The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-1763 CivilKELLY HARTMAN, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LARRY SPARANO, AL PICKERING, EMMA PICKERING, FRANK MARACA, GUNTHER GOTASKIE, DEFENDANTS 03-1763 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., August 4, 2003:-- On October 25, 1993, plaintiff, Kelly Hartman, filed a complaint alleging counts of defamation and conspiracy against defendants, Larry Sparano, Al Picketing, Emma Picketing, Frank Maraca and Gunther Gotaskie.~ Plaintiff is represented by Spero Lappas, Esquire, who signed the complaint. Defendant, Gunther Gotaskie, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which has not been opposed by any party. Gotaskie also seeks sanctions against Attorney Lappas for the costs incurred in defending this lawsuit. Gotaskie maintains that Lappas did not have a reasonable belief that there were grounds to support the allegations against him. We will grant the motion to dismiss the complaint but deny the request for ~ The complaint was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County. That court changed venue to this court on November 28, 2001. 03-1763 CIVIL TERM sanctions. When the complaint was filed, Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1023 provided: (a} Every pleading of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name. A party not represented by an attorney shall sign his own pleading. (b) The signature to a pleading constitutes a certificate that the person signing it has read it, that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay. (c) Section 8355 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8355, is suspended absolutely, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of 1968, Article V. Section 10(c). (Emphasis added.) Rule 1023 was amended effective December 1, 1997, and then rescinded effective July 1, 2002. It has been replaced with Rule 1023.1, which provides in pertinent part: (b) Every pleading, written motion, and other paper directed to the court shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. This rule shall not be construed to suspend or modify the provisions of Rule 1024 or Rule 1029(e). (c) The signature of an attorney or pro se party constitutes a certificate that the signatory has read the pleading, motion, or other paper. By signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating such a document, the attorney or pro se party certifies that, to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, (3) the factual allegations have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery... (d) If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (c) has been violated, the court -2- 03-1763 CIVIL TERM may, subject to the conditions stated in Rules 1023,2 through 1023,4, impose an appropriate sanction upon any attorneys, law firms and parties that have violated subdivision (c) or are responsible for the violation. (Emphasis added.) Rule 1023, which was in effect when the complaint was filed, provided that a person signing the document have a belief that there is good ground to support the pleading, which is essentially the same requirement in current Rule 1023.1. However, there is no authority under Rule 1023 to sanction an attorney for a violation as there now is in Rule 1023.1. Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2003, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The motion of defendant, Gunther Gotaskie, to dismiss plaintiff's complaint against him, IS GRANTED. (2) The motion of defendant, Gunther Gotaskie, for sanctions against counsel for plaintiff, IS DENIED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. -3- 03-1763 CIVIL TERM Spero T. Lappas, Esquire For Plaintiff Farly Holt, Esquire 34 N. Queen Street York, PA 17043 For Larry Sparano Gunther Gotaskie, Pro se 718 East Chester Street Shamokin, PA 17872 Emma Pickering, Pro se 201 West Mulberry Street Apt. 504 Shamokin, PA 17872 :sal -4- KELLY HARTMAN, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LARRY SPARANO, AL PICKERING, EMMA PICKERING, FRANK MARACA, GUNTHER GOTASKIE, DEFENDANTS 03-1763 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2003, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The motion of defendant, Gunther Gotaskie, to dismiss plaintiff's complaint against him, IS GRANTED. (2) The motion of defendant, Gunther Gotaskie, for sanctions against counsel for plaintiff, IS DENIED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. 03-1763 CIVIL TERM Spero T. Lappas, Esquire For Plaintiff Farly Holt, Esquire 34 N. Queen Street York, PA 17043 For Larry Sparano Gunther Gotaskie, Pro se 718 East Chester Street Shamokin, PA 17872 Emma Pickering, Pro se 201 West Mulberry Street Apt. 504 Shamokin, PA 17872 :sal -2-