ERRATA RE VAN VLIET’S OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM H. VAN VLIET III,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATLAS COMMUNICATIONS, LTD., et

al.

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 05-3000

NOTICE BY WILLIAM H. VAN VLIET III OF ERRATA IN MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 

AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION BY WILLIAM H. VAN VLIET III 

TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:05-cv-03000-AB Document 16 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 6
-1-

ERRATA RE VAN VLIET’S OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS 

OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that counsel for Plaintiff William H. Van Vliet III

inadvertently omitted the tables of contents and authorities from the Memorandum of

Points and Authorities in Support of Opposition by William H. Van Vliet III to Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, filed 15 August 2005. Van Vliet attaches a 

copy of the tables to this Notice by William H. Van Vliet III of Errata in Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities in Support of Opposition by William H. Van Vliet III to Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for the Court and all parties. Counsel for 

Van Vliet apologizes to the Court and the parties for the error.

Dated: 15 August 2005 Respectfully submitted,

BANKS & BANKS

By: /s/ ID No.57018

David Banks

3038 Church Rd.

Whitemarsh Twp. PA 19444

Tel 610/940-3900

Fax 610/940-0843

e-mail bbwlaw@yahoo.com

Of Counsel

Franklin R. Fraley, Jr., CA Bar No. 151879

Fraley & Associates

31 Flr.

555 W. 5th St.

Los Angeles CA 90013

Tel 213/996-8404

Fax 213/996-8367

e-mail ffraley@fraleylaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

William H. Van Vliet III

Case 2:05-cv-03000-AB Document 16 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 6
-iVAN VLIET’S OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction....................................................................................................................1

II. Statement of Facts.........................................................................................................3

A. The Underlying Action...................................................................................3

B. This Action ....................................................................................................4

III. Legal Argument: This Court Should Not Dismiss Van Vliet’s Claims For

Wrongful Use And Abuse Of Process Because The Statute Of Limitations Does

Not Bar These Claims And Van Vliet Alleges Sufficient Facts For These

Claims Under The Notice Pleading Standard ..........................................................6

A. Van Vliet Initiated This Action Within The Time Allowed Under The 

Statute Of Limitations And The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure. ...............8

B. Van Vliet Alleges Sufficent Facts To State A Claim For Wrongful 

Use Of Civil Proceedings Against The Defendants .....................................10

1. Van Vliet Sufficiently Pled The Defendants’ Lack Of

Probable Cause................................................................................13

2. Van Vliet Sufficiently Pled The Defendants’ Improper

Purpose............................................................................................16

C. If This Court Finds Van Vliet’s Allegations Fail To Meet The Notice

Pleading Standard Required, This Court Should Grant Van Vliet 

Leave To Amend.........................................................................................18

IV. Conclusion .............................................................................................................19

Certificate of Service.........................................................................................................20

Case 2:05-cv-03000-AB Document 16 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 6
VAN VLIET’S OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

-iiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES

FEDERAL CASES

Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957) ............................................................................................11

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Askinazi, 

152 F. Supp. 2d 655, 661 (E.D. Pa. 2001) .....................................................................8, 9

Famology.com Inc. v. Perot Sys. Corp., 

158 F. Supp. 2d 589, 590-91 (E.D. Pa. 2001) .................................................................11

Hanna v. Plumer,

380 U.S. 460, 473 (1965) ................................................................................................11

Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) .......................................................................................................7

Johnsrud v. Carter,

620 F.2d 29, 33 (3d Cir.1980).............................................................................................6

Mansmann v. Tuman,

970 F. Supp. 389 (E.D. Pa. 1997) ..............................................................................15, 17

Nami v. Fauver,

82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir.1996) ..............................................................................................7

Rannels v. S.E. Nichols, Inc.,

591 F.2d 242, 246 (3rd Cir. 1979) ...................................................................................17

Rocks v. Philadelphia,

868 F.2d 644, 645 (3d Cir.1989)...........................................................................11, 12, 18

U.S. Express Lines Ltd. v. Higgins .....................................................................................7 

281 F. 3d 383, 394 (3rd Cir. 2002)

STATE CASES

Bannar v. Miller, 

701 A. 2d 232, 238 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997) ..........................................................................8

Buchleitner v. Perer, 

794 A.2d 366, 377 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) .........................................................................16

Case 2:05-cv-03000-AB Document 16 Filed 08/16/05 Page 4 of 6
VAN VLIET’S OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

-iiiElectric Lab. Supply Co. v. Cullen, 

712 A.2d 304 (Pa. 1998) ....................................................................................................8

Gentzler v. Atlee, 

660 A. 2d 1378, 1385 (Pa. Super. Ct.1995) .....................................................................14

Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. D'Ambro, 

408 Pa. Super. 301, 303 (1991) ......................................................................................12

Ludmer v. Nernberg, 

520 Pa. 218, 222-23 (1989) ...............................................................................................9

Sevin v. Kelshaw, 

611 A.2d 1232, 1235 (Pa Super. Ct. 1992) ......................................................................12

Shaffer v. Stewart

473 A. 2d 1017, 1020-21 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) ..............................................................18

STATE STATUTES

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8351 (West, WESTLAW through Act 2003-25) ..................7, 14

FEDERAL RULES

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6 ..........................................................................................................10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ......................................................................................................11

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 9(b) .....................................................................................................11

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) .................................................................................................6

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41 ..........................................................................................................9

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b) .....................................................................................................9

STATE RULES

Pa. R. Civ. Proc. 106 ........................................................................................................10

Pa. R. Civ. Proc. 1019 ...............................................................................................10, 12

TREATISES

Restatement (2nd) of Torts, § 675......................................................................................8

Case 2:05-cv-03000-AB Document 16 Filed 08/16/05 Page 5 of 6
-2-

VAN VLIET’S OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, David Banks, hereby certify that on 15 August 2005, I electronically filed, or

caused to be electronically filed, the document entitled NOTICE BY WILLIAM H. VAN 

VLIET III OF ERRATA IN MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN

SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION BY WILLIAM H. VAN VLIET III TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (the “Van Vliet Moving

Memorandum re Disqualification Motion”) using the ECF system. The Van Vliet Moving 

Memorandum re Disqualification Motion is now available for viewing on, and

downloading from, the ECF system.

The following parties to this action were electronically served with a copy of the 

Van Vliet Moving Memorandum re Disqualification Motion by the Notice of Electronic

Case Filing that the ECF system issued:

George Bochetto, Esq.

David Perlman, Esq.

Bochetto & Lentz, P.C.

1524 Locust St.

Philadelphia PA 19102

Attorneys for Defendants Atlas Communications, Ltd., Frank Scardino,

Bochetto & Lentz, P.C., George Bochetto, and David J. Perlman.

 /s/ ID No.57018

 David Banks, Esq.

Case 2:05-cv-03000-AB Document 16 Filed 08/16/05 Page 6 of 6