Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-2406ORIGINAL SHARON K. SITES and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CHARLES SITES, Her Husband, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. GF MANAGEMENT, INC., WEST SHORE HARDWARE BAR and HOLIDAY INN- HARRISBURG- No. 16 - 94w env, ITerm : CIVIL ACTION - LAW MECHANICSBURG, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after the complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street OS Carlisle, PA 17013 *U.00 m AT N Phone: 717.249-3166 or 800.990.9108 0-0 1100 P-4,240.31& SHARON K. SITES and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CHARLES SITES, Her Husband, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. GF MANAGEMENT, INC., WEST SHORE HARDWARE BAR and HOLIDAY INN- HARRISBURG- MECHANICSBURG, Defendants : No. CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, Sharon K. Sites and Charles Sites, her husband, by and through their attorney, David J. Foster, Esquire, COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS, and respectfully represents as follows in support of this Complaint: Parties 1. Plaintiffs, Sharon K. Sites and Charles Sites, her husband, are adult individuals residing at 1360 Swatara Park Road, Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17057. 2. Defendant, GF Management, Inc., is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and engaged in the operation of hotels/restaurants/bars/nightclubs with a main place of business located at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, is a bar/nightclub located at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. It is believed 2 and therefore averred that the West Shore Hardware Bar is owned and operated by Defendant, GF Management, Inc. and/or by the Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg. 4. Defendant, Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, is a hotel located at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. It is believed and therefore averred that the Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg is owned and operated by Defendant, GF Management, Inc., and that it owns and operates the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, which is located on its premises. General Averments 5. The events giving rise to this cause of action occurred on or about March 17, 2009 at approximately 10 p.m. at the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, located at the Defendant, Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 6. At all relevant times, the Defendant, GF Management, Inc. and/or Defendant, Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, owned, possessed and/or controlled the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, located at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 7. At the aforesaid place, Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, arrived with friends and co- workers at approximately 9 p.m. in order to attend a concert by "Vanilla Ice." 8. Prior to the concert, Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, and her friends and co-workers spent approximately one hour in the establishment socializing and listening to music being played from a sound system. 9. At approximately 10 p.m., Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, was standing near an exit and waitress station in the very crowded establishment when a scuffle broke out between patrons and she saw five or six "bouncers" or security guards - whose names are unknown to Plaintiffs - forcibly removing an unruly patron from the premises. 10. As the "bouncers" were fighting with the unruly patron, they first hit a friend of the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, who was pushed forward and then they "ran over" or "knocked down" the Plaintiff herself, who fell to the steps nearby onto her right side. 11. The unruly patron was then on top of the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, and the "bouncers" continued to fight him and caused bruising to her when a male friend reached in and removed her from the bottom of the pile. 12. Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, who had been injured and was quite upset, went to the back bar area with her friends and co-workers for some time; when the Plaintiff attempted to walk to the bathroom subsequently, her right knee "gave out" and caused her to fall to the floor in excruciating pain. 13. Although the "bouncers" and other employees of the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, had witnessed the foregoing, including the fact of the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, being injured, at no time was she offered any first-aid, assistance, acknowledgment, 4 apology or other help. 14. At all relevant times, the aforesaid five or six "bouncers" or security guards were employees, servants and/or ostensible or actual agents of all the Defendants and were acting within the scope and authority of that status with all the Defendants. 15. After the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, was assisted from the premises by her friends and co-workers, her husband, the Plaintiff, Charles Sites, transported her to the emergency room of the Hershey Medical Center where she received medical care and treatment for the permanent and serious injuries she received at the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, as described in detail below. Count 1: Plaintiff Sharon K. Sites v. All Defendants: Negligence 16. The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 17. At all relevant times, all the Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar and Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, held out the premises of the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, as a safe and secure business location and encouraged members of the general public, including Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, to patronize its business and to come onto its premises. 18. At all relevant times, the premises of the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, were under the sole and exclusive control, management and/or maintenance of all the 5 Defendants and their employees, servants and/or ostensible or actual agents, including the aforesaid five or six "bouncers," who were acting within the course and scope of their status with the Defendants. 19. At all relevant times, the Defendants knew or should have known of prior incidents within the premises of the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, involving fights, disorderly conduct and disturbances between and among its patrons. 20. At all relevant times, the Defendants could have or should have anticipated careless and/or reckless conduct on the part of patrons on the premises of the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar. 21. At all relevant times, the Defendants had a duty to its business invitees, including the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, patronizing the premises of the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, to maintain the establishment in a safe and secure condition and to provide reasonable protection to innocent patrons from unruly patrons as well as from their "bouncers" who are subduing and evicting such unruly patrons from the premises. 22. At all relevant times, the Defendants had a duty to its business invitees, including the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, patronizing the premises of the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, to use reasonable force and measures when subduing and evicting unruly patrons from its premises in order to avoid causing injury to innocent patrons, including the Plaintiff. 6 23. At all relevant times, the Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar and Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, owed the following additional duties, inter alia, to its business invitees, including the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites: a) the duty to maintain adequate and proper security to safeguard her and other members of the general public from assault and battery from unruly patrons and from the Defendants' "bouncers"; b) the duty to prevent harm to and to protect innocent customers such as the Plaintiff; c) the duty to control the flow of customers and others to the Defendants' establishment and otherwise prevent overcrowding; d) the duty to properly and adequately train their personnel, including "bouncers," on crowd control and security management; e) the duty to properly and adequately train their personnel, including "bouncers," on how to subdue and evict unruly patrons from their premises without causing harm to innocent patrons such as the Plaintiff, f) the duty to properly and adequately supervise and monitor their personnel, including "bouncers," in the subduing and eviction of unruly patrons from their premises; g) the duty to provide sufficient numbers of staff in proportion to 7 customers to maintain a safe environment for the enjoyment and protection of their customers, including the Plaintiff, h) the duty to keep their premises free from hazardous and dangerous conditions; I the duty to stop serving intoxicating beverages to patrons who are visibly intoxicated, such as the unruly patrons in question; j) the duty to warn of the foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm created by the dangerous conditions on their premises, especially that posed by unruly patrons and the "bouncers" subduing and evicting them from the premises; and k) the duty to render first aid care and treatment to patrons injured on their premises by unruly patrons and "bouncers" such as the Plaintiff. 24. Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar and Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, by and through their employees, servants and/or ostensible or actual agents, breached the duty of care owed to business invitees on the premises of the Defendant, West Shore Hardware Bar, and acted negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly in that they, inter alia: a) caused injuries to the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, in the process of 8 subduing and evicting an unruly patron from their premises as alleged above; b) failed to employ personnel, including "bouncers", who could subdue and evict an unruly patron from their premises without causing harm to innocent patrons such as the Plaintiff, c) failed to maintain the establishment in a safe and secure condition and to provide reasonable protection to innocent patrons, such as the Plaintiff, from unruly patrons as well as from their "bouncers" who are subduing and evicting such unruly patrons from the premises; d) failed to use reasonable force and measures when subduing and evicting unruly patrons from their premises in order to avoid causing injury to innocent patrons such as the Plaintiff, e) failed to maintain adequate and proper security to safeguard members of the general public, including the Plaintiff, from assault and battery from unruly patrons and from their own "bouncers"; f) failed to control the flow of customers and others to the Defendants' establishment and otherwise prevent overcrowding; g) failed to properly and adequately train their personnel, including "bouncers," on crowd control and security management; 9 h) failed to properly and adequately train their personnel, including "bouncers," on how to subdue and evict unruly patrons from their patrons without causing harm to innocent patrons such as the Plaintiff, I failed to properly and adequately supervise and monitor their personnel, including "bouncers," in the subduing and eviction of unruly patrons from the premises; j) failed to provide sufficient numbers of staff in proportion to customers to maintain a safe environment for the enjoyment and protection of their customers, including the Plaintiff; k) failed to keep their premises free from hazardous and dangerous conditions; 1) failed to undertake whatever reasonable and necessary measures to ensure the safety of innocent patrons such as the Plaintiff on their premises; m) failed to stop serving intoxicating beverages to patrons who were visibly intoxicated, including the unruly patrons in question; n) failed to warn innocent patrons, such as the Plaintiff, of the foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm created by the dangerous conditions on their premises, especially that posed by unruly patrons and the "bouncers" subduing and evicting them from the premises; and 10 o) failed to render first aid care and treatment to the Plaintiff upon her being injured by the unruly patrons and their "bouncers" on the premises. 25. The breach of duty and negligent, careless and/or reckless actions of all the Defendants were substantial factors in causing the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, as alleged in detail below. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of duty and negligent, careless and/or reckless actions of all the Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar and Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, sustained severe and permanent injuries, including but not limited to: a) a right knee patellar dislocation; and b) multiple contusions. 27. As a further direct and proximate result of the breach of duty and negligent, careless and/or reckless actions of all the Defendants, the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, has been required to undergo medical care, treatment and attention and to assume medical expenses and, in the future, will be required to undergo additional medical care, treatment and attention and to assume additional medical expenses. 28. As a further direct and proximate result of the breach of duty and negligent, careless and/or reckless actions of all the Defendants, the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, has 11 has suffered and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time in the future, physical pain, suffering and mental anguish. 29. As a further and direct proximate result of the breach of duty and negligent, careless and/or reckless actions of all the Defendants, the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, has suffered and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time in the future, a loss of earnings and a loss of earning's capacity. 30. As a further and direct proximate result of the breach of duty and negligent, careless and/or reckless actions of all the Defendants, the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, has suffered and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time in the future, a loss of life's pleasures. 31. As a further and direct proximate result of the breach of duty and negligent, careless and/or reckless actions of all the Defendants, the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, has sustained and will continue to sustain for an indefinite time in the future, such other damages as properly allowed by Pennsylvania law, including but not limited to incidental costs such as her husband, the Plaintiff, Charles Sites, having to lose work in order to care for her. Count 2: Plaintiff Sharon K. Sites v. All Defendants: Vicarious Liability 32. The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 31 above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 12 33. At all relevant times, the aforesaid five or six "bouncers" or security personnel were employees, servants and/or actual or ostensible agents of all the Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar and Holiday Inn-Harrisburg- Mechanicsburg. 34. At all relevant times, the aforesaid five or six "bouncers" or security personnel were acting within the scope and authority of their status with all the Defendants. 35. Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar and Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, are vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the aforesaid five or six "bouncers" or security personnel as though they performed the acts and omissions themselves. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of duty and negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the aforesaid five or six "bouncers" or security personnel, which are imputed to all the Defendants, the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, has sustained those injuries and damages alleged in paragraphs 26 through 30 above, which averments are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. Count 3: Plaintiff Charles Sites v. All Defendants: Loss of Consortium 37. The allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 36 above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 38. At all relevant times, the Plaintiff, Charles Sites, and the Plaintiff, Sharon K. 13 Sites, were lawfully and continuously married. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of duty and negligent, careless and/or reckless actions of all the Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar and Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, the Plaintiff, Charles Sites, has suffered and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time in the future, a loss of consortium, society and companionship of his wife, the Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites. Conclusion WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Sharon K. Sites and Charles Sites, her husband, based on the foregoing averments, hereby demand judgment in their favor and against all the Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar and Holiday Inn- Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits plus costs and interest as provided by law. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: David J. Fost, Esquire I. D. No. 23151 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Web: Costopoulos.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS DATED: April, 2010. 14 v VERIFICATION I, Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that false statements made in this document are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. j BY: I _ Sharon K. Sites DATED: January, 2010. N 1. r VERIFICATION I, Plaintiff, Charles Sites, verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that false statements made in this document are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: Charles Sites DATED: January ?q , 2010. TO PLAINTIFFS: You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, within twenty (20) days of service hereof or a default ju t may be entered I . Prio , Robert C. Levicoff, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hazdwaze Baz, Holiday Inn-Harrisburg West McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Robert C. Levicoff, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 / #200457 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T)215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriore~a,mccormick~riore.com rlevicoff(a~mccormickpriore.com Attorneys for Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar, Holiday Inn-Harrisburg West (incorrectly referred to as "Holiday Inn -Harrisburg Mechanicsburg") SHARON K. SITES and CFIARLES SITES, Her Husband, Plaintiffs v. GF MANAGEMENT, INC., WEST SHORE HARDWARE BAR and HOLIDAY INN-HARRISBURG- MECHANICSBURG, Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PFD? 'v ;,1 ~: =, NO.: 10-2406 -;~ ;-,„ _ ~ .. . _ - • ., „=~ 5 ; ==-i ~•~ c-,: t'.,, a 'h ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, GF MANAGEMENT, INC.. WEST SHORE HARDWARE BAR, AND HOLIDAY INN- HARRISBURG WEST, TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS, SHARON K. SITES AND CHARLES SITES Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hazdware Bar, and Holiday Inn- Harrisburg West (incorrectly referred to as "Holiday Inn Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg") MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW (hereinafter referred to collectively "Answering Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, McCormick & Priore, P.C., hereby responds to the averments contained in the Complaint of plaintiffs, Sharon K. Sites and Charles Sites, in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, as follows: . 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 1 of plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. 2. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that GF Management, Inc. is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a main place of business at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. All other averments contained in Paragraph 2 of plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. By way of further answer, GF Management is not involved in the day-to-day operation of West Shore Hardware Bar and/or the Holiday Inn -Harrisburg West. 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that West Shore Hardware Bar is located at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. All other averments contained in Paragraph 3 of plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. By way of further answer, GF Management is not involved in the day-to-day operation of West Shore Hardware Bar and/or the Holiday Inn - Harrisburg West. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that the Holiday Inn - Harrisburg West is a hotel located at 5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. All other averments contained in Paragraph 3 of plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. By way of further MCCORMICK SC PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW answer, GF Management is not involved in the day-to-day operation of West Shore Hardware Bar and/or the Holiday Inn -Harrisburg West. General Averments 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of th.e averments contained in Paragraph 5 of plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. 6. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 6 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 7 of plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 8 of plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 9 of plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 10 of plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. MCCORMICK HC PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 11 of plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 12 of plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 13 of plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. 14. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 14 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 15 of plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. Count 1 Plaintiff Sharon K. Sites v. All Defendants: Negligence 16. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1- 15 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 17. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 17 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). MCCORMICK Ht PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 18. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 18 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 19. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 19 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 20. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 20 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 21. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 21 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 22. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 22 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 23. (a)-(k). Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 23 of plaintiffs' Complaint and each of its subparagraphs constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendants specifically deny all allegations of negligence. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Answering Defendants specifically deny that the alleged incident and the alleged injuries, damages and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, or caused by or resulting from any act or omission of Answering Defendants. Answering MCCORMICK 8c PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW Defendants aver that the alleged incident, and the alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by, or resulted solely from plaintiff s conduct and/or from the conduct of individuals and/or entities of which Answering Defendants had no control, nor duty of control. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 24. (a)-(o). Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 24 of plaintiffs' Complaint and each of its subparagraphs constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendants specifically deny all allegations of negligence, carelessness and recklessness. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Answering Defendants specifically deny that the alleged incident and the alleged injuries, damages and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by or resulted from any act or omission of Answering Defendants. Answering Defendants aver that the alleged incident, and the alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by, or resulted solely from plaintiffs conduct andJor from the conduct of individuals and/or entities of which Answering Defendants had no control, nor duty of control. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 25. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 25 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendants specifically deny all allegations of negligence, carelessness and recklessness. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW appropriate under the circumstances. Answering Defendants specifically deny that the alleged incident and the alleged injuries, damages and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by or resulted from any act or omission of Answering Defendants. Answering Defendants aver that the alleged incident, and the alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by, or resulted solely from plaintiff s conduct and/or from the conduct of individuals and/or entities of which Answering Defendants had no control, nor duty of control. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 26. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 2b of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendants specifically deny all allegations of negligence, carelessness and recklessness. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Answering Defendants specifically deny that the alleged incident and the alleged injuries, damages and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by or resulted from any act or omission of Answering Defendants. Answering Defendants aver that the alleged incident, and the alleged injuries, damages, andlor losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by, or resulted solely from plaintiff s conduct andlor from the conduct of individuals and/or entities of which Answering Defendants had no control, nor duty of control. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 27. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 27 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed MCCORMICK SC PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendants specifically deny all allegations of negligence, carelessness and recklessness. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Answering Defendants specifically deny that the alleged incident and the alleged injuries, damages andJor losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by or resulted from any act or omission of Answering Defendants. Answering Defendants aver that the alleged incident, and the alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by, or resulted solely from plaintiff s conduct and/or from the conduct of individuals andlor entities of which Answering Defendants had no control, nor duty of control. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 28. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 28 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendants specifically deny all allegations of negligence, carelessness and recklessness. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Answering Defendants specifically deny that the alleged incident and the alleged injuries, damages and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by or resulted from any act or omission of Answering Defendants. Answering Defendants aver that the alleged incident, and the alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by, or resulted solely from plaintiff's conduct and/or from the conduct of individuals and/or entities of which Answering Defendants had no control, McCor~lvllcK & Piuor~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW nor duty of control. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 29. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 29 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendants specifically deny all allegations of negligence, carelessness and recklessness. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Answering Defendants specifically deny that the alleged incident and the alleged injuries, damages and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by or resulted from any act or omission of Answering Defendants. Answering Defendants aver that the alleged incident, and the alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by, or resulted solely from plaintiff s conduct and/or from the conduct of individuals and/or entities of which Answering Defendants had no control, nor duty of control. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 30. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 30 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendants specifically deny all allegations of negligence, carelessness and recklessness. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Answering Defendants specifically deny that the alleged incident and the alleged injuries, damages and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by or resulted from any act or omission of Answering Defendants. Answering McCor~vncx & Pr~or~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW Defendants aver that the alleged incident, and the alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by, or resulted solely from plaintiff s conduct and/or from the conduct of individuals and/or entities of which Answering Defendants had no control, nor duty of control. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 31. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 31 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendants specifically deny all allegations of negligence, carelessness and recklessness. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Answering Defendants specifically deny that the alleged incident and the alleged injuries, damages and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by or resulted from any act or omission of Answering Defendants. Answering Defendants aver that the alleged incident, and the alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by, or resulted solely from plaintiff's conduct and/or from the conduct of individuals and/or entities of which Answering Defendants had no control, nor duty of control. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Count 2• Plaintiff Sharon K. Sites v. All Defendants: Vicarious Liability 32. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1- 31 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. McCor~lcx & Pruol~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 33 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 34. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 34 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 35. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 35 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 36. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 36 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no respanse is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendants specifically deny all allegations of negligence, carelessness and recklessness. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Answering Defendants specifically deny that the alleged incident and the alleged injuries, damages and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by or resulted from any act or omission of Answering Defendants. Answering Defendants aver that the alleged incident, and the alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by, or resulted solely from plaintiff's conduct and/or from the conduct of individuals and/or entities of which Answering Defendants had no control, nor duty of control. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). McCor~lvllcK & Pruor~ .ATTORNEYS AT LAW Count 3: Plaintiff Charles Sites v. All Defendants: Loss of Consortium 37. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1- 36 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 38 of plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. 39. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 39 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, they are deemed denied. If and to the extent further response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendants specifically deny all allegations of negligence, carelessness and recklessness. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. Answering Defendants specifically deny that the alleged incident and the alleged injuries, damages and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by or resulted from any act or omission of Answering Defendants. Answering Defendants aver that the alleged incident, and the alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, the existence of which are denied, were caused by, or resulted solely from plaintiff s conduct and/or from the conduct of individuals and/or entities of which Answering Defendants had no control, nor duty of control. The averments of this paragraph are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hazdwaze Baz, and Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, hereby demand that plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed MCCORMICK SC PRIORS ATTOT2NEYS AT LAW with prejudice or, alternatively, that judgment be entered in their favor, together with their costs of defense, including attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. NEW MATTER 40. Plaintiffs' Complaint may be barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 41. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 42. Plaintiff suffered no compensable injuries, damages andlor losses as a result of the incident described in plaintiffs' Complaint. 43. Answering Defendants owed no duty under the circumstances. 44. Answering Defendants breached no duty they may have owed under the circumstances. 45. Plaintiffs may lack standing to maintain this action. 46. If plaintiffs are entitled to damages, which is denied, the damages are the responsibility of parties other than Answering Defendants, as the incident in question and plaintiff s alleged injuries, damages and/or losses were not caused by and/or did not result from any conduct of Answering Defendants. 47. Plaintiffs injuries and/or losses resulted wholly or in part from her own carelessness, recklessness, or negligence, such contributory or comparative negligence, exceeding that of Answering Defendants and acting as a bar, in whole or in part, to her recovery. 48. Plaintiffs action may be barred by doctrine of release and/or accord and satisfaction. 49. Plaintiffs injuries and/or losses resulted wholly or in part by the carelessness, recklessness, or negligence of other individuals and/or entities over which Answering Defendants had no control nor duty of control. MCCORMICK ~ PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 50. The acts of other individuals and/or entities were superseding and/or intervening causes of plaintiffs injuries, if any. 51. Plaintiffs claims are barred or subject to reduction pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, which is hereby incorporated by reference and asserted a defense. 52. No act or omission by Answering Defendants caused, or was a substantial factor in causing, the alleged incident and/or alleged injuries, damages and/or losses, if any, sustained by plaintiff. 53. Plaintiff s claims may be barred and/or limited by her failure to mitigate damages. 54. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim for which any attorney fees, interest and/or costs maybe awarded. 55. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted with all due and reasonable care, appropriate under the circumstances. 56. Pa. R.C.P. 328, as amended or adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on its face and as applied, is violative of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, as it imposes a chilling effect upon Answering Defendants' exercise of their constitutional rights including a penalty on Answering Defendants for delays not attributable to them. 57. The Collateral Source Rule does not apply such that, if the plaintiff should be awarded money damages by a jury, such a possibility be specifically denied, then the amount of such damages should be reduced by the total number of any and all payments that plaintiff has received from any and all collateral sources, for any damages plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW WHEREFORE, defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar, and Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg, hereby demands that plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice or, alternatively, that judgment be entered in their favor, together with their cost of defense, including attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: P 'lip D. Priore, uire Robert C. Levicoff, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar, and Holiday Inn- Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg Dated: ~~°~ (~ ~ MCCORMICK BC PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION I, Barbara Evans, an authorized representative for defendant, GF Management Inc., verifies that the within Answer with New Matter is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. B ARA E ANS DATED: _ ~'- ~' /D CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Robert C. Levicoff, Esquire, hereby certify that I am an attorney for defendants, GF Management, Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar, and Holiday Inn-Hamsburg West (incorrectly referred to as "Holiday Inn Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg"), in the within action, that I am duly authorized to make this certification, and that on this date, I did cause a true and correct copy of the Answer with New Matter of Defendants, GF Management Inc., West Shore Hardware Bar, and Holiday Inn Harrisburg West, to Complaint of Plaintiffs, Sharon % Sites and Charles Sites, to be forwarded, by electronic filing and first-class mail, to counsel and unrepresented parties, as follows: David J. Foster, Esquire Costopoulos, foster & Fields 831 Market Street, Post Office Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043 McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Dated: ~7~°> ( 1 ~ MCCORMICK SC PRIORS ATTOT2NEYS AT LAW ORIGINAL COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS By: David J. Foster, Esquire Attorney I.D.: 23151 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Aaol.com Email: dionfoster HL 4 J, 2Id 0 NG I Attorney for Plaintiffs SHARON K. SITES and CHARLES SITES, Her Husband,: Plaintiffs, V. GF MANAGEMENT, INC., WEST SHORE HARDWARE BAR and HOLIDAY INN- HARRISBURG- MECHANICSBURG, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 10-2406 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS 40. Denied. 41. Denied. 42. Denied. 43. Denied. 44. Denied. 45. Denied. 46. Denied. 47. Denied. -1- 48. Denied. 49. Denied. 50. Denied. 51. Denied. 52. Denied. 53. Denied. 54. Denied. 55. Denied. 56. Denied. 57. Denied. Respectfully submitted: David J. Fos Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 23151 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Email dionfosterftao_I.co?m ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Dated: August 16, 2010. -2- R ' VERIFICATION I, Plaintiff, Sharon K. Sites, verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that false statements made in this document are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 1 BY: Sharon K. Sites DATED: 011'Alt 4, , . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tiffany M. Miller, a secretary for the law offices of Costopoulos, Foster & Fields, hereby certify that on this ? day of AUGUST, 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTER was served upon all counsel of record by: Hand Delivery X First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Fax Transmission Overnight Mail at the following address(es) and/or number(s): Robert C. Levicoff, Esquire McCormick & Priore, P.C. 4 Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 18108 Counsel for defendant GF Management, Inc., Wbst Shore Hardware Bar and Holiday Inn-Harrisburg-Mechanicsburg By: COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS i any M. Miler 11/04/2010 15:54 7177614031 COSTOPOULOS FOSTER H PAGE 03/04 FILED- CIFF1i(:w 0`1 HE McCORMIC)K & PRIORE, ?.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esqui 1 NC''/ 18 Ali 11: 13, Robert C. L evicdf Es JRBEC- l_ k, i Ci C 6 J iT Attorney ID ## 38987)'#20045 r E ?' S `t LVA 1111 P :Attorneys for Defendants, Four Penal Center, Suite 800 OF Management, Inc., 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Wcst Shore Hardware Bar, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Holiday Inn-Harrisburg West (incorrectly (T) 215-972-0161. referred to as "Holiday Inn-Harrisburg (F) 215-972-5580 Mechanicsburg' email: ,gpriore<aLccorclmriore.com rlrvi cefF§moC_0=ickprlorc. coal SHARON K. SITES and CHARLES SITES, Her Husband, Plaintiffs V. OF MANAGEMENT, INC., WEST SHORE HARDWARE BAR and HOLIDAY TNN-HARRISBURG- MECHANICSBURG, Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNT, PA NO.: 1.0-2406 STIPULATION AMEND CAPTION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the undersigned counsel that the following. entity shall be removed.&om the above-captioned matter - OF Management, Inc. It is further agreed by and between the undersigned counsel, that the following entities shall be added to the above-captioned matter - Mechanicsburg GF Investors, LP and Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. It is further agreed by and between the undersigned counsel that all allegations in the Complaint that were directed to OF Management, Inc. shall be construed as now being directed to Mechanicsburg OF Investors, LP and Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. 11/04/2010 15:54 7177614031 COSTOPOULOS FOSTER H It is further agreed by and between the undersigned counsel that those individuals PACE 04/04 identified in the Defendant's Answers to Jmterrogatories were in fact employees of Defendant Central Pennsylvania Hospitality, Inc. COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS BY: r `.. DAVID J. F69*-R, ESQUIRE Attomey for Plaintiffs McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: EVICOF'F, UI Attorney for Defendants Date: ) t l y l 1 1P Date: I t/ It 2-l t c7 S,*hes anc4 Okaric-T ld s, vs Case No. 10 V, —0 xrrIM W rrl M M ;r;:o -V --01 Statement of Intention to Proceed M C2 To the Court: 3>C-) ::Fc C:)-,n =C=) X-- C;�C-, --i C%a,JXS intends to proceed with the above captl>otla matter. > Print Name h r Vfd J� S ignName Date: Attorney for Oon Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1.Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v.Eagle,551 Pa.360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that"prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(6)has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision(a)of that rule continues to be applicable. 11 Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity,the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the panics do not wish to pursue the case,they will take no action and"the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter,he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d)for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket,subdivision(d)(2)provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period,subdivision(d)(3)requires that the plaintiff must make a showing to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision(d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. Costopoulos, Foster& Fields By: David J. Foster, Esquire 831 Market Street Attorney I.D. 23151 P.O. Box 222 Email: djonfoster @aol.com Lemoyne, PA 17043 Phone: 717761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Attorney for Plaintiffs SHARON K. SITES and • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CHARLES SITES, Her Husband,: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, v. • No. 10-2406 Civil Term -34 • -c> I v GF MANAGEMENT, INC., • CIVIL ACTION - LAW r"- WEST SHORE HARDWARE c - BAR and HOLIDAY INN- , HARRISBURG- MECHANICSBURG, • m` Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE & END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned action settled, discontinued and ended. Respectfully submitted: David J. Foster:squire Attorney I.D. No. 23151 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Email: djonfoster @aol.com -ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Dated: September 19, 2013.