Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21842 I0VAR30 fig 2:G4 PEJ W. Scott Henning, Esquire I.D.#32298 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: HenninaP-HHRLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2010 -61 I Civil Action (XX) Law ( ) Equity CAROL L. CHILENSKI and ROGER E. CHILENSKI, her husband 183 Hoot Owl Rd. Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) RICHARD L. WEBBER,Ii JR. 126 East King St. Shippensburg, PA 17257 versus JERRY A. WEIGLE 126 East King St. Shippensburg, PA 1 WEIGLE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 126 East King St. Shippensburg, PA 17257 Defendl? nt(s) & Addres?(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue A Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. X Writ of Summons Shall be issued and forwarded to ( )Attorney W. Scott Henning. Esquire Handler. Henning & Rosenberg. LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg. PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Signature of A'ttc Supreme Court I 32298 O -*9a.00 P6 AV/ Get 15x981 01391703 Name/Address/Telephone No. Date: March 26, 2010 to _ algy CivilTerrn WRIT OF SUMMONS I TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF( AS/HAVE C MMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Prothonotary Date:_ 3.S 10 by Deputy( ) Check here if reverse is used for additional information PROTHON. - 55 ?I SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson ~r,-._r-;,-'-~ ,,_ ~_ E ~. ~ " '," F Sheriff ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ Jody S Smith Chief Deputy - 2~~Q ~;~~ ~ 2 ~~"~ ~~ ~~ Edward L Schorpp ~. f Solicitor ~r~ -~ - ""~~r C~;~'`.~~t-. .JiV Carol L. Chilenski vs. Richard L. Webber, Jr. (et al.) Case Number 2010-2184 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 04/06/2010 01:45 PM -Ronald Hoover, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on April 6, 2010 at 1345 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Richard L. Webber Jr., by making known unto Pat Frey, Office Manager for Weigle & Associates, PC at 126 East King Street, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. ~~~~~i~ RONALD HOOVER, DEPUTY 04/06/2010 01:48 PM -Ronald Hoover, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on April 6, 2010 at 1345 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Weigle & Associates, PC, by making known unto Pat Frey, Office Manager for Weigle & Associates, PC at 126 East King Street, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. . L ~~ RONALD HOOVER, DEPUTY 04/06/2010 01:45 PM -Ronald Hoover, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on April 6, 2010 at 1345 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Jerry A. Weigle, by making known unto Pat Frey, Office Manager for Weigle & Associates, PC at 126 East King Street, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. ~~ RONALD HOOVER, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $78.44 April 07, 2010 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF tbu>it•y Suite Shrn`t. Teir:,o:;oR. li7a;. CAROL L. CHILENSKI and ROGER E. CHILENSKI, her husband, Plaintiffs vs. RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR., JERRY A. WEIGLE and WEIGLE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 10-2184 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ORDER AND NOW, this 2O r day of July, 2010, azgument on the defendants'- motion for protective order is set for Thursday, August 19, 2010, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Cazlisle, PA. BY THE COURT, ~/ W. Sc For th For th :rlm ott Henning, Esquire e Plaintiffs A. D. Schwartz, Esquire e Defendants r ~~ ~ ~S m~.c Lam, l~ao~~c~ ~~ Hess, P. J. c ~ ~; : ~ Q ;~ ~,.~ c- -~ rry ~ `_ ~' ;'i . _. S f'. ~ "1 ~` , `~ . _ ti ^ ~.~ -- _ ~ }~f ~{ G. • • ~. - ~ K \ , CAROL L. CHILENSKI and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ROGER E. CHILENSKI, her CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA husband, Plaintiffs V. RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR., JERRY A. WEIGLE, and WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.: CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants NO. 2010-2184 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2010, this matter having been called for argument, the Defendants' Motion for Protective order is granted in part and it is directed that the Defendants need not respond to interrogatories as propounded. However, the Defendants are ordered and directed, upon counsel's agreement, to produce whatever file materials they have in connection with the underlying claim of the Plaintiffs. By the Court, Kevi4'A. Hess, P.J. L J W. Scott Henning, Esquire For the Plaintiffs t" Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire For the Defendants lfh N t ..? O L c? )eAq IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CAROL L. CHILENSKI and ROGER E. CHILENSKI, her husband, Plaintiffs v RICHARD. L. WEBBER, JR., JERRY A. WEIGLE and WEIGLE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2010-2184 CIVIL . ~ ~ ~ CIVIL ACTION -LAW _~_,- :~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ :~ r ~ ~ . ~.. ._ _. - W<~- ~, -tea "' ~. c~ v c~ `^ . . :.E~ Tti.~ i =~ J . _, NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Carol L. Chilenski Roger E. Chilenski c% W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.1030 within 20 days from service hereof. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW come Defendants Richard L. Webber, Jr., Jerry A. Weigle and Weigle and Associates, P.C. (hereinafter collectively refereed to as "Defendants" unless otherwise indicated by syntax) who by and through their undersigned counsel respectfully provide the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such provide as follows: 1. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments contained in Paragraph 1 in Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments contained in Paragraph 2 in Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. The averments in paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Complaint are specifically denied as stated. By way of further response, Defendant Webber has been employed by Weigle & Associates, P.C., since January 1, 2002. Prior to that date, Defendant Webber was employed by the Law Office of Michael J. Hanft from April 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001. From August 1992 to April 1, 2000, defendant Webber was in a solo practice. The representation of Plaintiffs began when Defendant Webber was in solo practice. 6. The averments contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is required, the averments contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint aze admitted to the extent that Jerry A. Weigle, Esquire, is a principal of Defendant Weigle and Associates, P.C. By way of further response, Defendant Jerry A.Weigle had no involvement with Plaintiffs andJor Plaintiffs' claims and as such, his inclusion as a named Defendant is improper and without basis in law or fact. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that in September of 1995, Plaintiff Carol Chilenski was involved in a motor vehicle collision wherein she sustained some personal injuries. The remainder of the averments contained in Pazagraph 7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and all inferences to be garnered therefrom, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 1 Q. Admitted. 11. The averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is required, the averments contained in Paragraph 11 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. The averments contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted at various and diverse times Plaintiffs were informed by Defendant Webber as to the status of the underlying potential claim for underinsured motorist benefits. The remaining averments, and all inferences to be garnered therefrom, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response to the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs' Complaint set forth averments regarding the Plaintiffs' belief, Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny such averments and as such strict proof thereof is demanded. 14. The averments contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Admitted in part, denied in part. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to Plaintiffs' engagement of counsel, Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments and as such strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint address various communications by the Plaintiffs and/or their representative seeking a copy of the file, it is admitted that Defendant Webber received at least one request seeking the tender of the Plaintiffs' file. The remaining averments, and all other inferences to be garnered therefrom as set forth in Pazagraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint aze specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 16 accurately reflect entries of the docket on this matter, such averment as note appear to be. To the extent the averment contained in Paragraph 16 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is inconsistent with what is reflected on the docket maintained by the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, such averment is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Admitted. By way of further response, the averments contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint have no relevance or bearing as to the Plaintiffs prima facia burden in establishing a viable cause of action in this matter and as such, such allegations as set forth in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are deemed impertinent. 18. Admitted. By way of further response, the averments contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint have no relevance or bearing as to the Plaintiffs prima facia burden in establishing a viable cause of action in this matter and as such, such allegations as set forth in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are deemed impertinent. 19. Admitted. By way of further response, the averments contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs' Complaint have no relevance or bearing as to the Plaintiff s prima facia burden in establishing a viable cause of action in this matter and as such, such allegations as set forth in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs' Complaint aze deemed impertinent. 20. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint address the basis for the Plaintiffs' proceeding with filing of the instant Complaint, no response is herein provided. The remaining averments as set forth in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and all inferences to be garnered therefrom, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. The averments contained in Pazagraph 21 (a-d) of Plaintiffs' Complaint and all inferences to be garnered therefrom, represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is required, the averments contained in Pazagraph 21 (a-d) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. The averments contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is required, the averments contained in Paragraph 22 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. The averments contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is required, the averments contained in Paragraph 23 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. The averments contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is required, the averments contained in Paragraph 24 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. The averments contained in Pazagraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is required, the averments contained in Paragraph 25 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and further grant Defendants all such other relief as is proper and just. NEW MATTER 26. Defendants respectfully incorporate the responses set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive, hereinabove as if more fully set forth herein at length. 27. Any and all claims asserted by the Plaintiffs against Defendants in this matter are barred by the statute of limitations to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 28. Plaintiffs' alleged damages, if any, were not proximately caused by the actions or inactions of Defendants, to the extent facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 29. The negligent acts and/or omissions of other individuals or entities constitutes an intervening andlor superseding cause of the damages alleged, if any, to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs in this matter to the extent facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. Plaintiffs may have already entered into a release andlor 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. 33. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited under the doctrine of consent to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 34. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited under the doctrine of estoppel to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 35. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited under the doctrine of waiver to the extent that facts as developed in future discovery may implicate. 36. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth any claim for which relief may be granted. 37. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege cognizable damages. 38. Plaintiffs have not sustained any damage. 39. Plaintiff's claims, if any, are not ripe for judicial determination 40. Inasmuch as the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 1032, provides that a party waivers all defenses not presented by way of answer, Defendants, upon advise of counsel, hereby asserts all affirmative defenses as set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1030 those defenses to include in addition to the defenses already enumerated above, assumption of the risk, consent, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, illegality, immunity from suit, impossibility of performance, justification, latches, license, payment, privilege, release, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, truth and waiver, with these said affirmative defenses being subject to demonstration during the discovery process and proof, as relevant, at the time of trial. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Date: /o~/io By: EDWIN A.D. SCHWARTZ, QUIRE Attorney ID 75902 LAUREN M. BURNETTE, ESQUIRE Attorney ID 92412 4200 Crams Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3700 easchwartz@mdwcg. com VERIFICATION I, Richard L. Webber, Jr., hereby verify that the statements in Answering Defendants' Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that the statements are made subject to the penalties of PA.C.S. Section 4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. ~. ~~. ~ Richard L. Webber, Jr. Dated: y ~~ ~/~ d VERIFICATION I, Jerry A. Weigle, hereby verify that the statements in Answering Defendants' Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that the statements are made subject to the penalties of PA.C.S. Section 4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated;/ ~/ ~O VERIFICATION I, Jerry A. Weigle, hereby verify that the statements in Answering Defendants' Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that the statements are made subject to the penalties of PA.C.S. Section 4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. a, 6rry A. Vv`eigle or Weigle and Associates, P CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Date: ~a~~/io By: EDWIN A.D. SCHWAR SQUIRE Attorney ID 75902 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Hamsburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3700 easchwartz@mdwcg. com r'- r- 1 0 TA FR Y ns C', t f r(': i A,1I { A W. Scott Henning, Esquire I.D.#32298 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: HenningCHHRLaw.com CAROL L. CHILENSKI and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROGER E. CHILENSKI, her CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA husband, . Plaintiffs NO.: 2010-2184 V. CIVIL TERM RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR., JERRY A. WEIGLE, WEIGLE S ASSOCIATES P.C. PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Carol L. Chilenski and Roger E. Chilenski, by and through their attorney, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esq., and responds to the Defendants' allegations of New Matter as follows: 26. Paragraph 26 is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 27. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 27 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. By way of further response, to the extent that the Discovery may subsequently reveal that the Statute of Limitations has technically expired, the Plaintiffs assert that the Statute of Limitations defense was waived by the actions of the Defendant in concealing any evidence of the potential malpractice by representing that they were continuing to work on the injury claim to obtain an Underinsured Motorist coverage settlement or proceed with UIM Arbitration. 28. Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiffs' alleged damages were not proximately caused by the actions or inactions of the Defendants, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 29. Denied. It is denied that the negligent acts and/or omissions of other individuals or entities constitute an intervening and/or superseding cause of the Plaintiffs' damages, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 30. Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiffs' damages were caused by the acts and/or omissions of a person or persons other than the Defendants, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 31. Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiffs' damages were caused by acts, omissions or factors beyond the Defendants' control or legal right to control, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 32. Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiffs have entered into a Release and/or voluntary discharge with any other individuals, entities or judicial bodies which would have the effect of discharging any liability of the Defendants, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 2 33. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 33 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited under the Doctrine of Consent, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 34. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 34 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited under the Doctrine of Estoppel, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 35. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 35 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited under the Doctrine of Waiver, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 36. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 36 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth a claim for which relief may be granted, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 37. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 37 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to 3 allege cognizable damages, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 38. Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiffs have not sustained monetary and financial damage as a result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 39. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 39 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe for judicial determination, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 40. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 40 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, the Plaintiffs deny that any of the affirmative defenses identified in paragraph 40 are applicable to subject cause of action and to the extent that any of them may arguably be applicable, the defenses are denied and proof of the same is demanded at the trial in this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants for the relief set forth in their Complaint. Respectfully submitted, NN By: DATED: / D - j n c;?OID VD`Scott Heir fling, c Supreme Court I. 1300 Linglestown oa Harrisburg, PA 17110 Henning@hhrlaw.com (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff , LLP 4 CAROL L. CHILENSKI and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROGER E. CHILENSKI, her CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA husband, Plaintiffs NO.: 2010-2184 V. CIVIL TERM RICHARD L. WEBBER, JR., JERRY A. WEIGLE, WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES P.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 7th day of October, 2010, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Reply To New Matter was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Rd, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Very truly yours, HANDLER, Hr?NNIN" ROSENBERG, LLP By: WSH/tgd W. Scott Hung 5 VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c) W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 6 ? i I MAR 1 0 AMP 0(' C MBEPL? PENNS`, W. Scott Henning Attorney ID# 32298 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBE G, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: rlaw.coim Carol L. Chilenski and Roger E. Chilenski, her husba Plaintiff(s) V. Richard L. Webber, Jr., Jerry A and Weigle and Associates, P.1 Defendant Please mark the above Attorney for Plaintiff(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2010-2184 Weigle : CIVIL ACTION - LAW S) PRAECIPE ed matter settled and discontinued. NG & ROSENBERG, LLP Dated: 3/8/11 v _ Scott He ing