HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-4361
.0
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE RD., SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5100
MICHAEL KENNEDY
328 Old York Rd.,
New Cumberland, PA
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
328 Old York Rd.,
New Cumberland, PA
V.
Plaintiff(s)
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
125 Commerce Dr.
Hauppauge, NY 11788
ROTOTECH GROUP
60 Woodlawn Street
West Hartford CT
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, INC.
60 Woodlawn Street
West Hartford CT
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
60 Woodlawn Street
West Hartford CT
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 0J, V3111 el'01 V rM
NOTICE TO DEFEND
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you
must take action within (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance
personally or by an 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 or any other claim or relief requested
by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property 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. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH
INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT
MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED
FEE OR NO FEE.
Legal Services of Cumberland County PA
32 S.1 Bedford Street
Carlisle PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR.., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE RD., SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5100
MICHAEL KENNEDY
328 Old York Rd.,
New Cumberland, PA
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
328 Old York Rd.,
New Cumberland, PA
Plaintiff(s)
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
125 Commerce Dr.
Hauppauge, NY 11788
ROTOTECH GROUP
60 Woodlawn Street
West Hartford CT
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL
COMPONENTS, INC.
60 Woodlawn Street
West Hartford CT
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
60 Woodlawn Street
West Hartford CT
COMPLAINT
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: d ?, Loa 4 l 4Jvd
Plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, hereby initiates this civil action against
Defendants and, in support thereof, state as follows:
! ]
1. Plaintiff, Michael Kennedy (hereinafter "Kennedy"), is an adult individual who,
at all times hereto, owned/resided at 328 Old York Rd., New Cumberland, Pennsylvania
(hereinafter "subject property").
2. Plaintiff, Kennedy Appraisals (hereinafter "Appraisals"), is a business entity
with a primary place of business located at 328 Old York, Rd., New Cumberland,
Pennsylvania.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc., (hereinafter
"Arista") is a New York corporation with its principle place of business located at 125
Commerce Dr., Hauppauge New York.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Rototech Group (hereinafter "Rototech
Group') is a Connecticut business located at 60 Woodlawn Street, West Hartford, Connecticut.
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc.
(hereinafter "Rototech Electrical") is a New Jersey corporation with its principle place of
business located at 60 Woodlawn Street, West Hartford Connecticut.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Legrand North America Inc. (hereinafter
"Legrand') is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business located at 60
Woodlawn Street, West Hartford Connecticut.
7. Defendants are businesses that offer for sale, distribution, and/or
manufacture, inter alia, electric equipment and appliances and electrical components,
including surge protectors.
8. Prior to October 22, 2006, Plaintiffs purchased a surge protector
manufactured and/or distributed by Defendants.
9. On October 22, 2006, the surge protector malfunctioned, ultimately causing
a fire in Plaintiffs' house that extensively damaged Plaintiffs' real and personal property.
10. As a result of the aforementioned fire, the Plaintiffs sustained substantial
damage to their real and personal property, as well as additional expenses, in an amount in
excess of $50,000.00.
11. The damages described above were directly and proximately caused by the
defendants as more fully described below.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS VS. ARISTA ENTERPRISES INC.
12. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 11, as
though fully set forth herein at length.
13. Additionally, and/or alternately, Plaintiffs assert the following Count.
14. The aforementioned damages were the direct and proximate result of the
negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Arista, including negligent acts and/or omissions
of such defendant, as performed by and through its agents, employees, and/or servants,
more specifically described as follows:
(a) failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties as a
manufacturer / distributor of the surge suppressor - power strips and/or electrical
components - including, but not limited to, carelessly and negligently performing
the following:
1• failing to properly inspect and/or test the surge protector and
components thereof;
ii. failing to properly recommend that the surge protector and
components thereof be brought into compliance with proper
standards;
failing to properly determine that the surge protector and
components thereof were not in compliance with proper standards;
iv. failing to properly ensure that the surge protector and components
thereof were compliant with proper standards; and/or
v. distributing and/or selling the surge protector and components
thereof to Plaintiffs when Defendant knew or should have known
that the surge protector and/or components thereof would be
inadequate for the reasons for which purchased.
(b) failing to adequately instruct its servants, employees and agents as to the
proper ways to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a);
(c) failing to adequately warn Plaintiffs and others of the defects resulting from
the careless and negligent failure to exercise reasonable care as set forth in
subparagraph (a), above;
(d) failing to provide, establish and/or follow proper and adequate controls so as
to ensure the proper performance of the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) above;
(e) failing to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) in conformity with
the prevailing industry and governmental specifications and standards; and
(fl violating the standards of care prescribed by statutes, rules, regulations,
ordinances, codes, and/or industry customs applicable to their action.
15. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiffs sustained and
incurred damage to their real and personal property, and the imposition of additional
expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant
Arista, individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus
interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the
Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS VS. ROTOTECH GROUP
16. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 11, as
though fully set forth herein at length.
17. Additionally, and/or alternately, Plaintiffs assert the following Count.
18. The aforementioned damages were the direct and proximate result of the
negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Rototech Group, including negligent acts and/or
omissions of such defendant, as performed by and through its agents, employees, and/or
servants, more specifically described as follows:
(a) failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties as a
manufacturer / distributor of the surge suppressor - power strips and/or electrical
components - including, but not limited to, carelessly and negligently performing
the following:
i. failing to properly inspect and/or test the surge protector and
components thereof;
ii. failing to properly recommend that the surge protector and
components thereof be brought into compliance with proper
standards;
failing to properly determine that the surge protector and
components thereof were not in compliance with proper standards;
iv. failing to properly ensure that the surge protector and components
thereof were compliant with proper standards; and/or
v. distributing and/or selling the surge protector and components
thereof to Plaintiffs when Defendant knew or should have known
that the surge protector and/or components thereof would be
inadequate for the reasons for which purchased.
(b) failing to adequately instruct its servants, employees and agents as to the
proper ways to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a);
(c) failing to adequately warn Plaintiffs and others of the defects resulting from
the careless and negligent failure to exercise reasonable care as set forth in
subparagraph (a), above;
(d) failing to provide, establish and/or follow proper and adequate controls so as
to ensure the proper performance of the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) above;
(e) failing to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) in conformity with
the prevailing industry and governmental specifications and standards; and
(fl violating the standards of care prescribed by statutes, rules, regulations,
ordinances, codes, and/or industry customs applicable to their action.
19. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiffs sustained and
incurred damage to their real and personal property, and the imposition of additional
expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant
Rototech Group, individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of
$50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such
other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS VS. ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS INC.
20. Plaintiffs hereby incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 19, as
though fully set forth herein at length.
21. Additionally, and/or alternately, Plaintiffs assert the following Count.
22. The aforementioned damages were the direct and proximate result of the
negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Rototech Electrical Components Inc., including
negligent acts and/or omissions of such defendant, as performed by and through its agents,
employees, and/or servants, more specifically described as follows:
(a) failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties as a
manufacturer / distributor of the surge suppressor - power strips and/or electrical
components - including, but not limited to, carelessly and negligently performing
the following:
i. failing to properly inspect and/or test the surge protector and
components thereof,
ii. failing to properly recommend that the surge protector and
components thereof be brought into compliance with proper
standards;
iii. failing to properly determine that the surge protector and
components thereof were not in compliance with proper standards;
iv. failing to properly ensure that the surge protector and components
thereof were compliant with proper standards; and/or
V. distributing and/or selling the surge protector and components
thereof to Plaintiffs when Defendant knew or should have known
that the surge protector and/or components thereof would be
inadequate for the reasons for which purchased.
(b) failing to adequately instruct its servants, employees and agents as to the
proper ways to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a);
(c) failing to adequately warn Plaintiffs and others of the defects resulting from
the careless and negligent failure to exercise reasonable care as set forth in
subparagraph (a), above;
(d) failing to provide, establish and/or follow proper and adequate controls so as
to ensure the proper performance of the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) above;
(e) failing to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) in conformity with
the prevailing industry and governmental specifications and standards; and
M violating the standards of care prescribed by statutes, rules, regulations,
ordinances, codes, and/or industry customs applicable to their action.
23. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiffs sustained and
incurred damage to their real and personal property, and the imposition of additional
expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant
Rototech Electrical Components Inc., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an
amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay
damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS VS. LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
24. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 23, as
though fully set forth herein at length.
25. Additionally, and/or alternately, Plaintiffs assert the following Count.
26. The aforementioned damages were the direct and proximate result of the
negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc., including
negligent acts and/or omissions of such defendant, as performed by and through its agents,
employees, and/or servants, more specifically described as follows:
(a) failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties as a
manufacturer / distributor of the surge suppressor - power strips and/or electrical
components - including, but not limited to, carelessly and negligently performing
the following:
i• failing to properly inspect and/or test the surge protector and
components thereof,
ii. failing to properly recommend that the surge protector and
components thereof be brought into compliance with proper
standards;
failing to properly determine that the surge protector and
components thereof were not in compliance with proper standards;
iv. failing to properly ensure that the surge protector and components
thereof were compliant with proper standards; and/or
v. distributing and/or selling the surge protector and components
thereof to Plaintiffs when Defendant knew or should have known
that the surge protector and/or components thereof would be
inadequate for the reasons for which purchased.
(b) failing to adequately instruct its servants, employees and agents as to the
proper ways to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a);
(c) failing to adequately warn Plaintiffs and others of the defects resulting from
the careless and negligent failure to exercise reasonable care as set forth in
subparagraph (a), above;
(d) failing to provide, establish and/or follow proper and adequate controls so as
to ensure the proper performance of the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) above;
(e) failing to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) in conformity with
the prevailing industry and governmental specifications and standards; and
(fl violating the standards of care prescribed by statutes, rules, regulations,
ordinances, codes, and/or industry customs applicable to their action.
27. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiffs sustained and
incurred damage to their real and personal property, and the imposition of additional
expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant,
Legrand North America Inc., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in
excess of $50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages,
and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT V - BREACH OF WARRANTY
PLAINTIFFS VS. ARISTA ENTERPRISES INC.
28. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 as though same
were fully set forth at length.
29. At the time of contracting for the sale and/or distribution of the surge protector,
Defendant, Arista Enterprises, had reason to know the particular purpose for which the surge
protector would be used and knew that its skill and judgment were being relied upon to furnish a
suitable product. Thus, Defendant breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose as set out in the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter "UCC") 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 2-315
in that the surge protector was not fit for the particular purpose for which such products are
required.
30. In addition, Defendant breached its implied warranty of merchantability as set out
in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-314 (c) in that the surge protector was not fit for the ordinary uses for which
the surge protector was used.
31. In addition, Defendant breached any and all express warranties made or relating
to the surge protector that became part of the basis of the bargain for sale of the product in
derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313.
32. Plaintiffs' damages as set forth above occurred as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's breach of their implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and
merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315 and § 2-314 (c) and as a result of
Defendant's breach of their expressed warrantees in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant,
Arista Enterprises Inc., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of
$50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such
other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT VI - BREACH OF WARRANTY
PLAINTIFFS VS. ROTOTECH GROUP
33. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 as though same
were fully set forth at length.
34. At the time of contracting for the sale and/or distribution of the surge protector,
Defendant, Rototech Group, had reason to know the particular purpose to which the surge
protector would be used and knew that its skill and judgment were being relied upon to furnish a
suitable product. Thus, Defendant breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose as set out in the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter "UCC") 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315
in that the surge protector was not fit for the particular purpose for which such products are
required.
35. In addition, Defendant breached its implied warranty of merchantability as set out
in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-314 (c) in that the surge protector was not fit for the ordinary uses for which
the surge protector was used.
36. In addition, Defendant breached any and all express warranties made or relating
to the surge protector that became part of the basis of the bargain for sale of the product in
derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313.
37. Plaintiffs' damages as set forth above occurred as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's breach of their implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and
merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315 and § 2-314 (c) and as a result of
Defendant's breach of their expressed warrantees in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant„
Rototech Group, individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of
$50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such
other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT VII - BREACH OF WARRANTY
38
PLAINTIFFS VS. ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS INC.
Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 37 as though same
were fully set forth at length.
39. At the time of contracting for the sale and/or distribution of the surge protector,
Defendant, Rototech Electrical Components Inc., had reason to know the particular purpose to
which the surge protector would be used and knew that its skill and judgment were being relied
upon to furnish a suitable product. Thus, Defendant breached the implied warranty of fitness for
a particular purpose as set out in the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter "UCC") 13 Pa.
C.S.A. § 2-315 in that the surge protector was not fit for the particular purpose for which such
products are required.
40. In addition, Defendant breached its implied warranty of merchantability as set out
in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-314 (c) in that the surge protector was not fit for the ordinary uses for which
the surge protector was used.
41. In addition, Defendant breached any and all express warranties made or relating
to the surge protector that became part of the basis of the bargain for sale of the product in
derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313.
42. Plaintiffs' damages as set forth above occurred as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's breach of their implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and
merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315 and § 2-314 (c) and as a result of
Defendant's breach of their expressed warrantees in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant,
Rototech Electrical Components, Inc., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an
amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay
damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT VIII - BREACH OF WARRANTY
PLAINTIFFS VS. LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
43. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 42 as though same
were fully set forth at length.
44. At the time of contracting for the sale and/or distribution of the surge protector,
Defendant, Legrand North America, Inc., had reason to know the particular purpose to which the
surge protector would be used and knew that its skill and judgment were being relied upon to
furnish a suitable product. Thus, Defendant breached the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose as set out in the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter "UCC") 13 Pa.
C.S.A. § 2-315 in that the surge protector was not fit for the particular purpose for which such
products are required.
45. In addition, Defendant breached its implied warranty of merchantability as set out
in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-314 (c) in that the surge protector was not fit for the ordinary uses for which
the surge protector was used.
46. In addition, Defendant breached any and all express warranties made or relating
to the surge protector that became part of the basis of the bargain for sale of the product in
derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313.
47. Plaintiffs' damages as set forth above occurred as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's breach of their implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and
merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315 and § 2-314 (c) and as a result of
Defendant's breach of their expressed warrantees in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant,
Legrand North America, Inc., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in
excess of $50,000.00 plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages,
and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT IX - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS VS. ARISTA ENTERPRISES INC.
48. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 47, as though the
same were fully set forth at length.
49. Defendant, Arista Enterprises, is engaged, and at all rimes relevant hereto was
engaged, in the business of selling and distributing, inter alia, electric equipment, appliances,
and electrical components, including surge protectors.
50. Defendant distributed and/or sold the subject surge protector and the components
thereof in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to Plaintiffs and their property.
51. Defendant knew or should have known that the subject surge protector and the
components thereof would reach the Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the
condition in which sold.
52. The surge protector and components thereof did reach Plaintiffs' property without
substantial change from the condition in which sold.
53. The aforementioned defects consisted of:
(a) design defects;
(b) manufacturing defects;
(c) component defects;
(d) failure to warn of the design, manufacturing, and/or component
defects; and/or
(e) failure to properly instruct as to the appropriate operating
procedures for safe use of the surge protector and its components.
54. For these reasons, Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiffs for their damages under
Section 402A of the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the Restatement (3d) of Torts, and the applicable
case law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
55. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned defects, Plaintiffs
sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, along with the imposition of
additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in his favor and against Defendant
Arista Enterprises Inc., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of
$50,000.00 plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such
other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT X - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS VS. ROTOTECH GROUP
56. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 55, as though the
same were fully set forth at length.
57. Defendant, Rototech Group, is engaged, and at all times relevant hereto was
engaged, in the business of selling and distributing, inter alia, electric equipment, appliances,
and electrical components, including surge protectors.
58. Defendant distributed and/or sold the subject surge protector and the components
thereof in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to Plaintiffs and their property.
59. Defendant knew or should have known that the subject surge protector and the
components thereof would reach the Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the
condition in which sold.
60. The surge protector and components thereof did reach Plaintiffs' property without
substantial change from the condition in which sold.
61. The aforementioned defects consisted of:
(a) design defects;
(b) manufacturing defects;
(c) component defects;
(d) failure to warn of the design, manufacturing, and/or component
defects; and/or
(e) failure to properly instruct as to the appropriate operating
procedures for safe use of the surge protector and its components.
62. For these reasons, Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiffs for their damages under
Section 402A of the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the Restatement (3d) of Torts, and the applicable
case law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
b
63. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned defects, Plaintiffs
sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, along with the imposition of
additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant
Rototech Group, individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of
$50,000.00 plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such
other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT XI - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS VS. ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS INC.
64. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 63, as though the
same were fully set forth at length.
65. Defendant, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc., is engaged, and at all times
relevant hereto was engaged, in the business of selling and distributing, inter alia, electric
equipment and appliances, electrical components, including surge protectors.
66. Defendant distributed and/or sold the subject surge protector and the components
thereof in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to Plaintiffs and their property.
67. Defendant knew or should have known that the subject surge protector and the
components thereof would reach the Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the
condition in which sold.
68. The surge protector and components thereof did reach Plaintiffs' property without
substantial change from the condition in which sold.
69. The aforementioned defects consisted of:
61
(a) design defects;
(b) manufacturing defects;
(c) component defects;
(d) failure to warn of the design, manufacturing, and/or component
defects; and/or
(e) failure to properly instruct as to the appropriate operating
procedures for safe use of the surge protector and its components.
70. For these reasons, Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiffs for their damages under
Section 402A of the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the Restatement (3d) of Torts, and the applicable
case law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
71. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned defects, Plaintiffs
sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, along with the imposition of
additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant
Rototech Electrical Components Inc., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an
amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay
damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT XII - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS VS. LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
72. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 71, as though the
same were fully set forth at length.
W
73. Defendant, Legrand North America, Inc., is engaged, and at all times relevant
hereto was engaged, in the business of selling and distributing, inter alia, electric equipment,
appliances, and electrical components, including surge protectors.
74. Defendant distributed and/or sold the subject surge protector and the components
thereof in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to Plaintiffs and their property.
75. Defendant knew or should have known that the subject surge protector and the
components thereof would reach the Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the
condition in which sold.
76. The surge protector and components thereof did reach Plaintiffs' property without
substantial change from the condition in which sold.
77. The aforementioned defects consisted of
(a) design defects;
(b) manufacturing defects;
(c) component defects;
(d) failure to warn of the design, manufacturing, and/or component
defects; and/or
(e) failure to properly instruct as to the appropriate operating
procedures for safe use of the surge protector and its components.
78. For these reasons, Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiffs for their damages under
Section 402A of the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the Restatement (3d) of Torts, and the applicable
case law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
-? r
79. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned defects, Plaintiffs
sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, along with the imposition of
additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant
Legrand North America Inc., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in
excess of $50,000.00 plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages,
and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
VINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY:
1Uc;M61U 'J. BUYD,5R., ESQUIRE
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Dated: July 18, 2008
W w.
VERIFICATION
I, Francis Guillemette, hereby state that I am a duly authorized representative of Erie
Insurance Group, the real party in interest, and that the facts contained in the foregoing
Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The
undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
FRANCIS GUILLEMETTE
Dated: July 17, 2008
ra
-,t
lJ?
Q
n
C ^'
t?
._
P.,,._ PT'1 T}
WILLILAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 30584
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 274-1725
Attorney for Defendant, Arista
Enterprises, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS,
Plaintiffs,
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and
ROTOTECH CORP.,
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 08-4361
CIVIL TERM
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants,
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance as attorney for Defendant, ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
in the above-captioned matter.
Defendant, ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC., by and through its undersigned counsel,
hereby demand a trial by a jury of twelve.
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
By: Aer 44, X? A AS&A6=1
Kevin uane, Es e, Attorney for Defendant,
Arista Enterprises, Zc'.
"1 ? rY
4D
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C.
BY: ELIZABETH A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO. 55513 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S),
10 SOUTH CLINTON STREET Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
SUITE 302 and Legrand North America, Inc.
DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18901
(267) 880-3696
Our File No.: 491-82451
MICHAEL KENNEDY
and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
and
ROTOTECH GROUP
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 08-4361
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
(12 JURORS)
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech
Electrical Components, Inc., and Legrand North America, Inc., in the above-captioned matter.
Defendants by and through their undersigned attorney hereby demand a trial by jury of
twelve in the above referenced matter.
Respectfully submitted,
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN
& COURTNEY, P.C. 12-n -, nl?
By:
zabeth A. Hun , squire
Attorney for Defendants
tDY042604.1 }
na
t
?
t
4 4
.
f Y k
TO: ALL COUNSEL
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW
MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM
WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE
HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED
AGAINST YOU.
ATTORNEY FORD FENI4 DANTS
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C.
BY: ELIZABETH A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO. 55513 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS,
10 SOUTH CLINTON STREET Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
SUITE 302
DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18901
(267) 880-3696
Our File No.: 491-82451
and Legrand North America, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY
and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
and
ROTOTECH GROUP
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 08-4361
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
(12 JURORS)
DEFENDANTS ROTOTECH GROUP, ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC. AND LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM
Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and,
therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof at Trial.
(DY042619.I )
2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and,
therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof at Trial.
3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and,
therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof at Trial.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and,
therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof at Trial.
9. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
{ DY042619.1 }
10. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
11. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFF VS. ARISTA ENTERPRISES INC.
12. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to all previous allegations
in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
13. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
14. (a) (i - v) (b) - (f) This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering
Defendants, and, therefore, no answer is required.
15. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
{DY042619.1 }
COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFF V. ROTOTECH GROUP
16. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference it answers to all previous allegations in
all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and,
therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof at Trial.
18. Denied. Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc.
and Legrand North America, Inc. deny they were negligent, careless and/or reckless, either in
general, or by any of the means specified in sub-paragraphs (a) (i-v) and (b) through (f) of this
paragraph of Plaintiff's Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Appraisals' Complaint. To the contrary,
Answering Defendants Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc. and Legrand
North America, Inc. acted reasonably and with due care at all times and their conduct neither
caused nor contributed to injury or loss, if any, to the Plaintiffs Michael Kennedy and Kennedy
Appraisals. The remaining averments of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Michael Kennedy and
Kennedy Appraisals Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required
under the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and they are therefore deemed denied.
19. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
{DY042619.1 }
COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS VS. ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS INC.
20. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to all previous allegations
in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and,
therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof at Trial.
22. Denied. Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc.
and Legrand North America, Inc. deny they were negligent, careless and/or reckless, either in
general, or by any of the means specified in sub-paragraphs (a) (i-v) and (b) through (f) of this
paragraph of Plaintiff's Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Appraisals' Complaint. To the contrary,
Answering Defendants Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc. and Legrand
North America, Inc. acted reasonably and with due care at all times and their conduct neither
caused nor contributed to injury or loss, if any, to the Plaintiffs Michael Kennedy and Kennedy
Appraisals. The remaining averments of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Michael Kennedy and
Kennedy Appraisals Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required
under the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and they are therefore deemed denied.
23. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
{DY042619.1 }
COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS VS. LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
24. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to all previous allegations
in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and,
therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof at Trial.
26. Denied. Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc.
and Legrand North America, Inc. deny they were negligent, careless and/or reckless, either in
general, or by any of the means specified in sub-paragraphs (a) (i-v) and (b) through (f) of this
paragraph of Plaintiff's Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Appraisals' Complaint. To the contrary,
Answering Defendants Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc. and Legrand
North America, Inc. acted reasonably and with due care at all times and their conduct neither
caused nor contributed to injury or loss, if any, to the Plaintiffs Michael Kennedy and Kennedy
Appraisals. The remaining averments of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Michael Kennedy and
Kennedy Appraisals Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required
under the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and they are therefore deemed denied.
27. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
{ DY0426 ] 9.1 )
COUNT V - BREACH OF WARRANTY
PLAINTIFFS VS. ARISTA ENTERPRISES INC.
28. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to all previous allegations
in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
29. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
30. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
31. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
32. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
COUNT VI - BREACH OF WARRANTY
PLAINTIFFS VS. ROTOTECH GROUP
33. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to all previous allegations
in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
34. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
{ DY042619.1 }
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
35. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
36. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
37. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
COUNT VII - BREACH OF WARRANTY
PLAINTIFFS VS. ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS INC.
38. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to all previous allegations
in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
39. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
{DY042619.1 }
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
40. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
41. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
42. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
COUNT VIII - BREACH OF WARRANTY
PLAINTIFFS VS. LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
43. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to all previous allegations
in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
{DY042619.1 }
44. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
45. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
46. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
47. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
{DY042619.1 }
COUNT IX - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS VS. ARISTA ENTERPRISES INC.
48. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference it answers to all previous allegations in
all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
49. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
50. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
51. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
52. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
53. (a) - (e) This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants,
and, therefore, no answer is required.
54. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
55. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendants, and, therefore, no
answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
{ DY042619.1 }
COUNT X - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS VS. ROTOTECH GROUP
56. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference it answers to all previous allegations in
all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
57. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
58. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
59. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
60. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
{DY042619.1 }
61. (a) - (e) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of
law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable
investigation, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and
demand strict proof thereof at Trial.
62. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
63. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the .Court.
COUNT XI - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS VS. ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS INC.
64. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to all previous allegations
in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
65. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
66. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
{DY042619.1 }
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
67. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
68. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
69. (a) - (e) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of
law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable
investigation, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and
demand strict proof thereof at Trial.
70. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
71. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
{DY042619.1 }
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
COUNT XII - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS VS. LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
72. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to all previous allegations
in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
73. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
74. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
75. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
{DY042619.1 }
76. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof at Trial.
77. (a) - (e) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of
law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable
investigation, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, deny same and
demand strict proof thereof at Trial.
78. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
79. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no
answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
NEW MATTER
80. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable Statute of
Limitations.
81. Plaintiffs' Complaint may have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
82. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of an expressed or implied contract.
{DY042619.1 }
83. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred because of the Doctrine of Res Judicata and/or Collateral
Estoppel.
84. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred because of improper of service of process.
85. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of the Doctrine of Superseding and/or Intervening
Cause.
86. Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks damages which they are not entitled to recover.
87. There is no expressed or implied contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and
Answering Defendants covering the damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs.
88. The product was substantially altered, damaged, modified and/or otherwise changed in
condition.
89. The product was misused in an abnormal and unforeseeable manner.
90. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred because of statutory and/or common law.
91. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred because of the Doctrine of Accord and Satisfaction.
92. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred because of the Doctrine of Waiver and/or Estoppel.
93. The court may lack jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit.
94. Plaintiffs' claims were caused by a person or persons whom Answering Defendants could
not nor had a duty to control.
95. The losses and/or damages complained of in Plaintiffs' Complaint, if proven at trial,
resulted from the acts and/or omissions of persons, parties or other entities over whom
Answering Defendants had no legal responsibility and/or control.
96. All claims of breach of warranty are barred by failure to give notice of such claims within
a reasonable time after the alleged breach was discovered or should have been discovered.
{DY042619.1 }
97. No product marketed, distributed, sold and/or supplied by Answering Defendants is
unreasonably dangerous and/or unsafe.
98. Answering Defendants breached no duty or warranty, either expressed or implied, to
Plaintiffs.
99. Answering Defendants made no warranty, either expressed or implied, to Plaintiffs.
100. Answering Defendants gave all the warnings that the law requires to those individuals to
whom it was required to give such warnings.
101. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk to the extent
it is determined by the finder of fact that Plaintiff, through his actions, assumed the risk of the
injuries and damages complained of.
102. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by Plaintiff's failure to mitigate his damages.
103. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent it is held that Answering Defendants is
Plaintiffs' statutory employer.
104. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part since the dangers and/or risks of which
Plaintiffs' complains herein were open and obvious.
105. Plaintiffs' Complaint is barred by Plaintiffs' failure to give timely notice to Answering
Defendants of any alleged defect or failure to conform to implied or express warranties.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
{DY042619.1 }
NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2252(D) AGAINST CO-
DEFENDANT, ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
106. Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc. and
Legrand North America, Inc., hereby incorporate the factual averments of Plaintiffs' Complaint,
without admission thereto, and expressly deny their truth and accuracy as regards Answering
Defendants and aver that Co-Defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc., are alone liable to the Plaintiffs,
or liable over to Answering Defendants, or jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs', or liable
to Answering Defendants through indemnity or contribution for Plaintiffs' damages, if any.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
Dated: $ LG ??
Respectfully submitted,
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN
& COURTNEY, P.C.
By:
Elizabeth A. Hunter
{DY042619.1 }
00/2G/2002 10:55 3G023liel2 WIREMOLD PAGE 20/20
EFJFICATION
I verify under penalty of perjury that the averments of fact made in the foregoing
documents are true and correct based upon my personal knowledge, information or belief. I
understand that this verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 PA.C.S. Section 4904
relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
Dated:
Re: Kennedy
{DY042619.1 }
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Elizabeth A. Hunter, Esquire, the undersigned hereby certify that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following, by first class mail, postage
prepaid on August 26, 2008.
Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire
Newson Levine De Luca & Horst, LLC
518 Township Line Rd., Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Arista Enterprises, Inc.
125 Commerce Drive
Hauppange, NY 11788
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN
& COURTNEY, P.C.
BY: ,? A t
Elizabeth A. Hunter, Esquire
Attorneys for Defendants,
Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North
America, Inc.
IDY042619.1 }
t"? rv t?7
s?? ^n
,? ? .....
tr
- _,_
i ti; ..
-? i
'f''.?
_?
.a- i ^_?
-. ,
_ w .:?
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5122
MICHAEL KENNEDY
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
Plaintiff(s)
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 084361
ANSWER OF PLAINTIFFS TO THE NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS,
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, INC., and LEGRAND NORTH
AMERICA, INC.
80-105. These allegations all contain conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their
favor in accordance with their Complaint.
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: ) eejowx ,
RICHARD J. B , JR., Q
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Dated: September 8, 2008
VERIFICATION
I, RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., do hereby state that I am counsel for Plaintiffs in the within
action, and as such do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer of
Plaintiffs To The New Matter of Defendants, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc. and Legrand
North America, Inc. are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
lee b
RICHARD J. , JR
Dated: September 8, 2008
r . . 6..
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5122
MICHAEL KENNEDY
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
Plaintiff(s)
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL
Defendant(s)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 084361
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Answer
of Plaintiffs To The New Matter of Defendants, Rototech Electrical Components, Inc. and
Legrand North America, Inc. was served on September 8, 2008, upon counsel listed below by
United States Mail, postage prepaid.
Elizabeth A. Hunter, Esquire
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C.
10 South Clinton Street, Suite 302
Doylestown, PA 18901
Arista Enterprises, Inc.
125 Commerce Drive
Hauppauge, NY 11788
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: WX14wxf ' CHARD J. WVD, JR. S
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Dated: September 8, 2008
A49
C
i
1
LAW OFFICES
WILLILAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 30584
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 274-1725
Attorney for Defendant, Arista
Enterprises, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS,
Plaintiffs,
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and
ROTOTECH CORP.,
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.,
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 08-4361
CIVIL TERM
REPLY TO NEW MATTER CROSS CLAIM ASSERTED BY
CO-DEFENDANTS, ROTOTECH CORP., ROTOTECH
ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, INC. AND
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.
106. Denied. Replying defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc., incorporates by reference
its answer to plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matter and New Matter Cross Claim as though the
same were more fully set forth herein at length and denies the allegations of Paragraph 106 of
co-defendants' cross claim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c) and (e).
WHEREFORE, replying defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc., demands that the New
Matter Cross Claim of co-defendants, Rototech Corp., Rototech Electrical Components, Inc. and
Legrand North America, Inc. be dismissed and that judgment be entered in its favor and against
those co-defendants.
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
By:
Kevin J. Ruane, s ire, Attorney for
Defendant, Aris a FInterprises, Inc.
2
e
VERIFICATION
I, KEVIN J. RUANE, ESQUIRE, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply
of Arista Enterprises, Inc. to the New Matter Cross Claim of Co-Defendants, Rototech Corp.,
Rototech Electrical Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief. I further verify that I am authorized to take this
Verification on behalf of Defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc. in the capacity of Defendant's attorney.
I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
By: J?,?? ,
Ke n J. Ruane, ire
"? s
Dated: ?? ?1
c-"U t'1 s-rt ?gZ?
y
LAW OFFICES
WILLILAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 30584
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 274-1725
Attorney for Defendant, Arista
Enterprises, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Plaintiffs,
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and
ROTOTECH CORP.,
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.,
NO. 08-4361
CIVIL TERM
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant,
Arista Enterprises, Inc.'s Reply to the New Matter Cross Claim of Co-Defendants, Rototech
Corp., Rototech Electrical Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc. in the above-
captioned matter was served via First Class U.S. Mail this 19th day of September, 2008,
addressed as follows:
Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire Elizabeth Hunter, Esquire
Nelson Levine deLuca & Horst, LLC Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien &
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300 Courtney, P.C.
Blue Bell, PA 19122 10 South Clinton Street, Suite 302
Doylestown, PA 18901
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
BY: I 2j-,e?
Kevin J. R a , Esquire
?`?
°
C? ?
G ?
?.? ?-' ??
,e ? ????
.
?? `
fir
??
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: PLAINTIFF/CO-DEFENDANT
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD
THE ENCLOSED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND
CROSS-CLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM THE
SERVICE HERETO OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE
ENTERED AGAINST
YOU.
WILLILAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 30584
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 274-1725
KEVIN J.1RUANE, ESQUI
Attorney for Defendant, Arista
Enterprises, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Plaintiffs,
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and
ROTOTECH CORP.,
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.,
NO. 08-4361
CIVIL TERM
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants,
DEFENDANT, ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER
AND CROSS CLAIM PURSUANT TO
Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1
1-2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without
information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
plaintiff's Complaint and those averments are therefore denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c).
3. Admitted.
4-6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without
information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments of Paragraphs 4 through 6 of
plaintiff's Complaint and those averments are therefore denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c).
7. Denied. Plaintiffs have failed to state with particularity the alleged electric
equipment, appliances, electrical components and/or surge protectors referred to and after
reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to
admit or deny any of the averments of Paragraph 7 and they are therefore denied pursuant to Pa.
R.C.P. 1029(c).
8-11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without
information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments of Paragraphs 8 through 11
of plaintiff's Complaint and those averments are therefore denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c).
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS v. ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
12. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 11 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
13. No response is required to Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14-15. Denied. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Paragraph 7
as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length, and all the averments of Paragraph
14 and 15 are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c) and (e).
14(a)(i)-(v)-(f) Denied. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answer
to Paragraph 7 as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length and all the
averments of Paragraph 14(a)(i)-(v)-(f) are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c) and (e).
2
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
COUNT II -- NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS v. ROTOTECH GROUP
16. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 11 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
17-19. The averments of Paragraphs 17 through 19 are addressed to a party other than
answering defendant and therefore no response is required.
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS v. ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, INC.
20. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 11 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
21-23. The averments of Paragraphs 21 through 23 are addressed to a party other than
answering defendant and therefore no response is required.
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS v. LEGRAND NORTH AMERICAN, INC.
24. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 11 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
25-27. The averments of Paragraphs 25 through 27 are addressed to a party other than
answering defendant and therefore no response is required.
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
COUNT V - BREACH OF WARRANTY
PLAINTIFFS v. ARISTA ENTERPRISES. INC.
28. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 27 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
29. Denied. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Paragraph 7
of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
In addition to failing to identify with particularity the alleged surge protector and/or other
alleged products referred to in the Complaint, plaintiff has failed to state with particularity the
alleged particular purpose and, further, the manner in which answering defendant allegedly knew
that its skill and judgment were being relied upon and after reasonable investigation, answering
defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny any of the averments
of Paragraph 29. All of those averments are therefore denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c) and
1029(e).
30-32. Denied. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to
Paragraphs 7 and 29 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at
length. All of the averments of Paragraphs 30 through 32 are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P.
1029(c) and (e).
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
4
COUNT VI - BREACH OF WARRANTY
PLAINTIFFS v. ROTOTECH GROUP
33. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 32 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
34-37. The averments of Paragraphs 34 through 37 are addressed to a party other than
answering defendant and therefore no response is required.
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
COUNT VII - BREACH OF WARRANTY
PLAINTIFFS v ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, INC.
38. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 32 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
39-42. The averments of Paragraphs 39 through 42 are addressed to a party other than
answering defendant and therefore no response is required.
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
COUNT VIII - BREACH OF WARRANTY
PLAINTIFFS v. LEGRAND NORTH AMERICAN, INC.
43. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 32 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
44-47. The averments of Paragraphs 44 through 47 are addressed to a party other than
answering defendant and therefore no response is required.
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
COUNT IX - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS v. ARISTA ENTERPRISES. INC.
48. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 32 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
49. Denied. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Paragraph 7
of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
50-53. Denied. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to
Paragraphs 7 and 29 of plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein
at length.
By way of further answer, plaintiff fails to state with particularity the alleged design
defects, manufacturing defects and component defects referred to and after reasonable
investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or
deny any of the remaining averments of Paragraph 53 (a) through (e) and those averments are all
therefore denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c) and (e).
54. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 54 are conclusions of law to which no
response is required.
55. Denied. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraph
7 and 29 of the Complaint and denies the averments of Paragraph 55 pursuant to Pa. R.C.P.
1029(c) and (e).
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
6
COUNT X - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS v. ROTOTECH GROUP
56. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 27 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
57-63. The averments of Paragraphs 57 through 63 are addressed to a party other than
answering defendant and therefore no response is required.
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
COUNT XI - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS v. ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS. INC
64. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 32 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
65-71. The averments of Paragraphs 65 through 71 are addressed to a party other than
answering defendant and therefore no response is required.
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
XII - STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS v. LEGRAND NORTH AMERICAN. INC.
72. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1
through 3 of the Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length.
73-79. The averments of Paragraphs 73 through 79 are addressed to a party other than
answering defendant and therefore no response is required.
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
7
NEW MATTER
80. Plaintiffs have failed to set forth a cause of action against answering defendant
upon which relief may be granted.
81. Answering defendants believe and aver that if the incident referred to in plaintiff's
Complaint occurred as alleged, then said incident involved a product which was not designed,
manufactured, marketed, sold, nor installed, by answering defendant.
82. If the incident referred to in plaintiff's Complaint occurred as alleged, and
plaintiffs are able to prove that some product of answering defendant was involved, then
answering defendant believes and avers that there was a substantial alteration in the product after
it left answering defendant's possession and/or that the product was misused or abused, and/or
that the product was used in a manner inconsistent with any alleged warranty, either express or
implied, which may have been applicable to the product.
83. Answering defendant believes and avers that if the incident referred to in
plaintiff's Complaint occurred as alleged, which is specifically denied, then said incident and all
alleged damages resulting therefrom occurred solely and exclusively as a result of the plaintiffs'
negligence in the use of the product such that plaintiff's causes of action are barred in whole or
in part by virtue of the terms and provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
84. Answering defendant believes and avers that if the incident referred to in
plaintiff's Complaint occurred as alleged, which is specifically denied, then said incident and all
alleged damages resulting therefrom occurred solely and exclusively as a result of the plaintiffs'
negligence in the use of the product such that plaintiff's causes of action are barred by the
Doctrine of Contributory Negligence.
8
85. Answering defendant believes and avers that if the incident referred to in
plaintiff s Complaint occurred as alleged, which is specifically denied, then said incident and all
alleged damages resulting therefrom occurred solely and exclusively as a result of the plaintiffs'
negligence in the use of the product such that plaintiff s causes of action are barred by the
Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk.
86. Answering defendant believes and avers that if the incident referred to in
plaintiff s Complaint occurred as alleged, which is specifically denied, then said incident and all
alleged damages resulting therefrom occurred solely and exclusively as the result of the
negligence, breach of express and/or implied warranties and/or strict product liability of other
persons, parties or entities over whom answering defendant had no control nor right of control
and whose negligence, breaches of warranty and/or product defects constituted intervening
and/or superseding causes of liability.
WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff.
CROSS CLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1
87. Answering defendant believes and avers that if the incident referred to in
plaintiff s Complaint occurred as alleged, which is specifically denied, then said incident and all
alleged damages resulting therefrom occurred solely and exclusively as the result of the
negligence, breaches of warranties and/or product defects of co-defendants, Rototech Corp.,
Rototech Electrical Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc.
88. The negligence of co-defendants, Rototech Corp., Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc. is set forth in Paragraphs 18, 22 and 26 of
plaintiff s Complaint, the averments of which are incorporated herein by reference.
9
89. The breaches of warranty of the co-defendants are set forth in Paragraphs 34
through 37, 39 through 42 and 44 through 47 of plaintiff s Complaint, the averments of which
are incorporated herein by reference.
90. The product defects of co-defendants are set forth in Paragraphs 58 through 61, 65
through 69 and 73 through 77 of plaintiff's Complaint, the averments of which are all
incorporated herein by reference and asserted against the co-defendants.
91. Answering defendant asserts this cross claim against the co-defendants an asserts
that they are solely liable to the plaintiff on the underlying cause of action or liable to or with
cross claimant on any cause of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence or series of
transactions or occurrences upon which the underlying causes of action of plaintiffs are based.
WHEREFORE, judgment is demanded against the co-defendants.
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
By:
Kevin J. Ruane, Es Ku e, Attorney for
Defendant, Arista n rprises, Inc.
10
VERIFICATION
I, GEORGE SIMOLIN, a duly authorized representative of ARISTA ENTERPRISES,
INC.. verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Plaintifrs Complaint with New
Matter and Cross Claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
GEO G OLIN
DATED:
Kennedy v. Arista Enterlxiscs. Inc.--Answer
`C' t t" CJ? ?C
70
i
PQ '
t?3
LAW OFFICES
WILLILAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 30584
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 274-1725
Attorney for Defendant, Arista
Enterprises, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Plaintiffs,
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and
ROTOTECH CORP.,
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.,
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
NO. 08-4361 n
cy ° c
Cleo 7
CIVIL TERM
r?
C7
Defendants,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant,
Arista Enterprises, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matter and Cross Claim in
the above-captioned matter was served via facsimile and First Class U.S. Mail this 26th day of
September, 2008, addressed as follows:
Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire Elizabeth Hunter, Esquire
Nelson Levine deLuca & Horst, LLC Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien &
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300 Courtney, P.C.
Blue Bell, PA 19122 10 South Clinton Street, Suite 302
Fax No. (215) 358-5101 Doylestown, PA 18901
Fax No. 267) 880-0545
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
BY:
P ID
Kevin J. ta e, Esquire
? ? a
?' ?`~? ??
°
'' ? .:,?? a...?
.
, ? .,
;: .? ? r
,. ?:: =??=z~
t
?" f?"= ?
- "?
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C.
BY: ELIZABETH A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO. 55513 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS,
10 SOUTH CLINTON STREET Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
SUITE 302
DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18901
(267) 880-3696
Our File No.: 491-82451
and Legrand North America, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY
and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
and
ROTOTECH GROUP
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 08-4361
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
(12 JURORS)
DEFENDANTS ROTOTECH GROUP, ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC. AND LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.'S ANSWER TO CO-DEFENDANT
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.'S CROSSCLAIM
87. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no answer is required.
88. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no answer is required.
89. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no answer is required.
90. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no answer is required.
{DY043185.1 }
91. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., hereby demand that judgment be entered in
their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
Dated: ?U 7
Respectfully submitted,
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN
& COURTN Y, PC.
By:
liza eth A. Hunter
{ DY043185.1 }
C7
VERIFICATION
I verify under penalty of perjury that the averments of fact made in the foregoing
documents are true and correct based upon my personal knowledge, information or belief. I
understand that this verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 PA.C.S. Section 4904
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Eliza et A. Hunter
Dated:
Re: Kennedy
{ DY043185.1 }
a
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Elizabeth A. Hunter, Esquire, the undersigned hereby certify that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following, by first class mail, postage
prepaid on , 2008.
Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire
Newson Levine De Luca & Horst, LLC
518 Township Line Rd., Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Arista Enterprises, Inc.
125 Commerce Drive
Hauppange, NY 11788
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN
& COURTNEY, P.C.
BY: 4,1" ?-4
E iza et . Hunter, Esqu
Attorneys for Defendants,
Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
Components, Inc. and Legrand North
America, Inc.
{DY043185.1 }
t.t? -
"C?
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5122
MICHAEL KENNEDY
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
Plaintiff(s)
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
ROTOTECH GROUP
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-4361
ANSWER OF PLAINTIFFS
TO THE NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS,
ROTOTECH GROUP, ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, INC.,
AND LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.
80-105. Denied. These allegations all contain conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor in accordance
with their Complaint.
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY:
*RVicHARD J. B , JR*IFFS
YS R PLDated: October 13, 2008
VERIFICATION
I, RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., do hereby state that I am counsel for Plaintiff in the within
action, and as such do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer of
Plaintiffs to the New Matter of Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical Components,
Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made
subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
RICHARD J. I?YD' JR.
Dated: October 13, 2008
r?
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5122
MICHAEL KENNEDY
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
Plaintiff(s)
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
ROTOTECH GROUP
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL
COMPONENTS, INC.
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-4361
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Answer
of Plaintiffs to the New Matter of Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical Components,
Inc. and Legrand North America, Inc., was served on October 13, 2008, upon counsel listed
below by United States Mail, postage prepaid.
Elizabeth A. Hunter, Esquire
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C.
10 South Clinton Street, Suite 302
Doylestown, PA 18901
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY:
ATTORNE
Dated: October 13, 2008
,t
co
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5122
MICHAEL KENNEDY
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
Plaintiff(s)
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
ROTOTECH GROUP
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
Defendant(s)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-4361
ANSWER OF PLAINTIFFS
TO THE NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT,
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
80-86. Denied. These allegations all contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading
is required.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor in accordance
with their Complaint.
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY:
ATTORNEYS
Dated: October 13, 2008
VERIFICATION
I, RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., do hereby state that I am counsel for Plaintiff in the within
action, and as such do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer of
Plaintiffs to the New Matter of Defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc. are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements
therein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Dated: October 13, 2008
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5122
MICHAEL KENNEDY
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
Plaintiff(s)
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
ROTOTECH GROUP
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL
COMPONENTS, INC.
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-4361
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Answer
of Plaintiffs to the New Matter of Defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc. was served on October 13,
2008, upon counsel listed below by United States Mail, postage prepaid.
Elizabeth A. Hunter, Esquire
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C.
10 South Clinton Street, Suite 302
Doylestown, PA 18901
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY:
RICHARD J. B , JR., ES I
ATTORNEYS R PLAIN FFS
Dated: October 13, 2008
S 4'-
m?
rQ
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5122
MICHAEL KENNEDY
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
Plaintiff(s)
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
ROTOTECH GROUP
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-4361
ANSWER OF PLAINTIFFS
TO THE NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, WIREMOLD,
THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION, INC., THE WIREMOLD COMPANY
AND WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION
80-105. Denied. These allegations all contain conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor in accordance
with their Complaint.
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
,? n
BY:
RICHARD J. B , JR., E U
ATTORNEYS R PLAIN IFFS
Dated: October 13, 2008
VERIFICATION
I, RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., do hereby state that I am counsel for Plaintiff in the within
action, and as such do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer of
Plaintiffs To The New Matter of Defendants, Wiremold, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., The
Wiremold Company and Wiremold International Sales Corporation are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements
therein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
A A /7
RICHARD J. NOVD, JR.
Dated: October 13, 2008
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5122
MICHAEL KENNEDY
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
Plaintiff(s)
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
ROTOTECH GROUP
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL
COMPONENTS, INC.
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
Defendant(s)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-4361
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Answer
of Plaintiffs To The New Matter of Defendants, Wiremold, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., The
Wiremold Company and Wiremold International Sales Corporation was served on October 13,
2008, upon counsel listed below by United States Mail, postage prepaid.
Elizabeth A. Hunter, Esquire
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C.
10 South Clinton Street, Suite 302
Doylestown, PA 18901
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY:
ATTORNEYS
Dated: October 13, 2008
C;1 +y
• +
K' ?4V
d
Gti ?Cj
08-5536R/T
CERTIFICATE
PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
In the Matter of: Court of Common Pleas
MICHAEL KENNEDY
Cumberland County
- VS
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, ET AL No. 08-4361
As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22
CCLR on behalf of KEVIN J. RUANE, ESQUIRE
Defendant certifies that
(1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena(s) with a copy of the subpoena(s) attached thereto
was/were mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which
the subpoena(s) is/are sought to be served.
(2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena(s), is attached to the
certificate.
(3) No objection to the subpoena(s) has been received.
(4) The subpoena(s) which will be served is/are identical to the subpoena(s) which is/are
attached to the notice of intent to server the subpoena(s).
DATE: 10/27/2008
K VIJ. R N) WEE DE
Counsel for Defendant
i. Center City Legal Reproductions, Inc.
CCLR 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1920, Philadelphia, PA 19109
¦_ (215)732-1177 fax (215)732-5637
Online Services www.cclrinc.com
MICHAEL KENNEDY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
vs.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, ET AL No. 08-4361
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
RICHARD BOYD, ESQUIRE
NELSON LEVINE DE LUCA & HORST
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD
SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
Please take notice there has been a request by KEVIN J. RUANE, ESQUIRE, counsel for
the Defendant in the above case for production and copying of records in the possession
of (see enclosures).
These records pertain to MICHAEL KENNEDY.
Enclosed is(are) a copy (copies) of the subpoena(s) to be served on the custodian of
such records and also a Counsel Return Page for you to fill out and return to us stating
whether you would like to order a copy of the records and whether you have any
objections to the production and copying of such records or manner thereof. The fee per
location is in accordance with Act #26.
The subpoena will be sent to the records custodian twenty (20) days from the date of this
notice requesting that the records be produced on or before ten (10) days thereafter
unless we hear from you to the contrary on the Counsel Return Page. If you state an
objection on the Counsel Return Page, we will proceed accordingly.
If you require assistance, please contact our office.
DATE: October 6, 2008
Enclosures : Copy (copies) of Subpoena(s)
Counsel Return Page
` Center City Legal Reproductions, Inc.
CCLR 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1920, Philadelphia, PA 19109
¦_ (215)732-1177 fax (215)732-5637
Online Services www.cclrinc.com
MICHAEL KENNEDY CCLR File NO. 08-5536R/T
vs.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, ET AL
COUNSEL RETURN PAGE
I have received the Notice of Records Reproduction Request dated 10/2/2008 regarding
records in the custody of (see attached subpoena(s)) and respond as follow:
(1) COPIES yes / no
I would like a copy of the records in question sent to me, and agree to
pay the price noted in the Notice of Records Reproduction Request.
(2) 1 would like copies of X-Rays sent to me. yes / no
(3) OBJECTION
In accordance to rules governing civil procedure a copy of date/time stamped
filing needs to be sent to Center City Legal Reproductions on or prior to
10/27/2008. Failure to do so shall serve as an agreement that the records
reproduction service should proceed with the records collection process.
(4) 1 would like to look at the records at a Center City location before yes / no
deciding whether to order a copy.
Date:
Attorney for plaintiff(s) / defendant(s)
RICHARD BOYD, ESQUIRE
NELSON LEVINE DE LUCA & HORST
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD
SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
AN w Center City Legal Reproductions, Inc.
CCLR 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1920, Philadelphia, PA 19109
¦_ (215)732-1177 fax (215)732-5637
Online Services www.cclrinc.com
MICHAEL KENNEDY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
vs.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, ET AL No. 08-4361
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
ELIZABETH HUNTER, ESQUIRE
MARKS, O'NEILL, REILLY & O'BRIEN, P.C.
10 SOUTH CLINTON STREET
SUITE 302
DOYLESTOWN, PA 18901
Please take notice there has been a request by KEVIN J. RUANE, ESQUIRE, counsel for
the Defendant in the above case for production and copying of records in the possession
of (see enclosures).
These records pertain to MICHAEL KENNEDY
Enclosed is(are) a copy (copies) of the subpoena(s) to be served on the custodian of
such records and also a Counsel Return Page for you to fill out and return to us stating
whether you would like to order a copy of the records and whether you have any
objections to the production and copying of such records or manner thereof. The fee per
location is in accordance with Act #26.
The subpoena will be sent to the records custodian twenty (20) days from the date of this
notice requesting that the records be produced on or before ten (10) days thereafter
unless we hear from you to the contrary on the Counsel Return Page. If you state an
objection on the Counsel Return Page, we will proceed accordingly.
If you require assistance, please contact our office.
DATE: October 6, 2008
Enclosures : Copy (copies) of Subpoena(s)
Counsel Return Page
1 -112&
Center City Legal Reproductions, Inc.
CCLR 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1920, Philadelphia, PA 19109
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ (215)732-1177 fax (215)732-5637
Online Services www.cclrinc.com
MICHAEL KENNEDY CCLR File NO. 08-5536R/T
vs.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, ET AL
COUNSEL RETURN PAGE
I have received the Notice of Records Reproduction Request dated 10/2/2008 regarding
records in the custody of (see attached subpoena(s)) and respond as follow:
(1) COPIES yes / no
I would like a copy of the records in question sent to me, and agree to
pay the price noted in the Notice of Records Reproduction Request.
(2) 1 would like copies of X-Rays sent to me. yes / no
(3) OBJECTION
In accordance to rules governing civil procedure a copy of date/time stamped
filing needs to be sent to Center City Legal Reproductions on or prior to
10/27/2008. Failure to do so shall serve as an agreement that the records
reproduction service should proceed with the records collection process.
(4) 1 would like to look at the records at a Center City location before yes / no
deciding whether to order a copy.
Date:
Attorney for plaintiff(s) / defendant(s)
ELIZABETH HUNTER, ESQUIRE
MARKS, O'NEILL, REILLY & O'BRIEN, P.C.
10 SOUTH CLINTON STREET
SUITE 302
DOYLESTOWN, PA 18901
CO 4UNWFALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF Q14BERLAND
MICHAEL KENNEDY
. File No. 08-4361
VS
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, ET AL '
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
Tip: CUMBERLAND COUNTY _
(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 ADDENDUM***
at CENTER CITY LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC.
(Address)
You may deliver or mail legible copies of. the documents or produce things requested by
this subpoena, together with the certificate of carp l i ance, 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 oamply with it.
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:
NAME: KEVIN J. RUANE, ESQUIRE
ADDRESS: Inc.
''3-S. BrOad SL. Ste 1920
TELEPHONE: oh:12.7PA 19109
SUPREME COLT ID # ini ca 7224177
ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT v"
BY THE COURT:
DATE:
Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division
Seal of the Court
Deputy
(Eff. 1/97)
¦ Center City Legal Reproductions, Inc.
CCLR 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1920, Philadelphia, PA 19109
¦ (215)732-1177 fax (215)732-5637
CCLR File No. 08-5536R/T
**************************
ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA
**************************
To: CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Re: MICHAEL KENNEDY
ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO A FIRE WHICH IS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN
PLACE AT 328 OLD YORK ROAD, ON OR ABOUT 10/22/06 IN FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP/NEW
CUMBERLAND, PA. RECORDS SHOULD INCLUDE, BUT SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO ANY
INFORMATION REGARDING INCOMING CALLS FOR POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENT AND/OR
FIRE RESCUE SERVICES, FOR THE INITIAL REPORT AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ALARMS, AS
WELL AS RECORDS OF UNITS OR DEPARTMENTS DISPATCHED TO RESPOND.
COMMONWEALTH OF PIINNMVANIA
COURrY OF CUMBERIAND
MICHAEL KENNEDY
VS Fi le No.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, ET AL '
08-4361
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: FAIRVIEW TWP. FIRE DEPARTMENT
(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 ADDENDUM***
at CENTER T Y LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC
(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: KEVIN J. RUANE, ESQUIRE
ADDRESS:_ CCLR, Inc.
122 Q gr?E t.. Ste 1920
TELEPHONE: ph:IaR,pA 19109
SUPR81E= OOIBT I D # - 177
A'n'(Y FOR: DEFENDANTS
BY THE COURT:
DATE:
Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division
Seal of the Court
Deputy .
(Eff. 1/97)
Center City Legal Reproductions, Inc.
CCLR 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1920, Philadelphia, PA 19109
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ (215)732-1177 fax (215)732-5637
CCLR File No. 08-5536R/T
**************************
ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA
**************************
To: FAIRVIEW TWP. FIRE DEPARTMENT
Re: MICHAEL KENNEDY
ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO A FIRE WHICH IS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN
PLACE AT 328 OLD YORK ROAD, ON OR ABOUT 10/22/06 IN FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP/NEW
CUMBERLAND, PA. RECORDS SHOULD INCLUDE, BUT SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO: FIRE
REPORTS, POLICE REPORTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, INVESTIGATIONS FILES, ARSON
INVESTIGATIONS FILES, CAUSE AND ORIGEN REPORTS, LISTS OF RESPONDING
DEPARTMENTS, PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT AT THE SCENE, CORRESPONDENCE OR
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ANY INSURANCE CLAIMS, CODE DEPARTMENT OR OTHER
MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT OF HABITABILITY AND BILLS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT AND/OR
FIRE RESCUE SERVICES.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNPY OF CUMBERLAND
MICHAEL KENNEDY '
VS File No. 08-4361
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, ET AL '
'SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO; NEW CUMBERLAND FIRE DEPARMTENT t_..
(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 ADDENDUM***
at _ CF.N R CITY.. LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC
(Address)
You may deliver or mail legible copies of. the documents or produce things requested by
this subpoena, together with the pert i f i cate of carp 1 i ance , to the party making th i s
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
compel 1 ing you to comply with it.
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:
NAPE: KEVIN J. RUANE, ESQUIRE
ADDRESS:_ !Q. LR, Inc.
''3vBr?Q? t. Ste 1920
TELEPHONE: phu pp 7 9109
SUPREME COURT I D # 177
ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT
BY THE COURT:
DATE:
Seal of the Court
Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division
Deputy
(Eff. ?/97)
• 6 Center City Legal Reproductions, Inc.
CCLR 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1920, Philadelphia, PA 19109
•- (215)732-1177 fax (215)732-5637
CCLR File No. 08-5536R/T
**************************
ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA
**************************
To: NEW CUMBERLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT
Re: MICHAEL KENNEDY
ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO A FIRE WHICH IS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN
PLACE AT 328 OLD YORK ROAD, ON OR ABOUT 10/22/06 IN FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP/NEW
CUMBERLAND, PA. RECORDS SHOULD INCLUDE, BUT SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO: FIRE
REPORTS, POLICE REPORTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, INVESTIGATIONS FILES, ARSON
INVESTIGATIONS FILES, CAUSE AND ORIGEN REPORTS, LISTS OF RESPONDING
DEPARTMENTS, PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT AT THE SCENE, CORRESPONDENCE OR
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ANY INSURANCE CLAIMS, CODE DEPARTMENT OR OTHER
MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT OF HABITABILITY AND BILLS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT AND/OR
FIRE RESCUE SERVICES.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUN EffRIAND
MICHAEL KENNEDY
VS File No. 08-4361
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, ET AL
S(JBPOENA TO PR40UCE DpCUHENTS OR TH 1 NGS
FOR DISOOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: YORK COUNTY
(Name of Person or Entity)
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered
Py the court to
produce the following docuaents or things: ***SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM*
at CITY LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS INC.
(Address)
You may deliver or mail legible copies of-the documents or Produ?
this subpoena, together with the certificate of Oe things requested by.
compliance, to the party making th i s
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
(20) days after its service the by this subpoena within twenty
aoi elIing you to party serving this subpoena may seek a court order
c«np1Y with it.
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:
NAME: KEVIN J. RUANE, ESQUIRE
ADDRESS: LR Inc.
X3-5, Byxkld_St., Ste 1920
TELEPHONE: phn PA 7 9109
SUPREM COURT ID _ -(246y7324177
ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT
BY THE COURT:
LATE:
Seal of the Court
Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division
Deputy .
(Eff. 7/97)
• - • -'' . Center City Legal Reproductions, Inc.
CCLR 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1920, Philadelphia, PA 19109
' (215)732-1177 fax (215)732-5637
CCLR File No. 08-5536R/T
**************************
ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA
**************************
To: YORK COUNTY
Re: MICHAEL KENNEDY
ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO A FIRE WHICH IS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN
PLACE AT 328 OLD YORK ROAD, ON OR ABOUT 10/22/06 IN FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP/NEW
CUMBERLAND, PA. RECORDS SHOULD INCLUDE, BUT SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO ANY
INFORMATION REGARDING INCOMING CALLS FOR POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENT AND/OR
FIRE RESCUE SERVICES, FOR THE INITIAL REPORT AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ALARMS, AS
WELL AS RECORDS OF UNITS OR DEPARTMENTS DISPATCHED TO RESPOND.
+ -j -Ti
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C.
BY: ELIZABETH A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO. 55513 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S),
10 SOUTH CLINTON STREET Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
SUITE 302 and Legrand North America, Inc.
DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18901
(267) 880-3696
Our File No.: 491-82451
MICHAEL KENNEDY
and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
and
ROTOTECH GROUP
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 08-4361
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
(12 JURORS)
DEFENDANTS ROTOTECH GROUP, ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL AND LEGRAND
NORTH AMERICA, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATORIES AND REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFF MICHAEL KENNEDY
Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical and Legrand North America, Inc., by
and through its attorneys, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien and Courtney, P.C., hereby moves this
Honorable Court to enter an Order against Michael Kennedy pursuant to Rules 4009, 4005 and
4019 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and in support thereof avers as follows:
On or about September 16, 2008, Defendants counsel forwarded Interrogatories
and Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff's counsel.
{ DY043995. 1 }
2. To date, no responses or objections have been received by the Defendant to its
discovery requests.
3. Said discovery concerns matters solely within the knowledge and control of
Michael Kennedy, the knowledge of which is essential to the proper preparation for trial by
Defendant.
Defendant has tried in good faith to resolve this issue; however, counsel for
Michael Kennedy has yet to produce Answers to Defendant's discovery in accordance with the
applicable Rules of Civil Procedure.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical and Legrand North
America, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court issue an Order in the form attached
hereto.
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN
& COURTNEY, P.C.
By: ?A A
EL AB A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Defendants,
Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical and Legrand
North America, Inc.
{ DY043995.1
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C.
BY: ELIZABETH A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO. 55513 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S),
10 SOUTH CLINTON STREET Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
SUITE 302 and Legrand North America, Inc.
DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18901
(267) 880-3696
Our File No.: 491-82451
MICHAEL KENNEDY
and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
and
ROTOTECH GROUP
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 08-4361
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
(12 JURORS)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS,ROTOTECH GROUP,
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL AND LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC. S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, MICHAEL KENNEDY'S ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY
This Memorandum of Law is filed in support of the foregoing Motion to Compel.
Defendant adopts and incorporates that Motion as though set forth herein at length.
As per Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4009 through 4019, Defendant may serve
written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents upon a party. Should a party
fail to respond within thirty (30) days, Defendant may file a Motion to Compel as aforesaid.
Accordingly, as per Pa. R.C.P. 4019, an Order may be entered directing Michael
Kennedy to provide full and complete responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents propounded by Defendant within twenty (20) days or suffer such sanctions as is just
upon further Motion.
I DY043995.1
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN
& COURTNEY, P.C.
By: i;f
ELIZABE H A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Defendants,
Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical and
Legrand North America, Inc.
{ DY043995.1 }
VERIFICATION
I, Elizabeth A. Hunter, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendants Rototech
Group, Rototech Electrical and Legrand North America, Inc., that I have read the foregoing
Motion; and the averments set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
Further, I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
BY:
TLT -M
ELIVETH A. HUN , ESQUIRE
Attorney for Defendants,
Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical and
Legrand North America, Inc.
{ DY043995.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this /j day of bee- . , 2008, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Motion to Compel was served on all parties of record by first-class mail, postage pre-
paid.
Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire
Nelson Levine DeLuca & Horst, LLC
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
William J. Ferren & Associates
10 Sentry Parkway
Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN
& COURTNEY, P.C.
BY: btl a
ELIZABETH A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Defendants,
Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical and
Legrand North America, Inc.
{ DY043995.1
VTI
f`•v f
DEC 2 3 2003y
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C.
BY: ELIZABETH A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO. 55513 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S),
10 SOUTH CLINTON STREET Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
SUITE 302 and Legrand North America, Inc.
DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18901
(267) 880-3696
MICHAEL KENNEDY
and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
and
ROTOTECH GROUP
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 08-4361
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
(12 JURORS)
ORDER
t? 9
AND NOW, this 5 day of Sah 200A/ upon motion of Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien &
Courtney, P.C., attorneys for Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical and Legrand
North America, Inc., it is hereby ORDERED that Counsel for Michael Kennedy file full and
complete responses to the Defendants Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical and Legrand North
America, Inc.'s Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within twenty (20)
days of the date of this Order or be subject to such sanctions as the Court might impose upon
further Motion.
BY THE COURT:
I DY043995.1 }
`?tl -77? 1*11 La j 3,) J'7D
90 3- Nvr 60gi
t ?
LAW OFFICES
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 30584
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 274-1725
Attorney for Defendant, Arista
Enterprises, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS,
Plaintiffs,
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and
ROTOTECH CORP.,
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.,
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 08-4361
CIVIL TERM
DEFENDANT ARISTA ENTERPRISES INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFFS
Defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc., by and through its undersigned attorney hereby moves
this Honorable Court to enter an Order against Plaintiffs pursuant to Rules 4009, 4005 and 4019 of
the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and in support thereof avers the following:
1. On September 19, 2008, Defendant's counsel forwarded Interrogatories and Request
for Production of Documents Addressed to Plaintiffs to Plaintiffs' counsel. See copy of Defendant's
enclosure letter attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A".
2. On December 10, 2008, Defendant's counsel forwarded a letter to Plaintiffs' counsel
requesting Plaintiffs' responses to overdue discovery requested by Defendant. See copy of
Defendant's ten day letter attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B".
2
To date, Plaintiffs' counsel has neither complied with Defendant's discovery requests
nor has he sought a protective order.
4. Said discovery concerns matters solely within the knowledge and control of
Plaintiffs, the knowledge of which is essential to the proper preparation for trial by Defendant.
5. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4019 empowers this Court to enter an Order
compelling Plaintiff to produce Answers to Defendant's Interrogatories and Responses to Defendant's
Request for Production of Documents.
6. Defendant has tried in good faith to resolve this issue while counsel for Plaintiffs has yet
to produce Answers to Defendant's discovery in accordance with the applicable Rules of Civil
Procedure.
WHEREFORE, Moving Defendant requests that Plaintiffs respond to its discovery requests
within twenty (20) days of the date of the Court's order or risk sanctions.
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
By:
Kevin J. Ruane uire, Attorney for
Defendant, Ari t nterprises, Inc.
LAW OFFICES
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 30584
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 274-1725
Attorney for Defendant, Arista
Enterprises, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Plaintiffs,
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and
ROTOTECH CORP.,
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.,
NO. 08-4361
CIVIL TERM
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants,
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT, ARISTA ENTERPRISES,
INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFFS
This Memorandum of Law is filed in support of Defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc.'s
foregoing Motion to Compel. Defendant adopts and incorporates that Motion as though set forth
herein at length. On September 19, 2008, Defendant's counsel forwarded Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents Addressed to Plaintiffs to Plaintiffs' counsel. On December
10, 2008, Defendant's counsel forwarded a letter to Plaintiffs' counsel requesting Plaintiffs'
responses to overdue discovery requested by Defendant. Responses to these discovery requests are
necessary in order for Defendant to properly prepare for the trial of this matter.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide in Rules 4006 and 4003.1 that discovery
may be taken in the form of Interrogatories and that answers shall be verified within thirty (30) days
of the service of same. Instantly, the Interrogatories were served approximately three (3) months
ago. They are long overdue.
Similarly, moving Defendant's Request for Production of Documents was served on
September 19, 2008. Despite a Reminder Letter sent to Plaintiffs' counsel on
December 10, 2008, no response has been received as of this date. Plaintiffs' failure to comply is in
clear violation of the mandate of 42 Pa. R.C.P. Rule 4009(b)(2).
Based on the foregoing, Moving Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to
order Plaintiffs to respond to these discovery requests within twenty (20) days of the date of the
Court's Order or risk sanctions.
Respectfully Submitted,
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
13
Y•
Kevin J. Ruane, sq ire, Attorney for
Defendant, Arist terprises, Inc.
VERIFICATION
I, KEVIN J. RUANE, ESQUIRE, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Motion
to Compel Plaintiffs' Answer to Interrogatories and Response to Request for Production of
Documents are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I further
verify that I am authorized to take this Verification on behalf of Defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc.,
in the capacity of Defendant's attorney.
I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
-? ?to A,,,, ?
Kevin J. Ru , Esquire
Dated: r ) )/0
EXHIBIT "A"
LA W OFFICES
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIA TES
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Phone (215) 274-1700
Fax (215) 274-1735
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Direct Dial (215) 274-1725
kruan entra yele?s. com
September 19, 2008
Prothonotary, Cumberland County
Court of Common Pleas
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: Michael Kennedy v. Arista Enterprises, Inc., et al.
Cumberland County CCP, No. 08-4361
Claim No. 145 ER A7X6791 T
Our File No. 0930643
Dear Sir/Madam:
With regard to the above-captioned matter, enclosed herein please find an original and
one (1) copy of Defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc.'s Reply to the New Matter Cross Claim of
Co-Defendants, Rototech Corp., Rototech Electrical Components, Inc. and Legrand North
America, Inc. Kindly file the original of record and return a time-stamped copy to my attention
in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Kevin J. Ruaf?e
KJR: asg
Enclosures
cc: Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire (w/enclosure)
Elizabeth Hunter, Esquire (w/enclosure)
EXHIBIT `B"
• Law Offices
?WILLMM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATE
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 274-1700
Fax (215) 274-1735
Brendan M. Howton, Esquire
Direct Dial: (215) 274-1744
Email. bhowton(a) ravelers com
December 10, 2008
Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire
Nelson Levine deLuca & Horst, LLC
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19122
Re: Michael Kennedy v. Arista Enterprises, Inc., et al.
Cumberland County CCP, No. 084361
Claim No. 145 ER A7X6791 T
Our File No. 0930643
Dear Mr. Boyd:
With respect to the above-captioned matter, a review of our file indicates that
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents were served upon you on September
19, 2008. More than thirty days have elapsed since that time, and we have yet to receive your
client's responses to this discovery. Please have your client provide answers to this discovery
within ten days from the date of this letter so as to preclude referral of the matter to Motion
Court.
Sincerely yours,
YenN'Howton
BMH:bh
cc: Elizabeth A. Hunter, Esquire
Not a Partnership or Professional Corporation
All Attorneys are Employees of The Travelers Indemnity Company
and its Property Casualty Affiliates and Subsidiaries
{,1
ioll r t1
C3
LAW OFFICES
WILLILAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 30584
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 274-1725
Attorney for Defendant, Arista
Enterprises, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
KENNEDY APPRAISALS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Plaintiffs,
V. ,
NO. 08-4361
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC., ,
and CIVIL TERM
ROTOTECH CORP., ,
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC., ,
and ,
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants, ,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant,
Arista Enterprises, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' answers to Interrogatories and response to
Request for Production of Documents in the above-captioned matter was served via First Class
U.S. Mail this 2 C?? day of January, 2009, addressed as follows:
Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire Elizabeth Hunter, Esquire
Nelson Levine deLuca & Horst, LLC Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien &
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300 Courtney, P.C.
Blue Bell, PA 19122 10 South Clinton Street, Suite 302
Doylestown, PA 18901
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
BY:
6
evin J. Ru a T7.squire
CJ
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C.
BY: ELIZABETH A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO. 55513
10 SOUTH CLINTON STREET
SUITE 302
DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18901
(267) 880-3696
Our File No.: 491-82451
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S),
Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical
and Legrand North America, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY
and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
v.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
and
ROTOTECH GROUP
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 08-4361
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
(12 JURORS)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 8 day of January 2009, a true and correct copy of the Order
dated January 5, 2009, regarding Defendants, Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical and Legrand
North America Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, was served on all parties of record by
first-class mail, postage pre-paid.
Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire
Newson Levine De Luca & Horst, LLC
518 Township Line Rd., Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Kevin J. Ruane
William J. Ferren & Associates
10 Sentry Parkway
Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
BY:
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN &
COURTNEY, P.C.
Elizabeth A.Hunter
Attorney for Defendants,
Rototech Group, Rototech Electrical and
Legrand North America, Inc.
{DY044186.1 }
Q q
G
T x
l
oi
-
r
I
LAW OFFICES
WILLILAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 30584
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 274-1725
Attorney for Defendant, Arista
Enterprises, Inc.
MICHAEL KENNEDY and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS,
Plaintiffs,
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and
ROTOTECH CORP.,
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.,
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 08-4361
CIVIL TERM
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW DEFENDANT, ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.'S
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly withdraw as moot, Defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc.'s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Request for Production of Documents,
filed with the Court on January 9, 2009.
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
-, A
By: - r /gyp{
Kevin J. Ruane, jEsquire, Attorney for
Defendant, Arista Enterprises, Inc.
y
r
LAW OFFICES
WILLILAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 30584
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 274-1725
MICHAEL KENNEDY and
KENNEDY APPRAISALS,
Plaintiffs,
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and
ROTOTECH CORP.,
and
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.,
and
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants,
Attorney for Defendant, Arista
Enterprises, Inc.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 08-4361
CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant,
Arista Enterprises, Inc.'s Praecipe to Withdraw Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' answers to
Interrogatories and response to Request for Production of Documents in the above-captioned
matter was served via First Class U.S. Mail this Oj't day of February, 2009, addressed
as follows:
Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire Elizabeth Hunter, Esquire
Nelson Levine deLuca & Horst, LLC Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien &
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300 Courtney, P.C.
Blue Bell, PA 19122 10 South Clinton Street, Suite 302
Doylestown, PA 18901
WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES
BY:
, e, 1?4 oc?
Kevin J. uar e, Esquire
U
R E W rt
?^}?t..
... ?rA `
I
CERTIFICATE
PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
IN THE MATTER OF:
MICHAEL KENNEDY AND KENNEDY APPRAISALS
-VS-
ROTOTECH GROUP, ET AL
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
TERM,
CUMBERLAND
CASE NO: 08-4361
As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant
to Rule 4009.22
MCS on behalf of BENJAMIN J. TURSI, ESQ.
certifies that
(1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena
attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least
twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be
served,
(2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is
attached to this certificate,
(3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and
(4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which
is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena.
MCS on behalf of
DATE: 02/10/2009
BENJAMIN J. TURSI, ESQ.
Attorney for DEFENDANT
R2.06 133-H DE11-0847165 05772-LO1
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MICHAEL KENNEDY AND KENNEDY APPRAISALS TERM,
-VS-
ROTOTECH GROUP, ET AL
CASE NO: 08-4361
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND
THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21
DIVERSIFIED PRODUCT INSP. INC. SERVICE RECORDS
TO: RICHARD BOYD, JR., ESQ., PLAINTIFF COUNSEL
KEVIN RUANE, ESQ.
MCS on behalf of BENJAMIN J. TURSI, ESQ. intends to serve a subpoena
identical to the one that is 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 subpoena. If the twenty day notice period is
waived or if no objection is made, then the subpoena may be served. Complete
copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by completing
the attached counsel card and returning same to MCS or by contacting our local
MCS office.
DATE: 01/19/2009
CC: BENJAMIN J. TURSI, ESQ. - 447-82451
RICHARD BOYD, JR., ESQ.
NELSON, LEVINE, ET AL
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD
SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
MCS on behalf of
BENJAMIN J. TURSI, ESQ.
Attorney for DEFENDANT
THE MCS GROUP INC.
1601 MARKET STREET
#800
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
(215) 246-0900
R1.80S 133-H DE02-0460697 05772-CO1
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
MICHAEL KENNEDY AND KENNEDY APPRAISALS
File No. 08-4361
vs.
ROTOTECH GROUP, ET AL
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Custodian of Records for DIVERSIFIED PRODUCT INSP. INC.
(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 RIDER****
at The MCS GE=C Inc., 1601 Market Street, Suite 800-Philadelphia, PA 19103
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: BEND
ADDRESS: 10S.1
TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900
SUPREME COURT ID #:
ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant
FEB 10 2009
Date: / f
Seal of the Court
BY E COURT:
erk, it Division
45r-otho
Deputy
05772-01
EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS
TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR:
DIVERSIFIED PRODUCT INSP. INC.
1059 E. TRI-COUNTY BLVD
OLIVER SPRINGS, TN 37840
RE: 5772
MICHAEL KENNEDY
Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for
hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers.
INVOICES AND BILLS EVIDENCING ALL WORK DONE ON THIS CLAIM.
FILE #: 2006-11-55998
ANY AND ALL SERVICE RECORDS PERTAINING TO:
Dates Requested: up to and including the present.
Subject : MICHAEL KENNEDY
328 OLD YORK RD., NEW CUMBERLAND, PA
R1.80S 133-H SU10-0768852 05772-LO1
CZ3
w
' r
;1 t;1
rn
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5122
MICHAEL KENNEDY
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
Plaintiff(s)
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
ROTOTECH GROUP
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS,
INC.
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-4361
PRAECIPE TO MARK SETTLED. DISCONTINUED AND ENDED
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly have the dockets reflect that the above-captioned case has been settled,
discontinued and ended.
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: /9_-Z?j n /L I
ICHARD J D, ., ESQUIRE
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Dated: December 23, 2009
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215)358-5122
MICHAEL KENNEDY
KENNEDY APPRAISALS
Plaintiff(s)
V.
ARISTA ENTERPRISES, INC.
ROTOTECH GROUP
ROTOTECH ELECTRICAL
COMPONENTS, INC.
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA INC.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-4361
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs'
Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End was served on December 23, 2009, upon counsel listed
below by United States Mail, postage prepaid.
Patrick Lamb, Esquire
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C.
10 South Clinton Street, Suite 302
Doylestown, PA 18901
Dated: December 23, 2009
Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire
Law Offices of William J. Ferren
& Associates
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301
Blue Bell, PA 19422
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
BY: kLa n /?? ?
CHARD J. B D, J ., SQUIRE
TTORNEYS OR PLAINTIFFS
?Q?9 DEC c 9 Aa 1 f; L) j