Preview
mmo
OOOO oo Ok oO00
OO O00 O QOOOUOOOOU
OOoOo00 oO OOOUOOO ooOo00ATLANTIC STATES INSURANCE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COMPANY, DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
NO.
vs.
NICOLE M. CATANESE, DAVID
MARTINO, MARTINO SIGNS, INC.,
NICOLETTE DANIELS, DETECTIVE
FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR. AND BOROUGH
OF YEADON
Defendants
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth
in the following pages, 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
claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights
important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF
YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH
BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A
LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY
OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.
LAWYER REFERENCE AND INFORMATION SERVICE
FRONT AND LEMON STREETS
MEDIA PA 19063
215-566-6625EVIN AMARA — SQUIRE
1.D. 72668
ORDON —INHORN SQUIRE
L.D. 59006
HOMAS HOMAS AFER LLP
P.O. ox 1275
AMP ILL 17001
(717) 237-7132
KMCNAMARA TTHLAW COM
OUNSEL FOR LAINTIFF TLANTIC TATES
NSURANCE OMPANY
ATLANTIC STATES INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff
vs.
NICOLE M. CATANESE, DAVID
MARTINO, MARTINO SIGNS, INC.,
NICOLETTE DANIELS, DETECTIVE
FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR. AND BOROUGH
OF YEADON.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.
ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Atlantic States Insurance Company (hereinafter
“Atlantic States”), by its attorneys, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and brings the following
Complaint seeking a Declaratory Judgment:
THE PARTIES
Plaintiff, Atlantic States, is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of
business located at 1195 River Road, Marietta, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania 17547.Nicole M. Catanese is an adult individual who resides at 211 Pine Valley Drive,
Coatesville, PA 19320.
David Martino is an adult individual who resides at 101 Mulberry Lane, Newtown
Square, PA 19073.
Nicolette Daniels is an adult individual who resides at 717 North Jackson Street,
Media, PA 19063.
Martino Signs, Inc. is a corporation authorized to do business in Pennsylvania
with an address at 453 Penn Street, Yeadon, PA 19050.
Ferdie O. Ingram, Jr., is a detective employed by the Borough of Yeadon
The Borough of Yeadon is a municipal corporation located at 600 Church Lane,
Yeadon, Pennsylvania.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Venue lies in Delaware County because, among other things, a transaction or
occurrence took place out of which a cause of action in this case arose.
This is an action for declaratory judgment brought pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 7531
et seq., and Pa.R.C.P. No. 1601 et seq.
FACTS OF UNDERLYING LITIGATION
Nicole Catanese initiated a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania at docket number 2:22-CV-00821-CJD (the “Underlying Action”). A
copy of the Complaint in the Underlying Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Named as Defendants in the Underlying Action are David Martino, Martino
Signs, Inc. and Nicolette Daniels (collectively referred to herein as the “Martino Defendants”).
David Martino and Nicolette Daniels are alleged to have been employees of
Martino Signs, Inc.Detective Ingram and Borough of Yeadon are also named as Defendants in the
Underlying Action.
As described in the Underlying Action, as to the Martino Defendants, the claims
are related to alleged false reports to authorities of criminal conduct by Ms. Catanese while she
was employed by Martino Signs, Inc.
Detective Ingram is alleged to have charged Ms. Catanese with crimes without an
adequate investigation and Borough of Yeadon’s alleged liability stems from its employment of
Detective Ingram.
According to the Complaint in the Underlying Action, Ms. Catanese was
employed by Martino Signs, Inc. in a job that included selling signage to customers and working
with subcontractors to produce the signs and install them in accordance with customer
specifications.
According to the Complaint in the Underlying Action, Ms. Catanese was
terminated from her employment by David Martino who thereafter conspired with Nicolette
Daniels to contend that Ms. Catanese had engaged in criminal activity while employed by
Martino Signs, Inc.
The reported criminal activity involved a scheme by Ms. Catanese to defraud
Martino Signs’ customers of money by inflating the cost of sign contracts and keeping the
difference between the actual cost and the inflated cost for herself.
Mr. Martino presented his suspicions about Ms. Catanese to Detective Ingram of
the Borough of Yeadon Police Department
Ms. Catanese was, thereafter, charged with the crimes of theft by unlawful taking,
theft by deception and receiving stolen property.
Ms. Catanese was temporarily incarcerated as a result of the charges.Some months after the charges were filed, they were withdrawn by the Delaware
County District Attorney.
As to the Martino Defendants, the Underlying Action contains Counts for
malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
As to Mr. Martino and Nicolette Daniels, the Complaint in the Underlying Action
contains a separate Count for slander, defamation and libel.
As to Martino Signs, Inc., the Underlying Action contains a Count for vicarious
liability related to slander, defamation and libel allegedly committed by Mr. Martino and Ms.
Daniels.
At the time relevant to the events set forth in the Underlying Action, Atlantic
States insured Martino Signs, Inc. pursuant to a Commercial Package Policy under policy
number CPA8983724 with effective dates from April 9, 2020 through April 9, 2021. For that
same policy period, Martino Signs, Inc. was also insured under a Commercial Liability Umbrella
Policy issued by Atlantic States. A copy of the Commercial Package Policy is attached hereto as
Exhibit B and a copy of the Commercial Liability Umbrella Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit
Cc.
After the Complaint in the Underlying Action was filed, a request was presented
to Atlantic States by the Martino Defendants for a defense and indemnification under the
Commercial Package and Umbrella Policies.
Atlantic States agreed to provide a defense to all claims pled in the Underlying
Action against the Martino Defendants subject to a reservation of rights.COUNTI
CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS — NO
COVERAGE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL PACKAGE POLICY — COVERAGE A
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY
The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at
length.
Liability coverage is afforded to insureds under the Commercial Package Policy
under COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM CG 00 01 12 04
(“Form CG 00 01 12 04”).
Form CG 00 01 12 04 provides that: “Various provisions in this policy restrict
coverage. Read the entire policy carefully to determine rights, duties and what is and is not
covered.” (Page 1 of 13
Form CG 00 01 12 04 includes COVERAGE A BODILY INJURY AND
PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY which provides occurrence-based liability protection
from claims that an “insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bodily
injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance applies.” (Page 1 of 13
Additionally, Form CG 00 01 12 04, mandates that Atlantic States has “the right
and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. However, [Atlantic
States] will have no duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking damages for “bodily
injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance does not apply ” (Page 1 of 13
The insurance provided under Coverage A applies to “bodily injury” or “property
damage” only if the “bodily injury” or “property damage” is caused by an “occurrence” that
takes place in the “coverage territory” during the policy period. (Form CG 00 01 12 04, Page 1
of 13The Commercial Package Policy defines the term “occurrence” in pertinent part
as “an accident.” (Endorsement CGD 90 33 04 09
When the conduct of an insured is alleged to be intentional, there is no triggering
accident or covered “occurrence” under Coverage A
As to the Martino Defendants, the claims set forth in the Underlying Action are
for intentional conduct and/or do not allege “bodily injury” or “property damage” and, therefore,
there is no coverage under Coverage A.
The liability insurance provided under Coverage A of the Commercial Package
Policy does not apply to: “bodily injury” or “property damage” expected or intended from the
standpoint of the insured.” (Exclusion , Form CG 00 01 12 04, Page 1 of 13
The Commercial Package Policy also contains aa EMPLOYMENT-RELATED
PRACTICES EXCLUSION, Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07, that applies to Coverage A —
Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability
Pursuant to the EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION, the
insurance provided under Coverage A does not apply to:
“Bodily injury” to:
(1) A person arising out of any:
(c) Employment-related practices, policies, acts
or omissions, such as coercion, demotion,
evaluation, reassignment, discipline,
defamation, harassment, humiliation,
discrimination or malicious prosecution
directed at that person... ”
(Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07By its express terms, the EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES
EXCLUSION applies:
(J) = “Whether the injury-causing event . . . occurs before employment, during
employment or after employment. . . .”
(Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07
For all of the reasons alleged above, as to the Martino Defendants, the insurance
provided by the Commercial Package Policy under Coverage A - Bodily Injury and Property
Damage Liability either does not apply to the claims set forth in the Underlying Action or
coverage is excluded.
WHEREFORE, Atlantic States Insurance Company respectfully requests that judgment
be entered in its favor and that a declaration be issued that there is no coverage under the
Commercial Package Policy and no duty to defend or indemnify the Martino Defendants for the
claims in the Underlying Action.
COUNT II
CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS - NO
COVERAGE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL PACKAGE POLICY — COVERAGE B
PERSONAL AND ADVERTISING INJURY LIABILITY
The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at
length.
Form CG 00 01 12 04 includes COVERAGE B PERSONAL AND
ADVERTISING INJURY LIABILITY which provides for the payment of sums “that the
insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “personal and advertising
injury” to which this insurance applies.” (Page 5 of 13
Additionally, Form CG 00 01 12 04, mandates that Atlantic States: has “the right
and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. However, [AtlanticStates] will have no duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking damages for “personal
and advertising injury” to which this insurance does not apply.” (Page 5 of 13
The insurance provided under Coverage B applies to “personal and advertising
injury caused by an offense arising out of the insured’s business but only if the offense was
committed in the “coverage territory” during the policy period. (Form CG 00 01 12 04, Page 5
of 13
As to the Martino Defendants, the Complaint in the Underlying Action contains
causes of action for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of
emotional distress and defamation.
False imprisonment, malicious prosecution and defamation are each offenses
under Coverage B in the Commercial Package Policy. (see, definition of “personal and
advertising injury,” Form CG 00 01 12 04, Page 12 of 13
However, the Commercial Package Policy also contains an EMPLOYMENT-
RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION, Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07, that applies to
Coverage B — Personal And Advertising Injury Liability
Pursuant to the EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION, the
insurance provided under Coverage B does not apply to
“Bodily injury” to:
(1) A person arising out of any:
(c) Employment-related practices, policies, acts
or omissions, such as coercion, demotion,
evaluation, reassignment, discipline,
defamation, harassment, humiliation,
discrimination or malicious prosecution
directed at that person... ”(Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07
By its express terms, the EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES
EXCLUSION applies:
(1) = “Whether the injury-causing event . . . occurs before employment, during
employment or after employment. . . .”
(Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07
The Employment-Related Practices Exclusion endorsement applies in this case
to preclude coverage under Coverage B as the allegations in the Underlying Action pertain to
alleged false reporting by the Martino Defendants of criminal conduct by Ms. Catanese that
specifically relate to things she allegedly did in conjunction with her employment by Martino
Signs.
The claims against the Martino Defendants inthe Underlying Action specifically
relate to criminal conduct and reported crimes that arose from.her employment including
embezzlement, theft and receipt of kickbacks during employment and defrauding Martino Signs’
customers of money.
All of the conduct alleged as to the Martino Defendants fits within the description
of excluded employment-related practices, policies, acts or omissions.
Accordingly, there is no coverage under Coverage B
In addition, the insurance provided under Coverage B is subject to various
exclusions including Knowing Violation Of Rights Of Another and Material Published with
Knowledge Of Falsity
Pursuant to the Knowing Violation Of Rights Of Another exclusion, the
insurance provided under Coverage B does not apply to:
“Personal and advertising injury” caused by or at
the direction of the insured with the knowledgethat the act would violate the rights of another and
would inflict “personal and advertising injury.”
(Form CG 00 01 12 04, Page 5 of 13
Pursuant to the Material Published with Knowledge Of Falsity exclusion, the
insurance provided under Coverage B does not apply to:
“Personal and advertising injury”
arising out of oral or written
publication of material, if done by or
at the direction of the insured with
knowledge of its falsity.”
Form CG 00 01 12 04 Page 5 of 13
For all of the reasons alleged above, as to the Martino Defendants, the insurance’
provided by the Commercial Package Policy under Coverage B — Personal And Advertising
Injury Liability either does not apply to the claims set forth in the Underlying Action or
coverage is excluded.
WHEREFORE, Atlantic States Insurance Company respectfully requests that judgment
be entered in its favor and that a declaration be issued that there is no coverage under the
Commercial Package Policy and no duty to defend or indemnify the Martino Defendants for the
claims in the Underlying Action.
COUNT III
NO COVERAGE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at
length.
The Complaint in the Underlying Action contains a claim for punitive damages.
Under Pennsylvania law, punitive damages are not insurable for direct liability.To the extent the Complaint in the Underlying Action alleges punitive damages
against Martino Signs on the basis of vicarious responsibility for defamation, there is no duty to
defend an employer under Pennsylvania law against a suit alleging liability stemming from
conduct of employees that is itself excluded.
As explained above, the claims for defamation against employees of Martino
Signs, Inc. are excluded for multiple reasons and as such, the vicarious liability claims against
Martino Signs, Inc. are excluded as well.
The Complaint in the Underlying Action contains a claim for attorney’s fees
under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b).
Fees under §1988(b) may be awarded to a prevailing party in any case filed under
42 U.S.C. §1983.
The §1983 claims set forth in the Underlying Action are against Detective Ingram
and the Borough of Yeadon for charges brought against Ms. Catanese.
The §1988 fee statute only applies to state actors. It does not apply to the Martino
Defendants.
In addition, the claim for counsel fees is not for “bodily injury” or “property
damage” nor is it otherwise an element of insured damages under the Commercial Package
Policy.
WHEREFORE, Atlantic States Insurance Company respectfully requests the entry of a
declaratory judgment in its favor that the company has not duty to indemnify the Martino
Defendants for punitive damages and/or attorney’s fees.COUNT IV
COVERAGE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL LIABILITY UMBRELLA
The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at
length.
The Commercial Liability Umbrella contains the same exclusions and
endorsements as the underlying Commercial Package Policy and therefore there is no coverage
under the Commercial Liability Umbrella either.
Punitive damages are expressly excluded from the Commercial Liability
Umbrella. (see, Endorsement CUD 90 06 03 06
WHEREFORE, Atlantic States Insurance Company respectfully requests declaratory
judgment in its favor and that there is no coverage under the Commercial Liability Umbrella for
the allegations made in the Underlying Action.
Respectfully submitted,
THORAMERAS
Bris OM asian 2.
Kevin C. McNamara, Esq.
PA LD. No. 72668
Eiitndon
590806 DPA
12B8x0.
17001 PAtdinp
2-132OF CERTIFICATE
I certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Case Records Public Access
Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania that require filing confidential information
and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.
eon (a dD
Kevin C. McNamara
THONHRERAS3844. (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEET
‘The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. exeept as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. ” (SH INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Nicole Catanese David Martino, Martino Signs, Inc., Nicolette Daniels, Detective Ferdie
O. Ingram, and Borough of Yeadon
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Chester County
(EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES)
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant _Delaware County
(IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE; IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(ce) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Harry J. Oxman, Esquire
1518 Walnut Street, Suite 1010
Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 665-9999
IL. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Pace an "x" in One Box Only}
HI. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X" in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Bax for Defendant)
1 US. Government 93. Federal Question PTF DEF PTF | DEF
Plaintiff (US, Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 ML Incorporated or Principal Place = O44
of Business In This State
19.2. US. Government 4. Diversity Citizen of Another State 2-2 Incorporated and Principal Place = 5 OS
Defendant (indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item II) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 OG 3. Foreign Nation os 6
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “x” in One Box Only)
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY | 625 Drug Related Seizure J 422 Appeal 28USC 158 | £375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 07 310 Airplane 3-365 Personal Injury ~ of Property 21 USC 881 }(0)423 Withdrawal GF 400 State Reapportionment
130 Miller Act 1-315 Airplane Product Product Liability |] 690 Other 28 USC 157 GF 410 Antitrast
F140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 03 367 Health Care/ D430 Banks and Banking
D150 Recovery of Overpayment | 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical 450 Commerce
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 1 820 Copyrights 1 460 Deportation
1 151 Medicare Act 10330 Federal Employers” Product Liability 830 Patent 470 Racketeer Influenced and
D152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 1) 368 Asbestos Personal GF 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
Student Loans 1-340 Marine Injury Product 1 480 Consumer Credit
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability © 490 Cable/Sat TV
C0 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY [0 710 Fair Labor Standards [0 861 HIA (13951) D850 Securities/Commodities!
of Veteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 370 Other Fraud 1D 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange
0 160 Stockholders” Suits 355 Motor Vehicle F371 Truth in Lending [1-720 Labor/Management 2 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) | C890 Other Statutory Actions
7 190 Other Contract Product Liability _) 380 Other Personal Relations 1D 864 SSID Title XVI D891 Agricultural Acts
195 Contract Prochuct Liat 1 360 Other Personal Property Damage {1 740 Railway Labor Act 15 865 RSI (405(g)) D893 Environmental Matters
1 196 Franchise Injury © 385 Property Damage |) 751 Family and Medical 1 895 Freedom of Information
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act
Medical Malpra 790 Other Labor Litigation D896 Arbitration
NER PETITIONS = [0 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS | 899 Administrative Procedure
0 210 Land Condemnation 01440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act (870 Taxes (US. Plaintiff ‘ActReview or Appeal of
© 220 Foreclosure 7 441 Voting 0 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) ‘Agency Decision
1 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment | C1 442 Employment D510 Motions to Vacate 0 871 IRS—Third Party D950 Constitutionality of
1D 240Torts to Land 1 443 Housing! Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes
D245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations |) $30 General
F290 All Other Real Property | 1 445 Amer. w/Disabilitics -| C1 535 Death Penalty
Employment Other:
1 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -]©) 540 Mandamus & Other |) 465 Other Immigration
Other 1%) 550 Civil Rights Actions
0 448 Education 555 Prison Condition
1 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
1 Original 13.2 Removed from G3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 1 6 Multidistriet
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation
(speci
Gite (es us: Givi Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
.8.C. Section
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION [are ieccription of cause:
Civil rights and State claims
VIL. REQUESTED IN =O CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ ‘CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: XY Yes No
VUI, RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY Gee insrwctions pockET NUMBER
DATE
2d
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
[NATURE OF ce
] JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
EXHIBIT A
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING [FPUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
DESIGNATION FORM
(to be used by counsel or pro se plaintiff to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to the appropriate calendar)
Address of Plaintiff: 211 Pine Valley Drive, Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320
4101 Mulberry Lane, Newtown Square, PA 19073, 453 Penn Street, Yeadon, PA 19060, 717 North Jackson Street, Media, PA 19063 and 600 Church Lane, Yeadon, PA 19050
Address of Defendant: ” *
Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction: 211 Pine Valley Drive, Coatesville, PA 19320
RELATED CASE, IF ANY:
Case Number: Judge: Date Terminated:
Civil cases are deemed related when Yes is answered to any of the following questions:
1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year ves[_ |
previously terminated action in this court?
Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit ves[_]
pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?
Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier Yes C]
numbered case pending or within one year previously terminated action of this court?
Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights Yes A
case filed by the same individual?
I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case [1 is / [9] is not related now pending or within one year previously terminated action in
this court except as noted above. |
DATE: {4 boo s 13116
Attorney ILD. # (if applicable)
CIVIL: (Place a Vin one category only)
Federal Question Cases: Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
Airplane Personal Injury
Assault, Defamation
Marine Personal Injury
Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Other Personal Injury (Please specify):
Products Liability
Habeas Corpus Products Liability — Asbestos
). Securities Act(s) Cases . All other Diversity Cases
. Social Security Review Cases (Please specify):
Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts
FELA
Jones Act-Personal Injury
Antitrust
Patent
Labor-Management Relations
Civil Rights
QOoo0o0o0o0o000
. All other Federal Question Cases
(Please specify):
A
O
oO
oO
oO
4
Oo
H
a
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
(The effect of this certification is to remove the case from eligibility for arbitration.)
Harry J. Oxman, ESqQuITe sunset ofrecord or pro se plaintiff do hereby certify:
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, § 3(c) (2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case
exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs:
LC] Relief other than monetary damages is sought.
DATE: aulgo- whe 13116
Attorney LD. # (if applicable)
NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.
Civ, 609 (5/2018)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
Nicole M. Catanese : CIVIL ACTION
vs. No.
David Martino, Martino Signs, Inc.,
Nicolette Daniels, Detective Ferdie O. Ingram, Jr.,
and The Borough of Yeadon
In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for
plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse
side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the
plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track to which
that defendant believes the case should be assigned.
SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS;
(a) Habeas Corpus — Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through § 2255. ()
(b) Social Security — Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits. ()
(c) Arbitration — Cases required to be designated.for arbitration under Local Civil Rule
53.2. ()
(d) Asbestos — Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from
exposure to asbestos. ()
(e) Special Management — Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are
commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
management cases.) ()
(f) Standard Management — Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks. (x )
al Yn Harry J. Oxman, Esquire Nicole M. Catanese
Date Attorney-at-law Attorney for Plaintiff
(215) 665-9999 (215) 569-8811 Oxmanh@ogklawyers.com
Telephone FAX Number E-Mail Address
(Civ. 660) 10/02OXMAN GOODSTADT KURITZ, PC Attorneys for Plaintiff
BY: HARRY OXMAN, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 13116
JOSEPH S. OXMAN, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 207956
1518 Walnut Street, Suite 1010
Philadelphia, PA 19102
215-665-9999
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NICOLE M. CATANESE : CIVIL ACTION
211 Pine Valley Drive :
Coatesville, PA 19320 : No.
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID MARTINO :
101 Mulberry Lane : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Newtown Square, PA 19073 ‘
and
MARTINO SIGNS, INC.
453 Penn Street
Yeadon, PA 19050
and
NICOLETTE DANIELS
717 North Jackson Street
Media, PA 19063
and
DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR.
600.Church Lane
Yeadon, PA 19050
and
BOROUGH OF YEADON
600 Church Lane
Yeadon, PA 19050
COMPLAINT
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Nicole M. Catanese is an adult individual and citizen of the State of
Pennsylvania, residing at 211 Pine Valley Drive, Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320. Hereinafter,Plaintiff, Nicole M. Catanese, shall be referred to as “Catanese”.
2. Defendant, David Martino, is an adult individual and citizen of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 101 Mulberry Lane, Newtown Square, PA 19072.
Hereinafter, the Defendant, David Martino, shall be referred to as “Martino”.
3. Defendant, Martino Signs, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at
453 Penn Street, Yeadon, Pennsylvania 19050. Hereinafter, Defendant, Martino Signs, Inc., shall
be referred to as “Signs”.
4, Defendant, Nicolette Daniels, is an adult individual and citizen of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing at 717 North Jackson Street, Media, Pennsylvania
19063. Hereinafter, Defendant, Nicolette Daniels, shall be referred to as “Daniels”.
5. Defendant, Police Detective Ferdie O. Ingram, Jr., was at all times relevant to this
matter an employee of the Defendant, Borough of Yeadon. Hereinafter, Defendant, Police
Detective Ferdie O. Ingram, Jr., shall be referred to as “Ingram”. At all times relevant to this
litigation, “Ingram”, was acting under the color of law and in his individual capacity as a
Detective Police Officer of the Borough of Yeadon.
6. Defendant, Borough of Yeadon was and continues to be a Domestic Municipal
Corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 600 Church Lane, Yeadon, Pennsylvania
19050. Hereinafter, Defendant Borough of Yeadon, shall be referred to as “Yeadon”. At all
times relevant to this litigation, “Yeadon” was the employer of “Ingram” who was acting in his
capacity as a Police Detective within the course and scope of his employment.JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. The Court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit against “Ingram” and “Yeadon”
because the actions against them arises under the Laws and the Constitution of the United States,
in particular, the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
8. “Catanese” was deprived of her rights secured to her under the Constitution and
the laws of the United States including, but not limited to, her right to be secure in her person and
property and be free from unlawful arrests and seizures, and freedom from imprisonments when
no probable cause exists.
9. “Catanese” was falsely charged without probable cause and was falsely and
maliciously imprisoned and prosecuted without any cause or legal justification.
10. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction including but not limited to violations of
her State rights against the above named defendants for malicious prosecution, false arrest, false
imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, slander, and libel because
these claims are so related to the claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form
part of the same case or controversy within Article A3 3 of the United States Constitution.
11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, as the claims at issue
arise in this judicial district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
12. _ At all times relevant to the causes of action of “Catanese”, “Martino”, was the
president and chief operating officer of “Signs” which was in the business of creating and selling
signs to various users in Mid-Atlantic State area. All of the acts done or not done by “Martino”
were done as the agent, servant, workman, and/or employee of “Signs” acting within the courseand scope of his employment and on the business of “Signs”.
13. Atall times relevant to the causes of action of “Catanese”, “Daniels” was the
Chief Financial Officer of “Signs”. All of the acts done or not done by “Daniels” were done as
the agent, servant, workman, and/or employee of “Signs” acting within the course and scope of
her employment and on the business of “Signs”.
14. Atall times relevant to the causes of action of “Catanese”, “Ingram” was a
Detective Police Officer in the employ of the “Yeadon” acting as its agent, servant, workman,
and/or employee. All of the acts done or not done by “Ingram” were done as the agent, servant,
workman, and/or employee of “Yeadon” and were done within the course and scope of his
employment and on the business of “Yeadon”.
15. Prior to May 19, 2020 “Catanese” became an employee of “Signs” having been
hired by “Martino”. Her job responsibilities included the selling of signage to customers of
“Signs” and working with subcontractors of “Signs” to produce the signs and install them in
accordance with contracts with customers for the purchase of said signs. The subcontractors of
“Signs” submitted to “Signs” purchase orders for work performed with reference to the sign sales
consummated by “Catanese”.
16. “Martino” supervised at all times the work activities of “Catanese”. “Daniels” in
her capacity as Chief Financial Officer of “Signs” received the purchase orders from
subcontractors and made payments to these subcontractors with the approval of “Martino”.
17. In January of 2020 “Signs” and “Martino” rewarded “Catanese” for her
performance with an annual raise of $15,000.00.
18. | On or about May 19, 2020 “Catanese” and “Martio” had a disagreement related to
“Martino’s” treatment of “Catanese”.19. On the following day, May 20, 2020 when “Catanese” arrived to work she was
approached by “Martino” who informed her that he could no longer afford her salary and that she
was, therefore, terminated and directed to leave the office of “Signs” immediately.
20. Later that day “Catanese” communicated with “Daniels” and confirmed her
termination from employment with “Signs” by “Martino”, and further requested that “Daniels”
provide her with information conceming her pay, accrued vacation days and personal days status
requesting that all the accrued days for which she was entitled to payment be placed in a check
and deposited directly into her account. In addition, she requested a letter from “Signs” and/or
“Daniels” or “Martino” explaining the reasons for her termination so that she would be in a
position to apply for unemployment benefits.
21. Despite having made repeated efforts to communicate with “Daniels” about the
requested letter and monies owed to her from her employment no response was forthcoming.
22. “Catanese” thereafter filed with the appropriate State agency for unemployment
compensation as she sought new employment.
23. Subsequent to May 20, 2020 “Martino” and “Daniels” began to conspire on behalf
of “Signs” to contend that “Catanese” over a period of two or more years as an employee of
“Signs” had engaged in criminal activity to embezzle monies from “Signs” and to defraud their
customers of monies by inflating the cost of contracts for the sale and installation of signs and
keeping the difference between the actual sale price and the inflated prices for herself. “Martino”
and “Daniels” claim that the criminal conduct of “Catanese” had resulted in monetary losses
suffered by “Signs” and its customers in amounts totaling 4 to 5 Million Dollars. “Martino” and
“Daniels” made these contention even though they were aware that the allegations were false and
without substance of proof of the truth of such allegations.24. In furtherance of this conspiracy “Martino” contacted “Ingram” in June of 2020 in
his capacity as a Detective of the Borough of Yeadon Police Department requesting that he meet
with “Martino” and discuss an investigation of fraud and theft allegedly committed by
“Catanese” while employed by “Signs”.
25. On June 9, 2020, “Martino” and “Ingram” met at “Signs” to commence discussion
about the investigation. “Martino” explained the alleged scheme that “Catanese” engaged in to
commit the theft and fraud. He further represented that he and “Daniels” would provide
documentary proof demonstrating the criminal conduct of “Catanese” and the extent of the
monies that she allegedly embezzled and/or stole from “Signs” and its customers.
26. Subsequent to June 9, 2020, “Ingram” began a purported investigation apparently
consisting of an effort to contact “Catanese” but he did not request as part of his investigation the
documentation of the alleged criminal behavior by “Catanese” from “Signs”, “Martino”, and
“Daniels”. Direct contact was made with “Catanese” by telephone and during said telephone
conversation “Ingram” advised “Catanese” that he was investigating criminal behavior that
“Catanese” allegedly engaged in while employed by “Signs” in the form of “kickbacks”.
“Catanese” requested details of this alleged criminal behavior, and “Ingram” declined to discuss
the details but requested that “Catanese” come to the Borough of Yeadon Police Station for
questioning. ‘‘Catanese” responded that she was not available and if the investigation were to
continue “Ingram” needed to contact her attorney.
27, On June 23, 2020, “Ingram” without having reviewed any documentation from
“Signs”, “Martino”, and “Daniels” which allegedly would establish the criminal behavior of
“Catanese,” he nevertheless, filed criminal charges against “Catanese” alleging that she
committed while employed by “Signs” the crimes of theft by unlawful taking; theft by deception;and receiving stolen property. On August 4, 2020, “Ingram” again, without any documentation
to support the allegations of criminal behavior alleged to have been engaged in by “Catanese”
swore to an Affidavit of Probable Cause before a Magistrate and received an arrest warrant for
“Catanese”. This Affidavit of Probable Cause contained representations made to “Ingram” by
“Martino” without any investigation being conducted by “Ingram” to support said allegations. All
of these allegations were false, and an appropriate and reasonable investigation by “Ingram”
would have established the falsity of said allegations.
28. On August 14, 2020 “Catanese” while at her home at approximately 2:30 p.m., as
she was packing her vehicle to leave for a summer vacation, she was approached in front of her
house by two Valley Township Police Officers who informed her that they had a warrant for her
arrest. The arrest warrant was executed and “Catanese” was taken into police custody and placed
in a cell at the Valley Township Police Department. Later inthe day “Ingram” arrived and
transported “Catanese” to the Media Courthouse. As “Ingram” and “Catanese” where attempting
to enter the Courthouse the temperature of “Catanese” was taken and it was alleged that she was
suffering from a fever and signs of COVID-19, as a result of which she was immediately taken
while remaining in police custody to the ER at Riddle Memorial Hospital where she was
handcuffed and awaited medical evaluation. Ultimately, it was determined that she was not
suffering from COVID-19 symptoms or any fever and was then discharged from Riddle
Memorial Hospital and taken while handcuffed back to the Media Courthouse where she was
incarcerated awaiting a bail hearing.
29. While at the Media Courthouse “Catanese” underwent a criminal arraignment and
bail was set at $200,000.00 requiring “Catanese” to post a minimum of 10% in order to obtain
her release which she was unable to do thus resulting in her transfer to the George W. HillCorrectional Facility.
30. After several days at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility “Catanese” through
the assistance of David Long was able to secure bail through the efforts of a professional bail
bondsman.
31. | Subsequent to her release from the George W. Hill Correctional Facility on or
about August 17, 2020, “Catanese” retained Nicole Thompson, Esquire as her counsel. After
multiple hearings which were continued until July 13, 2021 the Delaware County District
Attomey’s office on that date withdrew all charges against ““Catanese”.
32. Between May 20, 2020 and July 13, 2021, “Signs”, “Martino”, and “Daniels”
contended in response to the unemployment compensation claim made by “Catanese” that the
said “Catanese” was not entitled to unemployment compensation because she had not followed
appropriate employment policies and procedures.
COUNT I
PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANT.
DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR.
THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSON UNDER THE 4"
AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
FALSE DETENTION, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 1983 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
33. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 32 are incorporated herein, as though
fully set forth.
34. The previously described actions of “Ingram” from June 9, 2020 to August 14,
2020, constitute violations of “Catanese’s” constitutionally protected right to be secure in her
person as provided by the 4" Amendment of the United States Constitution.35. The arrest of “Catanese” on August 14, 2020 by “Ingram” and her subsequent
prison detention was carried out unlawfully, intentionally and maliciously, without just or
probable cause, for the express purpose of trying to justify the illegal false arrest, false
imprisonment, and malicious prosecution of “Catanese”.
36. The arrest and detention of “Catanese” by “Ingram” violated her rights under the
United States Constitution and the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
37. The actions of “Ingram” were committed under color of law and authority of The
Borough of Yeadon Police Department, while he was acting in his individual capacity as a Police
Officer and Detective.
38. “Ingram’s” actions or inactions were in recklessly disregarded and, therefore,
deprived “Catanese” of her rights under the Laws and Constitution of the United States in
particular, the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, including but not limited to the right
to be secure in her person, to be free from unlawful seizures and arrests.
COUNT II
PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANT,
DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
39. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated herein, as
though fully set forth.
40. | “Ingram” had no probable cause to initiate criminal charges against “Catanese”
and arrest her.
41. All of the criminal proceedings instituted by “Ingram” against “Catanese” were
terminated in her favor when they were withdrawn on July 13, 2021.
42. “Ingram” acted maliciously, intentionally, and deliberately in an attempt to secure
9a wrongful conviction of “Catanese” when he knew that there was no evidence of her having
engaged in any criminal behavior related to her employment at “Signs”.
43. The actions of “Ingram” constitutes malicious prosecution under both 28 U.S.C.A.
section 1983 and the common law.
COUNT Ii
PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANT.
DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
44. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated herein, as
though fully set forth.
45. “Ingram” intentionally and deliberately inflicted emotional distress upon
“Catanese” by initiating and continuing prosecution of “Catanese” with malice and without
probable cause and confining “Catanese” by arrest without probable cause.
46. “Ingram’s” conduct was extreme and outrageous beyond all possible bounds of
decency utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
47. — The actions of “Ingram” were the cause of “Catanese’s” stress.
48. The emotional distress sustained by “Catanese” was severe and of a nature that no
reasonable person could be expected to endure.
COUNT IV
PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANT, BOROUGH OF YEADON’S
FAILURE TO TRAIN, SUPERVISE AND DISCIPLINE DEFENDANT.
DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR. UNDER SECTION 1983 OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT AND MONELL
49. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 48 are incorporated herein, as
though fully set forth.
1050. At all times relevant to the causes of action of “Catanese”, “Ingram” was
employed as a Detective Police Officer of “Yeadon” acting within the course and scope of his
employment with “Yeadon”.
51. “Yeadon” and its Police Department, as a matter of policy and practice failed to
discipline, train, supervise, or sanction “Ingram” who violated the rights of citizens by illegally
arresting them without probable cause or justification, including “Catanese”, thus encouraging
“Ingram” in this matter to engage in the illegal arresting of “Catanese”.
52. “Yeadon” and its Police Department, as a further matter of policy and practice
failed to train properly “Ingram” with respect to the constitutional, statutory, and departmental
limitations of his authority to the arrest of citizens, including “Catanese” without probable cause.
53. “Yeadon” and its Police Department were on actual notice of a need to train,
supervise, discipline, or sanction “Ingram” prior to the incident in question, as other similar
incidents had occurred in which “Ingram” illegally arrested citizens without probable cause.
COUNT V
PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANTS, DAVID MARTINO.
MARTINO SIGNS, INC., AND NICOLETTE DANIELS
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
54. “Catanese” incorporates by reference each and every of the allegations contained
in paragraphs 1 through 53, as though fully set forth herein.
55. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels”, caused a criminal proceeding to be initiated
and continued against “Catanese”.
56. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels”, acted without probable cause in initiating and
icontinuing the criminal proceedings against “Catanese”.
57. A reasonably prudent person in the position of “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels”,
would not believe that “Catanese” was guilty of the criminal offenses for which she was charged.
58. As aresult of the misleading, false, and undocumented information provided by
“Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels” to “Ingram” he filed criminal charges and secured an arrest
warrant resulting in the arrest and incarceration of “Catanese”.
59. On July 13, 2021the criminal charges against “Catanese” were withdrawn.
60. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels” initiate criminal proceedings against
“Catanese” with malice and without probable cause resulting in the arrest of “Catanese” and her
prosecution, but said criminal charges were terminated in her favor on July 13, 2021.
COUNT VI
PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATAN VS. DEFENDANTS, DAVID MARTINO.
MARTINO SIGNS, INC., AND NICOLETTE DANIELS
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
61. “Catanese” incorporates by reference each and every of the allegations contained
in paragraphs 1 through 60, as though fully set forth herein.
62. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels” intentionally caused the arrest of “Catanese”
by initiating and continuing an arrest without probable cause.
63. “Catanese” was arrested and confined to jail from August 14, 2020 to August 17,
2020 when she was finally able to post bail in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($200,000.00).
64. “Catanese’s” arrest and incarceration were caused by the malice, intentional
1239 66
wrongful acts, and extreme and outrageous conduct of “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels”,
COUNT VII
PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANTS, DAVID MARTINO.
MARTINO SIGNS, INC., AND NICOLETTE DANIELS
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
65. “Catanese” incorporates by reference each and every of the allegations contained
in paragraphs 1 through 64, as though fully set forth herein.
66. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels” intentionally and deliberately inflicted
emotional distress upon “Catanese” by initiating and continuing prosecution of “Catanes” with
malice and confining “Catanese” by arrest without probable cause.
67. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels’” conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond
all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
68. — The actions of “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels” were the cause of “Catanese’s”
emotional distress.
69. The emotional distress sustained by “Catanese” was severe and of a nature that no
reasonable person could expect to endure.
COUNT VIII
PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANTS, DAVID MARTINO,
AND NICOLETTE DANIELS
SLANDER, DEFAMATION, AND LIBEL
70. “Catanese” incorporates by reference each and every of the allegations contained
in paragraphs 1 through 69, as though fully set forth herein.
71, “Martino” and “Daniels” have falsely and maliciously engaged in slanderous,
defamatory, and libelist conduct and statements that “Catanese” has committed criminal actions
13in the form of embezzlement, theft, and receipt of “kick backs” during her employment with
“Signs” said false and malicious statements made with the intent of injuring “Catanese” and
depriving her of her good name, credit, and reputation.
72. Atall times mentioned herein, “Catanese” was a law abiding citizen of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Borough
Preview
mmo OOOO oo Ok oO00 OO O00 O QOOOUOOOOU OOoOo00 oO OOOUOOO ooOo00ATLANTIC STATES INSURANCE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMPANY, DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. vs. NICOLE M. CATANESE, DAVID MARTINO, MARTINO SIGNS, INC., NICOLETTE DANIELS, DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR. AND BOROUGH OF YEADON Defendants NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, 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 claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. LAWYER REFERENCE AND INFORMATION SERVICE FRONT AND LEMON STREETS MEDIA PA 19063 215-566-6625EVIN AMARA — SQUIRE 1.D. 72668 ORDON —INHORN SQUIRE L.D. 59006 HOMAS HOMAS AFER LLP P.O. ox 1275 AMP ILL 17001 (717) 237-7132 KMCNAMARA TTHLAW COM OUNSEL FOR LAINTIFF TLANTIC TATES NSURANCE OMPANY ATLANTIC STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff vs. NICOLE M. CATANESE, DAVID MARTINO, MARTINO SIGNS, INC., NICOLETTE DANIELS, DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR. AND BOROUGH OF YEADON. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Atlantic States Insurance Company (hereinafter “Atlantic States”), by its attorneys, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and brings the following Complaint seeking a Declaratory Judgment: THE PARTIES Plaintiff, Atlantic States, is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business located at 1195 River Road, Marietta, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania 17547.Nicole M. Catanese is an adult individual who resides at 211 Pine Valley Drive, Coatesville, PA 19320. David Martino is an adult individual who resides at 101 Mulberry Lane, Newtown Square, PA 19073. Nicolette Daniels is an adult individual who resides at 717 North Jackson Street, Media, PA 19063. Martino Signs, Inc. is a corporation authorized to do business in Pennsylvania with an address at 453 Penn Street, Yeadon, PA 19050. Ferdie O. Ingram, Jr., is a detective employed by the Borough of Yeadon The Borough of Yeadon is a municipal corporation located at 600 Church Lane, Yeadon, Pennsylvania. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Venue lies in Delaware County because, among other things, a transaction or occurrence took place out of which a cause of action in this case arose. This is an action for declaratory judgment brought pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 7531 et seq., and Pa.R.C.P. No. 1601 et seq. FACTS OF UNDERLYING LITIGATION Nicole Catanese initiated a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at docket number 2:22-CV-00821-CJD (the “Underlying Action”). A copy of the Complaint in the Underlying Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Named as Defendants in the Underlying Action are David Martino, Martino Signs, Inc. and Nicolette Daniels (collectively referred to herein as the “Martino Defendants”). David Martino and Nicolette Daniels are alleged to have been employees of Martino Signs, Inc.Detective Ingram and Borough of Yeadon are also named as Defendants in the Underlying Action. As described in the Underlying Action, as to the Martino Defendants, the claims are related to alleged false reports to authorities of criminal conduct by Ms. Catanese while she was employed by Martino Signs, Inc. Detective Ingram is alleged to have charged Ms. Catanese with crimes without an adequate investigation and Borough of Yeadon’s alleged liability stems from its employment of Detective Ingram. According to the Complaint in the Underlying Action, Ms. Catanese was employed by Martino Signs, Inc. in a job that included selling signage to customers and working with subcontractors to produce the signs and install them in accordance with customer specifications. According to the Complaint in the Underlying Action, Ms. Catanese was terminated from her employment by David Martino who thereafter conspired with Nicolette Daniels to contend that Ms. Catanese had engaged in criminal activity while employed by Martino Signs, Inc. The reported criminal activity involved a scheme by Ms. Catanese to defraud Martino Signs’ customers of money by inflating the cost of sign contracts and keeping the difference between the actual cost and the inflated cost for herself. Mr. Martino presented his suspicions about Ms. Catanese to Detective Ingram of the Borough of Yeadon Police Department Ms. Catanese was, thereafter, charged with the crimes of theft by unlawful taking, theft by deception and receiving stolen property. Ms. Catanese was temporarily incarcerated as a result of the charges.Some months after the charges were filed, they were withdrawn by the Delaware County District Attorney. As to the Martino Defendants, the Underlying Action contains Counts for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to Mr. Martino and Nicolette Daniels, the Complaint in the Underlying Action contains a separate Count for slander, defamation and libel. As to Martino Signs, Inc., the Underlying Action contains a Count for vicarious liability related to slander, defamation and libel allegedly committed by Mr. Martino and Ms. Daniels. At the time relevant to the events set forth in the Underlying Action, Atlantic States insured Martino Signs, Inc. pursuant to a Commercial Package Policy under policy number CPA8983724 with effective dates from April 9, 2020 through April 9, 2021. For that same policy period, Martino Signs, Inc. was also insured under a Commercial Liability Umbrella Policy issued by Atlantic States. A copy of the Commercial Package Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit B and a copy of the Commercial Liability Umbrella Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit Cc. After the Complaint in the Underlying Action was filed, a request was presented to Atlantic States by the Martino Defendants for a defense and indemnification under the Commercial Package and Umbrella Policies. Atlantic States agreed to provide a defense to all claims pled in the Underlying Action against the Martino Defendants subject to a reservation of rights.COUNTI CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS — NO COVERAGE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL PACKAGE POLICY — COVERAGE A BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. Liability coverage is afforded to insureds under the Commercial Package Policy under COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM CG 00 01 12 04 (“Form CG 00 01 12 04”). Form CG 00 01 12 04 provides that: “Various provisions in this policy restrict coverage. Read the entire policy carefully to determine rights, duties and what is and is not covered.” (Page 1 of 13 Form CG 00 01 12 04 includes COVERAGE A BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY which provides occurrence-based liability protection from claims that an “insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance applies.” (Page 1 of 13 Additionally, Form CG 00 01 12 04, mandates that Atlantic States has “the right and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. However, [Atlantic States] will have no duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking damages for “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance does not apply ” (Page 1 of 13 The insurance provided under Coverage A applies to “bodily injury” or “property damage” only if the “bodily injury” or “property damage” is caused by an “occurrence” that takes place in the “coverage territory” during the policy period. (Form CG 00 01 12 04, Page 1 of 13The Commercial Package Policy defines the term “occurrence” in pertinent part as “an accident.” (Endorsement CGD 90 33 04 09 When the conduct of an insured is alleged to be intentional, there is no triggering accident or covered “occurrence” under Coverage A As to the Martino Defendants, the claims set forth in the Underlying Action are for intentional conduct and/or do not allege “bodily injury” or “property damage” and, therefore, there is no coverage under Coverage A. The liability insurance provided under Coverage A of the Commercial Package Policy does not apply to: “bodily injury” or “property damage” expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.” (Exclusion , Form CG 00 01 12 04, Page 1 of 13 The Commercial Package Policy also contains aa EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION, Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07, that applies to Coverage A — Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability Pursuant to the EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION, the insurance provided under Coverage A does not apply to: “Bodily injury” to: (1) A person arising out of any: (c) Employment-related practices, policies, acts or omissions, such as coercion, demotion, evaluation, reassignment, discipline, defamation, harassment, humiliation, discrimination or malicious prosecution directed at that person... ” (Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07By its express terms, the EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION applies: (J) = “Whether the injury-causing event . . . occurs before employment, during employment or after employment. . . .” (Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07 For all of the reasons alleged above, as to the Martino Defendants, the insurance provided by the Commercial Package Policy under Coverage A - Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability either does not apply to the claims set forth in the Underlying Action or coverage is excluded. WHEREFORE, Atlantic States Insurance Company respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and that a declaration be issued that there is no coverage under the Commercial Package Policy and no duty to defend or indemnify the Martino Defendants for the claims in the Underlying Action. COUNT II CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS - NO COVERAGE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL PACKAGE POLICY — COVERAGE B PERSONAL AND ADVERTISING INJURY LIABILITY The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. Form CG 00 01 12 04 includes COVERAGE B PERSONAL AND ADVERTISING INJURY LIABILITY which provides for the payment of sums “that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “personal and advertising injury” to which this insurance applies.” (Page 5 of 13 Additionally, Form CG 00 01 12 04, mandates that Atlantic States: has “the right and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. However, [AtlanticStates] will have no duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking damages for “personal and advertising injury” to which this insurance does not apply.” (Page 5 of 13 The insurance provided under Coverage B applies to “personal and advertising injury caused by an offense arising out of the insured’s business but only if the offense was committed in the “coverage territory” during the policy period. (Form CG 00 01 12 04, Page 5 of 13 As to the Martino Defendants, the Complaint in the Underlying Action contains causes of action for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation. False imprisonment, malicious prosecution and defamation are each offenses under Coverage B in the Commercial Package Policy. (see, definition of “personal and advertising injury,” Form CG 00 01 12 04, Page 12 of 13 However, the Commercial Package Policy also contains an EMPLOYMENT- RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION, Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07, that applies to Coverage B — Personal And Advertising Injury Liability Pursuant to the EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION, the insurance provided under Coverage B does not apply to “Bodily injury” to: (1) A person arising out of any: (c) Employment-related practices, policies, acts or omissions, such as coercion, demotion, evaluation, reassignment, discipline, defamation, harassment, humiliation, discrimination or malicious prosecution directed at that person... ”(Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07 By its express terms, the EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION applies: (1) = “Whether the injury-causing event . . . occurs before employment, during employment or after employment. . . .” (Endorsement CG 21 47 12 07 The Employment-Related Practices Exclusion endorsement applies in this case to preclude coverage under Coverage B as the allegations in the Underlying Action pertain to alleged false reporting by the Martino Defendants of criminal conduct by Ms. Catanese that specifically relate to things she allegedly did in conjunction with her employment by Martino Signs. The claims against the Martino Defendants inthe Underlying Action specifically relate to criminal conduct and reported crimes that arose from.her employment including embezzlement, theft and receipt of kickbacks during employment and defrauding Martino Signs’ customers of money. All of the conduct alleged as to the Martino Defendants fits within the description of excluded employment-related practices, policies, acts or omissions. Accordingly, there is no coverage under Coverage B In addition, the insurance provided under Coverage B is subject to various exclusions including Knowing Violation Of Rights Of Another and Material Published with Knowledge Of Falsity Pursuant to the Knowing Violation Of Rights Of Another exclusion, the insurance provided under Coverage B does not apply to: “Personal and advertising injury” caused by or at the direction of the insured with the knowledgethat the act would violate the rights of another and would inflict “personal and advertising injury.” (Form CG 00 01 12 04, Page 5 of 13 Pursuant to the Material Published with Knowledge Of Falsity exclusion, the insurance provided under Coverage B does not apply to: “Personal and advertising injury” arising out of oral or written publication of material, if done by or at the direction of the insured with knowledge of its falsity.” Form CG 00 01 12 04 Page 5 of 13 For all of the reasons alleged above, as to the Martino Defendants, the insurance’ provided by the Commercial Package Policy under Coverage B — Personal And Advertising Injury Liability either does not apply to the claims set forth in the Underlying Action or coverage is excluded. WHEREFORE, Atlantic States Insurance Company respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and that a declaration be issued that there is no coverage under the Commercial Package Policy and no duty to defend or indemnify the Martino Defendants for the claims in the Underlying Action. COUNT III NO COVERAGE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OR ATTORNEYS’ FEES The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. The Complaint in the Underlying Action contains a claim for punitive damages. Under Pennsylvania law, punitive damages are not insurable for direct liability.To the extent the Complaint in the Underlying Action alleges punitive damages against Martino Signs on the basis of vicarious responsibility for defamation, there is no duty to defend an employer under Pennsylvania law against a suit alleging liability stemming from conduct of employees that is itself excluded. As explained above, the claims for defamation against employees of Martino Signs, Inc. are excluded for multiple reasons and as such, the vicarious liability claims against Martino Signs, Inc. are excluded as well. The Complaint in the Underlying Action contains a claim for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b). Fees under §1988(b) may be awarded to a prevailing party in any case filed under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The §1983 claims set forth in the Underlying Action are against Detective Ingram and the Borough of Yeadon for charges brought against Ms. Catanese. The §1988 fee statute only applies to state actors. It does not apply to the Martino Defendants. In addition, the claim for counsel fees is not for “bodily injury” or “property damage” nor is it otherwise an element of insured damages under the Commercial Package Policy. WHEREFORE, Atlantic States Insurance Company respectfully requests the entry of a declaratory judgment in its favor that the company has not duty to indemnify the Martino Defendants for punitive damages and/or attorney’s fees.COUNT IV COVERAGE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL LIABILITY UMBRELLA The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. The Commercial Liability Umbrella contains the same exclusions and endorsements as the underlying Commercial Package Policy and therefore there is no coverage under the Commercial Liability Umbrella either. Punitive damages are expressly excluded from the Commercial Liability Umbrella. (see, Endorsement CUD 90 06 03 06 WHEREFORE, Atlantic States Insurance Company respectfully requests declaratory judgment in its favor and that there is no coverage under the Commercial Liability Umbrella for the allegations made in the Underlying Action. Respectfully submitted, THORAMERAS Bris OM asian 2. Kevin C. McNamara, Esq. PA LD. No. 72668 Eiitndon 590806 DPA 12B8x0. 17001 PAtdinp 2-132OF CERTIFICATE I certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. eon (a dD Kevin C. McNamara THONHRERAS3844. (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEET ‘The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. exeept as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. ” (SH INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Nicole Catanese David Martino, Martino Signs, Inc., Nicolette Daniels, Detective Ferdie O. Ingram, and Borough of Yeadon (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Chester County (EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES) County of Residence of First Listed Defendant _Delaware County (IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE; IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (ce) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) Harry J. Oxman, Esquire 1518 Walnut Street, Suite 1010 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 665-9999 IL. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Pace an "x" in One Box Only} HI. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X" in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Bax for Defendant) 1 US. Government 93. Federal Question PTF DEF PTF | DEF Plaintiff (US, Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 ML Incorporated or Principal Place = O44 of Business In This State 19.2. US. Government 4. Diversity Citizen of Another State 2-2 Incorporated and Principal Place = 5 OS Defendant (indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item II) of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a 3 OG 3. Foreign Nation os 6 IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “x” in One Box Only) 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY | 625 Drug Related Seizure J 422 Appeal 28USC 158 | £375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 07 310 Airplane 3-365 Personal Injury ~ of Property 21 USC 881 }(0)423 Withdrawal GF 400 State Reapportionment 130 Miller Act 1-315 Airplane Product Product Liability |] 690 Other 28 USC 157 GF 410 Antitrast F140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 03 367 Health Care/ D430 Banks and Banking D150 Recovery of Overpayment | 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical 450 Commerce & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 1 820 Copyrights 1 460 Deportation 1 151 Medicare Act 10330 Federal Employers” Product Liability 830 Patent 470 Racketeer Influenced and D152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 1) 368 Asbestos Personal GF 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations Student Loans 1-340 Marine Injury Product 1 480 Consumer Credit (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability © 490 Cable/Sat TV C0 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY [0 710 Fair Labor Standards [0 861 HIA (13951) D850 Securities/Commodities! of Veteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 370 Other Fraud 1D 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange 0 160 Stockholders” Suits 355 Motor Vehicle F371 Truth in Lending [1-720 Labor/Management 2 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) | C890 Other Statutory Actions 7 190 Other Contract Product Liability _) 380 Other Personal Relations 1D 864 SSID Title XVI D891 Agricultural Acts 195 Contract Prochuct Liat 1 360 Other Personal Property Damage {1 740 Railway Labor Act 15 865 RSI (405(g)) D893 Environmental Matters 1 196 Franchise Injury © 385 Property Damage |) 751 Family and Medical 1 895 Freedom of Information 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act Medical Malpra 790 Other Labor Litigation D896 Arbitration NER PETITIONS = [0 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS | 899 Administrative Procedure 0 210 Land Condemnation 01440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act (870 Taxes (US. Plaintiff ‘ActReview or Appeal of © 220 Foreclosure 7 441 Voting 0 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) ‘Agency Decision 1 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment | C1 442 Employment D510 Motions to Vacate 0 871 IRS—Third Party D950 Constitutionality of 1D 240Torts to Land 1 443 Housing! Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes D245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations |) $30 General F290 All Other Real Property | 1 445 Amer. w/Disabilitics -| C1 535 Death Penalty Employment Other: 1 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -]©) 540 Mandamus & Other |) 465 Other Immigration Other 1%) 550 Civil Rights Actions 0 448 Education 555 Prison Condition 1 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only) 1 Original 13.2 Removed from G3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 1 6 Multidistriet Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation (speci Gite (es us: Givi Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): .8.C. Section VI. CAUSE OF ACTION [are ieccription of cause: Civil rights and State claims VIL. REQUESTED IN =O CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ ‘CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: XY Yes No VUI, RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY Gee insrwctions pockET NUMBER DATE 2d FOR OFFICE USE ONLY [NATURE OF ce ] JUDGE MAG. JUDGE EXHIBIT A RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING [FPUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. DESIGNATION FORM (to be used by counsel or pro se plaintiff to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to the appropriate calendar) Address of Plaintiff: 211 Pine Valley Drive, Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 4101 Mulberry Lane, Newtown Square, PA 19073, 453 Penn Street, Yeadon, PA 19060, 717 North Jackson Street, Media, PA 19063 and 600 Church Lane, Yeadon, PA 19050 Address of Defendant: ” * Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction: 211 Pine Valley Drive, Coatesville, PA 19320 RELATED CASE, IF ANY: Case Number: Judge: Date Terminated: Civil cases are deemed related when Yes is answered to any of the following questions: 1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year ves[_ | previously terminated action in this court? Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit ves[_] pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier Yes C] numbered case pending or within one year previously terminated action of this court? Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights Yes A case filed by the same individual? I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case [1 is / [9] is not related now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court except as noted above. | DATE: {4 boo s 13116 Attorney ILD. # (if applicable) CIVIL: (Place a Vin one category only) Federal Question Cases: Diversity Jurisdiction Cases: Insurance Contract and Other Contracts Airplane Personal Injury Assault, Defamation Marine Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Personal Injury Other Personal Injury (Please specify): Products Liability Habeas Corpus Products Liability — Asbestos ). Securities Act(s) Cases . All other Diversity Cases . Social Security Review Cases (Please specify): Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts FELA Jones Act-Personal Injury Antitrust Patent Labor-Management Relations Civil Rights QOoo0o0o0o0o000 . All other Federal Question Cases (Please specify): A O oO oO oO 4 Oo H a ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION (The effect of this certification is to remove the case from eligibility for arbitration.) Harry J. Oxman, ESqQuITe sunset ofrecord or pro se plaintiff do hereby certify: Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, § 3(c) (2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs: LC] Relief other than monetary damages is sought. DATE: aulgo- whe 13116 Attorney LD. # (if applicable) NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38. Civ, 609 (5/2018)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM Nicole M. Catanese : CIVIL ACTION vs. No. David Martino, Martino Signs, Inc., Nicolette Daniels, Detective Ferdie O. Ingram, Jr., and The Borough of Yeadon In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned. SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS; (a) Habeas Corpus — Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through § 2255. () (b) Social Security — Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits. () (c) Arbitration — Cases required to be designated.for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. () (d) Asbestos — Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from exposure to asbestos. () (e) Special Management — Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special management cases.) () (f) Standard Management — Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks. (x ) al Yn Harry J. Oxman, Esquire Nicole M. Catanese Date Attorney-at-law Attorney for Plaintiff (215) 665-9999 (215) 569-8811 Oxmanh@ogklawyers.com Telephone FAX Number E-Mail Address (Civ. 660) 10/02OXMAN GOODSTADT KURITZ, PC Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: HARRY OXMAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 13116 JOSEPH S. OXMAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 207956 1518 Walnut Street, Suite 1010 Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-665-9999 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NICOLE M. CATANESE : CIVIL ACTION 211 Pine Valley Drive : Coatesville, PA 19320 : No. Plaintiff, vs. DAVID MARTINO : 101 Mulberry Lane : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Newtown Square, PA 19073 ‘ and MARTINO SIGNS, INC. 453 Penn Street Yeadon, PA 19050 and NICOLETTE DANIELS 717 North Jackson Street Media, PA 19063 and DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR. 600.Church Lane Yeadon, PA 19050 and BOROUGH OF YEADON 600 Church Lane Yeadon, PA 19050 COMPLAINT PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Nicole M. Catanese is an adult individual and citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, residing at 211 Pine Valley Drive, Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320. Hereinafter,Plaintiff, Nicole M. Catanese, shall be referred to as “Catanese”. 2. Defendant, David Martino, is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 101 Mulberry Lane, Newtown Square, PA 19072. Hereinafter, the Defendant, David Martino, shall be referred to as “Martino”. 3. Defendant, Martino Signs, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 453 Penn Street, Yeadon, Pennsylvania 19050. Hereinafter, Defendant, Martino Signs, Inc., shall be referred to as “Signs”. 4, Defendant, Nicolette Daniels, is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing at 717 North Jackson Street, Media, Pennsylvania 19063. Hereinafter, Defendant, Nicolette Daniels, shall be referred to as “Daniels”. 5. Defendant, Police Detective Ferdie O. Ingram, Jr., was at all times relevant to this matter an employee of the Defendant, Borough of Yeadon. Hereinafter, Defendant, Police Detective Ferdie O. Ingram, Jr., shall be referred to as “Ingram”. At all times relevant to this litigation, “Ingram”, was acting under the color of law and in his individual capacity as a Detective Police Officer of the Borough of Yeadon. 6. Defendant, Borough of Yeadon was and continues to be a Domestic Municipal Corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 600 Church Lane, Yeadon, Pennsylvania 19050. Hereinafter, Defendant Borough of Yeadon, shall be referred to as “Yeadon”. At all times relevant to this litigation, “Yeadon” was the employer of “Ingram” who was acting in his capacity as a Police Detective within the course and scope of his employment.JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. The Court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit against “Ingram” and “Yeadon” because the actions against them arises under the Laws and the Constitution of the United States, in particular, the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. 8. “Catanese” was deprived of her rights secured to her under the Constitution and the laws of the United States including, but not limited to, her right to be secure in her person and property and be free from unlawful arrests and seizures, and freedom from imprisonments when no probable cause exists. 9. “Catanese” was falsely charged without probable cause and was falsely and maliciously imprisoned and prosecuted without any cause or legal justification. 10. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction including but not limited to violations of her State rights against the above named defendants for malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, slander, and libel because these claims are so related to the claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy within Article A3 3 of the United States Constitution. 11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, as the claims at issue arise in this judicial district. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 12. _ At all times relevant to the causes of action of “Catanese”, “Martino”, was the president and chief operating officer of “Signs” which was in the business of creating and selling signs to various users in Mid-Atlantic State area. All of the acts done or not done by “Martino” were done as the agent, servant, workman, and/or employee of “Signs” acting within the courseand scope of his employment and on the business of “Signs”. 13. Atall times relevant to the causes of action of “Catanese”, “Daniels” was the Chief Financial Officer of “Signs”. All of the acts done or not done by “Daniels” were done as the agent, servant, workman, and/or employee of “Signs” acting within the course and scope of her employment and on the business of “Signs”. 14. Atall times relevant to the causes of action of “Catanese”, “Ingram” was a Detective Police Officer in the employ of the “Yeadon” acting as its agent, servant, workman, and/or employee. All of the acts done or not done by “Ingram” were done as the agent, servant, workman, and/or employee of “Yeadon” and were done within the course and scope of his employment and on the business of “Yeadon”. 15. Prior to May 19, 2020 “Catanese” became an employee of “Signs” having been hired by “Martino”. Her job responsibilities included the selling of signage to customers of “Signs” and working with subcontractors of “Signs” to produce the signs and install them in accordance with contracts with customers for the purchase of said signs. The subcontractors of “Signs” submitted to “Signs” purchase orders for work performed with reference to the sign sales consummated by “Catanese”. 16. “Martino” supervised at all times the work activities of “Catanese”. “Daniels” in her capacity as Chief Financial Officer of “Signs” received the purchase orders from subcontractors and made payments to these subcontractors with the approval of “Martino”. 17. In January of 2020 “Signs” and “Martino” rewarded “Catanese” for her performance with an annual raise of $15,000.00. 18. | On or about May 19, 2020 “Catanese” and “Martio” had a disagreement related to “Martino’s” treatment of “Catanese”.19. On the following day, May 20, 2020 when “Catanese” arrived to work she was approached by “Martino” who informed her that he could no longer afford her salary and that she was, therefore, terminated and directed to leave the office of “Signs” immediately. 20. Later that day “Catanese” communicated with “Daniels” and confirmed her termination from employment with “Signs” by “Martino”, and further requested that “Daniels” provide her with information conceming her pay, accrued vacation days and personal days status requesting that all the accrued days for which she was entitled to payment be placed in a check and deposited directly into her account. In addition, she requested a letter from “Signs” and/or “Daniels” or “Martino” explaining the reasons for her termination so that she would be in a position to apply for unemployment benefits. 21. Despite having made repeated efforts to communicate with “Daniels” about the requested letter and monies owed to her from her employment no response was forthcoming. 22. “Catanese” thereafter filed with the appropriate State agency for unemployment compensation as she sought new employment. 23. Subsequent to May 20, 2020 “Martino” and “Daniels” began to conspire on behalf of “Signs” to contend that “Catanese” over a period of two or more years as an employee of “Signs” had engaged in criminal activity to embezzle monies from “Signs” and to defraud their customers of monies by inflating the cost of contracts for the sale and installation of signs and keeping the difference between the actual sale price and the inflated prices for herself. “Martino” and “Daniels” claim that the criminal conduct of “Catanese” had resulted in monetary losses suffered by “Signs” and its customers in amounts totaling 4 to 5 Million Dollars. “Martino” and “Daniels” made these contention even though they were aware that the allegations were false and without substance of proof of the truth of such allegations.24. In furtherance of this conspiracy “Martino” contacted “Ingram” in June of 2020 in his capacity as a Detective of the Borough of Yeadon Police Department requesting that he meet with “Martino” and discuss an investigation of fraud and theft allegedly committed by “Catanese” while employed by “Signs”. 25. On June 9, 2020, “Martino” and “Ingram” met at “Signs” to commence discussion about the investigation. “Martino” explained the alleged scheme that “Catanese” engaged in to commit the theft and fraud. He further represented that he and “Daniels” would provide documentary proof demonstrating the criminal conduct of “Catanese” and the extent of the monies that she allegedly embezzled and/or stole from “Signs” and its customers. 26. Subsequent to June 9, 2020, “Ingram” began a purported investigation apparently consisting of an effort to contact “Catanese” but he did not request as part of his investigation the documentation of the alleged criminal behavior by “Catanese” from “Signs”, “Martino”, and “Daniels”. Direct contact was made with “Catanese” by telephone and during said telephone conversation “Ingram” advised “Catanese” that he was investigating criminal behavior that “Catanese” allegedly engaged in while employed by “Signs” in the form of “kickbacks”. “Catanese” requested details of this alleged criminal behavior, and “Ingram” declined to discuss the details but requested that “Catanese” come to the Borough of Yeadon Police Station for questioning. ‘‘Catanese” responded that she was not available and if the investigation were to continue “Ingram” needed to contact her attorney. 27, On June 23, 2020, “Ingram” without having reviewed any documentation from “Signs”, “Martino”, and “Daniels” which allegedly would establish the criminal behavior of “Catanese,” he nevertheless, filed criminal charges against “Catanese” alleging that she committed while employed by “Signs” the crimes of theft by unlawful taking; theft by deception;and receiving stolen property. On August 4, 2020, “Ingram” again, without any documentation to support the allegations of criminal behavior alleged to have been engaged in by “Catanese” swore to an Affidavit of Probable Cause before a Magistrate and received an arrest warrant for “Catanese”. This Affidavit of Probable Cause contained representations made to “Ingram” by “Martino” without any investigation being conducted by “Ingram” to support said allegations. All of these allegations were false, and an appropriate and reasonable investigation by “Ingram” would have established the falsity of said allegations. 28. On August 14, 2020 “Catanese” while at her home at approximately 2:30 p.m., as she was packing her vehicle to leave for a summer vacation, she was approached in front of her house by two Valley Township Police Officers who informed her that they had a warrant for her arrest. The arrest warrant was executed and “Catanese” was taken into police custody and placed in a cell at the Valley Township Police Department. Later inthe day “Ingram” arrived and transported “Catanese” to the Media Courthouse. As “Ingram” and “Catanese” where attempting to enter the Courthouse the temperature of “Catanese” was taken and it was alleged that she was suffering from a fever and signs of COVID-19, as a result of which she was immediately taken while remaining in police custody to the ER at Riddle Memorial Hospital where she was handcuffed and awaited medical evaluation. Ultimately, it was determined that she was not suffering from COVID-19 symptoms or any fever and was then discharged from Riddle Memorial Hospital and taken while handcuffed back to the Media Courthouse where she was incarcerated awaiting a bail hearing. 29. While at the Media Courthouse “Catanese” underwent a criminal arraignment and bail was set at $200,000.00 requiring “Catanese” to post a minimum of 10% in order to obtain her release which she was unable to do thus resulting in her transfer to the George W. HillCorrectional Facility. 30. After several days at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility “Catanese” through the assistance of David Long was able to secure bail through the efforts of a professional bail bondsman. 31. | Subsequent to her release from the George W. Hill Correctional Facility on or about August 17, 2020, “Catanese” retained Nicole Thompson, Esquire as her counsel. After multiple hearings which were continued until July 13, 2021 the Delaware County District Attomey’s office on that date withdrew all charges against ““Catanese”. 32. Between May 20, 2020 and July 13, 2021, “Signs”, “Martino”, and “Daniels” contended in response to the unemployment compensation claim made by “Catanese” that the said “Catanese” was not entitled to unemployment compensation because she had not followed appropriate employment policies and procedures. COUNT I PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANT. DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR. THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSON UNDER THE 4" AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FALSE DETENTION, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 1983 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 33. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 32 are incorporated herein, as though fully set forth. 34. The previously described actions of “Ingram” from June 9, 2020 to August 14, 2020, constitute violations of “Catanese’s” constitutionally protected right to be secure in her person as provided by the 4" Amendment of the United States Constitution.35. The arrest of “Catanese” on August 14, 2020 by “Ingram” and her subsequent prison detention was carried out unlawfully, intentionally and maliciously, without just or probable cause, for the express purpose of trying to justify the illegal false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution of “Catanese”. 36. The arrest and detention of “Catanese” by “Ingram” violated her rights under the United States Constitution and the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 37. The actions of “Ingram” were committed under color of law and authority of The Borough of Yeadon Police Department, while he was acting in his individual capacity as a Police Officer and Detective. 38. “Ingram’s” actions or inactions were in recklessly disregarded and, therefore, deprived “Catanese” of her rights under the Laws and Constitution of the United States in particular, the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, including but not limited to the right to be secure in her person, to be free from unlawful seizures and arrests. COUNT II PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANT, DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 39. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated herein, as though fully set forth. 40. | “Ingram” had no probable cause to initiate criminal charges against “Catanese” and arrest her. 41. All of the criminal proceedings instituted by “Ingram” against “Catanese” were terminated in her favor when they were withdrawn on July 13, 2021. 42. “Ingram” acted maliciously, intentionally, and deliberately in an attempt to secure 9a wrongful conviction of “Catanese” when he knew that there was no evidence of her having engaged in any criminal behavior related to her employment at “Signs”. 43. The actions of “Ingram” constitutes malicious prosecution under both 28 U.S.C.A. section 1983 and the common law. COUNT Ii PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANT. DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 44. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated herein, as though fully set forth. 45. “Ingram” intentionally and deliberately inflicted emotional distress upon “Catanese” by initiating and continuing prosecution of “Catanese” with malice and without probable cause and confining “Catanese” by arrest without probable cause. 46. “Ingram’s” conduct was extreme and outrageous beyond all possible bounds of decency utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 47. — The actions of “Ingram” were the cause of “Catanese’s” stress. 48. The emotional distress sustained by “Catanese” was severe and of a nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure. COUNT IV PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANT, BOROUGH OF YEADON’S FAILURE TO TRAIN, SUPERVISE AND DISCIPLINE DEFENDANT. DETECTIVE FERDIE O. INGRAM, JR. UNDER SECTION 1983 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND MONELL 49. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 48 are incorporated herein, as though fully set forth. 1050. At all times relevant to the causes of action of “Catanese”, “Ingram” was employed as a Detective Police Officer of “Yeadon” acting within the course and scope of his employment with “Yeadon”. 51. “Yeadon” and its Police Department, as a matter of policy and practice failed to discipline, train, supervise, or sanction “Ingram” who violated the rights of citizens by illegally arresting them without probable cause or justification, including “Catanese”, thus encouraging “Ingram” in this matter to engage in the illegal arresting of “Catanese”. 52. “Yeadon” and its Police Department, as a further matter of policy and practice failed to train properly “Ingram” with respect to the constitutional, statutory, and departmental limitations of his authority to the arrest of citizens, including “Catanese” without probable cause. 53. “Yeadon” and its Police Department were on actual notice of a need to train, supervise, discipline, or sanction “Ingram” prior to the incident in question, as other similar incidents had occurred in which “Ingram” illegally arrested citizens without probable cause. COUNT V PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANTS, DAVID MARTINO. MARTINO SIGNS, INC., AND NICOLETTE DANIELS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 54. “Catanese” incorporates by reference each and every of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 53, as though fully set forth herein. 55. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels”, caused a criminal proceeding to be initiated and continued against “Catanese”. 56. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels”, acted without probable cause in initiating and icontinuing the criminal proceedings against “Catanese”. 57. A reasonably prudent person in the position of “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels”, would not believe that “Catanese” was guilty of the criminal offenses for which she was charged. 58. As aresult of the misleading, false, and undocumented information provided by “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels” to “Ingram” he filed criminal charges and secured an arrest warrant resulting in the arrest and incarceration of “Catanese”. 59. On July 13, 2021the criminal charges against “Catanese” were withdrawn. 60. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels” initiate criminal proceedings against “Catanese” with malice and without probable cause resulting in the arrest of “Catanese” and her prosecution, but said criminal charges were terminated in her favor on July 13, 2021. COUNT VI PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATAN VS. DEFENDANTS, DAVID MARTINO. MARTINO SIGNS, INC., AND NICOLETTE DANIELS FALSE IMPRISONMENT 61. “Catanese” incorporates by reference each and every of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, as though fully set forth herein. 62. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels” intentionally caused the arrest of “Catanese” by initiating and continuing an arrest without probable cause. 63. “Catanese” was arrested and confined to jail from August 14, 2020 to August 17, 2020 when she was finally able to post bail in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00). 64. “Catanese’s” arrest and incarceration were caused by the malice, intentional 1239 66 wrongful acts, and extreme and outrageous conduct of “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels”, COUNT VII PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANTS, DAVID MARTINO. MARTINO SIGNS, INC., AND NICOLETTE DANIELS INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 65. “Catanese” incorporates by reference each and every of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 64, as though fully set forth herein. 66. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels” intentionally and deliberately inflicted emotional distress upon “Catanese” by initiating and continuing prosecution of “Catanes” with malice and confining “Catanese” by arrest without probable cause. 67. “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels’” conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 68. — The actions of “Martino”, “Signs”, and “Daniels” were the cause of “Catanese’s” emotional distress. 69. The emotional distress sustained by “Catanese” was severe and of a nature that no reasonable person could expect to endure. COUNT VIII PLAINTIFF, NICOLE M. CATANESE VS. DEFENDANTS, DAVID MARTINO, AND NICOLETTE DANIELS SLANDER, DEFAMATION, AND LIBEL 70. “Catanese” incorporates by reference each and every of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 69, as though fully set forth herein. 71, “Martino” and “Daniels” have falsely and maliciously engaged in slanderous, defamatory, and libelist conduct and statements that “Catanese” has committed criminal actions 13in the form of embezzlement, theft, and receipt of “kick backs” during her employment with “Signs” said false and malicious statements made with the intent of injuring “Catanese” and depriving her of her good name, credit, and reputation. 72. Atall times mentioned herein, “Catanese” was a law abiding citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Borough