HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-01206
~
o
~
C
~
<f.
c
o
I/)
~
d
-:>
, ~ '.-, ~~
c ';1:}1~
" ~.~.
'jf.:...
~J;fR.'
"',-,
.::.,,-
'.
\
"'-",,-.
\~
~~
LAW OHICES or
DUANE, MORRIS 8 HECKSCHER
30& NORTH rRONT STREET. P,O. BOX 1003
HARRISBURG, PA 17108.1003
FRANK JACKSON, M,D"
Plaintiff
,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
No. I;;}DLQ c.;,'.~ teNt.\-
civil Action - Law
K. DEAN R, ARENSDORF, R,A.,
,
Defendant
PRAECIPE TO ISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please issue a Writ of Summons in civil action against the
above-named Defendant at the following address:
K, Dean R, Arensdorf, R.A.
1705 Kathryn Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
,~ jJ~
Kenneth L. Sable, Esquire
Attorney 10 No. 22002
Matthew Chabal, III, Esquire
Attorney 10 No, 49926
DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER
305 North Front Street
P,O. Box 1003
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1003
(717) 237-5514
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Frank Jackson, M,D.
Dated: March 11, 1994
- =(
~ ..:)
-=r "1L 1 ""&.. V) 00
en ~-: >- .9
. ,,{ ~::- -
=<= ~ ~ r -
a- ..-', S e-
If> .." . ':lI
@ ". , :II
. vi ~
0 II) 'J"" <:/..
. -:r
~
0: ~
-.
:'1= --
_ .,c..
--
F"-- F'
(-
.,. ...
Frank Jackson, M,D.
Court o! Common Pleas
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
w.
No. __!?9Pm___G!y.tL__________________ 199..4._
K, Dean R. I\rensdorf, R.A,
1705 Kathryn Street
New CUmberland, PA 17070
In ___G!y~~_~_t~QD__~_~_____________________
1:0 _~_~~~_~~_~~~~E>_~;!__~~~=______________
You arc h....by notifi.d that
Frank Jackson M. D.
._________________________________________________L______________________________________________
the Plainti!! haS comm.nced an action in ~'lll..Al;:tUln_Law.___u_u____________________________
against you which you are required to def.nd or a de!ault judgm.nt may be .ntered against you.
(SEAL)
Lawrence E, Welker
.------------------p~~~~~t;~------------------
Ilate ____~Q_J_l_~!_____________ 19_~jL
By __h-~~~_u_l~l~0_~c0__~~~_
Deputy
(/;1 I
I
I
0> I ll: l"'\
... ~~~E 0
I ~ 0
....
~I I
..... .51 CXl
I I-< 0
-8 lil....~ ....
I J I .... tIl r- I
:;::II !f I CI OJ ....
- nl r-t .. ~.,
.> .0.... C oct""
t:ll I 6 c?l2l~~ "';ri
I I j! . ~l J~~ ~j~
I ftl ll: :;::II
~I
,.., ~ .~ fi~ .i)C~N
I ~ ul OJ ! S' r:
I ~ ~~ :ge~~
I , I
I
~ I l.: I ::.:: M:C-
I
..; .--.
(
I
j
SHERIF'F'S RE'lURN
CQ'of'lCX'lWEAL'llI OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUJ'olI'Y OF Cl.MBERLAND
In The Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 1206 Civil Term 1994
Summons in Civil Action Law
Frank Jackson, MD,
VS
K. Dean R. Arensdorf, R.A,
Leroy Hippensteel
, ~~lOX Deputy Sheriff of
Cunberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly slo'Om according to law, says,
that he served the within
Summons in civil Action Law
upon K. Dean R, Arensdorf, R.A.
, the defendant, at 4:07
o'clock
p.M. EST I Dn on the
day of March
, 19.2,!.at
16
1705 Kathryn St., New Cumberland
, Cunberland County,
Pennsylvania, by handing to
Eliot Arensdorf, Son of K, Dean R, Arensdorf,
R.A.
a true and attested copy of the Summons in Civil Action Law
and at the same time directing
attention to the contents thereof and
his
the "Notice to Plead" endorsed thereon.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
So answers:
14,00
9.52
2.00
25.52 Pd. by Atty.
3-17-94
r~~-</~~
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
by - ,
;{'e~ / 1~,1I'"",fi,/z
puty 5 riff
Sworn and subscribed to before rre
this .114.'
day of n,tt.","--'
19 'N A.D.
'0"'1" C hl.u'':,-~_. tJ./J'7'
Prothonotary
.....~.,_._.~. '..-.'-
t . \-
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE & BOWMAN, P.C.
BY: Gunther O. Carrie, Esquire
Attomey J.D. No.: 32134
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
(610) 354.9700
Attorneys for K. Dean R. Arensdorf, RA
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
v.
K. DEAN R. ARENSDORF, RA
NO. 1206 CIVIL 1994
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendant, K. Dean R. Arensdorf, RA in the
above-referenced case.
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN,
CARRLE & BOWMAN, P.C.
By:
c~
Gunther O. Carrie, Esquire
Date: July 24, 1995
I . .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Gunther O. Carrie. Esquire, counsel for defendant, K. Dean R. Arensdorf, RA, certify
that on July 24, 1995, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Entry of Appearance was
forwarded to opposing counsel by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, at the addresses below,
Kenneth L. Sable, Esquire
Matthew Chabal, III, Esquire
Duane, Morris & Heckscher
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 1003
Harrisburg, P A 17108-1003
TEL: (717)237-5514
Attomeys for Plaintiff
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN,
CARRLE & BOWMAN, P.C.
BY:
-'--
J
~
Gunther O. Carrie, Esquire
..,.,
en ,.
- ~r~
...."~..
=>= ~:..:." -I
Q.., ".
"" ~~':::.:,
N I..... (<1 ~~
(Y) -;. ,.
~,~ ...
r- .. ,.1 r.
'" -- "
,- .;: C
-' '"
::0 ~c...;
-,
c
LAW Uttll..L~ Ut
DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER
30!t NORTH FRONT STREET. P.O. BOx 1003
HARRISBURG. PA 17108.1003
~I:"=' (./'" 'c'
FRANK JACKSON, H,D" . In the Court of Common Pleas
,
Plaintiff . of CUmberland county, PA
,
.
.
v, . civil Action - Law
.
. v
,
K. DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R.A., : No, 1206 civil 1994
Defendant .
.
FRANK JACKSON, H.D., . In the Court of Common Pleas
.
Plaintiff . of Cumberland County, PA
.
.
.
v. . civil Action - Law
.
.
.
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC. , . No, 1207 Civil 1994
,
Defendant .
.
AND NOW, this
ORDBR
l ~ {tI day of J-A_~
, 1996, upon
.- conGideration of the parties' stipulation for Consolication, IT IS
ORDERED that these cases are consolidated into one civil action
under the caption:
FRANK JACKSON, H.D.,
Plaintiff
:
In the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland County, PA
Civil Action - Law
,
,
.
.
v,
:
.
.
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC" and
K. DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R.A"
Defendants
.
,
No, 1207 civil 1994
:
BY THE COURT:
kla../ cg~
I .J.
t;,:","
";,;""*"'..\;;.4
..-'",
'J...
~~
co-
- ..
...t
<'(
.....
"
~~
ti\
MAR 2 7 1997tr
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P.C.
BY: Steven G, Bardsley
Attorney I.D. No.: 69768
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, P A 19406
(610) 354-9700
Attorneys for JWF Architects, Inc.
FRANK JACKSON. M.D.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
K. DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R.A.
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.
NO. 1206 Civil 1994
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC.
NO. 1207 Civil 1994
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
. 1997. upon consideration of
Defendants, K. Dean R. Arensdorf, R.A. and JWF Architects, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment of
Non Pros, and any responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.
and that a judgment of non pros is hereby entered against Plaintiff. Plaintiffs action against
Defendants. K. Dean R. Arensdorf. R.A. and JWF Architects, Inc. is DISMISSED with
PREJUDICE.
BY THE COURT:
J.
j}J N ff
7>/LrISl.. . cloe.lc I ill
P /t;Cl- ~
IIv .;; IE-
-
I;';~':~..
lE:~~>f~Ii~;':i:0L::>~~_
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN. CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P.C.
BY: Steven G. Bardsley
Attorney J.D. No.: 69768
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, P A 19406
(610) 354-9700
Attorneys for K. Dean R. Arensdorf, R.A.
and JWF Architects, Inc.
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.
v.
NO. 1206 Civil 1994
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
K. DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R.A.
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC.
NO. 1207 Civil 1994
DEFENDANTS, K. DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R.A. AND JWF ARCHITECTS, INC,'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF NON PROS
I. The movants herein ore defendants, K. Dean R. Arensdorf, R.A. and JWF
Architects, Inc. ("Defendants").
2. The respondent herein is plaintiff, Frank Jackson, M.D. ("Plaintitl").
3. On or about March II, 1994, Plaintiff filed a writ of summons against JWF
Architects, Inc. that was docketed at Cumberland County No. 1207 Civil 1994. A true and
correct copy of the writ of summons is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
4. On or about March II, 1994, Plaintiff filed a writ of summons against K. Dean
R. Arensdorf, R.A. that was docketed at Cumberland County No. 1206 Civil 1994. A true
and correct copy of the writ of summons is attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
5, On or about June 26, 1996, this Court issued an Order, upon consideration of
the parties' stipulation, consolidating the two above-referenced cases into one civil action
docketed at Cumberland County No. 1207 Civil 1994. A true and correct copy of the Order
is attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
6. To date. more than three years since filing the writs of summons, Plaintiff has
not filed a complaint.
7. On June 2, 1995, Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents on
defendant, Arensdorf. Other than that request for production of documents, Plaintiff has not
conducted any discovery whatsoever.
8. The docket entries for this matter disclose that there has been no substantive
activity on the part of Plaintiff since the filing of the writs of summons more than three years
ago.
9. Plaintiff has no justification for its delay in prosecuting this matter.
10. There has been no legal or other impediment preventing Plaintiff from
prosecuting its claim against said Defendants.
11. There has been no filing of bankruptcy, liquidation, or other operation of law,
nor is the case awaiting a significant development in the law such as to justify the delay in
prosecuting this matter.
12. Plaintilrs delay in the prosecution of this claim has prejudiced the Defendants
and has compromised the Defendants' ability to present factual information at trial.
13. Plaintiffs lack of activity is in excess of two years; therefore. prejudice to the
Defendants is presumed as a matter of law.
446\8.\
2
14. As a matter of law. Defendants are entitled to the entry of a judgment of non
pros against Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, K. Dean R. Arensdorf, R,A. and JWF Architects, Inc.,
request this Court enter a judgment of non pros against Plaintiff and award such other relief
as this Court deems necessary or appropriate.
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P.C.
BY:
v'^-.. \
teven G. Bardsley
:>
Date: March 25, 1997
44618.1
3
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P.C.
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Steven G. Bardsley, counscl for K. Dean Arensdorf, R.A. and JWF Architects, Inc"
certify that on March 25,1997, a true and corrcct copy of the foregoing Defendants, K. Dean
R. Arensdorf, R.A. and JWF Architects, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment of Non Pros, supporting
memorandum of law and proposed Order was forwarded to opposing counsel by U.S. Mail,
postage prepaid, at the addresses below.
Matthew Chabal, III, Esquire
Duane, Morris & Heckscher
305 North Front Street
P.O, Box 1003
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1003
TEL: (717) 237-5514
Counsel for Plaintiff
~ --;2 ~
BY: \:)c. -
teven G. Bardsley
V JIQI4X3
.
...
r..;
r
;.,
.
.
Q] ~
S!~I'"
frl51.g ;
c.= 0 0- :
i5 J
~en;~ J
c.=.! t .J___
&&.-:> 0
~"'8
t ~:E! _1;-
o"'lll"gp
U1'O~ J
1.&1 r:-'" .~
::>> ~ ! ....I..L.
~.- .,
'in...
"' - .
~l ~ ;
".
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
Frank Jackson, M,D.
Court or Conunoll Pleas
VI.
K. Dean R. Arensdorf, R.A.
1705 Kathryn Street
New cumberland, PA 17070
No. _J?!lP______~!yll,.____________.....__ 19,1ti..
In ___~!y~~_~_t~gD__-._~______.__________.._.
1io _~_~_~~_~~~~~~!_~~~!____________._
You are hereby notified that
Frank Jackson M.D,
.__._---------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------.-------.--
the Plaintifr haS commenced an action In .ciy.l.~ActiM._Law.__..__.._____________.._____.._____.
against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you.
(SEAL)
Lawrence E, Welker
.----.---------.---p~~~~~t;~------.-.--------.
J)alC ____~~_J_1_~l_____________ 19_~~_
By __h.~~_~\~J~@:_r._L~~_
I>eputy
... ~
,
R llQIUx:I
.
,-'.. ~.._-,~.".
,-
.~.?
,
. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
1 -g., C.
Q 00
i!i!i....,j
lrl51i> ~
cc: 2 .
~5_ ~:
Oe.. ~.s;
~..! -
"'":;~ 0 I
t ~1 .a ..
Oi_~
u 0
~il'" ,
~.- ..
I-i-S
. ....1 ~.
.' c
. -
..
....
Frank Jackson, M,O.
-
.. Court of Conimon Pleas
\'L
... ..
No. l:.~QL_~_~A,!g~______~____:____~.u 19~4._
In __~~Y~l:._~!.~126_~__:~_.:~__________.______
JWF Architects, Inc.
1ro.___~_lUJ:b~ct8J__I~_________________
the Plaintiff h.s commenced an action In _.C1y.u..At;~J..QIJ_~________________________"__________
against you which you are required 10 deCend or a default judgment may be entered against you.
(SEAL)
Ilale ___~~_!~l_~!__.____.______ 19_~~
~_~IJt;~_~._~~~~J:__________________________
Prothonotary
~Q... D. \'f\~a.'n 0.." l-
By --.----------------------___________~______:t
Ileputy
.
..
"I""l.lf~"'''''''' rlHI ""CUD @
exhibit c
, --
(, .r.~'_
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.,
Plaintiff
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland county, PA
civil Action - Law
v.
..
K. DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R.A.,
Defendant
.
.
No. 1206 civil 1994
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.,
Plaintiff
:
In the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland County, PA
civil Action - Law
.
.
.
.
v.
:
.
.
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC.,
Defendant
.
.
No. 1207 Civil 1994
:
ORDER
AND NOW, this ':U;;JJ.. day of ~._. . , 1996, upon
consideration of the parties' Stipulation for Consolidation, IT IS
ORDERED that these cases are consolidated into one civil action
under the caption:
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.,
Plaintiff
.
.
In the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland County, PA
:
.
.
v.
Civil Action - Law
:
.
.
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC., and
K. DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R.A.,
Defendants
.
.
No. 1207 Civil 1994
:
BY THE COURT:
J</~ ~,~~
fl, J.
".
MIL'IIA'" 0 TU"llfNAN
'AlIL A. LUllAN'.'O
OUHl1111l D. C"UI.Il'
C. OIlAINUE_ BUWWAN
HIllei D. LUW."lUU
IlIL'U"lll U. AlIIENtf.lTU. Ja.
JUNAlIIA" It. IInUI"
LAWIUfl:ti A. BIJlUA ,.t
NEIL P. CUIH, Ja.
JlltLP, 'ElIUTIlIN'
MAn S. M"KAIN'
ETlIANN,IIAl.bUltAIIT'
DAVIUT_ OIlUlal.
11"IIAl..J. DAVIU'.
KIvu" D. WAtluN..
DAVIUW. faANt:I'
flululn,'. WAINI!II'
StEVliNO. SA.IULU'
Illlut:at E. OALUllI'
MIl:IIAlll W WINHU.I~
ANIIIlI!...O.CI.A1l1i1i
S"I.IL' 'AtEl'
MIL'lIliU f. CUHlli'
OUUfulPJ.SANIlLU'
LAW" OI:Fh.'E~
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO
orrelllHlillL
IlALtuB.'uWIIlL,JI.
MAlA.'IIlN 8. IAt'OalUN
114 Nuani'ini'INPlra..r
IIA..mlll.II,'A 17101
(711)2)1.9)00
fAX ('11)231.9)25
Si:i11i26
III ClIlll':lIluAll
CUll.., 1I1u. HI 01002
(1lO9) 66J.oo21
fAX (609)66).1590
A rll\.''''til610SUL.~L1WrOUnON
367 SOl'TlIl1uLrll R"AD
KISlll'f PRU~~IA.I'A 19406
(hili) 35","7(111
PACi=I),1l1.11 (II I II) 354.971'11
E)'IAII.l t'TLCOLIII ML.I"IAlL.l~Io."M
March 25, 1997
PIJf.ASItIU!I'LYTOI
King of Prussia
'AUIIAII"'lnl'UIN;,~
lAlliuAut.ClnEIIIN .
AUIIAuloI,mIlIH
oAuuAoNlnlilllN
-Auu AUNlmu IN t.:
t~uU~"lnllhIN \
. un MlnllOINN
. un INlnEIIIN X
Prothonotary's Office
Cumberland County Courthouse
I Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Frank Jackson M.D. v, K, Dean R, Arensdorf, R,A, - No, 1206 Clvi11994
Frank Jackson M.D, v. JWF Architects, Inc. - No. 1207 Clv1l1994
Dear SirlMadnm:
Enclosed please find an original and one copy of Defendants, K. Dean R, Arensdorf, R.A,
and JWF Architects,lnc.'s Motion for Judgment of Non Pros, supporting memorandum of law,
certificate of service and two copies of a proposed Order, Kindly time-stamp the originals and
return a copy of each in the return envelope provided, Thank you for your attention to this
matter,
Very truly yours,
~\2
Steven G, Bardsley
SGB/jtk
2671-03
Enclosures
cc: Matthew Chabal, Ill, Esquire
44689, I
'. .
r:,'.' /-:-:r",.
I.;,c' \
I ~ f:'
k \."'~ ~"~l,\ ',l. ./
....I
cc
:i
,~ 8
~~a~~
::J ~~a if <
~ ~~~ tl ~
b.. IH
:S::J'Ssll'l
~~'P~
-'l
MAR 2 7 1997tf'
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P,C.
BY: Steven G. Bardsley
Attorney I,D. No.: 69768
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, P A 19406
(610) 354.9700
Attorneys for JWF Architects, Inc,
FRANK JACKSON, M,D.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
K. DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R,A.
FRANK JACKSON, M,D.
NO. 1206 Civil 1994
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC.
NO. 1207 Civil 1994
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 1997, upon consideration of
Defendants, K. Dean R. Arensdorf, R.A. and JWF Architects, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment of
Non Pros, and any responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED,
and that a judgment of non pros is hereby entered against Plaintiff, Plaintiffs action against
Defendants, K, Dean R. Arensdorf, R.A. and JWF Architects, Inc, is DISMISSED with
PREJUDICE.
BY THE COURT:
J.
"
MAR 2 7 199"tf'
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P,C,
BY: Steven G. Bardsley
Attorney I.D, No,: 69768
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
(610) 354-9700
Attorneys for JWF Architects, Inc.
v,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK JACKSON, M,D,
v,
NO, 1206 Civil 1994
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
K, DEAN R, ARENSDORF, R,A,
FRANK JACKSON, M,D.
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC,
NO, 1207 Civil 1994
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
,1997, upon consideration of
Defendants, K, Dean R, Arensdorf, R,A. and JWF Architects, Inc,'s Motion for Judgment of
Non Pros, and any responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED,
and that a judgment of non pros is hereby entered against Plaintiff, Plaintiffs action against
Defendants, K, Dean R. Arensdorf, R.A, and JWF Architects, Inc, is DISMISSED with
PREJUDICE,
BY THE COURT:
J,
".
.
MAR 2 7 1997lf'
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P.C,
BY: Steven G, Bardsley
Attorney I.D, No,: 69768
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
(610) 354.9700
Attorneys for K. Dean R. Arensdorf, R,A,
and JWF Architects, Inc.
v,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK JACKSON, M,D,
K. DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R.A,
FRANK JACKSON, M,D,
NO. 1206 Civil 1994
. .
v,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
.)
,
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC,
NO, 1207 Civil 1994
J
,
,
. )
'"
I
'.., ..
DEFENDANTS, K. DEAN R, ARENSDORF, R.A, AND JWF ARCHITECTS,INC.'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF NON PROS
I, The movants herein are defendants, K, Dean R, Arensdorf, R,A, and JWF
Architects, Inc, ("Defendants"),
2, The respondent herein is plaintiff, Frank Jackson, M,D. ("Plaintiff'),
3. On or about March II, 1994, Plaintiff filed a writ of summons against JWF
Architects, Inc, that was docketed at Cumberland County No, 1207 Civil 1994, A true and
correct copy of the writ of summons is aUached hereto as Exhibit "A",
4. On or about March II, 1994, Plaintiff filed a writ of summons against K. Dean
R, Arensdorf, R,A, that was docketed at Cumberland County No. 1206 Civil 1994. A true
and correct copy of the writ of summons is auached hereto as Exhibit "B".
..
.
5. On or about June 26, 1996, this Court issued an Order, upon consideration of
the parties' stipulation, consolidating the two above-referenced cases into one civil action
docketed at Cumberland County No, 1207 Civil 1994. A true and correct copy of the Order
is attached hereto as Exhibit "Cn.
6, To date, more than three years since filing the writs of summons, Plaintiff has
not filed a complaint.
7, On June 2, 1995, Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents on
defendant, Arensdorf, Other than that request for production of documents, Plaintiff has not
conducted any discovery whatsoever,
8. The docket entries for this matter disclose that there has been no substantive
activity on the part of Plaintiff since the filing of the writs of summons more than three years
ago.
9, Plaintiff has no justification for its delay in prosecuting this matter,
10. There has been no legal or other impediment preventing Plaintiff from
prosecuting its claim against said Defendants,
11, There has been no filing of bankruptcy, liquidation, or other operation of law,
nor is the case awaiting a significant development in the law such as to justify the delay in
prosecuting this matter,
12. Plaintiffs delay in the prosecution of this claim has prejudiced the Defendants
and has compromised the Defendants' ability to present factual infonnation at trial.
13, Plaintiffs lack of activity is in excess of two years; therefore, prejudice to the
Defendants is presumed as a matter of law,
44618.1
2
...
f""~'-:",,,,,,,-~,,,, .
14. As a matter of law, Defendants are entitled to the entry of a judgment of non
pros against Plaintiff,
WHEREFORE, Defendants, K. Dean R, Arensdorf, R,A, and JWF Architects, Inc"
request this Court enter a judgment of non pros against Plaintiff and award such other relief
as this Court deems necessary or appropriate,
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P,C,
.
BY: 'z.(_v~.;\
teven G, Bardsley
Date: March 25, 1997
446t8.1
3
...
-.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Steven G, Bardsley, counsel for K, Dean Arensdorf, R.A, and JWF Architects, Inc.,
certify" that on March 25, 1997, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants, K. Dean
R. Arensdorf, R.A. and JWF Architects, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment of Non Pros, supporting
memorandum of law and proposed Order was forwarded to opposing counsel by U,S, Mail,
postage prepaid, at the addresses below,
Matthew Chabal, III, Esquire
Duane, Morris & Heckscher
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 1003
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1003
TEL: (717) 237-5514
Counsel for Plaintiff
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P,C,
~~~
BY: \ .:)~. _
teven G, Bardsley
..
exhibit A
AU IIAU-UtO.. Ulnlft'lI UHt .";'CU!J @
. '.
.
] ~I ..t
c Oi.
~~'" -/1
o Q;, t..<
M5i4m (
~ 0 ,_ ,
-~- .
~ j ~ ~. ~
....-:> '8"""
~8 ~
t ~:2 .~(.)'
o ell III "Q .
Uj-a ~ J
1.&.1 ~-.,. .s.
::>>~~'-L
1=,- ell
to..c
~- .
~"g .!!
oS '" IS ;
~
..
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
Frank Jackson, M,O,
Court of Common Pleas
\'1.
K. Dean R. Arensdorf, R.A.
1705 Kathxyn Street
New CI.I1lberland. PA 17070
No. n!?!l_6___m~l:Y.tl,,___mm_______.._ 19P..L
In ___~~y~~_~_t~gD__~_~____________________
1ro _~_~_~~_~~~?~~~!_~~~~______________
You are hereby notified that
Frank Jackson M.D.
._________________________________________________L_____________________________________________.
the Plaintilf haS commenced an action in .ci'ii~.ACtiM_Law.______..__n__n_n__________n_____
agalnst you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you,
(SEAL)
Lawrence E. Welker
.------------------p~~~~~t;;.r------------------
i>ate ____~~Q_J_l_~!_____________ 19_~~.
By --h.~~_f)l!l~@~_L~~_
Deputy .. ...
,
-~
."
exhibit B
r..?~;
, ......-....
,.'......~,..".-...",.
..
] 1-\ c'
Q 0-
~ErO....c..
O_a. 5~~
lrl~~~ (~
~c'C ~""
::E ::,,~ 'b f
o~"iD ~ c
D&:oCt ....
u.-::> 0 I'
~li ~j~
~- jJ. , '
~~ a '
f;:'i~1 i
.' l-"t:I ,!!!, I
.' c C F
, _.. to
'.
. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cwnberland
:~
~
. ",
", ,.
.'..
Frank Jackson, M.D.
, ~
, -
\'1.
,
.. Court or ConUnon PI~ .
-. '" "
~o, }~~QJ___~_f_~~~~____~_~____:___,~___ 19~~_
. .'-
Civil Action Law :;, -'
In _____________________________________________
. '. .
JWF Architects, Inc.
1ro.___~_lUJ:b~ctSJ__I~_________________
the Plaintifr hIlS ~ommenced an a~tion in _J;;~yJJ...lIc;jJ..Q.IJ_~________________________~__________
against you which you are required to defend or a deCault judgment may be entered against you.
"
(SEAL)
"
~-~IJ~~~.-~~~~~________________..________
Prothonotary
By ---~-~~_~:S0_~~~0._.._9:~_l:t
Deputy
Dale ___~~_l_l_~!______________ 19_~_~
,
..,;. w- .. ....
"'ll"UOllllAl _,,...,. "'" "Uhlrl (!)
exhibit C
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.,
Plaintiff
In the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland county, PA
civil Action - Law
.
.
:
v.
..
K. DEAN R. ARENS DORF , R;A.,
Defendant
No. 120S civil 1994
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.,
Plaintiff
In the Court of Common Pleas
of cumberland county, PA
civil Action - Law
v.
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC.,
Defendant
No. 1207 civil 1994
ORDER
AND NOW, this .:U;-./J.. day of 9~'-. - , 1996, upon
consideration of the parties' stipulation for Consolidation, IT IS.
ORDERED that these cases are consolidated into one civil action
under the caption:
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.,
Plaintiff
In the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland County, PA
civil Action - Law
.
.
v.
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC., and
K. DEAN R. ARENS DORF, R.A.,
Defendants
No. 1207 civil 1994
.
.
.
.
BY THE COURT:
J(/~ ~,~~
fl, J.
":.W" .........
\:!';c",r.'
"~o:
'.
'.:.'4,'4
JJSr'{'~'"
-
"
.
, ,
.,
"
.
.
'"-""""--""-"'I"~_'I1-'~'1~;,:t'~~~~fFJ':J;t:~~."""'~~'1$"";""
367 SOUTH CULPH ROAD
KING OF PRUSSIA. PA 19406
\7 !..-,
LAW OFFICES
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE 8 BOWMAN
^ PR.OFES~ION^L CORPORATION
367 SOUTH GULNf ROAD
KING OF PRUSSIA. PA 19406
.....
---.........,.'"'''''''''-^'.......>.--...~...-' .
.--.'-
(. ,
~!:-
'..
;oj
:;;
~II' ,
. '.
I
..
.
,.
1- '.oo:~~o~~7,'''::'",",..~j~lI1IM!'tl I. bf~~~~';"-"~''''~''";-''..,~.''""".~''-;~J>::;-'<'''-~';-;';''''''''::-!''''"'!<'''''~'''~l7'.III..:*J_ !lr!j~J!lo.~~_"'.)',Jt,-..,.,.~~~lI.~~':1~'~'f.'\')'."'.
. ".
.-',
.^
MATTHEW CHABAL, III, ESQUIRE
DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER
305 NORTH FRONT STREET
r.o, Box 1003
HARRISBHRG. PA 17108.1003
:
4__.............._'.....____......__._.._".__.._.._~..~~_.._..'".__._~.~._......._h.,..~....<~'"...__._._,____-.
" .
,)
I,
'" ~~.......-
t'
.
MAR 2 '11997 tr
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P,C,
BY: Steven G, Bardsley
Attorney I.D, No,: 69768
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
(610) 354-9700
Attorneys for K, Dean R. Arensdorf, R.A,
and JWF Architects, Inc.
FRANK JACKSON, M.D,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v,
K, DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R,A,
FRANK JACKSON, M,D.
NO, 1206 Civil 1994
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v,
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC,
NO, 1207 Civil 1994
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS,
K, DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R.A, AND JWF ARCHITECTS, INC,'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF NON PROS
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS,
On or about March II, 1994, plaintiff, Fronk Jackson, M,D. (hereinafter "Plaintiff')
filed a writ of summons against defendant JWF Architects, Inc, that was docketed at
Cumberland County No, 1207 Civil 1994. On that same date, Plaintiff filed a writ of
summons against defendant K, Dean R, Arensdorf, R,A, that was docketed at Cumberland
County No, 1206 Civil 1994, Upon stipulation of all parties, the two cases were consolidated
on or about June 26, 1996,
To dale, more than three years since filing the writs of summons, Plaintiff has not
filed a complaint. Indeed, subsequent to filing the writs of summons in March of 1994,
,
Plaintiff has done absolutely nothing to prosecute this matter, other than propound a request
for production of documents in the Arensdorf matter (No. 1206 Civil 1994) on June 2, 1995.
Because there has been no substantive activity on the part of Plaintiff since the filing
of the writs of summons more than three years ago, the defendants filed a motion for
judgement of non pros, This memorandum is submitted in support of that motion,
II. ARGUMENT,
The defendants request that a judgment of non pros be entered on the basis of
Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this matter, as set forth above, A court may properly enter a
judgment of non pros when (I) a party to the proceeding has shown a want of due diligence
in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude, (2) there is no compelling reason for the
delay, and (3) the delay has caused some prejudice to the adverse party, James Bros, Lumber
Co, v Union Banking & Trust Co, Of Du Bois, 432 Pa. 129, 132,247 A.2d 587, 589 (1968),
In 1992, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court broadened this three-prong standard by holding that
a two-year period of docket inactivity automatically demonstrates prejudice, Penn Piping, Inc.
v, Insurance Co, of Nonh America, 529 Pa,350, 356, 603 A.2d 1006, 1009 (1992), The Penn
Piping holding that a delay in excess of two years demonstrates a lack of due diligence in
failing to proceed with the matter and wiII be presumed prejudicial has been universally
followed throughout the Commonwealth, See, e,g., Chase v. National Fuel Gas Corp" 1997
WL 85703 (Pa, Super, 1997); Collura v, L & E Concrete Pumping, Inc" 1996 WL 635338
(Pa, Super, 1996); Dorich v. DiBacco. 440 Pa, Super. 581,656 A.2d 522 (1995); Najafi v,
Saia, 132 Monlg. Co, L.R, 33, 34 (1995); Hauger-White v, Hafer, 88 Berks L,J, 109 (1995).
The present matter meets the three-prong standard, First, the docket entries disclose
44625.1
2
.
that plaintiff has wholly failed to proceed with reasonable promptitude, There has been no
substantive activity on the part of Plaintiff since the inception of this case more than three
years ago. The only docket entries between March II, 1994 and today are this law firm' s
entry of appearance and the stipulation and order to consolidate the two cases. Activity on
the docket must be of the type to substantively advance the case in order to avoid a judgment
of non pros, Nes"aminy Constmctors v, Plymouth 7\vp" 132 Pa, Cornrow. 229, 572 A,2d
814, 817 (1990) (Docket activity such as filing of an active status certificate, taking of a
deposition and assignment of new counsel, which did not substantively advance the case, held
not to constitute activity sufficient to avoid a judgment of non-pros), The very limited
activity on the part of the plaintiff in requesting documents in June 1995 does not constitute
activity sufficient to avoid a judgment of non-pros. Id, The Plaintifrs failure to substantively
move the case forward can only be characterized as a "want of due diligence in failing to
proceed with reasonable promptitude,.
Second, there is clearly no compelling reason for delay. In identifying examples of
compellil!g reasons, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated in a footnote:
Examples of situations in which there will be a per se determination that there is a
compelling reason for the delay, thus, defeating dismissal, are cases where the delaying
party establishes that the delay was caused by bankruptcy, liquidation, or other
operation of law, or in cases awaiting significant developments in the law,
Penn Piping, 603 A.2d at 1009, n.2, None of these compelling reasons exist in this case.
The Supreme Court also stated that "other compelling reasons will be determined on a case-
by-case basis. Id. However, the compelling reason must "effectively remove the case from
the plaintifrs control." Doric" v, DiBacco. 440 Pa, Super, 581,587,656 A,2d 522,525
44625.1
3
(1995), Accordingly, reasons such as delay based on selllement negotiations or inability to
afford the cost to proceed with the litigation do not constitute compelling reasons for delay,
Blackburn v, Sharlock. Repcheck. Engel and Mal/ler, 433 Pa, Super. 581, 641 A,2d 612,
614 (1994) alloc, den, 539 Pa, 673. 652 A,2d 1319 (1994) (Belief that a case would settle
was not a compelling reason for delay between service of a Writ of Summons and filing of
the Complaint), "[I]t has been held many times that settlement negotiations, discovery and
financial considerations do not present compelling reasons for delay," County of Erie v,
Peerless Heater Co" _Pa, Commw, _ ,660 A.2d 238. 240 (1995), Here, the Plaintiff has
no compelling reasons for its delay,
Finally, Plaintiffs delay in the prosecution of this claim has prejudiced the defendants
and has compromised the defendants' ability to present factual information at trial.
Undoubtedly, memories of relevant facts have faded in the years since the occurrence which
forms the basis of Plaintiff's action, See. Neshaminy Constructors. [nc, v. Plymouth
Township, 132 Pa, Commw. 229, 572 A,2d 814, 817 (1990) (Court granted defendant's
motion for judgment of non pros holding that defendant was prejudiced by plaintiff's nine
year delay because memories had faded and a witness had retired), Moreover. the plaintiffs
lack of substantive activity is in excess of two years, Therefore. prejudice to the defendants is
presumed as a matter of law pursuant to Penn Piping. supra. and its progeny. See. e,g,.
Ringgold v, Kelly, 43 Ches, Co, Rep, 182. 187 (March 9, 1995) (The two year presumption
of prejudice is virtually impossible to rebut where the evidence in a case depends in any
significant amount on the recollection and oral testimony of witnesses, especially non-party
witnesses) ,
44625.1
4
.
The very recent Superior Court decision in Chase v, Nalional Fuel Gas Corp"
_A,2d_, 197 WL 85703 (Pa. Super, 1997) is directly on point. In Chase, the plaintiff filed
a writ of summons on November 18, 1993, Thereafter, the docket reflected no activity until
November 9, 1995 at which time the plaintiffs filed a notice of intention to tuke deposition,
On November 27, 1995, the defendant filed a motion for judgment of non pros that was
granted by Order dated May 24, 1996, The plaintiff filed a petition for relief from the
judgement of non pros that was denied. On appeal, the Superior court affirmed holding that
all elements for non pros had been met. A copy of the opinion is attached hereto as exhibit
1.
III, CONCLUSION.
In light of the foregoing, this Court should grant defendants, K, Dean R. Arensdorf,
R.A, and JWF Architects, Inco's Motion for Judgment of Non Pros and dismiss Plaintiffs
action,
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P,C.
BY: Si~ J1. ~ ~)L---C:
Steven G, Bardsley, Esquire
'25
Date: Murch 24: 1997
4462S.1
5
n_ A,2d ....
(Cite lIS: 1997 WL 85703 (I'll.Super,))
Christine D, CHASE nod Leroy G, CIuL~e.
Appellnnls
v,
NATIONAL FUEL GAS CORPORATION.
NO. 01430 PITfSDURGH, 1996,
Superior Court of Pemuylvania.
Feb. 28. 1997.
Appeal from tho Onler in tho Court of Conunon
PI... ofErio County, Civil Division. No, 9471-1993
BEFORE: TAMILlA. SAYLOR, and SCHILLER,
11,
TAMILIA, J,:
"I Christina and Leroy Chaso appeal from tho July
22, 1996 Onler denying thoir petition for reliof from a
judgment of non pros, We affinn,
Appellants' underlying suit was based upon injuries
allegedly suffered as a resull of a natural gas leak in
their home, On November 18. 1993. appellants
conunenced their action hy filing a praecipe for writ
of summons, The writ was served on appell... on
November 22. 1993, The sherifi'. return was
docketed on November 24, 1993, Thereafter, the
docket renects no activity until November 9. 1995. at
which time appellants filed their notice of intention 10
lake depositions. On November 27, 1995. appellee
filed its motion for judgment of non pro.. which was
granted by Onler dated May 24. 1996, By Onler
dated July 22, 1996, the court denied appellants'
petition for relief from the non pros.
On appeal, appellants claim 'tho lrial court abuse[dJ
its discretion in enlering a judgment of non
prosequitur where there was no two-year period of
inactivity on the dockel entries, where there was no
prejudice shown by the defendant and the delay was
partially aUneutable 10 the defendant's inaction."
(Appellants' brief at 4,)
The question of whether to enler a judgment of non
pros for a plaintifl's failure to prosecute an action
within a reasonable lime rests within the sound
discrelion of the trial court and will nol be disturbed
absenl an abuse of thai discretion, Mudd v, Noskar
Lumber, Inc., 443 Pa.Super, 483. 662 A,2d 660
(1995), II is well-established that a court may enter
Page 1
judgment of non pros whore: (I) a party hu shown a
lack of due diligonce by failing to proceed with
reasonable promptitude; (2) there is no compellin&
reason for the delay; and (3) the delay hu caused
prejudice to U.e adverse party, JamCl Bros. Co, v,
Union Bankinll and Trust Co. of DuBois. 432 Pa,
129, 247 A.2d 587 (1968), Our Supremo COIIrt hu
refaned this latter element by boWing that "in CUCl
involving a delay for a peried of two yoan or IOOre.
the delay will be presumed prejudicial for purpoSCl of
any proceeding to dismiss for lack of activity on the
docket, . Penn Piping. Inc, v, Insurance Co, of
America, 529 Pa, 350. . 603 A.2d 1006. 1009 (1992),
Tuming 10 the firsl element, we nole appellants'
argumenl that they have exercised due diligence by
conducling 'a great deal of discovery., (Appellants'
brief at 11,) In rejecting this claim. the IriaI COllrt
held:
The docket does nol renecl thai any discovery wu
being conducted, Nor was a compIaint ever filed
even though il IwI been two yoan sinee the
plaintiffs praecipied for a writ of summons, In fact,
il wasn't until the case IwI languisbed for aImosl
Iwo years that Ihe plaintiffs filed notice of laldng
depositions, This is nol the type of due diligence
that comports with Ihe spirit of Penn Piping,
(Slip Op" Joyce, J" 5124/96, p. 2,) Keeping in mind
our standan1 of review, we fmd no abuoe of discretion
in the court's concluoion that appellants have failed 10
exercise due diligence in prosecUling Ibeir action,
"2 Appellants also claim the second element
necessary for entry of non pros is not satisfied
because tbe ongoing discovery constitutCl a
compelling reason for the delay, In Penn Piping,
supra, our Supreme Court held that a compelling
reason for delay exists wbere the delay was caused by
bankruplcy, liquidalion or other operalion of law, or
where U,e case was delayed awaiting significant
developments in Ihe law, Id, The court also noted
that otber compelling reasons may be detennined on a
case-by..ase basis, Id. However. a recent panel of
this Court has recognized that the 'other compelling
reasons' 'all involve situalions where events beyond
the plaintiffs' conlrol impeded progress,.
Mackintosh.Hemphill International Inc, v, Oulf &
Western Inc.. Pa,Super, .. 451 Pa.Super, 385, 679
A,2d 1275, 1280 (1996), Finally, 'it has been held
many times that settlement negoliations, discovery and
fmancial considerations do not present compelling
reasons for delay,' County of Erie v, Peerless Hester
Co,. Pa.Cmwllh, .. 660 A,2d 238, 240 (1995)
Copr, 0 Wesl 1997 No claim to orig, U.S. govl, work5
---A,2d----
(Cite ll<: 1997 WI. H570.\, '2 (I'Il,SU!l"r,))
(emphasis mloed). GUi4ltxl hy IhcM~ principles, we
Itge"" wilh tho trial court thai KppclllU1IS' pcuffch"l.l
CXCII~t). ongoing disco\'cry, docs 110t cOlLstitute It
compelling reason for the delay in this eMSu,
Nonethd.... appellant. remindu. tlUlt a judgm.nt of
non pro. involv.. .quitable principle.. In this regard,
appellant. arlo'110 wo .houM lind a compelling r....on
for tho d.lay becauso appellee failed to 1UL5wer two
.et. of intorrogatories in a timely llUIIUler, Appellant.
claim appellee'. d.lay in answering tho lir.l .el of
interrogatories WI\JI six months and the delay
answering tho .econd ..t of interrogalories was 55
day., TIIUS, according to oppellant., '(t)ho delay in
this ca.. was due. in I..rt, to (appellee'.) 0,",11
actions,' (Appellant'. brief ot 14.) However. tho
record roveal. tlUlt appellee was ulUlblo to answer tho
interrogotorio. becau.o of a procedural defoult by
appellant., A. tho trial court e'ploined, 'tho plainliff.
failed to comply with 42 Pa.C,S,A, ~ 4005. which
require. a brief .talemenl of the IUlturo of tho causo of
action to accompany the interrogatories when they aro
.eIVed prior to a complaint, Becau.o tho eomplainl
had not becn liIed, an<! counsollwl not complied with
Rulo 4005, an<! becau.o of a factual di.crepancy in Ihe
interrogatorie., tho defendanl was only,.. ablo to
partially re.pond to Iho inlorrogalorie. an<! request.
for production of documents since it dill not know
wlUlt il was defending againsl." (Slip Op" Joyco, J.,
7/22196, PI" 2-3,) Particularly becau.. appellant. do
not respond to this fuKIing of Iho court. wo fUKI no
abuso of discretion in tho conclusion that appellee did
not contribute to appellanls' failure to pursue this
action.
Having foun<! no compelling reason for the del.y, we
turn to the prejudice elemenl of tho non pros .tan<l.rd.
As noted. Ponn Piping est.blished the principle tlUlI a
del.y in dockel aClivily of Iwo years or more i.
pre.umptively prejudicial. We also reiterale tlUlt
appellanls' writ of summons was returned by the
sheriff on November 24. 1993 an<! appellee's motion
for judgment of non pros was liIed on November 27.
1995, TIle only docket aClivily appearing between
those dales wo.. the liIing, on November 9, 1995. of
appellants' .eIVice of deposition notice, Appellants
claim this dockel activity. which occurred I..s IIU\D
two years .fter the writ of summons was returned,
precludes .pplic.tion of the presumplion of prejudice
established in Penn Piping. We dis.gree,
*3 In Pine Township Water Co.. Inc, v, Felmont Oil
Corp,. 525 Pa,Super, 473, 625 A.2d 703 (1993),
PlIlIe2
ollocotur denioo, 537 Pa. 665, 664 A.2d 1202 (1994),
o panel of this Court fouud IIUlt plointiO'o petition to
nmmvc its casu from K tcnnillJttion list Will -neither
,ub,lonlivo in IUlture nor exolllplory of th. typo of
pnsitiv. duckel ootivily cnnlelllplolc'<l by this Court in
Penn Piping.' Id. al . 625 A,2d 01 706. Simil.rly, in
Collnra v, L & E Conor.t. Pulllping Inc.. P.,Super. ,
686 A.2d 392 (1996). this Court considoroo whether
Ihe .ntry of an oppcafllllce by appellant.' cO\ll1lel wu
suffici.nt docket activity to preclude the P.nn Piping
presumplion, In affinning tho entry of non pros, the
cour1 -(did) not deem Bueh activity as 'substantive' or
an ...mpl. of 'positive dock.t' aclion.' Id. at . 686
A,2d at 70S,
Applying this r.tioIUlI. to the instant case. we agree
with the tri.1 conrt IIUlt seIVic. of .ppellant.' notice of
depo.ilions. plocoo on th. docket after 23 months an<!
IS days of inactivity, doe. not constitute 'sub.tantive'
an<! 'posilive' dock.t activity. We.re simply ulUlble
to fuKI. un<Ier th. focls of this case, thai the mere acl
of docketing their intention to take depositions
s.ti,liod .ppellants' obligation 10 move their Case
forward. See K.nnooy v. Bulletin Company, 237
Pa,Super. 66, ,346 A,2d 343, 346 (197S) ("The dUly.
ther.fore, is clearly on the .ppellant to proceed with
his eaus. of action an<! he, not the .ppellee, should
bear the risk of not octing within a reasolUlble time, '),
Since the dockel .ctivity of November 9. 1995 wu
non-substantive, it becomes clear that the last
substantive dock.l .ctivity prior 10 .ppell.... molion
for judgm.nt of non pros. liled on November 27,
1995. was the sheriIT's return of the writ of summons
on Nov.mber 24, 1993, Because this period
cOIL,titutes . 'delay for . period of two years or
more,' we presume that .ppell.. has been prejudicod,
Penn Piping, supra.
Basod on our d.tennilUltion that the three elements of
the non pros slandanl h.ve been ..tisliod, the court
properly temlilUlted .ppellants' .ction for failure to
prosecute. Accordingly, we lin<! no abuse of
discretion in the July 22. 1996 Order denying
.ppellants' petition for r.lief from judgment of non
pros, (FNI)
Order aflinnod,
FNI. We l'C<:ognizc that thil .ppcal i. properly taken
(rom the denial of appcllanu' petition Cor relief (rom
the judgment or non prol, rather llwl from the entry
of non prol itself. In onler to ..moye a judgment of
non prol, thn:e clementi mUlt he met: (1) I petition
to open mUlt be promptly filed: (2) the delay mull
Copr, 0 West 1997 No claim 10 orig. U,S. goVl. work.<
"
-.:,,,-=.,,,
- A,2cJ-
(Cite lIS: 1997 WL 85703, 03 (Pa,Super,))
PIp 3
bo rcuonably uplalnccl; and (3) rocl> mull be
cbawn \0 ealll which IUpport 0 ..... or ocllon. Pine
TOWJ1lhip Wll&r Co., Inc:. v. Pebnonl on Corp..
4~ Po,SUpcr, 473. 6~ A.2d 703 (1993), allocatur
denied. 537 Po, 665, G64 A.2d 1202 (1994).
However. cineo oppcllanl'c underlylna claim ia thot
the court emd In cnlcrlna the non proa. we hovo
conoldered oppcUonta' OIJUmcnl under the otondArd
101 rorth In Jomoa Broc, Co, v, Union BonIdna and
TNIl Co, or DuBoia. 432 Po, 129. 247 A.2d 517
(1961). u cited obovo. AI any n1c, In Ua~ or our
rmdlna thot oppcUonta hove not rcuonably uplalnccl
the deloy In prolOl:U1lna their ocllon. IhIo oppcoJ
would roll undor oither otondArd,
END OF DOCUMBNT
Copr, 0 Woel 1997 No claim 10 orig, U,S, goYl, workJ
.
r
MAR ? 11997 tf(
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P,C,
BY: Steven G. Bardsley
Attorney I,D, No,: 69768
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, P A 19406
(610) 354-9700
Attorneys for K, Dean R. Arensdorf, R,A.
and JWF Architects, Inc,
v,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OFCUMBERLANDCOUNT~
PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK JACKSON, M,D.
v.
NO. 1206 Civil 1994
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
K. DEAN R, ARENSDORF, R,A,
FRANK JACKSON, M.D,
JWF ARCIDTECTS, lNC,
NO, 1207 Civil 1994
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS,
K. DEAN R. ARENSDORF, R.A, AND JWF ARCHITECTS, INC.'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF NON PROS
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS,
On or about March II, 1994, plaintiff, Frank Jackson, M,D. (hereinafter "Plaintiff')
filed a writ of summons against defendant JWF Architects, Inc. that was docketed at
Cumberland County No, 1207 Civil 1994. On that same date, Plaintiff filed a writ of
summons against defendant K, Dean R. Arensdorf, R,A. that was docketed at Cumberland
County No, 1206 Civil 1994. Upon stipulation of all parties, the two cases were consolidated
on or about June 26, 1996,
To date, more than three years since filing the writs of summons, Plaintiff has not
filed a complaint. Indeed, subsequent to filing the writs of summons in March of 1994,
",
..
Plaintiff hns done absolutely nothing to prosecute this moller, other than Prol 'l1d a r~quest
for production of documents in the Arensdorf molter (No. 1206 Civil 1994) \ JUII~:!, 1995,
"Because there has been no substantive activity on the part of Plaintiff :lCO: tll: tiling
of the writs of summons more than three years ago, the defendants filed 0 111 ':1 io:.
judgement of non pros, This memorandum is submilled in support of that 111 :011.
n. ARGUMENT.
The defendants request that 0 judgment of non pros be entered on the .Isis 0:'
Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this maller, ns set forth above, A court may p:',.perly ellter 0
judgment of non pros when (I) a party to the proceeding hns shown 0 want,,: due c1";gcnce
in failing to proceed with rensonable promptitude, (2) there is no compelling I":ason for the
delay, and (3) the delay hns caused some prejudice to the adverse party, Jame's Bras, Lumber
Co, v Union Banking & Tmst Co, Of Du Bois, 432 Po, 129, 132,247 A.2d 57. 589 (1968).
In 1992, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court broadened this three-prong standard hy holding that
o two-year period of docket inactivity automatically demonstrates prejudice, P'l/1Il Piping, Inc.
v. Insurance Co. of North America, 529 Pa,350, 356, 603 A,2d 1006, 1009 (I <1(2), The Penn
Piping holding that 0 delay in eKcess of two years demonstrates a lock of duc diligence in
failing to proceed with the molter and will be presumed prejudicial hns been \'l1iversally
followed throughout the Commonwealth, See, e,g" Chase v, National FlIel G.,,; COIp.. 1997
WL 85703 (Pa, Super. 1997); Colll/ra v, L & E Concrete Pumping, Inc" 199, WL 635338
(Po. Super, 1996); Dorich v, DiBacco, 440 Po, Super, 581, 656 A.2d 522 (:195); Najqfi v,
Saia, 132 Montg, Co. L,R. 33,34 (1995); Hauger-White v, Hafer, 88 Berk~ j. 10" 11(95),
The present molter meets the three-prong standard, First, the docket L :ries disclose
4462S.1
2
"
"
that plaintiff hns wholly failed to proceed with reasonable prllmplil There has been no
substantive activity on the port of Plaintiff since the inception of tl: ""~ more than three
years ago, The only docket entries between March II, 1994 ancl to. ';';C this law firm's
entry of appearance and the stipulation and order to consolidate th~, l' cuses. Activity on
the docket must be of the type to substantively advance the case in ,J~l' to avoid a jUdgment
of non pros, Neshaminy Constructors v, Plymouth Twp" 132 Pa.l'millw. 229, 572 A,2d
814, 817 (1990) (Docket activity such as filing of an active status c ;[iii~ate, taking of a
deposition and assignment of new counsel, which did not substanti'. . iy advance the case, held
not to constitute activity sufficient to avoid a judgment of non-pros) The very limited
activity on the part of the plaintiff in requesting documents in June .)95 does not constitute
activity sufficient to avoid a judgment of non-pros, Id, The Plaintii;' s failure to substantively
move the case forward can only be characterized as a "want of due iligence in failing to
proceed with reasonable promptitude."
Second, there is clearly no compelling reason for delay, In i .cl1lifying examples of
compelling reasons, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated in a foc lot~:
Examples of situations in which there will be a per se delenl'in:nion that there is a
compelling reason for the delay, thus, defeating dismissal, arc cases where the delaying
party establishes that the delay was caused by bankruptcy, IL'.:iblion, or other
operation of law, or in cases awaiting significant developmen ir the law.
Penn Piping, 603 A,2d at 1009, n.2, None of these compelling rea" ns exist in this case,
The Supreme Court also stated that "other compelling reasons will ; ; determined on a case-
by-case basis" Id, However, the compelling reason must "effective. rC:l10ve the case from
the plaintiffs control." Dorich v. DiBacco, 440 Pa. Super, 581, 5 '. 656 A,2d 522, 525
4462S.1
3
"
(1995), Accordingly, reasons such as delay based on settlement negotiations or inability to
afford the cost to proceed with the litigation do not constitute compelling reasons for delay,
Blackburn v, Sharlock. Repcheck. Ellgel alld Malher, 433 Pa. Super. 581, 641 A,2d 612,
614 (1994) al/oc. dell, 539 Pa. 673, 652 A,2d 1319 (1994) (Belief that a case would settle
was not a compelling reason for delay between service of a Writ of Summons and filing of
the Complaint). "[I]t has been held many times that settlement negotiations, discovery and
financial considerations do not present compelling reasons for delay." County of Erie v,
Peerless Heater Co" _Pu. Commw, _ ,660 A,2d 238, 240 (1995), Here, the Plaintiff has
no compelling reasons for its delay,
Finally, Plaintiffs delay in the prosecution of this claim has prejudiced the defendants
and has compromised the defendants' ability to present factual information at trial,
Undoubtedly, memories of relevant facts have faded in the years since the occurrence which
forms the basis of Plaintiffs action, See, Neshaminy Constructors, Inc, v, Plymouth
Township, 132 Pa, Commw, 229, 572 A,2d 814, 817 (1990) (Court granted defendant's
motion for judgment of non pros holding that defendant was prejudiced by plaintiffs nine
year delay because memories had faded and a witness had retired), Moreover, the plaintiffs
lack of substantive activity is in excess of two years, Therefore, prejudice to the defendants is
presumed as a matter of Jaw pursuant to Penn Piping, supra, and its progeny. See, e,g.,
Ringgold v, Kel/y, 43 Ches. Co, Rep, 182, 187 (March 9, 1995) (The two year presumption
of prejudice is virtually impossible to rebut where the evidence in a case depends in any
significant amount on the recollection and oral testimony of witnesses, especially non-partywitnesses) ,
44625.1
4
..
TII.' vcry rccent Superior Court decision in Chase v, National Fuel Gas Corp.,
_A,2d_, 197 WL S5703 (Pa, Super, 1997) is directly on point. In Chase, the plaintiff filed
a writ of ~ ,lInmons on November IS, 1993, Thereafter, the .docket reflected no activity until
November .), 1995 at which timc the plaintiffs filed a notice of intention to take deposition.
On NOVCIl', :'cr 27, 1995, thc defendant filed a motion for judgment of non pros that was
granted by Order dated May 24, 1996, The plaintiff filed a petition for relief from the
judgement of non pros that was denied. On appeal, the Superior court affirmed holding that
all elements for non pros had been met. A copy of the opinion is attached hereto as exhibit
1.
III. CONCLUSION,
In light of the foregoing, this Court should grant defendants, K, Dean R. Arensdorf,
R.A, and JWF Architects, Inco's Motion for Judgment of Non Pros and dismiss Plaintitrs
action.
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P,C,
BY:
'1S
Date: March .24; 1997
44625,1
5
...
- A,2d-
(CUe as: 1997 WL 85703 (pa.Super.))
Christlue D, CHASE and Leroy G. Cbase,
AppeUan15
y,
NATIONAL FUEL GAS CORPORATION,
NO, 01430 PITl'SBURGH, 1996,
Superior Court of Pennaylvania,
Fcb. 28, 1997,
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common
Picas of Erie County, Civil Division, No. 9471-1993
BEFORE: TAMU..IA, SAYLOR, and SCHn.LER,
11.
TAMlLIA, I.:
*1 Chrisline and Leroy Chase appeal from the Iuly
22, 1996 Order denying their petition for relief from a
judgment of non pros, We affirm,
AppeUanll' underlying suil was based upon injuries
allegedly suffered as a rcsu11 of a natura1 gas leak in
their home, On November 18, 1993, appeUanll
commenced their aclion by filing a praecipe for writ
of summons, The wril was served on appellee on
November 22, 1993. The sheriff's return was
docketed on November 24, 1993, Thereafter, the
docket reflecll no aClivity until November 9, 1995, al
which time appeUanll filed their notice of intention 10
take deposilions, On November 27, 1995, appellee
filed ill molion for judgment of non pros, which was
granted by Order dated May 24, 1996, By Order
dated Iuly 22, 1996, the court denied appeUanll'
petition for relief from the non pros,
On appeal, appellants claim "the lrial court abwe[d)
ill discretion in entering a judgment of non
prosequitur where there was no Iwo-year period of
inaclivity on the docket enlries, where there was no
prejudice shown by the defendanl and the deJay was
partially aIInoutable 10 the defendant's inaction,'
(Appellanll' brief al 4,)
The question of whether 10 enler a judgment of non
pros for a pJaintiff's failure 10 prosecute an aclion
within a reasonable lime rests within the sound
discrelion of the trial court and will not be disturbed
absenl an abuse of that discretion, Mudd y. Nosker
Lumber, Inc., 443 Pa,Super, 483, 662 A,2d 660
(1995), ]1 is well-established thai a court may enter
r ~..' ,
Pqe1
judgment of non pro.. . ':: (I) a party bas shown a
Jack of due diliger. '. failing to proceed with
reasonable prompli~, .. 12) there is no compelling
reason for the dela> (3) the deJay has cawed
prejudice Iii the ad\', '.\11)'. lames Bros, Co, v,
Union Banking and Co. of DuBois, 432 Pa.
129, 247 A.2d 587 \ . Our Supremo Court bas
refined this latter el by holding that "in cues
involving a deJay fo, . .iod of Iwo years or more,
the deJay will be pre;, ,::. . prejudicial for puposes of
any proceeding 10 di..' . for lack of aClivity on the
docket," Penn Pipe.;, Inc. v, Insurance Co, of
America, 529 Pa, 35(.. )3 A.2d 1006, 1009 (1992).
Turning 10 the fir;: ,:,.:1enl, we nole appeUanll'
argument that they I, exercised due diligence hy
conducting "a greal .:..J of discovery", (AppeUanll'
brief at 11.) In rej,;'i"; this claim, the lrial court
helel:
The docket docs no: ",,,:ctlhal any discovery was
being conducled, ~: 0' was a compJaint ever filed
even though il h.:J b..n Iwo years sinee tho
plaintiffs praecipied r" a writ of summons, In fact,
il wasn'l unlil Ihe caso had languished for aImosl
Iwo years that the ;-!c'c:iffs ftled nolice of taking
depositions, This i. :::: the type of due diligence
that comports with I ,.'.. 'nt of Penn Piping.
(Slip Op" loyce, 1" 5 2.;'96, p, 2,) Keeping in mind
our standard of revie', \', fmd no abwe of discretion
in the court's conclus'." Ii'"l appellanll have failed 10
exercise due diligence in proseculing Iheir aclion.
*2 AppeUanll als<: claim Ihe second element
necessary for entry ,f non pros is nol satisfied
bccawe the ongo'o> discovery constitutes a
compelling reason fo, tb delay, In Penn Piping,
supra, our Supreme Com. held that a compelling
reason for delay exist, wbre the delay was cawed by
ban1auplcy, liquidatic 0' other operation of Jaw, or
where the case Wi> :. ,yell awaiting significanl
developments in the I,w. Id, The court also noted
thai other compelling :.., ,ns may be delermined on a
case-by..ase basis, !' ,lowever, a recent panel of
this Court has recor :. ' that Ihe "other compelling
reasons" "all involve ,:a. :ionJ whero events beyond
the plaintiffs' c: :r..: impeded progress, "
Maclcint05h-Hemphil: i:: ,,,,.tional Inc, v, Gulf &
Western Inc" Pa.Su. .. 451 Pa.Super, 385, 679
A.2d 1275, 1280 W Finally, "il has been held
many limes thai sellk ... negotialions, discovery and
fmancial considerat; ') not presenl compelling
reasons for delay.' ( of Erie v, Peerless Heater
Co" Pa,Cmwlth, . A.2d 238, 240 (1995)
Copr, 0 Wesl 1997 No claim 10 orig, U,S, govl, wor:
.,
.- A,2d-
(Clle as: 1997 WL 85703, *2 (pa.Super,})
(emplwiJ Idded). Cluided by thOle princlplOl, we
a,ree with the lrial court that appellant.' proffered
excwe, ongoing di.covery, does nol conalitule a
compeUillg reason for the delay in thi. cue,
NDnetheIOl'. appeJlanta remind us lbat a judsment of
DOn pro. involves equitable principlOl, 10 this regw,
appeJlanta Iraue we .hould find a compellin, reason
for the delay becauao appellee failed 10 anawer Iwo
.eII of Intorrogatories in a limely manner, AppellaDII
claim appellee'. delay in anawering tho first .et of
interrogatories wu .ix montha and tho delay
anawering tho looOnd .et of intorrogatories was 55
day.. Tbua, according to appeJlanta, "(l)bo delay in
this cuo was duo, In part, to (appellee'l) own
aclions." (Appellant'. brief at 14.) However, the
record reveala that appellee wu unablo 10 RDlwer the
interrogatories because of a procedural default by
appellaDll, M the IriaI court explained, "tho plaintiff.
failed to comply with 42 Pa,C,S,A. ~ 4005, which
roquirea a brief .laIement of the nature of the causo of
action 10 accompany the interrogatories when they are
.erved prior to a complaint. BocaUJo tho complaint
had not boen filed, and counael had not complied with
Rulo 4005, and becauso of a factual discrepancy In the
interrogatories, tho defendant was only... ablo 10
partially roapond 10 the interrogatories and roquOlIl
for produclion of documeoll .inco il did not know
wbat il wu defending againsl," (Slip Op" 10yce, 1.,
7/22/96, pp, 2-3,) Particularly bocauao appellaDll do
DOl respond to this finding of tho court, wo find no
abuso of diacrotion in tho concluaion that appellee did
nol contn'bulo to appellaDll' failure 10 pursue this
action.
Having found no compelling reason for the delay, we
tum to the prejudico olemont of the non prol .tandard,
M nOled, Penn Piping established tho principle that a
delay in docket aClivity of two yoan or more iJ
presumptively prejudicial, Wo also reiterote thel
appe1IanIl' wril of .ummons was returned by the
sherift' on November 24, 1993 and appellee'. motion
for judsmenl of non prol was filed on, November 27,
1995. The only docket activity appearing between
thoso dates was tho fi1ing, on November 9, 1995, of
appe1IanIl' .ervico of deposition nolico. Appellanll
claim this docket aClivity. which occurred less than
two yoan after tho wril of summons was returned,
precludes applicatioo of tho presumption of prejudico
established in Penn Piping, Wo disagree,
*310 Pino Township Water Co" Ioc, v, Felmonl Oil
Corp,. 525 Pa,Super, 473, 625 A,2d 703 (1993),
,'-
..-
PlIie 2
alia;, '.ied, 537 Pa, 665, 664 A,2d 1202 (1994),
a par.' ., ."i. Court found that plaintiff'. petilion to
remo. i.i ..\Se from a lennination list was "neither
SUr51;' ., nature nor exemplary of tho type of
poSili '.;el activity contemplated by this Court in
Penr. , . Id, at , 625 A.2d at 706. Similarly. in
Colh:: .'. & E Concrete Pumplngloc" Pa.Super, .
686 i. : :,2 (1996), Ibis Court considered whether
the er '.. ,'n appearance by appellaDll' counsel was
suftk -: ." :kel activity 10 preclude the Penn Pipln,
presll: -:i.'c. In affirming the entry of non pro., the
court ::':1 not deem such aclivity u 'subltanlive' or
an e,.. :l~" of 'positivo docket' aclioo," Yd. at. 6S6
A.2d: iC5.
Appl; ;" :::i, rationale 10 Ihe inslaDl cue. we agree
wilh Ii',: I.d court thai lervice of appellaDll' notice of
depo,;:ion,. placed on Ihe docket after 23 montha and
IS tin;:! of inactivity, does nol conslitulo "subslaDlivo"
and .F",i:;..... docket activity, We are .imply unable
10 fir.d. IInJ:r lhe facll of this case, that the mere act
of do,kolin~ lheir intention 10 take depositions
satisfic, r.r;,.lIants' obligation 10 move their cue
forwa:'. S.. Kennedy v. Bulletin Company. 237
Pa.Su,. or. lOS, , 346 A,2d 343. 346 (1975) ("The duty.
therefe,. i' clearly on the appellant 10 proceed with
hi. cre, c:" action and he, nol the appellee, .hould
bear Ib ri;k of not actlns within a reasonable lime. ").
Sinc. t':: ~J"ket activity of November 9, 1995 was
non-su'. ilan:iv., it becomes clear that the Jut
subslar,:i.... Jockel activity prior to appellee'. motion
for jl::: ;ment of non pros. filed on November 27.
I99S..LS the sheriff's return of the wril of summons
on t' "",.o.r 24, 1993, Because this period
constil;::" a "delay for a perind of two yoan or
more." v..o presume that appellee Iw been prejudiced.
Penn Pipin.,;. supra.
Bas.d on O\lf delennination that the throe elementa of
th. nc , p:; slandanl have been latlsfied, the court
proporJ:, te:Iuinated appellanll' action for failuro 10
prosoc: :", Accordingly, we find no abUJe of
discr<:: ,n 'n Ihe luly 22, 1996 Order denying
appell ,,,' ::.lition for reUef from judsment of non
pros. [,'.'n ]
Orde: <:;: ::ed,
P:1I. .....e reeogniz.1hat this appca11s properly tala:n
; ',m ::,: denial of appellants' petition for rcliefCrom
, j, ;ment of non pro., rather than from the enll)'
. : . ,to. itself. In order 10 remove a judgment of
.. ;:: I. three elements mu.t be met: (I) a petition
c:;.; mu.t be promptly mod; (2) the del.y must
Copr. C Wesll997 No claim 10 orig. :. .3. ""'1, works
"
Pqe3
, .
- A.2d-
(Clle as: 1997 WL 85703, *3 (pa.Super.))
be rouonably up1a1ncd; ...s (3) racto mu.t be
ahown to eWt which I\Ippoll a .au.. or action, Plno
TOWlllhlp W~r Co., lno, v, P.lmont OU Corp.,
425 Pa,Super, 473, 625 A,2d 703 (1993), aUocalllr
.
dcillcd, 537 Pa, 665, 664 A,2d 1202 (1994),
HOWIYor, .lnco oppe1lant'. underlylnl .1aIm Ia that
\he coull emd In cntcrinJ \he non pro., we haYO
COlllldercd appeUanto' araument undor \he rtandard
oct rorth In JII1lOI BIOI. Co. v. Union BankIna ...s
TNIt Co, or DuBoIa. 432 Pa. 129, 247 A,2d 517
(1968), u eilod above. At OIl)' nil, In U&hI or our
nndlnl that appoUanll have not .......nably oxpla1nod
\he 4c1ay In prooccutlna \heir action, IhiI opPeaI
would roll under ei\her atandard.
END OF DOCUMENT
Copr, C West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. goYl. worb
".
AUTHORITY TO PAY COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL '. ' .itV-Tb
../v '
I. COURT 2 VOUCHER
a Olst'lcl Jualtce ~ Common Plee. 0 Appellete o Other N~ 24q4
3, FOR 10 J, C,P. APPELLATEI 4. AT ICITY/STATEI 5. BUDGET CO~_r
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CARLISLE. PENNSYLVANIA (' (' (' .:J
5 IN THE CASE OF IN THE MATTER ,. CHARGE/OFFENSE IPURDON CITATlONI I. 0 PETTY OFFENSE
OF NATOSHA RIDLEY DEPENDENCY o FELONY 0 MISDEMEANOR
9 PROCEEDINGS CDuc"bo b,"l1yl 1\. PERSON REPRESENTED 12. CIVIL DOCKET NO,
t 0 Der,nd,"I. Adult
JUDICIAL REVIEW 2 0 O.lel'ld."'. Jw"",le
3 0 "ooelll'" 13. CRIMINAL DOCKET NO
.. 0 "ootll..
S ':J H..~n P,lIho"'" 94-120 JUVENILE
I CJ M.I",.IW,t",,,
7 0 ".01.. Ch'''~'d W,t" V,a"ho" 14. APPEALS DOCKET NO
\0 PERSON REPRESENTED (Full Nomoi II a P,oo,,,O"" C""Old W"" Vlolahon
'>p 01""
NATOSHA SHAYANNE RIDLEY DEPENDENT JUVENILE
_.., 0.'. 09/26/94 15 NAME OF AnORNEY/PAYEE AND
MAILING ADDRESS
MICHAEL A. SCHERER, ESQUIRE
HONORABLE HAROLD E. SHEELY O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER
17 WEST SOUTH STREET
NAME OF COMMON PLEAS JUDGE ASSIGNED TO CASE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
11 TELEPHONE No, 1.8 SOCIAL SEtuAl1'y ~o OR Elt4 NO
249-6873 25-1708515
CLAIM FOR SERVICES OR EXPENSES
19, SERVICE HOURS DATES AMOUNTS CLAIMED
.. Arr"gnmant and/or PI.. Mulllply flte PI' hour 11m.. 101.'
b Pr.l.mlnary H..,lng hour, 10 obtain .'1'1 Courr corn.
pen,aUon. Ent., lolal be~w.
c:. Motionl Ind Request.
... d. ae.1 HI.ringl
a:
::> It SenlenCI Hurlngl
0
U I. T",l
i!;
Q RI'Jocallon HI.,lngl
h. JUlfendl H"flnOI
I. Appe.l, Coul! 1 SA. TOTAL IN COURT COMP,
I Olhe, ISDeclfy on .ddition.1 Ih..1I1 'AT 0 n':l/7~'^^
TOTAL HOURS. X $5Il PER HOUR -$ 35.00
20. I. lnlel"ll.e.s Ind conle,ence. Multlpty ra.1 per hour Ilmea lolal
b. Obt'lnlng .nd rlhl.."'Q 'ecordl hourL Enllr 10111 .Oul of Coun"
....... campen'lllon below,
Oa: c. leQII '"elrch Ind b...., writing
...::>
::>0 12, InvesDQ,lItlYe and olher work (SDtQfy on addiDOnallhettl) 20A. TOTAL OUT OF COURT
ou COMP,
TOTAL HOURS. x $olO PER HOUR -$
2' ITEMIZATION OF REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES AMT. PER ITEM
Mleaoe $.25 Der mila .
a:
w
:c 21A. TOTAL ITIMIZlD IXP.
....
0
-$
22, CERTIFICATION OF AnORNEv/PAYEE MICHAEL A. SCHERER, ESQUIRE 23. ORAND TOTAL CLAIMID
Has compenullon andlar rlimbu",mlnt for work In Ihla CU. ptevlaulty blln appllld lor? ex: YES C NO -$ 35.00
lIye"wo.eyoup.,O? Jel YES 0 NO lIye..bywhomwereyoullllld? ""11I1:1 Ct}' H_much7 $185.00 24. DEDUCT, PRIOII PVMTS.
Has Ihl person represlnled paid any manly to you. or to your knowlldge anyone IISI,In connlCUon with (hi manl' for -$ n/a
whiCh you wefe appointed 10 providl r.pr'"nt'h/::;/~ 'JI:1';UO If yl" give delails on addillanllshtttl
I swear or all"m Ihe trulh or co"ectn,sa. ~~ ZEr '41 25. NET AMOUNT CLAIMID
ollhe above stalements Sign'lure of Anomey/P.y.. O.t. -$ 35.00
28 "PPOI".I ~'I ",. 21. AMT. APPROVID
f,'" SoQ".IUf.oI
..........,.., Juooe .011.. -$
Copy 1 . Mail 10 Court Administrator at completion 01 service
.'~. ..._..~~
V.
I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
I
NO. l206 CIVIL 1994 /
NO. l207 CIVIL 1994
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.
K. DEAN R. ARENS DORF, R.A.
FRANK JACKSON, M.D.
V.
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 1st day of APRIL, 1997, the Court directs the
Prothonotary to list the above-captioned case for Argument Court
on May 28, 1997, with K. Dean R. Arensdorf, R.A. and JWF
Architects, Inc. as the moving parties.
All parties shall comply with Rule 210-6 of Cumberland
County.
By the Court,
c~
Ha 0 d E.
F.
Matthew Chabal, III, Esquire
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box l003
Harrisburg, Pa. 17108
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
_ ('~<o ~l +/:.Jq'l,
"""""' ~- ~f>,
Steven G. Bardsley, Esquire
367 South Gulph Rd.
King of Prussia, Pa. 19406
FOR THE DEFENDANTS
:sld
FlW-OFACE.
or 1H~ P?OiV!'Y.'\Oi~f\'{
91 ~?R.Z M110: 01
C\Jl-J,e;'I~;..I :~,j i.;\...i.h\(\'{
pCNNS(\..\Ji-N1A
-
~
POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P.C,
BY: Steven G, Bardsley
Allorney 1.0, No,: 69768
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
(610) 354-9700
Allorneys for K, Dean R, Arensdorf, R,A,
and JWF Architects, Inc.
FRANK JACKSON, M,D,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
K, DEAN R, ARENSDORF. R.A,
FRANK JACKSON. M,D,
./
NO, 1206 Civil 1994
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
JWF ARCHITECTS, INC.
NO, 1207 Civil 1994
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF NON PROS
TO 'HIE PROTHONOTARY:
Please withdraw defendants, K, Dean R. Arensdorf, R,A, and JWF Architects, Inc, 's
Motion for Judgment of Non Pros that was filed on or about March 26, 1997 and which is
scheduled for argument on Wednesday, May 28, 1997.
POWELL, TRACHTMft N, LOGAN, CARRLE,
BOWMAN & LOMBARDO, P,C,
BY:
~ fA ~./
Steven G, Bardsley
Date: May 14, 1997