Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-6518tgo COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT I I COMMON PLEAS No. 0 (o _ !0 5 1? U v? I ?-??- 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 Dis- trict Justice on the date and in the case mentioned below. NAME OF APPELLANT MAG. DIST. NO. OR NAME OF D.J. Dorothy and Troy Hess 09-3-05 ADDRESS OF APPELLANT CITY STATE ZIP CODE 102 Centerfield Dr.•re Harrisbur(i 171.7_2 n< -- yr f,c t m irr) (DEFENDANT) P.ichard D. Nauss and 10/11/06 Dorothy and Troy Hess vs. All Amer can PPRi- Cnntrnl CV YEAR 0000262-06 LT YEAR Jarad 61. Handelman, Ssqu-.re -.D., 826 This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under PA. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1008B. If appellant was Claimant (see PA R.C.P.J.P. This notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as No. 1001(6)) in action before district Justice, he A SUPERSEDEAS to the Judgment for possession in this case. MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. I Signature o ro ono ry or epu I 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.J.P. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon Name of appellee(s) (Common Pleas No. appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signature of appellant or his attorney or agent RULE: To Name of appellee(s) appellee(s) (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 of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU UPON PRAECIPE. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: Year o')-VX,?. )?4 Si ature of Pro onotary or D uty White - Prothonotary Copy Green - Court File Copy Yellow - Appelant's Copy Pink - Appellee Copy Gold - D. J. Copy Proth. - 76 PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby swear or affirm that I served ? a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. , upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) , year , ?by personal service ?by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name , on year , ? by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. ? and further that I served the Rule to File a Complaint accompanying the above Notice of Appeal upon the appellee(s) to whom the Rule was addressed on , year ? by personal service ?by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF , YEAR Signature of official before whom affidavit was made Title of official My commission expires on year Signature of Affiant -TJ -9C nz f-T' i% f ? (7) --? O IV C6MMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND Mag. Dist. No.: 09-3-05 MDJ Name: Hon. MARK MARTIN Address: 507 N YOBS ST MECHANICSBURG, PA Telephone: (717 ) 766-4575 17055 DOROTHY & TROY HESS 102 CENTERFIELD DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17112 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR PLAINTIFF NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: NAME aid ADDRESS rEESS, DOROTHY & TROY 102 CENTERFIELD DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17112 L J VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS rkausS, RICHARD D, ET AL. 128 2ND STREET FIRST FLOOR LHIGHSPIRE, PA 17034 J Docket No.: CV-0000262-06 Date Filed: 7/20/06 (Date of Judgment) 10/11/06 rX1 Judgment was entered for: (Name) HESS, DOROTHY & TROY ® Judgment was entered against: (Name) NAUSS, RICHARD D in the amount of $ 3, 8(17- 1-1 Defendants are jointly and severally liable. ? Damages will be assessed on Date & Time 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 $ 3,690.30 Judgment Costs $ 126.50 Interest on Judgment $ .00 Attorney Fees 0 $ .0 Total $ 3,816.80 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, IF THE JUDGEMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. /Q f? Q Date or1?? . Magisterial District Judge I certify that this is a -true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. Date My commission expires first Monday of January, 2012 , Magisterial District Judge SEAL AOPC 315-06 DATE PRINTED: 10111106 8:38:00 AM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF- CUMBERLAND Mag. Dist. No.: 09-3-05 MDJ Name: Hon. MARK MARTIN Address: 507 N YORK ST MECHANICSBURG, PA Telephone: (717 )766-4575 17055 DOROTHY & TROY HESS 102 CENTERFIELD DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17112 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR PLAINTIFF Date ® Judgment was entered for: (Name) HESS, DOROTHY & TROY 10/11/06 ® Judgment was entered against: (Name) ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL in the amount of $ 3,816.80 Defendants are jointly and severally liable. Damages will be assessed on Date & Time 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 $ :s . 69 U . 3 y Judgment Costs $ 126.50 Interest on Judgment $ .08 Attorney Fees $ .00 Total $ 3,816.80 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 JUDGMENTIrRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGEMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. b Date C/ tG - 6-5-(9- It J1 I ?Gfs. NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS rKESS, DOROTHY & TROY 7 102 CENTERFIELD DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17112 L J VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS rilAUSS, RICHARD D, ET AL. 7 128 2ND STREET FIRST FLOOR LHIGHSPIRE, PA 17034 J Docket No.: CV-0000262-06 Date Filed: 7/20/06 (Date of Judgment) , Magisterial District Judge -OZ-;71: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. My commission expires first Monday of January, 2012 AOPC 315-06 , Magisterial District Judge SEAL DATE PRINTED: 10/11/06 8:39:00 AN ?` CD v •' 14 n c_.'?, O C- C=:) rn ..n - „? rI1 r ut ('?4A C t J ern r - C n PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF Cumberlan ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby swear or affirm that I served © a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. 06-6518 Civil Term , upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) 11/9/06 -,year 2006 , O by personal service ©by (certified) (wgi; ttepeg) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name Richard D. NaLagc; & All Ampri can pegs- (nntro1 on November 9 year 2006 , D by personal service OX by (certified) (000110W mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. O and further that I served the Rule to File a Complaint accompanying the above Notice of Appeal upon the appellee(s) to whom the Rule was addressed on _ mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 14th DAY OF November, YEAR 2006 . Signature of official before whom affidavit was made N okeL,? p6kbu C' Title of official % My commission expires on , year COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notarial Seal Alisa M. Stine, Notary Public Deny Twp., Dauphin County My Commission Expires Nov. 19, 2007 year , O by personal service Oby (certified) (registered) f CN Signature ofAlllant Member, Pennsylvania Association Of Notaries COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE OF APPEAL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT I I COMMON PLEAS No. / ' ?) J t f 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 Dis- trict Justice on the date and in the case mentioned below. NAME OF APPELLANT MAG. DIST. NO. OR NAME OF D.J. Dorothy and Troy Hem 09-3--05 ADDRESS OF APPELLANT CITY STATE ZIP CODE 102 Centerfield Drive Harrisburg PA 1712 uA I I= Ur JULfUNIM I IN I Pit GAbt Ur- (PLAIN IIrr) (o F N T Richard D . .susss anc 163/11/06 Dorothy and .Troy Hess vs. All American Pea Control CLAIM NO. SIGNAPELUIN ORNEY AO CV YEAR 0OW262-06 ? .? LT YEAR Jarad W. Handelmanr Escfuire I.D. 6 This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under PA. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1008B li appellant was Claimant (see PA R.C.P.J.P. . This notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as No. 1001(6)) in action beloro district Justice, he A SUPERSEDEAS to the Judgment for possession in this case. MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days alter filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. g- Q. -..- PRAE IPE O ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE? `FILE (This section of wn ta.be?as",ON4Y when appellant was Qj:FEN4(iM11T (sg¢ pA.. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED detach #rom copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon , appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Name of appellee(s) (Common Pleas No. ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signature of appellant or his attorney or agent RULE: To , appellee(s) Name of appellee(s) (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.da!e of; Service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If ygtu db'?f?ot file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU tio- l PRAECIPE. r (3) jhe date of service of this rule if!service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date Year oc-Q White - Prothonotary' py Green - Court File Cop ' Yellow - Appelant's Copy Pink - Appellee Copy Gold - D. J. Copy Si ature of Prot onotary or uty Proth. - 76 DOROTHY and TROY HESS, Plaintiffs VS. RICHARD D. NAUSS and ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL, Defendants I 10 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-6518 Civil Term s RTIFIEIE) 11.1AIL. HFGE ; I ivornestic Marl Unry; Nu insur,w e uoVCIagC r,-UEu, -a N m q i0 S 1- S w 3 / m y. o CV~ Fee ° ??da ant AegWr? Hme uvwy F" rA (Enemerdp Somd) r. C7 4, Total Postage & Fees $ P- -wig -0 Omrlesfic Mail Only, No insurance Coverage Provided) `I%- m ml S'''?' Poste S 3 0 Ce"M od Fee C] C7 ntum Receipt Fee t Reyu+red) S C3 Dath pas r? w (Endorsement 8=1red) C7 Tattl Postage & Fees $ ^ •+??"'? ' .a C] 1 aPn rNo .-....kJ4 -__ - N m OFFI CIAL USE-] -0 Sys Postage $ m ceruw Fee Pb brr k 0 Retum Fteoelpt Fee (Errdcrsarrrent Reaulred) e •r t here ; C3 4R? ? C] TOW Postage & Fees $ . b ?.?? ?Ls aP0'm`hb -- ?> -- - J- --JAI_ ? l?2rr ro DOROTHY and TROY HESS, Plaintiffs vs. RICHARD D. NAUSS and ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-6518 Civil Term Please attach the enclosed certified mail return receipt cards to the Proof of Service filed in the above-captioned matter. ¦ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete kern 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. ¦ Punt your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Aftch this card to the back of the maiiplece, or on the front N space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Me, /)67A4, e Ad AfPAIt s07 Not /X ( prk Jf Mekw;c-tk?l P /'70,.Qr- Apart 0 owrvea rnnreo Hamel C. Dah 4t D? -0 D. deNvery address d from item 1? ? Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: f W No 3. S? Type WJZ?ertilied Mail ? Express Mail E3 Re*tetad AMA ttan Receipt for mw dmtis 13 ins rad Meal ? C.O.D: 4. Restricted Delivery? ( x"I FOV ? lrss L AyMGeNunbw 7006 0810 0003 8376 4638 (Illraritr Aam s.trAo. M r¦ Fam 3611, F wuvy 2004 Dan wc.Aalum Asrasipt tasemoasFa?s ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Nam 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiace, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: ?' rd 8 , Y"6 s tag and S4, ) 94 hwr ?--? 6i sp i rel PH A. by ( Printed ? Agw t ? A*ft D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? ? Yes If YES, enter delkwy address below: ? No 3. Swvk:e type UCAMfled Mail ? Express Mall ? Registered ,,faaarm P cWpt for Mwdmrdlw 0 kterred Mall ? C.O.D. 4. Restricted DeYverYt (E kbo Feels ? Miss 2. A*ftNwidm 7006 0810 0003 8376 4652 MwwA w han sa?tioe A lw Ps Form 3811, Fewuwy 2004 DanaNk: Relu n Rs , lpt 1021964**190 M r? ¦ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete... Item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Mhch this card to the hack of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Mlle Addressed to: II I?rrlf°r can f"PS?- &n4ro I a Noo r- p.0, Box 31? A. B. Received by (P~ Name) ? Agent Is dWkwy address different from item'1? ? Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 3. Servioe Type XLC ttW Mail ? EWesa Mail 0 Fisgbtersd !Rebrrr Receipt for Merarrrd» ? Insured Mail ? C.O.D. 4. Resbicted DeWery? lfe FbV p Visa 2. AT" Ugrbar Mwoftr llomso-inAmby 7006 0810 0003 8376 4645 , Ps Forth 3811, February 2004 Dorrmlk Realm R.oW t C') r'' ?' = = ' ? ...._ ; _.'y i t ?I t ?, ?:: ?: b DOROTHY and TROY HESS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD D. NAUSS and NO. 06-6518 Civil Term ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL, Defendants 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 defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 or 1-800-990-9108 JAMES, SMITH, D TERICK CONNELLY, LLP Dated: 11-7-8-0(o By: JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #82629 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Dorothy and Troy Hess AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despu6s de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparencencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 or 1-800-990-9108 DOROTHY and TROY HESS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD D. NAUSS and NO. 06-6518 Civil Term ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL, Defendants COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Dorothy and Troy Hess, by and through their attorneys, James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, to file the within Complaint against Defendants, All American Termite and Pest Control and Richard D. Nauss. In support thereof, Plaintiff avers as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Dorothy J. Hess, is an adult individual currently residing at 102 Centerfield Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112 (hereinafter "Plaintiff Dorothy Hess"). Plaintiff Dorothy Hess was formerly known by her maiden name, Dorothy J. Jamieson, of the same address. 2. Plaintiff, Troy Hess, is an adult individual currently residing at 102 Centerfield Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112 (hereinafter "Plaintiff Troy Hess"). Plaintiff Troy Hess was married to Plaintiff Dorothy Hess in December, 1997. 3. The Plaintiffs are owners of the real property located at 69 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 (the "Property"). The Property was originally purchased by Plaintiff Dorothy Hess on August 5, 1993. A true and correct copy of the Deed to the Property is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 4. Defendant, Richard D. Nauss, is an adult individual having an address for service of process at 128 Second Street, 1St Floor, Highspire, Pennsylvania 17034. Defendant Nauss is the owner of a termite and pest control business known as All American Termite and Pest Control. 5. Defendant, All American Termite and Pest Control, is believed and therefore averred to be a sole proprietorship owned and operated by Defendant Nauss engaged in the business of professional termite and pest control and having a principal place of business at 128 Second Street, 1St Floor, P.O. Box 312, Highspire, Pennsylvania 17034. THE CONTRACT 6. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through five (5) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 7. At the time of the purchase of the Property, Plaintiffs discovered termite infestation on the Property which required treatment and preventive measures. 8. Plaintiffs Dorothy Hess, then Dorothy Jamieson, signed a Termite Control Agreement (hereinafter the "contract") on August 19, 1993 with Defendant, All American Termite and Pest Control (hereinafter "AATPC"), by and through its owner, Defendant Nauss. A true and correct copy of the contract is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 9. Pursuant to the contract, AATPC agreed to treat the Property for the control of subterranean termites and to furnish for the Property ongoing subterranean termite control for the Property for a period of one (1) year from the date of the initial contract. (See Exhibit "B", 11). 2 10. AATPC further agreed to make annual inspections of the Property and, in the event subterranean termite infestation was found, to treat such infestation at no cost to Plaintiffs. (See Exhibit "B", ¶2-3). 11. Pursuant to the contract, AATPC was also required to perform any and all soil treatments related to the termite treatment and control for which it was obligated by the contract. (See Exhibit "B", ¶4). 12. At all times prior to and during the pendency of the contract, AATPC and Defendant Nauss represented and held themselves out as experts in the field of termite and pest control and prevention. 13. Plaintiff Dorothy Hess paid the initial cost of the contract in the amount of $1,096.04 at the commencement of the contract in or about August, 1993. 14. Pursuant to the contract, Plaintiff Dorothy Hess had the option of extending the contract for subsequent additional one (1) year periods upon payment of an annual renewal fee of $103.00. (See Exhibit "B", 16). 15. Plaintiffs paid the annual renewal fee for the contract to AATPC from 1994 through and including 2005, the last annual renewal premium of $105.00 having been paid by Plaintiffs to AATPC on August 19, 2005. 16. Based on Plaintiffs' payment of the annual renewal premium on August 19, 2005, the terms of the contract as originally set forth in Exhibit "B" and all obligations conferred upon AATPC thereby continued until August 18, 2006, one (1) year from the date of renewal. (See Exhibit "B", 16). 3 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 17. On or about August 19, 1993, Defendant Nauss, acting as an authorized agent and representative of AATPC, conducted a termite inspection at the Property in accordance with the contract executed between the parties. 18. Defendant Nauss identified subterranean termite infestation in various locations on the Property at the time of the initial inspection, as well as existing damage caused by such termite infestation in various locations on the Property. 19. Defendant Nauss prepared an Inspection Graph on August 19, 1993 concurrently with his inspection of the Property documenting all areas of subterranean termite infestation and existing damage on the Property. A true and correct copy of the Inspection Graph completed by Defendant Nauss on August 19, 1993 is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 20. Following his inspection of the Property, Defendant Nauss represented to Plaintiffs that he had treated the termite infestation on the Property with a pesticide identified as Dursban and further represented that such treatment would control the spread or continued termite infestation of the Property. 21. Since the initial treatment administered by Defendant Nauss and AATPC in 1993, AATPC has allegedly conducted annual inspections of the Property and has represented to Plaintiffs that no inspection after 1993 revealed the presence of subterranean termite infestation. 22. Notwithstanding the representations made by Defendant Nauss and AATPC, Plaintiff suffered a re-infestation of termites on the Property in 1997. 4 23. The Plaintiffs were utilizing the Property as a rental property in 1997 and the then tenant occupying the Property in 1997 reported to Plaintiffs that there had been a termite "swarm" inside the Property. 24. The 1997 "swarm" was reported to AATPC and Defendant Nauss immediately. Defendant Nauss came to the Property where he was met by Plaintiff Troy Hess. 25. Defendant Nauss did no inspection of the Property when he reported to the Property in 1997, instead explaining the "swarm" to Plaintiff Troy Hess as the result of "flying ants" and not termite infestation. 26. Defendant Nauss advised Plaintiff Troy Hess to buy ant spray to control the reported problem. 27. The Plaintiffs continued to utilize the Property as rental property and in 2001 the tenant at the Property suffered another termite "swarm" in 2001. 28. Plaintiffs again immediately reported the "swarm" to Defendant Nauss and he again attempted to explain the problem as having been caused by "flying ants" instead of termite infestation. 29. Unlike the 1997 "swarm", the tenant who experienced the 2001 "swarm" was able to trap several of the termites in a baggie which was shown to Defendant Nauss when he first questioned the source of the "swarm" after which Defendant Nauss conceded the problem was caused by termite infestation. 30. Defendant Nauss represented to Plaintiffs that he treated the Property for termite infestation following the second reported "swarm" although Plaintiffs were not present for the alleged treatment. 5 31. The infestations experienced by the tenants residing in the Property in 1997 and 2001 occurred despite annual inspections for termite infestation allegedly conducted by Defendant Nauss and AATPC as required by the contract between the parties. 32. In 2005, Plaintiffs again experienced blatant evidence of termite infestation on the Property. 33. During the course of maintaining the Property, Plaintiffs discovered that the floor of a first floor bathroom they had installed on the Property had become increasingly discolored. 34. Initially, Plaintiffs believed the discoloration was the result of water damage to the floor, however, when no plumbing or water problems were discovered the Plaintiffs were forced to remove the flooring in the bathroom. 35. Upon removal of the flooring in the bathroom, Plaintiffs discovered that the flooring had been damaged by termite infestation. The damage was so extensive that the entire floor and sub-floor in the bathroom had to be replaced. 36. The bathroom floor damaged by termite infestation and discovered in 2005 was one of the same areas initially marked by Defendant Nauss and AATPC on the Inspection Graph where termite infestation was discovered in 1993 during the original inspection. 37. Plaintiffs again immediately notified Defendant Nauss of the problem and he advised that he did not need to see the damage and that he would treat the problem in 2006. Defendant Nauss instructed the Plaintiffs to call AATPC in April, 2006 to schedule an appointment for treatment of the entire Property. 38. Defendant Nauss did not come to the Property until May, 2006 at which time he informed Plaintiffs that he would only treat one-half (1/2) of the building where termites and damage were discovered. 6 39. Defendant Nauss represented to the Plaintiffs that state regulations precluded him from treating the entire building in 2006. 40. Defendant Nauss left the Property without treating the building in May, 2006. 41. In a subsequent conversation with another representative of AATPC, Joanie, Plaintiff Dorothy Hess was told that Joanie would treat the entire building as she had requested, notwithstanding the representations of Defendant Nauss as to the applicability of state regulations precluding such treatment. 42. AATPC never conducted another treatment at the Property. 43. Upon subsequent inspection of the Property by other termite and pest control professionals it was determined that termite infestation on the Property had persisted for a long period of time and there was evidence of "swarming" in the basement of the Property. 44. In 2006 upon inspection by termite and pest control professionals, Plaintiffs learned that Defendant Nauss and AATPC had misrepresented their efforts to control the termite infestation on the Property and had otherwise failed to perform termite control and management techniques in accordance with industry standards throughout their treatment of the Property pursuant to the contract. 45. The Property required treatment for termite infestation and control, including the entire building structure on the Property. 46. Due to AATPC and Defendant Nauss' refusal to honor the contract and properly treat the Property and/or to respond to Plaintiffs' consistent inquiries, the Property was treated on August 16, 2006 by Orkin to extinguish and control the termite infestation on the Property. 7 COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 47. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through forty-six (46) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 48. The parties entered into a contract for the provision of termite and pest control services by AATPC on August 19, 1993 as more fully described in paragraphs seven (7) through fifteen (15) above. See a true and correct copy of the contract attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 49. AATPC and Defendant Nauss breached the contract with Plaintiffs by failing to properly treat termite infestation discovered on the Property and/or to properly control present or ongoing termite infestation on the Property. 50. AATPC and Defendant Nauss breached the contract with Plaintiffs by failing to conduct annual inspections of the Property as required by the contract and to provide additional treatment to the Property required by the results of any such investigations. 51. AATPC and Defendant Nauss breached the contract with Plaintiffs by failing to treat and/or control the termite infestation on the Property initially in 1993 in accordance with industry and/or applicable product specification standards for the use of Dursban, including but not limited to: (a) Failing to adequately drill the sidewalk across the front of the Property to the proper depth so as to allow the pesticide product to contact the soil beneath the concrete; (b) Failing to create a continuous chemical barrier between the wood in the Property and the termite colonies existing in the soil in 1993; 8 (c) Concealing improper drill marks from discovery by the Plaintiffs in the sidewalk across the front of the building by adequately spacing the drill marks from the building, but sealing the drill marks with concrete filler to preclude the measurement of the depth of the drill marks; (e) Failing to properly treat the soil surrounding the Property to treat and/or control termite infestation; (f) Failing to properly apply the pesticide product utilized by Defendant Nauss and AATPC in accordance with product specifications and/or industry standards; (g) Failing to treat the crawl space in the Property in accordance with product specifications and/or industry standards; (h) Failing to drill the space directly above the crawl space on the Property so as to allow the use of pesticide in a manner that would have created a vertical chemical barrier along the inside of the foundation wall; (i) Failing to properly treat termite infestation along the right exterior wall of the Property; 0) Failing to drill in the area along the right exterior wall to allow the use of the pesticide product to treat and/or control termite infestation; (k) Failing to search the Property for all existing "mud tubes" on the Property during the initial inspection or any subsequent inspection; (1) Failing to remove, break, or scratch (etching) all "mud tubes" discovered on the Property; 9 (m) Failing to complete treatment, control, and/or inspections for termite infestation on the Property from 1993 to 2006 in accordance with industry standards; (n) Failing to apply and/or use pesticides, chemicals, or similar products in accordance with industry standards or applicable manufacturer's recommendations for the use of Dursban. 52. Defendant Nauss and AATPC intentionally concealed the improper treatment and control of termite infestation on the Property from Plaintiffs until such improper treatment and control was discovered by Plaintiffs in 2006 upon examination by other termite and pest professionals. 53. As a result of the breaches of the contract by Defendant Nauss and AATPC, Plaintiffs incurred damages as follows (a true and correct copy of an itemization of the following amounts are attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full): (a) Damage resulting from termite infestation to the front door, entry and front area of the Property (cost of repair: $3,325.00) (b) Damage resulting from termite infestation to the first floor bathroom as described above (cost of repair: $522.40) (c) Loss of rent due to tenant vacancy prompted by termite infestation (lost rent: $595.00); (d) Cost of termite policy breached by AATPC and Defendant Nauss (total premiums paid (including initial premium): $2,336.04); (e) Additional termite treatments and associated labor (total cost: $2,048.50). 10 54. As a result of the breaches of the contract by Defendant Nauss and AATPC, Plaintiffs have incurred damages in the amount of $8,826.94. See Exhibit "D". WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants in the amount of Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Six and 94/100 ($8,826.94) plus interest, costs of suit, and all other relief deemed just and appropriate. The amount claimed does not exceed the jurisdictional limits for compulsory arbitration. COUNT II - VIOLATION OF UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW; 73 P.S. 4201-1 et sea. 55. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through fifty-four (54) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 56. From the time of the initial inspection of the Property until 2006, Defendant Nauss, acting on behalf of the Defendant AATPC and within his authority as an agent thereof, represented to Plaintiffs that he had conducted all termite treatment and control services on the Property in accordance with industry standards and applicable product specifications. 57. During the pendency of the contract, Defendant Nauss, acting on behalf of the Defendant AATPC and within his authority as an agent thereof, represented to Plaintiffs that there was no termite infestation on the Property. 58. Defendant Nauss, acting as an authorized agent of AATPC, intentionally, misled, deceived, and/or misrepresented the nature and extent of the termite inspection, treatment, and control services he provided to Plaintiffs in: (a) Concealing improper drill marks from discovery by the Plaintiffs in the sidewalk across the front of the building by adequately spacing the drill marks from the building, but 11 sealing the drill marks with concrete filler to preclude the measurement of the depth of the drill marks; (b) Misrepresenting the applicability of certain state regulations to his provision of termite services so as to mislead Plaintiffs as to the proper treatment of the Property for termite infestation; (c) Failing to conduct annual inspections of the Property as required by the contract between the parties, despite representing to the Plaintiffs that such inspections had been conducted; (d) Failing to report termite infestation that should have been discovered during the performance of any reasonable inspection to the Plaintiffs and/or to treat such infestation; (e) Recklessly evaluating reported termite "swarms" as "flying ants" without proper inspection or investigation of the reported problems. 59. Defendant Nauss knew or should have known that his representations as set forth above were false. 60. Defendant Nauss had a duty to know whether or not the representations he was making to the Plaintiffs as to the termite problem on the Property were true. 61. Defendant Nauss intended that the Plaintiffs be induced to purchase renewals of the contract based on his misrepresentations. 62. The Plaintiffs were induced to renew the contract with Defendants based on the misrepresentations of Defendant Nauss and were otherwise unable to redress or remedy the ongoing termite infestation on the Property. 12 63. The Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the misrepresentations of Defendant Nauss. 64. As a proximate result of Defendants' misrepresentations, Plaintiffs have incurred damages in the nature of the aforementioned problems with the Residence. 65. The misrepresentations made by Defendant Nauss, on behalf of the Defendant AATPC, constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of §201-2(4)(xvii) and §201-3. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants in the amount of Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Six and 94/100 ($8,826.94) plus treble damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, and all other relief deemed just and appropriate in an amount not exceeding $35,000. The amount claimed does not exceed the jurisdictional limits for compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, JAMES, SMITH, D TERI & CONNELLY, LLP Dated: November 28, 2006 By: JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #82629 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Dorothy and Troy Hess 13 VERIFICATION The undersigned, JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE, of the law firm of James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly LLP, Hershey, Pennsylvania, hereby certifies that the foregoing Answer Complaint has been prepared by me by knowledge and information acquired during the course of my representation of Plaintiffs, Dorothy and Troy Hess; that I execute this verification as a signature of Plaintiffs cannot be obtained in the time necessary for the filing of this Complaint; that the Verification of Plaintiffs will be substituted for this Verification as soon as possible; and that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. D-7-8-0(0 7 -- DATE JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE ?xtitGri'A JAMIESON HESS PAGE 03 06/25/1994 20:50 27175453503 . w.?........_Y C j? try ' 1 f ISO - MDg thp di*r - et' 'A in' the"'year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three (1993) JAY W. EVANS and LORETTA M. EVANS, husband and wife, of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Grantors, Parties of the First Part, AND DOR.OTAY J. JAMIESON, single woman, of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Grantee, Party of the Second Part, NITNSSSOM, that said parties of the first part, for and in aenakderation -of the sum of ONE MjNDRED THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND N01100 ($135,000.00) DOLLARS, lawful money of the United States of America, well and truly paid by the said party of the second part to the said parties of the first part, at and before the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold, aliened, enfeoffed, relearned, conveyed and confirmed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, release, convey and confirm unto the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns, the following described property to-wit: ALL THAT CERTAIN piece or parcel of land :situated on the south side of West Main Street in the First Ward in the Borough of Mechanicsburg, County of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvnaia, more particularly bounded and described in accordance with a survey made by Gerrit J. Betz, Regigtered Surveyor, on September 10, (sic) 1973, as follows, to wit: DMINKING at a point on the south side of West Main Street at the dividing line between property herein described and property now or formerly of Paul Sopensky, which point is 47.4 feet east of the southeastern corner of West Main Street and South Frederick Street; thence along the south side of West Main Street, North 81 degrees 30 minutes East, a distance of 29.30 feet to a point at the dividing line between the property herein described and property now or formerly of Roy E. Cook; -thence along the westerly line of property now or formerly of said Roy E. Cook, South 08 degrees 30 minutes East,. a distance of 189.80 feet to a hub at the northern line of Stouffer Alley; thence along the northern line of said Stouffer Alley, South 81 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 29.30 feet to a spike at the eastern line of property now or formerly of said Paul Sopensky, North 08 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 189.80 feet to a point on the south side of Went Main Street first mentioned above; the point and place of BEGINNING. RAVING TBXVMM ERUCTED a six unit, three story brick and frame apartment building known and numbered as 69 West Main Street. BOOK J-,% : AGZ 641 06/25/1994 20:50 27175453503 JAMIESON HESS PAGE 04 MING THE SAW. PREt1tt1ICES which R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff of the County of Cumberland in the State of Pennsylvania, sold ork Tune 9, 1993, an the property of Cheryl r... Horne n/k/a Cheryl J. McSherry, after clue advertisement according to law, under and by virtue of a writ of Execution issued on March 17, 1993, out of the Court of Common Pleas of CumbArland County, Pennsylvania, a,; of Civil Term 1993 Number 435, by his Deed recorded July 20, 1993, in. tnea Office of the Recorder of, Deeds in and for Mimberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book. K, Volume 36, Page 414, granted and conveyed unto Jay W. Evans and Lore:t L a M. Evans, hkibband and wife, Grantors herein. TOORTHM with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances to the came belonging or in anywise appertaining, and the raversinn and rovermi.ons, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; AM) ALSO all the estate, right, title, interest, property, claim and demand whatsoever, both in law and equity, of the said parties of the first part, of, in, to or otlt of t7re said premi qes, and every part and parcel thereof. TX) RAW ,Ate To SOLD the said premises, with all and singular the appurLonances, unto the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigne, to and for the only proper use and behoof of the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns forever. AM the parties of the first part, their heirs, executors and administrators, do by those presents, covariant, grant and agrees to and with the said party of the neacond part, her heirs and Rsaigns, that the said parties of the first part, their heirs, all and singular the here_ditament;s and promises herein above described and granted, or mentioned and intended so to be, With the appurtenances unto the said party of the Rocond part, her heirs and assigns, against the said parties of the first part and their heirs and against all and every other person or persona, whomsoever, lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof, sthall and will, by these presents, WARRANT srECIALT,Y ANT) FOREM =11M. IN MITM515 NISM.EOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hRnds and seals the day and year first written above. 91111D, SUL= Abp DMIVERF.D In TM PRRS6LOM of SEAL) EVANS ? -O"?Y• 2_/ - -`/ L SEAL ) LORETTA M. EVANS 804- 36 FACE 6842 06/25/1994 20:50 ENAN5. U/Vto 27175453503 COI?!lONIIB]1LTB OF P2241SYLVANIA ) Cotwr OF hereunto set my hand anc>:. °'*^ NOTARY PUBLIC PAGE 05 On this, the r" day of J- A.D., 1993, before me, a Notary Public, the undersigned officer, personally appeared JAY W. EVANS and LORETTA M. EVANS, known to me, (or satisfactorily proven) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same for the purposes therein contained. seal. IN WITNESS WEEREOF, I Fla OT? IAL SEilf. FOREMAN, Notary Public r4, DauPhin County, Pa. on Expires Sept. 25, 1"s I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the precise residence of the GrXfitg,, sr rC W W ;ni % n. M- Y?J sp 81 o? Ce&-? +,,jJ . P1 OF Pfi.MSYLVANIA Recorded on this j / in the Ite order' e Offic of Volume Page ? JAMIESON HESS Attorney or Agent for Grantee ?y day of e?2 the said cou?ity Given under my the tsai Office, the date above written. A. D. 199, , in Deed Book, - , hand and the seal of Recorder gist Cumb. Co.. Pe. Real tnste tre"Mm To a oete -//- 3 Ann. G ZS Robert P• Zi"w Cumb. Co. Otw, Col. A0L i=- L--U PALE a h' Cumb. fit. ??''•?'' a Irenster lax Real Estat tr 3% . ? s -? v ?* Amt. pace •/ P. ztople, R"'?,;,?'' ??•' ?r,?,?!` ?? Robe - Dot Col. AOL ft. X-y rap CUmb. xk, k ? + B 05f25/1994 20:50 27175453503 JAMIES?N HESS PAGE 02 ** ....smp tC 4Vi111ltUL * AGREEMENT All American************ yy T Professional Tannito and Pest Control T P.O. Box 312 * Highaplre, PA 17034-0312 233-2501 939-2539 y DATE ?.._'_. T OWNER a,- yk' .J^l ? exo;?) INVOICE TO STREET 1??i?a?!!/ ?6/cs? /1l' STREET y CITY CITY __- T PROPERTY LOCATION: ZIP ??? NAME J9k9_, _1W_ W CI Y /!?? ?B??/1,V?.: J?li1 d ,?/p 1.741 y STREET * DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY _-._.... _ .._ .. _.... _ -_ T r. h it+g?OiQLthacr UW of subterranean termites and to furnish for said A or a period bf t 71 )years from this date, it subterranean termite control under the following terms and conditions: 2. Make annual Inspections of the building(s) for a period of ?'V F 0 years. Inspections will be * normally made during the months of April through October, or, 55n request. 3, Give It additional treatment at any time during the V (I ) year term, if subterranean - y termite Infestation is found. Such treatment to be without cost to the OWNER. All American snail accept no liability for y T any hidden or concealed termite damage, T - 4. As soil treatment is sn essential part of this control treatment, the owner agrees not to disturb the soil within one toot of J,r either side of the building foundations or either side of any part of the structure which is in contact with the ground or T concrete. Upon notification of any changes or additions to Oe foundation or adjacent soil abutting the structure, All y * American will treat the area for an additional charge a ! de said area in this agreement. 5. OWNER agrees to pay All American total of: S L h __ 0'`71, ?.__ as follows: CI A. 25% DOWN PAYMENT AT THE SIGNING OF THIS AGREEMENT $ ' Additional Payments as follows: [? y ? B. BALANCE TO BE PAID TO TERMITE TECHINCIAN UPON COMPLETION OF WORK S _/0 37 6 ' T ? C, BALANCE 30 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF WORK ....... , . , . ..................... $ . _ .. _ _ ? D. BALANCE OF; TO BE PAID IN INSTALLMENTS 1) FIRST PAYMENT TO TERMITE TECHNICIAN UPON COMPLETION OF WORK . ................ $ _._ y 2) MONTHLY PAYMENTS OF $ PLUS * --MONTHLY PAYMENTS OF $ y_,._,_EOUALLING A TOTAL OF $ $ _- - NOTE INFORMATION ON FINANCE CHARGES BELOW. TOTAL PAYMENTS $ 1V 96' _ * 6. The OWNER shall have the option of extending this AGREEMENT on or before the expiration date for an y y additional term of one year or longe g agreeable to both parties upon payment to All American of an T* T annual sum In advance of % of the total amount or $ d? au y 7. Only such agreements as clearly specified above and on the reverse side shall be binding upon the parties hereto, * 8. Price In pefagraph 5 Of this AGREEMENT shall be effective for - - - - days. y T -.__. -?~ ACCEI?TANCE OR ACAEEmAENT _ -? ? - '? THE ABOVE 7ATICWS A EAEBV AC:DEPYED BASED ON THit rER1+S AND r.0ND1TiONS VO(jND ON THE nCYEASE 910t e-EPr+EB kTATIVE -OWNER " >r` IN THE EVENT DULL PAYMENT 19* 7 MADE WITHIN 30DAYSAFTE ICING A FINANCE CHARGE WILL BE ADDED TO THE UNPAID BALANCE. IF A FINANCE CHARGE APPEARS ON THE STATEMENT, IT WAS COMPUTED BY A PERIODIC RATE OF 114% PER MONTH WHICH IS AN ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF 111% ADDED TO THE PREVIOUS BALANCE AFTER y DEDUCTING CURRENT PAYMENTS, AND/OR CREDITS APPEARING ON THE STATEMENT EXCEPT THAT A MINIMUM I ATP T CHARGE OF $1.00 MAY BE IMPOSED. 06125/1934 20:50 27175453503 JAMIESON HESS PAGE 06 T C * ~ O Q F. W 9 z W E ? -. m O c 0 U a Q Q 4K *** }.. CONDITIONS CONTINUED! All American hereby agrees that this agreement and any extension of same shall at owner's option pass with the title of the property, provided that all payments under this agreement will be made by the new owner as herein specified, provided that prompt written notice of such transfer is give to All American. It is agreed and understood that in the vent of default by OWNER of any of the terms and Conditions of this AGREEMENT, including but not limited to any and all payments due hereunder, All American be released from further inspectionsor re- servicing as herein provided. Failure of OWNER to perform any and all conditions hereof shall terminate All American responsibility under this A®IILE#Ad?T. BUYER, MAY CANCEL THIS TRANSACTION AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO MIDNIGHT OF THE THIRD BUSINESS DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THIS TRANSACTION. Exh?6;tC 09/09/2006 14:51 717-9395492 All American Termite & Pest Control 128 2nd Street Highspire, PA 17034 939-2539 • Fax 939-5492 ALL AMERICAN PEST CO A d 7A u 5 ra WDRES? I - i ') Inspection Graph PAGE 02 Ti- ?Ey?iL rat /7-{? Ratio: It Is expressly understood that the CONTRACTOR 14 NOT I1801a for any damages GaY*ed to any pipe, wiring : ?ehan4arn, appliance or device of any incidental damages arising theretrvm which is not readily visible and discovera4le. inspection Key: Subterranean Termites = X Existing Darnwj.? (2 Carpenter AMF, = CA [] Powder-Post BN "ss = FPB ? Fungus = F {] Cellulose Debris = CD [3 Excessive Moisture = EM ? Earth-Woos Contact = EC ? Fau trade ;a FG ? Wel• ;tern = W/C ? Inac, ;sible Areas = IA ? Pos!• ,;c• Hidden Damage = PHD r....o ..a 4r ^nQtrt i:•ti art: lnhack all that aa01tf) i T?pe Of Foundation: (check all that apply) ?xti?b;? t? Costs we incurred because of termites: Replace Subfloorin in Apartment 2 $42.40 Cost for Vinyl in Apartment #2 $80.00 Remove/Re lace Vinyl and Subfloorin $400.00 Lost October Rent $595.00 Termite Policy that was not fulfilled Amount Paid from 1994 through 2006 $1,240.00 Initial Premium $1,096.04 Termite Treatment $1,198.50 ...Pull u Carpeting and Padding in Apt 1 $100.00 ...Move Contents in Apartment 1 $150.00 ...Re lace Carpeting and Padding in Apt 1 $200.00 Move Contents Back $400.00 Front Door, Entry, and front area damage $3,325.00 Total $8,826.94 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint upon the following below-named individual(s) by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania this 28th day of November, 2006. SERVED UPON: Richard D. Nauss 128 Second Street 1St Floor Highspire, PA 17034 All American Termite and Pest Control 128 Second Street 1St Floor Highspire, PA 17034 By: JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #82629 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 ca ? '-40 7 ?- -v cy c° c \01 21 \LIAB\TP WAGNER\SLPG\586423\SYWILLIAMS\02689\00103 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, ATTORNEYFOR: DEFENDANTS COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: THOMAS P. WAGNER, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 27145 ?p5 (8 1845 WALNUT STREET-21ST FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 575-2600 DOROTHY and TROY HESS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT NO. 09-3-05 V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD D. NAUSS and ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL NO. CV-262-06 TO THE PROTHONOTARY. WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendants, All American Pest Control and Richard D. Nauss, in the above-captioned matter. RAWLE & HENDERSON x By: TO THE PROTHONOTARY. Thomas P. Wagner, Esq ' e Attorney for Defendan and I All American Pest Ct Richard D. Nauss ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, All American Pest Control and Richard D. Nauss, in the above-captioned matter. a . MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Thomas P. Wagner, Esquir Attorney for Defendants,;' All American Pest Cont ' land Richard D. Nauss 6rn r ? a d xi MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: THOMAS P. WAGNER, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 27145 BY; MARY C. DOHERTY, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 93593 1845 WALNUT STREET - 21ST FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 575-2600 DOROTHY and TROY HESS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT NO. 09-3-05 V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD D. NAUSS and ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL NO. CV-262-06 nn ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS. RICHARD D. NAUSS AND ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT THE PARTIES 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs' complaint. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs' complaint. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 3 of plaintiffs' complaint. 4. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that defendant Richard Nauss is the owner of All American Pest Control. 5. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that All American Pest Control is a termite and pest control business owned and operated by Richard Nauss with a place of business located at 128 Second Street, 1St Floor, P.O. Box 312, Highspire, PA 17034. THE CONTRACT 6. Answering defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 5 as though each were fully set forth herein at length. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiffs' complaint. 8. Denied as stated. The document appended to the Complaint as Exhibit B is a document which speaks for itself. 9. Denied. The document appended to the Complaint as Exhibit B is a document which speaks for itself. 10. Denied as stated. Denied. The document appended to the Complaint as Exhibit B is a document which speaks for itself. 11. Denied as stated. The document appended to the Complaint as Exhibit B is a document which speaks for itself. 12. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that the defendants were engaged in the business of termite and pest control. To the extent the averments of paragraph 12 of the Complaint contain conclusions to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings they are therefore denied. 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. The document appended to the Complaint as Exhibit B is a document which speaks for itself. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiffs' complaint. 16. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 16 of plaintiffs' complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 17. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that an inspection was conducted. The averments of paragraph 16 of the Complaint contain conclusions to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 20 of plaintiffs' Complaint. 21. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that annual inspections of the property were conducted. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 22 of plaintiffs' complaint. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 23 of plaintiffs' complaint. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 24 of plaintiffs' complaint. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 25 of plaintiffs' complaint. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 26 of plaintiffs' Complaint. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 27 of plaintiffs' complaint. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 28 of plaintiffs' Complaint. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 29 of plaintiffs' complaint. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 30 of plaintiffs' complaint. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 31 of plaintiffs' complaint. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 32 of plaintiffs' complaint. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 33 of plaintiffs' complaint. 34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 34 of plaintiffs' complaint. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 35 of plaintiffs' complaint. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 36 of plaintiffs' complaint. 37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 37 of plaintiffs' complaint. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 38 of plaintiffs' complaint. 39. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 39 of plaintiffs' complaint. 40. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 40 of plaintiffs' complaint. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 41 of plaintiffs' complaint. 42. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 42 of plaintiffs' complaint. 43. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 43 of plaintiffs' complaint. 44. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 44 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. Moreover, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 44, and therefore, answering defendants deny the allegations. 45. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 45 of plaintiffs' complaint. 46. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 46 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. Moreover, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 46, and therefore, answering defendants deny the allegations. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 47. Answering defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 46 as though each were fully set forth herein at length. 48. Denied as stated. The document appended to the Complaint as Exhibit B is a document which speaks for itself. 49. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 49 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. Moreover, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 49, and therefore, answering defendants deny the allegations. 50. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 50 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. 51. (a)-(n) Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 51 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. Moreover, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 51, and therefore, answering defendants deny the allegations. 52. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 52 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. Moreover, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 52, and therefore, answering defendants deny the allegations. 53. (a) -{e) Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 53 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. Moreover, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 53, and therefore, answering defendants deny the allegations. 54. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 54 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. COUNT II - VIOLATION OF UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW, 73 P.S. 4 201-1 et seg. 55. Answering defendants incorporates herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 54 as though each were fully set forth herein at length. 56. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 56 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. 57. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 57 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. 58. (a) - (e) Denied. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 58 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. 59. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 59 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. 60. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 60 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. 61. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 61 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. 62. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 62 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. 63. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 63 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules. of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. 64. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 64 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. 65. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 65 are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and are therefore denied. NEW MATTER 66. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against answering defendant. 67. The Plaintiffs' cause of action is limited or barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 68. The Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of frauds. 69. The Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of integration. 70. The Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of merger. 71. The Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are the result of improper actions on the part of the Plaintiffs or other persons or parties not under the control of answering Defendant. 72. The Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 73. The Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. 74. The Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. 75. The Plaintiffs' injuries were caused by forces, persons or parties other than answering Defendant over whom or which answering Defendant had no control. 76. The Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages, if any. 77. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §7102. 78. Answering defendant breached no duty to anyone at any time. 79. Plaintiffs' recovery is barred by release and waiver. 80. Answering defendant acted reasonably, prudently and with appropriate degree of care at all times. WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Richard Nauss and All American Termite and Pest Control Inc. respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiffs together with attorney's fees, costs and interest. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: C' ARY DOHERTY, ESQ Attorney for Defendants VERIFICATION The undersigned counsel does hereby verify and state that the foregoing Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matter has been prepared by me based upon knowledge and information acquired during the course and scope of the representation of the defendants, Richard Nauss and All American Termite and Pest Control, Inc.. I execute this verification as a signature of defendants could not be obtained in the time necessary for the filing of this Answer and state that the verification of defendants will be substituted for this verification as soon as possible. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Mary C. Do erty CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matter was served upon the following counsel by first-class mail upon the following: Jarad W. Handelman, Esquire James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 Counsel for Plaintiffs MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: qhut, 0. L MARY C OHERTY, Attorney for Defendants rti ?.? --? r?.. •--? -?- _:..T, .-n -? ,.. r ? __ c?; ,,,.. - _._ ? ?? ..__ ?.V '.':.:3 ?_? .{ '-' f"?.'S ?) C.i •?: Jarad W. Handelman, Esquire Attorney I.D. #82629 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Telephone: 717-533-3280 Fax: 717-533-2795 e-mail: jwh@jsdc.com DOROTHY and TROY HESS, Plaintiffs VS. RICHARD D. NAUSS and ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 06-6518 Civil Term PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, RICHARD D. NAUSS AND ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Dorothy Hess and Troy Hess, by and through their attorneys, James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP and answer the New Matter of Defendants Richard D. Nauss and All American Pest Control as follows: 66. Denied. The averments in paragraph sixty-six (66) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 67. Denied. The averments in paragraph sixty-seven (67) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 68. Denied. The averments in paragraph sixty-eight (68) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 69. Denied. The averments in paragraph sixty-nine (69) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 70. Denied. The averments in paragraph seventy (70) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 71. Denied. The averments in paragraph seventy-one (71) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 72. Denied. The averments in paragraph seventy-two (72) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 73. Denied. The averments in paragraph seventy-three (73) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 74. Denied. The averments in paragraph seventy-four (74) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 75. Denied. The averments in paragraph seventy-five (75) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 76. Denied. The averments in paragraph seventy-six (76) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 77. Denied. The averments in paragraph seventy-seven (77) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 78. Denied. The averments in paragraph seventy-eight (78) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 2 79. Denied. The averments in paragraph seventy-nine (79) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 80. Denied. The averments in paragraph eighty (80) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants in the amount of Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Six and 94/100 ($8,826.94) plus treble damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, and all other relief deemed just and appropriate in an amount not exceeding $35,000. The amount claimed does not exceed the jurisdictional limits for compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, JAMES, SMITH, DIET RICK & CONNELLY, LLP Dated: February 12, 2008 By: JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #82629 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Dorothy and Troy Hess 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Answer to New Matter of Defendants, Richard D. Nauss and All American Pest Control upon the following below-named individual(s) by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania this day of February, 2008. SERVED UPON: Thomas P. Wagner, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey,Wamer, Coleman & Goggin 1845 Walnut Street - 21St Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 By: , ESQUIRE Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorney I.D. #82629 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. BOX 650 f7 C- ^' ?..? -r? -rr i• ..yZ ?-?! ? C._" ?? i ?-q-' ? ? i (,?_y „ "ryF ' d i . = , 'n ? t`, i ?+.? ^C MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS COLEMAN & GOGuN BY: MARY C. DOHERTY, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION No.: 93593 1845 WALNUT STREET - 21ST FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 575-2600 DOROTHY and TROY HESS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT NO. 09-3-05 V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD D. NAUSS and ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL NO. cv-06-6518 MOTION OF DEFENDANTS RICHARD D. NAUSS AND ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY Defendants Richard D. Nauss and All American Pest Control, by and through their counsel, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, hereby moves this Honorable Court to compel the plaintiffs to provide Answers to Defendant's Interrogatories and Responses to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. On February 19, 2008 counsel for Defendants served Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents addressed to Plaintiffs Dorothy and Troy Hess. A true and correct copy of the discovery requests and transmittal letter are attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 2. On April 14, 2008, counsel for Defendant forwarded correspondence to Plaintiffs' counsel requesting Plaintiffs overdue discovery responses within ten (10) days to avoid the filing of a Motion to Compel with the Court. A true and correct copy of the April 14, 2008 correspondence is attached as Exhibit "B." 3. On April 28, 2008, counsel for Defendant again forwarded correspondence to Plaintiffs counsel requesting Plaintiffs overdue discovery responses upon receipt of the correspondence to avoid the filing of a Motion to Compel with the Court. A true and correct copy of the April 28, 2008 correspondence is attached as Exhibit "C." 4. Still not having received Plaintiffs overdue discovery responses, counsel for Defendant contacted Plaintiffs' counsel by phone on August 11, 2008 and August 12, 2008 to inquire as to the status of Plaintiffs' discovery responses. 5. To date, Plaintiffs have not provided any objections or answers to Defendant's discovery requests served six months ago. 6. Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 4006(b) and 4009.12, Plaintiffs discovery responses were due on March 20, 2008. These responses are substantially overdue. 7. Defendants are entitled to these responses and these discovery requests concern matters within the knowledge and control of the plaintiffs, the knowledge of which is essential to Defendants' preparation of a meaningful defense. 8. Defendants Richard Nauss and All American Pest Control are severely prejudiced by Plaintiffs' failure to participate in discovery. 9. Pa. R.C.P. 4019 (a) (1) permits the court, upon motion, to make an appropriate order where a party fails to serve answers to interrogatories in a timely fashion. 10. Under the circumstances as described above, Defendant respectfully submits that an order compelling Plaintiffs' discovery responses is appropriate. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order in the form attached compelling Plaintiffs to provide full and complete discovery responses or risk appropriate sanctions which may be imposed by this Court. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: Indd Mary C. Doherty, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, Richard Nauss and All American Pest Control Dated: August 13, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Discovery Responses was sent by First Class mail, postage prepaid, to the following counsel of record: Jarad W. Handelman, Esquire James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 Counsel for plaintiffs MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN 40?w BY: `' . 44'tz Mary C. erty, Esquire 1845 Walnut Street, 21St Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendants, Richard Nauss and All American Pest Control Dated: August 13, 2008 ?' ? ?_:_ - <?.? < ..? ?:? -;? --? {..?. ?, > ? ? -ter ` r .? :.? ?•..? r? AUG 15 2008 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN Bic GOGuN BY: MARY C. DOHERTY, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 93593 1845 WALNUT STREET - 21ST FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 575-2600 ATTORNEYFOR: DEFENDANTS DOROTHY and TROY HESS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT NO. 09-3-05 V. RICHARD D. NAUSS and ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. cv 06-6518 ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2008, upon consideration of the Motion to Compel of Defendants Richard Nauss and All American Pest Control, Plaintiffs Dorothy and Troy Hess are hereby ORDERED to provide full and complete Answers to Defendant's Interro atones and Responses to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents -+We,? xo du-V5 or SeLvoC.2 within of this Order or suffer sanctions as the Court might impose. J. 3 KLNn vino ? 6 :6 WV 61 OnV BBOZ ?J A?id1U Hi y y MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, ATTORNEYFOR: DEFENDANTS COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: DONALD L. CARMELITE, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84730 4200 CRUMS MILL ROAD, SUITE B HARRISBURG, PA 17112 (717) 651-3504 DOROTHY and TROY HESS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. RICHARD D. NAUSS and ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT NO. 09-3-05 CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. CV-06-6518 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: M _t Cy > c N C x. N '[7 N C.n %0 Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel on behalf of Defendants, Richard D. Nauss and All American Pest Control, with respect to the above-referenced matter. Respectfully submitted, M L, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN "OGGIN DATE: \O BY: 1y MlqkA 0 L. CARMELITE, ESQUIRE I.D. To. 84730 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3504 Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sarah A. Doerfler, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this ZIOday of April, 2010 I served a copy of Attorney Donald L. Carmelite's Entry of Appearance, via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Jarad W. Handelman, Esquire James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 Counsel for plaintiffs MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Sarah Doerfler Dated: Jarad W. Handelman, Esquire Attorney I.D. #82629 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Telephone: 717-533-3280 Fax: 717-533-2795 e-mail: jwh@jsdc.com FILED-OFFIu APR 29 PM 3: I t CUrEN?5 ??? COUtji ',r NIA DOROTHY and TROY HESS, Plaintiffs VS. RICHARD D. NAUSS and ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-6518 Civil Term PETITION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND NOW, comes the Petitioner, Jarad W. Handelman, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiffs, Dorothy and Troy Hess, and petitions this Honorable Court for leave of court to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1012(c) & (d)(1). Petitioner avers as follows: 1. The undersigned represents the Plaintiffs, Dorothy and Troy Hess, in the above- captioned action. 2. The Defendants, Richard D. Nauss and All American Pest Control, are represented by Donald L. Carmelite, Esquire. 3. Effective April 25, 2011, the undersigned transitioned his practice from the private practice of law to the public sector, and therefore is unable to continue to represent the Plaintiffs in any ongoing proceedings relative to the above-captioned case. Accordingly, the undersigned is requesting the court's permission to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiffs. 4. The undersigned has notified Plaintiffs of the cessation of his private practice of law, however, the undersigned has not received notification from Plaintiffs that they have secured new counsel as of the time of the filing of this Motion. 5. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1012(c), leave of this Honorable Court to withdraw appearance shall be sought by Petition as the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 1012(b)(2) have not been satisfied, i.e. no attorney has yet entered his/her appearance on behalf of Plaintiffs, nor is such entry of appearance being simultaneously submitted with this Petition. 6. In accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1012(d)(1), the following information is provided: (a) Address of Plaintiffs, Dorothy and Troy Hess: 102 Centerfield Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17112. (b) Notice of the filing of this Petition has been served upon Plaintiffs in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 440 by mailing a copy of the Petition to the Plaintiffs' residence at the address listed above. (c) Certificate of Service attached hereto. (d) The undersigned shall immediately notify Plaintiffs of the entry of an order granting leave to withdraw, along with a copy of the Order signed by this Honorable Court. 7. There are no pending discovery requests, petitions or motions before the court, nor are there any scheduled trial proceedings. Therefore, the Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the requested withdrawal and will have ample opportunity to secure new counsel should future proceedings be scheduled in the case. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Jarad W. Handelman, Esquire, and the law firm of James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant the undersigned and the affiliated law firm leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs, Dorothy and Troy Hess, in this matter. Respectfully submitted, JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY LLP a? Date: April 29, 2011 By: * i Q JARAD W. HAND MAN, Esquire I.D. No. 82629 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Dorothy and Troy Hess DOROTHY and TROY HESS, Plaintiffs VS. RICHARD D. NAUSS and ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 06-6518 Civil Term CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sharlee Grzybowski, an employee of James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Leave of Court to Withdraw as Counsel upon the following below-named individual(s) by U.S. First Class Mail at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania the 29"' day of April, 2011. SERVED UPON: Donald L. Carmelite, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Dorothy and Troy Hess 102 Centerfield Drive Harrisburg, PA 17112 By: ArrIl Grzyb wsk' James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 DOROTHY and TROY HESS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW cRICHARD D. NAUSS and NO. 06-6518 Civil Term ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL, 'rn Defendants LD 0 ry ? -0_ RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this day of _I •' 2011, the parties to this action are hereby directed to show cause, if any, why the relief requested in the Petition for Leave of Court to Withdraw as Counsel should not be granted. Rule returnable days from service. BY THE COURT: J. Distribution: C°p1'B ? Jarad W. Handelman, Esquire, James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033; Telephone: 717-533-3280; Fax: 717-533-2795; e-mail: jwh@jsdc.com Donald L. Carmelite, Esquire, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B, Harrisburg, PA 17112 Dorothy and Troy Hess, 102 Centerfield Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17112 David J. Lanza, Esq. Attorney I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Plaintiffs Lie ! p R� {}r THONO ?0111OCT 28 AM 8:03 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA DOROTHY and TROY HESS Plaintiffs vs. RICHARD D. NAUSS and ALL AMERICAN PEST CONTROL Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 06-6518 CV : CIVIL TERM To the Court: Plaintiffs intend to proceed with the above captioned matter. Date: 0\1-'7 104 245-11 Respectfully submitted, By: David J. Lanza Attorney I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 Telephone (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Plaintiffs