Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-4791c IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff(s) & Address(es): Nancy Hazell 103 Manchester Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 V. Defendant(s) & Address(es): Donald Vernet 3111 Enola Road Carlisle, PA 17015 PRAECIPE FOR SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons to the Defendants in Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to () Ate Date: I / S-' dg Signature of captioned action. (X) Sheriff Print Name: _Richard B.ruby Esquire Address: 840 East Chocolate Avenue Hershev PA 17033 Telephone: 717-533-5406 Supreme Court I.D.: 61904 SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION TO: Donald Vernet YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HASMAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. ot onotaryI ivil ivision paQ Date: dd- 'I by: File No. D9--'17,71 C,',( 74 c. - Civil Action JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Deputy Fl! 2004 JUL 17 Pi E : 4 3 ,6 aZt, 0 -7 S'.?P C k- is Ju Q 1&, a a FIST Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County R Thomas Kline f= LE } .-. Sheriff y ?}r. r?L. ?i pYl ?IttP1 Vi ?f Ronny R Anderson 'OV'80 611r/4h4 1 Chief Deputy's .i re iL 0 2009 d t it ? 4 ,, t'. Jody S Smith Civil Process Sergeant ¢F?Ics : r -1,E ', FRIFF ? Edward L Schorpp Solicitor Nancy Hazell vs. Donald Vernet Case Number 2009-4791 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 08/03/2009 08:56 PM - Noah Cline, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on August 3, 2009 at 2056 hours, he served a true copy of the within Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Donald Vernet, by making known unto himself personally, defendant at 3111 Enola Road Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17015 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $33.84 August 04, 2009 SO ANSWERS, f0000A"9V"d1CV&? R THOMAS KLINE, SHERIFF Deputy Sheriff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NANCY HAZELL, Plaintiff, V. DONALD VERNET, Defendant. CIVIL DIVISION File No. 09-4791 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Filed on Behalf Of Defendant Counsel for this Party: Kate J. Fagan, Esquire Pa. ID No. 33334 WAYMAN, IRVIN & MCAULEY, LLC Firm #583 437 Grant Street Frick Building, Suite 1624 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-566-2970 Fax: 412-391-1464 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NANCY HAZELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION File No. 09-4791 v. DONALD VERNET, Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, DONALD VERNET, with regard to the above-captioned matter. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, WAYMAN, IRVIN & McAULEY BY: Kate . Fag 6(1 Ys qui e Attorney for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Appearance has been served on the following counsel of record by first class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, or by hand delivery, this ?6 day of September, 2009: Richard B. Druby, Esq. 840 East Chocolate Avenue Hershey, PA 17033 WAYMAN, IRVIN & McAULEY BY: Kate Faga squire ALP? ? OF- r CAT;• r? , 7. 2009 SEP 14 Ph 3'- ri 4 CU _'r: l tV E? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NANCY HAZELL, Plaintiff, V. DONALD VERNET, Defendant. CIVIL DIVISION File No. 09-4791 PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT Filed on Behalf Of Defendant Counsel for this Party: Kate J. Fagan, Esquire Pa. ID No. 33334 WAYMAN, IRVIN & MCAULEY, LLC Firm #583 437 Grant Street Frick Building, Suite 1624 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-566-2970 Fax: 412-391-1464 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NANCY HAZELL, Plaintiff, V. DONALD VERNET, Defendant. CIVIL DIVISION File No. 09-4791 PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Rule upon the Plaintiff, Nancy Hazell, in the above-captioned matter to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days from the date of service hereof or suffer a judgment of Non Pros. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, WAYMAN, IRVIN & McAULEY BY: ! -..? Kate J. Faga , squir Attorney for Defend 1115/01 You ace hereby ordered axed & reeled 10 -?? le Your Corrnp?.infi O Cou n;+- e ?e?'endan-}s WH t v' ao days 4 .serv ice ee ?1 u?le a_80u n - yam- or Suf&_r j+x rent nor) pros. ?Iro'K. on o?N CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Rule to File Complaint has been served on the following counsel of record by first class J U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, or by hand delivery, this oC h G? day of November, 2009: Richard B. Druby, Esq. 840 East Chocolate Avenue Hershey, PA 17033 WAYMAN, IRVIN & McAULEY BY: G Kate J. F gan, quire OF THE F-' ) 7 ?n 10TARY ' n, _ 2009 NOV -5 PH 1: 49 NTY NANCY HAZELL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 09-4791 CIVIL DONALD VERNET, individually and d/b/a SPECIALTY MASONRY, : Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, P.J. AND MASLAND, J. ORDER AND NOW, this day of August, 2010, following argument thereon, the Court being satisfied that the plaintiff's complaint sets forth facts essential to the various claims and that said facts are pled with sufficient specificity to enable the defendant to prepare an answer, the preliminary objections of the defendant are DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A ess, P. J. 4chard B. Druby, Esquire For the Plaintiff 0 Kate J. Fagan, Esquire p For the Defendant Am ,Q IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NANCY HAZELL, Plaintiff, v. DONALD VERNET, individually and d/b/a SPECIALTY MASONRY, CIVIL DIVISION File No. 09-4791 ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant. ~~ ~ r~ _ Filed on Behalf Of Defendant ~= , ~ us ~ ---i 1 Counsel for this Party: ~ c~ ..~, ~~ r ~ Kate J. Fagan, Esquire ~' .-~,~ ~' Pa. ID No. 33334 ~ rv WAYMAN, IRVIN & MCAULEY, LLC Firm #583 Three Gateway Center, Suite 1700 401 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-566-2970 Fax: 412-391-1464 ~„ l +~>> ~s _.,~g ;~~ c~ -rg ~., c~ {~.~ r TURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NANCY HAZELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION File No. 09-4791 v. DONALD VERNET, individually and d/b/a SPECIALTY MASONRY, Defendant. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Donald Vernet, individually and d/b/a Specialty Masonry, by and through its attorneys, Wayman, Irvin & McAuley, and files the within Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as follows: 1. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are admitted. 2. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are admitted. 3. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are admitted. 4. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that this Defendant provided a job estimate dated September 27, 1997 directed to the Plaintiff, Nancy Hazell. It is denied that the Defendant has been able to provide a full and complete copy of the job estimate, a legible copy, as attached to its original Complaint or Amended Complaint. It is admitted that the Defendant installed pilasters along the foundation walls, however it is denied that this Defendant installed any exterior perimeter drainage system at the rear of Plaintiff's property, and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 5. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are denied in that this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained therein, and as such, they are deemed denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 6. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are denied pursuant to Rule 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, it is asserted that this Defendant did not perform any work in an unworkmanlike manner, and, to the contrary, performed all work in a workmanlike manner, and pursuant to the terms of any agreement then there existing. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 7. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are denied in that this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained therein, and as such, they are deemed denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 8. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are denied in that this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained therein, and as such, they are deemed denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 9. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are denied pursuant to Rule 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and by way of further answer, this Defendant asserts that any work performed was done so in a workmanlike manner and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. COUNT I -BREACH OF CONTRACT 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are hereby incorporated by reference as though same were fully set forth herein. 11. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are denied in that this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained therein, and as such, they are deemed denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 12. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are denied in that the Defendant performed any and all work in a good and workmanlike manner, and did not cause any damage resulting in the bulging and j or cracking of the foundation walls, and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. To the extent that a further answer may be required, this Defendant asserts that all work was performed pursuant to the terms and conditions as agreed to by the parties. 13. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are denied in that this Defendant has denied and continues to deny that it breached any agreement or failed to provide workmanlike construction. By way of further answer, as to the remaining averments in Paragraph 13, this Defendant is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained therein, and as such the same are deemed denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 14. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, these allegations are conclusions of law, and as such are deemed denied with no further answer required by this Defendant, and strict proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald Vernet, individually and djbja Specialty Masonry, denies that it is liable to the Plaintiff, Nancy Hazell, in any manner or sum whatsoever and demands judgment in Defendant's favor. COUNT II -BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES 15. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are hereby incorporated by reference as though same were fully set forth herein. 16. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, these allegations are conclusions of law, and as such are deemed denied with no further answer required by this Defendant. Insofar as any answer may be required, this Defendant asserts that any work completed was performed in a good and workmanlike manner and strict proof is demanded at trial. 17. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, these allegations are conclusions of law, and as such are deemed denied with no further answer required by this Defendant. Insofar as any answer may be required, this Defendant asserts that any work completed was performed in a good and workmanlike manner and strict proof is demanded at trial. 18. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, these allegations are conclusions of law, and as such are deemed denied with no further answer required by this Defendant. Insofar as any answer may be required, this Defendant asserts that any work completed was performed in a good and workmanlike manner and strict proof is demanded at trial. 19. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, these allegations are conclusions of law, and as such are deemed denied with no further answer required by this Defendant. To the extent that the paragraph includes allegations of specific damages as claimed by the Plaintiff, this Defendant is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained therein, and as such the same are deemed denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 20. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, these allegations are conclusions of law, and as such are deemed denied with no further answer required by this Defendant. Insofar as any answer may be required, this Defendant asserts that any work completed was performed in a good and workmanlike manner and strict proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald Vernet, individually and d/b/a Specialty Masonry, denies that it is liable to the Plaintiff, Nancy Hazell, in any manner or sum whatsoever and demands judgment in Defendant's favor. COUNT III -VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are hereby incorporated by reference as though same were fully set forth herein. 22. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are denied in that the Defendant performed any and all work in a good and workmanlike manner, and caused no injury or damages to Plaintiff's property. To the extent that Paragraph 22 asserts a violation of a specific statute as set forth in 73 P.S. ~ 201-3, 201-2 (4)(xvi) and 201-2 (4)(xxi), the same allegations are conclusions of law and as such are deemed denied with no further answer required by this Defendant, and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 23. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, these allegations are conclusions of law, and as such are deemed denied with no further answer required by this Defendant. To the extent that Paragraph 23 asserts monetary damages as suffered by the Plaintiff, this Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as to damages, and as such the same are deemed denied with strict proof demanded at time of trial. 24. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, these allegations are conclusions of law, and as such are deemed denied with no further answer required by this Defendant. To the extent that Paragraph 24 asserts monetary damages as suffered by the Plaintiff, this Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as to damages, and as such the same are deemed denied with strict proof demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald Vernet, individually and d/b/a Specialty Masonry, denies that it is liable to the Plaintiff, Nancy Hazell, in any manner or sum whatsoever and demands judgment in Defendant's favor. COUNT IV -NEGLIGENCE 25. Paragraphs 1 through 24 are hereby incorporated by reference as though same were fully set forth herein. 26. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are denied pursuant to Rule 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure as this Defendant performed work that was done in a good and workmanlike manner, and without any negligence, carelessness and/ or recklessness. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 27. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2b of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the same are denied in that this Defendant was not negligent, and performed all work in a workmanlike manner, and, to the extent that Paragraph 27 asserts monetary damages as pleaded elsewhere in the Amended Complaint, this Defendant is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of averments contained therein and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald Vernet, individually and d/b/a Specialty Masonry, denies that it is liable to the Plaintiff, Nancy Hazell, in any manner or sum whatsoever and demands judgment in Defendant's favor. NEW MATTER For a further and more specific response, this Defendant asserts the following New Matter: 1. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 23, 14-15 insofar as the Uniform Commercial Code applies to transactions involving the sell of goods from one party to another, rather than to agreements for services. 2. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must fail insofar as the Plaintiff fails to set forth any deceptive and/or fraudulent conduct on the part of this Defendant so as to violate the Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law. This Defendant asserts that, subsequent to his completion of any work at the property of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff retained other contractors and/ or workers who performed work in and around that which has been completed by this Defendant, which compromised and/ or destroyed this Defendant's work. 3. This Defendant asserts that the actions and/or activity of others retained by the Plaintiff subsequent to the completion of work by this Defendant act as a superseding and jor intervening cause of the damages as complained of by the Plaintiff. 4. Plaintiff's cause of action must fail as she has failed to mitigate any damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald Vernet, individually and d/b/a Specialty Masonry, denies that it is Liable to the Plaintiff, Nancy Hazell, in any manner or sum whatsoever and demands judgment in Defendant's favor. Respectfully submitted, WAYMAN, IRVIN & McAULEY BY: Kate .Fag , Esqui Attorney for Defen t 09/28/2010 15:08 7172434254 OFFICEMAX CARLISLE P PAGE 02 VERI>r~C,A-TION I, Donald Verret have read. the foregoing ~nswez anal New Matter to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and verify that the statements contai3cTed therein are true fiv the bESt of my knowledge, information and beUef. 'rIvs statern~t is made subject to the penalties of IS Pa.. G.S.A. Section. 49Q4 relating to unsworn falsyfication to authorities. p Date: 1 ~ o~ ~ - ~~ gy; ~- _ . Donald V~net CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter has been served on the following counsellof record by first class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, or by hand delivery, this l ~ day of September, 2010: Richard B. Druby, Esq. 840 East Chocolate Avenue Hershey, PA 17033 WAYMAN, IRVIN & McAULEY BY: k~ Kate J. Fag , Esquir irk T'~{~ ~~~ N+~~ TORY ~~~QOCt r~ ~~~j. ~~ ~~ ~BERL~~~11~ ~:~~~~~~~' ~Pdt~SYL~'A~d~~ RICHARD B. DRUBY, ESQUIRE PA Attorney I.D. No. 61904 Nestico, Druby & Hildabrand, PC 840 East Chocolate Avenue Hershey, PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-5406 rdruby_(a),hersheypalaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ...... ........................................................................ NANCY HAZELL, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DONALD VERNET, individually and d/b/a SPECIALTY MASONRY, Defendant. NO.09-4791 CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant raised the issue which he asserts herein in his Preliminary Objections which were denied by the Court.. Accordingly, Defendant's assertions are moot. 2. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant raised the issue he asserts herein in his Preliminary Objections which were denied by the Court. Consequently, Defendant's assertions are moot. The remaining allegations of paragraph 2 are denied. 3. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response a required, the allegations of paragraph 3 are denied. 4. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations of paragraph 4 are denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that Defendant's New Matter be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment entered in Plaintiff s favor and against the Defendant as set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint. Date: L v ~ 0 ~ ~ Respectfully Submitted, NESTICO, By: 'hichard B. Druby ~~ Attorney I.D. No. 61904 840 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-5406 Telephone Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 PC VERIFICATION I, Nancy Hazell verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false stateinre~%s herc;in a~e;~~iie si~i~j~ct iv the ~e~alt~~5 of i`~ Fa. C.S. ~~r3fi4 relating tee unsworn falsification to authorities. Date' D / ~ Nan Hazell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard B. Druby, Esquire, of the law firm of Nestico, Druby & Hildabrand, P.C., hereb certi that on the ~ y fy /~ day of October, 2010, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via First Class U.S. Mail, postage paid, to the following: Kate Fagan, Esquire 437 Grant Street Suite 1624 Frick Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6101 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NANCY HAZELL, Plaintiff, V. DONALD VERNET, individually and d/b/a SPECIALTY MASONRY, Defendant. c M CD =M CIVIL DIVISION ;?o ?D File No. 09-4791 n o z c' 0 z PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT' OF ARBITRATORS Filed on Behalf Of Defendant Counsel for this Party: Kate J. Fagan, Esquire Pa. ID No. 33334 JV cn ca WAYMAN, IRVIN & MCAULEY, LLC Firm #583 Three Gateway Center, Suite 1700 401 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-566-2970 Fax: 412-391-1464 ©T aa 21114 240? 17 1 ?e IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NANCY HAZELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION File No. 094791 V. DONALD VERNET, individually and d/b/a SPECIALTY MASONRY, Defendant. PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Kate J. Fagan, counsel for the Defendant in the above action respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. The claim of the Plaintiff in the action is for less than $50,000. There is no counterclaim by the Defendant. 2. The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Richard B. Druby, Esq. 840 East Chocolate Avenue Hershey, PA 17033 3. Counsel for the Plaintiff, Richard B. Druby, Esq., has indicated that he and his client have no objection to the transfer of this matter to arbitration. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, WAYMAN, IRVIN & McAULEY BY: Kate J. aga , Esquir Attorney for Defenda CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators has been served on the following counsel of record by first /' 2 class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, or by hand delivery, this l J day of March, 2012: Richard B. Druby, Esq. 840 East Chocolate Avenue Hershey, PA 17033 WAYMAN, IRVIN & McAULEY BY: Kate J. Fagan, quire IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NANCY HAZELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION File No. 09-4791 V. DONALD VERNET, individually and d/b/a SPECIALTY MASONRY, Defendant. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this anc? day of 201 in consideration of the foregoing Petition t; L?Y1Qo Q. a`?.l??Clce.,:r. Esq., Esq., and AirLe. , Esq. are appointed arbitrators in the above- captioned action as prayed for. Ka4e 1 C'©F BPS nom, /?? y/a/i BY THE COURT: t -y •"Ii .ter ?a» U7 ? L-J rya "lJ r? N 77- l ^a 10u r ?LcU` ?'AR 1 1:f THE PROTti loll JUN 29 PM 3- 09 Ct??-AYtY??GOLATY r?aN? EDWIN A. HAZELL, EXECUTOR of the IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ESTATE OF NANCY HAZELL, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DECEASED, Plaintiff, ; V. : NO. 09-4791 DONALD VERNET, individually and : CIVIL ACTION d/b/a SPECIALTY MASONRY, Defendant. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF DEATH TO THE PROTHONOTARY: The death of Nancy Hazell, a party in the above action, during the pendency of this action is noted upon the record. Date: 2 ? / ?- NESTICO DR By: ,Richard B. Druby Attorney I.D. No. 6 4, 1135 E. Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-5406 Telephone Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ri;?hard B. Druby, Esquire, of the law firm of Nestico Druby, PC, hereby certify that on the __ day of June, 2012, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via First Class U.S. Mail, postage paid, to the following: Kate Fagan, Esquire Wayman, Irvin & McAuley, LLC Suite 1700, Three Gateway Center 401 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1004 2 U loll JUN 29 PM 3:09 ?tiA? ?1?Aix EDWIN A. HAZELL, EXECUTOR of the IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ESTATE OF NANCY HAZELL, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DECEASED, Plaintiff, V. : NO. 09-4791 DONALD VERNET, individually and : CIVIL ACTION d/b/a SPECIALTY MASONRY, Defendant. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUGGESTION OF SUCCESSION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2012, it is suggested of record that the Plaintiff Nancy Hazell died on February 29, 2012, in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, leaving Edwin A. Hazell as the Executor of her estate. Therefore, Edwin A. Hazell should be substituted as the Plaintiff in this action and caption of the action changed to read Edwin A. Hazell, Executor of the Estate of Nancy Hazell, Deceased. Date: 2 1 ?- NESTICO DRUW, PC By: Richard B. Dru y Attorney I.D. o. 6 04 1135 E. Choco nue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-5406 Telephone Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, ,Riichard B. Druby, Esquire, of the law firm of Nestico Druby, PC, hereby certify that on the ?7/?day of June, 2012, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via First Class U.S. Mail, postage paid, to the following: Kate Fagan, Esquire Wayman, Irvin & McAuley, LLC Suite 1700, Three Gateway Center 401 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1004 2