149637-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HOLSWORTH, et al

Plaintiffs,

v.

BERG, et al

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 05-cv-01116 (JCJ)

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

TO THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF’S THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity, Carpenters Pension

and Annuity Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity, Carpenters Savings Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity,

Carpenters Joint Apprentice Committee, the National Apprenticeship and Health and Safety Fund,

Carpenters Political Action Committee of Philadelphia and Vicinity (collectively, the “Funds”), and the

Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters, Eastern Pennsylvania, State of Delaware and Eastern Shore

of Maryland (the “Union” and together with the Funds, the “Carpenters”) by and through their undersigned

counsel, Jennings Sigmond, P.C., hereby answer the Third-Party Complaint of Philip Berg, Esquire (“ThirdParty Plaintiff” or “Defendant”) in the above-captioned matter as follows:

1. Admitted, except that Third-Party Defendant, “Metropolitan Regional Council of

Philadelphia and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America” is currently known

as the “Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters, Eastern Pennsylvania, State of Delaware and Eastern

Shore of Maryland.”

2. Admitted.
149637-1 2

3. Deny the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the allegations

contained in the paragraph 3 of Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint. The Carpenters further state

that the allegations contained in the paragraph 3 of Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint call for legal

conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.

4. Deny the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the allegations

contained in the paragraph 4 of Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint. The Carpenters further state

that the allegations contained in the paragraph 4 of Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint call for legal

conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.

5. Deny the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the allegations

contained in the paragraph 5 of Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint. The Carpenters further state

that the allegations contained in the paragraph 5 of Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint call for legal

conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.

6. Decline to plead the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Third-Party Plaintiff’s ThirdParty Complaint as the language in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint speaks for itself.

7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 01-

2338 (E.D.Pa), which include the Carpenters, filed a Request to Enter Default Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

55(a) on November 1, 2001. It is denied that a possible settlement had been negotiated between the

Plaintiffs and Defendants in Civil Action No. 01-2338. It is further denied that the Carpenters were to

contact Third-Party Plaintiff regarding an alleged settlement.

8. Deny the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the allegations

contained in paragraph 8 of Third-Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint, except that in the Petition of

Defendants Richard’s General Contracting and Richard T. Holsworth to Strike Off Judgment Of Default
149637-1 3

And/Or In The Alternative Open Default Judgment And Stay Of Execution filed on April 18, 2002 in Civil

Action No. 01-2338 (E.D.Pa), Third-Party Plaintiff, on behalf of his clients, failed to specify a meritorious

defense. See, Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity v. Richard’s General

Contracting, No. 01-2338 (E.D.Pa July 2, 2002) (Order denying Defendants’ Petition).

9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 01-

2338 (E.D.Pa) were awarded Default Judgment by this Court (Waldman, J.) in the amount of $4,726.17

on February 11, 2002. It is denied that the Default Judgment included Elizabeth Holsworth, one of the

plaintiffs in the instant action. 

10. Denied.

11. Admitted.

12. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Carpenters attached and were

awarded $607.01. The Carpenters deny the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning

the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint as to whose

account was garnished by Wachovia Bank f/k/a First Union National Bank. The Carpenters further deny

the allegations regarding the $12,658.67 and $9,488.66 aggregated amounts contained in paragraph 12

of Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint.

13. Deny the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the allegations

contained in paragraph 13 of Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint other than that Plaintiffs’

Complaint speaks for itself.

14. Denied.

15. The Tapken Declaration of June 14, 2002 is a written document, the terms of which speak

for themselves.
149637-1 4

16. The Carpenters are unaware of any Memorandum of the Carpenters filed on June 1, 2002.

To the extent that such a document exists, as it is a written document, the terms of the Memorandum speak

for themselves.

17. The allegations contained in the paragraph 17 of Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party

Complaint call for legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. Notwithstanding the

foregoing, the Carpenters deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 17 of Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party

Complaint.

18. Decline to plead the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Third Party Plaintiff’s ThirdParty Complaint insofar as they call for legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.

19. Denied that Third-Party Plaintiff should be awarded judgment against the Carpenters.

WHEREFORE, the Carpenters respectfully request that the frivolous claims in Third Party Plaintiff’s

Third-Party Complaint be denied, that the Third-Party Complaint be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety,

and that judgment be entered in favor of the Carpenters and against the Third Party Plaintiff for all attorneys’

fees and costs incurred in defending this action.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Third Party Plaintiff has brought a frivolous lawsuit, in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure which, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable

statute of limitations.
149637-1 5

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable

principals of estoppel, waiver and laches.

Respectfully submitted,

JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C.

BY: /s Eric B. Meyer, Esquire 

ERIC B. MEYER (ID NO. 87969)

SANFORD G. ROSENTHAL (ID NO. 38991)

The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor

510 Walnut Street, Independence Square

 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683

 (215) 351-0611/0660

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Date: March 11, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Eric B. Meyer, Esquire, state under penalty of perjury that I caused a copy of the foregoing

Plaintiffs’ Answer And Affirmative Defenses To Third Party Plaintiff’s Third-Party Complaint to be

served via first class mail, postage prepaid, on the date and to the address below:

John Slowinski, Esquire

John Slowinski, Esquire, P.C.

7137 Torresdale Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19135

Philip Berg, Esquire

Law Offices of Philip Berg

706 Ridge Pike

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-1711

Date:March 11, 2005 /s Eric B. Meyer 

ERIC B. MEYER, ESQUIRE

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN ELECTRONICALLY FILED AND IS AVAILABLE FOR

VIEWEING AND DOWNLOADING FROM THE ECF SYSTEM