Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-6029In the COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION - LAW 30NESTOWN BANK AND TRUST : NO. O S- G b ?29 0' Te COMPANY, Plaintiff vs. NEIL F. ZEIGLER, Defendant PRAECIPE TO TRANSFER JUDGMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 3002, kindly enter judgment against the defendant in the amount of $15,901.80, in accordance with the following documents attached hereto: (1) certified copy of all the docket entries in the above-captioned case; and (2) certification of the amount of the judgment in the above-captioned case; and forthwith enter the judgment in the appropriate dockets and index it against the defendant. REILLY, WOLFSON, SHEFFEY, SCHRUM AND LUNDBERG LLP By: r. (?a? Paul C. Bametzreider, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff 1601 Cornwall Road Lebanon, PA 17042 (717) 273-3733 I.D. #55748 Date: 11/14/05 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY Time: 10:45:17 JONESTOWN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY Action No. 2004-01031 VS. CIVIL DIVISION NEIL F. ZEIGLER CERTIFICATION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF LEBANON ss I, Lisa M. Arnold, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing pages contain a true copy and correct transcript of the docket entries, which form the whole record in the foregoing suit, and that Judgment has been entered and certified in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant(s) in the sum of $15,901.80 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the said Court at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, this Fourteenth day of November, 2005. owl Prothonotary b T qTw G i % Date: 11/14/05 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY Time: 10:45:17 JONESTOWN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY Action No. 2004-01031 vs. CIVIL DIVISION NEIL F. ZEIGLER Docket Entries 1 through 6 7/22/04 PRAECIPE TO ENTER THE APPEARANCE FOR JONESTOWN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, 943/0310 FILED. PAUL C. BAMETZREIDER 7/22/04 COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION LAW FILED. 943/0310 PAUL C. BAMETZREIDER 7/22/04 SHERIFF SERVICE 943/0310 8/20/04 SHERIFF'S RETURN, FILED. 948/0385 10/27/05 PRAECIPE TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,901.80 1/0184 FILED. NOTICE PURSUANT TO RULE PA.R.C.P. 237.1. DEFENDANT NOTIFIED. JUDGMENT ENTERED. PAUL C. BAMETZREIDER 11/02/05 PRAECIPE FOR EXEMPLIFIED RECORD, FILED. 2/0090 PAUL C. BAMETZREIDER I Date: 11/14/05 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY Time:10:45:17 JONESTOWN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY Action No. 2004-01031 VS. CIVIL DIVISION NEIL F. ZEIGLER COMPLETE CAPTION Plaintiff(s) JONESTOWN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY 421 EAST PENN AVENUE CLEONA, PA 17042 Defendant(s) NEIL F. ZEIGLER 107 BIRCH COURT CAMP HILL, PA 17011-4002 Attorney PAUL C. BAMETZREIDER Date: 11/14/05 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY Time: 10:45:17 JONESTOWN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY Action No. 2004-01031 vs. CIVIL DIVISION NEIL F. ZEIGLER INDEX ENTRIES Party Indexed as P. : JONESTOWN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY First Opposing Party: NEIL F. ZEIGLER Comment . . : CA COMP Filed on: 0/00/00 Microfilmed at: Judgment Amount: Party Indexed as D. : ZEIGLER, NEIL F. First Opposing Party: JONESTOWN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY Comment . . : CA COMP Filed on: 0/00/00 Microfilmed at: Judgment Amount: Party Indexed as .. : ZEIGLER, NEIL F. First Opposing Party: JONESTOWN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY Comment . . . . . . : DEF JUDG Filed on: 10/27/05 Microfilmed at: 1/0184 Judgment Amount: $15,901.80 / I UJ ERTIFIED FROM THE RECORD Prothnnntarv ? ?? ? .. r.. C-, ? ? ?_; :;, `' ? ? '? r; ?v `Y ll _ .., ?. -j :.... ??7 J BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: David K. Brennan, Esquire Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 802 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 WILLIAM OYLER and LINDA OYLER, Plaintiffs, V. KEYSTONE FLEET SERVICES, INC. Defendant V. YARD TRUCK SPECIALISTS, INC. and TRUCK PARTS PLUS, INC. Attorneys for Additional Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 06-6029 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Additional Defendants RESPONSE OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT YARD TRUCK SPECIALISTS. INC. TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT YARD TRUCK SPECIALISTS. INC.. AND ITS COUNSEL BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES. P.C. Additional Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc. ("Defendant Yard Truck"), by and through its attorneys Brennan & Associates, P.C., hereby responds to the Motion for Sanctions Against Additional Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc., and its Counsel Brennan & Associates, P.C. as follows: 1. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs William and Linda Oyler (the "Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint against Defendant Keystone Fleet Services, Inc. ("Defendant Keystone") on or about October 11, 2006. The Complaint is a writing which speaks for itself and any characterization thereof by Defendant Truck Parts Plus, Inc. ("Defendant Truck Parts") is denied. 2. Denied as stated. The Complaint is a writing which speaks for itself and any characterization thereof by Defendant Truck Parts is denied. 3. Denied as stated. The Complaint is a writing which speaks for itself and any characterization thereof by Defendant Truck Parts is denied. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied as stated. The Joinder Complaint of Defendant Keystone is a writing which speaks for itself and any characterization thereof by Defendant Truck Parts is denied. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied as stated. The Joinder Complaint of Defendant Yard Truck is a writing which speaks for itself and any characterization thereof by Defendant Truck Parts is denied. By way of further answer, any allegations against Defendant Truck Parts in said Joinder Complaint arise from the Joinder Complaint of Defendant Keystone, whereby Defendant Keystone alleges that Plaintiffs' injuries resulted from the condition of the heat bypass valve in question. A true and correct copy of the Joinder Complaint of Defendant Keystone is attached hereto as Exhibit «A „ 8. Denied. The Complaint, Joinder Complaint of Defendant Keystone, and Joinder Complaint of Defendant Yard Truck are writings which speak for themselves and any characterization thereof by Defendant Truck Parts is denied. Additionally, the paragraph of the Joinder Complaint of Defendant Yard Truck cited in part herein by Defendant Truck Parts Plus reads in full: "If it is proved, as alleged by the plaintiff, that plaintiffs' damages, including Mr. Oyler's injuries and the damages alleged by Mrs. Oyler, were caused by either a defective heat bypass valve or the defective installation of the bypass valve, then such damages were a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or strict liability of Keystone as the installers or Truck Parts as the seller of the heat bypass valve." See Joinder Complaint of Defendant Yard Truck ¶ 13, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 9. Denied. Paragraph 9 is denied to the extent that it suggests that the joinder of Defendant Truck Parts was frivolous and should be abandoned. On the contrary, the Joinder Complaint of Defendant Yard Truck was filed in response to the joinder of said Defendant in the instant matter by Defendant Keystone on the premise that Plaintiffs' injuries were somehow caused by the condition of the valve in question. See Joinder Complaint of Defendant Keystone. 10. Denied as stated. The pleadings in the instant matter are writings which speak for themselves and any characterization thereof is denied. By way of further answer, Defendant Truck Parts conveniently fails to mention that Defendant Yard Truck alleged in its Joinder Complaint that Defendant Truck Parts was the "seller of the heat bypass valve." See Joinder Complaint of Defendant Yard Truck, Exhibit B, ¶ 13. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Yard Truck has not submitted discovery responses to date indicating that an expert to establish any breach of a duty or responsibility of Defendant Truck Parts Plus has been retained. However, the averments in Paragraph 11 are denied to the extent that they suggest an expert has not been retained by Defendant Yard Truck for such purposes, and/or that evidence of such a breach of a duty or responsibility does not exist. On the contrary, discovery in this matter has not concluded, and Defendant Yard Truck is compiling its responses to said discovery requests. Additionally, Defendant Yard Truck has retained an expert who is expected to offer an opinion regarding, inter alia, the failure of the valve in question and its effect on Plaintiffs' claimed injuries. An expert report will be submitted in conjunction with the aforementioned responses to discovery once it is received by Defendant Yard Truck. 12. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 12 are conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore are denied as a matter of law. By way of further answer, Defendant Yard Truck hereby incorporates its response to Paragraph 11 as though fully set forth herein. 13. Denied. It is denied that the Joinder Complaint of Defendant Yard Truck was filed for no legitimate reason but to attempt to coerce an unjustified settlement contribution. As discussed above, Defendant Yard Truck joined Defendant Truck Parts Plus on the premise that if it is proven that Plaintiffs' injuries were caused by any condition or failure of the subject valve, as purportedly alleged by Defendant Keystone in its Joinder Complaint, then Defendant Truck Parts, as the seller of the valve in question, may be alone liable, jointly and severally liable, or liable over to Defendant Yard Truck by way of common-law and/or contractual contribution or indemnification for any judgment for Plaintiffs against Defendant Yard Truck. See Joinder Complaint of Defendant Keystone, Exhibit A, ¶¶ 6-8; see also Plaintiffs' Complaint, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" IN 7-8. Further, Defendant Truck Parts ignores the fact that this Honorable Court's denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Yard Truck on or about December 8, 2008 effectively allows Defendant Keystone to proceed on its theory that Plaintiffs' injuries were caused by the condition of the valve in question based upon the evidence in the record. Therefore, it is entirely proper for Defendant Truck Parts, as the seller of such valve, to have been joined and to remain a party to the instant litigation. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Truck Parts filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on or about November 7, 2008. Said Motion is a writing which speaks for itself and any characterization thereof by Defendant Truck Parts is denied. By way of further answer, the instant Motion is premature in that this Honorable Court has not issued a ruling on said Motion for Summary Judgment. 15. Denied. It is denied that the Joinder Complaint of Defendant Yard Truck is meritless or has caused "needless" legal expenses. By way of further answer, Defendant Yard Truck incorporates its response to Paragraph 13 as though fully set forth herein. 16. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 16 are conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore same are denied as a matter of law. 17. Denied. It is denied that counsel for Defendant Yard Truck had no factual or legal foundation to file its Joinder Complaint. On the contrary, based upon the Joinder Complaint filed by Defendant Keystone alleging that Plaintiffs' injuries were caused by a condition of the valve in question, failing to join Defendant Truck Parts as the seller of said valve arguably could have constituted malpractice on the part of counsel for Defendant Yard Truck. By way of further answer, Defendant Yard Truck incorporates its response to Paragraph 13 as though fully set forth herein. 18. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Yard Truck and its counsel have refused to withdraw the Joinder Complaint against Defendant Truck Parts Plus. It is denied that the allegations contained therein are baseless. By way of further answer, Defendant Yard Truck incorporates its response to Paragraph 13 as though fully set forth herein. 19. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that counsel for Defendant Truck Parts contested the joinder of said Defendant in this action. The allegations in Paragraph 19 are denied to the extent that they suggest that the Joinder Complaint of Defendant Yard Truck was frivolous and had no evidentiary basis. 20. Denied as stated. The email referenced in Paragraph 20 is a writing which speaks for itself, and any characterization thereof by Defendant Truck Parts is denied. 21. Denied as stated. The email referenced in Paragraph 21 is a writing which speaks for itself, and any characterization thereof by Defendant Truck Parts is denied. 22. Admitted. 23. Denied as stated. The email referenced in Paragraph 23 is a writing which speaks for itself, and any characterization thereof by Defendant Truck Parts is denied. 24. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the correspondence referenced in Paragraph 24 was issued. However, said correspondence consists of writings which speak for themselves and any characterization thereof by Defendant Truck Parts is denied. 25. Admitted. 26. Denied. It is denied that the testimony referenced in Paragraph 26 by David Dwyer, a layperson, evidences any "spurious" nature of the Joinder Complaint. Further, the attempted use of such testimony in support of such averments is disingenuous, as there is no evidence that Mr. Dwyer is or was competent to offer any opinion on the legal question of whether joinder is proper in this matter. 27. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 27 are conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore same are denied as a matter of law. 28. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 28 are conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore same are denied as a matter of law. 29. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Yard Truck and its counsel willfully filed the Joinder Complaint against Defendant Truck Parts. Paragraph 29 is denied to the extent that it suggests that the filing of same was improper in any way. By way of further answer, Defendant Yard Truck incorporates its response to Paragraph 13 as though fully set forth herein. 30. Denied. Paragraph 30 is denied to the extent that it suggests that the Joinder Complaint against Defendant Truck Parts was baseless or caused Defendant Truck Parts to waste time and/or incur needless expense. By way of further answer, Defendant Yard Truck incorporates its response to Paragraph 13 as though fully set forth herein. 31. Denied. It is denied that the filing the Joinder Complaint against Defendant Truck Parts was improper in any way. By way of further answer, Defendant Yard Truck incorporates its response to Paragraph 13 as though fully set forth herein. 32. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 32 are conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore said averments are denied as a matter of law. 33. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 33 are conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore said averments are denied as a matter of law. To the extent a response may be deemed to be required, Defendant Yard Truck incorporates its response to Paragraph 13 as though fully set forth herein. 34. Denied as stated. Paragraph 34 is denied to the extent that it suggests that the filing of the Joinder Complaint against Defendant Truck Parts was improper in any way. 35. Admitted. It is admitted that counsel for Defendant Yard Truck does not concur in the instant Motion for Sanctions. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny the Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc. and its counsel. Respectfully Submitted, BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C By: K . DAV K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Atty. Identification No. 69851 RACHEL D. BASHORE, ESQUIRE Atty. Identification No. 202823 400 Washington Street, Suite 802 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 Attorneys for Additional Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc. (Our File No. 9770.85) VERIFICATION The averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing Response of Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc. to the Motion for Sanctions Against Additional Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc., and its Counsel, Brennan & Associates, P. C. are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: I ?f ! O?j V. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: David K. Brennan, Esquire Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 802 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 WILLIAM OYLER and LINDA OYLER, V. Plaintiffs, KEYSTONE FLEET SERVICES, INC. Defendant YARD TRUCK SPECIALISTS, INC and TRUCK PARTS PLUS, INC. Attorneys for Additional Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 06-6029 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Additional Defendants CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Rachel D. Bashore, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Response of Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc. to the Motion for Sanctions Against Additional Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc., and its Counsel, Brennan & Associates, P. C. and Proposed Order were served upon all counsel and/or unrepresented parties by regular, first class mail, postage pre-paid on January S , 2009. BRENNAN//& ASSOCIATES, P.C By: K DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Atty. Identification No. 69851 RACHEL D. BASHORE, ESQUIRE Atty. Identification No. 202823 400 Washington Street, Suite 802 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 Attorneys for Additional Defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc. c' 9 /_ j? l