Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-1591 civilWENDY D. SELTZER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo NO. 99-1591 RAYMOND KEPNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Before HOFFER, P.J., HESS, and GUIDO, J.J. ORDER AND NOW, ~~"~'~ , 2000, after consideration of the pleadings and the objections thereto, defendant's preliminary objection to plaintiff's Fair Debt Collection Practices claim is granted on the grounds that defendant's actions were not within the scope of the Act. Defendant's preliminary objection pertaining to plaintiff's reference in the complaint to the prior decision of the District Justice is granted. In addition, plaintiff is instructed to amend her complaint in conformance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as explained in the opinion below, within twenty (20) days of this Order. By the Court, Wendy D. Seltzer 27 South 24th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Plaintiff, Pro se William L. Adler Adler & Claraval 125 Locust Street P.O. Box 11933 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1933 Attorney for the Defendant WENDY D. SELTZER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 99-1591 RAYMOND KEPNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Before HOFFER, P.J, HESS~ and GUIDO, J.J. OPINION Plaintiff Wendy Seltzer, of 27 South 24th St., Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint on April 9, 1999 against defendant Raymond Kepner, of 533 Grandview Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff has alleged, inter alia, harassment, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and defamation claims against defendant. Defendant has raised several preliminary objections to the complaint, and has asked this court to order that the complaint be stricken or amended. Defendant has raised the following preliminary objections: (1) lack of jurisdiction over subject matter of the action in regard to the Fair Debt Collection Practices claim; and (2) inclusion of impertinent matter in regard to the prior decision of the District Justice. The basis of defendant's first objection is the premise that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal statute. Conversely, case law states that this court may hear such a claim. In Itri v. Equibank, 318 Pa. Super. 268,464 A.2d 1336 (1983), the Superior Court held that Courts of Common Pleas have subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims under the Act. Id. However, we note that the Act does not apply to persons or businesses collecting debts on their own behalf. 15 U.S.C.A. §1692a(4). Rather, it is directed to those persons who are engaged in business for the principal purpose of collecting debts. Id. at §1692a(6). As the complaint does not allege that Mr. Kepner was attempting to collect for anyone other than himself, the demurrer is sustained and this count is dismissed. Defendant's second objection relates to plaintiff's inclusion of the prior decision of the District Justice. Plaintiff may not include references to the prior decision of the District Justice in her complaint because in appealing the District Justice's decision, she has instituted a de novo review of this case. Therefore, defendant's objection is granted pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). Defendant has also asked this court to either strike the complaint or, in the alternative, order that it be amended for failure to conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's complaint consists of one page of short, sometimes fragmented sentences that do not sufficiently describe the facts surrounding each of her claims. Rather, plaintiff's complaint is a list of legal conclusions. A complaint must state the material facts upon which the claim is based. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). Pennsylvania employs a system of"fact pleading," whereby the plaintiff is required to set forth the facts of the case with specificity. A complaint must apprise the defendant of the nature and extent of the plaintiff's claim so the defendant has notice of what the plaintiff intends to prove at trial and may prepare to meet such proof with his own evidence. See Clark v. SEPTA, 691 ^.2d 988 (Pa. Commw. 1997). In addition, the complaint fails to set forth times, places, and items of special damage as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019(f). Further, although some of plaintiff's claims purport to be based on writings, plaintiff has not attached any writings as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h). The plaintiff must also set forth in the complaint each separate cause of action and any special damage thereto in a separate count containing a demand for relief. Pa.R.C.P. 1020(a). Due to the inadequacies of the complaint, we order that plaintiff amend the complaint within twenty (20) days of this Opinion and Order. Plaintiff is also directed to amend the complaint with attention to Rules 1022-1025 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (paragraphing, signing, verification, and endorsement).