Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-6384SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff ~.°~`~~~ ~C ~ Itrrrbrfi~~~~ ~ ~ ~:~ ?'; ~, pFF C QF'NE ~~ERi~F FILEt~-OFFICE ~- r~E ~~c~~~~o~a~~ Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor ~(llOOCT !$ P~ !~ 24 ~~'~°`18~~~.i~r'~~ ~..IJCJ~~ 1 `~'r Laraine Y. Unger Case Number vs. 2010-6384 Kevin B. Carbine (et al.) SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 10/13/2010 04:09 PM -Amanda Cobaugh, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 13, 2010 at 1609 hours, she served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Kevin B. Carbine, by making known unto Pamela Norris, adult in charge at 19 Sheeley Lane, Soiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17007 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. AMANDA COBAUGH, DEPU 10/13/2010 04:09 PM -Amanda Cobaugh, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 13, 2010 at 1609 hours, she served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Elizabeth Bacon, by making known unto Pamela Norris, adult in charge at 19 Sheeley Lane, Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17007 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. A ANDA COBAU , DE 10/13/2010 04:09 PM -Amanda Cobaugh, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 13, 2010 at 1609 hours, she served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Joseph K. Carbine, by making known unto Pamela Norris, adult in charge at 19 Sheeley Lane, Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17007 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $60.44 October 15, 2010 !W County5uite Sheriff, Teleosoft, Inr,. AMANDA COBAUGH, DEP SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF f.~ ' ~. IIL~~-0~1=)~ ~Q6Q ~~T 29 Pr1 f ~ 27 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART &WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman ~Ul~$~PL,~i) CGI~~a~~" $' I.D. No. 51785 ~'~~p~S°~E_4~fi~i~E~, 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendants LARAINE UNGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 10-6384 CIVIL KEVIN B. CARBINE and JOSEPH K. CARBINE and ELIZABETH CIVIL ACTION -LAW BACON, h/w, individually, jointly and as the parents of KEVIN B. CARBINE, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendants in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, J¢~TNS~N, DUFFIE, STEWART &WEIDNER Date: October ~, 2010 419522 J er~o4~ J. Shipman,' Esquire orney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendants .a ~„ !' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance has been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on October ~, 2010: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 JOI~SON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Jd}~erso~(J. Shi JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman I. D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendants LARAINE UNGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 10-6384 CIVIL KEVIN B. CARBINE and JOSEPH K. CARBINE and ELIZABETH CIVIL ACTION - LAW BACON, hlw, individually, jointly and as the parents of KEVIN B. CARBINE,, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Laraine Unger clo Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 AND NOW, this day of November, 2010, you are hereby notified to plead responsively within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof, or judgment may be entered against you. J SON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER B eff r n n J. Ship an, Esquire b/J Counsel for Defendants 420787 JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. 0. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com LARAINE UNGER, V. Plaintiff KEVIN B. CARBINE and JOSEPH K. CARBINE and ELIZABETH BACON, h/w, individually, jointly and as the parents of KEVIN B. CARBINE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT KEVIN B. CARBINE, JOSEPH K. CARBINE AND ELIZA§ETH BACON AND NOW, come the Defendants, Kevin B. Carbine, Joseph K. Carbine and Elizabeth Bacon, by and through their counsel, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, and Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire, and file the following Answer and New Matter in response to Plaintiffs Complaint by stating the following: The Parties 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-6384 CIVIL 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 7 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 8. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 8 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 9. Admitted. The Motor Vehicle Incident 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that on October 12, 2008, the Plaintiff was operating a 1995 Chevrolet Lumina north on Forge Road in South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 10 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that on October 12, 2008, Kevin Carbine was operating said 1994 Mazda truck north on Forge Road in South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 11 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 12 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 13. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 13 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 14. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 14 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. COUNTI 15. The answering Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answer to paragraphs 1 through 14 above, as if fully set forth at length. 16. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 16 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 17. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 17 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 18. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 18 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 19. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 19 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 20. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 20 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to form a belief as to the remaining averments of paragraph 20, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 21 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to form a belief as to the remaining averments of paragraph 21, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 22 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to form a belief as to the remaining averments of paragraph 22, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 23, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 24, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 25, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 26, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 27, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 28, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 29, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 30, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 31, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 32, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT II 33. The answering Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answer to paragraphs 1 through 32 above, as if fully set forth herein at length. 34. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 34 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 35. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 35 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 36. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 36 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 37. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 37 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 38. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 38 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 39. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 39 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 40. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 40 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 40 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 41. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 41 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 41 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 42. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 42 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 42 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 43. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 43 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 43, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 44. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contain in paragraph 44, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 45. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contain in paragraph 45, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contain in paragraph 46, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contain in paragraph 47, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 48. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contain in paragraph 48, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 49. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contain in paragraph 49, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contain in paragraph 50, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 51. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contain in paragraph 51, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 52. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contain in paragraph 52, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 53. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contain in paragraph 53, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT III 54. The answering Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 53 above, as if fully set forth herein at length. 55. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 55 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 56. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 56 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 57. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 57 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 58. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 58 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 59. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 59 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 60. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 60 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 61. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 61 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 62. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 62 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in paragraph 62, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 63. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 63 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in paragraph 63, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 64. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 64 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in paragraph 64, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 65. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 65 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained.therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in paragraph 65, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 66. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 66 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in paragraph 66, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 67. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 67 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in paragraph 67, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 68. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 68, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 69. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 69, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 70. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph.70, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 71. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 71, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 72. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 72, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 73. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 73, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 74. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 74, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 75. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 75, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 76. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 76, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 77. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 77, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, the answering Defendants, Kevin B. Carbine, Joseph K. Carbine and Elizabeth Bacon Carbine, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 78. That Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. 79. That the Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against Mr. and Mrs. Carbine for alleged negligent entrustment. 80. That the Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against Mr. and Mrs. Carbine for negligent supervision. 81. That the Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for punitive damages. 82. That there is no basis whatsoever for a claim for punitive damages. 83. That if there was any negligence on the part of the answering Defendants, which is specifically denied, then in that event, any such negligence is not a proximate cause nor a factual cause of the accident and the alleged injuries and damages claims. 84. That the Plaintiffs alleged causes of action may be barred in full or in part by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle' Financial Responsibility Law. 85. That the Plaintiffs alleged causes of action will be barred in whole or in part by Plaintiffs own comparative negligence and by the Comparative Negligence Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 86. That the Plaintiffs alleged causes of action may have been caused in whole or in part by third parties or entities not presently involved in this action. 87. That the Plaintiffs alleged causes of action may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. 88. That the Plaintiffs alleged injuries may have been pre-existing. 89. That the Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate her damages. Respectfully submitted, Date: November , 2010 419532 JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER Je a son J. S ipman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. 0. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendants VERIFICATION The undersigned verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S,A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Jo typ K. Carbine Dated: Z W/a :419562 VERIFICATION The undersigned verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Elizabettrlacon Carbine Dated: f ?/ l v :419562 VERIFICATION The undersigned verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. vin B. Carbine Dated: 111-7 10 :419562 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance has been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on November , 2010: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER B J ffe on J. S4 man S 2012 MAY 10 PM 2: C I CUMBER! JAND COL'I'C Y PENNSYLVANIA LARAINE UNGER, V. Plaintiff KEVIN B. CARBINE and JOSEPH K. CARBINE and ELIZABETH BACON, h/w, individually, jointly and as the parents of KEVIN B. CARBINE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORDER NO. 10-6384 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, this M4, day of 2012, on consideration of the Defendant's Motion for Status Conference, a Status Conference is hereby scheduled for / 2012 at 3"Cle .M. at the Cumberland County Courthouse in Judge's Chambers. BY THE COURT: J. Distribution: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street, P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109; Tel. (717) 761-4540; Fax (717) 761- 3015; jjs@jdsw.com. Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, Law Offices of Joseph D. Buckley, 1237 Holly Pike, Carlisle, PA 17013, Tel. (717) 249-2448; Fax (717) 249-4103; JOEBLAW@aol.com. es &a -led S//0//a ky ?. L1] ??f? 12 PH Ja ? < IMBERLA?@ C,l,UIt' f 3, +' NNSYLVANIA LARAINE UNGER, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KEVIN B. CARBINE and JOSEPH K. CARBINE and ELIZABETH BACON, h/w, individually, jointly and as the parents of KEVIN B. CARBINE, Defendants NO. 10-6384 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this /97% day of June, 2012, the following Order is issued as to the management of the above captioned case. 1. All discovery, including depositions, shall be completed by October 1.2012 . 2. Plaintiff's expert reports shall be submitted by November 1 2012. 3. Defendant's expert reports shall be submitted by December 1 2012 4. Any mediation, agreed to by the parties, must be held on or before Januarv 1, 2013 . 5. After Januarv 1. 2013 , the parties may file a certificate of readiness for trial. BY THE COURT: r J. Distribution: ,Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street, P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109; Tel. (717) 761-4540; Fax (717) 761- 3015; jjs@jdsw.com. v4oseph D. Buckley, Esquire, Law Offices of Joseph D. Buckley, 1237 Holly Pike, Carlisle, PA 17013, Tel. (717) 249-2448; Fax (717) 249-4103; JOEBLAW@aol.com. 41,05 Awal"r,"%okle"e 0/ ??21z JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: John A. Statler, Esquire I.D. No. 43812 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com L LARAINE UNGER, Plaintiff v. KEVIN B. CARBINE and JOSEPH K. CARBINE and ELIZABETH : BACON, h/w, individually, jointly and as : the parents of KEVIN B. CARBINE, Defendants ()UHTY N' Attorneys for Defendants rel co ��.. c7 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PI EAS'.OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-6384 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE AND NOW, come the Defendants, Kevin B. Carbine, Joseph K. Carbine and Elizabeth Bacon, by and through their counsel, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, and John A. Statler, Esquire, and file the following Motion for Status Conference by stating the following: 1. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 12, 2008, on Forge Road in South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this case on October 7, 2010. 3. The Defendants filed an Answer and New Matter in response to the Complaint on November 10, 2010. 4. On November 22, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a Reply to New Matter. 5. Beginning in January 2013, Defendants' counsel advised Plaintiff's counsel, Joseph Buckley, that it would be necessary for Plaintiff to provide information about any Medicare and Social Security Disability liens and payments. 6. On May 9, 2013, Plaintiff's counsel, Joseph Buckley, advised Defendants' counsel that he was transferring all of his cases, including the subject case, to Attorney Karl Rominger. 7. On December 12, 2013, Attorney Karl Rominger called defense counsel to advise that the was taking over the handling of this case. Defense counsel advised Mr. Rominger that Plaintiff would need to provide information about any Medicare or Social Security Disability liens or payments. 8. On May 7, 2014, Defendants' counsel wrote to Attorney Rominger to inquire whether he or his law firm were still representing the Plaintiff in this case. (See copy the May 7, 2014 letter attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). 9. Neither Attorney Rominger, nor anyone from his firm, responded to the May 7, 2014 letter from Defendants' counsel. 10. In addition, pursuant to order of this Honorable Court, the Plaintiff was required to provide Answers to Defendants' Expert Interrogatories by November 1, 2012. To date, the Plaintiff has not provided Answers to Defendants' Expert Interrogatories. 11. The insurance company for Defendants would like to evaluate this case for settlement including possible mediation, but cannot properly do so without proper documentation of any Medicare or Social Security lien or payment, or any other liens arising out of the subject motor vehicle accident. 12. Defendants, therefore, request the scheduling of a Status Conference to resolve these matters and to establish updated case management deadlines for this case 13. On June 12, 2012, following a prior Status Conference, The Honorable Christylee L. Peck issued an Order establishing case management deadlines for this case. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter an Order scheduling another Status Conference for this case. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By. Date: August i, 2014 646150 John A. gale , quire Attorney I.D. No. 43812 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendants JERRY B. DLTFFIE RICHARD W STEWART EDMUND G. MYERS DAvIDW DELUCE JOHN A. STATLER JEFFREY B. RETTIG MARK C. DUFFIE JOHN R. NINOSKY MICHAEL J. CASSIDY MELISSA P. GREEYY WADE D. MANLEY Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger Law Offices 155 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 LAW OFFICES JOHNSON. DUFFIE 1914-2014 May 7, .2014 Re: Laraine Unger v. Kevin B. Carbine, et al. Cumberland County C.C.P.; Docket No. 10-6384 Civil Dear Karl: BARRIE B. GEHRLEIN ANTHONY T. LUCIDO CAROLYN B. MCCLAIN JOHN A. LUCY MATTHEW RIDLEY KAREN L. MASCIO OF COUNSEL HORACE A. JOHNSON C. ROY WEIDNER. JR. 1 .J.TET.t. EXT. NO. . 151 When we spoke about this case on December 12, 2013, you advised me that you would be taking over the representation of Laraine Unger. I have not heard anything further from you or your firm. Please let me know if your firm is still representing Ms. Unger. Very truly yours, JO . N ' UFFI A TEWART & WEIDNER John A. Statler JAS/jlh:622423 22740-2689 cc: Stephen Granoff, CPCU (via email) Claim No.: 010170999839 301 MARXET STREET PO_ BOX 109 LE11OYNE. PENNSYLVANIA 17043-0109 WWWJDSWCOM 717.761.4540 FAX: 717.761.3015 MAIL@JDSW.COM JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER, P.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Defendants' Motion for Status Conference has been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on August ! (-1', 2014: Karl Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 S. Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 JOHN 'e !UFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Bv: John A. Statler, • ire Attorney I.D. No. 43812 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 FILED -OFFICE 01: THE Pe CTHDNuTI°; Hili AUG 25 AM 8: 54 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA LARAINE UNGER, Plaintiff v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KEVIN B. CARBINE and JOSEPH K. CARBINE and ELIZABETH : BACON, h/w, individually, jointly and as : the parents of KEVIN B. CARBINE, Defendants NO. 10-6384 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this �,n4 day of CtiL , 2014, upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion for Status Conference, a Status Conference is hereby scheduled for /` %3 , 2014at 9 26)1).M. at the Cumberland County Courthouse in Judge's Chambers. BY THE COURT: Distri ution: • Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, Law Offices of Joseph D. Buckley, 1237 Holly Pike, Carlisle, PA 17013, Tel. (717) 249-2448; Fax (717) 249-4103; JOEBLAW(c�aol.com. Karl Rominger, Esquire, Rominger & Associates, 155 S. Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013, Tel. (717) 241-6070 John A. Statler, Esquire, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street, P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109; Tel. (717) 761-4540; Fax (717) 761- 3015; ias a(�idsw.com. /fli PIE % l ►�, b, �S' 8/i14//4/ J. LARAINE UNGER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KEVIN B. CARBINE, et. al., DEFENDANTS : NO. 10-6384 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To the Prothonotary: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff, Laraine Unger. Papers may be served at the address set forth below. Date: r" < cn Zc ---4 Respectfully submitted, Monfredo & Mandarino Law r".". WY- Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire 5000 Ritter Rd. Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 585-2064 Supreme Court ID # 20664 Attorney for Plaintiff LARAINE UNGER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KEVIN B. CARBINE, et. al, DEFENDANTS : NO. 10-6384 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Entry of Appearance upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Date: - John A. Statler, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart and Weidner 301 Market St. PO Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Respectfully submitted, Incent M. Monfredo, Esquire 3300 Trindle Rd. Second Floor Camp Hill, PA 17011 717.585.2064 Supreme Court ID # 206671 Attorney for Defendant LARAINE UNGER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW KEVIN B. CARBINE and • JOSEPH K. CARBINE and ELIZABETH BACON, h/w, individually, jointly and as the parents of KEVIN B. CARBINE, • Defendants • NO. 10-6384 CIVIL TERM IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2014, this being the time and place set for a Status Conference, and it appearing that the Plaintiff is currently represented by Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire, and the parties haVing been in agreement as to the following, it is hereby ordered that the Plaintiff shall turn over any medical lien information to the Defendants within 90 days of the date of this Order. By the Court, r-3 --- Chris/lee L. Peck, J. .74:1cn TOP. Ca r-• ""1" „..-Monfredo & Mandarino Law 1:Pc) 77:, Lee Mandarino, Esquire %CD ' --i Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire 5000 Ritter Rd, STE 202 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 For the Plaintiff -Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner John A. Statler, Esquire 301 Market Street PO Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 For the Defendants pcb Co p`t 7-41