Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-1104
EWING & KREISER, P.C. BY TRAVIS L KREISER, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 74807 500 FAYETTE STREET ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, SUITE 201 KBS, INC. CONSHOHOCKEN PA 19428 (610)940-3600 KBS, INC. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS P.O. Box 7 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Thomasville, PA 17364 Plaintiff V. WASTE TRANSPORTATION DISPOSAL, INC. a/kla WTDI alkfa WTDI ENVIRONMENTAL 2187 Northlake Parkway, Suite 29 Tucker, GA 30084 l Defendant NO. ' l toC'L ?W1 NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and file 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 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA (717) 249-3166 EWING & KREISER, P.C. BY: TRAVIS L. KREISER, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 74807 500 FAYETTE STREET SUITE 201 CONSHOHOCKEN PA 19428 (610)940-3600 KBS, INC. P.O. Box 7 Thomasville, PA 17364 Plaintiff V. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, KBS, INC. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA WASTE TRANSPORTATION DISPOSAL, INC. a/k/a WTDI a/k/a WTDI ENVIRONMENTAL 2187 Northlake Parkway, Suite 29 Tucker, GA 30084 Defendant NO. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, KBS, Inc. (KBS"), by and through its undersigned counsel, Ewing & Kreiser, P.C., hereby brings this Complaint against the above-named Defendant, as follows: Plaintiff, KBS, is a corporation with a business address at the location stated in the caption to this Complaint. 2. Defendant, Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc. ("WTDP';) is or was a corporation or other business entity with an address at the location stated in the Complaint, and sometimes trades under the names WTDI and/or WTDI Environmental. In or about June, 2005, KBS entered into a contract (the "Contract") with WTDI, pursuant to which KBS agreed to furnish and supply certain labor and equipment to WTDI on credit terms. A copy of the Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. 4. After receiving the Contract, WTDI requested that KBS supply certain labor and equipment to transport backfill to a project in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania at the New Cumberland Army Depot. 5. KBS performed the work requested on credit terms in reliance upon the Contract. 02108!2006 09:03 6109403924 EW1NG&KREISER,RC PAGE 07107 VERIFICATION I, 1 on1'7dc kP (L- , subject to the penalties of IS Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities, aver that I am authorized to make this Verification. on behalf of KBS, Inc. and that the information contained in the foregoing Complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Dated: KBS, inc. /4X- Name: Title: /+fr 11/22/2005 15:20 5009641353 PAGE 02/24 K H Se Tnen P.U,)#1r7+rltaptA/Pa1a!PAI7344-d"74Tekpk w71?-792-slap.Rsr:727.79x-9171 CrAdlk 7taDarfavdhtt 1'A1tpYOae(sapj 96d-4399 • Pit [S?7) 642.11952 CR8x17.1 AnUCAMN Pstfmmo wathly valdme of ofthaeee: ? l 2Sf meads &tiespemoa 7pe l lCes wP pgre: b Cz`!?°5 BualuepplCoteapasrtiAm??{'pt HMV ??nla? Bultraaspke?e 77¢?^g3N-Xr?j gddread ? U37 I?nr"?i Y c,t liveipelt Fu 7 ? 13 { ?1u? 24 rwnmttr,?areee--u-?+yt?ul?t.-or '??f;,???-?Qt) S?" YWeYsiee: ?iul?1.?- fw?2i , 4? ?' Ih<+P1s1Yax73ixldeatlficatlpn?'umlrer'?$ 2S2.S?.C7 Busibm Pro ly fB"E3ray?enal?lv?"Aab Down With VUAA tr . G?uiiil?, SGFt+r#??Y/f?Address 2Sb'? ?fprinl4?_?PK?y,?-- l4S?dY` f.7!'r TyPteformtaadon D PtaPtiatapehiP?ar Vo-[pa:Gtlott ? Paetna+sfdP LrowlonYinbttein Wit. ,_ __mp. O kofBmIt 'boa 9askk%tea m6m NOW lase attaa wdmu? yeah -- -..t-= I][yfopm mp VplM pokwo OMI - T. waooe YAW Dlmt MmVyNh, i? Add.w - AddlfwAs) PrinOPtl/t NemallYtfe Dateo4BipiA, SpaiAl5Aaullt)//l xomphom Aa¢sea: ,^ _ Ikw" -m ._-," mop. Addrcae: Ilow lone -m _.__..-.W $ueYpAtt Ch gAU ;uat t9cnkNem®,? Addraca: # AcopttW# -42:Z &Z conuoi. TLtSa: Phonon 770-54 g462 Budgie Loam pr pt mmOLosmfor ft'dh es Ydndls g Iaptitut oa Addmes Acm =Numhw ,? ' A muatOWtd Sapglbrrfa(apCilaat Q1ty1f3ratt Xh6 # y. )Ak# -ptlafl+w•tpt sn&tm7 Hattta qsttp? civil east heoalnW ?ptou t Okw or W ofiteevmcrt, PAWIPOJ04 Ewftca,-Mccrp At 4tuetaw wca?u tba Peet ab, ye;= ,?1•ee v!No Iiuctwaltyot,}Srac nazat otp41a4fY, data BAd Plaoc olda:r,.tmauYptad dtapaaitlori: FAILI7YF'C0917.L0UT'rg!$FQ1trtII4R8SN17RL?r?Ai?A1"Itis[IL7f IIaA?ELAY I2V 09rAININOvOIRItitTBRtatt xtaaAar, c*mnt f No'M MM e41?0 3rjr/d 9?LLEb£99Q 90:97 fl00L/bZ 790 EXHIBIT 11/22/2005 15:20 e009G41353 WTDI 'Z XW,, GaD* 3M Ph 771434-2040 Fay 770934923b PAGE 03/24 CREDIT ARRLICATION INMRhIATION TYPE Uk'BUSINE5s: DATE OF INCORPOAATIO-Ni FEDFRAL TAX ID k: BANK REFERENCE {primary): ACCOUNT N(MBER: BAND REFERENCE (secondary): ACCOUNT NUIY XR: J)VNS AipM$E ; TRADE R'ftUNC ES: ka? MONMLFITA L WA YT)i STRVICES (DMUSTRIAL I DOVEWMMUL) FEBRVAXY2000 58252$267 HANK OF NORTH GWRGLS 1184 AI.FHARETTA gTl zT ROSWELL, GA 30075 T: 770-594-6462 R 776.5946460 01.05.767 WACHOVL4 4099I.AVISTA ROAD TUCKER, CA 30084 T: 770-621-3500 F: 770-621-3517 12-965-803 834851628 LI??INrF.RrNC 3040 Business Park Dr, Suite F Norcross, GA 30071 Contact Mr. Alton FIobtsa T: 77,242.6438 F: 770.242-6980 ?14iF.R I[`hN WACTR TR ANS. 42010mich Road PMB 9216 Mt. T morel, Na 08054 Coutset Mr. Brw Lavin T; 856-280-8000 P., 855.984-1778 HILLTOP 6M71?RPIYISSS 1.419 HilltnpRoad Cheater Springs, PA 19425 Contact: I& Al S}4ltxaaki T: 610469-$978 F• 610464-7591 REIdEFICiALSQE, OIdLT[CYLdS 1',O. Box 697 Chesapeake, MD 21915 Coutack Mr. Rick O'Brien T, 410.531-320S F: 410931-2028 11/22/2066 15:26 8©59641353 PAGE 04/24 e1 ?UAC7J?TION"/YYtRMB 013' ACCLYTANC$ AFi4lbhn emnarNiaa Xgg, 3K4:4 W OWN WbOtOVX M gx *XUfae It deans WMoOly la eabla wl -,A 1659 aadit vylo *l er is fly dRneee M ra95lp O[ Ao?eMWA Ofma owl$etdaadad inmRum Gaffes full°wiii. AppTebH FamhgtAl6omaar aqd 1A4lttdb An]r porenP aravdiA.eeport6ad ad aaameoAagna sadfimdAh MI. It+C- mtylldtledmt itMVv4ut or Oklft; : app mmx hpts&LAW04, AP dmnc{R7510tamMn w$w mlAA W AA la ldfat wkmnd ef dl tladhart t"Wmwho lpEdkeSMrw Ul cpnSeimd tNiAIA thtl lupticatian4 tfnY and aodpmq. AFpiiawe ApAda [o aahmhAla, iw. ac i4 mpA temm m araacn?fb'tmamdlRdtaadetl at140undafl?Aa•1um01a9egLLam. App7icn0! aglrole m {{pyi eel tAWo{ad A.r aaS taSm; aaenl¢7, dr eaa?]AeM mOnpad to flu App[WAt to mr APpfiomdA AaJmaen4dtvq apse s+aaRlAnl9t?adaaraiAe apmaCy ABaad is uxltln,R ?ppllo-mda?caa O paY,11p9A ddmtad, o Into s7ur8n of Lg96 pa mash iA.P. R. i8 farAll:UVOldad amWmt a'Ydm have fal bees pdd 4516ia11ilgY (?d1 d»'c,$OndO 6lydoa6ve. 4Notdd iBd,A7G, rodtr AayPAe4dua bnlAA90 toAyy eua>t$' °aaggROHanapAa?'fatvlleeNOtdCaMAPPRawi t?oee to PnrioPnn Gmro4 n colbcion &e ?genl b i49d OfA4YR'aaoA due Aum AppLa?ntAOyUhpiwitbAto'aID? tbaa, taste ottapeosOe rauvrfgto{ynettrhaPAa9Aae6ahnAC idOhrdfnkaa+uaoaqc doK mwa3Y Patgronay uld LrewdatY M i horRUy ,a ata ataAHO o & d LI in Ai9evemmry dlr;?ut a, ao rarywrr ear.aja iib ma "TMO OI MO of The Amainao ; peed< ALAA OtfdOd aR.Ca %ft di O grand, U& W. OW mood a to Gnu MP60 ; em ony laamcm d'yW daAme7 maw, heerWd mtteh terry M rgttjatd Parpaajpdptt4Atatmaadiaat? dte mMata APCtc dYanat 1.o s0 Ap%kw u eery NA1 Jar my rnw4Ga' for Aa M" ld a. wnhatt faamiq sw I4w*vt of04Am}t*"Kka A6etiha A "M aryl wditim otawry 6aate4 ada ft hf&-d, ftMbAA.f 40m ATNdaa m 4a krmK fAagd d=rftwmble, eAld pro'W" tAAU Ye dswA Awmat to the lu+t amm a ndr6mlReffavt' any ofmad6Ae eetmeamd oopdfYmAc •e?eua{hfh(YIDd and fmdarmA la the anee of. 4'atp.*L er PeYdpRty, ll.. each WWd apx'mMA t m b*olf pdiald+COYpaontiW arPmtgeaahLi, Dw ftlyaaroral }del r.eAna A41-AMA p•9tap V90m r0ucaiag AAOnmt: AtOd6mb ?iWAwa4Qf %r. PMWNAL 6'UAIIANMORUY&OM I$ AGAOMMOO aldw RkAYlelaAae a.dalo duAbWa ApplkwW the GamOOKO ke hp Willits ? A MwUWnmAVY AAAreAteaf Ai M, itdG the dAA Atdp "V p whey due of d1 tOd06adeug ohl+BatOpB1 Afud IIa6AkOt 9ff aaeaatMr n X&$/ WC ere Aap.wal apevq aaAtdi?•B Is* a?yeg?? rr?p?aa NRWA A w ?OAYAaaaflPrcOtaeeAOrargips,dWU 1Pa?.lOdaDaPa<a h {A mmeen ofda+pp}v? 91r m mhLtiaDaa.trodtd 6WR tod'mometp9 f1e A@'rdt'?eo saHatlae ¢aa asuloa laetAtnd6Y X?S, 11SC.mmdnr>eHnCap tpAeet aaaL lAdabbdnW eepatt dunof wta ed9amir14 d?PeOWe9my. Ths tw'mgaAtlOtS rAatWatOEgYamnOA pP salt of me raem;Atf?t plbOeeA ehotl pot ApaeagaeA t 4p1CIDlnmirn nPlhte OprorSy. mtd Bap etaermry A6AL AwA•an A! to ettdlt eamadrd nuUaNarendg. CtWAaamr de pedwet A&MIO t Ada 'thin WrAtn "I pA enli W&k W04 0 fi t pWM&4 ADAM Aro Apps OW4 Ot tlnmsm„mAty wish Aq WHOA 400 roe Apph M, SWmaea: - - - Cf7kAwrSlgoAnun __,,,,,?„ 1MHUNAma1 Wilaasi: _-,,,Gam?a 8St6Gatnvte -_ _ ..._ PtiomNwae TU U38 AP My COHPnAATI$ TfTLH Id4ONLY i A7>3nVy 14Y29=MVrOTM OOWANT Ate IN NA] WAY NEGAT$?MYPMONAL GIU.aN'LE@. 'Ste wo4mel,RAadhakycp.a•nx•1w1?,RIP, de.ofa mmebulmaa&.%VAeavedh r" na the Vadamy.adi m4 cpf-mm W94vt ,ILaar:Qle mava du aadu.?gud v uAwofAdl(a7, elo ), and" pjmpbiot(e) In musm(OA Ob th fttmd a of bwie Cfad@ Rt WAlaml'pf w %? dW Wdit na lwa amdaaa peAtMy mdwt4a(e}X8% INO.u we A a0oma wqs tlrpeu0n t6a midca%gKfxmfine W ttmt for ft ewMI"effMunaaAOa at ma bmwR tavrasaacadhV ?e aAdts.pn[OaaaA, T6d wdere;eAed as w iadlvldaal(A} han4x 9AaVMAh' oaaAeaA W etc AAt ad mtth aedlt aeon wmielmrwA6 tLa Fadae swma" p0/50 --lrJd KLLEVC99e gP:9t 99QZ/VZ/90 1'/22/2005 15:20 0009641959 PAGE 05/24 K B S, lac. P. P. 1tUK 7 • ThemserIItq PA IOS+Ld • 7"dePAent. 717-?A-L8S6 . yyiT¢ 317-76CL9171 Credo Aeppr v=mt: TA*30ur. 8110.A¢{. M • NA, 877.6418752 CVy Wfn¢rAddrKAZ 41 7,F.Z._?f PAQJacT 7voi4 - . 0 A .36v Cmtnry .f3 f-?- - 0,. stma, ZIP f ff RLAti $Ate9?(0r1;KKR+P1iWr'N0.??_..w Prci¢¢r Semi T?ato_ ?EXpeeudc viamDv. S:-Sap 2yo-- CRYnf3Y h18MC T JJ ? ? p Cyftcw M-ft, TmoA PLMie ? .? ..??GQ... NtraefAddl99A __? _ _ _ City, $tm-m Zfp "np.iw C0NrRA4" OR cmw 90m4 7iCa Phe¢re C[y. &7ni, 4f IK&Rr VWO-Lien AMC MWt'in effout Kth#3 pr•1ecd Sub-c-OxTitAcroR Conowr Nmnh TIM, flwftk ( 8"d Address-?? Chy, 6mra Zip PAYIl811r NOND Ag¢neyNkv LbmaetName, Tftle,Phaae-_ { smes Aftm City, stark Zr ACOP$ OF CONMRACr }{ ?y? -1;;; [y?/// Amalot oFmeserlalreltUired ?? tJ o t{ 9??r7Y?'?' i? . Phnne OX(? ?y11L7 M VQ/vs zWd uttevE99B OVIRT 900Z/7Z/9q 11122!2005 15:20 8009641353 ' M,BN Maps &? Dimlims - Map P IW Maps & Directions encore, daaPwn, V"vayivaMby UnReG Stag PAGE 06/24 YOUf nflfR ro Y4! mdUS aDQ f011RS OenHdf01 OA me MS111?Mfa 16 SAm£?C l2i W Ni1N!'J1/ IQtfll561 UR DM!?fe , hht.andd6clrnmee &4 -t'O 0 H) 1 0Y 1 6124!2005 4:10 PM w EWING & KREISER, P.C. BY: TRAVIS L. KREISER, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 74807 500 FAYETTE STREET, SUITE 201 CONSHOHOCKEN PA 19428 (610)940-3600 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, KBS, INC. KBS, INC. P.O. Box 7 Thomasville, PA 17364 V. Plaintiff WASTE TRANSPORTATION DISPOSAL, INC. a/k/a WTDI a/k/a WTDI ENVIRONMENTAL 2187 North Lake Parkway, Suite 29 Tucker, GA 30084 Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PA CIVIL TERM NO. 06-1104 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL ON DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY SS Travis L. Kreiser, Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the attorney for Plaintiff, KBS, Inc., and that he did mail an attested copy of the Complaint in the above- captioned case, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Defendant, Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc. a/k/a WTDI aWa WTDI Environmental at its last known address at 2187 North Lake Parkway, Suite 29, Tucker, GA 30084. A true and correct copy of the signed receipt reflecting that the Complaint was served on March 27, 2006 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". DATED: April 4, 2006 Sworn to and subscribed Before me this ?1---?Day of April, 2006 Awx I Seal Carolyn Y. Banks, Notary Public EWING & KREISER, P.C. BY: VIS` . KREISER ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 74807 500 FAYETTE STREET, SUITE 201 CONSHOHOCKEN, PA 19428 (610) 940-3600 Member, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X • Print your name and address on the reverse -- so that we can return the card to you. D. Received by • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 0. Is delivery ac 1. Article Addressed to. If YES, entgd r j i 0 Agent 0 Addressee Y?me) C. Data of Delivery xem from Item 1? O Yes iddress below: 0 No Ce?j?i? Type ? (J-0 114,/v,4- 3. Servi?(?? lell) f ?d all LG ? ? RBgisir?red 0 Insured Mail ?'t?//G.(/</ ? J ???t) 4. Restricted Delivery? 2. icleNumber 7005 0390 0002 (rransfer from service labeo PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt D? 'tt ) - for Merchandise 0 Yes 102595-02-M-1540 or KBS, Inc., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO.: 06-1104 Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc., CIVIL TERM a/k/a WTDI, a/k/a WTDI Environmental, Defendant ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, by Donald M. Lewis III on behalf of defendant Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc., reserving its right to answer, move, or otherwise plead in response to plaintiffs complaint. KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP Dated: May 17, 2006 By anal ewis M Attorney ID No. 58510 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 717-255-8038 Attorneys for defendant Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald M. Lewis III, Esquire, one of the attorneys for defendant Waste Transportation Disposal, hic., hereby certify that I have served the foregoing paper upon counsel of record this date by depositing true and correct copies of the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Travis L. Kreiser, Esquire Ewing & Kreiser, P.C. Suite 201 500 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP By- - Lewis III Dated: May 17, 2006 cy ? a ?,??, ? .-? ??r?-- ?? i CO ?? ? t. `.` ', ? `-_ ? ' i ? '< KBS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. WASTE TRANSPORTATION & DISPOSAL, INC. a/k/a WTDI a/k/a WTDI ENVIRONMENTAL, Defendants ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW COMES, defendant Waste Transportation & Disposal, In by its counsel, Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, to file its answer v counterclaim in response to plaintiffs complaint, averring as follows 1. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to either adn Plaintiff s complaint. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is n answer, the contract is a writing that speaks for itself. TERM 06-1104 (hereinafter "defendant") new matter and it or deny Paragraph 1 of By way of further 8. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is r answer, the contract is a writing that speaks for itself. 9. Denied. The entire amount due under the contract w 10. Denied. Defendant owes plaintiff nothing for attome 11. Denied. The averments of this paragraph consist of c conclusions of law and fact, to which no response is required. To the deemed necessary, defendant avers that the entire amount due under i by defendant and that defendant owes plaintiff nothing for attorney's 12. Denied. Plaintiff has not been damaged and defendan 13. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or informa Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's complaint. 14. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs complaint. 15. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs complaint. 16. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant full on January 27, 2006. WTDI denies it refused to cooperate. CountI 17. No response to this incorporation paragraph is require 18. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is i answer, the contract is a writing that speaks for itself. By way of further paid in full by defendant. s fees or interest. nclusions of law or mixed extent a response is contract was paid in full ees or interest. owes nothing to plaintiff on to either admit or deny to either admit or deny to either admit or deny that plaintiff was paid in By way of further -2- 19. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is answer, the contract is a writing that speaks for itself. WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully requests as follows: (a) That plaintiff s complaint against it be dismissed; (b) That judgment on plaintiff s complaint be rendered (c) That costs be assessed against the plaintiff; and (d) That defendant have such other and further relief as NEW MATTER 20. Plaintiff s complaint fails to state a claim upon which 21. Defendant pleads accord and satisfaction as an 22. Defendant pleads payment as an affirmative defense. 23. Defendant pleads release as an affirmative defense. 24. Defendant pleads estoppel as an affirmative defense. 25. Defendant pleads lack of consideration as a defense. 26. Defendant pleads lack of standing as a defense. 27. Defendant pleads lack of demand as defense. 28. All other paragraphs, allegations and averments of previously responded to in this answer is hereby denied. WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully requests as follows: (a) That plaintiff s complaint against it be dismissed; (b) That judgment on plaintiff s complaint be rendered (c) That costs be assessed against the plaintiff; and By way of further of defendant; Court deems appropriate, can be granted. defense. complaint not favor of defendant; -3- (d) That defendant have such other and further relief as COUNTERCLAIM NOW COMES defendant Waste Transportation & Disposal, counterclaim against plaintiff KBS, Inc. ("KBS"), averring as 29. By virtue of the Complaint filed in the itself to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court for purposes of 30. KBS was asked to state the full amount owed to it for joint check agreement whereby KBS was to be paid in full. Upon information, KBS was paid the entire amount it stated was owed. A joint check agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 31. KBS admits in its complaint that final payment of the on January 27, 2006. 32. KBS having been paid, in full, the principal amount acted without reasonable cause and in bad faith in bringing this 33. Because KBS is aware that payment was made in either knowingly or without sufficient investigation for improper pu of WTDI and to expose it to the expense of defending an action in tl settlement of a claim that is totally lacking in merit. Under 42 Pa.C to an award of sanctions against KBS, including attorney's fees, for litigation. 34. Defendant WTDI is therefore entitled to recover all of litigation pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 2503(9) incurred in defending Court deems appropriate. ic. ("WTDI"), to assert this I case, KBS has submitted 's counterclaim. urposes of executing a 'DI's receipt of that rue and correct copy of the principal was delivered to it i January 27, 2006, has it. its complaint was filed poses, including harassment hope of forcing a § 2503, WTDI is entitled ie prosecution of vexatious orney's fees and expenses irainst this action. -4- WHEREFORE, defendant Waste Transportation & Disposal, grant the following relief: (a) Enter a judgment in favor of defendant on its reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation incurred in (b) Grant defendant such other and further relief as this Respectfully Dated: August /0, 2006 KEEFER By prays that this Court against plaintiff for all this action; and deems just and proper. ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP Lewis III Attome ID No. 58510 210 Wal ut Street P. O. Bo 11963 Harrisb g, PA 17108-1963 717-255 M38 Attorneys for d$fendant Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc. The undersigned, Brian Mathis, hereby verifies and states He is President of defendant Waste Transportation & authorized to verify the foregoing document on its behalf, 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing answer with new mar true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and b 3. He is aware that false statements herein are made subject Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Inc. and is and counterclaim are ;and the penalties of 18 Dated: August q, 2006 ??, ?,;? ? JOINT CHECK AGt2 RKENT AGREEM$NT made this date of January 18, 2006 bttwccn Conti Environment Nreinatter calla] "Contractor"), Waste Transportation & Disposal inc.(WT'DI) and KBS, ins. (hacinaficr caiied "SubTicr.Suyplid) WHEREAS, Contractor entered into a contract with the U. S. Army Corps of; Management Waste Unit(SMWU) DDS? Landfill Closure Project, located in W ERW, Contractor entered into a purchase order with Vendor: WHEREAS, the purchase order between Contractor and Vendor provides for topsoils and coversoils in compliance with the USACE specifications. WHEREAS, SubTier Supplier recognizes the independent creditworthiness WHEREAS the "leading purpose" of this Joint Check Agreement is to bemefll for the transfer of funds from the Contractor to Vendor and SubTier Supplier. NOW, 711dREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contain considerations, receipts whereof is hereby acknowledged. it is agreed as follow 1. That all payments for the services furnished by SubTier Supplier to pursuant to the purchase order between the Contractor and Vendor shall be Vendor and SubTier Supplier in the amount of S 47,476.06 as full and final provided in the delivery of coversoils for above shown project. 2. In the event that Vendor should refuse to endom the joint check wit receipt from Contractor, Vendor understan& and agrees that the Contractor issue a check directly payable to SubTier Supplier. The payment shall be I by the Owna and paid to the Contractor up to the date of issuance of the joi from the Contractor to the SubTier Supplier shall be charged against Vend( 3. The relationship between the Contractor and SubTier Supplier shall Check Agreement and &41-1- tot be oonsft-md as, rant by the Contrac! SubTier Supplier. `•.Cdsm. Environment & Waste Transportation & [nfrastrodure, inc. - Disposal Inc. (Con or) (Vendor) \ SY_ BY~ !\ MY- k Infrastructure, Inc. (hereinafter called „Vendor'),! -'t accm(dwttar)fortheS,ing p tFjt ?.?` w Cumberland PA. - ••': bd,rt ' { • .1 flunishing and delivery of c Vendor: rs" SubTier Supplier and V. and other good and valuabiG ' s,„ <. • ' , :ndor for work pm formcd tde by check drawn to l?titli '; if R> v yment for the transpdrutswn` i `' J 1r1V n two (2) calendar days after- ill cancel the joint check and . i. r the value of services accept „ check. Any direct payment .'_ c account. ? '+' limited tothetermsofthts t t of VaAot's obllgation'to ' ' ' ? sir J S, Inc. ;I .,tat y .. tibTierr/?$/ ' Ii ?rl s y?, ;:.r :. . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald A Lewis III, Esquire, one of the attorneys for defendant Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc., hereby certify that I have served the foregoing paper ujon counsel of record this date by depositing true and correct copies of the same in the United S tes mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Travis L. Kreiser, Esquire Ewing & Kreiser, P.C. Suite 201 500 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 KEEFER WOO ALLEN & RARIAL, LLP By onald . Lewis III Dated: August LO, 2006 N Q G O tJ N ? . tJ EWING & KREISER, P.C. BY: TRAVIS L. KREISER, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 74807 500 Fayette Street., SUITE 201 Conshohocken PA 19428 (610)940-3600 KBS, INC., V. WTDI, et. al. Plaintiff Defendant ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, KBS, INC. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 06-1104 REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff, KBS, Inc. ("KBS"), by and through its undersigned counsel, Ewing & Kreiser, P.C., hereby files this Reply to the New Matter asserted by Defendant, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 20. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, said allegations are specifically denied. To the contrary, the Complaint adequately and properly states all of the causes of action stated therein. By way of further denial, KBS hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in its Complaint as if the same were set forth herein at length. 21. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, said allegations are specifically denied. By way of further denial, no portion of the amounts sought in the Complaint were ever paid, nor did Plaintiff accept any prior payment in or as satisfaction for the amounts sought in the Complaint. 22. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, said allegations are specifically denied. By way of further denial, no portion of the amounts sought in the Complaint were ever paid, nor did Plaintiff accept any prior payment in or as satisfaction for the amounts sought in the Complaint. 23. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, said allegations are specifically denied. By way of further denial, Plaintiff never released its claims for payment of the amounts sought in the Complaint. 24. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, said allegations are specifically denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff performed no act or omission which could be construed to estop plaintiff from pursuing and recovering payment of the sums sought in the Complaint. 25. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, said allegations are specifically denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff's claims are fully supported by consideration as set forth in the Contract/CrediYApplication executed by the Defendant. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent aresponse is deemed to be required, said allegations are specifically denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff certainly has standing to enforce the contract between Defendant and itself. 27. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, said allegations are specifically denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff demanded payment of all sums due under the Contract, including payment of the sums sought in this action. 28. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, said allegations are specifically denied. To the contrary, this statement constitutes an improper attempt by Defendant to cure defects in its Answer by a statement in its New Matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment in its favor and against Defendant for all of the relief sought in the Complaint. ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 29. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff lacks knowledge or information sufficient form a belief as to the truth of falsity of the allegations set forth in this paragraph as they relate to any other party or what any other party might have told Defendant. To the contrary, Defendant never requested said information from Plaintiff, nor did Plaintiff ever state or agree to accept the proffered payment as full and complete satisfaction of all amounts owed by Defendant. Rather, Plaintiff simply accepted that referenced joint payment as part payment of what Defendant owed Plaintiff (as payment for the transportation services due under the Contract/Credit Application on the particular project referenced in the Joint Check Agreement) but Plaintiff never agreed or accepted said payment as payment for the other damages, costs and expenses due under the Contract/Credit Application signed by the Defendant, including the Ai interest and counsel fees due thereunder. Indeed, the Joint Check Agreement relied upon by Defendant is specifically limited to payment for;specific "transportation" services and not for payment of the other amounts due under the Contract/Credit Application. 31. Denied as stated. The Complaint is a written document that speaks for itself. Any attempt to summarize or characterize the Complaint contrary to its terms is expressly denied. It is specifically denied that the Complaint admits payment of the sums sought therein. To the contrary, the Complaint demonstrates that said sums remain due and unpaid. 32. Denied. The Complaint is a written document that speaks for itself. Any attempt to summarize or characterize the Complaint contrary to its terms is expressly denied. It is specifically denied that the Complaint was filed.without reasonable basis or that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith. To the contrary, the Complaint demonstrates that the sums sought therein remain due from the Defendants and are unpaid".' What could be unreasonable about suing to recover an unpaid debt. Rather, it is the Defendant which is acting in bad faith by refusing to pay a known debt. 31 Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a+response is deemed to be required, said allegations are specifically denied. To the contrary, the Complaint was properly filed, with reasonable basis therefore and in good faith. By way of further denial, no basis exists for Defendant to recover any attorneys fees from Plaintiff. Plaintiff further incorporates by reference its response to paragraphs 29-32 and the Complaint as if the same were set forth herein at length. 34. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent & response is deemed to be required, said allegations are specifically denied. To the contrary, the Complaint was properly filed, with reasonable basis therefore. By way of further denial, no basis exists for Defendant to recover any attorneys fees from Plaintiff. Plaintiff further incorporates by reference its response to paragraphs 29-32 and the Complaint as if the same were set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment in its favor and against Defendant for all of the relief sought in the Complaint and Plaintiff further demands that Defendant's Counterclaim be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIM KBS hereby asserts the following New Matter to the Defendant's Counterclaim: 35. KBS hereby incorporates its response to Paragraphs 29-34, above, as New Matter as if the same were set forth herein at length. 36. KBS hereby incorporates its response to Paragraphs 1-28 of its Complaint as New Matter as if the same were set forth herein at length. 37. Defendant's Counterclaim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 38. Defendant has failed to satisfy the statutory, common law and contractual prerequisites for filing its causes of action. 39. Defendant's Counterclaims are barred and/or limited by reason of ]aches. 40. Defendant's Counterclaims are barred and/or limited by the applicable statutes and periods of limitation. 41. Defendant's Counterclaims are barred and/or limited by the applicable contractual periods of limitation. 42. Defendant's Counterclaims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of unclean hands. 43. Defendant's Counterclaims are Marred and/or limited by the terms and conditions of the contract between the KBS and Defendant. 44. Defendant's Counterclaims are barred and/or limited by the terms and conditions of the Joint Check Agreement attached to the Counterclaim. 45. Additional Defendant's Counterclaims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 46. Defendant's Counterclaims are barred and/or limited for failure of a condition precedent. 47. No factual, legal or equitable basis exists for Defendant to seek or obtain any sum of money from KBS. 48. Defendant's Counterclaims are barred and/or limited by its failure to mitigate its alleged damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment in its favor and against Defendant for all of the relief sought in the Complaint and Plaintiff further demands that Defendant's Counterclaim be dismissed with prejudice. EWING & KREISER, P.C. BY VtREISER, ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, Dated: August 28, 2006 N 4 1_ •• QI KBS, Inc. vs Case No. 06-1104 Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc. To the Court: Statement of Intention to Proceed Plaintiff, KBS, Inc. intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name Travis L. Kreiser Sign N e Date: 9/1/09 Attorney for Plaintiff, KBS, ., Inc. Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 190 1. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. 11 Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (dx3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (dx2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. FILED- -GtrFI'C'F 2009 SEP -3 P 2: 53 KBS, INC., V. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 06-1104 CIVIL TERM WASTE TRANSPORTATION DISPOSAL, INC., a/k/a WTDI, a/k/a WTDI ENVIRONMENTAL, Defendant PETITION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL Petitioner, Donald M. Lewis III, Esquire, and the law firm Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, respectfully petition the Court, pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1012(c), to withdraw as counsel of record for defendant Waste Transportation & Disposal, Inc., a/k/a WTDI, a/k/a WTDI Environmental ("WTDI"), and in support thereof aver as follows: 1. This action commenced with the filing of a complaint on February 24, 2006. 2. During April 2006, petitioners were engaged to represent defendant Waste Transportation & Disposal, Inc. ("WTDI"), in this matter and to bring an action under the Miller Act on its behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (hereinafter "Miller Act litigation"); both actions were related because they arose from WTDI's work on the same project. 3. On May 18, 2006, petitioners entered their appearance in this matter. 4. On August 11, 2006, petitioners filed an answer to the complaint with new matter and counterclaim on behalf of defendant WTDI; plaintiff thereafter filed a reply. 5. Between 2006 and August 2009, there was no activity in this case. However, after the Court issued a notice of proposed termination on August 28, 2009, plaintiff KBS, Inc., filed a notice of intention to proceed. 6. During its engagement, petitioner Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP ("KWAR") submitted periodic invoices to WTDI for professional services rendered, and costs incurred, in this matter and the related Miller Act litigation. The first few invoices were satisfied, but all subsequent invoices were not paid. 7. KWAR sued WTDI for the unpaid balance due on its invoices and obtained a judgment by default against WTDI on April 14, 2008, which was docketed in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas on October 14, 2008, at No. 2008 CV 13408NT. A true and correct copy of the notice of entry of judgment is attached hereto as exhibit A. The judgment against WTDI for unpaid fees and costs has not been satisfied. 9. On August 28, 2007, Petitioners were granted leave by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to withdraw from the representation of WTDI in the Miller Act litigation. A true and correct copy of the federal court's order is attached hereto as exhibit B. 10. On October 1, 2007, the Miller Act lawsuit by WTDI was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for failure to prosecute, specifically, for failure to engage new counsel for the corporation as directed in the Court's previous order of August 28, 2007. A true and correct copy of the federal court's order is attached hereto as exhibit C. -2- 11. By letter dated September 15, 2009, petitioner, Mr. Lewis, provided prior written notice to WTDI, care of its registered CEO, Brian Mathis, of petitioners' intent to seek the Court's permission to withdraw from representing WTDI in this matter. To date, no response to that letter has been received by petitioners. 12. When petitioner, Mr. Lewis, attempted to correspond with WTDI after receiving the Court's notice of proposed termination earlier this month, he learned that WTDI no longer receives mail at its former place of business at 2187 Northlake Parkway, Tucker, Georgia 30084, and that there is no current forwarding address. An internet search did not reveal any alternative address for the corporation. However, an address for the registered "CEO" of the corporation, Brian Mathis, was obtained from the corporations department of the Georgia Secretary of State and it was utilized in notifying WTDI regarding petitioners' intention to seek the Court's permission to withdraw their representation. 13. Filings on behalf of WTDI with the Georgia Secretary of State reveal that a required annual registration statement has not been filed on behalf of the corporation since March 22, 2007, which indicates that WTDI may not be in compliance with Georgia law. See exhibit D hereto. 14. WTDI will not be prejudiced by the withdrawal of petitioners' appearances because there has been no recent activity in the case, no deadlines have been established for discovery or other matters, and no trial date has been scheduled. 15. The continued representation of WTDI without payment of KWAR's fees, or any reasonable prospect of such payment, has resulted and will further result in an unreasonable financial burden on petitioners. -3- 16. Petitioner, Mr. Lewis, does not believe he can provide effective representation of WTDI under the circumstances. 17. Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1012(d)(1), WTDI is being served, care of its registered CEO, Brian Mathis, with a copy of this petition as set forth on the attached certificate of service. 18. Based on the foregoing, good cause exists under Rule 1.16(b)(5) and (6) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct to grant petitioners leave to withdraw as counsel of record for defendant WTDI. 19. On September 25, 2009, Mr. Lewis sent an advance copy of this petition to plaintiff s counsel, Travis Kreiser, Esquire, by FAX, and requested his concurrence in compliance with Local Rule 208.2(d); Mr. Kreiser concurred in the petition and in the granting of the relief requested herein. WHEREFORE, petitioner Donald M. Lewis III, Esquire, and the law firm Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, respectfully request that they be granted leave to withdraw as counsel of record for defendant Waste Transportation & Disposal, Inc. Respectfully submitted, KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP Dated: September 28, 2009 By n dM. is III Attorney ID No. 58510 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 717-255-8038 VERIFICATION I am an attorney at law, employed by the law firm of Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, as Senior Attorney, and I am one of the petitioners herein. 2. I am authorized to verify the foregoing petition on behalf of Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP; 3. I verify that the statements in the foregoing petition are true and correct, except as to those statements made on information and belief, which I believe to be true. 4. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. eo?(d M. Lewis Al Dated: September 28, 2009 -5- KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LLP, DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff ; f?1 g NO.: , boo Q Cv 31 v) U T? N"? vs. WASTE TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL, INC., Defendant > 0 ? n NOTICE D© ,rn TO: WASTE TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL, INC. Suite 29 2187 Northlake Parkway 00 Tucker, GA 30084 You are hereby notified that on October 41 2008, the following Judgment has been entered against you in the above-captioned case: In the amount of $4,928.86, as per default judgment previously end in Magisterial District No. 12-1-03 on April 14, 2008. Date: O C T 14 2008 2008 P 0 I hereby certify that the name and address of the person to receive this notice is: WASTE TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL, INC. Suite 29 2187 Northlake Parkway Tucker, GA 30084 Dated: October 14, 2008 KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP By OgNA . LEWIS III orney I.D. #58510 210 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 (717) 255-8038 Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 1:06-cv-01842-CCC Document 42 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF WASTE TRANSPORTATION & DISPOSAL, INC., : Plaintiff V. CONTI ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC, et al., Defendants ORDER CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-1842 (Judge Conner) AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2007, upon consideration of the motions (Docs. 37, 38) by Attorneys Charles W. Rubendall, II, Donald M. Lewis, III, and Sandra F. Lekan to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Waste Transportation & Disposal, Inc. ("WTDI"), and of the order of court dated August 13, 2007 (Doc. 39), directing WTDI to file, on or before August 27, 2007, a response showing cause why the motions to withdraw (Docs. 37, 38) should not be granted and advising WTDI that failure to file a response would result in the court granting the motions, and it appearing that WTDI has not filed a response as of the date of this order, and the court finding that good cause for withdrawal exists because WTDI has repeatedly failed to remit payment to counsel or to communicate with counsel, see PA. RULES PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.1 6(b)(5)-(7); see also L.R. 83.23.2 (adopting Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct), and that counsel's continued representation of WTDI Case 1:06-cv-01842-CCC Document 42 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 2 of 2 "serves no meaningful purpose,"' Buschmeier v. G&G Invs.. Inc., 222 F. App'x 160, 164 (3d Cir. 2007), but that, as a corporation, WTDI "may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel," Rowland v Cal Men's Colony. Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 217 (1993); see also Buschmeier, 222 F. App'x at 163 n.3 (citing cases wherein counsel for corporation was permitted to withdraw and corporation was directed to obtain alternate counsel or face sanctions), it is hereby ORDERED that: The motions to withdraw (Docs. 37, 38) are GRANTED. Attorneys Charles W. Rubendall, III, Donald M. Lewis, III, and Sandra F. Lekan are TERMINATED as counsel of record for WTDI. Attorneys Charles W. Rubendall, III, Donald M. Lewis, III, and Sandra F. Lekan shall cause to be served upon WTDI a copy of this order and file proof thereof with the court on or before September 4, 2007. 4. WTDI shall retain new counsel, and such counsel shall enter his or her appearance, on or before September 28, 2007. Failure to retain new counsel may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this case. See FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984); see also Opta Sys.. LLC v. Daewoo Elecs. Am., 483 F. Supp. 2d 400,406 (D.N.J. 2007) (dismissing case with prejudice because plaintiff-corporation failed to retain counsel). S/ Christopher C. Conner CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge 1 When counsel for a corporation seeks to withdraw, a district court must consider both the "ordinary rules of withdrawal" and whether the attorney's continued representation of the corporate client serves a "meaningful purpose." Buschmeier, 222 F. App'x at 164. Whether an attorney's representation serves a meaningful purpose depends on the "potential prejudice to all litigating parties," including the stage of litigation during which withdrawal is sought. Id. In the instant case, the court finds that any risk of prejudice to the parties posed by the request for withdrawal is minimal because the above-captioned action is still in the pretrial stage and there are no outstanding motions. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-1842 THE USE AND BENEFIT OF WASTE TRANSPORTATION & DISPOSAL, INC., : (Judge Conner) Plaintiff V. CONTI ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC, et al., Defendants ORDER AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2007, upon consideration of the order of court dated August 28, 2007 (Doc. 42), directing plaintiff Waste Transportation & Disposal, Inc. ("WTDI") to retain new counsel on or before September 28, 2007 and advising WTDI that failure to do so could result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this case, and it appearing that WTDI has not complied as of the date of this order, see FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b) ("For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant."); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) as permitting sua sponte dismissals by the court); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984) (identifying six factors relevant to deciding whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute),' and the court finding that plaintiff was advised of the necessity of responding to the order of court ' The court notes that it is not necessary that all of the Poulis factors "weigh against the non-moving party in order to justify dismissal of a claim." Sunday v. United States, Civ. A. No. 89-8374,1992 WL 221322, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 1992). dated August 28, 2007 and is personally responsible for failing to do so, see id. at 868 (identifying "extent of the party's personal responsibility" as a factor), that plaintiff's conduct has prejudiced defendants by requiring defendants to assume the cost of continued pre-trial and trial preparation, see id. (identifying "[p]rejudice to the adversary" as a factor), that plaintiff's failure to respond to the orders of court dated August 13, 2007 and August 28, 2007 constitutes a history of dilatoriness, see id. (identifying "history of dilatoriness" as a factor), that plaintiff's failure to respond when specifically ordered to do so constitutes willful disregard of the court's authority, see id. at 868-69 (identifying "willful" or "bad faith" conduct as a factor), and that alternative sanctions would be ineffective to deter plaintiff's conduct because plaintiff "may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel," Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony. Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194,217 (1993); see also Poulis, 747 F.2d at 869 (identifying availability of "[a]lternative sanctions" to dismissal as a factor), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. See FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. S/ Christopher C. Conner CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge 4 ,4 Corporation Filings Page 1 of 1 et a r, Y, of Stat M-R C 00 e I Archives • Corporations • Elections • News Room • Professional Licensure Securities State Capitol Search ?By Business Name ?BV Control No ?By Officer ?Bv Registered Agent Verify ?Verify Certification New Filing ?Click hereto file online for: ?New Limited Liability Company (LLC) ?New Business Corporation ?New Non-Profit Corporation ?New Professional Corporation (PC) Annual Registration ?Annual Registration Name Reservation ?File Name Reservation Online Online Orders ?Register for Online Orders ?Order Certificate of Existence ?Order Certified Documents Please note: The documents displayed on this page are made available solely for the convenience of our customers and may not represent the complete and official record for this entity. If official records are needed, certified copies may be ordered by using the "Order Certified Documents" link on the bottom of the left-hand menu. Current Name: WASTE TI Image Date M M 2/11/2000 1/10/2001 1/15/2003 2/3/2004 1/27/2005 3/21/2006 Date: 9/15/2009 ZANSPORTATION & DISPOSAL, INC Document New Filing Annual Registration Annual Registration Annual Registration Annual Registration Annual Registration %Am 3/22/2007 Annual Registration It' View the images on-linell Netscape users, use the OWN button. httn•//r.nrn cns ctnfe va ii./cnm/sn.kh/Filing-,.asn?6933 9/15/2009 Karen C Handel Secretary of State Entity Control No. 0006933 WASTE TRANSPORTATION & DISPOSAL, INC. 2187 NORTHLAKE PKWY STE 29 TUCKER GA, 30084-4149 Control No: 0006933 Date Filed: 0312212007 11:51 AM Karen C Handel Secretary of State Information on record as of: 3/2212007 Amount due from this entity is indicated below. Annual fee is $30. If amount is more than $30, total reflects amount(s) due from previous year(s). Renew by April 1, 2007 Renew at www.georgiacorporations.org or by submitting bottom portion with check payable to "Secretary of State". Officer, address and agent information currently of record is listed below. Please verify "county of registered office." If correct and complete, detach bottom portion, sign, and return with payment. Or, enter changes as needed and submit. Complete each line, even if the same individual serves as Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the corporation. Please PRINT LEGIBLY. Note: Agent address must be a street address in Georgia where the agent may be served personally. A mail drop or P.O. Box does not comply with Georgia law for registered office. P.O. Box may be used for principal office and officers. Any person authorized by the entity to do so may sign and file registration (including online filing). Please return ONLY the original form below and fee. Other filings and correspondence should be sent to our Atlanta address: Corporations Division, 315 West Tower, #2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Atlanta, GA 30334. Visit www.georgiacorporations.org to file online or for more information on annual registration. Or, call 404-656-2817. Current information printed below. Review and update as needed. Detach original coupon and return with payment. CORPORATION NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP WASTE TRANSPORTATION & DISPOSAL, INC. 2187 NORTH LAKE PKWY STE 29 TUCKER GA 30084 CEO: BRIAN H MATHIS 3667 NORWICH DR TUCKER GA 30084 CFO: CONNIE MATHIS 3667 NORWICH DR TUCKER GA 30084 SEC: JOYCE E CLEMENT 1981 CHESTERFIELD DR ATLANTA GA 30345 AGT: BRIAN H. MATHIS 3667 NORWICH DR TUCKER GA 30084 IF ABOVE INFORMATION HAS CHANGED, TYPE OR PRINT CORRECTIONS BELOW: Corporation Addr: CEO: CFO: SEC: AGT: P.0 BOX NOT ACCEPTABLE GA I CERTIFY THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THIS FORM D THAT THE INFORMATION IS COUNTY OF REGISTERED COUNTY CHANGE OR TRUE AND CORRECT. OFFICE: CORRECTION: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: BRIAN H MATHIS DATE: 3122/2007 DEKALB TITLE: Filer STATE OF GEORGIA 2007 Corporation Annual Registration OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE Annual Registration Filings P.O. Box 23038 Columbus, Georgia 31902-3038 Amount Due: $30.00 073 0006933%6 0030004 WASTETRANSPORTATIONDO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald M. Lewis III, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served the foregoing paper upon Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc., and upon counsel of record this date by depositing true and correct copies of the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Waste Transportation & Disposal, Inc. c/o Brian Mathis, CEO 3667 Norwich Drive Tucker, GA 30084 Travis L. Kreiser, Esquire Ewing & Kreiser, P.C. Suite 201 500 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP By ?Vonkd wis III Dated: September 28, 2009 Ff _ OF T a. av KBS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW WASTE TRANSPORTATION DISPOSAL, INC., a/k/a WTDI, a/k/a WTDI ENVIRONMENTAL, Defendants : NO. 06-1104 CIVIL TERM PETITION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2°d day of October, 2009, upon consideration of the Petition for Leave To Withdraw As Counsel, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 14 days of service. DEFENDANT is notified that it would not be permitted to proceed in this case without an attorney, because under Pennsylvania law a corporation may not represent itself in a court proceeding. BY THE COURT, Travis L. Kreiser, Esq. Ewing & Kreiser, P.C. Suite 201 500 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorney for Plaintiff J, es ey Ole Jr., J. ? Donald M. Lewis 11 1, Esq. 210 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 Attorney for Defendants ?aste Transportation & Disposal, Inc. c/o Brian Mathis, CEO 3667 Norwich Drive Tucker, GA 30084 :rc 0_'c?p t LL cos/oq ALEG-(j =;=;C OF TNT ?01 rPr)NOTARY 2004 OCT -5 PM 2: 4.6 VLiy?Vr::. ? Li ,.,}JN Y KBS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. WASTE TRANSPORTATION DISPOSAL, INC., a/k/a WTDI, a/k/a WTDI ENVIRONMENTAL, No. 06-1104 CIVIL TERM Defendant PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE NOW COME petitioners, Donald M. Lewis III, Esquire, and Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, and respectfully state as follows: 1. On September 29, 2009, the petitioning attorneys filed a petition, pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1012(c), to withdraw as counsel of record for defendant Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc., a/k/a WTDI, a/k/a WTDI Environmental ("WTDI"). 2. On October 2, 2009 (certified October 5, 2009), the Court issued a Rule upon respondent WTDI to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of service of the order, why petitioners should not be permitted to withdraw as counsel for WTDI. A true and correct copy of the order is attached hereto as exhibit A. 3. Certified copies of the Rule were served by the office of the Prothonotary upon respondent and upon plaintiff's counsel, Travis L. Kreiser, Esquire, as indicated by the distribution list on exhibit A hereto. 4. Respondent WTDI filed no response to the Rule within the fourteen (14) days allowed by the Court. 5. The Rule should, therefore, be made absolute, and the Court should thereupon issue an order permitting the petitioning attorneys to withdraw as counsel of record for defendant WTDI. A proposed order is submitted herewith. WHEREFORE, petitioners Donald M. Lewis III, Esquire, and Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, respectfully request that the Rule dated October 2, 2009, be made absolute, and that the Court issue an order permitting petitioners to withdraw as counsel of record for defendant Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc. Respectfully submitted, KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP Dated: October 28, 2009 By o ld M. is III Attorney I.D. #58510 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 (717) 255-8038 -2- VERIFICATION I am an attorney at law, employed by the law firm of Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, as Senior Attorney, and I am one of the petitioners herein. 2. I verify that the statements in the foregoing petition to make rule absolute are true and correct, except as to those statements made on information and belief, which I believe to be true. 3. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. D601 M. ewis JJI Dated: October 28, 2009 KBS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW WASTE TRANSPORTATION DISPOSAL, INC., a/k/a WTDI, a/k/a WTDI ENVIRONMENTAL, : Defendants : NO. 06-1104 CIVIL TERM PETITION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2"d day of October, 2009, upon consideration of the Petition for Leave To Withdraw As Counsel, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 14 days of service. DEFENDANT is notified that it would not be permitted to proceed in this case without an attorney, because under Pennsylvania law a corporation may not represent itself in a court proceeding. Travis L. Kreiser, Esq. Ewing & Kreiser, P.C. Suite 201 500 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorney for Plaintiff BY THE COURT, 40le J es J. EXHIBIT A ? Donald M. Lewis, III, Esq. 210 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 Attorney for Defendants ZZWaste Transportation & Disposal, Inc. c/o Brian Mathis, CEO 3667 Norwich Drive Tucker, GA 30084 rc L?L ??S/OQ ALEG-xJt:FIGP OFF THE F'807PONOTARY 2004 OCT -S PM 2: 4.6 °c`'J.` SYLY?; "v';h CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald M. Lewis III, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served the foregoing paper upon Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc. and upon counsel of record this date by depositing true and correct copies of the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Waste Transportation & Disposal, Inc. c/o Brian Mathis, CEO 3667 Norwich Drive Tucker, GA 30084 Travis L. Kreiser, Esquire Ewing & Kreiser, P.C. Suite 201 500 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP Dated: October 28, 2009 By ?1?5onkdl&-Kewis III Z ue 0 P1 9 C {{ 1 t 13 i 1 0 t' •<r iti KBS, INC., v. OCT s o zoos Plaintiff WASTE TRANSPORTATION DISPOSAL, INC., a/k/a WTDI, a/k/a WTDI ENVIRONMENTAL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 06-1104 : CIVIL TERM ORDER AND NOW, this day of C) t-, 2009, upon consideration of the petition by Donald M. Lewis III, Esquire, and Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, to make rule absolute, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the foregoing attorneys shall be permitted to withdraw as counsel for Waste Transportation Disposal, Inc., a/k/a WTDI, a/k/a WTDI Environmental in this matter. The Prothonotary is directed to mark the docket to note their withdrawal as counsel. Distribution: ,"'Travis L. Kreiser, Esquire, Ewing & Kreiser, P.C., Suite 201, 500 Fayette Street, Conshohocken, PA 19428 ' Donald M. Lewis III, Esquire, Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, 210 Walnut Street, P. O. Box 11963, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 Waste Transportation & Disposal, Inc., c/o Brian Mathis, CEO, 3667 Norwich Drive, Tucker, GA 30084 nV TTTR OnT TT2T- 2 039 NOV -2 PH 2: 13 David D. Bueff Prothonotary T,irkS. Sohonage, ESQ, solicitor ; f Cr 7750 Renee T, Simpson ; IS` Deputy Prothonotary Z ?I ii Irene E. Morrow 2"' Deputy Prothonotary Office of the Trothonotary Cumber(and County, Tennsylvania [Ji in. // CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 30T' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012, AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE -THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R.C.P. 230.2. BY THE COURT, DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square * Suite 100 • Carlisle, PA 17013 0 (717) 240-6195 • Fa.A- (717 240-6573