The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-3035JOSEPH CALABRESE d/b/a CALABRESE & SONS, INC, Plaintiff V. COMMERCE BANCORP, INC d/b/a COMMERCE BANK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. Db - (21C)t- C- f I CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO ISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please Issue a Writ of Summons against the above-referenced Defendant. Commerce Bank Go Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr., Esquire Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108 DATED: f y ?(ry 17- Respectfully submitted, FENSTERMACHER AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: ohn R. en e a her Supreme Court I.D. #29940 Matthew Aaron Smith Supreme Court I. D. #94603 5115 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 691-5400 Attorneys for Defendant p Np- 0-1 Ln " I 1 N n a G. e7` M i l t .. Vf5 US T? N :C r Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland WRIT OF SUMMONS Court of Common Pleas JOSEPH CALABRESE d/b/a CALABRESE & SONS INC Plaintiff Vs. No 06-3035 COMMERCE BANKCORP INC d/b/a COMMERCE BANK c/o Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr., Esquire 210 Walnut Street, P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, Pa. 17108 In CivilAction-Law Defendant To COMMERCE BANCORP, INC d/b/a COMMERCE BANK, You are hereby notified that JOSEPH CALABRESE d/b/a CALABRESE & SONS INC the Plaintiff(s) has / have commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend or a default jud ent may be en red against you. (SEAL) rothormt Date May 25, 2006 By Deputy Attorney: Name: Matthew Aaron Smith Esq Address: 5115 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17050 Attorney for: Plaintiff Telephone: (717)691-5400 Supreme Court ID No. 94603 #10 DEBRA DESCH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 6F Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAI?A C3 V. NO. 06-1928 CIVIL TERM _ F= r; N DAVID BOSAK and VALERIE HARTMAN, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE A pretrial conference was held on Wednesday, September 2, 2009, before the Honorable Edward E. Guido, Judge. Present for the Plaintiff was Richard C. Seneca, Esquire, and present for the Defendants was Allen C. Welch, Esquire. This is a construction case where the amount in controversy would seem to dictate that this matter be referred to arbitration. Provided, however, that in order to end this longstanding dispute without further delay, we have agreed to schedule a bench trial before this Court commencing at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 24, 2009. If either party objects to this matter being tried before a judge rather than a jury, the objection shall be made by close of business on September 14, 2009, in which case we will take appropriate steps to refer the matter to arbitration. The parties are directed to pre-mark all exhibits and exchange them with opposing counsel prior to the time of trial. Settlement negotiations are ongoing. It appears to the Court that there are some reasonable settlement proposals on the table and that settlement is well within the realm of possibility. Richard C. Seneca, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Allen C. Welch, Esquire Attorney for Defendants Prothonotary Court Administrator srs JOSEPH CALABRESE d/b/a CALABRESE & SONS, INC. Plaintiff vs COMMRCE BANCORP, INC d/b/a CO1rMRCE BANK Defendant Case No. 06-3035 Civil Term Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: John R. Fenstermacher, Esq. intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Fenstermacher and Associates, P.C. Print Name John R. Fenstermacher SignN ? III Date: August 31, 2009 Attorney 7for Plaintiff Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. 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. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. 2009 SE P -2 Psi 3: 1 Li David (l). Bueff Prothonotary KirkS. Sohonage, ESQ Soricitor F C /; »50 Renee X. Simpson \1j IS` Deputy Prothonotary z ?MI _i Irene E. Morrow 2n°r Deputy Prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary Cum6erfand County, Tennsykania Ole-30 CIVILTERM 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 0 Carfis(e, PA 17013 0 (717 240-6195 • fax (717 240-6573