Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-4556FRIEDMAN &LEVIN ASSOCIATES By: Craig R. Levin, Esquire Identification No.: 51408 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1420 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 563-7642 crl%~i~crllaw.com This is not an Arbitration Matter. A Major Jury Trial is Demanded. Attorney for Plaintiff STEPHANIE MAZZA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 7936 March Brown Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada Plaintiff, v. SCOTT SCHAUFERT BERNADETTE SCHAUFERT 6 Boxwood Lane Camp Hill, PA 17011 CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.: p'7_ ~f 55'(o C:-vt l Terms COMPLAINT -CIVIL ACTION CIVIL ACTION -COMPLAINT 2V- Motor Vehicle uW otFlcEs FRIEDMAN &LEVIN ASSOCIATES 1420 WALNUT STREET' SUITE 1420 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19]02 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 appeazance personally or by attorney and by 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 any 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. 1F YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO AND TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND BAR ASSOCIATION 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 (800)990-9108 Aviso Le had demandado a usted en la Corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de esias demandas exptuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dies de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notification. Hate falta asentaz una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la Corte en forma escrita sus defenses o sus objeciones a las demandas en contrta de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende. la Corte tomara medidas y puede con[inuarla demanda en contra suya sin previo avisio o notifacion. Ademas, la torte puede decider a favor del demanda[e y require que usted cumpla con todas las provisioner de elate demanda. Used puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted. LLF.VE ESTATE DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFFIC[ENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVlC10N. VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRIT.A ABAJO PARA AVERIC'UAR DONDE SE PUEUE CON'SEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. ASOCIACION DE LICENDIADOS DE CUMBERLAND 32 S. Bedford Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 (717)249-3166 (800)990-9108 FIRST COUNT- NEGLIGENCE I . Plaintiff, STEPHANIE MAZZA, is an individual who resides at the address listed above. 2. Defendants, SCOTT SCHAUFERT and BERNADETTE SCHAUFERT, are individuals residing at the address listed above. 3. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants, SCOTT SCHAUFERT and BERNADETTE SCHAUFERT owned, possessed, maintained and/or controlled, a rat terrier dog which they knew had a vicious and/or dangerous propensity and disposition, abnormal to its class and that the dog was liable to attack, injure, bit and claw mankind. 4. On or about August 24, 2005, Plaintiff, STEPHANIE MAZZA was a lawful invitee at the premises of Defendant's, SCOTT SCHAUFERT AND BERNADETEE SCHAUFERT, at 6 Boxwood Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011, when, suddenly and without warning and/or provocation, Plaintiff was viciously attacked and bitten by Defendants' dog, which severely gauged, ripped, tore and bit the Plaintiff s face, causing severe and permanent injuries more fully hereinafter described. 5. Defendants, SCOTT SCHAUFERT and BERNADETTE SCHAUFERT, had prior knowledge of their dog's dangerous propensities. 6. The negligence, recklessness and/or carelessness of the Defendants, SCOTT SCHAUFERT and BERNADETTE, acting as aforesaid, consisted of the following: a. permitting said vicious dog to run uncontrolled throughout the property accessible to invitees, licensees, etc., including Defendants' property; b. permitting said dog to attack Plaintiff; c. failing to properly restrain and/or confine said vicious dog; LAw oFF1cFs FRIEDMAN & I.EVIN ASSOCIATES 1420 WALNUT SIREET SURE 1420 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 d. failing to keep said vicious dog under the reasonable control of some person; e. failing to warn Plaintiff or give notice of any kind that said dog was vicious and ferocious; f. failing to property attend and secure said vicious dog; g. failing to attend and control said dog, despite that Defendants' knew, or should have known that said dog was an animal of vicious propensities and liable to become ferocious and uncontrollable; h. permitting said dog to become ferocious, vicious and uncontrollable under these particular circumstances; failing to take steps to protect Plaintiff after actual and/or constructive notice that said attack was forthcoming; j. failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; k. disregarding the rights and safety of Plaintiff; 1. failing to properly train said dog; m. permitting the attack against Plaintiff to continue despite Plaintiff s obvious inability to defend herself; n. violating 3 P.S. § 459-305 of the Pennsylvania Statutes as well as other pertinent ordinances and statutes relating to the custody of canines; o. negligence as a matter of law; p. failing to muzzle or otherwise prevent the said dog's ability to attack and/or otherwise act in an aggressive and/or violent manner against the Plaintiff; and q. in being otherwise careless, reckless andlor negligent, the particulars of which are presently unknown to minor-Plaintiff but which she may learn through discovery procedures provided by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure or which they may learn at the trial of this case. 7. The aforesaid incident was due solely to the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the Defendants, SCOTT SCHAUFERT and BERNADETTE SCHAUFERT, u+w o~cFs FRIEDMAN & I.EVIN ASSOCIATES uzo wnLr~vr srneer surtE uzo PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 acting as aforesaid, and was due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of the Plaintiff, STEPHANIE MAZZA. 8. The negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness as stated above were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff, STEPANIE MAZZA's injuries and damages. 9. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants', SCOTT SCHAUFERT and BERNADETTE SCHAUFERT's negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, Plaintiff, STEPHANIE MAZZA suffered injuries including but not limited to multiple complex facial lacerations due to dog bite of the left upper lip with loss of substance and sensation, all of which injuries have in the past and will in the future cause Plaintiff great pain and suffering and has resulted in permanent scarring. 10. As a further result of this accident, Plaintiff, STEPANIE MAZZA has been or will be obliged to receive and undergo medical attention and care and to expend various sums of money and to incur various expenses for the injuries she has suffered and she may be obliged to continue to expend such sums or incur such expenditures for an indefinite time in the future. Said expenditure may result in the imposition of a medical insurance lien. 11. As a further result of this accident, Plaintiff, STEPHANIE MAZZA has and will continue to suffer a severe impairment of her future earning power and capacity. 12. As a further result of this accident, Plaintiff, STEPANIE MAZZA, has suffered medically determinable physical and/or mental impairment which prevents her from performing all or substantially all of the material acts and duties which constitute her usual and customary activities. 13. As a further result of the accident aforementioned, STEPHANIE MAZZA has suffered severe physical pain, mental anguish and humiliation and she may continue to suffer same for an indefinite period of time in the future. 14. The conduct of the Defendants, SCOTT SCHAUFERT and BERNADETTE SCHAUFERT, as aforesaid, was done in disregard to risks so obvious to Defendants that they uw o~cFs FRIEDMAN & I,EVIN ASSOCIATES 1420 WALNVI' STREET SUITE 1420 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 knew or should have known of said risks and the risks were so great that Defendants knew or should have known that it was highly probable that harm would ensue to Plaintiff, or persons similarly situated, due to their respective conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, STEPHANIE MAZZA, demands judgment against Defendants, SCOTT SCHAUFERT and BERNADETTE SCHAUFERT, in a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, plus interest and costs. Respectfully Submitted, FRIEDMAN & LEVIN ASSOCIATES BY: --~ CRAIG VIN, ESQUIRE Att for Plaintiffs Date: _7 3067 uw o~1cFs 'RIEDMAN & LEVIN ASSOCIATES lazo wnwvr sTxEFr SUITE 1420 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 knew or should have known of said risks and the risks were so great that Defendants knew or should have known that it was highly probable that harm would ensue to Plaintiff, or persons similarly situated, due to their respective conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, STEPHANIE MAZZA, demands judgment against Defendants, SCOTT SCHAUFERT and BERNADETTE SCHAUFERT, in a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, plus interest and costs. Respectfully Submitted, FRIEDMAN & LEVIN ASSOCIATES BY: CRAIG R. LEVIN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: uw o~cFs FRIEDMAN & LEVIP ASSOCIATES uzo wnwur srnEer SUl'IE 1420 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 VERIFICATION I, STEPHANIE MAZZA, hereby verify that I am a Plaintiff in the foregoing action and do hereby swear and depose that the averments made in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are subject to the penalties of Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. T S ~ PHANIE MAZZA Date: ~ '~ V V D C? ^' ~~ `=, ~>> ~ ~ ~= .,. l N '{ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Stephanie Mazza, CASE NUMBER: 07-4556 Plaintiff ISSUE NUMBER: v. Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert, PLEADING: PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE Defendants CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: Defendants. COUNSEL OF RECORD: DENNIS J. BONETTI, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 34329 MARK R. ZOGBY, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 84032 CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Stephanie Mazza, Plaintiff v. Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert, Defendants CASE NO: 07-4556 PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO: PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendants, Scott and Bernadette Schaufert, in the above-captioned matter. A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED CIVIL DIVISION BY: Respectfully submitted, bENNIS J~I~'1"TI, ESQUIRE MARK R. OCBY, ESQUIRE Attorney for the Defendants Scott and Bernadette Schaufert CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendants hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, p stage pre-paid, ccordin to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the --~~~ day of , 2007. Craig R. Levin Friedman & Levin Associates 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1420 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Respectfully submitted, CIPRIA ERNER, P. . BY: DENNIS J. B ,ESQUIRE MARK R. ZOGBY, ESQUIRE Attorney for the Defendants Scott and Bernadette Schaufert '.., i~?~r- C__ Si'1~ `' i., CJ ":'7 ~ ( ') _~ 1, `a ~ ~ ~7 ~4 d -..,t ,,~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR ~ CASE NO: 2007-04556 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MAZZA STEPHANIE VS SCHAUFERT SCOTT ET AL MARK CONKLIN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon SCHAUFERT SCOTT the DEFENDANT at 1440:00 HOURS, on the 22nd day of August 2007 at 6 BOXWOOD LANE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 SCOTT SCHAUFERT by handing to 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 18.00 Service ~ 13.44 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day So Answers :, ,,~ S~~s~c~C .a~ R. Thomas Kline 08/23/2007 FRIEDMAN & LEVIN ASSOCIATES By: .D ut eriff of A.D. i ~ CASE N0: 2007-04556 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MAZZA STEPHANIE VS SCHAUFERT SCOTT ET AL MARK CONKLIN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon SCHAUFERT BERNADETTE the DEFENDANT at 1440:00 HOURS, on the 22nd day of August 2007 at 6 BOXWOOD LANE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to SCOTT SCHAUFERT, HUSBAND 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 a~o~+o~ ~.,... .00 16.0 0 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 08/23/2007 FRIEDMAN & LEVIN ASSOCIATES By: Deputy heriff A.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Stephanie Mazza, CASE NUMBER: 07-4556 Plaintiff ISSUE NUMBER: CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: Defendants. v. PLEADING: Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert, PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF Defendants APPEARANCE COUNSEL OF RECORD: DENNIS J. BONETTI, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 34329 MARK R. ZOGBY, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 84032 CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717)975-9600 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Stephanie Mazza, CASE NO: 07-4556 Plaintiff v. Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert, Defendants A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO: PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Defendants, Scott and Bernadette Schaufert, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, & WERNER, P.C. BY: ~''~//'- NNIS J. BONETTI, ESQUIRE tiornev for the Defendants Scott and Bernadette Schaufert CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendants hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, postage pre-paid according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ~'~ day of ~~~~lZ.-- , 2008. Craig R. Levin Friedman & Levin Associates 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1420 Philadelphia, PA 19102 BY: Respectfully submitted, CIP1tY9oNI/~ WERNER, P.C. ~-Fj1~VNIS J. BONETTI, ESQUIRE SARK R. ZOGBY, ESQUIRE Attorney for the Defendants Scott and Bernadette Schaufert r..°' C"' ~ ~ 6i ). 'C~a ~~~ ~ ti . Y `- .. .--"' '~~ . ~~ ~'r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Stephanie Mazza, Plaintiff V. Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert, Defendants CASE NO: 07-4556 `-? 1 C W -,1 r 0 .." ' c n - STIPULATION TO STRIKE The parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 1. All counsel represent and warrant that they are authorized to enter into this Stipulation on behalf of each of their respective clients; 2. The following shall be stricken from the Complaint: a. "recklessness" from paragraph 6, paragraph 7, paragraph 8 and paragraph 9; b. Paragraph 60); C. "as well as other pertinent ordinances and siatutes relating to the custody of canines" from paragraph 6(n); d. "or otherwise prevent" and "and/or otherwise act in an aggressive and/or violent manner against the" from paragraph 6(p); e. Paragraph 6(q); 3. This Stipulation can be executed in counterparts and becomes effective when all counsel have executed a copy of this Stipulation on behalf of their respective clients. Date: Date: ? -1 '(9 CIPRIANi & WERNER, P.C. BY: MARK R. Z JAY, , SQU1 RE -- _--- Counsel for the De enaauts, Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert FRIED N LE IN ASSOCIATES d BY: C IG , ESQUIRE Cou or Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendants, Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its STIPULATION TO STRIKE has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, posts e pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the a5'0' day of 12010. Craig R. Levin, Esquire Friedman & Levin Associates 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1420 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: MARK R. Z B ESQUIRE Counsel for the Defendants, Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Stephanie Mazza, Plaintiff v. Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert, CASE NUMBER: 07-4556 ISSUE NUMBER: PLEADING: ANSWER WITH NEW MATTED Defendants TO: STEPHANIE N4AZZA YOU ARE IIERE13Y NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HkREC OR A EFAULT JUDGMENT MAY B 7EI D AG S j' YOU. RK R. 20G , S ARE CODE AND CLASSIFICA'T'ION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: Defendants. COUNSEL OF RECORD: MARK R. LOGBY, ESQUIRE Pa.IT)# 84032 CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 ` TI ?.?..1 ± L..? 7 , U r ?.y Cn _ . C] '? l +J i t_, w c IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Stephanie Mazza, CASE NO: 07-4556 Plaintiff V. Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes Defendants, Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert, by and through their attorneys, Cipriani & Werner, P.C., and hereby files the following Answer With New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint. FIRST COUNT - NEGLIGENCE 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are therefore denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 3 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 4. Denied. Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. Byway of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 4 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of injuries suffered by Plaintiff and the same is therefore denied. 5. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 5 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied. Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 6 including sub-paragraphs (a) through (q) inclusive state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 6 including sub-paragraphs (a) through (q) inclusive are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. Denied. Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 7 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. Denied. Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer. the averments contained in paragraph 8 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief' as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of injuries suffered by Plaintiff and the same is therefore denied. 9. Denied. Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer. the averments contained in paragraph 9 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of injuries suffered by Plaintiff and the same is therefore denied. 10. Denied. Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 10 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of injuries suffered by Plaintiff and the same is therefore denied. 11. Denied. Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 11 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after r-asonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of injuries suffered by Plaintiff and the same is therefore denied. 12. Denied. Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 12 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of injuries suffered by Plaintiff and the same is therefore denied. 13. Denied. Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 13 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of iniuries suffered by Plaintiff and the same is therefore denied. 14. Defendant is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 14 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendants, Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert, demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, without costs. NEW MATTER 15. Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 16. Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, if any, which are specifically denied, may have been caused, either in whole or in part by the acts or omissions of third parties other than Defendant. 17. Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, if any, which are specifically denied, may have been pre-existing, either in whole or in part and are not causally related to the accident giving rise to -the present litigation. 18. Plaintiff's claims are reduced or barred by the Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiffs contributory negligence consisted of, but is not limited to: a. Failing to exercise reasonable care in approaching the dog at issue; b. Placing her face directly in front of the face of the dog at issue; and c. Failing to take evasive maneuvers in an attempting to avoid contact with the dog at issue. 19. Discovery may reveal that Plaintiffs' claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by one or more of the affirmative defenses set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1030, which are incorporated herein by reference including, but not limited to, assumption of the risk, collateral estoppel, res judicata, release or immunity from suit. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Scott Schaufert and Bernadette Schaufert, demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, without costs. Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY:`__„t ... ARK R. GONBY, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 84032 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 Counsel for the Defendants, Scott and Bernadette Schaufert VERIFICATION I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: I am a Defendant in the foregoing action. The attached Answer with New Matter is based upon information which I have furnished to my counsel and information which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation for this lawsuit. The language of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel and not of me. I have read the Answer with New Matter and to the extent that the Answer with New Matter 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. To the extent that the content of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel, 1 have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Answer with New Matter is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Q-//C Scott Schaufert VERIFICATION I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: I am a Defendant in the foregoing action. The attached Answer with New Matter is based upon information which I have furnished to my counsel and information which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation for this lawsuit. The language of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel and not of me. I have read the Answer with New Matter and to the extent that the Answer with New Matter is based upon information which 1 have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set fuith in the aforesaid Answer with New Matter is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 49,04 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Bernadette Schaufert G, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendants hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the _D 1y' day of 92010. Craig R. Levin, Esquire Friedman & Levin Associates 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1420 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. fr BY: k.RKRZOGLtYkSQU1RF Counsel for the Defendants, Scott and Bernadette Schauferi FRIEDMAN & LEVIN ASSOCIATES Tay: Craig R. Levin, Esquire 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1420 Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-563-7642 crhi,crllaw.com STEPHANIE MAZZA V. SCO'T'T SCHAUFERT, et al. and c? . 3 - , 1 r+ C h% COURT OF CCOMMQN PL EA CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.: 07-4556 PLAINTIFFS ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER LAw 0FR- FRIEDMAN & I-EviI AssocIAns 1420 WALNUT STREET SUITE 1420 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 15. Denied. Defendants' allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. If deemed relevant, the date of this accident was August 24, 2005 and the complaint was filed on August 1, 2007, well within the applicable statute of limitations. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. Defendants' allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. If deemed relevant it is answered that the acts or omissions causing Plaintiff s injuries and damages were caused by the Defendants herein. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. Defendants' allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. If deemed relevant it is answered that none of the injuries caused in this incident were preexisting. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. Defendants' allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. If deemed relevant it is answered that Plaintiff, at all times, exercised a reasonable amount of care in approaching the dog, she did not place her face directly in front of the dog. Further the Plaintilf did not have time to take evasive maneuvers in attempting to avoid contact with the dog. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at the time of trial. 1 IAW OFFICES FRIEDMAN & LEVIN ASSOCIATES 1420 WALNUT STREET SUITE 1420 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 19. Denied. Defendants' allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. If deemed relevant it is answered that none of the injuries caused in this incident were preexisting. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at the time of trial. FRIEDMAN & L VIN ASSOCIATES J By: _ CRAIG R. EV SQUIRE Attor or Plaintiff