Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-6365yr rem QyLvwm1^ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT I COMMON PLEAS No. d00? (ajbj C `? NOTICE OF APPEAL Dv. !L/ ;2z?S Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. Q. lace AuunesS Ur gr LV I ---- - ---- ?? 3 Texacl; Rcod, tale ?e1Sbu? PA l7 DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF (Plainllth (Derewaml 1( N') -!Dm S f)pyy nt-) %?rn14h ve PY)rn Lewt S Cv - 0000"115-65 was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(6) in act R.C.P.D.J. No. 10088. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. SVnalura W PoMhonotary or Deputy before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after (ling the NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary S Enterruleupon 1, °bor-oi_h vnl??? appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Name of appellees) (Common Pleas No. n5__ L3(a5?ct ? 1? _ ) within twenty (20) day a ter s rvic f rumor suffer entry of judgment of non pros. ?u C ocut r _Ew j?\? 1 c Signature of Ilan or attorney or agent RULE: To t.iC?,_L?L ? y) a e(s) Name of appellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: Y . 20LN5Sign u of vroinonotzrry?of Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-02 WHITE- COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN -COURT FILE YELLOW -APPELLANTS COPY PINK -COPY TO BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD -COPY TO BE SERVED ON DISTRICT JUSTICE PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served ? a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas , upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) , 20 , ? by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) '011 20 ? by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF _, 20 Signature of affiant Signature of official before whom affidavit was made Title of official My commission expires on A A COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA rnl INITY nF- CUMBERLAND Mag. 6i No.' 09-3-04 MDJ Name: Hon. THOMAS A. PLACSY Address. 104 S SPORTING HILL RD MECHANICSBURG, PA Telephone: (717) 761-8230 17050 THOM LEWIS 263 TEXACO ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 OAJ C' NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT PLAINTIFF: CIVIL CASE NAMEend ADDRESS FSMITH, DEBORAH L 1302 UPTON DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17110 L J VS. DEFENDANT'. NAMFeOd ADDRESS rLEWIS, THOM 263 TEXACO ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 L vs J Docket No.: CV-0000415-05 Date Filed: 8/03j05 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR PLAINTIFF ® Judgment was entered for: (Name) smTTw nRiRcinpR r ® Judgment was entered against: (Name) r xwlq, TROM in the amount of $ 6 A7 7 _50 on: Defendants are jointly and severally liable. E] Damages will be assessed on: ElThis case dismissed without prejudice. I Amount of Judgment Subject to AttachmenV42 Pa.C.S. § 8127 $ Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ (Date of Judgment) 117423105 (Date & Time) Amount of Judgment Judgment Costs Interest on Judgment Attornev Fees Post Judgment Credits Post Judgment Costs $_ 6,696.0 1 Certified Judgment Total $ ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARYICLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGEMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. Date Magisterial District Judge I certify that this is a true Ad correct copy of the record of the p oceedings containing the judgment. Date Magisterial District Judge My commission expires first Monday of January, 2010. SEAL AOPC 315-05 DATE PRINTED: 11/23/05 3:54:17 PM _? `? t"? ^. ?.. ?. n? ?> `'?? s, ?? `Z. ?,`? ?? ?a ., Postal ` :- 1-jCERTIFIED MAI 0 LTq, RECEIPT a ., In "a l : surance Er a M1, IF, F?_ _?__.__ _ (t D Foslage? T / -.1! 0-' --' -? Postage $ 3 O CeroBetl Fee r9 O Postmark O Ceditied Fee p Return Rodent Feo (Endorsement Required) Here r Ji O O ° y Return R Postmark i t 1 ? ec ep Fee (Entlor r 7 Q - - Semept Required) f L Here ED Restricted Delivery Fee ED m (Endorsement Required) R estricted Delivery Fee R i m ntl (Eorsemera Required Total Postage & Fees $ %) r9 ZF Total Postage 8 Fees O SenfTo^ C SenfTo o? Street Apt No: -? 1 --- ?1 orPOBo No ??II'1 - M1 Sheet Apt Na __- r/CL --_. _--. O PO Be NO city slerZIP.Q -, „-. / t -, .,ay. sraie. ziP a .--------- OF SERVIC 1090 11011 OFAPPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF (/I!ss AFFIDAVIT., I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served La? ???? ??-- r r a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common ?Plleasa?E-` s"t, 15,, upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) ,?'L :,/-) , 20 ? by personal service Yby (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name)I _ ,?S-r•.-?, (f? , on C- X "lr J , 20 ? by personal service LJ by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN) AFFIRMED) AND BSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 20 d5, . S' ature of official before whom rdavit was madol Sign t re of arrant Title of official +f My commission expires on 20-0?r "llelim L bIMK UMMY kd ?o Now k' NMduManno Twp•. Om? Cow" n o `Try: O C7 "rte J ?J Fri -Zi N COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. Wf?[ph XYYLLLMIiI 1 - -.. ? I rve,Yq v u.+. NIJV1(tJS Vr IU'YCLINiVI ? o v?? ?r •?a??arvvr., , ,r,? w?r_ r 1?wnrrrrr, .. r , VS { This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under. Pa. If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. K.G.P.D.J. No. 7UU7(b) In action R.C.P.D.J. No. 10088. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. (20) days after filing the NOTICE Of APPEAL. Sgnafum of Pefhonolaryor Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal (Common Pleas No. Name of appellee(s) .. - ) within twenty (20) days after service?of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signature of appellant or attorney or agent RULE: To appellee(s) Name of apps/lee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: tea- . - j .20 h- Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE ACOPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-02 WHITE -COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN -COURT FILE YELLOW -APPELLANTS COPY PINK-COPY TO BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD-COPY TO BE SERVED ON DISTRICT JUSTICE DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and ajudgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013. (800) 990-9108 DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Deborah L. Smith, filing pro se, and states the following cause of action: 1. Plaintiff Deborah L. Smith (hereinafter "Smith") is an adult individual residing at 1302 Upton Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17110. Smith resided at this address at all times relevant to this Complaint. 2. Defendant Thom Lewis (hereinafter "Lewis") is an adult individual residing at 263 Texaco Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050. Lewis resided at this address at all times relevant to this Complaint. 3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Lewis operated a collie dog rescue from his residence under at least two different names. One name was "Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc.," a non-profit (non-stock) Pennsylvania corporation, Entity Number 2750551. Lewis operated Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. from this residence on a day-to-day basis. Upon Smith's information and belief, the other name under which Lewis operated was "Far Point Collie Rescue," a fictitious name filed by "Far Point Animal Rescue," a Pennsylvania non-profit, (non-stock) corporation, Entity Number 3208576. 4. During the time period of mid 2004 to July 2005, Smith repeatedly loaned Lewis money - eventually totalling $6,696.00 - for the express purpose of helping Lewis with legal, operational and veterinary bills relating to the protection and welfare of dogs located at his residence. All loans outlined in this Complaint were personal loans from Smith to Lewis. 5. This Complaint will delineate the genesis of these personal loans, and respectfully seeks j udgment against Lewis for the full amount of these loans, the costs of this court action and that of District Justice Thomas A. Placey-who rendered judgment entirely in Smith's favor on November 23, 2005 - and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. COUNTI DEBORAH L. SMITH v. THOM LEWIS , MONIES OWED 6. In early 2004, Smith began to perform volunteer work for the collie rescue operated by Lewis at his residence. Smith has a long history of performing volunteer work relating to animal protection. 7. At the time Smith began her volunteer work, Lewis informed her that the Pennsylvania Attorney General had earlier initiated an investigation of Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. as well as himself personally, and that said investigation had resulted in a number of allegations against both him and the Rescue. 8. Lewis informed Smith that the Attorney General's allegations were false, could not be proven, and had been started by people whom Lewis described as "disgruntled former volunteers with personal vendettas." 9. Smith, who felt strongly about helping the collies at Lewis's residence, initially believed Lewis's claims that the Attorney General's allegations were without merit. 10. Consequently, in July 2004, Smith loaned Lewis $3,000.00 to retain the services of attorney Don Bailey (see Exhibit "A," canceled check to Bailey dated July 19, 2004 attached hereto). 11. Smith loaned Lewis this money so that attorney Bailey could defend the Rescue, as well as represent Lewis, against what Smith believed - based upon Lewis's assertions - were baseless allegations by the Attorney General. With this loan, Smith also wanted to help the collies receive a large inheritance that had been bequeathed specifically to Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. but was being withheld by the Attorney General because of his office's ongoing investigation. Smith made it clear to Lewis that this was a loan, not a gift. Smith told Lewis she would wait for repayment of this loan until Bailey had completed his legal representation. 12. However, because Smith's loan was not used for an intended purpose - defending the Rescue against specific allegations by the Attorney General that could have resulted in dissolution of the Rescue and the Rescue's loss of the substantial inheritance that it had been bequeathed - Smith's offer to wait for repayment has consequently been mooted. 13. Although Smith wanted to attend the initial meeting with attorney Bailey, Lewis would not permit her to attend this meeting, which had been enabled by her $3,000.00 loan to Lewi s. 14. On or about March 2005, after Smith was summoned by telephone to a meeting with attorney Bailey and Lewis, Smith finally realized that Bailey did not intend to defend the Rescue against the Attorney General's allegations, despite the fact that this was an express purpose of the $3,000.00 loan given to Lewis by Smith for Bailey's representation. Had Smith known this, she never would have loaned Lewis the $3,000.00. 2 15. One month later, on or about April 26, 2005, a majority of the Board members of Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. signed an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC) with the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office (see Exhibit "B," Assurance of Voluntary Compliance attached hereto). 16. This AVC revealed that despite Lewis's prior claims to Smith that the Attorney General's allegations were baseless, the Attorney General's investigation found various deficiencies relating to how the Rescue - which Lewis operated on a day-to-day basis - conducted business. A majority of the Board Members signed this AVC, thus agreeing to its findings and mandates, which included immediate dissolution of the Rescue. 17. As a direct result of the AVC, the substantial inheritance money that had been bequeathed to Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. - and which had played a key role in Smith's decision to loan Lewis the $3,000 for Bailey's representation - was instead distributed to other local animal organizations. 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant THOM LEWIS in the amount of $3,000.00, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. COUNT II DEBORAH L. SMITH v. THOM LEWIS MONIES OWED 19. On or about September 14, 2004, Smith loaned Lewis $2,450.00 to purchase a vehicle (a pre-owned Jeep) that would be utilized for both the Rescue's and Lewis's personal use (see Exhibit "C," canceled check to Lewis dated September 14, 2004 attached hereto). Smith made it clear to Lewis that this was a loan, not a gift, and has always been due and payable. 20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant THOM LEWIS in the amount of $2,450.00, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. COUNT III DEBORAH L. SMITH v. THOM LEWIS MONIES OWED 21. On or about November 24, 2004, Smith loaned Lewis $326.11 to repair the above- referenced vehicle (see Exhibit "D," Bank of America credit card statement detailing this transaction attached hereto). Smith made it clear to Lewis this was a loan, not a gift, and has always been due and payable. Smith is requesting repayment of $325.00 of this loan, as detailed in paragraph 37 of this Complaint. 22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant THOM LEWIS in the amount of $325.00, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. COUNT IV DEBORAH L. SMITH v. THOM LEWIS MONIES OWED 23. On or about July 3, 2005, Smith loaned Lewis a net total of $921.00 for emergency veterinary care for Lewis's personal dog named "Squeak." At that time, Lewis informed Smith that Squeak was at the Animal Emergency Medical Center in Mechanicsburg and asked if he could borrow money from Smith to pay Squeak's emergency veterinary bills. 24. Smith informed Lewis that she could not afford to loan the money. Shortly thereafter, Lewis telephoned Smith back, stating that he had found financial help from Far Point Animal Rescue but needed to travel to obtain the check for this financial help. 25. "Far Point Animal Rescue" is a Pennsylvania non-profit (non-stock) corporation, Entity Number 3208576, and also uses the name Far Point Collie Rescue. 26. To save Lewis the trip - and knowing that he was in significant distress because of Squeak's grave condition - Smith offered to loan Lewis the money, but only if the Far Point check would instead be sent directly to Smith as repayment, since Smith could not financially afford the emergency veterinary bill for Squeak. Lewis agreed to these terms, and was told by Smith that this was a loan, not a gift, and has always been due and. payable. 27. Upon Lewis's agreement with these terms, Smith provided the Animal Emergency Medical Center with her credit card information on July 3, 2005. 28. Despite Lewis's agreement with these terms - and without consulting Smith - Lewis subsequently made a July 5th written request to the "Board of Directors: Far Point Animal Rescue and Far Point Collie Rescue" (copy of letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "E") to obtain a check for a second veterinarian involved in Squeak's care who was not affiliated with the Animal Emergency Medical Center, Dr. Kurt Krusen, in the amount of $963.00 (copy of check is attached hereto as Exhibit "F"). 29. Consequently, Lewis reneged on the repayment terms of Smith's loan to him by providing the check to Dr. Krusen instead of to Smith, as Lewis had promised. To the best of Smith's knowledge and belief, Lewis rationalized to the Far Point Board Members why the check for Squeak's care should be written to Dr. Krusen and not to Smith by stating that Smith's credit card payment would not be due for a couple of weeks. 30. On or about July 7, 2005, Lewis informed Smith that the Animal Emergency Medical Center in Mechanicsburg had made a mistake of an unexplained nature (see Exhibit "G" attached hereto, a copy of Lewis's Animal Emergency Medical Center bill and a copy of Lewis's voided check to the Animal Emergency Medical Center in the amount of $500.00, dated July 5, 2005), and that Smith should again contact the Center and pay with her credit card the amount of $1,421.00 (see Exhibit "H" attached hereto). Smith complied. Smith asked the Animal Emergency Medical Center about the unexplained nature of the mistake, but was informed that the Center would only release information to Squeak's owner, Lewis. 31. Smith later discovered that Far Point had capped its loan to Lewis at $2,000.00. Lewis exceeded this amount by $384.00 ($963.00 to Dr. Krusen plus $1,421.00 to Animal Emergency Medical Center = $2,384.00). 32. Far Point subsequently informed Smith that they would honor Lewis's verbal commitment to her, and Smith sent to Far Point a copy of her $1,421.00 credit card receipt. However, because of financial constraints, Far Point was only able to reimburse Smith $500.00 (see Exhibit "I" for copy of Far Point check attached hereto). Consequently, the net amount of money owed by Lewis to Smith on this loan is $921.00 ($1,421.00 minus the $500.00 provided by Far Point). 33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant THOM LEWIS in the amount of $921.00, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. COUNT V DEBORAH L. SMITH v. THOM LEWIS MONIES OWED 34. On or about July 18, 2005, Smith made demand upon Lewis for repayment of monies due. Lewis refused. 35. On or about July 26, 2005, Smith again made demand upon Lewis for repayment of monies due. Lewis again refused. 36. Having exhausted all other means, Smith filed a Civil Complaint (Docket Number CV-0415-05) against Lewis on or about August 3, 2005 for repayment of these loans with the office of District Justice Thomas A. Placey. 37. Because Smith did not yet have access to her Bank of America credit card statement, she estimated the Jeep repairs at $325 in her complaint; as evidenced in Exhibit "D" attached hereto, the actual loan amount was $326.11. 38. On or about November 15, 2005, District Justice Placey held a hearing based on Smith's complaint, and heard testimony from both Smith and Lewis. 39. On or about November 23, 2005, District Justice Placey rendered judgment totally in favor of Smith in the amount of $6,811.50 ($6,696.00 plus court costs of $115.50), finding that Lewis owed Smith for every single loan Smith delineated in both her complaint to the District Justice and also this complaint (No. 2005-6365 Civil) in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. 40. Among other things, District Justice Placey found that "The indisputable facts are that monetary transactions occurred which have materially beneficed Defendant [Lewis]. It would be unjust to allow these monies to go unrecovered. Defendant's conspiracy theories are not germane to this proceeding." District Justice Placey's Notice of Judgment/Transcript and his two-page "Summary of Facts" are attached hereto as Exhibit "J." 41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant THOM LEWIS in the amount of $115.50 for District Justice Placey's court costs, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. 42. On or about December 22, 2005, Smith received a Notice of Appeal via certified mail from the office of attorney Don Bailey - who had been paid with Smith's July 2004 loan to Lewis of $3,000.00 - notifying Smith that Lewis had on December 14, 2005 appealed District Justice Placey's judgment, and that Smith had twenty (20) days from the time of service to respond with this Complaint. See Exhibit "K" attached hereto. 43. Despite repeated demands for repayment by Smith, and despite District Justice Placey's judgment affirming every one of the monetary claims made by Smith against Lewis, Lewis has refused to repay the monies he owes Smith. 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH hereby submits to this Honorable Court her demand that Defendant THOM LEWIS repay her the entire amount of all loans due ($6,696.00), plus all court costs, including those of District Justice Placey ($115.50) and the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, by Deborah L. Smith, filing pro se 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-783-4860 (w) 717-234-4503 (h) Dated: January 5, 2006 DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff in the above-captioned action, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint (No. 2005-6365 Civil) has been served upon the following: Don Bailey, Esq. Attn: Sheri D. Coover, Esq. 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 by placing same in the U.S. mail (certified, return receipt requested), properly addressed to counsel for Defendant Thom Lewis, this fifth day of January, 2006. X %j''tA X . ; n'a_L Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: January 5, 2006 fL Posta9e 5 IM2 ? GertiLed Fae ? ??*???? Return Receipt Fee ti.T m (Endersement Rene rad7 O O Restricted Detrvery Fee - (Endorsement Required, 0 O Total Postage & Fees .9 M Aeclpien!'s Name (P'e(??s P, i L/ 1 47 7C /1 f l GJ' ?S? C( 1 0 Street, Apt No.; oPO box Na ? ? _?J o L43ii --N Ciry, Stete, ZIP,4 A?;-r S ct l 17110 FRONT/BACK CHECK IMAGE VIEW Check #000591 Page 1 of 1 Exh? b?? ?} D. L. SMITH 1302 UPTON DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17110 591 -1 60-811112313 DATE 1 - I •? O? CORDER OfE ? NN ?-->a 1, e-1 _j $ .3 Of 000. 00 _?.iS11.S-p ji1^ AA•&? a Lk /OD DOUARS 0a,,,.....,• PSECU HARRISBURG. PA 171?ID?2 O A, .! 1 FOR?'laM LOW is?l rin ?A? I Cu _ /V 4 • E: 2 3 138 1 1 1610 59 1 11500 3 15 2 iR•44 100000 30000081' i 4 lbl?1' # .L!6 0$41 z 'I ^-u, o CJ? i bLa 4 W74723660 ! O >03J 201'bt 0 ;FRB $i ?E PH IPg26 B7 P9 i;t HERCE'rE ° fi?h`?7tl?dBB'40?3 4'yCH'ERRY°- ' o c N V C3 c, c t)^ i_ III ;TF sn sv i0 O?R` Y ? f ', c? ?-I-` _5-'<i0 C:^?• 1C1 `tea a _` I m I Lo? G11cc.--- t o- g f _ iI^ ? m Please Note: Information written on a check using a Gel Pen may cause the information to not appear as part of the check image. https://homebank.psecu.com/homebank/Checklmages/PrintView.asp?072120040005910006760239 07/19/2005 r/ EX hrbrT Q IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, By THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, n n Petitioner, n=?,r V. No. 09- a3SS' =op 0" p COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA, INC.; Respondent. cn ASSURANCE OF VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE Petitioner, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through its Attorney General, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. (Attorney General), and the Respondent, Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. (Collie Rescue), (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"), hereby enter into the following Assurance of Voluntary Compliance: WHEREAS, Collie Rescue is a domestic, not-for-profit organization, incorporated on April 17, 1997, with its principal office located at 263 Texaco Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which has at all times relevant and material hereto provided placement services for abandoned or abused collies into new homes; s WHEREAS, the Commonwealth has conducted an investigation into the business practices of Respondent; and WHEREAS, based upon the results of its investigation, the Commonwealth believes that Respondent, his agents, representatives, servants and employees, have operated in violation of the Solicitation of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act, Act of December 19, 1990, P.L. 1200, No. 202, as amended, 10 P.S. §§ 162.1 et seq. (Chanties Act), the Nonprofit Corporation Law of 1988, Act December 21, 1988, P.L. 1444, No. 177, as amended, 15 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 5101 et seq. (Nonprofit -1- Law), and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Act of December 17, 1968, P.L. 1224, No. 387, as amended, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. (Consumer Protection Law), as follows: a. Respondent failed to register as a "charitable organization" with the Department of State, Bureau of Charitable Organizations (Bureau), prior to conducting solicitations in violation of Sections 162.5 and 162.15(a)(1) of the Charities Act, 10 P.S. §§ 162,5 and 162.15(a)(1), and Sections 201-2(4)(iii) and (v) of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(iii) and (v); b. Respondent contracted with an unregistered professional fund-raising counsel in violation of Sections 162.13(f) and 162.15(a)(1) of the Charities Act, 10 P.S. §§ 162.13(f) and 162,15(a)(1), and Sections 201-2(4)(iii) and (v) of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(iii) and (v); C. Respondent failed to keep complete and accurate financial records in violation of Sections 162.5(0) and 162.15(a)(1) of the Charities Act, 10 P.S, §§ 162.5(0) and 162.15(a)(1) and Section 5508(a) of the Nonprofit Law, 15 Pa. C.S.A. § 5508(a). d. Respondent failed to adhere/honor corporate formalities including, but not limited to, failing to conduct regular or annual meetings, performing unauthorized actions and failing to elect officers and directors of the corporation in violation of Sections 5508(a), 5725 and 5727 of the Nonprofit Law, 15 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 5508(a), 5725 and 5727, and Sections 201-2(4)(iii) and (v) of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(iii) and (v); WHEREAS, the parties desire to amicably resolve the circumstances set forth above; -2- NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following terms and conditions to settle the differences between them: Respondent will immediately wind up and dissolve Collie Rescue, a voluntary dissolution proceeding pursuant to Sections 5971 through 5979 of the Nonprofit Law, 15 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 5971-5979. 1. Pursuant to Respondent's plan of dissolution, and with the approval of the Commonwealth, any remaining, owned assets shall be distributed to charitable organizations in accordance with Sections 5547(ii and 5976(b) of the Nonprofit Law, 15 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 5547(a) and 5976(b). 2. Respondent is enjoined from the filing of this AVC from directly participating in any and all solicitations of any kind within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on behalf of any individual, organization, corporation, association, partnership, trust or foundation defines as a Charitable Organization, pursuant to the Chanties Act; unless, however, that said injunction shall be disclosed upon the paying by the Respondent's who are jointly and severally liable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, of the total sum of FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN DOLLARS ($550), to be apportioned within ten days of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance as follows: a. TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($250) shall constitute civil penalties and be distributed by the Attome;y General to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; -3- b. TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($250) shall constitute and be used by the Attorney General as costs of investigation and/or for future public protection purposes; and c. FIFTEEN DOLLARS ($15) shall constitute the filing fee for this assurance. 3. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute an admission by any party of any guilt or liability on the part of Respondent, nor any lack thereof, with regard to the merits of the allegations contained herein. This Assurance of Voluntary Compliance has been entered into by the consent of all parties for settlement purposes only. 4. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to wave any individual right of action by any consumer or any local, state, federal or other governmental entity. 5. Respondent agrees by signing this Assurance that he shall henceforth abide by it and that this Assurance shall have the same force and effect as an injunction issued pursuant to Section 201-4 of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-4. Respondent agrees that the breach of any one or more of the terms of this Assurance, shall be sufficient warrant for the Commonwealth to petition the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to assess civil penalties and impose sanctions under Section 162.19(b) of the Charities Act, 10 P.S. §162.190)), and Sections 201-8, 201-9 and 201-9.1 of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-8, 201-9 and 201-9.1, and to order any equitable relief which the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. 6. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania shall maintain jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Assurance of Voluntary Compliance and over the Respondent for the purpose of enforcement of the same, in accordance with Section 162.19(b) of -4- y I?? the Charities Act, 10 P.S. §162.19(b), and Sections 201-4 and 201-8(a) of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-4 and 201-8(a). 7. This instrument embodies the whole agreement between the parties, contains all promises, terms, conditions or obligations between the parties and shall supersede all previous communications, representations or agreements, either verbal or written. WHEREFORE, and intending to be legally bound, the parties have hereto set their hands and seals. BY THE COMMONWEALTH: Date: -.2,K J.OU?- THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR Attorney General By: L. DOWNING Attorney General MARK A. PACELLA Chief Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Charitable Trusts and Organizations Section 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, P'A 17120 (717) 783-2853 -5- RESPONDENT: COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA, INC. Date: ? By: President T-reasureP V. Attest: YSeal) Secretary Date?J, By. Jose A. o, III, 3 4 xi gton Street sbure. PA 1710L COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA, INC. -6- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA, INC. The Board of Directors of Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc., met on the day of l? , 2005, and approved the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED, that C(ArMt k&le' , ((jA4 VA0Jf[E6T , and 6C4W4f40(4r , are hereby authorized and empowered on behalf of Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc., to enter into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, in settlement of Commonwealth v. Collie Rescue of Central PA. Inc., et al., upon the terms and conditions contained in the proposed Assurance of Voluntary Compliance attached hereto and made a part hereof. Filed with the Secretary of the Corporation this ?J _day of 2005. i Secretary -7- FRONT/BACK CHECK IMAGE VIEW Page 1 of 1 Check #000592 [Ex h ; 6;t- C I I,a u4 u._uY rW Y4?d Wy11 W11.y11 4 Ll hll dillN.IJ?..?IW1-LI"31DRAWWiiYIA._.L. du?.i1?1 D. L. SMITH 592 1302 UPTON DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17110 60.611112313 DATf ?? &ORNR OFF '-MOVh L-ew \ 5 00 $ yJ!'d - d t +1 J W/ Z i - DDLLAR oe:: J jrP :" IC „L>S11m Vru w Dj ..,... j PSECU HARRISBURG, RA 171104990 pp" ,??.y?yT,J?? FOR 1:23L3811i61:0592 1110450031521n144 o"000024500011L 14 io `ry I 94*5353 p9 6Ccgg6glp I 360: >G3]20 „ 091S?O owbod , 4i');! _ 02J E27 PE). L . COH1lERC)F BANS' NP, v li l l Hlym=j II 24246/2004 q^3 RC f099 3I `? NJ` .n y-?L ??CHZRp n? / '- -_ fSg In ' 11 '•' Ili s7e.>Oe °n n<j!c .S ?% ?y 4ilm F`_ -_oo = a_ in Please Note: Information written on a check using a Gel Pen may cause the information to not appear as part of the check image. https:llbomebank.psecu.com/homebank/CheckImages/PrintView.asp?091520040005920006500010 07/21/2005 ¦ = U-S AIRWAYS D I V I D E N D M I L E S DEBORAH L SMITH Account Number: Your US Airways® Visa® Gold Card New Balance 420100 Total Credit Line Cash Limit OverlimitAmount Minimum Payment Due 24-Hour Customer Service 1.800.441.0130 Pay online!. Visit For Lost or Stolen Cards 1300.848.6090 www.bankofamerica.com US Airways@ Dividend Miles Summary Dividend Miles s w Dividend Miles Account Number Ap r, Transactions View recent transactions and pay your bill online at www.bankofamerica.com. POST. TRANS. REF. DESCRIPTION J AMOUNT DATE DATE NO. CR=CREDIT Nov 27 Nov 24 2460]94d3312n6588500n57 POWERS AUTO REPAIR NEW CUMBERLANPA $326.11. Bankof America -10- BANK OF AMERICA PO BOX 5270 CAROL STREAM IL 60197-5270 IrILrIIuIInIIIJuLIJJJrIrLIInJILnIudllwdLd Bank of America _411- Customer Corner See the important notice on the back regarding reporting information about your account to credit bureaus. Payment Cou on Account Number Payment Due Date 01/14!05 Total Minimum Payment Due a New Balance: 4011111111101 DEBORAH L SMITH Amount Enclosed 1302 UPTON DR - HARRISBURG, PA 17110-3033 nlllllulurllnlllllnurlllllunrllurlltllmultlldlnl Make check or money order payable to Bank of America This is an electronic reproduction of your statement and includes account infwmafion only. July 5, 2005 Ex i D I E To the Board of Directors: Farpoint Animal Rescue and Farpoint Collie Rescue Please accept this letter as my request for an "Informal Action in Lieu of a Special Meeting" by the Board of Directors for Farpoint Collie Rescue I am requesting that the board approve the issuing of one (1) check from the Collie Rescue Account. This informal action is requested to pay for emergency medical services provided by Dr. Kurt Krusen. Check ## 1 for $963 To: Dr: Kurt Krusen For emergency vet surgery provided on July 5, 2005. (a copy of the receipt is attached) Respectfully submitted, Thom Lewis 1of1 Eyh;b1+ F- FAR POINT COLLIE RESCUE 1105 RED HILL RD. PORT TREVORTON. PA 17864 PAY TO niPb? ORDER OF A. ;?<W 1006 DATE" 61 -a0Q5- .N Ain !/LO' , `DOLLARS 8 ©MMOBank MuroS 403 3029551. &&92595375u'1006 +110000096300", Posting Date 2005 Jul I 1 Research Seq # 5128362483 Account # 8892595375 Check/Store # 1006 DB/CR DB Dollar Amount $963.00 Bank # 096 Deposit Acct # 0 http://pe-ncrweb l .firstmd.com/inquiry/servlet/inquiry 8/8/2005 ANIMAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL. CENTER 11 Willow Mill Park R¢: • Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Ph: (717) 796-2334 Estimate Actual -?L- Emergency Fee DR 1 DR 2 Examination f j Hospitalization So > C? Injections u b ?3 Medications Sedation/Anesthesia Surgery Radiographs " Fluid Therapy ° a z Laboratory Tests" -] Wound Treatment Bandages Clinical Procedures E Collar Euthanasia Cremation MISC. ?„ _ 2 %-D `- Misc. Total Charges o . `6 OD - . IS.v- 15?u Sy, I DBA LEWIS PH. 717-? . 263 Tal r u.rov arm ?`" 1:03 130 2 9551: 889 2 574 Il'0 Invoice Number Charge (Fee): Prior Balance: Deposit (Circle): Cash Visa Amex r Check MC Discover -Ocp Ad I onal Payment (Circle): Cash Visa Amex Check MC Discover Adjustments: Current Balance: ` 'Explain 7 53154342 110 DOLLARS U -M= EN b 765,; _'T=' ,!/'OIR TIME; 09':07 ANIMAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL !I UKUU HILL PARK R.D. 11E CHAPIC BURG 1,1 i7 ijli 717-796-2334 S^. l BATCH i':'i lii}i: Hsi L'ULiT':-' ark 13- 73 -.- HU 18007002 RUTH No 0713650 CARD TYJ_ +i: CODE i OTgL x.14 - .: 01 1 Mu?VLC i4l PAY Yvl 'l4 I-T L AN l'v'P{{ FAR POINT COLLIE RESCUE 1105 RED HILL RD. PORT TREVORTON, PA 17664 S13 4630 1010 DAI?f?O? ?.LnPO LL??'??KG(YSC GL.e'r!l'?L??-fiH?i 00 DOLLARS8 ' pMOBarnk MEMO &:0313029551: 889259537511' i010 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 09-3-04 MDJ Name: Ron. - THOMAS A.. PLACEY Ald-s: 104. SSPORTING. HILL RD MECHANICSBURG, PA Telephone: (717) 761-8230 _ 17050 DEBORAH L. SMITH 1302 UPTON DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17110 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS rMITH DEBORAH L 1302 UPTON DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17110 L J Vs. DEFENDANT; NAME and ADDRESS- FL-MUS, THOM 263 TEXACO ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050. L J Docket No.: CV-0000415-05 Date Filed: 8/03/05 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Ex h I 1 Judgment: FOR PLArNTTFF 1 Judgment was entered for: (Name) gmTTw nRnnRAST T Judgment was entered against: (Name) Txw-rs, TaOM in the amount of $ fi. gi i . 50 on: (Date of Judgment) 11191105 Defendants are jointly and severally liable. (Date.& Time) F] Damages will be assessed on: This case dismissed without prejudice. Amount of Judgment Subject to Attachment/42 Pa,C.S. § 8127 $ Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ Amount of Judgment $ 6,6 Judgment Costs $ 1 Interest on Judgment $ Attorney Fees $ Total 1 $ 6,8 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ Certified Judgment Total ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF'JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE - OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARYICLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGEMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST` COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND .NO FURTHER PROCESS MAYBE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE,000RT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE- INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL, DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL,' - SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. - " Date Magisterial District Judge I certify that this is a true a 4d correct a czcn d of the p oceedings containing the judgment. " Date Magisterial District Judge My commission expires first Monday of January, 2010 SEAL AOPC 315-05 DATE PRINTED: 11/23/05 3:54:17 PM DEBORAH L. SMITH, Plaintiff V. THOM LEWIS, Defendant District Court 09-3-04 CV-0415-05 SUMMARY OF FACTS Plaintiff is an adult individual with a keen interest in supporting animal rights causes,-specifically collie rescue work. Defendant is an adult individual who is an activist in collie rescue work, specifically providing rescue and shelter for this breed of dog using various business ventures. In support of these activities Plaintiff gave to or paid directly for Defendant $3000.00 for attorneys fees, $2450.00 and $325.00 for a jeep and repairs and $1421.00 for veterinary care. The nature of these monetary transactions is in dispute. The parties have not reduced to writing their mutual understanding of the transactions. Plaintiff avers that the monetary transactions are all loans, which she is seeking to reduce to judgment. Specifically, the attorney fees were loaned to obtain an award that would repay the monies upon settlement; however, Plaintiff now believes that the monies were inappropriately used for a defense. The monies for the jeep was without specific repayment term but to allow Defendant to perform rescue services. The monies for the vet bill was to be front monies in an emergency for services that were performed that would be repaid by alternative resources. One of the alternative resources has paid Plaintiff $500.00 toward this bill, which reduces the amount to $921.00. Plaintiff has made demand for the monies without satisfactory response. Defendant avers that the monies for the attorney and jeep are payable on the settlement of the law suit. The vet bill is acknowledged to be owed; however, Defendant indicates conspiracies in the air voided his payment to the vet, which was covered by Defendant. DISCUSSION The burden in every civil case is on a plaintiff to show that a defendant has breached an owed duty, which has resulted in measurable damages. The duty of this case is not found in any written agreement as there is none. The verbal duties are dubious at best and clearly disputed between the parties. The indisputable facts are that the monetary transactions occurred which have materially benefited Defendant. It would be unjust to allow these monies to go unrecovered. Defendant's conspiracy theories are not germane to this proceeding. The one fact witness not presented was the person from the vet center who voided the check and accepted PlaintifYs payment. This does not render the obligation to repay null or void. Plaintiff is owed the monies under disputed terms. This Court will not devine the nature of those terms. The amount indisputably owed will be reduced to judgment. Judgment is on favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $'6696.00 together with the costs of this action. The parties have previously been advised of their appeal rights and the original exhibits have been returned to the presenting party, By the Court, 23 November 2005 _ Thomas A. Placey M.D.J. rCNMQT wr Ml^ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of NOTICE OF APPE ?/ FROM EXh 6 -? ID DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT I COMMON PLEAS No. -NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. rvAMe?r AvvELUN i ? F . , _._. ' ? I .,;i ?•1 0.}?3 1 ! J c r-4.. i' f ADDRESS OF APPELLANT c.nr I DATE OF JUDGMENT I IN THE CASE OF IMMIX) va DOCKET No amrw r nrrc n n, w nova This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa: If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(6) in action R.C.P.D.J. No. 1008B. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. slgnalurao/Piofhonofaryor Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Name of appellee(s) (Common Pleas No. ( j , • rf f> ^? ?C;; L ^? ) within twenty (20) days after service-of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signal" of appellant or attorney a agent RULE: To .appellee(s) Name of apps/lee(s) (1) You arendtif e`d`)haf at €ylte is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule uppn`you'by p4rsoalsryjce or by certified or registered mail. .., Cy,J rf (2) If•'ydU.do not [le a com(3lalni'% ihhin this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3); The date of service'gf this rule` I service was by mail is the date of the mailing. _ C7 f ? , y Date ' Signature olPromonotaryor Deputy YOU MUST INCLUIDE Al CQPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-02 WHITE-COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN -COURT FILE YELLOW -APPELLANT'S COPY PINK-COPY TO BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD-COPY TO BE SERVED ON DISTRICT JUSTICE ?.? ? (` -St ..a -t_ t;'+ -°.7 ? ..- ?, .r 7 C ! l:? DEBORAH L. SMITH, Plaintiff V. THOM LEWIS, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : ACTION NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS/MOTION TO STRIKE On December 14, 2005, defendant Lewis filed a Notice of Appeal of an award issued by District Justice Thomas A. Placey in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. 2. Plaintiff acknowledges in her Complaint that she received a Notice of Appeal via certified mail on or around December 22, 2005. The Praecipe to Enter Rule to File the Complaint was issued upon the plaintiff in the same mailing. 3. On or around January 5, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint on the case in the Cumberland County Courthouse at the Office of the Prothonotary as directed by the Praecipe to Enter the Rule to File the Complaint. 4. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1024 states "a. Every pleading containing an averment of fact not appearing of record in the action or containing a denial of fact shall state that the averment or denial is true upon the signer's personal knowledge or information and belief and shall be verified. The signer need not aver the source of the information or expectation of ability to prove the averment or denial at the trial. A pleading may be verified upon personal knowledge as to a part and upon information and belief as to the remainder." P.R.C.P. Rule 1024(a). 5. There was no verification attached to the complaint that was filed by plaintiff on or around January 5, 2006 in the Cumberland County Office of the Prothonotary. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court strike Plaintiff s Complaint for failure to provide a verification to the pleading as directed by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1024. submitted, h D. Coover, Esquire ttorney ID 93285 4311 N. Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 221-9500 Dated: January 25, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 250i day of January, 2005, I caused to be served this PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS upon the plaintiff by First Class Mail addressed as follows: Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 /R s ectfully submitted, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire Attorney ID 93285 4311 N. Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 ? ? a ? _ ., C DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant :CIVIL ACTION-LAW NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Amended 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 Amended Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 . (800) 990-9108 DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Deborah L. Smith, filing pro se, and states the following cause of action [in accordance with Rule 1028(c)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Deborah L. Smith herein amends her original Complaint, filed January 5, 2006, by attaching hereto her Verification as required by Rule 1024(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedurel: 1. Plaintiff Deborah L. Smith (hereinafter "Smith") is an adult individual residing at 1302 Upton Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17110. Smith resided at this address at all times relevant to this Complaint. 2. Defendant Thom Lewis (hereinafter "Lewis") is an adult individual residing at 263 Texaco Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050. Lewis resided at this address at all times relevant to this Complaint. 3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Lewis operated a collie dog rescue from his residence under at least two different names. One name was "Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc.," a non-profit (non-stock) Pennsylvania corporation, Entity Number 2750551. Lewis operated Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. from this residence on a day-to-day basis. Upon Smith's information and belief, the other name under which Lewis operated was "Far Point Collie Rescue," a fictitious name filed by "Far Point Animal Rescue," a Pennsylvania non-profit, (non-stock) corporation, Entity Number 3208576. 4. During the time period of mid 2004 to July 2005, Smith repeatedly loaned Lewis money - eventually totalling $6,696.00 - for the express purpose of helping Lewis with legal, operational and veterinary bills relating to the protection and welfare of dogs located at his residence. All loans outlined in this Complaint were personal loans from Smith to Lewis. 5. This Complaint will delineate the genesis of these personal loans, and respectfully seeks judgment against Lewis for the full amount of these loans, the costs of this court action and that of District Justice Thomas A. Placey-who rendered judgment entirely in Smith's favor on November 23, 2005 - and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. COUNTI DEBORAH L. SMITH v. THOM LEWIS MONIES OWED 6. In early 2004, Smith began to perform volunteer work for the collie rescue operated by Lewis at his residence. Smith has a long history of performing volunteer work relating to animal protection. 7. At the time Smith began her volunteer work, Lewis informed her that the Pennsylvania Attorney General had earlier initiated an investigation of Collie Rescue of Central PA, hic. as well as himself personally, and that said investigation had resulted in a number of allegations against both him and the Rescue. 8. Lewis informed Smith that the Attorney General's allegations were false, could not be proven, and had been started by people whom Lewis described as "disgruntled former volunteers with personal vendettas." 9. Smith, who felt strongly about helping the collies at Lewis's residence, initially believed Lewis's claims that the Attorney General's allegations were without merit. 10. Consequently, in July 2004, Smith loaned Lewis $3,000.00 to retain the services of attorney Don Bailey (see Exhibit "A," canceled check to Bailey dated July 19, 2004 attached hereto). 11. Smith loaned Lewis this money so that attorney Bailey could defend the Rescue, as well as represent Lewis, against what Smith believed - based upon Lewis's assertions - were baseless allegations by the Attorney General. With this loan, Smith also wanted to help the collies receive a large inheritance that had been bequeathed specifically to Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. but was being withheld by the Attorney General because of his office's ongoing investigation. Smith made it clear to Lewis that this was a loan, not a gift. Smith told Lewis she would wait for repayment of this loan until Bailey had completed his legal representation. 12. However, because Smith's loan was not used for an intended purpose - defending the Rescue against specific allegations by the Attorney General that could have resulted in dissolution of the Rescue and the Rescue's loss of the substantial inheritance that it had been bequeathed - Smith's offer to wait for repayment has consequently been mooted. 13. Although Smith wanted to attend the initial meeting with attorney Bailey, Lewis would not permit her to attend this meeting, which had been enabled by her $3,000.00 loan to Lewis. 14. On or about March 2005, after Smith was summoned by telephone to a meeting with attorney Bailey and Lewis, Smith finally realized that Bailey did not intend to defend the Rescue against the Attorney General's allegations, despite the fact that this was an express purpose of the $3,000.00 loan given to Lewis by Smith for Bailey's representation. Had Smith known this, she never would have loaned Lewis the $3,000.00. 15. One month later, on or about April 26, 2005, a majority of the Board members of Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. signed an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC) with the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office (see Exhibit "B," Assurance of Voluntary Compliance attached hereto). 16. This AVC revealed that despite Lewis's prior claims to Smith that the Attorney General's allegations were baseless, the Attorney General's investigation found various deficiencies relating to how the Rescue - which Lewis operated on a day-to-day basis - conducted business. A majority of the Board Members signed this AVC, thus agreeing to its findings and mandates, which included immediate dissolution of the Rescue. 17. As a direct result of the AVC, the substantial inheritance money that had been bequeathed to Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. - and which had played a key role in Smith's decision to loan Lewis the $3,000 for Bailey's representation - was instead distributed to other local animal organizations. 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant THOM LEWIS in the amount of $3,000.00, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. COUNT II DEBORAH L. SMITH v. THOM LEWIS MONIES OWED 19. On or about September 14, 2004, Smith loaned Lewis $2,450.00 to purchase a vehicle (a pre-owned Jeep) that would be utilized for both the Rescue's and Lewis's personal use (see Exhibit "C," canceled check to Lewis dated September 14, 2004 attached hereto). Smith made it clear to Lewis that this was a loan, not a gift, and has always been due and payable. 20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant THOM LEWIS in the amount of $2,450.00, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. 3 COUNT HI DEBORAH L. SMITH v. THOM LEWIS MONIES OWED 21. On or about November 24, 2004, Smith loaned Lewis $326.11 to repair the above- referenced vehicle (see Exhibit "D," Bank of America credit card statement detailing this transaction attached hereto). Smith made it clear to Lewis this was a loan, not a gift, and has always been due and payable. Smith is requesting repayment of $325.00 of this loan, as detailed in paragraph 37 of this Complaint. 22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant THOM LEWIS in the amount of $325.00, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. COUNT IV DEBORAH L. SMITH v. THOM LEWIS MONIES OWED 23. On or about July 3, 2005, Smith loaned Lewis a net total of $921.00 for emergency veterinary care for Lewis's personal dog named "Squeak." At that time, Lewis informed Smith that Squeak was at the Animal Emergency Medical Center in Mechanicsburg and asked if he could borrow money from Smith to pay Squeak's emergency veterinary bills. 24. Smith informed Lewis that she could not afford to loan the money. Shortly thereafter, Lewis telephoned Smith back, stating that he had found financial help from Far Point Animal Rescue but needed to travel to obtain the check for this financial help. 25. "Far Point Animal Rescue" is a Pennsylvania non-profit (non-stock) corporation, Entity Number 3208576, and also uses the name Far Point Collie Rescue. 26. To save Lewis the trip - and knowing that he was in significant distress because of Squeak's grave condition - Smith offered to loan Lewis the money, but only if the Far Point check would instead be sent directly to Smith as repayment, since Smith could not financially afford the emergency veterinary bill for Squeak. Lewis agreed to these terms, and was told by Smith that this was a loan, not a gift, and has always been due and payable. 27. Upon Lewis's agreement with these terms, Smith provided the Animal Emergency Medical Center with her credit card information on July 3, 2005. 28. Despite Lewis's agreement with these terms - and without consulting Smith - Lewis subsequently made a July 5th written request to the "Board of Directors: Far Point Animal Rescue and Far Point Collie Rescue" (copy of letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "°E") to obtain a check for a second veterinarian involved in Squeak's care who was not affiliated with the Animal Emergency Medical Center, Dr. Kurt Krusen, in the amount of $963.00 (copy of check is attached hereto as Exhibit "F"). 29. Consequently, Lewis reneged on the repayment terms of Smith's loan to him by providing the check to Dr. Krusen instead of to Smith, as Lewis had promised. To the best of Smith's knowledge and belief, Lewis rationalized to the Far Point Board Members why the check for Squeak's care should be written to Dr. Krusen and not to Smith by stating that Smith's credit card payment would not be due for a couple of weeks. 30. On or about July 7, 2005, Lewis informed Smith that the Animal Emergency Medical Center in Mechanicsburg had made a mistake of an unexplained nature (see Exhibit "G" attached hereto, a copy of Lewis's Animal Emergency Medical Center bill and a copy of Lewis's voided check to the Animal Emergency Medical Center in the amount of $500.00, dated July 5, 2005), and that Smith should again contact the Center and pay with her credit card the amount of $1,421.00 (see Exhibit "H" attached hereto). Smith complied. Smith asked the Animal Emergency Medical Center about the unexplained nature of the mistake, but was informed that the Center would only release information to Squeak's owner, Lewis. 31. Smith later discovered that Far Point had capped its loan to Lewis at $2,000.00. Lewis exceeded this amount by $384.00 ($963.00 to Dr. Krusen plus $1,421.00 to Animal Emergency Medical Center - $2,384.00). 32. Far Point subsequently informed Smith that they would honor Lewis's verbal commitment to her, and Smith sent to Far Point a copy of her $1,421.00 credit card receipt. However, because of financial constraints, Far Point was only able to reimburse Smith $500.00 (see Exhibit "I" for copy of Far Point check attached hereto). Consequently, the net amount of money owed by Lewis to Smith on this loan is $921.00 ($1,421.00 minus the $500.00 provided by Far Point). 33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant THOM LEWIS in the amount of $921.00, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. COUNT V DEBORAH L. SMITH v. THOM LEWIS 5 MONIES OWED 34. On or about July 18, 2005, Smith made demand upon Lewis for repayment of monies due. Lewis refused. 35. On or about July 26, 2005, Smith again made demand upon Lewis for repayment of monies due. Lewis again refused. 36. Having exhausted all other means, Smith filed a Civil Complaint (Docket Number CV-0415-05) against Lewis on or about August 3, 2005 for repayment of these loans with the office of District Justice Thomas A. Placey. 37. Because Smith did not yet have access to her Bank of America credit card statement, she estimated the Jeep repairs at $325 in her complaint; as evidenced in Exhibit "D" attached hereto, the actual loan amount was $326.11. 38. On or about November 15, 2005, District Justice Placey held a hearing based on Smith's complaint, and heard testimony from both Smith and Lewis. 39. On or about November 23, 2005, District Justice Placey rendered judgment totally in favor of Smith in the amount of $6,811.50 ($6,696.00 plus court costs of $115.50), finding that Lewis owed Smith for every single loan Smith delineated in both her complaint to the District Justice and also this complaint (No. 2005-6365 Civil) in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. 40. Among other things, District Justice Placey found that "The indisputable facts are that monetary transactions occurred which have materially benefitted Defendant [Lewis]. It would be unjust to allow these monies to go unrecovered. Defendant's conspiracy theories are not germane to this proceeding." District Justice Placey's Notice of Judgment/Transcript and his two-page "Summary of Facts" are attached hereto as Exhibit "J." 41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant THOM LEWIS in the amount of $115.50 for District Justice Placey's court costs, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. 42. On or about December 22, 2005, Smith received a Notice of Appeal via certified mail from the office of attorney Don Bailey - who had been paid with Smith's July 2004 loan to Lewis of $3,000.00 -notifying Smith that Lewis had on December 14, 2005 appealed District Justice Placey's judgment, and that Smith had twenty (20) days from the time of service to respond with this Complaint. See Exhibit "K" attached hereto. 43. Despite repeated demands for repayment by Smith, and despite District Justice Placey's judgment affirming every one of the monetary claims made by Smith against Lewis, Lewis has refused to repay the monies he owes Smith. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DEBORAH L. SMITH hereby submits to this Honorable Court her demand that Defendant THOM LEWIS repay her the entire amount of all loans due ($6,696.00), plus all court costs, including those of District Justice Placey ($115.50) and the costs of this action, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, A?J-tl? Ix . 141116k by Deborah L. Smith, filing pro se 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-783-4860 (w) 717-234-4503 (h) Dated: January 28, 2006 7 VERIFICATION I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro so in the foregoing Amended Complaint (No. 2005-6365 Civil), do hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Amended Complaint (No. 2005-6365 Civil) are true upon my personal knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of I8 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. O? L X LL/t Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se in the above-captioned action, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended Complaint (No. 2005-6365 Civil) has been served upon the following: Don Bailey, Esq. Attn: Sheri Coover, Esq. 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 by placing same in the U.S. mail, properly addressed to counsel for Defendant Thom Lewis, this 28th day of January, 2006. Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: January 28, 2006 Check #000591 Page 1 of 1 Ex:1 0 D. L. SMITH 1,302 UPTON DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 1711D '3; 000. o0 DOLUIRS [ sn Y[. PS I???PA(171?1,02990??? ,%-- /V ?/T n•? "" FDR•-I-r1,, ?toM Law 14 / I Xrn B ? 1:231- 381116:0591 IIK74 003152111-44 1110000300000x1' Uiz?G b31 3bC3 ^-ll1l0 40 , 0 174723560 ! 1 >0 ;320i1JGt ITT i!5 ; FRB PH IW26 97 P9 ?(1113iERCE`- hl I ; &3r ? 70 a+?t f?+ 0 i siC( y CHERRY i'1311 I u 1 < A Z tl l C C' I I lI I p p qun 4 6.. its ' ollR I N n 1 rl? tl Please Note: Information written on a check using a del Pen may cause the information to not appear as part of the check image. 591 60.8111/2313 UATE 1-19-04 ittps:llhomebank.psecu.comlhomebank/Checklmages/PrintView.asp?072120040005910006760239 0711912005 Exh?b?? t-3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, By THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, Petitioner, ?. No. os-ll a3s5 COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA, INC.; ?iuj ?rclZw) Respondent. ASSURANCE OF VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE ? o 0 C -n nip z 7 c54=i : ( N C.f) Petitioner, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through its Attorney General, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. (Attorney General), and the Respondent, Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. (Collie Rescue), (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent'), hereby enter into the following Assurance of Voluntary Compliance: WHEREAS, Collie Rescue is a domestic, not-for-profit organization, incorporated on April 17, 1997, with its principal office located at 263 Texaco Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which has at all times relevant and material hereto provided placement services for abandoned or abused collies into new homes; s WHEREAS, the Commonwealth has conducted an investigation into the business practices of Respondent; and WHEREAS, based upon the results of its investigation, the Commonwealth believes that Respondent, his agents, representatives, servants and employees, have operated in violation of the Solicitation of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act, Act of December 19, 1990, P.L. 1200, No. 202, as amended, 10 P.S. §§ 162.1 et seq. (Charities Act), the Nonprofit Corporation Law of 1988, Act December 21, 1988, P.L. 1444, No. 177, as amended, 15 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 5101 et seq. (Nonprofit -1- Law), and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Act of December 17, 1968, P.L. 1224, No. 387, as amended, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. (Consumer Protection Law), as follows: a. Respondent failed to register as a "charitable organization" with the Department of State, Bureau of Charitable Organizations (Bureau), prior to conducting solicitations in violation of Sections 162.5 and 162.15(a)(1) of the Charities Act, 10 P.S. §§ 162.5 and 162.15(a)(1), and Sections 201-2(4)(iii) and (v) of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(iii) and (v); b. Respondent contracted with an unregistered professional fund-raising counsel in violation of Sections 162.13(f) and 162.15(a)(1) of the Chanties Act, 10 P.S. §§ 162.13(f) and 162.15(a)(1), and Sections 201-2(4)(iii) and (v) of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(iii) and (v); C. Respondent failed to keep complete and accurate financial records in violation of Sections 162.5(0) and 162.15(a)(1) of the Charities Act, 10 P.S. §§ 162.5(0) and 162.15(a)(1) . and Section 5508(a) of the Nonprofit Law, 15 Pa. C.S.A. § 5508(a). d. Respondent failed to adhere/honor corporate formalities including, but not limited to, failing to conduct regular or annual meetings, performing unauthorized actions and failing to elect officers and directors of the corporation in violation of Sections 5508(a), 5725 and 5727 of the Nonprofit Law, 15 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 5508(a), 5725 and 5727, and Sections 201-2(4)(iii) and (v) of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(iii) and (v); WHEREAS, the parties desire to amicably resolve the circumstances set forth above; -2- NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following terms and conditions to settle the differences between them: Respondent will immediately wind up and dissolve Collie Rescue, a voluntary dissolution proceeding pursuant to Sections 5971 through 5979 of the Nonprofit Law, 15 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 5971-5979. 1. Pursuant to Respondent's plan of dissolution, and with the approval of the Commonwealth, any remaining, owned assets shall be distributed to charitable organizations in accordance with Sections 5547(a) and 5976(b) of the Nonprofit Law, 15 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 5547(a) and 5976(b). 2. Respondent is enjoined from the filing of this AVC from directly participating in any and all solicitations of any kind within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on behalf of any individual, organization, corporation, association, partnership, trust or foundation defines as a Charitable Organization, pursuant to the Chanties Act; unless, however, that said injunction shall be disclosed upon the paying by the Respondent's who are jointly and severally liable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, of the total sum of FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN DOLLARS ($550), to be apportioned within ten days of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance as follows: a. TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($250) shall constitute civil penalties and be distributed by the Attorney General to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; -3- b. TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($250) shall constitute and be used by the Attorney General as costs of investigation and/or for future public protection purposes; and c. FIFTEEN DOLLARS ($15) shall constitute the filing fee for this assurance. 3. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute an admission by any party of any guilt or liability on the part of Respondent, nor any lack thereof, with regard to the merits of the allegations contained herein. This Assurance of Voluntary Compliance has been entered into by the consent of all parties for settlement purposes only. 4. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to wave any individual right of action by any consumer or any local, state, federal or other governmental entity. 5. Respondent agrees by signing this Assurance that he shall henceforth abide by it and that this Assurance shall have the same force and effect as an injunction issued pursuant to Section 201-4 of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-4. Respondent agrees that the breach of any one or more of the terms of this Assurance, shall be sufficient warrant for the Commonwealth to petition the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to assess civil penalties and impose sanctions under Section 162.19(b) of the Chanties Act, 10 P.S. §162.19(b), and Sections 201-9, 201-9 and 201-9.1 of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-8, 201-9 and 201-9.1, and to order any equitable relief which the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. 6. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania shall maintain jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Assurance of Voluntary Compliance and over the Respondent for the purpose of enforcement of the same, in accordance with Section 162.19(b) of -4- r' the Charities Act, 10 P.S. §162.19(b), and Sections 201-4 and 201-8(a) of the Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-4 and 201-8(a). 7. This instrument embodies the whole agreement between the parties, contains all promises, terms, conditions or obligations between the parties and shall supersede all previous communications, representations or agreements, either verbal or written. WHEREFORE, and intending to be legally bound, the parties have hereto set their hands and seals. BY THE COMMONWEALTH: Date: THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR Attorney General By: L. DOWNING Attorney General MARK A. PACELLA Chief Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Charitable Trusts and Organizations Section 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 783-2853 -5- RESPONDENT: Date: /SOS Date: ,ow /?/ 6,*? COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA, INC. By: LI G?- President Attest: )'Seal) Secretary By: -6- COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA, INC. t r"\ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA, INC. The Board of Directors of Collie Rescue of Central PA,,Inc., met on the day of 'Z 241 2005, and approved the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED, that C ArXAfA'6 r , llA4 NAOJFZAFr; and &G44140dr4o are hereby authorized and empowered on behalf of Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc., to enter into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, in settlement of Commonwealth v. Collie Rescue of Central PA. Inc.. et al., upon the terms and conditions contained in the proposed Assurance of Voluntary Compliance attached hereto and made a part hereof. Filed with the Secretary of the Corporation this ?J day of ;r" 2005. Secretary -7- VIEW Check #000592 ?+ al? ? ? 'r, ' ' ` i? ! !!?^ ? ??LLie-t6 ? .e r? IWdYY,.J,11 tIWILk=ddJ7l? hiiiil l:, a.W.?ItY .t Y_?III Lt?uta, W? tt-t ?I D. L, SMITH 592 1302 UPTON DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17110 • 668171!2313 ? 00.1E 5c Off' ; ?f 'Z?? ORDIR R iHF eI }'l ORDER OF I YlptM ?N.FJl.S p? /So oO 1 d f Ij +1 8 ; ? 1? w ? -4 O ' ,nuSan o o ylr &r hfd i-. c •-r ? I 001tARS ?OO e;f: V - _ PSKU HARRISBURG, PA 171102990 T"^'*`-? • '?T , o` FOR 7 Y ? M. F: 2 3 138 1 1 i 6F: 0 59 2 1110 4 500 3 315 2 1,0 4 4 1110000 24 500D", 111A-94i15?•53 J ? ?2p 0 O1 6 16015M .4;1;r: 50312, 1060. , 03 i0O0 4d dh'RR-PHIL 023 B21 F'9; 0 COHMERCF-- BATNT' NP ` ? ? C 444,6/2004 E1 T 7fS '3 RC=1099 - CF3El?I2Y7_ ?IIL`•?NJ ! ` I i n a 1, 49 1 ' o / EPP n ??i s?n•soo v ?n Id 0 (:Y j4im _ oy „ !17 u C; III n_e _? I;- IT, 11 _ in ll` _ I Ir0 t,y ' ri a Y I i i "I Please Note: Information written on a check using a Gel Pen may cause the information to not appear as part of the check image. Page 1 of 1 Ex h; b ?,? C httpsllhomebank.psecu.com/homebank/CheckImages/PrintView.asp?091520040005920006500010 07/21/2005 _ __? ???t11J D I V I D E N D M I L E S DEBORAH L SMITH Account Number: Your US Airways0 Visa® Gold Card New Balance Total Credit Line Cash Limit *Now Overlimit Amount Wow Minimum Payment Due _ WIN& 24-Hour Customer Service 1.800A41.0130 Pay onlinel. Visit For Lost or Stolen Cards 1.800.848.6090 www.bankofamerica.com US AirwaysO Dividend Miles Summary nhii,4anH AAiloc wrr Dividend Miles Account Number Transactions View recent transactions and pay your bill online at w bankofamerica.com POST, TRANS. REF. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE DATE NO. DR=CREDIT - Nw27.' No 24 24807944331206588500057 POWERS AUTO REPAIR NEWCUMSERIANPA 8326.11. I BankofAmerica BANK OF AMERICA Po BOX 5270 CAROL STREAM IL 60147-5270 LILdlmsrdl6LJndddmLllrrdlLrr4nllLndln! Bankof America Customer Corner See the important notice on the back regarding reporting information about your account to credit bureaus. x?;+-D Payment Coupon Account Number Payment Due Date 01/14/05 Total Minimum Payment Due sob New Balance; DEBORAH L SMITH Amount Enclosed 1302 UPTON DR HARRISBURG, PA 17110-3033 ludlltulmllntlilift[ [fill ilf[uriiudlrlluutlrllliul Make h cko mon yorderpayabletoBackofAmenoa. This is an e/ecbonic reproduction of your sfatzn, zntznd inc/odes account iniormaG"on onFy. July 5, 2005 EX 1'11 t E To the Board of Directors: Farpoint Animal Rescue and Farpoint Collie Rescue Please accept this letter as my request for an "Informal Action in Lieu of a Special Meeting" by the Board of Directors for Farpoint Collie Rescue I am requesting that the board approve the issuing of one (1) check from the Collie Rescue Account. This informal action is requested to pay for emergency medical services provided by Dr. Kurt Krusen. Check # I for $963 To: Dr. Kurt Krusen For emergency vet surgery provided on July 5, 2005. (a copy of the receipt is attached) Respectinlly submitted, Thom Lewis I of 1 FAR POINT COLLIE RESCUE 313 1006 I f f05 RED HIL RD. PORT TREVORTON. PA 17864 DAtE `5. c,?dC7.? /Y, U I I.ccd nom-, t $. q 6 3 AP Of 11 .(ry rp .,-.JlT 1 'DOLLARS ©1li.7Q11k R N.?.r.....+..v MEMO '?14- 1.03 3029551, 889259537501006 .?'OIID0096300?' Posting Date 2005 Jul I 1 Research Seq # 5128362483 Account# 8892595375 Check/Store # 1006 DB/CR DB Dollar Amount $963.00 Bank # 096 Deposit Acct # 0 http://pc-nerwebI.firstmd.com/inquiry/servlet/iiiquity 8/8/2005 ANIMAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL CENTER 11 Willow Mill Park Rd( • Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Ph: (7177) 796-2334 Estimate Actual SL Emergency Fee DR 1 ?? DR 2 Examination iS Hospitalization So > c) Injections u r `? Medications Sedation/Anesthesia Surgery Radiographs " G Fluid Therapy" 5 0 Laboratory Tests" 7 ? Wound Treatment Bandages Clinical Procedures E Collar Euthanasia Cremation Miser ,,,, Z ? F Total Charges d sdD-", CO invoice Number L 1.3 1) Charge (Fee): Prior Balance: Deposit (Circle): Cash Visa "Check MC Amex, Discover Ad i ooal Payment (Circle): Cash Visa Amex Check MC Discover 4 Adjustments: Current Balance: *Explain ¦ ;te?= .A r?J rfv? tlrr ;R7 .Pil .. i i++ xoit i tl+ NIC1 + t 1 l - {l rh,lN ?_7 UM D -t 682 Eta' _ . I ul Pt rFV! +u Will Mr, 2!1 ut J RAIN YP ft ` ?.r v. I r 7 ..t.Oot4 L ..l zz- M INT '- -.c _ _ _ T-WO CF. IS- r FAR POINT COLLIE RESCUE 1105 RED HILL RD. PORT TREVORTON, PA 17864 "346M 1010 DA as` ooir I V 6-60, od _... 00 DOLLARS M i.M-.. MMOB=k ?o 1:0313029551: 04 YN,?ePv?-rnnQ aa92595375n• L010 COMMONWEALTH aF PENNSYL`JANl.4 NOTICE- OF JUDGMEIV:T%TRANSCf?IP T' cauNTYOF:, cuMBSxr:nxn CIVIL CASE Mag:DSt No:` 09-3-04 PLAINTIFF[ - NAME and'gODRE$S ` FSMITH DEBORAH L ? - MDJ Name: Hon. .. ,, 1302 II$TON DREY&. - • . . THOMAS A. PLACHY HARRISBURG, PA 17110 Add,e : 104. S SPORTING HILL RD J MECHANIC$BURG, PA VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS _ Telephone. (7 1'7) 761-8230 17050 FLKNI3, ;THOM - - - ? 263 TSZ'ACO ROAD MECHANIC$BDRG, PA 17050._ DEBORAH L. SMITH L J 1302 UPTON DRIVE Docket No.: CV-0000415'-OS HAR91SBURG, PA' 17110 Dafe.Filed: 8/03/05 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT:- ?) b L - ..' Judgment:. ;.. FOR V : . LATNTIFF .. ... : Judgment was entered for (Name), aMr _ pxapAASL T. Fri Judgment Was entered against: (Name) T K in the amount of$ 40n: ;e?? ._an Date of Judgment) ( vied/ns 0 pefendants are jointly and severally liable. (Date .& Time) ANY.PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WfTHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF'JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHON4TAflY/CLERK 00 THE.000RT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU - - MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THI$ NOTIGE OFJUOGMEN4RANSCRIPTfORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. ., EXCEPTAS OTHERWISE PROVIOED4N THE RULES.OF CIVIL PROCEDUREFOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES IF THE ' JUDGEMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENTIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST'' COME FROM THE COURTOF COMMON PLEAS AND.NO FURTHER PROCESS MAYBE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTJUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE, A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. - Cl . Date v; Magisterial District Judge =rt is a true a d correctd of t ie p oceedings coMainiRg the'judgment_ Date Magisterial District Judge My commission expires first Monddy of January, 2010. SEAL AoPC3ts:o5 DATE PRINTED:' 11/23/05 3e54:i7 PM DEBORAH L. SMITH, Plaintiff V, District Court 09-3-04 THOM LEWIS, Defendant CV-0415-05 SUMMARY OF FACTS Plaintiff is an adult individual with a keen interest in supporting animal rights causes,-specifically collie rescue work: Defendant is an adult individual who is an activist in collie rescue work, specifically providing rescue and shelter. for this breed of dog using various business ventures. In support of these activities Plaintiff gave to or paid directly for Defendant $3000.00 for attorneys fees, $2450.00 and $325.00 for a jeep and repairs and $1421.00 for veterinary care. The nature of these monetary transactions is in dispute The parties have not reduced to writing their mutual. understanding of the transactions. Plaintiff avers that the monetary transactions are all loans, which she is seeking to reduce to judgment. Specifically, the_attorney fees were loaned to obtain an award that would repay the monies upon settlement; however, Plaintiff now believes that the monies were inappropriately used for a defense. The monies for the jeep was without specific repayment term but to allow Defendant to perform rescue services. The monies for the vet bill was to be front monies in an emergency for services that were performed that would be repaid by alternative resources. One of the alternative resources has paid Plaintiff $500.00 toward this bill, which reduces the amount to $921.00. Plaintiff has made demand for the monies without satisfactory response. Defendant avers that the monies for the attorney and jeep are payable on the settlement of the law suit. The vet bill is acknowledged to be owed; however, Defendant indicates conspiracies in the air voided his payment to the vet, which was covered by Defendant. DISCUSSION - The burden in every civil case is on a plaintiff to show that a defendant has breached an owed duty, which has resulted in measurable damages. The duty of this case is not found in any written agreement as there is none. The verbal duties are dubious at best and clearly disputed between the parties. The indisputable facts are that the monetary transactions occurred which have materially benefited Defendant. It would be unjust to allow these monies to go unrecovered. Defendant's conspiracy theories are not germane to this proceeding. The one fact witness not presented was the person from the vet center who voided the check and accepted Plaintiffs payment. This does not render the obligation to repay null or void. Plaintiff is owed the monies under disputed terms. This Court will not devine the nature of those terms. The amount indisputably owed will be reduced to judgment. Judgment is on favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $6696.00 together with the costs of this action. The parties have previously been advised of their appeal rights and the original exhibits have been returned to the presendnq_. a,r, ,.. - By the Court, 23 November 2005 Thomas A. Placey M.D.J. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVAb COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of NOTICE OF APPEA FROM EX{?tbt? K DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON NOTICE OF APPEAL No. Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. 'NA, MB F fAPPELLANT [ , ( "I Ati uial nu. - p .u. ADDRESSOF APPELLANT '> t CITY STATE ZIP CODE x .,i-e:.., 11'}r ttilt.,. k'Lan ,-t f DATE OF JUDGMENT -- IN THE CASE OF (Plamtilf) (Detondeof{ p - I i ? >? ?,.... J} # ,' ?~ t ?t"'S it ? .5'• ? I ?.i } 1 ?.':. t.'-r° t ?, DOCKET No ?:?7 -7 a s ; . _. ,,... F _ #p T6ie 4J..nL will f,o cinnnd /1NI V u,HP? th(c rotation is reouired under Pa' If apoellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. -1001(6) in action No. 10088. - of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty DEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. Sgnafun ofPmfhmiofary orDepofy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary t -1 ` .i Enter rule upon 5....':.,V:',..:.' '%;11 ". ,t t <<.0 1 appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Names of appeflee(s) (Common Pleas No. ) within twenty (20) days after sefvlE"- f rule or suffer entry ofjudgment of non pros. { r ,?r ! Sigwture ofappeliantoratfomeyoragent RULE To.. ` % s' l t '. `Y?It 4 t-"(?•' , appellee(s) Name ofaAPellee(s) .'l4 (1) You are?yTObfTe & ?ha? e?1lte is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by p'i'rso6,?' Jt rice or by certified or registered mail. (2) (j ydLdo not [i,(e a, compla, I?'X f§in this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. I' T (3)i The tlate of seraeLce?ft is Nle`"4'ilservice was by mail is the date of the mailing. f,? ?•, 0; Date: ,Q_2 Signafure ofPmihonotarywDepufy YOU MUST' INCLUDE+?4 C?PY'OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. lift .r ;S ? -^ AOPC 312-02 WHITE-COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN-COURTFILE YELLOW- APPELLANT'S COPY PINK-COPY TO. BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD-COPY TO BE SERVED ON DISTRICT JUSTICE (7 N ?? -tl C? GT -n DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se in the above-captioned action, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint (No. 2005-6365 Civil) filed in the Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office on January 30, 2006 has been served upon the following: Don Bailey, Esq. Attn: Sheri Coover, Esq. 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 by placing same in the U.S. mail (certified mail, return receipt requested), properly addressed to counsel for Defendant Thom Lewis, this I't day of February, 2006. Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: February 1, 2006 A M M ru HARRISBURG PA IMILl _ os?a e $ 41 11 . ? •¢I? ? CeifetlF¢ ?p Net"" Rec'p, Est' (Endorsement Required) ED Rerlomed neoesry Fee 411. LIII Q (Entlorsement Regn,.T ? 1:7 Total Postage & Fee s M Recp l t', ( L atll 1 K U ? ? ? I ? C)1 Jrl ? h I ( ?qv t A l ? _ DO 1? \o: o S ee P l" r City, St at I e I -4 1 . ? t UPTOWN STATION HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania 171102468 41348701.12-0097 02%01/2006 (800)275-8777 01 :31:30 PH ------- Sales Receipt --- ----- Product Sale Unit Final, Description oty Price Price HARRISBURG PA 17110 $1.11 First-Class 3.30 oz. Return Rcpt (Green Card) $1.85 Certified $2.40 Label 4: 70000600002896282631 Issue PvI: $5.36 Total: $5.36 Paid by: Cash $20.00 Change Due: -$14.64 Bill#: 1000301755806 Clerk: 14 - All sales final on stamps and postage. - Refunds for guaranteed services only. Thank you for your business. Customer Copy _ T rri ? w. {Tl N -t; . ca DEBORAH L. SMITH Plaintiff V. THOM LEWIS Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW To: Thom Lewis, Defendant Date of Notice: February 28, 2006 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE .A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 X .tL Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff prose 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: February 28, 2006 DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION- LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiffpro se in the above-captioned action, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Important Notice filed pursuant to Rule 237.1(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure has been served upon the following: Sheri Coover, Esq. 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 by placing same in the U.S. mail (certified, return receipt requested), properly addressed to counsel for Defendant Thom Lewis, this 28° day of February, 2006. Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: February 28, 2006 ?? ; ;; S, 9 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DEBORAH L. SMITH, CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiff 2005-6365 V. THOM LEWIS, Defendant NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Deborah L. Smith, You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, $lieri D. Coover, Esquire BAILEY & OSTROWSKI 4311 N. Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 221-9500 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DEBORAH L. SMITH, Plaintiff A. THOM LEWIS, Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO. 2005-6365 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes Defendant, Thom Lewis, by and through his attorney, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire, and files this answer to plaintiff's complaint with affirmative defenses and new matter and avers as follows: 1. Denied. At times plaintiff has used the address 263 Texaco Road, Mechanicsburg. As a result, after reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge as to the truth or falsity of this statement, so the averments in this paragraph are therefore denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is denied that defendant operated a collie dog rescue under two different names. It is also denied that at any time, defendant operated Far Point Collie Rescue or Far Point Animal Rescue. Upon information and belief, according to documents on file with the Pennsylvania Department of State, Farpoint Collie Rescue is the fictitious name of a non-profit entity operated by plaintiff, Franklin Sterner and Yvonne Roadermel out of Sterner's home address of 1105 Red Hill Road, Port Treverton, Pennsylvania. Upon information and belief, Franklin Sterner, without the defendant's knowledge, used the defendant's address to apply for the fictitious name of Far Point Collie Rescue. 4. Denied. It is denied that plaintiff loaned money to the defendant. It is also denied that plaintiffs express purpose in providing money to the plaintiff was to help defendant with legal, operational and veterinary bills related to the protection and welfare of dogs located at his residence. Upon information and belief, plaintiff provided defendant monetary gifts to the defendant for the purpose of enticing defendant into a personal relationship with the plaintiff. 5. Denied. It is admitted that the allegations of this complaint contain averments of claims against defendant and seeks judgment in this Court in favor of plaintiff on her claims. Defendant denies any merit to the claims made by plaintiff in this complaint. COUNT ONE 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. The averments of this paragraph are admitted as far as that in early 2004 Smith performed volunteer work for the collie rescue. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge as to the extent of volunteer work related to 3 animal protection performed by the plaintiff so the specific averments pertaining to plaintiff performing a long history of volunteer work are therefore denied. 7. Denied. It is denied that defendant ever informed plaintiff of any investigation of Collie Rescue of Central Pennsylvania, Inc. 8. Denied. It is denied that defendant ever discussed with plaintiff any allegations that were made by the Office of Attorney General. 9. Denied. Defendant has no knowledge as to any beliefs held or possessed by plaintiff concerning any alleged allegations made by the Attorney General's office against the defendant. Therefore, since defendant has no knowledge as to the truthfulness or falsity of the assertions in this paragraph, the statements made about beliefs held or possessed by plaintiff are denied. 10. Denied. Defendant acknowledges that on or about July 19, 2004, plaintiff presented a signed check made payable for $3,000.00 to the defendant, that did not have the payee information completed. It is denied that this payment was a loan to retain the services of Attorney Bailey as there was no agreement on how the money was to be used. Further, plaintiff specifically stated that the payment was not a loan and did not seek 4 reimbursement for this payment until after defendant expressed that he was not interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with the plaintiff. 11. Denied. It is admitted that plaintiff had recommended attorney Bailey to the defendant, as she knew of him from other lawsuits he had filed against the Office of Attorney General, but had left it to defendant to hire any lawyer he chose evidenced by the fact that she left the payee information blank when she gave Lewis the check. It is denied that Smith made it clear that the money was a loan. Plaintiff specifically stated that the money was a gift and not a loan. It is also denied that Smith told Lewis that she would wait for repayment of the loan until Bailey had completed his legal representation. In October or November 2004, without the subject being raised by the plaintiff, defendant offered to repay the money to the plaintiff after Bailey had successfully completed his legal representation, because he felt badly for not being able to reciprocate the plaintiff's romantic feelings. It is additionally denied that plaintiff loaned the money to defendant for the purpose of defending the Rescue or that she wanted to help the collies receive an inheritance. Upon information and belief, plaintiff gave the money to defendant as a gift to entice him to have romantic feelings toward the plaintiff. 5 12. Denied. It is denied that there was a loan made to the defendant. It is further denied that plaintiff had ever made an offer to defendant concerning repayment of the $3,000.00 defendant had used to retain Attorney Bailey. 13. Denied. It is denied that defendant's initial meeting with plaintiff had been enabled by her $3,000.00 check. The initial consultation with Attorney Bailey had been free of charge. Further, the initial consultation had occurred on or about July 7, 2004, which was twelve days prior to when plaintiff gave defendant the check for $3,000.00. It is also denied that plaintiff at any time had expressed a desire to defendant to accompany him to the initial meeting with Attorney Bailey. 14. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff met with Attorney Bailey and defendant for three to four hours, during which Attorney Bailey described to plaintiff his legal representation of the defendant. It is denied that the express purpose of giving the money to the defendant was to defend the Rescue against the Attorney General's allegations as she stated the purpose was to manipulate the defendant into a romantic relationship with her. Defendant has no knowledge as to whether plaintiff would have given him the money if she knew that he would use it to retain Attorney Bailey, so the averments of that portion of the paragraph are specifically denied. 15. Denied. It is denied that Board members of Collie Rescue of Central Pennsylvania, Inc signed an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance. It is admitted that several Board members signed the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance on April 13, 2005 and the AVC was thereafter signed by a Deputy Attorney General on behalf of the Attorney General's Office on or about April 26, 2005. 16. Denied. The AVC states allegations against Collie Rescue of Central Pennsylvania, Inc, but does not reveal that the Attorney General's investigation found various deficiencies relating to how the Rescue conducted day-to-day business. It is further denied that a majority of the Board Members of Collie Rescue of Central Pennsylvania agreed to the allegations made by the Attorney General's Office. Paragraph 3 of the AVC states: "Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute an admission by any party of any guilt or liability on the part of Respondent, nor any lack thereof, with regard to the merits of the allegations contained herein. This Assurance of Voluntary Compliance has been entered into by the consent of all parties for settlement purposes." 7 17. Denied. Defendant is without knowledge as to whether the inheritance money had played any role in plaintiff's gift to Lewis which he used to retain Attorney Bailey. Therefore, the allegations of this paragraph are denied. 18. Defendant incorporates the foregoing defenses, denials and answers set forth herein. COUNT TWO 19. Denied. It is denied that plaintiff loaned defendant money to purchase a vehicle. It is further denied that plaintiff made it clear to defendant that the money was intended to be a loan and not a gift. On or around September 14, 2004, plaintiff issued a blank check to defendant. Again, plaintiff expressed that she was giving the money to the defendant to manipulate his feelings toward her. While plaintiff advised defendant that he could use the check as he saw fit, defendant advised her that the check would be used to purchase a vehicle. At that time, plaintiff requested that the check not exceed $5,000.00. 20. Defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing defenses, denials and answers set forth herein. 8 COUNT THREE 21. Denied. It is denied the plaintiff loaned defendant any monies to repair his personal vehicle. Since the vehicle was used for charity purposes, plaintiff stated she was paying for the charity to repair the jeep, for which defendant would not be liable. Since defendant was aware the plaintiff had loaned money and donated to the charity on several occasions, defendant is unaware and did not inquire as to the terms she negotiated for those loans with the Board of Directors. 22. Defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing defenses, denials and answers set forth herein in their entirety. WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the plaintiff and to dismiss this claim against him with prejudice. COUNT FOUR 23. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that a dog named "Squeak" was admitted to the Animal Emergency Medical Center in Mechanicsburg. It is denied the defendant is the owner of "Squeak," who is a dog that lives in the kennel that was operated by the defendant, but was not defendant's dog. It is denied that defendant ever requested a loan from plaintiff for Squeak's veterinary care. Although defendant paid the bill to 9 the Animal Emergency Medical Center in full on July 5, 2005, upon information and belief, plaintiff, or someone at her instruction, contacted the clinic without defendant's knowledge and informed the clinic that they would be the responsible party for "Squeak's" veterinary bill. As a result, the clinic returned defendant's money that he paid to him. 24. Denied. It is denied that plaintiff informed defendant she could not afford to loan him any monies as no loan was requested from the defendant. It is also denied that defendant telephoned plaintiff to provide her with any information pertaining to the payment of Squeak's veterinary bills. Plaintiff left repeated messages for defendant stating that she was responsible for Squeak's veterinary bill and insisting that she pay for those charges. 25. Admitted. 26. Denied. It is denied that defendant ever negotiated any loan with the plaintiff for the payment of Squeak's veterinary bills. 27. Denied. It is admitted that plaintiff provided the Animal Emergency Medical Center with her credit card information, which was used for the payment of Squeak's veterinary bills. It is denied that defendant ever agreed to any terms of the payment of the veterinary bills with the plaintiff, 10 as the arrangements for plaintiff to pay for these bills was made without defendant's knowledge or acceptance. 28. Denied. It is admitted that defendant made a written request for a second veterinary bill concerning Squeak's care to the Board of Directors: Fair Point Animal Rescue and Far Point Collie Rescue. It is denied that defendant had entered into any agreement with plaintiff concerning the payment of Squeak's veterinary bills. 29. Denied. It is denied that defendant reneged on the repayment terms of any loan with the plaintiff as defendant did not enter into a loan with plaintiff for the payment of Squeak's veterinary care. By way of further evidence, the check to Dr. Krusen was written and presented on July 5, 2005, two (2) days prior to plaintiff making the alleged loan for the veterinary bill. 30. Denied. It is denied that defendant informed plaintiff of any mistake made by the Animal Emergency Medical Center as defendant is without knowledge of any mistake that had been made. Upon information and belief, on or around July 7, 2005, plaintiff and Yvonne Roadermel, an associate of the plaintiff's, contacted the clinic on their own, without defendant's knowledge or permission, and advised that they were the owners of Squeak and were liable for his veterinary care. 11 31. Denied. It is denied that defendant had any loan with either Smith or FarPoint. 32. Denied. Answering defendant is without knowledge as to any communications or transactions that occurred between the plaintiff and FarPoint, so the allegations contained in this paragraph are therefore denied. 33. Defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing defenses, denials and answers set forth herein in their entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against plaintiffs and to dismiss this claim against him with prejudice. COUNT V 34. Denied. It is denied that any monies were due to the plaintiff. It is admitted that on or about July 18, 2005, plaintiff, for the first time, made demand upon defendant for the repayment of monies that she had given to defendant as a gift. This was the first time that plaintiff had ever stated that she was seeking repayment of the gifts that she had given to the defendant. It is admitted that during August or September of 2005, after defendant had refused plaintiffs romantic advances, that he offered to repay the money given to him by the plaintiff when his case with Attorney Bailey successfully ended, but that she had refused his offer at that time. 12 35. Denied. It is admitted that on or about July 26, 2005, plaintiff again made demand for the return of the gifts that she had given to the defendant. It is denied that any monies were due from the defendant to the 36. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff filed a civil complaint against defendant in the office of District Justice Thomas Placey concerning the monies that she claimed to be loans. It is denied that plaintiff "exhausted all other means." 37. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that during the proceedings in front of the District Justice, Smith estimated the repairs to the Jeep at $325.00. It is denied that any loan to defendant was actually made for $326.11. 38. Admitted. 39. Admitted. 40. Admitted. By way of further explanation, D.f Placey's finding was dependent on perjured testimony presented by the plaintiff. 41. Defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing defenses, denials and answers set forth herein in their entirety. 13 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against plaintiffs and to dismiss this claim against him with prejudice. 42. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that defendant appealed the finding by District Justice Placey and that plaintiff was sent a Notice of Appeal via certified mail. It is denied that the certified mail came from the office of Attorney Don Bailey. Attorney Sheri Coover, who represents defendant in this action, is an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, shares office space with Attorney Bailey, but is not employed by or with his office. Attorney Coover runs a business separate and distinct from Attorney Bailey, although they do have some common clients and consult about legal theories. 43. Denied. It is denied that plaintiff made repeated demands for repayment of any monies from the defendant. It is further denied that defendant owes any monies to the plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against plaintiff and to dismiss all claims against him with prejudice. 14 NEW MATTER COUNTERCLAIM -- BREACH OF CONTRACT 44. Defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing claims and defenses in their entirety herein. 45. In the course of his business, defendant acquires dogs and cats that he places for adoption with people who want a pet through a license he acquired from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. 46. Between the dates of January 2005 and May 2005, defendant acquired four dogs and a cat that were placed in plaintiffs home to be fostered until he found a home for them. 47. On or around May 2005, plaintiff indicated that she wanted to acquire the four dogs and a cat that she had been fostering as her personal pets. 48. Defendant advised plaintiff that the standard adoption fee for purchase of his animals was $250.00. 49. Plaintiff expressed to defendant that she agreed to that price and would tender payment to the Defendant for the animals. 50. At the present time, plaintiff has the animals in her possession, but has failed to provide any payment to the defendant for these animals. 15 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court find in his favor and against the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,250.00, plus costs and fees and all other relief that this Court deems to be just and proper. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 51. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state claims or causes of action upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 52. Any alleged injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff was caused by Plaintiff's own conduct. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in his favor together with costs of this action and reasonable attorney's fees. Respectfully submitted, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire Attorney ID 93285 4311 N. Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 221-9500 (telephone) (717) 221-9600 (facsimile) Attorney for Defendant 16 F" : Ou iHr CUWMD FAX NO. : 5197912233 Mar. 98 2006 95:33PM P2 VERIFICATION I, Thmn Lewis, do hereby verify that the information contained in the foregoing in the foregoing DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINTH=NEWMATTER is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to falsification to authorities. Date: ThO6LIewISJ .J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sheri Coover, Esquire, do hereby certify that on March 10, 2005, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Answer to Amended Complaint with New Matter to the party below via First Class mail, postage prepaid to: Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 3eri ectf illy submitted, D. Coover, Esquire Attorney ID 93285 4311 N. Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 18 DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Thom Lewis, Defendant, You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections to Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, K? IZ-t dl A, by Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-783-4860(w) 717-234-4503 (h) Dated: March 29. 2006 DEBORAH L. SMITH Plaintiff V. THOM LEWIS Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. On or about August 3, 2005, Plaintiff Smith filed a Civil Complaint against Defendant Lewis with the office of District Justice Thomas A. Placey, and judgment was entered entirely in Smith's favor on November 23, 2005 in the amount of $6,811.50 ($6,696.00 plus court costs of $115.50), 2. Defendant Lewis filed a Notice of Appeal on December 14, 2005, to which Smith timely filed a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. Smith then filed an Amended Complaint on January 30, 2006. 3. Rule 1028(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure ("Preliminary Objections") states: "(a) Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: ...2. failure of a pleading to conform to law or rule of court or inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter;" 4. Lewis's March 9, 2006 Answer to Smith's Amended Complaint stated the following (Answer p. 40): "Admitted. By way of further explanation, DJ Placey's finding was dependent on perjured testimony presented by the plaintiff." 5. Smith emphatically, strenuously, completely and totally denies this baseless, scurrilous accusation against her. 6. Lewis's offhand, unsubstantiated, baseless and scandalous reference to the grave crime of perjury - made against Smith through his counsel, Sheri D. Coover, without any legal or factual basis - is highly prejudicial to Smith. 7. This scurrilous allegation is per se scandalous and not relevant to the above-captioned matter. 8. Smith believes that the court should take into account the fact that Coover's firm has a documented track record of making baseless accusations, such as filing complaints that contain "factual contentions hav[ing] no evidentiary support" as well as those that "contain[ ] nothing of substance or merit," are "wholly meritless" and "wholly without legal or factual substance," as evidenced by sanctions levied against them for violation of Rule I 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . 9. Although Coover has claimed that her practice is "separate and distinct" from this firm (Answer p. 42), substantial and compelling evidence exists to rebut this claim. Coover signed the Notice to Plead for the March 9, 2006 Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim that is the very subject of these Preliminary Objections as "Sheri D. Coover, Esquire, 13AILEY & OSTROWSKI, 4311 N. Sixth Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, (717) 221-9500" (emphasis added; Notice to Plead incorporated herein by reference). Moreover, this appears to be a form letter; the body of the Notice is printed in a different font than the rest of the Notice. If this is indeed a form letter, the implication seems clear: that Coover wants the court to believe that she is representing Lewis as "separate and distinct" in this matter, but for other matters, has a form letter in which she signs her name as part of this firm. In 20 cases found under Coover's name using the federal Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, all 20 federal Stretton & Ostrowski, 4311 N. Sixth Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, 717-221-9500, shericoover@yahoo. com" (emphasis added) (see Exhibit "C" attached hereto; only the 20 pages listing Coover's name and firm were printed for inclusion in this Exhibit). The one reported case (Dewees v. Derose, 2005 WL 2031431) resulting from a search of Coover's name in the Westlaw database lists Coover under the firm name "Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski, Harrisburg, PA" (see Exhibit "D" attached hereto). Findlaw on the web lists Coover as an attorney at "Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski, 4311 N. Sixth Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, phone 717-221- 9500, FAX 717-221-9600" (see Exhibit "E" attached hereto). The original Notice of Appeal, which Coover emphatically claimed came from her, was mailed to Smith in an envelope with the ' in Beam v. Bauer el al, I:CV-02-1797, U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia H. Rambo levied Rule I I sanctions against the law firm Bailey, Stretton and Ostrowski for filing a complaint for client Beverly Beam that was "intended to harass, cause unnecessary and needless increase in the cost of litigation,... that factual contentions have no evidentiarv support... that the claims and legal contentions... are not warranted by existing law nor by non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or for the establishment of new law" (emphasis added) (see Exhibit "A" attached hereto, Judge Rambo's March 25, 2003 Memorandum and Order). Counsel for defendant Bauer et al filed a Motion to recover damages for plaintiff's filing of a frivolous appeal in the Beam v. Bauer case. In an opinion dated September 9, 2004 upholding this Motion, Judge Richard L. Nygaard of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that plaintiff Beverly Beam's complaint "contained nothing of substance or merit," that her cause was "wholly meridess" and admonished that if her counsel had been "paying attention" it should have been noticed that Beam's claims were "wholly without legal or factual substance" (emphasis added) (see 383 F.3d 108, 109 [3d Cir.20041, Exhibit "B" attached hereto). Judge Rambo's Rule I 1 sanctions were appealed. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions, affirming that Judge Rambo's "findings and conclusions" cited in the first paragraph of this footnote were "fully supported by the record" (see 383 F.3d 108 [3d Cir2004], Exhibit °B" attached hereto). printed return address of "Don Bailey, Esq., 4311 N. 6'h Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110" (see Exhibit 17' attached hereto). This Notice of Appeal was a pre-printed legal form; the envelope received by Smith contained nothing else but this pre-printed legal form. A subsequent envelope mailed to Smith from Coover - ironically, a letter to Smith in which Coover claimed that she alone was representing Lewis - had the printed return address of "Bailey & Ostrowski, 4311 N. Sixth Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110" (see Exhibit "G," attached hereto). 10. Rule 1028(a)(4) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure ("Preliminary Objections") states: "(a) Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: ...4. legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurrer);" 11. Lewis's March 9, 2006 New Matter/Counterclaim alleging Breach of Contract consists of allegations that Smith owes Lewis adoption fees for five (5) animals totalling $1,250.00 (four dogs and one cat). All four dogs were from the now-defunct Pennsylvania non- profit charitable organization Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc., which Lewis had operated during the time period that Smith had been given these animals. The cat, who had been Lewis's personal pet, was given to Smith by Lewis; Smith denies Lewis ever mentioning, discussing, charging or levying any adoption fees for this cat. 12. The Office of Attorney General, through an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (signed by Collie Rescue Board members on April 13, 2005, filed with the Cumberland County Prothonotary's office on May 6, 2005, previously submitted in Smith's Amended Complaint as Exhibit "B," and incorporated herein by reference) ordered Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. to dissolve, thus making the organization defunct. 13. This Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC), signed by a majority of the Board members of Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc., mandated, among other things, that the Respondent, Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc., "immediately wind up and dissolve Collie Rescue," and distribute any remaining assets to charitable organizations. This agreement followed the Attorney General's investigation "into the business practices" of the Rescue, and "based upon the results of its investigation," the Attorney General's office believed that the Rescue "operated in violation" of three (3) separate Pennsylvania statutes governing charitable organizations, and then in the AVC delineated multiple violations of those statutes, including "performing unauthorized actions" and "fail[ing] to keep complete and accurate financial records." 14. Consequently, the Pennsylvania Attorney General does not recognize Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. as a charitable organization, 15. Lewis's New Matter/Counterclaim is legally insufficient because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Any adoption fees - which Smith emphatically denies Lewis ever mentioned, discussed, charged or levied with Smith in the first place - for the four above-referenced dogs would have been due to a now-defunct charitable organization, Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. that is not recognized by the Attorney General as a charitable 3 organization, not Lewis personally. All four dogs were Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. animals. Similarly, any contract for such fees - if such fees ever existed - would have been between Smith and the same defunct charitable organization, Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc., not Lewis personally. 16. Consequently, for the reasons cited above, Lewis's New Matter/Counterclaim alleging Breach of Contract violates Section 1028(a)(4) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 17. Rule 1028(a)(5) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure states: "(a) Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: ...5. lack of capacity to sue, nonjoinder of a necessary party or misjoinder of a cause of action;" 18. As stated above, Lewis's New Matter/Counterclaim alleging Breach of Contract involves allegations of adoption fees owed for four (4) dogs, all of whom were Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. animals. As also stated above, the cat was a personal pet whom Lewis gave to Smith. 19. Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. is a defunct charitable organization. Lewis lacks the capacity to sue for adoption fees - which, again, Smith emphatically denies Lewis ever mentioned, discussed, charged or levied with Smith in the first place - that would have been due to this now-defunct charitable organization that is not recognized by the Attorney General as a charitable organization, Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc., not Lewis personally. Similarly, any contract for such fees - if such fees ever existed - would have been between Smith and the now- defunct charitable organization Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc., not Lewis personally. Lewis lacks any legal standing whatsoever to sue for such fees; Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. would have had the requisite standing, if such fees ever existed.. 20. Moreover, even if this court finds that Lewis somehow does have the capacity to sue for adoption fees - if such fees ever existed - that would have been due not to Lewis personally but instead to the now-defunct charitable organization Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc., then Lewis's Counterclaim alleging Breach of Contract would still be in violation of Rule 1028(a)(5) because he would have failed to join a necessary party. That necessary party would have been Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc., the defunct charitable organization that is not recognized by the Attorney General, to which any such adoption fees would have been due in the first place, and the charitable organization that would have been party to any contract with Smith for such fees, if such fees ever existed. 21. Consequently, for the reasons cited above, Lewis's New Matter/Counterclaim for Breach of Contract also violates Rule 1028(a)(5) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pro se Deborah L. Smith respectfully requests that this Honorable Court strike with prejudice Defendant's Answer to Amended Complaint with New 4 Matter for inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter, in violation of Rule 1028(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which violation defamed and libeled Smith; for legal insufficiency of the pleading (demurrer), in violation of Rule 1028(a)(4) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure; and/or Lewis's lack of capacity to sue or Lewis's nonjoinder of a necessary party, in violation of 1028(a)(5) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and that judgment be entered in Plaintiff's favor on her Amended Complaint filed January 30, 2006 together with the costs of this action. Smith also respectfully requests this Honorable Court to consider levying whatever sanctions this court deems just and proper for the commission of the above-referenced calumny against Smith. Respectfully submitted, a by Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-783-4860 (w) 717-234-4503(h) Dated: March 29, 2006 Case 1:02-cv-01797-SHR Document 41 Filed 03/25/2003 Page 1 of 5 tit i' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BEVERLY BEAM, CIVIL NO. 1:CV-02-1797 Plaintiff V. MARC BAUER; GLENN ZEHNER; CAPITAL AREA INTERMEDIATE UNIT- SCOTT DOWNEY; ROUR MORRISON; DAVID GRAYBILL; and MICHAEL SWEGER, Defendants MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Background Before the court are two motions for sanctions filed by Defendants Graybill and Sweger and Defendants Bauer, Zehner, Downey and Capital Area Intermediate Unit. The motions were filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. This court deferred ruling on the motion for sanctions until disposition of motions to dismiss. On February 27, 2003, the motions to dismiss were granted. In the order granting dismissal, the order fiirther directed Defendants to supplement their motions for sanctions with appropriate affidavits and detailed accounting of hours expended and hourly rates. Plaintiff was given the opportunity to respond to the rates and hours. Case 1:02-cv-01797-SHR Document 41 Filed 03/2512003 Page 2 of 5 Motion for Sanctions On January 16, 2001, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court which was docketed to number 1:CV-01-0083 and assigned to Judge McClure. In that complaint, Plaintiff alleged violations of federal rights including interference with her right to engage in her chosen occupation, her right to due process, her right to equal protection, various anti-trust violations, and state causes of action. By memorandum and order dated April 10, 2002, Judge McClure granted Defendants Downey, Morrison, Graybill and Sweger's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff took an appeal from that order. By order dated December 23, 2002, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge McClure's decision for substantially the reasons set forth in his memorandum in support of his grant of dismissal. On October 7, 2002, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court which was docketed to number 1:CV-02-1797 and assigned to the undersigned. This complaint was substantially similar to the complaint docketed to number 1:CV-0 1-0083, with the exception of the addition of Zehner, Bauer and the Capital Area Intermediate Unit as defendants. In the most recent complaint, Plaintiff alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (retaliation claim), violations of substantive due process, and equal protection rights, state law claims of civil conspiracy, and interference with contractual relations. Defendants filed motions to dismiss and for sanctions. As noted above, the motions to dismiss were granted. Defendants allege that the instant complaint is intended to harass, cause unnecessary and needless increase in the cost of litigation.... that factual contentions have no evidentiary support ... that the claims and legal contentions ... are not warranted by existing law nor by non-frivolous argument for the extension modification or reversal of existing law or for the establisl meat of new law. Case 1:02-cv-01797-SHR Document 41 Filed 03/25/2003 Page 3 of 5 (Brief in Support of Motion for Sanctions by Defendants Bauer, Zehner, Downey and Capital Area Intermediate Unit at p. 12.) This court agrees. By the order of February 27, 2003, all claims except the retaliation claim were dismissed under the principle of res judicata. This court found that the instant complaint was an attempt to relitigate the same matters decided by another judge of this court and affirmed by the court of appeals. Further, the retaliation claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim, among other reasons. It is important to note that the instant action raises issues that are similar to past actions filed by Plaintiff s counsel in which adverse rulings were issued against other Plaintiffs. See Boyanowski v. Capital Area Intermediate Unit, 215 F.3d 346 (3d Cir. 2002) and Labolokie v. Capital Area Intermediate Unit, 926 F. Supp. 503 (M.D. Pa. 1996). For the above reasons, the motions for sanctions will be granted. Rate and Hours Plaintiff claims that she did not receive hourly records from Stock and Leader and cannot respond to their time records. However, the filing requested by the court order of February 27, 2003 was filed on March 12, 2003 and a certificate of service attached to it is dated the same date. Plaintiff will be ;given until April 11, 2003 to respond to Stock and Leader's rates and hours. Plaintiff objects to the hours that Mr. Schiffirran billed for reviewing the work of Mr. Lappas. Mr. Schiffman is primarily a tax lawyer, his curriculum vitae does not cite civil rights litigation as an area of experience. Furthermore, Mr. Lappas does have experience in civil rights litigation and this court can take judicial notice of 3 Case 1:02-cv-01797-SHR Document 41 Filed 03/25/2003 Page 4 of 5 that fact through the filings in this court. Thus, $200 will be deducted from the billing. Plaintiff objects to the telephone calls that do not identify the subject matter of the call. A parry seeking attomey fees has the burden of proving the request is reasonable. To meet this burden, evidence must be submitted supporting the hours worked and the rates claimed. Rode v. Dellarciprette, 892 F.3d 1177, 1183 (3d Cir. 1990). In order to determine hours reasonably expended, the court needs to know the work performed. Id. at 1189. There are three telephone calls listed under Attorney Erb's fee bill. They were made on November 13, 2002, November 22, 2002, and February 19, 2003, amounting to one and one-half hours. These calls are not documented as to subject matter and will be eliminated. The sum of $120 will be deducted. Plaintiff contests the hours spent on the Rule 11 research and briefing as well as the Rule 12 research and briefing. The total hours spent on the Rule 11 issue was approximately 15 hours, and on the Rule 12 issue approximately eight hours was spent. This is not an inordinate amount of time. The court notes that on November 26, 2002, a review by Mr. Lappas of a brief from attorney Kauffman is noted but no designation is made of the subject matter of the brief. This item will be eliminated. The sum of $175.00 will be deducted. 4 Case 1:02-cv-01797-SHR Document 41 Filed 03/2512003 Page 5 of 5 The sum of $4,755 will be awarded to Defendants Graybill and Sweger through the law firm of Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown and Calhoon, PC and against attorney Don Bailey and the law firm of Bailey, Stretton and Ostrowski, jointly and severally. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1) Attorney fees in the amount of $4,755 are awarded to Defendants Graybill and Sweger through the law firm of Serratelli, Schiffinan, Brown and Calhoon, PC and against attorney Don Bailey and the law firm of Bailey, Stretton and Ostrowski, jointly and severally. 2) Attorney Bailey shall have until April 11, 2003, to respond with objections to the hours and rates of Stock and Leader. 3) The Clerk of Court shall defer the entry of judgment until further order of court. 0 s/S lvia H. Rambo S VIA H. RAMBO United States District Judge Dated: March 25, 2003. 383 F.3d 106 West Reporter Image (PDF) 383 F.3d 106, 59 Fed.R.Serv.3d 758 Briefs and Other Related Documents United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Beverly BEAM, Appellant, V. Marc BAUER; Glenn W. Zehner; Capital Area Intermediate Unit; Scott Downey; Roger Morrison; David L. Graybill; Michael Sweger. No. 03-1874, 03-2194. Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Jan. 30, 2004. Sept. 9, 2004. Page 1 of 4 Background: Contract provider of transportation services for disabled public school students brought action against intermediate unit. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Sylvia H._Rambo , J., dismissed action. Provider appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 88_Fed,Appx._523. Appellee brought motion to recover damages. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Nygaard, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) appeal was "frivolous," justifying award of damages to appellee; (2) damages in amount requested would be awarded to appellee; and (3) it was appropriate that counsel for appellant bear burden of paying damages. Motion granted. West Headnotes aG [1] KeyCite Notes_ 170A Federal Civil Procedure 170AXX Sanctions 170AXX(F) On Appeal 170Ak2837 Grounds 170Ak2839 k, Frivolousness in General. Most Cited Cases When parties suffer pecuniary loss by paying attorney fees to defend a valid judgment against a frivolous appeal, they are as entitled to be awarded damages as is a victim seeking compensation for any other financial loss incurred by the acts of a tortfeasor. F.R.A.P,Rule 38, 28_U.S.C.A. C [2] KeyCite Notes 170A Federal Civil Procedure 170AXX Sanctions 170AXX(F) On Appeal 170Ak2837 Grounds 170A1<2840 k. Frivolousness; Particular Cases. Most Cited Cases Appeal was "frivolous," justifying award of damages to appellee, where appellant and her counsel persisted before district court and before Court of Appeals despite many cues that her cause was wholly without legal or factual substance. F.R.A.P._Rule 38,_28_U.S.C.A. NC, [3] KeyCite Notes 170A Federal Civil Procedure 170AXX Sanctions http://web2.westlaw,com/result/documenttext.aspx?cfld=1&ritdb=CLID_DB53614'123&vr=2,0&fcl=Fals.., 3/12/2006 383 F.3d 106 Page 2 of 4 170AXX(F) On Appeal 170A1<2847 k. Type and Amount of Sanction. Most Cited Cases Damages in amount requested was awarded to appellees for appellant's frivolous appeal, since appellant in her response to appellee's request for damages did not raise issue as to propriety of amount of damages requested, there was nothing shocking in amount requested, and fees did not appear inflated. F.R.A.P.Rule38 28 U.S G.A. NC [4] KeyCite Notes -170A Federal Civil Procedure 170AXX Sanctions 170AXX(F) On Appeal 170Ak2846 k. Persons Liable; Attorneys and Pro Se Litigants. Most Cited Cases Appellant's counsel exposed himself to personal liability for damages for making frivolous appeal, since it would have been obvious to reasonable attorney that appeal from district court's order was frivolous, unless he had law or facts to support conclusion that district court judge had erred, and counsel presented no reason in his response to motion for damages to conclude that responsibility for appeal lay anywhere but with him. F.RA.P.Rule 38, 28 U.S.C.A. *107 Donald A. Bailey, Harrisburg, for Appellant. Melinda B. Kaufmann, Stock & Leader, York, for Appellees Bauer, Zehner, Capitol, and Downey. Kathryn L. Simpson, Mette, Evans & Woodside, Harrisburg, for Appellee Morrison. Spero T._Lappas, Melanie L. Erb, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoun, Harrisburg, for Appellees Graybill and Sweger. Before NYGAARD and FUENTES, Circuit Judges, and O'NEILL, [FN*] District Judge. FN* Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr., Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. OPINION NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Judge Sylvia Rambo, of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, found plaintiff/appellant's claim to be barred by the res judicata doctrine; she further concluded that the suit was frivolous, and then dismissed it. She also imposed Rule 11 sanctions on plaintiff's attorney, Don Bailey, who was also appellant's counsel on appeal. On Beam's appeal challenging the dismissal and the sanctions, counsel failed to offer any argument, facts, or law to show that the claim was not frivolous, or that the Court had in some way erred. Hence, we affirmed, concluding additionally in our opinion that the appeal was also frivolous. Appellees now ask that we award damages pursuant to Federal_ Rule_of Appellate Procedure 38, to compensate them for the financial loss they incurred defending the dismissal order. The request presents us with three issues: Should we award damages? If so, in what amount? And, against whom? We will award damages in the amounts requested by the various appellees under Rule 38, and against counsel for appellant. A brief procedural history of this, and an earlier lawsuit filed by Beam, is both instructive and germane to the issue in this *108 motion. Beam has twice brought lawsuits that the District Court summarily dismissed. The District Court dismissed Beam's first lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirmed. Beam v._Downey 54 Fed.Appx. 113_(3d Cir.2002). But, while the first case was pending on appeal, Beam filed a second suit. The second suit added additional defendants, a few new legal theories, but still contained nothing of substance or merit. In its opinion explaining the dismissal order, the District Court found that Beam's second complaint was "intended to harass, cause unnecessary and needless increase in the cost of litigation, ... that factual contentions have no evidentiary support ... that the claims and legal contentions ... are not warranted by existing law nor by non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or for the establishment of new law." Memorandum and Order of the District Court (Mar. 25, 2003). The District Court also ordered Beam's attorney, Don Bailey, and his iaw firm to pay Rule 11 sanctions to the appellees. These findings and conclusions were fully supported by the record, so we affirmed. Beam v. Bauer, 88 Fed.Appx. 523 _(3d Cir.2004). The decision whether to appeal from an order of the District Court is not a matter to be taken lightly by either a losing party or her counsel. An appeal is not just the procedural next step in every lawsuit. Neither is it an opportunity for another "bite of the apple," nor a forum for a losing party to "cry foul" without legal or factual foundation. An appeal is a serious matter because it is a claim of error by the District Court and an attack on the validity of its order. Consequently, if the appeal is wholly lacking in merit, there are consequences. Appellant herein now must face them. Rule 38 states that "[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee." Fed. R.App. P. 38. Of course, we recognize that not every claim dismissed as frivolous is frivolous. District Courts http://web2.westlaw,comlresuitldocumenttext.aspx?cfid=1 &rltdb=CLID_DB53614'123&vr=2.0&fcl=Fals... 3/12/2006 383 F.3d 106 Page 3 of 4 occasionally err. Nonetheless, we state with equal emphasis that an appeal from a frivolous claim is likewise frivolous. See A-Abart Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Emerson Elec. Co., 956 F.2d1399, 1407_(7th Cir.1992). It is counsel's responsibility to make the distinction. Although often mistakenly referred to as both, an award under Rule 38 is neither a sanction nor a punishment. Huck v. Dawson, 106 F.3d 45, 52 (3d Cir.1997) ("Rule 38 is not a sanctions provision."). Nor is appellant's intent a consideration. Appellant is like any other tortfeasor. It does not matter whether she filed this appeal out of malice, ignorance, or deceit; it is the merit of her argument on appeal that determines whether she carries the day. It is not a punitive provision. "Damages [under Rule 381 are awarded by the court in its discretion ... as a matter of justice to the appellee." See Hilmon Co. (V.I.) Inc. v. Hyatt Intl, 899 F2d 250, 253 (3d Cir.1990) (citing the Advisory Committee Note to Rule. 38). KC [1] The rationale of Rule 38 is simply that when parties suffer pecuniary loss by paying attorney fees to defend a valid judgment against a frivolous appeal, they are as entitled to be awarded damages as is a victim seeking compensation for any other financial loss incurred by the acts of a tortfeasor. It is a rule designed to make whole a party victimized by needlessly having to expend money for attorney fees to protect a valid judgment from a baseless *109 attack. That is precisely what has happened in this matter. Inc [2] Recently, when discussing Rule 38 damages, we cautioned counsel that a finding by a District Court that a lawsuit is frivolous should serve as notice to the parties and their attorney to exercise caution, pause, and "devote additional examination to the legal validity and factual merit of his contentions." Hu_ck,106 F .3d at 52. Here, despite many cues from us and the District Court that her cause was wholly meritless, Beam and her counsel have persisted before the District Court and again before us. Additionally, as we noted in our opinion in Beam v. Bauer, "[i]n her haste to file [this] lawsuit, Beam disregarded the then-pending appeal before this Court. Beam would have been well-advised to await our opinion, which ultimately affirmed the result in the first case." 88 Fed.Appx. 523, 5.26 (3d Cir.2004). Our affirmation of the District Court's first dismissal was lost on counsel, who had already filed the second suit. Had counsel been paying attention, our result could have given him notice of the fact that he had failed to discern on his own; that his client's claims were wholly without legal or factual substance. We thus will award damages to appellees. F1 [3] In her response to the request for damages, Beam does not raise an issue as to the propriety of the amount of damages requested. Moreover, because this is a damage issue, and because there is neither anything shocking in the amount requested, nor do the fees appear at all inflated, there is no need for us to raise an issue as to the amount sua sponte. Simply stated, appellees have incurred costs and expenses defending a valid judgment against a frivolous appeal, and are entitled to be made whole. Hence, we will award damages in the amount expended by appellees. M: [4] Having decided that both the claim for fees and the statement ad damnum are proper, we must determine whether to place the responsibility for payment with Beam, her counsel, or both. Beam "had a right to rely upon [her] attorney for sound advice." Hilmon,_ 899 F .2d at 254. Although an unrepresented litigant should not be punished with damages for his failure to appreciate legal subtleties in legal arguments, Hughes v. Rowe, 449_U U.S. 5, 15,_101 S.Ct._ 173, 66 L,Ed.2d 163 (1980), we have consistently held represented clients, and specifically their counsel, to a higher standard. Moreover, because it would be unfair to charge a damage award against a party who has relied upon her counsel's expertise in deciding whether to appeal, we have routinely imposed Rule 38 damages upon counsel when a frivolous appeal stems from counsel's professional error. See Nagle v. Alspach,_8 1.3d 141, 145 (3_d Cir.1993); see also A-Abart, 956_F.2d at 1407. In Hilmon we set this standard: [A]ttorneys have an affirmative obligation to research the law and to determine if a claim on appeal [has merit]. We conclude that if counsel ignore or fail in this obligation to their client, they do so at their peril and may become personally liable to satisfy a Rule 38 award. The test is whether, following a thorough analysis of the record and careful research of the law, a reasonable attorney would conclude that the appeal is frivolous. Hilmon,. 899 F.2d at 254. In this case it would have been obvious to a reasonable attorney that an appeal from the District Court's order was frivolous, unless he had law or facts to support a conclusion that the District Court judge had erred. By failing to appreciate this, Beam's counsel exposed himself to personal liability for Rule 38 damages. Moreover, in his response to the motion for damages, counsel presents no reason to conclude that the responsibility for the *110 appeals lies anywhere but with him. Hence, we conclude that it is appropriate that counsel bear the burden of paying the damages. Finally, counsel for Beam contends in a motion to strike the appellees' Rule 38 motion that Beam is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. In her response to the motion for Rule 38 damages, Beam raises no evidentiary issues that would indicate to us any need for a hearing to find facts. We will deny Beam's motion to strike. In sum, and upon consideration of the appellees' motions, the appellant's opposition thereto, and a thorough review of the record, we will award damages to appellees' in the amounts requested, all in accord with the attached order. C.A.3 (Pa.),2004. Beam v. Bauer 383 F.3d 106, 59 Fed.R.Serv.3d 758 Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top) http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?cfid=1&rltdb=CLID DB53614123&vr=2.0&fcl=Fals... 3/12/2006 383 F.3d 106 Page 4 of 4 • 03-2194 (Docket) (Apr. 29, 2003) • 03-1874 (Docket) (Mar. 31, 2003) END OF DOCUMENT West Reporter Image (PDF) (C) 2006 Thomson)West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http.//web2.westlaw. com/resultldocumenttext.aspx?cfid=1 &rltdb=CLI D_DB53614123&vr=2.0&fcl=Fals... 3/12/2006 Query Attorneys 1:00-cv-01655-SHR Suders v. Easton, et al Sylvia H. Rambo, presiding Date filed: 09118/2000 Date terminated: 0313112005 Date of last filing: 0511112005 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600 (fax) Ad rien neMamma6@aol. com Assigned: 0911812000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo. com Assigned: 0211712005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Howard G. Hopkirk Office of Attorney General-Litigation Section 15h Floor Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-1471 717-772-4526 (fax) hhopkirk@attorneygeneral.gov Assigned: 0111212005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Nancy Drew Suders (Plaintiff) representing Nancy Drew Suders (Plaintiff) representing Page 1 of 3 Pennslyvania State Police, (Defendant) Eric D. Easton (Defendant) Eric B. Prendergast (Defendant) Virginia Smith Elliott (Defendant) https:/Iecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?l 127 3/22/2006 Query Attorneys 02-cv-01437-CCC Young v. City of York, et al Christopher C. Conner, presiding Date filed: 08/15/2002 Date terminated: 11/02/2005 Date of last filing: 11/02/2005 Attorneys Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0711212005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Raymond Douglas Young 611 Reily Street representing Harrisburg, PA 17102 717-257-4440 (Plaintiff) Robert G. Hanna, Jr. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market St. Suite 304 P.Q. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17113 717-233-6633 717-233-7003 (fax) rhanna@laverylaw.com Assigned: 0811512002 TERMINATED: 0510512003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED York City Police Department representing TERMINATED: 1010712003 (Defendant) City of York TERMINATED: 0812512005 (Defendant) Sheldon Hooper (Defendant) Donald B. Hoyt Assistant City Solicitor One Marketway West Third Floor York, PA 17401 (717) 849-2250 17178547839 (fax) Ld owl i ng@yorkcity.org Assigned: 1111312002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Sheldon Hooper (Defendant) Page 1 of 4 https:Hecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?3238 3/22/2006 Query Attorneys Page 1 of 2 1:03-cv-01368-CCC Boyer et al v. Barry et al Christopher C. Conner, presiding Date filed: 08/13/2003 Date terminated: 03/23/2005 Date of last filing: 06/10/2005 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600 (fax) AdrienneMamma6@aol.com Assigned: 0811312003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Calvin Boyer (Plaintiff) Ricky Brown (Plaintiff) Thomas Foltz (Plaintiff) Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0311512005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Calvin Boyer (Plaintiff) Ricky Brown (Plaintiff) Thomas Foltz (Plaintiff) Matthew Lee Owens Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman and Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Rd Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3523 717-651-9630 (fax) mowens@mdwcg.com Richard Miller representing TERMINATED: 1210212004 (Defendant) https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?49854 3/22/2006 Query Attorneys 1:03-cv-00490-SHR Deweese v. DeRose et al Sylvia H. Rambo, presiding Date filed: 03/20/2003 Date terminated: 11/16/2004 Date of last filing: 12101/2005 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600 (fax) AdrienneMamma6@aol.com Assigned: 0312012003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 sh e ri coover@yahoo.com Assigned: 1110412004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Cheryl L. Kovaly Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 717-233-6633 ckovaly@laverylaw.com Assigned: 0411112003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing James Deweese (Plaintiff) representing James Deweese (Plaintiff) representing Dauphin County (Defendant) Dominick DeRose (Defendant) Frank J. Lavery, Jr. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. P.O. Box 1245 225 Market Street Suite 304 Dauphin County Page 1 of 2 https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAftorneys.pl?48268 3/2212006 Query Attorneys 4;05-cv-01370-JEJ Heverly et al v. Simcox et al John E. Jones, III, presiding Date filed: 07/07/2005 Date of last filing: 01/13/2006 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600 (fax) AdrienneMamma6@aol.com Assigned: 0710712005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0710712005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Timothy P. Keating Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania Strawberry Square 15th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-1471 17177724526 (fax) tkeating@attorneygeneral.gov Assigned: 0911412005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing representing Plaintiff) Deborah K. Heverly John Simcox (Plaintiff) Deborah K. Heverly (Plaintiff John Simcox (Plaintiff) representing Steve Simcox (Defendant) Timothy Eiler (Defendant) Page 1 of 2 https:Hecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?59083 3/22/2006 Query Attorneys 1:03-cv-00792-YK Bower v. Stewart et al Yvette Kane, presiding Date filed: 05/12/2003 Date of last filing: 09/22/2005 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600 (fax) AdrienneMamma6@aol.com Assigned: 0511212003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0912112005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert G. Hanna, Jr. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market St. Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17113 717-233-6633 717-233-7003 (fax) rhanna@laverylaw.com Assigned: 10/16/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Constance Bower (Plaintif) representing Constance Bower (Piaintifo representing Mayor Dennis Stewart (Defendant) Patrick Corkle (Defendant) Dauphin County (Defendant) Dominick Derose (Defendant) Page 1 of 3 https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pi?48780 3/22/2006 Query Attorneys 3:04-cv-01338-TIV-LQ Ardinger v. Wetzel et al Thomas I. Vanaskie, presiding LQ, referral Date filed: 06/22/2004 Date of last filing: 02/0812006 Attorneys Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 s hericoover@yahoo. corn Assigned: 0210812005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED David Shawn Ardinger c/o James E. Ardinger representing 17611 Stone Valley Drive Hagertown, MD 21740 (Plaintiff) Cheryl L. Kovaly Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 717-233-6633 ckovaly@laverylaw.com Assigned: 0810312004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Franklin County Commisioners (Defendant) Officer "T" (Defendant) Officer Avared (Defendant) Officer Cason (Defendant) Officer Hartman (Defendant) Officer Jones (Defendant) Officer Lt. Efflin (Defendant) Officer Lt. Macintosh https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAttorneys.pl?54030 Page 1 of 3 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys 4:05-cv-00113-MM Bailey et al v. Patt et al Malcolm Muir, presiding Date filed: 01/14/2005 Date terminated: 09112/2005 Date of last filing: 09/1212005 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600 (fax) AdrienneMamma6@aol.com Assigned: 0111412005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Daniel Phillips (Plaintiff) Todd Bailey (Plaintiff) Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0111412005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Daniel Phillips (Plaintiff) Todd Bailey (Plaintifo Robert G. Hanna, Jr. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market St. Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17113 717-233-6633 717-233-7003 (fax) rhanna@laverylaw.com Assigned: 02/09/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Ptl. Merle Garvisa (Defendant) Ptl. Tyrell Patt Page 1 of 3 https:Hecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?56860 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys 1:04-cv-01149-YK Bethea et al v. Central Dauphin School District et al Yvette Kane, presiding Date filed: 05/26/2004 Date terminated: 09/15/2005 Date of last filing: 03/22/2006 Attorneys Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0610812005 TERMINATED: 0712512005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED James Edward Ellison Rhoads & Sinon LLP One South Market Square Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-237-6743 17172316637 (fax) jellison@rhoads-sinon.com Assigned: 0811612004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Umar Bethea representing (Plaintiff) PRO SE representing Central Dauphin School District (Defendant) A.J. Sallusti (Defendant) Dr. Barbara Hasson (Defendant) Ford S. Thompson (Defendant) Garry L. Esworthy (Defendant) Helen E. Wagner (Defendant) Jeffrey Bruno (Defendant) Jeffrey T. McGuire (Defendant) Page 1 of 4 https:llecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?53745 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys Page 1 of 3 1:04-cv-00714-YK Chambers v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services et al Yvette Kane, presiding Date filed: 04/02/2004 Date of last filing: 01/06/2006 Attorneys Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo. corn Assigned: 05/05/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Linda S. Lloyd Office of Attorney General 15th Floor Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-705-7327 Iclouser@attorneygeneral.gov Assigned: 0711912004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Aaron L. Chambers (Plaintiff) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of representing General Services (Defendant) Annette Watson (Defendant) Bill Myers (Defendant) Chuck Hodge (Defendant) Gregory Green (Defendant) John Klinger (Defendant) Peter Seclesse (Defendant) Peter Zirrili (Defendant) https:Hecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?53063 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys 1:05-cv-00212-YK DeWees v. Haste et al Yvette Kane, presiding Date filed: 01/31/2005 Date of last filing: 01/19/2006 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600 (fax) AdrienneMamma6@aol.com Assigned: 0113112005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 North 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0113112005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Frank J. Lavery, Jr. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. P.O. Box 1245 225 Market Street Suite 304 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 717-233-6633 17172337003 (fax) flavery@laverylaw.com Assigned: 0212412005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing representing James M. DeWees (Plaintiff) James M. DeWees (Plaintiff) representing Dauphin County (Defendant) Dominick DeRose (Defendant) Jeffrey T. Haste (Defendant) Mark Templeton Page 1 of 2 https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttarneys.pi?57036 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys 4:03-cv-01372-ARC Dozier v. Gilhooley et al A. Richard Caputo, presiding Date filed: 08113/2003 Date terminated: 0911412005 Date of last filing: 09/1612005 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600 (fax) AdrienneMamma6@aol.com Assigned: 0811312003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0511112005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Richard T. Curley Gross McGinley LaBarre & Eaton LLP 33 South Seventh Street Allentown, PA 18105 610-820-5450 tcurley@gmle.com Assigned: 1012412003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sean P. McDonough Dougherty, Leventhal & Price, L.L.P. 75 Glenmaura National Boulevard Moosic, PA 18507 570-347-1011 570-347-7028 (fax) smcdonough@dlplaw.com Assigned: 0910512003 TERMINATED: 0112112005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Barbara A. Dozier representing (Plaintiff representing Barbara A. Dozier (Plaintiff? representing Gary W. Ross (Defendant) Lackawanna County representing TERMINATED: 0112112005 (Defendant) Thomas Gilhooley TERMINATED: 0112112005 Page 1 of 2 https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAtforneys.pl?49855 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys 03-cv-0 1 782-WWC Hartman v. DeRose et al William W. Caldwell, presiding Date filed: 10/0612003 Date terminated: 03/24/2005 Date of last filing: 0511112005 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600(fax) AdrienneMamma6@aol.com Assigned: 1010612003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0111212005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Nancy Hartman (Plaintiff representing Nancy Hartman (Plaintifr) Page 1 of 2 Robert G. Hanna, Jr. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market St. Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17113 717-233-6633 717-233-7003(fax) rhanna@laverylaw.com Assigned: 1010912003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Warden Dominick DeRose (Defendant) Fay Fisher (Defendant) Frank J. Lavery, Jr. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. P.O. Box 1245 225 Market Street Suite 304 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 representing Warden Dominick DeRose https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.govlcgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?50572 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys 1:03-cv-01736-SHR Henderson v. Anspach et al Sylvia H. Rambo, presiding Date filed: 0913012003 Date terminated: 02/11/2005 Date of last filing: 10/03/2005 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600 (fax) AdrienneMamma6@aol.com Assigned: 0913012003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo. corn Assigned: 0110712005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Andrew J. Ostrowski Bailey Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th St. Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 ajo@bsolaw.com Assigned: 0112812005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Craig J. Staudenmaier Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP 200 North Third Street 18th Floor P.O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 717-236-3010 17172341925 (fax) cjstaud@nssh.com Assigned: 0210712005 TERMINATED: 0211112005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Keith Henderson (Plaintiff) representing Keith Henderson (Plaintifo representing Keith Henderson (Plaintiff) representing The Patriot-News Co. (interested Party) Page 1 of 2 https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys,pl?50512 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys 1:05-cv-00906-CCC Hoffman v. Dougher et al Christopher C. Conner, presiding Date filed: 05/03/2005 Date terminated: 0110512006 Date of last filing: 0110512006 Attorneys Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 she ricoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0 510 3/2 0 0 5 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Amanda L. Smith Office of the Attorney General 15th Floor Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-787-1194 17177724526 (fax) asmith@attorneygeneral.gov Assigned., 1210612005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Erick Hoffman (Plaintiff) representing Chuck Hodge (Defendant) Eugene Marzullo (Defendant) Gregory A. Green (Defendant) Michael Shipp (Defendant) Patrick Dougher (Defendant) Peter Papodopolos (Defendant) Peter Speaks (Defendant) Richard Shaffer Page 1 of 3 https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlgryAttorneys.pl?58281 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys 1;03-cv-02393-JAS Lyttle et al v. Capital Blue Cross and Pennsylvania Blue Shield et al J. Andrew Smyser, presiding Date filed: 1 212 6/20 0 3 Date terminated: 03/07/2005 Date of last filing: 03/07/2005 Attorneys Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 Sheri coover@yahoo. com Assigned: 0112812005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Kenneth L. Lyttle, . (Plaintiff) Page 1 of 3 The Estate of Mary L. Lyttle, by and through Kenneth L. Lyttle, Executor (Plaintifo Brian P. Downey Pepper Hamilton LLP 200 One Keystone Plaza North Front & Market Streets P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181 717-255-1192 d owneyb@pe pperlaw -corn Assigned: 0111312004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Cindy N. Ellis Foulkrod Ellis, PC 2010 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-909-7006 cindy@foulkrod.com Assigned: 0211212004 TERMINATED: 0910112004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Shannon C. Gierasch Pepper Hamilton, P.C. 200 One Keystone Plaza North & Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 717-255-1178 717-238-0575 (fax) gieraschs@pepperlaw.com Capital Blue Cross and Pennsylvania Blue Shield representing TERMINATED: 0310212005 (Defendant) representing Highmark, Inc. (Defendant) Capital Blue Cross and Pennsylvania Blue Shield representing TERMINATED: 03/02/2005 (Defendant) https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?51653 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys Page 1 of 2 1:05-cv-00004-YK Madsen v. Milton Hershey School et al Yvette Kane, presiding Date filed: 01/02/2005 Date terminated: 10/24/2005 Date of last filing: 10/24/2005 Attorneys Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0511212005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert P. Curley O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 515 Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-629-4970 rcurley@odonoghuelaw.com Assigned: 0411812005 TERMINATED: 07/05/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Brian P. Downey Pepper Hamilton LLP 200 One Keystone Plaza North Front & Market Streets P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181 717-255-1192 downeyb@pepperlaw.com Assigned: 0112612005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing representing representing Christine Hoskin Madsen (Plaintifo Milton Hershey Education Association TERMINATED: 0710512005 (Defendant) PSEA-NEA TERMINATED: 0710512005 (Defendant) Tom Ferguson TERMINATED: 0710512005 (Defendant) Tom Scott TERMINATED: 0710512005 (Defendant) Milton Hershey School (Defendant) htips://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?56625 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys 4:05-cv-00256-JFM Mainguth v. Packard et al James F. McClure, Jr, presiding Date filed: 02104/2005 Date of last filing: 03/21/2006 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600 (fax) AdrienneMamma6@aol.com Assigned: 0210412005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0210412005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Frank J. Lavery, Jr. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. P.O. Box 1245 225 Market Street Suite 304 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 717-233-6633 17172337003 (fax) flavery@laverylaw.com Assigned: 0310212005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Stephen Mainguth (Plaintiff) representing Stephen Mainguth (Plaintiff) representing Shawn Packard (Defendant) The Borough of Renovo TERMINATED: 0210712006 (Defendant) James D. Young Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 Page 1 of 2 https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?57114 3/28/2006 Query Attorneys 1:05-cv-02326-CCC-JAS Reihart v. Kelley et al Christopher C. Conner, presiding J. Andrew Smyser, referral Date filed: 11108/2005 Date of last filing: 02/2'1/2006 Attorneys Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 1110812005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Linda S. Lloyd Office of Attorney General 15th Floor Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-705-7327 Iciouser@attorneygeneral.gov Assigned: 0110312006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Sharon Reihart (Plaintiff) representing James C. Johns (Defendant) John Dickinson (Defendant) Kenneth Wint (Defendant) Michael Kelley (Defendant) Randy Hockensmith (Defendant) Gregory R. Lyons Office of the U.S. Trustee 228 Walnut Street Room 1190 P.O. Box 969 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0969 (717) 221-4515 representing Mediator (Mediator) Page 1 of 2 https:Hecf.pamd.uscourts,govlcgi-binlgryAttorneys.pl?60761 3128/2006 Query Attorneys 3:05-cv-00630-RPC-JVW Singletary v. Snyder County Prison et al Richard P. Conaboy, presiding JV, referral Date filed: 03129/2005 Date of last filing: 03/2412006 Attorneys Don Bailey Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 717-221-9600 (fax) AdrienneMamma6@aol.com Assigned: 0312912005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sheri D. Coover Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-221-9500 shericoover@yahoo.com Assigned: 0712912005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Frank J. Lavery, Jr. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. P.O. Box 1245 225 Market Street Suite 304 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 717-233-6633 17172337003 (fax) flavery@ laverylaw. corn Assigned: 0510612005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Robert Singletary (Plaintiff) representing Robert Singletary (Plaintiff) representing Snyder County Prison (Defendant) Donald Reed, Jr. (Defendant) George C. Nye,. (Defendant) Jason Kline (Defendant) Page 1 of 3 https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/gryAttorneys.pl?57785 3/2812006 2005 WL 2031431 x h r? - T 1= Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 2031431 (M.D.Pa.) Motions, Pleadings and Filings Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. James DEWEES, Plaintiff v. Warden Dominick DEROSE, et al., Defendants Christine HOOVER, et al., Plaintiffs Page 1 of 2 v. Major STEWART, et al., Defendants No. Civ. 1:CV-03-490, Civ. 1:CV-03-1781. Aug. 10, 2005. Don Bailey, Sheri D. Coover, Andrew J_Ostrowski, Bailey Stretton & Ostrowski, Harrisburg, PA, Samuel C. Stretton, The Law Office of Samuel C. Stretton, West Chester, PA, for Plaintiffs. Cheryl_ L. Kovaly, Frank J. Lavery, Jr., James D._Young, Robert G. Hanna, Jr., Lavery, f'aherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RAMBO,3. *1 Before the court is "Plaintiffs['] Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Sanctions Against Frank Lavery, Esq. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11." The motion was filed by Attorney Don Bailey, who represented the plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters. In the motion, Mr. Bailey alleges that Mr. Lavery, who was defense counsel in these cases, made misrepresentations regarding Mr. Bailey's wife's video deposition company, PR Video, that were known by him to be false. Specifically, Mr. Bailey asserts that Mr. Lavery "indicate[d] to a federal court judge" during proceedings in the above-captioned matters that Mr. Bailey and his wife "were intentionally altering ('fudging') transcripts produced by 'PR Video." ' (Mot. Sanctions ¶ 1.) Mr. Bailey contends that such conduct violates Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c). Upon consideration of Mr. Bailey's motion, the court concludes that said motion is defective on its face. Thus, the court will deny the motion. A motion for sanctions under Rule 11 applies only to "a pleading, written motion, or other paper." Fed.R.Civ.P, li(b); see also Chambers v. NAS_CO,_ Inc., 501 U.S. 32,41,_ 111 S.Ct. 2123,_115_L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (noting that _Rule_ 11 "governs only papers filed with a court"). Mr. Bailey's motion for sanctions relates to comments Mr. Lavery allegedly made during the litigation of the above-captioned matters. Rule Al, however, applies only to assertions contained in papers filed with or submitted to the court. It does not cover matters arising for the first time during oral presentations to the court, when counsel may make statements that would not have been made if there had been more time for study and reflection. Fed,R.Civ.P. 11, Advisory Comm. Notes, 1993 Amendments. Thus, Mr. Bailey's motion for sanctions under Rule 11 is ill- founded. Additionally, the Third Circuit has "adopted a supervisory rule requiring parties to file all motions for Rule 1.1 sanctions before entry of the court's final order." Prosser v. Prosser 186 F.3d 403, 405(3d Cir.1999J (citing Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle, 847 F.2d 9D, 100 (3d Cir.1988)). The purpose of this rule is to promote "judicial efficiency, timeliness, and notice." Prosser, 186 F.-3d-at 406. The instant motion for sanctions has been filed long after the completion of both the above- captioned cases and long after the alleged wrongdoing. The Hoover case was dismissed on November 29, 2004, and the alleged misconduct occurred at a pre-trial conference held on November 19, 2004. Dewees was closed on May 20, 2005, and the alleged misconduct occurred at a pre-trial conference held on October 15, 2004._[FN1] To allow Mr. Bailey to pursue sanctions against Mr. Lavery at this point would fly in the face of "judicial efficiency, timeliness, and notice." Prosser, 186 F.3d at 406. FN1. A jury verdict in Dewees was rendered on November 16, 2004, and the court resolved the post-trial motions on May 20, 2005. In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT "Plaintiffs ['] Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Sanctions Against Frank Lavery, Esq. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11" is DENIED. M.D.Pa.,2005. Dewees v. Derose Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 2031431 (M.D.Pa.) http://web 2.westlaw.com/resuftldocum enttext. as px?cnt=DOC&rs= W L W 6.03&fn=_top&q uery=%22N O.... 3/12/2006 2005 WL 2031431 Page 2 of 2 Motions, Pleadings and Filings (Back to top) • 2004 WL 2151704 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Reply Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Maya 06, 2004) • 2004 WL 2151416 (Trial Pleading) Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint (Feb. 13, 2004) • 2004 WL 2151699 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Reply Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 02, 2004) • 2004 WL 2151696 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Jan. 12, 2004) • 2003. WL 23788335 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dec. 10, 2003) • 2003 WL 23788011 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Plaintiffs Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dec. 01, 2003) • 2003 WL 23788007 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Defendants' Brief in Support of Their Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Nov. 10, 2003) • 1:03cv01781 (Docket) (Oct. 06, 2003) • 2003 WL 23788332 (Trial Pleading) Answer of Defendants to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (May. 12, 2003) • 2003 WL 23788326 (Trial Pleading) Amended Complaint (Apr. 22, 2003) • 2003 WL 23788319 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Defendants' Brief in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement, Pursuant to Rule 12(E), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Apr. 10, 2003) • 2003 WL 23788318 (Trial Pleading) Complaint (Mar. 20, 2003) • 1:03cv00490 (Docket) (Mar. 20, 2003) • 2003 WL 23788001 (Trial Pleading) Complaint (2003) END OF DOCUMENT (C) 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://we b2. westlaw. com/resu It/docu menttext.aspx?cnt=DOC&rs=WL W 6.03&fn=_top&q uery=%22NO.... 3/12/2006 Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski - a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (PA) Law Finn 1 http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3392609_1?noconfirm=0 ? Xk.k + r- FindLaw ( For the Public ( For Small Business I For Legal Professionals ( Find a Lawver FindLaw Le al Issue: (e.g, Divorce) Location: (e.g., Palo Alto, CA or 94306) ,b«a„ . Find Lawyers! Browse by Location II Browse by Legal Issue Search by Name II Advanced Search li Help & Tools FindLaw > Lawyer Directory > Lawyer Profile 5 Save ?--,Email A Print v Update 6Get Listed Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski Address: 4311 N. Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Map & Directions Phone: (717) 221-9500 Fax: (717) 221-9600 E-mail: Attorneys Attorneys: Bailey Donald A. Coover, Sheri D. Ostrowski. Andrew J. Profile Last Updated 4/7/2005 When viewing a listing, consider the state advertising restrictions to which lawyers and law firms must adhere, as well as our West Legal Directory disclaimers. Le al Issue: (e.g., Divorce) Location: (e.., Palo Alto, CA or 94306) Find Lawyers! Search by Name Advanced Search FindLaw Lawyer Browse by Location ( Browse by Legal Issue ( Search by Name Advanced Search Directory I Help & Tools Copyright @ 2005 FindLaw. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Privacy About FindLaw Advertise on Policy Disclaimer FindLaw I of 1 3/28/2006 5:06 PM e t C U 0 6 o W U ?Ef}f) N- o m ? oLL v a?,u NJ ?J O _ C?? n NoQ oog f47 a t5 ?Fi U1 Y 1Y. (? FJ U VI U r F T I?: ` Lr M1 M 0 ° fl 1 ul - -? m, K? zt- M0 0 aka ?. Z.1 y_ pCCIO) N O 1 N 9 VL) .4 ^w f :+ t', 0 r r r 3U)q O ifi _ 3 ? Z A A ? r v ca C _ } ?[sa J o CE, 7 ? = N O N 'L rJ (6 (D co = iM W lw -i .?J ti `s nr. ,i .,t VERIFICATION I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro so in the foregoing Preliminary Objections to Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Case No. 2005-6365 Civil), do hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Preliminary Objections to Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Case No. 2005-6365 Civil) are true upon my personal knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se in the above-captioned action, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections to Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint (No. 2005-6365 Civil) dated March 29, 2006 has been served upon the following: Sheri Coover, Esq. 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 by placing same in the U.S. mail, properly addressed to counsel for Defendant Thom Lewis, this 29` day of March, 2006. Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: March 29, 2006 TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1. State matters to be argued: Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections to Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint 2. Counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiff: Deborah L. Smith, pro se 1302 Upton Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (b) for defendant: Sheri D. Coover, Esq. 4311 North Sixth Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument court date: May 17, 2006 Deborah L. Smith, plaintiffpro se Dated: March 29, 2006 ??) ? ? ._,. i'} ,f ? It'i ?`- L.: iA? ?_ DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se in the above-captioned action, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to List Preliminary Objections to Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for the Next Argument Court (No. 2005-6365 Civil) dated March 29, 2006 has been served upon the following: Sheri Coover, Esq. 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 by placing same in the U.S. mail, properly addressed to counsel for Defendant Thom Lewis, this 29` day of March, 2006. ,1V u-, i ?, , 'Aru_??c Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: March 29, 2006 r.7 i.' f"7 ;d a , ? 11 . , _? ,- {ti% Y` i. .. -`_ . _ ?'? DEBORAH L. SMITH Plaintiff V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW To: Thom Lewis, Defendant Date of Notice: April 21, 2006 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-783-4860 (work) 717-234-4503 (home) Dated: April 21, 2006 0. DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Deborah L. Smith, PlaintiffPro se in the above-captioned action, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Important Notice filed pursuant to Rule 237.1(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure has been served upon the following: Sheri Coover, Esq. Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 by placing same in the U.S. mail, properly addressed to counsel for Defendant Thom Lewis, this 21 st day of April, 2006. lai Lucf i. /ky t( 6'l Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-783-4860(w) 717-234-4503 (h) Dated: April 21, 2006 ?:; i ?. ? ?. TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court DEBORAH L. SMITH, Plaintiff V. THOM LEWIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN CASE NO. 2005-6365 Defendant State matters to be argued: Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections to Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim. 2. Counsel who will argue the cases: (A) For Plaintiff Deborah L. Smith, pro se 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 (B) For Defendant Sheri D. Coover, Esquire 4311 N. Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been lised for argument. 4. Argument court date: May 17, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire 4311 N. Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Defendant Date: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire hereby certify that on this 21" day of April 2006. 1 caused to be served upon plaintiff the foregoing Precipe for Listing Case for Argument by United States First Class mail postage prepaid addressed as follows: Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Iheri D. Coover, Esquire Attorney 1D 93285 4311 N. Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 DEBORAH L. SMITH V. THOM LEWIS Plaintiff Defendant TO: Thom Lewis, Defendant, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Motion to Strike Preliminary Objections for Failure to Serve Brief Upon Plaintiff in a Timely Manner within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, by Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-783-4860(w) 717-234-4503 (h) Dated: May 9, 2006 DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE BRIEF UPON PLAINTIFF IN A TIMELY MANNER AND NOW comes Plaintiff pro se Deborah L. Smith, who avers the following: 1. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 30, 2006. Defendant filed an Answer with New Matter in the form of a Counterclaim on March 9, 2006. Plaintiff filed Preliminary Objections to both the Answer and the New Matter and Counterclaim on March 29, 2006, along with a Praecipe to the Prothonotary to list the Preliminary Objections for the next Argument Court, May 17, 2006. Defendant then filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff s Preliminary Objections on April 25, 2006, and on April 21 served Plaintiff with a Praecipe to the Prothonotary to list Preliminary Objections for the same Argument Court date, May 17, 2006. 2. Cumberland County Local Rule 1028(c)(5) governing the briefing schedule of Preliminary Objections states that the party filing the Preliminary Objections shall serve a copy of the brief in support of the objecting party's position upon opposing counsel or any unrepresented party twelve (12) days before the date set for argument. These Rules exist to ensure fairness to both parties and to give each party an equal opportunity to respond to the briefs. According to the Court Administrator, the briefs should have been in the possession of both parties by May 5, 2006 - not in the mail after that date. 3. Plaintiff pro se Smith complied fully with this Rule. Opposing counsel Sheri D. Coover was personally hand-delivered a copy of Plaintiffs brief on May 5, 2006 at approximately 1:20 p.m. at the law firm of Bailey & Ostrowski, the requisite twelve (12) days before Argument Court (see Exhibit "A" attached hereto, a copy of the first and last pages of Plaintiff s brief with Coover's signature on the last page acknowledging receipt on May 5). 4. Unlike Plaintiff pro se Smith, Defendant - who is represented by counsel - has utterly and deliberately failed to comply with this Rule. Plaintiff was not served by Defendant with any brief on May 5, May 6 or May 7. Instead, Plaintiff received Defendant's brief in the mail at 5:20 p.m. on Monday, May 8, 2006 - a full three (3) days after Plaintiff had timely served Defendant. 5. Although Defendant's Certificate of Service claims that Defendant served Plaintiff on May 5 by mail, the postmark on the envelope containing the brief Plaintiff received in the mail on Monday, May 8 at 5:20 p.m. contradicts this claim (see Exhibit "B" attached hereto, a copy of this envelope with postmark). The envelope is postmarked May 6, 2006 (Saturday), "p.m." This guaranteed that the soonest that Plaintiff would receive a copy of Defendant's brief was Monday, May 8 - a clear violation of both the spirit and the letter of Local Rule 1028(c)(5). 6. Plaintiff believes it is especially significant that Defendant did furnish a copy of his brief to the Court Administrator in a timely manner by May 5, 2006. However, Defendant deliberately chose not to serve Plaintiff at the same time Defendant furnished his brief to the Court Administrator. In other words, Defendant deliberately withheld the brief from Plaintiff in a transparent attempt to drastically reduce the time that Plaintiff- a non-lawyer - could respond to Defendant's brief. 7. Unlike Plaintiff pro se Smith - who had her brief hand-delivered to Defendant's counsel personally on May 5, 2006 and also had her brief hand-delivered to the Court Administrator on the same day - Defendant deliberately furnished his brief to the Court Administrator on a different day - and earlier - than he served Plaintiff. This is proven by the fact that the Court Administrator received Defendant's brief by May 5, 2006. It would have been impossible for Plaintiff to have received Defendant's brief by May 5 because Defendant deliberately chose to send Plaintiff his brief on a later date. 8. As stated above, even Defendant's claim that he served Plaintiff on May 5 by mail is suspect at best, since the postmark on the envelope shows May 6, 2006 (Saturday), "p.m." - thus ensuring that Plaintiff would not receive Defendant's brief until after the weekend of May 5-7. Defendant's deliberate withholding of the brief from Plaintiff while furnishing it in a timely manner to the Court Administrator shows Defendant's clear intent to drastically reduce the amount of time that Plaintiff, a non-lawyer, can respond to Defendant's brief. Consequently, Defendant has deliberately defied both the spirit and the letter of this Local Rule by making the conscious choice not to serve his brief upon Plaintiff in the same timely manner mandated by Local Rule 1028(c)(5) as he served the Court Administrator - even after Defendant's counsel Sheri D. Coover was personally served by hand-delivery a copy of Plaintiff's brief in the early afternoon of May 5, 2006 at the law firm of Bailey & Ostrowski. 9. Moreover, by furnishing his brief to the Court Administrator by May 5, Defendant clearly had his brief completed by that time. Despite this, Defendant deliberately chose not to serve Plaintiff at the same time he furnished the brief to the Court Administrator, instead withholding the brief so that Plaintiff received it in the mail on Monday, May 8 at 5:20 p.m. 10. Plaintiff further notes that Defendant has also failed to comply with the notice requirements contained in the Praecipe to List his Preliminary Objections for Argument Court. Defendant pledged in Paragraph 3 of this Praecipe that he would "notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument." Defendant notified Plaintiff in writing of the Argument Court listing on the same day, May 8, 2006, that Plaintiff received his brief. This appears to be at least one week after the Prothonotary's Notice, dated April 27, 2006, that the case had been listed for argument (see Exhibit "C" attached hereto). Defendant included this Notice from thefProthonotary in the package received by Plaintiff in the mail on May 8. 11. This constitutes further proof of Defendant's blatant disregard for timely notice requirements mandated by this court's rules. 12. Unlike Defendant, Plaintiffpro se Smith fully complied with these Praecipe notice requirements by notifying opposing counsel as mandated by Paragraph 3 of the Praecipe. 13. Local Rule 1028(c)(5) expressly states that if the party that has filed the Preliminary Objections has not filed a timely brief in accordance with this Rule, the court may deny the relief sought on that basis alone, and that argument may be denied for failing to comply with the briefing schedule requirements outlined in this Rule. 14. Defendant has consciously failed to serve a timely brief upon Plaintiff, in clear violation of Local Rule 1028(c)(5). Defendant's deliberate actions have prejudiced Plaintiff's ability to respond to Defendant's brief. Plaintiff is representing herselfpro se and has a full-time job, working Monday through Friday. Defendant's failure to comply with this Rule has made it all but impossible for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's brief in the timely manner required by this Rule - in this case, a reply brief that Plaintiff must furnish to the Court Administrator and serve upon opposing counsel by Friday, May 12, 2006. Because Plaintiff works full-time Monday through Friday, the lost weekend of May 5-7, 2006 caused by Defendant's deliberate failure to comply with this Rule becomes that much more prejudicial to Plaintiff. 15. Because of Defendant's deliberate defiance of this Local Rule, Plaintiff pro se Smith, a non- lawyer, has a mere three (3) days to respond to Defendant's brief before it is due on May 12. This would for all intents and purposes be impossible for Plaintiff - and would be a direct result of Defendant's deliberate and conscious decision to violate this Rule. 16. Defendant's deliberate failure to serve Plaintiff in the requisite timely manner both violates Local Rule 1028(c)(5) and clearly prejudices Plaintiff. 17. Plaintiff left a message on May 9 on opposing counsel's voicemail asking if she concurred with this Motion but has been so far unsuccessful in directly speaking with counsel. Plaintiff included her phone number in the voicemail message but will continue to attempt to contact Defendant's counsel and notify the court when contact is made. Plaintiff believes that Defendant will not concur with this Motion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pro se Deborah L. Smith requests that this court strike Defendant's Preliminary Objections for failure to serve his brief upon Plaintiff in a timely manner, in violation of Cumberland County Local Rule 1028(c)(5) governing the briefing schedule for Preliminary Objections. Respectfully submitted, 0 4.f? Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se 1302 Upton Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-783-4860 (w); 717-234-4503 (h) Dated: May 9, 206 3 4 A Det \1 e ea bb 40 Coover - Sl? S i rp- AS+ fA J L 5- 5 of DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPERTINENT AND SCANDALOUS MATTER AND PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM Introduction This matter comes before the Court on the Preliminary Objections and Motion to Strike filed by Deborah L. Smith (Plaintiff pro se) on March 29, 2006. The matter commenced on January 30, 2006, when Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint seeking to enforce the promises of Thom Lewis (Defendant) to repay money that Plaintiff loaned to Defendant. On March 9, 2006, Defendant filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint with New Matter in the nature of a Counterclaim. Plaintiff now submits this brief in support of her Preliminary Objections and Motion to Strike. Argument 1. The Court Should Strike the Impertinent Matter and Scandalous Matter in Paragraph 40 of Defendant's Answer. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2),l the Court may strike any impertinent or scandalous matter raised in a pleading. In Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108, 115 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998), affirmed. 562 Pa. 632, 757 A.2d 367 (2000), the court struck as scandalous and impertinent a party's "editorialized history of ' Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2) allows a party to raise preliminary objections based on the inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter. Defendant lacks standing to seek an award of contract damages for himself on behalf of a now-disbanded charitable organization. Moreover, the Court may not personally enrich Defendant based on allegations that Plaintiff failed to remit adoption fees to a charity. The Court should dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim. Respectfully submitted, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiffpro se 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-783-4860(w) 717-234-4503 (h) d?. 77 C3 ? 2 M W p ? w ? O p C.J N ? O o is D (r') . Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County Curtis R. Long Prothonotary Ms. Sheri D. Coover, Esquire 4311 N. Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 DATE: April 27, 2006 TO: Attorney Coover: THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT CASE NUMBER 05-6365, Deborah L. Smith VS. Thom Lewis HAS BEEN LISTED FOR ARGUMENT ON May 17.2006. Cumberland County Argument Court Rules 1028(c), 1034(x) and 1035.2(a) shall be strictly enforced. If the issue was listed for prior argument you must re-file your brief as per Local Rule 1028(c)10. Curtis R. Long Prothonotary VERIFICATION I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro so in the foregoing Motion to Strike Defendant's Preliminary Objections for Failure to Serve Brief Upon Plaintiff in a Timely Manner (No. 2005-6365 Civil), do hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Motion to Strike Defendant's Preliminary Objections for Failure to Serve Brief Upon Plaintiff in a Timely Manner (No. 2005-6365 Civil) are true upon my personal knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. d 9- JMA t Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiffpro se DEBORAH L. SMITH Plaintiff V. THOM LEWIS Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se in the above-captioned action, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Strike Defendant's Preliminary Objections for Failure to Serve Brief Upon Plaintiff in a Timely Manner (No. 2005-6365 Civil) dated May 9, 2006 has been served upon the following: Sheri Coover, Esq. Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 by placing same in the U.S. mail, properly addressed to counsel for Defendant Thom Lewis, this 9`h day of May, 2006. O4L Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: May 9, 2006 r. i c m i". MAY 0 9 '?/006 DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMO : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA L Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER AND NOW, this 9 . day of 0 747 2006, upon consideration of the attached Motion, + rre-?rperrl?i??g-nrAme?lle£r rlant' hriyf , ,...•••r:.,.. 1.:? n.. an •, Pl?•; r,;, it f,w; u.y? l /?+? ',T `? Zoo 6 ? ? ra. -4t.ti, hi, 6M ' 110 hMMV/i LASNN3d BS 4Z Wd 6- AN9OOZ klVi 3 '? 3 J0 DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND NOW comes Plaintiff pro se Deborah L. Smith, who avers the following in support of this Motion: 1. On May 12, 2006, Plaintiff received in the mail from Defendant's counsel a Notice of Deposition scheduled to commence on May 22, 2006. The Notice contained numerous errors, including the wrong county (and consequently, an invalid case number) and the demand for a jury trial (see Exhibit "A" attached hereto). 2. Plaintiff received this Notice less than one week before the May 17, 2006 oral argument she is to present at Argument Court relating to her and Defendant's Preliminary Objections. Because Plaintiff, a non-lawyer, has never presented an oral argument, preparing for this argument will be extremely difficult and time-consuming. Moreover, if Plaintiff loses her Preliminary Objections regarding Defendant's Counterclaim, Plaintiff will have to file an Answer within 20 days after receiving the court's order. 3. Even under ideal circumstances, this short-notice time schedule would be daunting at best, and unfair to Plaintiff. But Plaintiffs circumstances are the opposite of ideal, and necessitate her filing this Motion to Stay Discovery. 4. On May 5, 2006, Plaintiff's mother, whom Plaintiff was extremely close to, passed away. Plaintiff buried her mother on May 9 while still attempting to deal with this legal issue in a timely manner. In addition to the inherent and overwhelming grief currently being endured by Plaintiff, there are numerous daughterly duties to which Plaintiff must attend. Plaintiff's parents were married for 50 years - celebrating their golden anniversary this past New Year's Eve - and her devastated father needs help with various needs, both now and in the immediate future. In addition, Plaintiff's daughter is distraught over her grandmother's death, and Plaintiff must attend to her needs as well. A death certificate can be provided to the court if necessary. 5. In addition, Plaintiff's daughter is getting married on July 1, 2006. She is an Army veteran, having recently served twice in Afghanistan in military intelligence. Her fiance is currently on active duty (Army - military intelligence), having served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and is currently stationed in Ft. Bragg, NC. Plaintiff is a widow, so she and her daughter are planning the wedding themselves. Despite the overwhelming grief both Plaintiff and her daughter are currently enduring because of the death of Plaintiffs mother, there are details that nevertheless must be addressed regarding the wedding, including but not limited to the shower/bachelorette party; final wedding gown fitting; wedding rehearsal; organist; invitation responses; seating charts and many other details. These young adults deserve, and are relying enormously on, Plaintiff s help up to, and including, the wedding day. 6. In addition, Plaintiff's daughter is graduating from Harrisburg Area Community College on Monday, May 15th, 2006 and Plaintiff must attend the graduation. 7. Plaintiff is currently absent from her full-time job for a total of five non-consecutive sick bereavement days leave. Plaintiff must also be absent on Wednesday, May 17th to present oral argument at argument court. To be required to take additional leave so soon, for Deposition, would be an extraordinary and unfair burden given Plaintiff's devastating grief, her need to support her father and daughter at this tragic time, her daughter's wedding preparations, etc., all in combination with the extreme pressure of continuing to work a full-time job Monday through Friday while attempting to meet all of the legal requirements, deadlines and other matters inherent in this lawsuit - including potentially having to file an Answer if she loses her Preliminary Objections regarding Defendant's Counterclaim - all without benefit of counsel. Plaintiff does not have the luxury of having a lawyer attend to her legal matters because Plaintiff does not have an attorney. 8. Indeed, since Plaintiff is filing pro se, it takes far more time and effort to prepare for legal matters than it does for clients who are represented by counsel. This is especially true for a Deposition, which will require an extreme amount of time for Plaintiff to prepare for, especially since (1) Plaintiff has no attorney who can help her prepare, and (2) Plaintiff will be unrepresented by counsel at the deposition, necessitating that Plaintiff spend much more time to prepare. Moreover, it would take even more - much more - time and effort for Plaintiff to prepare given her current extenuating circumstances as outlined above. 9. It is has been physically, emotionally, and financially overwhelming to Plaintiff to deal with all these matters at the same time. To suddenly be required to prepare for Discovery - especially a Deposition - on such short notice seems at best unfair and not consistent with the interests of justice, especially since Plaintiff is without the benefit of counsel. After the wedding on July 1, 2006, and after a small interval of time has passed after her mother's devastating death, Plaintiff would be better able to cope with the extensive time and effort required for a non-lawyer to deal with the necessary legal preparations inherent in Discovery, especially a Deposition. Because Plaintiff's full-time job requires preparation for Professional Licensure Board Meetings to be held on July 12th and 27`h, 2006, Plaintiff is requesting a Stay that would fall in between those dates. 10. This requested Stay is relatively short in duration, will not prejudice any party's substantive rights, will not unduly delay the adjudication of this matter, and is in the interests of justice. 11. Plaintiff spoke with Defendant's counsel on May 15, 2006 regarding Defendant's concurrence with this Motion. Defendant does not concur with this Motion. 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant Plaintiff a Stay on Discovery until July 13, 2006 in light of the various extenuating circumstances outlined in this Motion. Respectfully submitted, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-783-4860 (w) 717-234-4503 (h) Dated: May 15, 2006 3 C-) 0 '!7 t ' i ' a. 3 r z L F Cil n 4? C._ rn CD W -< ?5K k 1?bj A IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA DEBORAH L. SMITB Plaint VS. ¦ THOM LEWIS r Defendants } NO. 2005.6365 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED? NOTIC]g E DEPOSITION "TO: Debra Smith, Pro Se 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 PLEASE TARE NOTICE that on May 22, 20at 10:00 a.m. a deposition will be taken at the law offices of Bailey & Ostrowski, 4311 N. 6`h Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 upon examination pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure before a Notary Public from P.R. Video Inc. P.O. Box 5228, Harrisburg, PA 17110-5228. The examination will continue from day to day until completed. Respe tfully Subm* ted, ?. ?? A r-t Sheri Coover, Esquire 4311 N. 6`h Street Harrisburg, Pa 17110 717.221.9500 VERIFICATION I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro so in the foregoing Motion to Stay Discovery (No. 2005-6365 Civil), do hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Motion to Stay Discovery (No. 2005-6365 Civil) are true upon my personal knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiff pro se DEBORAH L. SMITH Plaintiff V. THOM LEWIS Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Deborah L. Smith, Plaintiffpro se in the above-captioned action, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Stay Discovery (No. 2005-6365 Civil) dated May 15, 2006 has been served upon the following: Sheri Coover, Esq. Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 by placing same in the U.S. mail, properly addressed to counsel for Defendant Thom Lewis, this 15t day of May, 2006. Deborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: May 15, 2006 e"? Cr N ca° , cx. ^C Rir- ??? -va'r't C 7 T'i Q w MAY 1 5 200y DEBORAH L. SMITH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. : NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL THOM LEWIS Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER AND NOW, this ,es• day of _ A !!? 2006, upon consideration of the attached Motion, Plaintiff is granted a Stay on discovery until July 13, 2006 in the above-captioned matter. Defendant's counsel, Sheri Coover, Esq., Bailey & Ostrowski, 4311 North Sixth Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, shall be duly notified of this Order. J. 0 ylfddR`L?SNN3d uun: } C I cg Wd S 1 IN 9002 AMONOH108d Mi d0 30WCrd U DEBORAH L. SMITH, Plaintiff v. THOM LEWIS, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL ACTION -LAW Please enter the appearance of Shana M. Pugh, Esquire, in the above-captioned action for the Plaintiff Deborah L. Smith. Date: 0014 e2la Shana M. Pugh, Esquir? Law Offices of Patrick Lauer, Jr., LLC 2108 Market Street Camp Dill, Pennsylvania 17011 ID# 200952 Tel. (717) 763-1800 (,_) ra L ._ m ? Y iv ;xi BEFORE HESS OLER AND EBERT, J.J. ORDER AND NOW, this Z 4 ` day of June, 2006, following argument, it is ordered and DEBORAH L. SMITH, Plaintiff vs. THOM LEWIS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-6365 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM directed that: 1. The preliminary objection of the plaintiff to that portion of paragraph 40 of the defendant's answer making reference to perjured testimony is SUSTAINED and said allegation is stricken as scandalous and impertinent. 2. The preliminary objections of the plaintiff asserting lack of capacity to sue and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted are DENIED. 3. The preliminary objections of the defendant are DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin 41. Hess, J. n ?. ;, . ,rye =si i 1 _ c; lIJ Ak . ?. .ZSeborah L. Smith 1302 Upton Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110 Pro Se Plaintiff /eri D. Coover, Esquire For the Defendant DEBORAH L. SMITH, Plaintiff VS. THOM LEWIS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-6365 CIVIL ACTION-LAW PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM 45. Denied. Defendant's former non-profit business, Collie Rescue of Central Pennsylvania, did not acquire cats for adoption to the public. 46. Denied. Plaintiff acquired four dogs from the Collie Rescue of Central Pennsylvania, and one cat from the Defendant's personal menagerie between October 18, 2003 and December 2004. 47. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff desired to adopt one of the problem dogs that Plaintiff had fostered during her association with Defendant. It is denied that Plaintiff indicated in May 2005, she wanted to adopt that dog or the other four animals. 48. Denied. Defendant did not advise Plaintiff that the standard adoption fee for the pets she adopted was $250.00. In the normal course of business, any adoption fees were payable to Collie Rescue of Central Pennsylvania, a non-profit corporation, not to Defendant as an individual. In the normal course of business, Defendant, doing business as Collie Rescue of Central Pennsylvania, Inc., did not charge an adoption fee for old, sick, or problem dogs. All of the animals in Plaintiff's possession were of that class, including the first dog which was subsequently put to sleep on June 14, 2005. Defendant did not charge Plaintiff for the first such dog Plaintiff adopted, as indicated by the adoption record attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. 49. Denied. Plaintiff did not agree to pay an adoption fee for any of the animals in an oral or written contract. 50. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff has three dogs and one cat in her possession. It is denied that Plaintiff failed to provide payment as no payment for the animals was due to Defendant individually or to Collie Rescue of Central Pennsylvania, Inc. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor, and against Defendant, and to dismiss all counterclaims with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, Date:liZ-_! L Q Shana M. Pugh, Esquirii?S Law Offices of Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., LLC 2108 Market Street, Aztec Building Camp Hill, Pennsylvania ID# 200952 Tel. (717) 763-1800 Attorney for Plaintiff' A CONTRACT Dog's call name (Rescue name) Laassia 0303' (Sotshif?)tiSex_F_ Color fable d vrhkra COllle Eye color s n coat: Rough Pu+ s LgAf ' IIV1 ?a; I 0V Adopted an Aug 25, 2003, by War hm4y. Contract was signed on Oct 18, 2006 The person or persons adopting the animal wU be referred to as "r in this oantraat. t15 1) 1 agree to accept this animal as a HOUSE PET and COMPANION, and provide Proper shelter from the elements when TEMPORARILY placed outside. 2) 1 agree to provide food. water, shelter, appropriate vet care, and loving humane treabnent to this animal at all umes. 3) 1 agree not to let this animal be used for vivisection or experimental purposes. 4) 1 agree net to abandon this anirnal. N I find' myself unable or unwilling to can" with this contract, I will return the dog to COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA- INC, after giving proper rAftedon. I w3 not sell or give this animal any other person without prior pemdssion from COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA INC. 5) 1 agree to !keep this animals Hamm and vacdrations current at all tines. 6) 1 agree to nodry COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA INC. ythis animal Is lost, stolen or dies. 7) 1 agree to notify COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA INC. of any change of address or phone number immediately. 8)1 understand that COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA INC. makes no representsom warn enty or guars that this animal does not bite. 9) 1 understand that COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA INC, makes no representatior% warronly or guarantee as to the hearth or deposition of this animal because COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA INC. Is uncertain of this animals background. 10) 1 understand that COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA INC. has the tight to repossess this animal if any part of this contract is broken. 11) 1 understand Out COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA INC. Is not part of the HUMANE SOCIETY, SPCA or any other animal welfare agency, but they will receive a copy of this contract when aver an animal Is adopted, 12) 1 will assume all cast for ifiness, injury, and preventative care as of the debe Iced on this contrak3. 13) 1 will have this animal sPeyedfneutered within 60 days of the date listed on this contract (If anknal has not steady been spayefteutered). I hereby accept possession, legal ownership, and responsibtilityforthe animal I adapted and discharge COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA, INC., and it's representatives, forever from liability for any injury or damages to any person or property caused in the future by said animal, and from any causes of action, claims, suits, or demands whatsoever that may arise as a result of such 4njuly or damages. I assume full responsibility for this animals health welfare and behavior at this date and time. Representable of COLLIE RESCUE OF CENTRAL PA, INC. Thom Lwrht Collie Rescue of Central PA, Inc. 253 Texaco Road Mechanicsburg, PA 170552629 717-691-7213 www.collie-rescue.org Spay/neRer Dsp; Adoption fee: Total: Saph,?. Age DEBORAH L. SMITH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 2005-6365 THOM LEWIS, : CIVIL ACTION-LAW Defendant VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Answer are true and correct. I understand that statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 04? JI ° U47V / , Deborah L. Smith DEBORAH L. SMITH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 2005-6365 THOM LEWIS, : CIVIL ACTION-LAW Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Shana M. Pugh, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM upon the person, and in the manner, indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing the same through first class mail, postage pre-paid, addressed as follows: Thom Lewis c/o Sheri D. Coover, Esquire 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Respectfully submitted, 21agu!? Shana M. Pugh, Esquire 11 Law Offices of Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., LLC 2108 Market Street, Aztec Building Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011-4706 Date: ID# 200952 (717) 763-1800 o . y'1'i rZr f:. ., ? co DEBORAH L. SMITH, Plaintiff VS. THOM LEWIS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2005 - 6365 : CIVIL ACTION-LAW PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Shana M. Pugh, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiff in the above action, respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. 2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is $6,811.50. The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is $1,250.00. The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Marlin L. Markley, Esquire. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. P ctfully su 'UJDA S hana M. Pugh, Esquire Law Offices of Patrick F. Ler, Jr., LLC 2108 Market Street, Aztec Bldg. Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011 ID# 200952 Tel. (717) 763-1800 AND NOW, petition, and captioned action as prayed for. 2006, in consideration of the foregoing Esq., Esq., Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above- By the Court, ORDER OF COURT J. T -4 F Z() 0 K Mr, y. C- c? ? tV N -2 C..3 GJ O b rn IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DEBORAH L. SMITH, CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiff : 2005-6365 V. THOM LEWIS, Defendant PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASE The parties have reached an agreement and signed a release that the Plaintiff will withdraw her claims with prejudice and without the payment of any consideration or compensation of any kind by Defendant or anyone affiliated with Defendant. Additionally, Defendant will withdraw his counter-claims with prejudice and without the payment of any consideration or compensation of any kind by Plaintiff or anyone affiliated with the Plaintiff. Each party shall bear its counsel fees and costs. atrick Lauer, Esquire 108 Market Street, Aztec Bldg. Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 763=1800 Attorney for Plaintiff -If Date Jeri D. Coover, Esquire 4311 N. Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 221-9500 Attorney for Defendant i- Qq-X07 Date rv q 0 t'tR k. 7 ' .. C- J.'J4 --4 C n 3' Ln? o t 3 c-n DEBORAH L. SMITH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. THOM LEWIS, DEFENDANT 05-6365 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this to day of February, 2007, the appointment of a Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case, IS VACATED and Henry F. Coyne, Esquire, Chairman, shall be paid the sum of $50.00. By the Court Edgar B. Bayley, J. Henry F. Coyne, Esquire a.ao-v7 Court Administrator v., :sal .S 2 F-- c i N DEBORAH L. SMITH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. THOM LEWIS, DEFENDANT 05-6365 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1 day of February, 2007, the appointment of a Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case, IS VACATED and Henry F. Coyne, Esquire, Chairman, shall be paid the sum of $50.00. By the Court Edgar B. Bayley, J. Henry F. Coyne, Esquire a.?aa-a7 Court Administrator :sal ? ? W _T ti?Sf ? ? ? .i? M i! "??