The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-4795ERIC J. DESROSIERS, Plaintiff V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO.: oa-/l79s` 01L) ,C l? CIVIL ACTION - LAW 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse, 4th Floor I Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 ERIC J. DESROSIERS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants NO.: CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros detechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse, 4th floor I Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 ERIC J. DESROSIERS, Plaintiff V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO.: b.? - 4174S ovct' (-?V' CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Eric J. Desrosiers, by and through his attorneys, Killian & Gephart, and in support of this Complaint avers the following: Plaintiff, ERIC J. DESROSIERS, is an adult individual who resides at 808 Michigan Avenue, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17043. 2. Defendants, STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, are adult individuals who reside at 12102 Bayer Drive, Waynesboro, Franklin County, Pennsylvania 17268. 3. The parties entered into a contract pursuant to which Defendants agreed to, as general contractors, to put a home addition onto the Plaintiff's property at 808 Michigan Avenue, Lemoyne, PA. 4. Pursuant to that end, the parties signed a contract with an original contractual amount of $72,177. A true and correct copy of the Agreement and Contract for Independent or Subcontractor is incorporated hereby and attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 5. The contract, which includes three exhibits, was executed by the parties on December 12, 2000. 6. The contract mandated that the work be done in accordance with Exhibit A to the contract and the James Crum drawings dated November 8, 1999. (Agreement and Contract for Independent or Subcontractor, paragraph 1.) 7. The contract indicated that final payment would be held until all work and punch was completed 100% and upon satisfactory completion and full acceptance by Eric Desrosiers, the property owner. (Agreement and Contract for Independent or Subcontractor, paragraph 3.) 8. The contract provided a guarantee from Defendant Stephen Honodel that every job shall be free from defects in workmanship. (Agreement and Contract for Independent or Subcontractor, paragraph 9.) 9. The contract provides that Defendants are responsible for the work of the subcontractors whom they hire. 10. The parties agreed that the contract will be completed by February 28, 2001. (Agreement and Contract for Independent or Subcontractor, paragraph 6.) 11. The parties further agreed that the workdays would begin at 8:00 a.m., and that power tools and loud noise would only be conducted between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 2 Monday through Friday and weekends between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (Agreement and Contract for Independent or Subcontractor, paragraph 1.) 12. The contract also provides an entitlement to legal fees and costs in the event of dispute pursuant to the contract. (Agreement and Contract for Independent or Subcontractor, page 3.) 13. The work done pursuant to the contract by Defendants was neither timely, satisfactory, nor complete. 14. In January of 2002, nearly one year beyond the completion date agreed to by the parties, and well beyond the delays of a few weeks to which Plaintiff had agreed, Plaintiff became dissatisfied with the work and realized that Defendants had neither the intention nor ability to complete the work in a satisfactory and workmanlike manner. 15. Plaintiff realized that even allowing a five-week delay as he had agreed to with the contractor because of two projects in Massachusetts and Wayne, New Jersey, the project at his home was ten months behind schedule, and there was no sign of the completion of the work at all. 16. To that point, Plaintiff had made all timely payments to Defendants. IT At that point, Plaintiff indicated that no further payments would be made until the job was completed and demanded that completion within fourteen days by letter dated February 15, 2002. 3 18. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff learned that Defendants were not paying their subcontractors and indicated to Defendants that they should not come back and, further, had the locks changed. 19. Subsequently, Defendants broke the lock, came in and removed their tools and ladders and clearly signified that they had no intention of completing the job. 20. At this point, Plaintiff notified Honodels of his intention to employ another contractor to complete and repair the work at the property done by Honodels and to make no further payments to Honodels. 21. Subsequent to removal of Mr. and Mrs. Honodel from the job, Plaintiff learned that Mr. Honodel had not used a licensed plumber or electrician. 22. Plaintiff subsequently had three separate pipes burst and his walls damaged by water. 23. Plaintiff also had a ceiling which fell in on new carpet because of bursting pipes and drain lines which came loose. 24. Plaintiff has had continuous problems with roof and siding leaks. 25. Plaintiff has discovered water damage, wires which were not connected in the walls, pipes not soldered correctly, and drains coming apart in the walls among other problems. 26. Plaintiff has paid Defendants an amount of $50,830.00 although none of the work completed by Defendant is satisfactory, and all of it will have to be redone. 4 27. Defendants performed siding work which was never completed correctly. Plaintiff subsequently hired a specialty contractor to repair the work at a cost of $7,995.00. 28. Defendants did excavating work in connection with the contract which was not completed correctly. Plaintiff subsequently had to have this work redone to conform to the local building inspector's approval and to local codes at a cost of $4,618.00. 29. Defendants performed plumbing work which was not completed correctly. Plaintiff subsequently had to have the work redone to conform to the local building inspector's approval and to local codes at a cost of $4,995.00. 30. Defendants performed painting work which was not completed correctly. Plaintiff subsequently had to have the work redone at a cost of $6,230.00. 31. Defendants made painting materials purchases for work which was not completed correctly and which had to be redone at a cost of $7,988.63. 32. Defendants performed roofing work which was not completed correctly and which had to be redone at a cost of $7,030.00. 33. Defendants made Home Depot purchases in the amount of $7,995.00 for materials which were not used on the property or which had to be replaced. 34. Defendants performed work on the dormers which was not completed correctly and which had to be redone at a cost of $7,995.00. 35. Defendants performed carpentry work on the property which was not completed correctly and which had to be redone at a cost of $7,995.00. 5 36. Defendants performed stamped concrete work on the property which was not completed correctly and which had to be redone at a cost of $7,995.00. 37. Defendants performed heating and air conditioning work on the property which was not completed correctly and which had to be redone at a cost of $4,277.07. 38. Defendants performed electrical work on the property which was not completed correctly and which had to be redone at a cost of $4,275.00. 39. Defendants incompetently performed carpet installation for which the materials had to be replaced at a cost of $3,916.15. 40. Defendants failed to complete the carpet installation correctly, which had to be redone at a cost of $1,914.06. 41. Defendants performed drywall work on the property in an incompetent and negligent manner, which had to be redone at a cost of $3,480.00. 42. Defendants performed window work on the property which was not completed correctly and which had to be redone at a cost of $1,824.05. 43. Defendants negligently performed masonry work on the property, which had to be redone at a cost of $300.00. 44. Defendants purchased materials at Lowe's which were not installed on Plaintiff's property at a cost of $173.71. 45. Defendants negligently performed additional carpet work on the property which had to be redone at a cost of $617.09. 6 46. Additionally, as was previously indicated, Plaintiffhas incurred costs because of damages from burst water pipes which has necessitated major repairs to the premises. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 47. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 46 are incorporated hereby as if set forth fully and at length. 48. The parties had a contract pursuant to which Defendants agreed to perform construction work on Plaintiff's property. 49. The work was negligently done or not done at all. 50. Plaintiff has incurred damages in an amount in excess of $142,443.76. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant judgment in his favor and against Defendants in an amount of $142,443.76, which amount is above the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration, with interest and reasonable attorneys' fees as provided in the contract between the parties. Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 30, 2002 ?awQ?? (YW Paula J.1VIcDermott, Esquire Attorney I.D. #46664 KILLIAN & GEPHART, LLP 218 Pine Street, P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Telephone: (717) 232-1851 Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the statements of fact made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements therein are subject to the criminal penalties contained in 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Dated: September 30, 2002 C..? L is Desrosiers tol/ZVI GOGL 1/ 11 /1J/J 171b4G LHC1-I UL XtNUVHIIUN AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT ' FOR INDEPENDENT OR SUBCONTRACTOR KNOW TO ALL PRESENT: That this contract by and between Eric J. Oesrosiers:; 808 Michigan Ave, Lemoyne PA 17043, Party of the first part, and Steve Honodel D?B.A. Honodel Construction 12102 Bayer Or. Waynesboro PA. 17268 717-762.2265 Fax# 717-762-7098, Party of the second part, for the purpose ofestablishing an independent contract relationship and contractual agreement between the parties heretoabsolutely excluding anyiLrhiIployee/employer style relationship. That the party of the first part and the part of the second part do covenant and agree as follows. 1. That the party of the second part will provide the following kinds of services to complete the following work: a. All work per attehed Exhibit A and James Crum Drawings dated November 8th 1999 and Exhibit B as well as the payment schedule Exhibit C Work shall be completed per schedule. Workday will begin at 8=am. Power tools and loud noise should only be conducted between the hours of 9:00 am & 5:00 pm Monday thru Friday and weekends between 10:00 am 6 5:00 pm. The second party will be responsible for the daily disposal of all their debris to an owner-supplied dumpster. The first party may bill the second party If the first party must remove trash at the end of the day. The second party agrees to have one officer of that party to represent the second party and to coordinate with other trades, hotel, or CRS supervisor as an on-site representative. 2. The part of the second part will be compensated per line item as follows. Jper attached payment schedule Exhibit C. Total Job Cost NHOt 1b e vv Initial Page 1 of 3 $ 72.177.00 TOTAL OF CONTRACT $ 72.177.00 3. Second party will submit involces to Eric J. Desrosiers per attached schedule Exhibit C The final payment will be with held until all work and punch is compoleted 100% and upon satisfactory completion and full acceptance by Eric J. Desroiers the property owner of the project. All equipment, tools, and/or supplies will be provided by the second party, except as follows: Hardwood flooring for first floor corridor only. 4. The second party agrees to submit a lien waiver with each Invoice for the amount of the invoice . The attached lien waiver is to be duplicated for each invoice and filled out accordingly; the top box under "Check Only One" for partial payments or the middle box under said section for final Invoice when a retainer has been held or the last box under said section when no retainer has been held. Any invoice submitted without a completed, signed, notarized lien waiver will not be accepted. 5. The party of the second party states and affirms that he is acting as a free agent and independent contractor, holding himself out to the general public as an independent contractor for other work or contracts as he sees fit; that he runs ads offering services to the general public, maintains his office and principle place of business at the address staled above, and that this contract is not exclusive. r Exhibit "Arr Gl/..7G/ LGGL 1 /: ll !1 / / /G1b4L UHYy IUL 1ttNUVH 1IUN r, `r Second party agrees to accept full responsibility for any and all taxes that may be lawfully due to any government or local unit and to supply and obtain any and all permits required for their trade through local agencies and to hold the party of the first part har s from any liability of non-payment of taxes due from second party to any governmental or cal unit. The second party agrees to be available for work at reasonable times and for reasonable periods of time to perform the services required by the first party to complete the following project: Desrosiers Rewsidence Starting 12118/00 and completion date of 2/26/01. The,second'party will also receive deliveries and store in a storage area on-site any materials or produbts"required for completion of the second party's contract. On-site storage area to be provided by the first party at no cost to the second party. 7. The first party will have the right to bring on additional installers to maintain the job schedule if the second party does not provide the necessary manpower to maintain that schedule. The second party will not be paid for or compensated in any way for work performed by the installers brought in by the first party to maintain the job schedule. The party of the second part also agrees to perform any repairs to obtain proper installation service, The first party will have the option to charge the second party for any additional costs incurred due to having additional labor/subs. 8. In the event that either party should fail to fulfill any of the obligations of this agreement, the other party may bring an action to enforce specific performance of all obligations under this agreement. This remedy shall not exclude the availability of any other remedy permitted by law. These actions will not include any type of mechanics liens or suits against or on the property owners, properly management, corporate offices, or shareholders where work has been or is being performed. This agreement is between the first and second parties and will not involve the property, property owners, management company, or management where the work is being performed. The second parry waives any and all claims from the first party to any form of worker's compensation insurance coverage or compensation provided under federal, state, or local compulsion or compulsory legislation which affects employees and employers, and agrees to carry and provide his own insurance for injury or sickness or retirement, whether in the form of social security or otherwise as 9. The second party guarantees that ever job shall be free from defects in second party's workmanship for a period of one year after completion. If a claim is made by a customer within that period, that is or was a defect in workmanship, the second party will remedy said defect promptly and if the second party fails to do so, the first party shall have the right to have the defect corrected at the expense of the second party and the first party may withhold and use any monies then and thereafter due to the second party as set-off for any accounts so paid. First party reserves the right to terminate this contract at any time without consent from second parry and will only be required to pay second party for installation work completed to date of termination of contract, 10. General conditions of contract: a. Additional work not itemized in this contract must be Pre approved in writing on our work authorization form prior to starting this work or invoicing. A copy of the work authorization form must accompany your invoice in order to receive payment. When billing for work other than that specified in this contract, two invoices must be presented--one containing only items specified in this contract and a separate invoice listing additional work performed, b. All subcontractors are responsible for their own material necessary to complete their contracted job If Capitol Renovation & Supply, Inc. is to purchase any material for the subcontractor. Capitol Renovation & Supply, Inc will add 15% plus an administrative fee. c. All subcontractors' certificates of insuranoe will be current and the original will be sent to the office in New Cumberland, PA or checks will not be issued. A $500.000.00 per occurrence minimum is required and Capitol Renovation & Supply, Inc Eric J. Desrosiers must be listed as certificate holder YHUt lb FJr? nitiarz Page 2 of 3 U1/JU/GUVL 11..11 !1111 V.aV?.? d. If the subcontractor removes hardware he is responsible for replacing it in the event it is missing whether stolen, misplaced, or thrown out, e. If hardware is broken at pre-punch, the subcontractor us[ make sure that Capitol Renovation S Supply, Inc. has it recorded or the subcontractor will responsible for fixing or replacing it. If Capitol Renovation 8 Supply, Inc, has to replace these broken items, the subcontractor will be charged 15% above cost plus an administrative fee. j f. Subcontractors installing new hardware are responsible for removing existing, if applicable, at no additional cost and must make sure all items hung have proper blocking and/or anchors. g. Subcontractors are responsible for pre-punching their own work before Eric J Desiosiers punches rooms In, Subcontractors are responsible for providing their own trash cans and hand trucks if needed to complete their contract. - i. Subcontractors are responsible for putting trash in dumpslers properly so we get the most out of the dumpster or subcontractor will be billed for any additional dumpsler cost as determined by Project Manager. Subcontractor agrees to strictly follow owners rules and regulations and work hours The parties agree mat this contract will be decided under principles of Pennsylvania law. Tha parties agree that if any dispute arises in this contract, all litigation must be conducted in the Court of Common pleas for Cumberland County. Pannsylvan'a, or the United States District Court for the Middle District located in Harn Sfiurg, Pennsylvania. The parties further agree that, in the event of any action or suit as to any matters of dispute between the parties. Service of process may be made upon the other party by mailing a copy of the summons and/or complaint to the other party at the address set forth above and parry's refusal to accept any such notice or pri snail be equivalent to servicd. Capitol Renovation 8 Supply. Inc. shall have the right to obtain reimbursement (Or legal fees and other costs of collection VWE jointly and severally personally guarantee the performance of the applicant herein agreeing to Vie terms nereinehove stated. Additionally it is myrour responsibility to inform Capitol Renovation 8 Supply, Inc, or any business or personnel change including, but not limited to, the business name, address, status. otq In Witness whereof, the parties hereto set their hands this Yn.?? Witness / First Pa Wetness 12 -/2 'Gtp Second Party Initial ?? Page 3 of 3 UlI..J V/GV VG L 1. ii rYr, ryl y?L ?I L 1\LIlV Vry11V11 %i J. ? l EXHIBIT A Honodel Construction 12102 Bayer Dr. Waynesboro Pa. 17268 717-762-2265 Fax # 717-762-7098 Proposal for Desrosler Residence 808 Michigan Ave. Lemoyne Pa. 17043 We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion or the house addition. Work to be performed at 808 Michigan Ave. I,emoyne Pa. 17043. Addition to be built as per plans provided by homeowner and drawn by.lames Crum, AIA. Any alteration or deviation to require written change order and could require additional costs. Foundation to be 8" concrete walls - 9f} high w/3/4"foam over bituminous damp proofing set on 2ft footers. Basement floor to be 4" concrete w/vapur barrier and 3-radon and foundation drain. Excavation to be standard excavation, rock is extra. Foundation to be backflled and graded. Wall ro be capped w/PT 2x8" & sill seal. Floors to be 2x 10. 16" centers w/3/4" T&G plywood. Exterior walls to be 2x6"- 16" centers Headers to be insulated 2x8". Walls to be sheeted w/7/16" OSB sheeting on corners w/1/2" foam on remainder. Interior walls and all finished basement area to be 2x4- 24" centers. Siding soffit, shutters & windows to match existing. Electrical to be as per code using 60-amp panel located in new addition, Insulation to be rolled fiberglass in walls and 12" poured cell in ceiling. Roof truss and or rafters to match existing as per plans. Rool'shingles to match exislin w/25 yr warranty, Interior to be A- drywall printed and painted w/2 coats to match existing linish. Interior doors and hardware to be colonial as per existing also painted w/polished brass hardware. Stairs to be pine treads covered with carpet and oak handrails. Floor covering to be carpet & Hardwood supplied by homeowner Cedar closet to be 3/8" wall covering only. Book shelves to match existing. Closet shelves to match existing. Heating & AC to be heat pump system adequate for addition W/electric backup. Plumbing to be PVC waste lines, waterto be 'F'copper. Bathroom to be fiberglass tub shower combo, standard toilertank combo, vanity to be Oft oak w/laminated top & drop in bowl. Front porch & walkway to be with pressed concrete to give brick look. Roof trim and siding to match existing. All trim to be solid wood. I lomeowncr to provide water, electric and dumpsrer as required. Contractor to provide all dust and safety barriers. All materials to be guaranteed as per plans and work to be performed in accordance with die drawings dated (//- j ) and specifications supplied. Payments to be specified in writing. All agreements contingent upon strikes. accidents &/or acts of nature beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado. Public liability and other necessary insurance for above work. Contractor to carry General liability of 2,000,000.00 Contractor to dispose of all excess fill dirt. Only one tree to be removed and relocated for an additional cost pre approved by owner. Contractor to protect driveway and will replace any damage area caused by construction, Price to be $72177,00 ACCEPTANCL'of proposal The above price, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to start work as specified. Payment to be made promptly as agreaded upon Steve HonodeI Date/?-12cfJ F..rie.l. Desrosiers Date / ---- ----- --------- Honodel Construction 12102 Bayer Dr. Waynesboro Pa. 17268 ` 717-762-2265 Fax# 717-762-7098 Spec'iliculion sheen Carpet and padding to match exkting Bath fixture allowance --$1500 Electrical fixtures allowance -8300 8 - Fvpon 0100808 11,/base 4780601 and cup N 780605 doors & Windows to match e.ratinp Wood trim to match existing %5 diynvull finished hasement Apprarimote .shirt date of 1111,5100 & cumpletion dole aft/1S/Ol Copper roof rear window 3016 felt paper ice guard, Anderson window,, Barmnent &wall insulation R-19 C'eiligQ insuluti<'n R-38 /'roper vents _ Strmp pump & pit plumbing vented through ruof Basement to be 10016finished with carpeting, painted ddywall walls and ceilings Basement ceiling to be 9' finished in front of baaemem 8.5' finished in buck half of basemen) insulate bath interior wall and dividing wall between bedroonh two and three Stcticr l /r ndc?L?ev ! ric.l?er u!e/°/2/oeJ 01/30/2002 11:11 111 /1b1b4L ' t,aHr11UL RGYU Vry?lUIY Honodel Construction 12102 Bayer Dr. Waynesboro Pa. 17268 717-762-2265 Fax# 717-762-7098 Draw schedule Start depaw of /0% or $7117 J iJ r ? Exhibit C ' i.. 2"" draw to be upon completion ajjaviers, foundazion wal/,v. rudor drtrhnc, nulside fouler druin, floor turd framing package delivered amount to be $19,400,00 3'" draw to be upon all framing being completed and addition being weather light and sic/ing & rnn/inu delivered amount to he $10500 d"' draw to be outside ofaddir/on being completed and dr1-u,ull hitzrulation delivered ammmi to he S9290 S"' draw to be when rough-ins are completed K drywall i.r finnyhed amnion to he $I1 t)S ? e draw when frnnt purch is completed anrounl to be 57500 final draw to be when all cemiract work it completed amoun/ to be 572) 7 1? 2 Steve Honodely/,?% .......Date 1l?,rPiricJ.OLsrosicr.r_ Dutr/ L? 0 ANITA FULWILER O'MEARA, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Attorney I.D. No: 45045 STEPHEN HONODEL and KENNEDY, WALKER & LIPSKI STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a 150 South Warner, Road, Suite 270 HONODEL CONSTRUCTION King of Prussia, PA 19406 (610) 687-8303 V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-4795 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance in the above captioned matter on behalf of Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction. , WALKER & LIPSKI Attorney for Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction - . _ ;? rn, - -n c- F n ANITA FULWILER O'MEARA, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Attorney I.D. No: 45045 STEPHEN HONODEL and KENNEDY, WALKER & LIPSKI STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a 150 South Warner, Road, Suite 270 HONODEL CONSTRUCTION King of Prussia, PA 19406 (610) 687-8303 V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-4795 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Twelve (12) members, exclusive of alternates, are hereby demanded by Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction, in the above captioned matter. WALKER & LIPSKI Attorney for Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction c T ?cJCr: J ,_' -n n?rz, _ ? i ??_ ,.,.. N . -- : r _. <._, = _,- ? ?n ? ?...' c X? _`_ SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2002-04795 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND DESR- OSIERS ERIC J VS HONODEL STEPHEN ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT HONODEL STEPHEN TDBA HONODEL to wit: CONSTRUCTION but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE LC?emner 19th ? 2002 this o attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of Count 18.00 Surcharge y 9.00 Dep Franklin Co 10.00 59.86 .00 - 96.86 12/19/2002 KILLIAN & GEPHART ce was in receipt of t So answers; R• Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this d-7 w day of _ A.D. Prothonotai- SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2002-04795 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND DESROSIERS ERIC J VS HONODEL STEPHEN ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENnANT HONODEL STEPHANIE TDBA HONODEL CONSTRUCTION but was unable to locate Her deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE to wit: He therefore County, Pennsylvania, to On December 19th 2002 this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 12/19/2002 KILLIAN & GEPHART So answer R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this ,47 `? day of 6, -2,- A. D. Uv ??r Protho otar in his bailiwick SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-00171. T COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF FRANKLIN ERIC J DESROSIERS VS STEPHEN HONODEL ET AL JOHN FIGNAR Deputy Sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT was served upon the STEPHEN HONODEL DEFENDANT at 0011:16 Hour, on the 21st day of October 2002 at 12102 BAYER DRIVE WAYNESBORO, PA 17268 STEPHANIE HONODEL a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing 9.00 Service 9.00 JOHN FIG FIG Affidavit 4.00 Surcharge 10.00 By Mileage 9.86 D p ty er 41.86 11/19/ 002 KILLIAN AND GEPHART Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of to alt. .Li ?? A.D. by handing to Notaral Seal Patricia a 5r +"? Notaryry Public ,anklln County Cission ' ,?s Nov 4, 200044 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-00171 T COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF FRANKLIN ERIC J DESROSIERS VS STEPHEN HONODEL ET AL JOHN FIGNAR Deputy Sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT was served upon STEPHANIE HONODEL the DEFENDANT , at 0011:16 Hour, on the 21st day of October 2002 at 12102 BAYER DRIVE WAYNESBORO, PA 17268 by handing to STEPHANIE HONODEL a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing Service .00 6.00 JOHN FIGN R Affidavit 2.00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 By D pu y S erif 18.00 11/19/ 002 KILLIAN AND GEPHART Sworn and Subscribed to before me this, ?y day of A. D. Notarial Seal ry Patricia a -trim. Notarryy Public Chamber?t =ranklin County Thy Comrr;ssion :=.,., s Nov. 4, 2004 In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Eric J. Desrosiers vs. Stephan Honodel et al 02 4795 civil SERVE: Stephan Honodel t/d/b/a NO. Honodel Construction Now, october 2, 2002 hereby deputize the Sheriff of I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do Franklin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, 0 a • .2 t 20 0 7i, at // ? iio o'clock A- M. served the within upon i at by handing to a and made known to _ copy of the original = - the contents thereof. I?ec/ So answers, Sheriff of _ County, PA COSTS ? Sworn d subscribebefo e SERVICE O _V 20 D MILEAGE me s (day of AFFIDAVIT lanai Seal a na A A. Strine, Notary Public Q . P No Chambersburg Boro, Franklin County + My Commission 'Expires Nov. 4, 2ao4 In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Eric J. Desrosiers vs. SERVE; Stephan Honodel et al Stephanie Honodel t/d/b/a Honodel Construction Now, October 2, 2002 hereby deputize the Sheriff of No. 02 4795 civil I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do Franklin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, l!< ?. J-/ , 20 D y , at fa o'clock A M. served the within d upon / at X8 by handing to - f ee? a copy of the original and made known to the contents thereof. So answers, Ike Sherif of County, PA Sworn and subscrib°? before COSTS me day of ` ou . 20 D L SERVICE $ MILEAGE - AFFIDAVIT Notarial Seal atricia A. String, Notary Public Chambersburg 13oro, Franklin County Ivry Commission Expires Nov. 4, 2004 TO PLAINTIFF: You are hereby notified to answer the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. JOSEPH A. JULIANA, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No: 59523 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY 150 South Warner, Road, Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 (610) 687-8303 V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-4795 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof at trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the parties entered into a contract. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied as the contract is a writing and speaks for itself. Answering defendants deny any characterization of said writing. 4. Denied as stated. The contract is a writing and speaks for itself. Answering defendants deny any characterization of said writing. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied as stated. The contract is a writing and speaks for itself. Answering defendants deny any characterization of said writing. 7. Denied as stated. The contract is a writing and speaks for itself. Answering defendants deny any characterization of said writing. 8. Denied as stated. The contract is a writing and speaks for itself. Answering defendants deny any characterization of said writing. 9. Denied as stated. The contract is a writing and speaks for itself. Answering defendants deny any characterization of said writing. 10. Denied as stated. The contract is a writing and speaks for itself. Answering defendants deny any characterization of said writing. 11. Denied as stated. The contract is a writing and speaks for itself. Answering defendants deny any characterization of said writing. 12. Denied as stated. The contract is a writing and speaks for itself. Answering defendants deny any characterization of said writing. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, some of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, some of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, the letter is a writing and speaks for itself. Answering defendants deny any characterization of said writing. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 19. Denied generally under PA Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 20. Denied generally under PA Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, some of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, some of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, some of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, some of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. 26. Denied generally under PA Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 27. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed siding work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 28. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed excavating work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 29. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed plumbing work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed painting work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 31. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed painting work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 32. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed roofing work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 33. Denied generally under PA Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 34. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed work on the dormers which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 35. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed carpentry work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 36. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed concrete work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 37. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed heating and air conditioning work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 38. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed electrical work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 39. Denied generally under PA Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 40. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed carpet work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 41. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed drywalling work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, some of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. 42. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed window work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 43. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants performed masonry work which was never completed correctly. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, some of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. 44. Denied generally under PA Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 45. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants negligently performed additional carpet work. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, some of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof at trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice or that judgment be rendered wholly in favor of Answering Defendants. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 47. Answering defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraph 1 through 46 of plaintiff's complaint as though fully set forth at length.. 48. Admitted. 49. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required under the PA Rules of Civil Procedure. 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, some of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore denied. NEW MATTER ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFF 51. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. 52. If Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in the Complaint, then same were caused by other entities or parties over which answering Defendants had no control. 53. Answering Defendants did not breach any warranties. 54. Answering Defendants did not make any express warranties to the plaintiffs. 55. Answering Defendants did not materially breach any contract. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY Attorney for Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction VERIFICATION Joseph A. Juliana, Esquire, hereby states that he is the attorney of record for defendants in this action and verifies that statements made in the foregoing Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY Date: J U?2fL+ Yifi A. J?IAN?,Z3 ? Attorney for Defendants JOSEPH A. JULIANA, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No: 59523 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY 150 South Warner, Road, Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 (610) 687-8303 V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-4795 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Joseph A. Juliana, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing documents were served by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid on January 24, 2003, upon the following counsel of record: Paula J. McDermott, Esquire Killian & Gephart, LLP 218 Pine Street, P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY Q. Attorney for Defendants Date: 1 -akA -a) r2 ?? ., •_,7 ,:;? it ?:a- ?_ ? c, ;_ ?.? - r=;- ? .c-- - ' z ???3 ? ? , , ? ? -? C S -c ERIC J. DESROSIERS, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants NO.: 02-4795 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS AND NOW, this ca fit') day of January, 2003, comes the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, Killian & Gephart, LLP, and in response to Defendants' New Matter avers in support thereof as follows: 51. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no further responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. 52. Denied as conclusion of law to which no further responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff's injuries and damages as alleged in the Complaint were caused by other entities or parties over which answering Defendants had no control. 53. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no farther responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants did not breach any warranties. 54. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no farther responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants did not make any express warranties to Plaintiff. 55. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no farther responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants did not materially breach any contract. Respectfully submitted, KILLIAN & GEPHART, LLP Date: \i 2S ( U 3 By: Paula J. cDermottEsquire Attorney I.D. No.: 46664 218 Pine Street P.O. Box 8;86 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Telephone: (717) 232-1851 Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the statements of fact made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements therein are subject to the criminal penalties contained in 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: <f- 1 Paula J. cDerm.ott, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this2!??day of , 2003, I hereby certify that I served this foregoing document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Mr. Stephen Honodel and Mrs. Stephanie Honodel t/d/b/a Honodel Construction c/o Joseph A. Juliana, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V%? CASEY Walnut Hill Plaza 150 South Warner Road Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 KILLIAN & GEPHART, LLP ? Paula J. M ermott, Esquire Attorney I.D. #46664 218 Pine Street P. O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Telephone: (717) 232-1851 f'} b W C7 m cz; ERIC J. DESROSIERS, Plaintiff V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO.: 02-4795 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO: THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT Kindly enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of One Forty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Three Dollars and Seventy-Six Cents ($142,443.76), plus attorneys' fees for Defendants' failure to answer Plaintiffs Complaint (Sheriffs receipts attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). Plaintiff's Ten Day Notice is attached as Exhibit "B". Plaintiff granted Defendant a 30 day extension which expired on January 21, 2003. Respectfully submitted, KILLIAN & GEPHART, LLP Dated: January 23, 2003 Paula J. McDermott, Esquire Attorney I.D. #46664 218 Pine Street P. O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Telephone: (717) 232-1851 ERIC J. DESROSIERS, Plaintiff V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants TO: Mr. Stephen Honodel and Mrs. Stephanie Honodel c/o Joseph A. Juliana, Esquire Law Office of Michael W. Casey 150 South Warner Road Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO.: 02-4795 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW You are hereby notified that on ?4 2003, the following judgment has been entered against yo 4 the abo captioned case. Judgment in the amount of One Forty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Three Dollars and Seventy-Six Cents ($142,443.76), plus attorneys' fees and costs of this action. DATE: -,? y- Z) _/ .rl.?. c _ /l - y a.?ta Prothonotary I hereby certify that the name and address of the proper persons to receive this notice are: Mr. Stephen Honodel and Mrs. Stephanie Honodel c/o Joseph A. Juliana, Esquire Law Office of Michael W. Casey 150 South Warner Road Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE d 4AII On this ?? day of January, 2003, I hereby certify that I served this foregoing document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Mr. Stephen Honodel and Mrs. Stephanie Honodel c/o Joseph A. Juliana, Esquire Law Office of Michael W. Casey 150 South Warner Road Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Respectfully submitted, KILLIAN & GEPHART, LLP Daniel Hartman, Legal Secretary for Killian & Gephart, LLP 218 Pine Street P. O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Telephone: (717) 232-1851 In The Court of Common Pleas of Cnmberland County, Pennsylvania Eric a. Desrosiers VS. Stephan Honodel et al SERVE: 02 Stephanie Honodel t/d/b/a No. Honodel Construction Now, October 2, 2002 4795 civil I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff l Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, &4, P-/ 20e7,-,at !I: o'clock A M. served the within upon at /"2G/o by handing to a copy of the original and made known to the contents thereof. So answers, Sheri of County, PA Sworn meta, COSTS subscribc4 before SERVICE _ day of CO'L) , 20-' MILEAGE --AFFIDAVIT_.. Notarial Seal atncia A. Strine, Notary Public Char4 rsburg Boro, Franklin County My Cnmmission cxoires Nov. 4, 2004 $ 5-y_ s2e;?' l?IT "An In The Court of Common Fleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Eric J. Desrosiers VS. Stephan Honodel et al SERVE: Stephan Honodel t/d/b/a No 02 4795 civil Honodel Construction Now October 2, 2002 Now, _ hereby deputize the Sheriff of deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. rte. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, . a f within 4 upon /&Tzk _e at by handing to a V41 i and made known to So answers, the contents thereof. ?Jr -v /1Z Sheriff of?? County, PA COSTS Sworn d subscribe( before SERVICE $ me 's G day of 'f?,? tJ , 20 z' MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT N tarsal Seal Y atncia A. Stnne, Nola ry Public I $ Chambersburg Boro, Franklin County wry Commission expires Nov. 4, 2004 I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do Franklin County to execute this Writ, this 20 0 , at // ; r& o'clock A- M. served the copy of the original Of ("ntbej-r? R. THOMAS KLINE Sheriff EDWARD L. SCHORPP Solicitor OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 TO: Franklin County Sheriff Dear Sir: RE: Eric J. Desrosiers VS Stephan Honodel et al 02-4795 civil RONNY R. ANDERSON Chief Deputy PATRICIA A. SHATTO Real Estate Deputy Enclosed please find Notice and Cornplaint 1. Stephan Honodel t/d/b/a Honodel construction to be served upon 2 Stephanie Honodel t/d/b/a Honodel Construction 12102 Bayer Drive in your County. Kindly make service thereof and send us your returnof service. Enclosed is the advance payment which you requested. Very truly yours, R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Enclosures: THE LAW FIRM OF SMITH B. GEPHART IOLLIAN & GEPHART, LLP THOMAS W. SCOTT 218 PINE STREET JANE GOWEN PENNY P. O. BOX 886 TERRENCE J. McGOWAN HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0886 PAULA J. McDERMOTT ---------- J. PAUL HELVY TELEPHONE (717) 232-1851 MICHAEL J. O°CONNOR FAX NO. (717) 238-0592 HEATHER M. FAUST www.killiarigephart.com December 13, 2002 Anita Fulwiler O'Meara KENNEDY, WALKER & LIPSKI Walnut Hill Plaza 150 South Warner Road Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Of Counsel: JOHN D. KILLIAN RE: DESROSIERS VS. HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, ET AL DOCKET NO.: 02-4795 YOUR CLIENT: STEPHEN HONDEL AND STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION DATE OF LOSS: APRIL 01, 2002 Dear Ms. Fulwiler O'Meara: Enclosed herewith, constituting service upon you, please find a Ten Day Notice which my office has prepared relative to the above-captioned matter. Upon receipt of this letter should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Very truly yours, F Paula J. McDermott PJM:dmh Enclosure(s) cc: Mr. Eric Desrosiers F;1ffIIBTT "Bog ERIC J. DESROSIERS, Plaintiff V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO.: 02-4795 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO: Mr. Stephen Honodel and Mrs. Stephanie Honodel c/o Anita Fulwiler O'Meara KENNEDY, WALKER & LIPSKI Walnut Hill Plaza 150 South Warner Road Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO TAKE ACTION REQUIRED OF YOU IN THIS CASE. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse, 4th Floor 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone: (717)240-6269 Dated: December 13, 2002 (Ykc L Paula J. M ermott, Esquire Killian & Gephart, LLP 218 Pine Street P. O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 232-1851 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this day of 94-,o,.1'zgA ?7-, 2002, I hereby certify that I served this foregoing document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Mr. Stephen Honodel and Mrs. Stephanie Honodel c/o Anita Fulwiler O'Meara KENNEDY, WALKER & LIPSKI Walnut Hill Plaza 150 South Warner Road Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 KILLIAN & GEPHART, LLP Paula J. MbDermott, Esquire Attorney I.D. #46664 218 Pine Street P. O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Telephone: (717) 232-1851 U Q ?n ( P1 I?L 4? U` t I ? tT -{ JOSEPH A. JULIANA, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No: 59523 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY 150 South Warner, Road, Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 (610) 687-8303 ERIC J. DESROSIERS V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-4795 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS' ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, AND RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction, by and through their attorneys, The Law Offices of Michael W. Casey, request that the Plaintiff be ordered to provide full and complete answers to Interrogatories and responses to Request for Production of Documents, and in support of this Motion, Defendant avers as follows: This is a breach of contract case wherein movants are the Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction. 2. On or about August 14, 2003, Defendants served Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents upon Paula J. McDermott, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Eric J. Desrosiers. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 3. Plaintiff has failed to answer or object to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days as required by Rule 4009(b)(2). 4. By correspondence dated September 15, 2003, counsel for Defendant advised counsel for Plaintiff that he would file the present Motion to Compel within ten days unless he received discovery responses from the Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". JOSEPH A. JULIANA, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No: 59523 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY 150 South Warner, Road, Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 (610) 687-8303 ERIC J. DESROSIERS V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-4795 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS On or about August 14, 2003, Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction, served Interrogatories and a Requests for Production of Documents upon Plaintiff. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4005, 4006 and 4009.12, responses to said discovery requests were due within thirty days of service. To date, Defendant has not received answers or objections to the aforementioned discovery requests. Defendant cannot adequately prepare a defense to Plaintiff's claims unless the aforesaid Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents are answered. Accordingly, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide full and complete answers to Interrogatories and responses to Requests for Production of Documents within thirty days from the date of this Order. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY c . JOS 'Y A. LUA-NA, E ' U1RE Attorney for Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction Dated: 12/31/2003 VERIFICATION Joseph A. Juliana, Esquire, hereby states that he is the attorney of record for defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction, in this action and verifies that statements made in the foregoing Motion to Compel are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY Date: 12/31/2003 J H A Z'H 1' -- 1 . IANA, SQUIltE Attorney for Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction JOSEPH A.JULIANA,ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No: 59523 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY 150 South Warner, Road, Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 (610) 687-8303 ERIC J. DESROSIERS V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-4795 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION OF GOOD FAITH The undersigned counsel for Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction, hereby certifies and attests that he has made a good faith effort regarding the discovery matter contained in the foregoing discovery motion in an effort to resolve the specific discovery disputes at issue, and further, that despite all counsels' good faith attempts to resolve the disputes, they have been unable to do so without Court intervention. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY Date: 12/31/2003 JOSH A. JULIA IA NA, QUIRE Attorney for Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel; t/d/b/a Honodel Construction EXHIBIT "A" LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY (Not a Partnership - Employees of Zurich North America) WALNUT HILL PLAZA 150 SOUTH WARNER ROAD, SUITE 270 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406 (610) 687-8303 FAX (610) 225-8160 MICHAEL W. CASEY MARK A. MMCOZZI JEFFREY R. LIEBESMAN JEFFREY W. MEEHAN ROBERT I. MCDADE August 14, 2003 Paula J. McDermott, Esquire Killian & McDermott, LLP 218 Pine Street, P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 KAREN SHORT NORRIS LISA BELLINO APELLAN WILLIAM E, DENGLER JOSEPH A. JULIANA RE: Desrosiers V. Honodel Construction, et a] Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, No. 024795 Our Clients: Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction Date of Loss: 4/1/02 Dear Ms. McDermott: Enclosed please find Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents addressed to Plaintiff. Please respond to these discovery requests within the time limit allowed under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY BY: I -? os epA 4 JOSEPH AhULLANA Email: joe.juli=aQa=richnacom Direct Dial: (610) 225-8166 JAJ: dab Enclosure cc: John F. Flaherty, Jr., Account Specialist 11, Zurich North America (Your File No.: 566-0092173-001) EXHIBIT "B" LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY (Not a Partnership -Employees of Zurich North America) WALNUT HILL PLAZA 150 SOUTH WARNER ROAD, SUITE 270 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406 (610) 687-8303 FAX (610) 225-8160 MICHAEL W. CASEY MARK A MINICOZZI JEFFREY R. LIEBESMAN JEFFREY W. MEEHAN ROBERT J. McDADE September 15, 2003 Paula J. McDermott, Esquire Duane Morris 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 RE: Desrosiers v. Honodel Construction, et al KAREN SHORT NORRIS LISA BELLINO APELIAN WILLIAM E. DENGLER JOSEPH A. JULIANA Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, No. 02-4795 Our Clients: Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction Date of Loss: 4/1/02 Dear Ms. McDermott: On August 14„ 2003, I sent you Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents for answer by your client. As you know, the Rules of Civil Procedure require responses within 30 days. To date I have had no response. If I do not have Plaintiffs Answers to my discovery requests within the next ten days, please be advised that I will file a Motion to Compel with the Court. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CASEY By ? ? J A.?LIANA Email: joe.julima@mrichna.com Direct Dial: (610)225-8166 JAJ:dab t, ?, ?-; --a ? ? Lft? ' _ f," l0 - l ? - (.: „ ` - n v _-t ii i _., r? ERIC J. DESROSIERS, Plaintiff VS. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL t/d/ba HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 02-4795 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ORDER AND NOW, this 1 y` day of January, 2004, a rule is issued on the plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested in the within motion to compel ought not to be granted. This rule returnable twenty (20) days after service. BY THE COURT, /Paula J. McDermott, Esquire For the Plaintiff Joseph A. Juliana, Esquire For the Defendants Am e? ? 4 ;,_I Kevi A. I-less, J. C "10 :Fa t„V c !?,I (' Uoz LUNd cirri. SUSAN SMITH LLOYD, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No: 54484 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. HENDRZAK 3773 Corporate Center Parkway - Suite 180 Center Valley, PA 18034 (610) 709-8568 ERIC J. DESROSIERS V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-4795 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance in the above captioned matter on behalf of Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel t/d/b/a Honodel Construction. Respectfully LAW OFFICE O"OHN P. HENDRZAK LLOYD, ESQUIRE for Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel t/d/b/a Honodel Construction N ? O ? nY C? cJ't "f v ? }t1 JOSEPH A. JULIANA, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No: 59523 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. McDADE 150 South Warner, Road, Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 (610) 687-8303 V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-4795 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw my appearance in the above captioned matter on behalf of Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. McDADE Date: ac O" "' JOSEP A.JULIANA,ESQ RE Attorney for Defendants, Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel, t/d/b/a Honodel Construction. -F.C'. - aSJ IL . { IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ERIC J. DESROSIERS Plaintiff V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants No: 02-4795 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Gates, Halbruner & Hatch, PC in the above-designated matter on behalf of the Plaintiff, Eric J. Desrosiers. Respectfully submitted, Dated: May 8, 2007 GATES, HALB R & HATCH, PC ?f Z.- Lo 11 R. Gates, Esquire P ID 46779 iff R. Guise, Esquire A ID 93537 Sarah E. McCarroll, Esquire PA ID 91102 Gates, Halbruner & Hatch, PC 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne, PA 17043 717.731.9600 717.731.9627 r? r ?j ? ? = 4` it -'f". Y ?'? ?.. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ERIC J. DESROSIERS Plaintiff V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants No: 02-4795 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW MOTION TO SCHEDULE STATUS CONFERENCE WITHOUT CONCURRENCE AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Eric J. Desrosiers, through his counsel, Gates, Halbruner & Hatch, PC and files this Motion to Schedule a statues conference. 1. The law firm of Gates, Halbruner & Hatch, PC recently replaced previous Plaintiff's counsel. 2. Counsel for Plaintiffs do not have recent correspondence between the parties nor was there recent docket activity to reflect the status of the case. 3. Counsel for Plaintiffs believe a status conference is necessary to ensure progress and the timely filing of pleadings. 4. Counsel for Plaintiffs has attempted to contact( ! opposing counsel, Susan Smith Lloyd several times and has received no response to the request for concurrence in this Motion for a Status Conference. Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court sched /status conference so the parties may proceed with their case. ! / Dated: May 11, 2007 Lowel . Gates, Esquire PA I 46779 Sar E. McCarroll, Esquire PA ID 91102 Gates, Halbruner & Hatch, PC 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne, PA 17043 717.731.9600 717.731.9627 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ERIC J. DESROSIERS Plaintiff . V. No: 02-4795 Civil Term STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a CIVIL ACTION - LAW HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sarah E. McCarroll, certify that I have, on this day, served a true and correct copy of the within Motion for a Status Conference and proposed order via the US Postal Service, first class, postage prepaid to the follow address: Susan Smith Lloyd, Esq. 3773 Corporate Center Parkway, Suite 180 Center Valley, PA 18034 Dated: May 11, 2007 Lowell R. Gates, Esquire PA ID 46779 Sarah E. McCarroll, Esquire PA ID 91102 Gates, Halbruner & Hatch, PC 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne, PA 17043 717.731.9600 717.731.9627 ?? ??"? y ?? .,.?. -?t~71?-- .? t,J + %' '. ti° , i? 4„ ?.,! ?. .r Marc T. Levin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 70294 John R. Martin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 204125 Rhoads & Sinon LLP One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Eric J. Desrosiers r? u ERIC J. DESROSIERS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, V. CIVIL DIVISION STEPHEN HONODEL and NO. 02-4795 STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL AND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of Gates, Halbruner & Hatch, PC as counsel for Eric J. Desrosiers and enter the appearance of Rhoads & Sinon LLP on behalf of Eric J. Desrosiers in the above-captioned matter. GATES, HALBR R HA CH, P.C. By: ell 16/01-7 Lowell . Gates, Esquire Atto y I.D. No. 46779 Cliff . Guise, Esquire Att ey I.D. No. 93537 Sarah E. McCarroll, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 91102 Gates, Halbruner & Hatch, P.C. 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-9600 RHOADS & SINON LLP By; 6?_ 7`20 /07 arc T. Levin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 70294 John R. Martin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 204125 Rhoads & Sinon LLP One South Market Square P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 657207.1 w ? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 20, 2007, a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Praecipe for Withdrawal and Entry of Appearance" was served by means of facsimile transmission and by United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Lowell R. Gates, Esquire Cliff R. Guise, Esquire Sara E. McCarroll, Esquire Gates, Halbruner & Hatch, P.C. 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne PA 17043 Susan Smith Lloyd Law Office of Hendrzak & Lloyd 3701 Corporate Center Parkway, Suite 100 Center Valley PA 18034 ?» hJ t?? _?1 .--/ "^ ???+ ? ? ° ? -? i aZ ; """ i. _ _ _? __ ?.w ` . Marc T. Levin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 70294 John R. Martin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 204125 Rhoads & Sinon LLP One South Market Square P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 ERIC J. DESROSIERS, V. Plaintiff, STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION NO. 02-4795 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY NOW COMES, Plaintiff, Eric J. Desrosiers ("Plaintiff'), by and through his counsel, Rhoads & Sinon LLP, and files the within Motion to Compel as follows: 1. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4005, on or about October 20, 2008, Plaintiff served Defendants with Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Specifically, Plaintiff served eight interrogatories on Defendants that focus on issues relating to Defendants' insurance coverage in this matter, a topic expressly held to be within the scope of permissible discovery. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 4003.2. 3. Defendants have not provided any written response to the foregoing discovery requests, and did not otherwise object thereto. 4. Pursuant to Local Rule 208.2(d), and in an effort to resolve this matter without Court intervention, on December 22, 2008, undersigned counsel for Plaintiff wrote to Susan Smith Lloyd, counsel for Defendants, notifying her that the responses were one month overdue and requesting that her clients respond by January 5, 2009. A copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 5. Ms. Lloyd did not respond to the above correspondence. 6. As of this date, Defendants have not provided answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. 7. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel should be granted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Eric J. Desrosiers, respectfully requests that this Court order Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests within ten days. Plaintiff further requests that if Defendants fail to respond within ten days, Defendants shall be sanctioned by this Court in a manner to be determined later. Respectfully submitted, By: ??- Marc T. Levin, Esq. John R. Martin, Esq. RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Eric J. Desrosiers -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 26, 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery" was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Susan Smith Lloyd, Esquire The Law Offices of Hendrzak & Lloyd 3701 Corporate Center Parkway, Suite 100 Center Valley, PA 18034 Exhibit A Marc T. Levin, Esquire - Attorney I.D. No. 70294 John R. Martin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 204125 Rhoads & Sinon LLP One South Market Square P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 ERIC J. DESROSIERS, Plaintiff, V. STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL, t/d/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION NO. 02-4795 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO: Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel t/d/b/a Honodel Construction c/o Susan Smith Lloyd, Esquire The Law Offices of Hendrzak & Lloyd 3701 Corporate Center Parkway, Suite 100 Center Valley, PA 18034 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you are hereby required, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, to serve upon the undersigned, a copy of your answers and objections, if any, in writing and under oath, to the following interrogatories within 30 days after service of the Interrogatories. The answers shall be inserted in the spaces provided. If there is insufficient space to answer an interrogatory, the remainder of the answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. These interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing in nature. If between the time of filing of your answers and the time of trial of this matter, you, or anyone acting on your behalf, learn of any further information not contained in your answers, or if you learn that any information set forth in your answer is or has become inaccurate or incorrect, you shall promptly file and serve supplemental answers. 718306.1 DEFINITIONS The following definitions are applicable to these interrogatories: 1. The term "you" or "your," as used herein, means Defendants Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel t/d/b/a Honodel Construction, their agents, representatives, consultants, experts, or anyone acting on behalf of, or purporting to act on their behalf, collectively or in any combination. 2. The term "document," as used herein, means any written, recorded, printed, typed, or other graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, whether sent or received or neither, including drafts or copies bearing meaning, notations or marks not found on or in the original, and includes but is not limited to: (a) all letters or other forms of correspondence or communication, including envelopes, notes, telegrams, cables, telex messages, messages, electronic files, a-mails (including reports, notes, notations and memoranda of or relating to telephone conversations or conferences); (b) all memoranda, reports, test results, financial statements or reports, notes, transcripts, tabulations, studies, analyses, evaluations, projections, work papers, corporate records or copies thereof, lists, comparisons, questionnaires, surveys, charts, graphs, summaries, extracts, statistical records, compilations; (c) all desk calendars, appointment books, diaries; (d) all books,. articles, press releases, magazines, newspapers, booklets, circulars, bulletins, notices, instructions, manuals; (e) all minutes or transcripts of all meetings; (f) all photographs, microfilms, video and audio tapes or other records, punch cards, magnetic tapes, discs, data cells, drums, print-outs, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained; and (g) all e-mail, and all other electronically stored data, however stored (including data files stored in/on office desktop computers/workstations, notebook/laptop computers, home computers, staff computers, palmtop devices or electronic organizers/secretaries, and network file servers/mini-computers; backup tapes including system-wide backups, disaster recovery backups, and personal or "ad hoc" backups; and other media sources including tape archives, -2- replaced/removed drives, floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, DVDs, zip cartridges, and other portable media). 3. The term "communication" means not only oral communications but also any "documents" (as such term is defined above), whether or not such document or the information contained therein was transmitted by its author to any other person. 4. The term "identify" or "identification," as used herein means: (a) When used in reference to a natural person, the terms "identify," "identity," or "identification" mean to provide the following information: (i) his/her full name; (ii) his/her present or last known business address; (iii) his/her present or last known business affiliation; (iv) his/her present or last known business position (including job title and a description of job functions; duties and responsibilities). (b) When used with reference to any entity other than a natural person, state: (i) its full name; (ii) the address of its principal place of business; (iii) the jurisdiction under the laws of which it has been organized or incorporated and the date of such organization or incorporation, if known; (iv) in the case of a corporation, the names of its directors and principal officers; and, (v) in the case of an entity other than a corporation, the identities of its partners or principals or all individuals who acted or who authorized another to act on its behalf in connection with the matters referred to. (c) When used in reference to a document, the terms "identify," "identity," or "identification" mean to provide the following information: -3- (i) the nature of the document (e.g., letter, contract, memorandum) and any other information (i.e., its title, index or file number) which would facilitate in the identification thereof, (ii) its date of preparation; (iii) its present location and the identity (as defined in paragraph 4(a) hereof) of its present custodian or, if its present location and custodian are not known, a description of its last known disposition; (iv) its subject matter and substance or, in lieu thereof, annex a legible copy of the document to the answers to those interrogatories; (v) the identity (as defined in paragraph 4(a) hereof) of each person who performed any significant function or had any role in connection therewith (i.e., author, contributor of information, recipient, etc.) or who has any knowledge; and, (vi) if the document has been destroyed or is otherwise no longer in existence or cannot be found, the reason, if known,. why such document no longer exists, the identity (as defined in paragraph 4(a) hereof) of the people responsible for the document no longer being in existence and of its last known custodian. (d) When used in connection with an oral communication, the terms "identify," "identity," and "identification" mean to provide the following information: (i) its general nature (i.e., conference, telephonic communication, etc.); (ii) the time and place of its occurrence; (iii) its subject matter and substance; (iv) the identity (as defined in paragraph 4(a) hereof) of each person who performed any function or had any role in connection therewith or who has any knowledge thereof; and, (v) the identity (as defined in paragraph 4(c) hereof) of each document which refers thereto or which was used, referred to or prepared in the course or as a result thereof. 5. The term "describe" or "description," as used herein, means: -4- (a) When used with respect to any act, action, accounting, activity, audit, practice, process, occurrence, occasion, course of conduct, happening, negotiation, relationship, scheme, communication, conference, discussion, development, service, transaction, instance, incidence or event, the terms "describe" or "description" mean to provide the following information: (i) its general nature; (ii) the time and place thereof, (iii) a chronological account setting forth each element thereof, what such element consisted of and what transpired as part thereof, (iv) the identity (as defined in paragraph 4(a) or 4(b) hereof) of each person who performed any function or had any role in connection therewith (i.e., speaker, participant, contributor or information, witness, etc.) or who has any knowledge thereof, (v) the identity (as defined in paragraph 4(c) hereof) of each document which refers thereto or which was used, referred to or prepared in the course or as a result thereof, and, (vi) the identity (as defined . in paragraph 4(d) hereof) of each oral communication which was a part thereof or referred thereto. (b) When used in connection with any calculation or computation, the terms "describe" or "description" mean to provide the following information: (i) an explanation of its meaning (including the nature, source and meaning of each component part thereof); (ii) an explanation of the manner in which it was derived; (iii) the identity (as defined in paragraph 4(a) hereof) of each person who performed any function with respect thereto; (iv) the identity of each document (as defined in paragraph 4(c) hereof) which refers thereto or which was used, referred to or prepared in the course or as a result thereof; and, (v) the identity (as defined in paragraph 4(d) hereof) of each oral communication which occurred in the course of the preparation thereof or which referred thereto. -5- 6. The term "factual basis," as used herein, means: (a) set forth each term of information upon which the allegation, contention, claim or demand to which it pertains is based; and (b) with respect to each such item of information, identify each person having knowledge thereof and identify and describe (as defined in paragraphs 4 and 5 hereof) each source thereof, including, but not limited to, each document, oral communication, act, action, activity, accounting, negotiation, practice, process, occurrence, occasion, course of conduct, happening, relationship, scheme, conference, discussion, development, service, instance, incident, event, calculation and computation upon which you rely with respect thereto. 7. The terms "relates to" or "relating to" when used in connection with any act, action, activity, accounting, practice, process, occurrence, occasion, course of conduct, contractual provision or document, happening, relationship, scheme, conference; discussion, development, service, instance, incident, event, etc., means used or occurring or referred to in the preparation therefore, or in the course thereof, or as a consequence thereof, or referring thereto. 8. The term "person" means all natural persons, corporations, partnerships or other business associations, public authorities, municipal corporations, state governments, local governments, all governmental bodies, and any other legal entities. 9. "And" and "or" shall be construed conjunctively and disjunctively so as to bring within the scope of these Interrogatories any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope. 10. The singular shall include the plural and the plural shall include the singular. 11. A masculine, feminine or neuter pronoun shall be construed to refer to all other gender pronouns. -6- 12. If you claim that the subject matter of a document or oral communication is privileged, you need not set forth the brief statement of the subject matter of the document, or the substance of the oral communication called for above. You shall, however, otherwise "identify" such document or oral communication and shall state such ground on which you claim that such document or oral communication is privileged. 13. In lieu of identifying documents in response to these interrogatories, you may provide copies of such documents with appropriate references to the corresponding interrogatories. 14. "Incident" means the occurrence which is the subject of the Complaint. INTERROGATORIES 1. If you or someone not an expert subject to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4003.5 conducted any investigations of this incident, identify: (a) each person, and the employer of each person, who conducted any investigation(s); and (b) all notes, reports, or other documents prepared during or as a result of the investigation(s) and the persons who have custody thereof. ANSWER: 2. Identify each expert you intend to call as a witness at the trial of this matter, and for each expert, state: (a) the subject matter about which the expert is expected to testify; and (b) the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. (You may file as your answer to this interrogatory the report of the expert or have the interrogatory answered by your expert.) ANSWER: -7- 3. Please state whether you were covered by or were the subject of any liability insurance policies for the damages arising out of the instant case. ANSWER: 4. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state the following: (a) name and address of the company issuing each policy; (b) policy number of each such policy; (c) names and addresses of the named insured(s) under each such policy; (d) limits of liability; (e) whether the insurance company issuing each policy has denied coverage with respect to' the incident for any reason; if so, the nature and reason given for such denial; (f) whether the insurance company issuing each policy has required the execution of any agreement by you or on your behalf before undertaking to investigate and/or defend this action; and if so, the nature of such agreement, the reason the agreement was required, when the agreement was executed, and whether or not you or any other person acting on your behalf executed such an agreement. (g) whether or not each of said policies provide coverage for the damages named in the Complaint and was in full force and effect when such damages were sustained; if not, state in full detail why said policies were not in effect, specifically listing each such policy or policies on each and every person. ANSWER: S. If the answer to interrogatory 4 is in the affirmative, state whether any exclusion under the policy is or may be applicable to any claim presented by Plaintiff's Complaint. ANSWER: -8- 6. If the Answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the precise language of each exclusion that is or may be applicable, and in summary form, the facts on the basis of which it is contended each such exclusion is or may be applicable. ANSWER: 7. State whether this case is being defended by the attorney who has entered his/her appearance on your behalf subject to a reservation of rights agreement between you and your insurance carrier ANSWER: 8. Identify and describe any type of relationship, other than the attorney-client relationship, that exists between you and the attorney who has entered his/her appearance on your behalf (e.g., social, familial, etc.). ANSWER: By: ? /?l? Marc T. Levin, Esq. John R. Martin, Esq. RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Eric J Desrosiers -9- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories" was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Susan Smith Lloyd, Esquire The Law Offices of Hendrzak & Lloyd 3701 Corporate Center Parkway, Suite 100 Center Valley, PA 18034 Exhibit B Ililllltll? -DADS ?& SINON LLP John R. Martin ph (717) 237-6734 fx (717) 231-6600 jmartin@rhoads-sinon.com FILE NO: 10718/02 December 22, 2008 Re: Eric J. Desrosiers v. Stephen Honodel and Stephanie Honodel tt"/a Honodel Construction, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, No 024795 Susan Smith Lloyd, Esquire The Law Offices of Hendrzak & Lloyd 3701 Corporate Center Parkway, Suite 100 Center Valley, PA 18034 Dear Attorney Lloyd: Defendants were served with Interrogatories in the above-captioned matter on or about October 20, 2008. To date, we have received no response. Please ensure that Defendants respond to these Interrogatories no later than January 5, 2009 to avoid the necessity of motion practice. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, cc: Marc T. Levin, Esq. Eric Desrosiers RHOADS & SINON LLP John R. Martin Rhoads & Sinon LLP • Attorneys at Law • Twelfth Floor • One South Market Square • P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 9 ph (717) 233-5731 • fx (717) 232-1459 • www.rhoads-sinon.com ?aj P7 'a "J T11 .r. , w ERIC J. DESROSIERS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 02-4795 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION -LAW STEPHEN HONODEL and STEPHANIE HONODEL tld/b/a HONODEL CONSTRUCTION, Defendants TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED ~ ~.~ ~ ~_~ :, ; IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE -~, == ~ _ `~.: _ T ORDER ~'_ ~'" c~ AND NOW, this ~''r day of July, 2010, following conference with cou~~el in ~Y `~ ~-; y _ r- _ = ~ Chambers, the following case management order is adopted: - --- ; ~.., 1. Discovery in this case will be completed on or before close of business on October 1, 2010. 2. The plaintiffls expert witness report shall be forthcoming on or before the close of business November 15, 2010. 3. The defendants' expert report shall be provided on or before the close of business on December 31, 2010. 4. Dispositive motions in this case, if any, shall be filed no later than February 1, 2011. Either counsel is authorized to list this case for trial for the first civil term following February 1, 2011. BY THE COURT, arc T. Levin, Esquire For the Plaintiff ~san Smith Lloyd, Esquire For the Defendants :rlm ), 7~Q~~v ~~