Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-2913IN 1 CUMB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA U) CD © -v C5 C-') =; C") , corr. --t C No. ( 3 2011 Civil Action - (XX) Law ( ) Equity PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL 360 Keiffer Road Halifax, PA 17032 versus Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) MICHAEL KANYINGI w o 11908 New Country Lane Columbia, MD 21044 RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1885 University Avenue W., Suite 38 St. Paul, MN 55104 TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. 720 King Georges Post Road Fords, NJ 08863 C&K TRUCKING, LLC 6205 West 101 st Street Chicago Ridge, IL 60415 Defendant(s) & Address(es) TO THE PROTHONOTARY O SAID COURT: Please issue A Writ of Summo sin the above-captioned action. Writ of Summons Shall be sued and forwarded to (XX )Attorney Name/Address/Telephone No. of Attorney G-- Signature of Attorney Supreme Court ID No. 87737 Date: `" \ ? \ - ?`?a m Qd a 0- r'X It{p70 IF as?sroa WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARL NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: by ( ) Check here if reverse is PROTHON. - 55 Prothonotary Deputy for additional information SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny rr" y R Anderson THE p OTHONCf Sheriff; . , . 201 1 MAR 29 PM R . Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart CUMBERLAND CQ Solicitor P ENNSYLVAN i Peggy Bechtel vs. Rift Valley Transportation Services (et al.) Case Number 2011-2913 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 03/10/2011 On this date Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff mailed the within Writ of Summons by certified mail, return receipt requested to Rift Valley Transportation Services. 03/10/2011 On this date Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff mailed the within Writ of Summons by certified mail, return receipt requested to Michael Kanyingi. 03/10/2011 On this date Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff mailed the within Writ of Summons by certified mail, return receipt requested to Transportation Made Simple. 03/10/2011 On this date Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff mailed the within Writ of Summons by certified mail, return receipt requested to C & K Trucking, LLC. 03/14/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he served the within Writ of Summons upon the within named defendant, C & K Trucking, LLC, in the following manner: On March 10, 2011 the Sheriff mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested a true and correct copy of the within Writ of Summons to the defendant's last known address of 6205 W. 101 st Street, Chicago, Illinois 60415. The certified mail return receipt card was received by the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office signed by an adult in charge on March 14, 2011. 03/14/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he served the within Writ of Summons upon the within named defendant, Transportation Made Simple, in the following manner: On March 10, 2011 the Sheriff mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested a true and correct copy of the within Writ of Summons to the defendant's last known address of 720 King Georges Post Road, Fords, New Jersey 08863. The certified mail return receipt card was received by the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office signed by D. Lowles on March 14, 2011. 03/17/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he served the within Writ of Summons upon the within named defendant, Rift Valley Transportation Services, in the following manner: On March 10, 2011 the Sheriff mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested a true and correct copy of the within Writ of Summons to the defendant's last known address of 1885 University Avenue West, Suite 38, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104. The certified mail return receipt card was received by the Cumberland County Sheriffs Office signed by an adult in charge on March 17, 2011. 03/24/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he served the within Writ of Summons upon the within named defendant, Michael Kanyingi, in the following manner: On March 10, 2011 the Sheriff mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested a true and correct copy of the within Writ of Summons to the defendant's last known address of 11908 New Country Lane, Columbia, Maryland 21044. The certified mail return receipt card was received by the Cumberland County Sheriffs Office signed by Michael Kanyingi on March 24, 2011. SHERIFF COST: $98.60 March 28, 2011 SO ANSWERS, RON T R ANDERSON, SHERIFF ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 U Restricted Delivery is desired. ?? ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. Rift Valley Tranportation Services 1885 University Ave. W Suite 38 St. Paul, MN 55104 ?ot?-,?9r3 F A. Signature X ? Agent ?_Addressee B. R ved by ted Name) _s Delivery D. Is delivery address 11 If YES, enter delivery ad low: ". : v 3. Service TAM - ? Certified Mail ? Express Mall ? Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise ? Insured Mail ? C.O.D. _ 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number 7006 0 810 0000 7881 8 714 (rmsfer from swvke M* Ps Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 ; ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 If Padrlcted Delivery Is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the frPtf space permits. r Michae Kanyingi Y 11908 New Country > Columbia, MD 21044 A. Slgneture X MI ? Agent 1-1 A- B RR ived by ( Printed Name) C? a of D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: 3. RgFA* Type Cer coed mail ? Express MqA' O Registered ? Return Receipts 9e nn n ? Insured mail ? C.O.D. fnf ("[/ 4. ResMcted Dellven1@.11111111I11WO61 Yes 2. Article Number I (7n3nsfer from service label) 7006 0 810 0000 7881 8707 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 ¦ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also completes item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Atli this card to the back of the mailpiece, orthe front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Transportation Made Simple 720 King Georges Post Rd Fords, NJ 08863 ? Agent ? Addressee B. eceived ( Printed Name) C. ate of Delivery puwu/o Is ?1(11- -- D. Is delivery address different from Rem 7 Ct hYs If YES, enter del(?re rase C?' Np C-,C (/ Ih?CJA/?'C 3. Service Type ? CerfflW Mail ? fis?q Rrp?. ? Registered ? pt for Merchandise ? Insured mail 9 .D. Jo ! -on t,5 4. Restricted Delivery Aft Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number (rmnslierfromservice fabei) 7006 0810 0000 7881 8691 Ps Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102596-02-10-1540 bl? ?r ?k ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. B. eceived by ¦ Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece, or on thaftnt ff space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: C & K Trucking, LLC. 6205 W. 101st Street Chicago, IL 60415 J01I-agk5 Name) I C. Agent D. Is delivery address di ferent from item 1?/ U Y If YES, enter delivery address below: ? o 3. Service Type ? Certified Mail ? Express Mall ? Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchan0e ? Insured mail ? C.O.D. 4. Restricted L"I At" 2. Article Number (rmnswfiomsewroebw 7006 0810 0000 7881 8684 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. BY: JOSEPH N. BONGIOVANNI, IV, ESQUIRE MARIEL C. ESCH, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NOS. 87848/206484 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 1900 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 564-6688 721-92850 PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL vs. MICHAEL KANYINGI RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. C&K TRUCKING, LLC ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendants, MICHAEL. KANYINGI, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. and C&K TRUCKING, LLC in the above-captioned matter. Defendants by and through their undersigned attorneys hereby demands a trial by jury of twelve in the above referenced matter. Respectfully submitted, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. (Jo J eph N. Bongiov ?ni dt=- a1 By: Q- N ?tl) Z Mariel C. Esch Q. V Q t?C Attornevs for Defendants Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, G Inc. and C&K Trucking, LLC O FILED-OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY 24_t1 DEC 21 PM 2: 35 ATTOR>11r1 S MICF>r0i A TRANSP ?E SIMPLE, INC. and C&K TRUCKING, LLC COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION ENTER TERM TERM, ENTER YEAR NO. 2913 2011 PH507854.1 } MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. BY: JOSEPH N. BONGIOVANNI, IV, ESQUIRE MARIEL C. ESCH, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NOS. 87848/206484 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 1900 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 564-6688 721-92850 PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BE.CHTEL vs. MICHAEL KANYINGI RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. C&K TRUCKING, LLC ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MICHAEL KANYINGI, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. and C&K TRUCKING, LLC COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION ENTER TERM TERM, ENTER YEAR NO. 2913 2011 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter a Rule on Plaintiff(s) to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days from the date of service thereof, or suffer judgment of non pros. MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. >- U--) vo >- z BY: Josep . Bongiov >, squire 4..a `` -= = =3•rt J Attey for Defen ichael Kanyingi, ' i ? Transportation Made Simple, Inc., and C&K (MCC N c i? Trucking, LLC ujca. C..) o COW {PH508146.1) RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND NOW, this day of December, 2011, a Rule was entered upon plaintiff(s) as above. .-?z -'-7 Prothonotary {PH508146.1 } JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Rule to File MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. BY: JOSEPH N. BONGIOVANNI, IV, ESQUIRE MARIEL C. ESCH, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NOS. 87848/206484 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 1900 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 564-6688 721-92850 PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL vs. MICHAEL KANYINGI RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. C&K TRUCKING, LLC Complaint and Rule to File Complaint that was filed with the Court on December 27, 2011, was sent to counsel below on January 4, 2012 by first-class, U.S. mail: Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Date: January 4, 2012 1300 Linglestown Road r- E Harrisburg, PA 17108 ?= Counsel for Plaintiffs rn ?D* i 1:6 = cnr- t MC) .ICJ A' v-c'1 2? CO D D -4 Q ,, a ? Kara IT Dixo jLe Assistant . ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MICHAEL KANYINGI, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. and C&K TRUCKING, LLC COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION ENTER TERM TERM, ENTER YEAR NO. 2913 2011 {PH510120.1 } MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.mooclaw.com PHILADELPHIA OFFICE Suite 1900 1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6688 Fax: (215) 564-2526 Via Regular Mail Andrew C. Spears, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17108 January 4, 2012 RE: Peggy & Randy Bechtel v. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et al CCP, Cumberland County, No. 2913 2011 Our File No. 721-92850 Dear Mr. Spears: Joseph N. Bongiovanni IV Member NJ & PA Bars jbongiovarini@mooclaw.com Enclosed please find a time-stamped copy of a Praecipe for Rule to File Complaint and a copy of a signed and notarized Rule to File Complaint, which was filed with the Court. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JNB/MCE:kd Enclosure Very truly yours, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P. . BY: o eph N. Bongiovanni, IV Mariel C. Esch 10062.1 } Pennsauken New York City Pittsburgh Wilmington Towson Elmsford New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Delaware Maryland New York Andrew C. Spears, Esq. I.D. # 87737 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: spears@hhrlaw.com l }} pp E Attorneys for Plaintiffs PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL KANYINGI, RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC., and C&K TRUCKING, LLC., :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 2913 2011 NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en Ias siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de Ios pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, Ias demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin m6s aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: Andrew C. Spears Esq. Andrew C. Spears, Esq. I. D. # 87737 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: spears@hhriaw.com PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL KANYINGI, RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC., and C&K TRUCKING, LLC., Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 2913 2011 CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Peggy and Randy Bechtel, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Andrew C. Spears, Esq., and make the within Complaint against the Defendants, Michael Kanyingi, Rift Valley Tranportation Services, Transportation Made Simple, Inc., and C&K trucking, LLC., and aver as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 360 Keiffer Road, Halifax, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 360 Keiffer Road, Halifax, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, Michael Kanyingi (hereinafter "driver"), is an adult individual residing at a last known address of 11908 New Country Lane, Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. 4. Defendant, Rift Valley Transportation Services (hereinafter, "Rift Valley") is a corporation with its registered address at 1885 University Avenue West, Suite 38, St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 5. Defendant, Transportation Made Simple, Inc. (hereinafter, "Transportation Made Simple") is a corporation with its registered address at 720 King Georges Post Road, Fords, Middlesex County, New Jersey. 6. Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC (hereinafter, "C&K Trucking") is a corporation with its registered address at 6205 West 101st Street, Chicago Ridge, Cook County, Illinois. 7. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, was an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendants, Rift Valley Transportation, Transportation made simple, and/or C&K Trucking, and was acting within the scope of said relationship. 8. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, was the owner and operator of a 2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer bearing Pennsylvania registration number DZG4247 (hereinafter, "Plaintiff's vehicle"). 9. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, was the operator of a 2000 Freightliner truck, owned by Defendant, Rift Valley, and bearing Maryland registration number 613F79 (hereinafter, "Defendant's vehicle") which was towing a semi-permanent trailer. 10. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Michael Kanyingi was engaged in hauling freight for Transportation Made Simple and/or C&K Trucking. 11. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, was insured by Nationwide Insurance under a motor vehicle insurance policy with limited tort coverage pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1705. 12. Pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1705, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, is entitled to recover as if she had elected the full tort option because the tortfeasor was operating a vehicle registered in another state. 13. At all times material hereto, it was daylight, the road was wet, and it was raining. 14. On or about April 20, 2009, at approximately 9:40am, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, was traveling west in the right lane of Simpsons Ferry Road in Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 15. At approximately the same time and place, Defendant Driver, Michael Kanyingi, was attempting to merge onto Simpsons Ferry Road from the exit ramp from US Route 11/15. 16. Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, lawfully changed lanes into the left lane of westbound Simpsons Ferry Road, to allow Defendant Driver to safely merge into the right lane of the same road. 17. Suddenly, and without any warning, Defendant Driver, Michael Kanyingi, struck the right side of Plaintiff's vehicle. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs, Peggy Bechtel and Randy Bechtel, sustained damages as set forth more specifically below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Peggy Bechtel v. Michael Kanyingi 19. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 20. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or carelessness of Defendant Driver, Michael Kanyingi, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In driving his vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of persons or property in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; (b) In failing to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully upon the roadway; (c) In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe Plaintiff's vehicle lawfully upon the roadway; (d) In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have Defendant's vehicle under such control that injury to persons or property could be avoided. (e) In failing to yield to vehicles already on the road to be entered in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3324. (f) In failing to drive within a single lane, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3309. (h) In filing to yield to a vehicle on the roadway to be entered, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3324. 21. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered personal injuries, including, but not limited to, injuries to her back, shoulder, and legs. 22. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has undergone continuing medical care for the aforesaid injuries. 23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 24. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. 25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her detriment and loss. 26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of income. 27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, seeks damages from Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR Peggy Bechtel v. Rift Valley Transportation Services 28. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 29. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, was an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant, Rift Valley. 30. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or carelessness of Defendant, Michael Kanyingi. 31. The aforementioned negligent and/or careless conduct of Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, occurred while acting in, and upon, the business of Defendant, Rift Valley, and within the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant. 32. Defendant, Rift Valley, is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, servant, and/or agent, Defendant, Michael Kanyingi. 33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered personal injuries, including, but not limited to, injuries to her back, shoulder, and legs. 34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has undergone continuing medical care for the aforesaid injuries. 35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 36. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. 37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her detriment and loss. 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of income. 39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, seeks damages from Defendant, Rift Valley Transportation Services, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT III - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR Peggy Bechtel v. Transportation Made Simple, Inc. 40. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 41. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, was an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant, Transportation Made Simple. 42. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or carelessness of Defendant, Transportation Made Simple. 43. The aforementioned negligent and/or careless conduct of Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, occurred while acting in, and upon, the business of Defendant, Transportation Made Simple, and within the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant. 44. Defendant, Transportation Made Simple, is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, servant, and/or agent, Defendant, Michael Kanyingi. 45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered personal injuries, including, but not limited to, injuries to his back, shoulder and legs. 46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has undergone continuing medical care for the aforesaid injuries. 47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to her detriment and loss. 49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his detriment and loss. 50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of income. 51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and chores, to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, seeks damages from Defendant, Transportation Made Simple, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IV - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR Peggy Bechtel v. C&K Trucking, LLC 1. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 2. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, was an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant, C&K Trucking. 3. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or carelessness of Defendant, C&K Trucking. 4. The aforementioned negligent and/or careless conduct of Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, occurred while acting in, and upon, the business of Defendant, C&K Trucking, and within the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant. 5. Defendant, C&K Trucking, is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, servant, and/or agent, Defendant, Michael Kanyingi. 6. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered personal injuries, including, but not limited to, injuries to his back, shoulder, and legs. 7. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has undergone continuing medical care for the aforesaid injuries. 8. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 9. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to her detriment and loss. 10. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her detriment and loss. 11. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of income. 12. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and chores, to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, seeks damages from Defendant, Transportation Made Simple, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. Michael Kanyingi 13. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 14. At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs, Peggy Bechtel and Randy Bechtel, were lawfully married. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Richard Barrett, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Peggy Bechtel, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, seeks damages from Defendant, Richard Barrett, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. Rift Valley Transportation Services 17. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 18. At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs, Peggy Bechtel and Randy Bechtel, were lawfully married. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Rift Valley, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Peggy Bechtel, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Rift Valley, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, seeks damages from Defendant, Rift Valley, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT VII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. Transportation Made Simple, Inc. 21. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 22. At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs, Peggy Bechtel and Randy Bechtel, were lawfully married. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Transportation Made Simple, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Peggy Bechtel, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Transportation Made Simple, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, seeks damages from Defendant, Transportation Made Simple, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT VIII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. C&K Trucking, LLC 1. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 2. At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs, Peggy Bechtel and Randy Bechtel, were lawfully married. 3. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, C&K Trucking, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Peggy Bechtel, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 4. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, C&K Trucking, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Randy Bechtel, seeks damages from Defendant, Transportation Made Simple, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County exclusive of interest and costs. DATED: Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: Andrew . pears, sq. I.D. # 87737 Attorneys for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verify that the statements in the foregoing document are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not our own. We have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that we gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, we have relied upon our counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: 1-31-r d P GG CHTEL ECHTEL "_?Z Andrew C. Spears, Esquire I.D.#87737 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: spears@HHRLaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL KANYINGI, RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC., and C&K TRUCKING, LLC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2913 2011 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on Defendants Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, Inc., and C&K Trucking, LLC, by sending a copy of the same to these Defendants' counsel of record: Joseph N. Bongiovanni, IV Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, PC 1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd, --Ste. 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (counsel for all Defendants but Rift Valley...) and served on Rift Valley Transportation Services by-sending a copy to this entity directly at: Rift Valley Transportation Services 11908 New Country Lane Columbia, MD 21044 all by United States in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on ?? 20? HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP DATE: By Andrew C. Spears, Esq. MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. BY: JOSEPH N. BONGIOVANNI, ESQUIRE CHRISTA A. SOLFANELLI, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 87848;203303 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 1900 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 564-6688 721-92850 'Ai HE P 0THON0 TA F; ?2012 FEB 15 AM 10: 41 CLr S Rt??QRNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, UU1?QbW KANYINGI, %y?t?s1? *ATION MADE SIMPLE, INC., C&K TRUCKING, LLC PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL vs. MICHAEL KANYINGI; RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC.; and C&K TRUCKING, LLC ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: NO. 2913 2011 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS Kindly enter the appearance of Christa A. Solfanelli, Esquire as co-counsel on behalf of, Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, Inc., and C&K Trucking, LLC., in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNkV? P.C. By: i, Esquire COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW DIVISION Date: February 13, 2012 f • MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. BY: JOSEPH N. BONGIOVANNI, ESQUIRE CHRISTA A. SOLFANELLI, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 87848;203303 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 1900 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 564-6688 721-92850 PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL vs. MICHAEL KANYINGI; RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC.; and C&K TRUCKING, LLC ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, MICHAEL KANYINGI, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC., C&K TRUCKING, LLC COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW DIVISION NO. 2913 2011 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE AS CO-COUNSEL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of Mariel C. Esch, Esquire as co-counsel on behalf of Defendants, Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, Inc., and C&K Trucking, LLC., in the above-captioned matter. Resp tfu y submi ed, By: Mariel C. Esch, Esquire C r G-'7 rn — rn I D err: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Withdrawal of Appearance and Entry of Appearance were served on the following counsel of record, by electronic filing and/or U.S. class mail, postage prepaid on the following date: Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Handler Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17108 Couselfor Plaintiff Rift Valley Transportation Services 1885 University Avenue W., Suite 38 St. Paul, MN 55104 Pro Se Defendant MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COUR NEY, P.C. BY: Amanda K. Colacicco, Legal Assistant Date: February 13, 2012 1IC s Andrew C. Spears Attorney ID# 87737 HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs Fax: (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Spears@hhrlaw.com Peggy Bechtel & Randy Bechtel : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLANDCOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : NO. 2913 2011 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Michael Wachira Kanyingi, Rift Valley Transportation Services, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On 3/8/12, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' requests for Production was served upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Joseph N. Bongiovanni, IV Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, PC 1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd, Ste. 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG LLP Dated: 3/8/12 Andrew C. Spears I.D. #87737 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs I_ ?- 11ONOTAI'" Andrew C. Spears 2, G Attorney ID# 87737 L? r P HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 " '? ? ?) COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs Fax: (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Spears@hhrlaw.com Peggy Bechtel & Randy Bechtel : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLANDCOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : NO. 2913 2011 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Michael Wachira Kanyingi, Rift Valley Transportation Services, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On 3/8/12, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Answers to Defendants' Interrogatories and Plaintiff's Answers to Defendants' Consortium Interrogatories were served upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Joseph N. Bongiovanni, IV Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, PC 1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd, Ste. 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG LLP C____ Dated: 3/8/12 Andrew C. Spears I.D. #87737 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. BY: JOSEPH N. BONGIOVANNI, IV, ESQUIRE CHRISTA A. SOLFANELLI, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NOS. 87848 & 203303 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 1900 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 564-6688 PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL VS. MICHAEL KANYINGI; RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC.; and C&K TRUCKING, LLC To: Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Handler Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17108 Philadelphia, PA 19103 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, MICHAEL KANYINGI, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC., C&K TRUCKING, LLC COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW DIVISION NO. 2913 2011 JURY TRIAL DEMANDP 12 JURORS ? -Z rq Co MM cn r- < C7, NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE --`- DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 'tam Christa A. Solfanelli, Esquire of Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, F.C. intends to serve a subpoena identical to the ones that are attached to this Notice directed to: Please See Attached List You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned, an objection to the subpoenas. If the twenty (20) day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, then the subpoenas may be served. Complete copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by contacting Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C. MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. By: Date: March 9, 2012 kttorne r Defendants, Michae nyingi, Transporation Made Simple, Inc. d &K Trucking, LLC r~Y -- U (PH529351.1) SUBPOENA LIST RE: Peggy & Randy Bechtel v. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et al CCP, Cumberland County, No. 2913 2011 Our File No. 721-92850 Penn Rehabilitation Associates, P.C. (Dr. Ed S. Violago & Dr. Maciej Charczuk) Orthopedic Institute of PA First Choice Rehabilitation Specialists Pennsylvania Neurosurgery & Neuroscience Institute, Inc. Dr. James Bower Arlington Orthopedics Conforti Physical Therapy Allen Chiropractic Center (Bedford, PA) Allen Chiropractic Center (Millersburg, PA) Harrisburg Hospital Lower Allen Township Municipal Services Center, Attn: Emergency Medical Services Date: March 9,2012 (PH529351.1) MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.Ci l+x rp ?' ?sI' v r "'; `' BY: JOSEPH N. BONGIOVANNI, IV, ESQUIRE CHRISTA A. SOLFANELLI, ESQUIRE 2 12 MAU%JMAVA?OR DEFENDANT, IDENTIFICATION NOS. 87848/203303 krKANYINGI, 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD f EAUCN MADE SIMPLE, SUITE 1900 ., RKING, LLC PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 564-6688 PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW DIVIROlNt:f MICHAEL KANYINGI; RIFT VALLEY NO. 2913 2011 .r"co TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; TRANSPORTATION :rfu ----o MADE SIMPLE, INC.; and JURY TRIAL DEMAN C C&K TRUCKING, LLC 12 JURORS --- CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS ? As a prerequisite to service of subpoenas for documents and things pursuant to Rule 400 '` 2, Defendant certifies that: A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoenas with a copy of the Subpoenas attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served; A copy of the Notices of Intent, including the proposed subpoenas, are attached to this certificate; No objection to the subpoenas have been received or the twenty (20) day notice period was waived, and The subpoenas which will be served are identical to the subpoenas which are attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the subpoenas to: SEE ATTACHED SUBPOENA LIST Date: March 16, 2012 Inc. and C&K Truckm'a, LLC MARKS, O' L, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. By: t , Ch sta . So etel?- Att for Defendants, Mich Canyingi, Transporation Made Simple, SUBPOENA LIST RE: Peggy & Randy Bechtel v. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et al CCP, Cumberland County, No. 2913 2011 Our File No. 721-92850 Penn Rehabilitation Associates, P.C. ( Dr. Ed S. Violago & Dr. Maciej Charczuk) Orthopedic Institute of PA First Choice Rehabilitation Specialists Pennsylvania Neurosurgery & Neuroscience Institute, Inc. Dr. James Bower Arlington Orthopedics Conforti Physical Therapy Allen Chiropractic Center (Bedford, PA) Allen Chiropractic Center (Millersburg, PA) Harrisburg Hospital Lower Allen Township Municipal Services Center, Attn: Emergency Medical Services Date: March 15, 2012 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Peggy Bechtel Plaintiff File No. 2913-2011 VS. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et. al. Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Harrisburg Hospital (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER at 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Christa A. Solfaodli, Esq ADDRESS: t arh. O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C. 1800 RK BLVD., STE 1900 Philadelphia PA 19103 TELEPHONE: 215-564-6688 SUPREME COURT ID # 203303 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants. Michael Kwyingi, a W. Date: 3 h a eal of the Court BY THE COURT: ? I J 3UX-L Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Peggy Bechtel Plaintiff File N VS. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et. al. Defendant 2913-2011 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Lower Allen Township Municipal Services Center , Attn: Emergency Medical Services (Name of Person or Eatity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER at 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Christa A. Solfanelli, Esq. ADDRESS: Marls, O Neill, O Brien & Courtney, P.C. 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TELEPHONE: 215-564-6688 SUPREME COURT ID # 203303 ATTORNEY FOR: -fendanu. Michael Kanyingi, a a1. Date: Ig //..I- Seal'of the Court Y THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division ?? Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Peggy Bechtel Plaintiff File VS. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et. al. Defendant 2913-2011 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Penn Rehabilitation Associates, P.C.- Dr. Ed S. Violago; Dr. Maciej Charczuk (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER at 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Christa A. Solfanelli, Esq. ADDRESS: Marks, O Neill. O'Brien & Courtney, P.C. 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TELEPHONE: 215-564-6688 SUPREME COURT ID # 203303 ATTORNEY FOR: Dd-dance, Michael Knryingl, eL a1. Date: A/ pl h a_ Seal o?fhe Court BY THE COUR? J)q - le Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Peggy Bechtel Plaintiff VS. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et. al. Defendant File No. 2913-2011 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Orthopedic Institute of PA (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER at 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Christa A. Solfanelli, Esq. ADDRESS: Marks, OWeill, ( Brien & Courtney, P.C. 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900 Philadelphia PA 19103 TELEPHONE: 215-564-6688 SUPREME COURT ID # 203303 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants, Michael K=yingi, d al. Date: Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Peggy Bechtel Plaintiff VS. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et. al. Defendant File No. 2913-2011 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: First Choice Rehabilitation Specialists (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER at 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Christa A. Solfanelli, Esq. ADDRESS: Marks, oNeill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C. 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TELEPHONE: 21 s-sca-66s8 SUPREME COURT ID # 203303 ATTORNEY FOR: eetead-ft. Michael Kuryi4, a al. Date: -J?-/ g /-/.a eal o the Court BY THE COUR Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Peggy Bechtel Plaintiff vs. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et. al. Defendant File No. 2913-2011 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Pennsylvania Neurosurgery & Neuroscience Institute, Inc. (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER at 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Chnsta A. Solfanelli, Esq. ADDRESS: Mark., ON611, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C. 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TELEPHONE: 215-564-6688 SUPREME COURT ID # 203303 ATTORNEY FOR: DefaWMts, Michael moingi, eL al. Date: m- //'d Seal of the Court BY THE COURT Prothonotary, Civil Division __. Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Peggy Bechtel Plaintiff File No. vs. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et. al. Defendant 2913-2011 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 To : Dr. James Bower (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER at 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Christa A. Solfanelli, Esq. ADDRESS Marks, O Neill, Mrien & Courtney, P.C. 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TELEPHONE: 215-564-6688 SUPREME COURT ID # 203303 ATTORNEY FOR: oer<?. MCIm. ?? v. Date: 1 eal of the Court BY THE COUR Prothonotary, Civil Division D COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Peggy Bechtel Plaintiff File N VS. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et. al. Defendant 2913-2011 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TQ: Arlington Qrthopedics (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER at 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Christa A. Solfanelli, Esq. ADDRESS: Mwks, ONeill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C. 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TELEPHONE: 215-564-6688 SUPREME COURT ID # 203303 ATTORNEY FOR: Df.W-1.,t,3iehw1K=yinei.a.1. Date: J a- Seal of the Court BY THE COUR Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Peggy Bechtel Plaintiff File No. 2913-2011 vs. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et. al. Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Conforti Physical Therapy (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER at 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Christa A. Solfanelli, Esq. ADDRESS: Marks, O'Neill, OBrien & Courtney, P.C. 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TELEPHONE: 215-564-6688 SUPREME COURT ID # 203303 ATTORNEY FOR: Def-Imts, Mich.. Kwyingi, «.1. Date: / a /Z -Q Se of th Court BY THE COURT: ? ZZW 1) 4C 4? - PV Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Peggy Bechtel Plaintiff . File No. 2913-2011 vs. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et. al. Defendant SUBPOENA TO PROD_ UCE,DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Allen Chiropractic Center (Millersburg, PA) (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service ofWiis subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER at 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Christy A. Solfanelli, Esq ADDRESS: Marks, 077611, ( Brien & Courtney, P.C. 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TELEPHONE: 21 s-5646688 SUPREME COURT ID # 203303 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants. Michael Kanyinpj• et al. Date: A Sal of th? Court BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Peggy Bechtel Plaintiff File No. 2913-2011 vs. Transportation Made Simple, Inc., et. al. Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOP. DISCOVERY,x'URSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Allen Chiropractic Center (Bedford, PA) (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER at 1800 JFK BLVD., STE 1900, Philadelphia, PA 19103 . (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Vista A. Solfanelli, Esq. ADDRESS: Marts, O Neill, OBrien & Courtney, P.C. 1800IFK BLVD., STE 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TELEPHONE: 215-564-6688 SUPREME COURT ID # 203303 ATTORNEY FOR: ate, mkhael Kaayingi, et a1. Date: eal oft the Court BY THE COUR .. - j , ?" , /Y,/ , Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy LV` PA 19103 MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. BY: JOSEPH N. BONGIOVANNI, IV, ESQUIRE CHRISTA A. SOLFANELLI, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NOS. 87848/203303 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 1960 (215) 721-92850 PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL vs. TO: ALL COUNSEL YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM WITHIN TWENT 0) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A D MENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YO LLC ATTORNE FOR ftj3 WANTS, Michael Kanyingi, Transportation a Simple, Inc. and C&K Trucking, ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MICHAEL KANYINGI, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. and C&K TRUCKING, LLC COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION NO. 2913 2011 MICHAEL KANYINGI, RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. AND C&K TRUCKING, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS DEFENDANT, MICHAEL KANYINGI'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER De&ndant, Michael Kanyingi, ("Answering Defendant") by and through his attorneys, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, hereby files this Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matteir and avers as follows: 1. Admitted upon Answering Defendant's knowledge and belief. 2. Admitted upon Answering Defendant's knowledge and belief. 3. Admitted. {PH521100.1) 4. Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 5. Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 6. Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 7. Denied as stated. At the time of the subject accident, Answering Defendant was an independent contractor of Defendant, Transportation Made Simple, working in the scope of said relationship. 8. Admitted upon Answering Defendant's knowledge and belief. 9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Answering Defendant was the operator of a 2000 Freightliner truck owned by Rift Valley Services, LLC, with a Maryland registration number of 613F79. 10. Admitted as to Defendant, Transportation Made Simple. 11. Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 12. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 15. Admitted. 16. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering', Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the avertnents contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 17. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 18. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering'' Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the avertnents contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Peggy Bechtel v. Michael Kanyingi 19. Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 18 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 20. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. Answering Defendant denies that he was negligent, and/or careless, either in general, or by any means specified in subparagraphs (a) through (h) of this paragraph. 'To the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and with due care at all times. By way of further response, (a) Answering Defendant specifically denies that he drove his vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of persons or property in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; (b) Answering Defendant specifically denies that he failed to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully upon the roadway; (c) Answering Defendant specifically denies that he failed to be reasonably vigilant to observe Plaintiff's vehicle on the roadway; (d) Answering Defendant specifically denies that he failed to be continuously alert, failed to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist and failed to have his vehicle under such control that injury to persons or property could be avoided; (e) Answering Defendant specifically denies that he failed to yield to vehicles already on the road to be entered in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3324; (f) Answering Defendant specifically denies that he failed to drive within a single lane, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3309; (g) [Plaintiffs omitted/skipped this number/letter within their Complaint]. (h) Answering Defendant specifically denies that he failed yield to a vehicle on the roadway, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3324. 21. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 22. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 23. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 24. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering !Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 25. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 26. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 27. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. WI4EREFORE, Answering Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, demands judgment in his favor on all claims, and crossclaims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. COUNT II - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR Peggy Bechtel v. Rift Valley Transportation Services 28. Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 27 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 29. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Answering Defendant is an agent, servant and/or employee of Rift Valley Services, LLC. 30. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 31. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 32. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 33. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averrlients contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 34. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering (Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 35. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 36. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 37. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering !Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 38. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering', Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 39. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering'Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. WOEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, demands judgment in his favor on all claims, and crossclaims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable hinder the circumstances. COUNT III - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR Peggy Bechtel v. Transportation Made Simple, Inc. 40. Answering Defendant. incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 39 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 41. Admitted. 42. This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 43. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 44. This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 45. This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, lit is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 46. This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge' or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 47. This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant,' it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge' or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 48. This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 49. This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 50. This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, lit is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 51. This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant,', it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge': or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. WOEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, demands judgment in his favor on all claims, and crossclaims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable 'under the circumstances. COUNT IV - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR Peggy Bechtel v. C&K Trucking, LLC. 52. [Incorrectly identified as # 1 ] Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 51 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 53. [Incorrectly identified as #2] Denied. Answering Defendant specifically denies that it was an agent, servant and/or employee of Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC at the time of the subject accident. 54. [Incorrectly identified as #3] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is 'required. 55. [Incorrectly identified as #4] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 56. [Incorrectly identified as #5] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering (Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 57. [Incorrectly identified as #6] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments Contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 58. [Incorrectly identified as #71 This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering (Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant hacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 59. [Incorrectly identified as #81 This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 60. [Incorrectly identified as #9] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is Irequired. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 61. [Incorrectly identified as #10] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering (Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is 'required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Jacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 62. [Incorrectly identified as #11] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 63. [Incorrectly identified as #12] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. Wl- EREFORE, Answering Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, demands judgment in his favor on all claims, and crossclaims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable lender the circumstances. COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. Michael Kanyingi 64. [Incorrectly identified as 413] Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs 'I I through 63 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 65. [Incorrectly identified as # 14] Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge''or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 66. [Incorrectly identified as #15] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 67. [Incorrectly identified as # 16] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph ire denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, demands judgment in his favor on all claims, and crossclaims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. Rift Valley Transportation Services 68. [Incorrectly identified as # 17] Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs I through 67 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 69. [Incorrectly identified as # 18] Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 70. [Incorrectly identified as #19] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information) to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 71. [Incorrectly identified as #20] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, demands judgment in his favor on all claims, and crossclaims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. COUNT VII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. Transportation Made Simple, Inc. 72. [Incorrectly identified as #21 ] Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs I I through 71 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 73. [Incorrectly identified as #22] Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge for information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 74. [Incorrectly identified as #23] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering (Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is 'required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 75. [Incorrectly identified as #24] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering (Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, demands judgment in his favor on all claims, and crossclaims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable U: nder the circumstances. COUNT VIII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. C&K Trucking, LLC 76. [Incorrectly identified as #1] Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 75 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 77. [Incorrectly identified as #2] Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 78. [Incorrectly identified as #3] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering'IDefendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is (required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 79. [Incorrectly identified as #4] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering (Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is (required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. WOEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, demands judgment in his favor on all claims, and crossclaims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS 80. Plaintiffs assumed the risk of all injuries which limits and/or bars all claims. 81. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Comparative Negligence Statute. 82. Plaintiffs' claims fail to state any cause of action against Answering Defendant upon which relief can be granted. 83. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Statute of Limitations and/or Laches. 84. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable Workers' Compensation Act. 85. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of an expressed or implied contract and/or release. 86. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of statutory and/or common law. 87. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of the doctrines of single controversy, merger and lbar, res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 88. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the appropriate provisions of the No-Fault and/or Financial Pf esponsibility Act. 89. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of improper service of process. 90. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of the doctrine of superseding and/or intervening cause. 91. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. 92. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of the doctrine of waiver and/or estoppel. 93. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this law suit. 94. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of improper venue. 95. At the time of the April 20, 2009 automobile accident, Plaintiffs were named insureds or linsureds under a policy of automobile insurance which provided "limited tort" benefits. 96. At the time of the April 20, 2009 automobile accident, Plaintiffs were the owners of a registered, but uninsured automobile, and accordingly, are deemed to have selected the limited tort loption. 97. Plaintiffs did not sustain a "serious injury" within the meaning of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1705, which is incorporated herein by reference. 98. Plaintiffs did not sustain a "permanent serious disfigurement" within the meaning of 75 Pa. CS.A. §1705, which is incorporated herein by reference. 99. Plaintiffs' claim for non-economic detriment are barred and/or limited to the extent that ihey fail to prove that they have suffered a "serious injury" within the meaning of 75 Pa. C.S.A. 1705, which is incorporated herein by reference. 100; Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of her ownership and operation of a motor vehicle without insurance as required under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act as found in 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701 et. sec . 101; Plaintiffs' injuries are not permanent in nature or a significant impairment of any major bodily system and, as such, Plaintiffs are precluded from seeking redress of his/her injuries pursuant to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act as found in 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1701 et. seg. having been deemed to have elected the limited tort option. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, demands judgment in his favor on all claims, and crossclaims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. Respectfully Submitted, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. By: Jose . Bongiovanni, Esquire Chri . Solfanelli Atto eys for Defendants, Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, Inc. and C&K Trucking, LLC VERIFICATION I, Kchael Kanyingi, verify that the within Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint is based on first-hand I information and on information furnished to and by my counsel and obtained by him in the course of investigating this lawsuit. Some of the language of this document is that of counsel and not of the affiant. To the extent that the contents of the document are based on information furnished to counsel and obtained by him during the course of this lawsuit, the affiant has relied upon counsel in taking this verification. All statements are founded upon reasonable belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 PA.C.S_ Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED. I 0 5 1 -1 - L4-b1 3-- i Michael Kanyingi CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amanda K. Colacicco, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant, Michael Kanyingi's Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matter, was sent to the party listed below by first-class, U.S. mail: Andrew C. Sp ars, Esquire 1300 LinglestI? wn Road Harrisburg, P 17108 Counsel for,pintiffs Rift Valley Transportation Services 1885 University Avenue W., Suite 38 St. Paul, MN 5104 Pro Se Deknd? nt Date: May 21 s 2012 Amanda k. Colacicco, Legal Assistant {PH510120.11 y 4 w ,r11 ^ f 0',r.;7th ,' F t ? J Y MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. BY: JOSEPH N. BONGIOVANNI, IV, ESQUIRE CHRISTA A. SOLFANELLI, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NOS. 87848/203303 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 1900 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 564-6688 721-92850 TO: ALL COUNSEL YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF ORDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED Y AGAINST t A' ANTS, Michael Kanyingi, Inc. and C&K Trucking, LLC ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MICHAEL KANYINGI, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. and C&K TRUCKING, LLC PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL Vs. MICHAEL KANYINGI, RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. AND C&K TRUCKING, LLC COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION NO. 2913 2011 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS DEFENDANT, C& K TRUCKING, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC, ("Answering Defendant") by and through its attorneys, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C., hereby files this Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matter and avers as follows: Admitted upon Answering Defendant's knowledge and belief. 2. Admitted upon Answering Defendant's knowledge and belief. 3. Admitted. PHi26267.1 } 4. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 5. Answering Defendant avers that, at the time of the Plaintiffs' accident, Transportation Made Simple, Inc. ("TMS") was a New Jersey Corporation. On or about November 2, 2009, Answering Defendant entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with TMS; however, said agreement specifically excluded the assumption of any and all liabilities of TMS. 6. Denied in part, admitted in part. It is denied that Answering Defendant is a corporation. Answering Defendant is a limited liability company with an address of 6205 W. 101 sr Street, Chicago Ridge, Illinois. 7. Denied in part. Defendant, Rift Valley Transportation Services, LLC leased a tractor trailer to Transportation made Simple, Inc. and supplied Michael Kanyingi as a driver. Transportation Made Simple, Inc. would qualify Michael Kanyingi to perform work under the authority of Transportation Made Simple, Inc. All other averments of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. 8. Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 9. Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. {PH526267.1 } 10. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 11. Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 12. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 13. Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 14. Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 15. Denied. Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. { PH526267.1 } 16. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 17. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 18. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. COUNT I -NEGLIGENCE Peggy Bechtel V. Michal Kanyingi 19. Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs l through 18 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 20. (a)-(h) Denied. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. Further, Answering Defendant denies the averments specified in subparagraphs (a) through (h) of this paragraph as they refer to Defendants other than Answering Defendant. { PH526267.1 } 21. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 22. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 23. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 24. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient { PH526267.1 } knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 25. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 26. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 27. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC, demands judgment in its favor on all claims, and cross-claims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. {PH526267.1', COUNT II - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR Peggy Bechtel v. Rift Valley Transportation Services 28. Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 27 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 29. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 30. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 31. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 32. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering {PH526267.1 } Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 33. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 34. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 35. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. {PH526267.1 } 36. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 37. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 38. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 39. This averment refers to Defendants other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient { PH526267.1 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC, demands judgment in its favor on all claims, and cross-claims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. COUNT III - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR Peggy Bechtel v. Transportation Made Simple, Inc. 40. Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 39 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 42. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 43. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. {PH526267.1 } 44. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 45. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 48. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of ,PH526267.1 ; further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 49. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 51. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC, demands judgment in its favor on all claims, and cross-claims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. COUNT IV - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR Peggy Bechtel v. C&K Trucking, LLC 52. [Incorrectly identified as #I] Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 51 as though the same were set forth at length herein. {PH526267.1 } 53. [Incorrectly identified as #2] Denied. Defendant, Michael Kanyingi, was not an agent, servant and/or employee of Answering Defendant at any time relevant hereto. 54. [Incorrectly identified as #3] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 55. [Incorrectly identified as #4] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 56. [Incorrectly identified as #5] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 57. [Incorrectly identified as #6] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 58. [Incorrectly identified as 47] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information {PH526267.1 } to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 59. [Incorrectly identified as #8] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 60. [Incorrectly identified as #9] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 61. [Incorrectly identified as #10] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 62. [Incorrectly identified as #11] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. {PH526267.11 63. [Incorrectly identified as #121 Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC, demands judgment in its favor on all claims, and cross-claims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. Michael Kanyingi 64. [Incorrectly identified as #13] Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 63 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 65. [Incorrectly identified as #14] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 66. [Incorrectly identified as #15] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. PH526267.1 67. [Incorrectly identified as # 16] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC, demands judgment in its favor on all claims, and cross-claims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. Rift Valley Transportation Services 68. [Incorrectly identified as #17] Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 67 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 69. [Incorrectly identified as #18] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to corm a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 70. [Incorrectly identified as #19] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering {PH526267.1 } Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. 71. [Incorrectly identified as #20] This averment refers to Defendant(s) other than Answering Defendant, and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that any portion of it is directed to Answering Defendant, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC, demands judgment in its favor on all claims, and cross-claims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. COUNT VII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. Transportation Made Simple, Inc. 72. [Incorrectly identified as #21] Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs I through 71 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 73. [Incorrectly identified as #22] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 74. [Incorrectly identified as #23] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or 'PH 526267.1; information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 75. [Incorrectly identified as #24] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC, demands judgment in its favor on all claims, and cross-claims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. COUNT VIII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Randy Bechtel v. C&K Trucking, LLC 76. [Incorrectly identified as #I] Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 75 as though the same were set forth at length herein. 77. [Incorrectly identified as #2] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 78. [Incorrectly identified as #3] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. {PH526267.11 79. [Incorrectly identified as #4] Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC, demands judgment in its favor on all claims, and cross-claims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS 80. Plaintiffs assumed the risk of all injuries which limits and/or bars all claims. 81. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Comparative Negligence Statute. 82. Plaintiffs' claims fail to state any cause of action against Answering Defendant upon which relief can be granted. 83. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Statute of Limitations and/or Laches. 84. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable Workers' Compensation Act. 85. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of an expressed or implied contract and/or release. 8E. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of statutory and/or common law. 87. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of the doctrines of single controversy, merger and bar, res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 88. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the appropriate provisions of the No-Fault and/or Financial Responsibility Act. 89. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of improper service of process. {PH526267.1 } 90. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of the doctrine of superseding and/or intervening cause. 91. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. 92. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of the doctrine of waiver and/or estoppel. 93. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this law suit. 94. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of improper venue. 95. At the time of the April 20, 2009 automobile accident, Plaintiffs were named insureds or insureds under a policy of automobile insurance which provided "limited tort" benefits. 96. At the time of the April 20, 2009 automobile accident, Plaintiffs were the owners of a registered, but uninsured automobile, and accordingly, are deemed to have selected the limited tort option. 97. Plaintiffs did not sustain a "serious injury" within the meaning of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1705, which is incorporated herein by reference. 98. Plaintiffs did not sustain a "permanent serious disfigurement" within the meaning of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705, which is incorporated herein by reference. 99. Plaintiffs' claim for non-economic detriment are barred and/or limited to the extent that they fail to prove that they have suffered a "serious injury" within the meaning of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705, which is incorporated herein by reference. 100. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of her ownership and operation of a motor vehicle without insurance as required under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act as found in 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701 et. seg. {PH526267.1 } 101. Plaintiffs' injuries are not permanent in nature or a significant impairment of any major bodily system and, as such, Plaintiffs are precluded from seeking redress of his/her injuries pursuant to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act as found in 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701 et. seq. having been deemed to have elected the limited tort option. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC, demands judgment in its favor on all claims, and cross-claims, plus interest, costs, fees and any other relief deemed reasonable under the circumstances. Respectfully Submitted, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P C. By: Joseph ongiovanni, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, Inc. and C&K Trucking, LLC {PH526267.1) VERIFICATION I, Tammy Warn, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC, verify that the within Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint is based on first-hand information and on information furnished to and by my counsel and obtained by him in the course of investigating this lawsuit. Some of the language of this document is that of counsel and not of the affiant. To the extent that the contents of the document are based on information furnished to counsel and obtained by him during the course of this lawsuit, the affiant has relied upon counsel in taking this verification. All statements are founded upon reasonable belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 PA.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. DATED: 6 - / -` ? 1-2- Tammy Warn, Esquire, On behalf of Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC { PHS26267.1 } CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing Defendant, C&K Trucking, LLC's Answer to Plaintiffs' Compliant with New Matter was served electronically and/ or by first-class, U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below: Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Rift Valley Transportation Services Handler Henning & Rosenberg 1885 University Avenue W., Suite 38 1300 Linglestown Road St. Paul, MN 55104 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Pro Se Defendant Counsel for Plaintiff BY: Z-.4, Amanda Colacicco, Legal Assistant Date: June 20, 2012 {PH526267.1) Andrew C. Spears, Esq. ; '.J f + ; I.D. # 87737 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 110 300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2'' Harrisburg, PA 17110 k . - Telephone: fLRLr'+KD C 0 U (717) 238-2000 r 1 1I I S Y LV A N I A Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: spears@hhriaw.com PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MICHAEL KANYINGI, RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC., and C&K TRUCKING, LLC., Defendant NO. 2913 2011 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Andrew C. Spears, Esq., and answer as follows to Defendants' New Matter: 80. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 81. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any -1- and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. By way of further response, the Comparative Negligence Statute speaks for itself. 82. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 83. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 84. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. By way of further response, the Workers' Compensation Act speaks for itself. 85. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 86. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 87. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. -2- 88. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of , law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. By way of further response, the No-Fault and/or Financial Responsibility Act speaks for itself. 89. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 90. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 91. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 92. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 93. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 94. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any -3- and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 95. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. 96. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. By way of further response, Plaintiffs had insured the vehicle through Nationwide. 97. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. By way of further response, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705 speaks for itself. 98. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. By way of further response, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705 speaks for itself. 99. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. By way of further response, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705 speaks for itself. 100. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of -4- law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. By way of further response, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1701, et seq. speaks for itself. 101. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, any and all allegations and/or insinuations of wrongdoing on the Plaintiffs' part are hereby denied. By way of further response, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1701, et seq. speaks for itself. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss Defendants' New Matter, enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, and enter such other Orders as are equitable and just. Date: Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: Andrew C. Spears, Esq. Attorney I.D. # 87737 -5- VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO Pa RCP No 1024(c) ANDREW C. SPEARS, ESQ. states that he is the attorney for the party(ies) filing the foregoing document; that he makes this Complaint as an attorney and verifies that it is correct and accurate to the best of his knowledge, information and belief and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A., Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. C, - ANDRE . S ESQ. DATE: 1 L Andrew C. Spears (PA 87737) HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Ph. (717) 238-2000 Fax (717) 233-3029 spears@hhrlaw.com PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL KANYINGI, RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC., and C&K TRUCKING, LLC., Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2913 2011 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the Defendants, by sending a copy of the same to Defendant's counsel of record: Joseph N. Bongiovanni, IV Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, PC 1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd, Ste. 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 by United States Mail, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on June 25, 2012. DATE: HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By Andrew C. Spears, sq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrew C. Spears, Esq. I.D. # 87737 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: spears@hhrlaw.com FILED-FFICE Or THE PRO THONO TAR ;' 2012 JUL - 3 AM 11: 2 3 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Attorneys for Plaintiffs PEGGY BECHTEL and RANDY BECHTEL, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL KANYINGI, RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC., and C&K TRUCKING, LLC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2913 2011 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please substitute the attached Verification for the attorney's Verification in the recently filed Reply to New Matter in this matter. Thank you. DATE: -Au HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By Andrew C. Spears, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verify that the statements in the foregoing document are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not our own. We have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that we gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, we have relied upon our counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: PEGG HTEL RANDY ECHTEL MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY& KELLY,P.C. BY: JOSEPH N. BONGIOVANNI,IV,ESQUIRE CHRISTA A. SOLFANELLI,ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS IDENTIFICATION NOS. 87848/203303 MICHAEL KANYINGI, 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD TRANSPORTATION MADE SUITE 1900 SIMPLE, INC, and C&K PHILADELPHIA,PA 19103 TRUCKING,LLC (215) 564-6688 PEGGY BECHTEL and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS RANDY BECHTEL CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION VS. NO, 2913 2011 MICHAEL KANYINGI, RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. AND 12 JURORS C&K TRUCKING, LLC DEFENDANTS,MICHAEL KANYINGI,TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE,INC. AND C&K TRUCKING,LLC'S,MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET I) Defendants, Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, Inc. and C&K Trucking, LLC ("Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., hereby submit this Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (Set I) and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. The instant action arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on April 20, 2009, near Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 2. Within her Complaint, Plaintiff - Peggy Bechtel - seeks damages for alleged injuries she sustained as a result of the subject accident, as well as damages for lost wages and/or Q -ti, C-1 LT earning capacity due to her alleged inability to obtain any gainful employment since tb10- ccint.1 - {PH655373.1) 3. On or about August 14, 2012, Moving Defendants, by and through their attorneys, sent Supplemental Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff (Set 1). See a true and correct copy of the correspondence enclosing same attached hereto as Exhibit"A." 4. On or about May 5, 2013, Moving Defendants, by and through their attorneys, sent a letter to counsel for Plaintiff requesting Plaintiffs responses to written supplemental discovery within ten days. See a true and correct copy of said correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit 11B." 5. To date, Plaintiff has not provided any responses to Moving Defendants' Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (Set 1). 6. More than thirty (30) days has elapsed since the mailing of said discovery requests. 7. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure § 4019(a)(1), the court may, on motion,make an appropriate order if. (i) a party fails to serve answers, sufficient answers or objections to written Request for Production of Documents under Rule 4005... (vii) a party, in response to a request for production or inspection made under Rule 4009, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested. Pa. R.C.P. § 4019 (2010). 8. Moving Defendants' supplemental discovery requests relate to the allegations raised in Plaintiffs' Complaint and seek pertinent and necessary information regarding the alleged damages claimed by Plaintiffs. (PH655373J) 9. Moving Defendants require this information in order to evaluate Plaintiffs claims and provide a defense to same. 10. Moreover, Moving Defendants are entitled to Plaintiffs responses to Moving Defendants' supplemental discovery requests pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. See Pa. R.C.P. 4003, etseq. (2010). WHEREFORE, Moving Defendants, respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion and enter the attached Order compelling Plaintiff, to produce her responses to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (Set I) in compliance with the attached Order. Respectfully submitted, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. By: Jo /N. ongiovanni IV, Esquire 0 . C, sta Ifa elli, Esquire olf Actor . I ttor or Defendants, Y� v Mic el Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, Inc. and C&K Trucking, LLC Date: May 28, 2013 (PH655373.1) MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN,DOHERTY& KELLY,P.C. BY: JOSEPH N. BONGIOVANNI,IV, ESQUIRE CHRISTA A. SOLFANELLI,ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS IDENTIFICATION NOS. 878481203303 MICHAEL KANYINGI, 1800 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD TRANSPORTATION MADE SUITE 1900 SIMPLE,INC. and C&K PHILADELPHIA,PA 19103 TRUCKING, LLC (215) 564-6688 PEGGY BECHTEL and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS RANDY BECHTEL CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION VS. NO. 2913 2011 MICHAEL KANYINGI, RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. AND 12 JURORS C&K TRUCKING, LLC MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS, MICHAEL KANYINGI, TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. AND C&K TRUCKING,LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT: Defendants, Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, Inc. and C&K Trucking, LLC, ("Moving Defendants") by and through their counsel, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., hereby submit this Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents. H. STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED Should Plaintiff be compelled to produce her responses to Moving Defendants' Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (Set I) within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order? Suggested Answer: Yes. {FH655373.1 1 III. SUMMARY OF FACTS The instant action arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on April 20, 2009, near Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Within her Complaint, Plaintiff- Peggy Bechtel - seeks damages for alleged injuries she sustained as a result of the subject accident, as well as damages for lost wages and/or earning capacity due to her alleged inability to obtain any gainful employment since the accident. On or about August 14, 2012, Moving Defendants, by and through their attorneys, sent Supplemental Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff(Set I). See a true and correct copy of the correspondence enclosing same attached hereto as Exhibit"A." On or about May 5, 2013, Moving Defendants, by and through their attorneys, sent a letter to counsel for Plaintiff requesting Plaintiff s responses to written supplemental discovery within ten days. See a true and correct copy of said correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit «B To date, Plaintiff has not provided any responses to Moving Defendants' Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (Set I). More than thirty (30) days has elapsed since the mailing of said discovery requests. IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure §4019(a)(1), the court may, on motion, make an appropriate order if- (i) a party fails to serve answers, sufficient answers or objections to written Request for Production of Documents under Rule 4005... {PH655373.1} (vii) a party, in response to a request for production or inspection made under Rule 4009, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested. Pa. R.C.P. § 4019 (2010). Moving Defendants' supplemental discovery requests relate to the allegations raised in Plaintiffs' Complaint and seek pertinent and necessary information regarding the alleged damages claimed by Plaintiffs. Moving Defendants require this information in order to evaluate Plaintiff's claims and provide a defense to same. Moreover, Moving Defendants are entitled to Plaintiff's responses to Moving Defendants' supplemental discovery requests pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. See Pa. R.C.P. 4003, et seq. (2010). V. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Moving Defendants, respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion and enter an Order in the form attached. Respectfully Submitted, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. By: / Jose N. ongiovanni IV, Esquire Christa fanelli, Esquire Attorne 4or Defendants, Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, Inc. and C&K Trucking, LLC Date: May 28, 2013 {PH655373.1} EXHIBIT A {PH646877.1} MARKS, O'NEILL, OTRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.mooclaw.com PHILADELPHIA OFFICE Suite 1900 Joseph N. Bongiovanni IV 1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Member NJ&PA Bars Philadelphia, PA 19103 jbongiovanni@mooclaw.com (215) 564-6688 Fax: (215) 564-2526 August 14, 2012 VIA REGULAR MAIL Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Handler Henning& Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17108 RE:. Peggy& Randy Bechtel v. Transportation Made Simple, Inc.,et al CCP, Cumberland County,No. 2913 2011 Our File No. 721-92850 Dear Mr. Spears: Enclosed please 1111nd Defendants, Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, Inc. and C&K Trucking, LLC's Supplemental Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff, Peggy Bechtel, relative to the above-captioned case. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. BY: Jos N. Bon ova , IV C ista A. Sol �,, > JNB/CAS:akc Enclosure PH574340.1} Pennsauken New York City Pittsburgh Wilmington Towson Elmsford New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Delaware Maryland New York MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, � DOHERTY KELLY,P.C. www.moodklaw.com PHILADELPHIA OFFICE Joseph N.Bongiovanni IV Suite 1900 Member NJ&PA Bars 1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard jbongiovanni @moodklaw.com Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6688 Fax: (215) 564-2526 May 29, 2013 VIA REGULAR MAIL Cumberland County Prothonotary 1 Courthouse Square Suite 100 Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Peggy and Randy Bechtel v. Transportation Made Simple,Inc.,et al CCP,Cumberland County,No.2913 2011 Our File No. 721-92850 Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed please find two (2) copies of a Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (Set I) relative to the above-captioned case. Kindly file a copy with the Court and return a time-stamped copy to the undersigned in the self- addressed envelope provided. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. /s/Joseph N. Bongiovanni,IV Joseph N. Bongiovanni, IV Christa A. Solfanelli JNB/ijb Enclosures Cc: Andrew C. Spears, Esq. (w/o encl.) Pittsburgh Pennsauken New York Westchester County Wilmington Towson Pennsylvania New Jersey New York New York Delaware Maryland PEGGY BECHTEL and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS RANDY BECHTEL CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION , VS. NO. 2913 2011 MICHAEL KANYINGI, RIFT VALLEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TRANSPORTATION MADE SIMPLE, INC. AND 12 JURORS C&K TRUCKING, LLC ORDER AND NOW, this Ih day of 'S-j h L , 2013, pursuant to Defendants, Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple, Inc. and C&K Trucking, LLC Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (Set 1), it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and that Plaintiff, shall produce full and complete responses to Defendants' requests within twenty days (20) days of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may apply to the Court for further sanctions against Plaintiff if she fails to comply with this Order, including preclusion of the introduction of evidence at trial. J. f Meu ks b•Nei +Kel14 PC CD�I -�,Z, ZZ C {PH655373.1} F]LED--OFFICE OF THE PROTHONO ATAIRY ndrew C. Spears Attorney ID#87737 '2013 JUN _4 AN I I. 1 $ HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road 'CUMBERLAND COUNTY Harrisburg, PA 17110 RF jrf6VANIA Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for ain Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Spears @hhrlaw.com Peggy Bechtel and Randy Bechtel, her IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF husband CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. 2913 2011 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Michael Kanyingi, Rift Valley Transportation Services, Transportation Made Simple. & C&K Trucking, LLC Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ��5� day of , 2013, 1 hereby certify that I have, on this date, served the within Plaintiffs' Answerdto the Supplemental Interrogatories of Defendants, and Responses to Defendants' Requests for Production, by sending a true and correct copy of the same to the attorney of record via first class United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Joseph N. Bongiovanni, IV, Esq. Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, PC 1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Ste. 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, ENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Date: `� By: Andrew C. Spea Esq. Attorney ID No. 87737 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs �-I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct time date stamped copy of the foregoing Defendants Michael Kanyingi, Transportation Made Simple and C& K Trucking, LLC Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's Supplemental Request for Production of Documents was sent by first-class, U.S. mail postage prepaid and/or electronic mail to the parties listed below: Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Handler Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17108 Counsel for Plaintiff lene JohQQAaptfste, Legal Assistant Date.: A3 C- cv rn cu r ; Na �r_,, =c c k ;t4 CD CD I Andrew C. Spears Attomey ID# 87737 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Spears@hhrlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs Peggy Bechtel and Randy Bechtel, her : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF husband CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. : NO. 2913 2011 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Michael Kanyingi, Rift Valley Transportation Services, Transportation Made Simple. & C&K Trucking, LLC Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this a ' day offtl�,�, 2014, I hereby certify that I have, on this date, served the within Plaintiffs' Answers to the Supplemental Interrogatories of Defendants, and Responses to Defendants' Requests for Production, by sending a true and correct copy of the same to the attorney of record via first class United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Date: 1\, Joseph N. Bongiovanni, IV, Esq. Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, PC 1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Ste. 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Respectfully submitted, HANDLER . ENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: Andrew C. pears, Esq. Attorney ID No. 87737 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs