Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-0427F:\FILES\DATAFILE\General\Current\I 1850.1 coml.wpd/jfm Created: 6/22/06 3: 14PM Revised: 1/18/07 2:26PM 11850.1 David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO I.D. No. 41722 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff DONALD R. COTHARD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. CIVIL ACTION-LAW SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE, Defendant. 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 Plaintiffs. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCE FEE OR NO FEE: Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO I.D. No. 41722 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff DONALD R. COTHARD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. O '? y a2 T C , u r.CIVIL ACTION-LAW SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE, Defendant. COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Donald R. Cothard, by and through his attorneys, MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO, and hereby avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Donald R. Cothard, is an adult individual residing at 1744 Conway Heath, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendant, Sun Motor Cars Porsche, is a Pennsylvania business principally operating at 4434 Carlisle Pike, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. The Plaintiff is the owner of an automobile, a factory 1987 Porsche 911 Turbo. 4. The Plaintiffhad the engine professionally rebuilt and performance enhanced by Imagine Auto, a specialty Porsche garage located in Lenexa, Kansas. 5. After the performance rebuild, with all the aftermarket performance enhancements installed, Plaintiff's Porsche was not a race car, and the vehicle remained "street legal" and was passed through state inspection as such by Sun Motors. 6. On or about November 17, 2003, and after Imagine Auto's expert rebuild and enhancement ofthe engine, the Plaintiff's automobile was delivered to the Defendant's place ofbusiness to have a valve adjustment performed. 7. The Defendant agreed to perform the value adjustment in exchange for payment. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-00427 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND COTHARD DONALD R VS SUNMOTOR CARS PORSCHE TIMOTHY REITZ Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE the DEFENDANT , at 0905:00 HOURS, on the 25th day of January-, 2007 at 4434 CARLISLE PIKE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 STEVEN BRUN, MANAGER by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing 18.00 Service 12.32 Postage .39 ' Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 40.71.2 01/26/2007 MDW &O Sworn and Subscibed to By: r- ?^ before me this day D uty She ff l of A.D. 8. The Defendant represented that its shop and personnel were of particular expertise and ability to perform such work. 9. When the automobile was taken to the Defendant's place ofbusiness, the engine was in proper working order. 10. The engine's valve covers must be removed to perform a valve adjustment. 11. On five separate occasions between May 17, 2004 and November 29, 2004, the Defendant performed additional work on the Plaintiff's automobile engine in exchange for payment. 12. During the relevant time frame, Defendant's employees made repeated requests to Steve Kasper the principal at Imagine Auto for advice and guidance regarding maintenance of the vehicle. 13. On or about May23, 2005, the Plaintifftook the automobile to the Defendant's place of business to have a technical inspection performed. As part of the inspection, a "leak down" test was performed at the recommendation of Imagine Auto. 14. As a result of this inspection, the Plaintiffwas informed the engine was severely damaged. Nobody other than the technicians at Sun Motors ever worked on plaintiff's car during the relevant time period. 15. The Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the Defendant, by or through its agents or employees, recklessly or negligently caused, directly or proximately, the damage to his automobile's engine through a negligent and/or reckless break and repair of the wire terminal to the engine's number 3 cylinder prior to the May 23, 2005 inspection. 16. This negligent and/or reckless break and repair allowed "arcing" to occur within the cylinder wall which resulted in severe damage to the cylinder and head, requiring a complete rebuild ofthe engine. 17. Imagine Auto repaired the engine at a cost to the Plaintiff of $10,261.02. In addition, Plaintiffis required to expend shipping costs to and from Lenexa in the amount estimated to be $1,800.00. 18. The Defendant broke the wire and spark plug boot to the cylinder's spark plug and tried to repair it with electrical tape. 19. When this wire could not make a complete arc to the spark plug, electric arced through the sides of the cylinder which caused the serious damage. 20. Although the Defendant repeatedly assured the Plaintiffthat it had expertise in maintaining and repairing engines such as the Plaintiff's, this type of wire break can occur when people who are unfamiliar with twin plug ignition systems, when performing work on such an engine yank the wire out without first loosening the valve cover. 21. The technicians at Sun, represented as expert Porsche mechanics, are, upon information and belief, familiar with Twin Plug ignition systems, which have been used on all factory Porsche engines since 1989. 22. The Defendant has claimed that the break and repair of the wire terminal occurred as a result of the "leak down" test performed as part of the May 23, 2005 inspection. However, the leak down test performed by the Defendant in fact confirms that the break and repair occurred during a prior service by the Defendant. 23. The Defendant's own service sheet for the May 23, 2005 inspection, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," noted the "plug wire exhaust side was trapped under valve cover and boot was torn during removal." 24. Following Imagine Auto's expert rebuild and enhancement of the Plaintiff s engine and prior to his subsequent repair, no one but the Defendant performed any maintenance or repair to the engine which could have led to wire becoming "trapped." 25. By denying responsibility for the break and repair of the wire terminal prior to the May 23, 2005 inspection and the resulting damage to the engine, the Defendant has intentionally misrepresented material facts to the Plaintiff. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE 26. The Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference the averments contained in Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Complaint. 27. The Defendant had a duty to prevent and/or refrain from causing damage to the Plaintiff s automobile engine. 28. The Defendant breached this duty of care which caused damage to the Plaintiff's automobile engine. 29. The Defendant should have notified the Plaintiff of the wire terminal break and replaced it with new parts. Instead, the break was hidden and inadequately repaired with electrical tape. 30. The damage to the Plaintiff s engine would not have occurred if not for the break and inadequate repair. 31. Thus, due to the Defendant's breach, the Plaintiffsuffered damages to his automobile engine regarding engine repairs of $10,261.02, plus shipping costs of $1,800.00. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered against the Defendant for $12,061.02, plus interest and costs which is below the amount requiring mandatory arbitration, together with such other relief as is deemed just and reasonable by the court. COUNT II -BREACH OF CONTRACT 32. The Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference the averments contained in Paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Complaint. 33. The Defendant entered into agreements with the Plaintiffto work on the Defendant's engine in exchange for payment. 34. Incidental to this agreement, the Defendant agreed not to damage the automobile and to perform its obligations in good faith. 35. By breaking and inadequately repairing the wire terminal which led to the automobile engine's damage, the Defendant breached these agreements. 36. Due to the Defendant's breach, the Plaintiff suffered damages to his automobile's engine of $10,261.02, plus shipping costs of $1,800.00. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered against the Defendant for $12,061.02, plus interest and costs which is below the amount requiring mandatory arbitration, together with such other relief as is deemed just and reasonable by the court. COUNT III - VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 37. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the averments contained in Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint. 38. The Defendant is an automobile dealership which holds itself out as having expertise in providing service and repairs for particular makes of automobiles including Porsche, Mercedes-Benz and BMW. 39. The Defendant repeatedly assured the Plaintiffthat it had expertise in maintaining and repairing engines such as the one in Plaintiff's vehicle. 40. Based on the Defendant's representations regarding its expertise, the Plaintiffpermitted the Defendant to work on his automobile engine. 41. The Defendant did not have any technicians or mechanics who were certified to work on the type of engine found in Plaintiff's Porsche. 42. The Defendant otherwise knew or was recklessly ignorant of the fact that neither it nor its employees were qualified to work on the Plaintiff's engine. 43. Despite its knowledge that it was unqualified to work on Plaintiff's engine, the Defendant endeavored to attempt to perform maintenance and repairs on the engine in Plaintiff's Porsche. 44. Prior to the May 23, 2005 inspection, the Defendant knew that it had broken the wire and spark plug boot. 45. Alternatively, the Defendant was recklessly indifferent to the fact that it had broken the wire and spark plug boot. 46. The Defendant otherwise knew that the wire and spark plug boot were broken. 47. The Defendant failed to disclose to the Plaintiff that the wire and spark plug boot were broken prior to the May 23, 2005 inspection. 48. Instead of disclosing that it had broken the wire and spark plug boot, the Defendant attempted to repair it with electrical tape, knowing that resulting "arcing" in a twin plug ignition system would cause severe damage to the engine. 49. As a result of both the Defendant's decision to conceal the fact that the wire and spark plug boot were broken and its subsequent decision to attempt to remedy the defect with electrical tape, the Plaintiff's engine suffered severe damage. 50. The Defendant misrepresented to the Plaintiffthat it was not responsible for the damage to Plaintiff's vehicle prior to the May 23, 2005 inspection. 51. By concealing the fact that the wire and spark plug boot were broken and by attempting to remedy the defect with electrical tape and subsequently misrepresenting that it was not responsible for this damage prior to the May 23, 2005 inspection, the Defendant engaged in fraudulent or deceptive conduct under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") 52. The damage at issue would not have occurred but for the fact that the wire terminal was damaged prior to the May 23, 2005 inspection. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $12,061.02. 54. Therefore, the Defendant is in violation of the UTPCPL, Section 201-3 by using unfair or deceptive acts or practices as set forth above. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffrequests that judgment be entered against Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche for $12,061.02, plus interest and costs which is below the amount requiring mandatory arbitration, plus attorney's fees, pursuant to Section 201-9.2 of the UTPCPL, together with interest thereon, and costs of suit, together with such other damages as are available under law, and/or are deemed just and reasonable by the court. MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO B Y .? David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire I.D. No. 41722 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: January 19, 2007 UE EDPAPE0. IL 41 RECY(]ABEE FEB-13-2006 05:42 PM DONALD R COTHARD f H O O I cc C. 3 e 1 4I .1 'It Y ?o 7177632033 ? ? UJ z W X m 4 a U V) cc v9 ?i ? e0 E Utq?F-C7 U P.03 l :k rri w ' ""' -4 as r^? .? rn z 4 ? y CW : V ",d N N W W W zo Z.) I-) In I? LL O U. I O OW ?' ?? r7 7 O L co 3 s 3 9? ? r11' r ¢ui s c M W = h ?? ?S N 1LLl y F6 I 9 O T is TI- Exhibit "A" VERIFICATION I, Donald R. Cothard am the Plaintiff in the foregoing Complaint and hereby verify that I have reviewed the foregoing document and to the extent that the it contains facts supplied by or known to me, they are true and ctft,ect to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false sfiiE ffients made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unworn falsikation to authorities. Donald R. Cothard CADocuments and SettinpOon\I.ocal Settingffemporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\8KYIN2EE\I 1850[l].lcoml.wpd 1?' Y( ?- ? c ? ? -C.? b ?' ?? ? v O C _._, ? -,- .- r-- ?. -r??= ,p ''; _ ?;? ?, _. -? _. •-s .?' a R BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: David K. Brennan, Esquire Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 3 72-0101 /fax (610) 3 72-4477 DONALD R. COTHARD Plaintiff v. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE Defendant Attorneys for Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. 07-427 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of additional defendant, Sun Motor Cars Porsche in this matter. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: jk' . DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Additional Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche A . lk BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: David K. Brennan, Esquire Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 DONALD R. COTHARD Plaintiff v. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE Defendant Attorneys for Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. 07-427 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, David K. Brennan, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Entry of Appearance, was served upon all counsel and/or unrepresented party by regular, first class mail, postage pre-paid on February 13, 2007. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. L4k, By: DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Additional Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche to M BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant By: David K. Brennan, Esquire Sun Motor Cars Porsche Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 DONALD R. COTHARD COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. DOCKET NO. 07-427 Civil Term SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendants, Sun Motor Cars Porsche hereby demand a trial by jury of twelve (12) jurors in this matter. B NNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: K Ai??j - DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant ? ! M BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: David K. Brennan, Esquire Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 3 72-0101 /fax (610) 3 72-4477 DONALD R. COTHARD Plaintiff V. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE Defendant Attorneys for Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. 07-427 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, David K. Brennan, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Demand for Jury Trial, was served upon all counsel and/or unrepresented party by regular, first class mail, postage pre-paid on February 13, 2007. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: A?? Y `" " 6 - DAVID K. BRE AN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant ?- ...t .; .?" ,,?, a., ?_ ?? •* BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: David K. Brennan, Esquire Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 802 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 DONALD R. COTHARD V. Plaintiff SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE Defendant Attorneys for Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. 07-427 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW PETITION OF DEFENDANT SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE TO OPEN DEFAULT JUDGMENT 1. The above captioned matter was initiated with the filing of a Civil Action Complaint by the plaintiff on or about January 19, 2007. 2. The undersigned counsel entered his appearance on February 14, 2007. Contemporaneous with the filing of the Entry of Appearance, the undersigned requested a reasonable extension to answer the Complaint from plaintiff s counsel with said extension being granted on or about February 16, 2007. 3. Plaintiff s counsel again wrote to the undersigned on March 23, 2007 requesting an update on when the Answer would be filed and that if time was required beyond April 9, 2007, he should be advised. 4. By way of telephone calls, the undersigned along with attorneys from plaintiff s counsel's office were advised that the Answer had been drafted and sent to the defendant for verification, all occurring subsequent to March 23, 2007. 5. The undersigned forwarded a draft Answer to the Complaint on or about March 27, 2007. 6. The defendant, upon reviewing the Complaint and the proposed Answer, continued its investigation into the allegations of the Complaint. Instead of filing a rote Answer with boiler plate denials, the investigation lead to a more thorough response to each of the specific averments contained in the Complaint. 7. The defendant subsequently finalized its review and investigation into the allegations of the Complaint and verified the proposed Answer and sent it back to the office of defense counsel which was received in the office of defense counsel on July 6, 2007. 8. Just before this Answer was verified and returned to defense counsel, plaintiff's counsel forwarded a letter purporting to be a ten-day notice dated June 29, 2007, but not delivered until July 2, 2007 as verified by the receipt on the Certified Mail delivery card on July 2, 2007.1 See Notice of Entry of Default Judgment, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4W9 9. Accordingly, the time period within which the defendant had to file its answer pursuant to this notice was to expire on July 12, 2007, not July 10, 2007 as indicated on the Notice of Entry of Default Judgment filed by the plaintiff on that same date. Id. 10. In addition, the plaintiff failed to provide notice in the form prescribed by Rule 237.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. ' Although the letter purporting to be the Ten-day Notice is dated June 29, 2007, it was not "delivered" until July 2, 2007. Since the plaintiff has failed to provide a certificate of mailing, which shows the date, the name of the sender and the addressee, as required in the explanatory comment of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 237. 1, this Ten-day Notice was delivered on that date. Thus, the deadline for filing the Answer to the Complaint would be July 12, 2007 at a minimum. 11. The form of the notice and the service thereof are rules that cannot be waived by the parties.2 See Pa. R.C.P. 237.1(a)(4). 12. Attached to this petition is the Answer to the Plaintiff s Complaint which sets forth the meritorious defenses that will be presented by the defendant in this matter which was filed with this Court on July 11, 2007. See copy of defendant's Answer to plaintiff s Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". WHEREFORE, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 237.3(b) defendant, requests that the Judgment entered on July 10, 2007 against it be opened and, that the Answer to the Complaint which is attached hereto be filed accordingly. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By. V - &e,?? DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Additional Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche 2 It is also arguable that the informal agreement between the parties for the extension of time to answer the Complaint is also invalid pursuant to Rule 237.6 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule, like Rule 237.5, cannot be waived by the parties. //(Iv Q- 0 0 l f? (?7 David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES I.D. No. 41722 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff DONALD R. COTHARD, Plaintiff, V. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-427 CIVIL ACTION-LAW NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO: SUN MOTOR CARS PORSHE, Defendant, and its attorney, DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Cl: rn? ;ri Q o c Xr_ -A You are hereby notified that on July a , 2007, the following Judgment was entered against you in the above-captioned case: [I]n the above-captioned action in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $12,061.02, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of suit and interest from date of judgment at 6% per annum; with computation of additional damages to be made upon Petition for Hearing, at Plaintiff's option, for Defendant's failure to file an answer to the Complaint. Date: U/ Q Q 7 151 ??? /? tyC Prothonotary I hereby certify that the name and address of the proper person to receive this notice under Pa. R. Civ. P. 236 is: David K. Brennan, Esquire BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. The Madison Building 400 Washington Street, Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 Date: July 10, 2007 Sun Motor Cars Porsche 4434 Carlisle Pike Camp Hill, PA 17011 TS N LA OF CES By David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff F: \FI LES\ 11850\ 1 1850.1. de(aulipraec ipe Crcated: 9/20/04 0:06PM Revised: 7/10/07 150PM David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES I.D. No. 41722 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff DONALD R. COTHARD, Plaintiff, v. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE, Defendant. TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-427 CIVIL ACTION-LAW PRAECIPE Enter default judgment in the above-captioned action in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $12,061.02, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of suit and interest from date of judgment at 6% per annum, with computation of additional damages to be made upon Petition for Hearing, at Plaintiff's option, for Defendant's failure to file an answer to the Complaint. I do hereby certify that a written notice of intention to file this Praecipe (in the form attached hereto) was mailed to the Defendant at the address indicated thereon, on June 29, 2007, which date was subsequent to the date default occurred and at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the Praecipe. Moreover, a ten (10) day notice was not required since response to extension of time to answer dated March 23, 2007, and attached letter, was provided to counsel. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: July 10, 2007 Attorneys for Plaintiff t f I I l .? '1 ? I ? ? MAPTSON LAW OFFICES 111 F.'>: H1?,1 rut : r 111.1 P!It:A! 1 243-3341 t'Vt?IU4L1 t 243-1`450 1\111:\ r ?r??a.marrs;lnl:nc.o,m June 29, 2007 `'IA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED David K. Brennan, Esquire BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. The Madison Building 400 Washington Street, Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 RE: Donald R. Cothard v. Sun Motor Cars Porsche Your File No. 9770-88 Our File No. 11850.1 Dear Mr. Brennan: \C .,,. V. %111,'.-'-\ l) .v?? ? Imo. ICI ::I?tsr:: ??,, \. c r: ,t Ill t t', til `. ('c ;'\t t? \.1 I.. S ti .: t. \t' :?, to 1 Bu.uto Crx1111FU CAU Cxlm. \vv' 1.?l1,I We spoke earlier this month and you advised that your client had the Answer in its possession for its review in the above action and you would be filing the Answer shortly. It has been months since we agreed to allow you to file an Answer. While I am always reluctant to proceed in this manner, I will have no choice but to default Sun Motors if I do not receive a verified Answer to the Complaint by the close of business on Friday, July 6, 2007. Very truly yours, MARTSON LAW OFFICES 1 Q David A. Fitzsimons DAF, tde cc: 1Ir. Donald Cothard F %F1LLS'Gcncru11Cuucn011850' 11359 1 db1 IN FORMATION • ADVICE • ADVOCACY ;I ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3-Nap complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is.desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: (2)"1 ? ? ?'cm ?'t 5ui?12U ?d.? n , p l Q(aa A. Slgnatu X - 8 Agent ? Addressee B. Received by ( Print ame) Date of Cali ery D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? ? Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ? No 3. S ce Type l9Certi red Mail ? Express Man ? Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise ? Insured Mail ? C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number 7003 3110 0004 5772 5351 (Transfer from service labs! I PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 MARTSON LAW OFFICES March 23, 2007 David K. Brennan, Esquire BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. The Madison Building 400 Washington Street, Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 RE: Donald R. Cothard v. Sun Motor Cars Porsche Your File No. 9770-88 Our File No. 11850.1 Dear Mr. Brennan: On February 9, 2007, I wrote confirming my agreement to a reasonable extension in which you could an Answer on behalf of the Defendant in the above referenced matter. I believe April 9, 2007, (60 days) should be plenty of time to answer this relatively straight forward claim which has been investigated at some depth, I am told, by your client's carrier. If you require time beyond April 9, please advise. Very truly yours, RTSON LAW OFFICES David A. Fitzsimons DAFitde cc: Mr. Donald R. Cothard r FILSS'UMV 11.1 'GrncraPCun;nf :1-15-Y; IS50 I -W-' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David K. Brennan, Esquire BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. The Madison Building 400 Washington Street, Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 Sun Motor Cars Porsche 4434 Carlisle Pike Camp Hill, PA 17011 MARTSON LAW OFFICES V Tncia D. Eckenroad Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: July 10, 2007 BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: David K. Brennan, Esquire Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 DONALD R. COTHARD Plaintiff V. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE Defendant Attorneys for Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche C.y N C a C -? -? « L.. -t n COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY y ; - a r DOCKET NO. 07-427 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 2. Admitted with qualification. The applicable zip code is 17011. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. O 6. Admitted with qualification. It is admitted that the plaintiff's automobile was delivered to the defendant's place of business for a valve adjustment on November 17, 2003 pursuant to repair order 2478. Otherwise, the balance of this averments is denied since answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments contained therein. 7. Admitted with qualification. The plaintiff also authorized the valve adjustment. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted with qualification. Plaintiff specifically brought the car in for enhancements to increase the power of the vehicle. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 13. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff brought the car in for technical inspection. It is denied that the leak down test was done as part of the inspection process but instead performed because the defendant's technician noted that the engine had an oil leak and possible limited performance. After this, a call was placed to Imagine Auto who recommended the leak down test. 14. Admitted with qualification. It is admitted that plaintiff was informed that his engine was damaged when he brought the car in for a technical inspection. It is denied that the car was ever worked on by anybody else. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 18. It is admitted that the spark plug boot was torn by defendant in May, 2005, but is denied that the wire was ever damaged by the defendant. It is also denied that defendant tried to "repair" it; the boot was secured with electrical tape to hold it in place until it was repaired by another facility. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 21. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is denied that twin plug ignition systems have been used on all factory Porsche engines since 1989. The balance of this averment is admitted. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 23. Admitted. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE 26. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusively, of the plaintiff's Complaint, as fully as though herein set forth at length. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor. COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT 32. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 31, inclusively, of the plaintiff's Complaint, as fully as though herein set forth at length. 33. Admitted with qualification. The defendant entered into agreements with the plaintiff to work on the plaintiff's engine in exchange for payment, not the defendant's engine. 34. Admitted. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor. COUNT III - VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 37. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 36, inclusively, of the plaintiffs Complaint, as fully as though herein set forth at length. 38. Admitted. 39. Denied as stated. Defendant assured plaintiff it could maintain the engine but made no such assurances that it could repair it because of the extensive modifications previously made to the engine. 40. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 41. Admitted with qualification; defendant had nobody certified to work on the plaintiff's engine because it was so greatly modified that nobody other than Imagine Auto could be certified to work on it. By way of further answer, no certifications exist for repair and maintenance of engines heavily modified with after-market parts. 42. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 43. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 44. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 45. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 48. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 49. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 51. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 52. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 53. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 54. Denied. Said averments contain conclusions of law to which no response is required, and are therefore denied as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor. NEW MATTER 1. The cause of action set forth in the plaintiffs Complaint is barred or limited by the terms of the applicable Statute of Limitations, the relevant provisions of which are incorporated by reference herein, and made a part hereof, as fully as though herein set forth at length. 2. All allegations pertaining to agency, supervision, or control are specifically denied. 3. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against the answering defendant. 4. The cause of action set forth in the plaintiffs Complaint is barred or limited by the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted by Pennsylvania, which is incorporated by reference herein, and made a part hereof, as fully as though herein set forth at length. 5. The answering defendant did not breach any warranties, express or implied. 6. The cause of action set forth in the plaintiffs Complaint is barred or limited by the terms of any and all documents associated with the manufacture and/or sale of the product, including, but not limited to, any and all sales receipts, contracts of sale, instructions, directions, manuals, diagrams, blueprints, warnings, disclaimers, advertisements, brochures, and any and all other such documents. 7. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 8. The causes of action identified in plaintiff's complaint are barred and/or limited by the terms of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the material provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference. 9. The plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited pursuant to the terms of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the material provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By:Ax? k - DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Additional Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche (File No. 9770-88) VERIFICATION The averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements herein are made subje5 tole penalties of)&?ra. C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: David K Brennan, Esquire Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 Attorneys for Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche DONALD R. COTHARD COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. DOCKET NO. 07-427 Civil Term SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, David K. Brennan, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Answer with New Matter of Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche to Plaintiff's Complaint, was served upon all counsel and/or unrepresented party by way of Hand Delivery on July 11, 2007. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By:A-,?ol rl DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Additional Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche ? I 1 1 s ,? S MAD' SON LAW OFFICES 1 1 1 1 '> r 1111.1 ,,,:.1 'I' 1'. 1.; ["I,'v -1 243-3341 1' w1\111.1 -17 2-43-1.8.50 ICI I I'\; x \e\\\\.marr.11n4;1\v.cr,m June 29, 2007 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REDUESTED David K. Brennan, Esquire BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. The Madison Building 400 Washington Street, Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 RE: Donald R. Cothard v. Sun Motor Cars Porsche Your File No. 9770-88 Our File No. 11850.1 Dear Mr. Brennan: \\ \. ?,. \?,,I,,,,, D 1:. D1 ?Cl7L 11,11.1:.1 Ill (''. , .f.1t. R, I C. R,:'1 1. I'.. R S' 1frt. C ?1n Ila.v ?I'!? 1.111>1 We spoke earlier this month and you advised that your client had thle Answer in its possession for its review in the above action and you would be filing the Answer shortly. It has been months since we agreed to allow you to file an Answer. While I am always reluctant to proceed in this manner, I will have no choice but to default Sun Motors if I do not receive a verified Answer to the Complaint by the close of business on Friday, July 6, 2007. Very truly yours, MARTSON LAW OFFICES David A. Fitzsimons DAF, tde cc: Mr. Donald Cothard FIFILLS'Gcneral`CurrenO11850' 11350 1 db4 I N F 0 R M A I' 1 0 N • A D V I C E • A D V 0 C A C Y ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.A49 complete item 4 If Restricted Delivery is.desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: fo Cal Awl A. Signatu X -- Agent ? Addressee B. Received by ( Print eme) Date of Dell ery D. Is delivery address different from Item 17 ? Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ? No 3. e Type RiCertified Mail ? Express Mail ? Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise ? Insured Mail ? C.O.D. i 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? yes 2. Article Number (mnsferfrom service fabe? 7003 3110 0004 5772 5351 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: David K. Brennan, Esquire Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 802 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 DONALD R. COTHARD Plaintiff V. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE Defendant Attorneys for Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. 07-427 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, David K. Brennan, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Petition of Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche to Open Default Judgment, was served upon all counsel and/or unrepresented party by Hand Delivery on July 12, 2007. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Y?- DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Additional Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche ?--? N --.. J .?.? 't'ti Fi -, r---? nJ !.?„1 ., _ _.? :. '_ _? 3 ... _ ?Q L+ ; "? BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: David K. Brennan, Esquire Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 DONALD R. COTHARD Plaintiff V. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE Defendant Attorneys for Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. 07-427 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 2. Admitted with qualification. The applicable zip code is 17011. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 6. Admitted with qualification. It is admitted that the plaintiff s automobile was delivered to the defendant's place of business for a valve adjustment on November 17, 2003 pursuant to repair order 2478. Otherwise, the balance of this averments is denied since answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments contained therein. 7. Admitted with qualification. The plaintiff also authorized the valve adjustment. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted with qualification. Plaintiff specifically brought the car in for enhancements to increase the power of the vehicle. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 13. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff brought the car in for technical inspection. It is denied that the leak down test was done as part of the inspection process but instead performed because the defendant's technician noted that the engine had an oil leak and possible limited performance. After this, a call was placed to Imagine Auto who recommended the leak down test. 14. Admitted with qualification. It is admitted that plaintiff was informed that his engine was damaged when he brought the car in for a technical inspection. It is denied that the car was ever worked on by anybody else. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 18. It is admitted that the spark plug boot was torn by defendant in May, 2005, but is denied that the wire was ever damaged by the defendant. It is also denied that defendant tried to "repair" it; the boot was secured with electrical tape to hold it in place until it was repaired by another facility. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 21. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is denied that twin plug ignition systems have been used on all factory Porsche engines since 1989. The balance of this averment is admitted. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 23. Admitted. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE 26. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusively, of the plaintiff's Complaint, as fully as though herein set forth at length. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor. COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT 32. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 31, inclusively, of the plaintiff's Complaint, as fully as though herein set forth at length. 33. Admitted with qualification. The defendant entered into agreements with the plaintiff to work on the plaintiff's engine in exchange for payment, not the defendant's engine. 34. Admitted. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor. COUNT III - VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 37. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 36, inclusively, of the plaintiff's Complaint, as fully as though herein set forth at length. 38. Admitted. 39. Denied as stated. Defendant assured plaintiff it could maintain the engine but made no such assurances that it could repair it because of the extensive modifications previously made to the engine. 40. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 41. Admitted with qualification; defendant had nobody certified to work on the plaintiff's engine because it was so greatly modified that nobody other than Imagine Auto could be certified to work on it. By way of further answer, no certifications exist for repair and maintenance of engines heavily modified with after-market parts. 42. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 43. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 44. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 45. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter of law. 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 48. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 49. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 51. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 52. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 53. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, which are therefore denied as a matter or law. To the extent that said averments contain conclusions of law, no response is required, and said averments are therefore denied as a matter of law. 54. Denied. Said averments contain conclusions of law to which no response is required, and are therefore denied as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor. NEW MATTER 1. The cause of action set forth in the plaintiffs Complaint is barred or limited by the terms of the applicable Statute of Limitations, the relevant provisions of which are incorporated by reference herein, and made a part hereof, as fully as though herein set forth at length. 2. All allegations pertaining to agency, supervision, or control are specifically denied. 3. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against the answering defendant. 4. The cause of action set forth in the plaintiffs Complaint is barred or limited by the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted by Pennsylvania, which is incorporated by reference herein, and made a part hereof, as fully as though herein set forth at length. The answering defendant did not breach any warranties, express or implied. 6. The cause of action set forth in the plaintiffs Complaint is barred or limited by the terms of any and all documents associated with the manufacture and/or sale of the product, including, but not limited to, any and all sales receipts, contracts of sale, instructions, directions, manuals, diagrams, blueprints, warnings, disclaimers, advertisements, brochures, and any and all other such documents. 7. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The causes of action identified in plaintiff's complaint are barred and/or limited by the terms of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the material provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference. 9. The plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited pursuant to the terms of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the material provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By:Aa? k - Omlr-?? DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Additional Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche (File No. 9770-88) VERIFICATION The averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements herein are made subject"e penalties of Ja. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: David K. Brennan, Esquire Atty. Identification No. 69851 400 Washington Street Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 (610) 372-0101/fax (610) 372-4477 DONALD R. COTHARD Plaintiff V. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE Defendant Attorneys for Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY DOCKET NO. 07-427 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, David K. Brennan, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Answer with New Matter of Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche to Plaintiff's Complaint, was served upon all counsel and/or unrepresented party by way of Hand Delivery on July 11, 2007. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: rl DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Additional Defendant Sun Motor Cars Porsche ? i7? ? C c--?. ? . ? ? -ra '.. i `. ? ? r. '?' ?: C%; .? -'-- T ? S t"?4 .? ` .+' ''`l S''? t G. ,.,.. r? :?, ? David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES I.D. No. 41722 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff DONALD R. COTHARD, Plaintiff, V. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 07-427 CIVIL ACTION-LAW NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO: SUN MOTOR CARS PORSHE, Defendant, and its attorney, DAVID K. BRENNAN, ESQUIRE You are hereby notified that on July 2007, the following Judgment was entered against you in the above-captioned case: [I]n the above-captioned action in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $12,061.02, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of suit and interest from date of judgment at 6% per annum; with computation of additional damages to be made upon Petition for Hearing, at Plaintiff's option, for Defendant's failure to file an answer to the Complaint. Date: l of-00'1 dz-?; Z Z Prothonotary YA' I hereby certify that the name and address of the proper person to receive this notice under Pa. R. Civ. P. 236 is: David K. Brennan, Esquire BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. The Madison Building 400 Washington Street, Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 Date: July 10, 2007 Sun Motor Cars Porsche 4434 Carlisle Pike Camp Hill, PA 17011 TS L F CES By David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff F:IFILES\11850\I 1850. Ldefauhpraecipe Created: 9/20/04 0:06PM Revised: 7/10/07 3:50PM David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES I.D. No. 41722 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff DONALD R. COTHARD, Plaintiff, V. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE, Defendant. TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-427 CIVIL ACTION-LAW PRAECIPE Enter default judgment in the above-captioned action in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $12,061.02, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of suit and interest from date of judgment at 6% per annum, with computation of additional damages to be made upon Petition for Hearing, at Plaintiff's option, for Defendant's failure to file an answer to the Complaint. I do hereby certify that a written notice of intention to file this Praecipe (in the form attached hereto) was mailed to the Defendant at the address indicated thereon, on June 29, 2007, which date was subsequent to the date default occurred and at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the Praecipe. Moreover, a ten (10) day notice was not required since response to extension of time to answer dated March 23, 2007, and attached letter, was provided to counsel. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: July 10, 2007 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 F_-s, Hull ,wu r r (:?I:I.I?,LI.111*\\:.\t.\ \I.` 1,1i1.i Ti 1.1 1'!a )-l i.-1-) 243-3341 1'wt 1y111.1' 1-1') 2.13-1850 I\ rre`r. r \v wmartst\nlawc.km June 29, 2007 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED David K. Brennan, Esquire BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. The Madison Building 400 Washington Street, Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 RE: Donald R. Cothard v. Sun Motor Cars Porsche Your File No. 9770-88 Our File No. 11850.1 Dear Mr. Brennan: (()I 1v K l",v1 I iz III l) v!I K. Di \iwolzrr 'I', lom >> I. W11.1 1 ?\IS' I"t V Orrtl III I I !;! u r X. G H tzt )w Ca t,1zr,I K I".v.I r-tz Ilk., 'BOA RD Ck RIlI II C t, z1. C. RI,I i 1 D'\ In V I'l I;S!\!()\, Jl??\\;i l iz Nb I? I 1. D CICIL TWAL SP4.CIAI I51' We spoke earlier this month and you advised that your client had the Answer in its possession for its review in the above action and you would be filing the Answer shortly. It has been months since we agreed to allow you to file an Answer. While I am always reluctant to proceed in this manner, I will have no choice but to default Sun Motors if I do not receive a verified Answer to the Complaint by the close of business on Friday, July 6, 2007. Very truly yours, MARTSON LAW OFFICES r av,i . David A. Fitzsimons DAFAde cc: Mr. Donald Cothard F. tFILES' GeneraITutrent\ 11850' 1 1850.1. db4 INFORMATION • ADVICE 9 ADVOCACY \I ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and'11-4d lo. complete item 4 If Restricted DeHvery.le:desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Cot y 6 0 5? X20 X Agent ? Addressee AL B. Received by (Prf ) Date of ery 0. Is delivery address different from Item 1? ? Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ? No 3. IS" lyps Cert ed man ? Express Mail O Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise ? Insured Mail ? C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number 7003 3110 0004 5772 5351 Marnfer from =-ON t e.f PS Form 3811, Fetmwry 2004 Domeelb Retum Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 . J MARTSON LAW OFFICES F, ?,"1,??,I I- I -) ' i3-i3-+1 H ? ,I?sl: i tirr:?l<• G)l LIN, March 23, 2007 David K. Brennan, Esquire BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. The Madison Building 400 Washington Street, Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 RE: Donald R. Cothard v. Sun Motor Cars Porsche Your File No. 9770-88 Our File No. 11850.1 Dear Mr. Brennan: On February 9, 2007, I wrote confirming my agreement to a reasonable extension in which you could an Answer on behalf of the Defendant in the above referenced matter. I believe April 9, 2007, (60 days) should be plenty of time to answer this relatively straight forward claim which has been investigated at some depth, I am told, by your client's carrier. If you require time beyond April 9, please advise. Very truly yours, RTSON LAW OFFICES V ,rm David A. Fitzsimons DAF/tde cc: Mr. Donald R. Cothard F FILES,DATAFILF`Gcnrrnl!('undnf 11350\11'50 1 db' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David K. Brennan, Esquire BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. The Madison Building 400 Washington Street, Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 Sun Motor Cars Porsche 4434 Carlisle Pike Camp Hill, PA 17011 MARTSON LAW OFFICES Y ncia D. Eckenroad Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: July 10, 2007 44 r 7 -ss ter.,, (? .C Q a 7- C 4 U F:\FILES\11850\11850. Lpraecipe2\mas Created: 9/20/04 0:06PM Revised: 7/31/07 0:19PM David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES I.D. No. 41722 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff DONALD R. COTHARD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 07-427 CIVIL ACTION-LAW SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE, Defendant. PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please enter the attached Stipulation between counsel on behalf of the parties. It is stipulated that default is withdrawn with an agreement to enter into good faith settlement negotiations through the Cumberland County Bar Association's sponsored Mediation Program. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire I.D. No. 41722 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: July 31, 2007 F:\FILES\11850\11850.1.stipulation Created: 9/20/04 0:06PM Revised: 7120/07 1:02PM David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES I.D. No. 41722 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff DONALD R. COTHARD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 07-427 CIVIL ACTION-LAW SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE, Defendant. STIPULATION THIS STIPULATION is entered into by and between the parties to the above referenced action through their counsel who have been duly authorized. On July 10, 2007, default judgment was entered upon Praecipe at the request of Plaintiff and in Plaintiff's favor. It is hereby stipulated between the parties that said default is withdrawn with the agreement that Plaintiff and Defendant will jointly enter into good faith settlement negotiations through the Cumberland County Bar Association's sponsored Mediation Program: each party agreeing to provide designees at said Mediation with actual authority to settle the dispute. On Defendant's part, this includes a representative of Sun Motor Cars Porsche, and a representative of Sun Motor Cars Porsche's liability carrier. At the discretion of the Mediator, a representative of Sun Motor Cars Porsche's liability carrier may appear by telephone. Upon filing of this Stipulation with the Court, the parties will commence selection of a Mediator from the approved list of Cumberland County Mediators. MARTSON LAW OFFICES B Y David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: 7131) 0 1 BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. By David K. Brennan, Esquire 400 Washington Street, Suite 1202 Reading, PA 19601 Attorneys for Defendant Date: -7 / 25 /©-7 MARMIV RFCEIVED e LAW pgC3 JL 1 7007 170?'0ar MARTSON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Melissa A. Scholly, an authorized agent for Martson Law Offices, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David K. Brennan, Esquire BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. The Madison Building 400 Washington Street Suite 802 Reading, PA 19601 MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: Melissa A. Scholly Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: July 31, 2007 _L rv 0 0 ti c_. r- 3 N SR m -G -.k F:\FILES\Clients\11850 Cothard\l 1850.1.Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End.wpd Created: 03/07/00 09:48:31 AM Revised: 01/23/08 02:34:22 PM David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire I.D. No. 41722 Trudy E. Fehlinger, Esquire I.D. No. 202753 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff DONALD R. COTHARD, Plaintiff, V. SUN MOTOR CARS PORSCHE, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-427 CIVIL ACTION-LAW PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Kindly mark the above-referenced matter as settled, discontinued and ended. MARTSON LAW OFFICES B Y David A. Simons, Esquire I.D. No. 41722 Trudy E. Fehlinger, Esquire I.D. No. 202753 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: January 23, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David K. Brennan, Esquire BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. The Madison Building 400 Washington Street Suite 802 Reading, PA 19601 MARTSON LAW OFFICES cia D. Eckenroad 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: January 23, 2008 l...4 ?,.,, `° ? s `=j ? ::r? -} , ? '? ''" -, `7 r7 rte; .. _..:. r,; ?; ?; _. `, '.