Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-6668O 6. STACY B. WOLF, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO.88732 37 S. HANOVER STREET SUITES 201-202 CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CLECHACHAR FARM, INC. and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA individually, and HOLLYHURST FARM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW and BETSY MORRET, individually, Plaintiffs v. LONE OAK, LTD. and : NO. 2005 - SPS¢?_ CIVIL TERM LANA MEIDINGER, individually, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment maybe entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9180 or (717) 249-3166 STACY B. WOLF, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 88732 37 S. HANOVER STREET SUITES 201-202 CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) T4I-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CLECHACHAR FARM, INC. and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA individually, and HOLLYHURST FARM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW and BETSY MORRET, individually, Plaintiffs V. LONE OAK, LTD. and LANA MEIDINGER, individually, Defendants NO. 2005 - 6 664" CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT NOW come the plaintiffs, Clechachar Farm, Inc. and Judy Guido and Janine Guido, individually, and Hollyhurst Farm and Betsy Morret, individually, by and through their counsel, StacyB. Wolf, Esquire and set forth this complaint averring as follows: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Clechachar Farm, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at 1216 Brandt Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff, Judy Guido is a stockholder in and the President and Manager of Clechachar Farm, Inc. residing at 1216 Brandt Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff, Janine Guido is a stockholder in and the Vice President and Co-manager of Clechachar Farm, Inc. residing at 1216 Brandt Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Plaintiffs Clechachar Farm, Inc. and Judy and Janine Guido are engaged in the business of training, selling, and boarding horses and instructing equestrian students. Plaintiff, Hollyhurst Farm is a Pennsylvania business entity operating at 499 Zion Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff, Betsy Morret is the individual owner of Hollyhurst Farm residing at 499 Zion Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. Plaintiffs Hollyhurst Farm and Betsy Morret are engaged in the business of training, selling, and boarding horses and instructing equestrian students. 8. Defendant, Lone Oak, Ltd. is a Pennsylvania Corporation with its principal place of business at 2250 Lambs Gap Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 9. Defendant, Lana Meidinger is the individual owner of Lone Oak, Ltd. residing at 2250 Lambs Gap Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 10. At all relevant times and places, Defendant Lone Ciak, Ltd. acted by and through its officers, agents, representatives, and/or employees, who in turn were acting within the scope of their office, agency, representation, and/or employment, and on behalf of Defendant. 11. At all relevant times and places, Defendant Lana Meidinger acted individually and/or in her capacity as officer, agent and/or representative and on behalf of Defendant Lone Oak, Ltd. 12. Defendants are engaged in the equestrian equipment and tack business for public retail use. H. BACKGROUND 13. To provide background and context for the actionable statements that follow: (a) Plaintiff Clechachar Fame, Inc. owned a horse named Stuart which it decided to give without compensation to a suitable home because the horse had an ankle injury and was unmarketable; and (b) Jim Law, the husband of one of Plaintiff's customers, Doris law, showed an interest in Stuart, rode Stuart, but because he and his wife already had a horse, told Plaintiffs one of his parishioners might instead be interested in Stuart; and (c) Doris Law found a person, by the name of Kathy Grimes, who agreed to provide Stuart with a suitable home. III. ACTIONABLE FACTS 14. Doris Law and Kathy Grimes went to Lone Oak, Ltd. on or about October 14, 2005 to buy treats for Stuart. They asked the owner of Lone Oak, Ltd., Defendant Lana Meidinger, what she thought about Ms. Grimes taking Stuart. Defendant Meidinger and/or other agents or employees of Lone Oak, Ltd. then and there present stated verbally that: (a) If Stuart was quiet when Jim [Law] rode him he must have been drugged; and (b) There is something wrong with all of the horses they [Clechachar Farm, Inc. and the Guidos] have for sale: bad back, stiff. 15. When Ms. Law and Ms. Grimes stated to Defendant Meidinger that Plaintiffs wanted to find Stuart a suitable home rather than to see him put to sleep, Defendant Meidinger and/or other agents or employees of Lone Oak, Ltd. stated verbally that: (a) They[Clechachar Fame, Inc. and the Guidos] just want you to pay board for a year and then they [Clechachar Farm, Inc. and the Guidos] will take it [Stuart] from you and sell it [Stuart]; and (b) They [Clechachar Farm, Inc. and the Guidos] do not put horses to sleep. If they [Clechachar Farm, Inc. and the Guidos] have a horse they[Clechachar Farm, Inc. and the Guidos] do not want, they [Clechachar Farm, Inc. and the Guidos] give it to Betsy[Morret] to shoot in the head. 16. Defendant Meidinger and/or other agents or employees of Lone Oak, Ltd. then and there present made the statements and published them knowing that they were false. 17. Defendant Meidinger made these statements and published them while acting individually and/or within the scope of her capacity as officer, agent, and/or representative of Lone Oak, Ltd. and/or other agents or employees of Lone Oak, Ltd. trade these statements and published them while acting within the scope of their capacity as agent and/or employee of Lone Oak, Ltd. 18. Defendant Meidinger and/or other agents or employees of Lone Oak, Ltd. made and published these statements to Doris Law, a customer of Clechachar Farm, Inc., to Kathy Grimes, a friend of Doris Law, and in the presence of employees and other customers at Lone CWa , Ltd. 14. Plaintiffs suffered impairment of reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering as a result of defamatory comments made by Defendant Lana Meidinger and/or other agents or employees at Lone Oak, Ltd. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendants and for Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $35,000 for compensatory damages and punitive damages, and any additional relief the Court deems appropriate. COUNTI Slander Per Se Clechachar Farm Inc an Ji* Guido and Janine Guido individuallyv. Lone Oak, Ltd and Lana Meidinger, individually 20. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs one through nineteen, above, as though the same were set forth herein at length. 21. Said statements made by Defendant Meidinger and/or other agents or employees are slander per se because the statements imputed to Plaintiffs conduct incompatible with their business and such statements accuse Plaintiffs of committing acts which are a crime, punishable by unpnsonment. 22. As a result of the above described defamation, Plaintiffs suffered impairment of their personal and business reputations and standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering. 23. Defendant Lone Oak, Ltd. is jointly and severally liable for the defamatory statements of Defendant Meidinger and/or other agents or employees because they were acting within their scope as officer, agent, representative, and/or employee and in furtherance of Lone Oak, Ltd.'s business. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in an amount in excess of $35,000 for compensatory damages and punitive damages against Defendants, and any additional relief the Court deems appropriate. COUNT II Slander Per Se Hollyhtust Farm and Betsy Morret individuallvv Lone Oak Ltd. and Lana Meidinger, individuallv 24. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs one through twentythree, above, as though the same were set forth herein at length. 25. Said statements made byDefendant Meidinger and/or other agents or employees are slander per se because the statements accuse Plaintiffs of committing acts which are a crime, punishable by imprisonment. 26. As a result of the above described defamation, Plaintiffs suffered impairment of their personal and business reputations and standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering. 27. Defendant Lone Oak, Ltd. is jointly and severally liable for the defamatory statements of Defendant Meidinger and/or other agents or employees because they were acting within their scope as officer, agent, representative, and/or employee and in furtherance of Lone Oak, Ltd.'s business. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in sum in excess of $35,000 for compensatory damages and punitive damages against Defendants, and any additional relief the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Date: jb ' -O, 2005 WOLF & WOLF 0 4-- BY: STAC . WOLF, ESQMRE 37 South Hanover Street Suites 201-202 Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-4436 Supreme Court ID. # 88732 Attorney for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION We, the undersigned, hereby verify that we are the plaintiffs in the above-referenced action and that the facts stated in the above complaint are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 54904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. P (Q )Le r (?-,2005 JUIYY GU O r T L rJ L? T't1 CD {n - r? a f_I1 14 f H Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants CLECHACHAR FARM, INC. and JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, individually and HOLLYHURST FARM and BETSY MORRET, individually, Plaintiffs V. LONE OAK, LTD. and LANA MEIDINGER, individually, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-6668 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter the appearance of Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire of Goldberg Katzman, P.C. on behalf of the Defendants in the above-captioned matter. GOLDBERG I ATZMAN, P.C. B Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney ID #32085 PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorney for Defendants Date: January 3, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that on this date, I served the foregoing document, via U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the persons set forth below, namely: Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire 37 South Hanover Street, Suite 201-202 Carlisle, PA 17013 GOLDBERG I-,ATZMAN, P.C. Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: January 3, 2006 ;-? , n -_ ; r ._? ? ? ? ?,- ;, r-- ?_ _,? ; ,, ;;_, _n Ti r; ?.? ? -, •, ?; ?, Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Carly J. Wismer, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 CLECHACHAR FARM INC. and JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, individually, and HOLLYHURST FARM and BETSY MORRET, individually Plaintiffs vs. LONE OAK, LTD. and LANA MEIDINGER, individually, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-6668 CIVIL TERM Y TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Clechachar Farm, Inc., Judy Guido, Janine Guido, Hollyhurst Farm, and Betsy Morret c/o Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire WOLF & WOLF 37 South Hanover Street, Suites 210-202 Carlisle, PA 17013 YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within New Matter within 20 days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. GOLDBERG ILITZMAN, P.C. B?' f > Tl-i6mas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney ID # 32085 Carly J. Wismer, Esquire Attorney ID # 92598 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Date: January 13, 2006 Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney ID # 32085 Carly J. Wismer, Esquire Attorney ID # 92598 Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendant CLECHACHAR FARM INC. and JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, individually, and HOLLYHURST FARM and BETSY MORRET, individually Plaintiffs VS. LONE OAK, LTD. and LANA MEIDINGER, individually, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-6668 CIVIL TERM Y TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant Lone Oak, Ltd. and Lana Meidinger, individually, by their attorneys, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who state: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering parties are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this paragraph. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering parties are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this paragraph. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering parties are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this paragraph. 4. Denied in part. Defendants are aware that Judy and Janine Guido engaged in selling horses. The remainder of the paragraph is denied and proof thereof is demanded. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied as stated. Gale and Lana Meidinger are the owners of Lone Oak, Ltd. to which no response is required. 10. Admitted. 11. Denied. Defendant Lana Meidinger was working in the Lone Oak, Ltd. store at the time of her discussions with Doris Law and Cathy Grimes. 12. Admitted. 13. (a) Denied. This paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (b) Denied. This paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (c) Denied. This paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. Denied. Doris Law and Cathy Grimes were present to buy treats for horses. They discussed the possible acquisition of a horse without identifying the horse by name. (a) Denied. Defendant Lana Meidinger did not discuss a horse named Stuart. (b) Denied. 15. Denied. Defendant Meidinger did not discuss a horse named Stuart with Doris Law and Cathy Grimes. In further response, Defendant Meidinger was the only person who spoke with Doris Law and Cathy Grimes. (a) Denied as stated. Ms. Meidinger did indicate that the owners of the horse might be seeking the horse to be acquired so they could earn board for the horse. In further response, there was no discussion about a horse named Stuart. (b) Denied. 16. Denied. Lana Meidinger was the only person who spoke with Doris Law and Cathy Grimes. The statements made by Lana Meidinger were truthful. 17. Denied in part. No persons other than Defendant Meidinger spoke with Doris Law and Cathy Grimes. It is denied that the statements set forth above were made by Defendant Meidinger. The answers to paragraphs 14 and 15 are incorporated herein by reference. 18. Denied in part. No persons other than Defendant Meidinger spoke with Doris Law and Cathy Grimes. It is denied that the statements set forth above were made by Defendant Meidinger. The answers to paragraphs 14 and 15 are incorporated herein by reference. 19. Denied. This paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The statements were made Defendant Lana Meidinger alone. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNTI 20. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 19 above are incorporated herein by reference. 21. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is denied that Defendant Meidinger and/or other agents or employees of Lone Oak, Ltd. made and published false statements. It is denied that Defendant Meidinger's statements constituted slander per se. It is denied that Defendant Meidinger's statements accused Plaintiffs of any crime. 22. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is denied that Defendants made defamatory statements or that the Plaintiffs suffered impairment as a result of said statements. In further response, the paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 23. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. COUNT II 24. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 23 above are incorporated herein by reference. 25. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is denied that Defendant Meidinger and/or other agents or employees of Lone Oak, Ltd. made and published false statements. It is denied that Defendant Meidinger's statements constituted slander per se. It is denied that Defendant Meidinger's statements accused Plaintiffs of any crime. 26. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is denied that Defendants made defamatory statements or that the Plaintiffs suffered impairment as a result of said statements. In further response, the paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 27. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request Count II of the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. NEW MATTER 28. Any and all statements made by the Defendants were truthful. 29. Any and all statements made by the Defendants was an exercise of the right of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section VII of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 30. The Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 31. Any and all statements made by Defendants were reasonable and justified. 32. The Plaintiffs have not suffered any damage as a result of the alleged statements. 33. Any and all statements made by Defendants were without malice. 34. Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for mental anguish and suffering. 35. Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for punitive damages. 36. Any statements made did not accuse Plaintiffs of committing criminal acts. 37. Any statements made by Defendants were expressions of opinions. WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. By: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney ID # 32085 Carly J. Wismer, Esquire Attorney ID # 92598 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys Defendants Date: January 13, 2006 VERIFICATION I, Lana Meidinger, hereby acknowledge that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to Penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Lana Meidinger Date: ? ? ?' I `' L VERIFICATION hereby acknowledge that I am an authorized representative of Lone Oak, Ltd., that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. LONE OAK, LTD i? Date: 130103.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mad, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire WOLF & WOLF 37 South Hanover Street Suites 210-202 Carlisle, PA 17013 GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. BY• ---- Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: January 13, 2006 .> .-', ?:" SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR t CASE NO: 2005-06668 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CLECHACHAR FARM INC ET AL VS LONE OAK LTD ET AL WILLIAM CLINE Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn.according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon LONE OAK the DEFENDANT , at 2025:00 HOURS, on the 28th day of December , 2005 at 2250 LAMBS GAP ROAD ENOLA, PA 17025 by handing to LANA MEIDINGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE _ together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 11.52 Postage .37 Surcharge 10.00 .00 39.89 Sworn and Subscribed to before w_ me this // day of ! Jou A. D. u P onot ry So Answers: ,? e R. Thomas Kline 12/29/2005 NATHAN WOLF By i 774 Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR R CASE NO: 2005-06668 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CLECHACHAR FARM INC ET AL VS , LONE OAK LTD ET AL WILLIAM CLINE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn.aGccrding to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon MEIDINGER LANA the DEFENDANT , at 2025:00 HOURS, on the 28th day of December , 2005 at 2250 LAMBS GAP ROAD ENOLA, PA 17025 _ by handing to LANA MEIDINGER a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTI together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this W= day of 1?z4 A.D. Pro o a So Answers: 000, R. Thomas Kline 12/29/2005 NATHAN WOLF By: uty Sheriff STACY B. WOLF, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 89732 37 S. HANOVER STREET SUITES 201-202 CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CLECHACHAR FARM, INC. and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA individually, and HOLLYHURST FARM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW and BETSY MORRET, individually, plaintiffs V. LONE OAK, LTD. and : NO. 2005 - 6668 CIVIL TERM LANA MEIDINGER, individually, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER NOW come the plaintiffs, Clechachar Farm, Inc. and Judy Guido and Janine Guido, individually, and Hollyhurst Farm and Betsy Morret, individually, and file this reply to the defendants' new matter, representing as follows: 28. Denied. The averments of paragraph twenty-eight of Defendants' new matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response may be required, Plaintiffs deny that any and all statements made by Defendants, upon which this action is based, were truthful; rather, such statements were complete and utter falsehoods. 29. Denied. The averments of paragraph twenty-nine of Defendants' new matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response may be required, Plaintiffs deny that any and all statements made by Defendants, upon which this action is based, were an exercise of the right of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section VII of the Pennsylvania Constitution. By way of further response, constitutional protections of free speech do not extend to the defamatory statements made by Defendants against Plaintiffs. 30. Denied. The averments of paragraph thirty of Defendants' new matter constitute conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response maybe required, Plaintiffs deny that they have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. On the contrary, Plaintiffs have made a claim for their entitlement to an award of compensatory and punitive damages for statements made by the defendants constituting slander per se. 31. Denied. The averments of paragraph thirty-one of Defendants' new matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response maybe required, Plaintiffs deny that any and all statements made by Defendants, upon which this action is based, were reasonable and justified. 32. Denied. The averments of paragraph thirty-two of Defendants' new matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response may be required, Plaintiffs deny that they have not suffered any damage as a result of the statements made by Defendants. 33. Denied. The averments of paragraph thirty-three of Defendants' new matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response may be required, Plaintiffs deny that any and all statements made by Defendants, upon which this action is based, were without malice. Byway of further response, Defendants made statements knowing such statements were false or with reckless disregard as to whether such statements were false. 34. Denied. The averments of paragraph thirty-four of Defendants' new matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response maybe required, Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action for mental anguish and suffering upon which relief maybe granted. 35. Denied. The averments of paragraph thirty-five of Defendants' new matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response maybe required, Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action for punitive damages upon which relief maybe granted. 36. Denied. To the contrary, statements made by Defendants imputed criminal conduct punishable by imprisonment to Plaintiffs. 37. The averments of paragraph thirty-seven of Defendants' new matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response may be required, Plaintiffs deny that any and all statements made by Defendants, upon which this action is based, were expressions of opinions. Byway of further response, such statements made by Defendants were statements of fact, although untrue, rather than mere opinions. WfTREFORE, Plaintiffs' demand that Defendants' new matter be dismissed and that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants as set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Respectfully submitted, WOLF & WOLF 0, -8. -1?; February , 2006 BY: STACY B. NVOLF, Esquire 37 South Hanover Street Suites 201-202 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 Supreme Court ID. # 88732 Attorney for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION We, the undersigned, hereby verify that we are the plaintiffs in this action and that the facts stated in the above Plaintiffs' Replyto Defendants' New Matter are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. February ,2006 GUIDO BETSY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned counsel for the plaintiffs, do hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of this Reply to New Matter upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: THOMAS E. BRENNER, ESQUIRE GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. P.O. BOX 1268 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1268 February C? , 2006 Stacy B. Wolf, 10quire 37 South Hanover Street Suites 201-202 Carlisle, PA 17013 717-241-4436 Supreme Court ID # 88732 Attorney for Plaintiffs I?. t`_) ?? ` ti _ T L;i r'. ; -,- cL. ?'?r= N ' ? rv, r' °`?. ' .. s _ - `,? -T STACY B. WOLF, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 88732 WOLF & WOLF 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CLECHACHAR FARM, INC. and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA individually, and HOLLYHURST FARM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW and BETSY MORRET, individually, Plaintiffs V. : NO. 2005 - 6668 CIVIL TERM LONE OAK, LTD. and LANA MEIDINGER, individually, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiffs, Clechachar Farm, Inc. and Judy Guido and Janine Guido, individually, and Hollyhurst Farm and Betsy Morret, individually, by their attorney, Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire, hereby set forth the following motion to compel Defendants Lone Oak, Ltd. and Lana Meidinger, individually to produce documents in response to Plaintiffs' request for production of documents. 1. Movants are Plaintiffs Clechachar Farm, Inc. and Judy Guido and Janine Guido, individually, and Hollyhurst Farm and Betsy Morret, individually and Respondents are Defendants Lone Oak, Ltd. and Lana Meidinger, individually (hereinafter "Movants" and "Respondents"). 2. On February 17, 2006, Movants forwarded their request for production of documents to Respondents, which included a request that Respondents produce personal (sic) and corporate tax returns of each Respondent from the year 2000 to the present. 3. On March 22, 2006, Respondents forwarded their response to Movants' request for production of documents, but objected to and did not submit copies of the personal and corporate tax returns of each Respondent from the year 2000 to the present. 4. Subsequent to receiving Respondents' response, Movants' counsel contacted Respondents' counsel making a follow-up request for the additional discovery. Respondents' counsel advised Movants' counsel that such additional discovery would not be provided. 5. Rule 4003.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure directs that a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, relevant to the subject matter in a pending action which relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery. 6. Rule 4003.7 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure directs that a parry may obtain information concerning the wealth of a defendant when a claim for punitive damages exists. 7. Production of Respondents' personal and corporate tax returns is relevant and necessary to evaluate and present Movants' claim for punitive damages. 8. Movants' counsel has sought the concurrence of Respondents' counsel in the filing of this motion and such concurrence was not given. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue an order directing Defendants Lone Oak, Ltd. and Lana Meidinger, individually to produce personal and corporate tax returns of each Defendant from the year 2000 to the present within twenty (20) days, or suffer the entry of sanctions by the Court. Respectfully submitted, WOLF & WOLF April 2006 By: . STACY B. W &F, Esquire 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 Supreme Court I.D. No. 88732 Attorney for Plaintiffs STACY B. WOLF, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 88732 WOLF & WOLF 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CLECHACHAR FARM, INC. and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA individually, and HOLLYHURST FARM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW and BETSY MORRET, individually, Plaintiffs V. LONE OAK, LTD. and LANA MEIDINGER, individually, Defendants NO. 2005 - 6668 CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents upon the following person by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. 320 Market Street, Strawberry Square P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 April, 2006 ZtZLZ Stacy B. WAV sCounsel for Plaintiffs c-; =. , _? :, ;, , CLECHACHAR FARM, INC. and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Individually, and HOLLYHURST FARM CIVIL ACTION -LAW And BETSY MORRET, individually v. LONE OAK, LTD. And LANA MEIDINGER, individually No. 2005-6668 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6TI'day of April, 2006, the Honorable C. Joseph Rehkamp of the 41" Judicial District, is hereby appointed to preside over the above captioned matter. Robin Lehman - C. Court Administrator, Perry County /cy B. Wolf, Esquire For Plaintiffs \ /omas E. Brenner, Esquire •1 For Defendants Honorable C. Joseph Rehkamp - C A ?C ?-'?? `,? -vI7 2n-?/ / CLECHACHAR FARM, INC., and JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, individually, and HOLLYHURST FARM and BETSY MORRET, individually V. LONE OAK, LTD., and LANA j MEIDINGER, individually :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :OF PENNSYLVANIA - :CUMBERLAND COUNTY BRANCH :NO. 2005-6668 ORDER AND NOW, April 6, 2006, upon Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Production Of Documents, a Rule is hereby- issued as Defendant's to show cause why said Motion should not be granted. Rule returnable twenty (20) days from service in writing. BY THE COURT, ;I I' C. JOSEPH ;LEHK 418'JudicialDi ict Specially Presiding ec: ?$tacy B. Wolf, Esquire Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Court Administrator (Cumberland County)- 66X Court Administrator (Perry County) File V? P. J. <' 1+ Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Carly J. Wismer, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants CLECHACHAR FARM, INC. and JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, individually and HOLLYHURST FARM and BETSY MORRET, individually Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-6668 CIVIL "TERM V. LONE OAK, LTD. and LANA MEIDINGER, individually Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND NOW, comes Defendants Lone Oak, Ltd. and Lana Meidinger by and through its counsel, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who state: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. Rule 4003.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is a written document which speaks foritself. 6. Denied. Rule 4003.7 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is a written document which speaks for itself. 7. Denied. It is denied that Defendants' tax returns are necessary or relevant to this case. It is further denied that Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action for punitive damages on a claim for defamation. indeed, Plaintiffs' claim is based on statements of two non-party witnesses as to discussions with Defendant Meidinger. Efforts to schedule the depositions of these "witnesses" has disclosed these persons do not wish to be involved in the litigation and they refuse to provide depositions or statements to support the claims alleged in the Complaint. Thus, until Plaintiffs demonstrate they have a viable cause of action for punitive damages, this request is premature. Moreover, Plaintiffs are seeking to develop a tack shop business as a direct rival of the Defendants. The discovery of tax records is sought to obtain business information helpful to Plaintiffs as they seek to compete with Defendants. 8. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Defendants Lone Oak, Ltd. and Lana Meidinger respectfully request this Honorable Court deny Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents. GOLDBERG I?ATZNIAN, P.C. Y: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire .Attorney ID #32085 PO BOX 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorney for Defendants Date: Apri119, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, hereby certify that on this date, I served the foregoing document, via U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the persons set forth below, namely: Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire Wolf & Wolfe 10 West High Street Carlisle, R1 17013 GOLDBERG 1,LkTZTNlAN, P.C. r, By; `? nom./ Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: April 19, 2006 CLECHECHAR FARM, INC. ET AL. V. LONE OAK LTD. AND LANA MEIDINGER :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, :PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 2005-6668 ORDER i AND NOW, April 25, 2006, telephone conference call in the above matter is scheduled for Friday, June 9, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. with the Judge's Office initiating the call. BY THE COURT, ccicy B. Wolf, Esq. ?Aomas E. Brenner, Esq. File \ VA q ? CA- i I f C. JOSE P, P.J. l 41s` Judicial District Specially Presiding 16 oa,P l p?? ?...: J•t `, r - '. f. CLECHECHAR FARM, INC. V. LONE OAK, LTD, and LANA MEIDINGER :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :OF PENNSYLVANIA - :CUMBERLAND COUNTY BRANCH :NO. 2005-6668 ORDER AND NOW, June 9, 2006, after Argument Conference by telephone and upon review of the Motion To Compel Production Of Documents, it is, HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendant shall be given the to review transcripts of depositions held earlier this week and file a Motion Summary Judgment, twenty (20) days after the filing of said transcripts. Upon to file said Motion For Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's Motion shall be granted, Plaintiffs counsel having access to the tax returns requested but disclosure of said shall be limited to gross income for the years in question to Plaintiffs. BY THE COURT, iAacy B. Wolf, Esquire .Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Court Administrator File C. JOSEPH 41 s` Judicial Dist Specially Presiding v goo .J. OI ¢a a ??` a0 ?1 OCT 2 6 2006.,,,? ??r CLECHECHAR FARM, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA - V. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BRANCH LONE OAK, LTD. AND LANA MEIDINGER NO. 2005-6668 ORDER AND NOW, October 25, 2006, a Telephone Conference Call on the Status of the above-referenced case is schedule for Friday, December 8, 2006 at 1:30 P.M. with the Judge's Office initiating the call. BY THE COURT, ?.w 4 C. JOSEPH REHKAMP, P.J. 41sT Judicial District Specially Presiding cc: ,Stacy B. Wolf, Esq. ?omas E. Brenner, Esq. Cumberland County Administrator's Office File 4 0 OCT 2 s zoo, CLECHECHAR FARM, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA - V. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BRANCH LONE OAK, LTD. AND LANA MEIDINGER NO. 2005-6668 ORDER AND NOW, October 25, 2006, a Telephone Conference Call on the Status of the above-referenced case is schedule for Friday, December 8, 2006 at 1:30 P.M. with the Judge's Office initiating the call. BY THE COURT, _ CL <? L C. JOSEPH REHKAMP, P.J. 41sT Judicial District Specially Presiding ?- cc: Stacy B. Wolf, Esq. Thomas E. Brenner, Esq. Cumberland County Administrator's Office File Wit lI 6e O(t?q\ N a3 D ? a `? t ? . c ?' Q ,.? -? -:-, ` ? ? l C..> ?l; K?.9 i ^ / ?" ' ? ?-^? ? .. r . ? '? JQV CLECHACHAR FARMS, INC., and JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, individually, and HOLLYHURST FARM and BETSY MORRET, individually V. LONE OAK, LTD., and LANA MEIDINGER, individually :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :OF PENNSYLVANIA - :CUMBERLAND COUNTY :NO. CV-2005-6668-C ORDER AND NOW, December 29, 2006, after conference call with counsel, it is, HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that deposition shall be completed within sixty (60) days and this Court anticipates that a Motion For Summary Judgment would be filed shortly thereafter. cc: BY THE COURT, C. 41St Judicial Specially Pri , P. J. to y Wolfe, Esquire Ymas Brenner, Esquire .Court Administrator (Cumberland County)?I %hOUse )OOK Court Administrator (Perry County) File CLECHACHAR FARM, INC. and JUDY GUIDO and JANINE GUIDO, individually and HOLLYHURST FARM and BETSY MORRET, individually Plaintiffs V. LONE OAK, LTD. and LANA MEIDINGER, individually Deft*idpnts IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2005-6668 CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Please mark this action settled, discontinued and ended. WOLF & WOLF Stacy B. v off, Esquire 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 At--tcwney for Plaintiffs Date: 7/60/0 C ? - ? V rn n -V 71-