Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-7419 W. Scott Henning, Esquire I. D.#32298 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: hennin4 hhrlaw.com SHEA QUINN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. No. -'1 9 i t l l e m JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE, and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. LISTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSEN By: W. Scott W. Scott Henning, Esquire I. D.#32298 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: henning hhrlaw.com SHEA QUINN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. No. V R. y l 9 r 1 ?? JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE, and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING, & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esquire, and makes the within Complaint against Defendants, Joshua A. Sanderson, Bradley B. Bledsoe, and Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Dorado Restaurant (hereinafter, "Dorado Restaurant'), and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, is an adult individual currently residing at 119 East Main Street, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Joshua A. Sanderson, is an adult individual residing at 401 Chestnut Street, Marysville, Perry County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, Bradley B. Bledsoe, is an adult individual residing at 306 South 24th Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendant, Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Dorado Restaurant, is a Pennsylvania limited liability company formerly located at 1300 Camp Hill Bypass, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. (Hereinafter referred to as Dorado Restaurant). Service of process may be effectuated upon the Corporate President, William P. Gula at 320 West Meadow Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Dorado Restaurant was in exclusive control of said Premises, was responsible for maintaining the safety of patrons at the Premises, and failed to provide any security to the Premises, in the form of bouncers, doormen, or other security for the patrons of the Premises. 6. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Dorado Restaurant, acted or failed to act through its agents, servants, and/or employees, acting for Defendant's benefit, under Defendant's control, and within the course and scope of their authority and/or employment. 7. On or about November 22, 2007, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, was lawfully upon the Defendant's premises. Plaintiff had been paid by Dorado Restaurant to perform as a musician at the premises that night. 8. While Plaintiff was leaving Defendant's building at approximately 1:00 a.m., Defendants, Joshua A. Sanderson and Bradley B. Bledsoe, attacked Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, punching him in the back of the head, and continued to punch and/or kick Plaintiff after he had fallen to the ground. 9. At all times material hereto, Defendant did not provide for any security upon the Premises, in the form of bouncers or doormen, and the attack upon the Plaintiff was allowed to continue. 10. The aforementioned incident occurred as Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, was leaving Defendant's building and Plaintiff asserts that Defendant, Dorado Restaurant, had a duty to protect its patrons from such criminal activity on its premises and that duty was breached, which ultimately led to the assault and battery on Plaintiff by Defendants, Joshua A. Sanderson and Bradley B. Bledsoe. COUNT 1- ASSAULT & BATTERY Shea Quinn v. Joshua A. Sanderson 11. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 12. On November 22, 2007, in the County of Cumberland, Defendant, Joshua A. Sanderson, in conjunction with Defendant, Bradley B. Bledsoe, assaulted Plaintiff from behind, striking Plaintiff with his fists, knocking Plaintiff to the ground, kicking and striking Plaintiff in the head. 13. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has suffered extensive personal injuries, including, but not limited to, a broken jaw, a fractured skull and nose, crushed molars, bruised ribs & back, bleeding in the brain, vertigo, nausea, and vision problems. 14. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has undergone continuing medical care for the aforesaid injuries. 15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has suffered lost wages/income and may in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 16. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 17. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. 18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his detriment and loss. 19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties and chores, to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 20. Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are permanent and serious and have caused serious impairment of his bodily function and permanent serious disfigurement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, seeks damages from Defendant, Joshua A. Sanderson, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II - ASSAULT & BATTERY Shea Quinn v. Bradley B. Bledsoe 21. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 22. On November 22, 2007, in the County of Cumberland, Defendant, Bradley B. Bledsoe, in conjunction with Defendant, Joshua A. Sanderson, assaulted Plaintiff from behind, striking Plaintiff with his fists, knocking Plaintiff to the ground, kicking and striking Plaintiff in the head. 23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has suffered extensive personal injuries, including, but not limited to, a broken jaw, a fractured skull and nose, crushed molars, bruised ribs & back, bleeding in the brain, vertigo, nausea, and vision problems. 24. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has undergone continuing medical care for the aforesaid injuries. 25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has suffered lost wages/income and may in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. 28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his detriment and loss. 29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's assault and battery, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties and chores, to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 30. Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are permanent and serious and have caused serious impairment of his bodily function and permanent serious disfigurement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, seeks damages from Defendant, Bradley B. Bledsoe, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT 111- NEGLIGENCE Shea Quinn v. Wormleysburg Restaurant. LLC d/b/a Dorado Restaurant 31. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 32. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the Defendant, Dorado Restaurant, generally and more specifically as set forth below. (a) In causing or permitting a complete lack of security on said Premises, thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises known as Dorado Restaurant located at 1300 Camp Hill Bypass, Camp Hill, Cumberland County; (b) In causing or permitting a lack of security on said Premises when Defendant knew or should have known that the lack of security would cause a hazard to individuals lawfully on the premises; (c) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the need for security on said Premises, and thereby allowing the lack of security to remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; (d) In failing to ensure the Premises was secured and maintained in a safe condition through the presence of security personnel to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (e) In failing to provide security personnel so as to eliminate the dangerous condition on the Premises whereby patrons in the bar are permitted to engage in verbal and physical altercations thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and others lawfully upon the Premises; (f) In failing to provide security personnel on said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff was assaulted and battered by unruly patrons; (g) In failing to provide security personnel in order to quash any unruly behavior by patrons before they could cause injury or harm to other patrons, such as Plaintiff, who were lawfully upon the Premises; (h) In failing to provide for security personnel to maintain control of the Premises when it was known, or should have be known, that the patrons would be consuming alcoholic beverages, thereby posing a threat to themselves and others, such as Plaintiff, who were lawfully upon the Premises; (i) In failing to have security personnel that would take appropriate action to remove a patron from the premises when the patron is intoxicated and/or acting in an unruly, inappropriate manner, thereby posing a risk of physical harm to other patrons who are lawfully on the premises; and 0) In failing to contact the Township Police to have Defendants Bledsoe and Sanderson removed from the premises, when said Defendants exhibited signs of intoxication and/or inappropriate behavior earlier in the morning. 33. Defendant, Dorado Restaurant, had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that the lack of security personnel created a dangerous situation on the Premises. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Dorado Restaurant, Plaintiff sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, a broken jaw, a fractured skull and nose, crushed molars, bruised ribs & back, bleeding in the brain, vertigo, nausea, and vision problems. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Dorado Restaurant, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has undergone physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Dorado Restaurant, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties to his detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Dorado Restaurant, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. 38. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Dorado Restaurant, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has suffered lost wages/income and may in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Dorado Restaurant, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. 40. Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are permanent and serious and have caused serious impairment of his bodily function and permanent serious disfigurement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, seeks damages from Defendant, Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Dorado Restaurant, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits for Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Date: 7c??J By: I.D. #3229 1300 Lingl sto Road, uite 2 Harrisburg, 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ?? Q OF THE ASH f e pTARY 2009 OCT 28 pM f : 00 etlt?t ? ? ; ?;'N?r. $'78.5O PO ATry I'q 5A P.a'? a3a.??3 Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire E-mail: sgeduldig@tthlaw.com Attorney I.D. No. 43530 (717) 237-7119 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire E-mail: shersperger@tthlaw.com Attorney I.D. No. 78735 (717) 255-7239 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0999 FAX (717) 237-7105 SHEA QUINN, Plaintiff V. Attorneys for Defendant, WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION --LAW NO. 09-7419 CIVIL TERM JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire, Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire, and Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, as attorneys for Defendant, Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Dorado Restaurant, in the above-captioned matter, reserving our right to answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiffs Complaint. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER LLP By: 753983.1 STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Defendant, WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, D/B/A DORADO RESTAURANT SHEA QUINN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION --LAW V. NO. 09-7419 CIVIL TERM JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the ? day of November, 2009, on all counsel of record as follows: W. Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 130o Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiff Joshua A. Sanderson 401 Chestnut Street Marysville, Pennsylvania Defendant Bradley B. Bledsoe 308 South 24th Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania Defendant THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Ste en E. 7Geduldig, Esquire 753985.1 Fly -Ij-='k it , OF THE, P,;Dl^'.i;, k^'!„_()TAPY 2009 NOY 24 Ph 1'. I J cUW, V SY ~ .I Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire .{~~ ~C ~J~T'~..I~`s~1?~~~Y E-mail: sgeduldig@tthlaw.com Attorney I.D. No. 43530 n ~~ pp p X717) z37-7119 ZQ ~ Q ii`1 ~ ~ ~i l ~~ .~ $ Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire E-mail: shersperger@tthlaw.com C~~I'~. ; 1:,x.1 ~";% AttorneyLD.No.78735 r~, '~f_ X717) 255-7239 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0999 Attorneys for Defendant, WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURAN'T', LLC d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT FAX (717) 237-7105 SHEA QUINN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v NO. og-74i9 CIVIL TERM JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of subpoenas for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant certifies that: i. A Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas with a copy of the subpoenas attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party on or about February 19, 2oTO, to serve subpoenas upon the following: Cumberland County District Attorney, Wayne Ross M.D., and the PA Victims Assistance Program 2. A true and correct file copy of the Notice of Intent, including copies of the proposed subpoenas, are attached to this Certificate. 3. The twenty (20) day period for filing and serving objections to said subpoenas has been waived. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Id I By: STEPHE E. GEDULDIG, ESQUI Attorney I.D. No. 43530 STEPHANIE L. HERSPERGER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 78735 Attorneys for Defendant, WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, D/B/A DORADO RESTAURANT 73o25o.i ,A SHEA QUINN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v. NO.09-749 CIVIL TERM JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, LISA A. WATSON, PARALEGAL of the law firm of THOMAS, THOMAS, & HAFER, LLP do certify that I served the foregoing document on the following person(s), by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: W. Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 130o Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1'J11o Attorneys for Plaintiff LeRoy Smigel, Esquire Peter M. Good, Esquire SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS River Chase Office Center 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania l~llo Attorneys for Defendant Bradley B. Bledsoe Date: 03/12/10 ~ ~ . ~o~~ Lisa A. Watson, Pa.C.P. SHEA QUINN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSHUA A. SANDERSON, and . BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and . WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, No. Q9-7419 Civil Action LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2010, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Complaint, the Defendants' Response thereto, the briefs filed by the parties, and after oral argument, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is DENIED. Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's original complaint within twenty days from the date of this Order. M. L. Ebert, Jr., W. Scott Henning, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Stephan E. Geduldig, Esquire 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 J. ~ -~ cs ~-: ~•z r --~ y _,.: N '~~~ (j`i r-= ~_~. ~- ~~~ ~_ t~_ ~? ~ ~ _~ f _~, ~ ~1~ r-, ~. -~ ~~ ~ ~s rn.a ~ L~.:c~, ~l~,s~~a .~r~ By the Court, SHEA QUINN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOSHUA A. SANDERSON, and . BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and . WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, No. 09-7419 Civil Action LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, . Defendants OPINION and ORDER OF COURT PROCEDURAL HISTORY Ebert, J., June 24, 2010 - Plaintiff initially filed his Complaint on October 28, 2009. The original complaint contained no allegations that Responding Defendant was negligent for allegedly serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons. On December 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, paragraph 32(a) was added, which specifically alleged that Responding Defendant was negligent "[i]n serving and continuing to serve alcohol to patrons visibly intoxicated." See para. 32(a) of amended complaint. The amended complaint was filed without consent of the parties or by leave of court as required by Pa.R.C.P. No. 1033. Therefore, Defendant, Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Dorado Restaurant, (hereinafter Dorado) filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint, in part, based on Plaintiff's failure to obtain leave of court or the consent of the parties prior to filing said pleading. Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. On March 15, 2010, this Court issued a rule to show cause why Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint should not be granted. In compliance with this Court's Order, Dorado filed a Response Opposing the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Oral argument was held on June 2, 2010. STATEMENT OF FACTS On November 22, 2007, in Cumberland County, Plaintiff was lawfully on the premises of Dorado.2 Plaintiff had been paid by Dorado to perform as a musician at the restaurant that night.3 While Plaintiff was leaving Dorado's, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Joshua A. Sanderson and Bradley B. Bledsoe attacked Plaintiff allegedly causing him serious injuries.4 Plaintiff asserts that Dorado breached its duty to protect patrons from criminal activity on its premises, which ultimately led to the assault and battery on Plaintiff.5 Dorado allegedly did not provide any security at the restaurant, which allowed the attack to continue.6 DISCUSSION Count III of the original complaint presents only one theory of liability sounding in negligence: landowner liability. Under this rule of law: "[a] possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons ..., and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to (a) discover that acts are being done or are likely to be done, or (b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect against it." 1 The Court summarizes the facts as stated in Plaintiff's Oct. 28, 2009 Complaint. Z Pl. Compl., Oct. 28, 2009, ¶ 7. s Pl. Compl., Oct. 28, 2009, ¶ 7. 4 Pl. Compl., Oct. 28, 2009, ¶ 8, ¶ 12, ¶ 22. 5 Pl. Compl., Oct. 28, 2009, ¶ 10. 6 Pl. Compl., Oct. 28, 2009, ¶ 9. 2 Plasterer v. Paine, 544§ A.2d 985, 989 - 990 (Pa. Super. 1988). Dorado knew or should have known that the lack of security would cause a hazard to individuals lawfully on the premises. Dorado had a duty to prevent tortious acts of third parties to its patrons or to warn them of such possible danger. Dorado allegedly breached this duty through its lack of security precautions, which led to the assault and battery on Plaintiff. Assuming the facts as pled by Plaintiff are true, claims 32(a) through 32(j) of the original complaint would support a finding of negligence based on landowner liability. These claims are all directed to Defendant Dorado's negligent failure to provide adequate security. However, in the amended complaint Plaintiff seeks to add one paragraph to Count III of the original complaint. This additional paragraph claims that Dorado's was negligent "[i]n serving and continuing to serve alcohol to patrons who were visibly intoxicated," and that this action directly and proximately caused the occurrence of the incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff.' This additional paragraph is not relevant to the inadequate security claim against Dorado. Instead, this additional paragraph seeks to add a second distinct theory of liability not present in the original complaint, namely Dram Shop liability. Under the Pennsylvania Dram Shop Act, 47 P.S. §4-493(1), "[i]t shall be unlawful ... [f]or any licensee ... or any employee, servant or agent of such licensee ... to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated ..." This section clearly indicates that it would be unlawful for Dorado or its agent to sell, ~ Pl. Am. Compl., Dec. 15, 2009, ¶ 32(a). 3 furnish, or give intoxicating beverages to a visibly intoxicated person. Furthermore, "[a] violation of the requirements of this statute is deemed negligence per se, and if the violation is the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs injuries, then the Defendant is liable." Detwiler v. Brumbaugh, 656 A.2d 944, 946 (Pa. Super. 1995). Assuming the facts as pled by Plaintiff are true, the addition of the claim in paragraph 32(a) in the amended complaint would support a finding of negligence based on Dram Shop liability. According to 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5524, a cause of action for Dram Shop liability is subject to a two-year Statute of Limitations. In this case, the Statute of Limitations for Dram Shop liability expired on November 22, 2009. While the amended complaint introduces this new cause of action after the two-year statute of limitations has run, it has been established that: "[i]n general, amendments to pleadings are liberally allowed. But, an amendment introducing a new cause of action will not be permitted after the Statute of Limitations has run in favor of a defendant ...:However, if the proposed amendment does not change the cause of action. but merely amplifies that which has already been averred, it should be allowed even though the Statute of Limitations has already run." Stalsitz v. Allentown Hosp., 814 A.2d 766, 776 (Pa. Super. 2002). Therefore, the over-arching question before this Court is whether the language of the amended complaint changes the cause of action presented in the original complaint or if it merely amplifies a cause of action which has already been averred. Id. This question is important because if Plaintiff's proposed amendment does not change the cause of action but merely amplifies that which has already been averred, it should be allowed even though the Statute of Limitations has run. This Court finds that rather than merely amplifying the cause of action averred in the original complaint, the addition of the claim 4 in paragraph 32(a) to Count III in the amended complaint adds a new cause of action under the Dram Shop Act. A violation of the Dram Shop Act is negligence per se, while landowner liability is ordinary negligence. "A new cause of action does arise ... if the amendment proposes a different theory or a different kind of negligence than the one previously raised or if the operative facts supporting the claim are changed." Reynolds v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. HOSp•, 676 A.2d 1205, 1210 (Pa. Super. 1996). The amended complaint proposes a different kind of negligence than what was pled in the original complaint and so a new cause of action arises. Negligence per se is a separate legal theory having elements and underlying rationales different from theories of absolute liability and ordinary negligence. McCloud v. McLaughlin, 837 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2003). Furthermore, the operative facts supporting the claim have been changed. The original complaint made no mention of Dorado "serving and continuing to serve alcohol to patrons who were visibly intoxicated" but focused solely on the lack of security. The amended complaint changes the claim by adding these new operative facts and so a new cause of action arises. CONCLUSION In conclusion, this Court finds that the amended complaint changes the theory and the type of negligence pled in the original complaint by adding new aperative facts and thereby creates a new, additional cause of action. The statute of limitations for this additional cause of action expired on November 22, 2009. Accordingly, Plaintiff s Motion for Leave of Court to Amend his Complaint is DENIED. Plaintiff may still pursue his negligence claim under the landowner liability theory. Accordingly the following order is entered: 5 1 . ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2010, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Complaint, the Defendants' Response thereto, the briefs filed by the parties, and after oral argument IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is DENIED. Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's original complaint within twenty days from the date of this Order. ~~i• i. i~t.l 1, J1., W. Scott Henning, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Stephan E. Geduldig, Esquire 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 6 By the Court, SMIGEL, ANDERSON & ACKS, LLP LeRoy Smigel, Esquire River Chase Office Center, 3 a Floor Ismigel@sasllp.com 4431 North Front Street Peter M. Good, Esquire Harrisburg, PA 17110 pgood@sasllp.com (717) 234-2401 ~i Jessica E. Mercy, Esquire jmercy@sasllp.com Attorneys for Defendant, Bradley B. Bledsoe SHEA QUINN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS P aintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. ' No. 09-7419 Civil Term '~ JOSHUA A. SANDER ON and t -, ~~~ _. ~ - ~~ BRADLEY B. BLEDS E, and ._~_ ,=~:~'.~ 4 i- WORMLEYSBURG STAURANT, _- - ='_r: LLC, d/b/a DORADO STAURANT, CIVIL ACTION -LAW `''' _' ~;', D fendants "~' l',L. `, DEFENDANT BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE'S ~ c~ ` ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Defendant Bradley B. Bledsoe (hereinafter "Defendant Bledsoe"), by and through his attorney, Smigel, Anderson & Sacks, LLP, who files the following Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint an~i in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Denied. ~fter reasonable investigation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph and the averments are therefore denied, wit strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 3. 4. Denied. ~fter reasonable investigation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph and the averments are therefore denied, wit strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 5. Denied. 'I~he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required und~r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, w or information sufficient to form a belief as to the Defendant Bledsoe is wi hout kno ledge averments of this paragr ph and the averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 6. Denied. ~'he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required un Defendant Bledsoe is averments of this para~ demanded at trial. 7. Denied. response is required un Defendant Bledsoe is averments of this paral demanded at trial. the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the and the averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the and the averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof 8. Denied. ')ro the contrary, Defendant Bledsoe did not attack Plaintiff, punch Plaintiff in the back of tl~e head or continue to punch Plaintiff after he had fallen to the ground and the averments are ~ 9. Denied. response is required un Defendant Bledsoe is averments of this para~ demanded at trial. 10. Denied. response is required un specifically denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the and the averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a 2 response is deemed requ~red, the averments are specifically denied. Byway of further denial, Defendant Bledsoe did dot attack Plaintiff, punch Plaintiff in the back of the head or continue to punch Plaintiff after he lad fallen to the ground and the averment that Defendant Bledsoe assaulted and battered demanded at trial. iff is therefore specifically denied, with strict proof thereof COUNT I -ASSAULT & BATTERY Shea Ouinn v. Joshua A. Sanderson 11. This is ar~ incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 12. Denied. 't'he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed requ~red, the averments are specifically denied. Byway of further denial, Defendant Bledsoe did riot, in conjunction with Defendant Joshua A. Sanderson (hereinafter "Defendant Sanderson")~ assault Plaintiff from behind, strike Plaintiff with his fists, knock Plaintiff to the ground o~ kick and strike Plaintiff in the head and the averments are therefore specifically denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 13. Denied. 'I~he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required und~r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable investigation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to the personal injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff an~ such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 14. Denied. 1~he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required und~r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable investigation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient 3 to form a belief as to they averments of this paragraph relating to the medical care allegedly undergone by Plaintiff a~d such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 15. Denied. ~'he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable investigation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to the wage loss allegedly sustained by Plaintiff an such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 16. Denied. 'l~he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required und~r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable investig tion, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to the physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish alle edly sustained by Plaintiff and such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 17. Denied. ~'he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable investigation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to medical expenses allegedly incurred by Plaintiff and such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 18. Denied. response is required averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no .r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, 4 after reasonable investigation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to th averments of this paragraph relating to the loss of life's pleasures allegedly sustained by P aintiff and such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 19. Denied. he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required un r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable investi ation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to th averments of this paragraph relating to the alleged hindrance of Plaintiff s daily duties a~d such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 20. Denied. ~'he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no I response is required un r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, Defendant Bledsoe is w' hout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragr~ph and the averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, efendant Bradley B. Bledsoe respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff together with costs and any other relief that this Court deems just. 21. This is 22. Denied. response is required response is deemed COUNT II -ASSAULT & BATTERY Shea Ouinn v. Bradley B. Bledsoe incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. ze averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a the averments are specifically denied. By way of further denial, 5 Defendant Bledsoe did riot, in conjunction with Defendant Sanderson, assault Plaintiff from behind, strike Plaintiff v~ith his fists, knock Plaintiff to the ground or kick and strike Plaintiff in the head and the averme is are therefore specifically denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 23. Denied. he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed requ~red, the averments are specifically denied. By way of further denial, after reasonable investigation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to the personal injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff an~i such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 24. Denied.l~he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required und~r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed requ~red, the averments are specifically denied. By way of further denial, after reasonable investigation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to the medical care allegedly undergone by Plaintiff d such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 25. Denied. '11he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required und~r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed requ~red, the averments are specifically denied. By way of further denial, after reasonable investig tion, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to the wage loss allegedly 6 sustained by Plaintiff an~ such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 26. Denied. he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required un r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. Byway of further denial, after reasonable investi tion, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to th averments of this paragraph relating to the physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish alle edly sustained by Plaintiff and such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof emanded at trial. 27. Denied. he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required and r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed requ~red, the averments are specifically denied. Byway of further denial, after reasonable investigation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to medical expenses allegedly incurred by Plaintiff an such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 28. Denied. he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required and r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed requ~red, the averments are specifically denied. Byway of further denial, after reasonable investigation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to the loss of life's pleasures allegedly sustained by demanded at trial. and such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof 7 29. Denied. he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required un r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. Byway of further denial, after reasonable investi ation, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to th averments of this paragraph relating to the alleged hindrance of Plaintiff's daily duties d such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 30. Denied. he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required and r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed req 'red, the averments are specifically denied. Byway of further denial, Defendant Bledsoe is w' hout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragr~ph and the averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, ~efendant Bradley B. Bledsoe respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff together with costs and any other relief that this Court deems just. COUNT III -NEGLIGENCE hea uinn v. Wormle sbur Restaurant LLC d/b/a Dorado Restaurant 31. This is a incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 32. Denied. he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required and r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, Defendant Bledsoe is wi hout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 8 averments of this paragr~ph and the averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 33. Denied. he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required and r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, Defendant Bledsoe is wi hout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragr~ph and the averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 34. Denied. he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required and r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to the personal injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff an such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 35. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required and r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable investig tion, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to the physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish alleg dly sustained by Plaintiff and such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof emanded at trial. 36. Denied. T e averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required and r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable investig tion, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the verments of this paragraph relating to the alleged hindrance of 9 Plaintiff s daily duties a~d such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 37. Denied. ']~'he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required und~r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable investig tion, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to the loss of life's pleasures allegedly sustained by P aintiff and such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 38. Denied.l~he averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required and r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable investig tion, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph relating to the wage loss allegedly sustained by Plaintiff an such averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 39. Denied. T~e averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required and r the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, after reasonable investig tion, Defendant Bledsoe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the verments of this paragraph relating to medical expenses allegedly incurred by Plaintiff and uch averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 40. Denied. T~e averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required unde the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further denial, Defendant Bledsoe is wit out knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 10 averments of this paragraph and the averments are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, ~efendant Bradley B. Bledsoe respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff together with costs and any other relief that this Court deems just. Respectfully Submitted, SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP Date: July 14, 2010 By: Le y Smigel, Es ire ID #09617 Peter M. Good, Esquire ID #64316 Jessica E. Mercy, Esquire ID #206405 River Chase Office Center, 3rd Flr. 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-2401 Attorneys for Defendant Bradley B. Bledsoe 11 VERIFICATION I, Bradley B. Ble soe, verify that the statements contained in the foregoing document are true and correct to the b st of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements therein are m de subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. X4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authoriti Date: ©~ ~ ~ Q~© Br ey .Bledsoe SHEA QUINN, v. JOSHUA A. SANDERS Nand BRADLEY B. BLEDS E, and WORMLEYSBURG STAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO STAURANT, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 09-7419 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify foregoing document U.S. Mail, first class, W. Scott Hen Handler, Henning ~ 1300 Linglestov~ Harrisburg, Attorney fc Stephen E. Ged Thomas, Thoma; 305 North F P.O. Bc Harrisburg, Attorney for Wormleysburg R on this 14th day of July, 2010 a true and correct copy of the served upon counsel as addressed below by depositing the same in the prepaid: ng, Esquire Rosenberg, LLP Road, Suite 2 'A 17110 Plaintiff ldig, Esquire & Hafer, LLP ant Street 999 'A 17108 LLC Michael J. O'Connor, Esquire Killian & Gephart, LLP 218 Pine Street P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant Joshua A. Sanderson SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP By: yna' Le oy Smigel, Esquire ID #09617 Peter M. Good, Esquire ID #64316 Jessica E. Mercy, Esquire ID #206405 River Chase Office Center, 3rd Flr. 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-2401 Attorneys for Defendant Bradley B. Bledsoe 12 .. ., ~ Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire E-mail: sgeduldig@tthlaw.com Attorney I.D. No. 43530 (717) 237-7119 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire E-mail: shersperger@tthlaw.com Attorney I.D. No. 78735 (717)255-7239 ,. , T.._ ~ ~' ~;~'r, t ' ', ~ .; L~3tS J ~.. ~ _{ .,.i Qr~ 3'•03 ,. THOMAS, THOMAS 8 HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0999 Attorneys for Defendant, WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT FAX (717) 237-7105 SHEA QUINN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v NO. og-74i9 CIVIL TERM JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and . BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiff and his counsel: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAYBE ENI~RED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS &HAFER, LLP r By: Steph n E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No: 43530 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78735 Attorneys for Defendant, WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT', LLC, D/B/A DORADO RESTAURANT' Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire E-mail: sgeduldig@tthlaw.com Attorney I.D. No. 43530 (717)237-7119 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire E-mail: shersperger@tthlaw.com Attomey I.D. No. 78735 (717) 255-7239 THOMAS, THOMAS 8~ HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0999 FAX (717) 237-7105 Attorneys for Defendant, WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT SHEA QUINN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -- LAW v NO. o9-74i9 CIVIL TERM JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Defendant, Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Dorado Restaurant, by and through its counsel, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and files this Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint, averring and stating as follows: i. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted upon information and belief. 3. Admitted upon information and belief. 4. Admitted that the facts alleged in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint were true and correct at the times relevant herein. By way of further answer, the premises were sold on October i~, 2008. 5. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. io29(e). Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. io29(e). Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. ~. Admitted. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, was assaulted near the front door, in the doorway, or outside the doorway of Answering Defendant. The remaining averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied since after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations. Therefore, said allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. io29(e) and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendant did not provide any bouncers or other security on the night at issue as it did not have any reason to anticipate any assault or other violent conduct either on Plaintiff, or on anyone else, by any patrons. It is denied that Answering Defendant "allowed" the attack on the Plaintiff to "continue" since Answering Defendant did not know, or have any reason to know, of the attack until it was over. The remaining averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. io29(e) and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. io. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that the assault is believed to have occurred when Plaintiff was leaving the restaurant. The remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied as legal conclusions and/or pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1o29(e) and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I -ASSAULT & BATTERY Shea Quinn v. Joshua A. Sanderson ii. Paragraphs 1 through io of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length. 12-20. Denied. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a Defendant other than Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response thereto is necessary from Answering Defendant. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, it is denied that Answering Defendant was in any way negligent and/or caused or contributed to any of Plaintiff s claimed injuries and damages, and therefore, strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT II -ASSAULT & BATTERY Shea Quinn v. Bradley B. Bledsoe 21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length. 22-30. Denied. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a Defendant other than Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response thereto is necessary from Answering Defendant. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, it is denied that Answering Defendant was in any way negligent and/or caused or contributed to any of Plaintiffs claimed injuries and damages, and therefore, strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT III -NEGLIGENCE Shea Ouinn v. Wormlevsburg Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Dorado Restaurant 3i. Paragraphs i through 30 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length. 32. (a)-(j). Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined the response thereto is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. io29(e). 33• Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1o29(e). 34• The averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined the response thereto is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. io29(e). 35• The averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined the response thereto is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1o29(e). 36. The averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined the response thereto is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. io29(e). 37. The averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined the response thereto is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. io2g(e). 38. The averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined the response thereto is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1o29(e). 39• The averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined the response thereto is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. io29(e). 40. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. io29(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Dorado Restaurant, demands judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff, with Plaintiff s Complaint being dismissed, with prejudice. NEW MATTER 4i. Plaintiffs claims may be barred and/or diminished by the applicable statute of limitations. 42. Plaintiffs claims may be barred and/or diminished by the application of the doctrine of comparative and/or contributory negligence. 43• Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Answering Defendant. 44• The harm and damages alleged by Plaintiff occurred as the result of conduct or omissions of third parties not under the control or supervision of Answering Defendant. 45• Plaintiffs damages may be diminished or precluded by agreements of others to pay the same. 46. If the averments contained in the Plaintiffs Complaint are established, said averments being specifically denied as they may relate to Answering Defendant, then the injuries and damages complained of were caused by the acts and/or omissions of third persons over whom Answering Defendant had no control or right of control. 47. Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages were caused by the criminal conduct of one or more individuals. 48. Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by Plaintiffs own negligence and carelessness and/or assumption of the risk in that he: (a) instigated the incident; (b) aggravated the incident; and (c) failed to retreat from the incident. 49• Answering Defendant owed no duty to protect Plaintiff from the intentional criminal conduct of a third person. 50. As discovery may support, Answering Defendant provisionally pleads the defenses of accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, release, waiver, estoppel, credit and offset. 5i. Answering Defendant's alleged actions or omissions were not a substantial factor in causing, nor a legal cause of, Plaintiffs alleged injuries. 52. Answering Defendant provided adequate safeguards to protect against the risk of injury to patrons such as Plaintiff. 53• Answering Defendant, by and through their agents, servants and/or employees, responded in a timely and appropriate manner to the alleged events that Plaintiff contends caused Plaintiff s injuries. 54• Answering Defendant could not have foreseen the alleged events that allegedly caused Plaintiffs injuries. 55• Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate his injuries and/or damages. 56. Answer Defendant at all times hereto was acting reasonably under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, Defendant Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Dorado Restaurant, demands judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff, with Plaintiffs Complaint being dismissed, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP G By: STEP IE L. HERSPERGER, ESQUIRE Attorney LD. No. 78735 Attorneys for Defendant, WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURAN'T', LLC, D/B/A DORADO RESTAURAN'T' VERIFICATION I, Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire, attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Dorado Restaurant, have read the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint and hereby affirm and verify that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. I verify that all of the statements to which I have personal knowledge, information and belief are true and correct and that false statements made therein may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. The information as to matters not stated upon my own personal knowledge, information and belief has been provided to me by Defendant. This Verification is made in accordance with the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. No. io24(c). STEPHANIE L. HERSPERGER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Dorado Restaurant Date: ~ f ~ I,~ SHEA QUINN, Plaintiff v. JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -- LAW NO.09-7419 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Answer with New Matter of Defendant, Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC, d f b/a Doarado Restaurant, was served by depositing the san~jn the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the ~O ~ ~ day of July, 2010, on all counsel of record as follows: W. Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP i3oo Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania i7iio Attorneys for Plaintiff LeRoy Smigel, Esquire Peter M. Good, Esquire SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS River Chase Office Center 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania i~i1o Attorneys for Defendant Bradley B. Bledsoe Michael J. O'Connor, Esquire KILLIAN & GEPHART, LLP Post Office Box 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania i~io8-0886 Attorneys for Defendant, Joshua A. Sanderson THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Stephani L. Hersperger, Esquire 753985.1 -- +-. r-!_; t ~ ``~ ,, ,. ~ ei ~ U p ~. '~ ~ v X010 ~v b /o t~i~?.j !. ~ `~~ [/'~ ~: V'L/f ~'I C ` ;~ i `i;~ :~ 4 W. Scott Henning, Esquire I.D.#32298 HANDLER, HENNING 8 ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: HenningCDHHRLaw.com SHEA QUINN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~• No. 09-7419 JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE, and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO . RESTAURANT, . Defendants :CIVIL ACTION -LAW PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, by and through his attorney, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esq., and responds to the Defendant's allegations of New Matter as follows: 41. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 41 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiffs claims may be barred and/or diminished by the applicable Statute of Limitations, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 42. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 42 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff was in any way contributorily or comparatively negligent so as to bar and/or diminish the Plaintiffs claims, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 43. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 4.3 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action against the Answering Defendant, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 44. Denied. It is denied that the injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff occurred solely as a result of conduct or omissions of third parties not under the control or supervision of the Answering Defendant, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 45. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 45 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is .required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that he Plaintiffs damages may be diminished or precluded by agreements of others to pay for the Plaintiffs injuries and damages, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 46. Denied. It is denied that the injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff occurred solely as a result of conduct or omissions of third parties not under the 2 control or supervision of the Answering Defendant, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 47. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that the two individuals that assaulted the Plaintiff were subject to prosecution, however, to the extent that the Answering Defendant is asserting that the criminal prosecution of the two other Defendants in some way absolves them from responsibility and liability for the Plaintiff's injuries and damages, that allegation is denied, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 48. Denied. As stated in response to Paragraph 42, the Plaintiff denies that he was in any way contributorily or comparatively negligent with respect to the injuries and damages that he sustained at the premises of the Answering Defendant. It is further and expressly denied that the Plaintiff was negligent, careless or assumed the risk based upon an assertion that he instigated the incident, aggravated the incident or failed to retreat from the incident, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 49. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 49 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Answering Defendant does not owe a duty to protect the Plaintiff from the criminal conduct of third persons, while the Plaintiff was lawfully upon the Answering Defendant's premises, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 50. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 50 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the 3 Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the defenses of accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, release, waiver, estoppel, credit and offset, are applicable to the subject cause of action, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 51. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 51 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Answering Defendant's actions or omissions were not a substantial factor in causing, nor a legal cause of, Plaintiff's alleged injuries, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 52. Denied. It is denied that the Answering Defendant provided adequate safeguards to protect its patrons from the risk of injury such as that sustained by the Plaintiff, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 53. Denied. It is denied that the Answering Defendant, by and through its agents, servants and/or employees, responded in a timely and appropriate manner to the incident that resulted in the Plaintiff s injuries and damages, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 54. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 54 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that he Answering Defendant could not have foreseen the events that resulted in the Plaintiffs injuries and damages, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 4 55. Denied. It is denied that he Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his injuries and/or damages, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 56. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 56 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Answering Defendant, at all times hereto, acted reasonably under the circumstances, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Shea Quinn, requests the Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant, Wormleysburg Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Dorado Restaurant, for the relief set forth in his Complaint. DATED. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING ~ ROSENBERG, LLP By: 5 W. Sc~Hennin~~',~sgt Supreme Court ~~jj~. # 3; 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 ~ HenningCa~hhrlaw.com (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c1 W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~~ .,~ 10 W. SCOTT HENNI 7 .• SHEA QUINN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 09-7419 JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE, and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO . RESTAURANT, . Defendants :CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 3'~ day of August, 2010, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Reply To New Matter was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Stephanie Hersperger, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Michael J. O'Connor, Esq. Killian & Gephart, LLP 218 Pine Street P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0886 Peter M Good, Esq. Smigel, Anderson 8~ Sacks, LLP River Chase Office Center 3rd Floor 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Very truly yours, HANDLER, 8 By: W. Scott H Wing 6 ERG, LLP W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Attorney for Plaintiff Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 (717) 233-3029 Henning@hhrlaw.com SHEA QUINN, Plaintiff V. JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY S. BLEDSOE and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 09-7419 CIVIL TERM NO . -7 - RULE 1312.1. The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: W. Scott Henning, Esquire, of Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP, counsel for the Plaintiff in the above action, respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. 2. The claim of the Plaintiff in the action is $ 50,000.00. The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is N/A. The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: W. Scott Henning, Esq., Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP, 1300 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, PA 17110, Peter M. Good, Esq. - Smigel, Anderson & Sacks, LLP - 4431 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 -4a S. So Po A 79` , 0713863 Michael J. O'Connor, Esq., Killian & Gephart, LLP , 218 Pine Street, P.O. Box 886, Harrisburg, PA 17108; WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Courtto appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HE,NNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By v jingEsq. W. Scott en I.D. #32298 1300 Linglestown Rqw(d Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, P 2012 in consideration of the foregoing petition, Az?IUJJ.e, *44ZA) Esq., Esq., and , Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above-captioned action as prayed for. By the Court, ? it 5(- e, 44 Wei A C , dad Pe-k Al Iv),Cka r / T 0 oeres Aku -Jed d1fi/l a ,e L 010.1 AWZ--- w. Kevin A. s, P.J. m a Z --? MW 33- ? Is 3 _=CD >z N SHEA QUINN, Plaintiff vs. JOSHUA A. SANDERSON, BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC., doing business as DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 09-7419 CIVIL ORDER AND NOW, this Z "I 1 day of April, 2012, the appointment of Lauralee Baker, Esquire, as Chairman of the Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case is VACATED. David Baric, Esquire, is appointed in her place. BY THE COURT, ? David Baric, Esquire Chairman ? Court Administrator :rlm ?pPy madnd qlaSIia ,1 " 1/ cw N p 4L Kevin ess, P. J. XM i I)tf-I -0 ? Mon C-) a ZE tj SHEA QUINN, Plaintiff vs. JOSHUA A. SANDERSON, BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW --- - NO. 09-7419 CIVIL N M ::30 . T> cn - c: x - .; ; c. • , ORDER AND NOW, this IS day of May, 2012, the appointment of Nekeshia Maloney, Esquire, as a member of the Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case is VACATED. Neely Meals, Esquire, is appointed in her place. BY THE COURT, ? David Baric, Esquire Chairman Court Administrator - rlm ff rr Lam /nla i l?cl_ ?y pbacs-k ,.-) 4t?_ Kevi*.ess, .J. SHEA QUINN, Plaintiff vs. JOSHUA A. SANDERSON, BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 09-7419 CIVIL ORDER AND NOW, this 7-7- day of June, 2012, the appointment of Neely Meals, Esquire, as a member of the Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case is VACATED. Christopher Rice, Esquire, is appointed in his place. BY THE COURT, David Baric, Esquire Chairman L Court Administrator :rlm , SPY ? 1?? ?1? 7?i a //r, /-j 4/' Kevin-A. Hess, P. J. rn4w C N Mo a - > !? SHEA QUINN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE, and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 09-7419 CIVIL ORDER AND NOW, this -201 day of February, 2013, the appointment of Sonya Kivisto, Esquire, as a member of the Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case is VACATED. Jennifer Mulligan, Esquire, is appointed in her place. BY THE COURT, David Baric, Esquire Court Administrator Am `) Am 1 ( py m• lY4? 1X13 )ellG ? ? r•-a - e.i..r FILED-OFFICE- W.Scott Henning, Esquire (i THE pROTHONOTAR� I.D.#32298 HANDLER, HENNING&ROSENBERG, LLP 2D13 APR —9 PM 1: 50 1300 Linglestown Road CUMBERLAND COUNTY Harrisburg, PA 17110 PENNSYLVANIA Telephone: (717)238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax: (717)233-3029 E-mail: Henning@ HHRLaw.commailto:Hennina @HHRLaw.com SHEA QUINN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. No. 09-7419 JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE,and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please enter judgment in favor of the above caption Plaintiff and against the above Defendant,Joshua A. Sanderson ONLY, in the amount of$20,124.03, plus interest and Court costs, based upon the attached Report and Award of Arbitrators. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: W. Scott He ni Supreme Co rt ID/oad 8 1300 Linglestown Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 _y � (717)238-2000 Dated: Attorney for Plaintiff O 3lIS� Nn IYVT7F_[. 1-�GLIW SHEA QUINN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. No. 09-7419 JOSHUA A. SANDERSON and BRADLEY B. BLEDSOE,and WORMLEYSBURG RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DORADO RESTAURANT, Defendants CIVIL ACTION-LAW TO: Joshua Ashby Sanderson 401 Chestnut Street Marysville, PA 17053 You are hereby notified that on February 20, 2013 a judgment i e amouipd 20,124.03, plus interest and the costs of suit has been entered a inst y in th bove-c matter. Date: R i3 PrftanCry I hereby certify that the name and address of the proper person(s) to receive this notice under Pa.R.Civ.P. 236 is: Joshua Ashby Sanderson 401 Chestnut Street Marysville, PA 17053 A Joshua Ashby Sanderson Defendido/a Por este medio le esta notificando que el_de del 2013 el/la siguiente (Fallo) ha sido anotado en contra suya en el caso mencionado en el epigrafe. FECHA: Protonotario Certifico que la siguiente direccion es la del defendido/a segun indicada en el certificado de residencia: Joshua Ashby Sanderson 401 Chestnut Street Marysville, PA 17053 Abogado del Demandante Plaintiff In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania No. 01_ /< efend�tt Civil Action-Law. FEB z 1 7013 Lro,PyrGE�S1-��taQ� 's7'-o xxr7t� LLC RECEIVED We do solemnly swear (or affirm)that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti ion of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office AN fie Signature Signature Signature 4 �° QI�r 1�'1�.�/l�, M►cyicf J. C'asr/Sy N e ,(Chairman) Name Name /Q lC � �ie � �'bb Q � Jt, J�N Law Firm Law Firm Law Firm 0 3 a I Address Address Address City, Zi City, Zip City, Zip Award We, the undersigned arbitrators,having been duly appointed and sworn(or affirmed), make the followin award: " (Note: If damages for delay are awarded,they all be separately stated.) WL= i/v 4-;0 !n/ p/PYO ' OrJ' F6t`.,v1�r/ ATZWN—Ti L AhN'fY '�. W 'i n� c� �,�► �"jP v��2 dam' lM'� Al 9 4V -4N / 04W6tC 140q/.e� 2>oft,4 CT Arbitrator,dissents:(Insert name if applicable:) Date of Hearing: Zd l3 Td Tjt?& :�,tplZy©,3 / Chairman) Date of Award: Notice of Entry of Award Now, the2DS day of/t�4�,20 /3 , at /d:.2 jP .M., the above award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' co ensation to be paid upon appeal: S_ By: Prothonotary TRUE COPY FROM RECORDDputy in Testimony whereof,I here unto sot my hand and the seal of said Co Cartis:t,Pa. This ca�' day of_;�,20 )? ' frothon