Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-2590 CivilCENTRAL PA DATA SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff VS. RICHARD DAME d/b/a SHARED DATA SERVICES, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 02-2590 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 Central PA Data Services, Inc.("Plaintiff") is a Pennsylvania corporation whose principal place of business is 138 Tory Circle, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. (Plaintiff' s Complaint, para. 1.) The plaintiff is in the business of providing computer consulting services. (Plaintiff' s Complaint, para. 3.) In 2000, Richard Dame d/b/a Shared Data ("Defendant"), an individual residing in Alabama, contacted the plaintiff about providing consulting services as a subcontractor. (Plaintiff' s Complaint, para. 4.) The two reached an agreement, without a written contract, and the plaintiff did consulting work for the defendant' s clients on site. (Plaintiff' s Complaint, para. 9.) The plaintiff also alleges to have done a substantial amount of work for the defendant's clients from its Cumberland County office. (Plaintiff' s Complaint, para. 9.) At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff sent invoices and/or time sheets to the following address: PNB 204, 60 Chelsea Corners, Alabama. The address is the location of Post Net, a mail drop and business service operation used by the defendant as his business address since its inception. (N.T. Richard Dame at p. 14.) The plaintiff claims that the defendant breached the parties' agreement by failing to pay $107,047.02 for services rendered to the defendant's clients. (Plaintiff' s Complaint, para. 14.) The plaintiff initiated the lawsuit by filing a summons on May 28, 2002. The summons was mailed via certified mail to the defendant at the PNB address. The summons was received and signed for by Michele Hinton, a person unknown to the defendant. (Defendant's Petition to Strike and/or Open Judgment by Default, para. 7.) The defendant alleges that he did not receive the summons until late July 2002. (Defendant's Petition to Strike and/or Open Judgment by Default, para. 10.) After the defendant received the summons, he drafted two letters to plaintiff' s counsel. In the correspondence, the defendant set forth his address as being PNB 204, 60 Chelsea Corners, Alabama. Although the complaint was issued July 24, 2002, the defendant claims he did not receive it until mid August 2002. (Defendant's Petition to Strike and/or Open Judgment by Default, para 10(B).) Although the Praecipe to Enter Judgment by Default was issued on September 9, 2002, the defendant claims he did not receive it until approximately September 24, 2002. (Defendant's Petition to Strike and/or Open Judgment by Default, para. 10((2).) In his deposition the defendant testified that PNB has signed for mail on his behalf in the past. (N.T. Richard Dame at p. 89.) The defendant also testified that he picked up his mail at PNB every week. (N.T. Richard Dame at p. 17.) Further, the defendant testified that he has received every legal document filed in this matter. (N.T. Richard Dame at p. 17.) This matter was initiated by the filing of a Praecipe for a Writ of Summons on May 28, 2002. The summons was mailed via certified mail to the out-of-state defendant at the following address: PNB 204, 60 Chelsea Corners, Chelsea, Alabama. A signed receipt card for the summons was received June 1, 2002, and was signed for by Michele Hilton. A complaint was filed on July 24, 2002. A praecipe to enter default judgment was filed and judgment was entered on September 9, 2002. Notice of the entry of the judgment was mailed to the defendant on September 9, 2002. On October 22, 2002, defendant filed his petition to open and/or strike the judgment entered. The plaintiff filed an answer to open/strike on October 31, 2002. This court heard argument on the defendant's petition on February 10, 2003. Subsequently, an order was entered, from which the defendant appeals, which order denied his Petition to Strike and/or Open. The defendant first asserts that service of process was not proper in this case. We disagree. The defendant was served by mail at the only address which he used in his dealings with the plaintiff. He admits that this address was proper and that he had specifically authorized the "PNB" or Postal Net Box to receive his mail. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 5322(d) permits service of process outside of the Commonwealth. Pa.R.C.P. 404 provides, specifically, for service by mail in such circumstances. According to Rule Pa.R.C.P. 403, the process must be mailed to the defendant "by any form of mail requiring a receipt signed by the defendant or his authorized agent." The creation of an agency requires no specific formality. It is a question of fact and does not require proof of specific authority. Rather, agency can be inferred from the facts giving rise to an implied intention to create the relationship of principal and agent. See B & L Asphalt Industries. Inc. v. Fusco, 753 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 2000). In this case, Dame used the same address for all of his mail since the inception of his business. He knew that the employees of Post Net would sign for his mail. He continued to use the same address in correspondence to counsel after receiving notice of the initiation of this action. We are satisfied, in this case, that process was mailed to the defendant and that it was signed for by the defendant's authorized agent. The other contention of the defendant is that the this court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant because of a lack of minimal contact with Pennsylvania. In this case, the defendant had frequent contact with the plaintiff to arrange for and discuss projects. Numerous phone calls were made by the defendant to the office of the plaintiff in Enola, Cumberland County. The defendant received a portion of each hour of time billed by the plaintiff. This was for work done throughout the United States. Any bills sent to the defendant by the plaintiff were paid by sending checks to the Enola office. The bases for establishing personal jurisdiction over persons outside of the Commonwealth are codified at 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5322. That statute confers such personal jurisdiction where there is the transacting of business in this Commonwealth. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 5322(a)(1)(2). We are satisfied that the criteria of this statutory section have been met. June 20,2003 David Baric, Esquire For the Plaintiff Kirk Sohonage, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J.