Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-4193IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHARLENE LELAND and TIMOTHY CIVIL ACTION - LAW LELAND Plaintiff, No.: 6S -- 6!143 Vs. SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST and CAPITAL CITY MALL, Defendant. : PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE AND ISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Shawn B. Cohen, Esquire on behalf of the Plaintiff, Charlene Leland, and issue a Writ of Summons against the Defendant, Service Management Systems, of 7135 Charlotte Pike, Suite 100, Nashville, TN 37209; Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust, of 200 South Broad Street, Third Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102-3803; and Capital City Mall, 3506 Capital City Mall Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011 . Respectfully submitted, Shawn B. Cohen, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs PA ID No. 79478 COHEN LAW OFFICES P.O. Box 663 Duncansville, PA 16635 (814) 693-0500 d ?. ? r rh 7 -47 2 C C- .9- C-) CD C; F L Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland WRIT OF SUMMONS Court of Common Pleas Charlene Leland and Timothy Leland Plaintiff Vs. No 08-4193 Civil Term Service Management Systems, 7135 Charlotte Pike, Ste 100 Nashville, TN 37209 Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust 200 South Broad Street, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102-3803 and Capital City Mall 3506 Capital City Mall Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendant In CivilAction-Law To Service Management Systems, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall, You are hereby notified that Charlene Leland and Timothy Leland the Plaintiff(s) has / have commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may b entered again ou. (SEAL) C is R. L on tart' Date July 14, 2008 By Deputy Attorney: Shawn B. Cohen, Esq. Name: Cohen Law Offices Address: P. O. Box 663 Duncansville, PA 16635 Attorney for: Plaintiff Telephone: (814) 693-0500 Supreme Court ID No. 79478 Richard A. Godshall, Esquire modshallna smsm com Attorney Identification No. 93467 Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. United Plaza 30 South 17`h Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-8015 Fax: (215) 972-8016 Charlene Leland and Timothy Leland Plaintiff, Attorney for Defendant, Service Management Systems COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. Service Management Systems, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall NO. 08-4193 Defendants. ENTRY OF APPERANCE AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND To the Prothonotary: Kindly enter the appearance of Richard A. Godshall, Esquire on behalf of Defendant Service Management Systems in the above-matter. A jury trial is demanded. Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. By: l?+v Richard A. Godshall, Esquire Attorney for Defendant .6 .,,. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of Richard A. Godshall, Esquire's Entry of Appearance for Defendant, Service Management Systems was served via first class mail, postage pre-paid, upon the following counsel on the date indicated below: Shawn B. Cohen, Esquire PO Box 663 Duncansville, PA 16635 Attorney for Plaintiffs Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. By: OL c/ Richard A. Godshall, Esquire Date: ?'g?} b K Cb Richard A. Godshall, Esquire rgodshall&smsm.com Attorney Identification No. 93467 Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. United Plaza 30 South 17th Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-8015 Fax: (215) 972-8016 Charlene Leland and Timothy Leland Plaintiff, V. Service Management Systems, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall Defendants. Attorney for Defendant, Service Management Systems COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-4193 PRAECIPE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter a Rule upon Plaintiffs to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days hereof or suffer the entry of Judgment of Non Pros. Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. By: J?k? w kWA#-' Richard A. Godshall, Esquire Attorney for Defendant August 12, 2008, Rule to File Complaint Entered. rtis R. L thonotary '` na' - C SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-04193 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LELAND CHARLENE ET AL VS SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ETA 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 PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST to wit: but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of PHILADELPHIA County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On August 5th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from PHILADELPHIA Sheriff's Costs: So answer Docketing 18.00 ? ? ?'?i," Out of County 9.00 pg .- Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline Dep Philadelphia 116.00 Sheriff of Cumberland County Postage 1.18 1 J Z. 1 V 08/05/2008 COHEN LAW OFFICES Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. I CASE NO: 2008-04193 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LELAND CHARLENE ET AL VS SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ETA MARK CONKLIN , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon CAPITAL CITY MALL the DEFENDANT , at 1035:00 HOURS, on the 17th day of July 2008 at 3506 CAPITAL CITY MALL DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to DON SMITH, GENERAL MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit 816.108 Surcharge 00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of So Answers: 6.00 14.00 .00 = 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 30.00 08/05/2008 COHEN LAW OFFICES By: day D t She iff A.D. r -? -In The, Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Charlene Leland et al vs. rPennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust No. 08-4193 civil Now, July 16, 2008 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Philadelphia County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service Now, Tm ? I A 2 , 20(V, at clock M. served the within upon at by a So answers, Sworn and subscrib me this ZC4-day COSTS SERVICE t2_ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT 114..1- ... ,- R , Public SUSAN L. RMNM- dlty di phllddeloW, i'h. =sy A,. flamrniqsbn J and made known to the contents thereof. R. THOMAS KLINE Sheriff EDWARD L. SCHORPP Solicitor W. v of. ?Currr?ert$ OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 RONNY R. ANDERSON Chief Deputy JODy S. SMITH Real Estate Deputy Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. T0: Hon. John Green: Charlene Leland et al VS Philadelphia County Sheriff Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust 08-4193 civil Dear Sheriff: Enclosed please find writ of Suirmons Pennsylvania be served upon Real Estate Investment Trust 200 S. Broad Street Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 in your County. Kindly make service thereof and send us your return of service. Enclosures: Very truly youp, R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff Cumberland County, Pennsylvania IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION CHARLENE LELAND and TIMOTHY CIVIL ACTION -LAW LELAND, Plaintiffs NO. 08-4193 vs. SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST and CAPITAL CITY MALL, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD 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 by the Complaint or for any other claims or relief requested by the Petitioner. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17103 717-249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION CHARLENE LELAND and TIMOTHY : CIVIL ACTION - LAW LELAND, Plaintiffs NO. 08-4193 vs. SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST and CAPITAL CITY MALL, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT NOW COME the Plaintiffs, Charlene Leland and Timothy Leland, by and through their attorney, Shawn B. Cohen of Cohen Law Offices, and for their cause of action against the Defendants aver the following: 1. Plaintiffs, Charlene Leland and Timothy Leland, are adult individuals residing as husband and wife at 2950 Lewisberry Road, York Haven, York County, Pennsylvania 17370. 2. Defendant, Service Management Systems, is believed to be a corporation with a business address of 7135 Charlotte Pike, Suite 100, Nashville, Tennessee 37209. 3. Defendant, Capital City Mall is located at 3506 Capital City Mall Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011, and is a corporation owned by Defendant Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust. 4. Defendant, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust, is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a business address of 200 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102. 5. On July 16, 2006, Plaintiff Charlene Leland was a business invitee of Defendants at Defendants' premises known as the Capital City Mall. While on the premises, Plaintiff Charlene Leland slipped on the shiny, marble floor, which had just recently been installed, because water that was overflowing from the potted plants that had been watered by the maintenance workers, had been permitted to remain on the floor. As a result of the slippery condition, Plaintiff Charlene Leland sustained the injuries set forth below. 6. At all material times, the floor of the premises of the Defendants was under the sole and exclusive control, management and maintenance of the Defendants, their agents, servants, workmen or employees, then and there engaged in Defendants' business and acting within the course and scope of their employment or authority. 7. At the above time and place, Defendants, by their agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority, were negligent in: (a) installing marble floors which, due to their shiny qualities, concealed the presence of a dangerous condition; (b) failing to prevent the water from running off of the potted plants; (c) failing to properly mop up the floors as a result of the run off; (d) failing to properly inspect the floor of the premises; (e) failing to warn of a dangerous condition; (f) failing to place warning signs to warn of the slippery condition; (g) failing to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of the floor on the premises; (h) failing to put anti-skid material around the plants or in the alternative, drains for the water to leak into; (i) failing to erect barricades, such as cones, to prevent others from walking through the area; 0) failing to install planted pots in containers that do not leak onto the floor; (k) failing to properly supervise their employees; and (1) failing to train their employees, especially in mopping the floor after spillage occurs. 8. Solely, and as a direct result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Charlene Leland sustained serious and painful injuries to her left knee, including a meniscus tear that required surgery to correct, all of which caused her great pain and suffering. 9. Plaintiff Charlene Leland acted reasonably and was not contributorily negligent. 10. As a result of the Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Charlene Leland has been obliged and may in the future be obliged to expend various sums of money for medicines and medical treatment necessitated by the above injuries, to her great detriment and financial loss. 11. As a further result of the accident, Plaintiff Charlene Leland has undergone great physical pain and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite time in the future, to her great detriment and loss. COUNT ONE Charlene Leland v. Service Management Systems et al. 12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 above are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth at length herein. 13. Plaintiff Charlene Leland suffered painful and severe injuries which include, but are not limited to: (a) a meniscus tear in her left knee; (b) soreness and pain in her left knee; and (c) swelling in her left knee. 14. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff Charlene Leland, she was forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medications, surgery and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health. 15. Because of the nature of her injuries, Plaintiff Charlene Leland has been advised and therefore avers that she may be forced to incur similar expenses in the future. 16. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff Charlene Leland has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical and mental suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment. 17. Plaintiff Charlene Leland continues to be in pain and is uncertain of her future recovery. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Charlene Leland demands damages against Defendants in an amount in excess of $50,000 and demands a trial by jury. COUNT TWO Timothy Leland v. Service Management Systems et al. 18. Paragraphs 1 through 17 above are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth at length herein. 19. At the time of the above-referenced incident, Plaintiff Timothy Leland was the husband of Plaintiff Charlene Leland. 20. As a result of the aforementioned injuries sustained by Plaintiff Charlene Leland, Plaintiff Timothy Leland has been, and may in the future, be deprived of the care, companionship, consortium, and society of his wife, all of which will be to his great detriment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Timothy Leland demands judgment against the Defendants in an amount in excess of $50,000 and demands a trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 'a - Shawn B. Cohen, Esquire PA ID No. 79478 Andrew T. Murray PA ID No. 202943 Attorneys for Plaintiffs COHEN LAW OFFICES PO Box 663 Duncansville, PA 16635 (814) 693-0500 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint was served this date by first-class United States mail, sufficient postage prepaid, addressed to: Richard A. Godshall, Esquire Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. United Plaza 30 South 17'h Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 q-a-o? Date 4'Atr' x__'_ -,-. Andrew T. Murray, Esquire VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that any false statements are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Dated: Charlene Leland >...,1 ?- ' ?c:? C l.,?Y, C?`..? ^f ?? i/a ?t'i? "?" ? ` `? P` "".- y- ?? fir. } {??: _«.: .__ b NOTICE TO PLEAD Richard A. Godshall, Esquire rgodshall@smsm.com Attorney Identification No. 93467 Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. United Plaza 30 South 17`h Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-8015 Fax: (215) 972-8016 Charlene Leland and Timothy Leland Plaintiff, V. Service Management Systems, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall Defendants. You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof or judgment may be entered against you. Richard A. G6n s Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Service Management Systems, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-4193 ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST and CAPITAL CITY MALL TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendants, Service Management Systems, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall, by and through their attorneys, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., hereby Answer Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. 6. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. 7(a-1). Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if 1073925-1 2 admissible, at the time of trial. 8. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. 9. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. 10. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. 11. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the 1073925-1 3 corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. COUNT ONE 12. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 11 of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, as though fully set forth herein at length. 13. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. 14. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. 15. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. 1073925-1 4 16. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. 17. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Service Management Systems, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall, hereby request judgment in their favor together with all costs, fees and any other equitable relief this Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT II 18. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 17 of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, as though fully set forth herein at length. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. 1073925-1 5 20. Denied. The corresponding paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore deemed denied. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and said averments are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded, if admissible, at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Service Management Systems, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall, hereby request judgment in their favor together with all costs, fees and any other equitable relief this Court deems just and appropriate. NEW MATTER 1. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs' Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 3. Plaintiffs' recovery is barred by the assumption of the risk doctrine. 4. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited pursuant to the provisions of the Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 7102, et sec , the relevant portions of which are incorporated by reference as though the same were fully set forth at length herein. 5. If Plaintiff sustained damages alleged, all such damages and losses being specifically denied, then said damages are the result of the acts or omissions of third parties over whom Answering Defendants exercised no control. 6. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their injuries, damages, and losses; all such injuries, damages and losses being specifically denied. 1073925-1 6 7. Plaintiffs have not perfected valid service on Defendants. Service was improperly performed on Defendants. 8. The claims of Plaintiffs are barred by the doctrines of arbitration and award, estoppel, res 'ud] icata, and/or waiver. 9. Defendants owed no duty to Plaintiffs. 10. All allegations pertaining to agents, servants and/or employees are specifically denied, and strict proof, if deemed relevant, will be demanded at the time of trial. 11. At no time relevant, did Answering Defendants have notice, either actual or constructive, of any defective/dangerous condition. 12. Answering Defendants reserve the right to supplement this New Matter. Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. By. ` Richard A. ?Godsh???? squire Attorney for Defendants, Service Management Systems, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall 1073925-1 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint of Defendants, Service Management Systems, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall, was served via first class mail, postage pre-paid, upon the following counsel on the date indicated below: Shawn B. Cohen, Esquire PO Box 663 Duncansville, PA 16635 Attorney for Plaintiffs Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. By: w ??G u Richard A. Godshall, Esquire Date: V3-\L/ VERIFICATION I, Jeff Knipmeyer, Director of Risk Management, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and believe. I understand that false statements may subject me to the penalties set forth in 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Knipmeyer, rector of Risk Management Service Management Systems Subscribed and sworn to befop me in my STATE Presence, this dap of •t`-Po)t - OF otarp Public in and for the County o `d tote oJrI42 r;dk. NOTAW PU" (S Lnaturc) Notary Public WIN, commission expircts., ZOt1) ?NIMy ?i. f010 h r vy.i Y? i Cdr •-C 4 u" J a -Awwo #* .4m 4 Richard A. Godshall, Esquire rgodshall(2smsm.com Attorney Identification No. 93467 Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. United Plaza 30 South 17`h Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-8015 Fax: (215) 972-8016 Charlene Leland and Timothy Leland Plaintiff, V. Service Management Systems, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall Defendants. Attorney for Defendant, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust & Capital City Mall COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-4193 ENTRY OF APPERANCE AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND To the Prothonotary: Kindly enter the appearance of Richard A. Godshall, Esquire on behalf of Defendants, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall, in the above-matter. A jury trial is demanded. Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. By: Richard A. Godshall, Esquire Attorney for Defendants 985503-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of Richard A. Godshall, Esquire's Entry of Appearance for Defendants, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall, was served via first class mail, postage pre-paid, upon the following counsel on the date indicated below: Shawn B. Cohen, Esquire PO Box 663 Duncansville, PA 16635 Attorney for Plaintiffs Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. By: ??- Richard A. Godshall, Esquire Date: `3! X9/'0: 985503-1 n? CU C k CHARLENE LELAND and TIMOTHY LELAND, Plaintiffs VS. SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST and CAPITAL CITY MALL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 2008 - 4193 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS NEW MATTER AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs Charlene and Timothy Leland by and through their attorney, Shawn B. Cohen of Cohen Law Offices, and hereby file this Answer to New Matter and in support thereof respectfully aver as follows: 1. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Plaintiffs' Complaint does contain claims for which relief can be granted. 2. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Plaintiffs filed a Writ of Summons prior to the expiration date of any assumed Statute of Limitations would have ran. 3. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, no individual can assume the risk that someone will negligently fail to maintain its facilities or fail to warn the public. 4. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Plaintiffs were not contributarily negligent and strict proof of this is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Plaintiffs damages were as a result of the negligent acts of the Defendants or their agents, employees and/or servants. 6. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Plaintiffs have treated and continue to seek medical treatment for their injuries. 7. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and Capital City Mall were served by Sheriff. Defendant, Service Management Systems was served by first-class United States Mail to their attorney of record. 8. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, no Court, arbitration panel or waiver has occurred in this matter. 9. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants owed the Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care as business invitees to there establishment. 10. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants are vicariously liable for the actions of their agents, employees and/or servants acting in the scope of their employment. 11. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants knew or should have known the condition of their establishment. 12. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants may supplement in accordance to the Pa. R.C.P. Respectfully submitted, Shawn B. Cohen, Esquire PA ID No. 79478 Andrew T. Murray, Esquire PA ID No. 202943 Attorneys for Plaintiffs COHEN LAW OFFICES 1149 Municipal Drive P.O. Box 663 Duncansville, PA 16635 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants New Matter was served via first class mail, postage pre-paid, upon the Defendants counsel of record on the date indicated below: Richard A. Godshall, Esquire Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. 30 South 17t` Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Dated: 16'7 n S, Andrew T. Murray, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs r? ?..;? lam- ["`y -1 r_w a ,?;. _ j l 3 '- ; {_ 4 ...? h " .. '" 4 .C°" } „5? Uy .-.?. R4 SFr IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA j Af rC`'a I._iJ.? `;t+CHARLENE LELAND and NO. 08-4193 TIMOTHY LELAND, Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. : SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST and CAPITAL CITY MALL, Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PRAECIPE Please mark the above-captioned action settled, discontinued and ended. lam' l0 Date Shawn B. Cohen, Esquire PA ID No. 79478 Attorney for Plaintiffs COHEN LAW OFFICES PO Box. 663 Duncansville, PA 16635 (814) 693-0500