Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-6609 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION rn rn-U JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON 2303 Archdale Road, Reston, VA 20191 Plaintiff, V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P. 311 Veterans Hwy #B, Levittown, PA 19056-1422, and STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA c/o Corporation Service Company 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and STONEMOR OPERATING LLC c/o Corporation Service Company 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC c/o Corporation Service Company 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC c/o Corporation Service Company 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC 1159 Newville Road, Carlisle, PA 17013-1740, and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC 1159 Newville Road, Carlisle, PA 17013-1740 and GAIL BECKER 1159 Newville Road, Carlisle, PA 17013-1740 Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS CK-4 'as-20 I??e2?/ Q$3?' TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: Issue summons in the above case Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to Attome heriff, lease Circle choice) Date: Octoberl4.2010 Signature of Attorney-Laura K PB bien Print name: William J. Mundy and Laura K. Peltonen Address: Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515, 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone # 484-567-5700 Supreme Court ID Number: 57679 / 207679 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P., and STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA, and STONEMOR OPERATING LLC, and STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC, and, STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC, and TO: WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC, and, WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, and GAIL BECKER YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COM CED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. .v -- ro onotary/ Jerk, Civil Division _ by: Date:' OF THE PROTHON VARY 2010 OCT 18 PM 3: 21 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Case No. 16 - Civil Term Civil Action S ou.00 IL. Deputy SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY C"13 , Ronny RAnderson "v3 `.' Sheriff r"Co ° Zrn MO. Jody S Smith cn-"' 'tzr`" Chief Deputy w © Ci Richard W Stewart --4c; Solicitor OF ',,E Cl) x 2 {-wry 53 Jane MacCampell Norton vs. Stonemor Partners, LP (et al.) Case Number 2010-6609 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 10/19/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Stonemor Partners, LP, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Bucks County, PA to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 10/19/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania c/o Corporation Service Company, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Dauphin County, PA to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 10/19/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Stonemor Operating LLC c/o Corporation Service Company, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Dauphin County, PA to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 10/19/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC c/o Corporation Service Company, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Dauphin County, PA to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 10/19/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC c/o Corporation Service Company, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Dauphin County, PA to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 10/25/2010 03:55 PM - Robert Bitner, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 25, 2010 at 1555 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, by making known unto Cindy Weller, Administrative Assistant for Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC at 1159 Newville Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. ROBE T BITNER, DEPUTY 10/25/2010 03:55 PM - Robert Bitner, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 25, 2010 at 1555 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Westminster Cemetery, LLC, by making known unto Cindy Weller, Administrative Assistant for Westminster Cemetery, LLC at 1159 Newville Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. F, ROB T BITNER, DEP Cou".1 JUito Jhe^ft. Te':toso'l. Ilt 10/25/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant to wit: Gail Becker, but was unable to locate her in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the within Writ of Summons as not found as to the defendant Gail Becker. Deputies were advised Gail Becker no longer is employed by Westminister Cemetery, LLC. 10/26/2010 11:25 AM - Dauphin County Return: And now October 26, 2010 at 1125 hours I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Stonemore Pennsylvania LLC c/o Corporation Service Company by making known unto Jennifer Smith, Customer Service Associate for Stonemore Pennsylvania LLC at 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103, Harrisburg, PA 17110 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 10/26/2010 11:25 AM -Dauphin County Return: And now October 26, 2010 at 1125 hours I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Stonemore Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC c/o Corporation Service Company by making known unto Jennifer Smith, Customer Service Associate for Stonemore Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC at 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103, Harrisburg, PA 17110 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 10/26/2010 11:25 AM - Dauphin County Return: And now October 26, 2010 at 1125 hours I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Stonemore Operating LLC c/o Corporation Service Company by making known unto Jennifer Smith, Customer Service Associate for Stonemore Operating LLC at 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103, Harrisburg, PA 17110 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 10/26/2010 11:25 AM - Dauphin County Return: And now October 26, 2010 at 1125 hours I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Stonemore Holding of Pennsylvania c/o Corporation Service Company by making known unto Jennifer Smith, Customer Service Associate for Stonemore Holding of Pennsylvania at 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103, Harrisburg, PA 17110 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 10128/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Gail Becker, but was unable to locate her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of York County, PA to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 11/01/2010 01:45 PM - Bucks County Return: And now November 1, 2010 at 1345 hours I, Edward J. Donnelly, Sheriff of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Stonemor Partners, LP by making known unto Bree MacAdams, adult in charge of Stonemore Partners, LP at 311 Veterans Highway #B, Levitown, PA 19056 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 11/18/2010 05:09 PM - York County Return: And now November 8, 2010 at 1709 hours I, Richard P. Keuerleber, Sheriff of York County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Gail Becker by making known unto herself personally, at 5 Russian Olive Drive, Etters, PA 17319 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $204.00 November 18, 2010 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF {cj County Sute Shenff. Te eo.=.o°. Inc. SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF YORK COUNTY Richard P Keuerleber PETER J. MANGAN, ESQ. Sheriff Solicitor Reuben B Zeager Richard E Rice, II Chief Deputy, Operations Chief Deputy, Administration JANE MACCAMPELL NORTON vs. Case Number . STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P., ET AL (et al.) 10-6609 CIVIL SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 11/08/2010 05:09 PM - DEPUTY TODD STAHL, BEING DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, SERVED THE REQUESTED WRIT OF SUMMONS (WOSM) BY "PERSONALLY" HANDING A TRUE COPY TO A PERSON REPRESENTING THEMSELVES TO BE THE DEFENDANT, TO WIT: GAIL BECKER AT 5 RUSSIAN OLIVE DRIVE, ETTERS, PA 17319. % . &'? ? ?\'L\ A D STA L, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $55.00 November 15, 2010 SO ANSWERS, RICHARD P KEUERLEBER, SHERIFF ... ... -------- - ------ ------ --- - .... . . _......-.... NOTARY Affirmed and subscribed to before me this 15th day of NOVEMBER 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL LISA L. THORPE. NOTARY PUBLIC CITY OF YORK. YORK COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 12. 2013 ?*? DATE: 11/10/2010 OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF BUCKS COUNTY, PA. TIME: 16:33 MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET INFORMATION DOCKET # 2010 32518 CLASS ASSUMPSIT PLAINTIFF NORTON JANE MACCAMPBEL VS DEFENDANT STONEMOR PARTNERS 311 VETERANS HWY #B LEVITTOWN, PA PAGE 1 STATUS TERMINATED L. P. 19056 10142010 COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION RECEIVED FROM MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF DPT NJ WILLIAM J MUNDY, ESQ 10272010 RECEIVED IN SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR SERVICE. TRANSACTION # 10 1 19157 NJ AMOUNT PAID $ 48.00 11012010 SHERIFF'S RETURN, UNDER OATH, FILED. DEPUTY CPL SPICER AT 13:45 NJ SERVED DEFENDANT, STONEMOR PARTNERS, LP, PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. #402( A)(2)(III) BY HANDLING TO BREE MALPOPMS, PCB, AT 311 VETERANS HWY, # NJ B, LEVITTOWN, PA. 11032010 INVOICE MAILED TO MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF DPT NJ WILLIAM J MUNDY, ESQ TRANSACTION # 10 1 19157 BUCKS COUNTY OC drill-,. Bucks County Case # 201033 H E R I F F i S OFFICE Invoice to be mailed to 110 1 -5 PM 1: 31 , 5 4 County Sheriffs Office Attn: ONE COUNTY, PA, WILLIAM J MUNDY, ESQ SHERIFF'S RETURN 1 of 1 Filed 10/14/2010 Bucks Case # 201032518 xec•a iv,,/2010 Special Instructions Action Civil Action SUMMONS Plaintiff JANE MACCAW13ELL NORTON -VS- Defendant STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P. 311 VETERANS HWY, #B LEVITTOWN, PA 19056 Address Served if Different Special Instructions ..t t 2"A 4 r"s 41 PC #000215MG 48. 00 .•., - TOT I_ 0.00 Notes Served under Pa. R.C.P. #402 (A) (i) Defendant personally served (A) (2) (i) Family Member (A) (2) (i) Adult in Charge of Residence Z ( (2) (ii) Manager/Clerk at Deft's Lodging (A) (2) (iii) Person in Charge of Business By Handling to By Posting -1 Not Served 30 Days Ran Out Defendant Not Home Defendant Moved Address Vacant Defendant Unknown Deputy needs better address Checked Post Office No Forwarding Forwarding Address By Deputy ??-- Witness At s!J"o'clock ($-bt<T) on ° The above documen on the defendant as per information listed above in the C ucks, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania So answers: Affirmed and Subscribed before me on this day II %ti Prothontary Affirmed and subscribed before me on this day Notary Public My Com. Exp. 10/27/2010 1146 rF <i beo 1001 vir.it o Charles E. Sheaffer Chief Deputy William T. Tully °'?L'y solicitor ' Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780.6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania JANE MACCAMPELL NORTON VS County of Dauphin STONEMORE PENNSYLVANIA LLC Sheriff s Return No. 2010-T-3283 OTHER COUNTY NO. 20106609 And now: OCTOBER 26, 2010 at 11:25:00 AM served the within WRIT OF SUMMONS upon STONEMORE OPERATING LLC by personally handing to JENNIFER SMITH 1 true attested copy of the original WRIT OF SUMMONS and making known to him/her the contents thereof at C/O CSC 2595 INTERSTATE DRIVE SUITE 103 HBG PA 17110 CUSTOMER SERVICE ASSOC. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 26TH day of October, 2010 -)P*2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL Karen M. Hoffman, Notary Public City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County MV Commission Expires August 17, 2014 So Answers Sheriff of I)4Dhin By - ?--? De ty Sheriff Deputy: W CONWAY Sheriffs Costs: $105 10/25/2010 mtfirt of the'*4Cr-.r Charles E. Sheaffer William T. Tully Chief Deputy Solicitor _t Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania JANE MACCAMPELL NORTON VS County of Dauphin STONEMORE PENNSYLVANIA LLC Sheriff s Return No. 2010-T-3283 OTHER COUNTY NO. 20106609 And now: OCTOBER 26, 2010 at 11:25:00 AM served the within WRIT OF SUMMONS upon STONEMORE PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC by personally handing to JENNIFER SMITH 1 true attested copy of the original WRIT OF SUMMONS and making known to him/her the contents thereof at C/O CSC 2595 INTERSTATE DRIVE SUITE 103 HBG PA 17110 CUSTOMER SERVICE ASSOC. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 26TH day of October, 2010 -)P? Z COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL Karen M. Hoffman, Notary Public City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County M Commission Expires August 17, 2014 So Answers, Sheriff of Din By Deputy Sheriff Deputy: W CONWAY Sheriffs Costs: $105 10/25/2010 M f , .t o r ? Charles E. Sheaffer ?: Chief Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Im Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania JANE MACCAMPELL NORTON VS County of Dauphin STONEMORE PENNSYLVANIA LLC Sheriff s Return No. 2010-T-3283 OTHER COUNTY NO. 20106609 And now: OCTOBER 26, 2010 at 11:25:00 AM served the within WRIT OF SUMMONS upon STONEMORE HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA by personally handing to JENNIFER SMITH 1 true attested copy of the original WRIT OF SUMMONS and making known to him/her the contents thereof at C/O CSC 2595 INTERSTATE DRIVE SUITE 103 HBG PA 17110 CUSTOMER SERVICE ASSOC. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 26TH day of October, 2010 -)P?4z COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL Karen M. Hoffman, Notary Public City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County M Commission Expires August 17, 2014 So Answers, /e i'%c- Sheriff o in , Pa. By eputy Sheriff Deputy: W CONWAY Sheriffs Costs: $105 10/25/2010 cp f th e "&Ij V Charles E. Sheaffer William T. Tully Chief Deputy Solicitor Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania JANE MACCAMPELL NORTON VS County of Dauphin STONEMORE PENNSYLVANIA LLC Sheriff s Return No. 2010-T-3283 OTHER COUNTY NO. 20106609 And now: OCTOBER 26, 2010 at 11:25:00 AM served the within WRIT OF SUMMONS upon STONEMORE PENNSYLVANIA LLC by personally handing to JENNIFER SMITH 1 true attested copy of the original WRIT OF SUMMONS and making known to him/her the contents thereof at C/O CSC 2595 INTERSTATE DRIVE SUITE 103 HBG PA 17110 CUSTOMER SERVICE ASSOC. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 26TH day of October, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL Karen M. Hoffman, Notary Public City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County LM Commission Expires August 17, 2014 So Answers, Sheriff oyt*in , Pa. Vpj) Sheriff Deputy: W CONWAY Sheriff s Costs: $105 10/25/2010 RLED!?-OF iCt' . r' S•1 .'- ?' D 3 ; In! iL t f It 7.' 11 FEB 22 PH 2: CUMBERLAII'D GO" .,.k R E 11 N! S 1 ;v"rr1 i" 1 t, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire PA Attorney ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETARY SUBSIDIARY, LLC; and GAIL BECKER, Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Docket No. 10-6609 Civil Action - Law JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendants, Stonemor Partners, L.P.; Stonemor Holding Of Pennsylvania; Stonemor Operating.LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania 05/689534.0 LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC; Westminster Cemetery, LLC; Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC; and Gail Becker, DATE: February LF 2011 Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLE & GOG BY: Timot J. PA Attorney ID 918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3511 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendants 05/689534.v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathy A. Toney, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this &-day of February, 2011, I served a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: William J. Mundy, Esquire Laura K. Peltonen Gries, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Kathy . Toney v f= ILEJ- PRO .if X11; et ,. i I FEB 22 Plf 2: PENNS`ft.?:?j? MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire PA Attorney ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania; Stonemor Operating LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Docket No. 10-6609 Civil Action - Law WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC; and GAIL BECKER, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE OF DEFENDANTS STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; AND STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC FOR A RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT 05/689557.vl TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Rule directing Plaintiff, Jane MacCampbell Norton, to file a Complaint in the above-referenced matter within twenty (20) days of service thereof or risk a judgment of non >1 rs_ Respectfully submitted, DATE: :2,l /,?, I MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOG eIIN BY: / Timot y J. c n PA Attorney ID 2918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3511 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendants Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania; Stonemor Operating LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC; and Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC 05/689557.v1 J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathy A. Toney, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this A?day of February, 2011, I served a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Rule to File a Complaint via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: William J. Mundy, Esquire Laura K. Peltonen Gries, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West. Conshohocken, PA 19428 7 Kathy A. oney JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC; and GAIL BECKER, Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Docket No. 10-6609 Civil Action - Law JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE AND NOW, this day of 2011, upon consideration of the foregoing Praecipe for Rule to File a Complaint by Defendants Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania; Stonemor Operating LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC; and, Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC, Plaintiff, Jane MacCampbell Norton, is hereby ordered to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days hereof or suffer judgment of non pros. BY THE PROTHONOTARY: By: JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P., et al. NO 6609 20 10 Defendant : Civil Term NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN ATTORNEY AND FILLING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGEMENT 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 PEOPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO THE TELEPHONE OR THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON 2303 Archdale Road, Reston, VA 20191 Plaintiff, V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P. 311 Veterans Hwy #B Levittown, PA 19056-1422, and STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA c/o Corporation Service Company 2704 Commerce Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and STONEMOR OPERATING LLC ' c/o Corporation Service Company ' 2704 Commerce Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and ' STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC c/o Corporation Service Company 2704 Commerce Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC c/o Corporation Service Company 2704 Commerce Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC 1159 Newville Road . Carlisle, PA 17013-1740, and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC 1159 Newville Road Carlisle, PA 17013-1740 3 l3? ?;E P OTHOOTA ; 40 1 SEP 12 AM 11: 0L f' 1BERLAMD COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Case No. 6609-2010 Civil Term Civil Action COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, Jane MacCampbell Norton, by and through her counsel, Burns White LLC files the within Complaint in Civil Action as follows: PARTIES Plaintiff, Jane MacCampbell Norton is an individual residing at 2303 Archdale Rd, Reston, Virginia. 2. Defendant, StoneMor Partners LP, is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania located at 311 Veterans Highway, Levittown, PA. Defendant, StoneMor Partners LP, is a national provider of death care products and services engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including the approximately forty acre burial ground known as Westminster Cemetery in Carlisle Pennsylvania (hereinafter "Westminster Cemetery") and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster Cemetery and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiff's decedent and the handling thereof. 4. StoneMor Partners L.P. claims to operate its properties in such a manner as to provide each family served with excellent quality, value and service. Defendant, StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania, is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania with a registered agent located at 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania which at all times material hereto owned, operated, supervised, controlled and or maintained a cemetery which conducted continuous and systematic business in Cumberland County on Newville Road, Carlisle, PA. 6. Defendant, StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania, is engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery in Carlisle Pennsylvania and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiff's decedent and the handling thereof. 7. Defendant, StoneMor Operating LLC, is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania with a registered agent located at 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania which at all times material hereto owned, operated, supervised, controlled and or maintained a cemetery which conducted continuous and systematic business in Cumberland County on Newville Road, Carlisle, PA. 8. Defendant, StoneMor Operating LLC, is engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiff's decedent and the handling thereof. 9. Defendant StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania with a registered agent located at 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania which at all times material hereto owned, operated, supervised, controlled and or maintained a cemetery which conducted continuous and systematic business in Cumberland County on Newville, Road Carlisle, PA. 10. Defendant, StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC, is engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiff's decedent and the handling thereof. 11. Defendant, StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary, LLC is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania with a registered agent located at 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania which at all times material hereto owned, operated, supervised, controlled and or maintained a cemetery which conducted continuous and systematic business in Cumberland County on Newville Road, Carlisle, PA. 12. Defendant, StoneMor Pennsylvania, LLC, is engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiff's decedent and the handling thereof. 13. Defendant Westminster Cemetery, LLC, is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania located at1159 Newville Rd. Carlisle, PA. 14. Defendant Westminster Cemetery, LLC, is engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiff's decedent and the handling thereof. 15. Defendant, Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania located at1159 Newville Rd. Carlisle, PA. 16. Defendant, Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiff's decedent and the handling thereof. JURSIDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Honorable Court insofar as Defendants regularly conduct business in Cumberland County Pennsylvania and the cause of action arose therein. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 17. In 1931, Calvin Rickenbaugh, Ms. Norton's grandfather, purchased a family plot in Westminster Cemetery. 18. The plot contained eight grave sites where Mr. Rickenbaugh intended to be buried with his wife, three daughters including Kathleen R. MacCampbell and Marian Sweet, and their husbands. 19. The plot was laid out with a large monument in the middle and four grave sites in front and four in back, each site to eventually have its own ground level head stone. 20. The four corners of the entire plot were marked with ground level stones that were carved with the letter "R" for Rickenbaugh. 21. At the time of purchase Mr. Rickenbaugh harbored the reasonable assumption that the graves would be maintained in perpetuity and kept for the future use of his offspring. 22. At all times material hereto, the defendants exercised control over the maintenance of Westminster Cemetery. 23. In addition, the defendants exercised control over the budgeting, marketing, staffing and training of Westminster Cemetery. 24. The defendants were further responsible for the development of all policies and procedures for the maintenance, use and conveyance of all cemetery lots. 25. The defendants, acting through their administrators, various boards, committees and individuals were responsible for the standards of professional practice by members of their staff and were responsible for overseeing their conduct in the matters set forth herein. 26. On March 2, 1984, Kathleen R. MacCampbell passed away. 27. Her record of funeral indicates that she would be cremated and her ashes would be buried in Section A-36 beside her father in Westminster Cemetery. 28. On March 19, 1984 Ms. Norton and other family members held a graveside service and witnessed that the grave site to the right of Calvin Rickenbaugh's had been excavated for the placement of the urn belonging to Mrs. MacCampbell. 29. The family paid for a stone which marked the grave of Mrs. MacCampbell. It lay on the grave site next to Calvin Rickenbaugh's on the front right. 30. For the past twenty seven years Ms. Norton has faithfully visited Westminster Cemetery and tended to the grave of her mother. 31. In addition, Ms. Norton has a florist place flowers on her mother's grave twice a year. 32. Knowing that her mother's resting place in the family plot was kept neat and attractive brought her a sense of peace. 33. In addition, her visits to the cemetery on Mother's Day and/or her mother's birthday allowed her to continue to feel a connection with her deceased mother. 34. In January of 2010, Ms. Norton's aunt, Marian Sweet, passed away. Her daughters arranged to have her remains buried in the family plot at Westminster Cemetery. 35. Ms. Sweet's daughters held a small grave side service for Ms. Sweet's burial in April after the ground had thawed. Ms. Norton was not in attendance. 36. At the time of Ms. Sweet's burial, Ms. Sweet's daughter, Margo, noticed that the grave stone of Kathleen MacCampbell had been moved and was propped up against a tree that lay to the right of the family plot. She did not mention this to Ms. Norton at the time. 37. On August 8, 2010, Ms. Norton visited Westminster Cemetery. She brought flowers to her mother's grave in honor of her mother's birthday expecting to find some peace and comfort in this small act. 38. Instead, Ms. Norton was horrified to discover that her mother's grave had been dug up and reseeded in an area that was the correct size for a casket. 39. Ms. Norton feared her aunt was buried in her mother's grave and now wondered as to the location of her mother's remains. 40. She contacted her cousin Margo Sweet who was also upset and angry over the situation. 41. On August 9, 2010 Ms. Sweet contacted Westminster Cemetery and inquired as to whether the sisters were mistakenly buried together. 42. Gail Becker, Cemetery Manager, informed her that they had probed the lot where her mother was buried and found nothing. The cemetery manager further informed Ms. Sweet that Mrs. MacCampbell was buried in a different lot and that her mother was in the correct lot. 43. Ms. Sweet relayed this to Ms. Norton. 44. Ms. Norton was now more distraught as she did not know where her mother's remains would be if they were not in the plot corresponding to the headstone that she had been visiting for the past twenty seven years. 45. That same day, Ms. Norton made repeated efforts to speak with someone at Westminster Cemetery to determine the location of her mother's remains. 46. She was repeatedly told that the cemetery manager, Ms. Becker, was the only person who could speak with her and that the manager was "too busy". 47. The cemetery manager did not call back until Ms. Norton explained that she had not slept since visiting the cemetery, was a wreck, and needed to speak with someone right away. 48. The manager of Westminster Cemetery then contacted Ms. Norton and stated that since both sisters were cremated they were buried in the same plot; one at the head and the other at the foot. 49. Ms. Norton was again shocked as her aunt had not been cremated. 50. The manager insisted that Westminster Cemetery was in possession of cremation papers that identified Marian Sweet. 51. The manager then insisted that Westminster Cemetery only had a record of four grave sites in the Rickenbaugh plot. 52. The manager continued to insist that the empty area behind the Rickenbaugh stone belonged to someone else. She would not say to whom and insisted that Westminster Cemetery only had a record for four lots despite the fact that the four unoccupied lots were marked with an "R" for Rickenbaugh. 53. On August 10, 2010, Westminster's manager contacted Ms. Norton and relayed a second story as to the location of the remains of Ms. Norton's mother and aunt. 54. The manager explained that Margo Sweet instructed and authorized the burial of her mother with Mrs. MacCampbell. 55. Ms. Sweet was horrified by this accusation. The sisters were not close in life and would not have wished to be buried together. 56. After visiting the grave site the cemetery manager admitted that there were eight Rickenbaugh plots with visible markers. She agreed four of the eight lots remained empty. She further admitted that Ms. Sweet had not been cremated. 57. On August 12, 2010, Ms. Norton again contacted Westminster Cemetery asking where her mother's remains were buried. The manager said that Ms. Norton's mother was buried "in lot 1 beside her father" and that "they must have been very close to have been buried together." When she requested that the area be probed the manager said that "new burials are the first priority" and that they were "too busy." 58. Ms. Norton then called StoneMor Partners corporate headquarters on August 12, 2010 and spoke to Shirley Herman, administrative assistant to Michael Stache, senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Ms. Herman took notes and stated she would pass along the information. 59. Ms. Norton was so upset that on August 13, 2010 she contacted her physician who prescribed anti-anxiety medication. 60. As of August 16, no one had replied on behalf of the StoneMor defendants and Ms. Norton again contacted Ms. Herman and left a message. 61. The cemetery manager finally responded and stated that she was angry that Ms. Norton had contacted Westminster Cemetery's corporate parent. 62. The manager then stated that Westminster Cemetery had record that Ms. Norton's mother was buried in yet another location, marked as lot four between her father and her sister. 63. Ms. Norton was now even more distraught as Westminster had just informed her that her mother was buried in a third location, and feared that her mother's urn had been destroyed while being dug up and perhaps had been thrown away. 64. The next day, Ms. Norton finally heard from Jim Lentz, regional Vice President for StoneMor. He informed her that her mother's urn had been sealed inside her aunt's vault and admitted that it had been done without permission. When questioned why, he answered that "there is a lot of rock in the cemetery" and "blasting is costly." He went on to say that the fact that the site had been partially dug would save on the cost of possibly having to blast at a new site. 65. On August 19, 2010, Ms. Norton again spoke to Mr. Lentz asking why her mother's urn could not have at least been buried by itself above her aunt's vault. He answered that they would have had to dig down approximately two more feet to satisfy burial requirements for spacing and that it might have required blasting. 66. Ms. Norton was horrified that Westminster disinterred her mother's remains without her permission and did not have the decency to return the remains to their original resting place. 67. She continued to have trouble sleeping and experienced anxiety and headaches. 68. After the Defendants relayed four separate stories regarding the location of her mother's remains, the only way to determine the accurate location of the remains of Kathleen MacCampbell was to open the grave site and witness the disinterment. 69. Ms. Norton's cousins were angry and distraught that their mother's grave would be disturbed, however, they eventually granted permission for the disinterment. The once congenial relationship between the cousins had become quite contentious. 70. On September 14, 2010, Ms. Norton witnessed the disinterment of her aunt and mother. 71. During the disinterment the defendants dug up the cement vault which contained Ms. Sweet's casket. 72. The defendants then opened the vault to reveal that the urn containing the cremated remains of Kathleen MacCampbell had been placed in Ms. Sweet's vault next to the casket. 73. It was now obvious the Defendants had disturbed Mrs. MacCampbell's grave, unearthed her remains, and stored the remains during the funeral of Ms. Sweet all without the permission of the next of kin as required by regulation. 74. At the disinterment, Westminster's head groundskeeper informed Ms. Norton that in April he had been given a work order to disinter the remains of Ms. MacCampbell. He did not think it strange because double burials were often done at Westminster. 75. Per the work order, the groundskeeper stored the urn containing the remains of Ms. MacCampell in one of Westminster's trucks while Ms. Sweet was buried. 76. Following the original burial of Ms. Sweet, the defendants retrieved the urn from the truck and placed it into Ms. Sweet's vault beside her coffin and buried the remains of both sisters together per work order. 77. Upon hearing this, Ms. Norton immediately had the horrible vision of the urn being thrown into the back of a truck and jostled around while the truck was being used for various other purposes, and has had numerous nightmares about it ever since. 78. She then witnessed the defendants bury Ms. Sweet in a grave site on the other side of the Rickenbaugh monument and bury her mother's remains in her grave site for a third time. 79. Ms. Norton visited her mother's grave in November 2010. Instead of finding peace she found renewed distress as her mother's headstone was still leaning up against a tree. The grave site itself had large cracks, was sunken and covered with only a very sparse amount of grass. 80. This spring Ms. Norton finally found her mother's grave in acceptable condition, however, visiting her mother's grave and Westminster Cemetery now conjures up images of a disinterment, anger and anxiety rather than peace. 81. As a result Ms. Norton has suffered severe emotional distress manifesting as anxiety, anger, headaches and insomina for which she sought counsel of her physician. 82. To date, Ms. Norton continues to experience severe emotional distress and can no longer visit her mother's grave without horrible flashbacks. COUNTI INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 83. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every preceding paragraph of this complaint as if the same were more fully set forth herein. 84. At all times material hereto, Defendants were acting through their agents, servants and employees, who were in turn acting within the course and scope of their employment under the direct supervision and control of the Defendants. 85. When Ms. Norton discovered that her mother's grave had been exhumed representatives from StoneMor Partners and Westminster Cemetery intentionally misled her in an attempt to cover up the egregious circumstances surrounding the burial of Marian Sweet and the handling of the remains of Kathleen MacCampbell. 86. The Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff by the extreme and outrageous conduct as set forth above. 87. The injuries to Plaintiff and damages which are set forth herein were caused by and were the direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or wanton conduct of Defendants in any or all of the following respects. a. Invading Plaintiff's interest in the remains of Ms. MacCampbell by conducting themselves in a manner which was highly probable to cause acute and poignant distress. b. Creating policies and incentives to encourage unauthorized tandem burials. c. Causing the remains of Ms. MacCampbell to be disinterred without first obtaining the permission of the plaintiff. d. Intentionally misrepresenting the location of Ms. MacCampbell's remains to Mrs. Norton with the understanding that this was causing the Plaintiff severe distress. e. Continuing to misrepresent the location of the remains of Ms. MacCampbell with the knowledge that they were causing Plaintiff to experience severe emotional distress. f. Otherwise mistreating and mishandling the remains of Ms. MacCampbell. g. Authorizing the above actions in an attempt to avoid costs and maximize profits. 88. As a result of the actions of the Defendants, as set forth above, Ms. Norton sustained the following injuries, all of which may be of a severe and permanent nature: a. Severe emotional distress for which she sought physician's treatment; b. Impairment of general health, strength and vitality; c. Emotional disturbance, mental anguish, outrage, mental suffering and depression. 89. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as specifically set forth in this Complaint was outrageous, inconsistent with and intolerable given the norms of modern society and as such, Plaintiff requests punitive damages in addition to all other damages as aforesaid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Norton, demands judgment against all defendants individually, jointly and severally and/or in the alternative in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) together with costs, interest and such other relief as this honorable Court deems just and fair. COUNT II NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 90. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every preceding paragraph of this complaint as if the same were more fully set forth herein. 91. The Defendants had a duty to maintain accurate records of the location of all graves. 92. In addition, the Defendants had a duty to maintain accurate records of the ownership and interment rights in the cemetery plots. 93. Failing to keep these records resulted in the wrongful burial of Ms. Sweet in the already occupied grave of Ms. MacCampbell. 94. Failing to keep accurate records further resulted in Ms. Norton having to suffer through the disinterment of her mother and her aunt in order to determine the location of their remains. 95. Defendants also had a duty to hire licensed professional staff that would conduct themselves with dignity and sensitivity as a provider of death care services. 96. As a result of Defendants failure to hire competent staff and keep appropriate records, Plaintiff was made to suffer the distress of witnessing the disinterment and reburial of the remains of her mother and her aunt as well as suffer the additional distress brought about by the inability to identify the location of her mother's remains. 97. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer with headaches and insomnia due to this emotional distress for which she has sought treatment from a physician. 98. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as specifically set forth in this Complaint was outrageous, inconsistent with and intolerable given the norms of modern society and as such, Plaintiff requests punitive damages in addition to all other damages as aforesaid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Norton, demands judgment against all defendants individually, jointly and severally and/or in the alternative in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) together with costs, interest and such other relief as this honorable Court deems just and fair. COUNT III PUNITIVE DAMAGES 99. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every preceding paragraph of this complaint as if the same were more fully set forth herein. 100. The actions of the defendants were done with the purpose of putting profit over their own obligations to the families of buried loved ones, including Plaintiff. 101. Defendants exhumed the remains of Ms. MacCampbell and caused the sisters to be buried together for financial gain. 102. In addition, Defendants attempted to cover up their wrongdoing by intentionally misrepresenting the events of Marian Sweet's burial and the whereabouts of Mrs. MacCampbell's remains. 103. Defendants continued to misrepresent the location of Mrs. MacCampbell's remains with the understanding that this was causing Ms. Norton a significant amount of emotional distress. 104. Defendants, by and through their owners, employees and/or agents, acted in a willful, wanton, reckless and/or outrageous fashion. 105. Defendants, by and through their owners, employees and/or agents, acted, knew or should have known, that their willful, wanton, reckless and/or outrageous actions would cause emotional distress to the plaintiff. 106. Defendants' willful, wanton, reckless and/or outrageous actions warrant the awarding of punitive damages. COUNT IV NEGLIGENCE PER SE FOR VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 28 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CODE REGARDING THE DISINTERMENT OF DEAD BODIES 107. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every preceding paragraph of this complaint as if the same were more fully set forth herein. 108. At all times pertinent hereto, there was in full force and effect Title 28 of the Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 1, Section 1.25 a regulation which sets forth regulations regarding the handling of dead human bodies. 109. Title 28 of the Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 1, Section 1.25 expresses the policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that: No dead human body shall be removed from its place of interment unless a disinterment permit is obtained from the local registrar who is authorized to issue a disinterment permit according to the following requirements: (1). The funeral director or cemetery official making the application shall present to the local registrar the correct name, date of death and cause of death of the body to be disinterred and written consent of next of kin, or appropriate order of a court of competent jurisdiction (2). No disinterred body shall be reinterred either in the same cemetery or in another cemetery located in this Commonwealth unless a burial removal permit is obtained. (3). Disinterment permits shall be void after the expiration of 72 hours from the date of issue and no disinterment may be made between sunset and sunrise. (4). Disinterment permits are to be delivered to the sexton or other person in charge of the burial ground in which the disinterments are to be made and shall be returned by him to the local registrar where the body is reinterred within 30 days from the date when the permit was issued. 110. At all relevant times Ms. Norton was the next of kin of the deceased whose remains were disinterred and thus fell within the class of persons the regulation was designed to protect. 111. The Commonwealth enacted this regulation at least in part to obviate the kind of harm Ms. Norton sustained when she discovered her mother's remains were disinterred without her knowledge or permission. 112. Defendants, as the cemetery officials responsible for the disinterment, were negligent per se and violated Title 28, Chapter 1, Section 1.25 in that they disinterred and reburied the remains of the plaintiff s mother without obtaining the proper permits and without obtaining the permission of the plaintiff. Upon information and belief the defendants did this under cover of night as plaintiffs cousin was not aware of the disinterment when she attended the grave side memorial for her mother. 113. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence per se of Defendants, Jane Norton was caused to sustain serious person injuries and damages as aforesaid. 114. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as specifically set forth in this Complaint was outrageous, inconsistent with and intolerable given the norms of modern society and as such, Plaintiff requests punitive damages in addition to all other damages as aforesaid. COUNT V FRAUD 115. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every preceding paragraph of this complaint as if the same were more fully set forth herein. 116. The manager of Westminster Cemetery speaking on behalf of the Cemetery and the StoneMor entities deliberately misrepresented the location of Ms. Norton's mother's remains to Ms. Norton on multiple occasions. 117. The Defendants all understood these statements to be false after they had authorized the disinterment and reburial of the remains. 118. For a time. Ms. Norton believed these statements to be true and became horrified at the idea that her mother's remains had not been buried in their designated grave. 119. Her reliance on the information caused her significant emotional trauma. 120. In addition, the misleading information relayed by the defendants caused Ms. Norton to order the disinterment of her mother's grave in order to determine the exact location of her mother's remains after the Defendants fraudulently misrepresented the location of said remains. 121. Ms. Norton was then forced to suffer the emotional hardship of reburying her mother 27 years after her death. 122. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as specifically set forth in this Complaint was outrageous, inconsistent with and intolerable given the norms of modern society and as such, Plaintiff requests punitive damages in addition to all other damages as aforesaid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Norton, demands judgment against all defendants individually, jointly and severally and/or in the alternative, in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) together with costs, interest, punitive damages and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and fair. Respectfully submitted, BURNS WHITE LLC William J. Mundy, Esquire Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs Date: VERIFICATION I, Jane MacCampbell Norton, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and make these statements subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Jane MacCampbell Norton ????? 30, a.at1 Date: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire, hereby certify that on this date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint was served by United States First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Counsel for Defendants, Stonemor Partners, L.P., Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania, Stonemor Operating LLC, Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC, Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC, Westminster Cemetery, LLC, Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC 2m... (C Laura K. Peltonen Dated: Y8 ,)o(( c MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire PA Attorney ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants C: r^rn ro t `'; =r- U) CD c,a C) --ice (5 ?" "' f z.a JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Docket No. 10-6609 Civil Action - Law JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Jane MacCampbell Norton, Plaintiff c/o William J. Mundy, Esquire Laura K. Peltonen Gries, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorney for Plaintiff 05/862576.v1 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN AP41 L 26, to/ 2- o , DATE: Timothy J. cM on PA Attorney ID 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 ti mcmahonkmdwcg_com Attorney for Defendants 05/862576.v 1 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire PA Attorney ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Docket No. 10-6609 Civil Action - Law JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS I. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff is who she says she is. The remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants lack information after reasonable investigation and inquiry sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, accordingly, they are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 05/852802.v1 109495.00616/12192719v.1 2. Denied. It is denied that Defendant StoneMor Partners, L.P., is a corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania as alleged. By way of further answer, StoneMor Partners, L.P., maintains a business address at 311 Veteran's Highway, Levittown, PA, as alleged. 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that StoneMor Partners L.P.'s indirect subsidiaries are in the business of providing death care services, and that in certain instances they provide death care services through the ownership, development, and operation of cemeteries and funeral homes. It is denied that StoneMor Partners, L.P., owns, operates, and/or manages Westminster Cemetery in Carlisle, PA, as alleged. It is further specifically denied that StoneMor Partners, L.P., is the employer, supervisor, or partner of all other Defendants named in this action; and further specifically denied that StoneMor Partners, L.P., is individually and/or vicariously liable for the acts and/or omissions of agents, employees, servants, contractors, staff, and/or partners to the extent that the alleged agents, employees, servants, contractors, and/or staff concerning whom StoneMor Partners, L.P., is alleged to be vicariously liable are not herein identified, and accordingly these allegations are denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that StoneMor Partners, L.P. had any involvement in the alleged wrongful disinterment and burial of Plaintiffs decedent. The remaining allegations of this Paragraph are denied on the basis that they constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that StoneMor Partners L.P.'s indirect subsidiaries conduct their business operations StoneMor in a manner that is intended to provide excellent quality, value and service to its customers. To the extent that the allegations 05/852802.v 1 2 109495.00616/121927]9v. I set forth in this Paragraph purport to form a basis for claims under a theory of fraud and/or alleged misrepresentation, the allegations are denied. 5. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania is a Pennsylvania limited liability company which maintains a registered agent located at 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, PA, as alleged. It is specifically denied that StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania owned, operated, supervised, controlled, and/or maintained a cemetery which conducted business in Cumberland County on Newville Road, Carlisle, PA, as alleged. 6. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania, in certain instances, is engaged in the ownership, operation, and management of cemetery properties as alleged. It is specifically denied that StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania owned, operated, and/or managed Westminster Cemetery in Carlisle, PA, as alleged. It is further denied that StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania was the employer, supervisor, or partner of all other Defendants named in this action, and further denied that StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania is individually and/or vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, and/or its alleged agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff, and/or partners, on the basis that the alleged agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, and/or staff for whom StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania is alleged to be vicariously liable are not herein identified, and accordingly these allegations are denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania had any involvement in the alleged wrongful disinterment and burial of Plaintiffs decedent. By way of further answer, all remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that these allegations constitute conclusions of law, and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 05/852802.v1 109495.00616/121927]9v. I 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that StoneMor Operating LLC is a corporation which maintains a registered agent for the purpose of service of process in Pennsylvania, which is located at 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, PA, as alleged. It is specifically denied that StoneMor Operating LLC is a corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania. To the contrary, StoneMor Operating LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that StoneMor Operating LLC, at any time relevant to the material and well pleaded allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, owned, operated, supervised, controlled, and/or maintained a cemetery business in Cumberland County on Newville Road, Carlisle, PA. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that StoneMor Operating LLC's direct and indirect subsidiaries, in certain instances, are engaged in the ownership StoneMor, operation, and management of cemetery properties as alleged. It is specifically denied that StoneMor Operating LLC: owned, operated, and/or managed Westminster Cemetery in Carlisle, PA, as alleged. It is further denied that StoneMor Operating LLC was the employer, supervisor, or partner of all other Defendants named in this action, and further denied that StoneMor Operating LLC is individually and/or vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, and/or its alleged agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff, and/or partners, on the basis that the alleged agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, and/or staff for whom StoneMor Operating LLC is alleged to be vicariously liable are not herein identified, and accordingly these allegations are denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that StoneMor Operating LLC had any involvement in the alleged wrongful disinterment and burial of Plaintiffs decedent. By way of further answer, all remaining 05i852802.v1 4 109495.00616/12192719v. I allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that these allegations constitute conclusions of law, and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 9. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC sells burial spaces, including graves with installed vaults, at Westminster Cemetery in Cumberland County, PA. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied. Proof thereof to the contrary is demanded to the extent relevant. 10. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC sells burial spaces, including graves with installed vaults, at Westminster Cemetery in Carlisle, PA. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied, and proof thereof to the contrary is demanded to the extent relevant. It is further denied that StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC was the employer, supervisor, or partner of all other Defendants named in this action, and further denied that StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC is individually and/or vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, and/or its alleged agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff, and/or partners, on the basis that the alleged agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, and/or staff for whom StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC is alleged to be vicariously liable are not herein identified, and accordingly these allegations are denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC had any involvement in the alleged wrongful disinterment and burial of Plaintiffs decedent. By way of further answer, all remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that these allegations constitute conclusions of law, and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 11. Admitted in part; denied in part. StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC is a Pennsylvania limited liability company which maintains a registered agent for the purpose of 05/852802.v 1 5 109495.00616/121927]9v. I service of process, which agent is located at 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, PA, as alleged. It is further admitted only that StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC maintained and maintains a cemetery known as Westminster Cemetery in Carlisle, PA. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied. It is specifically denied that StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC owns and/or owned Westminster Cemetery in Carlisle, PA. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are otherwise denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 12. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC sells burial spaces, including graves with installed vaults, at Westminster Cemetery in Carlisle, PA. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied, and proof thereof to the contrary is demanded to the extent relevant. It is further denied that StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC was the employer, supervisor, or partner of all other Defendants named in this action, and further denied that StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC is individually and/or vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, and/or its alleged agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff, and/or partners, on the basis that the alleged agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, and/or staff for whom StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC is alleged to be vicariously liable are not herein identified, and accordingly these allegations are denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC had any involvement in the alleged wrongful disinterment and burial of Plaintiffs decedent. By way of further answer, all remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that these allegations constitute conclusions of law, and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 05i852802.vl 6 109495.00616/12192719v.1 13. Denied. It is specifically denied that Westminster Cemetery, LLC, is a Pennsylvania corporation which maintains an address at 1159 Newville Road, Carlisle, PA, as alleged. To the contrary, Westminster Cemetery, LLC, no longer exists and has not since July 31, 2009, at which time Westminster Cemetery, LLC merged into J.V. Walker LLC, a PA limited liability company, which changed its name to StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC. 14. Denied. It is denied that Westminster Cemetery, LLC, is engaged in the business of owning, operating, and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery, and further denied that Westminster Cemetery, LLC, was the employer, supervisor, or partner of all the Defendants named in this action, and further denied that Westminster Cemetery, LLC, held itself and/or any agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff, and/or partners out to the public as confident and skillful owners and operators of Westminster Cemetery as alleged. It is further denied that Westminster Cemetery, LLC, is individually and/or vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of alleged agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff, and/or alleged partners, none of whom are otherwise identified in Plaintiffs Complaint. It is further specifically denied that Westminster Cemetery, LLC, is vicariously liable for the other Defendants named in this action. It is further specifically denied that Westminster Cemetery, LLC, wrongfully disinterred and/or wrongfully buried Plaintiffs decedent. 15. Denied. It is denied that Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, is a Pennsylvania corporation located at 1159 Newville Road, Carlisle, PA, as alleged. To the contrary, Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, no longer exists, and has not since December 31, 2008, at which time Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, merged into Osiris Holding of Pennsylvania Subsidiary, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company, which changed its name to StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC. 05/852802.v1 7 109495.00616/12192719v.1 16. Denied. It is denied that Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, engaged in the business owning, operating, and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery, and further denied that that Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, was the employer, supervisor, or partner of all the Defendants named in this action, and further denied that Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, held itself and/or any agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff, and/or partners out to the public as confident and skillful owners and operators of Westminster Cemetery as alleged. It is further denied that Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC is individually and/or vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of alleged agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff, and/or alleged partners, none of whom are otherwise identified in Plaintiffs Complaint. It is further specifically denied that Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC is vicariously liable for the other Defendants named in this action. It is further specifically denied that Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC wrongfully disinterred and/or wrongfully buried Plaintiffs decedent. Additionally, with reference to the foregoing answer in Paragraph 15, Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC no longer exists, and has not since December 31, 2008. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The averments set forth in this unnumbered Paragraph constitute conclusions of law which are deemed denied and to which no further responsive pleading is required. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 17. Admitted upon information and belief. 18. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the subject plot will accommodate eight grave sites. The remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied 05/852802.v1 8 109495.00616/12192719v.1 on the basis that Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information concerning the alleged intentions of Mr. Rickenbaugh. 19. Admitted upon information and belief. 20. Admitted upon information and belief. 21. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, are without factual information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 22. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that certain Defendants exercised control over the maintenance of Westminster Cemetery. During the time here relevant, maintenance of Westminster Cemetery, and specifically in 2010, was provided by StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC. As to all other Defendants named in this action, these allegations are denied. 23. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that to the extent that the allegations set forth in this Paragraph concerning budgeting, marketing, staffing, and training of "Westminster Cemetery" refer to the maintenance thereof, it is admitted that StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC performed these functions. To the extent that the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are directed to the other Defendants named in this action, these allegations are specifically denied. 24. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that maintenance of cemetery lots in Westminster Cemetery during times relevant to the material allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint was performed by StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC. To the extent that the allegations set forth in this Paragraph pertain to the conveyance of burial spaces, 05/852802.v1 9 109495.00616/12192719v. I including graves with installed vaults, during the time relevant to the material and well pleaded allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, the sale of burial spaces, including graves with installed vaults, was performed by StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are otherwise denied as concern all other Defendants named in this action. 25. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 26. Admitted upon information and belief. 27. Admitted upon information and belief. 28. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that on or about March 19, 1984, a graveside service was held concerning decedent Kathleen R. MacCampbell as alleged, and that the urn containing decedent's remains was to be placed to the right of Calvin Rickenbaugh's gravesite. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied. 29. Admitted upon information and belief. 30. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demand to the extent relevant. 31. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demand to the extent relevant. 05/852802.v1 10 109495.00616/12192719v. I 32. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demand to the extent relevant. 33. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demand to the extent relevant. 34. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that in January 2010, Marian Sweet passed away, and that thereafter arrangements were made to have Marian Sweet's remains buried in the Rickenbaugh plot at Westminster Cemetery as alleged. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied. 35. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only upon information and belief that a graveside service for decedent Marian Sweet was held in April 2010 as alleged. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 36. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 05/852802.vl 11 109495.00616/12192719v.1 37. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 38. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 39. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 40. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 41. Admitted upon information and belief. 42. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager at Westminster Cemetery in August 2010 as alleged. To the contrary, at that time, Ms. Becker was the sales director at Westminster Cemetery. Gail Becker has subsequently passed away, and accordingly Defendants are unable to, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, confirm the allegations set forth in this Paragraph to the extent that these allegations 05/852802.v l 12 109495.00616/121927]9v. I refer to remarks and/or communications allegedly attributable to Gail Becker, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 43. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 44. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 45. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 46. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering :Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 47. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack 05/852802.v1 13 109495.00616/12192719v. I information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 48. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 49. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants whom, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 50. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 51. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 52. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are 05/852802.v 1 14 109495.00616/12192719v.1 denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 53. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 54. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 55. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied by Answering Defendants whom, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 56. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 05/852802.v1 15 109495.00616/12192719v. I 57. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 58. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted upon information and belief that on August 12, 2010, Jane Norton contacted Shirley Herman, administrative assistant to Michael Stache, senior vice president and chief financial officer, as alleged. The remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 59. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 60. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 61. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack 05/852802.v 1 16 109495.00616/12192719v.1 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 62. Denied. It is specifically denied that Gail Becker was the cemetery manager as alleged. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 63. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 64. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that on or about August 17, 2010, communications occurred between Plaintiff and Jim Lentz as alleged. It is further admitted that Mr. Lentz informed Ms. Norton that the cremated remains of decedent Kathleen R. MacCampbell had been placed inside the vault in which decedent Marian Sweet had been buried. The remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 65. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that on or about August 19, 2010, communications occurred between Plaintiff and Mr. Lentz as alleged. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied. 66. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to 051852802.v 1 17 109495.00616/12192719v.I form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 67. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 68. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that these allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required. To the extent that any further responsive pleading is deemed required, then these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 69. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 70. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only, upon information and belief, that on September 14, 2010, Ms. Norton was present at Westminster Cemetery when the remains of decedent Marian Sweet were lawfully disinterred from their original burial location and the urn containing the cremated remains of decedent Kathleen MacCampbell were removed from that gravesite. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied. 71. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only, upon information and belief, that on September 14, 2010, Ms. Norton was present at Westminster Cemetery when the remains of decedent Marian Sweet were lawfully disinterred, which included the removal of the vault 05/852802.v1 18 109495.00616/121927]9v. I which contained Ms. Sweet's casket. The remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied and proof thereof to the contrary is demanded to the extent relevant. 72. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that on September 14, 2010, the vault which contained the casket which contained the remains of decedent Marian Sweet was opened and the urn containing the cremated remains of decedent Kathleen MacCampbell had been located in that vault as alleged. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied. 73. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants have disturbed the remains of decedent Kathleen MacCampbell as alleged. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied. By way of further answer, and to the extent that any further responsive pleading is deemed required to these allegations, all remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied and proof thereof to the contrary is demanded to the extent relevant. 74. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 75. Denied. It is specifically denied that a groundskeeper at Westminster Cemetery stored an urn containing the remains of decedent Kathleen MacCampbell pursuant to a work order as alleged. The remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information 05/852802.v1 19 109495.00616/12192719v. I sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 76. Denied. It is specifically denied that the cremated remains of decedent Kathleen MacCampbell were buried along with the casket containing the remains of decedent Marian Sweet pursuant to a work order as alleged. All remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 77. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 78. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 79. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 80. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to 05/852802.v1 20 109495.00616/121927]9v. I form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly the allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 81. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, and to the extent that any further response is deemed required to these allegations, then these allegations are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 82. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, and to the extent that any further response is deemed required to these allegations, then these allegations are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. COUNTI INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 83. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 82 above as if set forth at length. 84. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendants are entities which act through agents, servants, and employees, and particularly through agents, servants, and employees in the course and scope of their respective employment. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph do not specify which particular agents, servants, and/or 05/852802.v1 21 109495.00616/12192719v. I employees Defendants are alleged to have acted and accordingly the remainder of these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied otherwise on the basis that these allegations constitute conclusions of law. 85. Denied. It is specifically denied that representatives from StoneMor Partners and/or Westminster Cemetery intentionally misled Plaintiff Jane Norton as alleged and proof thereof to the contrary is demanded. 86. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff as alleged, and further specifically denied that the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint constitute extreme and outrageous conduct as alleged. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied otherwise on the basis that these allegations constitute conclusions of law. 87. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that these allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required. To the extent that any further responsive pleading is deemed required, then Defendants deny that Plaintiff suffered injuries and/or damages as a result of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph, all such allegations being denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendants engaged in intentional and/or wanton conduct as set forth in subparagraphs (a) through (g) of this Paragraph, all such allegations being denied. 88. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that these allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the 05/852802.v1 22 109495.00616/12192719v.1 extent relevant. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph, together with its subparts (a) through (c), are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 89. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants engaged in conduct that was outrageous, inconsistent with and intolerable given the norms of modern society as alleged. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. COUNT II NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 90. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 89 above as if set forth at length. 91. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa.R.C.P. 1029, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 92. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa.R.C.P. 1029, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 93. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa.R.C.P. 1029, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 94. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa.R.C.P. 1029, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 05/852802.v1 23 109495.00616/121927]9v. I 95. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa.R.C.P. 1029, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 96. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa.R.C.P. 1029, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 97. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa.R.C.P. 1029, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 98. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law within the meaning of Pa.R.C.P. 1029, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. COUNT III PUNITIVE DAMAGES 99. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 98 above as if set forth at length. 100. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants acted for the purpose of putting profit over alleged obligations to families of buried loved ones, including Plaintiff. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law which are otherwise denied. 101. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants exhumed the remains of Ms. MacCampbell and caused the sisters to be buried together for financial gain. Proof thereof to the 05/952802.v1 24 109495.00616/12192719v. I contrary is demanded to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required. 102. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants intentionally misrepresented events concerning Marian Sweet's burial and/or the whereabouts of decedent Mrs. MacCampbell. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are otherwise denied. 103. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants misrepresented and/or continue to misrepresent the location of decedent Mrs. MacCampbell's remains, and further denied that the Defendants did so with an understanding that this was causing Ms. Norton a significant amount of emotional distress. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 104. Denied. It is denied the Defendants through their alleged owners, employees, and/or agents, acted in a willful, wanton, reckless, and/or outrageous fashion. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 105. Denied. Answering Defendants specifically deny that they, through their alleged owners, employees, and/or agents, acted in a willful, wanton, reckless, and/or outrageous manner and/or caused alleged emotional distress to Plaintiff. By way of further answer, the allegations 05/852802.v 1 25 109495.00616/121927]9v. I set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 106. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, Defendants deny all allegations of willful, wanton, reckless, and/or outrageous actions. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. COUNT IV NEGLIGENCE PER SE FOR VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 28 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CODE 107. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 106 above as if set forth at length. 108. Denied as stated. Title 28 of Pennsylvania Code §1.25 is a codified regulation which in its entirety speaks for itself, and accordingly these allegations are denied. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 109. Denied as stated. Title 28 of Pennsylvania Code §1.25 is a codified regulation which in its entirety speaks for itself, and accordingly these allegations are denied. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 05/852802.v 1 26 109495.00616/12192719v.I 110. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 111. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 112. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and/or constitute disputed questions of fact, and accordingly the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 113. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 114. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, Defendants deny all allegations of outrageous conduct and/or conduct inconsistent and intolerable given the norms of modern society. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. COUNT V - FRAUD 115. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 114 above as if set forth at length. 05/852802.vl 27 109495.00616/121927]9v. I 116. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required. To the extent that any further responsive pleading is deemed required, then it is specifically denied that the manager of Westminster Cemetery, as is referenced herein, which Defendants believe to refer to Gail Becker, it is denied, upon information and belief that Ms. Becker, now deceased, deliberately misrepresented information to Plaintiff Norton as alleged. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 117. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required. Accordingly, these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendants understood any statements allegedly made to Plaintiff to be false and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 118. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 119. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph are denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. 120. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, all allegations 05/852802.v1 28 109495.00616/12192719v. 1 set forth in this Paragraph are otherwise denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied. 121. Denied. The allegations set forth in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. By way of further answer, all allegations set forth in this Paragraph are otherwise denied on the basis that Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and accordingly these allegations are denied. 122. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants engaged in conduct that was outrageous, inconsistent with and intolerable given the norms of modern society as alleged. By way of further answer, the allegations set forth in this Paragraph constituted conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required, and accordingly these allegations are denied and proof thereof is demanded to the extent relevant. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF 123. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action against Answering Defendants upon which relief may be granted as a matter of law. 124. Answering Defendants breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiff Jane MacCampbell Norton under the material and well pleaded factual circumstances set forth in Plaintiff s Complaint. 05/852802.v1 29 109495.00616/12192719v. I 125. No act or omission on the part of Answering Defendants or any of them or any of their agents or employees was either the legal and/or factual cause of any injury, harm, or damages, all such injuries, harm, and/or damages to Jane MacCampbell Norton being specifically denied. 126. Any harm or injury suffered by Plaintiff, the existence of such harm or injury being specifically denied, is the result of acts or omissions of others not within the control or responsibility of Answering Defendants and which Answering Defendants could not foresee. 127. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action for the imposition of punitive damages as a matter of law. 128. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action for negligence based upon an alleged violation of statutes, specifically Title 28 of the Pennsylvania Code § 1.25 in that the cremated remains of decedent Kathleen MacCampbell do not as a matter of law fall within the purview and/or scope of Title 28 of Pennsylvania Code §1.25. 129. Pending discovery in this matter, and pursuant to the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 1030(a), and so as not to waive potentially waivable defenses set forth in therein, Defendants plead the following defenses as may subsequently be substantiated through subsequent discovery: accord and satisfaction, consent, and/or waiver. 130. Pending discovery in this matter, Answering Defendants specifically reserve the right to present all affirmative defenses available under Pa. R.C.P. 1030, including the defenses of contributory and comparative negligence which may bar and/or limit Plaintiffs claims. 05/852802.vi 30 109495.00616/12192719v.1 WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. DATE: AML Zi t tu12 Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & G GGIN Z4 1_1:_w Timoth J. on PA Attorney ID #52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendant 05/852802.v1 31 109495.00616/12192719v. I VERIFICATION Frank Milles, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that he is Vice President of StoneMor Partners LP; StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania; StoneMor Operating LLC ; StoneMor Pennsylvania L,LQ and StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC and that he is authorized to take this verification on behalf of StoneMor Partners LP; StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania; StoneMor Operating LLC ; StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC; and StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC; and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. This verification is subject to 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 which provides for certain penalties for making false statements. 1~ Iles, Vice President DATE: April /., 2012 05/855775.v1 109495.00616/12193712v.1 VERIFICATION Timothy J. McMahon, Attorney for Defendants, Westminster Cemetery, LLC, and Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, verifies that the facts set forth in the Answer with New Matter are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. If the above statements are not true, the deponent is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. f --I? TIM T Y J MAHON DATE: April ' , 2012 05/763268.v l .0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Kathy A. Toney, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this ?6 I ?ay of April, 2012, I served a copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: William J. Mundy, Esquire Laura K. Peltonen Gries, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Kathy A. oney 05/852802.v1 32 109495.00616/12192719v. I ILEO-OFFIC% OF THE PROTHONOTARY 20#2 JUL 27 PM 1: 53 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire PA Attorney ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff V. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, Defendants Civil Action - Law JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO OUTSTANDING WRITTEN DISCOVERY 1. Plaintiff Jane MacCampbell Norton instituted this action by filing a Praecipe for the issuance of a Writ of Summons, which was filed on or about October 18, 2010. 2. Thereafter, Defendants, through their counsel, filed a Praecipe for a Rule directing Plaintiff to file her Complaint in February 2011. 3. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Complaint in this action in September 2011. 05/916560.v l 1 4. On May 4, 2012, counsel for Defendants directed a Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiffs under a cover correspondence of May 4, 2012, a true and correct copy of which correspondence and Request for Production of Documents are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit A. 5. A prior agreement concerning an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to the outstanding Request for Production of Documents has expired and no further agreements have been reached concerning an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to this outstanding written discovery. 6. Depositions in this matter have been scheduled to take place in August, including that of Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff s continued failure to respond to Defendants' Request for Production of Documents is prejudicial to Defendants' ability to prepare for and ultimately conduct Plaintiffs discovery deposition. 7. Accordingly., Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter a Rule to Show Cause in the form attached hereto concerning this outstanding written discovery. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLE & GOG IN DATE: 01 Az -z_ Tim thy J. Mc o PA Attorney ID 918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendant(s) 05/916560.v l 2 ?/ A REGIONAL DEFENSE LITIGATION LAw FIRM DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN MARsHALL PENNSYLVANIA th hem o DELAWARE Wilmington , , , y A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N www.marshaUdennehey.com Erie H arrisburg 0M0 Akron King of Prussia Philadelphia FLORIDA Pittsburgh Ft. Lauderdale 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B - Harrisburg, PA 17112 SWil?hamssport Jacksonville (717) 651-3500 - Fax (717) 651-9630 NEwJERSEY Tampa Cherry Hill NEwYORs Roseland New York Direct Dial: 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com May 4, 2012 Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC Scott D. Josephson, Esquire 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Re: Jane MacCampbell Norton v. Stonemor Partners, L.P. Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas; No. 2010-6609 Date of Loss: April 2010 Claim No. ENB2654 MDWCG File No. 19183.01742 Dear Attorney Peltonen: Enclosed please find a Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, Timoth J. c on TJM/ kat Enclosure 05/879630.v I MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire PA Attorney ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Docket No. 10-6609 Civil Action - Law JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF TO: Jane MacCampbell Norton, Plaintiff c/o William J. Mundy, Esquire Laura K. Peltonen Gries, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Counsel for Plaintiff With respect to the matters referred to in Plaintiffs Complaint, please note that you are directed to produce for purposes of inspection and/or copying, the following items, all of which relate to the matter referred to in Plaintiffs Complaint. These items must be produced no later than thirty days from the date of the filing of this request. Same may be provided by forwarding copies to the office of the undersigned, 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17112. These Requests are not directed merely to the person or party whose name appears above, but are meant to include that person's or party's agents, servants, insurers, employers, employees, investigators, attorneys and others similarly situated to the named party or person. 05/865700.v l In addition, although the Request seeks these documents within the next thirty days, the request should also be deemed continuing, in that if there are further materials which come under the purview of any of these Requests which are obtained after the time of their production presently, said materials should also be furnished in accord with this Request. DOCUMENTS REQUESTED 1. All written statements (signed or unsigned), descriptions, records, and written accounts of any investigation directly or indirectly related to the matter set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint. RESPONSE: 2. All other writings, memoranda, data, notes, diary, logs, correspondence, and/or tangible things which relate, directly or indirectly, to the incident and damages set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint. RESPONSE: 3. All photographs, diagrams, drawings, and/or depictions of the subject cemetery and/or gravesites set forth and described within Plaintiffs Complaint. RESPONSE: 4. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that Defendants exercised control over the budgeting, marketing, staffing, and training of Westminster Cemetery, as described by you in Plaintiffs Complaint at Paragraph 23. RESPONSE: 05/865700.v1 2 5. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that Plaintiff Norton and other family members witnessed that a gravesite to the right of Calvin Rickenbaugh's had been excavated for the placement in 1984 of the urn belonging to Mrs. MacCampbell, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 28. RESPONSE: 6. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that Gail Becker, """cemetery manager","" informed Margo Sweet that Westminster Cemetery had probed the lot where Plaintiffs mother was buried and found nothing, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 42. RESPONSE: 7. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that the "cemetery manager" informed Margo Sweet that Mrs. MacCampbell was buried in a different lot and that Plaintiffs aunt was in the correct lot, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 42. RESPONSE: 8. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that on August 9, 2012, Plaintiff made repeated efforts to speak with someone at Westminster Cemetery to determine the location of her mother's remains, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 45. RESPONSE: 05/865700.v1 3 9. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that on August 9, 2010, Plaintiff was repeatedly told that the Westminster "cemetery manager" was the only person who could speak with her and that the manager was "too busy," as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 46. RESPONSE: 10. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that the" manager of Westminster Cemetery" contacted Plaintiff and stated that both sisters (Plaintiffs aunt and mother) were cremated, they were buried in the same plot, one at the head and the other at the foot, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 48. RESPONSE: 11. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that the "manager of Westminster Cemetery" insisted that Westminster Cemetery was in possession of cremation papers identifying Marian Sweet, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 50. RESPONSE: 12. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that the "manager of Westminster Cemetery" later insisted that Westminster Cemetery only had a record of four gravesites at the Rickenbaugh plot, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 51. RESPONSE: 05/865700.v1 4 13. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that "Westminster Cemetery's manager" continued to insist that the empty area in the cemetery behind the Rickenbaugh stone belonged to another individual, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 52. RESPONSE: 14. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that the "manager of Westminster Cemetery" refused to identify whom she believed owned the empty area behind the Rickenbaugh stone, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 52. RESPONSE: 15. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that the Westminster "cemetery manager" insisted that Westminster Cemetery only had a record of four Rickenbaugh plots, despite the fact that four unoccupied lots were marked with "R" for Rickenbaugh, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 52. RESPONSE: 16. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that on August 10, 2010, "Westminster Cemetery's manager" contacted Plaintiff and relayed a second, and different, story as to the location of the remains of Plaintiffs mother and aunt, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 53. RESPONSE: 05/865700.v1 5 17. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that "Westminster Cemetery's manager," on August 10, 2010, claimed that Margo Sweet instructed and authorized the burial of Plaintiffs aunt, Marian Sweet, with Plaintiffs motion, Mrs. MacCampbell, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 54. RESPONSE: 18. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that on August 12, 2010, the "Westminster cemetery manager" claimed that Plaintiffs mother was buried "in Lot 1 beside her father" and that "they must have been very close to have been buried together," as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 57. RESPONSE: 19. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that on August 12, 2010, following Plaintiffs request that the area around her family's plot be probed, the Westminster "cemetery manager" claimed that "new burials are the first priority" and that the cemetery was "too busy," as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 57. RESPONSE: 20. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that on August 12, 2010, Plaintiff contacted Stonemor Partners' corporate headquarters and spoke to Shirley Herman, the administrative assistant to senior vice president and chief financial officer, Michael Stache, and that Ms. Herman took notes promising to pass them along, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 58. RESPONSE: 05/865700.v1 6 21. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that as of August 16, 2010, no one replied on behalf of the Stonemor Defendants to Plaintiff s August 12 call to Stonemor Partners' corporate headquarters, prompting Plaintiff to again contact Shirley Herman and leave a message, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 60. RESPONSE: 22. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that at some point in time following Plaintiffs August 12 and August 16, 2010, telephone calls to Stonemor Partners' corporate headquarters, "Westminster Cemetery's manager" stated that Plaintiffs mother, Mrs. MacCampbell, was buried in yet another location, marked as Lot 4 between Plaintiffs mother's father and sister, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 62. RESPONSE: 23. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that Jim Lentz, Regional Vice President of Stonemor, attempted to explain Westminster Cemetery's alleged action by saying "there's a lot of rock in the cemetery" and "blasting is costly," as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 64. RESPONSE: 24. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that Jim Lentz further claimed to Plaintiff that the fact that a site had been partially dug would save on the cost of possibly having to blast a new site, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 64. RESPONSE: 05/865700.v l 7 25. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that on August 19, 2010, Mr. Lentz explained why Plaintiffs mother's urn could not have been buried by itself above Plaintiffs aunt's vault- stating Westminster Cemetery would have had to dig down approximately two more feet to satisfy burial requirements for spacing, which may have required blasting, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 65. RESPONSE: 26. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that at the September 14, 2010, disinterment of Plaintiff s aunt and mother, "Westminster's head groundskeeper" informed Plaintiff that in April of that year he had been given a work order to disinter the remains of Mrs. MacCampbell, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 74. RESPONSE: 27. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that pursuant to an alleged work order, the "groundskeeper" stored the urn containing the remains of Mrs. MacCampbell in one of Westminster's trucks while Ms. Sweet was buried, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 75. RESPONSE: 28. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that following the original burial of Ms. Sweet, the Defendants retrieved Mrs. MacCampbell's urn from the Westminster Cemetery work truck and placed it into Ms. Sweet's vault beside her coffin and buried the remains of both sisters together per an alleged work order, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 76. RESPONSE: 05i865700.vi 8 29. Any and all documents which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contention that Plaintiff visited her mother's grave in November of 2010, finding her mother's headstone still leaning up against a tree, with the gravesite still containing large cracks and remaining in a sunken condition, covered with sparse amounts of grass, as described by you in the Complaint at Paragraph 79. RESPONSE: 30. Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, medical records, which you believe or contend support, in whole or in part, the contentions throughout Plaintiffs Complaint that Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress and emotional disturbances requiring professional medical treatment following the events described within the Complaint, as set forth particularly in the Complaint at Paragraph 88(a)-(c). RESPONSE: DATE: Q ZU/ Z J?- -7? Timoth J. A on PA Attorney ID 52918 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendants 05/865700.v1 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathy A. Toney, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this guy of May, 2012, I served a copy of the foregoing Request for Production of Documents via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: William J. Mundy, Esquire Laura K. Peltonen Gries, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Kathy A. To y 05/865700.v l 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathy A. Toney, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this _° ?day of July, 2012, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 --') - 4-c? Kathy A. oney 05/916560.v 1 3 4-1 ?ROTIVA ??l2 ALA, _Z PM 2' Z3 (;UMBER!-aHU COUNTY PENNSY?Y?'NiA MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire PA Attorney ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff v. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Docket No. 10-6609 Civil Action - Law JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDMENT TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO OUTSTANDING WRITTEN DISCOVERY In addition to the averments set forth in Defendants' original Motion to Compel outstanding written discovery, Defendants hereby submit this Amendment in order to be compliant with Cumberland County Local Rule 208.3(a)(2) and (9). 2. No judge has ruled upon any other issue in the same or related matter which is at issue in this litigation and/or this Motion. 05/923320.v l I 3. The undersigned counsel for Defendants has sought the concurrence of opposing counsel regarding the outstanding discovery and the relief requested, and opposing counsel does not concur with this Motion to Compel Discovery. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: AUG - / , Y-G/ Z A/? Tim thy . Mc aho PA Attorney ID #52V8 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendants 05/923320.v1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathy A. Toney, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this day of August, 2012,1 served a copy of the foregoing Amendment to Motion to Compel via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 V??Pto? Kathy A oney 05/923320.vl 3 JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Docket No. 10-6609 Civil Action - Law JURY TRIAL DEMANDED C-) G ?, 3 r-I W cn r ? c> c= L9'21 N r i Qti -o rv W ul RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this day o 44F, 2012, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Compel Responses to Outstanding Written Discovery, and specifically a Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is hereby directed to show cause not later than twenty days why the requested relief should not be granted. In the event that Plaintiff does not respond within 20 days to this Rule to Show Cause, Defendants may file a motion to make the Rule absolute, in which event Plaintiff will be directed to answer the outstanding Request for Production of Documents within 10 days of an Order granting the motion to make the Rule absolute. ? Ae look of %e 0516584 Ma .v1 BY THE COURT: ca , ntc ~tl:~~'~~~~~ 212 SEP -~ PM ~~ 32 ~v PEKNS ~~ ~~ A T Y MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire PA Attorney ID# 52918 4200 Crams Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff v. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY ~ SUBSIDIARY, LLC, Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Docket No. 10-6609 Civil Action -Law JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE And now come Defendants by and through their undersigned counsel, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman and Goggin, who respectfully submit the following Motion to Make Rule Absolute and in support thereof the theory as follows: 1. On August 1, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel discovery responses, together with a rule to show cause concerning said Motion. 1 2. The basis for Defendants' Motion to Compel discovery responses stem from an overdue request for production of documents served upon Plaintiffs counsel on May 30, 2012. 3. On August 6, 2012, the Honorable Court issued a Rule on Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants were not entitled to the requested relief. 4. To date, Plaintiff has failed to full and complete responses, and the requisite 20 days have expired. 5. In light of the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to make its August 6, 2012 Rule Absolute and grant the Defendants' Motion to Compel discovery responses. 6. In accordance with Cumberland County Local Rule of Court 208.3(a)(2), the undersigned certifies that the Honorable Judge Albert H. Masland previously issued the rule to show cause in this matter. 7. In accordance with Cumberland County Local Rule of Court 208.3(a)(9), the undersigned certifies that he sought concurrence from Plaintiffs counsel regarding this issue, concurrence was not received (See August 27, 2012 correspondence attached hereto as Ezhibit ..A..). WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel on behalf of the Defendants respectfully that this Honorable Court enter an Order making its August 6, 2012, Rule Absolute, granting Defendants' Motion to Compel and ordering Plaintiff to provide full and complete discovery 2 responses to Defendants within 20 days from the date of the Order, or be subjected to further discovery sanctions in accordance with Pa.R.C.P.4019. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: ciG • , ?~/IZ Timoth J. c on PA Attorney I #52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 Fax: (717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendants OS/934062.v1 ~~ Sulzer, Jake J. From: McMahon, Timothy [TJMcMahon((a~MDWCG.com] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 5:32 PM To: Peltonen, Laura K. Cc: 19183. 01742 (19183.01742.05~01DMCOMMA.MDWCG.COM) Subject: RE: Norton v. Stonemor Dear Counsel: As you are aware, there is a Rule Returnable that has issued on this discovery. No medical records as such hay supplied with the responses that we received today. No advice has been offered concerning when those reco reasonably expected from Plaintiff. Thus and in the absence of further information from you in this regard, de will submit a Motion to Make the Rule Absolute. We would prefer to avoid burdening the court with discover but inasmuch as the Request for Production of Documents had been served nearly four months ago, it would Plaintiff has had ample tim to have previously requested the medical records from her healthcare provider(s) turn supply them to Defendants through discovery. If you are able to say that the requested medical records provided by a date certain, please confirm that. Thank you, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARi~i ER CVLEMAN & GOGG i N e~ +~t ~t ta~+ r~ ~€Y Timothy J. McMahon Mannging Attorney - ftnrrisburg, PA bio (g mail ~ website 4200 Crums Mill Road sake s Harrisburg, PA. 17112 Direct: (717) 651-3505 Main: {717} 651-3500 Fax: {717) 651-8630 been ds may be ~endants ~ motions eem that nd to in sill be This small harmnlealai and any doaattsnta, Nes a prsvlars smai msasapss attached to M, ars mrMdsntlal and aro protected b7 tM atlomay-bent P~MOa attdla work Droattcl doWMS. K you ate not the kMedW , or a pawn reaporu~le ror dseverkp h to the YMrtded redplsnL you are hsnby ratMed Mal any rovbw. darJwrwa. oopykp, dWamina5ort, dfatltbu0on ar uas of atry al0r kMOnnatlat cordaktsd b, or a6adtad b tlYS s•nW h STRICTLY PROHIBITED. n you have roceFred 0ib trarwrrtbabn M error, P~ MnsrMatsb ~7 ms M ~w~0 thls stnetl to , or h tsNpnats at (717) 631-9505 all then delete the msaape all Ns ttls hom your oangder. From: Altamuro, Mary [mailto:maaltamuro@burnswhite.rnm] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 4:41 PM To: McMahon, Timothy Cc: Peltonen, Laura K. Subject: Norton v. Stonemor timcmahon@mdwca.com Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin Re: Jane MacCampbell Norton v. Stonemor Partners, L.P., et al. Cumberland County CCP Civil Action No. 2010-6609 Our File No. 11848-193359 Mr. McMahon: Please see attached letter, Response to Requests for Production of Documents and Exhibit "1". The original and disc will follow by United States First Class Mail. Thank you. Mary A. Altamuro, Secretary Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: 484-567-5700 Direct Dial: 484-567-5716 Fax: 484-567-5701 We intend to send this transmission (including any attachments) only to the appropriate recipients. If you recei~ message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Th transmission may contain confidential or privileged information and may constitute non-public information. Use disclosure, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorize be unlawful. Unless otherwise stated by the sender, this transmission (Including any attachments) does not cre confirm a contract, agreement, offer or acceptance between sender and any recipient. this and may to or CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan Hepp, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this ~~y of August, 2012, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion Make Rule Absolute via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Susan Hepp MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN J'- I . i�0'1' 'mu By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 2011 b jjr, 9 4200 Crums Mill Road,Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 CUMBERLAND COUNTY Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com PENNSYLVANIA Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNA. V. Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; Civil Action—Law STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE 1. Jane Norton instituted this action by filing a Praecipe for the issuance of a Writ of Summons on October 18, 2010. Thereafter, Defendants filed a Praecipe for a Rule directing that Plaintiff file her Complaint and serve that Rule timely. 2. Plaintiffs Complaint was filed on October 18, 2010. 3. Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint was filed on April 23,2012. 4. Plaintiff, in her Complaint,has alleged causes of action under four Counts: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count 1);Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count II); Punitive Damages(Count 111);Negligence Per Se for Alleged Violations of Title 28 of the Pennsylvania Code (Count IV); and Fraud(Count V). The essential facts against which I these theories of recovery have been pleaded concern the short term sharing of a gravesite at Westminster Cemetery from April 17, 2010 until September 14,2010 by the cremated remains of Plaintiffs decedent, Kathleen MacCampbell and decedent MacCampbell's late sister, Marian Sweet. Plaintiffs decedent had passed away and was buried in March 1984 at Westminster Cemetery in Monument Section A, Lot 36, Space 4 West. In April 2010,upon the death of Marian Sweet, Ms. Sweet's casketed remains were co-buried with the cremated remains of Plaintiffs decedent, Kathleen Rickenbaugh. On September 14, 2010,the casketed remains of decedent Marian Sweet were moved to Monument Section A, Lot 36, Space 4 East and the urn containing the cremated remains of Plaintiffs decedent,Kathleen Rickenbaugh,were re-interred at Monument Section A, Lot 36, Space 4 West. 5. The parties have engaged in substantial written discovery in this matter since the pleadings have closed. 6. The parties have completed five discovery depositions in this matter including the deposition of Plaintiff Jane Norton,the depositions of Lester Hoch, who is the maintenance director at Westminster Cemetery,Virginia(Ginny) Weller,who is the cemetery administrator for Westminster Cemetery, as well as depositions of Frank Milles, who is the Vice-President for Administration for Defendant Stonemor Partners, LP, as well as the discovery deposition of James Lentz, who is a regional Vice-President for Stonemor Partners, LP. 7. The parties hereby respectfully request a status conference with the Court to establish a Case Management Order and to set a schedule allowing for completion of remaining discovery,the seriatim production of expert reports, if applicable, establishing a deadline for the submission of Dispositive Motions, establishing a deadline for the submission of Motions in Limine and to establish, at minimum, a tentative trial date. 2 8• Counsel for Defendants provided a copy of this motion to Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Norton and sought Plaintiffs concurrence. Plaintiffs counsel concurs with the need for a status conference and established deadlines, but does not concur with the paragraphs set forth above. WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the Court convene a status conference at the Court's convenience for the reasons outlined above. DATE: 23 Timothy J. c on PA Attorney I #52918 Marshall, De ehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 05/1070988.v1 Attorneys for Defendants 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan Hepp, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin, do hereby certify that on this J�day of 2013, 1 served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail,postage prepaid, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Susan Hepp 4 "'CGS MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&d(; '�7 � N � By: Timothy J. McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 CUMBFRI AND 4200 Crums Mill Road,Suite B P Dill; Y LVAI �A Harrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon @mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; Civil Action-Law STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2013, upon consideration of the parties' Motion for a Status Conference with the Court, it is hereby ORDERED that a Status Conference will be conducted on 3 , 2013 at 9^` -� AM, in the Chambers of-the Men mW BY THE COURT, 05n071007.vi a JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. . STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; . STONEMOR HOLDING OF . PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR . • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR : PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; : WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; : AND WESTMINSTER CEMETERY : SUBSIDIARY, LLC, DEFENDANTS : 10-6609 CIVIL TERM IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this e22 q day of September, 2013, following a status conference with counsel, and by their mutual consent, we establish the following timetable for this case: 1. Discovery shall be completed by December 31, 2013. 2. Plaintiffs Expert Reports, if any, shall be submitted no later than January 15, 2014. 3. Defendant's Expert Reports, if any, shall be submitted no later than February 14, 2014. 4. Dispositive motions shall be filed by February 14, 2014 so that they may be listed in a timely fashion for argument on April 4, 2014. 5. This matter shall be listed for the July trial term, commencing on July 14, 2014, and the parties shall file any motions in limine prior to the pretrial conference on July 2, 2014. Having reviewed the pleadings, and without evaluating the merits of either parties' position, we urge the parties to consider mediation. By the Court, 4011110, Albert H. Masland, J. .Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road =� West Conshohocken, PA 19428 r For Plaintiff r- C m- ./Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire (,)-r 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B =' _ Harrisburg, PA 17112 -i For Defendants . -- :sal CCF tES t1 Vas//3 BURNS WHITE LLC By: William J. Mundy, Esquire , ,, I AM Identification No. 57679 ` ' �' `� �'' By: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire r,,=3 E E a. Identification No. 207679 FE N N S Y LVA a 1 I A. By: Scott D. Josephson, Esquire Identification No. 201648 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 (484) 567-5700 Attorneys for: Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON, CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff v. ' Case No. 6609-2010 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P., STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA, STONEMOR OPERATING LLC, Civil Action STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC, STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC, WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC Defendants PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, Jane Norton, moves this honorable Court to Compel Defendants to provide documents responsive to her First and Second Requests for Production of Documents. In support of this Motion Ms. Norton avers as follows. 1. Ms. Norton is claiming intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence per se, fraud and punitive damages after the Defendants, intentionally and without the permission of the family, exhumed her mother's remains, buried her aunt in her mother's grave. 2. Defendants then, repeatedly misrepresented the location of the remains of both decedents thereby causing Ms. Norton increased emotional distress. 3. Defendants did this intentionally and for profit by creating policies and incentives to encourage this behavior, failed to keep accurate records and failed to hire competent staff 4. Defendants conduct was willful, wanton, and reckless and supports a claim for punitive damages. See Plaintiff's Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. In order to prove this claim, Ms. Norton served the plaintiff with discovery in the form of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. 6. Defendants objected to almost every Interrogatory and Document Request with the same rout overbroad objection. 7. Ms. Norton then served the Defendants with a second request for Production of Documents narrowing her requests. Defendants continued to object to the requests outlined below. See Defendants Response to Plaintiffs First and Second Requests for Production of Documents attached hereto as Exhibit B. 8. In a good faith letter seeking clarification of objections and more complete responses to the above-referenced requests, Ms. Norton attempted to resolve these discovery disputes with Defendants. See Plaintiff's December 18, 2013 letter, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 9. On December 24, 2013, Defendants responded with a letter reiterating objections to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents, Requests, 3, 7-13, 15-20 and 22-28. See Defendants December 24, 2013 letter attached hereto as Exhibit D. 10. Plaintiff now moves this court to overrule said objections and compel the Defendants to produce responsive documentation. 11. Request 3 requests a legible copy of the cemetery map provided in response to Plaintiff's first document requests. Lester Hoch stated in his deposition that he possess a copy of a larger and more legible cemetery map. Further, in her deposition Lyn Gregg referred to a map 2 of Westminster Cemetery that had spaces colored in to show what spaces were occupied and what spaces were sold. 12. Defendants object to producing this document claiming that it is inaccurate and thus unnecessary. One of Ms. Norton's claims is that Defendants failed to maintain accurate documentation. The inaccurate map is clearly relevant to that claim and should be produced. 13. Requests No. 7, 9 and 10 request documents regarding sales and interment rights in Lot No. 36. Whether a party other than the Rickenbaughs ever obtained rights of internment in any of the spaces in Lot 36 is relevant to determining a motive for the unauthorized double burial. Plaintiff is entitled to this information as it would help prove that Defendants actions were for financial gain. 14. Defendants object to the production of these sales documents stating only that cemetery employees have testified that the cemetery does not have a policy of buying back or selling cemetery spaces. No witness has been able to confirm or deny whether spaces in the Rickenbaugh plot were sold to anyone other than the Rickenbaughs at any point. Sales records would confirm or deny this and provide a motive for the unauthorized double burial and Ms. Becker's conduct following that action. Ms. Norton is entitled to the sales information related to Lot 36 to allow her to prove her claim that the Defendants' conduct was motivated by financial gain. 15. Requests 8, 12 and 13 request current licensing information for Westminster Cemetery. This information is limited in scope and relevant to allegations of Westminster's mishandling of the burial of Marian Sweet. 16. Defendants object to these requests as overbroad in so far as they are unlimited in scope, however, a request for current licensing information could not be more limited in scope. 3 MS. Norton is entitled to licensing information which would allow her to search licensing history. A search of licensing history could allow the plaintiff to determine whether Defendants have had a history and thus notice of similar problems with their employees. Defendants inexplicably state that the burial of Marian Sweet is not at issue, however, the complaint centers around the unauthorized burial of Marian Sweet in her sister's grave. 17. Request No. 11 requests a price list for opening and closing a space. This information is clearly relevant to the allegations in the Complaint as Plaintiff alleges cost saving as a motive for the unauthorized double burial. 18. Defendants object to this request on the grounds that Plaintiff should trust the testimony of its employees that there is no cost saving that derived from a right of second burial. Plaintiff is entitled to obtain documents to confirm this. 19. Request No. 14 requests marketing materials. Plaintiff is alleging an unauthorized double burial. Sales and marketing techniques are all relevant to determining Defendants motive for the double burial. 20. Defendants did not respond to this request when Plaintiff reiterated it in her December 18 letter. 21. Requests 22-28 requests the employee file of Gail Becker with social security information redacted. According to Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories Gail Becker was terminated as a result of unsatisfactory job performance not limited to the instances alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff has a right to all information regarding Ms. Becker's unsatisfactory job performance and StoneMor's notice of her behavior. Further, the answer to this interrogatory and the testimony of Jim Lentz suggest that Ms. Becker was terminated at least in part due to instances alleged in the complaint. This information is clearly relevant to the plaintiff's case. 4 22. Defendants responded by agreeing to produce an October 19, 2010 memorandum sent to Ms. Becker from Mr. Lentz pertaining to Ms. Becker's termination of employment. Defendants admit that those portions of Ms. Becker's personnel file that bear on the termination of Ms. Becker's employment are relevant to the issue at trial. This should include not only the October 19, 2010 memorandum, but Ms. Becker's entire discipline record. The discipline record will indicate whether the Defendants had notice of Ms. Becker's conduct and continued to allow dishonest practices. 23. Further, plaintiff alleges that StoneMor and its representatives engaged in this intentional activity for profit. Ms. Norton's salary and incentive structure is relevant to this allegation as is her training and job description all of which should be contained in her employee file. 24. Finally, Ms. Norton alleges that the Defendants had a duty to hire licensed professional staff and failed to comply with this duty. Ms. Becker's licensing information is clearly relevant to this allegation. Plaintiff has agreed to sign a protective order regarding the information in the personnel file and any objection based on confidentiality is moot. 25. Request 29 requests documents evidencing complaints that defendant's staff failed to provide individuals with accurate information regarding the availability of burial plots or the location of a loved one's remains. 26. Plaintiff is entitled to this information as it would show Defendants' knowledge and complicity in its employees' dishonest practices. 27. Without access to the above requested information, Ms. Norton will be prejudiced. Defendant argues that Ms. Norton should be entitled only to the testimony of the defense witnesses to help prove her case and refuses to produce documents that allegedly support 5 this testimony. This is precisely the type of conduct the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure were designed to prevent. 28. Specifically, subject to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 4003.2 to 4003.5 and inclusive of Pa. R.C.P. 4011: A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, content, custody, condition and location or any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. 1 29. The foregoing also provides: " it is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."2 30. Further, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained the broad scope of discoverable evidence as follows: To restrict the compass of a trial (civil or criminal) to the pinpoint of the culminating crisis would be to make the verdicts of juries mere guesses. Ten witnesses may have been on the scene at the very moment that A shot B, but unless evidence is allowed as to the events which preceded the shooting it would be impossible to determine whether there was involved in the shooting affray such vital items as self-defense, lying in wait, premeditation, intended robbery, revenge, etc., etc., Examining only the tip of a pyramid can offer no intelligence as to the height, width, breadth or the materials which hold it together and raises the crest toward the sky. It is just as important to know what precedes a storm as what follows it in order to ascertain scientifically its meteorological cause.3 1 PA. R.C.P.4003.1(a)(emphasis added). 2 PA. R.C.P.4003.1(a)(emphasis added). 3 Gregg v. Fisher, 377 Pa. 445,454; 105 A.2d 105, 110(1 954). 6 31. In this case, Ms. Norton is claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and punitive damages. All of the documents at issue in this motion could provide a motion or an explanation for the defendants' undisputed and unlawful conduct and provide plaintiff with proof of her claim. Accordingly, the above-referenced discovery requests are properly limited to relevant, discoverable information. 32. Plaintiff will suffer prejudice should Defendants fail to produce said information. Accordingly, this Honorable Court must enter the attached order compelling Defendants' discovery responses within twenty (20) days from the date of this order. Wherefore, Jane Norton, by and through her counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this Motion to Compel, enter the attached Order, and compel Defendants to provide the requested documents within twenty days of suffer appropriate sanctions. BURNS WHITE LLC L ura K. Peltonen Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: 12/30/13 7 BURNS WHITE LLC By: William J. Mundy, Esquire Identification No. 57679 By: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Identification No. 207679 By: Scott D. Josephson, Esquire Identification No. 201648 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 (484) 567-5700 Attorneys for: Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON, CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff v. Case No. 6609-2010 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P., • STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA, STONEMOR OPERATING LLC, Civil Action STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC, STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA • SUBSIDIARY LLC, •• WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC Defendants MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, Jane Norton, moves this honorable Court to Compel Defendants to provide documents responsive to her First and Second Requests for Production of Documents. In support of this Motion Ms. Norton avers as follows. Ms. Norton is claiming intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence per se, fraud and punitive damages after the Defendants, intentionally and without the permission of the family, exhumed her mother's remains, buried her aunt in her mother's grave. Defendants then, repeatedly misrepresented the location of the remains of both decedents thereby causing Ms. Norton increased emotional distress. Ms. Norton alleges that the Defendants did this intentionally and for profit. She further alleges that the Defendants created policies and incentives to encourage this behavior, failed to keep accurate records and failed to hire competent staff. She is requesting punitive damages. See Plaintiff's Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A. In order to prove this claim, Ms. Norton served the plaintiff with discovery in the form of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Defendants objected to almost every Interrogatory and Document Request with the same rout overbroad objection. Ms.Norton then served the Defendants with a second request for Production of Documents narrowing her requests. Defendants continued to object to the requests outlined below. See Defendants Response to Plaintiff's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents attached hereto as Exhibit B. In a good faith letter seeking clarification of objections and more complete responses to the above-referenced requests, Ms. Norton attempted to resolve these discovery disputes with Defendants. See Plaintiff's December 18, 2013 letter, attached hereto as Exhibit C. On December 24, 2013, Defendants responded with a letter reiterating objections to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents, Requests, 3, 7-13, 15-20 and 22-28. See Defendants December 24, 2013 letter attached hereto as Exhibit D. Plaintiff now moves this court to overrule said objections and compel the Defendants to produce responsive documentation. Request 3 requests a legible copy of the cemetery map provided in response to Plaintiff's first document requests. Lester Hoch stated in his deposition that he possess a copy of a larger and more legible cemetery map. Further, in her deposition Lyn Gregg referred to a map of Westminster Cemetery that had spaces colored in to show what spaces were occupied and what spaces were sold. 2 Defendants object to producing this document claiming that it is inaccurate and thus unnecessary. One of Ms. Norton's claims is that Defendants failed to maintain accurate documentation. The inaccurate map is clearly relevant to that claim and should be produced. Requests No. 7, 9 and 10 request documents regarding sales and interment rights in Lot No. 36. Whether a party other than the Rickenbaughs ever obtained rights of internment in any of the spaces in Lot 36 is relevant to determining a motive for the unauthorized double burial. Plaintiff is entitled to this information as it would help prove that Defendants actions were for financial gain. Defendants object to the production of these sales documents stating only that cemetery employees have testified that the cemetery does not have a policy of buying back or selling cemetery spaces. No witness has been able to confirm or deny whether spaces in the Rickenbaugh plot were sold to anyone other than the Rickenbaughs at any point. Sales records would confirm or deny this and provide a motive for the unauthorized double burial and Ms. Becker's conduct following that action. Ms.Norton is entitled to the sales information related to Lot 36 to allow her to prove her claim that the Defendants' conduct was motivated by financial gain. Requests 8, 12 and 13 request current licensing information for Westminster Cemetery. This information is limited in scope and relevant to allegations of Westminster's mishandling of the burial of Marian Sweet. Defendants object to these requests as overbroad in so far as they are unlimited in scope, however, a request for current licensing information could not be more limited in scope. MS. Norton is entitled to licensing information which would allow her to search licensing history. A search of licensing history could allow the plaintiff to determine whether Defendants have had a 3 history and thus notice of similar problems with their employees. Defendants inexplicably state that the burial of Marian Sweet is not at issue, however, the complaint centers around the unauthorized burial of Marian Sweet in her sister's grave. Request No. 11 requests a price list for opening and closing a space. This information is clearly relevant to the allegations in the Complaint as Plaintiff alleges cost saving as a motive for the unauthorized double burial. Defendants object to this request on the grounds that Plaintiff should trust the testimony of its employees that there is no cost saving that derived from a right of second burial. Plaintiff is entitled to obtain documents to confirm this. Request No. 14 requests marketing materials. Plaintiff is alleging an unauthorized double burial. Sales and marketing techniques are all relevant to determining Defendants motive for the double burial. Defendants did not respond to this request when Plaintiff reiterated it in her December 18 letter. Requests 22-28 requests the employee file of Gail Becker with social security information redacted. According to Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories Gail Becker was terminated as a result of unsatisfactory job performance not limited to the instances alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff has a right to all information regarding Ms. Becker's unsatisfactory job performance and StoneMor's notice of her behavior. Further, the answer to this interrogatory and the testimony of Jim Lentz suggest that Ms. Becker was terminated at least in part due to instances alleged in the complaint. This information is clearly relevant to the plaintiff's case. Defendants responded by agreeing to produce an October 19, 2010 memorandum sent to Ms. Becker from Mr. Lentz pertaining to Ms. Becker's termination of employment. Defendants 4 admit that those portions of Ms. Becker's personnel file that bear on the termination of Ms. Becker's employment are relevant to the issue at trial. This should include not only the October 19, 2010 memorandum, but Ms. Becker's entire discipline record. The discipline record will indicate whether the Defendants had notice of Ms. Becker's conduct and continued to allow dishonest practices. Further, plaintiff alleges that StoneMor and its representatives engaged in this intentional activity for profit. Ms. Norton's salary and incentive structure is relevant to this allegation as is her training and job description all of which should be contained in her employee file. Finally, Ms. Norton alleges that the Defendants had a duty to hire licensed professional staff and failed to comply with this duty. Ms. Becker's licensing information is clearly relevant to this allegation. Plaintiff has agreed to sign a protective order regarding the information in the personnel file and any objection based on confidentiality is moot. Request 29 requests documents evidencing complaints that defendant's staff failed to provide individuals with accurate information regarding the availability of burial plots or the location of a loved one's remains. Plaintiff is entitled to this information as it would show Defendants' knowledge and complicity in its employees' dishonest practices. Without access to the above requested information, Ms. Norton will be prejudiced. Defendant argues that Ms. Norton should be entitled only to the testimony of the defense witnesses to help prove her case and refuses to produce documents that allegedly support this testimony. This is precisely the type of conduct the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure were designed to prevent. 5 Specifically, subject to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 4003.2 to 4003.5 and inclusive of Pa. R.C.P. 4011: A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, content, custody, condition and location or any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. 4 The foregoing also provides: " it is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."5 Further, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained the broad scope of discoverable evidence as follows: To restrict the compass of a trial (civil or criminal) to the pinpoint of the culminating crisis would be to make the verdicts of juries mere guesses. Ten witnesses may have been on the scene at the very moment that A shot B, but unless evidence is allowed as to the events which preceded the shooting it would be impossible to determine whether there was involved in the shooting affray such vital items as self-defense, lying in wait, premeditation, intended robbery, revenge, etc., etc., Examining only the tip of a pyramid can offer no intelligence as to the height, width, breadth or the materials which hold it together and raises the crest toward the sky. It is just as important to know what precedes a storm as what follows it in order to ascertain scientifically its meteorological cause.6 4 PA.R.C.P.4003.1(a)(emphasis added). 5 PA. R.C.P.4003.1(a)(emphasis added). 6 Gregg v.Fisher, 377 Pa.445,454; 105 A.2d 105, 110(1954). 6 In this case, Ms. Norton is claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and punitive damages. All of the documents at issue in this motion could provide a motion or an explanation for the defendants' undisputed and unlawful conduct and provide plaintiff with proof of her claim. Accordingly, the above-referenced discovery requests are properly limited to relevant, discoverable information. Plaintiff will suffer prejudice should Defendants fail to produce said information. Accordingly, this Honorable Court must enter the attached order compelling Defendants' discovery responses within twenty (20) days from the date of this order. Wherefore, Jane Norton, by and through her counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this Motion to Compel, enter the attached Order, and compel Defendants to provide the requested documents within twenty days of suffer appropriate sanctions. BURNS WHITE LLC L'ura K. Peltonen Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: 12/30/13 7 • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents has been served by electronic mail and United States Mail, First-Class, postage pre-paid on this date upon the following: Timothy J. McMahon,Esquire Jake J. Sulzer,Esquire Marshall,Dennehey,Warner,Coleman&Goggin 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill,PA 17011 Laura K. Peltonen DATED: December 30, 2013 • Exhibit "A" • .I i=QED-Of FICE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HE PROTHONOTAR OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION 2011 SEP 12 AMU: 04 :CUMBERLAND COUNTY JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON PENNSYLVANIA 2303 Archdale Road, Reston, VA 20191 Plaintiff, v. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P. 311 Veterans Hwy#B . Case No. 6609-2010 Civil Term Levittown, PA 19056-1422, and STONEMOR HOLDING OF : Civil Action PENNSYLVANIA c/o Corporation Service Company 2704 Commerce Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and STONEMOR OPERATING LLC do Corporation Service Company • 2704 Commerce Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and •• STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC c/o Corporation Service Company •• 2704 Commerce Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC do Corporation Service Company 2704 Commerce Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380, and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY,LLC 1159 Newville Road Carlisle, PA 17013-1740, and •• WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY,LLC 1159 Newville Road Carlisle, PA 17013-1740 COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, Jane MacCampbell Norton, by and through her counsel, Burns White LLC files the within Complaint in Civil Action as follows: • PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Jane MacCampbell Norton is an individual residing at 2303 Archdale Rd, Reston, Virginia. 2. Defendant, StoneMor Partners LP, is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania located at 311 Veterans Highway, Levittown, PA. 3. Defendant, StoneMor Partners LP, is a national provider of death care products and services engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including the approximately forty acre burial ground known as Westminster Cemetery in Carlisle Pennsylvania(hereinafter"Westminster Cemetery") and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster Cemetery and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiffs decedent and the handling thereof. 4. StoneMor Partners L.P. claims to operate its properties in such a manner as to provide each family served with excellent quality,value and service. 5. Defendant, StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania, is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania with a registered agent located at 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg,Pennsylvania which at all times material hereto owned, operated, supervised, controlled and or maintained a cemetery which conducted continuous and systematic business in Cumberland County on Newville Road, Carlisle, PA. 6. Defendant, StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania, is engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery in Carlisle Pennsylvania and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiff's decedent and the handling thereof. 7. Defendant, StoneMor Operating LLC, is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania with a registered agent located at 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania which at all times material hereto owned, operated, supervised, controlled and or maintained a cemetery which conducted continuous and systematic business in Cumberland County on Newville Road, Carlisle, PA. 8. Defendant, StoneMor Operating LLC, is engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein,holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiffs decedent and the handling thereof. 9. Defendant StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania with a registered agent located at 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania which at all times material hereto owned, operated, supervised, controlled and or maintained a cemetery which conducted continuous and systematic business in Cumberland County on Newville, Road Carlisle,PA. 10. Defendant, StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC, is engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiffs decedent and the handling thereof 11. Defendant, StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary, LLC is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania with a registered agent located at 2704 Commerce Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania which at all times material hereto owned, operated, supervised, controlled and or maintained a cemetery which conducted continuous and systematic business in Cumberland County on Newville Road, Carlisle, PA. 12. Defendant, StoneMor Pennsylvania, LLC, is engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiff's decedent and the handling thereof. 13. Defendant Westminster Cemetery, LLC, is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania located at1159 Newville Rd. Carlisle, PA. 14. Defendant Westminster Cemetery, LLC, is engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiffs decedent and the handling thereof. 15. Defendant, Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC is a for profit corporation existing under the laws of Pennsylvania located at1159 Newville Rd. Carlisle, PA. 16. Defendant, Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, engaged in the business of owning, operating and/or managing cemeteries, including Westminster Cemetery and was the employer, supervisor or partner of all other defendants noted herein, holding itself, its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, staff and/or partners out to the public as competent and skillful owners and operators of Westminster and is individually and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its agents, employees, servants, contractors, subcontractors, staff and/or partners and all other Defendants, all of whom played a role in the wrongful disinterment and burial of the plaintiff's decedent and the handling thereof. JURSIDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Honorable Court insofar as Defendants regularly conduct business in Cumberland County Pennsylvania and the cause of action arose therein. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 17. In 1931, Calvin Rickenbaugh, Ms. Norton's grandfather,purchased a family plot in Westminster Cemetery. 18. The plot contained eight grave sites where Mr. Rickenbaugh intended to be buried with his wife, three daughters including Kathleen R. MacCampbell and Marian Sweet, and their husbands. 19. The plot was laid out with a large monument in the middle and four grave sites in front and four in back, each site to eventually have its own ground level head stone. 20. The four corners of the entire plot were marked with ground level stones that were carved with the letter "R" for Rickenbaugh. 21. At the time of purchase Mr. Rickenbaugh harbored the reasonable assumption that the graves would be maintained in perpetuity and kept for the future use of his offspring. 22. At all times material hereto, the defendants exercised control over the maintenance of Westminster Cemetery. 23. In addition,the defendants exercised control over the budgeting, marketing, staffing and training of Westminster Cemetery. 24. The defendants were further responsible for the development of all policies and procedures for the maintenance, use and conveyance of all cemetery lots. 25. The defendants, acting through their administrators, various boards, committees and individuals were responsible for the standards of professional practice by members of their staff and were responsible for overseeing their conduct in the matters set forth herein. 26. On March 2, 1984, Kathleen R. MacCampbell passed away. 27. Her record of funeral indicates that she would be cremated and her ashes would be buried in Section A-36 beside her father in Westminster Cemetery. 28. On March 19, 1984 Ms. Norton and other family members held a graveside service and witnessed that the grave site to the right of Calvin Rickenbaugh's had been excavated for the placement of the urn belonging to Mrs. MacCampbell. 29. The family paid for a stone which marked the grave of Mrs. MacCampbell. It lay on the grave site next to Calvin Rickenbaugh's on the front right. 30. For the past twenty seven years Ms.Norton has faithfully visited Westminster Cemetery and tended to the grave of her mother. 31. In addition, Ms.Norton has a florist place flowers on her mother's grave twice a year. 32. Knowing that her mother's resting place in the family plot was kept neat and attractive brought her a sense of peace. 33. In addition, her visits to the cemetery on Mother's Day and/or her mother's birthday allowed her to continue to feel a connection with her deceased mother. 34. In January of 2010, Ms. Norton's aunt, Marian Sweet,passed away. Her daughters arranged to have her remains buried in the family plot at Westminster Cemetery. 35. Ms. Sweet's daughters held a small grave side service for Ms. Sweet's burial in April after the ground had thawed. Ms. Norton was not in attendance. 36. At the time of Ms. Sweet's burial, Ms. Sweet's daughter,Margo, noticed that the grave stone of Kathleen MacCampbell had been moved and was propped up against a tree that lay to the right of the family plot. She did not mention this to Ms. Norton at the time. 37. On August 8, 2010, Ms. Norton visited Westminster Cemetery. She brought flowers to her mother's grave in honor of her mother's birthday expecting to find some peace and comfort in this small act. 38. Instead, Ms. Norton was horrified to discover that her mother's grave had been dug up and reseeded in an area that was the correct size for a casket. 39. Ms. Norton feared her aunt was buried in her mother's grave and now wondered as to the location of her mother's remains. 40. She contacted her cousin Margo Sweet who was also upset and angry over the situation. 41. On August 9, 2010 Ms. Sweet contacted Westminster Cemetery and inquired as to whether the sisters were mistakenly buried together. 42. Gail Becker, Cemetery Manager, informed her that they had probed the lot where her mother was buried and found nothing. The cemetery manager further informed Ms. Sweet that Mrs. MacCampbell was buried in a different lot and that her mother was in the correct lot. 43. Ms. Sweet relayed this to Ms. Norton. 44. Ms. Norton was now more distraught as she did not know where her mother's remains would be if they were not in the plot corresponding to the headstone that she had been visiting for the past twenty seven years. 45. That same day, Ms. Norton made repeated efforts to speak with someone at Westminster Cemetery to determine the location of her mother's remains. 46. She was repeatedly told that the cemetery manager, Ms. Becker, was the only person who could speak with her and that the manager was"too busy". 47. The cemetery manager did not call back until Ms. Norton explained that she had not slept since visiting the cemetery, was a wreck, and needed to speak with someone right away. 48. The manager of Westminster Cemetery then contacted Ms.Norton and stated that since both sisters were cremated they were buried in the same plot; one at the head and the other at the foot. 49. Ms. Norton was again shocked as her aunt had not been cremated. 50. The manager insisted that Westminster Cemetery was in possession of cremation papers that identified Marian Sweet. 51. The manager then insisted that Westminster Cemetery only had a record of four grave sites in the Rickenbaugh plot. 52. The manager continued to insist that the empty area behind the Rickenbaugh stone belonged to someone else. She would not say to whom and insisted that Westminster Cemetery only had a record for four lots despite the fact that the four unoccupied lots were marked with an"R" for Rickenbaugh. 53. On August 10,2010, Westminster's manager contacted Ms. Norton and relayed a second story as to the location of the remains of Ms. Norton's mother and aunt. 54. The manager explained that Margo Sweet instructed and authorized the burial of her mother with Mrs. MacCampbell. 55. Ms. Sweet was horrified by this accusation. The sisters were not close in life and would not have wished to be buried together. 56. After visiting the grave site the cemetery manager admitted that there were eight Rickenbaugh plots with visible markers. She agreed four of the eight lots remained empty. She further admitted that Ms. Sweet had not been cremated. 57. On August 12,2010, Ms.Norton again contacted Westminster Cemetery asking where her mother's remains were buried. The manager said that Ms. Norton's mother was buried "in lot 1 beside her father" and that "they must have been very close to have been buried together." When she requested that the area be probed the manager said that "new burials are the first priority" and that they were "too busy." 58. Ms.Norton then called StoneMor Partners corporate headquarters on August 12, 2010 and spoke to Shirley Herman, administrative assistant to Michael Stache, senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Ms. Herman took notes and stated she would pass along the information. 59. Ms.Norton was so upset that on August 13, 2010 she contacted her physician who prescribed anti-anxiety medication. 60. As of August 16,no one had replied on behalf of the StoneMor defendants and Ms. Norton again contacted Ms. Herman and left a message. 61. The cemetery manager finally responded and stated that she was angry that Ms. Norton had contacted Westminster Cemetery's corporate parent. 62. The manager then stated that Westminster Cemetery had record that Ms. Norton's mother was buried in yet another location,marked as lot four between her father and her sister. 63. Ms. Norton was now even more distraught as Westminster had just informed her that her mother was buried in a third location, and feared that her mother's urn had been destroyed while being dug up and perhaps had been thrown away. 64. The next day, Ms.Norton finally heard from Jim Lentz,regional Vice President for StoneMor. He informed her that her mother's urn had been sealed inside her aunt's vault and admitted that it had been done without permission. When questioned why, he answered that "there is a lot of rock in the cemetery" and "blasting is costly." He went on to say that the fact that the site had been partially dug would save on the cost of possibly having to blast at a new site. 65. On August 19, 2010, Ms.Norton again spoke to Mr. Lentz asking why her mother's urn could not have at least been buried by itself above her aunt's vault. He answered that they would have had to dig down approximately two more feet to satisfy burial requirements for spacing and that it might have required blasting. 66. Ms. Norton was horrified that Westminster disinterred her mother's remains without her permission and did not have the decency to return the remains to their original resting place. 67. She continued to have trouble sleeping and experienced anxiety and headaches. 68. After the Defendants relayed four separate stories regarding the location of her mother's remains, the only way to determine the accurate location of the remains of Kathleen MacCampbell was to open the grave site and witness the disinterment. 69. Ms.Norton's cousins were angry and distraught that their mother's grave would be disturbed, however,they eventually granted permission for the disinterment. The once congenial relationship between the cousins had become quite contentious. 70. On September 14, 2010, Ms.Norton witnessed the disinterment of her aunt and mother. 71. During the disinterment the defendants dug up the cement vault which contained Ms. Sweet's casket. • 72. The defendants then opened the vault to reveal that the urn containing the cremated remains of Kathleen MacCampbell had been placed in Ms. Sweet's vault next to the casket. 73. It was now obvious the Defendants had disturbed Mrs. MacCampbell's grave, unearthed her remains,and stored the remains during the funeral of Ms. Sweet all without the permission of the next of kin as required by regulation. 74. At the disinterment, Westminster's head groundskeeper informed Ms. Norton that in April he had been given a work order to disinter the remains of Ms. MacCampbell. He did not think it strange because double burials were often done at Westminster. 75. Per the work order, the groundskeeper stored the urn containing the remains of Ms. MacCampell in one of Westminster's trucks while Ms. Sweet was buried. 76. Following the original burial of Ms. Sweet, the defendants retrieved the urn from the truck and placed it into Ms. Sweet's vault beside her coffin and buried the remains of both sisters together per work order. 77. Upon hearing this, Ms.Norton immediately had the horrible vision of the urn being thrown into the back of a truck and jostled around while the truck was being used for various other purposes,and has had numerous nightmares about it ever since. 78. She then witnessed the defendants bury Ms. Sweet in a grave site on the other side of the Rickenbaugh monument and bury her mother's remains in her grave site for a third time. 79. Ms. Norton visited her mother's grave in November 2010. Instead of finding peace she found renewed distress as her mother's headstone was still leaning up 1 against a tree. The grave site itself had large cracks, was sunken and covered with only a very sparse amount of grass. 80. This spring Ms. Norton finally found her mother's grave in acceptable condition,however, visiting her mother's grave and Westminster Cemetery now conjures up images of a disinterment,anger and anxiety rather than peace. 81. As a result Ms.Norton has suffered severe emotional distress manifesting as anxiety, anger, headaches and insomina for which she sought counsel of her physician. 82. To date, Ms. Norton continues to experience severe emotional distress and can no longer visit her mother's grave without horrible flashbacks. COUNT I INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 83. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every preceding paragraph of this complaint as if the same were more fully set forth herein. 84. At all times material hereto, Defendants were acting through their agents, servants and employees, who were in turn acting within the course and scope of their employment under the direct supervision and control of the Defendants. 85. When Ms. Norton discovered that her mother's grave had been exhumed representatives from StoneMor Partners and Westminster Cemetery intentionally misled her in an attempt to cover up the egregious circumstances surrounding the burial of Marian Sweet and the handling of the remains of Kathleen MacCampbell. 86. The Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff by the extreme and outrageous conduct as set forth above. 87. The injuries to Plaintiff and damages which are set forth herein were caused by and were the direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or wanton conduct of Defendants in any or all of the following respects. a. Invading Plaintiff's interest in the remains of Ms. MacCampbell by conducting themselves in a manner which was highly probable to cause acute and poignant distress. b. Creating policies and incentives to encourage unauthorized tandem burials. c. Causing the remains of Ms. MacCampbell to be disinterred without first obtaining the permission of the plaintiff. d. Intentionally misrepresenting the location of Ms. MacCampbell's remains to Mrs. Norton with the understanding that this was causing the Plaintiff severe distress. e. Continuing to misrepresent the location of the remains of Ms. MacCampbell with the knowledge that they were causing Plaintiff to experience severe emotional distress. f. Otherwise mistreating and mishandling the remains of Ms. MacCampbell. g. Authorizing the above actions in an attempt to avoid costs and maximize profits. 88. As a result of the actions of the Defendants, as set forth above,Ms.Norton sustained the following injuries, all of which may be of a severe and permanent nature: a. Severe emotional distress for which she sought physician's treatment; b. Impairment of general health, strength and vitality; c. Emotional disturbance, mental anguish,outrage, mental suffering and depression. 89. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as specifically set forth in this Complaint was outrageous, inconsistent with and intolerable given the norms of • • • modern society and as such, Plaintiff requests punitive damages in addition to all other damages as aforesaid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff,Jane Norton, demands judgment against all defendants individually,jointly and severally and/or in the alternative in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars($50,000.00)together with costs, interest and such other relief as this honorable Court deems just and fair. COUNT II NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 90. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every preceding paragraph of this complaint as if the same were more fully set forth herein. 91. The Defendants had a duty to maintain accurate records of the location of all graves. 92. In addition, the Defendants had a duty to maintain accurate records of the ownership and interment rights in the cemetery plots. 93. Failing to keep these records resulted in the wrongful burial of Ms. Sweet in the already occupied grave of Ms. MacCampbell. 94. Failing to keep accurate records further resulted in Ms. Norton having to suffer through the disinterment of her mother and her aunt in order to determine the location of their remains. 95. Defendants also had a duty to hire licensed professional staff that would conduct themselves with dignity and sensitivity as a provider of death care services. 96. As a result of Defendants failure to hire competent staff and keep appropriate records, Plaintiff was made to suffer the distress of witnessing the disinterment and reburial of the remains of her mother and her aunt as well as suffer the additional distress brought about by the inability to identify the location of her mother's remains. 97. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer with headaches and insomnia due to this emotional distress for which she has sought treatment from a physician. 98. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as specifically set forth in this Complaint was outrageous, inconsistent with and intolerable given the norms of modern society and as such,Plaintiff requests punitive damages in addition to all other damages as aforesaid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff,Jane Norton,demands judgment against all defendants individually,jointly and severally and/or in the alternative in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00)together with costs, interest and such other relief as this honorable Court deems just and fair. COUNT III PUNITIVE DAMAGES 99. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every preceding paragraph of this complaint as if the same were more fully set forth herein. 100. The actions of the defendants were done with the purpose of putting profit over their own obligations to the families of buried loved ones, including Plaintiff. 101. Defendants exhumed the remains of Ms. MacCampbell and caused the sisters to be buried together for financial gain. 102. In addition, Defendants attempted to cover up their wrongdoing by intentionally misrepresenting the events of Marian Sweet's burial and the whereabouts of Mrs. MacCampbell's remains. • 103. Defendants continued to misrepresent the location of Mrs. MacCampbell's remains with the understanding that this was causing Ms.Norton a significant amount of emotional distress. 104. Defendants, by and through their owners, employees and/or agents, acted in a willful, wanton, reckless and/or outrageous fashion. 105. Defendants, by and through their owners, employees and/or agents, acted, knew or should have known, that their willful, wanton, reckless and/or outrageous actions would cause emotional distress to the plaintiff. 106. Defendants' willful, wanton, reckless and/or outrageous actions warrant the awarding of punitive damages. COUNT IV NEGLIGENCE PER SE FOR VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 28 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CODE REGARDING THE DISINTERMENT OF DEAD BODIES 107. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every preceding paragraph of this complaint as if the same were more fully set forth herein. 108. At all times pertinent hereto, there was in full force and effect Title 28 of the Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 1, Section 1.25 a regulation which sets forth regulations regarding the handling of dead human bodies. 109. Title 28 of the Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 1, Section 1.25 expresses the policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that: No dead human body shall be removed from its place of interment unless a disinterment permit is obtained from the local registrar who is authorized to issue a disinterment permit according to the following requirements: (1). The funeral director or cemetery official making the application shall present to the local registrar the correct name, date of death and cause of death of the body to be disinterred and written consent of next of kin, or appropriate order of a court of competent jurisdiction (2). No disinterred body shall be reinterred either in the same cemetery or in another cemetery located in this Commonwealth unless a burial removal permit is obtained. (3). Disinterment permits shall be void after the expiration of 72 hours from the date of issue and no disinterment may be made between sunset and sunrise. (4). Disinterment permits are to be delivered to the sexton or other person in charge of the burial ground in which the disinterments are to be made and shall be returned by him to the local registrar where the body is reinterred within 30 days from the date when the permit was issued. 110. At all relevant times Ms. Norton was the next of kin of the deceased whose remains were disinterred and thus fell within the class of persons the regulation was designed to protect. 111. The Commonwealth enacted this regulation at least in part to obviate the kind of harm Ms.Norton sustained when she discovered her • mother's remains were disinterred without her knowledge or permission. • 112. Defendants, as the cemetery officials responsible for the disinterment, were negligent per se and violated Title 28, Chapter 1, Section 1.25 in that they disinterred and reburied the remains of the plaintiff's mother without obtaining the proper permits and without obtaining the permission of the plaintiff. Upon information and belief the defendants did this under cover of night as plaintiff's cousin was not aware of the disinterment when she attended the grave side memorial for her mother. 113. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence per se of Defendants, Jane Norton was caused to sustain serious person injuries and damages as aforesaid. • I 114. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as specifically set forth in this Complaint was outrageous, inconsistent with and intolerable given the norms of modern society and as such, Plaintiff requests punitive damages in addition to all other damages as aforesaid. COUNT V FRAUD 115. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every preceding paragraph of this complaint as if the same were more fully set forth herein. 116. The manager of Westminster Cemetery speaking on behalf of the Cemetery and the StoneMor entities deliberately misrepresented the location of Ms. Norton's mother's remains to Ms. Norton on multiple occasions. 117. The Defendants all understood these statements to be false after they had authorized the disinterment and reburial of the remains. 118. For a time. Ms.Norton believed these statements to be true and became horrified at the idea that her mother's remains had not been buried in their designated grave. 119. Her reliance on the information caused her significant emotional trauma. 120. In addition,the misleading information relayed by the defendants caused Ms. Norton to order the disinterment of her mother's grave in order to determine the exact location of her mother's remains after the Defendants fraudulently misrepresented the location of said remains. 121. Ms.Norton was then forced to suffer the emotional hardship of reburying her mother 27 years after her death. 122. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as specifically set forth in this Complaint was outrageous, inconsistent with and intolerable given the norms of modem society and as such, Plaintiff requests punitive damages in addition to all other damages as aforesaid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Norton, demands judgment against all defendants individually,jointly and severally and/or in the alternative, in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00)together with costs, interest,punitive damages and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and fair. Respectfully submitted, BURNS WHITE LLC Wi liam J. Mundy, Esquire Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs Date: Y 8' ,2,0/� 1 1 VERIFICATION I, Jane MacCampbell Norton, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and make these statements subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Jane MacCampbell Norton Date: Luc k 30,aatl 1. • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire,hereby certify that on this date,a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint was served by United States First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Timothy J. McMahon,Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman&Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Counsel for Defendants,Stonemor Partners,L.P., Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania, Stonemor Operating LLC, Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC,Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC, Westminster Cemetery,LLC,Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary,LLC Laura K. Peltonen Dated: 8" .10(( • • Exhibit "B" • MARSFIALL DENNEITEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 4200 Crums Mill Road,Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email:"tjmcmahon@rndwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. v. Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS,L.P.; : Civil Action--Law STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SERVED MAY 2,2010) 1. A copy of the Deed to Rickenbaugh Family Plot. RESPONSE: There is no Deed to the Rickenbaugh family plot. Accordingly,Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands and construes the Request. 2. All documents showing the location of the Rickenbaugh Family Plot. RESPONSE: Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a map of Westminster Cemetery, which map indicates the location of, inter alia, the Rickenbaugh family plot. 3. All documents showing the location of the grave site of Kathleen MacCampbell. RESPONSE: See map produced as Exhibit I above. By way of further response, reference is made to the documents attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 05/884769.v1 I • 4. All documents showing the location of the grave site of Calvin Rickenbaugh. RESPONSE: See map produced as Exhibit 1 above. By way of further response, reference is made to the documents attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 5. All documents showing the location of the grave site of Marion Sweet. RESPONSE: See map produced as Exhibit l above. By way of further response, reference is made to the documents attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 6. All documents evidencing the Rules and Regulations of the Cemetery. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that the Request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unlimited in scope and time and,therefore, burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, and provided Plaintiffs counsel is willing to reasonably clarify the documents sought through this Request,Defendant reserves it right to supplement its response to this Request. 7. A copy of the Interim Report Forms filed by the Cemetery for the past 10 years. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands the terms used within this Request, and specifically the phrase "Interim Report Forms." 8. All sales records regarding the conveyance of interment rights in Westminster Cemetery over the past ten years. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 9. All work orders or other such documents relating to the preparation of the interment site of Marion Sweet. 05/884769:vI 2 • RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is ambiguous, specifically in its use of the phrase"or other such documents relating to the preparation of the interment site of Marian Sweet." By way of further response, Defendant has no "work orders" relating to the preparation of the interment site of Marian Sweet. Attached among those documents marked as Exhibit 2 is the interment authorization form provided to Westminster Cemetery concerning Marian Sweet,as well as a disinterment/reinterment authorization pertaining to Marian Sweet. 10. Work orders or other such documents relating to the disinterment of Marion Sweet. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is ambiguous, specifically in its use of the phrase"or other such documents relating to the preparation of the interment site of Marian Sweet." By way of further response, Defendant has no "work orders" relating to the preparation of the interment site of Marian Sweet. Attached among those documents marked as Exhibit 2 is the interment authorization form provided to Westminster Cemetery concerning Marian Sweet,as well as a disinterment/reinterment authorization pertaining to Marian Sweet. 11. All documents including plot plans and maps indicating which Cemetery plots and niches are occupied. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, unreasonably burdensome,and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 12. All documents including plot plans and maps indicating which plots and/or niches are available for sale. 0518847669.v 1 3 • RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, unreasonably burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13. All documents including plot plans and maps indicating which plot and or/niches had been previously deeded to the Rickenbaugh family. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands the Request. By way of further response, Defendant incorporates by reference its response to Request for Production of Documents No. 1 above. 14. All documents referring or relating to the interment rights of the Rickenbaugh family. RESPONSE: To the extent that Defendant has documents responsive to this Request, those documents are contained within the documents attached in response to this Request for Production of Documents as Exhibit 2. 15. All documents referring or relating to Marion Sweet. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is duplicative of one or more of the foregoing Requests, and further on the basis that it is overbroad, vague,and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request other than those that are contained within the documents marked as Exhibit 2 and attached with these responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents. 16. All documents referring or relating to Kathleen MacCampbell. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is duplicative of one or more of the foregoing Requests, and further on the basis that it is 05/884769.v 1 4 overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request other than those that are contained within the documents marked as Exhibit 2 and attached with these responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents. 17. All documents created or sent pursuant to the Interment Rights, Restore and Maintain Act involving the property located in the Rickenbaugh family plot. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands the Request. 18. All documents regarding the removal and placement of the tombstone marking Kathleen MacCampbell's grave. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands the Request. 19. All documents reflecting communications with Jane Norton. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is ambiguous and open-ended insofar as the "communications with Jane Norton" are concerned. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection, and as Defendant understands this Request,documents reflecting communications with Jane Norton and Westminster Cemetery and/or any person and/or entity acting on its behalf are contained within the documents marked as Exhibit 2 and attached in response to this Request for Production of Documents. 20. All documents reflecting communications with the family of Marian Sweet RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous and open-ended, and in particular through its use of the phrase 05/884769.91 5 "communications with the family of Marian Sweet." Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection, and as Defendant understands this Request,documents reflecting communications with the family of Marian Sweet and Westminster Cemetery and/or persons and/or entities acting on its behalf are contained within the documents marked collective as Exhibit 2 and attached in response to this Request for Production of Documents. 21. Gail Becker's personnel file. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 22. Gail Becker's licensing credentials. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documentation responsive to this Request and it understands and construes the Request. By way of further response, Defendant understands that the deceased Gail Becker no longer has any licensing credentials by virtue of the fact that she is deceased. 23. A copy of the rules and regulations of the cemetery. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is duplicative of,and indeed nearly identical to,Request No. 6 above. By way of further response, and subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection,Defendant incorporates by reference its objections to Request No. 6 above. 24. All disinterment permits relating to Kathleen MacCampbell and Marian Sweet. RESPONSE: To the extent that Defendant has documents responsive to this Request, they are contained within that collection of documents marked collectively as Exhibit 2 and attached in response to this Request for Production of Documents. By way of further 05/884769.v 1 response, no "disinterment permit was required concerning the cremated remains of Kathleen MacCampbell. 25. All burial permits relating to Kathleen MacCampbell and Marian Sweet. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is unlimited in time. Defendant is aware that the cremated remains of Kathleen MacCampbell were buried originally in 1984. No "burial permit" survives relating to the 1984 burial of the cremated remains of Kathleen MacCampbell. By way of further response, and to the extent that Defendant has documents otherwise responsive to this Request, they are contained within those documents collectively marked as Exhibit 2 and attached in response to this Request for Production of Documents. 26. All Certificates of Interment Rights,or copies thereof, relating to niches or plots in the Rickenbaugh Plot. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands and construes the Request. 27. The purchase agreement relating to the Rickenbaugh Family Plot. RESPONSE: As Defendant understands this Request, it has no documents responsive to it. DATE: Timot y J. Mc,' a(n PA Attorney ID# 918 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman&Goggin 4200 Crums"Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717)651-9630 Attorneys for Defendant Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC 05/884769.v1 7 • MARSHALL DENNEIIEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID# 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road,Suite 13 1 larrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon(c mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. v. Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; Civil Action-Law STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR : PENNSYLVANIA LLC;STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY,LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SERVED MAY 2,2010) 1. A copy of the Deed to Rickenbaugh Family Plot. RESPONSE: There is no Deed to the Rickenbaugh family plot. Accordingly,Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands and construes the Request. 2. All documents showing the location of the Rickenbaugh Family Plot. RESPONSE: Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a map of Westminster Cemetery,which map indicates the location of, inter alia, the Rickenbaugh family plot. 3. All documents showing the location of the grave site of Kathleen MacCampbell. RESPONSE: See map produced as Exhibit I above. By way of further response, reference is made to the documents attached hereto as Exhibit 2, 05/884769.v 1 1 4. All documents showing the location of the grave site of Calvin Rickenbaugh. RESPONSE: See map produced as Exhibit 1 above. By way of further response, reference is made to the documents attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 5. All documents showing the location of the grave site of Marion Sweet. RESPONSE: See map produced as Exhibit l above. By way of further response, reference is made to the documents attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 6. All documents evidencing the Rules and Regulations of the Cemetery. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that the Request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad,and unlimited in scope and time and,therefore, burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, and provided Plaintiffs counsel is willing to reasonably clarify the documents sought through this Request,Defendant reserves it right to supplement its response to this Request. 7. A copy of the Interim Report Forms filed by the Cemetery for the past 10 years. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands the terms used within this Request,and specifically the phrase "Interim Report Forms. 8. All sales records regarding the conveyance of interment rights in Westminster Cemetery over the past ten years. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad,unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 9. All work orders or other such documents relating to the preparation of the interment site of Marion Sweet. 05/884769 v 1 2 • RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is ambiguous, specifically in its use of the phrase "or other such documents relating to the preparation of the interment site of Marian Sweet." By way of further response, Defendant has no "work orders" relating to the preparation of the interment site of Marian Sweet. Attached among those documents marked as Exhibit 2 is the interment authorization form provided to Westminster Cemetery concerning Marian Sweet, as well as a disinterment/reinterment authorization pertaining to Marian Sweet. 10. Work orders or other such documents relating to the disinterment of Marion Sweet. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is ambiguous, specifically in its use of the phrase "or other such documents relating to the preparation of the interment site of Marian Sweet." By way of further response, Defendant has no "work orders" relating to the preparation of the interment site of Marian Sweet. Attached among those documents marked as Exhibit 2 is the interment authorization form provided to Westminster Cemetery concerning Marian Sweet, as well as a disinterment/reinterment authorization pertaining to Marian Sweet. 11. All documents including plot plans and maps indicating which Cemetery plots and niches are occupied. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, unreasonably burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 12. All documents including plot plans and maps indicating which plots and/or niches are available for sale. 05/884769:v1 3 RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is overbroad, unreasonably burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13. All documents including plot plans and maps indicating which plot and or/niches had been previously deeded to the Rickenbaugh family. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands the Request. By way of further response, Defendant incorporates by reference its response to Request for Production of Documents No. 1 above. 14. All documents referring or relating to the interment rights of the Rickenbaugh family. RESPONSE: To the extent that Defendant has documents responsive to this Request, those documents are contained within the documents attached in response to this Request for Production of Documents as Exhibit 2. 15. All documents referring or relating to Marion Sweet. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is duplicative of one or more of the foregoing Requests, and further on the basis that it is overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request other than those that are contained within the documents marked as Exhibit 2 and attached with these responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents. 16. All documents referring or relating to Kathleen MacCampbell. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is duplicative of one or more of the foregoing Requests, and further on the basis that it is 4 051884769.v1 overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request other than those that are contained within the documents marked as Exhibit 2 and attached with these responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents. 17. All documents created or sent pursuant to the Interment Rights, Restore and Maintain Act involving the property located in the Rickenbaugh family plot. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands the Request. 18. All documents regarding the removal and placement of the tombstone marking Kathleen MacCampbell's grave. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands the Request. 19. All documents reflecting communications with Jane Norton, RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is ambiguous and open-ended insofar as the "communications with Jane Norton" are concerned. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection, and as Defendant understands this Request, documents reflecting communications with Jane Norton and Westminster Cemetery and/or any person and/or entity acting on its behalf are contained within the documents marked as Exhibit 2 and attached in response to this Request for Production of Documents. 20. All documents reflecting communications with the family of Marian Sweet RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous and open-ended, and in particular through its use of the phrase 05/884769.v] 5 "communications with the family of Marian Sweet." Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection,and as Defendant understands this Request, documents reflecting communications with the family of Marian Sweet and Westminster Cemetery and/or persons and/or entities acting on its behalf are contained within the documents marked collective as Exhibit 2 and attached in response to this Request for Production of Documents. 21. Gail Becker's personnel file. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 22. Gail Becker's licensing credentials. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documentation responsive to this Request and it understands and construes the Request. By way of further response,Defendant understands that the deceased Gail Becker no longer has any licensing credentials by virtue of the fact that she is deceased. 23. A copy of the rules and regulations of the cemetery. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is duplicative of, and indeed nearly identical to,Request No. 6 above, By way of further response, and subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objection,Defendant incorporates by reference its objections to Request No. 6 above. 24. All disinterment permits relating to Kathleen MacCampbell and Marian Sweet. RESPONSE: To the extent that Defendant has documents responsive to this Request, they are contained within that collection of documents marked collectively as Exhibit 2 and attached in response to this Request for Production of Documents. By way of further O5/884769.v 1 6 response, no "disinterment permit" was required concerning the cremated remains of Kathleen MacCampbell. 25. All burial permits relating to Kathleen MacCampbell and Marian Sweet. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the basis that it is unlimited in time. Defendant is aware that the cremated remains of Kathleen MacCampbell were buried originally in 1984. No "burial permit survives relating to the 1984 burial of the cremated remains of Kathleen MacCampbell. By way of further response, and to the extent that Defendant has documents otherwise responsive to this Request, they are contained within those documents collectively marked as Exhibit 2 and attached in response to this Request for Production of Documents. 26. All Certificates of Interment Rights,or copies thereof,relating to niches or plots in the Rickenbaugh Plot. RESPONSE: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request as it understands and construes the Request. 27. The purchase agreement relating to the Rickenbaugh Family Plot. RESPONSE: As Defendant understands this Request, it has no documents responsive to it. ! DATE: 3U i,`2,012- t 4 6/110(."1 Fit Ti oth J. M . fn PA Attorney ID r.'918 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendant Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC 05/884769.v1 7 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 4200 Crums Mill Road,Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff ▪ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. • v. • Docket No. 10-6609 • STONEMOR PARTNERS,L.P.; Civil Action—Law STONEMOR HOLDING OF • PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; . WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; • And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED • Defendants OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT STONEMOR PARTNERS,L.P., TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SERVED MAY 2,2010) OBJECTION: Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents on the basis that it seeks discovery beyond the applicable scope of discovery set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. To the extent any information sought is discoverable,Defendant Stonemor Partners, L.P.,has no documents responsive to Plaintiffs discovery requests in its possession. To the extent that Defendant Stonemor Partners,L.P.,may be construed to exercise control over its 05/884759.v1 1 subsidiaries,Defendant adopts the discovery responses set forth in further in detail by Defendant Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC, and Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC. DATE: Timothy .Mc 1 PA Attorney ID# 918 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman&Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendant Stonemor Partners, L.P. 05/884759.v1 2 VERIFICATION Frank Milles, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that he is Vice President of Stonemor Partners LP; and that he is authorized to make this verification on behalf of Stonemor Partners LP;and that the facts set forth in the foregoing discovery responses are true and correct to the best of his knowledge,information,and belief. This verification is subject to 18 Pa,C.S. §4904 which provides for certain penalties for making false statements. F n. %flies,Vice President DATE: May 29,2012 051891259.v1 • • • ► CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathy A.Toney, an employee of Marshall,Dennehey, Warner, Coleman&Goggin,do w- hereby certify that on this 3 0 day of May,2012,I served a copy of the foregoing Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents via First Class United States mail,postage prepaid, as follows: • William J. Mundy, Esquire Laura K. Peltonen Gries, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 athy A. To ey 05/884759.vI 3 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 4200 Crums Mill Road,Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff • CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNA. • v. Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; • Civil Action—Law • STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; • WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; • And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED • Defendants OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT STONEMOR OPERATING LLC TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SERVED MAY 2,2010) OBJECTION: Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents on the basis that it seeks discovery beyond the applicable scope of discovery set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. To the extent any information sought is discoverable, Defendant Stonemor Operating LLC has no documents responsive to Plaintiffs discovery requests in its possession. To the extent that Defendant Stonemor Operating LLC may be construed to exercise control over its 05/884749.v1 1 subsidiaries,Defendant adopts the discovery responses set forth in further in detail by Defendant Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC,and Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC. DATE: Witty 3o11(41- Tim th J on PA Attorney I #52918 Marshall,Dennehey, Warner, Coleman&Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 (717)651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendant Stonemor Operating LLC 05/884749.v1 2 VERIFICATION Frank Milles,being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that he is Vice President of Stonemor Operating LLC;and that he is authorized to make this verification on behalf of Stonemor Operating LLC;and that the facts set forth in the foregoing discovery responses are true and correct to the best of his knowledge,information,and belief. This verification is subject to 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 which provides for certain penalties for making false statements. F •,'4rilles,Vice President DATE: May 29, 2012 05/891259.v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,Kathy A. Toney, an employee of Marshall,Dennehey, Warner, Coleman&Goggin,do kg— hereby certify that on this 30 day of May, 2012,I served a copy of the foregoing Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents via First Class United States mail,postage prepaid, as follows: William J. Mundy, Esquire Laura K. Peltonen Gries, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken,PA 19428 Kathy A.To ey 05/884749.v1 3 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 4200 Crums Mill Road,Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahonQmdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff ▪ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. • v. Docket No. 10-6609 • STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; • Civil Action—Law • STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY,LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY,LLC, ▪ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED • Defendants OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SERVED MAY 2,2010) OBJECTION: Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents on the basis that it seeks discovery beyond the applicable scope of discovery set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. To the extent any information sought is discoverable,Defendant Stonemor Holding of 05/884739.v l 1 • Pennsylvania has no documents responsive to Plaintiffs discovery requests in its possession. To the extent that Defendant Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania may be construed to exercise control over its subsidiaries, Defendant adopts the discovery responses set forth in further in detail by Defendant Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC, and Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC. DATE: l /oil. Timothy J.Mc PA Attorney T # 918 Marshall,Dennehey, Warner, Coleman&Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendant Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania 05/884739.v1 2 VERIFICATION Frank Milles,being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that he is Vice President of Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania;and that he is authorized to make this verification on behalf of Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania;and that the facts set forth in the foregoing discovery responses are true and correct to the best of his knowledge,information,and belief. This verification is subject to 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 which provides for certain penalties for making false statements. i/ _ + es,Vice President DATE: May 29,2012 05/891259.v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Kathy A.Toney, an employee of Marshall,Dennehey, Warner, Coleman&Goggin,do hereby certify that on this 3O day of May, 2012, I served a copy of the foregoing Objections and Responses to Plaints Request for Production of Documents via First Class United States mail,postage prepaid, as follows: William J. Mundy,Esquire Laura K.Peltonen Gries,Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken,PA 19428 Kathy A. oney 05/884739.v1 3 • ' MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 4200 Crums Mill Road,Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon®mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff • CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNA. • v. Docket No. 10-6609 • STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; • Civil Action—Law • STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY,LLC,TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS(SERVED MAY 2,2010) OBJECTION: Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents on the basis that it seeks discovery beyond the applicable scope of discovery set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. To the extent any information sought is discoverable, Defendant Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC,no longer exists and has not since December 31,2008. To the extent 05/884706.v I 1 Defendant Westminster Subsidiary,LLC, ever owned,operated, and/or exercised control over the subject cemetery,it has no documents responsive to Plaintiffs discovery requests. DATE: MAI 3°1 Zw Timor y .Mb7/Tl•n PA Attorney I* i 918 Marshall,Denne y, Warner, Coleman&Goggin 4200 Cruets Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 (717)651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendant Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC 05/884706.vl 2 VERIFICATION Timothy J. McMahon,Attorney for Defendant, Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary,LLC,verifies that the facts set forth in the Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. If the above statements are not true,the deponent is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. TIM T Y J./CI HON DATE: May 30,2012 05/763268.v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathy A. Toney, an employee of Marshall,Dennehey, Warner, Coleman&Goggin,do hereby certify that on this 3 em day of May, 2012,I served a copy of the foregoing Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents via First Class United States mail,postage prepaid, as follows: William J.Mundy,Esquire Laura K.Peltonen Gries, Esquire Bums White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken,PA 19428 A 1 rr Kathy A.T a ney 05/884706.v1 3 • MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 4200 Crums Mill Road,Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon @mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. • v • Docket No. 10-6609 • STONEMOR PARTNERS,L.P.; • Civil Action—Law • STONEMOR HOLDING OF • PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; . WESTMINSTER CEMETERY,LLC; • And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED • Defendants OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC,TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SERVED MAY 2,2010) OBJECTION: Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents on the basis that it seeks discovery beyond the applicable scope of discovery set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. To the extent any information sought is discoverable, Defendant Westminster Cemetery, LLC,no longer exists and has not since July 31,2009. To the extent Defendant Westminster 05/884735.v1 1 Cemetery, LLC,ever owned, operated, and/or exercised control over the subject cemetery,it has no documents responsive to Plaintiffs discovery requests. DATE: 14111 16' Timoth I lZ on PA Attorney ID #52918 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman&Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 (717)651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendant Westminster Cemetery, LLC 05/884735.v1 2 • VERIFICATION Timothy J. McMahon,Attorney for Defendant, Westminster Cemetery,LLC, verifies that the facts set forth in the Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. If the above statements are not true, the deponent is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. TIMOd J. MAHON DATE: May 30,2012 05/763268.v1 ��- _ - - - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,Kathy A. Toney,an employee of Marshall,Dennehey, Warner,Coleman&Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 3d'day of May,2012, I served a copy of the foregoing Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents via First Class United States mail,postage prepaid, as follows: William J. Mundy,Esquire Laura K. Peltonen Gries, Esquire Bums White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken,PA 19428 Kathy A. Toney 051884735.vl 3 • MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney 1D#52918 4200 Crums Mill Road,Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon®mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff • CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNA. v. • Docket No. 10-6609 • STONEMOR PARTNERS,L.P.; Civil Action—Law STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; • WESTMINSTER CEMETERY,LLC; • And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY • SUBSIDIARY,LLC, • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC,TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET II (SERVED OCTOBER 9,2012) OBJECTION: Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents on the basis that it seeks discovery beyond the applicable scope of discovery set forth in Pa.R.C.P.4003.1. To the extent any information sought is discoverable,Defendant Westminster Cemetery,LLC,no longer exists and has not since July 31,2009. To the extent Defendant Westminster 05/959101.v1 1 • • Cemetery,LLC,ever owned,operated,and/or exercised control over the subject cemetery,it has no documents responsive to Plaintiffs discovery requests. By way of further answer,Defendant Westminster Cemetery,LLC,incorporates by reference the discovery responses produced by Defendant Stonemor Pennsylvania,LLC,in response to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents Set II. DATE: /92 �- Tim y .J-4clifaho PA Attorney ID#52918 Marshall,Dennehey,Warner, Coleman&Goggin 4200 Cruets Mill Road,Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 (717)651-3505 FAX-(717)651-9630 Attorney for Defendant Westminster Cemetery,LLC 05/959101.v1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan Hepp,an employee of Marshall,Dennehey,Warner,Coleman&Goggin,do hereby certify that on this // day offie 2012,I served a copy of the foregoing Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents Set II via First Class United States mail,postage prepaid,as follows: William J. Mundy,Esquire Laura K.Peltonen Gries,Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken,PA 19428 Susan Hepp 05/959101.v1 3 • VERIFICATION Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire,Attorney for Defendants verifies that the facts set forth in the Responses of Defendants to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents (Set II) are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. If the above statements are not true, the deponent is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. DATE: TINAYI cMAHON,ESQUIRE MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN 8c GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 4200 Cruets Mill Road,Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNA. • v. Docket No. 10-6609 • STONEMOR PARTNERS,L.P.; Civil Action—Law STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; • WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; • And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY,LLC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA,LLC, TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET II (SERVED OCTOBER 9,2012) 1. Please produce the paperwork referenced in paragraph 4 on page 1 of the handwritten notes produced by Stonemor Pennsylvania,LLC in response to Plaintiffs Requests. RESPONSE: The paper work referenced in paragraph 4 on page 1 of the handwritten notes refers to documentation already provided in previous discovery responses,particularly the subject lot card and interment authorization dated March 3, 2010. 2. Please produce all email correspondence between Shirley Herman and James(Jim) Lentz. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is not limited in scope and time and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 05/959108.v1 1 3. Please produce a larger and legible copy of the previously produced"Cumb.Valley Mem'l" map dated August 20,2010. RESPONSE: Defendant possesses no other copy of the previously produced legible map. 4. Please produce all documents evidencing the current rules,regulations,policies, and/or guidelines regarding the completion of an Interment Authorization for interment at Westminster Cemetery. RESPONSE: Objection.Defendant objects to this request on that basis that it is unlimited in scope and therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of the foregoing,Defendant makes reference to the documentation attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. Please produce all documents evidencing the current rules,regulations,policies and/or guidelines regarding the method for surveying the premises as indicated on the Interment Authorization previously produced by Defendant. RESPONSE: To the best of answering Defendant's knowledge and based upon review to date of all documentation known to be available,there is no written policy concerning "the method for surveying the premises as indicated on the interment authorization." 6. Please produce a copy of the interim report form that the Cemetery is required to file with the Real Estate Commission pursuant to 9 Pa.C.S. § 308(b)(2). RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff complains of suffering emotional distress related to allegations of misburial, unauthorized disinterment,and reinterment of her mother's urn. (See Complaint paragraph 17-82). The entire history of interim reports filed with the Real Estate Commission is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to said allegations. 7. Please produce any and all sales records relating to the sale of gravesites in Lot No. 36. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff complains of suffering emotional distress related to allegations of misburial, unauthorized disinterment,and reinterment of her mother's urn. (See Complaint paragraph 17-82). The entire history of sales records relating to gravesites at Lot 36 is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to said allegations. 05/959108.v1 2 8. Please produce a certified copy of the current and valid registration certificate issued by the state Real Estate Commission pursuant to the act of February 19, 1980(P.L.15, No.9),known as the"Real Estate Licensing Act." RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff complains of suffering emotional distress related to allegations of misburial, unauthorized disinterment,and reinterment of her mother's urn. (See Complaint paragraph 17-82). Registration documents provided by the State Real Estate Commission are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to those allegations. 9. Please produce all Certificates of Interment Rights issued relating or referring to Lot No. 36. RESPONSE: The Stonemor Defendant entity,with ownership interest in the cemetery formerly known as Westminster Cemetery,was not provided with documentation related to ownership of the subject plots,including certificates of interment rights,sales agreements,and/or deeds from its predecessor. Instead,there is only reference of Deed 518 in the deed book,a copy of which has already been supplied. 10.Please produce any and all purchase and/or sale agreements relating to Lot No. 36. RESPONSE: The Stonemor Defendant entity,with ownership interest in the cemetery formerly known as Westminster Cemetery,was not provided with documentation related to ownership of the subject plots,including certificates of interment rights,sales agreements,and/or deeds from its predecessor. Instead,there is only reference of Deed 518 in the deed book,a copy of which has already been supplied. 11.Please produce a copy of the price list for ground opening and closing. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff complains of suffering emotional distress related to allegations of misburial, unauthorized disinterment,and reinterment of her mother's urn. (See Complaint paragraph 17-82). The price list for ground opening and closing is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to those allegations. 12. Please produce a copy of the current Cemetery License. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to.lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff complains of suffering emotional distress related to allegations of misburial, 05/959108.v1 3 unauthorized disinterment,and reinterment of her mother's urn. (See Complaint paragraph 17-82). The current cemetery license is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to those allegations. 13.Please produce a copy of the two most recent Renewal Applications that the Cemetery filed with the Pennsylvania Real Estate Commission. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff complains of suffering emotional distress related to allegations of misburial, unauthorized disinterment,and reinterment of her mother's urn. (See Complaint paragraph 17-82). The renewal applications are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to those allegations. 14.Please produce copies of all marketing materials regarding Westminster Cemetery that were provided to potential customers in the years 2005-2010. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff complains of suffering emotional distress related to allegations of misburial, unauthorized disinterment,and reinterment of her mother's urn. (See Complaint paragraph 17-82). The marketing materials regarding Westminster Cemetery are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to those allegations. 15. Please produce a copy of Deed 518. RESPONSE: The Stonemor Defendant entity,with ownership interest in the cemetery formerly known as Westminster Cemetery,was not provided with documentation related to ownership of the subject plots,including certificates of interment rights, sales agreements,and/or deeds from its predecessor. Instead,there is only reference of Deed 518 in the deed book,a copy of which has already been supplied. 16. Please produce all correspondence sent or received by the Answering Defendants' employees regarding any gravesite within the Rickenbaugh plot. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent Answering Defendant had any documents responsive to this request,the documents have already been turned over in previous discovery. 05/959108.v1 4 17. Please produce all correspondence sent or received by the Answering Defendants' employees regarding Jane Norton. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent Answering Defendant had any documents responsive to this request,the documents have already been turned over in previous discovery. 18.Please produce all correspondence sent or received by the Answering Defendants' employees regarding the burial of Marian Sweet. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent Answering Defendant had any documents responsive to this request,the documents have already been turned over in previous discovery. 19.Please produce all correspondence sent or received by the Answering Defendants' employees regarding the location of the remains of Kathleen Rickenbaugh. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope of time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent Answering Defendant had any documents responsive to this request,the documents have already been turned over in previous discovery. 20. Please produce all correspondence sent or received by the Answering Defendants' employees regarding the sale of cemetery plots within or in the vicinity of Lot 36 or the Rickenbaugh family plot. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff complains of suffering emotional distress related to allegations of misburial, unauthorized disinterment,and reinterment of her mother's urn within her family's plot. (See Complaint paragraph 17-82). Documents regarding the sale of cemetery plots other than within Plaintiffs family plot are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding those allegations. 21.Please produce all documents evidencing the rules and regulations of the cemetery. If the rules have a table of contents please produce the table to allow the Plaintiff to narrow this request. RESPONSE: Objection.Defendant objects to this request on that basis that it is unlimited in scope and therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of the foregoing,Defendant makes reference to the documentation attached hereto as Exhibit A. 05/959108.v1 5 22. [Please produce]A copy of Gail Becker's licensing credentials that were current the year 2010. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff complains of suffering emotional distress related to allegations of misburial, unauthorized disinterment,and reinterment of her mother's urn. (See Complaint paragraph 17-82). Ms. Gail Becker's licensing credentials during the year of 2010 are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to those allegations. 23.Please produce all documents evidencing or relating to Gail Becker's correspondence with Jane Norton. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 24.Please produce all documents relating to Gail Becker's handling of the burial of Marian Sweet including records of discipline. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By way of further answer,reference is made to documentation already provided in response to Plaintiffs first Request for Production of Documents. 25.Please produce any and all documents in Gail Becker's personnel file relating to her handling of the burial of Marian Sweet. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request on the basis that it is duplicative to Plaintiffs first Request for Production of Documents. 26.Please produce any and all documents in Gail Becker's personnel file relating to her conversations with Jane Norton. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request on the basis that it is duplicative to Plaintiffs first Request for Production of Documents. 27.Please provide a copy of Gail Becker's job description. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to the request on the basis that it is duplicative to Plaintiffs first Request for Production of Documents. 05/959108.x1 6 28.Please produce any and all documents relating to Ms. Becker's conversations with Jane Norton. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is unlimited in scope and time. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent Answering Defendant had any documents responsive to this request,the documents have already been turned over in previous discovery. 29.Please produce any and all documents evidencing or regarding complaints that Defendants'staff failed to provide individuals with accurate information regarding the availability of burial plots or the location of a loved one's remains. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks duplicative information which was the subject of Plaintiff's initial Request for Production of Documents. By way of further answer,Defendant incorporates documentation provided in response to Plaintiff's first Request for Production of Documents. DATE: 2 /( • Timo y . Mc n PA Attorney ID#52918 Marshall,Dennehey,Warner, Coleman&Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 (717)651-3505 FAX-(717)651-9630 Attorney for Defendant Stonemor Pennsylvania,LLC 05/959108.v1 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan Hepp,an employee of Marshall,Dennehey,Warner,Coleman&Goggin,do hereby certify that on this // day of 012,I served a copy of the foregoing Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents.Set II via First Class United States mail,postage prepaid,as follows: William J. Mundy,Esquire Laura K.Peltonen Gries,Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken,PA 19428 Susan Hepp 05/959108 vi 8 VERIFICATION Frank Miies;'being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is Vice President of Stonemor Partners LP; Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania; Stonemor Operating LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC; and that he is authorized to take this verification on behalf of Stonemor Partners LP; Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania; Stonemor Operating LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC; and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents Set II are time and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. This verification is subject to 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 which provides for certain penalties for making false statements. DATE: /2- K MIL S 05/996120.v1 • Exhibit "C" 100 Four Falls,Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road Burns White West Conshohocken,PA 19428 ATTORNEYS AT LAW t:484.567.5700 f:484.567.5701 w:www.burnswhite.com Laura K. Peltonen Attorney-at-Law (484)567-5714 lkpeltonen@burnswhite.com December 18, 2013 Email: tjmcmahon @mdwcg.com and United States First Class Mail Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Re: Jane MacCampbell Norton v. Stonemor Partners, L.P., et al. Cumberland County CCP Civil Action No. 2010-6609 Our File No. 11848-193359 Dear Mr. McMahon, This letter is in response to Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Second Requests for Production of Documents. Please accept this letter as a good faith attempt to resolve discovery issues regarding these requests. As defendants are aware, plaintiff has alleged that the Defendants deliberately conducted an unauthorized double burial and then misrepresented this fact to Ms. Norton in order for financial gain. Specifically, Plaintiff directs Defendants to the below Request for Production of Documents. Request for Production of Documents, Set II Request No. 2 requests correspondence between Shirley Herman and Jim Lentz. Please produce all correspondence between Ms. Herman and Mr. Lentz regarding Jane Norton, Marian Sweet, Gail Becker or Lot 36. Request 3 requests a legible copy of the cemetery map provided in response to Plaintiff's first document requests. Lester Hoch stated in his deposition that he possess a copy of a larger and more legible cemetery map. Further, in her deposition Lyn Gregg referred to a map of Westminster Cemetery that had spaces colored in to show what spaces were occupied and what spaces were sold. Please produce color copies of these maps which are responsive to this request as well as Plaintiff's initial document requests. Burns White A Limited Liability Company Requests No. 7, 9 and 10 request documents regarding sales and interment rights in Lot No. 36. Whether a party other than the Rickenbaughs ever obtained rights of internment in any of the spaces in Lot 36 is relevant to determining a motive for the unauthorized double burial. Plaintiff is entitled to this information as it would help prove that Defendants actions were for financial gain. Requests 8, 12 and 13 request current licensing information for Westminster Cemetery. This information is limited in scope and relevant to allegations of Westminster's mishandling of the burial of Marian Sweet. Request No. 11 requests a price list for opening and closing a space. This information is clearly relevant to the allegations in the Complaint as Plaintiff alleges cost saving as a motive for the unauthorized double burial. Request No. 14 requests marketing materials. Plaintiff is alleging an unauthorized double burial. Sales and marketing techniques are all relevant to determining Defendants motive for the double burial. Request 15, requests a copy of deed 518. Defendants respond by stating that it was not provided with this document from its predecessor. Defendants do not state whether they ever obtained a copy of the deed in any other fashion. If so, please produce a copy of the deed. If not, please state that Defendants are not in possession of the deed. Requests 16-20, request correspondence related to Jane Norton, Marian Sweet, Lot 36 and the location of the remains of Kathleen Rickenbaugh. Plaintiff is entitled to this information as any correspondence related to these topics would be directly related to the Defendants handling of the issues alleged in the complaint. Requests 22-28. Please produce the employee file of Gail Becker with social security information redacted. According to Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories Gail Becker was terminated as a result of unsatisfactory job performance not limited to the instances alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff has a right to all information regarding Ms. Becker's unsatisfactory job performance and StoneMor's notice of her behavior. Further, the answer to this interrogatory and the testimony of Jim Lentz suggest that Ms. Becker was terminated at least in part due to instances alleged in the complaint. This information is clearly relevant to the plaintiffs case. Further, plaintiff alleges that StoneMor and its representatives engaged in this intentional activity for profit. Ms. Norton's salary and incentive structure is relevant to this allegation as is her training and job description all of which should be contained in her employee file. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to hire, train and supervise competent staff Ms. Becker's employment, training and discipline records are clearly relevant to this allegation. • Request 29 requests documents evidencing complaints that defendant's staff failed to provide individuals with accurate information regarding the availability of burial plots or the location of a loved one's remains. Plaintiff is entitled to this information as it is relevant to Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants failed to properly train and supervise their sales counselors. Finally, Defendants Answer Interrogatories on behalf of"Certain Defendants." Please clarify which defendants are providing these Answers and indicate why Certain Defendants are not responding. Please consider this letter a good faith attempt to meet and confer on the above issues. Thank you for your attention to the above discovery disputes. Kindly produce the requested information by December 29 to avoid motion practice. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Very truly yours, Laura K. Peltonen rtes Exhibit "C" 4. MARSHALL DENNEHEY PENNSYLVANIA DELAWARE Bethlehem Wilmington WARNER. COLEMAN &GOGGIN Doylestown OHIO n i i }I N t , . i i.;'w n,;.u,n.. i i,1-1, i n,, (0, Erie Cleveland Harrisburg FLORIDA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION King of Prussia Philadelphia Ft. Lauderdale 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 • Camp Hill,PA 17011 Pittsburgh on Orlando (717)651-3500 • Fax(717)651-3707 Scranton Tampa NEW JERSEY NEW YORK Cherry Hill Long island Direct Dial: 717-651-3505 Roseland New York City Email:tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com December 24,2013 Via Email: lkpeltonen(aiburnswhite.com Laura K. Peltonen,Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken,PA 19428 Re: Jane MacCampbell Norton v.Stonemor Partners,L.P. Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas; No. 2010-6609 Date of Loss: April 2010 Claim No. ENB2654 MDWCG File No. 19183.01742 Dear Attorney Peltonen: Receipt is acknowledged on December 19 of your correspondence dated December 18. It is noted that you have requested information not later than December 29 in order to avoid a motion practice. I have addressed below each of the requests as outlined in your correspondence dated December 18: Request Number 2: The original request sought: "Please produce all email correspondence between Shirley Herman and James Lentz." This has now been modified seeking "all correspondence between Ms. Herman and Mr. Lentz regarding Jane Norton, Marian Sweet,Gail Becker or Lot 36." While I do not believe that there is any email or other correspondence pertaining to this subject that has not previously been produced, I am in the process of confirming that with my clients. Request Number 3: Plaintiff is seeking a"map of Westminster Cemetery that had spaces colored in to show what spaces were occupied and what spaces were sold." There is indeed some testimony from Lyn Gregg concerning such a map. However, Ms. Gregg has also testified that she does not use such a map and that it is not current or reliable. There is no dispute over where Plaintiffs decedent's remains were buried and never has been a dispute about that. Neither is there a dispute over where Marian Sweet is buried. Neither is there a dispute over how many burial spaces were owned by the Rickenbaugh family in Lot 36 of Westminster 9 4 , Laura K.Peltonen,Esquire December 24,2013 Page 2 Cemetery. Producing a document that is inaccurate and/or does not convey or demarcate the information which you appear to believe it demarcates is thus unnecessary and Defendants object to this request. Request Numbers 7,9 and 10: Defendants stand on the objections that they have made to these requests and the responses previously served. There is no question that no one other than the Rickenbaugh family owned the burial rights for the spaces in Lot 36A. There is ample testimony from virtually every cemetery employee who has been deposed to the effect that the cemetery never buys back spaces and does not resell spaces. Therefore,Plaintiffs theory or innuendo that Defendant's actions were"for financial gain" remains just that. Request Numbers 8, 12 and 13: The burial of Marian Sweet is not at issue in this litigation. Neither Ms. Sweet's estate nor any of her next of kin have brought claims concerning her burial and the timeframe within which such claims could have been brought has expired. Therefore,the suggestion that the information sought through these requests is relevant to allegations of Westminster's mishandling of the burial of Marian Sweet is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Request Number 11: Defendants stand on their previously served objection. Plaintiff has deposed a number of cemetery employees and well understands or should well understand by this point that there is and was no cost saving that derived from the second right burial. Indeed,the opposite is true. Accordingly,the price list for ground opening and closing is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence,particularly on the basis proffered by you in your correspondence of December 18. Request Number 15: Defendant has no documentation other than that which has been provided and Defendant's response says that. A discovery motion practice will not change that. Request Numbers 16-20: With the modification set forth in your correspondence of December 18 that correspondence is sought"related to Jane Norton,Marian Sweet, Lot 36 and the location of the remains of Kathleen Rickenbaugh," please note that Defendants have no responsive documentation that has not previously been produced. Request Numbers 22-28: Plaintiff had previously requested(at item number 21 of Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents served May 2,2010) Gail Becker's personnel file. Defendants objected to the production of that personnel file on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. You have suggested more recently in your correspondence of December 18,2013 that Ms. Becker's personnel file is somehow relevant because"Plaintiff alleges that Stonemor and its representatives engaged in this intentional activity for profit" and that Defendant failed to hire,train and supervise competent staff." The material allegations of Plaintiffs claims are,of course, set forth in the Complaint. Nowhere in the Complaint is it alleged that Defendants were negligent in their hiring,training and/or supervision of their staff. I have carefully reviewed paragraphs 1 through 122 of Plaintiffs Complaint and there simply are no allegations of negligent hire, supervision and/or training. Accordingly,Defendants stand on their objection that the production of Ms. Becker's personnel file is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence of that theory. We agree that Mr. Lentz has testified that Ms. Becker was terminated,at least in part, due to her interactions with Jane Norton. On this basis,those portions of Ms. Becker's personnel file that bear on the circumstances of her termination may be relevant to an issue at trial. However,Ms. Becker's personnel file is confidential in nature. Contained within Ms. Becker's personnel file is a memorandum dated October 19, •• Laura K. Peltonen,Esquire December 24,2013 Page 3 2010, addressed to Ms. Becker from Mr. Lentz pertaining to Ms. Becker's termination of employment. A copy of that termination memorandum provided Plaintiff executes a Confidentiality Agreement concerning the production thereof. A proposed Confidentiality Agreement is enclosed for your review. To the extent that Plaintiff contends that the entirety of Ms.Becker's personnel file is discoverable because Plaintiff alleges that Stonemor and its representatives engaged in"intentional activity for profit," Defendants disagree. The testimony from every Stonemor employee who has been deposed has made it abundantly clear that there was no incentive for Westminster Cemetery to take any action to bury Marian Sweet's remains with the previously interred cremated remains of Kathleen MacCampbell in order to somehow keep available additional burial spaces. Indeed,each and every cemetery employee who has been deposed by Plaintiff has testified unequivocally that the cemetery does not and has not repurchased burial spaces and does not resell burial spaces under any circumstances. I remain available to discuss these matters with you further at your convenience if needed. Sincerely, AO • Timo y . i � on TJM/bes Enclosure 05/1149056.v1 JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON, • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • V. • • STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P., • STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA, • _ • STONEMOR OPERATING LLC, ; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC, STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA '»= C.°' SUBSIDIARY LLC, : `_ WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC AND: WESTMINSTER CEMETERY : SUBSIDIARY, LLC., DEFENDANTS • 10-6609 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this /5-"‘5' day of January, 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, that motion is GRANTED in all respects but subject to the condition that Requests 22-28 regarding the employee file of Gail Becker shall have Social Security information redacted and be subject to a protective order forbidding Ms. Becker's personal information, not relevant to the instant litigation, to be disseminated in any way. By the Court, Albert H. Maslan', J. -4mothy J. McMahon, Esquire Jake J. Sulzer, Esquire ,/Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire sal e Wl i 4V 3'&cL ifrspq =Ai {t',� is pm ' ��rt1S'Q A laP�rY MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By:Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill,PA 17011 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon @mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; Civil Action—Law STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC: WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO OUTSTANDING WRITTEN DISCOVERY 1. Plaintiff Jane MacCampbell Norton instituted this action by filing a Praecipe for the issuance of a Writ of Summons on or about October 18, 2010, 2. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Complaint in this action on September 12, 2011. 3. The parties have proceeded with discovery by exchanging written discovery requests. Additionally, the parties conducted numerous discovery depositions. 05/1149743.vl I 4. On September 24, 2013, the Honorable Judge Albert H. Masland entered a Case Management Order following a Status Conference of counsel. The Order imposed a discovery deadline of December 31, 2013. 5. On November 5, 2013, counsel for Defendants served Defendants' Interrogatories directed to the Plaintiff. A copy of the Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. Plaintiff failed to provide complete and verified discovery responses within the thirty (30) day period required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. On December 10, 2013, counsel for Defendants wrote to Plaintiffs counsel, Attorney Peltonen informing her that Plaintiff had not timely provided responses to the Interrogatories and requested fully answered and verified responses within five (5) days. A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 8. To date, Plaintiff has not answered, nor objected to, the Interrogatories. 9. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4019 provides that the Court may make an appropriate sanction and/or Order if the party fails to serve answers to written interrogatories. 10. The information sought in Defendants' Interrogatories are critical to issues of liability and damages in this matter. 11. Plaintiffs failure to provide complete and verified responses to the Interrogatories prevents the Defendants from fully developing a defense in this matter. 12. Additionally, Plaintiffs delay just prior to the close of discovery (December 30, 2013), and pending dispositive Motion deadline (February 14, 2014),jeopardizes Defendants' ability to develop a dispositive motion in this case. 13. As such, Defendants request that this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to answer and verify the Interrogatories. In event further delay occurs and the discovery 05/1149743.v 1 2 responses are not received in a reasonable time in advance of the dispositive motion deadline, Defendants request that the Court also enter an Order extending the deadlines in order to account for Plaintiffs delay. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Motion to Compel and enter an Order requiring Plaintiff to provide full, complete, and verified responses to Defendants' Interrogatories within twenty (20) days of the date of the Order, or be subject to further sanctions upon application to the Court. Additionally, Defendants request the Court enter an Order extending the current dispositive motion deadline, if necessary, in order to accommodate Defendants' ability to draft a dispositive motion due to Plaintiffs current delay. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOO`GGIN DATE: January 15, 2014 rA Timothy J. MgMahon PA Attorney ID #52918 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-3707 Attorneys for Defendant(s) 05/1149743.vl 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barbara E. Steel, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 15th day of January, 2014, 1 served a copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel via First Class-United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Barbara E. Steel 05/1149743.v1 4 Exhibit A MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 4200 Crums Mill Road,Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 717-651-3505 Email: tjmcmahon @mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; Civil Action—Law STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY.LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants INTERROGATORIES (SET 1) OF DEFENDANTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF TO: Jane MacCampbell Norton, Plaintiff c/o Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Counsel for Plaintiff Defendants, Stonemor Partners, L.P.; Stonemor Holding Of Pennsylvania; Stonemor Operating LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania, LLC; Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC; Westminster Cemetery, LLC; and Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC; by and through its Counsel, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin, propound the following Interrogatories upon the Plaintiff to be answered under oath, within thirty (30) days after service hereof. Definitions. -- The following definitions are applicable to these interrogatories: 05/1113488.vl 1 "Document" means any written, printed,typed, or other graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, including photographs, microfilms,phonographs, video and audio tapes,punch cards, magnetic tapes, discs, data cells, drums, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained. "Identify" or "Identity" means when used in reference to -- 1. A natural person, his or her: a. Full name; and b. Present or last known residence and employment address (including street name and number, city or town, and state or county); 2. A document: a. Its description(e.g., letter, memorandum, report, etc.),title, and date; b. Its subject matter; c. Its author's identity; d. Its addressee's identity; e. Its present location; and f. Its custodian's identity; 3. An oral communication: a. Its date; b. The place where it occurred; c. Its substance; d. The identity of the person who made the communication; e. The identity of each person to whom such communication was made; and f. The identity of each person who was present when such communication was made; 05/1113488.x1 2 4. A corporate entity: a. Its full corporate name; b. Its date and place of incorporation, if known; and c. Its present address and telephone number; 5. Any other context: A description with sufficient particularity that the thing may thereafter be specified and recognized, including relevant dates and places, and the identification of relevant people. entities, and documents. "Incident" or "accident" means the occurrence that forms the basis of a cause of action or claim for relief set forth in the complaint or similar pleading. "Person" means a natural person, partnership, association, corporation, or governmental agency.. Instructions. -- The following instructions are applicable to these interrogatories: 1. Duty to answer. -- The Interrogatories are to be answered in writing, verified, and served upon the undersigned within thirty(30) days of their service on you. Objections must be signed by the attorney making them. In your answers, you must furnish such information as is available to you, your employees, representatives, agents, and attorney. Your answers must be supplemented and amended as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 05/1113488.v1 3 2. Claim of privilege. -- With respect to any claim of privilege or immunity from discovery, you must identify the privilege or immunity asserted and provide sufficient information to substantiate the claim. 3. Option to produce documents. -- In lieu of identifying documents in response to these Interrogatories, you may provide copies of such documents with appropriate references to the corresponding Interrogatories. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing and any information secured subsequent to the filing of answers, which would have been includable in the answers had it been known or available, shall be supplied by supplemental answers as soon as such information becomes known or available, and in all events, prior to the trial of this action, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4007.3. INTERROGATORIES 1. Identify and describe with particularity all documentary evidence which you contend supports, in whole or in part, the allegations that Defendants and/or any of their employees, representatives, or agents intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff. ANSWER: 2. Identify each and every individual you contend to have intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff. ANSWER: 05/1113488.v1 4 3. Identify and describe each separate statement or act performed by each Defendant, as applicable, and/or their agents which you contend to be an intentional act that caused you to sustain the alleged emotional distress. For each such statement and/or act, identify the following: a. The actor or individual making the statement and/or act; b. The dates of each such statement and/or act; and c. The specific basis for your contention that such acts and/or statements were intentional. ANSWER: 4. Identify with specificity all emotional harm which you alleged to have experienced. Provide the following: a. Description of the all emotional symptoms; b. Dates and duration of each symptom; and c. All medical attention, therapy, counseling, and/or treatment sought and received for each symptom. ANSWER: 5. Identify and describe with particularity all evidence which you contend, in whole or in part, to support the allegation that Defendants negligently inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff. ANSWER: 6. Identify each and every individual you contend to have negligently inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff. ANSWER: 05/1113488.v1 5 7. Identify and describe each separate instance of conduct, statement, omission(s) and/or any other type of action performed by the Defendants and/or their agents, which you contend to be a negligent action that gave rise to the alleged emotional distress. For each statement and/or act, please identify the following: a. The actor or individual making the statement; and b. The date of the act or statement. ANSWER: 8. Identify with specificity all emotional harm which you alleged to have experienced as a result of the alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress set forth in the Complaint. Please provide the following: a. Description of all emotional symptoms; b. Dates and duration of each symptom; and c. All medical attention, therapy, counseling, and/or treatment sought and received for each symptom. ANSWER: 9. Identify and describe with particularity all evidence that you contend, in whole or in part, to support the allegations that each Defendant, as applicable,perpetrated fraud upon Plaintiff: ANSWER: 10. Identify and describe all alleged material misrepresentations which you contend support the allegations of fraud set forth in the Complaint. ANSWER: 05/1113488.v1 11. For each such alleged material misrepresentation described in your response to the previous Interrogatory, describe with particularity whether, and if so on what basis, you relied upon such information and/or alleged misrepresentation. ANSWER: 12. Identify and describe with particularity all economic detriment experienced by you as a result of your alleged reliance upon the alleged material misrepresentations described above. For each alleged detriment, describe the following: a. All monetary losses suffered as a consequence of the alleged material misrepresentation; b. All additional expenses or losses incurred as a result of the alleged material misrepresentation. ANSWER: DATE: / to Timothy J. cM n PA Attorney ID 2918 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendants 05/1113488.x1 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan Hepp, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin,do hereby certify that on this_ ' day 13, I served a copy of the foregoing Interrogatories via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Counsel for Plaintiff Susan Hepp 05/1113488.v1 8 F t s i i Exhibit B PENNSYLVANIA DELMVARE MARSHALL DENNEHEY Bethlehem Wilmington WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN Doylestown OHJO Erie Cleveland Harrisburg A IP01 FS S IONA L CORPORATION King of Prussia Philadelphia Ft. Lauderdale 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Pittsburgh Jacksonville Orlando (717) 651-3500 • Fax (717) 651-3707 Scranton Tampa NEW JERSEY NEW YORK Cherry Hill I Long Island Direct Dial: 717-651-3505 Roseland New York City Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com December 10, 2013 Via Facsimile: 484-567-5701 and Via Email: lkpeltonen(),burnswhite.com Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Bums White LLC Scott D. Josephson, Esquire 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Re: Jane MacCampbell Norton v. Stonemor Partners, L.P. Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas; No. 2010-6609 Date ofLoss: April 2010 Claim No. ENB2654 MDWCG File No. 19183.01742 Dear Attorney Peltonen: I am writing to you at this time to request that you promptly provide substantive, verified responses to the Interrogatories addressed to Plaintiffs, which were served more than thirty (30) days ago and thus which are now overdue. As you know, the Case Management Order contains a series of deadlines to which the parties had agreed. Among those deadlines is a deadline for the completion of discovery by December 31, 2013. In order to determine whether any additional discovery is necessary, including depositions in this action, Defendants must have Plaintiff s overdue responses to the above.refere need written discovery within the next two business days. I would appreciate it if you would please forward those items to my attention within that timeframe so as to avoid the need to disturb the schedule set forth in the Case Management Order. I thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Tio yJ. cMahon '4c TJM/bes 05/1142582,vl t` LEO-OFF∎C. HE PRO THQ' QTA;; 2014 JAN 22 III '2: 33 ,. �, MINTY SYLVANIA JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. v. • Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; Civil Action—Law • STONEMOR HOLDING OF • PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR : PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; : WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; • And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED • Defendants RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ` 2014, upon consideration of Defendants' AND NOW, this day of �� �E�� p Motion to Compel Responses to Outstanding Written Discovery, Plaintiff is hereby directed to show cause not later than twenty (20) days why the requested relief should not be granted. In the event that Plaintiff does not respond within twenty (20) days to this Rule to Show Cause, Defendants may file a motion to make the Rule absolute, in which event Plaintiff will be directed to answer the outstanding Interrogatories within twenty (20) days of an Order granting the motion to make the Rule absolute. iEs 17,24LE > - "7-7 Maria kat) /1/ 1344i t�E ( J. 05/1149757.vl THEE PROTKNOTAR�( 201 FEB 12 Pig ' . - r C- M - 1 - CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By:Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 100 Corporate Center Drive,Suite 201 Camp Hill,PA 17011 717-651-3505;Fax 717-651-3707 Email: tjmcmahon @mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DOCKET NO. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; CIVIL ACTION—LAW STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, Defendants JURY TRAIL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Jane MacCampbell Norton instituted this action by filing a Praecipe for the issuance of a Writ of Summons on October 18, 2010. 2. In August of 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging the mishandling of her mother's cremated remains. 05/1135265.v1 1 ORIGINAL y 3. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: a. Count I Intentional infliction of emotional distress; b. Count II -Negligent infliction of emotional distress; C. Count III - Punitive damages; d. Count IV -Negligence per se for alleged violations of Title 28 of the Pennsylvania Code; and e. Count V—Fraud. 4. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs mother's cremated remains shared a gravesite at Westminster Cemetery for a short period of time with the casketed remains of Plaintiff s aunt. 5. Plaintiff claims emotional distress experienced from learning that her mother's cremated remains shared a burial space with her aunt's casketed remains. 6. Plaintiff further alleges while attempting to ascertain the true location of her mother's cremains, and/or having her mother and aunt separated—she was told a number of untruthful statements that allegedly caused anxiety. 7. Plaintiffs causes of action are not supported by the evidence and/or are not cognizable under Pennsylvania law, and therefore Defendants file the following Motion for Summary Judgment. II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. Whether improperly named parties having no involvement in this matter should be dismissed? B. Whether Plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress? C. Whether Plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress? 2 05/1135265.v1 D. Whether Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint, Punitive damages, fails to set forth a cause of action recognized by Pennsylvania law—therefore making summary judgment proper? E. Whether Count IV of Plaintiff s Complaint for violation of Pennsylvania code fails to set forth a cause of action recognized by Pennsylvania law—therefore making summary judgment proper? F. Whether Plaintiffs lacks sufficient evidence to support a claim for fraud therefore making summary judgment proper? III. ARGUMENT Summary Judgment Standard 8. Summary is properly granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file,together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A. THE NAMED PARTIES HAVING NO INVOLVEMENT IN THIS MATTER SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 9. Plaintiff has named seven different entities as Defendants in this matter. 10. The named Defendants Stonemor Pennsylvania, LLC, and Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary, have an ownership and/or operating interest in the subject cemetery. (See Answer with New Matter). 11. Discovery thus far has shown that the remaining Defendants, including Stonemor Partners, LLP; Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania; Stonemor Operating, LLC; Westminster Cemetery, LLC; and Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, have no ownership or operating role with the subject cemetery and/or this litigation. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing all of the noninvolved entities. 3 05/1135265.v1 B. COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED), SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF LACKS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SATISFY THE ELEMENTS OF IIED. 12. Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint sets forth a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 13. Plaintiffs IIED claim fails because Plaintiff was not present at the time of the alleged tortious conduct. See Weiley v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 51 A.3d 202 (Pa. Super 2012) (requiring that the victim's immediate family have to be present for the tortious conduct in order to support an IIED claim). WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice. C. COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS PENNSYLVANIA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE SUCH A CAUSE OF ACTION IN A MISBURIAL AND/OR A MISHANDLING OF REMAINS CASES. 14. Count II of Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a cause of action for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. Pennsylvania Courts have held that Pennsylvania does not recognize a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress rising from the alleged mistreatment of cremated remains. See Rost v. Laurel Hill Memorial Gardens (No. CI-03- 01619) 15. Additionally, Plaintiff was not present for the alleged misconduct and therefore may not assert a claim for emotional distress. See Weiley v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 51 A.3rd 202 (Pa. Super 2012). 4 05/1135265.v1 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Count II of Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice. D. COUNT III OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO SET FORTH A CAUSE OF ACTION RECOGNIZED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW. 16. Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint sets forth a purported cause of action titled "punitive damages." 17. Pennsylvania law does not recognize an independent tort claim for punitive damages. 18. Punitive damages are an element of damages and not a separate.cause of action. See G.J.D. v. Johnson, 669 A.2d 378, 380 (Pa. Super 1995). WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice. E. COUNT IV OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE TITLE 28 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CODE DOES NOT PROVIDE A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION. 19. Count IV of Plaintiffs Complaint sets forth a cause of action alleging negligence per se Tor the violation of Title 28 of the Pennsylvania Code. 20. Title 28 of the Pennsylvania Code does not set forth a private cause of action allowing plaintiffs to file a civil action seeking private redress. 21. , Additionally, Title 28 of the Pennsylvania Code has been enacted for the general public and has not been enacted to protect plaintiffs' individual interests—and therefore it may not give rise to a private cause of action. See Wagner v. Anzon, Inc., 684 A.2d 570, 574-575 (Pa. Super 1996). 5 05/1135265.v1 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Count IV of Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice. F. COUNT V OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT,FRAUD, SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE SHE LACKS THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF FRAUD. 22. Count V of Plaintiffs Complaint sets forth a claim for fraud. 23. Plaintiff alleges that an employee of Westminster Cemetery deliberately misrepresented the location of her mother's cremains. 24. Plaintiff alleges that she believed the statements to be true and became "horrified" at a possible misburial. See paragraph 118 of the Complaint. Plaintiff then alleges that her reliance on the information caused "significant emotional trauma." See paragraph 119 of the Complaint. 25. Plaintiffs testimony illustrates that she, in fact, did not believe and/or rely upon statements allegedly made by Defendants' employees. As such, she lacks the required element of reliance. (See Exhibit A attached to Defendants' Appendix of Exhibits). 26. Additionally, Pennsylvania Courts have limited damages in fraud cases to pecuniary losses. See Restituto v. Trauma Service_Group, 29 Phila. 225 (1995) (citing Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, 464 A. 2d 1243 (Pa. Super 1983). Plaintiff lacks the required pecuniary losses. 6 05/1135265.vl WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Count V of Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: o� L Timot y J. Mc" ' ho PA Attorney ID #5 8 100 Corporate Cen r Dr., Ste. 201 Camp Hill,PA 17011 (717) 651-3505; Fax: (717) 651-3707 Attorneys for Defendants 7 05/1135265.v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan Hepp, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 'day of February, 2014, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgment via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Susan Hepp 8 05/1135265.vl MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 100 Corporate Center Drive,Suite 201 Camp Hill,PA 17011 717-651-3505;Fax 717-651-3707 Email: tjmcmahon @mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; Civil Action-Law STONEMOR HOLDING OF e� �7 PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR r= _ OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR ,-., - � PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; ` ' WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY - ' = SUBSIDIARY, LLC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants 4- APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT-VOLUME I EXHIBIT # DESCRIPTION PAGES OF RECORD . A Deposition Transcript-Plaintiff D0001-DO033 Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: Ti 6th J. M on PA Attorney I #52918 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 651-3505 FAX(717) 651-3707 Attorneys for Defendants 05,1171525.vl ORIGINAL Exhibit q cc Py JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION - LAW V DOCKET NO. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, LP; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC: WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; AND WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, DEFENDANTS : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEPOSITION OF: JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON TAKEN BY: DEFENDANTS BEFORE: TAMMY J. BAKER, REPORTER NOTARY PUBLIC DATE: APRIL 19, 2013, 12 : 06 P.M. PLACE: 10 SOUTH HANOVER STREET CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA APPEARANCES: BURNS WHITE, LLC BY: LAURA K. PELTONEN, ESQUIRE FOR - PLAINTIFF � MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: TIMOTHY J. McMAHON, ESQUIRE �. FOR - DEFENDANTS Hughes, Albright, Foltz & Natale Reporting Service, Inc. 540 N. Prc�Tress avenue • Suite 207-A • 1111.1-isbLim, PA 17110 717-5-10-0220 • Fax 717-540-0221 Multi-Pager` JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON APRIL 19, 2013 Page 2 Page 4 1 WITNESS 1 Q.I had asked for you to appear in order to be able 2 NAME EXAMINATION 2 to ask you questions under oath In a process that's 3 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON 3 known as a deposition. Is that why you're here? 4 BY: MR. McMAHON 3 4 A.Yes. 5 5 Q.Have you ever given testimony under oath before 6 6 today? 7 7 A.No. 8 8 Q.You do recognize that you are under oath,yes? 9 9 A.Yes. 10 EXHIBITS 10 Q.What does that mean to you, ma'am? 11 PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT NO. PRODUCED AND MARKED 11 A.That I have to tell the truth, I guess. 12 1. COMPLAINT 30 12 Q.Okay. It means indeed just that. I'm going to 13 2. LETTER DATED 10/22/10 81 13 be asking you questions in order to get or gain from you 14 3. LETTER DATED 9/7/10 83 14 some information that is relevant to issues in the • 15 4. DOCUMENT REQUEST EXHIBIT 1 84 15 lawsuit that you've brought. 16 16 I want to know, in other words, what you're able 17 17 to tell me factually. And I say that to you because if 18 18 I ask you a question and you don't know the answer to 19 19 it, I would prefer that you tell me that you don't know 20 20 the answer to it rather than to give me something other 21 21 than your own knowledge,meaning a guess. I'm not 22 22 asking you to guess. You understand the distinction 23 23 between the two things,yes? 24 24 A.Uh-huh. 25 25 Q.A customary instruction -- and I don't mean to Page 3 Page 5 1 STIPULATION 1 suggest that I'm chastising you--you can see the 2 It is hereby stipulated by and between 2 reporter is smiling. If you mean to say yes-- 3 counsel for the respective parties that sealing, 3 A.All right,okay. 4 certification and filing are hereby waived; and that all 4 Q.-- say yes. If you mean to say no, say no, 5 objections,except as to the form of the question,are 5 because if you say uh-huh,what gets typed is uh-huh and 6 reserved to the time of trial. 6 later when someone reads it the distinction between 7 7 uh-huh and huh-uh is so subtle that sometimes it's lost 8 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON,called as a 8 entirely. 9 witness,being duly sworn,testified as follows: 9 And I'm smiling,too,because everyone does that, 10 EXAMINATION 10 it's a part of normal conversation,but because a word 11 BY MR.MCMAHON: 11 for word or verbatim record is being made,it's much 12 Q.Good afternoon,ma'am. Would you like some 12 easier on the reporter and much clearer for everyone 13 water? 13 involved if you just use ordinary words rather than 14 A.No,thank you. 14 these others. 15 Q.Would you state your name for the record,please? 15 I'm going to do my best to keep my questions 16 A.Jane Norton. 16 short. I want you,of course,to understand the 17 Q.Ms.Norton,my name is Tim McMahon,I'm an 17 questions. I wouldn't expect you to answer a question 18 attorney. In this particular case I represent the 18 if you don't understand it. And,indeed,if I ask a 19 Defendants. And when I say this particular case,I'm 19 question and you don't understand it,just tell me that 20 referring to a case filed in the Court of Common Pleas 20 and I'll rephrase it to your satisfaction -- or at least 21 of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, it's docketed at No. 21 try to. 22 10-6609 in which as I understand it you are the 22 I'll do my best not to begin a question until I'm 23 Plaintiff. Do you recognize that you are the Plaintiff 23 persuaded that you've completed your answer to the 24 in that lawsuit? 24 previous question. If-- and I don't know whether we'll 25 A.Yes. 125 --I'm not saying that we will --but if we begin to Page 2 - Page 5 H[TGHFS_ ALBRIGHT_ FOLTZ &NATALF. RFPORT1NG 717-540-0220 =i+��;�� JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Multi-Page APRIL 19, 2013 Page 6 Page 8 1 over speak each other, again it makes the reporter's job 1 re-burial -- I'm using those terms somewhat broadly,to 2 more difficult. She's very good at what she does,but 2 be sure --that you haven't provided to your counsel? 3 she's best at taking down a single speaking voice at a 3 A.No. 4 time rather than two; so I would point that out. 4 Q.Do you reside at 5 I don't know how long your deposition will take. 5 Virginia? 6 No longer than necessary,I assure you, and I don't 6 A.Yes. 7 think particularly long, but it is not a test of 7 Q.How long have you resided there approximately? 8 physical endurance and there is no intention on my part 8 A.Since about 1978. 9 for you to be physically uncomfortable; so if you need 9 Q.And are you employed,ma'am? 10 to take a break to stretch,get a drink of water,just 10 A.No longer. 11 for the sake of taking a break, you tell me that and 11 Q.Before you were no longer employed,what was your 12 you'll have a break merely for the asking, so to speak, 12 employment? 13 all right? 13 A.Primarily sales. 14 A.Okay. 14 Q.What did you sell? 15 Q.I may ask you for a piece of information that you 15 A.Primarily advertising. 16 once knew that you don't recall and if that's so, again 16 Q.And do you consider yourself to be retired 17 I would prefer that you tell me you don't recall or you 17 essentially? 18 don't know if that's applicable. 18 A.Yes. 19 Sometimes when I'm asking questions of a party he 19 Q.How long have you been so? 20 or she will be able to give an approximation and I'll 20 A.For about 15 years. 21 accept an approximation if you're comfortable with it. 21. Q.Can you tell me a little bit about your 22 And I recognize that's something different from a hard 22 educational background,please? 23- recollection,meaning a firm recollection,than a guess, 23 A.I'm a graduate of Boston University. 24 I would put it probably somewhere in between those two 24 Q.And what degree did you earn at Boston 25 things. I don't know if we'll get to that,but if we 25 University? Page 7 Page 9 1 get to a point that you have a general recollection and 1 A.Spanish was my major. I earned a BA degree. 2 can make an approximation that you're comfortable with, 2 Q.Can you tell me where you attended high school? 3 then that would be fine. 3 A.A private school called Greenwich Academy. 4 Do you have any questions about the process based 4 Q.Is that in Connecticut? 5 on what I've told you? 5 A.Greenwich, Connecticut. 6 A.No. 6 Q.And did you spend your childhood years in 7 Q.Can you tell me,have you reviewed any documents 7 Connecticut? 8 or things in order to be prepared to answer questions at 8 A.Yes. 9 your deposition? 9 Q.Were you born in Connecticut? 10 A.1 re-read the Complaint. 10 A.Yes. 11 Q.Have you reviewed anything else? 11 Q.Do you have any siblings that are alive? 12 A.Not really,no. 12 A.No. 13 Q.Do you have any photographs of Westminster 13 Q.Have you departed siblings? 14 Cemetery or any part thereof? 14 A.No. 15 A.Yes. 15 Q.I know it's redundant, but it's a lawyer's habit, 16 Q.How many do you have? 16 are you an only child? 17 A.All totaled about six or so. I threw some out 17 A.Yes. 18 because they were like duplicates and they weren't 118 Q.And what was your father's name? 19 clear. 19 A.Donald MacCampbell. 20 Q.Do you have any that you haven't provided to your 20 Q.And your mother was Kathleen MacCampbell? 21 counsel? 21 A.Yes. 22 A.No. 22 Q.Approximately when did your father pass away? 23 Q.Do you have any notes or e-mail or memos or 23 A.On December 26th, 1994. 24 letters or other written means of communication or note 24 Q.And your mother predeceased your father as I 25 taking that pertain to your late mother's burial and/or 25 understand it? Page 6 - Page 9 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Page' JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON APRIL 19,2013 Page 10 Page 12 1 A.Yes. 1 that? r 2 Q.Meaning your mother passed in 1984? 2 A.Because she had always spoken about it. 3 A.Yes. 3 Q.Had you been to Westminster Cemetery ever before 4 Q.What month and what day if you can tell me? 4 your mother passed away? 5 A.March 2nd. 5 A.No. 6 Q.And your father's buried where? 6 Q.Once your mother passed away,as of the time that 7 A.He's not. His ashes were scattered over Mount 7 your mother passed away and working forward from then, 8 Washington. 8 did you go to Westminster Cemetery from time to time? 9 Q.I see. Where had your mother been living shortly 9 A.Pardon me, I wasn't--my mind was wandering. 10 before she passed away? 10 Could you repeat that? 1 I A.In Connecticut. 11 Q.Sure. I'll rephrase it as well. After your 12 Q.Were you involved in making arrangements for her 12 mother had been buried at Westminster Cemetery in 1984, 13 funeral when she passed away? 13 did you return to Westminster Cemetery from time to 14 A.My father did. 14 time? 15 Q.Were you at all involved in making arrangements 15 A.Yes. 16 for your mother's burial when she passed away? 16 Q.Can you give me a sense,please,of on what basis 17 A.My father did. 17 of frequency or periodicity that occurred? 18 Q.When your mother passed away in 1984, were you 18 A.I was not obviously tabulating it at the time. 19 living in Virginia? 19 I'd say maybe once a year. 20 A.Yes. 20 Q.Did your approximate annual visits coincide with 21 Q.Did you attend your mother's funeral? 21 any particular date,anniversary,event? 22 A.Yes. 22 A.Like Mother's Day or my mother's birthday. 23 Q.Did you attend your mother's burial service? 23 Q.And on those occasions would you drive from the 24 A.Yes. 24 Reston area to Carlisle? 25 Q.And by that I mean this,were you present at the 25 A.Yes. Page 11 Page 13 1 cemetery when your mother's remains were interred? 1 Q.Are you able to tell me when before --withdrawn. 2 A.Yes. 2 As I understand it Marian Sweet was your aunt? 3 Q.Do you remember that? 3 A.Yes. 4 A.Yes. 4 Q.Meaning she was your mother's sister? 5 Q.What do you remember about that, ma'am? 5 A.Yes. 6 A.I just remember being there with my father and my 6 Q.And if I understand correctly -- and I may well 7 aunt. 7 not,which is why I'm asking you.-- at the time that 8 Q.Which aunt was that? 8 your mother passed away, your mother's only living 9 A.The one who passed --the one we had the problem 9 sibling was Marian Sweet, is that accurate? 10 with, Marian Sweet. 10 A.Wait. At the time my mother passed away? 11 Q.And where had Ms. Sweet been living at that time, 11 Q.Yes. 12 in 1984? 12 A.Yes. 13 A.In Massachusetts. 13 Q.Meaning -- 14 Q.Nowadays do you have relatives in the Carlisle 14 A.Yeah. 15 area? 15 Q.Meaning of the cohort of siblings of which your 16 A.No. 16 mother was one, at the time of her passing,the only 17 Q.In Cumberland County? 17 remaining sibling was Marian Sweet? 18 A.No. 18 A.Right. 19 Q.In Pennsylvania? 19 Q.There had been other siblings before? 20 A.No. 20 A.One more. 21 Q.Were you generally aware, at least before your 21 Q.Yes. Another sister? 22 mother died, that upon her death she was likely or more 22 A.Yes. 23 than likely to be buried here in Carlisle? 23 Q.And were there just three siblings in your 24 A.Right. 24 mother's cohort of siblings? 25 Q.And is that something --how did you come to know 25 A.Three sisters. Page 10 - Page 13 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Multi-Page rM APRIL 19,2013 Page 14 Page 16 1 Q.Do you know when the first of those sisters i Q.Do you know why that was so? 2 passed away? 2 A.No. I do not know and I still don't know. 3 A.In 1948. 3 Q.When after that did you next speak with Margo 4 Q.From-- I apologize. When did your aunt, Marian 4 Sweet? 5 Sweet,pass away? 5 A.I really don't recollect. 6 A.In 2000. Now I'm getting mixed up. 2010, I 6 Q.Before Marian Sweet was buried,did you know when 7 guess. Was it? 7 her burial was to take place? 8 MS.PELTONEN: I can't tell you. If you 8 A.Margo told me,yes,and said it was just for the 9 don't remember, that's fine. 9 three of them. 10 THE WITNESS: Whatever it says in the 10 Q.The three of them referring to Margo and her I I Complaint. I don't know. I'm getting confused. I'm 11 siblings? 12 very nervous. I'm just getting confused now. It was 12 A.Yes. 13 January-- yeah, January of 2010,because it was August 13 Q.And her siblings are whom? 14 of 2010 when I --yeah. 14 A.Susan and Seth. 15 BY MR.McMAHON: 15 Q.And when you were told that the burial of Marian 16 Q.And -- 16 Sweet was going to be just for the three of them--to 17 A.January 9th, 2010. 17 use the same phrase you did--did that--how did you 18 Q.Before your aunt,Marian Sweet, passed away-- 18 react to that,if at all? 19 are you able --using that as a reference point in time, 19 A.I just figured it was their option. 20 January of 2010, are you able to say when you had last 20 Q.Did you know--I apologize if I've asked you 21 been to Westminster Cemetery? 21 this--did you know on what date that burial was going 22 A.The previous August. 22 to occur before it had occurred? 23 Q.August of 2009? 23 A.I believe so,yes. 24 A.Correct. 24 Q.And did you have any--withdrawn. 25 Q.And I have no doubt about what you're telling me. 25 From what you've told me I understand that you Page 15 Page 17 1 How is it that you're able to fix August as compared to i didn't attend,is that so? 2 some other month? 2 A.Correct. 3 A.Because I went up there for my mother's birthday. 3 Q.Did you,for lack of a better word,participate 4 Q.I see. And how did you learn of your aunt, 4 in some other way; for example, send some flowers, send 5 Marian Sweet's,passing? 5 some commemorative item, something like that? 6 A.My cousin called me. 6 A.I sent a sympathy card. 7 Q.And that is whom? 7 Q.To? 8 A.Margo Sweet. 8 A.Margo. 9 Q.Can you recall generally the conversation, if 9 Q.At her home in New Hampshire? 10 there was one,between yourself and your cousin, Margo 10 A.In Massachusetts. 11 Sweet, about her mother's death or passing? 1I Q.I'm sorry,in Massachusetts. When after Marian 12 A.I had known that her mother was not doing too 12 Sweet passed away did you next visit Westminster 13 well and then she called one day. 13 Cemetery? 14 Q.And did she call to tell you simply that her 14 A.Not until the following August. 15 mother-- who's also your aunt-- 15 Q.Meaning August of 2010? 16 A.Right. 16 A.Correct. 17 Q.--had died? 17 Q.And was that in conjunction with--was that 18 A.Right. She was very upset, so she didn't say 18 visit in conjunction with your mother's birthday,the 19 very much. 19 anniversary of your mother's birthday? 20 Q.Was there any discussion at that time about what 20 A.Right. 21 arrangements would or had been made for Ms. Sweet's 21 Q.Had you any communications with your cousins, 22 funeral and/or burial? 22 meaning the three individuals who were children of 23 A.That she would be buried at Westminster Cemetery, 23 Marian Sweet,about their mother's burial after it had 24 but they were going to set a date for later in the 24 occurred and before you went to Westminster Cemetery in 25 spring. 125 August of 2010? Page 14 - Page 17 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Page JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON APRIL 19, 2013 Page 18 Page 20 1 A.Margo sent me photos. 1 Q.And I'm not suggesting to you,ma'am, that I 2 Q.Of? 2 think you should have done that,I'm just trying to get 3 A.The casket beside the grave. 3 a more clear understanding-- 4 Q.I'm sorry,I missed a word. The casket -- 4 A.Even if I should have done it,it was a done deal 5 A.Beside the grave. 5 by the time I got the photographs,anyhow. The body was 6 Q.Thank you. Do you still have those? 6 in the wrong place. 7 A.Yes. 7 MS.PELTONEN: Just listen to his questions 8 Q.Have you provided those to counsel? 8 because I think he was still in the middle of his 9 A.Yes. 9 question. 10 MR.MCMAHON: Will you provide those to me, 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 11 please? 11 Ms.PELTONENT: Everybody does it. Just make 12 MS.PELTONEN: Yes. 12 sure you listen to it. 13 BY MR.MCMAHON: 13 MS.PELTONEN: I do not have those 14 Q.How many photographs did your cousin Margo send 14 photographs. I'm almost positive I produced them. 1 15 to you or provide to you? 15 believe I produced them. 16 A.She just sent I think it was like two of them. 16 MR.MCMAHON: I'll show you what I have in 17 Q.Did you ask her for those? 17 the way of your production. I'm not chastising,I just 18 A.No. 18 don't have them. 19 Q.Did you ask her why she sent them? 19 MS.PELTONEN: i do have them in the office 20 A.I guess she sent them because I didn't attend, 20 and I can get them to you by e-mail. I can try to do 21 just to show me what,you know,transpired. 21 that now,but I doubt anyone will be available. 22 MR.MCMAHON: Counsel, do you happen to have 22 MR.MCMAHON: I don't--well I welcome you 23 them with you? 23 to try whatever you want to try. 24 MS.PELTONEN: I don't think I do. I'm 24 MS.PELTONEN: Pll make the effort. 25 sorry, I thought I produced them. I do have some 25 MR.McMAHON: If you send it to me and it Page 19 Page 21 1 photos,but I don't believe I have those. 1 comes up on this Blackberry that I'm holding it's not 2 BY MR.MCMAHON: 2 going to be very useful in terms of marking it anyway. 3 Q.Do you remember,ma'am,what those photographs 3 We'll just defer that to another point in time. 4 depicted beyond what you've described,a casket beside a 4 BY MR.MCMAHON: 5 grave? 5 Q.Again,not suggesting that you should have,when 6 A.That's basically it. 6 you received those photographs from your cousin Margo, 7 Q.And did the photos that your cousin Margo had 7 did you have any discussion,conversation with her at 8 sent to you,did they show enough area for you to be 8 all about your Aunt Marian's burial? 9 able to make any correlation about where your Aunt 9 A.No. She just said everything went well. 10 Marian was buried in relation to where your mother's 10 Q.And is it fair for me to understand that when you 11 grave site was located? 11 received those photographs and looked at them,at the 12 A.I realize now that it did. At the time I thought 12 time it seemed to you that things were --as shown in 13 we were dealing with a reputable cemetery and it never 13 the photographs --were unremarkable at least based on 1_4 dawned on me to register the background with which side 14 what you could see? 15 of the monument. 15 A.Correct. 16 Q.I apologize,it's a little difficult to do 16 Q.When you went to visit your mother's grave site 17 without the ability to look at the photographs that your 17 at Westminster Cemetery in August 2010,was her grave 18 cousin sent to you,did a marker-- 18 site different than-- 19 A.In other words,the photographs now,knowing what 19 A.Yes. 20 transpired,clearly show that my aunt was buried in the 20 Q.--than it had been when you were last there? 21 wrong place. As I said,I never would have dreamed 21 A.Yes. 22 something like this would have happened. I looked 22 Q.And can you describe for me,please,in what way 23 primarily at the casket and I wasn't,you know, 23 or ways it was different? 24 visualizing the background with which side of the 24 A.The grass was very sparse,it didn't match the 25 monument it was on. 125 other grass. It was young grass. There were like Page 18 - Page 21 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Multi-Page APRIL 19, 2013 Page 22 Page 24 1 little pebbles, little pieces of rock,little pieces of 1 A.Margo just said that she was going to make a 2 dirt strewn all over in the area-- a rectangular area 2 phone call in the morning. 3 for the size of a casket. 3 Q.And did you speak with her again after that about 4 Q.And what, if anything, did that signify to you? 4 that subject? 5 A.Instantly I knew that my aunt was in my mother's 5 A.I believe I spoke to her later that day. 6 grave. 6 Q.At that point did you--did Margo provide you 7 Q.When you went to visit your mother's grave site 7 with any other information? 8 in August 2010,were you accompanied by anyone else? 8 A.Or maybe I spoke--called Westminster. I don't 9 A.My husband. 9 recollect exactly the timing on that,but all I know is 10 Q.And what is your husband's name? 10 that when I did speak to Margo,she told me that Gail 11 A.Emmitt Norton. 11 Becker had told her that her mother was in the correct 12 Q.And was there some discussion between yourself 12 spot and that my mother was buried elsewhere. 13 and your husband about your observations then? 13 Q.I want to go back to the August 2010 date if 14 A.Yeah,we both said hey,what on earth's going on? 14 we've left it. And we may have by a day or so as I 15 Q.And what, if anything, did you do at that time to 15 understand what you are telling me. 16 learn more about that situation? 16 When you were at Westminster and saw what you've 17 A.I phoned my cousin Margo. 17 described in terms of a different appearance at your 18 Q.Then and there? Did you call her -- 18 mother's grave site than you had seen in the past,was 19 A.Right. 19 there someone at the cemetery whom you understood to 20 Q.-- from Westminster? 20 have been working there? 21 A.Yes. 21 A.It was a Sunday, so no one was around. 22 Q.Did you reach her? 22 Q.Was there any information posted on a sign or an 23 A.Yes. 23 office door or anything like that that offered you 24 Q.Can you tell me about that conversation, please? 24 information or advice about how to get in touch with 25 A.She was horrified. She said she'd never been to 25 someone associated with that cemetery if need be? Page 23 Page 25 1 the cemetery. She thought that,you know,her mother 1 A.Yes, there was a number and I called and I think 2 was buried in the correct spot. She didn't know. 2 1 got some sort of voice mail,but I figured it was some 3 Although my mother's marker was propped against a 3 sort of emergency number for something to do with a 4 tree during the ceremony and she said she thought that 4 burial; so I figured it could wait until the next day. 5 was very odd because the other markers were covered with 5 Q.Were you still in the Carlisle area that next 6 Astro-turf,but she said she did not inquire,she 6 day,that Monday? 7 figured that the cemetery was doing the proper thing. 7 A.No. We drove home. 8 Q.And when you said that your cousin Margo had said 8 Q.Back to Virginia? 9 to you she'd never been to the cemetery-- 9 A.The same day,right. 10 A.Prior to her mother's burial is what I mean to 10 Q.Did there come a point in time where you spoke to 11 say. 11 someone whom you understood was associated with 12 Q.I see. And that's the way I understood it. I 12 Westminster Cemetery about what you'd seen? 13 just wanted to make sure it was clear. 13 A.I called the next day. 14 A.Right. 14 Q.And who did you reach, if you remember? 15 Q.Was it your--withdrawn. 15 A.I don't know. It was a woman. 16 Based on your conversation with your cousin Margo 16 Q.And can you tell me generally what information, 17 at that time,did you form an understanding one way or 17 if any, you provided to that person? 18 the other of whether Margo Sweet had been back to 18 A.I basically told them the story and was told that 19 Westminster Cemetery since the time of her mother's 19 the cemetery manager was the only one that could deal 20 burial? 20 with it and she was too busy. 21 A.No, she had not been. 21 Q.Were you told who that manager was by name? 22 Q.I see. And the conversation that you had with 22 A.I don't believe I was given a name. I was just 23 your cousin,did--was there some--was there some -- 23 told the manager. Maybe I was given the name. I don't 24 for lack of better word--resolution between the two of 24 remember. 25 you about what could or should be done next? 125 Q.Did you get a call from the manager after that? Page 22 - Page 25 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Page TM JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON APRIL 19, 2013 Page 26 Page 28 1 A.No. 1 heard you say to me that when you were in--at 2 Q.Did you call again to -- 2 Westminster Cemetery on the August 2010,the anniversary 3 A.Yes. 3 of your mother's birth date,you called your cousin 4 Q.-- to the cemetery? 4 Margo to tell her what you'd seen? 5 A.Yes, several times. 5 A.From the cemetery,yes. 6 Q.And if you're able to say, did you speak to 6 Q.Correct. And if I understood you correctly,you 7 different people during those several times or -- 7 indicated I thought that your cousin said she would be 8 A.I think it was the same person. 8 contacting the cemetery? 9 Q.Did you remind the person who answered the phone 9 A.She did. 10 that you had called before and had not gotten a call 10 Q.All I'm trying to get an understanding of is 11 back? 11 during that timeframe where you had been contacting the 12 A.Yes. And I think at one point -- then I was told 12 cemetery,did you have any knowledge one way or the 13 Gail was still too busy and we'd have to wait until the 13 other as to whether Margo had as well? 14 next day. 1 14 A.At the time I don't believe so. I was very upset 15 Q.Would it be accurate for me to understand that 15 and I called like around-- I think it was around two 16 such responses were considered unsatisfactory by you? 16 minutes after nine or something,but evidently Margo-- 17 A.Exactly. 17 1 found out Margo had called beforehand,but I didn't 18 Q.They would be by me. Did you share your sense of 18 know before that. 19 dissatisfaction -- 19 Q.And when you found out later that Margo had 20 A.Yes. 20 called beforehand,how did you come to know that? 21 Q.--with the person who was answering the phone? 21 A.Because Margo told me. 22 A.Yes. 22 Q.Let me go back just a little. You had begun to 23 Q.Did that -- how did that seem to be received, if 23 tell me about your first conversation with Gail Becker, 24 you can say? 24 at least that one occurred,fair to say? 25 A.I finally,you know,got Gail on the phone. 25 A.First conversation,excuse me? Page 27 Page 29 1 Q.Had you ever spoken to a person named Gail Becker 1 Q.Let me,if I may,direct your attention to your 2 before that? 2 first conversation with Gail Becker. If I've understood 3 A.No. 3 what you've told me thus.far,that occurred and you're 4 Q.And when you first spoke with Gail Becker,are 4 not sure whether you called Miss Becker and reached her 5 you able to recall who it was that had called whom, 5 or she called you,is that accurate? 6 meaning had she returned a call? Had you called and 6 A.I believe she called me back. 7 managed to reach her? 7 Q.What can you remember about the substance of that 8 A.I think they put her on the line or she may have 8 conversation? 9 called back-finally. 9 A.I'm drawing a blank now. I just--I blanked 10 Q.During this timeframe where you had made some 10 out. I know the answer,but I blanked out. I can't 11 number of calls to Westminster and had not yet gotten in 11 think of it right now. Maybe I will think of it in a 12 touch with--able to speak person to person with 12 minute. 13 someone about the situation beyond just relaying your 13 . Q.That's quite all right. Let me see if I can 14 desire to do that,had you spoken again in that 14 refresh your recollection. 15 timeframe with your cousin Margo? 15 A.Oh,yes, I think the first time is when she said 16 A.No. 16 that my aunt had been cremated and that my mother--and 17 Q.Did you have any understanding one way or the 17 they were buried together and my mother was at the head 18 other of what,if anything or things Margo had intended 18 of the grave and that my aunt was at the foot. 19 to do about the information that you'd shared with her? 19 Q.Again, I don't mean to sound like I'm nitpicking. 20 A.I don't quite get the question. 20 A few moments ago you told me that during the first 21 Q.Let me rephrase. I apologize. 21 conversation with Ms. Becker,Ms.Becker told you that 22 A.I don't believe I contacted Margo. I was still 22 your aunt was buried in the right place and your mother 23 waiting to talk to Gail Becker if that's what you're 23 was somewhere else? 24 asking. 24 A.That's what she told Margo. 25 Q.Well I may have misunderstood,but I thought I 125 Q.And so when you first spoke with-- Page 26 - Page 29 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Multi-Page` APRIL 19, 2013 Page 30 Page 32 1 A.Can we get out the Complaint? 1 Q.I see. And after you had that conversation with 2 MS.PELTONEN: Can she refresh her 2 Ms. Becker,were you satisfied with the information that 3 recollection by looking at the Complaint? 3 Ms. Becker provided to you? 4 MR.MCMAHON: If you want to. 4 A.Not at all. 5 THE WITNESS: I'm getting confused. 5 Q.Did it seem to you to be accurate? 6 Ms.PELTONEN: I have it,I believe. 6 A.Not at all. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't want to be giving you 7 Q.Did it seem to you to be inaccurate? 8 the wrong answer because I'm confused. That's why I 8 A.Totally,because I knew my aunt had not been 9 think... 9 cremated,because I had seen a photo of the casket. 10 MR.McMAHoN: Let me facilitate if I may. io Q.Did you tell Miss Becker that in substance, if 11 Please mark this as exhibit Plaintiff 1. 11 not in form? 12 (Complaint produced and marked Plaintiff 12 A.Yes,I did. 13 Exhibit No. 1.) 13 Q.How did she react? 14 THE WITNESS: I guess Margo had relayed the 14 A.She said well, I have a copy of the cremation 15 message to me about Gail Becker. That was first. 15 paper right in front of me. I said could you please 16 BY MR.MCMAHON: 16 look at it, does it say Marian Sweet? She said yes,it 17 Q.You are saying-- 17 does. 18 A.I retract that,okay? Whatever's in here. It 18 Q.And once you were told that,did you again in 19 says that Margo called and then Margo relayed the 19 substance, if not in form, indicate to Ms. Becker that 20 message to me. So Margo evidently called me to say that 20 that didn't comport with your understanding? 21 she'd already talked to Gail. 21 A.Right. 22 Q.I see. You're reading that portion at Paragraph 22 Q.Did you tell her she was wrong, in essence? 23 41,as I understand it? 23 A.Basically,yeah. 24 A.I was looking at No. 43,Ms. Sweet relayed this 24 Q.How did she react to that? 25 to me. 25 A.She didn't react, so I just gave up. Page 31 Page 33 1 Q.And the this in Paragraph 43 refers to the 1 Q.Did you convey to her in some way that you 2 information that's above in Paragraph 42,yes? 2 weren't satisfied with the information that she was 3 A.Right. Margo told me that Gail Becker had said 3 giving you? 4 that my mother was buried elsewhere. 4 A.Well she knew that,yes. 5 Q.Okay. And by all means, if you have a 5 Q.Well I haven't asked you what she knew because it 6 recollection independent of the Complaint,feel free to 6 would be inviting you to speculate and I won't do that. 7 share that with me and if you don't and need to consult 7 So how was it that you conveyed to Ms. Becker 8 the Complaint,feel free to do that as well. 8 that what she was telling you wasn't accurate or 9 So the first conversation that you had with Ms. 9 satisfactory to you? 10 Becker was one where Ms.Becker told you what,ma'am? 10 A.I just said I knew for a fact that my aunt had 11 A.Was--I guess it's on the next page. About the 11 not been cremated. 12 cremation. I was right. 12 Q.And when that conversation came at or near to its 13 Q.Are you able to tell me-- 13 end,was there some -- did you have an expectation that 14 A.It says here--okay. The cemetery manager did 14 you would be talking with Ms. Becker again? 15 call me. I did not reach her. Remember,I said I 15 A.Yes,because it wasn't resolved. 16 thought she had returned my call. 16 Q.Did you ask her to do something in particular, 17 Q.And are you able to tell me approximately when 17 like check the paperwork again,go to the cemetery and 18 that call came to you? 18 have a look,talk to somebody else at the cemetery, 19 A.In the afternoon sometime. 19 something else? Some combination of those things? 20 Q.On what day,though,if you know? 20 A.I really don't know exactly what transpired. 21 'A.The same day,because I was getting very upset 21 Q.Did there come an occasion where you spoke with 22 and was not going to wait until the next day to talk to 22 Ms. Becker again, meaning the second time? 23 this person. 23 A.No. I think going back to that time,when I 24 Q.So would that-- 24 said,you know, it's impossible they could be in the 25 A.So that would be August the 9th. 125 same lot, because my aunt wasn't cremated. Page 30 - Page 33 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Page JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON APRIL 19,2013 Page 34 Page 36 1 Q.When you had this conversation -- 1 conversation with Ms. Becker that you've been describing 2 A.There's something missing here as far as the 2 where you again spoke with someone associated with the 3 conversation. I don't know. Because somehow we got on 3 cemetery? 4 to the four grave sites here,reading this Complaint. 4 A.Yes, Gail Becker. 5 Q.You are reading generally in Paragraph 48,49, 5 Q.Approximately when did that next conversation 6 51? 6 take place? 7 A.49, 50, 51. 7 A.I believe it was the next day. 8 Q.Okay. 8 Q.So that would be the 11th of August? 9 A.Because I know I gave up on the situation of the 9 A.The 10th,because we were at the 9th with the 10 cremation because she kept insisting that she had the 10 prior-- about the R markers. August 10th. 11 paper in front of her and it said Marian Sweet. Then 11 Q.Okay. And so what can you tell me about that 12 somehow we got to the four lots. And I said no, there 12 conversation? 13 are eight lots. 13 A.That Gail Becker agreed that there were eight 14 And that's when she kept insisting there were 14 burial sites and that four were,indeed,empty. And 15 four. I said well,when I was there yesterday there was 15 then she further admitted that my aunt had not been 16 a very visible R marker on the right rear of the 16 cremated. Then she had the audacity to say that my 17 monument. And she said no,those lots belong to someone 17 cousin, Margo Sweet,had instructed the two of them to 18 else. I said no,they do not. They belong to the 18 'be buried together. 19 Rickenbaugh family. 19 Q.Did you ask Ms. Becker in substance,if not form, 20 The monument,the large headstone is engraved on 20 on what basis she held that conclusion,if she did hold 21 both sides. She said oh, that's done so it can be 21 that conclusion? 22 viewed from the road. I said no,that was done because 22 A.The conclusion about the four versus eight? 23 there are four lots on the other side. 23 Q.That your cousin Margo Sweet had authorized that 24 And she said no,those lots are sold. And 1 24 your mother and her mother be buried in the same site? r : 25 remember saying I sure hope their surname begins with an 25 A.I was flabbergasted. Page 35 Page 37 1 R,because the R marker is plain as day. And she shut 1 Q.I don't doubt that. My question was a little 2 up. She said nothing. 2 differently cast,so allow me to rephrase it. 3 Q.Again, I don't mean to sound as though I'm being 3 A.I didn't ask her. I guess I didn't ask her if 4 impolite. Is it fair to say that that conversation that 4 she had any paperwork or anything. I just called my 5 you had with Ms. Becker was not satisfactory to you in 5 cousin at some point and my cousin said you've got to be 6 terms of what she told you? 6 kidding me,I never even spoke to Gail Becker until way, 7 A.Not at all satisfactory. 7 way after the burial,because I kept wondering what 8 Q.And did you convey that to her in some way? 8 happened to the marker. 9 A.She should have known from the way--you know, 9 They kept promising the marker would be placed 10 my attitude at the time. 10 and evidently my cousin had been contacting Ginny Weller 11 Q.What was her attitude like during that 11 about the marker,not Gail,really. I think she spoke 12 conversation? 12 to Gail several times about it,but kept wondering why 13 A.She couldn't care less. Like I was a fly she 13 this marker never materialized. 14 wanted to swat. Not at all sympathetic. 14 So my cousin said no way,because this is--it's 15 Q.Did you suggest to her that her attitude or 15 absolutely impossible,because I never contacted anyone, 16 demeanor or interaction to you was wholly inappropriate? 16 not Gail,not Ginny. I had no idea who these people 17 A.I didn't really say it to her face,but,you 17 were until I called about the marker. 18 know, I just basically told her hey,this is ridiculous. 18 Q.When Ms.Becker said to you that she agreed that 19 Q.Did there come a time after that when you next 19 there,indeed,were eight sites at the Rickenbaugh 20 spoke with someone at-- someone associated with the 20 family plot,but went on to tell you that your cousin 21 cemetery,whether it was Ms. Becker or someone else? 21 had authorized that her mother and your mother be buried 22 A.Pardon me? 22 in the same place,you knew that that was not accurate, 23 Q.Sure. 23 correct? 24 A.Repeat that,please. 24 A.Well I knew that,but I double checked with Margo 25 Q.Did there come a point in time after this 125 just to make sure. Page 34 -Page 37 MTruFC AT RRTlTTTT FnT.T7. A,NATALF, REPORTING 717-540-0220 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Multi-Page APRIL 19,2013 Page 38 Page 40 1 Q.Understood. And is it accurate to say that you 1 Q.And after you did that,you called for Ms. Becker 2 conveyed to Ms. Becker that--again,in substance if 2 again,yes? 3 not in form,I understand what your telling me,but 3 A.Right. 4 that's not true? 4 Q.And did you reach Ms. Becker? 5 A.Right. 5 A.Yes. 6 Q.Did you tell her this essentially? 6 Q.And did you say to her in substance again,I've 7 A.Yeah,I said hey,this can't be,no way. 7 spoken to my cousin and that's not true? 8 Q.Did she react at all? 8 A.Yes. 9 A.No. As I said,she had the I don't give a damn 9 Q.And what kind of reaction did you get from Ms. 10 type attitude,like you're bothering me,go away,I've 10 Becker at that point? 11 got better things to do. 11 A.She said that my mother was buried beside her 12 Q.Did you ask to speak to somebody else? 12 father and they must have been very close in life to be 13 A.I think at one point I asked to speak to somebody 13 buried together. 14 else and she told me no,I'm in charge. 14 Q.When Ms. Becker said to you that your mother must 15 Q.She told you that? 15 have been buried next to her father, did that make any 16 A.Yes. 16 sense to you? 17 Q.Who did you--at the time that that conversation 17 A.No. 18 was ending,was there--did you ask Ms.Becker to do 18 Q.Because you knew where your father was buried? 19 something and get back to you? Did you indicate to her 19 A.Where her father was. 20 that you were going to do something and get back to her? 20 Q.Yes,your grandfather,your maternal grandfather? 21 How did it end,the conversation? 21 A.Right. 22 A.I contacted her again,I believe. When I called 22 Q.You knew where your mother's father was buried? 23 her the next day it was to say--I don't know this for 23 A.Yes. 24 certain--to say my cousin definitely said no,she 24 Q.And you knew where your mother's mother was 25 never had any contact with her. And that's when she 25 buried? Page 39 Page 41 1 changed her story. i A.Right. 2 .Q.By that do you mean that you checked with your 2 Q.And you knew where your aunt who had died in 1948 3 cousin Margo who-- 3 was buried? 4 A.I told Gail Becker. 4 A.Right. 5 Q.If you would permit me to get the whole question 5 Q.And that simply couldn't be,could it? 6 out. I don't mean to be impolite. I'm not chastising 6 A.No. 7 you,it just won't make enough sense. In conversation 7 Q.Did you tell Ms.Becker that in substance,if not 8 we do that frequently, it's fluid,but the court 8 in form? 9 reporter is writing everything down, so it's important 9 A.Yes. to that you let me finish the whole question and then you 10 Q.How did she react to that? 11 talk so we have a clear transcript. 11 A..She just said basically that's where she was. I 12 A.I don't know how--it takes some skill to be 12 just said no,it's not. I believe I mentioned something 13 doing that. 13 about probing. 14 Q.I mean it most sincerely, I'm not trying to 14 Q.What do you mean by that? 15 chastise you in any way,it just makes for a very 15 A.The probe,to probe the lot to see if the urn was 16 fractured record and doesn't make a lot of sense later 16 indeed somehow in Calvin Rickenbaugh's lot. 17 when someone reads it. 17 Q.Well you had been to your mother's interment? 18 After your conversation with Gail Becker ended 18 A.Right. 19 where Ms. Becker said to you in substance that your 119 Q.So when your mother's--your mother had been 20 cousin had authorized that both her mother and yours be 20 cremated,yes? 21 buried in the same place, if I understood correctly what 21 A.Yes. 22 you've told me,you knew that wasn't so,but you 22 Q.So when your mother's urn was interred,buried, 23 contacted your cousin just to double check, is that a 23 you knew then where it was? 24 fair statement? 24 A.Right. 25 A.Right,right. 125 Q.And if I've understood correctly,you had been Page 38 - Page 41 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Page TM JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON APRIL 19, 2013 Page 42 Page 44 1 back to Westminster to pay respects at your mother's 1 like that. 2 grave site more or less on an annual basis -- 2 Q.Had you been at all familiar with cemetery 3 A.Right. 3 arrangements where close relatives were buried at the 4 Q.-- in the years following her passing in 1984 and 4 same grave site? 5 clear on forward,yes? 5 A.Right. I know it's been done, some grave yards 6 A.Right. 6 have them stacked ten deep,but my mother and my aunt 7 Q.And nothing was amiss until after your Aunt 7 were brought up,you know,very wealthy family. Their 8 Marian died? 8 father was a physician in Carlisle,their grandfather 9 A.Right. 9 was a professor at Dickinson for philosophy. 10 Q.So if not on some other basis, at least on that 10 They would have been horrified even at the 11 basis you were able to say, I gather-- as you did to 11 thought of not having their separate grave sites. It 12 Ms. Becker-- that there was noway your mother's urn 12 was something as far as they were concerned--would be 13 was buried next to her father? 13 something for low class people. 14 A.Right. 14 Q.Were -- 15 Q.Fair? 15 A.And they always knew all along they all had their 16 A.Yes. 16 own grave sites and there were extra. My aunt told 17 Q.So what kind of a reaction, if at all, did you 17 Margo there were extras and my mother had told me there 18 get from Ms. Becker when you shared with her your 18 are extra grave sites in case any of us were interested 19 understanding that what she was telling you not only 19 in being there; so it was well known throughout the 20 wasn't true,but couldn't be true. 20 family that there were more than the four lots that were 21 A.She just said that she was too busy. 21 already occupied. . 22 Q.And did you ask her -- 22 . MR.MCMAHON: Pardon me,could you read that 23 A.She said,you know, new burials are primary, you 23 back? 24 know, first priority and I said something like I think 24 (Answer Read.) 25 you should take care of the ones that have already been 25 BY MR.MCMAHON: Page 43 Page 45 1 buried first. i Q.Miss,Norton,how do you know that your Aunt 2 Q.Knowing that Ms. Becker had said to you when you 2 Marian had told her daughter Margo that there were extra 3 had spoken to her before that your cousin Margo had 3 grave sites at the family site at the Westminster 4 given the okay for her mother and yours to be buried 4 Cemetery? 5 together,did you ask Ms. Becker if that was done? 5 A.Margo told me her mother told her that. 6 A.I thought we already went through this. 6 Q.Is that something Margo had told you during her 7 Q.Well I'm talking about the--I'm trying to find 7 own mother's lifetime?. 8 --follow rather a temporal timeline,chronologic 8 A.No. It was not until this happened. 9 timeline. 9 Q.Which this? 10 So if I've understood correctly, in between the 10 A.This fiasco. 11 conversation where Ms.Becker said to you that your 11 Q.That's not-- 12 cousin had authorized that both her mother and yours be 12 A.We never discussed burial or anything because we 13 buried together,you double checked with your cousin 13 had no reason to. , 14 even though you knew that wasn't so and then we were 14 Q.So are you able to say based on conversations 15 having a conversation with Ms. Becker where you said no, 15 with your cousin Margo whether she,in fact,knew that 16 that's not so,I've told you that already and I've 16 there were extra sites at the Rickenbaugh family plot 17 checked with my cousin and it's not so. 17 before her own mother was buried? 18 At that point did you ask,in substance,Ms. 18 A.She had-- she told me that she and her mother 19 Becker,if,in fact,the two individuals,your mother's 19 had discussed it at one point before her mother's death. 20 remains and your Aunt Marian's remains were buried 20 Q.Had your cousin told you in substance,if not in 21 together? 21 form,that before-- and told you before her own mother 22 A.I didn't ask if they were buried together, 22 died--that she,your cousin Margo,knew that there 23 because as I stated previously, I thought we were 23 were-- 24 dealing with a reputable cemetery and it never occurred 24 A.No,we did not discuss any grave sites until 25 to me that they would have the audacity to do something 125 after this happened. We had no reason to. Page 42 - Page 45 HUGHES. ALBRIGHT. FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Multi-Page TM APRIL 19, 2013 Page 46 Page 48 1 Q.After Gail Becker told you that she thought your 1 A.I had to call back again to say they had not. 2 mother's urn was buried next to your mother's father, 2 Q.And approximately how long was it after speaking 3 after that conversation -- 3 with Ms. Herman that you called back? 4 A.Yes. 4 A.The date was -- I'm losing my spot here. August 5 Q.--who did you speak with next at Westminster? 5 16th I contacted Shirley again and said I hadn't heard 6 A.I called StoneMor Partners. 6 back from anyone and she said she was going to get in 7 Q.And did you reach someone in particular that you 7 touch with people and somebody would be calling me. 8 recall? 8 Q.And so you're referring --you had referred to 9 A.Yes, Shirley Herman. 9 your Complaint at around Paragraph 60, am I correct? 10 Q.And what was the substance of the discussion or 10 A.Right. I 1 conversation you had with Miss Herman? . 11 Q.Now -- 12 - A.I just remember she was extremely nice and--I 12 A.She just said hey, I gave them-the message, I'll 13 don't know-- she was sort of semi-horrified about the 13 just tell them,you know,that you need to speak to 14 whole situation,too. 14 somebody. 15 Q.And did you share with Ms. Herman in substance 15 Q.And as I understand it you heard from Mr. Lentz 16 the things that Ms.Becker had said to you? 16 the following day on the 17th of August, 2010? 17 A.Yes. 17 A.Well right after I talked to Shirley it was Gail 18 Q.Did Ms. Herman apologize for such conduct on the 18 who called. 19 part of Ms. Becker? 19 Q.That same day, the 16th? 20 A.I don't believe she apologized,but she was very 20 A.Yes. 21 sympathetic and--maybe she did say,you know,I'm 21 Q.And Ms. Becker told you what at that point? 22 sorry this happened. I don't recollect that. All I 22 A.She was furious that I had contacted corporate, 23 know is she was busily taking notes and she said she 23 like how dare you do something like that. 24 would type them up in the proper format and give them to 24 Q.Would it be accurate for me to understand that 25 Jim Lentz, John Weinburg and Michael Stache. 25 her satisfaction or dissatisfaction with your actions Page 47 Page 49 1 Q.And that occurred as far as you know,didn't it? 1 were really of no concern to you,nor should they be? 2 A.Yes. 2 A.Pardon me, I didn't quite get it. 3 Q.Did it seem to you as far as from that point in 3 Q.Do you want it repeated? 4 time that you spoke with Miss Herman,that your concerns 4 MS.PELTONEN: Objection to the form. 5 were taken seriously? 5 MR.McMAHON: What's objectionable about the 6 A.Pardon me? Did she take my concerns seriously? 6 form? I'd like to cure it if possible. 7 Q.Did it seem to you that she was taking your 7 MS.PELTONEN: The suggestion that her-- 8 concerns seriously? 8 you suggested an answer in the question,you suggest 9 A.Yes. 9 that Gail's response shouldn't be an issue to my client 10 Q.Did it seem to you that she was interested in 10 and I believe... 11 gathering information from you in order to relay it to 1 I MR.McMAHON: Really? Here I thought you 12 others? 12 were going to tell me it was compound. It is. Let me 13 A.Yes. 13;break it in half. 14 Q.So that did it seem to you that she had an 14 BY MR.McMAHON: 15 understanding of your need for prompt and accurate 15 Q.Ma'am,when Gail Becker expressed to you that she 16 information? 16 was furious that you called corporate, did that matter 17 A.Yes. 17 to you? 18 Q.And was your principal concern confirming the 18 A.Yeah. 19 whereabouts of your mother's urn? 19 Q.Why? 20 A.Yes. 20 A.Because I was furious that she was furious. 21 Q.Did Ms. Herman tell you that she was going to 21 Q.Did -- 22 relay information so that that concern was- 22 A.She had no right to be furious because she was 23 A.She said she was going to have someone contact 23 the one that had done the wrong. 24 me. 24 Q.Did it make a difference to you one way or the 25 Q.Did someone contact you? 125 other whether she was furious about what you'd done? Page 46 - Page 49 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT. FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Page JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON APRIL 19, 2013 Page 50 Page 52 1 A.I didn't like it but,you know... 1 between her father and her sister, and she didn't say 2 Q.When Ms. Becker called you after you'd spoke with 2 which sister,and I didn't inquire because I knew it 3 Ms. Herman,what else did she say to you other than 3 wasn't so. 4 expressing, as you've said,that she was furious that 4 Q.Did it-- 5 you called corporate? 5 A.At that point I just knew this woman had a real 6 A.I believe --I'm losing track. I don't know,my 6 problem, she should not have been in the position that 7 mind's not working too well today. There was something 7 she was in and,you know,I just wasn't going to believe 8 -- I don't know what it was. It was somehow I remember 8 a word she told me anymore. I knew she was just telling 9 saying that I had a witness to the fact that my mother 9 me lies and I wasn't going to deal with her anymore. 10 was buried in the location where she was supposed to be 10 Q.Did it seem to you that Ms. Becker was just 11 and then she said something like don't threaten me,we 11 making it up,whatever she was saying to you? 12 have a slew of attorneys that will take care of you. 12 A.Yes,exactly. And every tune she realized the 13 Q.Did those remarks that Ms. Becker made to you as 13 lie wouldn't work she changed to a different lie. 14 you've described them seem appropriate or not 14 Q.Had you ever met Ms. Becker in person? 15 appropriate? 15 A.The only time I saw her was during the re-burial. 16 A.No. Especially the don't threaten me. And I 16 Q.In September of 2010? 17 remember saying I'm not threatening you,I'm just 17 A.Right. She glared at me and did not offer an 18 stating the fact. 18 apology,nothing. 19 Q.Did you form any impression at that time about- 19 Q.Did you speak to her at all? 20 Ms. Becker and how she was interacting with you? 20 A.No. She glared at me and I glared back. 21 A.Yeah,it was totally uncalled for, someone in her 21 Q.And how is it that you carne to have the 22 position. 22 understanding that a particular person then and there 23 Q.And your understanding of her position was what? 23 was Ms. Becker? 24 A.Being the manager of the cemetery. 24 A.I believe she was pointed out by someone else. I 25 Q.Have you--do you believe today that she was the 25 asked--I don't know who I asked. I said is that Gail Page 51 Page 53 1 manager of the cemetery? 1 Becker and -- this was after we glared at each other-- 2 A.As far as I know she was the manager. And she 2 and they said yes. And I said yeah, I figured as much. 3 also managed another cemetery, I believe in Carlisle, 3 She looked very scatter-brained. I remember her 4 because their office 1 believe was not on the premises, 4 hair was bleached several different shades and had blue 5 it was someplace else. 5 in it,what have you. She looked like something out of 6 Q.And on what do you base that belief that Ms. 6 a horror movie. 7 Becker had been a manager of another cemetery or 7 Q.When you -- 8 cemeteries? 8 A.And the fact that she glared at me when I had 9 A.I think at one point I was told that she was at 9 done nothing wrong, when she had initiated this whole to another cemetery or something. 1 don't know. But I 10 thing, was just unbelievable. And I knew she couldn't i l always assumed from what I was told initially that she 11 care less about what had happened. Not a word of 12 was the manager and she was the only one that could 12 apology. 13 handle the situation. 13 MS.PELTONEN: When you get a chance, I need 14 Q.And you don't know who told you that, do you? 14 a bathroom break. 15 A.I do now,but I didn't then. 15 MR.McMAHON: Now is as good a time as any. 16 Q.Who told you then? 16 (Break taken from 1:11 p.m. until 1:17 p.m.) 17 A.I believe it was Ginny Weller,because no one 17 BY MR.McMAHON: 18 else has surfaced as being, you know,employed there as 18 Q.Ms.Norton, in your Complaint which you have 19 far as I know. That would be answering the phone, 19 there as Exhibit.1, at Paragraph 59 it alleges there, it 20 unless it could be someone at one of the other 20 states that on August 13th you contacted your physician 21 cemeteries. I don't know if the call got rerouted or 21 who prescribed anti-anxiety medication. Have I read 22 not. 22 that correctly? 23 Q.How did your conversation with Ms. Becker on the 23 A.Right. 24 16th of August in 2010 end? 24 Q.And if I've understood what that consisted of, 25 A.She mentioned that she was buried in Lot No. 4 125 based upon some documentation that I received during Page 50 - Page 53 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Multi-Page` APRIL 19, 2013 Page 54 Page 56 1 discovery in this case, is a prescription for five 1 Q.Based upon these events, yes? 2 milligrams of Valium, 15 tablets? 2 A.No. 3 A.Right. 3 Q.In your Complaint you allege that you had 4, Q.is that-- is the prescription for the 5 4 sustained some anxiety and emotional distress, is that a 5 milligrams of Valium, 15 tablets prescribed by Dr. 5 fair characterization? 6 Greene, G-R-E-E-N-E, is that what that portion of the 6 A.Yes. 7 Complaint's referring to? 7 Q.Have you received any therapeutic care, 8 A.Right. 8 counseling or medical attention specifically with regard 9 Q.And had you had a prescription for Valium before 9 to such emotional distress and/or anxiety? 1 o this? 10 A.No. I 1 A.No. 11 Q.Have you sought"any? 12 Q.Since? 12 A.No. 13 A.No. 13 Q.If I've understood the Complaint correctly, on 14 Q.Did you take some of that medication that was 14 August 17, 2010,you were contacted by Mr. Lentz from 15 prescribed? 15 the cemetery company, or one of them, and were told in 16 A.No. 16 essence that indeed your mother's urn had been placed 17 Q.Did you take any of it? 17 inside the vault that contained your Aunt Marian's 18 A.No. 18 casket? 19 Q.Did you have any contact with Dr. Greene, 19 A.Right. 20 himself,when that prescription was written? 20 Q.How did you receive that information? 21 A.Yeah. He called me after I talked to Donna,who 21 A.How did I perceive it or how did he state it? 22 answered the phone there. 22 Q.How did you receive it,meaning what reaction, if 23- Q.And after Dr. Greene spoke with you, did he 23 any, did that have on you? 24 telephone a prescription to the pharmacy,the Giant 24 A.When I heard the comment? 25 pharmacy in Herndon, Virginia? 25 Q.Yes,ma'am. Page 55 Page 57 1 A.Yes. 1 A.I was just flabbergasted. It was just 2 Q.Had Dr. Greene seen you in person in the context 2 unbelievable. 3 of this prescription? 3 Q.Is that because of what you told me earlier about 4 A.No. 4 your mother and your aunt would have considered it low 5 Q.Okay. While I'm on that subject, can you tell 5 class to share a grave site? 6 me, had you sought any medical attention in relation to 6 A.Not that. It was they were supposed--they each 7 your reaction to the events in August 2010? 7 had separate graves, so why on earth would someone bury 8 MS.PELTONEN: Objection to the form. 8 them together? 9 MR.McMAHON: What's wrong with the form? 9 Q.Did you say that in substance to Mr. Lentz? 10 MS.PELTONEN: Asked and answered. She just 10 A.I believe I did. I said they had separate grave 11 stated she talked to her physician who prescribed the 11 sites. 12 medicine. 12 Q.In and around this timeframe,mid-August,August 13 t MR.McMAHON: Then my question is have you 13 16th, 17th,did you reach out to your cousin Margo Sweet 14 reached out to any other -- 14 to see whether,in fact,she had been aware at.the time 15 MS.PELTONEN: Okay. I'm sorry. 15 of her mother's passing that there were four grave sites 16 MR.McMAHON: That's okay. 16 available at the Rickenbaugh family plot in StoneMor 17 BY MR.McMAHON: 17 Cemetery? 18 Q.-- other healthcare providers concerning your 18 A.I thought we already went through this. Margo 19 wellbeing or lack thereof-- I'll just rephrase and 19 knew because her mother told her. 20 recharacterize the question. 20 Q.I'm not asking you to tell me what Margo 21 Have you reached out to any other healthcare 21 understood generally. My question was more finely cast 22 providers other than Dr. Greene for medical care or 22 than that-- or at least I intended it to be. My 23 attention for yourself concerning how you were doing, 23 question is in or around mid-August 2010-- 24 ill or,well or otherwise, in and around this timeframe? 24 A.Right. 25 A.Concerning the situation you mean? 125 Q.--did you reach out and communicate with Ms. Page 54 - Page 57 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Pager` JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON APRIL 19, 2013 Page 58 Page 60 1 Sweet to see--your cousin Margo Sweet,to see if,in 1 They being your cousins? 2 fact, at and around the time of her mother's burial she 2 A.I believe I had a conversation with Margo and she 3 was, in fact,aware that there were four spaces at the 3 just said no,we don't want to move our mother. 4 Rickenbaugh family plot? 4 Q.I just wanted to understand when you say 5 A.She didn't know the exact number. She knew there 5 originally they said no,who the they are? 6 were extra spaces. 6 A.My cousins. 7 Q.Is that something that you discussed with her in 7 Q.Did you ask your cousin Margo why she was at 8 and around the middle of August 2010? 8 least initially reluctant to give the permission that 9 A.Yes. We-- I swear we went through this before, 9 was required to rectify the situation? 10 I'm sorry. I said yes,both our mothers had told us. 10 A.They just said,you know, it was very upsetting I 1 Q.When you learned from Mr. Lentz that the urn 11 to them,that they'd been through one burial and they 12 containing your mother's remains was inside the vault 12 just didn't want their mother dug up. 13 that contained the casket of your Aunt Marian's remains, 13 Q.Prior to your Aunt Marian's passing,had you 14 was that in any way reassuring at least in as much as 14 frequent or infrequent contact with Margo Sweet? 15 you knew where your mother's urn was? 15 A.We weren't in contact that often. She'd drop me 16 A.Not really. You might say in a sense,yes,that 16 a note,you know,birthday cards, Christmas cards and 17 supposedly hopefully Jim Lentz was not lying,that at 17 I'd write her a note;but no,we weren't close friends, 18 least the urn had been supposedly found; but I did not 18 no. 19 know positively if that was correct. 19 Q.Would you see each other in person in the course 20 Q.Did you believe--did you think Mr. Lentz was 20 of a typical year? 21 lying to you? 21 A.No. 22 A.No,but I just found it very hard to believe that 22 Q.Would you are you able to tell me when before 23 someone could take it upon themselves to do this without 23 Marian Sweet passed away you had last seen Margo Sweet 24 permission from any families. 24 in person? 25 Q.Did you have a discussion with Mr. Lentz about 25 A.It had been several years beforehand. I don't Page 59 Page 61 1 how the situation would be rectified? 1 remember the exact year. 2 A.Yes. 2 Q.Do you remember the circumstances? 3 Q.And was the proposed means of rectifying the 3 A.We were driving back from Maine and we stopped 4 situation generally satisfactory with you? 4 and we went to visit Dee Dee and the next day we had 5 A.He basically originally said there wouldn't be 5 breakfast with Margo,she came to our hotel. 6 any problem retrieving the urn from the vault, but to 6 Q.Is Dee Dee another cousin? 7 get my aunt moved, that it would have to be signed off 7 A.Dee Dee,I'm sorry,is Marian's nickname. I'm 8 on by my cousins and that he was going to talk to Margo 8 sorry. 9 or communicate with her somehow. 9 Q.No need. 10 Q.And ultimately that occurred, did it not? 10 A.That never surfaced. Yeah,we always called her 11 A.Yes. 11 Aunt Dee Dee. I don't know why she got that nickname. 12 Q.What-- 12 Q.Did you attempt to persuade your cousin Margo to 13 A.But what happened was he called me back I believe 13 provide the permission that was apparently necessary to 14 it was the next day and contradicted what he said by 14 rectify the situation? 15 saying that they needed my cousins' permission even to 15 A.I tried,but when I was speaking to her, she just 16 remove my mother's urn. That's when I really started, 16 said no,it was final. And then evidently at some 17 you know, freaking out. 17 point, I don't know whether--who they spoke to,that 18 Q.And so what, if anything, did you do after that, 18 evidently she called Jim Lentz to say yes,they would 19 after you were told about that? 19 agree. I don't know what made them say that or who else 20 A.Again,he said he was going to try and contact 20 got involved. 21 Margo to see if something could be worked out. 21 Q.When you spoke your with your cousin Margo about 22 Q.Is it your understanding that that occurred? 22 that matter,about her either providing or not providing 23 A.Yeah, because it got worked out,but it took a 23 permission to have the situation rectified,was there 24 while because originally they said no. 24 any discussion between you and your cousin Margo about 25 Q.Did you communicate with--withdrawn. 125 whether your mother and her mother would have preferred Page 58 - Page 61 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Multi-Pager` APRIL 19, 2013 Page 62 Page 64 1 or not preferred to be in the arrangement that their I A.Did he tell me at the time that she had been 2 remains were in? 2 fired? 3 A.I don't remember exactly,but neither one of us 3 Q.Yes. 4 was very happy about the situation and we figured--we 4 A.At that time I believe she was still there, 5 really could not have spoken for our mothers,but 5 because she attended the re-burial when she glared at 6 obviously they would have preferred to have their own 6 me. 7 lots,yes. 7 Q.At some point in time were you told that?. 8 And the fact that my mother's urn somehow ended 8 A.I learned that she had been fired,yes, 9 up in my aunt's vault is sort of demeaning to my mother. 9 afterwards. 10 I mean it was like my aunt took top priority,being the 10 Q.After the re-burial? I I youngest daughter was now in the spot reserved for the 1 I A.Yes. 12 eldest daughter, and the eldest daughter's remains are 12 Q.Did -- you attended the re-burial? 13 just tossed into the vault. 13 A.Yes. 14 Q.Did you share that sentiment with your cousin 14 Q.Did any of your cousins attend that? 15 Margo? 15 A.No. 16 A.Basically,yes. 16 Q.Who was there besides yourself in the way of 17 Q.In the context of asking her to give the 17 family members? 18 permission to have her mother's vault disinterred? 18 A.My husband. 19 A.Yeah. 19 Q.Anyone else? 20 Q.And how did she react? 20 A.No family members. 21 A.She just said this is just too upsetting,we 21 Q.Who attended the re-burial besides your husband, 22 don't want to have to go through another burial. 22 who was not otherwise associated with either a funeral 23 Q.How did you come to learn that at some point your 23 home or the cemetery? 24 cousin Margo provided that permission that was 24 MS.PELTONEN: I also was there as her 25 apparently necessary? 25 counsel. Page 63 Page 65 1 A.Jim Lentz told me that permission had been 1 MR.MCMAHON: The question goes to your 2 granted and she was faxing some paperwork or something 2 client. 3 to that effect. Or they were faxing paperwork to her. 3 THE WITNESS: Laura was there. 4 Q.And was that information well received by you? 4 BY MR.MCMAHON: 5 A.Yeah,when I finally learned that yes,they could 5 Q.Was there anyone else there besides yourself, 6 dig things up,yes. 6 your counsel,your husband and folks associated-- 7 Q.Would you consider it a positive development? 7 A.No. 8 A.Yes,knowing that at least we could try and 8 Q.--either with the funeral home or the cemetery? 9 retrieve the urn or see what was in there. 9 A.No. 10 Q.And from that point forward did the steps that 10 Q.And when you came to Westminster Cemetery for the i I were necessary to rectify the situation occur in a way 11 re-burial,what was the first step of that process that 12 that was at least generally satisfactory to you? 12 you observed? 13 A.Jim Lentz,yes,tried to,you know,keep 13 A.They started digging. 14 everyone,Margo and myself updated on the situation as 14 Q.Where? 15 far as the timing. 15 A.To retrieve the vault. 16 Q.Did Ms.Becker have any involvement in this 16 Q.The vault containing both your aunt-- 17 process at that point in time? 17 A.Aunt and mother. 18 A.Not to my knowledge. 18 Q.Did you remain while that was done? 19 Q.Did her name come up at all in conversations 19 A.Yes. 20 between you and Mr. Lentz? 20 Q.Did you remain while the vault was lifted from 21 A.I believe so,yes. 21 the earth? 22 Q.What can you tell me about that? 22 A.Yes. 23 A.Just-- I don't really recollect,you know. 23 Q.Were you present when the vault was opened? 24 Q.Did Mr. Lentz tell you that she was fired for 24 A.Yes. 25 having provided inaccurate information to you? 125 Q.And when the vault was opened,was it apparent to Page 62 - Page 65 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT. FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Pager` JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON APRIL 19, 2013 Page 66 Page 68 1 you--was it clear to you that your mother's urn was 1 should be a little round medallion from Ferncliff 2 inside the vault? 2 Cemetery stating the cremation date and the name, 3 A.It was clear to me that there was an urn in the 3 because when--my father I think was cremated by 4 vault,yes. 4 Ferncliff,too,and there was a little-- inside the 5 Q.Do you believe that that is not your mother's 5 ashes there's a little medallion that says something 6 urn?. 6 like Donald MacCampbell and the date. 7 A.There's a strong possibility that it is not. 7 1 believe,unless they were removed--I don't 8 Q.On what facts do you base that? 8 know why--from the ashes they should be in that urn. 9 A.An urn buried in the ground since 1984 would have 9 But I was told by Rob Filburn and Hoffman Roth that that 10 turned a very dark color with a lot of green corrosion. 10 serial number is engraved someplace inside the urn. 11 Lester,the groundskeeper,said he cleaned it up a bit, 11 Q.What I'd like to know,this serial number that 12 quote,unquote. According to some metal people that 12 you've recited to me QU 4104-- 13 I've contacted during the course of having some 13 A.As I said,I'm not a hundred percent-- it's QU 14 silverware worked on I mentioned that because I knew 14 four something, I'm not quite certain,but it's close. 15 they dealt extensively with metal. They said no way. 15 Q.Do you have that written down somewhere? 16 And also,I do believe I had seen my mother's urn 16 A.Yes. 17 and I swear that it is not the identical urn. I believe 17 Q.Where is the somewhere that it's written down? 18 my mother's urn had a black stripe going around it. 18 A.At home. 19 Q.The black stripe being of what substance or 19 .Q.Is it on a document that someone's provided to 20 material,if you are able to say? 20 you? 21 A.I don't know. Painted on it or something. And 21 A.It was provided to me verbally. 22 the urn that was in the vault appears to have an 22 Q.Who provided it to you? 23 extensive amount of copper,which would--my mother's 23 A.I believe it was Rob Filburn. 24 urn supposedly was bronze,which is a darker metal,it 24 Q.Of the Hoffman Roth Funeral Home? 25 is not the color of copper. 25 A.Because they sold my father the urn. Page 67 Page 69 1 I have the serial number for the urn,it was 1 Q.In 1984 or thereabouts when your mother passed 2 given to me. I thought at the time about Rob Filburn of 2 away? 3 Hoffman Roth, so they could open it for identification. 3 A.Right. 4 1 felt my mother's ashes had been tampered with enough 4 Q.I recognize what you've told me and I appreciate 5 and I thought maybe I could live with it; but now 1 5 your telling me what you have about your concerns over 6 can't live with it any longer because I really do not 6 the appearance of the urn that you saw in September of 7 think that's my mother's urn. 7 2010 compared with your recollection of the appearance 8 Q.Do you know what that serial number on your 8 of your mother's urn at the time of her burial. 9 mother's urn is? 9 A.It doesn't take a metal expert to see the urn 10 A.Yes. 10 looked like almost brand new. 11 Q.Would you please tell me what you understand it 11 MS.PELTONEN: Wait until he finishes his 12 to be? 12 question, okay? It's going to screw up the transcript. 13 A.Do you have the record? 13 THE wrrNESS: Okay. 14 MS.PELTONEN: I don't have it with me. 14 BY MR.McMAHON: 15 THE WITNESS: I can give it to you. It's QU 15 Q.Had you ever seen an urn that had been in the 16 -- 4104, 1 believe. I don't know the manufacturer. 16 earth for any length of time once it had been removed 17 BY MR.McMAHON: 17 from the earth before this one? 18 Q.And? 18 A.No,but at the time I know I contacted several 19 A.QU 4104. Q U--it's something to that effect. 19 different funeral homes and asked them, assuming that 20 But it gets you nowhere trying to trace it. 20 they had seen urns, and they said they had and usually 21 Q.What do you mean by that? 21 they were very badly deteriorated unless they had been 22 A.As far as -- unless you open it up, you are not 22 placed in a vault. 23 going to get any information, because I've tried. 23 They said if you place an urn in a vault,yes, 24 Q.I understand what you mean by that. Thank you. 24 you have less deterioration; but anything in the ground 25 A.I also believe, as I know with my father, there 125 for that number of years would have definitely been Page 66 - Page 69 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Multi-Page APRIL 19, 2013 Page 70 Page 72 1 pretty unsightly. 1 Q.Why not? 2 Q.I understand what you are telling me. Given what 2 A.Because I envisioned when they opened the vault 3 you've told me,would you--do you now want 3 that they would pull out this very mangled looking urn. 4 confirmation that the urn that is in an urn-size vault, 4 Q.Well when -- 5 a cremation vault,beneath the memorial marker that 5 A.And not one that looked almost brand new. 6 bears your mother's name,do you want that--do you 6 Q.When one was removed that looked almost brand 7 want confirmation that's the urn for which you have a 7 new,isn't that what gave rise to your skepticism? 8 serial number? 8 A.Yes. But as I said,I didn't--just the thought 9 A.Yes,I definitely need confirmation,but there's 9 of opening it up to me is--I figured leave my poor 10 no way unless it's dug up again. 10 mother alone,I'm going to have to deal with it,it's I1 Q.I tend to agree,therefore,my next question is 1 I something I'm just going to have to live with. But 12 do you want that done? 12 enough is enough. She's going to be buried,you know, 13 A.I guess it depends on-- I--what transpires 13 for the third time. Hey,that's enough. But I realize 14 with Lester or who else may be involved. 14 now that I basically can't live with that. 15 Q.How so? 15 Q.And at least up to right now you're not--if 16 A.How credible other people's remarks are. I can't 16 I've understood correctly what you've told me,you don't 17 state anything now. All I know is I don't like the idea 17 have enough information to make a decision on whether 18 of it being in a vault. And it's not required by law, 18 you want the urn disinterred for the purposes of 19 but it I guess it's required by StoneMor; so they can 19 confirming the serial number,is that so? 20 make more money. 20 A.Right. I have not made a decision whether I want 21 Q.Are you suggesting to me that the testimony of 21 that done. I'm just saying I don't like the idea of it 22 other people may or may not allay your skepticism about 22 being in a vault. 23 whether the urn that you saw in September of 2010 is, in 23 Q.What is it about the urn being in a vault that 24 fact,your mother's? 24 you don't like? 25 A.It depends on what happens,yes,because no one 25 A.It's contradictory to ashes to ashes,dust to Page 71 Page 73 1 has spoken to Laura about it. 1 dust. It's just--you know, it's just something I 2 Q.Does that seem atypical to you once a lawsuit's 2 don't like. I don't think my mother would have liked it 3 been filed? 3 either and my father wouldn't have liked it. As far as 4 A.I really -- as I said, I've never been involved 4 1 know that urn was not in a vault,unless someone has 5 in a lawsuit, so I really don't know. 5 proof that it was,because I don't think--the cemetery 6 Q.You recognize,for example, that I've had no 6 was under a different ownership. 7 contact with you prior to today? 7 Q.Is it accurate, Ms.Norton,for me to understand 8 A.Right. 8 that you do expect to reach a conclusion on whether or 9 Q.That's because I'm not permitted. 9 not you want the urn disinterred for the purposes of 10 A.Right. 1 o confirming the serial number before the litigation is 11 Q.It works the other way around,too,you 11 concluded? 12 understand? 12 A.It depends on --evidently Lester will be here at 13 A.Right. 13 2:00. It depends a lot on what he has to say. 14 Q.Have you --before filing the lawsuit have you 14 Q.Okay. Could I direct you,please,to Paragraph 15 ever asked anyone from StoneMor to confirm by 15 73 of your Complaint. What facts are those allegations 16 correlating the serial number that the urn that's 16 based upon? What facts known personally to you are 17 beneath your mother's memorial marker is, indeed,the 17 those allegations based upon, ma'am? 18 urn for which you have the serial number? 18 A.Because the vault had been opened and the urn had 19 A.As far as their providing proof? I don't quite 19 been removed, so obviously they had to disturb my 20 understand the question. 20 mother's grave. And Lester at the time of the re-burial 21 Q.Permit me to rephrase. Before you filed the 21 told me that the urn had been put in the pick-up truck. 22 lawsuit did you ask anyone affiliated with Westminster 22 Q.Well when you say there that the vault had been 23 Cemetery what steps they may take or could take to 23 opened, what vault are you referring to? 24 confirm the.identity of that urn as your mother's? 24 A.My aunt's vault. 25 A.No. 125 Q.Well but that was something that you understood Page 70 - Page 73 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT,FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Page' JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON APRIL 19, 2013 Page 74 Page 76 i your cousin had authorized,yes? 1 A.You know, anyone,grave diggers,people who dig 2 A.Right. 2 holes for utilities or basements,you know. I mean it 3 Q.Maybe I misread this. What does it mean to you, 3 obviously was not perched very sweetly on the passenger 4 since it's your Complaint? 4 seat,I can almost vouch for that with my life. 5 A.Paragraph 73? 5 Q.How? How can you vouch for that? 6 Q.Yes,ma'am. 6 A.I just have that feeling. 7 A.Well I was looking at Paragraph 72 beforehand. 7 Q.Well-- 8 The vault was opened,the urn was in it, so going to 73, 8 A.At 2:00 can we continue with where it was instead 9 it's obvious that they had disturbed my mother's grave 9 of asking me where I thought it was? Can we not find 10 and unearthed her remains or else if they hadn't 10 out from Lester where it was? 11 unearthed her remains, how did she end up in my aunt's 11 Q.Generally counsel asks questions during a 12 vault? 12 deposition and a party or witness answers them,that's 13 Q.I understand. What was it that you were told 13 the protocol,ma'am. 14 about where your mother's urn was located during the 14 I'm asking you these questions because you've 15 time that your-- during the time that Marian Sweet was 15 made specific allegations in your Complaint and I'm duty 16 being buried? 16 bound to determine whether there are any facts-- 17 A.In a pick-up truck. 17 A.It's not a fact,just my thought. 18 Q.Who told you that? 18 Q.Permit me to finish,please. It just makes the 19 A.Lester. 19 reporter's job that much harder. 20 Q.In substantially those words? 20 A.Sony. But she's so good at it. She can wing 21 A.Yes. 21 her way around it. 22 Q.Do you have an understanding of for what period 22 Q.It's my obligation to see what,if any, facts 23 of time your mother's urn had been out of the earth? 23 there are to support those allegations-- 24 A.No, nobody told me. 24 A.I have no facts,just my assumptions. 25 Q.Had you asked? 25 Q.-- as compared to impressions and assumptions. Page 75 Page 77 1 A.No,I did not ask. I didn't believe that the 1 In your Complaint it's alleged that you saw the 2 length of time was important, it was the fact that they, 2 memorial marker for your mother's grave site leaning 3 you know,put the poor woman in a pick-up truck when she 3 against a tree? 4 supposedly was resting in peace. 4 A.Right. 5 Q.Do you have an impression of where in the pick-up 5 Q.Was that offensive to you,that it was in that 6 truck, if at all,the urn was placed? 6 location? 7 A.I had the impression of someone digging it up and 7 A.Yes,extremely offensive. 8 just going psssst,bang,there it lands in the back of 8 Q.Do you have an understanding of why it was there? 9 the pick-up truck with their shovels and dirt. 9 A.Yeah, so they could put my aunt there. They had 10 Q.And that's pretty much the way I read your 10 to remove the marker in order to dig the hole. 11 Complaint, so on what do you base that impression? 1 l Q.And do you have an understanding of for what 12 A.Well I certainly don't think that they are going 12 period of time the marker bearing your mother's name was 13 to dig something out of the ground, sweetly dust it off 13 placed next to a tree? 14 and cradle it on the front seat of the pick-up truck. 14 A.I have no idea how long it was there. I mean it 15 Q.Why not? 15 was there when Margo was there for her mother's burial. 16 A.I just don't--that's beyond belief. 16 It was back when I arrived on August 8th. Then 17 Q.Other than skepticism,what's the basis for your 17 obviously it was removed again to get my aunt out. And 18 remark in that context? 18 then when I went up there several months later,I don't 19 A.I know how construction workers operate,just 19 know the exact month,to complain about the grave site 20 watching them. 20 was just all sunk in with big cracks and everything,it 21 Q.Do you understand a construction worker to have 21 was propped up against the tree. 22 been involved in the burial of Marian Sweet? 22 Q.And did you ask why it was propped up against the 23 A.No. I mean just general attitude of the way,you 23 tree when you came back? 24 know,people operate when they're digging around. 24 A.Because they said they had to finish--something 25 Q.What people? 25 like they had to finish,let it settle a little bit Page 74 - Page 77 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Multi-Page M APRIL 19,2013 Page 78 Page 80 1 more. And that's when I guess I got Laura to say hey, 1 remarks to anyone affiliated with Westminster about the 2 it's not satisfactory. And I know they put some sod and 2 appearance of your mother's grave site as it was--as 3 stuff down. 3 it's depicted in those photographs? 4 Q.Have you been to the cemetery in the last 24 4 A.Laura contacted them. 5 hours? 5 Q.Is that what you were telling me about a few 6 A.Last 24 hours,no,but I'm going there afterward 6 moments ago; in other words,that the earth had settled, 7 now. I sure hope I don't encounter something else. 7 the grass was sparse? 8 Q.When have you most recently been to Westminster 8 A.My aunt's side looked relatively okay,but my 9 Cemetery and specifically to your mother's grave site? 9 mother's side did not. My aunt,you could tell it was a 10 A.It was last August. 10 recent burial,but it was not sunken with all the huge i l Q.August of 2012? 11 cracks like my mother had. And then again the stone 12 A.Yes. 12 propped up against the tree. This is supposed to be on 13 Q.And at that time the appearance of her grave 13 the ground. 14 site,was it satisfactory to you? 14 Q.Did you come to learn at all why the stone was 15 A.The appearance was all right,but the cemetery 15 propped-- 16 was terribly deteriorated with a tremendous amount of 16 A.Because they said they still hadn't finished 17 weeds. There's no.longer any mulch placed around the 17 doing anything. But I get the impression if Laura 18 tree. You could see the mulch that had been placed 18 hadn't contacted them,the stone may have remained there 19 probably five years prior. It was,in my sense, a very 19 until my next visit. 20 unkept cemetery. 20 Q.By the time of your next visit the marker stone 21 Q.There were some photographs provided to me by 21 had been placed back? 22 your counsel in discovery and I didn't count them, I 22 A.Everything was back,yes,because they had placed 23 think there are three, but I'll count them now. There 23 sod at Laura's request. 24 are four of them. 24 Q.You had written a letter dated October 22nd, 25 What I'd like you to do is take a look at those 25 2010,to a Mr. Stewart, S-T-E-W-A-R-T. Who's Mr. Page 79 Page 81 1 and tell me if you can -- first of all,have you seen 1 Stewart? 2 one or more of them before? 2 A.At the Pennsylvania cremation or something 3 A.Yes. 3 association. 4 Q.Do you know who took one or more of them? 4 (Letter dated October 22, 2010, produced and 5 A.My husband. 5 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2.) 6 Q.Did your husband take each of them? 6 BY MR.MCMAHON: 7 A.Yes. 7 Q.Ms.Norton, I've asked the reporter to mark as an 8 Q.Do you know when they were taken approximately? 8 exhibit and she has marked as Exhibit Plaintiff 2 a 9 A.I can't remember exactly when they were taken, 9 letter that I've referred to just a moment ago. Do you 10 no. I think Laura knows. 10 recognize that? 11 Q.Were they taken sometime subsequent to September 11 A.Yes. 12 2011,meaning after your mother's urn was re-buried? 12 Q.And are you able to tell me where it was sent? 13 A.Because we were some place,up to New York State 13 A.To the Pennsylvania cremation and something or 14 the end of September. I don't know-- do you have on 14 other organization, society. 15 record Laura when I sent you these photos? 15 Q.And how is it that you came to identify Mr. 16 MS.PELTONEN: Yeah, I would have it in an 16 Stewart as someone that you ultimately wrote a letter 17 e-mail somewhere. 17 to? 18 THE wrmESS: I can't remember. I remember 18 A.I called them and evidently he was the one who 19 we went up to the New York/Canadian border and we 19 answered the phone,he just said to forward the 20 stopped at the cemetery on the way back. I don't -- 20 information to him. 21 that was late September,early October, I think. And 21 Q.Did you have an expectation when you sent this 22 then -- I think that's when this was, like the beginning 22 letter to Mr. Stewart that he or some entity that he was 23 of October. 23 associated with would take some action? 24 BY MR.MCMAHON: 24 A.I thought he might, depending on how he 25 Q.And did you express any particular sentiment or 125 interpreted the letter. Page 78 - Page 81 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Page JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON APRIL 19, 2013 Page 82 Page 84 1 Q.What came of that? 1 you? 2 A.I never heard back from him. 2 A.No. I didn't know it existed. 3 Q.Did you follow up? 3 MS.PELTONEN: That's another document we 4 A.No,I did not. 4 just turned around. 5 Q.The documents that again were provided to me by 5 MR.MCMAHON: Okay. Let's do this a little 6 your Counsel through discovery include a number of pages 6 differently. Mark this whole thing. 7 of handwritten notes and they are paginated by hand as 7 (Document Request Exhibit 1 produced and 8 being seven pages in all,which if I understand them 8 marked Exhibit No. 4.) 9 correctly are notes that were made not by you,but 9 BY MR.MCMAHON: 10 rather by someone else? 10 Q.Ma'am, I've asked the reporter to mark as Exhibit 11 A.Right. 11 Plaintiff 4 a document that's 17 pages,including its 12 Q.Specifically Mr. Lentz? 12 face or cover page,and I'll represent to you that these 13 A.Right. 13 are documents that were produced by your counsel to me 14 Q.How did you come to be in possession of these? 14 in the discovery process. 15 I'm not suggesting you shouldn't have been,I'd just 15 And what I'd like to know is which,if any,of 16 like to know how? 16 those documents were documents that you had separate and 17 A.How do you know I'm in possession of them? 17 apart from those that were received from the Defendants 18 Q.Because your Counsel produced them to me on your 18 during the litigation? 19 behalf. 19 A.You mean which were mine that I gave to Laura? 20 A.Oh,okay. 20 Q.Yes, in a manner of speaking. 21 Q.That's how I know. So with that clarification 21 A.The e-mail to Margo. The e-mail that Margo sent 22 can you answer? 22 me. 23 A.I was given them by Laura. 23 Q.Meaning the e-mail that's dated August 25th, 24 MS.PELTONTEN: We produced them in response 24 2010? 25 to a request. We originally received them from you and 25 A.And I believe I gave you this,right? I got this Page 83 Page 85 1 we-- 1 originally. You didn't get this. I got it,right? 2 MR.McMAHON: You just turned them around 2 MS.PELTONEN: Correct. The record of 3 back to me? 3 funeral. 4 MS.PELTONEN: Yes. 4 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I got it,didn't I? 5 MR.McMAHON: That's not the way 1 5 One of us got it. Then the e-mail. Then the letter to 6 understood it. That's why 1 was asking. 1 see. 6 Mr. Stewart and the rest,no,that's Jim Lentz. 7 BY MR.MCMAHON: 7 BY MR.MCMAHON: 8 Q.And again, I'm not suggesting there's anything 8 Q.So the record of funeral,that came from the 9 about the notes you should not be privy to, I just 9 funeral home? 10 didn't understand the specific circumstances of their 10 A.Right. I believe that was sent to me by the 11 production through the discovery process. 11 funeral home. I don't think Laura got it. 12 One of the other documents that's been produced 12 Q.The e-mail from your cousin Margo Sweet on August 13 is a letter dated-- here,we'll mark it. 13 25th,2010? 14 (Letter dated September 7, 2010,produced 14 A.Right. I shared that with Laura. 15 and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 3.) 15 Q.The letter-- 16 BY MR.McMAHON: 16 A.And I shared the letter with Mr. Stewart. 17 Q.This appears to be a letter marked Exhibit 17 Q.The letter you had written to Mr. Stewart? And 18 Plaintiff 3, September 7, 2010. Have you seen this 18 that's--that's the end of it,everything else that's 19 before? 19 in that packet was information or documents that came to 20 A.Yes. 20 you during the course of discovery-- 21 Q.And were you sent a copy of this? 21 A.Right. 22 A.Yes. 22 Q.--from the Defendants? 23 Q.By whom? 23 A.Right. 24 A.Laura. 24 Q.From the time that the re-burial occurred in 25 Q.Had you asked your Counsel to provide this to 125 September of 2011 forward,up to now,have you had any Page 82 - Page 85 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Multi-Page APRIL 19, 2013 Page 86 Page 88 1 communications with anyone associated with or acting on 1 and she to you or send a Christmas card or holiday card. 2 behalf of Westminster Cemetery? 2 Do you still do that? 3 A.No. 3 A.No. 4 Q.Have you made any requests of Westminster 4 MR.McMAHON: Those are all the questions I 5 Cemetery during that timeframe other than what you've 5 have for you, Ma'am. I apologize for taking so much of 6 told me about in terms of having sod placed and-- 6 your time and I appreciate your patience with me. 7 A.No. 7 (Whereupon,the deposition was concluded at 8 Q.--the marker placed? 8 2:07 p.m.) 9 A.That was the last. I believe they were not 9 10 contacted after the sod was placed and I said the grave 10 11 site was satisfactory again. 11 12 Q.And just by way of a polite reminder,the 12 13 photographs that you referred to as having been taken 13 14 earlier,which you believe you've given to your counsel, 14 15 do you still have originals or... 15 16 A.The ones that Margo Sweet took? 16 17 Q.Yes,the ones that your cousin sent you? 17 18 A.I've got e-mail type,whatever you call it. 18 19 Q.Some electronic version? 19 20 A.Some sort of electronic photos. 20 21 Q.To the extent you haven't already provided them 21 22 to your Counsel-- 22 23 A.No. It's the same ones that Laura has. I don't 23 24 have anything else. 24 25 Q.Okay. I do apologize if I've asked you this 25 Page 87 COUNTY OF YORK Page 89 1 already,when was the most recent occasion that you've 1 :ss 2 spoken with Margo Sweet? 2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 3 A.It's been a while. 3 1,Tammy J.Baker,a Notary Public,authorized to 4 Q.Can you approximate a while in the context which 4 administer oaths within and for the Commonwealth of 5 you've used it? 5 Pennsylvania,do hereby certify that the foregoing is 6 A.1 don't remember when our last conversation was 6 the testimony of JANE MaoCAMPBELL NORTON. 7 because basically we lost contact. You can see, I think 7 I further certify that before the taking of said 8 it's in this e-mail,where she said don't ever contact 8 deposition,the witness was duly sworn;that the 9 me again and Jim Lentz, I think it's in here,too. It's 9 questions and answers were taken down stenographically 10 right here,Margo says to give me a message, don't 10 by the said Reporter-Notary Public,and afterwards i i bother me again. I 1 reduced to typewriting under the direction of the said 12 Q.And is it accurate for me to understand that 12 Reporter. 13 you've pretty much honored that request from your 13 I further certify that the said deposition was taken 14 cousin? 14 at the time and place specified in the caption hereof. 15 A.Right. 15 1 further certify that I am not a relative or 16 Q.What is your understanding,if you have one, of 16 employee or attorney or counsel to any of the parties, 17 why she expressed that preference? 17 or a relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, 18 A.She's always been very -- I don't know how to 18 or financially interested directly or indirectly in this 19 explain it. You know, she just evidently got very 19 action. 20 terribly upset about the matter and she just --you 20 I further certify the said deposition constitutes a 21 know,reached a point she just I guess didn't want to be 21 true record of the testimony given by the said witness. 22 reminded of it. 22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand this 23 Q.Have you had any -- shall I say less than direct 23 1 st day of MAY 2013. 24 communications,for example,you mentioned in the past 24 25 sometimes you would write a note to your cousin Margo 125 Tammy J. Baker,Reporter Page 86 - Page $9 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 WORD INDEX Multi-Page" & - Baker JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON accurate pil 13:9 answer[91 4:18 Astro-turf Ill 23:6 -3- 26:15 29:5 32:5 4:20 5:17 5:23 attempt[1] 61:12 &[1] 1:29 3[41 2:4 2:14 33:8 37:22 38:1 7:8 29:10 30:8 attend[51 10:21 47:15 48:24 73:7 49:8 82:22 83:15 83:18 87:12 answered[4] 26:9 10:23 17:1 18:20 64:14 -1- 30 Ill 2:12 acting[11 86:1 54:22 55:10 81:19 ACTION[i1 1:5 answering[21 26:21 attended[a1 64: 1 [61 2:12 2:15 g 64:5 64:12 64:21 30:11 30:13 53:19 -4- action[21 81:23 51:19 attention[4] 29:1 84:7 4[4] 2:15 51:25 89:19 answers[21 76:12 55:6 55:23 56:8 10[1] 1:23 84:8 84:11 actions[i1 48:25 89:9 attitude(si 35:10 10-6609[2] 1:7 41 Ill 30:23 administer[i1 89:4 anti-anxiety[1] 35:11 35:15 38:10 322 4104[3167:16 67:19 admitted 11l 36:15 53:21 75:23 10/22/10[11 2:13 68:12 advertising[1] 8:15 anxiety[21 56:4 attorney[31 3:18 1 Oth[21 36:9 36:10 42[i1 31:2 advice[i1 24:24 56:9 89:16 89:17 11th[i1 36:8 43[2] 30:24 31:1 affiliated[21 71:22 anyhow[i1 20:5 attorneys[i1 50:12 12:06[1] 1:22 48[1] 34:5 80:1 anyway[1] 21:2 atypical P1 71:2 13th[1] 53:20 49[2] 34:5 34:7 afternoon[2] 3:12 apart[il 84:17 audacity[21 36:16 15[31 8:20 54:2 31:19 apologize[71 14:4 43:25 16:20 19:16 27:21 August 54:5 -5- afterward[11 78:6 46:18 86:25 88:5 � [27 1 14:13 16th[41 48:5 48:19 afterwards[21 64:9 14:22 14:23 15:1 51:24 57:13 5 Ill 54:4 89:10 apologized[11 46:20 17:14 17:15 17:25 50[1] 34:7 apology[21 52:18 21:17 22:8 24:13 17[21 56:14 84:11 Again[41 21:5 28:2 31:25 36:8 51121 34:6 34:7 29:19 35:3 59:20 53:12 17th[21 48:16 57:13 apparent[11 65:25 36:10 48:4 48:16 59[1] 53:19 19[�l 1:22 again[24] 6:1 51:24 53:20 55:7 1948[2114:3 41:2 6:16 24:3 26:2 appear(11 4:1 56:14 57:12 58:8 _6- 27:14 32:18 33:14 appearance[61 24:17 77:16 78:10 78:11 1978[118:8 33:17 33:22 36:2 69:6 69:7 78:13 84:23 85:12 1984[7]10:2 10:18 60[1] 48:9 38:2 38:22 40:2 78:15 80:2 Aunt pol 19:9 11:12 12:12 42:4 40:6 48:1 48:5 APPEARANCES Ill 21:8 42:7 43:20 66:9 69:1 -7- 70:10 77:17 80:11 1:25 45:1 56:17 58:13 1994(119:23 7[21 83:14 83:18 82:5 83:8 86:11 a 87:9 87:11 applicable[11 6:18 60:13 61:11 65:17 1:11 [i1 53:16 appreciate[21 69:4 aunt[26111:7 11:8 72 Ill 74:7 a pp 1:17(il 53:16 against[s1 23:3 88;6 13:2 14:4 14:18 73[31 73:15 74:5 77:3 77:21 77:22 15:4 15:15 19:20 1 st[11 89:23 74:8 80:12 appropriate[21 50:14 22:5 29:16 29:18 ago[3] 29:20 80:6 50:15 29:22 32:8 33:10 -2- -g- 81:9 approximate[2] 33:25 36:15 41:2 2[31 2:13 81:5 agree[2161:19 70:11 12:20 87:4 44:6 44:16 57:4 81 [i] 2:13 approximation[3] 59:7 62:10 65:16 20000 0[i1 14:6 37:18 83[i1 2:14 agreed(zl 36:13 6:20 6:21 7:2 77:9 77:17 80:9 2009[i1 14:23 84(11 2:15 alive(11 9:11 APRIL[1] 1:22 aunts[4] 62:9 2010[26] 14:6 8th(il 77:16 allay[1170:22 Archdale[i1 8:4 73:24 74:11 80:8 14:13 14:14 14:17 allegations[41 73:15 area[61 11:15 12:24 authorized[61 36:23 14:20 17:15 17:25 -9- 73:17 76:15 76:23 19:8 222 22:2 37:21 39:20 43:12 25:5 74:1 89:3 21:17 22:8 24:13 9/7/10[11 2:14 allege[i1 56:3 available[21 20:21 28:2 48:16 51:24 9th[3] 14:17 31:25 alleged[i1 77:1 arrangement[i1 52:16 55:7 56:14 57:16 57:23 58:8 69:7 36:9 alleges[11 53:19 arrangements[4] aware[3] 11:21 70:23 80:25 81:4 allow[i1 37:2 10:12 10:15 15:21 57:14 58:3 83:14 83:18 84:24 -A- almost[s1 20:14 44:3 away[17] 9:22 85:13 69:10 72:5 72:6 arrived(11 77:16 10:10 10:13 10:16 2011 [2179:12 85:25 ability[i1 19:17 76:4 ashes(61 10:7 10:18 12:4 12:6 2012[i178:11 able[181 4:1 44:1 alone p1 72:10 67:4 68:5 68:8 12:7 13:8 13:10 6:20 13:1 14:19 14:2 14:5 14:18 2013[2]1:22 89:23 14:20 15:1 19:9 along(11 44:15 72:25 72:25 17:12 38:10 60:23 22[11 81:4 26:6 27:5 27:12 always[s] 12:2 asks[i1 76:11 69:2 22nd[,]80:24 31:13 31:17 42:11 44:15 51:11 61:10 associated[81 24:25 2303 Ill 8:4 45:14 60:22 66:20 87:18 25:11 35:20 36:2 -B- 81:12 64:22 65:6 81:23 24[2] 78:4 78:6 amiss[1] 42:7 above(ii 31:2 86:1 BA[11 9:1 25th[2] 84:23 85:13 amount[21 66:23 absolutely[i1 37:15 78:16 association(11 81:3 background[318:22 26th[i1 9:23 Academy i1 9:3 assumed[ii 51:11 19:14 19:24 2:00[21 73:13 76:8 y anniversary[31 12:21 badly i accept[i1 6:21 17:19 28:2 assuming[11 69:19 y[ 1 69:21 2:07[1] 88:8 accompanied[i1 annual[21 12:20 assumptions[21 BAKER Ill 1:20 2nd[i1 10:5 22:8 42:2 76:24 76:25 Baker[21 89:3 According(11 66:12 Answer[ii 44:24 assure[i1 6:6 89:25 Index Page 1 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 bang- conversation Multi-Pager` JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON bang[1l 75:8 birth[11 28:3 Calvin[11 41:16 child(119:16 compound[11 49:12 base[31 51:6 66:8 birthday 151 12:22 caption(1l 89:14 childhood[1] 9:6 concern[31 47:18 75:11 15:3 17:18 17:19 card[31 17:6 88:1 children[11 17:22 47:22 49:1 Based[2] 23:16 60:16 88:1 Christmas[21 60:16 concerned(11 44:12 56:1 bit[31 8:21 66:11 cards[2] 60:16 88:1 Concerning[11 55:25 based[6] 7:4 77:25 60:16 chronologic[1143:8 concerning[21 55:18 21:13 45:14 53:25 black[21 66:18 care[61 35:13 42:25 circumstances[21 55:23 73:16 73:17 66:19 50:12 53:11 55:22 61:2 83:10 concerns[41 47:4 basements[1l 76:2 Blackberry[11 21:1 56:7 CIVIL[1] 1:5 47:6 47:8 69:5 basis[6112:16 36:20 blank[11 29:9 CARLISLE[111:24 clarification[11 concluded[21 73:11 42:2 42:10 42:11 blanked[21 29:9 Carlisle[61 11:14 8221 88:7 75:17 29:10 11:23 12:24 25:5 class[2144:13 57:5 conclusion[41 36:20 bathroom[11 53:14 bleached[1l 53:4 44:8 51:3 36:21 36:22 73:8 bearing Ill 77:12 case[s1 3:18 3:19 cleaned[11 66:11 conduct[11 46:18 g blue[11 53:4 clear U]7:19 20:3 bears[11 70:6 body(1120:5 3:20 44:18 54:1 23:13 39:11 42:5 confirm[21 71:15 Becker[60] 24:11 casket[81 18:3 71:24 border(11 79:19 66:1 66:3 27:1 27:4 27:23 18:4 19:4 19:23 confirmation[31 born[11 9:9 22:3 32:9 56:18 clearer[11 5:12 28:23 29:2 29:4 70:4 70:7 70:9 29:21 29:21 30:15 Boston[2] 8:23 58:13 clearly[11 19:20 confirming[31 47:18 31:3 31:10 31:10 8:24 cast[21 37:2 57:21 client[21 49:9 32:2 32:3 32:10 bother[11 87:11 652 onf d t4i cemeteries[z1 51:8 confused[a1 14:11 32:19 33:7 33:14 bothering[11 38:10 51:21 close[4140:12 44:3 14:12 30:5 30:8 33:22 35:5 35:21 60:17 68:14 bound[11 76:16 CEMETERY[z1 con unction[2117:17 36:1 36:4 36:13 1:14 1:15 cohort[21 13:15 36:19 37:6 37:18 brand[31 69:10 17:18 Cemetery 72:5 72:6 Cem 7:14 13:24 38:2 38:18 39:4 �'[211 Connecticut 151 39:18 39:19 40:1 Break[11 53:16 12:3 12:8 12:12 coincide(1l 12:20 9:4 9:5 9:7 40:4 40:10 40:14 break[s] 6:10 12:13 14:21 15:23 COLEMAN(11 9:9 10:11 41:7 42:12 42:18 17:13 17:24 21:17 1:29 6:11 6:12 49:13 consider[21 8:16 43:2 43:5 43:11 23:19 25:12 28:2 color[2166:10 66:25 53:14 63:7 43:15 43:19 46:1 45:4 57:17 65:10 breakfast[1] 61:5 combination[11 considered[21 26:16 46:16 46:19 48:21 68:2 71:23 78:9 49:15 50:2 50:13 broadly[11 8:1 86:2 86:5 33:19 57:4 50:20 51:7 51:23 bronze[11 66:24 cemetery[32] 11:1 comfortable[21 consisted[11 53:24 52:10 52:14 52:23 brought[21 4:15 19:13 23:1 23:7 6:21 7:2 constitutes[11 89:20 53:1 63:16 44:7 23:9 24:19 24:25 commemorative[1] construction[2] beforehand[41 28:17 burial[221 7:25 25:19 26:4 28:5 17:5 75:19 75:21 28:20 60:25 74:7 10:16 10:23 15:22 28:8 28:12 31:14 comment[11 56:24 consult[1] 31:7 begin[21 5:22 16:7 16:15 16:21 33:17 33:18 35:21 36:3 43:24 44:2 COMMON[11 1:1 contact[101 38:25 5:25 17:23 21:8 23:10 50:24 51:1 51:3 Common[11 3:20 cont 47:25 54:19 37:7 45:12 58:2 2 beginning[11 79:22 23:20 25:4 36: 51:7 51:10 56:15 COMMONWEALTH 59:20 60:14 60:15 begins[1l 34:25 60:11 64:23 65:8 73:5 [11 89:2 71:7 87:7 87:8 62:22 69:8 78:4 78:15 78:20 Commonwealth[11 contacted[13] 27:22 begun[11 28:22 75:22 77:15 80:10 7920 89:4 37:15 38:22 39:23 behalf[21 82:19 burials[11 42:23 86:2 ceremony[1] 23:4 communicate[3] 48:5 48:22 53:20 buried[381 10:6 certain[21 38:24 57:25 59:9 59:25 56:14 66:13 69:18 belief[21 51:6 11:23 12:12 15:23 80:4 80:18 86:10 75:16 16:6 19:10 19:20 68.14 communication[11 belong[z1 34:17 23:2 24:12 29:17 certainly[11 75:12 7:24 contacting(31 28:8 34:18 29:22 31:4 36:18 certification[11 communications[31 28:11 37:10 beneath[21 70:5 36:24 37:21 39:21 3:4 17:21 86:1 87:24 contained[21 56:17 40:11 40:13 40:15 certify 89:5 company[11 56:15 58:13 71:17 '[ 1 p Y Beside[11 18:5 40:18 40:22 40:25 89;7 89:13 89:15 compared[31 15:1 65:16 containing[21. 58:12 41:3 41:22 42:13 89:20 69:7 76:25 beside[31 18:3 43:1 43:4 43:13 chance[11 53:13 complain[11 77:19 context[41 55:2 19:4 40:11 43:20 43:22 44:3 62:17 75:18 87:4 best[31 5:15 5:22 45:17 46:2 50:10 changed[21 39:1 COMPLAINT[11 52:13 2:12 continue[11 76:8 6:3 51:25 66:9 72:12 contradicted[11 better[31 17:3 74:16 characterization(1] Complaint[17] 7:10 59:14 23:24 38:11 BURNS(11 1:26 56:5 14:11 30:1 30:3 between[lll 3:2 bury[11 57:7 charge[1l 38:14 30:12 31:6 31:8 Contradictory(11 4:23 5:6 6:24 busil [11 46:23 chastise[11 39:15 34:4 48:9 53:18 7225 Y 56:3 56:13 73:15 conversation[321 15:10 22:12 23:24 busy[31 25:20 26:13 chastising[31 5:1 74:4 75:11 76:15 5:10 15:9 21:7 43:10 52:1 61:24 4221 20:17 39:6 77:1 22:24 23:16 23:22 r 63:20 check[21 33:17 Complaints[1l 28:23 28:25 29:2 beyond[31 19:4 _C_ 39:23 29:8 29:21 31:9 27:13 75:16 54:7 checked[a1 37:24 32:1 33:12 34:1 big[11 77:20 calls[11 27:11 39:2 43:13 43:17 comport[11 3 32:2 completed[11 5:23:2 0 34:3 35:4 35:12 Index Page 2 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Page conversations-exact JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON 36:1 36:5 36:12 64:14 DEMANDED[1] 5:6 early[i]79:21 38:17 38:21 39:7 cousins'[1] 59:15 1:17 distress[2] 56:4 cam[1] 8:24 39:18 43:11 43:15 cover[i] 84:12 demeaning[11 62:9 56:9 earned[i] 9:1 46:3 46:11 51:23 demeanor[1] 35:16 disturb[i] 73:19 ' 60:2 87:6 covered[�] 23:5 earth[6157:7 65:21 conversations[2] cracks[2] 77:20 DENNEHEY[i] disturbed[1] 74:9 69:16 69:17 74:23 45:14 63:19 80:11 1:29 DOCKET[1] 1:7 80:6 convey[z] 33:1 cradle[i] 75:14 departed p] 9:13 docketed[1] 3:21 earth's[i] 22:14 35:8 credible[i] 70:16 depending[11 81:24 DOCUMENT[1] easier[i] 5:12 conveyed[2] 33:7 cremated[7] 29:16 depicted[2] 19:4 2:15 educational[1] 8:22 38:2 32:9 33:11 33:25 803 Document[i] 84:7 effect[2] 63:3 copper[2] 66:23 36:16 41:20 68:3 DEPOSITION[1] document[3] 68:19 67:19 66:25 cremation[7] 31:12 1:18 84:3 ' 84:11 effort[i] 20:24 Copy[2132:14 83:21 32:14 34:10 68:2 deposition[s] 4:3 documentation[1] eight[4134:13 36:13 corporate[3] 48:22 70:5 81:2 81:13 6:5 7:9 76:12 53:25 36:22 37:19 49:16 50:5 CUMBERLAND[i] 88:7 89:8 89:13 documents ui 7:7 either[4] 61:22 Correct[6] 14:24 1:2 89:20 82:5 83:12 84:13 64:22 65:8 73:3 17:2 17:16 21:15 Cumberland[2] describe[1] 21:22 84:16 84:16 85:19 eldest[2] 62:12 28:6 85:2 3:21 11:17 described[3] 19:4 doesn't[2] 39:16 62:12 24:17 50:14 Cure[1] 49:6 69:9 correct[s] 23:2 electronic[2] 86:19 24:11 37:23 48:9 customary[1] 4:25 describing[i] 36:1 Donald[2] 9:19 86:20 58:19 desire[1] 27:14 68:6 elsewhere[2] 24:12 correctly[9] 13:6 -D- deteriorated[2169:21 done[14] 20:2 31:4 28:6 39:21 41:25 78:16 20:4 20:4 23:25 emergency[1] 25:3 43:10 53:22 56:13 damn[1] 38:9 34:21 34:22 43:5 deterioration[l] 44:5 49:23 49:25 Emmitt[l] 22:11 72:16 82:9 dare[1] 48:23 69:24 emotional[2] 56:4 correlating[i] 71:16 dark[i] 66:10 determine[i] 76:16 53:9 65:18 70:12 72n correlation[i] 19:9 darker[1] 66:24 development[l] Donna[l] 54:21 employed[3] 8:9 corrosion[1] 66:10 DATE[1] 1:22 63:7 8:11 51:18 Counsel[s] 18:22 date[81 12:21 15:24 Dickinson[i] 44:9 door[1] 24:23 double[3] 37:24 employee[2] 89:16 82:6 82:18 83:25 16:21 24:13 28:3 died[s] 11:22 15:17 89:17 86:22 48:4 68:2 68:6 41:2 42:8 45:22 39:23 43:13 doubt[3] 14:25 employment[1] counsel[12] 3:3 DATED[2] 2:13 difference m 49:24 8:12 7:21 8:2 18:8 2:14 20:21 37:1 dated[s] 80:24 different[9] 6:22 empty[l] 36:14 64:25 65:6 76:11 down[6] 6:3 21:18 21:23 24:17 encounter[l] 78:7 78:22 84:13 86:14 81:4 83:13 83:14 39:9 68:15 68:17 89:16 89:17 26:7 52:6 53:4 78:3 89:9 end[6] 33:13 38:21 84:23 69:19 73:6 counseling[i] 56:8 dau hter[3] 45:2 Dr[s] 54:5 54:19 51:24 74:11 79:14 g differently[2] 37:2 54:23 55:2 55:22 85:18 Count[2] 78:22 62:11 62:12 84:6 78:23 daughter's[1] 62:12 difficult[2] 6:2 drawing[11 29:9 ended[2] 39:18 COUNTY[2] 1:2 dawned[' 19:14 iffi dreamed p] 19:21 62:8 89:1 drink[11 6:10 ending[i] 38:18 deal[4] 20:4 25:19 dig[4] 63:6 75:13 endurance[i] 6:8 County[2] 3:21 52:9 72:10 76:1 77:10 drive(1112:23 11:17 dealing[2] 19:13 diggers[i] 76:1 driving[i] 61:3 engraved[2] 34:20 Course[4] 5:16 43:24 digging[3] 65:13 drop[1] 60:15 68:10 60:19 66:13 85:20 entirely[I] 5:8 dealt[1166:15 75:7 75:24 drove[�] 25:7 COURT[1] 1:1 entity[1] 81:22 Court[�] 3:20 death[3] 11:22 direct[3] 29:1 dug[z] 60:12 70:10 15:11 45:19 73:14 87:23 envisioned[ii 72:2 court[i]39:8 duly[2] 3:9 7:18 Especially i December[�] 9:23 direction[�] 89:11 p y[ l 50:16 Cousin[46] 15:6 duplicates[i] 7:18 ES U11RE[2] 1:27 decision[z] 72:17 directly[i] 89:18 During � 27:10 Q 15:10 18:14 19:7 72:20 g[ ] 1:30 dirt[2] 22:2 75:9 19:18 21:6 22:17 Dee[s] 61:4 61:4 discovery[6] 54:1 during[is] 23:4 essence[2] 32:22 23:8 23:16 23:23 26:7 28:11 29:20 61:6 61:6 61:7 78:22 82:6 83:11 56:16 27:15 28:3 28:7 61:7 61:11 61:11 35:11 45:6 52:15 y essential) [2] 8:17 36:17 36:23 37:5 84:14 85:20 53:25 66:13 74:14 p Ili 44:6 37:5 37:10 37:14 dee i discuss[i] 45:24 74:15 76:11 84:18 ve nt[�] 12:21 37:20 38:24 39:3 DEFENDANTS[3] discussed[3] 45:12 85:20 86:5 eve 39:20 39:23 40:7 1:17 1:19 1:31 45:19 58:7 dust[3] 72:25 73:1 events[2] 55:7 43:3 43:12 43:13 Defendants[3] 3:19 discussion[6] 15:20 75:13 56:1 43:17 45:15 45:20 84:17 85:22 21:7 22:12 46:10 duty[i] 76:15 Everybody[i] 20:11 45:22 57:13 58:1 defer[i]21:3 58:25 61:24 evidently[s] 28:16 60:7 61:6 61:12 definitely 30:20 37:10 61:16 defin 61:21 61:24 62:14 y[3] 38:24 disinterred[3] 62:18 -E- 61:18 73:12 81:18 62:24 74:1 85:12 69:25 70:9 72:18 73:9 e-mail[io] 7:23 87:19 86:17 87:14 87:25 degree[2] 8:24 dissatisfaction[2] 20:20 79:17 84:21 cousins[s] 17:21 9:1 26:19 48:25 exact[3] 58:5 84:21 84:23 85:5 61:1 77:19 59:8 60:1 60:6 distinction[2] 4:22 85:12 86:18 87:8 Index Page 3 HUGHES. ALBRIGHT. FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Exactly- include Multi-Pager` JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON Exactly[1] 26:17 father(1si 9:22 50:19 55:8 55:9 GOGGIN[1i 1:29 47:4 47:21 48:3 9:24 10:14 10:17 50:3 exactly[51 24:9 format(1i 46:24 Good[1i 3:12 33:20 52:12 62:3 11:6 40:12 40:15 forward(si 12:7 good[3] 6:2 53:15 Herndon[1] 54:25 79:9 40:18 40:19 40:22 42:5 63:10 81:19 76:20 Hey[ii 72:13 EXAMINATION[21 42:13 44:8 46:2 8525 graduate[11 8:23 he [si 22:14 35:18 52:1 67:25 68:3 � 3' 2:2 3:10 68:25 73:3 found[4i 28:17 grandfather[31 40:20 38:7 48:12 78:1 example[31 17:4 father's[21 9:18 28:19 58:18 58:22 40:20 44:8 high[1i 9:2 71:6 87:24 10:6 four[iii 34:4 34:12 granted[1] 63:2 himself[1] 54:20 except[1i 3:5 34:15 34:23 36:14 faxing[zi 63:2 grass[4121:24 21:25 Hoffman(31 67:3 excuse(1i 28:25 63:3 36:22 44:20 57:15 21:25 80:7 68:9 68:24 EXHIBIT[zi 2:11 feelin g[1i 76:6 58:3 68:14 78:24 grave[iii 18:3 hold[1] 36:20 2:15 fractured[1i 39:16 felt[1i 67:4 freaking 1 18:5 19:5 19:11 HOLDING(11 1:9 Exhibit[9i 30:13 g 1 1 59:17 21:16 21:17 22:6 holding 21:1 FernCliff[zi 68:1 g[ 1 53:19 81:5 81:8 free[2] 31:6 31:8 22:7 24:18 29:18 68:4 hole[1] 77:10 83:15 83:17 84:7 frequency[1] 12:17 34:4 42:2 44:4 84:8 84:10 few[zi 29:20 80:5 frequent[1i 60:14 44:5 44:11 44:16 holes[1]76:2 exhibit[zi 30:11 fiasco[1] 45:10 44:18 45:3 45:24 holiday(1i 88:1 frequently[1i 39:8 57:5 57:10 57:15 81:8 figured(�i 16:19 friends(1i 60:17 73:20 74:9 76:i Home[1] 68:24 EXHIBITS[1i 2:10 23:7 25:2 25:4 home Ui 17:9 53:2 62:4 72:9 front[3i 32:15 34:11 77:2 77:19 78:9 existed(11 84:2 75:14 78:13 80:2 86:10 25:7 64:23 65:8 expect[zi 5:17 Filburn[3i 67:2 graves[11 57:7 68:18 85:9 85:11 P 68:9 68:23 Funeral[1i 68:24 homes[11 69:19 73:8 expectation[zi 33:13 filed[3i 3:20 71:3 funeral 1101 10:13 green[1] 66:10 honored[1] 87:13 71:21 10:21 15:22 64:22 Greene[s] 54:6 81:21 filing[z] 3:4 65:8 69:19 85:3 54:19 54:23 55:2 hope[zi 34:25 78:7 expert[1] 69:9 71:14 85:8 85:9 85:11 55:22 hopefully[1] 58:17 explain[1i 87:19 final[1] 61:16 furious pi 48:22 Greenwich[zi 9:3 horrified[zi 22:25 express[1] 79:25 finally 31 26:25 49:16 49:20 49:20 9:5 44:10 expressed[zi 49:15 Y 49:22 49:25 50:4 ground[4] 66:9 horror(1i 53:6 P 27:9 63:5 87:17 financially[1] 89:18 69:24 75:13 80:13 hotel[1]61:5 expressing[11 50:4 -G- groundskeeper[1i hours[z] 78:5 fine[z] 7:3 14:9 66:11 78:6 finely[1i 57:21 extensive(1i 66:23 G-R-E-E-N-E[1i guess[131 4:11 extensively(1i 66:15 54:6 � huge[11 80:10 extent[11 86:21 76:18 77:24 77:25 finish[41 39:10 Gail[23124:10 26:13 4:21 4:22 6:23 14:7 18:20 30:14 huh-uh[1] 5:7 26:25 27:1 27:4 hundred(1i 68:13 extra[5]44:16 44:18 finished[1i 80:16 31:11 37:3 70:13 finishes[1i 69:11 30:15 30:21 31:3 45:2 45:16 58:6 27:23 28:23 29:2 70:19 78:1 87:21 husband(7i 22:9 extras[11 44:17 22:13 64:18 64:21 fired[3i 63:24 64:2 36:4 36:13 37:6 extremely[zi 46:12 64:8 37:11 37:12 37:16 -H- 65:6 79:5 79:6 77:7 1 39:4 39:18 46: husband's[1i 22:10 firm(1i 6:23 habit[119:15 First[1i 28:25 48:17 49:15 52:25 hair(1] 53:4 -F- Gail's[11 49:9 -I- first[13114:1 27:4 half[1] 49:13 face(zi 35:17 84:12 28:23 29:2 29:15 gain[11 4:13 idea[4] 37:16 70:17 29:20 29:25 30:15 gather[1i 42:11 Hampshire[1i 17:9 72:21 77:14 facilitate[1i 30:10 g 31:9 42:24 43:1 hand[zi 82:7 89:22 atherin 1 fact[131 33:10 43:19 65:11 79:1 gathering[ 1 47 11: handle[11 51:13 identical[1i 66:17 general(zi 7:1 identification[1i 45:15 50:9 50:18 53:8 57:14 58:2 five[zi 54:1 78:19 7523 handwritten[11 82:7 67:3 58:3 62:8 70:24 fix[1i 15:1 Generally[1i 76:11 HANOVER[1]1:23 identify[1] 81:15 75:2 76:17 flabbergasted 121 generally[7i 11:21 happy[1i 62:4 identity[1i 71:24 facts[6166:8 73:15 36:25 57:1 15:9 25:16 34:5 hard[z] 6:22 58:22 ill[1i 55:24 73:16 76:16 76:22 flowers[11 17:4 57:21 59:4 63:12 harder[11 76:19 impolite[z] 35:4 76:24 fluid[1i 39:8 Giant[1] 54:24 head[1] 29:17 39:6 factually[11 4:17 fl y[1i 35:13 GiIIn y[31 37:10 headstone[11 34:20 important[zi 39:9 Fair[1i 42:15 [1 37:16 51:17 75:2 folks i 65:6 healthcare(zi 55:18 fair[si 21:10 28:24 Gven(11 70:2 follow[z] 43:8 i 55:21 impossible[z] 33:24 35:4 39:24 56:5 g2:3 given[8i 4:5 heard(si 28:1 37:15 familiar[1i 44:2 43:4 following(31 17:14 25:22 25:23 48:5 48:15 56:24 impression(si 50:19 families(1i 58:24 42:4 48:16 67:2 82:23 86:14 82:2 75:5 75:7 75:11 family 1oi 34:19 89:21 80:17 Y follows pi 3:9 held(1i 36:20 37:20 44:7 44:20 foot(1i 29:18 y[3i 3:2 P giving[zi 30:7 hereby impressions(1i 76:25 45:3 45:16 57:16 33:3 3:4 89:5 inaccurate[z] 32:7 58:4 64:17 64:20 foregoing[1] 89:5 glared[6i 52:17 63:25 far[111 29:3 34:2 form[13] 3:5 52:20 52:20 53:1 hereof[1i' 89:14 44:12 47:1 47:3 23:17 32:11 32:19 53:8 64:5 hereunto[1i 89:22 inappropriate[1i 36:19 38:3 41:8 Herman[81 46:9 35:16 51:2 51:19 63:15 goes[1i 65:1 67:22 71:19 73:3 45:21 49:4 49:6 46:11 46:15 46:18 include[11 82:6 Index Page 4 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Page including - Meaning JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON including[1] 84:11 Jim[7] 46:25 58:17 63:5 64:8 30:24 72:3 74:7 13:2 13:9 13:17 indeed[7] 4:12 61:18 63:1 63:13 least p2] 5:20 losing[z] 48:4 14:4 14:18 15:5 5:18 36:14 37:19 85:6 87:9 11:21 21:13 28:24 50:6 16:6 16:15 17:11 41:16 56:16 71:17 job[2] 6:1 76:19 42:10 57:22 58:14 lost[2] 5:7 87:7 17:23 19:10 32:16 independent[i] John pi 46:25 58:18 60:8 63:8 34:11 42:8 45:2 p lots[] 34:12 34:13 60:23 74:15 75:22 31:6 63:12 72:15 JURY p) 1:17 34:17 34:23 34:24 indicate[2] 32:19 leave[1]72,9 44:20 62:7 Marian's[6] 21:8 38:19 left p1 24:14 43:20 56:17 58:13 _K_ low[2] 44:13 57:4 60:13 61:7 indicated[i] 28:7 length[2] 69:16 LP[i] 1:8 Mark[i] 84:6 indirectly[i] 89 K[i] 1:27 752 18 lying[2158:17 58:21 mark[4]30:11 81:7 individuals[z] 17:22 Kathleen[11 9:20 Lentz[16] 46:25 43:19 keep[21 5:15 63:13 48:15 56:14 57:9 83:13 84:10 information[20] kept[s] 34:10 34:14 58:11 58:17 58:20 -M- MARKED[11 2:11 4:14 6:15 24:7 37:7 37:9 37:12 58:25 61:18 63:1 Ma'am[3] 49:15 marked[61 30:12 24:22 24:24 25:16 kidding[i] 37:6 63:13 63:20 63:24 84:10 88:5 81:5 81:8 83:15 27:19 31:2 32:2 kind[z] 40:9 42:17 82:12 85:6 87:9 ma am[u] 3:12 83:17 84:8 33:2 47:11 47:16 less[s] 35:13 42:2 4:10 8:9 11:5 marker[16] 19:18 knew[26] 6:16 53:11 69:24 87:23 23:3 34:16 35:1 47:22 56:20 63:4 19:3 20:1 31:10 37:8 37:9 37:11 63:25 67:23 72:17 22:5 32:8 33:4 Lester[6] 66:11 56:25 73:17 74:6 81:20 85:19 33:5 33:10 37:22 70:14 73:12 73:20 76:13 37:13 37:17 70:5 infrequent[i] 60:14 3724 39:22 40:18 74:19 76:10 MACCAMPBELL[z] 71:17 77:2 77:10 �l 40:22 40:24 41:2 77:12 80:20 86:8 initiated 111 53:9 41:23 43:14 44:15 LETTER[2] 2:13 2:3 3:8 45:15 45:22 52:2 2:14 MacCAMPBELL[3] markers[z] 23:5 inquire[2] 23:6 52:2 52:5 52:8 53:10 Letter[2] 81:4 1:1 1:18 89:6 36:136:10 0 p i 21:2 57:19 58:5 58:15 83:14 MacCam bell[3] marking[ ] inside[s] 56:17 66:14 letter[ii] 80:24 9:19 9:20 68:6 MARSHALL 58:12 66:2 68:4 [i] 58:10 Knowing[1] 43:2 81:9 81:16 81:22 mail[i] 25:2 1:29 knowing[z] 19:19 81:25 83:13 83:17 Massachusetts[3] insisting[z] 34:10 knowing Maine[i] 61:3 85:5 85:15 85:16 11:13 17:10 17:11 34:14 63:8 e kIIOwled 3 4:21 85:17 major[i] 9:1 match[i] 21:24 Instantly pi 22:5 knowledge ] letters[i] 7:24 makes[3] 6:1 28:12 63:18 material[i] 66:20 instead[i] 76:8 39:15 76:18 known[s] 4:3 lie[z] 52:13 52:13 materialized[l] instructed[i] 36:17 managed[z] 27:7 15:12 35:9 44:19 lies p] 52:9 37:13 instruction[1] 4:25 73:16 intended[z] 27:18 life[z] 40:12 76:4 51:3 manager[1o] 25:19 maternal[�] 40:20 knows[�] 79:10 lifetime m 45:7 25:21 25:23 25:25 matter[3] 49:16 57:22 lIItentlOII[i] 6:8 lifted pi 65:20 31:14 50:24 51:1 61:22 87:20 'I-" liked[2173:2 73:3 51:2 51:7 51:12 MAY[11 89:23 interacting p1 50:20 ma pi 72:3 led lack[3] 17:3 23:24 likely[z] 11:22 mangled y[12 ]6:15 13:6 interaction[i] 35:16 24:14 27:8 27:25 55:19 11:23 manner[i] 84:20 interested[3] 44:18 lands[11 75:8 line[i] 27:8 manufacturer[i] 29:1 30:10 70:14 47:10 89:18 70:22 70:22 71:23 interment[i] 41:17 large[�]34:20 listen[2] 20:7 67:16 80:18 interpreted P] 81:25 Last[i] 78:6 20:12 March[i] 10:5 McMAHON[4o] last[7] 14:20 21:20 litigation[2] 73:10 Margo[68] 15:8 1:30 2:4 3:11 interred[2] 11:1 60:23 78:4 78:10 84:18 15:10 16:3 16:8 14:15 18:10 18:13 41:22 86:9 87:6 live[4] 67:5 67:6 16:10 17:8 18:1 18:22 19:2 20:16 inviting[i] 33:6 late[2] 7:25 79:21 72:11 72:14 18:14 19:7 21:6 20:22 20:25 21:4 involved[7] 5:13 LAURA[i] 1:27 living[4] 10:9 22:17 23:8 23:16 30:4 30:10 30:16 10:12 10:15 61:20 10:19 11:11 13:8 23:18 24:1 24:6 44:22 44:25 49:5 70:14 71:4 75:22 Laura p31 65:3 24:10 27:15 27:18 49:11 49:14 53:15 71:1 78:1 79:10 LLC[6] 1:11 1:12 27:22 28:4 28:13 53:17 55:9 55:13 involvement[11 79:15 80:4 80:17 1:13 1:14 1:16 28:16 28:17 28:19 63:16 1:26 55:16 55:17 65:1 82:23 83:24 84:19 28:21 29:24 30:14 65:4 67:17 69:14 issue[i]49:9 85:11 85:14 86:23 located[2] 19:11 30:19 30:19 30:20 79:24 81:6 83:2 issues[1] 4:14 Laura's[11 80:23 74:14 31:3 36:17 36:23 83:5 83:7 83:16 item[ii 17:5 LAW[i] 1:5 location[2] 50:10 37:24 39:3 43:3 84:5 84:9 85:7 77:6 44:17 45:2 45:5 88:4 law[1] 70:18 45:6 45:15 45:22 lawsuit[s] 3:24 longer[s] 6:6 57:13 57:18 57:20 McMahon[i] 3:17 8:10 8:11 67:6 2i mean 4:10 J[4] 1:20 1:30 4:15 71:5 71:14 78:17 58:1 59:8 59:21 [ ] 89:3 89:25 71:22 60:2 60:7 60:14 4:25 5:2 5:4 lawsuit's[1] 71:2 look[4] 19:17 32:16 60:23 61:5 61:12 10:25 23:10 29:19 JANE[s] 1:1 33:18 78:25 61:21 61:24 62:15 35:3 39:2 39:6 1:18 2:3 3:8 lawyers[i] 9:15 looked[8] 19:22 62:24 63:14 77:15 39:14 41:14 55:25 89:6 leaning[1] 77:2 21:11 53:3 53:5 84:21 84:21 85:12 62:10 67:21 67:24 Jane[11 3:16 learn[4115:4 22:16 69:10 72:5 72:6 86:16 87:2 87:10 74:3 75:23 76:2 January[4] 14:13 62:23 80:14 80:8 87:25 77:14 84:19 14:13 14:17 14:20 learned[3] 58:11 looking[4] 30:3 Marian[19] 11:10 Meaning[61 10:2 13:4 13:13 13:15 Index Page 5 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 meaning-parties Multi-Page JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON 17:15 84:23 10:18 11:22 12:4 50:20 51:6 51:23 Now[31 14:6 48:11 28:24 31:10 38:13 meaning ul 4:21 12:6 12:7 12:12 52:10 52:14 52:23 53:15 45:19 49:23 49:24 6:23 17:22 27:6 13:8 13:10 13:16 53:18 57:25 63:16 now[161 14:12 19:12 51:9 51:12 51:17 33:22 56:22 79:12 15:12 15:15 23:1 73:7 81:7 19:19 20:21 29:9 51:20 56:15 60:11 means[a1 4:12 24:11 24:12 29:16 mulch[21 78:17 29:11 51:15 62:11 62:3 69:17 70:25 7:24 31:5 59:3 29:17 29:22 31:4 78:18 67:5 70:3 70:17 72:5 72:6 79:2 36:24 36:24 37:21 must[2]40:12 40:14 72:14 72:15 78:7 79:4 81:18 87:16 medallion[21 68:1 3721 39:20 40:11 78:23 85:25 ones[41 42:25 86:16 68:5 40:14 40:24 41:19 _ Nowadays[i1 11:14 86:17 86:23 medical 131 55:6 43:4 43:12 44:6 -N- [11 67:20 open[21 67:3 67:22 55:22 56:8 44:17 45:5 45:17 NAME[l] 2:2 opened[61 65:23 medication[21 53:21 45:18 45:21 50:9 number[isl 25:1 P 54:14 57:4 57:19 60:3 name[ii] 3:15 25:3 27:11 58:5 65:25 72:2 73:18 3:17 9:18 22:10 73:23 74:8 medicine[l1 55:12 60:12 61:25 61:25 67:1 67:8 68:10 62:9 65:17 69:1 25:21 25:22 25:23 68:11 69:25 70:8 opening[11 72:9 members[21 64:17 72:10 73:2 80:11 63:19 68:2 70:6 71:16 71:18 72:19 operate[2] 75:19 64:20 Mother's[i1 12:22 77:12 73:10 82:6 75:24 memorial[31 70:5 mother's[681 7:25 named[i1 27:1 OPERATING[i] 71:17 77:2 10:16 10:21 10:23 near[ii 33:12 -0- 1:11 memos[1] 7:23 11:1 12:22 13:4 necessary[41 6:6 oath[31 4:2 4:5 option[i] 16:19 mentioned[41 41:12 13:8 13:24 15:3 61:13 62:25 63:11 4:8 order[514:1 4:13 51:25 66:14 87:24 15:11 17:18 17:19 need[81 6:9 24:25 oaths[11 89:4 7:8 47:11 77:10 merely[i1 6:12 17:23 19:10 21:16 31:7 47:15 48:13 message[a1 30:15 22:5 22:7 233 53:13 61:9 70:9 Objection[21 49:4 Ordinary[i] 5:13 23:10 23:19 24:18 55:8 organization[i1 30:20 48:12 87:10 needed[i1 59:15 81:14 41:17 41:19 41:22 met[�1 52:14 28:3 40:22 40:24 neither[l1 62:3 objectionable[i1 49:5 Originally[si 59:5 metal[4] 66:12 42:1 42:12 43:19 nervous Ill 14:12 objections[ii 3:5 59:24 60:5 82:25 66:15 66:24 69:9 45:7 45:19 46:2 never[131 19:13 85:1 46:2 47:19 56:16 obligation[�1 76:22 Michael[i1 46:25 19:21 22:25 23:9 originals[1] 86:15 57:15 58:2 58:12 37:6 37:13 37:15 observations Ili mid-August[2157:12 58:15 59:16 62:8 22:13 otherwise[21 55:24 57:23 38:25 43:24 45:12 64:22 62:18 66:1 66:5 61:10 71:4 82:2 observed[11 65:12 middle[21 20:8 66:16 66:18 66:23 oven[61 4:21 44:16 58:8 67:4 67:7 67:9 New[31 17:9 79:13 obvious[�1 74:9 45:7 45:17 45:21 might[21 58:16 69:8 70:6 70:24 79:19 obviously[51 12:18 62:6 r 81:24 71:17 71:24 73:20 new[4] 42:23 69:10 62:6 73:19 76:3 ownership[1] 73:6 Milligrams[21 54:2 74:9 74:14 74:23 72:5 72:7 77:17 54:5 77:2 77:12 77:15 next[23116:3 17:12 occasion[21 33:21 _P_ mind[1112:9 78:9 79:12 80:2 23:25 25:4 25:5 87:1 80:9 25:13 26:14 31:11 occasions Ili 12:23 P.M[i1 1:22 mind's[ii 50:7 31:22 35:19 36:5 mothers[21 58:10 occupied[l1 44:21 P.M[3] 53:16 53:16 mine[1184:19 10:7 36:7 38:23 40:15 minute Ill 29:12 o 42:13 46:2 46:5 occur[21 16:22 8 Mount[i1 59:14 61:4 70:11 63:11 packet[11 85:19 minutes[i1 28:16 move 111 60:3 77:13 80:19 80:20 occurred[lot 12:17 page[21 31:11 84:12 misread[11 74:3 moved[ii 59:7 nice[l] 46:12 16:22 17:24 28:24 pages[31 82:6 Miss[5]29:4 32:10 movie Ili 53:6 nickname[2] 61:7 29:3 43:24 47:1 82:8 84:11 45:1 59:10 59:22 85:24 46:11 47:4 MS[241 14:8 18:12 61:11 paginated Ili 82:7 missed[l] 18:4 18:24 20:7 20:11 nine[1] 28:16 October[41 79:21 painted Ili 66:21 missing 0:13 20:19 20:24 79:23 80:24 81:4 $[il 34:2 nitpicking[11 29:19 paper[21 32:15 misunderstood[i1 302 30:6 49:4 odd[1] 23:5 34:11 2725 49:7 53:13 55:8 no [i1 74:24 off[21 59:7 75:13 55:10 55:15 64:24 nor[i1 49:1 paperwork[4] 33:17 mixed Ili 14:6 offensive[21 77:5 37:4 63:2 63:3 67:14 69:11 79:16 normal[il 5:10 77:7 moment[11 81:9 82:24 83:4 84:3 NORTON[s1 1:1 Paragraph[9] 30:22 moments[21 29:20 85:2 offer[11 52:17 31:1 31:2 34:5 80:6 Ms[551 3:17 11:11 1:18 2:3 3:8 offered[i1 24:23 48:9 53:19 73:14 89:6 74:5 74:7 Monday Ill 25:6 15:21 29:21 29:21 Norton[71 3:16 office[3] 20:19 money i1 70:20 30:24 31:9 31:10 3:17 22:11 45:1 24:23 51:4 Pardon[51 12:9 Y 35:22 44:22 47:6 month[31 10:4 322 32:3 32:19 53:18 73:7 81:7 often[1160:15 33:7 33:14 33:22 49.2 Once[1112:6 15:2 77:19 NOTARY[i1 1:21 35:5 35:21 36:1 part[41 5:10 6:8 months[ii 77:18 36:19 37:18 38:2 Notary[ii 89:3 once[51 6:16 12:19 7;14 46:19 monument[41 19:15 38:18 39:19 40:1 32:18 69:16 71:2 note[41 7:24 60:16 participate[1] 17:3 19:25 34:17 34:20 40:4 40:9 40:14 60:17 87:25 One[31 13:20 83:12 articular[71 3:18 r 41:7 42:12 42:18 85:5 p morning[i1 24:2 notes[s1 7:23 3:19 12:21 33:16 most[3] 39:14 78:8 43:2 43:5 43:11 119 one[321 11:9 : 46:23 82:7 82:9 46:7 52:22 79:25 43:15 43:18 46:15 13:16 15:10 15:13 87:1 83:9 articularl i 46:16 46:18 46:19 23:17 24:21 25:19 p y Ill 6:7 mother[10: 90:9 47:21 48:3 48:21 nothing[a1 35:2 26:12 27:17 28:12 parties[21 3:3 9:24 10:2 10:9 50:2 50:3 50:13 42:7 52:18 53:9 Index Page 6 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Page TM PARTNERS -relation JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON 89:16 pertain[11 7:25 position[31 50:22 proposed[11 59:3 75:10 PARTNERS[11 pharmacy[21 54:24 50:23 52:6 propped[51 23:3 reading[3] 30:22 1:8 54:25 positive[21 20:14 77:21 77:22 80:12 34:4 34:5 Partners[1] 46:6 philosophy[11 44:9 63:7 80:15 reads[21 5:6 party[216:19 76:12 phone[7] 24:2 positively[11 58:19 protocol[1] 76:13 39:17 Pass[21 9:22 14:5 26:9 26:21 26:25 possession[21 82:14 provide[51 18:10 real[11 52:5 passed[161 10:2 51:19 54:22 81:19 82:17 18:15 24:6 61:13 realize[2] 19:12 10:10 10:13 10:16 phoned[1] 22:17 possibility[11 66:7 8325 72:13 10:18 11:9 12:4 photo 111 32:9 possible[11 49:6 provided[131 7:20 realized[1] 52:12 12:6 12:7 13:8 photographs[131 posted[11 24:22 8:2 18:8 25:17 Really[11 49:11 13:10 14:2 14:18 7:13 18:14 19:3 predeceased[11 32:3 62:24 63:25 really 13 17:12 60:23 69:1 19:17 19:19 20:5 P 68:19 68:21 68:22 Y[ l 7:12 9:24 78:21 82:5 86:21 16:5 33:20 35:17 passenger[11 76:3 20:14 21:6 21:11 refer[z1 4:19 37:11 49:1 58:16 21:13 78:21 80:3 P providers[z1 55:18 passing[61 13:16 6:17 5522 59:16 62:5 63:23 15:5 15:11 42:4 86:13 67:6 71:4 71:5 reference[11 87:17 57:15 60:13 photos[5] 18:1 P providing[31 61:22 rear[11 34:16 past[z1 24:18 87:24 19:1 19:7 79:15 preferred[31 61:25 61:22 71:19 P reason[2] 45:13 86:20 62:1 62:6 psssst[1] 75:8 patience[11 88:6 45:25 phrase[11 16:17 premises[11 51:4 PUBLIC[11 1:21 pay[11 42:1 [11 7:8 reassuring[11 58:14 physical[11 6:8 prepared Public[2] 89:3 peace[11 75:4 receive[21 56:20 physically[11 6:9 prescribed[41 53:21 89:10 56:22 pebbles[11 22:1 [31 44:8 54:5 54:15 55:11 pull[11 72:3 PELTONEN[zs1 physician [61 received[81 21:6 1:27 14:8 18:12 53:20 55:11 prescription purposes[z1 72:18 21:11 26:23 53:25 pick-up 6 18:24 20:7 20:11 P P[ 1 73:21 54:1 54:4 54:9 73:9 56:7 63:4 82:25 20:13 20:19 20:24 74:17 75:3 75:5 54:20 54:24 55:3 Put[61 6:24 27:8 84:17 present[z1 10:25 75:9 75:14 73:21 75:3 77:9 30:2 30:6 49:4 recent[2] 80:10 49:7 53:13 55:8 piece[116:15 65:23 78:2 87:1 55:10 55:15 64:24 pieces[21 22:1 pretty[31 70:1 recently[11 78:8 67:14 69:11 79:16 22:1 75:10 87:13 -Q- recharacterize[11 82:24 83:4 84:3 PLACE[11 1:23 Previous[21 5:24 U 55:20 85:2 14:22 Q [a1 67:15 67:19 lace[101 16:7 68:12 68:13 recited[11 68:12 PENNSYLVANIA P [11 43:23 reviousl previously 19:21 20:6 29:22 questions[121 4:2 recognize[61 3:23 1610 1:1 :2 1:13 36:6 37:22 39:21 Primarily[2] 8:13 g:13 5 :15 5:17 4:8 6:22 69:4 69:23 79:13 89:14 8:15 6:19 7:4 7:8 71:6 81:10 en va laced[121 37:9 primarily[1] 19:23 20:7 76:11 76:14 Pennsylvania[s1 P recollect[4] 16:5 3:21 11:19 81:2 56:16 69:22 75:6 primary[11 42:23 88:4 89:9 24:9 46:22 63:23 81:13 89:5 77:13 78:17 78:18 principal[11 47:18 quite[5127:20 29:13 recollection[ 16:23 80:21 80:22 86:6 priority 2 49:2 68:14 71:19 people[91 26:7 86:8 86:10 P tY[ ] 42:24 6:23 7:1 29:14 37:16 44:13 48:7 62:10 quote[11 66:12 30:3 31:6 69:7 66:12 70:22 75:24 Plain[1135:1 private[11 9:3 record[81 3:15 PLAINTIFF[31 privy[1] 83:9 -R- 75:25 76:1 ri 5:11 39:16 67:13 people's[11 70:16 1:3 1:28 2:11 probe[2] 41:15 R 79:15 85:2 85:8 Plaintiff[71 3:23 [41 34:16 35:1 89:21 perceive[11 56:21 41:15 35:1 36:10 3:23 30:11 30:12 rectangular[11 22:2 percent[11 68:13 81:8 83:18. 84:11 probing[11 41:13 rather[51 4:20 perched[1] 76:3 Plaintiff's[21 81:5 problem[3] 11:9 5:13 6:4 43:8 rectified[21 59:1 period[21 74:22 83:15 52:6 59:6 82:10 61:23 i 77:12 PLEAS[11 1:1 process[6] 4:2 re-burial[91 8:1 rectify[31 60:9 periodicity[11 12:17 7:4 63:17 65:11 52:15 64:5 64:10 61 ti 63:11 P t3' Pleas[11 3:20 g3:11 84:14 64:12 64:21 65:11 rectifying[11 59:3 permission[81 58:24 plot[4] 37:20 45:16 73:20 85:24 reduced t11 89:11 59:15 60:8 61:13 57:16 58:4 PRODUCED[11 61:23 62:18 62:24 point[231 6:4 2:11 re-buried[11 79:12 redundant[1] 9:15 63:1 produced[11] 18:25 re-read[11 7:10 reference[11 14:19 Permit[21 71:21 24 14:19 21:3 20:14 20:15 30:12 reach[9] 22:22 referred[31 48:8 24:6 25: 81:4 82:18 82:24 76:18 35:25 37:5 5 38:13 26:12 25:14 27:7 31:15 81:9 86:13 permit[11 39:5 40:10 43:18 45:19 83:12 83:14 84:7 40:4 46:7 57:13 g4:13 referring[51 3:20 permitted[11 71:9 47:3 48:21 51:9 57:25 73:8 16:10 48:8 54:7 P 52:5 61:17 62:23 production[21 20:17 reached[41 29:4 73:23 person[131 25:17 63:10 63:17 64:7 83:11 55:14 55:21 87:21 26:8 26:9 26:21 refers[11 31:1 87:21 professor[11 44:9 react U1 16:18 32:13 27:1 27:12 27:12 refresh[21 29:14 31:23 52:14 52:22 pointed[1] 52:24 promising[1] 37:9 32:24 32:25 38:8 30:2 55:2 60:19 60:24 polite[11 86:12 prompt[11 47:15 41:10 62:20 P P P regard[1] 56:8 personally[11 73:16 poor[21 72:9 75:3 roof[z1 71:19 reaction[41 40:9 p y p P register[11 19:14 persuade[11 61:12 portion[21 30:22 73:5 42:17 55:7 56:22 p p relation[21 19:10 persuaded[1] 5:23 54:6 proper[21 23:7 Read[1]44:24 55:6 46:24 read[3] 44:22 53:21 Index Page 7 HUGHES. ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 relative - spend Multi-Page"` JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON relative[2] 89:15 requests[1] 86:4 round pi 68:1 seriously[3] 47:5 six[11 7:17 89:17 required(3] 60:9 47:6 47:8 size[i] 22:3 relatively[1] 80:8 70:18 70:19 -S- service[1] 10:23 skepticism[3] 70:22 relatives[2] 11:14 rerouted[1] 51:21 set[z] 15:24 89:22 72:7 75:17 44:3 S-T-E-W-A-R-T[�] reserved[z] 3:6 80:25 Seth[1] 16:14 skill[11 39:12 relay[2147:11 47:22 62:11 sake[11 6:11 settle M 77:25 slew[11 50:12 relayed[3] 30:14 reside p] 8:4 sales[i]8:13 settled[i] 80:6 smiling[2] 5:2 30:19 30:24 resided[i] 8:7 seven[�] 82:8 5:9 relaying[11 27:13 resolution[i] 23:24 satisfaction[z]5:20 [i] 81:14 48:25 several U] 26:5 society relevant[i] 4:14 resolved[11 33:15 satisfactory[s]33:9 26:7 37:12 53:4 sod[a] 78:2 80:23 reluctant[i] 60:8 respective[i] 3:3 35:5 35:7 59:4 60:25 69:18 77:18 86:6 86:10 remain[2] 65:18 respects[i] 42:1 63:12 78:2 78:14 shades pi 53:4 sold[z] 34:24 68:25 65:20 response[z] 49:9 86:11 shall[i] 87:23 someone[23] 5:6 remained[i1 80:18 82:24 satisfied[z] 32:2 share[s]26:18 31:7 24:19 24:25 25:11 oases[�] 26:16 33:2 46:15 57:5 62:14 27:13 34:17 35:20 remaining[i] 13:17 responses saw[s] 24:16 52:15 shared[a] 27:19 35:20 35:21 36:2 remains[9] 11:1 rest[i] 85:6 43:20 43:20 58:12 69:6 70:23 77:1 42:18 85:14 85:16 39:17 46:7 47:23 58:13 62:2 62:12 resting[i] 75:4 says[s] 14:10 30:19 Shirley 3] 46:9 47:25 50:21 51:20 Reston[z] 8:4 y 52:24 57:7 58:23 74:10 74:11 31:14 68:5 87:10 48:5 48:17 73:4 75:7 81:16 24 remark[l] 75:18 12: scatter-brained[l] short[i]5:16 82:10 retired[i] 8:16 53:3 remarks[3] 50:13 retract[i] 30:18 shortly[l] 10:9 someplace[z] 51:5 70:16 80:1 scattered[i] 10:7 shovels m 75:9 68:10 Remember[i] 31:15 retrieve[2] 63:9 school[2] 9:2 sometime[z] 31:19 remember[20] 11:3 65:15 9:3 show[a]18:21 19:8 19:20 20:16 79:11 11:5 11:6 14:9 retrieving[1] 59:6 screw[i] 69:12 Sometimes[i] 6:19 19:3 25:14 25:24 return[i] 12:13 shown[i] 21:12 sealing[i] 3:3 shut[i] 35:1 sometimes[z] 5:7 29:7 34:25 46:12 returned[2] 27:6 seat[2] 75:14 76:4 87:25 50:8 50:17 53:3 31:16 sibling[2] 13:9 61:1 61:2 62:3 reviewed[z] 7:7 second[i] 33:22 13:17 somewhat[�] 8:1 79:9 79:18 79:18 7:11 see[zi] 5:1 10:9 siblings[s] 9:11 somewhere[s] 6:24 87:6 15:4 21:14 23:12 9:13 13:15 13:19 29:23 68:15 68:17 remind[i] 26:9 Rickenbaugh[s] 23:22 29:13 30:22 13:23 13:24 16:11 79:17 34:19 37:19 45:16 32:1 41:15 57:14 16:13 Sorry[2] 20:10 reminded[i] 87:22 57:16 58:4 58:1 58:1 59:21 � side[s] 19:14 19:24 76:20 reminder[i] 86:12 Rickenbaugh s[i] 60:19 63:9 69:9 34:23 80:8 80:9 sorry[s]17:11 18:4 remove[2] 59:16 41:16 76:22 78:18 83:6 sides[i]34:21 18:25 46:22 55:15 77:10 ridiculous[i] 35:18 87:7 58:10 61:7 61:8 removed[s] 68:7 seem[101 26:23 sign[i] 24:22 Right[43] 11:24 sort[s] 25:2 25:3 69:16 72:6 73:19 13:18 15:16 15:18 32:5 32:7 47:3 signed[l] 59:7 46:13 62:9 86:20 77:17 17:20 22:19 23:14 47:7 47:10 47:14 signify[11 22:4 Repeat[i] 35:24 31:3 32:21 38:5 50:14 52:10 71: sought[z] 55:6 Re 2 p silverware[i] 66:14 56:11 repeat[i] 12:10 39:25 40:3 40:21 sell[11 8:14 simply[z] 15:14 P 41:1 41:4 41:18 P Y sound(2] 29:19 repeated(i] 49:3 41:1 42:3 42:6 semi-horrified[i] 41:5 35:3 46:13 Sincerel i rephrase[6] 5:20 42:9 42:14 44:5 y[ l 39:14 SOUTH[i] 1:23 12:11 27:21 37:2 48:10 52:17 53:23 send[s] 17:4 17:4 single[11 6:3 spaces[2] 58:3 55:19 71:21 18:14 20:25 88:1 P 54:3 54:8 56:19 sister[a] 13:4 58:6 REPORTER[i] 57:24 69:3 71:8 13:21 52:1 52:2 sense[7] 12:16 Spanish[i] 9:1 1:20 71:10 71:13 72:20 26:18 39:7 39:16 P 74:2 77:4 82:11 40:16 58:16 78:19 sisters[2] 13:25 sparse[z] 21:24 Reporter[z] 89:12 14:1 80:7 8925 82:13 85:10 85:14 sent[i4] 17:6 18:1 85:21 85:23 87:15 18:16 18:19 18:20 site[16] 19:11 21:16 speak[12] 6:1 reporter[s] 5:2 right i� 19:8 19:18 79:15 21:18 22:7 24:18 6:12 16:3 24:3 5:12 39:9 81:7 [ ] 5:3 36:24 42:2 44:4 84:10 6:13 25:9 29:11 81:12 81:21 83:21 24:10 26:6 27:12 29:13 29:22 31:12 84:21 85:10 86:17 45:3 57:5 77:2 38:12 38:13 46:5 reporters[2] 6:1 77:19 78:9 78:14 48:13 52:19 76:19 32:15 34:16 39:25 sentiment[2] 62:14 g0:2 86:11 48:17 49:22 72:15 79:25 speaking[a] 6:3 Reporter-Notary[i] 78:15 84:25 85:1 sites[I 1] 34:4 48:2 61:15 84:20 89:10 separate[a] 44:11 36:14 37:19 44:11 87:10 57:7 57:10 84:16 Specific[2] 76:15 P rise[1] 72:7 44:16 44:18 45:3 represent[z] 3:18 83:10 84:12 September[9] 52:16 45:16 45:24 57:11 Road[i]8:4 69:6 70:23 79:11 57:15 Specifically[i] reputable[2] 19:13 road[1] 34:22 79:14 79:21 83:14 situation[14] 22:16 82:12 43:24 83:18 85:25 specifically z REQUEST m 2:15 Rob[3] 67:2 68:9 serial[9] 67:1 27:13 34:9 46:14 Peg y[ ]56:8 68:23 51:13 55:25 59:1 Request[1] 84:7 67:8 68:10 68:11 59:4 60:9 61:14 specified[i] 89:14 rock[�] 22:1 70:8 71:16 71:18 request[3] 80:23 61:23 62:4 63:11 speculate[1] 33:6 82:25 87:13 Roth[3] 67:3 68:9 72:19 73:10 63:14 68:24 spend[i] 9:6 Index Page 8 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT. FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Pager` spoke-using JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON spoke[is] 24:5 41:7 43:18 45:20 telephone Ill 54:24 25:20 26:13 42:21 4:22 5:16 5:18 24:8 25:10 27:4 46:10 46:15 57:9 telling 191 14:25 46:14 50:7 62:21 5:19 9:25 13:2 29:25 33:21 35:20 66:19 . 24:15 33:8 38:3 68:4 71:11 87:9 13:6 16:25 21:10 36:2 37:6 37:11 substantially[1] 42:19 52:8 69:5 took[4] 59:23 62:10 24:15 26:15 30:23 47:4 50:2 54:23 74:20 70:2 80:5 79:4 86:16 38:3 48:15 48:24 61:17 61:21 60:4 67:11 67:24 subtle[l1 5:7 temporal[1] 43:8 top[1] 62:10 70:2 71:12 71:20 spoken[s] 12:2 such[41 26:16 46:18 ten[11 44:6 tossed Ill 62:13 27:1 27:14 40:7 73:7 74:13 75:21 43:3 62:5 71:1 56:9 89:17 tend[1] 70:11 totaled Ill 7:17 82:8 83:10 87:12 872 suggest[3] 5:1 terms[sl 8:1 Totally[1] 32:8 Understood[il 38:1 35:15 49:8 21:2 24:17 35:6 spot[al 23:2 24:12 suggested[�] 49:8 86:6 totally[il 50:21 understood[141 23:12 48:4 62:11 touch[31 24:24 24:19 25:11 28:6 spring Ill 15:25 suggesting[s] 20:1 terribly[21 78:16 27:12 48:7 29:2 39:21 41:25 SS[i] 89:1 21:5 70:21 82:15 87:20 trace Ill 67:20 43:10 53:24 56:13 83:8 test[1] 6:7 57:21 72:16 73:25 Stache Ill 46:25 track[11 50:6 83:6 suggestion[i] 49:7 testified[i1 3:9 stacked[i] 44:6 transcript[z] 39:11 unearthed[2] 74:10 Sunday Ill 24:21 testimony :5 started[21 59:16 Y[4] 69:12 74:11 Sunk Ill 77:20 70:21 89:6 89:21 65:13 transpired[3l 18:21 University[zl 8:23 sunken Ill 80:10 Thank[21 18:6 19:20 33:20 State[i1 79:13 8:25 support[�] 76:23 67:24 state[3l 3:15 56:21 su PP transpires[i] 70:13 unkept[11 78:20 supposed[3l 50:10 an Ill 3: 70:17 PP thank 14 tree[7] 23:4 77:3 unless[6] 51:20 77:13 77:21 77:23 statement[i] 39:24 57:6 80:12 themselves[i] 58:23 67:22 68:7 69:21 states pl 53:20 supposedly 141 58:17 therapeutic Ill 56:7 78:18 80:12 70:10 73:4 58:18 66:24 75:4 thereabouts Ill 69:1 tremendous Ill 78:16 stating[2] 50:18 surfaced[z] 51:18 unquote[�] 66:12 therefore pi 70:11 TRIAL[�] 1:17 68:2 unremarkable Ill 61:10 thereof[21 7:14 trial[i] 3:6 21:13 stenographically[i] surname Ill 34:25 55:19 89:9 tried[3l 61:15 63:13 unsatisfactory[11 step Ill 65:11 Susan[1] 16:14 third[1] 72:13 67:23 26:16 sustained Ill 56:4 thought steps[2163:10 71:23 h ht 19 g [ ] 18:25 truck[6]73:21 74:17 unsightly[i] 70:1 P[ ] Stewart U] 80:25 swat Ill 35:14 19:12 23:1 23:4 75:3 75:6 75:9 u 29 14:6 15:3 81:1 81:16 81:22 swear[21 58:9 2725 28:7 31:16 75:14 21:1 32:25 34:9 85:6 85:16 85:17 66:17 43:6 43:23 44:11 true[5l 38:4 40:7 35:2 44:7 46:24 still[io1 16:2 18:6 Sweet[31] 11:10 46:1 49:11 57:18 42:20 42:20 89:21 52:11 60:12 62:9 67 2 67:5 72:8 63:6 63:19 66:11 20:8 25:5 26:13 11:11 13:2 13:9 76:9 76:17 81:24 truth[1] 4:11 27:22 64:4 80:16 13:17 14:5 14:18 try[6] 5:21 20:20 67:22 69:12 70:10 86:15 88:2 15:8 15:11 16:4 threaten[2] 50:11 20:23 20:23 59:20 72:9 72:15 74:11 32 Ill l 63:8 stipulated 16:6 16:16 17:12 50:16 75:7 77:18 77:21 u P 17:23 23:18 30:24 threatening Ill 50:17 king[sl 202 77:22 79:13 79:19 STIPULATION[il 32:16 34:11 36:17 80:12 82:3 85:25 3:1 T�Ill 13:25 28:10 39:14 43:7 36:23 57:13 58:1 updated Ill 63:14 stone a 80:11 58:1 60:14 60:23 three[61 13:23 16:9 67:20 [ ] 16:10 16:16 17:22 turned upset[4l 15:18 80:14 80:18 80:20 60:23 74:15 75:22 [31 66:10 28:14 31:21 87:20 STONEMOR[sl 85:12 86:16 87:2 78'23 83:2 84:4 upsetting[21 60:10 1:8 1:9 1:10 Sweet's[2] 15:5 threw[il 7:17 two[sl 4:23 6:4 P g 6221 1:11 1:12 15:21 through Ul 43:6 6:24 18:16 23:24 StoneMor[4l 46:6 sweetly 75:13 57:18 58:9 60:11 28:15 36:17 43:19 urn[sil 41:15 41:22 y[2l 62:22 82:6 83:11 t 42:12 46:2 47:19 57:16 70:19 71:15 76:3 ype[3l 38:10 46:24 56:16 58:11 58:15 stopped(2) 61:3 sworn[2] 3:9 throughout[il 44:19 86:18 58:18 59:6 59:16 79:20 89:8 Tim[1] 3:17 typed[i1 5:5 62:8 63:9 66:1 story[2]25:18 39:1 sympathetic[21 timeframe[61 27:10 typewriting Ill 89:11 66:3 66:6 66:9 STREET[l] 1:23 35:14 46:21 27:15 28:11 55:24 typical Ill 60:20 66:16 66:17 66:18 stretch[i1 6:10 sympathy[1] 17:6 57:12 86:5 66:22 66:24 67:1 timeline[zl 43:8 67:7 67:9 68:8 strewn[i] 22:2 43:9 _U_ 68:10 68:25 69:6 stripe[zl 66:18 -T times[31 26:5 U Ill 67:19 69:8 69:9 69:15 66:19 tablets[21 54:2 26:7 37:12 ultimately[2] 59:10 69:23 70:4 70:7 strong[i] 66:7 54:5 timing 2l 24:9 81:16 70:23 71:16 71:18 g 71:24 72:3 72:18 stuff Ill 78:3 tabulating[11 12:18 63:15 unbelievable[21 72:23 73:4 73:9 subject[21 24:4 takes[11 39:12 TIMOTHY[il 1:30 53:10 57:2 73:18 73:21 74:8 55:5 taking U] 6:3 today[4] 4:6 uncalled Ill 50:21 74:14 74:23 75:6 subsequent[i] 79:11 6:11 7:25 46:23 50:7 50:25 71:7 uncomfortable Ill 79:12 SUBSIDIARY[21 47:7 88:5 89:7 together[81 29:17 6:9 urn-size[1] 70:4 1:13 1:16 TAMMY[ll 1:20 36:18 40:13 43:5 under[51 4:2 urns Ill 69:20 substance[141 29:7 Tammy[z] 89:3 43:13 43:21 43:22 4:5 4:8 73:6 used Ill 87:5 32:10 32:19 36:19 89:25 57:8 89:11 useful[11 21:2 38:2 39:19 40:6 tampered Ill 67:4 too[n] 5:9 15:12 understand[281 3:22 using[21 8:1 Index Page 9 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT. FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 usually - yourself Multi-Page'` JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON 14:19 21:17 22:20 23:19 York[1179:13 usually[11 69:20 24:8 24:16 25:12 York/Canadian Ill utilities[11 76:2 27:11 28:2 42:1 79:19 45:3 46:5 65:10 young[11 21:25 71:22 78:8 80:1 . -V- 86:2 86:4 youngest[11 62:11 V[1] 1:6 Whatever's[11 30:18 yourself[6] 8:16 Valium[31 54:2 whereabouts[il 15:16 22:5 55:23 54:5 54:9 47:19 64:16 65:5 vault[29] 56:17 WHEREOF[11 89:22 58:12 59:6 62:9 WHITE Ill 1:26 62:13 62:18 65:15 whole pi 39:5 65:16 65:20 65:23 39:10 46:14 53:9 65:25 66:2 66:4 84:6 66:22 69:22 69:23 wholly[11 35:16 70:4 70:5 70:18 72:2 72:22 72:23 wing Ill 76:20 73:4 73:18 73:22 withdrawn[41 13:1 73:23 73:24 74:8 16:24 23:15 59:25 74:12 within[11 89:4 verbally[11 68:21 without[2] 19:17 verbatim[11 5:11 58:23 version Ill 86:19 WITNESS[121 2:1 versus[1] 36:22 14:10 20:10 30:5 viewed[11 34:22 30:7 30:14 65:3 67:15 69:13 79:18 Virginia[41 8:5 85:4 89:22 10:19 25:8 54:25 witness[51 3:9 visible 111 34:16 50:9 76:12 89:8 visit[71 17:12 17:18 89:21 21:16 22:7 61:4 woman[3] 25:15 80:19 80:20 52:5 75:3 visits[1] 12:20 wondering[21 37:7 visualizing[11 19:24 37:12 ' voice[21 6:3 word[715:10 5:11 � A 25:2 17:3 18:4 23:24 vouch[2] 76:4 52:8 53:11 76:5 words[s1 4:16 5:13 19:19 74:20 80:6 worked[3] 59:21 Wait[2] 13:10 69:11 59:23 66:14 wait[31 25:4 26:13 worker[11 75:21 31:22 workers[11 75:19 waiting[11 27:23 works[11 71:11 waived[11 3:4 write[2160:17 87:25 wandering[11 12:9 writing[11 39:9 WARNER[11 1:29 written[61 7:24 Washington[1110:8 54:20 68:15 68:17 watching[11 75:20 80:24 85:17 water[21 3:13 wrong[71 19:21 6:10 20:6 30:8 32:22 ways[1121:23 49:23 53:9 55:9 wealthy[11 44:7 wrote[11 81:16 weeds[l1 78:17 Weinburg[1] 46:25 -y- welcome[11 20:22 yards[11 44:5 wellbeing[11 55:19 year[3] 12:19 60:20 Weller[21 37:10 61:1 51:17 years[6] 8:20 WESTMINSTER[2] 9:6 42:4 60:25 1:14 1:15 69:25 78:19 Westminster[26] yesterday[11 34:15 7:13 12:3 12:8 yet[11 27:11 12:12 12:13 14:21 YORK[11 89:1 15:23 17:12 17:24 IndexPage 10 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT,FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 • itt E� 19 �r'-3/l: 39 LI ,EA-pf ENNSY ,,1OW'r MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 100 Corporate Center Drive,Suite 201 Camp Hill,PA 17011 717-651-3505;Fax 717-651-3707 Email: tjmcmahon @mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. • v. • Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; • Civil Action—Law STONEMOR HOLDING OF • PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; : WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY • SUBSIDIARY, LLC, • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW come Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin, who respectfully submit the following to Motion to Make Rule Absolute and in support thereof, aver as follows: 1. On or about January 15, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel discovery responses, together with a Rule to Show Cause concerning said Motion. 1 ORIGINAL 05/1172005.v1 • 2. The basis for Defendants' Motion to Compel discovery responses stems from Interrogatories served upon Plaintiff on November 5, 2013. 3. On January 22, 2014, this Honorable Court issued a Rule on Plaintiff to show cause within 20 days why Defendants were not entitled to the requested relief. 4. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a response and the requisite twenty(20) days have expired. 5. In light of the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request this Court make its January 22, 2014 Rule absolute and grant Defendants' Motion to Compel outstanding discovery responses. 6. Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiffs discovery responses within twenty(20) days. 7. In accordance with Cumberland County Local Rule of Court 208.3 (a) (2), the undersigned certifies that the Honorable Judge Albert Masland previously issued a Rule to Show Cause in this matter. Additionally, the Honorable Judge Albert Masland previously entered the Case Management Order in this matter. 8. In accordance with Cumberland County Local Rule of Court 208.3 (a) (9), the undersigned certifies that they sought concurrence from Plaintiffs counsel regarding this issue and concurrence was not received. 2 05/1172005. 1 WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel on behalf of Defendants respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order making its January 22, 2014 Rule absolute and granting Defendants' Motion to Compel to force the production of full and complete discovery. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: ° /6.e /0/1 Timot y J. cMahon PA Attorney ID #52918 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-3707 Attorneys for Defendants 3 05/1172005.v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan Hepp, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin, do hereby certify that on this /hi day of , 2014, I served a copy of the foregoing i Motion to Make Rule Absolute via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White, LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Susan Hepp 4 05/1172005.v1 s JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. • v. • Docket No. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; • Civil Action—Law • STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR • - = = _•. PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR : ;= PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; r- rxa ;. WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; : And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY : SUBSIDIARY, LLC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED z `,:" Defendants ORDER MAKING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW,this day of February, 2014, Defendants' Motion to Make Rule Absolute is GRANTED; Plaintiff is directed to provide full, complete and verified responses to Defendants' Interrogatories which were served on November 5, 2013, within twenty(20)days hereof. BY THE COURT: J. Distribution List: �-- m .,/f aura K. Peltonen, Esquire -r"liothy J. McMahon, Esquire Burns White LLC Marshall Dennehey Warner 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 Coleman& Goggin 1001 Conshohocken State Road 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants i ES / 1 eat 05/1174292.vl 1 ca 2"S/l 11°11V10 Is N 20111 FEB r1 CUNGERL PENN- ND Cotiffr MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 100 Corporate Center Drive,Suite 201 Camp Hill,PA 17011 717-651-3505;Fax 717-651-3707 Email: tjmcmahon @mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. v. • Docket No. 10-6609 • STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; • Civil Action—Law • STONEMOR HOLDING OF • PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR . PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; : WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; • And WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED • Defendants DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW come Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin, who respectfully submit the following to Motion to Make Rule Absolute and in support thereof, aver as follows: 1. On or about January 15, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel discovery responses, together with a Rule to Show Cause concerning said Motion. 1 ORIGINAL 05/1172005.v1 2. The basis for Defendants' Motion to Compel discovery responses stems from Interrogatories served upon Plaintiff on November 5, 2013. 3. On January 22, 2014,this Honorable Court issued a Rule on Plaintiff to show cause within 20 days why Defendants were not entitled to the requested relief. 4. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a response and the requisite twenty(20) days have expired. 5. In light of the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request this Court make its January 22, 2014 Rule absolute and grant Defendants' Motion to Compel outstanding discovery responses. 6. Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiffs discovery responses within twenty(20) days. 7. In accordance with Cumberland County Local Rule of Court 208.3 (a) (2),the undersigned certifies that the Honorable Judge Albert Masland previously issued a Rule to Show Cause in this matter. Additionally, the Honorable Judge Albert Masland previously entered the Case Management Order in this matter. 8. In accordance with Cumberland County Local Rule of Court 208.3 (a) (9),the undersigned certifies that they sought concurrence from Plaintiffs counsel regarding this issue and concurrence was not received. 2 05/1172005.vl WHEREFORE,the undersigned counsel on behalf of Defendants respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order making its January 22, 2014 Rule absolute and granting Defendants' Motion to Compel to force the production of full and complete discovery. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN DATE: / i Timot y J. cMahon PA Attorney ID #52918 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 651-3505 FAX-(717) 651-3707 Attorneys for Defendants I 3 05/I172005.vl CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan Hepp, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin, do hereby certify that on this /2—day of , 2014, I served a copy of the foregoing i Motion to Make Rule Absolute via First Class United States mail,postage prepaid, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White, LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Susan Hepp 4 05/1172005 v l PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter f�r " 2014 Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON VS. C77!) STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR; PENNSYLVANIA, LLC; STONEMOR; PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; and.WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, No. 10-6609 Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire, Burns White LLC, 100 Four Falls, Suite 515, 1001 Conshohocken State Road, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 (b) for defendants: Timothy J. McMahon, Marshall, Dennehey,Warner, Coleman & Goggin, 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201, Camp Hill, PA 17011. 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: April 4, 2014 Date: '77 10 J)9 Timothy J. McMahon Print your name Attorney for Defendants INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 12 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 5 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. s IccIs cOk D91(Ps° JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. c) STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P., rn (13 STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA, '— STONEMOR OPERATING LLC, STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC, >) STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA : SUBSIDIARY LLC, WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC AND: WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC., DEFENDANTS : 10-6609 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this /ay of August, 2014, upon consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, StoneMor Partners LP, StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania, StoneMor Operating LLC, StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC, StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC, Westminster Cemetery, LLC, and Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, and the response thereto filed by Plaintiff, Jane MacCampbell Norton, briefing by the parties and argument en banc, the Motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part: (1) Defendants' request to have improperly named parties dismissed is DENIED; (2) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is DENIED; (3) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is GRANTED; (4) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is GRANTED; 10-6609 CIVIL TERM (5) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for negligence per se is DENIED; and, (6) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiffs claim for fraud is GRANTED. By the Court, Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire For Plaintiff ✓Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire For Defendants Qop ;Es /72.,�'L. 8 !8Aq Ljan -2- Albert H. Masland, J. JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P., STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA, STONEMOR OPERATING LLC, STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC, STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC, . WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC AND: WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC., DEFENDANTS : 10-6609 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, P.J. AND MASLAND, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., August 18, 2014: -- Before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, StoneMor Partners, L.P., StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania, StoneMor Operating LLC, StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC, StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC, Westminster Cemetery, LLC, and Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, regarding the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, Jane MacCampbell Norton. After briefing by the parties and argument en banc, we will grant in part and deny in part the motion for summary judgment in accordance with the following opinion and order of court. I. Facts In 1931, Plaintiff's grandfather purchased a family burial lot containing eight spaces in Westminster Cemetery. In 1984, the cremated remains of Plaintiffs mother were buried in space four of the family lot. Up until the events giving rise to the instant 10-6609 CIVIL TERM litigation, Plaintiff visited her mother's grave at a minimum of once per year. In January 2010, Plaintiff's aunt, Marian Sweet, passed away. Ms. Sweet's daughters arranged to have her buried in the family plot. Apparently, without the Sweet family's knowledge or permission, Gail Becker, Sales Manager, directed that Ms. Sweet's remains be buried with the cremated remains of Plaintiff's mother. At Ms. Sweet's burial, on April 17, 2010, her daughter, Margo Sweet, noticed that Plaintiff's mother's headstone had been moved and was propped up against a nearby tree. On August 8, 2010, Plaintiff visited Westminster Cemetery to leave flowers at her mother's grave. Upon arrival at the site, she was shocked to see that her mother's grave had been dug up and reseeded in an area that was the correct size for a casket. She feared that her mother's remains had been removed and that her aunt's casket had been buried in their place. Following this discovery, Plaintiff began to seek answers regarding the location of her mother's remains. Plaintiff first contacted her cousin who, on August 9, 2010, contacted Westminster Cemetery to inquire whether the sisters had been mistakenly buried together. Ms. Becker informed her that Ms. Sweet was buried in the correct lot and that Plaintiff's mother was buried in another lot. This information was disturbing to Plaintiff as it made her question whether she had been visiting the wrong gravesite for the last twenty-six years. After receiving this information from her cousin, Plaintiff, distraught, contacted Westminster Cemetery herself. The manager of the Cemetery told her that both her mother and her aunt were cremated and were therefore buried together in the same plot. Again, Plaintiff was shocked by this information as she knew her aunt had not -2- 10-6609 CIVIL TERM been cremated. The manager further insisted that the family lot contained only four burial spaces rather than the eight spaces it actually contained. The next day, the manager contacted Plaintiff and relayed a new version of events. The manager claimed that Plaintiff's cousin had authorized the burial of her mother with Plaintiff's mother. The manager did, however, admit that there were eight spaces in the family lot and that Plaintiff's aunt was not cremated. Two days later, on August 12, 2010, Plaintiff again contacted Westminster Cemetery to inquire about the location of her mother's remains. This time, the manager informed her that her mother was buried in lot one, beside her father. When Plaintiff asked that the area be probed, the manager refused on the basis that they were too busy with new burials. Plaintiff then contacted the Cemetery's corporate parent StoneMor's headquarters but was only able to speak to an administrative assistant. After failing to receive a response from the StoneMor Defendants, Plaintiff was finally contacted by the sales manager. The sales manager claimed Plaintiff's mother was buried in yet another location, in lot four, between her father and sister. Again, this placed Plaintiff in emotional distress as she worried that her mother's urn had been destroyed or even thrown away during the disinterment process. Finally, Jim Lentz, the regional Vice President of StoneMor, contacted Plaintiff and informed her that her mother's remains had been sealed inside her aunt's vault and that it had been done without permission to avoid costly blasting that would be required for a new site. -3- 10-6609 CIVIL TERM After receiving so many conflicting accounts of the location of her mother's remains, Plaintiff demanded to witness a disinterment of the grave. On September 14, 2010, the disinterment revealed that Plaintiff's mother's urn had been placed in her aunt's vault next to the casket. Apparently, Defendants had dug up Plaintiff's mother's grave, removed the urn containing her remains, and stored them during Plaintiff's aunt's funeral without Plaintiffs permission, only to later reinter the remains next to the casket. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Complaint alleging five counts: Intentional infliction of emotional distress, Negligent infliction of emotional distress, Punitive damages, Negligence per se for alleged violations of Title 28 of Pennsylvania Code, and Fraud. 11. Discussion Defendants present six bases for granting summary judgment. They style the questions presented as follows: I. Whether improperly named parties having no involvement in this matter should be dismissed? 11. Whether Plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress? 111. Whether Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth a cognizable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress — therefore making summary judgment proper? IV. Whether Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint, Punitive damages, fails to set forth a cause of action recognized by Pennsylvania law — therefore making summary judgment proper? V. Whether Count IV of Plaintiffs Complaint for violation of Pennsylvania code fails to set forth a cause of action recognized by Pennsylvania law — therefore making summary judgment proper? VI. Whether Plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to support a claim for fraud — therefore making summary judgment proper? Def. Br. at 2-3. -4- 10-6609 CIVIL TERM A. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate when, after the pleadings are closed, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action which could be established by additional discovery. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1035.2. In summary judgment cases, we view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolve all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party. Titeflex Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 88 A.3d 970, 981 (Pa. Super. 2014). However, to avoid summary judgment, the non-moving party must adduce sufficient evidence that a jury could return a verdict in her favor. Id. The failure to so will establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. B. Dismissal of Certain Defendants Defendants argue that of the seven corporate entities named in the Complaint, only two, Stonemor Pennsylvania, LLC, and Stonemor Pennsylvania Subsidiary, have any real involvement in this case. For her part, Plaintiff contends that the involvement of the Stonemor corporate entities in the operation of the Westminster Cemetery remains a triable question of fact. She alleges that employees and officers of the various corporate entities supervise, operate, and manage Westminster Cemetery. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, we conclude that degree of involvement of the various corporate entities in the operation of Westminster Cemetery presents a genuine issue of material fact and we will therefore deny Defendants request for the dismissal of those defendants. -5- 10-6609 CIVIL TERM C. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendants next argue that Plaintiff's claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress must fail as she was not present during the allegedly tortious conduct. To make out a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the tortfeasor must engage in intentional extreme and outrageous conduct that causes severe emotional distress to the plaintiff. Weiley v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 51 A.3d 202, 216 (Pa. Super. 2012). When the outrageous conduct is aimed at a third person, "the person claiming the emotional distress must also establish that he is a member of the victim's immediate family and that he or she was `present at the time' of the tortious conduct." Id. Here, Plaintiff was not physically present during the alleged mishandling of her mother's remains. However, the mishandling of the remains is not the sole basis for her IIED claim. Instead, Plaintiff alleges Defendants' sales manager intentionally misled her in an attempt to cover up the mishandling of the remains by repeatedly giving her false information, ultimately resulting in Plaintiff being forced to view the disinterment and reburial of her mother's remains. Accordingly, Plaintiff was present at the time of Defendants' tortious conduct and her claim for IIED will not be dismissed. D. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendants argue Pennsylvania does not recognize Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) as a valid cause of action and if it did, that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements for that claim. We agree. Similar to third party IIED claims, NIED has a "presence" requirement where the "critical element for establishing such liability is the contemporaneous observation of the -6- 10-6609 CIVIL TERM injury to the close relative." Mazzagatti v. Everingham, 516 A.2d 672, 679 (Pa. 1986). Here, because Plaintiff alleges the sales manager's statements were intentionally false, the only potentially negligent conduct she can complain of relates to the mishandling of her mother's remains, for which she was not present. Accordingly, she has not satisfied the requirements for making out a claim for NIED and therefore, summary judgment on this issue will be granted for Defendants. E. Punitive Damages Defendants next seek summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages as Plaintiff has improperly pled that issue as a separate cause of action. It is well-settled that under Pennsylvania law, "a request for punitive damages does not constitute a cause of action in and of itself." Nix v. Temple Univ. of the Commonwealth System of Higher Ed., 596 A.2d 1132, 1138 (Pa. 1989). For that reason we will grant summary judgment on this issue and dismiss Count III of the Complaint. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts for a jury to award punitive damages and therefore she will not be precluded from seeking such damages at trial. F. Private Cause of Action Defendants seek summary judgment as to Plaintiffs claim for negligence per se based on her assertion that the Title 28 §1.25 of the Pennsylvania Code entitled "Disinterment of dead human bodies" provides her a private cause of action. The Code provides, in relevant part: (a) Permit. No dead human body shall be removed from its place of interment unless a disinterment permit is first secured from a local registrar who is authorized to issue a disinterment permit, according to the following requirements: (1) The funeral director or cemetery official making the application shall present to the local registrar the correct -7- 10-6609 CIVIL TERM name, date of death and cause of death of the body to be disinterred and written consent of next of kin, or appropriate order from a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) No disinterred body shall be reinterred either in the same cemetery or another cemetery located in this Commonwealth unless a burial or removal permit is obtained. (3) Disinterment permits shall be void after the expiration of 72 hours from the date of issue and no disinterment may be made between sunset and sunrise. (4) Disinterment permits shall be delivered to the sexton or other person in charge of burial grounds in which the disinterments are to be made and shall be returned by him to the local registrar of the district where the body is reinterred within 30 days from the date the permit was issued. 28 Pa. Code § 1.25 (emphasis added). Plaintiff argues the regulation requiring the permission of the next of kin was enacted to protect the next of kin from the trauma of visiting the grave site of a loved one and finding the grave had been disturbed. As such, she contends this Code section provides a private cause of action permitting her to bring a negligence per se claim against Defendants for their failure to obtain the permission of the next of kin before disturbing her mother's grave. Defendants respond that statutes and regulations do not automatically give rise to a private cause of action unless the statute expressly or impliedly permits such a private cause of action and that the Code section at issue protects the general public rather than the interest of a group of individuals. We disagree. In order to prove a claim based on negligence per se, the following four requirements must be met: (1) The purpose of the statute must be, at least in part, to protect the interest of a group of individuals, as opposed to the public generally; (2) The statute or regulation must clearly apply to the conduct of the defendant; -8- 10-6609 CIVIL TERM (3) The defendant must violate the statute or regulation; (4) The violation of the statute or regulation must be the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries. Schemberg v. Smicherko, 85 A.3d 1071, 1074 (Pa. Super. 2014) (emphasis added). Defendants rely on the case off Wagner v. Anzon, Inc., 684 A.2d 570 (Pa. Super. 1996) as an exemplar of a situation where a statute did not give rise to a private cause of action. In Wagner, our Superior Court held that a violation of the Philadelphia Air Management Code did not give rise to a negligence per se claim because the purpose of the Code was protect the atmosphere of the city of Philadelphia with concomitant benefits to its inhabitants. Id. at 574-75. The instant case is distinguishable. A review of the relevant language of the Pennsylvania Code relating to the disinterment of human bodies indicates that it was not enacted solely for the benefit of the public at large, but rather for the purpose of protecting the group of individuals represented by the next of kin of deceased persons whose graves may be subject to disinterment. The strict Code requirements regarding the manner of disinterment go beyond mere public health concerns that are relevant to the public at Targe and prescribe a level of solemnity and respect for the human remains aimed at honoring the wishes of the deceased and the emotional well-being of the next of kin. As such, Title 28 §1.25 of the Pennsylvania Code provides a private right of action and Plaintiff may proceed with a negligence per se claim. Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to this claim will be denied. G. Fraud Finally, Defendants seek summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claim for fraud on the basis that she never relied on Defendants' agent's misrepresentations. We agree. -9- 10-6609 CIVIL TERM The essential elements of a cause of action for fraud are: "misrepresentation, a fraudulent utterance thereof, an intention to induce action thereby, justifiable reliance thereon and damage as a proximate result." V -Tech Servs. v. Street, 72 A.3d 270, 275 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis added). Here, it is clear from Plaintiff's deposition testimony that she never believed any of Defendants' sales manager's alleged misrepresentations regarding the status of her mother's remains. Further, she took no action in reliance on those statements. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements for a fraud claim and we will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants on this issue. III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing we reach the following conclusions: (1) Defendants' request to have improperly named parties dismissed is denied; (2) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for IIED is denied; (3) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for NIED is granted; (4) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages is granted; (5) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for negligence per se is denied; and, (6) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiffs claim for fraud is granted. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this /I day of August, 2014, upon consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, StoneMor Partners LP, StoneMor Holding of Pennsylvania, StoneMor Operating LLC, StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC, StoneMor -10- 10-6609 CIVIL TERM Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC, Westminster Cemetery, LLC, and Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, and the response thereto filed by Plaintiff, Jane MacCampbell Norton, briefing by the parties and argument en banc, the Motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part: (1) Defendants' request to have improperly named parties dismissed is DENIED; (2) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is DENIED; (3) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiffs claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is GRANTED; (4) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages is GRANTED; (5) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for negligence per se is DENIED; and, (6) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiffs claim for fraud is GRANTED. By the Court, Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire For Plaintiff Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire For Defendants -11- Albert H. Masland, J. aJ y PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case for a Jury Trial. Jr ' i?0 7,1 n'O T 1014 AUG Pr�� r 2.2 5 CU1f0EL AN PENT`{S yL tpy Aper ! y CAPTION OF CASE jentire caption must be stated in fulll Jane MacCampbell Norton (Plaintiff) (check one) Civil Action — Law Appeal from arbitration ■ n (other) No. 2010-6609 Civil Term vs. Stonemor Partners, LP, Stonemor Holding of The trial list will be called on September 30, 2014 Pennsylvania, Stonemor Operating, LLC, Stonemor Pennsylvania LLC, Stonemor Pennsylvania subsidiary, and LLC, Westminster Cemetery, LLC and Westminster Cemetery subsidiary, LLC (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on vs. October 15, 2014 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials) Trials commence on October 27, 2014 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire for Plaintiffs C r=*i `ter_,. This case is ready for trial. Date: August 15, 2014 Signed: / Print Name: Timothy JlMcMahon Attorney for: Defends is ota f$971A ej.t1 gOctd I I R4 3.IQ 305 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barbara E. Steel, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 15th day of August, 2014, I served a copy of the foregoing Praecipe via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Barbara E. Steel JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V STONEMOR PARTNERS, LP, STONEMOR: CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA, STONEMORE OPERATING, LLC, rnco 00 STONEMOR PENNSYVANIA LLC, = rij STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA : 10-6609 CIVIL TERM r� SUBSIDIARY LLC,WESTMINSTER �`j CEMETARY, LLC and WESTMINSTER c) CEMETARY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, y- c- co IN RE: CALL OF CIVIL TRIAL LIST -C 01 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the call of the civil trial list, and the case having been called for trial by Defendant's counsel, Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire, and Plaintiff's counsel, Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire, having objected to the call on the ground that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's husband both have medical or dental appointments during the week of October 27, 2014, and Defendant's counsel having indicated he would not be available for trial during the December, 2014, Term of Court, and it being further indicated that Plaintiff has been aware of the scheduling of the trial in October since August, 2014, the Plaintiff's request to strike the case from the trial list is denied. By the Court, ✓ Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire For the Plaintiff Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire For the Defendante-ople, .S fi&�9/30/111 :mtf JANE MACCAMPBELL NORTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P. • STONEMOR HOLDINGS OF • PENNSYLVANIA, • STONEMOR OPERATING LLC, • STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC, : STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC, • WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC : AND WESTMINSTER CEMETERY : SUBSIDIARY, LLC, DEFENDANTS : NO. 10-6609 CIVIL IN RE: PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 2014, after pre-trial conference with counsel in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. Trial counsel in this matter will be Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire, for Plaintiff and Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire for Defendants. 2. There is no judicial conflict in this case. Judge Masland held a status conference on this case. 3. Counsel has indicated that the trial will take approximately 4 days. 4. Each party will be granted four peremptory challenges. 5. There is no need for a view in this matter. 6. The parties shall prepare an exhibit list. Two copies of this exhibit list shall be provided to the Court on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October 24, 2014. All visual aids used in the case shall be disclosed to the opposing party. 7. Counsel for each party is directed to file with the Court on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October 24, 2014, a list for proposed voir dire questions. 8. Counsel for each party is directed to file with the Court on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October 24, 2014, a list of the numbered standard jury instructions the party is requesting. If a party is proposing a unique jury instruction or requesting significant modification of a standard instruction, it shall provide the full text of the proposed instruction to the Court. 9. On or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October 24, 2014, the parties will provide a proposed verdict slip to the Court for review. By the Court, Q.---Xj -\\ M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. i Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire c _ Counsel for Plaintiff -03 rnpD c' fl 73 I Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire c�nr Counsel for Defendants ( pr - $PS ,b11s11 ›.(--) bas 1 = • &pies 1146 /e'd /e3/43-y hl°t t 2014 OCT 17 AM 10: 20 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID# 52918 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill,PA 17011 717-651-3505;Fax 717-651-3707 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOCKET NO. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; : CIVIL ACTION—LAW STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR : PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; : WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY • SUBSIDIARY, LLC, • Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF DALE E. PANZER, M.D. 1. Plaintiff has asserted, inter alia., a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Plaintiffs Complaint at Count I, paragraphs 83-89. 2. Pursuant to the Court's Order of September 24, 2013, Plaintiffs expert reports were to be produced not later than January 15, 2014. 1 05/1294894.v 1 ......... .... . 3. On March 28, 2014, Plaintiff, through her counsel, produced a report prepared by Dale E. Panzer, M.D., which report is dated January 31, 2014 and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" 4. In his report at page 1, Dr. Panzer lists the records reviewed and specifies six items as listed therein, presumably to comply with PRE 705. 5. At pages 2 and 3 of his report, Dr. Panzer outlines the bases for his opinions and principally references allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint to support his subsequently expressed opinions. 6. Indeed, the purported "pertinent facts" set forth by Dr. Panzer at pages 2 and 3 of his report are nearly without exception a mere verbatim recitation of the following paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint: 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 44, 47, 49, 54, 55, 59, 64, 66, 67, 70, 73, 75, 77, 79, 80 and 82. 7. Dr. Panzer references a letter dated September 7, 2010 by Margo Sweet (a nonparty) addressed to Mr. Robert Philburn of the Hoffman Roth Funeral Home as well as Plaintiffs letter of October 22, 2010 to John Stewart of the Pennsylvania Cremation Association. 8. Dr. Panzer offers limited references to other materials: Plaintiffs April 19, 2013 deposition testimony and the July 2, 2013 deposition testimony of James Lentz of Stonemor Partners, LP. 9. At pages 4 and 5 of his report, Dr. Panzer sets forth nine enumerated opinions to support his conclusion that Plaintiff was subject to "significant emotional stress", which would reasonably be expected to cause "ongoing anxiety, worry, anger and inner turmoil in most all individuals." 05/1294894 v1 10. There is no mention in Dr. Panzer's report of any information based upon personal examination, evaluation or interview by him of Jane Norton because he has done none. 11. There is no mention in Dr. Panzer's report of his review of and/or reliance upon medical treatment, hospitalization, counseling and/or therapy records pertaining to Jane Norton because Ms. Norton has received no such treatment or medical attention whatsoever. 12. The lone mention of a medical record, if it may be characterized as such, by Dr. Panzer is to the August 13, 2010 telephone call made by Ms. Norton to her primary care physician, Dr. Greene, who then prescribed 15 tablets of Valium at 5 milligrams each, of which Ms. Norton, by her own account, took none. 13. Dr. Panzer's opinions are inadmissible because they are not based upon personal knowledge and neither are they based upon sources of fact or data reasonably relied upon by experts in the field of medical psychiatry as required by PRE 703. 14. Allowing Dr. Panzer to offer expert medical opinion testimony despite the complete absence of any medical or clinical bases for his opinion is improper under PRE 702. 15. Dr. Panzer has no specialized knowledge about Jane Norton whatsoever because there is no medical or clinical information to support his opinions. 16. The question of whether information supporting an expert's opinion is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in a particular field in forming opinions or inferences is a preliminary question for determination by the Trial Court. Papach v. Mercy Suburban Hospital, 205 Pa. Super. 345, 887 A.2d 233 (2005); Woodard v. Chattergee, 203 Pa. Super. 207, 827 A.2d 433 (2003); Allegheny Energy Supply Co. v. County of Greene, 788 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001); and Primavera v. Celotex Corp., 415 Pa. Super 41, 52-53; 608 A.2d 515, 521 (1992), app. denied 533 Pa. 641; 622 A.2d 1374 (1993). 05/1294894 v1 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Motion in Limine and preclude the proffered testimony by Dale E. Panzer, M.D. at trial is this matter. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & ►. 0 GGIN Timothy J. c ;ahon PA Attorney I t #52918 100 Corporate enter Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, P. 17011 (717) 651-3505; Fax: (717) 651-3707 Attorneys for Defendants Dated: 10- /5 -14 05/1294894.v 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy J. McMahon, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 15th day of October, 2014, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine by personal service, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Timothy J. Mc a in 05/1294894 v1 l / 1 )01, a 1111 02:53:37 p.m. 03-28-2014 3/7� Dale E.Panzer, MD 1305 Lafayette Road Gladwyne, PA 19035 610-324-4930 January 31,2014 Laura Peltonen Cries,ESQ Burns White,LLC 100 Four Falls,Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken Sate Rd West Conshohocken,PA 19428 RE: Norton v, Stonemor Partners,L.P.,et.al: Dear Ms.Peltonen, As we discussed;you represent Jane MacCampbell Norton as a plaintiff in this matter. At your request,I undertook a review of the records listed below. Based upon this information you asked me to form an opinion about the stress experienced by Ms_Norton as a result of the disruption and disinterment of her mother's grave site and whether or not it would reasonably be expected for Ms.Norton to experience emotional distress as a result of the actions of the Defendants as described in the 09/12/11 Complaint In Civil Action. This report serves as the findings of my Independent Medical Review of the records listed below. It is my understanding that you discussed my involvement in this matter with your client who was aware that t wi1I be preparing a report to be utilized in this matter and the limits of confidentiality therein.' RECORDS REVIEWED: The following records have been reviewed in this matter: 1) Complaints In Civil Action: Filed 09/12/11 in Cumberland County,Pennsylvania. 2) Contemporaneous notes handwritten Westminster Cemetery employee(s), 3) Deposition Jane MacCampbell Norton: 04/19/13. 4) Deposition James T. Lentz Regional Vice President Stonernor Partners,L.P.: 07/02/13. 5) Letter Margo Sweet: 09/07/10. 6) Letter Jane Norton: 10/22/10. ..=1 111 02:54:18 p . 03-28-2014 4/7, 2 PERTINENT FACTS: On 03/02/84 Kathleen R. MacCampbell passed away. On 03/1-9/84 Ms.Norton and other family members held a gravesite service,which involved placement of the urn belonging to Mats.MacCampbell. For the past 27 years Ms.Norton has faithfully visited Westminster Cemetery andattended to the grave of her mother. Flowers have been placed on her mother's grave at the direction of Ms.Norton twice a year. The family plot was kept neat and attractive,which Ms.Norton a sense of"peace." Ms.Norton visited the cemetery on mother's day and/or her mother's birthday,which allowed her to feel a connection with her deceased mother. In January of 2010,according to the Complaint,Ms.Norton's Aunt,Marian Sweet,passed away. On 08/08/10,Ms.Norton visited Westminster Cemetery and brought flowers to her mother's grave in honor of her mother's birthday expecting to find some peace and comfort in this act. The Complaint goes on to state"Ms.Norton was horrified to discover that her mother's grave had been dug up and reseeded in an area that was the correct size for a casket." Ms.Norton"feared her Aunt was buried in her mother's grave and now wondered as to the location of mother's remains." After contacting Cemetery Manager,Gail Becker,"Ms.Norton was now more distraught as she did not know where her, mother remains would be it'they were not in the plot corresponding to the head stone that she had been visiting for the past 27 years." Ms.Norton tried to keep in contact with the Cemetery Manager who"did not call back until Ms.Norton explained she had not slept since visiting the cemetery,was a wreck,and needed to speak someone right away," After receiving further,information from the Cemetery Manager,"Ms. Norton was again shocked as her Aunt bad not been cremated"and she therefore did not understand information received from the manager. Later on,the Cemetery Manager. indicated Margo Sweet had instructed the burial of her mother with Mrs.MacCampbell. The complaint reports"Ms.Sweet was horrified by this accusation. The sisters were not closed in life and would not have wished to be buried together." The confusion about her mother's actual burial site and other stress related to this matter led Ms.Norton to feel"so upset that on 08/13/10 she contacted her physician who prescribed anti-anxiety medication." Eventually Ms.Norton heard from Jim,Lentz,Regional Vice President for StoneMor. The Complaint states that he informed Ms.Norton that her mother's urn had been sealed inside her Aunt's vault and admitted that it had been done without permission. The Complaint goes on to state"Ms.Norton was horrified that Westminster disinterred her mother's remains without het permission and did not have the decency to return the remains to their original resting place." She"continued to have trouble sleeping and experienced anxiety and 02'55,14 p.m. 03-28-2014 517 ..1111 3 headaches," Eventually,on 09/14/10,Ms.Norton witnessed the disinterment of her Aunt and mother. As a result of these events it became obvious"the defendants had disturbed Ms. MacCampbell's grave,unearthed the remains,and stored the remains during the funeral of Ms. Sweet all without the permission of the next of kin as required by regulation." The complaint continues"per the work order,the groundskeeper stored the urn containing the remains of Ms. MacCampbell in one of Westminster's trucks,While Ms. Sweet was buried." It was further stated"upon hearing this,Ms.NOrton immediately had the horrible vision of the urn being thrown into the back of a truck and jostled around while the truck was being used for various other purposes,and has had numerous nightmares about it ever since," Ms.Norton visited her mother's grave in November of 2010, "Instead,of finding peace she found renewed distress as her mother's headstone was still leaning up against a tree. The graves site itself had large cracks,was sunken and covered with only a very sparse amount of grass." While"this spring Ms. Norton finally found her mother's grave in acceptable condition,however,visiting her mother's grave in Westminster Cemetery now conjures up images of disinterment,anger and anxiety rather than peace," Lastly,it is stated,"to date,Ms. Norton continues to experience severe emotional distress and can no longer visit her mother's grave without horrible flashbacks." In contemporaneous notes from an employee at Westminster Cemetery it is documented on 08/17/10"spoke to Ms.Norton- v(very)upset over this. Oail lies. No one ever contact her RE: Mother's ashes being moved." The deposition of Jane IvlacCampbell Norton on 04/19/13 indicates Ms.Norton contacted her physician on August 13'h (2010),who prescribed anti-anxiety medication as per her Complaint M .Nut lull also effirrned that she receiVd a plegciiiition for 5 frig Whim tablets with a total of 15 prescribed and that she did not have a prescription for Valium prior to August 13'h. Her physician, Dr. Greene,did not see her in person in the context of this prescription(PP.54-55). In deposition,Ms.Norton stated,"I was just flabbergasted. It was just unbelievable", upon learning from Mr.Lentz on 08/17/10 that her"mother's urn had been placed inside the vault that contained your Aunt Marian's casket." (PP.56-57). Later on,Ms. Norton indicated it was"extremely offensive"when she saw,as per her Complaint,that her mother's memorial marker was"leaning against a tree." (P.77). A letter from Margo Sweet dated 09/07/10 addressed to Mrs.Robert Philburn of Hoffman Roth Funeral Home stated,"it is a very distressing situation for our family,"in reference to the events described in the Complaint in this matter. A letter dated 10/22/10 from Ms.Norton addressed to Mr.Stewart stated, "all of this has caused my three cousins and myself a tremendous amount of upset and the fact that no one has even attempted to apologize is appalling." O25612 p.m. 03-28-2014 6/7_ _1111 • 4 OPINIONS: Based upon my review of the records noted above,the events described in the 09/12/11 Complaint surrounding the disruption of Ms.Norton's mother's gravesite,misinformation she received about the location of her mother's remains and eventual witnessed disinterment of these remains,together represents a significant emotional stress for Ms.Norton. This cumulative stress would reasonably be expected to cause ongoing anxiety,worry,anger and inner turmoil in most all individuals for several reasons: 1) The gravesite of a deceased loved one is a place where an individual commonly,as in this case,develops an etnotionaUpsychological connection(cathexis)with the remembrance of a loved one. A gravesite has an important symbolic emotional meaning that commonly represents a place of comfort and peace,as alleged in,this Complaint,for someone to feel connected again to their loved one. The sense ofloss one experiences for a parent is commonly an ongoing source of emotional discomfort for the remainder of one's lifetime. While grieving the loss of a loved one is quite difficult,customs and routines help individuals cope with loss. Ms.Norton had faithfully visited,according to the 09/12/11 Complaint,her mother's grave site for a period of over 27 years and had taken a sustained interest in maintaining the conditions of her mother's gravesite as exemplified by her regularly having flowers planted there. Disrupting the gravesite is akin to disrupting the peaceful emotional connection that Ms.Norton reportedly felt when visiting her mother's gravesite or when she sent flowers to be planted there. Thus,I would reasonably expect,in almost any individual,inner emotional turmoil to occur due to the disruption of a loved one's grave site; especially a grave site that represented a long standing place of inner peace and comfort as in this case. 2) As reported in the 09/12/11 Complaint,Mrs.Norton was told inaccurate information by the cemetery and its corporate representatives when she asked about the disruption rifler mother's gravesite. This would only further compound the emotional distress that she already experienced because it would reasonably lead her to feel quite angry that the individuals and corporations responsible for maintaining her mother's remains had not acted fulfilled their obligation. 3) The uncertainty about the location of het mother's actual urn also reasonably further heightened Ms.Norton's emotional distress, Anxiety is often caused by uncertainty. Not knowing the actual site of their mother's remains would be highly distressing to most people. 4) Evcn when people have well grieved the loss of a loved one,they are still vulnerable to experiencing feelings of less when thinking of them. Such uncertainty in her mother's whereabouts reasonably disrupted the peaceful connection she had when thinking about her mother's gravesite since the longstanding tranquil picture in her mind about her mother's burial site was replaced with reportedly"horrifying" thoughts of her mother's newly disturbed gravesite. 1111 02:57:10 p.m. 03-28-2014 7 5 5) Witnessing the disinterment of her mother's remains and her Aunt's casket wouldbe reasonably stressful for any individual. Experiencing this stress placed an additional emotional burden on Ms.Norton during this difficult time. 6) The reported increased family tension with her cousin,Ms. Sweet,over how to best manage this situation was another emotional burden for Ms.Norton:_ 7) Evidence reported in her 04/19/13 depositionthat physician,Dr. Greene,responded to Ms.Norton's phone contact by prescribing Valium 5 mg tablets is further evidence of the significant emotional stress Ms.Norton experienced surrounding'the events reported in the 09/12/11'Complaint.`Ms.Norton reported in deposition she had not had a prior prescription for Valium. 8) The contemporaneous 07/17/10 note referenced above indicates Ms.Norton was "upset"over these events. In addition the 09/07/10 letter of1VIargo Sweet confirnis her perspective that it was a distressing situationfor"our family." 9) Therefore,at no fault of her own,Ms.Norton experiences significant emotional strain that has led to the emotional complaints cited in the 09/12/11 Complaint. I hold these opinions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and reserve the right to change my opinions should new information be made available to me. Dale E.Panzer,MD Board Certified Psychiatrist#4530.1 Active Member,American Psychoanalytic Association LEU ' rrk. THE P iO T HONG iAR 2014OCT 17 AM IC: 20 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN CUMBERLAND COUNTY By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PENNSYLVANIA PA Attorney ID#52918 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill,PA 17011 717-651-3505;Fax 717-651-3707 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOCKET NO. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; : CIVIL ACTION—LAW STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; : WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY • SUBSIDIARY, LLC, : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANTS TO PRECLUDE HEARSAY STATEMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF 1. This matter is scheduled for a jury trial to commence on Monday, October 27, 2014. 2. On or about October 10, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a Pre-Trial Memorandum. Within Plaintiffs Pre-Trial Memorandum, Plaintiff alleges that Gail Becker, a Sales Manager of Westminster Cemetery, provided Plaintiff with conflicting information regarding her mother's remains and her aunt's burial. See page 2 of Plaintiffs Pre-Trial Memorandum. 3. Furthermore, Plaintiffs Complaint sets forth a number of allegations based upon alleged conversations between Plaintiff and Gail Becker, as well Plaintiffs cousin, Margo Sweet, and Gail Becker. 05/1295569 vl 4. Ms. Gail Becker is deceased,having passed away on January 25, 2011. 5. Defendants expect that Plaintiff may seek to testify about conversations described in her Complaint as follows: • On August 9, 2010, conversation between Margo Sweet(Plaintiffs cousin), and Gail Becker as alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint in paragraphs 41 and 42. • On August 9, 2010, conversation between Plaintiff and Gail Becker as alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint in paragraphs 48 —52. • On August 10, 2010, conversation between Plaintiff and Gail Becker as alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint in paragraphs 53 and 54. • On August 12, 2010, conversation between Plaintiff and Gail Becker as alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint in paragraphs 57. • On August 13, 2010, conversation between Plaintiff and Gail Becker as alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint at paragraphs 61 and 62. 6. Plaintiffs Pre-Trial Memorandum further contains a list of proposed exhibits where Plaintiff claims that the exhibits are admissible under Pennsylvania law. A list of exhibits includes a number of written documents which are hearsay: • Exhibit#7, August 25, 2010 email from Margo Sweet to Jane Norton • Exhibit#9, August 31, 2010 letter from Marion Sweet to Virginia Weller • Exhibit #18, Sept. 7, 2010 letter from Margo Sweet to Robert Filburn • Exhibit#22, Sept. 7, 2010 email correspondence between Margo Sweet and Robert Filburn • Exhibit#23, Sept. 7, 2010 fax from Margo Sweet to Robert Filburn • Exhibit#27, May 9, 2010 letter from Margo Sweet to Gail Becker • Exhibit #56, August 30, 2012 letter from Donna Garland 7. The above-referenced statements or correspondence constitute inadmissible hearsay statements under the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. 2 05/1295569.v 1 8. As discussed more fully in Defendants' Brief in Support of this Motion, the alleged statements made by Decedent Gail Becker lack the appropriate "indicia of reliability" required by the appellate courts of Pennsylvania. See Mecca v. Lukasik, 530 A.2d 1334 (Pa. Super. 1987) (affirming trial court's refusal to permit statement allegedly made by decedent because it lacked indicia of reliability and was not capable of cross examination). 9. Additionally, the documentation listed in Plaintiffs Pre-Trial Memorandum constitutes hearsay with no applicable exception. See PRE 801-804. 10. Additionally, certain Exhibits, specifically Exhibits 7, 9, 18, 22, 23, 27 and 56, listed in Plaintiffs Pre-Trial Memorandum, constitute hearsay items concerning which there is no applicable exception to the hearsay prohibition. See PRE 801-804. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant the above Motion in Limine and enter an Order precluding introduction of the hearsay statements and/or letters from evidence at trial in this matter. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY,WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Timothy J. fcMahon PA Attorne ID #52918 100 Corpo r.to Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill PA 17011 (717) 651-3505; Fax: (717) 651-3707 Attorneys for Defendants Dated: October 15, 2014 3 05/1295569.vl CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy J. McMahon, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 15th day of October, 2014, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine via personal service, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Timothy J. Mc ahon 4 05/1295569.vl . 1" I t-;t�L 7-,_.^,-ce ir C Ttl L iriO O T FAY 1�t n''' 3' OCT 1 7 AM 10: 20 CUM3ERL AND COUNTY ELNNSYLVANiA MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN By: Timothy J.McMahon,Esquire PA Attorney ID#52918 100 Corporate Center Drive,Suite 201 Camp Hill,PA 17011 717-651-3505;Fax 717-651-3707 Email: tjmcmahon@mdwcg.com Attorney for Defendants JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOCKET NO. 10-6609 STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; : CIVIL ACTION—LAW STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR • OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR • PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; : WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY • SUBSIDIARY, LLC, • Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANTS TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE ALLEGED LIABILITY GENERALLY AND TO THE FINANCIAL ASSETS OF CERTAIN SPECIFIC DEFENDANTS: STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA, STONEMOR OPERATING, LLC, WESTMINSTER CEMETERY* LLC, AND WESTMINSTER SUBSIDIARY, LLC 1. This matter is scheduled for a jury trial to begin on Monday, October 27, 2014. 2. On or about October 10, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a pre-trial memorandum. 3. In Section 2 of Plaintiffs pre-trial memorandum titled, "Principal Issues of Liability and Damages," Plaintiff states an intention to "introduce evidence of Defendants' finances into evidence in support of her claim for punitive damages." 05/1295470.v1 a 4. Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania, Stonemor Operating, LLC, Westminster Cemetery, LLC and Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC (hereinafter "Moving Defendants") through their Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint have made it clear that they had and have no role whatsoever in the ownership and/or control of Westminster Cemetery at any time relevant to the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint. 5. Moving Defendants have reiterated their non-involvement throughout the course of this litigation, and through their respective discovery responses. 6. During the course of discovery, Plaintiff has not established any evidence to controvert the denials of ownership and/or control by Moving Defendants. 7. Consistent with their Answer and Discovery Responses, which substantiate their lack of ownership and/or control in Westminster Cemetery and/or the events otherwise alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint, Moving Defendants submit the following Motion in Limine and supportive Brief to preclude evidence of their alleged liability generally and specifically to preclude the admission of the financial assets of the following Moving Defendants: • Stonemor Holding Of Pennsylvania • Stonemor Operating, LLC • Westminster Cemetery, LLC • Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania 8. Named Defendant Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania specifically denied that it owned, operated, supervised, controlled, and/or maintained a cemetery which conducted business in Cumberland County as alleged. See Answer with New Matter, paragraphs 7 and 8. 2 05/1295470.v1 9. Throughout discovery, and in particular, in Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Documents as well Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories (Set 2), Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania stated that it had no documentation whatsoever related to the subject cemetery. 10. For the reasons set forth above, together with those set forth at length in the Supporting Brief, Plaintiff should be precluded from presenting evidence at trial concerning the alleged liability of Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania as well as specifically precluding Plaintiff from offering into evidence at trial any information related to the financial assets of Stonemor Holding of Pennsylvania. Stonemor Operating, LLC 11. Named Defendant Stonemor Operating, LLC specifically denied that it owned, operated, supervised, controlled, and/or maintained a cemetery which conducted business in Cumberland County as alleged. See Answer with New Matter, paragraphs 5 and 6. 12. Throughout discovery, and in particular, in Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Documents as well Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories (Set 2), Stonemor Operating, LLC stated that it had no documentation whatsoever related to the subject cemetery. 13. For the reasons set forth above, together with those set forth in the Supporting Brief, Plaintiff should be precluded from presenting any evidence concerning the alleged liability of Defendant Stonemor Operating, LLC and specifically from offering any evidence at trial related to the financial assets of Stonemor Operating, LLC. 3 05/1295470.v1 Westminster Cemetery, LLC 14. Named Defendant Westminster Cemetery, LLC, within the Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint, denied that it was engaged in the business of owning, operating, or managing cemeteries, including the subject cemetery. See paragraph 14 of Answer with New Matter. 15. Additionally, Westminster Cemetery, LLC stated that it no longer was in existence as of July 31, 2009. This is well before the April 2010 co-burial of Marian Sweet's casketed remains and the cremated remains of Kathleen MacCampbell as described in Plaintiffs Complaint. See paragraph 13 of Defendants' Answer with New Matter. 16. Westminster Cemetery, LLC reiterated its lack of involvement and existence throughout discovery and specifically within its responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents (Sets 1 and 2) as well as Plaintiffs Interrogatories. 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A," please find a Certificate of Merger with a Plan of Merger filed with the Corporations Bureau which definitively proves that Westminster Cemetery, LLC no longer exists. Note paragraphs 2 and 6 of the Plan of Merger setting forth as provided by Pennsylvania law that upon the merger, the separate existence and limited liability company organization of Westminster Cemetery, LLC ceased to exist. 18. For the reasons set forth above, together with the reasons set forth in the Supporting Brief, Plaintiff should be precluded from offering evidence at trial concerning the alleged liability of Westminster Cemetery, LLC generally and precluded specifically from offering evidence at trial pertaining to the financial assets of Westminster Cemetery, LLC. 4 05/1295470.v1 Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC 19. Named Defendant Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC, within the Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint, denied that it was engaged in the business of owning, operating, or managing cemeteries, including the subject cemetery. See paragraph 16 of Answer with New Matter. 20. Additionally, Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC stated that it was no longer in existence as of December 31, 2008. This is well before the April 2010 co-burial of the casketed remains of Marian Sweet with the previously cremated remains of Kathleen MacCampbell in April of 2010. See paragraph 15 of Defendants' Answer with New Matter. 21. Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC reiterated its lack of involvement and existence throughout discovery and in particular, specifically within its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents and Objections and Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories (Set 2). 22. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B," please find a Certificate of Merger with attached Plan of Merger filed with the Corporations Bureau which definitively proves that Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC no longer exists. Note paragraphs 2 and 6 of the Plan of Merger setting forth as provided by Pennsylvania law that upon the merger, the separate existence and limited liability company organization of Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC ceased to exist. 23. For the reasons set forth above, together with those set forth in the Supporting Brief, Plaintiff should be precluded from offering evidence at trial information concerning the alleged liability of Westminster Subsidiary, LLC generally, and specifically precluded from 5 05/1295470.v 1 • offering information pertaining to the financial assets of Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary, LLC. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant the above motion in limine and enter an order precluding Plaintiff from presenting into evidence at trial any evidence related to the assets of the non-involved entities. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & OGGIN *if/ Timothy M As • PA Attorney 'D • 2918 100 Corpor.,- Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hil 'A 17011 (717) 65 505; Fax: (717) 651-3707 Attorne for Defendants Dated: October 15, 2014 6 05/1295470.v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy J. McMahon, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 15th day of October, 2014, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine via First Class United States mail, by personal service, as follows: Laura K. Peltonen, Esquire Burns White LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 j Timothy J. M% ahon 7 05/1295470 v1 f Di EXHIBIT "A" Entity#:3213643 • Date Filed:07/24/2009 Effective Date:07/31/2009 Pedro A.Cortés Secretary of the Commonwealth PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE CORPORATION BUREAU Certificate of Merger or Consolidation Limited Liability Company (15 Pa.C,S.§8958) Document will be returned to the name and address you enter to the left. Corporation Service Company Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Fee: $150 plus$40 additional foreach party ARTICLES MERGER/CONSOLIDATION-ALL TYPES 16 Page(s) ' I to addition to two 111111111111111111111 7 7092081100 In compliance with the requirements of the 15 Pa.C,S.§8958(relating to articles of merger or consolidation),the undersigned. limited liability company(s),desiring to effect a merger or consolidation,hereby state that: I.The name of the Limited liability company surviving the merger or consolidation is: J.V. Walker LLC 2. Check and complete one of the following: [Z The surviving limited liability company is a domestic limited liability company and the(a)address of its current registered office in this Commonwealth or(b)name of its commercial registeredoffice provider and the county of venue is(the Department is hereby authorized to correct the following information to conform to the records of the Department): (a)Number and Street City State Zip County (b)Name of Commercial.Registered Office Provider County do: Corporation Service Company The surviving limited liability company is a qualified foreign limited liability company formed under the laws of and the(a)address of its current registered office in this Commonwealth or(b)name of its commercial registered office provider and the county avenue is(the Department is hereby authorized to correct the following information to conform to the records of the Department): (a)Number and Street City State Zip County (b)Name of Commercial Registered Office Provider County do: The surviving limited liability company is a nonqualified foreign limited liability company formed under the laws of and the address of its principal office under the laws of such domiciliary jurisdiction is: Number and Street City State Zip 2009 JUL 24 PM k 22 PA DEPT OF STATE • DSCB:15-8958-2 3. The name and the address of the current registered office in this Commonwealth or name of its commercial registered office provider and the county of venue of each other domestic limited liability company and qualified foreign limited liability company which is a party to the plan of merger or consolidation are as follows: Name Registered Office Address Commercial Registered Office Provider County Reelfnrfj ('n»nty-Memorial Park LLr Cin Crarpr tion Ce"d CQupany fauphn Blue Ridge Memorial Gardens LLC c/o Corporation Service Company Dauphin Chartiers Cemetery LLC c/o Corporation Service Company Dauphin (3 continued on next page 2A) 4. Check,and if appropriate complete,one of the following: ❑ Theplan of merger or consolidation shall be effective upon filing these Articles of Merger in the Department of State. fa The plan of merger or consolidation shall be effective on:7/31/09at 11:59, Date Hour 5. The manner in which the plan of merger or consolidation was adopted by each domestic limited liability company is as follows: Name of Limited Liability Company Manner of Adoption Adopted by the sole member and all J.V. Walker LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. Section 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all Bedford County Memorial Park. LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S, Section 8957(8) (5 continued on attached page 28) 6. Strike out this paragraph if no foreign limited liability company is a party to the merger or consolidation: Asefiargnxaxax "►ssd viepledouxsppcontelfastium rexnapbeyl�Auxfa di i8odk ins}teito iEexx sitAgc theciameiglvdirtheddiabililveompatineOpazisydodboxplanivaccoxelanactmitthAkaAamisoithequoisclictionciroodziebaitis. ENgdttiec 7. Check and if appropriate complete,one of the following: LZ The plan of merger or consolidation is set forth in full in Exhibit A attached,hereto and made a part hereof. El Pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S.§8958(b)(relating to omission of certain:provisions of plan of merger or consolidation)the provisions,if any,of the plan of merger or consolidationthat amend or constitute the operative Certificate of Organization of the surviving limited liability company as in effect subsequent to the effective date of the plan are set forth in full in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. The full text of the plan of merger or consolidation is on file at the principal place of business of the surviving limited liability company;the address of which is: Number and street City State Zip County DSCB: l5-8958-2A 3 (continued). The name and the name of its commercial registered office provider and the county of venue of each other domestic limited liability company which is a party to the plan of merger are as follows: Commercial Registered Name Office Provider County Green Lawn Memorial Park LLC do Corporation Service Company Dauphin Melrose Land LLC c/o Corporation Service Company Dauphin Mount Lebanon Cemetery LLC do Corporation Service Company Dauphin Prospect Hill Cemetery LLC c/a Corporation Service Company Dauphin Riverside Cemetery LLC c/o Corporation Service Company Dauphin Riverview Memorial Gardens LLC do Corporation Service Company Dauphin StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC do Corporation Service Company Dauphin The Prospect Cemetery LLC do Corporation Service Company Dauphin Tri-County Memorial Gardens LLC c/o Corporation Service Company Dauphin Twin Hills Memorial Park and Mausoleum LLC c/o Corporation Service Company Dauphin Westminster Cemetery LLC do Corporation Service Company Dauphin Woodlawn Memorial Gardens LLC c/o Corporation Service Company Dauphin 109495.00100/11853426v.1 DSCB: I 5-8958-2B 5 (continued). The manner in which the plan of merger was adopted by each domestic limited liability company is as follows: Name of limited liability company Manner of Adoption Adopted by the sole member and all Blue Ridge Memorial Gardens LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all. Chartiers Cemetery LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. § 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all Green Lawn Memorial Park LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. 4 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all Melrose Land LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. 4 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all Mount Lebanon Cemetery LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. §8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all Prospect Hill Cemetery LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. §8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all Riverside Cemetery LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. 4 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all Riverview Memorial Gardens LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. 4 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. § 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all The Prospect Cemetery LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. § 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all Tri-County Memorial Gardens LLC manners pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all Twin Hills Memorial Park and Mausoleum LLC managers pursuant tn15 Pa.C.S. 8957(0 Adopted by the sole member and ail Westminster Cemetery LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. 4 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member and all Woodlawn Memorial Gardens LLC managers pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. §8957(g) 109495.00100/11853426v-I • DSCB: 15-8958-3 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,the undersigned limited. liability company has caused this Certificate of Merger or Consolidation to be signed by a duly authorized member or manager thereof this 24th day of July ,2009. J.V. Walker LIC Name of Limited lability Comp Signature Michael L. Stache,President Title Bedford County Memorial.Park LLC • Name.of Limited Liability. Company V /1 . Signature Michael L. Stache,President Title (signatures continued on next 2 pages) • ' I I ' DSCB: 15-8958-3 (continued) . IN TESTI.MONY WHEREOF, the undersigned limited liability companies have caused this Certificate of Merger to be signed by an officer duly authorized by the member or managers thereof this 24`h day of July, 2009. Blue Ridge Memorial Gardens LLC Chartiers Cemetery LLC Name off Limited Liability Company Name of Limited Liability Company .' ...e ee.........74 Z ....) Signature Michael L. Stache Signature—Michael L. Stache. President President Title Title Green Lawn Memorial.Park LLC Melrose Land LLC Name of Limited LiabilityCorn any Name of Limited Liability Company A. --/ '2..,41;se__— _, : ;,,jf--) Signatur Michae L. Stache ` Signature—Michael L. Stac,e President President Title Title Mount Lebanon Cemetery LLC Prospect Hill Cemetery LLC Name of Limited Liability Company Name of Limited Liability Company ..e.i??.___, ... Z (1.-17 .-7. . .4' ..) Signatur�Michael L. Stache Signature Michael L. Stache I President President Title Title Riverview Memorial Gardens LLC Riverside Cemetery LLC Name of Limited Liability Company / Name of Limited Liability Company (12 -Ir....4-, • -6"-i......,0) .c..1---, -.) Signatur -Michael L. Stache Signator —Michael L. Stache President President Title Title (signatures continued on next page) 109495.00100/11853421v.i DSCB: 15-8958-3 (continued) IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,the undersigned limited liability companies have caused this Certificate of Merger to be signed by an officer duly authorized by the member or managers thereof this 24th day of July,2009. StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC The Prospect Cemetery LLC Name of Limited Liability Company Name of Limited Liability Company .."s"----,2 -4--6/..) (......Z, .' Signatur Michael L. Stache Signa re—Michael L. tache President President Title Title Tri-County Memorial Gardens LLC Westminster Cemetery LLC Name of Limited Liability Company Name of Limited Liability Company __ Z / / oma- - ("---,f9"24,2,—,... - .,_ Si naturr —Michael L. Stache Signature ature -Michael L. Stache President President Title Title Woodlawn Memorial Gardens LLC Name of Limited Liability Company Signature 4ichael L.Stache President Title Twin Hills Memorial Park and Mausoleum LLC Name of Limited Liabilit Company Signatu Michael L. Stache 109495.00100/11853421x.1 i PLAN OF MERGER AMONG THE ENTITIES LISTED IN THE "MERGING ENTITIES"COLUMN ON EXHIBIT A HERETO This Plan of Merger dated as of the 20th day of July, 2009, is entered into by and between J.V. Walker LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company (herein called the "Surviving Company"), and the other entities listed in the"Merging Entities"column on Exhibit A hereto, all Pennsylvania limited liability companies, (herein collectively called the "Merging Companies"). BACKGROUND A. The Surviving Company was duly formed and organized and remains subsisting and existing as a limited liability company under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Merging Companies were duly formed and organized and remain subsisting and existing as limited liability companies under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. B. The Merging Companies are wholly owned direct subsidiaries of StoneMor Operating LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as noted on Exhibit A hereto. The Surviving Company is also a wholly owned direct subsidiary of StoneMor Operating.LLC as noted on Exhibit A hereto. StoneMor Operating LLC is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of StoneMor Partners L.P.,a Delaware limited partnership. C. The parties to this Plan of Merger, in consideration of the mutual agreements of each party as set forth herein, deem it advisable and generally for the welfare and benefit and in the best interests of the said parties, that the Merging Companies merge with and into the Surviving Company under and pursuant to the terms and conditions herein set forth (the "Merger"). NOW THEREFORE, the parties to this Plan of Merger, by their duly authorized undersigned Officers, as authorized, approved and directed by their sole Member and Boards of Managers, in consideration of the mutual covenants,agreements and provisions herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, and intending to be legally bound, dohereby agree uponand prescribe the terms and conditions of the Merger and the mode of carrying them into effect,as follows: 1. This Plan of Merger and the Merger shall become effective at 11:59 p.m.on July. 31, 2009 (the"effective time of the Merger") upon compliance with the ding ofa certificate or articles of merger and this Plan of Merger with the'Pennsylvania Department of State at or prior to the effective time of the Merger in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company Law of 1994,as amended. 2. At the effective time of the Merger,the Merging Companies shall be merged with and into the Surviving Company in accordance with the provisions of applicable law and the terms and conditions of this Plan of Merger, and thereupon, the separate existence of the Exhibit A 109495.00100/11917857v.1 Merging Companies shall cease except insofar as any of them may be continued by law, and the Surviving Company shall continue to exist as the sole surviving entity hereunder. 3. The Certificate of Organization, as previously amended, of the Surviving Company as in effect immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger, as the same hereby is amended as of the effective time of the Merger as set forth in the Amended Certificate Of Organization attached as Annex A hereto and incorporated herein by reference (changing the name of the Surviving Company to StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC), shall continue in full force and effect as the Certificate of Organization,;as previously amended and as amended thereby,of the Surviving Company after the Merger untilthe sameshall thereafter be duly amended in accordance with law by the Surviving Company. 4. The Operating Agreement of the Surviving Company as in effect immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger shall continue in full force and effect as the Operating Agreement of the Surviving Company after the Merger until the same shall thereafter be duly amended in accordance with law and the Operating Agreementby the Surviving Company. S. • The Managers and Officers of the Surviving Company inoffice immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger shall not be changed by reason of the Merger and shall be and remain the Managers and Officers after the Merger until the end of the respective terms for which they were elected or appointed,and until their respective successors are elected or appointed and qualified, subject to death, resignation, removal or such other changes as may otherwise occur in accordance with the Operating Agreement of the Surviving Company or law. 6. Upon the Merger becoming effective, the separate existence and limited liability company organization of each of the Merging Companiesshallcease except insofar as any of them may he continued by law, and thereupon the Surviving Company and the Merging Companies shall be merged with and into a single surviving entity as the Surviving Company, and all the property, rights, powers, privileges, immunities, purposes, franchises, patents, trademarks, licenses, registrations and other assets of every kind and description of each of the • Merging Companies shall be transferred to,vested in and devolve upon the Surviving Company withoutfurther act or deed, and all such property,rights and every other interest of the.;Surviving Company and each of the Merging Companiesshall be as effectively the property of the Surviving Company as they were before the Merger of the Surviving Company and each of the Merging Companies respectively,and shall not revert or be in any way impaired by reason of the. Merger. Each of the Merging Companies hereby agrees, from time to time, as and when requested by the Surviving Company,or by its successors and assigns, to execute and deliver,or cause to he executed and delivered, all such deeds and instruments, arid to take, or cause to be taken,such further or other action as the Surviving Company, or its successors and':aSsigns, may deem necessary or desirable in order to vest in and confirm to the Surviving Company, or its. successors and assigns, title to and possession of any property of any of the Merging Companies acquired or .to be acquired by reason of, or as a result of, the Merger herein provided and otherwise to carry out the intent and purposes hereof, and any of the proper Officers and/or Managers of each of the Merging Companies, and any of the proper Officers and Managers of the Surviving Company in the name of any of the Merging Companies or otherwise, are fully authorized to take any and all such action. All rights of creditors and all liens upon the property of any of the entities party hereto shall be preserved unimpaired, and all debts, liabilities, -2- 109495.00100/11917857v.1 • obligations, restrictions and duties of each of the Merging Companies shall thenceforth attach to the Surviving Company and may be enforced against it to the same extent as if said debts, liabilities,obligations, restrictions and duties had been incurred or contracted by it. 7. The manner of and the basis for converting the outstanding units of membership interests of the Merging Companies into units,rights or securities of or interests in the Surviving Company, and the mode for carrying into effect the Merger contemplated hereby, shall be that, given that, as set forth above, the Surviving Company and the Merging Companies are each a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of StoneMor Partners L.P. and a wholly owned direct subsidiary of StoneMor Operating LLC, upon the effective time of the Merger, all issued and outstanding units of membership interests of the Merging Companies shall be cancelled and nothing shall beissued in exchange therefor. None of the units, rights, securities of or interests in the Surviving Company issued and outstanding at the effective time of the Merger shall be converted or exchanged as a resultof the Merger, but all of such shall remain authorized, issued and outstanding units, rights, securities of or interests in the Surviving Company, as the same presently exist or as may exist immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger. 8. This Plan of Merger may be amended by the mutual agreement of the.respective Boards of Managers and Member of the entities which are a party heretoat any time prior to the effective time of the Merger. This Plan of Merger may be terminated by the Board of Managers and sole Member of the Surviving Company at any time prior to the effective time of the Merger. Any of the Merging Companies by action of its Board of Managers and its sole Member may withdraw from this Plan of Merger at any time prior to the effective time of the Merger, thereby terminating this Plan of Merger. If a certificate or articles of merger with respect to the Merger have been filed, but not yet accepted or effective, in the Pennsylvania Department of State prior to any such amendment or termination, a statement of amendment or termination of the certificate or articles of merger and this Plan of Merger shall be filedwith the Department of State prior to the effective time of the Merger in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company Law of 1994,as amended. 9. The President, any Vice President, the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary of each entity which is a party hereto, is hereby authorized .and directed, before and after the effective time of the Merger, to perform all such further acts, and execute any and all agreements, papers and documents, arising from, in connection with or relating to the Merger contemplated or intended by this Plan of Merger as any of them shall,.in his sole discretion, deem advisable, and to deliver the same, including,but not limited to, such certificates, articles, statements and other documents as may be required by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or any other jurisdiction toeffectuate the Merger or any provision of the Plan.of Merger, and to cause any of the same to be filed in the manner provided by law. 10. . This Plan of Merger shall be governed by and construed in all respects in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. -3- 109495.00100/11917857v.1 3_109495.00100/119178571.l 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Plan of Merger to be executed by their respective Officers duly authorized as of the date first set forth above. J.V. Walker LLC, Surviving Company j, BY: s----747 –,./...—./ -.-/ Name: Mi ael L. Stache. Title: President Bedford County Memorial Park LLC, Blue Ridge Memorial Gardens LLC, Chartiers Cemetery LLC, Green Lawn Memorial.Park LLC, Melrose Land LLC, Mount Lebanon Cemetery LLC, Prospect Hill Cemetery LLC, Riverside Cemetery LLC, Riverview Memorial Gardens LLC, StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC; The Prospect Cemetery LLC, Tri-County Memorial Gardens LLC, Twin Hills Memorial Park and Mausoleum LLC, Westminster Cemetery LLC and Woodland Memorial Gardens LLC, Merging Companies By:: . ., .411 Name:Michael L.Stache Title:President -4 109495.00100/t 1917857v.I Exhibit A Merging Entity Sole.;Member Bedford County Memorial Park LLC StoneMor Operating.LLC Blue Ridge Memorial Gardens LLC StoneMor Operating LLC Chartiers Cemetery LLC StoneMor Operating LLC Green Lawn Memorial Park LLC StoneMor Operating LLC J.U. Walker LLC StoneMor Operating LLC Melrose Land LLC StoneMor Operating LLC Mount Lebanon Cemetery LLC StoneMor Operating LLC The Prospect Cemetery LLC StoneMor Operating LLC Prospect Hill Cemetery LLC StoneMor Operating LLC Riverside Cemetery LLC StoneMor Operating LLC Riverview Memorial Gardens LLC StoneMorOperating LLC StoneMor Pennsylvania LLC StoneMor Operating LLC Tri-County Memorial Gardens LLC StoneMor Operating LLC Twin Hills Memorial Park and StoneMor<Operating LLC Mausoleum LLC Westminster Cemetery LLC StoneMor Operating LLC Woodlawn Memorial Gardens LLC StoneMor Operating LLC. -5- 109495,00100/1 1917 5-109495,00100/11917$57v.1 J.V. Walker LLC Amended Certificate Of Organization In accordance with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company Law of 1994,as amended,J.V.Walker LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company(the "Company"),hereby amends its Certificate of Organization(as previously amended)as follows: 1. The Company's Certificate of Organization was filed April 5,2004,with the Pennsylvania Department of State. The Company's previous Amended Certificate of Organization was filed July 27, 2004,with the Pennsylvania Department of State. 2. The Certificate of Organization (as previously amended)setting forth the name of the Company is hereby further amended to change the name of the Company to StoneMo.r Pennsylvania LLC. 3. This Amended Certificate of Organization shall be effective at 11:59 p.m. on July 31,2009,upon filing at or prior to such effective time with the Pennsylvania Department of State. 4. The Company adopted this Amended Certificate of Organization pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company Law of 1994,. as amended. This Amended Certificate of Organization was adopted by the unanimous written consent of the Board of Managers and the sole Member of the Company in accordance with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company Law of 1994,as amended. 5. In all other respects, except as herein amended,the Certificate of Organization filed on April 5,2004,as previously amended by an Amended Certificate of Organization filed on July 27,2004, remains in full force and effect. Annex A -6- 109495.00100/II917857v.I �Xhi cif EXHIBIT "B , • Entity#:3200000 Date Flied:12129/2000 Effective Date:12/31,2000 Pedro A.Cortes Secretary 01 the Commonwealth • PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE CORPORATION BUREAU Certificate of Merger or Consolidation Limited Liability Company (13 Pa.c.s. 8938) • Dexamest will be returned to the LRre Rad address you abler to Ws lett, Corporation Service Company S41 q3a -005 KU Commemweatth of Pennaytvenla ARTICLES GER/CONSOLIDATION A11 TYPES IT Pepsis) Pee: St50 plus$40 additional for each patty ILIIIIllIIIJ INH liii IIIIUIIVIIIHI 1111111111!I III • in addition to two 10836511015 In compliance with the requirements of the 15 Pa.C.S.¢8958(relating to snicks of merger or consolidation),the undersigned limited liability ocmpsny(e),ta iii esirina to*fact*roamer or consolidation,hereby state that: on I.The name of the limited liability company surviving the merger or consolidation is: Osiris Holding of Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC 2.Check and complete one erne following: .Tho surviving limited liability company is a domestic llmlted liability company and the(a)address of its current registered office in this Commonwealth or(b)name of its commercial regi tared office provider and the county of venue is(the Department la hereby authorized to correct the following information to conform to the records of the Department): (a)Number and Street City State Zip County • (b)Name of Commervial Registered Office Provider County do: Corporation Service Company Dauphin g.The surviving limited liability company is a qualified foreign limited liability company formed under the laws of and the(a)addrdaof its current registered office In this Commonwealth or(b)name of Its commercial registered office provider end the county of venue is(the Department is hereby authorized to correct the following Information to conform to the records of the Department); (a)Number and Street City State Zip County (b)Name of C mm n/fat Registered Office Provider County d o: l a The awvlvtng limited liability company is a nonqualified t&reign limited liability company ff reed under the laws of and the address cilia principal office under the taws ofeudt domlcillary Jurladiction re Number and Street City State Zip • • 2606 DEC2J'' ".f; • _ • PA 's QF STATE • DSCB:f5.6956-2 3. The name and the address of the current tegiitercd office in this Commonwealth or name of Its commercls!registered office provider and the county aotfyvenue of each other domestic limited liability company and qualified foreign limited liabilitycompanyn�cotp7Yat o ofmorgaortonsolidwionare a,fo1lt►we • Name Registered Office Address Commercial Registered Office Provider County Bedford County Memorial Park c/o Corporation Service Dauphin Subsidiary LLC Company continued on 3 attached sheets, 1 of which is 3 continued 4. Ckac$and(fappnvpriate comp/eta,one afar:following: la The plan of merger or consolidation shell be effective upon filing these Articles of Merger In the Department of State. 2008 .®.The plan of merger or consolidation shall be efltetive on:12/314 11:59 p.m. Date Hour • 5. The manner in which the plan of merger or consolidation was adopted by each domestic limited liability company is as Ponos: Name of Limited Liability fxwnnnnv • MwrerofAdoatioa •Bedford•County Memorial. Adopted..by the Bole member pursuant Park Subsidiary 1.14 • to 15 Pa.C.S. Section.8957(g) . continued on 3 attached sheets. 2 of.which are 5 continued • 6. Strike out this paragraph{f no foreign!/nutted liability company is a party to the merger or consoltdafion: IttleiSlalacawoulbovixadSalkiwlbarYPPeewedimmitsscomodexytteptratiegetelgetbstiteatitablillynXIttplmp(exascluslt atterftseelgettb rated ttelBNegrtrompaoise psayotonlatTisaluest outeamlKw7tkihestms oCdagastWtacimWKretrialtkNSc sumudeadc 7. Check and If appropriate comp!:re,one of the following: ®„Tho pian of merger or consolidation is set forth in MI in Edible A attached hereto and made a pan hereof. 0.Pursuant to 15 Pa.C,S.6 8958(b)(relating to omission ofeertain provisions algae of merger or eoasolldetlon)the provisions,If any,of the plan of merger or consolidation that amend or constitute the operative Certificate of Organisation of the surviving limited liability company as In etftct subsequent to the effective dale of the plan are en tbrth in NU In Exhibit A attached hereto and trade a part hereof. The Mi text of the pian of merger or consolidation is on filo at the principal place ofbusfness of the surviving limited liability company.the address of which Is; Nttinberend street City State Zip County • DSC'l3—1-5=8958=2-(continued) 3(continued) The name and the name of its commercial registered office provider and the county of venue of each other domestic limited liability company and corporation which Is a party to the plan of merger are as follows: Commerclir!Registered Name Office Provider County Blue Ridge Memoriaifiardens Subsidiary LLC dIo C rporation Service Company Dauphin :r a us s'. - • .,I•.Ld dIS-A . • •- _ Da.. ) t-•n •.uo • Snbsi,•: ,. •.1. S D;. Juniaje Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC c/4 Co ponition Service Company P$up}tjn J.V.Walker Syb$idiary c(q Corporation$grvice Company Dauphin • Melrose Land Subsidiary LLC cFQCorporation Service Company Dauphin Mount Lebanon Cemetery Subsidiary LLC d!o Corporation Service Company Dauphin prospect Hill Cemetery Subsidiary LW c!o Corporation Service Company Dauphin Riverside cemetery Subsjditgy LLC c/a Corporation$ervice Company Dauphin • Riverview MemoriaLGardens Subsidiary LLC c/a Corporation Service Company Dauphin Railing Greeti_Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC c/a Corporation Service Company Dauphin StoneMor PenpsylvanlnSubsidiaa LW c/o Corporation ServictzCompany _Dauphin The Prospect Cemeteryfubaidhay LLC c%oCorporatie&Service Company Dauphin ioga County Memorial Gardens SubsidiaD'LLC c/o Corporation Service Company Dauphin Tri-County Memorial Gprdens Subsidiary LW c%oC;j rparatiop Service Company Deypiijrt Twin Hills Memorial Park and Mausoieeni, ubsidtory LLC do Corpornjk n SarvkeConpany Dimphip .if Ins • .,,e •>a •.' • :1 t'J• .,��, .l,I • ,n WoodlawnjYtcpnoriai Gardens Subsidiary LLC cc/9 Qorpoititlen Service Company Dauphin lI.1 ._it • .• • +11}:) /• 6111• : •f !1 �f •I t Mt.Airy Cemetery Subsidiary L(,C c%Corgoratij Servioe Company Dauphin The Coraopolis Cemetery Subsidiary LLC c/o Corporation Service Company Dauphin 109495,00100/1185341bv.1 DSQ131--13-89584(conti<nued) 5(continued) The manner in which the plan of merger was adopted by each domestic limited liability company and the one corporation is as follows: Name of limited liability company or corporation Manner of Adoption Adopted by the sole member glue Ridge Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LW ' Pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S.6 8957(g) • Adopted by the solo member Chartiers Cemetery Subsidiary LLC pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S.6 8953(8) Adopted by the sole member G �. a/l I!• i ': .1 ii :.! ..— • _ .!i C.S Adopted by the sole member Juniata Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC pursuant to L5 Pa.C.S.6 8957(g) Adopted by the sale member J.V�Walkcr Subsidlaryj.LC pursuant to IS Pa,C.S.¢8957(g) Adopted by the sole member Melrose)and Subsidiary LLC _pursuant to 15 Pa,C.S.6 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member Mount Lebanon Cemetery Subsidiary LLC pursuant to 15 Pa,C.S.j 89.57(g) Adopted by the sole member Osiris Holding Qf peppsylvania Subsidiary LLC pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S.6 8957(&I Adopted by the sole member Prospect Hill Cemetery Subsidiary LLC pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S.6 8957(g) • Adopted by the sole member Adopted by the sole member • Riverview Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC _ pursues to 15 Pa,C.S.$8957(0 Adopted by the sole member Rolling Oreen_Mcmoriai Park,Eubsidiary LLC pursuartt_to 15 P ,C.S. •$957(g) Adopted by the sole member StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LW Pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S.J 8957(4) Adopted by the sole member The Prospect Cemetery Subsidiary LLC pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S.§8957(g) 109495,00100/11853426v,1 • DSC13:--1S-895&2(continued) • Adopted by the sole member Tioua County Memorial Gardens Subsidiary j.LC pursuant to 15 P&.C.S...6 8957(u) Adopted by the sole member Tri-County Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC pursuant to 15 Pa,C.S.6 8957(u) Adopted by the sole member Twlr►11111s-Memprial PaOic and Mausoleui>_►SubsidiaryU.0 pursuant to IS Pa_C.S.§8957(g) Adopted by the solo member Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary LLC uursuant to 15 Pa.0 S 6 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member • Woodlawn Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC pursuant to 15 Pa.C,S.$8957(g) •- Adopted by the directors and • sole shareholder pursuant Morris Cemetery Perpetual Care Company to 15 Pa,C.S.61924(a) • Adopted by the sole member Mt.Airy Cemetery Subsidiary LLC pursuant to 15 Pa,C.S,6 8957(g) Adopted by the sole member The Coraopolis Cemetery Subsidiary LLC pursuant to 15 Pa.C,S-6 8957W • • • • 109495.00100111553426v.1 • DSCBz 1549584. ' • IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF.the ssiaccignod Uraltcd IlablUty caapary has carred ttr(t Calitiato of Merger or Conaotldiden to be shored by a duly',inherited mqmber or infaurgertheroofthla 29th, yofDacember.,200S Oairia Holding of Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLQ NamoofLlpitedld-14Co>•pany Agte . :tae - President Tine Bedford County Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC Would 7tp:atAs5ey Michas L. 0 scheSignatare President • Tide signatures continued on 2 attached sheets DSCB; 15:8958-3(continued) IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,the undersigned limited liability companies and corporation have caused this Certificate of Merger to be signed by an officer duly authorized by the member or managers or shareholder or directors thereof this 29th day of December,2008. Blue Ridge Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLty Chargers Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Name of Limited Liability Com.14,4,7C...decr./ y / Name of Limited Liability Company//---) r Sign�Michael L.Stache Signa a-- aheel L.Staohe President President Title Title Green Lawn Memorial Park ubsidiary LLC luttiata Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC Name of Limited Liability CompanyName of Limited Liability Company Cier-� ..�1� �/. / �:_ ._ Signal a-Mi 1 S e Signet -Michael L.Stec • President President Title Title J.V.Walker Subsidiary LLC Melrose Land Subsidiary LLC Name of Limited Liability Company Name of Limited Liability Compan . ,,,/,,Z.,Z.Vr ,...Z") . Signs -Michael L.Stan e Signattuu Michael L.Stache President Presi&Iept Title Title Mvioutit Lgb>;non Cemetery Stfbsidiary LLC Primped Hill Cemetery Subsid[ary LLC Name of Limited Liability Company Name of Limited Liabil ty Company /� � Z�iQeny7.1•••>,:d,..,LJ Signetut -Michael L.Stacie Signaturi-Michael L.Stache President President Title Title Riverview M mortal Gardens Subsidjgiy LLV Riverside Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Name of Limited Liability Company j Name of Limited Liability Compan ,...4., „_2,, Signature ichaol L.Steele Signaatu-ZA.,•,-- ee..) r6-MMichael L.Stache President : President Title Title . (signatures continued on next page) • tosays.00 toon i 853421 v.t . , • ' / • , DSCB: 15-8958-3(continued) Rollingiantn Memorinl_Fark Subsidiary LLC StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC Name of Limited Liability Company Name of Limited Liability Comp Si —Michael L.Stache Signet e—Miohael L.Stache g�ta�� g president President Title Title Tioga County Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LW Thu Prospect Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Name of Limited Liability Company Name of LimitededLiability Company Si a�i hStache Si 2/ gn <d/Z1-••> _� L.Stache ;President president Title • Title Tri-Countv„Memodal Gardens Subaidiary4C • 3Vesiminster Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Name of Limited Liabili ty QCompany Name of Limited Liabi ity Com y �� Signare—Michael L.Stao a Signatu Michael L.Stache • Pre41 ent President Title Title Woodlawn 1emorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC Morris Cemetery Perpetual Care Company Name of Limited Liability Compan Name of LimitedLiability Com any /' Cl- Signatur —Michael L.Stec a Si Michael L.Stacbe President President Title Title Mt.Airy Cemetery Subsidiary LLC The Coraopolis Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Name of LimitededLiability Company• Name of Limited Liability Conipan Y°°->.d--.1.1) ..4,e Signa( —Michael Lr Stache Signe —Michael L.Staohe . President President Title Title Twin Hills Memorial Park and Mausoleum Subsidiary LLC Name of Limited �� ,�Liabili Com any �,�,� • ...< .,'e_—."— President_ ' Signature—Michael L.Stache Title 109493.00100111853421v.1 • f • PLAN 01?MERGER AMONG THE ENTITIES LISTED IN THE "MERGING ENTITI&S_ 'CCOLUMN ON EXHIBIT A HERETO • This Plan of Merger dated as of the 29th day of December, 2008,is entered into by and between Osiris Holding of Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company (herein called the"Surviving Comuany"),and the other entities listed in the"Merging Entities" column on Exhibit A hereto, all Pennsylvania limited liability companies, with the exception of Morris Cemetery Perpetual Care Company, a Pennsylvania business corporation (herein collectively called the"Margin Companies"). • BACKGROUND A. The Surviving Company was duly formed and organized and remains subsisting and existing as a limited liability company under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Merging Companies were duly formed and organized and remain subsisting and existing as limited liability companies under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,with the exception of Morris Cemetery Perpetual Care Company.which was duly incorporated and organized and remains subsisting and existing as a business corporation under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. • B, Nineteen of the Merging Companies are wholly owned direct subsidiaries of Laureiwood Holding Company,a Pennsylvania corporation,as noted on Exhibit A hereto. One of the Merging Companies is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Cornerstone Family Services of West Virginia Subsidiary, Inc., a West Virginia corporation, as noted on Exhibit A hereto. Three of the Merging Companies are wholly owned direct subsidiaries of StoneMor Operating LLC. a Delaware limited liability company, as noted on Exhibit A hereto. The Surviving Company is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Larnelwood Holding Company as noted on Exhibit A hereto. The Merging Companies, the Surviving Company, Laurelwood Holding Company,. Cornerstone Family Services of West Virginia Subsidiary, Inc. and StoneMor Operating LLC are all wholly owned indirect or direct subsidiaries of StoneMor Partners L.P.,a Delaware limited partnership. C. The parties to this Plan of Merger, in consideration of the mutual agreements of each party as set forth herein,deem It advisable and generally for the welfare and benefit and In the best interests of the said parties, that the Merging Companies merge with and Into the Surviving Company under and pursuant to the terms and conditions herein set forth (the "Merger"). NOW THEREFORE, the parties to this Plan of Merger, by their duly authorized undersigned Officers, as authorized, approved and directed by their respective Member or Shareholder and Board of Managers or Directors, as the case may be, In consideration of the mutual covenants,agreements and provisions herein contained,and for other good and valuable consideration, and intending to be legally bound,do hereby agree upon and prescribe the terms and conditions of the Merger and the mode of carrying them into effect,as follows: • Exhibit A 109495.00113/114151190 • I. This Plan of Merger and the Merger shall become effective at 11:59 p.m. on December 3), 2008 (the "effective time of the Merger") upon compliance with the filing of a certificate or articles of merger and this Plan of Merger with the Pennsylvania Department of State at or prior to the effective time of the Merger in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988, as amended, and the Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company Law of 1994,as amended. • • 2.- At the effective time of the Merger,the Merging Companies shall be merged with and into the Surviving Company in accordance with the provisions of applicable law and the terms and .conditions of this Plan of Merger, and thereupon, the separate existence of the Merging Companies shall cease except insofar as any of them may be continued by law,and the Surviving Company shall continue to exist as the solo surviving entity hereunder. 3. • • The Certificate of Organization of the'Surviving Company as in effect immediately.prior to the effective time of the Merger,as the same hereby is amended as of the effective time of the Merger as set forth In the Amended Certificate Of Organization attached as Annex A hereto and incorporated herein by reference (changing the name of the Surviving, Company to StoneMot Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC),shall continue in full force and effect as the Certificate of Organization of the Surviving Company after the Merger until the same shall thereafter be duly amended in accordance with law by the Surviving Company. 4. • The Operating Agreement of the Surviving Company as In effect Immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger shall continue in full force and effect as the Operating Agreement of the Surviving Company after the Merger.until the same shall thereafter be duly amended in accordance with law and the Operating Agreement by the Surviving Company. 5.. The Managers and Officers of the Surviving Company in office Immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger shall.not be changed by reason of the Merger and shall be and remain the Managers and Officers after the Merger until the end of the respective terms for which they were elected or appointed,and until their respective successors are elected or appointed and qualified,subject to death,resignation,removal or such other changes as may otherwise occur in accordance with the Operating Agreement of the Surviving Company or law. 6. : Upon the Merger becoming effective,the separate existence and limited liability company or corporate organization,as the case may be,of each of the Merging Companies shall cease except insofar as any of them may be continued by law, and thereupon the Surviving Company and the Merging Companies shall be merged with and into a single surviving entity as the Surviving Company, and all the property,rights,powers,privileges, immunities,purposes, franchises, patents, trademarks, licenses, registrations and other assets of every kind and description of each of the Merging Companies shall be transferred to,vested in and devolve upon the Surviving Company without farther act or deed,and alt such property,rights and every other interest of the Surviving Company and each of the Merging Companies shall be as effectively the property of the Surviving Company as they were before the Merger of the Surviving Company and each of the Merging Companies respectively,and shall not revert or be in any way impaired by reason of the Merger. Each of the Merging Companies hereby agrees,from time to time, as and when requested by the Surviving Company, or by its successors and assigns, to execute and deliver,or cause to be executed and delivered,all such deeds and instruments,and to 2- 109495.00113(11418119v.t . 4 - .. take, or cause to be taken, such further or other action as the Surviving Company, or Its successors and assigns,may deem necessary or desirable in order to vest in and confirm to the Surviving Company,or Its successors and assigns,title to and possession of any property of any of the Merging Companies acquired or to be acquired by reason of,or as a result of,the Merger herein provided and otherwise to carry out the intent and purposes hereof,and any of the proper Officers and/or Directors of each of the Merging Companies,and any of the proper Officers and Managers of the Surviving Company In the name of any of the Merging Companies or otherwise, are fully authorized to take any and all such action. All rights of creditors and all liens upon the property of any of the entities party hereto shall be preserved unimpaired, and all debts,- liabilities, obligations, restrictions and duties of each of the Merging Companies shall thenceforth attach to the Surviving Company and may be enforced against it to the same extent as if said debts,liabilities,obligations,restrictions and duties had been incurred or contracted by It. 7. The manner of and the basis for converting the outstanding units of membership interests or shares of capital stock of the Merging Companies,as the case may be, into units, rights or securities of or interests in the Surviving Company, and the mode for carrying into effect the:Merger contemplated hereby, shall be that, given that, as set forth above, both the Surviving Company and the Merging Companies are each a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of StoneMor Partners L.P.,upon the effective time of the Merger,all issued and outstanding units of membership Interests or shares of capital stook,including treasury units or stock,as the case may be,of the Merging Companies shall be cancelled and nothing shall be Issued hi exchange therefor. None of the units,rights,securities of or interests In the Surviving Company issued and outstanding-at the effective time of the Merger shall be converted or exchanged as a result of the Merger,but all of such shall remain authorized,issued and outstanding units,rights,securities of or interests in the Surviving Company,as the same presently exist or as may exist immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger. 8. This Plan of Merger may be amended by the mutual agreement of the respective Boards of Directors and Managers,Shareholder and Member,as the case may be,of the entities which are a party hereto at any time prior to the effective time of the Merger. This Plan of Merger may be terminated by the Board of Managers and sole Member of the Surviving Company at any time prior to the effective time of the Merger. Any of the Merging Companies by action of Its Board of Managers or Directors and its sole Member or Shareholder,as the case may be, may withdraw from this Plan of Merger at any time prior to the effective time of the Merger, thereby terminating this Plan of Merger. •If a certificate or articles of merger with respect to:the Merger have been filed, but not yet accepted or effective, in the Pennsylvania Department of State prior to any such amendment or termination,a statement of amendment or termination of the certificate or articles of merger and this Plan of Merger shall be filed with the Department of State prior to the effective time of the Merger in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988, as amended, and the Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company Law of 1994,as amended. • 9. . The President, any Vice President, the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary of each entity which is a party hereto, is hereby authorized and directed, before and after the effective time of the Merger, to perform all such further acts, and execute any and all agreements, papers and documents,arising from, in connection with or relating to the Merger -3. 109493.00113/11418119v, 4 contemplated or Intended by this Plan of Merger as any of them shall, in his sole discretion, doom advisable,and to deliver the same,including,but not limited to,such certificates,articles; statements and other documents as maybe required by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or any other jurisdiction to effectuate the Merger or any provision of the Plan of Merger, and to cause any,of the same to be filed In the manner provided by law. 10. This Plan of Merger shaU be governed by and construed in all respects in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Plan of Merger to be executed by their respective Officers duly authorized as of the date first set forth above. Osiris Holding of Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC, Surviving Company• Nameaol L.Stacho Title:President • Bedford County Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC Blue Ridge Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC Cbartiers Cemetery Subsidiary LLC • • Green Lawn Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC • Juniata Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC J.V.Walker Subsidiary LLC Melrose Land Subsidiary LLC Mopnt Lebanon Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Prospect Hill Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Riverside Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Riverview Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC Roiling Green Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC The Prospect Cemetery Subsidiary LLC • Tioga County Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC • Tri-County Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC Twin Hills Memorial Park and Mausoleum Subsidiary LLC Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary LLC • Woodiawn Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC Morris Cemetery Perpetual Care Company Mt.Airy Cemetery Subsidiary LLC The Coraopolis Cemetery Subsidiary LLC, • Merging Companies By: Name:Michael L.Stache Title:President .4- 109495.00113/11418119v.1 4.•.109495e0113/11418119v.$ ' .• i • Exhibit A Moraina Entity Sole Member Or 8hareholtgr Bedford County Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC Laurelwood Holding Company Blue Ridge Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC Laurelwood Holding Company Chartlers Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Laurelwood Holding Company Green Lawn Memorial Park Subsidiary LIC Laurelwood Holding Company Juniata Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC Laurelwood Holding Company J.V.Walker Subsidiary LLC Laureiwood Holding Company Melrose Land Subsktlary LLC Laura!wood Holding Company Mount Lebanon Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Laurelwood Holding Company Osiris Holding of Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC Laura!wood Holding Company Prospebt H61 Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Laurciwood Holding Company Riverside Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Laura!wood Holding Company Riverview Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC Laureiwood Holding Company Rolling Green Memorial Park Subsidiary LLC Laurelwood Holding Company Stonetior Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC Cornerstone Family Services of • West Virginia Subsidiary,Inc. The Prospect Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Laurelwood Holding Company Tioge County Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC Laurelwood Holding Company 7d-County Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC Laurelwood Holding Company Twin Hills Memorial Park and Mausoleum Subsidiary.LLC Laureiwood Holding Company Westminster Cemetery Subsidiary LLC Laurelwood Holding Company Woodlawn Memorial Gardens Subsidiary LLC Laurelwood Holding Company Morris Cemetery Perpetual Core Company StoneMor Operating LLC Mt.Airy Cemetery Subsidiary LLC StoneMor Operating LLC The Coraopolis Cemetery Subsidiary LLC StoneMor Operating LW • -5- 109495.0016/11418119v.1 5- 109495.00113111418119v.1 • • Osiris Holding Of Pennsylvania Subakliary LLC Amended Certlfleaje,QPOrganization In accordance with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company Law of 1994,as amended,Osiris Holding Of Pennsylvania Subsidiary LLC,a Pennsylvania limited liability company(the"Company"),hereby amends its Certificate of Organization as follows: 1. The Company's Certificate of Organization was filed February 12,2004,with the Pennsylvania Department of State. 2. The Certificate of Organization setting forth the name of the Company is hereby amended to'change the name of the Company to StoneMor Pennsylvania Subsidiary(LC. 3, This Amended Certificate of Organization shall be effective at 11:59 p.m.on December 31,2008,upon filing at or prior to such effective time with the Pennsylvania Departmenlof State, 4. The Company adopted this Amended Certificate of Organization pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company Law of 1994,as amended. This Amended Certificate of Organization was adopted by the unanimous written consent of the Board of Managers and the sole Member of the Company in accordancewith the provisions of the Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company Law of 1994,as amended. 5. ' In all other respects,except as herein amended,the Certificate of Organization filed on February 12,2004, remains in full force and effect. • • • Annex A -6- 109495.00113/[1418119v.1 6- 109493.001!3/[1418119x.1 JANE MacCAMPBELL NORTON Plaintiff V. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.; STONEMOR HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA; STONEMOR OPERATING LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA LLC; STONEMOR PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARY LLC; WESTMINSTER CEMETERY, LLC; and WESTMINSTER CEMETERY SUBSIDIARY, LLC, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA c-) : DOCKET NO. 10-6609 1--- _ --o cp rri t ------ I C) t.t) (2.; : CIVIL ACTION—LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO MARK THE ACTION DISCONTINUED AND ENDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: C.,) cD Kindly marked the above referenced action Discontinued and Ended, with prejudice. Burns White LLC aura K. P Itonen, Esquire 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Dated: 05/1301600,v1