, by their attorneys, Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C., submit these objections as follows: 1. Plaintiff initiated this action by Praecipe For Writ of Summons filed September 27, 2005. 2. Plaintiff has not filed a Complaint in this action. 3. Plaintiff had served Defendants with the Writ of Summons a Notice of Intent to Serve A Subpoena (the "Notice") indicating Plaintiffs intention to subpoena a hearing record from a May 27, 2005 unemployment compensation hearing directed to Administrator Edward Rawlings. A true and correct copy of the aforementioned Notice and proposed subpoena is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as "Exhibit A". 4. Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1 allows a party to obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter in the pending action. 5. Since Plaintiff has not filed a Complaint or pursued a method of discovery in order to prepare a pleading which would describe the nature of the cause of action (see e.g. Pa.R.C.P. 4007A(c)), a determination cannot be made whether the documents and things sought by LAW OFFICES Plaintiffs subpoena are in any way relevant to any claim or cause of action Plaintiff intends to SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. raise. 6. For the reasons stated above, it cannot be determined whether the information sought subpoena is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 7. For the reasons stated above, the discovery by Plaintiff through use of a subpoena be prohibited until such time as Plaintiff states her claims or the nature of the cause of asserted against the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Court to prohibit the issuance and service of the :na proposed to be issued under Plaintiff s Notice dated September 27, 2005. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. BY: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 October 17, 2005 Attorneys for Defendants LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. Neil A. Grover, Esquire #53142 Attorney for Plaintiff 2201 North Second Street ` Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-96511 FAX (717) 233-2342 zroverla (aa,ix.netcom.com PATRICIA ILLAR 251 INDIAN CREEK DR. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TRINDLE BOWL INC., a Pennsylvania : Corporation; and KARL SCHWEITZER,: individually and as an authorized representative of TRINDLE BOWL, INC.: 4695 E. TRINDLE RD. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO.GJ-SU(,-7 CIVIL Jury Trial Demanded NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiff Patricia Illar intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served. Date: September 27, 2005 -? Neil A. Grover, squire PA 4 53142 LAW OFFICE OF NEIL A. GROVER 2201 North Second Street f RULE C"C3py p C g Y c :; F ?? In 7 2i rcar?y ';? v €, 111€ra as ?tp t , na 5 aaai Of !d CoUrtaY c a,;rts day (q Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/FAX (717) 260-9651 groverlcrw@ix.netcom.com Attorney for Plaintiff EXHIBIT A PATRICIA ILLAR, Plaintiff V. TRINDLE BOWL INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; et al., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. n- SOC-) C ivu.. Jury Trial Demanded SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Unemployment Compensation Board of Review Commonwealth of Pennsylvania L&I Building, 7' & Forester Streets Harrisburg, PA 17121 ATTENTION: Edward Rawlings, Systems Administrator Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents and things: THE COMPLETE HEARING RECORD from the May 27, 2005 hearing in matter of Patricia. Illar v TREVDLE BOWL INC., Appeal No 05-09-F-2183 including a copy of the audio tape of testimony, all exhibits and a video tale made by the employer that was confiscated and retained by the Referee. These documents and things should be produced at the following location: LAW OFFICE OF NEIL A. GROVER, 2201 North 2nd Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 17110. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the parry serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Neil A. Grover, Esquire PA # 53142 LAW OFFICE OF NEIL A. GROVER 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/FAX (717) 260-9651 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF BY THE COURT: Date: Prothonotary, Civil Division Seal of the Court CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Objections to be served upon the person and in manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Neil A. Grover, Esquire 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By. Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Defendants Trindle Bowl, Inc. and Karl Schweitzer October 17, 2005 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. r'? r? .._J .-i ,"'? , -n _ t ?1 i? (,? _.. ui Neil A. Grover, Esquire #53142 Attorney for Plaintiff 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/ FAX (717) 233-2342 jeroverlaw(@U netcom. com PATRICIA ILLAR IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-5067 Civil TRINDLE BOWL INC., a Pennsylvania : Corporation; and KARL SCHWEITZER,: Jury Trial Demanded individually and as an authorized representative of TRINDLE BOWL, INC.: Defendants 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, 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 (717) 249-3166 Neil A. Grover, Esquire #53142 Attorney for Plaintiff 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/ FAX (717) 233-2342 groverlaw @,ix. netcom. com PATRICIA ILLAR Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-5067 Civil TRINDLE BOWL INC., a Pennsylvania : Corporation; and KARL SCHWEITZER,: Jury Trial Demanded individually and as an authorized representative of TRINDLE BOWL, INC.: Defendants COMPLAINT NOW COMES Plaintiff, Patricia Illar, by and through her attorney, Neil A. Grover, and for her Complaint states: INTRODUCTION This in an employment-related complaint for wrongful termination of an employee for asserting a right to make a complaint to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for unpaid overtime compensation; for related unlawful clandestine recordings of both employee and customer conversations in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act and related federal law; for unpaid overtime compensation under federal and state labor laws; and related torts. PARTIES 1. The Plaintiff is Patricia Illar, an adult individual who resides at 251 Indian Creek Drive Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. The Defendant Trindle Bowl, Inc., is a corporation doing business at 4695 E. Trindle 1 Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 3. The Defendant Karl Schweitzer, is an adult individual who resides at 755 McCormick Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 4. Defendant Schweitzer is the President of Defendant Trindle Bowl Inc. and its principal stockholder. BACKGROUND 5. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Trindle Bowl, Inc., a bowling alley and had numerous duties related to the day-to-day operation of the facility. 6. After years of service managing daily shifts at the bowling alley, on or about March 7, 2005, Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated by the Defendants. 7. Near the start of her morning shift on or about March 7, 2005, Mrs. Illar was summoned into a small office by Defendant Schweitzer and shown a video tape player and video on his desk. 8. Defendant Schweitzer informed Mrs. Illar that he heard that she was going to the labor board and asked her if she wished him to play the tape for her. 9. She declined to see and hear the tape and Defendant Schweitzer then told her she was fired. 10. Mrs. Illar had recently discussed in the workplace her plan to go to a labor board or elsewhere to complain about her employer's failure to pay overtime compensation for hours she worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 11. Mrs. Illar made a call from work to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor inquiring about the forms and procedures for filing a wage complaint. 12. Mrs. Illar also has made an oral complaint to the person who prepared payroll for 2 Trindle Bowl, Inc. about the longstanding problem of not being paid wages at an overtime rate. 13. On or about May 27, 2005, Mrs. Illar and Defendant appeared at a hearing related to her claim against her employer for unemployment compensation benefits. 14. Schweitzer testified under oath at that hearing on behalf of Defendant Trindle Bowl, Inc. 15. In response to a properly issued subpoena, Mr. Schweitzer produced a video tape with audio recording of Mrs. Illar. 16. The tape was not played but instead confiscated by the Referee at the request of counsel. 17. Defendant Schweitzer testified that the tape was made at Trindle Bowl; that it contained audio; that he had listened to the audio; that he did not seek anyone's permission or consent to make the recording; that he had set up a secret audio recording system in or about Jul 2004; and that he had authorized the making of that tape and other tapes. 18. Mr. Schweitzer testified that the audio recordings were part of a multi-camera hidden surveillance system to monitor employees and that this included their conversations. 19. Mr. Schweitzer testified that he had been making such recording since approximately July 2004. 20. Mr. Schweitzer admitted that he said to Mrs. Illar words to the effect that "so, I hear you're going to the labor board" in his meeting to terminate her. 21. The reasons Mr. Schweitzer fired Mrs. Illar was because of her complaints about not being paid overtime wages. 22. As a result of her termination, Mrs. Illar suffered a loss of wages, benefits and an ongoing decrease in her earnings. COUNT I WIRE TAPPING AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE CONTROL ACT 23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein as if set forth again in full. 24. The Pennsylvania Wire Tapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the "Wiretap Act"), 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5701, et seq., prohibits the interception, disclosure or use of oral communications in the Commonwealth without the consent of the person(s) being recorded. 25. The conduct of Defendants Schweitzer and Trindle Bowl Inc., in intercepting, recording and using the oral discussions of the Plaintiff and others violated the Wiretap Act. 26. Section 5725 of the Wiretap Act authorized any person whose oral communication has been intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of the Act to bring a civil action for damages. 27. The Plaintiff's oral communications were unlawfully intercepted, disclosed and/or used by Defendants Schweitzer and Trindle Bowl, Inc. and as a result, she suffered actual damages including but not limited to the loss of her longtime employment, a loss and then decrease of wages and benefits and the distress that comes from those losses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Patricia Illar seeks judgment in her favor and against the Defendants Trindle Bowl, Inc. and Karl Schweitzer, each individually and jointly, for violations of the Wiretap Act in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, including actual damages, interest thereon, statutory damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of litigation. COUNT II FEDERAL OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968 ("FEDERAL WIRETAPPING ACT") 28. Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein as if set forth again in full. 4 29. Title III of the federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ("Federal Wiretapping Act"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511, et seq., as amended, prohibits the intentional interception, use or disclosure of any oral communication and provides, in relevant part, for damages and civil penalties for violations of the Federal Wiretapping Act. 30. The Defendants conduct in unlawfully intercepting, recording and/or using such oral communications involving the Plaintiff violated the Federal Wiretapping Act. 31. The Defendants conduct in violation of the Federal Wiretapping Act is a harm to the Plaintiff and otherwise caused the Plaintiff harm and, therefore, she is entitled to damages under the Act. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Patricia Illar seeks judgment in her favor and against the Defendants Trindle Bowl, Inc. and Karl Schweitzer, each individually and jointly, for violations of the Federal Wiretapping Act in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, including actual damages, interest thereon, liquidated damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of litigation. COUNT III FEDERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT OF 1986 ("ECPA") 32. Paragraphs 1 through 31 are incorporated herein as if set forth again in full. 33. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ('ECPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq. as amended, prohibits the intentional interception, use or disclosure of any oral communication and provides, in relevant part, for damages and civil penalties for violations of the ECPA. 34. The Defendants conduct in unlawfully intercepting, recording and/or using such oral communications involving the Plaintiff violated the ECPA. 35. The Defendants conduct in violation of the ECPA is a harm to the Plaintiff and otherwise caused the Plaintiff harm and, therefore, she is entitled to damages under the Act. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Patricia Illar seeks judgment in her favor and against the Defendants Trindle Bowl, Inc. and Karl Schweitzer, each individually and jointly, for violations of the ECPA in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, including actual damages, interest thereon, liquidated damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of litigation. COUNT IV Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law 36. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein as if set forth again in full. 37. The Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, (WPCL) 43 P. S. § 260. 1, et seq., provides in relevant part that "[e]very employer shall pay all wages, other then fringe benefits or wage supplements, due to his employees on regular paydays designated in advance by the employer...." 43 P.S. § 260.3 (a). 38. The WPCL authorizes individuals to bring civil actions to collect all wages, fringe benefits and supplemental income from any "employer" who has violated the Act, and mandates the payment of attorneys' fees and liquidated damages. 43 P.S. § 260.2a and 260.9a.(a). 39. Under the WPCL, officers of a corporate employer also shall be liable for damages under the Act. 43 P.S. § 260.2a 40. Defendant Trindel Bowl, Inc. is an employer within the meaning of the WPCL and, at all times relevant hereto, has been obligated to comply with the WPCL. 6 41. Defendant Karl Schweitzer, qualifies individually as an employer within the meaning of the WPCL and, at all times relevant hereto, has been obligated to comply with the WPCL. 42. Each Defendant is thus liable for damages and related remedies due under the WPCL. 43. For a period in excess of three (3) years prior to her termination, Mrs. Illar consistently worked hours in excess of 40 hours per week on alternating weeks without being paid a rate of pay of 1 '/2 time her normal hourly rate, or approximately 625 hours of unpaid overtime and therefore, Defendants are liable for these wages and all related statutory remedies. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Patricia Illar seeks judgment in her favor and against the Defendants Trindle Bowl, Inc. and Karl Schweitzer, each individually and jointly, for violations of the WPCL in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, including unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of litigation. COUNT V Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 44. Paragraphs 1-43 are incorporated herein as if set forth again in full. 45. The Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 P.S. § 333.102, et seq., ("the PMWA") provides in relevant part for the protection of a worker's right to the payment of at least minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. 43 P.S. § 333.104 (c). 46. The Defendants each qualify as an employer within the meaning of the PMWA, 43 P.S. § 333.103(g). 47. The Plaintiff's duties were such that her employer did not and does not qualify for an exemption under the PMWA, 43 U.S.C. § 333.105 or any other section thereof, from the payment of 7 all minimum wages and all overtime wages to the Plaintiff under the PMWA. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to the payment of overtime wages at a rate of 1 %2 times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week for each week worked. 48. Defendants controlled the work and duties of the Plaintiff and yet have failed to meet their statutory obligation to advise Mrs.Illar of her nonexempt status, failed to advise her of her right to overtime wages, failed to meet the record-keeping requirements and failed to pay her proper overtime wages. 49. The Defendants failure to pay all compensation due the Plaintiff violates the PMWA, subjecting each Defendant to liability for all relief available under the PMWA, 43 P.S. § 333.113 and the WPCL, 43 P. S. § 260. 1, et seq. and any related statutory provisions and regulations. 50. Each Defendant is thus liable for damages and related remedies due under the PMWA and the WPCL, including all unpaid wages and additional liquidated damages equal to 25% of those unpaid wages; all unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages equal to 25% of that unpaid overtime compensation; attorneys' fees; costs of suit; interest; and any other relief that is just and proper under the law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Patricia Mar seeks judgment in her favor and against the Defendants Trindle Bowl, Inc. and Karl Schweitzer, each individually and jointly, for violations of the PMWA in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, including unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of litigation COUNT VI Fair Labor Standards Act 51. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are incorporated herein as if set forth again in full. 8 52. The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., in relevant part, governs employer-employee relationships on issues of the payment of wages, hours worked and overtime wages and, accordingly, the statute applies to the parties to this action. 53. The Defendants each qualify as an employer within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), et seq. 54. The Plaintiff's duties were such that her employer did not and does not qualify for an exemption under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 213 or any other section thereof, for payment of overtime wages. 55. Absent any such exemption, the Plaintiff is entitled to the payment of overtime wages under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, et seq. and related regulations, at a rate of I'/z times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for each workweek employed, beginning no later than March 2002, or at a minimum, overtime wages for more than 625 hours of as yet uncompensated overtime work. 56. Defendants controlled the work and duties of the Plaintiff and yet failed to meet their statutory obligation to advise Mrs. Illar of her nonexempt status, failed to advise her of her right to overtime wages, filed to meet their record-keeping obligations and failed to properly pay her overtime wages. 57. Each Defendant is thus liable for damages and related remedies due under the FLSA, including all unpaid wages and an equal amount of liquidated damages; all unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount of liquidated damages; attorneys' fees; costs of suit; interest; and other relief that is just and proper under the law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Patricia Illar seeks judgment in her favor and against the Defendants 9 Trindle Bowl, Inc. and Karl Schweitzer, each individually and jointly, for violations of the FLSA in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, including unpaid overtime wages, interest thereon, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of litigation. COUNT VII WRONGFUL TERMINATION - RETALIATION 58. Paragraphs 1-57 are incorporated herein as if set forth again in full. 59. The WPCL, 43 P. S. § 260. 1, et seq. expresses a strong public policy in favor of the timely and full payment of all earned wages and so make it unlawful for an employer, its officers, agents or other persons acting in an employer's interest, to deny, interfere in or otherwise refuse the payment of wages and/or overtime compensation earned by an employee. 60. Plaintiff had the right to make an inquiry and/or complaint about her rights to overtime compensation and to be free from retaliation in doing so. 61. Defendants termination of the Plaintiff was in violation of the public policy(ies) of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America. 10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Patricia Illar seeks judgment in her favor and against the Defendants Trindle Bowl, Inc. and Karl Schweitzer, each individually and jointly, for wrongful termination in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, including actual, punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of litigation. Date: May 11, 2006 Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICE OF NEIL A. GROVER Neil A. Grover, quire PA # 53142 2201 North Sec d Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/FAX (717) 260-9651 groverlaw@ix.netcom.com Attorney for Plaintiff 11 VERIFICATION I, Patricia Ilar, hereby verify that I am a Plaintiff in the foregoing action, and that the attached Complaint is based upon facts of which I have personal knowledge and on information which has been provided by me or gathered by my counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the Complaint is that of counsel and not mine. I have read the foregoing Complaint and to the extent that it is based upon information which I had given to my counsel, or which has been made known to me, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that any of the averments of the pleading is based upon an understanding or application of law, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. I understand that I am subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Sec 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities for any false statements made herein. Date: ,3_ /,, - pd -, ? Z?' A Patricia Ilar CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 11 `' day of May, 2006, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document via United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C. 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Counsel for Defendants By Ne N t?+}1 K ?' co r n May 31, 2006 PATRICIA ILLAR, Plaintiff V. TRINDLE BOWL, INC. and KARL SCHWEITZER, Defendants TO: Patricia Illar, Plaintiff IN THE CO CUMBERL CIVIL ACTI NO. 05-5067 JURY TRIAL NOTICE TO PLEAD and Neil A. Grover, Esquire 2201 South Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 You are hereby notified that you have twenty (20) 1 New Matter or a Default Judgment may be entered against OF COMMON PLEAS OF COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA - LAW in which to plead to the enclosed SNELBAKER & By: Keith O. Brenne 44 West Main S Mechanicsburg, (717) 697-8528 Attorney for De , P. C. Esquire 17055 LAW OFFICES SNEL13AKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. PATRICIA ILLAR, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW TRINDLE BOWL, INC. and KARL : NO. 05-50671 CIVIL SCHWEITZER, Defendants JURY TRIA) DEMANDED Defendants Trindle Bowl, Inc. and Karl Schweitzer, py their attorneys, Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C., submit this Answer with New Matter in ANSWER The portion of Plaintiffs Complaint entitled violation of Pa.R.C.P. 1022. In addition, the "Introduction" conclusions of law to which no response is required by the deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.P.C. 1029(d). 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted, 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted Defendant Trindle Bowl, Inc. and performed her duties at the denied that Plaintiff performed any duties with respect to the 6. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff performed any further denied Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated by the to Plaintiffs Complaint. should be stricken as being in a series of unwarranted accordingly, same are f was an employee of ;r service counter. It is n of the facility. il role or function. It is on March 7, 2005. On the LAW OFFICES contrary, Plaintiff had no management role or function and wa? lawfully and properly terminated SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. March 8, 2005. 7. Denied. It is denied that on March 7, 2005, Plaintiff was summoned into an office by Schweitzer. On the contrary, Defendant Schweitzer met with Plaintiff in an office on premises of Trindle Bowl on March 8, 2005. It is denied jhat there was either a video tape or video on the desk when Plaintiff and Defendant Schweitzer met. 8. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted thatIDefendant Schweitzer informed among other things, that he had heard that Plaintiff vas going to the labor board. It is that Defendant Schweitzer asked Plaintiff if she wishes} him to play the video tape. 9. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is denied that Pl?intiff declined to see and hear any for the reason that Defendant Schweitzer did not offer to klay any video tape for Plaintiff. it is admitted that Defendant Schweitzer terminated tlaintiff as an employee on March 2005, it is denied that Plaintiff was terminated for either declining to see and hear a tape or she had indicated she was going to the labor board. lic the contrary, Plaintiff was ed due to her volatile and explosive behavior for she had been warned about in the 10. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff indicated to the for Trindle Bowl, Inc. (the "Corporation") that she was going to go to the labor concerning an issue Plaintiff perceived existed pertaining to the payment of overtime It is denied, to the extent it is expressed or implied, that,Defendants failed to pay overtime wages or that Plaintiff was terminated due to overtime wages. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the LAW OFFICES I?nfonnation to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. plan to go to the labor board are without sufficient in Paragraph 11 of 2 Plaintiffs Complaint; therefore, same are denied and strict trial. 12. Paragraph 10, above, of this Answer is specific response to Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 17. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted testified concerning the making of an audio and video tape a investigation, Defendants are without sufficient information allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs Complaii of statements and testimony given by Defendant Schweitzer demanded at time of by reference in its entirety in that Defendant Schweitzer Bowl. After reasonable form a belief as to the truth of the as they relate to specific contents than one year ago; therefore, said allegations are denied and strict proof thereof demanded *t time of trial. 18, Paragraph 17, above, of this Answer is specific response to Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 19. It is admitted only that Mr. Schweitzer testified 2004. 20. Admitted, with the qualification that Defendant Plaintiff at the meeting on March 8, 2005 immediately prior to 21. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Schweitzer by reference in its entirety in he had started recording in July, made other statements to termination. Plaintiff due to Plaintiffs complaints about not being paid overtime. It is further denied, ?o the extent expressed or implied, that Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages. On the Plaintiff was paid overtime 3 and she was terminated due to her volatile and explosi?e behavior for which she had been about prior to her termination. 22, Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Complaint; therefore, same are denied and strict propf thereof demanded at time of COUNTI 23. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusi?e, of Defendants' Answer are by reference herein in their entirety, 24. Denied. Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Complaint conjains a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 25. Denied. Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs Complaint cont?ins a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 26. Denied. Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs Complaint contons a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are f to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 27. Denied. Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs Complaint cont ins a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). Paragraph ;2, above, of this Answer is 4 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. by reference in its entirety in specific response WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs entered in favor of Defendants together with costs of this COUNT R 28. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 27, by reference herein in their entirety, 29. Denied. Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs Complaint of law to which no response is required by the to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 30. Denied. Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs Complaint of law to which no response is required by the to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 31. Denied. Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs Complaint of law to which no response is required by the to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs entered in favor of Defendants together with costs of this 5 Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs be dismissed and judgment of Defendants' Answer are a series of unwarranted therefore, same are a series of unwarranted therefore, same are a series of unwarranted therefore, same are be dismissed and judgment LAW OFFICES SNELSAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. COUNT III 32. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 31, by reference herein in their entirety. 33. Denied. Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs Complaint of law to which no response is required by the to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 34. Denied. Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs Complaint of law to which no response is required by the to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 35. Denied. Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs Complaint of law to which no response is required by the to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs entered in favor of Defendants together with costs of this COUNT N 36. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 35, by reference herein in their entirety. 37. Denied. Paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs Complaint of law to which no response is required by the to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 6 of Defendants' Answer are a series of unwarranted therefore, same are a series of unwarranted therefore, same are a series of unwarranted therefore, same are be dismissed and judgment of Defendants' Answer are a series of unwarranted therefore, same are 38. Denied. Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs Complaint contains a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 39. Denied. Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs Complaint contains a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 40. Denied. Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs Complaint contains a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 41. Denied. Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs Complaint contains a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 42. Denied. Paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs Complaint contains a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 43. Denied. It is denied that for a period in excess of three years Plaintiff consistently hours in excess of 40 hour per week on alternating wee?s without being paid a rate of of 1 %: rimes her normal hourly rate. To the contrary, Plain*ff was paid overtime wages the three year period prior to her termination. It is furth$r denied that Plaintiff has or is otherwise entitled to receive payment or compensation based upon 625 hours of LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. unpaid overtime. Accordingly, it is denied that Defendants are liable for wages and all related statutory remedies based upon 625 hours of unpaid overtime as alleged by the Plaintiff. 7 WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed and judgment entered in favor of Defendants together with costs of this COUNT V 44. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 43, inclusi} e, of Defendants' Answer are by reference herein in their entirety. 45. Denied. Paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs Complaint conWns a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 46. Denied. Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs Complaint conons a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 47. Denied. Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs Complaint contains a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defodants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 48. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants controlled the duties of the Plaintiff as an employee of Defendant Tr+dle Bowl, Inc. The remaining of Paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs Complaint contain unwarranted conclusions of law to no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, sarr a are deemed to be denied to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 49. Denied. Paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs Complaint cont4ins a series of unwarranted LAW ?FICES conclusions of law to which no response is required by the De" dants; therefore, same are SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 9 50. Denied. Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs Complaint contains a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs Cor}iplaint be dismissed and judgment entered in favor of Defendants together with costs of this COUNT VI 51. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 50, inclusij e, of Defendants' Answer are by reference herein in their entirety. 52. Denied. Paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs Complaint contains a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 53. Denied. Paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs Complaint contains a series of unwarranted conclusions of law to which no response is required by the De*ndants; therefore, same are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 54. Denied. Paragraph 54 ofPlaintiffs Complaint contains a series of unwarranted conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 55. Denied. Paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs Complaint con?ains a series of unwarranted LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Defendants; therefore, same are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). By way of further response, it is denied that Plaintiff is entitled to payment of overtime wages for more that} 625 hours of overtime work for 9 reasons set forth in Defendants' New Matter, the herein. 56. Paragraph 48, above, of this Answer is response to Paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 57. Denied. Paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs Complaint of law to which no response is required by the to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs entered in favor of Defendants together with costs of this COUNT VII 58. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 57, by reference herein in their entirety. 59. Denied. Paragraph 59 of Plaintiffs Complaint of law to which no response is required by the to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 60. Denied. Paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs Complaint of law to which no response is required by the to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 61. Denied. Paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs Complaint of law to which no response is required by the LAW OFFICES (deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. of which are incorporated by by reference in its entirety in a series of unwarranted therefore, same are be dismissed and judgment of Defendants' Answer are a series of unwarranted therefore, same are a series of unwarranted therefore, same are a series of unwarranted therefore, same are 10 WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs entered in favor of Defendants together with costs of this NEW MATTER 62. Plaintiffs Complaint and each Count set forth of action upon which relief may be granted to the 63. Plaintiff was terminated on March 8, 2005. 64. Plaintiffs termination arose due to Plaintiffs 65. Plaintiff prior to her termination on March 8, 2005 behavior and given the opportunity to correct such 66. Plaintiffs behavior as noted above reflected operation of the Corporation and the other employees 67. Plaintiffs behavior as described above alienated 68. If Plaintiff was not properly paid overtime wages, to her termination would amount to less than $325.00. 69. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff she wanted to be terminated. 70. Defendants installed the video surveillance system the cause of the theft of money. 71. Prior to the installation of the video surveillance LAW OFFICES Irised at the time of purchase that audio should not be SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. be dismissed and judgment fails to state or set forth a and explosive behavior and as warned about her volatile and avior prior to her termination, pon Trindle Bowl, Inc., the PTrindle Bowl, Inc. omers of Trindle Bowl. oh wages for the past three years 7essed prior to her termination t Trindle Bowl in an attempt to .em, Defendants were not i with video. II 72. At or about the time of the installation of the consulted with Hampden Township Police 73. At the time that Defendant Schweitzer consulted concerning the video surveillance system, he was recorded with video. 74. All actions taken by Defendant Schweitzer with were taken in his capacity as an agent and former employer. 75. At no time with respect to the matters set forth in act otherwise than as an agent or representative 76. Defendant Schweitzer at no time acted of Trindle Bowl, Inc. 77. Plaintiffs Complaint and each Count set forth cause of action against Defendant Schweitzer in his 78. In March, 2005 Plaintiff filed a claim with the compensation benefits. 79. A referee's Decision/Order was issued as a result "Decision"), involving Plaintiff and Defendant 80. The Decision was not appealed by Plaintiff or 81. In the Decision, Plaintiff was found to have been her attitude with respect to her employment with Trindle 82. In the Decision, Plaintiff was found to have been LAW OFFICES SNELSAKER & due to an unacceptable attitude. BRENNEMAN, P.C. 11 surveillance system, Defendant Hampden Township Police advised that audio was not to to Plaintiff and Plaintiffs of Trindle Bowl, Inc., Complaint did Defendant Bowl, Inc. or outside his role as an agent or fails to set forth a claim or of Labor and Industry for of a hearing held May 27, 2005 Bowl, Inc. a verbal warning regarding Inc. by Trindle Bowl, hie. 12 83. As a result of Plaintiff filing a claim for received unemployment compensation. 84. All amounts of unemployment compensation as a setoff to any damages claimed or alleged to have 85. Due to the findings of fact made in the Decision, been or are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 86. Due to the findings of fact made in the Decision, been or are barred by the application of collateral 87. Plaintiffs Complaint and each Count set forth of justification. 88. Plaintiffs Complaint and each Count raised of limitations. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs entered in favor of Defendants together with costs of this SNELBAKER & May 31, 2006 BY: ( Y 11V '-- Keith O. Brennemar 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Defen compensation benefits, by Plaintiff are hereby sustained by Plaintiff. or more of Plaintiffs claims or more of Plaintiffs claims is barred by the affirmative may be barred by applicable be dismissed and judgment , P. C. Esquire 7055 13 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing correct. I understand that false statements herein are made Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. with New Matter are true and to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Date: May 31, 2006 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing correct. I understand that false statements herein are made Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. TRINDLE By: LAW OFFICES Date: May 31 , 2006 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. with New Matter are true and to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. INC. I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with person and in the manner indicated below: Neil A. Grover, Esquire 2201 North Second Stre Harrisburg, PA 17110 SNELBAKER & By: Keith O. Brenneman, 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 1 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Defend; May 31, 2006 that I have, on the below date, Matter to be served upon the 'P.C. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. *"' CJ (-?_ e° a < ? ?: .,a -?,• T -n • ?ti? -.. ? . c;? ''' -', - - ?,,, ?i ? ::? _ ? 4 PATRICIA ILLAR, Plaintiff V. TRINDLE BOWL, INC. and KARL SCHWEITZER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-5067 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please note upon your docket and indices that the Objections to Subpoena filed in the above-captioned action on October 17, 2005 by Defendants are hereby withdrawn. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. BY: I? Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Date: June 22, 2006 Attorneys for Defendants LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to be served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Neil A. Grover, Esquire 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 By: Date: June 22, 2006 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. I? d Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Defendants Trindle Bowl, Inc. and Karl Schweitzer LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 11 . 'i7 rv _1 :'i7 5 I Neil A. Grover, Esquire #53142 Attorney for Plaintiff 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/ FAX (717) 233-2342 Qroverlaw(@,i .netcom.corn PATRICIA ILLAR, Plaintiff V. TRINDLE BOWL INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; et al., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-5067 Civil Jury Trial Demanded STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED To The Court: PATRICIA ILLAR intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Respectfully Submitted, LAW ,OFFICES OF NEIL A. GROVER Dated: October 23, 2009 B ?.IJ Y Neil A. Grover, rFFAAXX((771177) 3142 2201 North SecHarrisburg, PA (717) 260-9651 233-2342 groverlaw@ix.netcom.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 23`d of October 2009 served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Statement of Intention to Proceed via United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C. 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Counsel for Defendants Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICES OF NEIL A. GROVER Dated: October 23, 2009 BY 0 Neil A. Grover, squire #53142 2201 North Se d Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 260-9651/ FAX (717) 233-2342 groverlaw@ix.netcom.com I%r c OCT 23 00 _ 4 7 David D. Buell Prothonotary Y,irkS. Sohonage, ESQ Soricitor 1751 Renee K. Simpson I" Deputy Prothonotary Irene E. Morrow 2nd Deputy prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary C,'um6erfand County, Pennsylvania CIVILTERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012, AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE -THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R.C.P. 230.2. BY THE COURT, DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Suite 100 • Carlisle, P,4 17013 • (717 240-6195 • Fax (717 240-6573