Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-05368 'i 'I,i , I , " , " 'I! I I; " " ., , >, ,Il I,j' 'iI Ii! 'j' )/ I' ,/' I ,I !,,}Ii) I q, I, ",I I"~l 'I , /1" , , , ',: ! " " 11/ Ii I )' i I " !, I' 'Ii " , , , , I, ')! " , I I " (I: I I)! , " /'1 I .. ,I , I '\'1; , " , ,I, / ,1 " ", I! " " 'I II,')' t' , , /, ,I " " " i1 " I) il I, , 'I :1 , '/ ,I ., " , " " .. II , ' ". "1 .. I 11/" "i ;.1 ~il' 1"1/" , ""J' , I, IJ ), I' , , i/ J" .1) iti , H ," ., ',"i ill j' , !I, ,,' I ,'t'" 1', I ",' 'I, /, " ,I' , " 'I , 'I ,IJ/ II' 1,/ ',"1, 1111,'/ ), f J ~ cJ .E Ji , " I " ,/' 11/ 'Ii, 'I ,I) ; j " I I 'I' " , , " "I '\, , I I " , , , , /, I, , I " I' " Ii',t " 'I 'I , / " I,ti /,"1, " , I, It , " ' ',I " , 1I"t' , " '!ttl :' , I' , , II. , , " , " , , 1 , I I) ,I ,.)1'1 " i,' I 1/ , , I, I, , 'I I " , I ',,, " 'I 1., I " I,) " , " ,,"/ '", , , 'I " I " I I , ,'" , i, " - . , , I ", II " , .. .. , , ') , " II: , I " ;'1) I' .!' 'I ,,' ;, q " I, id , '" , I 'i',iJ } " " , .. !ril,' , I ,Ii " " I, " '/1' ,:1 ,I' .. " ",' '." , ' , , I, :' " I) " , " I' " , , ,', ,1/ , ;j I 'I " " " , " " 11 I 'I, lh1, , I , I' , " , ' " I jJ'1 j, ,; ,'~ I,) , , , ,;1' 'I " , , , ! rl,! I !'i ,I :!; " " J'\' ,/ " 'I " ;'1 I' 'Ii 'Ii 'I JI'; 1 , " , , " 'I 'I , '" " I " 'I ji,) (I'II"I ,) , I I, jl \1 I' ;)' 'i, Iii , , 'I 'I: , II" "I ,<I",P 'j';~~,: I ,; , , ,I , t"11 1)1 1,1' , 1'/, " " , , !'I, ',I I' I, 'I" ,I .,!' 1 ,,I I " 'I' " , " " ;,',' il"111 '1'1: " :'10.1, ':j;" "'1 11'1 !'II ,I ",/ii ;,/.I I' I' I '1, :\' ' , , / I ",1'1, I ';'1'" 'j'I' " 1 , " 'I I IJ,. " " 'I, ,I I I I" I'i'! HI'l" PI 1 }, I I I 'II ", ',.) !." 1).1 li'l I' 1'1'i " , 'I I, 'I ';(', "i<",!;>lr, ,I'! "';.)\1" "d (" ',I ,~, :~Ii,!;11 ''': I, . - " ',j j " 'Iilt,' " l' ": \ ',I d j , , ',,' , , alll't; II , , "" \ ,11,/ ',,),/i I :!/rj " " ,II I '1 I ,;1 , ' " " , I " 'l II 'I, " '" ,I ". " 1 II ,I '.I " ' " 'I f'l , , " : ' " " , ;:'1'!! ,/ '\ I. t,; , "I' ,', I \ " , " " , .,j " 'Ii , , " " 1'1 I ",' ,Ii " I I '~, I I 'I 1997 MICHAl!. C, MoCLOIl<1V I IN THI COURT OF COMMON PL.1A8 OF I CUMBIRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA P'.'ntl" I I NO. 18-5388 CIVIL TERM v. I I CIVIL ACTION. LAW RODEWAYINN I I Def....d.nt I JUDGE J. WESLEY OLER, JR. Q..BJU..B AND NOW, !hIlS day of _ . 1997, upon consideration of Defendant, Rodeway Inn's, Motion for Summary Judgment, Oef.ndanr. motion I. GRANTED and summary Judgmltnt 18 entltred In favor of D.fendant and agalhst Plaintiff, Michael C, McCloskey. BY THE COURT: J. W.,'ey Oler, Jr., Judge 3, Arter the flllng of II Rule to File Complaint, Ii Complaint, an Answllr to Plaintiffs Complaint with Nllw Malter and a reaponse to Defendant's New Malter, the pleadings In this motter closed on or about February 20, 1997, 4, On Moy 2, 1997. Defendant aerved PlalntUfs counsal with Oefendanl'a Requests for Admissions, A true and correct copy of Defendllnt's Requests for Admissions Is attached hereto as EJ<hlblt A, 5, On May 2, 1997, Defendant fIIlld a Notice of Service of Defendanl'a Requests for Admleslone with the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, A true and correct copy of Notice of Service of Defendant's Requeets for Admls~',me Is attached hereto as EJ<hlblt B, 6. Plaintiff has failed to an5wer Defendant's Request for Admissions within the GO days prescriblld by Rule 4014 of the Penn5ylvanla Rules of Civil Procedure, 7, Plaintiffs failure to answer Defendant's Requost for Admissions within the 30 days prescribed by Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Clvlt Procedure Is deemed an admission of each Request for Admission, 8, Plaintiff's failure to anSWllr Defendant's Request for Admissions, serves as an admission that Plaintiff cannot provide evidence to support any of the allegations that he has set forth In his Complaint. 9, There are no questions of material fact relating to any Issues In this case, 10, Pursuant to Pa, R.C,P, 1035. Dllfendant, Rodeway Inn Is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. ,I , , , " i , I . , " " ;;,,','t;1:>I,I " t' t' ,~ i' " , I " 1<; d 't', " " " , I , 'I , -' " , , " ',' , , , , II " " ,. ~ , , " " """..: , , , , , " Iii' , " , , .It " A, "Documents" Is an ail-Inclusive tenn referring to any writing and/or recorded or graphic malter, however produced or reproduced, The term documents Includes, without IImlta~on, correspondence, memoranda, Interoffice communication, minutes, reports, notes, schedules, analyses, drawings, diagrams, tables, graphs, charts, maplS, surveys, books of account, ledgers, Invoices, purchase ordem, pleadings, questionnaires, contracts, b 11I11 , checks, drafts, diaries, logs, proposals, print-outs, recordings, telegrams, films, and all other such documents tangible or retrievable of any kind, Documsnts also Include any preliminary notss and drafts of all of the foregoing, In whatever fom1, for example: printed, typed, longhand, shorthand, on paper, paper tape, tabulating cards, ribbon blueprints, magnetic tape, microfilm, film, motion picture film, phonographs recClrds, or other fonn, B, With respect to documents, the tsrm "Identity" means to give the date, title, author and addressee; "Identity" with respect to documents further means: (1) to describe the document SUfficiently well to enable the Interrogator to know what such document 15 and to retrieve It trom a file or wherever It may be located; (2) to describe It In a manner suitable for use as a description In a subpoena; and (3) to give the name, address, position or title of the custodian of the document and/or caples thereof, C, "Identity" when used In reference to an Individual means to set forth such Individuals: (1) full name; (2) present residence address or last known residence; (3) present or last known business address; (4) present employer or last known employer; and (5) whether aver employed by any party to this action and, If so, the dates he (she) was employed by such party, the name of such party, and the last position held as an employee of such party, D, Whenever the expression "and/or" Is used In these Requests for Admissions, the Information called for should be set out both In the conjunctive and disJunctive, and wherever the Infonnatlon 15 set out In the disJunctive, It should be given separately for each and every element sought. E. Whenever a date, amount or other computation or figure Is requested, the exac:t date, amount of other computation or figure Is to be given unless It Is not known; and then the approximate date, amount or other computa~on or figure should be given or the best estimate thereof; and the answer shall state that the date, amount or other computation or tlgure Is an estimate or approximation, F, No answer Is to be left blank. If the answer to a Request for Admission Is "none" or "unknown," such statement must be written In the answer, If an answer Is omitted because of the claim of privilege, the basis of the priVilege Is to be stated, G, At all times Plaintiff shall refer to Michael C, McCloskey; Defendant shall refer to Rodeway Inn and "you" shall mean the party to whom these Contention Interrogatories are addressed, MICHAIL c. MoCLOIKIY ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON Pl.eAS OF ~ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Pla'ntl" ~ ~ NO. 8S.a388 CIVIL TeRM v. ~ ~ RODI!WA Y INN ~ ~ CIVIL ACTION. LAW ~ D.fendant ~ I, Peter J, RUSBO, hereby certify that I am on this day, serving . copy of the foregoing document upon the person and In the manner Indicated below: Service by First ClallS Mall. Postage Prepaid, and addressed as fellows: Fred H. Halt, 4 Liberty Avenue Carllsla, PA 17013 QC "1-2.; Peter J. Russo DATE: ~J ~ J 4; "I" 'I " " , " , Ii I. ;{I' " I,' I " 'J .'!II.',' , ;1.,,', " I ,i' ,. , , , l l, 1,1 , " , . " " (, , I , . 1 II Ii " " , " ,I,' " " 1j",1 , , , I' " , , : 1 ~ " , , , , " I, " " ',I ','i,', j' . . - , 'I i ' , i" jl .I! .;J! ~u; , ' I I I I t ' I I I J l ~ ' , , , ~] ~ ' " , I :l~~ ~ c (; " . '~Ji 'I I 1/ 1~91 MICHAEL c. MoC1.08l<1V I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLIAB OF ~ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PINNBVLVANIA PI.lntlff l I NO, II-113M CIVIL TERM v. l I CIVIL ACTION. LAW RODEWAV INN I I Defend.nt t JUDGE J. WESI.EV OLIR, JR. Q..B..Q.IJl AND NOW, thle day of . 1997, upon conalderatJon of Defendant, Aodeway Inn's, Motion for Summary Judgment, Oefendanra motJon Is GRANTED and summary judgment Is entered In favor of Oefendant and agaln15t PlalntJff, Michael C, McCloskey. BV THE COURT: J. Wee'ey Oler, Jr" Judge @JH'I 1'1 I'I!II MICHAII. C, MoCL.OSKIY I IN THE COUAl OF COMMON PLIAS OF I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL.VANIA PI.lntl" I I NO. 81505368 CIVIL TERM Y. I t CIVIL ACTION - LAW RODEWAY INN I t Def."dlnl t JUDGE J. WESLEY OLER, JR. PROER AND NOW, this day of , 1997, upon consideration of Defendant, Rodeway Inn's. Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendanrs moUon Is GRANTED and summary judgment Is entered In favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, Michael C, McCloskey. BY THE COURT: J. Wealey Oler, Jr" JUdge ~I'I 1'1 I'JHI MICHAIL C, MoCL081<1V I IN THI COURT OF COMMON PL1A8 OF I CUMBIRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PI.lnt'" I I NO. 8e.8368 CIVIL TERM v, I I CIVIL ACTION. LAW RODIW4Y INN I I Defend."t I JUDGE J. WESLEY OLEA, JA, QAm AND NOW, this day of . 1997, upon consideration of Defendant, RodewBY Inn's, Motion for Summary Judgment, Oefendonh motion 115 GA4NTED Bnd summary judgment 115 entered In favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, Michael C, McCloskey. BY THE COURTI J, We.fey Oler, Jr" Judge , '.-. \~ I I I I , ~'~I't~d ,I ,I' 'f'. ~ ' WI~ I, ii ~ 1 \1, ;I~J'~ , ~~3 It ,I \ " , "~I II! ! ,',\ I :Ii ' I \ ! " f I I lot ! , I 'I l I' ,\ ' ~ 1 ~ ! ' , l~ \ ' , , " \, j~ ~ ~ i~i I ~'Z~ , , . '-.., On or about June 10, 1997, Defendant flied a summary judgment mollon based on Plalnllffs failure to answer Defendant's Requests for Admissions. The Court heard Defendent's oral argument on the summary judgment motion and Issued an Order denying Defendant's mollon, without preJudice, as the subject admltsslons were not a part of the record, Plalnllff did not file a brief or appear for oral argument. Defendant then filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment which appended the subject Request for Admissions, On or about October 31, 1997, Plalnllff served his answers to Defendant's Request for Admissions and flied a Mallon for Leave to File Response to Defandant's Request for Admissions Out of Time, A Rule to Show Cause was served on Defendant on November 13 1997, thereupon Defendant filed a response on November 14, 1997, A hearing on Plalnllffs Mollon for Leave to File Response to Defendant's Request for Admissions Out of Time was held on February 5, 1996 before the Honorable J, Wesley Oler, Jr, During which the Honorable J, Wesley Oler, Jr, Denied Plaintiffs mollon and strucl< Plaintiffs answers to Defendant's admissions from the record, A true and correct copy of said Order of Court 15 ettached hereto as Exhibit A, II. Michael M. McCloskey alleges that on or ebout September 30, 1994, he was a guest at the Defendant, Rod9way Inn of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, ~ Plalnllffs Complaint at ~3. Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a trailer at an automobile nea market In Carlisle, ~ Plaintiffs Complaint at ~4. Plaintiff further alleged that he was Instructed by agents, servants and employees of the Rodeway Inn to park his newly purchased trailer In the "lower lot" of the Rodeway Inn. ~ Plaintiffs Complaint at ~5, The "lower lor' Is an open, unpaved and unfenced piece of property owned by the Rodeway Inn which Is physically separated from main property, Plalnllff alleges In W of his Complaint that he was advised Ihat the "lower 101" was a secure area which was patrolled by security personnel. Defendant, convinced Ihlit the area In the "lower lot" was secure, furthar secured his Iraller by attaching the trailer to a ullllly pole with two chains and a lock, ~ Plalnllffs Complaint at 118, On or about October 1, 1994, an unldenllfied person, severed the chains which Plalnllff utilized to secure his new trailer to a ullllly pole and evenlually removed Plelntlffs trailer from the "lower 101." .eo Plaintiffs Complaint at 1110, Plalnllff claims that he has never recovered the slolen property and claims the value to axceed $2,400,00, .sa Plalnllffs Complaint at 111111 and 13. Ilf. lOUt A WHETHER SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT, RODEWAY INN, SINCE PLAINTIFF HAS ADMITTED HE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH A GENUINE ISSlJE OF MATERIAL FACT AND CANNOT ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT? Suggested Answer: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE tv. ~W Arm ARGUr,1ENI A. ~tand8rd for SummarY JudlJman~ Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035(b), a mollon for summary Judgment can be granted only when there Is no genuine Issue as to any material fact and the moving party Is enlllled to a Judgment as a matter of law. The proper standard in considering a motion for summary Judgment Is that summary judgment must be enlered If the pleadings, depositions, answers to Interrogatories, and admissions, together with supporting affidavits, If any, show that there Is no genuine Issue as to any material fact and that the moving party Is enlllled to Judgment as a mattar of law, ~ Consumer Partv of Pennsvlvanla v, CommonwaalttLQLPennsvlvanla, 610 Pa, 158, 607 A,2d 323 (1966); ~,402 Pa. Supar, 197, 5B6A.2d 928 (1990); Wle v, Securltv of Amerl&l ~ 404 Supar, Ct, 205, 590 A.2d 352 (1991), In considering e moUon for flummary judgment, the court must examine the record In a light most fevorable to the non-ll1ovlng party, determine whether any genuine Issues of material fact exist and resolve all doubts In lavor of the non-moving party, .au. ~ Tasman, 527 Pa, 132, 589 A.2d 205 (1991). Nevertheless, whll\1 the requisite burden of proof must be met by the moving party, [olnce a mollon for summary judgment Is made and Is properly supported, however, the non,movlng party may nelt simply rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleadings, ~CltaUon omitted) In such a casa, Rule 1035(d) requires that by affidavits or as otherwise provided In this Rule, [Ihe non. movallt) must set forth specific leets showing that there Is a ganulne Issue lor triGI" The purpose 01 Rule 1035(d) "Is to assure that the motion lor summary judgment may 'plerca the pleading' and to requlrfllhe opposing party to disclose the facts of his claim or defense," [Cltallon omlttedl Thus, orles the moUon of summary judgment has been properly suppelrted, the burden Is upon the non.moventlo disclose evidence that Is the basis for his or her argument resisting summary Judgment. [Cltallon omitted) EVch v, OAF COrD" _ Pa. Super. _, 603 A2d 20B, 210 (1992). See also, Curran v, ~9ren's Service Center, 696 Pa. Super, 29, 578 A,2d 8 (1990); ~amarfn v, OAF COrD" 391 Pa, Super, 340,571 A2d 398 (1989). The court's Inquiry In deciding 0 motion for summary Judgment Is whether the admissible evidence In the record In whatever form, from whatever source, considered In the light most favorable to the opposing party, falls to establish e prima facie case; that Is, whether the moving party has established, by virtue of a developed pretrial record, the ceuse of action or defense pleaded, or whether thera Is a genuine Issue of fact for decision, f)ensalem Townshlo S~Dlst. v, Commonwealtb 518 Pa, 581, 544 A.2d 1318 (1988), To properly raise a genuine Issue of fact, the non-movant has the burden to present facts by filing answars to Intarrogatorlos, deposlllons, counter-affidavits, or admissions, BguoJwu NlcI1910.lllJ 406 Super, CI. 502, 597 A2d 145, app, den, 530 Pa, 633, 606 A2d 903 (1991), Thus, the non-movant may not rely upon his or her pleadings to conlrovert Ihose facts presented by the moving party's deposlllons and affidavlls, Rule 1035(d) of tile Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedllre provides that summary judgment will be entered, If otherwise appropriate, when a properly supported motion for lummary judgment IS llIade against 8n adverse party who rests upon the allegations or denials In the pleadings and fails to respond to tha /11otlon by affidavits, or as otherwise provldad by the procedural rule governing sU/11mary Jlldgment (such as by depositions, answers to Interrogatories and admissions on file), satting forth specific facts showing that there 15 a genuine Issue for trial. B. I;ffect of Failure to Answer Reauest fo~ Rule 4014(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure states il1 relevant part: Each mattar of whlc.h an admission is requested shail be separataly sat forth, The matter is admitted unless, within thirty days after service of Ihe request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court /11ay ailow, Ihe party upon whom the request Is directed serves upon tha party requesting the admission an answer verifiad by the party or by his attorney.., Once a party haG bean served with a request for admissions and an answer or objections are not filed, each matter is admitted, Such matters are conclusively established unless the requesting party grants an extension of time to file an answer or the court permits the withdrawal or amendment of the admission, ~ Bvbero v, Lvman FelhQIU] QQ., 61 D & C 417 (1951); Jackson v, Travelers Ins, Co, 46 D & C 3d, 26 (1968), O. ~u",.n~ Defend"'l~rs counsel served Plaintiffs counsel with their Requests for Admissions over thirty days ago. No answer has been received, therefore pursuant to Rule 4014(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff has admlllod each and every Request for Admission, Plaintiff was requested to provide proof that he was ever a lawfully raglstered guest of the Rodeway Inn at the time of this alleged event. Further, Plaintiff was requested to provide proof that he aVl9r purchased the subject trailer. Plaintiff was requested to provide proof supporting his allegation that "Plaintiff purchased a 1995 Ja-Mar Trailer, VIN 4AJF61627'3J130B6," Plaintiff was asked to admit that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that allagatlon he actually purchased the subjact trailer, Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that avennent. No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff ad milled that he cennot prove he ever purchased the 1995 Ja.Mar Trailer, VIN 4AJF61627SJ13066 which Is the basis ~or this litigation, Plaintiff was requested to provide proof supporting his allegation that the Defendant or their agents Instructed Plaintiff to park his trailer In the "lower lot." Defendant stated as their Request for Admission #2: "With regard to Plaintiffs allegation contained In Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraph 5 that "Defendant Instructed him that he was to park his trailer In what was celled the 'lower lot,'" Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that allegation," Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that averment. No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff admllled that he cannot prove that the Defendant, through an agent, Instructed Plaintiff to park his vehicle In the "lower lot." Plaintiff was requasled to provide proof supporting his allegallon thaI Defendant maintained a policy as 10 which vehicles were required to parl< In the "lower 101." Defendant stated as Ihelr Requu5t for Admission 113 "WllIlregard to Plaintiffs allegation contained in PlalntlN's Complaint at paragraph 5 tllal Defendant's 'policy at the time was 10 require all large vehicles, such as lrailers, molor h0I1113S, etc be parl<ed In the lower lot, Plaintiff admits Ihat he has no fact, document or wllness to prove Ihal GllegGllon, Pursuanl to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plalnllff admlls thaI he llas no facI, dOCllment or wllness to prove that avennent. No Gnswer WGS offered, therefore Plaintiff admitted that l1e cannot prove that Defendant maintained a policy which required some vehicles to park In the "lower lot." Plaintiff was requested to provide proof supporting his allegation that Defendant provided security for the subject Ire lieI', DefendGnt stated as their Request for Admission #4: 'With regard to Plaintiffs allegation contained In Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraph 7 that Defendant "assurad Plaintiff that It provided a sacured area wllh around Ihe clock security guards, where he could safely store his Iraller," Plaintiff admits thaI he has no fact, document or wllness to prove that allegation, Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits that he hGS no fact, document or witness to prove that averment. No answer was offered, Iherefore Plaintiff admitted Ihat he cannol prove that Defendanl provided security for the subject trailer, Plaintiff was requested to provide proof supporting his allegation that Defendant made representations that the subject lot was secure, Defendant stated as their Request for Admission #5: "With regard to Plaintiffs allegation conlalned In Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraph 8 that Plaintiff relied "upon the Defendant's representations that the lot was secure," Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that allegation, Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits tllat he has no fact, document or witness to prove that averment. No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff admitted thet he cannot prove that Plelnllff relied upon representallonls made that the Bubject lot was secure, Plelntlrf was requested to provide proof supporting his allegal.lon that Defendllmt was &Ware of the Pllllntlffs ownership of the trailer, Defendant stated os their Request for AdmllSSlon 116: 'Wllh regard 10 Plalnllffs allegation contained In Plalntlffe Complelnt at parllgreph 9 that "Defendant's security personnel wmre [sic) of the Idenllly of Plaintiff and or his ownership of the trallmr," Plalnllff admits Ihat he hos no fact, document or witness to prove that allegation, Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that averment. No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff admitted that he cannot prove that Defendant was aware of the Plaintiffs ownership of the trailer, Plaintiff was requested 10 provide proof supporting his ellegatlon Ihat Plalntlff~ trailer was stolen from Defendant's "lower lot." Defendant stated as their Request for Admission #7: 'With regard to Plalnllffs allegallon contained In Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraph 10 that "Plaintiffs trailer, together with two locks, a chain, and four ratchet straps was stolen from Defendant Rodeway Inn's 'lower lot,'" Plalnllff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that allegation, Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that averment. No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff admitted that he cannot prove that his trailer was stolen from the Defendant's lot. Plalnllff was requested to provide proof supporting his allegallon that Plalnllffs trailer was stolen due to Defendant's negllgenca, Defendant stated as their Request for Admission #8: ''WIth regard to Plalnllffs allegation co"talned in Plalnllffs Complaint at paragraph 12 that "the theft of Plaintiffs trailer, locks, chains, and four ratchet streps was due to the negligence of Defendant,'" Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that allegation, Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, I: I 'ii , ,I " ,I I. I) \ I; 'I " II! I' ,! " I I " .Ii " " " I " " , I ;I, '. , " , , , , ,I , I '" I , , " I " , , , I EXHIBIT A HICHAIL C. MCOLOSKY, I IN THI COURT or COMMON PLEAS OP Plaint:J.tt I CUMBERLAND aOUNT~, PENNSYLVANIA I v. I OIVIL ACTION - LAW I RODIWAY INN, I Detendant I No. 96-8368 CIVIL TERM Q1tDER OF COURT, AND NOW, this 5th day or February, 1998, upon conaideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave To Fils Response to Dsfendant's Request for Admissions out of 'rime, and or Defendant Rodewa~ Inn's neoponse to Plaintiff's RUle To Show cause, and following a hearing, Plaintiff's motion is denied, and the Plaintiff's Responso to Defendant's Request for Admissions, filed Ootober 31, 1997, is stricken from the reoord. By the Court, FRED It. IJAIT, ESQUIRE 4 Liberty Avenue Carli~le, PA 17013 For the Plaintiff PETER J. RUSSO, ESQUIRE 61' West Louther Street carlisle, PA 17013 For the Defendant woy TRUE COpy FROM RECORD In TlIItlmony wherllOl, I here unto set my hind and the ~l of said Court lit Carlisle, Par TIlts /~1J4 1!~Qc?l' I on rv Pft/ll1:C I l'E ~'on LHI'rt/'/Cl CI\tJE Fon /II1ClUME/iT (I'UIt be ~ittllll 11M ~ubnil:t.s in dupllaotel TO THE PROTHONOTARY or CUHBERLAl'ID COUNTYI Pl.uIs liat l:tIlI wil'.hin /IlIIttar for the next ~t: Cc:lW:1l. ---------_.."._~-------~------._-----_.------------._-.---...---.....".........~----..- CAPTION OF CASIE ( en tin r:apt.iJ:ln I11JI t be Ita ted in tulll Michael C, McCloskey (PlAinl::I.lf) VII. Rodeway Inn', ( OIfltl1dant ) No. 5368 Civil Term 19 96 L. State matter to be argued (i.e., plAintiff's rootion for new t:ria.l, defendant's dInurrar to ccrr;IJAint, etc.)1 Oofendant's Motion for Sl.D11l1llry Judwoont 2. Identify OClW'lIIel who will argue cass: (b) for defendant: ilddJ:lMIs: ~red H. Hait McGrow, Hait F. Deitchmon 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Peter J. Russo 61 West Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Il) for plaintiff: I\ddre8s: 3. I will notifol all partiee in writing within t:wo days that th.ilI ~ hu been liat.s for argunent. 4. Argunent Court Datil: March 4, 1998 ( , Vx ,..J) ~ Attorney ~.\,~ or rfef~nd~~~ Datech 2/11/',18 , , I"~ l, , , I, , I i1 ,I ';, ~! ~ . ~. , 'I ~ A .. ~,. , 'OJ) ~[ r~ I n , ).\ N ',.iij - ,,' It: ~ ~m " r. ~ ~ ',' ,I ,/ " , , " , , 'I " 'I :,1 " 1'/l/\ECIl'li ~'oJl J..ln'rlNG CAlif: 1"0'1 A/lOllMENT (Muilt be l)'pllWl:,\t 1:110 4Ild lIubni tl:lld in dup1.icatel TO THE PItOTHONOTMlV or ClIHDEItLMlP COUNTY I PluIe J.i.lI t the wi t:hiI1 ma t tar for the next /U:gllnlr)t Co.Il1:. ._..._--._._-------_._----_...._-_._-~-------------_._----------._~--.-....-....._~- CAPTION or CASE (enti:nt capt.iQn nwt be lltattd .in euu.) MIOIAEL C, McCLOSKEY .' \1'1. ( PJ..e.int:,Ut) RODEWA'i INN ( Defendant) No. ~J6B Civil LAW 19 96 1. State matter to be /lrVll8d (i.e., Plaintiff's tlDt.iQn for rJIIW traJ., defendant's dIm.Irrer to CCIl1ill4int, eta. II Defendant's IOOtion for SU/1111llry Judgement 2. Identify ooonse.l Ioi1o will argue caee I (al for ~laintitflFred H. Hait Address I 4 Uberty Ave. Carlisle PA 17013 (bl for defendantl Peter J. Russo Address I 61 West Louther Street Cariisle PA 17013 3. I will notify aU parties in writing within two days that th.i.I ... hila been J.i.lIted for argLrnent. 4. .\rgI.ment CQUrt: Date I 'D ~c.c...,., '---- q, \ C\. ~; Defendant ~ ,C:\) Attorney for , , I, ", " , \ }, , , " ,I). " ,~t'l , . "\' , , .\ '1 ,r) I " J " I ' I , ~ , ' , " " " , . I ' , . I , ' " \,.11' " J', ", ':',."" ,,' , I, " \ '1 i ) l/, ~ I ,I " " '.1, - " , ~ ' , ,\ 'I, I, I, " " , , " " , '1'!l1 1,.;,1 i,,1 , " ;"1 ./, , ' ','1 _':1 , , " , " ''I " , " , " ;',1 , ',-;!"J ~,fl._.~.:l!_,il '-~llilt:Jtl}( \' to' '_' -J it ',I ,j'-_,!', -.~i'J},~ . \ \', ,- ." Ilf-_I_'., -~'-, 'I,Ji.4"" ), ~n ~ , I" .1,' '(I L'l t,J~ "lll'fJ'q;;I!_!ji"~';"I"fn,d'l ' 1 "1,, "/' " ;' I 'J If'. ':' _r f" , j I ~ I I ' I' ' , - ',' , t .' -. I - -', - >I,'" ,~' f 1 'I) , , I,,!. _ ,"'-I:j'l I ' ' '~! I ' ' I ..1 '~'J"'I -) Ii "1,_ 'j_' ,-I'! i ! r ' , 'L II 'I' ,'}~H " '~', t' ' Ii) ,,', ,J I ... II jl' .1. ~ f j""J . ? ~j , " -'I'. )';",;1 II 11\ I"';.: ~'I) l~Yri\IY'-::I~'tlt~1 I ""I I' +1 "- -,l', 1'1, 1 II) Ii '1',,,1 I ,"- I '\'1 'I", "'1/ ,,' 'I,. ,. '~1~" , ' " , '....,' \ 11 II III I 1"1 'l ' III', ""/ll)!:' , , ',;'1' "'I"ioll:,'!; :;,~'il~'\\"ill ~ij\:l'ill"'~ ~,' ,,_'I' LI"'11't' .~\tl In:f!""ILb . 'I .,'IJ ',~lllr Ill, I,' I ?Jtl)'j ,C~J1J I I '" t,l I " .'. ' 11 III jt ,,11'11 j y".t t- . 'I {, ,I <,1, I,} '.';: L1JI ~i ,tIc';", , ,,'; ,\' 'I 'I" ,1', !;':j; :~; IC~~ qJ r, II" ' 'r's': : J;'~ (Jl:'!i//I:{~~I'&~::~lihJ::~q, i I II' '. I 'i \1 ,','J {in" 11 ",r{,"l/tr 1J\1 ,'( "I ' 't..) , !. 1ft, 'l~' J II fir r~ ,1 !-; I; ""-::l}:' "', I I'. ,d;' ,,!t ',...1,.,1\","' 'J_'r/I ':'1-'1 ,I~,_.., \'J".~I".\"l~''i-&'\.,~~r~,!~;\~:I~ }I "I,!;':';'" .t-I I "'. \ '11 ;".'1, ;!~1!..:~::~dilT-:" , ::~~:_.l,-~, ,; I. . \1 I 'Ill, Il!Lf,).. ti "H~ t J 'lji",-_i!' : J, J, F ltf' ""ltl\y".'~I!~jIIJ .', ,I' '., "J""il"i:I"!.,(\"rI,i!.I"~'W11. j-.,i'l'_' I ,I', '. .:ft!Jt!,"11,~~'I]~f.' I .' I' "I:' II ~t' 1,1, '?k'l'> 'Il i\rl'!' ;1'1 , , ,tl J 1 I 1 I,', I 1111','hi!, t~\'l~ t/", II' . . - , ^ - -j ~' " ,:! . I 'I! 'I' '); .1' , t' 1 ((~'i "1'M-JJ , I -J '-il',\i';'I'I(; ",' I 1 J' ," ('l"J, I,)' ~ ill;"':if!:/'.',(.. "-' I'-~,-),: 'I -I'," \ 'I II "j :l'I.,~ 1"~lvl ...~!'1I11'\.; 1{,~11 '\ II": ) '.. 1'-, '-I: 'II 'I ~d ~tl..,F, \~ y 1 !' , 'I '"L, /" 'I ,I" 'l " 1 !~1 l jt, (It ~Jll"l_ ,j"'"I,lt ,"" /,,!, I ,'\I~'~ll'I\:I/'1 "'l't,t~~'~J\j1 ,)' 'f ' :' ~ t ll/J~ t~'r'll.J;~~' ~l';~it , \), "',?:~;; /',';/ ',! :,:; 1{\~1l\,{~I:;;j!::\\.:i;J1:'II\fl~; '~:'~I l 'I 'I' _.I -' : I, " I ',",'~.,".' ,.J ,\.,It.. tl ,,1',1 j",I/:I\t/\I, ". 'l- I~ ('" . I, .1, '--i I:_~!' "I, "I I \.llJ)/ .~. 'I '. ~Itj' iW ;.11' ,_ :::',: ,1',"('" ' " 'J rt "1/ 1.1, .~, 'V~'W{' j J' ,I 'I"~ ,-", I ,I ' I, \ I ~/t.1 r" . 'I, ~'IJ)' '_,'I ,V l' " ..11\ "d,jl\ILr"f"':l I'/,I} j' . ).1 'I,' 'I' \ ',n l""I,~ . r /'" \ \'/ ,,",','1.\"'1 '" I,II/IJ"I":C"'I","I""I" II' .,1 >[,11, 1'\"11' ...J. 'I, ,'r ,'-" , 1.', 'I' I' p' 'II \ \ I I if,~ . ' , ,'\_,," l;t , "I. Ir~1 '\';~I \;1 'j!'~\':il;.~'l~i(fl~' IN 'I', 1,1 !F','i 'I' "Ii,' ',l'tJ~ t'II,/', .. I'. ~ "I 'j '. ,,1,1, , \" ,~li'J'I'\rIJil:IM1~ttl'!I' 'II t, If I" I, ': Ij-j:; l . . If I , )'r.il, "~'i.:."'" J ['" ' ,I l,/}.i-: ;':',:n:':_: ",:' ," II I t ~\ ~JI/:I';~:';} '/'r1~I~?{'.I.;r~~ '1:I'r~,- :,1"1 '/ i')I":;11.~~lT~"~~ :/i 1\ q, 'I, I r:":' 1;_11, " ,f" ~ ',i "1~~~f\l' 'J'"II"r"~11,T,jl ':' ,)1:1', r, :";"!::- " ;1 ,'.' :\ ',: ,J. \'\\11\1fJll~:{'I;\jl~~ ;:,' ,( :';"\'I_!'(.,,'r'!I~-IIt.' 'I '1 I JIll I,! I ~'I:~;'I.\ r.i\'I'~~ I If ", I" I ~ !~lll_; q~ If.~,--' [...II"tl"" , "'1 i -'I' ""~>':d"":::-" .,.-: ~ " .,' jl H~~ ~l.,tt~ t:I,l{~hml/~l~411 " \1 "1,,, '1I",'"rl'-' i', \ .1\ '\'Ftl,lljftl}11'~/~,.nl"'''W' " "II" "I" I"'~'~I~"" "II "I ,,' . II I I \ ' .), I r H'I- ;~~l .~ 1 I l"i I"": 1)/,;'1\-:/,,,_, /'1 II,! 'I ,I. ..'/'~:,)r~,J/,,'\'ll~~I,,'l'I\~ "',"" :, I' 'J i, I,',. I iI",~ 1')111 AJ \1!1 'rMT,v;.: " " ~ \~:,\," t ',,', i' II I. ,Il' 1', ~"'~ll1' ',l~r " J ,. I' H ,I' ") ,'Ij~\' J;~,J,/I,,\.t~ , .1" ti" I'~ ;\'..... ""l') 1,1 It ' ,iI" - i" I'.' :1," Iii ,"' I '1:1 ~11ill , " ~"I',) 'I 1" I ') I) I I, ,\ '1.' "F'I' .'tt, "','I' 'I ,,(,,',-,) j '. 'r f : , 1 '1, II l.~ ~ ,,<, I' ,';'1, I~ 111\ I" 'it/ll,'!j '1"1,, "~"~I 1.i'i,. \1 If" :/!II\.J~,..l'I'r~'frr -!'-'\'l'~ II ,j"!t':t'~I:'ll"t~~>~ il~ I /"" , 1:).If )),t~,I'l,UJ:'\'dltll;'?ill~ ~i}l/" ~ ~'~... , 1'1' \ 'I.. ' 'l~, ' ' ,},~ lit" 'I \,' ,,- 'i r,' I 1 I I ,. II' j'r, ~<" , " \, " ~"i'~1, .iiI ,Ui 'I' " 'I ',",:' I,~"., \ '. 'j " ., , I Jl !> 1.1l \~CJ' ,~ 'I I , ' Ii, \", ' ,; " 'i" "'j' n."" ,e>:' , , 'I j"" I' j.l 'I rtJa'I.', \I/(Jjltl I"fl:~"';' "'..:"" ':;:/1 i' " '" ',','1 l ("i',~:,);:'~/:t~j,l V~~~1}~I!) ,j~!~h~;P11: .'1 J.'" " I,"" .,', (hi.~~,;lli~l"li'\J~'\jj~1!" I, ~ 1, '" <t'~ '/J \ ',It 'I>'.~I, 1 l 'In'~~11 '{\ ~ t ~ 'I' 1, I I I , I 1 III:, ,1':'..' ~~ \11 \ \'1 1''''1 I' I J ,) ~ l.'fl 1~"'~""J,I,;t.l j~~ II ,'I, H. .! I , ,r~"J.I':\tl"t'ur'Wf..~, I,I,~ /"/" " .. , ,'1 I, 1./ ! ',I' Ii h I' j . "- ~'-.11' ~j ,II. ~ i,_ '\ ,/" /I II'J"{~""II'\I~'~ ''t,II.l~I'/JJ'll,~ '~... " ''I', "I ", I 1 I.. ~ I '. 'Ii rU 'I ,. J:'\' , " ..., I < te\' ',j \.!,I ''l't'~'t l' '" :,-J~I)r;' " J ,11'1 ~ J"i , ~~,,'I~:ij*\iJ\t]V~;?!I~ " ,/ I 1'11"\ III., "litirl"'I~\I'i~V j~'\,,~,t;" , ) ,~,' j I,' ,I)', ' I' "'l'i~ ", I~. i\ '. f'i J. " J IL, ,,' 11'",""':.'-'... II \ I, 1; t I, l " ': _ ~ JI ~ l .. j'.~:IJIo~ /':1.:;\1. " " , ,,',' ,:" ;."', , '. :':iH{,i;;;;ill'ft~~~, ,I " ,'F, ~I'\ 11I'/ ''i~,JI\ll'\'i~r,.'lt~'; 'I 'I' 1/'1 1.1,1 .l"'llll JI'i 11 ,\ I, . I" 1\,~.tiilllJ('l. J ,I ':',11'''~ 'r'~~\~~~: ~~:~1!t~~ " '" \t Ill'~f~,.~:tx ,Ill: 1,\ I "1,.1 'Vlk", t' , , '",.' ,",~\"',., J't '" <,k'IW"''f'' I' ';'11 (I ""\" 1\:' ',\.:' -','.)1'1', ' ,ii' 'I ,1.- " " :_01'1'.'1'-1 , 'j ,'1,,_1 ",':, 'I ',I" )'/" i', 'f '\ -', '.11/11,,-111 ,I )! "" " ,1:1:: '" , . ' , I,' I, " I: " "i '1' I l'I', i,'l, " I 'I " " , " 'I '" ,: , '~i ~ .', /1 {,./ i 'I "IL" I " ' ~'t \ ' , " t','_ , '1'1,1',' :1 ' \ ',j' , ' 'I, ", ,~ '... ! ,'1 I, I' " " "I i'; ,:,i, 'I.'; ,', I,ll t-, " ,~ 'I 'I' " ~ I" , , , , , " " " ,,' , , \ . , ~ I . , "I , , :1: ..II '.i , " ,1 "'I 'I ,'I,' ~ jl "~, \ /: .'. " 11 " I. " -" . 'I -l, '.\ . APPIDAVIT I. Michael MOClolky, Plalnllll obove named, verify Ihollh... 10011 lei lorlh In Ihe loreQplng ~elpon.e 10 Requell For AdmllllQI'II ore Irue and Ct;lrTecl, 10 Ihe bell of my knowledge, Informollon, or beller, I acknowledge Ihol any lalle Ilolemenll herein or" mode lubleol 10 Ihe penalllelof 18 Po. C,5. Isallon ~90~, relotlnQ 10 ul'llworn lolllllcollol'\l 10 oulhortllel, Dole c.e. \, \ IS ,-3-1- AI' , , " ,#/. (' (/.~.4 Michael Mc:Clolky ,I , , , I; , , , , " , ' il'l , , , ' I ; , , I' 'I IN THe COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAeL C, MllCLOIIKY, PlollltlH Civil Aotlrlll - Low v, Nil, 96.6308 Civil Torm ROCEWAY INN, Defondent RULe TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW/thle ~dOYOf _Mil \II _~tJ ,1997, upon oonslderetlon of Plolntlff Mlohoel MoClosky's Motion for Leovo III File Rospllnslllo Dofendent'lI RequosI fpr Admlselons QUI of Tlmo. 0 Rulols IBBusd upon tho Defondent to IIhow IlRIISO why Plelntlff'u requoRt should not bo orellted. This Rule Is rolurneblo wllhln twenly deys of sorvloo. BY THE COURTr ~ ~ q ., ~Ifl ~ ::~ .; th~, , t 1 ~. .~ 0..1 )~rl ~(J 'rl 0;..' ~.; , 1 ~1~,1 ~ 8':.1 ., !;J ~ oil" 2-~ " 1-"fe'{)2-0B liON \;):,,'U PM SWITt;H8U,lkO FflX NO, p, Or JllIl'd VII 1':'"1 "I<('JI, 11)1'.'1.' II '\oI1~ 111;or.I LII @), .' . /f RENHSJ;1.AJ!:lt COVNT\' 8VJU:AV Of RES.;ARCH . INF'ORM~TION "'AN'.". .'Uf) " f)'''' '")/1 MlII'Ch 29, 19Y7 M" MICM.I MeClo.key 100/6 00. 249 Tro)', NY IllIU Our Kuldcnt, Plc.u lICC'pllhl~ tl)IT~'pllnll~n~~ .. ofli~'llllotll1~1II1on Ihllth. new a4dt1" ror )'0111 ~.Id,ne~ illllw ToWll urBNI1lwlek r. 369 (JIIlI~' ROld Troy,NY 12i10 Illpologl2C fur th.lncu/I\w/lI'/lcc ~lul,ll by Ihls chlll1l4, \'0"' termer addle" \Nil ~h.nwcll II) ImplemtnI9-1_1 .m.'ll'n"~ .m'I,.. ill YOU,II/CA, Vow 1~~1l Md local post omce hAW beell nUlflled orlllls clwlU, 'fo lilclllllllc mlUlleliver;' lII1d 'II~ 10e"llnn by emeri,nc)' nrvlcCI P,o\",I''',l'le... pO&llhls nuw number clearly where 1\ 'In bl Nen Ilum Ihe rOld, (If you rmlvo mill II I poll olller box, ~OW' mAHlnBll!dreu will nOI eMllle) 'nthe n,"! thaI you nqulru .mergency lulala/let, plnae dl.1 9.\.1 and 1M pruper 18.ncy will be dlspltched 10 ruur loeltlon If you hO\.lIn'nh II thl, /o.;ullol1 plC&k nollty them orl!lu new addle... PIe... eo/llDet nl)'ulf or Becky at 270.2635 If )'ou hlvc lilY 'iucs1lonl or wish to confirm rollt IDcaUon In our tC(l)rds SfnWtly. ~ SJJ'W4 till SlIIlllm 911-0'5 'fcthnMIIII eel Towlloflll'll/llwlek Troy Poilmutrr Cou~n OnlC.:t ILILOINIl."fO 'rill ~~....l't T"OI, ~~ 1111/1. ~HIII't~ I''''',,"IIfO. '''''IIIlIll~INI G, Defendant flied a Rule to File Complaint which, pursuant 10 an agreement of counsel, was filed beyond Ihe twenty days permitted by Ihe Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, 4, Defendant flied various discovery requests, Including Interrogatol'les and document requests, on March 7, 1997 which contll1ue 10 go unanswered. 6. On May 2, 1997, Defendant served Plalntlll's counsol with Defendants RequBsts for Admissions, 6, Defendant flied a Motion for Summary Judgment based on Plaintiff's failure 10 answer Defendant's Requests for Admissions. 7, Defendant had ample opportul'llty to request opposing counsel for additional time to answer the Requests for Admissions. e. Defendant also had ample opportunity to advise opposing counsel and the Court of counsel's alloged Inability to locate his client by sel1lng forth the same In Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's Brief In Opposition to DefendBnt's Motion for Summary Judgment or during oral arglJment on the motion for summary judgment, 9. Although Plalntlll's counsel had the opportunity, he did not respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, nor did counsel file a Brief In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. MIClll\EL c. MoCl,OSKl1:Y, Plaintiff v. IIi '1'111E COLJIW OIF CONI-ION l'LlS/\l3 OIF ClJNI:llE11LI\NP COLJW1"', 1'J;;m'/~YLVMn:A CIVIL ACTIOIi - LAW ROOEWI\ Y nll'l, Defendant , NO. UG-53GU CIVIL T~UN IN IU'l1 DIBFE11D8)i'l', J'lOl.lli.ll1U'-U.~ I'IOTION I!'OIl SUI-l/oIAIl'! JUnOHE!1X BEFORE llOFI!'EIl 11Ild OLl.m ,-ll.t. 0llDEI1 01' COUIl'l' AND NOW, this ~Jday of OotoU"I:, 1997, upon oonl.idllraHon of Oefendant'lI motion for liunu"Ill:Y jud9111.mt bali~d UpOll otofl:tain flictll 4lle'iJedly deemed admitted by virtue of l'lalntUf'li tIIiluroll to respond to Defendant'lI Requelit fOl: Admilillionli, and it appearing that the reoord doeli not contain a aopy of the lIaid request liO thnt an order oan be entered balled upon the deemed bdmlluionB, the motion for Ilummary judgmant ill DEIHEP, Il1thOUl:' prejudiae to Defendant'If d'iJht to lIupplement tho I:eaord and file a nllll motion. BY 'l'IIE COURT, tU Peter J. RUIISO, Esq. 61 West Louther Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 Attorney for Defendant \..f>"; " .n ,., - "" . " .... I 1 , ' ~ ' / " , .J .., .' , I .,') ::.1 -(II "' . ~! t,) "I '" ~q ", J Fred H. Hait, EBq. 4 Liberty Avenue CarliSle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff > ,.H...,.:-.1 ('1"-'" If) ,.), 'i I Ira On Merch 7, 1997, Plelntlft's counsel wes served with Def.ndenfs IntIJrrogetorfes (First Sell and Requests for Production of Documents. To dete, Plel"tlff hes failed to respond to Defendant's discovery requltsts. On May 2, 1997, Plelntlff's counsel wes served with Defendant's Requests for Admissions, A copy Is a<<ached as Exhibit D, On May 2, 1997, Defendant flied a Notice of Service of Defendant's Requests for Admissions with the Prothonotary of the Court of Common PleBs of Cumberland COUI1ty. A copy Is a<<ached as Exhibit E, Plaintiff has fallltd to answer Defendant's Requests for Admissions, yet the Plaintiff has had In excess of thirty (30) days In which to answer Defendanfs discovery requests, therefore the Requests for Admissions are deemed adml<<ed. II. FACTU~L.~GRPJ,lliQ Mlohael M. McCloskey alleges that on or about September 30, 1994, he was a guest at the Defendant, Rodeway Inn of Carlisle, Pennsylvania. .en Plaintiffs Complaint at 113, Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a trailer at an automobile flea market In Carlisle, ~ Plaintiff's Complaint at 114. Plaintiff further alleged that he was Instructed by agents, servants and employees of the Rodeway Inn to park his newly purchased trailer In the "lower lof' of tho Rodeway Inn. ~ Plaintiffs Complaint at 115, The "lower lof' Is an open, unpaved and unfenced piece of property owned by the Rodeway Inn Which Is physically separated from main property. Plaintiff alleges In 117 of his Complaint that he was advised that the "lower lot" was a secure area which was patrolled by security personnel. Defendant, convinced that the area In the "lower lot" was secure, further '1 supporting aNldevll", If any, show thellhere Is no genulnlt Issue IS 10 any malerial f8cl and that Ihe moving party Is "ntltled 10 judgment liS a matter of law, _ Consumer Party of PennrsvlvanlL\ v, Commonwealth of Pennayl.wtli, 610 Pa. 158, 607 A,2d 323 (1986); Qarrinoer v, Taylor. 402 Pa. Super, 197,686 A,2d 928 (1990): Dlbbla v, Seourlty of America LifO Ina. Co. 404 Super, Ct. 206,590 A.2d 352 (1991). In considering a mot/on for summary Judgment, the court muat examine the record In a light most favorable to the non,movlng party, determine whether ony genuine Isaues of material fact exlat and resolve all doubta In favor of the non-moving party. .so. MJuJsl v, Tasman, 527 Pa. 132,589 A,2d 205 (1991), Nevertheless, while the requisite burden of proof must be met by the moving party, [ojnC8 a motion for summary judgment Is made and Is properly supported, however, the non-moving party may not simply rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleadings, [Citation omll1ed] In such a case, Rule 1035(d) requires that "by affidavits or BS otherwise provided In this Rule, [the non-movantl must set forth specific facts showing that there Is a genuine Issue for trial." The purpose of Rule 1035(d) "Is to assure that the motion for summary Judgment may 'pierce the pleading' and to require the opposing party to disclose the facts of his claim or defense," [Citation omll1edl Thus, once the motion of summary judgment has been propeJ1y supported, the burden Is upon the non-movant to disclose evidence that 15 the basis for his or her argument reslst/ng summary judgment, [Citation omil1edj, Eflgh v, GAF Core., _ Pa, Super, _, 603 A2d 208, 210 (1992). See also. Curran v, Children's Service Center, 696 Pa, Super, 29, 578 A.2d 8 (1990); Samarin v, G~F Core" 391 Pa. Super, 340, 571 A,2d 398 (1989). 4 The COUrt'1 Inquiry in deciding a motion for summary Judgment Is whether th. admissible evidence in the record In whatever form, from whatever source, considered In the light mOlt favorable to the opposing party, falls to establish a prfma facie case; that Is, whether the moving party has established, by virtue of a developed pretrial record, the cause of action cr defense pleaded, or whether there Is a genuine Issue of fact for decision. Bensalsm Township School.Dlsl. v, Commonwealth 618 Pa. 581, 544 A,2d 1318 (19B8). To properiy raise a genuine Issue of fact, the non,movant has the burden to present facts by filing answers to Interrogatories, depositions, counter-affidavits. or admissions. RossnberQ y. Nll;holsoij 408 Super. Ct, 502, 597 A,2d 145, app, den. 630 Pap 633, 606 A.2d 903 (1991), Thus, the non-movant may not rely upon his or her pleadings to controvert those facts presented by the moving party's depositions and affidavits, Rule 1035(d) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment will be entered, If otherwise appropriate, when a properfy supported motion for summary judgment Is made against an adverse party who rests upon the allegations or denials In the pleadings and falls to respond to the motion by affidavits, or as otherwise provided by the procedural rule governing summary Judgment (such as by depositions, answers to Interrogatories and admissions on file), seltlng forth specific facts showing that there Is a genuine Issue for trfal, 5 B. Etfut.!ll.fJlliu1.1Mn.wer Rule 4014(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure states In relel/snt part: Each matter of which an admission 15 requested shall be separately set fOl1h, The l11atter Is admltled unless, within thirty days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party upon whom the request Is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission an answer verified by the party or by his atlorney", Once a party has been served with a request for admissions and an answer or objections are not filed, each matter 15 admitted, Such matters are conclusively established unless the requesting party granls an extension of time 10 file Bn answer or the court permits the withdrawal or amendment of the admission, ~ Bybem v, Lvman Felhelm CQ.., 61 D & C 417 (1951); Jack~ Travelers Ins, Co" 48 D & C 3d, 26 (1966), C. Araument Defendant's counsel Berved Plaintiffs counsel with their Requests for Admissions over thirty days ago, No answer has been received, therefore pursuant to Rule 4014(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff has admitted each and every Request for Admission. Plaintiff was requested to provide proof that he walS ever a lawfully registered guest of the Rodeway Inn at the time of this alleged event. Further, Plaintiff was requested to provide proof that he ever purchased the subject trailer, Plaintiff was requested to provide proof supporting his allegation that "Plaintiff purchased a 1995 Ja-Mar Trailer, VIN 4AJFS1 827SJ13066," Plaintiff was asked to admit 6 that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that allegation he actually purchased the subject trailer. Pursuent to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that averment. No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff admitted that he cannot prove he ever purchased the 1995 Ja, Mar Troller, VIN 4AJF51827SJ13086 which Is the basis for this litigation, Plaintiff was requested to provide proof supporting his allegation that the Defendllnt or their agents Instructed Plaintiff to park his trailer In the "lower 101." Defendant stated as their Request for Admission 1#2: 'With regard to Plaintiff's allegation contained In Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraph 5 that "Defendant Instructed him that he was to park his trailer In what was called the 'lower lot,'" Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that allegation," Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that averment. No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff admitted that he cannot prove that the Defendant, through an agent, Instructed Plaintiff to park his vehicle In the "lower lot." Plaintiff was requasted to provide proof supporting his allegation that Defendant maintained a policy as to Which vehicles were required to park In the "lower lot." Defendant stated as their Request for Admission #3: 'With regard to Plaintiffs allegation contained In Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraph 5 that Defendant's 'policy at the time was to require all large vehicles, such as trailers, motor homes, etc. be parked In the lower lot, Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that allegation, Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits that he has no 7 fact, document or witness to prove that averment. No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff admitted that he cannol prove that Defendant mlllntalned a policy which reqUired some vehicles to park In the "lower 101." Plaintiff was requested to prOVide proof supporting his allegation that Defe"dant prOVided security for the subject trailer, Defendant stated as their Request for Admission 1#4: ''WIth regard to Plaintiffs allagatlon contained In Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraph 7 that Defendant "assured Plaintiff that It provided a secured area with around the clock security guards, where he cculd sOfely store his trailer," Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that allegation. Pursuent to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that averment. No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff admitted that he cannot prove that Defendant provided securily for the subject trailer, Plaintiff was requested to provide proof supporting his allegation that Defendant made representations that the subject lot was secure. Defendant stated as their Request for Admission i#5: ''WIth regard to Plaintiffs allegation contained In Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraph B that Plaintiff relied "upon the Defendant's representations that the lot wall secure," Plalntltf admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that allegation, Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that averment. No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff admitted that he cannot prove that Plaintiff relied upon representations made that the subject lot was secure. II Plaintiff Wlls requllsted to provide proof supporting his allegallon that Defe"dant Was aWare of the Plalnllffs ownership of the trailer, Defendant stated as Ihelr Request for Admission 00: 'With regard to Plaintiff's tlllegatlon contained In Plalntlfftl Complaint at paragraph 9 that "Defendant's t1ecurlty personnel were [slcl of tl1e Identity of Plalnllff and or his ownership of Il1a Iraller," Plaintiff edrnlls that hel1as no fact, document or wllness 10 prove that allegation, Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rula of Civil Procadure 4014, Plaintiff admits Ihat he has no tact, document or wllness 10 prove tl1at tlverment, No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff tldrnltted tl1atl1e cannot prove that Defendant was aware of the Plaintiffs ownership of the trailer, Plaintiff was requested to provide proof supporting I1ls allegation that Plalnllffs troller was stolen from Defendant's "lower 101." Defendant stated as their Request for Admission #7: "With regard to Plaintiffs allegation contained In Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraph 10 that "Plaintiffs trailer, together wllh two locks, a chain, and four ratchet straps was stolen from Defendant Rodeway Inn's 'lower lot,''' Plaintiff admits that he has no fact, document or witness to prove that allegation, Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014, Plaintiff admits that he 11as no fact, document or witness to prove that averment. No answer was offered, therefore Plaintiff admitted tl1at he cannot prove that his trailer was stolen from the Defendant's lot, Plalnll" was requested to provide proof supporting his allegation that Plaintiffs trailer was stolen due to Defendant's negligence, Defendant stated as their Request for Admission #8: 'With regard to Plaintiffs allegation contained In Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraph 12 that "the theft of Plaintiffs trailer, locks, chains, and four ratchet straps was <J . , PETER J. RUSSO. eSQUIRE! Attorney for Oefendsnt PA Supremlll Court 10: 72697 61 West Louther SttlSet CarlIsi., PA 17013 717-249-2721 MICHAEL C. McCLOSKEY I IN THe OOURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ~ OUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PI,'ntlff ~ I NO. 811-5388 CIVIL TERM v. I I RODEWA Y INN l I OIVIL ACTION. LAW D.fendant ~ , , , , \ IN THE OOURT OP OOMMON PU!AS OP OUMBI!RLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYL.VANIA MICHAI!L o. McOLOSKY, Plalntllr Civil Aatlon-l4w va. No. 98.11388 CIvil Tenn ROCEWAY INN. Ce,endant COMPLAINT 1. Plalnllff MIchael C. McClollky Is all adult Individual who resIdes In Troy, Naw York. 2. Defendant Rodeway Inn operales a hlltel/motel at 1239 Herr1ebutg Pike In MIddlesex TownshIp, Cumbertalld COUllly, PennsYlvania, 3. On or about 9/30/94 Plalnmf registered as a guest at defendant Rodeway Inn, Intending to emy there while he attended the automobile flea market at CartlBle, Pennsylvenla. 4. On or about 10/1/94 Plalntl'f purchasod a 1995 Ja.Mar Trailer, VIN 4AJFS1B276J130BB at the automobile flea market at Cartlsle Pennsylvania. 6. After purchasing the trailer, Plaintiff returned to his lodgings at Defendant Rodeway Inn, where Oefendantlnslrucled him that he was to park hie trailer In what was called the "lower lor'. The "lower lor was not within sight of PlalnUffs room. Oefondant represenlad to Plalnllff that Its policy at the time was to require that all large vehicles such Bsltllllers, motor homes, etc, be parked In the "lower lot" 6. Plalnllff, being concemed about securtty since the "lower lor wos not within sight of his room, Inquired of Defendant was to whether the lot was secure 50 that his vehicle would be secure from theft and/or vandalism, 7. In response to PlalnUfrs Inqulrtes, Defendant, by Its agants, ssrvants, or employees, acting WIthin the scope of their agency, servitude, or employment, aSBured PlalnlJff that It provided a secured area with around the clock securily guards, where he could safely store his ltIlller while he was stayIng at Rodeway 11m. 6. Plalnllff, relying upon Defendant's representalJons that the lot was seCUre and was patrolled around the clock, parked his trailer In the "lower lot" on 9/30/94, and sacured It to a ulJllty pole with two locks and a chain. 9. Defendant's securily personnal were of the IdenlJly of Plaintiff and or his ownership of Ihe ltIlller, PETER J. RUSBO, ESQUIRE PA Supreme Court ID: 72697 61 West Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249'2721 Atlcmey for OeIIndlant MICHAEL C. McCLOSKEY Plslntlff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON Pl.EAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98.538B CIVIL TERM ~~:3 :.1 :-. -1 . "I;J ',,.) -~,!l ':' :J ., I RODEWAY INN D.fendsnt CIVIL ACTION, LAW .., .,. ,.>. , '.':> ..~ .' ~, J' ,-. :;) , III :~ - .. ,.1, _ - '..:j -, ~~ YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth In the following pagl'ls. you musltake action within twenly (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and ffllng In writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fall to do so the case may proceed without you and a Judgment may be entered against YOIJ by the Court without further notice for any money claimed In the Complaint or for any othar 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 8ELOW TO FIND CUT WHERE YOIJ CAN GET LEGAL HELP, Office of the Court Administrator Cumberland County Court House, 4th Floor Carlisle. PAp 17013 (717) 240.6200 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED DEFENDANT'~ NEW MATTEI3. WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. By:Q;;::~ Peter J, Russo Date: Thur~dGV, Junuorv 30, 1897 4. Denied. Defltndant laclls sufficient I<nowledge or Information ~l.) as to form a bellet as to the truth or falsity ot the Ilverment In paragraph numbltr 4, 15. Denied. Defendant specifically denies that after Plaintiff purchllsed the subject trailer that Defendant WlSS Instructed to park said trailer In any partiCUlar locatJon. Further, It Is denied that Defendent represented to the Plelntlff that It 115 Rodeway Inn policy to require that 011 large vehicles such as IraJlers, motor homes, etc" be parked in the "Iewer lot." Additionally, It Is denied that the "lower lot" was not within sight of Plaintiff's room. 6. Denied. While Defendant Is unaware of what Plaintiff's concrtrns wera, after reasonable Investigation, It Is denied that Defendant eVer Inquired with any agent, servant, and/or ernployee of Defendant as to whether the lower lot was secure from theft and/or vandalism, 7, Denied, Defendant specifically denies that any agent, servent and/or employee ever assured Plaintiff that Rodeway wculd provide a seCIJre Brea with "around-the'clocl<" security guards, where Plaintiff could safely store his trailer while he was staying at the Rod away Inn. By way of further response, the Rodeway Inn has never maintained an "around-the-clock" security force for any reason, Including but not limited to security of the "lower lot." 8. Denied. It Is specifically denied that Plaintiff relied upon Defendant's representations regarding the sec:urlty of the "lower lot," as Defendant denies that any agent, servant, and/or employee of the Rodeway Inn advlsad Plaintiff that said lot would be secure and/or safe from theft and/or vandalism. Additionally, Defl!ndant denies that any servant, agentJr employee advised Plaintiff that the "lower lot" was patrolled around the clock. It Is denied that Plaintiff parked his trailer in the "lower 101" on September 30, 1994, and that said trailer was secured to a utility pole by two locks and 3 chain, as Deiendant laclls any Independent first-hand knowledge or Information so 3S to f\Jrm a belief as to the truth or falsity of such an averment. 9. Dsmled. It is denied that Defendant, Rodeway Inn. maintains security peraonnel. By way of further respanse, Dlffendlln~s agents, servants and/or employees wers aware of the Identity ot the Plalnliff simply ua u palron of the Rodeway Inn, By way of further responae. prior to PlainUffs Informing the agent, aervant and/or employee of the Rodaway Inn of the alll/ged theft of said trailer, Defendant had no Independent knowlodge or awarenel!ls of Plaintiff's ownership of a trailer, 10. Denied. Defendant lecl<s Independenl Hrst-hand knowledge or Information ao as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averment In paragraph 10. Strict proof demonded at the time of trial. 11, Denied. Defendant lacks Indapendent firat-hand knowledge or Information ao as to form a belief as to the truth or fl1lslty of the averment in paragraph 11. Strict proof demandEld at the time of trial. 12. Denied. Paragraph 12 atatea conclualons of law to which no response Is required, Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 13. Denied. Paragraph number 13 states conclusions of law to which no response Is required. In the event any averment in Paragraph 13 Is deemed to blil factual. It Is denied as Defendant lacks independent first. hand I<nowledge or Information so as to form a belief as to the truth or falSity of the factual averments In. paragraph 13. WHEREFORE, Defending, Rodeway Inn respectfully raqueststhls HonorableCourt to enter Judgment In favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff In thiS matter. New Matter and Defenses 1.!, On or about September 30. 1994, Plaintiff registered as a guest of the Rodeway Inn In Carlisle, Pennsylvania. I'ETeR J. RUSSO, eSQUIRI! PA Supreme Court 10: 72897 81 West Louther Street Can/sle, PA 17013 717-249-2721 Attomey for O.f.nd.nt MICHAEL C. McCLOSI<EY I I Plaintiff I I v. I t ROCEWAY INN I I Defendant I IN 'THE COURT OF COMMON PLI!AS OF CUMBeRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 88.fl38B CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION, LAW PLEASE TAI<E NOTICE that Plaintiff Is hereby required, pursuant to the Pel1nsylvanla 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 Requests for Admission within thirty (30) days after service of the Interrogatories, Pursuant to Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant hereby requests that Plaintiff admit, for the purposes of the above-captioned pending action only, the facts set forth In these Requests of Admissions, To the extent that Plaintiff falls to admit unequivocally each Request for Admission, he Is required to provide answers to the following Interrogatoriall within 30 days, Further, to the extent that Plaintiff is In possession of documents that support his denials, he Is required to produce true and correct copies of those documents within 30 days, Should Plaintiff's responses not be provided within 30 days, they are deemed admitted, Further, pursuant to Rule 4014(b) and (c), If your answers to these requests do not fairly meet the substance of each Request for Admission. they may be deemed admitted, ~ Unless negated by the context of the Request for Admission, the following definitions are to be considered to be applicable to all Requests for Admission. contained herein: A. "Documents" Is an all,lncluslve term referring to any wrillng and/or recorded or graphic malter, however produced or reproduced. The term documents Includes, without IImltallon, oorrespondence, memoranda, Interoffice communlcallon, minutes, reports, notes, schedules. analyses, drawings, diagrams, tables, graphs, ch artll , maps, surveys, books of account, ledgem, Invoices, purchase orders, pleadlngtl, quesllonnalretl, contracts, bills, checks, drafts. dlarias, logs, proposals, print-outs, recordings. telegrams, films, and all other such documents tangible or retrievable of any kind, Documents Blso Include [Iny preliminary notel! and drafts of all of the foregoing, In whatever form, for example: printed, typed, 10nghal1d, shorthand, on popel', paper tape, tabUlating cords, ribbon blueprints, magnijllc tape, microfilm, film, Illollon picture film, phonographs records, or other form, B. With respect to documents, the term "Identify" means to give the date, title, author and addressee: "Idanllfy" with respect to documents further means: (1) to describe the document sufficlenlly well to enable the Interrogator to know what such document Is and to retrieve It from a file or wherever It may be located; (2) to describe It In a manner suitable for use as a description In a subpoena: and (3) to give the name. address, poslllon or IIlIe of the custodian of the documont and/or copies thereof, C, "Idenllfy" when used In reference to an Individual means to set forth such Individuals: (1) full name: (2) present residence address or last known residence: (3) present or last known business address; (4) present employer or last known employer: and (5) whether ever employed by any party to this action and, If 50, the dates he (she) was employed by such party, the name of such party, and the last poslllon held as an employee of such party, D, Whenever the expression "and/or" ill used In these Requests for Admissions, the Information called for should be set out both In the conjunctive and disJunctive, and wherever the Information 15 set out In the disJunctive, It should be given separately for each and every element sought. e, Whenever a dale, amount or other computation or figure 15 requested, the exact date, amount of other computation or figure 15 to be given unless It Is not known: and then the approximate date, amount or other computation or figure should be given or the best esllmate thereof; and the answer shall tltate that the date, amount or other computation or figure is an esllmate or approximation, F, No answer 15 to be left blank, If the antlwer to a Request for Admission Is "none" or "unknown." such statement must be written In the answer, If an answer is omitted because of the claim of privilege, the basis of the privilege 15 to be stated, G, At all limes Plal'1tlff shall refer to Michael C, McCloskey; Defendant shall refer to Rodeway Inn and "you" shall mean the party to whom these Contention Interrogatories are addressed, PIlAn:CIl'E FOil r.UlTII'/G CAliUG/l AIlGUMEI'/T (Hw1 t be l"/PllWrl ttrm iJI1d ~utmi ttBd in dup,U.c4 tel TO 'rHE PROTHONOTAA'i OF CUMBERLAND COUNT'i I Pleue l.ist the within IMtter tor tll. next ~t cau.rt. --------------~.---------~----------_._----_._-----_._--------....--~------.~-...-.--- CAPTION OF CABE (entirll caption I1UII t be II ta te:i in full I MICHAEL C. McCLOSKEY VI. p H:l I I .., I' r: I ~""I II't ( PlAintiLt:f!) I"ltl ,.1 ~' , "Ij I') ,'J 1'/, L\ ,I . ,I , , "~II ',II I . , , , " '\101 "'1 , 1,1 I j , " .. ~, I ",- ''I ", IJl -. RODEI~AY nm ( Defendant) No. H~B Civil Law 1996 1. Bl:4te IMtter to be axguetd (i.e., plaintiff-'s motion tor: new b:iel. detendant's derJJl:'r8r to ccmp.LeJ.nt, etc. II Defendant' 0 motion for Summary Judgment 2. Identify oounsel who will 4r'!JUe CllSel (Ill tor pla1ntiftl Fred H. Hait ~Sl 4 Liberty Ave. Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) tor detendantl Peter J. Russo ~SI 61 West Louther Street Carlisle. PA 17013 3. I will notify 4l.L perl:1es in wr::l.t:ing within two ~ that t:hiI C8H hu been lJJs ted tor argIJ'nIlrl t, 4 . Arg\.rrltnt court: Date I pctober I, 1997 Dated: 8/aslq7 G~Q~ Attorney for Dllf,'nrll1n" . MICHAEL C. McCLOSKEY ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PINNSVLVANIA Pllln"" I I NO. 86-5388 CIVIL TERM V. I I RODEWAY INN I ~ CIVIL ACTION. LAW Defendl"' I stADER AND NOW, Ihls day of July, 1997, upon conalderatlon ot Defendant, Rod.way Inn's, Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants motion la GRANTEO and summary Judgment Is entered In favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, Michael 0, McCloskey. BY THE OOURT: J, I, JUdgment. A true and correct copy ot Oet.ndanre motion Ie attached hereto lie exhibit A, 4. A copy ot Defendanrs Mollon for Summary Judgment was served on Fred H. Helt, counsel tor Plelntlff, via hand delivery to Attorney Hairs courthouse mallbolland via First Class U.S. Mall with a Domestio Return Receipt. 6, On or about June 10, 1997, Delendant filed a Proof ot Service with the Cumberland County Prothonotary. A true and correct copy of Defendanh Proot ot Service Is attached hereto as exhibit B. 6. On June 11, 1997, Charity F, Apa accepted a copy ot Detendanh Motion tor Summary Judgment and Ilgned the Domlstio Return Receipt. A true and correot copy of Ihe Domestic Return Receipt II attached hereto as Exhlbll C. 7. Plaintiff hes failed to answer Defendsnt's Mollon for Summary JUdgment within the time prescribed by law. 6. Pursuant to Pa. R,C.P. 1035 and Local Rule 208.2, Defendant, Rodeway Inn Is entitled to summary judgment as a matter 01 law. WHEREFORE, II Is reapectfully requssled thet this Honorable Court grant Defendant, Rodeway Inn's Motion for Summary Judgment, with prejudice. Date: -d.S.Jj7 Respectfully submitted, ~-hACj)- -- Peter J. RUllO G, Oe'.ndant "I.d a Rul.to File Complaint on Oeoember 8, 1998, 4, In r'.pon.., PI"nti" nle a Complaint on January 10, 1997. IS, On January aD, 1997, Defendsnt "'ed lt1elr Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint wllt1 New Malter, 6, On February 20, 1997. Plaintiff "'ed a response to Defendenfs New Malter. 7. On May 2, 199?, PlalnUffs counsel was served with Defendanfs R.quests for Admissions. 8. On May 2, 1997, Defendant flied a Notice of Service of Defendenfs Requests for Admissions with 1t1. Prolt1onotary of lt1e Court of Common Pleas of Cumber/and County. 9. PlalnUff has failed to answer D.fendanfs Request for AdmlslSlons within the 30 day prescrIbed by Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Plaintiffs failure to answer Defendanfs Request for Adm/sslons within lt1e 30 day prescr1b~d by Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Is deemed an admission of each Request for AdmIssion. 11 . Plaintiffs failure to answer Defendant's Request for Adm/sslons, serves as an admission lt1at PlaintIff cannot provide evidence to support any of the allegation II that he hall set forth In his ComplaJnt. 12. There are no questIons of material fact relating to any Issues In this oase. 13. PUrsuBnt to Pap R.C,P, 1035, Defendant, Rodeway Inn Is entitled to summary Judgment as a matter of law. /' " " " " , , Iii 1,1 " ~~ \qt~' I.~.I t::: ,.. r:t " .. P', t"" ,. ;','1 II't , 'II. ) , I~ ~ ',1"; " "'I' /." ht, l! ~J)Ij'1 ,I " ;1,'; Ii . " ( l' 1'1'. 'H! , 'I' I " ,') Lt."1 r'J ,.,Im, 1',1 ill I , il ii' , , f " ':', ' , . LI r" d ,- , U IJ' " " LI /1 ,fi', ~, /q' ; , I " " Ill;" I , , , I,; ;1 " " , It' """":1 i' ;"l'ld ;\ I '" ,~ " " ' il'lI I " . , ' , , ",I, ',I ",'1,1 , 1 , , , " .. 1,1 '!'I '\ '. " 1\", , ,,',,'! " I ! !' i \;,1 1",lf, o I ,d ~ ~ , I , ,I , ';,\'/,,1 , ,I i' '" Il'II)','/ " , I . ~I ;' I. ,I . f ,", I , ;.,..'" I, , " {111,ihV \il.- III II " II, 1 , !I,;'j :'1 1 i. . , ., . MICHAIL C, MaCLOIIKIV ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLUS OF ~ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PINNIYLVANIA PlllntI" ~ ~ NO. ge.!l3U CIVIL TERM Y. t ~ RODIWAV INN ~ t CIVIL ACTION. LAW Defendl"' ~ Q..BJUll AND NOW, thla day of July, 1997, upon conalderadon of Defendant, Rodeway Inn'l, Motion for Summll'y Judgment, Defendanfa motion II GRANTED and summary JUdgment Is entered In favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, Mlohael C. McClolkey. BV THE; C.OURT: , " J. , JUdgment, A true 8nd correct copy ot O,'endsnfs moUon Is sttached hereto 8S exhibit A. 4. A copy of O.fendanrs Motion for Summary Judgment was served on Fred H. Halt, counsel for PlalnllH, via hand dellvory to Al10rney Hairs courthouse mailbox and via First Class U,S. Mall with a Domestic Return Receipt. 6. On or about June 10, 1997, Defendant filed a Proof of Service With the Cumberland County Prothonotary. A true and correct copy of Defendanrs Proof of Service 15 attached hereto os Exhibit 8, 6. On June 11, 1997, Charity F, Apll accepted a copy of Defendanrs Motton for Summary JUdgment and signed the Domfistlc Return Receipt. A true and correct copy of the Domestic Return Receipt 15 attached hereto as Exhibit C, 7. Plaintiff has failed to answer Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment within the time prescribed by law, 8. Pursuant to Pa, R.C,P, 1035 and Local Rule 208.2, Defendant, Rodeway Inn Is entitled to summary Judgment as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, It Is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court grant Defendant, Rodeway Inn's Motion for Summary Judgment, with prejudice. Date: ,/qlq, Respectfully submitted, Q-h-tCj)--- Peter J. Russo a. D.fendant "'ad II Rul. to File Complaint on December e, 1998. 4. In rellponlle, Plaintiff fill, iii Complaint on January 10, 1997. S, On January 30, 1997, Defendant filed tholr Answer to Pla/ntilt's Complolnt wlth New Malter. e. On February 20, 1997, Plaintiff filed 11 response to Defendanrs New Malter. 7. On May 2, 1997, Plalntllt's counsel Wos served with Defendanrs Requests for Admissions. B. On May 2, 1997, Defendant filed a NOllee of Service of Defendanrs Requests for Admissions with the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. 9. Plelntlff has failed to anSWer Defendanrs Request for Admissions within the 30 day preserlbad by Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Plaint/it's failure to answer Defendanrl3 Request for Admissions withIn the 30 day prescribed by Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Is deemed an admloslon of each Request for Admission. 11. Pla/ntllt's failure to anSWer Detendanrs R~quest. for Admissions, serves as an admission that Plalnt/ff cannot provide evldonce to support any of the allegations that he has set forth In his Comp/aJnt. 12. There are no quest/ons of material fact relating to any Issues In thle case. 13. PUtlSuant to Pap R.C.p, 1035, Defendant, Rodeway Inn Is entitled to summary Judgment ilS a malter of law, PITER J. RUSSO, I!SQUIRI PA Supreme Court 10: 72897 81 West Loult1er Slreet Cartlsle, PA 17013 717-:249,2721 Attomev for Defendant MICHAEL C. McCLOSKI!Y ~ ~ Plalntlrr ~ ~ v. ~ ~ ROCEWAY INN t Cafandant ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLIAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA NO. 88-5388 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION. LAW I. Peter Russo, hereby certify that I am on tnls day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon tne person (e) and In tne manner Indicated beloW: Servlcd by Arst.Class Mall, Postage Prepaid, and Addressed as follows: Fred H. Hall 4 Uberty Ave Carlisle, PA 17013 and ServIce by placing a true and correct copv of tne foregoing document In counsel for plaintiff's Courthouse mailbox. G:t. Q- Peter J. Russo Date: Juesday. June 10, 1997 MICHAIL C. MoCLOIKIY l IN THI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSVLVANIA P,.,ntI" I I NO. ""5388 CIVIL TERM v. l I RODEWAV INN I I CIVIL ACTION. LAW Defendant I Q.A.Q...I.B. AND NOW. thll day of July, 1997, upon consideration of Defendant, Rodeway Inn'l. Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant'1 motion 'I GRANTED and lummary judgment Ie entered In lavor of Oefendant and against PlaJntlff, Mlch.el C. McClolkey. BV THE COURT: , I J. pm" J. RUllO, ESQUIRE PA Supreme Oourt 10: 712897 tl'l Weet Loutner Street Oerll.le, PA 17013 71 N!4Q'2721 Attamey for O"end."t MICHAEL c. McCLOSKEY PI.,nIl" l I I I I I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PWI OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSVLVANIA NO. ..53A CIVIL TERM v. RODIWAV INN Defendant . . . . CIVIL ACTION. LAW DEFENDANT, RODEWAV INN'S AND NOW, comes Defendant, Aodeway Inn. by and through Il1attomey Peter J. Ru.ao, and moves for summary Judgment pursuant to Pa. A.C.P. 1035 and Local Aul. 208,2. In support thereof, Defendant avers the following: 1. Plaintiff, Michael C. McCloskey commenced suit on or about September 30, 1996, with the filing of a Writ of Summons. 2. After the filing of a Rule to Ale Complaint, a Complaint, an Answer to Plalntilrs Complaint with New Mattar and a response to D.fendant's New Matter, the pleadings In this matter closed on or about February 20, 1997. 3. On or about June 10, 1997, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, A true and correct copy ot Oefendanrl motion II attached hereto al exhibit A. 4. A copy of Defendanh Motion for Summary Judgment WIlS served on Fred H. Helt, counsel for Plaintiff, via hand delivery to Attorney HllWS courthouse mailbox Bnd vie Flret CIBss U,S, Moll with a Domestic Return Receipt. 5. On or about June 10, 1997, Defendant flied a Proof of Service with Itle CumberlBnd County Prothonotary, A true and correct copy of Defendlll1t's Proof of Service Is BttBched hereto as Exhibit 8, 6. On June 11, 199'7, Charity F, Ape accepted a copy of Defendant's Motion for SIJmmBry JUdgment and slg"ed the Domestio Return Receipt. A true and correct copy of the Domestic Return Receipt Is attached hereto as Exhibit C, 7, Plaintiff has flllled to answer Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment within the time prescribed by law. 8. Purouent to Pap R.C,P, 1035 and Local Rule 208-2, Defendant, RodewBY Inn 10 entitled to summary Judgment as a matter of law, WHEREFORE, It 15 respectfully requested that this Honorable Court grant Defendant, Rodeway Inn's Motion for Summary Judgment, with prejudice. Dete: -, L9.J..g-, Respectfully submitted, Q-hlj)--- Peter J. Russo G. O.t.ndant fll.d II Rul. to Flle ComplaInt on Deoember 6, 1996. 4, In r..ponse, PlslnUff nl. a Complslnt on January 10, 1997. 15, On January 30. 1997, Defendant flied their Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint wlth New Matter. 6, On Februsry 20, 1997, PlslnUff filed 11 response to Defendants New Matter, 7. On May 2, 1997, PlaIntiffs counsel was served with Defendants Requests tor Admissions. B. On May 2, 1997. Dotendant filed a NOUce at Service ot Detendants Requests tor Admissions with the Prothonotary of U,e Court of Common Pleas ot Cumberland County, 9. Plaintiff hils failed to answer l.:lefendants Request for Admissions within the 30 day prescrlbad by Rule 4()14 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Plaintiffs falluro to answer Defendants Request for Admissions within the 30 day prescribed by Rule 4() 14 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Is deemed an admission of each Request for Admission, 11. PlalnHH's failure to answor Defendants Request for Admissions, SGtves as an admission that Plaintiff cannot provide evidence to support any of the allegations that he has set forth In his ComplaJnl. 12. There are no quastlons of material fact relating to any Issues In this CBse. 13. Pursuant to Pa. R.C,P, 1036, Defendant, Rodeway Inn Is entitled to summary Judgment as a matter of law. ~ ,..... '. MICHAIL c. MoCLOll<1Y I IN THI COURT OfT COMMON PLEAS OF I CUMIIALAND COUNTY, PENNSVLVANIA Plllntl" I I NO. ..113118 CIVIL TERM V'. I I RODEWAVINN I I CIVIL ACTION. LAW O"'ndlnt t fW.Le TO sHoW CAUS. AND NOW. this day of I 1997. upon consideration of Oefendant, Rodeway Inn's, Mol/on for Summary Judgment. a Rule Is Issued upon the Plaintiff to show cause why Defendanrs Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. This Rule Is returneble within twenty days of service. BY THE COURT: J. G. Oefendant flied 8 Rule to File Comphllnt on Oecember fI, 19911, 4. In response, Plalnttff me 8 Complaint on January 10, 1997', /5. On January 30, 1997, Defendant flied their Answer to PlalnU"s Complaint with New Metter, fI, On February 20, 1997, Plaintiff flied a rasponse to Defendanrll New Malter. 7, On May 2. 1997, PIBlntlff's counsel was served with Dllfendanrs Requests for Admissions, e, On May 2, 1997, Defendant flied a Notice of Service of Defendanrs Requests for Admissions with the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. 9, Plaintiff has failed to answer Defendent'B Request for Admissions within the 30 day prescribed by Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Plaintiff's failure to answer Defendant's Request for Admissions within the 30 day prescribed by Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Is deemed an admission of each Request for Admission. 11. Plaintiff's failure to answer Defendant's Request for ,~dmlsslons, serves as Iln admission that Plaintiff cannot provide evidence to support any of the allegations that he has set forth In his Complaint. 12. There Bre no questions of material fact relating to any ISBues In this case, 13. PursuBnt to Pa. R.C.P. 1035, Defendant, Rodeway Inn Is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. MICHAEL c. MoCLOSl<1Y I IN THI COURT OF COMMON PLI!AS OF I CUMBIRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plelntlrr I I NO. IJW3BU CIVIL TERM V'. I I RODEWAY INN t I CIVIL ACTION . LAW Deftndlnt I &LL.J; TO eJl:!OW CA~SE AND NOW, this _ day of . 1997. upon conslderatJon of Defendant, RodewBY Inn's, Mol/on for Summary Judgment, 11 Rule Is ISBued upon the Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant's Mollon tor Summary Judgment should not be granted. This Rule Is retumable within twenty days of service. BY THE COURT: J. G. Oefendlnt flied a Rule to FIle Complaint on Oeoember II, 1998. 4. In response, PIlIlnUff flle IS Complaint on Janullry 10, 1997, /5. On January 30. 1997, Oefendant "led lI1elr Answer 10 PlalnUff's Complalnl With New Matter. a, On February 20. 1997. Plaintiff "led a response to Defendanrs New Malter. 7. On May 2. 1997. Plaintiff's counsel was served wlll1 Defendant's Rlquests for Admissions, 8, On May 2, 1997, Defendant filed a Notice of Service of Defendanh Requests for Admissions with lI1e Prothonotary of lI1e Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. 9. Plaintiff has failed 10 answer Defendant's RequllSt for Admissions within the 30 day prescribed by Rule 4014 of Ihe Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Plaintiff's failure to answer Defendant's Request for Admissions Within the 30 day prescribed by Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Is deemed an admission of each Request for Admission. 11. PlaJntlff's failure to answer Defendant's Request for Admissions, serves as an admission that Plaintiff cl1nnot provide evidence to support any of the allegations that he has set forth In his Complaint. 12, There lire no questions of materiel fact relating to any Issues In this case. 13. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1035, Defendant, Rodeway Inn Is entllled to summary judgment as a matter of law. MICHAEL c. MoCLOlIl<1V I IN THI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ~ CUMBIALAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plalntlrr I t NO. 1JW3Ba CIVIL TERM V'. ~ t RODEWAY INN f ~ CIVIL ACTION. LAW Deftnd.nt ~ B.U..I..I..mJI:tmY-.CAUII AND NOW, this __ day of . 1997, upon consideration of Defendant, RodewllY Inn's, Mol/on for Summary Judgment, a Rule Is Issued upon the Plaintiff to Bhow cause why Defendanh Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. This Rule Is returnable within twenty days of service. BY THE COURT: - J. . G. Defendant fthld a Rule to FIle CompleJnt on December IS, 1988. 4. In response, PhaJntiff flit a Complaint on January 10, 1997. /5. On January 30, 1997, Defendant flied their Answer to Plalntltrs CompleJnt with New Matter, fl. On F"bruBry 20, 1997, PlaJntlft flied a response to Defendant's New Matter, 7. On May 2, 1997. PlaJntJff's counsel was served with Defendant's Requests for Admissions. B. On May 2, 1997, Defendant flied II Notice of Service of Defendant's Requests for Admissions with the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Philas of Cumberland County. 9. Plaintiff has failed to answer Defendant's Request for Admissions within the 30 day prescribed by Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Plalntlff's failure to answer Defendant's Request for Admissions within the 30 day prescribed by Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Is deemed an admission of each Request for Admission. 11. Plalntiffs failure to answer Defendant's Request for Admissions, serves as an admission that Plaintiff cannot provide evidence to support any of the allegations that he has set forth In his Complaint. 12. There are no questions of material fact relating to any ISBues In this case. 13. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1035, Defandant, Rodeway Inn Is entitled to summary Judgmental a matter of law. ... I' ' ..r,. t 1,IJ; 11~ / ell ,.J\. /.[1' /j'" '/' " ~" , 'II ii, , Ii I' " I. " , " ,! III ":1 1~1 ,h '/ . i.....,. 1;1 "J!!' ).;j ,la I r;J "!(/' I ~l. "J l,) .,. . , u. r-. , lJ ~ S.; f;1 /. , , , , " 'I I '1 " I, .' " t,: I, II t' , I " , I " I'i " I, ., I I .' I, 'I " ~l N i?: I~ ~ ls .' ~ki II I, I I - I ,r, I ~'~ 'I 1;i' 1:/. l:J " " ill'" r:t. ' ."i) 1 ;1 I.;. N 'ill I' } I.:. ~'l IE''! , &1 " , " , ~ Gi I " i' I .' I III I, I, " '/' " " " 'I I I " 'I ., ,I , " I I , PETER J. RUSSO, ESQUIRE PA Supreme Court 10: 72897 61 Weet Louther Streel Carlisle, PA 1701G 717.249.2721 AItomey for 0eIendanl MICHAEL c. McCLOSKEY Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-15368 CIVIL TERM V'. RODEWAV INN CIVIL ACTION - LAW D,'endlnt DEFENOA~1~_ANB.W..eR_1-O...e.LAJNrl.Ef'S COPIJP-LAlttI AND NOW, comee RodeWBY Inn, by al1d through their attorney, Peter J. Russo and Answers Plalnllff's Complaint, as follows: 1. Admltt.d. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted In Part and Oenled In Part. It Is adml<<ed that on or about September 30, 1994, Plaintiff was the guest of B registered patron of the Rodeway Inn, but the room that Plalnllff utilized wee not registered or reserved under his name. By way of further response, Plaintiff first night at the Rodeway Inn was September 29, 1994. Further, It Is denlad that Plalnllfflntendad to stay at the Rodeway Inn while attondlng an automobile flea market In Carlisle, Pennsylvania, as Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or Information so as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the portions of paragraph number 3 which reference the Plalnllff's Intent while a guest at the Rodeway Inn. 4. Denied, Defendant hacks sufficient knowledge or Information so aa 10 form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the overmentln paragraph number 4. 5. Denied, Defendant apeclflcally denlas that aller Plalnllff purchased Ihe aubject troller that Dofendant was Instructed to park said trailer In any particular location. FUl1her, It Is denied that Defendant represl9nted to the Plalnllff that It Is Rodeway Inn polloy 10 require that alllargG vehicles such as trailers, motor homes, etc., be parked In the "lower lot." Additionally, It Is denied thatlhe "lower lot" was not within sight of Plalnllff's room. 6. Denied. While Defendant Is unaware of what Plalnllff's concems ware, after real30nable Invesllgatlon, It Is denied that Defendant ever Inquired with eny agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant as to whether the lower lot was secure from theft and/or vandalism. 7. Denied. Defendant specifically denies that any agent, aervant and/or employea over assured Plaintiff that Rodeway would provide a securll areaa with "around.the-clock" security guards, where Plalnllff could safely store his trailer while he was ataylng at the Rodeway Inn. By way of further response, the Rodeway Inn has never maintained an "around.the-clock" security force for any reason, Including but not limited to security of the "Iower lot." 8. Denied. It Is specifically denied that Plaintiff relied upon Defendant's representations regarding the security of the "Iower lot," as Defendant denies that any agent, servant. and/or employee of the Rodeway Inn advised Plaintiff that said lot would be secure and/or safe from theft and/or vandalism. Addlllonally, Defendant denies that any aervant, agent or employee advised Plaintiff that the "lower lot" was patrolled around the clock. It Is denied that Plaintiff parked his trailer In the "lower lot" on September 30, 1994, and that said trailer was secured to a utility pole by two locks and a chain, as Defendant lacks any Independent first-hand knowledge or Information so as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity or such an averment. 9. Denied, It Is denied that Defendant, Rodllway Inn, maintains security pIJrsonn19l. By way of further response. Defendant's agents, servnnts and/or employees werll aware 0' the Idenllty of the Plalnllff simply os 0 patron of the RodElway Inn. By way of further response, prior to Plalnllff's Informing the agent, servant and/or employee of the Rodeway Inn or the alleged theft 01 sold troller, Defendant had no Independent knowledge or awareneSS of Plalnllff's ownership of a trailer. 10. Denied. Defendant lacks Independent first-hand knowledge or Informallon so as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averment In paragraph 10. Strict proof demanded at the lime of trial. 11. Denied. Defendant lacks Independent first-hand knowledge or Inform allan so as to form a belief as to the truth or folslty of the averment In paragraph 11. Strlot proof demanded at the lime of trial. 12. Denied. Paragraph 12 states conclusions of law to which no response Is required. Strict proof is demanded otllme of trial. 13. Denied. Paragraph number 13 states conclusions of lew to which no response Is required. In the event any averment In Paragraph 13 Is deemed to be factual, It Is denied as Defendant lacks Independent first-hand knowledge or Informallon so as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the factual averments In. paragraph 13. WHEREFORE, Defending, Rodeway Inn respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment In favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff In this matter. N9-W...M.IIIt.un.d..Dmntn 14. On or about September 30, 1994, Plaintiff registered as a guest of the Rodewey Inn In Carlisle, Pennsylvania. IN THE OOURT OF OOMMON PLeAS OF OUMBERLAND OOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MIOHAEL O. MoCLOSKY, PI.lntl" 01'111 Aotlon-L.w v.. No. 86-5366 01'111 Tenn RODEWAY INN, Defendant NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the clelms sat forth In the following pagas, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complelntend nollce are salVed, by entering a written appearonce person oily or by attomey and filing In writing with the court your dlllfenaes or objections to the claims set forth against you. You ere wemed thetlf you fall to do so the case may proceed without you and a Judgment mey be entered egalnst you by the court without further notice for eny money claimed In the complelnt or for Bny other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff, You may lose money or proparty or other rights Importenllo YOll, 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 OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAl. HELP. Court Administrator Fourth Floor Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvenla (717) 240-6200 I' MICHAEL C. MC CLOSK!V, t IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I CUMBI!.RLAND COUNTY, PENNSYl.VANIA PhalnU" t I NOt 911.153118 v. I t CIVIL ACTION. LAW RODEWAY INN. I t Delend_nt t JURV TRIAL DEMANDED c.EBI1EJ I, Peter J. Russo, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person (5) and In the manner Indlcatad below: Service by Telecopler and First-Class MI1I1. Postage Prepaid, and Addrassed as follows: Fred H. Halt. Esquire McGraw, Halt & Deltchman 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Q~~ Peter J. Russo, Esquire 61 West Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date By Telecopler: Date By U.S. Mall: Monday, December 30. 1996 Tuesday. December 31. 1996 " ' i! , , ,Ii I: ....,! 1:-1 /~ t.,., ~~ \ liF'1 ,!., I ~..t ~ ~. r ~~.. 1:.- r. ," .,' )', Ih I'~,-;" , I, I.rJ . in \I\h " \ \ f_ ! ~_)l {LP' , t' iil_n')' " \. .-;\,.'.. r' -' 'i ~ lJ I ':') u 1')) r..1 " , , " _\ j'l il"~ " I' ," .1 ;] \' , " " " i.,1 "I I, " I' I I , ,I '11' . 'I .1 Ii; I, 'I 11 " " , ' II ". III . \ MICHAEL C, MC CLOSI<IV, I IN THI COURT OF COMMON PLIAII OF t CUMBeRLAND COUNTY, peNNSVLVANIA PlaInt'" I I NOt ..113118 V'. I I CIVIL ACTION. LAW RODEWAY INN, I I Defendant t JURV TRIAL DEMANDeD TO THe PROTHONOTARV: Kindly withdraw enter the appearance of Peter J. Russo, Esquire on behalf of the Defendant. Rodeway Inn In the above.captloned malter. Relpectfully submitted, QJ;. c:\)~_ Peter J. RUBIO .61 West Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249.2721 , Date: QclQber 22. Hl9S . \ MICHAEL C. Me CLOII<I!V, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLIA8 OF t CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSVLVANIA Plllnttrr t t NOt 1e-53M v. t I CIVIL ACTION. LAW RODEWAV INN, t I Defendlnt t JURV TRIAL DEMANDED I, Peler J, Russo, hereby certify that I am on this day serving 8 copy of the . for';olng document upon the person (s) and In the manner Indicated below: Service by First-Class Mall, Postage Prepaid. and Addressed as follows: FrtdH. Helt, EMlulre 4 Uberty Ave Carlisle, PA 1701(1 Qf; .W Peter J. Russo, Esquire 61 West Louther Street Carlisle. PA 17013 Date: . Tue_Q"Y' Oolgber 22. 19~ . , I , I ,I ',I ',I , , 'ri !' , . I I , '. ., , C\~ ~I " r-, 01' , "ii'- .. I ',i " - IE ~. I~'" " II ~ :j~ , , il, ,I, U' .... itl '. ~ 9 .. 1!1 m "I " j ~ ( t !I, . . ['I 1\ " ;'1, I " .. ,i I' , I liq , ;., ) '\ ,,' 'I"~ ,I,' J -'. 11\ '. 'l: II ,',,/ . I, ! ;''.11, I I " , . , , , ,I ,i- , ' 11 " ~ " II It " "tr!."r "I "1/ flll!!I/", 'I Oat I B o~'AI/ '96 , . . ./JE /. <. I L 'I' A/filiI Ii' " J . I I r ~ ~r .. ! ::l i r ~! ~ . !. ~~ J J ~~~ r u ~ J d~~ < '~d ~ ~ . .1 ' " , I II I ., I I , . .I v. I I I I I I I Ili THE COUR'l' Ol" COMMON PLl!:AS Ol" CUMBERLAND COUN'l'Y, PENNSYLVANIA NO. ~6"536a CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION " LAW MICHAEL c. MCCLOSKBY Plaintiff RODEWAY INN Del!endant IN RE I DEFENDAN'l' RODl!:WAY INI1..'JI ~TION FOR SUMMAIW J..Y].!lliJlli!f BEFORl!: HOFFER. 1'.J.. HElir) Ilnd OLER. JJ. ~Jr~DER or COUR'l' AND NOW, this 4th day of Maroh, oonsideration of Defendant Rodeway Inn's 1998, upon Motion for oauful Summary Judgmant, filed Ootober 10, 1997, and of the briefs submitted in this matter, and following oral argument held on this date, Defendant I s motion for summary jUdgment is granted and Plaintiff' II oomplaint i. dismissed. BY THE COURT, l"red H. Hait, Esq. 4 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff ~eter J. Russo, Esq. 61 West Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Iml - tt>.t~)J~J.-3/f"lq8' .Jl ,f . " I " I 'I , ' (S, Oe'endant flied a Rule 10 File Complaint wl1lch, pursuant to Iln agreement or counsel, wall flied beyond the twenty days permitted by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Defendantllled varloue discovery requests, Including Interrogatol'les and document requeets, on MArch 7, 1997 which continue to go unanswered. 5. On May 2. 1997, Defendant served Plaintiff's cou'1sel with Defendant's RequeBts for Admissions. 6. Defendant iliad a Motion for Summary Judgment based on Plaintiff's failure to answer Defendant's Requests for Admissions. 7. Defendant had ample opportunity to request opposing counsel for additional time to answer the Requests for Admissions. a. Defendant also had ample opportunity to advise opposing counsel and the Court of counsel's alleged Inability to locate his client by setting forth the same In Plaintiffs Answer to Defendant's Mallon for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs Brief In Opposition to Defendant's Mollon for Summary Judgment or during oral argument on the motion for summary judgment. 9. Although Plaintiff's counsel had the opportunity, he did not respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, nor did counsel file a Brief In Oppoaltlon to Defendant's Motion for Summary judgment. , I, I I: 'I 'I I' I I I I'! " ,,, I 'I , I I I I, I , I' ?a ~l ~ ,I I, 'I ~~ fa 'I .. 1:1 8~ " :', " I: K' I .~I fa I r, t'c)rJ I, 6jV -" "',' r/j I I.,,, - !m ~~; ~. , .)1 f.1 'J; Ii ;.I: I \!j G\ ,I I , , , I , ,I , , " I, .1 " !.I I; " " I I 'I " , " " , : I I n I I