Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-7277% I MICHAEL STAUB, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, Defendant No. ?7 - 7477 bvi l Terra CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND 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(s). You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING 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. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Phone: (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 MICHAEL STAUB, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : No. j 7- 7-2 ??--HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Michael Staub, by and through his attorney, David J. Foster, Esquire, COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS, and respectfully represents as follows in support of this Complaint. Parties 1. Plaintiff, Michael Staub, is an adult individual residing at 4550 Bull Road, Lot # 17, Dover, York County, Pennsylvania 17315. 2. Defendant, Hampden Township, is a Pennsylvania local municipality with its main place of business located at 230 South Sporting Hill Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. Background Allegations 3. The events giving rise to this cause of action occurred at approximately 8 a.m. on December 13, 2005 at the Hampden Township Emergency Services Building located at 1200 Good Hope Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 1 4. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff, Michael Staub, who was an installation foreman for Security Fence, Inc., had arrived at the aforesaid premises of Defendant, Hampden Township, with two subordinates for the purpose of installing a fence around the garbage pad behind the building. 5. At the aforesaid premises was a temporary construction fence surrounding the premises and within the fenced-in area was a job site trailer. 6. The truck that contained the equipment that Plaintiff, Michael Staub, and his two workers would use could not enter the aforesaid premises through the security fence without opening a double-locked gate immediately beside the building and, in order to enter the premises with the truck, Plaintiff first had to obtain the key to the padlock to the gate. 7. At the direction of Defendant, Hampden Township, the supervisor at Security Fence, Inc., had instructed Plaintiff, Michael Staub, to obtain the key to unlock the padlock from a specific location underneath the job site trailer within the fenced-in area. 8. Plaintiff, Michael Staub, was directed to squeeze between the edge of the temporary fence and the building (an approximately 2-foot gap) and to walk back to the trailer to get the key to unlock the padlock. 9. Following these instructions, Plaintiff, Michael Staub, squeezed through the 2 aforesaid gap and, as he was proceeding to the job site trailer on the macadam, he slipped and fell on an area of black ice unable to be seen by him, thereby causing the serious and permanent damages and injuries alleged in detail below. 10. Upon information and belief, it is averred that there had been no snow for at least one week prior to the aforesaid date in question but there were areas of snow on the grounds, lawns, parking lots, etc. which would melt and refreeze. 11. The macadam in question had been cleared of snow but obviously had not been cleared of black ice and the black ice had not been salted, cindered or otherwise treated or removed. 12. At the aforesaid date and time, the weather was clear but it was extremely cold. Plaintiff v. Defendant: Negligence 13. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12 above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 14. Defendant, Hampden Township, owed business invitees who were conducting business on its premises, including Plaintiff, Michael Staub, the duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect for and to eliminate any dangers posed on its premises by melting and refreezing snow and ice, commonly known as "black ice," and to warn them 3 of such dangers. 15. Defendant, Hampden Township, had actual and/or constructive notice of the black ice on its premises and the dangers to business invitees posed thereby, and the dangerous conditions on its premises were reasonably foreseeable. 16. The aforesaid black ice on the premises of Defendant, Hampden Township, was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, Michael Staub. 17. Defendant, Hampden Township, breached the duty owed to business invitees, including Plaintiff, Michael Staub, to exercise reasonable care to inspect for and to eliminate any dangers posed on its premises by black ice and to warn them of such dangers, and acted negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly in that it: a) failed to adequately and sufficiently inspect its premises for the accumulation of black ice, having had notice of the melting and refreezing of the snow and ice on its premises; b) permitted water from melting ice and snow to refreeze and form black ice on the macadam of its premises; c) failed to undertake any and/or sufficient actions to eliminate and remove the black ice in question, such as salting, cindering and otherwise 4 treating it; d) wrongly directed Plaintiff's employer to instruct the Plaintiff to squeeze through the 2-foot gap between the fence and building in order to access the job site trailer so that he could get the key to the gate, open it and drive the truck to the garbage pad in question; e) failed to open the gate in question for the Plaintiff and his crew by having an employee or agent meet them at the gate or otherwise opening it for them; f) failed to provide the Plaintiff with the key to the gate prior to the time in question as opposed to directing him to obtain it from beneath the trailer; and g) failed to warn business invitees on the premises, including Plaintiff, of the dangers posed by the black ice on its macadam either verbally or through the erection of signs, barriers, orange cones, etc. 18. The breach of duty of care and negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendant, Hampden Township, were substantial factors in causing the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, Michael Staub, as alleged in more detail below. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of duty of care and negligence, 5 carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendant, Hampden Township, the Plaintiff, Michael Staub, sustained severe and permanent injuries, including but not limited to comminuted fractures involving the tibia and fibula of the left foot/ankle/leg with resultant severe and permanent complications. 20. As a further direct and proximate result of the breach of duty of care and negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendant, Hampden Township, the Plaintiff, Michael Staub, has been required to undergo medical care and attention and to assume medical expenses and in the future will be required to undergo additional medical care and attention and to assume additional medical expenses. 21. As a further direct and proximate result of the breach of duty of care and negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendant, Hampden Township, the Plaintiff, Michael Staub, has suffered and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time in the future great physical pain, suffering and mental anguish. 22. As a further direct and proximate result of the breach of duty of care and negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendant, Hampden Township, the Plaintiff, Michael Staub, has sustained and will continue to sustain for an indefinite time in the future a loss of earnings and a loss of earning's capacity. 23. As a further direct and proximate result of the breach of duty of care and 6 negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendant, Hampden Township, the Plaintiff, Michael Staub, has suffered and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time in the future a loss of life's pleasures. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Michael Staub, based on the foregoing allegations, hereby demands judgment against Defendant, Hampden Township, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits plus costs and interest as provided by law. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: David J. Foste , uire PA ID No. 23151 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Web: www.Costopoulos.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DATED: November 11'? , 2007. 7 foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are I, Plaintiff, Michael Staub, do hereby verify that the statements made in the made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. VERIFICATION BY: Michael Staub DATED: November -,2007. 8 41. P ? i7 L -? n rl r .? -77 0 MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP BY: DAVID J. MacMAIN IDENTIFICATION NO. 59320 123 S. BROAD STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT (215) 772-1500 HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP MICHAEL STAUB, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-7277 V. HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance in the above-captioned matter on behalf of Defendant Hampden Township. By: David J. TA Attorne}11.13. No. 59320 MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP 123 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 (215) 772-1500 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David J. MacMain, hereby certify that on this / ( ? day of December, 2007, I caused a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance to be served by United States first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following person at the address listed below: David J. Foster, Esquire Costopoulos, Foster & Fields 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043 , -? 3, ?? David J. acMain -2- C c, z '°II c:3 rn SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-07277 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND STAUB MICHAEL VS HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP TIMOTHY REITZ Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP DEFENDANT the at 1608:00 HOURS, on the 14th day of December , 2007 at 230 SOUTH SPORTING HILL ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 TRISHA MYERS, RECEPTIONIST by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 10.56 Postage .58 Surcharge 10.00 n 00 3 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 12/18/2007 COSTOPOULOS FOSTER FIELDS By. " De t Sherif A.D. F, ?A MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP By: David J. MacMain and John G. Papianou Identification Nos. 59320 and 88149 123 South Broad Street Attorneys for Defendants Philadelphia, PA 19109-1030 Hampden Township (215) 772-1500 Email: dmacmain@mmwr.com jpapianou _mmwr corn MICHAEL STAUB, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, ) PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, ) No. 07-7277 Defendant. ) PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Pursuant to Rule 1012 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, kindly withdraw the appearance of David J. MacMain, Esquire, of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, as counsel on behalf of Defendant Hampden Township in the above-captioned matter. William E. Dengler, Esquire, of the law firm Hendrzak & Lloyd, is simultaneously entering his appearance on behalf of Defendant Hampden Township. 2396161v] if VN I hereby certify that this change is not intended to, nor will it, delay this proceeding to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & WIOADS, LLP By: David J. ac ain,sq. (P.A. Atty. I.D. No. 59320) John G. rapianou, E q. (PA Atty. I.D. No. 88149) 123 South Broad Street Philadelphia, Pa 19109-1099 (215) 772-7389 -2- 2396161v1 -IPA MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP By: David J. MacMain and John G. Papianou Identification Nos. 59320 and 88149 123 South Broad Street Attorneys for Defendants Philadelphia, PA 19109-1030 Hampden Township (215) 772-1500 Email: dmacmain@mmwr.com 1paplanou(w,mmwr.com ) MICHAEL STAUB, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, ) PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, ) No. 07-7277 Defendant. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this :?y day of February 2009, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Withdrawal of Appearance to be served by United States mail, first-class postage pre-paid, upon the following: David J. Foster, Esquire Costopoulos, Foster & Fields 831 Market Street P.O. BOX 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043 2396161vI -TI WILLIAM E. DENGLER, ESQUIRE e-mail: bill.dengler@zurichna.com Attorney I.D. No: 72696 HENDRZAK & LLOYD 3701 Corporate Parkway, Suite 100 Center Valley, PA 18034 (610) 709-8705 MICHAEL STAUB V. HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO.: 07-2- -7t-177 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance in the above captioned matter on behalf of Defendant, Hampden Township Respectfully submitted, HENDRZAK & LLOYD WILLIAM E. DENGLER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, Hampden Township Dated: 0 - `'?D ? D t C:? r-? ?' =: =- ...? -j-t ? w ?f ', C• ". WILLIAM E. DENGLER, ESQUIRE e-mail: bill.dengler@zurichna.com Attorney I.D. No: 72696 HENDRZAK & LLOYD 3701 Corporate Parkway, Suite 100 Center Valley, PA 18034 610) 709-8705 MICHAEL STAUB V. HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO.: 07-x29 -7,) 7 7 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Twelve (12) members, exclusive of alternates, are hereby demanded by Defendant, Hampden Township, in the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, HENDRZAK & LLOYD WtEtIAM E. DENG UIRE Attorney for Defendant, Hampden Township Dated: ?? 0 _0 K ; `.? - -i - r? S'a3 i C_,? ,?. .. { .- " _?? ? t` -_-° ?: k'`1 . •? ?? To The PCaindff. You are hereby notified to answer the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. WILLIAM E. DENGLER, ESQUIRE e-mail: bill.dengler@zurichna.com Attorney I.D. No: 72696 HENDRZAK & LLOYD 3701 Corporate Parkway, Suite 100 Center Valley, PA 18034 (610) 709-8705 William E. Dengler, Esquire ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP MICHAEL STAUB CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS V. HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP NO.: 07-7277 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED DEFENDANT HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in these paragraphs. If in the events as alleged by Plaintiff did occur on December 13, 2005, Plaintiff has failed to provide Answering Defendant with notice of said events in the matter consistent with the rules and regulations on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and specifically under Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act, including but not limited to 42 Pa.S.C.A. 5522. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial.. 8. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph. 9. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. Plaintiff v. Defendant: Neglieence 13. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference the answer to paragraphs 1 through 13 inclusive, as fully as though the same were here set forth at length. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further Answering Defendant raises all defenses and limitations found in the Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act, including but not limited to 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8542 et seq. 15. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further Answering Defendant raises all defenses and limitations found in the Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act, including but not limited to 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8542 et seq. 16. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the Answering Defendant Hamden Township did not posses and/or controlled the property at the time of the alleged incident. 17(a-g). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further Answering Defendant raises all defenses and limitations found in the Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act, including but not limited to 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8542 et seq. 18. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 19. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore same or deny with strict proof thereof demanded. 20. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore same or deny with strict proof thereof demanded. 21. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore same or deny with strict proof thereof demanded. 22. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore same or deny with strict proof thereof demanded. 23. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore same or deny with strict proof thereof demanded. NEW MATTER 24. Plaintiff s claims are barred or limited by Section 42 Pa C.S.A., Section 8542 et seq.. 25. Plaintiff s claims are barred under Section 42 Pa C.S.A. 8542(b)(2). 26. Plaintiffs claims are barred or limited by 42 Pa C.S.A. Section 8542(c) 27. Plaintiff s claims are barred or limited by Section 42 Pa C.S.A. 8553. 28. Plaintiff s claims are barred due to his failure to provide notice under Section 42 Pa C.S.A.5522. 29. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. 30. Plaintiff failed to mitigate the alleged injuries and damages and, therefore, Answering Defendant is not liable. 31. Answering Defendants did not have any notice of any alleged defective condition of the premises which is the subject of Plaintiffs Complaint. 32. Plaintiff knew or should have known that the premises which is the subject matter of Plaintiffs Complaint was inherently dangerous because it was a construction site. 33. If the allegations of Plaintiffs injuries are deemed true, a fact specifically denied by answering Defendant, then it is averred that said injuries are due to negligence, recklessness or carelessness on the part of persons or entities over whom answering Defendant had no control or responsibility and for whom answering Defendant cannot be assumed to have accepted liability. 34. The area where the Plaintiff allegedly fell was under the care custody and control of persons or entities other than Answering Defendant. 35. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable Workers' Compensation Act. 36. Plaintiffs claims are barred because of an expressed or implied contract and/or release. 37. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of statutory and/or common law 38. Plaintiffs claims are barred because of the doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 39. Plaintiffs claims are barred because of the doctrine of superseding and/or intervening cause. 40. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. 41. Plaintiffs claims are barred because of the doctrine of waiver and/or estoppel. 42. No act, action or omission on the part of Answering Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries or damages 43. It is believed that Plaintiff may have received workers' compensation benefits pursuant to administrative proceedings and, therefore, Plaintiffs claims may be barred and/or limited by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. 44. The sole proximate cause of any injuries, damages, or losses allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff or any other person or party, were the acts, and conduct, and negligence, carelessness, breaches of contract, warranties, duties or obligations by persons or parties other than Answering Defendant. Respectfully Submitted, IHENDRZAK & LLOYD WILLIAM E. DENGLER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, Hampden Township Dated: VERIFICATION ffff-d a *-77?, on behalf of Hampden Township., a parry in this action, verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 3 ?l Date Name: Title: *')TA7,?f 70-AV Yi l P AY** Y0*W, Staub WILLIAM E. DENGLER, ESQUIRE e-mail: bill.dengler@zurichna.com Attorney I.D. No: 72696 HENDRZAK & LLOYD 3701 Corporate Parkway, Suite 100 Center Valley, PA 18034 610 709-8705 MICHAEL STAUB V. HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO.: 07-7277 TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William E. Dengler, Esquire hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent via First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel: David Foster, Esq. Costopoulos, Foster & Fields 831 Market Street, P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Respectfully submitted, HENDRZAK & LLOYD WILLIAM E. DENGLER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, Hampden Township Dated: kAo'\ N rin - CFAMES\Clim s0owsal3050\Curreat\565\3050.565.pra1 Created: 9/20/04 0:06PM Revised: 3/30/09 8:57AM 3050.565 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire I.D. No. 49813 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant MICHAEL STAUB, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, Defendant. NO. 07-7277 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Enter the appearance of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER on behalf of Defendant in the above matter. Defendant hereby demands a twelve juror jury trial in the above captioned action. MART$-ON LAW OFFICES By George B. F er,`fr., I.D. No. 4 13 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: March 30, 2009 Attorneys for Defendant A" '1. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Melissa A. Scholly, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David J. Foster, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043 William E. Dengler, Esquire HENDRZAK & LLOYD 3701 Corporate Parkway Suite 100 Center Valley, PA 18034 MARTSON LAW OFFICES By J- ) C?? ??U" , Melissa A. Scholly Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: March 30, 2009 THF. P" . ,, Cy «m? i ORIGINAL David J. Foster, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 23151 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER FIELDS 831 Market Street, P.O. Box 22 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Email: dionfoster(a-aol.com MICHAEL STAUB, Plaintiff, V. HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, Defendant. I 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 26. Denied. 27. Denied. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. 31. Denied. 32. Denied. 33. Denied. Attorney for Plaintiff Michael Staub IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Docket No.: 07-7277 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -1- 34. Denied. 35. Denied. 36. Denied. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. 41. Denied. 42. Denied. 43. Admitted however, Plaintiff's cla 44. Denied. Plaintiff has received workers' compensation benefits; are not barred or limited by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Respectfully submitted, David J. Foste?4squire I.D. No.: 23151 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street, P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Email: dionfoster&aol.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Date: APRIL 9, 2009. -2- a I, Plaintiff, are true and correct. I understand that Pa.C.S. Section 4904, VERIFICATION Michael Staub v. Hampden Township CCP Cumberland County Docket No.: 07-7277 Staub, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 to unsworn falsification to authorities. %Wx1S*'jj Michael Staub DATE: APRIL 9 , 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tiffany M. Mille', a secretary for the law offices of Costopoulos, Foster & Fields, hereby certify that on this 9TH day of APRIL, 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER was served upon all parties by: Hand Deli X First Cla: Certified P Fax Transi Overnight Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Lil, Return Receipt Requested ion it at the following address(es) and/or number(s): George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire .TSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 el for Defendant Hampden Township William E. Dengler, Esquire HENDRZAK & LLOYD 3701 Corporate Parkway Suite 100 Center Valley, PA 18034 By: COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS Tiffany M. Miller FULL-_. i: ,,. E OF THE 2009 APR 14 Pi l 1: 0 4 ORIGINAL David J. Foster, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS Attorney I.D. No.: 23151 831 Market Street, P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Email: djonfoster(a)-aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff Michael Staub MICHAEL STAUB, Plaintiff, V. HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : Docket No.: 07-7277 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION -LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned case discontinued and ended as to Defendant Hampden Township. Respectfully submitted: David J. Foster, squire I.D. No.: 23151 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Email: djonfoster(a)-aol.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Dated: August "? , 2009. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jayme M. Emig, a secretary for the law offices of Costopoulos, Foster & Fields, hereby certify that on this 17th day of August, 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE AND END was served upon all parties by: Hand Delivery X First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Fax Transmission Overnight Mail at the following address(es) and/or number(s): William E. Dengler, Esquire 3773 Corporate Center Parkway Suite 180 Center Valley, PA 18034 Counsel for Defendant Hampden Township George B. Faller, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 By: COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 9-1??? W A, 4.?? yme M. Emig FILEL u .:' is OF THc" I' J." " F, ?'rRRY 2009 AUG 18 Ph 2: 0 $ ,. . ,y PENNSYL!JA:NO .