Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-2473IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. a2g73 2007 Civil Action - 00 Law () Equity CHRISTINE ANDREWS FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE 6170 Clearfield Street CORPORATION Harrisburg, PA 17111 c/o McDonalds Hamburges 425 North Enola Road versus Marysville, PA MARK NELSON and KIM NELSON c/o McDonalds Hamburgers 425 North Enola Road Marysville, PA JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, XYZ, INC. c/o McDonalds Hamburges 425 North Enola Road Marysville, PA Plaintiff(s) & Defendant(s) & Address(es) 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 forwarded to () Jordan D. Cunninsham. Esauire 2320 North Second Street P.O. Box 60457 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457 717-238-6570 Names/Address/Telephone No. of Attorney (X) Sheriff Sigffature 9PAttorney Supreme Court ID No. 23144 Date: `7 d C'? rv r 0 v J Q~ y 1 ^''" C J 0 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. 5 P thonotary Date: ri jay apoll By k1 A,-L puty () Check here if reverse is issued for additional information MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22°d Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS Attorney for Defendants, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. and FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (Incorrectly designated as MARK NELSON and KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Vs. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. NO. 2473-2007 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of defendants, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. and FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (Incorrectly designated as MARK NELSON and HIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.), in the within action. Defendants hereby demand a jury trial in this matter. A jury of twelve with alternates, demanded. MINTZER, PSIODIWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFF R$ C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney or Defendants, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. and RANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORP, TION (Incorrectly designated as MARK NELS and KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) c-? p - ? ?_ n w <_`?.- 1 t { ? {_T." ? _ . r t r ~?,+ .h .....} MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22°d Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. NO. 2473-2007 PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. MINTZER, SAR -ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: ?f JEF Y C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE e.P6mey for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, . (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND NOW, this /S 'Day of J[,w E, 2007, a Rule is hereby granted upon plaintiff to file a Complaint herein within twenty (20) days after service hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. PROTH NO. Y? { ) N c? U O t, AIM SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR ti CASE NO: 2007-024 3 P COMMONWEALTH OF P NNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERL D ANDREWS CHRISTIN VS FRANCHISE REALTY[INTERSTATE ET SHARON LANTZ Cumberland Coun says, the withi FRANCHISE REALT Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of ,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon INTERSTATE CORPORATION the DEFENDANT at 1305:00 HOURS, on the 4th day of May 2007 at C/O MCDONALD HAMBURGES 425 NORTH ENOLA ROAD MARYSVILLE, PA KRISTINE MORRIS MANAGER by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and att4sted copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Cos s: Docketing 18.00 Service 14.40 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 b.t9 4 ? 42.40 Sworn and Su scibed to before me th's day of I So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 05/07/2007 CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF By: Deputy Sheri A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR ` CASE NO: 2007-024 3 P COMMONWEALTH OF P NNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBER D ANDREWS CHRISTIN VS FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE ET SHARON LANTZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland Coun y,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the withi WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon NELSON MARK the DEFENDANT at 1305:00 HOURS, on the 4th day of May 2007 at C/O MCDONALDS HAMBURGES 425 NORTH ENOLA ROAD MARYSVILLE, PA by handing to KRISTINE MORRI ON, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and att sted copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the sa e time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Cos s: So Answers: Docketing 6.00 Service . 00 Affidavit .00''' Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 1 05/07/2007 r CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF Sworn and Su scibed to By: before me th's day puty herif of A.D. CASE NO: 2007-024`3 P COMMONWEALTH OF P COUNTY OF CUMBERL ANDREWS CHRISTI SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR YLVANIA: VS FRANCHISE REALTY if INTERSTATE ET SHARON LANTZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland Count Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the withi WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon n7L1T.QnrT VTM the DEFENDANT at 1305:00 HOURS, on the 4th day of May 2007 at C/O MCDONALD HAMBURGES 425 NORTH ENOLA ROAD MARYSVILLE, PA by handing to KRISTINE MORRI ON, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and att sted copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the sa time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Cos s: So Answers: Docketing 6.00 . ?. st " Service .00 ° 'art Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 5, Ib7 ?,,, ? 16.00 05/07/2007 CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF Sworn and Su scibed to By: before me th s day Ti Cy h Yif of A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-024 3 P COMMONWEALTH OF P NNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERL ND ANDREWS CHRISTINE VS FRANCHISE REALTY1INTERSTATE ET SHARON LANTZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland Count Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the withi WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon DOE JOHN / JANE DOE/ XYZ INC the DEFENDANT at C/O MCDONAL MARYSVILLE, PA KRISTINE MORRIS at 1305:00 HOURS, on the 4th day of May 2007 HAMBURGES 425 NORTH ENOLA ROAD by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attosted copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the samL time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 9 16.00 Sworn and Su scibed to before me th's of day So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 05/07/2007 CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF By: IL 1 -//2? / - - z - eputy Sheriff A.D. JORDAN D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE CUNNINGHAM& CHERNICOFF, P.C. 2320 NORTH SECOND STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110 TELEPHONE: (717) 238-6570 FACSIMILE (717) 238-4809 EMAIL: JCUNNINGHAM(CDCCLAWPC.COM ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CHRISTINE ANDREWS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. FRANCHISE REALTY NO. 07-2473 INTERSTATE CORPORATION; NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P.; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; CIVIL ACTION-LAW JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; and XYZ, INC., 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 attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mds adelante en las siguientes pdginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mds aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 JORDAN D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C. 2320 NORTH SECOND STREET HARRiSBURG, PA 17110 TELEPHONE: (717) 238-6570 FACSIMILE (717) 238-4809 EMAIL: JCUNNINGHAM(iDCCL,AWPC.COM ATTORNEYS FORPLAINTIFF CHRISTINE ANDREWS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P.; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; and XYZ, INC., Defendants NO. 07-2473 CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes your Plaintiff, Christine Andrews, by and through her counsel, Cunningham & Chernicoff, P.C., and brings this action against the Defendants, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation; Nelson Restaurants, L.P., Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson; John Doe; Jane Doe; and XYZ, Inc., and in support there of, avers the following: PARTIES Plaintiff, Christine Andrews (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff'), is an adult individual who resides at 6170 Clearfield Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, is an Illinois corporation which has a principal office located at Chicago, Illinois. 3. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., is a Pennsylvania limited partnership which is registered with the Department of State and has a principal office located at 1016 Wansford Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendant, Mark Nelson, is an adult individual whose principal office address is in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. Defendant, Kim Nelson, is an adult individual whose principal office address is in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. FACTUAL HISTORY 6. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about May 3, 2005 at approximately 7:30 a.m. in the parking lot of the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant, located at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. At that time and place, and for all relevant time periods, Plaintiff was and is a licensed practical nurse and was and is employed at Highmark Medicare Services in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania as a Nurse Education Specialist. At that time and place, Plaintiff also worked part-time as a private duty nurse for Links to Care, a nursing agency which provides private duty nursing care to individuals. 2 9. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff parked her vehicle in the Defendants' restaurant parking lot with the intention of purchasing food and drink in the Defendants' establishment. 10. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was traveling to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with a co- worker, Patty Detman, for work related reasons. 11. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, were in exclusive, possession, control and management of the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant, individually and through their employees who were acting within the course and scope of their employment by the Defendants and in furtherance of Defendants' business. 12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants' restaurant was open and doing business with members of the general public. 13. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was a business visitor to the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant. 14. Plaintiff parked her vehicle in Defendants' restaurant parking lot near the side entrance of the restaurant. 15. After Plaintiff brought the vehicle to a complete stop in Defendants' parking lot, Plaintiff s co-worker, Patty Detman, exited Plaintiff's vehicle and walked to the side entrance of Defendants' restaurant. Ms. Detman then waited by the side entrance for Plaintiff to exit the vehicle. 16. After bring her vehicle to a complete stop, turning the ignition off and removing her keys from the ignition control, Plaintiff stepped out of her vehicle and onto the parking lot of the Defendants' restaurant. 3 17. Plaintiff took approximately two (2) steps away from her vehicle parked in the parking lot of Defendants' restaurant when her left foot descended into and became lodged in a pot hole located in the parking lot. 18. When Plaintiff stepped into the pot hole with her left foot, Plaintiff's left foot twisted causing the Plaintiff to fall to the ground on her right side. 19. The Plaintiff's momentum carried her to fall from the area of the parking lot into the curb and sidewalk located to the side of the McDonald's building. At that location there was a cement cigarette ashcan on which Plaintiff hit her head. 20. Plaintiff's co-worker, Patty Detman, and another customer both came to Plaintiff and asked if she was alright. 21. Plaintiff sat on the curb at the end of the sidewalk for a few minutes and then requested aid from her co-worker and the customer to get to her vehicle as she felt woozy from hitting her head as the result of the fall. 22. With the aid of her co-worker and the customer, Plaintiff was able to stand up. 23. Plaintiff, upon standing, immediately felt pain in both her left foot and right knee. 24. With the aid of her co-worker and the customer, Plaintiff was able to go to her vehicle and sat down in the passenger side seat of the vehicle. 25. Once Plaintiff was sitting in her vehicle, Plaintiff's co-worker, Patty Detman, went into the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant and requested a manager to come out to Plaintiff's car and fill out an incident report. 26. Plaintiff waited in her vehicle approximately five (5) minutes before her co- worker and the restaurant manager came out to the parking lot. 4 27. The restaurant manager, Joshua Myers, filled out the paperwork for the incident report and asked Plaintiff "which pothole did you fall in." 28. Plaintiff told Mr. Myers that it was the pothole in the parking space next to the driver's side of the vehicle and Plaintiff's co-worker walked over to the pothole with Mr. Myers. 29. Mr. Myers eventually instructed Plaintiff to go to Holy Spirit Hospital to have her foot x-rayed. He also stated that Plaintiff was to provide Holy Spirit Hospital with her health insurance information and "they would take care of it later." 30. Plaintiff s co-worker, Patty Detman, drove Plaintiff to Holy Spirit Hospital where Plaintiff was checked in to the emergency room. 31. Plaintiff s left foot was x-rayed at the Holy Spirit Hospital, however, the emergency room doctor would not x-ray Plaintiff s neck or knee and instructed Plaintiff to return if the pain got worse. 32. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a break at her fifth metatarsal head of her left foot and a cervical neck sprain. 33. Plaintiff was fitted for a cast shoe and her left foot was placed into a cast shoe and directed to call an orthopedic doctor for treatment. 34. Plaintiff was instructed by her physician not to return to work for three (3) days. 35. By the end of June, 2005, Plaintiff had returned to her normal job duties at Highmark Medicare Services as a Nurse Education Specialist, however, she began to experience difficulty standing while performing job related presentations. 36. By the end of June, 2005, Plaintiff also began experiencing pain in her left hip, lower back and cervical neck areas. 5 37. Plaintiff continued to experience pain and in early 2006 began to treat with an orthopedic physician who recommended a conservative course of treatment. 38. Between the months of February 2006 and September 2006, Plaintiff's disability increased to the point she was walking with a limp, was still experiencing pain and began to have numbness and tingling in her left arm. 39. In October of 2006, due to Plaintiff's ongoing situation, Plaintiff's physician ordered a MRI of Plaintiff's cervical spine. 40. Upon review of the results of the MRI, Plaintiff's physician discovered bulging discs and spurs and ordered Plaintiff to undergo physical therapy for one (1) month. 41. In December of 2006, Plaintiff again returned to the Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania due to pain. Dr. Steven Wolfe advised Plaintiff at that time to under go steroid injections to the cervical spine to relieve pain. Plaintiff refused the steroid injections and began an exercise program three (3) times a week in an attempt to alleviate her situation. 42. As of the date of this pleading, Plaintiff is still experiencing pain in her back, left hip and left foot, which still tingles and aches. COUNTI Christine Andrews v. Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation 43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of Paragraph 1 through 42 as if more fully set forth herein. 6 44. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was a business invitee who was attempting to walk on a privately owned parking lot maintained in the exclusive control and maintenance of the Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, located beside the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant when she was caused to trip, stumble and fall to the ground, striking her head, by reason of the highly defective and dangerous condition of the parking lot, sustaining the injuries described herein. 45. On May 3, 2005, and for a substantial period of time prior to that date, the property was negligently and carelessly possessed, controlled and maintained by the Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, in that the parking lot of the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant was caused, permitted and allowed by the Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, to become and remain in a highly defective condition, in that it was broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, and potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and visitors such as Plaintiff. 46. The accident experienced by the Plaintiff was caused exclusively and solely by the Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation's, negligence, carelessness and recklessness in that: a. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to properly maintain the parking lot of its restaurant; b. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to properly inspect the parking lot located immediately adjacent to its restaurant for dangerous and defective conditions; 7 C. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers; d. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, caused or permitted the parking lot of its restaurant to become broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and customers to a point where it caused an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff and other business visitors and customers; e. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to make a reasonable inspection of the parking lot of its restaurant which inspection would have revealed the existence of a dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot; f. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to give warning to the public of the dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot adjacent to its restaurant or, in the alternative, failed to erect barricades or take any other safety precautions to prevent the injury to the Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; g. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to repair the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed or otherwise make the parking lot to its restaurant reasonably safe for business invitees and customers; h. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, allowed the parking lot to remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition after notice and opportunity to correct the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition of the parking lot had became apparent; and i. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation's, failed to properly address defects in the parking lot and allowed the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business visitors and invitees to become deteriorate and remain in a broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition without taking any remedial measures so that the parking lot presented a hazard to business invitees and customers like Plaintiff who were lawfully walking upon the parking lot. 47. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, had or should of had knowledge or notice of the existence of the aforesaid hole, depression or defect. 48. Solely as the result of Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation's, negligence, carelessness and recklessness which caused Plaintiff's fall, Plaintiff sustained serious, severe, disabling and painful injuries to her body, including but not limited to: a. Fracture at the fifth metatarsal head of the left foot; b. Cervical neck sprain; Persistent and reoccurring low back pain; d. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left foot; e. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her right knee; f. Persistent and reoccurring cervical neck pain; 9 g. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left hip; h. Spinal spurs; i. Bulging spinal discs; Persistent and reoccurring numbness and tingling in her left arm and left foot; and k. A severe shock to her nerves and nervous system. 49. Plaintiff has been advised and therefore avers that the aforesaid injuries, other than contusions and abrasions, are or may be permanent in nature. 50. The aforesaid injuries were suffered as a direct and proximate result of the fall sustained by Plaintiff as the direct result of the careless, reckless and negligent manner in which Defendants maintained and operated their business, the McDonald's Hamburgers restaurant located at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 51. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff, she has been forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicine, physical therapy and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health. 52. As a result of the injuries sustained and as a result of the nature of the said injuries, Plaintiff is advised and therefore avers that she will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future. 53. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has undergone, and in the future will undergo, mental and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities and loss of life's pleasure and enjoyment. 10 54. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of her injuries, has not been able to fulfill any of her employment duties as a private duty nurse for Links to Care, and has sustained a loss of earnings. 55. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has sustained a permanent impairment of her earnings power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christine Andrews, demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 together with costs and interests. COUNT II Christine Andrews v. Nelson Restaurants, L.P. 56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of Paragraph 1 through 55 as if more fully set forth herein. 57. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was a business invitee who was attempting to walk on a privately owned parking maintained in the exclusive control and maintenance of the Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., located beside the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant when she was caused to trip, stumble and fall to the ground, striking her head, by reason of the highly defective and dangerous condition of the parking lot, sustaining the injuries described herein. 58. On May 3, 2005, and for a long period of time prior to that date, the property was so negligently and carelessly possessed, controlled and maintained by the Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., that the parking lot located immediately adjacent to the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant was caused, permitted and allowed by the Defendant, Nelson 11 Restaurants, L.P., to become and remain in a highly defective condition, in that it was broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, and potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and visitors such as Plaintiff. 59. The accident experienced by the Plaintiff was caused exclusively and solely by the Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P.'s, negligence, carelessness and recklessness in that: a. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to properly maintain the parking lot of its restaurant; b. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to properly inspect the parking lot located immediately adjacent to its restaurant for dangerous and defective conditions; C. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers; d. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., caused or permitted the parking lot of its restaurant to become broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and customers to a point where it caused an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff and other business visitors and customers; e. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to make a reasonable inspection of the parking lot of its restaurant which inspection would have revealed the existence of a dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot; 12 f. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to give warning to the public of the dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot adjacent to its restaurant or, in the alternative, failed to erect barricades or take any other safety precautions to prevent the injury to the Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; g. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to repair the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed or otherwise make the parking lot to its restaurant reasonably safe for business invitees and customers; h. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., allowed the parking lot to remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition after notice and opportunity to correct the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition of the parking lot had became apparent; and i. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P.'s, failed to properly address defects in the parking lot and allowed the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers to become deteriorate and remain in a broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition without taking any remedial measures so that the parking lot presented a hazard to business invitees and customers like Plaintiff who were lawfully walking upon the parking lot. 60. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., had or should of had knowledge or notice of the existence of the aforesaid hole, depression or defect. 13 61. Solely as the result of Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P.'s, negligence, carelessness and recklessness which caused Plaintiff's fall, Plaintiff sustained serious, severe, disabling and painful injuries to her body, including but not limited to: a. Fracture at the fifth metatarsal head of the left foot; b. Cervical neck sprain; C. Persistent and reoccurring low back pain; d. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left foot; e. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her right knee; f. Persistent and reoccurring cervical neck pain; g. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left hip; h. Spinal spurs; i. Bulging spinal discs; j. Persistent and reoccurring numbness and tingling in her left arm and left foot; and k. A severe shock to her nerves and nervous system. 62. Plaintiff has been advised and therefore avers that the aforesaid injuries, other than contusions and abrasions, are or may be permanent in nature. 63. The aforesaid injuries were suffered as a direct and proximate result of the fall sustained by Plaintiff as the direct result of the careless, reckless and negligent manner in which Defendants maintained and operated their business, the McDonald's Hamburgers restaurant located at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 14 64. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff, she has been forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicine, physical therapy and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health. 65. As a result of the injuries sustained and as a result of the nature of the said injuries, Plaintiff is advised and therefore avers that she will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future. 66. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has undergone, and in the future will undergo, mental and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities and loss of life's pleasure and enjoyment. 67. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of her injuries, has not been able to fulfill any of her employment duties as a private duty nurse for Links to Care, and has sustained a loss of earnings. 68. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has sustained a permanent impairment of her earnings power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christine Andrews, demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 together with costs and interests. COUNT III Christine Andrews v. Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson 69. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of Paragraph 1 through 68 as if more fully set forth herein. 15 70. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was a business invitee who was attempting to walk on a privately owned parking maintained in the exclusive control and maintenance of the Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, located beside the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant when she was caused to trip, stumble and fall to the ground, striking her head, by reason of the highly defective and dangerous condition of the parking lot, sustaining the injuries described herein. 71. On May 3, 2005, and for a long period of time prior to that date, the property was so negligently and carelessly possessed, controlled and maintained by the Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, that the parking lot located immediately adjacent to the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant was caused, permitted and allowed by the Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, to become and remain in a highly defective condition, in that it was broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, and potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and visitors such as Plaintiff. 72. The accident experienced by the Plaintiff was caused exclusively and solely by the Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson's, negligence, carelessness and recklessness in that: a. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to properly maintain the parking lot of its restaurant; b. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to properly inspect the parking lot located immediately adjacent to its restaurant for dangerous and defective conditions; C. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers; 16 d. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, caused or permitted the parking lot of its restaurant to become broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and customers to a point where it caused an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; e. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to make a reasonable inspection of the parking lot of its restaurant which inspection would have revealed the existence of a dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot; f. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to give warning to the public of the dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot adjacent to its restaurant or, in the alternative, failed to erect barricades or take any other safety precautions to prevent the injury to the Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; g. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to repair the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed or otherwise make the parking lot to its restaurant reasonably safe for business invitees and customers; h. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, allowed the parking lot to remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition after notice and opportunity to correct the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition of the parking lot had became apparent; and 17 i. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson's, failed to properly address defects in the parking lot and allowed the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers to become deteriorate and remain in a broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition without taking any remedial measures so that the parking lot presented a hazard to business invitees and customers like Plaintiff who were lawfully walking upon the parking lot. 73. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, had or should of had knowledge or notice of the existence of the aforesaid hole, depression or defect. 74. Solely as the result of Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson's, negligence, carelessness and recklessness which caused Plaintiff's fall, Plaintiff sustained serious, severe, disabling and painful injuries to her body, including but not limited to: a. Fracture at the fifth metatarsal head of the left foot; b. Cervical neck sprain; C. Persistent and reoccurring low back pain; d. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left foot; e. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her right knee; f. Persistent and reoccurring cervical neck pain; g. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left hip; h. Spinal spurs; i. Bulging spinal discs; 18 Persistent and reoccurring numbness and tingling in her left arm and left foot; and k. A severe shock to her nerves and nervous system. 75. Plaintiff has been advised and therefore avers that the aforesaid injuries, other than contusions and abrasions, are or may be permanent in nature. 76. The aforesaid injuries were suffered as a direct and proximate result of the fall sustained by Plaintiff as the direct result of the careless, reckless and negligent manner in which Defendants maintained and operated their business, the McDonald's Hamburgers restaurant located at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 77. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff, she has been forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicine, physical therapy and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health. 78. As a result of the injuries sustained and as a result of the nature of the said injuries, Plaintiff is advised and therefore avers that she will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future. 79. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has undergone, and in the future will undergo, mental and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities and loss of life's pleasure and enjoyment. 80. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of her injuries, has not been able to fulfill any of her employment duties as a private duty nurse for Links to Care, and has sustained a loss of earnings. 19 81. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has sustained a permanent impairment of her earnings power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christine Andrews, demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 together with costs and interests. COUNT IV Christine Andrews v. John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc. 82. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of Paragraph 1 through 81 as if more fully set forth herein. 83. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was a business invitee who was attempting to walk on a privately owned parking maintained in the exclusive control and maintenance of the Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., located beside the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant when she was caused to trip, stumble and fall to the ground, striking her head, by reason of the highly defective and dangerous condition of the parking lot, sustaining the injuries described herein. 84. On May 3, 2005, and for a long period of time prior to that date, the property was so negligently and carelessly possessed, controlled and maintained by the Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., that the parking lot located immediately adjacent to the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant was caused, permitted and allowed by the Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., to become and remain in a highly defective condition, in that it was broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, and potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and visitors such as Plaintiff. 20 85. The accident experienced by the Plaintiff was caused exclusively and solely by the Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc.'s, negligence, carelessness and recklessness in that: a. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to properly maintain the parking lot of its restaurant; b. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to properly inspect the parking lot located immediately adjacent to its restaurant for dangerous and defective conditions; C. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers; d. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., caused or permitted the parking lot of its restaurant to become broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and customers to a point where it caused an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; e. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to make a reasonable inspection of the parking lot of its restaurant which inspection would have revealed the existence of a dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot; 21 f. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to give warning to the public of the dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot adjacent to its restaurant or, in the alternative, failed to erect barricades or take any other safety precautions to prevent the injury to the Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; g. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to repair the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed or otherwise make the parking lot to its restaurant reasonably safe for business invitees and customers; h. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., allowed the parking lot to remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition after notice and opportunity to correct the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition of the parking lot had became apparent; and i. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc.'s, failed to properly address defects in the parking lot and allowed the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers to become deteriorate and remain in a broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition without taking any remedial measures so that the parking lot presented a hazard to business invitees and customers like Plaintiff who were lawfully walking upon the parking lot. 22 86. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., had or should of had knowledge or notice of the existence of the aforesaid hole, depression or defect. 87. Solely as the result of Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc.'s, negligence, carelessness and recklessness which caused Plaintiff's fall, Plaintiff sustained serious, severe, disabling and painful injuries to her body, including but not limited to: a. Fracture at the fifth metatarsal head of the left foot; b. Cervical neck sprain; C. Persistent and reoccurring low back pain; d. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left foot; e. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her right knee; f. Persistent and reoccurring cervical neck pain; g. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left hip; h. Spinal spurs; i. Bulging spinal discs; j. Persistent and reoccurring numbness and tingling in her left arm and left foot; and k. A severe shock to her nerves and nervous system. 88. Plaintiff has been advised and therefore avers that the aforesaid injuries, other than contusions and abrasions, are or may be permanent in nature. 23 89. The aforesaid injuries were suffered as a direct and proximate result of the fall sustained by Plaintiff as the direct result of the careless, reckless and negligent manner in which Defendants maintained and operated their business, the McDonald's Hamburgers restaurant located at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 90. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff, she has been forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicine, physical therapy and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health. 91. As a result of the injuries sustained and as a result of the nature of the said injuries, Plaintiff is advised and therefore avers that she will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future. 92. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has undergone, and in the future will undergo, mental and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities and loss of life's pleasure and enjoyment. 93. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of her injuries, has not been able to fulfill any of her employment duties as a private duty nurse for Links to Care, and has sustained a loss of earnings. 94. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has sustained a permanent impairment of her earnings power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefore. 24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christine Andrews, demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 together with costs and interests. Respectfully submitted, CUNNINGHAM & C,RNICOFF, P.C. Date: July, 2007 By: Xrdan D,R'u mingham, Esquire PA Supreme Court I.D. No. 23144 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-6570 Attorneys for Plaintiff F.• (Home IAHEWITTIDOCSW -CANDREWSI COMPLAINT. wpd 25 VERIFICATION The undersigned verifies that the statements contained in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Christine Andrews Dated: 2/1 /0 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that on th CO-P day of July, 2007, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing in the captioned matter, by placing the same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Jeffrey C. Sotland, Esquire Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers, LLP 1528 Walnut Street 22"a Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 gela . Hewit Legal Secretary r-3 MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of this paper upon all other parties or their attorney by: LEDVA & MEYERS X Regular First Class Mail BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE _ certified Mau Attorney I.D. No. 68958 Other 22nd Floor Jeffrey C. Sotland, Esquire 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for Defendants, (215) 735-7200 NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) CHRISTINE ANDREWS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. NO. 2473-2007 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.)TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF, CHRISTINE ANDREWS Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. It is previously admitted that Mark Nelson is an adult individual who, at all times hereto, was a partner in Nelson Restaurants, LP. 5. Denied. It is previously admitted that Kim Nelson is an adult individual who, at all times hereto, was a partner in Nelson Restaurants, LP. 6. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 7. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 8. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 9. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 10. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 11. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that Nelson Restaurants, LP were in exclusive possession and control and management of the McDonald's Hamburger restaurant location at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on May 3, 2005. The remaining allegations in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint are denied. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 14. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 15. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 16. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 17. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 18. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 19. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 20. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 21. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 22. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 23. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 24. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 25. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 26. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 27. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 28. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 29. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Mr. Meyers has the authority to bind Defendants with regard to any financial obligation. 30. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 31. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 32. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 33. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 34. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 35. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 36. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 37. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 38. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 39. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 40. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 41. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 42. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand Judgment in its favor. COUNTI 43. Answering Defendant incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 42 of its Answer to the Plaintiffs Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 44. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that the location where Plaintiff allegedly fell was under the exclusive control and maintenance of Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation. 45. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 46. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 47. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 48. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 49. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 50. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 51. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 52. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 53. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 54. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 55. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand Judgment in its favor. COUNT II 56. Answering Defendant incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 55 of its Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 57. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. By way of further response, it is admitted that Nelson Restaurants, LP was in the exclusive control and possession of the property where Plaintiff allegedly fell at the time of the incident. 58. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 59. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or u. information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 60. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 61. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 62. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 63. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 64. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 65. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 66. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 67. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 68. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand Judgment in its favor. COUNT III 69. Answering Defendant incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 68 of its Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 70. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. By way of further response, it is physically denied that Defendants Mark Nelson or Kim Nelson were in exclusive control and maintenance of the property where Plaintiff allegedly fell. 71. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 72. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 73. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 74. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of., trial, if material. 75. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint 1 are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 76. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 77. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 78. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 79. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 80. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint. are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after e reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 81. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand Judgment in its favor. COUNT IV 82. Answering Defendant incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 81 of its Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 83. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 84. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 85. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 86. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 87. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 88. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 89. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 90. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 91. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 92. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 93. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 94. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand Judgment in its favor. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZEDS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTL D, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defe ants, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRAN ISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) IL- VERIFICATION The averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing are true, based upon the signer's personal knowledge or information and belief. If the foregoing contains averments which are consistent in fact, signer has been unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true, but signer has knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief that one of them is true. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 1 1 K NE SON Dated: July l , 2007 0 U VV N Q M - t s -? t I _I.7 Y' r ? .?.. f`_?) ..... ) Rl j MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. Attorney for Defendant(s): NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERS TATS CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 DEFENDANTS', MARK NELSON AND HIM NELSON, MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Defendants, Kim Nelson and Mark Nelson, by their attorneys, Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Myers, file the following Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and, in support thereof, aver as follows: 1. On July 10, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint with the Court of Common of Cumberland County under Docket Number 07-2473 seeking damages stemming from a fall that occurred on or about May 3, 2005. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached as Exhibit "A". V 2. Subsequently, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint raising all reasonable and necessary affirmative defenses. A true and correct copy of the Answer with Affirmative Defenses is attached as Exhibit "B". 1. MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS HIM NELSON AND MARK NELSON 3. Defendants incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 2of their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as though the same were set forth herein at length. 4. When a party is injured by a corporation, no liability will be imposed against the shareholders, officers, or directors absent establishment of the equitable doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. 5. The corporate veil will be pierced only when the entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud and/or defend crime. 6. A strong presumption exists in Pennsylvania against piercing the corporate veil. 7. The following factors may be considered in piercing the corporate veil: (a) Undercapitalization; (b) Failure to adhere to corporate formalities; (c) Substantial intermingling of corporate and personal affairs; and (d) Use of the corporate forum to perpetuate a fraud. 8. Under the Pennsylvania system of fact pleading, Plaintiffs have failed to define the issues set forth in the Complaint the act or performance essential to pierce the corporate veil of the corporation and impose liability upon the shareholders, Kim Nelson and Mark Nelson. 9. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, LP, is a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership registered by the Department of State in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 10. Plaintiff makes no allegations against Kim Nelson or Mark Nelson other than their capacity as corporate officers of Nelson Restaurants, LP. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter the attached Order. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOT ESQUIRE Attorney for Defend t(s' NELSON RESTA NTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTER ATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTL, DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS vs. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. Attorney for Defendant(s): NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON, JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS', KIM NELSON AND MARK NELSON, MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On or about July 10, 2007, Plaintiff, Christine Andrews, filed a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas alleging that Plaintiff sustained damages as a result of a slip and fall at a McDonald's Restaurant operated by Nelson Restaurants, LP. See Exhibit "A". Defendants subsequently filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses. See Exhibit «B„ II. LEGAL ARGUMENT Plaintiff's claims are predicated on a slip and fall that occurred on or about May 3, 2005 at the Nelson Restaurants, LP restaurant operation at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, LP, is a limited partnership under the; commonwealth of Pennsylvania. See Exhibit "A", paragraph 3. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, are adult individuals. See Exhibit "A", paragraph 5. In paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint, she alleges that all Defendants were an exclusive, possession, control and management of McDonald's Hamburger Restaurant, individually and through their employees who were acting within the course and scope of their employment. See Exhibit "A", paragraph 11. At no point in time does Plaintiff make any allegations against the individual Defendants that they actually operated a restaurant, or owned the property in question. Furthermore, Defendants, in their Answer, stated under paragraph 11, the following: Denied as stated. It is admitted oily that Nelson Restaurants, LP [was] in exclusive possession and control and management of the McDonald's Hamburger restaurant location at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on May 3, 2005. When a party is injured by a corporation, no liability will be imposed against the shareholders, officers or directors absent establishment of the equitable doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. First Realvest, Inc. vs. Avery Builders, Inc., 410 Pa. Super. 572, 576, 600 A.2d 601, 603 (1991); Loeffler vs. McShane, 372 Pa. Super. 442, 448, 539 A.2d 876, 879 (1988). A strong presumption exists against piercing the corporate veil. Wedner vs. UnemployMent Compensation Board of Review, 449 Pa. 460, 464, 296 A.2d,792, 794-795 (1972); Lumax Industries v s. Aultman, 543 Pa. 38, 41-42, 669 A.2d 893, 895 (1985). Therefore, the corporate veil will be pierced only when an entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime. Good vs. Holstein, 787 A.2d 426, 430 (Pa. Super. 2001). The following factors may be considered in piercing a corporate veil: (a) Undercapitalization; (b) Failure to adhere to corporate formalities; (c) Substantial intermingling of corporate and personal affairs; and (d) Use of the corporate forum to perpetuate a fraud. Lumax Industries, 543 Pa. at 42, 669 A.2d at 895. Under the Pennsylvania system of fact pleading, the Plaintiff must define the issues, setting forth in the Complaint every act or performance essential to the end. Sevin vs. Kelshaw, 417 Pa. Super. 1, 7, 611 A.2d 1232, 1235 (1995). Here, Plaintiff does not allege any of the factors required to be present for the corporate veil to be pierced. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, LP, is undercapitalized. See Exhibit "A". Plaintiff likewise does not allege that Defendant, Nelson Restaurant, LP, failed to adhere to corporate formalities. See Exhibit "A". Plaintiff further does not allege that Defendants, Kim Nelson or Mark Nelson, substantially intermingled their personal affairs with those of Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, LP. See Exhibit "A". Lastly, Plaintiff's Complaint contains no factual allegations that Defendants, Kim Nelson or Mark Nelson, used the corporate status of Nelson Restaurants, LP to perpetrate a fraud. See Exhibit "A". In light of the lack of proper pleading in this case, the Court is warranted in granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. III. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court grant their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and enter the attached Order. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SqT AND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Pef dant(s): NELSON RES A URANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REAL TYINT4RSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTL Y DESIGNA TED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) r,ti VERIFICATION The averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing are true, based upon the signer's personal knowledge or information and belief. If the foregoing contains averments which are consistent in fact, signer has been unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true, but signer has knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief that one of them is true. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. JEFFREY C. SOXAND, ESQUIRE Dated: ,? 19 log UPLA JORDAN D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C. 2320 NORTH SECOND STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110 TELEPHONE: (717) 238-6570 FACSIMILE (717) 238-4809 EMAIL JCUNNINGHAM(C)CCLAWPC.COM ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CHRISTINE ANDREWS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. FRANCHISE REALTY NO. 07-2473 INTERSTATE CORPORATION; NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P.; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; CIVIL ACTION-LAW JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; and XYZ, INC., 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 attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if y'ou fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despuds de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin ma's aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 JORDAN D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C. 2320 NORTH SECOND STREET HARRISBURG PA 17110 TELEPHONE: (717) 238-6570 FACSIMILE (717) 2384809 EMAIL ICUNNINGHAM([7i,CCLAWPC.COM ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CHRISTINE ANDREWS, Plaintiff V. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P.; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; and XYZ, INC., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-2473 CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes your Plaintiff, Christine Andrews, by and through her counsel, Cunningham & Chernicoff, P.C., and brings this action against the Defendants, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation; Nelson Restaurants, L.P., Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson; John Doe; Jane Doe; and XYZ, Inc., and in support there of, avers the following: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Christine Andrews (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff'), is an adult individual who resides at 6170 Clearfield Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, is an Illinois corporation which has a principal office located at Chicago, Illinois. 3. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., is a Pennsylvania limited partnership which is registered with the Department of State and has a principal office located at 1016 Wansford Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendant, Mark Nelson, is an adult individual whose principal office address is in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. Defendant, Kim Nelson, is an adult individual whose principal office address is in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. FACTUAL HISTORY 6. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about May 3, 2005 at approximately 7:30 a.m. in the parking lot of the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant, located at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. At that time and place, and for all relevant time periods, Plaintiff was and is a licensed practical nurse and was and is employed at Highmark Medicare Services in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania as a Nurse Education Specialist. 8. At that time and place, Plaintiff also worked part-time as a private duty nurse for Links to Care, a nursing agency which provides private duty nursing care to individuals. 2 9. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff parked her vehicle in the Defendants' restaurant parking lot with the intention of purchasing food and drink in the Defendants' establishment. 10. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was traveling to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with a co- worker, Patty Detman, for work related reasons. 11. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, were in exclusive, possession, control and management of the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant, individually and through their employees who were acting within the course and scope of their employment by the Defendants and in furtherance of Defendants' business. 12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants' restaurant was open and doing business with members of the general public. 13. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was a business visitor to the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant. 14. Plaintiff parked her vehicle in Defendants' restaurant parking lot near the side entrance of the restaurant. 15. After Plaintiff brought the vehicle to a complete stop in Defendants' parking lot, Plaintiff's co-worker, Patty Detman, exited Plaintiff's vehicle and walked to the side entrance of Defendants' restaurant. Ms. Detman then waited by the side entrance for Plaintiff to exit the vehicle. 16. After bring her vehicle to a complete stop, turning the ignition off and removing her keys from the ignition control, Plaintiff stepped out of her vehicle and onto the parking lot of the Defendants' restaurant. 3 17. Plaintiff took approximately two (2) steps away from her vehicle parked in the parking lot of Defendants' restaurant when her left foot descended into and became lodged in a pot hole located in the parking lot. 18. When Plaintiff stepped into the pot hole with her left foot, Plaintiff s left foot twisted causing the Plaintiff to fall to the ground on her right side. 19. The Plaintiff s momentum carried her to fall from the area of the parking lot into the curb and sidewalk located to the side of the McDonald's building. At that location there was a cement cigarette ashcan on which Plaintiff hit her head. 20. Plaintiff s co-worker, Patty Detman, and another customer both came to Plaintiff and asked if she was alright. 21. Plaintiff sat on the curb at the end of the sidewalk for a few minutes and then requested aid from her co-worker and the customer to get to her vehicle as she felt woozy from hitting her head as the result of the fall. 22. With the aid of her co-worker and the customer, Plaintiff was able to stand up. 23. Plaintiff, upon standing, immediately felt pain in both her left foot and right knee. 24. With the aid of her co-worker and the customer, Plaintiff was able to go to her vehicle and sat down in the passenger side seat of the vehicle. 25. Once Plaintiff was sitting in her vehicle, Plaintiffs co-worker, Patty Detman, went into the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant and requested a manager to come out to Plaintiff's car and fill out an incident report. 26. Plaintiff waited in her vehicle approximately five (5) minutes before her co- worker and the restaurant manager came out to the parking lot. 4 27. The restaurant manager, Joshua Myers, filled out the paperwork for the incident report and asked Plaintiff "which pothole did you fall in." 28. Plaintiff told Mr. Myers that it was the pothole in the parking space next to the driver's side of the vehicle and Plaintiff s co-worker walked over to the pothole with Mr. Myers. 29. Mr. Myers eventually instructed Plaintiff to go to Holy Spirit Hospital to have her foot x-rayed. He also stated that Plaintiff was to provide Holy Spirit Hospital with her health insurance information and "they would take care of it later." 30. Plaintiff's co-worker, Patty Detman, drove Plaintiff to Holy Spirit Hospital where Plaintiff was checked in to the emergency room. 31. Plaintiff's left foot was x-rayed at the Holy Spirit Hospital, however, the emergency room doctor would not x-ray Plaintiff s neck or knee and instructed Plaintiff to return if the pain got worse. 32. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a break at her fifth metatarsal head of her left foot and a cervical neck sprain. 33. Plaintiff was fitted for a cast shoe and her left foot was placed into a cast shoe and directed to call an orthopedic doctor for treatment. 34. Plaintiff was instructed by her physician not to return to work for three (3) days. 35. By the end of June, 2005, Plaintiff had returned to her normal job duties at Highmark Medicare Services as a Nurse Education Specialist, however, she began to experience difficulty standing while performing job related presentations. 36. By the end of June, 2005, Plaintiff also began experiencing pain in her left hip, lower back and cervical neck areas. 5 37. Plaintiff continued to experience pain and in early 2006 began to treat with an orthopedic physician who recommended a conservative course of treatment. 38. Between the months of February 2006 and September 2006, Plaintiff's disability increased to the point she was walking with a limp, was still experiencing pain and began to have numbness and tingling in her left arm. 39. In October of 2006, due to Plaintiff's ongoing situation, Plaintiffs physician ordered a MRI of Plaintiff s cervical spine. 40. Upon review of the results of the MRI, Plaintiffs physician discovered bulging discs and spurs and ordered Plaintiff to undergo physical therapy for one (1) month. 41. In December of 2006, Plaintiff again returned to the Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania due to pain. Dr. Steven Wolfe advised Plaintiff at that time to under go steroid injections to the cervical spine to relieve pain. Plaintiff refused the steroid injections and began an exercise program three (3) times a week in an attempt to alleviate her situation. 42. As of the date of this pleading, Plaintiff is still experiencing pain in her back, left hip and left foot, which still tingles and aches. COUNTI Christine Andrews v. Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation 43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of Paragraph 1 through 42 as if more fully set forth herein. 6 44. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was a business invitee who was attempting to walk on a privately owned parking lot maintained in the exclusive control and maintenance of the Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, located beside the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant when she was caused to trip, stumble and fall to the ground, striking her head, by reason of the highly defective and dangerous condition of the parking lot, sustaining the injuries described herein. 45. On May 3, 2005, and for a substantial period of time prior to that date, the property was negligently and carelessly possessed, controlled and maintained by the Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, in that the parking lot of the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant was caused, permitted and allowed by the Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, to become and remain in a highly defective condition, in that it was broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, and potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and visitors such as Plaintiff. 46. The accident experienced by the Plaintiff was caused exclusively and solely by the Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation's, negligence, carelessness and recklessness in that: a. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to properly maintain the parking lot of its restaurant; b. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to properly inspect the parking lot located immediately adjacent to its restaurant for dangerous and defective conditions; 7 C. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers; d. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, caused or permitted the parking lot of its restaurant to become broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and customers to a point where it caused an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff and other business visitors and customers; e. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to make a reasonable inspection of the parking lot of its restaurant which inspection would have revealed the existence of a dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot; f. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to give warning to the public of the dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot adjacent to its restaurant or, in the alternative, failed to erect barricades or take any other safety precautions to prevent the injury to the Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; g. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, failed to repair the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed or otherwise make the parking lot to its restaurant reasonably safe for business invitees and customers; 8 h. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, allowed the parking lot to remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition after notice and opportunity to correct the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition of the parking lot had became apparent; and Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation's, failed to properly address defects in the parking lot and allowed the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business visitors and invitees to become deteriorate and remain in a broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition without taking any remedial measures so that the parking lot presented a hazard to business invitees and customers like Plaintiff who were lawfully walking upon the parking lot. 47. Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, had or should of had knowledge or notice of the existence of the aforesaid hole, depression or defect. 48. Solely as the result of Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation's, negligence, carelessness and recklessness which caused Plaintiff's fall, Plaintiff sustained serious, severe, disabling and painful injuries to her body, including but not limited to: a. Fracture at the fifth metatarsal head of the left foot; b. Cervical neck sprain; C. Persistent and reoccurring low back pain; d. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left foot; e. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her right knee; f. Persistent and reoccurring cervical neck pain; 9 g. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left hip; h. Spinal spurs; i. Bulging spinal discs; Persistent and reoccurring numbness and tingling in her left arm and left foot; and k. A severe shock to her nerves and nervous system. 49. Plaintiff has been advised and therefore avers that the aforesaid injuries, other than contusions and abrasions, are or may be permanent in nature. 50. The aforesaid injuries were suffered as a direct and proximate result of the fall sustained by Plaintiff as the direct result of the careless, reckless and negligent manner in which Defendants maintained and operated their business, the McDonald's Hamburgers restaurant located at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 51. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff, she has been forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicine, physical therapy and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health. 52. As a result of the injuries sustained and as a result of the nature of the said injuries, Plaintiff is advised and therefore avers that she will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future. 53. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has undergone, and in the future will undergo, mental and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities and loss of life's pleasure and enjoyment. 10 54. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of her injuries, has not been able to fulfill any of her employment duties as a private duty nurse for Links to Care, and has sustained a loss of earnings. 55. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has sustained a permanent impairment of her earnings power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christine Andrews, demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 together with costs and interests. COUNT II Christine Andrews v. Nelson Restaurants. L.P. 56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of Paragraph 1 through 55 as if more fully set forth herein. 57. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was a business invitee who was attempting to walk on a privately owned parking maintained in the exclusive control and maintenance of the Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., located beside the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant when she was caused to trip, stumble and fall to the ground, striking her head, by reason of the highly defective and dangerous condition of the parking lot, sustaining the injuries described herein. 58. On May 3, 2005, and for a long period of time prior to that date, the property was so negligently and carelessly possessed, controlled and maintained by the Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., that the parking lot located immediately adjacent to the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant was caused, permitted and allowed by the Defendant, Nelson 11 Restaurants, L.P., to become and remain in a highly defective condition, in that it was broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, and potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and visitors such as Plaintiff. 59. The accident experienced by the Plaintiff was caused exclusively and solely by the Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P.'s, negligence, carelessness and recklessness in that: a. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to properly maintain the parking lot of its restaurant; b. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to properly inspect the parking lot located immediately adjacent to its restaurant for dangerous and defective conditions; C. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers; d. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., caused or permitted the parking lot of its restaurant to become broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and customers to a point where it caused an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff and other business visitors and customers; e. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to make a reasonable inspection of the parking lot of its restaurant which inspection would have revealed the existence of a dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot; 12 f. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to give warning to the public of the dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot adjacent to its restaurant or, in the alternative, failed to erect barricades or take any other safety precautions to prevent the injury to the Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; g. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., failed to repair the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed or otherwise make the parking lot to its restaurant reasonably safe for business invitees and customers; h. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., allowed the parking lot to remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition after notice and opportunity to correct the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition of the parking lot had became apparent; and Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P.'s, failed to properly address defects in the parking lot and allowed the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers to become deteriorate and remain in a broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition without taking any remedial measures so that the parking lot presented a hazard to business invitees and customers like Plaintiff who were lawfully walking upon the parking lot. 60. Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., had or should of had knowledge or notice of the existence of the aforesaid hole, depression or defect. 13 61. Solely as the result of Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P.'s, negligence, carelessness and recklessness which caused Plaintiffs fall, Plaintiff sustained serious, severe, disabling and painful injuries to her body, including but not limited to: a. Fracture at the fifth metatarsal head of the left foot; b. Cervical neck sprain; C. Persistent and reoccurring low back pain; d. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left foot; e. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her right knee; f. Persistent and reoccurring cervical neck pain; g. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left hip; h. Spinal spurs; i. Bulging spinal discs; j. Persistent and reoccurring numbness and tingling in her left arm and left foot; and k. A severe shock to her nerves and nervous system. 62. Plaintiff has been advised and therefore avers that the aforesaid injuries, other than contusions and abrasions, are or may be permanent in nature. 63. The aforesaid injuries were suffered as a direct and proximate result of the fall sustained by Plaintiff as the direct result of the careless, reckless and negligent manner in which Defendants maintained and operated their business, the McDonald's Hamburgers restaurant located at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 14 64. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff, she has been forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicine, physical therapy and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health. 65. As a result of the injuries sustained and as a result of the nature of the said injuries, Plaintiff is advised and therefore avers that she will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future. 66. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has undergone, and in the future will undergo, mental and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities and loss of life's pleasure and enjoyment. 67. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of her injuries, has not been able to fulfill any of her employment duties as a private duty nurse for Links to Care, and has sustained a loss of earnings. 68. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has sustained a permanent impairment of her earnings power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christine Andrews, demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Nelson Restaurants, L.P., in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 together with costs and interests. COUNT III Christine Andrews v. Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson 69. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of Paragraph 1 through 68 as if more fully set forth herein. 15 70. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was a business invitee who was attempting to walk on a privately owned parking maintained in the exclusive control and maintenance of the Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, located beside the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant when she was caused to trip, stumble and fall to the ground, striking her head, by reason of the highly defective and dangerous condition of the parking lot, sustaining the injuries described herein. 71. On May 3, 2005, and for a long period of time prior to that date, the property was so negligently and carelessly possessed, controlled and maintained by the Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, that the parking lot located immediately adjacent to the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant was caused, permitted and allowed by the Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, to become and remain in a highly defective condition, in that it was broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, and potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and visitors such as Plaintiff. 72. The accident experienced by the Plaintiff was caused exclusively and solely by the Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson's, negligence, carelessness and recklessness in that: a. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to properly maintain the parking lot of its restaurant; b. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to properly inspect the parking lot located immediately adjacent to its restaurant for dangerous and defective conditions; C. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers; 16 d. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, caused or permitted the parking lot of its restaurant to become broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and customers to a point where it caused an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; e. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to make a reasonable inspection of the parking lot of its restaurant which inspection would have revealed the existence of a dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot; f. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to give warning to the public of the dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot adjacent to its restaurant or, in the alternative, failed to erect barricades or take any other safety precautions to prevent the injury to the Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; g. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, failed to repair the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed or otherwise make the parking lot to its restaurant reasonably safe for business invitees and customers; h. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, allowed the parking lot to remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition after notice and opportunity to correct the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition of the parking lot had became apparent; and 17 i. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson's, failed to properly address defects in the parking lot and allowed the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers to become deteriorate and remain in a broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition without taking any remedial measures so that the parking lot presented a hazard to business invitees and customers like Plaintiff who were lawfully walking upon the parking lot. 73. Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, had or should of had knowledge or notice of the existence of the aforesaid hole, depression or defect. 74. Solely as the result of Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson's, negligence, carelessness and recklessness which caused Plaintiffs fall, Plaintiff sustained serious, severe, disabling and painful injuries to her body, including but not limited to: a. Fracture at the fifth metatarsal head of the left foot; b. Cervical neck sprain; C. Persistent and reoccurring low back pain; d. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left foot; e. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her right knee; f. Persistent and reoccurring cervical neck pain; g. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left hip; h. Spinal spurs; i. Bulging spinal discs; 18 Persistent and reoccurring numbness and tingling in her left arm and left foot; and k. A severe shock to her nerves and nervous system. 75. Plaintiff has been advised and therefore avers that the aforesaid injuries, other than contusions and abrasions, are or may be permanent in nature. 76. The aforesaid injuries were suffered as a direct and proximate result of the fall sustained by Plaintiff as the direct result of the careless, reckless and negligent manner in which Defendants maintained and operated their business, the McDonald's Hamburgers restaurant located at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 77. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff, she has been forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicine, physical therapy and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health. 78. As a result of the injuries sustained and as a result of the nature of the said injuries, Plaintiff is advised and therefore avers that she will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future. 79. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has undergone, and in the future will undergo, mental and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities and loss of life's pleasure and enjoyment. 80. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of her injuries, has not been able to fulfill any of her employment duties as a private duty nurse for Links to Care, and has sustained a loss of earnings. 19 81. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has sustained a permanent impairment of her earnings power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christine Andrews, demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 together with costs and interests. COUNT IV Christine Andrews v. John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc. 82. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of Paragraph 1 through 81 as if more fully set forth herein. 83. On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff was a business invitee who was attempting to walk on a privately owned parking maintained in the exclusive control and maintenance of the Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., located beside the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant when she was caused to trip, stumble and fall to the ground, striking her head, by reason of the highly defective and dangerous condition of the parking lot, sustaining the injuries described herein. 84. On May 3, 2005, and for a long period of time prior to that date, the property was so negligently and carelessly possessed, controlled and maintained by the Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., that the parking lot located immediately adjacent to the McDonald's Hamburgers Restaurant was caused, permitted and allowed by the Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., to become and remain in a highly defective condition, in that it was broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, and potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and visitors such as Plaintiff. 20 85. The accident experienced by the Plaintiff was caused exclusively and solely by the Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc.'s, negligence, carelessness and recklessness in that: a. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to properly maintain the parking lot of its restaurant; b. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to properly inspect the parking lot located immediately adjacent to its restaurant for dangerous and defective conditions; C. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers; d. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., caused or permitted the parking lot of its restaurant to become broken, cracked, uneven, sunken, potholed and otherwise not reasonably safe for the use of business invitees and customers to a point where it caused an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; e. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to make a reasonable inspection of the parking lot of its restaurant which inspection would have revealed the existence of a dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot; 21 f. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to give warning to the public of the dangerous condition posed by the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed parking lot adjacent to its restaurant or, in the alternative, failed to erect barricades or take any other safety precautions to prevent the injury to the Plaintiff and other business invitees and customers; g. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., failed to repair the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed or otherwise make the parking lot to its restaurant reasonably safe for business invitees and customers; h. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., allowed the parking lot to remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition after notice and opportunity to correct the broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition of the parking lot had became apparent; and i. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc.'s, failed to properly address defects in the parking lot and allowed the parking lot it operated for the convenience of its business invitees and customers to become deteriorate and remain in a broken, cracked, uneven, sunken and potholed condition without taking any remedial measures so that the parking lot presented a hazard to business invitees and customers like Plaintiff who were lawfully walking upon the parking lot. 22 86. Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., had or should of had knowledge or notice of the existence of the aforesaid hole, depression or defect. 87. Solely as the result of Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc.'s, negligence, carelessness and recklessness which caused Plaintiff's fall, Plaintiff sustained serious, severe, disabling and painful injuries to her body, including but not limited to: a. Fracture at the fifth metatarsal head of the left foot; b. Cervical neck sprain; C. Persistent and reoccurring low back pain; d. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left foot; e. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her right knee; f. Persistent and reoccurring cervical neck pain; g. Persistent and reoccurring pain in her left hip; h. Spinal spurs; i. Bulging spinal discs; j. Persistent and reoccurring numbness and tingling in her left arm and left foot; and k. A severe shock to her nerves and nervous system. 88. Plaintiff has been advised and therefore avers that the aforesaid injuries, other than contusions and abrasions, are or may be permanent in nature. 23 89. The aforesaid injuries were suffered as a direct and proximate result of the fall sustained by Plaintiff as the direct result of the careless, reckless and negligent manner in which Defendants maintained and operated their business, the McDonald's Hamburgers restaurant located at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 90. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff, she has been forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicine, physical therapy and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health. 91. As a result of the injuries sustained and as a result of the nature of the said injuries, Plaintiff is advised and therefore avers that she will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future. 92. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has undergone, and in the future will undergo, mental and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities and loss of life's pleasure and enjoyment. 93. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of her injuries, has not been able to fulfill any of her employment duties as a private duty nurse for Links to Care, and has sustained a loss of earnings. 94. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has sustained a permanent impairment of her earnings power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefore. 24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christine Andrews, demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ, Inc., in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 together with costs and interests. Respectfully submitted, CUNNINGHAM & CJ4F?RNICOFF, P.C. Date: July, 2007 By: 1drdan 6 Winningham, Esquire PA Supreme Court I.D. No. 23144 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-6570 Attorneys for Plaintiff F. WomelAHEW17TDOCSA-CIANDREWSICOMPLAINT. wpd 25 VERIFICATION The undersigned verifies that the statements contained in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. at,ft?lr-ltl 6L'4tc??' Christine Andrews Dated: 2ZI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that on th day of July, 2007, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing in the captioned matter, by placing the same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Jeffrey C. Sotland, Esquire Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers, LLP 1528 Walnut Street 22°a Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 gels . Hewi Legal Secretary MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 I hereby certify that I have served a copy of this paper upon all other parties or their attorney by: -&Regular First Class Mail _ Certified Mail Other Jeffrey C. Sotland, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) CHRISTINE ANDREWS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. r? o FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE NO. 2473-2007 . CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND t _ 6 ?r r ,. KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; - XYZ, INC. ? ri ?-5 M ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, NELSON RE STAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS _ MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INQTO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF, CHRISTINE ANDREWS 1. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. It is previously admitted that Mark Nelson is an adult individual who, at all times hereto, was a partner in Nelson Restaurants, LP. 5. Denied. It is previously admitted that Kim Nelson is an adult individual who, at all times hereto, was a partner in Nelson Restaurants, LP. 6. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 7. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 8. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 9. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 10. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 11. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that Nelson Restaurants, LP were in exclusive possession and control and management of the McDonald's Hamburger restaurant location at 425 North Enola Road, Marysville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on May 3, 2005. The remaining allegations in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff s Complaint are denied. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 14. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 15. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 16. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 17. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 18. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 19. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 20. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 21. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 22. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 23. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 24. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 25. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 26. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 27. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 28. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 29. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Mr. Meyers has the authority to bind Defendants with regard to any financial obligation. 30. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 31. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 32. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 33. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 34. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 35. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 36. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 37. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 38. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 39. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 40. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 41. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 42. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand Judgment in its favor. COUNTI 43. Answering Defendant incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 42 of its Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 44. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that the location where Plaintiff allegedly fell was under the exclusive control and maintenance of Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation. 45. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 46. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 47. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 48. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 49. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 50. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 51. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 52. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of dial, if material. 53. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 54. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 55. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand Judgment in its favor. COUNT II 56. Answering Defendant incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 55 of its Answer to the Plaintiff s Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 57. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. By way of further response, it is admitted that Nelson Restaurants, LP was in the exclusive control and possession of the property where Plaintiff allegedly fell at the time of the incident. 59. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 59. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 60. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 61. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 62. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 63. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 64. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 65. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 66. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 67. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 68. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand Judgment in its favor. COUNT III 69. Answering Defendant incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 68 of its Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 70. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. By way of further response, it is physically denied that Defendants Mark Nelson or Kim Nelson were in exclusive control and maintenance of the property where Plaintiff allegedly fell. 71. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 72. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 73. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 74. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 75. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 76. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant denies that it was careless, reckless and/or negligent at any time material or relevant to the instant cause of action and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 77. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 78. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 79. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 80. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. 81. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. To the extent, however, that a responsive pleading is required, answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if material. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand Judgment in its favor. COUNT IV 82. Answering Defendant incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 81 of its Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 83. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 84. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 85. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 86. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 87. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 88. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 89. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 90. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 91. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 92. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 93. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. 94. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs are directed to other parties and not to the answering Defendant and that no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand Judgment in its favor. MINTZER, SAROWTTZ, ZEDS, LEDVA & MEYERS ,. BY: C ?. JEFFREY C. SOTL?r - , ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANMISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS vs. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. Attorney for Defendant(s): NELSONRESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REAL TY INTERS TA TE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of the within Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was made on the below noted date to the below-named counsel by United States First-Class Mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C. 2320 North Second Street P.O. Box 60457 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457 MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTL , ESQUIRE Attorney for Defend (s): NELSONRESTA INTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REAL TY INTERSTA TE CORPORATION (INCORRECTL Y DESIGNA TED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE,- DATE: XYZ, INC.) j0 ? q 0 C"? -V-: ; - f..;'. ; ' ?' c-v; c- - :--f S -a-t .. . • 'r.> MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22°d Floor, 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 Re: Subpoena requests to Adventure, Inc., Highmark Medical Services, Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania, Tristan Associates East, Quantum Imaging Therapeutic Associates, DJ Orthopedics, LLC, Randy Stevens Family Footcare CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, defendant certifies that: (1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoenas with a copy of the subpoenas attached thereto were mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoenas are sought to be served, (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoenas, are attached to this certificate, (3) no objection to the subpoenas have been received, and (4) the subpoenas which will be served are identical to the subpoenas which are attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoenas. Dated December 20, 2007 MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: e , , JEFI~REY C.'SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 Re: Subpoena requests to Adventure, Inc., Highmark Medical Services, Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania, Tristan Associates East, Quantum Imaging Therapeutic Associates, DJ Orthopedics, LLC, Randy Stevens Family Footcare CHRISTINE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. NO. 2473-2007 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA(S) TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 To: JORDAN D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C. 2320 NORTH SECOND STREET P.O. BOX 60457 HARRISBURG, PA 17106-0457 Defendant, intends to serve a subpoena(s) identical to the one that is/are attached to this Notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena(s). If no objection is made the subpoena(s) may be served. Dated: October 29, 2007 MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: e JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22" a Floor, 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Adventure. Inc. d/b/a Links2Care Within twenty (20) days after service of the subpoena you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all employment records pertaining to: Christine Andrews, 6170 Clearfield Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111, DOB: 9/1/53, SS# 295-42-1123, DOA: 5/3/05 at Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, 22nd Floor, 1528 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: MINTZER, SAROWITZ,/ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: 2? e _ jl? JEFFREY C.' SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division DATE: Deputy SEAL OF THE COURT MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22" a Floor, 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Hiiihmark Medical Services Within twenty (20) days after service of the subpoena you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all employment records pertaining to: Christine Andrews, Christine Andrews, 6170 Clearfield Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111, DOB: 9/1/53, SS# 295-42-1123, DOA: 5/3/05 at Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, 22nd Floor, 1528 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: DATE: SEAL OF THE COURT BY: C JE REY C. OTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION BY THE COURT: Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22" a Floor, 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania Within twenty (20) days after service of the subpoena you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all medical records, reports, films and bills pertaining to: Christine Andrews, 6170 Clearfield Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111, DOB: 9/l/53, SS# 295-42-1123, DOA: 5/3/05 at Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, 22nd Floor, 1528 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: BY: Qtjj'.'-? e. DATE: SEAL OF THE COURT JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 2f d Floor, 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania Within twenty (20) days after service of the subpoena you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all medical records, reports, films and bills pertaining to: Christine Andrews, 6170 Clearfield Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111, DOB: 9/1/53, SS# 295-42-1123, DOA: 5/3/05 at Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, 22nd Floor, 1528 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: DATE: SEAL OF THE COURT BY: 94Af. i?g Ldgef:g? JEFF C. OTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION BY THE COURT: Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE. CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22" a Floor, 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Tristan Associates East Within twenty (20) days after service of the subpoena you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all medical records, reports, films and bills pertaining to: Christine Andrews, 6170 Clearfield Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111, DOB: 9/1/53, SS# 295-42-1123, DOA: 5/3/05 at Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, 22nd Floor, 1528 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: DATE: SEAL OF THE COURT BY: L JEFFREY C. OTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION BY THE COURT: Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 2f d Floor, 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Quantum Imaging Therapeutic Associates Within twenty (20) days after service of the subpoena you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all medical records, reports, films and bills pertaining to: Christine Andrews, 6170 Clearfield Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111, DOB: 9/1/53, SS# 295-42-1123, DOA: 5/3/05 at Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, 22nd Floor, 1528 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: DATE: MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFF Y C. OTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division SEAL OF THE COURT Deputy MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22" a Floor, 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: 11.1?iL.... e. 4&r- ? SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: DJ Orthopedics, LLC Within twenty (20) days after service of the subpoena you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all medical records, reports, films and bills pertaining to: Christine Andrews, 6170 Clearfield Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111, DOB: 9/1/53, SS# 295-42-1123, DOA: 5/3/05 at Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, 22nd Floor, 1528 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: DATE: SEAL OF THE COURT JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION BY THE COURT: Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 2V d Floor, 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Randy Stevens Family Footcare Within twenty (20) days after service of the subpoena you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all medical records, reports, films and bills pertaining to: Christine Andrews, 6170 Clearfield Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111, DOB: 9/1/53, SS# 295-42-1123, DOA: 5/3/05 at Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, 22nd Floor, 1528 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: C 4&42-4? JEFF C. S TLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION BY THE COURT: DATE: This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: SEAL OF THE COURT Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy C') C' -T `G X37 C? .? O C!i q z ID, C7 ??T1 C..7 -C MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22"a Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 ntusl lNE ANDREWS vs. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. Attorney for Defendant(s): NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw Defendants', Mark Nelson and Kim Nelson, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed on or about October 22, 2007 in the above-captioned matter. MINTZER, SAR TZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: T?rrr ?l.il' u l.. 6v I LAND, ESQUIRE Atto for Defendant(s): NEL N RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE RE Y INTERSTATE CORPORATION (IN RRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) 363250 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of the within Praecipe to Withdraw Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed on or about October 22, 2007 was made on the below noted date to the below-named counsel by United States First-Class Mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C. 2320 North Second Street P.O. Box 60457 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457 MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOIL a?ND ,ESQUIRE Attorney for Defe ant(s): NELSON RES AURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INT RSTATE CORPORATION (INCORREC LY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON D KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) Dated: January 14, 2008 "' ._Cry fT' __... ? .. . 1. cyl MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 68958 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 7357200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND 1?.EtANCHTSE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATTON (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs, FRANCI[ISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORA'T'ION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC:. NO, 2473-2007 STIPULATION NOW, the 31 ? day of , 2007, upon agreement of counsel IT IS HEREBY AGREED, that Defendants, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, AND XYZ, INC. are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Count 4 of Plaintiff s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and that Defendants MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Count 3 of Plaintilt's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; FURTIMR, if it should later be determined that DEFENDANTS, MARK NELSON or KIM NELSON have independent negligence other than as Officers of the Corporation, they will be allowed to be joined back into the litigation regardless as to the whether the statute of limitations has tolled. MiNTZER, S OWITZ, ZRRIS, LEDVA & YERS AY: ANDREWS CUNNINGHAM. ESQUIRE Plaintiff, CHRISTINE BY, JF`REX _ SOTLAND, ESQUIRE ttorne or Defendants, NELSON REST RANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE RE Y INTERSTATE CORPORATION (IN RRECTLY DESIGNATED AS NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYG, INC.) BY ME COURT: J. ? ? ;, _. ?'; ? ^ t`1 <-- ? --; "? ?y 4-, ?.?- ^?: ?C'^3 'rw `-- .? iY -. ?,+ e 1. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY. JEFFREY C. SOTLAND, ESQUIRE Attorney I.U. No. 68958 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 7357200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS vs. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE,; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. 23 zoos Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P_ AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE, CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DUE,; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 STIPULATION NOW, the 1_ day 2007, upon agreement of counsel IT IS 1 iEREBY AGREED, that Defendants, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, AND XYZ, INC. are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Count 4 of Plaintiff s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and that Defendants MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Count 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; FURTHER, ifit should later be determined that DEFENDANTS, MARK NELSON or KIM NELSON have independent negligence other than as Officers of the Corporation, they will be allowed to be joined back into the litigation regardless as to the whether the statute of limitations has tollcd. %IN BY: J ?DANA CUNNINGHAM. ESQUIRE 'tome or Plaintiff, CHRISTINE ANDREWS MINTZER, S OWITZ, ZRRIS, LEDVA & YERS B Y: 60TLAND, ESQUIRE Defendants, NELSON NTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE YRF TERSTATE CORPORATION TL Y DESIGNATED AS SON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYL, INC.) BY THE; COURT: J. ? a ?MM C ? r .7L r c r -1-t _.a ..rv --i (l MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: CHRISTOPHER J. POULOS, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 91023 Centre Square, West Tower 1500 Market Street, Suite 4100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS Attorney for Defendants, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. and FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (Incorrectly designated as MARK NELSON and KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; et al NO. 2473-2007 WITHDRAW OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of defendants, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. and FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (Incorrectly designated as MARK NELSON and KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.), in the within action. MINTZER, SAROWI , ZE S, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: JEFFREY C. , ESQUIRE Attorney for Def ants, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. and FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (Incorrectly designated as MARK NELSON and KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendants, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. and FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (Incorrectly designated as MARK NELSON and KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.), in the within action. MINTZER, S OWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: C OP J. PO LOS, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants, NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. and FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (Incorrectly designated as MARK NELSON and KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) P'o czm rn 1-71 co ; MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: CHRISTOPHER J. POULOS, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 91023 Centre Square, West Tower 1500 Market Street, Suite 4100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 Re: Subpoena request to Hershey Medical Center STINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON and KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. and FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (Incorrectly designated as MARK NELSON and KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, 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 parry 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 this 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. Dated February 11, 2009 MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: t - aae4 CHRISTOPHER J. PO OS, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. and FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (Incorrectly designated as MARK NELSON and KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: LANE E. BRODY, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 202295 22" d Floor, 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA(S) TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 To: JORDAN D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C. 2320 NORTH SECOND STREET P.O. BOX 60457 HARRISBURG, PA 17106-0457 Defendant, intends to serve a subpoena(s) identical to the one that is/are attached Notice Yo„ have twenty (2-0) d= from the date listed below in which to file of to this record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena(s). If no objection is made the subpoena(s) may be served. Dated: February 8, 2008 MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: X&ItC_ 9. Awyz-," LANE E. BRODY, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) ._. MINTZER., SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: LANE E. BRODY, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 202295 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 006860.000022 CHRISTINE ANDREWS VS. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC. Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MARK NELSON AND KIM NELSON; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYZ, INC.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2473-2007 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Hershey Medical Center Ledva & Meyers, 22nd Floor, 1528 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. Within twenty (20) days after service of the subpoena you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all medical records, reports, films and bills pertaining to: Christine Andrews, 6170 Clearfield Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111, DOB: 9/1/53, SS# 295-42-1123 at Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS BY: x 44--t- E • &ee _ LANE E. BRODY, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant(s), NELSON RESTAURANTS, ET AL DATE: BY THE COURT: SEAL OF THE COURT JOSEPH H. EVERS, PROTHONOTARY T , I v "' m.µ1 l f JORDAN D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C. 2320 NORTH SECOND STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110 TELEPHONE: (717) 238-6570 FACSIMILE: (717) 238-4809 EMAIL: JCUNNINGHAM(a)CCLAWPC.COM ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CHRISTINE ANDREWS, Plaintiff V. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION; and NELSON RESTAURANTS, L.P. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-2473 CIVIL ACTION-LAW n _ A) C f ?r w cn a? PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please mark the above-captioned matter as settled and discontinued. Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 20, 2010 By: CUNNINGHAM & C?H-?ERNICOFF, P.C. Esquire PA I.D. No. 23144 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6570 Attorneys for Plaintiff F:\IIome\AHEWITT?DOCSW-CWNDREWS\PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE.wpd CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that on the day of August, 2010, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing in the captioned matter, by placing the same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Stephen Ledva, Jr., Esquire Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers, LLP 1528 Walnut Street 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Angela L. Hewitt Legal Assistant