The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-3300 II " II II \ \ Ii HANNON & JOYCE By: JAMES G. PROKOPIAK, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #86328 The Public Ledger Building - Suite I 000 I 50 S. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 446-4460 RUBIE A. SOLINAS and JERRY SOLINAS h/w 3883 Spring Road Shermansdale, PA 17090 Plaintiff vs. RAMADA INN 1252 Harrisburg Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 and John Does 1-2 I II II I Defendants THIS IS AN ARBITRATION MATTER Attorney for Plaintiff IN .THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04- 3?fx) (l; v; I CIVIL ACTION Premises Liability Slip & Fall NOTICE -- You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against Ihe claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days atter this compl;ainl and notice are seNed, 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 failed to do so the case may proceed withol..ll you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important 10 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 2 LIBERTY A VENUE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 (717) 249-3166 I II AVISO Le han demandado a usted en la corte Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plaza ai partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta <'Isentar una comparencia escrita 0 en persona 0 con un abogado y enlregar a la corte en forma escrila sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de su parsona. Sea avisado qua si usled no S8 defiande, ia corte tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso 0 notificacion. Adamas, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiers que usted cum pia con tadoas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede parder dinero 0 sus propiedades u olros derochos importantes para usted LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDlATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE El DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SfRVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 lLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFtCINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PueDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL ASSOCIACION DE L1CENDIADOS DE CUMBERLAND COUNTY SERVICIO E INFORMACION LEGAL 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 TELEFONO: (717) 249-3166 II . II II I. The Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas, is a competent adult individual residing at 3883 Spring Road, Shermansdale, Pennsylvania I 7090. 2. The Defendant, Ramada Inn, is a hotel organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, whose address for service of process is 1252 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. John Doe's 1-2 are agents and/or representatives of the Defendant, Ramada Inn and have a service of process address of 1252 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. At the time and place hereinafter mentioned, the acts of omission and commission causing injuries to the Plaintiff were done by the Defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees acting in the course and scope of their employment with and under the direct and exclusive control of the Defendant. 4. The property involved in this occurrence hereinafter referred to was owned and/or under the direct and exclusive control of the Defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or I employees. I 5. On December 13, 2002, the Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas, was injured while exiting her vehicle in the Ramada Inn parking lot in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Cumberland County. 6. The aforesaid occurrence was proximately caused, in whole or in part, by the negligence of the Defendant and/or the negligence of the Defendant's agents, servants and/or employees. I I I I I II _______..L.'~~_"~, , - 2- II I 7. Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas' personal injuries were caused by the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the Defendant through its agents, servants and/or employees for the following reasons: (a) Defendant's employee negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly failed to supervise and/or monitor its premises. (b) Defendant negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly failed to warn the Plaintiff of a certain dangerous condition on its propertyj (c) Defendant neligently, carelessly and/or recklessly failed to correct the dangerous condition on its property; (d) negligently, carelessly or recklessly failed to correct a public hazard. (e) negligently, carelessly or recklessly fa/led to post warning signs. (f) Defendant otherwise failed to exercise adequate and due care under the instant circumstancesj (g) any other negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness as is revealed during discovery prior to trial. 8. As a direct result of the Defendant's negligence through its agents, servants and/or employees, the Plaintiff suffered injuries including but not limited to elbow and back injuries. 9. As a result of this incident, the Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas, has been and may continue to be obliged to receive and undergo medical treatment and medical care and Plaintiff has incurred and may continue to incur reasonable and necessary medical bills and medical expenses. - 3 - ----j--.-- II to. As a direct result of this incident Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas, has been and may continue to be prevented from attending to her usual daily and/or regular activities. t I. As a direct result of this incident, Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas, has suffered and may continue to suffer pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyme.nt of life and Plaintiff may continue to suffer the same for an indefinite period of time into the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), together with costs and interest thereon. Dated: ~J y lof By: KOPIAK, ESQUIRE laintiff J. - 4- ,.~..., c:-::> ,,--~-::. .4:- ( o -:-'} ---l ~}~ ~~:~ ~:}:.-'--; .~;{y. ~ '-.. . - --'i- ~ ;~~ ,;Ii U~-~, :~- .. >':.:..' \..,~.; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: Cwnberland CIVIL COMPLAINT Magl$terlal Oistrict Number: District Justl(:e Namo: Hen. PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS ~bie A. Solinas & Jerry Solinas h/w I 3883 Spring Road Shermansdale, PA 17090 Address: L VS. .....J Telephone: ( DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS fbmada Inn 1252 Harrisburg Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 ~nd John Does 1-2 I ---1 I Docket No.: Date Filed: I*' FILING COSTS POSTAGE SERVICE COSTS CONSTABLE ED. TOTAL AMOUNT $ $ $ $ $ DATE PAID I I I I I I I I I I Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 206 sets forth those costs recoverable by the prevailing party. TO THE DEFENDANT: The above named plaintiff(s) asks judgment against you for S together with costs upon the following claim (Civil fines must include citation of the statute or ordinance violated): I Rubie A. Solinas , . best of my knowledge. infonnation, and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 PA. C.S. ~ 4904) re.lated to unsworn falsification to authorities. verify that the facts set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the ~/2JnJ2. ,~_ (Signature of Plaintiff or Authorixed Agent) PlaIntiff's The Public Ledger Bldg. - Ste. 1000 Attorney: James G. prokopiak Address: 150 S. Independence Mall West Telephone: (215) 446-4460 Philadplphia, PA 19106 IF YOU INTEND TO ENTER A DEFENSE TO THIS COMPLAINT, YOU SHOULD SO NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY AT THE ABOVE TELEPHONE NUMBER. YOU MUST APPEAR AT THE HEARING AND PRESENT YOUR DEFENSE. UNLESS YOU DO, JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY DEFAULT. If you have a claim against the plaintiff which is within district justice jurisdiction and which you intend to assert at the hearing, you must file it on a complaint form at this office at least five (5) days before the date set for the hearing. If you are disabled and require a reasonable accommodation to gain access to the Magisterial District Court and its services, please contact the Magisterial District Court at the above address or telephone number. We are unable to provide transportation. AOPC 30SA-03 -<A- J0 ~ eJ, -:ft- 0'\ :J::; v- a B 'j-.) ~ ~ - <..>: ~ ~ <;} ") :.:) " ~ .--" 4' L c) " ,-' ~, (" @ "., C'~ (:;. () ~-- --;-; ( :::! f":: d', =J ,"--- "_:.' ,--; 1 ~, ~) , \..Cl . - ~:'- \.u RUBIE A. SOLINAS and JERRY SOLINAS, hi w Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW RAMADA INN and John Does 1-2, NO.04-3300-CIVIL Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To: Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary Please enter the appearance of Cheryl 1. Kovaly, Esquire on behalf of Defendant, Ramada Inn, only. Respectfully submitted, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.e. By: (JL~ Cheryl 1. Kovaly, Esquir 225 Market Street, Suite P.O. Box 12.15 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. P A73693 ckovaly@Iaverylaw.com Attys for Defendant, Ramada Inn DATE: ,/f{r; 104- . (") ~~ -c'i~t:; '0;-: -./ ' ./..-', U~! -.,.,~ ~ ,......" I <: ~ ~~: ( 5~ :;2 r-> = = ~ <- c: ..- o -fl -.... -,- -.- ,. nlf-'~ -0 fTl -09 00 -..-1..;... __,.._ ;J -.:". -r~, [s,~~ -'" ::2 \.0 -0 :=L. 'i! -.J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Megan L. Renno, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & (fL. Patterson, P.c., do hereby certify that on this ) day of July, 2004, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance via U.s. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: James G. Prokopiak, Esquire Hannon & Joyce The Public Ledger Building, Suite 1000 150 S. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106 . Renno cretary to Cheryl L. KovaIy, Esquire IL , 0 t-> ~ C~ C' c:::;. -;0-'" .c- ", --I ~' r~-\ '- ~:D ',"1 - c..::: / " r- ; ," -am ",". ~nO \..} ~) \.0 6(.J -< 1:-:: \ ~~S ~; :)~,: -0 ..'"..-. C =~ 5- ( ;~5f'n c: w -A ".::... ~S ::2 -J ..<: RUBIE A. SOLINAS and JERRY SOLINAS, h/w Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW RAMADA INN and John Does 1-2, NO. 04-3300-CIVIL Defendants PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, RAMADA INN AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Glendale Management Company, Inc., d/b/a Ramada Inn, Ltd. (hereinafter, "Objecting Defendant"), by and through its counsel, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., and hereby files its preliminary objections, pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(3) and (4), to the complaint filed by the plaintiffs in this matter, and avers as follows: I. The plaintiffs, Rubie A. Solinas and Jerry Solinas, husband and wife, commenced this matter with the filing of a civil complaint on or about July 9, 2004. A true and correct copy of the complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 2. The complaint arises from an incident that purportedly occurred on December 13, 2002, in the parking lot ofthe Ramada Inn located in Carlisle, ClUllberland County, Pennsylvania. (Exh. "A," ~ 5). 3. The complaint avers only that, on the aforementioned date, Plaintiff Rubie A. Solinas "was injured while exiting her vehicle in the Ramada Inn parking lot". (Id.) Preliminary objections pursuant to Pa. R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4) (Demurrer) Claims al!:ainst Obiectinl!: Defendant 4. The complaint fails to assert a claim or cause of action for which relief may be granted against Objecting Defendant, as a matter of law. 5. The complaint, after identifying the parties to this action, contains only conclusory averments of negligence by Objecting Defendant: At the time and place hereinafter mentioned, the acts of omISSIOn and commission causing injuries to the Plaintiff were done by the Defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees acting in the course and scope of their employment with and under the direct and exclusive control of the Defendant. (rd. at ~ 3). The property involved in this occurrence...was owned and/or under the direct and exclusive control of the Defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees. (Id. at ~ 4). On December 13,2003, the Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas, was iIUured while exiting her vehicle. . ." (rd. at ~ 5). The aforesaid occurrence was proximately caused, in whole or in part, by the negligence of the Defendant and/or the negligence of the Defendant's agents, servants and/or employees. (Id. at ~ 6). Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas' personal injuries were caused by the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the Defendant through its agents, servants and/or employees for the following reasons: (a) Defendant....faiIed to supervise and/or monitor its premises; (b) Defendant.. . failed to warn the Plaintiff of a certain dangerous condition on its property; (c) Defendant... failed to correct the dangerous condition on its property; (d) [Defendant].. . failed to correct a public hazard; (e) [Defendant]...failed to post warning signs; (f) Defendant.. . failed to exercise adequate and due care under the instant circumstances; (g) any other negligence. . . as is revealed during discovery prior to trial. (Id. at ~ 7). As a direct result of the Defendant's negligence... the Plaintiff suffered irUuries including but not limited to elbow and back injuries. (Id. at ~ 8). 6. The complaint is completely devoid of any factual averments indicating the nature of the alleged "dangerous condition" and "public hazard" purportedly existing on the property, for which Plaintiffs seek to recover from Objecting Defendant. 7. The complaint is further devoid of any factual averments regarding the manner in which Plaintiff sustained injury, purportedly as a result of the unidentified "dangerous condition". I 8. The elements necessary to plead an action in llf'gligence are: (I) the existence of a duty or obligation recognized by law, requiring the actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a failure on the part of the defendant to conform to that duty, or a breach thereof; (3) a causal connection between the defendant's breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage suffered by the complainant. Orner v. Mallick, 515 Pa. 132, 527 A.2d 521, 523 (Pa. 1987) (citing Morena v. South Hills Health Svs., 501 Pa. 634,462 A.2d 680, 684 n.5 (Pa. 1983)); see also W. Page Keeton et aI., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 9 30 at 164 (5th ed. 1984). 9. The complaint fails to identify any duty or obligation on the part of Objecting Defendant that is recognized by law or that requires Objecting Defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct. 10. The complaint further fails to factually allege the manner in which Objecting Defendant is purported to have breached some unidentified duty. 1 It is not clear from the pleading whether plaintiff fell, was struck by a vehid" mugged, or was otherwise caused to sustain injury. 11. The complaint also fails to identify any causal connection between the defendant's unidentified breach of an undescribed duty, and the resulting il1iury. 12. Because the complaint fails to assert a claim or cause of action in tort for which relief may be granted, Objecting Defendant's preliminary objections must be sustained. Claims against John Doe Defendants 13. The complaint fails to assert a claim or cause of action for which relief may be granted as to the John Doe Defendants, as a matter oflaw. 14. Plaintiffs' complaint identifies the John Doe Defendants as agents and/or representatives of Objecting Defendant. (Id at ~ 2). 15. The complaint is otherwise devoid of factual averments establishing the bases for Plaintiffs' purported claims against these Defendants. In fact, the complaint fails to make any mention of the specific John Doe Defendants other than to allege their relationship to Objecting Defendant. 16. The claims purportedly asserted against the John Doe Defendants must be dismissed. Claims of Plaintiff Jerrv Solina~ 17. The complaint fails to assert a claim or cause of action on behalf of Plaintiff Jerry Solinas for which relief may be granted. 18. Jerry SoIinas, although identified as a plaintiff in the caption of the complaint, is not referenced anywhere in the body of the pleading. To the extent that the complaint purports to assert a claim on behalf of this plaintiff, either for loss of consortiwn or pursuant to any other theory ofliability, the complaint is legally deficient on its face. Objections Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.F'. 1028(a)(3) 19. The averments set forth in paragraphs I through 15 of these preliminary objections are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in fuU. 20. The complaint must be dismissed because it niils to comport with Pennsylvania's fact pleading requirements. 21. Ru]e 1O]9(a), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that the materia] facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form in a pleading. 22. Allegations will withstand challenge under 1019(a) if: (I) they contain averments of all of the facts the plaintiff will eventually have to prove: in order to recover, ] Goodrich- Amram, Procedural Rules Service ~ 1019(a)-2; and (2) they are "sufficiently specific so as to enable defendant to prepare his defense," Commonwealth Environmenta] Pollution Strike Force v. Jeanette, 305 A.2d 774, 776 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973). 23. The complaint fails to assert any facts in support of P]aintiffs' claims, other than to identity the location and date of an injury. The complaint fails to allege any facts identifying the nature in which the injury occurred, the condition which is purported to have caused the injury, or the manner in which Objecting Defendant is alleged to be responsible for the undisclosed condition. 24. The complaint contains nothing more than conclusory averments ofneg]igence, and is factually insufficient to place Objecting Defendant on notice of the claims against it, as a matter oflaw. 25. The complaint should be dismissed for lack of the requisite factual specificity. In the alternative, Plaintiffs should be required to file an appropriate, factually specific amended complaint. WHEREFORE, Objecting Defendant respectfully prays that its preliminary objections be sustained, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. In the alternative, Plaintiffs should be directed to file an amended complaint that is legally sufficient and comports with Pennsylvania's fact pleading requirements. Respectfully submitted, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. By: (!4t Cheryl 1. Kovaly, Esquir 225 Market Street, Suit 3 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA73693 ckovaIy@laverylaw.com Attys for Ddendant, Glendale Management Company, Inc., d/b/a Ramada Inn DATE: ., J ,q In<J , . 07!~3!2004 15:13 71 72640431 F'ROI'" RAMADfLI td, ,r " ,'l> HANNON & JOYCE. By: JAMES Q. PR.OKOPIAK, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #8631~8 The Public Ledger f,uilding . Suit!! t 000 J 50 S.' lndependen,:e MaJJ West 'Philadeiphia, PAl 9] 06 (2] 5)446-4460 RUBIE A. SaLINAS " an,j JERRY SOLlNAS h/w 3883 Spring Road 'ShennansdaJe, PA "7090 Plaintiff 1/$. RAMADA INN 1252 Harrisburg PIke Carlisle, PA 17013 and John Does J-2 Defendants NOTICE F"AX NO. PAGE 02 7172439711 Jul. 13 2al!l4 B1:31PM P1 THIS IS AN ARBITR.A nON MATTER Attorney for Plaintlff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . "I' ::'~~~'." CIVIL ACTION - LAW 01.( 33COc,',f/ NO. CIVIL AcTION Premises liability Slip & Fall YDYhwct~lIIJOairl~ jfyQl.;wt:lhto~~ltC~$Gtfont!"tKl ~PIOM.)II!lIJ InUIt lak8:eceo.tWilM'l IWanIy (.20),"'" :m"''*COOlpfairt8M ~ .C1ltClr\vd, byanlcrnc,.'IIITIII.,~ICiIj:~.orby....,.,.llIl'Iflifin9 inwrilfngwltl.. ~ liOUt'~$OI'cIlj...\O...1:!I4i.'1t&54II1tW1 w.JBNt~ T........'MImeCI1IW.l/OIIftIMkI110 so I~... ~pr-rfWllhout}lCvatld;1l :\~~",,~':'. ".:,.;:.:. .~ ,.~ ~j,~~:~-,lJIIllbylht..~,~.IvYhIr""fCtrtny~ "\.;~"i".",'" ",':, W-~"1or;tnj~~}'llfIiff'_~IMblyhi"'\aII\mI'.~ ., ..... ". ,\1 ~\" /~.~.....,t:, .,' othtr ' . "...~_ '.;'!~:!F)f~~~;":'if ':~.; ::...-." ',' .~:~ar~Dr" n~tuu~a'ltlO)IOu. 't'OIJ 'I<OULD TAKE.".. P-"'CR ~"O YOUR LAWl'ER AT ONCE, IF ,1'00 DO NOT HAW A ~ OJl: CANNor AF=J'ORI) ONIt..liO TO OR..; ELEPHOHe 'rkI!! O~rce seT FfOl=lTH &a.WJ 'to FI'ID OlJT ~ YOU CIIJJ. GET UlQA,l wst,P. CU~tl CO\Al;y UI'.R I'.SSOCIA,TIO ~ 2 UBeRTY AVENUE CARLISI..!, "ENHSYL"A~:IA 17013 (717) 249-3161 lRUE COPY FAOM REI:xmo In Testimony WI!enIo", lhere unto.. my hHo .......-M1~J;~ ~lic~ q~~ )' ,. CD Ilt.lll~~ . .. c. AVISO 1,0. hM ~~ .. UIIfoe' Or\ ~ cono. 81 UCBct QUfeIto ......,... Ot .... demBndel lINputsJae.en I8B ptgln8a ~ -"UorIe"f'einta (20' _.. ~ liIipcri'dl:~ ,....'-~~II~ Heeefala.......L.'nB~~ctr) ~ 0 conWlllbDptraoytntF'lAll'a ra cartaM bll\ll..ltasus ~caue ~abs~eoCClrJtl'lldlitlJ~, $ee8\lIealllM'IUftacJnoee ~~",:~,t~,=:.~~~~~~,~s';:.'; . .' :.....J-'~,,'...., - , I''':''':'::' .".!fI.l.(-;lI.,/,., ~queU*'d lUnpb.CtlrI........... ~ dP~~, _"lIil:J:I~',~"; ," pllR1etdInl!:1aC~~:HIcttluotris~~~~PJmI\DfRd. '. LLEVE ESTA 0Ut0\NDA. A UN AiIOGAOQ NAl!DtA.TAMraNtE. SJ NO TII!NI! ~o 0 GI NO 11EHE eL DN!!1ItO $UFIOJe:MTE DE PAQAA TAl SERY1CJO, V4YA D; PS:Rtow.. 0 t.r.AME: PaR rel.I!fl"ONO A LA Of.crJi..'l CuM ~ION se IiHClIEN'rFIA ~aC!<CrrA i\&AJo PAAA A""",,,- DOQ s. ."""" COHsEGuIR AS""""""" LOGlo\L ASllOcIAOION DE UCaflllADOs DE CUNS.ERUl\ID COUN'IY SERVlCIO E INI'OftMACION LeI)Al. t LIBERTY A VENUI; CA~$LE. PENNSVl..VA...... fl'O'l3 TELEFONO, fl'17) 248-31$6 EXHI8JT I A 07/13/2004 15: 13 7172640431 PAGE 03 FRDI'\: RAMi=lDFL I tcj. , , FAX NO. 7172439711 Jul. 13 2004 1111'32PM P2 . t. The Plalntfff, Ruble A. Sol/nas, l.$ a competent adult IndMdual residing at 3883 Spring Road, Sherrr ansdale, PenrsyIvarlla I 7090. 2. The t'efendanc, Ita'llada Inn, Is a hotel organized and exIsting Under the laws of the Commonweal!1l of Pennsyrvailia, whose address for $1"IVIce of process is 1252 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Penrnylvanla 17013. John Doe's 1-2 are ,agents and/or representJaves of the Defendant, Ramada Inn and hav( a service of process address of t 252 Harrisburg Pike, CarliSle, Pennsylvania 1701:r. 3. At tho time and phce hereinafter mentJoned, the acts of omission and commission ",~: .~.... "'.~.lr,",~~"",I\"~:'::-: ::~\::<\' caUSing injuries to the Plaintiff Wf're done by the Defendant, Its aeents, servants, worlonen and/or employees acting In the course and scope of melr employment with and under the dIrect and exclusive control of the Defendant. 4. The ):ropeny invol'~ed In this OCCUrrence hereinafter referred to was owned andlor under the direct an,f exclusive centro! of the Defendant. Its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, 5. On December 13,2002, the Plaintiff, Rubie A.. Sollnas, was injured while exltin. her vehicle In the Ramada Inn pS'rking lot in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Cumber/and County. I ~~J,~~~:~ !~:;:~i';;:/':""'6:'(:" tbe aforesaid OCcurrence was proxlm"""'" caused In whole or in part,' by' . th~"!"I:"i'i,~~r[ j '>:" , "". w...., ,. negflgence of the D.!fendant and/or the negfigence of the Defendant's agentS, servants and/or employees. - 2 - 07/13/2004 15:13 7172540431 FROM : _A_ltd. PAGE 04 F~X I-K). ;1';).4)5711 Jul. 13 29B4 e:2,:~ P3 c.rel....,a' andlor redcIesm... c f the Defendant throulh Its .....ts, serv.n.. .ndlor employees 7. Plalntlff, Ruble A. 5oIlnas' personal InJuries were caused by the negligence, for the IOllelWlng reasons: (a) Defendal11:'S emp/oy@e negligently, carelt'SS!y and/or reckl~ failed to supervtse and/or monitor Its premlsC$. (b) Defendant regllrently, care,...I)' and/orreckl~ railed to warn the PlAlnd1f of a cenain dangerous c:ol1dltlon ~ on Il:$ property; .- . (e) Defendant Ullgendy, OIre1ess1y and/or recklessly 60lled 1:0 COrrect the. ... ~ ',;-. -~ L. .~~,;F ! dan8"rotlS e"n"ltIan on.1t:< PI'Or>ert)'; (d) neella<mtly, ~reI~lyor recklessly falled to correct a public hatard. (e) IIeldr~, carelessly or recklessly failed to )lost warning sl!ll1$. (f) Defen"antntherwlse.faIJed ro OXl!l'l:lJe a"<quate all(( due care under the ~;drCUntttllnces; (g) any Other n"llll~, t;.;l""essness and/or reckl_ess as Is l'e'llealed durlnr dI):covery. JIlinI' to trial, . '. ~"" As a jJrect result (,f the Defendant's nesll8ence tlll"OIlah Its aeentt, ...rvants .nd/or !~'rf'~~~l~;.the PIaJ~lffl'~ ;nl.urlos Incllidlng- but not UrnIte,~ to ~ ..nd bacllInJ;.;t;;;;'''''''^''''' .'. 9. As a' result of.thk ;nddent,. II1e PI.lntllf, Ruble A. Solina~; Ii.. been and may continue to be obIll~ to recelv. .nd under:o medical. trea1Jrulnt and medical care and PlaJndff has Incurred and may comlnUe tJ incur- re;"anable and nee."'al)' medical blll.< and medical expenses. - 3. .4. 07/13/2004 15:13 7172540431 PAGE 05 FROM ': RFlMFlDFL 1 tel. FAX NO. 7172439711 J u 1. 13 2004 02: I2lSPM P1 ,- 10. As a direct result of this Incldent Plaintiff, Ruble A. Salinas, has been and may continue to be Pre1'ented fTom attending,to her usual dally and/or regular activities. II. As a tfirect result of this incident, Plaintiff, Roble A. Sollnas; has suffered and may continue to $Uffer ~ain, suffering" inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enJoymE\nt of lIfe and Plaintiff may cClI1tJnue to suf~er the same for an indefinite period of time Into the future. " I' WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands Judgment against the Defendant in an amount in exce,ss of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), ltOgether wfth costs and interest thereon. JAM Attomey K.OPIAK, ESQUIRE alntiff 'Dated: 7/ gl"" By, ~ ~!firl"'t ~;'i;:,,:;:; ,;, "I .~"...." ....., ...., ',-" :::rl~r' . . "':; :.~'it ";,' ~'i~," "':f,..\:::: - of - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Megan L. Renno, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.c., do hereby certify that on this 19th day of July, 2004, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Preliminary objections via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: James G. Prokopiak, Esquire Hannon & Joyce The Public Ledger Building, Suite 1000 150 S. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106 ~J~ Renno S cretary to Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire ,~, = S;~ ( c~: r--': r'-,' C) o ., --< T fFi .:2] ,- ,-'~i-n :,,'OJ t) ..!.... ___-4<'_J >~ :'..J --< -, r-.> C,,) r-..; SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-03300 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SOLINAS RUBIE A ET AL VS RAMADA INN RONALD HOOVER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon RAMADA INN the DEFENDANT , at 1107:00 HOURS, on the 13th day of July , 2004 at 1252 HARRISBURG PIKE CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to DANYON DAVIS, CLERK, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 3.70 .00 10.00 .00 31. 70 r~,r~~-~ R. Thomas Kline Sworn and Subscribed to before 07/14/2004 HANNON & JOYCE ~:~ By: me this /S":::. day of ~'l .l.0^' I.f A.D. C '~-' () 1M'~fl.., JlP~ tr6thonotary , ~ PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and subnitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter far the next Argunent Court. -----------------------------------------------------.---------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) Rubie A. Solinas and Jerry Solinas, h/w ( Plaintiff) vs. Ramada Inn and John Does 1-2 (Defendant) No. 04 Civil 3300 19 1. State matter to be argued (Le., plaintiff's lTOtion for new trial, defendant's denu=er to canplaint, etc.): Defendant's preliminary objections to complaint 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) far plaintiff: James G. Prokopiak, Esquire Address: Hannon & Joyce The Public Ledger Building, Suite 1000 150 S. Independence Mall West (b) for defendant: Philadelphia, PP. 19106 Address: Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. 225 Market Street, Suite 304, PO Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 3. I will notify all parties in writing within n.u days that this case has been listed for argunent. 4. Argunent Court Date: September 22, 2004 Dated: ~~~~ Attorney 'far Defendat:) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Megan L. Renno, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., do hereby certify that on this 21't day of July, 2004, I served a true and correct copy of the fOTegoing Praecipe for Argument via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: James G. Prokopiak, Esquire Hannon & Joyce The Public Ledger Building, Suite 1000 150 S. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106 n ~':"";' . ",' C~ C:-~"l ~'" ('I "':::/,", -; -r fi1::'J ,-- ;(;2-] <-. C_' " 1"',) N ~...<~ (.) r", II II I HANNON & JOYCE By: JAMES G. PROKOPIAK, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #86328 Public Ledger Building, Suite 1000 150 South Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-446-4460 RUBIE SOLINAS and JEERY SOLINAS, hjw COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff vs. RAMADA INN, et al Defendant NO. 04-3~:00 I PLAINTIFF"S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJI8;CTIONS Plaintiffs, Rubie and Jerry SoIinas, by and through his attorneys Hannon & Joyce, files the following response to Defendants' Preliminary Objections and states as follows: 1. Admitted 2. Admitted 3. Denied. Plaintiff has provided sufficient information to Defendant to initiate a lawsuit and constitute proper pleading. Defendant has received sufficient information to proceed with this action. Plaintiffs have also filed an Amended Complaint, providing more specific information. 4. Denied. Plaintiff has provided sufficient information to Defendant. .11 II 5. Denied. The Complaint asserts sufficient information to state a cause of action. In addition, Plaintiffs have filed an Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached, whixh would make Defendant's argument moot. 6. Denied. The Complaint asserts sufficient information to pursue a cause of action dealing with the dangerous condition. In addition, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint make Defendant's Prelimiinary Objections moot. 7. Denied. Plaintiffs have provided sufficient information. 8. Admitted 9. Denied. Plaintiffs have provided sufficient information. 10. Denied. The Complaint asserts sufficient information to pursue a cause of action. 11. Denied. The Complaint asserts sufficient information to pursue a cause of action. 12. Denied. The Complaint asserts sufficient information to pursue a cause of action. 13. Denied. 14. Denied. 15. Denied. 16. Denied. The Complaint asserts sufficient information to pursue a cause of action and should not be dismissed. 17. Denied. In addition, Plaintiffs have filed an Amended Complaint which II renders Defendant's Preliminary Objections moot. II II 18. Denied. In addition, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached. 19. Denied. 20. Denied. 21. Admitted. 22. Admitted. 23. Denied. Plaintiffs Complaint states sufficient information to pursue a claim against Defendants. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 26. Plaintiffs would be unduly prejudiced if Defendant's preliminary objections were granted. Plaintiff has filed an amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Rubie and Jerry Solinas, requests this Honorable Court to deny Defendant's Preliminary Objections as moot and allow Plaintiffs case to proceed on its' merits. DATED: August 5, 2004 .II II CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JAMES G. PROKOPIAK, hereby certify that I forwarded a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Cheryl Kovaly, Esquire, attorney for Defendant, by depositing same in United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this Sthth day of August, 2004. ,...., ~;J .r- :~?": ,-..... G"'; 1 a' ~~~ -< "9 o -n -"j ~L.,~ r"\1j"':"- . \'YI -O"'~. ",...' \.. (1( -} -J :.,,'1, ~:~::.~ -~i~~ ~,:):' ';::"'J .c N :..< II II HANNON & JOYCE By: JAMES G. PROKOPIAK, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #86328 The Public Ledger Building - Suite I 000 1 50 S. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PAl 91 06 (215) 446-4460 Attorney for Plaintiff RUBIE A. SOLIN AS and JERRY SOLlNAS h/w IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW RAMADA INN and John Does 1-2 Defendants NO. 04-3300 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. The Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas, is a competent adult individual residing at 3883 Spring Road, Shermansdale, Pennsylvania 17090. 2. The Defendant, Ramada Inn, is a hotel organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, whose address for service of process is 1252 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. John Doe's 1-2 are agents and/or representatives of the Defendant, Ramada Inn and have a service of process address of 1252 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. At the time and place hereinafter mentioned, the acts of omission and commission causing injuries to the Plaintiff were done by the Defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees acting in the course and scope of their employment with and under the direct and exclusive control of the Defendant. II II 4. The property involved in this occurrence hereinafter referred to was owned and/or under the direct and exclusive control of the Defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees. On December 13, 2002, Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solin as was legally on the premises of Defendant. 5. On December 13, 2002, the Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas, was injured while exiting her vehicle in the Ramada Inn parking lot in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Cumberland County when she slipped and fell on ice that had been allowed to accumulate. 6. On December 13, 2002, Defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees failed to maintain a safe walking condition in the parking lot. 7. On December 13, 2002, Defendant's failed to adequately inspect and/or remove snow and ice from their premises, specificially the Ramada Inn parking lot. 8. The aforesaid occurrence was proximately caused, in whole or in part, by the negligence of the Defendant and/or the negligence of the Defendant's agents, servants and/or employees. 9. Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas' personal injuries were caused by the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the Defendant through its agents, servants and/or employees for the following reasons: (a) Defendant's employee negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly failed to inspect, supervise and/or monitor its premises. including the parking lot. (b) Defendant negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly failed to warn the Plaintiff of a certain dangerous condition on its property, specifically icy conditions; - 2 - II (c) Defendant neligently, carelessly and/or recklessly failed to correct the dangerous condition on its property, specifically failing to remove ice and snow; (d) negligently, carelessly or recklessly failed to correct a public hazard; (e) negligently, carelessly or recklessly failed to post signs warning of icy and/or slippery conditions; (f) Defendant otherwise failed to exercise adequate and due care under the instant circumstances; (g) any other negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness as is revealed during discovery prior to trial. 10. As a direct result of the Defendant's negligence through its agents, servants and/or employees, the Plaintiff suffered injuries including but not limited to elbow and back injuries. II . As a result of this incident, the Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas, has been and may continue to be obliged to receive and undergo medical treatment and medical care and Plaintiff has incurred and may continue to incur reasonable and necessary medical bills and medical expenses. 12. As a direct result of this incident Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas, has been and may continue to be prevented from attending to her usual daily and/or regular activities. 13. As a direct result of this incident, Plaintiff, Rubie A. Solinas, has suffered and may continue to suffer pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life and Plaintiff may continue to suffer the same for an indefinite period of time into the future. - 3 - II WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), together with costs and interest thereon. COUNT II PLAINTIFF, JERRY SOLlNAS VS. ALL DEFENDANTS 14. Plaintiff, Jerry Solinas, incorporates and makE~s a part of this Count paragraphs I through I 3 of this Complaint as if fully set forth. 15. As the result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, Jerry Solinas, has suffered the loss of consortium of his wife, Rubie A. Solinas', society and comfort. 16. As a further result of the negligence of the Defendants, Plaintiff, Jerry Solin as has been forced to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical supplies, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jerry Solinas, seeks damages from Defendants in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). HANNON & JOYCE Dated: 'fjr By: - 4- C) f~-,~ ....., C? s:~ :;!,:,,,"" ~,~j I 0.... ~ -n ::rJ .,'."" rI1-- r.~ :58 C~1 (~) ~"? ~r~ .,:'~' en t.,) I ?tl .-<, c:? r- 1'.) Lavery. Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 ckovalv@lavervlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Ramada Inn RUBIE A. SOLINAS and JERRY SOLINAS, h/w Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW RAMADA INN and John Does 1-2, NO.04-3300-CIVIL Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Rubie A. Salina and Jerry Solinas, Plaintiffs c/o James G. Prokopiak, Esquire You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. By: CL,~ Cheryl L. ovaly, Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 30 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) AttyNo. PA73693 ckovaly@laverylaw.com Attys for Defendant, Ramada Inn DATE: Q Ie!) /01- RUBIE A. SOLlNAS and JERRY SOLlNAS, h/w Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW RAMADA INN and John Does 1-2, NO. 04-3300-CIVIL Defendants ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, RAMADA INN AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Glendale Management Company III, d/b/a Ramada Inn (hereinafter, "Answering Defendant"), by and through its counsel, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., and answers the amended complaint filed against it by the plaintiffs, and avers as follows: I. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff Rubie A. Solinas is an adult individual. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the remaining averments of paragraph I, regarding this plaintiff's current residency, and these averments are therefore denied with strict proof demanded, if relevant. 2. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that "Ramada Inn" is a fictitious name licensed for use by franchisee Glendale Management Company, III. It is further admitted only that this franchisee operates a hotel utilizing this fictitious name, and maintains an address for service of process as stated in this paragraph. The remaining averments of paragraph 2 are denied in that, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whom Plaintiffs intend to refer to as John Doe I and John Doe II, which individuals have not been identified, and therefore the averments of agency and/or representation by these John Doe Defendants are denied with strict proof demanded. 3. Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. By way of further answer, these averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029( e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that the Ramada Inn facility located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was owned and controlled by Jranchisee Glendale Management Company, III, and that Plaintiff Rubie Solinas was on the premises, on December 13, 2002. The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. 5. Denied. The averments set forth in this paragraph are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. By way of further answer, these averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029( e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. By way of further answer, these averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. By way of further answer, these averments are denied pursuant to Rule I 029( e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. (a)-(g). Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. By way of further answer, these averments are denied pursuant to Rule I 029( e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to fonn a belief as to the veracity of the claims asserted in this paragraph regarding alleged injuries, which claims are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. The averments set forth in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Rule I 029( e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. II. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defe:ndant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the claims asserted in this paragraph regarding alleged injuries, which claims are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. The averments set forth in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Rule I 029( e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 12. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the claims asserted in this paragraph regarding alleged il1iuries, which claims are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. The averments set forth in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029( e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 13. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of th(: claims asserted in this paragraph regarding alleged injuries, which claims are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. The averments set forth in this paragraph are further denied pursmmt to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Count II Plaintiff Jerry SoIinas v. All Defendants 14. The averments of the foregoing paragraphs I through 13 are incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full. 15. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the claims asserted in this paragraph regarding alleged injuries, which claims are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. The averments set forth in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029( e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 16. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the claims asserted in this paragraph regarding alleged injuries, which claims are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. The averments set forth in this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Rule I 029( e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Glendale Management Company III, d/b/a! Ramada Inn, respectfully prays that judgment be entered in its favor and that the plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 17. The foregoing averments contained in paragraphs I through 16 are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 18. The complaint fails to assert a claim or cause of action for which relief may be granted against Answering Defendant, as a matter of law. 19. The complaint fails to assert a claim or cause of action for which relief may be granted against the John Doe Defendants as a matter of law. 20. The complaint lacks the requisite specificity to comport with Pennsylvania's fact pleading requirements. 21. The complaint fails to assert any cognizable claims on behalf of Plaintiffs. 22. Plaintiffs' injuries, if proven, were the result of Plaintiff Rubie Solinas' failure to exercise appropriate attention to her path of travel. 23. Answering Defendant was not negligent. 24. Answering Defendant's agents, servants and/or employees were not negligent. 25. Any acts or omissions of Answering Defendant and/or Answering Defendant's agents, servants and/or employees alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by the Plaintiffs. 26. The incident and/or damages described in the Plaintiffs' complaint may have been caused or contributed to by the Plaintiffs. 27. Plaintiff Rubie Solinas' negligence exceeds that Answering Defendant and/or Answering Defendant's agents, servants and/or employees, if such negligence is proven. 28. The negligent acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities may have constituted intervening, superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs. 29. Plaintiff Rubie Solinas assumed the risk of injury. 30. Plaintiff Rubie Solinas was contributorily negligt~nt. 31. The incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs were not proximately caused by Answering Defendant. 32. Plaintiffs may not have properly mitigated their alleged damages. 33. The peril or danger of which Plaintiffs complain, to the extent it existed, which Answering Defendant denies, were open and obviously known to the Plaintiff Rubie Solinas, who nevertheless conducted herself in such a manner as to expose herseIfto said peril or danger. 34. The claims asserted in the plaintiffs' complaint may be barred and/or limited by the statute of limitations. 35. The claims asserted in the plaintiffs' complaint may be barred and/or limited by accord and satisfaction, payment and/or release. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant prays that judgment be entered in its favor and that Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. By: (Yh Cheryl L. K valy, Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg,. PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA73693 ckovaly@laverylaw.com Attys for Glendale Management Company III, d/b/a Ramada Inn DATE: {~/..2 /O~ 09/62/2604 13:49 2435548 CLARION HOTEL PAGE 02/02 ~ The undersigned hereby VerifIeS that the statements contain!d in the foregoing Answer with new malleT are based upon information which has been furndhed t) counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the deferse of this lawsuit. The language of the .Answer with new matter is t!Iat of counsel and not my 0'11I0. I have read the Answer with new matter and to the elttCOI that it is based upon information wUch I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knoWledge, information and be,lief. To the extent that the content of th.e Answer with new matte\" is that of counsel, I have relied \tpOn my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also undetslll1lds that the stateme~IlS therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relatina to unsworn falsificllion to authorities. GLENDALE MAN. 'GEMENT COMPANY III Date: rI;- /0 'I .,~~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Megan L. Renno, an employee ~4 the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., do hereby certify that on this ~ day of September, 2004, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with new matter via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: James G. Prokopiak, Esquire Hannon & Joyce The Public Ledger Building, Suite 1000 ISO S. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106 , c ~.; ~-'i -( ,,-> C::) ~,~-;:;J _i:':~ U) r-'f ; .'1,; o -Tl -.... or ---n n'r=- -c;LD -,),--, ;:::j rl :.-...1..) T'::-:" ':,-:; (~) ;"':.:>>n'1 .''::{ ;~ I W -n en N RUBIE A. SOLlNAS and JERRY SOLlNAS, h/w Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW RAMADA INN and John Does 1-2, NO. 04-3300-CIVIL Defendants PRAECIPE TO REMOVE FROM ARGUMENT COURT LIST To the Prothonotary: Plaintiff commenced this matter with the filing of a civil complaint on July 9, 2004. The Defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint on July 20, 2004, along with a praecipe to list the preliminary objections for oral argument. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, on or about August 6, 2004. The Defendants' answer with new matter to the amended complaint was filed on September 3, 2004. The preliminary objections to the original complaint have been rendered moot by the filing of an amended complaint and answer thereto. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that their preliminary objections to the original complaint be removed from the September 22, 2004 argument list. Respectfully submitted, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. By: (fL Cheryl L. K valy, Esquire P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) Atty No. PA73693 Attys for Defendant, Glendale Management Company, Inc., d/b/a Ramada Inn DATE: q h 10<1 , , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Megan L. Renno, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P .C., do hereby certify that on this 7th day of September, 2004, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Remove from Argument Court List via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: James G. Prokopiak, Esquire Hannon & Joyce The Public Ledger Building, Suite 1000 150 S. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, P A 19106 ~/~ mo Sec etary to Cheryl L. Kova1y, Esquire ., , , 0 ....., !:f? '= C.=: = '" J:- ~~. v.> 'i! ~ r~ .. n! ~ n1~ --;.; " , " "0 n, (/j I :o;r: -< ~~ C) '::; j"-: ----i.::d -",- I, " -0 r:-):;] '. :J~ -''''..-C) ~t;~~1 On, :~ ~ Ul :n -< \D -< SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-03300 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SOLINAS RUBIE A ET AL VS RAMADA INN SHANNON SHERTZER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE RAMADA INN was served upon , at 1430:00 HOURS, on the 12th day of August DEFENDANT at 1252 HARRISBURG PIKE CARLISLE, PA 17013 CLAUDIA BROWNE, DESK CLERK, by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE the 2004 together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 3.70 .00 10.00 .00 31.70 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this d/J day of ~ dZ.O()'-( A.D. ~o9:0t~~ So Answers: .r"~~ R. Thomas Kline 08/13/2004 HANNON & JOYCE By, ~J;y1ft: '. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-03300 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SOLINAS RUBIE A ET AL VS RAMADA INN SHANNON SHERTZER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, was served upon says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE DOES JOHN - 1 the , at 1430:00 HOURS, on the 12th day of August 2004 DEFENDANT at 1252 HARRISBURG PIKE CARLISLE, PA 17013 CLAUDIA BROWNE, DESK CLERK, by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 3/~ day of ~,;;l4o<{ A.D. ;u_ r2 ~/~ r thonotary So Answers: .r~~ R. Thomas Kline 08/13/2004 HANNON & JOYCE __ j /1 By: ~) ~ 'tf;f- 9:~heriff " SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-03300 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SOLINAS RUBIE A ET AL VS RAMADA INN SHANNON SHERTZER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE DOES JOHN - 2 was served upon the , at 1430:00 HOURS, on the 12th day of Auqust , 2004 DEFENDANT at 1252 HARRISBURG PIKE CARLISLE, PA 17013 CLAUDIA BROWNE, DESK CLERK, by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this J/~ day of Q~--J-.;2A:J'f A. D. a 1h.1)1<./ qozr othonotary " So Answers: r$::~~~:: R. Thomas Kline .(/<,<1t " _<"r" ~ _A' ...~'..i.'^'~'"f!~ ~~ ...-,"',. ,~-" 08/13/2004 HANNON & JOYCE By: D~hekf?tJ- HANNON & JOYCE By: JAMES G. PROKOPIAK, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #86328 The Public Ledger Bldg., Suite 1000 150 S. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attorney for Plaintiff RUBIE A. SOLINAS, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff v. NO. 04-3300 - Civil RAMADA INN, Defendant PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, RAMADA INN, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER 17. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 18. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 19. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions oflaw to which no response is required. 20. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 21. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 22. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 23. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 24. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 25. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 26. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 27. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 28. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 29. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions oflaw to which no response is required. 30. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 31. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 32. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 33. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 34. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. 35. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Rubie Solinas, demands judgment against Defendant, Ramada Inn. HANNON AND JOYCE Dated: September 21, 2004 BY~. ~}j JA Sf. PROKOPIAK, E Atto Y for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JAMES G. PROKOPIAK, hereby certify that I forwarded a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's New Matter to Cheryl Kovaly, Esquire, attorney for Defendant, by depositing same in United States Mail, first Class, postage prepaid, this 21 st day of September, 2004. ,i~ ES G. PROKOPI K, ESQUIRE q C 7 -r'i'P f"l"'\{i"" Z:,~:.~ t1s.: 2-f~) ); ("~) ';?Cl :PC: 7- :2 ~ (,/') rT1 -0 N --' ~ ~:!:l ~~ :;~::f, 0-- ts~ ..,,\ 2; .r::- ~ c::> ~ - - HANNON & JOYCE By: JAMES G. PROKOPIAK, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #86328 Public Ledger Building, Suite 1000 150 S. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106-3413 215-446-4460 Attorney for Plaintiff RUBIE SOLINAS and JERRY SOLINAS, HjW COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAW DIVISION Plaintiffs, vs. RAMADA INN, et aI. CIVIL ACTION Defendant, NO. 04-3300 ORDER TO SETTLE. DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the captioned action settled, discontinued and ended upon payment of your costs only. Dated: August 15, 1005 By: ~~;~:~ 3 -- cP ~ '-i: o -- ~ ~~ ..", \11:b -,) l:?\ "'11 -,.-" -i~ 0t2 ':.,,1" (f\ (5 -=" -~ Q ~~- .-...f,." \~~_.'~- ...-> ~ aT" 'P': ~) -