Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-0252 CARRIE E. CLAIR and LENUS L. CLAIR, her husband, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, ~, . 2004- ""., " CIVIL TERM .j ~, CORY A. WARCHOLA, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPF FOR ISSI ANCE OF A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHO",OTAIO: Please issue a Writ of SUmll10llS agaillst ti:c. defendant. CORY A. W ARClIOLA, and enter my appearance on beha]fofthe plaintiffs, Carrie E. Clair alld L,,"us L. Clair. Please direct the Sheriff to serve the defendant as follows: CORY A. WARCHOLA 438 MILL RACE ROAD CARLISLE, P A 17013 II): ]{L'spl.'ctlillly submitted, ./ n , IRWIN&~JGtt1. '4/ /.. / // /Itl -. -c. /. /1/ k" .) "~L'/V ,I ~. , ,U - '- Marl'lIs . McKnight. I squire (,() '^ est omfret Slreet, Carlisle. PA 17013 C 17' :'49-2353 Supreme Court J.D. No: 25476 / / Date: January 20,2004 To: CORY A. W ARCHOI,A You are hereby notified thai Carrie L Clair and Lenus L. Clair, plaintil"fs. have commenced an action against you which you are required to dell'nd (lr a kfault.~gment may be entered ~gainst you. I I . ~ . jJ ~_l"., VJ (... ~~ PR.OTHONOTA~ Date: .3\ "-i-- J () ( '- By: \ Y if J~.~. D~:P~Y . 0- :..X--. ,2004 (Z () C'-: ", (:~~:> ~':.::;) ...;.;:- '- o -n' --{ . -'f". fi~;n :~:~ t!J :.;j!S .,-C, ;'-'1:-':) >~ f~-~ ~)~ Z N ~ ~ ~-....)v ~ ~ C - f"-\J (=, J --C) r'.J 'S'\ c.::J\l \ .VO <:::> en r"':l <;-3', <cJ '-" "" SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-00252 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CLAIR CARRIE E ET AL VS WARCHOLA CORY A GERALD WORTHINGTON , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon WARCHOLA CORY A the DEFENDANT , at 1235:00 HOURS, on the 30th day of January , 2004 at 438 MILL RACE ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to WILLIAM BAKER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 3.45 .00 10.00 .00 31.45 r~~ R. Thomas Kline 02/02/2004 MARCUS MCKNIGHT Sworn and Subscribed to before BY:~/~~ DeputY"'Eih~f:E me this 'f ~ day of .1~.f...", "7 Jco 'f A.D. C/ Q L ~A ~J(" '- /~ ~ - prothonotary' Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: John R. Ninosky, Esquire 1.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attomeys for Defendant CARRIE E. CLAIR and LENUS L. CLAIR, her husband, Plaintiffs v. CORY A. WARCHOLA, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2004-252 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION .- LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE PLEASE enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendant in the above-captioned matter. DATE: 1'1/710 fA 239465 (( ., JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By /hI ~Ifd ~NinOSkY, Esqui 1.0. #: 78000 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned does hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the other parties of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on 1.1/17/" J Marcus McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin, McKnight & Hughes 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: ~nor:;~ Attorney I.D. No. 78000 301 Market StreE~t P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 1i'043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant :233749.1 .. r......' (~'~., ~2 ~~~~ --j C.::i ....1...: ~.. , -["7 ~:~l ; I_~ CjJ : -: ~.~ ~ C) . ' , "~. ~"T . , (._~) , ,..,.'] '"l (,,) c:; Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: John R. Ninosky, Esquire LD. No. 78000 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant CARRIE E. CLAIR and LENUS L. CLAIR, her husband, Plaintiffs v. CORY A. WARCHOLA, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2004-252 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE PLEASE issue a Rule upon the Plaintiffs to file a Complaiint within twenty (20) days or suffer judgment of non pros. DATE: 11!/7!(}'1 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By ~~~~ ohn R~ inClsky, Esqu' e 1.0. #: 78000 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com RULE TO: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, 60 West Pomfret Street, Carlisle, PA 17013, Attorneys for Plaintiffs: And now, this ~ay of vlhO ,you are hereby notified to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of service in the above-captioned matter or a dlefault judgment will be entered against you. 239461 (Jh/l-ku f ' Curtis Long, Prothonotary CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned does hereby certify that a copy of the foreg()ing document was served upon the other parties of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on 1/ (/7/ or Marcus McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin, McKnight & Hughes 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER ~~ By: 11 ltJ;M~ JofIn R. Ninosky, Esquire Attorney I.D. No, 78000 301 Market Strel3t P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 1"7043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant :233749.1 (! '0'" . ,., c.:> .." r--..) c,.) c ,) ..L- c; - i I 7-: J (; 1::T:' ,-- "T,r-i"f -, 1 ''::1 t' .> . . ~ ~ > c~; .J..':":': G, f..;"? , .f 'r-,'.I CARRIE E. CLAIR and LENUS L. CLAIR, her husband, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. NO. 2004-2:52 CIVIL TERM CORY A. W ARCHOLA, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW 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, order 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 money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 1-800-990-9108 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. 2 CARRIE E. CLAIR and LENUS L. CLAIR, her husband, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLANH COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. NO. 2004-252 CIVIL TERM CORY A. W ARCHOLA, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2005, come the Plaintiffs, CARRIE E. CLAIR and LENDS L. CLAIR, her husband, by their attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, and makes the following Complaint against the Defendant, CORY A. W ARCHOLA: 1. The Plaintiffs are Carrie E. Clair and Lenus L. Clair, her husband, adult individuals residing at 930 Forge Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. The Defendant is Cory Warchola, an adult individual residing at 438 Mill Race Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. On Wednesday, January 23,2002, at approximately 7:30 p.m., the Plaintiff, Lenus L. Clair, was operating his 1991 Mazda truck. He was travelling north on SR 2003 (Forge Road). The road conditions were dry. 3 4. The collision occurred after the Plaintiff, Lenus L. Clair, had stopped in the northbound lane of travel waiting to turn left into his driveway. The Defendant, Cory Warchola, was driving an automobile which rammed into the rear of the Plaintiff s vehicle forcing it off the highway to the right. The Plaintiff had engaged his brake lights as well as the left turn signal. 5. The Plaintiff, Carrie E. Clair, was a passenger in the vehicle driven and owned by her husband, the Plaintiff, Lenus L. Clair. 6. The force of the impact caused the Plaintiffs vehicle to slide in a northerly direction, and coming to a stop facing in the northerly direction off the lane of travel. The front of the Defendants' vehicle struck the rear end of the Plaintiffs' vehicle causing severe damage. 7. There was moderate damage to the Defendants' vehicle and severe damage to the back and front of the Plaintiffs' vehicle. 8. The Plaintiff, Lenus L. Clair, suffered injuries to his head. He lost time from his employment sustaining significant lost wages. 9. The Plaintiff, Carrie E. Clair, a passenger in the vehicle driven by her husband, sustained injuries including a broken neck, dislocated collar bone, and a shoulder injury. 4 10. The Plaintiffs, Carrie E. Clair and Lenus L. Clair, were taken by ambulance to Carlisle Regional Medical Center, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, for emergency treatment of their injuries. 11. The Defendant, Cory Warchol a, was cited by the Pennsylvania State Police for careless driving. 12. The injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs were caused by the negligence and careless actions of the Defendant, Cory Warchola. 13. The Defendant, Cory Warchola, was negligent and careless as follows: a. She failed to maintain her vehicle under proper control in an effort to avoid a collision; b. She was operating her vehicle in an unsafe and careless manner; c. She was not paying attention to traffic on the highway; d. She failed to drive her vehicle at a safe speed; and e. She failed to provide any warning of the pending collision to the Plaintiff. 14. The negligent actions of the Defendant, Cory Warchola, were the proximate cause of the injuries to the Plaintiffs, Carrie E. Clair and Lenus L. Clair. 5 15. The Plaintiffs, Carrie E. Clair and Lenus L. Clair, seek compensation for the pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of life's pleasures since the date of the accident as well as compensation for future losses they will incur in these areas. 16. The Plaintiffs, Carrie E. Clair and Lenus L. Clair, seek compensation for the medical expenses which they have incurred and may incur in the future to treat their injuries which occurred as a result of the injuries they sustained in the accident. 17. The Plaintiff, Carrie E. Clair, also seeks compensation for the serious and permanent injuries she has sustained which has caused extensive pain and suffering as well as lost wages. 18. The Plaintiff, Lenus L. Clair, seeks compensation for loss of companionship and society as a consequence of the injuries sustained by his wife, Carrie E. Clair. 19. The Plaintiff, Carrie E. Clair, seeks compensation for loss of companionship and society as a consequence of the injuries sustained by her husband, Lenus L. Clair. 6 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Carrie E. Clair and Lenus L. Clair, requests compensation and damages from the Defendants in the amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand and no/lOO ($25,000.00) Dollars with interest as permitted by law and the ,::;osts of this litigation. Respectfully submitted, By: Date: January 4,2005 7 VERIFICATION The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by counsel and us in the preparation of this action. We have read the statements made in this document and they are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CCU\M~ c Cfl~ CARRIE K CLAIR ~~ / - "~ / ' / NUS L. l\.IR --- Date: January 4, 2005 CARRIE E. CLAIR and LENUS L. CLAIR, her husband, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLANB COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. NO. 2004-2~52 CIVIL TERM CORY A. W ARCHOLA, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached document was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows: John R. Ninosky, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, P A 17043 IRWIN & McKNIGHT By: l~ Date: January 4, 2005 () .~, ~~ c. .J i"~ 1. ~. ,c") ~'C ::~j --<: l'.:l C:-."} c::::;;. CJl C-. :::"'. ;;i::: o .1 -f ~T::D f t j r-~~ -nr)] -nLJ c:~_ (L, :::~ .-,- . t d'<~ , + -n -~'" N U1 0" '.~- . :~ Johnson, Dnffie, Stewart & Weidner By: John R. Ninosky, Esquire !D. No. 78000 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lel11oyne, Pennsylvania 17043-01 09 (717)761-4540 Al1:orneys for Defendant CARRIE E. CLAIR and LENUS L. CLAIR, her husband, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2004-252 CIVIL TERM v. CORY A. WARCHOLA, Defendant CIVIL ACTIOt~ - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: CARRIE E. CLAIR and LENUS L. CLAIR, Plaintiffs c/o MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III, ESQUIRE Irwin & McKnight 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiffs YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within Answer With New Matter within 20 days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 4' ~ By 1 /-Il hn R. Ninosky, Esqulr Attorney 1.0. No. 78000 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant DATE: J I II/OS- .Johnson, Dnffie, Stewart & Weidner By: John R. Ninosky, Esquire J.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street p, O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant CARRIE E. CLAIR and LENUS L. CLAIR, her husband, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. NO. 2004-252 CIVIL TERM CORY A. WARCHOLA, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT CORY A. WARCHOLA AND NOW, comes Defendant Cory A. Warchola by and through her counsel, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, who file this Answer With New Matter by respectfully stating the following: 1. After reasonable investigation Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 4. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 5. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 6. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 7. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 8. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 2 9. Denied. The avennents in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 10. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the trutll or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 11. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of Jaw to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 12. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore. denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 13a-e. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 3 14. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 14. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of Jaw to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 15. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 16. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 17. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and. therefore. denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 4 18. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 19. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in her favor. NEW MATTER 20. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 21. Plaintiffs' injuries and damages were not caused by any acts, omissions or breaches of duty of Defendant. 22. That the damages that Plaintiffs may be entitled to recover in this action are limited to those damages which are recoverable under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 23. That Plaintiffs' claims may be limited or barred by the "limited tort option," pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. 91705. 5 24. If it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of the Defendant, which negligence is expressly denied, any such negligence was not a proximate cause of any damages to the Plaintiffs. 25. Any negligence on the part of the Defendant, which negligence is expressly denied, was not a substantial factor in causing the alleged injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs. 26. The Plaintiffs' cause of action may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 27 That if the Plaintiff suffered the injuries alleged in their Complaint, those injuries were caused in whole or in part by the negligence of the Plaintiffs, and recovery in this action may be barred or diminished in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in her favor. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER BY:_~ ./ j1)~ John R. Ninosky, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 78000 301 Market Street PO. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant DATE: / I.)IIO~ 242616 /1 6 VERIFICATION I, CORY A. WARCHOLA, hereby acknowledge that I am the Defendant in this action; that I have read the foregoing Answer With New Matter; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. (lmAk//-fAJt1.AJiJ! d2CL. ~CHOLA DATE: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned does hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the other parties of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on January 21, 2005: Marcus McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin, McKnight & Hughes 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: ~L~l~ Attorney 1.0. No. 78000 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PI>. 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761.4540 Attorneys for Defendant 239466 ,):~. r'~' .;;~:::' ;-J~ <- :J..',", :;.:~: 1',.) - \J -'-'.- (..,) r~.) ....1,,' Irwin & McKnight By: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire I.D. No. 25476 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Attorneys for Plaintiff CARRIE E. CLAIR and LENUS l. CLAIR, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF her husband, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. : NO. 2004-252 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION -LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CORY A. WARCHOLA, Defendant PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the docket settled and discontinued with prejudice in the above captioned matter. DATE: ~"O#oiJ ~O'O~ ,..;-, :::-! n1 (,) r:? 1.,;'} . .