Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-2052 civilNORTHEASTERN TELEVISION : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF INVESTORS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : v. : NO. 97'-2052 CIVIL TERM : JERRY GILBERT, : Defendant : IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before HOFFER, P.J. and HESS, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, June 30, 1998, pursuant to the opinion filed this date, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in the amount of $4,625.25, plus interest. Through Defendant's deemed admissions, it is clear that no genuine issue of material fact exists. By the Court, Carol E. Becker, Esquire Bernstein, Bernstein and Strickland P.C. 1133 Penn Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 For the Plaintiff Jerry Gilbert 50 Palmer Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Pro Se NORTHEASTERN TELEVISION : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF INVESTORS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : v. : NO. 97-2052 CIVIL TERM : JERRY GILBERT, : Defendant : IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before HOFFER, P,J, and HESS, J, OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: In this opinion, we address Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The facts are as follows: Plaintiff is a partnership conducting business in production services. In late 1994 and early 1995, Plaintiff sold and delivered to Defendant various production services. Defendant accepted these services. Plaintiff claims an unpaid balance for services rendered of $4,625.25. Plaintiff filed its complaint on April 18, 1997, making a demand for payment. Defendant, acting pro se, filed an answer May 14, 1997. Defendant admitted most of Plaintiff's allegations but disputed the amount due. On May 9, 1997, Plaintiff mailed to Defendant requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for the production of documents. Defendant acknowledged receipt of the requests on June 12, 1997. Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. 97-2052 CIVIL TERM P. 4014(b), Defendant had until July 12, 1997 to respond to Plaintiff's requests for admissions or the requests would be deemed admitted. Defendant has failed to file a response to Plaintiff's requests for admissions. Plaintiff's requests for admissions covered the conduct of Plaintiff and Defendant throughout the course of their business relationship. Plaintiff's requests included that Defendant admits to ordering, receiving, and accepting the services rendered by the Plaintiff, that the sums owed are both the fair market price and the price Defendant agreed to pay, and that Defendant owes Plaintiff the principal sum of $4,625.25 for the services provided by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed for summary judgment on August 13, 1997. Plaintiff claims that it is entitled to summary judgment because Defendant is deemed to have admitted that he ordered, received and accepted the services, the prices were fair and agreed upon and Defendant owes Plaintiff $4,625.25, all through Defendant's failure to respond to Plaintiff's request for admissions. Discussion The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to send requests for admissions to any other party to the action asking that party to admit or deny matters of fact. Pa. R. Civ. P. 4014. A failure to respond to a party's request for admissions within thirty days of service of such requests will render the matters 2 97-2052 CIVIL TERM contained in the requests admitted. Pa. R. Civ. P. 4014(b). Requests for admissions must call for matters of fact, rather than legal conclusions, and are treated as admitted if a response to the requests is untimely. Brindley v. Woodland Village Restaurant, Inc., 438 Pa. Super. 385, 397, 652 A.2d 865, 871 (1995). In the case at bar, Plaintiff properly made requests for admissions dealing only with matters of fact. Defendant has failed to file a response. Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 4014(b), this Court must treat the facts included in Plaintiff's requests for admissions as admitted. A motion for summary judgment may be granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Spirer v. Freeland & Kronz, 434 Pa. Super. 341,343-44, 643 A.2d 673, 674-75 (1994). Parties seeking to avoid an entry of summary judgment may not rely on the averments contained in their pleadings and are required to show, by depbsitions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and/or affidavits, that there is a genuine issue of fact to be tried. Spirer at 344, 643 A.2d at 675. 97-2052 CIVIL TERN Plaintiff is now entitled to summary judgment.1 Defendant is deemed to have admitted that he ordered, received, and accepted production services from the Plaintiff, that the fees charged are both fair and the amount Defendant agreed to pay, and that Defendant does owe Plaintiff the principal sum of $4,625.25. Based upon Defendant's admissions, there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. ~ The fact that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is unopposed by Defendant does not render this decision improper because, based on the merits of the case at bar, there is no genuine issue of material fact remaining. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment. See Dillon by Dillon v. National R.R. Corp. (AMTRAK), 345 Pa. Super. 126, 497 A.2d 1336 (1985).