Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-8188Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: 717-238-2000 Fax: 717-233-3029 E-mail: HELD(a-)hhrlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs JUDY PARRISH AND RONALD PARRISH, her husband, Plaintiffs V. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P, DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, LEXINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. t/d/b/a CAPE ENTERPRISE, INC., and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. Oq- 8188 Civil term 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 LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 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 accion dentro de los prbximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacibn de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando on 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 accion 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 reciamacion 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. USTED 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 LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 l Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: 717-238-2000 Fax: 717-233-3029 E-mail: HELDC@hhrlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. D 9- F/ ?8 WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, LEXINGTON GROUP . INTERNATIONAL, INC. t/d/b/a CAPE ENTERPRISE, INC., and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC., Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Judy and Ronald Parrish, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, and bring forth this Complaint against Defendants, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC, Cape Enterprise, Inc., and Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. and aver as follows: 4 1. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, is an adult individual currently residing at 554 Pine Grove Road, New Bloomfield, Perry County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (hereinafter "Wal-Mart"), is a corporation registered and established under the laws of Delaware with its principal office located at 702 South West 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas, and doing business in Pennsylvania at 60 Noble Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC. (hereinafter "DDRTC") is a limited liability corporation, registered and established under the laws of Delaware with its principal office located at 3300 Enterprise Parkway, Beachwood, Ohio, and doing business in Pennsylvania. 4. Defendant, Lexington Group International, Inc. t/d/b/a Cape Enterprise, Inc. (hereinafter "Cape Enterprise") is a corporation with home offices in Dallas, Texas and a Cape Enterprise, Inc. branch office located at 800 Oak Ridge Road, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. 5. Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. (hereinafter "Central Penn") is a corporation, registered under the laws of Pennsylvania with offices located at 3701 G Derry Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and doing business in Pennsylvania. 6. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Wal-Mart, was in exclusive control of the property located at 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter "Premises") and was presumably responsible for the removal of snow and ice from the Premises. 2 4 7. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, DDRTC, was the owner and had exclusive control of the property located at 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and was presumably responsible for the removal of snow and ice from the Premises. 8. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Cape Enterprise, was the service contractor and had exclusive control of the property located at 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and was presumably responsible for the removal of snow and ice from the Premises. 9. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Central Penn, was hired and engaged by Defendant Wal-Mart, DDRTC, or Cape Enterprise to remove snow and ice from the Premises. 10. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, was lawfully on said Premises as a business invitee of Wal-Mart. 11. At all times material hereto, Defendants, who had exclusive control of said Premises, had allowed ice to accumulate and remain on the parking lot of Wal-Mart. 12. At all times material hereto, there were no warning signs posted on the Premises warning of the snow and ice that remained on the parking lot of Wal-Mart. 13. On or about February 16, 2008, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, arrived at Wal-Mart at approximately 7:30 PM for a shopping trip with her daughter-in-law and two grandchildren. Plaintiffs daughter-in-law parked the car, and as Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, was exiting the vehicle, she slipped on an accumulation of ice that was allowed to remain on the parking lot of Wal-Mart causing her to fall harshly upon the ground and resulting in personal injuries to the Plaintiff, as more particularly set forth herein. 3 1 14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Wal- Mart, DDRTC, Cape Enterprise and Central Penn, the Plaintiff sustained extensive injuries as set forth more specifically below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Judy Parrish v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP 15. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 16. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Wal-Mart, was in ownership, possession, management and/or control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 17. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or inactions) of Defendant, Wal-Mart, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and 4 remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; (c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form on the parking lot; (e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of said Premises; (f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which Plaintiff slipped and fell; (g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing salt, cinders or any other non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and (h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling. 18. Defendant, Wal-Mart, had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, severe injuries 5 to her left knee which resulted in surgery, physical therapy, permanent scarring, and depression. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures, including, but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four granddaughters, and working in her garden. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, 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 her great detriment and loss. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her day-care business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 6 25. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Wal-Mart, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury. COUNT 11- NEGLIGENCE Judy Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC 26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 27. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, DDRTC, was in possession, management and control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 28. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or inactions) of Defendant, DDRTC, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed 7 by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; (c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form on the parking lot; (e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of said Premises; (f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff slipped and fell; (g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing, salt, cinders or any other non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and (h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling. 29. Defendant, DDRTC, had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell. 8 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, severe injuries to her left knee which required surgery and resulted in permanent scarring, requiring physical therapy, and resulting in Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, experiencing depression and requiring anti-depressant medication. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures, including, but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four granddaughters, and working in her garden. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, 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 her great detriment and loss. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her day-care 9 business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 36. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, DDRTC, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE Judy Parrish v. Lexington Group International. Inc. Ud/b/a Cape Enterprise. Inc. 37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 38. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Cape Enterprise, was in control of the Premises and was responsible for snow and ice removal from the property known as 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and was therefore responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property. 39. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or inactions) of Defendant, Cape Enterprise, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises; 10 (b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; (c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form on the parking lot; (e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of said Premises; (f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff slipped and fell; (g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing, salt, cinders or any other non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and (h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling. 11 40. Defendant, Cape Enterprise, had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Cape Enterprise, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, severe injuries to her left knee which required surgery and resulted in permanent scarring, requiring physical therapy, and resulting in Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, experiencing depression and requiring anti- depressant medication. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Cape Enterprise, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Cape Enterprise, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Cape Enterprise, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures, including, but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four granddaughters, and working in her garden. 45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Cape Enterprise, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, 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 12 will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Cape Enterprise, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her day-care business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 47. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Cape Enterprise, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury. COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE Judy Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt: Inc 48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 49. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Central Penn, was in control of the Premises and was responsible for snow and ice removal from the property known as 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and was therefore responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property. 50. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or inactions) of Defendant, Central Penn, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or 13 employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; (c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form on the parking lot; (e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of said Premises; (f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff slipped and fell; 14 10 (g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing, salt, cinders or any other non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and (h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling. 51. Defendant, Central Penn, had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell. 52. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, severe injuries to her left knee which required surgery and resulted in permanent scarring, requiring physical therapy, and resulting in Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, experiencing depression and requiring anti- depressant medication. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 54. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures, 15 including, but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four granddaughters, and working in her garden. 56. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, 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 her great detriment and loss. 57. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her day-care business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 58. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Central Penn, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury. COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Ronald Parrish v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP 59. Paragraphs 1 through 58 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 60. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were lawfully married as husband and wife. 16 61. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Wal- Mart, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Judy Parrish, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 62. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Wal- Mart, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Wal-Mart, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury. COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Ronald Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons LLC 63. Paragraphs 1 through 62 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 64. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were lawfully married as husband and wife. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, DDRTC, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Judy Parrish, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 66. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, DDRTC, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 17 i WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, DDRTC, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury. COUNT VII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Ronald Parrish v Lexington Group International, Inc. t/d/bla Cape Enterprise, Inc. 67. Paragraphs 1 through 66 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 68. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were lawfully married as husband and wife. 69. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Cape Enterprise, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Judy Parrish, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 70. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Cape Enterprise, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Cape Enterprise, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury. COUNT VIII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Ronald Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt. Inc. 71. Paragraphs 1 through 70 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 72. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were lawfully married as husband and wife. 18 73. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Central Penn, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Judy Parrish, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 74. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Central Penn, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Central Penn, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury. Date: Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By:- ? /W IV IVG/ Stephen . Held, Esquire I.D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff 19 y? VERIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 11za 7 a °O DY PA RI H VERIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. c Y Date: RONALD PARRISH 0 FILE" - n? O T? !E ",'A4Y 2004 io07 25 PVI 12• Ff CU"! , *'78. 5o Po A T %i Cr.?' lyg7g5 RTC a 34 r3,5' STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 E-mail: sbankoCa~margolisedelstein.com Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY JUDY PARRISH and RONALD PARRISH, her husband, Plaintiffs v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC; LEXINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. t/d/b/a CAPE ENTERPRISE, INC.; and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC., 1=iLE~C}-Ur`~-F~C ~Ji IL t ~..'..: i..,.VJ. J~ ~~ ~ ~ Jti€~ ~8 (ll~ f{' .. U Attorney fot Drd~rl4 .' • ~'~~ Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. DOCKET NO. 09-8188 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Judy Parrish and Ronald Parrish c/o Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. EDELSTEIN Date: January 7, 2010 S~EP~EN L~BANKO, JR. A or y for efendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 E-mail: sbanko margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY JUDY PARRISH and RONALD PARRISH, her husband, Plaintiffs v. DOCKET NO. 09-8188 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC; LEXINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. t/d/b/a CAPE ENTERPRISE, INC.; and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC., Defendants ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, CENTRAL PENN ASPHAL, INC.' TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., by its counsel, Margolis Edelstein, who answers Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: 1. Admitted in part and denied in part. With regard to the current residence address of Plaintiff-Wife, after reasonable investigation Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., ("Central Penn"), is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averment and, therefore, it is denied. 2. Admitted. Upon information and belief, the allegations contained in this paragraph appear to be true. 3. Admitted. Upon information and belief, the allegations contained in this paragraph appear to be true. 2 4. Admitted. Upon information and belief, the allegations contained in this paragraph appear to be true. 5. Admitted. 6-8. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent an answer is deemed to be required, the allegations contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. ("Central Penn") and therefore, upon advice of counsel, no answer on the part of Central Penn is required. 9. Denied as stated. Central Penn was a party to a written contract with co- defendant Cape Enterprises, Inc. to provide services regarding snow and ice as more specifically set forth therein. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation Central Penn is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. 11. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that: "at all times material hereto" Central Penn "had exclusive control of said premises...[and] had allowed ice to accumulate and remain on the parking lot of Wal-Mart." By way of further answer, the answer contained in paragraph 9 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Central Penn is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. 3 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Central Penn is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. By way of further answer, Central Penn denies any allegation or implication that any conduct on its part caused, contributed to, or increased the likelihood of any harm to Plaintiffs. Further more, with regard to any allegation that Plaintiff-Wife sustained injuries, extensive or otherwise, after reasonable investigation, Central Penn is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. By way of further answer, the answers contained in paragraphs 11 through 13 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. COUNT I -NEGLIGENCE Judy Parrish v. Wal-Mart Stores East. LP 15. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 14 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 16-25. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than Central Penn. Accordingly, and upon advice of counsel, no answer on the part of Central Penn is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. 4 COUNT II -NEGLIGENCE Judv Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC 26. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 27-36. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than Central Penn. Accordingly, and upon advice of counsel, no answer on the part of Central Penn is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. GOUNT III -NEGLIGENCE Judv Parrish v. Lexington Group International, Inc. . 37. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 38-47. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than Central Penn. Accordingly, and upon advice of counsel, no answer on the part of Central Penn is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, lnc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT IV -NEGLIGENCE Judv Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt 48. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 47 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 49. Denied as stated. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. By way of further answer, the 5 answer contained in paragraph 9 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 50. (a)-(h) Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 36 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, Central Penn specifically denies that any conduct on its part was negligent or that any conduct caused, contributed to or increased the likelihood of any harm to Plaintiffs. To the contrary, Central Penn believes and therefore avers that at all times relevant to the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint, that Central Penn acted in a reasonable, cautious and prudent manner under the circumstances and specifically in compliance with the terms of the agreement which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 51. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 14 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 52. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 14 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, with regard to any allegation of personal injury suffered by Plaintiff-Wife, after reasonable investigation Central Penn is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. 53. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 52 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 54. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 52 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 55. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 52 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 6 56. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 52 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 57. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 52 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 58. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 52 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT V -LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Ronald Parrish v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP 59. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 58 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 60-62. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than Central Penn. Accordingly, and upon advice of counsel, no answer on the part of Central Penn is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT VI -LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Ronald Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Common, LLC. 63. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 60 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 64-66. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than Central Penn. Accordingly, and upon advice of counsel, no answer on the part of Central Penn is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT VII -LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Ronald Parrish v. Lexington Group International t/d/b/a Cape Enterprises, Inc. 67. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 66 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 68-70. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than Central Penn. Accordingly, and upon advice of counsel, no answer on the part of Central Penn is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT VIII -- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Ronald Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt. Inc. 71. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 70 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 72. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Central Penn is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. 73. Denied. The answers contained in paragraphs 14 and 52 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 74. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 73 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. 8 NEW MATTER 75. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 74 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 76. Plaintiffs' claim, if any, is or may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 77. Plaintiffs have failed to join all indispensable parties. 78. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action against Central Penn upon which relief may be granted. 79. Plaintiffs' injuries, if any, were caused by the conduct of persons or entities not a party to this action, or for whom Central Penn is not responsible. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. S EDELSTEIN Date: January 7, 2010 gy. ~~E~HEN . BANKO, JR. Counsel for Defendant, Central Pe , n Asphalt, Inc. 9 VERIFICATION I, James A. Griffith, Sr., have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint. The factual statements contained therein are known by me and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities, which provides that, if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. Date: ~ ~` `/ /C? ~ ~ ' ames A. Griffith, S ,. Pre; Central Penn Asph t, Inc. ident CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter on counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Todd B. Narvol, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Angela Secreta n L. Banko, Jr. Date: January 7, 2010 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Robert W. Cusick, Esquire ROBERT W. CUSICK, ESQUIRE, LLC PA I.D. 80193 1763 Route 70 East Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 856-424-0378 Counsel For Defendant Cape Enterprises, Inc. JUDY PARRISH and RONALD PARRISH, her husband Plaintiffs vs WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC LEXINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, t/db/a CAPE ENTERPRISES, INC., and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT Defendants ZQ i 0 FEB 22 ~S z i~~ t~ b NOTICE TO PLEAD lte~~onder~t 4ts ~rr~d`t~ to File a written response in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO 09-8188 CIVIL ACTION -LAW DEFENDANT'S, CAPE ENTERPRISES, INC. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND NEW MATTER NOW, comes Defendant, Cape Enterprises, Inc., by and through his attorney, Robert W. Cusick, Esquire, answers the Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: 1. Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of this Paragraph. 2. Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of this Paragraph. 3. Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of this Paragraph. The averments in Paragraph 2 of the complaint are not directed at the answering defendant and therefore no response is required. 4. Denied that Cape Enterprises, Inc. was acting in any capacity for defendant, Lexington Group International, Inc. 5. Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of this Paragraph. 6. Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of this Paragraph. 7. Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of this Paragraph. 8. Admitted that Defendant Cape Enterprises, Inc. was in part responsible for snow removal. It is denied that Answering Defendant had exclusive control of the Premises. 9. Admitted. 10. The averments in this paragraph call for a legal conclusion and therefore they are denied. 11. Denied. 12. Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of this Paragraph. 13. Denied to the extent that the averments contained in this paragraph call for a legal conclusion. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. 14. The averments in this paragraph call for a legal conclusion and therefore they are denied. COUNT I -NEGLIGENCE Judy Parrish v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. 15. Answers to 1 through 14 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 16. The averments contained in Count I are not directed at the Answering Defendant and therefore no answer is required. COUNT II -NEGLIGENCE Judv Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC 26. Answers to 1 through 36 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 27. The averments contained in Count II are not directed at the Answering Defendant and therefore no answer is required. COUNT III -NEGLIGENCE Judv Parrish v. Lexington International, Inc., t/d/b/a Caae Enterurises Inc. 37. Answers to 1 through 36 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 38. Denied that Answering Defendant was in control of the Premises and had direct responsibility for snow removal. 39. The averments in this Paragraph call for a legal conclusion and are therefore denied. 40. Denied. 41. The averments in this Paragraph call for a legal conclusion and are therefore denied. 42. The averments in this Paragraph call for a legal conclusion and are therefore denied. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. 43. The averments in this Paragraph call for a legal conclusion and are therefore denied. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. 44. The averments in this Paragraph call for a legal conclusion and are therefore denied. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. 45. The averments in this Paragraph call for a legal conclusion and are therefore denied. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. 46. The averments in this Paragraph call for a legal conclusion and are therefore denied. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. 47. Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Cape Enterprises, Inc. requests that Count Ilt of Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. COUNT IV -NEGLIGENCE Judv Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. 48. Answers to 1 through 47 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 49. The averments contained in Count II are not directed at the Answering Defendant and therefore no answer is required. COUNT V -CONSORTIUM Judv Parrish v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. 59. Answers to 1 through 58 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 60. The averments contained in Count I are not directed at the Answering Defendant and therefore no answer is required. COUNT VI -CONSORTIUM Judv Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC 63. Answers to 1 through 62 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 64. The averments contained in Count II are not directed at the Answering Defendant and therefore no answer is required. COUNT VII -CONSORTIUM Judv Parrish v. Lexington International, Inc., t!d/b/a Cape Enterprises ,Inc. 67. Answers to 1 through 66 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 68. Answering Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of this Paragraph. 69. The averments in this Paragraph call for a legal conclusion and are therefore denied. 70. The averments in this Paragraph call for a legal conclusion and are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Cape Enterprises, Inc. requests that Count VII of Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. COUNT VIII -CONSORTIUM Judy Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt, Inc 71. Answers to 1 through 70 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 72. The averments contained in Count II are not directed at the Answering Defendant and therefore no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that Count III and Count VII of the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT W. CUSICK, ESQUIRE, LLC Dated: ZI(~i I ~ By: Robert W. Cusick, Esquire Counsel for Answering Defendant NEW MATTER NOW, comes Defendant, Cape Enterprises, Inc. and through his attorney, Robert W. Cusick, Esquire, sets forth the following by way of New Matter: 1. Cape Enterprises, Inc., (hereinafter "Cape Enterprises") is a corporation with an office located at 1763 Route 70 E. Cherry Hill, New Jersey, 08034. 2. Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. (hereinafter, "Central Penn"), is a corporation, registered under the laws of Pennsylvania with offices located at 3701 Derry Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and doing business in Pennsylvania. 3. Central Penn contracted with Cape Enterprises for the snow and ice removal for the property located at 60 Noble Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 4. On February 16, 2008, Central Penn was responsible for the snow and ice removal for the property located at 60 Noble Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 5. Central Penn was the service contractor for the snow and ice removal and had exclusive control of the property located at 60 Noble Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 6. Central Penn agreed by contract to indemnify and hold harmless Cape Enterprises for any claims for damages arising out of Central Penn's snow and ice removal at the property located at 60 Noble Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, Cape Enterprises demands indemnification from Central Penn and demands to be held harmless for any damages awarded against Cape Enterprises in this matter. Respectfully sub , -- ROBERT W. SICK, ESQ RE, Dated: o'L tig ~ By: Rob Counsel f ~,usicK, tsquire Defendant ~_.~,.,, Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, L 1300 Linglestown Road ~1Ql0 FEB 23 Fie 12~ 02 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: 717-238-2000 CUv~~-_'.: ; ' :.~ ;..~~~i'1i1` Fax: 717-233-3029 ~-~-; {;_:;;,,','~F~'~'-~".!;:'~ E-mail: HELDCa~hhrlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs JUDY PARRISH AND RONALD PARRISH, her husband, Plaintiffs v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 09-8188 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE On the 3rd day of February, 2010, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint containing Notice to Defend was served upon Defendant, Lexington Group International t/d/b/a Cape Enterprises, by certified mail, return receipt requested, at 5480 LaSierra Drive, Dallas, Texas 75231. The green certified return receipt card is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 0 By: Stephen G'. Held, Esquire I . D. # 72663 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Date: February 19, 2010 ^ ~ Items 1, 2, end 3. Also ~m Print yourr ~~' ~ ~~'~ so that we can return ~er~s on the reverse ^ Attach this cand to the card to you. back of the mailpiece, or ~ the front ff space Permits. 1. Article Addressed to: '~~Xlh ~CnGr~`~ .1i-~rna~torlal ~/~1,~/~ CIS _ , ~Sy~ L-C! .SI ~rrG~ IJt~. ~~I -as, TX 5 7 a~ ~ 2. Article Nturrber--~' (IFaruli3r fiwn aervVice ~ PS Form 3811, February 2004 A. X ^ Apent °~ er PNrnedn+ame) c D. Ia delNery eddteeq dlrfererrt from Item 11 Y H YES, erner delivery address below: ^ No ~~ o~ o~ ~ ~ Return Receipt for nee,ri,.,,~, ~ Insured MaU C.O.D. 4. Restricted DeNvery~t (ExbB Fes) Y§e 7DD8 DSDD DDD1, 45D5 7989 DornesUc Return Receipt __- ~oa~ss-a2~tsap CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this day of February, 2010, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Affidavit of Service, was served upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stephen L. Banko, Esq. Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Patrick J. McDonnell, Esq. McDonnell & Associates, P.C. 860 First Avenue, Suite 5B King of Prussia, PA 19406 Counsel for Central Penn Aspha/f Todd Narvol, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N Front Street P O Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Jason C. Giurintano, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street P O Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Counsel for DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC Counsel for Wal-Mart Stores Easf, LP HANDLER, HENNING 8~ ROSENBERG, LLP Step a G. Held, Esquire I.D. No.: 72663 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Counsel for Plaintiff Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: 717-238-2000 Fax: 717-233-3029 E-mail: HELDCa~hhrlaw.com rr.! ~ Vii, ~ Q F~3 L 3 r i i 1'- _ ~. CUP~~~ ~._.', 4J'~'~~ ~,~ Attorney for Plaintiffs r, r n a r- i JUDY PARRISH AND RONALD PARRISH, her husband, Plaintiffs v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 09-8188 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE On the 5th day of February, 2010, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint containing Notice to Defend was served upon Defendant, DDRTC Carlisle Commons LLC, by certified mail, return receipt requested, at 3300 Enterprise Parkway, Beachwood, OH 44122. The green certified return receipt card is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: Stephen . Hel ,Esquire I.D. # 72663 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Date: February 19, 2010 r ^ Complete Reins 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Rem 41f Restricted Delivery is desired. ^ Print your name and address on the reveres so that we can return the card to you. ^.Attach this card to the back of the mailpteoe, , or on the front rf space permRs. 1. ArticleAddreasedto: .~. Dp ~Z`t~ C'ar~~s~e Ccm~~~c 3~ez ~~~-I-~r' is~ ~trkw (~iCk~ ~~~~ > C~ N ~U l a "signature ~+~ drMaa~ s. Fieaei DAY 1~ l~~haddr~ess dHferent from Item 1? ^ Yes If delivery address below: ^ No cols°/ ~~ Mail D b~rese MeG Registered m Reoelpt for Merolnrdee ~ Irreured Mail C.O.D. 4. Restricted DelNery'1(Fxtra Feel ^ y~. 2. AiticieNumber 7DD8 05DD ODD1 45D5 8D3D (Aarreter from se-vfce lebe~ PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt ~o2sas~-nn-~sadr n. 'rs,a. ~~:. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this /~ day of February, 2010, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Affidavit of Service, was served upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stephen L. Banko, Esq. Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Patrick J. McDonnell, Esq. McDonnell & Associates, P.C. 860 First Avenue, Suite 5B King of Prussia, PA 19406 Counsel for Central Penn Asphalt Todd Narvol, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N Front Street P O Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Jason C. Giurintano, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street P O Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 1710$-0999 Counsel for DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC Counsel for Wal-Mart Sfores East, LP HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Stephen G. Held, Esquire I.D. No.: 72663 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Counsel for Plaintiff Zrn --<Z. N JQ >G-, C:) --n Stephen G. Held, Esquire C) - C: c re Attorney ID# 72663 -_jj-zj HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP >r ., wr 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Held@hhrlaw.com JUDY and RONALD PARRISH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : NO. 09-8188 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, LEXINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. t/d/b/a CAPE ENTERPRISE, INC., and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC., Defendants PRAECIPE TO SETTLE. DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please mark the above captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended. HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Dated: 7/19111 - 94? / Stepl. eld, Esquire I.D. No.: 72663 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen G. Held, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 1A day of July, 2011, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End, by depositing a copy of same with the United States Postal Service, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid, upon the following individual(s): Stephen L. Banko, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Central Penn Asphalt Todd Narvol, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N Front St P 0 Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Attorney for DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP %6-7/) Stephen G. He , squire I.D. No.: 72663 Attorney for Plaintiffs