HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-01622
"':
.-,
,",'
oJ,
~.
~
. '- :
0':
.
I/)
7
1
-(
~
.d
-
J
~
{!
J
(7)
(""0
3
-- ,=
\..)
,/-'-"",
i .....
,- '
I " \
.-;-"
21.
COCCIARDI AND ASSOCIATES, INC, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V
DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL
NO, 95.1622 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, February 201996, counsel having failed to call the above
case for trial, the case is stricken from the March Term 1996 trial list. Counsel may
rellst the case for trial when ready.
By the Court,
I - ~.,.,
(--,.: Ii
\, eLL, _.,
arold E, Sheely, .J.
Glenn R. Davis, Esq.
For the Plaintiff
~\\a.u
a d,.h .C\v
Pro Se
For the Defendant
Court AdminIstrator
:br
(") c? 0
f~ C". .n
~_. -" ::;3
tji ::-', -., ,-;;:!1
,~J
.~_. ...1 -~
.''''t.' ",
t"; . ..: ~
1'-' ,'.J
~~: .' --=10
~~: 1::11
.."'; .- :]h
~~ ~:~ '8 --m
~:.)
:;-.,
- , ~".i
'.~
-, CO -,
~
",.. ~
COCCIARDI AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA
v. CIVIL ACfION NO. 95-1622
DIRECf ENVIRONMENTAL
Defendant
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Cocciardi and Associates, Inc., by its attorneys
Latsha & Capozzi, P.c., and hereby complains against the above-named defendant as
follows:
1, Plaintiff Cocciardi and Associates, Inc. (hereinafter "Cocciardi") is a
corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with
principal offices located at 4823 East Trindle Road, Suite 100, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055.
2. Defendant, Direct Environmental, Inc. (hereinafter "Direct
Environmental") upon information believed, is a corporation authorized to do business
in Pennsylvania, incorporated under the laws of the state of New Jersey with principal
address of 175 Quincy Court, Hopelawn, NJ 08861.
3. Direct Environmental trades and does business in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and at the time of the filing of the writ of summons in this matter, had
offices located in both Mechanicsburg and Scranton, Pennsylvania.
4, Cocciardi provides training and consulting services in the safety, health
and environmental areas,
.
<II
...
5. Between early 1994 and present, Cocciardi provided health, safety and
environmental consulting services to Direct Environmental at the request of Direct
Environmental, Inc.
6. On December 27,1993, Cocciardi issued an engagement letter to Direct
Environmental which outlined the certain services to be provided by Cocciardi to Direct
Environmental at the Mountville Remediation Project. (Exhibit No.1)
7. By letter dated May 9, 1994 Cocciardi summarized the consulting
activities it performed, to date, at the Ford New Holland plant at the request of and on
behalf of Direct Environmental. (Exhibit No.2)
8. Cocciardi performed consulting work at the request of and on behalf of
Direct Environmental at the Ford New Holland project as further identified in Invoice
#94300 dated March 1, 1994, Invoice #94313 dated March 16, 1994, Invoice #94326 dated
March 31,1994 and Invoice #94345 dated April 30, 1994. (collectively attached as
Exhibit No.3)
9. The above referenced invoices represent consulting services performed by
Cocciardi on behalf of Direct Environmental in the amount of $10,410 which are and
remain unpaid by Direct Environmental, Inc.
10. On or about April 15, 1994 Cocciardi provided an eight (8) hour asbestos
refresher training course to Scott Bury of Direct Environmental at the request of Direct
Environmental.
2
...
<II
11. The asbcstos rcfrcsher coursc was providcd by Cocciardi to Dircct
Environmental at thc standard invoice publishcd rate of $195/pcr participant as further
cvidenced by Invoicc #94354 dated April 30, 1994. (Exhibit No.4)
12. On or about May 26, 1994 Cocciardi providcd hazardous
waste/ cmergency response refreshcr class training to Allen Bubacz and Charlcs Kelly
of Dircct Environmental at thc rcqucst of Direct Environmental.
13. The hazardous waste and emergency response rcfreshcr course was
provided by Cocciardi to Direct Environmental at the standard invoice published rate
pcr participant as identified on and cvidenced by Invoice #94390 dated March 31, 1994.
(Exhibit No.5)
14. Direct Environmental has not made payout to Cocciardi for services
provided under Invoices #94354 and #94390 in the amount of $585.00.
15. By letter dated May 11, 1994 Cocciardi provided Direct Environmcntal
with a proposal of asbestos related services to be providcd at thc Stcamtown National
Historic Site by Cocciardi on bchalf of Dircct Environmcntal (Exhibit No.6).
16. Cocciardi performed consulting work at thc request of and on behalf of
Direct Environmental, under thc terms of the proposal.
17. Cocciardi provided professional services to Direct Environmental under
thc aforestated proposal at thc Stcamtown National Historic Sitc as set forth in Invoice
#94405 dated June 27, 1994, Invoicc #94500 datcd Septcmber 30,1994, Invoicc #94501
:I
;:
"
;
dated September 30, 1994, Invoicc #94519 datcd October 30,1994, Invoicc #94520 dated
October 30, 1994 and Invoice #94574 datcd Septembcr 14, 1994. (Exhibit No. 7)
18. Thc consulting scrviccs provided by Cocciardi to Direct Environmental as
f
set forth in the aforestated invoiccs in the total amount of $18,970.00 remain unpaid.
19. By letter datcd August 3, 1994, Cocciardi provided Direct Environmental
with an inspection report and analysis for the U.S. Naval Reserve Center, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Rcading, PA, for work performed by Cocciardi at the
direction of Direct Environmental. (Exhibit No.8)
20. Cocciardi performcd consulting work at the request of and on behalf of
Direct Environmental at the Reading Naval Reserve Center as set forth in Invoice #
94469 dated August 31, 1994 and Invoice # 94420 dated July 25, 1994. (Exhibit No.9)
21. The aforestated invoices in the amount of $2,132.00 for work performed
by Cocciardi on behalf of Direct Environmental at the Rcading Naval Reserve Center
remain outstanding and unpaid.
22. By letter dated June 1, 1994, Cocciardi provided Direct Environmental
with a proposal for work to be performcd for Direct Environmental at the Dodge Cork
location in York, Pennsylvania. (Exhibit No. 10)
23. Cocciardi performcd consulting work at the request of and on behalf of
Direct Environmental at the Dodge Cork location as set forth in Invoice #94440 dated
August 10, 1994. (Exhbit No. 11)
4
~
.
24. By Icttcr dated August 9,1994, Cocciardi providcd a proposal for scrvices
to bc providcd on bchalf of Direct Environmental at the Dodge Cork building locatcd
in Lancaster, Pcnnsylvania. (Exhibit No. 12)
25. Cocciardi performcd consulting work at thc rcquest of and on behalf of
Dircct Environmental at thc Dodge Cork, Lancastcr location as set forth in Invoicc
#94470 datcd August 31, 1994. (Exhibit 13)
26. Thc aforestated invoices in paragraphs 23 and 25 for services provided by
Cocciardi to Direct Environmental for Dodgc Cork in thc amount of $9,978.00 remain
outstanding and unpaid.
27. At the direction of Direct Environmcntal, Cocciardi provided it with
consulting services at Lettcrkenny Arsenal Building #370, to be performcd at
Cocciardi's current standard billing rates effective that date.
28. Cocciardi performed consulting work at the request of and on behalf of
Direct Environmental at the Letterkcnny Arsenal as set forth in Invoice # 94504 dated
September 30,1994. (Exhibit No. 14)
29. The aforestated invoice for services provided by Cocciardi to Direct
Environmental for Letterkenny Arsenal in the amount of $8,120.00 remains outstanding
and unpaid.
30. On or about Octobcr , 1994, Direct Environmental rcquested and rented
from Cocciardi, self-contained breathing apparatus and spare cylinders at a rate of
$50jday per unit.
5
4
31. By Invoice #94573 dated Decembcr 12,1994. Cocciardi billcd Direct
Environmcntal for the rental of the self-contained breathing apparatus. (Exhibit No. 15)
32. Invoice # 94573 in the amount of $400.00 rcmains outstanding and unpaid
by Direct Environmental.
33. On or about January 23, 1995, Cocciardi providcd a HAZMA T, refresher
training course for one Direct Environmental cmploycc, at thc rcquest of Direct
Environmental at the ratc of $195.00 pcr participant.
34. By Invoice # 94628 datcd January 31. 1995, Cocciardi billed Dircct
Environmental for the training coursc services. (Exhibit No. 16)
35. On or about February 28, 1995, Cocciardi provided a HAZMA T refresher
training course for one Direct Environmental employee as set forth in Invoice #94655 in
the amount of $195.00 pcr participant. (Exhibit No. 17)
36. On March 15, 1995, Cocciardi provided an eight-hour asbestos supervisor
refresher course for two students of Direct Environmental as set forth in Invoice #94668.
(Exhibit No. 18)
37. Invoice # 94628 and Invoice # 94655 in the amount of $390.00 remain
outstanding and unpaid by Direct Environmental
38. The total services provided by Cocciardi to Direct Environmental as
evidenced in the aforestated paragraphs and as further evidenced in Exhibits 1-18 totals
$51,485.00 and remain outstanding and unpaid.
(,
.
C ~dSS~~~I
~
-
-.
Safety · Health · Environmental
Training and Consulting
..........
c~rp..::'J::: '.:"Ir:.:~
~d:J E. T~r.Jl.:: iQ.2d. :iuil.: t~l'
~lech'~lClburJ. P.~ 1,0"
(71:'\ -::.-,.-, . F."-'= i~t~. ..:1.:::-....
','nhe.n Rog,or..1 Ope..no",
-21 S Pcnn~.I\~r:I.2 .\venue. Suu-= :C~
\\'ilke,.8me. P.~ 1~;02
1:'1;0; S:-".32+2 . F..\..'\ (;"1:"1 ;i23.8~~~
May 9, 1994
Mr. Scott Bury .
Direct Environmental
703-C Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
RE: Job ~94-5458
Ford New Eolla~d Project, Mountville, PA
Dear .lo'.r. Bu:y:
The followinc s~~arizes activities oe=formed at the Ford New
Eolland plant, located in Mountville: Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. On-site activities conducted by Direct
~nvironmental were observed and recorded bv Cocciardi and
Associates, Inc., a~d performed in compliance with applicable
Occuoational Sa=etv and Health Administrations S~andards:
29CFR1910 (General-:r.dustry) and 29CFR1925 (Construction).
Confined Space E~t=-~ ?=ocedures, sa=ety briefings, record
keeping, lock c~t/tag out, air monitoring, and daily safety and
~ealth activi~ies were performed by Cocciardi and Associates,
:nc., on site. During the project no ~ost time accidents or
injuries were recorded. Subsequently, no recommendations
relative to project safety and health are being made at this
time.
Permits, as =e~~ired by 29CFR1910.146, and the Job Safety Log are
attached with this correspondence. Additionally, these will be
kept on file for a period of 40 years, as required by the U.S.
Department of Labor standards at Cocciardi and Associates, Inc.,
4823 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
17055.
.
May 9, 1994
Mr. Scott Bury
pe,ge 2
CERTIFICATION
The information contained in this report is believed to be
accurate and true to the best knowledge of the inspector(s).
Findings and recommendations for this investigation are based on
the observations of the conditions as they existed at that time.
The inspector(s) and cocciardi and Associates, Inc., assumes no
liability for financial or health consequences due to actions or
lack of actions taken by the client as a result of this
inspection.
please feel free to contact me, if any additional information is
needed concerning this project.
Sir.cerely,
7~S-/~
Timothy S. Livingston
Safety and Health Officer
Cocciarci.and Associates, Inc.
._60- / d
..~~..vAC/..::/ /~4h"',/$~&:/,
Joseph'A. Coccia:di, MS, CSP
Cocciardi and ~~sociates, Inc.
TSL/ cw / :==:i:ll:. ~.=
;,,:~t.achments
COCCIARDI , ASSOCI.An:S, INC.
4823 E. TRINDLE ROAD
SOITE 100
HECBANICSBORG, PA 17055
(717) 763-7475
Direct Environmental, Inc.
4400 Lewis Rd., Suite E-1
Harrisburg, PA 17111
INVOICE NUMBER:
INVOICE DATE:
DOE DATE:
94313
03/16/94
04/15/94
INVOICE
Cust. it 0059
Per 12/7/93 Quote of services.
Mountvil1e Services: 2/28/94 - 3/8/94:
58 hours @ $40: $2320
1 H2S Test @ $10: 10
2,330.00
TOT.U
2,330.0C
1.5~ I~terest charged af~er 30 days.
.
COCCIARDI , ASSOCIATES, IHC.
4823 E. TRINDLE ROAD
SUITE 100
HECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
(717) 763-7475
Direct Environmental, Inc.
4400 Lewis Rd., Suite E-1
Harrisburg, PA 17111
INVOICE NUMBER: 94326
INVOICE DA~: 03/31/94
DUE DATE: 04/30/94
INVOICE
-------
Cust. ~ 0059 .
Ford New Holland
On-site Time a:31 and ~ : 16 hrs @ $40/hr
.3/f -r" ..:j 3.:;
640.00
TO'rAL
1.5~ !n~e=est chargee afcer 30 days
640.00
EXHIBIT "4"
EXHIBIT "6"
--
~b -p. qlf- 55' 1'1
C ~dS~~~~I
@@~~[rn1frn[ID
Safety · Health . Environmental
Training and Consulting
\ - I '. . ..
~ .~. . . ~ I .' .'
C""p"fJr.: om"t:
.l.d!3 E. Tnndl.: ROJJ. ,L1Ut: 1\.'1.'
~lt~hJnil,;;buf!:. P.\ I'"\,"H
;~I;". ~t")......:~ . F.\.\ \jl~ .~j.:,:",..'
~~nnC"JS' Ros'~nJI Op",,"un,
i21 s. Pcnnsyl,...nl. .\,.enuc. SUil. !06
W,lk,,,.UJm:, P.\ 1~702
,<I" ~li.l2i2 . FAX l<In ~l)-'l~2'
May 11, 1994
TO:
Jim Jenkins
Direct EnViro~~al.-
Joe Cocciardi 'CIJ.rlr.l J!. a~ecI11JJBcsP
Proposal of As.est~~:t~ted Services / .
Kane and William's Buildings
Steamtown National Historic Site, Scranton, PA
Bid 94-0901
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Enclosed with this correspondence please find pricing. for
Cocciardi and Associates to provide various services discussed
May 4, 1994, at your location relative to the asbestos removal
project at the Steamtown National Historic Site (SNHS). Services
include the provision of training if required, the provision of a
Certified Industrial Hygenist, the review and submittal of
various safety, respiratory protection, and equipment
specifications as required by the National Park Service,
preparation of an asbestos hazard abatement plan and the
certification of same by USEP Licensed Project Designer, and the
provision of air sampling on-site to document compliance with
this program. Of note, you may wish to address paragraph H,
Sections 02080-15 of STEA-102H-R (asbestos) [sampling after final
cleanup]. This section requires the use of transmission electron
microscopy (TEM) to analyze clearance samples. A TEM procedure
is used to compliment phase contract microscopy and yields fiber
counts on filters. The result is a total asbestos fiber count.
Subsequently, you may wish to modify Section H to match TEM
samples to pre-job samples, or establish a pre-job correlation
between the amount of total fibers recorded on pre-job samples
and the quantity of asbestos fibers yielded by the TEM.
As your timeframe may be tight for the provision of training and
scheduling these activities, please contact me at your earliest
convenience if you wish me to initiate the preparation of
submittals for this project.
JAC/ktj
Attachments as stated
.
Steamtown National Historic site (SNBS)
* Training on-site or at the University of Scranton
CPA D.O.L.I. and USEPA Certified supervisor Contractor
Training] 40 hours (Class size of 12) $ 49S/person
* provision of a Certified Industrial Hygenist for
contract direction [Certificate '4488] 8 hours at $120 $ 960 estimate
* Preparation of Required submittals, to include review
of ANSIZ88.2 respirator program; NPS Request to Use
Respirators; equipment and work plan specifications;
MSDS compilation; landfill and medical information
submittals; testing laboratory submittals; [Note: This
includes EPA and PA DOLI project design certification];
NESHAPS permit; EPA Region III notification and
associated clerical time; development of a site HASP
and accident prevention program as required.
32 hours at $120 $3,840 estimate
*
On-site Industrial Hygiene Services
Air Sampling (to include pumps, calibration,
filter media and NIOSH 7400 analysis).
16 hours turn around time
$ SO/hour
*
$ 48/sample
Provision of negative pressure manometery
equipment, if required
Additional time and services may be bid/priced from
the attached work sheet.
$ SOO/wk/unit
*
Please feel free to contact me if any additional
information is necessary.
Contact me as soon as possible if you
initiate the compilation of submittal
work plans.
~.
Y.4~~'~&.
seph A. Cocciardi, M.S., C.S.P.
wish me to
documentation
.. ..;~.;...~q;~
..
COCCIARDI & ASSOC~S, INC.
4823 E. 'lRINDLE ROAD
SOI'rE 100
HECRANICSBtJRG, PA 17055
(717) 763-7475
D.i.rect Environmental, Inc.
703-C Simpson Street
Mechanicsburq, PA 17055
INVOICE NtlHBER:
INVOICE DA'rE:
DOE DUE:
94500
09/30/94
10/30/94
"
INVOICE
Customer it 0059
Job it 94-5519
Kane and Williams - NPS - Additional Pb Samplinq
Steamtown NUS
iIle/Materials:
18 hrs @ $65/hr = $
5 samples $48/each =
Report Prep/Document =
1,170.00
240.00
260.00
1,670.00
TOTAL
1,670.00
1.5 finance charge after 30 days
. .
COCCIARDI , ASSOCIATES, INC.
4823 E. TRINDLE ROAD
SOITE 100
HECHANICSBORG, PA 17055
(717) 763-7475
Direct Environmental, Inc.
703-C Simpson Street
Mechani.csburq, PA 17055
INVOICE
Customer # 0059
Job # 94-5519
Kane/Williams: Site Safety Work per 5/11/94 proposal
of services:
Je (HSO) - 113 hrs @ $50/hr =
McCombie (HSO) - l2 hrs @ $50/hr =
Cocciardi (CSP)- 4 hrs @ $50/hr =
Samples (x39) @ $48/each -
Monometerinq Equip- 1 week ($500/e)=
$ 5,650.00
600.00
200.00
1,872.00
1,000.00
INVOICE NOMBER:
INVOICE DA!L'E:
DOE OME:
. .
TOTAL
l.5 finance charge after 30 days
9450l
09/30/94
10/30/94
9,322.00
9,322.00
. .
COCCIARDI , ASSOC:tM:ES, INC.
4823 E. rrRINDLE ROAD
SUITE 100
HECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
(717) 763-7475
Direct EnvironmentAl., Inc.
120 Franklin Avenue
PO Box 193
Scranton, PA 18503
INVOICE NUHBER:
INVOICE DA!rE:
DUE DA!rE:
94519
10/30/94
11/29.'94
INVOICE
-------
Customer #< 0262
Job it 94-5519
Kane & Williams - Additional Asbestos Sampling -
Steamtown
1,602.00
TOTAL
1,602.00
1.5 finance charge after 30 days
C ~dSS~~~I
~(ii!~nllmn Ri?Rm
Ii: \:.t'L\.w u l1lS U ISL!I
Safe[\.' · Health · Environmental
Training and Consulting
COrp.lrJIO OITI~o
"~:3 E. TrinJI. Ro,c!. .ull. l~l'
~I<<h.a:ucsb\:r~ P." l:a~',
,:"1:-\ ~o3.:..-~ . F..\..X ~;'1~' ~~3.:~d\l
~orth.:~t R<~'..:r.Jl Up~rJCh)nl
+21 S. Pcnnsyh-:nl.a .\,"cnuc. SUitt :~::
wllk.,.8Jrrc. P.\ l~~~~
\i1:". ~!"".)~...: . ;.l,.\ \. -1i) ~!J.!~!~
August 3, 1994
Mr. Scott Bury
Direct Environmental, Inc.
703-C West Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
RE: Job #94-5522
Project Design
Asbestos Removal (Underground Seorage Tank Removal Project)
u.s. Naval Reserve Center, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Reading, Pennsylvania
BAClCGROUND
On July 20, 1994, an on-site inspeceion was performed at the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, U.s. Naval Reserve Center, Reading,
Pennsylvania for the purpose of Project Design for Asbestos
Insulation Removal about and around an underground storage tank in
the parking loe area of the facility (Reading).
This project design complies with requirements of the Pennsylvania
Department of Labor and Industry, (Asbestos Occupations
Accreditation Act) and the Asbestos School Hazards Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1990.
Additionally, compliance with the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air pollutants, Asbestos Renovation Project Design
permitting requirements (Project Designer certification) are also
met.
SI'J'B ANALYSIS
The asbestos containing materials at the aforementioned facility
(Reading, Pennsylvania) consist of up to two 1/2" oil supply and
return lines. These lines initiate the manhole adjacent to an
unde=gr~und storage ta~k in the parking lot area ae Reading. They
=~~ ~~ca=~=~~~ ~h: =a=k~~g :=~ {a===oxL"a~ely 4 f~. in d=o~h' ~o
:~a ~e~ha~ical =oom. of the s~=uci~=e. !~ aooears that asbe~~os
co~taining materials ~ere used as insulation "between the exterior
::letal coating and the interior pi-ping in the supply and return
runs. The following procedures ~ere designed in compliance with
Section 2055 (Title II) 0: AS~~~;/~~E~~, and the Asbestos
Oc=~~at!o~s A===e~i~~~io~ ~=~, ~~~~==ed bv ~he Pe~~svl~ania
- .-
-.=--~--~.::.-- :: :.:!.::-:= a:-.= ::",.=,'.:.;~=-_.'.
--::-- -...-....
The laboratory information
containing material is found
Demolition/Renovation permit
format in Appendix B.
concerning the regulated asbestos
attached at Appendix A. The required
for these activities is found in draft
pROCEDOR!fS
The following procedures are designed for safe removal of asbestos
containing materials at Reading:
A. Submit NESHAPS/PA DOLI permit, as required.
B. Perform all regulated removal in compliance with 29CFR1926.58
(Appendix G) small scale - short duration procedures which
include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Remove manhole from parking lot area, establish negative
pressure with HEPA vacuum system and install critical
barrier at/about manhole entrance.
2. Enter manhole following Confined Space Entry Procedures
as required in 29CFRl9l0.146.
3. Wet down all debris in manhole using an amended water
solution. Remove approximately 3/4" of asbestos
containing debris and soils from this manhole.
4. Perform regulated transponation and disposal in
compliance with NESHAPS permit previously identified.
5. Cap both ends of supply and return lines with
approximately 12 mils. of poly and duct tape.
6. Remove or excavate lines and wrap entire metal casing in
approximately 12 mils. of poly. Label with appropriate
U.S. EPA/U.S. DOT/OSHA Danger and Transportation
Labelling requirements. Transport and dispose of
regulated asbestos containing materials (friable).
7. perform air monitoring during the project in compliance
with 29CFR1926.58 requirements for personal air sampling.
Perform pre/post air sampling, document clean (less than
.01 f/cc) levels of asbestos at the completion of this
project. It is recommended that three soil samples
additionally be taken and analyzed by either polarized
light or transmission electron microscopy in the area
directly under the pipes to document the asbestos free
nature of soils adjacent to the pipes.
C. All removal practices sho~ld be perfo~ed by a Pennsylvania
De~ar~~en~ of Labor and :nd~s~=y licensed contrac~or, and an
a~;ro~=ia~= s~=e~~iso= shc~lc be en site a~ all times. ~l
wo:ke:s sho~ld-be licensed in comoliance with Section 206S of
Title :I 0: the ~~ERA/AS~~~, Ail air monitoring should be
perforrr,ed by an independent licensed contractor.
D. Note: In the event cutting of the pipes is necessary for
removal practices, the pipes should be placed under negative
pressure with a HEPA vacuum from each end while cutting is
occurring. The pipe should then be wetted and cut and both
ends and the entire casing enclosed with 12 mils. of poly for
disposal.
ClfR'.rIPICA'J.'ION
The information contained in this report is believed to be accurate
and true to the best knowledge of the inspector(s). Findings and
recommendations for this investigation are based on the
observations of the conditions as they existed at that time. The
inspector(s) and Cocciardi and Associates, Inc., assumes no
liability for financial or health consequences due to actions or
lack of actions taken by the client as a result of this inspection.
(jU,rJ 4 ~~J1-jl;q&.
Joseph A. Cocciardi, M.S., C.S.P.
cocciardi and Associates, Inc.
Asbestos Managemen~ Planner #003714
Asbestos Project Designer #002672
JAC/hbl =.pon.\u...vy.wc
TOTAL
1,500.00
COCCIARDI , ASSOC~S, INC.
4823 E. TRINDLE ROAD
SUITE 100
HECHANICSBtJRG, PA 17055
(717) 763-7475
Direct Environmental, Inc.
703-C Simpson St:eet
Mechan.i.csburg, PA 17055
INVOICE NlJHBER:
INVOICE DATE:
DUE DATE:
94420
07/25/94
08/24/94
.'.
INVOICE
-------
Customer #0059
Job No. 94-5522
purchase O:der No. Letter dated 5/13/94
U.S. Navy Piping Asbestos Insulation Removal Project Des
1,500.00
1.5\ Interest Charged After 30 Days
C ~dS~~~~I
@@/JjfJn; .
lr~l$illi7!J
Safet\. · Health . Environmentll
Training and Consulting
Corporoce Office
~823 E. Tnndl. Ilo.J. Suite 103~
M..h>nicsburg. p,~ 1;0"
m;) ,63.,"" . F......X (n;' ;,j).20803
S~rCn."1 RoSton.1 Opcrodons
~21 S. Pcnnsylwn13 Avenue. Sun. 2~o
Wilke,.8'lTe. p,~ 18,01
(,In ~2~.J2~1 . FA..( (7lil 823-8921
June 1, 1994
Hr. Scott Bury
Direct Environmental, Inc.
703-C Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
RE: Bid #94-0916
Quote of Services - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry Certified
Asbestos Containing Materials Inspection and Project Design
Dear Hr. Bury:
Below listed please find a scope for services and costs to
provide a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and ?ennsylvania
Department of Labor and Industry Certified Asbestos Inspection,
sample taking, NESHAPS report completion and certified project
design for the Dodge Cork location discussed, York, Pennsylvania.
Costs are as follows:
1-
2.
3.
4.
Asbestos Inspection:
Samples:
Project Design:
NESHAPS (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Pennsylvania Department of
Labor and Industry/PACER Bureau of
Air Quality Management) permit
preparation and submission:
$1,500.00
28.00/per sample
960.00
400.00
Cocciardi and Associates, Inc., is a full service Health, Safety
and Environmental Consulting company, with experience in the
areas of asbestos inspection, management planning and project
design.
All work is done in compliance with both the Toxic Substances
Control Act and the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry
Asbestos Occupations and Accreditation Act.
C ~dS~~~~~I
Safetv . Health · Environmental
Training and Consulting
C"rp"r;uc Cli1':~
+8:3 e, rnn~:t !tuJ. ::UItC l~\.'
~l<cnJr.I<lbl:r;. P.\ 1-:"
I ~l:' ~cij.:,"-"~ . F:.:, :-t.. -~;'.:,,~~\.\
:-Oonhust R.:s,,'n,1 Op...'icn,
-+21 ~. P~nn;Y"';Jnl.2 .\\'cnuc. 5uit~ .:.~C"
Wllkcs-8JrTe. P.\ IS,~~
.;'1:"'. ::~.jl~: . ;:.~\ ..7'l:-~=:j.::.::-
.'
-
August 9, 1994
-.
"'-,;. '.
-.,;- .
. ,.' ..
....
Mr. Scott Bury
Direct Environmental, Inc.
703-C West Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
RE: Job #94-5556 (part II)
procosal of Services
On .Site Air Moni~oring - Dodge Cork Building, Lancaster,
Pennsylvania
Dear Mr. Bury:
As a follow up to our correspondence of June 1, 1994, below listed
please find a proposal/quote of services for asbestos project
monitoring to be performed at the Dodge Cork location, Lancaster,
Pennsylvania. Services include:
1. Asbestos project monitoring
2. Pre-job sampling (1 day)
3. On job sa~?ling (6 days)
4. post-job sampling (1 day)
5. Report (1 day)
Subtotal $3,600.00
(9 days at $50!hr.)
1. Pre-job samples (12)
2. Post-job samples (12)
3. During job monitoring (24 at $28/sample)
Subtotal $1,344.00
1.
Final asbestos recertification
(project designer)
Subtotal $ 960.00
Total 55.904.00
Cocciardi & Associates, Inc.
CURRENT STANDARD BILLING RATES (PERSONNEL \
effective 4/1/94
Certified Safety professional............................$120/hr.
'roxicoloqist. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 /h:J::.
Rad.i.atlon Health Physicist............~...................120/h:r:.
Radiation Safety Officer ...................................75/hr.
Radon Tester/Inspector (licensed)..........................6S/hr.
Health and Safety Officer (degreed).,......................65/hr.
Health and Safety Technician...............................50/hr.
Asbestos Project Designer (licensed)......................120/hr.
Asbestos Management Planner (licensed)....................120/hr.
Asbestos Inspector (licensed)..............................75/hr.
Asbestos supervisor (licensed)............................ .60/hr.
Asbestos Project Monitor (licensed)........................50/hr.
Clerical.................................................... .35/hr.
NOTES:
Rates cover time uo to a 10 hour day. Hours
between 10 and 16 hours per day will be charged at
1.5x.
Days in excess of 5 per week will be charged at
l.5x.
Training fees are charged per Cocciardi and
Associates, Inc., standard fee schedule
(training) .
Equipment fees are charged per Cocciardi and
Associates, Inc., standard billing rates
(equipment) on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.
Expendables/ancillary costs are charged at cost
plus 20%.
Per Diem: $100/day/person (overnight status only)
Y~leage: .28/mile
EXHIBIT "14"
TC':A!.
a,120.0C
COCCIARDI & ASSOC~S, INC.
4823 E. 'rRINDLE ROAD
SUITE 100
MECHANICSBtJRG, PA 17055
(717) 763-7475
Direct Environmental, Inc.
703-C Simpson Street
Hechanicsburg, PA 17055
INVOICE NUMBER:
INVOICE DA'rE:
DUE DATE:
94504
09/30/94
10/30/94
.'
, .
INVOICE
-------
Customer # 0059
Job it 94-5595
Letterkeney - On-Site Health and Safety Services
at aldg 370
M Jmbie - 9/14-9/16: 20hrs @ $65/hr .. $ 1,300.00
!t.cCaffrey - 9/16: 8hrs @ $65/hr " 520.00
McCaffrey - 9/19-9/23: 48hrs @ $65/hr " 3,120.00
McCaffrev - 9/26-9/30: 42hrs @ $65/hr " 2,730.00
~niRa.::I Unit Monitor: 3 weeks @ $150/wk" 450.00
8,120.00
:.: =~~a~ca c~a=;e a:~a= 30 days
.. .
COCCIARDI & ASSOCun:S, INC:
4823 E. 'rRINDLE ROAD
SUITE 100
MECHANICSBORG, PA 17055
(717) 763-7475
Direct Environmental, Inc.
703-C Simpson Street
Mechan.icsburq, PA 17055
INVOICE NUMBER:
INVOICE DA'rE:
DOE D~:
94573
12/12/94
01/11/95
.'
. .
INVOICE
-------
Customer # 0059
Job # 94-5626
Self Contained Breathinq Apparatus & spare cylinders
(1~'94) x 2 @ $50 per day
400.00
TO'rAL
1.5% Finance Charge after 30 Days
400.00
.
COCCIARDI , ASSOCIMES, mc.
4823 E. '.rRINDLE ROAD
SlJI'J!E 100
HECHANICSBlJRG, PA 17055
(717) 763-7475
Duect Environmental, Inc.
703-C Simpson Street
Hechan.icsburg, PA 17055
INVOICE NtJHB2R:
INVOICE DA!r2:
D02 DA!r2:
94628
01/31/95
03/02/95
"
'.
INVOICE
-------
Customer t 0059
Job t 95-6005
8 Hour HAZ~ Refresher ~~ining
JanuaJ:Y 23, 1995 .
1 Student
O. ._.
195.00
'.
'rO'l'AL
195.00
1.5' Finance Charge after 30 Days
". . ;.
',... ...
..:,'.... .
..:; .-. :.\.::
COCCIARDI , ASSOCIAftlS, INC.
4823 E. '.I!RINDLE ROAD
SUI'.rE 100
HECBANICSBtJRG, PA 17055
(717) 763-7475
.
Di.:ect Envi.:omnenta.l, Inc .
703-C Simpson Street
Hechanicsbw:g, PA 17055
"
INVOICE
-------
Customer t 0059
Job t 95-6028
8 Hour m.z~ Refresher 'lr"ining
February 23, 1995
1 Student: Scott Bw:y
.'
INVOICE NtJHBER:
'INVOICE DA!R:
DUE DA!rE:
"
... -'
'rOTAL
1.5 , Finance Charge after 30 Days
"
94655
02/28/95
03/30/95
195.00
195.00
A/~
EXHIBIT "18"
. COCCZARDI , ASSOC~S, INC.
4823 2. 'rRINDLB ROAD
StrITE 100
HECBANICSBURG, PA 17055
(717) 763-7475
Direct Environmental, Inc.
703-C Simpson Street
Mechanicsburq, PA 17055
INVOICE NOHBER:
INVOICE ~ I
DOE DATE:
94668
03/15/95
04/14/95
."
.'
INVOICE
Customer t 0059
Job t 95-6051
8 Hour Asbestos Supervisor Refresher ~aininq
March 2, 1995
2 Students @ $250 each:
, ..:-
500.00
.'
TOTAL
500.00
1.50% Finance Charge after 30 Days
.
4
. .
G
~
"
:.,
,...,
'-0'-1
'0
N
o
Q
-0
=
.p ..
'01
-; -:.:
.
<.c
V1
........._-,.""~
COCCIARDI AND ASSOCIATES, INC., :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PlaintilT :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
:CIVIL ACTION NO, 95-1622
DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC"
Defendant
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
AND NOW, comes PlaintilT, Coeeiardi and Associates, Ine,,(hereinafter "Coccinrdi"), by
and through its attomeys Latsha & Capozzi, P.C., and states the following by way of rcsponse to
Preliminary Objections:
I. MOTION TO STRIKE
I. Admitted,
2, Denicd, Thc averments of this paragmph attcmptto characterize the contents ofa
writtcn document which speaks for itself, No refcrence is made in the Complaint with regard to
twelve sepamtc "deals", Specifically, the Complaint rcferenccs a lengthy fact pattcm under
which PlaintilT and Defcndant entered into a contmctual relationship and under which Defendant
repeatedly requested that thc scopc of work undcr that relationship be increased.
3. Denied. The averments of this pamgmph attcmpt to chamcterizc the contents of
the writtcn document which speaks for itsclf,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Glenn R, Davis, Esquire, of the law firm of Latshn & Capozzi, P,C., herein
certify that I servcd a true and corrcct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Response to
Preliminary Objections of Defendant Direct Environmental, Inc, on June 13, 1995, by
depositing a copy of the same in the possession oflbe United States Mail, first-class,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Thomas A, Beckley, Esquire
Beckley & Madden
Cranberry Court
212 North Third Street
P.O, Box 11998
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Latsha & Capozzi, P,C,
Dated:
By ($\. :2ci:b.b
Glenn R, Davis
Attomey I.D, # 31040
P.O, Box 825
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Attomeys for Plaintiff
Cocciardi and Associates, Inc,
i
;
f:
,
"
:; ...,
'~ .1
., '-
"',.,..,.' ;"
~~'i:.' :'\;1
--:;r.-"".;)
,_4.':"-:1:"'"
.~"""';7,>> :~
~:r:"-;::'n
....,.:;....),'1
;."';;.:'};
~~
<--
~
'G5
W
&J\
....
~
:s:
-
~
t:
,!
i.
,
"
[d'&'S In c ~ ,
I.... ~. I~
en .. 3 I~.
..en
en' 0 i: I.... [
I~ ..
0'''''' :0 I
~ ....,~, ~ I....
" Q'iW I.. .... .'"
I ,.... ...
\g a' ~ ...
i1il B' N lj;' II jI 0- n
~ .....
le N" Gi' I~
.... .... ii
..,J (X) " ~ en
....... S' .. R
o U1 'tl.Q . ~ ~
(X) " I ....
I n " III
o . I ..
(X) . H ro
... . ::l en -
U1 I n - r
.
I H
I fl
.
.
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Plcasc list thc within matter for July Argumcnt Court.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COCCIARDI AND ASSOCIATES, INC"
Plaintiff : Civil Action
,..,0 c....
c:
c:'" :z I
.'O:C :.1
",(:1r=, ~., -.I
..'" .
~ if! ;~~ ~;~ 'W
;.;r.~u
C~",",l .....
voo~ ....
J':)Jt:n
t; .::.;;(.'},ttl ....",
';T."'" .:z:
..,>
-<"" -
-< ~
vs, : No. 95-l622-Civil Tcrm
DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL
Defcndant
I. Statc mattcr to bc argucd:
Defcndant's Preliminary Objcctions to Plaintiff's Complaint
2. Identify counscl who will arguc casc:
(a)
for plaintiff:
Addrcss:
Glcnn R, Davis, Esquirc
Latsha & Capozzi, P,C.
P,O. Box 825
Harrisburg, PA 17198-0825
(b) for dcfendant: Thomas J. Bccklcy
Becklcy & Maddcn
Cranbcrry Court
Harrisburg. PA 17108
3. I will notify all partics in writing within two days that this casc has
bcen listed for argumcnt.
4. Argumcnt Court Datc: July 5. 1995
Datcd: Junc 6, 1995
(~~
Glenn R. Davis
Attomey lor Plaintiff
COCCIARDI 1IND ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURl' OF ()Mo[)N PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNIY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL J\CI'ION - LAW
DIRECl' EN'JIR(HolENTAL,
Defendant
: NO. 95-1622
DEFEND1INT'S PRELIMINlIRY O~ONS 'l'O
PI.AINI'IFF I S CCMPI.AINI'
1IND NCM cares Defendant ("Direct Envirorarental"), by and
through its attorneys Thanas A, Beckley, John G. Milakovic, and
Beckley & Madden, and files these preliminary objections to Plain-
tiff's Colrplaint, as follows:
1. Motion To Strike
=ts.
1. Pa. R. civ. P. l020(a) requires that IlILlltiple causes of
action and any special damage related thereto be pleaded in separate
2. In Plaintiff's Colrplaint, it appears that plaintiff is
claiming it is owed ITOney by virtue of at le':lSt twelve separate
"deals," each with specially identified damages claimed to be due as a
result thereof.
3. While it is not entirely clear, these twelve separate
"deals" appear to be recounted in the Canplaint at the following
paragraphs:
. .
Deal 1 - '1's 6-9
Deal 2 - 'J'S 10-11 & 14
Deal 3 - 'J'S 12-14
Deal 4 - 'l's 15-18
Deal 5 - 'l's 19-21
Deal 6 'l's 22-23 & 26
Deal 7 - 'J'S 24-26
Deal 8 - 'l's 27-29
Deal 9 - 'JI's 30-32
Deal 10 - 'JI's 33-34 & 37
Deal 11 - 'JI's 35 & 37
Deal 12 - 'l's 36
4. Plaintiff has failed to COIply with Pa. R. Civ. P.
1020 (a), in that the twelve different claims are not set forth in
separate oounts and in that the damages c1ailred by virtue of each of
the claims is not isolated and set forth in a separate oount.
WIlEREroRE, Direct Enviroranental respectfully requests that
Plaintiff's CaIq?laint be stricken for failure to conform to the Rules
of Civil ProoedllI'e.
II.Dumurrer
5. 1\5 to none of the alleged "deals" does Plaintiff plead
sufficient facts to state a claim against Defendant.
- 2 -
6. For example, with respect to "Deal 1" ('.Il's 6-9),
Plaintiff fails to allege whether the terms of the engagement letter
were accepted, when, and by whan. Plaintiff also fails to allege that
the hours expended are fair and reasonable.
7. With respect to "Deal 2" ('1's 10-11 & 14), Plaintiff
fails to allege the identity of the person who requested the training
course, when such request was made, and who, if anyone, agreed to pay
the rates cited for the training course.
8. With respect to "Deal 3" ('.(' s 12-14), Plaintiff fails
to allege the sarre things which it did not allege with respect to
"Deal 2".
9. With respect to "Deal 4" ('.('s 15-18), Plaintiff fails
to allege the identity of the person who requested Plaintiff's serv-
ices: how and who accepted the terms of Plaintiff's written prO[Xlsal,
and when: and that the hours expended were fair and reasonable,
despite the vast discrepancy between the quoted estimate and the hours
actually charged.
10, With respect to "DealS" ('!'s 19-21), Plaintiff fails
to allege the teITllS of any agreement with respect to the services
allegedly rendered: who agreed to those tenns: when: and that the
alleged hours it allegedly expended were fair and reasonable.
- 3 -
. ,
CERl'IFlCATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing dcx:urrent was
this day served upon the follCMing persons and in the manner indi-
cated .
FIRST CLIISS MAIL
Glenn R. Davis,
P. O. Box 825
Harrisburg, PA
Esquire
17108-0825
~: June 1, 1995
~
.""
',..:.
:
~-'1
-,
r' J
- ,
,
al
Z 0
r.l i::
~
!:l ti <
!:l ~ ~
" = Z
.. ~ = ~
<...l II ~
~~ " en ...
8 Q ~ >-
~ g rJl
~~ .. " Z
II ~
gj u Z
~ .. - ~
>OZ " .. ~p..
r.l~ '" II o .
< Q ~ ~
o-l~ a z
tl:l< "
OJ III
CJ rJl
r.l lij
~ III
<
:=
..... MI.9- '''~.U..'.(fiU.' III nil.
OoontolOJO'~~'IY9J'JI'Il",""
.
BECKLEY & MADDEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
J/ARRISIllJllO. Pm<Ns>,.vANIA 17108
OR/ceo
~
2. ShoIlld Plaintiff's carplaint be dismissed for failure to
state a claim or alternatively, should Plaintiff be re:JO.ired to file a
IlDre specific pleading?
'fVW'L ~lhL ~'vJ'
\. ~.~ r.}'- 3. Should Plaintiff's re:JO.ests for H% per I1'Onth interest;
if'. attorney's fees; p\lIlitive damages; exellplary damages; an accollll~;
and the iIrposition of a constructive trust be dismissed and/or
stricken?
4. Should Plaintiff's re:JO.ests for E!ql1itable remedies such
as an accounting and the iIrposition of a constructive trust be
stricken, as not properly before the Court in an action at law?
III. ARGWlENl'
A. plaintiff's Calplaint Should Be Stricken For Failure To
Conform to Pa. R. civ. P. 1020 la) .
A I1'Otion to strike lies where a pleading fails to conform to
the Rules of Civil Procedure. Pa. R. Civ. P. 10281a) (2). Here,
plaintiff's carplaint fails to conform to Pa. R. Civ. P. l020Ia),
which requires that separate causes of action and any special damage
related thereto be pleaded in separate counts, Specifically, as noted
in Direct Environmental's preliminary objections, Plaintiff's Can-
plaint appears to allege twelve separate transactions, for different
services, on different dates, with different terms and different
- 2 -
::ii..;.-
IIIfCl\1llts claimed. (P.Q,'s'l2-3.) Plaintiff does not, however, set
forth each of the twelve transactions in a separate CO\1Ilt.
In Reston v. Ambrosia Coal & Const. Co., 4 D&C 3d 132
(Lawrence Co. 1977), the Court was presented with a pleading similar
to Plaintiff's here, but in the context of a counterclaim. In Reston,
the defendant's col1Jlterclaim set forth a claim for repayrrent of seven
different loans, without pleading each loan in a separate count. The
Court granted a mtion to strike the counterclaim, as violative of
Rule 1020 (a), reasoning as follows:
If the failure to state the loans in separate
CO\1Ilts was sinply a minor procedural error with no
possible substantive effect, we might be able to dis-
regard this mistake W1der Pa. R. Civ. P. 126. But a
single count containing several causes of action can
cause serious problems. Grounds might exist for a
sl.llllllarY judgrrent or a judgrrent on the pleadings as to
sare of the loans but not others. If all the loans are
in a single COl1Jlt, what then happens? ... Defendant will
not suffer an onerous burden by being required to anend
his counterclaim to fall within the requiremmts of Pa.
R. C. P. 1020(a).
Reston, 4 D&C 3d at 134.
50 here. Plaintiff "will not suffer an onerous bJ.rden" by
being required to follow the rules. Accordingly, Direct Environ-
IOOlltal's mtion to strike the CaTplaint as violative of Pa. R. Civ. P.
1020 (a) should be granted.
- 3 -
C, Plaintiff's Requests For Certain Items of Relief
Should Be Dismissed ard/or Stricken.
In its CCI1plaint, Plaintiff has requested punitive damages;
exenplary damages; attorney's fees; an accounting; ard the imposition
of a constructive trust. Direct Envirornrenta1 demurs to these re-
quests, or in the alternative, llOVes to strike them,
As for Plaintiff's requests for punitive and exarp1ary
damages, Plaintiff's CCl1p1aint is clear on its face that the circum-
stances do not warrant same. This case appears to be a "garden
variety" breach of contract action, with allegations that Direct
Environrrental has failed to pay Plaintiff what is due. That is all
Plaintiff alleges in its CCl1p1aint, ard withoot rrore, it is insuffi-
cient to SlJppClrt a claim for punitive or exatp1ary damages. See,
~, Rittenhouse Reqency Affiliates v. Passen, 333 Pa. Super. 613,
482 A.2d 1042 (1984); Thursen v. Iron ard Glass Bank, 328 Pa. Super.
135, 476 A.2d 928 (1984). Accordingly, Plaintiff's requests for
punitive ard/or exatplary damages should be dismissed or stricken.
Id.
As for Plaintiff's reqtlest for an award of attorney's fees,
sane are not recoverable in the absence of agrearent or specific
statutory authorization. See Spickler v. Lanbardo, 32 San. 16 (1976);
l\MP, Inc. v. McCaughey, 38 D&C 2d 109 (1966) (striking claim for
attorney's fees). Here, there can be no allegation (ard there is
none) that Direct Environrrenta1 agreed to pay attorney's fees, or that
- 6 -
any statute authorizes the award of fees in this action. Accordingly,
plaintiff's request for attorney's fees should be dismissed or
stricken.
Plaintiff's request for the inp:lsition of a constructive
trust is similarly deficient. A "constructive trust" arises when a
person holding title to specific property, or a~, is subject to
sam equitable duty to convey it to another on the ground that,
otheJ:wi.se, the holder would be unjustly enriched. Partrick & Wilkins
co. v. Reliance Ins. CO., 500 Pa. 399, 456 A.2d 1348 (1983): Hercules
v. Jones, 415 Pa. Super. 449, 609 A.2d 837 (1992). Critical to the
cause of action, therefore, is an allegation that the defendant is
holding sam ~ which it ought not be permitted to retain: and
without such an allegation, no action for the inp:lsition of a con-
structive trust will lie. Philadelphia v. Mancini, 431 Pa. 355, 246
A.2d 320 (1968): Balazick v. Ireton, 357 Pa. Super. 68, 515 A.2d 562
(1986), affimed, 518 Pa. 127, 541 A.2d 1130 (1988). In the present
case, Plaintiff has failed to allege any identifiable ~ upon which
the requested trust might be inp:lsed, and therefore, Plaintiff's
request should be dismissed or stricken.
Also, Plaintiff's Carplaint is clear on its face that no
right to an accoLlJlting exists. Generally, the right to an accounting'
exists only where the plaintiff is unable to state the exact amount
due to it by reason of the opposing party's failure to account.
Duggan v. Duggan, 291 Pa. 556, 140 A. 342 (1928). Here, by way of
- 7 -
fran equity to law), which WO\1ld al1thorize transfer of this action
at law to ElCJIlity, the rElql16sts for ElCJIlitable rercdies shoold be
stricken. Y
IV. CONCLUSIGI
Direct Envirorurental's preliminary objections shOI1ld be
granted.
DATED: Jl1ne 21, 1995
Of CO\lnsel
Respectfully suJ:rnitted,
BEX:KLEY & MADDm
212 North Third Street
P.O. Box 11998
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717) 233-7691
7~ (j,~k;
Thanas . Beckley
G. Mi1akoV1c
Attorneys for Direct Envirorurental
YIt is true that Pa. R. eiv. P. 1021 (a) al1thorizes a court
sitting at law to hear a civil action for an aCCO\lIlting. BIlt this
role applies only in limited ciretmlStances, such as where the drnaqes
consist Jrerely of a fixed percentage of profits; otherwise, the rerredy
of an accounting is in ElCJIlity. ~ersant Ins. CO. v. Keystone Ins.
Agency, 420 Pa. 578, 218 A.2d 29 966). Plaintiff has not pleaded
~1imited ciretmlStances here - indeed, Plaintiff has not pleaded
any right at all to an accO\lllting (see Arg. "e", sl1pra) - and
therefore, the motion to strike shoo1d be granted.
- 9 -
... Mo' l.' ~O'&U,..,. QU...... nu..
~ NfO. oo.l """" lWOfll1U""'"
'.
([-V
BECKLEY & MADDEN
ATfORNEYSAT LAW
HARRISJlUR';. PENN~YLVANIA 17108
JUN 2 2 1~~5
Jl'-'
Cll
Z 0
~ E
Q .. <
Q ~ ~ c 7-
<...l~~g~
~ I-! 5 <Il ..;J
....<u~~~
~~~=.z
...z~~~~
..... = :< ~ -
~~a~~~
III < S:! 2 III
U OJ ftl
fI;l Iii
!:Q ~
==
,
Ol!-I~ ,
-.
..
COCCIARDI AND ASSOCIATES, INC" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V,
DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL,
DEFENDANT
95-1622 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
BEFORE BAYLEY. J. AND HESS. J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 1'2- day of July, 1995, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The following words are stricken from the WHEREFORE clause In plaintiff's
complaint: "[a]nd attomeys fees plus punitive and exemplary damages in the amount
to be determined by the court and further order Defendant to account for and hold
the sum of $57,555,27, together with proceeds, profits and enhancements thereof in
constructive trust for plaintiff,"
(2) All other preliminary objections of defendant to plaintiff's complaint, ARE
DISMISSED.
Edgar B, Bayley, '7
_J"
"-'I
56. pr '.10 G ZI 1nr
--
'.
i.
I
j'
I
-~
~.
,
Glenn R. Davis, Esquire
For Plaintiff
}lltU (t ,L 7- IL -11
Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire
John G. Milakovic, Esquire
For Defendant
:saa
Latsha & Capozzi, P.C.
Glenn R. Davis
Attorney I.D. No, 31040
1013 Mumma Road
Wormleysburg, PA 17108
(717) 761-1880
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COCCIARDI AND ASSOCIATES, INC.:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
:CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-1622
DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.,
Defendant
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 30, 1995, Plaintiff, Cocciardi and Associates, Inc.
(hereinafter "Cocciardi") began this action by the filing of a
Writ of Summons and subsequently filed its Complaint of April 25,
1995, On or about June 2, 1995, Defendant, Direct Environmental
Inc. (hereinafter "Direct Environmental) filed preliminary
objections consisting of three Motions to Strike, two Demurrers
and a Motion for More Specific Pleadings, The instant Memorandum
is in opposition to Defendant's preliminary objections.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 16, 1993, Scott Berry of Direct Environmental
and Joseph A. Cocciardi of Cocciardi entered into an oral
agreement in which Cocciardi was to provide professional services
to Direct Environmental. Exhibit 1.; complaint' 5. Services
were to be provided at $40.00 per hour with additional services,
equipment and laboratory analysis to be provided per Cocciardi
standard billing. Exhibit 1.
Additional professional services for the expanded scope of
work were provided to Direct Environmental by Cocciardi under the
same terms and conditions, that is under the standard billing
schedule. Complaint' 7, Exhibit 2, , 8, Exhibit 3, '10, 12, 13,
Exhibit 5, '16, Exhibit 6, '19, Exhibit 8, . 20, Exhibit 9, , 23,
Exhibit 11, , 25, Exhibit 13, , 27, , 30, . 33, . 35, Exhibit
17, , 36, Exhibit 18, All services provided by Cocciardi to
Direct Environmental were based upon the same terms and
conditions of the initial oral agreement; on an hourly basis at
the standard rates of Cocciardi for professional services,
equipment and testing.
2
Under any circumstance, Direct Environmental has failed to
make payment for the professional services provided to it by
Cocciardi. Complaint ~'s 9, 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, 32, 37, 38.
The professional services engagement contract which was
entered into between the parties became a combination of both
written and oral amendments between Cocciardi and Direct
Environmental. Complaint, ~'s 1-39. Not only has Cocciardi
performed professional services and provided professional testing
and equipment to Direct Environmental, but Direct Environmental
has enjoyed the benefit of the reasonable value of services
provided to it. Cocciardi's claim for breach of contract is both
of express and implied contract.
III. OUESTIONS INVOI,VRD
1. Has Defendant misconstrued the requirement of
Pa.R.Civ.P. 1020 while attempting to have Plaintiff plead
different legal theories rather than causes of action?
Suggested Answer: Yes.
2. Does the complaint adequately plead a cause of action
for breach of either express or implied contract?
Suggested Answer: Yes.
3
3. Is Plaintiff entitled to its prayer for relief seeking
specific remedies pending further discovery and the trial of this
matter?
Suggested Answer: Yes.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. THE COMPLAINT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PA.
R.CIV. P. 1020 AND SETS FORTH ITS CAUSE OF ACTION IN A MANNER
WHICH ALLOWS A DEFENSE.
Preliminary Objections, the end result of which would
be dismissal of the cause of action, should be sustained only in
cases that are clear and free from doubt. Baker v. Rrennan, 419
Pa. 222, 225, 213 A.2d 362, 364 (1965). The test on preliminary
objections is whether it is clear and free from doubt from all
the facts pleaded that the pleader will be unable to prove facts
legally sufficient to establish his right of relief. Firing v.
Kephart, 466 Pa. 560, 563, 353 A.2d 833, 835 (1976). To
determine whether preliminary objections should be properly
sustained, the court must consider as true, all of the well-
pleaded material facts set forth in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. Bower
v. Bow@r,
Pa.
, 611 A.2d 181, 183 (1992).
4
services contract by requesting that Cocciardi perform additional
services. In essence, amending the contract.
This factual background is not only significantly detailed
in the thirty-nine (39) paragraphs of the complaint but is
further detailed in the eighteen (18) exhibits to the complaint.
All these averments along with any reasonable inference must be
considered true. Bower v. Bower, 611 A.2d at 182.
Direct Environmental's only authority for its argument is
the Lawrence County case of Reston v. Ambrosa Coal and
Construction Co. 4 D.& C.3d, 132 (1977). That case involved an
employee profit sharing plan and an unrelated fact pattern based
on seven (7) specific loans with different terms alleged to have
been given at different times to an employee.
case at bar.
What is interesting to note is that the Reston court stated
That is not the
that an argument based on the failure to include contract terms
needs to be by motion for specific pleadings and not a demurrer
or even a motion to strike.
Reston went on to sta.te that the
touchstone of a motion for a more specific pleading is whether
the pleading is sufficiently clear to enable the opposing party
to prepare his defense. In the case at bar, Direct Environmental
has not made such an allegation.
The alleged breach has been
6
specifically pled.
Direct Environmental failed to make payment
for services which have been provided by Cocciardi. These facts
are clearly pled in the complaint.
In Albert F.instein Medical Center v. Nathans 5 D. & C.3d,
619 (1978), the court held that only separate causes of action
must be stated in separate counts. Where there is but one cause
of action, no division into counts is required...a litigant is
not required to plead a particular theory upon which he sues.
All he need do is allege facts which in law will entitle him to
recovery upon any theory.
Causes of action arising out of one transaction or
occurrence are required to be pled in a single cause of action.
Separate or single causes of action arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence or they involve a common factual
background or common factual or legal questions. Where the
evidence that would establish one cause of action is distinct
from the evidence that would establish another cause of action,
causes of action do not arise from the same transaction or
occurrence. Hineline v. Stroudsbllrg F.lectric Supply Co., Pa
____, 586 A.2d 455 (1991). Goodrich Amram 2d vol. 2, 382,
~1020(d) states that a transaction may be defined as any act that
affects legal rights for obligations, and properly embraces an
7
entire occurrence out of which a legal right springs or on which
a legal obligation is predicated. It should not be so
stringently interpreted as to mean a single fact or instantaneous
event, rather than a combination of acts and events giving rise
to judicial relief.
The Complaint in this matter complies with the requirements
of Pa.R. Civ. P. 1020. There is one common set of facts, and the
common legal obligation springs out of one common occurrence. In
addition, the Complaint is sufficiently detailed to provide
Direct Environmental with notice of the cause of action and also
allow Direct Environmental to prepare a defense in this matter.
A3 a result the motion should be denied.
B. THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY PLEADS A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
BREACH OF CONTRACT.
Direct Environmental's second preliminary objection in the
nature of a demurrer is based on the allegation that the
complaint fails to set forth sufficient facts to state a claim.
It's argument is founded upon its 12 separate contracts
theory. However, there is not an averment by Cocciardi of 12
separate contracts to be reviewed by the court. See Bower, supra
at 182. As in its motion to strike, it is interesting to note
8
that Direct Environmental fails to allege any prejudice or
inability to defend this matter.
Cocciardi's complaint has pled facts upon which recovery may
be based and which enables Direct Environmental to prepare a
defense. As the court stated in General State Authority v.
Lawrie and Green, 24 Pa. Commw. 356 A.2d 851 (1976), pleadings
can be complex and it is hard to determine the facts which are
necessary. It is not the function of the complaint to be an all-
inclusive narrative of events underlying the claim. A plaintiff
need only plead those material facts necessary to sustain a
recovery which, at the same time, enables a defendant to defend.
The Reston court held that missing details can be obtained
through discovery and need not be pled. The court held that the
pleading, as stated, was adequate to enable the defendant to
prepare a defense.
As in Reston, the complaint at issue is
sufficiently specific to enable Direct Environmental to prepare a
defense.
Where a complaint in assumpsit contains the essential facts
to constitute a sufficient claim, the demurrer will be dismissed,
Department of Transportation v. Rethlehem Steel Corp. 28 Pa.
Commw. 214, 368 A.2d 888 (1977). A preliminary objection in the
nature of a demurrer tests the sufficiency of the action...it
9
does not reach defects of form or of failure to comply with rules
of proper pleading, Albert Einstein. 5 D. & C.3d at 622.
Cocciardi's complaint is not only descriptive, it provides all
essential facts necessary to state a cause of action under the
theory of breach of contract, either expressed and implied.
Direct Environmental's argument is premised upon alleged
missing terms and attributes importance to the claim that the
complaint does not specify an oral or written contract. This
argument overlooks Direct's cited case of Reston v. Ambrosia Coal
and Const. Co. which held that averments need not set forth
whether the contract is oral or written and in the absence, it
will be assumed to be oral. Moreover, Reston held that failure
to include terms needs to be in the form of a motion for more
specific pleading and not a demurrer.
Defendant's own cited case sets forth more than enough
reason for the court to overrule this Preliminary Objection.
C. DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANT'S
REQUEST FOR RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE COMPLAINT IS APPROPRIATE UNDER
THE FACTS AS PLEAD.
Direct Environmental either demurs or moves to strike
Cocciardi's request for punitive damages, exemplary damages,
attorneys fees and the imposition of an accounting. In support
10
of its position, Direct Environmental states, "this case appears
to be a garden variety breach of contract action, with
allegations that Direct Environmental has failed to pay Plaintiff
what is due." This admission belies Direct Environmental's
position in its first two arguments: a cause of action has not
been stated or in the alternative, has not been specifically
stated.
Cocciardi recognizes that, in order to recover punitive or
exemplary damages, it will be necessary to show malicious,
wanton, willful, reckless and oppressive conduct. SHV Cole. Inc.
v. Continental Grange Co. 526 Pa. 489, 587 A.2d 702 (1991).
Punitive or exemplary damages from their nature can not, and
therefore need not, be itemized. Eby v. Sun Pipe r,ine Co. 21 D.
& C.2d 190 (1960). Cocciardi is currently without facts to plead
the substantiation of the recovery of either punitive or
exemplary damages. However, through discovery, Plaintiff may
uncover such conduct by Direct Environmental which will justify
their award. Its inclusion in Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief
should not prevent this matter from going forward.
Attorney fees and the request for a specific interest rate
are determined by the terms of the contract between Cocciardi and
Direct Environmental. That contract being a combination of both
II
written and oral agreements, has been adequately pled and will be
further specified through discovery.
A pleading must adequately explain the nature of the claim
to the opposing party so as to permit him to prepare a defense,
and they must be sufficient to convince the court that the
averments are not merely subterfuge. In re Estate of Schofield
____Pa. , 477 A.2d 473 (1984). Cocciardi's complaint
adequately explains the nature of the complaint and allows Direct
Environmental to prepare a defense. The interest rate is found
in Cocciardi's invoices attached to the complaint. Defendant
continued to accept professional services from Cocciardi well
past its receipt of the first invoice in this matter which
already outlined the interest terms. Direct Environmental never
questioned the interest rate. To the extent that Direct
Environmental continued to request and accept services under
these terms, the contract term was set.
As with interest, the issue of the appropriateness of
attorneys fees under the terms of the contract between Cocciardi
and Direct Environmental will also be further developed through
discovery. It would be inappropriate to dismiss these demands
for relief.
IV. CONCLUSION
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Glenn R. Davis, Esquire, of the law firm of Latsha
& Capozzi, P.C., herein certify that I served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant's Preliminary Objections on June
28, 1995 by depositing a copy of the same in the possession
of the United States Mail, first-class, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire
Beckley & Madden
Cranberry Court
212 North Third Street
P.O. Box 11998
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Latsha & Capozzi, P.C.
Dated:
By~.::-2~
Glenn R. Davis
Attorney I.D. # 31040
P.O. Box 825
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Cocciardi and Associates, Inc.
.. "',
. .
COCCIARDI lIND 1\SSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COORl' OF CXJoM:N PLE1\5
: CUMBERIAND COUN'lY,
: PEllNSYLVANIA
v.
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DlROCT ~,
Defendant
.
.
NO. 95-1622
N:Yl'ICE TO PLEAD
TO: Cocciardi and Associates, Inc., plaintiff
You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter
and counterclaim within twenty (20) days fran the date of service upon
you, or a default judgment will be entered against you.
DNIYD: ~ 2'i./IHI
Of Counsel
Respectfully sul:mi.tted,
BOCKLEY & MADDEN
212 North Third Street
P.O. Box 11998
Harrisburg, PA l7108
(717) 233-7691
'//tin..#f (j /k,I,L;
~
hn G. Milakovic
Attorneys for Defendant
-.. .--.- .'"":"".-........... .. -.
. --
.. ..
.
Direct's Mechanicsburg office, which no longer exists, and Direct has
as yet been unable to verify Plaintiff's averments.
6. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
7. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
8. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
9. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
10. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, Direct
avers that, if any such requests were made, they emanated fran
Direct's Mechanicsburg office, which no longer exists, and Direct has
as yet been unable to verify Plaintiff's averments.
- 2 -
..
11. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
12. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, Direct
avers that, if any such requests were made, they emanated fran
Direct's Mechanicsburg office, which no longer exists, and Direct has
as yet been unable to verify Plaintiff's averments.
13. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
14. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
15. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
16. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:M1edge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, it appears
- 3 -
fran Plaintiff's own docuirents that the ~rk was not performed pur_
suant to the terms of the alleged proposal, in that the proposal
appears to give an estimated price of less than $5,000.00, whereas the
alleged bills allegedly submitted total close to $20,000.00. (Compare
PI. Ex. 6 and P1. Ex. 7.) Upon information and belief, Direct avers
that the reason for the discrepancy between the price quotation and
the actual bill is that whatever services Plaintiff performed were
grossly inadequate and unacceptable, and Plaintiff had to re-perform
several tiJnes before acceptance of its services. Direct is unable to
be rrore specific at this tine due to the fact that those with knowl-
edge of these matters ~rked out of Direct's Mechanicsburg office,
which no longer exists.
11. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, it appears
fran Plaintiff's own docuirents that the ~rk was not performed pur_
suant to the terms of the alleged proposal, in that the proposal
appears to give an estimated price of less than $5,000.00, whereas the
alleged bills allegedly submitted total close to $20,000.00. (Compare
PI. Ex. 6 and P1. Ex. 7.) Upon information and belief, Direct avers
that the reason for the discrepancy between the price quotation and
the actual bill is that \oJhatever services Plaintiff performed were
grossly inadequate and unacceptable, and Plaintiff had to re-perform
several tines before acceptance of its services. Direct is unable to
be rrore specific at this time due to the fact that those with
- 4 -
.
"
.
knowledge of these matters worked out of Direct's Mechanicsburg
office, which no longer exists.
18. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, it appears
fran Plaintiff's own docummts that the work was not performed pur_
suant to the terms of the alleged proposal, in that the proposal
appears to give an estimated price of less than $5,000.00, whereas the
alleged bills allegedly sul:mi.tted total close to $20,000.00. (Carpare
PI. Ex. 6 and PI. Ex. 7.) Upon information and belief, Direct avers
that the reason for the discrepancy between the price quotation and
the actual bill is that whatever services Plaintiff performed were
grossly inadequate and unacceptable, and Plaintiff had to re-perform
several ti.Ires before acceptance of its services. Direct is unable to
be rrore specific at this ti.Ire due to the fact that those with knowl-
edge of these matters worked out of Direct's Mechanicsburg office,
which no longer exists.
19. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
20. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, Direct
- 5 -
c
avers that, if any such requests were made, they emanated fran
Direct's Mechanicsburg office, which no longer exists, and Direct has
as yet been unable to verify Plaintiff's avernents.
21. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
22. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
23. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, Direct
avers that, if any such requests were made, they emanated fran
Direct's Mechanicsburg office, which no longer exists, and Direct has
as yet been unable to verify Plaintiff's avenrents.
24. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
25. After reasonable investigation, Deferdant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, Direct
- 6 -
avers that, if any such reqllests were made, they emanated fran
Direct's Mechanicsburg office, which no longer exists, and Direct has
as yet been unable to verify Plaintiff's averments.
26. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knaNledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted.
27. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sllfficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, Direct
avers that, if any such reqllests were made, they emanated fran
Direct's Mechanicsburg office, which no longer exists, and Direct has
as yet been unable to verify Plaintiff's averments.
28. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sllfficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, Direct
avers that, if any such requests were made, they emanated fran
Direct's Mechanicsburg office, which no longer exists, and Direct has
as yet been unable to verify Plaintiff's averments.
29. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knaNledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, upon
information and belief, Direct avers that Plaintiff has "padded" this
- 7 -
bill and that Direct is being overcharged on this particular project..
Due to the closing of Direct's Mechanicsburg office, Direct is unable
at this point to be any llOre specific and cannot yet allege what a
reasonable charge for Plaintiff's work might be, if any.
30. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further response, Direct
avers that, if any such requests were llI3.de, they emanated fran
Direct's Mechanicsburg office, which no longer exists, and Direct has
as yet been unable to verify Plaintiff's averments.
31. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the llI3.tters asserted.
32. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the llI3.tters asserted.
33. After reasonable investigation, Defendant ("Direct") is
without knc:Mledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted. By way of further reSPOnSe, Direct
avers that, if any such requests were made, they emanated fran
Direct's Mechanicsburg office, which no longer exists, and Direct has
as yet been unable to verify Plaintiff's averments.
- 8 -
..
CCXlNTEIlCU\IM
44. Counterclaimant is Direct Envirorarental, Inc.
(tlDirect"), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of New Jersey, with offices located at 175 Quincy Court,
Hopelawn, New Jersey.
45. Counterclaim Defendant is Coociardi and Associates,
Inc. (tlCocciarditl), which has alleged that it is a Pennsylvania
corporation with offices located at 4823 East Trindle Road, Suite 100,
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
46. In June or early July, 1994, Cocciardi and Direct
agreed, through Joseph Cocciardi (of Cocciardi) and Scott Bury (of
Direct), that Direct WOllld perform air monitoring and other services
for Cocciardi on a project for PennOOl' in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in
return for which Coociardi agreed to pay at Direct's normal rates.
47. Direct satisfied all conditions precedent and otherwise
perfonred all obligations on its part to be perfonred.
48. Direct sul:rnitted invoices to Coociardi for the services
and materials provided pursuant to the aforesaid agreerent, which
invoices reflect the agreed upon prices for such services and ma-
terials and the fair and reasonable value of same. A true and correct
- 11 -
copy of the invoices subnitted is hereto attached marked collectively
as Exhibit "A".
49. The principal aJIO.lJlt due equals $24,278.86.
SO. Despite demand therefor, Cocciardi has failed and
refused to pay.
51. The arrount demanded does not exceed the rna.ximJm
requirirg subnission to catpUlsory arbitration.
WHEREFORE, Direct demands judgJrent in its favor and against
Cocciardi, in the principal amount of $24,278.86, plus interest and
costs of suit.
DATEDq.,t~ U1K"d[
Of Counsel
Respectfully subnitted,
rPk;'t<'.f a &<t,l(~;1
7)' Beckley ,
~~~~
Attorneys for Direct
BEX::KLEY & MADDEN
212 North Third Street
P.O. Box 11998
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717) 233-769l
- 12 -
.
07-24-1995 12:37 2016 '55919 DIRECT P.16
I
.. . i: ~1lI.W@D@m
~ INVI DIIIICT .. 30791
.._ IMe. I
IlIO llANl'ORIl , . CU81'OMIII NO. 943024
~ ORANG!. No! 0 1M' I
(lIlI1) 17701800 ,
IIILL TO:
.Coceiardi & As.oeil ..
4623 K. Trindle Ro
Suite 100
Hl'lohanioeburs. PA ]170515'
I
I
I
IIHIP'TO: I
I
Coceiar~i & AeeQciate~
4623 B.fTrindl. Road, Suite 100
Heehan~!"burs, PA 17055
RE: hi DOT Suildin,
OAT!, SHP'M
.;7/14':<14 Delivu'.d
. PlIACHASlI 0ADliA NUIolI&R .
P.O.8.
Orillin
T&AM8
Ne ao Days
59.00
IHIPP&Il
lACK OAD;
69.00
DATIi
07/pS/S4
rr&M HI laiR
UIM
IAUiIP&A8ON CUll 0IlIlIR lIP ...1lR
SB None
, REQUlR!D !)AT! UNIT '''ICI!
: .DIIC~ T.Q:.
46.00
N
AMOUNT
1I1!QU11ml':::.., "..
.. ~ "." "",
'," .....
32.00
LABl] i4 HR
Proj..t Hanaaer
32 . 00 LABll .8 .
Pro;jll t Manaler
261515.00
1
l
IN Ci LS
~ I%1 5Uranoe SUl'obU8e
45.00
N
24l5.70
N
1440.00
246.70
#943024
Penn DOT uild1D8
Aab..to. upervi.1on
(7/1 - 7/ )
Ex-H 18 r[" i//I "
Pa8e 1
Non~axll.Dle ubtotll.l
Taxable Sub etal
Tax
Total
I
4340.70
0.00
0.00
4340.70
r:J~arJ Qlou
,
I
I
07-24-1995 12:38
~
llILLTO:
DIRECT
,
OOO\Yl@O@li
I
I
I cUITCUIR NO.
Coeciardi & AeBooi ee
4623 K. !rindl. Ro
Suite 100
MeohanicBbur..PA 0~5
SHIP TO: I
Cocoiar~i & Associate.
4623 K. l'rr:l.ndle Road
Suite 110
Mecbani1ebur., PA 17055
,
DATi
", I .ftJl
IHIP VIA
F.O.L
T1JlMll
.
~
OUII
. P\JRCHA/l& 0RD5A HUUll!"
.' .
AaOUIRIID .
"::. .".
32.60 .
4
3.00
.'
U/M RlQlIIA&D :r& UNIT PAICI
.o.c.~.
Pro"e t Supervi150r N
32.60 LABU 7 45.00
Pro". t Supervillor N
4 SUP16 7 KA 150.00
Eno&P lan't N
3.00 SUP18 7 83.00
Cartx' cia.. N
1 IN CE LS 270.76
6" I e.nce Surchar.e N
#943021
Cocciardi & Aeeociat e
(6/22 - 6 30)
A15belltoll. batelllent S pervi ion and Ai'r Honitorin.
Pale 1
NonTaxa 1. ubtotal
TaKable Sub etal
Tax
Total
Iff,,,..' (/J,w
.
P.17
307g6
943024
-
Nit.."
"~'."
1462.50
800.00 '
, 189.00
4817.26
0.00
0.00
4817.26
- '... - '-----'--..
.
07-24-:ui95 12: 36
DIRECT
P.16
~
DIIIIOT
INVlRONII
210 lWfl'OlU) lmI
IiAIIl' ClRANOI. NJ
(101)871.1100
I
poow@o~rn
I
I
I
i CUSTOM&A NO.
I
I
I
I
&HII' TO: I
Cocoiar~i &.A.sociatee
4823 E4~rindl. Road-5u1~~
Mechani soure. PA 170se
Ra: Pe DOT .
30801
,
943024
IIl.l.TO:
Coooiardi & Aa.oci os
4823 E. !rindle Ro
Suite 100
Mechaniosburc. FA 055
10e
DATi
SHIP VIA
i.ieJ.:l.vor.C1
1'.0.11.
r:l.il::.n
~.
T!N'8
&7"
.' i..u .' C
I'UftCHAR ClftD!IIl NUM8I!I'I
DATI!
.aALaPSA8CN .
OUR OAD&A NUMI!II
one
1
,
.-
U'M AEQUIAiD DATE UNIT""IC! AMOUNT
DI8C ~ TAlC
HR 46.00 1327. eo
Sup~rvi.or. . N
45.00 . 12~~.50
Superv1eor N
LS 156.60 158.60
Surchecs N
...,,, . . IHII'I'!D
AEQUI"... "
.:,. ... ..':'-..,., " . 1AClC.0fIID. "
29.50 29.50
26.50
28.50
IICoccia di
943024
ADbesto Abatement Sup. i.ion
7/1SI94.
Pac. 1
NonTaxa 1. ubtotal
Texable Sub otal
Tax
Total
2768.80
0.00
. 0.00
2768.80
ry~cuJ (Uou
07-24~1995 12135
2018 r.;5919
DIRECT
1'.15
-------------
I
!OOOW@O@[;
.~
DlaOT
.NVlIIIO . ... INo.
210 IAHfIOIU) m~.
lAST' ClIW<<aa. HJ 1i'OI.
(201) 87MIlXI
: CUlITtlMIift NO.
,
" I
I
i
I
30806
943024
lIlLLTO:
IHIP TO: I
I
CQec1ar~1 & Ae.ocia~e~
4823 B.~trindle Ro~d-Sui~e
Mechani ebur.. PA 17015~
Re : Pl!n DOT
I
10(,
~occiardi & Assooi te~
4823 E. 'Irindl" Ro d'
Suite' 11)0
Mechanicem~ra. PA 70ee
OATS
:., /:;: a.rs "
, 'IHII' VIA
De:ivered
F.O.e.
vr1.r:.r.
1SIlMa
Ne, 3(j t<~e
PUIlCHAIa OR~ .u...,.
DA~
07, 22/34
'IT'I!M U,M
~
LABl1,,7
Pro;!e ~ Supervieor
IN CE LS
e~ In urance Surcnaras
8Al.DP&A8ClN
SE
PI!QJlAiDiDA~
OUR 0fIDIR ~111Fl
None
ft.ooiAm'.. "~r~
'~'. ..,~_:. .:.....IM::IC'OIIID. .
32.50 32.150
,
UNIT PRIC!
1llIC" TAX
4!5.00
N
87.715
N
. AMOUNT
1462.150
1
1
87.76
.....
?o.ce 1
NonTaxah~. ub~o~al
Taxable Sub o~&l
tex I
Total'
1!5!50.25
0.00
0.00
1!5!50.2!5
rre ~~e (71_
I
1
"'7-24-1995 12::55
DIRECT
P.14
~
C~NO,
. DOOW@O@[;
30820
943024
81LJ. TO'
~TO:
I
Cooci~d1 & Aseociates
4823 Ef' Trindl. Road/Suit.
Meehan oebUt'2. PA 170~5
ae: Pe DOT
10C
Cocciardi & A..oc
4623 E. Trindle R
Suite 100
Meonan1csbura. PA
tea
d
70~5
DAT!
SHIP VIA .
'I_J.'.rerec.
'.0.1.
1.11' Q n
T!AN8
aye
OUR O..DII.....rrFn
one
I'UACIWIl! ClfUleIII NUt..... "
382.!50
8ALi8I'IR8oN
~B
AIQUIA!D DAft
Il5QUIRIiO
26.00
1IIflIIItII). .
. lACK OIID. .
26.00
1260.00
U/M
UNrT 'IVOI
.DlIC ~TAX
46.00
N
415.00
N
ge.e~
N
se.55
.. . AMOUNT
. a....
Supervisor
B.50
6 . 50' LAB1 7
. Proj Superv1150r
1
1
INS OS LS
8~ I anee Suroharae
,.,. 1
I
NOftTaxAb,. ubto~l
Taxable ub otal
Tax
Tote.!
1741.015
0.00
0.00
17(1.015
r:Jhank ryQU
, ,
~7-24-19S5 12:33
DIRECT
'-
i
I
l-
I
!
I
.. '~,., i)IRE~ lNVIR ENTAl., INC.
. 178 Quincy Coun
, HoI*awn; NJ O8ael
(808) 293'()2QC . Fax (908) 283-ll201
'\
..
~
... TO' SAHB
I
I
I
,
,
TO:
COCCIARDI & ASSO IATES
4B23 E. 'mINDr.! AD
SUITE 100 ,
~CHANICSBURG. ~ 17055
P.ll
-----
INVGIc.
INVOICE: 030828
ORDER: 030828
.~.
I
I
.1
I
I
,..
lIlIIlI_ :I'. ,-- - ---
943024 06-1S-e4 943024 Net o DaYIl PIl: 1
CUANT1TY ceSCRlP'nON UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
23.00 LABSUP01 PROJE SUPERVISOR -BOB KELLY 4~.OOO 103a.'J0
1.00 INSOl 6~ IN CE SURCHARGE 62.100 62.10
,
...
S perviaion B/7 '-
'nQ'" ."
1-
" .
TO:
ACCXllIIT IICl.
?..::!C4:~
OUAHTTTY
12.00
4.00
LOO
\
~.,
07-24-1995 12:34
~ OIRECT I!NVIR
I . 175 Quincy ColIn
11o~11..n. NJ 0888
(808) ~ . F : (llO8) 29:!-Q201
COCCIARDI & ASS CIATES
4823 Ii:. TRINDLE ROAD
SUITE 100
HECHANICSBURG. 170~5
t', '.lI&~
3oj:;lj~.;l
LABSUPOl PRCJE
LAB:::UPOl PROJE
INS01 e~ !tl'"
Dl!SCRIPTlON
SUFERVIZOF.
SJPER'H SC'R
P.J,tlCE SURCHARGE
#P N DOT 8/2Z/94
DIRECT
_to I
I
I
~J.J..il...___
INVOIC.
INVOICE: 030641
ORDER: 050641
S8
08/23/94
COCCIARDI & ASSOCIATES
PENN DOT
-
NET 30 DAYS
STOS ABAntflNT SUPBRVI ION
---
UNIT PRICE
45.000
45.000
4~.2C()
AMOUNT
~,40. ',j('
150,0(;
43.20
.
783.20
-.
~'\,ji _
07-24-1995 12:32
Ie _. ..
~
DIIII
IN\nIlONII.
110 lIANl'OIID
!ASl' OIlANO&.
(101) '77-1
IlLL TO:
Cocc1arcl1 & A..,
4823 E. Trinclle
Su1te 100
Heehan1cebur8. P
o.\~... "
. . "VIA.,.'
:"":"~~M.iMm!'!:;;. :~~;..
.", .. .,.. ,f
"~"';t.,,,,...;:...,.":-I"'!.~;~.'..'
#~ .... ~ 1':",. .,.....a... .-.rr-..,..,,"
. . .
';~" ";~"t'~~;-:,"!' ." .'lrADK0fID....... t
......:7::.:.. ~ ....'.....
14.50
14.50 1151
Pr ;lact Mana.a%'
1
1 IN URANCE LS
6~' Insuranoe Surohar.e
~943024
Re: Asbe 'to. aba'tB nt 8upervi15ion
(6/:! /94)
P..a 1
'7t",,& (7 J"..
DIRECT
1".10
---------
DllI\Y1@D@~
CUITOU!JI NO.
, .
f
i
,
...~
I
Coc~arcli & Associate.
PennlDOT Bu11dinl
I
.
1&.....
30845
94S024
.. .
OUROIlZHllbeS:R: ;,:.
o.\'I!' . UNIT PAlCl!' .
Dl8C... . . TAX
45.00
N
39.15
N
NonT~bl. ubtotal
'l'axab Sub otal
Tax
Total I
~-:--~ --';"
. . .
. :';'rlaiOUNi'.~:;...
. O' . . ."
652.60
39.15.
~1. 65
0.00
0..00
691.65
-----... -
.... .'
'.
N~ 3.) D... I!
IAl.Rl'IRION 0Uft 0RllIII NUMI&R
None
UNIT ""IC!
DIIC'lIo TAll
<:7-24-1995 12:31
DIRECT
~OO\YJ@D@1i
I
,
, CUITDM;A NO.
.' ~I
[33
DtMGT
.NVlIIOII_N
ato IAHI'OIID
lAST OIWfO!. NJ
(2011 m.11OO
.
BILL TO:
,
I
I
I
I
I
SHIP TO: I
CQeCi~~i & Aseociates
Penn DOt' Bleil
I
Cocoi~rdi & Aeeoci .es
.4623 E. Trindle Ro
Suite 100
Mechsnioebur., PA 1 055
DATI!
&HII' VI4
F.O.ll.
in
T1!RM8
. SHIPP&D
"..; . 1lACK0AD....
415.00
.N
21.60
N
· :"1/16/94 ilo!li'/l!~l!d
I'UROHAR 0IUlIR NUMeeII
ft!!QUIRID . .
Utili
8.00
.8.00
Supervil!lor
1
.
...
IN
~I
LS
Surchar..
11943024
Re; Air onitorini
(lll 194j
?a.e 1
NonTaxab e ubtotal
Taxable ub otal
'. Tax
Total
P.07
30912
943024
AMOUNT
380.00
21.60
361.60
0.00
0.00
381.80
, ., .
, " ..
',0,< :
~7-24~1995 12:26
t.
.. .,.. ..
2016 55919
DIRECT
P 02
~
DlMOT
DOOW@D@~
INC.
175 QUINCY CO~1
HOPILAWN, NJ 1
(110I) -' -
"AX: (8011) ,
,
i ~NO.
!
SOSS3
943024
IIU. TO:
SHIP TO:
C.;j.:ci.s.rdi Z4 A.3ISCciil ':5
4823 E. Trindl. Roe
Sui te 100
I'leehanieei:'.rs. PA . C56
'=.~==!.ar . .ic A:s;soci....'l!8
P-=nn DC Bldlil
I
DAte
llHlP VIA
".0.1.
T!AM8
:..l. ~~
!)'! 1 i '''o~e :i
'.'t"':.,:::.:-i
,Jd1 .;.,) :I,~V:!:
8ALDP&IIlIOH OUII 0IIlll!ft NIMIII!A
I'Ul'ICHASE OIIDIR HUMIIR
DAT&
(J t . I.) ".~~ ~H N"n'!-
SHIPfl!I) IT!M U,M R!QUlAIiD bo\,. UHIT I'IUCI
IlIQUIRIO IWllC 011O. Dl8C .. TAX AMOUNT
1':' 10 ~UPle 2 UM 30.00 300..)0)
1"'"__8 N
1 1 ~N5U CE LS 16.00 15.00
6::: lnl urmce Sur:hEar.e N
"')4ZC~4
^"': D
( 1/2C '~95)
;11-= 1
NonTaxab:lI lubtotal
Taxable !ub'otal
Tax
To:ltal
S18.00
1).00
0.00
318.00
r-rf' f' (1 ,
,.n.
en
c. _
...,
N
:><)
.--
-,
{J .... ....,
.... I III
~ 'n ~ z 0
.~ ~ III i:
, -
~ ~ l:l t; <
2l l:l ~ ~
~ l3< " c :.
, ~~ ~ < < ~ !! ~ <
~ I ..l"Vl " :.
~~8c M >-
~e. .. 2 Ul
~~ ~ ~ Ul" = :.
. t .. - ~ ~
~ ::i~ ~ > ~a ~ >< :. ~ ~
::0..
III III z ~ o .
a~~1 ~ W ~ < 0 i ~
.... ...l az
~f,J~~ III 1Il< 2! III
tl u 01 Ul
III iii
?:J~g Il! I!l III
l:J l3<~ <
=
1 '~.."
'..., "
-' ... ..'
... ... .
.... Mq" 40"."" '.'......An".
......-..O.,.~.....II"I.I.'...
<
-
,
.
BEC!<LEY & MADDEN
ATTOlfSH\"S AT LA\\'
lIAlfHISnlJllu. Pf;~NSY1.'''^SI^ 17100
--.j. ,
-
".
beliefCoccinrdi avers that Defendant, counterclaiming plaintiff, Direct Environmental
(hereinafter "Direct") has overbilled Cocciardi for some and all of the alleged services.
43. Denied. Contrary to the avcrments of Direct, Coccinrdi has not overbilled Direct
for any or all of the projects. To the cxtentthat Dircct indicates that they are without knowledge
or information sufficient to ascertain the extent of the billing, Coeciardi must agree, Coccinrdi
further asserts that no such information or knowledge exists.
WHEREFORE, Coccinrdi respectfully requests that the New Matter of Direct be
dismissed and the judgment be entered in Coccinrdi's behalf,
Cot INTERCLAIM
44, Admitted. By way of further answer, Direct has or had offices in Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania and also Scranton, Pennsylvania.
45. Admitted.
46, After reasonable investigation, Coccinrdi is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted. By way of further answer, in
June of 1994, Joseph Coccinrdi had discussions with Scott Bury of Direct with regnrd to
Coccinrdi's provision of professional services to Direct. To the extent that there is an alleged
contract between Cocciardi and Direct with regnrd to Direct providing services to Coccinrdi,
strict proof at time of trial is demanded. To the extent that it is determined that there was an
2
intended controct between Cocciardi and Direct, Cocciardi asserts that there was a failure of
consideration.
47. After reasonable investigation, Cocciardi is without knowledge or infonnation
sufficient to fonn a belief that the truth of the matter asserted.
48. The avennents of this paragraph constitute a conclusion oflaw to which no
responsive pleading is required, To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, after
reasonable investigation, Cocciardi is without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to fonn a
belief as to the truth of the matters asserted.
49, Denied. It is specifically denied that the principle amount due (reportedly due
from Cocciardi to Direct) equals $24,278.86. Cocciardi asserts that there is no principle amount
due Direct and to the contrary, Direct owes Cocciardi the principle amount of$57,555.27 along
with interest and the cost of this suit. To the extent that Cocciardi is detennined to owe Direct
any sum of money under its controct theory, Cocciardi avers that it has been overbilled and also
asserts set-off.
SO. Admitted. To the extent that this avennent is intended to indicate that Cocciardi
has refused and failed to pay Direct the principle amount it has demanded, to wit: $24,278.86, the
avennent of this paragraph is admitted, To the extent that this paragraph is intended to imply or
aver that Cocciardi in any way owes or is required to pay Direct this amount, the avennent is
denied,
5 \, Admitted.
3
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge, infonnation, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are
made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
DATED: glHO\qs
~.(k~
sep A. Cocciardi
occiardi and Associates, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Glenn R. Davis, Esquire, of the law linn of Latsha & Capozzi, P.C., herein
certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff s Answer to
Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim on August 17, 1995 by depositing a copy of
the same in the possession of the United States Mail, Iirst-class, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire
Beckley & Madden
Cranberry Court
212 North Third Street
P.O, Box 11998
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Latsha & Capozzi, P.C.
Dated:
By ~,::?\h~
Glenn R. Davis
Attorney I.D. # 31040
P.O. Box 825
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717)761-1880
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Coccinrdi and Associates, Inc.
~o
c."
-'-j::::'-1
:1'1'.1:: -:-:
;.r.min.
~ r~.;.~ \~
r~2 -
ot':l::2~
!:(")O..,
::.:.::;:,Z:-
;J"c;::<.:),C')
.__rYt
....,;;:
.......
""'-<:
"'"'
c:
c;">
I'.)
'-
w
C
#>
3E
=
COCCIARDI lIND 1\SSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff
.
.
IN THE COURT OF c::a+m PLEAS OF
: a.JMl3ERLAND COUNTY, PEllNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-1622
:
DIREX:T nNIRCDIENl'AL
Defendant
RULE
lIND Na'l, this
I b day of . \J ,y{~" ' 1995, the
Court having considered the Petition for Leave To Withdraw as Defense
Counsel, a rule is hereby issued upon Plaintiff and Defendant to show
cause, if any there be, why said Petition should not be granted.
Rule returnable
fl.~)
...-
~. vii ~:p~ ,-:..{;?&/ i-JZ_
)~/ /
/V( w./ j
...
COCCIARDI lIND 1\SSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF C(MoDN PLEAS OF
CUl1BERLAND COUN'lY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACl'ION NO. 95-1622
v.
DIROCT ENVIRONMENrAL,
Defendant
ORDER
AND NCM, this
day of
, 1995, it is
hereby ORDERED that the Petition for Leave to l'Iithdraw as Defense
Counsel is GRANTED.
Thanas A. Beckley, John G. ~lilakovic, and the Law Firm of
Beckley & Madden is hereby granted leave to withdraw as defense
counsel in this case.
"
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-1622
COCCIARDI AND 1\5SOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURl' OF ~ PLEAS OF
W!BERLl\ND COUNTY, PEllNSYLVANIA
DIRECT awIRONMENTAL,
Defendant
PEl'ITION roR LFAVE TO
WI'mDRAW 1\5 DEFENSE COUNSEL
lIND NCW cane Thomas A. Beckley, John G. Milakovic, and
Beckley & Madden, Of Counsel, and hereby petition the Court for leave
to withdraw as defense counsel, and in support thereof, aver.
l. Defendant currently owes Beckley & Madden the sum of
$10,121.89 for legal services rendered and expenses.
2. Defendant's President, Mr. Peter Lordy, recently
indicated to Beckley & Madden that Defendant ~uld not be paying this
outstanding balance nor any future bills.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request leave of Court
to withdraw as defense counseL
DATED: /1/1 '11'i.J
Respectfully sul::mitted,
Of Counsel
~';/rl;1 {j &,14
Th . Beckley
BEX:I<U.'Y & MADDEN
212 North Third Street
P.O. Box 11998
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717) 233-7691
L---~
foIilakovic
Petitioners
VERIFlCATIOO
I, John G. Milakovic, hereby state that I am an adult
individual who is authorized to make this verification on behalf of
Beckley & ~ladden, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing
pleading are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 54904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
DATED :
, .
CERl'IFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document was served upon cl1e following persons and in
the manner indicated below.
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Glenn R. Davis, Esquire
Latsha & Cappozzi, P.C.
P.O. Box 825
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0825
Mr. Peter Lerdy
Direct Environmental, Inc.
175 Quincy Court
Hopelawn, NJ 08861
DATED:/IPlf/9J" ~~
0/. .u-c
~
......KI'...O.SIL...,.CIiIL...I'SIl.
Of\l""O'O'."""""1WO]1Un..",
Nav /J Ii 56' '95
../1
tn -r. ...
("~, .-t~'O'f",c<
, IllE I'Rr'JT,. ...
CUHHffiU'jj;~'~.; r^!,~
PENNSYL\'''';"'~' t
..."tt.
Z
rz:l
~ ~ ~
<j~~
~~8~
.lI III .. =
"V~IIl-
... Z ~ ~
.... III :< t
rz:l e < 0
~~az
~< !!
(,) 01
rz:l
ll::l
BECKLEY & MADDEN
ATI"ORNRYS AT LAW
UARH1StHIRO. Pt:SNSYI.VANIA 17108
"
III
o
-
~
<
III i<
g ~
'-I
K ..
2 III
~ Z
~ ~
l:ll..
o .
~ ~
III
III
0:
III
<
=
.{
~
~
"-
~
"=::'
1
\'
~
\'
COCCIARDI lIND 1\5SOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
: IN THE COURT OF COMIION PLE1\5 OF
CUMBERLAND OJUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-1622
DIROCT ENVIRONMENTAL,
Defendant
ORDER
(~
, 1995, a Peti-
AND NCM, this
l%
day of
tion having been filed by Thomas A. Beckley, John G. Milakovic, and
the Law Firm of Beckley & Madden for leave to withdraw as defense
counsel; and a Rule having been issued on said Petition, to show cause
why the relief requested should not be granted, said Rule returnable
seven days after service thereof; and the Rule having been served on
November 20, 1995; and no response to the Rule having been filed to
date; it is hereby ORDERED that the Rule is made absolute and the
relief requested in the Petition is GRAm'ED.
Thomas A. Beckley, John G. ~1ilakovic, and the Lal" Firm of
Beckley & ~ladden are hereby granted leave
this case.
to withdraw as 79J'lnsel in
/
. ,.
vi{
./
>- co ~
c; 0
;::: --
M -":)
UlQ. b~
u"'-. l.) ~~
0:0 c:: --
B.c::- C~
0'. ":;?;)
6}.:; CO ~J;~
~'o. u:z
-" '..u <-; Il.IUJ
U;. . Lu !-"~'L
r.'.: l::J ~
1,- 1(') ::s
0 G" U
tY
>-
(I;
r::
~Q
r ..
l-Cl
or.:
; ,..__l
@,";
Et! ~l_:
t'::
u..
1..1
<:)
~
~~~
(' 1_7~
0::'
..'.
(~~j
::~7 ~";
..to'.
'-,'...
;i!Cj
D:~u.
e..-=
-'
u
N
:1:
....
_"f"
L'
1.11
,-,
U"
a,
Z
r.l
Q I;;
Q ~ .. ~
<~~...
~~8'::
~
~ ~ ~ ~
>< z ~ j:
.., III 7. ..
... 0 < 0
..l~aZ
~< ~
C,)
r.l
l)::l
_ "I'.' 10"".". nil.' ...r.....
OfrtIWOJ l>>1'Wolnl'1'lO'lJ~Yj"""
,
BECliLEY & MADDEN
ATfORNt";)"S AT LAW
IlhIlIU"'UI1Hn. PL~~SYLV^SI^ 171nn
<
.. i
~ ~
;.l
~ >-
g '"
~ Z
~ ~
l:ll.
o 0
~ III
9 ::>
- III
!!l
III
III
<
:::
~~
<>- .
~'1
...
-
-<
-
F
III
o
t:
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document was served upon the following persons and in
the manner indicated below.
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Glenn R. Davis, Esquire
Latsha & Cappozzi, P.C.
P.O. Box 825
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0825
Mr. Peter Lordy
Direct Environmental, Inc.
175 Quincy Court
Hopelawn, NJ 08861
DATED: /1_!1-2.-{'ir A ----
J~ ~iC
.
... ~
fl; ..:r
-,
,..' .
11J~-'! M :--; <<'"
I~f;) Cl...~
....- U;:';
~-
u.. ....".,,;..
~[-; _....oJ
'\ , ~. '.0 :si:?
7jc:.. ('-l
r.- '.-..0
r,-'" < , r:jr~)
L.,'"
r' L. . L~u....
Co.
". lrJ ::.i
0 lJ~ U
CIl
Z sa
f&l !::
~ t; <
~ ~ .. = i
<...l !i i!! g ~
~ ~ tI) - ;,.J
~~8~=~~
~~~ :~.
"VfIl"'~U;;
.. Id ;:
>- iii ~ t; ~ jl..
~~5~~g
lsl 0( e.d ~
t) OJ Ul
f&l iii
l:Q ~
==
H. "H" IO.,U...'.ISU..AnU.
0frl1WO, O]~,...,.1'ftl.1Jj.,!..'"'
BECl{LEY 80: MAnnEs
. .Vr-.O.P..t-;y.... AT I.AW
11.\"1<1.....1\1 HI;. 111:~...!'-.Yl.\".\."'I.\ 171tl"
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE POOl'H()N:Yl'ARY OF CUolBERLAND COUNl"i
Please list the following case:
'~) '. ~
(A'
....)
."
I
.j?1
In,
( X) for trial without a jury. ,~.. c, <r:
-----------------------------------~~.~~~_!)~~
.... -t..-)
CAPl'ION OF C1\SE urn
(entire caption RUst be stated in full) (check one) :: (~; ;J
:~ "-J -<
(X) Civil Action - Law
(Check one)
for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. :
axx:IARDI lIND 1\5SOCIATES, INC.,
Appeal from Arbitration
)
(other)
( Plaintiff)
vs.
DIREX:T ENVIRONMENl'AL
The trial list will be called on F~b 'Orn
and
Trials conmence on MIlrch 1 R. 1996
(Defendant)
Pretrials will be held on Feb. 2R. 1996
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.)
(The party listing this case for trial shall
provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 2l4.1.)
vs.
No. 95-1677 Civil
9'i-1677
19 <I'i
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe.
~lpnn R ~vi~. T~t~h~ ~ r~rn?7i. p ~
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known.
I
~
!
This case is ready for trial.
Signed.
.' '. ..'Ji
\. '\'-.\.,-,--L \~\....\ }
Print Name: Glenn R. Davis
Date:
Januarv 17 1 <lq,;
Attorney for: Cocciardi and Associates. In~
SHERIFF'S RETURN
CASE NO: 1995-01622 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
COCCIARDI AND ASSOCIATES INC
VS.
DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL INC
STEVEN WHISTLER . Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according
to law, says, that he served the within WRIT OF SUMMONS
upon DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL INC the
defendant, at 1127:00 HOURS, on the 30th day of March
19~ at 703-C SIMPSON ST.
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 ,CUMBERLAND
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to VINCENT MOBILIO, ACCOUNTANT
ADULT IN CHARGE OF BUSINESS
a true and attested copy of the WRIT OF SUMMONS
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
18.00
5.04
.00
2.00
So answers: Y?~ ~y/~
r:--':?.;:.,-~ ~
R. Thomas Kline, ~her1
$20.04 GLENN R. DAVIS
04/03/1995
by ,_~,~ l ~.~
Dept((~..q~:~?d\
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this 1~ day of Oh.,,,
,
19 q~/ A.D.
'-f.r'" 0 ~4" , #-
i"rot onot'ary