The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-5185. -yi Kenneth A. Wise, Esq. Graybill & Wise, P.C. 126 Locust Street P.O. Box 11489 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1489 (717) 238.3838 THOMAS WILLIAMS and MAUREEN E. ROYER, Plaintiffs V. LAURIE. HILSINGER, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2006- $167'8 C "' ? +tr"K JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons for the above-named Defendant in the above- captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to ( X )Attorney ()Sheriff. Date: Clef. OG enneth A. Wise, Esquire 126 Locust Street P. O. Box 11489 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1489 Id. No. 16142 (717) 238.3838 Attorney for the Plaintiffs c? l Ll /JI .,CJ `tea . r Kenneth A. Wise, Esq. Graybill & Wise, P.C. 126 Locust Street P.O. Box 11489 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1489 (717) 238.3838 THOMAS WILLIAMS and MAUREEN E. ROYER, Plaintiffs V. LAURIE HILSINGER, Defendant TO: LAURIE HILSINGER: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2006- Sj ?S uv,I -4'tr^ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED WRIT OF SUMMONS YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: J-(?",?ODG p-l avjt ., g. y4e-? Prothonotary V- by: YO-? ? ! U? D- ty ( ) Check here if reverse is issued for additional information. w w !YJ ti Jp 4? 4„ Thomas Williams and.Maureen Rngpr vs Case No 2 006-5185 civil Term Laurie Hilsinger Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: Plaintiffs intends to proceed with ttu above captioned matter. print Name Kenneth A. Wisp Sign Name 3 /mot 4.r Date: '20 Oct '09 Attorney for Plaint if f s 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 1401. Two aspects of the won merit comment. I. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cam 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 inks 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 requited 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. U 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 tom inating 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. i Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a patty 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 (dx2) 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 (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. TARY 209 0ICT 22 FI n '"' : ! ?) t"A SCHNOW FRAMER PC BY: CHARLES E. SCHMIDT, JR., ESQUIRE I.D. #19198 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 cschmidtAschmidtlaamer. com THOMAS WILLIAMS and MAUREEN E. ROYER, Plaintiffs V. LAURIE HILSINGER, Defendants Fll.Ev_; f,: T'-' 2010r1w?' -7 Pf' ji 2: 19 ff,x: Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW NO.: 06-4330 CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO PA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1012 AND CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF COURT 206.4(C) AND NOW, comes the Petitioner and sets forth the following: 1. Petitioner, Charles E. Schmidt, Jr., is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with his principal place of business located at Schmidt Kramer PC, 209 State Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101. 2. Respondent, Laurie Hilsinger, is an adult individual and Defendant in this matter, residing at 133 East Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 3. In April, 2010, Respondent was notified by mail that this office would no longer be able to represent her in the above matter. 4. In April, 2010, Respondent was notified that the undersigned would be withdrawing as counsel and asking that she seek other representation. 5. To date, Respondent has not answered the letter, indicating she had obtained or had attempted to obtain other counsel, nor has the undersigned heard from another attorney undertaking representation. 6. Petitioner requests that this Court enter a Rule directed to Respondent to show cause, if any, why Petitioner should not be allowed to withdraw as counsel in this matter. 7. Petitioner accepted service of a Writ of Summons on September 19, 2006, and to date no Complaint was filed, which is the current status of the case. 8. The case is not on any trial list. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that this Court issue a Rule directed to Respondent, Laurie Hilsinger, to show cause, if any, why Petitioner should not be permitted to withdraw as her counsel in the above matter. Respectfully submitted, PC By: Charles E. Schmidt, Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. #19198 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorneys for Defendants Date: Pau ) 8010 V VERIFICATION I, Charles E. Schmidt, Jr., Esquire, verify that I am attorney of record for the Defendant, and I am Petitioner in this action. I verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. PC By: \,- - -?c Charles E. Schmidt, Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. #19198 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorneys for Defendants Date: / ' K S a010 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, I, Charles E. Schmidt, Jr., hereby certify that I have, this day, served a copy of the foregoing document by serving a copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Laurie Hilsinger 133 East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Kenneth A. Wise, Esquire Levin & Wise 27 West Third Street P.O. Box 231 Lewistown, PA 17044 Date: ft, S? 02C)10 V SCHM ER PC By: 7 Charles E. Schmidt, Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. #19198 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorneys for Defendants THOMAS WILLIAMS and MAUREEN E. ROYER, Plaintiffs V. LAURIE HILSINGER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 06-5185 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO PA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1012 AND CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF COURT 206.4(C) ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13`h day of May, 2010, upon consideration of the above petition, a Rule is hereby issued upon the Plaintiffs and Defendants to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days from the date of this order DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL shall be responsible for service of this order upon the said parties or their counsel of record. Charles E. Schmidt, Jr., Esq. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants :rc K.Gc?rsE 0 c ?u t..t ?A n? .c 5 =7 i 'Ti 1-2 BY THE COURT, O F C U David D. Buell 41(9e, Renee X Simpson Prothonotary a �s y 1st Deputy Prothonotary �irkS. Solionage, ¶SQ Irene E. liorrow Solicitor 7750 2nd Deputy Prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary Cum6erfancf County, Pennsylvania I DLp —SIA5 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013,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 • (717)240-6195 • rFac(717 240-6573