HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-1746NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO THE DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN:
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 is 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 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
800-990-9108
NOTICIA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quire defenderse de
estas demandas expuetas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20)
dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la excrita o en persona o por abogado y
archivar en la corte en forma excrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las
demande, la 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 dinero o sus propiedades o otros
derechos importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO0 SI
NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICION, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME
POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County, PENNSYLVANIA
MATTHEW SARACCO, :
Plaintiff, :
:
V. :
PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL SERVICE:
COMPANY, :
Defendant. :
o
NO.:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
COUNT I
Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C.
§1337.
Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).
Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)..
Defendant Pennsylvania Municipal Service Company, is a debt collector/business
entity(ies) engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth via
letters and telephone calls, with its principal place of business located 336 Delaware
Avenue, Oakmont, Pennsylvania, 15139.
Defendant communicated with plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this action,
in connection with collection efforts, by letters, telephone contact or other documents,
with regard to plaintiff's alleged and disputed debt.
Defendant is a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).
The FDCPA permits the individual(s) who direct and control the debt collection practices
liable pursuant to recent case law under the FDCPA as well as the FTC general policy.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Ditty v. Checkrite, Ltd, Inc., 973 F.Supp. 975 (D. Utah 1997); FTC, Statements of
General Policy or Interpretation Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 53 Fed. Reg. 50097, 50102 (1988).
The individuals who directed and controlled the negligent collection were "Tina" and her
supervisor, Lois Cappa, who will be joined as soon as the remaining debt collectors are
identified so that all may be joined at one time.
According to Plaintiff, ail defendant's accounts remain past due and were past due when
they were received by Defendant.
Defendant attempted to collect debts that were in default when received.
This places Defendant under the purview of the FDCPA.
Defendant drafted and mailed numerous pieces of correspondence to Plaintiff, most
recent dated March 6, 2002, which are "communication(s)" relating to a "debt" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2) and §1692a(5).
At all pertinent times hereto, defendant was hired by Munhall Borough, to collect an
alleged debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.")
Defendant's collection practices are negligent.
Defendant's collection practices are deceptive, misleading, and confusing, causing
consumers to pay late fees and costs.
Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant intentionally causes the collection
notices to be sent, primarily "past due" because defendant's income is derived from the
additionai fees and costs.
Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant rarely, if ever, causes collection
notices to be mailed in an organized, orderly and timely manner.
18. During the week of March 23, 2002, Plaintiff contacted Defendant to verify the alleged
amounts owed to defendant.
19. Defendant flatly refused to validate the amounts owed.
20. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff requested that Defendant explain the amounts owed and
why Plaintiff never received collection notices unless they were past due.
21. At no time would Defendant validate the alleged debt.
22. Defendant was responsible for invoicing and collecting amounts owed for sewage for the
Borough.
23. During the course of one telephone conversation between Plaintiff and "Tina" she said
that there were not payments since March 2001.
24. The next day, Plaintiff faxed a copy of a canceled check dated March 11, 2002.
25. Defendant indicated that there was more than one account and while that account was
paid, the current account had a past due balance of $111.00 and it must be paid
immediately or there would be a shut off of services.
26. Plaintiff had no idea there were multiple accounts for one address and when he
questioned Defendant, he was told that he knew about other accounts because they
received a letter that said the March 2002 payment was incorrect.
27. After two years of repeated problems, Plaintiff caused a letter to be sent on March 11,
2002, pointing out that the amounts were not owed for the "cycle" indicated and
requested that Defendant check into the matter.
28. Defendant ignored the request, as it had for two years.
29. After a conversation with the Mayor of Munhail, he indicated that Defendant was treating
Munhall residents poorly because they replaced the Defendant as their collection source.
30. Defendant refused to pemfit Plaintiff a "hold" on the shut off of the property and insisted
that the full amount be paid.
31. Defendant refused to provide Plaintiff a listing of all accounts and amounts owed.
32. The Mayor of Munhall instructed his staffto notify Defendant to place a hold on shut off
until Defendant located all accounts relating to the address.
33. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that he has been paying additional late fees and costs
due to the negligence of the Defendant.
34. Other residents of Munhall contacted Plaintiff and expressed the same problems with
defendant, they too, paid additional collection fees and costs that they believed were not
owed, but paid same to avoid shut off.
35. Defendant's notices do not contain the 30-day requirement under the FDCPA.
36. Defendant's collection practices were intentionally confusing, deceptive and misleading,
in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) and (10), §1692f(8) and §1692j.
37. Defendant's conduct rises to the level required for punitive damages due to the form and
language of its notice and the continuous and repetitive nature of the violations under the
FDCPA.
38. At all time pertinent hereto, the defendant was acting by and through its agents, servants
and/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment, and
under the direct supervision and control of the defendants herein.
39. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the defendant, as well as its agents, servants,
and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton
disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.
40. Defendant failed to properly infolm the Plaintiff of his rights under the FDCPA as well as
state law.
41. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of
defendant rises to the level needed for punitive damages.
42. Defendant, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d,
e, f, g, h, and/or n.
43. Defendant, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress
and harass plaintiff.
44. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of dependant as aforementioned, plaintiff has
been subjected to anxiety, harassment, intimidation and annoyance for which
compensation is sought.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment
on her behaif and against defendant and issue an Order:
(A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or each separate and discrete
incident in which defendants have violated the FDCPA. Kashak v. Raritan Valley
Collection Agency, F. Supp. (D.N.J. May 23, 1989), and Rabideau v.
Management Ad_iustment Bureau, 805 F. Supp. 1086, 1095 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)
(B) Award Plaintiff damages for anxiety, harassment, and intimidation directed at him
in an amount not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), as well as the
repetitive nature of defendants form letters.
(C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a
rate of $200.00/hour for hours reasonably expended by his attorney in vindicating
his rights under the FDCPA, pemtitted by 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3).
(D) Award declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as this Honorable
Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide.
COUNT II
45. Plaintiff hereby incorporates Count I of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
46. Jurisdiction for this Count II is alleged pursuant to pendant jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court.
47. Defendant is liable under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act., 73 P.
S. §2270.1, et seq.
48. That ail of the conduct of defendant described in Count I of this Complaint also violated
this Count II.
49. That defendant engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices.
50. Defendant acted as described herein were done with malicious, intentional, willful,
reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiff's fights with the purpose of
coercing Plaintiffto paying additional costs and fees.
51. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs.
WI-IEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf
and against defendant as stated above.
Dated: 4/1/2002
Deanna Lynn Smith
Attorney for Plaintiff
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO THE DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN:
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 is 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 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
800-990-9108
NOTICIA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quire defenderse de
estas demandas expuetas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20)
dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la excrita o en persona o por abogado y
archivar en la corte en forma excrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las
demande, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin
previo aviso o notificacion y pot cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la
peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros
derecho$ importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO0 SI
NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICION, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME
POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCiON SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County, PENNSYLVANIA
MATTHEW SARACCO, Plaintiff,
V.
PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL SERVICE:
COMPANY, :
Defendant. :
NO.: 02-1746 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AMENDED COMPLAINT
COUNT I
Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. 81692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.C. 81692k(d) and 28 U.S.C.
81337.
Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).
Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 81692a(6)..
Defendant Pennsylvania Municipal Service Company, is a debt collector/business
entity(ies) engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth via
letters and telephone calls, with its principal place of business located 336 Delaware
Avenue, Oakmont, Pennsylvania, 15139.
Defendant communicated with plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this action,
in connection with collection efforts, by letters, telephone contact or other documents,
with regard to plaintiff's alleged and disputed debt.
Defendant is a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. 81692a(3).
The FDCPA permits the individual(s) who direct and control the debt collection practices
liable pursuant to recent case law under the FDCPA as well as the FTC general policy.
Ditty v. Checkrite, Ltd, Inc., 973 F.Supp. 975 (D. Utah 1997); FTC, Statements of
General Policy or Interpretation Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 53 Fed. Reg. 50097, 50102 (1988).
8. The individuals who directed and controlled the negligent collection were "Tina" and her
supervisor, Lois Cappa, who will be joined as soon as the remaining debt collectors are
identified so that all may be joined at one time.
9. According to Plaintiff, ail defendant's accounts remain past due and were past due when
they were received by Defendant.
10. Defendant attempted to collect debts that were in default when received.
11. This places Defendant under the purview of the FDCPA.
12. Defendant drafted and mailed numerous pieces of correspondence to Plaintiff, most
recent dated March 6, 2002, which are "communication(s)" relating to a "debt" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2)and §1692a(5).
13. At all pertinent times hereto, defendant was hired by Munhall Borough, to collect an
alleged debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.")
14. Defendant's collection practices are negligent.
15. Defendant's collection practices are deceptive, misleading, and confusing, causing
consumers to pay late fees and costs.
16. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant intentionally causes the collection
notices to be sent, primarily "past due" because defendant's income is derived from the
additional fees and costs.
17. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant rarely, if ever, causes collection
notices to be mailed in an organized, orderly and timely manner.
18. During the week of March 23, 2002, Plaintiff contacted Defendant to verify the alleged
amounts owed to defendant.
19. Defendant flatly refused to validate the amounts owed.
20. On numerous occasions, Plaintiffrequested that Defendant explain the amounts owed and
why Plaintiff never received collection notices unless they were past due.
21. At no time would Defendant validate the alleged debt.
22. Defendant was responsible for invoicing and collecting amounts owed for sewage for the
Borough.
23. During the course of one telephone conversation between Plaintiff and "Tina" she said
that there were not payments since March 2001.
24. The next day, Plaintiff faxed a copy of a canceled check dated March 11, 2002.
25. Defendant indicated that there was more than one account and while that account was
paid, the current account had a past due balance of$111.00 and it must be paid
immediately or there would be a shut off of services.
26. Plaintiff had no idea there were multiple accounts for one address and when he
questioned Defendant, he was told that he knew about other accounts because they
received a letter that said the March 2002 payment was incorrect.
27. After two years of repeated problems, Plaintiff caused a letter to be sent on March 11,
2002, pointing out that the amounts were not owed for the "cycle" indicated and
requested that Defendant cheek into the matter.
28. Defendant ignored the request, as it had for two years.
29. After a conversation with the Mayor of Munhall, he indicated that Defendant was treating
Munhall residents poorly because they replaced the Defendant as their collection source.
30. Defendant refused to permit Plaintiff a "hold" on the shut offof the property and insisted
that the full amount be paid.
31. Defendant refused to provide Plaintiff a listing of all accounts and amounts owed.
32. The Mayor of Munhall instructed his staffto notify Defendant to place a hold on shut off
until Defendant located all accounts relating to the address.
33. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that he has been paying additional late fees and costs
due to the negligence of the Defendant.
34. Other residents of Munhall contacted Plaintiff and expressed the same problems with
defendant, they too, paid additional collection fees and costs that they believed were not
owed, but paid same to avoid shut off.
35. Defendant's notices do not contain the 30-day requirement under the FDCPA.
36. Defendant's collection practices were intentionally confusing, deceptive and misleading,
in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) and (10), §1692f(8) and §1692j.
37. Defendant's conduct rises to the level required for punitive damages due to the form and
language of its notice and the continuous and repetitive nature of the violations under the
FDCPA.
38. At all time pertinent hereto, the defendant was acting by and through its agents, servants
and/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment, and
under the direct supervision and control of the defendants herein.
39. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the defendant, as well as its agents, servants,
and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton
disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiffherein.
40. Defendant failed to properly inform the Plaimiff of his rights under the FDCPA as well as
state law.
41. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of
defendant rises to the level needed for punitive damages.
42. Defendant, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d,
e, f, g, h, and/or n.
43. Defendant, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress
and harass plaintiff.
44. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of dependant as aforementioned, plaintiff has
been subjected to anxiety, harassment, intimidation and annoyance for which
compensation is sought.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment
on her behalf and against defendant and issue an Order:
(A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or each separate and discrete
incident in which defendants have violated the FDCPA. Kashak v. Raritan Valley
Collection Agency, F. Supp. (D.N.J. May 23, 1989), and
Management Adjustment Bure~, 805 F. Supp. 1086, 1095 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)
03) Award Plaintiff damages for anxiety, harassmem, and intimidation directed at him
in an amount not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), as well as the
repetitive nature of defendants form letters.
(C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a
rate of $200.00/hour for hours reasonably expended by his attorney in vindicating
his fights under the FDCPA, permitted by 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3).
(D) Award declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as this Honorable
Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide.
COUNT II
45. Plaintiffhereby incorporates Count I of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
46. Jurisdiction for this Count II is alleged pursuant to pendant jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court.
47. Defendant is liable under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act., 73 P.
S. §2270.1, et seq.
48. That all of the conduct of defendant described in Count I of this Complaint also violated
this Count II.
49. That defendant engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices.
50. Defendant acted as described herein were done with malicious, intentional, willful,
reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiff's fights with the purpose of
coercing Plaintiff to paying additional costs and fees.
51. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs.
52. Plaintiff suffered damages by paying additional costs to defendant for past due amounts
that were not past due.
53. TO DATE, DEFENDANT REFUSED TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE ACCOUNTING
TO PLAINTIFF.
54. THE ONLY ACCOUNTING EVER RECEIVED DID NOT INCLUDE NUMEROUS
PAYMENTS AND WHEN PLAINTIFF ASKED DEFENDANT TO RECALCULATE,
SHOWING CANCELED CHECKS VERIFYING PAYMENT, THE DEFENDANT
REFUSED.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffrequests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf
and against defendant as stated above.
COUNT III
55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein.
56. Plaintiffbelieves and therefore avers that agents made material misrepresentations to the
Plaintiff, upon which he relied.
57. Because Plaintiff relied upon the material misrepresentations contained in both written
and verbal communications from the defendant, Plaintiff suffered monetary damages.
58. Plaintiff further suffered emotional distress based on the defendant's malicious, negligent
and willful conduct.
59.
Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant is liable for the tort of
misrepresentation.
60. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant is liable for negligence.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf
and against defendant as stated above.
61.
62.
63.
COUNT IV
Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if set forth fully herein.
Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant breached its express and/or implied
contract with Plaintiff.
As a result of defendant's breach of contract, Plaintiff suffered damages by having to pay
additional fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf
and against defendant as stated above.
Dated: 7/31/2002
By:
Deanna Ly~n~th
Attorney for PIalmiff
76 Greenroom Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
(717) 732-3750
Fax 717-728-9498
Smithdelyn~aol.com
MATTHEW SARACCO,
Plaintiff
V,
PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL SERVICE :
COMPANY, :
Defendant :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
oq..-
NO. 02-~ CIVIL TERM
NOTICE OF FILING OF REMOVAL
TO:
CURT LONG, PROTHONOTARY
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Deanna Lynn Smith, Esquire
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, PA 17025
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached Notice of Removal has been filed in the
Unites States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, thereby removing this action
to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.
DATED: October 25, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ
~/~lict~a~.. Sh~o,e~7~ 78088)
Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. (PA ID 36803)
111 North Front Street
P. O. Box 889
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889
(717) 234-4121
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MATTHEW SARACCO,
Plaintiff,
VS.
PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL SERVICE
COMPANY
Defendant.
CV
02-19,20
Civil Action No.
'1~'00,9~,
Defend~t, Pe~sylv~a M~icipal Se~ice Comply, by ~d ~ou~ its a~omeys,
Tucker ~ensberg & Sw~z, hereby notifies t~s Cou~ of the removal of~is action from the Co~
of Co~on Pleas of Cumberl~d Co,W, Pe~sylv~a to ~e U~ted States Dis~ct Co~ for
Middle Dis~ct of Pe~sylv~a, p~su~t to 28 U.S.C. ~1441. ~s notice is based upon
following:
1. On or about April 9, 2002, Plaintiff Matthew Saracco commenced this
action in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by filing a Complaint
in Civil Action (the "Complaint").
2. The Plaintiff never served the Complaint on thc Defendant and the
Defendant was unaware of the filing of thc Complaint.
3. On or about August 14, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (the
"Amended Complaint").
4. Defendant learned of the existence of the Amended Complaint when a copy
of the Amended Complaint was received at Defendant's offices by certified mail on September 27,
2002.
5. No Writ has ever been served upon the Defendant.
6. Count I of the Amended Complaint is based upon alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collections Practices, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
7. Count I of the Amended Complaint is a civil action arising under the laws of
the United States, and therefore, the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
8. This Notice of Removal is filed within the time allowed by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(b).
9.
Written notice of this Notice of Removal, together with a copy thereof, have
been served upon Plaintiff, and will be promptly filed with the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
10. A copy of the docket fi.om the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County, the Complaint and the Amended Complaint are attached hereto as Exhibits "A", "B" and
"C" respectively. The attached exhibits constitute all of the pleadings filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this case proceed in this Court
as an action properly removed and that this Court grant Defendant such other relief as is just and
proper.
Dated: October.~ , 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ
~hae~'A~ Shiner (PA'ID 78~88~
Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. (PA ID 36803)
111 North Front Street
P.O. Box 889
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889
Counsel for Pennsylvania Municipal Service
Company
PYSS10 Cumberland County Prothonotary,s Office Page
Civil Case Inquiry
2002-01746 SA3~ACCO MATHEW (rs) PENNA MUNICIPAL SERVICE CO
Reference No..: Filed ........ : 4/09/2002
Case TyDe ..... : COMPLAINT Time ......... : 12:41
Judgmen% ...... .00
Execution Date 0/00/0000
Judge Assigned:
Disposed Desc.: Jury Trial ....
Disposed Date. 0/00/0000
............ Case Comments ............. Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
General Index Attorney Info
SARACCO MATTHEW PLAINTIFF SMITH DEANNA LYNN
PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL SERVICE DEFENDANT
COMPANY
3 3 6 DELAWARE AVENUE
OAKMOUNT PA 1513 9
* Date Entries
4/09/2002 FIRST ENTRY
COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION ..............
8/14/2002 AMENDED COMPLAINT - BY DEA1N-NA
.............. LAST ENTRY ..............
Escrow Information ,
* Fees & Debits Beg Bal Pymts/Adj End Bal ,
********************************************************************************
COMPLAINT 35.00 35.00 .00
TAX ON CMPLT .50 .50 .00
SETTLEMENT 5.00 5.00 .00
JCP FEE 5.00 5.00 .00
45.50 45.50 .00
* End of Case Information
EXHIBIT
NOTICE TO PLRAD
TO THE DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN:
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 is 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 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
800-990-9108
NOTICIA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quire defenderse de
estas demandas expuetas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20)
dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la excrita oen persona o pot abogado y
archivar en la corte en forma excrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a
demande, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted las
sin
previo aviso o notificacion y pot 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 DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO0 SI
NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICION, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME
POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
-- EXHIBIT 'B' __
Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County, PENNSYLVANIA
MATTHEW SARACCO, :
Plaintiff, :
:
V.
PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL SERVICE:
COMPANY, :
Defendant. :
NO.: 00./'7'q6, Q..,ZQ "7~,.,--
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
COUNT I
Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C.
§1337.
Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).
Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)..
Defendant Pennsylvania Municipal Service Company, is a debt collector/business
entity(ies) engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth via
letters and telephone calls, with its principal place of business located 336 Delaware
Avenue, Oakmont, Pennsylvania, 15139.
Defendant communicated with plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this action,
in connection with collection efforts, by letters, telephone contact or other documents,
with regard to plaintiff's alleged and disputed debt.
Defendant is a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3).
The FDCPA permits the individual(s) who direct and controI the debt colle~tion practices
liable pursuant to recent case law under the FDCPA as well as the FTC general policy.
Ditty v. Checkrite, Ltd, Inc., 973 F.Supp. 975 (D. Utah 1997); FTC, Statements of
General Policy or Interpretation Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices '
Act, 53 Fed. Reg. 50097, 50102 (1988).
8. The individuals who directed and controlled the negligent collection wei'e "Tina" and her
supervisor, Lois Cappa, who will be joined as soon as the remaining debt collectors are
identified so that all may be joined at one time.
9. According to Plaintiff, all defendant's accounts remain past due and were past due when
they were received by Defendant.
10. Defendant attempted to collect debts that were in default when received.
11. This places Defendant under the purview of the FDCPA.
12. Defendant drafted and mailed numerous pieces of correspondence to Plaintiff, most
recent dated March 6, 2002, which are "communication(s)" relating to a "debt" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. ~ 1692a(2) and § 1692a(5).
13. At all pertinent times hereto, defendant was hired by Munhall Borough, to collect an
alleged debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.")
14. Defendant's collection practices are negligent.
15. Defendant's collection practices are deceptive, misleading, and confusing, causing
consumers to pay late fees and costs.
16. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant intentionally causes the collection '
notices to be sent, primarily "past due" because defendant's income is derived from the
additional fees and costs.
17. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant rarely, if ever, causes collection
notices to be mailed in an organized, orderly and timely manner.
18. During the week of March 23, 2002, Plaintiff contacted Defendant to verify the alleged
amounts owed to defendant.
19. Defendant flatly refused to validate the amounts owed.
20. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff requested that Defendant explain the amounts owed and
why Plaintiff never received collection notices unless they were past due.
21. At no time would Defendant validate the alleged debt_
22. Defendant was responsible for invoicing and collecting amounts owed for sewage for the
Borough.
23. During the course of one telephone conversation between Plaintiff and "Tina" she said
that there were not payments since March 200 I.
24. The next day, Plaintiff faxed a copy of a canceled check dated March 1 I, 2002.
25. Defendant indicated that there was more than one account and while that account was
paid, the current account had a past due balance of $111.00 and it must be paid
immediately or there would be a shut off of services.
26. Plaintiff had no idea there were multiple accounts for one address and when he
questioned Defendant, he was told that he knew about other accounts because they
received a letter that said the March 2002 payment was incorrect.
27. After two years of repeated problems, Plaintiff caused a letter to be sent on March I 1,
2002, pointing out that the amounts were not owed for the "cycle" indicated and
requested that Defendant check into the matter.
28. Defendant ignored the request, as it had for two years.
29. After a conversation with the Mayor of Munhall, he indicated that Defendant was treating
Munhall residents poorly because they replaced the Defendant as their collection source.
30. Defendant refused to permit Plaintiffa "hold" on the shut off of the property and insisted
that the full amount be paid.
31. Defendant refused to provide Plaintiff a listing of all accounts and amounts owed.
32. The Mayor of Munhall instructed his staffto notify Defendant to place a hold on shut off
until Defendant located all accounts relating to the address.
33. 'Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that he has been paying additional late fees and costs
due to the negligence of the Defendant.
34. Other residents of Munhall contacted Plaintiff and expressed the same problems with
defendant, they too, paid additional collection fees and costs that they believed were not
owed, but paid same to avoid shut off.
35. Defendant's notices do not contain the 30-day requirement under the FDCPA.
36. Defendant's collection practices were intentionally confusing, deceptive and misleading,
in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) and (10), § 1692f(8) and § 1692j.
37. Defendant's conduct rises to the level required for punitive damages due to the form and
language of its notice and the continuous and repetitive nature of the violations under the
FDCPA.
38. At all time pertinent hereto, the defendant was acting by and through its agents, servants
and/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment, and
under the direct supervision and control of the defendants herein.
39. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the defendant, as well as its agents, servants,
and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton
disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.
40. Defendant failed to properly inform the Plaintiffof his rights under the FDCPA as well as
state law.
41. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of
defendant rises to the level needed for punitive damages.
42. Defendant, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d,
e, f, g, h, and/or n.
43. Defendant, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress
and harass plaintiff.
44. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of dependant as aforementioned, plaintiff has
been subjected to anxiety, harassment, intimidation and annoyance for which
compensation is sought.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment
on her behalf and against defendant and issue an Order:
(A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or each separate and discrete
incident in which defendants have violated the FDCPA. Kashak v. Raritan Valley
Collection Agency, F. Supp. (D.N.J. May 23, 1989), and Rabideau v.
Management Adjustment Bureau, 805 F. Supp. 1086, 1095 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)
(B) Award Plaintiff damages for anxiety, harassment, and intimidation directed at him
in an amount not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), as well as the
repetitive nature of defendants form letters.
(C) Award Plaintiffcosts of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a
rate of $200.00daour for hours reasonably expended by his attorney in vindicating
45.
46.
his rights under the FDCPA, permitted by 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3).
(D) Award declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as this Honorable
Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide.
COUNT II
Plaintiff hereby incorporates Count I of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
Jurisdiction for this Count II is alleged pursuant to pendant jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court.
47.
48.
Defendant is liable under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act., 73 P.
S. §2270.1, et seq.
That all of the conduct of defendant described in Count I of this Complaint also violated
this Count II.
49.
That defendant engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices.
50. Defendant acted as described herein were done with malicious, intentional, Willful,
reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiff's rights with the purpose of
coercing Plaintiff to paying additional costs and fees.
51. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf
and against defendant as stated above.
Dated: 4/1/2002
By:
Deanna Lynn Smith
Attorney for Plaintiff
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
NOTICE TO pT,~..An
TO TEE DEFENDANT NA~.~ HEREIN:
You hav~ been sued in cou=l . 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 is 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 agains~ you. You are warned that if you
fail to do so, the case may proceed 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 PA~ER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TE?.~.PHONE 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
800-990-9108
NOTICIA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quire defenderse de
estas demandas eXpuetas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20)
dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la excrita o en persona o por abogado y
archivar en la corte en forma excrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las
demande, la corte tomara medidas y Duede entrar una orden contra usted sin
previo aviso o notificacion y pot 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.
Z.T,EVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADOO SI
NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICION, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME
POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
EXHIBIT
RECEIVED TIME SEP. 27. I1:39AM PRINT TIME SEP. 27. ll:43AM
Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County, PENNSYLVANIA
MATTHEW SAP, ACCO, :
Plaintiff, :
:
V.
:
PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL SERVICE:
COMPANY, :
Defendant. :
NO.: 02-1746 CIVIL TERM
IUF~Y TRIAL DEMANDED ~'
AMENDED COMPLAINT
COUNT I
Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C.
§1337.
2. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b).
3. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)..
4. Defendant Pennsylvania Municipal Service Company, is a debt collector/business
entity(les) engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth via
letters and telephotxe calls, with its principal place of business located 336 Delaware
Avenue, Oakmont, Pennsylvania, 15139.
5. Defendant communicated with plaintiffon or after one year before the date of tl~is action,
in connection with collection efl~orts, by letters, telephone contact or other docmnents,
',vita regard to plaintiff's alleged and disputed debt.
6. Defendant is a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).
7. The FDCPA permits the individual(s) who direct and control the debt collection practices
liable pursuant to recent case law under the FDCPA as well as the FTC general policy.
RECEIVED TIME SEP. 27, ll:39AM PRINT TIME SEP, 27. II:43AM
Ditty v. Checkrite, Ltd Inc., 973 F.Supp. 975 (D. Utah 1997); FTC, Statementa, of
General Policy or Interpretation $laff Comn~entary on the Fair Debt Collection Practicex
Act, 53 Fed. Reg. 50097,50102 (1988).
8. The individuals who directed and controlled the negligent collection were "Tina" and her
supervisor, Lois Cappa, who will be joined as soon as the remaining debt collectors are
identified so that all may be joined at one time.
9. According to Plaintiff, all defendant's accounts remain past due and were past due when
they were received by Defendant.
10. Defendant attempted to collect debts that were in default when received.
11. This places Defendant under the purview of the FDCPA.
12. Defendant drafted and mailed numerous pieces of correspondence to Plaintiff, most
recent dated March 6, 2002, which are "communication(s)" relating to a "debt" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2) and §1692a(5).
13. At all pertinent times hereto, defendant was hired by Munhall Borough, to collect an
alleged debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.")
14. Defendant's collection practices are negligent.
15. Defendant's collection practices are deceptive, misleading, and confusing, causing
consumers to pay late fees and costs.
16. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant intentionally causes the collection
notices to be sent, primarily "past due" because defendant's income is derived from the
additional fees and costs.
17. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant rarely, if ever, causes collection
notices to be mailed in an organized, orderly and timely manner.
RECEIVED TIME SEP. 27. 11:39AM PRINT TIME SEP. 27. 11:43AM
~12-B2B-2170
18. During the week of March 23, 2002, Plaintiff contacted Defendant to verilay the alleged
mounts owed to defendant.
19. Defendant flatly refused to validate the mounts owed.
20. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff requested that Defendant explain the amounts owed and
why Plaintiffnever received collection notices unless they were past due.
21. At no time would Defendant validate the alleged debt.
22. Defendant was responsible for invoicing and collecting amounts owed for sewage for the
Borough.
23. During the course of one telephone conversation between Plaintiffand "Tina" she said
that there were not payments since March 2001.
24. The next day, Plaintiff fa.xed a copy of a canceled check dated March 1 I, 2002.
25. Defendant indicated that there was more than one account and while that account was
paid, the current account had a past due balance of$111.00 and ir must be paid
immediately or there would be a shut off of services.
26. Plaintiffhad no idea there were multiple accomats for one address and when he
questioned Defendant, he was told that he knew about other accounts because they
received a letter that said the March 2002 payment was incorrect.
27. After two years of repeated problems, Plaintiff caused a letter to be sent on March 11,
2002, pointing out that the amounts were not owed for the "cycle" indicated and
requested that Defendant check into the matter.
28. Defendant ignored the request, as it had for two years.
29. After a conversation with the Mayor of Munhall, he indicated that Defendant was treating
Mun_hall residents poorly because they replaced the Defendant as their collection source.
RECEIVED TIME $EP. 27. 11:39AM PRINT TIME SEP. 27, 11:43AM
oep ~/ u~ ll:40a PSMS
412-828-Z170
30. Defendant refused to permit Plaintiff a "hold" on the shut offofthe property and insisted
that the full mount be paid.
31. Defendant refused to provide Plaintiff a listing of all accounts and mounts owed.
32. The Mayor of Munhall instructed his staff to notify Defendant to place a hold on shut off
until Defendant located all accounts relating to the address.
· 33. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that he has been paying additional late fees and costs
due to the negligence of the Defendant.
34. Other residents of Munhall contacted Plaintiffand expressed the same problems with
defendant, they too, paid additional collection fees arid costs that they believed were not
owed, but paid same to avoid shut off.
35. Defendant's notices do not contain the 30-day requirement under the FDCPA.
36. Defendant's collection practices were intentionally confusing, deceptive and misleading,
in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) and (10), §1692f(8) and §1692j.
37. Defendant's conduct rises to the level required for punitive damages due to the form and
language of its notice and the continuous and repetitive nature of the violations under the
FDCPA.
38. At all time pertinent hereto, the defendant was acting by and through its agents, servants
and/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment, and
under the direct supervision and control of the defendants herein.
39. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the defendant, as well as its agents, servants,
and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton
disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiffherein.
RECEIVED TIME SEP. 27, 11:39AM PRINT T/ME S£P. 27. ll:43AM
40. Defendant failed to properly inform the Plaintiff of his rights under the FDCPA as well as
state law.
41. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of
defendant rises to the level needed for punitive damages.
'42. Defendant, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d,
e, f, g, h, and/or n.
43. Defendant, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress
mad harass plaintiff.
44. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of dependant as aforementioned, ptaintiff has
been subjected to anxiety, harassment, intimidation and annoyance for which
compensation is sought.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrespectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment
on her behalf and against defendant and issue an Order:
(A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or each separate and discrete
incident in which defendants have violated the FDCPA. Kashak v. Raritan Valley
Collection Agency, F. Supp... (D.N.J. May 23, 1989), and ~
Management A4iustment Bure8,% 805 F. Supp. 1086, 1095 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)
(B) Award Plaintiff damages for anxiety, harassment, and intimidation directed at him
in an amount not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), as well as the
repetitive nature of defendants form letters.
(C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a
rate of $200.00/hour for hours reasonably expended by his attorney in vindicating
RECEIVED TIME SE?, 27. 11:39AM PRINT TIME SEP. 27. 11:43AM
his rights under thc FDCPA, permitted by 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3).
(D) Award declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as this Honorable
Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide.
COl_tNT II
45. Plaintiff hereby incorporates Count I of this Complaint as if fully set fbrth herein.
46. Jurisdiction for this Count II is alleged pursuant to pendant jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court.
47. Defendant is liable under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act., 73 P.
S. §2270.1, et seq.
48. That all of the conduct of defendant described in Count I of this Complaint also violated
this Count I1.
49. That defendant engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices.
50. Defendant acted as described herein were done with malicious, intentional, willful,
reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiff's rights with the purpose of
coercing Plaintiff to paying additional costs and fees.
51. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs.
52. Plaintiff suffered damages by paying additional costs to defendant for past due amounts
that were not past due.
53. TO DATE, DEFENrDAd~/T RJgFUSED TO PROVIDE ~ ACCURATE ACCOUNTI]qG
TO PLA1-NTI_~FF.
54. THE ONLY ACCOIJNTING EVER R.ECEIVED DID NOT INCLUDE NUlVlEROUS
RECEIVED TIME SEP. 27. ll:39AM PRINT TIME SEP. 27. ll:43AM
PAYMENTS AND WHEN PLAINTIFF ASKED DEFENDANT TO RECALCULATE,
SHOWING CANCELED CHECKS VERIFYING PAYMENT, TILE DEFENDANT
REFUSED.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judg~nent on his behalf
and against defendant as stated above.
COUNT III
55. Plaintiff'hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein.
56. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that agents made material misrepresentations to the
Plaintiff, upon which he relied.
$7. Because Plaintiffrelied upon the material misrepresentations contained in both written
and verbal communications fi.om the defendant, Plaintiff suffered moneta~j'damages.
58. Plaintiff further suffered emotionai distress based on the defendant's malicious, negligent
and willfhl conduct.
59. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant is liable for the tort of
misrepresentation.
60. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant is liable for negiigence.
WltEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf
and against defendant as stated above.
COUNT IV
61. Plaintiff hereby inco~orates the foregoing as if set forth fully herein.
62. Plaintiffbelieves and therefore avers that defendant breached its express and/or implied
contract vrith Plaintiff.
63. As a result f defendant s breach of contract, Plaintiff suffered damages by having to pay
O '
R£CEIVED TIME SEP. 27. ll:39AM PRINT TIME SEP. 27. ll:43AM
Sep 27 G2 ll:~la PR~S
~12-828-2170
p. lO
additional fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffrequests that this Honorablc Court issue judgment on his behalf
and against defendant as stated above.
By: ..
Dated: 7/31/2002
Deaxlna Ly/nn~mith
Attorney for Plaintiff
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
(717) 732-3750
Fax 717-728-9498
Smithdelyn~aol.com
RECEIVED TIME SEP. 27. lI:39AM PRINT TIME SFP. 27. 11:42AM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF
AND NOW, this
- day of OCTOBER, 2002, I, JACQUELYNA.
ZETTLEMOYER, Secretary to Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire, for the law firm, TUCKER
ARENSBERG & SWARTZ, attorneys for Defendant, hereby certify that I have this day served a
true and correct copy of the within Notice of Removal upon the persons and in the manner set
forth below:
_VIA FIRST CLASS MAll:
Curt Long, Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013-3387
-VIIA FIRST CLASS MAll:
Deanna Lynn Smith, Esquire
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, PA 17025
53956.1
~,c'QUE-.EYN A. Z~[TLE~OYER ' -d""-"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~,~(;/~ day of OCTOBER, 2002, I, JACQUELYNA.
ZETTLEMOYER, Secretary to Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire, for the law firm, TUCKER
ARENSBERG & SWARTZ, attorneys for Defendant, hereby certify that I have this day served a
true and correct copy of the within Notice of Filing of Removal upon the persons and in the
manner set forth below:
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL:
Curt Long, Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013-3387
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL:
Deanna Lynn Smith, Esquire
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, PA 17025
53956.1
JA~~. ZE TT~E~