Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-3425d IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS A. BECKLEY, V. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 08 - 3'a5 0'ivu l l e.rw. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, 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 any other claim for relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other right 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. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER CONTACT: Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone Number (717) 249-3166 COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, who, by and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION -LAW V. : NO. 0g? 3ya S &-f e- r /%,. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, : Defendants through his attorney, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire, and Beckley & Madden, of Counsel, files this Complaint against the Defendants, Shanice D. Williams and Jamila Skouta, and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff is Thomas A. Beckley ("Beckley"), Esquire, an adult individual who resides at 333 North 27th Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendants are: a. Shanice D. Williams ("Williams"), an adult individual with an address of 659 North 13th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19123; and b. Jamila Skouta ("Skouta"), an adult individual with an address of 111 North 2nd Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101. 3. At all times relevant, Beckley was the owner of a 2008 Mercedes-Benz CL550 automobile ("Automobile"). Beckley had purchased the Automobile new from Sun Motor Cars, Inc., on or about July 30, 2007, for a total purchase price of $119,970.34. 4. On March 6, 2008, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Beckley was traveling in his Automobile westbound on the Harvey Taylor Bridge (SR 1014). Beckley was traveling in the left lane of the two lane bridge going towards Camp Hill. 5. At about the same time, Williams was traveling South on North Second Street in Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania. From North Second Street, Williams turned right (West) onto SR 1014 (towards Camp Hill). 6. There was a "Yield Sign" for traffic turning onto SR 1014 from North Second Street. Williams was aware of the yield sign prior to turning. 7. Williams proceeded turning right onto SR 1014, and immediately crossed over the right lane and into the left lane of SR 1014. 8. At the time Williams crossed into the left lane of SR 1014, Beckley was in the same lane. Beckley was unable to stop his car in time and the front end of Beckley's Automobile collided into the rear end of Williams' automobile causing severe damage to Beckley's Automobile. 2 s 9. At the time of Beckley-Williams' collision, Jamila Skouta was driving her automobile directly behind Beckley's Automobile in the left lane of SR 1014. Skouta's automobile ran into the rear end of Beckley's Automobile causing severe damage to Beckley's Automobile. 10. The accident, and resulting damage to Beckley's Automobile, were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Williams and Skouta which consisted, among other things, of the following: a. Williams' failure to adequately look for oncoming traffic before turning onto SR 1014; b. Williams' failure to obey the Yield Sign which she saw; c. Williams' failure to stay in the right lane immediately after turning onto SR 1014; d. Skouta's failure to leave a safe traveling distance between her automobile and Beckley's Automobile. e. Williams' and Skouta's failure to operate their vehicles without due regard to the rights, safety, and position of Beckley; 3 f. Williams' and Skouta's failure to operate their vehicles under the proper control so as to prevent their vehicles from colliding with Beckley's Automobile; g. Williams' and Skouta's failure to use due care under the circumstances; h. Williams' and Skouta's failure to take evasive action to avoid colliding with Beckley's Automobile. 11. Beckley's Automobile suffered severe damage to the front end and the back end. Furthermore, Beckley's Automobile suffered structural damage which, upon information and belief, could not have been repaired to the condition it was in prior to the accident. 12. In addition to the structural damage, the resale value of the Automobile was significantly lowered given that it was damaged in the accident. 13. Beckley's auto dealer, Sun Motor Cars, Inc., caused the Automobile to be auctioned "as is" (i.e., without being repaired) for a net sale price of $70,156.72. 14. Beckley then purchased an identical automobile (Mercedes-Benz CL550) for a net sale price of $116,366.94. 4 r 15. Beckley applied the $70,156.82 Sun Motor Cars, Inc., received from the sale of the "old" Automobile, and paid an additional $46,210.22 out of his pocket for the "replacement automobile." 16. Therefore, the damage to Beckley which was caused solely by the Defendants' negligence is $46,210.22. 17. At all times relevant hereto, Beckley acted with due care and was not contributorily negligent. 18. The amount demanded exceeds the amount required for compulsory arbitration. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, hereby requests this Court to enter judgment against Defendants, Shanice D. Williams and Jamila Skouta in the principal amount of $46,210.22, plus interest, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. DATED: June 1, 2008 Respectfully submitted, Of Counsel BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 (717) 233-7691 Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley 5 VERIFICATION I, Thomas A. Beckley, hereby verify that I am an adult individual, that I have read the foregoing document, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Thomas A. Beckley 6 a n N ?? O ?-? ?a P w4 ?. rn 15 ...111 ? w. -< 0 w SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-03425 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BECKLEY THOMAS A VS WILLIAMS SHANICE D ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: SKOUTA JAMILA but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & mnTTrW On June 26th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: So answers: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas K1ine Dep Dauphin County 41.25 Sheriff of Cumberland County Postage 1.35 79.60 ? L/3D?6 06/26/2008 BECKLEY & MADDEN Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Thomas A. Beckley VS. Jamila Skouta No. 08-3425 civil Now, June 11, 2008 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, within upon at by handing to a and made known to copy of the original So answers, the contents thereof. Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this day of , 20 F 20 , at o'clock M. served the COSTS SERVICE $ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT F - County, PA (otlitig, Ed the "*1t'rfrf Mary Jane SDepuVer Real Estate William T. Tully Solicitor • Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Charles E. Sheaffer Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin THOMAS A BECKLEY VS JAMILA SKOUTA Sheriffs Return No. 2008-T-1289 OTHER COUNTY NO. 08-3425 And now: JUNE 23, 2008' at 3:29:00 PM served the within NOTICE & COMPLAINT upon JAMILA SKOUTA by personally handing to JAMILA SKOUTA 1 true attested copy of the original NOTICE & COMPLAINT and making known to him/her the contents thereof at DAUPHIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE FRONT AND MARKET STREETS HARRISBURG PA 17101 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 24TH day of June, 2008 1? - NOTARIAL SEAL F NE SNYDER, Notary Pubhspire, Dauphin County mission Expires Set 1, 2010 Shentf of By- j Deputy: KAREN HOFFMAI4- Sheriffs Costs: $41.25 6/13/2008 So Answers, FRANCIS R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES BY: Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire Identification No. 88210 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorney for Defendant (215) 274-1720 Jamila Skouta THOMAS A. BECKLEY Vs. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-3425 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Jamila Skouta in the above matter. A jury of twelve (12) persons is hereby demanded. FRANCIS R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES BY: ? seph P. Birmingham, ;quire Attorney for Defendant Jamila Skouta err;; z -M r C:; caa ,? ? t THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff VS. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 08-3425 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF TWELVE (12) JURORS PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance for Defendant, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, in the above case and designate 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 301, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 as the place notices and papers other than original process may be served. FORRY ULLMAN By. L ? ME R. FORRY, ESQUIRE A y I.D. No. 36003 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 441-9257 Date: July 16, 2008 THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff vs. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was mailed via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following party(ies) addressed as follows: Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire FRANCIS R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 FORRY ULLMAN By: Z;?j J ES FORRY, ESQUI Date: July 16, 2008 ?-..? =?, _.? ? a-t • ? ?. .... } r !..'? ? `?' rJ i CL TO PLAINTIFF: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN CO RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER w ® --L WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF. LU cc } oseph P. Birmingham, Esquire CL. eYCO Qt19 / it :5 U- -,??ZQ?LU R., 11 ' It R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES 1- BY: Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire Identification No. 88210 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorney for Defendant (215) 274-1720 Jamila Skouta THOMAS A. BECKLEY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and NO. 08-3425 JAMILA SKOUTA DEFENDANT JAMILA SKOUTA'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein. Thus, said allegations are deemed denied, with strict proof demanded at time of trial. 2. Admitted in part, denied in part. As a way of further answer, the answering Defendant, Jamila Skouta admits that she resides at the location stated in paragraph 2(b). The remaining contentions of paragraph 2 is directed at a Defendant other than the answering Defendant and answering Defendant hereby denies the contention due to insufficient information. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein. Thus, said allegations are deemed denied, with strict proof demanded at time of trial. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein. Thus, said allegations are deemed denied, with strict proof demanded at time of trial. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. (a)-(h). Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Complaint contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 11. Admitted in part denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs vehicle suffered damage to his front and back end. The remaining contentions of paragraph 11 are denied due to insufficient information. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein. Thus, said allegations are deemed denied, with strict proof demanded at time of trial. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein. Thus, said allegations are deemed denied, with strict proof demanded at time of trial. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein. Thus, said allegations are deemed denied, with strict proof demanded at time of trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein. Thus, said allegations are deemed denied, with strict proof demanded at time of trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein. Thus, said allegations are deemed denied, with strict proof demanded at time of trial. 17. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs Complaint contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 18. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Jamila Skouta demands judgment in her favor and against all other parties to this action, along with costs and fees associated with the defense of this matter as well as any other relief which this Court deems just and proper. NEW MATTER 19. Plaintiffs claims may be barred in whole or in part by the Plaintiffs own contributory negligence. 20. Plaintiffs claims may be barred in whole or in part by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 21. Plaintiffs claims may be barred in whole or in part by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act including, but not limited to, Section 1705 and Section 1722. 22. Plaintiffs claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 23. Plaintiffs claims may be barred in whole or in part by the execution of a Release. 24. Plaintiffs claims may be barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 25. On or about June 18, 2008, Plaintiff was tendered a check in the amount of $7262.80 in compensation for his rear end property damages in this matter. 26. The fair market value of Plaintiffs vehicle at the time of the accident was $99,500.00. NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS 27. Should any of Plaintiffs losses be proven, liability is that of Defendant Shanice D. Williams due to her negligence, carelessness and recklessness as set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint which is incorporated herein by reference and re-alleged against this Defendant. 27. Should Plaintiffs losses be proven, Defendant Jamila Skouta herein asserts that Defendant, Shanice D. Williams is alone liable to the Plaintiff or jointly or severally liable to the Plaintiff, or liable over to Defendant, Jamila Skouta directly inasmuch as the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant, Shanice D. Williams was the cause of the accident and Plaintiffs injuries. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Jamila Skouta, demands judgment by way of contribution and/or full indemnity against Defendant, Shanice D. Williams. FRANCIS R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES BY: owl sWL- seph P. Birmingham, Es uire Attorney for Defendant, Jamila Skouta r Beckley vs. Skouta VERIFICATION Jamila Siouta, the Defendant herein make this Verification and state that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Jamila Skouta Dated: o? t•wi C:?? ?:;..> ? _?? „., ?, ; jam:'." "_ NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter and New Matter in the Nature of THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff VS. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 08-3425 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF TWELVE (12) JURORS ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT a Crossclaim within twenty (20) days from the date of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. ANSWER Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, (hereinafter "Answering Defendant Williams") by and through her attorneys, Forry Ullman, answers the correspondingly numbered paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint as follows: 1. Admitted. 2(a). Admitted. (b). Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Williams is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 2(b), and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 3-4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Williams is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraphs 3 and 4, and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied as stated. To the contrary, Answering Defendant Williams' recollection at the time was that there was a yield sign. 7. Denied as stated. To the contrary, Answering Defendant Williams merged on to State Route 1014, moving into the right lane and then moving her vehicle into the left lane at a time when she believed it was safe to do so. 8. Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Williams is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 8, and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Williams is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9, and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 10(a-h). Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 10, subparagraphs (a) through (h), constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In further answer, Answering Defendant Williams operated her motor vehicle at all times material to Plaintiffs cause of action in a safe, reasonable, prudent and proper manner for the circumstances then and there existing. 11-15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Williams is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraphs 11 through 15, and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 16-17. Denied. The averments contained in paragraphs 16 and 17 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 18. Denied. No answer required to this jurisdictional averment. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, avers that she is not liable to the Plaintiff in any amount whatsoever and prays that the Complaint against her be dismissed and that she may be awarded costs of defense, including attorney's fees, and that she may have such other and further relief as may be just and appropriate. NEW MATTER By way of further answer and defense, Answering Defendant Williams avers the following New Matter in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030: 19. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 20. Defendant Williams was not negligent, reckless, or careless with respect to any conduct regarding the damages alleged by Plaintiff. 21. Any acts or omissions of Defendant Williams alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial causes and did not result in the losses alleged by Plaintiff. 22. The damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff were not proximately caused by Defendant. 23. The negligent acts or omissions of other individuals or entities may have constituted superseding causes of the damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff. 24. This action is barred or otherwise limited by the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, Title 75 Pa. C. S. Section 1701 et seg., either as originally promulgated or as amended by Act No. 1990-6. Defendant Williams pleads this law and the amendments thereto as a complete or, in the alternative, partial defense to Plaintiffs civil action. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, avers that she is not liable to the Plaintiff in any amount whatsoever and prays that the Complaint against her be dismissed and that she may be awarded costs of defense, including attorney's fees, and that she may have such other and further relief as may be just and appropriate. NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A CROSSCLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT, JAMILA SKOUTA Answering Defendant Williams asserts this New Matter pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1031.1 and hereby asserts the following causes of action against the above-named co-Defendant on the following basis: 25. The accident described in Plaintiffs Complaint and Plaintiffs alleged damages were caused solely by the negligence of Defendant, Jamila Skouta. Any negligence of Answering Defendant Williams is specifically denied and was not the result of any act or failure to act on the part of Defendant, Shanice D. Williams. 26. If the averments contained in Plaintiffs Complaint are established, said averments being specifically denied as they relate to Answering Defendant Williams, and the damages complained of by Plaintiff were caused solely or in part by the co-Defendant, Jamila Skouta. 27. If it should be found that Answering Defendant Williams is in anyway liable to Plaintiff then co-Defendant, Jamila Skouta, is jointly, severally and/or comparatively liable with Answering Defendant Williams, or liable over to Shanice D. Williams for contribution and/or indemnity. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, respectfully requests judgment be entered in her favor and against all other parties. FORRY ULLMAN By: JA ES FORRY, ESQUIRE Attorne : D. No. 36003 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 441-9257 VERIFICATION I, JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE, having read and prepared the attached, hereby verifies that the foregoing pleading is the language of counsel and is based on information gathered by counsel in the pursuit of this action and information filed of record. I verify that I am authorized within my purview as counsel of record for Defendant to make this verification on behalf of Defendant that the signature of the Defendant to this pleading cannot be obtained within the time allowed for filing this pleading; and that the facts set forth in the forgoing pleading are based upon interviews and conversations with Defendant and are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. This verification is made pursuant to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A., Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. FORRY ULLMAN By: J R. FORRY, ES UI Date: August 11, 2008 THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and NO. 08-3425 JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter and New Matter in the Nature of a Crossclaim of Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, to Plaintiffs Complaint was mailed via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following party(ies) addressed as follows: Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire FRANCIS R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 FORRY ULLMAN By: 4MFORRY, ES UIRE Date: August 11, 2008 P A F n ./+ FRANCIS R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES BY: Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire Identification No. 88210 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorney for Defendant (215) 274-1720 Jamila Skouta THOMAS A. BECKLEY Vs. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA NO. 08-3425 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, JAMILA SKOUTA, TO NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIM OF CO- DEFENDANT, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS 25. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Co-Defendant's New Matter Cross-Claim contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Co-Defendant's New Matter Cross-Claim contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 27. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Co-Defendant's New Matter Cross-Claim contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE ANSWERING DEFENDANT, JAMILA SKOUTA, hereby prays that this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant, Shanice D. Williams' New Matter Cross-Claim and further demands judgment in her favor against all other parties, along with costs and fees associated in the defense of this matter as well as any further relief this Court deems just and proper. FRANCIS R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES BY: Joseph P. Birmingham/,Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Jamila Skouta .Jv Beckley, Thomas v. Shanice Williams and Jamila Skouta Cumberland County No. 2008-T-1289 VERIFICATION I, JOSEPH P. BIRMINGHAM, state that I am the Attorney for the Defendant, Jamila Skouta, and make this Verification and state that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date )?bbss2eephh P. Birmingham, Esquire C- rl? czt? ter ra .; -Y : 0 -I;c IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION -LAW V. : NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT SHANICE D. WILLIAMS' NEW MATTER AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, who, by and through his attorney, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire, and Beckley & Madden, of Counsel, files this Reply to Defendant Shanice D. Williams' New Matter, and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 19. The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Defendant Williams' New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 20. The allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Defendant Williams' New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 21. The allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Defendant Williams' New 0 Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 22. The allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Defendant Williams' New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 23. The allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Defendant Williams' New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 24. The allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Defendant Williams' New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, hereby requests this Court to enter judgment against Defendants, Shanice D. Williams and Jamila Skouta in the principal amount of $46,210.22, plus interest, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. DATED: August 22, 2008 Respectfully submitted, Of Counsel BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 (717) 233-7691 Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley 2 VERIFICATION I, Thomas A. Beckley, hereby verify that I am an adult individual, that I have read the foregoing document, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Thomas A. Beckley CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire, hereby certify that on this day a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL Joseph B. Birmingham, Esquire Law Offices of Francis R. Gartner & Associates 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 James R. Forry, Esquire Forry Ullman 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 DATED: August 22, 2008 omas S. Beckley, Esquire <<? ^±4.. ' ....,i i ,.,.,. ?2 ? ' 7? f' ?..° i .:. w,.? _ -.; .. _t v. ? - ?._ m.t? ryS r r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION -LAW V. NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, : Defendants PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT JAMILA SKOUTA'S NEW MATTER AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, who, by and through his attorney, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire, and Beckley & Madden, of Counsel, files this Reply to Defendant Jamila Skouta's New Matter, and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 19. The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Defendant Skouta's New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 20. The allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Defendant Skouta's New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 21. The allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Defendant Skouta's New Matter a constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. J r 22. The allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Defendant Skouta's New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 23. The allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Defendant Skouta's New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 24. The allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Defendant Skouta's New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 25. It is admitted that Plaintiff received a check in the amount of $7,262.80 on or about June 18, 2008. It is denied that this amount ($7,262.80) fully compensates Plaintiff for the damage done to his vehicle. By way of further response, Plaintiff has not cashed the check. 26. Denied as stated. It is denied that Plaintiff's vehicle was worth only $99,500.00 at the time of the accident. Plaintiff paid approximately $120,000.00 for his vehicle, and, at the time of the accident, Plaintiff's vehicle was less than eight months old and had less than 5,000 miles on it. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff's vehicle was worth considerably more than the amount claimed by Defendant Skouta. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, hereby requests this Court to enter judgment against Defendants, Shanice D. Williams and Jamila Skouta in the 2 01 principal amount of $46,210.22, plus interest, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. DATED: August 22, 2008 Of Counsel BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 (717) 233-7691 Respectfully submitted, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley 3 r` VERIFICATION I, Thomas A. Beckley, hereby verify that I am an adult individual, that I have read the foregoing document, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. L, 4 t , f Thomas A. Beckley CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire, hereby certify that on this day a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL Joseph B. Birmingham, Esquire Law Offices of Francis R. Gartner & Associates 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 James R. Forry, Esquire Forry Ullman 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 DATED: August 22, 2008 omas S. Beckley, Esquire r? r? rr:; ' ' ? 7 <=33 ..... ?i? ? ? ? ;?v ?. ! -Rt a ` ?? ?a.? -v ?? i?-7 .+.... w.q^" THOMAS A. BECKLEY, V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-3425 PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Thomas S. Beckley , counsel for the plaintiff in the above action, respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $46,210.22 plus interest and costs The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is None The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Thomas S Beckley Esquire Thomas A Beckley Esquire James R. Fogy Esquire and Joseph B Birmingham Esquire WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, Thomas SEsquire Attorney for Plaintiff ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, action (or actions) as prayed for. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 200, in consideration of the foregoing petition, Esq., and , Esq., and Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned By the Court, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire, hereby certify that on this day a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL Joseph B. Birmingham, Esquire Law Offices of Francis R. Gartner & Associates 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 James R. Forry, Esquire Forry Ullman 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 DATED: December 10, 2009 Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire a'`AAY ?Da} 0 t l P11 3. t Z C11??: ?: *44. oo P 0 A-rrY Gc7K 153q P-T* o? 3Y 9?3 7 1 THOMAS A. BECKLEY, V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2008-3425 PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Thomas S. Beckley counsel for the plaintiff in the above action, respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $46,210.22 lus interest and costs The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is None The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Thomas S Beckley Esquire Thomas A Beckley Esquire, James R. Forry Esquire and Joseph B Birmingham Esquire WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, Thomas S. l?kley, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, 1 % 200, in consideration f the foregoing petition, Esq:, and AWIA ,Esq., and Esq., are ap of ted arbitrators in e above captioned action (or a ions) as prayed f6 P F ILE'vL 2090, U"' ULE Ci I {S I"1 8: 30 IN-Ty 444.s ) GOAA _ FORRY ULLMLMAN James R. Forry, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 36003 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 441-9257 Attorney for Defendant Shanice Williams THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff vs. OF THE C, OTA" 2010 JAN -6 PM 1- -32 A, YE-' Ur Uf Y N PENNSY[VN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SURPORNAS TO PRODUCE DOCTJMF.NTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERV PTIRSIJANT TO RULE 4009-21 Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, intends to serve subpoenas identical to the subpoenas 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 subpoenas. If no objection is made, the subpoenas may be served. FORRY ULLMAN Dated: { 5 BY: S FORRY, ESQUIRE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, et al Defendants File No. 08-3425 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANTTO RULE 4009.22 TO: Sun Motor Cars, Inc. 4444 Carlisle Pk., Camp Hill, PA 17011 ta%ager (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 at Forry, Ullman, Ullman & Forry, P.C., 540 Court St., P.O. Box 542, Reading, PA 19603. (Address) 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 James R. Forry, Esquire. FORI,'Y U;.,IZAN Address: 9nnn T.; "Qj pGr.,T.,,, Pna(i,- -Suite 301 Enrri cUt,rg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 441-9257 Supreme Court ID # 36003 Attorney For: Defendant Williams BY THE OURT. cc: Thomas Beckley, Esquire ame =3w Prothon C rk, Civil Division Date: & Seal of the Court Deputy (Eff. 7/97) Sun Motor Cars, Inc., 4444 Carlisle Pk., Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attn: Office Manager (1) Any and all documents regarding purchase, and sale of 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550, VIN #WDDEJ71X28A010712, including but not limited to Purchase Orders, Sales Contract, MV-1 forms, copies of title, title transfers, affidavits, mileage affidavits, copies of checks, and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents and any other documents regarding the sale of this motor vehicle to Thomas Beckley as well as the repurchase or "trade-in allowance for this vehicle toward the purchase of another Mercedes Benz CL550; and (2) Any and all documents regarding purchase, and sale of 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550, VIN #WDDEJ71X88A018829 including but not limited to Purchase Orders, Sales Contract, MV-1 forms, copies of title, title transfers, affidavits, mileage affidavits, copies of checks, damages estimates, estimates of value, and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents and any other documents regarding the sale of this second (2d) motor vehicle to Thomas Beckley; and (3) any and all copies of documents reflecting the disposition of the damaged 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550 after having been damaged and "traded-in" for a new Mercedes CL550 including damages estimates, estimates of value, to whom the damaged Mercedes was sold or auctioned off to including name, address, phone number and dealer # of highest bidder for this vehicle. Any and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents, and repair documents regarding this vehicle; and (4) Any and all documents between you and Manheim Auto Auction (or any other motor vehicle auction house) pertaining to the subject 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550, VIN #WDDEJ71X28A010712, including sales contracts, consignment contracts, auction contracts, bid documents, sales forms, MV- 1 forms, titles, transfers, affidavits, copies of checks, and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents and any other documents regarding the sale and or disposition of this Vehicle to Manheim Auto Auction, or any other dealer, person or auction. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, et al Defendants File No. 08-3425 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANTTO RULE 4009.22 TO: Manheim Auto Auction, 1190 Lancaster Rd., Manheim, PA 17545 Office -Manag (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**** at Forry, Ullman, Ullman & Forry, P.C., 540 Court St., P.O. Box 542, Reading, PA 19603. (Address) 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 James R. Forry, Esquire FORr-,Y U LMAN Address: 9nnn T ; rg7 o?t„?n, Rnara -Suite 301 Hn-rriQ'kivra_ Ph 17110 Telephone: (717) 441-9257 Supreme Court ID # 36003 Attorney For: Defendant Williams cc: Thomas Beckley, Esquire Date: /a 9/07 Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: LAhonota r Civil Division Deputy (Eff. 7/97) To Manheim Auto Auction: (1) Any and all documents regarding purchase, and sale of 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550, VIN #WDDEJ71X28A010712, including but not limited to Purchase Orders, Sales Contract, MV-1 forms, copies of title, title transfers, affidavits, mileage affidavits, copies of checks, and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents and any other documents regarding the purchase and sale of this motor vehicle as well as the repurchase or "trade-in allowance for this vehicle, if any, toward the purchase of another Mercedes Benz CL550; and (2) any and all copies of documents reflecting the disposition of the damaged 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550 after having been damaged and "traded-in" for a new Mercedes CL550 including damages estimates, estimates of value, to whom the damaged Mercedes was sold or auctioned off to including name, address, phone number and dealer # of highest bidder for this vehicle. Any and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents, and repair documents regarding this vehicle; and (3) Any and all documents between Manheim Auto Auction (or any other motor vehicle auction house) pertaining to the subject 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550, VIN #WDDEJ71X28A010712, and the successful bidder on the subject CL550 including sales contracts, consignment contracts, auction contracts, bid documents, damage estimates, sales forms, MV-1 forms, titles, transfers, affidavits, copies of checks, and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents and any other documents regarding the sale and or disposition of this vehicle by Manheim Auto Auction, or any other dealer, person or auction. FORRY ULLMLMAN James R. Forry, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 36003 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 441-9257 Attorney for Defendant Shanice Williams THOMAS A. BECKLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW VS. NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS CF.RTIFICATF, OF SERVICE I, JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE, and FORRY ULLMAN, attorneys for Defendant Shanice Williams, certify that the foregoing Notice of Intent, was served upon the following by first class mail, postage prepaid, at the following address: Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1408 relating to falsification to authorities. DATE: 1-1 g??4 BY: J ES . FORRY, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. BECKLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-3425 CIVIL SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this 84L"' day of January, 2010, the appointment of Timothy A. Shollenberger, Esquire, to the Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case is VACATED. Jacob M. Theis, Esquire, is appointed in his place. BY THE COURT, Kevin Hess, P. J. -,"*'Robert G. Frey, Esquire Chairman -,"Jacob M. Theis, Esquire Court Administrator Am oc? r- 2 THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff VS. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEk PENNS)?EV CUMBERLAND COUNTY Q A?qA , CIVIL ACTION -LAW -n s ?C NO. 08-3425 - N t"I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF r TWELVE (12) JURORS DEFENDANT, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, REPLY TO NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, JAMILA SKOUTA 27. Answering Defendant's answers to the correspondingly numbered paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference as if the same were set forth herein at length. 27(sic). Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 27(sic) constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against all other parties to this action. By: FORRY ULLMAN J?. FORRY, ESQUIRE Atto I.D. No. 36003 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 441-9257 Attorneys for Defendant, Shanice D. Williams VERIFICATION I, JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE, attorney for Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter Crossclaim are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. FORRY ULLMAN By: J ES FORRY, ESQ IRE Date: January 13, 2010 Ij THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff VS. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter Crossclaim of Defendant, Jamila Skouta, was mailed via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following party(ies) addressed as follows: Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire FRANCIS R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 FORRY ULLMAN By: "ES . FORRY, ESQ RE Date: January 13, 2010 LAW OFFICES WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES BY: Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire Identification No. 88210 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 (215) 274-1720 F'1 C'1_..I r ?C 23 Attorney for Defendant Jamila Skouta C ..'THOMAS A. BECKLEY Vs. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMILA SKOUTA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-3425 SHANICE K. MALLARD COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. NO. 09-6766 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMILA SKOUTA . MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 1. Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, filed a Civil Action Complaint on June 4, 2008, and named as Defendants, Shanice D. Williams and Jamila Skouta. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Thomas A. Beckley's Complaint is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". 2. Plaintiff, Shanice K. Mallard, subsequently filed a Complaint on or about October 7, 2009, and named as Defendants, Shanice D. Williams and Jamila Skouta. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff, Shanise K. Mallard's Civil Action Complaint is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B„ 3. Both Complaints were filed as a result of a motor-vehicle accident that occurred on March 6, 2008 on State Route 1014 (Harvey Taylor Bridge), at or about its intersection with North 31d Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. The claims in both cases arise out of the same series of events and/or transactions and/or occurrences. 5. The witnesses involved in both cases will be the same. 6. Both actions involve common questions of law and fact. 7. Failure to consolidate these cases will result in unnecessary expenses to the parties and to the Court. 8. Consolidation of both cases would promote judicial economy and create a substantial savings of time and effort to the parties and the Court. Furthermore, by consolidating these cases, the risk of incurring inconsistent verdicts will be eliminated. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Jamila Skouta, respectfully request that the Court grant his Motion to Consolidate pursuant to Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES BY: ?i«u SEPH P. BIRMINGHAM, QUIRE -2- LAW OFFICES WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES BY: Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire Identification No. 88210 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 (215) 274-1720 Attorney for Defendant Jamila Skouta THOMAS A. BECKLEY Vs. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMILA SKOUTA SHANISE K. MALLARD COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMILA SKOUTA NO. 09-6766 MEMORANDUM OF LAW Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows: In actions pending in a county which involve a common question of law or fact or which arise from the same transaction or occurrence, the Court on its own motion or on the motion of any party may order a joint hearing or trial of any matter in issue in the actions, may order the actions consolidated, and may make orders that avoid unnecessary costs or delay. In the instant matters, both actions which the Petitioner seeks to consolidate arise from the same accident, which occurred on March 6, 2008 on State Route 1014 (Harvey Taylor Bridge), at or about its intersection with North 3rd Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Accordingly, both actions involve common questions of law and fact. Specifically, it must be decided how the accident occurred, and who is specifically liable. A decision to consolidate the instant matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial Court. Because the proof to be offered in each action will be identical, it would promote judicial economy and create a substantial savings of time and effort to all parties and the Court if the actions are tried as one. Furthermore, by consolidating these cases, the risk of incurring inconsistent verdicts will be eliminated. It is therefore in the interest of the parties and the Court that the actions be disposed of in one proceeding. For the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Petitioner, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant their Motion to Consolidate. Respectfully Submitted, WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES BY: EPH P. BIRMINGHAM, ES RE -2- VERIFICATION JOSEPH P. BIRMINGHAM, ESQUIRE, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is attorney for Defendant, JAMILA SKOUTA, that he is authorized to take this verification on behalf of Defendant, and that the within Motion to Consolidate contains issues of substantive law upon which he is entitled to express and opinion as an attorney an concerning which the Defendant, would not be in a position to take an affidavit, and that the matter set forth therein is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. Dated: January 11, 2010 LAW OFFICES WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES BY: Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire Identification No. 88210 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 (215) 274-1720 Attorney for Defendant Jamila Skouta THOMAS A. BECKLEY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Vs. NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMILA SKOUTA SHANISE K. MALLARD COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMILA SKOUTA NO. 09-6766 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: JOSEPH P. BIRMINGHAM, ESQUIRE, attorney for Defendant, JAMILA SKOUTA, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Defendant's Motion to Consolidate was served upon Plaintiffs' counsels noted on the attached list, by way of regular first class mail, postage prepaid on January 11, 2010. WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES BY: J EPH P. BIRMINGHA"QUIRE LIST OF COUNSEL Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P. 0. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 (717) 233-7691 (Attorney for Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley) Adam T. Wolfe, Esquire SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI, LLP 2225 Millennium Way Enola, PA 17025 (717) 728-3400 (Attorney for Plaintiff, Shanise K. Mallard) James R. Forrey, Esquire 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 441-9257 (Attorney for Co-Defendant, Shanice D. Williams) EXHIBIT iiA" TRAVELERS FAX NO. 71776' -17 PAGE 03/09 P. 02 412-291-2427 MI-24-=2008 1'UE 11:33 AN AAA CL. AL PENN C, H. 1N THE CO COUNTYENN?+?A?`?` CUMBE RY-.AN THOMAS A. BECKLEY, plaintiff :CIVIL. ACTION - L kW NO, 08- MAS C;vc l fern v. ` o SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and. JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wash to defend a gainst cl.t must take action within twenty (20) days after this set forth in the follo?wlag Pages, you tten e. aranee ersonally or by Coin faint at?d Notice are served, by with the Court your defenses o objections to the 016= set attomey and filing in writing May' Proced without forth against you. You are warne you and a judgment may be d entered that if agaWA you you by dthoeSCourt a without fuxshr lice for any money claimed in the Complaiut or any other claim for relief requested by the Plaints You may lose money or property or other right important to you YOU SHOULD TAKE 'T'HUS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. OR YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, (30 TO TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEG HELP, IF YOU DO.NOT HAVE A LAWYER CONTACT- Cumberland Co=tY Bar Assoaiatian 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 - - Telephone Number (717) 249-3166 to 3"estia?tN' ? i ire unto 5d ?Y hard Pa- arMd ?! al sad own at ??? 05/26/2008 09:19 412-281-2427 JUN-24-2008 TUE 11:33 AM AAA CE.:_ AL PENN 019. TRAVELERS FAX NO. ,71778' 17 IN TM COuRTC r? NNSY?Al? rq&As OF Ct3MBElitLAND THOMAS A. BECI4I.l?Y, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION -LAW N0. V. .SHANTCE D. WILLI MS and . I jAWLA SKOUTA, Defendants ; COWLAXN'T PAGE 04/09 F. 03 AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Thomas A. Bcckrey, Esquire, wbo, by and through his attorney, Thomas S. Berkley, Esquire, and Beckley & Madden, of Counsel, files this complaint against the Defendants, Shaoicc D. Williams and Jamilet Skoute, and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff is Thomas A- Beckicy ("Beekley'j, E,aquirs, an adult individual who resides at 333 Noah 27`" Street, Camp Hill, pmu sylvanla 17011. 2. Defendants ate. a. Shanioe D. Williams ("Williams°°)an adult individual with an address of 659 North 130'Street, Philadelphia, Pennaylvanie 19123; and b. lamila Skouta C Skouta!% an adult individual with an address of 1 I I North 2nd Street, Hurisburg, Pennsylvania 17101. 06%25/2008 09;19 e-12-200^1-2427 TRAVELERS PAGE 05/09 JUN-24-2009 TUE 11, 33 Art AAA CL -RAL PENN 0. H. FAX N0, 71776` 77 P. 04 J 3. At AU times relevant, Beckley was the owner of a 2008 Mercedes-Benz CL550 automobile ("Automobile'). Beckley lied. pazrchased the Automobile new from Sun Motor Cars, Inc., on or about July 30, 2007, for a total purchase price of $119,970.34. 4. On March 6, 2008, at approximately 7;30 p.rn., Buckley was traveling in his Automobile westbound on the Harvey Taylor Bridge (SR 1014). Reeldey was traveling in the left lane of the two lane bridge going towards Camp Hill. 5. At about the same time, Williams was traveling South on North Second Street in Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania. From North, Ceco"d Street, Williams turned right (West) onto SR 1.014 (towards Camp Hill). 6. There wa,,4 a "Yield Sign" for t vffie turning onto SR 1014 from Nortb Second Street. Williams was aware of the yield sign prior to turning. 7. Williams proceeded turning right onto SR 1014, and immediately crossed over the right lane and unto the left lane of SR 1014. 9. At the time Willima crossed into the left lane of SR 1014, Beckley was in the same lane. Beckley was unable to stop his car in time and tbo front and of Beckley's Automobile collided into the rear end of Williams' automobile causing severe damage to Becklay's Automobile. 2 06/26/2008 09:19 41.2-231-2427 TRA1/E_ERS PAGE 06/09 JUN-24-2008 TUE 11; 33 AN AAA Ci:. SAL PENN[ C. H. FAX N0. 71776', )7 F. 05 9. At the time of Baekley-Williamb' collision, lama Sk"M was driving her automobile directly behind Backley's Automobile in the left lane of SR 1014. Skouta's automobile rant into the rear end of Beckley's Automobile causing severe damage to Backky's Automobile. 10. The accident, and resulting damage to Beckley's Automobile, were caused solely by the negligence said oareleasness of Williams and- Skouta which consisted, among other things, of the following: a. Williams' failure to adequately look for oncoming traffic before turning onto SR 1014; b. WilUms' failure to obey the Yield Sign which she saw; d-Ay in the right lane immediately after turning onto C. Williams' failure to. SR 1014; d. Skouta's failure to leave a safe traveling distance between her automobile and Bccldey's Automobile. o. Williams' and Skouta's failure to oper2ie their vehicles without cue regard to the rights, safety, and position of Beckley; 3 05/25/2003 e9;1s 4"_2-281-2427 TRAVELERS PAGE 07/09 JUN-24-2008 TUE 11:34 AM AAA CL,OL PENN C, H. FAX NO, 71776, 07 R 03 is Williams' and Skoutes failurc to operate their vehicles under the proper control so as to prevent their vehicles from colliding wiib Beckley's Automobile; g. Williams' and Skouta's failure to use due core under the circumstances; i h. Williams' and Skouta's failure to take evasive action to avoid colliding with Beckley's Automobile. 11. Beeldey's Automobile sufFared sovere damage to; the front end and the back and. Ruthermore, Beckley's Automobile suffered strucbmal. damage which, upon infomation and belief, could not have been repaired to the etmditiozt it was in prior to the aceidea 12. Xn additions to The sUnnsctural, damage, the resale value of the Automobile was significantly lowered given that it was damaged in the accident. 13. Beckley's auto dealer, Sun Motor Cam, Inc., cAmed the Automobile to be auctioned "as is" (Le., without being repaired) for a net sale price of $70,156.72. 14. Beckley them purchased an identical automobile (Mercedes-Benz CL550) for a net sale price of $116,366.94, 4 412-29?.-2427 JUN-24--200P TUE 11'.34 All AAA CL?. ML PENH C.H. TRAVELERS FAX P10. 71776: 37 15. Beckley applied the $70,156.82 Sun Motor Cars, Inc,- iycccived from the sale of the "old" Automobile, and paid an additional $46,210.22 out of his pocket for the `?,eplacetaent auomobile." PAGE 0°/09 P. 07 16. Thercfore, the damage to Beckley which vvas caused solely by the Defendants' neglige= is $46.210.22- 17. At all times relevant hereto, Beckley acted with due care axed was not contributorily acgligent. 18. The amount demanded exceeds tho amount required for compulsory arbittetion. WHEREFORE, Flaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, hereby requests this Court to enter judgment against Defendants, Shanice D. VAIli ms and Jamila Skouta in the principal amount of $46,210.22, plus interest, casts, and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. DATED: June J, 2008 Of Counsel BECKL.EY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P_O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 (717) 233-7691 Respectfully submitted, Thomas S. Beckley, Esqub'e Attorney for Plaiatiff, Thomas A. Beckley 5 Q6/25/20P3 0;:19 41.2-281-2427 JUM-24-2008 TUE 11:34 AM AAA C',.. RAL PENN C.H. TRAVELERS FAX NO 71776" ]7 D RIFE T_XI-O-N PAGE 09/09 P. UO I, Thomas A. Beckley, hereby verify that t am an adult individual, that 1 have read the foregoing docwnemt, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing do=cent are tmo to the bast of my knowledge- I undccstand thAt false statements bwein are made subject to the peDaltics of 1S pa.C.S• § 4904 relating to unsworn fal fication to authorities. Thomas A. Beckley 6 EXHIBIT iiB" Oct, 9. 21;09 5 5 P Y Travelers - hdo, C6o1--r. SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI, LLP 2225 Millennium Way Enols, PA 17025 Telephone Number: (717) 728-3200 Fax Number: (717) 728-3400 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SHANISE K. MALLARD 7206 Vipling Parkwy District Heights, MD 20747 Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS 5435 Webster Street Philadelphia, PA 19143-2518 AND JAMILA SKOUTA 306 Ross Avenue New Cumberland, PA 17070 Defendants NO. O4• G 7 G L Cj, ,Q 72t,,,, CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Nf TKXA LE HAN DEMANDADO A LISTED EN LA CORTE. Si usted quiere defenderse do estas demandas expuestas an las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dies do plaza al partir de Is fecha de Is demands y la notificacion. Usted debe pressntar una apariencla esc rita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en Is torte en forma escriita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado quo si usted no se defiende, Is corte tomaro medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notoficacaion y por cualquier queja o alivio qua as pedldo on Is peticlon do demands, usted puede perder dinero o sus propiededas o otros derechos importantes pare usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SURCIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA DilN.1.4 -ODLQ Oct, 19. 2 0 0 9 ,55DY . Travelers --- No. ('b01---r. 211' CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMAci6N SOBRE LAS ACENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGAL.ES SIN CORGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS OUE CUALIFICAN. Lawyer Referral and Information Service CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA. 17013 (717) 249-3166 Oct.19. 2009 1:55PM Travelers SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI, LLP 2225 Millennium Way Enola, PA 17025 Telephone Number: (717) 728-3200 Fax Number. (717) 728-3400 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SHANISE K. MALLARD 7208 Kipling Parkwy District Heights, MD 20747 Plaintiff No. 0667---P. 3/11 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS 5435 Webster Street Philadelphia, PA 19143-2318 AND JAMILA SKOUTA 306 Ross Avenue New Cumberland, PA 17070 Defendants NO. 09- Grc.G ?.?.. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED C+EI .Akli ff EACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS 1. Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, Is an adult individual who currently resides at 7206 Kipling Parkway, District Heights, Prince George's County, Maryland. 2. Defendant, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, Is an adult individual whose last known address Is 5435 Webster Street, Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, JAMILA SKOUTA, is an adult individual whose last known address is 306 Ross Avenue, New Cumberland, York County, Pennsylvania, Oct. 19. 2009_ 1:56PM Travelers No. 06F-P. 4/11 4_ The facts and circumstances hereinafter set forth took place on March 6, 2008 on State Route 1014 (Harvey Taylor Bridge), at or about its intersection with North V Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, was a passenger in a 1995 Mazda 626, owned by Barbara R. Reynolds, operated by Defendant, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, and bearing Washington, D.C. registration Number 768892. 6. At the aforesaid time and place, Defendant, JAMILA SKOUTA, was the operator of a 1995 Mercury Villager, owned by Rachid Rahmouni and bearing Pennsylvania Registration Number EME6110. 7. At the aforesaid time and place, the 1995 Mazda 626 operated by Defendant, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, and occupied by Plaintiff, SHANICE K. MALLARD, was traveling southbound on North 2"d Street, and was attempting to enter westbound State Route 1014. 8. At the aforesaid time and place Defendant, JAMILA SKOUTA, was operating the 1995 Mercury Villager west in the in the left westbound lane of State Route 1014, immediately behind a 2008 Mercedes-Benz CL550 owned and operated by Thomas A. Beckley. B. At the aforesaid time and place, the 1995 Mazda 626 operated by Defendant, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, entered the westbound lanes of travel of State Route 1014 from North 2"d Street and then proceeded into the left H sholenberpr dodanU4 LLP 2225 9me=inm Wsy Enols, PA 17025 717 8'3200 717-728-$400 (ce) Oct,19. 2009 1:56PM Travelers No. 066 °. 5/11. westbound lane, directly into the path of the 2008 Mercedes-Benz CL550 owned and operated by Thomas A. Beckley causing the 2008 Mercedes-Benz CL550 to strike the rear of the 1995 Mazda 828. 10. While the 2008 Mercedes-Benz CL550 was still in physical contact with the 1995 Mazda 626, Defendant, JAMILA SKQUTA, failed to stop the 1995 Mercury Villager and struck the rear of the 2008 Mercedes-Benz CL550- 11. In the alternative, after the 2008 Mercedes-Benz CL550 made contact with the 1995 Mazda 626, Defendant, JAMILA SKQUTA, failed to stop the 1995 Mercury Villager and struck the rear of the 2008 Mercedes-Benz CL550, causing the 2008 Mercedes-Benz CL550 to strike the rear of the1995 Mazda 626 for the second time. 12. As a result of the aforesaid collision, Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, has suffered serious and permanent injuries, including but not limited to the following; a. Cervicodorsal myofascial pain syndrome; b. Bulging discs of the cervical spine at or about C4 through C7; C. Cervical rediculopathy; d. Strain and sprain of the muscles, tendons, ligaments and other soft tissues at or about the cervical spine; and e. Cephalgia. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, 3 sbollcnberpr & Janu4 LLP 2225 MfllMUW- Way 8nGL4 PA 27025 717-7VS-3200 717-728-9404 UBX) Oct. 19. 2009 1:56PM Travelers No, 0667-P. 6/11.,- -. SHANISE K. MALLARD, has undergone and in the future will undergo great pain and suffering for which damages are claimed. 14. As a further result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, has sustained a permanent diminution in her ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures for which damages are claimed. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, SHANISEE K. MALLARD, has sustained scarring and disfigurement for which damages are claimed. 16. As a further result of the aforesaid Injuries, Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, has suffered and may continue to suffer a loss of earnings for which damages are claimed. 17. As a further result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, has and/or may in the future incur a loss of eaming capacity for which damages are claimed. 18. As a further result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, has and/or may in the future incur expenses for medical treatment and rehabilitation for which damages are claimed. 19. As a further result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, has incurred or may hereinafter incur financial expenses and losses which are recoverable and for which damages are claimed, 20. Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, was neither the owner of a currently registered private passenger motor vehicle nor a named insured or 4 Sbollenbmer & Januzd, UP 2225 MMI®nrum Way Snola, PA 17025 717-728-3200 717-728-3400 (64 Oct.19. 2009 1:56PM Travelers f c. 0667--P. 7/11 insured under any Pennsylvania private passenger motor vehicle policy on March 6, 2008. Therefore, Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, remains eligible to claim compensation for non-economic loss and economic loss sustained in this collision pursuant to applicable tort law. COUNTI SHAH ISE K MALLARD V. SHANICE D. WiLUA SS 21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. 22. The aforesaid collision was the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, in operating the 1995 Mazda 626 in a careless, reckless manner as follows; a. Failing to drive the 1995 Mazda 826 as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane on a roadway which had been divided in two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic and moving from the lane before the defendant had first ascertained the movement could be made with safety In violation of §3309(1) of The PA Motor Vehicle Code. b. Failing to slow the 1995 Mazda 620 in obedience to a yield sign to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and then bringing the 1995 Mazda 626 to a stop before entering a crosswalk or near side of an intersection or the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering in violation of Section 3323 (c) of The PA Motor Vehicle Code. C. In failing to exercise the high degree of care required of a motorist entering an intersection. d. In failing to properly observe traffic signals controlling defendant's direction of travel. e. In failing to yield the right-of-way to on-Coming traffic. 5 ShoUmbager & Janumd, LL P 2225 U EUniU ll Way Eno]a, PA 19025 717-74-3200 717-728-3400 (f8x) Oct,19. 2009 1:56PM Travelers No. 0667-P. 8/11 f. In failing to observe the 20D8 Mercedes-Benz CL550 on the roadway. g. When entering a roadway from an intersecting road, falling to keep the 1995 Mazda 626 solely within the right-hand lane until safe movement into the left-hand lane could be made. h. Entering a roadway from an intersecting road and immediately proceeding, at least partially, into the far left lane of travel without traveling for some distance in the initial lane that she encountered after exiting the intersecting road. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, demands judgment against Defendant, SHANISE D. WILLIAMS, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II SHANISE K. MALLARD V. JAMILA SKOITA 23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. 24. The aforesaid collision was the direct and proximate result of the negligence or the Defendant, JAMII.A SKOUTA, in operating the 1995 Mercury Villager in a careless, reckless manner as follows: a. Following another vehicle more closely than was reasonable and prudent, given the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon and condition of the highway in violation of §3310(a) of The PA Motor Vehicle Code. b. Driving at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing and/or at a speed greater than would have permitted her to bring the 1995 Mercury Villager to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead in violation of Section 3361 of the PA Motor Vehicle Code. 6 Shancubmw & Jaaarz, LLP 2225 aAillennhm Way Bn*U, PA 17025 717-728-3200 717-728-3400 OW Oct, 19. 2009 1:56PM Travelers No.06F P. 9/11 C. In failing to apply the brakes in dme to avoid the collision. d. in permitting or allowing the vehicle to strike and collide with the rear of the 2008 Mercedes-Benz CI-550. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SHANISE K. MALLARD, demands judgment against Defendant, JAMILA SKOUTA, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Date: October 7, 2009 Respectfully submitted, SHOLL ERGER & JANUZZi, LLP Attome for Plaintiff By: a III Adam T. Wolfe, Esquire Attorney I.O. #201057 2225 Millennium Way Enola, PA 17025 (717) 728-3200 (717) 728-3400 (fax) 7 ShonvAww & Japilmd. LLP 222S M911=tWUWIW Eno]% PA 17M 717-7281.1200 717-728-3400 (fim) Oct.19. 2009 1:57PM Travelers G) FILE-MCE OF THE PFUR CINbITARY 2009 OCT -9 PM 3.' 02 PI~IVNSYI..Vru'i?A 4qg. 50 Po ATd M-* 14IT& 1 Fr* aboI? Nc.0667 P. 10/11 Oct. 19. 2009 1:57PM Travelers No, 066. P. 11/1 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 REDUCE FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA. 17043 (717) 249-31W THOMAS A. BECKLEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA 08-3425 CIVIL TERM SHANICE K. MALLARD IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA : 09-6766 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of January, 2010, defendant Jamila Skouta's motion for consolidation of the above-captioned matters, IS DENIED. It appearing that the matter at 08-3425 Civil has already been referred to arbitration by the court, and it further appearing that the issues involved though related, are distinct, the court finds the motion to consolidate to be both untimely and inappropriate. By the Court, -Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire For Jamila Skouta -Adam T. Wolfe, Esquire For Shanise K. Mallard -Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire For Thomas A. Beckley ,I-j'a-'nes R. Forrey, Esquire For Shanice D. Williams P :sal o` N -I F =z r ?t FORRY ULLMLMAN James R. Forry, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 36003 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 441-9257 Attorney for Defendant Shanice Williams THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff VS. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants LE[, c 2010 JAN 23 4 is IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 08-3425 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF TWELVE (12) JURORS As a prerequisite to service of a subpoenas for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, certify that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas with a copy of the subpoenas attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least 20 days prior to the date on which the subpoenas are sought to be served; 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoenas, are attached to the Certificate; 3. No objection to the subpoena has been received; and 4. The subpoenas, which will be served, are identical to the subpoenas, which are attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas. FORRY ULLMAN Date: k 1-?' ("', `t© FORRY ULLMLMAN James R. Forry, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 36003 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 1711 0 -. p (717) 441-9257 c., R --? Attorney for Defendant Shanice Williams ' THOMAS A. BECKLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW vs. NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE DOCITMFNTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RUI X,, 4009.21 Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, intends to serve subpoenas identical to the subpoenas 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 subpoenas. If no objection is made, the subpoenas may be served. FORRY ULLMAN Dated: { (5[0ct BY: ')?? S . FORRY, ESQUIRE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, et al Defendants File No. 08-3425 SUBPOENATO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS ORTHINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANTTO RULE 4009.22 TO: Sun Motor Cars, Inc. 4444 Carlisle Pk., Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attn: O ee Manager (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 at Forry, Ullman, Ullman & Forry, P.C., 540 Court St., P.O. Box 542, Reading, PA 19603. (Address) 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 James R. Forry, Esquire. FORr,Y UTLLMAN Address: 2nnn T.;,.gI pgrnem P (I -Suite 301 7in-r-rig'hiirg, 'PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 441-9257 Supreme Court ID # 36003 Attorney For: Defendant Williams cc: Thomas Beckley, Esquire Date: / ,149Loq Seal of the Court BY THE OURT: Prothon C rk, Civil Division Deputy (Eff. 7/97) Sun Motor Cars, Inc., 4444 Carlisle Pk., Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attn: Office Manager (1) Any and all documents regarding purchase, and sale of 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550, VIN #WDDEJ71X28A010712, including but not limited to Purchase Orders, Sales Contract, MV-1 forms, copies of title, title transfers, affidavits, mileage affidavits, copies of checks, and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents and any other documents regarding the sale of this motor vehicle to Thomas Beckley as well as the repurchase or "trade-in allowance for this vehicle toward the purchase of another Mercedes Benz CL550; and (2) Any and all documents regarding purchase, and sale of 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550, VIN #WDDEJ71X88A018829 including but not limited to Purchase Orders, Sales Contract, MV-1 forms, copies of title, title transfers, affidavits, mileage affidavits, copies of checks, damages estimates, estimates of value, and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents and any other documents regarding the sale of this second (2d) motor vehicle to Thomas Beckley; and (3) any and all copies of documents reflecting the disposition of the damaged 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550 after having been damaged and "traded-in" for a new Mercedes CL550 including damages estimates, estimates of value, to whom the damaged Mercedes was sold or auctioned off to including name, address, phone number and dealer # of highest bidder for this vehicle. Any and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents, and repair documents regarding this vehicle; and (4) Any and all documents between you and Manheim Auto Auction (or any other motor vehicle auction house) pertaining to the subject 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550, VIN #WDDEJ71X28A010712, including sales contracts, consignment contracts, auction contracts, bid documents, sales forms, MV- 1 forms, titles, transfers, affidavits, copies of checks, and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents and any other documents regarding the sale and or disposition of this Vehicle to Manheim Auto Auction, or any other dealer, person or auction. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, et al Defendants File No 08-3425 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Manheim Auto Auction, 1190 Lancaster Rd., Manheim, PA 17545 (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**** at Forry, Ullman, Ullman & Forry, P.C., 540 Court St., P.O. Box 542, Reading, PA 19603. (Address) 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 James R. Forry, Esquire FOR,.:Y ITL'• YIAN Address: gnnn T.; Pnarl Suite 301 Fnrri.Qbiirg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 441-9257 Supreme Court ID # 36003 Attorney For: Defendant Williams cc: Thomas Beckley, Esquire Date: / Aq /o,9 Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: L & '&I - Prothonota r , Civil Division Deputy (Eff. 7/97) To Manheim Auto Auction: (1) Any and all documents regarding purchase, and sale of 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550, VIN #WDDEJ71X28A010712, including but not limited to Purchase Orders, Sales Contract, MV-1 forms, copies of title, title transfers, affidavits, mileage affidavits, copies of checks, and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents and any other documents regarding the purchase and sale of this motor vehicle as well as the repurchase or "trade-in allowance for this vehicle, if any, toward the purchase of another Mercedes Benz CL550; and (2) any and all copies of documents reflecting the disposition of the damaged 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550 after having been damaged and "traded-in" for a new Mercedes CL550 including damages estimates, estimates of value, to whom the damaged Mercedes was sold or auctioned off to including name, address, phone number and dealer # of highest bidder for this vehicle. Any and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents, and repair documents regarding this vehicle; and (3) Any and all documents between Manheim Auto Auction (or any other motor vehicle auction house) pertaining to the subject 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550, VIN #WDDEJ71X28A010712, and the successful bidder on the subject CL550 including sales contracts, consignment contracts, auction contracts, bid documents, damage estimates, sales forms, MV-1 forms, titles, transfers, affidavits, copies of checks, and all correspondence, electronic data, emails and/or electronic media documents and any other documents regarding the sale and or disposition of this vehicle by Manheim Auto Auction, or any other dealer, person or auction. FORRY ULLMLMAN James R. Forry, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 36003 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 441-9257 Attorney for Defendant Shanice Williams THOMAS A. BECKLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS CERTTFICATF OF SFRViC'F I, JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE, and FORRY ULLMAN, attorneys for Defendant Shanice Williams, certify that the foregoing Notice of Intent, was served upon the following by first class mail, postage prepaid, at the following address: Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1408 relating to falsification to authorities. DATE: 1A slc0q BY: J "ES . FORRY, ESQUIRE FORRY ULLMLMAN James R. Forry, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 36003 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 441-9257 Attorney for Defendant Shanice Williams THOMAS A. BECKLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW VS. NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS CFRTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James R. Forry, Esquire, and Forry Ullman, hereby certifies that a copy of the Certificate Prerequisite to Service of Subpoenas, Cumberland County Subpoenas to Produce Documents and Things, and Notice of Intent was mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to falsification to authorities. Date: ( I ao I0 FORRY ULLMAN THOMAS A. BECKLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA n a CIVIL ACTION - LAW c V. NO. 08-3425 c? SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants. :TWELVE (12) JURORS EMERGENCY MOTION OF DEFENDANT, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, FOR CONTINUANCE OF ARBITRATION Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, by and through her legal counsel, FORRY ULLMAN, moves this Court for a continuance in the above-captioned matter, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Thomas Beckley, filed a Civil Action Complaint in the above-captioned matter on or about June 4, 2008. 2. Plaintiffs Civil Action Complaint alleges, among other things, that either or both Ms. Williams and Ms. Skouta negligently caused a three car motor vehicle collision, which damaged Plaintiffs 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550. 3. Ms. Williams is contesting both liability and the amount of damages in the instant case. 4. On or about December 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators, which was granted on December 15, 2009. 5. On or about January 20, 2009, a Notice of Arbitration was received by the undersigned scheduling Arbitration for February 24, 2010, in the Cumberland County Courthouse. 6. Prior to and since the time of receiving the Notice of Arbitration, the undersigned has been unable to contact his client, Shanice D. Williams, in order to discuss the facts of the motor vehicle accident as well as prepare her for the upcoming Arbitration hearing. 7. Once the undersigned received the Notice of Arbitration, the undersigned spoke to Plaintiffs counsel and informed him of the undersigned's continued inability to contact Ms. Williams. 8. On Wednesday, February 17, 2010, the undersigned contacted Plaintiffs counsel and requested that the Arbitration hearing be continued for thirty (30) days to allow additional time to locate Ms. Williams and prepare her for the arbitration hearing. 9. Plaintiffs counsel refused to agree to a continuance. 10. Absent finding Ms. Williams through the normal channels of mail, phone, friends, and/or internet searches the undersigned may have to enlist the aid of an investigator to locate Ms. Williams. 11. Inasmuch as Ms. Williams was the driver of the vehicle that was rear-ended by Plaintiff Beckley, who was then rear-ended by Co-Defendant Skouta, Ms. Williams' testimony is relevant to the issue of liability as to the cause of the subject accident. 12. In order to ensure that the instant case is decided on the merits, (rather due to the absence of one of the parties), Defendant currently requests a reasonable continuance of the Arbitration for a period of sixty (60) days, especially if we hire an investigator to locate Ms. Williams. 13. Under Pennsylvania law, the power to grant or refuse a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Radcliffe on the Delaware, Inc., 439 Pa. 159 (1970). 14. The exercise of such discretion may only be overturned where there has been a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion. Id. 15. Clearly, "the court has discretion to grant a continuance for the absence of a party," when such party's presence is necessary at the arbitration and/or trial. Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, Continuances §13 (citing Geyer's Lessee v. Irwin, 4 U.S. 107 (Pa. 1790) and Respublica v. Matlack, 2 U.S. 108 (Pa. 1790)); Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d, §38:35 (citing Weiner v. Targan, 100 Pa.Super. 278 (1930); Davidson v. Davidson, 262 Pa. 520 (1919); First Nat'l Bank v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 238 Pa. 75 (1913); Grimsley v. Black, 54 Pa.Super. 413 (1913); Weinberger v. Suess, 59 Pa.Super. 616 (1915)). 16. However, in determining whether or not to grant a motion for continuance, the court must always examine the following four (4) factors: (1) whether a delay will cause prejudice to the opposing party; (2) whether opposing counsel is willing to continue the case; (3) the length of the delay requested; and (4) the complexities involved in presenting the case. See Krupa v. Williams, 316 Pa.Super. 408 (1983). 17. Notwithstanding the above four factors, in determining whether or not to grant a motion for continuance, the chief consideration should always be whether the grant of denial of the continuance was in the furtherance of justice. See Rentzheimer v. Bush, 2 Pa. 88 (1845). 18. Thus, it follows that a continuance is generally proper when a refusal of one would be prejudicial to the rights of one of the parties. See, e.g., Brookside Distilling Products Corp. v. Monarch Wine Co., 367 Pa. 8 (1951).1 Moreover, Pa.R.C.P. 216 governs the procedure for obtaining a continuance. See Pa.R.C.P. 216 (2010). Under such rule, motions for continuance shall be made in writing to the applicable court, after giving notice of such application by mail or otherwise to all parties or their legal counsel. Id. Additionally, pursuant to this rule, it is clear that the court may grant a continuance based upon the absence of a party, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 216 (A)(4), which allows for the grant of a continuance on "such special ground as may be allowed in the discretion of the court." 19. In addition to the above, it is clear from applicable Pennsylvania precedent that a continuance may be granted by a court even as late as on the first day of trial and/or arbitration. See, e.g., Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Auth., et al., 339 Pa.Super. 15 (1985). 20. Applying the above law in the instant case where Defendants intend to contest both liability and damages, it is readily discernable that a continuance--in order to allow Ms. Williams to attend and participate at the Arbitration--would be in the furtherance of justice. 21. First, clearly the delay will not prejudice the Plaintiff, who purchased a new Mercedes Benz CL550 to replace the one damaged in the subject accident. 22. Now Plaintiff seeks to recover $46,210.22--the difference between his new Mercedes, which cost him $116,366.94 and the wholesale value of his damaged Mercedes, which he traded in and had his dealer sell at auction for $70,156.82. 23. Plaintiff seeks to recover this amount, without citing to any Pennsylvania law entitling him to the same.2 24. Second, Defendant is only requesting a continuance for sixty (60) days (i. e. two months); a time sufficient for him to attempt to locate Ms. Williams and to prepare her for Arbitration. 25. Third, there is an additional complicating factor, should this Court deny a continuance in the instant case. Moving Defendant sent notice of her intention to file the instant Motion via facsimile dated February 17, 2010. Such fax is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." z It should be noted that the cost to repair his vehicle was determined by his own insurance company to be only $14,292.55. 26. As this Court is undoubtedly aware, a second and substantially related lawsuit, encaptioned Shanise Mallard v. Shanice Williams and Jamila Skouta v. Thomas Beckley, (as Additional Defendant), docketed as Case No. 08-6766, has been commenced in Cumberland County wherein Ms. Mallard is seeking to recover for personal injuries allegedly suffered as a result of the instant automobile accident. 27. Given that any determination of liability in the instant case may substantially affect the parties' rights and obligations in the related Case No. 08-6766, a continuance is necessary to prevent severe prejudice to Ms. Williams. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Shanice Williams, by and through her legal counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court continue the Arbitration scheduled for February 24, 2010 for sixty (60) days. By: FORRY ULLMAN JAM R. FORRY, ESi A rney I.D. No. 36003 00 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 441-9257 THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff, V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 08-3425 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF TWELVE (12) JURORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION OF DEFENDANT, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, FOR CONTINUANCE OF ARBITRATION Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, by and through her legal counsel, FORRY ULLMAN, files the instant Brief in support of her Motion for Continuance in the above-captioned matter, and in support thereof, argues the following: I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Thomas Beckley, filed a Civil Action Complaint in the above-captioned matter on or about June 4, 2008. Plaintiffs Civil Action Complaint alleges, among other things, that either or both Ms. Williams and Ms. Skouta negligently caused a three car motor vehicle collision, which damaged Plaintiffs 2008 Mercedes Benz CL550. Ms. Williams is contesting both liability and the amount of damages in the instant case. On or about December 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators, which was granted on December 15, 2009. On or about January 20, 2009, a Notice of Arbitration was received by the undersigned scheduling Arbitration for February 24, 2010, in the Cumberland County Courthouse. Prior to and since the time of receiving the Notice of Arbitration, the undersigned has been unable to contact his client, Shanice D. Williams, in order to discuss the facts of the motor vehicle accident as well as prepare her for the upcoming Arbitration hearing. Once the undersigned received the Notice of Arbitration, the undersigned spoke to Plaintiffs counsel and informed him of the undersigned's continued inability to contact Ms. Williams. On Wednesday, February 18, 2010, the undersigned contacted Plaintiffs counsel and requested that the Arbitration hearing be continued for thirty (30) days to allow additional time to locate Ms. Williams and prepare her for the arbitration hearing. Plaintiffs counsel refused to agree to a continuance. Absent finding Ms. Williams through the normal channels of mail, phone, friends, and/or internet searches the undersigned may have to enlist the aid of an investigator to locate Ms. Williams. Inasmuch as Ms. Williams was the driver of the vehicle that was rear-ended by Plaintiff Beckley, who was then rear-ended by Co-Defendant Skouta, Ms. Williams' testimony is relevant to the issue of liability as to the cause of the subject accident. In order to ensure that the instant case is decided on the merits, (rather due to the absence of one of the parties), Defendant currently requests a reasonable continuance of the Arbitration for a period of sixty (60) days, especially if we hire an investigator to locate Ms. Williams. II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED A. Whether a Short Continuance Should be Granted Herein in the Interests of Justice Due to a Defendant's Anticipated Absence at Arbitration, When Such Defendant's Testimony is Necessary to Have this Case Decided on its Merits? SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the Affirmative. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. A Short Continuance Should be Granted Herein in the Interests of Justice Due to a Defendant's Anticipated Absence at Arbitration, When Such Defendant's Testimony is Necessary to Have this Case Decided on its Merits. Under Pennsylvania law, the power to grant or refuse a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Radcliffe on the Delaware, Inc., 439 Pa. 159 (1970). The exercise of such discretion may only be overturned where there has been a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion. Id. Clearly, "the court has discretion to grant a continuance for the absence of a party," when such party's presence is necessary at the arbitration and/or trial. Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, Continuances §13 (citing Geyer's Lessee v. Irwin, 4 U.S. 107 (Pa. 1790) and Respublica v. Matlack, 2 U.S. 108 (Pa. 1790)); Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d, §38:35 (citing Weiner v. Targan, 100 Pa.Super. 278 (1930); Davidson v. Davidson, 262 Pa. 520 (1919); First Nat'l Bank v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 238 Pa. 75 (1913); Grimsley v. Black, 54 Pa.Super. 413 (1913); Weinberger v. Suess, 59 Pa.Super. 616 (1915)). However, in determining whether or not to grant a motion for continuance, the court must always examine the following four (4) factors: (1) whether a delay will cause prejudice to the opposing party; (2) whether opposing counsel is willing to continue the case; (3) the length of the delay requested; and (4) the complexities involved in presenting the case. See Krupa v. Williams, 316 Pa.Super. 408 (1983). Notwithstanding the above four factors, in determining whether or not to grant a motion for continuance, the chief consideration should always be whether the grant of denial of the continuance was in the furtherance of justice. See Rentzheimer v. Bush, 2 Pa. 88 (1845). Thus, it follows that a continuance is generally proper when a refusal of one would be prejudicial to the rights of one of the parties. See, e.g., Brookside Distilling Products Corp. v. Monarch Wine Co., 3 67 Pa. 8 (1951).1 Moreover, Pa.R.C.P. 216 governs the procedure for obtaining a continuance. See Pa.R.C.P. 216 (2010). Under such rule, motions for continuance shall be made in writing to the applicable court, after giving notice of such application by mail or otherwise to all parties or their legal counsel. Id. Additionally, pursuant to this rule, it is clear that the court may grant a continuance based upon the absence of a party, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 216 (A)(4), which allows for the grant of a continuance on "such special ground as may be allowed in the discretion of the court." Moving Defendant sent notice of her intention to file the instant Motion via facsimile dated February 17, 2010. Such fax is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." In addition to the above, it is clear from applicable Pennsylvania precedent that a continuance may be granted by a court even as late as on the first day of trial and/or arbitration. See, e.g., Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Auth., et al., 339 Pa.Super. 15 (1985). Applying the above law in the instant case where Defendants intend to contest both liability and damages, it is readily discernable that a continuance--in order to allow Ms. Williams to attend and participate at the Arbitration--would be in the furtherance of justice. First, clearly the delay will not prejudice the Plaintiff, who already purchased a new Mercedes Benz CL550 to replace the one damaged in the subject accident. Now Plaintiff seeks to recover $46,210.22--the difference between his new Mercedes which cost him $116,366.94 and the wholesale value of his damaged Mercedes, which he traded in and his dealer sold at auction for $70,156.82. Plaintiff seeks to recover this amount, without citing to any Pennsylvania law entitling him to the same.2 Second, Defendant is only requesting a continuance for sixty (60) days (i. e. two months); a time sufficient for him to attempt to locate Ms. Williams and to prepare her for Arbitration. Third, there is an additional complicating factor, should this court deny a continuance in the instant case. As this court is undoubtedly aware, a second and substantially related lawsuit, encaptioned Shanice Mallard v. Shanice Williams and Jamila Skouta v. Thomas Beckley, (as Additional Defendant), docketed as Case No. 08-6766, has been commenced in Cumberland County wherein Ms. Mallard is seeking to recover for personal injuries allegedly suffered as a result of the instant automobile accident. Given that any determination of liability in the instant 2 It should be noted that the cost to repair his vehicle was determined by his own insurance company to be only $14,292.55. case may substantially affect the parties' rights and obligations in the related Case No. 08-6766, a continuance is necessary to prevent severe prejudice to Ms. Williams. IV. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Shanice Williams, by and through her legal counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court continue the Arbitration scheduled for February 24, 2010 for sixty (60) days. FORRY ULLMAN By: JAM R. FORRY, ESQ1 A rney I.D. No. 36003 000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 441-9257 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg PA 17110 PH 717.441.9257 1 Fx 717.441.0814 FAttorneys at Law February 17, 2010 VIA FASCIMILE ONLY Robert G. Frey, Esquire FREY & TILEY 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Beckley v. Williams and Skouta No. 08-3425; Cumberland County C.C.P. Our File No. 2022244 Dear Attorney Frey: JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE VOICE MAIL EXTENSION: 102 E-MAIL: jrforry@forryullman.com Since learning that Arbitration was scheduled to occur in the above-referenced matter on February 24, 2010, despite our best attempts, we have been unable to contact our client, Shanice D. Williams. Given our inability to contact our client and/or to inform her of the upcoming Arbitration, we have been unable to meet with and prepare her for the Arbitration. In that regard, we contacted Plaintiffs counsel, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire, informed him of this situation and requested that he agree to a continuance of the Arbitration. He has refused to extend us such a courtesy. Given that the Arbitration is one week away and that the Cumberland County Local Rules do not appear to allow for (or provide a procedure for) the filing of an emergency motion, we currently request that, as Arbitration Chairman, you kindly exercise the power vested to you, via the Explanatory Comment to Pa.R.C.P. 1303, to "pass th[is] case temporarily" in order to allow us sufficient time to move the Court for a continuance. We anticipate filing the appropriate motion by the close of business this Friday, February 19, 2010. We thank you in advance for your cooperation in this regard. By copy of this letter to all other counsel, we are notifying them as well to our request. Very truly, _-A-4S R. JRF/JVdz cc: Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire (via facsimile only) Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire (via facsimile only) Jefferson Shipman, Esquire (via Jacob Theis, Esquire (via facsi Philadelphia - King of Prussia • Scranton • Harrisburg __ A ,, I 2000 Linglestown Road ! Suite 301 Harrisburg PA 17110 PH 717.441.9257 rx 717.441.0814 ForrylUllman Attorneys at Law February 18, 2010 VIA FASCEMLE ONLY Robert G. Frey, Esquire FREY & TILEY 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Beckley v. Williams and Skouta No. 08-3425; Cumberland County C.C.P. Our File No. 2022244 Dear Attorney Frey: JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE VOICE MAIL EXTENSION: 102 E-MAIL: jrforry@forryullman.com We recently received Attorney Beckley's correspondence dated February 18, 2010. We take issue with a number of arguments advanced therein, which we find it necessary to presently address. First, to be clear, we are not requesting that the chairman grant us a "continuance." Even a cursory review of the Explanatory Comment to Pa.R.C.P. 1303 reveals that the arbitrators have the power to "pass [a] case temporarily to give ... time [to a party seeking a continuance] to move the court for a continuance." This is a quotation taken directly from the Explanatory Comment to Rule 1303 and cannot be construed as Plaintiffs counsel would suggest. Second, we disagree with Plaintiffs counsel's argument that the Dauphin County Court Rule regarding a chairman's ability to rule upon a request for a continuance of an arbitration has any applicability in Cumberland County. As Cumberland County's Local Rules do not allow for the chairman to make such a ruling, (even if the case is less than 2 years old), we intend (and have intended) to file a Motion for Continuance with the Court. This Motion will be filed as early as tomorrow. Should Plaintiffs counsel wish to challenge said Motion, he may clearly do so. Taking the above into consideration, we are currently requesting only that the chairman please "pass" upon this case temporarily, until such time as the Court rules upon our Motion for Continuance. rq yours, R. FORRY JRF/JVdz cc: Thomas S. Beckley, Esq) re (via facsimile only) Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire (via facsimile only) Jefferson Shipman, Esquire (via facsimile only) Jacob Theis, Esquire (via facsimile only) Philadelphia • King of Prussia • Reading • Bethlehem • Scranton • Harrisburg www.forryullman.com THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff VS. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 08-3425 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF TWELVE (12) JURORS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Defendant, Shanice D. Williams', Emergency Motion for Continuance of Arbitration, Brief in Support of Motion and Proposed Order were mailed via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following party(ies) addressed as follows: Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 FORRY ULLMAN By: R. FORRY, ES Date: August 11, 2008 P .! IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS A. BECKLEY, : Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION -LAW V. NO. 08-3425 r w SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and rH JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants .. _> ` ' PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF ARBITRATION AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, who, by and through his attorney, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire, and Beckley & Madden, of Counsel, files this Answer to Defendant Shanice D. Williams' Emergency Motion for a Continuance of Arbitration, and avers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. The allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Defendant's motion reference a written document which speaks for itself. It is admitted, however, that Plaintiff's Complaint centers around an automobile accident which occurred on March 6, 2008, and the resultant damage to his automobile. 3. It is admitted that Williams' now appears to be contesting liability and damages. By way of further response, William's insurance carrier represented to Beckley's insurance carrier that it (Williams' carrier) was accepting liability for the accident. A true and correct copy of a letter from Beckley's insurance carrier referencing this statement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. Admitted. By way of further response, counsel for Beckley told counsel for Williams that he was going to list the case for arbitration prior to actually listing it. Counsel for Williams did not object on the basis that he was unable to find his client. His sole concern was that he wanted to conduct some further discovery, which he did. 5. It is admitted that the Notice of Arbitration was signed on or about January 15, 2010, it is not clear, however, when Williams' counsel actually received it. By way of further response, as of December 10, 2010 (when Beckley's counsel informed Williams' counsel of his intent to list the case) Williams' counsel knew a hearing would be scheduled. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Arbitration panel's office verified the date with all counsel prior to actually scheduling it. At that time, we are not aware of Williams' counsel requesting additional time in order to locate his client. 6. After reasonable investigation, Beckley is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what efforts, if any, Williams' counsel undertook to locate Williams, and/or when any such efforts were made. By way of further response, it should be noted that Mr. Forry, Williams' counsel, signed the Verification attached to Williams' Answer in August, 2008, nearly eighteen months ago, on behalf of Williams. In the Verification, Mr. Forry stated that he could not locate his client in time for her to sign the Verification. Since that time (August, 2008), Mr. Forry has known that he had to locate his client in order to discuss the case with her. Given the amount of time which has passed since then, it is difficult to understand why he should receive an additional 60 days to accomplish something he has already had eighteen months to accomplish.' The Verification which Mr. Forry signed states: "I verify that I am authorized within my purview as counsel of record for Defendant to make this verification on behalf of Defendant that the signature of the Defendant to this pleading cannot be obtained within the time allowed for filing this pleading; and that the facts set forth in the forgoing pleading are based upon interviews and conversations with 2 7. It is admitted that Mr. Forry informed counsel for Beckley that he (Mr. Forry) was unable to locate his client. It is denied, however, that he ever requested a continuance prior to one week before the arbitration hearing. By way of further response, Mr. Forry told Beckley's counsel that Williams had been served with a complaint in another case (in which Mr. Forry is involved). At that point, he knew or should have known, exactly where she was because he could have reviewed the Sheriff's Return of Service, and/or asked the lawyer who served Williams. 8. Admitted. By way of further response, counsel's request came literally one week before the hearing, despite his knowledge that for eighteen months he had not located his client. 9. Admitted. By way of further response, Beckley incorporates his response contained in paragraph 8 hereof. 10. After reasonable investigation, Beckley is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what efforts, if any, Williams' counsel undertook to locate Defendant, and/or when any such efforts were made. By way of further response, Williams' counsel merely stated that he "may" engage a private investigator. It is not clear (1) whether he will engage one, and/or (2) why such effort was not made during the eighteen months since filing the Answer. 11. Denied. Pursuant to the letter Beckley received from his insurance carrier, Williams' carrier had accepted liability. Now, one week before trial, it appears that Williams' carrier has changed its position and deems Ms. Williams' testimony to be relevant, at least, for the purpose of obtaining a continuance. Furthermore, if Williams' Defendant.." Mr. Forry admitted that he, or at least someone, interviewed Williams about the accident. Therefore, at least at some point, either Mr. Forry or the carrier knew the location of Williams because it appears they interviewed her. 3 testimony was truly relevant, her counsel should have located her within the past 18 months. 12. Regardless of whether Williams attends the hearing, the case will be decided on the merits. Williams' counsel will be entitled to cross-examine Beckley, and he is entitled to call (1) the police office who prepared an accident report, (2) the passenger in Williams' automobile (who has also filed an action against Williams), (3) either one of the two witnesses identified in the police report, or (4) the driver who rear-ended Beckley's car who is also a defendant in this case (Jamila Skouta). Without counting Williams, there are at least four other individuals who have first-hand knowledge of the accident plus the police office who conducted the investigation and prepared a written report. 13. It is admitted that the Court has the authority of whether to grant a continuance. 14. The allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Williams' Motion constitute legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 15. The allegations contained in paragraph 15 of Williams' Motion constitute legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. Given Mr. Forry's knowledge (for at least 18 months) that he could not locate his client, and that he waited until one week before the hearing to ask for a continuance, it is denied that a continuance is warranted in this case. 16. The allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Williams' Motion constitute legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 4 17. The allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Williams' Motion constitute legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 18. The allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Williams' Motion constitute legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 19. The allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Williams' Motion constitute legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 20. Denied. Williams' counsel has had since at least August, 2008 (when he verified the answer) to locate his client. Furthermore, there are several other witnesses that Williams' counsel could rely upon to contest liability (as it appears he is now doing). 21. Denied as stated. The accident occurred in March, 2008, and since that time, Beckley has received nothing to cover his costs in obtaining a new car. Furthermore, given the existence of a second case (referred to in paragraph 26 of Williams' motion), it is believed that Williams' request for a continuance is merely an attempt to delay this case so as to make a second motion to consolidate both cases.2 22. Admitted. By way of further response, Beckley has sought this amount since June, 2008, when he filed his complaint. Nothing has changed so as to warrant a continuance. 23. The allegations contained in paragraph 23 of Williams' Motion reference a written document which speaks for itself. By way of further response, if Williams' counsel truly believed that Beckley was not entitled to his damages as a matter of law, he was free to file a demurrer, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for z Defendant Jamila Skouta made a motion to consolidate both cases which this Court (Judge Masland) denied partially because this case was so far ahead of the other case. If this case is delayed, Defendants may file a second motion for consolidation thereby creating even more delay and essentially circumventing this Court's prior Order. 5 summary judgment, or any other dispositive motion. There is no question that Beckley is entitled to damages in this case.3 24. Williams originally requested thirty days, now she is requesting sixty days (one week before the hearing). Williams' counsel has known since at least August, 2008, that he could not locate his client, and that he had an obligation to do so. Given that he has waited until such a late date, he should not be granted a continuance. 25. It is denied that there are any complicating factors which warrant a continuance. 26. It is admitted that there is a lawsuit at docket number 09-6766 in Cumberland County which was commenced by Shanise Mallard. By way of further response, Beckley was not an original defendant in that action, rather he was joined as an additional defendant by Williams on or about January 25, 2010. Indeed, Ms. Williams has not even filed a complaint against Beckley, she merely filed a writ of joinder. This is further evidence that counsel knew he had to locate Williams. We would also note, upon information and belief, that counsel for Ms. Mallard found and served Williams with her complaint. Counsel for Williams could have asked counsel for Mallard where Williams was, or simply looked at the Sheriff's Return of Service. At that point, counsel for Williams could have sent: someone to her address to verify it. 27. The allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Williams' Motion constitute legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. By way of further response, Defendant Jamila Skouta filed a motion for consolidation attempting to consolidate both s It should be noted that Beckley rejected his carrier's estimate because it was incomplete. By way of further response, Defendant Skouta's estimate was higher, and Defendant Williams failed to obtain any appraisal. Regardless of the foregoing, the ultimate amount of Beckley's recovery will be up to the trier of fact. 6 cases. Her motion was denied by Judge Masland on January 27, 2010. Judge Masland stated, "It appearing that the matter at 08-3425 Civil [this case] has already been referred to arbitration by the court, and it further appearing that the issues involved though related, are distinct, the court finds the motion to consolidate to be both untimely and inappropriate." Williams' allegations regarding the two actions have already been ruled upon by the Court. A true and correct copy of the Court's Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Furthermore, Mr. Forry has already contacted Beckley's counsel in the "other" case and informed him that he intends to use Beckley's statements in this case against him in the other case. Given Mr. Forry's statements to Beckley's counsel in the "other" case, it would appear that a denial of a continuance would actually assist his client, or at least he intends to use it to his advantage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, hereby requests this Court to deny Defendant Shanice Williams' Motion for a Continuance of the Arbitration Hearing. DATED: February 22, 2010 Of Counsel BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 (717) 233-7691 Respectfully submitted, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley 7 ?? usaX • ?)Sllll Fredericksburg Road tiau ,kill-lio,'I csas?`i23S THOMAS A BECKLEY May 30, 2008 212N3RDST HARRISBURG PA 17101-1505 Reference: Damages to your insured vehicle Dear Mr. Beckley, I am writing regarding the claim referenced below. We have inspected the damages to your vehicle and per your instructions you do not want us to issue any payment. I have spoken with the carries for both of the driver's involved and they have accepted liability for all damages. Travelers has agreed to pay for the damages to the rear of your vehicle and State Farm has indicated they are accepting liability for damages to the li•ont of your vehicle. Since you have elected to file a separate claim with these insurance companies, 1 will be closing our file. Should you have any questions or decide to file a collision claim with USAA, please contact me. Policyholder: Thomas A. Beckley Reference #: 325272-7101-9-6845 Date of loss: ;March 6, 2008 Loss location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Collision damages: You may submit correspondence or questions to me. My contact information is: Address: P.O. Box 33490 San Antonio Texas 78265 Fax: 1-800-531-8669 Phone: 1-800-531-8722, ext. 6-1459 Sincerely, Yvette Simmons Northeast Region United Services Automobile Association 315272 - 9 - PA - 03/06108 - 6945 - 61 • 1200 - UM01776 k" 6'.4, 6 x 11 THOMAS A. BECKLEY V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA SHANISE K: MALLARD V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 08-3425 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 09-6766 CIVIL TERM !? ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Of 74*1 day of January, 2010, defendant Jamila Skouta's motion for consolidation of the above-captioned matters, IS DENIED. It appearing that the matter at 08-3425 Civil has already been referred to arbitration by the court, and it further appearing that the issues involved though related, are distinct, the court finds the motion to consolidate to be both untimely and inappropriate. By the Court, Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire For Jamila Skouta Adam T. Wolfe, Esquire For Shanise K. Mallard Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire For Thomas A. Beckley James R. Forrey, Esquire For Shanice D. Williams Albert H. Ma and, J. :sal CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire, hereby certify that on this day a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FAX Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire William J. Ferren & Associates 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 James R. Forry, Esquire Forry Ullman 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 DATED: February 22, 2010 Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire cc, k C `? In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland Plaintiff f ` County, Pennsylvania No. 0Z- 3 Y Z S SKo?t?• Defendant Civil Action - Law. Oath we do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. ?i tore Signature gnature 01 AX l G. Pr e Name (Chairman) Law Firin Address 'mac 1n 1'?. ?s _ Name Ka-rk-so.. Law Firm Address Name jokw!;6A) ?kFrt-c- Law Firm Address ':' ? A (70 3 -Is? 17©C3 ('e &'0tilljZip l ?oY 3 City, Zip city, zip city, Award We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) 1^ J01 f a ?o r- c S v 4 Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if applicable Date of Hearing: t e b rv 2 2 0 ?o Date of Award:je 6vp.4-7 2.00 Notice of Entry of Award rt. ' M., the above award was Now,-,the Lday of Pc 6 rv 1; 2010 , at entered upon the-docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation t e paid upon appeal: $ By: Deputy Prothonotary iLl `I. r 2060 FE 2k N'l ! 0-° F I lceC 311 /16 1444,,( f .moo 44Y I? Y.. tom Y9? THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff VS. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-3425 CIVIL IN RE: EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF ARBITRATION ORDER AND NOW, this z. day of February, 2010, following consideration thereof and the answer filed thereto, the "Emergency" Motion of Defendant Shanice D. Williams for Continuance of Arbitration is DENIED. ?Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire For the Plaintiff ? James R. Forty, Esquire Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire For the Defendants ..,?obert G. Frey, Esquire Chairman, Board of Arbitration :rim V 71 ,=urn BY THE COURT, IN THE CO OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Thomas A. Beckley o Plaintiff s File No. 08-3425 _ - • Civil Term r n -° Shanice D. William s and Tv W Jami a Skouta Defendant . . ? ? NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM AWARD OF BO ARD OF ARBITRATORS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Notice is given that De f, , Shanice D. Williams, appeals from the award of the board of arbitrators enter ed in this case on February 24. 2010 A jury trial is demand Check the line U a jury trial is demanded. Otherwise jury trial is valved.) I hereby certify that (1) the compensation of the arbitrators has been paid, or A 11 or Attorney of Appellant Note: The demand for jtuy trial on appeal from compulsory arbitration is governed by Rule 1007.1(b). (b) No affidavit or verific lion is required. Adopted March 16, 1981, effective May 15, 1981. f $350.00 PD AT'PV 0%r,4-754 a* c1393gq THOMAS A. BECKLEY, PLAINTIFF V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA, DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 08-3425 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT .~~/ AND NOW, this ~ day of August, 2010, upon consideration of the attached petition, a Rule is hereby issued upon respondent, Shanice D. Williams, to show cause why the petitioner should not be permitted to withdrawn as counsel. The respondent shall file an answer to the petition within twenty-one (21) days of this date. Any responses from plaintiff or other defendant shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days of this order. Any answers filed shall be forwarded by the Prothonotary to chambers. By the Court, -' Thomas S. Beckle Es uire Y, q ~ Jose h P. Birmingham, Esquire James R. Forty, Esquire sal ~ F S rr~.~.L ~~rJ~.~ $~y~ ~ v ~r~ Albert H. Masland, J. ~.~ c~ r~~ ,__ a ^C -, -~-, . - - SU r• ~ ~ v: ;: -~ 0 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA` THOMAS A. BECKLEY,'4) C Plaintiff :CIVIL ACTION - LA4Ww M? V. NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants PLAINTIFF THOMAS A. BECKLEY'S RESPONSE TO JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE'S, PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, who, by and through his attorney, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire, and Beckley & Madden, of Counsel, files this Response to James R. Forry, Esquire's, Petition to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Shanice D. Williams, and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. It is admitted that James R. Forry, Esquire, represents Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, in this action, and has represented Ms. Williams since at least August, 2008, when Ms. Williams filed an Answer to Beckley's Complaint. Upon information and belief, it is also admitted that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") retained Mr. Forry on Ms. Williams' behalf in or around August, 2008 (when Ms. Williams filed an Answer to the Complaint). 2. After reasonable investigation, Beckley is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to whether Ms. Williams is or was insured by State Farm, therefore, such allegation is denied. By way of further response, in Exhibit A attached to Mr. Forry's Petition, it appears that either Michael Reynolds or Mike Williams is the "insured," and not Ms. Williams. The police report which was prepared shortly after the accident also indicates that Ms. Williams was not the owner of the automobile which she was driving at the time she caused the accident. 3. After reasonable investigation, Beckley is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to whether Ms. Williams has responded to "numerous attempts to contact her," therefore, such allegation is denied. By way of further response, it is not clear what attempts were made to contact Ms. Williams, nor is it clear whether State Farm ever attempted to subpoena her or hire a private detective to ;locate her. Furthermore, there is no allegation that Mr. Forry and/or State Farm ever contacted the owner of the vehicle (who, upon information and belief, may be Ms. Williams' father). 4. The allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Petition reference a written document which speaks for itself. By way of further response, given that Ms. Williams may not be "the insured" under the policy (according to the letter attached as Exhibit A), Ms. Williams may not have had any duty to cooperate with State Farm. 5. After reasonable investigation, Beckley is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to what involvement Mr. Forry had with State Farm regarding its coverage of Ms. Williams. 6. The allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition reference a written document which speaks for itself. By way of further response, Mr. Forry has represented Ms. Williams for two years, mailed several discovery requests to Beckley (which Beckley answered), defended Ms. Williams at an arbitration hearing, appealed the arbitration award on behalf of Ms. Williams, and, after two years and all the work involved to date, has decided to withdraw (thereby removing any, insurance on behalf of Ms. Williams and potentially negating Beckley's chances of any recovery). It should be 2 noted that Mr. Forry, Williams' counsel, signed the Verification attached to Williams' Answer in August, 2008, two years ago, on behalf of Williams. In the Verification, Mr. Forry stated that he could not locate his client in time for her to sign the Verification. Since that time (August, 2008), Mr. Forry has known that he had to locate his client in order to discuss the case with her. It is not clear what efforts, if any, were made to locate her. Given the amount of time which has passed since Mr. Forry and State Farm first became involved in the case, and the amount of work which Beckley has expended responding to State Farms' requests, Mr. Forry and/or State Farm should not be permitted to withdraw and disclaim coverage at such a late date. State Farm should have immediately attempted to locate and interview Ms. Williams rather than wait two years into the case to attempt to disclaim coverage. Furthermore, under Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, the owner of the vehicle which was being driven by Ms. Williams was required (and did) maintain insurance on the vehicle. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701 et seq. State Farm cannot now be allowed to deny coverage to an innocent third party (i.e., Beckley) simply because it may be having difficulty contacting the driver of the vehicle (who was not the owner of the insurance policy) at the time of the accident. See Erie Ins. Exchange v. Lake, 543 Pa. 363, 671 A.2d 681 (Pa. 1996) (court held carrier could not withdraw coverage on an automobile policy with respect to innocent third parties despite the fact that the insured had committed fraud with respect to the carrier); Mutual Benefit Ins. Co., v. Druce, 62 Pa. D&C4th 31 (Dauphin County 2003) (court held that insurance company had to cover loss asserted by innocent third party even though its own insured made fraudulent misrepresentations to the carrier). Upon information and belief, the owners of 3 the policy at issue have cooperated with State Farm, therefore, State Farm cannot now be allowed to withdraw coverage at the expense of an innocent third party. 7. The allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition reference a written document which speaks for itself. 8. The allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Petition constitute legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 9. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Forry's petition to withdraw as counsel should be denied, and State Farm should be compelled to cover Mr. Beckley's loss to the extent Ms. Williams is found to be liable. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire, hereby requests this Court to deny Mr. Forry's Petition and for such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. DATED: August 20, 2010 Of Counsel BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 (717) 233-7691 Respectfully submitted, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley 4 VERIFICATION I, Thomas A. Beckley, hereby verify that I am an adult individual, that I have read the foregoing document, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Th as A. Beckley --- r? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire, hereby certify that on this day a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FAX Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire Francis R. Gartner & Associates 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 James R. Forry, Esquire Forry Ullman 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 DATED: August 23, 2010 Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire THOMAS A. BECKLEY, PLAINTIFF V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA, DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ./ . 08-3425 CIVIL TERM SHANICE K. MALLARD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA, DEFENDANTS c ~ "`~ -~ ~ ~, -+ V. ~.-~' r--- -~i -vr i . c,, THOMAS A. BECKLEY, `<~' ~~ .r cn ~~ ~ ' ~~ ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT 09-6766 CIVIL TERM -o mr, ~ ~~~+ ~~ r C~~ ORDER OF COURT -~-i N ~' AND NOW, this /~ day of October, 2010, upon review of~he `~°etitio~l to withdraw as counsel for defendant, Shanice D. Williams, filed by James R. Forty, Esquire, and upon consideration of p{aintiff s response thereto, as well as petitioner's motion to make rule absolute, a hearing is scheduled for the 5"' day of November, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom Number 5, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, at which petitioner and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and the parties may present evidence and argument with respect to the requested relief. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. omas S. Beckley, Esquire oseph P. Birmingham, Esquire ~mes R. Forty, Esquire saa I p1~~31 [v ~~ THOMAS A. BECKLEY, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA, DEFENDANTS AIk3425 CIVIL-TERM SHANICE K. MALLARD, PLAINTIFF V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA, DEFENDANTS V. THOMAS A. BECKLEY, ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 09-6766 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of October, 2010, upon request of counsel, James R. Forry, Esquire, for a continuance, the hearing currently scheduled for November 5, 2010, is cancelled and rescheduled to commence at 3:00 p.m., Monday, December 20, 2010, in Courtroom Number 5, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. ~as S. Beckle Es uire Y, q Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire ~ames R. Forry, Esquire /ldam T. Wolfe, Esquire /1171arc A. Moyer, Esquire eo ~ ti >?.s ,~.~ I l~ /O ~g ~l0 ~'~ f„ V L ~ ~} "'P'7 .... CJ --~ ~., - ~r --- ~ -,_ r°~-3 -~ t. ,~, :,~ .t" D --=~ ~ ~ -: THOMAS A. BECKLEY, PLAINTIFF V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA, DEFENDANTS SHANISE K. MALLARD, PLAINTIFF V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA, DEFENDANTS V. THOMAS A. BECKLEY, ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 08-3425 CIVIL TERM ? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 09-6766 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT CJ 3 0 --a n -o rV r CD C) -n 7 CD ..i.? ? p? aVd? J •...d ~ ,7z r y+ ? ....,,, i :.Z AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2010, counsel for the parties having convened for argument with respect to the petition of James R. Forry, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel for defendant, Shanice D. Williams, and the parties having reached an agreement with respect to that withdrawal, the court orders as follows: (1) James R. Forry, Esquire, is hereby granted leave to withdraw his appearance on behalf of Shanice D. Williams in the above-captioned cases. (2) The withdrawal by Mr. Forry shall have no bearing in these matters with respect to any issues regarding Ms. Williams' insurance coverage. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. homas S. Beckley, Esquire 212 North Third Street PO Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 oseph P. Birmingham, Esquire 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 m .,?es R. Forry, Esquire 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 arc A. Moyer, Esquire 305 N. Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 ?hanice D. Williams 659 N. 13th Street, Apt. A Philadelphia, PA 19123 :saa ?p1ES /ri?.C?C I LED G?,?-IOP TARP James R. Forry, Esquire OF F THE PR?J . FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street 2 PO Box 542 - Reading, PA 19603} T Y (610) 777-5700 Attorney for Defendant Shanice D. Williams THOMAS A. BECKLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW vs. ` NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and : JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS SHANISE K. MALLARD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. NO. 09-6766 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw my appearance for Shanise K. Mallard, Defendant in the above captioned cases as per the attached Order of the Honorable Albert H. Masland, J dated December 20, 2010. THOMAS A. BECKLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA, DEFENDANTS 08-3425 CIVIL TERM SHANISE K. MALLARD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA, DEFENDANTS V. THOMAS A. BECKLEY, ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT 09-6766 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2010, counsel for the parties having convened for argument with respect to the petition of James R. Forry, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel for defendant, Shanice D. Williams, and the parties having reached an agreement with respect to that withdrawal, the court orders as follows: (1) James R. Forry, Esquire, is hereby granted leave to withdraw his appearance on behalf of Shanice D. Williams in the above-captioned cases. (2) The withdrawal by Mr. Forry shall have no bearing in these matters with respect to any issues regarding Ms. Williams' insurance coverage. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. James R. Forry, Esquire FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street PO Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 (610) 777-5700 Attorney for Defendant Shanice D Williams THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff vs. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants SHANISE K. MALLARD, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW : NO. 08-3425 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF TWELVE (12) JURORS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 09-6766 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JAMES R. FORRY, ESQUIRE, certify that on this date, a copy of Withdrawal of Appearance was served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Ms. Shanice D. Williams 659 N. 13`h Street Philadelphia, PA 19123 Marc A. Moyer, Esquire THOMAS THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. FORRY ULLMAN Date: 1/111 ! By: R. f orry, Esquire James R. Forry, Esquire V 1 FORRY ULLMAN 2540 Court Street ,Q QQ't111?` PO Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 (610) 777-5700 Attorney for Defendant Shanice D. Williams THOMAS A. BECKLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW VS. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants NO. 08-3425 JURY TRIAL, DEMANDED OF TWELVE (12) JURORS SHANISE K. MALLARD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW vs. NO. 09-6766 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and : JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS AMENDED WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please substitute this Amended Withdrawal of Appearance for the Withdrawal of Appearance that was filed on January 12, 2011, which inadvertently listed the name of the Defendant as Shanise K. Mallard but should have been Shanice D. Williams. Accordingly, please withdraw my appearance for Shanice D. Williams, Defendant in the above captioned cases as per the attached Order of the Honorable Albert H. Masland, J dated December 20, 2010. FORRY 7{ f! 0; LAW OFFICES OF MASON & EISEMAN BY: Christine Crimarki, Esquire I.D.# 74415 1515 Market Street Suite 1802 Philadelphia PA 19102 (215) 564-3042 20 AM lG: l Attorney for Defendant Shanice D. Williams THOMAS A. BECKLEY, and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 08-3425 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, only, in the above-captioned matter. LAW OFFICES OF MASON & EISEMAN 01 BY: Christine Crimarki, Esquire Attorney for Defendant rr) C_ -r _ r RANDY T. BURCH, ESQUIRE Attorney ID 459567 Attorneys for Defendant, - Shanice D. Williams .,? FORRY ULLMAN „ '`.' 540 Court Street r ° P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 THOMAS A. BECKLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW VS. NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and : JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance for Defendant, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, in the above case and designate 540 Court Street, Reading, PA 19601 as the place notices and papers other than original process may be served. FORRY ULLMAN By: KD RANDY T. BURCH, ESQUIRE Date: > (???? RANDY T. BURCH, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #59567 FORRY ULLIMAN 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff VS. Attorneys for Defendant, Shanice D. Williams IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF Defendants TWELVE (12) JURORS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, RANDY T. BURCH, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was mailed via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following party(ies) addressed as follows: Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 Attorney for Plaintiff Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorney for Defendant Skouta FORRY ULLMAN By: I-Z,,-J " RANDY T. BURCH, ESQUIRE Date:?-,/ 3 /l?"L • ~, THOMAS BECKLEY V S. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMLLA SKOUTA .i , w~ , .::COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY -' , .a r ,,, ~,~--~~10.08-3425 p3 .r{ i,r k (r. SHANICE k:. MALLARD COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. NO. 09-6766 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMILA SKOUTA MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Defendant, Shanice D. Willams, by and through her legal counsel, FORRY ULLMAN, moves this Court for a consolidation of the above-captioned matter, and in support thereof, avers as follows: L FACTL AL BACKGROUND: A. Beckley v. Williams and Skouta 1. Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley, filed a Civil Action Complaint in the above- captioned matter on or about June 4, 2008 against Shanice D. Williams and Jamila Skouta.. 2. Plaintiff's Civil Action Complaint alleges, among other things, that either or both Ms. Willams and/or Ms. Skouta negligently caused a three car motor vehicle collision. which damaged Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley's 2008 Mercedes Benz CL_500. ~ B. Mallard v. Williams &Skouta 3. Plaintiff, Shanice K. Mallard, subsequently filed a Civil Action Complaint in the above-captio~ied matter on or about October 7, 2009. ~ This matter has already been arbitrated on or about February 24, 2010. An appeal followed from the award of the board of arbitrators. A jury trial was demanded on appeal. i 4. Plaintiff, Shanice K. Mallard's Civil Action Complaint arises out of the same automobile accident at issue in the Beckley Complaint. In Ms. Mallard's Complaint, she alleges, among other things, that either or both Defendants, Shanice Williams and/or Jamila Skouta negligently caused her personal injury. C. Facts Arising in Both Causes of Action Ms. Williams is contesting liability as well as the amount of damages in both cases referenced herein. F3oth Complaints were filed as a result of the same motor-vehicle accident That occurred on March 6, 2008 on State Route 1014, (on or near the Harvey Taylor I3ridgel. at or about its intersection with North 3ra Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. As such, the claims in both cases arise out of the same series of events, and involve the same witnesses. Further, the claims in both cases involve common questions of law and fact, thus, requiring similar and/or the same issues and/or defenses being raised and litigated at trial. 8. Should the cases not be consolidated, the finding of liability in the first case taken to trial, would likely be final and binding on the finding of liability in the second case: thus, causing the second case to take on the appearance of either a damages hearing or rendering the second case completely moot. 9. In order to ensure that the instant case will not result in unnecessary expenses to the Court and/or the parties, duplicity of issues, undue prejudice, and possibly inconsistent verdicts, Moving Defendant currently requests to consolidate the above-captioned matters. '` If the trial in the first case resulted in a judgment favorable to Plaintiff, then the second trial would likely be limited to the issue of damages only. In the alternative, if the trial in the first case resulted in a judgment favorable to Defendants, then the second trial would likely be rendered wholly moot. The above conclusions assume that the first case to trial would be res judiciata on the later case, as to issues of liability. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT: 10. Under Pennsylvania law, the power to grant or refuse a motion to consolidate lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Feldman v. Lafayette Green Condo. A.cs'n, 806 A.2d 497, 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 684 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). 11. Pursuant to Rule 213(a;i of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may grant a consolidation of actions "on its own motion or on the motion of anv party o1 any matter in issue in the actions" so as to "avoid unnecessary cost or delay." See Pa.R.C.P. 213(a) (2010), 12. Further, consolidation is proper in actions which "involve a common question of law or fact or which arise from the same transaction or occurrence." Id. 13. As such, consolidation may be granted where "the[] [actions) involve the same parties, subject matter, issues and defenses." Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, Vol. 1 1, Consolidation § 35 (citingAzinger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 262 Pa. 242, 105 A. 87 (1918). l 4. Accordingly, in determining whether or not to grant a motion to consolidate, a court should consider factors, including, but not limited to: "judicial economy, minimization of delay, consistency of verdicts, expenses for parties involved, similarity of factual circumstances, ... ,and possibility of duplication of issues." Id. (citing Altrchuler v. Altschuler, 334 Pa. Super. 111, 482 A.2d 1106 (1984); Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. v. Koser, 10 Pa. D. & C.3d 497 (1979); and Manger- v. Dunning, 23 Pa. D. & C.3d 554 (C.P. 1982)). ~ Furthermore, while no longer relevant given the arbitration appeal in Beckley, that one cause of action would ordinarily he submitted to arbitration while the other would not, is not fatal to a motion for consolidation. Manger 23 Pa. D. & C.3d at 556-57 (C.P. 1982) ("the court of common pleas [has] the power to decide procedural matters that [fall] within the limits of arbitration and the power to consolidate such case if the policies of Rule 213(A) would be hest served by consolidation.") (citing Anchor Motor Freight, 10 D. & C. 3d 4971. 1 ~. Furthermore, the court "must weigh the advantage of consolidation against the likelihood of prejudice to the parties and the potential for confusion of the jury." Raz~srher v. Abbott I abs. et al. 15 Phila. 2S 1, 255 {C.P. Phila. 1986).` 16. Thus, it follows that a consolidation of actions is proper in that it would promote judicial economy, create substantial savings of time and effort to the Court and the parties, and eliminate the possible risk of incurring inconsistent verdicts. 17. Finally, there would be no actual prejudice to any party, herein, if this matter were to be consolidated and any allegations of the actual prejudice would appear likely to be disingenuous. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Shanice Williams, by and through her legal counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant her Motion to Consolidate pursuant to Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. FORRY ULLMAN 1 _ D . BURCH, S IRE orney I.D. No. 59567 540 Court Street PO Box 542 Date: j~~~~~ ~ 2' Reading, PA 19603 (610) 568-1410 a Consolidation of actions may still be found proper, and not to cause undue prejudice where two plaintiffs allege injuries involving different theories regarding causation, where a court determines that a `joint trial will be little more complex than any other involving co-plaintiffs with distinct injuries and claims for damages." Razcscher, I S Phila. at 255 (noting the likelihood that the experts would be the same and the testimony would overlap regarding the alleged injuries). __ ~ .. THOMAS BECKLEY V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA SHANICE K. MALLARD V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 08-3425 CIVIL TERM ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 09-6766 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this =~r~ `~ {~ day of October, 2012, upon consideration of Shanice D. Williams' Motion to Consolidate, a Rule is issued on Thomas Beckley, Jamila Skouta and Shanice K. Mallard, to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. The rule is returnable twenty (20) days after service. Petitioner shall ensure all parties are served with the rule. By the Court, t _. ~'/ ~/ -~ Albert H. Masland, J. ,/Adam T. Wolfe, Esquire / Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire / Marc A. Moyer, Esquire / Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire /Randy T. Burch, Esquire saa c~ G ~~ rn~ ~m zx' ~„ r -<s'' r x <~ D c'~ 2 0 D C -~ -c N N ca r~ N rn s~• 3 c-? --t rn~ ~~i o° -+a ~~ a-F; o~% ~1'1"i y~ `3 ~'O~%~S fhC~~ /eA' io~~a /~G THOMAS BECKLEY vs. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMILA SKOUTA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-3425 SHANICE K. MALLARD COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. N0.09-6766 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMILA SKOUTA BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DEFENDANT, SHANICE D. WILLIAMS, FOR CONSOLIDATION Defendant, Shanice D. Williams, by and through her legal counsel, FORRY l;rLLMAN, files the instant Brief in support of her Motion to Consolidate in the above-captioned matter, and in support thereof, argues the following: L FACTUAL BACKGROUND: A. Beckle~~ v. Williams and Skouta Plaintiff, Thomas A. Beckley filed a Civil Action Complaint in the above-captioned matter on or about June 4, 2008 against Shanice D. Williams and Jamila Skouta. Plaintiff's Civil Action Complaint alleges, among other things, that either or both Ms. Willams and/or Ms. Skouta negligently caused a three car motor vehicle colli>ion, which damaged Plaintr~ff Thomas A. Becklev's 2008 Mercedes Benz CI,500.5 B. Mallard v. Williams and Skouta Plaintiff, Shanice K. Mallard subsequently filed a Civil Action Complaint in the above- captioned matter on oar about October 7, 2009. Plaintiff, Shanice K. Mallard's Civil. Action 7 has matter has already been arbitrated on or about February 24, 2010. An appeal followed from the award of the board of arbitrators. A jury trial was demanded on appeal. Complaint arises out of the same automobile accident at issue in the Beckley Complaint. In Ms. Mallard's Complaint, she alleges, among other things, that either ar both Defendants, Shanice Williams anal/or Jamila Skouta negligently caused her personal injury. G Facts Arising in Both Causes of Action Ms. Williams is contesting liability, as well as, the amount of damages in both cases referenced herein. Both Complaints were filed as a result of the same motor-vehicle accident that occurred on March 6, 2008 on State Route 1014, (on or near the Hervey Taylor Bridge), at or about its intersection with North 3`d Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. As such, the claims in both cases arise out of the same series of events, and involve the same witnesses. Further, the claims in both cases involve common questions of law and fact, thus. requiring similar and/or the same issues and/or defenses being raised and litigated at trial. Should the cases not be consolidated, the finding of Liability in the first case taken to trial would likely be final and binding on the finding of liability in the second case; thus, causing the second case to take on the appearance of either a damages hearing or rendering the second case completely moot.6 In order to ensure that the instant case will not result in unnecessary expenses to the Court and/or the parties, duplicity of issues, undue prejudice, and possibly inccansistent verdicts, 1~loving Defendant currently requests to consolidate the above-captioned matters. II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED: 6 If the trial in the first case resulted in a judgment favorable to Plaintiff, then the second trial would likely be limited to the issue of damages only. In the alternative, if the trial in the first case resulted in a judgment favorable to Defendants, then the second trial would likely be rendered wholly moot. The above conclusions assume that the first case to trial would be res judiciata on the later case, as to issues of liability. 4. Whether a Consolidation of Actions Should be Granted Herein in the Interest of Justice, Where the Claims Arise Out of the Same Series of Events, Allege Similar Issues of Liability, and Involving Common Questions of Law and Fact? SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the Affil•mative. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT: A. A Consolidation of Actions Should be Granted Herein .in the Interest of Justice, Where the Claims Arise Out of the Same .'-~eries of Events, Allege Similar Issues of Liability, and Involve Common Questions of Law and Fact. Under Pennsylvania law, the power to grant or refuse a motion to consolidate lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Feldman v. Lafayette Green Condo. Assn, $06 A.2d 497, 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 684 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). Pursuant to Rule 213(a j of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may grant a consolidation of actions `"on its own motion or on the motion of any party of any matter in issue in the actions" so as to ``.avoid unnecessary cost or delay." See Pa.R.C.P. 213(a) (2010). Further, consolidation is proper in actions which "involve a common question of law or fact or which arise from the same transaction or occurrence." Id. As such, consolidation may be granted. where "the[] [actions) involve the same parties, subject matter, issues and defenses." Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, Consolidation § 35 (citing Azinger v. Pennsylvania R Co.,)_62 Pa. 242, 105 A. 87 (1918). In determining, whether or not to grant a motion to consolidate, a court should consider factors, including, but not limited to: '`judicial economy, minimization of delay, consistency of verdicts, expenses for parties involved, similarity of factual circumstances, ... ,and possibility of duplication of issues." Id. (citing Altschuler v. Altschuler, 334 Pa. Super. 111, 4S2 A.2d l 106 (1984); Anchor Motor ~,reight, Inc. v. Koser, 10 Pa. D. & C.3d 497 (1979); and Manger r. Dunning, 23 Pa. D. & C'.3d 554 (C.P. 1982)).' Furthermore, the court "must weigh thE:~ advantage of consolidation against the likelihood of prejudice to the parties and the potential for confusion of the jury." ~Rauscher v. Abbott Labs, et al. 15 Phila. 251, 255 (C.P. Phila. 1986). Thus, it follows that a consolidation of actions is proper in that it would promote judicial economy, create substantial savings of time and effort to the Court and the parties, and eliminate the possible risk of incurring inconsistent verdicts. Finally, there would be no actual prejudice to any party, herein, if this matter were to be consolidated and any allegations of actual prejudice would appear likely to be disingenuous. IV. CONCLUSION: For all the foregoing reasons, Shanice D. Williams, by and through her legal counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant her l~lotion to Consolidate the actions pursuant to Rule 213(a.) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. FORR.Y ULLMAN ~~ By: (% '; Y UR H, ES I rney I. . No. 59567 540 Court Street PO Box .542 Date: /D ~~ ~ ~~ Reading, PA 19603 (610) 568-1410 ' Furthermore, while no longer relevant given the arbitration appeal in Beckley, that one cause of action would ordinarily be submitted to arbitration while the other would not, is not fatal tee a motion for consolidation. Manger 23 Pa. D. & C.3d at 556-57 (C.P. 1.982) ("the court of common pleas [has] t:he power to decide procedural matters that [fall] within the limits of arbitration and the power to consolidate such case if the policies of Rule 213(Aj would be best served by consolidation.") (citing Anchor Mo~'or Freight, 10 D. & C. 3d 497). s Consolidation of actions may still be found proper, and not to cause undue prejudice where 1;wo plaintiffs allege injuries involving different theories regarding causation, where a court determines that a " joirrt trial will be little more complex than any other involving co-plaintiffs with distinct injuries and claims for damages." Rauscher, 15 Phila. at 255 (noting the likelihood that the experts would be the same and the testimony would overlap regarding the alleged injuries). THOMAS A. BECKLEY, Plaintiff v. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS and JAMILA SKOUTA, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW N0. 08-3425 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CIVIL TRIAL LIST ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6th day of November, 2012, the Defendants having moved to continue and strike this matter from the trial list, and the Plaintiff being opposed thereto, and it appearing to the Court that a motion to consolidate is outstanding in front of Judge Albert Masland, and that a status conference is set in front of Judge Masland on November 19, 2012, this matter is continued until Monday, November 19, 2012, in Courtroom No. 1 for determination of whether it will be stricken from the trial list. By the Court, 1/ Thomas A. Beckley, Esquire For Plaintiff ~~~ Christ ee L. Peck, J. V Randy T. Burch, Esquire For Defendant Shanice D. Williams /Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire For Defendant Jamila Skouta /pCbge Masland - ,,~~ oL~Gc~~i/ ~L ~ C r•,a ~, c -r; zz ~ < ~rn t n x ~ w po r - a < -~ a ~ = c~ D C ~ c'+'a ~. A -~ v, ~ F THOMAS BECKLEY V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA SHANICE K. MALLARD V. SHANICE D. WILLIAMS AND JAMILA SKOUTA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 08-3425 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 09-6766 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of November, 2012, upon representation of the parties that they have made progress in resolving the outstanding issues, the status conference scheduled for November 14, 2012 is cancelled. Should the parties' mediation scheduled for January 2013 be unsuccessful, any party may petition the court for a conference. By the Court, Albert H. Masla , J. ~ c N ~~•:~ -~, 3 ^, -~ •c - v '~ ~, - ~ n --, ~ -~ ~ ~,,,,~ ° o z -n p 'o ~ c-a ~~ zJ ~ ,.. ~ --~ o ;.~ --~~ N ~f ADAM T. WOLFE, ESQUIRE SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI LLP 2225 MILLENNIUM WAY ENOLA, PA 17025 ~/ JOSEPH P. BIRMINGHAM, ESQUIRE 10 SENTRY PARKWAY BLUE BELL, PA 19422 j/ MARC A. MOYER, ESQUIRE 305 N FRONT ST PO BOX 999 HARRISBURG, PA 171080999 ~/ THOMAS S. BECKLEY, ESQUIRE 212 N 3RD STREET PO BOX 11998 HARRISBURG, PA 171081998 RANDY T. BURCH, ESQUIRE 540 COURT ST PO BOX 542 READING, PA 196030542 sal ~p;~s ~.'l~d ~ ~ 13~a ~~~ C~l'Y ~~ C~:_ THOMAS BECKLEY "~ ., ~~ ~~ - VS• ' ~ f k f ~.~~ tel. ~"~{ q r,.: `.J t Itl.. }`iii SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; ~~a{'~`'~~ ~-il;,r~'~~ JAMILA SKOUTA . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND BOUNTY N0.08-3425 v/ SHANICE K. MALLARD . vs. . SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMILA SKOUTA . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 09-6766 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE WITHOUT PREJI7DICE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw without prejudice Defendant 'Williams' Motion to Consolidate that was filed on or about October 17, 2012. FORRY ULLMAN /L~ By: ' RANDi T. BURCH, ESQUIRE Attorney LD. No. 59567 540 Court Street PO Bo:~ 542 Date: ~~ ~~ ,-, ~ ~ Reading, PA 19603 (610) 568-1410 THOMAS BECKLEY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. . N0.08-3425 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and JAMILA SKOUTA SHANICE K. MALLARD COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. NO. 09-6766 SHANICE D. WILLIAMS; and . JAMILA SKOUTA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, RANDY T. BURCH, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Withdraw Motion to Consolidate was mailed via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following party(ies) addressed as follows: Adam T. Wolfe, Esquire SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI, LLP 2225 Millennium Way Enola, PA 17025 Joseph P. Birmingham, Esquire WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Marc A. Moyer, Esquire THOMAS THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Thomas S. Beckley, Esquire BECKLEY & MADDEN 212 North Third Street P.O. Box 11998 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1998 I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1408 relating to falsification to authorities. By: FORRY ULLMAN 7i`~' Date: J J /~ _ /L RANDY T. BURCH, ESQUIRE