Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-7535COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLYAN{A COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicisl District, County Of NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTR{CT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. / ~ `~ 753 5 NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appelaant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the D+strid Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. ~o s~+1 ~~-~~+-L t-~ts I M.~.i X04 3 ~-~o ~! f r>~M,~-s ,4 , ~~ ~ ~ i ~~- ,~ r ~~ o~~ ~T ~ T-~ ~ tP, ,o~ 1 Z- ~-- I d ~ c..~x~r~. CT7Gck _ ~.13et1~3 y ~'•~-,~-L L~I~ c This block wiN be signed ONLY when ttds notation is required under Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 10088. This Notice M Appeal, when received by the District Justice. will operate as a SUPERSEDERS to the judgment for possession in this case. si~ar.dRcma~ohyaapb R.C.P.D.J. No. s DlstricY Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST SE FILED within twenty (20) days after the NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAEClPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of term to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT {see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 100f(~ in action before District Justice. 1F NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon ~ ~~~~~ ~-`,~~ appeNee(s), ~ fde a trotnplairrt in this appeal - `-~. Name or appelee(s) (Common Pleas No. l a ` 7 ~ 35 )within twenty (20) days after RULE: To ~L„~~~~ ~s~~ , appellees) Name of appeNSe(s) of rote JeN~-7~o~i of judgment of non pros. ro orappeNant or sflorney a agent ~' >~1 ~~- (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entertad upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rote upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mafi. (2) H you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAYBE ENTERED AGAfNST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail ~ the date of the mailing. Date: ~est~ r~ ti , 20 f (~ YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIP7 FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-02 WHITE -COURT FILE TO t3E FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN -COURT FILE YELLOW -APPELLANTS COPT PINK -COPY TO BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD -COPY TO BE SERVED ON DISTRICT JUSTICE PROOF ~iF SERVICES Ott N©TtCt=,OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMP~Arn r (This proof of service. MUST ~ F~.t=O bylTHllll; ~~ f 1 ~~ DaYS AFTEf? fling of the notice ~ appeals Check applicaWf3 koxss.~,. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served ^ a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas ,upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) , 20 ^ by personal service ^ by (certified) (registered) mail, on sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) 20 ^ by personal service ^ by {certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BE~OORE ME THIS DAY OF Signature of afryant Signature of official beforexwhom afridavit was'made T~tfe o/official My commission'~expires on ~ ~ ?- ~ ~ Z u~ 2 ~ of a 'o ~ VQ ~ ry, Oi- ~ ~ Z Jln ~ ~~ + Q ~ f1. i..7 EL x . ~ 42 t3..= d ~~ w .. ° o 20 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Mag. Dist. No: .MDJ-09-3-04 MDJ Name: Honorable Thomas A. Placey Address: 5275 East Trindle Road Suite 110 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: 717-761-8230 Bobby Rahal Lexus C/O Jon Miller, Mgr. 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg; PA 17050 Disposition Summary _ Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil ~~~_ ' ~` Case ~~ Alexander Guk v. Bobby Rahal Lexus Docket No: MJ-09304-CV-0000557-2010 Case Filed: 8/31/2010 Docket No Plaintiff MJ-09304-CV-0000557-2010 Alexander Guk Defendant Disposition Bobby Rahal Lexus Judgment for Plaintiff Disposition Date 12/02/2010 Judgment Summary Joint/Several Liability Individual Liability Participant Amount Bobby RahalLexus $0.00 $4,106.00 $4,106.00 Judgment Detail ('Post Judgment) In the matter of A.lexahder Guk vs. Bobby Rahal Lexus on 12/02/2010 the disposition is Judgment for Plaintiff. and awarded as follows: judgment was Judgment Component Joint/Several Liability Individual Liability Deposit Applied Amount Civil Judgment Filing Fees $0.00 $4,000.00 Costs 50.00 $100.00 $4,000.00 ..$0.00 $6.00 $100.00 $6.00 Grand Total: $4,106.00 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT~TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN ,THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH%fHE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTJUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. ~~; rf~ f'. „n4 2 Date ~\.V!/ Gc.c,~ ~ ~ Magisterial District Judge Thomas A. Placey f ~y ;~ ~ ~~ i certify that this is a true and correct copy of the re rd of the Date MDJS 315 Magisterial Dist~yet udge Thomas A.: Placey Page 1 of 1 Printed: 12/02/2010 10:37:29AM Q' Er .0 Ln 0 N Ir a 0 0 0 C3 ti CO 0 Cr 0 0 r_ OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2010 DEC 10 PM 3 12 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA PROOF OF SERVICE Of, rY? " 'ICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN , "J (10) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I s : ed ? a copy of the Notice of Appeal, : oinmon Please 75-35- , upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) Z- 20 by personal service sender's receipt attached e!e ;, nd upon the appellee, (name) A i- GK *VDLW G U_ K , on j 2 20 Q ? by personal service by {certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached heret,:, (SWORN) (AFFI?,MEb,)'AIb.`SUBSCRIBED BEP-)rf;,E ME L,.. THIS jQ_ L1AY OF; 241.?a i Signature of arfrant r Signature odd ?`[?l s. mad ??l+o?[ ? I Title of official My commission expires on ' 4 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. 76 .5 3 NOME OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. / Jr-' - /D 1 &X- 6-0 DOCKET M. rl- I de r/-?a a - a o This block win be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1008B. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in tips case. 1 T`r?s ,4 ,t,?c STATE a t3?3 ? L v ATT O ENT ?? Clairrlant ( . R.C.P.D.J. Alo_ 1001 _ :i ..d vs a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after fling the NOTICE of APPEAL. sowtwe of v7t no or Dspuly PRAECIPt TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT"ACID RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of app&;i to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon Name Of appsaests) (Common Pleas No. t d `" 7 ?3 S CN -.1 ) within twenty (20) days after appeNoe(s); to 0&8-cpmltait?t in this appeal r ofATV o:u` (idtijn?astt of non pros. RULE: To[.-!' r r N i , ;l? /?'/+?r t anomeyoragerw Name Of apperee(s) appellee(s) IN (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or nliglirtered mail. (2) if you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of-service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date:, ?0/j 9 A.17 lo 'Az' wo Of YOU MU$ *40M ACOPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDWA TRRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-02 WHITE -COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN- COURT FILE YELLOW- APPELLANTS COPY PINK -COPY To BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD -COPY TO BE SERVED ONI DISTRICT AIS ICE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ALEXANDER GUK, ) Plaintiff ) Case No.: 10-7535 - mm Q C= --+ 7j r rn - VS. j N a a - _ BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, CD-n Co c) C:' Defendant. M 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 Alexander Guk 1426 Wellgate Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 571-1576 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ALEXANDER GUK, ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 10-7535 VS. ) BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, ) Defendant. ) COMPLAINT Comes the Plaintiff, Alexander Guk, and complains and alleges as follows: 1. FACTS 1. On June 26 2004 the Plaintiff purchased a brand new vehicle 2004 Lexus GX470 VIN JBT20X340051861 Blizzard Pearl tri-stage paint (hereinafter the "Vehicle") at the Bobby Rahal Lexus dealership currently conducting business at 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (hereinafter the "Defendant"). 2. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's spouse have been the only owners of the Vehicle. 3. As part of the original sales agreement, the Defendant offered the following services to the Plaintiff- a. Free state inspection once a year b. Free complimentary car wash with every service c. Free loaner with every service 4. The Plaintiff had been using the services listed in 3 (a) - (c) at least yearly. 5. The last time the Vehicle was dropped off for service by the Plaintiff at the Defendant's 1 place of business was July 7`h 2010 at approximately 7pm.. 6. At the time of the drop off the Vehicle was left parked on the lot adjacent to the service entrance and facing the Defendant's facilities. The Plaintiff clearly remembers looking at the front of the Vehicle while departing from the Vehicle and approaching the service entrance on foot. At that time absolutely no paint damage on the front bumper was noted by the Plaintiff. 7. State safety and emissions inspections along with a complimentary car wash were performed on the Vehicle by the Defendant on July 8t' 2010. 8. The Vehicle was picked up from the Defendant's place of business around 3pm on July 8' 2010. 9. At the time of pickup the Vehicle was brought by a Defendant employee and parked in the gated service reception area with the front bumper facing the closed gate and the rear bumper facing the entrance to the service reception area, thus eliminating an opportunity for direct observation of the condition of the front bumper. 10. The vehicle was driven home and parked at the garage at the Plaintiff's residence with the front of the vehicle facing the wall and the rear of the vehicle facing the garage door, as it is customary for the Plaintiff as well as for most vehicle owners. 11. Due to the facts listed in items 9 and 10 and the fact that the Vehicle was not used daily by the Plaintiff, paint damage to the Vehicle's front bumper was not discovered by the Plaintiff until July 11 h 2010. 12. Immediately after the discovery the Plaintiff started researching possible causes for a very distinct pattern of paint damage that had appeared on the Vehicle's front bumper: a. The clear coat along with the pearl coat of the tri-stage `Blizzard Pearl" paint 2 were stripped, leaving the base white layer intact. b. The remaining base coat does not display any indentations, which rules out the possibilities of intentional vandalism or any type of accidental "contact with solid object" damage. 13. After the conducted research about possible reasons of such distinct pattern of damage and discussions with several experts in the field of body repair and automotive paints, the Plaintiff is absolutely confident that the damage to the paint was caused on the Defendant's premises in the car wash area due to the following facts: a. Defendant's car wash personnel use high water pressure equipment, specifically manual pressure washer wand connected to the high water pressure pump. This equipment was used in the pre-wash area to remove stains and road bugs from the Vehicle surfaces. b. Such manual pressure washer wand was applied on the front bumper of the Vehicle. c. July 8`h 2010 was an extremely hot day with temperatures reaching 97 F. d. Hot temperatures affect physical properties of car paint, as well as flexibility of plastic body elements, such as bumpers. e. Paint applied on plastic body elements uses special "flex" additives designed to partially compensate for the flexing effect between plastic body elements and paint. f. The pattern of peeled paint clearly demonstrates some of the "zigzag" movements of the high pressure washer wand across the surfaces of the front bumper. g. The Plaintiff did not have any other service or car wash done on the Vehicle after 3 it was picked up from the Defendant. 14. After gaining the absolute level of confidence in his allegations, Plaintiff drove the Vehicle to the Defendant on Monday morning of July 19th 2010. The following interaction between the Plaintiff and Defendant's employees took place: a. The plaintiff initially presented the damage to the assistant service manager Mr. Scott Mccann, to which Mr. Mccann immediately refused to acknowledge Defendant's responsibility. Moreover, Mr. Mccann alleged that the bumper had been repainted in the past, to which Plaintiff replied that the Vehicle had been owned by the Plaintiff since it was brand new, in fact, it was purchased as brand new from the Defendant, that the Plaintiff is aware about everything that had happened to the Vehicle, and that the front bumper paint is indeed factory paint, as the bumper had never been repainted. Nevertheless, Mr. Mccann was persistent in his allegation, which he repeated multiple times. b. As the conversation with Mr. Mccann was leading nowhere, the Plaintiff requested that two more Defendant's employees evaluate the damage: Mr. Jon Miller, service manager, and Mr. Dave Snyder, sales consultant. Mr. Dave Snyder, who originally sold the Vehicle to Plaintiff, confirmed that the paint was indeed the factory paint. However, the Defendant's employees were still not willing to accept Defendant's responsibility for the damage at that time. c. The plaintiff pointed out that he would be willing to demonstrate how the damage had occurred by taking the Vehicle to the car wash area and operating the pressure washer wand. d. However, Mr. Miller offered the Plaintiff to come back later when a 4 representative from the Lexus corporate office would be visiting the Defendant. This representative would potentially have access to the database of similar cases and would be able to offer an explanation by the manufacturer. Plaintiff agreed to this proposal. 15. The representative from Lexus came on August 17, 2010, when the Plaintiff and Mr. Miller presented the Vehicle. The following interaction between the Plaintiff, Mr. Miller and the representative from Lexus took place: a. The representative's assessment was that the damage was not caused by a manufacturer's defect, but it is rather consistent with the damage caused by pressure washing equipment. Thus, the manufacturer has no responsibility for this damage. b. Mr. Miller, in turn, also refused to acknowledge the fact that the damage was caused by his service department. c. Plaintiff, having been left with no better options at that point, offered to demonstrate how the damage had occurred by requesting to take the Vehicle to the car wash area and to get an opportunity to operate the pressure washer wand on the front bumper of the Vehicle. d. Mr. Miller responded that the pressure washer motor had already been disconnected due to the motor "burn-out", and that such demonstration would not be possible. 16. Having been met by Defendant's employees with resistance to acknowledge the facts, Plaintiff respectfully indicated to Mr. Miller that he is already a victim, and having been left with no other options, Plaintiff had nothing to lose at that point, but to refer to the legal system for resolution of this dispute. 17. Mr. Miller's response to the Plaintiff was: "What do I have to lose, one customer?" II. CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE 18. Defendant had the duty: a. To treat the Vehicle with care, avoiding physical damage to the Vehicle; b. To establish a quality control program that is capable of detecting physical damage to the Vehicle while the Vehicle is left on Defendant's premises for service; c. In such a case when the damage does occur, to notify Plaintiff immediately; d. To compensate Plaintiff fully for the damages that occurred to the Vehicle. 19. Defendant failed to fulfill the duties listed in 18 (a) - (d). III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 20. Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation for the damages in the amount of $4,000.00, which consists of the following components: a. Cost to repair the paint surface on the front bumper with the original factory-like quality and color. Due to the fact that the original factory paint is tri-stage, which requires a special time-consuming process in order to achieve proper color match, the cost for such process is significantly higher than that of the process for regular two-stage automotive paints. In some cases proper color match can be achieved by blending new bumper paint into adjacent body elements of the Vehicle, which also significantly raises the cost of the repair. 6 b. Cost of rental transportation while the Vehicle is being repaired. c. Cost of compensation for diminished value of the Vehicle. It is a common procedure for automotive buyers to verify car history using services like CARFAX. Currently Vehicle's CARFAX history is clean: one owner and no negative events are reported. Once the repair described in 20(a) is performed, a record of such repair will be reported to CARFAX, immediately reducing the resell value of the Vehicle. 21. Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation for court filing fees. VERIFICATION I, Alexander Guk, do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification of authorities. ? 2y ?p/b Date 0/ Alexander Guk 1426 Wellgate Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 571-1576 7 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ALEXANDER GW Plaintiff, VS. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant. Case No.: 10-7535 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alexander Guk, hereby certify that I have mailed by certified mail on this 24 h day of December, 2010, a true and correct copy of the Complaint with Notice to Defend to the person at the address indicated: Jonathon M Miller Bobby Rahal Lexus 6715 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 i Date: December 24, 2010 Alexander Guk 1426 Wellgate Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 571-1576 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ALEXANDER GUK, Plaintiff, VS. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant. Case: No.: 10-7535 REPLY TO ANSWER AND ANSWER TO NEW MATTER ? _ P1 ?;°i W m rn x ?? cv F:: -orn tJ tpi ? 13? t N p C) I zm o --rt co C ? -a m G3 N 7 Plaintiff submits this Reply to Defendant's Answer as well as Answer to the Defendant's New Matter as follows: REPLY TO ANSWER 1. As to paragraphs 5 and 8, it is unreasonable to expect Plaintiff to provide strict proof of exact time of the vehicle drop off, as Plaintiff does not maintain a detailed log of his daily activities nor he knows anybody else who does. On the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that it is the Defendant's responsibility to keep a detailed time log of every vehicle drop off and pick up. 2. As to paragraphs 6 and 9, it is completely unreasonable to expect Plaintiff to provide strict proof of the exact location of the vehicle drop off or pick up, as Plaintiff does not take pictures of the vehicle in the course of his daily activities nor he knows anybody else who does. On the contrary, it is reasonable to expect the Defendant to conduct video surveillance of the facilities, which would facilitate such proof. Specifically as to paragraph 9, by eliminated opportunity to inspect the front bumper, Plaintiff means that the Vehicle was parked in such a way that the most convenient and thus most reasonable way to approach and enter the Vehicle was from the rear, thus eliminating a chance that the damage could have been detected earlier, while it was still at the Defendant's facility. 3. As to paragraph 12, Plaintiff already provided an opportunity to inspect the damage to three employees of the Defendant on July 26th 2010, and additionally, to Mr. Miller and the representative from Lexus on August 17th, 2010. 4. As to paragraph 17, the context of that portion of the conversation between Plaintiff and Mr. Miller is as follows. After exiting the car washing area through the entrance gate, Plaintiff indicated that he was the victim in this case and at that point of time he had nothing to lose, but to refer to the legal system for this dispute resolution. Mr. Miller's reply was: "What do I have to lose, one customer?" Immediately after this Mr. Miller asked the Plaintiff how long ago was the last time when Plaintiff brought his Vehicle for service. Plaintiff understood that such a follow up question was due to the fact that Plaintiff had not been bringing the Vehicle for service since 2008, and for that reason Plaintiff was not considered a customer worth keeping. Plaintiff replied that the reason for not brining the vehicle for service since 2008 was due to Plaintiff's apprehension about servicing the Vehicle by Defendant, which started after the Vehicle lost a center cap from one wheel, after which Plaintiff also discovered that two other center caps were loose and had broken off tabs. Prior to that incident, Plaintiff took the Vehicle to Defendant for every scheduled service. When Plaintiff originally reported this incident with the center caps to the Defendant's service department employees, they were hesitant to replace the missing and loose wheel center caps, however Plaintiff was able to convince them that the only place where such damage to the center caps could have occurred was in their service department, because the Vehicle had been serviced only by them, and the wheels had been taken off only by Defendant's technicians. The service records were the proof of the matter. 2 ANSWER TO NEW MATTER 22. Denied. Plaintiff has established reasonable and sufficient support of the claim and cause of action. 23. Admitted upon information and belief. It is admitted that when such procedure exists, its mere existence does not guarantee its strict enforcement or execution. Plaintiff demands that Defendant provides strict proof of compliance with such established procedure, including: frequency and results of audits of the car washing process, list of all noticed incidents of non-compliance with this procedure since June 26, 2004, car wash personnel training log, and any administrative actions taken for non-compliance with the procedure. 24. Admitted upon information and belief. It is admitted that even if there were no complaints of paint damage in the indicated time period, the majority of customers would have no expertise of correlating similar damage to the car washing process utilized by the Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff does believe that such incidents tend to occur infrequently, and the time frame of seven months might not be sufficient to establish the pattern. Plaintiff demands that the Defendant provides the number and type of all paint damage complaints starting June 26, 2004 (the date of initiation of business relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant). 25. Admitted upon information and belief. It is admitted that even if there were no complaints of paint damage in the indicated time period, the majority of customers would have no expertise of correlating similar damage to the car washing process utilized by the Defendant. 26. Denied. 27. Admitted. Plaintiff delegated the pickup of the Vehicle to his spouse, who, along with their three small children picked up the vehicle from Defendant's location on July 8, 2010. 28. Admitted. Due to the initial error in Plaintiff s records on this case, Plaintiff initially stated the date of the claim of damage as Monday July 19th 2010, and now corrects this error states that the date is Monday July 26th, 2010. 29. Admitted. Rear bumper damage and repair back in 2004 has no relevance in this case, as it was complete responsibility of Plaintiff and not Defendant. 30. Admitted. Plaintiff has no knowledge of how various organizations report information to CARFAX, but he believes that it is reasonable to expect at this time that such damage and repair would be reported. In fact, every little procedure performed by the Defendant's service department, including replacement of wiper blade inserts, appears to be completely spelled out on the Vehicle CARFAX report. 31. Denied. There is no other reasonable or likely cause to the time, type, or pattern of such damage other than negligence in the car washing process utilized by the Defendant. 32. Denied upon information and belief. Denied that during the whole period of ownership of the vehicle by Plaintiff, starting June 26, 2006 till present, the front bumper of the vehicle has ever been retouched or repainted. However, Plaintiff has no knowledge of what had occurred to the brand new vehicle prior to its delivery to Plaintiff; therefore, Plaintiff, in turn, demands strict proof that the Vehicle had been originally delivered by Defendant to Plaintiff with all its surfaces painted only at the factory. VERIFICATION I, Alexander Guk, do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification of 4 authorities. Date Ale d r uk 1426 Wellgate Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 571-1576 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ALEXANDER GUK, Plaintiff, VS. BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant. Case No.: 10-7535 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alexander Guk, hereby certify that I have mailed by First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid, on this 2nd day of February, 2011, a true and correct copy of the Reply to Answer and Answer to New Matter to the person at the address indicated: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C. 44 W. Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: February 2, 2011 t- Alexander Guk 1426 Wellgate Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 571-1576 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ALEXANDER GUK, Plaintitt NO.2010-7535 20 VS. ? =' BOBBY RARAL LEXUS, 'ICU Defendant ;.n r r- M RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantial ly;.lre { Following form: : -0 PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS - TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Keith O. Brennement , counsel for the plaintiff/defendant in the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $ 4,000 The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is none The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire; Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. 291, 20'11 Respectfully submitted, petition, _ Esq., and ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, .200 , in consideration of the foregoing Esq., and Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action (or actions) as prayed for. By the Court, Kevin A. Hess, P.J. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ALEXANDER GUK, 2010-7 5 3 5 20 Plaintiff NO. VS.? r.i BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, S --- Defendant ' ' r y F •,. rsa ?U ?i (- CD y RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantiall to ,,?_ i Following form: '= PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Keith O. Brennement counsel for the pkhrAiff/defendant in the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $ 4,000 The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is none The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire; Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, 2d 2°11 • ORDER OF COURT AND OW, ? oZ 9 , 200/ , i consideration of the foregoing 17 petition, u Esq., and . Esq., and Esq., are appoin ed arbitrators in the above captioned action (or actions) as prayed for. By the /f ' C." W V 1 _ O Kevin A. Hess, P.J. t ii ? 1?ci`r?t D ,I?YL°r1NP1titGK +£ y 1. ? ?>° ><a s+v!« ?u?c Y E E ,.ue e0p,e6 h.1a led 3/1Ir? s,2h'• U ? ????y oG ALEXANDER GUK, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 10-7535 CIVIL BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this Z 3':' day of March, 2011, the appointment of Scott M. Dinner, Esquire, as Chairman of the Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case is VACATED. Ron Turo, Esquire, is appointed in his place. BY THE COURT, Kevin r4. P. J. Ron Turo, Esquire Chairman, Board of Arbitrators ? Scott M. Dinner, Esquire Court Administrator :rlm Ce p; e5 ma ,'Ied 31n3111 c ?? ?3W 3 ?"rt ZM O rn Tr N W 0 ? Z Z c w C=) r+? N ALEXANDER GUK, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF c o -11 Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVA440 s =-n zr1n z7'0 a ?D rn- -v vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW C/)n ca rn NO. 10-7535 CIVIL ? a BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, z w rn Defendant c n ORDER AND NOW, this Z. 4 ' day of March, 2011, the appointment of Lorin A. Snyder, Esquire, as a member of the Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case is VACATED. E. Lee Stinnett, Jr., Esquire, is appointed in his place. BY THE COURT, Ron Turo, Esquire Chairman, Board of Arbitrators Court Administrator :rlm Copies wA,leaf 31,*0 pyt V LLD-( F?4Sl }1{iifj elf.{?;. l i JUN -9 Pm 1:J CUMBERLAND PENNSYLVANIA.. ALEXANDER GUK, V. Plaintiff BOBBY RAHAL LEXUS, Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2010 - 7535 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: indices. Date: Please mark the Arbitrators' Award in the above case satisfied upon your docket and 1 Guk, Plaintiff LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C.