Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-7293 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SANDRA I. MARTINEZ, No. 12- W93 l.:ivi[ 1&-rM Plaintiff V. Civil Action - Law WILLIE WINDER and FFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants Jury Trial Demanded COMPLAINT AND NOW, the Plaintiff, Sandra I. Martinez, by and through his attorneys SCHMIDT KRAMER PC and hereby aver as follows: THE PARTIES 1. The Plaintiff, Sandra I. Martinez is an adult individual, who currently resides at 2804 Boas Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Willie Winder is an adult individual with a last known address of 1125 Iona Avenue, Southwest, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 3. Defendant FFE Transportation Services, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with a business address of 1145 Empire Central Place, P.O. Box 655888, Dallas, Texas. FACTS 4. The facts which give rise to the cause of action occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on or about April 20, 2008 at approximately 11:30 p.m. 5. On April 20, 2008, a tractor-trailer versus motor vehicle collision occurred on Route 81 northbound, near mile marker 54.7, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff, Sandra I. Martinez was a passenger in her 2001 Ford Explorer Sport traveling northbound on Route 81 in the right-hand lane. 7. At the time of the accident, Defendant Willie Winder was operating a tractor-trailer owned by Defendant FFE Transportation Services, Inc., and was traveling northbound on Route 81 in the left- hand lane. 8. At the aforementioned time and place Defendant Willie Winder was traveling at a higher rate of speed than Sandra I. Martinez's vehicle and attempted to change lanes from the left lane into the right lane, causing an impact between the tractor and the Explorer and causing the Explorer to leave the highway and roll, striking a tree. 9. At the aforementioned time and place, Defendant Willie Winder was acting as an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant FFE Transportation Services, Inc., and was acting in the course and scope of his agency, servitude, and/or employment with the Defendant 2 FFE Transportation Services, Inc., when he collided with Sandra I. Martinez's vehicle. 10. The accident was in no way caused or contributed to by the Plaintiff and was solely caused by the Defendants for the reasons set forth below. COUNT I Sandra I. Martinez v. Willie Winder NEGLIGENCE 11. Paragraphs 1 through 10 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made a part thereof as if set forth in full. 12. The negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of the Defendant Willie Winder consisted of the following: a. Operating a truck tractor at an excessive rate of speed under the circumstances and road conditions; b. Failing to have his vehicle under proper and adequate control; C. Failing to apply the brakes in time to avoid the collision with the Plaintiff; d. Failing to keep a reasonable lookout for other vehicles lawfully on the roadway; e. Failing to operate his vehicle according to existing traffic weather conditions and/or traffic controls; f. Operating his vehicle in a manner so as to create a dangerous situation for other vehicles on the roadway; 3 g. Operating his vehicle in an unsafe manner given the traffic conditions prevailing at the time; h. Failing to drive at a speed allowing him to stop within the assured clear distance ahead; i. Changing lanes when it was unsafe to do so; j. Violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714, Careless Driving, which is negligence per se. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the accident and Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez sustained injuries including but not limited to injuries to her lower back. 14. The accident has left Sandra I. Martinez susceptible to additional injuries in the future to those areas injured by the accident. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the accident and Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez has undergone in the past and in the future will continue to undergo great pain and suffering. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the accident and Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez has been obliged to expend various sums of money and incur various expenses for injuries he has suffered and may continue to incur the same in the future. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the accident and Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez has 4 suffered a permanent diminution of her ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid accident and Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez has suffered a loss of wages and a loss of her earning power and earning capacity. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid accident and Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez has been advised that her injuries may be permanent in nature and effect. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez demands judgment against Defendant Willie Winder in an amount in excess of the amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II Sandra I. Martinez v. FFE Transportation Services, Inc., VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE 20. Paragraphs 1 through 21 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and made a part thereof as if set forth in full. 21. At the time of the subject accident, Defendant Willie Winder was acting as a servant, agent, and/or employee of Defendant FFE Transportation Services, Inc.,. 22. Defendant FFE Transportation Services, Inc., is responsible for and vicariously liable for the consequences of the actions and inactions of his employee, servant, and/or agent, Defendant Willie Winder. 23. Defendant FFE Transportation Services, Inc., was additionally negligent for failing to properly supervise and/or train its 5 servant, agent, and/or employee, Defendant Willie Winder, in the safe operation of the tractor. 24. The injuries sustained by Sandra I. Martinez were a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendants and were not caused or contributed to by any conduct of the Plaintiff. 25. Paragraphs 13 through 19 of the Plaintiffs Complaint relating to injuries and damages are incorporated therein by reference and made a part thereof as if set forth in full. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez demands judgment against Defendant FFE Transportation Services, Inc., in an amount in excess of the amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, Date: 1,0°21126G / SCHMIDT KRAMER PC By: - -2? Todd D. Getgen I.D. No. 80719 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 VERIFICATION I, Sandra I. Martinez, verify that the facts contained in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. DATED: 10 j9 ?p°t Sandra I. Martinez T! i ? l JL. d cd''9G-(22 PN 2: #'78.60 iPp ATH U-0 MOO? -PW ? & kby,I- . 7? V 7 - ?? ,~ s• TO: Plaintiff ~E7C p; ^ J t~i~ , ,,,r.~ YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED ,~,1 i 1~'T~~. SERVICE HEREOF OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY E ~~~~ ~~r~ ~ ~ F~~ ~~ ~' BE ENTERE INST YO . ~~ ifv~- i- f ~ ~ , JUNE J. ESSIS, IRE Attorney for De dants FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C. By: JUNE J. ESSIS, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 54183 Mellon Bank Center 1735 Market Street -Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Defendants 215-893-9300 SANDRA I. MARTINEZ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. CIVIL ACTION -LAW WILLIE WINDER and NO. 09-7293 FFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. . DEFENDANTS WILLIE WINDER AND FFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF SANDRA I. MARTINETS COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants Willie Winder and FFE Transportation Services, Inc. ("Defendants") are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff s Complaint. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 2. Denied as stated. Defendant Willie Winder's address is 1255 Ballard St., SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan Admitted. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff s Complaint. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. {00265937;v1} . - 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff s Complaint. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff s Complaint. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 7.. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 8. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendants acted or failed to act in any improper manner whatsoever and as described in Plaintiff s Complaint. On the contrary, at all times material hereto, Defendants acted in a careful and prudent manner and performed each and all duties owed to all parties to this litigation. Further, to the extent there are any factual allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in these paragraphs. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 9. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendants acted or failed to act in any improper manner whatsoever and as described in Plaintiff s {00265937;v1} ,; Complaint. On the contrary, at all times material hereto, Defendants acted in a careful and prudent manner and performed each and all duties owed to all parties to this litigation. Further, to the extent there are any factual allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in these paragraphs. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 10. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, these allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. COUNTI Sandra I. Martinez v. Willie Winder NEGLIGENCE 11. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 10, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein at length. 12. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 12(a) through (j), inclusive, of Plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that any response is required, Defendants specifically deny that they were negligent, careless, reckless and/or acted in any improper manner whatsoever and therefore deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 12(a) through (j), inclusive, of Plaintiffs Complaint. 13. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. All allegations respecting Plaintiff's alleged suffering of injuries, including injuries to her lower back are specifically denied. Strict proof of all allegations contained in this {00265937;vi} paragraph are demanded at time of trial. Further, Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraph 12 as though fully set forth herein at length. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. All allegations respecting Plaintiffs' past, present and future susceptibility to additional injuries are specifically denied. Strict proof of all allegations contained in this paragraph are demanded at time of trial. Further, Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraph 12 as though fully set forth herein at length. 15. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. All allegations respecting Plaintiff's suffering of past, present and future undergoing great pain and suffering are specifically denied. Strict proof of all allegations contained in this paragraph are demanded at time of trial. Further, Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraph 12 as though fully set forth herein at length. 16. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. All allegations respecting Plaintiff s past, present and future obligation to expend various sums of money and incur various expenses for injuries are specifically denied. Strict proof of all allegations contained in this paragraph are demanded at time of trial. Further, Answering Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraph 12 as though fully set forth herein at length. 17. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to applicable Pennsylvania Rules of {00265937;v1} Civil Procedure. All allegations respecting Plaintiff's suffering a permanent diminution of her ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures are specifically denied. Strict proof of all allegations contained in this paragraph are demanded at time of trial. Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraph 12 as though fully set forth herein at length. 18. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. All allegations respecting Plaintiffs' suffering of past, present and future severe loss of earnings and/or impairment of earning capacity, all to the further loss and detriment of Plaintiffs are specifically denied. Strict proof of all allegations contained in this paragraph are demanded at time of trial. Further, Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraph 12 as though fully set forth herein at length. 19. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, these allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with court costs, reasonable attorneys fees and any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate. COUNT II Sandra I. Martinez v. FFE Transportation Services, Inc. VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE 20. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 19, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein at length. {00265937;v1} 21. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that any response is required, Defendants specifically deny that they were negligent, careless, reckless and/or acted in any improper manner whatsoever and therefore deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 21of Plaintiff's Complaint. 22. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that any response is required, Defendants specifically deny that they were negligent, careless, reckless and/or acted in any improper manner whatsoever and therefore deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 22of Plaintiff's Complaint. 23. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that any response is required, Defendants specifically deny that they were negligent, careless, reckless and/or acted in any improper manner whatsoever and therefore deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 23of Plaintiff s Complaint. 24. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that any response is required, Defendants specifically deny that they were negligent, careless, reckless and/or acted in any improper manner {00265937;v1} whatsoever and therefore deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 24of Plaintiff's Complaint. 25. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that any response is required, Defendants specifically deny that they were negligent, careless, reckless and/or acted in any improper manner whatsoever and therefore deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 25of Plaintiff's Complaint. Further, Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 13 through 19, inclusive, of Plaintiff's Complaint as if fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with court costs, reasonable attorneys fees and any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate. NEW MATTER 26. Defendants aver that by Plaintiff's own actions at the date, time and place stated in Plaintiff s Complaint, Plaintiff did assume the risk of all injuries and/or damages which she alleges to have suffered. 27. The alleged causes of action contained in Plaintiff's Complaint are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. 28. The alleged causes of action contained in Plaintiff's Complaint are barred by the applicable doctrines of estoppel and laches. 29. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a cause of action against Defendants upon which relief may be granted in whole or in part. { 0026593'7;v 1 } 30. It is averred that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries and/or damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by her own carelessness, recklessness or negligence. 31. Defendants believe, and therefore aver, that Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, and therefore recovery, if any, should be eliminated or reduced pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligent Act. 32. Any injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff are the result of the acts of independent, intervening agencies over which Defendants had no power or control. 33. The medical expenses and other damages claimed by Plaintiff are neither reasonable, necessary nor the direct or proximate result of the acts of the alleged occurrences in question. 34. Defendants performed each and every duty which was owed to any party in this litigation. 35. Defendants acted at all times with due and proper care in annon-negligent fashion. 36. Any act and/or omission of Defendants' agents, servants, workmen and/or employees alleged to constitute negligence, said acts being denied, were not the substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in any property damage alleged by Plaintiff, said injuries/damages being denied. 37. The incident, injuries and/or damages described in Plaintiff s Complaint, said incident, injuries and/or damages being denied, were contributed to, or caused by Plaintiff or other individuals and/or entities over whom Defendants had no control. {00265937;v1} 38. Any negligence and/or careless and/or reckless acts and/or omissions of other individuals and/or entities, constitute intervening, superseding causes of the damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, said damages being denied. 39. The incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, said damages being denied, were not proximately caused by Answering Defendants. 40. Defendants at all times acted in a reasonable, prudent, and otherwise non- negligent manner, with due and proper care under the circumstances, and in good faith. 41. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to mitigate her damages. 42. Plaintiff did not suffer any injuries and/or damages as alleged. 43. Plaintiff s claims are barred or limited by their violation of the rules, regulations and statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and of all local authorities relevant hereto, governing the operation and parking of motor vehicles on the streets and highways. 44. Defendants claim all defenses available to it under the provisions of the Pa. Motor Vehicle and Financial Responsibility Act set forth in 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1701, et seq. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate. Dated: ~ b FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C. BY: June J ssis, Esqu' e Atto ey for Defendants {00265937;v1} . ~ VERIFICATION I, WILLIE WINDER, am one of the Defendants in the aforegoing matter and verify that the facts stated in the foregoing Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez's Complaint with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~. ~ s WILLIE WINDER {00270478;v1} a~o4 VERIFICATION I, PHILLIP BOND, am authorized to make this verification on behalf of Defendant FFE Transportation Services, Inc. and verify that the facts stated in the foregoing Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez's Complaint with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. FFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. BY: P ILL BOND {00269380;x1} CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, June J. Essis, Esquire, certify that a true and correct copy of Defendants Willie Winder and FFE Transportation Services, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez's Complaint with New Matter was served on counsel named below on or about this date via electronic filing and/or First Class Mail: Todd D. Getgen, Esquire Schmidt Kramer PC 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Dated: ~ '~~ E J ESSIS {00229o2a;~i } IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA8 OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SANDRA I. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. WILLIE WINDER and FFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants N r-- a , ; No. 09-7293 ~'= ~`~ c *. ~.. _. _.. ~-~~~' R • •~ 1 I'1 . _ -;- .:. Civil Action -Law ~ - ~ ~ _ -~- = -_-=> ~~ 'S'ri =~ =Y ;rte - ~ ~ :.7 • c~ : = <: Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER 26. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 27. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 28. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 29. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 30. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 31. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (d) and (e) . 32. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (d) and (e) . 33. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 34. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 35. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (d) and (e) . 36. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 2 37. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (d) and (e) . 38. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 39. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (d) and (e) . 40. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (d) and (e) . 41. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 42. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 43. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 3 44. Denied. Defendant's new matter does not contain any facts and is a conclusion of law which is deemed denied under Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (d) and (e) . WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sandra I. Martinez demands judgment against Defendants, Willie Winder and FFE Transportation Services, Inc., in an amount in excess of the amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT KRAMER PC _.~/-'~ Date: ©/ Z ( ~ d 1C~ By: l G'%~'~ Todd D. Getgen I.D. No. 80719 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for Plaintiffs 4 *' SANDRA I. MARTINEZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff , v No. 09-7293 ~? ~ 'Y~ WILLIE WINDER and CIVIL ACTION -LAW `~ ;, n `- FFE TRANSPORTATION '-F' ~ ` ca ` _-; ; ~: SERVICES, INC., -r, ." L Vr} J C r Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ._ . :~ ~ , ~ _, ; .~ PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw the appearance of Todd D. Getgen, Esquire of SCHMIDT KRAMER PC as attorney of record for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned action. PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Scott B. Cooper of SCHMIDT KRAMER PC as attorney of record for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned action. Respectfully submitted, DATE: July 8, 2010 SCHMIDT KRAMER PC By: Scott B. Cooper, Esquire SCHMIDT KRAMER PC Attorney I.D. 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 -Telephone (717) 232-6467 -Facsimile CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 8th day of July 2010, I hereby certify that I have, this day, caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: June J. Essis, Esquire Fineman Krekstein 8v Harris, PC Mellon Bank Center 1735 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 SCHMIDT KRAMER PC By: /` Scott B. Cooper, Esquire I.D.# 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 (717) 232-6467 Fax scooper@schmidtkramer. com Attorney for Plaintiff OF CU�e David D. Buell Renee X Simpson Prothonotary , o ;��,,.F ,,r Z 15` Deputy Prothonotary V A „ Y t= 4 S S Nonage, Q, \o„ �: 7�irk o ESQ _=a; gar Irene E. Morrow Solicitor 1750 2nd Deputy Prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 69— 7e2,Q3 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 291H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013,AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE-THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R.C.P.230.2. BY THE COURT, DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Suite 100 • Carlsle, PA 17013 • (717)240-6195 • 'Fax(717)240-6573