IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT : 

 : 

 V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

 : 

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER NO. 02 -cv-4421 

OF COMMERCE, INC.; JOHN J.(BUD) : 

AIKEN, AND MICKEY GLANTZ : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS MOTION 

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NEW JERSEY DOMICILE 

 1. Admitted. Oral Argument on said motion is scheduled for March 23, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. 

 2. Admitted. 

 3. Admitted and Denied as stated. Said Affidavit was not "unsubstantiated" nor did it 

contain factual assertions contradicting her deposition testimony on June 16, 2004. By way of 

further answer, discovery cutoff was May 17, 2004 but defense counsel was given the courtesy 

of a late deposition by plaintiff, one month after cutoff. 

 4.Denied. 

 5. Denied as stated. Said documents are all relevant and probative of Plaintiff's domicile. 

By way of further answer and reply, attached hereto are true and correct copies of Plaintiff's 

Federal income tax returns for 2002, filed April 3, 2003, and for 2003, filed February 29, 2004, 

both bearing her NJ address and further substantiating her New Jersey domicile. Plaintiff's tax 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 33 Filed 02/14/2005 Page 1 of 5
return for 2001 does not show her NJ address because it had to be filed on or before April 15, 

2002 and at that time Plaintiff still lived in Hatboro PA. She did not move to NJ until on or 

about April 26, 2002 when she began her current job. Suit was filed July 3, 2002. 

 6. Denied. Plaintiff has been fully cross examined and bullied. Defense counsel had full 

time for discovery but failed to raise any question whatsoever concerning Plaintiff's domicile 

until June 16, 2004 when he finally took her deposition from 1:15 p.m. until 5:30 p.m., after the 

discovery cutoff and in the afternoon to accommodate his busy schedule. Mr. Gold stated at p. 

239 he had no further questions. After the deposition he began verbally demanding Plaintiff's 

tax returns, a month after discovery had closed. Plaintiff had no obligation to provide him further 

discovery on this issue because he allowed the discovery period to lapse without raising the issue 

of domicile. Mr. Gold has waived further cross examination. Further, Mr. Gold's conduct 

toward Plaintiff at the deposition was argumentative and bullying, as he was grandstanding for a 

roomful of his clients and at least one spouse. He wanted to extend discovery several more 

months but Plaintiff's counsel refused because defendants were not forthcoming in providing 

discovery, and because this case is old enough. The requested income tax documents 

substantiating Plaintiffs domicile are attached. 

 7. Denied. An evidentiary hearing is not necessary; however, at the Oral Argument 

scheduled for March 23, 2005 Plaintiff will be in attendance should this Honorable Court have 

any questions. Plaintiff objects to questioning and/or cross examination by Mr. Gold because he 

never requested information or documentation regarding her NJ domicile during the discovery 

period, did not cooperate in discovery requested by Plaintiff, who had to file a Motion to 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 33 Filed 02/14/2005 Page 2 of 5
Compel, and now improperly seeks to reopen discovery to bully Mrs. Barrett. He has already 

cross-examined her at length on this issue, on June 16, 2004. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests Defendants' Motion for Evidentiary Hearing be 

denied as moot and represents that she will attend Oral Argument on March 23, 2004 should the 

Court require any further information regarding domicile. Plaintiff further objects to the 

Defendants' Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, as the "wherefore" clause states that "Plaintiff" 

requests it, while it was filed on behalf of Defendants. 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 AFA2128 

 _____________________________ 

 Anita F. Alberts Esquire Id #28086 

 Counsel for Plaintiff Dee Barrett 

 The Atrium Suite 2 West 

 301 South Main Street 

 Doylestown PA 18901 

 (215) 340-0700 

 FAX (215)340-2747 

Dated: February 11, 2005 

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

ANITA F. ALBERTS ESQUIRE hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Answer to 

Defendants' Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Plaintiff's NJ Domicile was served to 

counsel for defendants at the address below by First Class Mail, on the date written below. 

 Sidney L. Gold Esquire 

 Sidney L. Gold Associates 

 Eleven Penn Center 

 1835 Market St. Suite 515 

 Philadelphia PA 19103 

____________________(date) _____________________________ 

 Anita F. Alberts Esquire 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 33 Filed 02/14/2005 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT : 

 : 

 V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

 : 

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER NO. 02 -cv-4421 

OF COMMERCE, INC.; JOHN J.(BUD) : 

AIKEN, AND MICKEY GLANTZ : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER

AND NOW, this _____________ day of ____________________, 2005, upon consideration of 

Defendants' Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Relative to Plaintiff's Domicile in New Jersey, and 

Plaintiff's Answer thereto with attached federal income tax documents requested by defendants 

as substantiating Plaintiff's New Jersey domicile as stated in ¶6 of Defendant's Motion, 

Defendants' Motion for Evidentiary Hearing is denied as moot. 

 BY THE COURT, 

 _____________________________ 

 The Honorable Petrese Tucker 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 33 Filed 02/14/2005 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 33 Filed 02/14/2005 Page 5 of 5