The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-3177 - ~~ IN THE COURT OF J<<NIJ!'II.KNC COUNTY, CUMBERLAND COMMON PLEAS PENNSYI_ V AN I A No. 03- jt77 ~ Civi I Action - (X) Law ( ) Equ i'ry : DONALD E. SILKE, 100 LAUREL LANE, CAMP :HILL, PA 17011; :WAYNE A. BOWMAN, 313 WEST MAPLE AVENUE, :SHIREMANSTOWN,PA 17011; : CHARLES E. LAMAN, RD #4, ASHLEY DRIVE, :DILLSBURG, PA 17019, indvidua11y and as : partners of DES ASSOCIATES, 1302 SLATE :HILL ROAD, CAMP HILL, PA and their versY9identified Lessee(s) of 98 BRIDGE STREET & S02 FRONT STREET, NEW : CUMBERLAND, as of 7-7-01, tax parcel : 25-25-0006-362 (Lessees address unknown LEONARD J. BOVEY AND MURIEL E. BOVEY 1409 NORTH PUENTE STREET BREA, CA 92821 Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) DefendantCsJ & Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. X Writ of Summons shall be issued and fonlarded to ( JAttorney (X)Sheriff 53729 ANTHONY T. MCBETH, ESQ. 407 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG. PA 17101 (717) 238-3686 ()~ Signature of Names/Address/ Telephon No. of Attorney Date: JULY 2, 2003 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFFCS) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. ) Check here if reverse is issued for additional information '3- ~0u1v PROTHON. - 55 ~~ ........ V..> '--"l -S'\ """' p- €>' 0-) -<:\ .-- ~ '-" <;:: ~ ~ cF U) 0\ D '-^ rJ o c <~ ...,....,.,.'" /ll;t~" ;;.....!. ;;,~( (0,' r:;" . '" ~- ZI, ,- Pc 2 ~ g c c ~~) (J) :D -,' , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-3177 Civil vs. DONALD E. SLIKE, WAYNE A. BOWMAN, CHARLES E. LAMAN, and DES ASSOCIATES PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO: Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary Enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendants, Donald E. Slike and DES Associates. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED BY: /~y~~ Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, PA 17112 717 909-6637 Attorney's LD. No. 15624 Counsel for Donald E. Slike and DES Associates Dated: 7 - / j- -0 .5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW on this 15~y of July, 2003 I Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby certify that I served the within Praecipe for Entry of Appearance this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 171 0 I LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED ~y?~ BY: Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, PA 17112 717909-6637 Attorney's J.D. No. 15624 Counsel for Donald E. Slike and DES Associates - - (') Cl (') C ~,J -" ;:: '- -0 l-,l': c: ".:,= nc L~_~ ,- ~ :"'n 2: (.'" '1J CJ'; - c) r;: ,~- --'" ~B i~ (-) L._ l'T"i "j.; f:-? 1 :-:-~l ,~ 's..~ C..J -<.. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-3177 Civil vs. DONALD E. SLIKE, WAYNE A. BOWMAN, CHARLES E. LAMAN, and DES ASSOCIATES PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Enter a Rule ppon the Plaintiffs to file a Complaint in the above captioned Action within twenty days of service thereof or suffer judgment of non pros. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED BY: ~~if'7-( x:ke( Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, PA 17112 717 909-6637 Attorney's lD. No. 15624 Counsel for Donald E. Slike and DES Associates Dated: 7-/)'-03 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-3177 Civil vs. DONALD E. SLIKE, WAYNE A. BOWMAN, CHARLES E. LAMAN, and DES ASSOCIATES RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO: Leonard J. Bovey and Muriel E. Bovey c/o: Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 A Rule is hereby entered upon you to file a Complaint within twenty days of service hereof or suffer judgment of non pros. Dated:--Ju.-L'f I ~ ;106.6 I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW on this Mday of July, 2003 I Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby certify that I served the within Praecipe for Rule to File a Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED BY: ~~~ Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, PA 17112 717 909-6637 Attorney's LD. No. 15624 Counsel for Donald E. Slike and DES Associates . '. 0 0 0 c W -n ~ ,- :~.J t:J(i t::= rilr; ..- 1 ]J Z , TTl /~ . (/~ " C\ '~'i' - '! ~~/ ~ . , -'n ---- . () /. en ~; 0.0 .) ~,~ r.- ~~1 -< (,,) - 03 - j, 77 Ciu ~L '--r"'Uz..Yy CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW on this I ~ay of July, 2003 I Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby certifY that I served the within Praecipe and Rule to File a Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED BY: ~7~~ Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, PA 17112 717909-6637 Attorney's J.D. No. 15624 Counsel for Defendants Donald E. Slike and DES Associates IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-3177 Civil vs. DONALD E. SLIKE, WAYNE A. BOWMAN, CHARLES E. LAMAN, and DES ASSOCIATES (') C ? ~tr: -< . ~'::~ ( 2.::,:,- ....:;,.; J;::\ PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Enter a Rule J.1pon the Plaintiffs to file a Complaint in the above captioned Action within , twenty days of service thereof or suffer judgment of non pros. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED Dated: 7-/,}-03 BY: /~q-7~~ Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, P A 17112 717 909-6637 Attorney's LD. No. 15624 Counsel for Donald E. SIike and DES Associates C,':) '-0 c_ r '.- ,--'= o ., "J C"\ -':J ,'0 L- (",; :TJ -..; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURlEL E. BOVEY CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-3177 Civil vs. DONALD E. SLIKE, WAYNE A. BOWMAN, CHARLES E. LAMAN, and DES ASSOCIATES RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO: Leonard J. Bovey and Muriel E. Bovey c/o: Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 171 0 I A Rule is hereby entered upon you to file a Complaint within twenty days of service hereof or suffer judgment of non pros. ~'A-i~l ~. ~ Pro onotary, Curtis R. Long U Dated:-J~'j 1(... clC6\3 , !~E COpy FROM AECO !f\ I it;'~mlOn'11 ~'W<.'~ '''~....6 I '... RO . .. .. ""'."", ,;;;;r. a unto set h~...... .14 lilt S8ijlpl i'" I' my,_ n.~~~.~'~~.~ ~ ~ b"O ~;_~~ Pruthonomry CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW on this ~day ofJuly, 2003 I Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby certify that I served the within Praecipe for Rule to File a Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED BY: ~e/~:&4 Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, P A 17112 717 909-6637 Attorney's LD. No. 15624 Counsel for Donald E. Slike and DES Associates CJ 0 C) c::: -1-1 < "F:} i- ~- - fT", , - [, ;.....J (:rj -c r' .,.- ;i': ?. ";:; \? , ~ C ,~l , / :::> cD =~j t_-,:,) c< , SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: ~003-03177 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BOVEY LEONARD J ET AL VS SILKE DONALD E ET AL CPL. TIMOTHY REITZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS SLIKE DONALD E was served upon the , at 1522:00 HOURS, on the 9th day of July , 2003 DEFENDANT at 1302 SLATE HILL ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 MATT WAGNER, OFFICE MANAGER, by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 9.66 .00 10.00 .00 37.66 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this it. tE day of ~/-';J.UV A.D. C Q~---- rothonotary'~ So Answers: r~ ""~.~~,. R. Thomas Kl ine ' 07/10/2003 ANTHONY MCBETH --;~,j By: rT~v -:ry' Sher SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2003-03177 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BOVEY LEONARD J ET AL VS SILKE DONALD E ET AL CPL. TIMOTHY RETIZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, BOWMAN WAYNE A was served upon the , at 1522:00 HOURS, on the 9th day of July 2003 DEFENDANT at 1302 SLATE HILL ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 MATT WAGNER, OFFICE MANAGER, by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this /t8 day of q~p.;J..OV-:> A.D. . .....()~~ rothonotary , . So Answers: ~r7f"~'~' -r ~~~~~:-~. ~/~'"A~ R. Thomas Kline 07/10/2003 ANTHONY MCBETH ,y- BY:;;;; -71i~- - ~ty S~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: ~003-03177 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BOVEY LEONARD J ET AL VS SILKE DONALD E ET AL CPL. TIMOTHY REXTZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS LAMAN CHARLES E was served upon DEFENDANT , at 1522:00 HOURS, on the 9th day of July at 1302 SLATE HILL ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 MATT WAGNER, OFFICE MANAGER, by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE the , 2003 a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this /1.. 'E:- day of ~,).,1Jl}.3 A.D. Cl~~ rothonotary So Answers: ..-,.- //h~ ?/~~".&:<: ~;::;::-~ R. Thomas Kline 07/10/2003 ANTHONY MCBETH ~~ By: ~_ . ' ~ ,"0 iff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: J003-03177 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BOVEY LEONARD J ET AL VS SILKE DONALD E ET AL CPL. TIMOTHY REITZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS Cumberland County,pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, was served upon DES ASSOCIATES the , at 1522:00 HOURS, on the 9th day of July , 2003 DEFENDANT at 1302 SLATE HILL ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 MATT WAGNER, OFFICE MANAGER, by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this II.. t. day of Cf7;Jw3 A.D. n O~,# ~onotary So Answers: r:~~~~./ ///,~ .'::~.;:,::>-:-.;.<.:..:,.y"'" R. Thomas Kline 07/10/2003 ANTHONY MCBETH t:j. /.-' /"";) , By: .~ ' . / (f Def Sheri IN THE COURT OF COMMON A_EAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VAN I A No. 03-3177 CIVIL Civi I Action - (X) Law ( ) Equ i ty : DONALD E SLIKE, WAYNE A. BOWMAN, : CHARLES E. LAMAN, INDIVIDUALLY : and as partners of DES ASSOCIATES, : CRAIG BROWN, 103 MARKET STREET, : LEWISBERRY, PA 17339 and : DAVID CARMINES, 103 MARKET STREET : LEWISBERRY, P A 17339 LEONARD J. BOVEY and I1URIEL E. BOVEY Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) versus Defendant(s) & Address(es) AMENDED PRAECIPE FOR REISSUANCE OF WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. issued and forwarded to ( )Attorney (x)Sher i ff ~Of ^'f X Writ of Summons shal I be ANTHONY T. MCBETH 407 NORTH FRONT STREET P^RRI~~TTRC~ pA 171Ql (717) Be ~\iS" Names/Address/ Telephon No. of Attorney WRIT OF TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): supreme~purt D No. Date: .!Jj,T U3/ Z~~ SUMMONS YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFFCS) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: jC~'U..vL;t. J (J7) 1 / , ) Check here if reverse is issued PROTHON. - 55 eco~~~ K/O " ~'/ tJ / 1'~f for additional information ~ ~ r ~ -, ~ f~ "" ~ 4- J-;c]' u~ 'N cl l}I ~ ~ r ~ " SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2003-03177 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BOVEY LEONARD J ET AL VS SILKE DONALD E ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: BROWN CRAIG but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of YORK County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On October 16th , 2003 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep York County 18.00 9.00 10.00 38.80 .00 75.80 10/16/2003 ANTHONY MCBETH ~~_C......>-- Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this .} j.Mo( day of QJa;:L .zVVJ A.D. n Q~~ ~rothonotary ,UJ.Pt; SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2003-03177 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BOVEY LEONARD J ET AL VS SILKE DONALD E ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: CARMINE DAVID but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of YORK County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On October 16th , 2003 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge 6.00 .00 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 10/16/2003 ANTHONY MCBETH So an~~~_~~ ..,p'...~>~'_/ ---.~---;-;;;;~ R/. Thomas Kli;e - Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this ;( 3"....A. day of QJ~ ~u.o..3 A. D. ~\ Q~ ~ h'-Frothonotary ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ ft~ YORKTOWNE BUSINESS FOMRS. (717) 225-0363. FAX (717) 225-0367 \lt~ COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SERVICE CALL (717) 771-9601 28 EAST MARKET ST.. YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE TYPE ONLY LINE 1 THRU 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES 1. PLAINTlFF/5I 2. COURT NUMBER Leonard J. Bovey et al 03-3177 civil 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT 3. DEFENDAN~ Slike et al . Wn. t of Surrmons SERVE { 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAl, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED. ATTACHED, OR SOLD. ....... Craig Brown ..,... 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT. NO., CITY, BORD, lWP., STATE AND ZIP CODE) AT 103 Market Street Lewisberry. PA 7 INDICATE SERVICE: 0 PERSONAL 0 PERSON IN CHARGE '.::.I DEPUTIZE CdmlWr1..tityi 0 1ST CLASS MAIL CJ POSTED UOTHER NOW September 12 , 20 ~ I. SHERIFF 6F~ COUNTY, P~.1 do hereby deputize the sheriff of York COUNTY to execut~aI'lO make retu according to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. .r k::Z:r-;;;-::>~ SHERIFF 0 COUNTY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: OJrnberland OUT OF COUNTY CUMBERLAND ADVANCED FEE PAID BY SHERIFF NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriff's sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE ANTHONY MCBETH 407 N. FRONT ST. HBG, PA 17101 110. TELEPHONE NUMBER 111. DATE FILED 238-3686 9-2-03 12. SEN.D ~OTI,~E OF SERVICE C071 NAME AND fDDRESSJfLOW: rr, ar~ be comp1d . ~u_ ,,,; ,,~ Lu~f~ U. ./1~ SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SHER'iJ:F - DO N RITE BELOW THIS LINE 13. I acknowledge receipt of the writ 114. DATE RECEIVED )15' Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. R. AHRENS ./ 9-15-03 10-2-03 16. HOW SERVED: PERSONAL ( ) RESIDENCE ( ) POSTED ( ) POE (/ SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER ( SEE REMARKS BELOW 17 0 I hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND because I am UEa ~~e the IndiVidual, company, atc name above (See remarks below) ~~ TITrF INDIVIDUAl SERVED I LIST ADORE .~F NOT s~ ABOVE (R~"OnshlP to Defendant) l'tf:))3~3120a:a:0ervlca 21~M~S\ Date \ "::--~ I~ 1~:~~1 M, lint (1.1 "tr~~11 Date I "me I Miles lint I Datrme r Miles lint I Dare / "me I Mllef! 22. REMARKS: ... (... ~'\f\ 41. AFFIRMED and subscribed to before me (his' 3 42. day of ~r.1' NOTAR~2. ~jl!'ROT IN MELISSA J. SHAFFER. Notary City or YOrk, York C ty ~~ ommI6'iO;:)EX '" pMI 0,20 ~ 48. Signature of Foreign ~ ~ - County Sheriff SO. I NOWLED E RECEIPT OF TH RI I RN~ATURE AUTHORIZED ISSUING AUTHORITY AND TL 1. WHITE - Issuing Authority 2. PINK - Attomey 3. CANARY - Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE - Sheriff's Office l()-l-03 131. Su~ 1~;ct;~tsl331~~~~0i? 139: Total'Costs f40. Costs Due or Refund . dS~c :~~)~ 23. Advance Costs /24. servicecosts/25. N/F /26. Mileage 127. postage/28. SubTotal 129. POUndl30o Notary 7~ nn 24.00 10.80 34.80 .00 34. Foreign County Costs 135. Advance ~s /360 Service Costs 137. Notary Cert. 38. Mileage/Posted/Not Found HOSE 10-3-03 49. DATE 151. DATE RECEIVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . YOAKTOWNE BUSINESS FOMAS' (717) 225-0363. FAX (717) 225-0367 2 of 2 COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SERVICE CALL (717) 771-9601 28 EAST MARKET ST.. YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE TYPE ONLY LINE 1 THRU 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES 1. PLAINTIFFfS! Leonard J. Bovey et al 2. COURT NUMBER 03-3177 civil 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT 3. DEFENDANT/Sf SERVE . AT { Donald E. Slike et al Writ of Sumnons 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED. ATTACHED, OR SOLD. David Cannine 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT. NO., CITY, BORD, lWP., STATE AND ZIP CODE) 103 MPrket Street LPwi c;hPrry. PA '. 7. INDICATE SERVICE: UPERSONAL o PERSON IN CHARGE :I DEPUTIZE f\.~r~ U 1ST CLASS MAIL o POSTED o OTHER NOW Septanber 12 , 20 ~ I, SHERIFF OF_ COUN~TY, PA do hereby deputize the sheriff of York COUNTY to execu~ make retur according . to law. This depulization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. r ~~.. -....<. SHERIFF OF. COUNTY Cumberland OUT 0 F COUNTY CUMBERLAND ;. 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT Will ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: ADVANCED FEE PAID BY SHERIFF NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.fI. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession. after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any Joss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriff's sale thereof 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BElOW: (This area must be completed if notice is to be mailed). I ~3tl'!.E!l~'t,NUMBER \". DATE FILED 9-2-03 A7:t'l~ "fIf~jllf~ of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR a,d SIGNATURE CUMBERKAND CO SHERUFF SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SHERIFF - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 13. I acknowledge receipt of the writ 114. DATE RECEIVED 115. Expiration/Hearing Date o,compla',' as "dlca'ed above. ./R. AHRENS ./' 9-15-03 10-03=03 16. HOW SERVED: PERSONAL (\)""'" RESIDENCE ( ) POSTED ( ) POE (~ SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER ( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW 17 (J I hereby certify and return a NOT FOU because I am un~~ocate the IndiVidual, company, etc name above (See remarks below) ~ ~ANO TITL(OF INDIVIDUAL ~ 0 LIST A~RES( ~ IF NCjf SHOW1ABOVE (RelatIonship to Defendant) 119 Date of Serv.ce 120 lime of Service ~ ~TTEMP' Da'e \ TIm:~ \ ~I 'e ~1e r,'es ~l'it MI.s I'" I Da'e I TIme I Mdes I'" I Dam I TIme1 :~11Da'e I ~;I~ (J 22. REMARKS: 23. Advance Costs /24 surchg.132. Tot. Costs I 33. CostsDueorRefund ICheck No. I ~9. Total Costs \ 40. COsts Due or Refund cf90~ 4/~-<-- !r)Q? 34. Foreign County Costs 42. day of 10-3-03 49. DATE \51. DATE RECEIVED 1. WHITE - Issuing Authority 2. PINK - Attomey 3. CANARY. Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE. Sheriff's Office LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. NO. 03-3177 Civil DONALD E. SLIKE, WAYNE A. BOWMAN, CHARLES E. LAMAN, DES ASSOCIATES, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES, Defendants PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Enter a Rule Upon the Plaintiffs to file a complaint in the above captioned Action within twenty days of service thereof or suffer jUdgment of non pros. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED Dated: / /- ;Z tf- 6:> 3 BY; ~i/~/' ~ Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, PA 17112 717909-6637 Attorney's I.D. No. 15624 Counsel for Donald E. Slike and DES Associates IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. NO. 03-3177 Civil DONALD E. SLIKE, WAYNE A. BOWMAN, CHARLES E. LAMAN, DES ASSOCIATES, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES, Defendants RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO: LeonardJ. Bovey and Muriel E. bovey c/o Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 A Rule is hereby entered upon you to file a Complaint within twenty days of service hereof or suffer judgment of non pros. a-l/)7-~ J Prothonotary, Curtis R. Long Dated: / ,).,/,/ "3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW on this.zl/~ay of November, 2003 I Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby certify that I served the within Praecipe for Rule to File a Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Mr. Wayne A. Bowman 313 West Maple Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Mr. Charles E. Laman 38 Old Stonehouse Road Carlisle, P A 17013 Mr. Craig Brown Mr. David Carmines c/o Allen's Eatery 103 Market Street Lewisberry, P A 17339 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED BY: ;/~4~~c/ Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, PA 17112 717909-6637 Attorney's I.D. No. 15624 Counsel for Donald E. Slike and DES Associates . ~ 8 ~ rH~ ~ ~.~:n ~5? ~ i3 ~o '"D 1:ii. i8 :! ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ GREGORY E. CASSIMATIS, ESQUIRE DONALD M. DESSEYN, ESQUIRE 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 717-791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 49619 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. NO. 03-3177 DONALD E. SILKE, WAYNE A. BOWMAN, CHARLES E. LAMAN, DES ASSOCIATES, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for Defendants, Craig Brown and David Cannines in regard to the above matter. Date: 12 - 2'5 -dJ By: Grego . Cassimatis, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Craig Brown and David Cannines ByJ2~ m. ~ IJ~ onald M. Desseyn, Esqui / Attorney for Defendants, Craig Brown and David Cannines CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ZJr4dayof D""'_h.u , 2003, I, Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, Craig Brown and David Cannines, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Praecipe for Entry of Appearance on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 1 Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, PA 17112 By: ~ )~2-'"~ Gregory . . Cassimatis, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney I.D. # 49619 o ~;3~ 'n,- ,..., = "'" ...... o r'1 C") .", G" r-;.: -,-'.- ).::' - . --0 =~ o ..., ---I :C-r'! rn~ -u -0 '2.Q -c -~.; ~:}p ;:,;rn :.::\ ,:::- '.-,- .::c :....-,,: LEONARD 1. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW DONALD E. SLIKE, Individually and : NO. 2003-3177 CIVIL TERM Trading as DES Associates, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES,: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and fi1ing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE TillS 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. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 800-990-9108 NOTICIA Le ban demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en !as paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones a !as medidas y pueda entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE AGOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO. VA Y A EN PERSONA OR LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUY A DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRIT A ABAJO PARA A VERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 249-3166 800-990-9108 LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW DONALD E. SLIl<E, Individually and : NO. 2003-3177 CIVIL TERM Trading as DES ASSOCIATES, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES,: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs are adult individuals, married to each other, residing at 1409 North Puente Street, Brea, California. 2. Defendants are adult individuals; Defendant Donald E. Slike is a partner in a partnership known as DES Associates, and DES Associates is listed as the owner of record at certain premises wherein certain ~uries occurred to the Plaintiffs, which will be described below. 3. Defendants Craig Brown and David Cannines are adult individuals who apparently leased from Defendant Slike and DES Associates a certain premises known alternatively as 98 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania or 302 Front Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. 4. The registered address of DES Associates is 1302 Slate Hill Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania and Defendant Donald E. Slike's address is apparently 1000 Laurel Lane, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. 5. With respect to Defendants Brown and Cannines, Plaintiffs are not aware of a residence address for either of them, but each has a business address of 103 Market Street, Lewisberry, Pennsylvania. 6. As ofthe date of the relevant events to this action, DES Associates was the record owner of the New Cumberland premises described above and, upon information and belief, was leasing the New Cumberland premises to Defendants Brown and Cannines. 7. At the time of the injuries sustained, which will be described below, the New Cumberland premises was being operated as a laundromat, known as Allen's Laundry, to which customers would bring their clothes and use machines that were on the premises to wash and dry their clothes. 8. It is unclear to Plaintiffs which of the Defendants actually had possession of the premises as of the applicable date because neither Plaintiffs when they were present, nor the undersigned when he visited, saw anyone who purported to be in charge of the premises or otherwise working there. 9. On or about July 7, 200 I, Plaintiffs, who were visiting in the south central Pennsylvania area, stopped at the New Cumberland premises to wash and dry some of their laundry. 10. As such, Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that they were invitees of the person or persons who had possession of the New Cumberland premises as of July 7, 2001. II. While PlaintiffS were visiting the premises on July 7, 200 I, a metal panel that was resting against a washing machine fell forward and struck Plaintiff Muriel Bovey' left leg with extreme force. 12. The panel may have been the side panel of the applicable washing machine, or it may have been simply resting against the washing machine; in any event, it was not properly secured in that it did fall. 13. The panel fell with the sharp edge of its top coming down first, and the sharp edge scraped against Muriel Bovey's left leg from an area beginning approximately (on the side of the leg) from the top of the calf to the ankle area. 14. Because of the sharp edge of the top of the panel and the angle at which it fell, Muriel Bovey sustained severe and deep cuts in her leg area which ultimately requires skin graphs and multiple visits 2 to medical providers. 15. As a result of the injury described above, Muriel Bovey incurred significant medial expenses and may incur medical expenses into the future. 16. As a result of the injury described herein, Plaintiff Muriel Bovey experienced significant pain and suffering, and may continue to experience pain and suffering into the future. 17. As a result of the injury described herein, Plaintiff Muriel Bovey also experienced forced curtailment of her normal activities, causing her to lose some of life's pleasures, which may continue into the future. COUNT I - MURIEL E. BOVEY VS ALL DEFENDANTS 18. The facts set forth in paragraphs one through seventeen are incorporated herein by reference. 19. As the owner or possessor of the New Cumberland premi<>es (known colloquially as "Allen's Laundry"), the owning or possessing Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff Muriel E. Bovey, and to all other invitees, to make inspection of its premises, to keep the premises free from unreasonable risk of injury to the patrons, and to warn the patrons against unreasonably dangerous conditions or eliminate the unreasonably dangerous conditions. 20. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that the owning or possessing Defendant or Defendants breached the duty that they owed to Plaintiff Muriel E. Bovey as described in the previous paragraph, by failing to prudently inspect the premises, by not removing the loose panel or placing it in an area away from reasonably anticipated customer activity or by fuiling to warn customers of the potentially dangerous nature of the loose panel; in whatever respect the Defendants failed to take proper action, their actions or inactions caused an unreasonable risk of harm to patrons, and the harm manifested 3 itself as descnbed herein to Plaintiff to Muriel E. Bovey. 21. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that the Defendants breach of duty they owed to Plaintiff Muriel E. Bovey as described above, was a substantial factor in bringing about the damages that Plaintiffs Muriel E. Bovey has suffered, as described above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Muriel E. Bovey requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for an amount in excess of$25,000.00, together with interest, the costs of this action and any other relief this Court deems appropriate. COUNT II - LEONARD J. BOVEY VS ALL DEFENDANTS 22. The facts set forth in paragraphs one through twenty-one are incorporated herein by reference. 23. At the time of the injury to Plaintiff Muriel E. Bovey, PlaintiffLeorurrd 1. Bovey was married to her, and has been so married to her for many years prior thereto. 24. As a result of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff Muriel E. Bovey, PlaintiffLeorurrd J. Bovey suffered a loss of the services of, or consortium with, his wife, Plaintiff Muriel E. Bovey. WHEREFORE, PlaintiffLeorurrd J. Bovey requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for an amount in excess of$25,000.00, together with interest, the costs of this action and any other relief this Court deems appropriate. 1.-3 ~ Anthony T. Mc Attorney for P . 407 North Fro ., First Floor Harrisburg, P A 17HH (717) 238-3686 Supreme Court J.D.. # 53729 4 VERIFICATION I, Anthony T. McBeth, am attorney for the Plaintiffs in the captioned action. I am veruymg the attached document for the Plaintiffs in that they are outside the jurisdiction of this Court. I verify that the facts set forth in the attached document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I so state subject to the penalties ofl8 Pa.C.S. ~ 4904 (relating to unsworn fuIsification to authorities). 1.'3:. jJJo~ LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW DONALD E. SLIKE, Individually and : NO. 2003-3177 CIVIL TERM Trading as DES Associates, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES,: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Anthony T. McBeth, Attorney for Plaintiffs, hereby certifY that I have served the attached document by placing same in the United States mail, first class, postage pre-paid addressed as follows: Robert P. Reed, Esquire Attorney for Donald E. Slike and DES Associates P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, PA 17112 Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Attorneys for Craig Brown and David Carmines 4999 Louise Drive, #103 Mechanicsburg, P A 1705 Ci ......, c,~ c::=> ~- o .1 -< ff~ :~ 1::,1',"1 s~~.; -,.',i ~~fq ~ii"n L ~':::; 1',) G.l (....? ~ ...-:- DONALD M. DESSEYN, ESQUIRE 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 717-791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY, Plaintiffs v. DONALD E. SLIIill, WAYNE A. BOWMAN, CHARLES E. LAMAN, DES ASSOCIATES, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-3177 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED To: Leonard J. Bovey and Muriel E. Bovey c/o Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 1 NOTICE Date of Notice: "?-fj..pt-i You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1026, or default judgment may be entered against you. Date: tJ-!i!"~ By: ~~ Dona1 . esseyn, squire Attorney for Defendants DONALD M. DESSEYN, ESQUIRE 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 717-791-0400 Attorney LD. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. NO. 03-3177 DONALD E. SLIKE, WAYNE A. BOWMAN, CHARLES E. LAMAN, DES ASSOCIATES, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, CRAIG BROWN AND DAVID CARMINES TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendants, Craig Brown and David Carmines (hereinafter "Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, and for their Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, states as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore deny same and strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that Defendant, Donald E. Silke is an adult individual; however, Defendants, after reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations as set forth in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore deny same and strict proof is demanded at the time of tria!. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that they are adult individuals who leased from Defendant Slike certain premises located at 98 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pelll1sylvania; however, Defendants specifically deny each and every remaining allegation as set forth in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 4. Denied. Defendants, after reasonable investigation are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth III Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore deny same and strict proof is demanded at the time of tria!. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that their business address is 103 Market Street, Lewisberry, Pelll1sylvania; however, Defendants specifically deny each and every remaining allegation as set forth in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs , Complaint. 6. Denied. Defendants, after reasonable investigation are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding ownership as set forth in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and strict proof is demanded at the time oftria!. Moreover, Defendants specifically deny leasing the subject property from Defendant DES Associates. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that at the time ofthe alleged incident, the premises were being operated as a Laundromat known as Allen's Laundromat to which customers would bring their clothes to use the machines that were on the premises to wash and dry their clothes. Defendants specifically deny each and every remaining allegation as set forth in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 8. Denied. Defendants, based upon reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore deny same and strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 9. Denied. Defendants, based upon reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore deny same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. II. Denied. Defendants, based upon reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore deny same and strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 12. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. Moreover, to the extent that the allegations are factual in nature, Defendants, after reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth ofthe allegations as set forth in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore deny same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. Defendants, after reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs , Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. Defendants, based upon reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. Defendants, based upon reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. Defendants, based upon reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. Defendants, based upon reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I 18. In response to Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants hereby incorporate each and every answer, averment, defense and/or denial as set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully rewritten herein. 19. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. 20. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. 21. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Craig Brown and David Carmines demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs and request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and that Defendants be awarded costs and other relief deemed just and proper by this Court. COUNT II 22. In response to Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants hereby incorporate each and every answer, averment, defense and/or denial as set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 21 as if fully rewritten herein. 23. Denied. Defendants, after reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore deny same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Denied. Defendants, after reasonable investigation, are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore deny same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Craig Brown and David Carmines demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs and request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and that Defendants be awarded costs and other relief deemed just and proper by this Court. NEW MATTER 25. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 26. Plaintiffs' action is barred by the applicable statute oflimitations. 27. Any damages or injuries which Plaintiffs may have sustained were the proximate results of acts or omissions of others not presently known by these answering Defendants. 28. Any damages or injuries Plaintiffs may have suffered as alleged in their Complaint was solely and proximately caused by their own negligence. 29. Defendants state that if the Plaintiff sustained any damages or injuries, such damages or injuries were directly and proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiffs in failing to exercise ordinary care for their own safety under the existing circumstances. 30. Plaintiffs failure to exercise reasonable care and/or assumption of the risk caused or contributed to the cause ofthe alleged injuries or damages in which Plaintiffs' Complaint, and therefore, Plaintiffs claims against these Defendants are barred or, in the alternative, must be diminished by an amount that is proportionately equal to Plaintiffs' percentage of negligence. 31. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Craig Brown and David Cannines, having fully answered, demands judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs and request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and that Defendants be awarded costs and other relief deemed just and proper by this court. Date: 1'~/ By: Greg~/~~i;:> Attorney for Defendants, Craig Brown and David Cannines BY:~~ DOIU'I" sseyn, squire Co-counsel for Defendants, Craig Brown and David Cannines VERIFICATION I, David Carmines, a Defendant herein, verify that I am authorized to execute this Verification and verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Defendant's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: '2/ 'Z 7/0'f ,\" ., \/\ l Name: &. V} - DavId Carmines CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this d-~day of 1~ ,2004, I, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, Craig Brown and David Carmines, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, PA 17112 By: .,:< ~ :...,/ Dona seyn, squire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717)791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 o c ~ va' :r~~., "",)0 ..~.. 0);) e~C) f[;; ~:'; ~ r.n . . ...., = ~7;.;) -<~ ~ :.;:l -'- :n nl~ -"8 :01- ()( ) ~..;.~. fS:u ._-".C) "--ITI o :,--..~ :'u -< ::1l: :b ;;0 , .&:- -" :Ji:: N IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-3177 Civil vs. DONALD E. SLIKE, Individually and trading as DES ASSOCIATES, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Leonard J. Bovey and Muriel E. Bovey c/o Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire, Plaintiffs' counsel 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or judgment may be entered against you. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED Dated: .3 -It -' () I /> BY: #1&<</ ;&/ Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, P A 17112 717 909-6637 Attorney's J.D. No. 15624 Counsel for Defendants, Donald E. Slike and DES Associates IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-3177 Civil vs. DONALD E. SLIKE, Individually and trading as DES Associates, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS DONALD E. SLlKE AND DES ASSOCIATES I. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants Craig Brown and David Carmines are adult individuals who leased premises at the corner of Bridge and Front Streets in New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. However, said lease was between Defendant Donald E. Slike and Defendants Craig Brown and David Carmines, and DES Associates was not a party thereto. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Defendant, DES Associates, was the record owner of the subject premises. However, the lease was between Defendant Slike as lessor and Defendants Brown and Carmines as lessees. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on or about July 7, 2001, the subject premises were being operated as a laundromat known as Allen's Laundry, and was open to the public for said purpose. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants were without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph and the same are therefore denied and proofthereof is demanded. 8. Responding Defendants are without knowledge or information as to the truth of the statements of this paragraph and the same are therefore denied and proofthereofis demanded. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. II. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments ofthis paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proofthereofis demanded. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. COUNT 1- MURIEL E. BOVEY VS ALL DEFENDANTS 18. The averments contained in paragraphs one through seventeen above are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length. 19. The averments of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no response is deemed necessary. Should response be necessary, the averments of this paragraph are denied as the responding Defendants were out-of-possession, and had no obligations to the other Defendants or the general public, including the Plaintiffs, for the maintenance and upkeep of said premises or the safeguarding of any dangerous conditions on said premises. 20. The averments of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no response is deemed necessary. Should response be necessary, the averments of this paragraph are denied as the responding Defendants were out-of-possession, and had no obligations to the other Defendants or the general public, including the Plaintiffs, for the maintenance and upkeep of said premises or the safeguarding of any dangerous conditions on said premises. By way of further answer, responding Defendants had no obligation to inspect the subject premises which were in the possession and under the control of Defendants Craig Brown and David Carmines. 21. The averments of this paragraph are denied for the reasons stated in paragraphs nineteen and twenty above, the averments of which are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Defendants Donald E. Slike and DES Associates demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs. COUNT 11- LEONARD J. BOVEY VS ALL DEFENDANTS 22. The averments contained in paragraphs one through twenty-one above are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth ofthe averments ofthis paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation the responding Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, and the same are therefore denied and proofthereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Donald E. Slike and DES Associates demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs. NEW MATTER 25. The averments contained in paragraphs one through twenty-four above are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length. 26. Responding Defendants were landlords out-of-possession at the time of the alleged incident set forth in the Plaintiffs' Complaint, and had no obligation to maintain said premises or to inspect the same, or to exercise any other duties the wrongful performance or non-performance of which would render them liable to the Plaintiffs. 27. Plaintiffs' injuries and resulting damages were caused by circumstances beyond the control or right to control of the responding Defendants. 28. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the operation of the Statute of Limitations. 29. Plaintiffs' cause of action is barred or limited by operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statute. 30. Any conduct which may be proven on the part of the responding Defendants was not the proximate or legal cause of the harm sustained by the Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, responding Defendants demand judgment III their favor and against the Plaintiffs. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED BY: Y~7'-~ Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, PA 17112 717 909-6637 Attorney's J.D. No. 15624 Counsel for Donald E. Slike and DES Associates Dated: :3 - /ft- - c 1 I VERIFICATION I, Donald E. Slike, hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief, and that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 3/I:z...f 2-00 t..( ~ t.Au- Dona d E. Shke CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW on this !J;Ztday of March, 2004 I Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby certify that I served the within Answer with New Matter of Defendants Donald E. Slike and DES Associates this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED BY: 7~;-//~ Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg, P A 17112 717 909-6637 Attorney's LD. No. 15624 Counsel for Defendants, Donald E. Slike and DES Associates )> ; "" ::< 0 -.l ,.....) (;:~.J C"'~ C) -n .-1 T [il:'D c- ....,.,r-,., -,0 -, f -=---:'"~C) - :::ri -.. ~".~ :"-' :-<..J -.l -0 :c ~ en .' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-3177 Civil vs. DONALD E. SLIKE, Individually and trading as DES ASSOCIATES, CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES, Defendants STIPULATION FOR PARTIAL DISCONTINUANCE Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 229, the parties hereto, by their respective counsel, stipulate that the present matter is discontinued as to Defendants Donald E. Slike, individually, and trading as DES Associates; and that the present action will continue against Craig Brown and David Carmines, Defendants, alone. Dated: j ~ dd- ~ t; if LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY T. McBETH /7 BY: II,() . ~c Counsel for PIai Dated: t176~"-f BY: ~~~~ ~ eyn, squire Counsel for Defendants, Craig Brown and David Carmines " Dated: LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED 3 - /7-0t( BY: '/d8a~ -/~ Robert P. Reed, Esquire Counsel for Donald E. Slike individually and trading as DES Associates CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE~ AND NOW on this 3/4-day of March, 2004 I Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby certify that I served the within Stipulation for Partial Discontinuance this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED BY: ~~7Y:~' Robert P. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 6034 Harrisburg,PA 17112 717 909-6637 Attorney's J.D. No. 15624 Counsel for Defendants Donald E. Slike And DES Associates o S ~:",. ~{r;~; .<..- Ci':! c: ,";~, .i ~~~ ~.:{ -< , ....., = = .r- ". -0 :;:.;J I ~ ..... -r '"' n'F rr. :gO c~ 1 ....~Q ~:n C:;O C~rn ~ =< -0 ::;.: Ul c::> LEONARD J. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMINES, : NO. 2003-3177 CIVIL TERM Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS CRAIG BROWN AND DAVID CARMINES 25. Denied. This averment is a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. 26. Denied. This averment is a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. 27. Denied. This averment is a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. 28. Denied. This avennent is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 29. Denied. This averment is a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. 30. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 31. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to w 'c ,;, ~f ; VERIFICATION I, Anthony T. McBeth, am attorney for the Plaintiffs in the captioned action. I am verifYing the attached document for the Plaintiffs in that they are outside the: jurisdiction ofthis Court. I verifY that the facts set forth in the attached document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I so state subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~ 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities). ;0- Ij/~ ... ... 0 ..... ~ -;> c: C;;;.::,) ...- " :r..." ,"s" <- Si rl1- -Or-;; 0"' :Q'( 0 _~C) ".- ~A,~ c:..~~j -~,. c r:-? .., c.,' J~~, --, -< ,,0 ::<. LEONARD 1. BOVEY and MURIEL E. BOVEY, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OIl COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO. 2003-3177 CIVIL TERM CRAIG BROWN and DAVID CARMlNES, : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO mE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the captioned action as discontinued with prejudice. ~- - ~,"J.~05 ':i! Q. C1 ~ ~, ~ 1:;, . "~~ tf~ ~ ~~ ~e ~ ~ ~o ~ 9- \.\~ ;, ~ --