Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-3311
JUDY R. THERES 213 North Baltimore Avenue Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 vs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff No. t0 - 331 Civil Action -Law MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD, tJd/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center 121 Walnut Bottom Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PRAECIPE FOR SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT; Issue summons in Civil Action -Law in the above case. XX Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwardedaq the Sheriff s Office. 4r ~. {~ Date: Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esqui e Clark & Krevsky, LLC Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-9251 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szk(a~clark-krevskylaw.com ~~~,~* SUMMONS N o `~ a =t' n r~ ~ m r. ...~ , i:? C7 ~ ~ ~~ ~=' ~' r ~. -.Q ~ ' e ~ ~ c~s _ ~ :~ ~-rj ~. ~. ~ ~ v- •d ~` 9.Z . v v tic.( ~1r ,l ~~~ C K ~ 3~zv t2'r~C ~ Y ~ 3G>3 To: Magnolia Management, Inc., Perini Services, Inc., Perini Services/Southampton Manor, Ltd, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-N D PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. otary/Cler ,Civil Division Date: 'S 1 S l0 __~T BY Deputy JUDY R. THERES IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA vs Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a Shippensburg- `" == Health Care Center+ = - Defendants Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA`, PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 = ' - rn .., As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Plaintiff certifies that: (1) notice of intent to serve subpoenas with a copy of the subpoenas attached thereto were mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on which the subpoenas are sought to be served, (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoenas, is attached to this certificate, (3) no objection to the subpoenas have been received, and (4) the subpoenas which will be served are identical to the subpoenas which are attached to the notice of intent to serve subpoenas. Respectfully submitted, Dated: OL11 CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC By: Solo n Z. evsky, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff t Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkAclark-krevskylaw.com JUDY R. THERES P$intiff vs MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term Jury Trial Demanded NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FQR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiff intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the dote listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Respectfully submitted, CLARK VKREVSKY, LLC By: ` Solo on ?revsky, Esquire Atto ey for laintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: sclark-krevskylaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this 15 day of February, 20111, Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date sewed a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Shane L. Williams, SPHR Corporate Human Resources Director Magnolia Management Incorporated 1710 Underpass Way Hagerstown, MD 21740-6979 Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC By: Krevsky, Esquire f Plaintiff SupremeCt. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkkclark-krevskylaw.com JUDY R. THERES Pl*tiff vs MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC. PERM SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term Jury Trial Demanded SUBPOEN TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DIS OVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Jeanne Phillips, Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resource Officer Genesis Health Care 101 East State Street Kennett Square, PA 19348 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all documents and recor application for employment with stored information (ESI) and ele< email, and all other electronicall} computers/workstations, noteboc system-wide backups, and other i floppy diskettes, CD roms, DVD Is concerning Judy R. Theres or that relate in any way to her Genesis Health Care, including but not limited to electronically conic data which for this purpose includes data compilations, stored data including data files stored in desktop :s/laptop computers, network file servers, backup tapes including iedia sources including tape archives, replaced/removed drives, , ZIP cartridges, and other portable media at Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, Clark & Krevsky, LLC, 20 Erford Road, Ste 300A, Lemoyne, PA 17043 You may deliver or mail legible Oopies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right Jo seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. I If you fail to produce the docume is or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSU?D AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire I.D. No. 72719 Clark & Krevsky, LLC 20 Erford Road, Ste 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 Telephone (717) 73108600 Attorney for Plaintiffs BY THE COURT: Date: Prothonotary, Civil Division Seal of the Court Deputy JUDY R. THERES Pl?intiff vs MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT,! INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a ShippenOurg Health Care Center Defendants AND THINGS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term Jury Trial Demanded ANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiff intends to serve 4 subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the d4te listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC By Solo n Krevsky, Esquire Attorney .or laintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkkclark-krevskylaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, Os 141 day of February, 20111, Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Shane L. Williams, SPHR Corporate Human Resources Dir ctor Magnolia Management Incorpor4ted 1710 Underpass Way Hagerstown, MD 21740-6979 Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY LLC By Solo on Z. evsky, Esquire Attorney for ntiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szk2clark-krevskylaw.com JUDY R. THERES Plaintiff vs MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, !INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/S( MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a Health Care Center IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term Jury Trial Demanded FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 400( TO: Lucelva Britton, Manage Gettysburg Center Human Resources Genesis Health Care 867 York Road Gettysburg, PA 17325 Within twenty (20) days after ser?ice of this subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all documents and records concerning Judy R. Theres or that relate in any way to her application for employment with benesis Health Care, including but not limited to electronically stored information (ESI) and elec onic data which for this purpose includes data compilations, email, and all other electronically stored data including data files stored in desktop computers/workstations, notebooks/laptop computers, network file servers, backup tapes including system-wide backups, and other media sources including tape archives, replaced/removed drives, floppy diskettes, CD roms, DVD , ZIP cartridges, and other portable media at Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, Clark & Krevsky, LLC, 20 Erford Road, Ste 300A, Lemoyne, PA 17043 You may deliver or mail legible c pies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. i THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUFD AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire I.D. No. 72719 Clark & Krevsky, LLC 20 Erford Road, Ste 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 Telephone (717) 73108600 Attorney for Plaintiffs BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Date: Seal of the Court Deputy JUDY R. THERES Pl?intiff vs MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT,) INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTOr MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a Shippens?urg Health Care Center IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term Jury Trial Demanded INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE Plaintiff intends to serve 4 subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the d?te listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the s?bpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Respectfully submitted, CLARK VSKY, LLC By: Solo n Z. evsky, Esquire Attorney for laintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szk(a,clark-krevskylaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE z AND NOW, TO WIT, th?s /5" day of February, 20111, Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this datq served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in ?' the United States Mail, postage ptepaid at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Shane L. Williams, SPHR Corporate Human Resources I Magnolia Management Incorp 1710 Underpass Way Hagerstown, MD 21740-6979 Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC By. Sol on Krevsky, Esquire Attorney. Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szk&clark-krevskylaw.com JUDY R. THERES Pl?intiff vs MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT,) INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUT " PTON MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a Shippens urg Health Care Center D4fendants TO: John Raley, Vice Pres Genesis Health Care 515 Fairmont Avenue Towson, MD 21286 Within twenty (20) days after s following documents or things: Any and all documents and recor application for employment with stored information (ESI) and elec email, and all other electronically computers/workstations, noteboo system-wide backups, and other j floppy diskettes, CD roms, DVD at Solomon Z. Krevsky, Lemoyne, PA 17043 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term Jury Trial Demanded )VERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 Human Resources of this subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the is concerning Judy R. Theres or that relate in any way to her lenesis Health Care, including but not limited to electronically tonic data which for this purpose includes data compilations, stored data including data files stored in desktop :s/laptop computers, network file servers, backup tapes including iedia sources including tape archives, replaced/removed drives, , ZIP cartridges, and other portable media Clark & Krevsky, LLC, 20 Erford Road, Ste 300A, You may deliver or mail legible pies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the docume is or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire I.D. No. 72719 Clark & Krevsky, LLC 20 Erford Road, Ste 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 Telephone (717) 73108600 Attorney for Plaintiffs BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Date: Seal of the Court Deputy CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this 0 day of March, 2011, I, Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date Orved a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage propaid at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Shane L. Williams, SPHR Corporate Human Resources I Magnolia Management Incorp 1710 Underpass Way Hagerstown, MD 21740-6979 Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC _k By: _ Solomo Z. evsky, Esquire Attorne for P aintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkkclark-krevskylaw.com ti JUDY R. THERES, 213 North Baltimore Avenue Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 Plaintiff V. MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center 121 Walnut Bottom Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2010-3311 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACITON-LAW - JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ., -- :-T ? -s ` PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendants, Magnolia Management, Inc., Perini Services, Inc. Perini Services / Southampton Manor, Ltd., t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, BARIC SCHERER David A. Baric, Esquire I.D.# 44853 Date: March 17, 2011 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6873 Attorney for Defendants _y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 17, 2011, 1, David A. Baric, Esquire, of Baric Scherer, did serve the Praecipe for Entry of Appearance, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the party listed below, as ;follows: Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire Clark & Krevsky, LLC 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 David A. Baric, Esquire JUDY R. THERES, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 213 North Baltimore Avenue CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 Plaintiff NO. 2010-3311 CIVIL TERM V. MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERIM SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center 121 Walnut Bottom Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 Defendants CIVIL ACITON-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT rr ... ...?.t ry A : - f"dl Please issue a Rule directed to the Plaintiff, Judy R. Theres to file a Complaint against the Defendants, Magnolia Management, Inc., Perini Services, Inc., Perini Services/Southampton Manor, Ltd., t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center, in the above-captioned matter within twenty (20) days of service or suffer judgment of non pros. Date: Marchl7, 2011 Respectfully submitted, BARI CHE David A. Baric, Esquire I.D. 44853 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 t '4. RULE AND NOW, this V- day of MOLfOVA _, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants, Magnolia Management, Inc., Perini Services, Inc., Perini Services/Southampton Manor, Ltd., t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center's Praecipe For Rule To File A Complaint, a Rule is hereby granted upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of service, or suffer judgment non pros. Rule issued this day of M Dg L. l , 2011. f Prothontoary CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 17, 2011, I, David A. Baric, Esquire, of Baric Scherer, did serve the Praecipe For Rule To File A Complaint, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the parry listed below, as follows: Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire Clark & Krevsky, LLC 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 David A. Baric, Esquire JUDY R. THERES IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA vs Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON rnm =-n 'Wm rn- MANOR, LTD, tld/b/a Shippensburg x M r -a Health Care Center w Q Defendants Jury Trial Demanded © -, STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME r TO FILE COMPLAINT --°? WHEREAS, the instant action was commenced by way of a Praecipe for Summons filed by the Plaintiff on May 18, 2010; and WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Praecipe for Rule to File a Complaint on March 17, 2011; NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties in the above-captioned matter that: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint in this matter shall be filed on or before April 29, 2011. 2. Each party entering into this Stipulation represents and warrants that they are so authorized by their client to do so, and that all necessary authorization to enter into this Stipulation has been obtained. 3. The parties, by their undersigned counsel, stipulate and agree pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable Local Rule of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Pennsylvania to extend until April 29, 2011 the time for Plaintiff to file her Complaint in the above-captioned matter. 4. No prior extension of time has been requested or granted. CLARK By: lomon Z. Krevsky, Esq ire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600; (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkgclark-krevskylaw.com Respectfully submitted, B CHERE ' By David A. Baric, Esquire Attorney for Defendants Supreme Ct. I.D.44853 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6873; (717) 249-5755 fax e-mail: dbarickbaricscherer.com JUDY R. THERES Plaintiff vs MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term 'V e5 co ? ?' i C5 ?? Jury Trial Demanded -,: J NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO EN LA CORTE. Si usted desca defenderse de las quejas expuestas en las pagmas siguientes, debe tomar accion dentro de veinte (20) dias a partir de la fecha en que recibio la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presentar comparecencia escrita en persona o por abogado y presentar en la Corte por escrito sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en su contra. Se le avisa que si no se defiende, el caso puede proceder sin usted y la Corte puede decidir en su contra sin mas aviso o notificacion por cualquier dinero reclamado en la demanda o por cualquier otra queja o compensaction reclamados por el Demandante. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO, O PROPIEDADES U OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES PARA LISTED. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO D MEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE O NO CONOCE UN ABOGADO, VAYO O LLAME A LA OFICINA EN LA DIRECCION ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 JUDY R. THERES IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA vs Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center Defendants Jury Trial Demanded COMPLAINT AND NOW, TO WIT, comes Plaintiff, Judy R. Theres, by and through her counsel, Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire and Clark & Krevsky, LLC and files the following Complaint: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Judy R. Theres, (hereinafter "Theres") brings this action against her former employer, Magnolia Management, Inc., Perini Services, Inc., and Perini Services/Southampton Manor, Ltd., t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center for fraud in the inducement/fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misrepresented material facts upon which Plaintiff relied to her detriment inducing her to accept employment with Defendants under false pretenses while rejecting firm offers for employment with a third party. In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted in a manner calculated to deceive, by suppression of truth, by suggestion of falsehoods with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false (or, in the alternative, without exercising reasonable care as to whether its representations were true or false), all of which done by direct falsehood, by innuendo, by speech, and/or by silence. UNDERLYING FACTS 2. Plaintiff, Theres, is an adult individual who, at all relevant times hereto, resided in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at 213 North Baltimore Avenue, Mt. Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065. 3. Defendant Magnolia Management, Inc. (hereinafter "Magnolia") is an operator of skilled nursing facilities located in Maryland and Pennsylvania including but not limited to the Shippensburg Health Care Center located at 121 Walnut Bottom Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 4. The Shippensburg Health Care Center is listed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of State, as a fictitious name, the owner of which is Defendant Perini Services/Southampton Manor, Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Perini Services, Inc. Defendants Perini Services, Inc. and/or Perini Services/Southampton Manor, Ltd (hereinafter collectively "Perini") own the Shippensburg Health Care Center located at 121 Walnut Bottom Road, Shippensburg, PA 17257. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Perini contracted with Defendant Magnolia to manage the Shippensburg Health Care facility located at 121 Walnut Bottom Road, Shippensburg, PA 17257. 7. The Shippensburg Health Care Center is a post-acute care, long-term care, and independent living facility located at 121 Walnut Bottom Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, PA 17257 and which offers long-term care, skilled nursing, cognitive care, post-acute care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy to patients and residents. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant Magnolia acted as an agent for Defendant Perini. 9. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant Magnolia and Defendant Perini held themselves out to the public as one entity. 10. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant Magnolia and Defendant Perini operated with a sufficient degree of unity with respect to management and business functions related to the operation and management of the Shippensburg Health Care facility so as to present themselves as a single entity to third parties. 11. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant Magnolia and Defendant Perini (hereinafter collectively "Defendants") served as Plaintiff Theres' de facto employer. 12. At all relevant times hereto, the facts and occurrences, acts and/or omissions, and incidents and/or actions alleged herein occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 13. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants acted through their agents, apparent agents, servants apparent servants, and/or employees who were authorized and acting within the scope of authority, course of employment, and/or under the direct control of the Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S INITIAL PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT WITH DEFENDANTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF SEPARATION 14. In or about April 2008, Plaintiff Theres interviewed with Defendants for a position as Quality Assurance Staff Development Coordinator. 15. In connection with said interview, Plaintiff Theres met with Defendants' Director of Nursing, Patricia Smith, and its Corporate Nurse, Marlene Gay. 16. The duties and responsibilities of a Quality Assurance Staff Development Coordinator included the provision of training, education, and quality oversight of the care administered by Defendants' skilled nursing professionals assigned to work at the Shippensburg Health Care Center. 17. Defendants employed skilled nursing professionals to work at the Shippensburg Health Care Center on three eight-hour shifts throughout the Center's 24-hour per day operation. 18. Because the Quality Assurance Staff Development Coordinator position duties and responsibilities included training, education and quality oversight of the care administered by Defendants' skilled nursing professionals assigned to work at the Shippensburg Health Care Center on three separate 8-hour shifts, Plaintiff Theres requested a flexible schedule that would have permitted her the opportunity to manage quality assurance nursing care issues on all three shifts. 19. Director of Nursing Smith and Corporate Nurse Gay granted Plaintiff Theres' request to work a flexible schedule permitting Plaintiff to manage quality assurance nursing care issues on all three shifts. 20. Director of Nursing Smith and/or Corporate Nurse Gay possessed actual and/or apparent authority to grant Plaintiff's request to work a flexible schedule. 21. Plaintiff Theres understood that Director of Nursing Smith and Corporate Nurse Gay possessed actual and/or apparent authority to act on behalf of Defendants. 22. Defendants possessed a duty of care to correct Plaintiff Theres' apprehension that Director of Nursing Smith and/or Corporate Nurse Gay acted on its behalf. 23. In reliance on Defendants' representations, through its agents and/or apparent agents, that Plaintiff was permitted to work a flexible shift, Plaintiff accepted the position as Quality Assurance Staff Development Coordinator. 24. On or about April 28, 2008, Plaintiff Theres commenced employment for Defendants as its Quality Assurance Staff Development Coordinator and was assigned to work at its Shippensburg Health Care Center. 25. In her capacity as Quality Assurance Staff Development Coordinator, Plaintiff Theres reported directly to Director of Nursing Smith. 26. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants employed Christopher Coronado as Administrator of the Shippensburg Health Care Center. 27. At all relevant times hereto, Mr. Coronado served in the immediate and/or successive chain of command relative to Plaintiff Theres. 28. At all relevant times hereto, Mr. Coronado possessed the authority to affect the terms and conditions of Plaintiff Theres' employment with Defendants. 29. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff Theres performed duties and responsibilities as Quality Assurance Staff Development Coordinator in a satisfactory manner and consistent with Defendants' legitimate expectations. 30. Sometime in June 2008, Plaintiff Theres was informed by Administrator Coronado that she must work a fixed 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. shift. 31. Plaintiff Theres informed Mr. Coronado that she had been granted permission to work a flexible shift in order to manage quality assurance nursing care issues on all three operating shifts of the Shippensburg Health Care Center. 32. Mr. Coronado knew that Plaintiff Theres' duties and responsibilities as the Quality Assurance Staff Development Coordinator included managing quality assurance nursing care issues on all three operating shifts of the Shippensburg Health Care Center. 33. Thus, Plaintiff Theres informed Mr. Coronado that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to effectively perform duties and responsibilities as a Quality Assurance Staff Development Coordinator if she were not permitted the opportunity to work a flexible shift that overlapped with the 24-hour per day operations of the Shippensburg Health Care Center. 34. Administrator Coronado disregarded Plaintiff Theres' concerns and reiterated that she must work a fixed 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. schedule. 35. Plaintiff Theres informed Mr. Coronado that his instructions were contrary to the agreed upon terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, and that she would be forced to resign her employment with Defendants if required to work a fixed shift. 36. At no time did Administrator Coronado inform Plaintiff that she would be ineligible for rehire if she resigned her employment without offering a two-week notice. 37. Upon information and belief, Defendants' Employee Handbook contains a policy which states, in pertinent part, that employees who resign without notice are not eligible for vacation pay. Said policy is silent on the issue of whether such individuals are ineligible for rehire. 38. At no time was Plaintiff Theres informed by any individual or agent acting on behalf of Defendants that she would be ineligible for rehire if she were to resign without offering a two- week notice. 39. A few days after Plaintiff Theres' discussion with Administrator Coronado, Director of Nursing Smith informed Plaintiff that Mr. Coronado insisted Plaintiff work a fixed 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. shift. 40. Defendants unilaterally altered the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment in a manner rendering the position unsuitable. 41. As a result of Defendants unilateral alteration of the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs' employment in a manner rendering Plaintiff's position unsuitable, Plaintiff's employment with Defendants was constructively discharged. 42. Plaintiff Theres immediately informed Director of Nursing Smith that she could no longer continue to work for Defendants under the terms and conditions insisted upon by Mr. Coronado and handed in her keys and badge. 43. Over the next few days, Plaintiff Theres was contacted on multiple occasions by Director of Nursing Smith and Corporate Nurse Gay requesting that Plaintiff return to work at the Shippensburg Health Care facility as the Quality Assurance Staff Development Coordinator. 44. Plaintiff Theres informed Director of Nursing Smith and Corporate Nurse Gay that she no longer trusted or respected Mr. Coronado and could not return to work if he had any role whatsoever in overseeing the management and operations of the Shippensburg Health Care facility and/or Plaintiff's terms and conditions of employment. PLAINTIFF ACCEPTS OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT WITH GENESIS HEALTH CARE 45. In early August 2008, Plaintiff Theres interviewed with Mary Wilson for a position as a Registered Nurse with Genesis Health Care. 46. On August 15, 2008, Genesis Health Care offered to Plaintiff Theres employment with the company as a Registered Nurse. 47. That same day, Plaintiff Theres communicated her acceptance of the offer to commence employment with Genesis Health Care as a Registered Nurse. 48. In a letter dated August 15, 2008, Genesis Health Care confirmed its offer and Plaintiff's acceptance of the offer to serve as a Registered Nurse for Genesis Health Care at its Gettysburg, Pennsylvania facility. 49. Plaintiff was to commence employment with Genesis Health Care on September 2, 2008. PLAINTIFF RESCINDS ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTS OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT WITH GENESIS HEALTH CARE IN RELIANCE ON DEFENDANTS' MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION 50. At or about the same time Plaintiff Theres was offered and accepted the position as Registered Nurse with Genesis Health Care, she was contacted by Defendants Director of Nursing Smith and MDS Coordinator, Karen McDannel, who offered Plaintiff employment with Defendants as a Wound Nurse at its Shippensburg Health Care Center. 51. Plaintiff Theres immediately rejected said offer as a result of her distrust of Administrator Coronado, her concern that Mr. Coronado did not respect Plaintiff professionally or care for her personally, and Plaintiff's concern that she and Mr. Coronado did not work effectively together. 52. Plaintiff Theres informed MDS Coordinator McDannel and Director of Nursing Smith that she could not return to work for Defendants in any capacity if Mr. Coronado had any role whatsoever in the management or operations of the Shippensburg Health Care Center and/or the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment. 53. Plaintiff Theres also informed MDS Coordinator McDannel and Director of Nursing Smith that she had accepted an offer of employment with Genesis Health Care, the acceptance of which she would be required to rescind in the event she were to accept employment as a Wound Nurse with Defendants. 54. Thereafter, Ms. McDannel and Ms. Smith communicated the following representations to Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively "Material Misrepresentations"): a. That Mr. Coronado was being transferred to Defendants' Northampton Manor facility in Maryland; b. That Mr. Coronado would have "no role whatsoever" in the management and/or operation of Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center; C. That Mr. Coronado would have "no role whatsoever" in managing Plaintiff s work as a Wound Nurse; d. That Mr. Coronado would have "no role whatsoever" in any aspect of the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs employment as a Wound Nurse; e. That as a Wound Nurse, Plaintiff would report directly to Defendants' Director of Nursing; f. That a new Administrator was scheduled to commence employment at the Shippensburg Health Care Center on September 2, 2008; g. That the new Administrator of the Shippensburg Health Care Center would have sole and exclusive authority to oversee the management and operations of the Shippensburg Health Care facility; h. That if Plaintiff were to accept the offer to serve as a Wound Nurse at Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center she would have no interaction on a professional level with Mr. Coronado; i. Based on these representations, it was implicit that Mr. Coronado would have no authority to review or assess Plaintiffs performance, oversee her schedule, impose discipline, terminate, or otherwise affect or influence Plaintiff s employment relationship with Defendants or her terms and conditions of employments with Defendants; Based on these representations and Defendants' offer of employment, it was implicit that the circumstances of Plaintiff's prior employment with Defendants or the separation of her employment with Defendants would play no role in connection with Plaintiff's potential rehire or the terms and conditions of her employment as a Wound Nurse should Plaintiff accept Defendants' offer. k. Neither Ms. McDannel nor Ms. Smith informed Plaintiff Theres of any policy or practice by Defendants rendering ineligible for rehire former employees who previously resigned employment without offering a two-week notice. 1. Ms. McDannel and Ms. Smith repeatedly confirmed to Plaintiff that "you don't have to worry" about having to work with Mr. Coronado because "he won't be here". 55. MDS Coordinator McDannel and Director of Nursing Smith possessed actual and/or apparent authority to communicate said Material Misrepresentations to Plaintiff. 56. Plaintiff Theres understood that MDS Coordinator McDannel and Director of Nursing Smith possessed actual and/or apparent authority to act on behalf of Defendants. 57. Defendants possessed a duty of care to correct Plaintiff Theres' apprehension that MDS Coordinator McDannel and/or Director of Nursing Smith acted on its behalf. 58. MDS Coordinator McDannel and Director of Nursing Smith were aided in accomplishing the Material Misrepresentations to Plaintiff by virtue of their positions as managerial agents for Defendants. 59. MDS Coordinator McDannel and Director of Nursing Smith knew that Plaintiff Theres accepted an offer of employment with Genesis Health Care to serve as a Registered Nurse. 60. MDS Coordinator McDannel and Director of Nursing Smith knew that its representations were material to Plaintiff's decision to rescind her acceptance of the offer of employment from Genesis Health Care and reject said offer. 61. MDS Coordinator McDannel and Director of Nursing Smith knew that Plaintiff would rely upon their representations in connection with Plaintiff's decision to rescind her acceptance of the offer of employment from Genesis Health Care and reject said offer. 62. Said Material Misrepresentations were material to Plaintiff Theres' decision to rescind her acceptance of the offer of employment from Genesis Health Care and reject said offer. 63. Said Material Misrepresentations were material to Plaintiff Theres' decision to acceptance the offer of employment as a Wound Nurse with Defendants. 64. Defendants' Material Misrepresentations were made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity, or with recklessness as to its truth or falsity. 65. In addition and/or in the alternative, Defendants' Material Misrepresentations were negligent, grossly negligent, grossly careless, grossly reckless, wanton, and without regard to Plaintiff Theres' professional future and financial or emotional wellbeing. 66. Defendants knew that its Material Misrepresentations served to guide Plaintiff in her business transactions yet failed to exercise reasonable care or confidence in obtaining or communicating accurate or complete information. 67. Defendants' Material Misrepresentations were intended to mislead Plaintiff Theres into relying on them in connection with Plaintiff's rescission of her acceptance of the offer of employment with Genesis Health Care, her rejection of the offer of employment with Genesis Health Care and her acceptance of the offer of employment as a Wound Nurse with Defendants. 68. Plaintiff Theres justifiably relied on Defendants' Material Misrepresentations. 69. Plaintiff Theres manifested her reliance on Defendants' Material Misrepresentations by rescinding her acceptance of the offer from Genesis Health Care, rejecting said offer, and accepting the offer of employment as a Wound Nurse with Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S SCOND PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT WITH DEFENDANTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF DISCHARGE 70. On August 19, 2008, Plaintiff Theres rescinded her acceptance of the offer of employment with Genesis Health Care and rejected said offer indicating that she had received an offer of employment from Defendants. 71. At or about the same time, Plaintiff Theres accepted Defendants' offer of employment to serve as its Wound Nurse at Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center. 72. Plaintiff Theres accepted Defendants' offer of employment to serve as its Wound Nurse at Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center in reliance upon Defendants' Material Misrepresentations communicated through its agents and/or apparent agents. 73. On September 7, 2008, Plaintiff Theres commenced employment as a Wound Nurse at Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center. 74. At that time, Matthew R. Richardson had commenced employment as Administrator of the Shippensburg Health Care Center. 75. Within the first month of her employment, Plaintiff Theres was instrumental in reducing the wound rate at the Shippensburg Health Care Center. 76. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff Theres performed her duties and responsibilities as a Wound Nurse in a satisfactory manner and consistent with Defendants' legitimate expectations. 77. In approximately late November 2008, Defendants hired Beverly Sharron to replace Ms. Smith as Director of Nursing at Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center. 78. Throughout her employment as a Wound Nurse at Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center, Plaintiff Theres consistently received positive feedback and other praise from Administrator Richardson. 79. Similarly, Plaintiff Theres received positive feedback and praise concerning her performance as a Wound Nurse from Defendants' new Director of Nursing, Beverly Sharron. 80. At no time during her tenure of employment as a Wound Nurse at Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center did Plaintiff Theres receive discipline, whether verbal or in writing. 81. At no time during her tenure of employment as a Wound Nurse at Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center did Plaintiff Theres receive any unfavorable performance reviews, whether verbal or in writing. 82. To the contrary, Plaintiff Theres consistently received positive reviews regarding her performance as a Wound Nurse from Administrator Richardson, Director of Nursing Smith, Director of Nursing Sharron, and other managerial colleagues. 83. Administrator Richardson was on vacation the week of Monday, December 15, 2008. 84. That very day, Plaintiff Theres was asked to attend a meeting in the Administrator's office of the Shippensburg Health Care Center. 85. When Plaintiff arrived at said meeting, she observed that the Administrator's office was occupied by Mr. Coronado. 86. Mr. Coronado proceeded to abruptly and summarily terminate Plaintiff Theres' employment. 87. Mr. Coronado informed Plaintiff Theres that her employment was terminated effective immediately because "two new wounds were identified today...". 88. Plaintiff attempted to expose the basis for Mr. Coronado's decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment as invalid by explaining that four wounds were healed that very day and that Plaintiff had been instrumental in reducing the facility's wound rate since her installment as the Wound Nurse. 89. Mr. Coronado rejected Plaintiff's explanation and proceeded to terminate Plaintiff's employment effective December 15, 2008. 90. The purported basis to terminate Plaintiff's employment was invalid, wholly without basis in fact, and pretextual. 91. Shortly following Plaintiff's termination from employment with Defendants, Administrator Coronado informed managers employed at Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center that Plaintiff was terminated because she previously separated her employment with Defendants without providing two weeks notice. 92. Administrator Coronado informed managers employed at Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center that "if you resign without giving two weeks notice, you're not eligible for rehire... if anyone wants to know why [Plaintiff] is no longer employed here, that's the reason..." (or words to that effect). 93. Administrator Coronado's explanation to managers employed at Defendants' Shippensburg Health Care Center as to why Plaintiff Theres' employment was terminated was inconsistent with the explanation provided to Plaintiff. 94. The inconsistency between Administrator Coronado's explanations for Plaintiff s termination exposes the basis for Plaintiff's termination as a pretext. 95. At all relevant times hereto, Administrator Coronado acted with an evil design or motive. 96. The termination of Plaintiff Theres' employment effective December 15, 2008 constitutes adverse employment action. COUNT I-FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION/FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT JUDY R. THERES v MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC.; PERINI SERVICES, INC. and PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a SHIPPENSBURG HEALTH CARE CENTER 97. Plaintiff Theres repeats and repleads Paragraphs 1 through 96 of this Complaint and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 98. Defendants made Material Misrepresentations including the false representations and/or omissions described in Paragraphs 53a. through 531., as more fully described above. 99. The Material Misrepresentations were material to Plaintiff Theres' decision to rescind her acceptance of the offer of employment with Genesis Health Care, reject said offer, and accept the offer of employment from Defendants to serve as a Wound Nurse at its Shippensburg Health Care Center. 100. The Material Misrepresentations were made falsely and recklessly. 101. The Material Misrepresentations were made either with Defendants' knowledge that said representation was false or with recklessness as to whether they were true or false. 102. The Material Misrepresentations were intended to mislead Plaintiff Theres into relying on same and Plaintiff did so justifiably rely thereon. 103. Relying on Defendants' Material Misrepresentations, Plaintiff Theres rescinded her acceptance of an offer for employment with Genesis Health Care and rejected said offer. 104. Relying on Defendants' Material Misrepresentations, Plaintiff Theres accepted the offer of employment as a Wound Nurse with Defendants. 105. Plaintiff rejected a firm offer of employment with Genesis Health Care and accepted an offer of employment with Defendants under false pretenses. 106. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' Material Misrepresentations, Plaintiff Theres sustained losses and damages including but not limited to lost wages relating to her rejection of the offer of employment with Genesis Health Care. 107. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff Theres for the above-described losses, and claim is made therefor. 108. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 109. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has endured pain and suffering, great mental anguish and will endure additional pain and suffering in the future, and claim is made therefor. 110. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has suffered great humiliation and embarrassment and claim is made therefor. 111. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has incurred liability for medical expenses, rehabilitative expenses, and related treatment expenses, and may incur such expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor. 112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has sustained a loss of earnings, including but not limited to back wages and benefits and future lost wages and benefits by reason of her rescission of a firm offer for employment with Genesis Health Care and rejection of said offer, and claim is made therefor. 113. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has sustained an impairment of earning power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefor. 114. The actions and/or omissions of the Defendants, as more fully described above, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct that evidence a wanton disregard for the safety and wellbeing of Plaintiff Theres and which were undertaken with the direct intent to harm Plaintiff and/or callous disregard for Plaintiff's wellbeing, thereby warranting the imposition of punitive damages, and claim is made therefor. 115. The amount in controversy exceeds applicable arbitration limits and a jury trial is therefore demanded. COUNT II-NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION JUDY R. THERES v MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC.; PERINI SERVICES, INC. and PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a SHIPPENSBURG HEALTH CARE CENTER 116. Plaintiff Theres repeats and repleads Paragraphs 1 through 115 of this Complaint and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 117. Defendants knew or should have known that the Material Misrepresentations referenced above and incorporated by reference were false, erroneous, incomplete, and otherwise untrue. 118. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff Theres would justifiably rely on said Material Misrepresentations. 119. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff Theres to communicate accurate, complete and truthful information to her. 120. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff Theres to exercise reasonable care or confidence in obtaining or communicating accurate, complete, and/or truthful information which it knew Plaintiff would rely upon in guiding her concerning business transactions. 121. Defendants breached said duties by uttering the Material Misrepresentations described above. 122. Defendants breached said duties by uttering false inaccurate, incomplete, and untruthful information to her, as more fully described above. 123. Defendants breached said duties by failing to exercise reasonable care or otherwise exercising due diligence in connection with its communications with Plaintiff. 124. The Material Misrepresentations were communicated negligently, recklessly, carelessly, grossly negligently, grossly recklessly, wanton and without any regard to Plaintiff's employment future or financial or emotional wellbeing. 125. The Material Misrepresentations caused Plaintiff Theres to justifiably rely thereon and Plaintiff did so justifiably rely thereon. 126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' Material Misrepresentations, Plaintiff Theres sustained losses and damages including but not limited to lost wages and benefits relating to her rescission of her acceptance of the offer of employment from Genesis Health Care and her rejection of said offer. 127. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff Theres for the above-described losses, and claim is made therefor. 128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has endured pain and suffering, great mental anguish and will endure additional pain and suffering in the future, and claim is made therefor. 130. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has suffered great humiliation and embarrassment and claim is made therefor. 131. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has incurred liability for medical expenses, rehabilitative expenses, and related treatment expenses, and may incur such expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor. 132. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has sustained a loss of earnings, including but not limited to back wages and benefits and future lost wages and benefits by reason of her rescission of a firm offer for employment with Genesis Health Care and rejection of said offer, and claim is made therefor. 133. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions, as more fully described above, Plaintiff Theres has sustained an impairment of earning power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefor. 134. The actions and/or omissions of the Defendants, as more fully described above, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct that evidence a wanton disregard for the safety and wellbeing of Plaintiff Theres and which were undertaken with the direct intent to harm Plaintiff and/or callous disregard for Plaintiff's wellbeing, thereby warranting the imposition of punitive damages, and claim is made therefor. 135. The amount in controversy exceeds applicable arbitration limits and a jury trial is therefore demanded. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Theres requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for: 1. Back pay and benefits; 2. Front pay and benefits; 3. Statutory pre judgment interest; 4. Compensatory damages; 5. Punitive damages; and 6. Any other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, CLARK &,KREVSJ?Y, By: ? Sol m. rKrevsky, Esquire Atto Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkkclark-krevskylaw.com VERIFICATION I, Judy R. Theres, the Plaintiff in the foregoing action do hereby affirm that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A., Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Judy R. eres Dated: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this Z? day of A-F r-wt , 20111, Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: David A. Baric, Esquire Baric Scherer 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC C-4 By: Solo on Z. evsky, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. 472719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkkclark-krevskylaw.com JUDY R. THERES, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff Civil Action - Law V. No. 10-3311 Civil Term MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC.; C= r) ? r"3 cQ Q PERINI SERVICES, INC.; rn -? PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LP, t/d/b/a Shippensburg JURY TRIAL DEMANDED,, ry? Health Care Center, C ' C) . G Defendants > o ro NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Judy Theres c/o Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire Clark & Krevsky, LLC 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Shar . O'Donnell, Esquire I. o.: 79457 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3503 Page 1 of 26 JUDY R. THERES, Plaintiff V. MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC.; PERINI SERVICES, INC.; PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LP, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT The Defendants, Magnolia Management, Inc., Perini Services, Inc., Perini Services/Southampton Manor, LP, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center, by and through their counsel, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, hereby makes answer and asserts the following new matter to the Plaintiffs Complaint as follows: 1. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that the Complaint speaks for itself. The remaining allegations are denied in that after reasonable investigation the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations. 2. Admitted. It is admitted that the address set forth in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Complaint reflects the same address of the Plaintiff, Theres, as the Answering Defendant, Shippensburg Health Care Center, maintains in a personnel file. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Shippensburg Health Care Center is registered as a fictitious name with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of State; and that the Department names the owner of which as Perini Services/Southampton Page 2 of 26 Manor, Limited. It is denied that Perini Services/Southampton Manor, LP, is wholly owned by Perini Services, Inc. Perini Services, Inc., is merely a part owner. 5. Admitted with a correction. Perini Services/Southampton Manor is a limited partnership. The true and correct name of this entity is: Perini Services/Southampton Manor, LP. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Denied. It is specifically denied that at any time, Defendant, Magnolia, acted as an agent for Defendant, Perini Services, Inc. Strict proof thereof is demanded. 9. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant, Magnolia, provides management services to Defendant, Perini Services/Southampton Manor, LP, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center. The remaining allegations are denied as to all other inferences. 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Perini Services, Inc., operated with a sufficient degree of unity with respect to the management and business functions related to the operation and management of the Shippensburg Health Care Center so as to present itself as a single entity to third parties. Strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations are admitted. 11. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Magnolia and Perini Services, Inc., are a single entity such that they can be considered "Defendants" and were Plaintiffs V e facto" employer. To the contrary, Plaintiff had only one employer at any time among the named Defendants, that being Shippensburg Health Care Center. 12. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Shippensburg Health Care Center is located in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The remaining allegations are denied in Page 3 of 26 that Plaintiff was hired, employed, voluntarily quit, was rehired and then terminated through a reduction in force at the Shippensburg Health Care Center, located in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 13. Denied. The allegations and averments of Paragraph 13 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 14. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff interviewed with Perini Services/Southampton Manor, LP, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center for a position as Quality Assurance/Staff Development Coordinator in April 2008. The remaining allegations are denied as to all other Defendants. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that the duties of a Quality Assurance/Staff Development Coordinator included a quality oversight of the care administered by the skilled nursing professionals assigned to work at the Shippensburg Health Care Center. The remaining allegations are denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded. 17. Admitted with a qualification. Certain nursing professionals, employed by Shippensburg Health Care Center, work consecutive or multiple eight-hour shifts within the twenty-four hour operating period. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. Page 4 of 26 20. Admitted in part; denied in part. At the time relevant to Plaintiffs employment as the Quality Assurance/Staff Development Coordinator, Smith and Gay had the ability to grant a request for a flexible work schedule. However, that ability was not unlimited in scope and/or indefinite in time. Both Smith and Gay reported through a chain of command up to and including the Operations Director employed by the Management Company, whose decision could override any decisions made by Coronado, Smith and/or Gay for any reason at any time. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 21. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Smith and Gay could hire staff for the Shippensburg Health Care Center using discretionary authority for work schedules. That discretionary authority was not unlimited or indefinite and was subordinate to the ultimate authority of the Operations Director. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 22. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 22 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 23. Denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. To the extent a response is required, then after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 24. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff commenced employment for Perini Services/Southampton Manor, LP, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center on April 28, 2008. The remaining allegations are denied as to all other Defendants. 25. Admitted. Page 5 of 26 26. Denied. It is denied that at all time relevant to the allegations contained in the entire Complaint, Christopher Coronado acted as the Administrator of the Health Care Center. To the contrary, Mr. Richardson replaced Mr. Coronado as the Administrator around the time of Plaintiffs second employment as a Wound Nurse as the Shippensburg Health Care Center. 27. Admitted with qualification that Theres reported to Coronado only in her capacity as a Quality Assurance/Staff Development Coordinator. 28. Admitted with qualifications. Theres reported to Coronado only in her capacity as a Quality Assurance/Staff Development Coordinator. Further, Coronado's authority was subordinate to the ultimate authority of the Operations Director. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 32. Admitted with a qualification Mr. Coronado also knew that Plaintiff had an opportunity to manage the quality assurance nursing care issues on the third shift via the Facility's In-service Program. Shippensburg Health Care Center nursing professionals, including third shift employees, were required to attend programs during the first and second shifts. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. Page 6 of 26 34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 37. Admitted. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 41. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Shippensburg Health Care Center, through its Administrator, Coronado, unilaterally altered the terms of Plaintiffs employment in order to effectuate a constructive discharge. The remaining allegations are denied as to the other Defendants and as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 42. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff returned her Employer's property. The remaining allegation is denied in that after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Page 7 of 26 43. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 44. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 45. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 48. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 49. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 50. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that in August 2008, Plaintiff was offered employment with Shippensburg Health Care Center as a Wound Nurse. The remaining allegation is denied in that after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 51. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 52. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff informed MDS Coordinator McDannel that she did not like working under Mr. Coronado's administration. Page 8 of 26 53. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff informed MDS Coordinator McDannel of her acceptance of a position with Genesis Health Care. 54. Denied. The allegations and averments of Paragraph 54 (a.-1.) are denied generally, and specifically in the following respects: a. It is specifically denied that Coronado's transfer to the Julia Manner Facility in Maryland was a material misrepresentation; b. It is specifically denied that any statement regarding the fact that Coronado would have no role whatsoever in the management and/or operation of the Shippensburg Health Care Center was at any time a material misrepresentation; C. It is specifically denied that any statement concerning the fact that Coronado would have no role whatsoever in managing Plaintiffs work as a Wound Nurse was a material misrepresentation; d. It is specifically denied that any statement concerning the fact that Coronado would have no role whatsoever in any aspect of the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs employment as a Wound Nurse was a material misrepresentation; e. It is specifically denied that any statement made to the effect that as a Wound Nurse, Plaintiff would report directly to the Shippensburg Health Care Center's Director of Nursing was a material misrepresentation; f. It is specifically denied that a new Administrator was scheduled to commence employment at the Shippensburg Health Care Center on or about September 2, 2008, and that any statement to Plaintiff in that regard was a material misrepresentation; g. It is specifically denied that any statement made to the Plaintiff to the effect that the new Administrator of the Shippensburg Health Care Center would have sole and Page 9 of 26 exclusive authority to oversee the management and operations of the Health Care facility, subject to and without regard to the management services offered by Magnolia Management, Inc., were at any time material misrepresentations; h. It is specifically denied that any statement made to the Plaintiff to the effect that if she were to accept the offer to serve as a Wound Nurse at Shippensburg Health Care Center that she would have no interaction on a professional level with Coronado, was a material misrepresentation; i. It is specifically denied that any statement made, implicit or explicit, that Coronado would have no authority to review or assess her work performance, oversee her schedule, impose discipline, terminate and/or other effect or influence her employment relationship with the Defendant, Shippensburg Health Care Center, or the terms and conditions of her employment with that Defendant was a material misrepresentation. To the contrary, Coronado was being transferred to oversee the operations of Julia Manor facility in Maryland; j. It is specifically denied that any representation was made in an offer of employment by someone at the Shippensburg Health Care Center to the Plaintiff, to the effect that it was implicit that the circumstances of her prior employment with the health care facility, or the separation of her employment with that facility, would play "no role in connection with her potential rehire or the terms and conditions of her employment as a Wound Nurse should she decide to accept the offer;" k. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that McDannel and Smith did not offer a recitation of policies before or at the time of the offer of employment to Plaintiff. It is specifically denied that any silence as to any policy constitutes a material misrepresentation. Page 10 of 26 1. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs employment was guaranteed, ad infinitum, because Coronado did not work at that facility. Any inference in that regard is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 55. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Smith had authority to communicate with the Plaintiff prior to and at the time she accepted employment as a Wound Nurse with the Shippensburg Health Care Center. It is denied that any of the statements made to Plaintiff prior to her acceptance of an offer of employment as a Wound Nurse were material misrepresentations. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 56. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 57. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 57 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 58. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 58 are conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 59. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that MDS Coordinator McDannel was made aware, by Plaintiff, that Plaintiff accepted an offer of employment with Genesis Health Care to serve as a Registered Nurse, by Plaintiff. The remaining allegations are denied in that after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment. 60. Denied. The allegations and averments of Paragraph 60 are conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Page 11 of 26 61. Denied. It is specifically denied that McDannel knew that Plaintiff would rely upon any misrepresentations made in connection with her decision to rescind her acceptance of the offer of employment from Genesis Health Care and reject the offer. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 62. Denied. It is specifically denied that there were any material misrepresentations made to the Plaintiff in order to induce her to decide to rescind her acceptance of an offer of employment from another employer. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 63. Denied. It is specifically denied that any material misrepresentations were made to the Plaintiff in an effort to effect her decision to accept an offer of employment as a Wound Nurse with Shippensburg Health Care Center. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 64. Denied. It is specifically denied that any material misrepresentations were made, that any false representations were made, that any representations were made with knowledge of their falsity, or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of said representations at any time prior to or at the time Plaintiff accepted an offer of employment for the position as a Wound Nurse. 65. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 65 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 66. Denied. It is specifically denied that any Defendant or their representatives, agents or employees made a material misrepresentation to Plaintiff with the intent that she would rely upon it to her detriment or that anyone communicated inaccurate or incomplete information Page 12 of 26 with the intent that she would rely upon it to accept a job offer. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 67. Denied. The allegations and averments of Paragraph 67 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 68. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 68 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 69. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 69 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. To the extent that a response is required, then after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 70. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 71. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 71. 72. Denied. The allegations and averments of Paragraph 72 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. To the extent a response is required, then, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 72 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Page 13 of 26 73. Denied. The personnel file maintained by the Defendant Shippensburg Health Care Center reflects an employment date of September 8, 2008 for the Plaintiff as a Wound Nurse. 74. Admitted. 75. Denied. Ultimately, it was determined that Plaintiff began her employ with only two wounds and ended the employ because of an escalated number of fifteen. 76. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 76 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 77. Admitted. 78. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 78 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 79. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 79 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 80. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 80 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 81. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 81 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Page 14 of 26 82. Denied. The Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 82 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 83. Admitted. 84. Denied. The Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 84 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 85. Denied. The Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 85 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 86. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Christopher Coronado was substituting for Administrator Richardson, who was on vacation the week beginning Monday, December 15, 2008. Coronado was directed to effectuate the reduction of five positions within the Shippensburg Health Care Center . Coronado was further directed to terminate Plaintiffs employment as of that date and did as he was instructed. The remaining allegations are denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 87. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs employment was terminated by Coronado as directed by the Operations Director, because of adverse business conditions. The Operations Director selected Plaintiff, specifically, for the reduction of force by reason of an increase in new wounds in a facility with a declining census. Coronado reiterated both reasons to Plaintiff during the termination meeting. The remaining allegations are denied in Page 15 of 26 that after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 88. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 88 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 89. Denied. It is specifically denied that Coronado rejected Plaintiffs explanation. Coronado was instructed to terminate Plaintiffs employment, along with the employment of four other employees, all of whom were subjected to a reduction in force due to a deteriorating census at that facility. 90. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 90 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 91. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 91 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 92. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 92 of Plaintiff s Complaint. 93. Denied.. Coronado was charged with terminating Plaintiffs employment for reasons consistent with the fact that her services were no longer needed by the organization. Given the fact that the wound count had increased significantly since she was brought on as a Wound Nurse, Coronado identified that deficiency in her performance as one of the reasons she was separated from her employment with the Shippensburg Health Care Center. Page 16 of 26 94. Denied. The reason given to Plaintiff for her termination was neither false, nor pretextual. Coronado was charged with the task of terminating five persons from their positions because of a reduction in force initiative that was implemented that day. 95. Denied. It is specifically denied that Coronado acted with an evil design and motive. To the contrary, he was charged with terminating five persons from their positions on that date and performed his duties as he was instructed. 96. Denied. The allegations and averments of Paragraph 96 are conclusions of law to which no further response is required. COUNT I - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION/FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT JUDY R. THERES v. MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC.; PERINI SERVICES, INC, AND PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LP, T/DB/A SHIPPENSBURG HEALTH CARE CENTER 97. The Answering Defendants incorporate herein by reference their responses to Paragraph 1 through 96 of Plaintiffs Complaint as fully as if the same were set forth at length. 98. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 98 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 99. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 99 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 100. Denied. It is specifically denied that there were any material misrepresentations made, or that such misrepresentations were false and/or recklessly made. 101. Denied. It is specifically denied that any material misrepresentations were made to the Plaintiff by anyone employed by any Defendant with knowledge that said representation was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the representation. 102. Denied. It is specifically denied that any material misrepresentations were made to Plaintiff, and/or that any representations made to her were intended to mislead her to rely on Page 17 of 26 same and/or that Plaintiff relied on any alleged misrepresentation made by any Defendant. To the contrary, at all times material to Plaintiffs alleged caused of action, Defendants through their agents and employees provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to return to her employment for Shippensburg Health Care Center through an offer of employment, which she accepted. 103. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 103 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Moreover, Plaintiffs allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 104. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff accepted an offer of employment as a Wound Nurse with Defendant Shippensburg Health Care Center. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. To the extent a response is required, then after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 105. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants, or each of them, made an offer of employment "under false pretenses." To the contrary, the position of a Wound Nurse was open and available to Plaintiff and was offered to her. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. To the extent a response is required, then after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 106. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 106 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Page 18 of 26 107. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 107 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 108. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 108 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 109. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 109 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 110. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 110 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 111. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 111 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 112. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 112 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 113. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 113 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 114, Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 114 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. To the extent a response is required, then after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 115. Denied. The allegations and averments of Paragraph 115 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Page 19 of 26 COUNT II - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION JUDY R. THERES v. MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC.; PERINI SERVICES, INC.; AND PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LP, T/DB/A SHIPPENSBURG HEALTH CARE CENTER 116. The Answering Defendants incorporate herein by reference their responses to Paragraph 1 through 115 above as fully as if the same were set forth at length. 117. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants, and/or each of them, and/or their representatives, agents or employees, made any material misrepresentation to the Plaintiff. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 118. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants, and/or each of them, and/or any representative, agent or employee, made any material misrepresentation to the Plaintiff. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 119. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 119 are conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 120.. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 120 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 121. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 121 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied and as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 122. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 122 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 123. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 123 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Page 20 of 26 124. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants, and/or each of them, or any representative, agent and/or employee, made any misrepresentation to the Plaintiff. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 125. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants, and/or each of them, and/or their representatives, agents and/or employees, made any material misrepresentations to the Plaintiff. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 126. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 126 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 127. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 127 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 128„ Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 128 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 129. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 129 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 130. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 130 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 131. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 131 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 132. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 132 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Page 21 of 26 133. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 133 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 134. Denied. The allegations and averments of Paragraph 134 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 135. Denied. The allegations and averments of Paragraph 135 are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff on Counts I and II of Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice. NEW MATTER 136. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim and/or cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 137. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. 138. The Answering Defendants owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff inasmuch as her employment was at-will. 139„ The Answering Defendants, and/or each of them, and/or their representatives, agents and/or employees, made no material misrepresentations to Plaintiff at any time job offers were extended to her. 140. The Answering Defendants, and/or each of them, and/or their representatives, agents and/or employees, made no fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentations upon which Plaintiff was expected to rely to her detriment in accepting a job offer. 141. Plaintiff was never induced to accept a job which was not open and available to her within her skill set. 142. Plaintiff was never guaranteed a certain term of employment. Page 22 of 26 143. Plaintiff had no contract of employment with any Defendant. 144. Plaintiffs employment was terminated through a reduction of force initiative in which four other employees were also terminated on the same day. 145. As an at-will employee, Plaintiffs employment could be terminated for any reason and/or no reason. 146. Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages as a result of any business decision made and executed by any of the Defendants which resulted in the termination of her employment. 147. Plaintiffs claims for damages may be barred or reduced by her own contributory or comparative negligence. 148. Plaintiff had no entitlement to rely upon any condition and/or terms of employment made at the time the job offers were extended on a going forward basis without limitation. 149. Altering an employee's work hours, including the Plaintiffs, is within the ambit of an Operations Director's professional judgment, authority and discretion and the Operations Director is entitled to make business decisions such as an alteration of work hours, in the best interests of the facility and patient safety. 150. As an at-will, rank and file employee, Plaintiff is not entitled to know all underlying reasons for business decisions made by the Administrator or Management Company of the facility, including but not limited to the basis and/or reasons for termination of employment. 151. The Answering Defendants have completely discharged any obligation due to the Plaintiff at the time of and subsequent to the termination of her employment. Page 23 of 26 Respectfully submitted, DATE: MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN M. O'Donnell, Esquire .79457 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3503 smodonnell@mdwcg.com Attorneys for the Defendants Page 24 of 26 VERIFICATION I am authorized by the Defendant to make this verification. By this statement, I hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge;, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. NA E: JOB ?,?1/fi TITLE: /?eb S wFAT AfAt i Date: G-'22-11 Page 25 of 26 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Sharon M. O'Donnell, Esquire, hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of the within Answer of Defendant with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint was made on counsel and parties to this action named below, by United States mail, postage pre-paid on June `r '2011: elomon Z. Krevsky, , Esquire Clark & Krevsky, LLC 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLE By: SHAR P M. O'DONNELL, ESQUIRE 05/735264. v 1 Page 26 of 26 JACKSON LEWIS LLP Alexander Nemiroff, Esq. t= LEIP-OFFiCL ' RO T HOMO TAB ,,, Three Parkway 1601 Ch S i'00 !1 n v?L t t AN It: 2 erry treet Attorneys for Defendant Suite 1350 " J"IBERLA?ND COUNT Philadelphia, PA 19102 Y PENNSYLVANIA Tel: (267) 319-7802 Fax: (215) 399-2249 JUDY THERES Plaintiff, V. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC.; ' No.: 10-3311 Civil Term PERINI SERVICES, INC.; PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LP, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To the Prothonotary: Please enter the appearance of Alexander Nemiroff and Jackson Lewis LLP on behalf of Defendants Magnolia Management, Inc., Perini Services, Inc., and Perini Services/Southampton Manor, LP in the above matter. I hereby certify that this change is not intended to, nor will it, delay this proceeding to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Dated: July 8, 2011 Respeetfully submitted, JACKSON UWIS LL] Alexander lgemiroff, Esq. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street Suite 1350 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe, for Entry of Appearance was served this 8th day of July, 2011 via First Class, United States Mail, postage prepaid upon the following: Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire Clark & Crevsky, LLC 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 4839-5675-3418, v. 1 • kACKSON LEWIS LLP Alexander Nemiroff, Esq. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street Suite 1350 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (267) 319-7802 Fax: (215) 399-2249 JUDY THERES Plaintiff, V. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY IL ED-OFFICE tr = ME PROTHONOTARY 2611 JUL I I AV, 11; 24 Attorneys for Defendant CUMBERLAND COUNT PENNSYLVANIA MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC.; PERINI SERVICES, INC.; PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LP, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center, Defendants. To the Prothonotary: No.: 10-3311 Civil Term PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter the appearance of Samantha Sherwood Bononno and Jackson Lewis LLP on behalf of Defendants Magnolia Management, Inc., Perini Services, Inc., and Perini Services/Southampton Manor, LP in the above matter. I hereby certify that this change is not intended to, nor will it, delay this proceeding to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Dated: July 8, 2011 Respectfully submitted, JACKSON LEWIS LLP I - L -?- Akt,- ? . Samantha Sherwood Bononno, Esq. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street Suite 1350 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was served this 8`I' day of July, 2011 via First Class, United States Mail, postage prepaid upon the following: Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire Clark & Crevsky, LLC 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 amantha Sherwood Bononno 4833-2904-9610,v. I JUDY R. THERES IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA vs Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. C- c Nj PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON T? MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a Shippensburg X r- Health Care Center Defendants Jury Trial Demanded -= - - c? PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO NEW MATTER 8, r' AND NOW, comes Plaintiff Judy R. Theres, by and through her attorney , Solomor Z. '- ' Krevsky, Esquire, and Clark & Krevsky, LLC, and files the instant response to Defendants' New Matter and in support hereof avers as follows: 136. Paragraph 136 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of Paragraph 136 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. 137. Paragraph 137 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of Paragraph 137 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. 138. Paragraph 138 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of Paragraph 138 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. To the contrary, Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff Theres to communicate accurate, complete and truthful information to her and to exercise reasonable care in obtaining or communicating accurate, complete and/or truthful information which it knew Plaintiff would rely upon in guiding her concerning business transactions. 139. Paragraph 139 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of Paragraph 139 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. To the contrary, Defendants, in fact, made material misrepresentations to Plaintiff at various times during which job offers were extended to her and at other times including but not limited to those identified in Plaintiff's Complaint at Paragraph 54(a) through 54(1). 140. Paragraph 140 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of Paragraph 140 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. To the contrary, Defendants, in fact, made material misrepresentations to Plaintiff at various times during which job offers were extended to her and at other times including but not limited to those identified in Plaintiff s Complaint at Paragraph 54(a) through 54(1). 141. Paragraph 141 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of Paragraph 141 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. 142. Admitted. Answering further, Plaintiff has not alleged a claim of breach of contract against Defendants. 143. Admitted. Answering further, Plaintiff has not alleged a claim of breach of contract against Defendants. 144. Denied. Plaintiff specifically denies that her employment was terminated through a reduction in force initiative, and denies that Defendants informed her of any such reduction of force initiative in connection with Plaintiffs termination from employment. To the contrary, Plaintiff was informed that her termination resulted from a purported increase in decubitus ulcers which Plaintiff believes and therefore avers was, in fact, untrue. 145. Plaintiff admits only that her employment with Defendants was at will. 146. Paragraph 146 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of Paragraph 146 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. 147. Paragraph 147 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of Paragraph 147 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. 148. Paragraph 148 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of Paragraph 148 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. 149. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 149 of Defendants' New Matter. 150. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 150 of Defendants' New Matter. 151. Paragraph 151 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of Paragraph 151 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Judy R. Theres respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial and for such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC a ? i By: 1 Solo on Krevsky, Esquire Atto ey for aintiff Sume e. Ct. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkgclark-krevskylaw.com VERIFICATION I, Judy R. Theres, the Plaintiff in the foregoing action do hereby affirm that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A., Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Judy R. T eyes , Zvi l Dated: 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this 3V_ day of August, 20111, Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Samantha S. Bononno, Esquire Alexander Nemiroff, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP Three Parkway Ste 1350 1601 Cherry Street Philadephia, PA 19102 Respectfully submitted, CLARK & VSKY, LLC By: l? Solomon evsky, Esquire Atto y for ntiff Supreme Ct. . #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szkkclark-krevskylaw.comkrevskylaw.com JUDY R. THERES IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA vs MAGNOLIA MANAGEMENT, INC. PERINI SERVICES, INC. PERINI SERVICES/SOUTHAMPTON MANOR, LTD, t/d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center Defendants Civil Action - Law No. 10-3311 Civil Term -l Jury Trial Demanded - s; PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, SATISFY AND DISCONTINUE Please mark the above-captioned case settled, satisfied and discontinued with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC By:?X4 Solomon )?, revsky, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szk ,clark-krevskylaw.com Date: 5 11/1, r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this 31 st day of May, 2012, I, Solomon L. Krevsky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Alexander Nemiroff, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Ste 1350 Philadelphia, PA 19102-1317 Respectfully submitted, CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC By: Sol mon Krevsky, Esquire Att6mey for laintiff Supreme Ct. I.D. #72719 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 731-8600 (717) 731-4764 fax e-mail: szk(itclark-krevskylaw.com