IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA GEAR CORPORATION,

Plaintiff

v.

ACSA STEEL FORGINGS, S.p.A.,

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 02 cv 4359

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND

AND NOW, the Defendant, ACSA Steel Forgings, S.p.A., by and through its

attorneys, ELDERKIN, MARTIN, KELLY & MESSINA, files the following Response in

Opposition to Motion to Remand of Plaintiff Pennsylvania Gear Corporation, respectfully

representing as follows:

1. Paragraph 1 of the Motion is admitted. 

2. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the complaint seeks

recovery for damages allegedly suffered. It is denied that ACSA converted tooling equipment

manufactured for Penngear and that Penngear suffered any damages. Penngear’s complaint is a

document which speaks for itself. Penngear’s complaint alleges two causes of action and when

aggregated, the amounts demanded by Penngear exceed $75,000.00.

3. Paragraph 3 of the Motion is admitted.

Case 2:02-cv-04359-MAM Document 13 Filed 10/18/2002 Page 1 of 4
2.

4. Paragraph 4 of the Motion is admitted. The notice of removal is a document

which speaks for itself. 

5. Paragraph 5 of the Motion is admitted.

6. Denied. It is denied that this matter does not meet the amount in controversy

requirement for diversity of citizenship set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

7. The averments of Paragraph 7 are conclusions of law to which no response is

required. By way of further answer, Penngear’s complaint is a document which speaks for itself.

Penngear’s complaint alleges two causes of action and when aggregated, the amounts demanded

by Penngear exceed $75,000.00. 

8. The averments in Paragraph 8 are conclusions of law to which no response is

required. To the extent that an answer is required, the averments are denied. This Honorable

Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

WHEREFORE, ACSA respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an

order denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand. 

Case 2:02-cv-04359-MAM Document 13 Filed 10/18/2002 Page 2 of 4
3.

Respectfully submitted,

ELDERKIN, MARTIN, KELLY & MESSINA

By 

 Craig A. Markham, Esquire

 Lori R. Miller, Esquire

 150 East Eighth Street

 Erie, Pennsylvania 16501

 (814) 456-4000

CATALDE & BRADFORD

 Robert J. Catalde, Esquire

 731 French Street

 Erie, Pennsylvania 16501

 (814) 451-6236

 Attorneys for Defendant

Case 2:02-cv-04359-MAM Document 13 Filed 10/18/2002 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the ______ day of October, 2002, I served a copy of the Response

in Opposition to Motion to Remand on the following individuals and in the manner indicated

below:

U.S. First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid:

John G. Richards, II, Esquire

350 Sentry Parkway, Building 640

Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422

Attorney for Plaintiff

Respectfully submitted,

ELDERKIN, MARTIN, KELLY & MESSINA

By 

 Craig A. Markham, Esquire

 Lori R. Miller, Esquire

 Attorneys for Defendant

 150 East Eighth Street

 Erie, Pennsylvania 16501

 (814) 456-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04359-MAM Document 13 Filed 10/18/2002 Page 4 of 4