ADVANCE SHEET The Dauphin County Reporter
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ADVANCE SHEET
The Dauphin County Reporter
(USPS 810-200)
A WEEKLY JOURNAL CONTAINING
THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE
--
12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
No. 6357 Vol. 127 May 20, 2022 No. 101
Entered as Second Class Matter, February 16, 1898, at the Post Office at
Harrisburg, PA, under the Act of Congress of March 31, 1879.
WEBPAGEFX, INC. v. BMARKO STRUCTURES, LLC 99
Bar Association Page Back Pages
THE THE DAUPHIN COUNTY
DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTER REPORTER (USPS 810-200) is
Edited and published by the published weekly by the Dauphin
DAUPHIN COUNTY County Bar Association, 213 North
BAR ASSOCIATION Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101.
213 North Front Street Periodical postage paid at Harrisburg,
Harrisburg, PA 17101 PA. POSTMASTER: Send address
(717) 232-7536 changes to THE DAUPHIN
www.dcba-pa.org COUNTY REPORTER, 213 North
Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101.
PATRICE MERZANIS
Executive Director TERMS: Advertisements must be
KENDRA HEINBAUGH received before 12 o’clock noon on
Administrative Assistant/Office Manager Tuesday of each week at the office of
BRIDGETTE L. HILBISH the Dauphin County Reporter, 213
Dauphin County Reporter/ North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA
Legal Education Coordinator
17101; Telephone: (717) 232-7536,
Ext. #4; Email: Bridgette@dcba-pa.org.
Printed by: You will want to call us or check
K-PRESS our website to confirm deadline for
P.O. Box 1626, York, PA 17405 Holiday weeks.
99 (2022)] DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS 99
WEBPAGEFX, INC. v. BMARKO STRUCTURES, LLC
ORDER
th
AND NOW, this 7 day of February 2022, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs’ “Amended
Motion for Special Injunction with Notice and Preliminary Injunction after a Hearing,” and following
hearings on November 19, 2021 and January 24, 2022, it is hereby DIRECTED that Plaintiffs’ Amended
Motion for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED.
To the extent any party seeks that the Court hold further proceedings on modification (blue
penciling) of the Non-Competition Covenant’s overly broad geographic scope, such party must petition the
Court.
This Court notes that Defendant Janoski remains obligated to all terms and conditions set forth in
his Confidential Separation Agreement and Employment Agreement, which prohibits his disclosure to the
Long Home Defendants of any of West Shore's confidential information and trade secrets, and
Defendants must continue to comply with the following conditions:
1. All Defendants must return any of West Shore's confidential information and trade
secrets within their current possession, regardless of format;
2. All Defendants must immediately return and deliver to West Shore all West Shore
documents, data, or property currently within Defendants’ possession or control;
3. All Defendants are prohibited from misappropriating, using or disclosing to any
person or entity West Shore's confidential information and trade secrets; and
possessing any original copies or summaries of West Shore's confidential
information and trade secrets in any form, electronic or otherwise;
Finally, this Court recognizes that the holdings set forth in this Opinion and Order are largely based
upon the representations made at the Supplemental Hearing by Dave Normandin, President of the Long Home
Defendants, that Long Home will honor Defendant Janoski’s Non-Competition Covenant with Plaintiffs and
will limit its business solely to roofing sales and installations through the expiration of the Non-Competition
Covenant, on April 14, 2023. As such, this Order is entered without prejudice to the Court re-considering the
Amended Motion should these representations change.
WEBPAGEFX, INC. v. BMARKO STRUCTURES, LLC
NO. 2020 CV 12168 CV
Civil Action – Employment Law - Breach of Contract –
Enforceability of No-hire Restrictive Covenant
The Court overruled defendant’s preliminary objections, in the nature of a demurrer, which sought to
dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging breach of contract against defendant for violating the terms of their no-
hire provision.
1. Plaintiff, a Pa. corporation and provider of digital marketing services, entered into a contract with
defendant, a Georgia limited liability company in the business of modular construction, to provide it with
web marketing services. The contract included a "no-hire” or “no-poaching” provision that precluded
defendant, for a five-year period after services completion, from hiring “any current or former employee [of
plaintiff]." In 2020, the employee Wise, who was assigned by plaintiff to work with defendant, resigned from
plaintiff’s employment and was immediately hired as defendant’s marketing manager.
100 DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS [127 DAUPHIN
WEBPAGEFX, INC. v. BMARKO STRUCTURES, LLC
2. Plaintiff’s complaint included a single count for breach of contract against defendant for breaching the
no-hire provision. It sought monetary damages for revenues it claims Wise would earned for plaintiff had
defendant not poached him.
3. Defendant argued that the no-hire provision was unenforceable as a matter of law pursuant to Pittsburgh
Logistics Sys., Inc. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC, 249 A.3d 918 (Pa. 2021). There, in a matter of first impression,
our Supreme Court held that the no-hire provision at issue, which was ancillary to a services contract between
business entities, was unenforceable under the reasonableness test it applied to no-hire provisions.
4. This Court overruled defendant’s demurrer holding that Pittsburgh Logistics was not applicable because
plaintiff sought damages and not equitable relief. Under Pennsylvania law, the reasonableness of a
contractual term in a restraint of trade provision is not relevant where damages are sought. As such, the
Pittsburgh Logistics reasonableness test did not apply to this matter.
5. In dicta, the Court noted that had it found Pittsburgh Logistics applicable, it would have likely held that
the no-hire provision was unenforceable as unreasonably in restraint of trade, primarily because it was
overbroad and harmed the public. The Court further noted, had the issue been reached, it would have declined
to “blue-pencil,” or reform, the overly broad restrictions to make them enforceable because that remedy is
only available to a court of equity.
Alan R. Boynton, Jr., Esquire
Christian M. Wolgemuth, Esquire
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Jeffrey C. Clark, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
McNally, J. May 5, 2022
OPINION
In this matter, Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to money damages from Defendant as the result
of Defendant’s breach of the parties’ no-hire provision when Defendant “poached” Plaintiff’s former
employee. Defendant has filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer asserting that the no-hire
provision is unenforceable as a matter of law pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision
in Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC. 249 A.3d 918 (Pa. 2021). For the reasons set
forth below, this Court overrules Defendant’s demurrer, holding that Pittsburgh Logistics is not applicable
here.
Background
Plaintiff WebPageFX, Inc. (Plaintiff or “WebFX”), a Pennsylvania corporation, is a provider
of digital marketing services. It filed its Complaint on April 20, 2021 against Defendant BMarko Structures,
LLC (Defendant or “BMarko”), a Georgia limited liability company in the business of modular construction.
Plaintiff alleges that on February 17, 2019, the parties executed a services contract ("Contract") whereby
Plaintiff agreed to provide Defendant with various technical services, including search engine optimization,
project management, digital content, and web marketing strategy services, identified as the "BMarko
Project." Paragraph 7 of the Contract’s “Terms & Conditions,” includes a restrictive covenant, commonly
referred to as a "no-hire provision," that provides: "For a period of five (5) years after the Project and
future services completion, [BMarko] agrees not to hire or utilize the outside services of any current
or former WebFX employee." (Complaint Exbt. A (emphasis added)) Plaintiff asserts that this ancillary99 (2022)] DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS 101
WEBPAGEFX, INC. v. BMARKO STRUCTURES, LLC
restrictive covenant clause is intended to prevent Defendant from poaching its employees in whom Plaintiff
has invested substantial time and financial resources. The Contract does not contain any language addressing
the remedies available to Plaintiff should the Defendant hire an employee in violation of the no-hire
provision.
In June of 2018, Plaintiff hired Tyler Wise, and asserts that it thereafter invested substantial time,
financial resources, and other resources to train him to effectively provide services to Plaintiff’s clients. In
2019, Plaintiff assigned Wise to work on the BMarko Project, and Wise provided services to Defendant until
he voluntarily resigned from Plaintiff’s employment, effective February 21, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that Wise
immediately began to work for Defendant as a marketing manager. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant
offered Wise employment while he was still employed by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff asserts in its Complaint a single count for breach of contract against BMarko for
violating the no-hire provision. It seeks monetary damages for revenues it claims it would have earned for
services Wise would have provided for Plaintiff’s customers had he not been poached by Defendant. Plaintiff
alleges that until Wise resigned, his services had generated annual revenue of over $240,000 for Plaintiff.
Plaintiff additionally asserts in its Complaint that Wise’s employment agreement with it
contained post-employment restrictions, including non-compete and non-solicitation provisions. Plaintiff,
however, has not named Wise as a party to this action, has not attached Wise’s employment agreement to the
Complaint and does not otherwise assert a claim seeking equitable relief to enforce the restrictive covenants
against Wise including that he be enjoined from working for Defendant. Instead, Plaintiff’s current action is
solely grounded on a claim that Defendant BMarko breached the no-hire provision causing Plaintiff monetary
damages.
Legal Discussion
Defendant has filed preliminary objections to Plaintiff’s Complaint arguing that Plaintiff's claim
for breach of the no-hire provision is a legally insufficient claim upon which no relief can be granted, pursuant
to Pittsburgh Logistics. When reviewing preliminary objections, the Court must treat as true all well-pleaded,
material, and relevant facts together with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts.
Mellon Bank v. Fabini, 650 A.2d 895, 899 (Pa. Super. 1994). Preliminary objections in the nature of a
demurrer asserting that the complaint is legally insufficient may only be sustained when "it appears with
certainty that the law permits no recovery under the allegations pleaded." Green v. Mizner, 692 A.2d 169,
172 (Pa. Super. 1997). Preliminary objections should be sustained only in cases so free from doubt that trial
would amount to a "fruitless exercise." Smith v. Brink, 561 A.2d 1253, 1255 (Pa. Super. 1989). When any
doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, the preliminary objection should be overruled.
Green, 692 A.2d at 172.
In Pittsburgh Logistics, our Supreme Court, in a matter of first impression, addressed whether a
no-hire, or “no-poach” provision that is ancillary to a services contract between business entities is
enforceable under Pennsylvania law. While the court declined to hold such a provision per se unenforceable,
it found the no-hire provision at issue not enforceable under the facts before it. There, Pittsburgh Logistics102 DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS [127 DAUPHIN
WEBPAGEFX, INC. v. BMARKO STRUCTURES, LLC
Systems (PLS), a third-party logistics provider that arranged for the shipping of customers’ freight with
selected shipping companies, entered into an agreement with the shipping company Beemac Trucking, under
which terms Beemac would provide shipping services to PLS’s customers. In addition to a non-solicitation
provision prohibiting Beemac from soliciting PLS’s customers, the agreement included a no-hire provision
prohibiting Beemac from directly or indirectly hiring, soliciting for employment, or inducing or attempting
to induce any employee of PLS or any affiliate to leave PLS or an affiliate during the term of the agreement
and for two years thereafter. After Beemac hired four PLS employees, PLS filed suit against Beemac, seeking
a preliminary injunction to enforce the no-hire provision and enjoin Beemac from employing the former PLS
employees; i.e. seeking that Beemac terminate their employment. PLS also filed separate actions against the
employees seeking to enforce their non-compete covenants.
The trial court refused to enforce the no-hire provision against Beemac and denied PLS’s motion
for injunctive relief, holding that no-hire provisions in commercial contracts between two companies violate
public policy and are thus unenforceable as a matter of law. The trial court acknowledged that no reported
Pennsylvania decision had yet addressed this issue and relied upon cases in other jurisdictions where similar
provisions were held to be unenforceable.
On appeal, the Superior Court, en banc, affirmed the trial court’s denial of injunctive relief.
Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC & Beemac Logistics, LLC, 202 A.3d 801 (Pa.
Super. 2019). The Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s reasoning that the no-hire provision violated
public policy because it prevented the employees, as non-signatories to the contract, from pursuing work in
their chosen field. Id. at 808. The Superior Court recognized that each new services contract between PLS
and a new carrier results in a new restriction upon current employees. Id. In striking down the no-hire
provision, the Superior Court reasoned, “[i]f additional restrictions to the agreement between employer and
employee are rendered unenforceable by a lack of additional consideration, PLS should not be entitled to
circumvent that outcome through an agreement with a third party.” Id. at 810.
PLS appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to address the following issue: “Are
contractual no hire provisions which are part of a services contract between sophisticated business entities
enforceable under the law of this Commonwealth.” Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC
& Beemac Logistics, LLC, 216 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2019) (per curiam). As a matter of first impression, the Court
extensively surveyed decisions issued in six other jurisdictions (three finding the no-hire provisions
unenforceable and three finding them enforceable) before reaching its final, unanimous decision that it would
transplant to no-hire provisions the same analytical framework it applied in assessing the enforceability of
other ancillary restraints on trade, as follows:
Pennsylvania common law has treated restrictive covenants as restraints on trade
that are void as against public policy unless they are ancillary to an otherwise valid
contract. Socko [v. Mid-Atl. Sys. of CPA, Inc., 126 A.3d 1266, 1277 (Pa. 2015)]
(“[O]ur Commonwealth has a long, and virtually uniform, history of strongly
disfavoring covenants in restraint of trade.”); Morgan’s [Home Equip. Corp. v.
Martucci, 136 A.2d 838, 843 (Pa. 1957)] (“It has long been the rule at common law,
that contracts in restraint of trade made independently of a sale of business or contract
of employment are void as against public policy regardless of the valuableness of the
consideration exchanged therein.”). To determine the enforceability of a provision in99 (2022)] DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS 103
WEBPAGEFX, INC. v. BMARKO STRUCTURES, LLC
restraint of trade that is ancillary, or supplementary, to the principal purpose of a
contract, we employ a balancing test to determine the reasonableness of the restraint
in light of the parties’ interests that the restraint aims to protect and the harm to other
contractual parties and the public. See Hess v. Gebhard & Co. Inc., 570 Pa. 148, 808
A.2d 912, 917-18 (2002) (discussing the development of the balancing test); see also
GeoDecisions [v. Data Transfer Solutions, LLC, 2010 WL 5014514 at *4 (M.D. Pa.
2010)]. As part of this balancing test, courts also consider the reasonableness of the
restraint’s geographical scope as well as its duration of time. See Socko, 126 A.3d
1274. Similarly, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts delineates the following test,
identified as “the rule of reason,” for evaluating the reasonableness of ancillary
restraints on competition:
(1) A promise to refrain from competition that imposes a restraint that is
ancillary to an otherwise valid transaction or relationship is unreasonably in
restraint of trade if
(a) the restraint is greater than is needed to protect the promisee’s
legitimate interest, or
(b) the promisee’s need is outweighed by the hardship to the
promisor and the likely injury to the public.
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 188(1). Further, this Court has
explained that the reasonableness test is more stringent when examining restrictive
covenants ancillary to an employment agreement than when evaluating restrictive
covenants ancillary to the sale of a business. Hayes v. Altman, 438 Pa. 451, 266 A.2d
269, 271 (1970).
While the enforceability of a no-hire provision ancillary to a services contract
between two businesses is an issue of first impression for this Court, we will apply the
foregoing reasonableness test that applies to ancillary restraints on trade. Here, the no-
hire provision was ancillary to the principal purpose of the shipping contract between
PLS and Beemac. The no-hire provision is a restraint on trade because the two
commercial entities agreed to limit competition in the labor market by promising to
restrict the employment mobility of PLS employees. See RESTATEMENT
(SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 186(2) (“A promise is in restraint of trade if its
performance would limit competition in any business”). PLS had a legitimate interest
in preventing its business partners from poaching its employees, who had developed
specialized knowledge and expertise in the logistics industry during their training at
PLS. See PLS’s Brief at 25, 32; Morgan's, 136 A.2d at 846 (recognizing an employer
has an interest in preventing its employees from using their specialized knowledge and
skills in competition with the employer).
However, the no-hire provision is both greater than needed to protect PLS’s interest
and creates a probability of harm to the public. It is overbroad because it precludes
Beemac, and any of its agents or independent contractors, from hiring, soliciting, or
inducing any PLS employee or affiliate for the one-year term of the contract plus two
years after the contract ends. The no-hire provision precluded Beemac from hiring or
soliciting all PLS employees, regardless of whether the PLS employees had worked
with Beemac during the term of the contract. As the Superior Court noted, “[b]y the
plain reading of the language of this restrictive provision, it was meant to have effect
in the broadest possible terms.” Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., 202 A.3d at 808.
Further, the no-hire provision creates a likelihood of harm to the public, i.e., non-
parties to the contract. The no-hire provision impairs the employment opportunities
and job mobility of PLS employees, who are not parties to the contract, without their
knowledge or consent and without providing consideration in exchange for this
impairment. Further, the injury to PLS employees is not hypothetical. In this case, PLS
enforced the no-hire provision by seeking to enjoin Beemac from employing the
former PLS employees who had already left PLS and obtained employment with
Beemac. If PLS was successful, the effect of its enforcement of the no-hire provision104 DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS [127 DAUPHIN
WEBPAGEFX, INC. v. BMARKO STRUCTURES, LLC
would have deprived its former employees of their current jobs and livelihoods.
Moreover, the no-hire provision undermines free competition in the labor market in
the shipping and logistics industry, which creates a likelihood of harm to the general
public. See, e.g., Donald J. Polden, Restraints on Workers’ Wages and Mobility: No-
Poach Agreements and the Antitrust Laws, 59 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 579, 610
(“[T]he high percentage of U.S. workers who are subject to agreements and covenants
restricting their employment opportunities are contributing to slow wage growth and
rising inequality. For example, recent studies have demonstrated that worker wages
are 4%-5% higher in states that do not recognize or enforce worker non-compete
restraints.”) (footnotes omitted). Balancing PLS’s interest against the overbreadth of
the no-hire provision and the likelihood of harm to the public, we conclude that the
no-hire provision is unreasonably in restraint of trade and therefore unenforceable.
Id. at 935-936 (footnotes omitted).
The Pittsburgh Logistics decision is almost directly on point with the issues presented to this
Court on preliminary objections, with one major distinction: Plaintiff solely seeks money damages against
Defendant here for its alleged breach of the no-hire provision. Plaintiff seeks no equitable remedies including
that Defendant be enjoined from employing Tyler Wise. In Pittsburgh Logistics, by contrast, PLS sought to
enforce the restrictive covenant by seeking equitable relief in the form of a court order enjoining Beemac
from employing the former PLS employees. Plaintiff stresses that the nature of the relief it seeks is of great
significance, and in fact dispositive to the Court’s inquiry. We agree.
Plaintiff accurately cites to a line of cases for the proposition that where money damages are
sought to enforce agreed-upon restraints of trade, the reasonableness of a contractual term is not relevant to
assessing its enforceability. Our Supreme Court, addressing the enforcement of a non-compete covenant,
explained:
Although as a general rule, [restrictive covenants] are unenforceable if overly broad in
time, territory or protection or if they create an unreasonable hardship, ... those rules are
equitable in nature. This however is not an equitable action. We need not pass on whether
the covenant in the case before us is too harsh to be enforced in equity. Harsh though it
may be, it was entered into by appellant with his eyes open, and there is nothing in the
record to indicate that it was not part of a completely armslength [sic] bargain between
knowing and willing parties. Appellant must now live with the bargain which he struck,
just as he would have to live with any other unadvantageous [sic] term that was used
against him in a contract action at law.
Krauss v. M. L. Claster & Sons, Inc., 434 Pa. 403, 254 A.2d 1, 3 (1969). The Court concluded that "[i]n
an action at law, the reasonableness of any given contractual term simply is not relevant[ ]," further noting
that “appellant has simply argued as he would in an equitable action, that the covenant is completely
Unenforceable because it was Drawn in an overly broad way.” Id. at 3 n.2.
This principle, that the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant is irrelevant where the moving
party seeks damages, has been followed in subsequent decisions. In Boyce v. Smith-Edwards-Dunlap Co.,
the employer sought to recover damages to its business, profit, and goodwill resulting from the employee's
breach of the restrictive covenant. 580 A.2d 1382 (Pa. Super. 1990). The trial court granted a directed verdict
for the employee after finding that the restrictive covenant was unreasonably broad. Id. at 1388. On appeal,
the Superior Court clarified that “[the employer] did not bring an action at equity to enforce the restrictive
covenants. Had [the employer] done so, then the trial court would have been correct in considering the99 (2022)] DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS 105
WEBPAGEFX, INC. v. BMARKO STRUCTURES, LLC
reasonableness of the covenants. Instead, [the employer] brought an action at law to recover for damages
allegedly sustained as a result of [the employee's] breach of the covenants." Id. at 1388 (citing Krauss). The
Superior Court thus vacated the directed verdict and remanded to the trial court to determine the damages
sustained by the employer. Id. at 1391. See also, Gresh v. Potter McCune Co., 344 A.2d 540, 543 (Pa. Super.
1975) (holding that while the reasonableness of the restrictive covenant "would be crucial if appellant had
sued in equity to enjoin [appellee] from enforcing the covenant[,]" appellant had instead sought damages in
an action at law and the reasonableness of the restrictive covenant was therefore not to be considered);
Graham Co. v. Griffing, 2011 WL 13377512, at *1 n 1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2011) (“Under governing
Pennsylvania precedent, the reasonableness of contractual terms is irrelevant to the extent Plaintiff seeks
damages at law for alleged breach of the [non-solicitation] covenants as opposed to equitable remedies to
enforce or modify them,” citing Krauss and Boyce); and Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc. v. Kavalek, 849 F. Supp.
2d 462, 491 (D.N.J. 2012) (“under Pennsylvania law, covenants in an Employment Agreement are
enforceable at law (i.e. claims for money damages) so long as the covenants are not unconscionable or
otherwise defective,” citing Krauss and Boyce).
Our Supreme Court in Pittsburgh Logistics explicitly extended to no-hire provisions the same
reasonableness test it applied in determining the enforceability of other ancillary provisions in restraint of
trade. Pittsburgh Logistics at 935. As such, the line of cases cited above - holding that the reasonableness of
a contractual term in a restraint of trade provision is not relevant where money damages are sought - applies
equally to no-hire provisions. Accordingly, the Pittsburgh Logistics reasonableness test does not apply here
because Plaintiff has not sought equitable relief. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to limit its remedy to damages caused
by Defendant’s alleged breach of the no-hire provision.1 As such, this Court agrees with Plaintiff that
Pittsburgh Logistics does not preclude its action against Defendant as “BMarko is in no position to object to
paying damages for its [alleged] breach of a restriction that it, a sophisticated business, willingly entered into,
particularly when the claim itself is limited to the very employee intended to be covered by the restriction.”
2
1
One commentator has noted that the Pittsburgh Logistics case can be interpreted as finding no-hire
provisions might always be considered unenforceable where injunctive relief is sought but might be
enforceable where the relief sought is limited to damages:
The [Pittsburgh Logistics] court, however, seemed to stop short of holding no-poaching agreements
to be per se invalid while apparently ruling out any injunctive relief. In other words, while PLS could
presumably cure the overbreadth problem with narrower drafting, any court order to not hire workers
of a counterparty would necessarily impact third parties. Thus, either these agreements are always
unenforceable in Pennsylvania, or they may be enforced only when relief against the counterparty is
limited to damages.
Charles A. Sullivan, Poaching, 71 Am. U. L. Rev. 649, 666 (2021) (footnotes omitted).
2
Had this Court found that the Pittsburgh Logistics applied here, we would have likely concluded that the
no-hire provision is not enforceable thereunder, primarily because the provision is overbroad and harms the
public. As in Pittsburgh Logistics, the no-hire provision is ancillary to the principal purpose of the services
contract between the parties and is clearly a restraint on trade. Furthermore, Plaintiff has a legitimate interest
in preventing its business partners from poaching its employees. Nevertheless, under Pittsburgh Logistics,
the language is greater than needed to protect Plaintiff’s interest. It is overbroad because it precludes
Defendant from hiring “any current or former WebFX employee," for a five-year period. This language is
notably broader than the provision criticized in Pittsburgh Logistics as it precludes Defendant from the hiring
of not only current WebFX employee but any former WebFX employees. The hiring preclusion also extends106 DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS [127 DAUPHIN
WEBPAGEFX, INC. v. BMARKO STRUCTURES, LLC
Accordingly, this Court enters the following:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of May 2022, upon consideration of the Defendant’s Preliminary
Objections to Plaintiff’s Complaint, it is hereby DIRECTED that the Preliminary Objections are
OVERRULED. Defendant is directed to Answer the Complaint as required under the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
for an overly long five-year term. Furthermore, it applies regardless of whether any of Plaintiff’s employees
had ever worked with Defendant.
Second, with regard to the probability of harm to the public, the Pittsburgh Logistics Court
recognized two types of harm: harm to non-parties to the contract and harm to the general public. Id. at 936.
With regard to the former, the Supreme Court determined in Pittsburgh Logistics that the no-hire provision
“impairs the employment opportunities and job mobility of [the promisee’s] employees, who are not parties
to the contract, without their knowledge or consent and without providing consideration in exchange for this
impairment.” Id. at 936. This similar harm is presented here. Moreover, as further recognized in Pittsburgh
Logistics, no-hire provisions undermine free competition in the labor market in the industries involved, which
creates a likelihood of harm to the general public. Id.
As such, had this Court reached the issue, we would have concluded that in balancing Plaintiff’s
legitimate interest against the overbreadth of the no-hire provision and the likelihood of harm to the public,
the no-hire provision is unreasonably in restraint of trade and unenforceable under Pittsburgh Logistics.
Plaintiff admits that the no-hire provision in the Contract is overbroad in that it “would not be
enforceable as to employees who were never assigned to BMarko and for whom WebFX would have no
enforceable and legitimate business interest in preventing their hire[.]” (Plaintiff’s Brief p. 7) Assuming we
had reached the issue, Plaintiff argued that this Court could “blue-pencil,” or reform, the overly broad
restrictions to protect Plaintiff’s legitimate business interest by applying the restriction just to Tyler Wise.
This Court would have declined Plaintiff’s invitation to blue-pencil or reform the language because such a
remedy is available only to a court of equity. See e.g., WellSpan Health v. Bayliss, 869 A.2d 990, 996 n.2
(Pa. Super. 2005) (“It is well-established in Pennsylvania that a court of equity has the authority to reform a
non-competition covenant in order to enforce only those provisions that are reasonably necessary for the
protection of the employer”); see also, Hess v. Gebhard & Co., Inc., 808 A.2d 912, 920 & n. 7 (Pa. 2002)
(where the covenant imposes restrictions broader than necessary to protect the employer, “we have repeatedly
held that a court of equity may grant enforcement limited to those portions of the restrictions which are
reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer”); and Hillard v. Medtronic, Inc., 910 F.Supp. 173,
176–77 (M.D.Pa.1995) (under Pennsylvania law, where a non-compete is unreasonably overbroad, “such a
restriction can be modified by an equity court in an effort to make it reasonable”).given to request all persons having claims
ESTATE & TRUST against the decedent to make known the same to
NOTICES the Executor or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Executor without delay.
FIRST PUBLICATION Executor: Anthony S. Trost, 800 Stackpole
Lane, Dauphin PA, 17018
ESTATE OF SANDRA C. BELLON, late of Attorney: Richard L. Campbell, Esquire,
Dauphin County, PA MILLER, KISTLER & CAMPBELL, 720
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on South Atherton Street, Suite 201, State College,
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby PA 16801 m20-jn3
given to request all persons having claims
against the decedent to make known the same to
the Executor or attorney, and all persons ESTATE OF JAMES S. MILLER, late of
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin County, PA
Executor without delay. (died: March 23, 2022)
Executor: Edward E. Bellon, 100 Needlewood The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
Dr., Harrisburg, PA 17112-8714 the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
Attorney: Jerry A. Philpott, Esquire, given to request all persons having claims
PHILPOTT WILSON LLP, 227 No. High St., against the decedent to make known the same to
PO Box 116, Duncannon, PA 17020 m20-jn3 the Executrix or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Executrix without delay.
ESTATE OF CATHERINE CORNELIUS, Executrix: Suzanne L. Miller, 4097
late of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA and Wimbledon Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17112
Douglasville, GA (died: November 1, 2021) Attorney: Mark D. Hipp, Esquire, SIGMA
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on LEGAL ADVISORS, 1801 Market Street,
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Camp Hill PA 17011; Telephone: 717-790-5000
given to request all persons having claims m20-jn3
against the decedent to make known the same to
the Executor or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the ESTATE OF DORIS L. WILSON, late of
Executor without delay. Derry Township, Dauphin County, PA (died:
Executor: Kyle C.A. Alexander, 4120 N. March 11, 2022)
Laurel Grove Rd., Douglasville, GA 30135 The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
Attorney: Gregory J. Pavlovitz, Esq., 408 W. the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
Market St., 1st Fl., Pottsville, PA 17901 given to request all persons having claims
m20-jn3 against the decedent to make known the same to
the Executor or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
ESTATE OF MICHAEL G. MUSSER, late Executor without delay.
of Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin County, Executor: Craig A. Wilson, 8 Nottingham
PA (died: February 20, 2022) Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Attorney: James J. McCarthy, Jr., Esq.,
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby McCarthy Tax Law, PC, 2041 Herr Street,
given to request all persons having claims Harrisburg, PA 17103-1624 m20-jn3
against the decedent to make known the same to
the Executor or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the ESTATE OF DUANE S. BENO, late of
Executor without delay. Middletown, Dauphin County, PA (died:
Executor: Joaquin Barajas Jr., 516 Monroe 02/16/22)
Street, Bressler, PA 17113 The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
Attorney: Elizabeth H. Feather, Esquire, the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
Caldwell & Kearns, P.C., 3631 North Front given to request all persons having claims
Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110; (717) 901-5948 against the decedent to make known the same to
m20-jn3 the Executor or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Executor without delay.
ESTATE OF MARY S. TROST, late of Executor: Charles Beno, 213 S. Union Street,
Middle Paxton Township, Dauphin County, PA Middletown, PA 17057
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Attorney: David C. Miller, Jr., Esquire, 1846
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Bonnie Blue Lane, Middletown, PA 17057;(717) 939-9806; davidcmillerjr@verizon.net persons indebted to the decedent to make
m20-jn3 payment to the Personal Representative without
delay.
Personal Representative: Nicole Michelle
ESTATE OF RONALD DiROCCO a/k/a Collins, 22 Wesley Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA
RONALD P. DiROCCO, late of Middle 17055
Paxton Township, Dauphin County, PA Attorney: Brandon S. O’Connor, Esquire,
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Tucker Arensberg, P.C., 300 Corporate Drive,
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Suite 200, Camp Hill, PA 17011; (717) 221-
given to request all persons having claims 7952 m20-jn3
against the decedent to make known the same to
the Executor or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the ESTATE OF ALBERT N. JONES a/k/a
Executor without delay. ALBERT N. JONES SR., late of Harrisburg
Executor: Debra DiRocco, c/o Mark E. City, Dauphin County, PA (died: September 8,
Halbruner, Esquire, Halbruner, Hatch & Guise, 2009)
LLP, 2109 Market Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
m20-jn3 the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
given to request all persons having claims
against the decedent to make known the same to
ESTATE OF ROBERT J. KOPCIK, JR., the Executor or attorney, and all persons
late of Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
County, PA (died: on April 9, 2022) Executor without delay.
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Executor: Barry C. Jones, 15 Meriam Street,
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Wakefield, MA 01880
given to request all persons having claims Attorney: Robert M. Walker, 23 Central
against the decedent to make known the same to Boulevard, Camp Hill, PA 17011 m20-jn3
the Executor or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Executor without delay.
Executor: Ronald J. Kopcik, c/o Bruce J. SECOND PUBLICATION
Warshawsky, Esquire, Cunningham, Chernicoff
& Warshawsky, P.C., P.O. Box 60457, ESTATE OF TENSY A. CARTER DAVIS,
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457 m20-jn3 late of Harrisburg City, Dauphin County, PA
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
ESTATE OF ANTONIA M. MOWERY, given to request all persons having claims
late of West Hanover Township, Dauphin against the decedent to make known the same to
County, PA the Administrator or attorney, and all persons
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Administrator without delay.
given to request all persons having claims Administrator: Albert L. Davis, Jr., 1605
against the decedent to make known the same to Derry Street, Harrisburg, PA 17104
the Executor or attorney, and all persons Attorney: Jennifer M. Merx, Esquire,
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the SkarlatosZonarich, LLC, 320 Market Street,
Executor without delay. Suite 600 West, Harrisburg, PA 17101 m13-27
Executor: Bret K. Waggoner and Anne E.
Waggoner
Attorney: Jessica Fisher Greene, Esquire, ESTATE OF EDWIN C. ULLOM, late of
WALTERS & GALLOWAY, PLLC, 54 East Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin County, PA
Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
m20-jn3 the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
given to request all persons having claims
against the decedent to make known the same to
ESTATE OF MARY ELIZABETH MACK, the Executor or attorney, and all persons
late of Dauphin County, PA (died: February 16, indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
2022) Executor without delay.
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Executor: R. Garth Ullom, c/o Jennifer A.
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Galloway, Esq., Saxton & Stump, LLC, 280
given to request all persons having claims Granite Run Dr., Ste. 300, Lancaster, PA 17601
against the decedent to make known the same to Attorney: Saxton & Stump, LLC m13-27
the Personal Representative or attorney, and allESTATE OF ROBERT E. KEENAN a/k/a Executrix without delay.
ROBERT EDWARD KEENAN, late of Executrix: Erin L. McLenegan (Kurten), c/o
Henrico County, VA (died: July 29, 2021) Edward P. Seeber, Esquire, JSDC Law Offices
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Suite C-400, 555 Gettysburg Pike,
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Mechanicsburg, PA 17055; 717-533-3280
given to request all persons having claims m13-27
against the decedent to make known the same to
the Co-Executors or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the ESTATE OF JAY L. EBERSOLE, late of
Co-Executors without delay. Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, PA
Co-Executors: Gerald H. Keenan and Wells (died: March 19, 2022)
Fargo Bank, N.A. The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
Attorney: Vicky Ann Trimmer, Esquire, the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
Daley Zucker, LLC, 645 N. 12th Street, Suite given to request all persons having claims
200, Lemoyne, PA 17043 m13-27 against the decedent to make known the same to
the Executrix or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
ESTATE OF DEBORAH L. CRAWFORD Executrix without delay.
a/k/a DEBORAH LOUISE CRAWFORD, Executrix: Marilyn J. Hess, 214 North Barbara
late of Susquehanna Township, Dauphin Street, Mount Joy, PA 17552
County, PA (Died: February 15, 2022) Attorney: Karl Kreiser, 553 Locust Street,
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Columbia, PA 17512 m13-27
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
given to request all persons having claims
against the decedent to make known the same to ESTATE OF KATHRYN THOMAS, a/k/a
the Executor or attorney, and all persons KATHIE THOMAS, a/k/a KATHRYN
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the ANDERSON THOMAS, a/k/a KATHRYN
Executor without delay. M. THOMAS, late of Susquehanna Township,
Executor: Matthew A. Crawford Dauphin County, PA (died: February 17, 2022)
Attorney: Vicky Ann Trimmer, Esquire, The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
Daley Zucker, LLC, 645 N. 12th Street, Suite the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
200, Lemoyne, PA 17043 m13-27 given to request all persons having claims
against the decedent to make known the same to
the Executor or attorney, and all persons
ESTATE OF THOMAS ARTHUR indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
WILLIER, late of the Township of Executor without delay.
Susquehanna, Dauphin County, PA Executor: Mr. Matthew J. Thomas, 416 S. 26th
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Street, Philadelphia, PA 19146
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Attorney: Gary L. Rothschild, Esq., 2215
given to request all persons having claims Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35, Harrisburg, PA
against the decedent to make known the same to 17112 m13-27
the Executor or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Executor without delay. ESTATE OF THERESA A. BAKER, a/k/a
Executor: Thomas Arthur Willier Estate, c/o THERESA ANTOINETTE BAKER, late of
Susan K. Herring, 509 West Main Street, Valley Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin County, PA
View, PA 17983 (died: March 4, 2022)
Attorney: James P. Diehl, Esquire, The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
Williamson, Friedberg & Jones, LLC, 10 the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
Westwood Road, Pottsville, PA 17901 m13-27 given to request all persons having claims
against the decedent to make known the same to
the Executor or attorney, and all persons
ESTATE OF DOLORES McLENEGAN indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
a/k/a DOLORES L. McLENEGAN, late of Executor without delay.
Lower Swatara Township, Dauphin County, PA Executor: Mr. Patrick J. Baker, 1109 Loop
(died: March 3, 2022) Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17112
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Attorney: Gary L. Rothschild, Esq., 2215
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35, Harrisburg, PA
given to request all persons having claims 17112 m13-27
against the decedent to make known the same to
the Executrix or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to theESTATE OF GARY E. FIRESTONE, a/k/a Executor: Carl E. DeFebo, Jr., c/o Attorney:
GARY EUGENE FIRESTONE, late of Lower Kelly M. Appleyard, Esq., Keystone Elder Law
Swatara Township, Dauphin County, PA (died: P.C., 555 Gettysburg Pike, Suite B-200,
March 30, 2022) Mechanicsburg, PA, 17055 m13-27
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
given to request all persons having claims ESTATE OF DENNIS T. BRENNAN, late of
against the decedent to make known the same to West Hanover Township, Dauphin County, PA
the Executor or attorney, and all persons The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
Executor without delay. given to request all persons having claims
Executor: Michael J. Firestone, c/o against the decedent to make known the same to
Pannebaker & Mohr, P.C., 4000 Vine St., Suite the Testatrix or attorney, and all persons
101, Middletown, PA 17057 indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Attorney: Kendra A. Mohr, Esq., Pannebaker Testatrix without delay.
& Mohr, P.C., 4000 Vine St., Suite 101, Testatrix: Sarah Brennan (Peters), 7252 Sandy
Middletown, PA 17057 m13-27 Hollow Road, Harrisburg, PA 17112
Attorney: Charles E. Petrie, Attorney-At-Law,
3528 Brisban Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111
ESTATE OF CECILIA MARVA LEE, late m13-27
of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby ESTATE OF STEPHEN J. GIMMI, late of
given to request all persons having claims Halifax Borough, Dauphin County, PA
against the decedent to make known the same to The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Administrator or attorney, and all persons the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the given to request all persons having claims
Administrator without delay. against the decedent to make known the same to
Administrator: Jahmelas Bryan, c/o Attorney the Administratrix or attorney, and all persons
Kirk E. Mentch, Esquire, Mentch Law, PO Box indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
5, Carlisle, PA 17013 m13-27 Administratrix without delay.
Administratrix: Priscilla L. Gimmi
Attorney: Katherine L. McDonald, Esquire,
ESTATE OF ELVIN C. BLYLER, a/k/a Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC, 2132
ELVIN CHARLES BLYLER, late of Lykens Market Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011; (717) 975-
Township, Dauphin County, PA (died: January 9446 m13-27
4, 2022)
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby ESTATE OF RAYMOND F. RODGERS,
given to request all persons having claims late of Harrisburg, PA (died: January 17, 2022)
against the decedent to make known the same to The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Executrix or attorney, and all persons the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the given to request all persons having claims
Executrix without delay. against the decedent to make known the same to
Executrix: Dorothy E. Blyler, 7924 Route 25, the Executors or attorney, and all persons
Spring Glen, PA 17978 indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Attorney: Jennifer Denchak Wetzel, Esquire, Executors without delay.
Mette, Evans & Woodside, 3401 North Front Executors: Frank Flamini, 406 East
Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950; Telephone: Crestwood Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011; Judi
(717) 232-5000 m13-27 LaVia Jones, 939 Sunny Hill Lane, Harrisburg,
PA 17111
Attorney: Susan E. Lederer, Esquire, 5011
ESTATE OF CARL E. DeFEBO, SR., late of Locust Lane, Harrisburg, PA 17109 m13-27
Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin County, PA
(died: 02/20/2022)
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on ESTATE OF JEAN A. RUMMEL, a/k/a
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby JEAN RUMMEL, late of Susquehanna
given to request all persons having claims Township, Dauphin County, PA (died:
against the decedent to make known the same to 01/15/2022)
the Executor or attorney, and all persons The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
Executor without delay. given to request all persons having claimsagainst the decedent to make known the same to Attorney: Boswell, Tintner, & Piccola,
the Executor or attorney, and all persons Leonard Tintner, Esquire, Jeffrey R. Boswell,
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the Esquire, 3461 Market Street, Suite 105, Camp
Executor without delay. Hill, PA 17011 m13-27
Executor: Bryan E. Rummel, 19020 Trough
Creek Drive, Todd, PA 16685
Attorney: Nicholas E. Newfield, Esquire, ESTATE OF ROBERT F. GALLAGHER,
BMZ LAW, P.C., 113 Fourth Street, late of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA
Huntingdon, PA 16652-1417 m13-27 The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
given to request all persons having claims
ESTATE OF FRANCISCO J. ALMEIDA against the decedent to make known the same to
a/k/a FRANCISCO JORGE TEIXEIRA the Executrix or attorney, and all persons
ALMEIDA, late of Lower Paxton Township, indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Dauphin County, PA (died: February 8, 2022) Executrix without delay.
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Executrix: Teianna M. Librandi, c/o Attorney
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Randall K. Miller, 659 E. Willow Street,
given to request all persons having claims Elizabethtown, PA 17022
against the decedent to make known the same to Attorney: Randall K. Miller m13-27
the Executor or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Executor without delay.
Executor: Danny Almeida, 35 Church Street, THIRD PUBLICATION
Plantsville, CT 06479
Attorney: Jill M. Wineka, Esquire, Purcell, ESTATE OF PATRICIA LOIS GOODE
Krug & Haller, 1719 North Front Street, a/k/a PATRICIA L. GOODE, late of Derry
Harrisburg, PA 17102 m13-27 Township, Dauphin County, PA (died: 7/22/20)
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
ESTATE OF KATHLEEN A. BUSILLO, given to request all persons having claims
late of Susquehanna Township, Dauphin against the decedent to make known the same to
County, PA the Executor or attorney, and all persons
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Executor without delay.
given to request all persons having claims Executor: William Richard Harvey, c/o
against the decedent to make known the same to Kristen L. Behrens, Esq., 457 Haddonfield Rd.,
the Co-Administrator or attorney, and all Ste. 700, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
persons indebted to the decedent to make Attorney: Kristen L. Behrens, Dilworth
payment to the Co-Administrator without delay. Paxson LLP, 457 Haddonfield Rd., Ste. 700,
Co-Administrator: Alexander Thomas Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 m6-20
Busillo, 6172 Wood Bison Trail, Colorado
Springs, CO 80925; Elizabeth Ann Busillo, 238
10th Street, Apt. 4, Brooklyn, NY 11215 ESTATE OF REGINA F. ZOGBY, a/k/a
Attorney: Deborah E. Crum, Esquire, REGINA FRANCES ZOGBY, late of
SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP, 4431 Susquehanna Township, Dauphin County, PA
North Front Street, Third Floor, Harrisburg, PA The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
17110 m13-27 the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
given to request all persons having claims
against the decedent to make known the same to
ESTATE OF LEON ERROL GORDON, the Executor or attorney, and all persons
late of Susquehanna Township, Dauphin indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
County, PA (died: January 19, 2022) Executor without delay.
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Executor: Edward J. Zogby, 6406 Churchill
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Road, Harrisburg, PA 17111
given to request all persons having claims Attorney: Allen E. Hench, Allen E. Hench
against the decedent to make known the same to Law Office P. C., 232 Market Street, Newport,
the Administratrix or attorney, and all persons PA 17074; (717) 567-3139 m6-20
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Administratrix without delay.
Administratrix: Sandra L. Levy, c/ o Boswell,
Tintner & Piccola, 3461 Market Street, Suite
105, Camp Hill, PA 17011ESTATE OF GESCHE REUTHER a/k/a Druby, P.C., 1135 East Chocolate Avenue, Suite
GESCHE IWERSEN REUTHER, late of 300, Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033 m6-20
Derry Township, Dauphin County, PA
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby ESTATE OF KATHY L. OSTRUM, late of
given to request all persons having claims the Borough of Dauphin, Dauphin County, PA
against the decedent to make known the same to (died: March 24, 2022)
the Personal Representative or attorney, and all The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
persons indebted to the decedent to make the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
payment to the Personal Representative without given to request all persons having claims
delay. against the decedent to make known the same to
Personal Representative: Christine G. the Administrator or attorney, and all persons
Chappell, c/o Megan C. Huff, Esquire, Nestico indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Druby, P.C., 1135 East Chocolate Avenue, Suite Administrator without delay.
300, Hershey, PA 17033 m6-20 Administrator: Randy E. Beck, 10431 East
Sunnywood Drive, Tucson, AZ 85749
Attorney: Shannon Kerwin Sprow, Kerwin &
ESTATE OF DELORES K. SCHREFFLER Kerwin, LLP, 4245 State Route 209,
a/k/a DELORES KATHLEEN Elizabethville, PA 17023 m6-20
SCHREFFLE, late of Lower Paxton Township,
Dauphin County, PA (died: March 8, 2022)
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on ESTATE OF BRIAN HUNSBERGER, late
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby of West Hanover Township, Dauphin County,
given to request all persons having claims PA (died: March 12, 2022)
against the decedent to make known the same to The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Executrix or attorney, and all persons the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the given to request all persons having claims
Executrix without delay. against the decedent to make known the same to
Executrix: Andrea R. Oliver the Executor or attorney, and all persons
Attorney: Jaron Castranio, Esquire, Jackson indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Law Firm, PLLC, 1215 Manor Drive, Suite 202, Executor without delay.
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055; Telephone: 717- Executor: Christian Kita, 7731 Avondale
620-7119 m6-20 Terrace, Harrisburg, PA 17112
Attorney: Shannon Kerwin Sprow, Kerwin &
Kerwin, LLP, 4245 State Route 209,
ESTATE OF BARBARA A. BOWMAN, Elizabethville, PA 17023 m6-20
late of East Hanover Township, Dauphin
County, PA
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on ESTATE OF CHARLES F. ENDERS, late
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Jackson Township, Dauphin County, PA (died:
given to request all persons having claims March 17, 2022)
against the decedent to make known the same to The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Executrix or attorney, and all persons the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the given to request all persons having claims
Executrix without delay. against the decedent to make known the same to
Executrix: Shari Neady, c/o Appel Yost & Zee the Co-Executrices or attorney, and all persons
LLP, 33 North Duke Street, Lancaster PA 17602 indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Attorney: Jeffrey P. Ouellet, Esq. m6-20 Co- Executrices without delay.
Co-Executrices: Sharon M. Fetterhoff, 1686
Armstrong Valley Road, Halifax, PA 17032;
ESTATE OF JOSEPH K. McLAUGHLIN, Sandra E. Potter, 6018 Fox Point Road,
late of South Hanover Township, Dauphin Fredericksburg, VA 22407
County, PA Attorney: Joseph D. Kerwin, Kerwin &
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Kerwin, LLP, 4245 State Route 209,
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Elizabethville, PA 17023 m6-20
given to request all persons having claims
against the decedent to make known the same to
the Executrices or attorney, and all persons ESTATE OF DAVID C. KESLER, late of
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the Dauphin County, PA (died: November 16, 2021)
Executrices without delay. The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
Executrices: Nancy M. Frantz and Margaret P. the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
Frantz, c/o Richard B. Druby, Esquire, Nestico given to request all persons having claimsagainst the decedent to make known the same to against the decedent to make known the same to
the Administrator or attorney, and all persons the Executor or attorney, and all persons
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Administrator without delay. Executor without delay.
Administrator: Barbara S. Kesler Executor: Victor Prieto, 42 Kearsarge Valley
Attorney: Michael Cherewka, 624 North Front Road, Wilmot, NH 03287
Street, Wormleysburg, PA 17043 m6-20 Attorney: Butler Law Firm, 1007 Mumma
Road, Suite 101, Lemoyne, PA 17043 m6-20
ESTATE OF JAMES Q. LIGHTNER, JR.
a/k/a JAMES QUENTIN LIGHTNER, JR., ESTATE OF DANIEL DeNEZZA, a/k/a
late of Dauphin Borough, Dauphin County, PA DANIEL DeNEZZA JR., late of West Hanover
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Township, Dauphin County, PA
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
given to request all persons having claims the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
against the decedent to make known the same to given to request all persons having claims
the Executor or attorney, and all persons against the decedent to make known the same to
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the the Executor or attorney, and all persons
Executor without delay. indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Executor: James T. Baldwin Executor without delay.
Attorney: Baldwin & Baldwin, LLC, 42 South Executor: Janet DeNezza, c/o Mark E.
Front Street, Milton, PA 17847 m6-20 Halbruner, Esquire, Halbruner, Hatch & Guise,
LLP, 2109 Market Street, Camp Hill PA 17011
m6-20
ESTATE OF KENNETH R. BARLEY, late
of Swatara Township, Dauphin County, PA
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on ESTATE OF ELIZABETH ALLYN, late of
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby Harrisburg City, Dauphin County, PA
given to request all persons having claims The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
against the decedent to make known the same to the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
the Executor or attorney, and all persons given to request all persons having claims
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the against the decedent to make known the same to
Executor without delay. the Administrator or attorney, and all persons
Executor: Richard O. Barley, 2017 Sheaffer indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Road, Elizabethtown, PA 17022 Administrator without delay.
Attorney: Theresa L. Shade Wix, Esq., Wix, Administrator: Ronald D. Butler, 1007
Wenger & Weidner, 4705 Duke Street, Mumma Road, Suite 101, Lemoyne, PA 17043
Harrisburg, PA 17109-3041 m6-20 Attorney: Butler Law Firm, 1007 Mumma
Road, Suite 101, Lemoyne, PA 17043 m6-20
ESTATE OF LOIS A. HARTMAN, late of
West Hanover Township, Dauphin County, PA ESTATE OF JUDITH BUTALLA, late of
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin County, PA
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
given to request all persons having claims the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
against the decedent to make known the same to given to request all persons having claims
the Administrator or attorney, and all persons against the decedent to make known the same to
indebted to the decedent to make payment to the the Administrator or attorney, and all persons
Administrator without delay. indebted to the decedent to make payment to the
Administrator: Lawrence W. Hartman, IV, Administrator without delay.
7564 Fishing Creek Valley Road, Harrisburg, Administrator: Ronald D. Butler, 1007
PA 17112 Mumma Road, Suite 101, Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorney: Butler Law Firm, 1007 Mumma Attorney: Butler Law Firm, 1007 Mumma
Road, Suite 101, Lemoyne, PA 17043 m6-20 Road, Suite 101, Lemoyne, PA 17043 m6-20
ESTATE OF PHYLLIS KOLACKOVSKY, ESTATE OF RICHARD J.
late of Middle Paxton Township, Dauphin SCHULTHEISZ, late of Steelton Borough,
County, PA Dauphin County, PA (died: November 28, 2021)
The Register of Wills has granted Letters on The Register of Wills has granted Letters on
the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby the Estate of the Decedent. Notice is hereby
given to request all persons having claims given to request all persons having claimsYou can also read
