Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-00483 ~ .... ... rt j ~ r, ~ 0 ",' yj >- co :r :r n; i: -.. I.. .. I':::': c'o; ; , ,..( c.., ( ., ~ fEi:' "- . )~.< t u. ~:- , ~. en ' ".~ ,'~') ~~i- C'J , G:' .'-,: ". !j'"ij ~ ,- ,.:>.. QJ ". .- 0 ) c~ , ) ~ .0: :z: III .0: .0: > fIl ~ ..:l Ul <l: l1. III .... ~ .... .... U :z: t:! oM I: :J ... 0 fIl :z: .... III 8 ~ l1. .0: I: 'tI .J :c Iii t: ~ oM I: W 0 , III III ClI lil 0 :5w~< u >< ..:l :& '.... .... l1. f- f!' l1. E-o .o:1Ill1. ' ClI H , < . II< ~ I H:& lilt:! U .J >-~Ql1l 0 ..:l.o: . III lil Wz ~ 0 HH III ::J .0: >- z ~ 0 II: E-o U :z: H..:l > 0 l>: Z a: 0 l1. l>: 0 ~H l>: ~ o a: '" 0 I:: l'J Cl ::J t:! H H U - z 0 :z: E-o .~ J: <- :J u .0: U .., . I- ~ ..:l .0: . :I: fIl l>: ><..:l Z :I: fIl ..:l fIl >< <l: E-o III H 1Il>< :z: S > . .0::& 0 :z: HO u.o: E-o H U u:z: \ . . . .... QI QI k .... t- I Ul , 0 , 0 eN I t- , , 01 .... t- , 0' .... - 'tl IllM , In , E' e :Et- I W kl III .... III QI' N , ll. .S , E-<' III .... , , III I E N III :J: U.... ....: III In ll. ~ Ill' ;l QI In f ....1 .... E QI . 0-1' 0-1 QI 01"" , :>, .... III ~ In"" . " Qlk<Xle"" ...., ........ ;l<Xl In ~ e' o +J trl.r-{ CD s ul ........ 0.... 01 01 UlMk\C w , 3.... k e ....' 0., -< M' ..., U x.... ....' o-1....XUl<Xl <XlI , '3 o k rIJ u, e 0 U"l ""I .., . to 0. 0<' :>. 0 to O1N :c Ul , e k e ~I , >.0-1 ....' O~ ,.,.,j- QI :>'0 "" 'roil .c O....t- I In:>' e k :>, ....M ........ d III E 0 ' 0 ....' e.... , 0 t- :z: uo< E-<ll.>< u: <1"""'40..00_ , ,~ ." 1;:.::: 1....=tJrr cr ~=rrli7':::;-i r~=~;':;";f ~...;,.._.:::~i_,,_'-_t..,,"'/I , =.Il;:';Vl"::::~~:: I Casey J , Williams and Amy I.. Wi l] iams -:"-5. Tony H. Crollse ;:';C, 'l7-4R1 Civil TpYm -..., :?_- )jow, Jan. 31. 1997 :9_ !. S:~.!:~ 02 C~G::::=':""-\_'rD CO~-X'::-. ?~ ~:) ==--=r ~..:= :::.: .::.:.= ei Adams c.:=::r ::l ..-_.... -.--- ~ ',V:::, ~ . . "'-..--- -:----- .:::.:.; -.....- - 1: == -.- .-~_. ~~ .:i .-- ':t..:_":= ---. ('} ." /.../,h(' ---'" . .... ... ,....7. .. I'" ' .' - r ....'}" r 5:::'b?'''';:'''-'c ./'....J.:~... ~~~ :i C:'::::::e:"..:.::d C.:t:::J. .... .1 -., '0 ,. _ . ."!.:::lC2.71'l: or :::~=-. It:.= So ~N=:' ~ v..~ _ci C':I.:..:.=7, .. .. =::':':':_:.:.,"!:: Ie c~~~.:) SD.:'t,~cr ~G::2.~..G~ 3 Sw-:::: :::d . - .. . ...---- --- ----- --.- ..1..,:: ~'.':'. '"1-;-: s .- "-l j,^ ;'.-'- ~ '\ . .... , <,., ,. 1._,\ ,."" . ~,', -~ ..! ,": :',' ':. ~" ' 0'",', ". ,'. ,',,'- '",' ~ " .,. .'1;' '., ,\,~' ,-.'." .,'.- '-.:-" 'r II ,. .,' _. ;., '0': ,'-', " ,.,',', . ,'~. . ',' ..:'-- '.." <1: 'I' -- ", . , ~">:::l(: <_::~,- ~'f'.::-~>:, - "<' - n" , -' ~ ~ 'i s i~)Sf~~) '~i~':- -:.' , ... ;'.,~- : ~ ~ ~ , " -;,,' ..- .,"" -~" ...: ,'." ..,- - -,~. .' '~' ;:. '" ~'" -\. . . ,'" :i" ~. ~'~ ,',f, o ~, ' ,',' ,:.~-!~. ':,',' ,,' -~" .}, l:'~' "'rC ',: ... :;,,-~.": --,-'-~ <." ~ ~. ~'. t:: ':~'~Es'f); i',;~,:, ,'< " "; /, ,,". ~,". " ~" ,{;. <i - " .".,.-"; '), , . ',' t..:.# ~., .~ ~ ">- N ;.... . N Jr. ~9 :.)~ .~ ():;.. [fc, :t: .):-.: ~. a.. ~r~ ::l~ C Ol .' .- " .'W c. I .~1% ~ 0:: ~CZ ':llU 0. l.rJa. oct ..-: u. r- ;:) 0 en (,) ..c III ..c:> III ~Hl .... ..., .... c <( II< III ooi III I:l:~ ..., 'tl U e c c ::> ,.. Oral ~ .01 CIl ~ ~II< CIl III .... .J e-o ..c ~ CIl w :i:ti; - o . :J: II< Q e-o 0 ~ ~~~. U:>l ..c~ III Z r..~ Hooi ~ui . H , <U)X:g > III . ..c .J >t-QZ 00 looi H::E: > ral H Wz 0 U H..c III II< >- Z ~ . it e-oU Z HH 0 ::E: ~ 00. 8~ 01"1 HH 0 0 Z n:U) HlD :J:H II: U 0 ~ C'l Cl - z E-<Ol' H U J: <- :J U~ UI .:J: Q ..cr- t-) . I- ~Cl 0'1 . :c Z H :>lH <( E-<gj H ral ~ :> . ~~ ZO HO 0 HU UZ E-< 4. On the aforesaid date, Defendant was the owner of a 1987 Ford Tempo automobile which was involved in the accident described herein. 5. On the aforesaid date, at approximately 4:00 P.M., the Plaintiff, Casey J. Williams, was operating the 1988 Honda civic automobile on Rte US 15 South in the left lane when the vehicle in front of him suddenly braked to a stop, causing the Plaintiff to do likewise. 6, On the aforesaid date as stated above, the Plaintiff, Casey J. Williams, had brought his vehicle almost to a complete stop when his vehicle was struck in the rear by the automobile of the Defendant, Tony H. crouse, who was operating his vehicle in the same direction on Rte US 15 South behind and in the same lane as the Plaintiff, casey J. William's vehicle. 7, The accident was directly and proximately caused by the negligence and carelessness of Tony H. Crouse, which consisted, among other things, of the following: (a) operating his motor vehicle in a careless, reckless, and negligent manner; (b) operating his motor vehicle at an excessive rate of speed under the circumstances; (c) operating his motor vehicle with no warning of approach or intended direction; (d) not having his motor vehicle under the proper control so as to stop said vehicle within the assured clear distance ahead (75 Pa. Cons. stat. 5 3361); (e) operating his motor vehicle without due regard to the rights, safety, and position of the Plaintiff, casey J. Williams; (f) failing to have his motor vehicle under the proper control so as to prevent this vehicle from striking the Plaintiff's motor vehicle; (g) failing to keep a proper lookout; (h) failing to use due care under the circumstances; (i) failing to notice the motor vehicle of the plaintiff, Casey J. Williams; (j) upon noticing the motor vehicle of the Plaintiff, Casey J. Williams, failing to yield the right-of-way to the Plaintiff's vehicle; (k) failing to take evasive action in order to avoid impacting with Plaintiff's vehicle; (1) failing to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid striking Plaintiff's car; and (m) operating his motor vehicle in disregard of the rules of the road, the ordinances of the Township of Upper Allen, and the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including but not limited to the Motor Vehicle Code, 75 Pa, Cons, stat, 55 3361 and 3362. 8. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Casey J. Williams, acted with due care and was not contributorily negligent. COUNT I PLAINTIFF, CASEY J. WILLIAMS, VS. TONY H. CROUSE 9. Plaintiff, Casey J. Williams, incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if each and everyone were individually set forth within this Count. 10. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Casey J. Williams, sustained the following injuries, some or all of which may be permanent: strain and sprain to the muscles and soft tissues of the neck, spine, shoulders and chest; general bruises and contusions; and injury to shoulder that required surgery. 11. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Casey J. Williams, has suffered great bodily pain and suffering, as well as mental anxiety and nervousness, to his great detriment and loss. 12, As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Casey J, Williams, has sustained serious and permanent injury, for the treatment of which he has incurred medical bills and expenses in excess of $5,000,00, which includes surgery on his injured shoulder. 13, As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, casey J. Williams, has suffered a loss of earnings and/or earning capacity. 14, As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Casey J. Williams, has suffered an interruption of his daily habits and pursuits to his great and permanent detriment and loss. 15. As a result of Defendant's negligence, a total loss was sustained to the 1988 Honda civic automobile, 16, Plaintiff, Casey J. Williams, has made demand for compensation of the aforesaid injuries and losses, which defendant has failed and refused and still refuses to pay. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Casey J. Williams, demands judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of $20,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II PLAINTIFF, AMY L. WILLIAMS, VS, TONY H. CROUSE 17, Plaintiff, Amy L, Williams, incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if each and everyone were individually set forth within this Count. 18. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Amy L. Williams, has been deprived of the society, companionship, contributions, and consortium of her husband, plaintiff, Casey J. Williams, to her great detriment and loss, 19. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Amy L. Williams, has incurred and will in the future incur large medical bills and expenses to treat her husband's injuries, 20, As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Amy L, Williams, has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and a loss of enjoyment of life. ~N:e.' >'}' " , ~ '..' , , ~ ,i."~;'~','-' '.'", :.._~-- " ,'"." . ,.' '.',;: '^",r"~_':" ' ;:t;~~> . " ,/'f ~: .,,';:-,' . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CASEY J. WILLIAMS, and AMY L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs NO.: 97-483 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TONY H. CROUSE, Defendant NOTICB ~ ~ Within Named Plaintiffs: You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed preliminary Objections within 20 days from service hereof. DBPBNDANT'S PRBLIMINARY OBJBCTIONS TO PLAINTIPFS' COMPLAINT Defendant, Tony H, Crouse, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028, files these Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint wherein the following is a statement: DEMURRER TO COUNT II OP PLAINTIPPS' COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs, Casey J. Williams and Amy L. Williams, commenced this action by Writ of Summons on or about January 29, 1997. Plaintiffs' Complaint was filed on April 9, 1997. 2. In Count I of the Complaint, Plaintiff Casey Williams makes claim for property damage and personal injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident occurring on February 3, 1995. Plaintiff avers therein that Defendant's vehicle struck the vehicle driven by Plaintiff Casey Williams from behind, 3. In Count II of Plaintiffs' complaint, Plaintiff, Amy Williams seeks recovery for loss of consortium, medical bills and expenses incurred to treat her husband's injuries, disruption of her daily pursuits and loss of enjoyment of life. 4. Pennsylvania law does not recognize a cause of action to the spouse of an injured party for expenses incurred by the injured party as claimed in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint. Medical expenses are specifically recoverable by the injured party; an additional award of such expenses to the injured parties' spouse would result in a double recovery impermissible pursuant to established case law in the Commonwealth. See: Blocher v. McConnell, 17 D&C 4th 97 (1992) (Cumberland Co.). 5. Pennsylvania law does not provide a cause of action to the spouse of an injured party for disruption of "daily habits and loss of enjoyment of life" as claimed in paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. A consortium claim is grounded not on emotional or mental trauma but only on loss of a spouse's society and services after an injury and consists of the right to the companionship, society, co-operation and aid of the injured spouse. Jackson v. Travelers Insurance Co.. 414 Pa.Super 336, 606 A.2d 1384 (1992). WBEREPORE, Defendant Tony Crouse respectfully prays this Honorable Court to sustain his demurer to Count II of Plaintiffs' 2 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs' complaint and strict proof is demanded at trial. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of whether Plaintiff's vehicle had almost come to a complete stop; therefore the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at trial. It is admitted that Defendant was operating his vehicle in the same direction on Route U.S. 15 South behind and in the same lane as Plaintiff. It is further admitted that Plaintiff and Defendant's vehicles impacted each other. It is specifically denied that Defendant is in any way negligent or responsible to Plaintiff for the collision of the parties automobiles, 7. The averments in paragraph 7(a)-(m) of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that said averments do not constitute conclusions of law and are fact specific, the same are denied in accordance with the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e), and strict proof is demanded at trial. By way of further Answer, Defendant hereby incorporates the averments contained in Defendant's New Matter. a. The averments in paragraph a of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that said averments do not constitute conclusions of law and are fact specific, the same are denied in 2 accordance with the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e), and strict proof is demanded at trial. By way of further Answer, Defendant hereby incorporates the averments contained in Defendant's New Matter. COUNT I 9. No responsive pleading is required. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and strict proof is demanded at trial. ) 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 16. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff has made a demand for compensation of his reported injuries and losses and that Defendant has not provided Plaintiff with any monetary compensation for Plaintiff's purported injuries and losses. By way of further Answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff has any injuries or losses, or that Defendant is in any way responsible or liable to Plaintiff for Plaintiff's purported injuries or losses, and strict proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor, and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT II 17. No responsive pleading is required. 18. The averments in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that said averments are fact specific and do not constitute a conclusion of law, the same are denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of said averments, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 19. Deleted per Plaintiff and Defendant's Stipulation. . 20. Deleted per Plaintiff and Defendant's stipulation. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. NEW MATTER 21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Defendant's Answers are incorporated herein and if set forth at length, 22. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of Limitations. 23. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 P.C.S.A. 54102. 24, Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 P.C.S.A. 51710 et ~. 25. The Plaintiff's alleged injuries were not proximately caused by the action or inaction of Answering Defendant. 26. The negligent acts and/or omissions of other individuals or entities constitute intervening or superseding cause of the injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff. 27. Plaintiff's alleged injuries were caused by the acts or omissions of the person or persons other than Answering Defendant. 28. Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages were caused by acts, omissions or factors beyond Answering Defendant's control or legal right to control. 5 >- C' >- (.T; ,....' t- ~, ; 1-.. " " r', ~ ~'l' ; ,- . -C' p: u. ~( tn 'J ,,' - L_ ./ --.II u;,' _.l ,', -, r:': ~J ~ !I.l... W- r-- ::-:.; u u' u Z IIlI'l: I'l:> ~>1 l1411l Z~ e O~ H ~l14 ~ o ,~ u~:3:1 r...z > OP 11..-1 o U E-tUZ g;Q~:::: OZE-t... UI'l:U 1 ~I'l:"" [;lC3~'" E-tlllH :E:> . ZPHO H Ul .... .... ..... +l l: '.... nl III ~ ~ uil14 ~~ ~H H~ ~~ H .~ .., . ~~ ~~ fE I'l: +l l: nl '0 l: ClJ .... ClJ Q . ~ III ~ > III P o p:: c..' . = >< Z o E-t p:: ~ E-t E-t ;j ~ ~ Z o E-t >< ~ l14 ~ p:: ~ U :J ~ ul 3: t;; :,; o:5w < 1-a:!l10.. , < lii ~~ ...J 1ii!z!il ~ >-ZO.a: a: a:: 00.. Z Ol=~e>:~ o - z <- :; ~ ~ Z ~ ". . CASEY J. WILLIAMS AND . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . AMY L. WILLIAMS, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . Plaintiffs . . VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW TONY H. CROUSE, . NO. 97-483 civil Term . Defendant REPLY TO NEW MATTER t r: , AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Casey J. Williams and Amy L. Williams, by their attorney, Anthony L. DeLuca, Esquire, and file this Reply to New Matter, and in support thereof, aver as follows: 21. The averments as set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully setforth. 22. Denied. The averment in paragraph 22 of Defendant's New Matter constitutes a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averment is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 23. Denied. The averments in paragraph 23 of Defendant's New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 24. Denied. The averments in paragraph 24 of Defendant's New Hatter constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 25. Denied. The averments in paragraph 25 of Defendant's New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 26. Denied, The averments in paragraph 26 of Defendant's New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 27. Denied, The averments in paragraph 27 of Defendant's New Hatter constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 28. Denied. The averments in paragraph 28 of Defendant's New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 29. Denied, The averments in paragraph 29 of Defendant's New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the Plaintiffs specifically deny that he may have already entered into a release with individuals or entities which has the effect of discharging any liability of Answering Defendant. 30. Denied. The averments in paragraph 30 of Defendant's New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. ,- v) (. ..' I , - l, , ( , !' <. , ;-. ( .. - '- .. -- , , u , " .J h; Cl is: li: r:~'; :.L... U.l~! ("; (~ ::! c ?j , '0' li. ..: l . : .~. :..:. c..;:{ r C.t .......- -.... c.: ..i I ..' ..... , ..... ) L (.;. D ,. CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE 01' A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WILLIAMS TERM, 0000 -VS- CASE NO: 97-483 CIVIL CROUSE As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009,22 MCS on behalf of KAREN KONTJE WALLER. ESQUIRE defendant certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to the certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 5/28/98 KAREN KONTJE WALLER. ESQUIRE Attorney for defendant DE11-039899 4:L3:L9-LOa CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASEY J WILLIAMS TERM, 0000 -VS- CASE NO: 97-483 CIVIL CROUSE As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of KAREN KONTJE WALLER. ESQUIRE defendant certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to the certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 6/25/98 7!,u,><-2'f+ JI;aLl..- KAREN KONTJZ WALLER, ESQUIRE Attorney for DEFENDANT DEll-044630 60:I..60-LO:I.. ~- lrl :"h c: r'- , ) .- -.. J .. , '., :; " ~'. j "-. ': ! , I j-;} I , ,,- '- .- , in _':J '-- . G"'t U