home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
-
- CIVIL ACTION - LAW
-
-
- ERROL F. TROBEE, :
- :
- Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION
- :
- vs. :
- : NO. 2458 S 1993
- :
- AMERICA ONLINE, INC., :
- :
- Defendant :
-
-
- PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
-
- PETITION RAISING A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
-
- 1. The Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,
- Pennsylvania, lacks matter jurisdiction of this
- action.
-
- 2. The Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,
- Pennsylvania, lacks matter jurisdiction of this
- person of the defendant.
-
- WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the Plaintiff's
- Complaint will be dismissed.
-
-
- OBJECTION TO VENUE
-
- 3. Dauphin County is the the proper venue for this
- action.
-
- WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the Plaintiff's
- Complaint will be dismissed.
-
-
- OBJECTION TO SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT
-
-
- 4. The Plaintiff has not served the Complaint upon
- the Defendant as required by law.
-
- WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the Plaintiff's
- Complaint will be dismissed.
-
-
-
-
- MOTION TO STRIKE BECAUSE OF LACK OF
- CONFORMITY WITH RULE OF LAW
-
-
- 5. The Plaintiff's Complaint appears to plead a cause
- of action based upon a contract.
-
- 6. The Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth
- whether the alleged contract was oral or written.
-
- 7. if the alleged contract upon which the Plaintiff's
- cause of action is based is written, the Plaintiff
- has failed to attach a copy of the writing to the
- Complaint.
-
- WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the Plaintiff's
- Complaint be stricken.
-
- Penn B. Glazier, Esquire
- Attorney for the Defendant
- Attorney I.D. #06949
- 625 West Chestnut Street
- Lancaster PA 17603-3495
- (717) 291-1023
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
-
- CIVIL ACTION - LAW
-
- :
- ERROL F. TROBEE, :
- :
- Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION
- :
- vs. :
- :
- AMERICA ONLINE, INC., : No. 2458 S 1993
- :
- Defendant :
- :
- :
- :
- :
-
-
-
- ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
-
- QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
-
- 1. All events mentioned in the Complaint were transacted
- from the Computer of the Plaintiff which is and was
- located at 1240 F Hampton Hill Courts, Harrisburg,
- Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
-
- 2. Since the Defendant is doing business in Dauphin County
- Pennsylvania, and provides "Local Access" via contracted
- telephone lines, The Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin
- County Pennsylvania does have jurisdiction of the Person
- of the Defendant.
-
- Wherefore, the Plaintiff prays the Objections of the
- Defendant be denied under PA R.C.P. Rule 2179 (2).
-
-
- OBJECTION TO VENUE
-
- 3. Since the Defendant is doing business in Dauphin County
- Pennsylvania, The Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin
- County Pennsylvania does have jurisdiction of the Person
- of the Defendant.
-
-
- Wherefore, the Plaintiff prays the Objections of the
- Defendant be denied under PA R.C.P. Rule 2179 (2).
-
-
-
-
- SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT
-
- 4. The Attorney/Agent for the Defendant has received notice
- of the complaint being filed as evidenced by their
- filing of Objections to the Complaint. In addition, The
- Complaint was sent via Overnight mail on August 12, 1993
- to the Defendant and their Agent/Attorney in accordance
- with PA R.C.P. 403 and 424 (3).
-
- WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that the Objection be denied.
-
- LACK OF CONFORMITY WITH LAW
-
- 5. As with any form of Employment, the contract is implied,
- based upon prior conduct that of payment for service
- performed. This is an implied contract of the two
- parties, Employer and Employee and was conducted as a
- normal course of business.
-
- 6. The Defendant had a prior conduct of reimbursing the
- Plaintiff for services rendered.
-
- 7. The Contract was and offer and acceptance on a mutual
- basis by the Defendant and Plaintiff for services
- rendered. The Payment that had previously been credited
- to the Plaintiff had been withdrawn by the Defendant by
- canceling the Plaintiff's Accounts and have refused to
- reimburse the Plaintiff for the Services Rendered in
- Good Faith.
-
- WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays the the MOTION TO STRIKE be
- overruled.
-
-
-
- Pa Rules of Civil Law notes.
- Rule 403:
- If a rule of civil procedure authorizes original process to be
- served by mail, a copy of the process shall be mailed to the
- defendant by any form of mail requiring a receipt signed by the
- defendant of his authorized agent. Service is complete upon
- delivery of the mail.
-
- Rule 424:
- Service of original process upon a corporation or similar entity
- shall be made by handing a copy to any of the following persons
- provided the person served is not a plaintiff in the action:
-
- (3) an agent authorized by the corporation or similar entity in
- writing to receive service process for it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
-
- CIVIL ACTION - LAW
-
-
-
- ERROL F. TROBEE, |
- |
- Plaintiff | CIVIL ACTION
- |
- |
- vs. | No. 2458 S 1993
- |
- AMERICA ONLINE, INC. |
- |
- Defendant |
- |
- |
-
- BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
-
- TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
-
-
-
- The Plaintiff has brought this suit based upon the employment by
-
- Defendant of Plaintiff to work for Defendant, which operates a
-
- nationwide service allowing people located at different places
-
- throughout the United States and elsewhere, to chat,
-
- simultaneously utilizing a computer and modem and software
-
- designed by and supplied by Defendant to its customers, including
-
- a large customer base solicited in and located in Pennsylvania.
-
- The Defendant has filed preliminary objections and Plaintiff is
-
- responding to same.
-
-
-
- QUESTIONS PRESENTED
-
-
-
- I. Does the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County have subject
-
- matter and personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, and is the
-
- venue properly laid in Dauphin County?
-
-
-
-
-
- II. Should Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be stricken for failure
-
- to comply with Pa. R. C. P. No. 1019(H)?
-
-
-
- ARGUMENT
-
- I.
-
- BOTH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION AND THE PARTIES, AND VENUE
-
- IS PROPERLY LAID IN DAUPHIN COUNTY.
-
- Defendant alleges that there are insufficient "minimum contacts"
-
- between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Defendant for
-
- this Court to lawfully exercise its jurisdiction in a matter
-
- involving a citizen of the Commonwealth. Plaintiff respectfully
-
- disagrees.
-
-
-
- Defendant, a corporation whose headquarters are located in
-
- Virginia, operates and has as its sole source of continuing income
-
- a service provided to computer users nationwide (and now
-
- internationally) by which computer users, utilizing telephone
-
- lines and a modem, may talk to each other and interact in groups
-
- of up to 23 persons simultaneously. Plaintiff, as plead in the
-
- Amended Complaint, was employed by Defendant to manage, host and
-
- write the contents of an entertainment program regularly scheduled
-
- on Defendant's system. That type of program continues through the
-
- present date. Defendant's customers utilize the computer system
-
- to play live, interactive word games, "brain teasers", and other
-
- games similar in format to game shows presented on television.
-
- Each game lasts one hour, and Defendant's customers utilize the
-
- service specifically to participate in such games, paying $3.50
-
- for each hour that they utilize the service.
-
-
-
- In order to utilize the service, a customer must have a computer,
-
- a modem (allowing a computer uses to communicate via telephone
-
- lines), and an active telephone line attached to the modem. The
-
- user cannot utilize Defendant's service, however, unless the user
-
- has a software program created by and/or for Defendant which
-
- allows the customer to contact Defendant. This software can only
-
- be obtained from defendant.
-
-
-
- How does a customer obtain this software program? In the main , a
-
- customer does so by clipping a coupon which the customer finds in
-
- a magazine which he or she purchases at their local newsstand, or
-
- in some instances, the software is included in the magazine
-
- itself. The advertisements are a part of a marketing program
-
- designed by Defendant to solicit customers in every state and
-
- commonwealth, including Pennsylvania. (See Exhibits C and D)
-
-
-
- The customer may also purchase a computer through their local
-
- computer store into which the program has been already installed.
-
- Defendant has entered into a major program of contracting with
-
- computer suppliers to install their computer program in the
-
- computers which the suppliers sell so that a customer will have
-
- the program available for his or her use the moment they start
-
- utilizing the computer, thus avoiding the necessity of the
-
- customer actually having to request a copy.
-
-
-
- In both these instances, the Defendant has arranged, through the
-
- normal channels of commerce, for the software necessary for a
-
- computer user to utilize their service to come into the hands of
-
- said users. Defendant has solicited customers in the Commonwealth
-
- of Pennsylvania directly by placing advertisements and/or software
-
- into publications whose distribution was known to include
-
- Pennsylvania, and by placing its software into computers to be
-
- sold in Pennsylvania. Clearly, this distinguishes this matter
-
- from the situation the Court faced in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.
-
- v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 291 (1980), cited in Defendant's brief.
-
-
-
- A court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident
-
- if (1) jurisdiction is conferred by the state long-arm statute and
-
- (2) the exercise of jurisdiction under the statute meets
-
- constitutional standards of due process. Kenneth H. Oaks, Ltd.
-
- V. Josephson, 568 A. 2d 215, 216 (Pa. Super. 1989).
-
-
-
- Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, 42 Pa. C.S. 5322(b), provides, in
-
- part, that Pennsylvania courts may exercise jurisdiction over non-
-
- resident defendants "to the fullest extent allowed under the
-
- Constitution of the United States" and jurisdiction may be based
-
- "on the most minimum contact with this Commonwealth allowed under
-
- the Constitution of the United States" Ibid.
-
-
-
- Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
-
- a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant so
-
- long as the defendant has "certain minimum contacts... such that
-
- the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions
-
- of fair play and substantial justice", Ibid., citing Milliken v.
-
- Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 342, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940).
-
- In the context of contractual issues, the United States Supreme
-
- Court has held that parties who reach beyond one state and create
-
- continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another
-
- state are subject to regulation and sanctions in the other State
-
- for the consequences of their activities. Ibid at 217, citing
-
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudziewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 485-486, 105 S.Ct.
-
- 2174, 2189, 85 L.Ed.2d 132, 141 (1978) quoting Travelers Health
-
- Assn. v. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643, 647, 70 S.Ct. 927, 929, 94 L.
-
- Ed. 1154 (1950).
-
-
-
- There can be no question but that defendant America Online Inc.
-
- has created continuing relationships and obligations with citizens
-
- of Pennsylvania. To the best of plaintiff's knowledge, belief and
-
- information, defendant derives all, or the majority of, its
-
- revenue from subscriber fees paid by users of its service. Based
-
- upon the population of the Commonwealth in proportion to the
-
- population of the United States Plaintiff believes that, based
-
- upon Defendant's stated subscriber base of 600,000, the subscriber
-
- base located in the Commonwealth would be approximately 28,000.
-
- (See Exhibit A)
-
- The Defendant's database will only allow a maximum of 256 to be
-
- listed in any one category, but the Plaintiff believes that many
-
- more exist. In addition, with more than 12,000,000 "sign on
-
- sessions" per month, as stated in a letter from Steve Case, CEO,
-
- America Online, Inc., (See Exhibit B) that it is reasonable to
-
- assume from the population base that there are 576,000 "sign on
-
- sessions" from the Commonwealth each month. ( Plaintiff believes
-
- that, upon admission of additional discovery material, the number
-
- of Commonwealth residents and "sign on's" from the Commonwealth
-
- can be proven and thus prove that "Minimum Contact" does, in fact,
-
- exist in this case.
-
- Defendant has contracted with several long-distance telephone
-
- carriers to provide local access to defendant's system. By doing
-
- this, defendant's customers do not have to dial directly to
-
- Virginia and pay a long-distance telephone charge in addition to
-
- their per-hour usage fee; the customer pays the usage fee, and
-
- defendant pays for the charges associated with the use of the
-
- long-distance telephone carrier. At the present time, defendant
-
- offers 66 telephone numbers within the Commonwealth, including 23
-
- in area code 717, and 3 located in the Harrisburg vicinity (see
-
- Exhibit F, listing of local access numbers, provided by America
-
- Online). The Plaintiff is willing to depose and call as "material
-
- witness's", officials of Tymenet and SprintNet to testify as to
-
- the validity of the list of access numbers and the number of "sign
-
- on's". The provision of these "local access nodes" within the
-
- Commonwealth is but another indication of defendant's presence
-
- within the Commonwealth, being an activity "purposefully directed"
-
- towards the residents of the Commonwealth. Ibid.
-
-
-
- If additional Discovery is allowed, the Plaintiff will request in
-
- the course of discovery, information regarding the number of
-
- subscribers to the defendant's service located in the Commonwealth
-
- and the revenue derived therefrom. Dismissing this action at this
-
- time will deny plaintiff access to evidence on this subject, which
-
- is solely within the possession of the defendant.
-
-
-
- Does requiring defendant to submit to the jurisdiction of the
-
- Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County "offend traditional
-
- notions of fair play and substantial justice" ? Graham v.
-
- Machinery Distribution, Inc. 599 A. 2d 984, 986 (Pa. Super.
-
- 1991), citing Hanson v. Denkla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S. Ct.
-
- 1228, 1240, 2L. Ed. 2d 1283, 1298 (1958). Plaintiff submits that
-
- it does not. Defendant has solicited a substantial membership
-
- base in the Commonwealth, and continues to do so via advertising
-
- and allowing their corporate name to be used in advertising
-
- "reasonably calculated to reach" the Commonwealth (See Exhibits C,
-
- D, and E). World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. V. Woodson, 444 U. S.
-
- 291, 295. Defendant has contracted with long-distance service
-
- providers (Tymnet and SprintNet, formerly Telenet) to provide
-
- local access for utilization of defendant's services.
-
-
-
- Additionally, defendant employs persons through its Interactive
-
- Educational Services program (IES) to teach courses online to
-
- defendant's customers, both for college credit and not-for-credit.
-
- Plaintiff will submit the affidavit of one of the persons so
-
- employed, Brian Youngerman, who has taught a number of courses
-
- online and, at all times while doing so, has been and is a
-
- resident of Pennsylvania. Mr. Youngerman will testify that he
-
- has always been paid for his services on a regular basis by
-
- defendant America Online Inc. (Previously known as Quantum
-
- Computer Services, Inc.) Plaintiff is aware of at least one other
-
- person residing in the Commonwealth who teaches courses on
-
- defendant's service to defendant's customers, who, like Mr.
-
- Youngerman, is paid for such teaching and who resides in the
-
- Commonwealth. (See Exhibit I)
-
-
-
- There are many areas of interest available to defendant's
-
- customers utilizing defendant's service. These include live
-
- interactive chat (generally referred to by defendant as "People
-
- Connection"), Lifestyles and Hobbies, Games and Entertainment,
-
- Computers and Computing, etc. Each area is manned by staffers
-
- with diverse responsibilities. These include reviewing and
-
- replying to questions asked by customers utilizing the particular
-
- area; supervising live, interactive games as they proceed and
-
- making sure that players conform to acceptable standards of
-
- conduct, researching and posting new material of interest to
-
- customers in each reference area (referred to as "forums").
-
- Without reaching the issue of whether these persons are employees
-
- of defendant, plaintiff notes that it is the services provided by
-
- these persons which permits defendant to make available the broad
-
- range of interest offerings which it does and therefore to attract
-
- the customers to utilize its services. A number of these services
-
- providers are located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
-
- Plaintiff will seek, through additional discovery, the names and
-
- duties of each of these persons and may call some or all to
-
- testify at trial. These persons are chosen by defendant. The
-
- utilization of such persons, performing services for and under the
-
- control and direction of defendant, in the conduct of defendant's
-
- business, located in and residing within the Commonwealth and
-
- remunerated in the form of "Free Connect Time" is but another area
-
- of contact between the defendant and the Commonwealth, making it
-
- proper and appropriate for the exercise of in personam
-
- jurisdiction over the defendant.
-
-
-
- In Asahi Metal Industry Co, Ltd. v. Superior Court of California,
-
- 480 U. S. 102, 107 S. Ct. 1026, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1987) The
-
- United States Supreme Court established several criteria for
-
- determining whether minimum contacts are present with the forum
-
- state:
-
- 1. Is the product designed for the market in the forum
-
- state?
-
-
-
- 2. Does the non-resident party advertise in the forum
-
- state?
-
-
-
- 3. Has the non-resident party established channels for
-
- providing regular advice to customers in the forum
-
- state?
-
-
-
- 4. Does the non-resident party market its product through a
-
- distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent
-
- in the forum state? Asahi Metal Industry Co, Ltd. v.
-
- Superior Court of California, 480 U. S. at 112, 107 S.
-
- Ct. at 1032, 94 L. Ed. 2d at 104-105. These criteria
-
- are not cumulative; if any one is present, it is
-
- evidence that the party itself has created a substantial
-
- connection with the forum state. Burger King Corp. v.
-
- Rudziewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 47 5, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184,
-
- 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 542.
-
-
-
- Examining the criteria, one finds that the defendant's product
-
- (its service) is not specifically designed for marketing in
-
- Pennsylvania, but defendant does advertise in the Commonwealth by
-
- utilizing media reasonably anticipated to reach citizens in the
-
- Commonwealth. (See Exhibits C, D, and E) In addition, the
-
- Defendant knowingly ships its software to the Commonwealth as a
-
- matter of everyday practice. (See Exhibit G)
-
-
-
- Regarding the third criteria, plaintiff will demonstrate, through
-
- subpoenaed testimony at trial, that one of defendant's main
-
- channels of advice to its customers are staffers who are
-
- designated as "guides". One of the primary function of these
-
- "guides" is to assist customers in utilizing defendant's service.
-
- These persons are known to defendant's customers, since they
-
- appear online as "Guide ___" (a two-or three-letter suffix
-
- following the word "Guide"). At least three of these guides known
-
- to Plaintiff are a resident of the Commonwealth and provides his/
-
- her services to the defendant from her residence.
-
-
-
- The fourth criteria involves facts which are in the control of
-
- defendant. Plaintiff believes, as has been alleged earlier, that
-
- defendant has contracted with distributors of computer hardware to
-
- market its product as part of a "package" of computer hardware and
-
- software, and that some of said distributors are located in the
-
- Commonwealth. Plaintiff will be seeking to obtain this
-
- information through additional discovery.
-
-
-
- On April 17, 1994, in the "Center Stage" forum held on America
-
- Online, Steve Case, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
-
- the Defendant was asked the following question:
-
-
-
- "Question How many people work with AOL? (defendant America
-
- Online, Inc.: emphasis added)
-
- Steve Case We have about 400 employees here in our offices...but
-
- hundreds more providing support from other locations (guides,
-
- forum leaders, etc.) We've doubled our staff over the past year,
-
- to try to keep up with the demand. (Transcript of President's
-
- Roundtable Online discussion held in "Center Stage", dated April
-
- 17, 1994. See Exhibit H)
-
-
-
- Plaintiff does not seek to have the Court rule, at this time,
-
- whether Mr. Case's statement constitutes an admission of the
-
- central issue of this case, that being whether so-called "remote
-
- staff" are employees of defendant. It is clear, however, that
-
- defendant does regard such remote staff as employees. Plaintiff
-
- has already made the court aware of the presence of several such
-
- remote staff members, including one "guide", who are located in
-
- the Commonwealth and have been located here at all times relevant
-
- to the matter before the Court. The presence of such employees in
-
- the Commonwealth, conducting the business of the defendant,
-
- indicates clearly that the defendant's claim not to have
-
- sufficient contacts with the Commonwealth as to require the
-
- defendant to defend this matter in the courts of the Commonwealth
-
- lacks any support whatsoever.
-
-
-
- When preliminary objections, if sustained, would result in the
-
- dismissal of an action, such objections should be sustained only
-
- in cases which are clear and free from doubt. Barber v.
-
- Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 317 Pa. Super. 285, 302--3, 464 A. 2 d
-
- 323, 332 (1983), cert. denied 467 U.S. 1205, 104 S.Ct. 2387, 81
-
- L. Ed. 2d 346 (1984). Moreover, when deciding a motion to
-
- dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court must consider
-
- the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
-
- Ibid. Plaintiff submits that it is clear that minimum contacts
-
- exist between the defendant and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
-
- and therefore the motion to dismiss should be denied.
-
-
-
- Defendant also seeks dismissal based upon improper venue. If, as
-
- has been argued above, this Court can properly exercise in
-
- personam jurisdiction over the defendant, then there is no other
-
- forum within the Commonwealth which is more appropriate. Indeed,
-
- defendant has failed to argue that this action should be
-
- transferred to any other venue with in the Commonwealth.
-
- Plaintiff resides within the county. Defendant has a client base
-
- within the county from which it derives revenue, and provides
-
- local access to its service within the county by the provision of
-
- local access telephone numbers. Plaintiff submits that Dauphin
-
- County is an appropriate forum for the litigation of this matter.
-
-
-
- II.
-
-
-
- IT IS MANIFESTLY UNFAIR AND UNJUST TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S
-
- COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY ALLEGE WHETHER PLAINTIFF'S
-
- CLAIM IS BASED UPON A WRITING.
-
-
-
- Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for
-
- failure to allege whether the claim is based upon a writing, and,
-
- if so, to attach same thereto.
-
-
-
- This is a technical objection. Plaintiff has, this day, filed a
-
- motion to permit a second Amendment to the Complaint to correct
-
- this technical defect. Defendant is aware that a portion of
-
- Plaintiff's claim is in fact based upon a writing, the "Terms of
-
- Service" agreement (hereinafter "TOS") which all customers of
-
- defendant agree to abide by in order to utilize defendant's
-
- service. This document was created by defendant, has been changed
-
- by defendant, and copies of it, in all of its versions, are solely
-
- in the possession of defendant. To not dismiss this action for
-
- failure to comply with a technicality will in no way harm
-
- defendant, since the writing in question is already in its
-
- possession and is known to it.
-
-
-
- In addition, Pa. R.C.P. Rule 1019 (h) states, "A pleading shall
-
- state specifically whether any claim or defense set forth therein
-
- is based upon a writing. If so, the pleader shall attach a copy
-
- of the writing, or the material part thereof, but if the writing
-
- or copy is not accessible to him, it is sufficient so to state,
-
- together with the reason, and to set forth the substance of the
-
- writing." However, Pa.R.C.P. 126 states, "LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION AND
-
- APPLICATION OF RULES. The rules shall be liberally construed to
-
- secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every
-
- action or proceeding to which they are applicable. The court at
-
- every stage of any such action or proceeding may disregard any
-
- error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantial
-
- rights of the parties.
-
-
-
- An answer to Defendant's objection with regard to any "Employment
-
- Contract" was answered by the Plaintiff on March 21, 1994 and
-
- served on the Defendant on the same day.
-
-
-
- The "Rights of the Defendant" have not been substantially affected
-
- in any manner, because the Defendant has, or should have, in their
-
- possession, any contract referred to by the Plaintiff.
-
- CONCLUSION
-
- For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff submits that its action
-
- should not be dismissed.
-
-
-
- _________________________
- Errol F. Trobee
- Plaintiff
- [Address and phone deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
- PROOF OF SERVICE
-
-
- I hereby certify that I am this day serving the
- foregoing document unto the person(s) and in the manner
- indicated below, which service satisfies the requirement of
- PA R.C.P. 440.
-
-
- Service by first class mail addressed as follows:
-
- Errol F. Trobee
- [Address deleted]
-
- Date: 8/6/93
-
-
-
- Penn B. Glazier, Esquire
- Attorney for the Defendant
- Attorney I.D. #06949
- 625 West Chestnut Street
- Lancaster PA 17603-3495
- (717) 291-1023
-