Vol. LVI Allentown, PA Friday, June 24, 2016 No. 104

Transcription

Vol. LVI
Allentown, PA Friday, June 24, 2016
1
No. 104
THE COURT
The Hon. Edward D. Reibman, President Judge
The Hon. Carol K. McGinley, Judge
The Hon. Robert L. Steinberg, Judge
The Hon. J. Brian Johnson, Judge
The Hon. Kelly L. Banach, Judge
The Hon. James T. Anthony, Judge
The Hon. Maria L. Dantos, Judge
The Hon. Michele A. Varricchio, Judge
The Hon. Douglas G. Reichley, Judge
The Hon. Alan M. Black, Senior Judge
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
(USPS 309560)
Owned and Published by
THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF LEHIGH COUNTY
1114 Walnut Street, Allentown, PA 18102
www.lehighbar.org
HON. WILLIAM H. PLATT, President
PATRICK J. REILLY, President-Elect
MICHELLE M. FORSELL, Vice President
James J. Kozuch, Secretary
SARAH M. JOLLY, Treasurer
SUSAN G. MAURER, Historian
THOMAS F. TRAUD, JR., Law Journal Committee
RAY BRIDGEMAN, Executive Director
SARAH MUSSEL, Case Editor
Copyright © 2016 Bar Association of Lehigh County
The Lehigh Law Journal is published every Friday. All legal notices must be
submitted in typewritten form and are published exactly as submitted by the
advertiser. Neither the Law Journal nor the printer will assume any responsibility to edit, make spelling corrections, eliminate errors in grammar or make
any changes in content.
The Law Journal makes no representation as to the quality of services offered by
any advertiser in this publication.
Legal notices must be received at 1114 W. Walnut St., Allentown, PA 18102,
before 12 noon the preceding Tuesday. Telephone (610) 433-6204. Advance
issues $100.00 per year. Single copies $2.00. Payment of annual dues to the
Bar Association of Lehigh County includes year’s subscription to Lehigh Law
Journal.
Printed at 206 S. Keystone Ave., Sayre PA 18840
Periodical postage paid at Allentown, PA 18102 and
at additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Lehigh Law
Journal, 1114 W. Walnut St., Allentown, PA 18102.
2
Classical Elegance
A gracious facility for your social and business events....
weddings banquets parties exclusively partnered caterers
www.thebarristersclub.com
1114 W Walnut Street
Allentown | 610-433-6088 ext.12
3
4
5
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY / ETHICS MATTERS
Representation, consultation and expert testimony in disciplinary
matters and matters involving ethical issues, bar admissions
and the Rules of Professional Conduct
James C. Schwartzman, Esq.
Chairman, Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania • Former Chairman,
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of PA • Former Chairman, Continuing
Legal Education Board of the Supreme Court of PA • Former Chairman,
Supreme Court of PA Interest on Lawyers Trust Account Board • Former
Federal Prosecutor • Named by his peers as Best Lawyers in America 2015
Philadelphia Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law “Lawyer of the Year”
1818 Market Street, 29th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 751-2863
Greater Lehigh Valley, PA
naisummit.com | 610.264.0200
2268 S 12TH STREET, ALLENTOWN, PA
Two 11,000 SF office
suites available
Four story building
with ample parking
Divisible space from
approx. 5,500 SF
Near Routes I-78 &
309, access to Rt 22
For information contact: Sarah Finney 610.871.1719 or Matt Dorman 610.871.1699
6
LEHIGH COUNTY PARALEGAL ASSOCIATION’S
6TH ANNUAL LUNCHEON
IN CELEBRATION OF PARALEGAL WEEK
Keynote Speaker
Jack Barsky
…and a surprise mystery guest!
“The Spy Among Us”
Jack Barsky was born, raised and educated in East Germany.
He was recruited by the KGB, and spent 10 years as an
undercover agent in the United States.
Friday, July 29, 2016
12:00 – 1:30 P.M.
The Barristers Club
1114 West Walnut Street, Allentown
Please RSVP to Karen Mesch by July 22, 2016
[email protected] or 610-433-6088 ext. 12
Paralegal Members of BALC: cost included in dues ◊ Attorney Members of BALC: $20.00 ◊ Non-Members: $30.00
We encourage our Paralegal Members to invite their Attorney Sponsors
A special thank you to our Sponsors:
Gold Sponsor
7
FOR LEASE/SALE
THE SCOBLIONKO BUILDING
40 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, ALLENTOWN
We are interested in selling our building or leasing its
second floor. Each of the two office floors contains approximately 2,500 square feet, with two half bathrooms on each
floor. Centrally air-conditioned, with hardwired security and
fire/smoke alarm systems. First floor has four large offices, a
large central conference room, and a smaller conference
room/office. Second floor has six offices. Ample basement
storage space. Adjacent parking available for rental. A half
block from Federal and Lehigh County courthouses. Easy
access to I-78 and Route 22. Contact Mark Scoblionko, (610)
434-7138, extension 12; [email protected].
6-24; 7-1
The BALC Facebook page is
updated regularly with meeting reminders and event
notices, and includes photo albums, discussion
boards, links, and much more. “Like” us at
www.facebook.com/BarAssociationLehighCounty
8
9
Solid Waste Svcs. vs. City of Allentown et al.
959
SOLID WASTE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
J.P. MASCARO & SONS, M.B. INVESTMENTS AND
JOSE MENDOZA, PLAINTIFFS vs.
CITY OF ALLENTOWN AND WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, INC., DEFENDANTS
Preliminary Injunction—Municipalities—Home Rule Charter
and Optional Plans Law—Competitive Bidding Process—
Request for Proposal—Standing—Disappointed Proposer—
Taxpayer Standing—Home Rule Charter—Administrative
Code—Rules of Statutory Construction—Services Contract—
Waste Management Contract—“Competitive Processes.”
Court denied preliminary injunction sought by waste disposal company to stop the
City of Allentown from contracting with a competing waste disposal contractor, based on
assertion that contract awarded should have been solicited via a competitive bidding process,
rather than a request for proposal. The court held that: (1) waste disposal company Solid
Waste Services, Inc., as a disappointed proposer, did not have standing to bring an action
for injunction, but additional Plaintiffs had “taxpayer standing;” (2) neither the City of Allentown’s Home Rule Charter nor its Administrative Code required it to acquire contracts
for services through a competitive bidding process; and (3) the City complied with its Home
Rule Charter, which required that it purchase services through “competitive processes.”
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania—Civil Division. No. 2016-C-157. Solid Waste Services, Inc.
d/b/a J.P. Mascaro & Sons, M.B. Investments and Jose Mendoza,
Plaintiffs vs. City of Allentown and Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc., Defendants.
Albert A. DeGennaro, Esquire, on behalf of Plaintiffs.
Douglas Smillie, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant City of
Allentown.
Shanna L. Peterson, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant Waste
Management of Pennsylvania, Inc.
ADJUDICATION
McGinley, J., May 10, 2016. On January 12, 2016, Plaintiffs
Solid Waste Services, Inc. d/b/a J.P. Mascaro & Sons (Mascaro)
and M.B. Investments (MB) filed a Complaint and a Petition for
Preliminary Injunction. Defendant Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. (WMI) filed Preliminary Objections, and both WMI
10
Lehigh 7-17 op
960
and Defendant City of Allentown (the City) filed responses to the
Petition for Preliminary Injunction.
On February 17, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
and added Jose Mendoza as a Plaintiff. Also on that day, Plaintiffs
filed an Amended Petition for Preliminary Injunction. Defendants
WMI and the City both filed Preliminary Objections to the
Amended Complaint.
A hearing on the original preliminary injunction was set for
February 23, 2016. A hearing was held on that date at which time
the parties agreed to forego a preliminary injunction hearing, and,
instead, hold a final hearing on this matter. Evidence was also
presented in order for Defendants to raise their argument that the
Plaintiffs did not have standing, which was asserted in their Preliminary Objections to the Amended Complaint.
After the conclusion of the hearing, briefs were filed by all
parties and argument was heard on March 24, 2016.
This case involves Plaintiffs’ assertion that the City used an
illegal and unlawful request for proposal process to select and award
the City’s Municipal Solid Waste & Recyclables Collection, Disposal and Related Services Contract (MSW&R Contract) for waste
management services. Plaintiffs request that the court void the
MSW&R Contract between WMI and the City, prevent WMI from
performing pursuant to the MSW&R Contract, prohibit the City
from awarding an MSW&R Contract to any of the proposers under
City RFP No. 2015-24, and remand the matter back to the City so
that a contract can be awarded after a competitive bidding process
with common specifications.
The City contends that pursuant to the City’s Home Rule
Charter and Administrative Code, the waste management and
recycling services was not required to be put out for an invitation
to bid; the only requirement was that the purchase be made through
“competitive processes,” which the City argues was achieved by
the request for proposal issued for this contract.
In deciding the final injunction, two issues need to be resolved: 1. Do Plaintiffs have proper standing to bring the instant
action; and 2. Does the applicable law require the City to award a
11
Lehigh 7-17 op
961
contract for waste management and recycling services through a
competitive bidding process.1
A separate record was established to address the issue of
whether Plaintiffs have proper standing to raise the instant action.
Findings of Fact—Standing
1. Mascaro is a Pennsylvania corporation and a taxpayer
(business privilege tax) of the City of Allentown, with a business address of 315 Basin Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania
18101. (Stipulated Findings of Fact, 1.)
2. Mascaro is a waste service company that engages in
the collection, recycling, transportation, transferring, composting and disposal of nonhazardous solid waste. (Id. at 2.)
3. MB is a Pennsylvania general real estate partnership
that is the owner of property in the City of Allentown, Pennsylvania at 315 Basin Street, and is a taxpayer (real estate
taxes) of the City of Allentown. (Id. at 3.)
4. Jose Mendoza (Mendoza) is a resident of the City and
resides at 1932 South Delaware Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103. (Notes of Testimony, February 23, 2016, p. 17.)
19.)
5. Mendoza pays real estate taxes to the City. (N.T. p.
6. Mendoza is serviced by the waste management contract entered into by the City. (Id.)
7. Mendoza is employed by Mascaro and has worked
for them for 28 years. (N.T. p. 20.)
8. The City awarded the MSW&R Contract to WMI,
contingent upon approval by City Council. (Stipulated Findings of Fact, 27.)
1
At the conclusion of the hearing on the permanent injunction, a third issue was
raised by the City and WMI: if a competitive bid was required for the purchase of waste
management and recycling services, was the process that was used similar enough to a bid
to satisfy the legal requirements. At the post-hearing argument, the City and WMI withdrew
this position and relied solely on the argument that the applicable law did not require a bid
for this contract.
12
Lehigh 7-17 op
962
9. On October 30, 2015, the City sent a letter to Mascaro regarding the award of the MSW&R Contract. (Id. at
28.)
10. On December 9, 2015, City Council again considered Resolution No. 73 [request for City Council’s approval
of the MSW&R Contract]. (Id. at 35.)
11. At the December 9, 2015 meeting, City Council, as
recommended by the City Administration, voted to approve
the award of the MSW&R Contract to WMI. (Id. at 37.)
Conclusions of Law
1. Mascaro is a disappointed competitor of the awarded
MSW&R Contract.
2. Mascaro pays a business privilege tax, but is not an aggrieved taxpayer of the City as it relates to solid waste and recycling
management.
3. Mascaro lacks standing to bring this action before the court.
4. MB pays real estate taxes to the City and is an aggrieved
taxpayer of the City.
5. Mendoza pays real estate taxes to the City and is an aggrieved taxpayer of the City.
6. The only type of challenger to this action would include
disappointed competitors who lack standing or individuals with
taxpayer standing; the winner of the awarded contract would benefit from the award and would be disinclined to challenge it; judicial relief is appropriate in this circumstance with no other alternative remedies; no one else is better suited than MB and Mendoza
to challenge this action.
7. MB has “taxpayer standing” to bring the current action
before the court.
8. Mendoza has “taxpayer standing” to bring the current action before the court.
Discussion
The City and WMI assert that Mascaro and MB are dissatisfied proposers of the awarded contract and lack standing to set
13
Lehigh 7-17 op
963
aside a public contract. Further, they argue that Mr. Mendoza was
added as a “straw man” for Mascaro and MB in order to circumvent
the standing requirements.2 Plaintiffs contend that they have
proper standing pursuant to the “taxpayer standing” exception to
the general requirements of standing.
Generally, to have standing one must be an “aggrieved party;”
someone adversely affected by the matter sought to be challenged.
Wm. Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168,
193, 346 A.2d 269, 281 (1975). In order for a plaintiff to meet that
requirement, he must allege and prove an interest in the outcome
of the suit which surpasses “the common interest of all citizens in
procuring obedience to the law.” Id. To surpass the common interest, the interest is required to be, at least, substantial, direct and
immediate. Id.
Our Supreme Court established a narrow exception from the
above standard for “taxpayer standing” in the case of Application
of Biester, 487 Pa. 438, 409 A.2d 848 (1979). The court explained
the reason for the exception:
Certain cases exist which grant standing to taxpayers
where their interest arguably does not meet the requirements
of Wm. Penn, supra. The relaxing of those requirements in
those cases or, more appropriately, the granting of standing
where the degree of causal connection between the action
complained of and the injury alleged is small, can be explained
by the policy behind granting taxpayers standing. ...
As Mr. Justice Roberts pointed out over ten years ago
in Faden v. Phila. Housing Auth., 424 Pa. 273, 278, 227 A.2d
619, 621-622 (1967):
‘(A)lthough many reasons have been advanced for granting standing to taxpayers, the fundamental reason for granting standing is simply that otherwise a large body of governmental activity would be unchallenged in the courts.’
2
Defendant Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc.’s Post-Hearing Memorandum
of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Injunction, filed with the Clerk of Judicial
Records—Civil Division on March 18, 2016, p. 10; Defendant City of Allentown’s PostTrial Memorandum of Law, filed with the Clerk of Judicial Records—Civil Division on
March 18, 2016, p. 22 (joining and adopting the arguments of WMI concerning Plaintiffs’
lack of standing).
14
Lehigh 7-17 op
964
See Note, Taxpayers’ Suits: A Survey and Summary,
supra, n.5. Hence, the policy for granting standing [w]here
the degree of causal connection is small is to ensure judicial
review which would otherwise not occur. This will most often
occur when those directly and immediately affected by the
complained of expenditures are beneficially affected as opposed to adversely affected. Cf. Faden v. Phila. Housing
Auth., supra.
Id. at 444-45, 409 A.2d at 852. Further, footnote 5 of Biester provides:
The ultimate basis for granting standing to taxpayers
must ... be sought outside the normal language of the courts.
Taxpayers’ litigation seems designed to enable a large body
of the citizenry to challenge governmental action which would
otherwise go unchallenged in the courts because of the standing requirement. Such litigation allows the courts, within the
framework of traditional notions of ‘standing,’ to add to the
controls over public officials inherent in the elective process
the judicial scrutiny of the statutory and constitutional validity of their acts.
Id. at 443 n.5, 409 A.2d at 851 n.5, quoting Note, Taxpayers’ Suits:
A Survey and Summary, 69 Yale L.J. 895, 904 (1960).
Pursuant to the holding in Biester, a taxpayer seeking standing to sue must allege a substantial, direct and immediate interest
in the outcome of the suit unless the taxpayer can show: 1. the
governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged but for
taxpayer standing; 2. those most directly affected by the expenditure
would benefit and thus, be disinclined to challenge it; 3. judicial
relief is appropriate; 4. alternative remedies are unavailable; and
5. no one else is better suited to challenge the action. Gleim v.
Bear, 151 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 274, 281, 616 A.2d 1064, 1068
(1992).
Mascaro is unable to establish a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the outcome of the suit as a disappointed
competitor. “A mere disappointed bidder to a public contract does
not have standing to challenge its award because he has no prop15
Lehigh 7-17 op
965
erty interest and has suffered no injury that would entitle him to
redress.” Black Ash Services, Inc. v. DuBois Area School District,
764 A.2d 672, 674 (Pa. Commw. 2000). “To have standing, the
bidder must be an aggrieved taxpayer of the municipality awarding
the contract.” Id. Here, Mascaro pays a business privilege tax, but
the business privilege tax has not been the type of tax historically
considered to establish an entity as an aggrieved taxpayer. We find
that persons or companies paying real estate tax to the City are
better suited to challenge the action than a company only paying
tax on its profits earned. Accordingly, we find that Mascaro is a
disappointed competitor of the awarded contract and does not have
taxpayer standing to bring the current action.3
However, MB pays real estate taxes to the City of Allentown,
which makes it an aggrieved taxpayer of the municipality awarding
the contract. Additionally, in an abundance of caution, Mendoza
was added as a plaintiff after Defendants filed preliminary objections based on standing to Plaintiffs’ original complaint. Mendoza
owns residential property in the City of Allentown, pays City taxes,
and is serviced by the waste management contract entered into by
the City. N.T. pp. 17-19.
Applying the requirements of taxpayer standing to MB and
Mendoza, we find the challenger to this type of governmental action would only include disappointed competitors who lack standing to file suit or individuals with taxpayer standing, and the winner
of the awarded contract would benefit from such award and would
be disinclined to challenge it. Further, judicial relief is appropriate,
there are no other alternative remedies, and no one else is better
suited to challenge this action. Therefore, MB and Mendoza meet
the taxpayer standing requirements.
Defendants have disputed Mendoza’s standing contending that
procedurally and technically, Mendoza is just a “straw man” for
Mascaro and MB especially given the fact that Mendoza only learned
of the lawsuit one week prior to the hearing. See N.T. p. 22. This
issue was addressed in Marx v. Lake Lehman School District, 817
A.2d 1242 (Pa. Commw. 2003), when appellees argued that Marx
3
Because we find Mascaro does not have standing to bring this action, we do not
address the City and WMI’s allegation of unclean hands.
16
Lehigh 7-17 op
966
was a straw man for an unsuccessful bidder. The court in holding
that knowledge of the details of the case is not necessary, stated:
The courts have recognized that, because competitors
are not granted standing in bidding award cases, the process
relies upon taxpayers to bring actions such as this one.
Rainey v. Borough of Derry, 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 606, 641 A.2d
698, 701 (1994). For this reason, the standing requirement
is not an onerous one. And, in fact, the notion argued by [appellees] that, to possess standing, Marx must have a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in the matter, has been
rejected in public bidding cases. Id. We, therefore, conclude
that Marx, although he is unfamiliar with many of the details
of this case, as a taxpayer, nonetheless, has demonstrated a
sufficient interest in the matter to convey standing upon
himself. Review of the record shows that Marx was in the
construction business, had an interest in the integrity of the
bidding process in general, although he had submitted no bid
on this project, had read the newspaper regarding what occurred with the bidding and had spoken to the unsuccessful
bidder [], a long-time friend whose word he trusted.
Id. at 1245. Similarly, Mendoza, in addition to living and owning
property in the City for over ten years, works in the waste management
business, and has worked for Mascaro for 28 years. N.T. pp. 17-20.
Mendoza is familiar with Mascaro being awarded waste management contracts via public bid. N.T. pp. 21-22. He is also familiar
with the fact the City awarded waste management contracts via
public bid for 20 years and is now changing the procedure. Id. We
find that Mendoza is sufficiently familiar with the facts of this case
to assert his own standing to challenge the award of the MSW&R
Contract.
Finding that MB and Mendoza (Plaintiffs) have proper standing, we address the substance of the permanent injunction.
Findings of Fact—Injunction
1. Mascaro is a waste service company that engages in
the collection, recycling, transportation, transferring, composting and disposal of nonhazardous solid waste. (Stipulated
Finding of Fact, 2.)
17
Lehigh 7-17 op
967
2. MB is a Pennsylvania general real estate partnership
that is the owner of property in the City of Allentown, Pennsylvania at 315 Basin Street, and is a taxpayer (real estate
taxes) of the City of Allentown. (Id. at 3.)
3. Jose Mendoza (Mendoza) is a resident of the City and
resides at 1932 South Delaware Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103. (Notes of Testimony, February 23, 2016, p. 17.)
4. Mendoza pays real estate taxes to the City. (N.T. p. 19.)
5. Mendoza is serviced by the waste management contract entered into by the City. (Id.)
6. Mendoza is employed by Mascaro and has worked
for them for 28 years. (N.T. p. 20.)
7. Defendant City of Allentown is a third-class city operating under the Home Rule Charter form of governance under
the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, 53 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2901 et seq., with offices at 435 Hamilton Street, Allentown,
Pennsylvania 18101. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 4.)
8. Defendant WMI is a corporation in the solid waste
business with a local office at 2710 Golden Key Road, Kutztown, Pennsylvania 19530. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 5.)
9. In the past, pursuant to a fixed competitive bid process, both Mascaro and WMI were awarded waste collection,
disposal and related services contracts by the City. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 6.)
10. In the past, the City’s bid invitations upon which the
waste collection, disposal and related services contracts
awards were made to both Mascaro and WMI were pursuant
to fixed competitive bid invitations with common specifications applicable to all parties. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 7.)
11. Each of these prior awards of waste collection, disposal and related services contracts by the City to Mascaro
and WMI were made in accordance with these fixed competitive bid invitations and were made to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 8.)
18
Lehigh 7-17 op
968
12. None of the last three bid invitations (i.e., in years
1995, 2001 and 2006) were Requests for Proposals on the
basis of a professional services/professional consulting contract or included provisions for ‘value added services,’ nor did
they provide for negotiations after the bids were submitted.
(Stipulated Finding of Fact, 9.)
13. The current contractor for the City providing the
trash collection, disposal and related services is WMI. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 10.)
14. This current contract (the ‘2006 Contract’) was
awarded to WMI pursuant to a City fixed competitive bid
process. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 11.)
15. The current waste management contract includes the
collection of municipal solid waste twice a week, dual stream
recycling collection once a week, and provisions for yard waste,
bulk collection and litter basket collection. (N.T. p. 42.)
16. The 2006 Contract awarded to WMI expires in June
2016. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 12.)
17. Mascaro currently serves approximately 100 municipalities; all of those contracts have been obtained through
a public bid solicitation. (N.T. p. 34.)
18. The City retained Gershman, Brickner & Bratton,
Inc. (‘GBB’), Solid Waste Management Consultants, of Fairfax, Virginia, as a consultant in the 2006 City Bid Invitation.
19. In or around 2015, the City again retained GBB as
consultant for Request for Proposal No. 2015-24 (‘RFP’) with
regard to the City’s MSW&R Contract. (Stipulated Finding
of Fact, 14.)
20. GBB recommended that the waste management
contract solicitation should be done via a request for proposal. (N.T. p. 61, 114.)
21. GBB recommended a request for proposal for the
waste management solicitation because of the variety of services and options involved in the waste management contract,
19
Lehigh 7-17 op
969
including: the frequency of collection for solid waste per week;
the frequency of collection for recyclables per week; whether collections were automated, semi-automated or manual;
whether recyclables were picked up by a dual stream or a
single stream process; household hazardous waste options;
options for staffing at the drop-off location; a no haul/no
landfill option; the number of years of the contract; and,
whether the total cost of the services was over the life of the
contract, a fixed price, a fuel cost adjustment or a consumer
price index adjustment. (N.T., pp. 110-14.)
22. The City considers the collection and disposal of
municipal solid waste and recyclables and related services a
services contract. (N.T. pp. 176-77.)
23. The City’s Purchasing Department together with
the Bureau of Recycling and Solid Waste decided to solicit
for the waste management contract via a request for proposal. (N.T. pp. 60-61.)
24. No one in the City Solicitor’s Office, the City’s Law
Department, or the Solicitor herself, ever saw or reviewed the
RFP before the RFP was advertised and issued to prospective
proposers. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 15; N.T. p. 62.)
25. Request for Proposal, RFP No. 2015-24, was issued
by the City for the Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclables
Collection, Disposal and Related Services. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, Exhibit B.)
26. The RFP was sent to companies and individuals
identified as potentially interested in the RFP. The RFP was
advertised on the City’s website and various trade journals.
People or companies interested in the RFP emailed the City
and the solicitation was emailed to them. (N.T. pp. 130, 134.)
27. The RFP included a standard request for proposal
provision at Section 3.3 that provided in part:
The City may elect, at its sole and absolute discretion,
to award a Contract based on the initial Proposals, or, to open
negotiations, either written or oral, with one or more Propos20
Lehigh 7-17 op
970
ers to address performance, technical questions, pricing
delivery, or other provisions. If negotiations are opened, the
City may elect, at its sole and absolute discretion to conclude
negotiations at any time if it is determined to be in its best
interest, or they will be closed upon settlement of all questions
and clarifications.
RFP Section 3.3.
28. The RFP also included the following language at
Section 3.4:
The award will be made to that responsive, responsible
and qualified Proposer who’s [sic] Proposal, conforming to
the specifications, will be most advantageous to the City; price
and other factors considered. The award may or may not be
made to the Proposer with the lowest cost.
RFP Section 3.4.
29. The RFP included the following provision at Section
5.1.31:
The Proposer may include in their proposal any additional ‘value added services’ that the Proposer wishes the City
to consider and evaluate. These services are separate from
the Options outlined in the RFP and should include detailed
information and any additional incremental costs to those
proposed.
RFP Section 5.1.31.
30. A mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference was held on
September 9, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., which all parties interested
in submitting a proposal in response to the RFP were required
to attend. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 16.)
31. Questions were accepted at the Pre-Proposal Conference, and addenda were issued in response to those questions. (N.T. pp. 130-31.)
32. Both Mascaro and WMI, among others, attended
the Pre-Proposal Conference on September 9, 2015. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 17.)
21
Lehigh 7-17 op
971
33. On September 29, 2015, two weeks before responses to the RFP were due, Mascaro’s General Counsel, William
F. Fox, Jr. (‘Attorney Fox’), sent a letter to the City’s Mayor,
Finance Director, Purchasing Agent and Solicitor. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 19.)
34. Pursuant to the September 29, 2015 correspondence, Attorney Fox requested RFP No. 2015-24 be cancelled
and withdrawn because the process and procedure being used
is unlawful and contrary to the City Code and City Administrative Code. (Stipulated Exhibit C.)
35. On October 2, 2015, the City issued Addendum No.
3. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 20.)
36. Addendum No. 3 replaced Section 3.3 of RFP #201524, to read as follows:
The City of Allentown reserves the right to request additional information from any Proposer and the right to waive
minor irregularities in the procedures or proposals if it is
deemed in the best interests of the City of Allentown. The
City further reserves the right to reject all Proposals and seek
new Proposals when such procedure is considered to be in
the best interest of the City. (Stipulated Finding of Fact,
Exhibit D.)
37. Addendum No. 3 replaced Section 3.4 of RFP #201524, to read as follows:
The award will be made to that responsive and responsible Proposer whose Proposal, conforming to the specifications, will be most advantageous to the City; price and other
factors considered. The prices submitted by the Proposer on
the Forms in Appendix VI are firm and final and the award
shall be made to the lowest responsible and qualified Proposer based on the Options selected by the City. (Stipulated
Finding of Fact, Exhibit D.)
38. Addendum No. 3 also provided: ‘[f ]urthermore, any
and all references in the RFP to “Bid” or “Bidder” shall be
replaced with “Proposal” or “Proposer,” respectively.’ (Stipulated Finding of Fact, Exhibit D.)
22
Lehigh 7-17 op
972
39. Addendum No. 3 was not advertised, nor published
in a newspaper of general circulation, but rather was sent to
prospective proposers that had attended the Pre-Proposal
Conference on September 9, 2015. (N.T. pp. 71-72.)
40. The original due date for proposals to be submitted
to the City was September 30, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. However,
the City extended the deadline to October 15, 2015 at 3:00
p.m. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 18.)
41. On October 15, 2015, the technical proposals were
opened. (N.T. p. 72.)
42. On October 15, 2015, at 3:00 p.m., the City announced that seven (7) proposers responded to the RFP. They
were Mascaro; WMI; Republic Waste Services, Inc.; County
Waste of PA; Advanced Disposal Services, FCC; and Progressive Waste Solutions. Five of the proposers submitted technical and pricing proposals, while two, Republic Waste Services, Inc. and Progressive Waste Solutions, submitted in
writing that they were declining to propose. (Stipulated
43. At the time of the announcement on October 15,
2015, at 3:00 p.m., the price proposals of the proposers were
not opened, but rather were taken into custody by the City’s
Purchasing Department. No mention of when these price
proposals would be opened or disclosed was made. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 23.)
44. On October 16, 2015, Attorney Fox sent a letter to
the City’s Purchasing Agent. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 24.)
45. Pursuant to the October 16, 2015 correspondence,
Attorney Fox demanded ‘that the City immediately provide
[Mascaro] with copies of the Cost Proposals submitted by
each of the bidders’ ‘[s]ince the City did not open, read or
disclose the bid numbers as required, and since it has not
made those bid numbers available for public inspection.’
(Stipulated Exhibit E.)
46. After the technical proposals were opened, an evaluation committee was formed to review the technical proposals;
23
Lehigh 7-17 op
973
a meeting was held on October 19, 2015. (N.T., pp. 79-80;
Defendant’s Exhibit 5.)
47. GBB created a complex and technical spreadsheet
and a table for economic analysis in order to fairly evaluate
all of the information that came in from the Proposals. The
information was provided in a five-year and seven-year summation of what the proposal options were from each proposer. The compilation of data was provided to the City’s staff
and an evaluation committee. (N.T. pp.116-18.)
48. The committee met and three proposers were selected
to be shortlisted as companies still being considered for the RFP:
FCC, J.P. Mascaro & Sons, and WMI. (N.T. pp. 79-90, 136;
Defendant’s Exhibit 5.)
49. The cost/pricing proposals of the proposers were
opened by the City on or about Monday October 19, 2015,
but the [] prices of the proposers were not read publicly, nor
were they ever made available for public inspection. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 25.)
50. The cost proposals were opened in the presence of
the City Controller’s Office. The names of the companies
were read and identified on the tabulation memo for this
RFP. (N.T. pp.132-33.)
51. Clarification letters were sent to the shortlisted
companies in order for those companies to clarify their cost
proposals to ensure that the correct numbers were being
compared during the evaluation. (N.T. p. 137.)
52. The cost proposals were forwarded to the Evaluation
Committee and the Evaluation Committee recommended
that WMI be awarded the contract. (N.T. p. 81.)
53. The City awarded the MSW&R Contract without
ever disclosing the pricing numbers in the proposals to the
proposers or to the public at large. (Stipulated Finding of
Fact, 26.)
54. The City awarded the MSW&R Contract to WMI,
contingent upon approval by City Council. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 27.)
24
Lehigh 7-17 op
974
55. The City awarded the contract to WMI by letter
dated October 30, 2015. The letter stated: ‘The award of this
contract is contingent upon approval by City Council. Do not
order any materials or equipment, begin work or make any
other financial commitments concerning this matter until you
are in possession of a signed contract by both parties.’ (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10.)
56. On October 30, 2015, the City sent a [rejection]
letter to Mascaro regarding the award of the MSW&R Contract. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 28.)
57. On November 4, 2015, Attorney Fox spoke at the
regular public meeting of City Council. (Stipulated Finding
of Fact, 29.)
58. On November 6, 2015, Attorney Fox sent a letter to
the President of City Council and all City Council members.
59. On November 30, 2015, City Council held a special
meeting. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 31.)
60. At the November 30, 2015 City Council special
meeting, the City Administration placed before City Council
Resolution No. 73, a Request for Approval by City Council
of Contract Award, Service or Contract Price Increase Pursuant to City Ordinance, Article 130.16. (Stipulated Finding of
Fact, 32.)
61. At the November 30, 2015 special meeting, Attorney
Fox spoke to City Council. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 33.)[4]
62. At the November 30, 2015 special meeting, City
Council, by a six-to-one vote, tabled consideration of Resolution No. 73. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 34.)
63. On December 9, 2015, City Council again considered Resolution No. 73. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 35.)
4
Plaintiffs’ counsel was given the opportunity to have the substance of the
November 30, 2015 City Council meeting reduced to a transcript and admitted as
part of the record of this matter. No transcript was ever received by this court.
25
Lehigh 7-17 op
975
64. At the December 9, 2015 meeting, Attorney Fox
spoke to City Council. (Stipulated Finding of Fact, 36.)
65. The City’s ‘Request for Approval’ attached to Resolution No. 73 required the contract to be identified as one of
three categories. The WMI award was categorized as follows:
‘The contract is for the engagement of professional services.
We have received and reviewed a proposal or proposals for
professional services in connection with above referenced
project or requirement for professional services. We recommend award of the contract.’ (Stipulated Finding of Fact,
Exhibit H.)
66. At the December 9, 2015 meeting, City Council, as
recommended by the City Administration, voted to approve
the award of the MSW&R Contract to WMI. (Stipulated
67. On January 8, 2016, the City Solicitor’s Office sent
WMI the Agreement pursuant to RFP 2015-24 for signature.
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 14.)
68. The Agreement was entered between the City and
WMI for the municipal solid waste and recyclables collection,
disposal and related services on February 15, 2016. (Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 15.)
69. The Agreement provided the following provision:
‘The CONTRACTOR’s Proposal stipulates and details the
Value Added Services that will be provided to the CITY.
These Value Added Services and all costs and pricing submitted by the CONTRACTOR in Appendix VI of RFP 2015-24,
and as part of the Proposal, shall be included under the terms
of the Contract.’ (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 15.)
Conclusions of Law
1. The MSW&R Contract is a contract for services.
2. Defendant City of Allentown is a third-class city operating under the Home Rule Charter form of governance
under the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, 53
Pa.C.S.A. §2901 et seq.
26
Lehigh 7-17 op
976
3. The City is governed by its Home Rule Charter and
Administrative Code.
4. The Home Rule Charter liberally construes the powers of the City in favor of the City, and specific mention of
particular powers in the Home Rule Charter does not limit
the general powers granted by the Home Rule Charter. Home
Rule Charter §105(A).
5. The Home Rule Charter provides that ‘[a]ll purchases of materials, supplies, equipment and services by the
City government shall be made through competitive processes, with evidence available to demonstrate broad solicitation of suppliers and opportunities for participation in the
acquisition process; and the value received for the money
paid.’ Home Rule Charter §815A.
6. The Home Rule Charter provides for the adoption
of a Code for the governing of policies necessary to effectively administer a system of competitive purchasing for the
City. Home Rule Charter §815B.
7. The Administrative Code delineates types of contracts
that are required to be awarded to the lowest responsible
bidder. Administrative Code §130.16B(1) and (2).
8. The language of the Administrative Code §130.16B
is clear and free from ambiguity and should be given its plain
meaning.
9. The Administrative Code §130.16B does not require
service contracts to be awarded to the lowest responsible
bidder.
10. The lack of policies regarding the solicitation of
service contracts in the Administrative Code does not limit
the power of the City to govern the solicitation of service
contracts according to its Home Rule Charter.
11. Service contracts must be solicited via a competitive
process, ‘with evidence available to demonstrate broad solicitation of suppliers and opportunities for participation in
the acquisition process; and the value received for the
money paid.’ Home Rule Charter §815A.
27
Lehigh 7-17 op
977
12. The RFP used to solicit the MSW&R Contract
demonstrated broad solicitation of suppliers and opportunities
for participation in the acquisition process.
13. The compilation of the technical and cost proposals
as summarized by spreadsheets prepared by professional
consultants and evaluated by an evaluation committee establishes a competitive process with evidence of the value received for the money paid.
14. Plaintiffs did not establish a clear right to relief as
required for permanent injunctive relief.
Discussion
Plaintiffs assert that the City illegally used a request for proposal process instead of an invitation to bid to solicit the MSW&R
Contract. The City asserts that it is permitted to use the request
for proposal process for such solicitation pursuant to its Home Rule
Charter and Administrative Code. Plaintiffs request a permanent
injunction to invalidate the MSW&R Contract, prevent performance pursuant to said Contract, and prevent the City from awarding any contract in response to the RFP.
In order to establish a claim for a permanent injunction, “the
plaintiff must establish a clear right to relief, that there is an urgent
necessity to avoid an injury which cannot be compensated for by
monetary damages, and that greater injury will result from refusing
rather than granting the relief requested.” Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School v. School District of Philadelphia, 123 A.3d
1101, 1107 (Pa. Commw. 2015). We first address whether Plaintiffs
have established a clear right to relief.
The contract at issue describes the work to be performed as:
The ‘Work’ shall include the furnishings of all labor,
materials, vehicles, containers, equipment, bonds, insurance,
licenses, permits, supplies, tools, tipping fees and all other
items incidental to performing the prompt and efficient collection, removal, transportation and disposal of all MSW, Yard
Waste and Recyclables for all residences, special events and
28
Lehigh 7-17 op
978
commercial entities and all other work as necessary to properly perform the work, as set forth in the Contract.
The City’s RFP §10.4. The work described above is related to the
collection and disposal of municipal solid waste and recyclables
and includes typical language of a service contract, which is what
the City considers it. N.T. pp. 176-77. Therefore, it is necessary to
determine how the City is required to solicit service contracts.
The City is a third-class city operating under the Home Rule
Charter form of governance under the Home Rule Charter and
Optional Plans Law, 53 Pa. C.S.A. §2901 et seq. The City has adopted both a Home Rule Charter and an Administrative Code.
Looking first to the general language of the Home Rule
Charter, it provides: “[t]he City shall have the power to exercise
any power or to perform any function not denied by the Constitution of the United States, by the Constitution of Pennsylvania, by
act of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, or by this Charter.”
Home Rule Charter §102. Further, it states, “[a]ll powers of the
City shall be exercised as provided by this Charter, or if the Charter makes no provision, as provided by ordinances or resolutions
of the City Council.” Home Rule Charter §103. Finally, “[t]he
powers of the City under this Charter shall be construed liberally
in favor of the City, and the specific mention of particular powers
in the Charter shall not be construed as limiting in any way the
general power granted in this Article.” Home Rule Charter §105(A).
More specifically, the Home Rule Charter provides the following language regarding bidding:
Section 815 BIDDING PROCESS
A. Competition Principle
All purchases of materials, supplies, equipment and
services by the City government shall be made through competitive processes, with evidence available to demonstrate
broad solicitation of suppliers and opportunities for participation in the acquisition process; and the value received for the
money paid.
B. Competitive Policies Code
Consistent with applicable Federal and State laws, the
Council shall adopt and may amend, by Ordinance, a Code
29
Lehigh 7-17 op
979
for the establishment, regulation, and maintenance of a competition system; governing the policies necessary to effectively administer a system of competitive purchasing for the
City government. This Code may include but is not limited
to: 1) establishing varied procedures for types of services or
materials to be acquired; 2) setting the dollar limits which
would require: a) verbal solicitation of price quotes with a
written record; b) written price quotes after informal solicitation; and c) formal public solicitation of written price quotes
after public advertising; 3) establishing procedures for determining sole source contract awards; 4) policies regarding
minority or local resident preference; and 5) policies and
procedures to encourage the use of contemporary purchasing
techniques such as reverse auctioning and electronic commerce.
Home Rule Charter §815.
Pursuant to the language of the Home Rule Charter, services purchased by the City shall be made through “competitive
processes” and City Council shall adopt a Code for the “establishment, regulation, and maintenance of a competition system; governing the policies necessary to effectively administer a system of
competitive purchasing for the City government.” Home Rule
Charter §815.
An Administrative Code has been adopted pursuant to the
City’s Home Rule Charter, and provides, in part, as follows:
130.16 CONTRACTS
A. Administration
1. Contract administration for the City including but
not limited to authority as to preparation of specifications,
letting of bids, award of contracts and payment of bills, shall
be vested in the Mayor and the Department of Finance to be
exercised in accordance with procedures adopted by the
Mayor, on file with City Council, and consistent with the
requirements set forth herein.
(a) For the award of contracts or the engagement of
professional services, coordination with and approval by
30
Lehigh 7-17 op
980
Resolution of City council prior to contract or engagement
execution is required. ...
(b) For the award of all contracts over $40,000 that are
required to be bid, recommendation of the lowest responsible
bidder by the Department of Administration and approval by
Resolution of City Council prior to contract execution are
required.
(c) For all contracts over $40,000 that are required to
be bid whenever an increase by 10% or more is recommended by the Administration, resubmission to City Council
and approval by Resolution prior to execution of any increase
are required.
(d)—(g) ...
(h) All bid, contract and engagement contracts with the
exception of legal counsel exempt under the provisions of the
Home Rule Charter shall contain language noting such engagement is subject to Council approval by resolution at a
public meeting.
Section 130.16A.
Section 130.16A of the Administrative Code governs the
competitive procedures under which the City awards contracts.
The waste management contract is not a contract for the engagement of professional services; therefore, subsection (a) does not
apply. Additionally, there was no evidence submitted to support
that the service contract falls under subsection (c). Accordingly, it
is necessary to determine whether the waste management service
contract is one that is required to be bid pursuant to subsection
(b). We turn to Administrative Code §130.16B for the procedures
specific to bids:
B. Bidding Process
1. Whenever the estimated cost of any construction,
erection, installation, completion, alteration, repair of, or
addition to, any project subject to the control of the City shall
exceed Forty Thousand ($40,000) Dollars; it shall be the duty
of the City to have such work performed pursuant to a contract
31
Lehigh 7-17 op
981
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, after advertisement
for bids. Every such contract shall contain a provision obligating the contractor to the prompt payment of all material
furnished, labor supplied or performed, rental for equipment
employed, and services rendered by public utilities in or in
connection with the prosecution of the work, whether or not
the said material, labor, equipment or service enter into and
become component parts of the work or improvement contemplated. Such provision shall be deemed to be included
for the benefit of every person, partnership, association or
corporation who, as subcontractor or otherwise, has furnished
material, supplied or performed labor, rented equipment or
services in or in connection with the prosecution of the work
as aforesaid, and the inclusion thereof in any contract shall
preclude the filing of any such person, partnership, association
or corporation of any mechanics’ lien claim for such material,
labor or rental of equipment.
2. Whenever the estimated costs of any purchase of
supplies, materials or equipment or the rental of any equipment, whether or not the same is to be used in connection
with the construction, erection, installation, completion, alteration, repair of, or addition to, any project subject to the
control of the City, shall exceed Forty Thousand ($40,000)
Dollars, it shall be the duty of the City to have such purchase
or rental made pursuant to a contract awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder, after advertisement for bids ...
a. The City shall not evade the provisions of subsection
(a) or (b) as to advertising for bids by purchasing materials or
contracting for services piecemeal for the purpose of obtaining
prices under Forty Thousand ($40,000) Dollars upon transactions which should, in the exercise of reasonable discretion and
prudence, be conducted as one transaction amounting to more
than Forty Thousand ($40,000) Dollars. ...
b. Written or telephonic price quotations from at least
three (3) qualified and responsible contractors or vendors
shall be requested for all contracts that exceed Ten Thousand
($10,000) Dollars but are less than the amount requiring
32
Lehigh 7-17 op
982
advertisement and competitive bidding or, in lieu of price
quotations, a memorandum shall be kept on file showing that
fewer than three (3) qualified contractors exist in the market
area within which is its practicable to obtain quotations.
Administrative Code §130.16B.
In reading the Administrative Code, we must keep in mind
the rules of statutory construction, which provide in part:
(a) The object of all interpretation and construction of
statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the
General Assembly. Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.
(b) When the words of a statute are clear and free from
all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under
the pretext of pursuing its spirit.
1 Pa. C.S.A. §1921.
Plaintiffs assert that the waste management service contract
is a contract that is “required to be bid” pursuant to Administrative
Code §130.16(A)(1)(b), because it falls within the language of
§130.16(B)(1). Plaintiffs argue, “[t]hus, 130.16(B) Bidding Process
makes it clear that contracts for performing work, including “contracting for services,” in the City (“any project subject to control
of the City”), in excess of $40,000 must be awarded to the “lowest
responsible bidder” pursuant to a fixed competitive bid solicitation.
See Plaintiffs’ Post-Hearing Memorandum filed with the Clerk of
Judicial Records—Civil Division on March 11, 2016, p. 16.
However, Plaintiffs’ reading of §130.16(B)(1) is disingenuous
as it is clear that the language “any project subject to the control
of the City” applies only to the specific words it follows. Accordingly, it is only when the estimated cost of any construction, erection, installation, completion, alteration, repair of, or addition to,
any project subject to the control of the City that the contract be
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The waste management
contract is not a construction project, erection or installation project, and is not involved in the completion of, repair of or addition
to any project. It is a service contract, a type of contract not listed
in the categories of contracts required to be bid.
33
Lehigh 7-17 op
983
The language set forth in the “Bidding Process” is clear and
unambiguous. Sections “1” and “2” provide specific examples of
contracts that require competitive bidding. The definitive list of
contracts set forth in the two provisions does not include service
contracts.
Plaintiffs contend that although the word “service” is not in
the list of contracts specified in the first provision, we should add
the category of contracts to the list because the remaining language
of that provision puts service contracts within the purview of the
mandatory bidding requirement. Plaintiffs assert that the second
sentence of Section 130.16(B)(1) establishes that “service” contracts
are included.5 The second sentence states:
Every such contract shall contain a provision obligating
the contractor to the prompt payment of all material furnished, labor supplied or performed, rental for equipment
employed, and services rendered by public utilities in or in
connection with the prosecution of the work, whether or not
the said material, labor, equipment or service enter into and
become component parts of the work or improvement contemplated.
Again, Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Administrative Code is not
consistent with the actual language provided therein. “Every such
contract” refers to the definitive list of contracts provided in the
first sentence, which did not include service contracts. Therefore,
the second sentence does not apply to service contracts. In addition, the remainder of the sentence as it relates to “services,” requires the contracts for the specified projects to include a provision
for the contractor’s prompt payment of all services rendered by
public utilities in connection with the work. Such language does
not in any way impute service contracts into the realm of competitive bidding; it simply provides a mechanism for contractor
See Plaintiffs’ Post-Hearing Memorandum filed with the Clerk of Judicial Records—Civil Division on March 11, 2016, pp. 17-18, in which Plaintiffs state: “For instance,
the second sentence of (B)(1): ‘Every such contract shall contain a provision obligating the
contractor to the prompt payment of material furnished, labor supplied or performed …
and services rendered … with the prosecution of the work, whether or not said material,
labor equipment or services enter into and become component parts of the work or improvement contemplated’ establishes that ‘service’ contracts are included.”
5
34
Lehigh 7-17 op
984
payment of services rendered by public utilities for other types of
projects. This sentence does not provide any basis for this court to
add language to the provision to include service contracts.
Plaintiffs similarly argue that the last sentence in Section
130.16(B)(1) is a clear indication that the waste management contract falls within the category of competitive bidding. Plaintiffs fail
to elaborate on how such a sentence supports their interpretation.
The final sentence of Section 130.16(B)(1) establishes that the
provision required in the enumerated list of contracts obligating
the contractor to the prompt payment of all material furnished,
labor supplied or performed, rental for equipment employed and
services rendered by public utilities precludes the filing of any
mechanics’ lien claim for such material, labor or rental of equipment. There is nothing in the language of the last sentence that
remotely expands the list of contracts that require competitive
bidding.
The plain language of the Administrative Code makes it clear
that service contracts are not in the category of contracts that require bid solicitation. We are not in a position to add “service
contracts” to the list of enumerated contracts required to be bid.
We find the omission of such contracts deliberate. See Veterans
of Foreign Wars Post 1989 v. Indiana County Board of Assessment
Appeals, 954 A.2d 100, 106 (Pa. Commw. 2008) (citing Commonwealth v. Ostrosky, 589 Pa. 437, 446 n.7, 909 A.2d 1224, 1229 n.7
(2006)); Black’s Law Dictionary 620 (8th ed. 2004).
Because the Administrative Code does not require a service
contract to be bid, we must determine what is required for the
solicitation of service contracts. Plaintiffs argue that if the Home
Rule Charter and Administrative Code are silent as to how service
contracts are to be awarded, “then, under 5[3] Pa.C.S.A. § 2971 of
the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, the general law
applicable to Third Class Cities would apply, and under that general law (i.e., Third Class City Code, 53 P.S. § 36901.1), all contracts, including service contracts, greater than $18,500 are to be
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder after advertising and
competitive bidding.” Plaintiffs’ Post-Hearing Memorandum, filed
35
Lehigh 7-17 op
985
with the Clerk of Judicial Records—Civil Division on March 11,
2016, p. 19, f.n. 11. The City responds that its Home Rule Charter
governs service contracts and the Third Class City Code does not
govern this issue.
Pennsylvania law provides:
A municipality which has adopted a home rule charter
may exercise any powers and perform any function not denied
by the Constitution of Pennsylvania, by statute or by its home
rule charter. All grants of municipal power to municipalities
governed by a home rule charter under this subchapter,
whether in the form of specific enumeration or general terms,
shall be liberally construed in favor of the municipality.
53 Pa. C.S.A. §2961.
Such broad grant of power is enumerated in both the Home
Rule Charter and the Administrative Code. The Home Rule Charter and Administrative Code provide, “[t]he powers of the City
under this Charter shall be construed liberally in favor of the City,
and the specific mention of particular powers in the Charter shall
not be construed as limiting in any way the general power granted
in this Article.” City of Allentown, Home Rule Charter, §105;
Administrative Code §100.05A.
Pennsylvania statutory authority together with the Home Rule
Charter and Administrative Code provide the authority for the City
to determine how service contracts should be solicited, and those
regulations supersede the Third Class City Code. The Administrative Code provides the policies necessary to effectively administer
a system of competitive purchasing for the City. The Administrative
Code does not delineate how the City is to solicit service contracts.
Therefore, it is necessary to go back to the broader language of the
Home Rule Charter which provides: “all purchases of ... services
by the City government shall be made through competitive processes, with evidence available to demonstrate broad solicitation
of suppliers and opportunities for participation in the acquisition
process; and the value received for the money paid.” Home Rule
Charter §815A.
36
Lehigh 7-17 op
986
The RFP6 for the MSW&R Contract was sent to companies
and individuals identified as potentially interested in the RFP. N.T.
pp. 130, 134. The RFP was also advertised on the City’s website
and in various trade journals. Id. A pre-proposal meeting was held
to address any questions of potential proposers. N.T. pp. 130-31.
Such efforts constitute evidence of broad solicitation of suppliers
and opportunities for participation in the acquisition process.
The purchase of the waste management services was required
to be made via a competitive process. The City and proposers did
not negotiate price. N.T. p. 144. An evaluation committee reviewed
the technical proposals and a complex spreadsheet was created to
compare the different technical components of the proposals. N.T.
pp. 79-80, 116-18; Defendant’s Exhibit 5. The cost proposals were
opened and were compared by a cost review evaluation committee
during meetings held on October 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, and 27
of 2015. N.T. p. 174. The technical evaluations were scored and
compared with the cost proposal scoring. N.T. p. 175. The contract
was awarded based on the scores of both the technical and cost
proposals. We find such process to evidence both competition
among proposers and to establish the value of the services received
for the money paid.
Accordingly, the RFP solicitation for the MSW&R Contract
constitutes a competitive process as required by Home Rule Charter §815A and included the necessary evidence of broad solicitation,
opportunities for participation and evidence of the value received
for the money paid. Therefore, the RFP was a proper mechanism
for waste management solicitation.
Because this request for proposal was consistent with the
requirements of the “competitive process” set forth in the Home
Rule Charter and because the Administrative Code did not specify any additional or contrary solicitation procedures for a services
contract, we find that Plaintiffs cannot establish a clear right to
relief as required for a permanent injunction. Plaintiffs’ request
for relief is denied.
6
We note that Plaintiffs do not contend that there was an error with the RFP process;
Plaintiffs argue that the error was that the RFP process was employed. See Notes of Testimony, pp. 166-71.
37
Lehigh 7-17 op
987
DECREE NISI
And now, this 10th day of May, 2016, after a non-jury trial
conducted before the undersigned on February 23, 2016, and upon
consideration of the record, the briefs filed by the parties, and
after oral argument on March 24, 2016, and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Adjudication,
IT IS DECREED that this Decree is entered in favor of
Defendants, City of Allentown and Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. and against Plaintiffs, Solid Waste Services, Inc. d/b/a
J.P. Mascaro & Sons, M.B. Investments, and Jose Mendoza.
IT IS FURTHER DECREED that Plaintiffs’ request for
permanent injunctive relief to invalidate the City of Allentown’s
award of the solid waste collection and recycling contract to Waste
Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER DECREED that this Decree shall become
final unless post trial motions are filed pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1(c)(2) within ten days of the filing of
the Adjudication in the within matter.
38
Lehigh 7-17 op
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
ESTATE AND TRUST NOTICES
Executor: Narong Wayne Cadwallader, 3013 East Bay, Williamsburg, VA 23185.
Notice is hereby given that, in the
estates of the decedents set forth
below, the Register of Wills has
granted letters testamentary or of
administration to the persons named.
Notice is also hereby given of the
existence of the trusts of the deceased
settlors set forth below for whom no
personal representatives have been
appointed within 90 days of death.
All persons having claims or demands against said estates or trusts
are requested to make known the
same, and all persons indebted to
said estates or trusts are requested
to make payment, without delay, to
the executors or administrators or
trustees or to their attorneys named
below.
Christman, Elsie M., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executrix: Mildred H. Carr c/o
The Roth Law Firm, 123 North
Fifth Street, Allentown, PA
18102.
Attorneys: Larry R. Roth, Esquire, The Roth Law Firm, 123
North Fifth Street, Allentown,
PA 18102.
Geiger, Ruth C., dec’d.
Late of New Tripoli.
Executors: Michael H. Geiger,
5820 Dogwood Drive, New
Tripoli, PA 18066 and Steven H.
Geiger, 4045 Fireline Road,
Palmerton, PA 18071.
Attorneys: Charles W. Stopp,
Esquire, Steckel & Stopp, 125
S. Walnut Street, Suite 210,
Slatington, PA 18080.
FIRST PUBLICATION
Barner, Nana R. a/k/a Nana Rae
Barner, dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executor: Joseph M. Barner, II
a/k/a Joseph Barner c/o Eric
R. Strauss, Esquire, Worth,
Magee & Fisher, P.C., 2610
Walbert Avenue, Allentown, PA
18104.
Attorneys: Eric R. Strauss, Esquire, Worth, Magee & Fisher,
P.C., 2610 Walbert Avenue,
Allentown, PA 18104.
Glascom, Sally L., dec’d.
Late of 450 N. Krocks Road,
Allentown.
Executor: Gary Glascom c/o
Linda S. Luther-Veno, Esquire,
1605 N. Cedar Crest Blvd.,
Suite 106, Allentown, PA 18104.
Attorney: Linda S. Luther-Veno,
Esquire, 1605 N. Cedar Crest
Blvd., Suite 106, Allentown, PA
18104.
Brady, Kevin S., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executor: Timothy Brady c/o
18102.
Attorneys: Robert B. Roth, Esquire, The Roth Law Firm, 123
PA 18102.
Cadwallader, Wayne Richard
a/k/a Wayne R. Cadwallader,
dec’d.
Late of Whitehall.
39
Gruber, George S., dec’d.
Late of Orefield.
Executors: Marvin L. Gruber,
7351 Fort Everett Road, New
Tripoli, PA 18066 and Shirley
E. Sohon, 1390 Pottsville Pike,
Shoemakersville, PA 19555.
Attorneys: Charles A. Waters,
Esquire, Steckel and Stopp, 125
S. Walnut Street, Suite 210,
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
Lacko, Michael, dec’d.
Late of North Whitehall.
Administrator: Matthew Lacko.
Attorney: David M. Roth, Esquire, 123 North Fifth Street,
Co-Executrices: Lois A. Reinoehl a/k/a Lois Reinoehl and
Kay E. Leisey c/o Jon A. Swartz,
Esquire, 7736 Main Street, Fogelsville, PA 18051.
Attorney: Jon A. Swartz, Esquire, 7736 Main Street, Fogelsville, PA 18051.
Linde, Shirley A., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Administrator: Donald M. Hartman c/o Steven A. Litz, Esquire,
4744 Hamilton Boulevard, Allentown, PA 18103.
Attorney: Steven A. Litz, Esquire, 4744 Hamilton Boulevard, Allentown, PA 18103.
Reitz, James T., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executrix: Marianne K. Fegely
c/o Michael Ira Stump, Esquire,
207 E. Main Street, Suite 100,
Macungie, PA 18062.
Attorney: Michael Ira Stump,
Esquire, 207 E. Main Street,
Suite 100, Macungie, PA 18062.
Little, Raymond C., dec’d.
Late of 3245 W. Highland Street,
Allentown.
Executrix: Kathleen Mary Hess,
3245 W. Highland Street, Allentown, PA 18104.
Attorneys: Joshua D. Shulman,
Esquire, Shulman & Shabbick,
1935 Center Street, Northampton, PA 18067.
Rosto, Antoinette C., dec’d.
Late of Macungie.
Co-Administrators: Michael J.
Rosto and Maribeth J. Ward c/o
Bruce W. Weida, Esq., 245 Main
Street, Emmaus, PA 18049.
Attorney: Bruce W. Weida, Esq.,
245 Main Street, Emmaus, PA
18049.
Moll, Earle W. a/k/a Earl W. Moll
a/k/a Earle Moll a/k/a Earl
Moll, dec’d.
Late of Coopersburg.
Executrix: Bonnie Dwinal, 263
Bulka Road, Houtzdale, PA
16651.
Attorneys: Keith R. Pavlack,
Esquire, Pavlack Law Offices,
P.C., 1415 Blakeslee Blvd. Dr.
E., Lehighton, PA 18235.
Schaeffer, Eleanor M., dec’d.
Late of the City of Allentown.
Co-Administrators: Forrest R.
Schaeffer, Donna M. Hertzog
and Judith A. Condravy c/o
Edward H. Butz, Esquire, 7535
Windsor Drive, Suite 200, Allentown, PA 18195.
Attorneys: Edward H. Butz,
Esquire, Lesavoy Butz & Seitz
LLC, 7535 Windsor Drive, Suite
200, Allentown, PA 18195.
Ondrejca, Mildred A., dec’d.
Late of Coopersburg.
Administratrices: Juliann M.
Skoff, 1726 Madison Avenue,
Dunmore, PA 18509 and Marie
C. Kent, 528 Station Avenue,
Coopersburg, PA 18036.
Schanz, Bruce C., dec’d.
Late of Zionsville.
Executor: Michael J. Schanz
c/o Rebecca M. Young, Esq.
and Lia K. Snyder, Esq., Young
& Young, 119 E. Main Street,
Macungie, PA 18062.
Reinoehl, Glenn Maynard a/k/a
Glenn M. Reinoehl, dec’d.
Late of Lower Macungie Township.
40
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
Attorneys: Rebecca M. Young,
Esq. and Lia K. Snyder, Esq.,
Young & Young, 119 E. Main
Street, Macungie, PA 18062.
Attorney: Steven A. Litz, Esquire, 4744 Hamilton Boulevard, Allentown, PA 18103.
SECOND PUBLICATION
Schuck-Hartranft, Gretchen P.
a/k/a Gretchen P. Schuck,
dec’d.
Late of Washington Township.
Administrator: Chris Lee Hartranft, 8106 Park Street, Slatedale, PA 18079.
Anthony, Helen T., dec’d.
Late of Macungie.
Administratrices: Nancy H.
Anthony and Donna K. Kipila
c/o Reich & Furst Law Offices,
1227 W. Liberty Street, Suite
Attorneys: James L. Reich, Esquire, Reich & Furst Law Offices, 1227 W. Liberty Street,
Suite 203, Allentown, PA 18102,
(610) 433-2430.
Thomas, Jay a/k/a Jay J. Thomas a/k/a Jay Jeffrey Thomas,
dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executors: Terry M. Thomas
and Megan A. Thomas c/o William J. Fries, Esquire, The
Atrium, 2895 Hamilton Boulevard, Suite 106, Allentown, PA
18104.
Attorney: William J. Fries, Esquire, The Atrium, 2895 Hamilton Boulevard, Suite 106, Allentown, PA 18104.
Barth, John C., dec’d.
Late of the Township of Lower
Macungie.
The John C. and Myra R. Barth
Revocable Trust Dated February 4, 2009.
Trustee: Beverly A. Dress c/o
Dionysios C. Pappas, Esquire,
Vasiliadis & Associates, 2551
Baglyos Circle, Suite A-14,
Bethlehem, PA 18020.
Attorneys: Dionysios C. Pappas,
Esquire, Vasiliadis & Associates, 2551 Baglyos Circle, Suite
A-14, Bethlehem, PA 18020.
Trexler, Arlene M., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executrix: Mabel A. Widrick.
Attorneys: Robert M. Knauer,
Esquire, Knauer & Davenport,
143 North Eighth St., Allentown, PA 18101.
Bernini, Serafina H. a/k/a Sarah
H. Bernini, dec’d.
Late of Bethlehem.
Executor: Michael Bernini c/o
18102.
Attorneys: Robert B. Roth, Esquire, The Roth Law Firm, 123
PA 18102.
Unger, Frederick A. a/k/a Frederick A. Unger, Sr., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executor: Robert J. Unger, 444
E. Tioga Street, Allentown, PA
18103.
Attorney: Marc Kranson, Esquire, 523 Walnut Street, Allentown, PA 18101.
Warg, Eleanor H., dec’d.
Late of Macungie.
Executor: Steven A. Litz, Esquire, 4744 Hamilton Boulevard, Allentown, PA 18103.
41
Faul, Elaine C. a/k/a Elaine Y.
Faul a/k/a Elaine Faul, dec’d.
Late of Macungie.
Executrix: Cathy E. Faul f/k/a
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
Cathy Elaine Morgan c/o Nancy K. Busch, Esquire, 825 North
19th Street, Allentown, PA
18104.
Attorney: Nancy K. Busch, Esquire, 825 North 19th Street,
Executor: Robert D. Kudlak, Jr.
c/o Bradley D. Terebelo, Esq.,
100 Four Falls, Ste. 300, West
Conshohocken, PA 194282950.
Attorneys: Bradley D. Terebelo,
Esquire, Heckscher, Teillon,
Terrill & Sager, P.C., 100 Four
Falls, Ste. 300, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2950.
Green, Mary B. a/k/a Mary
Stauffer Green a/k/a Mary B.
Wilkey a/k/a Mary I. Wilkey,
dec’d.
Late of Lower Milford Township.
Executors: Carole E. Wilkey,
9303 Landis Lane, E. Greenville, PA 18041 and Robert H.
Wilkey, 2261 Saylor School
Road, Hollsopple, PA 15935.
Attorney: William S. Ravenell,
Esquire, 166 Allendale Road,
King of Prussia, PA 19406.
Mortimer, Joanne S., dec’d.
Late of 4762 Parkview Drive
South, Lower Macungie Township.
Executor: Charles E. Mortimer,
Jr. c/o The Roth Law Firm, 123
PA 18102.
PA 18102.
Kalady, Mary R. a/k/a Mary
Kalady a/k/a Mary C. Kalady,
dec’d.
Late of Whitehall.
Administratrix: Alexis Stengel
c/o The Orloski Law Firm, 111
N. Cedar Crest Blvd., Allentown,
PA 18104.
Attorneys: The Orloski Law
Firm, 111 N. Cedar Crest Blvd.,
Olsovsky, David C. a/k/a David
Charles Olsovsky a/k/a David
Olsovsky, dec’d.
Late of South Whitehall Township.
Executrix: Denise I. Hill c/o
James R. Wishchuk, JD, Esquire, 2310 Walbert Avenue,
Suite 103, Allentown, PA
18104-1360.
Attorney: James R. Wishchuk,
JD, Esquire, 2310 Walbert Avenue, Suite 103, Allentown, PA
18104-1360.
Keller, Mary E., dec’d.
Late of Whitehall.
Administratrix: Judith A.
Krutsick c/o William J. Fries,
Esquire, The Atrium, 2895
Hamilton Boulevard, Suite 106,
Attorney: William J. Fries, Esquire, The Atrium, 2895 Hamilton Boulevard, Suite 106, Allentown, PA 18104.
Pammer, Walter I., dec’d.
Late of Whitehall Township.
Executor: Gary Neiman c/o
Emily A. Zettlemoyer, Esquire,
Zettlemoyer Law Office, LLP, 53
North 3rd Street, Emmaus, PA
18049.
Attorneys: Emily A. Zettlemoyer, Esquire, Zettlemoyer Law
Office, LLP, 53 North 3rd Street,
Emmaus, PA 18049.
Kudlak, Patricia Ann a/k/a Patricia A. Kudlak, dec’d.
42
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
Rishcoff, Bernardine A. a/k/a
Bernardine Ann Rishcoff
a/k/a Bernardine Rishcoff
a/k/a Bernadine A. Rishcoff,
dec’d.
Late of 3017 Ithaca Street, Allentown.
Personal Representative: Christopher P. Rishcoff c/o James A.
Ritter, Esquire, Gross McGinley, LLP, 111 E. Harrison St.,
Suite 2, Emmaus, PA 180492916.
Attorneys: James A. Ritter, Esquire, Gross McGinley, LLP, 111
E. Harrison St., Suite 2, Emmaus, PA 18049-2916.
Volpe, Darla J., dec’d.
Late of 1316 West Linden Street,
Allentown.
Executor: Edward P. Sheetz,
Esquire, Gardner, Racines &
Sheetz, 5930 Hamilton Boulevard, Suite 106, Allentown, PA
18106.
Attorneys: Edward P. Sheetz,
Esquire, Gardner, Racines &
Sheetz, 5930 Hamilton Boulevard, Suite 106, Allentown, PA
18106.
THIRD PUBLICATION
Auman, Mary L., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executrix: Sheryl Ann Stephens
c/o Noonan & Prokup, 526
Walnut Street, Allentown, PA
18101-2394.
Attorneys: Noonan & Prokup,
526 Walnut Street, Allentown,
PA 18101-2394.
Salash, Fannie, dec’d.
Late of the City of Bethlehem.
Executrix: Gloria Walson, 3601
W. Congress Street, Allentown,
PA 18104.
Attorney: James J. Holzinger,
Esquire, 1216 Linden Street,
P.O. Box 1409, Bethlehem, PA
18016.
Boandl, Glenn, dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executor: Richard Boandl c/o
Martin J. Karess, Esquire, 215
North 9th Street, Allentown, PA
18102.
Attorney: Martin J. Karess,
Esquire, 215 North 9th Street,
Schaffer, Irene A., dec’d.
Executor: Mr. James C. Flexer
c/o Emily A. Zettlemoyer, Esquire, Zettlemoyer Law Office,
LLP, 53 North 3rd Street, Emmaus, PA 18049.
Attorneys: Emily A. Zettlemoyer, Esquire, Zettlemoyer Law
Office, LLP, 53 North 3rd Street,
Emmaus, PA 18049.
Trani, Angelo F., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Administrators: Louise Furo
and John Lombardo c/o David
M. Roth, Esquire, 123 North
18102.
Attorney: David M. Roth, Esquire, 123 North Fifth Street,
Brobst, Edgar A., Jr., dec’d.
Late of 534 Third St., #502,
Catasauqua.
Executor: Edgar A. Brobst, III,
4391 South 5th St., Emmaus,
PA 18049.
43
Buckley, Dolores B., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executor: Andrew J. Magyar
c/o James J. McConnell, Esquire, 526 North St. Cloud
Street, Allentown, PA 18104.
Attorney: James J. McConnell,
Esquire, 526 North St. Cloud
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
Charles, Doris A., dec’d.
Late of 1235 N. Marshall Street,
South Whitehall Township.
Executors: Bruce D. Charles
and Ted W. Charles c/o The
Roth Law Firm, 123 North Fifth
PA 18102.
702 Hamilton Street, Suite 300,
Attorneys: Andrew V. Schantz,
Esquire, Davison & McCarthy,
702 Hamilton Street, Suite 300,
Everhard, Elsie E., dec’d.
Executors: Larry R. Everhard
and Marjorie L. Shuryn c/o
John O. Stover, Jr., Esquire,
537 Chestnut Street, Emmaus,
PA 18049.
Attorney: John O. Stover, Jr.,
Esquire, 537 Chestnut Street,
Emmaus, PA 18049.
Charles, Theodore W., dec’d.
Late of 1235 N. Marshall Street,
South Whitehall Township.
Executors: Bruce D. Charles
and Ted W. Charles c/o The
Roth Law Firm, 123 North Fifth
PA 18102.
Fekula, Adam J., dec’d.
Late of Bethlehem Township.
Executrices: Joan D. Fekula
and Kathlene Fekula Cutcliffe
c/o Lori Gardiner Kreglow, Esquire, 18 East Market Street,
P.O. Box 1961, Bethlehem, PA
18016-1961.
Attorney: Lori Gardiner Kreglow, Esquire, 18 East Market
Street, P.O. Box 1961, Bethlehem, PA 18016-1961.
Christofaro, Richard D., dec’d.
Executrix: Mary R. Baglini c/o
John O. Stover, Jr., Esquire,
537 Chestnut Street, Emmaus,
PA 18049.
Attorney: John O. Stover, Jr.,
Esquire, 537 Chestnut Street,
Emmaus, PA 18049.
Gabriel, George P., dec’d.
Co-Executrices: Virginia E. Vidoni, Alice Gabriel and Renee
Hanson c/o Edward H. Butz,
Dengler, Frank R., dec’d.
Late of 2550 Route 100, Orefield.
Executrix: Clarabelle I. Dengler,
2550 Route 100, Orefield, PA
18069.
Attorney: William G. Malkames,
Esq., 509 W. Linden Street, Allentown, PA 18101-1415.
Edick, Richard, dec’d.
Executrix: Gloria-Jean Edick
c/o Andrew V. Schantz, Esquire, Davison & McCarthy,
Hart, John T., dec’d.
Late of Macungie.
Executrix: Patricia J. Hart c/o
Michael Ira Stump, Esquire,
44
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
207 E. Main Street, Suite 100,
Macungie, PA 18062.
Attorney: Michael Ira Stump,
Esquire, 207 E. Main Street,
Suite 100, Macungie, PA 18062.
voy Butz & Seitz LLC, 7535
Windsor Drive, Suite 200, Allentown, PA 18195.
Heil, Dolores A., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Administratrix: Sharon D.
Souders, 3049 Ithaca St., Allentown, PA 18103.
Attorney: Douglas S. Wortman,
Esquire, 4652 Hamilton Blvd.,
Kelly, John J., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executrix: Laura K. Bowman
c/o Noonan & Prokup, 526
Walnut St., Allentown, PA
18101.
Attorneys: Noonan & Prokup,
526 Walnut St., Allentown, PA
18101.
Held, Martin A., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executor: Robert A. Faust c/o
Thomas F. Traud, Jr., Esquire,
3055 College Heights Blvd.,
Suite 2A, Allentown, PA 18104.
Attorney: Thomas F. Traud, Jr.,
Esquire, 3055 College Heights
Blvd., Suite 2A, Allentown, PA
18104.
Kessler, Barbara A. a/k/a Barbara Kessler, dec’d.
Late of 1840 W. Woodlawn
Street, Allentown.
Administratrix: Carolyn Lenik
a/k/a Carolyn Alice Lenik, 40
E. Bertsch Street, Lansford, PA
18232.
Attorneys: David B. Shulman,
Hottenstein, Delores B. a/k/a
Delores Hottenstein, dec’d.
Late of Upper Saucon Township.
Executrix: Darlene D. Brennan.
Attorneys: Gladys E. Wiles,
Esquire, Snyder & Wiles, P.C.,
7731 Main Street, Fogelsville,
PA 18051, (610) 391-9500.
Kline, Catherine M., dec’d.
Late of Allentown.
Executor: William F. Kline, Jr.,
965 E. Fairview St., Allentown,
PA 18109.
Attorneys: Elizabeth B. Place,
Esquire, Skarlatos Zonarich
LLC, 17 S. 2nd St., 6th Fl., Harrisburg, PA 17101-2039.
Hummel, Barbara Ann, dec’d.
Late of Lehigh County.
Executrix: Jessica Millman.
Attorney: Christopher H. Meinzer, Esquire, 516 Main Street,
Pennsburg, PA 18073, (215)
679-4554.
Hunter, Hannah M., dec’d.
Executor: John D. Hunter c/o
Edward H. Butz, Esquire, Lesa-
45
Lucash, John Z., dec’d.
Late of 2232 29th Street Southwest, City of Allentown.
Executor: John Z. Lucash, Jr.,
1730 High Ridge Road, Bethlehem, PA 18015.
Attorney: Anthony B. Reardon,
III, Esquire, 525 Elm Street,
Reading, PA 19601.
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
Luknicki, Roman W., dec’d.
Administrator: Roman E.
Luknicki c/o Littner, Deschler
& Littner, 512 North New Street,
Attorneys: Robert H. Littner,
Esquire, Littner, Deschler &
Littner, 512 North New Street,
NOTICE OF INCORPORATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
Articles of Incorporation have been
(are to be) filed with the Department
of State of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of obtaining a
Certificate of Incorporation pursuant
to the provisions of the Business
Corporation Law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Act of December 21, 1988 (P.L. 1444, No. 177),
by the following corporation:
The name of the corporation is:
GREENWAY I, INC.
DENNIS E. BENNER, ESQ.
BENNER & TROVATO
2005 City Line Road
Suite 106
Bethlehem, PA 18017
(610) 867-3900
J-24
Mertl, Joseph A., dec’d.
Late of Whitehall Township.
Executrix: Rebecca Laudenslager, 1324 West Wyoming St.,
Attorney: Robert Pandaleon,
Esquire, 847 N. Wahneta St.,
Mosteller, Debra K., dec’d.
Late of 419 Walnut Street, Catasauqua.
Executor: Todd M. Ferryman,
958 6th Street, Side Entrance,
Whitehall, PA 18052.
CORPORATE FICTITIOUS
NAME NOTICES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to the provisions of Act 295 of
1982, as amended, of intention to file,
or the filing of, in the Office of the
Secretary of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a certificate for the conduct of
a business in Pennsylvania, under
the assumed or fictitious name, style
or designation of
Name: ALBURTIS LAUNDROMAT
with its principal place of business
at: 106 S. Main Street, Alburtis, PA
18011.
The name and address of the entity owning or interested in said business is: JMR Enterprises, LLC, 106
S. Main Street, Alburtis, PA 18011.
Richard H. Pepper, ESQ.
801 Lehigh Street
Easton, PA 18042
J-24
Snyder, Beverly Jean, dec’d.
Late of the Township of Whitehall.
Executrix: Cheryl Roth c/o Erv
D. McLain, Esquire, 559 Main
Street, Suite 214, Bethlehem,
PA 18018.
Attorney: Erv D. McLain, Esquire, 559 Main Street, Suite
214, Bethlehem, PA 18018.
Weaver, Albert W., dec’d.
Late of 1120 West Broad Street,
Emmaus.
Executor: Ronald A. Weaver,
4751 Mill Road, Emmaus, PA
18049.
Name: THE HARP THERAPY
JOURNAL with its principal place of
business at: 3922 Orchard Road,
Macungie, PA 18062.
The name and address of the entity owning or interested in said busi46
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
ness is: Musiatry, LLC, 3922 Orchard
Road, Macungie, PA 18062.
MARK S. SIGMON, ESQ.
146 East Broad Street
P.O. Box 1365
Bethlehem, PA 18016
J-24
CHARTER APPLICATION—
NONPROFIT
Articles of Incorporation have been
filed with the Department of State of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the
purpose of obtaining a Certificate of
Incorporation pursuant to the Pennsylvania Nonprofit Corporation Law
of 1988, as amended. The name of
the corporation is:
Paws 2 Freedom
The Articles of Incorporation (filing date) June 14, 2016.
The purpose or purposes for
which it was organized are as follows:
Non-profit charitable animal rescue
organization.
J-24
Name: WHALE TRAIL TRADING
with its principal place of business
at: 1055 Cetronia Rd., Apt. Q8,
Breinigsville, PA 18031.
The name and address of the entity owning or interested in said business is: XXV Enterprises, LLC, 1055
Cetronia Rd., Apt. Q8, Breinigsville,
PA 18031.
J-24
LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY NOTICE
COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION
TO QUIET TITLE
a Certificate of Organization for a
Domestic Limited Liability Company
has been filed with the Department
of State of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, pursuant to the provisions of
the Limited Liability Company Law of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Act of December 7, 1994 (P.L. 703,
No. 106), by the following company:
EARTHWORKS PROPERTY
SERVICES, LLC
Rebecca M. Young, Esq.
Lia K. Snyder, Esq.
YOUNG & YOUNG
119 E. Main Street
Macungie, PA 18062
J-24
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania
Civil Division
————
No. 2015-C-3657
————
Alex N. Hahalis,
Plaintiff
v.
Allentown Downtown Improvement
District Authority et al.,
Defendant
————
To: Allentown Downtown Improvement District Authority
You are hereby notified that Alex
N. Hahalis has filed a Complaint to
Quiet Title endorsed with a Notice to
Defend, against you in the Court of
Common Pleas of Lehigh County,
Pennsylvania, Docketed to No. 2015C-3657, wherein Plaintiff seeks to
have the liens recorded with the Clerk
of Courts Civil Division, Lehigh
County, 1999-ML-0494, 2000-ML0242, 2001-ML-362, 2002-ML-298,
marked satisfied.
You are hereby notified to Plead
to the above referenced Complaint on
or before 20 days from the date of this
publication or a judgment will be
entered against you.
LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY NOTICE
on May 10, 2016, a Certificate of
Organization was filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State for:
Shiv Shakti, LLC
in accordance with the provisions of
the Limited Liability Act of 1994.
MARC KRANSON, ESQ.
523 Walnut Street
Allentown, PA 18101
J-24
47
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
In re: CHARLES DOUGLAS MUSSER,
Alleged Absentee
(Joint Owner of Real Property with
David K. Musser, deceased)
————
To: Charles Douglas Musser a/k/a
C.D. Musser of Emmaus, Lehigh
County, Pennsylvania, Wichita,
Kansas and Springfield, Missouri,
and to his heirs, next of kin and
all persons interested in his estate
Notice is hereby given that
a petition was filed with the abovenamed Court to declare that Charles
Douglas Musser also known as C.D.
Musser is absentee who was last
heard from in or about January,
2012, whose interest as joint owner
of real property located in Lehigh
County, Pennsylvania may require
protection by reason of the death of
the other joint owner on March 28,
2014 such that a trustee should be
appointed to take charge of said interest. The Court will hear evidence
concerning the alleged absence of
Charles Douglas Musser a/k/a C.D.
Musser, and its circumstances and
duration on JULY 19, 2016, at 9:30
a.m., in Courtroom 5C, Lehigh
County Courthouse, 455 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania,
to determine whether a trustee
should be appointed to take charge
of any interest that Charles Douglas
Musser may have as a joint owner
with right of survivorship in real
property known as and located at 821
Lawrence Drive, Emmaus, Pennsylvania. All persons having any knowledge of the whereabouts of Charles
Douglas Musser, also known as C.D.
Musser, are requested to attend the
hearing or contact the undersigned.
EMILY A. ZETTLEMOYER, ESQ.
Attorney ID # 0093276
Attorney for Petitioner
53 North 3rd Street
Emmaus, PA 18049
(610) 967-4654
J-10, 17, 24
NOTICE
If you wish to defend, you must
enter a written appearance personally or by attorney and file your defenses or objections in writing with
the court. You are warned that if you
fail to do so the case may proceed
without you and a judgment may be
entered against you without further
notice for the relief requested by the
plaintiff. You may lose money or
property or other rights important to
you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER,
GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE
CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO
HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY
BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH
INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES
THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES
TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.
Notice to Defend
Lawyer Referral Service
P.O. Box 1324
Allentown, PA 18105-1324
Telephone (610) 433-7094
Pavlack Law Offices, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1415 Blakeslee Blvd. Dr. E.
Lehighton, PA 18235
(570) 386-3888
J-24
NOTICE
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania
Orphans’ Court Division
File No. 2012-1291B
48
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
SHERIFF’S SALE
OF VALUABLE
REAL ESTATE
Improvements thereon: A residential dwelling.
Attorneys
Matthew K. Fissel, Esquire
KML Law Group, P.C.
———
The following Real Estate will be
sold at Sheriff ’s Sale
At 10:00 A.M.
NO. 2
Friday, July 22, 2016
By virtue of a writ of execution No.
2013-C-2389, DLJ Mortgage Capital,
Inc. v. Elias Chakef, owner of property situate in the Township of South
Whitehall, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 1829 West Stanley
Tax Assessment No. 549716230050-1.
Attorneys
KML Law Group, P.C.
in the Courthouse, Fifth and
Hamilton Streets
Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Purchasers Must Immediately Pay
10% of the Purchase Price by
Certified Check.
TO ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST
AND CLAIMANT:
Upon all sales where the filing of
a Schedule of Distribution is required, the said Schedule will be filed
by the Sheriff on a date specified by
the Sheriff not later than thirty (30)
days after sale, and a Deed will be
delivered to the PURCHASER and
distribution will be made in accordance with the Schedule unless exceptions are filed thereto within ten
(10) days thereafter.
On sales where the filing of a
Schedule of Distribution is not required, a Deed will be delivered to the
PURCHASER after the expiration of
twenty (20) days from the date of sale,
unless exceptions are taken to the
sale within that period.
NO. 3
2015-C-0903, The Bank of New York
Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York,
As Trustee for the Certificateholders
of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2006-24 c/o Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC v.
Giovani Poline, owner of property
situate in the City of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being
521 W. Washington Street, Allentown, PA 18102.
Improvements thereon: Dwelling.
Attorneys
Richard J. Nalbandian, III, Esquire
Parker McCay PA
NO. 1
2015-C-0947, Wilmington Savings
Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana
Trust, Not Individually But As Trustee for Pretium Mortgage Acquisition
Trust v. Francisco A. Corona a/k/a
Francisco Corona and Jophainee
DelaCruz, owners of property situate
in the City of Allentown, Lehigh
County, Pennsylvania, being 1149
North 15th Street a/k/a 1448 Pennsylvania Street, Allentown, PA 18102.
NO. 4
2014-C-1164, Green Tree Servicing
LLC v. Leeanne Knaus and Gregory
L. Knaus, owners of property situate
49
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
in the Township of Lower Macungie,
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being
5040 Faith Circle, Wescosville, PA
18106.
Attorneys
KML Law Group, P.C.
Under the Laws of the United States
of America v. Heidi L. Lennick and
Robert B. Lennick, owners of property situate in the City of Allentown,
1544 Duxbury Court, Allentown, PA
18104.
Improvements thereon: Residential Dwelling.
Attorneys
McCabe, Weisberg
and Conway, P.C.
NO. 5
2012-C-339, U.S. Bank National Association As Trustee for Pennsylvania
Housing Finance Agency v. Melissa
L. Baer, owner of property situate in
the City of Allentown, Lehigh County,
Pennsylvania, being 1928 West Livingston Street, Allentown, PA 18104.
Attorneys
KML Law Group, P.C.
NO. 8
2013-C-4522, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
v. George A. Nicklas, owner of property situate in the Township of
Weisenberg, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 3820 Tannery Road, New
Tripoli, PA 18066.
Improvements thereon: Single
family dwelling.
Attorneys
Manley Deas Kochalski, LLC
NO. 6
NO. 9
2015-C-4013, Mortgage America, Inc.
v. Matthew R. Holman a/k/a Matthew Holman, owner of property
situate in the Borough of Catasauqua, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania,
being 17 North 12th Street, Catasauqua, PA 18032.
Attorneys
Martha E. Von Rosenstiel, P.C.
2015-C-3127, Selene Finance LP v.
Tomasine Able, owner of property
409 North 6th Street, Allentown, PA
18102.
Improvements thereon: Residential dwelling.
Attorney
Sarah K. McCaffery, Esquire
NO. 7
NO. 10
2014-C-2096, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), a
Corporation Organized and Existing
2015-C-2052, U.S. Bank National
50
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
NO. 13
Association, a Trustee for the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency v.
Javier Medrano and Miriam Medrano, owners of property situate in the
City of Allentown, Lehigh County,
Pennsylvania, being 822 Plymouth
Improvements thereon: A residential dwelling house.
Attorneys
Leon P. Haller, Esquire
Purcell, Krug & Haller
2015-C-2168, Santander Bank, N.A.
v. John Alan Weber, owner of property situate in the Township of Whitehall, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania,
being 450 5th Street, Whitehall, PA
18052-6416.
Attorneys
Phelan Hallinan Diamond
& Jones, LLP
NO. 11
Fund Society FSB d/b/a Christina
Trust As Trustee for Premium Mortgage v. Alejandro Torres, owner of
property situate in the City of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania,
being 754 Carldon Street, Allentown,
PA 18103.
Attorneys
McCabe, Weisberg
and Conway, P.C.
NO. 14
2015-ML-3184, Allentown School
District v. Jeffrey R. Williams, owner
of property situate in the City of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 219.5 S. Saint Cloud
Improvements thereon: Residential Property.
Attorneys
Jeffrey P. Kelly, Esquire
Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd.
NO. 12
NO. 15
Mellon, As Trustee for First Horizon
Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust
2007-FA3 v. John H. Doskicz Jr.,
owner of property situate in the
Township of Whitehall, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 3001 Hokendauqua Street, Whitehall, PA
18052.
Attorneys
KML Law Group, P.C.
District v. Brenda Rivera, owner of
being 619 N. Penn Street, Allentown,
PA 18102.
Attorneys
51
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
NO. 16
NO. 19
2015-ML-0584, Bethlehem Area
School District v. Donna R. Moyer,
owner of property situate in the City
of Bethlehem, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 635 5th Avenue,
Attorneys
District v. Chew Metro Holdings,
L.L.C., owner of property situate in
Pennsylvania, being 616 W. Chew
Attorneys
NO. 17
NO. 20
District v. Turner Apartments, L.L.C.,
of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 619 W. Turner Street,
Improvements thereon: Apartment Property.
Attorneys
2015-ML-2093, Whitehall Township
v. Leonard J. Hoben and Martha A.
Hoben, owners of property situate in
the Township of Whitehall, Lehigh
Pennsylvania Street, Whitehall, PA
18052.
Attorneys
NO. 18
NO. 22
2015-ML-2440, Whitehall-Coplay
School District v. 340 4th Street,
owner of property situate in the
Township of Whitehall, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 340 4th
Street, Whitehall, PA 18052.
Attorneys
District v. Linda Hadid, owner of
being 106 N. 2nd Street, Allentown,
PA 18101.
Attorneys
52
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
NO. 24
Improvements thereon: Vacant
Land.
Attorneys
District v. John Achey, Administrator
of the Estate of Joyce V. Achey,
of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 416 W. Green Street,
Attorneys
NO. 28
District and Public Asset Management Inc., Assignee of the Allentown
School District v. Chris P. Ott and
Tyra Rodriguez, owners of property
1513 E. Livingston Street, Allentown,
PA 18109.
Attorneys
NO. 25
2013-ML-3523, City of Allentown v.
Corey D. Derr and Susan L. Derr,
owners of property situate in the City
of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 727 S. Genesee
Attorneys
NO. 29
v. Maribel Zapata, owner of property
135 East Fairview Street, Allentown,
PA 18109.
family dwelling.
Attorneys
Manley Deas Kochalski LLC
NO. 27
School District v. Michael Zoppi and
Tammy Zoppi, owners of property
2848 Lehigh Street, Allentown, PA
18103.
NO. 30
2015-C-2361, JPMorgan Chase
Bank, National Association v. Maria
S. Kotze, owner of property situate in
the Township of Upper Milford, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being
53
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
5318 Vera Cruz Road, Emmaus, PA
18049.
Improvements thereon: Residential dwelling.
Attorneys
Sarah K. McCaffery, Esquire
Pennsylvania, being 218 E. South
Improvements thereon: Residential property.
Attorneys
Law Office of
Gregory Javardian, LLC
NO. 31
NO. 34
Bank, N.A. v. Bryan-Scott R. Fenstermacher a/k/a Bryan S. Fenstermacher, Scott Robert Fenstermacher
a/k/a Scott R. Fenstermacher, owners of property situate in the Borough
of Slatington, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 512 East Church
Street, Slatington, PA 18080-2008.
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
2015-C-2257, Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC v. Michael W. Savard, Mary P.
Hester, owners of property situate in
the Township of Lower Macungie,
3067 Macungie Road a/k/a 3067
Macungie Road, Macungie, PA
18062-9704.
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
NO. 32
NO. 35
2015-C-3451, M&T Bank v. Wesley
W. Smith and Diana L. Smith, owners
of property situate in the City of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 239 E. South Street, Allentown, PA 18109.
Improvements thereon: Residential Real Estate.
Attorneys
M. Troy Freedman, Esquire
Stern & Eisenberg PC
2014-C-3078, Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
v. Maria Ruiz, Christian P. Parrales,
owners of property situate in the City
of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 616 Carldon Street,
Allentown, PA 18103-3341.
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
NO. 33
LLC s/b/m Green Tree Consumer
Discount Company v. Dhandeo Mohabir, owner of property situate in
NO. 36
54
v. Rita Rosario a/k/a Rita M. Rosario,
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 1019 South 6th
Street, Allentown, PA 18103-4001.
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
Bank v. Christine C. Steele, owner of
property situate in the Township of
Washington, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 3839 Maple Tree
Lane, Slatington, PA 18080.
Family—Detached Bi-Level House.
Attorneys
Daniel G. Dougherty, Esquire
Daniel G. Dougherty, P.C.
NO. 37
NO. 40
Bank, National Association v. Kent
A. Smith a/k/a Kent Smith and
Christy E. Yerk-Smith a/k/a Christy
Yerk-Smith, owners of property situate in the City of Allentown, Lehigh
County, Pennsylvania, being 702-708
East Lexington Street, Allentown, PA
18103.
Attorneys
KML Law Group, P.C.
v. Carlos D. Correa, Sherida Sanchez
a/k/a Sheridan Sanchez, owners of
Salisbury, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 916 East Susquehanna
Street, Allentown, PA 18103-4254.
Tax Assessment No. 6416175173621.
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
NO. 38
NO. 41
v. Fredrick J. Adams, owner of property situate in the Borough of Catasauqua, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 21 Covington Place,
Catasauqua, PA 18032-1012.
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana
Trust, Not Individually But As Trustee for Pretium Mortgage Acquisition
Trust v. Carolann J. Deleon a/k/a
Carolann Jude Deleon n/k/a Michelle Holvik, owner of property situate in the Township of North Whitehall, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania,
being 3179 Westwood Place, Orefield,
PA 18069.
Attorney
Robert W. Williams, Esquire
NO. 39
2013-C-4437, the Neffs National
55
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
NO. 42
NO. 45
2015-C-3785, Ditech Financial LLC
v. John Leitgep, owner of property
520 Auburn Street, Allentown, PA
18103-3211.
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
School District v. George Serrano and
Janet Serrano, owners of property
situate in the Single Family Residential Property, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 920 N. Fair Street,
Family Residential Property.
Attorneys
NO. 43
2016-C-0111, Lafayette Ambassador
Bank v. Gail Hoover, owner of property situate in the City of Allentown,
322 N. Franklin Street, Allentown, PA.
Improvements thereon: Two-story
attached row.
Attorneys
Shawn M. Long, Esquire
Barley Snyder
NO. 47
2010-ML-1349, Parkland School
District v. Husam Ayed Madain and
Mervat H. Madain, owners of property situate in the Township of South
Whitehall, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 2415 W. Highland
Street, South Whitehall, PA 18104.
Attorneys
NO. 44
2015-ML-3498, Parkland School
District v. John C. Borschel, owner
of property situate in the Township
of South Whitehall, Lehigh County,
Pennsylvania, being 5080 Chapmans
Road, South Whitehall, PA 18104.
Attorneys
NO. 48
2013-ML-0806, City of Allentown v.
Enrique Colon, owner of property
311 Ridge Avenue, Allentown, PA
18102.
56
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
Attorneys
ate in the City of Allentown, Lehigh
Montgomery Street, Allentown, PA
18103.
Attorneys
KML Law Group, P.C.
NO. 49
School District v. Jose De La Rosa
and Adnery M. De La Rosa, owners
of property situate in the City of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 1028-1030 Hanover Avenue, Allentown, PA 18109.
Attorneys
NO. 53
2015-C-3820, Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Stoudt and
Phyllis M. Stoudt, owners of property situate in the Township of Whitehall, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania,
being 1417 Andrew Drive, Whitehall,
PA 18052.
Attorneys
Law Office of
NO. 50
School District v. Saeed Moghal,
of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 230 N. Church Street,
Attorneys
NO. 54
2014-C-4162, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee for
Certificateholders of the First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF16,
Asset-Backed Certificates, Series
2006-FF16 c/o Specialized Loan
Servicing, LLC v. Christina Valenzuela a/k/a Christine W. Valenzuela,
of Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 1103 W. Liberty
Attorneys
Parker McCay PA
NO. 52
Bank, National Association v. Elizabeth Vargas, owner of property situ57
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
NO. 55
Attorney
2015-C-2560, Bank of New York, As
Trustee for the Certificateholders
CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-22 c/o Specialized
Loan Servicing, LLC v. Alexander
Pippins and Stephanie Pynter, owners of property situate in the City of
Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 837-839 South Fawn
Street, Allentown PA 18103.
Attorneys
Parker McCay PA
NO. 58
Association, As Trustee, Successor
in Interest to LaSalle Bank National
Association, As Trustee for Lehman
XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-10H v. Richard B. Fowlin a/k/a Richard Fowlin
and Sandra Fowlin, owners of property situate in the City of Allentown,
606 N. 8th Street, Allentown, PA
18102.
Attorney
NO. 56
2016-C-0187, Ditech Financial LLC
f/k/a Green Tree Servicing LLC v.
Lisa H. McDermott, owner of property situate in the City of Allentown,
2438 West Tremont Street, Allentown, PA 18104.
Attorneys
KML Law Group, P.C.
NO. 59
Association As Trustee for RAMP
2005EFC4 v. Karen Y. Theodor,
owner of property situate in the Borough of Emmaus, Lehigh County,
Pennsylvania, being 514 South 2nd
Street, Emmaus, PA 18049-3912.
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
NO. 57
Association, As Trustee for Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan
Trust-Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-5 v. Charles D.
Lewis and Natalie Lewis, owners of
being 259 E. Maple St., Allentown,
PA 18109.
Tax Assessment No. 6407723765581.
NO. 60
Association, As Trustee for the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency v.
58
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
Carlos Gonzalez, owner of property
202 East Court Street, Allentown, PA
18109.
Attorneys
Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York
of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2005-8 v. Frances
Schoen c/o Samantha Schoen, Believed Administrator and/or Heir of
the Estate of Corey Schoen and Samantha Schoen, Believed Administrator and/or Heir to the Estate of
Corey Schoen, owner of property
situate in the Township of Lower
Macungie, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 6142 Timberknoll Drive,
Macungie, PA 18062.
Attorneys
KML Law Group, P.C.
NO. 61
v. Amy L. Zentz, Jeffrey L. Zentz and
the United States of America, owners
of property situate in the Township
of Washington, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 3749 Eagle Road,
Attorneys
Powers, Kirn & Associates, LLC
NO. 65
Bank, N.A. v. Marty R. Wensel, Dana
M. Burns, owners of property situate
in the Borough of Catasauqua, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being
508 Faith Drive, Catasauqua, PA
18032-1324.
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
NO. 63
v. Amy A. Bishop and Matthew W.
Bishop a/k/a Matthew Bishop, owners of property situate in the Township of Upper Saucon, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 5453
Applebutter Hill Road, Coopersburg,
PA 18036.
Attorney
NO. 66
2016-C-0216, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company As Trustee for
GSAMP Trust 2006-FM3, Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2006-FM3 v. William P. Gillen, Angie
M. Gillen, owners of property situate
in the City of Bethlehem, Lehigh
County, Pennsylvania, being 537 3rd
Avenue, Bethlehem, PA 18018-5537.
NO. 64
59
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
v. Terrance C. Knight a/k/a Terrance
Knight, Susan T. Badu a/k/a Susan
Badu, owners of property situate in
the Township of Salisbury, Lehigh
Garden Avenue, Allentown, PA
18103-8322.
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
NO. 67
LLC v. Larry P. Miller and Diane D.
Miller, owners of property situate in
Pennsylvania, being 1430 Chew
Street a/k/a 1430 West Chew Street,
Attorneys
Law Office of
NO. 70
Fund Society, FSB, Doing Business
As Christiana Trust, Not in Its Individual Capacity But Solely As Legal
Title Trustee for Bronze Creek Title
Trust 2013-NPL1 v. Michele Grossman, owner of property situate in the
City of Bethlehem, Lehigh County,
Pennsylvania, being 1847 Cloverdale
Road, Bethlehem, PA 18018.
Attorneys
Stephen M. Hladik, Esquire
Hladik, Onorato & Federman, LLP
NO. 68
2015-C-2009, Santander Bank, N.A.
v. Spencer L. Sexton, Solely in His
Capacity As Heir of Patricia A. Sexton, Deceased, Sallie A. McKeney,
Solely in Her Capacity As Heir of
Patricia A. Sexton, Deceased and
Unknown Heirs, Successors and/or
Assigns of Patricia A. Sexton, Deceased, owners of property situate in
the Township of Hanover, Lehigh
Troxell Street, Allentown, PA 18109.
Attorneys
Pressman & Doyle, LLC
NO. 71
2015-C-1673, DLJ Mortgage Capital,
Inc. v. Robert Schultz, owner of property situate in the Township of Salisbury, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania,
being 1325 Byfield Street, Allentown,
PA 18103.
Attorneys
NO. 69
60
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
NO. 72
Attorneys
Michael R. Nesfeder, Esquire
Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C.
of CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-6 v. Brad E.
Ettwein, owner of property situate in
the Borough of Fountain Hill, Lehigh
County, Pennsylvania, being 580 S.
Benner Avenue, Fountain Hill, PA
18105.
Attorneys
NO. 75
of CWABS Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-8 c/o Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC v. Kris A.
Csaszar a/k/a Kris Ann Csaszar and
Matthew E. Csaszar a/k/a Matthew
Edward Csaszar, owners of property
1102-1108 North Irving Street, Allentown, PA 18109.
Attorneys
Parker McCay PA
NO. 73
2016-C-0212, Weichert Financial
Services v. David A. Moll, owner of
property situate in the Borough of
Fountain Hill, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 609 Norway Place,
Fountain Hill, PA 18015.
Attorneys
M. Troy Freedman, Esquire
NO. 76
2013-C-3089, Santander Bank, N.A.,
Formerly Known As Sovereign Bank
v. Lance A. Evans a/k/a Lance Evans, owner of property situate in the
Township of Lower Macungie, Lehigh
Silvano Lane, Macungie, PA 180628659.
Attorneys
& Jones, LLP
NO. 74
2015-C-0175, First Commonwealth
Federal Credit Union v. Michael B.
Marx, Jr., owner of property situate
in the City of Allentown, Lehigh
Club Avenue, Allentown, PA 18109.
NO. 77
2015-C-3871, Quaint Oak Bank v.
61
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
NO. 80
Ramon A. Reyes and Maria Rodriguez, owners of property situate in
Pennsylvania, being 116 N. 8th
Improvements thereon: Commercial 2-story store.
Attorneys
Rebecca J. Price, Esquire
Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A.
Association, As Trustee for the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency v.
Cristian Cordova, owner of property
situate in the Borough of Slatington,
636 West Washington Street, Slatington, PA 18080.
Attorneys
NO. 78
LLC v. Gregory M. Marucci, owner of
Lowhill, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 7071 Kernsville Road,
Orefield, PA 18069.
Improvements thereon: Residential property.
Attorneys
Law Office of
NO. 81
2012-C-4536, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee for
IXIS Real Estate Capital Trust 2007HE-1 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-HE-1, by Its
Servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
v. George M. Pierce, owner of property situate in the Township of South
Whitehall, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 2613 West Highland
Attorneys
Jessica N. Manis, Esquire
JOSEPH N. HANNA
Sheriff of Lehigh County, PA
Matthew R. Sorrentino,
County Solicitor
Richard Brent Somach,
Sheriff ’s Solicitor
J-24; Ju 1, 8
NO. 79
2016-C-0102, People First Federal
Credit Union v. Pedro A. Alvarado and
Tanya E. Rivera-Alvarado, owners of
Whitehall, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, being 189 Shiloh Court, Whitehall, PA 18052.
Attorney
William J. Fries, Esquire
62
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
63
D
E
L
I TO:
V
E
R
PERIODICAL PUBLICATION
* Dated Material. Do Not Delay. Please Deliver Before Monday, June 27, 2016

Vol. LVI Allentown, PA Friday, June 24, 2016 No. 104

Transcription

Similar documents

Everything happens for a reason.

2009 Flyer - Carbon Lehigh Intermediate Unit 21

Update - LVHN Scholarly Works

jillians flier april

PDF Version - PA Legal Ads Online

January 4th - 5th, 2014 - Lehigh Valley Weddings

essential reception site guide 2014

Vol. LVI Allentown, PA Friday, November 6, 2015 No. 71

Vol. LVI Allentown, PA Friday, June 12, 2015 No. 50

Apr 2014 - Esquire Malaysia - Mint