Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-7454w. > David H Rosenberg, Esquire I.D. #20569 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Rosenberg@HHRLaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. `I45 2008 Civil Action - (XX) Law ( ) Equity ALICE NEGLEY and AMANDA DUNKELBERGER 113 Meeting House Road 39 Mel Ron Court Carlisle, PA 17013 VERSUS Carlisle, PA 17015 Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) Defendant(s) & Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue A Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. X Writ of Summons Shall be issued and forwarded to ( )Attorney (XX)Sheriff David H Rosenberg. Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Sign fit of Attorney (717) 238-2000 Supreme Co rt ID No. 20569 Name/Address/Telephone No. of Attorney Date: December 22, 2008 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: J,1 Aa/OS Pr honotaryBy Deputy Seal of the Court 2! t cp 00 v, CCr ?, ?n SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-07454 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND NEGLEY ALICE VS DUNKELBERGER AMANDA NOAH CLINE Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon DUNKELBERGER AMANDA the DEFENDANT at 1720:00 HOURS, on the 31st day of December-, 2009 at 39 MEL RON COURT CARLISLE, PA 17015 by handing to AMANDA DUNKELBERGER a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 4.50 Postage Surcharge 56 10.00 .00 33.06 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this __ day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 01/02/2009 HANDLER HENNING ROSENBERG By: Deputy Sheriff I ---_ A. D. i C yy 1 9?, David H Rosenberg, Esquire I.D.#20569 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Rosenberg@HHRLaw.com LINDA STINE, WILLIAM STINE, her :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband, and ALICE NEGLEY, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. :NO. 08-7454 AMANDA DUNKELBERGER, Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Lawyer Referral Service 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Lawyer Referral Service 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: David H Rosenberg, Esquire I.D.#20569 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Rosenberg@HHRLaw.com LINDA STINE, WILLIAM STINE, her :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband, and ALICE NEGLEY, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. :NO. 08-7454 AMANDA DUNKELBERGER, Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Linda Stine, William Stine, her husband, and Alice Negley, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by David H Rosenberg, Esq., and makes the within Complaint against the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Linda Stine, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 113 Meeting House Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. Plaintiff, William Stine, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 113 Meeting House Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. Plaintiff, Alice Negley, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Oakville Road, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257. 4. Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, is an adult individual currently residing at 52 Meade Drive, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 5. On or about January 17, 2007, Plaintiff, Linda Stine was operating a 2004 Hyundai, bearing Pennsylvania registration number C05 8EW, which was owned by Plaintiff, Alice Negley. 6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Linda Stine, was insured by Erie Insurance Company. Said policy included the limited tort option pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1705. 7. At all times material to this action, Plaintiff, Alice Negley, was a passenger in the vehicle being operated by Plaintiff, Linda Stine. 8. At all times material to this action, there were no adverse weather or road conditions. 9. On or about January 17, 2007, at approximately 2:06 pm, Defendant's vehicle was traveling northbound on South Hanover St., Cumberland County, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 10. At approximately that same time and place, suddenly and without any warning, Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, approached Plaintiff s stopped vehicle at a red light near the intersection of South Hanover and Willow Street. 11. Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, failed to safely react to the vehicles stopped in front of her and suddenly and without warning violently struck the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle. 2 12. After violently striking the Plaintiff's vehicle, Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, fled the scene, crossing into the oncoming traffic lane heading northbound on South Hanover St, and turning left at the Willow St. Intersection. 13. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff, Linda Stine, had to be extricated from her vehicle. 14. As a result of the accident, Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, was subsequently charged with and pled guilty to Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). 15. Plaintiff, Linda Stine, would thus be considered to have full tort insurance coverage because Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol and Plaintiff has sustained a serious impairment of bodily function and/or serious permanent disfigurement. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff's sustained extensive injuries as set forth more specifically below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE LINDA STINE v. AMANDA DUNKELBERGER 17. Paragraphs 1-16 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 18. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Linda Stine, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the road and traffic conditions then and there existing; (b) In driving her vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of persons or property in violation of 75 C.S.A. § 3714; 3 (c) In failing to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully stopped upon the roadway; (d) In failing to have due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon the road and the condition of the highway, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3310(a); (e) In failing to operate her vehicle under proper and adequate control so that she could have avoided a violent rear-end collision; (f) In failing to operate her vehicle in such a manner that would allow her to apply the brakes and stop before striking the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle; (g) In failing to operate her vehicle at a speed at which she could stop within the assured clear distance ahead, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; (h) In failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation and control of her vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; (i) In driving in a careless manner, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; (j) In driving while intoxicated, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731; (k) In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have her vehicle under such control that injury to persons or property could be avoided; (1) In driving her vehicle upon South Hanover Street in a manner endangering persons and property and in a manner with careless 4 disregard to the rights and safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (m) In failing to stop Defendants' vehicle after striking Plaintiff's vehicle and provide to Plaintiff the vehicle's information, her personal information and render aid to Plaintiff, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3744; and (n) In failing to stop Defendants' vehicle after being involved in an accident that resulted in serious injury and remain at the scene of the accident until she fulfilled the requirements of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3744, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3742. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, the Plaintiff, Linda Stine, has suffered serious injuries, including, but not limited to, abdominal contusions, back sprain, and a rotator cuff strain. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, the Plaintiff, Linda Stine, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, Plaintiff, Linda Stine, has suffered lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, the Plaintiff, Linda Stine, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be 5 required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, the Plaintiff, Linda Stine, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, the Plaintiff, Linda Stine, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties, to her great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 25. Plaintiff, Linda Stine, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Linda Stine, seeks damages from Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Dauphin County exclusive of interests and costs. COUNT II - GROSS NEGLIGENCE/OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT LINDA STINE v. AMANDA DUNKELBERGER 26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 27. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff were caused directly and proximately by the gross negligence and outrageous conduct of the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In driving in a careless manner, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; (b) In driving while intoxicated, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731; 6 (c) In operating her motor vehicle at a time when she was unfit to do so due to her consumption of alcohol; (d) In willfully, wantonly, and with careless disregard for the safety and health of Plaintiff, fleeing the scene of an accident, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3744; and (e) In willfully, wantonly, and with careless disregard for the safety and health of Plaintiff, fleeing the scene of an accident, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3746. 28. Defendant's actions in operating Defendant's motor vehicle under the aforementioned conditions amount to gross negligence, which Defendant knew or should have known, constituted reckless and wanton disregard for the safety of others. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, Plaintiff, Linda Stine, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, abdominal contusions, back sprain, and a rotator cuff strain. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, Plaintiff, Linda Stine, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 7 31. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, Plaintiff, Linda Stine, has suffered lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, Plaintiff, Linda Stine, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur expenses of said injuries, and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, Plaintiff, Linda Stine, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Linda Stine, seeks damages, including punitive damages, from the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Dauphin County exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE ALICE NEGLEY v. AMANDA DUNKELBERGER 8 35. Paragraphs 1-34 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 36. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Alice Negley, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the road and traffic conditions then and there existing; (b) In driving her vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of persons or property in violation of 75 C.S.A. § 3714; (c) In failing to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully stopped upon the roadway; (d) In failing to have due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon the road and the condition of the highway, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3310(a); (e) In failing to operate her vehicle under proper and adequate control so that she could have avoided a violent rear-end collision; (f) In failing to operate her vehicle in such a manner that would allow her to apply the brakes and stop before striking the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle; (g) In failing to operate her vehicle at a speed at which she could stop within the assured clear distance ahead, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; 9 (h) In failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation and control of her vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; (i) In driving in a careless manner, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; Q) In driving while intoxicated, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731; (k) In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have her vehicle under such control that injury to persons or property could be avoided; (1) In driving her vehicle upon South Hanover Street in a manner endangering persons and property and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (m) In failing to stop Defendants' vehicle after striking Plaintiff's vehicle and provide to Plaintiff the vehicle's information, her personal information and render aid to Plaintiff, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3744; and (n) In failing to stop Defendants' vehicle after being involved in an accident that resulted in serious injury and remain at the scene of the accident until she fulfilled the requirements of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3744, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3742. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, the Plaintiff, Alice Negley, has suffered serious injuries, including, but not limited to, leg and lower back pains, knee contusions, and hip pain. 10 38. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, the Plaintiff, Alice Negley, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, the Plaintiff, Alice Negley, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, the Plaintiff, Alice Negley, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, the Plaintiff, Alice Negley, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties, to her great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 42. Plaintiff, Alice Negley, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Alice Negley, seeks damages from Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Dauphin County exclusive of interests and costs. COUNT IV - GROSS NEGLIGENCE/OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT ALICE NEGLEY v. AMANDA DUNKELBERGER 11 43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 44. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff were caused directly and proximately by the gross negligence and outrageous conduct of the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In driving in a careless manner, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; (b) In driving while intoxicated, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731; (c) in operating her motor vehicle at a time when she was unfit to do so due to her consumption of alcohol; (d) In willfully, wantonly, and with careless disregard for the safety and health of Plaintiff, fleeing the scene of an accident, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3744; and (e) In willfully, wantonly, and with careless disregard for the safety and health of Plaintiff, fleeing the scene of an accident, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3746. 45. Defendant's actions in operating Defendant's motor vehicle under the aforementioned conditions amount to gross negligence, which Defendant knew or should have known, constituted reckless and wanton disregard for the safety of others. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, Plaintiff, Alice Negley, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, leg and lower back pains, knee contusions, and hip pain. 12 47. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, Plaintiff, Alice Negley, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 49. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, Plaintiff, Alice Negley, has been compelled, in orderto effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur expenses of said injuries, and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 50. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, Plaintiff, Alice Negley, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Alice Negley, seeks damages, including punitive damages, from the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Dauphin County exclusive of interest and costs. 13 COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM WILLIAM STINE v. AMANDA DUNKELBERGER 51. Paragraphs 1-50 are incorporated herein as fully set forth below. 52. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, Plaintiff, William Stine, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Linda Stine, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 53. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, the Plaintiff, William Stine, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, William Stine, seeks damages from Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of York County. Respectfully submitted, Date: t) HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: - - David H R senberg, Esquire Attorney/. .#20569 1300 Li glestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff 14 0 • VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. a 0 Linda L. Stine Date: 0-10 Rd VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 171 Alice Negley , Date 2oO FILF? ? ?r CE OF THE 2009 MAY -6 Phi 1: 3 4 Gut t ... .. V ti;. ' L. v 7'?. David H Rosenberg, Esquire I. D.#20569 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: RosenbergCHHRLaw.com LINDA STINE, WILLIAM STINE, her :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband, and ALICE NEGLEY, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. :NO. 08-7454 AMANDA DUNKELBERGER, Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please reinstate the Complaint in the above referenced matter HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG BY: Davi Rosenberg, Esq. 130 Linglestown Road H risburg, PA 17106 I. No.: 717-238-2000 Supreme Court ID No. 20569 Attorneys for Petitioner DATE: FILL Apy III l ;•3 1 J LLi17 (d 2. t, p o ATTq ito.oo co 14(OSCOo e sus-%32, Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County R Thomas Kline ? iJ' et "'WrIbrp Edward L Schorpp Sheriff Solicitor Ronny R Anderson Jody S Smith Chief Deputy OFF CF S ERIFF Civil Process Sergeant SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 05/29/2009 01:29 PM - R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant to wit: Amanda Dunkelberger, but was unable to locate her in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the within Complaint and Notice as not found as to the defendant Amanda Dunkelberger. Per neighbor Kevin Skura, the defendant moved out 4 months ago. The Carlisle Postmaster has advised the defendant has moved and left no forwarding address. An exact address is not available. SHERIFF COST: $38.84 SO ANSWERS, rl June 05, 2009 R THOMAS KLINE, SHERIFF 2008-7454 Linda Stine V Amanda Dunkelberger x . : rn r - "'L; - _? ?' Lyra - y..C David H Rosenberg, Esquire I.D.#20569 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Rosenberg HHRLaw.com LINDA STINE, WILLIAM STINE, her : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband, and ALICE NEGLEY, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : NO. 08-7454 AMANDA DUNKELBERGER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION -LAW AFFADAVIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF DAUPHIN I, TODD B. HASSINGER, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that at 7:45 p.m. on June 17, 2009, 1 personally handed to Amanda Dunkelberger, a blond female approximately 5'6" in height and appearing to be in her early 30s at 39 Mel Ron Court, Carlisle, PA 17015, a copy of the Complaint issued in the above-entitled action. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notarial Seal Terry G. Dudley, Notary Public Susquehanna Twp., Dauphin County My Commission Bores Aug. 22, 2010 Member, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries Sworn to before me Tb and subscribed this I q day of June, 2009. oC_ __;;? /1? 101, / 1-71 OF THIEF 2 0 3 9 iii 1 19 Psi? 112: 4, 3 r w ,f ytE -'i JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Phone: (717) 761-4540 E-mail: jjs@jdsw.com ALICE NEGLEY, Plaintiff Counsel for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 7454-2008 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMANDA DUNKELBERGER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendant Amanda Dunkelberger in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSO DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER ef'N?sM.. By: Date: July 8, 2009 371010 Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance has been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on July 8, 2009: David H. Rosenberg, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 JOHNliffetrson , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: J. Shipman, Esquire R?? ' Jl r it THE 2009 ,;il1_ _g Ph 1: 11 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Phone: (717) 761-4540 E-mail: jjs@jdsw.com Counsel for Defendant LINDA STINE, WILLIAM STINE, her IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF husband, and ALICE NEGLEY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 08-7454 Civil V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMANDA DUNKELBERGER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Linda Stine, William Stine and Alice Negley, and their counsel, David H. Rosenberg, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within Answer and New Matter within 20 days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. JOHNS-ON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER J?enVbKJ. Shipmayf, Esquire A orney I.D. No. 51785 Date: August 3, 2009 Counsel for Defendant JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Phone: (717) 761-4540 E-mail: ps@jdsw.com LINDA STINE, WILLIAM STINE, her husband, and ALICE NEGLEY, Plaintiffs V. Counsel for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-7454 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMANDA DUNKELBERGER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, by and through her counsel, Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire and Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted upon information and belief. 3. Admitted upon information and belief. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments 1 contained in paragraph number 5 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph number 6 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph number 7 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph number 8 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 10 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 2 11. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 11 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 12. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 12 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph number 13 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Admitted. 15. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 15 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 16. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 16 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 16, and the same are therefore denied. 3 COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE LINDA STINE v. AMANDA DUNKELBERGER 17. Ms. Dunkelberger incorporates herein by reference her answers to paragraph numbers 1 through 17 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 18. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 18 and each and every subparagraph (a) through (n) are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in paragraph 18 and each and every subparagraph (a) through (n) are specifically denied. 19. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 19 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 19, and the same are therefore denied. 20. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 20 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 20, and the same are therefore denied. 21. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 21 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable 4 investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 21, and the same are therefore denied. 22. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 22 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 22, and the same are therefore denied. 23. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 23 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 23, and the same are therefore denied. 24. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 24 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 24, and the same are therefore denied. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments 5 contained in paragraph number 25 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Amanda Dunkelberger respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed dismissed with prejudice. COUNT 11- GROSS NEGLIGENCE/OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT LINDA STINE v. AMANDA DUNKELBERGER 26. Ms. Dunkelberger incorporates herein by reference her answers to paragraph numbers 1 through 25 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 27. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 27 and each and every subparagraph (a) through (e) are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in paragraph 27 and each and every subparagraph (a) through (e) are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 28. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 28 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 29. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 29 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 6 belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 29 and the same are therefore denied. 30. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 30 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 30 and the same are therefore denied. 31. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 31 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 31 and the same are therefore denied. 32. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 32 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 32 and the same are therefore denied. 33. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 33 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 7 belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 33 and the same are therefore denied. 34. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 34 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 34 and the same are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Amanda Dunkelberger respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and any and all claims being asserted against her be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE ALICE NEGLEY v. AMANDA DUNKELBERGER 35. Ms. Dunkelberger incorporates herein by reference her answers to paragraph numbers 1 through 34 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 36. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 36 and each and every subparagraph (a) through (n) are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in paragraph 36nd each and every subparagraph (a) through (n) are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 37. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 37 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable 8 investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 37, and the same are therefore denied. 38. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 38 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 38, and the same are therefore denied. 39. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 39 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 39, and the same are therefore denied. 40. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 40 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 40, and the same are therefore denied. 41. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 41 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable 9 investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 41, and the same are therefore denied. 42. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph number 42, and the same are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Amanda Dunkelberger respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT IV - GROSS NEGLIGENCE/OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT ALICE NEGLEY v. AMANDA DUNKELBERGER 43. Ms. Dunkelberger incorporates herein by reference her answers to paragraph numbers 1 through 42 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 44. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 44 and each and every subparagraph (a) through (e) are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in paragraph 44 and each and every subparagraph (a) through (e) are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 45. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 45 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 10 46. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 46 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 46 and the same are therefore denied. 47. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 47 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 47 and the same are therefore denied. 48. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 48 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 48 and the same are therefore denied. 49. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 49 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 49 and the same are therefore denied. 11 50. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 50 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 50 and the same are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Amanda Dunkelberger respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and any and all claims being asserted against her be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM WILLIAM STINE v. AMANDA DUNKELBERGER 51. Ms. Dunkelberger incorporates herein by reference her answers to paragraph numbers 1 through 50 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 52. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 52 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 52 and the same are therefore denied. 53. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 52 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Ms. Dunkelberger is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 12 belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 52 and the same are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Amanda Dunkelberger respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER By way of further answer and reply, Ms. Dunkelberger interposes the following new matter defenses: 54. That the Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. 55. That the Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and by the limited tort option. 56. That if it should be found that the Defendant was negligent, which is denied, then in that event any such negligence was not a proximate cause nor factual cause of the Plaintiffs' harms. 57. That the Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action may have been caused in whole or in part by the negligence of third parties or entities not presently involved in this action. 58. That the Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action may have been caused by an intervening, superseding cause. 13 59. That the Plaintiffs may have failed to mitigate their injuries and damages as alleged. 60. That the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries may have been pre-existing. 61. That the Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act and by the Plaintiffs' own comparative negligence. Respectfully submitted, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER JefVrsoK JrShipman, Esqt Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant Date: August 3, 2009 14 VERIFICATION I, Amanda Dunkelberger, have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter, and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; I verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Date: ?4 [P b Dunkelberge? 372433 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter has been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on August 3, 2009 David H. Rosenberg, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 JOHNSO DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By Jeff rso J. hipman, E?Iquire OF THE MY 2M AU?I'j "++ l i i : 5 David H Rosenberg, Esquire I. D.#20569 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Rosenberg@HHRLaw.com LINDA STINE, WILLIAM STINE, her :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband, and ALICE NEGLEY, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. :NO. 08-7454 AMANDA DUNKELBERGER, Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Linda Stine, William Stine and Alice Negley, by and through their attorney, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by David H Rosenberg, Esq., and responds to the Defendant's allegations of New Matter as follows: 54 - 61. These averments are all conclusions of law and do not require a response. If a response was required, these averments would be specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Linda Stine, William Stine and Alice Negley, seek damages, including punitive damages, from the Defendant, Amanda Dunkelberger, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: DATED: -3 David 14 Ros nberg, Esquire Supreme C urt I.D. # 20569 1300 Ling stown Road Harrisbur , PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff 2 LINDA STINE, WILLIAM STINE, her :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband, and ALICE NEGLEY, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. :NO. 08-7454 AMANDA DUNKELBERGER, Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 6th day of August, 2009, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Reply To New Matter was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Jefferson J. Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C. 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: _ ///)) k? / David Rosenberg, Esquire Supr a Court I.D. # 20569 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 / (717) 238-2000 DATED: l Attorney for Plaintiffs 3 IV CIUI 1 . David H Rosenberg, Esquire I.D.20569 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax: (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Rosenberg@hhrlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff LINDA STINE, WILLIAM STINE, her husband, and ALICE NEGLEY, Plaintiffs V. AMANDA DUNKLEBERGER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-7454 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 26' day of August 2009, I hereby certify that I have, on this date, served the within Plaintiff s, Linda Stine, William Stine & Alice Negley's, answers to Defendants' Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents addressed to Plaintiff, via first class mail by sending a true and correct copy of same to their attorney and including copies to all parties of interest as follows: Amanda Dunkleberger c/o Jefferson J. Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C. 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: ? David Rosenberg, Esquire Atto ey ID# 20569 130 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: 11871 a,(0) 0? (717)238-2000 17 THE PP! .., 2009 AUG 28 PM 2: 13 0F ?WOT 2010 MAR -2 PM 2: 12 Cw - ?Uw David H Rosenberg, Esquire I.D.#20569 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Rosenberg@HHRLaw.com LINDA STINE, WILLIAM STINE, her :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband, and ALICE NEGLEY, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. :NO. 08-7454 AMANDA DUNKELBERGER, Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the Docket in the above captioned matter as Settled, Discontinued and Satisfied. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: (/ v David H R ,96enberg, Esquire Suprem Court I.D. # 20569 1300 Li glestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 DATED: ?'=)/l/G?? Attorney for Plaintiff