Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-2830 SPERO T. LAPPAS, ESQUIRE SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. 2080 LINGLESTOWN ROAD SUITE 201 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17110 (717) 540-9170 ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY RICHARD LOPEZ Plaintiff Orl- a$30 Ci v11 Term. v. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., MECHANICSBURG GFINVESTORS L.P., MECHANICSBURG GFINVESTORS CO., : Jury Trial Demanded CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. KENNETH KOCHENOUR, 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 SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWNAND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, EsQUixE PAGE I A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. COURT ADMINISTRATOR FOURTH FLOOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PA. 17013 717-240-6200 AVISO LISTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN COUTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas qua se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion 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 qua si usted falla de tomar accion 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 reclamation o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI LISTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI LISTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE CLUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS DUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS CLUE CUALIFICAN. COURT ADMINISTRATOR FOURTH FLOOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PA. 17013 717-240-6200 SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, EsQuIRE PAGE 2 SPERO T. LAPPAS, ESQUIRE SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. 2080 LINGLESTOWN ROAD SUITE 201 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17110 (717) 540-9170 ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY RICHARD LOPEZ, Plaintiff U. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY, CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., MECHANICSBURG GFINVESTORS L.P., MECHANICSBURG GFINVESTORS CO., CENTRAL PENNSYLVANL4 HOSPITALITY, INC. KENNETHKOCHENOUR, Defendants COMPLAINT 01- a$3 Ci vi ( l erm Jury Trial Demanded PARTIES AND PRELIMINAR Y A VERMENTS 1. Plaintiff is an adult individual. 2. The Defendant Kenneth Kochenour is an adult individual, and the defendants CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS L.P., MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS CO., SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWNAND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, EsQurRE PAGE 3 CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC., are business entities existing and organized under the laws of this Commonwealth. These Defendants will be hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Holiday Inn Defendants." These defendants had (individually, jointly, severally, and/or in combination one with the others) ownership, maintenance, supervision, operational, and other control of business enterprises, restaurants, taverns, hotels, and public eating and drinking places known inter alia as "the Mechanicsburg Holiday Inn" or "the Holiday Inn" located at or around 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055, at all times relevant to the causes of action and facts stated in this Complaint. 3. These places of business offer lodging, food, drink, and entertainment to members of the general public, and did so at all times relevant to the causes of action and facts stated in this Complaint. 4. At all times material to this cause of action and for all acts, conduct and omissions described in this Complaint or otherwise material and relevant to the cause of action stated herein, the Defendants acted through agents and servants for whose acts, conduct and omissions each SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, EsQuiRE PAGE 4 Defendant is responsible and liable. 5. All such agents and servants of Defendants acted within the course and scope of their employment with respect to all acts, conduct and omissions described or referred to in this Complaint or otherwise relevant to this cause of action. 6. The Defendant DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY is an adult individual. FACTUAL AVERMENTS 7. On MAY 29, 2006, the Plaintiff was a business invitee at the premises of the Holiday Inn Defendants. 8. While there, he was assaulted by Defendant BEARDSLEY who struck him in the head. 9. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of this incident, the Plaintiff has suffered serious injuries and damages including the following, some or all of which are or may be continuing or permanent in nature: a. The Plaintiff sustained physical injuries, damages, and losses SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWNAND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, ESQUIRE PAGE 5 including physical and mental pain and suffering. b. The Plaintiff incurred medical expenses and other expenses relating to the incident. C. The Plaintiff lost earnings and/or earning capacity. d. The Plaintiff was required to undergo medical care and treatment. e. The Plaintiff was required to incur costs and/or to expend money on medical care, health care, and incidental expenses. f. The Plaintiff was for a time partially and/or permanently disabled. g. The Plaintiff suffered grave and serious physical injuries including without limitation injuries to the head. h. The Plaintiff suffered great and severe physical and emotional pain, suffering, and upset. i. The Plaintiff has been prevented from taking part in and performing the activities of employment, home life, personal life, and social and recreational activities as he had done prior to the incident. SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, ESQUIRE PAGE 6 j. The Plaintiff has been forced to undergo great and substantial inconvenience, aggravation, and loss of life's pleasures. k. The Plaintiff was required to undergo medical and health care and treatment and incur expenses therefor from inter alia the following providers of medical and health care: Harrisburg Hospital. 10. All of the Plaintiffs injuries and damages as stated in this Complaint are the direct, legal, and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and/or willful or intentional misconduct of Defendant BEARDSLEY as stated above. 11. All of the Plaintiffs injuries and damages are the direct, legal, and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and/or willful or intentional misconduct of the Holiday Inn Defendants (or one or more of them acting in concert with one another) in that inter aha: a. Those Defendants failed to have their premises under proper maintenance and control. SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, ESQUIRE PAGE 7 b. Those Defendants failed to make necessary observations and inspections and failed to correct dangerous conditions within their business premises. C. Those Defendants failed to take reasonable, adequate and sufficient care to prevent assaultive behavior by patrons within their premises. d. Those Defendants failed to take reasonable, adequate and sufficient care to prevent assaults upon their patrons and invitees. e. Those Defendants failed to take reasonable, adequate and sufficient care to provide of proper security within their premises. f. Those Defendants failed to take reasonable, adequate and sufficient care to respond to breaches of the peace within their premises. g. Those Defendants failed to take reasonable, adequate and sufficient care to provide proper and sufficient staff to respond adequately and appropriately to breaches of the SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWNAND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, ESQUIRE PAGE 8 peace within their premises. h. Those Defendants failed to provide their customers and invitees with a safe place in which to obtain the food, drink, and entertainment which the Holiday Inn Defendants offered to members of the general public and to this Plaintiff in particular. i. Those Defendants violated the law of this Commonwealth by serving a visibly intoxicated patron. j. Those Defendants failed to have adequate security measures in place on the night in question to protect their business invitees from assaultive behavior of other patrons. k. Those Defendants failed to have in place adequate measures, practices, procedures, and policies to prevent the sale of alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons. 1. Those Defendants failed to provide adequate warning to the Plaintiff that by visiting the Holiday Inn he was subject to suffer the harm which he eventually did sustain. m. Those Defendants failed to take adequate and reasonable SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN AND CALHOON, P. C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, EsQvntE PAGE 9 precautions against the likelihood that third parties would cause harm to their business invitees. n. Those Defendants are charged with the knowledge that there was a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons in general that was likely to endanger the safety of business invitees such as the Plaintiff. 15. In the alternative, all Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries that he sustained. COUNT 1- PLAINTIFF v. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY 16. All other paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated into this Count. 17. Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against this Defendant in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rules, plus punitive damages, plus allowable interest and costs, plus such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, EsQuIRE PAGE 10 COUNT 2 - PLAINTIFF v. CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. 18. All other paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated into this Count. Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against this Defendant in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rules, plus punitive damages, plus allowable interest and costs, plus such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT 3 - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS L.P. 19. All other paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated into this Count. Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against this Defendant in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rules, plus punitive damages, plus allowable interest and costs, plus such other SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, ESQUIRE PAGE 11 relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT 4 - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS CO. 20. All other paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated into this Count. Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against this Defendant in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rules, plus punitive damages, plus allowable interest and costs, plus such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT 5 - PLAINTIFF v. CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. 21. All other paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated into this Count. Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against this Defendant in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rules, plus SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWNAND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, EsQvrRE PAGE 12 punitive damages, plus allowable interest and costs, plus such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT 6 - PLAINTIFF v. KENNETH KOCHENOUR 22. All other paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated into this Count. Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against this Defendant in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rules, plus punitive damages, plus allowable interest and costs, plus such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT 7 - PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS 23. All other paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated into this count by reference thereto. 24. The Plaintiff's injuries, losses, and damages as stated elsewhere in this Complaint are the joint and several responsibility of SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, EsQaiRE PAGE 13 the defendants named in the captions of this Complaint. Wherefore, this Plaintiff requests that this court enter judgment in his favor and against all defendants jointly and severally in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rules, plus punitive damages, plus allowable interest and costs, plus such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, SERRATELLI, SCHIF WNAND CALHOON, P.C. By. SPER PAS, EsQUiRE PA. SUPREME CT. ID No. 25745 2080 LINGLESTOWN ROAD, SUITE 201 HARRISBURG, PA 17110-9670 (717) 540-9170 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. SPERO T. LAPPAS, ESQUIRE PAGE 14 VERIFICATION BASED UPON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY COUNSEL 1. I verify that the averments in the foregoing COMPLAINT are based upon the information which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. 2. The language of this COMPLAINT is that of counsel and is not mine. 3. I have read the COMPLAINT and, to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. 4. To the extent that the contents of the COMPLAINT are that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. 5. I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications made to authorities. c a T, Z ;r 6n y? , r ?a 4 t U1 4 c a ?fi WCORMICK & PRIORS, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorney ID No: 38987/200815 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriore&xnccormickpriore.com bcallahannmccormickpriore.com RICHARD LOPEZ V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR Attorneys for defendants, Kenneth Kochenour and Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of defendants, Kenneth Kochenour and Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc., in the above-captioned matter. McCORMICK RE, P.C BY: Phili 2.allahan, riore, squire BriaEsquire Atto for Defendants, Kenneth Kochenour and Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. Dated: b , ? ? • 8 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW c_3 }C a ra o WCORMICK & PRIORS, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorney ID No: 38987/200815 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: pnriore e,mccormickpriore.com bcallahangmccormickpriore.com RICHARD LOPEZ V. Attorneys for defendants, Kenneth Kochenour and Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants, Kenneth Kochenour and Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc., by the undersigned attorneys, hereby request a trial by a jury of twelve (12) members plus two alternates; trial to proceed as long as there are twelve (12) members available. BY: Philip D riore, Esquire Brian . Callahan, Esquire Atto eys for Defendants, qq Kenneth Kochenour and Dated: Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW N C O fit i== i pia ? f i WCORMICK & PRIORS, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorney ID No: 38987/200815 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: pprioreaa,mccormickprriore.com bcallahana,mccormickpriore.com Attorneys for defendants, Kenneth Kochenour, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc., Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP and Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company RICHARD LOPEZ V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP and Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company, in the above-captioned matter. WCORMICK & PRIOR E, P.C. BY: / /-,, 1 1V Philip D. Prior6,T$s4uire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, Kenneth Kochenour, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc., Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP and Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company Dated: MCCORMCK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorney ID No: 38987/200815 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: p rioren,mccormickpriore.com bcal lahan(a,mccormickpriore.com RICHARD LOPEZ V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR Attorneys for defendants, Kenneth Kochenour, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc., Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP and Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP and Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company, by the undersigned attorneys, hereby request a trial by a jury of twelve (12) members plus two alternates; trial to proceed as long as there are twelve (12) BY: Brian J. )Callahan, Esquire Attorne64 for Defendants, Kenneth Kochenour, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc., Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP and Dated: Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAw CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Brian J. Callahan, Esquire, hereby certify that on this / e day of J&&-e., 2007, I did cause a true and correct copy of the Entry of Appearance and Demand for Jury Trial, to be forwarded by first-class United States mail to counsel, addressed as follows: Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 Attorney for plaintiff MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW a C ? t°1 ??? t 'i is ? --? ...-i t,_ C?? .. -,-z ; _ - ?, ?' y , .. 1 ?.? ?r --_., ?` SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR (-*ASE NO: 2007-02830 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LOPEZ RICHARD VS BEARDSLEY DOUGLAS ET AL SHARON LANTZ Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon BEARDSLEY DOUGLAS the DEFENDANT at 5401 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to DAN RICHARDSON, GENERAL MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. at 1430:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of May , 2007 Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Postage Surcharge 18.00 13.44 .92 10.00 .00 So Answers: ?r R. Thomas Kline y/3ilo? 42.36 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , 05/17/2007 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN CAL By. A jL Deputy Sheriff A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-02830 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LOPEZ RICHARD VS BEARDSLEY DOUGLAS ET AL SHARON LANTZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon CARLISLE INVESTORS INC the DEFENDANT at 1430:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of May , 2007 at 5401 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to DAN RICHARDSON, GENERAL MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 00 S/?0,r. 1 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 05/17/2007 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN CAL By. eputy Sheriff A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR • CASE NO: 2007-02830 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LOPEZ RICHARD VS BEARDSLEY DOUGLAS ET AL SHARON LANTZ Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS LP the DEFENDANT , at 1430:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of May , 2007 at 5401 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 DAN RICHARDSON, GENERAL by handing to MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge ?1J31/0 9 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 V 16.00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 05/17/2007 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN CAL By: eputy Sheriff A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-02830 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LOPEZ RICHARD VS BEARDSLEY DOUGLAS ET AL SHARON LANTZ Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS CO DEFENDANT the at 1430:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of May , 2007 at 5401 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to DAN RICHARDSON, GENERAL MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing 6.00 Service Affidavit .00 .00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 J 16.00 05/17/2007 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN CAL Sworn and Subscibed to By: before me this day eputy Sheriff of A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-02830 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LOPEZ RICHARD VS BEARDSLEY DOUGLAS ET AL SHARON LANTZ Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY INC was served upon DEFENDANT the at 1430:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of May , 2007 at 5401 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 DAN RICHARDSON, GENERAL by handing to MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 6-1 ? 1(o p c?, 16.00- Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 05/17/2007 SERRATELLI SCHIFF BROWN CAL By. Deputy Sheriff A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-02830 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LOPEZ RICHARD VS BEARDSLEY DOUGLAS ET AL SHARON LANTZ Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE KOCHENOUR KENNETH was served upon the DEFENDANT , at 1430:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of May , 2007 at 5401 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 DAN RICHARDSON by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline nn 16.00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , 05/17/2007 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN CAL By: h !/ /!ten e l Deputy Sherif A. D. To Plaintiff: You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) within twenty (20) days from service hereof or judgment may be entered against ygA. By: WCORMICK & PRIORS, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorney ID No: 38987/200815 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: pprioreamccormickpriore.com bcallahana,mccormickpriore.com RICHARD LOPEZ V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR Pliilip . Priore; Esquire Bri. Callahan, Esquire A eys for defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. Attorneys for Defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa R C P 22520 OF DEFENDANT,MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS CO. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW Defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co., by and through its attorneys, McCormick & Priore, hereby respond to the averments contained in plaintiff s Complaint in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2. Denied. While Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. did at one time exist as a business entity organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. became Mechanicsburg GF Investors, L.P. in 1997, and as such, no longer indpendently exists. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. specifically denies that it owned, maintained, controlled, supervised or operated the Holiday Inn referenced in plaintiff s Complaint at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA. The remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiff s Complaint are directed to parties other than Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co., and therefore no response thereto is required. The remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 3. Denied. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. specifically denies that it offered lodging, food, drink and entertainment to members of the general public at any time material hereto. The averments contained in this paragraph ofplaintiff s Complaint are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (e). 4. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 5. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 6 of plaintiffs Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. FACTUAL AVERMENTS 7. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiffs Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiffs Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). MCCORM1CK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 9 (a)-(k). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co., after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. specifically denies that it was negligent, reckless and/or careless at any time material hereto. Additionally, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. specifically denies that any act or omission by it caused or contributed to plaintiffs alleged damages and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 11 (a)-(n). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 11 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. specifically denies that it was negligent, reckless or careless at any time material hereto. Additionally, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. specifically denies that any act or omission by it caused or contributed to plaintiffs alleged damages and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 15 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 15 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). COUNT I - PLAINTIFF v. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY 16 (sic). Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-15 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. 17 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 17 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint appear to be directed to a party other than Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. These averments are, therefore, deemed denied and no further response is required. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT II - PLAINTIFF v. CARLISLE INVESTORS. INC. 18 (sic). MechanicsburgGF Investors Co. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-17 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAw COUNT III PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS. LP 19 (sic). Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. hereby incorporates byreference its answers to paragraphs 1-18 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT IV - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY 20 (sic). Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-19 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT V - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS LP 21 (sic). Denied. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-20 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT VI - PLAINTIFF v. KENNETH KOCHENOUR 22 (sic). Denied. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-21 (sic) of plaintiff s Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT VII - PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS 23 (sic). MechanicsburgGF Investors Co. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-22 (sic) of plaintiff s Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. 24 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 24 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. specifically denies that it is in any way responsible for plaintiff s alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. NEW MATTER 25. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 26. Plaintiff s claims may be barred and/or limited by the Comparative Negligence Act, the terms and provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference. 27. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. owed no duty to plaintiff as asserted in plaintiffs Complaint. 28. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. breached no duty allegedly owed to plaintiff. 29. No act or omission attributable to Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. caused or was a substantial factor in causing any damages or losses which plaintiff complains. 30. Plaintiff suffered no compensable damages and/or losses for which Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. can be liable. 31. Plaintiff suffered no compensable injuries, damages or losses as a result of the incident described in plaintiffs Complaint. 32. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in plaintiff s Complaint, which is denied, then said damages and/or losses were caused by the acts and/or omissions of other individuals over whom Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. had no control or duty to control. 33. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in plaintiff s Complaint, which is denied, then said damages or losses were caused by the acts and/or omissions of the plaintiff. 34. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. is not and cannot be liable for punitive damages under the applicable law of Pennsylvania. 35. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. did not engage in outrageous conduct so as to MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 36. The conduct of co-defendant, Douglas Beardsley, was an unforeseeable, intentional and/or criminal act of a third party for which no liability can be imposed on Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. . 37. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, as amended or adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on its face and as applied, is violative of the Pennsylvania Constitution, United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, as it imposes a chilling effect upon Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. 's exercise of its constitutional rights and imposes a penalty on Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. for delays not attributable to it. 38. The Collateral Source Rule does not apply such that if the plaintiff should be awarded money damages by a jury, such a possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total number of any and all payments that plaintiff has received from any and all collateral sources, for any damages plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 39. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. hereby incorporates by reference and asserts herein all defenses available to it under Pennsylvania law relating to punitive damages. 40. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. hereby incorporates by reference and asserts herein all defenses available to it under Pennsylvania law relating to liability for the criminal/intentional conduct of third parties. 41. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. did not own, possess or control the real estate referenced in plaintiff's Complaint. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW by the court. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) AGAINST DEFENDANT, DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY 42. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d), Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. hereby crossclaims against defendant, Douglas Beardsley, hereinafter referred to as "Beardsley". 43. Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. hereby incorporates by reference its New Matter and answers to paragraphs 1-24 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein at length. 44. Solely for the purposes of this Crossclaim, the averments of plaintiff's Complaint directed to Beardsley are hereby incorporated by reference, without adoption or admission, as though fully set forth herein at length. 45. In the event that a monetary award is entered in favor of plaintiff and against Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. , such a possibility being specifically denied, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. alleges that Beardsley is alone liable to plaintiff, or is liable over to Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co., and/or is jointly and/or severally liable with Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. for contribution and/or indemnity on the causes of action set forth in plaintiffs Complaint for any such amount. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court, and that in the event Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. is held liable in any amount, MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW such a possibility being strictly denied, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. be awarded judgment against Douglas Beardsley for contribution and/or indemnity. McCORMICK & PRIORS, P.C. BY: Philip Dore, Esquire Brian J. lahan, Esquire Attorneys for defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. Dated: k. Z47 " l MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Daniel Richardson hereby states that he is an authorized representative of Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co. , defendant herein, and verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) to Plaintiff s Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DANIEL RICHARDSON Dated: MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAw CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Brian J. Callahan, Esquire, hereby certify that on thi464ay of ?fw? 2007, I did cause a true and correct copy of the Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaim Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) of Defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co., to be forwarded by first-class United States mail to counsel, addressed as follows: Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 Attorney for plaintiff (2'5 ) Brian J. Callahan, Esq ire MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW _:? --> r _ ?7 ? .. ? ?'i .' C? f,? "c3 ;'? `7 ?? ? `? L,3 ??!? ?4 C,.) r, .,.... ?G To Plaintiff: You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a;. gment may be entered against you. By: McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorney ID No: 38987/200815 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriorenmccormickpriore.com bcallahanna,mccormicknriore.com RICHARD LOPEZ V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR Philip pore, Esquire Brian . allahan, Esquire Attorneys for defendants, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. Attorneys for Defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) OF DEFENDANT, CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY. INC. MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. ("CPH"), by and through its attorneys, McCormick & Priore, hereby respond to the averments contained in plaintiffs Complaint in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, CPH does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. is a business entity organized under the laws of Pennsylvania. CPH specifically denies that it owned the Holiday Inn at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA. Rather, CPH leased the property from Mechanicsburg GF Investors, L.P. The remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiff s Complaint are directed parties other than CPH, and therefore no response is required. The remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiff's Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 3. Denied as stated. The property located at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 was leased by CPH. CPH. operated a hotel on the property, which offers lodging and restaurant facilities. 4. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 5. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, CPH does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 6 of plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. FACTUAL AVERMENTS 7. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, CPH does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiffs Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, CPH does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiffs Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.1029(e). 9 (a)-(k). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, CPH, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiff s Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, CPH specifically denies that it was negligent, reckless and/or careless at any time material hereto. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, it exhibited all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Moreover, CPH specifically denies that it engaged in any willful or intentional misconduct. Additionally, CPH specifically denies that any act or omission by it caused or contributed to plaintiff s alleged damages and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 11 (a)-(n). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 11 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, CPH specifically denies that it was negligent, reckless or careless at any time material hereto. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, it exhibited all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Moreover, CPH specifically denies that it engaged in any willful or intentional misconduct. Additionally, CPH specifically denies that any act or omission by it caused or contributed to plaintiff s alleged damages and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 15 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 15 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAw COUNT I - PLAINTIFF v. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY 16 (sic). CPH hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-15 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. 17 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 17 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint appear to be directed to a party other than CPH. These averments are, therefore, deemed denied and no further response is required. WHEREFORE, defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT II - PLAINTIFF v. CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. 18 (sic). CPH hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-17 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT III - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS LP 19 (sic). CPH hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-18 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate MCCORMCK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW by the court. COUNT IV - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY 20 (sic). CPH hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-19 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT V - PLAINTIFF v. CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY INC. 21 (sic). Denied. CPH hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-20 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT VI - PLAINTIFF v. KENNETH KOCHENOUR 22 (sic). Denied. CPH hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-21 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW by the court. COUNT VII - PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS 23 (sic). CPH hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-22 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. 24 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 24 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, CPH specifically denies that it is in any way responsible for plaintiff s alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. NEW MATTER 25. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 26. Plaintiffs claims may be barred and/or limited by the Comparative Negligence Act, the terms and provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference. 27. CPH owed no duty to plaintiff as asserted in plaintiffs Complaint. 28. CPH breached no duty allegedly owed to plaintiff. 29. No act or omission attributable to CPH caused or was a substantial factor in causing any damages or losses which plaintiff complains. 30. CPH acted with due and proper care under the circumstances at all times material MCCORMCK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAw hereto. 31. Plaintiff suffered no compensable damages and/orlosses for which CPH canbe liable. 32. Plaintiff suffered no compensable injuries, damages or losses as a result of the incident described in plaintiff's Complaint. 33. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in plaintiff s Complaint, which is denied, then said damages and/or losses were caused by the acts and/or omissions of other individuals over whom CPH had no control or duty to control. 34. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in plaintiff s Complaint, which is denied, then said damages or losses were caused by the acts and/or omissions of the plaintiff. 35. CPH is not and cannot be liable for punitive damages under the applicable law of Pennsylvania. 36. CPH did not engage in outrageous conduct so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 37. The conduct of co-defendant, Douglas Beardsley, was an unforeseeable, intentional and/or criminal act of a third party for which no liability can be imposed on CPH. 38. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, as amended or adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on its face and as applied, is violative of the Pennsylvania Constitution, United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, as it imposes a chilling effect upon CPH's exercise of its constitutional rights and imposes a penalty on CPH for delays not attributable to it. 39. The Collateral Source Rule does not apply such that if the plaintiff should be awarded money damages by a jury, such a possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total number of any and all payments that plaintiff has received MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW from any and all collateral sources, for any damages plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 40. CPH hereby incorporates by reference and asserts herein all defenses available to it under Pennsylvania law relating to punitive damages. 41. CPH hereby incorporates by reference and asserts herein all defenses available to it under Pennsylvania law relating to liability for the criminal/intentional conduct of third parties. WHEREFORE, defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) AGAINST DEFENDANT, DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY 42. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d), CPH hereby crossclaims against defendant, Douglas Beardsley, hereinafter referred to as "Beardsley". 43. CPH hereby incorporates by reference its New Matter and answers to paragraphs 1-24 (sic) of plaintiff s Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein at length. 44. Solely for the purposes of this Crossclaim, the averments of plaintiffs Complaint directed to Beardsley are hereby incorporated by reference, without adoption or admission, as though fully set forth herein at length. 45. In the event that a monetary award is entered in favor of plaintiff and against CPH, such a possibility being specifically denied, CPH alleges that Beardsley is alone liable to plaintiff, or is liable over to CPH, and/or is jointly and/or severally liable with CPH for contribution and/or indemnity on the causes of action set forth in plaintiff s Complaint for any such amount. WHEREFORE, defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. demands that plaintiffs MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court, and that in the event CPH is held liable in any amount, such a possibility being strictly denied, CPH be awarded judgment against Douglas Beardsley for contribution and/or indemnity. McCORMICK & PRIORS, P.C. BY: Dated: ' ??(, VI PhiliVD ore, Esquire Brian J allahan, Esquire Attorneys for defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Daniel Richardson hereby states that he is an authorized representative of Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, L.P., Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co., Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. , defendants herein and verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) to Plaintiff s Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DANIEL RICHARDSON Dated: MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAw CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Brian J. Callahan, Esquire, hereby certify that on this4??y of _ 2007, I did cause a true and correct copy of the Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) of Defendant, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc., to be forwarded by first-class United States mail to counsel, addressed as follows: Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 Attorney for plaintiff Brian J. Callahan, Esquire MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW C7 ?' C7 c. ' ?; -n ?; ..i. j ?.... ?._ .,? ^'? - ? R jyt i?-=4 . ,,. t ... ... ? ""i i ? ? f r I, ? r4 ? w r? ?i ?: ,z:} ?? t?J To Plaintiff: You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a.,udgment may be entered against yg34 //' By: McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorney ID No: 38987/200815 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: pprioreaa,mccormickpriore.com bcal lahan(&mccormickpriore. com RICHARD LOPEZ V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR Philip riore, Esquire BriCallahan, Esquire Atto eys for defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. Attorneys for Defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) OF DEFENDANT, CARLISLE INVESTORS. INC. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW Defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc., by and through its attorneys, McCormick & Priore, hereby respond to the averments contained in plaintiffs Complaint in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Carlisle Investors, Inc. does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiff s Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2. Denied. It is admitted only that Carlisle Investors, Inc. is a business entity organized under the laws of Pennsylvania. Carlisle Investors, Inc. specifically denies that it maintained, controlled, supervised or operated the Holiday Inn referenced in plaintiffs Complaint at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA. Carlisle Investors, Inc. merely acts as a general partner to Mechanicsburg GF Investors, L.P., which owned the real estate located at that address. The remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiff s Complaint are directed to parties other than Mechanicsburg GF Investors, L.P. , and therefore no response thereto is required. The remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 3. Denied. Carlisle Investors, Inc. specifically denies that it offered lodging, food, drink and entertainment to members of the general public at any time material hereto. The averments contained in this paragraph of plaintiff s Complaint are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (e). 4. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 5. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Carlisle Investors, Inc. does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 6 of plaintiff s Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. FACTUAL AVERMENTS 7. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, Carlisle Investors, Inc. does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 7 ofplaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, Carlisle Investors, Inc. does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiff' s Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 9 (a)-(k). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Carlisle Investors, Inc., after MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiffs Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Carlisle Investors, Inc. specifically denies that it was negligent, reckless and/or careless at any time material hereto. Additionally, Carlisle Investors, Inc. specifically denies that any act or omission by it caused or contributed to plaintiff's alleged damages and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 11 (a)-(n). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 11 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Carlisle Investors, Inc. specifically denies that it was negligent, reckless or careless at any time material hereto. Additionally, Carlisle Investors, Inc. specifically denies that any act or omission by it caused or contributed to plaintiffs alleged damages and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 15 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 15 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW COUNT I - PLAINTIFF v. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY 16 (sic). Carlisle Investors, Inc. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-15 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. 17 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 17 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint appear to be directed to a party other than Carlisle Investors, Inc. These averments are, therefore, deemed denied and no further response is required. WHEREFORE, defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT II - PLAINTIFF v. CARLISLE INVESTORS. INC. 18 (sic). Carlisle Investors, Inc. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-17 (sic) of plaintiff s Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT III - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS LP 19 (sic). Carlisle Investors, Inc. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-18 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT IV - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY 20 (sic). Carlisle Investors, Inc. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-19 (sic) of plaintiff s Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. demands that plaintiff s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT V - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS LP 21 (sic). Denied. Carlisle Investors, Inc. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-20 (sic) of plaintiff s Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. demands that plaintiff s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT VI - PLAINTIFF v. KENNETH KOCHENOUR 22 (sic). Denied. Carlisle Investors, Inc. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-21 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. demands that plaintiff s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. MCCORMCK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW COUNT VII - PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS 23 (sic). Carlisle Investors, Inc. hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-22 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. 24 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 24 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Carlisle Investors, Inc. specifically denies that it is in any way responsible for plaintiff s alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. demands that plaintiff s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. NEW MATTER 25. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 26. Plaintiff s claims may be barred and/or limited by the Comparative Negligence Act, the terms and provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference. 27. Carlisle Investors, Inc. owed no duty to plaintiff as asserted in plaintiff s Complaint. 28. Carlisle Investors, Inc. breached no duty allegedly owed to plaintiff. 29. No act or omission attributable to Carlisle Investors, Inc. caused or was a substantial factor in causing any damages or losses which plaintiff complains. 30. Plaintiff suffered no compensable damages and/or losses for which Carlisle Investors, Inc. can be liable. MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 31. Plaintiff suffered no compensable injuries, damages or losses as a result of the incident described in plaintiff's Complaint. 32. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in plaintiff's Complaint, which is denied, then said damages and/or losses were caused by the acts and/or omissions of other individuals over whom Carlisle Investors, Inc. had no control or duty to control. 33. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in plaintiff s Complaint, which is denied, then said damages or losses were caused by the acts and/or omissions of the plaintiff. 34. Carlisle Investors, Inc. is not and cannot be liable for punitive damages under the applicable law of Pennsylvania. 35. Carlisle Investors, Inc. did not engage in outrageous conduct so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 36. The conduct of co-defendant, Douglas Beardsley, was an unforeseeable, intentional and/or criminal act of a third party for which no liability can be imposed on Carlisle Investors, Inc. 37. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, as amended or adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on its face and as applied, is violative of the Pennsylvania Constitution, United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, as it imposes a chilling effect upon Carlisle Investors, Inc. 's exercise of its constitutional rights and imposes a penalty on Carlisle Investors, Inc. for delays not attributable to it. 38. The Collateral Source Rule does not apply such that if the plaintiff should be awarded money damages by a jury, such a possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total number of any and all payments that plaintiff has received from any and all collateral sources, for any damages plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 39. Carlisle Investors, Inc. hereby incorporates by reference and asserts herein all MCCORMICK & PRIME ATTORNEYS AT LAW defenses available to it under Pennsylvania law relating to punitive damages. 40. Carlisle Investors, Inc. hereby incorporates by reference and asserts herein all defenses available to it under Pennsylvania law relating to liability for the criminal/intentional conduct of third parties. 41. Carlisle Investors, Inc. did not possess or control the real estate referenced in plaintiff's Complaint. WHEREFORE, defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) AGAINST DEFENDANT, DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY 42. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d), Carlisle Investors, Inc. hereby crossclaims against defendant, Douglas Beardsley, hereinafter referred to as "Beardsley". 43. Carlisle Investors, Inc. hereby incorporates by reference its New Matter and answers to paragraphs 1-24 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein at length. 44. Solely for the purposes of this Crossclaim, the averments of plaintiff's Complaint directed to Beardsley are hereby incorporated by reference, without adoption or admission, as though fully set forth herein at length. 45. In the event that a monetary award is entered in favor of plaintiff and against Carlisle Investors, Inc. , such a possibility being specifically denied, Carlisle Investors, Inc. alleges that Beardsley is alone liable to plaintiff, or is liable over to Carlisle Investors, Inc. , and/or is jointly and/or severally liable with Carlisle Investors, Inc. for contribution and/or indemnity on the causes of action set forth in plaintiff's Complaint for any such amount. MCCORMICK & POORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW WHEREFORE, defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court, and that in the event Carlisle Investors, Inc. is held liable in any amount, such a possibility being strictly denied, Carlisle Investors, Inc. be awarded judgment against Douglas Beardsley for contribution and/or indemnity. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: Philip riore, Esquire Brian J. allahan, Esquire Attorneys for defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc. Dated: ?,, oZ15? P7 MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Daniel Richardson hereby states that he is an authorized representative of Carlisle Investors, Inc., defendant herein, and verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) to Plaintiffs Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DANIEL RICHARDSON Dated: MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE /? I, Brian J. Callahan, Esquire, hereby certify that on thisgg?ay of / Wke 2007, I did cause a true and correct copy of the Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaim Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) of Defendant, Carlisle Investors, Inc., to be forwarded by first-class United States mail to counsel, addressed as follows: Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 Attorney for plaintiff Brian J. Callahan, quire MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW C o C zz. .... FYI co ?_> ca - f:J y •? To Plaintiff: You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a . dgment may be entered against yob /J By: WCORMICK & PRIORS, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorney ID No: 38987/200815 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: pprioreaa,mccormickpriore.com bcallahanC&mccormickpriore.com Philip . rior , Esquire Briallahan, Esquire Atto ys for defendants, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP Attorneys for Defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP RICHARD LOPEZ V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(4) OF DEFENDANT.MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS. LP MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW Defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, by and through its attorneys, McCormick & Priore, hereby respond to the averments contained in plaintiff's Complaint in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted onlythat Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP is a business entity organized under the laws of Pennsylvania. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP specifically denies that it maintained, controlled, supervised or operated the Holiday Inn referenced in plaintiffs Complaint at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP merely owned the real estate located at that address. The remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs Complaint are directed to parties other than Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, and therefore no response thereto is required. The remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 3. Denied as stated. The real estate located at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 was owned by Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP did not operate, lease, control or supervise the hotel on the property, nor did it offer lodging and restaurant facilities. 4. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 6 of plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. FACTUAL AVERMENTS 7. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiffs Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiffs Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 9 (a)-(k). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiff s Complaint MCCORMiCK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiff s Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP specifically denies that it was negligent, reckless and/or careless at any time material hereto. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, it exhibited all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Moreover, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP specifically denies that it engaged in any willful or intentional misconduct. Additionally, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP specifically denies that any act or omission by it caused or contributed to plaintiff's alleged damages and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 11 (a)-(n). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 11 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP specifically denies that it was negligent, reckless or careless at any time material hereto. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, it exhibited all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Moreover, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP specifically denies that it engaged in any willful or intentional misconduct. Additionally, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP specifically MCCORMICK & PMORE I ATTORNEYS AT LAW denies that any act or omission by it caused or contributed to plaintiff's alleged damages and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 15 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 15 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). COUNT I - PLAINTIFF v. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY 16 (sic). Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-15 (sic) of plaintiff s Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. 17 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 17 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint appear to be directed to a party other than Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP These averments are, therefore, deemed denied and no further response is required. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT II - PLAINTIFF v. CARLISLE INVESTORS. INC. 18 (sic). Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-17 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP demands that plaintiff's MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT III - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS LP 19 (sic). Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-18 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT IV - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY 20 (sic). MechanicsburgGF Investors, LP hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-19 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT V - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS LP 21 (sic). Denied. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-20 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT VI - PLAINTIFF v. KENNETH KOCHENOUR 22 (sic). Denied. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-21 (sic) of plaintiff s Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT VII - PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS 23 (sic). Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-22 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. 24 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 24 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP specifically denies that it is in any way responsible for plaintiff s alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. NEW MATTER 25. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 26. Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or limited by the Comparative Negligence Act, the terms and provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference. 27. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP owed no duty to plaintiff as asserted in plaintiff's Complaint. 28. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP breached no duty allegedly owed to plaintiff. 29. No act or omission attributable to Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP caused or was a substantial factor in causing any damages or losses which plaintiff complains. 30. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP acted with due and proper care under the circumstances at all times material hereto. 31. Plaintiff suffered no compensable damages and/or losses for which Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP can be liable. 32. Plaintiff suffered no compensable injuries, damages or losses as a result of the incident described in plaintiff's Complaint. 33. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in plaintiff's Complaint, which is denied, then said damages and/or losses were caused by the acts and/or omissions of other individuals over whom Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP had no control or duty to control. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 34. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in plaintiff s Complaint, which is denied, then said damages or losses were caused by the acts and/or omissions of the plaintiff. 35. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP is not and cannot be liable for punitive damages under the applicable law of Pennsylvania. 36. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP did not engage in outrageous conduct so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 37. The conduct of co-defendant, Douglas Beardsley, was an unforeseeable, intentional and/or criminal act of a third party for which no liability can be imposed on Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP . 38. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, as amended or adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on its face and as applied, is violative of the Pennsylvania Constitution, United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, as it imposes a chilling effect upon Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP 's exercise of its constitutional rights and imposes a penalty on Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP for delays not attributable to it. 39. The Collateral Source Rule does not apply such that if the plaintiff should be awarded money damages by a jury, such a possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total number of any and all payments that plaintiff has received from any and all collateral sources, for any damages plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 40. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP hereby incorporates by reference and asserts herein all defenses available to it under Pennsylvania law relating to punitive damages. 41. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP hereby incorporates by reference and asserts herein all defenses available to it under Pennsylvania law relating to liability for the criminal/intentional conduct of third parties. MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 42. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP did not possess, control, maintain or operate the real estate referenced in plaintiff's Complaint. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) AGAINST DEFENDANT, DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY 43. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d), Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP hereby crossclaims against defendant, Douglas Beardsley, hereinafter referred to as "Beardsley". 44. Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP hereby incorporates by reference its New Matter and answers to paragraphs 1-24 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein at length. 45. Solely for the purposes of this Crossclaim, the averments of plaintiff's Complaint directed to Beardsley are hereby incorporated by reference, without adoption or admission, as though fully set forth herein at length. 46. In the event that a monetary award is entered in favor of plaintiff and against Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP , such a possibility being specifically denied, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP alleges that Beardsley is alone liable to plaintiff, or is liable over to Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, and/or is jointly and/or severally liable with Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP for contribution and/or indemnity on the causes of action set forth in plaintiff's Complaint for any such amount. WHEREFORE, defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP demands that plaintiffs MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in its favor, together with its costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court, and that in the event Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP is held liable in any amount, such a possibility being strictly denied, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP be awarded judgment against Douglas Beardsley for contribution and/or indemnity. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: Dated: ? _ J Philip D. riore, Esquire Brian J. allahan, Esquire Attorne s for defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP MCCORMiCK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Daniel Richardson hereby states that he is an authorized representative of Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP , defendant herein, and verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) to Plaintiff s Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DANIEL RICHARDSON Dated: MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAw CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Brian J. Callahan, Esquire, hereby certify that on this of 94-k-e 2007, I did cause a true and correct copy of the Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) of Defendant, Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, to be forwarded by first-class United States mail to counsel, addressed as follows: Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 Attorney for plaintiff Brian J. Callah, Esquire MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAw c?? ?' O ??-?. r=? 'Y'1 ,'i"?, ?'...... .? : ? C""' rJ =C11? r ~ =? CJ ?J ? ' ?? -_? f_?J Dj I To Plaintiff: You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. By: I r 1`. v- Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorneys for defendant, Kenneth Kochenour WCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorney ID No: 38987/200815 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: 12priore@mcconnickpriore.com bcallahankmccormickpriore.com RICHARD LOPEZ V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR Attorneys for Defendant, Kenneth Kochenour COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) OF DEFENDANT, KENNETH KOCHENOUR MCCORMICK & PMORE ATTORNEYS AT LAw Defendant, Kenneth Kochenour, by and through his attorneys, McCormick & Priore, hereby respond to the averments contained in plaintiff s Complaint in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Kenneth Kochenour does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that Kenneth Kochenour is an adult individual. Kenneth Kochenour specifically denies that he individually owned, maintained, controlled, supervised or operated the Holiday Inn referenced in plaintiff's Complaint at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA. Kenneth Kochenour only acts as President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of Carlisle Investors, Inc. and Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. The remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiff's Complaint are directed to parties other than Kenneth Kochenour, and therefore no response thereto is required. The remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiff's Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 3. Denied. Kenneth Kochenour specifically denies that he individually offered lodging, food, drink and entertainment to members of the general public at any time material hereto. The averments contained in this paragraph of plaintiff's Complaint are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (e). 4. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). MCCORMCK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Kenneth Kochenour does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 6 of plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. FACTUAL AVERMENTS 7. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, Kenneth Kochenour does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, Kenneth Kochenour does not possess information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 9 (a)-(k). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAw denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Kenneth Kochenour, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Kenneth Kochenour specifically denies that he was negligent, reckless and/or careless at any time material hereto. Additionally, Kenneth Kochenour specifically denies that any act or omission by him caused or contributed to plaintiff's alleged damages and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 11 (a)-(n). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 11 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Kenneth Kochenour specifically denies that he was negligent, reckless or careless at any time material hereto. Additionally, Kenneth Kochenour specifically denies that any act or omission by him caused or contributed to plaintiffs alleged damages and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 15 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 15 (sic) of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). MCCORMCK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAw COUNT I - PLAINTIFF v. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY 16 (sic). Kenneth Kochenour hereby incorporates by reference his answers to paragraphs 1-15 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. 17 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 17 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint appear to be directed to a party other than Kenneth Kochenour. These averments are, therefore, deemed denied and no further response is required. WHEREFORE, defendant, Kenneth Kochenour demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in his favor, together with his costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT II - PLAINTIFF v. CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. 18 (sic). Kenneth Kochenour hereby incorporates by reference his answers to paragraphs 1-17 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Kenneth Kochenour demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in his favor, together with his costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT III - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP 19 (sic). Kenneth Kochenour hereby incorporates by reference his answers to paragraphs 1-18 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAw WHEREFORE, defendant, Kenneth Kochenour demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in his favor, together with his costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT IV - PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY 20 (sic). Kenneth Kochenour hereby incorporates by reference his answers to paragraphs 1-19 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Kenneth Kochenour demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in his favor, together with his costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT V_-_PLAINTIFF v. MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP 21 (sic). Denied. Kenneth Kochenour hereby incorporates by reference his answers to paragraphs 1-20 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Kenneth Kochenour demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in his favor, together with his costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT VI - PLAINTIFF v. KENNETH KOCHENOUR 22 (sic). Denied. Kenneth Kochenour hereby incorporates by reference his answers to paragraphs 1-21 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Kenneth Kochenour demands that plaintiff's Complaint be MCCORMCK & PMORE ATTORNEYS AT LAw dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in his favor, together with his costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. COUNT VII - PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS 23 (sic). Kenneth Kochenour hereby incorporates by reference his answers to paragraphs 1-22 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, as though each answer were fully set forth herein at length. 24 (sic). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 24 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Kenneth Kochenour specifically denies that he is in any way responsible for plaintiff's alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which is denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, defendant, Kenneth Kochenour demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in his favor, together with his costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. NEW MATTER 25. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 26. Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or limited by the Comparative Negligence Act, the terms and provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference. 27. Kenneth Kochenour owed no duty to plaintiff as asserted in plaintiff's Complaint. 28. Kenneth Kochenour breached no duty allegedly owed to plaintiff. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 29. No act or omission attributable to Kenneth Kochenour caused or was a substantial factor in causing any damages or losses which plaintiff complains. 30. Plaintiff suffered no compensable damages and/or losses for which Kenneth Kochenour can be liable. 31. Plaintiff suffered no compensable injuries, damages or losses as a result of the incident described in plaintiff's Complaint. 32. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in plaintiff's Complaint, which is denied, then said damages and/or losses were caused by the acts and/or omissions of other individuals over whom Kenneth Kochenour had no control or duty to control. 33. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in plaintiff's Complaint, which is denied, then said damages or losses were caused by the acts and/or omissions of the plaintiff. 34. Kenneth Kochenour is not and cannot be liable for punitive damages under the applicable law of Pennsylvania. 35. Kenneth Kochenour did not engage in outrageous conduct so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 36. The conduct of co-defendant, Douglas Beardsley, was an unforeseeable, intentional and/or criminal act of a third party for which no liability can be imposed on Kenneth Kochenour 37. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, as amended or adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on its face and as applied, is violative of the Pennsylvania Constitution, United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, as it imposes a chilling effect upon Kenneth Kochenour's exercise of his constitutional rights and imposes a penalty on Kenneth Kochenour for delays not attributable to it. MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 38. The Collateral Source Rule does not apply such that if the plaintiff should be awarded money damages by a jury, such a possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total number of any and all payments that plaintiff has received from any and all collateral sources, for any damages plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 39. Kenneth Kochenour hereby incorporates by reference and asserts herein all defenses available to it under Pennsylvania law relating to punitive damages. 40. Kenneth Kochenour hereby incorporates by reference and asserts herein all defenses available to it under Pennsylvania law relating to liability for the criminal/intentional conduct of third parties. 41. Kenneth Kochenour did not lease, possess or control or have any individual interest in the property at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA, referenced in plaintiff's Complaint. WHEREFORE, defendant, Kenneth Kochenour demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in his favor, together with his costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) AGAINST DEFENDANT DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY 42. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d), Kenneth Kochenour hereby crossclaims against defendant, Douglas Beardsley, hereinafter referred to as "Beardsley". 43. Kenneth Kochenour hereby incorporates by reference his New Matter and answers to paragraphs 1-24 (sic) of plaintiff's Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein at length. 44. Solely for the purposes of this Crossclaim, the averments of plaintiff's Complaint directed to Beardsley are hereby incorporated by reference, without adoption or admission, as though fully set forth herein at length. MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 45. In the event that a monetary award is entered in favor of plaintiff and against Kenneth Kochenour, such a possibility being specifically denied, Kenneth Kochenour alleges that Beardsley is alone liable to plaintiff, or is liable over to Kenneth Kochenour, and/or is jointly and/or severally liable with Kenneth Kochenour for contribution and/or indemnity on the causes of action set forth in plaintiff's Complaint for any such amount. WHEREFORE, defendant, Kenneth Kochenour demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively, that judgment be entered in his favor, together with his costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court, and that in the event Kenneth Kochenour is held liable in any amount, such a possibility being strictly denied, Kenneth Kochenour be awarded judgment against Douglas Beardsley for contribution and/or indemnity. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: &L? Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorneys for defendant, Kenneth Kochenour Dated: July 2, 2007 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Kenneth Kochenour hereby states that verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) to Plaintiffs Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. NNM KOC NOUR Dated: MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Brian J. Callahan, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 2"a day of July, 2007, I did cause a true and correct copy of the Answer with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaim Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) of Defendant, Kenneth Kochenour, to be forwarded by first-class United States mail to counsel, addressed as follows: Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 Attorney for plaintiff Brian J. Callahan, Esquire MCCORMCK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW (J ? .. fTl f L."a _a (-t7 J SPERO T. LAPPAS, Esquire Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown and Calhoon, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 (717) 540-9170 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMONPL .AS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY RICHARD LOPEZ, Plaint f3`' V. DOUGLASBEARDSLEY, CARUME INVESTORS, INC., MECHANICSBVRG GFINVESTORS, L.R' MECHANICSBURG GFINVESTORS CO., CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC., KENNETHKOCHENMR, Defendants NO. 07-02830 CIVIL ACTION -- LAW Jury IWW Demanded PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT To the Prothonotary: Please reinstate the Complaint in the above captioned case. Rmpoeffulijy submitted,, AND GALLOON, PC Bp: S ERO T. P , , QUIRE PA PREME .IDNO.25745 208 STOWN R3AD, SUITE 201 HARRISBURG, PA 17110-9670 (717)540-9.170 ATTORNEYSFOR THEPLA.INTIFF Spero T. Lappas, Esquire Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P.C. Praecipe to Reinstate Complaint Page -I- .Q ? V C? l IN THE MATTER OF: LOPEZ KOCHENOUR, ET AL CERTIFICATE ORIGINAL PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS - CASE NO: 07-2830 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to 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. DATE: 08/08/2007 C? S on R ES I Attorney for DEFENDANT R1.35 105-N DE11-0704022 0!9843-1-,03- COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN THE MATTER OF: LOPEZ -VS- KOCHENOUR, ET AL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CASE NO: 07-2830 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 HARRISBURG HOSPITAL MEDICAL RECORDS HARRISBURG HOSPITAL BILLING ONLY HARRISBURG HOSPITAL X-RAY ONLY HAMPDEN AMBULANCE SERVICE EMS RECORDS TO: SPERT LAPPAS, ESQ., PLAINTIFF COUNSEL MCS on behalf of BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is 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. If the twenty day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, then the subpoena maybe served. Complete copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by completing the attached counsel card and returning same to MCS or by contacting our local MCS office. DATE: 07/19/2007 CC: BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. - 8559-13674 Any questions regarding this matter, contact MCS on behalf of BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT THE MCS GROUP INC. 1601 MARKET STREET #800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 246-0900 R1.35S 129-H DE02-0368754 09843 -CO1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ' COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LOPEZ: VS. KOCHENOUR, ET AL File No. 07-2830 TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for HARRISBURG HOSPITAL (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at The MCS GM=. Inc 1601 M ket Street Suite 800 Philadelphia PA 19103 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: NAME: BRIAN CALLAHAN, ES ADDRESS: 1600 1FK BLVD. TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Date: ju'lY / 71 oZ6O 1 Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: 6rhonotary/Clerk, Civil ivis' Deputy 09843-01 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: HARRISBURG HOSPITAL MEDICAL RECORDS 111 S. FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 RE: 9843 RICHARD LOPEZ Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. Entire hospital medical file, including but not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the consulting and/or treating physician, files, memoranda, handwritten notes, history and physical reports, medication/ prescription records, nurse's notes, doctor's'comments, dietary restrictions, and all patient consent or refusal of treatment, procedures, test, and/or medication, lab and diagnostic test results, including any and all such items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form, relating to any examination, consultation, diagnosis, care, treatment, admission, discharge, or emergency care pertaining to: Dates Requested: up to and including the present. Subject : RICHARD LOPEZ 6149 HAY MARKET WAY, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Social Security #: 182-60-4558 Date of Birth: 02-14-1972 R1.35S 129-H SU10-0695604 09843-LO1 CERTIFICATE IN THE MATTER OF: LOPEZ KOCHENOUR, ET AL PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA ORIGINAL PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS - CASE NO: 07-2830 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to 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. DATE: 08/08/2007 IW5 on b a o I WA Q. Attorney for DEFENDANT R1.35 105-N DE11-0704023 0 9 8 4 3- L O 2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN THE MATTER OF: LOPEZ -VS- KOCHENOUR, ET AL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CASE NO: 07-2830 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 HARRISBURG HOSPITAL MEDICAL RECORDS HARRISBURG HOSPITAL BILLING ONLY HARRISBURG HOSPITAL X-RAY ONLY HAMPDEN AMBULANCE SERVICE EMS RECORDS TO: SPERT LAPPAS, ESQ., PLAINTIFF COUNSEL MCS on behalf of BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is 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. If the twenty day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, then the subpoena may be served. Complete copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by completing the attached counsel card and returning same to MCS or by contacting our local MCS office. DATE: 07/19/2007 CC: BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. - 8559-13674 Any questions regarding this matter, contact MCS on behalf of BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT THE MCS GROUP INC. 1601 MARKET STREET #800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 246-0900 R1.35S 129-H DE02-0368754 09843-CO1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LOPEZ: vs. KOCHENOUR, ET AL File No. 07-2830 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for HARRISBURG HOSPITAL (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: ****SEE ATTACHED RIDER**** at The MCS Ca=. Inc., 1601 Market Street. Suite 800, P iladejp a. PA 19103 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: NAME: BRIAN CALLAHAN, ES ADDRESS: 1600 JFK BLVD. TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Date: . July !7 oZ607 Seal of the Court BY THE OURT: r honotary/Clerk, Civil ivis' Deputy 09843-01 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: HARRISBURG HOSPITAL BILLING RECORDS 111 S. FRONT STREET HARRISBURG. PA 17101 RE: 9843 RICHARD LOPEZ Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. Any and all billing, insurance claims, payments, outstanding and/or delinquent invoices, including any and all such items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form, relating to any examination, consultation, diagnosis, care or treatment pertaining to: Dates Requested: up to and including the present. Subject : RICHARD LOPEZ 6149 HAY MARKET WAY, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Social Security #: 182-60-4558 Date of Birth: 02-14-1972 R1.35S 129-H SU10-0695606 09843-LO2 IN THE MATTER OF: LOPEZ KOCHENOUR, ET AL CERTIFICATE ORIGINAL PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS - CASE NO: 07-2830 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to 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. DATE: 08/08/2007 f S on b WANO, o JI R A SQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT R1.35 105-N DE11-0704024 09843-1.03 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LOPEZ: VS. KOCHENOUR, ET AL File No. 07-2830 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO Custodian of Records for HARRISBURG HOSPITAL (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER**** at _ The MCS Group, Inc.. 1601 Market Street. site 800, Philadelphia, PA 19103 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: NAME: BRIAN CALLAHAN. ESO. ADDRESS: 1600 EM BLVD. SUITE 800 PHILADELPHIA- PA 19103 TELEPHONE: (215,) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Date: ice-lY 171 607 Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: r honotary/Clerk, Civil ivis' Deputy 09843-01 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: HARRISBURG HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY DEPT. 111 S. FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17105 RE: 9843 RICHARD LOPEZ Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. Any and all x-ray films and reports, including any and all such items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form, pertaining to: Dates Requested: up to and including the present. subject : RICHARD LOPEZ 6149 HAY MARKET WAY, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Social Security #: 182-60-4558 Date of Birth: 02-14-1972 R1.35S 129-H SU10-0695608 09843-LO3 IN THE MATTER OF: LOPEZ KOCHENOUR, ET AL CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA ORIGINAL PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS - CASE NO: 07-2830 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to 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. DATE: 08/08/2007 l CS on h f f ?I R , Attorney for DEFENDANT R1.35 105-N DE11-0704025 0 9 8 4 3- L O 4 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN THE MATTER OF: LOPEZ -VS- KOCHENOUR, ET AL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CASE NO: 07-2830 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 HARRISBURG HOSPITAL MEDICAL RECORDS HARRISBURG HOSPITAL BILLING ONLY HARRISBURG HOSPITAL X-RAY ONLY HAMPDEN AMBULANCE SERVICE EMS RECORDS TO: SPERT LAPPAS, ESQ., PLAINTIFF COUNSEL MCS on behalf of BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is 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. If the twenty day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, then the subpoena may be served. Complete copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by completing the attached counsel card and returning same to MCS or by contacting our local MCS office. DATE: 07/19/2007 CC: BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. - 8559-13674 Any questions regarding this matter, contact MCS on behalf of BRIAN CALLAHAN, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT THE MCS GROUP INC. 1601 MARKET STREET #800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 246-0900 IR1.35S 129-H DE02-0368754 09843-COl COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LOPEZ: VS. KOCHENOUR, ET AL File No. 07-2830 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for HAMPDEN AMBULANCE SERVICE (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at The MCS Crroun Inc 1601 Market Street Suite 800 Philadelphia PA 19103 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: NAME: BRIAN CALLAHAN, ES ADDRESS: 1600 JFK BLVD TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Date: J?L.y / oZ DU? Seal of the Court BY THE URT: /r#oh(onotary/Clerk, Civil Divis' P Deputy 09843-04 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN-OF RECORDS FOR: HAMPDEN AMBULANCE SERVICE 295 SPORTING HILL ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 RE: 9843 RICHARD LOPEZ Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. ANY AND ALL RECORDS Dates Requested: up to and including the present. Subject : RICHARD LOPEZ 6149 HAY MARKET WAY, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Social Security #: XXX-XX-4558 Date of Birth: 02-14-1972 R1.35S 129-H SU10-0695610 09843-LO4 --- - (°7 . 1 x y =7C , _-.._. 1ti3 ""t SPERO T. LAPPAS, Esquire Sen*9111, Schif(man, Brown and Calhoon, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 (717) 540-9170 ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY RICHARD LOPEZ, Plaintiff V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY, CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, L.P., MECHANICSBURG GP INVESTORS CO., CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC., KENNETH KOCHENOUR, Defendants NO. 07-02830 CIVIL ACTION -- LAW Jury Trial Demanded Praecipe to Enter Judgment as to Liability Against Defendant Douglas Beardsley 0 - AND NOW this day of e?, 2007 please enter judgment on liability against Defendant Douglas Beardsley. Damages will be set at trial. Spero T. Lappas, Esquire Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown and Calhoon, P.C. Praecipe to Enter Judgement as to Liability Against Defendant Douglas Beardsley Page 1 A ten day notice was sent to the Defendant in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure on or about August 17, 2007. RESPECTFULL Y S UBMIT TED, SERRATELLI, SCg1FFA" )31WWNA4ND CALHOON, P.C. BY: ER LLAPPAS, ESQUIRE PREME Cr. ID NO. 25745 2080 LINGLESTOWN ROAD SUITE 201 HARRISBURG, PA 17110-9670 (717) 540-9170 ATTORNEY FOR, THE DEFENDANT Spero T. Lappas, Esquire Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown and Calhoon, P.C. Praecipe to Enter Judgement as to Liability Against Defendant Douglas Beardsley Page 2 August 17, 2007 Mr. Douglas Beardsley 13519 State Route 213 Irondale, OH 43932 In Re: Lopez v. Beardsley, et. al. SPERO T. LAPPAS Docket No. 07-02830 (717) 635-2929 Dear Mr. Beardsley: FAX: (717) 635-2949 Enclosed please find the Notice of Intention to Take Default. slappas®ssbc-law.com STlJmlg Enclosure SUITE 201 2080 LINGLESTOWN ROAD HARRISBURG, PA 17110-9670 FAX (717) 540-5481 SPERO T. LAPPAS, Esquire Serratelli, Schiff nan, Brown and Calhoon, P.G. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 (717) 540-9170 ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY RICHARD LOPEZ, Plaintiff v. DOUGLAS BEA.RDSLEY, CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, L.P., MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS CO., CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC., KENNETH KOCHENOUR, Defendants NO. 07-02830 CIVIL ACTION -- LAW Jury Trial Demanded NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE DEFAULT TO: DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY DATE OF NOTICE: AUGUST 17, 2007 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. By: SPERO T. LAPPAS, Esquire Page 1 TAKE ACTION REQUIRED OF YOU IN THIS CASE. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING, AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. COURT ADMINISTRATOR FOURTH FLOOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PA 17013 717-240-6200 NOTICIA IMPORTANTE A: DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY FECHA DE NOTICIA: AUGUST 17, 2007 LISTED HA NO COMPLIDO CON EL AVISO ANTERIOR PORQUE HA FALTADO EN TOMAR MEDIDAS REQUERIDAS SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. By: SPERO T. LAPPAS, Esquire Page 2 RESPECTO A ESTE CASO. SI USTED NO ACTUA DENTRO DE DIEZ (10) DL ,S DESDE LA FECHA DE ESTA NOTICIA, ES POSIBLE QUE UN FALLO SERIA REGISTRADO CONTRA USTED SIN UNA AUDIENCIA Y USTED PODRIA PERDER SU PROPIEDAD 0 OSTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTA NOTICIA A SU ABOGADO EN SEGUIDA. SI USTED NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 NO TIENE CON QUE PAGAR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO. VAYA 0 LLAME A LA OFICINA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR A DONDE USTED PUEDE OBTENER LA AYUDA LEGAL. COURT ADMINISTRATOR FOURTH FLOOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PA 17013 717-240-6200 SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. By: SPERO T. LAPPAS, Esquire Page 3 Respectfully submitted, SERRATELLI, SCHIFFM7BRO AND CA LHOON, P. C. By: SPER PAS, ESQUIRE PA. SUPREME Cr. ID NO. 25745 2080 LINGLESTOWN .ROAD, SUITE 201 HARRISBURG, PA 17110-9670 (717) 540-9170 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. By: SPERO T. LAPPAS, Esquire Page 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on - <TCA day of , 2007,1 served a true copy of the attached document upon the person(s) named below by mailing a copy addressed as follows, postage pre-paid, deposited into the U. S. Mail at Harrisburg, Pa. Brian Callahan, Esquire Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Philip D. Priore, Esquire Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Respectfully submitted, SERRATELLI, SCHIFFAiAN, BROW11t )1 CALHOON, P. C. By* SPERO T. LALA , Esquire Ps. Supreme Ct. M no. 26746 20M lestown mod, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 (717) 640-9170 ATTORNAW P D,R 72M PLAUY W ^??. •?'? ? "'? ? r ? t7 r (,?7 'i ' .?' 7? ' ' f ? ? ?' } ?? , .? ? ? t_.;_ - r ? - ? r *t zz 7 r ?? McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorney ID No: 38987/200815 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriorena mccormicknriore.com bcallahan(gmccormickpriore.com RICHARD LOPEZ V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR Attorneys for defendants, Kenneth Kochenour, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc., Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP and Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil DEFENDANTS, CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP, MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY, CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. AND KENNETH KOCHENOUR'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND NOW comes defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. and Kenneth Kochenour ("defendants"), by and through their attorneys, McCormick & Priore, P.C., hereby move this Honorable Court for an Order compelling plaintiff to provide full, complete and verified answers to Interrogatories. In support of their Motion, defendants aver as follows: MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1. This is an action for damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained on or about May 29, 2006. 2. Plaintiff filed a Complaint on or about May 10, 2007. 3. Defendants filed their Answer to plaintiff's Complaint on or about July 5, 2007. 4. On or about July 3, 2007, defendant served plaintiff with Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents. A true and correct copy of the letter enclosing the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents is attached hereto as Exhibit "A ". 5. On August 9, 2007, having not received plaintiff's answers to Interrogatories and response to Request for Production of Documents, defendants sent plaintiffs counsel a letter, reminding him that the answers were overdue and requesting answers within the next ten (10) days. A true and correct copy of the letter dated August 9, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit "B " 6. On September 28, 2007, having still not received plaintiff's answers to Interrogatories and response to Request for Production of Documents, defendants sent plaintiffs counsel a second letter requesting verified discovery responses by October 1, 2007. 7. On or about October 1, 2007, defendants received incomplete and unverified answers to Interrogatories from plaintiff. A true and correct copy of plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories are attached hereto as Exhibit "C ". 8. On or about October 2, 2007, defendants' counsel spoke with plaintiffs counsel, advising him that the Answers to Interrogatories were not verified, and requested plaintiffto provide verified Answers to Interrogatories. 9. Several of plaintiffs answers to Interrogatories, including answers to Interrogatories 19(b), 20(a) and (b), 23, 29, 30, and 34 indicate simply that answers were "forthcoming." MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10. On October 31, 2007, defendants sent plaintiff a letter, requestingthat plaintiff answer fully interrogatories 19(b), 20(a) and (b), 23, 29, 30, and 34; defendants in their letter also requested that plaintiff provide verified answers in the next ten (10) days. A true and correct copy of defendants' October 31, 2007 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "D ". 11. As of this date, plaintiff has failed to provide verified answers to Interrogatories, and has failed to supplement his answers to Interrogatories 19(b), 20(a) and (b), 23, 29, 30, and 34. 12. These Interrogatories request essential and discoverable information to which defendants are entitled in order to evaluate this case and prepare a defense. 13. Defendants will be severely prejudiced should plaintiff fail to provide full, complete and verified answers. 14. Defendants are entitled under the Rules of Civil Procedure to full and complete answers to their Interrogatories. Additionally, under the Rules, these Answers to Interrogatories must be verified by the plaintiff. WHEREFORE, defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. and Kenneth Kochenour, respectfully request that plaintiffbe ordered to provide answers to Interrogatories 19(b), 20(a) and (b), 23, 29, 30, and 34, and to verify his answers to Interrogatories. MCCORMI PRIORS, P.C. BY: Philip . Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorneys for defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, L.P., Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co., Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. Dated: November 12, 2007 and Kenneth Kochenour MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATfoRNEYs AT LAW VERIFICATION Brian J. Callahan, Esquire, hereby states that he is counsel fordefendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. and Kenneth Kochenour, in the within matter, and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. and Kenneth Kochenour's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.§ 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 14a?vlt- BAand/Naan Dated: 11 f rz /07 MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Brian J. Callahan, Esquire, hereby certify that on this l2 day of November, 2007, I did cause a true and correct copy of Defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. and Kenneth Kochenour's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories to be forwarded by first-class United States mail to counsel, addressed as follows: Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 Attorney for plaintiff "ilk BriJ. Callahan, Esquire MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW MCCOPMICK & PRIORE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAw 4 Perin Center Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 (215) 972-0161 Fax (215) 972-5580 www, mccorniickpziore. com NEW JERSEY OFFICE 103 Carnegie Center Suite 203 Princeton, N.J. 08540 July 3, 2007 (609) 716-9550 Fcrx (609) 716-8140 Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 RE: Lopez v. Kochenour, et al. CCP, Cumberland County, Docket No.: 07-2830 Civil Our File: 8559-13674 Dear Mr. Lappas: In reference to the above-captioned matter, enclosed please fmd the following documents: Interrogatories of Defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, L.P., Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co., Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. and Kenneth Kochenour, Addressed to Plaintiff, and Request for Production of Documents of Defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, L.P., Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co., Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. and Kenneth Kochenour, Addressed to Plaintiff. Please respond to the enclosed discovery within the time limits prescribed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Thank you for your attention to this matter. t o Bnanal D BJC/jal Enclosures Aoft.. t7 MCCORIVIICK & PRUORE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAw 4 Penn Center Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 (215) 972-0161 Fax (215) 972-5580 www. mccormickpnore. com NEW JERSEY OFFICE 103 Carnegie Center Suite 203 Princeton, N.J. 08540 August 9, 2007 (609) 716-9550 Fax (609) 716-8140 Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 RE: Lopez v. Kochenour, et al. CCP, Cumberland County, Docket No.: 07-2830 Civil Our File: 8559-13674 Dear Mr. Lappas: lease ? to- ??.?? Please allow this letter to remind you that the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents addressed to Plaintiff, which were served upon you on July 3, 2007, are now overdue. Please provide answers to these discovery requests in the next ten (10) days. If additional time is needed, please let me know. Thank you for your attention and cooperation in this regard. Very truly (1 D 4?nian . C lahan BJC/ 9 ?... g '1 s ? i? ?,.. Y+. t SPERO T. LAPPAS, Esquire Serrateili, Schiffman, Brown and Calhoon, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 (717) 540-9170 ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF W THE COURT OF COMMONPLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY RICHARD LOPEZ, Plaintiff V. DOUGLASBEARDSLEY, CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., MECHANICSBURG GFINVESTORS, L.P., MECHAAWSBURG GFINVESTORS CO., CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC., KENNETHEOCHENOUR, Defendants NO. 07-02830 CIVIL ACTION -- LAW Jury Trial Demanded Plaintiffs Answer to Defendants'. Carlisle Investors. Inc., Mechanicsburg GFlnvestors, L.P., Mechanicsburg GFlnvestors Co., Central Pennsylvania Hospitality Inc., and Kenneth Kochenour? Interrogatories All of the Defendants' Document Requests are objected to on the basis that they are beyond the scope of permissible discovery, that they Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BROWN AND CALHOON, P. C. Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants' Interrogatories Page I violate the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, that they improperly call for information which is protected by the Attorney Client Privilege, the Work Product Privilege, or some other recognized evidentiary privilege. Without waiving those objections, see the following answers: 1(a). Unknown. 1(b). Unknown. 1(c). Unknown. 2(a)(1). Unknown 2(a)(2). Unknown. 2(a)(3). Unknown. 3(a)(1). None. 4(a)(1). None. 5(a)(1). Plaintiff was 34 years of age. 5(a)(2). Plaintiff is 35 years of age. 5(b). February 14, 1972 5(c). Holy Spirt Hospital 503 North 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BROWN AND CALHOON, P. C. Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants' Interrogatories Page 2 5(d)(1). Single. 5(d)(2). Single. 5(e)(1). None. 5(e)(2). None. 6(a). 182-60-4558 6(b). None. 6(c). AETNA Policy No. BBNSNQTA 6(d). AETNA Policy No. BBNSNQTA Group No. US3383970010 7. See medical records attached. 8. See medical records attached. 9. See medical records attached. 10. See medical records attached. 11. No. 11(a). See medical records attached. 12. See medical records attached. 13. None. Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BROWN AND CALHOON, P. C. Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants ' Interrogatories Page 3 14. None. 15. Book Salesman. 16. Book Club of American 1 South Fredrick Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 17. None. 18. Yes. 19(a). Book Club of American 1 South Fredrick Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Dates Forthcoming. Books for Less 47 Hall Street Brooklyn, NY 10025 Dates Forthcoming. 19(b). Forthcoming. 20(a)-20(b). Not applicable. 21. None. Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BR0WNAND CALHOON, P. C Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants ' Interrogatories Page 4 22. None. 23. Forthcoming. 24. Not applicable. 25. Not applicable. 26. None. 27. None. 28. Not applicable. 29. Forthcoming. 30. Forthcoming. 31. See Complaint. 32. None. 33(a). See attached records. 33(b). See attached records. 33(c). See attached records. 33(d). See attached records. 33(e). See attached records. 33(f). See attached records. Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BROWN AND CALHOON, P. C. Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants' Interrogatories Page 5 33(g). See attached records. 34. Forthcoming. 35. Undetermined. Respectfully submitted, SERRATELLI, By' SPE1Z0 ? LA?PPAS, SQUIRE PA, SUPR MFICr. IDrro. 26746 A C. 20801ANGLESTOWN ROAD, &JITE 201 HARRISBURG, PA 17110-9670 (717)540-9170 ATTOMVEYSFOR THEPLAINTIFF Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BROWN AND CALHOON, P. C. Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants' Interrogatories Page 6 MCCORIvIICK & PRIORS, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4 Penn Center Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 (215) 972-0161 Fax (215) 972-5580 www. mccormickpnore. com NEW JERSEY OFFICE 103 Carnegie Center Suite 203 Princeton, N.J. 08540 (609) 716-9550 Fax (609) 716-8140 Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 October 31, 2007 RE: Lopez v. Kochenour, et al. CCP, Cumberland County, Docket No.: 07-2830 Civil Our File: 8559-13674 Dear Mr. Lappas: leaae to Al aw kok,a I am writing to you in follow up to the conversation we had with regard to your client's responses to our written discovery requests. In several of your Answers, specifically Answers to Interrogatories 19(b), 20(a)-(b), 23, 29, 30 and 34, you (and/or your client) indicated that Answers were "forthcoming." Please provide full and complete Answers to these Interrogatories in the next ten days, to avoid the need for the filing of a motion. As you know, the Answers you provided were not verified. Please submit properly verified Answers within the next ten days as well. With regard to our Request for Production of Documents, you objected to #19, which requested documents relating to plaintiffs insurance. This objection is without merit and the documents requested are discoverable. Please provide documents responsive to #19 within the next ten days or confirm in writing that plaintiff is not seeking reimbursement for any out-of-pocket expenses or medical bills in this law suit. Spero T. Lappas, Esquire October 31, 2007 Page 2 Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. I await your response. Very truly yours, D Philip D. Priore Brian J. Callahan PDP:BJC/ljg r -- rr, ? r :.. .C° --1 6?- PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUN'T'Y Please list the following case: ® for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ? for trial without a jury. ---- - ----------------- - - ----- - --------- - -- - - ------ - ---- - ---------------- - -------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) RICHARD LOPEZ (Plaintiff} Vs. CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., ET. AL. Vs. (Defendant) ? Civil Action - Law ? Appeal from arbitration (other) The trial list will be called on December 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 and Trials commence on January 26, 2008 Pretrialswillbe held on January 7, 2008 (Briefs are due S days before pretrials No. 07-2830 Term Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Spero T. Lappas, Esquire Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Brian Callahan, Esquire and Philip D. Pr' re, Esquire This case is ready for trial. Signed: Print Name: Spero T. Lappas, Esquire Date: 9/24/08 Attorney for: Plaintiff SL U O ?' `?' `n CZ) r-M -? rn .? l.. ?? ern ° ? "" w B. & C. Ntb Fa. PP.AECIPE FOR USTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) NO, 7366 P. 2 TO M PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY please list the following case: for TMY trial at the next term of civil court. j? for trial without a jury. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) RICHARD LOPEZ, (Plaintiff) ® Civil Action - Lave ? Appeal from arbitration {athez) vs. Tbie trial list will be called on T)pf pTn1hp r 3 0 , 2 0 08 DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY, and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, L.PTrialscommence onjanuarv 2g, 2009 MECHANICSBURG GF INNVVEffSS.TORS CO. CENTRAL PENNSYLVANI`T?e?t?TALI etrlals will be held on January 7, 2009 INC., vs. (( rzefs are due S days before pretrials KENNETH KOCHENOUR, No. 07-2830 Term (Defendants) Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Spero T. Lappas, Esquire Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Brian Callahan, Esquire and Philip D. Priore, Esquire This case is ready for trial. Signed: Print Name: Spero T. Lappas, . Esquire Date: 9/28/08 Attomeyfor:. Plaintiff a , RICHARD LOPEZ, Plaintiff v DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY, CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., MECHANCISBURG GF INVESTORS, L.P., MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, CO., CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC., KENNETH KOCHENOUR, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 07-2830 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CASE STRICKEN FROM LIST ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2008, upon consideration of the call of the civil trial list, and no person having called the above-captioned case for trial, it is stricken from the trial list. By the Court, Spero T. Lappas, Esquire 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-967C For Plaintiff Irian J. Callahan, Esquire Philip D. Priore, Esquire 1600 JFK Boulevard Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 For Defendants Clork-T e"w I'LL l?rloy? Court Administrator :mae rjr C \i LLI LLJ U- C rV a PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: X? for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ? for trial without a jury. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) RICHARD LOPEZ (Plaintim VS. (check one) ® Civil Action - Law ? Appeal from arbitration (other) The trial list will be called on March 17, 2009 and ?ARLISLESIIVVESTORSNVYN?ORS CO., DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY, Trials commence on APRTr. 1 Ol 9 KENNETH KOCHENOUR, Pretrials willbe held on MECHANICSBURG GF `IN " L . P __ARCH 95 qnnQ Vs. (Ariefs are due 5 days before pretrials CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. No. X7 2 0 3.Term indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: This case is ready for trial. Date:- 1 ?_2?09_ Signed: Print Name: Attorney for: PT.ATNTTFp h GJ -?6 McCORMICK & PRIORS, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorney ID No: 38987/200815 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriore@mccormickpriore.com bcallahan@mccormickpriore.com RICHARD LOPEZ V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR Attorneys for defendants, Kenneth Kochenour, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc., Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP and Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Brian J. Callahan, counsel for the defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company, Central Hospitality, Inc. and Kenneth Kochenour in the above action, respectfully represents that: MCCORMCK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. 2. The amount in controversy in the action does not exceed $50,000.00. 3. This matter arises out of an alleged altercation that occurred at Legends Bar in Mechanicsburg on or about May 29, 2006. 4. As a result of the alleged incident, plaintiff sustained a 1.5 inch cut on the back of his head for which he received seven staples at the hospital. 5. Aside from this hospital visit and a subsequent visit to remove the staples, plaintiff sustained no other injuries and underwent no other treatment. 6. His medical bill from the hospital totaled approximately $688.50. 7. Plaintiff's only physical complaint regarding the incident was some head pain which resolved within four weeks. See deposition of Richard Lopez, attached hereto as Exhibit A, p. 44, 46. 8. Similarly, plaintiff suffered no emotional or psychological symptoms related to the incident; in fact, plaintiff continued to patronize the bar on other occasions following this incident. See Exhibit A, p. 49. 9. Plaintiff presents no claim for lost wages or loss of future earning capacity. 10. The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Spero Lappas, Esq., Brian J. Callahan, Esq., and Philip D. Priore, Esq. 2 MCCORMiCK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: P rio , Esquire Brian J. Callahan, Esquire Attorneys for defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, L.P., Mechanicsburg GF Investors Co., Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. and Kenneth Kochenour Dated: -March 10, 2009 3 MCCORMiCK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAw VERIFICATION Brian J. Callahan, Esquire, hereby states that he is counsel for defendants, Carlisle Investors, Inc., Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP, Mechanicsburg GF Investors Company, Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. and Kenneth Kochenour, in the within matter, and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.§ 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 14 z?' Brian J. CaNheA- Dated: March 10, 2009 MCCORMCK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Brian J. Callahan, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 10 day of March, 2009, I did cause a true and correct copy of the Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators, to be forwarded by first-class United States mail to all parties to this action, addressed as follows: Spero T. Lappas, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 Attorney for plaintiff Douglas Beardsley 13519 State Route 213 Irondale, OH 43932 Defendant J. Callahan, Esquire MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW m n C'> r m v Richard Lopez 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action - Law No. 07-2830 --- RICHARD LOPEZ, Plaintiff, vs DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY, CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP, MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY, CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC., and KENNETH KOCHENOUR, Defendants. ----- -------------------------------- x Deposition of RICHARD LOPEZ 2080 Linglestown Road January Harrisburg, PA 10:00 a 15, 2008 a.m. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed that the sealing of the within transcript is waived; IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED and agreed that all objections except as to the form of the question are reserved to the time of trial. FrontinoReporting, LLC Frontino/DeFilippis Court Reporting Agency 34 North Front Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 215 922-2133 APPEARANCES: SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110-9670 BY: SPERO T. LAPPAS, ESQ. (717) 540-9170 For the Plaintiff MCCORMICK & PRIORS, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 BY: BRIAN J. CALLAHAN, ESQ. (215) 972-0161 For the Defendants FrontinoReporting, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Janu I N D E X WITNESS EXAMINATION BY Richard Lopez Mr. Callahan 15, 2008 PAGE 4 1 4 PROCEEDINGS 2 RICHARD LOPEZ, having been duly 3 sworn by Gwen A. Leary, Notary Public, was 4 examined and testified as follows: 5 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. CALLAHAN: 10:08A 7 Q I am Brian Callahan. Have you ever 8 been deposed before? 9 A No. 10 Q Just to make things go a little more 11 smoothly, before I start asking the questions, l 12 am going to give you a couple instructions to 13 follow during the deposition. Your attorney 14 probably gave you a heads up as to what they 15 might be. 16 The first is you are going to be 17 answering questions today about an incident that 18 occurred on May 29, 2006. The questions you are 19 going to be answering are under oath, as you 20 know. So it is basically the same as giving 21 testimony in court. 22 1 will be asking the questions. You 23 will be providing the answers. If you don't 24 understand something that I ask or you can't hear 25 me, please just stop me and I will be happy to Richard Lopez 5 1 rephrase or repeat the question for you. Okay? 2 A Okay. 3 Q I will need a verbal answer to each 4 of my questions. I know what you mean when you 5 nod your head or shake your head; but for the 6 court reporter's sake, I need to get a yes or no. 7 Okay? 8 A Yes. 9 Q If you need to take a break, I don't 10 think we're going to be all that long, but if you 11 need to take a break for any reason, just let me 12 know. I only ask that you answer any question 13 that is pending before you ask to take your 14 break. Okay? 15 A Okay. 16 Q With that, could you please just 17 state your full name for the record? 10:09A 18 A Richard Alan Lopez, Jr. 19 Q And you have not gone by any other 20 names? 21 A No. 22 Q Where do you live, Mr. Lopez? 23 A I live at 6149 Hay Market Way, 24 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 25 Q And how long have you lived there _ January It, ZU08 7 1 Q How long have you been with Books 2 For Less? 3 A Five years. 4 Q Full-time? 5 A Yes. 6 Q What is your position there? 7 A Purchasing. 8 Q Do you work on commission? 9 A No. 10 Q Who is your supervisor at Books For I1 Less? 12 A Michael Shmuely, S-h-m-u-e-l-y. 13 Q Has he always been your supervisor? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Do you have an office around here? 16 A No. I work at home when I'm in the 17 area. 18 Q What do your job duties entail? 19 A We are in the remainder book 20 business; and I am in charge of purchasing 21 remainders and overstocks from publishers. 10:11 A 22 Q And all of this can be done from 23 home? 24 A If I am not working in New York or 25 traveling, yes. 6 8 1 for? 1 Q How often do you travel? 2 A Three years. 2 A Several times a week. 3 Q Who do you live there with? 3 Q Does most of your travel consist of 4 A Myself. 4 going to New York? 5 Q Before 6149, where did you live? 5 A New York, or to various publishers 6 A I lived in Sayville, New York. 6 throughout the country. 7 Q How long did you live in New York 7 Q And every week you travel at least 8 for? 8 how many times? 9 A I was in New York for four years. 9 A At least once a week to New York. 10 Q What is your Social Security number? 10 Q Has that always been like that? 11 A 182-60-4558. 11 A Yes. 12 Q And your date of birth? 12 Q Where is the last place you worked? 13 A 2114/72. 13 A I'm sorry? 14 Q How far did you go in school? 14 Q Where was the last place you worked 15 A High school. 15 in terms of travel? 16 Q Where did you graduate from? 16 A The last place I was in was 17 A Cumberland Valley High School. 17 Pittsburgh. 18 Q What year was that? 18 Q When did you go to Pittsburgh? 10:10A 19 A 1990. 19 A I went to Pittsburgh last Tuesday. 20 Q Are you currently employed? 20 Q How much do you earn at Books For 21 A Yes. 21 Less? 22 Q How are you employed? 22 A I earn a salary of $82,000 a year. 23 A Books For Less. 23 Q How much did you start at? 24 Q Where are they out of? 10:12A 24 A Around $75,000. 25 A Based in Brooklyn, New York. 25 Q Do you earn any overtime? FrontinoReporting, LLC Richard Lopez I A No. 9 2 Q Did you earn any bonuses? 3 A Yes. 4 Q What is your bonus based on? 5 A Bonuses are based on year-end sales, 6 company sales. 7 Q Did you get one for 2007? 8 A No. 9 Q How about 2006? 10 A No. 11 Q Did you ever get a bonus? 12 A Not with this company. 13 Q And you have no children? 14 A No. 15 Q Never in the military? 16 A No. 17 Q Before Books For Less, where were 18 you employed? 19 A I was with Book Club of America. 20 Q What did you do there? 21 A I was involved in sales and 22 purchasing in the remainder book business. 23 Q The same type of duties? 10:13A 24 A Yes. 25 Q How long were you there for? I A Three and a half years. 10 2 Q Where are they based out of? 3 A They are no longer in business; but 4 at the time, they were in Hauppauge, New York. 5 Q Is that why you left, because they 6 went out of business? 7 A I left prior to them going out of 8 business. 9 Q Why did you leave? 10 A I had another opportunity with Books 1 I For Less. 12 Q Was it better money at Books For 13 Less? 14 A The same. 15 Q Are you making a claim for lost 16 wages in this lawsuit? 17 A Not sure. 18 Q Did you miss any time from work 19 because of the incident that is the subject of 20 this lawsuit? 21 A I did take some time off, yes. 22 Q How much time did you take off? 23 A I took off the week after the 24 incident. 10:14A 25 Q A whole week? FrontinoReporting, LLC January 15, 2008 1 A Yes. 11 2 Q Was the day after this incident 3 Memorial Day? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Were you scheduled to take that week 6 off? 7 A No. 8 Q Were you paid for your time off? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Were you paid your full salary? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Did you use sick days? 13 A No. 14 Q Did you use vacation? 15 A No. 16 Q How were you paid? 17 A Salary. 18 Q Do you get a certain amount of sick 19 days a year? 20 A Yes. 21 Q How many? 22 A I believe seven or eight sick days, 23 I believe seven. 10:15A 24 Q How many vacation days? 25 A Two weeks. 1 12 Q How was it that you didn't use any 2 sick days or vacation to take the time off? 3 A I was working at home, but really 4 was not working. 5 Q So you did work at home? 6 A Yes. 7 Q As you do every day? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Have you ever been convicted of any 10 felonies? I1 A No. 12 Q How about any misdemeanors? 13 A No. 14 Q Have you ever had a DUI? 15 A No. 16 Q Ever been fired from a job? 17 A No. 18 Q Ever filed a worker's comp claim? 19 A No. 20 Q Have you ever been injured at work? 21 A No. 22 Q Before this lawsuit, have you ever 23 filed any other lawsuits? 24 A No. 25 Q Before this lawsuit, have you ever Richard Lopez January n, luau 13 15 1 filed any insurance claims against another 1 A I do not. 2 person's insurance company? 2 Q Have you ever been to his house? 10: 16A 3 A No. 3 A I have. 4 Q Do you remember what day this 4 Q How many times? 5 incident occurred? 5 A Six times. 6 A It was the day prior to Memorial 6 Q Do you know how to get there? 7 Day, I believe the 29th. 7 A Yes. 8 Q Of 2006? 8 Q What road do you take? 9 A Correct. 9 A It is off of Orrs Bridge Road in 10 Q Where did the incident occur? 10 Mechanicsburg. I I A Legends Sports Bar. I 1 Q Can you repeat that? 12 Q Is that the Holiday Inn? 12 A Orrs Bridge Road. 13 A I believe so. 13 Q What does Andy do? 14 Q Is that the Holiday Inn on the 14 A Andy works for Industrial Harness 15 Carlisle Pike? 15 based in Chambersburg, PA. 16 A Yes. 16 Q What type of work was that? 17 Q Prior to May 29, 2006, had you been 17 A They are in the electrical harness 18 at Legends before? 18 business . 19 A Yes. 19 Q Where did you meet Andy that night? 20 Q Prior to May of 2006, how many times 20 A I believe I met him at my house. I 21 had you been at Legends? 21 believe he was dropped off. 22 A I don't recall. 10:19A 22 Q Who dropped him off? 23 Q More than ten times before May of 23 A I believe at the time his 24 2006? 24 girlfriend. 10:17A 25 A It is possible. 25 Q What is her name? 14 16 1 Q Was it one of your regular places to I A Jen. 2 go? 2 Q What was her last name? 3 A No. Actually, no. 3 A At the time, I don't know. They are 4 Q Before May 29, 2006, when was the 4 now married, so it is Lundeen now. 5 last time you were at Legends? 5 Q What time did he get to your house 6 A I don't recall. 6 that night? 7 Q Had you been there earlier that 7 A I believe he was there at about ten 8 month? 8 o'clock. 9 A It is possible. 9 Q What did you do at your house when 10 Q And this happened on a Sunday night. 10 he got there? 11 Right? I 1 A I believe we shot a few games of 12 A Yes. 12 pool. 13 Q Who were you with that night? 13 Q Was it just you two? 14 A I was with Andy Lundeen. 14 A Yes. 15 Q Can you spell his last name? 15 Q Did you have anything to drink at 16 A L-u-n-d-e-e-n. 16 your house that night? 17 Q How long have you known Andy for? 17 A No. 18 A I have known Andy for eight years. 18 Q Did he have anything to drink? 19 Q How do you know him? 19 A No. 20 A Friends. 20 Q Did you offer him a beer when he got 21 Q Where does Andy live? 21 there? 10:18A 22 A Mechanicsburg. 22 A No. 23 Q Do you know his address? 23 Q At some point you left your house to 24 A I do not. 24 go to the bar? 25 Q Do you know what road he lives on? 10:20A 25 A Correct. FrontinoReporting, LLC Richard Lopez January i-n, ma 17 19 1 Q What time did you leave your house? 1 bar? 2 A I would say that I don't recall the 10:22A 2 A Began shooting pool. 3 exact time. I know it was approximately 3 Q Did you order anything to drink when 4 ten-thirty, maybe eleven o'clock. 4 you got to the bar? 5 Q Who decided what bar to go to? 5 A I believe we ordered a beer, yes. 6 A We both decided to go there. 6 Q What did you order? 7 Q How did you decide on going to 7 A I ordered an Amstel Light bottle. 8 Legends ? 8 Q What did your friend order? 9 A They have pool tables. We were 9 A I believe he had a Molson Golden. 10 looking to shoot pool. 10 Q A bottle? 11 Q When you got to Legends that night, 11 A Yes. 12 was it just you two that walked in the bar? 12 Q Is there about three pool tables in 13 A Yes. 13 that bar? 14 Q Were you meeting anyone there? 14 A Yes. 15 A No. 15 Q Can you tell me which pool table you 16 Q Did you know anyone there? 16 were playing at? 17 A No. 17 A The specific table we started 18 Q Was Andy familiar with the bar? 18 playing at was when you walk into the club, it 19 A I think so. 19 was the table to the far right. 20 Q Were you carded when you came into 20 Q When you walk in and walk to the 21 the bar? 21 back? 22 A I don't recall. 22 A Yes. 10:21 A 23 Q When you walked into the bar, was it 23 Q Were you playing anyone? 24 crowded or not crowded? How many people were 10:23A 24 A Yes. 25 there? 25 Q Who were you playing? 18 20 1 A It was crowded. 1 A I don't know. 2 Q Can you approximate how many people 2 Q How many games of pool did you play? 3 were there when you got there? 3 A I don't recall. 4 A I don't recall how many. 4 Q At some point in the night, did you 5 Q More than ten people in the bar? 5 talk to any of the bartenders that were working 6 A Yes. 6 that night? 7 Q More than 20 people in the bar? 7 A That night, no. 8 A Yes. 8 Q How about any of the security 9 Q Was there more than 50? 9 personne l before the incident occurred? 10 A In total, yes. 10 A Before the incident, no. 1 I Q What do you mean total"? 1 l Q Did you talk to any employee of the 12 A More than 50, yes. 12 bar before this incident occurred? 13 Q Was there more than 100 people in 13 A No. 14 the bar? 14 Q Who ordered the beers when you got 15 A I could not answer that. 15 there? 16 Q So you are approximating that there 16 A I did. 17 were more than 50 people when you got there? 17 Q Did you talk to any of the patrons 18 A Yes. 18 at the bar while you were there? 19 Q But you don't know if there were 19 A Yes. 20 more than 100? 20 Q Do you remember who you talked to? 21 A More than 100, no. 21 A No. 22 Q Can you tell me if there was more 22 Q How many beers did you have at the 23 than 75 people there? 23 bar? 24 A I could not tell. 10:24A 24 A I had one beer and started a second 25 Q What did you do when you got to the 25 pitcher -- excuse me -- our first pitcher of beer FrontinoReporting, LLC Richard Lopez Januarv 15, 2008 21 23 1 after the bottle of beer when the incident 1 A From what I recall, yes. 2 occurred. 2 Q And what did that person look like? 3 Q Who ordered the pitcher? 3 A I would say a young man in his mid 4 A I believe Andy did. 4 twenties. 5 Q Did you have any beers from that 5 Q What did Beardsley look like? 6 pitcher? 6 A Short, stocky, balding, with a 7 A No. 7 mustache. 8 Q Why don't you tell me in your words 8 Q How old about? 9 how the incident occurred? 9 A Approximately 40. 10 A From what I recall, there was a 10 Q Do you know how big he was? 11 gentleman there who was belligerent, causing a I 1 A Height wise, I would say he was 12 lot of problems with a lot of patrons, from what 12 five, nine. 13 I remember; and I know they were looking to shoot 13 Q How heavy was he? 14 some pool. And I believe earlier in the evening 14 A Two-fifty. 15 Andy Lundeen did shoot some games of pool with 15 Q Did you hear any conversations 16 this gentleman. And at some point I was struck 16 between Mr. Beardsley and your friend Andy? 17 in the head without altercation. 17 A No. 10:26A 18 Q Do you know who the individual was? 18 Q Did they have any conversations? 19 A Yes. 19 A I don't recall if they did. 20 Q What is his name? 20 Q Were you always standing with your 21 A Douglas Beardsley. 21 friend at the bar? 22 Q Had you seen Mr. Beardsley before 22 A Yes. 23 that night? 23 Q You mentioned Mr. Beardsley was 24 A No. 24 causing other problems. Is that correct? 25 Q Did you have any communications with 10:28A 25 A Yes. 22 24 1 Mr. Beardsley before being struck? 1 Q What was he doing? 2 A I don't recall. 2 A I noticed he was going up to people 3 Q So you could have talked to him? 3 at the bar and bothering them, in particular 4 A I might have had words with him. I 4 women at the bar. And why I know that is our 5 don't recall. 5 pool table was next to the corner of the bar. 6 Q What kind of words? 6 Q How was he bothering them? 7 A Possibly talking about the game. I 7 A Just -- I don't know if it was 8 don't recall. 8 something he was saying possibly. 9 Q How long before the incident 9 Q How do you know he was bothering 10 occurred did he play pool with your friend? 10 them? 11 A I would say within the hour. 1 I A I could tell by their reaction. 12 Q Was he with people? 12 Q Did you hear him yell at anyone? 13 A I think so. 13 A No. 14 Q Why do you say that? 14 Q Did you see Mr. Beardsley stumble or 15 A I think he was with one person. 15 fall at any point before this incident occurred? 16 MR. LAPPAS: When you say was he 16 A No. 17 with somebody, you are talking about 17 Q Did you see Mr. Beardsley start any 18 Beardsley now? 18 type of fights or altercations before your 19 BY MR. CALLA-HAN: 19 incident? 20 Q You understand my question to be 20 A No. 21 Douglas Beardsley? 21 Q And you are not sure if your buddy 10:27A 22 A Yes. 22 Andy got into an argument with him? 23 Q Was Douglas Beardsley with anyone? 10:29A 23 A Not sure. 24 A I believe, yes. 24 Q Did Andy play pool with him after 25 Q He was with one other person? 25 you saw Beardsley bothering people at the bar? FrontinoReporting, LLC Richard Lopez 25 1 A He played before. 2 Q How did the incident where you were 3 hit come about? 4 A I was playing doubles with Andy on 5 the table. The incident escalated when the 6 pitcher of beer that I said Andy had ordered, 7 Beardsley came over to the table and actually 8 took our pitcher of beer and poured it to the 9 ground. 10:30A 10 Q Were you there when he did this? 11 A I was standing next to the table 12 when he knocked the pitcher to the ground. 13 Q He knocked it? 14 A Yes, he knocked the pitcher to the 15 ground, not poured it. 16 Q Do you know for certain whether Mr. 17 Beardsley did that on purpose or not? 18 A I believe he did it on purpose, yes. 19 Q Why do you believe he did that on 20 purpose? 21 A Possibly to initiate something. 22 Q What would make you think he would 23 want to initiate something with you? 24 A I don't know. 25 Q What did he knock it over with, his 26 1 arm? 2 A Yes. 3 Q What part of his arm? 4 A I believe he just backhanded. 5 Q Do you know of any reason Mr. 6 Beardsley would have had to do that? 7 A No. 8 Q Did you say anything to Mr. 9 Beardsley when the pitcher was knocked over? 10 A No. 11 Q Did you say anything to your friend 12 when that happened? 13 A No. 14 Q Did your friend say anything to Mr. 15 Beardsley? 16 A Yes. 17 Q What? 10:31A 18 A What is your problem? Why did you 19 do that? 20 Q Did he say anything else to Mr. 21 Beardsley? 22 A I don't recall. 23 Q Did Mr. Beardsley say anything in 24 response? 25 A I don't recall. j anus in, luus 27 1 Q Did Mr. Beardsley go away after he 2 knocked over the pitcher? 3 A No. 4 Q What did he do? 5 A He continued to stand there. A 6 member of -- I believe at the time it was the 7 manager on duty stepped in. 8 Q How did he step in? 9 A He stepped in and said, quoting, I 10 don't have security here guys tonight. I don't 11 want any problems. We explained to him what had 12 just happened; and he offered to replace our 13 pitcher and also provided Beardsley and his 14 companion a beverage as well. 15 Q Was Beardsley there when the manager 16 came over? 10:32A 17 A Yes. 18 Q Why are you calling him the manager? 19 A That is how he introduced himself. 20 Q As the manager? 21 A As the manager of Legends at the 22 time -- the manager on duty. Excuse me. 23 Q Was he standing in between the two 24 of you and Mr. Beardsley and his friend? 25 A Yes. 28 1 Q Who was he facing when he came over 2 and spoke to you? 3 A I don't recall if he was facing 4 anyone. 5 Q What did you say to the manager? 6 A Nothing. 7 Q Did Mr. Beardsley say anything to 8 the manager? 9 A I don't recall. 10 Q Did you have anything to eat at the 11 bar? 12 A No. 13 Q Do you know if Mr. Beardsley did? 14 A I don't recall, 15 Q Did you accept drinks from the 16 manager? 17 A He replaced the pitcher. 18 Q Were you struck when the manager was 19 there speaking to you? 10:33A 20 A No. 21 Q Where was the manager? 22 A He went to the bar, I believe, to 23 place the order. 24 Q Was any employee of the bar in the 25 vicinity of you and Mr. Beardsley when you were FrontinoReporting, LLC Richard Lopez 29 1 struck? 2 A I don't recall. 3 Q So there could have been an 4 employee? 5 A There could have been a waitress 6 possibly, yes. 7 Q Could there have been a male 8 employee there? 9 A Could have been, yes. 10 Q Did you hear your friend taunt or I 1 pick a fight with Mr. Beardsley? 12 A I don't recall. 13 Q Did you ever hear your friend say he 14 was going to kick Mr. Beardsley's ass? 10:34A 15 A No. 16 Q You didn't hear that? 17 A I didn't hear him say that. 18 Q What were your struck with? 19 A An aluminum Budweiser bottle. 20 Q Where were you struck? 21 A The top right side of my head, back 22 of my head. 23 Q Were you struck when your back was 24 to Mr. Beardsley? 25 A I was facing Beardsley. 30 1 Q Did he reach around and hit the back 2 of your head? 3 A I ducked as he came at me with the 4 bottle. 5 Q You saw it coming? 6 A Yes. 7 Q You don't know why Mr. Beardsley did 8 that? 9 A No. 10 Q How long after the manager left your 11 presence did it happen? 12 A Minutes. I would say no more than 13 five or ten minutes. 10:35A 14 Q And you claim the manager was at the 15 bar when this happened? 16 A I don't recall where he was at the 17 time. 18 Q Did you hear the manager at any time 19 try to calm the people down, calm your friend 20 down or calm Mr. Beardsley down before this 21 incident occurred? 22 A Other than the initial time that 23 he -- 24 Q So did he try to defuse the 25 situation? January 15, 2UU8 31 1 A Initially when he came up and 2 defused the situation and offered us a 3 replacement drink, yes. 4 Q And you don't know what Mr. 5 Beardsley said to the manager? 6 A No. 7 Q Did you try to defend yourself 8 against Mr. Beardsley? 9 A Other than ducking out of the way, 10 no. 11 Q Do you mind pointing to me where you 12 were hit? 13 A Yes. 14 (Witness indicating.) 10:36A 15 Q Could you point to the exact spot? 16 A Here. It is a scar right on the top 17 of my head. 18 (Witness indicating.) 19 (Discussion held off the record.) 20 BY MR. CALLAHAN: 21 Q So you are in the bar and you say 22 you have one drink before this all occurs? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And you were in the process of 25 starting a pitcher? 32 10:37A 1 A Yes. 2 Q Didn't have any beers from that 3 pitcher? 4 A No. 5 Q And to your knowledge, did Andrew 6 have any beers from that pitcher? 7 A No. 8 Q Did you have any mixed drinks? 9 A No. 10 Q Did you do any shots? 11 A No. 12 Q Did you ever see Mr. Beardsley 13 drinking a shot? 14 A No. 15 Q Can you quantify how many beers Mr. 16 Beardsley drank? 17 A No. 18 Q Did you see the manager in the bar 19 prior to this incident occurring? 20 A No. 21 Q What was the manager wearing? 22 A I don't recall. 23 Q Was there a bar back on duty? 24 A I don't recall. 25 Q Did you ever speak to a bar back FrontinoReporting, LLC Richard Lopez 33 1 after this incident? 2 MR. LAPPAS: What is bar back? 3 MR. CALLAHAN: I'm sorry. 4 BY MR. CALLAHAN: 5 Q Do you know what a bar back is? 6 A Yes. Someone who stocks the bar and 7 backs up the bartenders. I don't recall. 10:38A 8 Q When you were hit with the bottle, 9 did you fall? 10 A No. 11 Q What did you do? 12 A After ducking and being struck, I 13 actually just stood there and instantly felt 14 blood down the back of my neck. 15 Q Did Beardsley say anything as he was 16 swinging? 17 A No. 18 Q Did he come around you? 19 A I think it was sort of a round 20 house, yes. 21 Q But he never punched you or 22 anything? 23 A No. 24 Q To your knowledge, was the bottle 25 empty when it hit you? January E.), 20ON 35 1 A In the parking lot. 2 Q What did your friend do when he got 3 him? 4 A Other than detain him, I don't 5 recall. 10:40A 6 Q How big is your friend? 7 A My height. 8 Q How much does your friend weigh? 9 A I would say he is 200 pounds. 10 Q How much do you weigh? 1 I A Two, twenty-five. 12 Q And your height? 13 A Five, ten. 14 Q Did you drive there that night? 15 A I did. 16 Q After your friend detained him, did 17 the cops come at all? 18 A The cops were there within minutes, 19 1 believe within five minutes. 20 Q Do you know who called? 21 A I believe the bar staff called them. 22 Q Did your friend eventually come back 23 into the bar? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Was he with Mr. Beardsley when he 34 36 1 A I don't know. 1 came back in? 2 Q Did he say anything afterwards? 2 A No. 3 A No. 3 Q Where was Mr. Beardsley? 4 Q Where was your friend when this 4 A I believe he was with the cops. 5 happened when you were hit? 5 Q Did Mr. Beardsley ever re-enter the 10:39A 6 A He was to my side. I believe he had 6 bar? 7 just finished shooting pool, but he was right 7 A I don't recall. 8 there. 8 Q Did you see the cops talking to Mr. 9 Q And he was playing someone else? 9 Beardsley? 10 A We were playing partners on a table 10 A No. 11 with two other people who were witness to this as 1 I Q Did the cops talk to your friend 12 well. 12 Andy? 13 Q Do you know what their names are? 13 A Yes. 14 A I do not. I believe they might have 14 Q Did Andy make a statement? 15 given statements. 15 A I believe, yes. 16 Q Have you spoken to them since the 16 Q That night at the scene? 17 date? 10:41A 17 A Yes. 18 A No. 18 Q Was Mr. Beardsley arrested? 19 Q Did your friend do anything once you 19 A I believe he was charged with three 20 were hit? 20 misdemeanors. I don't know if he was formally 21 A I believe he sought help. And I 21 arrested or not. 22 believe he actually pursued Beardsley; because 22 Q You are not sure if he was taken 23 from what I was told, Beardsley left the bar 23 into poli ce custody? 24 immediately after hitting me. 24 A I believe he was, yes. 25 Q Did your friend get him? 25 Q Did the police come into the bar? FrontinoReporting, LLC Richard Lopez 37 1 A Yes. 2 Q Did they speak with any bar 3 employees? 4 A I believe they did. 5 Q Were you present when any of these 6 conversations took place? 7 A Not in front of me, no. 8 Q Did you overhear any of the bar 9 employees speaking to the police? 10 A No. 11 Q Did you have conversations with bar 12 employees after the incident? 13 A I was sitting at the bar and they 14 were tending to me as I was bleeding. And I had 15 a brief conversation with one of the bartenders. 10:43A 16 Q Was it a male or female? 17 A I believe it was a female. 18 Q What did you say? 19 A I don't recall. 20 Q What did she say? 21 A I do recall her saying that this 22 would not have happened had we had extra security 23 on this evening. 24 Q Do you feel that is true? 25 A Yes. January 15, A 39 1 A He was kind of like the schoolyard 2 bully. 3 Q Did you see him hit anyone? 10:45A 4 A I didn't see him hit anyone, no; 5 just his actions. 6 Q And you said you didn't hear him 7 yell either. Right? 8 A No. 9 Q What actions are you referring to'? 10 A Actions by him? II Q Yes. 12 A Just his demeanor and his behavior. 13 Q Can you describe it? 14 A He just acted like a drunk person. 15 Q How does a drunk person act? 16 A In my eyes, -- 17 MR. LAPPAS: Wait a minute. If you 18 want him to explain how drunk people 19 sometimes act -- 20 MR. CALLAHAN: I will not ask for a 21 generalization. 22 BY MR. CALLAHAN: 23 Q What did you see him do that made 24 you conclude he was drunk? 25 A I believe his overall behavior. 38 40 1 Q What would extra security have done I Q What about his overall behavior led 2 to prevent this? 2 you to believe that he was drunk? 3 A I believe it probably would not have 3 A Just his -- I don't know. I don't 4 gotten out of hand. I believe an intoxicated 4 know how to describe hisoverall behavior, other 5 patron would have been recognized and asked to 5 than he was acting like he was in a drunken 6 leave the bar. 6 state. 10:44A 7 Q Before this incident occurred, what 7 Q He wasn't yelling? 8 was it that made you say Mr. Beardsley was 8 A I don't recall him yelling. 9 intoxicated? 9 Q He wasn't pushing anyone? 10 A Prior to the incident, I -- other 10 A I didn't see him push anyone. I 1 than my own -- other than noticing him in the bar I 1 Q And you also testified that you 12 and his behavior, I would not know how drunk he 12 didn't see him fall or stumble. Correct? 13 was; but I would say he was intoxicated. 13 A I didn't see him fall or stumble. 14 Q And you would say he was intoxicated 14 Q And you didn't overhear any of the 15 based on the information you already provided to 15 conversations that he had at the bar? 16 me? 16 A No. 17 A Yes. 17 Q Did the police ask if you wanted 18 Q And I believe the information you 18 medical attention? 19 provided to me was that he was speaking to girls 19 A Yes. 20 at the bar and they looked like they were 20 Q And what did you say? 21 bothered by him? 21 A Yes. 22 A It wasn't just the girls. He was 22 Q And did they call an ambulance? 23 also being belligerent with other individuals as 23 A Yes. 24 well. 24 Q Why did you want medical 25 Q What do you mean belligerent? 25 assistance? FrontinoReporting, LLC Richard Lopez January 15, 2m 41 43 1 A I didn't realize the extent of my 1 with you? 2 injury, other than I knew I was bleeding pretty 2 A No. 3 bad and I could feel a large gash in my head. 3 Q Did the ambulance take you to the 4 Q Whatever happened to Mr. Beardsley's 4 hospital? 5 friend that you said he was with? 5 A Yes. 6 A I don't know. 6 Q Did you see a doctor? 7 Q Did you see him after this incident? 7 A Yes. 8 A No. 8 Q What did they do for you at the 9 Q Where was he when you were hit, do 9 hospital? 10 you know? 10 A Treated my wound and I received 11 A I believe he was by Beardsley's 11 staples in the head. 12 side. 12 Q How many staples? 10:47A 13 Q Did he leave with Beardsley? 10:49A 13 A Seven. 14 A I don't know. 14 Q Where did you go, to Harrisburg 15 Q Did you ever refuse any medical 15 Hospital? 16 attention at the scene? 16 A Yes. 17 A At the time, I don't recall refusing 17 Q Did they give you any painkillers? 18 medical attention, no. 18 A I don't recall. 19 Q How were you feeling? Were you 19 Q Did you have any pain when you got 20 drunk at all when this incident occurred? 20 to the hospital? 21 A No. 21 A Yes. 22 Q Do you know if your friend was 22 Q What was hurting you? 23 drunk? 23 A My head. 24 A I don't recall. 24 Q The back of your head? 25 Q But you only saw him drink actually 25 A My whole head. 42 44 1 one beer? 1 Q The front of your head was hurting? 2 A Correct. 2 A Yes. 3 Q What did the paramedics do when they 3 Q Did you have a headache? 4 got there? 4 A Yes. 5 A They tended to my injury and said I 5 Q Was anything else hurting besides 6 required stitches or staples. 6 your head? 7 Q What time was this that they came? 7 A No. 8 A I don't know the exact time after 8 Q Did the doctor take any X-rays? 9 the -- they were there within, I would say, 20 9 A I don't recall. 10 minutes or a half hour of the actual incident. 10 Q Did the doctor ever tell you you had 10:48A 11 Q Do you know what time the incident I 1 a concussion or anything like that? 12 occurred? 12 A I don't recall. 13 A I don't recall the exact time. 13 Q Did you receive any special 14 Q Did the bar stay open after the 14 instructions when you were leaving the hospital? 15 incident occurred? 15 A Other than to return if I did show 16 A I don't recall. 16 signs of a concussion, such as vomiting. 17 Q Were you seated at the bar when the 10:50A 17 Q Did you ever have signs of a 18 ambulance came? 18 concussion? 19 A Yes. 19 A No. 20 Q Did they take you on a stretcher? 20 Q Who was your family doctor at the 21 A No, I walked out. 21 time of this incident? 22 Q Did you have any bandages on 22 A My doctor at the time was -- I can't 23 yourself? 23 even think. Todd Fisher, Dr. Todd Fisher. 24 A No, other than a towel from the bar. 24 Q Where is he located? 25 Q Did your friend go to the hospital 25 A Hummelstown, Pennsylvania. FrontinoReporting, LLC Richard Lopez 45 1 Q How long has he been your primary 2 care? 3 A I don't recall how long. 4 Q Is he still your primary care? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Did you see him after this incident? 7 A No. 10:51A 8 MR. LAPPAS: You mean for the 9 injuries? 10 Q For these injuries? 11 A No. 12 Q Did you go back to the hospital to 13 get your staples out? 14 A I believe I did, yes. 15 Q Was that about a week later? 16 A I don't recall how long it was. 17 Q Besides the two times at the 18 hospital, did you have any other treatment for 19 this incident? 20 A No. 21 Q Never followed up with any doctors 22 after the hospital? 23 A No. 24 Q Did the doctor tell you to see any 25 other doctors? 46 1 A No. 2 Q How long did your head hurt after 3 the incident occurred? 4 A I would say approximately four 5 weeks. 10:52A 6 Q Did you take any medications for 7 that? 8 A No. 9 Q Did you call the doctor for that? 10 A No. I I Q And no other body part hurt after 12 this incident? 13 A No. 14 Q In looking at the back of your head, 15 it looks like you have another scar towards the 16 back of your head? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And what was that from? 19 A I fell downstairs when I was twelve, 20 outside concrete steps. 21 Q You got stitches for that? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And how many stitches did you get 24 for that? 25 A I believe I had 16 stitches for t 47 1 that. 2 Q Do you have any other scars besides 3 the ones we have already talked about? 4 A Those are the only two. 5 Q And you had health insurance at the 6 time of the accident? 10:53A 7 A Yes. 8 Q Aetna? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And that was through your employer? 1 I A It was a personal plan. 12 Q Did you suffer any out-of-pocket 13 expenses after this incident or because of this 14 incident? 15 A With the co-pays, yes. 16 Q Two co-pays? 17 A I believe the emergency co-pay was 18 $100, and the ambulance co-pay as well. 19 Q How much was the ambulance? 20 A I don't recall. I would have to 21 look at the bill. 22 Q And the doctor didn't give you any 23 type of medicine or prescription? 24 A I don't recall, no. 25 Q Did any doctor tell you not to work 48 1 after this incident? 2 A No. 3 Q Are you claiming at all that this 4 incident affected your ability to work or earn a 5 living? 6 A Then or now? 10:54A 7 Q Now. 8 A No. 9 Q And you mentioned, you did miss a 10 week of work? 11 A Yes. 12 Q But you worked at home? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And that is where you work every 15 day? 16 A When I am not traveling, yes. 17 Q And you were not forced to use any 18 sick days or personal days or vacation days 19 because of this incident. Correct? 20 A No. 21 Q Did you miss any scheduled trips 22 because of this incident? 23 A I believe I missed an appointment in 24 New York that week. 25 Q Why could you not go to New York? FrontinoReporting, LLC Richard Lopez 49 I A I didn't feel up to traveling. 2 Q Who were you supposed to meet with 3 in New York? 4 A An overseas customer, I believe. 5 Q Which customer? 6 A I don't recall the name of the 7 customer at the time. It was a customer from the 8 UK. I know that. I am just not sure of the 9 specific customer. 10 Q Where were you supposed to meet? 11 A I believe we had an appointment on 12 Thursday of that week. 10:55A 13 Q Were any specific activities of 14 yours affected by this incident? 15 A No. Other than work, no. 16 Q Were you affected emotionally at all 17 because of this incident? 18 A No, just physically. 19 Q Prior to this incident, had you ever 20 been in a fight before? 21 A No. 22 Q Since the incident, have you ever 23 been in any rights? 24 A No. 25 Q Since the incident, have you been to 1 Legends? 50 2 A Not Legends, no. 3 Q Since this incident, have you been 4 to the bar that is in the Holiday Inn on the 5 Carlisle Pike? 6 A Yes. 7 Q How many times? 8 A I think I have been there twice. 9 Q When was the last time you were 10 there? 10:56A 11 A I don't recall. 12 Q This year? 13 A Yes. 14 Q In 2008? 15 A I believe it was actually, yes. 16 Q Did you go there with Andy? 17 A No. 18 Q Have you been there with Andy since 19 the time of this incident? 20 A Yes. 21 Q How many times? 22 A I don't recall. 23 Q Why did you go there in 2008? 24 A To shoot pool. 25 Q Was there any incident at the bar January 15, 2008 T 1 51 while you were there? 2 A No. 3 Q Since the time that this incident 4 occurred, did you ever have any contact with 5 anyone at the bar about this incident? 6 A No. 7 Q No one called you? 8 A No. 9 Q Do you know a person by the name of 10 Andrew Marshall? I I A I do not know. 10:57A 12 Q How about Josh Oswald? 13 A No. 14 Q And you don't remember anything else 15 that the bartender said to you? 16 A No. 17 MR. CALLAHAN: That's all I have. 18 MR. LAPPAS: No questions. 19 20 (Deposition adjourned 10:57 a.m.) 21 22 23 24 25 s2 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 I have read the transcript of my e deposition and it is true and accurate, 9 except for any corrections noted on the 10 attached errata sheet. 11 12 13 14 15 Richard Lopez 16 17 18 Date 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FrontinoRevortinv. 1,1,r Richard Lopez 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C E R T I F I C A T E I, Gwen A. Leary, the officer before whom the within deposition(s) was taken, do hereby certify that the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition, was duly sworn by me on said date and that the transcribed deposition of said witness is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; That the proceeding is herein recorded fully and accurately; That I am neither attorney nor counsel for, nor related to any of the parties to the action in which these depositions were taken, and further that I am not a relative of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, or financially interested in this action. Gwen A. Leary, Reporter Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania My commission expires September 1, 2010 January 15, 2008 FrontinoReporting, LLC Richard Lopez January 15, 2008 $ actually [6114:3 25:7 33:13 34: based [6] 6:25 9:4,5 10:2 15:15 called 13135:20,21 51:7 $100 11147:18 22 41:25 50:15 38:15 calling 0127:18 address 11114:23 basically 014:20 calm [3)30:19 19 20 $82,000 [118:22 adjourned 11151:20 beardsley 14511:7 21:21 22 22:1 , , came 19117:20 25:7 2716 28:1 0 aetna [1147:8 , , 18,21,23 23:5,16,23 24:14,17,25 30:3 31:136:142:7,18 07-2830 011:3 affected (3148:449:14,16 25:7,1726:6,9,15,21,2327:1,13, carded 0]17:20 afterwards [1134:2 15,24 28:7,13,25 29:11,24,25 30: care 12145:2,4 agreed [211:17 18 7 20 31:5 8 32:12 16 33:15 34: Carlisle [3)1:7 13:15 50:5 1 11153:24 , already [2) 38:15 47:3 , , , 22,23 35:25 36:3,5,9,18 38:8 causing 12121:11 23:24 10:57 [1151:20 altercation [1121:17 beardsley's 13129:1441:4,11 certain [2111:1825:16 100 13118:13,20,21 altercations 11124:18 beer M 16:2019:5 20:25 21:1 certify (1153:5 151111:15 aluminum (1129:19 25:6,842:1 chambersburg 11115:15 161,146:25 ambulance 15140:22 42:18 43:3 beers (6) 20:14,22 21:5 32:2,6,15 charge (117:20 1600 1112:9 47:18,19 behavior (s] 38:12 39:12,25 40: charged [1136:19 17110-9670 (1]2:4 america [119:19 1,4 children [1)9:13 182-60-4558 1116:11 amount 0111:18 believe 143111:22,23 13:7,13 15: claim 12110:15 12:18 2 amstel 11119:7 20,21,2316:7,11 19:5,921:4,14 claiming 11148:3 andrew [2132:5 51:10 22:24 25:18,19 26:4 27:6 28:22 claims (1113:1 2/14172 1116:13 andy (19114:14,17,18,21 15:13, 34:14,21,22 35:19,21 36:4,15,19, club r219:19 19:18 2012118:7 42:9 200 11136:9 14,1917:18 21:4,15 23:16 24:22, 24 37:4,17 38:3,4,18 39:25 40:2 co-pay [2147:17,18 2006 114:18 9:9 13:8 17 20 24 24 25:4,6 36:12,14 50:16,18 41:1146:14 46:25 47:17 48:23 co-pays 12147:15,16 , , , another 13110:10 13:146:15 49:4,11 50:15 come 15125:3 33:18 35:17 22 36: 14:4 answer [3)5:3,12 18:15 belligerent (312111 38:23,25 , 25 2007 1119:7 answering 1214:17,19 besides [3144:545:1747:2 coming [1)30:5 2008 [311:1550:14,23 answers 11) 4:23 better [1110:12 commission (1]7:8 2010 [1153:24 appears (1153:5 between 12123:16 27:23 common 1111:1 2080 [111:15 appointment 12148:23 49:11 beverage (1127:14 commonwealth [1) 53:22 215 [111:25 approximate [1)18:2 big (1123:10 communications [1121:25 2913)4:18 13:17 14:4 approximately 13117:3 23:9 46: bill 11147:21 comp (1] 12:18 29th 11113:7 4 birth (116:12 com anion [1127:14 3 approximating (1118:16 bleeding 01137:1441:2 p company 13)9:6,1213:2 34 (111:24 area 11) 7:17 blood (1133:14 conclude (1) 39:24 4 argument (1] 24:22 blvd [112:9 concrete 0146:20 arm [2) 26:1 3 body 11146:11 concussion 13144:11 16 18 4011123:9 , around (317:15 30:133:18 bonus 1219:4,11 , , Consist [1) 8:3 5 arrested [2136:18,21 bonuses [219:2,5 contact [1151:4 5013118:9 12 17 ass (1) 29:14 book (3) 7:19 9:19,22 continued (1127:5 , , 540-9170 (112:5 assistance (1140:25 books P16:237:1,108:209:17 conversation [1) 37:15 attached 11152:10 10:10 12 conversations 15123 15 18 37 6 attention (3140:1841:16,18 , both [1) 17:6 : , : 6,11 40:15 6149 [2) 5:23 6:5 attorney 1314:13 53:12,15 bothered (1) 38:21 convicted (1l 12:9 7 away (1) 27:1 bothering 14124:3,6,9,25 cops 15135:17,18 36:4,8,11 bottle 16119:7 10 21:1 29:19 30: corner [1124:5 7171112 5 B , : 75 1 8 2 back 115119:21 29:21 23 30:132: 4 33:24 correct 15113:9 23:24 40:12 42: 1 11 : 3 , break [3) 5:9,11,14 248:19 9 23,25 33:25,14 35:22 36:143: brian (1l 2:10 corrections (1152:9 2446:12 46:14 16 , bridge r-I 15:9,12 counsel 12153:12 16 922-2133 1111:25 backhanded 11126:4 brief (1137.15 , countr 1118:6 A backs 0133:7 brooklyn 016:25 y couple 014:12 a.m [1151:20 bad [1141:3 balding 0123:6 brown [1) 2:3 court (31114:21 5:6 ability (1148:4 bandages [1142: buddy (1124:21 crowded 13117:24,24 18:1 accept [11 28:15 16:24 4 17:5 bar [sol 13:11 12 18 budweiser [1129:19 Cumberland [116:17 accident (1147:6 , , , 21 18:5 7 14191 4 1320:12 18 bully 11139:2 currently [116:20 accurate (1) 52:8 , , , , , , business 1617:209:2210:3,6,8 custod [1)36:23 y accurately [1153:11 23 23:21 24:3,4,5,25 28:11,22,24 30 15 31 21 32 18 25 33 23 2 5 15:18 customer [5]49:4,5,7,7,9 : : : , , : , , act 12139:15,19 6 34:23 35:21,23 36:6,25 37:2,8, C D acted [1139:14 acting 11140:5 11,1338:6,11,2040:1542:14,17, calhoon [112:3 date [416:1234:1752:1853:7 action 12153:14 17 24 50:4,25 51:5 call (2140:2246:9 day M 11:2,3 12:7 13:4,6,7 48: , bartender [1151:15 Callahan 1912:10 4:6 22:19 31: 15 actions 0139:5,9,10 bartenders 13320:5 33:7 37:15 20 33:3,4 39:20,22 51:17 days m 11:12 19 2212:2 48:18 actual 0142:10 , , , FrontinoReporting, LLC Sheet 1 $100 - days Richard Lopez January 15, 2008 18,18 empty 0]33:25 game [022:7 hummelstown 11144:25 decide [1117:7 entail [117:18 games [3)16:11 20:2 21:15 hurt [2)46:2,11 decided 12117:5,6 d f d errata [1152:10 gash 0141:3 hurting (3143:2244:1,5 e en 0131:7 escalated 0125:5 gave [1) 4:14 defendants Ill 2:12 esq (112:10 generalization 11) 39:21 ' defuse 0)30:24 even 0144:23 gentleman [2121:11,16 immediately 0134:24 defused 11131:2 evening [2) 21:14 37:23 gf [l] 1:8 inc 0)1:9 demeanor 0139:12 eventually (1136:22 girlfriend Ill 15:24 incident 14614:17 10:19,2411:2 deposed [114:8 exact 13)17:342:8,13 girls 12138:19,22 13:5,1020:9,10,1221:1,922:9 deposition 1514:13 51:20 52:8 examination 0) 4:6 give 1314:12 43:17 47:22 24:15,19 25:2,5 30:21 32:19 33: 53:6,7 examined 014:4 given 12134:15 53:9 1 37:12 38:10 41:7,20 42:10,15 deposition(s 0) 53:4 except [1) 52:9 giving 1114:20 44.2145:6,19 46:3,12 47:13,14 depositions [1] 53:14 excuse 12120:25 27:22 golden [1119:9 48:1,4,19,22 49:14,17,19,22,25 describe [2139:1340:4 expenses [1147:13 got (13)16:10,20 17:11 18:3,17, 50:3,19,25 61:3,5 detain (1) 35:4 explain 11139:18 25 19:4 20:14 24:22 36:242:4 indicating 12331:14,18 detained 0136:16 explained [1127:11 43:1946:21 individuals 0138:23 discussion 11131:19 extent [1141:1 gotten (1138:4 industrial 0] 15:14 doctor [9143:644:8,10,20,2246: extra [2137:2238:1 graduate 1116:16 information [2138:15,18 2446:947:22,25 eyes (1139:16 ground [3)25:9,12,15 initial 11130:22 doctors [2)45:21,25 F guys [1127:10 initially [1131:1 doing (1124:1 gwen PI 4:3 53:3 initiate [2) 25:21,23 done [1138:1 facing 13128:1,3 29:25 H injured Ill 12:20 doubles [1125:4 fall [4124:1533:940:12,13 injuries PI46:9,10 douglas 1411:7 21.2122:21,23 familiar Ill 17:18 half 12110:142:10 injury 12141:2 42:5 down 14) 30:19,20,20 33:14 family [1144:20 hand [l) 38:4 inn 13113:12,14 60:4 downstairs [1)4619 far 1216:14 19:19 happen [1130:11 instantly [1)33:13 drank (1132:16 feel 13137:24 41:3 49:1 happened [7114:10 26:12 27:12 instructions [2) 4:12 44:14 drink 16116:15,1819:331.3,22 feeling Ill 41:19 30:1534:537:2241:4 insurance (3113:1,247:5 41:25 fell 11146:19 happy [114:25 interested 0i 53:17 drinking 0132:13 felonies [1112:10 harness 12115:14,17 intoxicated (4)38:4,9,13,14 drinks 0)28.1532:8 felt [1133:13 harrisburg 1212:443:14 introduced 0)27:19 drive [1135:14 female [1137:17 hauppauge Ill 10:4 investors [1) 1:8 dropped 0116:21 few Ill 16:11 hay [116:23 involved 019:21 drunk 18138:12 39:14,15,18,24 fight 12129:1149:20 head 11715:5,5 21:17 29:21,22 J 40 fights 0124:18 49:23 30:2 31:17 41:3 43:11 23 24 25 :2 41:20,23 , , , drunken [1740:5 filed 13112:18,23 13:1 44:1,646:2,14,16 january 011:15 ducked 0130.3 financially 11) 63:17 headache [1144:3 jen 0)16:1 ducking [2[ 31:9 33:12 finished [1134:7 heads [114:14 job [217:18 12:16 dui Ill 12.14 fired Ill 12:16 health 11147:5 john 03 2:9 duly [2)4:253:6 first 1214:16 20:25 hear 19) 4:24 23:15 24:12 29:10, K during 1114:13 g fisher (2144:23,23 13,16,17 30:18 39:6 ken nedy [1) 2:9 duties CZ17:18 9:23 five 1517:3 23:12 30:13 35:13,19 heavy Ill y kick t1129:14 duty (3127:7,22 32.23 follow [+14:13 height 13123:11 35:7,12 kind 12122:6 39:1 E followed 11145:21 held Ill 31:19 knock 11) 25.25 follows [114:4 help [1134:21 each 1116:3 forced [1) 48:17 hereby 1211:17 53:4 knocked [5125:12,13,1426:927: earlier [2114:7 21:14 foregoing 0153:6 herein 0153:10 2 knowledge 12132:5 3324 earn PI 8:20,22,25 9:2 48:4 formally [1136:20 hereto Ill 63:16 known [2l 14:17 18 eat [1128:10 four (2)6:946:4 hi h 1216:15 17 , eight [2)11:2214:18 g , friend (21119:8 22:10 23:16,21 himself Ill 27:19 L either 0l 39:7 26:11,14 27:24 29:10,13 30:19 hit [8125:3 30:1 31:12 33:25 34:5, 1-u-n-d-e-e-n (1114:16 electrical 11115:17 34:4,19,25 35:2,8,16,22 36:11 20 39:3 41:9 lappas 14122:16 33:2 38:17 61: eleven [1] 17:4 41:5,2242:25 hitting (1) 34:24 18 emergency [1147:17 friends [1)14:20 holiday [3113:12,14 50:4 large 11141:3 emotionally [1149:16 front [311:2437:744:1 home 1517:16,23 12:3,548:12 last 1818:12,14,16,19 14:5,15 1S: employed [416:20,229:1853: frontinoreporting 011:23 hospital 19142:2543:4,9,15,20 250:9 16 full 1215:17 11:10 44:14 45:12,18,22 later [1146:15 employee [4120:1128:24 29:4, full-time [117:4 hospitality [111:9 lawsuit [4110:16,2012:22,25 8 fully [1153:11 hour [2122:11 42:10 lawsuits (1) 12:23 employees [3) 37:3,9,12 further [211:18 53:15 house 18116:2,20 16:5,9,16,23 leary (214:3 63:3 employer 0147:10 G 17:1 33:20 least [218:7,9 FrontinoReporting, LLC days - least Richard Lopez leave 13110:9 17:1 38:6 leaving [1144:14 led [1140:1 left [5110:5,7 16:23 30:10 34:23 legends [9113:11,18,21 14:517: 8,11 27:21 50:1,2 less [716:23 7:2,11 8:219:17 10: 11,13 light 0] 19:7 linglestown (1l 1:15 little [1) 4:10 live (615:22,23 6:3,5,7 14:21 lived 1215:25 6:6 lives [1114:25 living (1) 48:5 llc [1] 1:23 located (1144:24 long [12) 5:10,25 6:7 7:1 9:2514: 17 22:9 30:10 45:1,3,16 46:2 longer [4] 10:3 look 13123:2,5 47:21 looked [4138:20 looking [3117:1021:1346:14 looks [1146:15 lopez (411:4 4:2 5:22 52:15 lost [1110:15 lot [3121:12,12 35:1 lp (111:8 lundeen [3114:1416:421:15 M made [2l 38:8 39:23 male [1129:7 man [1123:3 manager [16)27:7,15,18,20,21, 22 28:5,8,16,18,21 30:10,18 31:5 32:18,21 many [141818 11:21 13:20 15:4 17:2418:2,4 20:2,22 32:15 43: 1246:23 50:7,21 market 11] 5:23 married [1) 16:4 Marshall 11151:10 mccormick [1) 2:8 mean [315:418:11 38:25 Mechanicsburg 1311:8 5:2415 10 medical [4140:18,2441:15,18 medicine [1] 47:23 meet [3115:1949:2,10 meeting (1117:14 member 11127:6 memorial [2111:3 13:6 mentioned [2123:23 48:9 met [1115:20 Michael [1) 7:12 mid [4123:3 might [314:15 22:4 34:14 military [1) 9:15 mind (1131:11 minute [1] 39:17 minutes [5130:12,13 35:18,19 42:10 misdemeanors 12112:12 36:20 miss (3110:18 48:9,21 missed [7148:23 mixed [4] 32:8 molson [1l 19:9 money [4] 10:12 month [1114:8 most [1l 8:3 much (618:20,2310:22 35:8,10 47:19 mustache [1123:7 myself [4) 6:4 N name 015:17 14:1515:25 16:2 21:20 49:6 51:9 names 1216:20 34:13 neck [1133:14 need [415:3,6,9,11 neither [1l 53:12 never [3) 9:15 33:2146:21 new 11216:6,7,9,25 7:24 8:4,5,9 10:4 48:24,25 49:3 next 12124:5 25:11 night [12114:10,13 15:19 16:6,16 17:11 20:4,6,7 21:23 35:14 36: 16 nine [1123:12 nod [1) 5:5 nor [2]53:12,13 north [411:24 notary 1114:3 noted [1152:9 nothing 11128:6 noticed (1] 24:2 noticing [1138:11 number [116:10 0 o'clock [2116:8 17:4 oath 1114:19 occur [1l 13:10 occurred [1414:1813:5 20:9,12 21:2,9 22:10 24:15 30:2141:20 42:12,15 46:3 51:4 occurring (1) 32:19 occurs [1131:22 offer [4116:20 offered 17127:12 31:2 office [117:15 officer [1153:3 often [118:1 okay 1515:1,2,7,14,15 old (4123:8 once 1218:9 34:19 one 1819:7 14:1 22:15,25 31:22 37:1542:1 51:7 ones [1147:3 only [3) 5:12 41:25 47:4 open (1142:14 opportunity [4l 10:10 order 14119:3,6,8 28:23 ordered 15119:5,7 20:14 21:3 25: 6 orrs (2115:9,12 other [24) 5:1912:23 22:25 23: 24 30:22 31:9 34:1135:4 38:10, 11,23 40:4 41:2 42:24 44:15 45: 18,25 46:1147:2 49:15 out [816:2410:2,6,7 31:9 38:4 42: 21 45:13 out-of-pocket (4147:12 outside [4146:20 over [6125:7,25 26:9 27:2,16 28: 1 overall (3139:25 40:1,4 overhear [2137,8 40:14 overseas [1) 49:4 overstocks [1) 7:21 overtime [418:25 own [1138:11 P p.c [212:3,8 pa 1212:4 16:15 paid [3111:8,10,16 pain 11143:19 painkillers 11143:17 paramedics 11142:3 parking 11135:1 part 12126:3 46:11 particular [1124:3 parties 12153:13,16 partners [1134:10 patron [1138:5 patrons 12120:17 21:12 pending (115:13 pennsylvania [311:95:2444: 25 people 113117:2418:2,5,7,13,17, 23 22:12 24:2,25 30:19 34:1139: 18 person [6) 22:15,25 23:2 39:14, 15 51:9 person's [1113:2 personal 12147:1148:18 personnel [1120:9 physically 11149:18 pick [1129:11 pike M 13:15 50:5 pitcher 115120:25,25 21:3,6 25:6, 8,12,14 26:9 27:2,13 28:17 31: 25 32:3,6 pittsburgh 1318:17,18,19 place 1518:12,14,16 28:23 37:6 places (1114:1 plaintiff 1211:5 2:6 plan 11147:11 play [3120:2 22:10 24:24 played [1) 25:1 playing 0119:16,18,23,25 25:4 Januarv 15, 2008 34:9,10 pleas [4l 1:1 please (214:25 5:16 point (4116:23 20:4 21:16 24:15 pointing [1131:11 police [4136:23,25 37:9 40:17 pool (13116:12 17:9,10 19:12,15 20:2 21:14,15 22:10 24:5,24 34: 7 50:24 position [417:6 possible [1l 14:9 possibly [4122:7 24:8 26:2129* 6 pounds (1135:9 poured 17125:8,15 prescription [1] 47:23 presence (1) 30:11 present [1] 37:5 pretty [1141:2 prevent [1138:2 primary [2145:1,4 prior 0110:713:6,17,20 32:19 38:10 49,19 priore [1) 2:8 probably 1214:14 38:3 problems [3l 21:12 23:24 27:11 proceeding (1153:10 proceedings [414:1 process [1) 31:24 provided [3127:1338:15,19 providing [1) 4:23 public 1114:3 publishers [217:21 8:5 punched [1) 33:21 purchasing 1317:7,20 9:22 purpose 13125:17,18,20 pursued [1134:22 push 11140:10 pushing 11140:9 Q quantify [1132:15 question (3) 5:1,12 22:20 questions [614:11,17,18,225:4 51:18 quoting 11127:9 R re-enter [1) 36:5 reach [1130:1 reaction 11124:11 read [1) 52:7 realize [1141:1 really [4112:3 reason [215:11 26:5 recall 141113:22 14:617:2,22 18: 4 20:3 21:10 22:2,5,8 23:1,19 26: 22,25 28:3,9,14 29:2,12 30:16 32:22,24 33:7 35:5 36:7 37:19, 21 40:8 41:17,24 42:13,16 43:18 44:9,12 45:3,16 47:20,24 49:6 50:22 FrontinoReporting, LLC Sheet 2 leave - recall Richard Lopez Janua 15, 2008 receive (1144:13 10 d i short [1) 23:6 t 12116 1 32 h 3 T W ve [1143: rece [1138:5 recognized o : s 1 :1 shots [1J 32:10 table 16119:15,17,19 24:5 25:5,7, woes [1l 10: 16 record 1315:17 31:19 53:8 show tt) 44:15 11 34:10 17 wait [11 39:17 recorded [1153:10 sick [5111:12,18,2212:248:18 tables (2)17:919:12 waitress [1129:5 referring [?] 39:9 side [2129:21 41:12 talked (3120:20 22:3 47:3 walk [3119:18,20,20 refuse [1141:15 signs [1144:16 taunt [029:10 walked 121 17.1242:21 refusing [1341:17 since [s) 34.16 49:22,25 50:3,18 ten f51 13:23 16:7 18:5 30:13 35: wanted [1140:17 regular (13 14:1 51;3 13 way (215:23 31:9 related 53:13 sitting 11137:13 ten-thirty (1)17:4 wearing [1) 32:21 relative [1153:15 situation [2130:25 31:2 tended [1142:5 week 1918:2,7,9 10:2311:5 46: remainder [2] 7:19 9:22 six (t) 16:5 tending [t) 37:14 1548:10,24 49:12 remainders [117:21 smoothly (114:11 terms [tl 8:15 weeks [2311:25 48;5 remember [4)13:4 20:20 21:13 social 11)6:10 testified 1214:4 40:11 weigh (1135:8,10 51:14 somebody [1)22:17 testimony 1314:21 53:5,8 whatever 11141:4 repeat 1215.1 15:11 someone A 33.6 34:9 three (416:2 10:1 19:12 36:19 whether 11) 25:16 rephrase 1115:1 sometimes [1139:19 throughout [118:6 whole 11143:25 replace 11127:12 sorry (218:13 33:3 thursday 11) 49:12 whom [1l 53:3 replaced 11128:17 sort [1133:19 today (114:17 will (514:22,23,256:338:20 replacement [1) 31:3 sought 11) 34:21 todd 12144:23,23 wise 11123:11 reporter's [1] 5:6 speaking [3) 28:19 37.9 38:19 tonight [1127:10 within 15122:11 35:18,1942:9 required [1142:6 special [1144:13 took (3110:23 25:8 37:6 53:4 reserved 1111.19 specific 12)19.17 49:9 top [2129:21 31:16 without [1121:17 response [1126:24 spell 11114.15 total (2118:10,11 witness 16131:14,18 34:1163:5, return (1144:15 spoke [1) 28:2 towards [1146:15 8,9 richard (311:4 4:2 52:15 spoken [1) 34:16 towel 11142:24 women (1) 24:4 road [511:15 14:25 15:8,9,12 sports (1)13.11 transcribed 11) 63:7 words 13321:8 22:4,6 round 11133.19 staff 11136:21 transcript 11152:7 t 4 work (1117:8,16 10:18 12:5,20 S stand m 27:5 18:1,3,7,15 ravel 1 15:16 47:25 48:4,10,14 49:15 3123.2025 11 27.23 t di traveling [317:2548:1649:1 worked 1318:12,1448:12 s an ng [ : s-h-m-u-e-I-y [117:12 staples [4) 42:6 43:11,12 45:13 treated (1143:10 worker's (1112:18 sake 1115:6 start 03) 4:118:23 24:17 treatment [1) 45:18 working (4) T:2412:3,4 20:5 salary (318:22 11:10,17 started [1)19.17 trial (111:19 works (1)15:14 sales 1319:5,6,21 starting M 31.25 trips [1148:21 wound [1143:10 same 014:20 9:2310:14 41 3 state [215:17 40:6 true 13137:24 52:8 53:8 t 30 24 31 3 19 7 X :25 124:25 30:5 saw t statement (11 36:14 : ry 0 1 , : saying [2124:8 37:21 t t t 1 tuesday [1J 8:19 XdayS 111 44:8 sayville [1) 6:6 s a emen s [ ) 34:15 stay (1142:14 twelve 11146:19 Y scar 12131:16 46:15 step [1) 27:8 twenties 11123:4 year 1418:18 8:22 1:19 60:12 scars 11) 47:2 stepped (2127:7,9 twenty-five (1) 35:11 year-end [119:5 scene 12136:16 41:16 Steps [1146:20 twice (1) 60:8 years [516:2,9 7:3 10:1 14:18 scheduled [2)11:5 48:21 still [1) 45.4 two 193 11:25 16:13 17:12 27:23 yell 12) 24`12 39.7 schiffman [112:3 stipulated (111.17,18 34:11 35:11 45:1747:4,16 yelling [2)40.7,8 school 1316:14,15,17 stitches (4142:646:21,23,25 two-fifty [1)23:14 york 11216:6,7,9,257:248:4,5,9 schoolyard [1139:1 stocks 11133:6 type 1419,23 15:16 24:18 47:23 10:4 48:24,25 49:3 seated [1142:17 stocky [1) 23:6 U young t+123:3 security 1516:10 20:8 27:10 37: stood Ill 33:13 uk 11) 49:8 yourself 12131:7 42:23 22 38:1 Stop [1)4:25 under s see [14) 24:14,17 32:12,18 36:8 street (111:24 tand understand 1214:24 22:20 (7) r1_1 39:3,23 40:10,12,13 41:7 43:6 stretcher (1) 42:20 p 114:14 24:2 31:1 33:7 45:21 t Cn t c_. ?-, 3 45:6,24 struck [8) 21:16 22-128:18 29:1, 49;1 seen Ill 21:22 tember [t) 53:24 Se 18,20,23 33:12 V ? A p stumble 13124:1440:12,13 serratelti (112:3 subject [1)10:19 vacation (3] 11:1412:2 48:18 _ s: seven 12111:22,23 suffer 11147:12 valley 11) 6:17 several [118:2 Sunday [1114:10 various [1) 8:5 fps shake Ill 6:5 supervisor 1217:10,13 verbal 1135:3 v rte, a sheet [1152:10 supposed [2)49:2,10 vicinity 11128:25 93, * t. . ? shmuely (1) 7:12 swinging [+l 33:16 vomiting [1144:16 G1 x ( j C:) shoot (4117:10 21:13,15 50:24 sworn C1] 4:3 53:6 vs [ti 1:6 shooting Ill 34:7 FrontinoReporting, LLC receive - yourself RICHARD LOPEZ V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY and CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC. and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, LP and MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS COMPANY and CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC. and KENNETH KOCHENOUR COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 07-2830 Civil ORDER . AND NOW, this 1 day of 2009, in consideration of the foregoing Esq., _ Esq., and petition, A as prayed for. BY OURT: f G? J. Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above-captioned action o oli ''1 RICHARD LOPEZ., PLAINTIFF V. DOUGLAS BEARDSLEY, CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, L.P., MECHANICSBURG GF INVESTORS, CO., CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITALITY, INC., KENNETH KOCHENOUR DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07-2830 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this __0?6 day of March, 2009, the appointment of a Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case, IS VACATED. Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire, Chairman, shall be paid the sum of $50.00. By the Edgar E Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire LL ?JY Court Administrator - 0-oz ( L 1z P:sal 0? J. L ? r?. N C-4 SPERO T. LAPPAS, Esquire Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown and Calhoon, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 (717) 540-9170 ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF 00"ON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY RICHARD LOPEZ, Plaintiff V. DOUGLASBEARDSLEY, CARLISLE INVESTORS, INC., :NO. 07-02890 CIYIL ACTION -- LAW MECHANICSBURG GFINVESTORS, L.P., MECHANICSBURG GFINVESTORS CO., CENTRAL PENNSYLVAMA HOSPITALITY, INC., :Jury Trial Demanded KENNETHKOCHENOUN, - Defendants Praecipe to Discontinue Case AND NOW this <,-) _-1 day of ? , 2009 mark the above captioned case settled and discontinued. submitted., SERRATELLI, SCHIP0,?91 TNAND CALHOON, P. C $y: SPE LAPPAS, MQUIRE PA. &JPREME Cr. IDNO. 25745 208OLINGLESTOWN JbAD, &JITE 201 HARRISBURG, PA 17110-9670 (717) 540-9170 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BROWN AND CALHOON, P.C. By: SPERO T. LAPPAS, Esquire Page 1 ,-?? ?' _ ? j' .?.? r :G; -,, Y i ?..1 A -, ^ ;l r