IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39 TH JUDICIAL DISTRJCT OF

PENNSYLVANIA - FRANKLIN COUNTY BRANCH

COMMON\VEALTH CODE
INSPECTION SERVICE, INC., Civil Action: Law and Equity
-i ' ~ --:,
Plaintiff ·o ~
c= ;;.J
r., __, '.>-o-
V. -.:,
C
-o
v~ o Z:.::,
-I ;::J::r:: n :::.-::a
-< 0-< --1 r·-~
ROBERT C. MALOT a/k/a ;L -1
:r;_(n I -·--
--- ~..a-
"'--o
I Ul
R. CLEM MALOT and No. 20!5- 1652 ~Cll n:::
PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL B
i
""--;J
c--
.._.
-i-.-
-:::,
r:,o
~j j:~
>-
CODE ALLIANCE, INC.
Defendant
It
I
i
-<-'>
-"r-,
-<:-
,.....
-.. __;...-,
-~-<
....J

Judge: 1c,l2t{J n1 ~~
(.Ji
-.J ~--
-c
,:,

.
NOTICE

You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend ·against the claims set forth in the following
page, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by
entering a written appearance personally or by attorney, and filing in writing with the Court your
defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do
so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court
without further notice for any money claimed in 'the complaint or for any other claims or relief
requested by the Plaintiff. You may l'ose money or property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE TIDS PAPER TO YOUR LA WYER AT ONCE. TF YOU DO NOT HA VE
A LA WYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE
CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LA WYER. IF YOU
CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LA WYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU
WITH L'l'FORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO
ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.

Pennsylvania Lawyer Referral Service

Pennsylvania Bar Association
P.O. Box 186
Harrisburg, PA 17 I 08
Telephone: I-800-692-7375 (PA ONLY) or 717-238-6715

The Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County is required by law to comply with the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990. For i,ifonnation about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations
available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact the office of the Court
Administrator. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before
the Court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing.

(01123563/1 I
CGA Law Firm
Zachary E. Nahass
Attorney I.D. 314834
Stephen R. McDonald
Attorney I.D. 310319
135 N. George Street
York, PA 17349
Tel. 7-17-848-4900
Fax 717-843-9039
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Commonwealth Code Inspection : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Sen•ices, Inc. . : OF THE 39n• JUDICIAL DISTRICT
: FRANKLIN.COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
No. 2015-1652 CIVIL
"·
Robert C. Malot aka R. Clem Malot Civil Action
and Pennsyh·ania Municipal Code
Alliance, Inc.,
Hon. Judge Todd M. Sponseller
Defendants.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Comes now plaintiff, Commonwealth Code Inspection Services, Inc., by and through

their legal counsel Zachary E. Nahass, Esq. and Stephen R. McDonald, Esq. and the CGA

Law Firm, P.C., and files the within Amended Complaint against Defendants Robert C.

Malot (a/k/a R. Clem Malot) and Pennsylvania Municipal Code Alliance, Inc., and avers as

follows:

I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Commonwealth Code Inspection Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred

to as "CCIS"), is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania with a principal place of business located in 176 Doe Run Road Manheim, PA

17545·

(0IJ2JS63!! l
 2. Defendant, Robert C. Malot, aka R. Clem ·Malot (hereinafter referred to as

"Defendant"), is a sui juris adult with a home address of u58 Trails End Road, Harrisonville,

Pennsylvania 17228.
3. Defendant, Pennsylvania Municipal Code Alliance, Inc., (hereinafter referred

to as "PMCA") is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business also located

at 1158 Trails End Road, Harrisonville, Pennsylvania 17228.

II. Jurisdiction & Venue

4. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this Amended Complaint as

though fully set forth herein.

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action as
they arise under the statutes and common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
6. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to Penn6)'lvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 1006(a)(1) because Defendants may be served in Franklin County and multiple
transactions and occurrences from which this action arises transpired in Franklin County.

III. Facts
7. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-6 of this Amended Complaint as though
fully set forth herein .

. 8. In 1974, William SchiHing, founded Commonwealth Electrical Inspection

Service, Inc.("Commonwealth Electrical"), the predecess'?r company of CCIS. At that time,
it is believed and therefore averred, Commonwealth Electrical was one of only
approximately a dozen companies providing electrical inspection services in Pennsylvania~

9. From 1972 until 1985 Commonwealth Electrical expanded its service

throughout Pennsylvania.
10. CCIS, formed in 1987 as the successor company to Commonwealth Electrical.

IOIJZ3S6J/J)
 n. Peter Schilli"ng ("Peter") is the current President of CCIS. Peter began at

Commonwealth Electrical as an inspector in 1987.

12. In addition to being certified as an electrical inspector, Peter had received

additional extensive training and received his Master Code Official Certification in the mid-

199os.
13. CCIS expanded Commonwealth Electrical's services to provide a variety of

inspection services including but not limited to: UCC Building enforcements, tenant
.
enforcements, property maintenance enforcen;ients, and health code enforcements.

14. CCIS experienced a surge of business in the 1990s related to expanding its
range of services.
15. Collectively, CCIS and its predecessor Commonwealth Electrical Inspection
Service have been in existence for over 40 years and provide services to municipalities
ranging from New York to West Virginia, with the majority of CCIS customers being
municipalities within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
16. In 1999 Pennsylvania passed Acf45, the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction
Code ("UCC") establishing and requiring a uniform system of inspections and permits across
multiple disciplines including fire, building, electrical, accessibility, mechanical, fire, and
energy.
17. The UCC required municipalities to either opt in or opt out of the regulation.
Municipalities which opted in were required to have their own code enforcement
department, work cooperatively with a Council of Governments ("COG"), or contract ,-vith
third party agencies. Approximately 96% of the municipalities opted into the regulation.
18. Beginning in 1999 changes were made to CCIS in anticipation .of
Pennsylvania's passage and implementation of the UCC. CCIS, realizing the UCC provided
an opportunity to expand its core business by becoming the inspector for many of the

municipalities that had "opt~d in", began to compile data which included: historical
operational expenses, wage data, price shee_ts for projects under construction, real estate

(OIJ2Jl6J/I I
industry statistics and growth models, as well as building data from the Pennsylvania

Department of Community and Economic Development ("DCED").

19. This compilation of data was used to create profitability models which were
used as the basis for CCIS's inspection pricing sheets which were submitted to the various
municipalities.

20. CCIS created its pricing system after countless hours of painstaking labor to

gather information from DCED, government center on statistics, zoning permits across the

state and then figured in operational expenses, travel times in rural areas, profit margin in

order to arrive at a pricing for both commercial and residential permits. CCIS also had to
revise its pricing multiple times over years due to introduction of UCC in 2002 and revisions
made to UCC only two weeks into implementation in 2004.

21. CCIS provides its services pursuant to written contracts with municipal
customers in which CCIS 1s responsible for providing all building, health code, and other
inspection services within the boundaries of said municipalities.
22. Under the process, permit applications are filed with the municipality, and
CCIS reviews the application to determine how many, and what type, inspections are

needed.
23. CCIS charges the individual requesting the permit for a plan review fee and
the cost of the actual inspections. The municipality also generally charges an
administrative fee. All costs associated with the permit have to be paid up front. If
additional inspections became necessary at a later point, the customer pays for the
additional charges prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued.
24. Of the money received by CCIS for permits, CCIS retained 35% of the money
and the inspector(s) is paid 65%.
25. It is believed, and therefore averred, this pay structure was unique to

Commonwealth Electrical and CCIS and contributed to CCIS's ability to attract qualified
inspectors and expand its areas of coverage. By structuring compensation in this manner

(ouns6JII l
the amount inspectors made was directly tied to the amount of work they p~oduced, in

essence giving the inspectors a "stake" in the company.

26. AJI CCIS inspectors, except William Chittester, were contracted with and paid
according to this model.
27. The inspector (or inspectors) received 65% of the amount collected by CCIS

for the permit. If one inspector performed all the inspections, he received the entire 65%.
If more than one inspector performed an inspection at a given site, the 65% was split
proportionately.
28. The inspector would be paid a draw as each inspection was performed. The
amount of the draw was an estimate based on the number of inspections performed, as well
as the number still anticipated to be done in the future on that permit. The estimate was
(

designed to be low enough that the project would not be overdrawn before all inspections
were finished.
29. The inspectors submit a sheet to the home office, or branch office, showing
the type of inspection, and which site was inspected, and the inspector then- received the
corresponding payment in their paycheck.
30. Once the Certificate of Occupancy was issued, any remaining money would
be distributed to whatever inspectors had done inspeC1:ions on that project in proportion to
their work done.
31. In an effort ~o get all of CCIS's electrical inspectors certified in the other areas
required by the UCC, Peter created training manuals, outlines, inspection checklists,
enforcement outlines, administrative checklists, and operation examples.
32. CCIS offered numerous training programs, seminars, and inqividual
mentoring to its inspectors in an effort to encourage them to become certified.
Additionally CCIS offered full reimbursement for passing the numerous examinations.

33. Due to his certifications, and role in organizing and preparing the company.to
expand under the UCC, Peter was asked to assume role of President of CCIS to facilitate

f01J :!J S6J /I)

compliance with UCC. Peter served in that .capacity from approximately 2001-2006 & 2015

- present. Peter also served as the manager of the York branch of CCIS from 2006 - 2015 . .

34. CCIS hired 2 salesman, in addition to existing employees from th~ Manheim
office, who focused on increasing CCIS's business footprint.

35. CCIS's fores~ght and preparation in anticipation of the need created by the
passage and implementation of the UCC allowed it to become the building code inspector in
numerous counties and municipalities throughout Pennsylvania, including almost all of the

southern central region.

36. As of March 2015, due to its long history and reputation in the industry, CCIS
Chambersburg office's was overseeing approximately 160 municipalities Adams, Bedford,
Blair, Cambria, Cumberland, Franklin, Fulton, Huntingdon, Juniata, Miffiin, Snyder, and
Somerset counties.
37. In 2001, Defendant Malot was operating out of Fulton County as an inspector.
38. In May, 200~ CCIS offered Defendant Malot a position as an electrical
inspector in order to meet the growing need in Fulton County and other western areas.
39. The offer was memorialized in a letter of employment ("Letter"), signed by
Peter Schilling, as President of CCIS, and dated May 29, 2001. Defendant's offer of
employment was contingent upon his acceptance of a noncom petition and confidentiality

clause which were an essential part of the terms of his contract CCIS.

40. The original signed Employment Letter was kept by Defendant and is
therefore unavailable and outside Plaintiffs control. A true and correct copy of the
Employment Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated herein by
reference.

(01l2JS63/I)
 41. Contained within the Employment Letter was a specific restriction regarding
noncom petition and confidentiality which states:

II. NONCOMPETITION AND CONFIDENTIALilY AGREEMENT

As a condition of employment we must require that you sign the attached

Noncompetition and Confidentiality Agreement. Among other things, the

Agreement provides that you will protect C.C.I.S.'s confidential information and that

you will not compete against the Company or solicit its customers, except as

necessary to perform your job while employed by CC.LS and for a period of t\velve
(12) months following your employment. Should you decide to come on board, we
will need to have a signed Agreement from you on the day you start or shortly
thereafter.
See Exhibit A, Page 2, Section II
42. Beginning in, or just prior to, 2001 all new employees were required to sign
non-competition and confidentiality agreements as a condition of their employment with
CCIS.

43. The non-compete and confidentiality clauses were necessary to protect CCIS
due to the decades CCIS had spent: cultivating and building business relationships and good
will; developing pricing and compensation arrangements which allowed it to retain those

customers; and training and obtaining certifications for its inspectors.

44. The purpose of the agreements was to ensure loyalty to the company, protect
its proprietary information, and protect CCIS against losing employees, it had invested time
and money in training, to unfair competition or competitors.
45. On or about June 22, 2001, Defendant executed ·t he Non-Compete &
Confidentiality Agreement that was referenced and attached to the Employment Letter. A
true and correct copy of the Non-Compete and Confidentiality Agreement is attached

hereto as Exhibit "B" and hereby incorporated herein by reference.

{01323563/11
 46. Initially the Defendant was paid in the same manner as all other inspectors

who worked for CCIS. That is, the Defendant received 65% of the amounts charged for
various inspections and plan reviews.
47. At the time Defendant was hired, it is believed and therefore averred,

Defendant did not have the certifications necessary to conduct inspections or issue permits .

under the UCC requirements.

48. The only certifications Defendant had obtained were 2 of the 3 electrical
inspector certifications, however they had expired.

49. Due to this status, CCIS assigned Defendant to counties where CCIS already
had building code enforcement programs which allowed Defendant to be "grandfathered"
into certification for several more years.
50. Thereafter, with the help of CCIS's training materials and specific instruction
from Peter Schilling, Defendant was able to earn his certifications, including earning a
Master Code Professional ("MCP") Certification in 2005.
51. As CCIS expanded, and specifically after speaking with Franklin County

officials, Peter Schilling determined CCIS would need an administrative office in that area to
handle the western parts of the state.
52. In 2004 CCIS territory at the western end of the state included south of
Pittsburg and up near Erie in Clarion and Venango Counties.
53. It is believed, and therefore averred, that in late 2003/early 2004 the Borough
of Chambersburg code official was planning to retire. Thereafter the Defendant began to
shadow the retiring code official to learn his duties.
54. During this same time period (April 9, 2004) the UCC was enacted and began
to be implemented and enforced.
55. In 2004 CCIS opened a branch office in Chambersburg and made Defendant

Manager of this branch.

{0ll2J563/l t
 56. As Manager, Defendant was responsible to CCIS for maintaining financial

records, requesting payroll and operational funds, as well as inspector assignments ~nd

promoting CCI S's interest including maintaining good relat~ons with CCIS's customers.

57. Defendant was required to answer to his superiors and cooperate with

requests from the CCIS main office in Manheim, Pennsylvania on CCIS matters.

58. CCIS, through the owners and company principals in the Manheim office, set

the compensation agreements with all employees.

59. CCIS, through the owners and company principals in the Manheim office, set

company policy in regard to records, payroll submissions, computer integration and

· programs, and pricing and inspections procedures.

60. As a result of the additional duties required in Defendant's position as

manager, it is believed and therefore_averred, the amount ofinspections Defendant

performed beginning in 2004 was substantially reduced.

61. Based on the changes in Defendant Malot's duties, CCIS changed his

compensation plan. CCIS continued to pay Defendant 65% of inspection fees when he

personally performed the inspections. The Defendant received 10% of inspection fees

whenever the inspection was performed by an inspector working under the supervision of

Defendant. Defendant was paid 10% despit~ the fact his original agreement specified 5%.

62. The 10% was paid from CCIS's portion of the money, rather than the

inspectors cut i.e. the Defendant's cut came from the 35%, not the 65%.

63. In his capacity as Manager, Defendant gained access to CCIS proprietary

information including: customer information and contacts; municipal fee agreeme~ts;

CCIS's polices and protocols; and the skills and compensation of CCIS employees at the

Chambersburg office and elsewhere.

64. Defendant, as Manager of the Chambersburg CCIS office, also maintained

close business relationships with municipal customers in the course of his employment as

{Oll2lS6lll t
an agent of CCIS and directly benefitted from the good will CCIS maintained with its

customers.
65. In or around 2010, CCIS implemented a company-wide IT integration that

would increase the efficiently of oversight and transparency for CCIS main office to its
satellite offices, including the Chambersburg office.
66. While all other local CCIS offices were integrated almost immediately,

Defendant refused to cooperate in CCIS connecting to the Chambersburg office and insisted

upon using his preferred IT service provider to perform work at the Chambersburg office
which further frustrated the integration efforts and raised CCI S's suspicions of the
management of the Chambersburg office.
67. On or about November 2013, CCIS main office finally succeeded in
connecting to the Chambersburg office despite the lack of support and cooperation from
Defendant and his chosen IT service provider.
68. On or about December 2013, CCIS implemented a company-wide policy
change in which all checks were to be sent directly to the Manheim office for scanning and
processing. In the year prior, the Chambersburg office had been scanning its own checks

and providing reports to the Manheim office.

69. Shortly after the policy was implemented, CCIS discovered that the
Chambersburg Office had also been receiving monthly payments of cash in addition to the
checks being sent. CCIS noticed an obvious discrepancy in the amount of cash reported
from month to month before the policy change as compared to after.
70. Beginning in or around January 2015, CCIS began having concerns about high
staff turnover and Defendant's failure to adequately staff the Chambersburg office. The
latter eventually became so severe CCIS assigned personnel from the main office to come to
the Chambersburg office to interview individuals to fill essential job posi~ons that had

remained vacant in order to ensure CCIS was capable of meeting the needs of its municipal
customers in the region. I~ is believed and therefore averred Defendant Matot deliberately

{013~lS6l/1)
failed to fill positions in an attempt to strain relations between CCIS and its municipal
customers, and to create the impression CCIS was on the verge of closing.

71. The office manager in Chambersburg, put in notice she was leaving on Friday,
February 20, 2015. Malot was charged with hiring someone bu~ did not, despite the fact he
received resumes.
72. Three people from the Manheim Office had to go to Chambersburg on the
manager's last day to cover the office manager's duties until a replacement could be hired
and trained.

73. One of the Manheim employees, Teresa Moyer, had a conversation with
Defendant regarding getting the position filled. That Monday, February 23, 2015, in
response to the actions of the Manheim employees, Defendant confronted William
Schilling, as the owner of CCIS, and Defendant stated he intended to "buy you out or run
you out" with regard to CCIS Chambersburg office.
74. On or about February 25 , 2015, Defendant demanded that CCIS present him
with a sale price for the Chambersburg office. Because CCIS had not initially intended to
sell, they requested Defendant provide a written offer for their consideration as the
interested party. Defendant led CCIS to believe that such an offer would be forthcoming by
and through his attorney.
75. The Defendant entered into discussions to buy out CCIS. Discussions took
place with William Schilling and also included CCIS's attorney Anthony Shimaneck.
76. During the time period the discussions were taking place, while still an
employee, Defendant informed CCIS's inspector he was starting his own inspection business
and solicited them to work for him.
77. In the weeks following Defendant's threat to Mr. Schilling, Defendant did not
provide CCIS with any purchase offer. CCIS did see an increase in Defendant's
compensation claims on old projects. [tis believed and therefore averred that, during this

tOl32J56JIJ)
period, Defendant was copying sensitive CCIS customer and employee information, making

contact with CCIS custom~rs, and creating his competing corporation.

78. On March 13th , 2015 a mutual non-disclosure agreement ,-vas signed, by
Defendant and William Schilling, to allow the parties to have discussions about the

purchase of the company.

79. Defendant then, in violation of the non-disclosure agreement and without

CCIS's permission, informed CCIS employees of the non-disclosure agreement. Thereafter

Defendant had the CCIS employees sign his own personal non-disclosure agreements and.
began to provide them information regarding the situation.
80. Also during the time period in which Defendant was purportedly developing a
purchase offer, it is believ~d and averred the Defendant used his personal email to notify a
number of people including: Dale Gettle, , William Chittester, William Mellors, Nelson
Nead, Rose Thomas, Natasha Brubaker, Pam Neville, Deana Johnson and Sharon Hamm of
his intent to separate from CCIS and solicited those people to come and work for him.
81. Due to Defendant's continuing failure to hire, or even interview, a
replacement manager, the· Manheim office, finally scheduled intervie,-vs for temporary help.
82. The next day, March 20, 2015, Defendant, emailed CCIS ,vith a notice of
resignation effective as of 8:oo AM that day.
83. No advanced notice of resignation was provided to CCIS and Defendant
withdrew his interest in purchasing the Chambersburg office from CCIS. A true and correct

copy of Defendant's resignation letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and hereby
incorporated herein by reference.
84. On the same day he quit, March 20, 2015, PMCA was created as a corporation
with the Pennsylvania Department of State. PMCA was an inspection company that offered
the same exact services as CCIS and solicited CCIS's municipal customers.

85. Thereafter a number of CCIS employees resigned and began employment with
Defendant PMCA.

(0ll2JS63/IJ
 86. It is believed that Defendant falsely and intentionally maligned CCIS to the

Chambersburg employees who chose to remain with CCIS by stating that the Chambersburg
office would be closing and that his actions would severely impact CCIS continued existence
in an attempt to further harm CCIS's ability to continue doing business.
87. Upon Defendant's sudden and immediate resignation, CCIS began a

comprehensive assessment to ensure the continued operation of the Chambersburg

operation.

88. In ·the course of their review CCIS discovered Defendant and Sharon Hamm,

both now of PMCA, had taken sensitive information including CCIS customer contact lists
and contract information. ·

89. Additionally it was discovered Defendant was also taking remaining sums of .
money from many jobs performed by the Chambersburg office without written agreement
'
or authorization of CCIS as an "issuance". To date, CCIS has discovered at least S700,ooo.oo
in unauthorized "issuances" taken by Defendant without CCIS approval. CCIS has contacted
. '
a third party accounting firm to perform an audit to determine the amount unlawfully taken
by Defendant.
90. It is believed and therefore averred that both before and after his resignation,

Defendant solicited multiple CCIS municipal customers; interfered wit~ the contractual
relations thereof; and falsely and intentionally maligned CCIS to its customers in an attempt
to induce said municipalities to cease business with CCIS and to instead do business with .
Defendant's newly created competing corporation, PMCA.
91. Within four days of Defendant's departure, CCIS began receiving multiple
cancellation notices from municipalities, including about half the municipalities in

Defendant's area.
92. On or about March 27, 2015, the Borough of Chambersburg notified CCIS that

they were cancelling their contract for health inspection services in favor of PMCA. The
same day, Defendant sent a letter on behalf of PMCA to a local restaurant regarding a

( 01 3~3S63/I)
 th
violation notice CCIS sent on March 18 . Defendant admits having access to

correspondence that was sent by the restaurant to CCIS on March 26, six days ·after his

resignation and one day before the Borough of Chambersburg notified CCIS of cancelling

their contract. A true and correct copy of the Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and

hereby incorporated herein by reference.

93. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant had been taking
affirmative steps toward creating PMCA, stealing proprietary and sensitive information from

CCIS, and soliciting CCIS employees and customers for his new competing business prior to

tendering his resignation and while still owing a" duty of loyalty to CCIS.
94. CCIS also discovered many of its email accounts had been sanitized. The
information eventually able to be recovered showed Natasha Brubaker and Sharon Hamm
shipped large amounts of data (records, spreadsheets, differential programs) to an email
accounts uncleclemsplace@embarkmail.net, uncleclem@embarqmail.net,
Sharon.hamm@e.m barqmail.net and timothy.hamm@embarq.net. It is believed and
therefore averred the emails designated as "uncleclem" are Defendant's personal email, and
the information sent was proprietary and confidential information.
95. The fee sheet used by PMCA looks almost exactly like CCIS pricing sheet

except the company head~r is changed.

96. Initially PMCA used Met Ed "cut cards" identical to cut cards used by CCIS.
Later PMCA began to use other cut cards that looked different.
97. After the Defendant's resignation, CCIS began to receive requests for from its
customers for inspections and other work on projects which Defendant had ·previously
indicated were complete·, and for which he had taken all remaining money.
98. In October, 2015 and February, 2016 CCIS received requests from McCoy
Brothers on projects which the Defendant had reported were finalized in March, 2014.

99. In reviewing the books in the Chambersburg office, after the Defendant's
resignation, it came to lig~t the Defendant was handling commercial permits different than

C0IJ2l56lll I
the rest of the company. Peter Schilling reviewed the ledgers and realized a

disproportionate amount of money was being taken by the Defendant and marked as an
"issuance". As the term "issuance" has no official or common meaning within the industry.
or at CCIS, Peter Schilling was unable to determine what the significance was. After

interviewing numerous people, Peter determined the Defendant used the term to mean

final inspection and was taking any remaining money for himself, rather than paying it out
to the inspectors who had actually done the work.

100. Peter spoke to CCIS inspectors, who had worked under the Defendant's

supervision, and they indicated they had lodged complaints because they were not being ·
paid properly. It is believed and averred the Defendant was taking money due the
inspectors and keeping it for himself. To hide his malfeasance, Defendant told the
inspectors the home office was shady and the girls in the office were taking the inspection
funds.
101. Through its investigation, CCIS has discovered numerous examples in which
Defendant Malot claimed to have performed an inspection, and took compensation, but
where he was demonstrably not in the area where the alleged inspection took place. Other

entries showed low volumes of inspections or jobs where entire inspection disciplines were

missing, yet the Defendant listed the inspections as complete.

102. It is believed and therefore averred the Defendant intentionally collected fees
for inspections that had never been performed and closed out permit applications in order
to collect for himself all the remaining money.
103. Over time CCIS received multiple calls from customers requesting inspections
on jobs where the certificate of occupancy was issued by the Defendant, which should
indicate the project was completed and all inspections performed, when in fact they have
riot even begun.
104. The Defendant also used his own separate accounting program, Quickbooks,
rather ·than the program used by CCIS. The entries made into Quickbooks and the invoices

(01323563/1)
sent to CCIS did not match. It is believe and therefore averred the Defendant intentionally

set up double accounting system in order to defraud CCIS.

COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT/ NON-COMPETITION

Plaintiff,·. Robert C. Malot a/k/a R. Clem Malot
105. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 104 of this Complaint are

incorporated by reference ·herein and as though restated in their entirety.

106. Pursuant to his acceptance of employment with CCIS, and the corresponding
non-compete agreement, Defendant Malot contracted that during his employment, and for

a period of twelve months thereafter, he shall not directly or indirectly contact or solicit
CCIS's clients and customers in any manner unless such contact or solicitation is intended
solely to procure business for CCIS.
107. Defendant Malot also agreed that for a period of twelve (12) months after
separation from CCIS, he shall not, directly or indirectly, as an employee, agent, stockholder,
proprietor or otherwise, engage in the business of electrical, building, or other related
services in competition with CCIS in any county in which CCIS did business within the
twelve month period preceding the end of his employment with CCIS.

108. Defendant's contractual agreement not to compete for a period of twelve

months was supported by adequate consideration, including but not limited to his
employment with CCIS and the offer of employment was conditioned on Defendant's Non-
Compete and Confidentiality Agreement.
109. Defendant Malot deliberately, intentionally, and repeatedly breached this
agreement during the term of his employment and the breach has continued unabated until
the present day. Defendant Malot created PMCA as a direct competitor of ~CIS.
Defendant PMCA is a corporation engaged in electrical, building, and other similar
inspection services. Defendant Malot obtained business for PMCA exclusively by

10132356J/l)
contacting and soliciting CCIS's customers in the very same counties which Defen_dant

Malot was assigned to manage for CCIS.

no. Defendants are doing business in the very same geographical areas to which

Defendant Malot was assigned while at CCIS. D~fendants have used, and continue to use,
confidential information obtained as a result of Defendant Malot's position as manager of

the Chambersburg CCIS office to systematically solicit CCIS municipal customers to cancel

their contracts with CCIS and contract with PMCA.

111. Defendant Malot's breach of his obligations not to compete and not to

contact or solicit CCIS cus~omers has caused, and will continue to cause, both monetary
damages and irreparable harm to CCIS.
112. As a result of Defendant Malot's breach, Plaintiff has suffered damage by a

loss of business in an amount in excess of one and a half million dollars. (s1,500,ooo.oo) _·
113. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement between the parties, CCIS is entitled
to recover its attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with the enforcement of the
parties Non-Compete and Confidentially Agreement.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in its favor and against the Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial for
the damages of Defendant's breach of contract, but in any event for no less than
$1,500,000.00, together with any interest provided by law and costs of suit, attorney's fees,

and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT/SOLICITATION OF CCIS EMPLOYEES

Plaintiff v. Robert C. Ma lot a/k/a R. Clem Ma lot
114. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 113 of this Complaint are
incorporated by reference herein and as though restated in their entirety.
u5. Pursuant to his acceptance of employment with CCIS, Defendant Ma lot
agreed that during his employment, and for a period of twelve months thereafter, he shall

I0IJ23S6J /I I
not directly or indirectly contact or solicit CCIS's employees to encourage or persuade them
to leave employment with CCIS or to accept employment elsewhere.

116. Defendant's. contractual agreement not to contact or solicit CCIS employees

for a period of twelve months was supported by adequate consideration, including but not

limited to his employment with CCIS and the offer of employment was conditioned on
Defendant's Non-Compete and Confidentiality Agreement.

117. Defendant Malot deliberately, intentionally, and repeatedly breached this

agreement: during the term of his employment and .during the nvelve month period after he

left CCIS.
118. While employed with CCIS, Defendant Malot used an ongoing campaign of
misinformation and secret meetings, in violation of confidentiality agreements, to instill fear
in long time CCIS employ~es about the possible loss of their jobs and CCIS unfairly taking
their pay. After he left, Defendant Malot encouraged and solicited those same employees to
work for him at PMCA, which many of them did.
119. As a result of Defendant Malot's breach, Plaintiff has suffered monetary
damages for the time and money spent interviewing, hiring, and training replacements.
Defendants' actions also caused CCI S's ability to service its customers to suffer at a time
when CCIS was most vulnerable, due to Defendant Malot's other breaches which created .
sudden and direct competition, therefore cqntributing to CCI S's loss of income.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in its favor and ~gainst the Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial for
the damages of Defendant's breach of contract, together with any interest provided by law
and costs of sui~, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

j0ll2J S6J11 I
 COUNT III - BREACH OF CONTRACT/ INTERFERENCE \VITH BUSINESS
Plaintiff v. Robert C. Malot a/k/a R. Clem Ma lot
120. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 119 of this Complaint are

incorporated by reference herein and as though restated in their entirety.

I

121. Pursuant to his acceptance of employment with CCIS, Defendant Malot

agreed that during his employment, and for a period of twelve months thereafter, he shall
not directly or indirectly interfere with any of CCI S's accounts or business with any client or
customer.
122. Defendant's contractual agreement not to interfere with business for a period

of twelve months was supported by adequate consideration, including but not limited to his
employment with CCIS and the offer of employment was conditioned on Defendant's Non-
Compete and Confidentiality Agreement.
123. Defendant Malot deliberately, intentionally, and repeatedly breached this
agreement, both during the term of his employment and after he left CCIS and began PMCA
as a direct competitor of CCIS.
124. Defendant Malot's breach of his obligations not to compete and not to
contact or solicit CCJS customers has caused, and will continue .to cause, both monetary
damages and irreparable harm to CCIS.
125. As a result of Defendant Malot's breach, Plaintiff has suffered damage by a

loss of business in an amount in excess of one and a half million dollars($1,500,ooo.oo).

126. Pursuant to·the terms of the agreement between the parties, CCIS is entitled
to recover its attorney's fees and costs_incurred in connection with the enforcement of the
parties Non-Compete and Confidentially Agreement.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter

judgment in its favor and against the Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial for
the damages of Defendant's breach of contract, but in any event for no less than

{0tl2l563II I
s1,500,ooo.oo, together with any interest provided by law and costs of suit, attorney's fees,
and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT IV - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

Plaintiff v. PMCA
127. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 126 of this Complaint are
incorporated by reference herein and as though restated in 'their entirety.

128. Defendant Malet and Plaintiff had a contractual relationship which

prohibited Malot from engaging in any bus_iness in direct competition with CCIS, as well as

prohibiting the soliciting of Plaintiff's customer and employees.

129. Despite Defendant PMCA's knowledge of this contract, PMCA made Malet
president of the company and allowed all of CCI S's former employees, whom Ma lot
solicited, to work for it.
130. During the time period prohibited by contract, Defe11dant PMCA
intentionally and deliberately encourage and facilitated Malet conducting business with

CCIS's former customers, in the counties Malot was prohibited from doing business in,
using employees solicited from CCIS.
131. . Defendant PMCA participated with Malot to solicit such customers and
employees.
132. As a result of Defendant PMCA's tortious interference, CCIS has suffered

actual monetary damages.

133. Defendant's actions demonstrate bad faith.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter

judgment in its favor and against the Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial for

the damages of Defendant's tortious interference with contractual relations, together with
any interest provided by law and costs of suit, attorney's fees, and any other relief the Court

deems just and proper.

(0132)563111
 COUNT V - CONVERSION
Plaintiff\'. Robert C. Malot a/k/a R. Clem Malot
134. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 133 of this Complaint are
incorporated by reference herein and as though restated in their entirety.

135. When Defendant Malot was made the manager of the Chambersburg CCIS
office, in addition to any inspections he performed, his responsibilities included maintaining
financial records for his office and the other offices under his supervision, preparing payroll,

and requesting paychecks from himself and the other CCIS staff he supervised.

136. The employment agreement between Plaintiff and Defendanf Malot specified

the terms of his compensation. Under this agreement he was to receive 65% of the net
revenue paid to CCIS for inspections which Defendant Matot performed. This was the
·standard percentage paid to all CCIS inspectors.
137. At the time of any inspection, CCIS would pay the inspector an estimate of the
65%. The remainder was at the time the final inspection was performed and the certificate

of occupancy was issued. The remaining money was paid proportionately, to all inspectors
who performed work on that job.
138. Additionally, under the terms of the agreement, Defendant Malot would earn
5% of net revenue for business generated by him where another inspector performed the

inspection.
139. As manager of the _C hambersburg CCIS office, Defendant owed a fiduciary

duty to CCIS in the daily execution of his duties at all times during the course of his

employment.
140. In breach o(this duty, Defendant regularly and repeatedly took for himself
the remaining money from projects in the Chambersburg office, rather than paying it to the
inspectors who had actually performed the inspections. These sums were being taken by
Defendant without the approval or written consent of CCIS and contrary to CCIS policy and

Defendant's terms of employment.

(0131)56311)
 141. Defendant has taken in excess of $700,000 of unearned money frorri CCIS and

has falsified, altered, or mislabeled records in order to cover up these actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter

judgment in its favor and against the Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial but
for no less than S700,ooo.oo for the sums of money rightfully belonging to Plaintiff but
taken by Defendant, together with any interest provided by law, costs of suit, and any other
relief the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT V1 - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND DUTY OF LOYALTY TO CCIS

Plaintiff"· Robert C. Malot a/k/a R. Clem Malot
142. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 141 of this Complaint are
incorporated by reference ·herein and as though restated in their entirety.
143. Employees, and specifically and especially executives, have a fiduciary duty ?f
loyalty to their employers that arise out of the employer/employee relationship.
144. CCIS placed in Defendant Malot a special t rust and confidence as a result of
·his management position within the organization. Defendant Malot had a fiduciary duty to

act with the utmost loyalty and good faith in advancing CCIS's interest, and to refrain from
acting contrary to its best interest.

145. Defendant Malot had a duty to refrain from misappropriating, or disclosing:

trade secrets, pay structures, customer information, or any other confidenti~l information
for his own use, gain or profit.
146. Defendant Malot had a duty to honor and implement Plaintiffs contracts with

its employees and customers.

147. Defendant Malot had a duty to use his best efforts to operate the branch
offices, which he was promoted to manage, to the best of his abilities and in·accordance

with CCIS's policies and procedures.

{0JJZJ56J/ I J
 148. Defendant Malot, as manager of certain CCIS offices, had a duty to supervise

the employees of CCIS to the best of his ability and to promote goodwill between CCI$ and

its employees.
149. The actions of Defendant Matot constitute a flagrant and intentional breach
of his obligations to Plaintiff. Defendant Malot: hindered CCIS's ability to operate

efficiently, refused to hire·necessary employees, took confidential information for his own

and a competitor's purpose, made false and disparaging statements to employees and

customers, solicited employees to leave CCIS and join a competitor, used company

equipment on company time for personal reasons and falsified CCIS's books and reports.
150. Defendant Malot knew his actions caused CCIS to lose experienced, well
trained employees and also long term customers, as well as impaired CCIS's ability to
remain its competitive advantage in the marketplace.
151. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Malot's conduct in breaching

his fiduciary obligations, CCIS has suffered, and will continue to suffer:
a. Loss of customers, orders, and profits
b. Loss of confidential information and business practices that created a

competitive advantage
c. Loss of key employees
d. Loss of goodwill and reputation in the industry
152. As a direct result of Defendant Malot's actions, Defendants have been and will

continue to be unjustly enriched at Plaintiff's expense.

153. Defendant's actions have already lead to damages to CCIS in excess of

s2,ooo,ooo.oo. CCIS continues to discover and incur losses on an ongoing basis.
154. Defendant Malot acted maliciously, willfully, and recklessly towards his
obligations to CCIS, in order to facilitate starting his own competitor company and to

further his own interests. The harm to CCIS is extensive and ongoing and CCIS is entitled
to punitive damages.

I0IJ23S6J/I)
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in its favor and against the Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial but
for no less than s2,ooo,ooo.oo and punitive damages in an equal amount, together with any

interest provided by law, costs of suit, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT VII - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS ·

Plaintiff v. Robert C. Malot a/k/a R. Clem Malot and PMCA
155. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 154 of this Complaint are
incorporated by reference herein and as though restated in their entirety.
156. Defendants were aware of the contracts and relationships between CCIS and
various municipal customers.
157. Defendants engaged in a deliberate and systematic course of action designed
to interfere with CCIS's contracts with those customers.
158. Defendant Malot, in violation of his non-compete agreement, enticed
numerous employees ofCCIS to quit CCIS and become employees of PMCA.
159. Defendant PMCA, despite knowing that Malot was not entitled to solicit CCIS
employees, and knowing that it would harm CCIS's relationship with its customers, allowed

these employees to work for PMCA.

160. Defendant PMCA used confidential pricing, forms, and other information

taken by Malot from CCIS, in order to unfairly compete with CCIS and solicit CCIS

customers.
161. Defendants spread false information about CCIS going out of business in
order to lure CCIS customers.
162. Defendants instructed CCIS customers to break their contracts, or not to

renew them, and instead to do business with Defendants.

163. As a result of Defendants' actions, CCIS suffered, and continues to suffer loss

of business and revenue.

(0llB56J/IJ
 164. Defendant's actions have already lead to damages to CCIS in excess of

s1,500,ooo.oo. CCIS continues incur losses on an ongoing basis.

165. Defendants.intentionally, deliberately, and maliciously interfered with CCIS's
business relationships with its customers in order to benefit themselves. Defendant Malot's
statement, "I will buy you out, or run you out", shows his intention to destroy CCIS as a
competitor once he was unable to acquire CCIS.
166. Based on these actions, CCIS is entitled to punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in
its favor and against the Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial but for no less .
than s1,500,ooo.oo and punitive damages in an equal amount, together with any interest
provided by la,v, costs of suit, and any. other relief the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT VIII -TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

Plaintiff v. Robert C. Ma lot a/k/a R. Clem Malot and PMCA
167. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 166 of this Complaint are
incorporated by reference herein and as though restated in their entirety.
168. A valid agreement prevented Defendant Malot from soliciting CCIS

employees during his employment, or for a period of twelve (12) months thereafter.
169. Defendant Malot breached this contract and solicited numerous employees to
leave CCIS.
170. Defendant PMCA was aware of the provisions prohibiting Malot from
soliciting CCIS employees: Despite this, and in direct interference with such contract,
Defendant PMCA encouraged and abetted Malot in his efforts to hire employees away from
CCIS.
171. These CCIS employees were hired by Defendant PMCA immediately after

Malot left CCIS.

I013~H63/I I
 172. Defendant PMCA's actions had the double result of damaging CCIS, and

causing it to lose customers, while directly benefitting PMCA by taking on employees who
had already been trained and were familiar to CCIS's former customers.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter

judgment in its favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial and
to award pun~tive damage~, together with any interest provided by law, costs of suit, and any
other relief the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT fX - UNFAIR COMPETITION

Plaintiff v. Robert C. Malot a/k/a R. Clem Malot and PMCA
173. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 172 of this Complaint are
incorporated by reference herein and as though restated in their entirety.
174. By engaging in the conduct described above, including breaching duties of

good faith, interfering with business relationships, interfering with contractual relationships,
misappropriating and using confidential information, Defendants engaged in unfair
co~petition.
175. Defendants conduct is willful and intentional, and has caused actual damage
and loss to CCIS.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter

judgment in its favor and ~gainst the Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial and
to award punitive damages, together with any interest provided by law, costs of suit, and any
other relief the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT X - VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA'S UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT

Plaintiff v. Robert C. Malot a/k/a R. Clem Malot and PMCA
176. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 175 of this Complaint are

incorporated by reference herein and as though restated in their entirety.

(0 IJ23S6l /l )
 177. CCIS, through years of gathering data, pricing information, costs, mileage and

time factors, formulated pricing structures for its inspection services.

178. Defendants improperly, and in violation of a confidentiality agreement,

misappropriated and used for its O\Vn purposes, that pricing structure as' well as other

information including customer lists, employee compensation plans, contracts, forms,

spreadsheets, and computer information not generally known, or easily obtainable.

179. Defendant Malot, as well as other employees of Defendant PMCA, took the
information from Plaintiff while acting as employees of Plaintiff.

180. Defendants actions violated the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 12
Pa.CS.A.§§ 5301-08.
181. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages.

182. Defendants' action were malicious and willful.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
ju~gment in its favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial and
to award punitive damages in an amou~t equal to such damages, together with-any intere~t
provided by law, costs of suit, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT XI - COMMERICAL DISPARAGEMENT

Plaintiff"_- Robert C. Ma lot a/k/a R. Clem Ma lot and PMCA
183. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 175 of this Complaint are_
incorporated by reference herein and as though restated in their entirety.
184. Defendants have falsely stated, to customers _o f CCIS, that CCIS is going out of

business.
185. As a result of these representa~ions, CCIS has lost business and suffered

damages.
186. Such statements are defamatory per se.

(013 23 56]/I J
 187. Defendants were aware these statements were false, and made these

statements only for the purpose of soliciting Plaintiff's customers to leave Plaintiff and

become customers of Defendants.·

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter

judgment in its favor and against the Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial,
together with any interest provided by law, costs of suit, and any other relief the Court

deems just and proper.

Respectfully_submitted,

CGA LAW FIRM, P.C.

By: ' : : : : : . { . . ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ J ~ ~ : : d . . . ~ ~ ~ - -
Zach y E. Nahas Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. : 314834
Stephen' R. McDonald , Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No.: 310319
CGA Professional Center
135 N. George Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401
(71 7) 848-4900
(717) 843-9039
E-mail : znahass@cgalaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs

(0132356311 I
Commonwealth Code Inspection : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Servi~. Inc. · : OF THE 39™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
: FRANKLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
No. 2015-1652 CIVIL
V.

Robert C. Malot aka R. Clem Malot Civil Action

and Pennsylvania Municipal Code
Alliance, Inc.,

Defendants.

· VERIFICATION

I, Peter Schilling, verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct to

the best of my knowledge, infonnation, and belief. I understand that the statements herein made are

subject to the penalties of 18 PaC.S. § 4904 relating to unswom faJsification to authorities.

0atec1,
--,;,-+, /s/;?
<o - - - - - - -

{01Jll5&:l/l}
 , .

lEXIDBlIT ''A''
 ! , c . ,,.,

_,_ . -" .: . . . r .

176 Doe Run.Road

Manheim, PA 17545

CcmMaJot
1158 Trails End Road
HaniJoxm11e, Pa. 17228
Mayl9,200J
Dear Mr. Matot, .

On behalf' of Common~ Qldc Inspecoon Scmcc, Inc.. I thought it would be trneficia! to outline
your lerms of employment in the CYent you decide to join us. As we disamed, you will be n:spmsih]e for
inspecticms. flillow up of mstomm leads. and accurate R:pm1ing and accocmtiug af)'OW' 8ClMtia on behalf' of
C.CJ.S.. Your respansfbilitics aDd ~ terms may cbangie as C.C.LS. grows and you gain experience.
Your employm.ect will be on an •at wm• besia. which means 1hal you may n::sip ar be sul!«t to tcmrlnation at
any lime. Of cxmrse, tt ii our hope that your career with C.C.LS. will be fDDg and ph.sporow..-The basic temis of
the position are outlined below. If 1hia offer is aax:ptabte to :you. please mdic:ate your aca::i,aooe: by signing your
name at lhe end of the Jett« aad returning 1he "orijp.nal sig=d copy to me. ~

L COMPENSATION .

CcmmJaloa Rate& As remunenman ror·your

services, you will RCeiYe a pcramtage ofthe net miame you
gr.ncratc for C.C:I.S. on a weck!y basil. Y o u r ~ oflhe n e t ~ will be c:a1al1stal accordii15 to die
following rate schedule. Note that Del rcvcuuc i$ calcula:ted. after deduction o f ~ imuraDcic coverage.

a. 65%

EXAMPLE:
JlJIPe(:tion #1"" S 40.00 Gross ~ = $100.00
J:ttw;tion f2 ... s6Q.QO Insurance Cl iobs at $3,00 Pct Jobl z: .. S 600
Gros., R.cYeaue • $ 100.00 Net Revr.zwc ID S 94.00
Xfmmnimonratc.,, x· 6ffi
Ccmrndssitm a S "61.10

Sala Qaow. C.C.l.S. ~ not set sales quotas bin will review cmp!oyee pay sheets for activity. lmc:tiviiy
for auy e.del)'.ted length of time may rmdt in terminatkm. ·

Geneiation of new wmk resulting in the need tor C.CJ.S. to hire new employees to asci&t JOll IQay.result
in extra cxmimission. The ems cnrnrnission will be 5% of g r o s s ~ gcbcmtafl,y ~ und=t }m
supen'WOll..
' .
C.C.I.S. tt$enC1 the rigbt t o ~ )'OV" ~ission scbcdalc. AlI.J Sidi ~ J modifiaitiou will ba
set forth in writiJJg a n d ~ to you by January 3 ~ of tile year in which~ ~ is to OQCUT, except dlaJ .
modilkaiom mandated by insurance ch.an,ea or legisl2tn-c adion will be deliYered to you m IOQD as possible.

Rname Pmc:adng All cantracts and agreements are to b e ~ in Commonwealth Code Impcx:tion
Semoc. Inc.'s name a¢ signed by the C.C.J.S.'s President ind/or Cbief&tJcutive Offitlerand an rewnu.e cbccks
&hall be dtlivered and made paya!D to C.C.I.S: as Manheim. Pa.. C.C.I.S. will remit to you a ~ of the net
m ·~ per the appli~ commissiG!l rate. ·

c.c.r.s. docs nat is.me draws o r ~ aptnst ~ oommhmcos.

.

717--664-2347 • Fax: 717-664-4953

•
...
 Paymeut Upon Termination. Your lharc of mry 001ttmissiun payment rcc:eMJd by the Q,mpauy on or
before the cfl'ec:tne dldc of yoar iesignatton or termination shall be paJd to you in the normal course ofbnrim:ss at
the end of 1ht applic:aMe tJumntee Period. if azry. This amount will be otrsct by any amcwm JOU owe tiie
Onnpmy (e.g. oursranding ~draws.etc.). All ou1aa1.ding draws or adYrm must be repaid to C.C.I.S. in
full withiD four (4) MCb after your wt day af employmcnl and shall remain a ('rltrnoning d,Jiption to the
Company fbr wbic:b you 11JC liable. Any c~wmiui011 payment m:eivcd by the Company after.your last day of
employment is deemed "unearned" and shall not be payable to you.

Vacation. You :i:e raprmable for any amngment• needed to oc,\1·er your aree during auy wawon that
)-W take. You a r e ~ to imorm C.C.LS. that )IOU arc laking ~on. C.C.LS. will assist you with )'Om WOik
load to the best of its abiluy.

Business E"J'C':DRti _mmt be prHJJprOvuf or they may not be oons:idcrcd for rc:imbm'lrmcat These
cxpenditmes must be verified by proper reocqe and explanation of the aaivity.

Business~ that an: appnM)d far fhU rdmh1nemeDI by C.CJ.S. shall have tbe ICXXIUD!S places in
lbe name of C.C.lS..
. .
Il. NONCX;)MPE'I1TKANDCONFIDENTIAUJY A ~
. .
As a condidon of c:mp1oymcn1 we must require that you si&n the anacbed NODC0111j.ditian a¢
Comidmltialiry Agra:ment.. Among other thin8,'i. the Agmcmeut povidea that you will Jl")teCt c.c.1.s:s
confidential information and that you_will not compcu aplnst the Company er solicit its ozstomtrs. ICX0epl as
neceauy to perform your~. while omployed by C.C.lS. and for a period Gftwelve (12) months~ yom
employment.· ~ d ~ decide tO mn on board, we will micd to ba\'C a signed Agimnent from you on the day
you start or sboJtly tbcreaft.cr. · · ·

C.CJ.S. also bas writtcn policies qazding several of the t o p i c s ~ ablM:. You will be provided
wi1h copies of those po1kxs in the C\'CDt )UJ decide to joiD us. In tht DOlilliltte, a you haw 8rlJ quemans
reprdmg this letter, plase ghoe tneJA call. We lootfonyard t o ~ from you .
.· . . . .. ' . . . . . .
I •
Very traJy yours,

. ~~~
President

Bysipi.llg ~ indicate your "'"?'P'A~ ofC.C.LS. 's offer of employmeDt ~-~ with the terms
bciow.
outlined~ and in t h e ~ N ~ and CoufideatiaHty A&t==t ·

Signod:_ _ _ _ -=-------
PriittName:
Date:._ __ ·- ---,-.----.... \.

...
 • I ,_' .

176 Doe Run Road

Manheim, PA 1754S

· NON-COMPETE AND CONftDENTWJTY AGREE~NT

NOTICE: 1bi:5 Agreement is a lepl document which imposes Yarious restrid1ons upon you, including rcstrldiGns
on the types of acdvities or emplOj'Ql(mt you may~ in dmin& and after~ e:mpoyment wiih
Commomwalth Code Inspeaion Services, !De. The Agreement is a condition of )Q11 i:mp!a,mait with the
Campany. ~ read t i ~ prior~ s i ~ it and fed free _to comuit a n ~ if you wish to do so. _
f • ~:' ' • • . ~ t

1. BAC'.KOROUND: Tbii":Agn,cmt::m . I s ~ into as of Dcce1ubcrIS, 29()0 by mldbcnwiea OmtmctllWCllth

Code rn~ ~ Inc. ·c ~ and the andenigned Employee ("Employee"). ~ u a regaonaJ
cICClrical and ~ g impe<:tion ICrVice company wttich ~ bnsinesc in five lta1CS.. ~ has grown
rapidly, laJJdy became ofita mwmk ofcoutacts within tf!c incbutly amfi:t, spedaJiz-ed bulinca knowledge
pcrtaloing to ·dcctrical mt tmitdtng impection scmces. Employee is imc:nsuid mhemming~ by ·
Employer and, afb!r' baYing mid t h i s ~ bas_decided to 8C0qll Employer's affi:r of employment Slqcd to
the tams and tlODdiliou staled below. ID considmtioD for his/her cmplaymeat wi1h Employer, Bmp!oyee agrees
to the terms and condi!ionsbdow:

2. LOYALTY: During his cmploymcm witll Empla,u, EmpiO}'ee &hall loyally and aimdemiously dcMJtc his or
her best wmk dforts &alcly toward~ businms ofEmpto,cr in a_a:ianner oonsiSrem with Employa'a policiet and
prueedwea. Emp!aytlC will not enp,e in an,y otht:r' empk,jmctd or ~ncss 8L1iviry whilL e:uqAo)od by Em_ploya-
without the prior MiUal CODSCDI o f ~.
. .· : __. ·· . .
.l. CONFIDENTIALITY: During the couneof hl5'hcr employment, l!mpto,,ec will bave 8'l0l:&S8 b> confldrnrtaJ
and pq,rida!y mtonnanon "(''Confidcntvd Jnfommion1 belonging to Emp)oyer_ iuctocfing ~ not limited to: (I)
client andeas1omer ll4mtd, ·1ms. R001ds m:J iilformation (pal, present and prospec:tin clients induded). (2)
&Dp!o,a's basins ·leCOlds. mf'thodl ind strategtCs. pending pngocu 111d proJ)OSa1s, proaedme inannats. pris:ing
informatkm, mnbting '1:!mgfm, ma1erialS research, techo~t data and Cmmuias and (3) cmp!oyce lim, names, -
· file infomwion and -payroll data.. ThiS C®fldr,ntiaJ lmolmation was acqu:im1 by ~ after amsiderable
e ~ time and ea:rgy and is vftaJ to the 00D1iD.aaf mccess of Employa'1 tmmes, The panics ac:knomecf8c
and agnie that Coafidemial lnforma1ion ii aunique and fthlable u.sea of Empio,-er and that sacli information
cxmstit:uic:s hadc l1CClU5. ~apes that Ile/she, aball aoi at arry time "'1inghi&/htr em.ploymem with
Earplcym' or at my time thmeafb:i diaclosc any CoofMcntiaJ Infbrmatioo co any pcmon or cnmy em,pt as ·
rasonably nermmy io pedorm hiilha jab 'dmia fbr Emplo}w, nor sllal1 Employee~ me any ConffdmtiaJ
I1lfDnnation fi>rhi!lberawn _benefit arfm ~~ of otllers wfthout~oycits prior wrincm IU1bom.ation.

4. NON-COMP£rn RES'J1UCT10NS: Except as ICC ry to perfonn hi&'her- job \lith _Employer, Emph,:,ee shall
DOt, dllring his/her emp1oymenl and for a period of tweM (12} months thereafter ("restrictive period"):° ·

(a) ~ o r ~ . ~ on behalf o f ~ ortor any od,cr pcnoli ·or"cntity;~ or.solicit

Employer's diCDtl and azstomm in any mmmu unlais s1ICh _c:otdact or so3icitation is ioieJy lmendo1 to pnleQrC
business for Employer. · · ·
. . .
(b) duec:lJy or indirectly, as an empto.,,::e, ~ 00D5llltm1, stoctholder, p.top.idor or otbcnrise. enpgc in
~ busint:sS of dcctricaJ amt.building inspection Senices or rdmd savia::s ("Qm1petitnie Scmcee•) lD
c:ompetiti~ with Employer within any CXJWdy in wbidl. Emplo,er or itA affiliatt$ and sabsidiaries.do business or
dkl t..,siocss within the twelve (12) month period in:mmctiatdy prcccd.iDg the ~ s sepm,rion of employmcnt
from Employer, rcprdless of wbedter EmpJayce wom:d in said 001m.ties ·

(c) ~ or indirea)y inteifete •with any of Emph,,er's aamnts rtr business with anf.ctient or <:UStamei. • •

717-664-2347 800-732-004 3 • Fu: 717-664-4953

•
...
 (d) directly or indirectly conwct or solicit in aoy mnnncr any employees of F.mploycr lo encourage or pcrsua<k
1hcm 10 tc.1,·c employment with Emplo)·er or 10 acccp1 employment elsewhere.

Th~-sc CO\'Cn:ims shall continue 10 ilpply during 1he entire 1wclvc (12) month rcslrielivc period, rcgardl~ ofrhc
circuo1S1allQ:s under which Employee's employment is tcrmin.ilcd. ·

5. Flff'URE EMPLOYERS: Emplorec shall lender a copy or this Agreement 10 Employee's new cmpJoycr(sl
!1tJring the 1wch·c (12) month restrictive period to ensure that Employee's future employers have knowledge aftitc
restrictions contained ~rein prior to enlcring into an employment relationship with Employee.

6. RE~1EDIES: In addition 10 any money damages a.rising, <luc 10 Emptoye.c's brcuch or the lernis of 1h is
AgrecmcnL Employee acknowledges that Employer will ~Lffcr irrcpar:ible lulrm in the event ofa breach and 1hn1
Employer shall also be entitled to injunctive rel ref 10 remedy such a brc;ich, Employee .1lso agrees 1h.·i1 Emp!o}~r
.sh.111 be entitled to l'CCO\·er its attorney's fees nod costs incurred in connecli~n wilh enforcing lhis Agreement.

7. E1''TIRE AGREEMENT: Trus Agrttmenl constitutes the entire agreement bcrwccn the parties pen:i.ining 10
couftdcntiality. rson-solidtation and non-competition ;iod supc~s all prior agn:emcnts pertaining lo lhese
subjects. This Agreement~ not affect Eniploycc's stalus as an at ~ill employee. Likewise: no amendment 10
this Ag.recmcnl shall be binding unless ii is in writin_g and signed by bolh parties.

8. WAIVER/VALIDITYiASSIGNMENT: Wajycr of any provision of this Ag.ree1~1ent will not ha,·e :iny effect on
the n!St of (he Agrccnicot nor will it Ix: construed as a waircr of a su~uenl breach. If any of the provisio~
contained in this Agreement arc.. for any reason, held to be C.'\ccssively broad as 10 time, duration, geographical
scope. activity or subject, it shall be con51:rued by limiting 3.!ld rroucing it so as to be enforceable to the a1en1
compatible with npplic.ablc law. lfneccssa~·. rile Agreement will then be amended to restore the original intended
putpOSCS and rights of lhe parties. This Agreement may be assigned by Employer to a successor eqiployer in:the
e-."t•n: the Employer is bought, merge.cl or consolidated \\itlt another entity.

~- EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Etnploy~ aclo1ow!C(Sgcs as follows: (I) he/she has been given a
rca~nable opportunity to micw lhis Agreen1en1~ (2) he/she underst:inds lhc meaning oft.bis Agncment; (3) Ub!
1cims ofrhis Agreement nre reasonable end '%ill not have the ·effect of WlfC?SOnably restricting the Employee from
earning a ti,ing suhsequenl lo rus/her einployntcnt with Emplo}'er: (4) th.al Employer will suffer ~rioos and
im:p.uable h.mu in the event Employee breaches this Agreement and that Employer s.h:111 be entitled to it:iunctivc
rt'lief as well as any 0U1er legal remedies B\'ailable in tl1e c\'enI of such brt'..ach. ·

· Signed:_____ __ -···--·-- .. --- - ··- -·- - - -

For Commonwealth Code lnspcc-~ion Scnfo.:. Inc.

,l~lftiCi;·___ ------ ·- ·- · .. ·-· ... _,, ___ _ ... Dah:: .. .. __ ... _.

!:rnployef
• I
- ( l • ..
.-
 , .

176 Doe Run Road

Manheim. PA 17545

NON-CO.MP.ED AND CONF.D>INTIALITY AGRUMENT

NOTICE: This Agreemem is a lep1 document whicb imposes various restrictions upon you, iocluding restrictions
on the cypcs of activities or cmploymcm you may t.opge in during aod afta" your cmployme:m with
Common,l,:alth Code hlspcctioD Scrvica, Inc. The Agrec:ment is a c:oodition of your employmem ..ritb the
C.Ompany. Please: read it carefully prior to signing it and mcl frc:c to _consnlt an attorney if you wish to do so.

l. BACKGROUND:. This Agreement is entered into as qt Dcccrnm t!, 2000 by and between Commonwealth
Code Inspection Scmc:es, Inc. (9Emplgyu") and tho mldersigncd Emf)loyee ("Elllplrlyrie"). EnipkJyeF is a regional
dectrical and billding in5pection service company wbic:b condacts business in five aarm.. Employer has gn,wn
nrpidly, .larselY bealase of mnet\Wdc ot comacts withm the industry anc1 itt spocialized b.mDC&S QI0\\1cdae
servu:es.
pertaining to electrical anti b111l ding inspectim1 Employee is itUercstcd m becoming~ bf
~ and. after having read this Agreemmd, has decided to ia;q,t .Bq)layer's offei o f ~ subject to
the tmns and 00llditiom ll1ated below. In considenoon for his/her emp!oymcnt w i t h ~ . Empt~ agrees
to the tmm and conditions bdaw:

2. LOYALTY: Darin& his cmploymeut with Empla,a-, Employ« shall loyally and conscientioas)y devote his or
bet best worlc effmts soldy toward the bllsiness QfF.mploycr In a J111I1JJeF roitSisro,r Mtb Bmplaya's policies and
procedmcs. Emp!O}-ee will nor engage in any otbc:r empJoyment er business activity w h i l e ~ l,y ~
withClll the prior wriuen conseut of F.mplO)'CI'.

3. CONFIDENTIALITY: During the c:ourse-of hislbet employmem, ~ will h2M: a0ClCIL, to amfidentiaJ
and P'OPl'ietary imotma1ion ("CMfidentiaJ lnfonnaaiou") belonging to F.mploycr, iupnctiq '-1t oat limited to: (1)
d.it.n.t aDd custoffltf mmes. lh1s, ft'l001ds and u(crrwtion umt,. -pment and prospcc:ti~ diellls mcladcd), (2)
Employer's bminm Rmnk, mrtbocls and strategics, pending projects and proposals, ~ manuals, 'p ricing
information, nwbting stratqpes. material& research. trd,nical data 8Dd formulas and (3) employee lists, names, .
file infonnatioa and payroll data.. This Comidmlial lnfomumon vm aapn:d by Employer after comiderable
expcme, Ci.me and uxrgy and is viw to the continued success of Employer's business The parties acknowledge
and auee that C®fldentlal Information is a unique in4 valuable as.w:t of Employer and that such i.Dfmmation
coastitutta trade secrds. Employee, agrees that he/she shall not at aey time dming his/be:r cmploymen1 with
EnrplDyer or at any t i m e ~ disclose miy Confidenrial laformation to 8f1.'J pc:rsoo or entity~ as
reasonably neoeuary to perform hwher job dDtics fur Bmployer, nm shall Employe:e C\'Ct use any Confidential
Information tbr his/ha own ~ or fer the bcndit cf others widlom Emplo,ua prior written ambaiizatiim..

4. NON-COMPETE RESTRICTIONS: Excqx as necessary to perform his/her job v.ith Employer, Employee shall
not, dnring his/ha employment and for a peric;,c:f of twelve ( 12) months lhea&r rrr.stric:tive
pcriodj:

(a) diru:tty or indi..rectly, either on behalf r4 Employee or far III)' <1tbcr person or cmttty, comact ar solicit
Employer's diems and aJStomen in any manner unle8s such comaet or solici1ation is solely iutcnded to poain
business for Emplaycr.

(b) din:ctly or i.ndiffl:tty. as an employee, apt, c:onsu.ltam, stoctholdcT, propriaor or olbcnisc, enpgc in
the busincs5 af elcctrk:al aod ~ inspcc;tion scrviccs or rda1cd services ro>mp;itivc Scrvia:s") in
competition with EmpJoyer within any county in which Employer err itt: affiUarc:s and subsidiariea dl'I business or
did tmness·within the twdl-e (12) mon1h p:riOd immediately preceding the cmpk,yce's sepandion of emp!oymm
from F.mployer, regardless of whether Emp!oyce womd in said cosmries

(c:) directly or indin:ctly ~ ~itb any of~oycr's 110QD(lnts or business witb any client or eustomer.

717-664-2347 80().732--0043 • Fu : 717-664-4953

•
 · -' . ( j'

(d) diRctly or indircafy contact or solicit in any manner any employees ofEmplcyer to encourage or J)C:rSUadt
them to leave employmea1 with Employer or to .aocq,t employment elsewhere.

ThcsecoYCDllUS shall ~ D C to apply during lhe entire tRfye (12) month ~l'Crlod. .rcgmd)css oft.he
ciiannstanoes mm which Emplo,ee's employment is tmninated.

5. FUruRE EMPLOYERS: Employee shall tender a copy of this Agm:mcm to Emplo)'ce's new employer(s)
duriDg t h e ~ (12) IDWdh restrictive period.t o ~ that Employee'S future employm havt knowledge of the
restrictions CODlaincd herein prior to enterulg into an employment relationship with Employee. ·

.... 6.. ~ I E S: · 1n addition to any mmu:y damages arisfn& due to E ~ breadi of the terms o!this
Agreement. En:iplayec acknawlcdgcs tbat Employer will smfedrrcparable hann in the C'YCJ1t of a breach and that
Employer shall alto be enlitk:d to iajunctm relief to remedy m:h a triach. Employee also~ that Employer
shall be entitled to recavu its attorney's fees and 00SIS incurred in connection with enforcing this Agrccmcnt.

7. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agrcemant conswut.es the entire agreemmt bctwocn the pertit.S pcrtajmng to
confidemia.lity, non-Sl0.licitation and non-compelitioll and supc:rscde&,all prior agttemc:ntl ~ to these
subjcds. This Agn,cm.em does not affect E ~ ' , status as an at will rmplO}'eC,. Lmwise, no a_ mendmcnt t,o
this Agreement shall be binding unless it iB ~ writing and s!gncd by both parties.

8. WA.IVER/VALIDITY/ASSIGNMENT: Waiver o!any provision of Ibis Agrc;ementwil.l not~ any dfea on

the rest of lhe .Agn,ement nor will it be construed as a waiver af a suhsequem lnach. If any afthe provisions
amtaiw in this Agreement are, for any reason, hdd to bec,coes.gvclybroad as to.time. duration; geographiail
scope, aptivity or mbject, it shall be construed by limiti:ag and rcduc:mg it so as u, be c:nfintcable to the extent
mmpatih!" with applicable law. If DtJ0CSSBJY, the ~ will then be amrmded ro t'C5IDNI the oripJal laR:Tlml
purposes and ripts oftbc parties. ThiJ Ag,eemeut may be assigned by Fmp!oycr: to a soccessor employer in the
C\alt the Employer is bought. mapd or oonsolidlted w i t h ~ cutity.

9. EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGEMBNr: Employee acknowledg=s as follows: (1) ~she ha$ been gtYen a
reasonable oppartmrity to review this Agreement, (2) he/&hc undmtaDds t h e ~ of this ~ t ; (.3) the
terms afthis Ag,e.ement are rmmab!e w will not have the effect afunmsonab!y ~ the Employee from
amting a living subscquemto ~employmmt with Employer; (4) lbat Employer will suffer ICrions and
irrqia.rable harm in th: emll Employee~ this Agreement and that Employer shall be entitled to injundM
.. mid as·wcll as any other legal mnedies available in the eYent of such breach.

Signed:._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _....,.--~---- Date:_ _ _ _ __

For Commanwailth Code Impec:tioa Service, Inc.

.Date:TOv.u, izJI o/
· EXHIBIT ~'C''
 f>. Cle,:~ tfalot. :· :-.- e,;:1,:
M~tMICIPj l ~.:.:,_:,:u·::, G~· :,.J
Cu)~·
A Lt l.!it.J( 1:
-------~·,.._ ___ -··- --·-----
:•,.,: -;..., •. :.~-:;-. •,..... 1·:.~:,:.: :. '
........,__

China Buffet
9E3 Wayne Ave ..
Chambersburg, PA 17201

RE: Notice of Violatf~evocation ol Health Ucens.e/Eating and Drinking Establishment Liatnse tor: China Autfe1
E:~ting ,md Orint.ing ES:ab!1sl'lment Liceose. 9/;j W'lf'Jne Ave .• c.t,arnbe<sburg. :>.~.

i t~o-.-.: :eviewi-:d 1-''lur r.:t,:ir-t> ct \'icli:t:Ofl aated .l,1,6,·1::, -..,.;,e:::in yoi, -.~re Clf':?'-j rnr !'Jlilltipl?. -.:i!Jfltion~ .)f tr.i: Perns\'lvanl.'lo
Fo~.: Cc:lt nne 7 Cl'lap.:ir 4" (If 1~ F'en,1syt-.,.;i·,1o C.:-le f have a:s,,, revi(......,,-:, !he dcwm1.:ritatio1i ,cil 1><<>11tded 10
Conr.ronwei.'llfh coae lr..:.p~dion <301.,,ic;r; ~-rlrt~,·day 3.'<'.CttS i., ar, a!IP.P.">P.I to ,.cµar. ;,o~ '·:JC't,ty ,ne !icx:,11~c1a:iot1 is
:-:01 "'r1t::.it4ah~ for •~ 10 ;)IOCESS Vo:..-:~..,?..;\~ 10 dp;,t""e re 1$suanc1: of ·,ovr 1-1:-ahh L·•:en::.,:,, al th;~ tirne. I have tl'le
lulitMir~ .:cmc~\s·

In a ::oordan~e: .-,:th
ywr 311 ~m 5 No1k,; c·l Vi::.:ld1><;i, can:-.cncd} you were <ltrectfet !o obt.aio lhP. ;;ar..•kes of a
quali;.~ 1000 SclVice ptot~J,si.;nat =ar.-11:ie at prepanll(J arY.! 11f!J)icmer:fo1g a Haz~rc,s A:ialysls CriTic~ ConirDI
?~nt Pian fer -;<JUf fa.:;;iir,. YC',u Y.ere runi-~r directt1d lo h&v~ this pro.'P.ssinmi: c;ru;!:l(:t tne i-tl;la!U'I Dep,:.ttme,-,t
immediately to present h~ c,:..ialif,catiOnS fo( acproval ¥---: ,o ttlen wo"'k witn tt-e Heallt: De....aruner,: :o P,i>OU<.-e a
pl.;,n ihar wa!i. sc.~ep1able c:ml a;padf.c to y0tir fa.:ility.
tnstead J'OU na.~ i;crt.videc a 51 PD91! docurrlt'.nt le; us lo: r~v1e1N b~ ;in uoi.nOWfl il-. itt,or w•ltl WM!~
qualificat,0.1,. Our office r..s:> tlad ~o co.1ta,::l\\:lti a ·vva~a and Ass0<.·..:,tes· ero ,:;ali lind:,.:, reco,,~ ofin,!.
bu~r.i;sc l(l pt.bl,!'. r~-Ol'ds No 1e111•.-:c~n,~ll111> 'rc.m ~ or~tr,izaht,ll r..;~ c.oNr,ct•.·'1 01,r offrc:~ as :.,-~r~ ·J by )'OUr
:::/18i15 Noli(:<! Cl Vittzll::n.
lhe 51 p~e dv<.:,Jm!:.,I : :pr,i;-:;r~. W !lc:v•.:; t:P.-all p,o,:iu::.,-j lut an<1thi:.-1 •:1",til~ , ,, 1·: 01n+:1wis~ 1r.c.;:'llp!P.l>: a,- ;t.r,r~ 1a,
r.o :o~ntrlical;.;:'1 lhnt tdls ',IS .vile. prepared 1hr. dx,1,mr,r.i ;;n.:::J h">r wlicm rt wa •. i::t~O.Jlf:d We ,,w.., :-io r.:-;oms of
,myont: s ,:iu.;tt!Jcauo,,o; as owi~r,i:o 1,y 1he Jl!l:''!5.
Ph:c>!•~ rt::ca · ~<.,a,i, t ..· U·-"C" ::J~ 3, !5 Now:..c o: .J:Ola~ f.lr, •"•• ·•t.·f'/ t-1,:.cc1~,:, tns.tructh><• :-,r.-.::1fe:r a~~i!>r, on.- p~tn to
4

:<;I!,,;.; low.1,::: co111pti;;nce I l'l!A~ qa:,~:,:-.f i.•:•,r-,_,l ~;,<':ilk pari!\~•~Ol :s t7tfow !?,::, ,c.'ie.r f.,, r•-~•• r::'lt<•:11~ .
Howt- ·, et 1nr. ,:nfir,~ rfti.;urN:nt sr-,.,:.,1<1 b-: ef.-; ,:rnied dY..et/ and t ·; i r . ~ -.,r.ri, cr,!; ,plr:t~I} .
• On,:e yot1 ha\.:: e.i:omine., tne Not•ct: ~, Vio!,fon anri :'.':,c.;: >'<·U :;.'>/lei~l:md &,•s :-1r.er. oieas'? i'ISfruCI ,eur
-:iuaii!~ lrx,J x-r.-;Q:! orott.•~sior.a• 0 1 oon!•.J!:ru11 w COl113'.;t ::>vr ·Jif;,;~ ,,,'!l1£;/,alti~,' !>o we ma;· tc•,;iew a .:·:,mp!rne
1-!ACCf' P:Jr, L"i;:,: ,., ~::c:fic lu )lt"lur !.:-:.,li,y i,f0 t,l);at :1i vf!Sl!)n~ fo .1~;jr~S'.i .;.II tile ,;ff:ldS of ;,i.Jl,:,tion that "{C\Jf
rer.:-,r.1. !".at::19 ,·:'YJ t2riJt..u1;: -:::::abl1sr-.niun ~"l:.ll',\°:'.;:Jn rcv~.:11<.:l .

i-'le,•...t. mrnpty witr, tt~•.,; r1<t•,;,a:; dl.rl re-qi;,:.!,,;. t.mtt; fa;;!11un C.;r.1.;,,: t ow ;ie1,o:.<1el U,,r,i.;.)ri ;,:1; phc..ne o•il'l!CC/
lisli:d .:U.\OV9 ~· t\' c•:nn~ ::l!rc-.:tly lo (''l ;l!ltl':)ac;r, . ill..a l:Sl t;i] ;.:,o~Q. YClll <ii •; Mt i,~rmitted !.) ret);>ell !nl:; 1..-ti!lty unless atlCI
1.ntil a'l l"I~ ,.,u1,t-.:nd1<,<; r;:;MJ~·, • .;1r!! r-:.-:";Ol'/r.!C: to tN, o!;ct:w.1t ,:,t tt1.:· in'Sp~•ctic,n i;;t&:I ,.;rrd a f:;:v( .-;it:I~ ,a;X,c~ ~ ,e,..,rrtN tc the
Ht::c-'!J· t;,:;)&<1m.:;~!.
~ir.-~erely.
(·. ,r::,~.•. - r::.. ~,~:.
f;; C-:,:-m /✓.;Jk,1 r.lCP CFl,l
!-.;;al 11: CO!j-; O!fi-:,ill

.,
-Commonwealth Code Inspection : 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Services, Inc. : OF THE 39rn JUDICIAL DISTRICT
: FRANKLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANlA
Plaintiff
No. 2015-1652 CIVIL
V.

Robert C. Malot aka R. Clem Malot Civil Action

and Pennsylvania Municipal Code
Alliance, Inc., Hon. Judge Todd M. Sponseller

Defendants.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

AND NOW, this _ _ _ _ day of August, 2017, I, Zachary E. Nahass, Esquire, of the

CGA Law Firm, attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served the Amend the Complaint

on:

VIA FIRST-CLASS

SaJzman Hughes, P.C.,

Scott T. Wyland
James D. Hughes
112 Market Street, 8th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101

DATED: _ _ _ _ __
Zachary E. Nahass, Esquire

(0JJ23,WI}
Commonwealth Code Inspection : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Services,Jnc . : OF THE 39TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
: FRANKLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
No. 2015-1652 CIVIL
V.

Robert C. Malot aka R. Clem Malot Civil Action

and Pennsyh~ania Municipal Code
Alliance, Inc., Hon. Judge Todd M. Sponseller

Defendants.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

AND NOW, this 4th day of October, 2017, I, Heather Hunter, Paralegal, of the CGA Law

Firm, attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served the Amend the Complaint on:

VIA FIRST-CLASS

Salzman Hughes, P.C.,

Scott T. Wyland
James D. Hughes
112 Market Street, glh Floor
Harrisburg, P A ~

~~-
Heather Hunter, Paralegal for
Zachary E. Nahass, Esquire

(0132H6311 t