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

ANSWER

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

attorneys, files the following Answer, respectfully representing as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

1. Paragraph 1of the Complaint is admitted. 

2. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint is admitted. Defendant maintains a

representative with an office in Erie, PA. 

3. Denied. The averments of paragraph 3 of the Complaint are conclusions of

law to which no response is required. 

Case 2:02-cv-04359-MAM Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 1 of 8
2.

4. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint is admitted.

5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is admitted.

6. It is admitted that there was a contract between the parties pursuant to which

PennGear agreed to pay ACSA for the manufacture of steel forgings. PennGear has breached

this contract. PennGear’s breach of contract is the subject of a pending lawsuit captioned ACSA

Steel Forgings v. Pennsylvania Gear Corp., U.S. Dist. Court for Western Dist. PA, CA 01-265

Erie. 

7. Denied as stated. It is admitted that ACSA used tooling and/or tooling

equipment in the manufacture of the forgings. It is denied that PennGear owns this tooling

and/or that it has any proper or enforceable claim of ownership to the tooling.

8. Paragraph 8 of the Complaint is denied. 

9. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint is denied. PennGear did not supply tooling. 

10. It is admitted that ACSA ceased manufacturing forgings for PennGear

because PennGear had, wrongfully and without just cause, refused and continues to refuse to pay

Case 2:02-cv-04359-MAM Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 2 of 8
3.

ACSA for the forgings. ACSA has no obligation to manufacture the forgings unless PennGear

pays for the same. 

11. Paragraph 11 of the Complaint is denied. No tooling equipment was supplied

to ACSA by PennGear.

12. Paragraph 12 of the Complaint is denied. 

13. Paragraph 13 of the Complaint is denied. 

COUNT I – Conversion

14. The averments of paragraph 14 of the Complaint do not require a response. 

To the extent that a response is required, ACSA hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13

above. 

15. Paragraph 15 of the Complaint is denied. 

16. Paragraph 16 of the Complaint is denied.

17. Paragraph 17 of the Complaint is denied.

Case 2:02-cv-04359-MAM Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 3 of 8
4.

18. Paragraph 18 of the Complaint is denied.

19. Paragraph 19 of the Complaint is denied.

WHEREFORE, ACSA requests that judgment be entered in favor of ACSA and

against PennGear, together with attorney’s fees and costs of defense.

COUNT II – Unjust Enrichment

20. The averments of paragraph 19 of the Complaint do not require a response. 

To the extent that a response is required, ACSA hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19

above. 

21. Paragraph 21 of the Complaint is denied.

22. Paragraph 22 of the Complaint is denied. 

23. Paragraph 23 of the Complaint is denied.

24. Paragraph 24 of the Complaint is denied.

Case 2:02-cv-04359-MAM Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 4 of 8
5.

25. Paragraph 25 of the Complaint is denied.

WHEREFORE, ACSA requests that judgment be entered in favor of ACSA and

against PennGear, together with attorney’s fees and costs of defense.

SECOND DEFENSE

The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

THIRD DEFENSE

Venue does not properly lie in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania. To the contrary, venue properly lies in the Western District of

Pennsylvania. 

FOURTH DEFENSE

Case 2:02-cv-04359-MAM Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 5 of 8
6.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred because they should have been, but were not, asserted

by PennGear in the civil action captioned ACSA Steel Forgings v. Pennsylvania Gear Corp.,

which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of

Pennsylvania at no. 01-265 Erie. 

FIFTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of frauds.

SIXTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiff’s equitable claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Case 2:02-cv-04359-MAM Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 6 of 8
7.

The Plaintiff’s claims must be reduced and/or are barred by the Defendant’s

claims of setoff as set forth in the civil action between these parties which is presently pending in

the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania at no. 01-265 Erie. All

of the claims of ACSA asserted in that action are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth

fully herein. 

WHEREFORE, ACSA requests that judgment be entered in favor of ACSA and

against PennGear, together with attorney’s fees and costs of defense.

Respectfully submitted,

ELDERKIN, MARTIN, KELLY & MESSINA

By 

 Craig A. Markham, 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 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 7 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the ______ day of July, 2002, I served a copy of the Answer 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

 Attorney for Defendant

 150 East Eighth Street

 Erie, Pennsylvania 16501

 (814) 456-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04359-MAM Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 8 of 8