Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-3725I GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. By: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire ID # 65426 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 orn`ey for Plaintiffs 13 AND cQUINTY SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN, husband and wife 71 Country View Estates Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs V. MARTIN BRINTON 329A Springfield Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 Defendant IN THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS No. I I -3) a S Cit Vi CIVIL ACTION NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claim 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 defense 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 717-249-3166 a it Co. 06 -t- Q GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. By: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire ID #65426 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiffs SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN, husband and wife 71 Country View Estates Newville, PA 17241 IN THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs V. MARTIN BRINTON 329A Springfield Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 No. CIVIL ACTION Defendant COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Scott Vaughn and Cori Vaughn are adult individuals residing at 71 Country View Estates, Newville, Pennsylvania. 2. On information and belief, Martin Brinton is an adult individual residing at 329A Springfield Road, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. 3. On or about July 29, 2010, Plaintiff Scott Vaughn, hereinafter "Plaintiff Vaughn" driver of a 1985 Kawasaki motorcycle, was traveling south on the 200 block of Allen Road in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At said time and place, Defendant Martin Brinton, hereinafter "Defendant Brinton," was the operator of a 2003 Dodge Coupe traveling north on Allen Road in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. At said time and place, at the driveway of 219 Allen Road Defendant Brinton began a left hand turn into the path of Plaintiff Vaughn. 6. The front of Defendant's Brinton's vehicle struck the motorcycle driven by Plaintiff Vaughn. 7. Said collision resulted in injuries and damages to Plaintiff Vaughn. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF SCOTT VAUGHN vs. DEFENDANT MARTIN B T N 8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 are incorporated herein, as if set forth at length herein. 9. Defendant $rinton was negligent and careless in the operation of said motor vehicle for the following reasons, which include: a. Failure to properly operate, manage and control said motor vehicle; b. Disregarding the rights, safety and position of other vehicles on the road including the motorcycle driven by Plaintiff Vaughn; C. Failure to keep a proper look out; d. Failure to remain a safe and clear distance away from Plaintiff's motorcycle; e. Failure to abide by the applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the road; f. Failure to stop in time to avoid a collision with Plaintiff Vaughn's motorcycle; g. Failure to apply the brakes in a timely manner; h. Failure to control said motor vehicle in a reasonable and prudent fashion; i. Making a left turn when unsafe to do so; j. Operating, steering and controlling said motor vehicle in a careless and negligent manner; k. Failure to avoid the occurrence complained of, Failure to observe the roadway and/or the vehicles thereon including the motorcycle of Plaintiff Vaughn; in. Failure to remain alert at the wheel; n. Failure to yield the right of way to other vehicles, including Plaintiff Vaughn's motorcycle; o. Operating said vehicle at an inappropriate and/or excessive rate of speed under the circumstances then prevailing; A Failure to alter his course to avoid a collision with the motorcycle operated by Plaintiff Vaughn; q. Negligence per se; and Violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3322. 10. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Brinton, and not due to any act or failure to act on the part of Plaintiff Vaughn, said Plaintiff suffered abrasions to numerous parts of his body, including both arms, both knees, his abdomen and left shoulder, an oblique fracture of the distal fibula, peroneal tendonitis of the right lower extremity, loss of life's pleasures, and injuries to his nerves and nervous system, some or all of which are or may be permanent in nature. 11. Some or all of Plaintifrs injuries have caused great pain, mental anguish and a permanent weakening and/or loss of strength and limitation of movement in those body systems and parts of the body so that they are now exposed to a greater likelihood of reinjury than had these injuries not occurred. In addition, as a further result of these injuries, and the medicine and procedures they made necessary, the integrity and resilience/resistance to injury of the foregoing body systems have been compromised so that these systems and other component body subsystems are more susceptible to injury and will have an earlier onset of degeneration and other problems than they would have had Plaintiff not been so injured. 12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Brinton, Plaintiff Vaughn has been and may continue to be in the future unable to attend to his usual habits, customs, vocation, and/or enjoyment of life. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Brinton, Plaintiff Vaughn has suffered and/or continues to suffer and/or may in the future suffer a loss of earnings and/or earning capacity. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Brinton, Plaintiff Vaughn has been in the past and may continue to be in the future required to undergo medical and medically-related treatments and procedures. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Brinton, Plaintiff Vaughn has been in the past and/or may be in the future required to spend great sums of money for medical and medically-related treatment and procedures as a result of his injuries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Scott Vaughn hereby demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Brinton in an amount which does not exceed the jurisdictional limit requiring arbitration referral by local rule plus interest, costs and such other remedies as this Court may deem just and reasonable. COUNT H - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM PLAINTIFF CORI VAUGHN vs. DEFENDANT MARTIN BRINTON 16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length herein. 17. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiffs Scott Vaughn and Cori Vaughn are husband and wife and residing together at the same address. 18. Due to the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Brinton, Plaintiff Cori Vaughn has been deprived and may in the future be deprived of the companionship, support, services and consortium of her husband, Plaintiff Scott Vaughn. 19. Due to the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Brinton, Plaintiff Cori Vaughn has paid and/or may be required to pay in the future for the medical treatment of her husband's injuries. 20. Due to the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Brinton, Plaintiff Cori Vaughn has been or may be in the future deprived of the household services of her husband, Plaintiff Scott Vaughn. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cori Vaughn hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant Brinton in an amount which does not exceed the jurisdictional limit requiring arbitration referral by local rule plus interest, costs and such other remedies as this Court may deem just and reasonable. GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. By: e? r, squire Date: 2 -k< Attorney Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, Scott Vaughn, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this Action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Scott Vaughn ?1 VERIFICATION I, Cori Vaughn, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this Action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. on Vaughn GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. By: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire ID # 65426 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiffs SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN, husband and wife 71 Country View Estates Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs V. MARTIN BRINTON 329A Springfield Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 Defendant IN THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS No. ??-tea ;?, - CIVIL ACTION , =f t cli r'z' TO THE PROTHONOTARY: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter the appearance of Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire, as attorney for Plaintiffs Scott Vaughn and Cori Vaughn. GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. By: _ sa . Mau , Esq 're Attorney fo laintiffs Date: 4-6 -it FiLEQ-0i E-Iv±. LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES J. DALY, ESQUIRE '.' THE BY: SHELLY J. SMITH Attorney I.D. No. 90669 X111 JUN 13 PM 12: 5 ? 1155 Business Center Drive Suite 160 rUMBERLAND GGLI.`f '-` Horsham, PA 19044 #?S Y ?':'; 11 F, 215-443-8901 215-443-8903 SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. CIVIL ACTION -LAW MARTIN BRWTON No. 11-3725 Defendant WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw my appearance as counsel of record for Pp eidaPt, Martin Brinton, with respect to the above case.` y CHARLES J. D LY, ES IRE Dated: 6 e412vi i ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance as counsel of record for Defendant, Martin Brinton, with respect to the above captioned case. A jury of twelve is demanded in this matter. Respectfully submitted, AU? MA SHELLY J. ITH, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, Martin Brinton Dated: LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES J. DALY, ESQUIRE BY: SHELLY J. SMITH Attorney I.D. No. 90669 1155 Business Center Drive Suite 160 Horsham, PA 19044 215-443-8901 215-443-8903 SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. CIVIL ACTION -LAW MARTIN BRINTON No. 11-3725 Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, SHELLY J. SMITH, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of a Withdrawal of Appearance and my Entry of Appearance in this matter, upon counsel for the plaintiffs, via first class mail, postage pre-paid on the day of June 2011, at: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire Graham & Mauer, PC Suite 7, Po Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 P BY: I ?1,,?/.. ? ?.,,.4In SHELLY A SMITH, ESQUIRE TO: PLAINTIFFS YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE; ENTERED AGAINST YOU. -ox MW xrn :Z;o r N SHELLY J. 941TH, ESQUIRE v t LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES J. DALY, ESQUIRE C) BY: Shelly J. Smith, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 90669 - 1155 Business Center Drive Suite 160 Horsham, PA 19044 215-443-8901 215-443-8903 sv C'. c? N = N C; -! , SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. CIVIL ACTION -LAW MARTIN BRINTON No. 11-3725 Defendant ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, MARTIN BRINTON, WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendant, Martin Brinton, uy and through his attorney, Shelly J. Smith, Esquire, hereby answers Plaintiffs' Complai:?t as follows: Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or ififormatioii to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 and therefore denies same. 2. Admitted upon information and belief 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 3 and therefore denies same. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 5 and therefore denies same. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 6 and therefore denies same. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 7 and therefore denies same. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF, SCOTT VAUGHN vs. DEFENDANT, MARTIN BRINTON Answering; Defendant incorporates herein by reference paragraphs one (1) through seven (7) as though same were fully set forth at length herein. 9. (a)-(r) Denied. Answering Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and carelessness. This paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof of all averments is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. Answering Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and carelessness. This paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof' of all averments is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 10 and therefore denies same. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 11 and therefore denies same. 12. Denied. Answering Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and carelessness. This paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof of all averments is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 12 and therefore denies same. 13. Denied. Answering Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and carelessness. This paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof of all averments is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 13 and therefore denies same. 14. Denied. Answering Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and carelessness. This paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof of all averments is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 14 and therefore denies same. 15. Denied. Answering Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and carelessness. This paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof of all averments is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 15 and therefore denies same. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that judgment be entered in his favor and against Plaintiffs plus costs and expenses of suit. COUNT II - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM PLAINTIFF, CORI VAUGHN vs. DEFENDANT, MARTIN BRINTON 16. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) as though same were fully set forth at length herein. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1,7 and therefore denies same, 18. Denied. Answering Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and carelessness. This paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof of all averments is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 18 and therefore denies same. 19. Denied. Answering Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and carelessness. This paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof of all averments is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 19 and therefore denies same. 20. Denied. Answering Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and carelessness. This paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof of all averments is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 20 and therefore denies same. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that judgment be entered in his favor and against Plaintiffs plus costs and expenses of suit. NEW MATTER 21. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 22. The claims of Plaintiffs are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 23. The claims of Plaintiffs are limited by the terms and provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 24. Some or all of Plaintiffs' injuries were caused by prior accidents or incidents that pre-existed the incident of July 29, 2010. 25. Plaintiffs' claims are limited and/or barred by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 26. The claims of Plaintiffs are barred by the doctrine of the assumption of risk. 27. Plaintiffs have selected, or are deemed to have selected the "limited tort option" and have not suffered serious bodily injuries. Plaintiffs are barred from recovering non-economic damages. 28. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. BY: SHELLY . SMITH, ESQUIRE DATED: 6 ,2 I -11 VERIFICATION 1, Martin Brinton, do hereby state that the Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs" Complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: C?_/ 5 LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES J. DALY, ESQUIRE BY: Shelly J. Smith, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 90669 1155 Business Center Drive Suite 160 Horsham, PA 19044 215-443-8901 215-443-8903 SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN Plaintiffs V. MARTIN BRINTON Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 11-3725 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Shelly J. Smith, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of Defendant's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint in this matter, upon counsel of record, via first class mail, postage pre-paid on the ?-day of June 2011, at: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire Graham & Mauer, PC Suite 7, Po Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 BY: SHELL J SMITH, ESQUIRE GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. By: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire ID # 65426 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 k ILED-OFFfCE 1HE P R 0 T H 0 N 0 TA R 'f 2011 JUL - 7 APB I ! *- 21 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Attorney for Plaintiffs SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN, husband and wife 71 Country View Estates Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs V. MARTIN BRINTON 329A Springfield Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 Defendant IN THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS No. 11-3725 : CIVIL ACTION PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER 21. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. To the extent a reply may be required Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth each and every allegation required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Said Complaint is incorporated herein by reference. 22. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. To the extent a reply may be required Plaintiffs' Complaint was timely filed. 23. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs' claims are limited by the terms and provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. To the extent a reply may be required said collision, which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint, occurred while Plaintiff Scott Vaughn was driving a motorcycle. 24. Denied. Answering Plaintiffs, after reasonable investigation, presently lack sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. 25. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. To the extent a reply may be required Plaintiffs' claims are not limited and/or barred by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. By way of further reply all of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence of Defendant, as set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference. 26. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. By way of further reply Plaintiffs did not assume the risk of Defendant's negligence. 27. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs have selected or are deemed to have selected the "limited tort option" and have not suffered serious bodily injury. It is further specifically denied that Plaintiffs are barred from recovery of non-economic damages. To the extent a reply may be required said collision, which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint, occurred while Plaintiff Scott Vaughn was driving a motorcycle for which a tort option does not apply. 28. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. To the contrary Plaintiffs have taken each and every step necessary to mitigate their injuries and/or damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Scott Vaughn and Cori Vaughn hereby demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant Martin Brinton in an amount which does not exceed the jurisdictional limit requiring arbitration referral by local rule plus interest, costs and such other remedies as this Court may deem just and reasonable. GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. By: sat Mau , Es ire Date: Attorney fo Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire, hereby state that I am the attorney for Plaintiffs Scott Vaughn and Cori Vaughn in this Action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Lisa' . Ma, Es uire Date: GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. By: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire ID # 65426 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 SCOTT VAUGHN and COW VAUGHN, husband and wife 71 Country View Estates Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs V. MARTIN BRINTON 329A Springfield Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 Defendant Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS No. 11-3725 CIVIL ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire, hereby certify that on this LY day of June, 2011, a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's New Matter was sent by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to the following: Shelly J. Smith, Esquire The Law Office of Charles J. Daly, Esquire 1155 Business Center Drive, Suite 160 Horsham, PA 19044 By: q .xis J. erg, squire Attorney, or Plaintiffs VAUGHN vs. BRINTON COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PLAINTIFF/S DEFENDANT/S COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 11-3725 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 06141013 C= rn C3 C3 _ CD CJ < 'C © zc = DC= .. - i cp AS A PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22, DEFENDANT CERTIFIES THAT (1) A NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE THE SUBPOENA WITH A COPY OF THE SUBPOENA ATTACHED THERETO WAS MAILED OR DELIVERED TO EACH PARTY AT LEAST TWENTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS SOUGHT TO BE SERVED, (2) A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED SUBPOENA, IS ATTACHED TO THIS CERTIFICATE (3) NO OBJECTION TO THE SUBPOENA HAS BEEN RECEIVED, AND (4) THE SUBPOENA THAT WILL BE SERVED IS IDENTICAL TO THE SUBPOENA WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE THE SUBPOENA. DATE: 7/12/11 ? Ama SHELLY SMITH, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT -•-----710 2 13RINOC46129 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND VAUGHN VS. BRINTON PLAINTIFF/S COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 11-3725 DEFENDANT/S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 TO: LISA MAUER, ESQ. GRAHAM & MAUER COMMONS AT VALLEY FORGE S-7 P.O. BOX 987 VALLEY FORGE PA 19482 ATTORNEY(S) FOR PLAINTIFF 06141013 11/12/26 DEFENDANT INTENDS TO SERVE A SUBPOENA IDENTICAL TO THE ONE THAT IS ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE TO THE DEPONENT/S LISTED BELOW, REQUESTING RECORDS BE PRODUCED AT RECORD COPY SERVICES, 1880 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103. YOU HAVE TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM THE DATE LISTED BELOW IN WHICH TO FILE OF RECORD AND SERVE UPON THE UNDERSIGNED AND RECORD COPY SERVICES (215-241-5858), AN OBJECTION TO THE SUBPOENA. IF NO OBJECTION IS MADE THE SUBPOENA/S MAY BE SERVED. CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER DR. JASON A. RAMIREZ, M.D. SPRING ROAD FAMILY PRACTICE WALNUT BOTTOM RADIOLOGY ASSOC. DR. HOWARD BURKETT, D.P.M. FAMILY FOOT HEALTH DR. MICHAEL R. WERNER, M.D. ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE OF PENNSYLVANIA DATE: 6/15/11 SHELLY J. SMITH, ESQ. LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES J. DALY 1155 BUSINESS CENTER DR. S-160 HORSHAM PA 19044 ATTORNEY(S) FOR DEFENDANT SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN, husband and wife, Plaintiffs V. MARTIN BRINTON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 11-3725 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE PLAINTIFF SCOTT VAUGHN' S TAPE-RECORDED STATEMENT TAKEN BY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 7t' day of February, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Defendant To Produce Plaintiff Scott Vaughn's Tape-Recorded Statement Taken by Defendant, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of the date of this order. Lisa J. Mauer, Esq. GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 Attorney for Plaintiffs //Shelly Smith, Esq. The Law Office of Charles Daly, Esq. 1155 Business Center Drive Suite 160 Horsham, PA 19044 Attorney for Defendant Cop,FS jna.1 I-0 .4 a/7// I.)- BY THE COURT, r ? s? i??J '/ t?1?tl Christylee L. Peck, J. -t=- -," 14Z GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. By: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire ID #65426 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiffs SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN, husband and wife 71 Country View Estates Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs V. MARTIN BRINTON 329A Springfield Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 Defendant IN THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS No. 11-3725 CIVIL ACTION C'7 4= N C= r?,ti " : N -C a < C1 - rt x, rv CD 7 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Plaintiff Scott Vauehn's Tape-Recorded Statement Taken by Defendant. Respectfully submitted, GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. By: J. Mau #, Esq ire Attorney fo Plaintiffs Date: t) 25 - 1 2 SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN, husband and wife, Plaintiffs V. MARTIN BRINTON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 11-3725 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE PLAINTIFF SCOTT VAUGHN' S TAPE-RECORDED STATEMENT TAKEN BY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 27`" day of February, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Praecipe To Withdraw Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel filed in the above matter, the Rule previously issued on February 7, 2012, is hereby deemed moot. ?? Lisa J. Mauer, Esq. GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 Attorney for Plaintiffs V' Shelly Smith, Esq. The Law Office of Charles Daly, Esq. 1155 Business Center Drive Suite 160 Horsham, PA 19044 Attorney for Defendant ?Vrll c's 11v1c Jed Ala 7/j,? BY THE COURT, ? a M -? T = M? rn ca M_ ?m Christylee L. Peck, J. >C-?) ? C -e" ? CT'r - -! )qye C rrIOD _ N -; LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES J. DALY, ESQUIRE x? mar= BY: Shelly J. Smith, Esquire _<> cNi C5 Attorney I.D. No. 90669 cQ --+, 1155 Business Center Drive z c : Suite 160 ) Horsham, PA 19044 ... 215-443-8901 ?- 215-443-8903 SCOTT VAUGHN and CORI VAUGHN Plaintiffs V. MARTIN BRINTON Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION -LAW No. 11-3725 ORDER TO SETTLE. DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended. BY: L A'J. MA ER, ESQUIRE Attorney for laintiff DATED: + k`i'-l2