HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-5232,COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
9th Judicial District, County Of Cumberland
NOTICE OF APPEAL
FROM
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT
COMMON PLEAS No.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District
Judge on the date and in the case referenced below.
Lester S._ Miller, Jr.
09-3-04 Thomas A. Placed
663 North Locust Point Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
August 14, 2006 Silver Spring Township
CV-0000201-06
Lester S. Miller,Jr.
I ms block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa.
R.C.P.D.J. No. 10086.
This Notice of Appeal, when received by the Magisterial District Judge, will
operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case.
was
#15706
before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED
within twenty
(20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL.
Stgnalum of ProMmmtaq orDeputy
PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE
(This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before Magisterial District
Judge. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee.
PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary
Enter rule upon Silver Spring Township
appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal
Name of appellee(s)
(Common Pleas No. 6L, C,2.2 2. f j ) within twenty (20) days aft ervice of rule or suffer entry/o 'udgment of non pros.
Sig re of appellant or attorney or agent
C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire
RULE: To Silver Spring Township appellees PA I.D. #15706
Name ofappellee(s) () Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson P@aham LLP
17 N. 2nd St., 18th Floor, Harrisburg, PA
(1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service 1
of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. 17101-15071
(2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
(3) The date of service of this, rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing.
Date: ?E9 ??'p f at?'?
J? Si nat re of Prothonotary or Deputy
YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL.
AOPC 312-05
v
q
4 ?.
c?
T`c
(i
C-
f
I
5
W
aJ
0
?- T
U.;
' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cnl INTY r)F• CUMBERLAND
Mag. Dist No..
LESTER S. MILLER, JR.
663 NORTH LOCUST POINT RD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT
CIVIL CASE . ,
PLAINTIFF '. NAME antl ADDRESS
rSILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP
?
6475 CARLISLE PIKE
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050
L J t
VS.
DEFENDANT' NAME antl ADDRESS
rMILLER, JR. , LESTER S 1
663 NORTH LOCUST .`POINT RD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050
L J
Docket No.: CV-0000201-06
Date Filed: 4/05/06
t
THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT:
_-4 - JLdgrr>0nt: POR ,PLA;NTVP` , (pate of Jtldgment) 0/e14/06_
Judgment was entered for: (Name) SILVER SPRING TONMSHIP
® Judgment was entered against: (Name) HILLER, JR., LESTER S
in the amount of $ 57.5
? Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
El Damages will be assessed on Date & Time
D This case dismissed without prejudice.
Amount of Judgment Subject to Attachment/42 Pa:C.S. § 8127
Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of
residential lease $
Amount of Judgment $ 1.00
Judgment Costs_ $?b M
Interest on Judgment $?
Attorney Fees $ .00
Total $ ... 57.50
Post Judgment Credits $
Post Judgment'Costs ' $
Certified Judgment Total $
ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE
OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU
MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL.
EXCEPT. AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN. THE RULES OF CIVIL. PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES. I
UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERI
A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION. WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE
SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE. JUDGMENT.
My commission expires first Monday of January, 2010
AOPC 315-06
DATE PRINTED: 8/31/06
kcrz? M
r
Ma
10:14:00 RM
IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE
VENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL,
keiia?T.?tstRCtJ11(5 ?' ,)
4tlie juc i nt
at District Judge
SEAL
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP,
Plaintiff
V.
LESTER S. MILLER, JR.,
Defendant
400100"M "ftg of 0'e"0004114t
4&
District Court 09-3-04
CV-0201-06
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Plaintiff is a municipal entity that has enacted various zoning ordinances
(Ordinances) on 5 September 1995, specifically parking and storage of commercial
tractor and tractor (Permitted Uses - section 201.2), Specific Sign Requirements
(section 313.3), and Sign Permits (section 313.6). Defendant is a land owner within the
Township of 465 acres that is primarily used in agriculture purpose. Defendant uses
the tractor trailer combination for farming purposes on a dirt road created within that
farm. The trailer, as described by another farmer, is particularly well suited for that
purpose because it is mobile, durable and generally impervious to the elements and
rodents. Defendant utilizes it for storage of feed, tools and materials used in operation
and maintenance within the farm boundaries.
On 30 January 2006 Plaintiff sent Defendant an "Enforcement Notice of
Violation" that was received by Defendant's employee. The Notice indicated that
Defendant was in violation of the above cited Ordinances by "[t]he parking and storage
of a commercial tractor and trailer with a sign painted on the one side of the
trailer...." (emphasis added.) Defendant was given until 17 February 2006 to
complete compliance and notified of the right to "appeal" that Notice to the zoning
hearing board (ZHB) within 30 days. Failure to comply or appeal could result in
enforcement action before the Court of Common Pleas or monetary penalties before the
Magisterial District Court. The "sign" is a fluorescent green background covering the
entire side of the trailer with black lettering and graphics of unknown dimensions. After
complaint(s) to the Township, Plaintiffs zoning officer observed in early January 2006
the trailer and sign along a hedgerow approximately 300 yards from the officer's public
road vantage point. The officer observed the combination again in a similar location
from a similar vantage point on 17 February 2006. No photographs of these
observations were presented as evidence nor were any documentary records made of
this second observation; however, a photograph of the combination in a similar location
from a similar vantage point was shown dated 6 August 2006.
Plaintiff filed this action seeking the setting of a civil penalty for the violation,
which will act prospectively as a penalty amount for future violations pursuant to the
Municipal Planning Code (MPC). Defendant showed that the combination was moved
immediately upon notice to an unviewable area of the farm but acknowledges that it
has been returned to use around the farm after 17 February 2006. Defendant believes
it is not a violation as the "sign" is not covered under the Ordinances and Act No. 2005-
38 pre-empts local regulation of this normal agricultural operation. Further, that
Defendant was in compliance on 17 February 2006 and had no reason to appeal nor a
requirement to notify Plaintiff to the compliance. Plaintiff believes that since no appeal
was taken to the ZHB this Court is bound to accept the default finding of lack of
compliance and may only set the amount of civil penalty.
DISCUSSION
A district court's broad brush decision making process mandated by statute and
rule is no substitute for the ZHB or the Court of Common Pleas. A district court has
only limited authority granted it by statute and is not a super hearing board. Plaintiff's
sign Ordinance and the MPC are once again under scrutiny and once again are found to
be less than'user friendly as the general public is denied meaningful court access.
Silver Spring v. Sutliff, CV-0568-05. Defendant is appropriately using the tractor and
trailer for agriculture purposes, which is protected under Act No. 2005-38. However,
the trailer serves a dual purpose, as painted and lettered, for Defendant's business
interests. It is vexing to understand and be able to decide the issues but to be duty
bound to follow the lawful rulings on the statutes of the higher courts that limit the
decision making process in zoning cases. The Commonwealth Court has unequivocally
stated that "upon the municipality's showing that no appeal was taken by the land
owner, a district [judge] is limited to imposing a fine pursuant to Section 617.2 of the
MPC." Township of Penn v. Seymour, 708 A.2d 861, 864 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
The imposition of a sanction or civil penalty is not so constricted so as to make
the testimony taken meaningless. It is found that after Notice Defendant swiftly acted
in a compliant manner. However, the shown non compliant use of the still painted and
lettered trailer on 6 August 2006 constitutes a day of violation. Under Act No. 2005-
38 Defendant may legitimately utilize the tractor and unmarked trailer for agricultural
purposes. A marked trailer could also be used if properly permitted by Township.' The
painted and lettered trailer, as testified to by numerous neighbors, is not offensive nor
depreciating to the value of the community. It is not found to be adversely impacting
the health, welfare or safety of the citizens, which the Ordinances are designed to
protect. The totality of circumstances, which includes but is not limited to the lack of
meaningful redress before the ZHB, leads to the conclusion that it is a nominal violation
and a $1.00 a day penalty is imposed. This is consistent with the higher court
precedent set in the case of Borough of Bradford Woods v. Platts. 799 A.2d 984 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2002).
' Plaintiff believes that the sign, and it is a sign, requires permit approval pursuant to its Ordinances;
however, the mobility of an "individual business sign" was not envisioned or classified in the Ordinances.
Judgment is on favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $1.00 together with the costs
of this action. The parties have previously been advised of their appeal rights and the
original exhibits are being returned to the presenting party.
By the Court,
14 August 2006
Thomas A. Pla ey M.D.J.
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 06-5232 CIVIL
LESTER S. MILLER, JR. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant
NOTICE
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice
are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with
the Court your defense 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, Pennsylvania 17013
717-249-3166 ?--? -,<77
STEVEN A. S
23 Wa y rive
Hummelstown, PA
(717) 903-1268
ESQUIRE
17036
Dated: N81 o (o
NOTICIA
Le ban demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas
expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de
la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por
abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en
contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, 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 ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE
ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO,
VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE
ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR
ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
717-249-3166
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
V. NO. 06-5232 CIVIL
LESTER S. MILLER, JR. CIVIL ACTION -LAW
Defendant
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff, by its Solicitor, Steven A.
Stine, and avers the following:
1. The Plaintiff herein is SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, a township of the second
class located in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, having its offices at 6475 Carlisle Pike,
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050 (the "Township").
2. The Defendant herein is LESTER S. MILLER, JR., an adult individual with an
address of 663 North Locust Point Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050 ("Miller").
3. Miller is the record owner of a certain piece or parcel of land situated in the
Township of Silver Spring, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, with an address of 663 North
Locust Point Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050 (the "Subject
Premises").
4. The Subject Premises is a 111.57 acre tract of land located in the (A ) Agricultural
Zoning District.
COUNTI
5. The averments in Paragraphs 1 through 4 hereinabove are incorporated herein by
reference thereto.
6. Prior to January 30, 2006, a commercial tractor trailer with a sign on the side of
the trailer was parked on the Subject Premises.
7. On or about January 30, 2006, James E. Hall, Township Zoning Officer (the
"Zoning Officer") sent an Enforcement Notice of Violation to Miller for the following violations
of the Township Zoning Ordinance:
a. Section 201.2, which provides that the parking and storage of a
commercial tractor and trailer is not permitted in the (A) Agricultural Zoning
District;
b. Section 313.3, which sets forth specific requirements for a permanent sign;
and
c. Section 313.6, which requires that a sign permit be obtained prior to
displaying a sign.
A copy of the Enforcement Notice of Violation is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A".
8. The Enforcement Notice of Violation also states that compliance with the
Township Zoning Ordinance must be completed by February 17, 2006.
9. On February 17, 2006, Miller continued to be in violation of the Township
Zoning Ordinance on the Subject Premises as set forth in the Enforcement Notice of Violation
10. Miller has ignored, disregarded and defied the Enforcement Notice of Violation.
11. Subsequent to the Enforcement Notice of Violation, Miller has parked the tractor
and trailer with a sign on the trailer on the Subject Premises.
12. Miller has not obtained a sign permit for the sign on the trailer.
13. Miller did not appeal the Enforcement Notice of Violation to the Township
Zoning Hearing Board.
14. On or about April 5, 2006, the Zoning Officer filed a civil complaint with District
Justice Thomas Placey for violations of Section 201.2, 313.3 and313.6 of the Township Zoning
Ordinance.
15. Because Miller did not appeal the Enforcement Notice of Violation to the
Township Zoning Hearing Board, Miller is guilty of violating Sections 201.2, 313.3 and 313.6 of
the Township Zoning Ordinance, which guilt is unassailable.
16. Section 700.4 of the Township Zoning Ordinance provides that any person who
shall violate the Ordinance is subject to a judgment of not more than one five hundred ($500.00)
dollars plus all court costs and reasonable attorneys fees for each violation.
17. After a hearing before District Justice Placey on August 7, 2006, a judgment was
issued against Miller on August 14, 2006 in the amount of $57.50, which included a $1.00
judgment for the violations of the Township Zoning Ordinance and $56.50 in costs.
18. Miller filed a Notice of Appeal on September 8, 2006.
WHEREFORE, the Township respectfully requests judgment against Miller in the
amount of $1,500.00 plus costs and reasonable attorney's fees plus $500.00 per day for each
violation occurring subsequent to September 8, 2006, the date of the judgment from District
Justice Placey.
COUNT II
19. The averments in Paragraphs 1 through 18 hereinabove are incorporated herein by
reference thereto.
20. The violations of the Township Zoning Ordinance are per se irreparable harm.
21. Township has no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Township respectfully requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment
against Miller as follows:
a. Enjoin Miller from parking and storing the tractor and trailer on the Subject
Premises in violation of the Zoning Ordinance;
b. Enjoin Miller from displaying the sign on the trailer in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance;
C. Order and direct Miller to permanently remove or have permanently removed the
tractor and trailer from the Subject Premises;
d. Order and direct Miller to permanently remove the sign from the trailer;
e. Order and direct such other and further relief as the Court shall determine to be
just and proper;
f. Assess costs and reasonable attorneys fees against Miller.
ST VEN A. T , ESQUIRE
Solicitor or Silver Spring Township
Supreme Court ID #44859
23 Waverly Drive
Hummelstown, PA 17036
(717) 903-1268
EXHIBIT "A"
i
SILVER;
SPRING TA,& .
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP
ENFORCEMENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Certified Mail 7004 1350 0005 1046 6178
DATE:
January 30, 2006
Notice Sent By:
Certified Mail and
1St Class Mail
TO: Lester S. Miller, Jr.
663 North Locust Point Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
LOCATION OF PROPERTY IN VIOLATION:
Lot #2, 111.57 acre-tract
Behind 106 Valley View in field
Tax Parcel Number:
38-06-0013-030
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that you are in violation of Silver Spring
Township Zoning Ordinance on the following respect:
The parking and storage of a commercial tractor and trailer with a sign
painted on the one side of trailer that violates the following:
Section 201.2 Permitted uses - the parking and storage of commercial
tractor and trailer is not permitted in the "A" agricultural zoning district
Section 313.3 Specific sign requirements for permanent sign
Section 313.6 Displaying a sign without a permit
YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED that you must commence
compliance with the above referenced Township ordinance immediately upon delivery of
this notice, such compliance to be completed by:
February 17, 2006
6475 Carlisle Pike ? Mechanicsburg, PA 17050-2391 ? (717) 766-0178 ? (717) 766-1696 FAX
Page 2
Enforcement Notice of Violation
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that you have the right to appeal this notice to
the Silver Spring Township Zoning Hearing Board within thirty (30) days from the date
of delivery hereof in accordance with the procedures set forth in said Zoning Ordinance.
A copy of the Zoning Ordinance may be examined at the Silver Spring Township
Municipal Building, 6475 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA during regular business
hours.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that your failure to comply with this notice
within the time specified above, unless extended by appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board,
constitutes a violation which can result in an abatement of the violation by injunctive
action through the Court of Common Plea of Cumberland County, and/or monetary
penalties after a hearing before a District Justice ranging from a minimum of $25.00 to a
maximum of $500.00 per day plus the costs of such action and including the Township's
reasonable attorney fees incurred in prosecuting this enforcement.
Jame E. Hall
Zoning Officer
Silver Spring Township
Enclosure
cc: Board of Supervisors
Mr. William S. Cook, Township Manager
Mr. Kelly K. Kelch, Assistant Township Manager
JEH/kk
t-
P? ? .b
rte.
..
tr
o ? t
?
r-
'wsas ; :. ,.?. •:; • 't?
t."
` -. iN -7
'fit,,
: ? 7?w
- p `fr
34.30Ac. l?'10
a z
•
aa, ?
3_4A
CD
.. 1_"4..
(U
30 ,
02 `5
N TRACT- ,
13.57 AC. W at4 56,
1.57 Qc
408.94 Mh•?-
? 15
Q 490.02 14
(?3A
(6) 231.75
' 9 18
17,,.. ?
13
r
r 3 0
"'
}
0 X12 2
't?
1
?.3.sVgIIEY VIEW
Dk1.
F . .
11 5 --
4
5 200.o a 5
2
_ R/VL
1145
56 N Y \
'T.
, O/
w,
200.0 0 9
F`4
",6r?
d
P R
TRACT- 1
, `:
.
39, 93 AC
.
dh
27 1 ...A` -
cT' ?
LO
,.
•
250•
N..:... ;,;..
QQ+??
QQQOA ?o
'n ?syD?b 4) jb
a C,"`a?i &? m 3b m yy o° gacem -0 c it
y
C-j CS m 3m m?nr a, •?
a ?Q -qr Q oho ?cA? a ' ?F wo??Z mn ? •
o.
Q. ?? macro maioyQ f? m'a
m riaaa?D?
N?` a? Qm ?mm
'D ID
or3Q Qm3as'mc_jc amao?a s;0?? ?m?m?
`4
a'; ?2m r'ca?ma ro r c ?? m
1°??? m? mom ?; 3 ?,aa ahf3? y,'aa a c az Q
ti??? ?y y~ na a `Dy?m"' a Qm'em7 a,
y a m• $?a o ti o rn m 3? m m? y
aem nkA
QQ `omp m? \o m
a? yom? m°? 0 CO
41
'? moom? o.?? i O o a my
CQ' 4,
ar3; 3 ma 3 ?m?'om?m ymc F?o'm
"ZL
a ?• M arm 0-4A
my c m?'+ o`DQQ ?o- m0
Qma gmm' (D -ea o m e
a '* a
m?? a mfr om?`T oaD Q o ?m ry
mao 15-0 f -0 a a
Q o' O o? ., aplete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
-item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
5515 Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
Mechanicsburg,
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540
2. Article Number 7004 1350 0005 1046 617 8
(Transfer from service label)
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, JAMES E. HALL, as Zoning Officer of Silver Spring Township, hereby
verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief and further states that false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
JAME Zoning Officer
Silver p ' g Township
Dated:
?r-,?-,n Sac .7? ?6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, STEVEN A. STINE, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of
the foregoing Complaint on the following below-named individuals by depositing the same in the
U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid this 28th day of September, 2006.
SERVED UPON:
Lester S. Miller, Jr.
663 North Locust Point Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire
Kilpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP
17 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
r. ?'
--t -?c,'?r;
,,? r?'
L7? ?." ^?,.y
"'. rT1
?... . - ?
?.,? :.mod
`'+
(?; .3
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP,
Plaintiff :
V.
LESTER S. MILLER, JR.,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-5232 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER
AND NOW, comes Defendant Lester S. Miller, Jr., by and through his attorneys, C.
Grainger Bowman, Esq., and Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, and files the
following Answer to Complaint with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows:
ANSWER
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted. Defendant will be referred to as "Miller" in this pleading.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied as stated. More accurately stated, the Subject Premises is located within
the Agricultural Zone of Silver Spring Township at the end point of Locust Point Road. Miller's
property consists of an integrated grouping of seven parcels, which comprise one farm owned by
Miller, totaling approximately 460 acres. One of the seven parcels is a 111.57 acre tract of land.
COUNTI
5. No answer is required.
6. Denied. Prior to January 30, 2006, Miller used the referenced tractor trailer in the
operation of his farm at numerous places on his 460 acre farm. It was not parked. The tractor
trailer is not a commercial vehicle; rather it is an agricultural vehicle. More accurately, it is not
HA-180567 vl
disputed that the tractor and trailer at issue is a combination vehicle, and the trailer portion is
approximately 40 feet in length in a box type of configuration. The trailer is not being used by
Miller as a commercial tractor-trailer combination, although before its retirement, it was used as
a commercial combination. It has been used by Miller for over one year, and is currently being
used by Miller as a part of Miller's farming operations, that is to say, Miller's employees use the
tractor-trailer as a farm trailer only on Miller's farm. It is used for the hauling of hay and feed
and for the transportation of farm implements and farm materials, and is a movable tool shed
employed for the need of repairs to the grounds and buildings on and around Miller's farm.
Miller directs its operation at all times through his agents, Tom Tighe and Bob Mitchell, and they
use it for agricultural purposes in support of the farm. It is undisputed that on one side of the
trailer (not both sides) is the lettering "S. S. Hog Farm," together with figures of six pigs. S. S.
Hog Farm is a fictitious name, registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State for the use
of Lester Miller. Miller is considering entering into the business of "hog farming," which is a
permitted use in the Agricultural Zone. Miller believes that "lettering" on a trailer is not a sign
in fact or under the terms of the Ordinance, but is merely lettering on a trailer (and not subject to
regulation under the Ordinance), and that Miller is entitled to use his trailer with the lettering for
farming operations in an Agricultural Zone.
7. It is admitted as a fact that James E. Hall, Township Zoning Officer sent an
Enforcement Notice of Violation to Miller on or about January 30, 2006, but it is denied that the
Zoning Ordinance applies to the facts of this case as a matter of fact and as a matter of law.
a. It is denied that Section 201.2 is applicable to this case,
b. It is denied that Section 313.3 is applicable to this case.
C. It is denied that Section 313.6 is applicable to this case.
-2-
8. It is admitted that the Notice stated that compliance with the Township Ordinance
must be completed by February 17, 2006. It is denied that the Township Ordinance is applicable
to these facts, and it is denied that the Township Ordinance is enforceable as a matter of law.
9. Denied. Miller was not in violation of the Ordinance on February 17, 2006 for
several reasons. Immediately after Lester Miller received the Township's Notice of Violation on
February 3, 2006, the agents of Lester Miller removed the trailer from any view of the public,
while Miller was attempting to determine whether the Ordinance had any applicability to
Miller's trailer and whether the Ordinance was legally enforceable as to farm vehicles under
Pennsylvania law. This removal occurred two weeks before the compliance date of February 17,
2006. The Township did not inspect for compliance on or immediately after the compliance date
(February 17, 2006), because there is no entry in the Zoning Officer's enforcement log reflecting
inspection of the Miller property. The Zoning Officer has a duty under Section 700.1.2.C to
inspect properties for compliance, particularly under the circumstance where he gave notice of
the alleged violation and demanded compliance. In fact, compliance by Miller was
accomplished under this Notice of Violation, but the Township declined to do its duty to
acknowledge it by inspection on or about February 17, 2006. The Township did not follow its
own Ordinance. Further, state law permits Miller to use his tractor-trailer (with or without the
lettering) for agricultural purposes under the Right to Farm Act and related acts.
10. Denied for the reasons stated in paragraph 9 above.
11. Denied as stated. Miller uses the tractor trailer for his farm operations on all parts
of his 460 acre farm, and to state that Miller "parks" his trailer is denied as inaccurate. Miller
denies that the lettering on the trailer is a sign subject to the Ordinance, and denies the
enforceability of the Ordinance as to a farmer.
-3-
12. It is admitted that Miller has not applied for or obtained, nor does Miller have the
duty to apply for or obtain a sign permit. The Ordinance at issue is not applicable to Miller.
13. It is not disputed that Miller did not appeal the Enforcement Notice of Violation,
because, for reasons stated in paragraph 9 above, Miller came into compliance with the Notice
on February 3, 2006 by removing the trailer from the location referenced by James Hall,
allegations of the Township to the contrary notwithstanding. The removal was to achieve
compliance and for Miller to examine the legal issues presented by the Ordinance and the Notice.
Miller had no duty, and no notice of a right to appeal an event with which he complied, or a duty
to appeal an event with which he complied. The trailer was fully removed from the location well
before February 17, 2006. Proof to the contrary is demanded.
14. Admitted that a civil complaint was filed, but it is denied that the items
complained of were correct.
15. Denied as a conclusion of law. Miller was not obligated to appeal such a Notice,
when Miller had come into compliance on February 3, 2006. The Notice does not state that the
recipient of a Notice has a duty to appeal under circumstances where the recipient has come into
compliance, and it not lawful to require such an appeal.
16. Denied as a conclusion of law.
17. Admitted that this is a correct recital of the judgment of the District Justice.
18. Admitted.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Miller respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment
against the Township and in favor of Miller, and for such other relief as is permitted by law.
COUNT II
19. No answer is required for this averment.
-4-
20. Denied as a conclusion of law. Miller poses no harm to the Township or any
other entity. To the contrary, Miller is properly farming in an Agricultural Zone, and his farming
benefits the Township.
21. Denied as a conclusion of law.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Miller respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment
against the Township and in favor of Miller, and for such other relief as is permitted by law,
including but not limited to denial of injunctive relief as to the use of the tractor and trailer on the
Miller farm for agricultural purposes, denial of injunctive relief as to the lettering on the tractor
and trailer, denial of any direction from the Township as to the removal of the trailer, denial of
any direction as to the removal of any lettering from the trailer, and the assessment of costs and
attorney fees for the defense of this matter at all judicial levels.
-5-
NEW MATTER
22. The Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance") does not define Miller's trailer as a sign.
The Ordinance cannot prohibit Miller's use of a trailer for farming purposes. No provision of the
Ordinance specifically prohibits trailers of the type at issue (which are being used for agricultural
purposes in the Agricultural Zone). No effort by the township to regulate the lettering on a
mobile trailer that is being actively used for farm purposes is enforceable. To the contrary, no
township ordinance is empowered to prohibit the use of this trailer for agricultural purposes, or
to prohibit the lettering on this trailer, as a matter of law.
23. The Ordinance does not define "Sign" in any way, shape or form to include
lettering that is painted on a trailer. Therefore, a "Sign" is not lettering as it relates to Miller's
trailer, as alleged. To the contrary, the Ordinance's definition of "Sign" in every respect deals
with a "device," that is, a separate thing constructed as a structure or attached to a structure or
projected from a structure.
24. The Township is barred from prosecuting Miller, in that the enforcement of this
Ordinance is being selectively enforced against Miller. The actions of the Township are contrary
to state law. The prosecution is contrary to equal protection of the laws and due process of law.
25. The prosecution is based upon an anonymous complaint. The anonymous
complainant does not want a hog farm in this portion of the township. Section 201.8, entitled
Agricultural Nuisance Disclaimer, announces the Township's own public policy that residence in
an Agricultural Zone carries with it certain risks of "inconvenience, discomfort and the
possibility of injury from normal agricultural operations." The Township is prosecuting Miller
in support of a bias from an anonymous complainant, which bias is contrary to the express terms
-6-
of the Ordinance. The prosecution is contrary to equal protection of the laws and due process of
law.
26. The trailer with its lettering was approximately one to two football fields from
Locust Point Road when it was noticed by the Township Zoning Officer.
27. Under the Ordinance definition of "Sign," a trailer so far from a public road and
being used in an Agricultural Zone is not a "sign," in that the lettering is situated far from the
public view.
28. The Township Zoning Officer did not perform a compliance inspection to
determine if the trailer had been moved:
a. on February 17, 2006, or
b. within 24 hours before February 17, 2006, or
c. within 24 hours after February 17, 2006.
29. There is no log or record entry of any kind in the Zoning Officer's records
reflecting compliance inspection of the Miller property:
a. on February 17, 2006, or
b. within 24 hours before February 17, 2006, or
c. within 24 hours after February 17, 2006.
30. The Zoning Officer has a duty under Section 700.1.2.C of the Ordinance to
inspect properties for compliance.
31. Miller actually complied by moving its trailer on February 3, 2006. The
Township did not do its duty to inspect on February 17, 2006. The Township ignored Miller's
compliance.
-7-
32. Miller is entitled under state law to use his tractor-trailer (with or without the
lettering) for agricultural purposes.
33. The Township has exceeded its authority and its police powers by this
enforcement action. In the absence of lawful authority, there can be no municipal enforcement
and no penalty. In the absence of lawful authority, Miller alleges that the attempted municipal
enforcement is unlawful harassment of Miller, for which Miller will seek damages.
34. The prosecution is contrary to equal protection of the laws and to due process of
law.
Respectfully submitted,
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
NICHO N GRAHAM LLP
By:
C. Grainger Bow squire
Attorney I.D. No. 15706
17 North Second Street, 18th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
T: 717-231-4500
F: 717-231-4501
Attorneys for Defendant Lester S. Miller, Jr.
Dated: December 6, 2006
-8-
VERIFICATION
I, Lester S. Miller, Jr., verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New
Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief. This
verification is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa. C. S.
Sec. 4904), relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Lester S. Miller, Jr.
HA-180567 vl
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 6, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Answer to Complaint was served on the following via United States mail, first class postage pre-
paid:
Steven A. Stine, Esquire
23 Waverly Drive
Hummelstown, PA 17036
0 Ar??
C. Grainger Bowma
HA-180567 v]
no
C. Grainger Bowman, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
Attorney I.D. No. 15706
17 North Second Street, 18`h Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
T: 717-231-4500
F: 717-231-4501
Attorneys for Defendant Lester S. Miller, Jr.
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP,
Plaintiff
V.
LESTER S. MILLER, JR.,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-5232 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED UNDER A JUDGMENT' OF NON PROS
AND NOW, comes Defendant Lester S. Miller, Jr. ("Miller"), by and through his
attorneys, C. Grainger Bowman, Esq., and K & L Gates LLP, and files the following Petition for
a Rule to Show Cause Why Plaintiff's Complaint should not be dismissed under a Judgment of
Non-Pros for Plaintiff's inactivity, and in support thereof Defendant avers as follows:
1. Plaintiff Silver Spring Township ("Township") filed its action against Defendant Lester
S. Miller, Jr. within Magisterial District No. 09-3-04 (Hon. Thomas A. Placey, Magisterial
District Judge) on April 5, 2006 for alleged violations of Section 201.2 (parking and storing of
tractor and trailer in "A" agricultural zone), 313.3 (specific sign requirements for permanent
sign) and 313.6 (display of sign without a permit) of the Township Zoning Ordinance.
2. Miller denied the allegations and requested a hearing on the Township's claims.
-2-
Magisterial District Judge Placey held a hearing on August 7, 2006, and entered
judgment for the Township in the sum of $1.00 plus costs in the sum of $56.50, for a total
judgment against Miller in the sum of $57.50 on August 14, 2006.
4. Miller believed that the Township's actions were wholly improper, and chose to appeal
the judgment entered against him to the court of common pleas.
5. On September 8, 2009, Miller filed a Notice of Appeal (docketed to No. 06-5232 Civil)
with this Honorable Court, and entered a Rule upon the Township, as per the rules, to file a
Complaint with the Court within 20 days after service.
6. On September 28, 2006, the Township filed its Complaint, as Plaintiff, against Lester S.
Miller, Jr., as Defendant.
7. On December 8, 2006, Miller filed its Answer to Complaint with New Matter. Plaintiff
did not reply to the New Matter in Defendant's pleading.
8. Nearly three years have elapsed since Miller filed its Notice of Appeal, and two years and
eleven months have elapsed since any action has been taken by the Township in this case, in
which the Township was awarded $1.00 in damages by the Magisterial District Judge.
9. The Township has the duty to prosecute its Complaint.
10. A motion for judgment of non pros is the vehicle by which a litigant asserts his common
law right to a reasonably prompt conclusion to a case. Bucci v. Detroit Fire & Marine Insurance
Co., 109 Pa. Super. 167, 167 A. 425 (1933). See also 7 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d, Sec.
39:74.
-3-
11. The court has the power to enter a judgment of non pros, and such power is necessary to
prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the common
pleas court calendar. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626, 630-631, 82 S. Ct.
1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962) (authority of a court to dismiss for lack of prosecution has
generally been considered an "inherent power," governed not by rule or statute but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases.)
12. A Court may properly enter a judgment of non pros (1) when a party to the proceeding
has shown a want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptness, and (2)
there has been no compelling reason for the delay, and (3) the delay has caused some prejudice
to the adverse party. James Bros. Co. v. Union Banking and Trust Co. of DuBois, 432 Pa. 129,
132 247 A.2d 587, 589 (1968).
13. The Township's inactivity over almost three years since it filed the Complaint, to which
Miller filed an Answer and New Matter, shows a lack of due diligence in proceeding promptly.
Miller denies the allegations of violation of ordinances in the Township's Complaint. The
Township has also sought injunctive relief, has alleged per se irreparable harm, and has alleged
that the Township had no remedy at law. (Count II, paragraphs 20 and 21) The Township's
inactivity in this case requires a conclusion that there is no irreparable harm. The fact is that the
Township has not pursued any remedy in equity, much less a remedy at law.
14. The Township can offer no reason for the absence of any activity since the filing of the
Complaint.
15. Miller has been prejudiced by the passage of three years for the following reasons:
-4-
a. Miller has alleged that there is no log entry or record entry of any kind in the
Zoning Officer's records reflecting the making of an actual compliance inspection of the
Miller property. This is a record which should have been made and kept as a matter of
course for the purposes of enforcement of and compliance with an ordinance. Miller's
allegation is based upon the testimony of the Zoning Officer at the hearing before the
Magisterial District Judge on August 7, 2006. This compliance inspection was required
to be done following the service of the so-called Notice of Violation. The absence of any
township record of an inspection raises a flaw in township procedure and an issue of
factual dispute (resolved in Miller' favor by the Magisterial District Judge). Miller
offered testimony of actual compliance which was ignored by the Zoning Officer (but
resolved in Miller' favor by the Magisterial District Judge). Miller alleged specifically
that no compliance inspection was performed and that no official record reflecting
compliance inspection was made (but resolved in Miller' favor by the Magisterial District
Judge). And now that factual issue must be re-decided on memory and recollection three
and one-half years after the inspection was supposed to have taken place. This places all
of the relevant factual and counterfactual testimony into the arena of whose recollection
of the facts in February of 2006 remains intact. This is grossly unfair to Miller, because
the Township has not chosen to prosecute its case of alleged ordinance violation.
b. The prejudice is compounded by the findings of the Magisterial District Judge,
which vindicated Miller.
i. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE OPINION: "It is found that after
Notice Defendant acted swiftly in a compliant manner. However, the shown non
-5-
compliant use of the still painted and lettered trailer on 6 August 2006 constitutes
a day of violation."
MILLER'S ALLEGATION OF PREJUDICE -- Miller is faced with an odd
dilemma. The Magisterial District Judge found Miller to be in compliance. The
official Township records which would support the finding "of compliance" are
still non-existent, and the factual issue "on compliance" three years later will
remain a battle of the oaths between Miller's witnesses and the Township's
witnesses because the records are gone. Miller is still required to defend himself,
because of the Township's filing of the Complaint after Miller appealed the
decision of the Magisterial District Judge, but the Township has entirely
disregarded the process by ignoring the existence of its own Complaint. One of
the difficulties is that the Magisterial District Judge has chosen to enforce against
Miller a different violation than the violations that were alleged in the Township's
initial complaint filed with the Magisterial District Judge on April 5, 2006. That
is to say, the Magisterial District Judge found a new and different "one-day in
August 2006" violation even though the Township's allegations relate to alleged
violations as of February 17, 2006. As if to punctuate the displeasure of the
whole prosecution effort by the Township, the Magisterial District Judge entered
a fine against Miller of $1.00 only for the new and different one day violation.
This case is not worth the prosecution of the Township.
ii. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE OPINION: "A marked trailer could
also be used if properly permitted by Township. The painted and lettered trailer,
as testified to by numerous neighbors, is not offensive nor depreciating to the
-6-
value of the community. It is not found to be adversely impacting the health,
welfare or safety of the citizens which the Ordinances are designed to protect.
The totality of the circumstances, which includes but is not limited to the lack of
meaningful redress before the ZHB [Zoning Hearing Board], leads to the
conclusion that it is a nominal violation and a $1.00 a day penalty is imposed."
MILLER'S ALLEGATION OF PREJUDICE -- The facts are such that no wrong
has been committed by Miller which rises to the level of filing a Complaint in the
court of common pleas by the Township. The failure of the Township to
prosecute its meaningless Complaint permits the conclusion that there was no
wrong in the first place. It is prejudicial to Miller for the Township to have let its
case lie dormant for three years, during which time recollections fade and facts
grow further obscure. It is prejudicial that the Magisterial District Judge should
find a $1.00 liability for a one day violation in August 2006, thus calling for
Miller to pursue an appellate remedy, and then for the Township to file, but not to
prosecute its Complaint.
iii. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE OPINION: "Plaintiff's sign
Ordinance and the MPC [Municipalities Planning Code] are once again under
scrutiny and once again are found to be less than user friendly as the general
public is denied meaningful court access. Silver Spring v. Sutliff, CV-0568-05.
Defendant is appropriately using the tractor and trailer for agricultural purposes,
which is protected by Act No. 2005-38."
-7-
MILLER'S ALLEGATION OF PREJUDICE -- It is abundantly clear that the
Township is misusing its "enforcement of ordinance" police powers to attempt to
coerce a property-owner from the legitimate and proper use of equipment for farm
purposes. But the burden is exacerbated by the Township's neglect of this
Court's docket by its inactivity in this matter and its non-prosecution of its own
Complaint. It is Miller who is prejudiced by the Township's neglect and by the
passage of three years of inactivity for no understandable purpose. And it is
Miller who questions the Township's motivation for this kind of behavior.
C. Miller submits that the passage of time disables and prejudices his ability to prove
the claim set forth in paragraph 24 of Miller's New Matter (see Answer to Complaint
with New Matter, para. 24), namely, "The Township is barred from prosecuting Miller, in
that the enforcement of this [Zoning] Ordinance is being selectively enforced against
Miller. The actions are contrary to state law. The prosecution is contrary to equal
protection of the laws and due process of law."
d. Further, Miller has alleged that in paragraph 25 of Miller's New Matter (see
Answer to Complaint with New Matter, para. 25): "The Township is prosecuting Miller
in support of a bias from an anonymous complainant, which bias is contrary to the
express terms of the Ordinance. The prosecution is contrary to equal protection of the
laws and due process of law." Miller alleges that the passage of time necessarily disables
and prejudices his ability to garner facts about the identity and whereabouts and nature of
the bias of the anonymous complainant, and to prove useful facts regarding the claims set
forth in paragraph 25.
-8-
16. Judgment of non pros should be entered against the Township on account of the
Township's unjustifiable failure to prosecute the Complaint which it filed with this Court on
September 28, 2006, and on which it has shown no prosecutorial effort.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Miller requests that a Rule to Show Cause be issued against the
Plaintiff to show why its Complaint should not be dismissed under a Judgment of Non-Pros for
Plaintiff's inactivity.
Respectfully submitted,
K&L GATES LLP
By: 0 ' Z_Omow,
C. Grainger Bowman,k-s% uire
Attorney I.D. No. 1570
17 North Second Street, 18th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
T: 717-231-4500
F: 717-231-4501
Attorneys for Defendant Lester S. Miller, Jr.
Dated: September 1, 2009
-9-
i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 1, 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Defendant's Petition for a Rule to Show Cause was served on the following via United States
mail, first class postage pre-paid:
Steven A. Stine, Esquire
23 Waverly Drive
Hummelstown, PA 17036
0 An--? &7--
C. Grainger Bowmal?
HA-229686 vl
OF THE
2009 SEP -1 Ph 4.06
ITy
SEP 012009h
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP,
Plaintiff
V.
LESTER S. MILLER, JR.,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 06-5232 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOW, this 3 day of ?!V? , 2009, a Rule is hereby issued upon
the Plaintiff to show cause why the Plaintiff s Complaint should not be dismissed and a
judgment of non pros entered upon the record for want of prosecution of the Complaint.
Jam- _
RULE RETURNABLE on , 2009, ?• • ?'?
#'3 to
Judge
Distribution:
/SDen A. Stine, Esquire
23 Waverly Drive
Hummelstown, PA 17036
Grainger Bowman, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
17 North Second Street, 18th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
Coo . Es
Q/3/mot
HA-229686 v1
F1 LE- LDN
OF THEE,
2009 SEP -3 All 11 : 5 1
C. Grainger Bowman, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
Attorney I.D. No. 15706
17 North Second Street, 18th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
T: 717-231-4500
F: 717-231-4501
Attorneys for Defendant Lester S. Miller, Jr.
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP,
Plaintiff
V.
LESTER S. MILLER, JR.,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-5232 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE RULE RETURNABLE
DATE FOR A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED
AND NOW, comes Defendant's attorney, C. Grainger Bowman, Esq., and files the
following Motion for Continuance of the Rule Returnable Date for a Rule to Show Cause Why
Plaintiff's Complaint should not be Dismissed, and in support thereof Defendant's attorney avers
as follows:
1. Defendant, through his counsel C. Grainger Bowman, Esq., filed Defendant's Petition for
a Rule to Show Cause Why Plaintiff's Complaint should not be Dismissed on September 1, 2009
with the Prothonotary, and the Petition was assigned to the Hon. Edward E. Guido.
2. Judge Guido issued a Rule to Show Cause and scheduled the Rule Returnable date for
September 17, 2009 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom No. 3. The Rule was delivered by U.S. Mail and
received in Attorney Bowman's office and by Attorney Bowman on Friday, September 11, 2009.
-2-
3. Attorney Bowman regrets that he must move for a continuance of the Rule Returnable
date, but is constrained to do so, because he cannot be physically present to represent the
Defendant Miller on the date and time set as the Rule Returnable date. Attorney Bowman would
send another attorney, except that he is the only attorney fully knowledgeable about this Silver
Spring Township v. Miller dispute.
4. Attorney Bowman's conflict in schedule is this. He is scheduled to testify as a fact
witness on September 17, 2009 at 10:30 A.M. in Lynchburg VA in a case before Michelle
Gillette, Administrative Hearing Officer of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the matter of
Virginia Bowman v. City of Lynchburg, Child Protective Services, Department of Social
Services. Francis Lawrence, Esq. (434-296-7138) is representing Virginia Bowman in that
proceeding, and he has asked the undersigned Attorney Bowman to testify on behalf of Virginia
Bowman.
5. Defendant's counsel asks for a continuance only because of the regrettable conflict in his
schedule, but will be pleased to work with the court's staff to reschedule if that is the court's
wish.
-3-
WHEREFORE, Defendant's counsel moves for a continuance of the Rule Returnable date
(September 17, 2009) of the Rule to Show Cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed to
another date and time.
Dated: September 14, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
K&L GATES LLP
By:
C. Grainger Bowman, kss wire
Attorney I.D. No. 15706
17 North Second Street, 18th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
T: 717-231-4500
F: 717-231-4501
Attorneys for Defendant Lester S. Miller, Jr.
-4-
No
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 14, 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Defendant's Motion for a Continuance was served on the following via United States mail, first
class postage pre-paid, and by fax:
Steven A. Stine, Esquire
23 Waverly Drive
Hummelstown, PA 17036
Hon. Edward E. Guido
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle PA 17013
Court Administrator
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle PA 17013
C. Grainger Bowm
HA-230309 vl
FILED l'l;'F' E-
C3E TNc
2009 SEP 15 f'i-I 2: 29
GUM
3
i
SEP 17 2009
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
V. NO. 06-5232 CIVIL
LESTER S. MILLER, JR., CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant (GUIDO, J.)
ORDER
AND NOW, this Lit?ay of Sf.?Ohnjjt<, 2009, upon consideration of
Defendant's Motion for Continuance of the Rule Returnable Date of September 17, 2009, it is
ordered that the date for the Rule Returnable is continued. The Rule upon the Plaintiff to show
cause why the Plaintiff s Complaint should not be dismissed and a judgment of non pros entered
upon the record for want of prosecution of the Complaint is now scheduled as follows.
RULE RETURNABLE on , 2009,x- OV*<P
Courthouse, Carlisle PA.
E. Guido, Judge
Distribution:
Steven A. Stine, Esquire
23 Waverly Drive
Hummelstown, PA 17036
C. Grainger Bowman, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
17 North Second Street, 18th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
9, iP-a 9
9-1
HA-230309 v1
FILED--,);1 F ECE
OF THE PR0,Tl4'-"%N0TARY
2009 SEP 18 PM 2, 14
CUM
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS NO. 06-5232 CIVIL
LESTER S. MILLER, JR., CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant .
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 19th day of October, 2009, after
consultation with counsel, the Defendant's Motion for Non Pros. is
granted.
By the Court
Edward E. GUido, J.
./ Steven A. Stine, Esquire
23 Waverly Drive
Hummelstown, PA 17036
,.G Grainger Bowman, Esquire
K&L GATES LLP
17 North Second Street, 18th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
mlc
eo C es r lay Li-CL
F THE R+c?
a r?o?Anr,
2119 OCT 28 An 8: 27
1BRLA-110 COUNTY
PENNMVANA