HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-3176CO~IMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURT Of COMMON PLEAS
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF APPEAL
FROM
DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT
COMMON PLEAS No. C,;.,iL
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
District Justice on the date and in the case mentioned below.
NAME OF APPELLANT
Dale Strinq-
ADDRESS OF APPELLANT CITY
330 Doz~a:~r. Circle ~c~ers
DATE OF JUDOMENT ~ IN THE CASE OF (PLAiNTiFF)
6/5/02 J William J. and Na~y B~m.er ~.
MAG. DIST. NO. OR NAME OF D,J.
09-2-01 P~ul~ P. Corre~l
STATE ZIP CODE
PA 17319
Keystoker Inc,
SIGNATU E OF APPEL T OR HIS ATTORNEY OR AGENT
CV YEAR Cq-O000163-02
LT YEAR
This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under PA.
R.C.P.J,P. No. 1008B.
This notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as
A SUPERSEDEAS to the Judgment for possession in this case.
If appellant was Claimant (see PA R.C.P.J.P.
No. 1001(6)) in action before district Justice, he
MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20)
days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL.
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.
PRAEClPE: To Prothonotary
Enter rule upon W~ 13 ~ ~m ,T_ an~,'] ~n~"~r 'l:~mn~r , appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal
Name of apl~llee(s) --
(Common Pleas No.l~,~_J~_~j~) within twenty (20) days after service of rule
entry of judgment of non pros.
RULE: To William J. and Na_qcy ]~'~]nn.r , appellee(s)
Name of appellee(st
(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 PRAEClPE.
Date:
(3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing.
Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy
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
i~a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common P~eas 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 p~rgorla! s;;rvice [] by (certified) (registered)
mail, sender's receipt attached hereto.
SWORN (AFFIRMED) A~D SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME
THIS DAY OF , YEAR
Signature of Affiant
My commission expires on
,year
DALE STRING
330 DORWA_RT CIKCLR
ETTERS, PA 17319
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT
CIVIL CASE
~ROt~'~,~, WZLLIAM J/NANCY
11 HOPE TERRACE
C~M~LISDE, PA 17013
S~L~ '~, PA 179?2
te Filed: 4/10/02
THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT:..~ ;.
· ~Judgmenti ~ >" *~"
~"~'1 Judgment was entered for: :i.,: (Name)
rX I Judgment was entered against: (Name)
in the amount of $ 1: '~ ¢'~ _ q n on: (Date of Judgment)
Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
Damages will be assessed on:
This ~ase dismissed without prejudice.
Amount of Judgment Subject to
Attachment/Act 5 of 1996 $.
Levy is stayed for days or r'l generally stayed.
Objection to levy has been filed an~ hearing will be held:
(Date & Time)
Amount.of Judgmeut · $ 1,690.7~
Judgment Costs $ 73.
Interest on Judgment
Attorney Fees $_ .0
Total $ 1.763.70
Post Judgment Credits
Post Judgment Costs
Certified Judgment Tolal
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,
6/' 5/[)'~ D,te ( ~'x...~------~.~t.~' ~ .~.~...Di,tricl
: .,"~&rtii~y th'a; this is, true ';nd cpr,:e~ct'~;;'0{ ;he~J;'6['d;0f the pro~'~eding, containing .,he'i~gment~ ': '
; ."<' .'/:',- /~,. .;,×/./'.:,. l/" · '. ' ' ' I
I Dar'",;.,/....',".,,'.?"-"' '." ..... Ju,t'o.I
My commission expires first Monday et January, 2006 SE,~,L .
AOPC, 315-gg
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
Vo
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 02-3099 CIVIL TERM
: NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
:
: NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM j
NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS
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 loose money or property or other fights important
to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland CoUnty Bar Association
Two Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-3166
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-3099 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
Plaintiffs William J. Brunner and Nancy Brunner are adult individuals currently
residing at 11 Hope Terrace, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013
Defendant Keystoker, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Keystoker") is a Pennsylvania
Corporation with it principal place of business at 60 Keystoker Lane, Schuylkill
Haven, Pennsylvania, 17972.
Defendant Vicky L. Gilbert, is an adult individual trading and doing business as Coal
Energy Plus (hereinafter referred to as "Gilbert") with a place of business at 200 Old
York Road, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17070.
Defendant Dale String (hereinafter referred to as "String") is an adult individual
currently residing at 330 Dorwart Circle, Etters, Pennsylvania, 17319.
In late-November 2000, Plaintiffs were constructing a new single family dwelling on
their property at 11 Hope Terrace, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
In late-November 2000, Plaintiffs consulted with Gilbert and her late husband,
Johnny Gilbert, relative to the purchase of a heating stove for their home.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Plaintiffs specifically advised Gilbert and her late husband of their intended use of the
stove to heat their family room, providing Gilbert and her late husband with the
specific dimensions of Plaintiffs' home and family room, afterwhich Gilbert and her
late husband recommended the purchase of a Keystoker cast-iron oil/kerosene stove.
Based upon Gilbert and her late husband's recommendation and advice, Plaintiffs did
purchase a Keystoker cast-iron oil/kerosene stove (hereinafter referred to as the
"stove") on December 7, 2000, for the purchase price of $1,595.00 plus tax.
Plaintiffs also purchased a 275 gallon oil]kerosene tank for installation at their home
from Gilbert and her late husband, for the sum of $350.00 plus tax.
The total purchase price of the stove and oil tank made by Plaintiffs to Gilbert and
her late husband, was $2,061.70, as evidenced by the receipt attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A."
Upon the recommendation of Gilbert and her late husband, Plaintiffs secured the
services of String to install the stove at their residence at 11 Hope Terrace, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
The stove was installed in Plaintiffs' home by String on December 18, 2000.
Plaintiffs paid directly to String the sum of $375.00 for costs of installation of the
stove as aforesaid.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
In late-January 2001, while the stove was being used to heat the Plaintiffs' family
room, it began producing extreme amounts of soot, making the stove unfunctionable.
Upon the advice of Gilbert, Plaintiffs contacted String who to examined the stove for
problems and was able to cause the stove to work properly.
A few weeks later, in February 2001, the stove again began smoking and sooting to
the point of where it could not be used.
When String was unable to correct the problems and make the stove operational after
several attempts, he advised Plaintiffs that he would contact Gilbert and her late
husband to determine how to proceed.
When no response was provided by String or Gilbert to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs contacted
Gilbert and her late husband, by telephone on several occasions and were advised
they were checking into the problem.
On March 10, 2001, String came to Plaintiffs' residence and examined the stove but
within two hours of the stove being started, it created excessive smoke and soot.
On March 12, 2001, Plaintiffs again contacted Gilbert and her late husband to advise
them that the stove was not working properly.
On March 17, 2001, String came to the property at the direction of Gilbert and/or her
late husband, and again examined the stove.
According to String, he took the carburetor of the stove apart and adjusted the "float."
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
After the stove had apparently been working properly for about one week, the stove
again omitted excessive smoke and making it inoperable.
After Plaintiffs made several telephone calls to Gilbert and her late husband without
response, Plaintiffs corresponded with Gilbert and her late husband to advise them as
to the fact that the stove was inoperable, a copy of said correspondence dated April
20, 2001, is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B."
When no response was received by May 10, 2001, Plaintiffs again contacted Gilbert
and her late husband, and were ultimately advised by Gilbert that a new carburetor
would be installed in the stove, but that it would not be able to installed until the fall
when cooler weather would allow the stove to be tested.
The new carburetor referenced by Gilbert was installed by String on November 15,
2001.
Plaintiffs operated the stove properly on November 16, 2001, turned off the stove,
and after a brief period of time Plaintiffs noticed kerosene being released from the
stove and running under the hot stove onto the hearth in Plaintiffs' family room.
Plaintiffs properly turned off the main valve from the 275 gallon tank to the stove and
cleaned the kerosene that had leaked from the stove and contacted String on
November 16, 2001, regarding the leak.
Defendant String came to Plaintiffs home on November 21, 2001, and indicated that
he found a leak in the carburetor that he had repaired.
30.
31.
Plaintiffs used the stove for the remainder of November 21, 2001, and for a period of
time on November 22, 2001, at all times operating the stove in the proper manner.
After the stove was turned off for a brief period on November 22, 2001, it again
began leaking kerosene on and under the hot stove and on to the hearth of Plaintiffs'
family room.
32. Plaintiffs' immediately contacted String regarding the kerosene leak.
37.
33.
34.
35.
36.
On December 3, 2001, String performed some services in an attempt to repair the
stove and pronounced the stove to be in working order.
Even though Plaintiffs did not operate the stove on again on December 5, 2001, the
stove again began leaking kerosene on to the hearth in Plaintiffs' family room, at
which time Plaintiffs contacted String to advise him of the leaking problem and was
advised by String to centact Gilbert.
Plaintiffs attempted to contact Gilbert on several occasions in early-December 2001.
On December 17, 2001, Plaintiffs forwarded correspondence to Gilbert requesting a
refund of all funds paid for the purchase of the stove that was not operating properly,
a copy of said correspondence being attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit "C."
On December 18, 2001, Defendant Gilbert contacted Plaintiffs and advised them that
she would speak with Keystoker regarding the inoperable stove.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
When Gilbert advised Plaintiff that Keystoker would be examining the stove but
would not provide for removal of the stove nor a refund of the payments made by
Plaintiffs for the purchase of the stove.
Because of the fact that the stove did not operate properly and leaked kerosene on
repeated occasions, Plaintiffs have been unable to use their family room in their home
for over one and one-half years.
Because of the fact that the stove was intended to heat the family room, Plaintiffs did
not otherwise construct their home to allow for sufficient heating of the family room
through other means making the family room unusable for the past one and one-half
The stove has been inoperable and has created a fire hazard in Plaintiffs' home due to
leaking kerosene.
Although Plaintiffs afforded Keystoker the opportunity to examine the stove,
representatives from Keystoker were unable to provide an answer to Plaintiffs as to
the problems that caused the leaking of kerosene.
Plaint~f_£s v. Keystoker
Plaintiffs' paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their full
text.
44. Keystoker manufactured the stove that was purchased by Plaintiffs from Defendant
Gilbert.
45. The stove purchased by Plaintiffs from Keystoker is inoperable because it omits
excessive soot and is a fire hazard in that it has leaked kerosene on three occasions
and Plaintiffs stove is connected to a 275 gallon kerosene tank.
46. Keystoker issued a two year warranty against manufacturer defects in the internal
components of the stove but have refused to removed the stove and refund the price
paid for the stove despite the fact that the stove is a fire hazard in Plaintiffs' home
and does not operate properly.
47. Keystoker is unjustly enriched by retaining the price paid by Plaintiffs for a stove that
is inoperable and a fire hazard to Plaintiffs home.
WHERF~OKE, Plaintiffs request your Honorable Court to enter a judgment against
Keystoker in the amount of $2,436.70, plus costs, fees and interest all in an amount requiring
arbitration.
Plaintiffs v. Gilbert
48. Plaintiffs' paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their full
text.
49. Gilbert sold the Plaintiffs a stove that is inoperable and a fire hazard to Plaintiffs.
50. Gilbert advised Plaintiffs improperly as to the ability of the stove to heat Plaintiffs'
family room in their new home.
51. Gilbert is unjustly enriched by retaining the price paid by Plaintiffs for a stove that is
inoperable and a fire hazard to Plaintiffs' home.
52. Gilbert has failed and refused to remove the stove that was sold to Plaintiffs and
refund the payment made by Plaintiffs for the purchase of the stove.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request your Honorable Court to enter judgment against
Gilbert in the amount of $2,436.70, plus costs, fees and interest all in an amount requiring
arbitration.
Plaintiffs v. String
53. Plaintiffs' paragraphs 1 through 52 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their full
text.
54. String installed the stove purchased by Plaintiffs from Gilbert.
55. String adjusted or modified the stove in such a fashion as to cause the stove to be
inoperable and a fire hazard to Plaintiffs' home.
56. The conduct of String has made the stove inoperable and a fire hazard.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request your Honorable Court to enter judgment against String
in the amount of $2,436.70, plus costs, fees and interest all in an amount requiring arbitration.
Punitive Damages
57. Plaintiffs' paragraphs 1 through 56 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their full
text.
58. The conduct of Keystoker, Gilbert, and String in appealing the judgment entered
against each of them by District Justice Paula Correal is done solely to delay the
ultimate conclusion and to exhaust Plaintiffs limited funds in pursuing an
appropriately remedy for the sale of inoperable stove.
59. The costs of all Keystoker, Gilbert and String is dilato~g, vexatious and obdurate.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Keystoker, Gilbert and String appeared at the District Justice hearing in this matter,
pro se, and have only secured counsel and filed an appeal to the District Justice claim
in an effort to create substantial additional costs for Plaintiffs.
Keystoker, Gilbert and String defenses as presented to the District Justice were
inconsequential.
Plaintiffs have been required to pay counsel to pursue this matter through the District
Justice proceedings and now through the present proceedings, which attorney's fees
have now exceeded the costs of the stove at issue in this matter.
Keystoker, Gilbert and String should be ordered to pay punitive damages, as well as
attorney's fees associated with these proceedings.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request your Honorable Court to enter judgment against
Defendants in an amount less than $25,000.00 and otherwise in an amount requiring arbitration.
//~r'~, ~_?ire
~'~/~y for fl~aintiff/Petitioner
v~,~ G~FFIE 8~ ASSOCIATES
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
We verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and
correct. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of
18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
ENERGY---/ 1517:5
Store #2
Store #1 711 Harrisburg Pike
200 Old York Rd. Dillsburg, PA 1701.9
New Cumberland, PA 17070 717 432-7882
717 774-0:359 '%,
A.M. Gen.
So~¢ by
Unil Price
Ouant~
20% handling cfiarges .on returned parts, r)ipe and accessories
Deposit refund warranfs 20% restocking 'fee.
,$20,00 fee ~n.all returned checks.
"I aQre~ w~th the te~s l~sted above."
Date .7.-..' ....
EXHIBIT
April20,2001
Coal Energy
ATT: Johnny Gilbert
200 Old York Road
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Dear Johnny,
We have had an on going problem with the KEYSTOKER OIL STOVE we bought from you in December 2000 not
working as I have repeatedly discussod with you. Also I stated in my last phone call to you on March 26 when I left
a message for you that th~ stove was not working again and I asked you to call mc.
Vv~n we bought the stove from you in December we p]nnncd to use it during the winter to heat our home. As you
may re~all we only had it a short time until it would not work properly and Dale Sffing came out several times to try
to g~t it to worlc
Dale would get it started and it would work for a few days or a week, then start smoldng and sooting up a~m~in and
we could not use it~ Because of thi~ problem we went without heat from our stove most of the time this past wint~.
The last time Dale was out on March 17t~ he tore it apart and thought it was working okay, but before he got out the
door it stopped working for him. sO he took it apmt a~in that day ,mtil he got it to wore That lasted flora Saturday
the 17~ until the 24~ of March whea it stopped working a~in and we have not bee~ able to use it since then.
The stove is 6ffective and does not wo~ We have struggled with it all wintex _nnd it still is nOt Working and you
have been ~mable to get it to work_
We paid over $2000 for the stove and accessories plus installation and have be~n ~mnbl¢ to use it as intended to he, at
our home.
We have suffered enough inconvenience from this stove not wot/ting, cleaning up soot many times from it and going
without heat fi'om it most ~f the winter. Now I want a new stove that works properly im~alled to replace the
defecliv¢ one you sold us.
Please contact me so we can make ~entn to have you remove this stove that does not work and replace it
with one that does.
sincexeay,
CC: Keystok~ Inc.
60 Keystoker Lane
Schuylkill Haven, PA 17972
W. Jack Brnnner
11 Hope To'race
Carlinle, PA 17013
PH: 717-249-7071
December 17, 2001
Coal Energy
Attention: Vickie Gilbert
200 Old York Road
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Dear Vickie,
I have called you three times recently concerning my Keystoker Stove still not working, but
get recordings each time. Leave messages, but still have not been able to get to talk to you.
We bought the new stove fi-om you in December 2000 and have had prgblems with it not
working almost fi-om the beginning. On April 20, 2001 I wrote you a letter with.a copy to
KeyStoker, Inc. outlining the problems and asking that the defective stove be replaced.
That was not done but instead you sent me a new Carburetor that your installer/serviceman,
Dale String put on November 15, 2001.
At~er installing the new Carburetor that night, he started up the stove, then left. The next
morning it was too hot se I turned it off'a'nd the kerosene started leaking out around the
Carburetor onto the hot stove and ont0the brick under the stove in the hack.
I got a pan and put under it and cleaned up all I could because I was afraid ora.fire when the -
kerosene ran onto the hot stove.
I called Dale that evening November 16 and told him about the problem so Dale came out on
November 21 and worked on it and started stove up again. I mined it off the next day,
November 22 and kerosene leaked out again~
Dale was called again on November 22 and came out on December 3, worked on it again, but
we did not start the stove up because I was now concerned aboutthe-fire hazard ~om~dae stove
so we just left it sit for the next 2 days. On December 5 kerosene was leaking out again
When I called Dale I asked him to talk with you and he suggested I call you which brings us
up to date with me being unable to get to talk to you.
Bottom line is we bought this stove from you over a year ago and have been unable to use it
because it is defective and now a fire hazard in our home.
Because it is defective and a fire hazard I want a refund of my money without any further
delay so I can buy a stove that works and is safe in our home.
This is notice that you have 10 days to remove the stove from my home and refund my money
in the amount of $1945.00 so I can buy another stove to .heat our home.
bought the stove from you so it is up to you to deal with the manufacturer.
If my defective stove, that is also a fire hazard, is not removed and my money refunded
within the 10 days stated above I will be going to my Attorney and file a legal suit against you
and KeYstoker, Inc. for a full refund of my money along with Legal Fees.
I have been very patient and cooperative for over a year now, but that is over. You can
resolve this matter in a business manner or a Legal one. The choice is yours, but make no
mistake it will be resolved now so I have a safe stove to heat my home.
Sincerely,
W. Jack Brunner
11 Hope Terrace
Carlisle, PA 17013
PH: 249-7071
CC:: Keystoker Inc. '
60 Keystoker Lane
Schuylkill Haven, PA 17972
~66!. I!Jd¥ 'O0~C u.UO=l Scl
u. 0 ~
g66 !. I!Jdv 'OOO~ uJJo-I Sd
.. pROOF OF'~I~V~CI~ 0~'NoI~i~ APPEAl. AND RULE 'J~O,~~LAIN~, .
(This proof o~ $~tice MUST 9E FIU=D I/VITHIN IF:N {10):, DAYS AFTFR filing the notice of ~:~eal. Check ~l:~liCqtlCle Boxes)
copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas NO. ~.~.-.3176~ ~'. _'.E ~:::.[ ........ ~ ~oo._U~ nL,~tri~_ .I,,,*i_~.~na.t~_ ~Ti~ .~..:
............... : ................................................. . ..... ~.: ----- . .
(dateof sen, me) ~_.u~_ ~.5 ~..~:. ?. ,.(!.~./~ ~.,~j~rj...,~~ ~-I~.pl~llO!~.,~J]~.~..C,iil~iRij](regmtered) mad, sender's
Jul~ 5 , y~r 2~2 , ~ by p~na~ s~i~oy (~ni~) ~r~t~) ma.I, s~s r~pt affach~ ~reto.
and fu~h~ ~t I s~ the Rul~ to File a Complaint a~panyi~ the ~ve ~tice of Ap~l u~n,the ~1~(~) to
mail, sonder"s receipt attacl~ed hereto.
SWORN (AFFIRMED) ,~)L~IBED~EFORE ME
· .~,,. -.:,~ '~/.,-y,~:.... · .
TH IS _8 b'b~..;1,- ~_'~_ ,~.g'J._~C'.~. .YEAR 2002.
~-. . ~~
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/b/d/a COAL ENERGY PLUS and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
: NO. 02-3099 CIVIL TERM
: NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
: NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM ~
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO:
William J. Brunner and Nancy Brunner
c/o Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
Griffie & Associates
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
You are hereby notified to plead to the New Matter raised herein within twenty (20) days of
service of the attached pleading upon you, or judgment may be entered against you.
Attorney for Def~h~ant Vicky Gilbert
407 North Front ~ First Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 238-3686
Supreme Court I.D. # 53729
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/b/Wa COAL ENERGY PLUS and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
2.
3.
4.
5.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 02-3099 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, VICKY GILBERT~
T/B/D/A COAL ENERGY PLUS
Admitted.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
deterrcfine the truthfulness of this averment as to precise time, or as to the circumstances ofPlaintitF s
building a home. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
6. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs spoke with the late Johnny Gilbert, not with Vicky Gilbert.
7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary
to determine the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded. For
further explanation, all conversations that Plaintiffs held were with Johnny Gilbert, and not Vicky
Gilbert at the time that is covered by this averment.
8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs purchased the stove. It
is denied that they purchased it from Vicky Gilbert. Only the late Johnny Gilbert owned the business
known as Coal Energy Plus while he was living.
9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs purchased the oil tank. It
is denied that they purchased it from Vicky Gilbert. Only the late Johnny Gilbert owned the business
known as Coal Energy Plus while he was living.
10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs made the purchase as
described above, but, the purchase was made from the late Johnny Gilbert, and not from Vicky
Gilbert.
11. Denied as stated. Any recommendations came from the late Johnny Gilbert, and not from
Vicky Gilbert.
12. Admitted.
13. Admitted, upon information and belief.
14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
detemfine the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
15. Denied as stated. Any advice that would have been given to Plaintiffs would have come from
the late Johnny Gilbert, and not Vicky Gilbert.
16. Denied. At, er reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
17. Denied. Atter reasonable investigation, Vick Gilbert lacks information necessary to determine
the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
18. Denied as stated. PlaintiWs contacted the Gilberts' business only occasionally. On the
relatively rare occassions when Vicky Gilbert spoke to Plaintiffs at all, she arranged ,for her late
husband to talk with the Plaintiffs in tb~at, while Johnny Gilbert was living, Vicky Gilbert was not
familiar with whatever issues Plaintiffs had.
19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
20. Denied as stated. Other than possible passing a message to her late husband, Vicky Gilbert
did not have any substantive contact with Plaintiffs; all of their substantive conversations were with
the late Johnny Gilbert.
21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded. Further,
if any direction from the Gilberts' business came to strain, it came from the late Johnny Gilbert.
22. Denied. Al~er reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this avei-ixiem. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
24. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs called only occasionally. Further, any conversations that they had,
and their own letter that they show as Exhibit "B", is and were directed to the late Johnny Gilbert,
and not to Vicky Gilbert.
25. Denied as stated. Any conversation, that Plaintiffs had regarding this issue would have been
with the late Johnny Gilbert, not Vicky Gilbert.
26. Denied as stated. The reference to the carburetor was made by the late Johnny Gilbert, not
Vicky Gilbert.
27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
28. Denied. Al~er reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
detemdne the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
detemfine the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
30. Denied. ARer reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
detemdne the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks infmmation necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this avem~ent. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
32. Denied. ARer reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the tmthfiflness of this aveiment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
33. Denied. Alter reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks infom,ation necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this avermem. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
35. Denied. Vicky Gilbert does not recall any"attempts" to contact her in early December, 2001.
36. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs wrote the letter that is the
subject of this averment and that Vicky Gilbert received letter. Any statement or implication to the
effect that Plaintiffs are entitled to any sort of refund is expressly denied.
37. Admitted.
38. Denied as stated. This averment is a sentence fragment, and cannot be answered.
39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this ave,ment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this avemtent. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the truthfulness of this averment. Ifmaterla[ strict proof thereof is demanded.
42. Denied. Atter reasonable investigation, Vicky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
determine the tmthfiflness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
COUNT I - BRUNNER v. KEYSTOKER
43.-47. No response is required fi:om Vicky Gilbert with respect to these averments.
COUNT II - BRUNNER v. GILBERT
48. The responses set forth in the paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference.
49. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
50. Denied. Vicky Gilbert did not ever provide such "advice" to Plaintiffs. Further, the avermem
as stated is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
51. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
52. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Vicky Gilbert has not removed the
stove fi:om the PlaintifFs home, and that she has not refunded the payment. Any statement or
implication to the effect that she is obligated to do either or both of these things, is expressly denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Vicky Gilbert requests this Court to emer judgment in her favor
and against Plaintiffs, to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint, to tax the costs of this action against Plaintiffs,
and to provide any other relief this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT III - BRUNNER V. STRING
53.- 56. No response is required fi:om Vicky Gilbert as to these averments.
COUNT IV - PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
57. The responses set forth in all of the above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
58. Denied. This aveiment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Further,
Vicky Gilbert undertook the appeal because the District Justice hearing was a farce, and she is not
legally obligated to reimburse Plaintiffs.
59. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
60. Denied. This ave~-~iient is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
61. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Further, the
defenses were in fact substantial, but the District Justice refused to acknowledge them.
62. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Vieky Gilbert lacks information necessary to
dete~-u~ne the truthfulness of this averment. If material, strict proof thereof is demanded.
63. Denied. This avermem is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
WHEREFORE, Vicky Gilbert requests this Honorable Court to dismiss this Count, dismiss
Plaintiffs entire action, enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff~, tax the costs of this action
against Plaintiffs and provide any other relief this Court deems appropriate.
NEW MATTER
64. Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
65. Alternatively, Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which punitive damages may be awarded.
66. The stove that is the subject of this action remains under warranty, with Plaintiffs having
either literally or virtually unlimited right to repairs and replacement; accordingly, Plaintiffs are not
entitled to monetary damages.
67. Plaintiff.~ themselves, are at least Plaintiff William J. Brunner, contributed to the condition of
the stove as described by Plaintiff~ because PlaintiffWilliam J. Brunner (as he, upon information and
belief admitted to Dale String) attempted to "fix" the stove himself, without proper training and
supervision, thereby probably adversely affecting the functioning the stove, voiding the warranty and
disentitling Plaintiffs to any economic relief.
68. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs' true motivation for bring this action, knowing that the
warranty described above applies, and according to PlaintiffWilliam J. Brunner, is that he wanted to
purchase the stove like the stove his son owned, and is merely using this proceeding to try to generate
funds in order to do that.
WHEREFORE, Vieky Gilbert requests this Honorable Court to dismiss this Count, dismiss
Plaintiffs entire action, enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintifl~, tax the costs of this action
against Plaintiffs and provide any other relief this Court deems appropriate.
Attorney for Def~ ~! Vicky Gilbert
407 North Front ~ ,¥irst Floor
Harrisburg, PA .
(717) 238-3686
Supreme Court I.D. # 53729
VERIFICATION
I, Anthony T. McBeth, am attorney for the Defendant, Vicky Gilbert, in the captioned action.
I am verifying the attached document for the Defendant in that she is outside the jurisdiction of this
Court. I verify that the facts set forth in the attached document are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. I so state subject to the penalties of18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 (relating
to unswom falsification to authorities).
i~~/.S ~ 7-oOq-'/
//-') ~ ,,
-"Anthony T. Mc~.~h, Esquire
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/b/Wa COAL ENERGY PLUS and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
: NO. 02-3099 CIVIL TERM
: NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
: NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Anthony T. McBeth, Attorney for Defendant, Vicky Gilbert, hereby certify that I have
served the attached document by placing same in the United States mail, first class, postage pre-paid
addressed as follows:
l~ate ~
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
Griffie & Associates
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 238-3686
Supreme Court I.D. # 53729
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNN-ER,
Plaintiffs
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-3099 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
PLAINTIFFS' ANSWERS TO NEW MATTER
64. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. It is further averred that paragraph 64 is a legal conclusion to which
no response is necessary.
65. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which
punitive damages may be awarded. It is further averred that the statements of
paragraph 65 are a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary.
66. Denied as stated. It is denied that the Plaintiffs have "literally or virtually" unlimited
right to repairs or replacement of the stove at issue in this matter. It is further denied
that Plaintiff's are not entitled to monetary damages. It is further averred that the
statements in paragraph 66 are a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary.
It is further averred that by correspondence dated April 20, 2001, Plaintiffs requested
through written request, that the faulty stove be replaced to which Defendant, Vickie
Gilbert t/dgo/a Coal Energy Plus refused such request.
67. Denied. It is denied that either Plaintiff contributed in any fashion whatsoever to the
condition of the stove as described by Defendant, Vicky Gilbert, t/dgo/a Coal Energy
Plus. It is further denied that Plaintiff, William J. Brunner, attempted to "fix" the
stove. It is further denied that either Plaintiff did anything that in any way adversely
affected the functioning of the stove. It is further denied that Plaintiffs did anything
to void the warranty or otherwise to disentitle Plaintiffs from economic relief in this
matter.
68. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant, Vickie Gilbert, has either the information or
belief as set forth in paragraph 68. It is denied that Plaintiffs' motivation for bringing
this action has anything to do with wanting a stove "like a stove his son owned." It is
denied that the motives behind the Plaintiffs' bringing the instant action is anything
other than legitimate and proper, as was determined by District Justice Paula Correal
at the District Justice proceedings, in deciding in Plaintiff's favor.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment against
Defendant, Vickie Gilbert, t/d/b/a Coal Energy Plus, in an amount requiring arbitration or
otherwise in an amount less than $25,000.00.
Respectfully submitted,
~i~ioner
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
VERIFICATION
We verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. We
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
W. JACK BRUNNER, Plaintiff
DATE:
~q~NC~ BRUN~ER, Plaintiff
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
Vo
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/dPo/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-3099 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire, hereby certify that I did, the /.~7~, day of September,
2002, cause a copy of Plaintiff's Answer to New Matter to be served upon Defendants' attorneys
of record by first class mail, postage prepaid at the following addresses:
Scott T. Wyland, Esquire
Malatesta, Hawke & McKeon LLP
P.O. Box 1778
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire
407 North Front Street
Cameron Mansion
Harrisburg, PA 17101
John B. Lieberman, Esquire
Zimmerman, Lieberman, Tamulonis & Crossen
P.O. Box 238
Pottsville, PA 17901
ire
ES
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717)243-5551
(800)347-5552
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
VS.
KEYSTOKER, INC.,
VICKY GILBERT t/d/b/a
COAL ENERGY PLUS and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
NO. 02 - ~--~3'9.
NO. 02-3166
NO. 02-3176
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT,
KEYSTOKER, INC.,
TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS
The defendant, Keystoker, Inc., by and through its a,ttomeys, Zimmerman,
Lieberman, Tamulonis & Crossen, hereby enters the following Answer and New Matter
to the Complaint of the plaintiffs as follows:
ANSWER
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. The averments of paragraph 5 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of those averments.
6. The averments of paragraph 6 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
7. The averments of paragraph 7 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
8. It is admitted that the plaintiffs purchased the stove in question on
December 7, 2000 for the price of $1,595.00 plus tax, but the remaining averment of
paragraph 8 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after
reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of that averment.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted.
11. Admitted.
12. Admitted.
13. The averment of paragraph 13 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that
the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment.
14. The averments of paragraph 14 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
15. The averments of paragraph 15 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
16. The averments of paragraph 16 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
17. The averments of paragraph 17 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
18. The averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to fom~ a belief as to the truth of those averments.
19. The averments of paragraph 19 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
20. The averment of paragraph 20 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that
the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment.
21. The averment of paragraph 21 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that
the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment.
22. The averment of paragraph 22 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that
the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to foi-ii~ a belief as to the truth of that averment.
23. The averments of paragraph 23 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
24. The averments of paragraph 24 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
25. The averments of paragraph 25 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
26. Admitted.
27. The averments of paragraph 27 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
28. The averments of paragraph 28 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
29. The averments of paragraph 29 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
30. The averments of paragraph 30 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
31. The averments of paragraph 31 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
32. The averment of paragraph 32 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that
the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment.
33. The averments of paragraph 33 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
34. The averments of paragraph 34 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
35. The averment of paragraph 35 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that
the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment.
36. The averments of paragraph 36 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
37. The averments of paragraph 37 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
38. The averments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
39. Denied. On the contrary, it is believed that the stove operated properly at
all times material hereto, it did not leak kerosene on repeated occasions, and the plaintiffs
have not been rendered unable to use their family room in their home for over one and
one-half years.
40. The averments of paragraph 40 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
41. Denied. On the contrary, the stove is not inoperable and has not created a
fire hazard in plaintiffs' home due to leaking gasoline.
42. Denied as stated. On the contrary, upon inspection, the representatives of
the answering defendant determined that the stove was in perfect working order.
COUNT I
Plaintiffs vs. Keystoker, Inc.
43. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 42 above are incorporated herein by
reference as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
44. Admitted.
45. Denied. On the contrary, the stove is not inoperable, it does not emit
excessive soot, it is not a fire hazard and if it has leaked kerosene on three occasions, that
problem was not caused by the stove itself and it was not caused by any act or failure to
act on the part of the answering defendant.
46. Denied. On the contrary, there were no manufacturer defects in the internal
components of the stove. For further answer, the stove does not constitute a fire hazard
and it does operate properly.
47. Denied. On the contrary, the answering defendant is not in any manner
unjustly enriched. The stove is operable and does not constitute a fire hazard.
WHEREFORE, the answering defendant prays your Honorable Court to enter
judgment in its favor and against the plaintiffs.
COUNT II
Plaintiffs vs. Gilbert
48. The averments of paragraphs ! through 47 above are incorporated herein by
reference as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
49.-52. The averments of paragraphs 49 through 52, inclusive, of the Complaint
are not directed to the answering defendant.
COUNT III
Plaintiffs vs. String
53. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 52 above are incorporated herein by
reference as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
54.-56. The averments of paragraphs 54 through 56, inclusive, of the Complaint
are not directed to the answering defendant.
COUNT IV
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
57. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 56 above are incorporated herein by
reference as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
58. Denied. On the contrary, the answering defendant appealed the judgment
based upon the reasonable belief that it is not indebted to the plaintiffs and that it did not
sell an inoperable stove.
59. Denied. On the contrary, the conduct of the answering defendant is not in
any manner dilatory, vexatious nor obdurate.
60. The averments of paragraph 60 are denied for the reasons set forth in
paragraph 58 above, the averments of which are incorporated herein by reference.
61. Denied. On the contrary, the answering defendant did present appropriate
defenses to the District Justice.
62. The averments of paragraph 62 of the Complaint are denied for the reason
that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
63. Denied. On the contrary, the answering defendant is not responsible for any
punitive damages nor attorney fees.
WHEREFORE, the answering defendant prays your Honorable Court to enter
judgment in its favor and against the plaintiffs.
NEW MATTER IN THE FORM OF A
CROSSCLAIM AGAINST CO-DEFENDANT, DALE STRINC,
PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. NO. 2252(d)
The answering defendant avers the following New Matter in the form of a
Crossclaim against the co-defendant, Dale String, pursuant to the provisions of
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 2252(d):
64. If the allegations in the plaintiffs' Complaint pertaining to the defendant,
Dale String, are found to be true, then in that event, said defendant is liable to the
plaintiffs for any damages that the plaintiffs may have sustained.
65. If the answering defendant is found to be in anyway liable to the plaintiffs,
then the defendant, Dale String, is jointly liable with the answering defendant to the
plaintiffs or is liable over to the answering defendant by way of contribution or indemnity
for any verdict that the plaintiffs may recover.
WHEREFORE, the answering defendant claims that the co-defendant, Dale String,
is liable to the plaintiffs and if the answering defendant is found to be in anyway liable
to the plaintiffs, then the co-defendant, Dale String, is jointly liable with the answering
defendant or is liable over to the answering defendant for contribution or to indemnity the
answering defendant for any verdict which may be recovered by the plaintiffs.
ZIMMERMAN, LIEBERMAN,
TAMULONIS & CROSSEN
By:
Attorneys for Defendant,
Keystoker, Inc.
Attorney ID No. 07779
10
VERIFICATION
I, GEORGE SOMERS, Vice-President of Keystoker, Inc., within-named
defendant, certify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer and New Matter
which are within my personal knowledge are true, and those which are based on
information received from others, I believe to be true. I understand that false statements
herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to
unswom falsification to authorities.
GE(
Dated: October 9 , 2002
11
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
VS.
KEYSTOKER, INC.,
VICKY GILBERT t/d/b/a
COAL ENERGY PLUS and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
NO. 02-3099
NO. 02-3166
NO. 02-3176
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 9t.a, day of October, 2002, I, John B. Lieberman, III,
Esquire, of the law firm of Zimmerman, Lieberman, Tamulonis & Crossen, attorneys for
defendant, Keystoker, Inc., hereby certify that I served the within Answer and New Matter
this day by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in the Post
Office at Pottsville, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
Griffie & Associates
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Scott T. Wyland, Esquire
Malatesta Hawke & McKeon LLP
100 North Tenth Street
P.O. Box 1778
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire
407 North Front Street
Cameron Mansion
Harrisburg, PA 17101
JOHN B. LIEBERMAN, III, ESQUIRE
Zimmerman, Lieberman,
Tamulonis & Crossen
111 East Market Street
P. O. Box 238
Pottsville, PA 17901-0238
570-622-1988
Attorney ID No. 07779
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY
BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
ffd/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-3099 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO:
William J. Brunner
and Nancy Brunner
c/o Bradley L. Griffie
G-riffle & Associates
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days after
service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you.
~60
Malatesta Hawke & McKeon
Harrisburg Energy Center
100 North Tenth Street
PO Box 1778
Harrisburg, PA 17105-1778
717-236-1300
Counsel for Defendant Dale String
DATE: November 13, 2002
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY
BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
Vo
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT, :
t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and :
DALE STRING, :
Defendants :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-'3~CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER
OF DEFENDANT DALE STRING
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Dale String, by and through his counsel in this matter,
Malatesta Hawke & McKeon LLP, and sets forth the following Answer and New Matter:
1. ADMITTED.
2. ADMITTED.
3. ADMITTED.
4. ADMITTED.
5. ADMITTED, upon information and belief.
6. ADMITTED, upon information and belief.
7. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 7.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 7 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
8. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 8.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 8 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
9. ADMITTED, upon information and belief.
10. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 10.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 10 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
11. ADMITTED.
12. ADMITTED.
13. ADMITTED.
14. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 14.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 14 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
15. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiffs
contacted Defendant String, who examined the stove for problems and was able to cause the
stove to work properly. The balance of the averments of Paragraph 15 are specifically DENIED
because, after reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the balance of the averments of Paragraph 15.
16. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 16.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 16 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
17. DENIED as stated. It is ADMITTED that Defendant String advised the Plaintiffs
that he would contact Gilbert and her late husband concerning how the parties should proceed. It
is specifically DENIED that Defendant String was unable to correct the problems and to make
the stove operational after several attempts. By way of further answer, Defendant String caused
the stove to work properly through his efforts.
18. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 18.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 18 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
19. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that on March 10, 2001,
Defendant String came to Plaintiffs' residence and examined the stove. After reasonable
investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the troth of the balance of the averments in Paragraph 19. Accordingly, said averments are
specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
20. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 20.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 20 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
21. ADMITTED.
22. ADMITTED.
23. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 23.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 23 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
24. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 24.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 24 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial. The correspondence referred to speaks for itself.
25. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 25.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 25 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
26. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that Defendant String
installed a carburetor on or about November 15, 2001. After reasonable investigation, Defendant
String is without knowledge or information concerning whether the carburetor was one
"referenced by Gilbert," and that part of the averments of Paragraph is specifically DENIED.
27. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 2T
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 27 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
28. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiffs
contacted Defendant String on or about November 16, 2001, regarding a leak. As to the balance
of the averments of Paragraph 18, after reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of those averments.
Accordingly, said averments are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at
29. ADMITTED.
30. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 30.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 30 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
31. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 31.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 31 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
32. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiffs
contacted Defendant String regarding a kerosene leak on or about November 22, 2001.
Defendant String is without knowledge or information concerning whether the Plaintiffs
contacted him "immediately" following any other problem they experienced with the stove in
question. Accordingly, said averment is specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
33. ADMITTED.
34. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that Plaintiffs contacted
Defendant String to advise him of a leaking problem on or about December 5, 2001 and that
Defendant String advised the Plaintiffs to contact Gilbert. After reasonable investigation,
Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the balance of the averments of Paragraph 34. Accordingly, the balance of the allegations of
Paragraph 34 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
35. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 35.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 35 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
36. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 36.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 36 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial. The correspondence referred to speaks for itself.
37. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 37.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 37 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
38. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 38.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 38 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at thai.
39. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 39.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 39 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
40. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 40.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 40 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
41. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 41.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 41 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
42. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 42.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 42 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
43. No answer required.
44. ADMITTED.
45. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 45.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 45 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
46. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED, upon information and
belief, that Keystoker issued a two-year warranty against manufacturer defects in the internal
components of the stove and have refused to remove the stove and refund the purchase price to
the Plaintiffs. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the balance of the averments of
Paragraph 46. Accordingly, the balance of the averments of Paragraph 46 are specifically
DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
47. The allegations of Paragraph 47 amount to a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, after
reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 47. Accordingly, said averments are
specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
48. No answer required.
49. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 49.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 49 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
50. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 50.
Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 50 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
51. The allegations of Paragraph 51 amount to a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, after
reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the avermems of Paragraph 51. Accordingly, said averments are
specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
52. ADMITTED upon information and beliefi
53. No answer required.
54. ADMITTED.
55. DENIED. It is specifically DENIED that Defendant String adjusted or modified the
stove in such a fashion as to cause the stove to be inoperable and a fire hazard to Plaintiffs'
home.
56. DENIED. It is specifically DENIED that the conduct of Defendant String has made
the stove inoperable and a fire hazard.
57. No answer required.
58. The allegations of Paragraph 58 are specifically DENIED. By way of further
answer, the averments of Paragraph 58 are scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken
summarily.
59. The allegations of Paragraph 59 amount to a conclusion of law to which no
respons!ve pleading is necessary. In addition, Defendant String does not understand the
allegation of Paragraph 59; the sentence appears to be an error.
60. The allegations of Paragraph 60 are specifically DENIED. By way of further
answer, the averments of Paragraph 60 are scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken
summarily.
61. The allegations of Paragraph 61 are specifically DENIED. By way of further
answer, the averments of Paragraph 61 are scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken
summarily.
10
62. The allegations of Paragraph 62 are specifically DENIED. By way of further
answer, the averments of Paragraph 562 are scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken
summarily.
63. The allegations of Paragraph 63 are specifically DENIED. By way of further
answer, the averments of Paragraph 563 are scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken
summarily.
WHEREFORE, Defendant String respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his
favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just.
NEW MATTER
64. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which punitive damages may be awarded.
65. Paragraphs 58, 59, 60 and 62 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint contain scandalous and
impertinent matter, including allegations that are inadmissible, prejudicial, untrue, irrelevant and
immaterial to the Plaintiffs' claims.
66. Upon information and belief, the stove that is the subject of this action remains
under warranty, with Plaintiffs have nearly an unlimited right to repairs and replacement;
accordingly, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to monetary damages.
67. The Plaintiffs themselves, or at least Plaintiff William J. Brunner, contributed to the
condition of the stove as described by the Plaintiffs because Plaintiff William J. Brunner
11
attempted to "fix" the stove himself, without proper training and supervision, thereby adversely
affecting the functioning of the stove.
WHEREFORE, Defendant String respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the
Complaint and enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with such other
relief as this Court deems just.
DATE: November 13, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
Sc~tt'~l'. W_~ I.D. Nor52660
Malatesta Ha-'Wke & McKeon
Harrisburg Energy Center
100 North Tenth Street
PO Box 1778
Harrisburg, PA 17105-1778
717-236-1300
Counsel for Defendant Dale String
12
VERIFICATION
I, Dale String, hereby verify that the statements made and the information provided in the
foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief
and that false statements are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. {}4904, relating to unsworn
falsifications to authorities.
DATED:
Dale String
,CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document upon the persons and
in the manner indicated below:
.Service by First Class Mail Addressed as Follows:
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
Griffie & Associates
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire
407 North Front Street
Cameron Mansion
Harrisburg, PA 17101
John B. Lieberman, Esquire
Zimmerman Lieberman Tamulonis &
Crossen
Post Office Box 238
Pottsville, PA 17901
DATED: November 13, 2002
sc'dh T. W O,..a -
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
VS.
KEYSTOKER, 1NC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-3099 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
PLAINTIFFS ANSWERS TO NEW MATTER
OF DEFENDANT DALE STRING
64. DENIED. The averments of Paragraph 64 amount to a conclusion of law to Which no
response is required to the extent it is to be deemed necessary to respond. Plaintiffs
DENY all averments of Paragraph 64.
65.
DENIED. It is DENIED that the averments set forth in Plaintiffs' Paragraphs 58, 59,
60 and 62 are - or impertinent. It is further DENIED that the allegations in Plaintiffs'
Paragraphs 58, 59, 60 and 62 are inadmissible, prejudicial, untrue, irrelevant or
immaterial to the Plaintiffs' claim.
66.
ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that stove is under warranty.
It is DENIED that the Plaintiffs have an unlimited right to repairs and replacement. It
is DENIED that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to monetary damages.
67.
DENIED. It is DENIED that either Plaintiff, or more particularly William J. Brunner,
contributed to the condition of this stove. It is DENIED that the Plaintiffs, or more
particularly William J. Brunner, took any action to "fix" the stove or in any other way
effect the operation of the stove. This is further DENIED that the actions of the
Plaintiffs, or more particularly William J. Brunner, in any way adversely effected the
functioning of the stove.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests Your Honorable Court to dismiss the Defendant
String's New Matter and enter a judgment for Plaintiffs as requested in their Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
r Plaintiffs
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
DATE:
NANCY~'RONN~R -
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
Mo
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
: NO. 02-3099 CIVIL TERM
:
: NO. 02-3166 CIVILTERM
:
: NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire, hereby certify that I did, the ~_~day of November, 2002,
cause a copy of Plaintiffs' Answers to New Matter to be served upon Defendants' attorneys of
record by first class mail, postage prepaid at the following addresses:
Scott T. Wyland, Esquire
Malatesta, Hawke & McKeon LLP
P.O. Box 1778
Harrisburg, PA 17105
John B. Lieberman, Esquire
Zimmerman, Lieberman, Tamulonis & Crossen
P.O. Box 238
Pottsville, PA 17901
Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire
407 North Front Street
Cameron Mansion
Harrisburg, PA 17101
DATE:
IE & ASSOCIATES
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717)243-5551
(800)347-5552
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
Vo
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-3099 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION AND JOINT HEARINC
AND NOW comes Petitioner, Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire, and petitions the Court as
follows:
Your Petitioner is attorney of record for the above named Plaintiffs, William J.
Brunner and Nancy Brunner.
Defendant, Keystoker, Inc., is represented by John B. Lieberman, Esquire,
Zimmerman, Lieberman, Tamulonis & Crossen, P.O. Box 238, Pottsville, PA 17901.
Defendant, Vicky Gilbert, t/d/b/a Coal Energy Plus, is represented by Anthony T.
McBet, Esquire, 407 North Front Street, Cameron Mansion, Harrisburg, PA 17101.
Defendant, Dale String, is represented by Scott T. Wyland, Esquire, Malatesta,
Hawke & McKeon LLP, P.O. Box 1778, Harrisburg, PA 17105.
The actions docketed as indicated above were filed pursuant to each Defendant
individually filing an appeal to a District Justice decision that was a result of a prior
hearing before the District Justice wherein Plaintiff is the same Plaintiff as named
herein and the three Defendants were the three Defendants named in the prior District
Justice proceeding.
o
All pleadings in this matter have included the above caption referencing all three civil
actions that resulted in securing different docket numbers solely based upon the
separate appeals filed by the three Defendants.
7. The matter is now ripe for hearing.
o
The parties and the issues
transactions or events.
of law and fact in this
case are raised from the same
o
Consolidating this matter for trial will
matter.
avoid unnecessary costs and delay in this
10.
Counsel for the three Defendants each concur in the consolidation in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court to enter an Order consolidating
the cases and ordering a joint trial before a board of arbitrators following the filing of a Motion
for Appointment of Arbitrators and the filing of the required filing fee for one action to be heard
by the Board of Arbitrators.
Respefffully submitted,
~~--~~. s;quire
~.~f~ney for Plainti~Petitioner
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the, penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
: 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
30~ ~
NO. 02~,099 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
RULE 1312-1. The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the following form:
PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
respectfully represents that:
counsel for the plaintiff/ .... n~an. in the above ~-*;^- (or actions),
The above-captioned action (er actions) is (are) at issue.
The claim of the plaintiff in this action is $ 2,436.70, plus costs, fees, interest attorney's fees
and punitive damages
The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is $ 0.00
The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators:
John B. Lieberman, Esquire, Scott T. Wyland, Esquire, and Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire
WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint thee (3) arbitrators to whom the case
shall be submitted.
uire
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, ~:i'~.¢rxx.'~./ c~4 ,-~!00_Y, in consideration of the
foregoing petition, ~_-.~ &~, '~.~~, Esq., ~ff'.,:z~ d~d~ ,
~E;,q: a:d ;~/~7 (xJ ~~, , ~S~l. are appointed arbitrators in the i;ove c~ptioned
,~,ivn t~,r actions) as prayed f6r.
BY THE COURTo
ViNVA'I,k~'4N -"3d
~illiam J. Brunner and Nancy ~runner,~
Plaintiffs
V.
Keystoker, Inc., Vicky Gilbert
t/d/b/a Coal Enerty Plus, and
_Dale StrOh?
Defendants
)
)
Cumberl~d Co~uty, Pem~sylvauia
No. ,_02-3097
02-3166
02-3176~'
We do aolo-~ly maear (or affirm) that ye vtll support, obey and defend
· he Constitution of the ~ted S~Ceo ~d the Co~tt~c~ou of Ch~s ~n-
vealch nd thc ye ~11 dtscharse the duC~eo of our of~ce with fidelity.
Daniel. K Deardorff,
~~C~s i~y', ~rb i t r a t o r
A~ Marie Coy~e, Arbitrator
We, ~he ~ders~ed arbitrators, hav~ng been duly.appointed a~ ~o~
(or .'~f~ed), mke the foll~ award: .. ~ .' '
(ao~e: Xf dmsu for dehy are awarded, they
separately stat~.) . ...
Danie~K. ard rff,
' '
. ~ //~ ~
oyne,
NOTI~ OF ~R~AW~ /
Now, the ~/~ day of ~7~/ , 1~?~, at/~:o~-~, A.M., the above
award was entered upon the d~ocke£ and notice thereof g~tven b~'-mai! co the
parties or their attorneys,
Arbitrators' compensation to be
paid upon appeal:
By: ?f.L~ £,
P~o~ho~o~tary
D~uty
W~lliam J. Brunner and Nancy Brunner,~
Plaintiffs
Keystoker, Inc., Vicky Gilbert
t/d/b/a Coal Enerty Plus, and
_Dale Str~n~,
Defendants
)
Cu~erl~nd Couuty, Pennsylvania
NO. L02-3097
02-3166 '
02-31
~e do oolemnly swear (or affirm) that we viii support, obey and defend
the Con~t~tution of the U~lted St~es ~d ~he Co~t~on of th~s ~n-
wealth ~d t~' we ~1~ d~scharge ~he du~es of our of
~ v~th f~del~ty.
Daniel. ~ Dea~do~, ~~m ·
_ ~i~ Marie Coy~e,-Arbitrator
AW~ --
We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly.appointed ~nd sworn
(or .'affirmed), make th· following avard: .... ".: .' : '
(Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they
aeparately stated.) -..' .. -, .,
· Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if
applicable. )
I D~__~e 1~ K. ]p~ard_~r f f, Chat~
NOTI~ OF ~~A~
N~, the 2/~ day of ~ ~, at/$.05 , ~.H., the above
~rd ~s entered upon the t and notice thereof given bTmil co the
par~i~ or their at~o~eys.
Arbitrators' compensation to be ' ~Z~'
paid upon appeal: -
P~;o~ho~~ary
D~puty
W~lliam J. B~unner and Nancy Brunner,~
Plaintiffs
Keystoker, Inc., Vicky Gilbert
t/d/b/a Coal Enerty Plus, and
_Dale StrJn~
Defendants
OATH
tn The ~ourt of Co~on Pleas of
~herland County, Penn~ylvanie
No... , 02-3097
02-3166
02-3176~'
We do oolemnly ewear (or affirm) that we will support, obey a~ defend
~e ~C~u~on of the ~ted S~eo ~d ~he Co~ti~on of ~S8 ~n-
veal~h nd ~ht ye v~ll d~ochar~e the eu~ies of our of
'~ e~th ~deli~.
Daniel. K Deardorff, ~~
A~ Marie e,- Arbitrator
We, the undersigned arbitrators, havenS: been duly.appoinced and 8vorn
(or .'affir~ed), ~ake the following award: ' .. "...'' ·
(Note: If d~g~ for de~y are awarded, they 8~11. be:
separately 8~ced.) '..
applicable.) . ~rb~craCor, dlssenCs.
DaCe Of A~rd:
~isa~arie ~yne, ~rbitrator
NOTI~ OF ~R~AW~ ' /
~rd ~s entered upon the t and .... '
par~ or their atto~eys.
Arbitrators' compensation to be
paid upon appeal:
P~:o~ho~o~ary
D~puty
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and
NANCY BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 02-3097 CIVIL TERM
:
: NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
: NO. 02-3176 CIVILTERM
PRAECIPE
Please mark the judgment entered in the above captioned action against Defendant
Keystoker, Inc., as satisfied and settled.
Respectfully submitted,
~, Esfitffire
x'-----'~gTForney for Plaintiff
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
WILLLAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY
BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
tYdgo/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-3097 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter judgment for Defendant, Dale String, and against Plaintiffs William J.
Brunner and Nancy Brurmer, in accordance with the Arbitrator's Award dated April 21, 2003. A
copy of the Arbitrator's Award is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein
by reference.
DATE: July 2, 2003
Judgment as entered above.
Harrisburg Energy Center
100 North Tenth Street
PO Box 1778
Harrisburg, PA 17105-1778
717-236-1300
Counsel for Defendant Dale String
Prothonotary
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY
BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
ffd/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-3097 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
TO: WILLIAM J. BRUNNER, Plaintiff
You are hereby notified that onJL~ Ix/ J>
entered against you in the above-captioned cas~.
,2003, the following Judgment was
Judgment for Dale String and against you, on your claim.
DATE: '7/J 9/~ Prothonotary
I hereby certify that the name and address of the proper person(s) to receive this notice is:
William J. Brunner
c/o Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
A WILLIAM J. BRUNNER, Demandante
Por este medio so le esta notificando que el de
el/la siguiento Fallo ha sido en contra suya en el caso mencionado en el epigrafe.
,2003,
FECHA:
Protonotario
Certifico que la siguiente direccion es la del defendido/a segun indicada en el certificado
de residencia:
William J. Brtmner
c/o Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Abogado del Demandante
WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY
BRUNNER,
Plaintiffs
KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT,
t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and
DALE STRING,
Defendants
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-3097 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM
NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM
TO: NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiff
You are hereby notified that on ~x/
entered against you in the above-captioned case.'
,2003, the following Judgment was
Judgment for Dale String and against you, on your claim.
DATE: 7/j ~/~
I hereby certify that the name and address of the proper person(s) to receive this notice is:
Nancy Brenner
c/o Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
A WILLIAM J. BRUNNER, Demandante
Por este medio so le esta notificando que el de
el/la siguiento Fallo ha sido en contra suya en el caso mencionado en el epigrafe.
,2003,
FECHA:
Protonotario
Certifico que la siguiente direccion es la del defendido/a segun indicada en el certificado
de residencia:
Nancy Bnmner
c/o Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Abogado del Demandante
William J.
Keystoker, Inc., Vicky Gilbert
t/d/b/a Coal Enerty Plus, and
Dale
Defendants
Brunner and Nancy Brenner,)
Plaintiffs ~
)
Cu~erl~nd C~aoty, Pgnnaylvanim
No. ., 02-3097 x~.~.
02-3166
02-3!76-~
applicable. )
..~ate of Hearing:
Date of Award:
We do solely ~wear (or affirm) that we will ~upport, obey and defend
wealth ~d t~t we will di~ch~rg~ :h~ duties of ~6r office with fidelity.
Dani&l. K Deardorff,
~aeL-,~ C~sidy, Arbitrator
a e,"
We, ~he ~der~i~ed arbitrators, having be~ d~Iy appoinuad
(or .'~fi~ed), ~ke the fo!l~g ~ward: ' ..'
... (Note: If d~g~ for de~y are awarded, they s]~ll b~.qI'_.. -~ · ~./
?
· Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if
Now, the ~/~ day of . ~3, at /~ 3 , 1~ M the above
award w~s ~eutered upon the d~ocket and notice thereof given by mai1 to the
parties or their a~torneys.
Arbitrators' compemsation to be
paid upon appeal: