Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-6911ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS By: BRIAN D. ROSENTHAL, Esquire Identification No.: 26473 Seven Penn Center, 9t~ Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)656-4100 Attorney for Plaintiff AMANDA SCHAEFFER -VS- JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCAY : and : MARY ANNE LARD : and : JANICE M. JANJANIN : and : COLIN M. LEIGHT : Defendants : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS-CIVIL ACTION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue Writ of Summons - Civil Action in the above captioned matter. ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS Dated: Attorney for Plaintiff ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS By: Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire Identification No.: 26473 Seven Penn Center, 9th Fl. 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)656-4100 Attorney for Plaintiff AMANDA SCHAEFFER 35 Avenrowe Court Fairless Hills, PA 19030 Plaintiff -VS- JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCAY 130 Cedar Street Carlisle, PA 17013 and MARY ANNE LARD 3460 Spring road Carlisle, PA 17013 and JANICE M. JANJANIN 1122 Fern Wood Avenue Maple Shade, NJ 08052 and COLIN M. LEIGHT 1122 Fern Wood Avenue Maple Shade, NJ 08052 Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA : NO. ~)1-- ~'qlI WRIT OF SUMMONS - CML ACTION TO ALL DEFENDANTS CAPTIONED ABOVE: You are notified that Plaintiff, Amanda Schaeffer has commenced an action in Action Trespass against you. Date: SEAL OF THE COURT PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND Deputy vii PA SHERIFF'S RETURN - CASE NO: 2001-06911 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SCHAEFFERAMANDA VS REDCAY JOHN ET AL REGULAR DAWN KELL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon REDCAY JOHN the DEFENDANT , at 0021:14 HOURS, on the 14th day of December , 2001 at 867 ALEXANDER SPRING ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to STEPHANIE REDCAY (WIPE) 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 3.25 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 31.25 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~ day of t Prot~onotar~ So Answers: 12/20/2001 ROSENTHAL & WEISBERG Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN CASE NO: 2001-06911 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SCHAEFFERAMANDA VS REDCAY JOHN ET AL - REGULAR DAWN KELL Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon REDCAY STEPHANIE the DEFENDANT at 0021:14 HOURS, at 867 ALEXANDER SPRING ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 STEPHANIE REDCAY on the 14th day of December , 2001 by handing to 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 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this '~ ~ day of ~ ~.l~ A.D. /PlYo~thonotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 12/20/2001 ROSENTHAL & WEISBERG Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-06911 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SCHAEFFER AM3tNDA VS REDCAY JOHN ET AL JASON VIORAL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon LARD MARY ANNE the DEFENDANT , at 0021:05 HOURS, at 3460 SPRING ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 MARY ANNE LARD on the 18th day of December , 2001 by handing to 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 6.00 Service 3.25 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 19.25 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ?~ day of ~-~ .2~ A.D. ~r~thonotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 12/20/2001 ROSENTHAL & WEISBERG /,~Dep~t y Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN CASE NO: 2001-06991 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WASHINGTON MUTUAL HOME LOANS VS KUHN SCOTT R - REGUI~AR MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT - MORT FORE was served upon KUHN SCOTT R the DEFENDANT , at 1642:00 HOURS, on the 19th day of December , 2001 at 708 COCKLIN STREET MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to LOUISE WAGGNER, ADULT GIRL- FRIEND OF DEFT. a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT - MORT FORE NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18 00 6 5O 00 10 00 00 34 50 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this [~LJ day of  ~2~ A.D. /?rothon0tar~ ' / So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 12/26/2001 PURCELL KRUG & HALLER /7 ' D~puty S rz ~ SHERIFP'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-06991 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WASHINGTON MUTUAL HOME LOANS VS KUHN SCOTT R JASON VIORAL Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT - MORT FORE was served upon TENAi~T/OCCUPANT the DEFENDANT , at 1825:00 HOURS, on the 20th day of December , 2001 at 38 BEAVER STREET ENOLA, PA 17025 by handing to CHARLES M3iN-N, TENNANT a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT - MORT FORE NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 10.40 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 26.40 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~ day of ~ ...... ~6~2~ A.D. /-'iProthono[ar~ ! ~ So Answers R. Thomas Kline 12/26/2001 PURCELL KRUG AND HALLER .[~D~putyC/S~eriff AMANDA SCHAEFER, : ]N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : NO. 01-6911 Civil Term : JOHN and STEPHANIE REDCAY, MARY: ANNE LARD, JANICE M. JANJANIN, : and COLIN M. LEIGHT, : Defendants : ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel on behalf of the Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, in the above-captioned case. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN BY: ~ MATTHEW L. OWL'*Iq S, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 76080 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3501 Attomey for Defendant Mary Anne Lard CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan M. Williams, an employee with the law firm of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this ~ ~t~_. day of April, 2002, a tree and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via U.S. first-class mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS Seven Perm Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 SUSAN M. WILLIAMS AMANDA SCHAEFER, Plaintiff JOHN and STEPHANIE REDCAY, MARY: ANNE LARD, JANICE M. JANJANIN, : and COLIN M. LEIGHT, : Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6911 Civil Term PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Rule upon the Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days hereof or suffer judgment non pros. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, BY: ~ I.D. No. 76080 4200 Crams Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3501 Attorney for Defendant Mary Anne Lard CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan M. Williams, an employee with the law firm of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this ~ r~ day of April, 2002, a tree and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via U.S. first-class mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 SUSAN M. WILLIAMS AMANDA SCHAEFER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : NO. 01-6911 Civil Term : JOHN and STEPHANIE REDCAY, MARY: ANNE LARD, JANICE M. JANJANIN, : and COLIN M. LEIGHT, : Defendants : RULE AND NOW, this ~ay of ]~/~'3r2__'~ (_ , 2002, upon consideration of the foregoing Praecipe, a Rule is hereby issued upon the Plaintiff, Amanda Schaefer, to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days or suffer judgment of non pros. SEAL BY THE PROTHONOTARY: ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS By: BRIAN D. ROSENTHAL, Esquire Identification No.: 26473 Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)656-4100 AMANDA SCHAEFFER -VS- JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCAY and MARY ANNE LARD and JANICE M. JANJANIN and COLIN M. LEIGHT Defendants Attorney for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL TERM NO. 01-6911 COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION 2050 - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT 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 ease may proceed without you and a judgement may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or of any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE TI-IlS 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. Lawyer Referral Service Cumberland County Bar Association Cumberland Law Journal 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 1. Plaintiff, Amanda Schaeffer is an individual residing at 35 Aveurowe Court, Faifless Hills, PA 19030. 2. Defendants, John and Stephanie Redcay, are individuals residing at 130 Cedar Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant, Mary Anne Lard is an individual residing at 3460 Spring Road, Carlisle, PA 17013. 4. Defendant, Janice M. Janjanin, is an individual residing at 1122 Fern Wood Avenue, Maple Shade, NJ 08052. 5. Defendant, Colin M. Leight, is an individual residing at 1122 Fern Wood Avenue, Maple Shade, NJ 08052. 6. Pursuant to the police report, at all times material hereto, defendant Stephanie Redcay was driving a 1988 Dodge Caravan, Pennsylvania Tag #JGP-298, which was owned by defendants John and Stephanie Redcay. (See Exhibit "A") 7. Pursuant to the police report, at all times material hereto, defendant, Mary Anne Lard was the owner and operator of a 1997 Memury Villager, Pennsylvania Tag #ASZ-9831. (See Exhibit "A") 8. Pursuant to the police report, at all times material hereto, defendant, Colin M. Leight was the driver of a 1995 Nissan Altima Tag # WT742 NJ, which was owned by defendant Janice M. Janjanin. (See Exhibit "A") 9. Pursuant to the police report, plaintiff Amanda Schaeffer was a front seat passenger in the motor vehicle driven by defendant, Colin M. Leight and owned by defendant Janice M. Janjanin. (See Exhibit "A"). 10. On or about December 9, 1999, at approximately 8:09 a.m., on S. Hanover Street, at it's 2 intersection with Walnut Street, Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, plaintiff Amanda Schaeffer was a front seat passenger, in the motor vehicle owned by defendant Janice M. Janjanin and being driven by defendant Colin M. Leight, southbound in the left hand lane, when it was caused to stop behind a vehicle waiting to make a left hand turn at the intersection with Walnut Street. Suddenly and without warning, the vehicle owned and operated by defendant, Mary Anne Lard, who had been violently struck in the rear by the vehicle driven by defendant Stephanie Redcay and owned by defendants John and Stephanie Redcay, did violently and negligently strike the vehicle operated by defendant Colin M. Leight, in which plaintiff Amanda Schaeffer was a front seat passenger, in the rear causing injuries to plaintiff Amanda Schaeffer, as hereinafter more fully set forth. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants in a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs plus attorneys fees. COUNT I PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS, JOHN RECAY and STEPHANIE REDCAY 11. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 10, inclusive, as if set forth fully at length herein. 12. At the time and place of the aforesaid, the negligence, carelessness recklessness of the defendants consisted of the following: (a) defendant driver, Stephanie Redcay was operating said motor vehicle at a high and excessive rate of speed under the circumstances; (b) defendant driver, Stephanie Redcay failed to have said motor vehicle under proper and adequate control at the time; (c) defendant driver, Stephanie Redcay failed to observe a clear assured distance ahead; 3 (d) defendant driver, Stephanie Redeay's failure to give proper and sufficient warning of the approach of her vehicle; (e) defendant driver, Stephanie Redcay was operating said vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety and position of the plaintiff berein at the point aforesaid; (f) defendant driver, Stephanie Redcay's failure to keep a proper lookout; (g) defendant driver, Stephanie Redeay's failure to apply the brakes of the vehicle in such a manner that it could be stopped in time to avoid a collision; (h) defendant driver, Stephanie Redeay's failure to exercise care and diligence in the operation of said vehicle so as to avoid a collision; (i) defendant driver, Stephanie Redcay's operating said vehicle in violation of the Ordinances of Cumberland County, and the Statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (j) defendant driver, Stephanie Redcay failure to stop her vehicle to avoid a collision, causing injuries to plaintiff; (k) negligence at law; and (1) such other acts or failures to act which may constitute negligence as shall become apparent during the course of discovery pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure or at the triai of this cause. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the defendant, Stephanie Redcay as herein above described, plaintiff Amanda Schaeffer was caused to suffer severe injuries to her body and extremities, including but not limited to cervical acceleration deceleration injury, injury to her lower back, right neck and shoulder pain with limitation of lateral rotation, treatment of cortisone and lidocaine injections to right trapezius, cervical sprain and strain, lumbar strain and sprain together with severe shock to her nerves and nervous system, neck injuries, 4 head injuries and traumatic injuries to her legs together with a severe shock to her nerves by reason of which she is rendered sick, sore, lame, prostrate and disordered and was made to undergo great mental anguish and physical pain and as a result of which she has suffered, yet suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time in the future. 14. Plaintiff has suffered serious impairment of a bodily function and/or permanent serious disfigurement as a result of the negligence of Defendant. 15. Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure of the aforesaid injuries, to expend large and various sums of money for medicine and medical attention and she will be required to expend large sums of money of the same purpose in the future. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant as described in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff has been and may continue to be prevented from attending to her usual activities, duties and occupations, and has suffered and may continue to suffer a loss of earnings and earning capacity, to her great financial damage and expense. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants in a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs plus attorneys fees. COUNT II PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT~ MARY ANNE LARD 17. Plaintiff incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16, inclusive, as if set forth fully at length herein. 18. At the time and place of the aforesaid, the negligence, carelessness recklessness of the defendant consisted of the following: (a) failing to have said motor vehicle under proper and adequate control at the time; (b) failing to observe a clear assured distance ahead; (c) failure to give proper and sufficient warning of the approach of her vehicle; (d) failure to operate said vehicle withom due regard for the rights, safety and position of the plaintiff herein at the point aforesaid; (e) failing to keep a proper lookout; (f) failing to apply the brakes of the vehicle in such a manner that it could be stopped in time to avoid a collision; failing to exercise care and diligence in the operation of said vehicle so as to (g) avoid a collision; (h) operating said vehicle in violation of the Ordinances of Cumberland County, and the Statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (i) failed to have proper and adequate control of her vehicle in order to avoid a collision, causing injuries to plaintiff (j) negligence at law; and (k) such other acts or failures to act which may constitute negligence as shall become apparent during the course of discovery pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure or at the trial of this cause. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the defendant as herein above described, plaintiff Amanda Schaeffer was caused to suffer severe injuries to her body and extremities, including but not limited to cervical acceleration deceleration injury, injury to her lower back, right neck and shoulder pain with limitation of lateral rotation, treatment of cortisone and lidocaine injections to right trapezius, cervical sprain and strain, lumbar strain and sprain together with severe shock to her nerves and nervous system, neck injuries head injuries and traumatic injuries to her legs together with a severe shock to her nerves by reason of which she is rendered sick, sore, lame, 6 prostrate and disordered and was made to undergo great mental anguish and physical pain and as a result of which she has suffered, yet suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time in the future. 20. Plaintiff has suffered serious impairment of a bodily function and/or permanent serious disfigurement as a result of the negligence of Defendant. 21. Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure of the aforesaid injuries, to expend large and various sums of money for medicine and medical attention and she will be required to expend large sums of money of the same purpose in the future. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant as described in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff has been and may continue to be prevented from attending to her usual activities, duties and occupations, and has suffered and may continue to suffer a loss of earnings and earning capacity, to her great financial damage and expense. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants in a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs plus attorneys fees. COUNT III PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT. COLIN M. LEIGHT 23. Plaintiff incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusive, as if set forth fully at length herein. 24. At the time and place of the aforesaid, the negligence, carelessness recldessness of the defendant consisted of the following: (a) failure to exercise due care with regard to the front-seat passenger, who was in the vehicle he was operating; (b) failing to have said motor vehicle under proper and adequate control at the time; 7 (c) falling to observe a clear assured distance ahead; (d) failure to operate said vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety and position of the plaintiff herein at the point aforesaid; (e) falling to keep a proper lookout with regard to the safety and well being of his front seat passenger, who was in the vehicle he was driving; falling to exercise care and diligence in the operation of said vehicle so as to (t) avoid a collision; (g) the Statutes of the (h) (i) (J) operating said vehicle in violation of the Ordinances of Cumberland County, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; failed to avoid a collision, causing injuries to plaintiff; negligence at law; and such other acts or failures to act which may constitute negligence as shall become apparent during the course of discovery pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure or at the trial of this cause. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the defendant as herein above described, plaintiff Amanda Schaeffer was caused to suffer severe injuries to her body and extremities, including but not limited to cervical acceleration deceleration injury, injury to her lower back, right neck and shoulder pain with limitation of lateral rotation, treatment of cortisone and lidocalne injections to right trapezius, cervical sprain and strain, lumbar strain and sprain together with severe shock to her nerves and nervous system, neck injuries head injuries and traumatic injuries to her legs together with a severe shock to her nerves by reason of which she is rendered sick, sore, lame, prostrate and disordered and was made to undergo great mental anguish and physical pain and as a result of which she has suffered, yet suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time in the future. 26. Plaintiff has suffered serious impairment of a bodily function and/or permanent serious disfigurement as a result of the negligence of Defendant. 27. Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure of the aforesaid injuries, to expend large and various sums of money for medicine and medical attention and she will be required to expend large sums of money of the same purpose in the future. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant as described in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff has been and may continue to be prevented from attending to her usual activities, duties and occupations, and has suffered and may continue to suffer a loss of earnings and earning capacity, to her great financial damage and expense. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants in a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs plus attorneys fees ROSENTHAL & STIL~USS /~D 9 VERIFICATION AMA~n~ mC~ARFER , Plaintiff herein, makes this verification and states that the statements made in the foregoing pleading~xm~m~%Xare true and correct to the best of ~/her knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED:. April 17, 2002 John R. Ninosky, Esquire I.D. ~78000 320 Market Street P.O. BOX 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Red¢lay AMANDA SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff VS. JOHN AND STEPH~/qIE REDCLAY and MARY ANNE LARD and JANICE M. JANJ/~NIN and COLIN M. LEIGHT, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : : NO.. 01-6911 : : : CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and : NO. PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE enter the appearance of the the Defendants, John and Stephanie Redclay, captioned matter. GOLDBERG, KATZMA. N & SHIPMAN, undersigned on behalf of in the above- DATE: A~ril 22, 2002 77028.1 Joh~-A. Ninosky, Esquire Attorney I.D. 78000 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Redclay CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the ~day of /~ , 2002, addressed to the following: Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire Rosenthal & Strauss Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 17103 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Joh~ R. Ninosky,'Esquir~ P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys for Plaintiff Telephone: (717) 234-4261 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 {717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Redclay AMANDA SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff VS. JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCAY and MARY ANNE LARD and JANICE M. JANJANIN and COLIN M. LEIGHT, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO.. 01-6911 P~ELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFE~-DANTS JOHN ~ STEPHANIE ~EDCAY AND NOW, come Defendants John and Stephanie Redcay, by and through their counsel, Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C., who file these Preliminary Objections by respectfully stating the following: 1. Plaintiff filed a Complaint on April 19, 2002. 2. This matter allegedly arises from an automobile accident which occurred on December 9, 1999, at the intersection of South Hanover Street and Walnut Street in the Borough of Carlisle. {See Plaintiff's Complaint Paragraph 10). when a Redcay, Plaintiff alleges that this chain reaction occurred vehicle owned by Mr. and Mrs. Redcay, and operated by Mrs. struck a vehicle owned and operated Defendant Mary Ann Lard. The Lard vehicle then struck a vehicle owned by Defendant Janice M. Janjanin, and which was being operated by Defendant Colin Leight. Plaintiff was allegedly a front seat passenger in the vehicle operated by Mr. Leight. (See Plaintiff's Complaint Paragraph 10). 4. The only allegation concerning Mr. Redcay is that he was a co-owner of the vehicle operated by his wife at the time of the accident. 5. There is no allegation of negligence concerning Mr. Redcay. 6. Concerning the allegations of negligence against Mrs. Redcay, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, the following in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint: At the time and place of the aforesaid, the negligence, carelessness (sic} recklessness of the defendants consisted of the following: defendant driver, Stephanie Redcay's operating said vehicle in violation of the Ordinances of Cumberland County, and the Statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; 2 k) 1) negligence at law; and such other acts or failures to act which may constitute negligence as shall become apparent during the course of discovery pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure or at the trial of this cause. o Paragraph 13 of the Complaint states in part: As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness recklessness of the defendant Stephanie Redcay as herein described, plaintiff Amanda Schaeffer was caused to suffer severe injuries to her body and extremities, including by limited to cervical acceleration deceleration injury, injury to her lower back, right neck and shoulder pain with limitation of lateral rotation, treatment of cortisone and lidocaine injections to right trapezius, cervical sprain and strain, lumbar strain and sprain together with severe shock to her nerves and nervous system, neck injuries, head injuries and traumatic injuries to her legs together with severe shock to her nerves by reason of which she is rendered sick, sore, lame, prostrate and disordered... 8. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028 governs Preliminary Objections. 9. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a) {4) states, "Preliminary Objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurrer)." 10. Plaintiff has alleged no facts which support a viable cause of action against John Redcay. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that a demurrer should be entered pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a) (4) concerning Plaintiff's cause of action against Defendant John Redcay. 11. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a) (3) states, "Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: insufficient specificity of a pleading." 12. It and (1) are insufficient specific. submitted that Paragraph 12(I), (k), from Plaintiff's Complaint. is respectfully submitted that Paragraph 12(I), (k), Therefore it is respectfully and (1) should be stricken 13. Additionally, it is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff's reference to suffering, including but not limited to: injury to her lower back, right neck, neck injuries, head injuries and traumatic injuries to her legs lack sufficient specificity. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that these portions of Paragraph 13 should be stricken from Plaintiff's Complaint. 4 WHEREFORE, Defendants John and Stephanie Redcay respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint. Specifically, respectfully request that a demurrer be entered to action alleged against John Redcay. requested that Paragraph 12(I), (k), Plaintiff's Complaint. Moreover, it is that Plaintiff's reference to suffering, limited to: injury to her lower back, right head injuries and traumatic injuries to her Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendants the cause of Further, it is respectfully and (1) be stricken from respectfully requested including but not neck, neck injuries, legs be stricken from Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZM~ & SHIP,S%N, P.C. Joh . nos y, Attorney I.D. 78000 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Redclay CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the day of ~ , 2002, addressed to the following: Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire Rosenthal & Strauss Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Matthew L. Owens, Esquire 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Joh6 R. NiHos~y, Esq~ireq P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys for Plaintiff Telephone: (717) 234-4261 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be tTpewritten and subnitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Plo~-~e ]ist the within matter for the next Arg~nent Court. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in ~t]] ) AMANDA SCHAE~R JOHN and STEPHANIE REDCAY, and ligRY A~qE LARD and JANICE M. JANJANIN and COLIN M. LI[;li'l', (Plaintiff) (D~fendant) No. 01 Civil 6911 19 State matter to be argued (i.e., plm~ntiff's motion for new tr~, defendant's d~u~e~ to c~,~la~nt, etc.): Preli~u[narzy Objections of Defendants John and Stephanie Redcay 2. Identify counsel w~ w~]] argue case: (a) for plaintiff: address: (b) for defem4ant: ~kLress: Brian D. R~senthat, Esquire Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Ph~ladelphia, PA 19103 John R. Ninosky, Esquire gOLDBRRG, KATZI~a~N & SliP,AN, P.C. P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 I W l I notifT ~l I ~r~ies in writing within two d~ys that this ~e has been li~ted for argmemt. 4. Argunent Court Date: May 22, 2002 ~ 'f/~ r~e f~ Redcay CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the day of ~ , 2002, addressed to the following: Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire Rosenthal & Strauss Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Matthew L. Owens, Esquire 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Jo~n R. Ninosky, EsqUire P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys for Plaintiff Telephone: (717) 234-4261 ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS By: BRIAN D. ROSENTHAL, Esquire Identification No.: 26473 Seven Penn Center, 9t~ Floor 1655 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19105 (215)656-4100 Attorney for Plaintiff AMANDA SCHAEFFER : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA -VS- : JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCAY : CIVIL TERM and : MARY ANNE LARD : and : NO. 01-6911 JAN-ICE M. JANJANIN : and : COLIN M. LEIGHT : Defendants : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint-Civil Action, via United States Postal Service, Regular Mail, postage pre- paid to counsel of record as follows: John R. Ninosky, Esquire Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market Street Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Matthew L. Owens, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 I further certify that I served a tree and correct copy of the Amended Complaint-Civil Action, via United States Postal Service, both Certified Mail, Remm Receipt Requested, and Regular Mail, postage pre-paid to defendants, as follows: Colin M. Leight Janet Janjanin 1122 Femwood Avenue 1122 Femwood Avenue Maple Shade, NJ 08052 Maple Shade, NJ 08052 ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS BY: BmA~I D. RdS- I /TitAI , Attorney for Plaintiff PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and $,,hnitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please l i~t the within matter for th~ next Arg~nent Ccitt. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption n~st be stated in b,11 ) AMANDA SCHAEFFER, JOHN and STEPHANIE REDCAY MARY ANNE LARD JANICE M. JANJANIN COLIN M. LEIGHT ( p1 ~4ntiff ) (Defep~ant) }4o. 691,1 Civ-]_l 19 O1 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trla], defendant's d~marfer to cc~p]mint, etc.): Defendant Redcays' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Identify co~e].i~'lo~ll argue case: (a) for p]m~tiff: Brisn D. Rosenthal, Esquire 2~]~1~: Seven Penn Ctr., 9th Floor, 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (b) for defendant: John R. Ninosky, Esquire ~t,~,~ss: P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 3. I w~ll notify~]l parties in writingwithin tw~days that th~ case has been l(~ted for arg~nent. 4. ~t Cou~t ~ate: July 24, 2002 5/24/02 fo~ Defendants Redcay John R. Ninosky, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the ~ day of /~ , 2002, addressed to the following: -/ Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire Rosenthal & Strauss Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Matthew L. Owens, Esquire 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. John'R. Nihosky, Esqu~/re P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys for Plaintiff Telephone: (717) 234-4261 ~/WJ~N DA SCH~-E FFER, Plaintiff vs. JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCAY and MARY ANNE LARD and JANICE M. JANJANIN and COLIN M. LEIGHT, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : : NO.. 01-6911 : : : ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2002, upon consideration of the Preliminary Objections of Defendants John and Stephanie Redcay, and Plaintiff's response thereto, it is hereby ordered that Defendants' Preliminary Objections are GRANTED. Paragraph 12(i), (k), and (1) and Paragraph 18(f), (i), and (j) are stricken from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The reference to "including but not limited to..." are stricken from Paragraphs 13 and 19 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. BY THE COURT: 79914.1 John R. Ninosky, Esquire I.D. #78000 320 Market Street P.O. BOX 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Redclay ~/V~NDA SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff vs. JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCLAY and MJkRY A/gNE LARD and JA-NICE M. JA_NJ~_NIN and COLIN M. LEIGHT, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : : NO.. 01-6911 : : : PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PI2%INTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Defendants John and Stephani Redcay (hereinafter ~Mr. and Mrs. Redcay"), by and through their counsel, Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C., who file these Preliminary Objections by respectfully stating the following: 1. Mr. and Mrs. Redcay previously filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's original Complaint. 2. This matter allegedly arises from an automobile accident which occurred on Deceraber 9, 1999, at the intersection of South Hanover Street and Walnut Street in the Borough of Carlisle. (See Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Paragraph 10). 3. Plaintiff alleges that this chain reaction accident occurred when a vehicle owned by Mr. and Mrs. Redcay, and operated by Mrs. Redcay, struck a vehicle owned and operated by Defendant Mary Ann Lard. The Lard vehicle then struck a vehicle owned by Defendant Janice M. Janjanin, and which was being operated by Defendant Colin Leight. Plaintiff was allegedly a front seat passenger in the vehicle operated by Mr. Leight. (See Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Paragraph 10). 4. Concerning the allegations against Mrs. Redcay, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, the following in Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint: At the time and place of the aforesaid, the negligence, carelessness (sic) recklessness of the defendants consisted of the following: ±) k) 1) defendant driver, Stephanie Redcay's operating said vehicle in violation of the Ordinances of Cumberland County, and the Statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; negligence at law; and such other acts or failures to act which may constitute negligence as shall become apparent during the course of discovery pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure or at the trial of this cause. allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff, and states: Including, but not limited to cervical acceleration deceleration injury,. (emphasis supplied) Paragraph 13 of the Complaint lists the injuries 6. Concerning the allegations against Mr. Redcay, Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint states as follows: At the time of the aforesaid, the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant, John Redcay, consisted of the following: f) Negligently entrusted his vehicle to an individual who he knew, or should have known, had a propensity for operating said vehicle in violation of the ordinances of Cumberland County, and the Statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; ±) Negligently entrusting his vehicle to an individual who he knew, or should have known, had a propensity for negligence of law; and j) Negligently entrusted his vehicle to an individual who he knew, or should have known, had a propensity for other acts or failures to act, which may constitute negligence as shall become apparent in the course of discovery pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure throughout the trial of this case. 7. Concerning the alleged injuries, including but not limited to cervical acceleration deceleration injury. (emphasis supplied) 8. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028 (a) (3) states: Preliminary Objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: Insufficient specificity of a pleading." It is respectfully submitted that Paragraph 12(i) and (k) and Paragraph 18(f), (i), and (j) are insufficiently specific. Therefore it is respectfully submitted that these Paragraphs should be stricken from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 9. Additionally, it is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff's reference to injuries (including but not limited to), is also insufficiently specific. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this portion of Paragraphs 13 and 19 be stricken from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants, John and Stephani Redcay, respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Specifically, Mr. and Mrs. Redcay respectfully request that Paragraph 12(i), (k), and (1) and Paragraph 18(f), (i), and (j) be stricken from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Further, it is respectfully requested that the reference to ~including but not limited to..." be stricken from Paragraphs 13 and 19 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Alternatively, it is respectfully requested that Plaintiff be required to file a more specific pleading. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Attorney I.D. 78000 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Redcay CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the ~day of ~/~O/ , 2002, addressed to the following: Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire Rosenthal & Strauss Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Matthew L. Owens, Esquire 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. John ~. Nino~,-Esquirew P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys for Plaintiff Telephone: (717) 234-4261 AMANDA SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff JOHN and STEPHANIE REDCAY, MARY: ANNE LARD, JANICE M. JANJANIN, : and COLIN M. LEIGHT, : Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6911 Civil Term NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiff, Amanda Schaeffer c/o Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint on behalf of Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you. DATE: MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & BY: ~ MATTHEW'L. ~WENS, ESQUIRE-- I.D. No. 76080 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3501 Attorneys for Defendant Mary Anne Lard AMANDA SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff JOHN and STEPHANIE REDCAY, MARY: ANNE LARD, JANICE M. JANJANIN, : and COLIN M. LEIGHT, : Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6911 Civil Term ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT~ MARY ANNE LARD~ TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, by and through the undersigned counsel and responds to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 2. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 5. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied as a conclusion of law. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against the PlaimiffandJor other Defendants, John and Stephanie Redcay, Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight, together with such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. COUNT I. PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS~ JOHN REDCAY AND STEPHANIE REDCAY 11. Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, incorporates by reference her responses to Paragraphs 1 through 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 12. (a)-(1) Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 13. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 14. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 15. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 16. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. WItEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff and/or other Defendants, John and Stephanie Redcay, Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight, together with such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. COUNT II. PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANT~ MARY ANNE LARD 17. Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, incorporates by reference her responses to Paragraphs 1 through. 16 of Plaintiff's Complaim as if set forth herein at length. 18. (a)-(k) Denied as a conclusion of law. 19. Denied as a conclusion of law. 20. Denied as a conclusion of law. 21. Denied as a conclusion of law. 22. Denied as a conclusion of law. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, respectfully requests judgmem in her favor and against the Plaintiff and/or other Defendants, John and Stephanie Redcay, Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight, together with such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. COUNT III. PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANT COLIN M. LEIGHT 23. Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, incorporates by reference her responses to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiff' s Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 24. (a)-(j) Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 25. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 26. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 27. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 28. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. WIIEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff and/or other Defendants, John and Stephanie Redcay, Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight, together with such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF 29. 30. 31. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is barred and/or limited by all applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 32. No act or omission on the part of Defendant was a substantial or contributing factor in bringing about Plaintiff's alleged injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or damages being expressly denied. 33. Any and all injuries and/or damages as described by Plaintiff in her Complaint, the same being expressly denied, were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions on the part of Plaintiff and/or others over whom Defendant had no control nor right of control. 34. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 35. Plaintiff's claims are derivative in nature and are barred as a matter of law. 36. Defendant breached no duty of care owed to Plainfiffunder the circumstances. 37. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 38. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation Act. At all times material hereto, Defendant acted in a safe, legal and non-negligent 39. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiffand/or Defendants, John and Stephanie Redcay, Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight, together with such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS~ JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCAY~ JANICE M. JANJANIN AND COLIN M. LEIGHT~ PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. §2252(d) Responding Defendant incorporates by reference her responses to Paragraphs 1 through 39 of Plaintiff' s Complaint as if set forth herein at length. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d), should it be found that Responding Defendant is liable to Plaintiff, which liability is denied, Responding Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's damages, said damages being denied, were caused by the negligence, recklessness and/or carelessness and/or strict liability of Defendants and/or others, for the reasons set forth in the Complaint, and that Responding Defendant is entitled to contribution and/or indemnity, as may be appropriate, from such Defendants. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff and/or Defendants, John and Stephanie Redcay, Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight, together with such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & BY: ~ MATTHE~.~S, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 76080 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3501 Attorneys for Defendant Mary Anne Lard \05_A\LIABLMLOLLLPG\95023~R. KN~01226\00413 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with New Matter, and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is tree and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Answer with New Matter are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Mar~e Lard ' - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Angela Sanger, an employee with the law firm of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this ] ]~4,~ . day of June, 2002, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via U.S. first-class mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 John R. Ninosky, Esquire GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 ANGEL..~ SANGER ~ Attorneys for Plaintiff: JAMES A. DIAMOND, ESQUIRE Pa. I.D. No. 43902 JOHNSTON & DIAMOND, P.C. Suite 100, 150 Corporate Center Drive P. O. Box 98, Camp Hill, PA 17001-0098 Phone: (717) 975-5500 TERENCE SMITH, fin Adult Individual 3922 Emilridge Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 and P^TP~C~A SMrrH, an Adult Individual IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 01-6927 Civil 3922 Emilfidge Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Plaintiffs ACCENT LANDSCAPING, INC., A Pennsylvania Corporation 1636 Williams Grove Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 and DAVm E. FUm~MAN, an Adult Individual 1636 Williams Grove Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 Defendants : CIVIL AC~ON-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 re- quested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOLrR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TFJ.EPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Lawyer Referral Service Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 or 1-800-990-9108 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: JAMES A. DIAMOND, ESQUIRE Pa. I.D. No. 43902 JOHNSTON & DIAMOND, P.C. Suite 100, 150 Corporate Center Drive P. O. Box 98, Camp Hill, PA 17001-0098 Phone: (717) 975-5500 T~m~NCE SMTr~, an Adult Individual 3922 Emilridge Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 and PATRICIA SMITH, an Adult Individual 3922 Emilridge Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Plaintiffs ACCENTS LANDSCAPING, INC., A Pennsylvania Corporation 1636 Williams Grove Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 and DAVID E. FLm, EMAN, an Adult Individual 1636 Williams Grove Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 01-6927 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, TERRENCE SMITH and PATRICIA SMITH, husband and wife, through their attor- neys, James A. Diamond, Esquire and the law firm of Johnston & Diamond, P.C., file this Com- plaint against ACCENTS LANDSCAPING, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and DAVID E. FURE- MAN, an adult individual and sole proprietor, at times trading under the registered fictitious name "Accents Landscaping," and in support thereof alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs, Terence Smith and Patricia Smith, are adult individuals and citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a residential address at 3922 Emilridge Drive, Mechan- icsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. Defendant David E. Fureman is an adult individual who at relevant times did business under the registered fictitious name "Accents Landscaping," with a business address at 1636 Williams Grove Road, Dillsburg, Pennsylvania 17109. 3. Defendant Accents Landscaping, Inc., is and at relevant times was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a primary place of business located at 1636 Williams Grove Road, Dillsburg, Pennsylvania 17109. 4. Plaintiffs are, and at all relevant times were, owners of a home, which was at all relevant times their primary residence, located at 3922 Emilridge Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cum- befland County, Pennsylvania 17050. REPRESENTATIONS OF DEFENDANTS AND CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH PLAINTIFFS 5. At all relevant times including in February of 1999, David E. Fureman, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a business with which he was affiliated referred to by him as "Ac- cents Landscaping," held out to the public generally, and to Plaintiffs specifically, that he and such business had the expertise to engage in various aspects of professional design and construc- tion relating to landscaping, and functional structures relating to landscaping, including retaining walls. 2 6. Defendants specifically represented to the public in general, and to the Smiths di- rectly, including in written advertisements sent through the United States Mall that were received by the Smiths, that Accents Landscaping had a "Professional Design Staff." 7. Defendant David E. Fureman, on behalf of himself and/or Accents Landscaping, Inc., represented and held out to the public both orally and in written advertising materials that Defendants had an expertise specifically with respect to "Retaining Wall Construction." 8. A true and correct copy of a February 1, 1999 unsolicited mailing and its enclosed advertising brochure received by Plaintiffs in February of 1999 from Defendants is attached hereto as "Exhibit A," and incorporated herein by reference. 9. Subsequent to, and relying upon, the said mailing dated February 1, 1999 and rep- resentations therein, Plaintiffs contacted Defendants to explore the possibility of having major professional landscape design and construction work performed, including, among other things, the substantial reshaping and recontouring of a steep hill in their back yard, using a large retain- ing wall; the construction of various exterior staircases and other structures; as well as develop- ing basic planting plans and performing general landscaping services. 10. Thereafter, Plaintiffs had a series of meetings and discussions with Defendant David E. Fureman, purporting to act on behalf of a business known as "Accents Landscaping," regarding the potential engagement by Plaintiffs of Defendants to plan and execute substantial exterior work at Plaintiffs' residence. 11. In connection with such discussions and negotiations, Defendant David E. Fure- man orally represented to Plaintiffs that David E. Fureman and Accents Landscaping had the competence and expertise to, among other things, design and build retaining walls, and that they 3 were approved by a manufacturer of certain types of decorative blocks for retaining walls known as "E. P. Henry" to perform such work, and had a substantial amount of experience in designing and installing walls with that specific manufacturer's products. 12. In connection with the negotiations and discussions leading up to an agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants, Defendant David E. Fureman orally represented and prom- ised that the retaining wall and exterior staircases were fully warranted by Defendants for a pe- riod of five (5) years, and that in the event of any defects or failures during that time, Accents Landscaping would make any necessary repairs to correct the problems or defects. 13. In oral discussions between Plaintiffs and Defendant David E. Fureman at that time specifically concerning the said oral warranty, Defendant David E. Fureman used an exam- ple to the effect that if the wall fell down, Accents Landscaping would come out and build a new one. 14. In these discussions about the scope of the oral warranty being provided, Defen- dant David E. Fureman never indicated to Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs could be charged by the De- fendants for any work or materials necessary to correct any failures or deficiencies in Defen- dants' work. 15. Defendant David E. Fureman further represented to Plaintiffs in connection with such negotiations and discussions leading up to their agreement that Defendants had the neces- sary experience, expertise, competency and qualifications to design and plan the reshaping and recontouring of the land and the construction of the intended structures, including the large func- tional retaining wall and substantial exterior staircases. 4 16. Business cards, correspondence, adve~isements and proposed quotation docu- ments provided by Defendant David E. Fureman on behalf of himself and the business he re- ferred to as Accents Landscaping to Plaintiffs at the time of such negotiations and discussions did not state that Accents Landscaping was a corporate entity, and Defendant David E. Fureman at no time prior to the parties' entering a contract indicated in any way that his business Accents Landscaping was incorporated. 17. In or about February of 1999, Plaintiffs entered into an agreement, which was par- tially oral and partially memorialized in writing, with Defendants David E. Fureman and Accents Landscaping. 18. At the time the contract was entered, Plaintiffs were not aware and had no reason to be aware that the business name "Accents Landscaping" was the name of a corporation in which Defendant David E. Fureman is or was the sole officer, as well as being a registered trade name used by Defendant David E. Fureman individually. 19. Under the terms of the partially oral and partially written agreement between the parties, David E. Fureman, on behalf of himself and Accents Landscaping, promised in exchange for $15,800.00, to professionally plan and to be responsible for actual work concerning recon- touring and reshaping of the steep back yard at Plaintiffs' residential property, in addition to pro- riding other design and construction and general landscaping services. 20. As part of the said agreement, Defendants agreed to professionally plan, design, prepare drawings and specifications for, and be responsible for the actual construction work with respect to several functional structures on the property of Plaintiffs' residence, including (1) an approximately 125-foot-long by 5-foot-high retaining wall in the back yard that would be re- 5 quired to hold back the hillside as reshaped; (2) a large stalmase integrated into the center of the said retaining wall; and (3) a second exterior staircase on a hill on the side of the home. 21. Defendants were also obligated under the said agreement of February, 1999, to perform a small amount of general planting and landscaping work. 22. As part of the general landscaping planning and planting, Defendants also agreed to locate the rear boundary, using a Plot Plan that was provided by Plaintiffs which showed the location of two existing survey monuments delineating the said boundary, and to place plants along that perimeter. 23. Prior to Plaintiffs' entering the agreement with Defendants, Defendant David E. Fureman orally represented to Plaintiffs that Accents Landscaping was "fully insured." 24. In entering into the agreement with Defendants in February of 1999, Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the material representations and oral promises of Defendants, including, among others, the said representations concerning the five-year general warranty on the struc- tures, concerning the Defendants' expertise, competency and experience, and concerning the ex- istence of full insurance. 25. In connection with the oral arrangements entered into between Plaintiffs and De- fendants in February of 1999, a written Quotation form dated March 16, 1999, which was on a preprinted form of "Accents Landscaping," was provided to Plaintiffs. 26. The said Quotation form itemized the dollar amounts charged with respect to the aspects of the services covered by the agreements. 6 27. Preprinted on the back of the said "Quotation" form of Accents Landscaping were a small portion of certain specific terms, including a provision to the effect that, "All work to be performed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices." 28. The contract between the Plaintiffs and Defendants is partially confirmed in writ- ing in the form of the said written Quotation, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference. PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES PERFORMED BY DEFENDANTS 29. Defendant David E. Fureman, acting as a design professional for Accents Land- scaping, prepared plans and designs which were used by Defendants in consulting with Plaintiffs and in Defendants' ultimate construction of the functionai structures provided for under the Par- ties' agreement. 30. The said plans and designs, which included Computer Aided Design, or "CAD" plans, that were shown by David E. Fureman to Plaintiffs in consultation were not signed by any licensed engineer, landscape architect, or generai architect. 31. Defendant David E. Fureman represented to Plaintiffs that Accents Landscaping had the necessary experience and competency to perform such design work, including with re- spect to the reshaping of the land and the planning of the structures, including the large func- tional retaining wall and stairs. 32. In engaging Defendants to do the design and construction project at their resi- dence and in entering into the primarily oral agreement, Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defen- dants' oral warranty and oral representations. 7 33. Substantial portions of the services for which Plaintiffs contracted with Defen- dants constitute regulated services subject to professional licensing laws in Pennsylvania, includ- ing professional design services regulated under Pennsylvania's Landscape Architects' Registra- tion Law, 63 P.S. §§901, et seq. 34. Alternatively, various aspects of the planning and designing that Defendants agreed to perform under the agreement constitute engineering or general architectural design ser- vices subject to Pennsylvania professional licensing laws. 35. Defendant David E. Fureman was not at relevant times licensed in Pennsylvania as a Landscape Architect, as a general Architect, or as an Engineer of any kind. 36. Defendant Accents Landscaping, Inc. was not at any relevant time a firm regis- tered with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs as a firm which is permitted to provide architectural landscaping, general architectural design, or engineering design services. 37. Plaintiffs were not aware at the time of the contracting or the performance of any work by Defendants under the contract that Defendant David E. Fureman and Defendant Accents Landscaping, Inc. were not properly licensed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to perform professional design services of the types encompassed by the parties' agreement. DEFECTIVE DESIGN AND/OR WORK OF DEFENDANTS 38. Subsequent to the parties' entering the said agreement, Defendants planned and, either directly or through Defendants' subcontractors, excavated and reshaped and recontoured the steep hill behind Plaintiffs' residence, and constructed, either directly or through subcontrac- tors of Defendants, the large retaining wall, with its integrated staircase, and the second staircase provided for under the agreement. 39. Defendants also performed various other planting, seeding and general landscap- ing work provided for under the agreement. 40. Defendants, prior to and after Plaintiffs' entering the agreement, represented to Plaintiffs that Defendants were approved by the E. P. Henry Company, as the manufacturer of a certain decorative wall product known as "Coventry Wall" decorative blocks, to perform stmc- turai work of the nature being contracted, and that Defendants had substantial expertise specifi- caily with respect to such work. 41. In designing and constructing the said large retaining wall and two staircases, De- fendants included the said E. P. Henry Coventry Wall decorative block. 42. Based upon information in the form of admissions of Defendants, through their attorney in correspondence with the Attorney General's Office, Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that Defendants, at the time they planned and constructed the retaining wall, were actually aware that the use of such E. P. Henry Coventry Wall decorative block product for a retaining wall of the height being constructed was contrary to the minimum specifications of the said manufacturer. 43. Upon information and belief, the retaining wall as designed and constructed by Defendants is not in conformity with the minimum specifications of the said manufacturer. 44. Upon information and belief, the said manufacturer has different types of inter- locking block products that are specified for construction of retaining walls with the height and design characteristics of the wail designed and built by Defendants for Plaintiffs' property. 9 45. Defendants actually knew, or alternatively had reason to know, that the said Cov- entry Wall decorative blocks were not in accordance with standard practices or recommended procedures in the industry or of the specific manufacturer for which Defendants claimed to be an authorized installer. 46. Plaintiffs were not aware at the time of contracting or during the construction of the retaining wall portion of the project that the wall was being designed and built out of con- formity with minimum engineering or architectural design standards, standard practices, or specifications of the manufacturer for whom Defendants claimed to be an authorized installer. 47. Defendants never indicated to Plaintiffs prior to the contracting or the construc- tion of the retaining wall portion of the project that there was any risk of failure from the design, or that the retaining wall was expected to fail. 48. Defendants completed the design, recontouring of the land, construction, and planting services relating to the Quotation form that is attached hereto as "Exhibit B" by late May, 1999, and by May 31, 1999, Plaintiffs had fully paid to Defendants $15,813.00 for such work. DEFECTS AND FAILURE OF STRUCTURES 49. In or about January of 2000, Plaintiffs began to see signs that the retaining wall and stairs were beginning to fail, including the development of a visible bulge in the retaining wall. 50. Upon discovery of the initial signs that the retaining wall was beginning to fail, Plaintiffs immediately contacted Defendants to demand that corrective action be taken. 10 51. Defendants, through David E. Fureman, orally promised to perform, and subse- quently did perform, certain attempted repairs on the retaining wall which involved Defendants' removing portions of the retaining wall's blocks and rebuilding those portions using an adhesive between the layers of replaced blocks which originally had been designed and built by Defen- dants with any batter or adhesive. 52. The Defendants' attempted remedial work on the wall was performed in a sloppy and unworkmanlike manner, with the said adhesives visibly sticking out of the spaces between the glued block and being visibly slopped onto the faces of many of the decorative blocks, caus- ing the wall to be unsightly. 53. The said attempted remedial work failed to permanently correct the problem, and the retaining wall quickly began to again buckle and bulge out and otherwise fall. 54. In addition, portions of the staircases thereafter began to fall, with several steps beginning to pitch forward, or to the side, at steep angles, and several steps becoming loose. 55. The said problems with the retaining wall and staircases have subsequently be- come progressively worse, and the staircases as of the date of this Complaint are hazardous and cannot be used for their intended purpose. 56. With respect to the general plantings that were supposed to mark the rear bound- ary, Defendants incorrectly determined the rear boundary by a substantial amount and, as a re- sult, installed the plantings substantially inside the boundary of Plaintiffs' yard, causing Plaintiffs to unnecessarily lose the use of a portion of the flat area of their back yard as recontoured by De- fendants. 11 57. The two staircases that were part of the project as designed and constructed by Defendants were constructed of matching Coventry Wall architectural block so that those struc- tures would be architecturally and visually integrated with the retaining wall. REFUSAL TO REMEDY CONTINUING DEFECTS 58. After Defendants' attempted remedial work on the wall and stairs failed, Plaintiffs again contacted Defendants and made Defendants aware of such failures. 59. Notwithstanding the oral warranty, Defendants subsequently refused to take any further corrective work regarding the defects unless Plaintiffs paid Defendants additional monies. 60. Defendants, through David E. Fureman, however, did admit to Plaintiffs that the retaining wall had failed. FINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM TO DEFENDANTS 61. After repeated attempts to have Defendants perform the necessary remedial work failed to produce any results, Plaintiffs, through their attorney, James A. Diamond, Esquire, sent a written notice of claim to Defendants demanding that the defects be corrected. 62. A true and correct copy of a November 12, 2001 Notice of Claim sent on behalf of Plaintiffs to Defendants by certified mail is attached hereto as "Exhibit C," and incorporated herein by reference. 63. Notwithstanding the formal Notice of Claim, Defendants continued to fail or re- fuse to take necessary corrective action. 64. Defendants, through their attorney, David T. Kluz, have subsequently advised Plaintiffs, through their attorney, James A. Diamond, Esquire, that Defendants are not fully in- sured in that Defendants have no applicable errors and omissions coverage. 12 65. As designed and constructed, the interrelated retaining wall and stair structures are defective, dangerous, out of confomaity with standard practices, and are not fit or usable for their intended purposes. 66. Defendants' design of the wall and staircases was in conflict with standard prac- tices. 67. The retaining wall and stair structures were not built in a workmanlike manner. 68. The Defendants' work in locating and installing plants along the rear boundary was not done in a workmanlike manner or in accordance with the parties' agreement, in that the plants were placed in the wrong locations. 69. Defendants were negligent in their design of the retaining wall and stair struc- tures. 70. Defendants were negligent in their work constructing the retaining wall and stair structures. 71. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that Defendants did not have the necessary experience, competence and expertise to design and build the wall and stair structures called for under the parties' agreement. 72. Defendants' knowing misrepresentation that Accents Landscaping had profes- sional design capabilities and the competency to perform the work was intended to, and did, de- ceive Plaintiffs. 73. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that the cost of reasonably correcting the ma- terial problems and defects with Defendants' said work will cost well in excess of the original contract price. 13 74. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that appropriate remedial work will cost in excess of $27,000.00. 75. In order to perform the necessary remedial work to correct the defects and prob- lems with Defendants' design and construction, the structures as built by Defendants will need to be torn down, which will cause, among other losses for Plaintiffs, the loss of expensive shrub- bery and other plantings at the top of the retaining wall. 76. The fair market value of Plaintiffs' property upon which the work was done is many times greater than the cost of the necessary remedial work. 77. The defective structures as designed and currently constructed by Defendants on Plaintiffs' residential property are unsafe and unsightly, and have a substantial negative impact on the value of Plaintiffs' real estate. 78. Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial damages and losses as a result of Defendants' negligent and improper design and construction services and as a result of Defendants' deceptive practices. 79. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that Defendant David E. Fureman is the alter- ego of Defendant Accents Landscaping, Inc. 80. Plaintiffs' claims herein exceed the $25,000.00 threshold for mandatory arbitra- tion referral under the Cumberland County Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 14 COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT]EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTY (Terence and Patricia Smith v. Accents Landscaping, Inc. and David E. Fureman) 81. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 80 herein are hereby incorpo- rated by reference. 82. Defendants' failure to design and build the retaining wall and stairs in a work- manlike manner, and Defendants' failure to properly locate the rear boundary line and place plantings constitute material breaches of the parties' agreement. 83. Defendants' failure to involve professional design staff in the planning and de- signing of the projects constitutes a material breach of the parties' agreement. 84. Defendants' express refusal to take any further necessary action to correct the substantial defects and problems with Defendants' work breaches the express general warranty of the parties' agreement. 85. Defendants' defective design and construction services also breach implied war- ranties of merchantability and fitness for the intended purpose. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: a. Enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants, jointly and sever- ally, in the full amount of all damages and losses resulting from Defendants' said contract breaches, together with costs; and b. Order such other and further relief to Plaintiffs as this Court deems equita- ble. 15 COUNT II NEGLIGENCE (Terence and Patricia Smith v. Accents Landscaping, Inc. and David E. Fureman) 86. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 85 herein are hereby incorpo- rated by reference. 87. Defendant David E. Fureman individually and as an employee and agent of De- fendant Accents Landscaping, Inc., was negligent in his design and work relating to the reshap- ing of the land and installation of the said retaining wall and stair structures. 88. Plaintiffs have sustained, and continue to sustain, substantial losses and damages as a result of Defendants' negligence, including a substantial loss in the value of their real estate, and the loss of use of portions of their yard and the structures thereon. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: a. Enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants David E. Fureman and Accents Landscaping, Inc., jointly and severally, for the full amount of all losses and damages resulting from Defendants' negligence, together with costs, and b. Order such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable. COUNT III FEAtm (Terence and Patricia Smith v. Accents Landscaping, Inc. and David E. Fureman) 89. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 88 herein are hereby incorpo- rated by reference. 16 90. The said actions and misrepresentations of Defendants were fraudulent. 91. As a result of such fraudulent actions by Defendants, Plaintiffs have sustained, and continue to sustain, substantial losses and damages, including a substantial loss in the value of their real estate. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: a. Enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants David E. Fureman and Accents Landscaping, Inc., jointly and severally, for the full amount of all losses and damages as a result of Defendants' fraudulent and deceptive practices; for punitive dam- ages; and for costs; and b. Order such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable. COUNT IV UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW CLAIMS (Terence and Patricia Smith v. Accents Landscaping, Inc. and David E. Fureman) 92. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 91 herein are hereby incorpo- rated by reference. 93. Plaintiffs purchased the services at issue solely for personal and family--as op- posed to business--purposes. 94. Defendants' said deceptive and fraudulent conduct and practices were likely to create, and did create, confusion and misunderstanding on the part of Plaintiffs. 17 95. The said improvements to Plaintiffs' real property by Defendants were also below the standards or quality agreed to in writing in that the design and construction services at issue were not executed in a workmanlike manner or in accordance with standard practices. 96. Defendants' actions and conduct constitute "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" within the meaning of the Unfair Trade Practices and Con- sumer Protection Law, as amended, 73 P.S. §§201-1, et seq. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: a. Enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants David E. Fureman and Accents Landscaping, Inc., jointly and severally, for the full amount of all losses; for treble damages pursuant to 73 P.S. §201-9.2; for statutory attorneys' fees pursuant to 73 P.S. §201-9.2; and for costs; and b. Order such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSTON &Dna. MOND, P.C. Suite 100, 150 Corporate Center Drive Post Office Box 98 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17001-0098 (717) 975-5500 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: June 11, 2002 18 EXHIBIT A cents LANDSCAPING February 1, 1999 Ivir. & Mrs. Terence Smith 3922 Emilfidge Drive M=chanicshurg, PA 17055 Dear Terence & PaUicia: Welcome to the Mechanicsburg area. We hope over the past several months you have become settled in your new house and are getting better acquainted with the community. We ~ trust you willfind the Mechanicsburg area a very exciting and unique place to live and work. We would like to take this opportunity to provide you with some information regarding the various services Accents Landscaping provides to you as a home-owner. Enclosed you will find a brochure describing us and the services we offer to the community. As a new home-owner in the area we offer a free Landscape Consultation and $ '50.00 off your first order over $ 100.00 including any design work which we render for your property. During your Landscape Consultation we will be glad to answer any questions or concerns you may have concerning your landscape and discuss the potential benefits a well landscaped home provides. We will also explain the services provided by Accents Landscaping at this time to help in your decision making process, Please take a moment to read the enclosed brochure and telephone us at 1-800-201-3687 to ~ Landscape Consultation. Again, Welcome to the area and we hope hear from you soon! Sincerely, ACCENTS LANDSCAPING David E. Fureman PA Accredited Nurseryman 1636 Williams Grove Road Dillsburg, PA 17019-9006 Tel: (7t7) 432.8942 (717) 728.9968 (800) 201.3687 Fax: (717) 432,8832 cents LANDSCAPING SERVICES Custom - Detailed landscape design drawn to scale for your property, including every aspect of the home landscape, Specialty - A specific style of design with your personal taste in mind. · Perennial Borders · Herb Gardens · Rose Beds · Japanese Garden Formal Garden Focus on one specific area landscape a new addition) To schedule your FREE Landscape Consultation with our Professional Design Staff! (717) 432.8942 or (800) 201.3687 steps will ensure good ck alings Flower Borders for the lawn SERVICES ~ttil~ a'{~ng.To t~"O~i'a .~ of the landscape ,Correct. trimming techniques.keep.you[ Plaats.healthy, Cleanup -' Eliminate those landscape taeks which can nsome - Maintains and enriches your lawn, trees & shrubbery S Vl :ES Construction Wall Construction very Service of Plant Material and Bulk Products EXHIBIT B -ACCENTS LANDSCAPING 1636 Williams GrOve Road Dillsburg, PA t 7019-9006 (717) 432-894211-800-201-3687 (717) 432-8832 - Fax Number Invoice Invoice Number. 5O9 Invoice Date: s/24/99 Page: 1 Sold To: SMITH, TERRY & PATRICIA 3922 EMILRIDGE DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Customer SMI99001 Customer PO Payment Terms Sales Rep ID FUREMAN, DAVID Due Date 5/24/99' Descri~ion Amou~ CONSTRUCTION OF (1) WALL USING GREY (PEWTER) 6" COVENTRY WALL 12,000.00 SYSTEM. WALL TO BE APPROXIMATELY 125~ LONG X 5~ HIGH. CONSTRUCTION OF STEPS FROM THE TOP OF WAT~. TO THE TOP OF YARD 1,000.00 (F,XISTING GRASS) CONSTRUCTION OF STEPS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HOUSE LEADING TO THE 2,000.00 BACK YARD. SEEDING OF EXCAVATED AREA AT BOTTOM OF ~IN WALL. SEEDING OF 500.00 DAMAGED AREAS COMPLETED AT NO CHARGE. APPLICATION OF TANBAEKMULCH TO THE GARDEN AREAABOV~ WALL 300.00 CONTEACT INCLUDES: EXCAVATION OF SITE, REMOVAL OF TREES, GROUNDCOVER, AND DEBRIS. CONSTRUCTION OF WALL AND STEPS. MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS. .,, Subtotal 15,8 0 0.0 0 Sales Tax Total Invoice Amount 15,8 0 0.0 0 o.oo TOTAL 15,800.00 PERMITS--All permits to be the responsibilily of customer. ABNORMAL DIGGING CONDITIONS---This contract is based on normal digging condiiions. If abnormal d~ggmg conditions ara encountered such as rocks, roots, concrete, water, compacted soil, etc. additional c. narges will be added Io contract to cover cost of extra work to complete job. _AWN GUARANTEE---We guarantee Io use the amounl of seed and fertilizer specified and do sads~'aclory work [Due [o uncertainb/olweather condilions, we are nol responsible for growth of grass and under no cond,[~on$ are we resposible for weeds, or washoul which may occur. SHRUBBERY AND TREE GUARANTEE---Provided the invoice was paid as agreed and proper irrigation and ca(e has been given, all shrubbery and trees are guaranteed at 100% for 1 year. Customer will be billed tot glanJmg COSiS ol replacements. DISCLAIM: If any shrubbery or trees die during the 1st year due to abnormal cola. wind, or drought the cuslomet will be billed al 112 of the tree or shrubbery prices and 1/2 of the planling costs We are not responsible for loss due Io vandalism, pets, mechanical damage. CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT---AIl material is guaranteed to be as speci6ed. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specirmations mvolwng extra costs will be executed only upon wrillen orders, and will become an extra charge over a'nd above the estimate. All agreements contingent on slrikes, accidents, or delays beyond our control. Owner carry fire tornado, or other necessary insurance'S' INSTRUCTIONS: Sign, date and return this copy with ,, proper deposit to have work scheduled, EXHIBIT C CHARLES W. JOHNSTON JAMES A. DIAMOND* Admitted to NJ Bar LAW OFFICES JOHNSTON & DIAMOND A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SUITE 100 150 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVI~ P. O. BOX 98 CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17001-0098 November 12, 2001 TELEPHONE (717) 975-5500 TELECOPIE R (717) 975-5511 VIA CERTIFIED MAlL David E. Fureman Accents Landscaping 1636 Williams Grove Road Dillsburg, PA 17019-9006 Re: Improvements to Property of Terence and Patricia Smith 3922 Emilridge Drive, Mecharficsburg, PA 17050 Notice of Claim Dear Mr. Fureman: Please be advised that our law firm is representing Mr. and Mrs. Terence Smith with re- spect to their rights and claims against you and your company, Accents Landscaping, concerning the retaining wall, exterior staimases, and related projects constructed by you and your firm at the above-referenced property. As you are already well aware, the retaining wall that you and your firm installed after having portion of the hill behind the Smiths' home excavated is improperly constructed and be- ginning to buckle and fail, causing a potentially hazardous situation. The two staircases installed by you and your firm also are defective and becoming dangerous, with some of the steps becom- ing loose and some beginning to substantially pitch forward, making it unsafe to use them. You held your firm out to the public as having expertise in, among other things, "retain- ing wall construction,' including in the brochure you sent to the Smiths in your February, 1999 letter soliciting work. You personally were involved on behalf of your firm in designing the construction project for the Smiths, and the Smiths reasonably and detrimentally relied upon your purported expertise and experience in paying you and your firm in excess of $15,800.00. As I understand it from the Smiths, when the retaining wall, stairs and related improve- ments began to suddenly fail, the Smiths brought the serious matter to your attention, and you David E. Fureman November 12, 2001 Page 2 inspected the property with a representative of E. P. Henry, the manufacturer of the wall system you used. You admitted that there were problems with the project, but refused to take any mean- ingful steps to fully correct the project unless the Smiths agreed to pay you additional money. Some minor temporary steps were taken by you, including gluing some of the stones together. However, this not only failed to meaningfully correct the serious and hazardous structural issues caused by the defective design and construction, it also made the wall even more unsightly from a cosmetic standpoint, since the glue has been slopped onto the face of several of the stones. Gluing the stones together with adhesive, as we understand it, will now also make any project to fully and permanently correct the defective work more difficult and expensive. R is our understanding from our research that the particular Coventry wall system that you incorporated into your design and construction project for reshaping the contours of the Smiths' back yard is not intended or suitable for use as an actual retaining wall. As we under- stand it from the manufacturer's specifications, the maximum unreinforced height for the Coven- try wall system is only 24 inches for non-battered walls, and only 36 inches for walls built with a set-back. It is not designed to actually hold back a recontoured hillside in the fashion used by you and your firm. The work by your fu'm on the retaining wall and staircases fails to meet your firm's contractual obligations to complete the project in a workmanlike manner in accordance with standard practices. You and your firm also certainly should have been aware that the wall system was not designed to be used as it was in your project, and you and your firm were profes- sionally negligent in constructing the defective improvements. Critical portions of the services that were performed by you and your firm for the Smiths (and which are offered to the public generally by your finn) involve the practice of landscape architecture within the meaning of Pennsylvania's Landscape Architects' Registration Law. The involvement of you and your firm in the projects at the Smith property, and your firm's holding itself out to the public as being competent to perform such work, would be unlawful, and not merely negligent and a violation of your contract with the Smiths if you and your firm are not licensed to perform the work. Moreover, your firm's leading the Smiths and the public to be- lieve your firm is qualified to perform landscape architecture work, including the type of retain- ing wall construction performed for the Smiths, would constitute fraud and a violation of the Un- fair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law if it tums out that you and your finn are not licensed and competent to perform the type of work you did at the Smiths' residence. Our firm's initial check with the Pennsylvania Department of State did not reveal a cur- rent license or registration for you or for Accents Landscaping to lawfully engage in landscape architecture work in Pennsylvania, and similarly did not reflect any current engineer's or general architect's license for you. If you and/or your firm do have a professional license in Pennsyl- vania permitting you to lawfully practice landscape architecture, we request that you immedi- ately provide proof of such licensure to us. David E. Fureman November 12, 2001 Page 3 Assuming that you and your firm are properly licensed to perform the work in question notwithstanding the apparent absence of a listing with the Pennsylvania Department of State, we believe that the work as performed was so far below the acceptable standard as to be a violation of the Pennsylvania Landscape Architects' Registration Law, and regulations thereunder. To the extent that is the case, you and your firm may be subject to sanctions by the Pennsylvania De- partment of State. It is the Smiths' understanding at this point, from consultations with other contractors, that the only way to fully and permanently remedy the unstable and unsightly situation is to com- pletely remove the existing failed structures and replace them with ones that are appropriate from an engineering standpoint. The Smiths understand that even if the property were re-graded to compromise the design to a less-desirable one, and if some of the current stones could be sal- vaged and incorporated into multiple lower walls instead of fully replacing the wall with another of the same height, the cost of this partial correction would, at a minimum, cost $24,000.00. To fully remedy the problem will obviously cost significantly more than that conservative amount. The Smiths understood from you when they hired you that you and your firm are fully insured. In view of the magnitude of the damages from the failed construction project, we re- quest that you immediately put your firm's Errors and Omissions insurance carrier on notice of this claim, and ask that the claims adjuster immediately call the undersigned to explore whether it is possible to amicably resolve this matter with out litigation. Please advise the carrier, how- ever, that if we do not have any meaningful proposal within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter to fully and promptly remedy the problem caused by the defective construction, we will assume that no such proposal is going to be made, and will proceed with litigation against you and your firm on the basis of that assumption. Thank you for your kind attention to this urgent matter. J AD/jrf Very truly yours, JAMES A. DIAMOND cc: Mr. and Mrs. Terence Smith 11/12/01 · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name sod address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpisoe, or on the front if space permits. David E. Fureman Accents Landscaping 1636 Williams Grove Rd. -Dillsburg, PA 17019-9006 2. Article Number (Copy from set'vice labeO C. Signature Is d~iv~'~ r'l Yes If YES, enter daiive~7 address below: r-i No 3. Service Type I~ Certified Mail r-I Express Mail [] Registered i-1 Return Receipt f~ Memhar~lse [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. Res~cted Daiive~y? (Extra Fee) [] Yes 7099 3220 0009 6893 6171 PS Form 3811, July :1999 D6mestlc Return Receipt lO2595-90-M-l?e9 VERIFICATION I, TERENCE SMrrH, hereby verify that the statements contained in the foregoing Complaint are tree and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. ~'I~ERENCE SMITH Dated: b[g[o~L ,2002 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James A. Diamond, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served the foregoing Complaint upon the following by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Accents Landscaping, Inc. 1636 Williams Grove Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 David E. Fureman 1636 Williams Grove Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 Dated: June 11, 2002 s A. DIAMO John R. Ninosky, Esquire I.D. J78000 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Redclay AF~ANDA SCHA~FFER, Plaintiff VS. JOHN A/~D STEPH~-NIE REDCLAY and M_ARY ~NNE LARD and JANICE M. JA/~JA~IN and COLIN M. LEIGHT, Defendants IN THE COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUN] CIVIL ACTION - NO.. 01-6911 REPLY TO THE NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, 14; AND NOW, come the Defendants, John and Ste and through their counsel, Goldberg, Katzman & file this Reply to the New Matter of Defendant, respectfully stating the following: Denied. The averments contained in Defend Lard's, unnumbered New Matter are denied as the conclusions of law and fact to which no respons a response is deemed to be required, the avermc therein are denied. COMMON PLEAS 'Y, PENNSYLVANIA Dhanie Redcay, by Shipman, P.C., who Mary Ann Lard, by ant, Mary Anne y contain e is required. nts contained If WHEREFORE, Defendants, John and Stephanie R respectfully request judgment be entered in thei the Plaintiff and/or Defendant Mary Anne Lard. Respectfully submi GOLDBERG, KATZMAN Joh~. Nfn~sky, Attorney I.D. 7 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for D DATE: June 14, 2002 80804.1 ~dcay, r favor against tted, & SHIPMAN, P.C. Esqu]fre 000 7108-1268 ~fendants Redclay VERIFICATION I, John R. Ninosky, Esquire, have read the to Amended Complaint and hereby affirms that it correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or belief. This Verification and statement is made penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unswo~ to authorities; I verify that all the statements foregoing are true and correct and that false st subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §490~ GOLDBERG, KATZMAN 69479.3 John/R. Ninosky foregoing Answer is true and information and subject to the n falsification made in the atements may & SHIPMAN, P.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and the foregoing document upon all parties or coun depositing a copy of same in the United States N Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class posts /~ day of ~ , 2002, addressed to Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire Rosenthal & Strauss Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Matthew L. Owens, Esquire 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 GOLDBERG, KATZMA~ P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA Attorneys for Pi Telephone: (71' orrect copy of el of record by ail at ge prepaid on the he following: & SHIPMAN, P.C. Esqui~ 17108 .aintiff ') 234-4261 ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS By: BRIAN D. ROSENTHAL, Esquire Identification No.: 26473 Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)656-4100 Attorney for Plaintiff AMANDA SCHAEFFER : -VS- : JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCAY : and : MARY ANNE LARD : and : JANICE M. JANJANIN : and : COLIN M. LEIGHT : Defendants : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL TERM NO. 01-6911 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, MARY ANNE LARD 29. Through 31. The allegations contained in Defendant, Mary Anne Lard's New Matter 29. through 31. are matters of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations, that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted and that plaintiff is barred, and/or limited by all applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 32. Denied. It is specifically denied that no act or admission on the part of the defendant was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiff's alleged injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or damages being expressly denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 33. Denied. It is specifically denied that any and all injuries and/or damages as described by Plaintiff in her Complaint, the same being expressly denied, were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions on the part of Plaintiff and/or others over whom Defendant had no control nor right of control. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 34. The allegations contained in this paragraph are statements of law which require no responsive pleading. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of res judicata and or collateral estoppel. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 35. The allegations contained in this paragraph are statements of law which require no responsive pleading. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that plaintiff's claims are derivative in nature and are barred as a matter of law. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 36. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiff under the circumstances. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 37. The allegations contained in this paragraph are statements of law which require no responsive pleading. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act and are barred as a matter of law. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 38. ' The allegations contained in this paragraph are statements of law which require no responsive pleading. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation Act and are barred as a matter of law. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 39. Denied. It is strictly denied that at all material times hereto, Defendant acted in a safe, legal and non-negligent manner. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Amanda Schaefer respectfully demands judgment in her favor and against all defendants, together with other such relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS -/]~RIA-N D. ROSENTHAL, Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION Amanda Schaefer , Plaintiff herein, makes this verification and states that the statements made in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the .statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: 6/19/02 ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS By: BRIAN D. ROSENTHAL, Esquire Identification No.: 26473 Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)656-4100 Attorney for Plaintiff AMANDA SCHAEFFER : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA -VS- : : JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCAY : CIVIL TERM and : MARY ANNE LARD : and : NO. 01-6911 JANICE M. JANJANIN : and : COLIN M. LEIGHT : Defendants : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a tree and correct copy of Plaintiffs Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, via United States Postal Service, Regular Mail, postage pre-paid on Wednesday, June 19, 2002, to counsel of record as follows: John R. Ninosky, Esquire Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market Street Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Matthew L. Owens, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crams Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 I further certify that I served a true and correct copy of the above stated document, via United States Postal Service, Regular Mail, postage pre-paid on Wednesday, June 19, 2002, to defendants, as follows: Colin M. Leight 1122 Femwood Avenue Maple Shade, NJ 08052 Janet Janjanin 1122 Femwood Avenue Maple Shade, NJ 08052 ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS BRIAN D. ROSEN~, Attorney for Pla'mtiff AMANDA SCHAE FFER, Plaintiff vs. JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCLAY and MARY ANNE LARD and JANICE M. jANJANIN and COLIN M. LEIGHT, De f endant s : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : : NO.. 01-6911 : : : STIPULATION OF COUNSEL The parties hereby agree and stipulate that Paragraph 12(i), (j) and (1), are to be removed from the Complaint with prejudice. Further, it is hereby agreed and stipulated to that Defendant, John Redcay, will be dismissed from this lawsuit with prejudice. ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS ~%~gn~°~%%ter,'9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: 80827.1 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Jo/n R.'Ninosky, Esquvi] Attorney I.D. 78000 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Redclay AMANDA SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff JOHN and STEPHANIE REDCAY, MARY: ANNE LARD, JANICE M. JANJANIN, : and COLIN M. LEIGHT, : Defendants : : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 01-6911 Civil Term NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiff, Amanda Schaeffer c/o Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint on behalf of Defendant Mary Anne Lard within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you. DATE: MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, MA*I'TFIF_~ EqD'v~S, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 76080 4200 Crams Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3501 Attorneys for Defendant Mary Anne Lard AMANDA SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff Vo JOHN and STEPHANIE REDCAY, MARY: ANNE LARD, JANICE M. JANJANIN, : and COLIN M. LEIGHT, : Defendants : : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 01-6911 Civil Term NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Defendants, John and Stephanie Re&ay c/o John Ninosky, Esquire Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. Strawberry Square - 320 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Defendant, Colin Leight 1122 Femwood Avenue Maple Shade, NJ 08052 Defendant, Janet Janjanin 1122 Femwood Avenue Maple Shade, NJ 08052 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter Directed to Defendants John and Stephanie Re&ay, Janice Janjanin and Colin Leight pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. §2252(d)on behalf of Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you. DATE: MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, ESQUIRE MATTHE~ I.D. No. 76080 4200 Crams Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3501 Attorneys for Defendant Mary Anne Lard AMANDA SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff JOHN and STEPHANIE REDCAY, MARY: ANNE LARD, JANICE M. JANJANIN, : and COLIN M. LEIGHT, : Defendants : : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 01-6911 Civil Temi ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT~ MARY ANNE LARD~ TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, by and through the undersigned counsel and responds to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 2. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 5. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied as a conclusion of law. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff and/or other Defendants, John and Stephanie Redcay, Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight, together with such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. COUNT I. PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS~ JOHN REDCAY AND STEPHANIE REDCAY 11. Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, incorporates by reference her responses to Paragraphs 1 through 10 of Plaintiffs Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 12. (a)-(1) Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 13. Denied. These allegations are directed to a par~y other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 14. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 15. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 16. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff and/or other Defendants, John and Stephanie Redcay, Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight, together with such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. COUNT II. PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANT~ MARY ANNE LARD 17. Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, incorporates by reference her responses to Paragraphs 1 through 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 18. (a)-(k) Denied as a conclusion of law. 19. Denied as a conclusion of law. 20. Denied as a conclusion of law. 21. Denied as a conclusion of law. 22. Denied as a conclusion of law. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff and/or other Defendants, John and Stephanie Redcay, Janice M. Janj anin and Colin M. Leight, together with such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. COUNT III. PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANT COLIN M. LEIGHT 23. Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, incorporates by reference her responses to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 24. (a)-(j) Denied. These allegations arc directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 25. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 26. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 27. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 28. Denied. These allegations are directed to a party other than Responding Defendant and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against thc Plaintiff and/or other Defendants, John and Stephanic Redcay, Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight, together with such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF 29. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 30. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS~ JOHN AND STEPHANIE REI~CAY~ JANICE M. JANJANIN AND COLIN M. LEIGHT~ PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. §2252(d) 40. Responding Defendant incorporates by reference her responses to Paragraphs 1 through 39 of Plaintiff's Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 41. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d), should it be found that Responding Defendant is liable to Plaintiff, which liability is denied, Responding Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's damages, said damages being denied, were caused by the negligence, recklessness and/or carelessness and/or strict liability of Defendants John and Stephanie Redcay, Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight and/or others, for the masons set forth in the Complaint, and that Responding Defendant is entitled to contribution and/or indemity, as may be appropriate, from such Defendants. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Anne Lard, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiffand/or Defendants, John and Stephanie Redcay, Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight, together with such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. \05_A~LIAB~vlLO~LLPG\95023~K/N~01226\00413 MARSHALL,~I~ENNEHEY, WARNER, BY: ~ MATTHEIW [. O~i~L~NS, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 76080 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3501 Attorneys for Defendant Mary Anne Lard VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and infoLmation which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, 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 Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. \05_A\LIABXJvlLO\CORR\96699'xRKN~01226\00413 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Angela Sanger, an employee with the law firm of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 6~'~ day of July, 2002, a tree and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via U.S. first-class mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: Brian D. Rosenthal, Esquire ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS Seven Penn Center, 9th Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 John R. Ninosky, Esquire GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Colin Leight 1122 Femwood Avenue Maple Shade, NJ 08052 Janet Janjanin 1122 Femwood Avenue Maple Shade, NJ 08052 ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS By: BRIAN D. ROSENTHAL, Esquire Identification No.: 26473 Seven Penn Center, 9t~ Floor 1635 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)656-4100 Attorney for Plaintiff AMANDA SCHAEFFER JOHN AND STEPHANIE REDCAY and : MARY ANNE LARD : and : JANICE M. JANJANIN : and : COLIN M. LEIGHT : Defendants : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL TERM NO. 01-6911 ORDER TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended as to defendants John and Stephanie Redcay and Janice M. Janjanin and Colin M. Leight, only, of record with the Court. ROSENTHAL & STRAUSS BRIAN D. ROSENTHAL, AttOrney for Plaintiff