Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-0949pdVn2cADE1'FF-CH-notice tode tend STONE LAFAVER &SHEKLETSKI BY: ELIZABETH B. STONE SUPREME CT. ID #60251 414 BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, HUSBAND AND WIFE, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs v. NO BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW Defendant N O T I C E You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the com- plaint 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 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 7.7013-3302 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 i STONE LAFAVER &SHEKLETSKI BY: ELIZABETH B. STONE SUPREME CT. ID #60251 414 BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, HUSBAND AND WIFE, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs V. NO. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW Defendant NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted guiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, is Corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder diners o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SU PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 1.7013-3302 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 -2- oa,eom\d,e-non.meusomo wpa STONE LAFAVER &SHEKLETSKI BY: ELIZABETH B. STONE SUPREME CT. ID #60251 414 BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, HUSBAND AND WIFE, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIETRICH,husband and wife, t/d/b/a : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs r v. NO. (-)L- 4y9 BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW COME the plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, Husband and Wife, t/d/b/a Green Acres Farm, by and through their attorneys, Stone LaFaver & Shekletski, and file this civil complaint against the defendant, Brian D. Brechbill, t/d/b/a Dream Farms, and avers as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, husband and wife, t/d/b/a Green Acres Farm, (hereinafter referred as Plaintiffs) are adult individuals who reside at 675 Brandy Run Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241. 2. The Defendant, is an adult individual, t:/d/b/a as Dream Farms (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant"). Dream Farms is a fictitious -1- name registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State. Dream Farms is in the dairy cattle business and has a principal place of business at 13689 Dream Highway, Borough of Newburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17240. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 3. Paragraph 1 through 2 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 4. On or before November, 2003, Plaintiffs purchased an old dilapidated dairy farm with approximately eighty-seven acres of land, seventy of which were tillable, and appropriately named it "Green Acres Farm". 5. On or before January, 2005, Plaintiffs, through contacts Plaintiff William Dietrich made at work, expressed an interest to Defendant about the possibility of becoming a satellite farm to house heifers for their dairy farm enterprise. Evidently, this interest was well received because the manager for Defendant made an immediate visit upon the farm and indicated it was the perfect place to raise heifers. 6. On or about January 1, 2005, Defendant proposed to send calves to Green Acres Farm and pay the Plaintiffs to feed them for three to four months from the time they are weaned to five or six months of age. According to this arrangement, the Defendant would supply all feed, bedding, transportation and med'cal supplies and -2- service. The Plaintiffs, in turn, agreed to supply housing, water and the labor for these calves, including medical attention should it be required. 7. On or about January 1, 2005, the parties signed a five-year Heifer Raising Contract, to be reviewed at the end of each year to date,(hereinafter referred to as "the First Contract"), whereby the Defendant agreed, among other things, to pay the Plaintiffs twenty- five cents per day per calf for the use of the facilities. The Defendant further agreed to pay the Plaintiff William Dietrich's current hourly rate for time spent feeding and providing health care to the heifers at Green Acres. Further, in addition to the existing machinery shed, the Plaintiffs agreed to build another pole building to house additional calves. The total capacity of the facilities was approximately 225 calves when the contract began. (Attached herewith is the copy of the contract dated January 1, 20015, marked as Exhibit "A", and made a part of the record herein). 8. It is believed and therefore averred that the Defendant was so pleased with the care the Plaintiffs gave their herd, from the healthy to the mortally ill, that the Plaintiffs decided to hire an expert to conduct and produce a feasibility survey to determine if an expansion was a financially sound decision. 9. On or about August 1, 2005, the Plaintiffs determined that based upon the steady income of a daily herd head count of up to 300 cattle, they would borrow against the farm and take on a second mortgage to build a building to house the additional cattle. This -3- additional second mortgage was for $60,000. According to the feasibility study, the only way the Plaintiffs could make their loan obligations is if the Defendant utilized their farm on a consistent basis per the terms of the contract. One of the conclusions from the feasibility study was the dependence upon the Defendant when looking to financing additional buildings; if the Defendant no longer had a use for the Plaintiffs' buildings, the Plaintiffs would have to find other sources of income to meet their loan obligations. 10. On or about August 1, 2005, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant signed a five (5) year renewal contract effective immediately. The most important change in the new contract was that the cost per head increased from 25 cents to 52 cents per cattle per day. At the end of the contract, the Plaintiffs were caring for approximately 286 heifers. (Attached herewith is the copy of the contract dated August 1, 2005, marked as Exhibit "B", and made a part of the record herein). 1. On or about September 16, 2005, the Defendant arrived with trucks and removed without cause all 286 cattle before 7 a.m. after Plaintiff William Dietrich left for work that morning. 12. It is believed and therefore averred that the Defendant had no cause or reason to breach the contract and have never provided any reason, written or oral for the removal of the cattle. 13. It is believed and therefore averred that according to the terms of the August 1, 2005, that the second contract was valid for five years from August 1, 2005. -4- 14. As a direct result of the removal of the heifers, and just as the feasibility study had predicted, once the heifers were removed, and the income therefrom stopped, the Plaintiffs were unable to maintain their livelihood and were forced to list their farm for sale by auction immediately. 15. On or about September 28, 2005, the Plaintiffs held a public auction selling both personal items, as well as, their entire farm. 16. On or about December 28, 2005, ninety days from the date of the auction, settlement occurred and the Plaintiffs lost their livelihood and all of their personal investments. 17. It is averred that at the time that the Defendant removed the cattle that there was 286 cattle being cared for at Plaintiffs' farm. This is a loss of income of 286 head X .52 = 148.72 X 365 days X 5 years equals a loss of a total income of $271,414.00. 18. The second contract also states that the Defendant will pay an additional $25 per month when the hospital bay was used. The Plaintiffs aver that the hospital bay was used no less than ten days out of every month since the Defendant began to rely on level of care that the Plaintiffs gave the especially sick heifers. 19. It is specifically averred that the Defendant only sent the sickest cattle to the Plaintiffs farm apparently because the Plaintiffs' mortality rate was the lowest among all other satellite farms utilized by the Defendant. 20. It is believed and therefore averred that had the Plaintiffs not borrowed the additional $60,000.00 on a second mortgage to make -5- the improvements to the farm in order to enter into the contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiffs would have been able to meet their monthly financial obligations. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant in the sum of Three Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen and no/100 ($332,914.00) Dollars, representing the loss of income over the next five years and the loss of the investment of the second mortgage to build improvements to the land according to the specifications of the Defendant; award reasonable attorney fees; costs of suit; and any and all just awards as this Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, By 414 New Tel ELI^BETxk'B. STAE, Esquire Dated: ? ?( ()C, 2 At i` greet, P.O. Box E and, PA 17070 (717) 774-7435 for Plaintiffs -6- EXHIBIT "A" yyfYf HEIFER RAISING CONTRACT 1. Dream Farms will provide and be responsible for the following : a. All Feed b. All Medical Supplies c. All Bedding Material d. Technical and Veterinary support as needed e. Transportation to and from Green Acres f. Pay Bill his current hourly rate for time spent feeding and health care of heifers at Green Acres. g. Rate of 25 cents per head per day. 2. Green Acres Farm will provide and be responsible for the following : a. Housing and care for all heifers. b. Water and regular cleaning of water tanks. c. Cleaning and bedding of all pens. d. Daily monitoring for any kind of sickness or injuries. e. Following Dream Farms protocols for care and medications of heifers. f. Disposal of manure. g. Green Acres will supply a health update and inventory supplies used end of month report. h. Green Acres is to inform Dream Farms in a timely manner of any supplies, tech support and vet support needed. 3. This contract will cover any and all heifers from 1 to 300 or as added numbers agreed to by both parties. a. Start of this contract between Dream Farms, 13689 Dream Highway, Newburg, PA 17240 and Green Acres, 675 Brandy Run Road, Newville, PA 17241 is in effect January 1, 2005. f00 30 Z00 :59Hd 698E-6LL :ol. xe.a :WOHd WV 61:LL 90021 OI/i ,5 1-+:27 -ROM:DFFAM FGRMS (7:71477-0995 70:4236013 PA b. Contract is valid for 5 yeas, Witt, a review by both parties at end of each year to date. c. All sad any billing will be submitted to Dream Farms on or by 1st day of each month. d. Payment to Green Acres Farms wiU be merle in a timely manner, Date Dreams Farms' '01' 4u,7 -- Green Acres: I \j £00 30 £00 :H9dd 698£-6LL :01 WeA :WOHd Ofd 6P71 900Z/01/1 EXHIBIT "B" Dream Farms Dream Farms 13689 Dream Highway Newburg, PA 17240 Phone: 717.477.0992 Toll Free: 1.888.477-0439 Fax: 717-477.0995 DREAM FARMS HEIFER RAISING CONTRACT For Satellite Service-Green Acres Farm This contract replaces any existing contracts. August 1, 2005 Dream Farms will provide and be responsible for the following: a. All feed. b. All medical supplies (drug therapy and vaccinations). C. Technical and veterinary support as needed. d. Transportation of heifers. e. Provide truck to haul forage and grain and for Bill to use to travel from Green Acres to Dream Farms. f. Rate of 52 cents per head per day, plus $25.00 a month for the hospital bay when used. g. Full-time benefits for Bill Dietrich, with 30 hr. week minimum at Dream Farms. Under 30 hrs. a week would then be prorated accordingly. h. Provide all bedding. 2. Green Acres Faun will provide and be responsible for the following: a. Housing and care for all heifers b. Water and regular cleaning of the water tanks. C. Cleaning and bedding of all pens. d. Daily monitoring for any kind of sickness or injuries. C. Following Dream Farms protocols for care and medications of heifers. f. Disposal of manure. g. Green Acres will supply a health update and inventory of supplies taken on the sheet provided in the pharmacy. h. Green Acres is to inform Dream Farms in a timely manner of any supplies, tech support and vet support needed. L All labor involved in feeding and other care of heifers. WE e 9ssodawlll? TO '13 WU Z0=T0 900Z-60-d3s This contract will cover any and all heifers from 1 to 300 or as added numbers agreed to by both parties. a. Start of this contract between Dream Farms, 13689 Dream Highway, Newburg, PA 17240 and William and Judy Dietrich (Green Acres), 675 Brandy Run Road, Newville, PA 17241 is in effect as of August 1, 2005. b. Contract is valid for 5 years, with a review by both parties at end of each year to date. C. All and any billing will be submitted to Dream Farms by the first week of each month. d. Payment to Green Acres Farms will be made at the end of the submission month. Date: Dream Farms q4 Green Acres Z0'd WU £0=T0 S00Z-60-d3S VERIFICATION Judy A. Dietrich states that she is one of the Plaintiffs named in the foregoing instrument and that she is acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing instrument; that the same are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. JUDY A. DIETRICH Date: (L 1) - ob VERIFICATION William W. Dietrich states that he is one of the Plaintiffs named in the foregoing instru- ment and that he is acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing instrument; that the same are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I L a", 'f, ?' z ? ? ?7 Z' WILLIAM W. DIETRICH Date: ?--))gla0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served this 17'' day of February, 2006, by Facsimile and First Class Mail, upon: Daniel J. Barrett, Esquire 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 STONE LAFAVER & SHEXtETSKI BY: JAZZ Eh B. Attorneys fo 919 Bridge New Cumbe a (717) 77 -7? I.D. # 25 StAne,,,--I?squire //P1afntiffs PA 17070 5 L,r)]j 4j uj 1 ? 44 v r ) t..W I? ?I JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs V. NO. 06-949 Civil Term BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW Defendant AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) ) SS: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ) I, Elizabeth B. Stone, of Stone LaFaver & Shekletski, attorneys for the plaintiffs hereby certify that I served the Complaint in the above captioned matter on Daniel J. Barrett, attorney for the ?I defendant, at 228 South Main Street, Athens, Pennsylvania 18810, by United States First Class Mail, on February 24, 200', as evidenced by the attached Acceptance of Service. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this ?? day of _) ay- 2 06. Notary Pub is COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Eli th? Stone/ Attorney for NOTARIAL SEAL KATHLEEN KEINI, Notary Public New Cumberland Boro. Cumberland Co. My Commission Expires Dec. 5, 2D06 JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs V. NO. 06-949 Civil Term BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW Defendant ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, DANIEL J. BARRETT, Attorney at Law, acce,ot service on behalf of the Defendant, Brian D. Brechbill, t/d/b/a Dream Farms, of a certified copy of the Complaint filed on February 17, 2006, to the above term and number. } 1 1 i JUDY A. DIETRICH and WILLIAM W DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs V, BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 06-949 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing, in writing, with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3302 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 JUDY A. DIETRICH and WILLIAM W DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs v. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 06-949 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant NOTICL?\ Le hart demandado a usted en la carte. Si usted guiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plaza a1 partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presenter una apariencia escrita o en persona o par abogado y archivar en la carte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a 1as demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la carte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y par cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEBMMA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAME*rTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIMM EL DINERO SUPICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SU PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3302 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 JUDY A. DIETRICH and WILLIAM W DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs V. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 06-949 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ANSWER NEW MATTER and COUNTERCLAIM 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part. Dream Farms is the name of a partnership. Brian Brechbill is a partner. Allen Rice is the other partner. Dream Farms is in the business of serving dairy farms by raising calves for the owners for fees. The business is in the Township of Lurgan, Franklin County, Pennsylvania. 3. No answer required. 4. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion and therefore, must deny. 5. The first sentence is admitted. As to the second sentence, after a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion and therefore, must deny. By way of further answer, the 7830 Defendants cannot determine what Plaintiffs mean by "indicated" and "Evidently" and must deny those assertions. It is admitted that Defendants were interested in expanding "satellite" locations. 6. Admitted in part. The written memorandum incorporated into Plaintiff's paragraph 7 covered the terms of the agreement. Veterinary care and William Dietrich's labor were to be provided by Defendants. 7. Admitted in part. The agreement states the terms. The Plaintiffs were to be paid 25 cents per calf per day for the services as set in the contract, not "for the use of the facilities". The agreement did not call for building another building, but the Plaintiffs told Defendant they had limited capacity and wished to expand it by adding a building. Defendants are o.ot aware of Plaintiff's capacity as of 1-1-2005 after a reasonable investigation and therefore must deny that assertion. 8. Admitted in part. In early 2005, Defendants were pleased with the care Plaintiffs gave the calves, but the calves did not belong to Plaintiffs or Defendants. As to the balance of the paragraph, after a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the statement and therefore, must deny and demand proof. 9. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion and therefore, must deny. 10. Admitted that the August 1, 2005 contract was signed and that the rate was changed to 52 cents per calf per day because the labor of William Dietrich was to be included in the daily rate. It is denied that there were about 286 calves on the Plaintiffs' farm in September, 2005 as there were about 232 on September I and about 266 by September 16 and never more than 276. 11. Admitted, except that the calves were removed for cause due to inadequate care by Plaintiffs. 12. Denied. The paragraph does not state who holds the belief asserted, but Defendants deny that Plaintiffs hold that belief. It is denied that Defendants breached any contract. It is denied that Defendants had no reason to remove the calves. It is denied that Defendants have never provided reason for the removal of the calves. The Defendants removed the calves because Plaintiffs were not properly caring for them, and Defendants discussed this with Plaintiff William Dietrich prior to the removal. Defendants also gave written reason after the removal through their attorney. 13. The averment of Paragraph 13 is denied, first because it states a legal conclusion and because the Paragraph states "It is believed. . ", but doesn't state who believes. The contract was written and the terms are stated in the contract. 14. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion and therefore, must deny. 15. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion and therefore, must deny. 16. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion and therefore, must deny. 17. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion and therefore, must deny. 18. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion and therefore, must deny. 14. The assertion is denied. The Plaintiffs were the only satellite farm that handled calves in that age group (aside from a one-month temporary placement). It is denied that Defendants "only sent the sickest cattle to Plaintiffs' farm", although in the early months of 2005 the Plaintiffs did provide special attention to ailing calves. 20. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion and therefore, must deny. By way of additional answer, in July 2005 Judy Dietrich told Lane Sollenberger that Plaintiffs were then two months behind on their mortgage and Plaintiffs had a mortgage of over $250,000.00 before any dealings with Defendant. NEW MATTER 21. Throughout August and September 2005, the Plaintiffs were experiencing marital difficulties and Plaintiff Judy Dietrich on September 13, 2005, filed an action in divorce on grounds of breakdown, indignities and adultery. 22. Prior to January 2006, only Judy Dietrich had asserted that Defendants had been in breach of contract. 23, By letter of November 10, 2005 from her attorney, Judy Dietrich asserted that the removal of the calves was contrived by Defendant to somehow assist William Dietrich in the pending divorce. 24. Prior to removing the animals from Green Acres Farm, Defendants discussed the situation with Plaintiff, William Dietrich. William Dietrich acknowledged the declining care of the animals, stated that he was getting no help from Judy Dietrich in the feeding, care and observation of the animals. Defendants also discussed with William Dietrich that they might have to remove the animals to where they could receive proper care. 25. Shortly before the animals were removed, William Dietrich on three or more occasions, told Defendants that if they needed to remove the animals to do so and he said "I don't want to know" about removal of the animals. 26. Plaintiffs final bill to Defendants on 10-1-05 asserted 266 animals for 16 days for September, 2005. 27. In late August 2005, Plaintiff Judy Dietrich told Lane Sollenberger (the manager of Defendants' operation) that she was so depressed she could not leave her house. 28. The calves were removed by Defendants at considerable cost, expense and inconvenience to Defendants. 29. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate the damages they claimed in their complaint. 30. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action. 31. Defendants suffered loss of future income from Plaintiffs' failure to properly care for the calves. COUNTERCLAIM 32. The averments of the Complaint, only to the extent admitted in the Answer, are incorporated by reference. 33. From January to May 2005, there was no mortality of the calves that had been cared for by Plaintiffs. 34. Plaintiffs cared for 44 calves in January 2005 and the numbers increased to 132 by May 2005. 35. In June 2005, one calf died of the 135 in Plaintiffs' care. 36. In July 2005, there were 227 calves in Plaintiffs' care and 4 calves that had been in Plaintiffs' care died. 37. In August 2005, there were 221 calves in Plaintiffs' care and 8 calves that had been in Plaintiffs' care died. 38. From September 1-16, 2005, eight calves that had been in Plaintiffs' care died. 39. After the calves were removed from Plaintiffs' farm on September 16, 2005, two calves died between September 17 and 30 and 13 calves were in such a weakened or sick condition that they had to be replaced. 40. Between September 17 and January 31, 2006, 25 of the calves that had been in Plaintiffs' care died from weakened conditions and illnesses. 41. The cost of the 13 replacements was $900.00 each, or $11,700.00. 42. The cost of the dead calves was an average of $350.00 each repaid to the owner or $15,750.00. 43. The aforesaid losses were the sole and direct result of the neglect of the Plaintiffs for failing to properly care for the calves. 44. Defendants suffered a further loss of revenue from the 48 dead calves of $1.95/day for an average of 600 days per calf or $56,160.00. WHEREFORE Defendants demand judgment against Plaintiffs in the amount of $83,610.00. Respectfully submitted, Attorney ID #25508 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 570-888-0297 570-888-4142 (Fax) VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I make this verification as attorney for my client. The client can not be reached within the jurisdiction in Rime to personally verify. The source of information is my client. Signed: DANIEL J. BARRETT Attorney for Defendant JUDY A. DIETRICH and WILLIAM W. :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Plaintiffs V. NO. 06-949 Civil Term BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (DATE OF SERVICE: (METHOD OF SERVICE: IPAPER(s) SERVED March 17, 2006 First Class Mail - Postage Pre-paid Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim interrogatories to Plaintiffs re: Expert Witnesses interrogatories to Plaintiffs Notice to Produce ARTY/ATTORNEY SERVED: Elizabeth B. Stone, Esquire Stone LaFaver & Shekletski 414 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 I verify that service was made as described above. I make this statement bject to the penalty of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification authorities. Daniel J. Barrett Attorney for Defendants ? ;, ?, ?, ;- -, ?_ -_ ..? ?_. _? r+? ("J C'll ( != - ' li ...t 44: ._... _I F.i\ nt ., D I FCR I C11 b, vnoti'- JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/dfb/a GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs v. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 06-949 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGEMENT TO: Defendant Brian D. Brechbill, t/d/b/a Dream Farms c/o Daniel J. Barrett, Esquire 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 DATE OF NOTICE: March 20, 2006 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO TAKE ACTION RE- QUIRED OF YOU IN THIS CASE. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: Cumberland County Bar Association 32 S. Bedford St. Carlisle, PA 17013-3302 7 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 %A4t6rney 1 414 Brid6 New Cum 717-774-7 PA 17070 Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth B. Stone, of the law firm of Stone LaFaver & Shekletski, do hereby certify that on the date set forth below, I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following person at the following address indicated below by sending same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid. Brian D. Brechbill c/o Daniel J. Barrett, Esquire 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 Date: .? ?6'fv' 1ti 0 (' -2- {J 'I-a ?_ ??; 'C',- - J -' ,i- N _ N q' ('1 ? ? -? , )c ?. ? ._'..; ::: fit G` C. G'J r JUDY A. DIETRICH and WILLIAM W DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs V. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 06-949 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ................................................................................................................... VERIFICATION TO ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM To the Prothonotary: Please file the Verification of Brian Brechbill to the Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim as filed. Attorney for Defendants Attorney ID #25508 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 570-888-0297 570-888-4142(Fax) 7830 Respectfully submitted, VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: 'e4rcA 23 Zoo(, Brian Brechbill JUDY A. DIETRICH and WILLIAM W. :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Plaintiffs V. NO. 06-949 Civil Term BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DATE OF SERVICE: March 28, 2006 OF SERVICE: First Class Mail - Postage Pre-paid APER(s) SERVED: Verification of Brian Brechbill to Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim 'ARTY/ATTORNEY SERVED: Elizabeth B. Stone, Esquire Stone LaFaver & Shekletski Counsel for Plaintiffs 414 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 I verify that service was made as described above. I make this statement bject to the penalty of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification authorities. Daniel J. Barrett Attorney for Defendants C.. u. -< ''\-p'.. a, e, --h -?-I 1-Ply-- ct STOVE LAFAVER & SHEKLETSKI BY: ELIZABETH B. STONE SUPREME CT. ID #60251 414 BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH,husband and wife, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, HUSBAND AND WIFE, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. NO. 06 - 999 BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, : CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW Defendant PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW COME the plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, Husband and Wife, t/d/b/a Green Acres Farm, by and through their attorneys, Stone LaFaver & Shekletski, and file this Reply to Defendant's New Matter and Answer to Counterclaim as follows: COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 21. Admitted and Denied. It is admitted that Plaintiff Judy Dietrich did file for divorce on September 13, 2005; however, Plaintiff Judv Dietrich withdrew her divorce complaint on January, -1- 2005, through a Praecipe filed with the Prothonotary, and the matter is closed. It is specifically denied that this filing has any relevance or bearing on this lawsuit. It is specifically averred that at all times relevant to this breach of contract, both Plaintiffs, as husband and wife, have been a unified front in their allegations of breach of contract and the damages arising therefrom. Proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at time of trial. 22. Denied. It is specifically denied that only Plaintiff Judy Dietrich asserted any claims of breach of contract. It is specifically averred that at all times relevant to this breach of contract, both Plaintiffs, as husband and wife, have been a unified front in their allegations of breach of contract and the damages arising therefrom. Proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at time of trial. 23. Denied. It is specifically denied that only Plaintiff Judy Dietrich asserted any claims of breach of contract. It is specifically averred that at all times relevant to this breach of contract, both Plaintiffs, as husband and wife, have been a unified front in their allegations of breach and the damages arising therefrom. It is believed and therefore averred by Plaintiffs that Defendant is basing the allegation contained in Paragraph 23 against Plaintiff Judy Dietrich on a carbon copy distribution list of counsel's letter to opposing counsel. All references in the letter demonstrate that both clients were and are unified in their complaint -2- against Defendant. Proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at time of trial. 24. Denied. It is specifically denied that the conversation of which the Defendant alleges in Paragraph 24 ever occurred. To the extent that the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation and proof, if relevant, thereof is demanded at time of trial. 25. Denied. It is specifically denied that the conversation of which the Defendant alleges in Paragraph 25 ever occurred. To the extent that the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation and proof, if relevant, thereof is demanded at time of trial. -3- 26. Neither Admitted nor denied. Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to be answer this allegation. Plaintiffs can only answer this question if the Defendant provides both the USDA and the Dream Farm identification ear tag numbers that each cattle was assigned at birth. 27. Denied. It is specifically denied that the conversation of which the Defendant alleges in Paragraph 27 ever occurred. To the extent that the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation and proof is thereof is demanded at time of trial. 28. Neither admitted nor denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have no idea or any knowledge as to the cost incurred by the Defendant. 29. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. By way of further answer, the Plaintiffs took immediate action to mitigate their damages. Within two weeks of the cattle being removed in violation of the contract, the Plaintiffs listed their farm and all of their personal property -4- for auction which all sold on September 28, 2005, just 13 days after the Defendant breached their contract. Settlement was held ninety (90) days later on December 38, 2005. 30. Denied. The Plaintiffs have been very specific with regard their cause of action in their Breach of Contract complaint, said contract having been signed by all parties on August 1, 2005. As previously recited in Plaintiffs' complaint, on or about January 1, 2005, the parties signed a five-year renewable Heifer Raising Contract, to be reviewed at the end of each year to date,(hereinafter referred to as "the First Contract"), whereby the Defendant agreed, among other things, to pay the Plaintiffs twenty-five cents per day per calf for the use of the facilities. The Defendant further agreed to pay the Plaintiff William Dietrich's current hourly rate for time spent feeding and providing health care to the heifers at Green Acres. Further, in addition to the existing machinery shed, the Plaintiffs agreed to build another pole building to house additional calves. The total capacity of the facilities was approximately 225 calves when the contract began. 31. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiffs caused the Defendant to lose any money. To the contrary, it is specifically averred by the Plaintiffs, and the evidence will show, that the Plaintiffs were able to save the Defendant hundreds and thousands of dollars by their diligent care and ability to reinvigorate sick calves who were near death. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge -5- to either admit or deny the averments of paragraph 31 and proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at time of trial. COUNTERCLAIM 32. Paragraphs 21 through 31 of the responses provided above in Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth below. 33. Neither Admitted nor Denied. Plaintiffs are unable to respond to Defendant's allegations regarding any mortalities of calves absent the USDA number and Dream Farm Identification number for each alleged calf. Absent both of these identification numbers, Plaintiffs are unable to respond with any accuracy to this allegation. 34. Neither Admitted nor Denied. Plaintiffs are unable to respond to Defendant's allegations regarding any mortalities of calves absent the USDA number and Dream Farm Identification number for each alleged calf. Absent both of these identification numbers, Plaintiffs are unable to respond with any accuracy to this allegation. Denied. 35. Neither Admitted nor Denied. Plaintiffs are unable to respond to Defendant's allegations regarding any mortalities of calves absent the USDA number and Dream Farm Identification number for each alleged calf. Absent both of these identification numbers, Plaintiffs are unable to respond with any accuracy to this allegation. 36. Neither Admitted nor Denied. Plaintiffs are unable to respond to Defendant's allegations regarding any mortalities of calves -6- absent the USDA number and Dream Farm Identification number for each alleged calf. Absent both of these identification numbers, Plaintiffs are unable to respond with any accuracy to this allegation. 37. Neither Admitted nor Denied. Plaintiffs are unable to respond to Defendant's allegations regarding any mortalities of calves absent the USDA number and Dream Farm Identification number for each alleged calf. Absent both of these identification numbers, Plaintiffs are unable to respond with any accuracy to this allegation. 38. Denied. By way of further, Plaintiffs are unable to respond to Defendant's allegations regarding any mortalities of calves absent the USDA number and Dream Farm Identification number for each alleged calf. Absent both of these identification numbers, Plaintiff are unable to respond with any accuracy to this allegation. 39. Denied. Plaintiffs would have no idea how many calves died once they were removed from their property. By way of further answer, shipping cattle tends to cause stress referred to as "shipping fever" upon calves and mortality is expected immediately among them. By way of further, Plaintiffs are unable to respond to Defendant's allegations regarding any mortalities of calves absent the USDA number and Dream Farm Identification number for each alleged calf. Absent both of these identification numbers, Plaintiffs are unable to respond with any accuracy to this allegation. 40. Denied. Plaintiffs would have no idea how many calves died once they were removed from their property. By way of further answer, shipping cattle tends to cause stress referred to as "shipping fever" -7- upon calves and mortality is expected immediately among them. By way of further, Plaintiffs are unable to respond to Defendant's allegations regarding any mortalities of calves absent the USDA number and Dream Farm Identification number for each alleged calf. Absent both of these identification numbers, Plaintiffs are unable to respond with any accuracy to this allegation. 41. Denied. By way of further, nothing including in either the January, 2005, or the August 1, 2005, contracts state that the Plaintiffs were in any way financially responsible for any replacements fees associated with a death of a calf. The contract is indeed silent with regard to expected mortality rates, replacement costs, transportation costs, or any other costs that Defendant is attempting to manufacture in their Counterclaim. Proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at time of trial. 42. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without knowledge to either admit or deny the averments of paragraph 42 and proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at time of trial Neither admitted nor denied. 43. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs were directly responsible for the deaths of any cattle on their property. By way of further answer, oftentimes only the sickest cattle were brought to Plaintiffs' "health center" because of Plaintiffs unusual and attentive care and ability to revive the sickest calves. Plaintiffs constantly had consultations with Defendant's veterinarian, Dr. Sims who acted as Plaintiffs' herd health advisor. Plaintiffs -8- became quite schooled in reviving the health of sick calves. Any time a sick calf was placed in the care of Plaintiffs, they immediately consulted Lane Sollenberger on a daily basis to determine at what point the calf no longer was cost efficient to medicate and contain. Plaintiffs aver that at all times that Lane Sollenberger decided at what point a calf would be declared no longer feasible, Mr. Sollenberger would either destroy or de-tag the calf. 44. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge to either admit or deny the averments of paragraph 44 and proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at time of trial Neither admitted nor denied. This portion left intentionally blank. -9- WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant in the sum of Three Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen and no/100 ($332,914.00) Dollars, representing the loss of income over the next five years and the loss of the investment of the second mortgage to build improvements to the land according to the specifications of the Defendant; award reasonable attorney fees; costs of suit; and any and all just awards as this Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, By ELIZAB B I. D. 0251 414 ridge New Cumber Telephony Dated: Attorneys /Psquire 'Xtree , P.O. Box E and PA 17070 (7/7) 774-7435 Plaintiffs -10- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served this 13th day of April, 2006, by United States First Class Mail, upon: Daniel J. Barrett, Esquire 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 STONE LAFAVER & BY: ltlio bets B Stone, tEsquire A orneys or Plai tiffs 9 Bri e Street New C land, A 17070 (717 77 74 I.D. 0 6 5 _ ? -? ?-? ;? ._ x 1 c'"i JUDY A. DIETRICH and WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. NO. 06-949 Civil Term BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TE OF SERVICE: THOD OF SERVICE: APER(s) SERVED: May 15, 2006 First Class Mail - Postage Pre-paid Requests to Admit PARTY/ATTORNEY SERVED: Elizabeth B. Stone, Esquire Stone LaFaver & Shekletski Counsel for Plaintiffs 414 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 I verify that service was made as described above. I make this statement bject to the penalty of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification authorities. Daniel J. Barrett Attorney for Defendants 7830 C7 o p rr?f n ?> ? to o pd\obj\MARTINJAMES.POS STONE LAFAVER &SHEKLETSKI BY: ELIZABETH B. STONE SUPREME CT. ID #60251 414 BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, HUSBAND AND WIFE, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIETRICH,husband and wife, t/d/b/a : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs V. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS Defendant NO. 06 - 949 CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN THE NATURE OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND NOW COME the plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, Husband and Wife, t/d/b/a Green Acres Farm, by and through their attorneys, Stone LaFaver & Shekletski, and files the following answer to Defendant's Production for Documents, and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff objects generally on the grounds of relevance to the issue. Without waiving the objection, and by way of further explanation, it is admitted that a divorce complaint was filed by Judy A. Dietrich against William W. Dietrich in the Court of Common Pleas on September, 13, 2005. However, by way of further answer, and as evidenced in the public court records, Plaintiff Judy Dietrich filed a Praecipe to Withdraw the Complaint in Divorce on February 9, 2006. Moreover, Plaintiffs object to the mention of their personal affairs -1- in this lawsuit and further object to the relevancy and admission into evidence based ; therefore, the Plaintiffs deny and object to the relevance to its admission herein. 2. Plaintiff objects generally on the grounds of relevance to the issue. Without waiving the objection, and by way of further explanation, it is admitted that there was a mechanics lien filed by Whistlers Well Drilling for $9,300.00. By way of further answer, this lien was filed within 45 days after the Defendant breached the contract with the Plaintiffs by removing the cattle from the Plaintiffs' farm, forcing the Plaintiffs into debt, thus creating a situation where the Plaintiffs were unable to make the required payments to the drilling company. Moreover, this lien was satisfied in full upon the virtual forced sale of the property as evidenced by a Praecipe to Satisfy filed with the Cumberland County Office of the Prothonotary on January 4, 2006. 3. Plaintiff objects generally on the grounds of relevance to the issue. Without waiving the objection, and by way of further explanation, it is admitted that the Plaintiffs borrowed $256,000.00 from AgChoice Bank. The Plaintiffs contributed $100,000.00 Dollars in cash in addition to this loan in order to buy the $335,000.00 farm. By way of further, it should be noted that the Plaintiffs purchased their farm two years previous to the signing of any contract with the Defendant and were financially comfortable and able to make the -2- monthly mortgage payments at that time. Further, it was only after the Plaintiffs signed the contract with the Defendant and the Defendant breached the contract that the Plaintiffs were no longer able to make the required monthly payments as a direct and immediate result of the loss of steady income. 4. Plaintiff objects generally on the grounds of relevance to the issue. Without waiving the objection, and by way of further explanation, it is admitted that the Plaintiffs borrowed an additional $59,000.00 from Fulton Bank on or about May 16, 2005. By way of further answer, the Plaintiffs borrowed this money in order to build an additional pole barn, as well as, repair and covert an existing barn to accommodate the Defendant's cattle. This money was lent by the Bank conditioned upon and only after personal reassurances were made by Lane Sollerger, General Manager employed by the Defendant to the Bank. It is averred that the Mr. Sollerger personally assured the bank that Dream Farms Inc. would house the additional weaner cattle at the Plaintiffs's farm under a five year contract. But for the assurances by the Defendant, and but for the need to build on and repair the farm, the Plaintiffs would not have had to borrow these additional monies. Further, without the second lien against the farm, the Plaintiffs might have been able to remain in the farm without listing the farm for immediate sale if not for the Defendant's breach. 5. Plaintiff objects generally on the grounds of relevance to -3- the issue. Without waiving the objection, and by way of further explanation, the Plaintiffs purchased this farm two years prior to the contract being signed with the Defendant. 6. Plaintiff objects generally on the grounds of relevance to the issue. Without waiving the objection, and by way of further explanation, the Plaintiffs listed their farm for sale just 16 days after the Defendant breached the August 1, 2005, contract and removed the cattle thus causing the Plaintiffs' income flow to come to an immediate halt forcing the Plaintiffs to list the farm and all of their personal property for immediate auction and sale. Respectfully submitted, STONE LaFAVEA & Eliz6beth B Sup. Ct-I-V, 414 Br?fdaa, X1 uum?rl 7)774-74 Attorneys f DATED: 6')S c)(° yxone, E quire 025V'l eex E 0 70 Plaintiffs -4- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBYA C1ERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served this j'4? day of 2006, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon: Daniel J. Barrett, Esquire 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 STONE LAFAVER & BY: B. 414 Bf ge Str t Ne umbe a . PA 17070 ) 774-7 #60251 r'? C ti ?^ ? m cr ,i" ?_.; ?.- G .- tt r. ?... ?. Y_ c-'• JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a: GREEN ACRES FARM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs V. : NO. 06-949 Civil Term BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM . FARMS, : CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW Defendant VERIFICATION TO PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN THE NATURE OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION To the Prothonotary: Please file the Verification of Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich to the Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Production of Documents in the Nature of Request for Admission as filed. Respectfully Elizab /th Sup dge New umberl (7 ) 774-7 torney fo ,-5L ne #6 25e St eel tted, Esquire PA 17070 Plaintiffs VERIFICATION Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich state that they are the Plaintiffs named in the forego- ing instrument and that they are acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing instrument; that the same are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. C4 A. DIETRICH WILLIAM W. DIETRICH Date: &1-47, k& JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a: GREEN ACRES FARM, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. 06-949 Civil Term BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth B. Stone, Attorney at Law, of the law firm of Stone LaFaver & Shekletski, attorneys for Plaintiffs, JUDY A. DIETRICH and WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the within instrument on Defendant's counsel of record by First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid, addressed as follows: Daniel J. Barrett, Esquire 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 / Dated: ??*x 2'?j L? a,6 esquire Elizb 7/4 Su t. 414' BridNew Cumb7070 (717) 77Attorney ffs 7 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. CIVIL ACTION DIETRICH, Plaintiffs vs. NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance in the above-captioned matter on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich, William W. Dietrich and Green Acres Farm. Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC L 6 Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: April 13, 2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, FRANK P. CLARK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on April 13, 2007, I served a true and correct copy of the Praecipe to Enter Appearance in the above-captioned matter upon the below listed individual(s) by causing same to be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid at Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Daniel J. Barrett DANIEL J. BARRETT Attorney at Law 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 Elizabeth Stone STONE, LAFAVER & SHEKLETSKI 414 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC ??? 1? ?< C?g<? Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: April 13, 2007 ?; ? r?-"- .., ? , ''tip --- -? _ - . .? ??J __'t ` ?..- i3 -G: 09/10/2007 00:43 l x 717-731-4764 KREVSKY LW/CLARK LW IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, lh/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, Plaintiffs VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants F AECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw my appearance in the above-captioned matter on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich, William W. Dietrich and Green Acres Farm. Respectfully submitted, STONE LAF) b i b rw C ..berl Attorney I.D. ' Dated: August 10, 2007 PA 17070 60251 PAGE 02/03 0k /10/2007 08:43 717-731-4764 KREVSKY LW/CLARK LW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, ELIZABETH B. STONE, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on August 10, 2007,1 served a true and correct copy of the Praecipe to Withdraw Appearance in the above- captioned matter upon the below listed individual(s) by causing same to be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid at New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Daniel J. Barrett DANIEL J. BARRETT Attorney at Law 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 Frank P. Clark CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC P.O. Box 1254 Cwnp Hill, PA 17001-1254 Dated: August 10. 2007 PAGE 03/03 t7 ? d C: 3 [? ? ? T C J CSi ca -! IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, Plaintiffs VS. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COME THE PLAINTIFFS, by and through their counsel, who make the following Motion: 1. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the instant case on February 17, 2006. 2. Plaintiffs' Complaint contains one count. 3. Defendants filed an Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim on March 17, 2006. 4. Plaintiffs filed Reply to New Matter and Answer to Counterclaim on April 13, 2006. 5. Plaintiffs filed a second separate complaint (NO. 06-3568-CIVIL TERM) on June 22, 2006. 6. Plaintiffs' second Complaint contains three counts. 7. Defendants filed Preliminary Objections on August 1, 2006. 8. On August 21, 2006, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants Preliminary Objections. 9. Plaintiffs filed a Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument on October 5, 2006. 10. The Case was removed from the Argument Court after Defendants agreed to accept an Amended Complaint. 11. Plaintiffs' wish to amend their original Complaint and also incorporate the counts from the second separate Complaint (NO. 06-3568 CIVIL TERM). Defendants have consented to said amendment. A copy of the Proposed Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 12. Pa. R.C.P. § 1033 allows for the amendment of a Complaint after the filing of an original pleading even though it may give rise to a new cause of action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for an ORDER granting them twenty (20) days to file an Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC "? ?, m4,L, Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: December 20, 2007 EXHIBIT A IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. CIVIL ACTION DIETRICH, Plaintiffs vs. NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COME the plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, Husband and Wife, t/d/b/a Green Acres Farm" by and through their counsel, Clark & Krevsky, LLC, who files this Amended Complaint against Defendants, Brian D. Brechbill and Allen Rice, t/d/b/a Dream Farms, and aver as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, husband and wife, t/d/b/a Green Acres Farm, (hereinafter referred as "Plaintiffs") are adult individuals who reside at 1665 Bamberger Road, Etters, York County, Pennsylvania 17319. 2. Plaintiff William W. Dietrich (hereinafter referred as "Plaintiff Bill Dietrich") is an adult individual who resides at 1665 Bamberger Road, Etters, York County, Pennsylvania 17319. 1 3. Defendant Brian D. Brechbill (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Brechbill") is an adult individual having a principal place of business at 13689 Dream Highway, Newburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania 17240. 4. Defendant Allen Rice (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Rice") is an adult individual having a principal place of business at 13689 Dream Highway, Newburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania 17240. 5. On information and belief, Defendants trade or do business under the name of Dream Farms, a fictitious name registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State, and list Dream Farms' principal place of business at 13689 Dream Highway, Borough of Newburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania 17240. BACKGROUND FACTS 6. In or before November, 2003, Plaintiffs purchased an old dairy farm with approximately eighty-seven acres of land, seventy of which were tillable, and appropriately named it "Green Acres Farm". 7. In or before January 2005, Plaintiffs and Defendants had discussions about housing young heifers from Defendants' dairy farm enterprise at Green Acres Farm. On or about January 1, 2005, the parties signed a five-year Heifer Raising Contract, to be reviewed at the end of each year to date, (hereinafter referred to as "the First Contract), (Attached herewith is the copy of the First Contract, marked as Exhibit "A", and made a part of the record herein). 2 9. The First Contract addressed in part services that Plaintiffs would provide at Green Acres Farms to heifers that were entrusted to Defendants. 10. The First Contract also addressed labor that Plaintiff Bill Dietrich would provide to Defendants other than at Green Acres Farm. 11. Shortly after Plaintiffs started providing services under the First Contract, Defendants induced Plaintiff Bill Dietrich to provide substantially more hours of labor at Defendants' operations not on the premises of Green Acres Farm. 12. Shortly after Plaintiffs started providing services under the First Contract, Defendants encouraged Plaintiffs to accept an increasing number of heifers at Green Acres Farm and so induced Plaintiffs to expand their operations at Green Acres Farm to accommodate more of the herd entrusted to Defendants. 13. In or about July 2005, the parties engaged in discussions to renegotiate the First Contract. 14. By July 2005, Defendants expressed such satisfaction with the care that Plaintiffs gave the heifers that Plaintiffs were induced to hire an expert to conduct and produce a feasibility survey for an expansion of Plaintiffs' farm. 15. On or about August 1, 2005, the Plaintiffs, induced by Defendants' expressions of satisfaction regarding services at Green Acres Farm and the increase of hours of labor that Plaintiff Bill Dietrich performed for Defendants, borrowed against Green Acres Farm and took out a second mortgage in the amount of $60,000 to construct a building to house additional cattle. 16. On or about August 1, 2005, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants signed a five (5) year renewal contract (the "Second Contract"), which became effective immediately. (Attached herewith is the copy of the Second Contract dated August 1, 2005, marked as Exhibit "B", and made a part of the record herein). 17. The Second Contract increased Defendants' per cattle per day payment amounts to Plaintiffs. 18. The Second Contract included a clause (the "Employment Clause") that provided in part for the employment of Plaintiff Bill Dietrich at Defendants' operations other than at Green Acres Farm: "1. Dream Farms will provide and be responsible for the following: ...g. Full-time benefits for Bill Dietrich, with 30 hr. week minimum at Dream Farms. Under 30 hrs. a week would then be prorated accordingly." 19. Plaintiffs established a hospital bay at Green Acres Farm to care for especially sick heifers sent by Defendants. 20. On information and belief Defendants sent their sickest cattle to Plaintiffs' farm because the Plaintiffs' mortality rate was the lowest among all other satellite farms utilized by the Defendants. 21. The Plaintiffs' hospital bay was used no less than ten days out of every month due to the Defendants' reliance on level of care that the Plaintiffs gave the especially sick heifers. 22. As of September 16, 2005, Plaintiffs housed at their Green Acres Farm approximately 286 cattle from Dream Farms. 23. On or about September 16, 2005, before 7 a.m. but after Plaintiff William Dietrich left for work at Dream Farms, Defendants caused the removal of all 286 cattle housed at Green Acres Farm. 4 24. Defendants thereafter refused to send any heifers to Green Acres Farm. 25. Throughout the time from September 16, 2005, through February 22, 2006, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich continued to perform services to Defendants under the Employment Clause of the Second Contract. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 above are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. 27. The Second Contract was valid for five years from August 1, 2005. 28. Defendants have never provided any reason, written or oral for the removal of the heifers. 29. Defendants' removal of the heifers housed at Green Acres Farm constituted a breach of the Second Contract. 30. Defendants breached the Second Contract without privilege or justification. 31. As a direct result of Defendants' removal of the heifers, the Plaintiffs were unable to maintain their livelihood and were forced to sell their farm immediately. 32. On or about September 28, 2005, the Plaintiffs held a public auction selling both personal items, as well as, their entire farm. 33. On or about December 28, 2005, ninety days from the date of the auction, settlement occurred and the Plaintiffs lost their livelihood and all of their personal investments. 34. Plaintiffs losses directly attributable to Defendants' breach of the Second Contract include but are not limited to the following: 5 a. Loss of income from care of heifers, at the contractual rate of $.52 per day for the 286 head as of September 16, 2005, resulting in total lost income of $271,414.00 over the term of the Second Contract. b. Loss of payments for use of the hospital bay, at the rate of an additional $25 per month when the hospital bay was used, resulting in total lost income of $1,500.00 over the term of the Second Contract. 35. It is believed and therefore averred that had the Plaintiffs not borrowed the additional $60,000.00 on a second mortgage to make the improvements to the farm in order to enter into the contract with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs would have been able to meet their monthly financial obligations. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants in the sum of Three Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen and no/100 ($332,914.00) Dollars representing the loss of income over the next five years and the loss of the investment of the second mortgage to build improvements to the land according to the specifications of the Defendant; award reasonable attorney fees; costs of suit; and any and all just awards as this Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT 36. Paragraphs 1 through 35 above are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. 37. Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiff Bill Dietrich were materially induced to enter into the Second Contract by virtue of the Employment Clause. 6 38. The Employment Clause was a material element of the Second Contract, to secure steady wages and fringe benefits to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich through the life of said Second Contract. 39. The Employment Clause provided for employment of Plaintiff Bill Dietrich so as to meet the parties' intention that Plaintiffs expand its operations at Green Acres Farm to accommodate more of Defendants' heifers and/or heifers entrusted to Defendants' care. 40. Alternatively, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich was a beneficiary of the Second Contract, as his employment under the Employment Clause satisfied an obligation of the Defendants under the Second Contract to pay additional consideration to Plaintiffs in exchange for Plaintiffs' agreement to accept a greater number of Defendants' heifers and/or heifers entrusted to Defendants' care than was contemplated under the First Contract. 41. The Employment Clause guaranteed employment by Defendants to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for a five-year term. 42. On or about August 2005, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich commenced employment under the Second Contract. 43. For all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich provided exemplary services to Defendants. 44. For all times relevant to this action, Lane Sollenberger, managed Defendants' operations at Dream Farms. 45. For all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich's duties under the Employment Clause included caring for calves (and their pen area), performing maintenance on farm equipment and buildings, and providing general farm labor; Plaintiff Bill Dietrich 7 performed said work on Defendants' premises as part of a three-person crew that was supervised by Lane Sollenberger and Plaintiff Bill Dietrich was provided all tools and implements for said work by Defendants. 46. For all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich's services under the Employment Clause constituted general farm labor that did not require him to make discretionary or managerial decisions on behalf of Defendants. 47. For all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich remained ready, willing and able to exercise his best efforts to fulfill his obligations to Defendants under the Employment Clause. 48. On or about February 22, 2006, Defendants terminated the employment of Plaintiff Bill Dietrich without cause. 49. Defendants terminated Plaintiff Bill Dietrich without giving him warning that his performance of duties was anything less than satisfactory. 50. Defendants discharged Plaintiff Bill Dietrich in retaliation for his exercise of his rights in asserting that Defendants breached the Second Contract. 51. Defendants terminated Plaintiff Bill Dietrich without privilege or justification. 52. Since his termination, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich has been unable to find gainful employment or to secure wages and benefits to replace fully those due him from Defendants. 53. By terminating Plaintiff Bill Dietrich, Defendants breached their obligations to Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiff Bill Dietrich, for which Defendants are liable to said Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for wages and benefits due through the end of the five-year term, together with interest and costs. 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, h/w, and William W. Dietrich demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants, in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars, the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration of claims in Cumberland County, together with interest and costs, plus such other relief as may be just. COUNT III - WRONGFUL TERMINATION (IN THE ALTERNATIVE) 54. Paragraphs 1 through 53 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 55. On or about February 17, 2006, Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this action in Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas against Defendants seeking compensation for its losses related to Defendants' removal of heifers from Green Acres Farm. 56. On or about February 17, 2006, Defendants accepted service of the Complaint. 57. On or about February 22, 2006, Defendants terminated the employment of Plaintiff Bill Dietrich. 58. Defendants' sole explanation to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for terminating his employment was due to his participation in the Complaint. 59. In terminating Plaintiff Bill Dietrich's employment, Defendants violated the public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as they placed Plaintiff Bill Dietrich in the untenable position of choosing between exercising his legal rights and seeking compensation for his losses, or foregoing his legal rights in an effort to maintain his livelihood. 9 60. In the alternative to Count II, should the Court find that Plaintiff Bill Dietrich was neither a party to nor a third party beneficiary of the Second Contract and that he was an at-will employee of Defendants, then Defendants are nonetheless liable for wrongfully terminating Plaintiff Bill Dietrich in violation of public policy of this Commonwealth. 61. As a direct consequence of Defendants' wrongful actions, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich has suffered damages in the form of lost past and future wages, together with interest, for which Defendants are liable to Plaintiff; said losses are ongoing and are incapable of precise calculation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff William W. Dietrich demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants, in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars, the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration of claims in Cumberland County, together with interest and costs, plus such other relief as may be just. COUNT IV - WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION LAW 62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 63. The Employment Clause provides for payment by Defendants to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich of hourly wages and fringe benefits. 64. Said amounts under the Employment Clause constitute "wages" within the meaning of the Wage Payment and Collection Law, Act of July 14, 1961, P.L. 637, as amended, 43 P.S. § 260.1 et seq. (the "WPCL") 10 65. Through its breach of the Employment Clause, Defendants commit ongoing violations of their obligation to pay wages to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich. 66. Defendants thereby stand in violation of the WPCL and are liable to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for wages as defined by the WPCL. 67. Because the wage loss of Plaintiff Bill Dietrich is ongoing, the amount of wages due him is presently incapable of precise calculation. 68. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for attorney fees and costs under the WPCL. 69. Defendants have no good faith justification for non-payment of wages and are therefore liable to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for liquidated damages under the WPCL. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff William W. Dietrich demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants, in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars, the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration of claims in Cumberland County, together with attorney fees, interest and costs, liquidated damages plus such other relief as may be just. Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs 11 VERIFICATION I, William W. Dietrich, verify that the statements made in the aforegoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 18 Z0 0? By:.??K .GY 1'l L EXHIBIT "A" HEIFER RAISING CONTRACT 1. Dream Farms will provide and be responsible for the following : a. All Feed b. All Medical Supplies c. All Bedding Material d. Technical and Veterinary support as needed e. Transportation to and from Green Acres . f. Pay Bill his current hourly rate for time spent feeding and health care of heifers at Green Acres. g. Rate of 25 cents per head per day. 2. Green Acres Farm will provide and be responsible for the following : a. Housing and care for all heifers. b. Water and regular cleaning of water tanks. c. Cleaning and bedding of all pens. d. Daily monitoring for any kind of sickness or injuries. e. Following Dream Farms protocols for care and medications of heifers. f. Disposal of manure. g. Green Acres will supply a health update and inventory supplies used end of month report. h. Green Acres is to inform Dream Farms in a timely manner of any supplies, tech support and vet support needed. 3. This contract will cover any and all heifers from 1 to 300 or as added numbers agreed to by both parties, a. Start of this contract between Dream Farms, 13689 Dream Highway, Newburg, PA 17240 and Green Acres, 675 Brandy Run Road, Newville, PA 17241 is in effect January 1, 2005. b. Contract is valid for 5 years, wits, a review by both parties at end of oach year to date. c. All sad any billing will be submitted to Dream Puma on or by 1 st day ofench month. d. Payment to Omen Acres Farms will be mAdc is a timely mamer. Date : Drams Farms' ----- n C3reea flares : ?,?,;,? ?,?,!'-.-?--' ?• -r- EXHIBIT "B" Dream Farms ` Dream Farms 13689 Dream Highway Newburg, PA 17240 Phone: 717-477-0992 Toll Free: 1-888-477.0439 Fax: 717-477-0995 DREAM FARMS HEIFER RAISING CONTRACT For Satellite Service-Green Acres Farm This contract replaces any existing contracts. August 1, 2005 1. Dream Farms will provide and be responsible for the following: a. All feed. b. All medical supplies (drug therapy and vaccinations). C. Technical and veterinary support as needed. d. Transportation of heifers. e. Provide truck to haul forage and grain and for Bill to use to travel from Green Acres to Dream Farms. f. Rate of 52 cents per head per day, plus $25.00 a month for the hospital bay when used. g. Full-time benefits for Bill Dietrich, with 30 hr. week minimum at Dream Farms. Under 30 hrs. a week would then be prorated accordingly. h. Provide all bedding. 2. Green Acres Farm will provide and be responsible for the following: a. Housing and care for all heifers b. Water and regular cleaning of the water tanks. C. Cleaning and bedding of all pens. d. Daily monitoring for any kind of sickness or injuries. e. Following Dream Farms protocols for care and medications of heifers. f. Disposal of manure. g. Green Acres will supply a health update and inventory of supplies taken on the sheet provided in the pharmacy. h. Green Acres is to inform Dream Farms in a timely manner of any supplies, tech support and vet support needed. i. All labor involved in feeding and other care of heifers. a `?sSOCia?l?0 3. This contract will cover any and all heifers from 1 to 300 or as added numbers agreed to by both parties. a. Start of this contract between Dream Farms, 13689 Dream Highway, Newburg, PA 17240 and William and Judy Dietrich (Green Acres), 675 Brandy Run Road, Newville, PA 17241 is in effect as of August 1, 2005. b. Contract is valid for 5 years, with a review by both parties at end of each year to date. C. All and any billing will be submitted to Dream Farms by the first week of each month. d. Payment to Green Acres Farms will be made at the end of the submission month. Date: Dream Farms' ell, Green Acres: CERTIFICATE OF CONCURRENCE I, Frank P. Clark, Esq., hereby certify that on August 23, 2007, Daniel J. Barrett, counsel for Defendant was contacted to request his concurrence in the attached motion. On September 5, 2007, Attorney Barrett authorized me to report that he concurs in the motion. CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC 4Kcal. Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: December 20, 2007 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, FRANK P. CLARK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on December 20, 2007, I served a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT in the above-captioned matter upon the below listed individual(s) by causing same to be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid at Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Daniel J. Barrett DANIEL J. BARRETT Attorney at Law 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 Dated: December 20, 2007 CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC 4-."" ? U Qt4 Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs ? c" " .? Q _ ? ?Y ? , ? ? d. p.. ?? .,.? C.J ==1 ?M IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. CIVIL ACTION DIETRICH, Plaintiffs VS. NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants STIPULATION OF COUNSEL THE PARTIES HERETO, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: . 1. Plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, husband and wife, together doing business as Green Acres Farm, and William W. Dietrich, are represented in this matter by Frank P. Clark, Esq. 2. Defendants, Brian D. Brechbill and Allen Rice, together doing business as Dream Farms, are represented in this matter by Daniel J. Barrett, Esq. Plaintiffs and Defendants have each authorized their respective counsel to enter into this Agreement. 3. The Complaint in this matter was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on February 17, 2006. 14 lip 4. A Complaint, in a related matter, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on June 22, 2006 and was docketed as No. 06-2568 Civil Term. 5. Defendants filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint, docketed as No. 06-2568, on August 1, 2007. 6. On August 21, 2006, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants Preliminary Objections. 7. Plaintiffs filed a Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument on October 5, 2006. 8. The Case was placed on the Argument Court list for October 25, 2006. 9. On October 17, 2006, counsel for Defendants agreed to withdraw the Preliminary Objections to the second Complaint and concur to a Motion to File an Amended Complaint which would consolidate the two matters, if the Plaintiffs would withdraw the second case from Argument Court scheduled for October 25, 2006. 10. Plaintiffs' counsel contacted the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on October 19, 2006 to withdraw the case from the Argument Court List. Counsel for Plaintiffs also agreed to answer outstanding discovery requests from defendants before filing a Motion to File an Amended Complaint. Responses to Defendants' discovery requests were provided. 11. Counsel for Defendants granted his concurrence in filing a Motion to File an Amended Complaint in this matter. 4A 12. The parties agree that the filing date of all claims in Counts III and IV of the Amended Complaint would be regarded as June 22, 2006 for statute of limitations purposes. Dated: December 12, 2007 4? ? t I TJ-Z- Frank P. Clark Dedi'el J. B tt CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 Attorney for Plaintiffs: DANIEL J. BARRETT 228 South Main Street Athens, PA18810 Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, FRANK P. CLARK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on December 20, 2007, I served a true and correct copy of the STIPULATION OF COUNSEL in the above- captioned matter upon the below listed individual(s) by causing same to be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid at Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Daniel J. Barrett DANIEL J. BARRETT Attorney at Law 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Dated: December 20, 2007 Attorney for Plaintiffs c? ' -- ?s A 1 1.? • ? DEC 8 6200I,rV IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, Plaintiffs VS. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this -7) v day of , 200 -7, upon consideration of Stipulation of Counsel, it is ORDERED that said Stipulation is APPROVED. BY THE COURT, Attorney for Plaintiffs: Attorney for Defendants: Frank P. Clark Daniel J. Barrett CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC DANIEL J. BARRETT Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1254 228 South Main Street Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 Athens, PA 18810 -? rvi ?Cc cj / 31- 6 7 41 - All L 0 : I I WV 16 330 LOOZ Adviai0!-ii X1-1,1, 0 301 ,', i't-~ 1T14 V DEC 2 82007 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. CIVIL ACTION DIETRICH, Plaintiffs Vs. NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ORDER AND NOW, this _31 day of tea. 41- , 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion To File Amended Complaint, it is ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file the Amended Complaint attached to their Motion no later than s,,,, T i? ` ZQO a Attorney for Plaintiffs: Attorney for Defendants: Frank P. Clark Daniel J. Barrett CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC DANIEL J. BARRETT Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1254 228 South Main Street Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 Athens, PA18810 BY THE COURT, L 4 : { I WV E £ 33O LOOZ AdVlot?, LL,Odd 3HI. O 30H ?1?-034, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION VS. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, Defendants NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COME the plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, Husband and Wife, t/d/b/a Green Acres Farm" by and through their counsel, Clark & Krevsky, LLC, who files this Amended Complaint against Defendants, Brian D. Brechbill and Allen Rice, t/d/b/a Dream Farms, and aver as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, husband and wife, t/d/b/a Green Acres Farm, (hereinafter referred as "Plaintiffs") are adult individuals who reside at 1665 Bamberger Road, Etters, York County, Pennsylvania 17319. 2. Plaintiff William W. Dietrich (hereinafter referred as "Plaintiff Bill Dietrich") is an adult individual who resides at 1665 Bamberger Road, Etters, York County, Pennsylvania 17319. 1 3. Defendant Brian D. Brechbill (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Brechbill") is an adult individual having a principal place of business at 13689 Dream Highway, Newburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania 17240. 4. Defendant Allen Rice (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Rice") is an adult individual having a principal place of business at 13689 Dream Highway, Newburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania 17240. 5. On information and belief, Defendants trade or do business under the name of Dream Farms, a fictitious name registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State, and list Dream Farms' principal place of business at 13689 Dream Highway, Borough of Newburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania 17240. BACKGROUND FACTS 6. In or before November, 2003, Plaintiffs purchased an old dairy farm with approximately eighty-seven acres of land, seventy of which were tillable, and appropriately named it "Green Acres Farm". 7. In or before January 2005, Plaintiffs and Defendants had discussions about housing young heifers from Defendants' dairy farm enterprise at Green Acres Farm. 8. On or about January 1, 2005, the parties signed a five-year Heifer Raising Contract, to be reviewed at the end of each year to date, (hereinafter referred to as "the First Contract), (Attached herewith is the copy of the First Contract, marked as Exhibit "A", and made a part of the record herein). 2 9. The First Contract addressed in part services that Plaintiffs would provide at Green Acres Farms to heifers that were entrusted to Defendants. 10. The First Contract also addressed labor that Plaintiff Bill Dietrich would provide to Defendants other than at Green Acres Farm. 11. Shortly after Plaintiffs started providing services under the First Contract, Defendants induced Plaintiff Bill Dietrich to provide substantially more hours of labor at Defendants' operations not on the premises of Green Acres Farm. 12. Shortly after Plaintiffs started providing services under the First Contract, Defendants encouraged Plaintiffs to accept an increasing number of heifers at Green Acres Farm and so induced Plaintiffs to expand their operations at Green Acres Farm to accommodate more of the herd entrusted to Defendants. 13. In or about July 2005, the parties engaged in discussions to renegotiate the First Contract. 14. By July 2005, Defendants expressed such satisfaction with the care that Plaintiffs gave the heifers that Plaintiffs were induced to hire an expert to conduct and produce a feasibility survey for an expansion of Plaintiffs' farm. 15. On or about August 1, 2005, the Plaintiffs, induced by Defendants' expressions of satisfaction regarding services at Green Acres Farm and the increase of hours of labor that Plaintiff Bill Dietrich performed for Defendants, borrowed against Green Acres Farm and took out a second mortgage in the amount of $60,000 to construct a building to house additional cattle. 16. On or about August 1, 2005, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants signed a five (5) year renewal contract (the "Second Contract"), which became effective immediately. . (Attached herewith is the copy of the Second Contract dated August 1, 2005, marked as Exhibit "B", and made a part of the record herein). 17. The Second Contract increased Defendants' per cattle per day payment amounts to Plaintiffs. 18. The Second Contract included a clause (the "Employment Clause") that provided in part for the employment of Plaintiff Bill Dietrich at Defendants' operations other than at Green Acres Farm: "1. Dream Farms will provide and be responsible for the following: ...g. Full-time benefits for Bill Dietrich, with 30 hr. week minimum at Dream Farms. Under 30 hrs. a week would then be prorated accordingly." 19. Plaintiffs established a hospital bay at Green Acres Farm to care for especially sick heifers sent by Defendants. 20. On information and belief Defendants sent their sickest cattle to Plaintiffs' farm because the Plaintiffs' mortality rate was the lowest among all other satellite farms utilized by the Defendants. 21. The Plaintiffs' hospital bay was used no less than ten days out of every month due to the Defendants' reliance on level of care that the Plaintiffs gave the especially sick heifers. 22. As of September 16, 2005, Plaintiffs housed at their Green Acres Farm approximately 286 cattle from Dream Farms. 23. On or about September 16, 2005, before 7 a.m. but after Plaintiff William Dietrich left for work at Dream Farms, Defendants caused the removal of all 286 cattle housed at Green Acres Farm. 4 24. Defendants thereafter refused to send any heifers to Green Acres Farm. 25. Throughout the time from September 16, 2005, through February 22, 2006, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich continued to perform services to Defendants under the Employment Clause of the Second Contract. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 above are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. 27. The Second Contract was valid for five years from August 1, 2005. 28. Defendants have never provided any reason, written or oral for the removal of the heifers. 29. Defendants' removal of the heifers housed at Green Acres Farm constituted a breach of the Second Contract. 30. Defendants breached the Second Contract without privilege or justification. 31. As a direct result of Defendants' removal of the heifers, the Plaintiffs were unable to maintain their livelihood and were forced to sell their farm immediately. 32. On or about September 28, 2005, the Plaintiffs held a public auction selling both personal items, as well as, their entire farm. 33. On or about December 28, 2005, ninety days from the date of the auction, settlement occurred and the Plaintiffs lost their livelihood and all of their personal investments. 34. Plaintiffs losses directly attributable to Defendants' breach of the Second Contract include but are not limited to the following: a. Loss of income from care of heifers, at the contractual rate of $.52 per day for the 286 head as of September 16, 2005, resulting in total lost income of $271,414.00 over the term of the Second Contract. b. Loss of payments for use of the hospital bay, at the rate of an additional $25 per month when the hospital bay was used, resulting in total lost income of $1,500.00 over the term of the Second Contract. 35. It is believed and therefore averred that had the Plaintiffs not borrowed the additional $60,000.00 on a second mortgage to make the improvements to the farm in order to enter into the contract with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs would have been able to meet their monthly financial obligations. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants in the sum of Three Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen and no/100 ($332,914.00) Dollars representing the loss of income over the next five years and the loss of the investment of the second mortgage to build improvements to the land according to the specifications of the Defendant; award reasonable attorney fees; costs of suit; and any and all just awards as this Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT 36. Paragraphs 1 through 35 above are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. 37. Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiff Bill Dietrich were materially induced to enter into the Second Contract by virtue of the Employment Clause. 6 38. The Employment Clause was a material element of the Second Contract, to secure steady wages and fringe benefits to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich through the life of said Second Contract. 39. The Employment Clause provided for employment of Plaintiff Bill Dietrich so as to meet the parties' intention that Plaintiffs expand its operations at Green Acres Farm to accommodate more of Defendants' heifers and/or heifers entrusted to Defendants' care. 40. Alternatively, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich was a beneficiary of the Second Contract, as his employment under the Employment Clause satisfied an obligation of the Defendants under the Second Contract to pay additional consideration to Plaintiffs in exchange for Plaintiffs' agreement to accept a greater number of Defendants' heifers and/or heifers entrusted to Defendants' care than was contemplated under the First Contract. 41. The Employment Clause guaranteed employment by Defendants to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for a five-year term. 42. On or about August 2005, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich commenced employment under the Second Contract. 43. For all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich provided exemplary services to Defendants. 44. For all times relevant to this action, Lane Sollenberger, managed Defendants' operations at Dream Farms. 45. For all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich's duties under the Employment Clause included caring for calves (and their pen area), performing maintenance on farm equipment and buildings, and providing general farm labor; Plaintiff Bill Dietrich performed said work on Defendants' premises as part of a three-person crew that was supervised by Lane Sollenberger and Plaintiff Bill Dietrich was provided all tools and implements for said work by Defendants. 46. For all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich's services under the Employment Clause constituted general farm labor that did not require him to make discretionary or managerial decisions on behalf of Defendants. 47. For all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich remained ready, willing and able to exercise his best efforts to fulfill his obligations to Defendants under the Employment Clause. 48. On or about February 22, 2006, Defendants terminated the employment of Plaintiff Bill Dietrich without cause. 49. Defendants terminated Plaintiff Bill Dietrich without giving him warning that his performance of duties was anything less than satisfactory. 50. Defendants discharged Plaintiff Bill Dietrich in retaliation for his exercise of his rights in asserting that Defendants breached the Second Contract. 51. Defendants terminated Plaintiff Bill Dietrich without privilege or justification. 52. Since his termination, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich has been unable to find gainful employment or to secure wages and benefits to replace fully those due him from Defendants. 53. By terminating Plaintiff Bill Dietrich, Defendants breached their obligations to Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiff Bill Dietrich, for which Defendants are liable to said Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for wages and benefits due through the end of the five-year term, together with interest and costs. 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, h/w, and William W. Dietrich demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants, in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars, the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration of claims in Cumberland County, together with interest and costs, plus such other relief as may be just. COUNT III - WRONGFUL TERMINATION (IN THE ALTERNATIVE) 54. Paragraphs 1 through 53 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 55. On or about February 17, 2006, Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this action in Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas against Defendants seeking compensation for its losses related to Defendants' removal of heifers from Green Acres Farm. 56. On or about February 17, 2006, Defendants accepted service of the Complaint. 57. On or about February 22, 2006, Defendants terminated the employment of Plaintiff Bill Dietrich. 58. Defendants' sole explanation to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for terminating his employment was due to his participation in the Complaint. 59. In terminating Plaintiff Bill Dietrich's employment, Defendants violated the public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as they placed Plaintiff Bill Dietrich in the untenable position of choosing between exercising his legal rights and seeking compensation for his losses, or foregoing his legal rights in an effort to maintain his livelihood. 9 60. In the alternative to Count lI, should the Court find that Plaintiff Bill Dietrich was neither a party to nor a third parry beneficiary of the Second Contract and that he was an at-will employee of Defendants, then Defendants are nonetheless liable for wrongfully terminating Plaintiff Bill Dietrich in violation of public policy of this Commonwealth. 61. As a direct consequence of Defendants' wrongful actions, Plaintiff Bill Dietrich has suffered damages in the form of lost past and future wages, together with interest, for which Defendants are liable to Plaintiff, said losses are ongoing and are incapable of precise calculation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff William W. Dietrich demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants, in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars, the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration of claims in Cumberland County, together with interest and costs, plus such other relief as may be just. COUNT IV - WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION LAW 62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 63. The Employment Clause provides for payment by Defendants to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich of hourly wages and fringe benefits. 64. Said amounts under the Employment Clause constitute "wages" within the meaning of the Wage Payment and Collection Law, Act of July 14, 1961, P.L. 637, as amended, 43 P.S. § 260.1 et seq. (the "WPCL"). 10 65. Through its breach of the Employment Clause, Defendants commit ongoing violations of their obligation to pay wages to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich. 66. Defendants thereby stand in violation of the WPCL and are liable to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for wages as defined by the WPCL. 67. Because the wage loss of Plaintiff Bill Dietrich is ongoing, the amount of wages due him is presently incapable of precise calculation. 68. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for attorney fees and costs under the WPCL. 69. Defendants have no good faith justification for non-payment of wages and are therefore liable to Plaintiff Bill Dietrich for liquidated damages under the WPCL. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff William W. Dietrich demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants, in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars, the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration of claims in Cumberland County, together with attorney fees, interest and costs, liquidated damages plus such other relief as may be just. Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC Date: Janu 10, 2008 Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs 11 VERIFICATION I, William W. Dietrich, verify that the statements made in the aforegoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: By: EXHIBIT "A" HEIFER RAISING CONTRACT 1. Dream Farms will provide and be responsible for the following : a. All Feed b. All Medical Supplies c. All Bedding Material d. Technical and Veterinary support as needed e. Transportation to and from Green Acres f. Pay Bill his current hourly rate for time spent feeding and health care of heifers at Green Acres. g. Rate of 25 cents per head per day. 2. Green Acres Farm will provide and be responsible for the following : a. Housing and care for all heifers. b. Water and regular cleaning of water tanks. c. Cleaning and bedding of all pens. d. Daily monitoring for any kind of sickness or injuries. e. Following Dream Farms protocols for care and medications of heifers. f Disposal of manure. g. Green Acres will supply a health update and inventory supplies used end of month report. h. Green Acres is to inform Dream Farms in a timely manner of any supplies, tech support and vet support needed. 3. This contract will cover any and all heifers from 1 to 300 or as added numbers agreed to by both parties. a. Start of this contract between Dream Farms, 13689 Dream Highway, Newburg, PA 17240 and Green. Acres, 675 Brandy Run Road, Newville, PA 17241 is in effect January 1, 2005. r b. Contract is valid &T 5 years, wits, a review by both parties at end of each year to date. a. All cid any billing will be submittod to Dream Pe m on or by l st day of each month. d. Payruent to Gruen Acres F&nw will be mado in a timely manner. Date. X Dreams Farms, Green Acres : EXHIBIT `B" Dream Farms Dream Farms 13689 Dream Highway Newburg, PA 17240 Phone: 717-477-0992 Toll Free: 1-888-477-4439 Fax: 717-477-0995 DREAM FARMS HEIFER RAISING CONTRACT For Satellite Service -Green Acres Farm This contract replaces any existing contracts. August 1, 2005 Dream Farms will provide and be responsible for the following: a. All feed. b. All medical supplies (drug therapy and vaccinations). C. Technical and veterinary support as needed. d. Transportation of heifers. e. Provide truck to haul forage and grain and for Bill to use to travel from Green Acres to Dream Farms. f. Rate of 52 cents per head per day, plus $25.00 a month for the hospital bay when used. g. Full-time benefits for Bill Dietrich, with 30 hr. week minimum at Dream Farms. Under 30 hrs. a week would then be prorated accordingly. h. Provide all bedding. 2. Green Acres Farm will provide and be responsible for the following: a. Housing and care for all heifers b. Water and regular cleaning of the water tanks. C. Cleaning and bedding of all pens. d. Daily monitoring for any kind of sickness or injuries. e. Following Dream Farms protocols for care and medications of heifers. f. Disposal of manure. g• Green Acres will supply a health update and inventory of supplies taken on the sheet provided in the pharmacy. h. Green Acres is to inform Dream Farms in a timely manner of any supplies, tech support and vet support needed. i. All labor involved in feeding and other care of heifers. Sl? a 3. This contract will cover any and all heifers from 1 to 300 or as added numbers agreed to by both parties. a. Start of this contract between Dream Farms, 13689 Dream Highway, Newburg, PA 17240 and William and Judy Dietrich (Green Acres), 675 Brandy Run Road, Newville, PA 17241 is in effect as of August 1, 2005. b. Contract is valid for 5 years, with a review by both parties at end of each year to date. C. All and any billing will be submitted to Dream Farms by the first week of each month. d. Payment to Green Acres Farces will be made at the end of the submission month. Date: Dream Farms' Green Acres: ? ? -i7 ?? I:y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, FRANK P. CLARK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on January 10, 2008 I served a true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint in the above-captioned matter upon the below listed individual(s) by causing same to be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid at Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Daniel J. Barrett DANIEL J. BARRETT Attorney at Law 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC r Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: January 10, 2008 12 c7 7-, ; c JUDY A. DIETRICH and WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, husband and wife, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, Plaintiffs V. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. :NO. 06-949 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ABOVE NAMED COURT: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance as counsel for the Defendant, Brian D. Brechbill, t/d/b/a Dream Farms, in the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Patric arrett, III, Attorney at w 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 570-888-0297 570-888-4142 fax Attorney ID# 3 8 5 8 3 WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL Daniel J. Barrett Attomey at Law 228 South Main S1 Athens, PA 18810 570-888-0297 570-888-4142 fax Please withdrawal my appearance as counsel for the Defendant, Bri an D. Brechbill, t/d/b/a Dream Farms, in the above captioned case. Respectfully submitted, D Barrett, Attorney at Law 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 570-888-0297 570-888-4142 fax Attorney ID#25508 nS-?9 30 j i t L+ +^ u, ?l JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH Plaintiffs Vs. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 06-949 CIVIL TERM NOTICE TO PLEAD You, Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, h/w, t/d/b/a Green Acres Farm and William W. Dietrich, are hereby notified to plead to the Answer to the New Matter and Counter Claims within twenty (20) days from the date of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Date: ; ^ 4?L BY: Patrick J. arrett, III, Esquire I.D. #: 38583 21 Troy St., P.O. Box 157 Canton, PA 17724 (570) 673-5180 JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH Plaintiffs VS. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 06-949 CIVIL TERM ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES, Brian D. Brechbill and Allen Rice, t/d/b/a Dream Farms by and through their attorney, Patrick J. Barrett, III, and answers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. Dream Farms is the name of a partnership. Brian D. Brechbill is a partner and Allen Rice is a partner. Dream Farms is a business serving dairy farms by raising heifers for the owners for fees. The business is located in the Township of Lurgan, Franklin County, Pennsylvania. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs owned a farm called "Green Acres Farm". Defendants have no specific knowledge as to the date of purchase, the specific number of acres in size, the specific number of acres which are tillable or whether the name Green Acres Farm is an appropriate name, therefore, said averment is denied and specific proof if relevant is demanded at Trial. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the document entitled Heifer Raising Contract, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", was signed by the Defendant and on behalf of the Defendant by Lane Sollenberger, Manager of Dream Farms and he was acting under Defendants authority. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation by reviewing Exhibit "A" the Contract only provides for compensation William W. Dietrich would be paid while working at Green Acres Farm. Therefore, the averment is denied. However, it is acknowledged that during the period of time the parties operated under the first Contract that William W. Deitrich did work for the Defendants other than on Green Acres Farm. 11. Denied. It is denied that Defendants induced William W. Dietrich to provide any more hours of labor. To the contrary, Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, wished to work additional hours to secure health benefits and it was necessary to work minimum hours to secure such without paying for additional benefits. 12. Denied. Dream Farm Manager, Lane Sollenberger was approached by Plaintiff, Judy A. Deitrich who stated that she wished to work at Plaintiffs farm full time and not have to work off the farm at other employment. 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants induced Plaintiffs to hire an expert to conduct or produce a feasibility study for Plaintiffs proposed expansion. 15. Denied. Defendants are without specific knowledge as to the amount, use, type or date of the borrowing done by Plaintiffs and therefore, said averment is denied. It is specifically denied that on or about August 1, 2005, Defendants expressed satisfaction with Green Acres Farm and increased the hours of Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich. 16. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants signed the second Contract and that Plaintiffs manager, with Plaintiffs authorization signed the second Contract. It is specifically denied that said Contract was signed on or about August 1, 2005. Said Contract became effective August 1, 2005. Said Contract was signed on or about July 1, 2005. It is specifically denied that this second Contract was a renewal Contract as it replaced the first Contract. 17. Admitted. However, for clarification, under second Contract, Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was not as under the first Contract, paid by Dream Farms for work performed at Defendants Farm of Green Acres. 18. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the second Contract provided for "full time benefits for (Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich) for 30 hours work minimum at Dream Farms. Under 30 hours per week would be prorated accordingly". This was changed by Dream Farms from its employee handbook for all other employees at Dream Farms calling for 40 hours per week as a minimum requirement for full time benefits. The second Contract did not provide or guarantee any employment for Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich but, defined his benefits only. 19. Admitted. However, for clarification, Plaintiff, Judy A. Dietrich, in discussions with Dream Farm Manager, Lane Sollenberger in early July of 2005 requested the opportunity to work with sick heifers that might otherwise be lost. The parties documented this agreement in the second Contract, paragraph 1.f. 20. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants sent the sickest heifers to Plaintiffs because of their low mortality rates. Defendants treated heifers initially at Dream Farms and utilized Green Acres Farm as needed. 21. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is specifically denied that Defendants sent especially sick heifers to Green Acres Farm. Defendants have no knowledge as to the truth of the number of days per month the hospital bays were open and specific proof if relevant is demanded at Trial. 22. Admitted. 23. Admitted. 24. Admitted. However, for clarification discussions did occur with Defendants and Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich about returning heifers to Green Acres Farm in the future if past and current problems at Green Acres Farm could and did resolve. 25. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich worked for Defendants at Dream Farms from September 16, 2005 until February 22, 2006. It is denied that he worked under the employment clause of the second Contract. Prior to September 16, 2005, the second Contract was materially breached by Plaintiff. Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich worked in excess of 40 hours per week after September 16, 2005 and therefore received full benefits under the employee handbook. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that this matter be dismissed. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 26. No answer required. 27. Denied. Paragraph 313 of the second Contract states "contract is valid for 5 years with review by both parties at the end of each year to date." Defendants aver that said contract, based on those terms, are for a one year duration. 28. Denied. Defendants have provided ample reasons to Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, for removing heifers, specifically as outlined further in this pleading. 29. Denied. It is specifically denied that the removal of heifers from Green Acres Farm constituted a breach of the second Contract. It is averred that Defendants had an obligation to remove said heifers to "cover" or limit exposure to damages under this contract. In addition they had an obligation to owners of said heifers to act in the best interest of the heifers. Plaintiffs' conduct prior to 9-16-2005 constituted a material breach of the second Contract. 30. Denied. Defendants' action was privileged and with total justification after numerous material breaches of said contract by Plaintiffs as further outlined in the pleading. (New matter.) 31. Denied. It is denied that the Defendants' conduct was a result of any damages to Plaintiffs other than those damages for which Plaintiffs are responsible. As to the remaining averment in said paragraph, Defendants have no knowledge or truth to said averment, and specific proof of relevant is demanded at trial. 32. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants are aware that Plaintiffs had a public auction of their farm. However, as to the amount sold, or the meaning to the words "entire farm", Defendants have no specific knowledge and therefore the averment is denied. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants have no knowledge of the truth of said averment, and therefore the averment is denied. In addition, Defendants have no knowledge to the loss of livelihood and all personal investments, and therefore said averment is denied and specific proof of relevant is demanded at trial. 34. Denied. a. It is specifically denied that Defendants are responsible for the loss of income that could have been derived by the Plaintiffs had they faithfully completed the terms of their contract. Therefore, averment is denied. Specifically in this denial there are averments set forth further in this pleading. b. It is specifically denied that Defendants are responsible for the loss of income that could have been derived by the Plaintiffs had they faithfully completed the terms of their contract. Therefore, averment is denied. Specifically in this denial there are averments set forth further in this pleading. 35. Denied. Defendants have no knowledge of truth or veracity of said statement and therefore it is denied and demands proof if relevant at trial. Wherefore, Defendants demand that Count I be dismissed. COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT 36. No answer required. 37. Denied. It is denied that the second Contract had an employment clause as the second Contract must be utilized in its entirety and any other averment is a conclusion of law, therefore it is denied. It is further denied that Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was materially induced to enter into the second Contract. 38. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the second Contract described the fringe benefits that William W. Dietrich would receive based on the amount of work he performed at Dream Farms. In addition, the second Contract also stated that the fringe benefits would be prorated for less than 30 hours per week. Defendants aver that this was a description of how the benefits would be calculated based on the amount he would perform. In no way did the second Contract guarantee the Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich his wages or amount of hours. It is specifically denied that Exhibit B contained an employment clause and said reference to it as an employment clause is specifically denied. 39. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the second Contract described the fringe benefits that William W. Dietrich would receive based on the amount of work he performed at Dream Farms. In addition, it also stated that it would be prorated for less than 30 hours per week. Defendants aver that this was a description of howthe benefits would be calculated based on the amount he would perform. In no way did the second Contract guarantee the Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, his wages or amount of hours. It is specifically denied that Exhibit B contained an employment clause and said reference to it as an employment clause is specifically denied. 40. Denied. It is specifically denied that the second Contract contained an employment clause and said reference to the second Contract as an employment clause is specifically denied. The Plaintiffs entered into the second Contract with the understanding that the Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich, would be working full time at Green Acres, allowing Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich additional time to work at Dream Farms. Under the first contract, William W. Dietrich had been paid a salary for working at Green Acres and thus received full fringe benefits. The purpose of the second Contract's reference was to allow the Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, to receive benefits by working only 30 hours per week, as opposed to 40 hours per week for other full time employees. It is categorically denied that Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, is a beneficiary under this contract and said interpretation is ludicrous when one considers that the health benefits hereby granted were for the benefit for both Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich and Plaintiff, Judy A. Dietrich. Therefore said averment is denied. 41. Denied. It is specifically denied that the second Contract provided an employment clause, it merely explained the compensation of benefits based on the amount hours William W. Dietrich could work if he was able to, with his obligations at the "home farm" Green Acres Farm. It is specifically denied that the contract had a five year term, it was to be reviewed in one year and it specifically did not guarantee any salary for employment. 42. Denied. Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, continued his employment at Dream Farms, as he worked before. He did not commence on August of 2005 to be employed under the new contract. The new contract was a safety net to establish part of his benefits should he work less than 30 hours per week. After August 1, 2005, Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich was not personally compensated as an employee for his work at Green Acres Farm. He did however, receive full benefits for working in excess of 30 hours per week at Dream Farms. 43. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich's service to the Defendants at all relative times William W. Dietrich was employed was satisfactory. Defendants deny the service of the work exemplary. 44. Admitted. 45. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Lane Sollenburgerwas overall supervisor and manager of Dream Farms. It is further admitted that the Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was a part of a three person crew. However, at various times, Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, did work independently, without direct supervision. 46. Admitted in part, denied in part. The Defendants are unsure of the time covered by "for all times relevant to this action" and therefore said averment is denied. It is admitted that the Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was not a manager of Dream Farms. However, William W. Dietrich's job description did require him to make the decisions regarding the care of heifers, particularly under the first Contract, when the heifers were at Green Acres Farm and as a contractual employee, when the cattle were at Green Acres. William W. Dietrich's management and discretionary decisions after August 1, 2005 at Dream Farms were certainly not managerial decisions. However, there were numerous examples of discretionary decisions which all employees have to make. 47. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, worked for the Defendants after heifers were removed from his farm and in fact increased his hours and compensation. However, Plaintiff's, William W. Dietrich, employment became disruptive to the work force after he instituted this action. Defendants aver that throughout this action, he was an employee at will. 48. Denied. Defendants had just cause to terminate Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, as his employment with them had become disruptive and Defendants aver that the Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was an employee at will. In addition it became obvious, that William W. Dietrich had misled and given numerous falsehoods to the Defendants the prior months. 49. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants had discussed with Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, his ancillary action with his business partner and wife, Judy Dietrich, was to be kept separate from his employment at Dream Farms and Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich had as agreed. 50. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was discharged when notice of his claim of an alleged breach of the Second Contract. Defendants had been led to believe by Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, that his relationship with his business partner and wife, Judy Dietrich, had deteriorated and that their partnership had dissolved. Upon notification that Plaintiffs had resolved their differences, Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, because his work for Defendants was disruptive and contrary to the Defendants' interests. 51. Denied. Defendants were certainly justified. Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was an employee at will, and in addition, under the totality of the circumstances, his discharge was certainly warranted. 52. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich has been unable to find gainful employment or wages or benefits to replace those due to the Defendants. In fact he is certainly being compensated at a higher rate than he was previously. 53. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants breached any obligations with the Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs materially breached said agreement prior to and in addition that said agreement was not for five years, but was subject to a one year review and termination. Wherefore, Defendants demand that Count 11 be dismissed. COUNT III - WRONGFUL TERMINATION (IN THE ALTERNATIVE) 54. No answer required. 55. Admitted. 56. Admitted. 57. Admitted. 58. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that termination of Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was for his participation in this complaint. However, for clarification, Plaintiffs, William W. Dietrich, dismissal was based on his prior dishonesty with Defendants in informing them that he was in the process of dissolving his partnership with Co-Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich, and that all reasons for the termination for the second Contract were as a result of her conduct. Once Defendants became aware that the rife between the Plaintiffs had been resolved to point of filing this litigation, the Plaintiffs, William W. Dietrich, presence in the operation became potentially disruptive, and unhealthy for the Defendants. In addition, the Defendants were of the understanding in all issues with the Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, had been resolved after September 16, 2005 with his return to full time employment at Dream Farms. 59. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants violated any public policy in this case and that the Defendants' conduct is responsible for loss of employment. Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was an employee at will. 60. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants violated any public policy in this case and that the Defendants' conduct is responsible for loss of employment. Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was an employee at will. 61. Denied. It is denied that Defendants are responsible for any and all damages suffered by Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, and specific truth, if relevant, is demanded at trial. Wherefore, Count III should be dismissed. COUNT IV - WAGE AND PAYMENT AND COLLECTION LAW 62. No answer required. 63. Denied. It is specifically denied that the second Contract guarantees an hourly wage or, in fact, guarantees fringe benefits. The second Contract merely modifies the employee handbook for the Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, allowing him to receive full time benefits for only 30 hours worked at Dream Farms and prorated for under 30 hours, based on his continual care of heifers at Green Acres. 64. Denied. It is specifically denied that wages, as defined within the statute as stated in the pleading, constitute future wages. Under the wage payment and collection act, the only wages that can be collected are hours that the Plaintiff actually worked that he was not compensated for. In this pleading, there is absolutely no evidence that Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, worked any hours he was not compensated for. A contractual claim is a contractual claim and does not come under the wage payment and collection law statute. 65. Denied for the same reasons set forth in prior paragraphs. 66. Denied for same reasons as set forth in paragraph 64. 67. Denied. It is specifically denied that the amount due to the Plaintiffs is incapable of precise calculation. It is because there is no agreement and the contract is to any precise number of hours or compensation per hour. There is no employment agreement. 68. Denied. The Defendants are not liable for attorney fees and costs under the WPCL as such statute is not applicable. 69. Denied. The said statute is not applicable as the Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, has not worked any hours for which he has not been compensated. In addition, the Defendants certainly were justified for terminating Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, and such termination was in good faith. Wherefore, Count IV should be dismissed. NEW MATTER 70. All prior paragraphs, only to the extent admitted in the answer, are incorporated by reference. 71. Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich, prior to January 2005, had been employed by Defendant, Dream Farms. 72. Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was employed in 2005, prior to August 1, 2005, in a full time capacity. 73. Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, from August 1, 2005 until September 16, 2005, was employed approximately 30 hours per week at Dream Farms. 74. After September 16, 2005, Plaintiff William W. Dietrich, was employed full time at Dream Farms until February 22, 2006. 75. Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich and Plaintiff and Judy Dietrich, formed a partnership, either in fact or in defacto, known as Green Acres Farms. 76. Plaintiffs signed two contracts with Defendants, individually and as Green Acres Farms, true and correct copies are attached to Plaintiffs' complaint as Exhibit A and Exhibit B and are referred to in all pleadings as the first Contract and the second Contract, respectfully. 77. While Plaintiffs and Defendants were in business, pursuant to the first Contract, in June of 2005, Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich, requested of Lane Sollenberger, manager of Defendant, Dream Farms, to expedite payment because the Plaintiffs were behind two months in their mortgage payments. 78. On or about July 1, the parties had discussions which resulted in the signing of the second Contract. 79. The purpose of the second Contract was to provide enough income to Plaintiffs so that Plaintiffs could continue operation, as Plaintiffs were experiencing financial problems. 80. The second Contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants provided for additional revenue for Plaintiffs for caring for the heifers, with the understanding that Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich, would be working full time on Green Acres Farms, allowing Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, to be employed at Dream Farms. 81. Plaintiffs and Defendants implemented the second Contract on August 1, 2005. 82. In late August of 2005, Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich told Lane Sollenberger, the manager of Defendants' operation, that Plaintiff Judy Dietrich was so depressed that she could not leave her house. 83. From early August of 2005, Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich, did not work at Green Acres Farms. 84. Beginning in August 25, 2005, Plaintiffs were experiencing marital difficulties. 85. Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich, on September 13, 2005, filed an action for divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, indignities and adultery. 86. Prior to removing the animals from Green Acres Farm, Defendants discussed the situation with Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich. Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich acknowledged the declining care of the heifers, stated that Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was getting no help from Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich, in the feeding, care and observation of the heifers. Defendants also discussed with Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, that Defendants might have to remove the heifers to where the heifers could receive proper care. 87. Shortly before the heifers were removed, Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, on three or more occasions, told Defendants that if Defendants needed to remove the heifers to do so and Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, said "I don't want to know" about the remove of the heifers. 88. Plaintiffs' final bill to Defendants on October 1, 2005 asserted 266 heifers for 16 days for September 2005. 89. Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich, materially breached the second contract with the Defendant by: a. failing to provide for proper care for heifers under the contract, b. being unable or unwilling to see that proper care was provided for the heifers, under the contract. c. Plaintiffs, Judy Dietrich, conduct, prior to and during litigation between herself and Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, (divorce) rendering the operation at Green Acres Farm inoperable and unworkable. 90. Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, materially breached the second Contract with the Defendants by: a. failure to provide proper care for the heifers under contract, b. being unable or unwilling to see that proper care was provided for the heifers under contract. c. Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, conduct prior to and during the litigation between himself and Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich, (divorce) rendered the operation of Green Acres Farm inoperable and unworkable. d. Refusing specific offers of help from co-workers at Dream Farms. e. Refusing to request time off from his work at Dream Farms to provide for the care needed for the heifers at Green Acres Farm. 91. After removal of the heifers from Green Acres Farm on September 19, 2005, Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was placed on full time employment at Dream Farms. 92. After the heifers were removed, Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, acknowledged to Defendants that "he would make it right with them". 93. Thereafter, Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, offered: a. to give Dream Farms gates and material which were on Green Acres Farm to be utilized in Dream Farms operation. b. To sell Dream Farms a welder, which was located on Dream Farms, believe to be valued at $2,500.00 for one dollar. 94. By letter of November 10, 2005 from Plaintiffs, Judy Dietrich, asserted that the removal of the heifers was contrived by the Defendants to somehow assist Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, in the pending divorce. 95. Prior to January 2006, only Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich, had asserted that Defendants had been in breach of the contract. 96. Prior to this action being filed, the Defendants believe that all matters between themselves and Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, had been satisfied. 97. In all time relevant to this litigation, Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, was an employee at will. At all times relevant to this litigation, Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich, has been compensated for all work performed for Defendants. Prior to September 16, 2005, the contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants had been materially breached by Plaintiffs. 98. In the alternative, prior to September 16, 2005, the contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants had been materially breached by Plaintiff, Judy Dietrich and said breach was a material breach of the entire contract. 99. In the alternative, prior to September 16, 2005, the contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants had been materially breached by Plaintiff, William W. Dietrich and said breach was a material breach of the entire contract. 100. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate the damages they claimed in their complaint. 101. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action. 102. Defendants suffered loss of future income from Plaintiffs' failure to properly care for the heifers. COUNTERCLAIM 103. The averments of the Complaint, only to the extent admitted in the Answer, are incorporated by reference. 104. The heifers were removed by Defendants at considerable cost, expense and inconvenience to Defendants. 105. From January to May 2005, there was no mortality of the heifers that had been cared for by Plaintiffs. 106. Plaintiffs cared for 44 heifers in January 2005 and the numbers increased to 132 by May 2005. 107. In June 2005, one calf died of the 135 in Plaintiffs' care. 108. In July 2005, there were 227 heifers in Plaintiffs' care and 4 died. 109. In August 2005, there were 221 heifers in Plaintiffs' care and 8 died. 110. From September 1-16, 2005, eight heifers that had been in Plaintiffs' care died. 111. After the heifers were removed from Plaintiffs' farm on September 16, 2005, two heifers died between September 17 and 30 and 13 heifers were in such a weakened or sick condition that they had to be replaced. 112. Between September 17 and January 31, 2006, 25 of the heifers that had been in Plaintiffs' care died from weakened conditions and illnesses. 113. The cost of the 13 replacements was $900.00 each, or $11,700.00. 114. The cost of the dead heifers was $350.00 each repaid to the owner or $15,750.00. 115. The aforesaid losses were the sole and direct result of the neglect of the Plaintiffs. 116. Defendants suffered a further loss of revenue from the 48 dead heifers of $1.95/day for an average of 600 days per calf or $56,160.00. 117. Defendants suffered and continued to suffer the loss of expenses of $5,000.00 incurred in modifying Green Acres Farm for Dream Farms' heifers as follows: a. replacing and installing water for the heifers b. replacing and installing fencing c. providing gates d. and other miscellaneous costs Wherefore, Defendants demand judgement against Plaintiffs in the amount of $88,610.00, plus cost of expenses incurred. Respectfully submitted, ric J. arre III Attorney for Defendants Attorney ID #38583 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 570-888-0297 570-888-4142 (Fax) VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I make this verification as attorney for my client. The client cannot be reached within the jurisdiction in time to personally verify. The source of information is my client. Date: Signed: Patrick J. Barrett III, Esquire Attorney for Defendants ¦ N ? _ -?, { ?? - C:..J 1:! T .: J C!>? _ -- -;- r ' _ " ' -„ r" ',,7 .o. ?,?? ?? JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH Plaintiffs VS. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 06-949 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DATE OF SERVICE: March 13, 2008 METHOD OF SERVICE: First Class Mail - Postage Pre-paid PAPER(s) SERVED: Answer to Amended Complaint, Counter Claims and New Matter ATTORNEY SERVED: Frank P. Clark, Esquire Clark Law Office P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 I verify that service was made as described above. I make this statement subject to the penalty of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. /ov __ 4W Patrick J. Barrett, III Attorney for Defendants Patrick J. Barrett, III Attorney at Law 7 228 South Main S g Athens, PA 18810 570-888-0297 570-888-4142 fax r^ rv QQ0 n t- CD r,J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, Plaintiffs VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW COME the plaintiffs, Judy A. Dietrich and William W. Dietrich, Husband and Wife, t/d/b/a Green Acres Farm" by and through their counsel, Clark & Krevsky, LLC, who files this Reply to New Matter and Answer to Counterclaim with New Matter as follows: REPLY TO NEW MATTER 70. No answer required. 71. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff Judy Dietrich was never employed by Dream Farms. 72. Admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiff William Dietrich was a full time employee for the tenure of his employment with Dream Farms. 73. Denied. Plaintiff William Dietrich worked approximately forty (40) hours per week during his employment with Dream Farms. 1 74. Admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiff William Dietrich was a full time employee for the tenure of his employment with Dream Farms. 75. Admitted. 75. Admitted. 77. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs admit they requested that Lane Sollenberger expedite payment, but however, did so due to expenses Plaintiffs incurred from improvements to Green Acres Farm in order to accommodate heifers from Dream Farms. 78. Plaintiffs neither admit nor deny. Plaintiffs do not recollect the exact date of discussions. 79. Denied. To the contrary, the second contract provided for flat rate billing to Dream Farms in order to make billing easier for both parties. 80. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Plaintiff William Dietrich was a full time employee during his tenure with Dream Farms. The remainder of the averment is denied, as the second contract provided more revenue to Plaintiffs only because Plaintiffs were caring for more heifers under it than under the First Contract. Plaintiffs deny all allegations regarding Plaintiff Judy Dietrich's alleged employment status with Defendants. . 81. Denied as stated. The second contract was executed on August 1, 2005. 82. Denied. It is specifically denied that the conversation which the Defendants allege in Paragraph 82 ever occurred. To the extent that the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to 2 the fact that after reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegations and proof, if relevant, thereof is demanded at time of trial. 83. Denied. To the contrary, at all times relevant, Plaintiff Judy Dietrich "worked" at Green Acres Farm as she was a co-owner and occupant of the farm. 84. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs began to have marital problems in August 2005 that they resolved. 85. Admitted in Part, denied in Part. Admitted that Plaintiff Judy Dietrich filed a Complaint in Divorce in Cumberland County on September 13, 2005. The remainder of the averment is denied as the Complaint is a document, the content of which speaks for itself. 86. The averment is a legal conclusion and is therefore denied. To the extent that the averment requires a response, the remainder of the averment is denied. To the contrary, Plaintiffs specifically deny that the conversation alleged in Paragraph 86 ever occurred. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 87. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. To the extent that the averment requires a response, the remainder of the averment is denied. To the contrary, Plaintiffs specifically deny that the conversation alleged in Paragraph 87 ever occurred. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 88. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 89. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. To the extent a response is required, the remainder of the averment is denied as Plaintiffs were at all times ready, willing and able to perform under the contract. 90. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. To the extent a response is required, the remainder of the averment is denied as Plaintiffs were at all times ready, willing and able to perform under the contract. 91. Denied as stated. Plaintiff William Dietrich was a full time employee of Dream Farms during the tenure of his employment. 92. Denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff William Dietrich asked Defendants what could be done in order for the heifers to be returned to Green Acres Farm. He was advised by Defendants that the heifers would be returned to Green Acres Farm if Plaintiff Judy Dietrich were removed from Green Acres Farm. 93. Admitted in part, denied in part. Plaintiff William Dietrich did offer gates and materials which were on Green Acres Farms, as the gates were purchased by Dream Farms. Plaintiff did not offer the welder, which was located at Dream Farms, to Defendants for One Dollar. He did offer to Welder to Defendants months in advance of the heifers' removal from Green Acres Farm for its value of $2,500.00. 94. Denied. It is specifically denied that only Plaintiff Judy Dietrich asserted any claims of breach of contract. It is specifically averred that at all times relevant top this breach of contract, both Plaintiffs, as husband and wife, have been a unified front in their allegations of breach of contract and the damages arising therefrom. It is believed and therefore averred by Plaintiffs that Defendants are basing the allegation contained in Paragraph 94, against Plaintiff Judy Dietrich, 4 on a carbon copy distribution list of former counsel, Elizabeth Stone's letter to former opposing counsel, Daniel Barrett. All references in the letter demonstrate that both clients were and are unified in their complaint against Defendants. Proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at time of trial. 95. Denied. It is specifically denied that only Plaintiff Judy Dietrich asserted any claims of breach of contract. It is specifically averred that at all times relevant top this breach of contract, both Plaintiffs, as husband and wife, have been a unified front in their allegations of breach of contract and the damages arising therefrom. Proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at time of trial. 96. Denied. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. By way of further answer after reasonable investigation, plaintiffs are unable to admit or deny. 97. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. 98. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. 99. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. 100. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. 101. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. 5 102. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. To the extent an answer is required, the averment is denied, as Plaintiffs exercised appropriate care for the heifers. Plaintiffs, after reasonable investigation, are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the averment and the same is therefore denied. ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 103. No answer is required. 104. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 105. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 106. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 107. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 108. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 109. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 6 110. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 111. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 112. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 113. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 114. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny and the same is therefore denied. 115. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. 116. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. 117. The averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied. Plaintiff William Dietrich did offer to return the gates to Dream Farms, as Dream Farms had bought them for use at Green Acres Farm. NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIM 118. The Counterclaim fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 119. Heifers that Defendants transferred to the custody and care of Plaintiffs included a number that were already in a sickened state when the same left the custody of Defendants. 7 120. Neither the First Contract nor the Second Contract references the mortality rate, replacement cost, transportation cost, or any other cost Defendants might incur as result of the death of a heifer. 121. Neither the First Contract nor the Second Contract makes Plaintiffs the guarantor of the continued life of any heifer. 122. Neither the First Contract nor the Second Contract makes Plaintiffs financially responsible for any fee or expense associated with the illness or death of a heifer. 123. Plaintiffs were not directly responsible for the illness of any heifer in their care or custody. 124. Plaintiffs were not directly responsible for the death of any heifer in their care or custody. 125. Defendants placed their sickest heifers in Plaintiffs' custody because of Plaintiffs' attentive care and ability to care for sick heifers. 126. Plaintiffs dispute the number of heifers that Defendants allege to have become sick and/or died and demand strict proof thereof. 127. Plaintiffs dispute Defendants' allegation that any heifer that became sick and/or died in Plaintiff's care, did so due to a failure by Plaintiffs, and demand strict proof thereof from Defendants. 128. Plaintiffs regularly consulted with their veterinarian, Dr. Sims, and followed his advice as to the care for the heifers. 129. Lane Sollenberger was Defendants' manager and agent for Defendants regarding Plaintiffs' care for the heifers. 8 130. Mr. Sollenberger exercised sole and exclusive authority to control all decisions as to the care that Plaintiffs gave a heifer in their custody. 131. Mr. Sollenberger exercised sole and exclusive authority to decide the point at which a heifer was declared no longer feasible. 132. Mr. Sollenberger exercised sole and exclusive authority to destroy or de-tag a heifer. 133. Plaintiffs regularly consulted Mr. Sollenberger to determine the point at which continued care for a heifer was no longer cost efficient. 134. Plaintiffs relied on the sole and exclusive authority of Mr. Sollenberger to decide the point at which a heifer would be declared no longer feasible. 135. On information and belief, any heifer that became ill while in the custody of Plaintiffs, did so for reasons other than treatment given by Plaintiffs. 136. On information and belief, any heifer that died while in the custody of Plaintiffs, did so for reasons other than treatment given by Plaintiffs. 137. On information and belief, any heifer in the custody of Plaintiffs that later became ill or died, did so for reasons other than treatment given by Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC Date: April 18, 2008 - A-I? (--,e ?Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 9 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs 10 VERIFICATION I, Judy A. Dietrich, verify that the statements made in the aforegoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ACV By: I-,kk,4 JL" CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, FRANK P. CLARK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on April 21, 2008 I served a true and correct copy of the REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM WITH NEW MATTER in the above-captioned matter upon the below listed individual(s) by causing same to be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid at Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Patrick Barrett, Attorney at Law 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: April 21, 2008 11 i CO, ?m 71 U„?` JUDY A. DIETRICH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, : AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH Plaintiffs VS. CIVIL ACTION Patrick J. Barrett, III Attorney at Law 228 South Main St. Athens, PA 188198 570-888-0297 570-888-4142 fax BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE, t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS Defendants NO.: 06-949 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DATE OF SERVICE: November 12, 2009 METHOD OF SERVICE: First Class Mail - Postage Pre-paid PAPER(s) SERVED: Praecipe to Substitute Verification with signed verification by Allen Rice ATTORNEY SERVED: Frank P. Clark, Esquire Clark & Krevsky, LLC P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 I verify that service was made as described above. I make this statement subject to the penalty of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Karen yte, paralegal Patrick J. ett III Law Office Attorney for Defendants rim OF Tf# 1 OrRaw 2mov 17 0 9; 29 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH and WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, H/W T/DB/A GREEN ACRES FARM and WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, Plaintiffs Vs BRIAN D. BRECHBILL and ALLEN RICE T/DB/A DREAM FARMS, Def d t C7 No. 06-949 CIVIL TERM p ?- a ; ?. x m cn ? . -< c.n en an s DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY NOW Come the Defendants, by and through their undersigned attorney, Patrick J. Barrett, III, Esquire and pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4019, respectfully move this Honorable Court as follows: 1. The Defendants served written interrogatories upon counsel for the Plaintiffs. A true and correct copy of those interrogatories is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. 2. Interrogatory Question No. I asked for the employment history of Judy Dietrich from 1986 to 2006, including inter alia, rate of pay, type of work performed. and income for that time period. 3. Plaintiffs objected to the request on the grounds that the question was burdensome and oppressive. 4. Defendants served a Notice to Produce upon the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were requested to produce copies of income tax records for the years 2004 and 2005. A true and correct copy of the Notice to Produce is attached hereto, marked as "Exhibit B" and incorporated by reference herein as if set forth at length. 5. Plaintiffs objected to the request on the grounds that it is oppressive, unduly burdensome and seeks confidential and privileged tax information. 6. The requested information is discoverable in that it is relevant to the issue of damages in this matter. C° rn-- r- :0rn C) --4c:) -n 6-n 7. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003. 1, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. CIVIL ACTION DIETRICH, Plaintiffs vs. NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF DEFENDANTS ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFFS NOW come Plaintiffs who respond to Interrogatories of Defendants addressed to Plaintiffs as follows: 1. List the employment history of Judy Dietrich from 1986 to 2006 by name and address of employer, dates of employment, rate of pay, type of work performed, income each calendar year from wages, self-employment or farming. ANSWER: Objection. The request is burdensome and oppressive. Without waiving said objection, Judy Dietrich's resume for calendar years 1995 to 2005 is produced. ' 2. List and describe the records you maintained regarding the Green Acres Farm operations and the cattle cared for under agreement with Defendant. 1 w 1p 1T "A" ANSWER: The records maintained regarding the Green Acres Farm operations and the cattle cared for under the agreement with Defendants were billing to and receipts from Dream Farms, feed charts for cattle pens, conservation plans, NRCS Conservation Agreement, invoices and Veterinarian bills, pen lists with cattle IDs, weight, height and temperature records of each calf and cattle medication logs. 3. List the dates and amounts of all payments made on the mortgages against Plaintiffs' farm in 2004 and 2005. ANSWER: Mortgage payments were made on the following dates and in the following amounts: First Mortgage June 6, 2004 $1493.95 July 1, 2004 $1493.95 August 1, 2004 $1493.95 September 7, 2004 $1493.95 October 6, 2004 $1508.95 December 2, 2004 $3000.00 January 18, 2005 $1632.00 March 22, 2005 $1568.65 March 31, 2005 $1500.00 May 24, 2005 $3220.95 2 July 18, 2005 $3137.30 August 1, 2005 $10969.20 October 3, 2005 $1568.65 October 28, 2005 $2913.20 November 15, 2005 $3070.60 December 30, 2005 $251761.98 Second Mortgage July 13, 2005 $678.50 October 24, 2005 $815.50 November 17, 2005 $1060.13 December 12, 2005 $326.91 December 30, 2005 $56678.85 4. List the names, addresses and telephone numbers of any persons who you assert observed or examined the cattle at Green Acres Farm from 8-15-2005 to 9-16-2005 and the dates when the cattle were observed. ANSWER: 3 The following people are believed to have observed and/or examined the cattle at Green Acres Farm between August 15, 2005 and September 16, 2005: Name Phone Number Allen Rice (717) 263-9795 Brian Brechbill (717) 352-7508 Lane Sollenberger (717) 263-6545 Nelson Wenger (717) 532-8028 Brian Musser (717) 423-5544 Joseph Musser Phone Number Unknown Charlie Redcay (717) 352-8670 Travis Redcay (717) 352-8670 Tom Varner (717) 349-2996 Bill Myers (717) 423-6825 William Dietrich (717) 938-4447 Nicole Kelley (717) 477-8498 Cassie Miller (717) 250-6893 The addresses are known by Dream Farms management and/or employees. 5. List the principals or employees of Dream Farms with whom you discussed or negotiated the August 1, 2005 contract and arrangements for the care of cattle for Dream Farms. 4 ANSWER: Plaintiffs' discussed and negotiated the August 1, 2005 contract with Allen Rice and Dream Farms Manager, Lane Sollenberger. Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: May 1, 2007 5 VERIFICATION I, William W. Dietrich, verify that the statements made in the aforegoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: J '"{ hq )0-7 By: AtAAM 4 iQAI?IL 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, FRANK P. CLARK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on May 1, 2007,1 served a true and correct copy of the Answer to Interrogatories of Defendant Addressed to Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter upon the below listed individual(s) by causing same to be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid at Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Daniel J. Barrett DANIEL J. BARRETT Attorney at Law 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254, Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: May 1, 2007 6 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w, t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. CIVIL ACTION DIETRICH, Plaintiffs VS. NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO NOTICE TO PRODUCE NOW here come Plaintiffs, who reply to Defendants' Notice to Produce and who respond as follows: 1. Loan documents, including application, credit report and disbursements for the $59,000.00 second mortgage on the farm you owned. ANSWER: Said documents are produced. 2. Sale documents including disbursements of sale proceeds for the real estate and any non-real estate for the farm Plaintiffs call Green Acres Farm. ANSWER: Said documents are produced. 1 3. Income tax records for 2004 and 2005 including 1040 and all schedules. ANSWER: Objection. The request is oppressive, unduly burdensome and seeks confidential and privileged tax information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. The complete feasibility plan described in your complaint. ANSWER: Said document is produced. Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: May 1, 2007 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, FRANK P. CLARK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on May 1, 2007, I served a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs' Response to Notice to Produce in the above-captioned matter upon the below listed individual(s) by causing same to be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid at Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Daniel J. Barrett DANIEL J. BARRETT Attorney at Law 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC Frank P. Clark P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254 (717) 731-8600 Attorney I.D. No. 35443 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: May 1, 2007 JUDY A. DIETRICH and : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WILLIAM W. DIETRICH,H/W : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA T/DB/A GREEN ACRES FARM and WILLIAM cz? DIETRICH, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs rnco VS " -rim-, I cn? -- ca BRIAN D. BRECHBILL and NO. 06-949 Civil Term r- x ° ALLEN RICE, T/DB/A DREAM FARMS, r-D c tw Q m Defendants w 70 ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... co .......... ......... ........................ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery was served upon the following by regular U.S. mail, postage pre-paid and addressed as below on this the _ /Y'011-day of April, 2011: Frank Clark, Esq. 20 Erford Rd. Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17403 Patrick J. Barrett, III, Esq. JUDY A. DIETRICH and WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, h/w/ t/d/b/a GREEN ACRES FARM and WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, Plaintiffs V BRIAN D. BRECHBILL and ALLEN RICE t/d/b/a DREAM FARMS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2006-949 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ORDER OF COURT -n ' P ..CST C ? C 7 ) :z - .. ; C) :` C D r AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2011, this matter having been called for argument, on agreement of the parties, the motion to compel discovery is granted in part, to the extent that it is ordered and directed that: 1. The plaintiff, Judy A. Dietrich, will produce forms W-2 and 1099, in her possession, relating to services or employment or independent contractor arrangements. 2. That the plaintiff will describe in detail prior employment, if any, having to do with or related to animal husbandry. By the Court, ";1' t'v Ick Kevin,'A. Hess, P.J. ? Frank P. Clark, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Patrick J. Barrett, III, Esquire -XIM r -- C -4 For the Defendants CpP? _ -- c rnn r : b g -< - S'F f OR'B Q r o '1' -M MCD 3 ? 5;(-- d Q 4 - .. Na ? ?' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDY A. DIETRICH AND WILLIAM W. : DIETRICH, 1-1/W T/D/B/A GREEN ACRES FARM, AND WILLIAM W. DIETRICH, Plaintiffs vs. BRIAN D. BRECHBILL AND ALLEN RICE T/D/B/A DREAM FARMS, Defendants To the Court: CIVIL ACTION NO.06-949 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STA1 EMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED oe c.n Judy A. Dietrich, William W. Dietrich, H/W/T/D/B/A Green Acres Farm, And William W. Dietrich intend to proceed with the above captioned mater. Printed Name: rc(onA) n f(V Signed Name: —&,J( Clk Date: October 28, 2014 Attorney for: IMPORTANT NOTICE In the event that this is a second or subsequent filing of a Statement of Intention to Proceed, this matter will be referred to the President Judge for the purpose of conducting a status conference involving all counsel. The goal of the status conference will be to set the matter for trial or other final disposition within a time certain. Prior to the status conference, Counsel will be expected to submit to the court, in writing, a proposed schedule for the completion of discovery, the filing of dispositive motions and a report as to whether alternative dispute resolution has been used or discussed. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, FRANK P. CLARK, hereby certify that on October 28, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of the STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEEED in the above -captioned matter upon the below listed individual(s) by causing same to be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid at Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Patrick Barrett PATRICK BARRETT, Attorney at Law 228 South Main Street Athens, PA 18810 CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC Dated: October 28, 2014 By: Frank P. Clark Attorney I.D. PA #35443 P.O. Box 1254 Camp Hill, PA 17001 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 (fax) FPC@Clark-Krevskylaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs