Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-8673 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Cynthia von Schlichten, Esquire Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 306527 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary Maxwell, as Executor of Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 the Estate of Katherine Maxwell IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF, SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS vs. DOCKETNUMBER: 04' 91673 01,14-1 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. 3 Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to ( ) Attorney ( X) Sheriff Cynthia von Schlichten, Esquire 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-7828 Names/Address/Telephone No. of Attorney .ti Signature of Attorney Supreme Co in ID No. 306527 Date: ( f'7 2009 CEEG 1 7 [,Ii i0: 3 7 aU ??? d 3S IUD 0- WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: /s/ h e 4 Prothonotary by JAL ep ty ) Check here if reverse is used for additional information. R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Cynthia von Schlichten, Esquire Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 306527 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary Maxwell, as Executor of Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 the Estate of Katherine Maxwell IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR DOCKET NUMBER: OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL, 7 3 el-VI PLAINTIFF, vs. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND : SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS SHERIFF'S DIRECTIONS 1) Please serve the Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action, issued by the Prothonotary of Cumberland County upon the Defendant, Susquehanna View Apartments, at the business address located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by personally handing a copy of the same to the manager, clerk or other adult individual for the time being in charge of the business or activity of the business. 2) Please serve the Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action, issued by the Prothonotary of Cumberland County upon the Defendant, National Corporation for Housing Partnerships, located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by personally handing a copy of the same to the manager, clerk, or other adult individual for the time being in charge of the business or activity of the business. 3) Please serve the Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action, issued by the Prothonotary of Cumberland County upon the Defendant, Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships, located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by personally handing a copy of the same to the manager, clerk, or other adult individual for the time being in charge of the business or activity of the business. Respectfully submitted, R. I MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: _(%_ t" AN*- J____ C HIA VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIRE ID No. 306527 DATED: t d L?U? ?'=? t r?,i i iu? (?' '`lrrY V ir't'i i? _ _ J .1 ? SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff ??rtia p1 ?aunG?J 411 OF Tw fflmf;o? Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Edward L Schorpp Solicitor Z016 JAN -5 PM b 28 Gary Maxwell, As Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell Case Number vs. 2009-8673 Susquehanna View Apartments SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 12/30/2009 12:35 PM - Mark Conklin, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on Decembei 30, 2009 at 1235 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships, by making known unto Kristen Lench, Manager at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 12/30/2009 02:35 PM - Mark Conklin, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on Decembei 30, 2009 at 1435 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: National Corporation for Housing, by making known unto Kristen Lench, Manager at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 12/30/2009 02:35 PM - Mark Conklin, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on December 30, 2009 at 1435 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Susquehanna View Apartments, by making known unto Kristen Leach, Manager at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $73.94 December 31, 2009 ;SO ?AWEIRS7NNYYRR , R ANDERSON, SHERIFF By Dep ty Sheriff Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 09-8673 V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW Susquehanna View Apartments and National Corporation for Housing JURY TRIA'._ DEMANDED Partnerships and Susquehanna View _ Limited Partnerships,' 7:rL. Defendants. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: C) Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned as counse I on behalf of the Defendants with respect to the above-referenced matter. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: BY: Timoth J. M can, Esquire I.D. No. 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 171 l2 (717) 651-3505 Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Cindy Sowers, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this ? day of January, 2010, I served a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Cynthia von Schlichten, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Cindy So ts ?i Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Estate of Katherine Maxwell, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PEN NSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 09-8673 V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW Susquehanna View Apartments and National Corporation for Housing JURY TRIAL DEMANDED C' Partnerships and Susquehanna View '`' ( 'n Limited Partnerships, ;. "J Defendants. 0 DEFENDANTS' M OTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER w m rv -? 1. Moving Defendants are Susquehanna View Apartments, National Corporation for Housing Partnerships, and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships. For the reasons set forth below, moving Defendants request that this Honorable Court enter a protective order. Moving Defendants submit their Motion for a Protective Order solely for the reasons set forth therein and expressly reserve their respective rights to raise any and all defenses to this action including but not limited to defenses concerning jurisdiction, and/or service of process. 2. Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell as the Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, instituted this matter via Praecipe for a Writ of Summons filed December 17, 2009. 3. Plaintiff, in his Writ of Summons named as Defendants Susquehanna View Apartments, National Corporation for Housing Partnerships, and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships. Defendants were served with the Writ of Summons. Defendants were served with Plaintiff's pre-complaint Interrogatories on January 13, 2010. 4. Plaintiff's pre-complaint discovery, specifically Interrogatories to each Defendant are attached hereto as Exhibit "A", Exhibit "B", and Exhibit "C". __ } ;? 5. The undersigned counsel entered an appearance for Moving Defendants, Susquehanna View Apartments, National Corporation for Housing Partnerships, and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships on January 12, 2010. 6. Moving Defendants submit this Motion for a Protective Order because Plaintiff's pre- complaint discovery requests far exceed the information which would reasonably be material and necessary to the filing of a Complaint, and complying with Plaintiffs pre-complaint discovery will unreasonably burden Defendants. Plaintiff has failed to make any showing whatsoever that pre-complaint discovery is material or necessary under the circumstances. 7. The applicable Rules of Civil Procedure pertinent to this Motion for Protective Order are the following: • Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8(a) which provides that "plaintiff may obtain pre-complaint discovery where the information sought is material and necessary to the filing of the complaint and the discovery will not cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to any person or party." • Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8(b) which provides that "the court may require the plaintiff to state with particularity how the discovery will materially advance the preparation of the complaint." The "court shall weigh the importance of the discovery request against the burdens imposed on any person or party from whom the discovery is sought." • Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b) which provides that no discovery shall be permitted which would "cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to the deponent or any person or party." i- • Pa. R.C.P. 4012 which provides that, "upon Motion by a party and for good cause shown, the Court may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense." 8. Plaintiff's pre-complaint Interrogatories far exceed any reasonable scope of pre- complaint discovery in that they are neither material nor necessary. Moreover, Plaintiffs pre- complaint Interrogatories' Statement of the Facts sets forth adequate facts by which to craft a Complaint. 9. Interrogatory number 4 asks Moving Defendants to identify the structural organization of the respective entity. This interrogatory asks for contact information of all persons who were or are partners, owners, or officers. Furthermore the interrogatory asks if the entity is active and if not active asks for the reason it was dissolved. This information has no relationship to the place where the incident allegedly occurred and is not material or necessary to the filing of the complaint. 10. Interrogatory number 5 asks for information regarding the safety protocol system allegedly in place with the use of the "SLIDER" system at Susquehanna View Apartments. Without admitting whether there was any such practice, protocol, or procedure in place at Susquehanna View Apartments during the timeframe described in Plaintiffs proffered Statement of Facts, Plaintiffs Statement of Facts clearly indicates Plaintiffs belief that there was. Requiring Moving Defendants to provide additional information in this regard prior to filing his Complaint is premature and Plaintiff in his Interrogatories' Statement of the Facts has alleged adequate facts by which, if true, adequately support a Complaint. Interrogatory number 5 is not necessary to the filing of the complaint. r 11. Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8 permits a plaintiff to obtain discovery of matters which are material and necessary to the filing of the complaint. Moving Defendants submit respectfully that Plaintiff has enough information in the Interrogatories' Statement of the Facts to meet the specificity requirements of the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure to file a Complaint. 12. Plaintiffs Interrogatories' Statement of the Facts sets forth adequate facts by which to adequately craft a Complaint. Plaintiff has alleged a chronology of events preceding decedent Maxwell's demise, as well as places, people allegedly involved, and has adequately described Susquehanna View Apartments' "SLIDER" system. 13. A plaintiff seeking pre-complaint discovery has the burden of demonstrating that a Complaint cannot be drafted without the discovery which plaintiff seeks. Anderson v. Penn DOT, 47 D&C 3rd 429,431 (C.P. Cumberland 1987). 14. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Pre-Complaint Interrogatories directed to Moving Defendants, Susquehanna View Apartments, National Corporation for Housing Partnerships, and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships are not material and necessary to the filing of a Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants Susquehanna View Apartments, National Corporation for Housing Partnerships, and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter a Protective Order relieving Defendants from any obligation to respond to Plaintiffs' pre-complaint discovery requests in this matter, unless and until Plaintiff states with particularity how the discovery will materially advance the preparation of his complaint. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: By; A r Timbth)5J. M4+1VI 6, Esquire I.D. No. 52918 4200 Crums Mil oad Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 Attorney for Defendants s R J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: CYNTHIA VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIRE PA SUPREME COURT I.D. No. 306527 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF HARRISBURG, kA 17110-1438 GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE FACSIMILE: (717) 234-6883 MAXWELL EMAIL: CVONs .i -HT N6tR TMARzEi i A com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR DOCKET NUMBER: 09-8673 OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF, VS. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INTERROGATORIES (FIRST SET) PROPOUNDED UPON SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS TO: Susquehanna View Apartments 208 Senate Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 NOTICE OF OBLIGATION These Interrogatories are addressed to "you" as a defendant pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. "You" are required to answer each Interrogatory fully and completely, unless objected to, within thirty (30) days after service of the Interrogatories upon "you" or "your" attorney. "Your" answers shall be in writing, signed by "you" under oath. I The answers shall be inserted in the spaces provided in these Interrogatories. If there is insufficient space to answer an Interrogatory, the remainder of the answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. "Your" answer shall be based upon all information available to "you", either directly or through "your" attorney(s), all employees, agents, servants, representatives, investigators or other sources. "Your" obligation to answer these Interrogatories is continuing, so as to require further and/or supplemental answers from now until the time of trial should "you" learn or have information available to "you" (directly or through "your" attorney(s), employees, agents, servants, representatives, investigators or other sources) that is responsive to the Interrogatories. Further, it is "your" obligation to supplement "your" prior answer(s) with respect to any witnesses having knowledge of discoverable matters, any witnesses whom you intend to call at trial, or if "you" obtain information (or have information available to "you", directly or through "your" attorney(s), employees, agents, servants, representatives, investigators or other sources) upon the basis of which "you" know that a prior answer was incorrect when made or "you" know that a prior answer, though correct when made is no longer true. Definitions and Instructions A. Whenever the term "document" is used herein, it includes (whether or not specifically called for) all printed, typewritten, handwritten, graphic or recorded matter, however formal or informal. B. Whenever you are asked to "identify" a document, the following information should be given as to each document of which you are aware, whether or not you have possession, custody or control thereof. 2 1. The nature of the document (e.g., letter, memorandum, computer print-out, minutes, resolution, tape recording, videotape, etc.); 2. Its date (or if it bears no date, the date when it was prepared); 3. The name, address, employer and position of the signer or signers (or if there is no signer, of the person who prepared it); 4. The name, address, employer and position of the person, if any, to whom the document was sent; 5. If you have possession, custody or control of the document, the location and designation of the place or file in which it is contained, and the name, address, position of person having custody of the document; 6. If you do not have possession, custody or control of the document, the present location thereof and the name and address of the organization having possession, custody or control thereof; and 7. A brief statement of the subject matter of each document. C. Whenever you are asked to "identify" an oral communication, the following information should be given as to each oral communication of which you are aware, whether or not you or others were present or participated therein: 1. The means of communication (e.g., telephone, personal conversation, etc.); 2. Where it took place; 3. Its date; 4. The names, addresses, employers and positions (a) of all persons who participated in the communication; and (b) of all other persons who were present during or who overheard that communication; 5. The substance of who said what to whom and the order in which it was said; and 6. Whether that communication or any part thereof is recorded, described or referred to in any document (however informal) and, if so, an identification of such document in the manner indicated above. 3 D. If you claim that the subject matter of a document or oral communication is privileged, you need not set forth the brief statement of the subject matter of the document, or the substance of the oral communication called for above. You shall, however, otherwise "identify" such document or oral communication and shall state each ground on which you claim that such document or oral communication is privileged. E. Whenever you are asked to "identify" a person, the following information should be given: 1. The name, present address, and present employer and position of the person; and 2. Whether the person has given testimony by way of deposition or otherwise in any proceeding related to the present proceeding and/or whether that person has given a statement whether oral, written, or otherwise, and if so, the title and nature of any such proceeding, the date of the testimony, whether you have a copy of the transcript thereof, the name of the person to whom the statement was given, where the statement is presently located if written or otherwise transcribed, and the present location of such transcript or statement if not in your possession. F. The term "you" shall be deemed to mean and refer to the party to whom these Interrogatories have been propounded for answer and shall also be deemed to refer to, but shall not be limited to, your attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitor, insurers, investigators, and any other agents insofar as the material requested herein is not privileged. The term "you" shall also be deemed to refer to the Defendants. G. The word "incident" shall be deemed to mean and refer to the incident as alleged to have occurred and set forth in the Complaint. H. The phrase "medical treatment" shall include any treatment of any kind or nature for physical illness, disease, injury or condition. 4 Statement of the Facts On December 17, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this cause of action by filing a Writ of Summons. Plaintiff now files these Interrogatories in an effort to divulge the necessary information needed to draft an adequately specific Complaint. The basic facts are as follows: On December 19, 2007, Katherine Maxwell, 86, was a resident of Susquehanna View Apartments in Camp Hill, PA. She had been a resident there since 1979/1980. On December 19, 2007, Ms. Maxwell was in a store at the facility when the Resident Service Coordinator (Lynn Wilhelm) commented that Katherine did not look like she was feeling well. Later that day, Ms. Maxwell did not appear at dinner, Ms. Wilhelm eventually brought her dinner and noticed that Ms. Maxwell looked even worse than she did earlier in the day at the store. However, Ms. Wilhelm did not contact any of Ms. Maxwell's relatives or take any action regarding her sick condition. On December 20, 2007, Ms. Maxwell's neighbors grew concerned that they had not seen Ms. Maxwell all day and contacted the main office, requesting that someone look in on her. Apparently, the Resident Service Coordinator was supposed to check on her, but "forgot." Susquehanna Valley Apartments provides housing to a number of elderly individuals as well as handicapped individual. Consequently, this complex has a "SLIDER' system. If everything is ok for that particular resident, they are supposed to slide it to green. And if there is a problem, it is supposed to be on red, and then someone comes in to check on that resident. If the resident is away, they slide it to the middle. Generally, a "floor captain" is designated to check on anyone with a red slide. That is usually a resident who is volunteering to do that job. On the day (21 ") in question, Ms. Maxwell's slider was set to red. She had not been to the meals (as she usually would be) and the office was aware of her apparent absence, as another resident had reported the same. The Resident Service Coordinator finally arrived at Ms. Maxwell's unit to check on her. The slider was on red, as it had been for the past two days. She entered and found Ms. Maxwell on the floor. The EMS were called and when they arrived they noted that Ms. Maxwell had scrapes on her fingers and toes from trying to crawl to the front door. It was also apparent that she had been lying in her own excrement for several days. Upon arrival to the hospital, Ms. Maxwell was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and respiratory distress. Unfortunately, the delay in getting her to the hospital made it impossible for her to recover. On January 1, 2008, Ms. Maxwell died. 6 1. Please state the full name of the person answering these Interrogatories on behalf of Defendant Susquehanna View Apartments and any other name(s) by which that person has been known. ANSWER: 2. Please identify the individual(s) or entities who currently owns, operates, and/or manages the business/apartments/condominiums located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, PA 17011. ANSWER: 3. Please identify the individual(s) or entities who owned, operated, and/or managed the business/apartments/condominiums located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, PA 17011 back on December 19, 2007. ANSWER: 4. Please identify the structural organization of Defendant Susquehanna View Apartments (i.e. Corporation, Partnership, LLP, etc.), and list the following: a. Please state the full names and last known addresses for all persons who were and/or are partners, owners and/or officers of Susquehanna View Apartments; b. Where (ie- what state) is Susquehanna View Apartments registered; c. Whether Susquehanna View Apartments is still an active entity and if not the date and reason Susquehanna View Apartments was dissolved. ANSWER: 10 5. Regarding the safety protocol system in place with use of the "Slider" system: (a) Please describe the method by which the "slider" system was implemented in the apartment complex; (b) Please specify when the system was put in place and began to be utilized; (c) Please explain how the system was to be utilized; (d) Please explain how residents were encouraged and/or instructed to participate in the use of the system; (e) Please explain how employees of Defendants were trained in the use of the system and how it was then employed; (f) Please explain the purpose and objective of the "slider" system; (g) Please explain how these safety protocols were advertised to prospective tenants as a benefit to residing at Defendants' complex; and (h) Please explain how the "slider" system is integrated as part of these safety protocols that were advertised to prospective tenants as a benefit to residing at Defendants' complex. Please consider a request to produce any documents, which were relied upon in answering this interrogatory. (i.e. handbooks, lease agreements, memorandums, orientation, training procedures, etc.) ANSWER: Respectfully submitted, R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: ZIACIA M. VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIRE ID No. 306527 DATED: I o -4- II CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Cynthia von Schlichten, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 13th day of January, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Tim McMahon, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: CYN IA M. VO SCHLICHTEN, ESQ. i MOd %OE Pap6aad %OOl R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: CYNTHIA VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIRE PA SUPREME COURT I.D. No. 306527 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE FACSIMILE: (717) 234-6883 MAXWELL CHTEN AR7F A OM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DOCKET NUMBER: 09-8673 KATHERINE MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF, SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS VS. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INTERROGATORIES (FIRST SET) PROPOUNDED UPON NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING TO: National Corporation for Housing 208 Senate Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 NOTICE OF OBLIGATION These Interrogatories are addressed to "you" as a defendant pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. "You" are required to answer each Interrogatory fully and completely, unless objected to, within thirty (30) days after service of the Interrogatories upon "you" or "your" attorney. "Your" answers shall be in writing, signed by "you" under oath. The answers shall be inserted in the spaces provided in these Interrogatories. If there is insufficient space to answer an Interrogatory, the remainder of the answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. "Your" answer shall be based upon all information available to "you", either directly or through "your" attorney(s), all employees, agents, servants, representatives, investigators or other sources. "Your" obligation to answer these Interrogatories is continuing, so as to require further and/or supplemental answers from now until the time of trial should "you" learn or have information available to "you" (directly or through "your" attorney(s), employees, agents, servants, representatives, investigators or other sources) that is responsive to the Interrogatories. Further, it is "your" obligation to supplement "your" prior answer(s) with respect to any witnesses having knowledge of discoverable matters, any witnesses whom you intend to call at trial, or if "you" obtain information (or have information available to "you", directly or through "your" attorney(s), employees, agents, servants, representatives, investigators or other sources) upon the basis of which "you" know that a prior answer was incorrect when made or "you" know that a prior answer, though correct when made is no longer true. Definitions and Instructions A. Whenever the term "document" is used herein, it includes (whether or not specifically called for) all printed, typewritten, handwritten, graphic or recorded matter, however formal or informal. B. Whenever you are asked to "identify" a document, the following information should be given as to each document of which you are aware, whether or not you have possession, custody or control thereof: 2 1. The nature of the document (e.g., letter, memorandum, computer print-out, minutes, resolution, tape recording, videotape, etc.); 2. Its date (or if it bears no date, the date when it was prepared); 3. The name, address, employer and position of the signer or signers (or if there is no signer, of the person who prepared it); 4. The name, address, employer and position of the person, if any, to whom the document was sent; 5. If you have possession, custody or control of the document, the location and designation of the place or file in which it is contained, and the name, address, position of person having custody of the document; 6. If you do not have possession, custody or control of the document, the present location thereof and the name and address of the organization having possession, custody or control thereof; and 7. A brief statement of the subject matter of each document. C. Whenever you are asked to "identify" an oral communication, the following information should be given as to each oral communication of which you are aware, whether or not you or others were present or participated therein: 1. The means of communication conversation, etc.); 2. Where it took place; 3. Its date; (e.g., telephone, personal 4. The names, addresses, employers and positions (a) of all persons who participated in the communication; and (b) of all other persons who were present during or who overheard that communication; 5. The substance of who said what to whom and the order in which it was said; and 6. Whether that communication or any part thereof is recorded, described or referred to in any document (however informal) and, if so, an identification of such document in the manner indicated above. 3 D. If you claim that the subject matter of a document or oral communication is privileged, you need not set forth the brief statement of the subject matter of the document, or the substance of the oral communication called for above. You shall, however, otherwise "identify" such document or oral communication and shall state each ground on which you claim that such document or oral communication is privileged. E. Whenever you are asked to "identify" a person, the following information should be given: 1. The name, present address, and present employer and position of the person; and 2. Whether the person has given testimony by way of deposition or otherwise in any proceeding related to the present proceeding and/or whether that person has given a statement whether oral, written, or otherwise, and if so, the title and nature of any such proceeding, the date of the testimony, whether you have a copy of the transcript thereof, the name of the person to whom the statement was given, where the statement is presently located if written or otherwise transcribed, and the present location of such transcript or statement if not in your possession. F. The term "you" shall be deemed to mean and refer to the party to whom these Interrogatories have been propounded for answer and shall also be deemed to refer to, but shall not be limited to, your attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitor, insurers, investigators, and any other agents insofar as the material requested herein is not privileged. The term "you" shall also be deemed to refer to the Defendants. G. The word "incident" shall be deemed to mean and refer to the incident as alleged to have occurred and set forth in the Complaint. H. The phrase "medical treatment" shall include any treatment of any kind or nature for physical illness, disease, injury or condition. 4 Statement of the Facts On December 17, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this cause of action by filing a Writ of Summons. Plaintiff now files these Interrogatories in an effort to divulge the necessary information needed to draft an adequately specific Complaint. The basic facts are as follows: On December 19, 2007, Katherine Maxwell, 86, was a resident of Susquehanna View Apartments in Camp Hill, PA. She had been a resident there since 1979/1980. On December 19, 2007, Ms. Maxwell was in a store at the facility when the Resident Service Coordinator (Lynn Wilhelm) commented that Katherine did not look like she was feeling well. Later that day, Ms. Maxwell did not appear at dinner, Ms. Wilhelm eventually brought her dinner and noticed that Ms. Maxwell looked even worse than she did earlier in the day at the store. However, Ms. Wilhelm did not contact any of Ms. Maxwell's relatives or take any action regarding her sick condition. On December 20, 2007, Ms. Maxwell's neighbors grew concerned that they had not seen Ms. Maxwell all day and contacted the main office, requesting that someone look in on her. Apparently, the Resident Service Coordinator was supposed to check on her, but "forgot." Susquehanna Valley Apartments provides housing to a number of elderly individuals as well as handicapped individual. Consequently, this complex has a "SLIDER" system. If everything is ok for that particular resident, they are supposed to slide it to green. And if there is a problem, it is supposed to be on red, and then someone comes in to check on that resident. If the resident is away, they slide it to the middle. Generally, a "floor captain" is designated to check on anyone with a red slide. That is usually a resident who is volunteering to do that job. On the day (21 ") in question, Ms. Maxwell's slider was set to red. She had not been to the meals (as she usually would be) and the office was aware of her apparent absence, as another resident had reported the same. The Resident Service Coordinator finally arrived at Ms. Maxwell's unit to check on her. The slider was on red, as it had been for the past two days. She entered and found Ms. Maxwell on the floor. The EMS were called and when they arrived they noted that Ms. Maxwell had scrapes on her fingers and toes from trying to crawl to the front door. It was also apparent that she had been lying in her own excrement for several days. Upon arrival to the hospital, Ms. Maxwell was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and respiratory distress. Unfortunately, the delay in getting her to the hospital made it impossible for her to recover. On January 1, 2008, Ms. Maxwell died. 6 Please state the full name of the person answering these Interrogatories on behalf of Defendant National Corporation for Housing and any other name(s) by which that person has been known. ANSWER: 2. Please identify the individual(s) or entities who currently owns, operates, and/or manages the business/apartments/condominiums located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, PA 17011. ANSWER: 3. Please identify the individual(s) or entities who owned, operated, and/or managed the business/apartments/condominiums located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, PA 17011 back on December 19, 2007. ANSWER: 9 4. Please identify the structural organization of Defendant National Corporation for Housing (i.e. Corporation, Partnership, LLP, etc.), and list the following: a. Please state the full names and last known addresses for all persons who were and/or are partners, owners and/or officers of National Corporation for Housing; b. Where (ie- what state) is National Corporation for Housing registered; c. Whether National Corporation for Housing is still an active entity and if not the date and reason National Corporation for Housing was - dissolved. ANSWER: 10 5. Regarding the safety protocol system in place with use of the "Slider" system: (a) Please describe the method by which the "slider" system was implemented in the apartment complex; (b) Please specify when the system was put in place and began to be utilized; (c) Please explain how the system was to be utilized; (d) Please explain how residents were encouraged and/or instructed to participate in the use of the system; (e) Please explain how employees of Defendants were trained in the use of the system and how it was then employed; (f) Please explain the purpose and objective of the "slider" system; (g) Please explain how these safety protocols were advertised to prospective tenants as a benefit to residing at Defendants' complex; and (h) Please explain how the "slider" system is integrated as part of these safety protocols that were advertised to prospective tenants as a benefit to residing at Defendants' complex. Please consider a request to produce any documents, which were relied upon in answering this interrogatory. (i.e. handbooks, lease agreements, memorandums, orientation, training procedures, etc.) ANSWER: Respectfully submitted, R. I MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: ' CYNTH A M. VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIRE DATED: ID No. 306527 II e CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Cynthia von Schlichten, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 13th day of I January , 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Tim McMahon, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: 0, , - 1? I CYNT IA M. VON CHLICHTEN, ESQ. t R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: CYNTHIA VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIRE PA SUPREME COURT I.D. No. 306527 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE FACSIMILE: (717) 234-6883 MAXWELL EMAIL: CVONS . .i H NaR IMAR7Fi i A ['OM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF, SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS VS. DOCKET NUMBER: 09-8673 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INTERROGATORIES (FIRST SET) PROPOUNDED UPON SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS TO: Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships 208 Senate Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 NOTICE OF OBLIGATION These Interrogatories are addressed to "you." as a defendant pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. "You" are required to answer each Interrogatory fully and completely, unless objected to, within thirty (30) days after service of the Interrogatories upon "you" or "your" attorney. "Your" answers shall be in writing, signed by "you" under oath. The answers shall be inserted in the spaces provided in these Interrogatories. If there is insufficient space to answer an Interrogatory, the remainder of the answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. "Your" answer shall be based upon all information available to "you", either directly or through "your" attorney(s), all employees, agents, servants, representatives, investigators or other sources. "Your" obligation to answer these Interrogatories is continuing, so as to require further and/or supplemental answers from now until the time of trial should "you" learn or have information available to "you" (directly or through "your" attorney(s), employees, agents, servants, representatives, investigators or other sources) that is responsive to the Interrogatories. Further, it is "your" obligation to supplement "your" prior answer(s) with respect to any witnesses having knowledge of discoverable matters, any witnesses whom you intend to call at trial, or if "you" obtain information (or have information available to "you", directly or through "your" attorney(s), employees, agents, servants, representatives, investigators or other sources) upon the basis of which "you" know that a prior answer was incorrect when made or "you" know that a prior answer, though correct when made is no longer true. Definitions and Instructions A. Whenever the term "document" is used herein, it includes (whether or not specifically called for) all printed, typewritten, handwritten, graphic or recorded matter, however formal or informal. B. Whenever you are asked to "identify" a document, the following information should be given as to each document of which you are aware, whether or not you have possession, custody or control thereof 2 1. The nature of the document (e.g., letter, memorandum, computer print-out, minutes, resolution, tape recording, videotape, etc.); 2. Its date (or if it bears no date, the date when it was prepared); 3. The name, address, employer and position of the signer or signers (or if there is no signer, of the person who prepared it); 4. The name, address, employer and position of the person, if any, to whom the document was sent; 5. If you have possession, custody or control of the document, the location and designation of the place or file in which it is contained, and the name, address, position of person having custody of the document; 6. If you do not have possession, custody or control of the document, the present location thereof and the name and address of the organization having possession, custody or control thereof; and 7. A brief statement of the subject matter of each document. C. Whenever you are asked to "identify" an oral communication, the following information should be given as to each oral communication of which you are aware, whether or not you or others were present or participated therein: 1. The means of communication (e.g., telephone, personal conversation, etc.); 2. Where it took place; 3. Its date; 4. The names, addresses, employers and positions (a) of all persons who participated in the communication; and (b) of all other persons who were present during or who overheard that communication; 5. The substance of who said what to whom and the order in which it was said; and 6. Whether that communication or any part thereof is recorded, described or referred to in any document (however informal) and, if so, an identification of such document in the manner indicated above. 3 D. If you claim that the subject matter of a document or oral communication is privileged, you need not set forth the brief statement of the subject matter of the document, or the substance of the oral communication called for above. You shall, however, otherwise "identify" such document or oral communication and shall state each ground on which you claim that such document or oral communication is privileged. E. Whenever you are asked to "identify" a person, the following information should be given: 1. The name, present address, and present employer and position of the person; and 2. Whether the person has given testimony by way of deposition or otherwise in any proceeding related to the present proceeding and/or whether that person has given a statement whether oral, written, or otherwise, and if so, the title and nature of any such proceeding, the date of the testimony, whether you have a copy of the transcript thereof, the name of the person to whom the statement was given, where the statement is presently located if written or otherwise transcribed, and the present location of such transcript or statement if not in your possession. F. The term "you" shall be deemed to mean and refer to the party to whom -these, Interrogatories have been propounded for answer and shall also be deemed to refer to, but shall not be limited to, your attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitor, insurers, investigators, and any other agents insofar as the material requested herein is not privileged. The term "you" shall also be deemed to refer to the Defendants. G. The word "incident" shall be deemed to mean and refer to the incident as alleged to have occurred and set forth in the Complaint. H. The phrase "medical treatment" shall include any treatment of any kind or nature for physical illness, disease, injury or condition. 4 1 Statement of the Facts On December 17, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this cause of action by filing a Writ of Summons. Plaintiff now files these Interrogatories in an effort to divulge the necessary information needed to draft an adequately specific Complaint. The basic facts are as follows: On December 19, 2007, Katherine Maxwell, 86, was a resident of Susquehanna View Apartments in Camp Hill, PA. She had been a resident there since 1979/1980. On December 19, 2007, Ms. Maxwell was in a store at the facility when the Resident Service Coordinator (Lynn Wilhelm) commented that Katherine did not look like she was feeling well. Later that day, Ms. Maxwell did not appear at dinner, Ms. Wilhelm eventually brought her dinner and noticed that Ms. Maxwell looked even worse than she did earlier in the day at the store. However, Ms. Wilhelm did not contact any of Ms. Maxwell's relatives or take any action regarding her sick condition. On December 20, 2007, Ms. Maxwell's neighbors grew concerned that they had not seen Ms. Maxwell all day and contacted the main office, requesting that someone look in on her. Apparently, the Resident Service Coordinator was supposed to check on her, but "forgot." Susquehanna Valley Apartments provides housing to a number of elderly individuals as well as handicapped individual. Consequently, this complex has a "SLIDER" system. If everything is ok for that particular resident, they are supposed to slide it to green. And if there is a problem, it is supposed to be on red, and then someone comes in to check on that resident. If the resident is away, they slide it to the middle. Generally, a "floor captain" is designated to check on anyone with a red slide. That is usually a resident who is volunteering to do that job. On the day (21S) in question, Ms. Maxwell's slider was set to red. She had not been to the meals (as she usually would be) and the office was aware of her apparent absence, as another resident had reported the same. The Resident Service Coordinator finally arrived at Ms. Maxwell's unit to check on her. The slider was on red, as it had been for the past two days. She entered and found Ms. Maxwell on the floor. The EMS were called and when they arrived they noted that Ms. Maxwell had scrapes on her fingers and 5 toes from trying to crawl to the front door. It was also apparent that she had been lying in her own excrement for several days. Upon arrival to the hospital, Ms. Maxwell was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and respiratory distress. Unfortunately, the delay in getting her to the hospital made it impossible for her to recover. On January 1, 2008, Ms. Maxwell died. 1. Please state the full name of the person answering these Interrogatories on behalf of Defendant Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships and any other name(s) by which that person has been known. ANSWER: f ti M1 2. Please identify the individual(s) or entities who currently owns, operates, and/or manages the business/apartments/condominiums located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, PA 17011. ANSWER: 2 s ` 3. Please identify the individual(s) or entities who owned, operated, and/or managed the business/apartments/condominiums located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, PA 17011 back on December 19, 2007. ANSWER: 9 s 4. Please identify the structural organization of Defendant Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships (i.e. Corporation, Partnership, LLP, etc.), and list the following: a. Please state the full names and last known addresses for all persons who were and/or are partners, owners and/or officers of Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships; b. Where (ie- what state) is Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships registered; c. Whether Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships is still an active entity and if not the date and reason Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships was dissolved. ANSWER: 10 5. Regarding the safety protocol system in place with use of the "Slider" system: (a) Please describe the method by which the "slider" system was implemented in the apartment complex; (b) Please specify when the system was put in place and began to be utilized; (c) Please explain how the system was to be utilized; (d) Please explain how residents were encouraged and/or instructed to participate in the use of the system; (e) Please explain how employees of Defendants were trained in the use of the system and how it was then employed; (f) Please explain the purpose and objective of the "slider" system; (g) Please explain how these safety protocols were advertised to prospective tenants as a benefit to residing at Defendants' complex; and (h) Please explain how the "slider" system is integrated as part of these safety protocols that were advertised to prospective tenants as a benefit to residing at Defendants' complex. Please consider a request to produce any documents, which were relied upon in answering this interrogatory. (i.e. handbooks, lease agreements, memorandums, orientation, training procedures, etc.) ANSWER: Respectfully submitted, R. I NL4RZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: 1 C IA M. VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIRE ID No. 306527 DATED: f 6fi-O II „ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Cynthia von Schlichten, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 13th day of I January, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Tim McMahon, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J.IVIARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: 0, -, 4 CYN IA M. V SCHLICHTEN, ESQ. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Cindy Sowers, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this q day of February, 2010, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion for Protective Order via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Cynthia von Schlichten, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff *? "Aw Lo Cind S wers 1 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: CYNTHIA VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIRE PA SUPREME COURT I.D. N0.306527 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 Email: cvonschlichten(ai,RJMarzella.com 2310 F E B 19 PH 2: 55 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF GARY MAXWELL, As EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE Maxwell IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF, SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS DOCKET NUMBER: 09-8673 vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, by and through his counsel, R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C., in response in opposition to Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order, avers the following: 1. No response is required. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. I 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants submit this Motion for a Protective Order alleging that Plaintiff's pre-complaint discovery requests far I exceed the information which would reasonably be material and necessary to the filing of the Complaint. However, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff has failed to make any I showing whatsoever that pre-complaint discovery is material or necessary under the I circumstances. 7. This allegation states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 8. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's pre-complaint Interrogatories far exceed any reasonable scope of pre-complaint discovery, because said Interrogatories are both material and necessary for Plaintiff to adequately draft said Complaint. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that the information in Interrogatory I Number 4 has no relationship to the place where the incident allegedly occurred. Further, said information is material and necessary to adequate drafting and subsequent filing of said Complaint. 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that Interrogatory Number 5 is not necessary to the filing of this Complaint. As is apparent by Plaintiff's Statement of Facts, the "SLIDER" system is clearly an integral part of the Plaintiffs claim for liability. A complete understanding of this system is both reasonable and necessary to allow Plaintiff to make his Complaint as specific and accurate as possible. 2 4 11. Denied. It is specifically denied the amount of information Plaintiff currently possesses is sufficient to meet the burden of applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, under Pa. R.C.P 4003.8, Plaintiff is entitled to obtain discovery of matters which I are material and necessary to the filing of the Complaint. Such is the case here. 12. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's Interrogatories' Statement of Facts set forth adequate facts by which to sufficiently draft the Complaint. 13. This allegation states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 14. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's Pre-Complaint Interrogatories directed to Moving Defendants are not material or necessary to the filing of the Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court deny Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 2( t,,\ (o R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. ?? By: -. Cyn is M. on Schlichten, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 306527 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-7828 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, as Executor for the Estate of Katherine Maxwell 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Cynthia von Schlichten, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 17th day of February, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Tim McMahon, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. C THIA M. VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQ. GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF V. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS : C-7 a AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR =`r HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND cv SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS 09-8673 CIVIL TERM -- =- ' ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this / ! oll day of February, 2010, upon consideration of the defendants' motion for a protective order, a Rule is issued upon plaintiff to show cause why the defendants, Susquehanna View Apartments, National Corporation for Housing Partnerships and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships, are not entitled to the relief requested. This Rule shall be returnable thirty (30) days from service, after which the court will determine the necessity of briefs and argument as requested by defendants. Notice of this order shall be provided to all parties by the defendants, Susquehanna View Apartments, National Corporation for Housing Partnerships and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships. By the Court, Cynthia von Schlichten, Esquire For Plaintiff ,'- Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire For Defendants t' rn4 tL, a let/to Albert H. Masland, J. ~- sal GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF V. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS : AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, : DEFENDANTS 09-8673 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2010, based upon the defendants' motion for a protective order and the response filed thereto, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The motion shall be decided under Pa.R.C.P. 206.7; (2) Depositions shall be completed within thirty (30) days of the date of this order; (3) Argument shall be held on Monday, May 3, 2010, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom Number 5, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania; (4) Briefs shall be submitted at least seven (7) days prior to argument. By the Court, -, Cynthia von Schlichten, Esquire For Plaintiff Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire For Defendants 3?aS'lrc? 4be *Masfa? ,? - s7 C11 Mff: a 3 t'n ?'• x :sal ?? ?`•' ? _? s GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF V. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS : AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS 09-8673 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this eday of May, 2010, upon consideration of defendants' motion for a protective order, and following oral argument held on May 3, 2010, defendants' motion IS DENIED. Defendants are directed to respond to plaintiff's pre-complaint Interrogatory Number 5 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. ., Cynthia Von Schlichten, Esquire ,Four Plaintiff ? Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire For Defendants :sal ?< tre- C r? U+ ,_ GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF V. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS : AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS 09-8673 CIVIL TERM MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., May 5, 2010:-- Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a writ of summons on December 17, 2009. On January 13, 2010, plaintiff submitted a set of pre-complaint interrogatories to defendants. On February 9, 2010, defendants filed a motion for a protective order claiming that the requested discovery is not material or necessary to the filing of a complaint and complying with the discovery constitutes an unreasonable burden on defendants. Although plaintiff withdrew all but one interrogatory prior to oral argument, which was held on May 3, 2010, defendants maintain their opposition. For the reasons which follow, the court disagrees with defendants' contention and denies the motion for a protective order. The court notes that under Pa. R.C.P. No. 4003.8 it has broad authority to weigh the relative importance of the pre-complaint discovery request and the burden, if any, that may be imposed on the responding party. McNeil v. Jordan, 586 Pa. 413, 444-45, 894 A.2d 1260, 1278-79 (2006). In the context of this case, Interrogatory Number 5 focuses on a matter that is not only material but is, perhaps, at the heart of plaintiff's 09-8672 CIVIL TERM case. As such, it is not a "fishing expedition" designed to abuse the intent of pre- complaint discovery. Id. at 444, 894 A.2d at 1278. Although it is not clear that all of the sub-parts in Interrogatory Number 5 are absolutely necessary to the filing of the complaint, the court will give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and require defendants to supply answers thereto. Finally, the information supplied will not only materially advance the filing of the complaint, but it will also conserve judicial resources. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 126 ("The rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable."). Undoubtedly, the matter at issue will return to the court, if not addressed now, in the form of preliminary objections regarding the lack of specificity in plaintiff's complaint. Given the option of addressing this issue now or later, the court chooses to grant plaintiff's reasonable request without further delay, and enters the following order: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this - day of May, 2010, upon consideration of defendants' motion for a protective order, and following oral argument held on May 3, 2010, defendants' motion IS DENIED. Defendants are directed to respond to plaintiffs pre-complaint Interrogatory Number 5 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. By the Court, Albert H. Maslan , J. -2- 09-8672 CIVIL TERM Cynthia Von Schlichten, Esquire For Plaintiff Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire For Defendants sal -3- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Our File No. 01014-00115 Attorney for Defendants c FILE u;~,-,:,~ ., , ~,!~ CUI~r: ~ ' ;..) ~h~ti.~~~LV .,;.;'U?V r~ ~ K, ~.+ r".~ ~I,~ nary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 09-8673 v. Susquehanna View Apartments and National Corporation for Housing Partnerships and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR A RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendant Susquehanna View Apartment requests that you kindly issue a Rule directing Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell to file a Complaint in the above-referenced matter within twenty (20) days of service thereof or risk a judgment of non pros. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COL & G IN By: Timo y J. M n, Esquire Attorney forbef ants ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Dated: June ~, 2010 3 r MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Our File No. 01014-00115 Attorney for Defendants Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, Plaintiff v. Susquehanna View Apartments and National Corporation for Housing Partnerships and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships, Defendants. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 09-8673 CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE ~D/d AND NOW, this ~ day of , 299H, upon consideration of the request of Defendant Susquehanna View Apartments' Praecipe, Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell is hereby ordered to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days hereof or suffer judgment of non pros. By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lisa J. Wallace, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this ~ day of June, 2010, I served a copy of the foregoing Susquehanna View Apartments' Rule for Complaint via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Cynthia von Schlichten, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff e ~ s r~T \ ~~ ~a~ U ~~^~ R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. , „, : ~ . +~.~i"1'`~ BY: CYNTHIA VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIRE Ci<1~v - ~,~'=i ~ . ~+r." 5~~~• 4,1`v'~ , PA SUPREME COURT LD. N0.306527 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 Maxwell EMAIL: CVONSCHL.i HTFN(a~R TMAR7Fi i A OM I1V THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF, SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS VS. DOCKET NUMBER: 09-8673 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Katherine Maxwell, deceased, was an adult individual and was a resident of Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. On or around January 1, 2008, Ms. Maxwell died at Holy Spirit Hospital. 3. On or around January 22, 2008, Gary Maxwell, Ms. Maxwell's son, was appointed Executor of Ms. Maxwell's Will by the Register of Wills of Cumberland County, PA. 4. At all relevant times hereto, Susquehanna View Apartments (hereinafter "Defendant SVA") was a corporation duly incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. 5. At all relevant times hereto, the person(s) charged with the duty of maintaining the area at issue were agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, employees, and/or servants of Defendant SVA. 6. At all relevant times hereto, National Corporation for Housing Partnerships (hereinafter "Defendant NCHP") was a corporation duly incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. 7. At all relevant times hereto, the person(s) charged with the duty of maintaining the area at issue were agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, employees, and/or servants of Defendant NCHP. At all relevant times hereto, Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships (hereinafter "Defendant SVLP") was a corporation duly incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. 9. At all relevant times hereto, the person(s) charged with the duty of maintaining the area at issue were agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, employees, and/or servants of Defendant SVLP. 10. As the owner, occupier, and possessor of the premises located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, Defendants were required to use reasonable care in the 2 maintenance and use of the property, particularly those common areas, over which it exercised control. 11. At all relevant times hereto, Ms. Maxwell was a resident of the above- captioned Defendants. 12. Ms. Maxwell, at all relevant times hereto, was an active 86-year old woman who was a tenant at Defendant SVA since on or around the early 1980's. 13. According to its own advertising information, Defendant SVA marketed its apartments as being "specifically designed for individuals 62 years and older and handicapped or disabled individuals of any age..." 14. Further, Defendant SVA claimed that is was designed to "...take into account the living and recreational requirements and the safety and physical needs of the senior citizen and the handicapped and disabled individuals." 15. In addition, Defendant SVA boasted, " 24-hour emergency call system in each apartment." 16. As part of its safety protocols, Defendant SVA also employed a "SLIDER" system that could only exist to protect the welfare and safety of its residents. 17. Defendant SVA had implemented said system in or around 1978 and maintained the SLIDER mechanisms on each door. 18. On the front door of each apartment, there is a slide in place. 19. Residents were instructed to turn their slider to green each day by 11:OOam to ensure that everything is as it should be. 3 r ~ 20. If the resident was not in the apartment for some reason., they were instructed to have their slider positioned to black. 21. Generally, a "Hall Monitor" or "Floor Captain" was designated to check on all residents on their floor and turn their SLIDER to red after they had checked a particular apartment. 22. The Hall Monitor was typically a resident of Defendant SVA who volunteered for the job. 23. The Handbook for Defendant SVA that Ms. Maxwell had received when she moved in states, "Residents are encouraged to volunteer as floor captains, who will be responsible for checking doors (door slides) and reporting any incidents to the Management Office." (Emphasis added.) 24. Residents participated in the SLIDER system on a voluntary basis. 25. Ms. Maxwell was an active participant in the SLIDER system program and came to rely heavily on it for her welfare. 26. On or about December 19, 2007, Ms. Maxwell was in the "grocerette" at Defendant SVA where the residents frequently shopped. 27. While on her way to the store, Ms. Maxwell encountered Lynn Wilhelm, ~ the Resident Services Coordinator. 28. Ms. Wilhelm commented to Ms. Maxwell that she did not look like she was ~ feeling well. 29. When such an encounter had occurred in the past, Ms. Wilhelm would generally check on Ms. Maxwell in her apartment later to make sure she was ok. 4 r ~ 30. However, on this occasion, no such visit occurred. 31. Later that day, Ms. Maxwell did not come down to the Community Room for dinner, as she typically did. 32. Instead, Ms. Wilhelm, noticing that Ms. Maxwell was not at dinner in the Community Room, paid for the dinner herself and brought it to Ms. Maxwell. 33. On December 20, 2007, Ms. Maxwell's neighbors grew concerned for her, as they had not seen her the entire day, and this was unusual. 34. Out of their growing concern and upon noticing that Ms. Maxwell's SLIDER was still set to red, some of the residents contacted the main office of Defendant SVA to request that someone check on Ms. Maxwell. 35. The main office assured them that the Resident Services Coordinator on duty would check on Ms. Maxwell. 36. However, no one from Defendant SVA ever came to check on Ms. ~ Maxwell. 37. On December 21, 2007, Ms. Maxwell's slider had been positioned to red as it had been for the past two days. 38. Residents again reported their concern to the office. 39. Yet, the management at Defendant SVA again failed to take any action on I the situation. 40. Meanwhile, Jack Maxwell, Ms. Maxwell's other son, had made repeated attempts to reach Ms. Maxwell by phone on Wednesday and Thursday, but was ~ unsuccessful. 5 ~ ~ 41. When he still could not reach her on Friday morning, December 21, 2007, Jack Maxwell called the office and asked to have someone check on her. 42. In response, Ms. Wilhelm finally went to check on Ms. Maxwell in her apartment. 43. Ms. Wilhelm discovered Ms. Maxwell lying face down on the floor. 44. Ms. Maxwell's knees and toes were covered in abrasions caused by her apparently trying to crawl to the door. 45. Ms. Maxwell was lying, saturated, in her own urine and was unresponsive. 46. The East Pennsboro Ambulance Service was called and responded to the scene. 47. The EMS crew found Ms. Maxwell to be in respiratory distress which improved somewhat upon turning her on her back. 48. The EMS report indicates, "...Entered the apartment to find an 86 y/o female lying prone on the floor in her living room. She appears to be having some respiratory distress." 49. The EMS report also notes, "Management stated that they were contacted by the patient's son this morning who apparently had been trying to get in touch with his mother since Wednesday...Management states that they have not seen the patient since about Tuesday or Wednesday..." 50. Ms. Maxwell was transported to Holy Spirit Hospital. 6 51. Following Ms. Maxwell's initial examination at the Emergency Room, the Assessment of Ms. Maxwell indicated, "1. Fall, unknown cause. 2. Mental Status changes. 3. Urinary Tract Infection. 4. Dehydration. 5. Possible Sepsis." 52. Ms. Maxwell was then admitted to the hospital and put on intravenous antibiotics, steroids, and fluids. 53. Ms. Maxwell was also placed on oxygen via nasal cannula and a BiPAP as needed. 54. X-rays and other various diagnostics were performed to determine the state of Ms. Maxwell's health. 55. A chest x-ray performed revealed, "...COPD with chronic interstitial lung ~ disease/bronchiectasis." 56. Ms. Maxwell was also diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. 57. On December 22, 2007, Ms. Maxwell was transferred to the Intensive Care Unit. 58. On or around December 24, 2007, Gary Maxwell received a letter from Ms. Wilhelm at Defendant SVA, which callously reminded Mr. Maxwell that his mother, Ms. Maxwell, had been left unattended on the floor of her apartment for several days. 59. The letter states in pertinent part, "...Before Kitty (Ms. Maxwell) returns to her apartment we will need the carpets in the living room shampooed. Unfortunately from her laying there for several days she urinated on the carpet which is leaving a very strong odor smell in the apartment and hallway." 7 60. The letter also states, "We know it is a busy time of the season with the Holidays however this will need attention as soon as possible so it doesn't affect the other residents." 61. Over the next several days, Ms. Maxwell's condition continued to decline aggressively. 62. Despite Holy Spirit Hospital's best efforts to save her, Ms. Maxwell became unresponsive and passed away on January 1, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. 63. The Death Certificate listed her cause of death as "a. Cardio Pulmonary Arrest b. Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease c. Rhabdomyolysis and d. failure to thrive." 64. Defendants aver that on August 30, 2006, they discontinued the SLIDER system program, by sending a flyer to the Hall Monitors alerting them as such. 65. Yet the flyer stipulates that as of July 1St, Hall Monitors will no longer be required to monitor the hall doors. 66. In any case, the mechanisms on the doors were never dismantled or deactivated in any way. 67. There is also no evidence that residents of Defendant SVA were formally notified in any way of the discontinuing of this program, as the flyers were specifically directed to the Hall Monitors. 68. As is apparent by the facts of this case, Ms. Maxwell and her surrounding neighbors were clearly under the reasonable impression that the SLIDER system was still in place. 8 69. Ms. Maxwell had used her SLIDER appropriately, and residents acted on it accordingly, by contacting the office several times out of concern for Ms. Maxwell. 70. In turn, the office of Defendant SVA had responded to this by making promises to the residents that they would check on Ms. Maxwell and by eventually doing so, albeit too late. 71. Upon information and belief, at all times herein relevant, Defendants had a duty imposed upon it by law to keep and maintain their own SLIDER system which they had put in place to provide an additional measure of safety to its residents. 72. Disregarding the duty imposed upon it as aforesaid, Defendant was notified several times that Ms. Maxwell was potentially in danger and yet failed to take any action for several days. 73. Defendant at all times herein relevant, had actual and/or constructive knowledge and notice that Ms. Maxwell was in danger, as Defendants were informed by several residents pursuant to the system put in place by Defendants, as well as Defendants witnessing firsthand that Ms. Maxwell was not well. Therefore, Defendants had knowledge of Ms. Maxwell's condition and had a duty established by their own practice, to take steps to aid her. 74. Defendant had a duty to employ its safety protocols put in place to protect its residents. 75. Defendant had a duty to properly notify residents of the alleged discontinuance of the SLIDER system, including but not limited to the dismantling of the SLIDER mechanism on each residents' door. 76. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff were the result of Defendants' negligence, and/or the negligence of Defendants' agents, servants and employees. 77. The Defendants' negligence and/or the negligence of Defendants' employees, servants, agents, and/or apparent agents was a substantial factor in causing the injuries and damages described herein, and for all of which damages are claimed. 78. Defendant's negligence was the direct and proximate cause of Ms. Maxwell's declining condition going unaddressed, which ultimately resulted in her death. 79. Defendant's failed to meet their duty to follow-up on the repeated concerns that Ms. Maxwell was in danger, and this was the direct and proximate cause of Ms. Maxwell's death. 80. The defendants in the above-captioned are jointly and severely liable to the Plaintiffs for the injuries and damages set forth herein and incorporated by reference. 81. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, and/or reckless indifference, of Defendants and/or the agents, apparent agents, servants and /or employees of Defendants, Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, individually and as the Executor of the estate of Katherine Maxwell, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe injuries including emotional distress and a claim is made therefore. 82. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants and/or its employees, servants, agents, and/or apparent agents as detailed below, Ms. Maxwell had sustained medical expenses for all of which damages are claimed. to 83. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, gross embarrassment, and a claim is made therefore. 84. Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, as the Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, deceased, claims on behalf of said Estate, the damages suffered by said Estate by reason of the death of the decedent, for the pain and suffering of decedent prior to her death, for the loss of earnings and earning power for the decedent's life expectancy, for the loss of pleasures and enjoyment of her life and for all other damages sustained by reason of the death of the decedent. 85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, and reckless disregard, Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, as the Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, deceased, claims on behalf of said Estate, the damages suffered by said Estate by reason of the death of the decedent, for the humiliation and embarrassment, and a claim is made therefore. 86. Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, individually and as the Executor for the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, deceased, bring this action on behalf of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell under and by virtue of the Act of 1976, July 9, P.L. 586, No. 142, §2, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8302. 87. Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, as the Executor for the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, deceased, bring this action for the wrongful death of Katherine Maxwell, deceased on behalf of all persons entitled to recover damages under and by virtue of the Act of 1976, July 9, P.L. 586, No. 142, §2, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8301. 11 88. Decedent, Katherine Maxwell, did not bring an action for her injuries during her lifetime. 89. The following are all persons entitled by law to recover damages for the wrongful death and the relationship of the decedent: A. Gary L. Maxwell -son B. Jack E. Maxwell -son C. Richard E. Glace -son 90. At the time of his death, Katherine Maxwell was 86 years of age, having been born on November 13, 1921. 91. As a result of Katherine Maxwell's wrongful death, Plaintiff has incurred medical, funeral, burial and related expenses and a claim is made therefore. COUNTI NEGLIGENCE Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell v. Susquehanna View Apartments 92. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 91 of Plaintiffls Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 93. Defendants are responsible as a matter of law for its negligent acts and omissions which give rise to this claim. 12 94. Defendants are responsible, as a matter of law, for the acts of negligence, gross negligence and reckless indifference of its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees committed within the course and scope of their employment. 95. Defendants are acting by and through its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees for whom it is vicariously liable. 96. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by its negligence with respect to Katherine Maxwell by: (a) failing to follow their own SLIDER system put in place in effort to protect their residents; (b) failing to respond in a timely fashion to the numerous requests by the other residents to check on Ms. Maxwell; (c) failing to respond in a timely fashion to Ms. Maxwell's slider remaining on red for several days; (d) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely fashion after Ms. Wilhelm had seen her looking ill, as had often been done on previous occasions; (e) failure to properly notify residents when Defendants' allegedly attempted to discontinue the SLIDER system practice; (fj failure to dismantle the SLIDER mechanisms on residents' door upon Defendants' decision to no longer make that service available; 13 (g) failure to consider the ramifications of the residents of Defendant SVA's reasonable reliance on the SLIDER system even after its alleged discontinuance; (h) failure to issue written notification to the residents of the discontinuing of the SLIDER system; (i) failure to update said handbook regarding the discontinuance of the SLIDER system; (j) failure to warn residents that any use of the SLIDER system would be ignored; (k) failing to employ the proper procedure as governed by Defendants' handbook upon learning that Ms. Maxwell's SLIDER was set to red; (1) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were informed of Ms. Maxwell's apparent distress; (m) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were responsible for checking on residents who utilized the SLIDER system; (n) failing to attend to Ms. Maxwell's failing health in a timely fashion; (o) negligently contributing to Ms. Maxwell's failing health and ultimate demise by disregarding multiple notifications of her condition over several days; (p) negligently failing to check on Ms. Maxwell when her slider had been set to red for several days; ]4 (q) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely manner, despite repeated reports from residents expressing their concern about her welfare; (r) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell despite assuring residents who alerted Defendants to Ms. Maxwell's potential distress that they would check on her; (s) failing to inform residents when they alerted the office about Ms. Maxwell's failing health largely due to the position of her slider that the sliders were no longer being employed; 97. The negligence of the Defendants was a substantial factor in causing, and was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries, losses, expenses, and death sustained by Ms. Maxwell as alleged in the previous above paragraphs, and for all of which damages are claimed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant SVA in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law. COUNT II VICARIOUS LIABILITY Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell v. Susquehanna View Apartments 98. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 98 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 15 99. Defendants are responsible as a matter of law for its negligent acts and omissions which give rise to this claim. 100. Defendants are responsible, as a matter of law, for the acts of negligence, gross negligence and reckless indifference of its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees committed within the course and scope of their employment. 101. Defendants are acting by and through its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees for whom it is vicariously liable. 102. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by its negligence with respect to Katherine Maxwell by: (a) failing to follow their own SLIDER system put in place in effort to protect their residents; (b) failing to respond in a timely fashion to the numerous requests by the other residents to check on Ms. Maxwell; (c) failing to respond in a timely fashion to Ms. Maxwell's slider remaining on red for several days; (d) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely fashion after Ms. Wilhelm had seen her looking ill, as had often been done on previous occasions; (e) failure to properly notify residents when Defendants' allegedly attempted to discontinue the SLIDER system practice; (f) failure to dismantle the SLIDER mechanisms on residents' door upon Defendants' decision to no longer make that service available; 16 (g) failure to consider the ramifications of the residents of Defendant SVA's reasonable reliance on the SLIDER system even after its alleged discontinuance; (h) failure to issue written notification to the residents of the discontinuing of the SLIDER system; (i) failure to update said handbook regarding the discontinuance of the SLIDER system; (j) failure to warn residents that any use of the SLIDER system would be ignored; (k) failing to employ the proper procedure as governed by Defendants' handbook upon learning that Ms. Maxwell's SLIDER was set to red; (1) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were informed of Ms. Maxwell's apparent distress; (m) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were responsible for checking on residents who utilized the SLIDER system; (n) failing to attend to Ms. Maxwell's failing health in a timely fashion; (o) negligently contributing to Ms. Maxwell's failing health and ultimate demise by disregarding multiple notifications of her condition over several days; (p) negligently failing to check on Ms. Maxwell when her slider had been set to red for several days; 17 (q) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely manner, despite repeated reports from residents expressing their concern about her welfare; (r) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell despite assuring residents who alerted Defendants to Ms. Maxwell's potential distress that they would check on her; (s) failing to inform residents when they alerted the office about Ms. Maxwell's failing health largely due to the position of her slider that the sliders were no longer being employed; 103. The negligence of the Defendants was a substantial factor in causing, and was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries, losses, expenses, and death sustained by Ms. Maxwell as alleged in the previous above paragraphs, and for all of which damages are claimed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant SVA in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law. COUNT III NEGLIGENCE Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell v. National Corporation for Housing Partnerships 104. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 91 and of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 18 105. Defendants are responsible as a matter of law for its negligent acts and omissions which give rise to this claim. 106. Defendants are responsible, as a matter of law, for the acts of negligence, gross negligence and reckless indifference of its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees committed within the course and scope of their employment. 107. Defendants are acting by and through its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees for whom it is vicariously liable. 108. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by its negligence with respect to Katherine Maxwell by: (a) failing to follow their own SLIDER system put in place in effort to protect their residents; (b) failing to respond in a timely fashion to the numerous requests by the other residents to check on Ms. Maxwell; (c) failing to respond in a timely fashion to Ms. Maxwell's slider remaining on red for several days; (d) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely fashion after Ms. Wilhelm had seen her looking ill, as had often been done on previous occasions; (e) failure to properly notify residents when Defendants' allegedly attempted to discontinue the SLIDER system practice; (f) failure to dismantle the SLIDER mechanisms on residents' door upon Defendants' decision to no longer make that service available; 19 (g) failure to consider the ramifications of the residents of Defendant SVA's reasonable reliance on the SLIDER system even after its alleged discontinuance; (h) failure to issue written notification to the residents of the discontinuing of the SLIDER system; (i) failure to update said handbook regarding the discontinuance of the SLIDER system; (j) failure to warn residents that any use of the SLIDER system would be ignored; (k) failing to employ the proper procedure as governed by Defendants' handbook upon learning that Ms. Maxwell's SLIDER was set to red; (1) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were informed of Ms. Maxwell's apparent distress; (m) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were responsible for checking on residents who utilized the SLIDER system; (n) failing to attend to Ms. Maxwell's failing health in a timely fashion; (o) negligently contributing to Ms. Maxwell's failing health and ultimate demise by disregarding multiple notifications of her condition over several days; (p) negligently failing to check on Ms. Maxwell when her slider had been set to red for several days; 20 (q) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely manner, despite repeated reports from residents expressing their concern about her welfare; (r) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell despite assuring residents who alerted Defendants to Ms. Maxwell's potential distress that they would check on her; (s) failing to inform residents when they alerted the office about Ms. Maxwell's failing health largely due to the position of her slider that the sliders were no longer being employed; 109. The negligence of the Defendants was a substantial factor in causing, and was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries, losses, expenses, and death sustained by Ms. Maxwell as alleged in the previous above paragraphs, and for all of which damages are claimed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant NCHP in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law. COUNT VI VICARIOUS LIABILITY Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell v. National Corporation for Housing Partnerships 110. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 91 and Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 21 e i ~ ~ 111. Defendants are responsible as a matter of law for its negligent acts and ~ omissions which give rise to this claim. 112. Defendants are responsible, as a matter of law, for the acts of negligence, gross negligence and reckless indifference of its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees committed within the course and scope of their employment. 113. Defendants are acting by and through its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees for whom it is vicariously liable. 114. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by its negligence with respect to Katherine Maxwell by: (a) failing to follow their own SLIDER system put in place in effort to protect their residents; (b) failing to respond in a timely fashion to the numerous requests by the other residents to check on Ms. Maxwell; (c) failing to respond in a timely fashion to Ms. Maxwell's slider remaining on red for several days; (d) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely fashion after Ms. Wilhelm had seen her looking ill, as had often been done on previous occasions; (e) failure to properly notify residents when Defendants' allegedly attempted to discontinue the SLIDER system practice; (f) failure to dismantle the SLIDER mechanisms on residents' door upon Defendants' decision to no longer make that service available; 22 ~ i e ~ (g) failure to consider the ramifications of the residents of Defendant SVA's reasonable reliance on the SLIDER system even after its alleged discontinuance; (h) failure to issue written notification to the residents of the discontinuing of the SLIDER system; (i) failure to update said handbook regarding the discontinuance of the SLIDER system; (j) failure to warn residents that any use of the SLIDER system would be ignored; (k) failing to employ the proper procedure as governed by Defendants' handbook upon learning that Ms. Maxwell's SLIDER was set to red; (1) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were informed of Ms. Maxwell's apparent distress; (m) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were responsible for checking on residents who utilized the SLIDER system; (n) failing to attend to Ms. Maxwell's failing health in a timely fashion; (o) negligently contributing to Ms. Maxwell's failing health and ultimate demise by disregarding multiple notifications of her condition over several days; (p) negligently failing to check on Ms. Maxwell when her slider had been set to red for several days; 23 .~ (q) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely manner, despite repeated reports from residents expressing their concern about her welfare; (r) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell despite assuring residents who alerted Defendants to Ms. Maxwell's potential distress that they would check on her; (s) failing to inform residents when they alerted the office about Ms. Maxwell's failing health largely due to the position of her slider that the sliders were no longer being employed; 115. The negligence of the Defendants was a substantial factor in causing, and was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries, losses, expenses, and death sustained by Ms. Maxwell as alleged in the previous above paragraphs, and for all of which damages are claimed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant NCHP in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law. COUNT V NEGLIGENCE Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell v. Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships 116. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 91 of Plaintiff s Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 24 ,. , 117. Defendants are responsible as a matter of law for its negligent acts and omissions which give rise to this claim. 118. Defendants are responsible, as a matter of law, for the acts of negligence, gross negligence and reckless indifference of its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees committed within the course and scope of their employment. 119. Defendants are acting by and through its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees for whom it is vicariously liable. 120. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by its negligence with respect to Katherine Maxwell by: (a) failing to follow their own SLIDER system put in place in effort to protect their residents; (b) failing to respond in a timely fashion to the numerous requests by the other residents to check on Ms. Maxwell; (c) failing to respond in a timely fashion to Ms. Maxwell's slider remaining on red for several days; (d) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely fashion after Ms. Wilhelm had seen her looking ill, as had often been done on previous occasions; (e) failure to properly notify residents when Defendants' allegedly attempted to discontinue the SLIDER system practice; (f) failure to dismantle the SLIDER mechanisms on residents' door upon Defendants' decision to no longer make that service available; 25 ~ ~ R (g) failure to consider the ramifications of the residents of Defendant SVA's reasonable reliance on the SLIDER system even after its alleged discontinuance; (h) failure to issue written notification to the residents of the discontinuing of the SLIDER system; (i) failure to update said handbook regarding the discontinuance of the SLIDER system; (j) failure to warn residents that any use of the SLIDER system would be ignored; (k) failing to employ the proper procedure as governed by Defendants' handbook upon learning that Ms. Maxwell's SLIDER was set to red; (1) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were informed of Ms. Maxwell's apparent distress; (m) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were responsible for checking on residents who utilized the SLIDER system; (n) failing to attend to Ms. Maxwell's failing health in a timely fashion; (o) negligently contributing to Ms. Maxwell's failing health and ultimate demise by disregarding multiple notifications of her condition over several days; (p) negligently failing to check on Ms. Maxwell when her slider had been set to red for several days; 26 ~ ~~ r (q) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely manner, despite repeated reports from residents expressing their concern about her welfare; (r) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell despite assuring residents who alerted Defendants to Ms. Maxwell's potential distress that they would check on her; (s) failing to inform residents when they alerted the office about Ms. Maxwell's failing health largely due to the position of her slider that the sliders were no longer being employed; 12l . The negligence of the Defendants was a substantial factor in causing, and was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries, losses, expenses, and death sustained by Ms. Maxwell as alleged in the previous above paragraphs, and for all of which damages are claimed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant SVLP in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law. COUNT VI VICARIOUS LIABILITY Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell v. Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships 122. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 91 and Count V of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 27 r cr ~ 123. Defendants are responsible as a matter of law for its negligent acts and omissions which give rise to this claim. 124. Defendants are responsible, as a matter of law, for the acts of negligence, gross negligence and reckless indifference of its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees committed within the course and scope of their employment. 125. Defendants are acting by and through its actual or ostensible agents, servants, and employees for whom it is vicariously liable. 126. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by its negligence with respect to Katherine Maxwell by: (a) failing to follow their own SLIDER system put in place in effort to protect their residents; (b) failing to respond in a timely fashion to the numerous requests by the other residents to check on Ms. Maxwell; (c) failing to respond in a timely fashion to Ms. Maxwell's slider remaining on red for several days; (d) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely fashion after Ms. Wilhelm had seen her looking ill, as had often been done on previous occasions; (e) failure to properly notify residents when Defendants' allegedly attempted to discontinue the SLIDER system practice; (f) failure to dismantle the SLIDER mechanisms on residents' door upon Defendants' decision to no longer make that service available; 28 1 a • ~ (g) failure to consider the ramifications of the residents of Defendant SVA's reasonable reliance on the SLIDER system even after its alleged discontinuance; (h) failure to issue written notification to the residents of the discontinuing of the SLIDER system; (i) failure to update said handbook regarding the discontinuance of the SLIDER system; (j) failure to warn residents that any use of the SLIDER system would be ignored; (k) failing to employ the proper procedure as governed by Defendants' handbook upon learning that Ms. Maxwell's SLIDER was set to red; (1) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were informed of Ms. Maxwell's apparent distress; (m) failing to properly supervise those agents, employees or servants who were responsible for checking on residents who utilized the SLIDER system; (n) failing to attend to Ms. Maxwell's failing health in a timely fashion; (o) negligently contributing to Ms. Maxwell's failing health and ultimate demise by disregarding multiple notifications of her condition over several days; (p) negligently failing to check on Ms. Maxwell when her slider had been set to red for several days; 29 t ~ M (q) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell in a timely manner, despite repeated reports from residents expressing their concern about her welfare; (r) failing to check on Ms. Maxwell despite assuring residents who alerted Defendants to Ms. Maxwell's potential distress that they would check on her; (s) failing to inform residents when they alerted the office about Ms. Maxwell's failing health largely due to the position of her slider that the sliders were no longer being employed; 127. The negligence of the Defendants was a substantial factor in causing, and was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries, losses, expenses, and death sustained by Ms. Maxwell as alleged in the previous above paragraphs, and for all of which damages are claimed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant SVLP in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law. Respectfully submitted, R. 3. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: ` I CYN HIA M. VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIRE ID No. 306527 DATED: ~.~ 30 ~ .. ~ Verification I, Gary Maxwell, hereby swear and affirm that the facts and matters set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. ~ii CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Cynthia von Schlichten, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 25~h day of June, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Tim McMahon, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. CYNT IA M. VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQ. 05/623044.v1 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Our File No. 01014-00115 Attorney for Defendants Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. Susquehanna View Apartments and National Corporation for Housing Partnerships and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW come Defendants, Susquehanna View Apartments and National Corporation for Housing Partnerships and Susquehanna View Limited Partnership, by and through their undersigned counsel, who respectfully submit this Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint, and in support thereof aver as follows: 1. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Complaint are denied by Answering Defendants whom, upon reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded, to the extent relevant. 2. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Complaint are denied by Answering No. 09-8673 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants whom, upon reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded, to the extent relevant. 3. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Complaint are denied by Answering Defendants whom, upon reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded, to the extent relevant. 4. Denied. It is specifically denied that Susquehanna View Apartments is and/or was a corporation as alleged. Accordingly, these allegations are denied and proof thereof to the contrary is demanded at time of trial. 5. Denied. Because the allegations set forth in this Paragraph do not identify with any specificity whatsoever the alleged agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, employees and/or servants of defendant Susquehanna View Apartments, through whom defendant Susquehanna View Apartments is alleged to have acted, defendant Susquehanna View Apartments lacks information sufficient to form a belief upon which it could admit these allegations and accordingly these allegations are specifically denied. By way of further answer, Susquehanna View Apartments is not a legal entity as such. 6. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that National Corporation for Housing Partnerships is a business organization. It is specifically denied that National Corporation for Housing Partnerships is a Pennsylvania corporation. It is further specifically denied that National Corporation for Housing Partnerships maintains or maintained a principle place of business at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Indeed, and to the contrary, National Corporation for Housing Partnerships at the time of the material and well-pleaded 2 allegations set forth in plaintiffs Complaint was the general partner of a limited partnership and specifically Susquehanna View Limited Partnership. 7. Denied. Because the allegations set forth in this Paragraph do not identify with any specificity whatsoever the alleged agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, employees and/or servants of defendant National Corporation for Housing Partnerships, through whom defendant National Corporation for Housing Partnerships is alleged to have acted, defendant National Corporation for Housing Partnerships lacks information sufficient to form a belief upon which it could admit these allegations and accordingly these allegations are specifically denied. 8. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that defendant Susquehanna View Limited Partnership (SVLP) is a business entity as alleged. It is specifically denied that SVLP is a Pennsylvania corporation. To the contrary, it is a limited partnership. It is further denied that SVLP maintains or maintained its principle place of business located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania as alleged. 9. Denied. Because nowhere in plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, employees and/or servants of defendant SVLP identified with any specificity whatsoever, defendant SVLP is not able to admit, upon reasonable information and belief and after reasonable inquiry, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded at time of trial to the extent relevant. 10. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that defendant SVLP was at the time of the materially well-pleaded allegations set forth in plaintiffs Complaint the owner of the apartment premises located at 208 Senate Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania as alleged. To the extent that the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are addressed to Susquehanna View Apartments and/or National Corporation for Housing Partnerships then these allegations are 3 denied to the extent that they allege that either of those defendants were the owners and/or occupiers and/or possessors of the apartment premises. To the contrary and as set forth above, Susquehanna View Apartments is not a legal entity as such. Further, National Corporation for Housing Partnerships is the general partner of the limited partnership, SVLP. 11. Admitted only that at all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Susquehanna View Apartments. 12. Admitted only that at all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Susquehanna View Apartments, and had been since the early 1980s. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 and as such these averments are denied. 13. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to thr truth of the allegations and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, and to the extent that the allegations set forth in this paragraph indeed reference a writing, such writing, to the extent that it in fact exists, speaks for itself in its entirety. 14. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to thr truth of the allegations and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, and to the extent that the allegations set forth in this paragraph indeed reference a writing, such writing, to the extent that it in fact exists, speaks for itself in its entirety. 15. Denied as stated. While "emergency call systems" had previously been utilized in Susquehanna View Apartments, Defendants specifically deny that such "emergency call 4 systems", and specifically the sliders to which Plaintiff makes subsequent reference, were in use at the times relevant to Plaintiffs Complaint. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 16. Denied as stated. Defendants admit that slider systems had previously been installed and utilized in Susquehanna View Apartments. Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegation that such slider systems were actually in use at the times relevant to Plaintiffs Complaint; to the contrary, the slider system was discontinued on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at time of trial. 17. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that the slider systems were installed in or around 1978. Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs allegation that such slider systems were actually in use at the times relevant to Plaintiffs Complaint. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 18. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that each apartment door has a slide in place. Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs allegation that such slider systems were actually in use at the times relevant to Plaintiffs Complaint. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 19. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that in years prior to the time frame relevant to Plaintiffs Complaint, and more specifically in years prior the system's discontinuance on July 1, 2006, residents were instructed to turn their slider to green to indicate that they were safe. Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs allegation that such slider systems were actually in use at the times relevant to Plaintiffs Complaint; to the contrary, the slider system was discontinued on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at time of trial. 5 20. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that in years prior to the time frame relevant to Plaintiffs Complaint, and more specifically in years prior to the system's discontinuance on July 1, 2006, residents were instructed to turn their slider to black if they were not in their residence. Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs allegation that such slider systems were actually in use at the times relevant to Plaintiffs Complaint; to the contrary, the slider system was discontinued on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at time of trial. 21. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that in years prior to the time frame relevant to Plaintiffs Complaint, and more specifically in years prior to the system's discontinuance on July 1, 2006, a "hall monitor" or "floor captain" would check on all residents. Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs allegation that such slider systems were actually in use at the times relevant to Plaintiffs Complaint; to the contrary, the slider system was discontinued on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at time of trial. 22. Admitted, with clarification. It is admitted that while the slider system was in place at Susquehanna View Apartments, hall monitors were typically residents of the apartment complex who acted as volunteers in this capacity. By way of further answer, at no time relevant to the material well-pleaded allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint was the slider system in use and/or in place because it had been discontinued on July 1, 2006, and residents of Susquehanna View Apartments had been notified of that discontinuance. Accordingly, there were no hall monitors acting in the manner alleged in this paragraph at any time relevant to the material and well-pleaded allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, and strict proof thereof to the contrary is demanded, to the extent relevant. 6 23. Admitted with the clarification that by Plaintiffs own admission, Plaintiff became a resident of Susquehanna View Apartments in the early 1980s, when the slider system was still being utilized. Further, the allegations set forth in this paragraph purport to characterize and/or quote from a writing, which writing speaks for itself. By way of further answer, the use of the slider system was discontinued on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at time of trial. 24. Admitted with the clarification that such participation in the slider system was discontinued throughout the totality of Susquehanna View Apartments on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at time of trial. 25. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to the extent that they allege reliance on the part of Plaintiffs decedent, and specifically the alleged reliance upon the slider system at any point in time after July 1, 2006 and, more importantly, at the time of the material and well-pleaded allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint concerning the events of January 2008. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this paragraph are otherwise denied and proof thereof is demanded, to the extent relevant. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to Plaintiffs participation in the slider system during the years of its use, or as to Plaintiffs purported "heavy reliance" upon the system, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 7 26. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning Plaintiffs shopping habits and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 27. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning Plaintiffs encounter with the resident services coordinator and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 28. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the resident services coordinator's purported comments to the Plaintiffs decedent and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 29. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning whether a resident services coordinator "generally checked" on Plaintiffs decedent in past instances and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent such past instances of a resident services coordinator "generally checking" on Plaintiffs decedent occurred during the time period prior to Susquehanna View Apartments' discontinuance of the slider system, Defendants would note that at all times material to this claim, the system was no longer in use. Strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded at time of trial. 30. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 8 31. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 32. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 33. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 34. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, use of the slider system was discontinued on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded at time of trial. 35. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, use of the slider system was discontinued on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded at time of trial. 36. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, use of the slider system was discontinued 9 on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded at time of trial. 37. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, use of the slider system was discontinued on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded at time of trial. 38. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, use of the slider system was discontinued on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded at time of trial. 39. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, use of the slider system was discontinued on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. Strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded at time of trial. 40. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of Plaintiffs allegations concerning the efforts of Plaintiffs decedent's son, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 41. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of Plaintiffs allegations concerning the efforts of Plaintiffs decedent's son, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 10 42. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 43. Denied. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and as such these averments are denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 44. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Ms. Maxwell's physical and medical conditions are recorded in Ms. Maxwell's medical records, which speak for themselves. To the extent that Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 45. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Ms. Maxwell's physical and medical conditions are recorded in Ms. Maxwell's medical records, which speak for themselves. To the extent that Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 46. Admitted. 47. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Ms. Maxwell's physical and medical conditions are noted in Ms. Maxwell's medical records, which speak for themselves. To the extent that Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 48. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, the EMS report is a writing which speaks for itself. To the extent Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 11 49. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, the EMS report is a writing which speaks for itself. To the extent Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 50. Admitted upon information and belief. 51. Ms. Maxwell's physical and medical conditions are noted in Ms. Maxwell's medical records, which speak for themselves. To the extent that Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 52. Denied as stated. Ms. Maxwell's physical and medical conditions are recorded in Ms. Maxwell's medical records, which speak for themselves. To the extent that Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, and specifically the medical records from Holy Spirit Hospital, said allegations are specifically denied, and proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 53. Denied as stated. Ms. Maxwell's physical and medical conditions are recorded in Ms. Maxwell's medical records, which speak for themselves. To the extent that Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, and specifically the medical records from Holy Spirit Hospital, said allegations are specifically denied, and proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 54. Denied as stated. Ms. Maxwell's physical and medical conditions are recorded in Ms. Maxwell's medical records, which speak for themselves. To the extent that Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, and specifically the 12 medical records from Holy Spirit Hospital, said allegations are specifically denied, and proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 55. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Ms. Maxwell's physical and medical conditions are noted in Ms. Maxwell's medical records, which speak for themselves. To the extent that Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 56. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Ms. Maxwell's physical and medical conditions are noted in Ms. Maxwell's medical records, which speak for themselves. To the extent that Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 57. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Ms. Maxwell's physical and medical conditions are noted in Ms. Maxwell's medical records, which speak for themselves. To the extent that Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 58. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that correspondence concerning Ms. Maxwell was forwarded to Plaintiff. Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs characterization of the correspondence as "callous" as well as the remaining characterizations concerning the days prior to Ms. Maxwell's hospitalization. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 59. Denied. To the contrary, the letter (a copy of which is not attached to Plaintiffs Complaint in clear violation of Pa. R.C.P. 1019(i)) is a writing which speaks for itself. 60. Denied. To the contrary, the letter (a copy of which is not attached to Plaintiffs Complaint in clear violation of Pa. R.C.P. 1019(1)) is a writing which speaks for itself. 13 61. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Ms. Maxwell's physical and medical conditions are noted in Ms. Maxwell's medical records, which speak for themselves. To the extent that Plaintiffs allegations differ from or are at variance with Plaintiffs medical records, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 62. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Complaint are denied by Answering Defendants whom, upon reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded, to the extent relevant. 63. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, the Death Certificate (a copy of which is not attached to Plaintiffs Complaint in clear violation of Pa. R.C.P. 1019(i)) is a writing which speaks for itself. 64. Denied as stated. Defendants advised residents on July 1, 2006 that the slider system would be discontinued effective August 30, 2006. 65. Denied as stated. Defendants advised residents on July 1, 2006 that the slider system would be discontinued effective August 30, 2006. 66. Admitted with the qualification that Defendants were under no obligation to physically dismantle the door sliders in order to discontinue the slider system. 67. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs allegations concerning the sufficiency of "evidence" of discontinuance of the slider system are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, these averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, as this matter is in its infancy and only limited pre-Complaint discovery has taken place, Defendants are unclear as to the significance of 14 Plaintiffs allegation that there exists "no evidence" concerning the residents' understanding of the discontinuance of the slider system. 68. Denied. Plaintiffs subjective belief as to the clarity of his version of "facts" is specifically denied and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the subjective understanding of Ms. Maxwell, who is deceased, or of her unidentified "surrounding neighbors", concerning the slider system. By way of further response, use of the slider system was discontinued on July 1, 2006, and all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments were notified of the discontinuance. That Plaintiff did not receive notification of the discontinuation of the slider system is immaterial. 69. Denied. Whether or not Ms. Maxwell continued to change the colors on her door slider, Susquehanna View Apartments discontinued the use of this system, and notified all residents, including Ms. Maxwell, of this discontinuance, on July 1, 2006. Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs characterization of Ms. Maxwell's continued use of the slider system as "appropriate"; strict proof of this characterization is hereby demanded at time of trial. Defendants further deny Plaintiffs characterization of the unidentified residents' alleged actions as being "in accord" with the slider system, which was discontinued over one (1) year prior to the events giving rise to this litigation. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 70. Denied. Ms. Wilhelm checked on Ms. Maxwell at the request of Ms. Maxwell's son. Ms. Wilhelm was under no obligation to check on Ms. Maxwell in accordance with the color on Ms. Maxwell's slider, nor did Defendants ever state, insinuate, indicate or otherwise inform any other residents that they would check on Ms. Maxwell due to concerns arising from 15 her door slider, as the system was discontinued over one (1) year prior to the events giving rise to this litigation. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 71. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. Defendants specifically deny that they had any duty or obligation to keep and maintain the slider system; to the contrary, the system was discontinued and all residents were appropriately and fully informed of its discontinuance well over one (1) year prior to the events giving rise to this litigation. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 72. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. Defendants specifically deny that they had any duty or obligation, or disregarded any such duty, to keep and maintain the slider system, or to monitor or check up on residents based upon the status of the resident's slider; to the contrary, the system was discontinued and all residents were appropriately and fully informed of its discontinuance well over one (1) year prior to the events giving rise to this litigation. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 73. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. Defendants specifically deny that they had any duty or obligation to keep and maintain the slider system; to the contrary, the system was discontinued and all residents were appropriately and fully informed of its 16 discontinuance well over one (1) year prior to the events giving rise to this litigation. Strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 74. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 75. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 76. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 77. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 78. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 17 79. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 80. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 81. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 82. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 83. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 84. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, 18 and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 85. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are dei4ied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 86. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 87. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 88. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants who lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 89. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law under Pa. R.C.P. 1029 to which no further responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this paragraph, to the extent that they aver purely factual averments, are denied by Answering Defendants whom, upon reasonable investigation 19 and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded, to the extent relevant. 90. Denied. Answering Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in this paragraph, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded, to the extent relevant. 91. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. COUNTI NEGLIGENCE Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell V. Susquehanna View Apartments 92. Paragraphs 1 through 91 are hereby incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 93. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 94. Denied. Nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and accordingly, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. 95. Admitted in part; denied part. It is admitted only that Defendants as non-human entities act through agents, servants and/or employees when applicable. By way of further answer, and because nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual and/or ostensible 20 agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit or deny the alleged agency allegations, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are otherwise denied as conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa. R.C.P. 1029. 96. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph together with its subparts (a-s) are denied as conclusions of law within the meaning Pa. R.C.P. 1029 and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 97. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied as conclusions of law within the meaning Pa. R.C.P. 1029 and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismiss Plaintiffs claims against them with prejudice, and further award all such other relief as is just and proper. COUNT II VICARIOUS LIABILITY Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell V. Susquehanna View Apartments 98. Paragraphs 1 through 97 are hereby incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 99. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 21 100. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further answer, and because nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual and/or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit or deny the alleged agency allegations, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. 101. Admitted in part; denied part. It is admitted only that Defendants as non-human entities act through agents, servants and/or employees when applicable. By way of further answer, and because nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual and/or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit or deny the alleged agency allegations, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are otherwise denied as conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa. R.C.P. 1029. 102. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 103. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 22 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismiss Plaintiffs claims against them with prejudice, and further award all such other relief as is just and proper. COUNT III NEGLIGENCE Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell V. National Corporation for Housing Partnerships 104. Paragraphs 1 through 103 are hereby incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 105. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 106. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further answer, and because nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual and/or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit or deny the alleged agency allegations, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. 107. Admitted in part; denied part. It is admitted only that Defendants as non-human entities act through agents, servants and/or employees when applicable. By way of further answer, and because nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual and/or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit or deny the alleged agency allegations, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is 23 demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are otherwise denied as conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa. R.C.P. 1029. 108. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 109. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismiss Plaintiffs claims against them with prejudice, and further award all such other relief as is just and proper. COUNT IV VICARIOUS LIABILITY Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell V. National Corporation for Housing Partnerships 110. Paragraphs 1 through 109 are hereby incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 111. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 24 112. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further answer, and because nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual and/or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit or deny the alleged agency allegations, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. 113. Admitted in part; denied part. It is admitted only that Defendants as non-human entities act through agents, servants and/or employees when applicable. By way of further answer, and because nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual and/or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit or deny the alleged agency allegations, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are otherwise denied as conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa. R.C.P. 1029. 114. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 115. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 25 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismiss Plaintiffs claims against them with prejudice, and further award all such other relief as is just and proper. COUNT V NEGLIGENCE Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell V. Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships 116. Paragraphs 1 through 115 are hereby incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 117. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 118. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further answer, and because nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual and/or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit or deny the alleged agency allegations, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. 119. Admitted in part; denied part. It is admitted only that Defendants as non-human entities act through agents, servants and/or employees when applicable. By way of further answer, and because nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual and/or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit or deny the alleged agency allegations, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is 26 demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are otherwise denied as conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa. R.C.P. 1029. 120. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 121. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismiss Plaintiffs claims against them with prejudice, and further award all such other relief as is just and proper. COUNT VI VICARIOUS LIABILITY Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell V. Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships 122. Paragraphs 1 through 121 are hereby incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 27 123. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 124. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. By way of further answer, and because nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual and/or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit or deny the alleged agency allegations, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. 125. Admitted in part; denied part. It is admitted only that Defendants as non-human entities act through agents, servants and/or employees when applicable. By way of further answer, and because nowhere in Plaintiffs Complaint are the alleged actual and/or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees identified with sufficient specificity to allow defendants to admit or deny the alleged agency allegations, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are otherwise denied as conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa. R.C.P. 1029. 126. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 28 127. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the same averments are denied, and strict proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismiss Plaintiffs claims against them with prejudice, and further award all such other relief as is just and proper. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF 128. Paragraphs 1 through 127 are hereby incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 129. At all times described by the material and well-pleaded allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants, through their agents, servants and employees, acted in accordance with the applicable and required standard of care attendant thereto. 130. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. 131. Plaintiffs claims are barred/reduced by the contributory/comparative negligence and/or assumption of risk of Plaintiffs decedent Ms. Maxwell in such a manner as may be revealed during discovery in this case. 132. Defendants, through their respective agents, servants and employees, at no time negligently, or otherwise, caused or contributed to any of the injuries or damages purportedly suffered by Plaintiffs decedent, Ms. Maxwell. 133. Any injury or illness suffered by Plaintiffs decedent, Ms. Maxwell, was caused by persons other than Defendants and/or their respective agents, servants or employees and/or by 29 those over whom Defendants and their agents, servants and employees had no control or responsibility to control. 134. All injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs decedent, Ms. Maxwell, were or may have been caused in whole or in part or were contributed to by Ms. Maxwell's medical conditions and causes beyond the control of Defendants and their agents, servants and employees. 135. The alleged actions and/or inactions of Defendants and their respective agents, servants and employees were not the legal, factual or substantial cause of the injuries claimed by Plaintiff. 136. The acts or omissions of others constitute intervening and/or superseding causes of injury allegedly caused to Plaintiffs decedent, Ms. Maxwell, and of damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff. 137. The sole responsibility for any damages sustained by Plaintiff, if any, rest with other parties over whom Defendants and their agents, servants and employees had no control, had no duties to control, or had no reason to control, including Plaintiffs decedent, Ms. Maxwell, plaintiff himself, and others as facts revealed through discovery may implicate. 138. At all times described by the material and well-pleaded allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants and their respective agents, servants and employees conformed its conduct to the standards which were common and accepted under the circumstances. 139. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Pennsylvania law. 140. Defendants and their respective agents, servants and employees had no duty as a matter of law to dismantle or otherwise physically disable the slider system. 30 141. Defendants and their respective agents, servants and employees had no duty as a matter of law to monitor the residents of Susquehanna View Apartments. 142. All residents of Susquehanna View Apartments, including Plaintiffs decedent, Ms. Maxwell, were advised and were aware, in excess of one (1) year prior to the events giving rise to Plaintiffs Complaint, that the slider system was no longer being utilized by Susquehanna View Apartments. 143. Plaintiffs alleged damages, if any, were not proximately caused by the actions or omissions of Defendants, to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 144. The negligent acts and/or omissions of other individuals or entities constitute intervening and/or superseding causes of the damages alleged, if any, to have been sustained by Plaintiff in this matter to the extent facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 145. Plaintiffs alleged damages, if any, were caused by the acts and/or omissions of a person or persons other than Defendants to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 146. Plaintiffs alleged damages, if any, were caused by acts, omissions or factors beyond Defendants' control or legal right to control to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 147. Plaintiff may have already entered into a release and/or voluntary discharge with other individuals, entities or judicial bodies which may have the effect of discharging any liability of Defendants to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 148. Plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited under the doctrine of consent to the extent facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 31 149. Plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited under the doctrine of estoppel to the extent facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 150. Plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited under the doctrine of waiver to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 151. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to set forth any claim for which relief may be granted. 152. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to allege cognizable damages. 153. Plaintiff has not sustained any damage. 154. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state as a matter of law a cognizable and/or viable claim for punitive damages. 155. Inasmuch as the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and specifically Pa. R.C.P. 1032, provides that a party waives all defenses not presented by way of answer, Defendants, upon the advice of counsel, hereby asserts all affirmative defenses as set forth in Pa. R.C.F. 1030 which, in addition to the defenses already asserted herein, include assumption of the risk, consent, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, illegality, immunity from suit, impossibility of performance, justification, laches, license, payment, privilege, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, truth and waiver, with said affirmative defenses being subject to demonstration during the discovery process and proof, as relevant, at the time of trial. 32 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismiss Plaintiffs claims against them with prejudice, and further award all such other relief as is just and proper. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: &lt 7110 BY: LIA Timo J. Mc. Esquire I.D. No. 52918 4200 Crums Mill Vad Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 Attorney for Defendants 33 V?,jCAEON I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: Susquehanna View Limited Partnership and National Corporation for Housing Partnerships are named Defendants in the foregoing action, and I am authorized to execute this Verification on their behalf. The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaints Complaint are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the defense of this law suit: The language of the Answer with New Matter to PlaintijTs Complaint is that of counsel and not of my own. I have read the Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint, 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 Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Susquehanna View Limited Partnership and National Corporation for Housing Partnerships sy ?- Dated: 09/6283201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lisa J. Wallace, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this day of August, 2010, I served a copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff s Complaint via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Cynthia von Schlichten, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff i 05l623100.0 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGn4aoto Au6 48 PM a'ol% By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire 2013 ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B {` '''- Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Our File No. 01014-00115 Attorney for Defendants Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, Plaintiff V. Susquehanna View Apartments and National Corporation for Housing Partnerships and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships, Defendants. NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Mr. Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell c/o Cynthia von Schlichten, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 09-8673 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: 4 ?// 7/10 BY: TIMOTI JY J. Mc I.D. No. 52918 4200 Crums Mill R V ? Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 , ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants Suite B ~' ~Fl~ ~Y~ ~,~; 4_ ~ . .,~~ SF~ -7 PM 3~ t 2 R J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~~~~~,~~ C~UN1Y BY: CYNTHIA VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIRE ~NSYLVi'~NIA PA SUPREME COURT I.D. N0.306527 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL FACSIMILE: (71'n 234-6883 EMAIL:CVONSCHLICHTEN~p RJMARZELLA.COM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR ~ OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF, SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS VS. DOCKET NUMBER: 09-8673 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER 128. No response is required. 129.' Denied. It is specifically denied, as is evident by the material and well- pleaded allegations set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint that Defendants, through their agents, servants and employees, acted in accordance with the applicable and required standard of care attendant thereto. 130. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. 131. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff s claims are barred/reduced by the contributory/comparative negligence and/or assumption of risk of Plaintiff's decedent Ms. Maxwell in such a manner as may be revealed during discovery in this case. 132. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants, through their respective agents, servants and employees, at no time negligently or otherwise, caused or contributed to any of the injuries or damages purportedly suffered by Plaintiff's decedent, Ms. Maxwell. 133. Denied. It is specifically denied that any injury or illness suffered by Plaintiff s decedent, Ms. Maxwell, was caused by persons other than Defendants and/or their respective agents, servants or employees and/or by those over whom Defendants and their agents, servants, and employees had no control or responsibility to control. 134. Denied. It is specifically denied that all injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff's decedent, Ms. Maxwell, were or may have been caused in whole or in part or were contributed to or by Ms. Maxwell's medical conditions and causes beyond the control of Defendants and their agents, servants, and employees. 135. Denied. It is specifically denied that the alleged actions and/or inactions of Defendants and their respective agents, servants and employees were not the legal, factual, or substantial cause of the injuries claimed by Plaintiff. 136. Denied. It is specifically denied that the acts or omissions of others constitute intervening and/or superseding causes of injury allegedly caused to Plaintiff's decedent, Ms. Maxwell, and of damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff. 137. Denied. It is specifically denied that the sole responsibility for any damages sustained by Plaintiff, if any, rest with other parties over whom Defendants and their agents, servants, and employees had no control, had no duties to control, or had no reason to control, including Plaintiffls decedent, Ms. Maxwell, Plaintiff himself, and others as facts revealed through discovery may allegedly implicate. 138. Denied. It is specifically denied that at all times described by the material and well-pleaded allegations set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants and their respective agents, servants, and employees conformed its conduct to the standards which were common and accepted under the circumstances. 139. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffls Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Pennsylvania law. 140. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants and their respective agents, servants, and employees had no duty as a matter of law to dismantle or otherwise physically disable the slider system. 141. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants and their respective agents, servants, and employees had no duty as a matter of law to monitor the residents of Susquehanna View Apartments. 142. Denied. It is specifically denied that all residents of Susquehanna View Apartments, including Plaintiff's decedent, Ms. Maxwell, were advised and were aware, in excess of one (1) yeaz prior to the events giving rise to Plaintiff's Complaint, that the slider system was no longer being utilized by Susquehanna View Apartments. 143. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's alleged damages were not proximately caused by the actions or omissions of Defendants, to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 144. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligent acts and/or omissions of other individuals or entities constitute intervening and/or superseding causes of the damages alleged, to have been sustained by Plaintiff in this matter to the extent facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 145. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's alleged damages were caused by the acts and/or omissions of a person or persons other than Defendants to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 146. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's alleged damages were caused by acts, omissions or factors beyond Defendants' control or legal right to control to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 147. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff may have already entered into a release and/or voluntary dischazge with other individuals, entities or judicial bodies which may have the effect of dischazging any liability of Defendants to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 148. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's claims aze barred and/or limited under the doctrine of consent to the extent facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 149. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff s claims are barred and/or limited under the doctrine of estoppel to the extent facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 150. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited under the doctrine of waiver to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 151. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth any claim for which relief can be granted. 152. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege cognizable damages. 153. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff has not sustained any damage. 154. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state as a matter of law a cognizable and/or viable claim for punitive damages. 155. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants may assert all defenses as set forth in Pa. R.C.P. 1030 in addition to the defenses already asserted herein which include assumption of the risk, consent, contributory negligence, discharge to bankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, illegality, immunity from suit, impossibility of performance, justification, laches, license, payment, privilege, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, truth and waiver, with said affirmative defenses being subject to demonstration during the discovery process and proof, as relevant, at the time of trial. 'WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny Answering Defendants demands for judgment in its favor and against all other parties, including interest, costs and fees, and other relief deemed appropriate by this Court. Respectfully submitted, R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. ~~'~ 1 ~.~ By; t ~ S~~l~, N~ Cynthia M. von Schlichten, Esquire Attorney Identification No. 306527 Dated: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Cynthia von Schlichten, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this ls` day of Seatember, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Tim McMahon, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ,~ Br: ~ .~_ ~ CYNT IA M. VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQ. ~~ ~ {~ - c:~;- r 3 r ~- OCT p 1 ZU LU -~;.:~ 2~1~ ~" ~ -7 ~,~ ~~ ~~l ,' E ', i 4 . 'y ?~ ', r,i MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-b51-3505 Our File No. 01014-00115 Attorney for Defendants Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, Plaintiff v. Susquehanna View Apartments and National Corporation for Housing Partnerships and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships, Defendants. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 09-8673 CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE TO SHO/W CAUSE AND NOW, this ~ day of G ~~p.!2010, upon consideration of the Motion submitted by Defendant Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships to compel full and complete and discrete, specific responses to its Contention Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and that these responses be verified by Plaintiff, a Rule is hereby issued upon Plaintiff to show cause within 20 days why the relief requested should not be granted. BY TIE COURT: U~~~ DISTRIBUTION LIST -See Attached OS/643174.v1 •• DISTRIBUTION LIST /Timothy J. McMahon PA Attorney ID #52918 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) b51-3511 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendants ~ Cynthia von Schlichten, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-7828 FAX-(717)234-6883 Attorney for Plaintiff Cop; es ma -~ red 10~ 7lld ~~ OS/643174.v1 FILED-OFFlCE OF THE PROTNO~OTARY R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: CYNTHIA VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQUIItE PA SUPREME COURT I.D. No. 306527 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 Email: cvonschlichten(?a,RJMarzella.com 1010 OCT 19 I~~ lQ~ 31 Cl.I1~1BERLAP~D COUNTY PEO~hSYLYANIA ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE Mazwell IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR DOCKET NUMBER: 09-8673 OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL, . PLAINTIFF, VS. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND . SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED . PARTNERSHIPS, : DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, by and through his counsel, R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C., in response in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Specific Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents avers the following: 1. No response is required. 1 2. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants were served with Pre-Complaint discovery on or about January 13, 2010 and thereafter filed a Motion for a Protective Order. However, it is specifically denied that the Court largely granted said Motion. Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew all but one Pre-Complaint Interrogatory, and so only the remaining Interrogatory was actually at issue during oral argument. Ultimately, the Court actually ruled entirely in favor of Plaintiff with respect to this remaining Interrogatory and ordered Defendants to supply the requested information. (See Order, ~ attached as Eachibit A.) 3. No response is required. 4. No response is required. 5. No response is required. 6. No response is required. 7. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff provided unverified responses to the written discovery items referenced above. Plaintiff's counsel had emailed the relevant discovery to client for his verification. However, Plaintiff was unable to physically sign the Verification and still allow a timely response to Defendant's discovery requests. Therefore, Plaintiff authorized his counsel to sign the Verification, stating that he had verified the relevant discovery responses. Additionally, Plaintiff's Counsel has since provided Defense Counsel with the Verification physically signed by her client. 8. No response is required. 2 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff has provided Defendants with only unverified, ambiguous and circular responses. 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that a portion of Plaintiff s Complaint focuses on Defendants obligation and/or duty to periodically check on the residents of its complex. However, it is specifically denied that this allegation is the sole "gist" of Plaintiff s Complaint. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. No response is required. 1 S. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs responses to Defendant's Contention Interrogatories impose a prejudice upon Defendant Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships. It is further specifically denied that Plaintiffs response severely limits Defendant's ability to reasonably defend the action brought against it. Finally, it is again specifically denied that Plaintiff s responses were unverified. (See response to #7 above.) 16. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff has objected to requests for production of documents which seek information and things directly relevant given the allegations of the Complaint. 17. No response is required. 18. Admitted. 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court DENY Defendant's Motion to Compel Specific Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. Respectfully submitted, R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. Dated: ~ d`13 ~~ BY~ ~' ~`~ Cyn is M. von Schlichten, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 306527 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-7828 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, as Executor for the Estate of Katherine Maxwell EXHIBIT A .~. ~~, r ~ ... GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MAXWELL, ; PLAINTIFF V. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, ; DEFENDANTS 09-8673 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5~~~ day of May, 2010, upon consideration of defendants' motion for a protective order, and following oral argument held on May 3, 2010, defendants' motion IS DENIED. Defendants are directed to respond to plaintiffs pre-complaint Interrogatory Number 5 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. By the Court, f ~ ~a Albert H. Masland, J. Cynthia Von Schlichten, Esquire For Plaintiff Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire For Defendants sal .TRUE COPY.F1tOM RECORD In TistNnorry MAN~it.'1 f~ ~ set mY hand and ttw of mid at , Pa. TNIsa~--=~atry of ZO ~~ _ Y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Cynthia von Schlichten, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 13th day of October, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Tim McMahon, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: CYN IA M. VON SCHLICHTEN, ESQ. GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF V. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS : AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS 09-8673 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT c M -.?2> N fl I F cc X-n ©-'n as AND NOW this ;L1 d y of January, 2011, Defendants' motion to compel specific responses to interrogatories and request for production of documents is GRANTED, as to interrogatories 14, 15, and 16. In all other respects the motion is DENIED. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Cynthia Von Schlichten, Esquire For Plaintiff • Id 'Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire Noel, For Defendants ' I- :saa GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MAXWELL, : PLAINTIFF V. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS : AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS 09-8673 CIVIL TERM IN RE: OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., January 21, 2011:-- Before the court is the motion to compel specific responses to interrogatories and request for production of documents filed by Defendants, Susquehanna View Apartments and National Corporation for Housing Partnerships and Susquehanna View Limited Partnerships against Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Our discovery rules are designed to encourage a fair trial on the merits and to discourage unfair surprise. Duncan v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr. of Southeastern Pa., 813 A.2d 6, 10 (Pa. Super. 2002), appeal denied, 573 Pa. 716, 828 A.2d 350 (2003). To that end, the party producing discovery responses must verify that his answers are truthful and complete. Pa. R.C.P. 4009.12(c). These rules also require parties to disclose information that they would not ordinarily disclose. Of course, "[i]t is not a purpose of discovery for a party to supply, at its own expense, information already under the control or readily 09-8673 CIVIL TERM available to the opposing party. A plaintiff will not be compelled to answer a defendant's interrogatories when the matters contained in the interrogatories are at least equally within the defendant's knowledge." Boyle v. Steiman, 631 A.2d 1025, 1031 (1993), appeal denied, 538 Pa. 663, 649 A.2d 666 (1994); Eigen v. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div., 874 A.2d 1179, 1190 (Pa. Super. 2005). Defendants object to Plaintiffs initial responses, in part, on the grounds that they are unverified. However, in light of Plaintiffs amended verification that issue is now moot. What remains is Defendants' contention that Plaintiff has not provided sufficiently specific responses to the interrogatories. An important issue in this case is whether Defendants maintained a slider notification device on the exterior of the residents' doors as a means of promoting their welfare. Plaintiff maintains that they did and that this slider system was neglected, contributing to the decedent's death. To support this contention, Plaintiff relies, in part, on purported statements made by other residents of Defendants' building who maintained that a slider system was in effect. These unnamed residents also noted their concerns for the decedent's welfare had gone unheeded. Plaintiffs complaint provides no further detail regarding the identity of these residents. Defendants sought the residents' identities via interrogatories but Plaintiff failed to provide this information. Now, Defendants ask the court to compel Plaintiff to identify these residents. Plaintiff contends that the Defendants, as owners of the building, are in a much better position to identify the decedent's neighbors and therefore the onus -2- 09-8673 CIVIL TERM should be on them to identify the residents who claimed the slider system was used and who allegedly were concerned for the decedent's welfare. The court disagrees. It is not the Defendants' duty to discover the identities of the witnesses that Plaintiff intends to rely on at trial. Further, Plaintiffs are in a better position than Defendants to discover the identities of these witnesses, or at least to provide some identifying information to permit Defendants to investigate the facts underlying the complaint. Though Plaintiff alleges he is unaware of who these residents are, assuming these statements were made, they must have been made by someone. Plaintiff must now identify whom. Further, as the statements appear in Plaintiffs complaint, they were, presumably, made to the Plaintiff or his representatives. As such, Plaintiff is in a better position to identify the residents than the Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to provide specific and complete responses to interrogatories 14, 15, and 16. Defendants take issue with other responses as well. Many of the responses are quite sparse. Nonetheless, the court will not order the Plaintiff to provide more specific responses. Instead, we encourage Plaintiff to continue to exercise good faith in discovery and to voluntarily supplement its responses where appropriate. Finally, we note this is the second discovery dispute this court has been asked to address. Going forward, we encourage the parties to resolve such disputes without judicial intervention whenever possible. Resorting to further motions to compel will only serve to lengthen this litigation. -3- 09-8673 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT ff AND NOW this day of January, 2011, Defendants' motion to compel specific responses to interrogatories and request for production of documents is GRANTED, as to interrogatories 14, 15, and 16. In all other respects the motion is DENIED. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Cynthia Von Schlichten, Esquire For Plaintiff Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire For Defendants :saa -4- R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 66856 3513 North Front Street Attorney for Harrisburg, PA 17110 Gary Maxwell, Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Executor for the Estate of Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 Katherine Maxwell IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF, DOCKET NUMBER: 09-8673 vs. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND C= c` NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING r-n - PARTNERSHIPS AND MM C= M M t' SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED r- PARTNERSHIPS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED-- Yte ? DEFENDANTS c" t 7r C , N r; ;, r*a PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S PETITION TO WITHDRAW AND NOW COMES, Plaintiffs, Gary Maxwell, by and through their attorneys, R.J. Marzella and Associates, P.C., hereby petition for leave of Court to allow R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff in the above captioned action and in support thereof aver as follows: On or about December 17, 2009, Plaintiff's counsel initiated a negligence claim against Defendants by filing a Praecipe for Writ of Summons. 2. The complaint was filed on June 25, 2010. 3. Since that time, discovery has been ongoing. 4. Because of reasons that have been fully disclosed to the Plaintiffs, the undersigned counsel is no longer able to pursue this lawsuit on behalf of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell. 5. In correspondence dated May 31, 2011, Plaintiff's counsel disclosed to Plaintiffs the reasons that they can no longer represent Plaintiffs in the matter above. 6. Plaintiffs have been advised to seek substitute counsel and are believed to be in the process of doing so. 7. Plaintiffs' attorneys now file this Petition to Withdraw as Counsel for this action. 8. Defense counsel does not object to this motion to withdraw. 9. Counsel for Plaintiffs requests sixty (60) days from the date of this Honorable Court's Order, granting leave to withdraw, to obtain alternative counsel of record on behalf of Plaintiffs. In the interim, we would request that no action be taken by Defense Counsel to prejudice Plaintiff's rights. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court enter the Proposed Order. Dated: Respectfully submitted, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Denise M. Buell, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Counsel's Petition to Withdraw was served upon counsel of record this 7th day of June, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Tim McMahon, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: ENISE M. BUELL, AW CLERK TO ROBIN J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF V. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS : AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 09-8673 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this ? day of June, 2011, upon consideration of P "1 C- M W M plaintiffs counsel's petition for leave to withdraw, a Rule is issued on the plaintiff and the defendants to show cause why such relief should not be granted. This Rule is returnable twenty-one (21) days after service by plaintiffs current counsel. Any answers filed shall be forwarded by the Prothonotary to chambers. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Robin J. Marzella, Esquire ` For Plaintiff ?,,?yp? ?actPd Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire (0I !fir Q For Defendants :saa R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: ROBIN J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE PA SUPREME COURT I.D. N0.66856 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 FACSIMILE: (717) 234-6883 EMAIL: RMARZELLA RgRJMARZELLA.COM ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE MAXWELL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA C-, C= r•a a GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR DOCKET NUMBER: 09-8673 m OF THE ESTATE OF rn rTz ` KATHERINE MAXWELL, U)r PLAINTIFF, vs . SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS AND cn NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE 1. On or about June 9, 2011, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Petition to Withdrawal. 2. On or about June 16, 2011, this Honorable Court issued a Rule to Show Cause, which was returnable twenty-one (21) days after service. 3. To date, Defense counsel has not filed a response in opposition of Plaintiffs' _, Petition. 4. Now, July 29, 2011, Plaintiffs' counsel files this Motion to Make Rule Absolute. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's counsel, R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C., hereby request this Honorable Court grant this Motion to Make Rule Absolute thereby effectively granting R. J. Marzella &: Associates, P.C. withdrawal as counsel and permitting the Plaintiff a period of not less than sixty (60) days to obtain new counsel. tes, P.C. quire Attorney I ication No. 66856 Dated: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jacqulyn R. Harris, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Motion to Make Rule Absolute was served upon counsel of record this 29`h day of July, 2011, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Tim McMahon, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: f=' CIL c-, JA ULY . H R LAW CLERK TO ROBIN J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF V. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS : AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS 09-8673 CIVIL TERM c°a rn? x% cn ? N z C.) c N W -n w W ORDER OF COURT /101, AND NOW, this -' day of November, 2011, the motion of plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, for reconsideration of our order of August 31, 2011, which granted his counsel's petition to withdraw, is DENIED. By the Court, Gary Maxwell, Pro se 314 Owl Bridge Road Millersville, PA 17551 Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire For Defendants `1/ Robin Marzella, Esquire Albert H. Masland, J. ovo _z ;:0 M 25,a -iq x-rj CD Q -n C saa GARY MAXWELL, AS EXECUTOR OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF V. SUSQUEHANNA VIEW APARTMENTS : AND NATIONAL CORPORATION FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS AND SUSQUEHANNA VIEW LIMITED : PARTNERSHIPS, DEFENDANTS 09-8673 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., November 23, 2011:-- Before the court is a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, in response to this Court's Order granting R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. Counsel's Petition to Withdraw. For the following reasons, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. Under Pennsylvania law, a lawyer may seek to withdraw from representation for a variety of reasons, "from ethical to financial." Commonwealth v. Keys, 580 A.2d 386, 387 (Pa. Super. 1990). Additionally, the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16(b) provides that a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if: (1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client; (2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent; (3) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud; 09-8673 CIVIL TERM (4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement; (5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled; (6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or (7) other good cause for withdrawal exists. Pa. R.P.C. 1.16(b). "The notes to this rule provide that the lawyer's statement that professional considerations require termination of their representation ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient." Jones v. Bhatt, 50 Pa. D. & C. 4th 544, 547 (2001). However, permission of the court to withdraw is necessary unless "another attorney has entered ... an appearance for the party.... " Pa.R.C.P. 1012(b). Furthermore, (d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. Pa. R.P.C. 1.16(d). In the instant case, Plaintiff received notice on May 31, 2011 that R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. no longer wished to represent the Estate and was told to seek substitute counsel. Plaintiffs Counsel then requested that defense counsel take no action for the next sixty days, in order for Mr. Maxwell to obtain -2- 09-8673 CIVIL TERM new representation. This court then issued a Rule to Show Cause why such relief should not be granted, which was made returnable twenty-one days after service. No responses in opposition were filed. Therefore, Plaintiffs Counsel filed a Motion to Make Rule Absolute on July 29, 2011. On August 31, 2011 this Court, finding no opposition, granted the motion and stayed the case for 60 days to allow Plaintiff time to obtain new counsel. Given the history of this case, Plaintiffs Counsel successfully fulfilled their obligations under the law. Plaintiffs Counsel gave reasonable notice of withdrawal, requested permission from the court to withdrawal, and sought additional time on behalf of the Plaintiff, upon termination of representation, so as to not adversely affect Plaintiffs interests. Given these factors as well as the directive that a lawyer's withdrawal based on professional considerations is ordinarily deemed sufficient, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Counsel complied with the letter and spirit of the law. Additionally, this court finds no merit in Plaintiffs argument that he did not receive notice of the termination of representation. Counsel advised Plaintiff that they would no longer be representing him and disclosed the reasons for this decision on May 31, 2011. Furthermore, counsel provided Plaintiff with a copy of the entire file in June 2011, which also included a copy of Counsel's Petition to Withdraw. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied. -3- . 09-8673 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of November, 2011, the motion of plaintiff, Gary Maxwell, as Executor of the Estate of Katherine Maxwell, for reconsideration of our order of August 31, 2011, which granted his counsel's petition to withdraw, is DENIED. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, Gary Maxwell, Pro se 314 Owl Bridge Road Millersville, PA 17551 Thomas J. McMahon, Esquire For Defendants Robin Marzella, Esquire :saa -4-