Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-6928TIMOTHY L. HAIN, : Plaintiff : ; ; V. ; ; CECILE LACOSTE, : Defendant : _, IN THE COURT OF COMMO! CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, yo action within twenty (20) days al~er this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personall attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You ar~ if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court witho notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las pa signuientes, usted tiene vienta (20) dias de plazo al partir de al fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe t apariencia escrita o en persona a pot abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus ohjectiones demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se fefiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede una or usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o akuvui que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted parder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE AB~ SI NO TIENE EL DIMERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME TELEPONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE EMCUENTRA ESCRITA ABA JO PARA AVERIGU SE PUEDE CONSSGUIA ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse, Fourth Floor Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 240-6200 DATED: HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG By: ~ Harrisburg, PA 17108-1177 (717) 238-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) ~PLEAS 1 must take y or by warned that it further )se money or LAWYER UT nas :sentar una las en contra ~uedo 'GADO O POR ~,R DONDE TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff V. CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMOI~ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, by and through his attorney, I HENNING & ROSENBERG, by David H. Rosenberg, Esquire, and makes the withi~ against the Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, is a competent adult individual currently resi N. Pine Street, Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17057. 2. Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, is a competent adult individual currently res 751 Principale, St. Donat, Quebec, TOT2CO. 3. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, was the operatol Kensworth truck bearing Pennsylvania registration number AE14264. The vehicle wz Seiberts Trucking. 4. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, was the operato Mercury Sable bearing Quebec registration number 671ACZ. 5. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an agent, servant, or employee Seiberts Trucking and was acting within the scope of his employment. 6. At the time of the collision, Plaintiff was a named insured on a policy wi American Insurance Company. PLEAS [ANDLER, Complaint ling at 124 ding at of a 1998 owned by of a 1996 of Ih West American Insurance Company. 7. On or about October 27, 2000 at about 1:48, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain. traveling south on Sr. 81 in the right lane. 8. At approximately the same time and place, Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, traveling in the middle lane of the southbound Sr. 81. Defendant then attempted to exit S: 20 from the middle lane. As she changed lanes, she suddenly and without warning, struck vehicle, which rolled over onto the driver's side. 9. The aforementioned collision caused extensive property damage and wa that Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, had to be transported from the scene via ambulance to the room at Polyclinic Medical Center. 10. The aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Tin: Hain, were the direct and prox. imate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or reck Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, generally and more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawfully procee 81; (b)In falling to be reasonably vigilant to observe Plaintiff's vehicle: (c) In failing to operate her vehicle under proper and adequate contro could avoid striking Plaintiff's vehicle; (d) In falling to operate her vehicle in such a manner so that he coul~ brakes to avoid striking Plaintiffs vehicle; (e)In failing to exercise a high degree of care when entering a lane x (f)In failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the exit' was Yas '. 81 at Exit Plaintiff's so severe mergency othy L. ~ssness of ing on Sr. so that she t apply her Ath traffic; ting traffic conditions; (g) In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have under such control that injury to persons or property could be aw (h) In driving her vehicle in a manner endangering persons and prop{ a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of othe violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Per (i) In failing to properly and adequately observe the traffic conditiot there existing; and (j) For driving on roadways laned for traffic, in violation of 75 P~ 3309. 11. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Cecile the Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, sustained serious injuries including but not limited to laceration, mid and low back lacerations, severe scarring on the right arm and back, numl right arm, and back pain. 12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Cecile the Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, has~ been, and will in the future be hindered from atten ususal daily activities and duties to his great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrass 13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Cee LaCoste, the Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, has been compelled in order to effect a cure for hi injuries, to expend money for medicine and/or medical attention. Plaintiffmay continue treatment and incur expenses for said injuries in the future, to his great detriment and k ~aming of ter vehicle tided; .~rty, and in · s, in strict nsylvania; then and c.s.^. § LaCoste, . right arm ness in the ;aCoste, ting to his ment. ile s aforesaid to receive 14. GUARD Insurance Group has a lien against Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, for medical bil 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Cee LaCoste, the Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he wi to suffer the same, in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Ce( LaCoste, the Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, has suffered lost wages/income and may in continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 17. Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, therefore, believes and avers that his injurie: pexmanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, seeks damages from the Defend LaCoste, in an amount in excess of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00), exclusive and costs, and demands a jury by trial. Date: As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Cecilb LaCoste, Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROg By: . J David H. Rose~lae~g, Esquire Attorney I.D/020569 1300 Lingle~town Road Harrisburg, PA 17110-1177 (717) 238-2000 Attomey for Plaintiffs S. ile continue le :he future ant, Cecile of interests ENBERG VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing do~ based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and inform; has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The langu document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Ver~fic~ undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made sul penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to autho Date: Timothy; ~. Hain :ument are ~tion which age of the extent that to the best document tion. The ect to the ties. TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON I PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED .CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF I, Nancy L. Bistline, an employee of the law firm of HANDLER, HENNINI ROSENBERG, hereby certify that on this day I am serving a copy of the forego Complaint upon the persons(s) and in the manner indicated below, which servic satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by dire( a process server to make service upon the below named individual: Cecile LaCoste 751 Principale St. Donat, Quebec, TOT2CO HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBER{ ancy L. Bis~e, Secretary & ig RAWLE & HENDERSON BY: Peter A. Lentini Identification No. 50018 The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 575-4200 Attorneys for Defendant, Cecile LaCoste TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff, VS. CECILE LaCOSTE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 01-6928 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendant, Cecile LaCoste, in the above- captioned matter. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: , ~ Date: 0511848.01 RAWLE & HENDERSON BY: Peter A. Lentini Identification No. 50018 The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 ~ (215) 575-4200 Attorneys for Defendant, Cecile LaCoste TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff, VS. CECILE LaCOSTE, THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 01-6928 F~NTRY OF APPEARANCE- TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendant, Cecile LaCoste, in the above- captioned matter. RAWLE & HENDERSON By: ~ni~ Dam: 0511848.0t TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff V. CECILE LaCOSTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 01-6928 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by David H Rosenberg, Esq. and replies to Defendant's New Matter as follows: 18 - 27, Denied. The allegations in Paragraphs 18 - 27 contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. of law to which no response is required, tfa response is judicially determined to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. -1- WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant's allegations and enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG B~David~osenberg, Esq. Attorney I.D. #20569 P.O//' Box 60337 H~'rrisburg, PA 17106 (~17) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the Defendant, CECILE LaCOSTE, by sending a copy of the same to her counsel of record, Peter A. Lentini, Esq., RAWLE & HENDERSON, The Widener Building, One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107 by United States Mail, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on March ~ , 2002. DATE: ~jD~'"' HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG David H R~nberg, Esq. Attorney/I.D. #20569 P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff JJW~motions~compel discovery~hain_compel disc TIMOTHY L. HAIN, : Plaintiff : _. V. CECILE LACOSTE, : Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6928 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMAND] MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANl~ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUME ~D PLAINTIFF'S NTS AND NOW, come the Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, by and through hi s attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by David H. Roscnberg, Esquire, and hereby move this Honorable Court to compel the Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, to file complete and responsive Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of DOcuments, and in support thereof, avers the following: 1. Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, is a competent adult individua~ currently residing at 124 N. Pine Street, Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 17057. 2. Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, is a competent adult individua! currently residing at 751 Principale, St. Donat, Quebec, Canada TOT2CO. 3. On or about December 7, 2001, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Haini filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County alleging that personal idjuries were sustained on October 27, 2000 resulting from a motor vehicle collision that took placelon SR 81near Exit 20 in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. On or about January 3, 2002, Attorney Peter A. Lentini entered an appearance on behalf of Defendant Cecile LaCoste in this matter. 5. On or about February 6, 2002, Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, Answered Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter. On or about March 5, 2002, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain replied to Defendant s New o Matter. 7. On or about April 8, 2002, Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, Was served with Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. ' 8. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4006(2), the party answering Interrogatories "...shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after servicefi 9. As of the date of this Motion to Compel, Plaintiff has not :eceived a response to his First Set of Interrogatories. 10. Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories should have been served on or before May 8, 2002. 11. Well over thirty (30) days have passed since Plaintiff served Defendant with his Interrogatories and, in fact, over 64 days have passed. 12. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, aver, that the information that could be gained by the responses to his First Set of Interrogatories is necessary and vital in i order for him to properly litigate his claim. 13. Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ. P. 4009.12(a), "[t]he party upon whom the request is served shall within thirty days after service of the request (1) serve an answer inCluding objections to each numbered paragraph in the request, and (2) produce or make available tb the party submitting the request those documents and things described in the request to which there is no objection." 14. As of the date of this Motion to Compel, Plaintiff has not received responses to his Requests for Production of Documents. 15. Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents should have been served on or before May 8, 2002. 16. Well over thirty (30) days have passed since Plaintiff sdrved Defendant with his Requests for Production of Documents and, in fact, over 64 days have pdssed. 17. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, aver, that the informatioh that could be gained by the responses to his Requests for Production of Documents is necessary hnd vital in order for him to properly litigate his claim. 18. On or about June 9, 2002, Plaintiff's counsel notified Attorney Lentini that responses to discovery requests had not been received and requested that Mr. Len~ini advise when Plaintiff could expect to receive responses to discovery requests. 19. In order to complete discovery and move this action iexpeditiously, Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Motion to Compel Discovery. 20. Assuming arguendo this Honorable Court does not grmht the foregoing motion, Plaintiffs respectfully request a discovery conference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, respectfully request ~hat this Honorable Court issue an order compelling Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, to respond tol Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days or suffer such sanctions as this Court may deem just. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Date: By: senberg, Esquire · #20569 1,3'00 LingleStown Road ~arrisburg, PA 17110 ~(717) 238--'2000 Attorney forIPlaintiff TIMOTHY L. HAIN, : Plaintiff : ., ,, v. .' ., CECILE [~COSTE, : Defendant : : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6928 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David H Rosenber, Esq., an employee of the law firm of HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, hereby certify that on this day I am serving a copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel upon the persons(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by directing a process server to make service upon the below named individual: Cecile LaCoste cio Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. Rawle & Henderson, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Dated: TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff Vo CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM _ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. David H. Rosenberg, Esq. 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. Rawle & Henderson, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COURT, ~ sley Oler, ~.) :rc JJ whnotions~hain-ruleabsolute-disc.wpd TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff CECILE LACOSTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6928 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by David H. Rosenberg, Esquire, and hereby moves this Honorable Court to make the Order dated July 1, 2002 Absolute and Compel the Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, to file full, complete, specific and responsive Answers to Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain's, First Set of Interrogatories and Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain's, Requests for Production of Documents and in support thereof, and aver the following: 1. On or about December 7, 2001, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County alleging that personal injuries were sustained on October 27, 2000 resulting from a motor vehicle collision that took place on SR 81 near Exit 20 in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. On or about February 6, 2002, Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, Answered Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter. 3. On or about March 5, 2002, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain replied to Defendant's New Matter. 4. On or about April 8, 2002, Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, was served with Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. 5. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4006(2), the party answering Interrogatories "...shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after service." 6. As of the date of this Motion to Compel, Plaintiffhas not received a response to his First Set of Interrogatories. 7. Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's First set of Interrogatories should have been served on or before May 8, 2002. 8. Well over thirty (30) days have passed since Plaintiff served Defendant with his Interrogatories and, in fact, over ninety (90) days have passed. 9. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, avers, that the information that could be gained by the responses to his First Set of Interrogatories is necessary and vital in order for him to properly litigate his claim. 10. Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ. P. 4009.12(a), "[t]he party upon whom the request is served shall within thirty days after service of the request (1) serve an answer including objections to each numbered paragraph in the request, and (2) produce or make available to the party submitting the request those documents and things described in the request to which there is no objection." 11. As of the date of this Motion to Compel, Plaintiff has not received responses to his Requests for Production of Documents. 12. Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents should have been served on or before May 8, 2002. 13. Well over thirty (30) days have passed since Plaintiff served Defendant with his Requests for Production of Documents and, in fact, over ninety (90) days have passed. 14. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, avers, that the information that could be gained by the responses to his Requests for Production of Documents is necessary and vital in order for him to properly litigate his claim. 15. On or about June 9, 2002, Plaintiff's counsel notified Attorney Montilus, Attorney Lentini's associate, that responses to discovery requests had not been received and requested that Defendant advise when Plaintiff could expect to receive responses to discovery requests. (See, Attached as Exhibit "A"). 16. On or about June 20, 2002, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, filed a Motion to seeking to Compel Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, to provide Answers to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (See, Attached as Exhibit "B"). 17. On July 1,2002, this Honorable Court issued a Rule upon Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, to show cause why the relief in the Motion to Compel Discovery should not be granted. The Rule was returnable within 20 days of service. 18. To date, Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, has failed to respond to Rule to Show Cause and has failed to give any reason why Plaintiff's Motion to Compel should not be granted. 19. Plaintiff hereby requests this Honorable Court make the Order dated July 1, 2002 Absolute, and Compel the Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, to provide the requested answers and documents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue a Rule Absolute and compel Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, to file full, complete, specific and responsive Answer to Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain's, First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within fifteen (15) days or suffer such sanctions as this Court may deem just. Respectfully Submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Date: nbwnerg, Esquire Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, Pa. 17110-1177 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff ondle.r, nnmg senberg ATTORNEYS AT LA~(/ Leslie B. Handler, Retired ~/. Scott Henning David H Rosenberg IP^, FL] Carolyn M. Anner IP^, NY, RN) Matthew S. Crosby IF'A, NJJ Gregory M. Feather {PA, NJ) Stephen O. Held Jason C. Imler June 9,2002 Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP Ten Lake Center Executive Park Suite 204,401 Route 75 North Marlton, NJ 08053 RE: Timothy L. Hain v. Cecile L. Acoste H/~RiSBURG OFFICE 1300 Unglestown Roac Harrisburg, PA 171 IC 717-'238-200C 1-800-422-2224 717-[33-3029 (fax) LANCASTER OFFICE 140A E King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 717-431-4000 DIRECT MAIL TO: P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 www. HHRLaw.com Rosenberg@hhrlaw.com Dear Mr. Montilus: I want to follow up on our telephone conference of May 1, 2002. We had a discussion concerning settlement and you were going to get back to me shortly. It has been over a month and I haven't heard from you. I also want to remind you that I have not received your Discovery responses and that has been over two months, it is apparent that you have no intent to try to resoive this matter and I am going to move forward with Court intervention. DHR/tgd cc: Timothy L. Hain Very truly yours, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG David H .R~senberg TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Combel Defendant's Responses to PlaintiWs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. I~v~id H. Rosenberg, Esq. ' /4300 Linglestown Road / Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. Rawle & Henderson, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square · Philadelphia, PA 19107 Attorney for Defendant irc BY THE COURT, I'RUECOPY FROM RECORD In Testimony wheroof, I here unto set m~ haad and tho ~1 of ~d Co~'[ at Cam~, ~. this t~_ day ef~ ~a~ / t ~othon~r~ TIMOTHY HAIN, Plaintiff CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM : :CIVIL ACTION - LAW _. . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 7th day of August, 2002, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Motion To Make Rule Absolute was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. RAWLE & HENDERSON, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Date: Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG BY D~idH Rosenberg, Esq. /(.D. #20569 / 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 TIMOTHY HAIN, CECILE LACOSTE, Plaintiff Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 01-6928 : :ClVlL ACTION -I.~W ORDER AND NOW, on this _~l[day of l~_,~}., 2002 and upon consideration of Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain's, Motion to make the Order dated July 1,2002 Absolute, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain's, Motion is GRANTED, and the Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, will deliver to Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, full and complete answers and_[esponses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within f,,ti~,~.i~ days of receipt of this order or suffer such sanction as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. BY~~j. ~THE COURT:/') ~ / TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff v. : NO. 01-6928 : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA pLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO OBEY DISCOVERY ORDEi[ AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by David H. Rosenberg, Esq., and hereby moves this Honorable Court to enter an Order pursuant to Pa.R.Civ. P. No. 4019, imposing sanctions upon Defendant, Cecile Lacoste, for failure to obey this Honorable Court's Order to provide discovery, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. On or about December 7, 2001, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant, Cecile Lacoste, was negligent in operating an automobile that resulted in a collision that was the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff's serious injuries and scarring. 2. On or about February 1, 2002, Plaintiff's counsel stipulated and agreed to a 30 day extension for which the Defendant may serve and file a responsive pleading to the Plaintiff's Complaint. 3. On or about April 8, 2002, Plaintiff's counsel served Defendant, Cecile Lacoste, with Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to Defendant, Cecile Lacoste. 4. On or about June 9, 2002, Plaintiff's counsel notified Attorney Montilus, Attorney Lentini's associate, that the responses to the discovery requests had not been received and requested that the Defendant advise when the Plaintiff could expect to receive responses to these discovery requests. A copy of the foregoing Letter of June 9, 2002, is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, "Exhibit A." 5. On June 19, 2002, Plaintiff filed with this Honorable Court a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, seeking a Court order directing Defendant to provide answers to Plaintiff's outstanding Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. 6. On July 1, 2002, this Court issued a Rule upon the Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. The Rule was returnable within 20 days of service. A copy of the foregoing Letter of June 9, 2002, is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, "Exhibit B." 7. On August 22, 2002 in response to Plaintiff's Motion to Make Rule Absolute, this Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's Motion. The Order, in pertinent part, states that "...Defendant will deliver full and complete answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and to comply with Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents within 20 days of receipt of this order or suffer such sanction as this Honorable Court deems appropriate." A copy of the foregoing Order of August 20, 2002, is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, "Exhibit C." 8. On or about September 9, 2002, the 30-day period for compliance with the August 22, 2002 Order of this Court came and went without the Defendant, Cecile Lacoste, providing answers to Plaintiff's initial discovery request. 9. It is now more than 50 days since this Court's discovery Order of August 20, 2002 was issued upon Defendant, Cecile Lacoste, and over 7 months since Plaintiff's initial discovery requests were served upon Defendant. Defendant has still not provided any answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories or Request for Production of Documents. 10. In addition, Defendant's failure to respond completely to Plaintiff's discovery requests is in direct violation of this Court's Order and the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 11. Pursuant to Rules 4019(a)(1)(I) and 4019(a)(1)(viii) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may issue an appropriate Order for sanctions if a party fails to serve sufficient answers to written Interrogatories or fails to make discovery or to obey an Order of the Court respecting discovery. 12. By virtue of Defendant's failure to comply, Plaintiff has been unable to secure important evidence and documents essential to the proof of his case and, as a result, has been prejudiced. 13. Furthermore, this civil action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred in 2000. Defendant's failure to respond to discovery has severely limited Plaintiff's ability to develop his case in chief. 14. Pursuant to Rule 4019(g)(1 ) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court may require a party to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the moving party in obtaining an order of compliance and subsequent Order for sanctions. 15. In light of Defendant, Cecile Lacoste's, failure to provide full and complete answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and obey this Court's Order, this Court should require Defendant to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by Plaintiff in obtaining the order of compliance and this order for sanctions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, requests that this Court rule in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant, Cecile Lacoste, and require the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney fees. Date: Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By:, David H.~osenberg, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 20569 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff ' I' nn ng I. osenberg ATTORNEYS AT LAV(/ Leslie B. Hand/er, Retzed k~,'. Scott David H Rosenberg {PA, Carol~ M. Anner (PA, NY, Ma~hew S. Crosby [P,&, Grego~ M. Feather (PA, Step~en G. Nejd 3a[on C. Imler Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP Ten Lake Center Executive Park Suite 204,401 Route 73 North Marlton, NJ 08053 June 9,2002 HF~RIS£LIRG OFFICE 13C0 Lingle£:cwn Rcac Harrisburg. PA 171 lC 717-258-200C 1-~00-422-2224 717-233-3029(~xi LANC&STER OFFICE 140A E King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 717-431-400C DIRECT MAIL TO: P.O. Bax 60337 Harrisburg, PA 1710(: vvvv~zv. HHRLaw. com Rosenberg~'hhrlaw.com RE: Timothy L. Hain v. Cecile L. Acoste Dear Mr. Montilus: I want to follow up on our telephone conference of May 1, 2002. We had adiscussion concerning settlement and you were going to get back to me shortly. It has been over a month and I haven't heard from you. I also want to remind you that I have not received your Discovery responses and that has been over two months· It is apparent that you have no intent to try to resolve this matter and I am ooina to move forward with Court intervention. ~ ~ DHR/tgd cc: Timothy L. Hain Very truly yours. HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG IT ? ? '? David H Rbsenbero TIMOTHY L. HAIN, · Plaintiff : Vo CECILE LACOSTE, · Defendant : iN THE COURT OF CO~MMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSY-LVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Ist day of July, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant's Re'sponses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be wanted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. BY THE COURT, DaVid H?Rosenberg, Esq. //~300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attomey for Plaintiff Gracia R. Montilus, E}q. Rawle & Henderson, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Attorney for Defendant :rc J. Wesley Oler, ,Jf.? J.= TIMOTHY HAIN, Plaintiff CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : : :NO. 01-6928 : .'CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : AND NOW, on this ~'--'day of~2002 and upon consideration of Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain's, Motion to make the Order dated July 1,2002 Absolute, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain's, Motion is GRANTED, and the Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, will deliver to Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, full and complete answers and responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within~ys of receipt of this order or suffer such sanction as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. J. TRUE PY FROM RECORD In I here ~nto set my hen8 an Pa. TIMOTHY HAIN, Plaintiff CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM .. :CIVIL ACTION - LAW .. .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 10th day of October, 2002, I hereby certify that a tree and correct copy of Plaintiff's Motion For Sanctions For Defendant's Failure To Obey Discovery Order was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Gracia R. Momilus, Esq. RAWLE & HENDERSON, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Date: Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By:. ~ David , Esq. I.D. # 2056/~ 1300 L, inqt~t.ow.n__Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 18t~ day of October, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for Defendant's Failure To Obey Discovery Orders, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. David H. Rosenberg, Esq. 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. Rawle & Henderson, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COURT, //Wesley Ol rb~z~r., ~ ~ j. :rc TIMOTHY L. HAIN, : Plaintiff : ., . V. .' .. CECILE I~COSTE, : Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6928 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by David H. Rosenberg, Esquire, and hereby moves this Honorable Court to make the Order dated October 18, 2002 Absolute and grant Plaintiff's motion for sanctions with entry of default judgrnent against Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, for failure to obey discovery orders, and in support thereof avers the following: 1. On or about December 7, 2001, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant, Cecile Lacoste, was negligent in operating an automobile that resulted in a collision that was the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff's serious injuries and scarring. 2. On or about February 1, 2002, PlaintifFs counsel stipulated and agreed to a 30 day extension for which the Defendant may serve and file a responsive pleading to the Plaintiff's Complaint. 3. On or about April 8, 2002, Plaintiff's counsel served Defendant, Cecile Lacoste, with Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to Defendant, Cecile Lacoste. 4. On or about June 9, 2002, Plaintiff's counsel notified Attorney Montilus, Attorney Lentini's associate, that the responses to the discovery requests had not been received and requested that the Defendant advise when the Plaintiff could expect to receive responses to these discovery requests. A copy of the foregoing Letter of June 9, 2002, is'attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, "Exhibit A." 5. On June 19, 2002, Plaintiff filed with this Honorable Court a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, seeking a Court Order directing Defendant to provide answers to Plaintiff's outstanding Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. 6. On July 1,2002, this Court issued a Rule upon the Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. The Rule was returnable within 20 days of service. A copy of the foregoing Order of July 1, 2002, i:s attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, "Exhibit B." 7. On August 22, 2002 in response to Plaintiff's Motion to Make Rule Absolute, this Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's Motion. The Order, in pertinent part, states that "...Defendant will deliver full and complete answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and to comply with Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents within 20 days of receipt of this order or suffer such sanction as this Honorable Court deems appropriate." A copy of the foregoing Order of August 22, 2002, is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, "Exhibit C." 8. After receiving no response, on or about October 10, 2002, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, filed a Motion to place sanctions on the Defendant, Cecile LaCoste. A copy of the foregoing Certificate Of Service of October 10, 2002, is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, "Exhibit D." 9. On October 18, 2002, this Honorable Court issued a Rule upon Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, to show cause why the relief in the Motion for Sanctions should not be granted. The Rule was returnable within 20 days of servicE;. A copy of the foregoing Order of October 18, 2002, is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and m .arked, "Exhibit E." On or about October 29, 2002, the Rule was issued upon Defendant, Cecile 10. Lacoste. 11. On or about November 18, 2002, the Defendant, Cecile Lacoste, finally provided answers to Plaintiff's initial interrogatories via fa)( machine. 12. It is now more than 90 days since this Court',,; discovery Order of August 20, 2002 was issued upon Defendant, Cecile Lacoste, and over 9 months since Plaintiffs initial discovery requests were served upon Defendant. Defendant has still not provided answers to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. 13. Defendant's failure to respond completely to Plaintiffs discovery requests is in direct violation of this Court's Order and the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 14. Plaintiff hereby requests this Honorable Court make the Order dated October 18, 2002 Absolute, and place Sanctions on the Defendant, Cecile LaCoste. 15. In light of Defendant, Cecile Lacoste's, failurE: to answer Plaintiffs Requests for Production of Documents and obey this Court's Order, this Court should enter judgment by default against Defendant and require Defendant to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by Plaintiff in obtaining the order of compliance and this order for sanctions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, requests that this Court enter Judgment by Default in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant, Cecile Lacoste, and require Defendant to pay to Plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney fees. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Date: By: D~a'E/ {osenberg, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 20569 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff ndl -r' nmng 5 senberg ATTORNEYS AT LA~(/ Leslie B. Handler. Retired ~(/. Scott Henning David H Rosenberg JP^, FL) Carolyn M. ~,nner IFA. NY, RNJ Matthew S. Crosby IPA, NJJ Grego~ M. Feather {PA, NJJ Stephen G. Held Jason C. Imler Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP Ten Lake Center Executive Park Suite 204,401 Route 73 North Marlton, NJ 08053 June 9,2002 HARRISBURG OFFICE 300 Unglestown Roac Harrisburg, PA 171 ]C 717-238~200C ! -800-422-2224 717-233-3029 Ifax) LANCASTER OFFICE 140A E King Street Lancaster, PA 1760~ 717-431 DIRECT MAIL TO: P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 vwvw. HHRLaw. com Rosenberg@hhrlaw.com RE: Timothy L. Hain v. Cecile L. Acoste Dear Mr. Montilus: I want to follow up on our telephone conference of May 1, 2002. We had a discussion concerning settlement and you were going to get back to me shortly. It has been over a month and I haven't heard from you. I also want to remind you that I have not received your Discovery responses and that has been over two months. It is apparent that you have no intent to try to resolve this matter and I am going to move forward with Court intervention. DHR/tgd cc: Timothy L. Hain Very truly yours, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG David H F..,~bsenberg TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff V. CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's Responses to PlaintifFs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE xvithin 20 days of service. BY THE COURT, D-,ivid H. Rosenberg, Esq. ~H300 Linglestown Road arrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. Ra~vle & Henderson, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Attorney for Defendant :rc J. Wesley Oler, ~.,~ -j.c. TIMOTHY HAIN, Plaintiff Vo CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 01-6928 : :CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : ~ER AND NOW, on this ~ day of ~J2.,~, 2002 and upon consideration of Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain's, Motion to make the Order dated July 1,20021 Absolute, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain's, Motion is GRANTED, and the Defendant, Cecile LaCoste, will deliver to Plaintiff, Timothy L. Hain, full and complete answers and responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within~~days of receipt of this order or suffer such sanction as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. TRUE ~OPY, FROM RECORD In T,T,T~t:mony whereo/, I here tjnto set my hanoi an~ ;/~e seal ~;f said/Court~ at Rarlisle, Pa. ~~~~.t ~:~" -.-., . TIMOTHY HAIN, CECILE LACOSTE, Plaintiff Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM : :CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE_ On this 10th da.,,' of October. 2002. I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ol'l>laintif/'s Motion For Sanctions For Defendant's Failure 'Fo ()be',' Disc,aver3' Order was served upon the tbllowing by depositing in U.S. Mail: Gracia R. Montilus. Esq. RAWLE & HENDERSON, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia. PA 19107 Respectfully submitted. By: berg. Esq. I.D. # 205~ 1300 Lint ~:stown Road Harris g. ;PA 17110 (717) 238~2000 Attorney ~br Plaintiff Plaintiff go CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 'CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for Defendant's Failure To Obey Discovery Orders, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. D~vid H. Rosenberg, Esq. ~'300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff BY THE COURT, ;;// V'esley Ol(er~r., ~' j. Gracia R. Momilus, Esq. Rawle & Henderson, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Attorney for Defendant :rc TIMOTHY HAIN, CECILE LACOSTE, Plaintiff Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . : . :NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM : :CIVIL ACTION .. LAW .. .- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On th¢2$th day o£ November, 2002, ! hereby ccni£y that a true ~md correct copy o£ the Plainti£ffs Motion To Ma~e Rule Absolute was served upon thc £ollowing' by depositing in U.S. Mail; Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. RAWLE & HENDERSON, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Date: Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, I-IENNING & ROSENBERG By: David I~/Rosenberg, Esq. I.D. #20569 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff V. CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 18th day of December, 2002, upon consideration of the attached letter from David H. Rosenberg, Esq., attorney for' Plaintiff, the hearing previously scheduled for December 19, 2002, is cancelled. David H. Rosenberg, Esq. 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. RAWLE & HENDERSON, LLP Ten Lake Center Executive Park Suite 204, 401 Route 73 North Marlton, NJ 08053 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COURT, J;esley Oler, ,~,? 12- Iq-O ,3~ :rc 12/17/02 15:11 HANDLER HENNING g ROSENBERG + 24064.62 December 17, 2002 N0.200 DO1 HARRISBURG OFFICE 1300 LIn/l==t~ Hen~b~,rg, i~A tlft0 7t ?~O~e ~CA$~R OFFICE 1~ DIREGT ~IL 1 U: Ha~m, PA t/IlO Roaen~HH~.~r. Honorable ~, Wesley Oler S, Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013-0000 Re: Timothy Hain gENT VIA FAX Dem- Judse Olcr; 1 would like to confirm my discussion with Ruth of your office today which I indicat~:l that it is not necessary to have the Hearing an the Marion to Compel, which is sohedu~ed for Thursday at. 9:30 a.m. Defense cnunsel has sow provided me with the Discovcry that I have requested. Thank you for your asaistm~r,e hi tlds umaer. If you need any additional Lo. formation in this mattel, pie. ma: l'~:gl free to 0ontact me. Otherwise, I will contact opposillg oottllsei by copy ofthis lener, and advise them that they need not attend the hearing on Thursday at 9;30 a.m. Very truly Fours, Dh'R/tgd Cna. cia R. Montilus, Esq. Timothy Hain HANDLER, HENNING & ROSEN. BERG, LLP TIMOTHY HAIN, Plaintiff CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA .. .. . :NO. 01-6928 : :CIVIL ACTION - LAW . .. PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the Docket in the above captioned matter as Settled, Discontinued and Satisfied. DATE: HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP BY: ~i~id H F~nberg, Esq. 1300 Li~lestown Road Ha~rrisburg, PA 17110 Tel. No.: 717-238-2000 Supreme Court ID No. 20569 Attorneys for Plaintiff TIMOTHY L. HAIN, Plaintiff V. CECILE LACOSTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-6928 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this l0th day of December, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion To Make Rule Absolute, a hearing is scheduled for Thursday, December 19, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. /David H. Rosenberg, Esq. 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff ~/Gracia R. Montilus, Esq. RAWLE & HENDERSON, LLP Ten Lake Center Executive Park Suite 204, 401 Route 73 North Marlton, NJ 08053 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COURT, ${/Wesley Ole~, Jt/., J. 2-0 ?,'. irc