HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-1100 CivilNANCY K. STOUFFER,
Plaintiff
Vo
STEVE WORLEY, Individually,
and WORLEY MOTOR'S, INC.
a Pennsylvania Corporation,
Defendants
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
· CIVIL ACTION-~LAW
:-
· No. 99-1100 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANTS' pRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF' S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIMS
BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 1999, upon consideration of Defendants'
preliminary objections to Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' counterclaims, and for the
reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the preliminary objections are sustained to
the extent that paragraph 31 of Plaintiff's pleading is stricken, and Plaintiff is accorded
20 days from the date of this order to file an amended pleading in accordance with this
opinion.
Nancy K. Stouffer
231 Reeser Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Plaintiff, pro Se
Philip L. Zulli, Esq.
1501 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Attorney for Defendants
BY THE COURT,
JIWesley ~i~)Jr., J.
NANCY K. STOUFFER,
Plaintiff
Vo
STEVE WORLEY, Individually,
and WORLEY MOTOR' S, INC.
a Pennsylvania Corporation,
Defendants
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
· CIVIL ACTION--LAW
· No. 99-1100 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIMS
BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
OLER, J., September 30, 1999.
In this civil case, the pro se Plaintiff has filed a 152-paragraph complaint against
Defendants in connection with various repairs allegedly undertaken by Defendants with
respect to several automobiles owned by Plaintiff. The complaint contains counts for
negligence, breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and
theft.
For disposition at this time are preliminary objections of Defendants to a reply of
Plaintiff to certain counterclaims. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the preliminary
objections will be sustained.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The present action was commenced by Plaintiff in the office of the Honorable
Robert V. Manlove, District Justice. A verdict was entered in favor of Plaintiff in the
amount of $4,000.00, plus costs, by the district justice on February 2, 1999. An appeal
was filed in this court by Defendants Steve Worley, individually, and Worley Motors,
Inc., on February 25, 1999.
Plaintiff filed a complaint herein on March 11, 1999. An answer with new matter
and counterclaims was filed by Defendants on April 16, 1999. The new matter consisted
of one paragraph (paragraph 153), stating "Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to paragraphs 1 through 152 above." The counterclaims (paragraphs 154-62)
were for nonpayment of a $265.00 repair bill and a $164.72 repair bill.
On April 21, 1999, Plaintiff filed a document entitled Plaintiff's Motion for
Sanctions, and Response to Defendants' Answer and New Matters. In the portion of the
document devoted to the "Response to Defendants' Answer and New Matters," Plaintiff
stated as follows:
30. Plaintiff re-asserts every claim made in Plaintiffs'
"Complaint" and denies any other interpretation made in Defendant's
"Answer", paragraphs 1 through 152, (see "Exhibit Three").
31. Plaintiff denies claims made in Defendant's "New Matters",
paragraphs 154 through 162 for the reasons set forth in
aforementioned paragraphs 17 through 29, (see "Exhibit Three").
Exhibit Three in this document was a copy of Defendants' answer with new matter and
counterclaims.
On May 11, 1999, Defendants filed preliminary objections to the document filed
by Plaintiff, based upon the inclusion of scandalous and impertinent matter in the motion
for sanctions, and a lack of specificity in the reply to counterclaims. Plaintiff
subsequently withdrew her motion for sanctions, with the permission of the court, and
Defendants' preliminary objections with regard to that motion were deemed moot.~
Defendants' preliminary objections to Plaintiff's reply to the counterclaims were argued
on August 11, 1999.2
DISCUSSION
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(a)provides as follows:
A responsive pleading shall admit or deny each averment of fact
in the preceding pleading or any part thereof to which it is responsive.
A party denying only a part of an averment shall specify so much of it
as is admitted and shall deny the remainder. Admissions and denials
in a responsive pleading shall refer specifically to the paragraph in
which the averment admitted or denied is set forth.
See Order of Court, June 1, 1999.
Plaintiff did not file an argument court brief.
2
It is apparent that Plaintiff's response to Defendants' counterclaims is not in
conformity with this rule. For this reason, Defendants' preliminary objections to
PlaintiWs reply to the counterclaims will be sustained, paragraph 31 of PlaintiWs Motion
for Sanctions, and Response to Defendants' Answer and New Matters, will be stricken,
and Plaintiff will be accorded 20 days from the date of the acompanying order to file a
proper reply to paragraphs 154 through 162 of Defendants' Answer with new matter and
counterclaims. The pleading filed by Plaintiff should (a) be entitled Plaintiff's Amended
Reply to Defendants' Counterclaims and (b) include paragraphs numbered 154 through
162, directly responding to paragraphs 154 through 162 of Defendants' Answer with new
matter and counterclaims.
ORDER OF COURT.
AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 1999, upon consideration of Defendants'
preliminary objections to Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' counterclaims, and for the
reasons stated in this opinion, the preliminary objections are sustained to the extent that
paragraph 31 of Plaintiff's pleading is stricken, and Plaintiff is accorded 20 days from the
date of this order to file an amended pleading in accordance with this opinion. BY THE COURT,
/s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr:
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Nancy K. Stouffer
231 Reeser Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Plaintiff, pro Se
Philip L. Zulli, Esq.
1501 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Attorney for Defendants