HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-3113 Civil
G C S SERVICE, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff/Respondent : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW
:
SEVEN HILLS INCORPORATED, :
Defendant/Petitioner : NO. 06-3113 CIVIL
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
BEFORE HESS, J.
On February 22, 2007, the undersigned entered an order denying the defendant’s petition
to open default judgment. The defendant has appealed. We file this memorandum in support of
our order which denied the defendant’s petition.
The plaintiff filed an answer to the defendant’s petition to open default judgment in this
case. Thereafter, however, no depositions were taken. Therefore, the “petition shall be decided
on petition and answer and all averments of fact responsive to the petition and properly pleaded
in the answer shall be deemed admitted.” Pa.R.C.P. 206.7(c). Thus configured, the facts are as
follows.
The plaintiff filed a complaint on or about May 31, 2006. The defendant was served with
the complaint on June 6, 2006. Service was accomplished by handing a copy of the complaint to
Judy Williams, bookkeeper, the adult in charge at 1104 Fernwood Avenue, Camp Hill,
Cumberland County, which address was the office of the defendant. A ten-day default notice
dated June 27, 2006, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.1, was sent to the defendant at the same address.
The ten-day notice was not returned as undelivered by the post office. The defendants were
notified of the entry of the judgment by ordinary mail on July 14, 2006. Thereafter, the plaintiff
made at least four telephone attempts to speak to Rahgu Tradavarthy, the principal of
NO. 06-3113 CIVIL
the defendant, and messages were left with Judy Williams, the bookkeeper. The telephone calls
were not returned. On August 17, 2006, the plaintiff corresponded by mail with the defendant
demanding that the judgment be paid. Again, there was no response.
On October 25, 2006, a writ of execution was issued by the Prothonotary of Cumberland
County. The defendant filed its petition to open default judgment on December 5, 2006.
It is well settled that a petition to open a default judgment should not be granted unless:
(1) a petition has been promptly filed; (2) the default can be reasonably excused; and (3) there is
a showing of a meritorious defense. Schultz v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 477 A.2d 471(Pa. 1984). The
petition clearly fails on all three requirements.
First, the defendant waited over four and a half months to file a petition to open. This can
hardly be determined to be “prompt.” While the defendant contends that it was in the midst of a
“complete office relocation during the month of June 2006,” it is apparent that there were both
written and verbal communications with respect to the pendency of this action. Simply put, the
defendant has offered no reasonable excuse for its failure to answer the complaint. Finally,
while defendant has averred that “it can offer a meritorious defense,” its proposed answer and
new matter consists only of broad statements denying the plaintiff’s claim and a list of
affirmative defenses with no factual support.
April 24, 2007 ______________________________
Kevin A. Hess, J.
Daniel C. Dougherty, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire
For the Defendant
2