Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-0635d MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff vs. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06 - G 3 5 C' u ?Q TCIVIL - LAW PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS To: Cumberland County Prothonotary: Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above captioned matter against PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc., Defendants in the above captioned matter. PPL CORPORATION 2 North 9 h Street Allentown, PA 18101 PPL SERVICES CORPOATION 2 North 9t' Street Allentown, PA 18101 PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION 100 COMMERCE DR. MECHANICSBURG PA 17050 Date: FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC 82 Devonshire Street KWIC Boston, Massachusetts 02109 ?,wt John angan Atto ey for Plaintiff -?, ?? ? -? ? _^ ?iJ 1??? i. _? ` -j (_l 6 q - ?) U, .:{ -U ? ? ? (+J `h G Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, and FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. Defendants CIVIL ACTION-LAW DOCKET NO. 06-635 WRIT OF SUMMONS To: PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, and FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC.: You are hereby notified that Michael J. Janesko, by and through his attorney, John J. Mangan, Esq. has commenced an action against you. Dater 31, d ft C J Prothonotary By: sG- (De u ) Seal of the Court In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania i fpJ/ vs. No. - (! L Civil 19 L 5e?"v.cC?y .n 5 ?. ?• zti ? U 2 "r a two z1- `-U , ??-c V ?u ?C ?1.G ' 7"/J li e ??N S ?T£' VI/?? ? 0/i ?a ?n-?H-r?-=?-r?? T- _ j To Prothonotary 19 Attorney for Plaintiff No. Term, 19 VS. PRAECIPE Filed 19 Atty. r POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: VINCENT CANDIELLO I.D.#49616 17 NORTH SECOND STREET 12TH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1601 717-612-6024 MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff, V. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO: 06-635 PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CIVIL- LAW CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., Defendants. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation, and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation in the above-captioned matter. Date: April 5, 2006 POST SCHELL, P.C?_) Vincent Candiello, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 49616 17 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1601 (717) 612-6024 Attorney for Defendants PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation CP 11 372248v l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Vincent Candiello, hereby certify that the foregoing document was served via regular mail, postage prepaid, on this day, upon the following: John J. Mangan, Esquire 35 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc. 83 Devonshire Street KWIC Boston, MA 02109 U Dated: April 5, 2006 Vincent Candiello CPH 372248vt I} ?l ' 1 I :'i ?: . ?' ? _ _, SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO:' 2006-00635 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND JANESKO MICHAEL J VS PPL CORPORATION ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: PPL SERVICES CORPORATION but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of LEHIGH County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On March 31st , 2006 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from _ LEHIGH Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 03/31/2006 JOHN J MANGAN So R'. s Kline her'ff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this _f -tL day of ? a? 4 0O? A. Pro o a , In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Michael J. Janesko vs. PPL Corporation et al SERVE: PPL Services Corporation No. 06-635 civil Now, march 9, 2006 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Lehigh County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. 10 Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, 20_, at o'clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a and made known to copy of the original So answers, Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this _ day of , 20 the contents thereof. County, PA COSTS SERVICE $ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2006-00635 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND JANESKO MICHAEL J VS PPL CORPORATION ET AL Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: PPL CORPORATION but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of ALLEGHENY County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On March 31st , 2006 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from ALLEGHENY Sheriff's Costs: So Docketing 18.00 C Out of County 9.00 F Surcharge 10.00 Dep Allegheny Cc 43.00 Sh Postage .78 80.78 03/31/2006 JOHN J MANGAN Sworn and subscribed to before me this I day of &V pmas aline ff of Cumberland County D. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Michael J. Janesko VS. PPL Corporation et al 06-635 civil SERVE: PPL Corporation No. Now, March 9, 2005 I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Lehigh county to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. • ?i°,rs? ?/-fie Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, within upon at by handing to a copy of the original and made known to the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of County, PA COSTS Sworn and subscribed before SERVICE $ me this - day of , 20 MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT 20 , at o'clock A served the 6 N1 i ch I J. o esY?o vs Case No. 0 - 0(0.'4J 1'?r COr u??yrl 1?'PL SEt vi&i C'c?r? L U?ili?iPS Ccxp., Fict l??y Tihvfstmen-?? `Sts ement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: V l i CA-NCe e I l aanesvco intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name 1'1 Sign Name Date: L)-,I? -oq Attorney for Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the tetnunation of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. Il Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system.. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. MICHAEL J. JANESKO, VS. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 06-0635 CIVIL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John J. Mangan, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of the foregoing document upon the following by First Class U.S. Mail: PPL CORPORATION 2 North 9th Street Allentown, PA 18101 PPL ELECTRIC SERVICES CORPORATION 100 Commerce Dr. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 PPL SERVICES CORPORATION 2 North 9th Street Allentown, PA 18101 FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. 82 Devonshire Street KWIC Boston, Massachusetts 02109 FILED-OFFICE OF THE pcffmoNOTARY 2099 OCT 27 PM 3: 07 GUM f-n,;44'61 ,;? 17Y PENNSYLMNIA ,411 POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: VINCENT CANDIELLO I.D. #49616 17 NORTH SECOND STREET 12TH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1601 717-612-6024 MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff, V. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., Defendants. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO: 06-635 CIVIL - LAW PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon Plaintiff, Michael J. Janesko, to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of the Rule or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. Thank you for your assistance and attention to this matter. Date: December 9, 2009 POS & SCHELL, P.C. incent Candiello, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 49616 17 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1601 (717) 612-6024 Attorney for Defendants PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation 6628026v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Vincent Candiello, hereby certify that the foregoing Praecipe for Issuance of a Rule to File Complaint and Rule to File Complaint were served via regular mail, postage prepaid, on this day, upon the following: John J. Mangan, Esquire Bayley & Mangan 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc. 83 Devonshire Street KWIC Boston, MA 02109 Dated: December 9, 2009 Vincent Candiello RLED--(;t=wluE OF THE PI R-0 7NOTAFY 2009 DEC 10 All 10: 4 2 CJMEE I D`I'Y MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO: 06-635 V. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., CIVIL - LAW Defendants. RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND NOW, this /Q'A day of , 2009, a Rule is hereby granted upon Plaintiff, Michael J. Janesko, to file a Complaint herein within twenty (20) days after service hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff Vs. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06 - 635 r. -T1 o r, CIVIL - LAW 71, =< C-77? ;{ . o 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 an attorney and you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. NO. 06 - 635 CIVIL - LAW Defendants COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Michael J. Janesko, (hereinafter "Plaintiff'), by and through his attorney, John J. Mangan, hereby files his Complaint against the above captioned Defendants, (hereinafter "Defendant PPL" and "Defendant Fidelity") and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Michael J. Janesko, is an adult individual who resides at 3966 Enola Road, Newville, PA 17241. 2. Defendants, PPL Corporation and PPL Services Corpration, are corporations with their headquarters located at 2 North 9t' Street, Allentown, PA 18101. 3. Defendant PPL Electric Utilities Corporation is a corporation with a place of business located at 100 Commerce drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 4. Defendant Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc. is a corporation with its headquarters located at 82 Devonshire Street, KWIC, Boston, Massachusetts 02109. 5. Defendants regularly conduct business in Cumberland County, PA. 6. Plaintiff had been employed with PPL Corporation for many years. 7. During the course of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff accrued substantial stock options and invested in a company sponsored 401 K retirement investment plan. 8. The vast majority of the stocks and 401 K investments were non-marital property as to his current wife, Ellen "Jade" Janesko. 9. The stocks were worth approximately three hundred thousand dollars and the 401 K plan was approximately worth two hundred thousand dollars. The exact numbers are anticipated to be known through additional discovery. 10. Ellen Janesko had no legal authority to access Plaintiff's stocks with Defendant PPL and investments with Defendant Fidelity. 11. Over a period of time, Plaintiff's retirement account and stocks were pilfered and plundered by an individual other than Plaintiff without the knowledge of Plaintiff. 12. Defendants PPL and Fidelity unlawfully disbursed funds to an individual other than Plaintiff, all to his great detriment and loss. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT-DEFENDANT PPL 13. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 12 herein as though fully set forth at length. 14. By liquidating Plaintiffs stocks and disbursing funds to an individual other than Plaintiff, without Plaintiff's knowledge, with no authority to do so, and not adhering to the several temporal, procedural, and substantive requirements set forth in the law, Defendant PPL, has undertaken a course of action which has deprived Plaintiff of financial security, in contradiction to the terms of his contract with Defendant PPL, state and federal regulations, and established case law of this Commonwealth. 15. Plaintiff, Michael Janesko, believes, and therefore avers, that the above described actions of the Defendant PPL, are unreasonable and without reasonable foundation. 16. The above described actions constitute a breach of contract by Defendant PPL with Plaintiff, Michael Janesko. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit, plus interest, costs of this action and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY-DEFENDANT PPL 17. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated herein as though set forth a length. 18. Defendant PPL, by asserting in its policy the right to manage stock for Plaintiff, assumes a fiduciary position toward Plaintiff and becomes obligated to act in good faith and with due care in representing the interests of Plaintiff; if Defendant PPL is derelict in this duty, as where it negligently and unlawfully disburses funds to individuals that are not the Plaintiff, it may be liable, for the entire amount of Plaintiffs loss. 19. For the reasons set forth above, including but not limited to failing to ensure that Plaintiffs stock was managed properly and protected from individuals not Plaintiff, as well as failing to adhere to state and federal regulation regarding disbursement of funds, Defendant has violated said fiduciary duty towards Plaintiff, and is thus liable for the entire amount of the Plaintiff's loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit, plus interest, costs of this action and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT III BREACH OF CONTRACT-DEFENDANT FIDELITY 20. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 19 herein as though fully set forth at length. 21. By liquidating Plaintiff's 401 K investments and disbursing funds to an individual other than Plaintiff, without Plaintiff's knowledge, with no authority to do so, and not adhering to the several temporal, procedural, and substantive requirements set forth in the law, Defendant Fidelity, has undertaken a course of action which has deprived Plaintiff of financial security, in contradiction to the terms of his contract with Defendant Fidelity, state and federal regulations, and established case law of this Commonwealth. 22. Plaintiff, Michael Janesko, believes, and therefore avers, that the above described actions of the Defendant Fidelity, are unreasonable and without reasonable foundation. 23. The above described actions constitute a breach of contract by Defendant Fidelity with Plaintiff, Michael Janesko. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit, plus interest, costs of this action and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT IV - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY-DEFENDANT FIDELITY 24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 are incorporated herein as though set forth a length. 25. Defendant Fidelity, by asserting in its policy the right to manage a retirement plan for Plaintiff, assumes a fiduciary position toward Plaintiff and becomes obligated to act in good faith and with due care in representing the interests of Plaintiff; if Defendant Fidelity is derelict in this duty, as where it negligently and unlawfully disburses funds to individuals that are not the Plaintiff, it may be liable, for the entire amount of Plaintiff s loss. 26. For the reasons set forth above, including but not limited to failing to ensure that Plaintiff's retirement plan was managed properly and protected from individuals not Plaintiff, as well as failing to adhere to state and federal regulation regarding disbursement of funds, Defendant has violated said fiduciary duty towards Plaintiff, and is thus liable for the entire amount of the Plaintiff's loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit, plus interest, costs of this action and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Bayley & Mangan By: John J. gan, Esquir 17 W t outh Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-241-2446 Attorney I.D. No. 87000 Dated: ?????? Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I verify that I am the plaintiff and that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ?? Date: ! .//0 :r J, , Michael J ko MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff VS. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06 - 635 CIVIL - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John J. Mangan, do hereby certify that on this 1St day of February 2010, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint on behalf of the Plaintiff, to be served upon the following persons/entities: FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CORPORATION INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC 82 Devonshire Street KWIC Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Vincent Candiello, Esq. 17 North Second Street 12th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1601 FILED--(J,T SCE r,TARY 2010 FEB 23 Pi 12: 08 POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: VINCENT CANDIELLO, ESQUIRE I.D. # 49616 17 N. 2ND STREET, 12TH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17101 717-612-6024 MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff, V. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., Attorneys for Defe`rants?; PPL Corporation, PPt Services"Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 06-635 CIVIL - LAW Defendants. NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO THE HONORABLE CLERK THEREOF: Attached hereto for filing in the above-entitled and numbered cause is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal filed on the 22nd day of February, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). You are further notified that written notice of filing of the Notice of Removal has been given to all adverse parties. 6746699v1 Dated: February 22, 2010 Post & Schell, P.C. By: Vincent Candiello ID #49616 Claudia M. Williams ID #90588 17 North Second Street, 12th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1601 Telephone: 717.731.1970 Facsimile: 717.731.1985 vcandiello@postschell.com cwilliams@postschell.com Attorneys For Defendant 2 6746699v1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff, V. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO: NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO: THE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, and Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc. 6745423v1 (collectively, Defendants), by and through their attorneys, gives notice of removal of this civil action from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and say: 1. Plaintiff, Michael J. Janesko, commenced an action against Defendants, entitled Michael J. Janesko v. PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc.), by filing a Praecipe for Writ of Summons on January 31, 2006. Defendants attach a true and correct copy of that Praecipe as Exhibit A. 2. The Cumberland County Office of the Prothonotary issued a Writ of Summons to PPL Services Corporation on June 30, 2006. Defendants attach a true and correct copy of that Writ as Exhibit B. 3. The Cumberland County Office of the Prothonotary issued a Notice of Proposed Termination of Court Case on August 28, 2009. Defendants attach a true and correct copy of that Notice as Exhibit C. 4. Plaintiff filed a Statement of Intention to Proceed on October 27, 2009. Defendants attach a true and correct copy of that Statement as Exhibit D. 5. On December 9, 2009, Defendants filed a Praecipe for Issuance of Rule to File Complaint upon Plaintiff, which was issued by the Prothonotary on 6745423v1 2 December 10, 2009. Defendants attach true and correct copies of those documents as Exhibit E (Praecipe for Rule) and Exhibit F (Rule). 6. On February 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Case No. 06-635. Defendants attache a true and correct copy of the Complaint as Exhibit G. 7. Defendant PPL received Plaintiff's Complaint on February 3, 2010, after counsel for PPL obtained a copy on the Cumberland County Court system's web site. 8. Defendant Fidelity received. Plaintiff's Complaint on February 9, 2009. 9. No other process, pleadings, or orders have been filed or served in the state court action. No defendant other than those identified and jointly represented by the undersigned counsel is identified in this matter. 10. In Plaintiff's Complaint, he alleges the following: 7. During the course of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff accrued substantial stock options and invested in a company sponsored 401 K [sic] retirement investment plan. 12. Defendants PPL and Fidelity unlawfully disbursed funds to an individual other than Plaintiff, all to his great detriment and loss. 6745423v1 3 14. By liquidating Plaintiffs stocks and disbursing funds to an individual other than Plaintiff, without Plaintiff's knowledge, with no authority to do so, and not adhering to the several temporal, procedural, and substantive requirements set forth in the law, Defendant PPL, [sic] has undertaken a course of action which has deprived Plaintiff of financial security, in contradiction to the terms of his contract with Defendant PPL, state and federal regulations, and established case law of this Commonwealth. 18. Defendant PPL, by asserting in its policy the right to manage stock for Plaintiff, assumes a fiduciary position toward Plaintiff and becomes obligated to act in good faith and with due care in representing the interests of Plaintiff... 19. For the reasons set forth above, including but not limited to failing to ensure that Plaintiff's stock was managed properly and protected from individuals not Plaintiff, as well as failing to adhere to state and federal regulation regarding disbursement of funds, Defendant has violated said fiduciary duty towards Plaintiff, and is thus liable for the entire amount of the Plaintiff's loss. 21. By liquidating Plaintiff's 401 K [sic] investments and disbursing funds to an individual other than Plaintiff, without Plaintiff's knowledge, with no authority to do so, and not adhering to the several temporal, procedural, and substantive requirements set forth in the law, Defendant Fidelity, has undertaken a course of action which has deprived Plaintiff of financial security, in contradiction to the terms of his contract with Defendant Fidelity, state and federal regulations, and established case law of this Commonwealth. 25. Defendant Fidelity, by asserting in its policy the right to manage a retirement plan for Plaintiff, assumes a fiduciary position toward Plaintiff and becomes obligated to act in good faith and with due care in 6745423v1 4 representing the interests of Plaintiff; if Defendant Fidelity is derelict in this duty, as where it negligently and unlawfully disburses funds to individuals that are not the Plaintiff, it may be liable for the entire amount of Plaintiff's loss. 26. For the reasons set forth above ... Defendant has violated said fiduciary duty towards Plaintiff, and is thus liable for the entire amount of the Plaintiff's loss. 11. The allegations of Paragraphs 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 26 effectively allege violations of Section 404 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1104, which is enforced by Section 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132. 12. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant PPL violated its fiduciary obligations with regard to Plaintiff's stock options in violation of federal regulations. In fact, the rights to stock he accrued are part of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) covered by Title I of ERISA, whose fiduciaries are subject to Section 404 of ERISA. 13. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Fidelity violated its fiduciary obligations with regard to Plaintiff and his investment in a 401(k) plan in violation of federal regulations. 14. This Notice of Removal is timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), as it was filed within thirty (30) days of Defendants' receipt of Plaintiff's Complaint. 6745423vl 5 15. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139(b), venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, because the events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred in this judicial district. 16. This is an action of a civil nature over which this Court has original jurisdiction, because this action arises under the laws of the United States and invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(b). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges violations of ERISA, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq. 17. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendants, on this same date, sent via overnight mail, a Notice of the Filing of this Notice of Removal to the Honorable Court and Clerk of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, and sent via First Class mail to John J. Mangan, Counsel for Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 6745423v1 6 WHEREFORE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, 1441 and 1446, Defendants respectfully remove the above-captioned matter from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Respectfully submitted, Dated: February 22, 2010 POST & SCHELL, P.C. Vincent Candiello VINCENT CANDIELLO Attorney I.D. 49616 CLAUDIA M. WILLIAMS Attorney I.D. 90588 17 North 2"d Street, 12th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1601 Telephone: (717) 731-1970 Facsimile: (717) 731.1985 vcandiello@postschell.com cwilliams@postschell.com Attorneys for Defendants 6745423vt 7 M APR-03-2006 MON 03.51 PM PPI. TW5 CLAIMS MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff vs. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC, Defendants FAX NO. 6107744102 P. 03/04 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06 - 6,3J- &,;qP -Te --- CIVIL - LAW PRAECIPE FQR WRIT QF SUna m To: Cumberland County Prothonotary: Please issue a Writ of summons in the above captioned matter against PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation, ppL Electric Utilities Corporation and Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc., Defendants in the above captioned matter. PPL CORPORATION 2 North 9a' Street Allentown, PA 18101 PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION 100 COMMERCE DR. MECHANICSBURG PA 17050 Date: PPL SER'V'ICES CORPOATION 2 North. 9' Street Allentown, PA 18101 FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC 82 Devonshire Street KWIC Boston, Massachusetts 02109 John an Atto V for Plaintiff B APR-03-2006 MON 03:51 PM PPL TW5 CLAIMS i FAX NO, 6107744102 i P. 04/04 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of CUMBERLAND MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff vs. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06 - 6 3 S -7??, CIVIL -- LAW 'VAT OF SiTMMUNS To: PPL SERVICES CORPORATION: 'You are hereby notified that Michael J. Janesko, by and through his attorney, John Mangan Esq., has commenced an action against you. Date:? o ?D p? Seal of the Court /s.?? I:1,4 A) Prothonotary By: (Deputy) 1'W COPY FROM RECORD rn TasUpio ty Wwroot, I here unto s h:,.. z!1Wj tw I of said CW" C1 us. 1t. ?' / Y faro G D Office ice of the Prothonotary Cumberland County, PA Curtis R. Long Prothonotary Case # (s) 06-0635 NOTICE OF PROPOSED TERMINATION OF COURT CASE To: VINCENT CANDIELLO, ESQ., POST & SCHELL, P.C. The court intends to terminate this case without further notice because the docket shows no activity in the case for at least two years. You may stop the court from terminating the case by filing a Statement of Intention to Proceed. The Statement of intention to Proceed should be filed with the Prothonotary of the Court at: CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013 717-240-6195 on or before October 27, 2009. Date IF YOU FAIL TO FILE THE REQUIRED STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED, THE CASE WILL BE TERMINATED August 28, 2009 6foe Date of this Notice i Long, Prothonotary CHECK YOUR CASE Ws at www.ccpa.net Put cursor on the word "Government" for a drop down box. Then put your cursor on the word "Courts. Click on the word "Prothonotary". This will bring you to the "Prothonotary Home Page". On the left hand Navigation Bar click on "Searchable Civil Records". Follow these directions exactly. OCT-29-2009 THU 03;54 PM PPL?TW5 CLAIMS FAX NO, 6107744102 P. 02/03 n aVA C) vs Case No, . -c . r.. r? ?. Corrlora4kon- 122 S.t ut Corp, 'NA ?cxP,, >ric:11? vesrni?n•s F C,a .-t . .LY15?-? L?1c;t?c?t d f ??` Sri S ement of Intention to proceed To the Court: -) f J intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name AActo on -n - S%gir Name ffi'co _ -?-?...-.-• Date: I U! 1 !?`-'i Attorney for n c) Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Aisle of Civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgatod to govern the tennination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 5S1 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters seyorth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system., The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parries do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the I'rothonotaty shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (4)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly tiled and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (dx2). 13. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Itule 230.2. OCT-29-2009 THU 03:54 PM PL?TW5 CLAIMS FAX NO, 6p.7744102 P. 03/03 MICHAEL J. JANESKO, VS. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 06-0635 CIVIL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i r I, John J. Mangan, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of the foregoing document upon the following by First Class U.S. Mail; PPL CORPORATION 2 North 9th Street Allentown, PA 18101 PPL ELECTRIC'SERVICES CORPORATION 100 Commerce Dr. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 PPL SERVICES CORPORATION 2 North 9th Street Allentown, PA 18101 FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL ,OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC, 82 Devonshire Street KWIC Boston, Massachusetts 02109 MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO: 06-635 V. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., CIVIL - LAW Defendants RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND NOW, this day of , 2009, a Rule is hereby granted upon Plaintiff, Michael J. Janesko, to file a Complaint herein within twenty (20) days after service hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. Clerk of Court Deputy POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: VINCENT CANDIELLO I.D. #49616 17 NORTH SECOND STREET 12TH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1601 717-612-6024 MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO: 06-635 V. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., CIVIL - LAW Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon Plaintiff, Michael J. Janesko, to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of the Rule or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. Thank you for your assistance and attention to this matter. Date: December 9, 2009 17 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1601 (717) 612-6024 POS & SCHELL, P.C. incent Candiello, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 49616 Attorney for Defendants PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation 6628026vl CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Vincent Candiello, hereby certify that the foregoing Praecipe for Issuance of a Rule to File Complaint and Rule to File Complaint were served via regular mail, postage prepaid, on this day, upon the following: John J. Mangan, Esquire Bayley & Mangan 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc. 83 Devonshire Street KWIC Boston, MA 02109 Dated: December 9, 2009 Vincent Candiello 10 MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO: 06-635 V. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., Defendants. L_ O C7 rr7 C7 O RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT == .0 AND NOW, this /0 day of , 2009, a Rule is hereby CIVIL - LAW Ti -TI M C U granted upon Plaintiff, Michael J. Janesko, to file a Complaint herein within twenty (20) days after service hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. s Wordo#30T)% P?y ?JDL L. 6 - Deputy tt-4 W FROM RECORD 1101, w ,1 here u 1) set MY tow d .I tatodf &AW aft COY F ti . ?O0.9 MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff vs. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA n NO. 06 - 635 CIVIL - 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 an attorney and you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO! NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013, 717-249-3166 ' I MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff vs. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06 - 635 CIVIL - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Michael J. Janesko, (hereinafter "Plaintiff'), by and through his attorney, John J. Mangan, hereby files his Complaint against the above captioned Defendants, (hereinafter "Defendant PPL" and "Defendant Fidelity") and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Michael J. Janesko, is an adult individual who resides at 3966 Enola Road, Newville, PA 17241. 2. Defendants, PPL Corporation and PPL Services Corpration, are corporations with their headquarters located at 2 North 9t' Street, Allentown, PA 18101. 3. Defendant PPL Electric Utilities Corporation is a corporation with a place of business located at 100 Commerce drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 4. Defendant Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc. is a corporation with its headquarters located at 82 Devonshire Street, KWIC, Boston, Massachusetts 02109. 5. Defendants regularly conduct business in Cumberland County, PA. 6. Plaintiff had been employed with PPL Corporation for many years. 7. During the course of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff accrued substantial stock options and invested in a company sponsored 401 K retirement investment plan. 8. The vast majority of the stocks and 401 K investments were non-marital property as to his current wife, Ellen "Jade" Janesko. 9. The stocks were worth approximately three hundred thousand dollars and the 401 K plan was approximately worth two hundred thousand dollars. The exact numbers are anticipated to be known through additional discovery. 10. Ellen Janesko had no legal authority to access Plaintiff's stocks with Defendant PPL and investments with Defendant Fidelity. 11. Over a period of time, Plaintiff's retirement account and stocks were pilfered and plundered by an individual other than Plaintiff without the knowledge of Plaintiff. 12. Defendants PPL and Fidelity unlawfully disbursed funds to an individual other than Plaintiff, all to his great detriment and loss. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT-DEFENDANT PPL 13. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 12 herein as though fully set forth at length. 14. By liquidating Plaintiff's stocks and disbursing funds to an individual other than Plaintiff, without Plaintiff's knowledge, with no authority to do so, and not adhering to the several temporal, procedural, and substantive requirements set forth in the law, Defendant PPL, has undertaken a course of action which has deprived Plaintiff of financial security, in contradiction to the terms of his contract with Defendant PPL, state and federal regulations, and established case law of this Commonwealth. 15.. Plaintiff, Michael Janesko, believes, and therefore avers, that the above described actions of the Defendant PPL, are unreasonable and without reasonable foundation. 16. The above described actions constitute a breach of contract by Defendant PPL with Plaintiff, Michael Janesko. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit, plus interest, costs of this action and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY-DEFENDANT PPL 17. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated herein as though set forth a length. 18. Defendant PPL, by asserting in its policy the right to manage stock for Plaintiff, assumes a fiduciary position toward Plaintiff and becomes obligated to act in good faith and with due care in representing the interests of Plaintiff; if Defendant PPL is derelict in this duty, as where it negligently and unlawfully disburses funds to individuals that are not the Plaintiff, it may be liable, for the entire amount of Plaintiff's loss. 19. For the reasons set forth above, including but not limited to failing. to ensure that Plaintiff's stock was managed properly and protected from individuals not Plaintiff, as well as failing to adhere to state and federal regulation regarding disbursement of funds, Defendant has violated said fiduciary duty towards Plaintiff, and is thus liable for the entire amount of the Plaintiff's loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit, plus interest, costs of this action and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT III BREACH OF CONTRACT-DEFENDANT FIDELITY 20. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 19 herein as though fully set forth at length. 21. By liquidating Plaintiff's 401 K investments and disbursing funds to an individual other than Plaintiff, without Plaintiff's knowledge, with no authority to do so, and not adhering to the several temporal, procedural, and substantive requirements set forth in the law, Defendant Fidelity, has undertaken a course of action which has deprived Plaintiff of financial security, in contradiction to the terms of his contract with Defendant Fidelity, state and federal regulations, and established case law of this Commonwealth. 22. Plaintiff, Michael Janesko, believes, and therefore avers, that the above described actions of the Defendant Fidelity, are unreasonable and without reasonable foundation. 23. The above described actions constitute a breach of contract by Defendant Fidelity with Plaintiff, Michael Janesko. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit, plus interest, costs of this action and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT IV - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY DEFENDANT FIDELITY 24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 are incorporated herein as though set forth a length. 25. Defendant Fidelity, by asserting in its policy the right to manage a retirement plan for Plaintiff, assumes a fiduciary position toward Plaintiff and becomes obligated to act in good faith and with due care in representing the interests of Plaintiff; if Defendant Fidelity is derelict in this duty, as where it negligently and unlawfully disburses funds to individuals that are not the Plaintiff, it may be liable, for the entire amount of Plaintiff's loss. 26. For the reasons set forth above, including but not limited to failing to ensure that Plaintiff's retirement plan was managed properly and protected from individuals not Plaintiff, as well as failing to adhere to state and federal regulation regarding disbursement of funds, Defendant has violated said fiduciary duty towards Plaintiff, and is thus liable for the entire amount of the Plaintiff's loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit, plus interest, costs of this action and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: `Z///1 0 Respectfully submitted, Bayley & Mangan Joh, Esquir By:Siouth 17 Street Ca rlisle, PA 17013 717-241-2446 Attorney I.D. No. 87000 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I verify that I am the Plaintiff and that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: IZI / 4 Michael Jan sko MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. NO. 06 - 635 CIVIL - LAW Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John J. Mangan, do hereby certify that on this 1St day of February 2010, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint on behalf of the Plaintiff, to be served upon the following persons/entities: FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CORPORATION INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC 82 Devonshire Street KWIC Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Vincent Candiello, Esq. 17 North Second Street 12th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1601 RECYCLED POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: VINCENT CANDIELLO, ESQUIRE I.D. # 49616 17 N. 2ND STREET, 12TH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17101 717-612-6024 MICHAEL J. JANESKO, Plaintiff, V. PPL CORPORATION, PPL SERVICES CORPORATION, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., Attorneys for Defendants PPL Corporation, PPL Services Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 06-635 CIVIL - LAW Defendants. NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO THE HONORABLE CLERK THEREOF: Attached hereto for filing in the above-entitled and numbered cause is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal filed on the 22"d day of February, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). You are further notified that written notice of filing of the Notice of Removal has been given to all adverse parties. 6746699v1 Dated: February 22, 2010 Post & Schell, P.C. By: Vincent Candiello ID #49616 Claudia M. Williams ID #90588 17 North Second Street, 12th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1601 Telephone: 717.731.1970 Facsimile: 717.731.1985 vcandiello@postschell.com cwilliams@postschell.com Attorneys For Defendant 2 6746699v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal has been served via First Class, U.S. Mail this 22nd day of February, 2010, upon the following: John J. Mangan, Esquire Bayley & Mangan 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff 74? _1 A VINCENT CANDIELLO 6746699v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal has been served via First Class, United States mail, postage prepaid, this 22nd day of February 2010, upon the following: John J. Mangan, Esquire Bayley & Mangan 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Vincent Candiello VINCENT CANDIELLO 6745423v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal has been served via First Class, U.S. Mail this 22 n' day of February, 2010, upon the following: John J. Mangan, Esquire Bayley & Mangan 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff VINCENT CANDIELLO 6746699v1