The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-0423IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ?C Tr r 4 .. i v)11,1'1TY CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VQ ( I* No. 16 Ct Civil Action - JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LINDA A. WALKER BHOJRAJ MAHEEPATHI 241 Lost Hollow Road 5115 Maple Leaf Court Dillsburg, PA 17019 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Plaintiff & Versus UNISOFT SOLUTIONS, INC. Address 5115 Maple Leaf Court Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Defendants & Addresses PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. X Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to (Lorney )Sheriff Adam T. Wolfe, Esquire Shollenberger & Januzzi, LLP 2225 Millennium Way Si ture of Attorney Enola, PA 17025 (717) 728-3200 Supreme Court ID No. 34343 L5 Date: JanuaryX, 2010 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): Bhojraj Maheepathi and Unisoft Solutions, Inc. YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. 1 ? Prothonotary Date: A. -3 : OWQ! 0 by 1 Deputy ( ) Check here if reverse ic issued for additional information PROTHON. - 55 C K-*? ?y8s8 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson FILED-4WFICE Sheriff OF Tff- F C { FONIOT,4RY Jody S Smith 2010 FEB -8 P 12: 08 Chief Deputy t Edward L Schorpp Solicitor OFFICr P CI ar'> f L1VANif`% Linda A. Walker vs. Bhojraj Maheepathi Case Number 2010-423 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 02/03/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant to wit: Unisoft Solutions, Inc., but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the within Writ of Summons as not found as to the defendant Unisoft Solutions, Inc. Eric Patrick, neighbor at 5115 Maple Leaf Court, Mechancisburg, PA 17055 advised Deputies current resident is believed to be working in Washington, DC and only returns occassionally on weekends to this address. 02/03/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant to wit: Bhojraj Maheepathi, but was unable to locate him in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the within Writ of Summons as not found as to the defendant Bhojraj Maheepathi. Eric Patrick, neighbor at 5115 Maple Leaf Court, Mechancisburg, PA 17055 advised Deputies Bhojraj Maheepathi is believed to be working in Washington, DC and only returns occassionally on weekends to this address. SHERIFF COST: $63.44 SO ANS February 03, 2010 ,_.&ONN_ Y ANDERSON, SHERIFF (C GouniySuite Snenff. ieleosoft.. r.c. FIL~Cr ~v =i ~~- _ SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI, LLP za i ~ FLT ~~ ~r~i ~: o ~ ~: 2225 Millennium Way Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone Number: (717) 728-3200 Fax Number: (717) 728-3400 Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA A. WALKER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. BHOJRAJ MAHEEPATHI and UNISOFT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants NO. 10-423 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO REISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS To the Prothonotary: Please reissue the Writ of Summons against the Defendants in the above-captioned action. Respectfully submitted, SHOLLENBEI3~ER & JANUZZI, LLP By: T. Wolfe, Esquire Dated: February 22, 2010 c°_t~~ /~lQl, S ~ ~ ate/ ~, I ~ ~ ~-~ F ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ J _ ~ l _,~ ~ ,~~ ~~ .. ~ ~ •-~r ~ ~ , ~ ; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION LINDA WALKER, Plaintiff, NO. 10-423 v. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE UNISOFT SOLUTIONS, INC. and (Jury Trial Demanded) BHOJRAJ MAHEEPATHI, Defendants. Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #17754 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LINDA WALKER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. NO. 10-423 UNISOFT SOLUTIONS, INC. and (Jury Trial Demanded) BHOJRAJ MAHEEPATHI, Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Kindly enter the Appearance of the undersigned, Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, of the law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., on behalf of the Defendants, Unisoft Solutions, Inc. and Bhojraj Maheepathi, in the above case. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & $KEEL. P.C. By: vin D. Ray~h, Esquire unsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 17th day of March, 2010. Adam T. Wolfe, Esquire Shollenberger & Januzzi, LLP 2225 Millennium Way Enola, PA 17025 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE 8~ SKEEL, P.C. By: iKevin D.~Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendants k c; ~ . ~' ~l~V 1J ~~' `fir ~^~ L 7i' L l . ... ~1t t; ~' ; 3 ;'1'~ w~ JO VW/'" t~17.~~~ Cil~ ,, . _ _, ~;;,~ i~Y ~~.~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION LINDA WALKER, Plaintiff, NO. 10-423 v. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER UNISOFT SOLUTIONS, INC. and (Jury Trial Demanded) BHOJRAJ MAHEEPATHI, Defendants. TO: Plaintiff Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire You are hereby notified to file a written Pa. I.D. #83058 response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, may be entered against you. GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. (717) 901-5916 #17754 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LINDA WALKER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. NO. 10-423 UNISOFT SOLUTIONS, INC. and (Jury Trial Demanded) BHOJRAJ MAHEEPATHI, Defendants. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendants, Bhojraj Maheepathi and Unisoft Solutions, Inc., by and through their counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter and in support thereof aver as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that a collision occurred at the date, time, and place of the subject accident. The remaining facts and circumstances alleged in the Complaint are admitted or denied as set forth below. 5. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the vehicle operated by Defendant, Bhojraj Maheepathi was owned by him. The vehicle was owned by the Defendant, Unisoft Solutions, Inc. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that a collision occurred between the vehicle operated by the Plaintiff and the vehicle operated by the Defendant. The remainder of the allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. It is admitted that on the date, time and place of the subject accident, the Defendant, Bhojraj Maheepathi, was negligent in the operation of his motor vehicle. The remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 11, and all of its subparts, state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Paragraph 12, and all of its subparts, state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Paragraph 13 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Paragraph 14 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Paragraph 15 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Paragraph 16 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Paragraph 17 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Paragraph 18 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Paragraph 19 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(d) and (3). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (3). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Paragraph 22 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants Bhojraj Maheepathi and Unisoft Solutions, Inc., respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. NEW MATTER 13. The motor vehicle accident in controversy is subject to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and this Defendant asserts, as affirmative defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities accruing pursuant to said statute. 14. Some and/or all of Plaintiffs claims for damages are items of economic detriment which are or could be compensable pursuant to either the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and/or other collateral sources and same may not be duplicated in the present lawsuit. 16. This Defendant pleads any and all applicable statutes of limitation under Pennsylvania Law as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by Plaintiff in this action. WHEREFORE, Defendants Bhojraj Maheepathi and Unisoft Solutions, Inc., respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. .~ ;~ By: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendants VERIFICATION Defendant verifies that he is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which he has furnished to his counsel and information which has been gathered by his counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER and to the extent that the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which he has given to his counsel, it is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel, he has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~• 7 ~ Z-D 10 N` rv Bh raj Maheepathi #17754 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 12th day of July, 2010. Adam T. Wolfe, Esquire Shollenberger & Januzzi, LLP 2225 Millennium Way Enola, PA 17025 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendants SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI, LLP 2225 Millennium Way Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone Number: (717) 728-3200 Fax Number: (717) 728-3400 Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA A. WALKER, Plaintiff v. BHOJRAJ MAHEEPATHI and UNISOFT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants ~;,~' rr ~ j ~ ~ t - .,,cry ZQ 10 J~.`~ 23 PIS 4, ~ ~ A ~ C a t wi a_, r -1~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-423 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND NOW comes the plaintiff, LINDA WALKWER, by and through her attorney, SHOLLENBERGER AND JANUZZI, LLP, files this Reply to Defendants' New Matter, and, in support thereof, respectfully represents the following: Paragraphs 1 through 22 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 23. The above referenced averment is a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 24. The above referenced averment is a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 25. The above referenced averment is a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Defendants' New Matter be dismissed and judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff as a matter of law. Respectfully submitted, SHOLLEIy~,~RGER & JANUZZI, LLP Attornev .f r Plaintiff By: A1~m T. Wolfe, Esquire Attorney I.D. #201057 Date: July 20, 2010 SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI, LLP 2225 Millennium Way Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone Number: (717) 728-3200 Fax Number: (717) 728-3400 Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA A. WALKER, Plaintiff v. BHOJRAJ MAHEEPATHI and UNISOFT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-423 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RTIFICATE O And now, this 20th day of July 2010, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter has been served upon the following, Attorney for Defendant, via U.S. Mail: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire 100 Sterling Parkway Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 BERGER & JANUZZI, LLP By: 1 / v v Adam T. Wolfe, Esquire SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI, LLP 2225 Millennium Way Enola, PA 17025 Telephone Number: (717) 728-3200 Fax Number: (717) 728-3400 Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA A. WALKER, Plaintiff v. BHOJRAJ MAHEEPATHI and UNISOFT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants I"il_E~-i~1= i=1CE 1~ F{ i ~... t: i,.% a r CU~U~~~ -'~ f~'z;~ J: iYG IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-423 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE And now, this 4th day of October, 2010, I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Answers to Defendants' Interrogatories and Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Request for Production of Documents have been served upon the following, via U.S. First Class Mail: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Julia A. Phillips, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 SHOLLE ERGER & JANUZZI, LLP By: Ad .Wolfe, Esq. Attorney ID#201057 SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI, LLP 2012 APR 10 AM 11: 43 2225 Millennium Way Enola, PA 17025 Telephone Number: (717) 728-3200 Fax Number: (717) 728-3400 Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA A. WALKER, Plaintiff V. BHOJRAJ MAHEEPATHI and UNISOFT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants I i "ROTHONOTAI CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-423 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE And now, this 30th day of March, 2012, 1 hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Answers to Defendants' Supplemental Interrogatories Set #1 have been served upon the following via hand-delivery: Ryan P. McDaniel, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 SHOLLE RGER & JANUZZI, LLP By: Adam T. Wolfe, Esq. Attorney I13#201057 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LINDA WALKER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, V. NO. 10-423 s rTI—= UNISOFT SOLUTIONS, INC. and (Jury Trial Demanded) - 89, BHOJRAJ'MAHEEPATHI, - , Defendants. o PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY. Please mark the above-referenced case settled and discontinued, with prejudice. Respectfully s bmitted, SHOLLEN RGER & JANUZZI, LLP By: dam T. Wolfe, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff